Belmont City Council
September 10, 2024

Twin Pines Park Detention Basin EIR Certification - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Elizabeth Wada, Public Works, (650) 595-7468, [email protected] Agenda Title: Twin Pines Park Stormwater Detention Basin EIR Certification Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), making the findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMRP), and adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Twin Pines Park Stormwater Detention Basin Project (Project).

Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
Belmont Creek (Creek) serves the Belmont community (plus the City of San Carlos and San Mateo County) as a major storm collector that discharges into the San Francisco Bay via the Belmont Slough.

The Creek channel includes areas with vegetated channel banks, rock lining, concrete-rubble lining, concrete lining, and concrete culverts. The Belmont Creek watershed encompasses approximately 1,900 acres, originates at an elevation of 700 feet from Pulgas Ridge, and has three substantial tributaries, one near Carlmont Drive, one near Alameda de las Pulgas, and one near University of Notre Dame de Namur.

Portions of the creek are on private property without an easement.

Regional flooding in the watershed historically occurs downstream of El Camino Real, where the Creek enters the flat, tidally influenced Harbor/Industrial Area (HIA) before discharging into Belmont Slough.

The downstream portion of the creek was designed to convey a 10-year storm; however, due to sedimentation in the downstream channel, more intense events currently exceed the capacity of the system downstream.

The watershed has been studied and analyzed for conveyance capacity, water quality, sedimentation and erosion management, and bank stability. The most recent study, the Belmont Creek Watershed Management Plan (County of San Mateo et al., 2019), was written to analyze the hydraulic performance of nine alternatives. The alternatives included detention basins identified in the County’s Stormwater Resource Plan and prioritized the alternatives by cost, flood protection efficacy, water quality and ecosystem benefits, and feasibility of construction. The Belmont Creek Watershed Management Plan proposed a 21.5-acre-foot underground stormwater detention basin within Twin Pines Park to reduce peak flow in Belmont Creek and subsequently reduce flooding downstream. This is the basis for the proposed 9-acre-foot stormwater detention basin within the City Hall parking lot at Twin Pines Park. 802

Twin Pines Park Detention Basin EIR Certification - Staff Report The City of Belmont is the Lead Agency for this project. Craftwater Engineering, Inc. is the engineering design firm, and Environmental Science Associates (ESA), an environmental consulting firm, prepared the EIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Project Description
The Twin Pines Park Stormwater Detention Basin Project (Project), proposes to construct an underground stormwater storage facility beneath the parking lots or other areas of the 10-acre Twin Pines Park and City Hall Complex. The Project is designed to attenuate the peak stormwater flow of Belmont Creek, to improve water quality and trap sediment and debris, to reduce flood risk in the lower creek reach downstream of El Camino Real, and to provide ancillary water quality benefits. A diversion weir would divert high flows from Belmont Creek to the 9-acre-foot underground storage facility, where water would remain before flowing back into Belmont Creek through a 12-inch outlet pipe. The Project would also include a sediment chamber, bank stabilization at the basin inlet and outlet within Belmont Creek, and an in-stream check structure in Belmont Creek. The Project site is located on four city-owned parcels (Accessor Parcel Numbers 045-170-080, 045-181-250, 045-181-230, and 045-181-280) adjacent to Twin Pines Lane east of Ralston Avenue and south of 6th Avenue in Belmont, therefore no rights-of-way or land acquisition is required to execute the project.

Project Objectives
The Project is a jointly developed with the County of San Mateo, and City of San Carlos with the overarching goal of flood protection for the HIA properties while maintaining habitat and natural surface water features. The Project objectives are to develop a reasonable and cost-effective project that:
• Reduces downstream flooding and maximizes flood protection in the Lower Belmont Creek watershed;
• Reduces erosion and prevent failure of stream banks;
• Reduces downstream sedimentation and need for dredging; • Minimizes disruption and damage to public and private landowners; and • Improves water quality through pollutant capture and removal.

