Agenda packet — Belmont City Council, March 12, 2024 (part 1 of 7)

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

4. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Oath of Office for Belmont Police Personnel, City Staff and Introduction of San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department Fire Marshall
B. Proclamation Celebrating Woman's History Month

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, March 12, 2024
7:00 PM
City Council Chambers
City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California
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 Chambers and address the Council from the Chambers.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

To maximize time for live public comment, we encourage members of the public to provide comments by joining the Committee 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 Committee Chair.

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 C. Proclamation Celebrating Samaritan House 50 Years of Serving the People of San Mateo

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

6. COUNCILMEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS

7. CONSENT BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes
B. Monthly Financial Reports - January 2024
C. Boards and Commission Ordinance Amendment
D. 2025 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project
E. Salson Trail Storm Damage Repair Project
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: Consider modifications and approve minutes Attachment(s):

BFPD February 12, 2024
City Council March 5, 2024 Special Meeting
City Council February 20, 2024 Special Meeting
CC 3.6.2024 Comm Interview
Recommendation: Motion to approve January 2024 Monthly Financial Reports Attachment(s):

Monthly Financial Reports - January 2024
Recommendation: Adopt an ordinance amending the Boards and Commission Ordinance including augmenting the description of the role of and appointment process for advisory bodies and nature of appointments among other modifications Attachment(s):

Ordinance
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Task Order with Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers for an amount not to exceed $164,715 for 2025 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project.

Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Resolution
Proposal from Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Task Order with Mott MacDonald Group, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $167,945 for design, bid, and construction support services for the Salson Trail Storm Damage Repair Project. 2 F. Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. for Planning Services

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS - none

9. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Review an Adoption of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan and the Environmental Impact Report Addendum to the 2035 General Plan B. Appointment to City Commission and Committee

10. BRIEF VERBAL REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF

11. MATTERS OF INTEREST/CLARIFICATION
Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Resolution
Proposal from Mott MacDonald Group, Inc.

Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute services agreements with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. totaling an amount not-to-exceed $73,792
Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Resolution
Scope of Work Task Order
Qualifications and Rates
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: Adopt a resolution to approve the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan and an Addendum to the previously approved adopted Environmental Impact Report developed for the City's 2035 General Plan
Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Resolution
Revised EIR
Plan Document
Executive Summary
Appendix
Presentation
Recommendation: Motion to appoint at least two residents to the Planning Commission; Motion to appoint at least two residents as voting members and up to two non-voting youth members to the Parks and Recreation Commission;
Motion to appoint one resident to the Measure I Committee Attachment(s):

Staff Report
A. Verbal report from Councilmembers on Intergovernmental (IGR) and Subcommittee Assignments
B. Verbal report from City Manager
3 12. ADJOURNMENT
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. 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 staf 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 Of ice, One Twin Pines Lane, during normal business hours and at the Council Chambers at City Hall, Second Floor, during the meeting.

AGENDA POSTING: I declare a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, and the City's website www.belmont.gov on ________ , at_______p.m., by ______ 4 Regular Meeting
Belmont Fire Protection District
February 13, 2024

Page 1 ends

MEETING MINUTES OF THE CITY OF BELMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BELMONT

FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers, City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California TUESDAY, February 13, 2024
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM

ROLL CALL
DIRECTORS PRESENT: Mates, Latimerlo, Hurt arrived at 7:55 p.m.), McCune, Pang-Maganaris DIRECTORS ABSENT:

CONSENT BUSINESS
Approval of BFPD January 23, 2024, Meeting Minutes.

Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget Calendar
ACTION: On a motion made by Director Hurt and seconded by Director McCune was approved by a roll call vote (5-0).

ADJOURNMENT at this time being 11:20 p.m.

Submitted by,
Jozi Plut, District Secretary
5 City Council Special Meeting
Commission Interviews
March 5, 2024

CITY OF BELMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BELMONT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORSCITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA, EOC Room 210
City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California
The meeting was audio and video recorded.

TUESDAY, March 5, 2024
CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 PM
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: McCune, Hurt, Pang-Maganaris, Mates COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Latimerlo

PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public came forward.

ITEMS OF BUSINES
Commission Interviews
Councilmembers and applicants provided introductions. Council interviewed two panels of applicants for the following positions:

Parks and Recreation Commission
Pat Cuviello
Craig Michaels
Bubby Whitmore
Planning Commission
Hans Chung
Measure Committee
Emily Tuupo
At the conclusion of this round Council discussed quorum and the process for the upcoming March 6, 2024 interviews.

ADJOURNMENT at this time being 8:40 p.m.

Submitted by,
Jozi Plut, City Clerk
6 City Council Special Meeting
Commission Interviews
February 20, 2024

CITY OF BELMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BELMONT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORSCITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA, EOC Room 210 City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California
The meeting was recorded for the record.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2024
CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 PM
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: McCune, Hurt, Pang-Maganaris, Mates COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Latimerlo

PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public came forward.

ITEMS OF BUSINES
Commission Interviews
Councilmembers and applicants provided introductions. Council interviewed two panels of applicants for the following positions:

Parks and Recreation Commission
Scott Hill
Valerie Newhouse
Parks and Recreation Commission Non-Voting Incumbent
Catherine Wang
Aiden Lee
At the conclusion of this round Council discussed quorum and the process for the upcoming March 5, 2024 interviews.

ADJOURNMENT at this time being 9:10 pm.

Submitted by,
Jozi Plut, City Clerk
7 City Council Special Meeting
Commission Interviews
March 6, 2024

CITY OF BELMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BELMONT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORSCITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA, EOC Room 210 City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California
The meeting was audio and video recorded.

TUESDAY, March 6, 2024
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 PM
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: McCune, Hurt (arrived at 6:15 pm), Pang-Maganaris, Latimerlo, Mates COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Absent

PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public came forward.

ITEMS OF BUSINES
Commission Interviews
Councilmembers and applicants provided introductions. Council interviewed two panels of applicants for the following positions:

Parks and Recreation Commission
Austin Lee
Scott Sisemore
Loren Thomas
Non-Voting Parks and Recreation Commission
Peter Harrison
Ben Michaels
Planning Commission
Joanne Adamkewicz
David Kramer
Brad Lewis
Nathan Majeski
Cherry Twigg
At the conclusion of this final round of interviews Council deliberated on appointment options to be made at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. No action was taken.

ADJOURNMENT at this time being 8:40 p.m.
8 FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - JANUARY 31, 2024

HIGHLIGHTS

PERFORMANCE AT
A GLANCE REPORT • General Fund balance increased
compared to prior YTD

FUND RECAP AT A GLANCE REPORT
Notable Fund Balance Increase compared to prior YTD:
•General Fund
•Development Services
•Belmont Fire Protection District
•Street Improvement
•Sewer Collection System
• Sewer Treatment
Notable Fund Balance Decrease compared to prior YTD:
• Planned Park
• Storm Drainage Enterprise

CASH DISBURSEMENTS &

PURCHASE ORDER

ACTIVITY REPORT
•Amounts equal to and above $50,000

BUDGET VARIANCE
REPORT
• Management Discussion & Analysis
• Tax Trends
This report contains financial information which has not been reviewed or audited by an independent auditor, does not reflect the application of generally accepted accounting principles in all instances and is subject to future revision. This report has not been prepared with a view to informing an investment decision in any of the City’s bonds, notes or other obligations. Any projections, plans or other forward‐looking statements included in this report are subject to a variety of uncertainties that could cause any actual plans or results to differ materially from any such statement. The information herein is not intended to be used by investors or potential investors in considering the purchase or sale of the City’s bonds, notes or other obligations and investors and potential investors should rely only on information filed by the City on the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s Electronic Municipal Market Access System for municipal securities disclosures and website, maintained on the World Wide Web at https://emma.msrb.org/ These financial reports are designed to provide a general overview of the City of Belmont’s interim finances. Questions concerning any information provided in these reports should be addressed to [email protected] or for additional information regarding the City’s financial activities, including past award winning audited financial statements, transparency efforts and best practices please visit the City at www.belmont.gov. 9 City of Belmont
Performance at a Glance
Results for the Period Ended January 31, 2024
(000's)
6/30/2014 $8,204 Audited
6/30/2015 $9,049 Audited
6/30/2016 $9,177 Audited
6/30/2017 $11,128 Audited
6/30/2018 $11,325 Audited
6/30/2019 $14,846 Audited
6/30/2020 $13,637 Audited
6/30/2021 $13,398 Audited
6/30/2022 $18,013 Audited
6/30/2023 $26,586 Audited
1/31/2024 $29,848 Unaudited
* excludes Measure I
\0
Fund Balance ‐ YTD Fund Deficits
As shown on the Fund Recap at a Glance (page 3) Recreation, Street Maintenance , Library Bond Debt Service and Facilities Management Fund have deficits and are expected to be elminated in a future period.

The General Fund balance is $29.8 million, an increase of $3.2 million compared to the amount at the prior fiscal year end. Budgeted operating transfers $2.8 million from the General Fund to various funds will not be recorded until at the end of the fiscal year based on actual results.

General Fund
General Fund Balance Trends*
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$18
$20
$22
$24
$26
$28
$30
$32
General Fund Balance Trend
(in millions)
June January
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100
Budget
Expenditures
Actual
Expenditures
Budget
Revenues
Actual
Revenues
All Funds Revenues & Expenditures
YTD Comparison (in millions)
33%
58%
1%5% 3%
Capital Improvement Plan
Streets Sewer
Technology Recreational Facilities
Parks & Open Space
2 10
Audited Unaudited PY YTD
Fund Fund Balance YTD YTD PY YTD YTD YTD PY YTD Fund Balance Fund Balance Fund Name 06/30/23 Budget Actual (Under) % Actual Budget Actual Under % Actual 01/31/24 01/31/23 (1) (2) Over (3) (Over) (1)+(2)‐(3)

GENERAL FUND
101 General $26,586 $17,250 $17,365 $114 101% $21,843 $17,958 $14,102 $3,856 79% $12,762 $ 29,848 27,093 102 Measure I 3,937 1,347 1,064 (283) 79% 986 3,936 1,686 2,250 43% 526 3,314 3,398

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
205 Recreation 583 1,965 1,329 (637) 68% 1,067 2,148 2,008 140 93% 2,070 (96) (1,004) 206 Library Maintenance & Operation 815 185 170 (15) 92% 162 609 221 388 36% 196 763 802 207 Athletic Field Maintenance 366 71 104 32 145% 74 205 62 143 30% 40 407 410 208 City Tree 284 9 28 19 306% 7 50 57 (8) 115% 24 254 281209 Senior Services Donation 92 3 2 (2) 48% 1 3 0 3 0% 0 94 91210 Development Services 1,538 3,061 4,138 1,077 135% 2,539 3,811 3,166 646 83% 2,772 2,510 852 212 General Plan Maintenance 1,592 310 313 3 101% 428 656 480 176 73% 80 1,424 1,653 223 Belmont Fire Protection District 20,198 10,050 10,001 (50) 100% 8,858 7,487 9,432 (1,946) 126% 7,092 20,766 17,983 225 Police Grants and Donations 30 0 5 5 1485% 0 3 1 2 21% 3 35 30 227 Supplemental Law Enforcement 7 102 154 52 151% 117 74 71 3 96% 102 89 15 231 Street Maintenance 0 2,275 713 (1,562) 31% 763 1,520 1,411 109 93% 1,305 (698) (542) 232 RMRA Street Project 606 408 351 (58) 86% 309 769 7 763 1% 9 950 300 233 Measure W 1,809 224 197 (27) 88% 352 554 0 554 0% 0 2,006 1,809 234 Street Improvements 1,903 728 753 25 103% 970 1,824 104 1,720 6% 803 2,553 1,072 237 Traffic Impact 97 949 2 (947) 0% 2 0 0 0 N/A 0 98 202 239 Public Art 404 179 7 (172) 4% 3 0 0 0 N/A 0 411 399275 Affordable Housing Successor 9,448 283 231 (51) 82% 3,011 2,297 148 2,149 6% 322 9,532 9,156 277 Inclusionary Housing 2,572 352 4 (348) 1% 1 0 0 0 N/A 0 2,575 2,453 Total Special Revenue 42,343 21,157 18,500 (2,657) 87% 18,665 22,010 17,168 4,842 78% 14,817 43,675 35,965

CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
308 General Facilities 734 8 13 5 158% 6 351 6 345 2% 5 741 725 310 Infrastructure 2,395 26 44 18 170% 624 824 76 749 9% 854 2,363 2,580 312 Comcast PEG Program 405 4 7 3 159% 3 70 0 70 0% 0 412 399 341 Planned Park 1,701 24 28 5 119% 423 416 337 79 81% 379 1,392 2,034 342 Park Impact 641 1,579 24 (1,555) 2% 284 382 0 382 0% 151 666 460 343 Open Space 97 0 2 2 N/A 4 41 0 41 0% 38 99 130399 Capital Improvement Projects ‐ 21,933 7,168 (14,766) 33% 0 22,078 3,504 18,574 16% 0 3,664 0704 Special Assessment Districts 315 3 6 2 159% 2 0 0 0 N/A 0 321 310 Total Capital Projects 6,288 23,578 7,292 (16,287) 31% 1,347 24,162 3,922 20,240 16% 1,428 9,657 6,639

DEBT SERVICE & OTHER FUNDS
406 Library Bond Debt Service 286 394 348 (46) 88% 347 397 646 (248) 163% 654 (12) (37) 501‐505 Sewer Collection System 31,482 11,646 8,524 (3,122) 73% 8,253 12,882 7,384 5,498 57% 6,617 32,622 27,252 507 Sewer Treatment 27,391 1,886 1,647 (240) 87% 1,607 2,392 2,670 (278) 112% 3,004 26,367 24,594 525 Storm Drainage Enterprise 2,173 781 633 (148) 81% 662 1,882 1,165 717 62% 967 1,642 2,283 530 Solid Waste Management 1,868 370 323 (47) 87% 303 331 306 25 92% 295 1,885 1,774 570 Worker's Compensation 1,761 519 614 95 118% 470 427 691 (264) 162% 651 1,684 1,357 571 Liability Insurance 3,686 495 18 (477) 4% (53) 656 645 11 98% 629 3,060 2,705 572 Self Funded Vision 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 (4) 4 N/A (5) 4 5 573 Fleet & Equipment Management 8,394 2,721 2,797 76 103% 2,643 3,067 2,768 299 90% 2,510 8,423 7,571 574 Facilities Management (603) 2,020 1,687 (333) 84% 1,305 1,521 1,527 (7) 100% 1,427 (443) (122)575 Benefit Prefunding 1,234 865 845 (20) 98% 808 792 956 (164) 121% 917 1,124 973 Total Debt & Other 77,673 21,696 17,435 (4,261) 80% 16,344 24,345 18,752 5,593 77% 17,665 76,356 68,355 Total All Funds $156,826 $85,028 $61,656 ($23,372) 73% $59,185 $92,412 $55,631 $36,780 60% $47,198 $162,851 $141,450 Fund Types:

Variance
City of Belmont
Fund Recap at a Glance
Results for the Period Ended January 31, 2024
(000's)
General Fund ‐ Used to account for and report all financial resources not accounted for and reported in another fund.

Special Revenue Funds ‐ Used to account for and report the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed to expenditure for specific purposes other than debt service or capital projects.

Capital Projects Funds ‐ Used to account for and report financial resources that are restricted, committed, or assigned to expenditure for capital outlays, including the acquisition or construction of capital facilities and other capital ass Debt Service & Other Funds ‐ Includes funds used to account for and report financial resources that are restricted, committed, or assigned to expenditure for principal and interest; funds used to finance and account for special activities and services performed by a designated department for other departments in the City on a cost reimbursement basis; and funds to account for operations financed and operated in a manner similar to a private business enterprise with the intent that the cost of providing goods and services is primarily financed through user charges; and funds used to account for assets held by the City as an agent.

Variance
Revenues Expenditures
3 11
City of Belmont
Budget Variance Report
General Fund / All Other Funds
Results for the Period Ended January 31, 2024
(000's)
General Fund All Other Funds
Year to Date (YTD) Annual PY YTD Year to Date (YTD) Annual PY YTD Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual

REVENUES
Taxes $12,817 $12,080 ($737) 94% a $21,971 $13,549 $12,525 $10,923 ($1,601) 87% a $21,471 $10,428 Licenses and permits 693 537 (156) 77% b 1,188 557 1,204 1,623 419 135% 2,064 1,303 Intergovernmental 196 267 71 136% 336 3,521 5,877 5,138 (739) 87% d 10,075 2,086 Charge for services 2,536 2,512 (23) 99% 4,347 2,584 26,208 19,741 (6,467) 75% e 44,928 19,183 Fines and forfeits 93 78 (15) 84% 160 ‐ 70 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ 707 1,866 1,159 264% 1,212 1,546 1,263 3,191 1,928 253% 2,165 1,472 Miscellaneous 208 25 (183) 12% c 357 16 197 386 189 196% 337 (77) Other financing sources ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ 13 13 N/A ‐ 2,947 Operating transfers in ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ 20,505 3,277 (17,228) 16% f ‐ 35,151 Total Revenues 17,250 17,365 114 101% 29,572 21,843 67,778 44,291 (23,487) 65% 116,191 37,342

EXPENDITURES
General government 4,522                          3,745                 (777) 83% 7,752 3,266 4,690                           5,070                 380 108% g 8,041 4,722 Public safety 9,181                          8,965                 (216) 98% 15,738 8,330 7,535                           9,480             1,946 126% h 12,917 7,197 Streets and utilities                   ‐ ‐                   ‐                     N/A                   ‐ ‐                              29,363           11,526         (17,837) 39% 50,337                      11,009 Culture and recreation 1,493                          1,380                 (113) 92% 2,560 1,166 5,669                           4,163            (1,506) 73% 9,719 4,109 Urban redevelopment                   ‐ ‐                   ‐                     N/A                  ‐              5,595             2,863            (2,732) 51% 9,591              2,264 Debt service                   ‐ ‐                   ‐                     N/A                   ‐ ‐                                3,858             5,163             1,304 134% i             6,614             5,135 Operating transfer out 2,762                                12              (2,750) 0% 4,735 17,743                         3,264         (14,479) 18% 30,417 Total Expenditures 17,958                      14,102              (3,856) 79% 30,785                      12,762            74,453           41,529         (32,925) 56% 127,635                    34,436 ($708) $3,262 ($1,214) $9,080 ($6,675) $2,762 ($11,443) $2,907 Management Discussion and Analysis
(Items with unfavorable budget variance more than $0.1 million) General Fund
Revenues
Other Funds
Revenues
Other Funds
Expenditures
e)  Charge for Services ‐ Various in lieu/impact fees and sewer connection fee budgeted for are not materialized in the current reporting period. a)  Taxes ‐ The budget variance is primarily due to the timing of receipts. In addition, the majority of Sales Tax and Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) received in July are related to June activities, which are subject to an account adjustment.
b)  Licenses and permits ‐ The budget variance is primarily due to the timing of receipts and an accounting adjustment. c)  Miscellaneous ‐ The budget variance is primarily due to the timing of the annual Crystal Springs Uplands School (CSUS) Public Service Fee, which will be received in a future reporting period.

Use of money and property

EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER/
(UNDER) EXPENDITURES
a) Taxes ‐ The budget variance is primarily due to the timing of receipts. In addition, the majority of Sales Tax received in July are related to June activities, which are subject to an accounting adjustment. d) Intergovernmental ‐ The revenue will be received in a future reporting period.

Trends
** July Sales Tax & TOT revenues received were for June activities and accrued to the previous FY. July revenues will be received in August.

g)  General Government ‐ The annual insurance premiums and OPEB contributions were paid in July. h)  Public Safety ‐ First quarter payments of $1.7M to BSCFD and $2.3M to San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department were made in July. i)  Debt Service  ‐ Semi‐annual debt service on bonds were paid in August and January. f)  Operating Transfers In – Budgeted operating transfers are recorded at the end of the fiscal year based on actual results. ‐$650
‐$450
‐$250
‐$50
$150
$350
$550
$750
$950
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Thousands
Sales Taxes & TOT ‐ Monthly Comparison
Sales Taxes FY 23 Sales Taxes FY 24 TOT FY 23 TOT FY 24 $0 $2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 Thousands
Major General Fund Taxes ‐ 10‐year Trends
Prop Tax Sales Taxes TOT
4 12
City of Belmont
Disbursements & Purchase Order Activity Report
Results for the Period Ended January 31, 2024
Vendor Description Date No. Amount
ADP PAYROLL 01/06/2024 TAXES 1/12/24 DAJ000008705 100,702.22 ADP PAYROLL 01/20/2024 TAXES 1/26/24 DAJ000008708 129,473.07 BNY 2004 BONDS DEBT SERVICE 1/22/24 DAJ000008742 103,745.89 BNY 2016 SEWER REVENUE BONDS DEBT SERVICE 1/22/24 DAJ000008743 220,644.12 BNY 2016 SEWER REFUNDING BONDS DEBT SERVICE 1/22/24 DAJ000008744 107,757.07 BNY 2018 SEWER REVENUE BONDS DEBT SERVICE 1/22/24 DAJ000008745 492,998.89 BNY 2019 SEWER REVENUE BONDS DEBT SERVICE 1/22/24 DAJ000008746 401,749.54 CALPERS COB CONTRIBUTION PPE 12/15/23 1/8/24 DAJ000008724 134,460.93 CALPERS COB HEALTH PREMIUM‐JANUARY 1/10/24 DAJ000008728 201,001.93 CALPERS COB CONTRIBUTION PPE 12/29/23 1/24/24 DAJ000008750 134,334.23 CITY OF BELMONT EMPLOYEES PAYROLL 01/06/2024 1/12/24 DAJ000008704 448,439.52 CITY OF BELMONT EMPLOYEES PAYROLL 01/20/2024 1/20/24 DAJ000008707 502,966.83 EMERGENCY RESTORATION COMPANY BELMONT SPORTS COMPLEX REPAIRS 1/5/24 EFT00034061 110,215.33 GOOD CITY COMPANY PLANNING SERVICES 1/12/24 EFT00034120 61,208.86 MISSIONSQUARE DEF COMP ACCT#302442 1/2/24 DAJ000008720 66,759.96 MISSIONSQUARE DEF COMP ACCT#302442 1/16/24 DAJ000008736 52,674.54 MISSIONSQUARE DEF COMP ACCT#302442 1/29/24 DAJ000008756 52,875.45 PG&E CITYWIDE GAS & ELECTRICITY CHARGES 1/19/24 EFT00034202 76,630.46 RESTORATION DESIGN GROUP INC BELMONT CREEK PROJECT 1/26/24 EFT00034301 61,367.54 SILICON VALLEY CLEAN WATER FEBURARY CONTRIBUTION 1/5/24 EFT00034047 303,637.00 Total Disbursements in Excess of $50,000 3,763,643.38 $ Total Count                               20
Vendor Description Date No. Amount
BARTH ROOFING COMPANY INC MANOR ROOFING 1/19/24 24 00066 208,450.00 BKF ENGINEERS HILLER LIFT STATION PROJECT 1/19/24 24 00067 240,000.00 U‐ROCK UTILITY EQUIPMENT INC VIDEO PIPELINE INSPECTION 1/25/24 24 00069 55,267.13 Total Purchase Orders Issued in Excess of $50,000 503,717.13 $ Total Count                                 3
Disbursements Amounts Equal to $50,000 and Above
Purchase Order Amounts Equal to $50,000 and Above
5 13
Beginning Balance Ending Balance
December 31, 2023 Receipts Disbursements January 31, 2024 City of Belmont $ 119,809,141.29 $ 4,734,903.90 $ (4,668,030.88) $ 119,876,014.31 Belmont Fire Protection District 20,532,642.63 266,106.31 (32,031.69) 20,766,717.25 Total $ 140,341,783.92 $ 5,001,010.21 $ (4,700,062.57) $ 140,642,731.56 -
Deposit Investments Pool Total
City of Belmont & Belmont Fire Protection District $ 1,032,033.63 $ 139,610,697.93 $ 140,642,731.56 -
Respectfully Submitted,
s/b Grace Castaneda
Grace Castaneda
City Treasurer
I certify that this report accurately reflects all investments of City of Belmont and Belmont Fire Protection District, and is in conformance with the adopted Investment Policy mandated by Government Code 53646. Furthermore, I certify to the best of my knowledge, sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the Agency's budgeted expenditure requirement for the next six months.

CITY OF BELMONT

TREASURER'S REPORT
January-24
Balance Summary
Agency Receipts and Disbursements Summary
treasurer report 01-2024.xlsx

Page 1 of 2 ends

14 Investment Type Issuer
Maturity
Date Par Amount Current Market Value Interest Total
Investment
Period Rate
Pricing
Source Manager
Deposit
General Account Wells Fargo $ 1,032,033.63 $ 1,032,033.63 Bank Bank Investments:

L.A.I.F.-POOL State of California Daily 133,851,861.79 132,987,597.85 447,511.39 90 days 4.012% LAIF LAIF L.A.I.F.-BONDS State of California Daily 5,758,836.14 5,721,652.09 19,253.71 90 days 4.012% LAIF LAIF Total $ 140,642,731.56 $ 139,741,283.57 $ 466,765.10
s/b Grace Castaneda
S/B John Violet
Investment Detail

CITY OF BELMONT

TREASURER'S REPORT
January-24
Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 Apr-23 May-23 Jun-23 Jul-23 Aug-23 Sep-23 Oct-23 Nov-23 Dec-23 Jan-24 L.A.I.F.-POOL 114,810,359 117,310,359 117,310,359 127,892,077 124,692,077 128,042,077 115,474,495 115,474,495 117,024,495 115,089,713 115,789,713 132,764,713 133,851,862 L.A.I.F.-BONDS 7,384,268 7,384,268 7,384,268 7,435,147 7,287,147 7,287,147 6,909,922 6,909,922 6,909,922 6,972,783 6,870,783 5,691,783 5,758,836 INTEREST RATE 2.425% 2.624% 2.831% 2.870% 2.993% 3.167% 3.305% 3.434% 3.534% 3.670% 3.843% 3.929% 4.012%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%

4.50%
$0
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
$140,000,000
$160,000,000
City of Belmont Investment Portfolio Trends

Page 2 of 2 ends

Page 1 of 6 ends

ORDINANCE NO 2024-

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BELMONT AMENDING BELMONT CITY CODE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE IV PERTAINING TO CITY ADVISORY BODIES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. BCC CHP 2, ART VI AMENDED
Belmont City Code Chapter 2, Article VI is amended to read:

Article VI – City Advisory Bodies
Sec. 2-160 Title
This article, which may be referred to as “Boards and Commissions Code”, specifies the city advisory bodies, whether designated a board, commission, or committee, created by the city council and establishes uniform rules for all city advisory bodies.

Sec. 2-161 Role in city government
City advisory bodies are those subsidiary legislative bodies of the city council whose membership does not include one or more members of the council. These city bodies advise and assist the city council and city staff in the development, implementation, and promotion of broad city goals and policies, and when expressly authorized by specific delegation of the city council, may make or participate in making city decisions that would otherwise be reserved to the city council and city staff. When making or participating in making city decisions, these bodies adhere to federal, state and local law as well as the policies and regulations adopted by the City Council and in doing so act solely for public as opposed to personal interest. City advisory bodies enhance city government when they promote effective and efficient city decision-making.

City advisory bodies play an important public-facing role in city government, acting as channels of communication and information between the city government and the general public and special interest groups, as an interface between the city council and the public, and as the venue for public hearings on city policy matters and project decisions. City advisory bodies help shape the public perception of city government and members should expect that their statements and conduct may be perceived by the public as a reflection of the City Council and the city government as a whole. As the public face of the Council, members of city advisory bodies are expected to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with council policy and the expectations of the Council as their appointing body, including the Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials.

Sec. 2-162 Appointment
(a) Appointment to the city advisory bodies specified in this article are made by the City Council except as otherwise specified.
(b) Appointment to a city advisory body is based on such criteria as expertise, ability to 16

Page 2 of 6 ends

work well with staff and the public, commitment to fulfilling official duties, effectiveness as a representative of the City Council and city government, and commitment, fidelity and adherence to city values, policies, priorities and expectations as expressed by the City Council.
(c) Appointees assume their office upon taking the oath of office and continue until they resign their appointment in writing, their appointment is declared vacated, or a replacement is appointed and has taken the oath of office.
(d) Appointees are at will and serve at the pleasure of the city council. Appointees have no vested rights in the office to which they are appointed or to remain in office for any period of time. The City Council may declare an appointed office vacant at any time without cause.

Any such action by the council is not intended to reflect or imply any defect in the integrity or character of the appointee.
(e) The appointment periods stated in this code for each body are established for the convenience of the City Council in making appointments and considering new appointments.

Appointment periods begin on the first day of March and end on the last day of February unless the Council determines otherwise.
(f) Appointees serve without compensation except as the City Council may prescribe from time to time by resolution. Any such compensation may be reduced or eliminated at any time for an advisory body as a whole by the city council without cause.

Sec. 2-163 Qualifications to hold office
(a) To be eligible for appointment to a city advisory body, a prospective appointee must:
(1) Be a resident of the City of Belmont;
(2) Have submitted a statement to the city clerk acknowledging he or she has read and understands the City's Code of Ethics and Conduct; and, (3) Not be an officer and employee of the city, except as otherwise provided herein. (b) An appointee must, throughout the period of appointment, be eligible to hold office under subsection (a) and timely comply with the following requirements:
(1) Submit documentation to the city clerk attesting that the appointee has completed the ethics training specified by Government Code Section 53235 ("AB 1234 training") within 30 days of assuming office and thereafter by April 1 of every other year; and (2) Submit a completed California Fair Political Practices (FPPC) Statement of Economic Interests ("Form 700") to the city clerk within 30 days of assuming office and each year thereafter by the April 1.
(c) If the city manager determines that an appointee has failed to meet any of the qualification requirements in subsections (a) or (b), he or she must provide a written notice of disqualification to the appointee.
17

Page 3 of 6 ends

(d) An appointee who fails to possess qualifications specified in subsection (a) is deemed to have vacated his or her office upon commencement of the noncompliance. (e) An appointee who fails to maintain qualifications specified in subsections (b)(1) or (b)(2) may not after notice from the city manager participate as a member of the city advisory body to which the person was appointed during the period of noncompliance, and may not receive compensation for the period of noncompliance.

Sec. 2-164 Procedures applicable to all city advisory bodies (a) Meetings.
(1) City advisory bodies are to conduct their meetings in accordance with the Brown Act, the principles of due process, Rosenberg's Rules of Order, as may be revised from time to time, and the council's Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials.

Each body may adopt such supplemental procedures as are consistent with this section, the policies and regulations adopted by the city council, the administrative policies of the city manager, and state and federal law.
(2) Regular meetings of city commissions are held in the city council's chambers and commence at 7 p.m. All other city advisory bodies' regular meetings are held at City Hall in the room and at the time designated on the agenda.
(3) Agendas for city advisory bodies are prepared by the secretary to the body in consultation with the chair.
(4) City advisory body meetings must substantially follow the procedural rules in the city council's protocols, as amended, for order of business and rules of discussion, and addressing the body. For purposes of application to the advisory body, references to the council, mayor, and city clerk mean the advisory body, the chair, and the secretary, respectively. Failure of an advisory body to follow the protocols does not affect the jurisdiction of the body or invalidate action taken at a meeting that is otherwise in conformity with the law.
(b) Officers. By April 15 of each calendar year, the members of a city advisory body are to meet in regular session and elect from their members a chair and vice-chair. The role of the chair, and in his or her absence the vice-chair, is to conduct the meetings and facilitate discussions of the body and to enforce meeting protocols. The chair and vice-chair hold office for one year or until their successors are elected. (c) Quorum. A majority of the appointed voting members of a city advisory body constitutes a quorum. A member who abstains from voting is counted as present for purposes of determining quorum.
(d) Voting on motions. City advisory bodies take formal action by motion. Unless otherwise specified by the city council or required by law, a simple majority of the members present and voting is required to pass a motion. A member who abstains from voting is not counted as voting for purposes of determining a majority. (e) Minutes. Each city advisory body keep summary minutes. The minutes are maintained 18

Page 4 of 6 ends

on file in the department of the staff person assigned to be the secretary of the body. (f) Teleconferencing. Teleconferencing by city advisory body members is permitted, and must comply with Government Code Section 54953(b) and the Council's rules for teleconferencing by Council members. The agenda and information describing the particular location where the teleconference will take place should be posted at or near the main entrance of the facility containing the teleconferenced location as soon as feasible but not less than six hours before commencement of the meeting.
(g) City Policies. Members of city advisory bodies must conduct themselves in accordance with city administrative polices including use of technology and the management of public records.
(h) The procedures applicable to city advisory bodies may be established and amended by council resolution, and when so established or amended and in conflict with this section, supersede this section.

Sec. 2-165 Fiscal limits
City advisory bodies must not incur, allow or permit to accrue any debt or liability in excess of available funds appropriated for its purposes by the city council.

Sec. 2-166 Established city advisory bodies
(a) Planning commission.
(1) A planning commission consisting of a minimum of five and maximum of seven members is created.
(2) Planning commission appointments are for three years unless otherwise determined by the city council.
(3) The duties of the planning commission are as follows:
(A) Review and recommend to the city council the adoption of amendments to the general plan.
(B) Exercise the control provided by city ordinances over the subdivision of land within the city.
(C) Exercise the control provided by city ordinances over the zoning plan and advise as to proposed changes in the plan.
(D) Perform such other functions and duties as may be required by other city ordinances. (E) Perform such other duties as may be assigned to the commission by the city council. (4) Regular meetings of the planning commission take place on the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of the month.
19

Page 5 of 6 ends

(b) Parks and recreation commission.
(1) A parks and recreation commission consisting of a minimum of five voting members and a maximum of seven voting members and two non-voting youth members is created.

The two non-voting youth members must be at least 13 years old, and no more than 17 years old at the time of appointment ("youth commissioners") and must present parental/guardian consent to be considered for appointment. The youth members may not receive compensation and serve only in an advisory capacity. (2) Parks and recreation commission appointments are for one year for a youth commissioner and two years for other members unless otherwise determined by the city council.
(3) The duties of the parks and recreation commission are as follows:
(A) Advise the city council on the adoption and amendment of policies and programs in the general plan related to city recreation and open space in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353 and 65354.
(B) Advise the parks and recreation department on standards for and matters related to development of recreational areas, facilities, parks and programs. (C) Assist the parks and recreation department in making periodic inventories of recreational services and facilities and parks that exist or may be needed, and interpret such matters to the public and the city council.
(D) Advise the parks and recreation department in the preparation of the annual budget and long-range recreation and park capital improvement program. (E) Advise the public works department regarding bicycle and pedestrian projects eligible for Transportation Development Act local transportation funding and the development of comprehensive bicycle plans.
(F) Perform such other duties as may be assigned to the commission by the city council. (4) Regular meetings of the parks and recreation commission take place on the 1st Wednesday of the month.
(c) Measure I Advisory Committee.
(1) Committee established. A Measure “I” Advisory Committee consisting of a minimum of three and a maximum of five members is created to report annually to the city council regarding the collection and expenditure of revenue from Measure “I”, the Belmont Streets and City Services Measure, a one-half cent transaction and use tax. (2) Committee appointments. Appointments to the committee are for three years unless otherwise determined by the city council.
(3) Committee duties. The committee's duties are to review and evaluate Measure "I" annual reports and the general scope of the associated audit work. Based on the 20

Page 6 of 6 ends

committee's review and the audit opinions of the independent auditor, the committee reports whether there is reasonable assurance that the Measure "I" money is being properly spent and reported on. The committee's report is be transmitted through the city manager's office to the city council for consideration at a city council meeting. The city manager will provide any reasonable administrative or technical assistance to enable the committee to fulfill its duties.
(4) Conflicts. In order to preserve the integrity and independence of the advisory process, committee members may not have a role in determining the use of revenue generated by Measure "I".
(5) Meetings. The committee meets once to be briefed on the annual budget (mid-year) and again to review the Measure “I” audit report.

Sec. 2-167. Roster of appointive positions.

In accordance with Government Code Section 54972, the city clerk must maintain an accurate roster of all regular and on-going city advisory bodies which are appointed by the city council. The roster is to list the qualifications for appointment, state that all appointments serve at the pleasure of the city council, and for each appointive position, the name of the current appointee, the date of their appointment, and the period of appointment applicable to their office.

Sec. 2-168. Subsidiary bodies.

City advisory bodies may not create subsidiary legislative bodies unless specifically authorized by the city council.

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Ordinance takes effect and is operational 30 days after its adoption. * * *
The City Council of the City of Belmont, California introduced the foregoing ordinance, on February 27, 2024 and adopted the ordinance at a regular meeting held on______ by the following vote:

Ayes:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
21

Page 1 of 2 ends

2025 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 12, 2024
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Bozhena Palatnik, Public Works Department, (650) 595-7463, [email protected]
Agenda Title: 2025 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Task Order with Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers for an amount not to exceed $164,715 for 2025 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project.

Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
As part of the on-going Pavement Rehabilitation Program, City staff is planning to reconstruct pavement on 8 streets in summer of 2025. All streets are in poor condition and require significant amount of work.

In an effort to avoid cutting into newly paved roads, staff assess the sewer infrastructure at these locations before they get repaved. Public Works Operations and Engineering staff video inspected all sanitary and storm sewer infrastructure located under these streets, evaluated the results, and determined that several sanitary sewer pipes are deteriorated and need to be replaced/repaired prior to pavement project. The infrastructure in need of repairs is located on the following streets:
• Forest Avenue
• Coronet Blvd.
• Ralston Frontage Rd
• Lower Lock Ave
• Comstock Circle
• E Street
• Pullman Avenue
• Monte Cresta Drive
Approximately 3,400 linear feet of pipes need to be replaced and/or repaired using open trench and/or trenchless methods.

Analysis
In order to complete the sewer repairs and replacements prior to the street rehabilitations, the City plans to complete the sewer construction by July 2025.
22

Page 2 of 2 ends

2025 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project - Staff Report Staff solicited proposals from civil engineering firms under its on-call services to design, bid and provide construction support services, and selected Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers for this project. The design will start in April 2024 and is projected to be finished before the end of the calendar year 2024, giving sufficient time to bid and construct the project.

Alternatives

1. Take no action.

2. Refer back to staff for further information.

Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Proposal from Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed: $164,715 from the Residential Gravity Replacement Capital Improvement Project Account #399-3-730-7074-8331.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
23

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

APPROVING TASK ORDER WITH SCHAAF AND WHEELER CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $164,715 FOR 2025

SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, Public Works staff video inspected sanitary and storm sewer pipes prior to 2025 Pavement project and discovered 3,400 linear feet of sanitary sewer pipes in need of repair/replacement; and,
WHEREAS, Staff solicited proposals from qualified civil engineering firms under existing on-call agreements; and,
WHEREAS, Staff selected Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers to design this project for an amount not to exceed $164,715.

WHEREAS, $164,715 has been budgeted from the Residential Gravity Replacement Capital Improvement Project Account #399-3-730-7074-8331.

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

SECTION 1. The City Manager is authorized to execute a Task Order with Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers for an amount not to exceed $164,715. * * *
ADOPTED March 12, 2024 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
24 Page
2 of 2
25 Exhibit 1
2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project Page 1
Scope of Work
2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project
December 6, 2023
This Scope of Work includes the preparation of bid documents, bid support services, and construction support services for the replacement, rehabilitation, and/or repair of sewer pipe segments as identified in Attachment A. This scope includes the review of the sanitary sewer mains within approximately 13,750 linear feet of proposed street rehabilitation areas with the assumption that approximately 20% of the sewer segments will need to be replaced, rehabilitated, and/or repaired. Review will include assessment of the City’s existing available CCTV inspection data, field investigations, and manhole inspections.

Task 1: Meetings
Schaaf & Wheeler will attend three (3) design review meetings with the City.

Task 2: Data Collection and Review
Schaaf & Wheeler will collect existing available information from the City, including as‐builts, reports, CCTV data, hydraulic modeling data and reports, and any other pertinent data available from the City.

Task 3: Sewer Assessment & Summary Memorandum
Schaaf & Wheeler will review, assess, and prioritize approximately 13,750 linear feet of sewer CCTV inspection video files and PACP reports. Schaaf & Wheeler will review the pipe segment locations to determine preliminary pipe repair methodologies and associated construction costs.

Schaaf & Wheeler will develop a report summarizing the data, review process, assessment methodology, and recommended capital improvements. A preliminary estimate of probable construction cost will be prepared and included in the report.

Task 4: Utility Coordination
Schaaf & Wheeler will coordinate with the utility companies to obtain their service maps and to coordinate the project. Utility maps will be used to develop the project basemap, this scope does not include any additional detailed utility investigations. Utility potholing is included as an optional task to this scope.

Schaaf & Wheeler will coordinate with and prepare figures for the Mid‐Peninsula Water District in locations where the sewer lines are within 10 feet of the adjacent water lines.

Task 5: Site Visits
Schaaf & Wheeler will perform site visits for all proposed pipe repair locations to identify and document existing conditions, potential construction access routes, construction impacts, inspect manholes, and to identify existing utilities. The locations of proposed excavations and disturbance will be estimated in the field and the surface improvements will be documented. This scope assumes that two people will spend 2 days in the field. Schaaf & Wheeler will require assistance from City staff to coordinate access and locate manholes on private property and easements. 26 Exhibit 1
2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project Page 2
Schaaf & Wheeler will document the proposed impacts within the bid documents by either including details on the plans or including as an appendix to the specifications.

Task 6: 65% Design
Schaaf & Wheeler will initiate the detailed design effort which will include project basemapping, layouts of sewer lines, lateral locations based on CCTV data, utility locations based on utility basemaps and site visits, construction details, construction cost estimate, and a construction schedule.  This scope assumes the following:
 Design documents will be prepared for the locations identified under Task 3.  All sites will be prepared under one set of construction documents.
 Total length of sewer mains to be rehabilitated or replaced will be approximately 3,000 linear feet (20% of the sewer mains reviewed).  This is based on review of similar sewer mains throughout the City.  If the total length of sewer mains requiring repairs is larger than anticipated, additional fee may be required to proceed with detailed design.  The detail and accuracy of the existing City’s sewer basemaps should be sufficient to develop construction documents for all rehabilitation projects.  Sewer re‐alignment, easement research, and easement acquisition are not included within this scope of services.

Topographic surveying is included as an optional task to this scope of services.

Task 7: 95% Design
After receiving and reviewing comments from the City, Schaaf & Wheeler will prepare the 95% construction documents. Construction documents will include detailed plans, technical specifications, and engineer’s estimates.

The 95% plans will include detailed profiles for all locations where open trench or pipe bursting is proposed. The location of all laterals will be identified based on CCTV data and will be shown on the plans. Sewer flow rates based on the City’s modeling/master plan will be included on the Drawings for sewer bypass designs to be prepared by the Contractor.

Task 8: Final Design
After receiving and reviewing comments from the City Schaaf & Wheeler will prepare the final construction documents. Construction documents will include bid‐ready plans, technical specifications, City front end specifications, and engineer’s estimates.

Task 9: Bid Support Services
Schaaf & Wheeler will provide bid support services which may include attendance at the pre‐bid meeting, responding to questions from bidders, prepare addenda, and evaluation of bids.

Task 10: Construction Support
Schaaf & Wheeler will be available to assist the City as desired throughout the construction process.

Construction support assistance may include:
 Pre‐construction meeting attendance;
 Review and approve shop drawings and submittals;
 Review contractor’s request for information (RFIs) and furnish additional drawings and/or specifications for supplementing, clarifying, and/or correcting purposes; 27 Exhibit 1
2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project Page 3
 Attend meetings and site visits when necessary (up six online or telephone meetings and two on site meetings/visits are included);
 Assist with the review of construction, and other activities, as required;  Prepare, review, and recommend approval of change orders as required;  Provide one set of reproducible record drawings that reflect the changes to the work during construction based upon Contractor markups, drawings and other data furnished by the Contractor, City, and Consultants. The record drawings will also be provided in AutoCAD format.

Optional Task A: Topographic Surveying
Schaaf & Wheeler’s subconsultant, Kier & Wright will perform topographic surveying in limited locations deemed necessary to properly identify sewer slopes, utility alignments, etc. This scope of work includes approximately two days of topographic surveying, additional surveying can be provided for an additional fee if deemed necessary.

Optional Task B: Utility Potholing
Schaaf & Wheeler’s subconsultant, Subtronic Corporation will perform utility locating where potential utility conflicts exist. Subtronic will USA all locations to be potholed. This scope includes up to two days of utility potholing, additional potholing can be performed for an additional fee if deemed necessary; however, we do not anticipate the need for a significant amount of potholing since most of the pipes will be replaced at a similar line and grade to the existing pipes.

Assumptions
 The tasks, approach, schedule and proposed fees included within this proposal assumes the following:
 Limited topographic surveying is included as an optional task, if additional surveying is deemed necessary it can be performed for an additional scope and fee.  This scope a limited amount of detailed utility investigations and potholing as an optional task. Additional utility investigations and potholing can be performed for an additional fee if deemed necessary.
 This scope excludes geotechnical investigations and assistance.  This scope excludes easement research and obtaining title reports.

Schedule
See the attached project schedule. The schedule has an assumed notice to proceed date. 28 Exhibit 1
2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project Page 4
Fee Proposal
Hourly Rate $295 $250 $200
Task 1 Meetings 6 6 0 3,270 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,270 $
A Design Review Meetings (3) 6 6 3,270 $ - $ 3,270 $
Task 2 Data Collection and Review 2 12 0 3,590 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,590 $ A Collect and Review Existing Data 2 12 3,590 $ - $ 3,590 $ Task 3 Sewer Assessment & Summary Memorandum 8 20 54 18,160 $ - $ - $ - $ 18,160 $ A Review & Assess CCTV Inspection Videos 2 8 30 8,590 $ - $ 8,590 $ B Develop Capital Improvement Project List 2 6 12 4,490 $ - $ 4,490 $ C Draft and Final Summary Memorandum 4 6 12 5,080 $ - $ 5,080 $ Task 4 Utility Coordination 0 6 8 3,100 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,100 $ A Obtain utility maps 8 1,600 $ - $ 1,600 $
B Coordination w/ MPWD 6 1,500 $ - $ 1,500 $
Task 5 Site Visits 0 16 16 7,200 $ - $ - $ - $ 7,200 $
A Site Visits 16 16 7,200 $ - $ 7,200 $
Task 6 65% Design 6 28 79 24,570 $ - $ - $ - $ 24,570 $ A Prepare Project Basemap 6 30 7,500 $ - $ 7,500 $
B Prepare 65% Plans 6 20 45 15,770 $ - $ 15,770 $
C Prepare 65% Engineer's Estimate 2 4 1,300 $ - $ 1,300 $ Task 7 95% Design 16 50 54 28,020 $ - $ - $ - $ 28,020 $ A Prepare 95% Plans 8 24 50 18,360 $ - $ 18,360 $
B Prepare 95% Specifications 8 24 8,360 $ - $ 8,360 $
C Prepare 95% Engineer's Estimate 2 4 1,300 $ - $ 1,300 $ Task 8 Final Design 10 48 42 23,350 $ - $ - $ - $ 23,350 $ A Prepare Final Plans 6 30 40 17,270 $ - $ 17,270 $
B Prepare Final Specifications 4 16 5,180 $ - $ 5,180 $ C Prepare Final Engineer's Estimate 2 2 900 $ - $ 900 $ Task 9 Bid Support Services 6 12 0 4,770 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,770 $ A Bid Support Services 6 12 4,770 $ - $ 4,770 $
Task 10 Construction Support 25 86 16 32,075 $ - $ - $ - $ 32,075 $ A Pre-Construction Meeting 4 4 2,180 $ - $ 2,180 $
B Review Submittals 8 50 14,860 $ - $ 14,860 $
C Review RFIs 8 8 4,360 $ - $ 4,360 $
D Attend Site Visits/Meetings 14 3,500 $ - $ 3,500 $
E Review Change Orders 4 4 2,180 $ - $ 2,180 $
F Record Drawings 1 6 16 4,995 $ - $ 4,995 $
TOTAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION TASKS 71 264 215 129,945 $ - $ - $ - $ $ 129,945

OPTIONAL TASKS
A Topographic Surveying 2 6 2,090 $ 10,000 $ 1,000 $ 13,090 $ B Utility Potholing 4 16 5,180 $ 15,000 $ 1,500 $ 21,680 $ TOTAL OPTIONAL TASKS 6 22 0 7,270 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 2,500 $ 34,770 $

TOTAL DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPTIONAL
TASKS 77 286 215 137,215 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 2,500 $ 164,715 $ City of Belmont
2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project
Schaaf & Wheeler
Fee Proposal - December 6, 2023
Assistant Engineer
Schaaf & Wheeler SubtotalTotal
Project Manager
Kier & Wright, Surveying SubconsultantSubconsultant Markup (10%) Senior Engineer
Subtronic Corporation, Utility Potholing Subconsultant
29 Attachment A
2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project Page 5
Attachment A
Description of Locations
30 ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Notice to Proceed (Assumed) 0 days Mon 2/5/24 Mon 2/5/24 2 Task 2: Data Collection and Review 15 days Mon 2/5/24 Fri 2/23/24 3 Task 3: Sewer Assessment & Summary Memo 15 days Mon 2/26/24 Fri 3/15/244 Task 4: Utility Coordination 40 days Mon 2/26/24 Fri 4/19/245 Task 5: Site Visits 5 days Mon 3/18/24 Fri 3/22/246 Task 6: 65% Design 20 days Mon 3/25/24 Fri 4/19/247 City Review 65% Design 5 days Mon 4/22/24 Fri 4/26/248 Task 7: 95% Design 20 days Mon 4/29/24 Fri 5/24/249 City Review 95% Design 5 days Mon 5/27/24 Fri 5/31/24 10 Task 8: Final Design 15 days Mon 6/3/24 Fri 6/21/2411 Task 9: Bid Support Services 45 days Mon 6/24/24 Fri 8/23/2412 Task 10: Construction Support 80 days Mon 8/26/24 Fri 12/13/24 2/5
2128 4 111825 3 10172431 7 142128 5 121926 2 9 162330 7 142128 4 111825 1 8 152229 6 132027 3 101724 1 8 15222 Feb '24 Mar '24 Apr '24 May '24 Jun '24 Jul '24 Aug '24 Sep '24 Oct '24 Nov '24 Dec '24 City of Belmont
2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project
Project Schedule
December 6, 2023
31

Page 1 of 3 ends

Salson Trail Storm Damage Repair Project - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 12, 2024
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Bozhena Palatnik, Public Works, (650) 595-7463, [email protected] Agenda Title: Salson Trail Storm Damage Repair Project
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Task Order with Mott MacDonald Group, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $167,945 for design, bid, and construction support services for the Salson Trail Storm Damage Repair Project.

Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
The Salson Trail is an unpaved fire road in the City of Belmont (City) located south of the Sugar Loaf Open Space area near East Laurel Creek Road. The trail provides recreation opportunities and important emergency access for firefighting to approximately 100 acres of open space area along the tributary of Laurel Creek. The open space is tightly surrounded by residential neighborhoods in the Cities of Belmont and San Mateo. Additionally, the trail provides maintenance access to the 10-inch sanitary sewer line running along part of the trail and servicing approximately 400 houses. The sewer main is vitrified clay pipe (VCP) and is subjected to common aging conditions such as joint separation, root intrusion, and cracks.

During the large storm events in December 2022 and January 2023, part of the trail that crosses the tributary with a 48” storm culvert was damaged by excessive flow and overtopped the crossing. The events caused erosion of the banks, caused much of the emergency access road to collapse, and jeopardized the sanitary sewer main. The City has been working with FEMA to repair areas impacted from these storm events, via federal grant moneys available through the Hazard Mitigation and Public Assistance grant programs.

The risks associated with failure of the 48” culvert was qualitatively reviewed and include the following:
• Potential environmental hazards and fines associated with failure of the 10” sewer line under the trail.
• Potential debris flows and sediment deposition downstream. • Frequent response and repair need for City O&M staff. • Potential fire safety issues due to inability for fire crews to use the fire road. 32

Page 2 of 3 ends

Salson Trail Storm Damage Repair Project - Staff Report The following improvements need to be completed as part of this project:
• Upsizing the existing 48-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) cross culvert to a 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) to provide future resiliency for large storm events • Installation of a concrete headwall and trash rack at the upstream end • Installation of rip rap at the downstream end
• Replacement of the 10-inch sanitary sewer vitrified clay pipe (VCP) with modern materials meeting city standards
• Hydroseeding as site restoration and restoring unpaved dirt road within culvert limits so road can be utilized as an emergency access and maintenance road.

Analysis
City staff reached out to on-call consultants seeking design service for the project improvements, and Mott MacDonald Group, Inc. responded with the most comprehensive proposal that included the following tasks:
• Data collection, site visits, and environmental evaluation. • Surveying, potholing, and coordination with permitting agencies. • Preparation of 65%, 95% and 100% plans and specifications in accordance with the City’s standards.
• Providing support services to City during bidding phase including responding to Requests for Information (RFIs) from bidders and evaluating bids received. • Providing construction phase support services including but not limited to review of submittals, contract change order preparation and/or review, responding to RFIs, and as-built preparation.

This project is on a critical path for completion prior to next year’s wet season. The project is anticipated to be completed by October 2024. The City will receive $186,795 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation program and will need to fund the balance for the total project cost. During the design phase, an Engineer’s Estimate will determine the actual construction costs, currently estimated to be around $650,000. Staff will seek Council approval at a later date for authorization to construct the project and allocate necessary City funds.

Alternatives

1. Take no action.

2. Refer back to staff for further information.

Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Proposal from Mott MacDonald Group, Inc.

Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:
$167,945 is budgeted from the Measure I Storm Capital
Improvement Project (Account #399-3-730-6020-9030).
33

Page 3 of 3 ends

Salson Trail Storm Damage Repair Project - Staff Report Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Council Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda 34

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT APPROVING A TASK ORDER WITH MOTT MACDONALD GROUP, INC. FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $167,945 FOR DESIGN, BID, AND CONSTRUCTION

SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE SALSON TRAIL STORM DAMAGE REPAIR

PROJECT
WHEREAS, the storm events of winter 2022/2023 damaged a 48” storm culvert that caused erosion and bank cutting, cut off the emergency access road, and jeopardized the sanitary sewer line services; and,
WHEREAS, the City has been working with FEMA to repair damages from these storm events, via federal grant moneys available through the Hazard Mitigation and Public Assistance grant programs; and,
WHEREAS, staff solicited proposals from qualified civil engineering firms under existing on-call agreements; and,
WHEREAS, staff selected Mott MacDonald Group, Inc. to design this project for an amount not to exceed $167,945; and,
WHEREAS, $167,945 has been budgeted from the Measure I Storm Capital Improvement Project Account #399-3-730-6020-9030.

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

SECTION 1. The City Manager is authorized to execute a Task Order with Mott MacDonald Group, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $167,945 for design, bid, and construction support services for the Salson Trail Storm Damage Repair Project. * * *
ADOPTED March 12, 2024 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
35

Page 2 of 2 ends

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
36 City of Belmont – TO#1 – Culvert Replacement- Salson Trail Feb 23, 2024
Dear Bozhena,
Mott MacDonald Group Inc. (Mott MacDonald) is pleased to submit this Task Order (TO) proposal in accordance with our Master Architectural and Engineering Agreement to provide design services for the City of Belmont (City’s) Culvert Replacement – Salson Trail Project (Project). This TO proposal was prepared in response to your email request on Feb 7, 2024, and subsequent follow-on discussions.

Project Understanding
We understand that the City of Belmont is seeking design plans as part of emergency repairs to an existing CMP culvert on Salson Trail that was damaged during the large storm events in December 2022 and January 2023. The project includes upsizing the existing 48-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) cross culvert to a 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), a concrete headwall and trash rack at the upstream end, rip rap at the downstream end, replacement of the 10-inch sanitary sewer vitrified clay pipe (VCP), , hydroseeding as site restoration and restoring unpaved dirt road within culvert limits so road can be utilised as an emergency firefighting access and maintenance road. We understand from the project H&H report and from evaluation of aerial imagery that the culvert conveys flow from a recognized tributary to Laurel Creek. As a result, depending on the extent of work required and the methods proposed, culvert repairs could require permitting from one or more of the resource agencies. Our approach to environmental support for the project is designed to expedite environmental clearances as much as possible.

Accordingly, our budget provides for us to assist by preparing a CEQA Notice of Exemption (NOE) for the City’s use as soon as adequate information is available from design process (typically at 65% PS&E milestone). If this project is assigned to our team, early in the design process, we will initiate environmental evaluation of the site and initiate early coordination with agencies and provide insight into permit pathways. Assuming aquatic permits are required, we will discuss options to streamline authorization process and we will work with City to determine an efficient course of action. Permits are included as optional tasks in our budget and may need to be refined depending on which permit is triggered.

City of Belmont
Attn: Bozhena Palatnik
1 Twin Pines Ln,
Belmont, CA 94002
Mott MacDonald Group, Inc
2700 Gateway Place
Ste 550
San Jose, CA 95110
Mohamed Basma, PE
[email protected]
om
(408) 546 7939
37 Culvert replacement – Salson Trail
Feb 24, 2024

Page 2 of 5 ends

Scope of Work
Task 1 Project Management
Overall management of Mott MacDonald in-house staff including contract administration, budget and schedule control, monthly project reports, invoicing, coordination meetings with the City, and performing quality control. Mott MacDonald assumes a design project duration of three (3) months.

Deliverables:
 Kick-Off Meeting Agenda and Minutes
 Monthly invoices and progress reports
 Coordination Meeting Agendas and Minutes – a maximum of three (3) project meetings and one (1) meeting with Resource agencies Task 2 – Field visit and Environmental Evaluation
This task will involve collecting and reviewing existing available CAD files and GIS data, as-built review for existing culvert and sanitary sewer system, determining if existing flowline elevations can be utilised, meeting with City Engineering and Maintenance team, reviewing hydrology and hydraulics reports, reviewing the City and Caltrans standards. This task will also provide for an early dialogue with three (3) of the resource agencies (as described to in Task 7), to verify permit pathways and confirm CEQA approach is acceptable strategy. To support these conversations, we will be conducting biological and ecological reconnaissance evaluation of the site to figure out the jurisdictional boundaries and any issues related to special-status species
Deliverables:
 Evaluation Memo verifying resource agency jurisdiction and permit pathways.

Task 3 – Plans Specifications and Estimates
This task of developing design plans for culvert and sewer line replacement, and roadway repair within project limits will involve reviewing the as-built and collected information and developing 65% design Plans, specifications, and estimates preparing a CEQA Notice of Exemption for the City’s use, meeting with City personnel to review the 65% design package and producing a 100% PSE plan set that incorporates the City’s comments and then proceed to develop a biddable set of documents.

Deliverables:

Figure 1 - Culvert location on Salson trail and culvert condition 38 Culvert replacement – Salson Trail
Feb 24, 2024

Page 3 of 5 ends

 65%PS&E. Anticipated list of engineering drawings will include – • General Plans (Title sheets, Notes and legend, key map and Demolition plan)
• Plan, profile and details sheets for culvert and sewer line • Erosion control, tree protection plan
• City Standard Details
 CEQA Notice of Exemption
 65% Review Meeting Minutes
 Responses to City comments on the 65% submittal
 100% PS&E documents
 Bid Package
Task 4 – Bidding Support
The team will attend the pre-bid meeting and respond to any bidder questions. Mott Deliverables:
 Provide responses to up to two (2) bidder inquiries (RFIs)  Preparation of up to one (1) bid addenda.

Task 5 – Design Services During Construction
The team will provide construction support by attending the preconstruction meeting, attend up to three (3) construction meetings, responding to contractor request for information (RFI) and attending a final walk through for punch list item as and providing status reports. This will be billed on a time and materials basis up to the approved budget.

Deliverables:
 Review and respond to contractor submitted RFI’s .
 Review and respond to shop drawing submittals
 Preparing of Record Drawings (AutoCAD and PDF)
Task 6 – Cal OES and/or FEMA Coordination Support (Optional) The team will provide assistance as needed for completion of OES forms in order for the city to claim reimbursement for the construction of the new culvert Deliverables:
 As- needed technical assistance and support with OES forms.

Task 7 – Environmental Resource Agency Permits (Optional) Through this task, the team will provide for preparation and submittal of Section 404 pre-construction notification, Section 401 Water Quality application package and Section 1602 Notification package. The team will provide with responses to questions by the Resource agencies on the application, assuming minor questions that need no further technical work and all permit fees are paid by City. Any additional expedited work related to cultural resource reporting will be additional.

This task also assumes that any potential need for Incidental Take Permits for listed species cab be avoided by incorporating Avoidance of Minimization Measures (AMM’s) into the project. The team is available to revisit the budget for this task as the permitting needs are clarified.

Deliverables:
 USACE Clean Water Act Section 404 permit
 RWQCB Clean Water Act Section 401 WQC permit
39 Culvert replacement – Salson Trail
Feb 24, 2024

Page 4 of 5 ends

 DFW Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement
Assumptions
The following assumption were made for this proposal:
 Schedule assumes a two-week City review period. No other agency review has been assumed.
 City will identify and coordinate key stakeholders and operation staff for attending meetings.
 Mott MacDonald fee proposal is based on the hourly rates which are effective until June 30, 2024.
 Existing 10-inch VCP sanitary sewer pipe will be replaced from maintenance hole to maintenance hole (approximately 245 linear feet). It is assumed the pipe material for replacing the existing sewer pipe will be in accordance with City Standards.
 City will provide with AutoCAD file for existing ground and any GIS mapping available.
 Scope of work does not include National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance activities.
 Assuming a maximum of 17 PS&E plan sheets.
 Culvert headwall and rip rap for slope stabilization will conform to Caltrans Standards.
 Trench backfills and roadway improvements will conform to City Standards.  Mott Macdonald assumes five (5) RFI’s and eight (8) shop drawing submittal reviews.

Exclusions
The proposal excludes the following services which can be provided at the request of the City at an additional cost:
 Relocation of other utilities
 Topographic survey
 Potholing activities/utility location
 Support for FEMA funding.
 Modeling to confirm pipe size and hydraulic sizing is excluded from the scope of services.

Schedule
Below is a tentative schedule and will be updated in more detail after the kick-off meeting.

NTP March 20, 2024
Evaluation memo May 1, 2024
Submit Draft Plans (65% PSE) May 31, 2024
CEQA NOE June 15, 2024
Submit Final Plans (100% PSE) July 1, 2024
Bidding and Contractor Approval August 15, 2024
Design Support during Construction October 31, 2024
40 Culvert replacement – Salson Trail
Feb 24, 2024

Page 5 of 5 ends

Fee Proposal
Mott MacDonald will provide the above scope of services on a time-and-materials not-to-exceed fee basis in accordance with our Master Services Agreement. The estimated not to exceed fee is $76,592 as shown in the attached fee estimate. An additional $77,781 is estimated for two (2) optional tasks that includes the fee expected for any or all the permits that may be needed to construct the project.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a TO proposal to complete this important work. Please feel free to contact me or Bindu Samudrala, the Project Manager, if you have any questions. Bindu can be reached by phone at (518) 986-1309 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Mott MacDonald Group, Inc

Mohamed Basma
Senior Vice President
Northern California Portfolio Manager
+1 408 807 0481
[email protected]
Cc: Stephanie Douglass, P.E.
41 City of Belmont
Culvert replacement - Salson Trail
Redtail
Task No. Task Description
Principal
Project
Manager
Project Manager
& Project Lead
Senior Project
Engineer.

QA/QC
Engineer III Engineer II Principal
Sepecialist Specialist V Total MM
Hours
Total MM
Reimbursable Labor Environmental Total Subs-Fee & Direct Costs MM Subtotal Mark-up on Subs- 5% Task & Subtask
Totals
Key Staff/Staff Grade Stephanie
Douglas Himabindu S Jose Lomeli Lisette Abad Jack
Friedman Deepa Dawn Ann
Hourly Rates $294 $262 $232 $141 $121 $294 $123 Hours Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Task 1 Project Management

1.1 Project Management 3 5 6 4 6 24 4,949 $ - $ 4,949 $ - $ 4,949 $

1.2 Monthly Progress Reports 4 3 7 1,471 $ - $ 1,471 $ - $ 1,471 $

1.3 Kick-Off and coordination meetings (up to 3 meetings) [remote via teleconference] 5 8 4 17 4,128 $ - $ 4,128 $ - $ $ 4,128 Task 1 Subtotal 8 17 0 13 0 4 6 48
Task 1 Cost per Staff $ 2 ,348 $ 4 ,454 $ - $ 1 ,834 $ - $ 1 ,176 $ 7 35 $ 10,548 $ - $ 1 0,548 $ - $ 1 0,548 Task 2 Field Visit and Data Collection

2.1 Collect and Review Available Information, Field Visit 6 6 12 2,419 $ - $ 2,419 $ - $ 2,419 $

2.2 Creating Basemap 2 8 8 18 2,556 $ - $ 2,556 $ - $ 2,556 $

2.3 Environmental Resource Agency Outreach and Evaluation for Need for permits 4 4 8 1,530 $ 5,155 $ 5,155 $ 1,530 $ 258 $ $ 6,943 Task 2 Subtotal 0 10 2 14 12 0 0 38 $ - - $ -
Task 2 Cost per Staff $ - $ 2 ,620 $ 464 $ 1 ,976 $ 1 ,446 $ - $ - $ 6,505 $ 5 ,155 $ 5 ,155 $ 6 ,505 $ 2 58 $ 1 1,918 Task 3 Plans, Specifications and Estimates

3.1 Prepare 65% PSE Documents 2 8 8 26 39 83 12,906 $ - $ 12,906 $ - $ 12,906 $

3.2 Preparing CEQA Notice of Exemption 4 4 8 1,530 $ 3,496 $ 3,496 $ 1,530 $ 175 $ 5,201 $

3.3 City review and Meeting [remote via teleconference] 2 8 10 0 20 4,094 $ - $ 4,094 $ - $ 4,094 $

3.4 Prepare 100% PSE Documents and biddable
documents 3 14 5 37 45 104 16,351 $ - $ 16,351 $ - $ $ 16,351 Task 3 Subtotal 7 34 13 73 88 0 0 215
Task 3 Cost per Staff $ 2 ,055 $ 8 ,908 $ 3 ,013 $ 1 0,301 $ 1 0,605 $ - $ - $ 34,882 $ 3 ,496 $ 3 ,496 $ 3 4,882 $ 1 75 $ 3 8,552 Task 4 Bidding Support

4.1 Responses to Bidder's questions 24 2 0 2,099 $ - $ 2,099 $ - $ 2,099 $

4.2 Preparation of 1 bid addenda 1 3 2 2 1,362 $ 1,362 $ 1,362 $ $ - - $ - $ - $ - $
Task 4 Subtotal 3 7 2 2 0 0 0 2
Task 4 Cost per Staff $ 8 81 $ 1 ,834 $ 464 $ 2 82 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,460 $ - $ - $ 3 ,460 $ - $ 3 ,460 Task 5 Design Services during Construction

5.1 Pre-Construction, Construction meetings, agendas,
and notes. 14 4 9 1,906 $ - $ 1,906 $ - $ $ 1,906

5.2 Response to RFIs, Submittals 1 8 16 15 40 6,455 $ - $ 6,455 $ - $ 6,455 $

5.3 Final walkthrough punch list and report and As built pl 1 4 20 25 3,752 $ - $ 3,752 $ - $ 3,752 $ Task 5 Subtotal 3 16 0 20 35 0 0 74
Task 5 Cost per Staff $ 8 81 $ 4 ,192 $ - $ 2 ,822 $ 4 ,218 $ - $ - $ 12,113 $ - $ - $ 1 2,113 $ - $ 1 2,113 Design Hours 21 84 17 122 135 4 6 377
$ 67,508 $ 8,651 $ 8,651 $ 6 7,508 $ 4 33 $ 7 6,592
Task 6 Cal OES and FEMA Coordination Support(optional)

6.1 Draft permit application packages 20 5 3 28 6,307 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 6,307 $ 75 $ 7,882 $

6.2 Final permit application packages 10 5 3 18 3,687 $ 1,908 $ 1,908 $ 3,687 $ 95 $ 5,690 $ Task 6 Subtotal 0 30 0 10 6 0 0 46
Task 6 Cost per Staff $ - $ 7 ,860 $ - $ 1 ,411 $ 7 23 $ - $ - $ 9,994 $ 3 ,408 $ 3 ,408 $ 9 ,994 $ 1 70 $ 1 3,573 Task 7 Environmental Permits (optional)

7.1 USACE CWA Section 404 Permitting 4 2 4 10 1,812 $ 38,873 $ 38,873 $ 1,812 $ 1,944 $ 42,629 $

7.2 RWQCB CWA Section 401 Permitting 4 2 4 10 1,812 $ 16,701 $ 16,701 $ 1,812 $ 835 $ 19,348 $

7.3 DFW Section 1602 Streambed Alternation 4 2 4 10 1,812 $ 13,325 $ 13,325 $ 1,812 $ 666 $ 15,804 $ Task 7 Subtotal 0 12 0 6 12 0 0 30
Task 6 Cost per Staff $ - $ 3 ,144 $ - $ 8 47 $ 1 ,446 $ - $ - $ 5,437 $ 6 8,899 $ 6 8,899 $ 5 ,437 $ 3,445 $ 7 7,781 $ - - $
TOTAL PROPOSED FEE 453 $ 82,939 $ 80,958 $ 80,958 $ 82,939 $ 4 ,048 $ 1 67,945 2/27/2024
42 City of Belmont
Culvert replacement - Salson Trail
Redtail
Task No. Task Description
Principal
Project
Manager
Project Manager
& Project Lead
Senior Project
Engineer.

QA/QC
Engineer III Engineer II
Principal
Sepecialist
Specialist V
Total MM
Hours
Total MM
Reimbursable Labor
Environmental
Total Subs-Fee &
Direct Costs
MM Subtotal
Mark-up on
Subs- 5%
Task & Subtask
Totals
Key Staff/Staff Grade
Stephanie
Douglas
Himabindu S Jose Lomeli Lisette Abad
Jack
Friedman
Deepa Dawn Ann
Hourly Rates $294 $262 $232 $141 $121 $294 $123 Hours Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Task 1 Project Management

1.1 Project Management 3 5 6 4 6 24 $ 4,949 $ - $ 4,949 $ - $ 4,949

1.2 Monthly Progress Reports 4 3 7 $ 1,471 $ - $ 1,471 $ - $ 1,471

1.3 Kick-Off and coordination meetings (up to 3 meetings) [remote via teleconference]
5 8 4 17 $ 4,128 $ - $ 4,128 $ - $ 4,128
Task 1 Subtotal 8 17 0 13 0 4 6 48
Task 1 Cost per Staff $ 2,348 $ 4,454 $ - $ 1,834 $ - $ 1,176 $ 735 $ 10,548 $ - $ 10,548 $ - $ 10,548 Task 2 Field Visit and Data Collection

2.1 Collect and Review Available Information, Field Visit 6 6 12 $ 2,419 $ - $ 2,419 $ - $ 2,419

2.2 Creating Basemap 2 8 8 18 $ 2,556 $ - $ 2,556 $ - $ 2,556

2.3 Environmental Resource Agency Outreach and Evaluation for Need for permits
4 4 8 $ 1,530 $ 5,155 $ 5,155 $ 1,530 $ 258 $ 6,943
Task 2 Subtotal 0 10 2 14 12 0 0 38 $ - $ -
Task 2 Cost per Staff $ - $ 2,620 $ 464 $ 1,976 $ 1,446 $ - $ - $ 6,505 $ 5,155 $ 5,155 $ 6,505 $ 258 $ 11,918 Task 3 Plans, Specifications and Estimates

3.1 Prepare 65% PSE Documents 2 8 8 26 39 83 $ 12,906 $ - $ 12,906 $ - $ 12,906

3.2 Preparing CEQA Notice of Exemption 4 4 8 $ 1,530 $ 3,496 $ 3,496 $ 1,530 $ 175 $ 5,201

3.3 City review and Meeting [remote via teleconference] 2 8 10 0 20 $ 4,094 $ - $ 4,094 $ - $ 4,094

3.4 Prepare 100% PSE Documents and biddable
documents
3 14 5 37 45 104 $ 16,351 $ - $ 16,351 $ - $ 16,351
Task 3 Subtotal 7 34 13 73 88 0 0 215
Task 3 Cost per Staff $ 2,055 $ 8,908 $ 3,013 $ 10,301 $ 10,605 $ - $ - $ 34,882 $ 3,496 $ 3,496 $ 34,882 $ 175 $ 38,552 Task 4 Bidding Support

4.1 Responses to Bidder's questions 2 4 2 0 $ 2,099 $ - $ 2,099 $ - $ 2,099

4.2 Preparation of 1 bid addenda 1 3 2 2 $ 1,362 $ 1,362 $ 1,362 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Task 4 Subtotal 3 7 2 2 0 0 0 2
Task 4 Cost per Staff $ 881 $ 1,834 $ 464 $ 282 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,460 $ - $ - $ 3,460 $ - $ 3,460 Task 5 Design Services during Construction

5.1 Pre-Construction, Construction meetings, agendas,
and notes.
1 4
4 9 $ 1,906 $ - $ 1,906 $ - $ 1,906

5.2 Response to RFIs, Submittals 1 8 16 15 40 $ 6,455 $ - $ 6,455 $ - $ 6,455

5.3 Final walkthrough punch list and report and As built plans 1 4 20 25 $ 3,752 $ - $ 3,752 $ - $ 3,752 Task 5 Subtotal 3 16 0 20 35 0 0 74
Task 5 Cost per Staff $ 881 $ 4,192 $ - $ 2,822 $ 4,218 $ - $ - $ 12,113 $ - $ - $ 12,113 $ - $ 12,113 Design Hours 21 84 17 122 135 4 6 377
$ 67,508 $ 8,651 $ 8,651 $ 67,508 $ 433 $ 76,592
Task 6 Cal OES and FEMA Coordination Support(optional)

6.1 Draft permit application packages 20 5 3 28 $ 6,307 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 6,307 $ 75 $ 7,882

6.2 Final permit application packages 10 5 3 18 $ 3,687 $ 1,908 $ 1,908 $ 3,687 $ 95 $ 5,690 Task 6 Subtotal 0 30 0 10 6 0 0 46
Task 6 Cost per Staff $ - $ 7,860 $ - $ 1,411 $ 723 $ - $ - $ 9,994 $ 3,408 $ 3,408 $ 9,994 $ 170 $ 13,573 Task 7 Environmental Permits (optional)

7.1 USACE CWA Section 404 Permitting 4 2 4 10 $ 1,812 $ 38,873 $ 38,873 $ 1,812 $ 1,944 $ 42,629

7.2 RWQCB CWA Section 401 Permitting 4 2 4 10 $ 1,812 $ 16,701 $ 16,701 $ 1,812 $ 835 $ 19,348

7.3 DFW Section 1602 Streambed Alternation 4 2 4 10 $ 1,812 $ 13,325 $ 13,325 $ 1,812 $ 666 $ 15,804 Task 7 Subtotal 0 12 0 6 12 0 0 30
Task 6 Cost per Staff $ - $ 3,144 $ - $ 847 $ 1,446 $ - $ - $ 5,437 $ 68,899 $ 68,899 $ 5,437 $ 3,445 $ 77,781 $ - $ -
TOTAL PROPOSED FEE 453 $ 82,939 $ 80,958 $ 80,958 $ 82,939 $ 4,048 $ 167,945 2/27/2024 43

Page 1 of 2 ends

Master Service Agreement - Lisa Wise Consultants - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 12, 2024
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Laura Russell, Deputy Community Development Director, [email protected] Agenda Title: Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. for Planning Services Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute services agreements with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. totaling an amount not-to-exceed $73,792.

Strategic Focus Area
Economic Development and Housing
Background
From time to time the City uses third-party planning consultants for services related to policy analysis and zoning ordinance amendments. Since the comprehensive update to the General Plan and adoption of the Belmont Village Specific plan in 2017, the City has experienced significant development activity in the City. Through the process of reviewing and approving those projects, staff has identified opportunities to improve and clarify the zoning ordinance. Additionally, the zoning ordinance must be periodically updated to remain compliant with State law. These types of amendments require skilled planners with expertise which may not be readily available inhouse.

Analysis
Staff requests that the City Council authorize the procurement of planning services to assist with zoning ordinance amendments and specialized analysis. City staff believes the use of planning services is reasonable and appropriate for this type of specialized planning work. The work will be divided into three independent engagements (task orders no. 1, no. 2 and no. 3) and tasks will be billed on a time and materials basis, with close coordination with staff to ensure work product that meets the City’s needs at a reasonable cost. The cost of this work will be paid from the General Plan Maintenance Fund, which is intended to fund ongoing advance planning needs to further the goals of the General Plan. The authorization for the planning services requested is limited to the amount of available funds appropriated within the fiscal year budget for that purpose.

The zoning ordinance amendments include:
• Task Order No. 1: Updates to implement the 2023-2031 Housing Element and State law; • Task Order No. 2: Analyze maximum building height scenarios in the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) District and implement appropriate zoning changes; and
• Task Order No. 3: Consolidation of two existing zoning sections related to parking to eliminate redundancies and be consistent with State law.
44

Page 2 of 2 ends

Master Service Agreement - Lisa Wise Consultants - Staff Report Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. is a highly qualified consultant firm with experience in similar work for dozens of California cities. They employ planners with various specialized skills including technical code writing, policy analysis, market economics and architectural modeling. Staff recommends their services for completion of these phased zoning ordinance amendments.

Alternatives

1. Deny the request.

2. Continue the item for further discussion.

Attachments

1. Resolution
Exhibit A - Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. Qualifications and Rates Exhibit B – Scopes of Work for Task Orders No. 1, 2, and 3 Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

The current fiscal year 2023-24 operating budget in the General Plan Maintenance Fund (Account# 212-5-906-8351) includes sufficient funding for task orders no. 1 through no. 3 with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. totaling an amount not-to-exceed $73,792 towards long-range planning efforts. The costs are anticipated to be repaid via ancillary development and associated
established fees.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
45

Page 1 of 1 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT AUTHORIZING

THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH LISA WISE CONSULTING, INC. TOTALING AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $73,792
WHEREAS, the City has need from time to time of planning services related to policy analysis and zoning ordinance amendments that require skilled planners with particular expertise; and, WHEREAS, Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. has demonstrated expertise in the planning and policy field as described in Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the City has a General Plan Maintenance Fund which is intended to fund ongoing advance planning needs to further the goals of the General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the current fiscal year 2023-24 operating budget in the General Plan Maintenance Fund (Account# 212-5-906-8351) includes sufficient funding for the combined scopes or work with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. totaling an amount not-to-exceed $73,792 towards longrange planning efforts. The costs are anticipated to be repaid via ancillary development and associated established fees; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Manager is authorized to negotiate and execute services agreements totaling an amount not-to-exceed $73,792 with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. to provide planning services related to policy analysis and zoning code amendments at the rates set forth in Exhibit B. * * *
ADOPTED March 12, 2024 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
46 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | LISAWISECONSULTING.COM | 1 City of Belmont Zoning Ordinance Updates
Task Order #1: Housing Element Implementation
Prepared by Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC)
February 29, 2024
This Task Order #1 prepared for the City of Belmont (“City”) describes the work required to assist the City in completing the amendments to the City of Belmont Zoning Ordinance needed to fully implement the 6th Cycle Belmont Housing Element. The amendments are intended to implement identified Housing Element policies, bring the Ordinance into compliance with recent changes in State law, introduce best practices into the Ordinance, and make the Ordinance incrementally more effective and easy to use.

This Task Order #1 was initially requested by City staff at a November 21 meeting and subsequent emails regarding the City’s needs related to the Housing Element certification. The scope below reflects the needs discussed in late 2023, the final adopted version of the Housing Element, and the Zoning Ordinance amendments that the City adopted in January 2024. All meetings are assumed to be conducted online via a video-conferencing platform.

SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1A: Meetings with City Staff (4)
LWC will prepare for and attend up to four one-hour meetings with City staff on the needed Zoning Ordinance amendments. At these meetings, topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Discussion of relevant background material (post-2017 General Plan amendments, recent Zoning Ordinance amendments, recent Specific Plans and Specific Plan amendments, Design Guidelines, Design Standards, etc.); • Review of working Zoning Ordinance Amendments (graphics, format, content, crossreferences, etc.); and • Development of presentation slides.

Task 1B: Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments
LWC will prepare Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments needed to implement identified programs within the 6th Cycle Belmont Housing Element, as noted in a table prepared by City staff and shared with LWC. The amendments will include the following:
47 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | LISAWISECONSULTING.COM | 2 • Minor edits needed to account for new Objective Design Standards prepared by the City. No significant reformatting and additional graphics anticipated; • Edits for consistency with AB 2162;
• Edits to define and regulate the following in accordance with State law: mobile home parks, farmworker housing, large residential care facilities, small residential care facilities, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing; • A revised definition of ”family”; and
• Other amendments needed based on the most recent draft Housing Element, as noted by City staff.

LWC will prepare the amendments in a “track changes” version (Word) of all affected existing Zoning Ordinance sections for ease of review and discussion. This will include at minimum sections 2, 4, 5, 5A, 13, and 31. LWC will work with the City to identify additional sections that may require amendments and agree on actions to be taken. This may include but is not limited to sections 5C, 8, 9. Where appropriate, LWC will develop graphics to illustrate new standards. To prepare these documents, the City will provide LWC with current Word files of all affected Zoning Ordinance sections. Upon review of the draft material, the City staff will provide LWC with a single set of non-conflicting comments.

Task 1C: Presentation Assistance (Optional)
LWC will assist City staff in preparing for up to two public hearings with LWC attendance via a video-conferencing platform. LWC’s effort will entail preparing draft PowerPoint slides that present the recommended Zoning Ordinance amendments, including background, context, and new content. LWC will coordinate with City staff on the organization and content of the slides.

LWC will be available to support staff at the meetings on a time and materials basis over and above the fee specified in this purchase order.

Task 1D: Final Zoning Ordinance Amendments
LWC will prepare Final Zoning Ordinance Amendments needed to fully implement the 6th Cycle Belmont Housing Element. The Final Amendments will reflect the community’s, Planning Commission’s, and City Council’s comments on the Public Draft, and will be prepared in coordination with City Staff. The Final Amendments will be delivered in “clean” and “track changes” versions of the existing Zoning Ordinance (Word and PDF). 48 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | LISAWISECONSULTING.COM | 3 BUDGET
Task Order #1 will be billed on a time and materials basis at the rates listed below. Invoices will be submitted monthly and contain a description of work complete by percentage and total amount due. The total “not to exceed” budget for Task Order #1 is $13,744. The subtotal by task is shown in the table below:

City of Belmont
Task Order #1:

Housing
Element
Implementation
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc.

Total
Hours
Per
Task
Subtotal
by Task
Principal Director Senior Associate
$297 $250 $195 $160
Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost
Task 1A:

Meetings with
City Staff (4)
$ - 4 $ 1,000 6 $ 1,170 6 $ 960 16 $ 3,130
Task 1B: Draft
Zoning
Ordinance
Amendments
$ - 4 $ 1,000 12 $ 2,340 12 $ 1,920 28 $ 5,260
Task 1C:

Presentation
Assistance
(Optional)
$ - $ - 8 $ 1,560 6 $ 960 14 $ 2,520
Task 1D: Final
Zoning
Ordinance
Amendments
2 $ 594 2 $ 500 4 $ 780 6 $ 960 14 $ 2,834
Total 2 $ 594 10 $ 2,500 30 $ 5,850 30 $ 4,800 72 $ 13,744 49 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | LISAWISECONSULTING.COM | 1 City of Belmont Zoning Ordinance Updates
Task Order #2: CMU Building Height Analysis
Prepared by Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC)
February 29, 2024
This Task Order #2 prepared for the City of Belmont (“City”) describes the work required to assist the City staff, community, and decision-makers in studying and making a determination about the maximum building height in the CMU zone. While this study is not required to implement the adopted Housing Element policies, the study will assist the City in weighing its options for preserving neighborhood scale and character and providing flexibility for the range of allowable development types and designs envisioned in the CMU. All meetings are assumed to be conducted online via a video-conferencing platform.

SCOPE OF WORK
Task 2A: Meetings with City Staff (4)
LWC will prepare for and attend up to four one-hour meetings with City staff on the CMU building height study. At these meetings, topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Discussion of relevant background material (recent General Plan amendments, Zoning Ordinance amendments, Specific Plans and Specific Plan amendments, Design Guidelines, Design Standards, etc.); and
• Discussion of specific CMU buildout assumptions, scenarios, and working diagrams.

Task 2B: Height Analysis
LWC will prepare a series of diagrams to demonstrate options for different building maximum height scenarios. The analysis will demonstrate a range of potential scenarios on one typical CMU site to be determined in coordination with City staff. The analysis will include scaled plans, sections, and axonometric drawings that demonstrate:
• Development type, mix of uses, and building configuration; • Residential density, non-residential FAR, residential unit sizes, on-site open space; • Residential and non-residential parking locations/configurations and ratios, reflecting compliance with AB 2097 as well as market-driven parking demand based on developed and proposed comparable projects;
50 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | LISAWISECONSULTING.COM | 2 • Assumptions regarding affordability (use of State Density Bonus Law or Community Benefit program);
• Ground level floor-to-floor height, typical upper-story floor-to-floor height, and overall building height based on the City’s rules of measurement for building height; and The City’s applicable Objective Design Standards as articulated in the Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 13 Design Review, and how the standards impact the development capacity and building massing on the test site. The diagrams and analyses will be developed to assist the City staff, community, and decision-making bodies weigh relevant trade-offs and options, and, ultimately, determine an appropriate maximum base building height in the CMU zoning district.

Task 2C: Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments needed to reflect the decision-making bodies’ determination on the appropriate base maximum building height in the CMU zoning district. The amendments will include a “track changes” version (Word) of all affected existing Zoning Ordinance sections for ease of review and discussion. Where appropriate, LWC will develop graphics to illustrate new standards. To prepare these documents, the City will provide LWC with current Word files of all affected sections. Upon review of the draft material, the City staff will provide LWC with a single set of non-conflicting comments.

Task 2D: Presentation Assistance (Optional)
LWC will assist City staff in preparing for up to two public hearings with LWC attendance via a video-conferencing platform. LWC’s effort will entail preparing draft PowerPoint slides that present the building height analysis, including background, assumptions, context, and options.

LWC will coordinate with City staff on the organization and content of the slides. LWC will be available to support staff at the meetings on a time and materials basis over and above the fee specified in this purchase order.

Task 2E: Final Zoning Ordinance Amendments
LWC will prepare Final Zoning Ordinance Amendments needed to fully implement the decisionmaking bodies’ direction on the appropriate base maximum building height in the CMU zoning district. The Final Amendments will reflect the community’s, Planning Commission’s, and City Council’s comments on the Draft, and will be prepared in coordination with City Staff. The Final Amendments will be delivered in “clean” and “track changes” versions of the existing Ordinance (Word and PDF).
51 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | LISAWISECONSULTING.COM | 3 BUDGET
Task Order #2 will be billed on a time and materials basis at the rates listed below. Invoices will be submitted monthly and contain a description of work complete by percentage and total amount due. The total “not to exceed” budget for Task Order #2 is $31,394. The subtotal by task is shown in the table below:

City of
Belmont
Task Order
#2: CMU
Height
Analysis
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc.

Total
Hours
Per
Task
Subtotal by
Task
Principal Director Senior Associate
$297 $250 $195 $160
Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost
Task 2A:

Meetings
with City Staff
(4) $ - 4 $ 1,000 6 $ 1,170 6 $ 960 16 $ 3,130
Task 2B:

Height and
Analysis $ - 4 $ 1,000 30 $ 5,850 30 $ 4,800 64 $ 11,650 Task 2C: Draft
Zoning
Ordinance
Amendments $ - 4 $ 1,000 12 $ 2,340 12 $ 1,920 28 $ 5,260 Task 2D:

Presentation
Assistance
(Optional) $ - $ - 24 $ 4,680 24 $ 3,840 48 $ 8,520
Task 2E: Final
Zoning
Ordinance
Amendments 2 $ 594 2 $ 500 4 $ 780 6 $ 960 14 $ 2,834
Total 2 $ 594 14 $ 3,500 76 $ 14,820 78 $ 12,480 170 $ 31,394 52 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | LISAWISECONSULTING.COM | 1 City of Belmont Zoning Ordinance Updates
Task Order #3: Zoning Ordinance Update – Citywide
Parking
Prepared by Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC)
February 29, 2024
This Task Order #3 prepared for the City of Belmont (“City”) describes the work required to assist the City staff in preparing a new section of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance to address citywide parking and loading standards. The new section is intended to replace two existing sections that regulate parking and loading in the city: Section 8-Off-Street Parking and Loading and Section 8AOff-Street Parking and Loading in Corridor Mixed-Use and Regional Commercial Districts.

While this study is not required to implement the adopted Housing Element policies, the study will implement City policies related to parking; retain existing parking and loading standards as appropriate; ensure that standards address the City’s needs and priorities; and ensure that standards are legally compliant and reflect general best practices. In addition, the single chapter will make it easier and simpler for the City staff to interpret and enforce parking standards for applicant projects. All meetings are assumed to be conducted online via a video-conferencing platform.

SCOPE OF WORK
Task 3A: Meetings with City Staff (4)
LWC will prepare for and attend up to four one-hour meetings with City staff on the parking and loading Zoning Ordinance section. At these meetings, discussion topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Section contents and organization;
• General parking regulations;
• Parking area, stall, and loading area design standards; • Parking and loading ratio for various uses;
• Bicycle parking standards; and
• Transportation Demand Management.
53 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | LISAWISECONSULTING.COM | 2 Task 3B: Draft Zoning Ordinance Section 8 - Off-Street Parking and Loading LWC will prepare Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments needed to introduce a single consolidated Off-Street Parking and Loading section into the Belmont Zoning Ordinance. The new section will be developed to:
• Combine existing sections 8 and 8A of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance; • Eliminate redundancies and contradictions across the two existing sections; • Implement relevant programs of the 6th Cycle Belmont Housing Element; • Carry forward parking policies and standards of the General Plan and applicable specific plans as appropriate;
• Be consistent with State law;
• Recognize required concessions and incentives granted by State law; • Reflect market conditions; and
• Implement best practices related to parking and loading standards and design.

LWC will prepare a new Section 8 of the Belmont Ordinance that is intended to replace existing sections 8 and 8A of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance. Where appropriate, LWC will develop graphics to illustrate new standards. In addition, LWC will prepare amendments to other sections of the Zoning Ordinance where needed to properly reference the new Section 8 and to reflect the deletion of Section 8A. To prepare these documents, the City will provide LWC with Word files for review and discussion. Upon review of the draft material, the City staff will provide LWC with a single set of non-conflicting comments.

Task 3C: Presentation Assistance (Optional)
LWC will assist City staff in preparing for up to two public hearings with LWC attendance via a video-conferencing platform. LWC’s effort will entail preparing draft PowerPoint slides that present the new Section 8: Off-Street Parking and Loading, including changes, new standards, and existing standards to remain. LWC will coordinate with City staff on the organization and content of the slides. LWC will be available to support staff at the meetings on a time and materials basis over and above the fee specified in this purchase order.

Task 3D: Final Zoning Ordinance Section 8 - Off-Street Parking and Loading LWC will prepare Final Zoning Ordinance Amendments needed to introduce a single consolidated Off-Street Parking and Loading section into the Belmont Zoning Ordinance. The Final Amendments will reflect the community’s, Planning Commission’s, and City Council’s comments on the Public Draft, and will be prepared in coordination with City Staff. The Final Amendments will be delivered in Word and PDF files.
54 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | LISAWISECONSULTING.COM | 3 BUDGET
Task Order #3 will be billed on a time and materials basis at the rates listed below. Invoices will be submitted monthly and contain a description of work complete by percentage and total amount due. The total “not to exceed” budget for Task Order #3 is $28,654. The subtotal by task is shown in the table below:

City of
Belmont
Task Order
#3: Zoning
Ordinance
Update -
Citywide
Parking
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc.

Total
Hours
Per
Task
Subtotal
by Task
Principal Director Senior Associate
$297 $250 $195 $160
Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost
Task 3A:

Meeting with
City Staff (4) $ - 4 $ 1,000 6 $ 1,170 6 $ 960 16 $ 3,130 Task 3B:

Draft Zoning
Ordinance
Section 8 $ - 4 $ 1,000 36 $ 7,020 36 $ 5,760 76 $ 13,780 Task 3C:

Presentation
Assistance
(Optional) $ - $ - 18 $ 3,510 18 $ 2,880 36 $ 6,390
Task 3D: Final
Zoning
Ordinance
Section 8 2 $ 594 2 $ 500 12 $ 2,340 12 $ 1,920 28 $ 5,354 Total 2 $ 594 10 $ 2,500 72 $ 14,040 72 $ 11,520 156 $ 28,654 55 LISA WISE CONSULTING, INC. CITY OF BELMONT PHASED ZONING AMENDMENTS PROJECT | 3 December 04, 2023
Laura C. Russell, AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
1 Twin Pines Lane
Belmont, CA 94002, Suite 365
(650) 595-7437
[email protected]
RE: LWC Statement of Interest for Assisting the City of Belmont with Zoning Amendments in Phases Dear Ms. Russell:

STATEMENT OF INTEREST: Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) is very pleased to submit this Statement of Interest and our qualifications to assist the City of Belmont to prepare code amendments to implement 6th Cycle Housing Element Programs and assure consistency across regulatory documents in a phased approach. As such, LWC will develop the parameters of subsequent phases as part of the previous phase and proceed with each phase on the City’s approval and issuance of a Purchase Order/Task Order.

FIRM PROFILE: As a firm that has focused on comprehensive zoning ordinance updates and audits and assisting California cities comply with housing regulation for over 17 years, this is a target project for us. Please find as part of this memo, the LWC Firm Profile.

KEY STAFF: Our team of national zoning ordinance experts includes Lisa Wise, AICP and Roger Eastman, AICP, each with over 30-year experience managing comprehensive zoning ordinance engagements throughout California, the U.S. and Middle East. Monica Szydlick. AICP, will serve as Project Manage and brings over 17 years of zoning ordinance, urban design, and project management experience to our team. Caroline Chen, LWC Associate has over 5 years of urban planning and urban design experience and will support the team with document management, research, document review and edit and graphics and design. Attached herein are resumes for each of these key staff.

As the owner and CEO of Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc., I will oversee all aspects of the project. Roger Eastman, AICP will serve as Project Director and support Monica Szydlick, AICP who will be responsible for communication with the City and for the quality and timely delivery of project deliverables.

We remain available to address questions or comments, appreciate the opportunity to work with the City of Belmont on this important project.

Sincerely,
Lisa Wise, AICP President, CEO (805) 595-1345
[email protected]
56 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | 870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 977, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 | 706 SOUTH HILL STREET, STE 1100, LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 LISAWISECONSULTING.COM

FIRM OVERVIEW
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) is an urban planning and economics firm with national experience dedicated to creating zoning ordinances and development codes that enable pedestrian and transit-oriented neighborhoods, revitalize built environments, and facilitate sustainable, well-designed places to live, work, and recreate. LWC has a strong resume in zoning code updates and amendments, objective design and development standards, specific plans, design guidelines, and the economics of land use, with a constant focus on placemaking, community involvement, and feasible implementation.

LWC’s core business is working closely with cities and counties to understand the community vision, assess and update policies, programs and regulations aimed at streamlining the development review process, establishing objective design and development standards, and accelerating housing production. We are equally focused on implementation, by considering economic, fiscal impacts, and eligibility for funding.

LWC is engaged on 12 objective design and development standard projects and have successfully completed 70 comprehensive zoning code updates, diagnoses, and regulatory compliance assessments; and over 130 long range planning, housing, economic, and finance projects on time and to our client’s satisfaction.

LWC core capabilities:
• Objective Design and Development Standards and Design Guidelines • Zoning Ordinances, Development Codes, and Form-Based Codes • Specific Plans, TOD plans, and Downtown Plans
• Housing Policies, Affordable Housing, and Anti-Displacement Strategies • Market Analyses, Revitalization Strategies, and Financial Feasibility Studies • Public Engagement, Visioning, and Community Consensus Modeling LWC was founded in 2006 and has offices in San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, and Los Angeles. LWC is a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) in California and Texas and a certified California Small Business (SBE).

CONTACT
San Luis Obispo (Headquarters)
983 Osos Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.595.1345 | Office Main
San Francisco
870 Market Street, Suite 977
San Francisco, CA 94102
Los Angeles
706 South Hill Street, #1100
Los Angeles, CA 90014
805.618.1924 | Office Direct
57 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | 870 MARKET STREET, STE 977, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 | 939 S BROADWAY, STE 611, LOS ANGELES, CA 90015 LISAWISECONSULTING.COM

LISA WISE, AICP
President, CEO
As a certified planner, Lisa has over 30 years of experience in land development code audits and updates, specific plans, housing policy, financial feasibility analysis, and the economic assessment of land use. Lisa is considered a national expert on code reform and the former Treasurer and Chair of the Form Based Code Institute (FBCI) as well as certified instructor for the FBCI courses.

Lisa has been directly responsible for a variety of projects that assess land use regulation, develop strategies for code updates, and support more vibrant and resilient communities. These include 70 code audits and updates, 35 economic engagements, 23 master and specific plans, 40 housing elements updates, and inclusionary and employee housing studies. Her work also includes Project Manager of Form Based Code Framework and Update in Riyadh (pop. 7 million) as well as a Code Assessment and Comprehensive Code and Map Update in Columbus, OH (pop. 920,000).

Lisa holds a Master’s Degree in Accountacy from the University of De Paul in Chicago and a Master’s in City and Regional Planning from California Polytechnic in San Luis Obispo, CA, where she is adjunct staff and lectures on Real Estate Finance and Housing.

Relevant Project Experience:
• Alameda County, CA | Ashland Cherryland Business District Specific Plan Update and Form-Based Code
• Austin, TX | Land Development Code Update
• Benicia, CA | Mixed-Use Master Plan and Form-Based Code • Columbus, OH | Zoning Code Assessment and Update Strategy • Columbus, OH | Zoning Code and Map Update
• Flagstaff, AZ | Zoning Ordinance Update
• Hayward, CA | Downtown Specific Plan and Form-Based Code • Henderson, NV | Land Use and Development Code Audit and Update • Las Vegas, NV | Downtown Form-Based Code
• Livermore, CA | Development Code Update
• Lompoc, CA | Zoning Code Update
• Malibu, CA | Zoning Code and Local Implementation Plan Update • Mesa, AZ | Form-Based Code and Regulating Plan
• NEOM, Saudi Arabia | Form Based Code Framework
• Oklahoma City, OK | Code Audit and Update Strategy
• Petaluma, CA | SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan • Richmond, CA | Livable Corridors Plan and Form-Based Code • Riyadh, Saudi Arabia | Strategic Zoning Framework, Form-Based Code Strategy, and Zoning Code Update
• Soledad, CA | Downtown Specific Plan, Vision, and Form-Based Code • Tehachapi, CA | Zoning Code Update, Housing Element 4th/5th Cycle • Vacaville, CA | Land Use and Development Code Audit and Update • Woodland, CA | Comprehensive Zoning Code Update

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE

EDUCATION

CERTIFICATIONS & MEMBERSHIPS
California Polytechnic State University
Adjunct Faculty | San Luis Obispo, CA | 2002 -
Present
Crawford, Multari & Clark Associates
Professional Consultant | San Luis Obispo, CA
2001 – 2006
Governor’s Office of Planning & Research (OPR)
Intern | Sacramento, CA | 1999 – 2000
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
Financial Services Manager | New York, NY
1990 – 1999
California Polytechnic State University
M. of City & Regional Planning | San Luis Obispo, CA
DePaul University
M.S., Accountancy | Chicago, IL
University of Cincinnati
B.S., Business Administration in Marketing & Finance
American Planning Association (APA)
American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP)
California Planning Foundation
Treasurer, 2019 – Present
Dean’s Leadership Council
California Polytechnic State University, College of
Architecture & Environmental Design, 2018 – Present
Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU)
Paul Crawford Award for Excellence in Planning, 2017
Form-Based Code Institute (FBCI)
Chair, 2015 – 2018 | Treasurer, 2014 – 2015
Certified Public Accountant, 1991 – 1999
58 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | 870 MARKET STREET, STE 977, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 | 939 S BROADWAY, STE 611, LOS ANGELES, CA 90015 LISAWISECONSULTING.COM

MONICA SZYDLIK, AICP
Senior Associate
Monica brings over 17 years’ experience in planning and urban design to LWC.

She has focused her career on leading zoning code updates, zoning map updates, form-based development regulations, specific plans, transit-oriented development plans, streetscape design, and Objective Design Standards. Her skills include managing multi-disciplinary teams, meticulous attention to detail, deep understanding of land use regulations, facilitating community outreach, and delivering projects on time and within budget. Monica is an expert in integrating 3-D modeling, diagramming, and photo simulations for more attractive, publishingquality reports and presentations. Monica brings a comprehensive approach that combines technical urban planning knowledge, an emphasis on architecture and design, and a focus on feasibility of implementation.

Monica holds a Master of Architecture from the University of Michigan and a Bachelor of Arts in History from the University of California, Berkeley.