Project Components
To fulfill the Project objectives, the City would construct an underground stormwater detention facility at Twin Pines Park. Twin Pines Park is a public park owned and operated by the City that includes picnic areas, playgrounds, a senior and community center, the Manor Building, the City’s Parks and Recreation office, and Belmont City Hall. The following sections, along with Figure 1, show and describes the facilities and features of the Project.

Underground Stormwater Storage Facility
The City would construct a 9-acre-foot below-ground stormwater storage facility under the Twin Pines Park parking lot off the main Belmont Creek channel. The underground stormwater storage facility would be constructed in two phases. The first phase, constructed closer to Belmont Creek, would store up to 5 acre-feet of water. The second phase would add storage for up to an additional 4 acre-feet of water. The facility would be 1.6 acres in size and its ceiling would be approximately 2 to 4 feet below the current parking lot surface. The bottom of the facility would be approximately 16 to 18 feet below the ground 803

Twin Pines Park Detention Basin EIR Certification - Staff Report surface (at elevation 32.5 feet NAVD88). Water in the storage facility above elevation 36 feet would drain from the storage facility through an outlet pipeline (described below) by gravity. To drain the remaining water between 34 and 38.9 feet, the storage facility would include a sump pump with capacity to pump 318 gallons per minute (0.71 cubic feet per second). The electric sump pump would drain the storage facility within 72 hours.

Figure 1
High Flow Diversion Weir
A 40-foot-wide diversion weir would allow high flows from Belmont Creek to pass into the proposed stormwater basin. The diversion weir would be constructed along the creek bank and parallel to the direction of creek flow. The diversion weir would likely consist of four 10-foot-wide electric tilting weir gates that would allow the weir crest elevations to be set at different levels for different sized storm events. The tilting weir gate would provide a flexible and adaptable design to modulate the weir crest elevation by up to 6 feet vertically.

Sediment Chamber
Between the creek and the high flow diversion weir, the City would construct a sediment chamber designed to capture coarse sediment prior to stormflows passing over the weir and into the storage facility. The sediment chamber would be sized to capture approximately 200 cubic yards of coarse sediment, and would be maintained by removing sediment on an as needed basis. The chamber would be approximately 65 feet long, 17 feet wide, and 5 feet deep.

Bank Stabilization
Concrete retaining walls would be constructed along the northern bank of Belmont Creek at the upstream and downstream ends of the sediment chamber to prevent structure undermining and provide channel stability. The toe of the retaining walls would extend to 6 feet below the thalweg elevation in the vicinity of the sediment chamber. Approximately 120 linear feet of bank stabilization consisting of 804

Twin Pines Park Detention Basin EIR Certification - Staff Report riprap would be placed along the southern bank of Belmont Creek starting near the upstream concrete retaining wall.

In-Stream Check Structure
A 6-foot-high stone or reinforced concrete check structure spanning the width of Belmont Creek (approximately 40 feet) would increase water surface in-stream and direct water and sediment into the sediment chamber inlet. The check structure would be designed to overtop above the 2-year peak flow.

If constructed with stone, the check structure would consist of riprap with a median size greater than 14 inches.

Outlet Pipe
A 12-inch diameter outlet pipe would connect the basin to Belmont Creek downstream of the check structure and the pedestrian bridge and would be sized to allow the detention facility to drain within 72 hours when full. The downstream end of the outlet pipe would include a duckbill valve to prevent sediment or high tailwater in Belmont Creek from entering the pipe. Riprap would be placed along the creek bank at the downstream end of the outlet pipe to prevent scour during outlet pipe operations.