Relevant Project Experience:
• Beaumont, CA | Objective Design Standards
• Belmont, CA | Belmont Village Specific Plan
• Burbank, CA | Single-Family Neighborhood Compatibility and Design • Henderson, NV | Development Code Update
• Honolulu, HI | Downtown and Kalihi Neighborhood TOD Plans and Public Views Study
• Livermore, CA | Isabel Neighborhood Plan and EIR
• Los Altos, CA | Multifamily and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards • Paso Robles | CA, Beechwood Specific Plan
• Piedmont, CA | Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Objective Design Standards, Prototype Plans and Incentives for Accessory Dwelling Units • Portola Valley, CA | Objective Design Standards
• Rancho Cucamonga, CA | Comprehensive Development Code Update and Objective Design Standards
• Redwood City, CA | Citywide Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines • San Bruno, CA | Bayhill Specific Plan
• San Diego, CA | Mission Valley Community Plan - Urban Design • San Jose, CA | Santana Row/Valley Fair and Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Master Plans
• San Pablo, CA | San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan
• Saratoga, CA | Objective Design Standards
• Seal Beach, CA | Objective Design Standards
• South Lake Tahoe, CA | Tahoe Valley Development and Design Standards • South San Francisco, CA | Zoning Code Update and Form Based Code • St. Helena, CA | Zoning Code Update and Zoning Map
• Tehachapi, CA | Oak Tree Village Specific Plan
• Vacaville, CA | Land Use and Development Code Audit
• Woodland, CA | Comprehensive Zoning Code Update

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE

EDUCATION

CERTIFICATIONS & MEMBERSHIPS
Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners
Senior Associate | 2006 – 2018
Kirk Miller Affiliates
Architectural Designer | 2005 – 2006
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Master of Architecture
University of California, Berkeley
B.A., History
American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP)
2017 – Present (#330767)
American Planning Association (APA)
California Chapter Award of Excellence, 2018,
Belmont Village Specific Plan
Hawaii Chapter Honor Award for Urban Design, 2016,
Downtown and Kalihi Neighborhood TOD Plans
California Northern Section Award of Honor for
Neighborhood Planning, 2012, El Camino Real/
Chestnut Avenue Area Plan
Arizona Chapter Award, Master Plan Category, 2009,
Avondale City Center Specific Area Plan
59 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | 870 MARKET STREET, STE 977, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 | 939 S BROADWAY, STE 611, LOS ANGELES, CA 90015 LISAWISECONSULTING.COM ROGER E. EASTMAN, AICP
Director of Development Codes & Planning
Roger brings over 30 years of land use planning experience with an emphasis on writing effective land development codes, form-based codes, code assessments and update strategies, and ensuring consistency and compliance across jurisdictional land use policy.

As the Director of Development Codes and Planning at LWC, Roger is responsible for the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of all Development Code deliverables, with a focus on effective streamlining, best practices, legal compliance, and client satisfaction. Roger also serves on the Steering Committee of the Form-Based Code Institute (FBCI) and is a certified instructor of FBCI training courses.

Roger’s previous experience includes 10 years as the Comprehensive Planning and Code Administrator for the City of Flagstaff where he oversaw a comprehensive Cide-wide Zoning Code Update that won two Arizona APA Chapter awards. Roger also served as Senior Planner with the City of Sedona, AZ from 1991 to 2006.

Relevant Project Experience:
• Austin, TX | Land Development Code Update
• Beaumont, CA | General Plan Update and Zoning Amendments` • Columbus, OH | Zoning Code Assessment and Update Strategy • Compton, CA | Artesia State Transit-Oriented Development Specific Plan • Flagstaff, AZ | Sign Standards and Dark Skies Ordinance Update • Henderson, NV | Development Code Update
• Iowa City, IA | Form-Based Code
• Kingman, AZ | Zoning Code Update
• Las Vegas, NV | Downtown Form-Based Code
• La Quinta, CA | Highway 111 Form-Based Code
• Lompoc, CA | Zoning Code and Sign Code Update
• Marin County, CA | Code Amendments and Sign Code Rewrite • Milpitas, CA | Comprehensive Zoning Code Update
• Orange, CA | Sign Regulations Update
• Pismo Beach, CA | Zoning Code/Local Coastal Plan Update • Portland, ME | Comprehensive Sign Code Update
• Rancho Cucamonga, CA | Comprehensive Development Code Update • Richmond, CA | South Shore Specific Plan
• Riyadh, Saudi Arabia | Strategic Zoning Framework, Form-Based Code Strategy, and Zoning Code Update
• Rohnert Park, CA | Form-Baed Code for the Downtown District • San Carlos, CA | Strategic Zoning Ordinance Amendments • NEOM, Saudi Arabia | Form Based Code Framework and Update. • Tempe, AZ | Transportation Overlay District Code Update • Vacaville, CA | Land Use and Development Code Audit and Update • Vallejo, CA | Zoning Ordinance Update, including Sign Code Update • Westerville, OH | Zoning Code Update

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE

EDUCATION

CERTIFICATIONS & MEMBERSHIPS
City of Flagstaff, AZ
Comprehensive Planning and Code Administrator
April 2006 – June 2016
City of Sedona, AZ
Senior Planner
February 1991 – April 2006
Vincent Leggo & Associates
Consultant Planner
1983 – 1985
University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
B.S., Town and Regional Planning
American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP)
2005 – Present (#019153)
American Planning Association, Arizona Chapter
Treasurer, 2018 – 2019
VP for Professional Development, 2015 – 2017
Member, 1993 – Present
AGIS Supervisors Academy
Certificate in Supervision Skills
60 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | 870 MARKET STREET, STE 977, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 | 939 S BROADWAY, STE 611, LOS ANGELES, CA 90015 LISAWISECONSULTING.COM

CAROLINE CHEN
Associate
Caroline brings expertise in communicating how two-dimensional regulations influence the three-dimensional environment of residential neighborhoods, commercial corridors, and mixed-use zones. She is an expert in using the Adobe Creative Suite, SketchUp, AutoCAD, and other design programs to produce infographics, maps, and 3D models that enhance LWC’s development codes and long-range plans. Caroline also brings experience in researching existing conditions and the assessment of zoning codes and specific plans. Caroline has taken on increasing responsibility, supporting the LWC Team on code updates in Las Vegas, Rancho Cucamonga, St. Helena, South San Francisco, and Woodland.

Caroline’s professional background includes knowledge of the permit application and approval process through her work with San Francisco-based Geddes Ulinskas Architects. She holds a Bachelor of Science in City & Regional Planning and a minor in Landscape Architecture from California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo.

Relevant Project Experience:
• Alameda County, CA | 6th Cycle Housing Element Update • Beaumont, CA | 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, Objective Design Standards, and ADU Ordinance
• Columbus, OH | Zoning Code Update
• La Quinta, CA | Highway 111 Form-Based Code
• Las Vegas, NV | Downtown Form-Based Code
• Milpitas, CA | Zoning Code Update
• Norco, CA | Industrial Standards Update
• Novato, CA | 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
• Piedmont, CA | 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
• Portola Valley, CA | Conceptual Site Plans
• Portola Valley, CA | Zoning Code Amendments
• Rancho Cucamonga, CA | Form-Based Code Revisions
• Riyadh, Saudi Arabia | Riyadh Urban Code
• Saratoga, CA | Objective Design Standards
• Seal Beach, CA | Zoning Code Update
• South San Francisco, CA | Zoning Code Update
• St. Helena, CA | Zoning Code Update
• Vacaville, CA | Development Code Update
• Woodland, CA | Comprehensive Zoning Code Update

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE

EDUCATION
Geddes Ulinskas Architects
Project Designer
September 2019 – January 2021
Urban Planning Concepts
Planning Intern
June 2018 – August 2018
California Polytechnic State University
B.S., City & Regional Planning | San Luis Obispo, CA
Minor in Landscape Architecture
61 LWC Staff Billing Rates - 2024
Staff Level 2024 Hourly Rate
Principal $297
Director $250
Senior Associate $195
Lead Associate $175
Associate $160
Administra�ve Staff $100
62

Page 1 of 5 ends

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 12, 2024
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Brigitte Shearer, Parks and Recreation Director, (650) 595-7488, [email protected]
Agenda Title: Review and Adoption of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan and the Environmental Impact Report Addendum to the 2035 General Plan Agenda Action: Motion
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution to approve the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan and an Addendum to the previously approved adopted Environmental Impact Report developed for the City’s 2035 General Plan.

Strategic Focus Area
Quality of Life
Background
Belmont’s prior Parks and Open Space Master Plan was developed in 1992. Many of the goals within that plan were realized over the past three decades to develop the robust network of parks, fields, and open space that the community enjoys today. Semeria Park, Davey Glen Park, Belameda Park, College View Park, Patricia Wharton Park, Hastings Tot Lot, the Alexander Park permanent restroom, and open space trailheads are all results of that effort.

The City’s 2035 General Plan, adopted in 2017, calls for an updated Master Plan to serve as a guiding framework for the planning, maintenance, development, and rehabilitation of Belmont’s parks, recreation, and open space system implementable over a 15-year horizon.

The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan (PROS Plan) project, initiated in December 2020, has culminated in a final document, organized as follows.

Executive Summary
Part I. Where We Are
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Context
Chapter 3. Existing Conditions
Part II. Where We Want to Be
Chapter 4. Community Input
Chapter 5. Needs Assessment
Chapter 6. Goals
63

Page 2 of 5 ends

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan
Part III. How We Get There
Chapter 7. Strategies
Chapter 8. Recommendations
Chapter 9. Implementation
Appendices
Appendix A. Advisory Committee
Appendix B. Definitions
Appendix C. Park Inventory
Appendix D. NRPA Benchmarks
Appendix E. Amenity Projections
Appendix F. Open Space Management Plan
Appendix G. Prioritization Matrix
Appendix H. Probable Costs
Appendix I. Community Outreach
The PROS Plan project, originally planned for a 12-month effort, was extended by over 2 years to accommodate community outreach challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic and, as a result of stakeholder input, the engagement of a consultant to conduct an Environmental Assessment and Recreation Use Assessment of Belmont’s open space. Open space objectives, policies, and actions are included in the Open Space Management Plan (OSMP) developed by WRA, Inc, environmental consultants specifically engaged to conduct trail, wildlife, and vegetation assessments. The OSMP is included in the appendix of the PROS Plan.

The PROS Plan Advisory Committee held five meetings to review and provide comment on project milestones: March 4, 2021 to review the draft community survey; May 13, 2021 to review survey results and identify focus/stakeholder groups; September 30, 2021 to review draft recommendations for park improvements; April 5, 2022 to review PROS Plan and OSMP efforts to date and remaining tasks; and on May 31, 2022 to review the OSMP.

The Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the parks and park amenities component of the Master Plan during its July 21, 2021 meeting and outdoor recreation programming at its September 1, 2021 meeting. Gates + Associates presented the draft park improvement recommendations at the November 3, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting and at the November 23, 2021 City Council meeting.

Staff also presented the draft park recommendations at the November 18, 2021 Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) meeting. At each Parks and Recreation Commission meeting in the first quarter of 2022 (January 12, February 2, and March 2), selected draft park improvements were presented and the public was encouraged to provide feedback on the Master Plan website, www.BelmontPROSplan.com.

An update on the PROS Plan, including the OSMP component, was presented to City Council on March 22, 2022 and to the Parks and Recreation Commission on May 4, 2022 and July 6, 2022.

The PROS Plan was recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission on July 6, 2022 to the City Council for approval with the following amendments:
• Consolidate the OSMP’s Base Plan and Management Alternatives objectives, policies, and 64

Page 3 of 5 ends

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan
implementation actions into a single plan.
• Clearly present priority recommendations in the OSMP by theme - environmental sustainability, balanced recreation uses and trail management, and natural hazard mitigation. • Pursue the creation of dedicated parkland in downtown Belmont and the Belmont Village Specific Plan area in response to potential residential density increase in the area due to anticipated housing unit development as outlined in the 2023-2031 Housing Element update. • Apply consistent terminology to remove ambiguity.
• Refine specific graphics for clarity.

The PROS Plan (and OSMP) were presented to the City Council on July 12, 2022. Following numerous public comments and further deliberation, Council did not take any further action on the plan at that or a subsequent meeting.

The PROS Master Plan was originally intended to serve exclusively as a planning and feasibility study for the future of the City’s parks and open spaces. This level of planning is statutorily exempt from CEQA analysis at the time of study, though potential projects reflected in the plan are subject to CEQA review before the city commits to proceed with the project. Staff evaluated the totality and degree of specificity of Plan’s draft recommendations, including the OSMP’s recommendations, and believes beginning CEQA review earlier than originally anticipated will benefit the City by (1) streamlining the future CEQA process for initiating individual projects, (2) ensuring timeliness of CEQA review, and (3) providing a fiscally prudent process for CEQA compliance.

WRA was engaged to prepare an initial study (IS) for the plan to determine if further environmental review under CEQA due to changes in the General Plan project, changes in circumstances, or new information.

Analysis
Throughout 2023, Gates + Associates further addressed the amendments recommended by the Commission, and WRA, Inc. comprehensively reviewed the City’s existing environmental impact report (EIR) documents and the extent to which these documents addressed the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Master Plan and Open Space Management Plan (OSMP) recommendations. WRA, Inc. has prepared an EIR Addendum for the PROS Master Plan’s recommendations as amended.

On January 10, 2024, both consultants attended the Parks and Recreation Commission’s regular meeting to reintroduce the PROS Master Plan and its findings and recommendations. The final draft of the PROS Master Plan, including the OSMP and EIR Addendum, have been posted at BelmontPROSplan.com for community review. The community has been advised of the availability of documents through the following outreach channels.
• Website
o Project website (www.belmontprosplan.com)
 Button on home page
 Links at the top of the home page
o City website (www.belmont.gov)
65

Page 4 of 5 ends

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan
 Banner on home page
 Spotlight on Parks and Recreation Department page
• Social media
o Parks and Recreation Department Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter o Citywide Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, NextDoor, and LinkedIn • Direct Email
o Citywide eNews: Jan. 12 (28 unique clicks), Jan. 19 (63 unique clicks), and Feb. 2 (9 unique clicks)
o Parks and Recreation Department eNews: Feb. 5 (32 unique clicks) o Specialty email: Jan. 19 (10,059 recipients, 625 unique clicks) • Announcements/Discussion
o Parks and Recreation Commission: Jan. 10 agenda item (document introduction), Feb. 7 agenda item (recommendation to the City Council)
o City Council: Jan. 23 verbal announcement by Mayor Mates Key Initiatives Summary
This Plan is meant to be a strategic roadmap that can adapt as times and circumstances change. This is even more timely as the City continues to plan its future in a post-Covid19 world. In addition, the financial realities of governments and public agencies nationwide have changed due to reduced revenues, and the Parks and Recreation Department will need to have an even greater emphasis on cost recovery to ensure long-term financial sustainability.

Despite these challenges, the Department's seasoned staff, committed to community’s well-being and fostering a culture of collaboration, teamwork and forward-thinking, are essential for the successful implementation of the Plan.

The following Key Initiatives are the most significant desired outcomes and, when achieved, will serve as the legacy fulfilling the Plan’s vision:
• Increasing the ease of access for all including walking and biking to PROS sites. • Build and maintain multi-generational, multi-use recreation center(s), with replacement of the outdated and failing buildings at the Barrett Community Center site as a priority. • Update outdated and failing park amenities including park restrooms, sports facilities, and infrastructure.
• Focus open space management on enhancing stream crossings, ensuring ADA-compliant access where feasible, implementing seasonal and weather-related maintenance guidelines, monitoring ebike usage, implementing a fuels reduction plan, fostering volunteer programs, integrating trail calming features, and incorporating nature-based recreation initiatives. • Diversify Funding Sources for long-term financial sustainability and plan to meet future levels of service, particularly in areas where development is planned.

At its February 7, 2024 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission’s received a presentation from Gates + Associates and WRA, Inc. and subsequently unanimously recommended that the PROS Plan be presented to the City Council for adoption.
66

Page 5 of 5 ends

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan
Alternatives

1. Take no action

2. Provide further input for additional revisions
Attachments
A. Presentation
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

Approval of the PROS Master Plan does not commit the City to any specific financial obligations. Future PROS Plan
implementation projects will be subject to budget authority and City Council approval. The City has paid a total of $487,144.11 for consultant services to date.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Council Vision/Priority Posting of Agenda
67

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT ADOPTING

THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN AND AN

ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DEVELOPED FOR THE CITY’S 2035 GENERAL PLAN.

WHEREAS, Belmont’s prior Parks and Open Space Master Plan was developed in 1992, with many of its goals realized over past three decades to develop the robust network of parks, fields, and open space that the City enjoys today; and, WHEREAS, the City’s 2035 General Plan, adopted in 2017, calls for an updated Master Plan to be developed to guide Belmont’s park, open space, and outdoor recreation vision, given current and future trends, constraints, and community needs; and, WHEREAS, in September 2020 the City entered into a service agreement with Gates + Associates to develop a Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Master Plan; and, WHEREAS, the PROS Master Plan development included a site inventory and assessment; benchmarking and gap analysis for park sites and amenities; establishment of an advisory committee to provide feedback to the project team and consultants; engagement of an environmental consultant to develop an Open Space Management Plan; and development of outdoor recreation programming, park, and open space improvement recommendations; and, WHEREAS, Gates + Associates and WRA, Inc., environmental consultants, have addressed clarifications recommended by the Parks & Recreation Commission in the PROS Master Plan and Open Space Management Plan, respectively; and, WHEREAS, on October 24, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution 2017-076 certifying a Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont 2035 General Plan, Phase 1/Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan (BVSP), Belmont Village Zoning (BVZ), and Climate Action Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City also engaged WRA, Inc, environmental consultants, to conduct a review of the City’s existing environmental impact report documents and has prepared an EIR Addendum for the recommendations in the PROS Master Plan and Open Space Management Plan as amended (Proposed Project); and,
WHEREAS, following extensive community outreach; the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended the PROS Master Plan and Open Space Management Plan, including all Appendices and EIR Addendum, be presented to Council for adoption; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the EIR Addendum, the comments of the public both oral and written related to the Proposed Project, the staff reports and the materials in the record of the project.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:
68

Page 2 of 2 ends

SECTION 1. The City Council concurs with the EIR Addendum findings and conclusions (attached hereto as Exhibit A) that the Proposed Project does not require a subsequent or supplemental EIR and that the Proposed Project will not result in new or substantially increased significant environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed in the certified 2017 EIR. The Council adopts the EIR Addendum and directs that all feasible mitigation measures included in the 2017 EIR be incorporated into the Proposed Project.

SECTION 2. The City Council adopts the PROS Master Plan and Open Space Management Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
* * *
ADOPTED March 12, 2024 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
69 1750\26\3657182.1
City of Belmont Parks Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Addendum to the City of Belmont General Plan, Phase I Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report City of Belmont, San Mateo County, California
Prepared for: Prepared by:

City of Belmont Parks and Recreation
30 Twin Pines Lane
Belmont, CA 94002
Attn: Brigitte Shearer
[email protected]
WRA, Inc.
2169 G East Francisco Boulevard
San Rafael, CA 94901
Attn: Leslie Lazarotti
[email protected]
January 2024 WRA#31315
70 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
i
1750\26\3657182.1
Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE................................................................................................1

2.0 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR USE OF AN ADDENDUM ................................................................1

2.1 Summary of Findings for Use of an Addendum..........................................................2

3.0 THE APPROVED PROJECT.........................................................................................................2

4.0 THE PROPOSED PROJECT .........................................................................................................3

4.1 Regional Setting ...........................................................................................................3

4.2 Local Setting.................................................................................................................4

5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................8

5.1 PROS Plan Framework .................................................................................................9

5.2 Recommended Improvements ...................................................................................16

5.2.1 Open Space Specific Improvements .............................................................21

6.0 PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS, AND PERMITS..........................................22

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS..................................................................................................23

7.1 Modified Environmental Checklist Form ...................................................................23

7.1.1 Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories...........................................23

7.2 Aesthetics....................................................................................................................25

7.3 Agricultural and Forestry Resources..........................................................................29

7.4 Air Quality...................................................................................................................32

7.5 Biological Resources...................................................................................................37

7.6 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................49

7.7 Energy .........................................................................................................................53

7.8 Geology and Soils.......................................................................................................56

7.9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.........................................................................................64

7.10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................................68

7.11 Hydrology and Water Quality....................................................................................77

7.12 Land Use and Planning..............................................................................................85

7.13 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................88

7.14 Noise ...........................................................................................................................90

7.15 Population and Housing.............................................................................................95

7.16 Public Services............................................................................................................98

7.17 Recreation.................................................................................................................105

7.18 Transportation..........................................................................................................108

7.19 Tribal Cultural Resources .........................................................................................113

7.20 Utilities and Service Systems...................................................................................116 71 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
ii
1750\26\3657182.1

7.21 Wildfire......................................................................................................................122

7.22 Mandatory Findings of Significance........................................................................126

8.0 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................129 List of Tables
Table 1. Park, Recreation, and Open Space Setting ...........................................................................6 Table 2. Park Typologies.......................................................................................................................9 Table 3. PROS Vision and Strategic Actions......................................................................................10 Table 4. Open Space Specific Objectives and Policies......................................................................13 Table 5. Recommended Improvements .............................................................................................18 List of Figures
Figure 1. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Sites.............................................................................5 72 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
iii
1750\26\3657182.1
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ABAG Association of Bay Area Government
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUCP Airport Land Use Planning
ARB California Air Resources Board
BACT best available control technology
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMPs Best Management Practices
BRSSD Belmont-Redwood Shores School District
BVSP Belmont Village Specific Plan
C/CAG City/County Association of Governments
CAP Climate Action Plan
CBC California Building Code
CDC California Department of Conservation
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
City City of Belmont
CNPS California Native Plant Society
County County of San Mateo
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2 equivalent
CWA Clean Water Act
DBH diameter at breast height
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FACW facultative wetland
GHG greenhouse gas
2035 GP 2035 General Plan
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
JUA joint-use agreement
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LOS level of service
MPWD Mid-Peninsula Water District
MRP San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NOx nitrogen oxides
NOx nitrous oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OSMP Open Space Management Plan
PROS Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
PROS Plan City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan ROG reactive organic gasses
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SFO San Francisco International Airport
73 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
iv
1750\26\3657182.1
SJC San Juan Canyon Open Space Area
SP Service Population
SUHSD Sequoia Union High School District
TACs toxic air contaminants
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled
WDL Water Dog Lake Open Space Area
WUI Wildland Urban Interface
74 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
1 1750\26\3657182.1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The draft City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan (PROS Plan) is a strategic, forward-looking document that ultimately identifies decision-making framework and recommendations to plan, maintain, develop, and rehabilitate the City of Belmont’s (City) network of parks, recreation, and open space (Gates + Associates, WRA Environmental Consultants, 2022). The preparation of the PROS Plan was in response to Policy 4.1-1 of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element of the 2035 General Plan (2035 GP) (City of Belmont, et al., 2017). This policy required an update to the 1992 City of Belmont Parks and Open Space Master Plan (Callander Associates, 1992). The PROS Plan studies the existing park system, outdoor recreation facilities and programming, and open spaces, including identifying goals, strategic actions, policies, and recommending park and open space improvements to be implemented over the next fifteen years.

Through the PROS Plan engagement process, public interest in the City’s open space areas led to immediate implementation of Goal 7 in the PROS Plan: Develop and Implement an Open Space Management Plan (OSMP) – rather than implementation after completion of the PROS Plan. The OSMP was prepared based on an environmental assessment, a recreation assessment, and public input and is included in its entirety as Appendix G in the PROS Plan. OSMP components including existing conditions, management objectives, policies, and recommended actions are integrated within the PROS Plan framework. The PROS Plan is inclusive of the OSMP.

The potential impacts that may result from the adoption and implementation of the PROS Plan (hereafter referred to as the Proposed Project) are examined in this EIR Addendum to the certified City of Belmont General Plan, Phase I Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report (2017 EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2016082075) (City of Belmont, et al., 2017). The parks, recreation sites, and open spaces addressed in the Proposed Project lie within the geographic boundaries of the 2035 GP and potential impacts relate to the 2017 EIR. Two additional EIRs were reviewed and found to not fully apply to the Proposed Project including: 1987 San Juan Hills Area Plan EIR (SCH No. 198122320) (Larry Seeman Associates, Inc., 1987), and 1989 Western Hills Area Plan EIR (SCH No. 1989051615) (Tyler, 1989).

2.0 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR USE OF AN ADDENDUM
Section 15164 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that an addendum to a previously certified EIR shall be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary to the previously certified document, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred. Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies the conditions of a project that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR, such that an Addendum to the prior EIR would not be permitted under CEQA. A proposed change in a project will require preparation of a subsequent EIR if:

A. The change in the project is substantial. Substantial changes in the project are those that would require major revisions of the certified 2017 EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or if a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects has occurred.
75 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
2 1750\26\3657182.1
B. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken have substantially changed.

Substantial changes in circumstances are those that would require major revisions of the 2017 EIR to describe and analyze new significant environmental effects, or any changes that would cause a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects.

C. 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 environmental impact report was certified as complete shows any of the following:

1. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the 2017 EIR.

2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the 2017 EIR.

3. 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.

4. 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.

2.1 Summary of Findings for Use of an Addendum
Based on evaluation of the Proposed Project and the prepared analysis (Chapter 7), it has been determined that the Proposed Project does not meet the above criteria requiring a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR:

A. The potential impacts resulting from Proposed Project align with the Approved Project impacts discussed in the 2017 EIR and policies within the Recreation and Conservation Elements in the 2035 GP which would not result in substantial changes to the 2017 EIR or the severity of previously identified impacts.

B. The circumstances have not substantially changed between the certification of the 2017 EIR and the preparation of the PROS Plan in 2022.

C. No new information of substantial importance shows the above criteria.

This Addendum demonstrates that the Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially increased significant environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed in the 2017 EIR certified by the City. The City must incorporate all feasible mitigation measures included in the 2017 EIR into the Proposed Project. The City of Belmont is the lead agency under CEQA and maintains authority to approve this Addendum.

3.0 THE APPROVED PROJECT
The 2017 EIR analyzes the potential impacts of the 2035 GP, Phase I Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan (BVSP), and Climate Action Plan (CAP), collectively referred to hereafter as the Approved Project. The 2035 GP presents a vision for the City centered around five key vision statement categories including: Distinctive community development, Easy mobility, Natural beauty, Thriving culture, and Thriving economy. This vision is structured through goals, policies, and actions across six elements including: Land use, Circulation, Parks, Recreation, and Open 76 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
3 1750\26\3657182.1
Space, Conservation, Safety, and Noise, which guide future development through the year 2035.

Phase I Zoning is included as the first step in implementing the 2035 GP land use policies. The BVSP outlines a roadmap for potential development surrounding the Caltrain station. The Climate Action Plan (CAP) provides strategies for reducing the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Several potential impacts resulting from the Approved Project were analyzed in the 2017 EIR and are applicable to the Proposed Project including:
• impacts to biological resources like the development of vacant parcels currently consisting of native habitat;
• construction equipment and operations of development impacting air quality; • impacts to hydrology and water quality through contamination of surface water from construction or industrial activities, increased amounts of impervious surfaces, and altered drainage patterns;
• construction equipment and activities resulting in noise impacts • increased population resulting in wear and tear on park, recreation, and open space facilities; and
• development of new parks and recreational facilities potentially resulting in habitat disturbance, increased exposure of sensitive habitats to human activity, introduction of invasive species.

The Approved Project encompasses the range of potential impacts discussed in the 2017 EIR that could also result from the Proposed Project.

4.0 The Proposed Project
Project Title
City of Belmont Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Belmont Parks and Recreation
30 Twin Pines Lane
Belmont, CA 94002
Contact Person and Phone Number
Brigitte Shearer
Director of Parks and Recreation
City of Belmont
(650) 595-7488

4.1 Regional Setting
The Proposed Project is located entirely within the City of Belmont in San Mateo County (County).

Belmont lies about halfway between San Francisco and San José along the San Francisco peninsula, bounded by the cities of San Mateo, San Carlos, Redwood City, Foster City and unincorporated County land. The City’s boundaries extend roughly from Highway 280 in the west past Highway 101 in the east and comprises about 4.7 square miles. The City has a population of around 27,000 residents as of 2022 (United States Census Bureau, 2022). 77 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
4 1750\26\3657182.1

4.2 Local Setting
The Proposed Project consists of consists of 15 developed parks (60 acres), two undeveloped parks (6.5 acres), two open spaces areas (317 acres), and four schools (13 acres) under a jointuse agreement (JUA) with Belmont Redwood Shores School District (collectively referred to hereafter as the Planning Area; Figure 1). The parks and school sites are distributed across the City, while the open space areas are located near the western boundary of the City.

Park, school and open space areas in the City are typically surrounded by residential neighborhoods and other parks and recreational areas. Table 1 shows adjacent land uses, location (addresses), area (acres), as well as land use and zoning designations for each park, school, and open space area in the Proposed Project. More information about land use designations may be found in the 2035 GP Land Use Element (pages 2-16, 2-18), and updated zoning designations may be found in Figure 3-5 of the 2017 EIR.

Two developed parks have individual plans that were previously prepared, separate from the PROS Plan. The Belmont Community Center Conceptual Design Report was prepared for the Barrett Community Center, identified as number 2 in Figure 1 (Group 4 Architecture, 2020). The Twin Pines Park Master Plan was prepared for Twin Pines Park identified as number 21 in Figure 1 (Gates + Associates, 2019). These previously prepared plans are subject to separate CEQA review and will not be analyzed in this EIR Addendum. The Proposed Project includes interim recommendations for these Barrett Community Center and Twin Pines Park that will be addressed in this EIR Addendum.

The four schools that allow public access to fields for recreation under JUA’s are Central Elementary School, Fox Elementary School, Nesbit Elementary School, and Ralston Middle School (numbered 5, 9, 14, 17 respectively in Figure 1)
Identified by numbers 12 and 18 in Figure 1, Hidden Canyon Park and Ralston Ranch Park respectively represent the undeveloped parks which the Proposed Project recommends building out into developed parks. Hidden Canyon Park (4.8 acres) on Carlmont Drive currently contains a paved road and gravel parking lot, in addition to fencing, a bench, portable toilet and ruderal vegetation. Ralston Ranch Park, across from 1 Ralston Ranch Road (1.3 acres), currently does not contain any structures and has a variety of planted trees. The remainder of the developed park areas exist within developed land uses and typically contain developed amenities like paved paths, play structures, picnic areas, fields, and sport courts.

The two open space areas that currently exist within the City are San Juan Canyon (SJC; 35 acres) identified by number 19 in Figure 1, and Waterdog Lake (WDL; 283 acres) identified by number 23 in Figure 1. Both open space areas contain trails through chaparral, oak woodland, and riparian habitats.

Note that the PROS Plan includes potential recommendations for “Opportunity Sites” which are locations that are not currently owned or managed by the City’s Parks and Recreation department, but could be developed into parks. Because these opportunities are examples of creative ways to add more parks to the City and current zoning and land use designations are not identified, these sites and their associated recommendations are not analyzed in this EIR Addendum. If the City later decides to create new parks, associated impacts to those areas will be evaluated at that time.
78 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
5 1750\26\3657182.1
Figure 1. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Sites
79 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
6 1750\26\3657182.1
Table 1. Park, Recreation, and Open Space Setting

PARK, RECREATION,

OR OPEN SPACE
AREA
2035 GENERAL

PLAN LAND USE

DESIGNATION
2035

GENERAL
PLAN
ZONING

DESIGNATION

ADJACENT LAND USES LOCATION ACREAGE

1. Alexander Park Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential and
General/Retail/Commercial/Mixed Use
400 block of
Yorkshire Way

1.3 2. Barrett
Community Center
Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential/Neighborhood Commercial 1834 Belburn Drive

5.1 3. Belameda Park Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential/Neighborhood Commercial 1110 Alameda de las Pulgas

3.0 4. Belmont Sports
Complex
Public/Community
Facilities
Public Highway 101/Regional Commercial/Open
Space/Office Commercial
550 Island
Parkway

11.0 5. Central
Elementary School
Public/Community
Facilities
Public Mixed Use/Residential 525 Middle
Road

1.9 6. Cipriani Park Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential/Public/Community
Facilities/Institution
2525 Buena
Vista Avenue

6.0 7. College View Park Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential/Institution 1 College View
Way

0.1 8. Davey Glen Park Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential 500 Davey Glen
Road

0.1 9. Fox Elementary
School
Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential/Open Space 3100 St. James
Road

3.5 10. Hallmark Park Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential 2599 Hastings
Drive

5.2 11. Hasting Tot Lot
Park
Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential/Open Space 2400 Hastings
Drive

0.3 80
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
7 1750\26\3657182.1

12. Hidden Canyon
Park
Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential/Open Space End of
Carlmont Drive

4.8 13. McDougal Park Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential/Public/Community Facilities 1405 Solana Drive

4.5 14. Nesbit
Elementary School
Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential 500 Biddulph
Way

3.1 15. O’Donnell Park Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential/Belmont Village Mixed Use 400 block of Ralston Avenue

0.9 16. Patricia Wharton
Park
Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential Notre Dame
Avenue/Middle
Road

0.1 17. Ralston Middle
School
Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential/Open Space/Office
Commercial
2675 Ralston
Avenue

4.3 18. Ralston Ranch
Park
Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential/Open Space Across from 1
Ralston Ranch
Road

1.3 19. San Juan Canyon Open Space Open Space Open Space/Residential 4122 Marston Avenue

35.0 20. Semeria Park Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential 2322 Casa
Bona Avenue

0.1 21. Twin Pines Park Public/Community
Facilities
Public Belmont Village Mixed
Use/Institution/Residential
30 Twin Pines
Lane

21.1 22. Wakefield Park Public/Community
Facilities
Public Residential Wakefield
Drive/Elder
Drive

1.0 23. Waterdog Lake Open Space Open Space Residential/Open Space/Public/Community Facilities/Office
Commercial
Across from
2839 Hallmark
Drive
282.5
81 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
8 1750\26\3657182.1

5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Proposed Project would adopt and implement the PROS Plan which provides an inventory of the existing parks, school sites, and open space areas and a forward-looking roadmap for the system over the next 15 years. The PROS Plan is organized into three major chapters; existing conditions (“Where we are”), desired future conditions (“Where we want to be”), and implementation recommendations (“How we get there”).

The existing conditions (“Where are we”) of parks and recreation facilities are described by categorizing sites into specific park typology that correlates increasing use intensity with providing more amenities (Table 2). Previous planning efforts including the 1992 City of Belmont Parks and Open Space Master Plan and 2035 GP used the categories Mini Park, Neighborhood Park, Community Park, and Special Facility. These categories were refined through the PROS Plan site assessments, community input, and conversations with Parks and Recreation staff to Tier 1 Neighborhood Park, Tier 2 Neighborhood Park, and Community Park.

Each typology has intrinsic expectations and character, identified minimum standards, referred to as Standard Baseline Amenities that they must provide, anticipated methods of travel to the site from a visitor’s residence, and an access radii associated with the site’s intensity of use. The Standard Baseline Amenities for each typology was used as the starting point for recommended improvements discussed in Chapter 5.2 of this document. Access Radii (the area around a park identified for prioritized bike and pedestrian transportation access) is a means to address areas of Belmont where residents are underserved by parks spaces because they are not easily accessible. The Access Radii have been revised from the 1992 City of Belmont Parks and Open Space Master Plan Services Areas to better account for the hilly terrain and lack of sidewalks in the western portion of the City.

Open space areas are excluded from the typology categorization as they do not require a minimum or maximum size and do not have the same requirements for Standard Baseline Amenities. Open space areas are minimally improved, provide opportunities for hiking, biking, running, dog walking, and passive enjoyment of nature, as well as a focus on native habitat conservation. Existing conditions of open space areas were evaluated through an Environmental Assessment and Recreation Use Assessment and Benchmarking which described the biological resources and recreation uses respectively (PROS Plan pages 86-111). 82 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
9 1750\26\3657182.1
Table 2. Park Typologies
TIER 1

NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK
TIER 2 NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK

COMMUNITY PARK
Character Nature and
Neighborhood
Social Space
Nature. Group
Gathering, and Play
Nature, Community
Gathering,
Recreation and Play
Uses + Users Passive
Individuals to Small
groups
Passive + Active
Individuals to Medium
groups
Passive + Active
Individual to Large groups
Standard
Baseline
Amenities

1. Natural
Environment

2. Seating

3. Identifiable
Amenity

1. Natural Environment

2. Seating

3. Play Amenity

4. Picnic Opportunity

5. Multi-Purpose Flexible
Space

6. Recreation Amenity

1. Natural Environment

2. Seating

3. Play Amenity

4. Picnic Opportunity

5. Multi-Purpose Flexible
Space

6. Recreation Amenity

7. Off-Street Parking

8. Permanent Restroom

9. Multi-Use Athletic Field
or Community Facility
Size No Size Requirements
Typically less than 1
acre
No Size Requirements
Over 2 acres should
provide off-street parking
No Size Requirements
Transport Modes Walking
Biking
Walking
Biking
Some Driving
Walking
Biking
Driving
Access Radii 0.25 mile 0.5 mile entire city
Previous Planning Mini park Neighborhood park Community Park Special Facility

5.1 PROS Plan Framework
Through extensive public engagement, desired future conditions (“Where we want to be”) were developed resulting in four Big Ideas: The City as Your Backyard, Outdoor Recreation for All, Celebrate the Outdoors, and Environmental and Financial Sustainability. Serving each big idea are goals and strategic actions which make up the overarching PROS Plan vision framework presented in Table 3. Nested within this framework, under Goal 7: Develop and Implement an Open Space Management Plan, are open space specific objectives and policies. These open space specific objectives and policies are presented in Table 4. Tables 3 and 4 represent only the strategic actions and policies that have potential to affect the environment; some may have the potential to impact the environment, and some provide best practices that would reduce environmental impacts. For the full list of strategic actions and policies see Chapter 7 in the PROS Plan.
83 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
10 1750\26\3657182.1
Table 3. PROS Vision and Strategic Actions
Big Idea Goal Example Strategic Actions
The City as
Your
Backyard

1. Support a
Connected Belmont
by Encouraging a
Robust Pedestrian,
Bicycle, and Public
Transit Network
Unifying PROS Sites
across the City.

1.B: An Interconnect Toolkit is a means to facilitate active transportation to and between parks. Beyond routes to
increase ease of access to draft PROS sites for walking, biking, and public transport, the Toolkit should consider bike racks, water stations (with bottle-filling and dog bowls), bike repair stations, seating, and route information, along the preferred interconnections. Guide the Belmont to create connections and increase access to the existing PROS sites.

1.E: Provide multi-use trail links to and through open space in and around Belmont. Consider the tail network as a means to increase pedestrian connectivity across the City. Explore opportunities for easements to expand the multi-use trail network.

2. Foster A Healthy
Community Through
Spaces, Amenities,
Programs, And Public
Art To Encourage
Physical Activity,
Social Interaction,
And Highlight
Belmont’s Culture.

2.A: Develop amenities to facilitate physical exercise in parks and open spaces, such as looped walking paths and fitness equipment.

2.B: Social gathering spaces are an intrinsic element of our public parks and open spaces—a bench to chat with a
neighbor, a picnic table to eat with friends, a reservable picnic area to host an outdoor celebration event. In addition to providing a natural, green area, parks serve as a gathering space, with playgrounds, picnic tables and grills, sports fields, and other facilities bringing together adults and children from all corners of Belmont.

2.C: Prioritize upgraded or new amenities or programs that promote physical activity and mental health for all ages, abilities, and interests.

3. Expand and
Enhance the Existing
PROS System to
Meet Evolving
Community Needs by
Establishing New
Uses, Improved
Spaces, and a
Variety of Recreation
Amenities.

3.B Belmont has limited opportunity to increase parkland acreage since it is almost built out. There are areas and neighborhoods of Belmont that have low access to and are under-served by parkland. A method to fill the gap and
increase parkland is a “pop-up” park installation. A “popup” park installation can take many forms. • Parklets increase community gathering space by
rethinking an under-utilized public space (commonly
auto-oriented) such as on-street parallel parking
spots or off-street parking lots. The installation of
parklets since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic
has skyrocketed; they can be temporary or
developed as a more permanent conversion of
under-utilized public realm.
• A mobile recreation vehicle brings recreation and
play (i.e., portable basketball hoops, skate ramps,
wellness class materials, arts and crafts, board
games, etc.) to an under-served area of Belmont or
to an existing PROS site to invigorate or supplement
84 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
11 1750\26\3657182.1
existing amenities and increase programming at a
site for day or more.
• “Pop-up” play installations are movable play
materials that can be in a PROS site to supplement a
community, test a play amenity without committing
to permanent installation, or increase the experience
at a site for a period of time or planned event; they
can rotate through PROS sites or be a one-off
installation.

3.C: Pursue opportunities to increase parkland acreage
wherever possible. Capitalize on remnant or underutilized areas of City-owned land to craft new public green spaces.

3.G: Consider increasing off-leash space for dog running, events, and exercise.
3I: Consider means and methods to increase efficient year round use of athletic fields. Include reduction in water use and increase groundwater run off in the evaluation of
synthetic turf.

3.J: Evaluate fields and courts across the City for the opportunity to provide lighted facilities for evening recreation and play.

Outdoor
Recreation for
All

4. Leverage assets
of the pros system to
support community
health providing
diverse, equitable,
and inclusive spaces
and amenities with
accessible routes.

4.A: Prioritize park renovations, improvements, and
development in neighborhoods that are less-served by
existing PROS offerings.

4.C: Provide adequate and conveniently located comfort
features such as seating and shade.
4E: All amenities and spaces within a park should be
accessible by a safe path of travel.
4F: As play equipment ages and is identified for
replacement, design new play space for inclusivity and
accessibility. All Community Parks in Belmont should only upgrade existing playgrounds with all-abilities playgrounds going forward.

5. Revitalize the
PROS System to be
Adaptable, Flexible,
and Supportive of
Many Uses and Users
Now and into the
Future
5B: Incorporate looped walking paths within, as connections to, and through parks as safe, accessible, and pleasant experiences to walk or roll.

6. Partner with a
Variety of Agencies,
Departments,
Volunteer Groups,
Other Entities, and
the Community to
Actualize PROS Plan
Goals and Policies.

6.F: Continue to utilize JUA’s to expand the available PROS sites. Discuss improvements of JUA sites and amenities to benefit the public’s use.
85 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
12 1750\26\3657182.1
Celebrate
Open Space

7. Develop and
Implement an Open
Space Management
Plan.

The concurrently developed OSMP identified objectives and policies described in Chapter 5.2.1.

8. Expand
Educational
Opportunities in
Parks and Open
Spaces to Highlight
the Local
Ecosystems.

8.E: Improve public access and education for the Belmont Creek waterway when restoring or enhancing the riparian habitat.

9. Continue to Enrich
Belmont’s Outdoor
Recreation
Opportunities with
Trail Improvements,
Volunteer
Collaborations, and
Wayfinding Features.

9.B: Offer areas of respite, such as benches with shade and trail rest points.

9.C: Create trails to vista points or activity spaces that are accessible as possible given terrain constraints.

9.D: Identify locations where trails can be improved to established in open space to connect the City to other open space areas neighboring Belmont such as Sugarloaf
Mountain.

Environmental
and Financial
Sustainability

10. Nurture the
Ecological Strength
of the Belmont’s
Natural Resources
through Resourceefficient Landscapes
and Operations.

10.B: Consider permeable paving options when replacing
non-permeable paths.

10.C: Increase shade and tree canopy across the City with succession tree planting and monitoring of existing trees.

10.D: Use native, drought-tolerant, low-water plants in all park projects.

10.E: Utilize the OSMP to address trail erosion impacts.

11. Provide HighQuality, Actively
Managed, And WellMaintained Pros
Assets Supported By
A Range Of Funding
Sources.

12. Prioritize
Sustainable,
Resilient, And
Responsible
Management And
Maintenance
Practices,
Improvements, And
Projects At Pros
Sites.

12.B: Continue to support and implement the CAP.

12.C: Integrate stormwater treatment, detention, and storage systems into all parks.

12.E: Transition to LED when replacing and upgrading
lighting with special consideration given to minimizing light pollution.
86 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
13 1750\26\3657182.1
Table 4. Open Space Specific Objectives and Policies
Theme Objective Example Policy Description
Environmental
Sustainability
Vegetation
Protection
P.1: Limit trail construction, and facility development in riparian and other wetland areas (and associated buffers) to protect them from disturbance. Recreational, educational, and other
programmatic activities should be conducted in previously developed areas, when possible, to minimize impacts to
riparian/wetland areas.

P.2: Monitor open space conditions with an emphasis on
documenting the location, distribution, and abundance of special-status plants and plant communities, native grasses, wildflowers, and other native flora.

P.3: Align or relocate, modify trails to avoid impacting sensitive habitats such as wetlands and areas where endangered species are present. Avoid aligning trails along the boundaries of sensitive habitats.

P.4: Protect riparian ecosystems and habitat to maintain natural hydrologic process, water quality, and wildlife benefits. If necessary, enhance and restore riparian habitats to improve function.

P.5: Protect common native plant species from disturbance, such as trampling, and disease, such as Sudden Oak Death.

P.6: Monitor and control exotic or nuisance plant species.

P.7: Preserve and enhance riparian, stream, and other wetland communities locally and in coordination with other agencies to continue providing important habitat networks.

Wildlife
Protection
P.8: Monitor sensitive terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species in terms of their presence/absence and potential to occur on City of Belmont open space lands. For all ground disturbing activities conduct protocol level preconstruction surveys.

P.9: Avoidance of sensitive wildlife species, critical breeding or nesting seasons, and critical breeding or nesting habitats during trail or facility construction.

P.10: Protect common native wildlife species from disturbance, and disease.

P.11: Preserve and enhance native wildlife habitat locally and in coordination with other agencies to continue protecting important habitat networks.

Water
Resources
P.12: Protect surface and ground water from chemical contamination.

P.13: Minimize unnatural soil erosion and sedimentation of waters and wetlands.

Sciencebased
management
P.14: Develop performance measures when designing City projects for the purpose of open space management and collect monitoring data to evaluate project success.

P.15: Designation and evaluation of trail improvement project proposals will be based the environmental sustainability and on best available data, including inventories of wildlife, and vegetation resources. The City will undertake site specific and programmatic efforts to extend and improve upon the biological data and recreational benefits underlying its decision-making criteria
87 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
14 1750\26\3657182.1
Theme Objective Example Policy Description
Expand
ability
P. 18: Expand volunteer restoration programs subject to established protocols to ensure optimal environmental protection
Balanced
Recreation Uses
Balanced
uses
P.19: Trail access should be provided for a range of user capabilities and needs (including persons with physical limitations) in a manner consistent with State and Federal regulations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas will inform trail improvement and maintenance where conditions permit.

P.20: Design and improve trails to facilitate safe trail use by all visitors with a focus toward slowing travel speeds, adjusting sight lines for safety and speed calming, and establishing safe passing zones.

P.21: The City may prohibit certain trail uses or apply increased trail use restrictions within certain areas to enhance safety, minimize conflicts between trail users, and protect natural resources in sensitive resource areas.

Trail
management
P.24: Authorized trailheads include site and trail identifying signage, allowed uses, posted trail map, garbage can with securable lid, and a dog waste bag dispenser.

P.25: Monitor and evaluate open space trail conditions on City open space lands to identify significant erosion, informally created trails, trail redundancy or otherwise unnecessary trail segments.

P.26: Maintain trails by improving drainage, hardening, widening based on critical evaluations, and in accordance with trail building standards in Chapter 3.5.3, or equivalent sources.

P.27: Conduct any grading activities necessary for trail maintenance before soil conditions inhibit their excavation, movement, and compacting.

P.28: Modification to any open space resources on open space lands is prohibited unless authorized personnel have given express approval to perform such tasks, including trail construction, improvement, closing, or decommissioning trails.

P.30: Evaluate opportunities to construct new trails that could connect with other regional trails, with existing City recognized trails, and by designating other trails not currently formally recognized as part of the City’s open space trail system.

P.31: Evaluate opportunities to implement trail calming design features.

User
compatibility
P.32: To provide visitor opportunities to experience natural sounds, no amplified sounds – i.e. portable speakers – are allowed on open space lands unless expressly approved as part of a group activity permit.

P.34: Use of Belmont open space lands is subject to the City’s existing regulations. Including: hours of operation and, and entry into Waterdog Lake is prohibited.

Enhance
Partnerships
P37: Identify locations where trails can be improved or established in open space to connect the City and other open space areas neighboring Belmont, such as Sugarloaf Mountain. Coordinate with San Mateo County and the City of San Mateo.
88 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
15 1750\26\3657182.1
Theme Objective Example Policy Description
Natural Hazard
Mitigation
Wildfire
hazards
P.38: Evaluate the potential to reduce forest fuel loading through the removal of smaller trees to reduce forest floor fuel buildup and ladder fuels.

P.40: Prohibit activities that have a high risk of sparking fires during periods of extreme fire hazard.

P.41: Close open space areas of particular concern during extreme fire weather, as determined by San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department, and increase patrol levels where appropriate.

P.42: Consider use of a grazing program to reduce grassland fuels, brush encroachment, and encourage the vigor of native grass and forb species.

P.43: Manage scrub, shrub, and chaparral communities to maintain a mosaic of ages and species within strategic management
corridors on roads, ridgetops, and near residential development or other critical infrastructure to compartmentalize preserves and reduce fuel loads.

P.44: Minimize and reduce ground disturbance, erosion, and rehabilitation efforts associated with heavy machinery fire suppression.

P.46: Limb fallen trees/branches to reduce aerial fuels along trails.

Protect life
and property
P.47: Manage dead and dying trees to limit wind throw and falling trees and limbs.

P.48: Manage severe erosion areas on hill slopes and near/within streams.

P.49: Respond to trail and open space impacts resulting from severe weather, landslides, or other natural events.

Improve
cooperative
planning
P.51: Partner with abutting property owners to manage adjacent vegetation and fuel levels.

P.52: Work with PG&E to identify areas where wildlife risks could be reduced through increased vegetation management and/or
transmission line undergrounds.
89 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
16 1750\26\3657182.1

5.2 Recommended Improvements
Based on public engagement, park typologies, and associated strategic actions and policies, recommended improvements or actions for the parks, recreation, and open space areas in the Proposed Project were identified. These recommended improvements represent the implementation recommendations chapter (“How do we get there”) of the PROS Plan. Table 5 provides an overview of potential actions that may take place at the sites identified in the Proposed Project. These actions are grouped by Accessibility, Amenity, and Landscape improvements. These actions are discussed briefly below and in greater detail in Chapter 8 of the PROS plan.

Accessibility: The Accessibility classification includes subcategories which increase and/or improve multi-modal access (e.g., car, bicycle, wheelchair, and pedestrian traffic). Accessibility improvements are intended to ensure that community members of different needs and abilities have equal opportunities to enjoy City parks and facilities. Examples of each subcategory include:
• Path additions – adding new paths where there was previously none, increasing path connectivity within park via creating looped paths;
• Path improvements for accessibility – minor repairs or improvements to existing paths or rebuilding path components (e.g., entrance stairs, ramps, and pathways) to bring up to ADA standards, improving existing connections to park facilities and equipment; • Add Wi-Fi/technology improvements;
• Improve neighborhood connectivity – adding crosswalk to connect to adjacent park, trail, school, community gathering location (schools);
• Parking – increasing standard and/or ADA parking spots, increasing off-street parking spots, adding bike repair stations;
• Placemaking – increasing visibility, adding art, murals, entrance improvements.

Amenity: Park amenities are centered around things that park users directly interact with, like sports fields, park benches, play equipment, water fountains, and BBQs. • Improve existing facilities - facilities are larger footprint features like sport courts, gathering spaces, bike skills track, play structures, and shade structures. Improvements include; resurfacing and restriping ball courts to increase use options; repairs, and rejuvenating/modernizing spaces; and rejuvenating outdoor classroom space. • Improving existing equipment – equipment differs from facilities in that it takes up a smaller footprint and consist of individual items like outdoor fitness equipment, benches, picnic tables, bike repair station, BBQ, storage shed, trashcans, smaller play structure elements, drinking fountains, and fencing. Improvements include: equipment repairs and relocation of equipment to optimize use; reorienting benches to improve view; and creating safety barriers between play structures and busy streets. • Adding facilities and equipment.
• Programming: includes partnership/coordination with schools, creating reservation systems for equipment and facilities, creating accessible social gathering spaces.

Landscape: Landscaping features are focused on the natural landscape that people passively interact with and provide an equally important role in improving user experience. The proposed landscaping actions feature environmental benefits, such as increasing the use of native plants increases habitat and food sources for endemic wildlife. Additional examples include:
90 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
17 1750\26\3657182.1
• Planting additional native landscaping;
• Maintain existing landscaping (monitor and replace as needed); • Interpretation additions (educational signage, wayfinding); and • Synthetic turf (transition some existing fields into synthetic turf). 91 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
18 1750\26\3657182.1
Table 5. Recommended Improvements
Accessibility Amenity Landscape
Park Name
Path additionsPath improvementsTechnologyNeighborhood connectivityParkingImprove facilitiesImprove equipmentAdd facilitiesAdd equipmentProgrammingRestroomAdd native landscapingMaintain landscapingAdd InterpretationAdd synthetic turf Alexander
Park X X X X X X
Barrett
Community
Center*
Belameda
Park X X X X X
Belmont
Sports
Complex

X X X X
Central
Elementary
School
X X X
Cipriani
Park X X X X X X
College
View Park X X X X
Davey Glen
Park X X
Fox
Elementary
School
X
92 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
19 1750\26\3657182.1
Accessibility Amenity Landscape
Park Name
Path additionsPath improvementsTechnologyNeighborhood connectivityParkingImprove facilitiesImprove equipmentAdd facilitiesAdd equipmentProgrammingRestroomAdd native landscapingMaintain landscapingAdd InterpretationAdd synthetic turf Hallmark
Park X X X X X X
Hastings
Tot Lot
Park

X X X X X X X X
Hidden
Canyon
Park

X X X X X X X X
McDougal
Park X X X X X X X X X
Nesbit
School X
O’Donnell
Park X X X X X
Patricia
Wharton
Park

X X X X X
Ralston
Middle
School
X X
Ralston
Ranch Park X X X X X X X
93 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
20 1750\26\3657182.1
Accessibility Amenity Landscape
Park Name
Path additionsPath improvementsTechnologyNeighborhood connectivityParkingImprove facilitiesImprove equipmentAdd facilitiesAdd equipmentProgrammingRestroomAdd native landscapingMaintain landscapingAdd InterpretationAdd synthetic turf San Juan
Canyon** X X X
Semeria
Park X X X
Twin Pines
Park*
Wakefield
Park X X X X
Waterdog
Lake** X X X X
*Improvements identified for these locations reflect interim improvements recommended by the PROS Plan, improvements required for implementation of the previously prepared plans are not discussed (refer to Chapter 4.2 of this document). **These open space areas have different types of improvements recommended and discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.2.1. 94 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
21 1750\26\3657182.1

5.2.1 Open Space Specific Improvements
Recommended improvements in the SJC and WDL open space areas are focused on improving trails and native vegetation, as well as implementing on-site programming and interpretation under the Proposed Project. The recommended improvements described below refer to those which are priorities for implementation (see Chapter 8 of the PROS Plan).1 Trail improvements. Recommendations for trail improvements following the trail construction best practices presented on pages 228-232 of the PROS Plan includes the following:
• Improve trail stream crossings at four primary locations in WDL. • Improve trail conditions at three primary locations in WDL. • Improve three trail segments to comply with ADA regulations. • Add trail calming features in steep/narrow areas.

Programming. Recommendations for open space programming within SJC and WDL, including the following:
• Study visitor perceptions and measure visitor use (generally and focused on e-bikes); • Manage trail use to improve visitor experiences;
• Increase nature-based recreation programs; and
• Formalize volunteer restoration programs.

Interpretation. Recommendations for open space area interpretation within SJC and WDL, including the following:
• Improve wayfinding and site identification signage; and • Add Sudden Oak Death decontamination stations and signage.

Maintain landscaping. Recommendations for landscape/vegetation maintenance within SJC and WDL, including the following:
• Develop annual wildfire fuel reduction treatment plan; • Maintain existing wildfire fuel treatment areas in WDL; • Evaluate wildfire fuel conditions in SJC;
• Conduct protocol-level surveys for special status plant and wildlife species with potential to occur within a specific area;
• Implement early detection and response procedures for invasive plant species; and • Restore and monitor native plant communities, such as bunchgrasses. 1 Additional discussion of recommendations and implementation actions can be found in Chapter 9 of the PROS Plan.
95 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
22 1750\26\3657182.1

6.0 PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS, AND

PERMITS
The information contained in this EIR Addendum will be used by the City (the CEQA Lead Agency) as it considers whether to adopt and implement the Proposed Project. If the Proposed Project is adopted, the EIR addendum would be used by the City and responsible and trustee agencies in conjunction with various approvals and permits. These actions include, but may not be limited to, the following approvals by the agencies indicated. Permits would only be needed for a subset of implementation actions that cause ground disturbance or alter jurisdictional waters (state or federal).

CITY OF BELMONT
• Adoption of Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan • Grading Permit

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
• Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement for trail stream crossing improvements.

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
• Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit for trail stream crossing improvements.

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
• 401 Water Quality Certification for trail stream crossing improvements. 96 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
23 1750\26\3657182.1

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Proposed Project.

Aesthetics Greenhouse Gases Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Recreation Air Quality Hydrology and Water Quality Transportation / Traffic Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Tribal Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities
Energy Noise Wildfire
Geology and Soils Population and Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance This Addendum demonstrates that the Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially increased significant environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed in the 2017 EIR certified by the City. The City must incorporate all feasible mitigation measures included in the 2017 EIR into the Proposed Project. The City of Belmont is the lead agency under CEQA and maintains authority to approve this Addendum.

The purpose of the checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changed condition” (e.g., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental effect (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) that would require further environmental review (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162).

The questions posed in the checklist come from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The explanation of the checklist evaluation categories is provided in Chapter 7.1 below.

7.1 Modified Environmental Checklist Form
The purpose of the checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changed condition” (e.g., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental effect (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) that would require further environmental review (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162).

The questions posed in the checklist come from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The explanation of the checklist evaluation categories is provided in Chapter 5.1 below.

7.1.1 Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories
A. Discussion in the 2017 EIR and related documents?
This column provides a cross-reference to the 2017 EIR and related document(s) where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.

B. Less Impact than Approved Project?
This column indicates that the Proposed Project would have a lesser environmental impact than the Approved Project under the 2017 EIR.

C. New Less-than-significant impact?
97 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
24 1750\26\3657182.1
This column indicates the Proposed Project would have a new less than significant environmental impact that was not previously disclosed in the 2017 EIR.

D. New Less-than-significant impact with Mitigation Incorporated? This column indicates that the Proposed Project would have a new significant impact on the environment that would require mitigation measures that were not previously disclosed in the 2017 EIR.

E. New Potentially Significant Impact?
This column indicates the Proposed Project would have a new significant and unavoidable impact on the environment that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

F. Same Impact as Approved Project?
This column indicates that the Proposed Project would have the same environmental impact as the Approved Project under the 2017 EIR.
98 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
25 1750\26\3657182.1

7.2 Aesthetics
Would the project: Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
Yes
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not limited
to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state
scenic highway?
Yes
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character
or quality of public views
of the site and its
surroundings? (Public
views are those that are
experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point).

If the Project is in an
urbanized area, would the
Project conflict with
applicable zoning and
other regulations
governing scenic quality?
Yes
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare
which would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Yes
99 City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
26 1750\26\3657182.1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
Impacts
Potential aesthetic impacts included in the 2017 EIR, which analyzes the 2035 GP, include the following:
• Less than Significant: Adoption of the land use designations (and corresponding zoning districts) in the Land Use Element of the 2035 GP could result in higher density or intensity development that could partially obstruct views currently available to the public as well as degrade visual quality.

Findings
Implementation of 2035 GP policies will reduce the impacts of development on visual resources.

The 2017 EIR found a less-than-significant effect for implementation of the Approved Project on scenic vistas (pages 4.1-16 through 4.1-22). In particular, 2035 GP Policies 2.13-1, 4.4-1, and 4.5- 4 emphasize protection of views of open spaces and natural features.

According to the 2017 EIR, there are no state scenic highways within the City. The 2017 EIR (page 4.1-22) found a less-than-significant impact for implementation of the Approved Project on scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The 2017 EIR also states although it is not an officially designated State Scenic Highway, Ralston Avenue is a main thoroughfare through the City and provides a scenic route.

The 2017 EIR found a less-than-significant impact for implementation of the Approved Project on existing visual character (pages 4.1-22 through 4.1-26). 2035 GP Policy 2.13-3 mentions the need for new development to not dominate open space areas, and Policies 4.5-1 and 4.5-4 protect open space areas for scenic quality.

The 2017 EIR found a less-than-significant impact for implementation of the Approved Project on light or glare affecting day or nighttime views (pages 4.1-26 and 4.1-27). The 2035 GP includes a policy about minimizing light and glare from new development (Policy 2.13-4), and a policy requiring shielding and downward direction of light for outdoor lighting (Policy 5.3-6). 2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:

LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy 2.13-1: Ensure that new development is balanced with preservation of open space and natural features.

Policy 2.13-3: Ensure that the scale and character of new development is appropriate to the setting and intended use. Promote development that is scaled and sited to respect the natural terrain, so that hills, parks, open space, trees, and distant vistas, rather than buildings, dominate the overall landscape, while also developing the Belmont Village PDA and other focus areas for economic growth as concentrated, urban-scale nodes of activity.

Policy 2.13-4: Minimize light and glare from new development. See also Policy 5.3-6 in the Conservation Element.
100
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
27 1750\26\3657182.1

PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
Policy 4.4-1: Continue to designate and protect open space lands for the preservation of scenic areas, natural drainage ways, and plant and wildlife habitats; for outdoor recreation; and for public health and safety. See also policies in the Conservation and Safety elements.

Policy 4.4-5: Use the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan to establish priorities for the protection, enhancement, and improvement of open space lands and trails for recreation purposes.

Policy 4.5-1: Consider open space dedication or acquisition of fee title land to ensure long-term preservation and protection only if public liability exposure can be acceptably limited to the extent feasible.

Policy 4.5-4: Seek to preserve the existing open space areas in the San Juan Hills and Western Hills, consistent with the Area Plans, especially on steep hillsides and sensitive habitat areas.

Policy 5.3-6: 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.

DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Impact than the Approved Project
The City does not have any scenic vistas as designated in the 2035 GP. The Proposed Project does not include any changes in land use designation which could affect density or intensity of development. While some existing parks and open spaces are visible from Ralston Avenue (‘scenic route’), proposed improvements like trail or path improvements or seating additions would not damage the scenic resources therein, and the Proposed Project would not result in impacts greater from those outlined in the 2017 EIR.

Furthermore, policies in the Proposed Project are based on policies within the 2035 GP; both sets of policies reduce the impacts to visual resources. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result less impact than those analyzed as part of the Approved Project in the 2017 EIR.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Same as the Approved Project – No Impact
With no state scenic highways within the City, no impact would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. While some existing parks and open spaces are visible from Ralston Avenue, proposed improvements like trail or path improvements or seating additions 101
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
28 1750\26\3657182.1
would not damage the scenic resources therein, and the Proposed Project would not result in impacts different from those in the 2017 EIR. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Same as the Approved Project – No Impact
The Proposed Project maintains and improves existing open space and park areas.

Improvements proposed to develop Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch Parks may add amenities like paths, benches, or natural play structures, and would maintain existing vegetation and add native plantings. Overall, these changes would not degrade the visual character of the sites or surrounding areas and not result in impacts different from those in the 2017 EIR. In addition, no changes in zoning are proposed that would change impacts analyzed by the 2017 EIR.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant The Proposed Project includes Goal 3: Expand and Enhance the Existing PROS System to Meet Evolving Community Needs by Establishing New Uses, Improved Spaces, and a Variety of Recreation Amenities. This goal includes Policy 3.J: Evaluate fields and courts across the City for the opportunity to provide lighted facilities for evening recreation and play. Proposed nighttime lighting could increase the amount of light or glare associated with parks areas. 2035 GP Policies 2.13-4 and 5.3-6 outline minimizing light and glare (via design features and shielding methods, and installation of the minimum amount of outdoor lighting necessary for safety and security. Furthermore, as part of the Proposed Project, implementing Policy 12.E (transitioning to energy efficient lighting and minimizing light pollution through design) will further support reducing the level of Proposed Project impact to less than significant.
102
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
29 1750\26\3657182.1

7.3 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Would the project:

Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of
the California Resources
Agency, to nonagricultural use?
No
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
No
c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public
Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public
Resources Code section
4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
No
d) Result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest
use?
No
e) Involve other changes in
the existing environment,
which, due to their
location or nature, could
result in conversion of
Farmland, to nonagricultural use or
conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
No
103
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
30 1750\26\3657182.1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
Potential Agricultural and Forestry impacts were not reviewed in the 2017 EIR due to lack of these resources within the 2017 EIR Planning Area.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Same as Approved Project - No Impact
The California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder tool indicates that the areas of the Proposed Project are within land mapped as Urban and Built-Up Land or Other Land (California Department of Conservation, 2023). Within the two open space areas and the city’s parks there are no lands designated as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of Statewide Importance , thus, there would be no impacts.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Same as Approved Project - No Impact
California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder tool indicates that the areas are within land mapped as Urban and Built-Up Land or Other Land. There are no lands designated as having a Williamson Act contract, and no existing agricultural zoning as shown in Figure 2-4 of the 2035 GP Land Use Element, therefore, there would be no impacts.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland(as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
Same as Approved Project - No Impact
The Proposed Project does not include any changes or actions that would conflict with existing zoning and there is no zoned timber or forest land within the Project Area. . The Proposed Project would not result in impacts on forest land or timberland. d) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Same as Approved Project - No Impact
The open space areas within the Proposed Project contain areas with at least 10% native tree canopy cover and could be considered forestland. The Proposed Project would implement selective vegetation removal of understory species to manage invasive plants and reduce wildfire risk (Policies P6, P38, P43, and P46). These actions would remove a small proportion of vegetation currently present and not result in loss or conversion of forest land, therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact. 104
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
31 1750\26\3657182.1
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Same as Approved Project - No Impact
None of the Proposed Project Planning Area is considered Farmland. As such, no impacts are anticipated to farmland as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project. 105
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
32 1750\26\3657182.1

7.4 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan?
Yes
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant
for which the project
region is in nonattainment under an
applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard?
Yes
c) Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Yes
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) affecting a
substantial number of
people?
Yes

REGULATORY SETTING UPDATE
The 2017 EIR was prepared before the current, 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 Plan) was finalized (Bay Area Air Quality Management Disctrict [BAAQMD], 2017). Thus, a summary of the updated 2017 Clean Air Plan is provided here.

The 2017 Plan updates the most recent Bay Area ozone plan, the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD, et al., 2010), pursuant to air quality planning requirements defined in the California Health & Safety Code. To fulfill state ozone planning requirements, the 2017 control strategy includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors, in particular reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), and reduce transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins.

The 2017 Plan also builds upon and enhances the BAAQMD’s efforts to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter and toxic air contaminants. Similar to the 2010 Clean Air Plan, the 2017 Plan 106
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
33 1750\26\3657182.1
achieves its goals and objectives by implementing control measures. Many of the control measures referenced in the 2017 Plan are found in Table 5-2: Transportation Control Measures.

In particular, measures that encourage local transit use (TR3), safe routes to transit (TR7), and bike and pedestrian facilities in local plans (TR9) are the most relevant to Proposed Project, to the extent that the City’s parks and two open space areas are readily accessible to non-vehicular modes of transport.

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
Impacts
Potential Air Quality impacts included in the 2035 GP and analyzed as part of the 2017 EIR include the following:
• The 2017 EIR (pages 4.2-35 to 4.2-40) found significant and unavoidable impacts with regard to increases in emissions of nitrous oxides (NOx). • The 2017 EIR (4.2-40 to 4.2-44) found significant and unavoidable impacts for exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs). • The 2017 EIR (pages 4.2-44 to 4.2-46) found a less-than-significant impact regarding other emissions such as those leading to odors
Findings
The 2017 EIR analyzed whether the Approved Project would obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan . The Approved Project would support implementation of the 2010 Clean Air Plan for construction and operational activities. The 2017 EIR concluded that adoption of the 2010 Clean Air Plan and development under the 2035 GP and BVSP would not fundamentally conflict with the 2010 Clean Air Plan.

The 2035 GP includes policies that address the control measures referenced in the updated, 2017 Clean Air Plan. For example:

CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Policy 3.1-2: Make Complete Streets practices a part of Belmont’s planning, design, and operation of its circulation network, acknowledging that a flexible and context-sensitive approach to design will result in each roadway serving most users and the roadway network as a whole serving all users.

Policy 3.1-4: Provide a transportation system that is well-connected within the city and to areas outside the city.

Policy 3.2-3: Maintain and expand transit and active transportation networks that connect neighborhoods with key destinations to encourage travel by non-automobile modes while also improving public health.

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

Policy 3.4-3: Seek innovative solutions to addressing traffic congestion and barriers to mobility that are due, in part, to Belmont’s unique geography. 107
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
34 1750\26\3657182.1
Policy 3.4-10: Support the installation of vehicle traffic-calming measures to ensure bicycle and pedestrian safety on roadways where the street typology prioritizes pedestrian and bicycle mobility, and especially on hillside streets.

Policy 3.5-5: Maintain and encourage use of the existing system of main and neighborhood bike routes. Incorporate bike lanes or pathways into the circulation system of any new subdivision, consistent with the citywide bike and trails network.

Policy 3.7-1: Ensure that adequate transit service facilities are provided in Belmont, including roadway geometry or traffic operations improvements when needed, and bus stop amenities including, but not limited to, lighted shelters, benches, and route information signs.

The 2017 EIR includes the full list of 2035 GP policies (pages 4.2-28-4.2-31 of the 2017 EIR) that would be implemented to ensure that impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the 2017 EIR outlines specific mitigation measures to ameliorate significant and unavoidable impacts.

MITIGATION MEASURES
AQ-1: Require Tier 4 engines on construction equipment.

AQ-2: Require construction fleet to use renewable diesel.

AQ-3: Require low-VOC coatings during construction.

AQ-4: Require fugitive dust best practices.

AQ-5: Promote green consumer products.

AQ-6: Require future projects located within 1,000 feet of receptors perform a construction health risk assessment.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Impact than the Approved Project
The Proposed Project would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Strategies under Goal 1 in the Proposed Project focus on pedestrian and cycling networks to provide access to parks and open spaces. Construction of park and open space improvements (Table 5) would be required to comply with 2035 GP and 2017 Clean Air Plan policies. The Proposed Project would not result in impacts different than those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.

Construction-related impacts for both the draft PROS Plan and OSMP would be negligible in comparison to what was analyzed in the 2017 EIR, which included an analysis of about 29,000 square feet of development for parks. In contrast, total planned development that was analyzed in the air quality chapter of the 2017 EIR is approximately 2,900,600 square 108
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
35 1750\26\3657182.1
feet. Ground-disturbing activity within the two open space areas would be accomplished mostly with manual labor avoiding construction related emissions. Ground-disturbing activities within the City’s parks would mostly be accomplished with manual labor as well as handheld construction equipment (e.g., concrete saw, mechanical augur) as well as relatively small construction vehicles such as a Bobcat.

In terms of operational impacts, it is possible that vehicle miles traveled may slightly increase over the 15-year period during which the two plans would be implemented; however, proposed 2035 GP Policies 3.8-1 and 5.10-6, as well as BVSP Policy 3.5-1.

Section 8A.7 of the Phase I Zoning regulations, applying citywide, requires implementation of Transportation Demand Management measures for all nonresidential projects greater than 10,000 square feet, and all nonresidential changes in use that would result in a net increase in average daily vehicle trips of 10 percent or greater. Based on the planned improvements to the city’s parks and two open space areas, and the emphasis of 2035 GP policies on implementing transportation control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan, it is not likely that average daily trips over the 15-year planning horizon would increase by 10 percent given that the majority of Belmont residents live within a 10- minute walk of a park or open space area trailhead. Because only minor improvements would be made to Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch Parks, few additional vehicle trips are expected, rather a redistribution from existing trips to other existing parks. The Proposed Project would have less impact than the Approved Project. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Impact than the Approved Project
Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Implementation of park and open space improvements could result in temporarily generated emissions of particulate matter and other criteria pollutants such as carbon monoxide or nitrous oxides due to use of construction equipment. However, any construction under the Proposed Project must adhere to the mitigation measures (AQ-1-AQ-4) identified in the 2017 EIR. The Proposed Project would have less impact than the Approved Project. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Impact than the Approved Project
Based on Table 5 in Chapter 5 of this document, there would be minor improvements made to Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch parks, minor improvements to five other parks, upgraded or new amenities at five parks, and park redesign at three parks, as well as trail maintenance and vegetation management actions the two open space areas. For the city’s parks, much of the construction would be accomplished with manual labor, handheld construction equipment, or small-scale construction equipment. For the open space areas many of the ground disturbing activities would most likely be accomplished with manual labor. Finally, per guidance from the 2017 Clean Air Plan, any construction equipment used would have tier 3 or tier 4 engines to minimize emissions to the extent 109
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
36 1750\26\3657182.1
possible. Thus, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations for TACs. There would be new but less-than-significant impacts as a result of the Proposed Project and overall, less impacts as compared to those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.

The Proposed Project would comply with the 2017 EIR mitigation measure AQ-6 for any eligible construction work.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant Implementation of the Proposed Project improvements (Table 5) would comply with BAAQMD Regulation 7, which defines substances that cause odors, and how to monitor them, and would result in less than significant impacts, same as than those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
110
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
37 1750\26\3657182.1

7.5 Biological Resources
Would the project:

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING UPDATE
Due to the programmatic nature of the 2035 GP and its associated 2017 EIR, the habitat descriptions (pages 4.3-1 through 4.3-6) and mapping (Figure 4.3-1) are broad. In addition, since the 2017 EIR was certified in 2017, new information regarding natural communities within San Mateo County became available in the form of the San Mateo Fine Scale Vegetation Map (Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, 2022). The 2022 spatial dataset was used for the PROS plan and the OSMP and maps habitats in greater detail than was previously depicted in the 2017 EIR. This provides vegetation classification at an alliance or association level, with global and state ranks provided; therefore, this identifies sensitive natural communities not previously discussed in the 2017 EIR. Sensitive natural communities not previously identified include:
• California bay woodland (Umbellularia californica, S3 G4), • arroyo willow thickets (Salix lasiolepis, S3 G4), and • California buckeye groves (Aesculus californica, S3 G3). 112
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
39 1750\26\3657182.1
The habitat mapping for all other parks identified in the Proposed Project remains unchanged from what is identified in Figure 4.3-1 in the 2017 EIR; these parks are all located within developed or urban habitats. Given the developed and/or urban nature of these parks, potential for special-status plant and wildlife species are typically low. Should potential for species be determined based on a microhabitat analysis, those instances will be addressed by existing 2035 GP policies, as well as those included in the Proposed Project.

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Since both WDL and SJC contain similar habitats (e.g., coyote brush scrub, coast live oak woodland, arroyo willow thickets, and annual grasslands), the assessment of special-status species applies to both parks, unless otherwise noted. The environmental assessment, included in Appendix G of the PROS Plan, offers more detailed assessment compared to the programmatic evaluation of special status species in 2017 EIR. Species with a moderate or high potential to occur within WDL and SJC, or that have been documented to be present, are discussed below.

Plants – not previously considered in the 2017 EIR
Additional special-status plant species were considered during the review of the Proposed Project; these species are summarized below. The inclusion of the additional species was guided by regulatory changes and/or inclusion of CNPS Rank 4 species, new documented species occurrences, or the presence of specific habitat components within the parks or open space areas.

Pink star-tulip (Calochortus comosa), CRPR 4.2. Moderate Potential. Coastal scrub and meadows and seep habitat are present within the Planning Area along with seasonally moist meadows and forested habitats.

California bottle-brush grass (Elymus californicus), CRPR 4.3. Moderate Potential. California bottle-brush grass is a perennial graminoid in the grass family (Poaceae) that blooms from May to November. It typically occurs along stream banks or other mesic sites within broadleaf upland forest, cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, and riparian woodland habitat at elevations ranging from 45 to 1,530 feet (CNPS 2022). Associated species include Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), California bay, red alder (Alnus rubra), California hazelnut (Corylus cornuta var. californica), California coffeeberry, California blackberry, sword fern, hedge nettle (Stachys ajugoides), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) and woodland brome (Bromus laevipes) (CNPS 2022, California Consortium of Herbaria 2022).

California bottle-brush grass has a moderate potential to occur in the Study Area due to the presence of broadleafed upland forest, cismontane woodland, and riparian forest habitats are located within the Planning Area, and microhabitats of sandy humus soils are also present to support this species.

Harlequin lotus (Hosackia gracilis), CRPR 4.2. Moderate Potential. Harlequin lotus is a perennial forb in the pea family (Fabaceae) that blooms from March to July. It typically occurs in wetlands or ditches in broadleaf upland forest, coastal scrub, closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, meadow and seep, marsh and swamp, North Coast coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grassland habitat at elevations ranging from 0 to 2,275 feet (CNPS 2022).

This species has a wetland indicator status of facultative wetland (FACW). Associated species include coyote brush, little quaking grass (Briza minor), California oat grass (Danthonia californica), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), subterranean clover (Trifolium 113
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
40 1750\26\3657182.1
subterraneanum) (CCH2 2022). Suitable habitat of broadleafed upland forest, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, marshes and swamps, and meadows and seeps and microhabitats of wetlands and roadsides are present.

Bristly leptosiphon (Leptosiphon acicularis), CRPR 4.2. Moderate Potential. Bristly leptosiphon is an annual forb in the phlox family (Polemoniaceae) that blooms from April to July. It typically occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, and valley and foothill grassland habitats at elevations ranging from 175 to 4,875 feet (CNPS 2022). Bristly leptosiphon has a moderate potential to occur within the Study Area due to the presence of associated species and vegetation types; however, this species typically occurs in natural open or herbaceous serpentine and/or volcanic areas.

Choris’s popcornflower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus), CRPR 1B.2. Moderate Potential. Choris’s popcornflower is an annual herb that blooms from March to June. It typically occurs in chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub at elevations ranging from 10 to 525 feet (CNPS 2022). Associated species include common yarrow, coyote brush, common toad rush (Juncus bufonius), brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia), fringed willowherb (Epilobium ciliatum), California blackberry and Buck’s horn plaintain (Plantago coronopus) (CDFW 2022). Chaparral and coastal scrub habitats are located within the Planning Area, and microhabitats of mesic sites (and low-lying depressions) are present to support this species.

Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis), CRPR 2B.2. Present. Chaparral ragwort is an annual herb that blooms from January to April. It typically occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub at elevations ranging from 50 to 2625 feet (CNPS 2022). Associated species include California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), nude buckwheat, stork’s bill, redstem filaree, black sage (Salvia mellifera), California sagebrush, and soap root. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats are present within the Planning Area.

Plants – previously considered in the 2017 EIR
The special-status plant species listed below were assessed as part of the 2017 EIR. • Franciscan onion (Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum), CRPR 1B.2. • Bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris), CRPR 1B.2. • San Francisco collinsia (Collinsia multicolor), CRPR 1B.2. • Western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis), CRPR 1B.2.
• San Mateo woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum latilobum), FE, SE, CRPR 1B.1. • Arcuate bush-mallow (Malacothamnus arcuatus), CRPR 1B.2. • Woodland woolythreads (Monolopia gracilens), CRPR 1B.2.

Wildlife – not previously considered in the 2017 EIR
Additional special-status wildlife species were considered during the review of the Proposed Project; these species are summarized below (refer to Appendix G of the PROS Plan). The inclusion of the additional species was guided by regulatory changes, new documented occurrences, or the presence of specific habitat components within the parks or open space areas.

Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), CDFW Species of Special Concern. The olive-sided flycatcher is a summer resident in California, wintering in Latin America. It breeds in a variety of forested habitats, typically coniferous forests at higher elevations, but also in mixed forest and 114
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
41 1750\26\3657182.1
woodlands at lower elevations. Breeding habitat is often associated with forest openings and edges, both natural (e.g., meadows, canyons) and man-made (e.g., logged areas). Nests are usually in conifers and placed at variable height on the outer portions of branches. This species forages for insects, usually from prominent tree snags. This species has not been documented on the sites, but mixed low-elevation forests are common habitats within the Planning Area and could support nesting by this species.

White tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), CDFW Fully Protected Species. The white-tailed kite is resident in open to semi-open habitats throughout the lower elevations of California, including grasslands, savannahs, woodlands, agricultural areas and wetlands. While this species is usually observed in closer proximity to San Francisco Bay, higher elevation areas characterized by small trees interspersed with grasses and low shrubs could provide nesting or foraging habitat for this species within City parks and open spaces.

American badger (Taxidea taxus), CDFW Species of Special Concern. The American badger is a large, semi-fossorial member of the weasel family. It is found uncommonly within the region in drier open stages of most scrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats where friable soils and prey populations are present. This species typically avoids highly trafficked areas where trails have been relatively compacted, or densely forested or vegetated habitats that dominate the open space areas; however, friable soils and more open habitats exist in higher elevation locations within the open space areas that could support this species. Thus, this species has moderate potential to occur.

Mountain Lion (Puma concolor). CDFW Candidate Species. Mountain lions are the second largest felid in North America and have the largest geographic range of any carnivore in the western hemisphere that stretches from southern Chile to the Canadian Yukon (CDFW online, accessed 10/19/2023). This large distribution speaks to the extreme adaptability of the species with respect to its ability to exploit a great variety of different habitats. This adaptability is largely explained by the species’ ability to thrive across a huge range of environmental conditions. Mountain lions are mobile predators of the landscapes that they inhabit, with home ranges within the Santa Cruz mountains estimated to be between 40 and 150 square miles.

Males tend to defend smaller territories against other males and females tend to have larger territories that may overlap with other lion's territories. Deer and smaller mammals make up the majority of their diets and their hunting activities are mostly nocturnal.

The Planning Area represents a pocket of marginally suitable habitat, largely surrounded by urban development. Highway 280 represents a major barrier to dispersal from more suitable habitat in the Santa Cruz mountains, and areas to the west are very densely populated. While some mountain lions may occasionally pass through the Planning Area, it is likely that most mountain lions would not traverse into this area due to offsite barriers and onsite recreational activities that are currently present. The Planning Area may be temporarily attractive to an individual mountain lion with a higher than typical tolerance for anthropogenic disturbance.

However, it is unlikely that the site would remain occupied by a mountain lion for extended periods due to its limited size and correspondingly limited prey availability. Because the species is so adaptable, the recreational improvements proposed by the project would not be expected to have a significant impact on mountain lions, if present, because they would simply move on to another, more suitable part of their range.
115
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
42 1750\26\3657182.1
Wildlife – previously considered in the 2017 EIR
The special-status plant wildlife listed below were assessed as part of the 2017 EIR. • Western (Pacific) pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), CDFW Species of Special Concern. • San Francisco (saltmarsh) common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), CDFW Species of Special Concern.
• Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), WBWG Medium.
• San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), CDFW Species of Special Concern.

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
Impacts
Potential Biological Resources impacts included in the 2035 GP and analyzed as part of the 2017 EIR include the following:
• Direct impacts to special-status species could result from the conversion of habitat either temporarily, as a result of grading, excavation, and construction activities, or permanently from the ongoing operation and/or maintenance of a project or plan.

Indirect impacts could result from elevated dust or noise levels or increased sediment loads in runoff from construction activities. Indirect impacts could also result from permanent alterations to hydrology upstream of habitats supporting sensitive species, including increased runoff, sedimentation, or pollutant loads, and increased human activity.
• Development of vacant parcels may affect riparian or sensitive habitat, though the areas that may develop are already designated for urban uses. • Development resulting from implementation of the 2035 GP may result in both direct and indirect significant adverse impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or waters. • Large areas of open space or undeveloped areas within the 2035 GP Planning Area may serve as wildlife corridors for common and listed species. Although development is expected on vacant lots currently designated for urban uses in developed areas, there is no future development planned under the 2035 GP in the open space areas, which, given their contiguous nature and geography, are more likely to function as wildlife corridors than small, scattered infill parcels amidst urban development. Therefore, although there may be indirect impacts to the movement of wildlife, these are not expected to result in direct impacts to habitat or fragmentation of open space.

Findings
The 2017 EIR (pages 4.3-30 to 4.3-35) found that implementation of the 2035 GP would have less-than-significant impacts on special-status species. The following is a summary of 2035 GP Policies which apply to reducing impact to special-status plant and wildlife species: Policy 4.4-1 requires the City to continue to designate and protect open space lands; Policy 4.5-4 encourages the City to preserve the existing open space areas in the San Juan Hills and Western Hills; Policy

4.4-6 requires the City to develop programs to control invasive species, which could modify habitats; Policy 5.1-3 protects against ecological succession and pathogen threats; Policy 5.3-1 requires the City to support the protection of habitats of special-status species; Policy 5.3-2 requires the City to protect ecologically important areas; Policies 5.1-1 and 5.1-4 ensure that improvements and planning of open space areas are consistent with the type of open space and the City’s open space strategy; and Policies 2.14-3 and 5.1-2 specifically address the interface 116
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
43 1750\26\3657182.1
between natural and developed areas to support wildlife needs. The 2035 GP analyzed the impacts on biological resources of developing 29,000 square feet in park related actions.

The 2017 EIR (pages 4.3-36 and 4.3-37) found impacts would be less than significant regarding riparian habitats and other sensitive natural communities. The 2017 EIR includes policies that would avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive habitat by requiring the protection and preservation of such resources. Policy 4.5-2 protects Belmont Creek from encroachment; Policy

5.3-2 requires the City to ensure that development does not disturb sensitive habitat and special-status species, including the creek corridors; and Policy 5.4-3 requires the City to protect wildlife habitat along Belmont’s waterways.

The 2017 EIR (pages 4.3-37 and 4.3-38) found a less-than-significant impact would occur to state or federally protected wetlands during the implementation of the 2035 GP due to the implementation of policies and compliance with state, federal, and local regulations. 2035 GP Policy 5.3-2 requires the City to protect and restore the wetlands around O’Neill Slough, and Policy 5.4-3 requires the City to protect and restore a continuous corridor of wildlife habitat along Belmont’s wetlands. In addition, if jurisdictional resources are determined to be potentially impacted by a project, all such future development projects would require Clean Water Act Section 404/401 Permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the RWQCB, respectively, and a 1600-Series Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFW. Compliance with federal and State standards would ensure that the Proposed Project does not result in a significant impact to federally and/or state-protected wetlands.

The 2017 EIR (pages 4.3-39 and 4.3-40) found that there were no significant impacts to movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. According to the 2035 GP, there is there is no proposed future development that would alter land use from open space to development that would impact existing wildlife. Given the contiguous nature and geography of the open spaces, these areas are more likely to function as wildlife corridors than small, scattered infill parcels amidst urban development; therefore, although there may be indirect impacts to the movement of wildlife, these are not expected to result in direct impacts to habitat or fragmentation of open space. In addition, the 2035 GP includes policies that would minimize or avoid impacts to important wildlife corridors and linkages by requiring the protection and preservation of such resources. Policy 5.3-4 requires the City to maintain wildlife corridors, and Policy 5.4-3 requires the City to protect a continuous corridor of riparian habitat. Since 29,000 square feet of park related actions were already analyzed in the 2017 EIR, and the Proposed Project does not constitute new development or barriers, impacts would be the same as those analyzed in the Approved Project.

The 2017 EIR (pages 4.3-40 and 4.3-41) found no impact regarding conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The City has a Tree Ordinance to promote the healthy growth of trees, control the removal of trees, and encourage the replacement of trees within the City. This ordinance requires that any tree removal be approved by the City’s Tree Board. Policy 2.4-2 in the 2035 GP requires the City to maintain tree protection and removal standards, implemented by the Tree Ordinance. Implementation of the Proposed Project would continue to follow these regulations. If any Heritage Trees required removal, the trees would be removed in accordance with the City’s policies and only after an appropriate permit is acquired.

In addition to the City’s Tree Ordinance, 2035 GP Policy 4.5-4 encourages the City to preserve the open spaces areas in the San Juan Hills and Western Hills area plans. 117
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
44 1750\26\3657182.1
2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:

LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy 2.4-2: Maintain adequate and reasonable tree protection and removal standards and best management practices, implemented by the City’s Tree Ordinance.

Policy 2.14-3: Create clear design standards for the interface between open spaces and neighborhoods, especially in the Urban/ Wildland Interface Zone. Standards should identify the margin of open space needed to allow wildlife, recreation, and aesthetic values to flourish while also reducing threats of fire and invasive plant species.

Incorporate “Defensible Space” standards as needed in areas of high wildfire risk.

Policy 4.4-6: Develop programs to control invasive plant species that threaten the natural resources.

Policy 4.5-2: Protect Belmont Creek from future encroachment through regulation, development review, conservation easements, or other appropriate actions.

Policy 4.5-4: Seek to preserve the existing open space areas in the San Juan Hills and Western Hills, consistent with the Area Plans, especially on steep hillsides and sensitive habitat areas.

CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Policy 5.1-1: Ensure that any improvements recommended for open space areas are appropriate for the type of open space and the use proposed.

Policy 5.1-2: In portions of Belmont that include significant open space resources, use area plans to address the balance and interface between natural and developed areas.

Policy 5.1-3: Reduce risk of wildland fire, ecological succession, and pathogen threats (such as Sudden Oak Death) through active maintenance of public spaces and education and enforcement of development standards on private property.

Policy 5.1-4: Ensure that future acquisitions of open space land are compatible with the City’s open space strategy and long-term interests. See also Policy 4.5-1. 118
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
45 1750\26\3657182.1
Policy 5.3-1: Support the protection, preservation, restoration, and enhancement of habitats of State or federally listed rare, threatened, endangered and/or other sensitive and special status species, and favor enhancement of contiguous areas over small, segmented remainder parcels.

Policy 5.3-2: Continue to maintain, protect, restore, and enhance Belmont’s ecologically important areas and seek to reduce impacts on them, including the creek corridors, the open space, and the wetlands around O’Neill Slough.

Policy 5.3-4: Maintain functional wildlife corridors and habitat linkage in order to contribute to regional biodiversity and the viability of rare, unique or sensitive biological resources throughout the city and region.

Policy 5.4-3: Protect, restore, and enhance a continuous corridor of native riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat along Belmont’s waterways, water bodies, and wetlands.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? New Less-than-Significant Impacts
The environmental assessment conducted for the Proposed Project reported specialstatus plant species documented in the vicinity of the Proposed Project Planning Area (Planning Area). Some species have been documented in the two open space areas (WDL and SJC) and several others have potential to occur within the overall Planning Area based on various habitat and life cycle factors. Special-status wildlife species with moderate to high potential to occur in the Planning Area include hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), and various special-status birds.

As summarized above, the following special-status species have potential to occur within the Planning Area and were not analyzed as part of the 2017 EIR. The inclusion of the additional species was guided by regulatory changes and/or inclusion of CNPS Rank 4 species, new documented species occurrences, or the presence of specific habitat components within the parks or open space areas.
• Pink star-tulip (Calochortus comosa), CRPR 4.2. Moderate Potential. • California bottle-brush grass (Elymus californicus), CRPR 4.3. Moderate Potential. • Harlequin lotus (Hosackia gracilis), CRPR 4.2. Moderate Potential. • Bristly leptosiphon (Leptosiphon acicularis), CRPR 4.2. Moderate Potential. • Choris’s popcornflower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus), CRPR 1B.2.

Moderate Potential.
• Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis), CRPR 2B.2. Present. • Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), CDFW Species of Special Concern. 119
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
46 1750\26\3657182.1
• White tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), CDFW Fully Protected Species. • American badger (Taxidea taxus), CDFW Species of Special Concern. • Mountain Lion (Puma concolor). CDFW Candidate Species. 2035 GP policies, as well as Proposed Project policies, reduce the potential impacts to special-status species to a less than significant level. In addition to the 2023 GP policies described above, the implementation of the Environmental Sustainability Policies described in Chapter 5.1 of this document and Chapter 7 in the PROS Plan would benefit sensitive biological resources, including special-status species. These collective policies reduce the potential for impacts by avoiding sensitive habitats and maintaining smallimpact footprints to the extent feasible while still achieving project goals. For most Proposed Project implementation actions, there would be no substantial adverse effects on special-status species; however, for some Proposed Project activities—such as increasing park accessibility and parking, addition of paths, repairing stream crossings, conducting trail maintenance, and reducing wildfire hazards in areas where specialstatus species could be present—adverse impacts to special-status species could occur without the implementation of 2035 GP and Proposed Project Environmental Sustainability policies to reduce impacts. The Proposed Project, when paired with the 2035 GP policies and the Proposed Project policies around special-status species, would result in new, less-than-significant impacts when compared to those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Same Impact as Approved Project – Less than Significant Riparian areas are located within the Proposed Project Planning Area. Per the 2017 EIR and the PROS Plan, riparian communities have been documented within WDL, SJC, and Ralston Ranch Park. Implementation of the following Proposed Project actions could result in potential impacts to riparian communities: trail maintenance, construction of new paths for accessibility, trail stream crossings, invasive plant removal, or wildfire fuel reduction.

Policies from Proposed Project are consistent with and add to the policies in the 2035 GP that aim to conserve and avoid impacts to riparian ecosystems. For example, the following Proposed Project policies further reduces potential impacts to less than significant: P1 limits trail construction and facility development in riparian corridors, wetlands, and each of these habitats’ associated buffers to protect them from disturbance, and P2 requires aligning or relocating trails to avoid impacting sensitive habitats. Furthermore, just as the 2017 EIR outlines for the Approved Project, if riparian areas are determined to be potentially impacted by implementation of the Proposed Project, all applicable actions would require coordination with appropriate regulatory agencies. Compliance with federal and State standards would ensure that the Proposed Project does not result in a significant impact to protected riparian areas. The Proposed Project, when paired with the 2035 GP policies and the Proposed Project policies around 120
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
47 1750\26\3657182.1
special-status species, would result the same impacts as the Approved Project when compared to those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Same Impact as Approved Project – Less than Significant State or federally protected wetlands are located within the Proposed Project Planning Area; potential wetland areas are present within WDL and SJC Open Space Areas and several City parks may have potential wetlands present, such as Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch. Impacts to these features may occur due to implementation of Proposed Project actions, such as: trail maintenance, construction of new paths for accessibility, stream crossings, or wildfire fuel reduction. Proposed Project policies aim to conserve and avoid impacts to protected wetlands as well. For example, the Proposed Project includes the following policies: P1 limits trail construction and facility development in riparian and other wetland areas (and associated buffers) to protect them from disturbance; P3 states that trails would be aligned, relocated, and/or modified to avoid impacting sensitive habitats such as wetlands and areas where endangered species are present; and P7 states that riparian, stream, and other wetland communities would be preserved and enhanced in coordination with other agencies to continue providing important habitat networks. Furthermore, just as the 2017 EIR outlines for the Approved Project, if jurisdictional wetland resources are determined to be potentially impacted implementation of the Proposed Project, all applicable actions would require Clean Water Act Section 404/401 Permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the RWQCB, respectively, and a 1600-Series Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFW.

Compliance with federal and State standards would ensure that the Proposed Project does not result in a significant impact to federally and/or state-protected wetlands. The Proposed Project, when paired with the 2035 GP policies and the Proposed Project policies around state and/or federally protected wetlands, would result the same impacts when compared to those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Same Impact as Approved Project - No Significant Impacts Overall, the Proposed Project would have the same impacts as the Approved Project as analyzed in the 2017 EIR regarding wildlife movements. Wildlife species such as deer, coyote, and mountain lion, are expected to continue moving through the Proposed Project Planning Area as they currently do, or with more efficiency due to improvements to habitat such as invasive species removal and native species restoration, and decommissioning of visitor-created trails, thus creating more habitat areas. The Proposed Project does not include any new development that would hinder the ability of wildlife to move through the area. Proposed improvements at Hidden Canyon which may include new trails and play structure, would not substantially interfere with wildlife movement, in 121
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
48 1750\26\3657182.1
fact native vegetation improvements in the park would likely improve wildlife movement ability. Ralston Ranch is surrounded by residential development and improvements like new trails are not expected to alter wildlife movement in the area. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Same Impact as Approved Project - No Significant Impacts Tree removal may be necessary to implement Proposed Project actions, such as at Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch parks to accommodate park development. Tree removal may also be necessary at WDL and SJC open space areas as part of trail maintenance or wildfire fuel reduction actions. Any actions undertaken in this regard would need to comply with the City’s Tree Ordinance, per the policies outlined in the 2035 GP. The Proposed Project, when paired with the 2035 GP policies and the Proposed Project policies (e.g. P5, P9) around tree protection, would result in the same impact as the Approved Project when compared to those analyzed as part of the Approved Project in the 2017 EIR.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Same Impact as Approved Project - No Significant Impacts The 2017 EIR (pages 4.3-41 and 4.3-42) found no impact regarding conflict with provisions on an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan because such plans do not exist within the City of Belmont. The Proposed Project is not subject to a HCP, NCCP, or any other habitat plan; therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan, and impacts would be the same as those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
122
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
49 1750\26\3657182.1

7.6 Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
Yes
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section
15064.5?
Yes
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
Yes
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
Impacts
Potential Cultural Resources impacts included in the 2035 GP and analyzed as part of the 2017 EIR include the following:
• Less than Significant with Mitigation: Implementation of the 2035 GP may result in actions that could adversely affect historic resources through future ground disturbing activities such as grading and excavation, or the demolition of resources. • Less than Significant: Future development projects allowed under the Approved Project may involve grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities and would be required to protect known resources. Three prehistoric sites have been recorded in Belmont. There are no archaeological sites currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Belmont.
• Less than Significant: Construction activities associated with the implementation of the Approved Project such as grading, excavation, and ground disturbing activities may result in the accidental destruction or disturbance of paleontological sites. No paleontological resources in the Planning Area have been identified for protection. • Less than significant: Development has the potential to disturb human remains, and will adhere to state laws pertaining to their discovery.
123
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
50 1750\26\3657182.1
Findings
The 2035 GP includes policies that would minimize or avoid impacts to historical resources by requiring the protection and preservation of such resources. Policy 2.23-1 updates the City’s inventory of historic resources to ensure that historic resources are preserved and protected in Belmont; Policy 2.23-2 ensures that City ordinances adequately recognize and protect historic resources; Policy 2.23-3 considers creating a Historic Preservation Commission to administer and advise on historic preservation matters, such as updating the inventory of historic resources and updating the historic preservation ordinance; and Policy 2.23-4 encourages adaptive reuse of historic structures. Implementation of these policies would help to minimize or avoid impacts to historical resources. In addition, historic resources in the city are subject to the Structures of historic or Aesthetic Value Article within Belmont’s Buildings Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 7, Article VII), which includes criteria for including resources in the city’s historic resources inventory and procedures for designating those resources as historical. The Buildings Ordinance also requires permits to work on a historic resource.

To address actions that could adversely affect archaeological resources, the 2035 GP includes policies and regulations that would minimize or avoid impacts by requiring the protection and preservation of such resources. Policy 5.12-1 requires mitigation for development on sites suspected of being archeologically significant, including the three identified prehistoric sites; and Policy 5.12-2 requires that, if archaeological resources are discovered during construction, an evaluation be completed before construction activities resume.

The likelihood of finding new or undiscovered cultural resources within the 2017 EIR Planning Area is limited due to much of the development planned as infill for vacant lots which are known to have fill, not native soil. In addition, the General Plan includes Policy 5.12-1, which requires mitigation for development on sites suspected of being culturally significant; as well as Policy

5.12-2, which requires that, if cultural resources are discovered during construction, an evaluation be completed before construction activities resume. These policies would minimize or avoid impacts to cultural resources.
2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:

LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy 2.23-1: Update the City’s inventory of historic resources to ensure that historic resources are preserved and protected in Belmont.

Policy 2.23-2: Ensure that City ordinances adequately recognize and protect historic resources.

Policy 2.23-3: Consider creating a Historic Preservation Commission to administer and advise on historic preservation matters, such as updating the inventory of historic resources and updating the historic preservation ordinance.

Policy 2.23-4: Encourage adaptive reuse of historic structures – preserving their original design and character – as an option for preserving sites that are threatened with demolition or degradation.
124
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
51 1750\26\3657182.1

CONSERVATION ELEMENT
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.

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 professional is completed.

Mitigation Measures:

CULT-1: Require façade maintenance of the Firehouse Building.

CULT-2: Require historical signage at Firehouse Square.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
Less Impact than the Approved Project
The 2035 GP includes Land Use Policies 2.23-1 through 2.23-4 that would minimize impacts to any previously undiscovered historic resources would apply to any resources found during implementation of the Proposed Project, specifically, Ralston Park, Hidden Canyon Park, and the two open space areas. Other parks are assumed to not have native soil, and thus the chances are low of finding any previously undocumented historic resources. While the Approved Project may adversely impact specific historic resources and the 2017 EIR requires Mitigation Measures CULT-1 and CULT-2, the Proposed Project would not affect these historic resources and the mitigation measures would not apply.