Project Construction
Project construction would proceed in two phases; the first phase (constructing the 5-acre-foot storage facility) would include all of the following activities, and the second phase (constructing the remaining 4-acre-feet of storage north of the first phase’s facility) would include the activities listed below, except for the weirs, sedimentation basin, and check structure construction; outlet pipe installation; and landscaping and stream restoration.
• Site mobilization, clearing, grubbing, and vegetation removal • Demolition of existing parking lot
• Underground storage facility excavation
• Underground storage facility construction and backfill • Weirs, sedimentation basin, and check structure construction • Outlet pipe installation
• Park landscaping replacement
• Parking lot reconstruction
• Landscaping and stream restoration
• Ancillary park improvements
Project construction is expected to occur over approximately two years, with the exact schedule to be determined based on funding. During this period, the City would close the main parking lot near City Hall, portions of Twin Pines Lane within the Project area, and the pedestrian bridge across Belmont Creek. The rest of Twin Pines Park would remain open for public use during construction and would be returned to existing conditions once construction is complete. Construction would proceed during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday except holidays, and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, consistent with the City’s noise ordinance. No nighttime construction would be required.

Phase 2 construction is subject to funding and is not yet scheduled but is anticipated to require 9 to 12 805

Twin Pines Park Detention Basin EIR Certification - Staff Report months to complete.

Project Operations and Maintenance
The Project components would operate together during wet weather events. When water levels rise to the elevation of the diversion weir, water from Belmont Creek would spill over the diversion weir into the storage facility. Once high flows have passed, water collected in the storage facility would exit the storage facility through the 12-inch outlet pipe back into Belmont Creek. In the event that storage facility capacity is reached and creek flows continued to increase, water from the creek channel would no longer pass through the diversion weir and would instead continue to flow downstream in Belmont Creek. Between winter storms, low flows in Belmont Creek would be diverted through the sediment chamber but would be allowed to exit the chamber just downstream of the check structure.

Project maintenance would include regular inspection and periodic sediment removal (likely annually) from the sediment chamber during the dry season to maintain capacity. The amount of sediment removed would vary depending on storm events and the amount of sediment moving through the Creek, but is estimated to be approximately 200 cubic yards on average. Removed sediment would be hauled to a site within San Mateo County for beneficial reuse or to Ox Mountain Landfill.

The Project would not require new employees to operate the proposed infrastructure as it is anticipated that the Public Works staff would perform the required maintenance such as sediment removal using City-owned vacuum trucks on an as needed basis. Pacific Gas & Electric would provide electricity to the site to power the motors that would control the weirs and the sump pump. The motors are anticipated to operate for less than one hour per week. No emergency generators would be used, and no permanent onsite lighting would be installed.

The EIR can be found on the City’s website (https://www.belmont.gov/StormwaterBasin). The following is a summary of key findings identified in the draft documents.

Summary of EIR Findings:
• The EIR completed an analysis of the proposed Project, including both phases and all construction activities.
• The EIR found four areas of resource analysis to have potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation measures:
o Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. Mitigation addresses construction emissions by requiring enhanced best management practices for construction-related fugitive dust emissions and Tier 4 engines on construction equipment. o Biological Resources. Mitigation reduces construction impacts to sensitive species in Belmont Creek and on the Twin Pines Park site by requiring pre-construction surveys for special-status plants, bats, nesting birds and worker awareness environmental training.

Mitigation also addresses permanent impacts in Belmont Creek to riparian habitat by requiring compensation for loss of habitat and a wetland mitigation and monitoring plan. 806

Twin Pines Park Detention Basin EIR Certification - Staff Report o Cultural Resources. Mitigation requires development of an Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan (ARDRTP), in consultation with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area. Mitigation also requires development of a cultural resources monitoring plan, a cultural resources awareness and sensitivity training program, and informational signage.
o Hydrology and Water Quality. Mitigation addresses in-water construction plan to reduce or avoid the release of pollutants into Belmont Creek; and development of a geomorphic monitoring and adaptive management plan to monitor Belmont Creek for accelerated channel erosion between the outlet of the sediment chamber and the culvert at 6th Avenue and O’Neill Street.
• The EIR found one area of resource analysis to have significant and unavoidable impacts, even with implementation of mitigation measures:
o Tribal Cultural Resources. Mitigation requires development of an ARDRTP in consultation with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area. • Additionally, the Initial Study (Appendix B) found two areas of resource analysis to have potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation measures:
o Geology and Soils. Mitigation addresses the potential to discover paleontological resources.
o Noise. Mitigation addresses temporary construction noise and ground-borne vibrations. • Resources determined to have less than significant impacts include aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, energy, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.

The EIR considered five alternatives to the Project:

1. Alternative 1 – No Project. This alternative describes conditions that would generally be expected to occur without implementation of the Project.

2. Alternative 2 – Hidden Canyon Park. The Hidden Canyon Park detention basin consists of approximately 4.14 acre feet of storage accomplished by replacing an existing 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe and installing an 18-inch outfall pipe and an emergency overflow structure. The 27,300- square-foot underground detention basin requires 9,100 cubic yards of excavation, along with landscaping and surface restoration.

3. Alternative 3 – Notre Dame Belmont High School Softball Field. The Notre Dame Belmont High School softball field detention basin consists of approximately 11.12 acre feet of storage, a 24-inch inlet and outlet pipes, and an emergency overflow structure. The 102,840-square-foot underground detention basin requires 38,089 cubic yards of excavation, along with softball field-specific surface improvements.
807

Twin Pines Park Detention Basin EIR Certification - Staff Report

4. Alternative 4 – Notre Dame de Namur Soccer Field. The Notre Dame de Namur soccer field detention basin consists of approximately 8.77 acre feet of storage, a 24-inch inlet and outlet pipes, and an emergency overflow structure. The 72,000-square-foot underground detention basin requires 26,667 cubic yards of excavation, along with soccer field-specific surface improvements.

5. Alternative 5 – Carlmont High School Softball Field. The Carlmont High School softball field detention basin consists of approximately 13.08 acre feet of storage, a 24-inch and outlet pipes, and an emergency overflow structure. The 131,574-square-foot underground detention basin requires 38,985 cubic yards of excavation, along with softball field-specific surface improvements.

The EIR found that the Project would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would meet all Project objectives and reduce or avoid environmental impacts to the extent feasible.

Planning Commission Hearing
The Planning Commission considered the project at a Public Hearing on June 4, 2024. The Commission indicated that the Draft EIR adequately evaluated potential project environmental impacts and included a reasonable range of project alternatives. No one from the public gave comments; however, the Commission provided comments that have been addressed in the Final EIR.

Timeline for Project
Public comment period for Draft EIR (45 Days) May 14 through June 28, 2024 City published Final EIR/Response to Comments August 30, 2024 City Council certifies EIR and approves project September 10, 2024 Construction begins TBD
Analysis
Final EIR
The Draft EIR was published on May 14, 2024 and circulated to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals for their review and comment. The public review period ended on June 28, 2024. The public meeting was held during a regularly scheduled Planning Commission hearing on June 4, 2024 at City Hall, in Belmont. The City received two comment letters during the comment period from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the County of San Mateo.

The Final EIR includes three main sections: Introduction, Comments and Responses, and Draft EIR Revisions. The Introduction explains the purpose of the Responses to Comments document is to present comments received on the Draft EIR for the proposed Project, respond in writing to comments on environmental issues, and to revise the Draft EIR as necessary to provide additional clarity.

The Comments and Responses section includes written comments that are grouped according to the public agency. In addition, comments received during the Planning Commission hearing are summarized into main topics. The CDFW comments are related to biological resources. The San Mateo County comments focus on the functionality of the stormwater detention basin. None of the comments received provide new information that warrants recirculation of the Draft EIR. The comments do not identify new 808

Twin Pines Park Detention Basin EIR Certification - Staff Report significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts, and do not identify feasible Project alternatives or mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR and/or that the City has not agreed to implement.

The Draft EIR Revisions section presents changes and additions to the Draft EIR. The City has made changes and additions to the Draft EIR in response to comments received on the Draft EIR and/or as necessary to clarify statements and conclusions made in the Draft EIR.