Should any previously undiscovered historical resource be found during park development activity identified in the Proposed Project, the above referenced land use policies would result in less than significant impacts than the Approved Project as analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant Should any previously undiscovered archaeological resource be found during actions identified in the Proposed Project, 2035 GP Policy 5.12.2 pertaining to protection of archaeological resources and applicable state laws would be followed. If previously undocumented archaeological resources were discovered during construction policies would result in same less than significant impacts as those analyzed in the 2017 EIR. b) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant Should any human remains be encountered during ground disturbing activities associated with the draft Proposed Project, the San Mateo County Coroner would be notified, and if those remains are thought to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage 125
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
52 1750\26\3657182.1
Commission would also be notified. Additionally, policies 5.12-1 and 5.12-2 from the 2035 GP Conservation Element would also apply to any ground disturbing actions associated with the draft Proposed Project. If any human remains are discovered during park development activities identified in the Proposed Project, the above referenced Conservation Element policies would result in same less than significant impacts as those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
126
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
53 1750\26\3657182.1

7.7 Energy
Would the project:

Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
a) Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
Yes
b) Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Yes
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
Impacts
Potential Energy impacts included in the 2035 GP and analyzed as part of the 2017 EIR include the following:
• Less than Significant: The 2035 GP policies are consistent with and would go beyond State and local energy policies enacted to reduce energy consumption. Operational energy consumption and the intensity of that consumption under the 2035 GP would be lower than existing and 2035 no plan conditions. As such, the Approved Project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary usage of energy.

Findings
The 2017 EIR found impacts from implementation of the 2035 GP would be less than significant regarding waste, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. As noted in the 2017 EIR, construction associated with future projects consume gasoline and diesel through the operation of heavy-duty construction equipment and vehicles. In particular the 2017 EIR states:

The types of land uses envisioned under the plans would involve construction activities typical of development within the [2035 GP] Planning Area. No land uses are expected to require an extraordinary amount of energy consumption during construction, as may occur with large, industrial facilities, like new power plants or dams, because no such land use are proposed or permitted by the [Approved Project].

In regard to operational impacts, land uses developed under the 2035 GP would generate new vehicle trips, which would consume gasoline and diesel. Developments would also result in the consumption of electricity and natural gas for power, heating, and cooking. Land Use Element Policy 2.3-2 (encourage higher density residential land use in proximity to commercial services, 127
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
54 1750\26\3657182.1
employment opportunities, and major transportation corridors) as well as Circulation Element Policies 3.2-1 (promote energy efficiency), Policy 3.2-3 (maintain transit networks that connect neighborhoods), and Policy 3.5-9 (prepare the Comprehensive Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan for on-street and off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the city) would ensure that consumption of energy resources would not be wasteful or inefficient. 2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:

LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy 2.3-2: Encourage higher density residential uses located in close proximity to commercial services, employment opportunities, and major transportation corridors and facilities.

CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Policy 3.2-1: Promote energy efficiency and accommodate new and improved technology, such as alternative fuel vehicles, in meeting transportation needs.

Policy 3.5-9: Prepare the Comprehensive Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan for on-street and off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the city.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant In contrast to construction activities associated with 2035 GP, the actions outlined in the Proposed Project such as trail or path installation, stream crossings, and vegetation management would occur on a much smaller scale and generally involve manual labor and the use of handheld construction equipment.

Ground disturbing actions at Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch parks would occur on a much smaller scale than activities analyzed in the 2017 EIR. The 2035 GP policies applicable to Approved Project operational activities would be likewise applied to operational activities associated with the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have the same impacts as the Approved Project and implement the same policies to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant 128
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
55 1750\26\3657182.1
Implementation of the construction and operation and maintenance actions associated with the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on local or regional energy supplies, peak or base period energy demand, or resource capacity. All of these actions would follow the same 2035 GP policies described in the Energy and GHG chapter of the 2017 EIR, pages 4.4-22 through 4.6-25. In addition, implementation of construction and operations and maintenance actions at Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch parks, and at the City’s two open space areas would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Actions completed in these areas would need to follow the same 2035 GP policies referenced above. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have the same impacts as the Approved Project and implement the same policies to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 129
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
56 1750\26\3657182.1

7.8 Geology and Soils
Would the project:

Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault?
Yes
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
Yes
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
Yes
iv) Landslides? Yes
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Yes
c) Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would
become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
Yes
d) Be located on expansive
soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code,
creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or
property?
Yes
130
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
57 1750\26\3657182.1
Would the project:

Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater
disposal systems where
sewers are not available
for the disposal of
wastewater?
Yes
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature?
Yes
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
Impacts
Potential geology and soils impacts included in the 2035 GP and analyzed as part of the 2017 EIR include the following:
• Less than significant: Implementation of the Approved Project may have the following impacts: All locations within the Planning Area could experience considerable groundshaking; Ground failure, including liquefaction, as a result of an earthquake could occur in the 2035 GP Planning Area depending on the underlying conditions including moisture content, relative size of soil particles, and density of subsurface materials within 50 feet of ground surface; and Landslides may occur on slopes of 15 percent or less; however, the probability is greater on steeper slopes that exhibit old landslide features such as scarps, slanted vegetation, and transverse ridges.

Findings
The 2017 EIR (pages 4.5-1 through 4.5-26) found a less-than-significant impact for implementation of the Approved Project in regard to causing potentially substantial adverse impacts related to rupturing of known earthquake faults. 2035 GP policies 3.4-6, 4.4-3, 5.2-1,

6.1-1 would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. According to the California Geological Survey, Belmont is not listed as being affected by an Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. 2035 GP Policy 6.1-8 requires that consideration of seismic and geologic hazards is considered early in the development process, and Policy 6.1-10 requires the City to identify structures that may be subject to damage from an earthquake and provide information on ways to rehabilitate the structures to improve safety. Potential adverse effects to people or structures from the rupture of a known earthquake fault would be minimized by implementing the above referenced policies.
131
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
58 1750\26\3657182.1
The following 2035 GP Policies reduce the potential impact level of liquefaction to less than significant: Policy 6.1-3 prohibits development at high or very high risk of liquefaction; Policy 6.1- 9 requires real estate transactions to declare known or suspected geologic hazards, such as liquefaction; and Policy 3.4-6 in the 2035 GP Circulation Element requires the location and design of new roadways to prevent erosion and minimize grading.

According to the Geology and Soils chapter of the 2017 EIR, generally, the younger and looser the sediment and the higher the water table, the more susceptible the soil is to liquefaction.

Sediments most susceptible to liquefaction include Holocene (less than 10,000 years old) delta, river channel, flood plain, aeolian deposits, and poorly compacted fills. Dense soils, including well-compacted fills, have low susceptibility to liquefaction. Policy P13 from the OSMP aims to minimize unnatural soil erosion and sedimentation of waters and wetlands that could otherwise lead to an increase in risk. Additionally, with implementation of the 2035 GP policies, the potential impacts from liquefaction would be minimized to the greatest extent feasible.

The 2017 EIR (pages 4.5-1 through 4.5-26) found a less-than-significant impact for implementation of the Approved Project regarding erosion or the loss of topsoil. The 2035 GP policies and the Phase I Zoning regulations would further reduce potential impacts of erosion. 2035 GP Policy 3.4-6 minimizes erosion from new roadways; Policies 6.1-5 and 6.1-6 require geotechnical studies to address the risk of erosion; Policy 6.1-2 requires the City to continue to regulate development to ensure adequate mitigation of erosion hazards; and Policy 6.1-11 requires the City to support erosion prevention through revegetation and other methods. Section 7A, Off-Street Parking and Loading in Commercial Mixed Use and Regional Commercial Districts in the Phase I Zoning requires cross-grades to be designed for slower stormwater flow, which will minimize erosion.

The 2017 EIR (pages 4.5-1 through 4.5-26) found a less-than-significant impact for implementation of the Approved Project regarding supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The City of Belmont Sewer Division oversees the collection and treatment of all wastewaters. Proposed 2035 GP Policy 6.5-5 reinforces the City ordinance, mandating all new development be connected to the City's sewer system; accordingly, all proposed improvements would be tied into the existing wastewater collection, as City ordinance requires new development in Belmont to connect to the City’s wastewater system.

Future development that may result from implementation of the 2035 GP would not require septic systems or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. 2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:

CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Policy 3.4-6: Locate, design, and landscape new roadways to preserve the beauty of the area, prevent erosion, and help shield residents from noise and air pollution. To the extent possible, retain trees and vegetative cover and minimize grading.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
Policy 4.4-3: Consistent with the San Juan Hills and Western Hills area plans, cluster development in the hillside areas of western Belmont in order to maintain contiguous 132
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
59 1750\26\3657182.1
habitat areas, minimize grading, and limit exposure to steep slopes and other sensitive areas. See also policies in the Land Use Element.

CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Policy 5.2-1: Encourage the retention of areas that are hazardous to public safety and welfare as undeveloped open space, including steep hillsides unsuitable for development as identified in area plans and other detailed geotechnical studies; hydrological areas of concern; areas of geological instability; and appropriate setback areas on either side of known active fault traces. See also discussion and policies in the Safety Element.

SAFETY ELEMENT
Policy 6.1-2: Continue to regulate development, including remodeling or structural rehabilitation, to ensure adequate mitigation of safety hazards on sites having a history or threat of seismic dangers, erosion, landslides, or shrink swell.

Policy 6.1-5: Geotechnical studies shall identify any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and a statement of the site’s suitability for the proposed development and whether or not it will be safe from geologic hazard for its expected life. The study shall identify net developable areas, if any, based on landslide or ground shaking potential or erosion risk. Impacts from the development, such as those resulting from increased water runoff, shall also be determined. Such studies must be signed by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and are subject to review and approval by City staff and/or contracted employees.

Policy 6.1-6: Require any geotechnical studies to include the study of expansive and creeping soils, as well as analysis of erosion, seismic, and other geotechnical hazards, and make recommendations, as warranted.

Policy 6.1-8: Ensure consideration of seismic and geologic hazards at the earliest possible point in the development process, preferably before comprehensive engineering work has commenced.

Policy 6.1-9: Require real estate transactions, development approval processes, and property titles to declare known or suspected seismic or geologic hazards on a property, including areas suspected of high or very high risk of liquefaction, shrink swell, or landslide.

Policy 6.1-10: Identify and catalogue structures that may be subject to serious structural damage in the event of a major earthquake, such as unreinforced masonry and soft story buildings, and provide information to property owners on ways to pay for rehabilitation of existing buildings.
133
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
60 1750\26\3657182.1
Policy 6.1-11: Support erosion prevention of hillside areas at risk of landslide, as identified in Figure 6-1, by revegetation or other acceptable methods.

Policy 6.5-5: Require all new development to be connected to the City’s sewer system.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a-i) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Less Impact than the Approved Project
Implementation of the proposed Project would have less impact than those analyzed in the 2017 EIR regarding risks of loss, injury, or death associated with rupturing of a known earthquake fault. The 2035 GP anticipates approximately 2.9 million square feet of new development. In contrast, the draft PROS Plan includes construction of at least one restroom at Hidden Canyon Park. The 2035 GP Policies included in the 2017 EIR would apply to the construction of a restroom (or other proposed park amenity) as part of Proposed Project implementation. The Proposed Project, when paired with the 2035 GP policies, would result in less impacts when compared to those analyzed in the 2017 EIR. a-ii) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Impact than the Approved Project
In general, considering the proximity to the San Andreas fault, all locations within the Planning Area could experience considerable ground shaking. Policy 13 from the Proposed Project aims to minimize unnatural soil erosion and sedimentation of waters and wetlands that could otherwise lead to an increase in risk because ground shaking tends to be more severe in softer sediments such as alluvial deposits where surface waves can be amplified causing a longer duration. Additionally, with implementation of the 2035 GP policies which supplement the existing building code requirements, the potential impacts from ground shaking would be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. The Proposed Project, when paired with the 2035 GP policies, would result in less impacts when compared to those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
a-iii) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Impact than the Approved Project
According to the Geology and Soils chapter of the 2017 EIR, generally, the younger and looser the sediment and the higher the water table, the more susceptible the soil is to liquefaction. Sediments most susceptible to liquefaction include Holocene (less than 10,000 years old) delta, river channel, flood plain, aeolian deposits, and poorly 134
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
61 1750\26\3657182.1
compacted fills. Dense soils, including well-compacted fills, have low susceptibility to liquefaction. Policy 13 from the Proposed Project aims to minimize unnatural soil erosion and sedimentation of waters and wetlands that could otherwise lead to an increase in risk. Additionally, with implementation of the GP policies, the potential impacts from liquefaction would be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. The 2017 EIR analyzed the impacts of constructing multiple residential and commercial buildings for a total of

2.9 million square feet. The Proposed Project, when paired with the 2035 GP policies, would result in less impacts when compared to those analyzed in the 2017 EIR. a-iv) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides?
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant Landslides may occur within the Planning Area on slopes of 15% or less, but the probability is greater on steeper slopes. For the Proposed Project, this impact is considered with the small amount of construction of park amenities, potential trail improvements, and stream crossings. Within the 2035 GP, Policy 5.2-1 that encourages that areas with steep slopes remain undeveloped is followed by the Proposed Project with the development of Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch occurring outside of steep slope or high landslide potential areas (see Figure 6-1 in 2035 GP).

Furthermore, 2035 GP Policy 6.1-11 that requires the City to support erosion prevention, and Proposed Project Policy 13 aims to minimize unnatural soil erosion and sedimentation of waters and wetlands and Policy 48 manages severe erosion areas on hill slopes that could otherwise lead to an increase in unstable slopes. With implementation of the 2035 GP policies, the potential impacts from liquefaction would be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. The Proposed Project, when paired with the 2035 GP policies, would result in the same impacts when compared to those analyzed in the 2017 EIR. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant Potential impacts associated with substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil could occur during ground disturbing activities as part of implementation of the Proposed Project.

These activities include the following: trail maintenance and improvements, inclusion of park amenities, fire fuel reduction, and construction of park infrastructure, such as a bathroom. Policy 13 from the Proposed Project requires minimizing unnatural soil erosion and sedimentation of waters and wetlands that could otherwise lead to an increase in unstable slopes. Policy 48 manages severe erosion areas on hill slopes near/within streams. The Proposed Project also includes trail construction and maintenance standards and guidelines to reduce potential soil erosion. Additionally, with implementation of the 2035 GP policies, the potential impacts from liquefaction for construction of new park features at Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch parks, and from ground disturbing actions within WDL and SJC Open Space areas would be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. The Proposed Project, when paired with the 2035 GP policies and Proposed Project policies, would result in the same impacts when compared to those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
135
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
62 1750\26\3657182.1
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant As in the 2017 EIR analysis, the potential hazards of unstable soil or geologic units would be addressed largely through the integration of geotechnical information in the planning and design process for individual projects to determine the local soil suitability for specific projects in accordance with standard industry practices and state-provided requirements, such as California Building Code (CBC) requirements which are used to minimize the risk associated with these hazards. The following 2035 GP policies were applied in the 2017 EIR to reduce impacts to less than significant and would be likewise applied to the Proposed Project: Policy 6.1-4 requires geotechnical site analysis for certain sites; Policy 6.1-6 requires geotechnical investigations to evaluate site specific geotechnical characteristics, including the study of expansive or creeping soils; and Policy

6.1-5 requires the geotechnical studies to propose mitigation measures, if necessary.

These measures are enforced through compliance with the CBC to avoid or reduce hazards relating to unstable soils and slope failure. In addition, 2035 GP Policies 6.1-1 and 6.1-2 ensure the enforcement of safety standards for new development related to seismic activity, erosion, landslides, and shrink swell. As discussed in Impact 4.5-1 of the 2017 EIR, Policy 6.1-3 prevents development in areas at risk of landslides and liquefaction. Implementing the Proposed Project in Hidden Canyon, Ralston Ranch parks, and WDL and SJC would involve ground-disturbing activities (e.g., removal of vegetation at the two parks, trail vegetation removal, removal of wildfire prone vegetation), potentially on steep slopes; however, Proposed Project Policy 13 requires minimizing unnatural soil erosion and sedimentation of waters and wetlands that could otherwise lead to an increase in unstable slopes. The Proposed Project, when paired with the 2035 GP policies and Proposed Project policies, would result in the same impacts regarding unstable soil when compared to those analyzed in the 2017 EIR. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant As noted in the 2017 EIR, small areas of expansive soils are scattered throughout the Approved Planning Area. Review of Figure 6-1 in the 2035 GP shows that some of these small expansive soil areas overlap with Ralston Ranch, WDL, and SJC. However, the Proposed Project does not include any structures to be built in these areas. The 2035 GP includes policies to address potential impacts associated with expansive soils, including Policy 6.1-2 which regulates development and remodeling on sites with a history of shrink swell. The Proposed Project, when paired with the 2035 GP policies would result in the same impacts regarding expansive soils when compared to those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
136
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
63 1750\26\3657182.1
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant The 2017 EIR highlighted the purview of the City Sewer Division, which oversees the collection and treatment of all wastewaters. In addition, the 2017 EIR outlines the 2035 GP policies that apply to septic tanks and wastewater infrastructure, including Policy 6.5- 5, which reinforces the City ordinance, mandating all new development be connected to the City's sewer system. The Proposed Project includes only one restroom constructed at Hidden Canyon Park, located at the end of a residential area street. The restroom may connect to the City’s existing sewer system. No other developments requiring wastewater disposal are proposed. As such, Proposed Project impacts would be the same as those for the Approved Project as outlined in the 2017 EIR.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant The 2017 EIR found a less-than-significant impact (Impact 4.4-3, Cultural Resources Chapter) with regard to directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource, site, or feature. 2035 GP Action 5.12-2.b refers to protection of archaeological/ paleontological resources through site surveys (Policy 5.20), and site protection (Policy

5.21). Overall, Proposed Project actions, with the implementation of 2035 GP Policies, have less than significant impacts to potential paleontological resources or unique geologic features. These actions include the following: trail maintenance and construction, vegetation and fire fuel management, construction of new park paths and amenities, park landscaping and stream crossings. Should any paleontological resources be found during Proposed Project ground-disturbing activities, implementing the 2035 GP policies will result in the same impacts as the Approved Project. 137
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
64 1750\26\3657182.1

7.9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:

Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact
on the environment?
Yes
b) Conflict with any
applicable plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
Yes

REGULATORY SETTING UPDATE
In 2008, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008 Scoping Plan); a framework for change (California Air Resources Board, 2008). This document served as a framework for achieving the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets set by Assembly Bill 32 (passed in 2006). In 2014, the ARB subsequently adopted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (2014 First Update) (2014). The 2008 Scoping Plan and 2014 First Update outline a series of technologically feasible and cost-effective measures to reduce statewide GHG emissions. Another update was adopted in 2017, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan) (2017), which incorporates, coordinates, and leverages many existing and ongoing efforts and identifies new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s climate goals. It requires implementation of Senate Bill 32 (passed in 2016), which requires a 40% reduction in GHGs from 1990 levels by 2030. The 2017 Scoping Plan also includes the implementation of Assembly Bill 617 (passed 2017) to protect community health in disadvantaged communities. More recently, the ARB published the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) (2022) which identifies targets for carbon neutrality and a pathway for implementing Assembly Bill 1279 to reduce GHG emissions by 85% below 1990 levels by 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan incorporates natural and working lands into GHG emissions and carbon neutrality strategies, identifies new clean technology and energy, and support transportation programs including Executive Order N-79-20 which requires all passenger vehicles sold in California to be zero-emission by 20245. The 2022 Scoping Plan also calls for evaluation and if needed strengthening of statewide programs leveraged in the 2017 Scoping Plan including: SB350, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Mobile Sources/Sustainable Freight Action Plan, AB 1383, and the Cap and Trade program.
138
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
65 1750\26\3657182.1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
Impacts
Potential Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG) impacts included in the 2035 GP and analyzed in the 2017 EIR include the following:
• Less than Significant with Mitigation: Construction associated with later projects under the 2035 GP would result in the temporary generation of GHG emissions. changes in the land use designations of certain areas could result in more intense construction activities under the 2035 GP than would have taken place under the previous general plan. • Less than Significant: Operation of land uses supported by the 2035 GP would generate direct and indirect GHG emissions.
• Less than Significant: The 2035 GP does not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Findings
The 2017 EIR found there was a less-than-significant impact for both construction and operational phases of the Approved Project; however, the construction phase recommended the addition of mitigation to maintain less-than-significant impact levels. Accordingly, a high-level analysis was performed based on the average annual amount of development that may occur under the 2035 GP, assuming an equal amount of construction over the 17-year buildout period.

New development would be required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMPs), which would reduce construction emissions consistent with BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District) guidance and statewide emission reduction goals.

The 2017 EIR found less-than-significant impacts regarding conflicts with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted to reduce greenhouse emissions. AB 32 codifies the State’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets for 2020. California Air Resources Board (ARB) adopted the 2008 Scoping Plan and 2014 First Update as a framework for achieving the AB 32 targets. The 2008 Scoping Plan and 2014 First Update outline a series of technologically feasible and cost-effective measures to reduce statewide GHG emissions. The Climate Action Plan (CAP) developed as part of the Approved Project would reduce emissions 31% below 2005 levels and would result in emissions per service population of 3.2 metric tons CO2e per Service Population (SP). This goal exceeds ARB’s recommendation of 15% below 2005. The 2017 updated Plan goes further, reducing GHG’s from 1990 levels by 40 percent. The proposed 2035 GP and BVSP also include numerous policies to reduce operational and construction related GHG emissions. For example, 2035 GP Policies 2.3-2, 2.5-6, 3.2-4, and 3.6-3 and BVSP Policies 2.1-1, 2.1-3 and 2.1-5 support design and implementation of mixed-use developments, which would reduce growthrelated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Expanding transit and increasing opportunities for active transportation (e.g., walking and biking) are also supported by the proposed 2035 GP, CAP, and BVSP (e.g., 2035 GP Policies 3.2-2, 3.2-4, 3.5-8 and BVSP Policies 3.2-2, 3.2-80). 2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:

LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy 2.1-2: Coordinate land use and transportation planning to ensure that land use patterns and intensities can be supported by and are accessible to the transportation 139
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
66 1750\26\3657182.1
network, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. See also Policy 3.1-1 in Circulation Element.

Policy 2.3-2: Encourage higher density residential uses located in close proximity to commercial services, employment opportunities, and major transportation corridors and facilities.

Policy 2.5-6: Enhance walkability and pedestrian orientation of the Village to create an identity, improve the atmosphere, and improve access to and utilization of transit, in accordance with the Belmont Village Specific Plan. See also Policies in the Circulation Element.

CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Policy 3.1-1: Ensure land use and circulation planning is developed concurrently. In portions of Belmont that include significant open space resources, use area plans to address the balance and interface between natural and developed areas.

Policy 3.2-2: Look for ways to partner with ride-sharing services as a means to reduce the need for car ownership and cover service gaps in the public transportation system.

Policy 3.2-4: Support thoughtful and appropriate land use locations and densities with development or redevelopment in Belmont that promote alternatives to travel via singleoccupant vehicles. See Policy 2.1-2 in the Land Use Element.

Policy 3.5-8: Support and provide bicycle and pedestrian connections to commercial and employment areas to enhance accessibility.

Policy 3.6-3: Ensure that major new development is adequately served by transit.

MITIGATION MEASURES
AQ-2: Require construction fleet to use renewable diesel.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Same Impact as Approved Project – Less than Significant with Mitigation.

Construction activities resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project would be on a much smaller scale than those of the Approved Project analyzed in the 2017 EIR. The majority of parks, including the two open spaces will undergo minor improvements or have upgraded or new amenities added. Hidden Canyon Park would add at least one ADA parking space as well as new amenities, and Ralston Ranch would add benches and a walking path. The development of Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch parks are expected to distribute existing park visitors. Increases in visitation are expected as population increases, but not as a result of the Proposed Project. In addition, Strategies

1.A-1.F of the Proposed Project are focused on increasing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit 140
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
67 1750\26\3657182.1
connectivity to parks and open spaces. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have the same impacts as the Approved Project and implement the same policies and mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Same Impact as Approved Project – Less than Significant As noted above, the Proposed Project would result in the development of two parks and relatively minor upgrades or additions to the remaining parks and open spaces.

Implementation of Proposed Project Strategies 1.A-1.F to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to parks and open spaces ensures alignment with 2035 GP policies under the Circulation and Land Use Elements discussed above which support reduction of GHG’s in accordance with state law. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have the same impacts as the Approved Project and does not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the reducing the emissions of GHGs. 141
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
68 1750\26\3657182.1

7.10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
e) For a project located
within an airport land use
plan or, where such a
plan has not been
adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or
public use airport, would
the project result in a
safety hazard for people
residing or working in the
project area?
Yes
f) Impair implementation of
or physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation
plan?
Yes
g) Expose people or
structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving
wildland fires?
Yes
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
Impacts
Potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts included in the 2035 GP and analyzed as part of the 2017 EIR include the following:
• Implementation of the Proposed Project would include land uses and renewable energy systems that would require the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste and may increase exposure to risk of hazards. Future construction activities associated with implementation of the Proposed Project may also generate hazardous materials and waste, such as fuels and oils from construction equipment and vehicles.
• Less-than-significant: impacts regarding safety hazards for projects within two miles of a public airport, or within an airport land use plan.
• less-than-significant: impacts regarding impairing implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 143
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
70 1750\26\3657182.1
• Less than Significant: Implementation of the Approved Project to expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires
Findings
Policies in the 2035 GP further reduce potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts by supporting inspection and cleanup of contaminated sites. Policy 6.3-1 requires the City to facilitate cleanup programs at contaminated sites; Policy 6.3-2 requires applicants for development projects in potentially contaminated locations to perform inspection and cleanup; and Policy 6.3-3 establishes that the City will require project applicants to have sites inspected by a registered Environmental Assessor.

The 2017 EIR (pages 4.7-35 to 4.7-37) found less-than-significant impacts regarding safety hazards for projects within two miles of a public airport, or within an airport land use plan. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) per California law ensures compatibility between the airport and nearby land uses. The San Carlos ALUCP specifies that the western Approved Project Planning Area is located within Area A of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) requiring state law real estate disclosures, and the eastern portion of the Approved Project Planning Area is within Area B of the AIA requiring review of land use policy actions. 2 .

The 2017 EIR (pages 4.7-37 to 4.7-40) found less-than-significant impacts regarding impairing implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 2035 GP policies from the Safety Element (Policies 6.7-1 through 6.7- 9 and Policies 6.9-1 through 6.9-3, and 6.10-1) ensure impacts of implementing the 2035 GP would remain less than significant.

The 2017 EIR (pages 4.7-40 through 4.7-43) found impacts regarding wildfires would be less than significant. Approximately half of the 2035 GP Planning Area is at risk for wildland fires.

Development in these areas would be consistent with the City’s Fire Code. These requirements reduce the threat to developed areas. In addition, the 2035 GP proposes policies that address the Urban/Wildland Interface Zone, wildland fire risk, and fire-fighting facilities and services. Policy

2.14-3 requires the City to create design standards for the interface between open spaces and neighborhoods, which would include standards for “Defensible Space” development to reduce wildfire risk, and Policy 6.6-9 requires development located within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) to maintain 100 feet of defensible space; Policies 4.4-7 and 5.1-3 reduce wildland fire risk through maintenance of public spaces to prevent accumulation of fuel for fires, and require the City to continue programs to reduce the fire danger in open spaces, such as establishing buffers between development projects and adjacent natural areas as well as establishing clear boundaries between open space and private property; Policies 6.6-1 and 6.6-6 support the Belmont Fire Protection District’s fire protection services in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) so that resources will be allocated to fire protection; Policy 6.6-2 requires the City to work with the Mid-Peninsula Water District to ensure capacity to fight wildland fire scenarios to reduce the risk from new fires; and Policy 6.6-7 requires the city to participate in State and regional legislative and regulatory efforts to manage the Wildland Urban Interface. In addition, several policies, including 6.6-3, 6.6-4, 6.6-5, 6.6-8, 6.6-9, 6.6-10, and 6.6-11 require the City to continue practices that reduce the threat of fire for new development. Taken together, 2 The Approved Project was found consistent with the San Carlos ALUCP on September 28, 2017. 144
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
71 1750\26\3657182.1
the policies will help reduce the risk of fires starting in WUI areas and will allocate resources for fighting any fires that do happen to occur within the Approved Project Planning Area, reducing the significant risk of loss associated with wildfires. 2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:

LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy 2.14-3: Create clear design standards for the interface between open spaces and neighborhoods, especially in the Urban/ Wildland Interface Zone. Standards should identify the margin of open space needed to allow wildlife, recreation, and aesthetic values to flourish while also reducing threats of fire and invasive plant species.

Incorporate “Defensible Space” standards as needed in areas of high wildfire risk.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
Policy 4.4-7: Continue programs to reduce the fire danger in the open space. See Policy

5.1-3 in the Conservation Element.

CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Policy 5.1-3: Reduce risk of wildland fire, ecological succession, and pathogen threats (such as Sudden Oak Death) through active maintenance of public spaces and education and enforcement of development standards on private property.

SAFETY ELEMENT
Policy 6.3-1: Facilitate clean-up programs at contaminated sites, particularly on properties with the potential to develop or be reused for public purposes.

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.

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 and cleanup must be in compliance with federal and State standards.

Policy 6.6-1: Support efforts by the Belmont Fire Protection District to meet its response time standards throughout Belmont, especially in areas in the Wildland Urban Interface.

Policy 6.6-2: Work with the Mid-Peninsula Water District to maintain adequate water supply for firefighting, including capacity for peak load under a reasonable worst case wildland fire scenario, to be determined by the Belmont Fire Protection District. In evaluating sites for new water storage facilities, place a priority on locations least subject to impacts from seismic activity and landsliding.
145
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
72 1750\26\3657182.1
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.

Policy 6.6-4: Continue the Belmont Fire Protection District’s participation in plan review of new buildings in potentially fire-prone areas.

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.

Policy 6.6-6: Promote and support the Belmont Fire Protection District’s Vegetation Management Program to reduce fire hazards, particularly in areas in the Wildland Urban Interface.

Policy 6.6-7: Continue to participate in State and regional efforts to develop a clear legislative and regulatory framework to manage the Wildland Urban Interface.

Policy 6.6-8: Continue educating the public about local fire hazard prevention programs, including landscaping with fire resistant plants between residential and open space areas, weed control, brush control, controlled burns, and placement of trails and roads to serve as firebreaks. Work cooperatively with the Belmont Fire Protection District to promote public awareness of fire safety and emergency life support.

Policy 6.6-9: Continue to require development located within the VHFHSZ to maintain 100 feet of defensible space consistent with California Government Code Section 51182. See also Policy 2.14-3 in the Land Use Element regarding defensible space.

Policy 6.6-10: Continue to require development located within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) to follow the code requirements in Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, and require buildings to be constructed of ignition-resistant materials and methods.

Policy 6.6-11: Lessen the risk of wildfire and maintain clear and safe access and evacuation routes in areas of high and very high fire hazard severity by continuing to enforce Belmont Municipal Code section 7-401, which classifies nuisances as, in part, overgrown vegetation; dead, decayed, diseased, or hazardous trees, firewood; weeds and other vegetation that may be a fire hazard.

Policy 6.7-1: Adopt, maintain, and periodically update a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, coordinating with regional planning efforts as possible.

Policy 6.7-2: Continue to monitor changes in the Federal Disaster Act and applicable State laws, keep City officials and residents aware of the impacts of these changes, and update as necessary the City’s Emergency Response Plan, which provides adequate response to disasters, including emergency ingress and egress, and defines the expected roles of City, County, and regional agencies.
146
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
73 1750\26\3657182.1
Policy 6.7-3: Update City codes and ordinances dealing with public safety and emergency preparedness and relief to comply with State law and reflect the latest information on hazards and mitigation strategies.

Policy 6.7-4: Continue to upgrade preparedness strategies and techniques in all departments so as to be prepared when a disaster, either natural or man-made, occurs.

Policy 6.7-5: Develop effective mechanisms for a coordinated response to natural and man-made emergencies by:
• Conducting regular emergency planning meetings and disaster preparedness exercises with City departments, the Fire District, the County, medical centers, and other emergency service providers and relevant public agencies; • Holding emergency drills that require all City staff to be adequately trained to handle different kinds of emergency scenarios; and,
• Coordinating with the County on regional emergency communications.

Policy 6.7-6: Work with the Mid-Peninsula Water District to ensure that it has a plan and infrastructure for providing adequate water service and storage, including peak load water supply requirements, during and immediately after an emergency, including a major seismic event.

Policy 6.7-7: Require companies providing public utilities in Belmont to have plans for reestablishing service in the event of a major seismic event or other natural disaster.

Policy 6.7-8: Do not locate structures necessary for the protection of the public’s health and safety, public assembly, or emergency services in hazardous areas, unless no reasonable alternative exists.

Policy 6.7-9: Ensure critical use facilities that are important to protecting health and safety in the community remain operational during an emergency.

Policy 6.9-1: Initiate periodic public information programs that explain the City’s emergency preparedness programs, including the emergency communications system, evacuation routes, the importance of defensible space, the Community Emergency Response Teams, and shelter locations.

Policy 6.9-2: Promote programs to educate the public concerning the nature of earthquake, fire, and flood hazards in Belmont and measures that individuals can take to reduce risk.

Policy 6.9-3: Encourage school districts, agencies, and organizations that work with vulnerable populations, such as seniors, to develop and carry out education programs on disaster preparedness and response needs.

Policy 6.10-1: Ensure that new roadways are developed in accordance with standards in the Municipal Code (Sec. 7-11) requiring all-weather access prior to issuance of building permit. In all new development, require adequate access to be provided for emergency vehicles, including adequate widths, turning radii, hard standing areas, and vertical clearance; also require home addresses and street signage to be visible. 147
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
74 1750\26\3657182.1

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Same Impact as Approved Project – Less than Significant Implementation of the Proposed Project would include operational and construction activities that would require the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials such as gasoline and diesel fuel and herbicides. Future construction activities associated with the implementation of the Proposed Project may also generate hazardous materials and waste, such as fuels and oils from construction equipment and vehicles.

Policy 6.4-1 in the 2035 GP requires the City to continue to support hazardous waste collection by San Mateo County, the State of California, and the Water Resources Control Board, and Policy 6.4-2 requires the City to educate residents and businesses about proper use and disposal of hazardous materials. These efforts would also apply to Proposed Project and would help prevent hazardous materials from being improperly handled or disposed of, keeping such material out of the environment.

The Proposed Project would not involve construction of new dwelling units, industrial facilities, or commercial spaces. Additionally, Proposed Project maintenance and management action largely entail hand tools and small mechanized equipment with some use of gasoline and diesel fuel. Based on implementation of existing State, and local programs and regulations as well as the policies of the 2035 GP, the impacts of the Proposed Project are the same as the Approved Project as analyzed in the 2017 EIR. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Approved Project
The Proposed Project does not include the development of industrial land uses, such as dry cleaners, gas stations, or manufacturers that could result in accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Furthermore, the activities included in the Proposed Project would not require the use of hazardous materials associated with industrial or commercial land uses. Therefore, impacts would be less than those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Same Impact as Approved Project – Less than Significant The 2017 EIR (pages 4.7-31 to 4.7-33) found less-than-significant impacts regarding emitting hazardous emissions within a quarter mile of an existing or new school. Several parks in the Proposed Project (Cipriani, McDougal, and O’Donnell parks) are within one quarter mile of schools. Any handling of hazardous materials used for construction or operation and maintenance actions at these locations would need to comply with federal, 148
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
75 1750\26\3657182.1
state, and county regulations pertaining use of hazardous materials as described on page

4.7-21 of the 2017 EIR. Crystal Springs Middle School is within a quarter mile of the WDL Open Space area. In some cases, mechanized hand tools would be used to removal wildfire hazards, exotic vegetation, and clear vegetation along trails resulting in negligible emissions from gas powered engines. Based on implementation of existing State, and local programs and regulations as well as the policies of the 2035 GP, the impacts of the Proposed Project are the same as the Approved Project as analyzed in the 2017 EIR. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Same Impact as Approved Project – Less than Significant Ralston Middle School is a recognized hazardous waste site and is adjacent to the WDL Open Space Area. There are no documented hazardous material sites located in Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch Parks. Policies in the 2035 GP referenced above would further reduce potential impacts by supporting inspection and cleanup of contaminated sites.

Based on implementation of existing State, and local programs and regulations as well as the policies of the 2035 GP, the impacts of the Proposed Project are the same as the Approved Project as analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Same Impact as Approved Project – Less than Significant The Proposed Project Planning Area is located entirely within the footprint as the Approved Project Planning Area. As such, the Proposed Project Planning Area is located within Area A of the Airport Influence Area (AIA), and the eastern portion of the Proposed Project Planning Area is within Area B of the AIA. Implementation of actions contemplated for the Proposed Project will occasionally involve construction and operations and maintenance workers in those areas. No land use or zoning changes are proposed. Impacts would be the same as those analyzed in the 2017 EIR. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Same Impact as Approved Project – Less than Significant The Proposed Project would result in new or upgraded trails and amenities to parks and open spaces. Any changes to the distribution of visitors to parks and open spaces resulting from the Proposed Project are not expected to interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Construction, maintenance, and use of parks and open spaces resulting from the Proposed Project must adhere to 2035 GP Safety Element policies including 6.7-1 through 6.7-5 which require the development and updating of mitigation and response plans, compliance with state laws and City codes, as well as refining preparedness and response efforts. The Proposed Project impacts would be the same as those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
149
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
76 1750\26\3657182.1
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Same Impact as Approved Project – Less than Significant The Proposed Project will result in the development of new amenities at Hidden Canyon Park which is surrounded by WDL on three sides. The Proposed Project will also result in fuel reduction treatments at WDL, with efforts focused in the region around Hidden Canyon Park (Lake Road, Hastings Drive, and Hallmark Drive), thus reducing risk of fire.

The Proposed Project will result in replacing non-native vegetation across parks and open spaces with native vegetation reducing risk of loss from fire in these areas. Proposed Project Policies 38-52 address wildfire prevention, response, and mitigation in open space areas. The Proposed Project, when paired with the 2035 GP policies, would result in the same impacts regarding fire hazard when compared to those analyzed in the 2017 EIR. 150
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
77 1750\26\3657182.1

7.11 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially
degrade surface or
ground water quality?
Yes
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially
with groundwater
recharge such that the
project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the
basin?
Yes
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
Yes
ii) substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding
on- or off-site;
Yes
iii) create or contribute runoff
water that would exceed
the capacity of existing or
planned storm water
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
Yes
iv) impede or redirect flood
flows?
Yes
d) In flood hazard, tsunami,
or seiche zones, risk
Yes
151
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
78 1750\26\3657182.1
Would the project:

Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a
water quality control plan
or sustainable
groundwater
management plan?
Yes
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
Potential Hydrology and Water Quality impacts included in the 2035 GP and analyzed as part of the 2017 EIR include the following:

Impacts
• Less Than Significant: The 2017 EIR (pages 4.8-18 and 4.8-19) found less-thansignificant impacts regarding violating water quality standards. Implementation of the 2035 GP allows for additional development within the city that would increase the amount of impervious surfaces and could therefore increase the amount of runoff and associated pollutants during both construction and operation. • Less than Significant: The 2017 EIR (pages 4.8-20 and 4.8-21) found less-thansignificant impacts regarding decreasing groundwater supplies or interfering with groundwater recharge.
• Less than significant: The 2017 EIR (pages 4.8-22 to 4.8-25) found less-than-significant impacts regarding substantially altering the existing drainage pattern of a site or area.

Implementation of the 2035 GP would not involve the direct alteration of existing streams, rivers, or other drainage patterns. However, future development/redevelopment allowed under the 2035 GP could impact the existing drainage system. Increases to impervious surfaces in connection with new development, such as roofs, patios, driveways, and parking areas could lead to increased stormwater flow and runoff into the local storm drains and creeks in the 2035 GP Planning Area, which could result in hydromodification effects to the local creek systems.
• Less than significant: Per the 2017 EIR, the Approved Project has less-than-significant impacts regarding the release of pollutants into flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. • Less than significant: The 2017 EIR found (pages 4.8-18 and 19) less than significant impacts with regard to obstructing implementation of a water quality control plan. 152
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
79 1750\26\3657182.1
Findings
The 2017 EIR (pages 4.8-18 and 4.8-19) found less-than-significant impacts regarding violating water quality standards. The 2035 GP contains goals and policies pertaining to water quality, as listed below. Policy 6.2-9 requires the City to continue to comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements, and Policy 6.2-10 requires compliance with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), both of which define standards for water quality and impose requirements that will also limit the severity of any potential environmental effects caused by developments associated with the 2035 GP. In addition, Policy 5.5-3 requires development projects to incorporate best management practices (BMP) consistent with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit guidelines to ensure new construction is required to reduce its contribution of water pollutants to less-than-significant levels. Implementation of these practices would reduce the volume of runoff from impervious surfaces and increase the amount of natural filtration of pollutants from stormwater occurring on the site, generally improving the quality of stormwater before it enters the city’s stormwater system.

The 2017 EIR (pages 4.8-20 and 4.8-21) found less-than-significant impacts regarding decreasing groundwater supplies or interfering with groundwater recharge. Policy 5.9-2 in the 2035 GP requires the City to encourage site design measures that facilitate groundwater recharge, and Policy 5.3-5 requires new construction to use best practices to preserve permeable surfaces. Policy 4.4-1 and 4.4-3 protect open space lands to allow for groundwater recharge.

Similarly, the Phase I Zoning protects open space areas with the continuation of the Hillside Residential and Open Space and Open Space Public zoning districts, and the addition of the Open Space Privately-Owned district. These zoning districts preserve permeable surfaces from development, which will facilitate groundwater recharge.

The 2017 EIR (pages 4.8-22 to 4.8-25) found less-than-significant impacts regarding substantially altering the existing drainage pattern of a site or area. Several policies in the 2035 GP are intended to preserve natural watercourses or naturalized drainage channels, and to ensure future development incorporates BMPs to reduce runoff from a site. Policies 3.4-6 and

6.1-11 reduce the potential for erosion, which will help to preserve the existing drainage pattern within the General Plan Planning Area; Policies 4.4-1, 4.4-3, and 5.9-2 help protect open spaces areas from new development, which in turn will protect against increased rates of surface runoff within the 2035 GP Planning Area; Policies 4.5-2, 5.3-2, 5.4-1, 5.4-2, 5.4-3, and 5.4-4 address the maintenance and restoration of Belmont Creek and other waterways, thereby preventing alteration of the course of a stream or river in connection with future development permitted under the 2035 GP; and Policy 5.9-1 requires the City to continue to make improvements to the drainage system to improve drainage in areas that are currently underserved.

The 2017 EIR (pages 4.8-25 to 4.8-28) found less-than-significant impacts regarding the release of pollutants into flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. As noted on page 4.8-37 of the 2017 EIR, the City is at low risk for being exposed to flood hazards, tsunamis, or seiches. Additionally, policies in the 2035 GP further reduce the potential impact. Policy 6.1-2 requires the City to regulate development to ensure mitigation of safety hazards on sites with a threat of landslides; Policy 6.1-3 prohibits development in areas at risk of landslides; Policy 6.1-5 requires geotechnical studies to identify hazards and mitigation measures; and Policy 6.1-9 requires real estate transactions to declare suspected geologic hazards. 153
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
80 1750\26\3657182.1
The 2017 EIR found (pages 4.8-18 and 19) less-than-significant impacts with regard to obstructing implementation of a water quality control plan. The Approved Project Planning Area lies within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which has adopted the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Region, including the San Francisco Bay Estuary to implement plans, policies, and provisions for water quality management. The 2012 Basin Plan contains descriptions of the technical, legal, and programmatic bases of water quality regulations for the San Francisco Bay Region, which includes the Approved Project Planning Area. The Basin Plan defines beneficial uses for water bodies in the region, including municipal domestic supply, freshwater replenishment, cold freshwater habitat, fish migration, preservation of rare and endangered species, fish spawning, warm freshwater habitat, wildlife habitat, body contact recreation, and non-contact recreation.

All actions in the 2035 GP must comply with Municipal Permit Order No. R9-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, issued by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, as well as General Plan policies

6.2-9 and 6.2-10.
2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:

Policy 4.4-3: Consistent with the San Juan Hills and Western Hills area plans, cluster development in the hillside areas of western Belmont in order to maintain contiguous habitat areas, minimize grading, and limit exposure to steep slopes and other sensitive areas. See also policies in the Land Use Element.

Policy 4.5-2: Protect Belmont Creek from future encroachment through regulation, development review, conservation easements, or other appropriate actions.

CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Policy 5.3-2: Continue to maintain, protect, restore, and enhance Belmont’s ecologically important areas and seek to reduce impacts on them, including the creek corridors, the open space, and the wetlands around O’Neill Slough.

Policy 5.3-5: In design and construction, require use of best practices that preserve natural resources, such as soil, trees, native plants, and permeable surfaces.

Policy 5.4-1: Restore Belmont Creek to enhance ecological functions, biological resources, hydrology function, and flood control.
154
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
81 1750\26\3657182.1
Policy 5.4-2: Preserve, where possible, natural watercourses or provide naturalized drainage channels within the city. Where necessary and feasible, implement restoration and rehabilitation measures.

Policy 5.4-3: Protect, restore, and enhance a continuous corridor of native riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat along Belmont’s waterways, water bodies, and wetlands.

Policy 5.4-4: Preserve and enhance the natural riparian environment along waterway corridors, including Belmont Creek, by minimizing environmental and visual impacts. See also Policy 4.5-2 in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element.

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.

Policy 5.9-1: Continue to make improvements and upgrades to the drainage system.

Priorities should be to provide curbs and gutters to underserved areas (as feasible), improve facilities in areas that are subject to seasonal flooding, increase capacity of the system, and replace damaged lines in the storm drain system.

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 to absorb 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 basins to facilitate infiltration; and
• Integrated or subsurface water retention facilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses.

Policy 6.1-3: Prohibit development in areas at risk of landslides or high or very high liquefaction as shown in Figure 6-1, or on slopes steeper than 30 percent, unless detailed site investigations by licensed engineers ensure that risks do not exist, or can be reduced to acceptable levels and the structure will be protected for its expected life. 155
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
82 1750\26\3657182.1
Policy 6.1-5: Geotechnical studies shall identify any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and a statement of the site’s suitability for the proposed development and whether or not it will be safe from geologic hazard for its expected life. The study shall identify net developable areas, if any, based on landslide or ground shaking potential or erosion risk. Impacts from the development, such as those resulting from increased water runoff, shall also be determined. Such studies must be signed by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and are subject to review and approval by City staff and/or contracted employees.

Policy 6.1-11: Support erosion prevention of hillside areas at risk of landslide, as identified in Figure 6-1, by revegetation or other acceptable methods.

Policy 6.2-9: Periodically review maps prepared by FEMA and the State Department of Water Resources to identify changes in mapping of areas subject to flooding and amend the General Plan or Municipal Code as warranted.

Policy 6.2-10: Continue to comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements for municipal authorities to address water quality and flow-related impacts of stormwater runoff; continue to enforce NPDES permits in Belmont; and continue to participate in the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant Implementation of the Proposed Project may include construction actions at Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch parks, and actions in the two open space areas that involve repairing trails at multiple stream crossings. Furthermore, Proposed Project actions may include the continued use, maintenance of, or improvements to trail networks. These potential actions may have impacts on riparian vegetation and on localized erosion, thus potentially degrading water quality. In addition to the 2035 GP policies addressing water quality, the Proposed Project includes policies P7, P12 and P13; these policies center on conservation of water resources through the protection of surface and ground water from chemical contamination and minimization of soil erosion and sedimentation of waters and wetlands. The Proposed Project, when paired with the 2035 GP policies and the Proposed Project policies around water, would result the same, less-than-significant impacts as those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
156
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
83 1750\26\3657182.1
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Impact than the Approved Project
Implementation of the Proposed Project may include minor increases in impervious or semi-impervious surfaces as a result of some activities, such as path improvements like widening for accessibility. These potential actions may have impacts on local surface permeability. A negligible amount of impervious surfaces would be created through construction activity at Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch parks compared to development of residential, industrial, or commercial areas as analyzed in the 2017 EIR. 2035 GP policies, as well as policies included as part of the Proposed Project (P7, P12 and P13) center on conservation of water resources through the protection of surface and ground water from chemical contamination and minimization of soil erosion and sedimentation of waters and wetlands. In addition, P4 protects riparian ecosystems and habitat to maintain natural hydrologic processes, water quality, and wildlife benefits. The Proposed Project, when paired with the 2035 GP policies and the Proposed Project policies around water, would result in less impacts compared to those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; (iii) create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant Implementation of the Proposed Project may include improvements to existing parks, trails, park accessibility, park equipment, and landscaping. These potential actions may have impacts through the increase of impervious surfaces and construction-related impacts during trail and park improvements. From the construction of parking spaces, a nominal amount of impervious surface could be added to Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch parks. 2035 GP policies, as well as policies included as part of the Proposed Project (P7, P12 and P13) center on conservation of water resources through the protection of surface and ground water from chemical contamination and minimization of soil erosion and sedimentation of waters and wetlands The Proposed Project, when paired with the 2035 GP policies and the Proposed Project policies around water and drainage patterns, would result in the same, less than significant impacts compared to those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant 157
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
84 1750\26\3657182.1
Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch parks and the two open space areas (WDL and SJC) are at low risk of exposure to floods, seiche or tsunamis. As noted on pages 4.8-37 through 4.8-39 of the 2017 EIR none of these areas are in a 100-year flood zone, and the entire city of Belmont would be buffered by land in Redwood City and Foster City if a seiche or tsunami was to occur. Proposed Project impacts would be the same as those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant The Proposed Project Planning Area is located within the Approved Project Planning Area.

As noted in both the 2035 GP and the 2017 EIR, the Approved Project Planning Area is located within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which has adopted the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan).

Furthermore, all actions in the 2035 GP, as well as the Proposed Project, would need to comply with Municipal Permit Order No. R9-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, issued by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, as well as General Plan policies 6.2-9 and 6.2-

10. There would be new but less than significant impacts compared to those analyzed in the 2017 EIR. Within the Proposed Project, policies further reduce impacts: P7, P12, and P13 center on conservation of water resources; P8 centers on monitoring sensitive terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species; P9 highlights avoidance of sensitive and critical habitat during trail or facility construction accordingly; P3 states that trails will be aligned, relocated, or modified to avoid impacting sensitive habitats such as wetlands and areas where endangered species are present; and P4 protects riparian ecosystems and habitat to maintain natural hydrologic processes, water quality, and wildlife benefits.

Overall, the Proposed Project policies and objectives align with the Basin Plan. The Proposed Project, when paired with the 2035 GP policies and the Proposed Project policies around water and drainage patterns, would result in the same, less than significant impacts compared to those analyzed in the 2017 EIR. 158
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
85 1750\26\3657182.1

7.12 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
a) Physically divide an
established community?
Yes
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due
to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Yes
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
Impacts
Potential land use and planning impacts included in the 2035 GP and analyzed as part of the 2017 EIR include the following:
• Less than significant impacts on community connectivity. • Less-than-significant impact for implementation of the Approved Project conflicting with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Findings
The 2017 EIR (pages 4.9-22 through 4.9-24) found a less-than-significant impact for implementation of the 2035 GP on community connectivity. In particular, 2035 GP Policies 2.1-2,

2.3-4, 2.5-5, and 2.8-1 emphasize connectivity in land use planning. These policies would also apply to implementation of the PROS Plan and would have less impact than those analyzed in the 2017 EIR regarding community connectivity. The draft PROS Plan and OSMP include policies and implementation actions that would take place within and around the City’s existing parks.