Statement of Overriding Considerations
As discussed above, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to tribal cultural resources, even with implementation of mitigation measures. As such, the City must prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations to approve the project. In making the statement of overriding considerations, CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks. Thus, if the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
Should the Council elect to approve the Project, a draft Statement of Overriding Considerations is provided in the resolution, Exhibit B. The draft document identifies multiple project benefits that may outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the project, including but not limited to:
• Increase Flood Protection. To achieve the Project objective of reducing downstream flooding and maximizing flood protection, the Project would reduce the size of the floodplain in Lower Belmont Creek, upstream of the culvert under US 101, from 120.5 acres to 111 acres during a large flood (an event with a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year). The Project would also reduce the floodplain area during more frequent events. This would minimize disruption and damage to public and private landowners related to flooding.
• Reduce Erosion and Prevent Failure of Stream Banks. Concrete retaining walls would be constructed along the northern bank of Belmont Creek at the upstream and downstream ends of the sediment chamber to prevent structure undermining and provide channel stability.

Approximately 120 linear feet of bank stabilization consisting of riprap would be placed along the southern bank of Belmont Creek starting near the upstream concrete retaining wall to prevent failure of stream banks.
• Reduce Downstream Sedimentation. The Project includes construction of a sediment chamber designed to capture coarse sediment prior to stormflows passing over the weir and into the storage facility. The sediment chamber would be sized to capture approximately 200 cubic yards of course sediment, and would be maintained by removing sediment on an as needed basis. • Improve Water Quality. The Project is designed to provide ancillary water quality benefits through pollutant capture and removal. Stormwater and water quality best management practices such as 809

Twin Pines Park Detention Basin EIR Certification - Staff Report wattles, silt fence, and other stormwater protection measures would be implemented as required by the Section 401 Water Quality Certification and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.

Alternatives

1. Refer back to staff for more information.

2. Take No Action.

Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Final EIR
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

Internal funding sources are budgeted in the Capital
Improvement Program Fund under the Twin Pines Park
Stormwater Capture Project #6025 (Account #399-3-760-6025- 9030), which is funded by the Park Impact Fees Fund and the Storm Drainage Fund.

External funding sources include the following:

Design
• California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) General
Fund Grant
Construction
• CNRA Urban Flood Protection Grant
• Tri-agency Local Match Cost Share - City of Belmont,
City of San Carlos, and San Mateo County
Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda

810

RESOLUTION NO. 2024 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR), MAKING

THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

ACT (CEQA), ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (MMRP),

AND ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR

THE TWIN PINES PARK STORMWATER DETENTION BASIN PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Belmont ("City") proposes the Twin Pines Park Stormwater Detention Basin Project ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the downstream portion of the Belmont Creek was designed to convey a 10-year storm; however, as eroded soil and debris are deposited downstream, more frequent storm events currently exceed the capacity of the system downstream; and, WHEREAS, the City has studied the watershed and determined that the most costeffective and efficient project will retain stormwater to attenuate flow from annual storms and trap sediment and debris in a centralized, maintenance-friendly system for later removal; and, WHEREAS, the City received a grant from the California Natural Resources Agency to design a stormwater detention facility; and,
WHEREAS, the City has designed the Project to provide flood protection for nearby properties while maintaining habitat and natural surface water features; reduce downstream flooding and maximize flood protection in the Lower Belmont Creek watershed; reduce erosion and prevent failure of stream banks; reduce downstream sedimentation and need for dredging; minimize disruption and damage to public and private landowners; and improve water quality through pollutant capture and removal; and, WHEREAS, the City determined that the Project requires review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Sections 2100 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 1500 et seq.); and,
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2023, the City issued a Notice of Preparation of an EIR and Notice of Public Scoping Session for the Project; and,
WHEREAS, written comments from public agencies and members of the public were accepted during the 30-day scoping period that ended at close of business on November 3, 2023; and,
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was issued on May 14, 2024; and,
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 4, 2024, to receive comments on the Draft EIR; and, 811