The 2017 EIR (pages 4.9-24 through 4.9-27) found a less-than-significant impact for implementation of the Approved Project conflicting with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 2035 GP Policies 2.1- 1, 2.12-1, and 2.14-2 emphasize consistency between the Approved Project and applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, including the City’s Zoning Ordinance. 2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:

LAND USE ELEMENT
159
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
86 1750\26\3657182.1
Policy 2.1-1: Maintain consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map.

Policy 2.1-2: Coordinate land use and transportation planning to ensure that land use patterns and intensities can be supported by and are accessible to the transportation network, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. See also Policy 3.1-1 in Circulation Element.

Policy 2.3-4: Focus new development in or directly adjacent to already-developed areas, where it can be served by existing public services and infrastructure.

Policy 2.5-5: In accordance with the Belmont Village Specific Plan, provide incentives for infill development and redevelopment and adaptive reuse and restoration of existing buildings where appropriate in Belmont Village.

Policy 2.8-1: Enable infill properties to develop with uses and development intensities supporting a cohesive development pattern.

Policy 2.12-1: Designate parks and open space in the Zoning Ordinance using appropriate zoning classifications, which should be consistent with the General Plan land use designations “Public/Community” and “Open Space.” Park zones should include recreational uses along with associated structures and infrastructure, and open space should include more passive uses.

Policy 2.14-2: Simplify and make consistent the land use and zoning designations for parks, open space, and hillsides. See also Policy 2.12-1.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less Impact than the Approved Project
2035 GP policies 2.1-2, 2.3-4, 2.5-5, and 2.8-1 emphasize connectivity in land use planning. These policies would also apply to implementation of the Proposed Project, which would have less impact than the Approved Project due to less proposed development activity. As previously discussed, the Proposed Project includes policies and implementation actions that would take place within and around the City’s existing parks. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not cause physical division of an established community, as proposed actions would take place within the boundaries of existing parks and open space areas. Therefore, potential Proposed Project impacts which would physically divide any established community would be less than the Approved Project as assessed in the 2017 EIR.
160
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
87 1750\26\3657182.1
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Impact than the Approved Project
Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation. The Proposed Project contain policies and implementation actions that are consistent with policies described in the 2035 GP, including recommendations for balanced recreation uses, trail management, user compatibility, and cooperative planning. Impacts would be less than those analyzed in the 2017 EIR. Therefore, potential Proposed Project impacts regarding conflicting with any land use plan, policy, or regulation would be less than the Approved Project as assessed in the 2017 EIR. 161
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
88 1750\26\3657182.1

7.13 Mineral Resources
Would the project:

Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that
would be of value to the
region and the residents
of the state?
Yes
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local
general plan, specific
plan, or other land use
plan?
Yes
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
Impacts
The 2017 EIR found there to be no mineral resource impacts based on the implementation of the 2035 GP.

Findings
The 2017 EIR did not identify any impacts of the Approved Project on mineral resources. A search of the California Department of Conservation’s “Mines Online” mapping tool indicated that no mines are located within the City of Belmont (California Department of Conservation, 2016).

Moreover, an online search of Google Maps indicated that there are no quarries located in Belmont (Google Maps, 2023). The 2035 GP and BVSP do not identify any locally important mineral resource recovery sites in Belmont; therefore, because there are no known mineral resources regionally, or locally, there would be no impacts for both significant thresholds “a” and “b.”

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Same as Approved Project – No Impact
There are no known mineral resources regionally, or locally within the City. Therefore, there would be no impacts for loss of availability of a known mineral resource. 162
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
89 1750\26\3657182.1
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Same as Approved Project – No Impact
There are no known mineral resources regionally, or locally within the City. Therefore, there would be no impacts for loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.
163
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
90 1750\26\3657182.1

7.14 Noise
Would the project:

Findings
The 2017 EIR found significant and unavoidable noise impacts from implementation of the Approved Project that would be in excess of standards established in the 2035 GP (page 4.10-22 to 4.10-39). Specifically, the Approved Project would allow for increased density in the Planning Area, resulting in construction activities which will produce temporary increases in ambient noise levels that would exceed noise standards set forth in the 2035 GP. Future development and redevelopment facilitated by the Approved Project will comply with Policy 7.1-3 of the 2035 GP and Policies 6.5-2 and 6.5-3 of the BVSP, which require that projects to implement adequate noise-reducing mitigation sufficient to meet noise exposure standards and require developers to mitigate noise exposure to sensitive receptors from construction activities to the extent feasible.

Additionally, the increased development density facilitated by the Approved Project would result in changes to traffic noise within the City. The Approved Project would also change the noise exposure standards for land uses in the City. The 2017 EIR found that implementation of the Approved Project will result in noise levels that increase to above thresholds contained in the 2035 GP and out of the normally acceptable range for some uses, which will constitute a significant and unavoidable noise impact.

New development facilitated by the Approved Project could also be exposed to train noise from the Caltrain commuter trail line that runs through the Planning Area, as well as other stationary sources of noise within the Planning Area. Several 2035 GP policies (7.1-1, 7.1-2, 7.1-4, 7.1-5, 7.1- 6, 7.1-8, 7.1-9, 7.2-1, 7.3-1, and BVSP Policy 6.5-2) will help prevent the exposure of new sensitive land uses to excessive train noise and stationary source of noise. These impacts are classified to be less than significant by the 2017 EIR, and no mitigation measures are required.

The 2017 found that implementation of the Approved Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts regarding generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels from construction activities (page 4.10-39 to 4.10-42). Development facilitated by the Approved Project will result in construction activities that would include pile driving, resulting in temporary substantial increases in groundborne vibration. Vibration will also be produced by heavy duty equipment associated with some construction activities that may be felt by adjacent uses. 2035 GP Policies 7.1-10, 7.1-11, and BVSP Policy 6.5-4 will require developers of new development projects to implement mitigation practices to reduce vibration associated with construction activities. The 2017 EIR found that implementation of the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts regarding groundborne vibration from stationary source vibration, traffic, and trains.

The 2017 EIR found that implementation of the Approved Project would result in a less-thansignificant impact regarding generation of excessive noise levels within the vicinity of a private 165
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
92 1750\26\3657182.1
airstrip, airport land use plan, or public airport (page 4.10-44 to 4.10-46). The Planning Area is situated within the vicinity of two airports: the San Carlos Airport and the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). A small portion of the Approved Project Planning Area is located in close proximity to the lowest established noise contour line associated with future operation of the San Carlos Airport, however, the noise level at this contour line would not conflict with any potential future land use associated with the Approved Project. No parts of the Approved Project Planning Area are located within forecasted noise contour lines for SFO, and it is unlikely that people associated with development or redevelopment of the Approved Project would be exposed to excessive noise levels from SFO for any substantial amount of time. 2035 GP Policy

7.3-2 would enhance coordination with the San Carlos Airport in improving its noise abatement program, which would reduce noise impacts associated with the San Carlos Airport. 2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:

NOISE ELEMENT
Policy 7.1-1: Update the City’s Noise Ordinance as needed to be in conformance with the General Plan policies and noise standards.

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.

Policy 7.1-3: Require noise-reducing mitigation to meet allowable outdoor and indoor noise exposure standards in Table 7-2. Noise mitigation measures that may be approved to achieve these noise level targets include but are not limited to the following:
• Construct façades with substantial weight and insulation; • Use sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas; • Use sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas;
• Use minimum setbacks and exterior barriers;
• Use acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends; and • Install a mechanical ventilation system that provides fresh air under closed window conditions.

Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level standards may be approved, provided that a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces.

Policy 7.1-4: Exclude residential and noise-sensitive uses located in the Belmont Village PDA from outdoor noise standards in Table 7-2, where it is determined application of noise mitigation measures will be detrimental to the realization of the General Plan’s goals and policies to realize a vibrant activity center in the Village. 166
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
93 1750\26\3657182.1
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.

Policy 7.1-6: Promote the use of noise attenuation measures to improve the acoustic environment inside residences where existing single-family residential development is located in a noise-impacted environment, such as along an arterial street or adjacent to a noise-producing use.

Policy 7.1-8: Continue to enforce applicable Federal and State Noise Insulation Standards (CCR, Title 24) and noise requirements.

Policy 7.1-9: Establish noise level performance standards for new equipment and vehicles purchased by the City consistent with the best available control technology (BACT) to minimize noise and vibration.

Policy 7.1-10: Require developers of new development anticipated to generate a substantial amount of vibration during construction to implement mitigation practices to reduce vibration, which can include: operating heavy equipment as far as practical from residential uses; using smaller bulldozers (operating weight less than 20,000 pounds) when grading must occur within approximately 50 feet of residential uses or other vibration sensitive uses; and using quiet pile driving technology when feasible.

Policy 7.1-11: Require development projects to include mitigation measures to protect the development from ground borne vibration from the railway if located within 120 feet of the centerline of Caltrain rail tracks. See Policy 6.5-4 in the Environmental Sustainability, Health, and Safety chapter of the Belmont Village Specific Plan.

Policy 7.2-1: Use the noise-sensitive land uses and transportation noise sources table (Table 7-2) and Future Noise Contours map (Figure 7-3) as criteria to determine acceptability of noise-sensitive land uses. Do not permit new noise-sensitive uses— including schools, hospitals, and places of worship—where noise levels are “normally unacceptable” or higher, if alternative locations are available for the uses in the city.

Policy 7.3-1: Work with Caltrans, Caltrain, SamTrans, and other agencies to mitigate transportation-related noise impacts on residential areas and sensitive uses. This may include encouraging installation of sound barriers or bus stop relocation in selected locations.

Policy 7.3-2: Continue to work with the San Carlos Airport in improving and implementing its noise abatement program.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 167
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
94 1750\26\3657182.1
Less Impact than the Approved Project
2035 GP policies would apply to actions contemplated in the Proposed Project.

Implementation of Proposed Project actions may generate temporary increases in noise from the use of construction equipment for the purposes of trail improvements, vegetation management, and park improvements. New use of Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch Parks is expected to have a nominal increase in ambient noise. Both parks are identified as “Neighborhood Tier 2” parks in the Proposed Project which are designed to support individuals and small groups and the majority of users are expected to arrive by walking or biking. Under the Proposed Project, no major construction projects (e.g., new sports fields, buildings or swimming pools) would be undertaken, construction periods would be shorter compared to other development type projects analyzed in the 2017 EIR. Therefore, Proposed Project actions are expected to have less impacts than Approved Project impacts analyzed in the 2017 EIR regarding generating a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Impact than the Approved Project
2035 GP policies would apply to actions contemplated in the Proposed Project.

Construction activities resulting from the Proposed Project, including restroom installation, play structure replacement, and path/trail development may produce minimal produce groundbourne noise or vibration. However, these activities are expected to produce significantly less groundbourne noise and vibration than the building development related construction, traffic, and train noise and vibration analyzed in the 2017 EIR. The impacts regarding generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels would be less for the Proposed Project than those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant The Proposed Project Planning Area is contained within the Approved Project Planning Area and the 2035 GP policies would apply to implementation of the Proposed Project.

The Proposed Project impacts would be the same as those analyzed in the 2017 EIR. 168
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
95 1750\26\3657182.1

7.15 Population and Housing
Would the project:

Findings
The 2017 EIR found a less-than-significant impact for the Approved Project on either directly or indirectly inducing substantial unplanned population growth in an area (page 4.9-28 and 4.9-29).

The 2035 GP and Phase I Zoning were designed to support population growth based on Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) projections: approximately 4,100 people by 2035. The updated Phase I Zoning would accommodate growth in Belmont that is proportionate with the City’s size, growth rate, and regional placement. Multiple policies in the 2035 GP would also help reduce the impact of population growth. 2035 GP Policy 2.9-1 would ensure that infrastructure would be built as growth occurs, rather than provided prematurely or in excess of reasonably expected growth 169
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
96 1750\26\3657182.1
projects. Policy 2.8-1 would allow infill properties to be developed with uses and development intensities supporting a cohesive development pattern. In addition, various policies in the 2035 GP and measure TL.2 in the Climate Action Plan promote the expansion of roadways to encourage the use of public transit, bicycles, and walking, rather than extending roads or adding lanes.

The 2017 EIR found a less-than-significant impact for the Approved Project regarding displacement of substantial numbers of people or housing that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (2017 EIR page 4.9-30 through 4.0-32). The Approved Project would not cause significant land use changes to residential use areas within the Approved Project Planning Area. The 2035 GP and Phase 1 Zoning increase the capacity for the overall number of dwelling units within the City. Specifically, 2035 GP Policy 2.3-1 encourages the provision of lower- and moderate-income housing, and Policy 2.17-3 requires the City to prioritize support for affordable housing and public infrastructure. Additionally, BVSP Policies 2.3- 1 2.3-3, 2.3-4, 2.3-6, 2,3-7, 2.3-8 and 5.8-5 encourage the development of affordable housing at all income levels, promote the assembly of multiple continuous parcels to create larger project sites for mixed-use and multi-family residential development, and promote infill development. 2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:

LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy 2.3-1: Encourage the provision of lower- and moderate-income housing to meet the objectives of the Housing Element.

Policy 2.8-1: Enable infill properties to develop with uses and development intensities supporting a cohesive development pattern.

Policy 2.9-1: Allow sufficient density and intensity to enable new development to support all required infrastructure, community facilities, and open space.

Policy 2.17-3: Establish priorities for City funding to fulfill economic development objectives, including possible support for affordable housing and public infrastructure.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Impact than the Approved Project
The Proposed Project would provide a structured management approach to managing the City’s parks, recreation, and open space areas for the next 15 years. The Proposed Project does not propose new homes, business, or the expansion of roads or other infrastructure.

Therefore, actions facilitated by the Proposed Project would not, either directly or indirectly, induce substantial population growth in Belmont; the impact would be less than those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
170
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
97 1750\26\3657182.1
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Impact than the Approved Project
Implementation of the Proposed Project will not displace existing people or housing – Proposed Project action will occur within existing City parks and Open Spaces. A small number of ‘vacant parcels’ are slated for potential new park development; these parcels are not currently zoned for residential and, thus, will not displace planning housing projects. For the Proposed Project, this impact would be less than those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
171
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
98 1750\26\3657182.1

7.16 Public Services
Would the project:

Fire protection? Yes
Police protection? Yes
Schools? Yes
Parks? Yes
Other public facilities? Yes
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
Impacts
Potential public services impacts included in the 2035 GP and analyzed as part of the 2017 EIR include the following:
• Less than Significant: Implementation of the Approved Project would impact on fire and police protection.
• Less than Significant: Implementation of the Approved Project would impact public school facilities.
• Less than Significant: Implementation of the Approved Project would impact public park facilities.

Findings
The 2017 EIR found that implementation of the Approved Project would have a less-thansignificant impact on fire and police protection (page 4.11-24 to 4.11-29). Development and population growth facilitated by the Approved Project would likely increase the demand for fire and police protection services within the Approved Project Planning Area. 2035 GP Policies 6.8-3,

2.3-4, 2.9-1, 6.6-8, and 6.9-2 would reduce the impact by requiring new development to be focused in already urbanized areas near existing services, requiring periodic evaluations of fire and police service capacities, and promoting fire safety education which would reduce the need for service calls. 2035 GP Policies 2.14-3, 4.4-7, 5.1-3, 6.6-6, and 6.6-7 would help reduce wildfires by implementing programs to manage natural hazards and effectively fight potential wildfires, and Policy 6.6-2 would require maintenance of adequate water supply for firefighting 172
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
99 1750\26\3657182.1
and prioritize locations for new water storage facilities. BVSP Policies 5.6-2 and 5.6-3 would require the City to work with the Belmont Fire District to ensure adequate emergency access and fire flow capacity.

The 2017 EIR found that implementation of the Approved Project would have a less-thansignificant impact on public school facilities (page 4.11-29 to 4.11-31). The 2017 EIR analyzed projected future school enrollment after implementation of the Approved Project using past trends of Belmont-Redwood Shores School District (BRSSD) and Sequoia Union High School District (SUHSD) enrollment. It was found that projected enrollment would likely exceed the capacity of existing school facilities, however SUSHD would complete construction of a new 10- classroom building at Carlmont High School in July 2017, which would serve 917 students.

Implementation of the Approved Project could possibly require provision of new elementary school facilities, the siting of which would be regulated by the California Department of Education, rather than the City. Individual school development projects would be required to conduct environmental review pursuant to CEQA prior to project approval. To the extent feasible, any adverse environmental impacts caused by the development of new schools would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.2035 GP Policy 2.10-3 and BVSP Policy 5.7-1 encourage the City to continue to work with public school districts to ensure accommodation of future student populations facilitated by implementation of the Approved Project.

The 2017 EIR found that implementation of the Approved Project would result in a less-thansignificant impact on public park facilities (page 4.11-31 and 4.11-32). Implementation of the 2035 GP would result in a population increase of 4,100 residents, which would place additional physical demands on existing parks and recreational areas. Parks elements such as vegetation, water resources, built structures, walking/biking paths, sport facilities, and others would face increased wear-and-tear due to the increased park use over longer periods of time and/or more intensive use over the course of a typical day. Without proper maintenance, the useful lifetime of park amenities could be shortened. Furthermore, development facilitated by the Approved Project is expected to result in a need for additional parkland per the City’s park acreage standards, established by 2035 GP Policy 4.1-2. The 2017 EIR concluded that this impact would be less than significant, as there is a sufficient amount of vacant land in the Approved Project Planning Area to meet future parkland needs. In addition, the Approved Project Planning Area contains 294 acres of undeveloped public open space, which is widely accessible to the public through a system of trails. These open spaces are not formally considered “parkland,” however they complement the City’s parks, recreation, and open spaces by providing a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities to the public.

A variety of 2035 GP, BVSP, and CAP policies would reduce the impact of the Approved Project on park facilities. 2035 GP Policy 4.7-1 requires the City to ensure that new development contributes park impact fees; Policies 2.10-1, 4.1-1, 4.2-1, and 4.4-5 support facilities performance standards established by the PROS Plan and OSMP; Policy 4.1-3 ensures compliance with the Quimby Act which requires development projects to provide adequate land for parks; Policies 4.6-1 and 4.6-2 improve access to parks and to the Belmont Creek; Policies 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 support additional recreational programs in Belmont; Policies 4.7-2 and 4.7-3 aim to find new funding sources for parks and recreation through public and private partnerships; Policy 4.2-3 supports maintaining the joint use agreement with Belmont-Redwood Shores School District for public use of recreational facilities, as well as pursuing other joint use agreements with Sequoia Union High School District and Notre Dame de Namur University. BVSP Policy 5.9-1 calls for addition of 2.2 acres of neighborhood parks in the BVSP area; Policies 5.9-2, 5.9-3, and 6.3-3 support the 173
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
100
1750\26\3657182.1
development of new parks and community gathering spaces; policies 5.9-6 and 5.9-7 support improved connections to existing parks near the BVSP area, Policy 5.9-5 ensures safety and accessibility for parks in the BVSP area; and Policy 5.9-9 requires all development to comply with the City’s parkland requirement. Measure TL2 in the CAP requires the remake of urban landscapes to include improved streetscapes, active transportation infrastructure, and beatification, which may provide recreational opportunities and gathering spaces that supplement existing park facilities. Phase I Zoning updates would also rezone various parcels within the Planning Area from Agriculture to Open Space and Public, which would more clearly delineate parks and open space land within Belmont. New parks would be planned and developed from impact fees charged to new development to ensure that the park acreage in the City increases over time commensurate to population growth.

The 2017 EIR identified that the construction of new park facilities necessitated by development facilitated by the Approved Project has the potential to negatively impact the environment (page

4.11-39 to 4.11-42). Impacts could include habitat disturbance and water pollution during construction, increased exposure of sensitive habitats to human activity and traffic, installation of impermeable surfaces, introduction of invasive species, and the conversion of open space that could otherwise have been preserved. In accordance with the projected population increase of 4,100 residents by 2035, the total amount of new parkland required would be 33.3 acres. The 2035 GP and Phase I Zoning focus development of new park land on underused and vacant parcels, thus minimizing impacts to undisturbed and undeveloped land. Specifically, 2035 GP Policy 2.9-1 requires the City to ensure that development standards require new development to support all required infrastructure, community facilities, and open space, and Policy 4.1-2 pursues opportunities to convert underutilized parcels into mini parks or community spaces, as feasible.

Other proposed policies, as discussed in Chapter 4.3 “Biological Resources” of the 2017 EIR (page 4.3-1 to 4.3-42), establish guidelines and best management practices for construction, siting, and design that would require protection of water quality, identification of sensitive environmental habitats, and the protection of sites determined to have high habitat value.

Specifically, Policy 2.3-4 requires new development to be within or adjacent to existing development, Policy 2.14-3 requires clear design standards for the interface between open spaces and development, and Policy 2.10-1 requires that plans for future recreational facilities are based on the PROS Plan and OSMP. BVSP Policy 6.3-3 requires the City to promote the development of parks that provide habitat services. Park and public facilities construction that would have the potential to adversely impact the environment would be required to conduct project-level environmental review in accordance with CEQA. Construction actions would need to be consistent with 2035 GP policies pertaining to protection of biological and cultural resources as well water resources and water quality (see Conservation Element).

The 2017 EIR found that implementation of the Approved Project would increase demand for library, city administrative, and other community facility services, but 2035 GP and BVSP policies would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level (page 4.11-41 and 4.11.42). 2035 GP Policy 4.2-2 would ensure that these public services are improved and expanded to meet demand as development occurs, Policy 2.3-4 requires new development to be located within or adjacent to existing development, Policy 2.9-1 promotes new development to provide required facilities, BVSP policies 5.9-2, 5.9-3, 5.9-4, and 5.9-5 encourage new activity centers and community gathering spaces in the BVSP area, and BVSP Policy 5.9-7 encourages better connectivity to community facilities within one half mile of the BVSP area. 2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:
174
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
101
1750\26\3657182.1

LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy 2.3-4: Focus new development in or directly adjacent to already-developed areas, where it can be served by existing public services and infrastructure.

Policy 2.9-1: Allow sufficient density and intensity to enable new development to support all required infrastructure, community facilities, and open space.

Policy 2.10-1: Use the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan to plan for future public facility and programming needs. See Policy 4.2-1 in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element.

Policy 2.10-3: Continue to coordinate and collaborate with the public school districts that serve the Belmont community on school facilities and planning land use, and circulation issues to support high quality educational opportunities in Belmont, including access to schools, facility expansion and modernization, and strategies to address school enrollment and space needs or constraints, in order to ensure that school facilities will be adequate to accommodate student growth.

Incorporate “Defensible Space” standards as needed in areas of high wildfire risk.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
Policy 4.1-1: Use the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan to define the vision, goals, and strategies for maintaining and improving Belmont’s park system and to guide implementation efforts.

Policy 4.1-2: Strive to achieve and maintain a citywide standard of at least 5.0 acres of mini, neighborhood, and community parks per 1,000 residents, targeting a breakdown of

3.0 acres/1,000 residents for community parks and 2.0 acres/1,000 residents for neighborhood parks.

Policy 4.1-3: Ensure that all development projects comply with the City’s parkland dedication requirements, in accordance with the Quimby Act, to provide adequate land for parks, open space, landscaping, and trails in appropriate locations through the dedication of land or otherwise providing for mini parks, planned trails, and other recreational space.

Policy 4.2-1: Review and update the types, amounts, and locations of community and recreation facilities as part of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan.

Policy 4.2-2: Building on the needs assessment, improve the quality and quantity of public community facilities in Belmont.
175
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
102
1750\26\3657182.1
Policy 4.2-3: Continue joint use agreements with other agencies, institutions, and private organizations for public use of recreational facilities not owned by the City, especially in neighborhoods deficient in recreational facilities, if the joint use agreements can help meet the city’s recreational needs and if the terms are favorable to the City.

Policy 4.3-1: Continue to provide recreational programs and services to serve the entire Belmont community.

Policy 4.3-2: Support other agencies, private organizations, and institutions that serve the Belmont community with recreational, social, and cultural activities.

Policy 4.4-5: Use the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan to establish priorities for the protection, enhancement, and improvement of open space lands and trails for recreation purposes.

Policy 4.4-7: Continue programs to reduce the fire danger in the open space. See Policy

5.1-3 in the Conservation Element.

Policy 4.6-1: Maintain and improve access to parks and open space, especially in areas that lack land for additional parkland dedication and in areas where topography and lack of sidewalks inhibits easy pedestrian access to parks and recreation facilities.

Policy 4.6-2: Improve public access and connections to Belmont Creek. Promote use of this waterway corridor for passive recreation, education, and research.

Policy 4.7-1: Ensure that residential and nonresidential development projects contribute to the City’s park, recreation, and open space resources commensurate with their impacts, through the Quimby Act and establishment and collection of park impact fees.

Policy 4.7-2: Continue to work with local, regional, and State agencies, nonprofit and community organizations, foundations, and grant sources to provide funding for Belmont’s open space, parks, and recreation and assistance with maintenance and programming.

Policy 4.7-3: Support, where appropriate and feasible, partnerships with private businesses to conduct limited operations in park and recreation facilities (e.g., a concessions stand) to generate a revenue stream that may contribute to operations and maintenance costs.

SAFETY ELEMENT
Policy 6.6-2: Work with the Mid-Peninsula Water District to maintain adequate water supply for firefighting, including capacity for peak load under a reasonable worst case wildland fire scenario, to be determined by the Belmont Fire Protection District. In 176
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
103
1750\26\3657182.1
evaluating sites for new water storage facilities, place a priority on locations least subject to impacts from seismic activity and landsliding.

Policy 6.6-6: Promote and support the Belmont Fire Protection District’s Vegetation Management Program to reduce fire hazards, particularly in areas in the Wildland Urban Interface.

Policy 6.6-7: Continue to participate in State and regional efforts to develop a clear legislative and regulatory framework to manage the Wildland Urban Interface.

Policy 6.8-3: Periodically evaluate police and fire services to ensure that the City is providing adequate protection in an efficient, cost-effective manner.

Policy 6.9-2: Promote programs to educate the public concerning the nature of earthquake, fire, and flood hazards in Belmont and measures that individuals can take to reduce risk.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
• Fire Protection?
• Police Protection?
• Schools?
• Parks?
• Other Public Facilities?
Fire and Police Protection
Less Impact than the Approved Project
Implementation of Proposed Project actions would not directly or indirectly result in population growth which would require the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire or police facilities. Therefore, no adverse environmental impact would occur due to the provision of new or physically altered police or fire facilities. The impact would be less than the Approved Project.

Schools
Less Impact than the Approved Project
177
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
104
1750\26\3657182.1
Implementation of the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly result in population growth which would require the provision of or need for new school facilities.

Therefore, no adverse environmental impact would occur due to the provision of new or physically altered public school facilities. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in less impacts than the Approved Project.

Parks
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant The implementation of the Proposed Project would meet the policy set forth in the 2035 GP. The development of the Proposed Project is in response to the park needs identified in the 2035 GP and the 2017 EIR. Implementation of the Proposed Project, in association with applicable policies from the 2035 GP, would result in a nominal increase in visitor use and impacts would be less than those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.

Other Public Facilities
Less Impact than the Approved Project
Implementation of Proposed Project actions would not directly or indirectly result in population growth which would require the provision of or need for other public facilities.

Therefore, no adverse environmental impact would occur due to the provision of new or physically altered library, city administrative, or other community facilities. The impact would be less than those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
178
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
105
1750\26\3657182.1

7.17 Recreation
Would the project:

Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
a) Increase the use of
existing neighborhood
and regional parks or
other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Yes
b) Include recreational
facilities or require the
construction or expansion
of recreational facilities
which might have an
adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Yes
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
Impacts
Potential recreation impacts included in the 2035 GP and analyzed as part of the 2017 EIR include the following:
• Less than Significant: Implementation of the Approved Project will impact use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. • Less than Significant: Implementation of the Approved Project will impact the environment via construction or expansion of recreation facilities.

Findings
The 2017 EIR found less-than-significant impacts with regard to increasing use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. The EIR concluded that when the two open spaces are accounted for in meeting park and recreation demand, there is sufficient land to support future park and recreational areas. Policy 4.1-1 from the Park and Recreation Element directs the City to update its Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan.

The 2017 EIR found less-than-significant impacts with regard to construction or expansion of recreational facilities having an adverse physical effect on the environment. 2035 GP Policies 4.1-

1. 4.2-1, and 4.4-5 would ensure the City updates the existing PROS plan to ensure demand for park and recreation resources are met.
179
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
106
1750\26\3657182.1
2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:

Policy 4.2-1: Review and update the types, amounts, and locations of community and recreation facilities as part of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan.

Policy 4.4-5: Use the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan to establish priorities for the protection, enhancement, and improvement of open space lands and trails for recreation purposes.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant Community surveys conducted for the Proposed Project support the idea that many City residents use WDL and SJC to meet their recreation needs. Eighty percent of survey respondents indicated that they used the City’s open space areas one to three times per week. Implementation of the Proposed Project may result in a minor increase in visitation, but it would not result in substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities.

Proposed Project Policies P19 through P23 address opportunities for a variety of type of users, and for providing for safe recreation opportunities. Additional applicable policies include: trail management policies (P24-P31) to protect natural resources, enhance wayfinding and help provide for visitor safety; user compatibility policies(P32-P35); and partnership policies (P36 and P33) which would encourage partnerships to help more effectively manage WDL and SJC. None of these policies would result in a substantial increase in visits that could cause substantial physical deterioration of park facilities; potential impacts would be the same as those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.

Proposed Project actions – including development of Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch parks-- could enhance visitor experiences and may result in a minor increase in visitation. Parking that would be added to Hidden Canyon would be used to encourage visitors who currently park on Carlmont Drive to use the parking lot instead. Development actions at Ralston Ranch would involve adding a seating area and a walking path. These actions are not expected to increase use of existing neighborhood and regional and other recreational facilities. Impacts would be the same as those analyzed in the 2017 EIR. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant 180
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
107
1750\26\3657182.1
Proposed Project Environmental Sustainability Policies (see Table 5 in Chapter 5 of this document) would ensure any construction of expansion of facilities would not have an adverse physical effect. Some of the applicable policies include P1 (limits on trail construction), P3 (align, relocate or modify trails to avoid impacts), and P13 (control of erosion). Additional Balanced Recreation Use Policies are also applicable including, P25 (monitor erosion), and P26 (maintain trails with improved drainage and hardening).

Proposed Project Impacts would be the same as those analyzed in the 2017 EIR.

Furthermore, Proposed Project implementation – including actions at Hidden Canyon, Ralston Ranch parks, and WDL and SJC -- would involve minimal ground disturbance.

The effects of these actions have been analyzed in previous chapters of this document, including the following: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gases, and Noise. Impacts would be the same as those analyzed in the 2017 EIR. 181
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
108
1750\26\3657182.1

7.18 Transportation
Would the project:

Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
a) Conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
Yes
b) Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
No
c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a
geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
Yes
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
Yes

REGULATORY SETTING UPDATE
Senate Bill (SB) 743 established Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) associated with a project as the metric for use in determining a project’s transportation impacts, replacing the use of the delaybased criteria associated with a Level of Service (LOS) analysis. SB 743 was signed into law in 2013, and starting on July 1, 2020, all lead agencies were required to include an analysis of VMT, instead of LOS, into their CEQA analyses. Because the 2017 EIR was certified in 2017, the EIR included a discussion of LOS impacts, rather than VMT. Section 21099 subd. (b)(1) of the Public Resources Code directed the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare and develop criteria for determining VMT thresholds of significance. The OPR identifies a screening threshold for small, land use projects as a project that generates or attracts fewer than 110 trips per day.

Projects that generate fewer trips than this threshold may be assumed to result in a less-thansignificant transportation impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. In addition, projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15064.3). While VMT was not considered in the 2017 EIR, caselaw states that it is acceptable to analyze LOS in an 182
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
109
1750\26\3657182.1
addendum to an EIR that was prepared before VMT was the standard (Olen Properties Corp. v.

City of Newport Beach, 2023).

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
Impacts
Potential transportation impacts included in the 2035 GP and analyzed as part of the 2017 EIR include the following:
• Less than Significant: Implementation of the Approved Project would result in the expansion of pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit facilities. • Less than Significant: No policies, mobility, or structural heights in the Approved Project were found to result in air traffic safety risks.
• Less than Significant: The Approved Project may result in increased transit ridership. • Less than Significant: The Approved Project would not result in hazardous design features.
• Significant and Unavoidable: Implementation of Approved Project would result in increased vehicular traffic congestion from development and population increases that would affect emergency vehicle response times.

Findings
The Approved Project exceeds the goals of City and County bicycle and pedestrian plans through implementation of 2035 GP Policies 3.5-1 through 3.5-7 that ensure active transportation connections between neighborhoods, provide design guidelines for Complete Streets, and ensure equitable access consistent with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines.

Increasing transit ridership was designed into the 2035 GP and Circulation Element Policies including 3.2-3 are aimed at expanding transit and active transportation networks. BVSP policies focus on improvement and location of transit stops. CAP measures aim to expand active transportation infrastructure which may reduce impacts resulting from increased transit ridership.

Development and roadway improvements proposed in the Approved Project would be implemented over time and be constructed to local, regional, and federal standards. 2035 GP Policy 3.9-1 ensures clear signage for designated truck routes.

Mitigation Measure 4.12-9 requires signal priority and adherence to emergency vehicle passing priority, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:

CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Policy 3.2-3: Maintain and expand transit and active transportation networks that connect neighborhoods with key destinations to encourage travel by non-automobile modes while also improving public health.

Policy 3.5-1: Preserve and maintain Belmont’s existing sidewalks and pedestrian paths. 183
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
110
1750\26\3657182.1
Policy 3.5-2: Require public sidewalks in conjunction with all new non-residential development.

Policy 3.5-3: Require public sidewalks in all new residential developments except in areas where construction of sidewalks would be incompatible with existing development and/or require excessive grading or tree removal. In such cases, adequate roadway shoulders, or alternative trails and pathways shall be provided to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.

Policy 3.5-4: Design sidewalks to comply with requirements set in the Belmont Village Specific Plan within the plan area.

Policy 3.5-6: Preserve and maintain the system of pathways providing access to the open space areas in the Western Hills and the San Francisco Watershed, and develop the pathway network to provide access to the Bay.

Policy 3.5-7: Provide bicycle and pedestrian paths within scenic corridors wherever possible.

Policy 3.9-1: Identify and sign designated truck routes in Belmont, ensuring that clear signage is provided from the freeway to truck routes in the city.

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.12-9: Signal priority preemption equipment and strict adherence to emergency vehicle passing priority.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Same Impact as the Approved Project- Less than Significant Implementation of the Proposed Project would support existing active transportation plans through Strategic Actions 1.B and 1.E that aim to provide facilities for pedestrians and cyclists using active transportation networks between parks and open spaces.

Development of Hidden Canyon Park and Ralston Ranch Park would comply with 2035 GP Policies governing circulation including Policy 3.1-1 that ensures land use and circulation planning are developed concurrently. Any temporary “pop-up” parks that may potentially occur in locations not currently used as parks (e.g., parking lots or roadways) would be required to comply with City municipal codes and 2035 GP Policies 3.4-1-3.4-10 that guide the maintenance and improvement of roads. The Proposed Project would result in the same impacts analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
184
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
111
1750\26\3657182.1
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Impact than the Approved Project
Implementation of the Proposed Project may result new vehicle trips to Hidden Canyon Park and Ralston Ranch Park after their development. Improvement of open space areas and developed parks is not expected to result in increased visitation or vehicle trips to open space or park locations. Vehicle trips to Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch Parks are not expected to exceed 110 trips per day given the limited parking at these locations.

Hidden Canyon Park currently has a 12-stall parking lot that also serves a trailhead for WDL which is proposed to be expanded and include ADA spaces. The development of Ralston Ranch Park does not include off-street parking. In the Proposed Project, these parks are categorized as Neighborhood Tier 2 parks (see Chapter 5.0) where visitors are expected to primarily arrive by walking or biking. Both Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch Parks are less than 0.5mile from existing public transit (stops serviced by the San Mateo County Transportation District). The Proposed Project also supports pedestrian and bicycle access to parks and open spaces through Strategic Actions 1.A-1.F which guide pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit connections to park, recreation, and open space areas. These strategies may result in fewer vehicle trips and increased pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips. The Proposed Project will also comply with the 2035 GP Policies in the Circulation Element. Therefore, the Proposed Project is expected to result in less impact to LOS than the Approved Project given the limited development and emphasis on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Same Impact as the Approved Project - Less than Significant The Proposed Project would result in improvements within park and open space boundaries. No changes to roads are proposed and therefore would not create any hazards due to design features. Potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Project would be the same as the Approved Project.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Same Impact as the Approved Project - Significant and Unavoidable Implementation of the Proposed Project may result in new vehicle trips to Hidden Canyon Park and Ralston Ranch Park after their development. Improvement of open space areas and developed parks is expected to result in redistributing existing visitation levels given that these parks and open spaces serve local residents. Increased visitation may occur over time as population increases. Therefore, visitation or vehicle trips to Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch Parks are not expected to increase vehicle congestion and thus not expected to affect emergency vehicle access. The Proposed Project would adhere to 2035 GP Safety Element Policies as well as Mitigation Measure 4.12-9. The Proposed Project 185
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
112
1750\26\3657182.1
also supports pedestrian and bicycle access to parks and open spaces through Strategic Actions 1.A-1.F which guide pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit connections to park, recreation, and open space areas. These strategies may result in fewer vehicle trips and increased pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips, which may improve emergency vehicle access. Potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Project on emergency access would be the same as the Approved Project.
186
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
113
1750\26\3657182.1

7.19 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Yes
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
While the 2017 EIR was prepared before the inclusion of the Tribal Cultural Resources topic area, the analysis criteria presented below stem from the prior Criterion 5 under the Cultural Resources topic area which was discussed in the 2017 EIR.
187
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
114
1750\26\3657182.1
Impacts
Potential tribal cultural resources impacts included in the 2035 GP and analyzed as part of the 2017 EIR include the following:
• Less than Significant; There is a low potential of finding new or undiscovered paleontological resources within the 2017 EIR Planning Area.

Findings
The 2017 EIR found a less-than-significant impact on tribal cultural resources, as defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 (page 4.4-26 and 4.4-27). Within the 2035 GP Planning Area, there are three sites listed in the National Register of Historic Resources, eight properties identified as eligible for the National Register of Historic Resources, and four properties listed in the California Office of Historic Properties Directory. None of these listed resources are identified as a tribal cultural resource, in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21074. The City contacted five tribes to further investigate the presence of tribal cultural resources within the 2035 GP Planning Area, however no requests for consultation were received. No available evidence suggested that tribal cultural resources are present that were not already identified as archaeological or historic resources. The City is required to comply with AB 52 for all future development within the Planning Area, which provides tribes the right to formal consultation with project lead agencies and requires tribal consultation if requests for consultation are received. 2035 GP Policy 5.12-1 requires mitigation for development on sites suspected of being culturally significant, and Policy 5.12-2 requires that, if cultural resources are discovered during construction, all construction activities must halt until an evaluation of the resource is completed. 2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
188
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
115
1750\26\3657182.1
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant Implementation of the Proposed Project resulting in the development of Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch Parks, improvements to developed parks (see Table 5 in Chapter 5 of this document) and trail and wildfire fuels improvements at open spaces, will not adversely affect the significance of a tribal cultural resource since all parks and open spaces are within the Planning Area of the 2017 EIR and none of the listed resources in the 2017 EIR were identified as a tribal cultural resource, in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21074. However, there is potential for tribal cultural resources to be discovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the Proposed Project, specifically within Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch parks, and the two open space areas (WDL and SJC). Implementation of the Proposed Project actions would be required to comply with policies 5.12-1 and 5.12-2 contained in the 2035 GP, which would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have the same impacts as the Approved Project and implement the same policies to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
189
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
116
1750\26\3657182.1

7.20 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project: Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction
of new or expanded
water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or
telecommunications
facilities, the construction
or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
Yes
b) Have sufficient water
supplies available to
serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable
future development
during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
Yes
c) Result in a determination
by the wastewater
treatment provider which
serves or may serve the
project that it has
adequate capacity to
serve the project’s
projected demand in
addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
Yes
d) Generate solid waste in
excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local
infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
Yes
190
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
117
1750\26\3657182.1
Would the project: Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
e) Comply with federal,
state, and local
management and
reduction statutes and
regulations related to
solid waste?
Yes
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
Note that the 2017 EIR included a Utilities chapterrather than the Utilities and Service Systems required by CEQA currently. The impacts discussed are similar between criteria and criteria are thus treated as equivalent between the 2017 EIR and this Addendum.

Impacts
Potential utilities and service system impacts included in the 2035 GP and analyzed as part of the 2017 EIR include the following:
• Less than significant with Mitigation: Implementation of the Approved Project would result in increases in population, increasing demand for water and wastewater services over established levels. Construction of water infrastructure would occur in existing developed and disturbed areas.
• Less than significant: The Approved Project would result in development that would generate increased stormwater volumes to the level of needing new stormwater infrastructure. Construction of this infrastructure would only occur in already disturbed and developed areas.
• Less than significant: Water demand is expected to grow as a result of the Approved Project, from developed and increasing population.
• Less than significant with Mitigation: Increased development and population resulting from the Approved Project would generate wastewater and increase collection and treatment needs over current levels.
• Less than significant: New industrial, commercial, and residential development is expected to increase solid waste generation under the Approved Project. • Less than significant: Development under the Approved Project would be served by existing agreements with waste collection and disposal services (Rethink Waste and Recology) and be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations for solid waste.

Findings
Policies 5.6-1, 5.6-3, and 5.6-5 in the 2035 GP aim to reduce water consumption per capita by expanding water conservation efforts. The CAP provides additional strategies to reduce water consumption by prioritizing higher density, infill projects, rebates for water efficient fixtures, and adopting recognized water conservation standards. Implementation of the BVSP would allow growth that would require the construction of new water facilities and associated mitigation 191
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
118
1750\26\3657182.1
measures including UTIL-1: Require water line upsizing, UTIL-2: Require sewer line upsizing, and UTIL-3: Require Shoreway Pump Station upsizing.

Phase I zoning provides design standards to maximize parking lot permeability, reducing stormwater runoff, and CAP prioritizes development near existing infrastructure. 2035 GP policies that apply to the BVSP would reduce potential development impacts on stormwater infrastructure including Policies 6.2-9 and 5.9-2 which ensure compliance with stormwater permits (San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit [MRP] and NPDES) and encourage water recharge design standards.

While water demand is expected to grow under the Approved Project, water supplies will be preserved as a result of water conservation programs and efforts. 2035 GP Conservation Policies discussed above, including 5.7-3, which works to develop a recycled water program, would reduce potential impacts to water supplies.

The 2035 GP includes several policies aimed at increasing wastewater services including Policies

5.7-1 which requires improvements to the City’s wastewater system that are consistent with local and regional plans, and 5.7-2 which ensures funding for such improvements. The same mitigation measures discussed above would also be required.

The City is able to meet current waste diversion targets and landfills have capacity that meets the projected needs of the Approved Project. The CAP includes measures to support waste diversion and recycling and 2035 GP Policy 5.8-1 promotes waste reduction, recycling, and composting.

Existing agreements with waste collection and disposal services Rethink Waste and Recology will continue to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations with increased development under the Approved Project. The CAP also includes measures to reduce solid waste disposal needs.
2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:

CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Policy 5.6-1: Work with the Mid-Peninsula Water District to meet State targets for reducing per capita urban water use.

Policy 5.6-3: Encourage the Mid-Peninsula Water District to continue and expand its water conservation programs.

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

Policy 5.7-1: Continue to make 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.
192
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
119
1750\26\3657182.1
Policy 5.7-2: Periodically review and update development impact fees, wastewater connection charges, and monthly service charges to ensure that adequate funds are collected to operate and maintain existing facilities and to construct new facilities.

Policy 5.7-3: Partner with Silicon Valley Clean Water to develop and implement a local purified/recycled water (treated wastewater) program for Belmont, as technology and infrastructure allow.

Policy 5.8-1: Promote solid waste reduction, recycling, and composting to Belmont residents and businesses as an important way to conserve limited natural resources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

SAFETY ELEMENT
Policy 6.2-9: Periodically review maps prepared by FEMA and the State Department of Water Resources to identify changes in mapping of areas subject to flooding and amend the General Plan or Municipal Code as warranted.

MITIGATION MEASURES
UTIL-1: Require water line upsizing.

UTIL-2: Require sewer line upsizing.

UTIL-3: Require upsizing of Shoreway Pump Station.
193
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
120
1750\26\3657182.1

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Impact than the Approved Project
The Proposed Project would potentially result in the construction of a new restroom through the development of Hidden Canyon Park. While the details of this restroom are uncertain at this time, and could be installed separate from the wastewater system (i.e., as a pit toilet or composting toilet). A new restroom could also be connected to the City’s wastewater system requiring additions to the system and adding to the amount of wastewater needing to be treated. Upgrades to the wastewater system required by 2035 GP Policy 5.7-1 would be implemented in addition to mitigation measures UTIL-1, 2, and 3, which would accommodate a restroom at Hidden Canyon given the expectation of population increases examined in the 2017 EIR.

The development of Hidden Canyon Park and Ralston Ranch Park may result in an increase of impermeable surfaces and subsequently increase stormwater runoff.

Improvements to these parks would follow 2035 GP Policy 5.9-2 that encourages development to incorporate natural hydrologic process design to reduce the need for construction of stormwater drainage facilities. The native landscaping proposed for park improvements would aid in reduction of stormwater runoff.

The impact of park improvements and a potential restroom under the Proposed Project would be less than the expected development and population growth under the Approved Project on relocation or expansion of service systems.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant The Proposed Project could result in the construction and use of a restroom at Hidden Canyon Park which would require additional water from City to operate. 2035 GP Policies

5.6-1, 5.6-3, and 5.6-5 would be implemented to support water conservation at all parks and CAP measures encouraging water efficient fixtures would be followed. The Proposed Project would also result in the installation of native vegetation and recommends the replacement of grass fields with artificial turf which would reduce or eliminate the need for irrigation. With the use of native plants, turf and adhering to exiting 2035 GP policies, impacts resulting from the Proposed Project on water supplies would be the same as the Approved Project.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Impact than the Approved Project
194
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
121
1750\26\3657182.1
Implementation of the Proposed Project could result in an increase in wastewater generation through a new restroom at Hidden Canyon Park. Under 2035 GP Policies 5.7-1 and 5.7-2, improvements to the wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities and associated funding will be implemented. Mitigation measures UTIL-1, 2, and 3 from the 2017 EIR will also be implemented to expand wastewater system capacity for the projected population and development increases. The impact of the restroom in the Proposed Project on wastewater treatment will be less than the projected population and development increases of the Approved Project.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant Implementation of the Proposed Project may result in solid waste generation during construction activities of park improvements such as concrete or asphalt from paved path replacement, materials associated with restroom construction, or disposal of old play or exercise equipment during replacement. Wildfire fuel reduction activities and replacement of landscaping with native plants may result in generation of solid waste in the form of vegetation. 2035 GP Policies including 5.8-1 promoting waste reduction, recycling, and composting would be followed which would reduce potential impacts of solid waste.

Vegetation removed from parks and open spaces may be composted in alignment with CAP Measure WC4 aimed at diverting landscaping-related waste from landfills. The potential impacts of park improvements and development of Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch Parks under the Proposed Project would be the same as the Approved Project analyzed under the 2017 EIR.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant Development of Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch Parks, other park improvements, and open space wildfire fuels reduction activities under the Proposed Project would result in generation of solid waste. The Proposed Project would follow 2035 GP Policy 5.8-1 that promotes solid waste reduction, recycling, and composting, as well as CAP measures that support waste reduction and diversion. All solid waste generated as part of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local solid waste regulations.

Impacts resulting from the Proposed Project would be the same as the Approved Project. 195
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
122
1750\26\3657182.1

7.21 Wildfire
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would
the project:

Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
Yes
b) Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose
project occupants to
pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
No
c) Expose people or
structures to significant
risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding
or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage
changes?
No
d) Require the installation or
maintenance of
associated infrastructure
(such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in
temporary or ongoing
impacts to the
environment?
No
196
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
123
1750\26\3657182.1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
In the 2017 EIR, wildfire impacts were addressed under Chapter 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials and include:

Impacts
• Less than significant: Implementation of the 2035 GP would result in new developments and population growth, subsequently increasing demand for emergency services, potentially affecting the implementation of the San Mateo County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP).
• Less than significant: While the Approved Project focuses on infill development, development could also occur in areas of High Fire Hazard or Very High Fire Hazard (Figure 4.7-3 in the 2017 EIR), potentially increasing the risk of life or structure loss due to fire.

Findings
The 2017 EIR found a less than significant impact of the Approved Project on emergency response or emergency evacuation plans (pages 4.7-37-4.7-40). Policies within the 2035 GP and BVSP would further reduce the potential impact including Policies 6.7-6 and 6.7-9 which require the City to coordinate with the County and local public utility agencies and companies on emergency preparedness.

The 2017 EIR found a less than significant impact of the Approved Project on exposure of people or structures to significant risk of loss involving wildfire (pages 4.7-40-4.7-43). The 2035 GP anticipates primarily infill development and its policies would reduce the risk of fire. Specifically, Policies 2.14-3, 6.6-9, 4.4-7, 5.1-3 require defensible space around structures including buffers between development and natural areas and maintenance of public spaces to prevent accumulation of fuels.
2035 GP POLICIES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS:

Incorporate “Defensible Space” standards as needed in areas of high wildfire risk.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
Policy 4.4-7: Continue programs to reduce the fire danger in the open space. See Policy

5.1-3 in the Conservation Element.

CONSERVATION ELEMENT
197
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
124
1750\26\3657182.1
Policy 5.1-3: Reduce risk of wildland fire, ecological succession, and pathogen threats (such as Sudden Oak Death) through active maintenance of public spaces and education and enforcement of development standards on private property.

SAFETY ELEMENT
Policy 6.6-9: Continue to require development located within the VHFHSZ to maintain 100 feet of defensible space consistent with California Government Code section 51182. See also Policy 2.14-3 in the Land Use Element regarding defensible space.

Policy 6.7-9: Ensure critical use facilities that are important to protecting health and safety in the community remain operational during an emergency.

DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant The Proposed Project would result in the development of Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch Parks, and potentially increase temporary on-street parking in adjacent neighborhoods. Implementation of the Proposed Project would also result in the development of wildfire fuel treatment plans and maintenance of existing wildfire fuel treatment areas. The park developments would not increase demand for emergency services and wildfire fuels treatment plans and actions would benefit emergency response plans by reducing the risk of fire. 2035 GP Safety Element policies would be followed by the Proposed Project, as would the Proposed Project Natural Hazard Mitigation policies (Policies 38-52). Implementation of the Proposed Project would result the same impact as the Approved Project on emergency response plans. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant Development of Hidden Canyon Park and Ralston Ranch Park would result in more hardened surfaces in these locations. Development of these locations and improvements at existing parks would be consistent with Belmont’s Fire Code. While increased public use is expected once Hidden Canyon and Ralston Ranch Parks are developed, it is not expected that this use will exacerbate wildfire risk in these areas or the adjacent open space areas. The Proposed Project would result in wildfire fuels treatment in existing and 198
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
125
1750\26\3657182.1
new areas within open spaces. The Proposed Project would also result in the development of wildfire fuels treatment plans within open spaces. Because the Proposed Project will implement the 2035 GP Policies 2.14-3 and 4.4-7 to reduce the threat of fire in open spaces near neighborhoods through the Proposed Project Natural Hazard Mitigation Policies (Policies 38-52), it would result in the same impact as the Approved Project on exacerbating wildfire risks.
c) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Same Impact as the Approved Project - Less than Significant Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in fire fuels treatment in open space areas which would reduce the threat of fire, and reduce the potential post-fire hazards.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would also result in trail improvements including restoration of decommissioned trails which would involve revegetation. This revegetation would reduce the risk of landslides. Development of Hidden Canyon Park would result in installation of vegetation potentially increasing fire fuels. 2035 GP policies 2.14-3, 4.4-7,

5.1-3 included in the 2017 EIR as reducing potential impact of the Approved Project on risk loss of structures and life describing appropriate vegetation management in open spaces and neighboring private properties would be followed by the Proposed Project.

The Proposed Project would have the same impact as the Approved Project. d) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Same Impact as the Approved Project – Less than Significant The Proposed Project would not result in the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure. The Proposed Project would implement wildfire fuel treatment activities within open space areas that would follow 2035 GP Conservation Element policies (specifically 5.1-3) that describe reducing threat of fire while maintaining value for wildlife, recreation and aesthetics. In addition, Policy 43 in the Proposed Project recommends maintaining a mosaic of species and ages in fire adapted vegetation communities like chaparral especially near roads and infrastructure to reduce fuel loads.

Policy 52 in the Proposed Project works with utility companies like Pacific Gas & Electric to target open space vegetation management activities to reduce wildfire risk associated with electrical lines. The Proposed Project would have the same impact as the Approved Project.
199
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
126
1750\26\3657182.1

7.22 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
a) Does the project have the
potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the
environment,
substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population
to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or
animal community,
substantially reduce the
number or restrict the
range of a rare or
endangered plant or
animal or eliminate
important examples of
the major periods of
California history or
prehistory?
Yes
b) Does the project have
impacts that are
individually limited, but
cumulatively
considerable?
(“Cumulatively
considerable” means that
the incremental effects of
a project are considerable
when viewed in
connection with the
effects of past projects,
the effects of other
current projects, and the
effects of probable future
projects)?
Yes
200
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
127
1750\26\3657182.1
Discussed
in the
2017 EIR?
(Yes/No)
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project?
New Lessthansignificant
impact?
New Lessthansignificant
impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated?
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project?
c) Does the project have
environmental effects
that will cause
substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or
indirectly?
Yes
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 EIR
The 2017 EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, noise, and transportation.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Impact than the Approved Project
Implementation of the Proposed Project may result in short term potential impacts to habitat or cultural resources from ground-disturbing or vegetation removal activities. The Proposed Project however, would result in long-term benefits to habitat from native plant installation and trail drainage improvements. The Proposed Project would have no new significant impacts related to the potential for the degradation of the quality of the environment, a substantial reduction in the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, the drop of a fish or wildlife population below self-sustaining levels, a substantial reduction in the number or restriction on the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in impacts to any known cultural resources which would be less impact than the Approved Project. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Same Impact as the Approved Project
The 2017 EIR found the Approved Project to have cumulatively considerable impacts to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gases, noise, public utilities, and 201
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
128
1750\26\3657182.1
transportation. This Addendum to the 2017 EIR found that the Proposed Project would have less impact than the Approved Project related to these topics. However, when these impacts from the Proposed Project are considered in addition to the impacts from the Approved Project, they would remain cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s contribution to the significant cumulative air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gases, noise, public utilities, and transportation impacts would result in the same cumulatively considerable impacts as the Approved Project as analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Impact than the Approved Project
The Proposed Project has not been found to generate new or substantially more severe environmental effects than those previously analyzed in the 2017 EIR; therefore, there is no likelihood of the Proposed Project causing substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly and indirectly, beyond that which was previously analyzed in the 2017 EIR.
202
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
129
1750\26\3657182.1

8.0 REFERENCES
BAAQMD, et al. (2010). Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan.

Bay Area Air Quality Management Disctrict [BAAQMD]. (2017). Final 2017 Clean Air Plan.

California Air Resources Board. (2008). Climate Change Scoping Plan.

California Air Resources Board. (2014). First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan.

California Air Resources Board. (2017). California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

California Air Resources Board. (2022). 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutraility.

California Department of Conservation. (2023). California Important Farmland Finder. Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/
Callander Associates. (1992). City of Belmont Parks and Open Space Master Plan. Prepared for the City of Belmont.

City of Belmont, et al. (2017). City of Belmont 2035 General Plan. Prepared for the City of Belmont.

City of Belmont, et al. (2017). General Plan, Phase I Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number (SCH#) 2016082075.

Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, et al. (2017). City of Belmont General Plan, Phase I Zoning, Belmont Specific Village Plan, and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report. City of Belmont.

Gates + Associates. (2019). Twin Pines Park Master Plan. Prepared for the City of Belmont.

Gates + Associates, WRA Environmental Consultants. (2022). Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan. Prepared for the City of Belmont.

Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy. (2022). San Mateo Fine Scale Vegetation Map.

Retrieved from
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=c1d1ea74e5014dcba6331e8c e01e7d49
Group 4 Architecture. (2020). Belmont Community Center Conceptual Design Report. Prepared for the City of Belmont.

Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. (1987). San Juan Hills Area Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the City of Belmont.

Olen Properties Corp. v. City of Newport Beach, G061427 (California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division June 08, 2023).

Tyler, E. (1989). Final Environmental Impact Report Western Hills Area Plan. City of Belmont.

United States Census Bureau. (2022). QuickFacts, Belmont, California. Retrieved 2023, from Census: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/belmontcitycalifornia 203
City of Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Open Space Management Plan EIR Addendum · January 2024
130
1750\26\3657182.1
204
PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE

MASTER PLAN
LET’S BUILD

OUR BACKYARD

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CITY COUNCIL
Julia Mates, Mayor Afshin Oskoui, City Manager
Gina Latimerlo, Vice Mayor Kathy Kleinbaum, Assistant City Manager Davina Hurt, Councilmember
Tom McCune, Councilmember
Robin Pang-Maganaris, Councilmember
Warren Lieberman, Former Councilmember
Charles Stone, Former Councilmember

PARKS AND RECREATION CITY STAFF
Brigitte Shearer, Parks and Recreation Director
Matt Ward, Parks and Facilities Manager
Cody George, Recreation Manager
Michael Moran, Recreation Supervisor Youth and Teen
Daniel Ourtiague, Former Parks Manager
George Brunson, Former Recreation Manager

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Austin Lee, Chair Aiden Lee, Youth Commissioner
James Simmons, Vice Chair Rowan Sheng, Youth Commissioner Nicki Fox, Commissioner Jackson Gibbs, Former Youth Commissioner Avery Lyford, Commissioner Sanaa Kapur, Former Youth Commissioner Craig Michaels, Commissioner Abby Sanders, Former Youth Commissioner Karl Mittelstadt, Commissioner
Adar Emken, Commissioner
Chuck Cotten, Former Commissioner
Ulla Foehr, Former Commissioner

PROS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Rui Bao Austin Lee
Lynn Bell Craig Michaels
David Braunstein Carolina Pyrz
Nelson Corteway Sergio Raddavero
Dan Deguara Abby Sanders
Ulla Foehr Scott Sisemore
Karen Haas-Foletta Bob Stahl
Sanaa Kapur Dean Wilson
Eli Latimerlo Susan Wright

CONSULTANTS
Gates + Associates
WRA Environmental Consultants
DRAFT
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
207
PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PART 1.

WHERE WE ARE
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...............................3
Purpose + Vision
Guiding Principles
Planning Process
Document Organization
CHAPTER 2 CONTEXT .............................................7 The City of Belmont
Planning Context
Recreation Trends
CHAPTER 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS..............27
Overview
Park Typologies
Parkland Distribution
Access + Connections
Amenities
Park Site Assessments
School Site Assessments
Open Space Assessments
PART 2.

WHERE WE WANT TO BE
CHAPTER 4 COMMUNITY INPUT...................101
Overview
Community Themes
Informing the Big Ideas
CHAPTER 5 NEEDS ASSESSMENT................109
Amenity Ratio
Ideal Amenity Quantity
CHAPTER 6 GOALS..............................................121 Framework
Table of Contents
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT
208
Table of Contents
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD
PART 3.

HOW WE GET THERE
CHAPTER 7 STRATEGIES ...................................129 Strategies
Open Space Objectives + Policies
CHAPTER 8 RECOMMENDATIONS................145
Overview
System-wide Recommendations
Park-specific Recommendations
Opportunities
Open Space Recommendations
CHAPTER 9 IMPLEMENTATION......................215
Overview
Prioritization
Funding Strategies
Partnerships
Action Plan
Open Space Priorities

APPENDICES

UNDER SEPARATE COVER
A. Advisory Committee
B. Definitions
C. Park Inventory
D. NRPA Benchmarks
E. Amenity Projections
F. Open Space Management Plan
G. Prioritization Matrix
H. Probable Costs
I. Community Outreach
DRAFT Table of Contents
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
209
PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 1-1: Planning Process .............................................................................................................................................5 Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map ....................................................................................................................................8 Figure 2-2: Demographic Data for Belmont, from 1990 to 2020.........................................................................................9 Figure 2-3: Belmont Parkland Distribution........................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 2-4: Belmont Village Specific Plan Proposed Land Use Map................................................................................19 Figure 3-1: Belmont Parkland Distribution........................................................................................................................28 Figure 3-2: Parkland Distribution in Belmont Neighborhoods...........................................................................................33 Figure 3-3: Park Access Radius by Neighborhood...........................................................................................................34 Figure 3-4: Standard Baseline Amenities .........................................................................................................................35 Figure 3-5: San Juan Canyon and Waterdog Lake Open Spaces ...................................................................................85 Figure 3-6: Waterdog Lake Open Space Land Cover Types............................................................................................87 Figure 3-7: San Juan Canyon Open Space Land Cover Types .......................................................................................88 Figure 3-8: Wildfire Fuel Reduction Areas near Hastings Drive .......................................................................................91 Figure 3-9: Wildfire Fuel Reduction Areas near Hallmark Drive.......................................................................................91 Figure 3-10: Waterdog Lake Open Space Trail Assessment............................................................................................93 Figure 3-11: San Juan Canyon Open Space Trail Assessment........................................................................................94 Figure 5-1: Comparing Current Amenity Ratios, Amenity per 1,000 Residents.............................................................. 113 Figure 8-1: Recommendations Spectrum.......................................................................................................................150 Figure 8-2: Barrett Community Center Site Concept Plan..............................................................................................158 Figure 8-3: Twin Pines Park Concept Plan.....................................................................................................................188 Figure 8-4: Opportunity Sites Map..................................................................................................................................203 Figure 8-5: Park/Plaza in Belmont Village Specific Plan ................................................................................................204 Figure 9-1: FY2023 General Fund Budget .....................................................................................................................220

TABLE OF FIGURES
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT
210
Table of Contents
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD G

TABLE OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Belmont Demographics, 1990 to 2020 ..............................................................................................................9 Table 2-2: Demographics, Belmont and Comparable Cities.............................................................................................10 Table 2-3: Parkland Acreage ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Table 2-4: Parks + Open Space, Belmont and Comparable Cities................................................................................... 11 Table 3-1: Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Sites........................................................................................29 Table 3-2: Park Typologies ...............................................................................................................................................31 Table 3-3: Parkland by Neighborhood ..............................................................................................................................33 Table 3-4: Park Amenity Inventory (2021) ........................................................................................................................37 Table 3-5: Wildlife Likelihood to Occur in Study Area.......................................................................................................86 Table 3-6: Plant Likelihood to Occur in Study Area ..........................................................................................................86 Table 3-7: Biological Communities within the Study Area.................................................................................................89 Table 3-8: Fire Hazard Rating for Fuel Vegetation Types.................................................................................................90 Table 3-9: Trail Conditions................................................................................................................................................92 Table 3-10: Trail Erosion Instances ..................................................................................................................................95 Table 3-11: Summary of Visitor Survey and Count Methods ............................................................................................96 Table 3-12: Miles of Trails in Belmont Open Spaces........................................................................................................97 Table 3-13: Trail Density in Belmont Open Spaces ..........................................................................................................97 Table 3-14: Comparable Trail Densities............................................................................................................................97 Table 4-1: Community Engagement Opportunities.........................................................................................................102 Table 4-2: Community Presentations..............................................................................................................................103 Table 5-1: Current Amenity Ratios, Residents Served by a Single Amenity....................................................................111 Table 5-2: Current Amenity Ratios for Belmont, Amenity per 1,000 Residents .............................................................. 112 Table 5-3: Current Amenity Ratios.................................................................................................................................. 114 Table 5-4: Ideal Amenity Ratios...................................................................................................................................... 116 Table 5-5: Ideal Amenity Quantities for 2022 Population................................................................................................ 118 Table 5-6: Ideal Amenity Quantities for 2035 Population................................................................................................ 118 Table 7-1: Environmental Sustainability Policies ............................................................................................................139 Table 7-2: Environmental Sustainability Policies (Continued) ........................................................................................140 Table 7-3: Balanced Recreation Use Policies (Continued).............................................................................................141 Table 7-4: Balanced Recreation Use Policies (Continued).............................................................................................142 Table 7-5: Natural Hazard Mitigation Policies.................................................................................................................143 Table 8-1: Park Recommendation Magnitudes...............................................................................................................151 Table 8-2: Standard Baseline Amenities.........................................................................................................................152 Table 8-3: Parkland Acreage with Opportunity Sites ......................................................................................................201 Table 8-4: New Park Opportunity Sites and Potential Agreements ................................................................................202 Table 8-5: Recommendation Magnitude per Park Opportunity Site ...............................................................................202 Table 8-6: Open Space Recommendation Ratings ........................................................................................................210 Table 8-7: Environmental Sustainability Open Space Recommendations...................................................................... 211 Table 8-8: Balanced Recreation Open Space Recommendations .................................................................................212 Table 8-9: Natural Hazard Reduction Open Space Recommendations .........................................................................213 Table 9-1: Prioritization Criteria ......................................................................................................................................217 Table 9-2: Existing Park Prioritization Rankings.............................................................................................................218 Table 9-3: Undeveloped Park Prioritization Rankings ....................................................................................................219 Table 9-4: School (JUA) Prioritization Rankings.............................................................................................................219 Table 9-5: New Park Opportunity Site Prioritization Rankings........................................................................................219 Table 9-6: Overall Prioritization Rankings.......................................................................................................................219 Table 9-7: PROS Action Plan..........................................................................................................................................224 Table 9-8: PROS Action Plan (Continued)......................................................................................................................225 Table 9-9: Open Space Priorities....................................................................................................................................227 DRAFT Table of Contents
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
211

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
212

EXECUTIVESUMMARY
PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD Executive Summary
213
ii PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT

PURPOSE
The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan
(PROS Plan) is a strategic, forward-looking document.

It studies the existing park system, outdoor recreation facilities and programming, and open spaces to identify a decision-making framework and recommendations to
plan, maintain, develop, rehabilitate, and connect the
City’s network of parks, recreation, and open space for the next 15 years.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

1. Provide equitable access to resources and
activities across the entire city

2. Promote inclusion to people of all backgrounds,
regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation,
socioeconomic position, or physical/cognitive
ability

3. Make all users feel welcome and safe

4. Offer services and activities across a range of
interests, abilities, and ages

5. Reflect our commitment to environmental
resilience and sustainability

6. Respect the beauty and importance of our natural
resources

7. Advance community health and well-being

8. Foster a sense of community and encourage
social interaction

9. Provide well-maintained and actively managed
facilities

10. Adapt to changing conditions and needs

11. Utilize a transparent community process to
inform decisions
VISION
The Belmont community recognizes the essential
role that a well-designed PROS system plays in both
individual and community health. The community
engagement process revealed that Belmont residents
are proud of their parks and open spaces and the
recreation opportunities they provide. Be it a baseball game at Belmont Sports Complex, a basketball game
at O’Donnell Park, climbing the playground at Semeria
Park, attending an outdoor movie at Twin Pines Park,
or exploring Waterdog Lake, Belmont’s PROS system
is intrinsically linked to the community’s identity and social cohesion.

The National Recreation and Park Association
found that in 2019, parks and recreation agencies
generated $218 billion in economic activity nationwide, with California benefiting from $23 billion of the
total. Statewide, parks and recreation agencies are
significant employers. Park operations and capital
spending positively influence the local economy, and
Belmont is no exception.

The PROS Plan complements the goals and
strategies of key planning documents such as the
2035 General Plan. Thoughtful management of the
PROS system carries the responsibility of addressing
climate resiliency and furthering active transportation strategies, as outlined in the City’s Climate Action
Plan and Comprehensive Pedestrian and Bicycle
Plan. Together, the City’s planning documents identify
innovative solutions and look proudly towards the
future of Belmont.

Learn more about the Purpose, Vision, and Guiding
Principles in Chapter 1.

VISION

RE-IMAGINE THE BELMONT PARKS,

RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE (PROS)
SYSTEM TO CREATE THE CITY’S BACKYARD

THAT FOSTERS INCLUSIVE, EXPERIENTIAL,

AND NURTURING PUBLIC SPACES

BY SETTING THE FRAMEWORK FOR

DECISION MAKERS IN THE PLANNING,

MAINTENANCE, DEVELOPMENT, AND/

OR REHABILITATION, IMPLEMENTABLE
OVER A 15 YEAR HORIZON.

DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
214
Executive Summary
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD iii
Semeria Park
Alexander Park
Twin Pines Park
BELMONT’S PROS SYSTEM
The City of Belmont offers 409 acres of parks and
open space—almost 14 percent of the city’s land
area. Belmont’s parks, recreation, and open space
system (PROS system) consists of 17 parks (of which
15 are developed), two open space areas, and four
schools under a joint-use agreement with the BelmontRedwood Shores School District. The parks and school sites are distributed across the city, while the open
spaces are located only in the western hills.

The parks range in size, from less than 1 acre to
over 20 acres, and vary in intensity of use. While not
directly correlated, smaller parks tend to provide fewer amenities and therefore generate less use intensity.

The PROS Plan uses a set of criteria known as Park
Typologies to organize the sites and establish a
baseline service level that Belmont parks must meet.

Learn more about the Context and Existing
Conditions that served as the foundation for this
PROS Plan in Chapters 2 and 3.
409 acres of PARKLAND
78%

OPEN SPACE
22%
PARKS
25%
50%
25%

91.5 acres
Schools (JUA)
Community Parks
Neighborhood +
Undeveloped Parks
Source: Parks and Recreation Department
Figure ES-1: Parkland Distribution
DRAFT Executive Summary
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
215
iv PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT

PARK, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE SITES
1 Alexander Park 9 Fox Elementary School 17 Ralston Middle School 2 Barrett Community Center 10 Hallmark Park 18 Ralston Ranch Park 3 Belameda Park 11 Hasting Tot Lot Park 19 San Juan Canyon 4 Belmont Sports Complex 12 Hidden Canyon Park 20 Semeria Park 5 Central Elementary School 13 McDougal Park 21 Twin Pines Park 6 Cipriani Park 14 Nesbit School 22 Wakefield Park
7 College View Park 15 O’Donnell Park 23 Waterdog Lake
8 Davey Glen Park 16 Patricia Wharton Park
1 18
5 3
7 2
10 13
9 12
16 20
23 11
15 19
14 17
21 22
6 4
8 Figure ES-2: Belmont Parkland Distribution
# Neighborhood Park # Community Park # Undeveloped Park # School (JUA) # Open Space DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
216
EMAILS + COMMENTS
1,600+
(JANUARY 2021
TO JANUARY 2024)
FOCUS GROUPS 11 MEETINGS
75+ PEOPLE
ONLINE SURVEY 2,800+

RESPONSES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE 5

MEETINGS
PARKS + RECREATION

COMMISSION
20+

MEETINGS
CITY COUNCIL 5

PRESENTATIONS
POP-UP + OPEN HOUSE
EVENTS
5 EVENTS
Executive Summary
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD v

COMMUNITY INPUT
Community outreach was an integral component of the
development of the PROS Plan. Beginning in Spring
2021, community engagement opportunities were held
in a hybrid manner, utilizing virtual platforms and inperson events to hear from the Belmont community.

OUTREACH METHODS
Approximately 5,000 comments and responses were
collected across all outreach methods. Participants
were asked to share their preferences, priorities, and
desired improvements for the PROS system. This
process offered a wide range of outreach materials and
input opportunities to maximize project awareness and
community participation, including the development of
an Advisory Committee, an online survey, in-person
and virtual focus groups, pop-up and open house
events, neighborhood meetings, a comprehensive
social media campaign, and presentations at City
Council and Parks and Recreation Commission public
meetings.

COMMUNITY THEMES
The following community themes emerged as a result
of the engagement process:
• Amenities For Social + Physical Activity
• More Seating Opportunities
• Physical Connections
• Amenities For Diverse Interests
• Accessible For All Abilities
• Create More With Less
• Connecting With Nature
• Available For Many Uses + Users
• Natural Resources
• Honor Belmont’s Unique Landscapes
Learn more about the Community Input that directed
the creation of this PROS Plan in Chapter 4.

PROS Plan Banner at Barrett Community Center
DRAFT Executive Summary
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
217
vi PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT

THE CITY AS YOUR BACKYARD
PROS Goal 1 Connect Belmont and unify PROS
sites by encouraging a robust pedestrian, bicycle, and
public transit network.

PROS Goal 2 Foster a healthy community through
spaces, amenities, programs, and public art that
promote and encourage physical activity, social
interaction, and Belmont’s culture.

PROS Goal 3 Meet evolving community needs by
establishing new uses, improved spaces, and a variety
of recreation amenities.

OUTDOOR RECREATION FOR ALL
PROS Goal 4 Improve community health through
diverse, equitable, and inclusive spaces and amenities
with accessible routes.

PROS Goal 5 Ensure future success through
adaptability, flexibility, and support for many uses and users.

PROS Goal 6 Actualize PROS Plan by developing
strong partnerships across private, public, and
community groups.

CELEBRATE THE OUTDOORS
PROS Goal 7 Develop and implement an Open
Space Management Plan (OSMP).

PROS Goal 8 Highlight local ecosystems through
educational opportunities across parks and open
spaces.

PROS Goal 9 Enrich outdoor recreation through
trail improvements, volunteer collaborations, and
wayfinding features.

ENVIRONMENTAL + FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
PROS Goal 10 Nurture and strengthen natural
resources through efficient and innovative landscape
design.

PROS Goal 11 Diversify funding sources to ensure
high-quality, actively-managed, and well-maintained
PROS assets.

PROS Goal 12 Prioritize sustainable, resilient, and
responsible management and maintenance practices.

THE CITY AS

YOUR BACKYARD

OUTDOOR

RECREATION

FOR ALL

CELEBRATE THE

OUTDOORS

ENVIRONMENTAL
+ FINANCIAL

SUSTAINABILITY
BIG IDEAS + GOALS
Through community outreach, four BIG IDEAS
emerged to define Belmont’s vision for the future of the PROS system.

These four Big Ideas were used as the framework to
present the Goals of the PROS Plan. They are also
influenced by the General Plan's Park, Recreation, and
Open Space Element and Conservation Element.

Learn more about the Goals for the PROS Plan in
Chapter 6.

DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
218
Executive Summary
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD vii

FRAMEWORK

PROS PLAN
The organizational flowchart shown in Figure ES-3
summarizes the structure of the plan's framework. The
Purpose and Vision established the Guiding Principles,
which were used to plan the Community Input process.

Community Themes emerged from the collected
feedback and were further synthesized into Big Ideas
and Goals. The PROS Plan used this framework to
craft the Strategies and Recommendations that aim to
provide guidance over a 15-year horizon.

OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Goal 7 calls for the development of an Open Space
Management Plan (OSMP). Developed in tandem
with the PROS Plan, this study reviews Belmont's two
open spaces utilizing an approach that adjusts for the
unique components, considerations, and uses of these
valuable outdoor community spaces.

As an attachment to the PROS Plan, the OSMP presents
its Objectives, Policies, and Recommendations specific
to the open spaces. The findings of the OSMP are
presented throughout this document where appropriate
as they complement the PROS Plan.

Learn more about the Planning Process for the
PROS Plan in Chapter 1.

SYSTEM-WIDE

PARK-SPECIFIC

OPPORTUNITIES

OPEN SPACE
PURPOSE + VISION

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

COMMUNITY THEMES
BIG IDEAS + GOALS

STRATEGIES

RECOMMENDATIONS
PART 1. WHERE WE ARE
PART 2. WHERE WE WANT TO BE
PART 3. HOW WE GET THERE
LET’S BUILD

OUR BACKYARD

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT
Davey Glen Park

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
TIER 1

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
TIER 2 *

COMMUNITY
PARK
Character Nature and Neighborhood
Social Space
Nature, Group
Gathering, and Play
Nature, Community Gathering,
Recreation, and Play
Uses +
Users
Passive
Individuals to Small Groups
Passive + Active
Individuals to Medium Groups
Passive + Active
Individual to Large Groups
Standard
Baseline
Amenities

1.Natural Environment

2.Seating

3.Identifiable Amenity

1.Natural Environment

2.Seating

3.Play Amenity

4.Picnic Opportunity

5.Multi-Purpose Flexible Space

6.Recreation Amenity

1.Natural Environment

2.Seating

3.Play Amenity

4.Picnic Opportunity

5.Multi-Purpose Flexible Space

6.Recreation Amenity

7.Off-Street Parking

8.Permanent Restroom

9.Multi-Use Athletic Field
or Community Facility
Size No Size Requirements
Typically less than 1 acre
No Size Requirements
Over 2 acres should
provide off-street parking
No Size Requirements
Transport
Modes
Walking
Biking
Walking
Biking
Some Driving
Walking
Biking
Driving
Access
Radius
¼ mile ½ mile Entire City
Previous
Planning
Mini Park Neighborhood Park Community Park
Special Facility
Table ES-1: Park Typologies
* Both Undeveloped Park sites are attributed as Neighborhood Parks Tier 2.

Note: School (JUA) and Open Space Park Typologies do not have attributes such as Standard Baseline Amenities.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

PARK TYPOLOGIES
Parks were assigned a category, or Park Typology, that
defines general expectations and character, establishes minimum amenities, and anticipates common methods
of travel to the site. This also defines the Access
Radius, or the distance used to delineate areas around
a site that are easily reachable by the surrounding
community. This approach identifies neighborhoods
with low access to PROS sites and can demonstrate
high-impact opportunities to expand the PROS system.

DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
220
Executive Summary
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD ix
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK (TIER 1)
A Neighborhood Park Tier 1 is a small pocket of natural green space that supports local gatherings, promotes
unplanned social interactions, and provides a peaceful
place to talk or play. A Neighborhood Park Tier 1 has
the lowest use intensity, meaning the few amenities
at the site are expected to be used by only a handful
of people at a single time. This Park Typology has an
Access Radius of one quarter (¼) mile.

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK (TIER 2)
A Neighborhood Park Tier 2 provides a local connection
to nature, supports social gatherings of small groups,
and offers recreation and play activities. A Tier 2 Park is more intense in amenities and uses than a Tier 1
Park, but it still oriented toward a single visitor or
smaller groups of less than 20 people. As such, there
are at least two play and recreation amenities designed for use by multiple diverse visitors at a single time,
as well as picnic amenities that support small group
gatherings. These sites have an Access Radius of one
half (½) mile.

COMMUNITY PARK
Community Parks are notable parks that act as
community event venues, offering spaces and
amenities for large group gatherings that can support
dozens of users and multiple recreation programs
simultaneously. Community Parks have high use
intensities and generate the most visitors. For the
purposes of this PROS Plan, this Park Typology has an
Access Radius that spans the entire city.

UNDEVELOPED PARK
Undeveloped Parks are sites owned by the City that
have limited or no amenities. Sites with this designation are slated for development into amenitized outdoor
public spaces. For the purposes of the PROS Plan, the
two Undeveloped Parks are planned as Neighborhood
Parks Tier 2. This designation is used to evaluate
park access within the Park Typologies framework by
utilizing the same characteristics.

SCHOOL (JOINT USE AGREEMENT)
The City entered into a joint-use agreement with the
Belmont-Redwood Shores School District for the
public right to use recreational spaces in exchange for a maintenance commitment by the City. These sites
have an Access Radius of one half (½) mile.

OPEN SPACE
Open Spaces are minimally improved or undeveloped
natural areas open to the public for recreational
activities. The OSMP, included in the Appendix,
reviewed the two Open Space sites. Trailheads are
depicted on Figure ES-4. For the purposes of this
PROS Plan, this Park Typology has an Access Radius
that spans the entire city.

Open Space
DRAFT Executive Summary
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
221
x PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT
Figure ES-4: Park Access Radius by Neighborhood
CHULA
VISTA

CENTRAL

COUNTRY
CLUB

CIPRIANI

CARLMONT

WESTERN
HILLS

HALLMARK
HOMEVIEW

SUNNYSLOPE

STERLING
DOWNS
HARBOR

INDUSTRIAL
EAST

BELMONT

SKYMONT

PLATEAU
Neighborhood Park ¼ mile (Tier 1) or
½ mile (Tier 2)
Community Park Entire City
Undeveloped Park * ½ mile
School (JUA) ½ mile
Open Space/Trailhead Entire City
* Both Undeveloped Park sites are attributed as Neighborhood Parks Tier 2.

ACCESS + CONNECTIONS
Figure ES-4 highlights portions of the city where PROS
sites are less accessible, as determined by the site's
Park Typology and Access Radius. Overall, Belmont
provides a high level of access to parks. Almost 90
percent of the population lives within a 10-minute (or
½-mile) walk of a PROS site. The national average for
the percent of population that lives within a 10-minute walk of a park is 55 percent, based on data compiled
by the Trust for Public Land. Belmont well surpasses
this average.

Given the limited availability of land to establish new parks, enhancing connections to and between existing
PROS sites is paramount. The 2016 Comprehensive
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan gives parks high priority
for pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements. Safe
and enjoyable multi-modal connections between parks
are critical because they reduce transit-related injuries, improve circulation, and increase accessibility.

The City’s improvements to Ralston Avenue as part
of the Safe Routes to School program illustrate
the ongoing effort to reduce conflict and increase
connections between parks and recreation amenities
for non-motorized transport.

AMENITY INVENTORY
An Amenity Inventory was conducted to document
the quantity and quality of existing amenities within
the PROS system. This study enables a comparison
between a park's amenity offerings in relation to the
minimum amenities it should be providing as defined
by its Park Typology.

Learn more about the Existing Conditions and
Needs Assessment that served as the foundation
of this PROS Plan in Chapters 3 and 5.

DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
222
Executive Summary
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD xi
Belmont Sports Complex

RECOMMENDATIONS
The PROS Plan presents a comprehensive set of
Recommendations that are derived from the analyses
and considerations that guided this study. The
Recommendations directly respond to the Strategies
presented in the plan, focusing on the equitable
distribution of amenities throughout the community.

Recommendations are broken down into two
primary categories: System-wide and Park-specific.

System-wide Recommendations are informed by a
holistic review of Belmont's unique PROS system
and best management practices applicable to the
City. Park-specific Recommendations are informed
by individual site assessments and inventories.

The Recommendations also include potential sites
for new parks or joint-use agreements, as well as
proposed improvements for Belmont's open spaces.

Recommendations were driven by the community
engagement process, which served as a key component
of the PROS Plan.

SYSTEM-WIDE
System-wide Recommendations are pathways to carry
out the established Goals and Strategies across the
entire PROS system. These include:
• Activation Plan
• Inclusive+All-Abilities Play
• Interconnect Toolkit
• Pop-up Park Installations
• Social Gathering Space
• Usage Study

PARK-SPECIFIC
Each park in the City was evaluated for access,
proximity, and available space to host new or enhanced
amenities. A Recommendation Spectrum was used
to contextualize the Park-specific Recommendations
presented in the PROS Plan in terms of the magnitude
of change. This tool organizes potential improvements
into six categories based on the degree of intensity,
spanning from the creation of a new park to the
implementation of a minor improvement or existing
master plan.

Volunteers Working to Improve PROS Sites

STRATEGIES
This plan presents a suite of Strategies, applicable to the PROS system as a whole, to provide guidance to
the City for future improvements to Belmont's outdoor
amenities.

The Strategies build upon the PROS Goals, represent
the opportunities and constraints within the PROS
system, and serve as the guiding inspiration for future improvements as available resources and conditions
evolve over time. The Strategies also include
Objectives and Policies that are specific to Belmont's
open spaces.

Learn more about the Strategies in Chapter 7.

DRAFT Executive Summary
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
223
xii PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT
Recreational Use on Open Space Trails

OPPORTUNITIES

NEW PARK OPPORTUNITY SITES
The PROS Plan identifies three potential sites for new
parks in Belmont. As an almost completely built-out
city, there are limited opportunities for new park sites.

These sites are on land currently owned by a public
entity and should be considered as opportunities to
provide additional park acreage to Belmont residents.

The new park opportunity sites are listed below by their priority ranking:
• Ralston Avenue + Old County Road
• Oak Knoll Drive
• Alameda de las Pulgas

POTENTIAL AGREEMENTS
The City may consider a joint-use agreement with
the local schools and other organizations to facilitate or enhance public access. These are listed below, in
order of their level of education:
• Carlmont High School
• Crystal Springs Middle School
• Notre Dame High School
• Notre Dame de Namur University/Stanford University

OPEN SPACE
Recommendations for Belmont's open spaces aim to
improve the condition of existing trails, manage existing and future recreational uses, and protect environmental resources found in San Juan Canyon and Waterdog
Lake Open Spaces.

Explore the Recommendations for improvements
to the PROS system in Chapter 8.

Magnitude

EXISTING

MASTER PLAN
MINOR

IMPROVEMENT

UPGRADED OR

NEW AMENITY
PARK

REDESIGN

UNDEVELOPED
PARKS

NEW PARK

OPPORTUNITY
Existing Condition
Master plans
recently
adopted
Created with
extensive
community input
Parks recently
developed or
in very good
condition
Current park
functioning well
Rethink
accessibility
and park layout
No change
in use
Existing park is
undeveloped
Add parkland
To fill gaps in
park access
City-owned
property
Recommendation
Implement
existing
Master Plan
Minor
improvements
identified
to maintain
high quality
Upgrade
existing
amenity or
new amenity to
meet identified
needs or gaps
Undertake park
design plan
Develop and
amenitize site
Create,
develop, and
amenitize site
Figure ES-5: Recommendations Spectrum
Note: The Recommendation Spectrum is used to frame Park-specific Recommendations for the Community Park, Neighborhood Park, and Undeveloped Park Typologies. It is not applied to School (JUA) or Open Space Typologies.

INCREASING MAGNITUDE OF RECOMMENDATIONS
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
224
Executive Summary
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD xiii

IMPLEMENTATION

PRIORITIZATION
Implementation of the PROS Plan will require
multiple funding sources over many years. As such,
a prioritization approach is crucial to meet the most
pressing needs in the Belmont community in an effective and equitable manner. System-wide, Park-specific,
and Open Space Recommendations are uniquely
prioritized based on the feasibility of implementation
and their ability to satisfy the PROS Goals. As
circumstances, opportunities, resources, and demands
evolve, criteria to prioritize implementation should be re-evaluated periodically, ideally every five years. The following factors were considered while developing the
prioritization approach, listed alphabetically:
• Advances diversity, equity, and inclusion
• Aligns with other projects
• Funding availability
• Reduces operating costs or generates revenue
• "Quick win"
• Time-limited opportunity

PARK-SPECIFIC PRIORITIZATION RANKINGS
As funding to further develop PROS sites is limited
and competitive, a Prioritization Matrix was developed
to guide the implementation of Park-specific
Recommendations as funds become available. Parkspecific Recommendations were assigned point values for each of the four criteria, informed by the factors
listed above. The point criteria categories, listed below, reflect the ability of the proposed project to:
• Further PROS Plan goals
• Respond to community priorities
• Resolve an existing deficiency
• Address an existing condition
For each PROS site, the total points were summed,
averaged, and ranked to highlight which PROS sites
have the highest potential to positively impact the
community as a result of the proposed site-specific
improvements. This prioritization approach intends to
focus the City's efforts when determining which PROS
sites to improve first but is not an absolute directive for the sequencing of development.

ACTION PLAN
The Action Plan provides an implementation pathway
for the realization of the PROS Plan by organizing
next steps into three time frames: short term, long
term, and ongoing. This tool is informed by partnership opportunities and overall priorities, and is intended to highlight projects that resolve deficiencies or repair
unsafe conditions so that they are implemented sooner
than other less impactful improvements.

OVERALL PRIORITIZATION RANKINGS
SITE *
AVG
POINTS
SITE
RANK
Ralston Ave + Old County Road * 21.9 1
Oak Knoll Drive 18.8 2
Ralston Ranch Park 18.0 3
Alameda de las Pulgas 17.4 4
Alexander Park 14.5 5
O'Donnell Park 12.2 6
Hidden Canyon Park 12.0 7
Belameda Park 11.5 8
Twin Pines Park 11.4 9
Barrett Community Center 10.9
10 McDougal Park 10.9
Cipriani Park 10.4
Hallmark Park 10.4 11
Wakefield Park 10.4
Hastings Tot Lot Park 10.2 12
Central Elementary School 10.0
13 Patricia Wharton Park 10.0
College View Park 9.9 14
Belmont Sports Complex 9.4 15
Fox Elementary School 9.0
Nesbit School 9.0 16
Ralston Middle School 9.0
Davey Glen Park 8.0 17
Semeria Park 7.8 18
* Recommendations for this site may be temporary. The City is evaluating all development options.

Note: Open Spaces are not included in rankings.

Note: Several parks are tied for the same rank. The tied parks are listed in alphabetical order.

Table ES-2: Overall Prioritization Rankings
DRAFT Executive Summary
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
225
xiv PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT

OPEN SPACE PRIORITIES
There are seven priorities for open space improvements.

These actions were selected in consideration of their
implementation feasibility as well as their urgency in
relation to conservation laws, wildfire safety, and visitor experience. The open space priorities are listed below:
• Stream crossing improvements
• Seasonal and weather dependent
restrictions on maintenance activities
• Monitor use and survey visitors during e-bike pilot
• ADA-compliant trails
• Fuels reduction plan
• Volunteer restoration programs
• Nature-based recreation programs
• Trail calming features

FUNDING STRATEGIES
The PROS Plan identifies several sources of funding to
implement the proposed improvements. These sources
include the City's General Fund, revenue from the
Parks and Recreation Department, Park Development
Impact Fees, assessments, and bonds. This document
also discusses alternative funding sources such as
competitive grant programs, corporate and non-profit
philanthropy, and universities that support Belmont's
PROS system. The City will utilize a portfolio of funding strategies for capital improvements, maintenance, and
operations.

Twin Pines Park

PARTNERSHIPS
Partnerships between City departments, school
districts, parks and recreation foundations, local
volunteer groups, and service organizations will be
instrumental in the realization of the PROS Plan.

Learn more about Implementation of the PROS
Plan in Chapter 9.

Volunteers Working to Improve PROS Sites
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
226

WHERE WE ARE
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2 CONTEXT
CHAPTER 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD PART 1.
227

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
228
CITY OF BELMONT | PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN 3 Introduction
PART 1.

WHERE WE ARE
CHAPTER 1
This plan serves as a road map for the future of the City’s outdoor amenities and recreational programming. The
plan evaluates the City’s existing parks and open spaces using environmental and benchmark assessments,
extensive community engagement, and recreational
trend analysis to develop recommendations for
improvement. It aims to inspire creative design and use of old and new spaces, honor the natural environment
that makes Belmont unique, and provide enjoyable and
safe recreational opportunities for all.

DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
229

WHERE WE ARE
4 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN

PURPOSE

SET THE FRAMEWORK FOR DECISION

MAKERS IN THE PLANNING,

MAINTENANCE, DEVELOPMENT,

AND/OR REHABILITATION OF
BELMONT’S PARKS, RECREATION, +
OPEN SPACE SYSTEM FOR A 15 YEAR
HORIZON.

VISION
The Belmont community recognizes the essential
role that a well-designed PROS system plays in both
individual and community health. The community
engagement process revealed that Belmont residents
are proud of their parks and open spaces and the
recreation opportunities they provide. Be it a baseball game at Belmont Sports Complex, a basketball game
at O’Donnell Park, climbing the playground at Semeria
Park, attending an outdoor movie at Twin Pines Park,
or exploring Waterdog Lake, Belmont’s PROS system
is intrinsically linked to the community’s identity and social cohesion.

VISION

RE-IMAGINE THE BELMONT PARKS,

RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE
(PROS) SYSTEM TO CREATE THE
CITY’S BACKYARD THAT FOSTERS

INCLUSIVE, EXPERIENTIAL, AND

NURTURING PUBLIC SPACES

BY SETTING THE FRAMEWORK

FOR DECISION MAKERS IN THE

PLANNING, MAINTENANCE,

DEVELOPMENT, AND/OR

REHABILITATION, IMPLEMENTABLE
OVER A 15 YEAR HORIZON.

PURPOSE
The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan
(PROS Plan) is a strategic, forward-looking document.

It studies the existing park system, outdoor recreation facilities and programming, and open spaces to
identify a decision-making framework to plan, maintain, develop, and rehabilitate Belmont’s parks, recreation,
and open space system (PROS system) for the next
15 years.

DRAFT | FINAL February 2024

WHERE WE ARE DRAFT
230
5 CHAPTER 1 | Introduction
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD

IMPLEMENTAT OI N LP NAIMPLEMENT
A
T OI

N LP NA

IMPLEMENT PROS PLAN

ADOPT PLAN

BEGIN PROS PLAN
Background + Context
Site Assessments + Inventory
Benchmarking + Gap Analysis
Strategies + Recommendations
Prioritization Matrix
Action Plan
What Do We Want?
Review Recommendations

MOC UM N TI
Y

E NGAGEMENT
MOC

UM N TI
Y
E

NGAGEMENT

NEEDS ASSESS
M
EN T G +
LAO S

NEEDS ASSESS
M
ENT G+
LAO S
Figure 1-1: Planning Process

MOC UM N TI
Y

E NGAGEMENT
MOC

UM N TI
Y
E

NGAGEMENT
CONTEXT + EXISTINGC NO TI D SNOICONTEXT+EXISTING
OC

DN TI SNOI

PLANNING PROCESS
The planning process undertaken for this PROS Plan is
similar to many strategic planning processes:
• Define the scope of work and prepare a
demographic analysis
• Perform a needs assessment to identify goals and
recommendations
• Structure an implementation plan
The PROS Plan provides a clear path to accomplishing
the community’s vision through achievable steps in
both the short term and long term, maximizing the
sustainability and accessibility of the PROS system.

It sets forth a framework that will guide the City as
new opportunities arise and the needs of the diverse
community evolve over time. For this study, Belmont’s
geography and demography were contextualized,
previous planning documents were reviewed, existing
conditions of the PROS system were evaluated; the
need for new, expanded, or renovated PROS sites
was assessed; the community was surveyed; and an
implementation strategy was established (Figure 1-1).

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

1. Provide equitable access to resources and
activities across the entire city

2. Promote inclusion to people of all backgrounds,
regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation,
socioeconomic position, or physical/cognitive
ability

3. Make all users feel welcome and safe

4. Offer services and activities across a range of
interests, abilities, and ages

5. Reflect our commitment to environmental
resilience and sustainability

6. Respect the beauty and importance of our natural
resources

7. Advance community health and well-being

8. Foster a sense of community and encourage
social interaction

9. Provide well-maintained and actively managed
facilities

10. Adapt to changing conditions and needs

11. Utilize a transparent community process to
inform decisions
CHAPTER 1 | DRAFT Introduction
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
231

WHERE WE ARE
6 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN

DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
The PROS Plan is organized into three parts, each
containing three chapters.

PART 1.

WHERE WE ARE
This section provides context for the PROS Plan and
summarizes the current conditions of the existing parks and open spaces. It serves as the foundation that the
rest of the PROS Plan is built upon.

Chapter 1. Introduction
This chapter gives a brief overview of the purpose
and value of the PROS Plan and its planning process.

Chapter 2. Context
This chapter provides contextual information such
as community demographics and a discussion of
existing planning documents.

Chapter 3. Existing Conditions
This chapter documents existing PROS sites,
assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively.

PART 2.

WHERE WE WANT TO GO
This section identifies the desired changes to the PROS system, supported by data from community feedback
and extensive research.

Chapter 4. Community Input
This chapter outlines the community outreach efforts
and the collective themes that emerged.

Chapter 5. Needs Assessment
This chapter documents parks and recreation
service levels in comparable cities, identifies national and local recreation trends, and outlines standard
amenity ratios.

Chapter 6. Goals
This chapter summarizes what the community desires
for their PROS system and serves as the foundation
for the recommendations presented in this plan.

PART 3.

HOW WE GET THERE
This section looks to the future and explores the
collective community vision. It presents the strategies and recommendations to further the PROS Goals
and provides an implementation pathway to Build our
Backyard.

Chapter 7. Strategies
This chapter outlines the strategic approach to
realizing the vision of the PROS Plan.

Chapter 8. Recommendations
This chapter presents system-wide and park-specific
recommendations, identifies opportunities for new
parks, and describes methods to steward Belmont’s
treasured open spaces.

Chapter 9. Implementation
This chapter outlines the prioritization approach that
drives the improvement, repair, and maintenance
schedules for each park. It discusses potential funding strategies and partnerships for the implementation of
the PROS Plan.

APPENDICES
The appendices are provided under a separate cover
and include supporting data, relevant studies, and
correspondence for the PROS Plan.

DRAFT | FINAL February 2024

WHERE WE ARE DRAFT
232
CITY OF BELMONT | PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN 7 PART 1.

WHERE WE ARE
CHAPTER 2
Context
The City’s vision statement captures Belmont’s
distinctive community character:
• Belmont prides itself on being unique
• Its small-town ambiance sets it apart as a tranquil,
safe, and desirable place to live
• We get involved in town matters because we care
about living here
• We connect with each other in all kinds of gathering
places
• Our strong sense of community and enjoyment
of the town’s assets and activities deepen as we
become better informed and connected
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
233

WHERE WE ARE
8 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
UCTION
1 101
280
380
92 84
35 1
1 1
84 35
101 92
101
84 280
280
280
85 61
880
880
580
92 238
Atherton
Belmont
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly
City
East
Palo Alto
Foster
City
Half
Moon
Bay
Hillsborough
Millbrae Pacifica
Portola
Valley
Redwood
City
San
Bruno
San Carlos
San
Mateo
South
San Francisco
Woodside
Montara
San
Francisco
Alameda
San Leandro
Hayward
Union
City
Fremont
Palo Alto
Menlo
Park
Stanford
Mountain
View
Los
Altos Los
Altos
Hills
El Granada

SAN MATEO COUNTY

ALAMEDA COUNTY

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY

SAN MATEO COUNTY

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

ALAMEDA COUNTY
Belmont City Limits
Urban Footprint
Parks/Open Space
ure 1 -1: Regional Context
Caltrain
BART
0 1 2 4 8
MILES
Source: ABAG, 2001; Dyett& Bhatia, 2016.

RE 1-1: REGIONAL LOCATION

THE CITY OF BELMONT

SETTING
The City of Belmont incorporated in 1926. Located
midway between San Francisco and San Jose on
the San Francisco peninsula, the city covers just over

4.6 square miles in Northern California (Figure 2-1).

Belmont is known for its wooded hills, spectacular
views of the Bay, and acres of open space. It spans
from Redwood Shores and the marshlands near the
Bay’s edge to the east to Crystal Springs Reservoir and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west. The topography
rises from sea level in the eastern areas to over 800
feet in the western hills.

Belmont is bisected north/south by Highway 101, El
Camino Real (State Route 82), Caltrain railroad tracks, and Alameda de las Pulgas. The main transportation
artery running east/west is Ralston Avenue.

Belmont offers 409 acres of parks and open space—
totaling almost 14 percent of the city’s geographical
land area. There are 15 developed parks, 2 existing but undeveloped park sites, 4 school sites under a jointuse agreement (JUA), and 2 areas of dedicated open space. Park sites range in size from approximately 0.1
acres to over 19 acres. The open space areas range
from 35 acres to over 280 acres.

Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map
Source: 2035 General Plan
Views from Belmont
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024

WHERE WE ARE DRAFT
234
9 CHAPTER 2 | Context
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD

POPULATION BY RACE
White American Indian/Alaskan Native Other
Black Asian or Pacific Islander Two or More Races
1990 2000 2010 2020 *
Source: US Census Bureau Census Data for 1990, 2000, 2010. 2010 and 2019 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. CA Dept of Finance Population Estimates Jan 1, 2020. Full tables are found in the Appendix. * 2020 values are 2019 ACS estimates.

Figure 2-2: Demographic Data for Belmont, from 1990 to 2020

BELMONT DEMOGRAPHICS
1990 TO 2020
1990 2000 2010 2020 *
Population 24,127 25,123 25,835 26,470
% under 18 17.7% 19.3% 23.0% 23.0%
% over 65 11.4% 13.2% 16.7% 16.7%
Population Density (per square mile) 5,133.4 5,348.5 5,496.8 5,631.9 Median Age 36.3 38.8 40.9 40.9
Male / Female % of Population 49.2% / 50.8% 49.2% / 50.8% 48.8% / 51.2% 49.7% / 50.3% Housing Units 10,335 10,577 11,028 11,283
Median Household Income $50,859 $80,905 $99,913 $156,052 Median House Value (owner-occupied) $418,021 $593,200 $900,100 $1,527,500 Source: US Census Bureau Census Data for 1990, 2000, 2010. 2010 and 2019 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. CA Dept of Finance Population Estimates Jan 1, 2020. Full tables are found in the Appendix. * 2020 values are 2019 ACS estimates.

Table 2-1: Belmont Demographics, 1990 to 2020

DEMOGRAPHICS
The City’s previous PROS Plan was completed over
30 years ago. Since then, the City has transformed in
many ways. The four recent decennial censuses show
that Belmont is diversifying, aging, and densifying
(Table 2-1 and Figure 2-2).

POPULATION
While Belmont’s population has remained relatively
stable over the last 30 years, increasing less than 10
percent from 1990 to 2020, its demographics have
changed. Belmont now includes a greater proportion
of Asian and Pacific Islander populations than in 1990, and more residents identify with two or more races. As
of 2020, 35 percent of households speak a language
other than English at home. Belmont is and will continue to be ethnically and culturally diverse.

AGE
With over 20 percent of the age distribution within
Belmont being under 18, and nearly 20 percent of the
population being aged 65 and over, considerations
for the needs and desires of multiple age groups are
important for a well-rounded PROS system now and
into the future. The median age increased since 1990,
currently at approximately 41 years old.

CHAPTER 2 | DRAFT Context
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
235

WHERE WE ARE
10 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN

DEMOGRAPHICS

BELMONT AND COMPARABLE CITIES

BELMONT BURLINGAME SAN CARLOS SARATOGA
Population 26,470 29,746 29,814 30,546
% under 18 23.0% 23.6% 24.8% 20.6%
% over 65 16.7% 14.4% 15.6% 23.1%
Median Household Income $156,062 $128,447 $182,083 $191,677 Land Area (square miles) 4.62 4.41 5.54 12.38
Population Density (Square Mile) 5,590.2 6,538.1 5,129.3 2,416.9 Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. CA Dept of Finance Population Estimates for Jan 1, 2021 Table 2-2: Demographics, Belmont and Comparable Cities

POPULATION FORECAST
To align with other planning documents guiding the City, the PROS Plan uses the 2035 forecasted population
of 30,500 from the 2035 General Plan (adopted
2017) for all build-out scenarios. State-mandated
increases in housing development impact every
City on the peninsula, and Belmont is no exception.

The City’s Housing Element (2023-2031) is under
revision to reflect additional housing units, which may have a higher projected population increase than the
projections in the 2017 General Plan.

COMPARABLE CITIES
As a method to evaluate Belmont’s PROS system,
comparable cities were identified based on proximity,
similar topography, and commensurate demographics.

Burlingame, San Carlos, and Saratoga were chosen as
benchmarks because of their similarities to Belmont:
geographically (located in the southern Bay Area),
topographically (hillsides and Bay edge), climate,
population (similar quantity and growth over the last
decade), as well as other social factors.

Belmont is the least populous of the comparable cities, although the population difference across all four is
within a 15 percentage point range (Table 2-2). The
age distributions are relatively similar, hovering at an average of approximately 23 percent under 18 years
old and 17 percent over 65 years old. Population
density, median household income, and land area are
sufficiently comparable to Belmont.

PARKLAND
Public space makes up about 32 percent of Belmont’s
footprint (Figure 2-3). Of that area, approximately
43 percent is parks and open space. The remaining
57 percent is comprised of streets, sidewalks, and
other rights-of-way. Belmont’s parkland percentage
is approximately 14 percent of its total land area, just below the national median of 15 percent.

The City provides 409 acres of parks and open space
(Table 2-3). Of this, 91.5 acres (22 percent) are parks or school athletic fields with JUAs for public access
and 317.5 acres (78 percent) are open space. The

91.5 acres of parkland consist of Community Parks
(50 percent), Neighborhood Parks (developed and
undeveloped, 25 percent) and athletic fields at local
schools (25 percent).

The General Plan establishes the goal of 5 acres of
parkland for every 1,000 residents (Policy 4.1-2),
specifically 2 acres of neighborhood parkland and
3 acres of community parkland. Currently, Belmont
provides 3.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. This includes 0.9 acres of neighborhood parkland and 1.7
acres of community parkland. However, the General
Plan does not consider open space in the calculation
of parkland per 1,000 residents. Currently, Belmont
provides 12 acres of open space per 1,000 residents,
for a total of 15.5 acres of park and open space land
per 1,000 residents (Table 2-3).

DRAFT | FINAL February 2024

WHERE WE ARE DRAFT
236
11 CHAPTER 2 | Context
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD
14%of Belmont is
PARK + OPEN SPACE1
18% of Belmont is
PUBLIC STREETS2
409 acres of PARKLAND1
78%

OPEN SPACE
22%
PARKS
25%
50%
25%

91.5 acres
Schools (JUA)
Community Parks
Neighborhood +
Undeveloped Parks
1 Calculated from Parks and Recreation Department data
2 General Plan (2017)
Figure 2-3: Belmont Parkland Distribution

PARKLAND ACREAGE
ACRE
% OF TOTAL

ACREAGE

ACRES PER
1,000 RESIDENTS
PARK 68.1 16% 2.6
SCHOOL 23.4 6% 0.9
OPEN
SPACE 317.5 78% 12.0
TOTAL 409.0 100% 15.5
Source: Parks and Recreation Department, 2035 General Plan PARKS + OPEN SPACE

BELMONT AND COMPARABLE CITIES

BELMONT BURLINGAME SAN CARLOS SARATOGA
PARKS
Quantity (developed) 15 15 14 14
Acres 68.1 93.6 68.1 71.0
Acres per 1,000 residents 2.6 3.1 2.3 2.3

SCHOOLS AND PARKS
Acres 91.5 93.6 90.4 71.0
Acres per 1,000 residents 3.5 3.1 3.0 2.3

OPEN SPACE
Acres 317.5 37.8 73.6 74.8
Acres per 1,000 residents 12.0 1.3 2.4 2.4
PARKS, SCHOOLS, + OPEN SPACE
Acres per 1,000 residents 15.5 4.4 5.4 4.7
Source: CA Dept of Finance Population Estimates for January 1, 2020 Belmont provides more park acreage and open space
acreage than any of the comparable cities (Table
2-4). The National Recreation and Parks Association
(NRPA) Pacific Southwest region, which includes
Northern California, has a median of provided parkland
(excluding open space) of 3.9 acres per 1,000 residents.

Nationally, the average provided parkland is 10.6 acres per 1,000 residents for jurisdictions of a similar size as Belmont (20,000 to 49,999 population).

Table 2-3: Parkland Acreage
Table 2-4: Parks + Open Space, Belmont and Comparable Cities CHAPTER 2 | DRAFT Context
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
237

WHERE WE ARE
12 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN

PLANNING CONTEXT
This PROS Plan is a forward-looking document to
prepare Belmont’s PROS system for future needs.

Where appropriate, it references the following current
and historical planning documents:
• 2035 General Plan (2017)
• Strategic Plan (2020, updated 2023)
• Public Art Master Plan (2020)
• Green Infrastructure Plan (2019)
• ADA Transition Plan (2018)
• Belmont Village Specific Plan (2017)
• Comprehensive Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (2016)
• Complete Streets Policy (2013)
• Athletic Field Master Plan (2001)
• Open Space Trail Master Plan (1998)
• Parks and Open Space Master Plan (1992)
• Western Hills Area Plan (1990)
• San Juan Hills Area Plan (1988)
Two recent master plans are incorporated into this plan:
• Twin Pines Park Master Plan (2019)
• Belmont Community Center Conceptual Design
Report (2020)
Twin Pines Master Plan (2019)
June, 2019
2035 GENERAL PLAN
The City adopted the 2035 General Plan in 2017.

The Vision Statement of the General Plan has five
components:
• Distinctive Community Character
• Easy Mobility
• Natural Beauty
• Thriving Culture
• Thriving Economy
The PROS Plan builds upon the following key strategies
from the General Plan:
• Preserve Existing Neighborhoods and High
Quality of Life: Ample parks and open space for
residents.
• Continue Commitment to Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space: Continued preservation of the natural
open spaces and enhanced recreational facilities.

The system of park classification from the General Plan was used as the foundation for the Park Typologies and
associated Standard Baseline Amenities used in the
PROS Plan. The General Plan defines and classifies
each park as a Mini Park, Neighborhood Park,
Community Park, School Park, or Special Facility.

An implementation priority of the General Plan,
approved in 2017, is an update to the 1992 Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan. The
General Plan acknowledged that the 1992 document
was outdated and no longer guiding the City’s parks
and recreation efforts. In response, the City developed this PROS Plan to continue to look forward and build a
better Belmont. This plan fulfills a General Plan priority.

The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element and
Conservation Element of the General Plan outline
goals, policies, and actions to guides the City into the future that support efforts of the PROS Plan.

DRAFT | FINAL February 2024

WHERE WE ARE DRAFT
238
13 CHAPTER 2 | Context
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD
Parks and Recreation Goal 4.1
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.
• Policy 4.1-1: Use the Parks, Recreation, and Open
Space Master Plan to define the vision, goals, and
strategies for maintaining and improving Belmont’s
park system and guide to implementation efforts.
• Policy 4.1-2: Strive to achieve and maintain a
citywide standard of at least 5.0 acres of mini,
neighborhood, and community parks per 1,000
residents, targeting a breakdown of 3.0 acres/1,000
residents for community parks and 2.0 acres/1,000
residents for neighborhood parks.

Parks and Recreation Goal 4.2
Ensure that a wide variety of public community and
recreation facilities are available to the entire Belmont community for recreational, social, and cultural
activities.
• Policy 4.2-1: Review and update the types,
amounts, and locations of community and
recreational facilities as part of the Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan.
• Policy 4.2-2: Building on the needs assessment,
improve the quality and quantity of public
community facilities in Belmont.
• Policy 4.2-3: Continue joint use agreements
with other agencies, institutions, and private
organizations for public use of recreational facilities not owned by the City, especially in neighborhoods
deficient in recreational facilities, if the joint use
agreements can help meet the city’s recreational
needs and if the terms are favorable to the City.

Parks and Recreation Goal 4.3
Improve the quantity and quality of recreational
programming and services to provide varied recreational opportunities for the entire Belmont community.

Open Space Goal 4.4
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.
• Policy 4.4-1: Continue to designate and protect
open space lands for the preservation of scenic
areas, natural drainage ways, and plant and wildlife
habitats; for outdoor recreation; and for public health and safety.
• Policy 4.4-2: Maintain connectivity between large
open spaces in Belmont and the region, including
Waterdog Lake area, San Juan Hills area, Sugarloaf
Mountain, and the open space in the San Francisco
Public Utility District’s Crystal Springs watershed.
• Policy 4.4-3: Consistent with the San Juan Hills
and Western Hills area plans, cluster development
in the hillside areas of western Belmont in order
to maintain contiguous habitat areas, minimize
grading, and limit exposure to steep slopes and
other sensitive areas.
• Policy 4.4-4: Maintain and enhance trails in
open spaces in Belmont. Continue to support
opportunities for shared use of trails among
multiple users, including pedestrians and mountain
bicyclists. Promote knowledge, trail etiquette, and
consideration of multiple users on trails through
education programs and signage.
• Policy 4.4-5: Use the Parks, Recreation, and Open
Space Master Plan to establish priorities for the
protection, enhancement, and improvement of open
space lands and trails for recreational purposes.
• Policy 4.4-6: Develop programs to control invasive
plant species that threaten the natural resources.
• Policy 4.4-7: Continue programs to reduce the fire
danger in the open space.
• Policy 4.4-8: Develop interpretive programs to help
engender appreciation for the open space resources
in Belmont.

CHAPTER 2 | DRAFT Context
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
239

WHERE WE ARE
14 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
Open Space Goal 4.5
Preserve and protect open space resources using
various methods available to the City.
• Policy 4.5-1: Consider open space dedication or
acquisition of fee title land to ensure long-term
preservation and protection only if public liability
exposure can be acceptably limited to the extent
feasible.
• Policy 4.5-2: Protect Belmont Creek from future
encroachment through regulation, development
review, conservation easements, or other
appropriate actions.
• Policy 4.5-3: Continue to prohibit off-road motorized vehicle use in open space areas to prevent damage
to the environment.
• Policy 4.5-4: Seek to preserve the existing open
space areas in the San Juan Hills and Western
Hills, consistent with the Area Plans, especially on
steep hillsides and sensitive habitat areas.

Open Space Goal 4.6
Improve and increase public access into open space
areas where feasible and safe.
• Policy 4.6-1: Maintain and improve access to parks
and open space, especially in areas that lack land
for additional parkland dedication and in areas
where topography and lack of sidewalks inhibits
easy pedestrian access to parks and recreational
facilities.
• Policy 4.6-2: Improve public access and
connections to Belmont Creek. Promote use of this
waterway corridor for passive recreation, education,
and research.
• Policy 4.6-3: In multimodal transportation planning
efforts, such as corridor studies and active
transportation plans, ensure that parks, recreation
facilities, and open spaces are considered key
destinations for linkages to the bicycle and
pedestrian networks.

Support for Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Goal 4.7
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.
• Policy 4.7-1: Ensure that residential and
nonresidential development projects contribute
to the City’s park, recreation, and open space
resources commensurate with their impacts,
through the Quimby Act and establishment and
collection of park impact fees.
• Policy 4.7-2: Continue to work with local, regional,
and State agencies, nonprofit and community
organizations, foundations, and grant sources to
provide funding for Belmont;s open space, parks,
and recreation and assistance with maintenance
and programming.
• Policy 4.7-3: Support, where appropriate and
feasible, partnerships with private businesses to
conduct limited operations in park and recreation
facilities (e.g. a concessions stand) to generate a
revenue stream that may contribute to operations
and maintenance costs.
• Policy 4.7-4: Encourage community involvement
in the stewardship of Belmont’s natural resources,
including public and private work programs and
special events to maintain open space lands.

The Conservation Element of the General Plan outlines
goals, policies, and actions to guides the City into the future that support efforts of the PROS Plan.

DRAFT | FINAL February 2024

WHERE WE ARE DRAFT
240
15 CHAPTER 2 | Context
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD
Conservation Goal 5.1
Protect and maintain open space for the preservation
of natural resources.
• Policy 5.1-1: Ensure that any improvements
recommended for open space areas are appropriate
for the type of open space and the use proposed.
• Policy 5.1-2: In portions of Belmont that include
significant open space resources, use area plans to
address the balance and interface between natural
and developed areas.
• Policy 5.1-3: Reduce risk of wildland fire, ecological succession, and pathogen threats (such as
Sudden Oak Death) through active maintenance of
public spaces and education and enforcement of
development standards on private property.
• Policy 5.1-4: Ensure that future acquisitions of open space land are compatible with the City’s open
space strategy and long-term interests.

Conservation Goal 5.2
Protect and preserve open space for public health,
safety and recreation in areas that require special
management for regulation.
• Policy 5.2-1: Encourage the retention of areas
that are hazardous to public safety and welfare as
undeveloped open space, including steep hillsides
unsuitable for development as identified in area
plans and other detailed geotechnical studies;
hydrological areas of concern; areas of geological
instability; and appropriate setback areas on
either side of known active fault traces. See also
discussion and policies in the Safety Element.
• Policy 5.2-2: Involve the public in stewardship of
Belmont’s open space resources.

Conservation Goal 5.3
Protect and restore biological and ecological resources in Belmont, including sensitive wildlife species and
their habitats.
• Policy 5.3-1: Support the protection, preservation,
restoration, and enhancement of habitats of State or
federally listed rare, threatened, endangered and/
or other sensitive and special status species, and
favor enhancement of contiguous areas over small,
segmented remainder parcels.
• Policy 5.3-2: Continue to maintain, protect, restore, and enhance Belmont’s ecologically important areas
and seek to reduce impacts on them, including the
creek corridors, the open space, and the wetlands
around O’Neill Slough.
• Policy 5.3-3: To the greatest extent feasible, ensure that development does not disturb sensitive habitat
and special status species by requiring appropriate
and feasible mitigation measures.
• Policy 5.3-4: Maintain functional wildlife corridors
and habitat linkage in order to contribute to regional
biodiversity and the viability of rare, unique or
sensitive biological resources throughout the city
and region.
• Policy 5.3-5: In design and construction, require use of best practices that preserve natural resources,
such as soil, trees, native plants, and permeable
surfaces.
• Policy 5.3-6: 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.
• Policy 5.3-7: Encourage the planting of native trees, shrubs, and grasslands in order to preserve the
visual integrity of the landscape, provide habitat
conditions suitable for native vegetation, and ensure
the maximum number and variety of well-adapted
plants are maintained.
• Policy 5.3-8: Use native or drought-resistant
vegetation in landscaping on City-owned property,
and encourage private property owners to use
native or drought-resistant vegetation in landscaping
on private property.
• Policy 5.3-9: Promote the healthy growth of trees
and control the removal of trees within the city.
• Policy 5.3-10: Allow neighborhood community
gardens as a permitted use in all residential zoning
districts.

CHAPTER 2 | DRAFT Context
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
241

WHERE WE ARE
16 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
Belmont Open Space Inhabitant
Conservation Goal 5.5
Preserve water quality by promoting the protection of
Belmont’s creeks and other natural water bodies from
pollution.
• Policy 5.5-1: Continue to participate in the San
Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention
Program.
• Policy 5.5-2: Encourage residents and businesses
to use best management practices (BMPs) to
reduce water pollutant loads that result from daily
activities, such as using landscaping chemicals and
fertilizers and repairing and washing cars outdoors.
• 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.
• Policy 5.5-4: Ensure that the design and
construction of new infrastructure elements does
not contribute to stream bank or hillside erosion
or creek or wetland siltation, and incorporates site
design and source control BMPs, construction
phase BMPs, and treatment control BMPs to
minimize impacts to water quality.
• Policy 5.5-5: Implement water pollution prevention
methods to the maximum extent practicable,
supplemented by pollutant source controls and
treatment.

Conservation Goal 5.12
Preserve and protect areas and sites of prehistoric,
cultural, and archaeological significance.
• Policy 5.12-1: Ensure that development avoids
potential impacts to sites suspected of being
archaeologically, paleontologically, or culturally
significant, tribal or otherwise, or of concern by
requiring appropriate and feasible mitigation.
• 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
professional is completed.

Conservation Goal 5.4
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.
• Policy 5.4-1: Restore Belmont Creek to enhance
ecological functions, biological resources, hydrology
function, and flood control.
• Policy 5.4-2: Preserve, where possible, natural
watercourses or provide naturalized drainage
channels within the city. Where necessary and
feasible, implement restoration and rehabilitation
measures.
• Policy 5.4-3: Protect, restore, and enhance a
continuous corridor of native riparian vegetation and
wildlife habitat along Belmont’s waterways, water
bodies, and wetlands.
• Policy 5.4-4: Preserve and enhance the natural
riparian environment along waterway corridors,
including Belmont Creek, by minimizing
environmental and visual impacts. See also Policy

4.5-2 in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
Element.

DRAFT | FINAL February 2024

WHERE WE ARE DRAFT
242
17 CHAPTER 2 | Context
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD

STRATEGIC PLAN
The Strategic Plan (2020) is a robust planning
document that builds a unified vision for the future of Belmont’s resources. Updated in 2023, this document
presents five Strategic Focus Areas (SFA):
• Infrastructure and Mobility
• Economic Development and Housing
• Fiscal and Organization Sustainability
• Public Safety
• Quality of Life
The Infrastructure and Mobility SFA includes an
objective to “improve parks and facilities” which
identifies improvements to the Belmont Community
Center, improvements to athletic fields, and an
assessment of facility needs.

The Quality of Life SFA includes an objective to
“improve parks and recreation programs and facilities,” which identifies completion of the Barrett Community
Center Master Plan, completion of this PROS Plan,
and delivering an accessible, inclusive, age-friendly
services, programs, and facilities.

The Public Safety SFA includes an objective to align
forward-thinking public safety services with community
need, which includes ensuring public safety with police and fire to leverage technology and innovation to
protect the community against risks and threats.

Strategic Plan (2020, updated 2023)
202 0

STRATEGIC PLAN

CITY OF

PUBLIC ART MASTER PLAN
In 2017, the City undertook a placemaking effort that
culminated in the adoption of the Public Art Master Plan (2020). This plan developed nine recommendations to
guide public art implementation in Belmont; relevant
recommendations are listed below.

Program Recommendation #1: Build upon Belmont’s
tradition of community engagement to expand citywide
arts opportunities.
• Short-term: Create temporary artwork with the theme
“environment” at Twin Pines Park and other locations.
• Mid-term: Create a permanent pop-up park space on
the corner of Ralston Avenue and Old County Road
or adjacent to City Hall on Sixth Street plaza.

Program Recommendation #4: Commission art that
helps define city gateways and enhances neighborhood
character.
• Short-term: Install an iconic gateway at Ralston Ave
and Old County Road.

Program Recommendation #5: Encourage changing
artwork displays and place them in both busy and
unexpected places.
• Short-term: Install temporary artwork at Twin Pines
Park and other locations.

Program Recommendation #7: Integrate art into new
City capital construction projects.
• Mid-term: Include an artist in the design team for the Belmont Community Center.

Program Recommendation #9: Commission artwork
that enhances people’s experience of nature.
• Short term: Develop artwork for Twin Pines.
• Mid-term: Develop artwork for Waterdog Lake.

CHAPTER 2 | DRAFT Context
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
243

WHERE WE ARE
18 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
Green infrastructure is stormwater infrastructure that
uses vegetation, soils, and natural processes to manage water and create healthier urban environments. Green
infrastructure consists of natural and landscaped areas that provide habitat, flood protection, cleaner air, and cleaner water.

Belmont’s Green Infrastructure Plan (2019) advances
goals and guidelines from the General Plan,
demonstrates intention to shift away from the existing
gray storm drain infrastructure; supports achievement
of County and regional goals; coordinate plans, policies, codes, standards, and ordinances; provides design
guidance; a basis for coordination and collaboration
among projects at the City, County, and regional scale; and raise public awareness. The plan identifies potential green infrastructure projects, many of which are within park sites or at schools. Barrett Community Center,
McDougal Park, Twin Pines Park, and O’Donnell Park
were identified as locations for potential projects of
high importance. Incorporating green infrastructure in
all park redesigns will benefit the Belmont community
now and into the future.

ADA TRANSITION PLAN
The ADA Transition Plan (2018) includes an ADA
Self-Evaluation Report of City services, policies, and
practices. The Evaluation Report included an evaluation of all PROS sites and public right-of-way including
sidewalks, curb ramps, and pedestrian signals. The
report documented accessibility barriers to the City’s
programs, services, facilities, and activities, and
outlines a transition from a state of non-compliance to compliance.

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The Climate Action Plan (2017) offers pathways
for residential energy efficiency. It recommends
smart development patterns and vibrant complete
neighborhoods that allow residents to travel safely and effectively via foot, bicycle, or public transportation. The proposed Climate Action Strategies and their respective measures focus on energy, transportation and land
use, solid waste, and climate adaption solutions.

BELMONT VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
The Belmont Village Specific Plan (2017) covers
Belmont’s downtown area, approximately 80 acres
in size (Figure 2-5). The area is designated a Priority Development Area (an area identified for future growth) by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and
the Association of Bay Area Governments, and is
expected increase in density through development of
multi-family housing. The planning area includes the
Ralston Avenue and Old County Road intersection,
and the eastern portion of Twin Pines Park.

The plan’s vision is to “realize Belmont Village’s
potential as the city’s center of civic life with a unique sense of place. Create an attractive, vibrant, mixed use town center for Belmont, offering shopping, restaurants, entertainment, employment, and residential users
in a compact, pedestrian-oriented setting. Enhance
pedestrian and bicycle connections so that residents,
visitors, and workers can walk, bike, and take transit.

Design streets and public spaces to create a lively and attractive public realm with a distinctive identity.”
Of particular importance to the PROS Plan are the
public realm areas identified in the build-out scheme.

The proposed land use near the Caltrain station, on
City-owned land at the intersection of Ralston Avenue
and Old County Road, is public Park/Plaza. Additionally, conceptual public areas are identified on privatelyowned parcels as urban design community benefits.

Belmont Village Specific Plan (2017)

BELMONT VILLAGE

SPECIFIC PLAN
ADOPTED NOVEMBER 14, 2017
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024

WHERE WE ARE DRAFT
244
19 CHAPTER 2 | Context
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD

LAND USE
BELMONT VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN 2-11
Active Use Frontage Overlay

OLD COUNTY RD
0 200 400 800
Village Core FEET
Station Core
Village Corridor Mixed Use
Village High Density Residential
Public Facility
Park/Plaza
Caltrain
Waterways/Lakes
Belmont Village Planning Area
City of Belmont
Source: City of Belmont, 2014; San Mateo County Assessor's Parcel Database, 2014 1 ACRE

0.25 ACRE
Caltrain Stat ion

EL CAMINO REAL

OLD COUNTY RD

RALSTON AVE

SOUTH RD

HILLER ST
6TH AVE

GRANADA ST

WESSEX WAY

MASONIC WAY

ONEILL AVE

HOLLY RD

ELMER ST
5TH AVE

HILL ST

MIDDLE RD

FURLONG ST

BROADWAY

IRWIN ST

EMMETT ST

JUDSON ST

GORDON AVE

LAUREL AVE

CYPRESS AVE

WALTERMIRE ST

HARBOR BLVD

O'NEILL AVE
Caltrain
Caltrain

GRANADA ST

HILLE R
ST

EL CAMINO REAL

RALSTON AVE
Twin Pines
Park
Figure 3-6: Proposed Land Use Diagram
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Underpass
Proposed New
Rights-of-Ways
FIGURE 2-4: PROPOSED LAND USE DIAGRAM

LAND USE
BELMONT VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN 2-11
Active Use Frontage Overlay

0.25 ACRE
Caltrain Stat ion

EL CAMINO REAL

OLD COUNTY RD

RALSTON AVE

SOUTH RD

HILLER ST
6TH AVE

GRANADA ST

WESSEX WAY

MASONIC WAY

ONEILL AVE

HOLLY RD

ELMER ST
5TH AVE

HILL ST

MIDDLE RD

FURLONG ST

BROADWAY

IRWIN ST

EMMETT ST

JUDSON ST

GORDON AVE

LAUREL AVE

CYPRESS AVE

WALTERMIRE ST

HARBOR BLVD

O'NEILL AVE
Caltrain
Caltrain

GRANADA ST

HILLE R
ST

EL CAMINO REAL

RALSTON AVE
Twin Pines
Park
Figure 3-6: Proposed Land Use Diagram
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Underpass
Proposed New
Rights-of-Ways
FIGURE 2-4: PROPOSED LAND USE DIAGRAM
Source: Belmont Village Specific Plan (2017)

BELMONT VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN

PROPOSED LAND USE MAP
Figure 2-4: Belmont Village Specific Plan Proposed Land Use Map CHAPTER 2 | DRAFT Context
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
245

WHERE WE ARE
20 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
PEDESTRIAN + BICYCLE PLAN
The Comprehensive Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan
(2016) outlines goals and objectives that support a safe and connected active transportation network across
Belmont.
• Goal 1. Create a safe and comfortable pedestrian
and bicycle friendly environment that will encourage
people of all ages to bike or walk.
• Goal 2. Increase the rate of walking and bicycling in Belmont.
• Goal 3. Promote multimodal transportation
infrastructure that accommodates all users.
• Goal 4. Support adopted citywide, regional, and
State goals related to the provision of complete
streets.
• Goal 5. Provide a continuous network of pedestrian
facilities that connects neighborhoods with key
destinations and transit stops.
• Goal 6. Support the development of a citywide
bicycle network.

The plan outlines measurable objectives, of which four
of the seven directly relate to the PROS system.
• Objective 2. Reduce pedestrian network gaps by
providing continuous sidewalks on 1) at least one
side of most arterial and collector streets by 2030;
and 2) at least one side of local streets that provide
access to schools, parks, employment locations,
and transit stops by 2030.
• Objective 3. Provide bicycle facilities on most
segments of Belmont’s 21-mile network of arterial
and collector streets by 2030, including Class II
bicycle lanes on at least half of the City’s 11-mile
arterial street network.
• Objective 4. Provide site-specific pedestrian and
bicycle crossing enhancements wherever feasible
at locations where pedestrian priority routes and
bikeway corridors intersect arterial and collector
streets, and at locations where such enhancements
would reduce walking distance to adjacent school
and transit stops.
• Objective 5. Increase the provision of secure
bicycle parking, particularly within Downtown,
at major parks and civic facilities, and consider
updating zoning ordinance parking requirements to
include bicycle-parking standards for non-residential
development by 2021.

Enhancing access to and between destinations, with
an emphasis on connecting downtown areas, schools,
neighborhoods, transit hubs, and parks, is the primary
focus of the plan. All PROS sites are considered
destinations within this framework, and as a result, they are high priorities for multi-modal corridor improvement projects. The plan also focuses on reducing gaps and
optimizing linkages to support regional access into
and out of Belmont. The plan identifies neighborhoods
that are lacking in active transportation infrastructure and proposes an extensive network of interconnected
pedestrian and bicycle routes.

The proposed bicycle network connects beyond the
city’s boundary. Most recommendations are for Class
III bike routes across the city. On certain streets, such as Ralston Avenue and Alameda de las Pulgas, Class
II bike lanes are recommended. For these heavily
trafficked and well-connected corridors, transforming
on-street parking to active transportation infrastructure is a key recommendation.

The implementation of the recommendations are
prioritized based on continuity, condition, and cost and availability of funding. The pedestrian projects focus
on compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and intersection crossings. Ralston Avenue, El
Camino Real, and Alameda de las Pulgas are the top
three streets for pedestrian and bicycle improvements.

COMPLETE STREETS POLICY
The City Council adopted a Complete Streets Policy
in 2013 in support of a comprehensive and integrated
transportation network. This includes infrastructure and design that allows safe and convenient travel along and across street for all users. The policy promotes safe,
equitable, and convenient travel for all users while
preserving flexibility, recognizing community context,
and using the latest and best design. This policy directly influenced the General Plan and the Comprehensive
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan.

DRAFT | FINAL February 2024

WHERE WE ARE DRAFT
246
21 CHAPTER 2 | Context
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD

ATHLETIC FIELD MASTER PLAN
Recognizing the high-use and limited availability of
space to increase the quantity of athletic fields, the
City developed the Athletic Field Master Plan in 2001
to improve and maintain the playability of existing fields with significant upgrades. This plan is focused solely
on the athletic turf areas and related athletic equipment and infrastructure. The Barrett Community Center,
Cipriani Park, and McDougal Park were identified for
improvements, as well as Central Elementary School,
Fox Elementary School, Nesbit Elementary School,
and Ralston Middle School.

PARKS + OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
The 1992 Parks and Open Space Master Plan outlined
objectives and policies for development of the park
system and preservation of open space. The plan set a
park acreage goal of 5 acres for every 1,000 residents (2 acres Community Parks and 3 acres for Neighborhood
or Mini Parks). Open space is defined in the 1992
plan as areas for passive recreation, education, and
aesthetics. Preservation and expansion of open space
is highly prioritized in the plan.

The plan’s strategies and goals are the same goals
furthered by this PROS Plan: improvements and
redesigns to existing parks to meet community needs,
improvements to joint-use sites, new park development
where possible, open space management, and park
connections. Similar to the 1992 plan, the PROS Plan
aims to develop a high-quality public park system with
adequate space and facilities to provide an appropriate mix of recreation activities for the City’s residents
(Objective 1: Park System Development) and preserve
and enhance the existing open space resources of the
City (Objective 2: Open Space).

OPEN SPACE TRAIL MASTER PLAN
The Open Space Trail Master Plan was adopted in
1998. It was developed by a citizens committee and
identified existing and proposed multi-use and singleuse trails, as well as trails to be removed.

WESTERN HILLS AREA PLAN
The City has taken steps in the last 30 years to purchase open space parcels in the Western Hills neighborhood
to protect the natural environment for public use. Land use controls limit development due to the natural
topography for safety, access, and to protect views.

Adopted in 1990, the goals and objectives relevant to
the PROS Plan revolve around land use regulations
and the preservation of open space.

Land Use Goal: Encourage Open Space Protection
Encourage the preservation of open space in areas
of scenic, natural resource, and recreational value,
as well as areas that are geologically hazardous or
steeply sloped. Assist private landowners in finding
ways for them to manage and permanently preserve
private open space.

Open Space Areas
• Policy 17. Preserve and maintain existing open
space areas.
• Policy 18: Allow the use of open space areas
for hiking trails and passive recreation where
appropriate. Prohibit off-road motorized vehicles.
• Policy 19: Obtain open space and trail easements
in favor of the City of Belmont over privately held
open space land when cluster developments are
approved.
• Policy 20: Coordinate trails on publicly owned open
space ·with opportunities to expand trails onto large
tracts of privately held open space, including a trail
connection from Carlmont Drive to Water Dog Lake.

SAN JUAN HILLS AREA PLAN
For over 40 years, the City has recognized the San
Juan Hills as a valuable natural feature with stunning
views of Belmont and the surrounding area. The City
established land use controls in 1988 to protect the
natural topography and preserve the open space.

CHAPTER 2 | DRAFT Context
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
247

WHERE WE ARE
22 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
Parks and Recreation Support at Twin Pines Park During COVID-19

CURRENT TRENDS
Recreation trends are explored as an evolving response
to community desires and prediction of future needs.

In order to plan for the future, recreation trends are
utilized in conjunction with community input to inform
recommendations, prioritize projects, and ultimately
used to guide decisions.

Current and potential future recreation uses of
the Belmont open space areas were assessed by
examining national, statewide, regional surveys of
outdoor recreation participation, as well as results from the community survey for the PROS Plan. Nationally,
about 50 percent of people participate in outdoor
recreation activities (Outdoor Foundation, 2022).

According to the 2012 Outdoor Recreation Trends and
Futures report, nationally, both how long and how often people spend time outdoors have increased over the
previous 15 years (Cordell, 2012). However, the 2012
Survey on Public Opinions and Attitudes on Outdoor
Recreation in California, suggested that the amount
of time California respondents spend in outdoor
recreation activities had remained roughly the same
over the previous five years (California State Parks,
2014). This same study found that common activities
for respondents were walking, hiking, and picnicking.

RECREATION TRENDS
COVID-19 PANDEMIC
The COVID-19 pandemic altered public perception
of parks and outdoor recreation amenities. Local
parks and open spaces offer refuge, respite, and the
opportunity to enjoy fresh air and reconnect with nature to improve our physical and mental wellbeing.

Parks and public land saw higher-than-normal usage
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both anecdotal and
documented evidence has shown increased use of
park and recreation resources throughout the San
Francisco Bay Area since the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic. For example, WRA conducted a study in
San Mateo County Parks that showed a 40 percent
increase in use of Pillar Point Bluff and Quarry Parks
from 2019 to 2020. Indeed, in 2020, more Americans
reported participating in outdoor recreation than
ever before (Outdoor Foundation, 2022). However,
the Outdoor Foundation found that as many as 25
percent of participants reported that they were unlikely to continue their activities once pandemic impacts
subsided. In fact, National Park Service visitation in
2021 was lower compared to the 3 years preceding
the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (National Park
Service, 2022). Therefore, it is possible that Belmont’s open space areas experienced a surge in visitor use
during 2020, but that use levels have decreased to prepandemic levels in 2022.

The increase in usage prompted a review of distribution disparities, accessible and inclusive spaces, and
infrastructure maintenance requirements. Public parks
and streetscapes enhance a community’s quality of life, and as a result, jurisdictions are expanding parks and
recreation opportunities in acknowledgment of their
highly-visible role in a diverse and healthy urban realm.

DRAFT | FINAL February 2024

WHERE WE ARE DRAFT
248
23 CHAPTER 2 | Context
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD
Waterdog Lake Open Space Trail
California State Parks (2014) also found that over
38 percent of San Francisco Bay Area respondents1
visited parks at least once a week and about 27
percent used trails at least once a week. San Francisco Bay Area respondents also reported that their time
spent at parks was increasing. Additionally, the most
common activities reported by San Francisco Bay Area
respondents were walking, hiking, and picnicking.

A study of visitors to San Mateo County parks found
that respondents most often reported walking/hiking
and running while much smaller proportions of visitors
reported biking (Roberts et al., 2016). Respondents
also indicated that they visit the parks to improve their physical fitness, be with family/friends, connect with
nature, improve mental wellbeing, dog walking, and to
experience scenic views.

PUBLIC HEALTH + WELL-BEING
Parks and open space are important elements to improve
physical and mental health by promoting active living,
stress reduction, and healthy lifestyles. Accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated isolation due
to the closures, parks and open spaces are recognized
as an outlet for stress relief as well as an outlet for physical activity and relaxation.

RECONNECTING WITH NATURE
The positive physical and mental health benefits of
green space are well-documented, as well as the ill
effects of a sedentary lifestyle, excessive screen time, and lack of exploratory, unstructured outdoor play.

Public health organizations and parks departments are
working to reverse these negative impacts.

General recreation trends indicate that photography
and nature-based activities are increasing in popularity, replacing more traditional outdoor activities like fishing and hunting (Cordell, 2012). In addition, the Survey on Public Opinions and Attitudes on Outdoor Recreation
in California found latent demand for some activities
where respondents reported that they wanted to start
participating or participate more in picnicking and
camping activities (California State Parks, 2014).

Implications for these trends may include a decrease in fishing in Waterdog Lake and an increase in shoreline
picnicking.

A CONNECTED COMMUNITY
Parks are social spaces for community building
activities and interactions. The COVID-19 pandemic
temporarily closed places that foster social connections, such as schools and cafes. Parks offer the opportunity
for planned and spontaneous social interactions that
bolster community cohesion in an outdoor setting.

In addition to social connections, physical connectivity between parks is a priority. Dedicated infrastructure
for active transportation modes (such as walking,
bicycling, scootering, and skating) boosts community
accessibility. Intermodal transportation is increasingly preferred over the private automobile, and the planning of safe and efficient alternative transportation modes
to and from public gathering spaces is increasingly
important on a local and regional level.

RECLAIMING PUBLIC SPACE
Cities and urban areas have been reallocating public
spaces in many ways. These include transitioning of
street right-of-way allocation to increase sidewalk
widths and incorporate bicycle lanes, adding parklets
to expand natural environments in urban environments,
and adding outdoor dining experiences, which are even
more prevalent in California’s moderate climate.

CHAPTER 2 | DRAFT Context
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
249

WHERE WE ARE
24 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
Active Recreation Spaces for All Ages
Community Garden in Belmont
Bikes on Belmont Trails

ACTIVE AGING POPULATION
Approximately 40 percent of the current population is
either under 18 or over 65 years old and are actively
driving outdoor recreation trends. As the average
lifespan increases, our population includes multiple
generations of older adults seeking leisure activities or multi-generational park amenities and programs. Older
adults are also looking for programs and amenities to
stay physically active and socially engaged with their
community and younger family members, such as
hiking and gardening.

BICYCLES, E-BIKES, + OTHER TRAVEL MODES
In general, cycling participation has been rising in recent years especially in large cities like San Francisco (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, 2022).

One likely contributor to cycling participation is the
growing use of electric pedal assist bicycles (e-bikes) which have had sales increase nearly 50 percent per
year since 2013 (PeopleForBikes, 2017). In addition,
e-bike use on trails within parks and protected areas
appears to be increasing (PeopleForBikes, 2017).

Though mountain biking participation is also increasing nationally (Newcomb, 2020), whether e-bikes are
driving this increase is actively being researched
(Federal Highway Administration, 2022). According to
the 2020 study E-bikes on Public Lands, the majority
of e-bike owners who ride on natural surface trails
(henceforth: trails) reported owning multiple standard
bikes in addition to an e-bike (Perry and Casey, 2020).

This finding suggests that existing cyclists are the
primary users of e-bikes on trails rather than those
who are new to cycling. The implication for this that
the number of cyclists on trails may not be increasing
dramatically, but rather existing cyclists on trails are switching to e-bikes instead of standard bikes.

Some concerns over the use of e-bikes on trails
have been focused on the potential for increased
environmental impacts due to e-bikes being heavier,
having wider tires, or being able to be ridden further than traditional bikes (Chaney et al., 2019). However, it has been found that e-bikes are essentially equivalent to
traditional mountain bikes in terms of trail impact effects (The International Mountain Bicycling Association,
2015). Alternatively, riders of standard mountain bikes DRAFT | FINAL February 2024

WHERE WE ARE DRAFT
250
25 CHAPTER 2 | Context
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD
Waterdog Lake Open Space Trail

ENDNOTES
1 Respondents comprised of residents from Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, Solano, and Sonoma counties.
2 E-bikes are allowed on paved roads in California State Parks and generally on paved roads that allow cars. 3 See Onewheel.com and BoostedUSA.com
4 National Recreation and Park Association. (2023). Diversity, equity and inclusion in parks and recreation. NRPA.org. PDF.

The use of other electric transportation devices, such
as electric skateboards, has the potential to increase
usage on trails in open space lands. In fact, major
manufacturers of electric skateboards already market
some models for trail or “all-terrain” use.3 Additionally, electric transportation devices can often be categorized as powered mobility devices which are protected under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (Department of
Justice, 2014).

DIVERSITY, EQUITY, + INCLUSION
Parks serve diverse communities and should offer
inclusive spaces that can be enjoyed by all ages,
abilities, and cultures. When visitors from different
backgrounds enter an environment that allows them to
feel comfortable and connected, they tend to engage
in more positive, impactful ways. Societal changes in
recent years have created an increased demand for
inclusivity in public spaces, and as a result, accessibility, sensory experiences, and community support are basic
requirements for today’s parks.4
have historically expressed concerns about visitor
conflict and e-bike riders’ behavior potentially resulting in getting all bikes banned from trails, but tensions
seem to have eased in recent years as general bike
restrictions have not come to fruition (Felton, 2015).

In California, e-bikes are not considered motor vehicles and are divided into three classes, where Class 1
e-bikes require pedaling to gain electric assist and
have a maximum speed of 20 mph. Class 2 bikes
with throttle-controlled motor and Class 3 allow higher speeds, up to 20 mph and 28 mph, respectively.

References to e-bikes in this discussion refer solely to Class 1, as agencies that allow e-bikes on trails limit the policy to Class 1. Still, agency policies regulating Class 1 e-bikes on trails vary widely. The National Park Service has adopted the policy that e-bikes are allowed wherever bicycles are allowed (General Provisions;
Electric Bicycles, 2020). California State Parks only
allows e-bikes on trails in certain park types, i.e.
e-bikes are allowed on trails in State Recreation Areas, while e-bikes are not allowed on trails in State Parks
(California State Parks, 2021).2 East Bay Regional
Parks District allows e-bikes only on select paved paths (East Bay Regional Parks District, 2019).

More recently, the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District, which does not allow e-bikes on trails, commissioned a set of studies to investigate visitor
perceptions and ecological impacts of e-bikes. A
report on these studies was submitted to the Board
of Directors in March 2022 and recommended that
e-bikes be allowed wherever bikes were allowed
(Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 2022); on
June 29, 2022, the Board of Directors passed e-bike
policies that permitted their use only on specific trails in 2 out of 25 of its preserves.

CHAPTER 2 | DRAFT Context
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
251

WHERE WE ARE
26 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Belmont Parks and Recreation Native California Tree Planting (Quercus agrifolia, Coastal Live Oak) Habitat Restoration Underway

ENDNOTES
5 National Recreation and Park Association. (2022). Sustainability in parks and recreation. NRPA.org. PDF.

In response, park and recreation departments play an
important role by offering a diverse selection of park
amenities and recreation programs that appeal to
a broad range of groups. This includes locating new
parks and green spaces in historically underserved
areas with low park access as well as considering all
ability levels and cultures when planning and designing new parks, programs, and facilities.

SUSTAINABILITY + RESILIENCY
Park and recreation agencies have the unique ability to build resilient communities through the incorporation of innovative and sustainable practices in their parks and open spaces. They have the opportunity to mitigate the
impact of severe weather and climate change, improve
tree canopy coverage across their jurisdiction, and
restore flourishing and ecologically-functional habitats.

They also serve as community advocates, educators,
and early adopters of new and proven environmental
strategies. Following principles of low-impact design,
incorporating green stormwater infrastructure, and
installing native vegetation are examples of critically important approaches when designing resilient parks
in the drought-prone and wildfire-prone environments
of California.

The NRPA Sustainability in Parks and Recreation
report (2022) identifies that the most common park and
recreation agency sustainability actions, which include planting trees, transitioning to native and climateadaptive vegetation, and updating or retrofitting buildings and other park infrastructure.5 Belmont’s Parks and Recreation Department looks towards the Climate
Action Plan (2017), Green Infrastructure Plan (2019),
and General Plan (2017) for relevant and impactful
sustainability practices, goals, and regulations.

DRAFT | FINAL February 2024

WHERE WE ARE DRAFT
252
CITY OF BELMONT | PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN 27 PART 1.

WHERE WE ARE
CHAPTER 3
Existing Conditions
The Belmont Parks and Recreation Department
oversees 15 developed parks and over 300 acres of
open space, as well as playgrounds, athletic fields,
community gardens, passive recreation areas, and
trails. This chapter evaluates the existing parks, open spaces, and athletic fields to provide a foundation
for recommendations and future improvements.

The detailed site and condition assessment intends
to inventory existing amenities, evaluate current
conditions, record recreational uses, document
potential accessibility issues, and generally review the overall park and open space environmental health.

DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
253

WHERE WE ARE
28 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
1 18
5 3
7 2
10 13
9 12
16 20
23 11
15 19
14 17
21 22
6 4
8 Figure 3-1: Belmont Parkland Distribution
# Neighborhood Park # Community Park # Undeveloped Park # School (JUA) # Open Space

OVERVIEW
Belmont’s PROS system currently consists of 17 parks
(15 developed and 2 undeveloped parks), two open
spaces, and four schools under a joint-use agreement
(JUA) with Belmont-Redwood Shores School District
(BRSSD). The parks and school sites are distributed
across Belmont, while the open spaces are located in
the western hills (Figure 3-1 and Table 3-1).

The parks range in size, from less than an acre to
over 20 acres, and vary in intensity of use. While not
directly correlated, smaller parks tend to provide fewer amenities and therefore generate less use intensity.

Park Typologies and their associated characteristics
are used to organize the PROS sites to create a
baseline service level that all parks must provide.

This assessment views the PROS system as a single,
connected system. Considering how people arrive to a
park via non-motorized transportation methods and the
quality of the routes connecting park destinations are
important aspects of the overall park visit experience.

Additionally, the assessment emphasizes opportunities
to enhance the experience in the existing parks,
developed and undeveloped, over new parkland
development to increase acreage.

DRAFT | FINAL February 2024

WHERE WE ARE DRAFT
254
29 CHAPTER 3 | Existing Conditions
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD

PARK, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE SITES
SITE TYPOLOGY SIZE (AC.) ADDRESS
1 Alexander Park Neighborhood Park Tier 2 1.3 400 Block of Yorkshire Way 2 Barrett Community Center Community Park 5.1 1835 Belburn Drive 3 Belameda Park Community Park 3.0 1110 Alameda de las Pulgas 4 Belmont Sports Complex Community Park 11.0 550 Island Parkway 5 Central Elementary School School (JUA) 3.4 525 Middle Road 6 Cipriani Park Neighborhood Park Tier 2 6.0 2525 Buena Vista Avenue 7 College View Park Neighborhood Park Tier 1 0.1 1 College View Way 8 Davey Glen Park Neighborhood Park Tier 2 0.1 500 Davey Glen Road 9 Fox Elementary School School (JUA) 6.1 3100 St James Road 10 Hallmark Park Neighborhood Park Tier 2 5.2 2599 Hastings Drive 11 Hasting Tot Lot Park Neighborhood Park Tier 1 0.3 2400 Hastings Drive 12 Hidden Canyon Park * Undeveloped Park 4.8 End of Carlmont Drive 13 McDougal Park Community Park 4.5 1405 Solana Drive
14 Nesbit School School (JUA ) 6.5 500 Biddulph Way
15 O’Donnell Park Neighborhood Park Tier 2 0.9 400 Block of Ralston Avenue 16 Patricia Wharton Park Neighborhood Park Tier 1 0.1 Notre Dame Ave / Middle Road 17 Ralston Middle School School (JUA ) 7.4 2675 Ralston Avenue 18 Ralston Ranch Park * Undeveloped Park 1.3 Across from 1 Ralston Ranch Rd 19 San Juan Canyon Open Space 35.0 4122 Marsten Avenue
20 Semeria Park Neighborhood Park Tier 2 0.1 2322 Casa Bona Ave 21 Twin Pines Park Community Park 21.1 30 Twin Pines Lane 22 Wakefield Park Neighborhood Park Tier 1 1.0 Wakefield Drive / Elder Drive 23 Waterdog Lake Open Space 282.5 Across from 2839 Hallmark Drive Table 3-1: Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Sites * Both Undeveloped Park sites are attributed as Neighborhood Park Tier 2.

CHAPTER 3 | DRAFT Existing Conditions
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024
255

WHERE WE ARE
30 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
Neighborhood Park Tier 2 (Davey Glen Park)
Neighborhood Park Tier 2 (Alexander Park)

PARK TYPOLOGIES
Every PROS site in Belmont has been categorized
as shown in Table 3-2. Each of these categories have
intrinsic expectations and identified minimum standards or characteristics that the park type must provide. The previous Parks and Open Space Master Plan (1992)
and 2035 General Plan used the categories Mini
Park, Neighborhood Park, Community Park, School
Park, and Special Facility. This PROS Plan began the
assessment exercise with these categories. Through
site assessments, community input, and conversation
with Parks and Recreation staff, the Park Typologies
were refined:
• Neighborhood Park Tier 1
• Neighborhood Park Tier 2
• Community Park
• Undeveloped Park
• School (JUA)
• Open Space

STANDARD BASELINE AMENITIES
Each Park Typology includes a set of Standard Baseline
Amenities that the parks must provide at a minimum.

The quantity of Standard Baseline Amenities compound
as the use intensity increases, while also becoming
more complex. These amenities are described in detail
later in this chapter and defined in the Appendix.

ACCESS RADIUS
The Park Typology defines the Access Radius,
or the value used to delineate an area around a
park considered easily reachable, based on the
anticipated methods to travel to the site. These
areas are also delineated to prioritize connections
for active transportation networks, as reflected in the Comprehensive Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan.

A small Access Radius is tied to a lower intended
intensity of use. As the park use intensity increases,
the Access Radius increases. Community Parks have
the highest quantity of amenities, use intensity, and
arrival modes so their Access Radius spans the entire
city. The Access Radius definition was revised from the 1992 Parks and Open Space Master Plan.

Neighborhood Park Tier 1 (Wakefield Park)
DRAFT | FINAL February 2024

WHERE WE ARE DRAFT
256
31 CHAPTER 3 | Existing Conditions
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD
In the PROS Plan, the Access Radius approach is
used to identify areas of Belmont where residents are
outside of an existing buffer area and are therefore
underserved. This not only identifies neighborhoods
with low access to parks, but also heightens awareness
for opportunities to increase parkland in underserved
and under-accessible areas in Belmont.

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK (TIER 1)
A Neighborhood Park Tier 1 supports interaction with
nature and acts as a neighborhood gathering space. It
is the quintessential pocket of natural green space in a neighborhood, the hub of unplanned social interactions, and a peaceful place to talk or play.

These parks have the lowest use intensity, meaning
the few existing amenities at the site are expected to
be used by only a handful of people at a single time.

Belmont City CouncilMarch 12, 2024

Belmont City Council
March 12, 2024