WHEREAS, the 45-day public review and comment period concluded on June 28, 2024; and,
WHEREAS, the EIR is a project-level EIR, as authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, which focuses on the changes in the environment that would result from construction and operation of a specific development project; and,
WHEREAS, the EIR is also a focused EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c);; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, the City prepared an initial study for the project (see Appendix B of the EIR) to identify topics for which the Project’s impacts would be less than significant and not require further analysis, and those topics that warrant more detailed environmental analysis in the EIR; and, WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") consists of the Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Draft EIR, text revisions to the Draft EIR, and all documents incorporated there; and,
WHEREAS, on August 30, 2024, the Final EIR and Notice of Availability of the Final EIR and Notice of Public Hearings by the City Council on September 10, 2024 was transmitted to the State Clearinghouse; and,
WHEREAS, the Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Alternatives and Overriding Considerations for the Project, (the “CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations”) attached hereto as Exhibits A through C and incorporated herein by reference, have been prepared in order to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code § 21081, subdivision (a).

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

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct, reflect the independent judgment of the City Council, and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 2. Notices of the Planning Commission and City Council hearing on the Draft EIR and the Final EIR for the Project were given as required by law and the actions were conducted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088, 15088.5, 15089, and 15090.

SECTION 3. All individuals, groups, and agencies desiring to comment were given adequate opportunity to submit oral and written comments on the Draft EIR and to submit written comments on the adequacy of the Final EIR for certification. These opportunities for comment meet or exceed the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 4. All comments submitted during the public review and comment period on the Draft EIR have been considered and responded to in the Final EIR, or included in the public record.

SECTION 5. No new comments or information has been submitted during the City 812

Council hearings on the Twin Pines Stormwater Detention Basin Project that would change the analysis or conclusions of the Final EIR.

SECTION 6. The City Council was presented with all of the information in the administrative record, testimony, and documents constituting the Final EIR, and has reviewed and considered this information and the Final EIR.

SECTION 7. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR for the Project is adequate and complete in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City, and is adequate and complete for consideration in making a decision on the merits of the Project.

SECTION 8. The City Council adopts the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 9. The City Council adopts and incorporates into the Project all of the mitigation measures for the Project that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City that are identified in the Findings.

SECTION 10. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 11. Belmont City Council certifies the Final EIR for the Project as adequate and complete in compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, and as adequate and complete for consideration in making a decision on the merits of the Project. * * *
ADOPTED September 10, 2024 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
813

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
814

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS OF FACT

REGARDING THE CITY OF BELMONT TWIN PINES PARK STORMWATER DETENTION

BASIN PROJECT
(SCH NO. 2023100139)
The following Findings, the mitigation measures specified herein, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto are hereby adopted by the City of Belmont (City) in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081, 21081.5 and 21081.6, and the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15091 and 15092 for the Twin Pines Park Stormwater Detention Basin Project (Project).

A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The Project analyzed in the environmental impact report (EIR) would involve constructing an underground stormwater storage facility beneath the parking lots or other areas of the 10-acre Twin Pines Park, as described below. Pursuant to CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies that have jurisdiction over a proposed project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.

The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR for a 30-day agency and public review period starting on October 4, 2023 and ending on November 3, 2023 to obtain comments on the proposed scope of the EIR. Once the Draft EIR was prepared, the City of Belmont filed a notice of availability (NOA) and notice of completion (NOC) with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to begin the 45-day public review period (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21161), which began on May 14, 2024, and ended on June 28, 2024. The Draft EIR was made available electronically on the City’s website. As a result of these notification efforts, written comments on the content of the Draft EIR were received from two agencies.

The City released the Final EIR for public review on August 30, 2024. The Final EIR consists of copies of all comments received on the Draft EIR, a list of commenters, responses to comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR.

The Final EIR, Draft EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) together comprise the EIR for the Project. The analysis and conclusions contained in the EIR reflect the independent judgment of the City.

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Chapter 2 of the Draft EIR includes a detailed description of the Project.

The Project involves the construction of an underground stormwater storage facility beneath the parking lots or other areas of the 10-acre Twin Pines Park. The Project is designed to attenuate the peak stormwater flow of Belmont Creek, to trap sediment and debris, to reduce flood risk in the flood-prone lower creek reach downstream of El Camino Real, and to provide ancillary water quality benefits. A diversion weir would divert high flows from Belmont Creek to the 9-acre-foot underground storage facility, where water would remain before flowing back into Belmont Creek through a 12-inch outlet pipe. The Project would also include a sediment chamber, bank stabilization at the basin inlet and outlet within Belmont Creek, and an in-stream check structure in Belmont Creek.
815

The overarching purpose of the Project is to provide flood protection for nearby properties while maintaining habitat and natural surface water features. The Project objectives are to develop a reasonable and cost-effective project that:

Reduces downstream flooding and maximizes flood protection in the Lower Belmont Creek watershed; Reduces erosion and prevent failure of stream banks;
Reduces downstream sedimentation and need for dredging; Minimizes disruption and damage to public and private landowners; and Improves water quality through pollutant capture and removal.

C. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND DISPOSITION OF RELATED

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Final EIR identified the following impacts associated with the Project that would be significant and unavoidable:

1. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact TCR-1: The Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined in PRC Section 21074. The Project would consist of a substantial amount of ground disturbance including throughout depths where cultural material has been identified at the site to date. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4, as the Project would result in permanent damage to ancestral human remains that are of significance to the Muwekma, and likely other California Native American Tribes.

2. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact C-TCR-1: The Project, in combination with past, present, and probable future projects in the Project area, would result in significant adverse cumulative tribal cultural resources impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 to CUL-4 would reduce Project impacts on tribal cultural resources but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on tribal cultural resources would be cumulatively considerable, and this cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

For a detailed description of impacts and mitigation measures, see the appropriate text in the Final EIR.

D. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR THAT ARE REDUCED TO A LEVEL OF “LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT” BY THE MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE

PROJECT
The Final EIR identified several impacts associated with the Project that would be reduced to a level of less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR:

1. Air Quality Impact AIR-1: Project construction would result in significant fugitive dust emissions and would not be consistent with the goals of the air quality plan without mitigation. Implementation of 816

Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would be required to reduce the impact related to fugitive dust emissions to less than significant with mitigation.

2. Air Quality Impact AIR-2: Project construction has the potential to create temporary air quality impacts through emissions of criteria air pollutants, primarily associated with the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, construction workers’ vehicle trips, and truck trips for equipment and material transport.

While Project emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD construction thresholds of 54 pounds per day, Mitigation Measure AIR-2 (required under Impact AIR-3 to mitigate health risk impacts to a less-thansignificant level) would also reduce this impact further by reducing the amount of criteria air pollutants generated by construction equipment. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would also be implemented to reduce impacts related to fugitive dust emissions to a less-than-significant level.

3. Air Quality Impact AIR-3: Project construction would result in potentially significant emissions of PM2.5 and diesel particulate matter that may pose health risks for sensitive receptors. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would reduce health risk impacts from Project construction to below the BAAQMD thresholds with the use of clean construction equipment that meet the Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards as certified by CARB.

4. Air Quality Impact C-AIR-1: The Project, in combination with past, present, and probable future projects in the Project area, would not result in significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1: BAAQMD Basic Best Management Practices for Construction-Related Fugitive Dust Emissions, Project construction emissions would not exceed the emissions thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM10, or PM2.5. The Project’s contribution to the regional cumulative air quality impact of the SFBAAB would be less than cumulatively considerable and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

5. Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: Special-status species and their habitats may be affected either directly or indirectly through implementation of the Project. Additionally, common (i.e., non-specialstatus) nesting raptors and migratory birds may also be affected by Project construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-5 would reduce potentially significant impacts to special-status species, nesting raptors, and migratory birds to a less-than-significant level.

6. Biological Resources Impact BIO-2: Project implementation would permanently impact a maximum of

0.217 acre of riparian habitat; however, the actual riparian habitat impact could be much less. Such impacts would be permanent and significant because riparian habitat would displaced by hardscape and in other disturbed areas it would require more than one year to revegetate to pre-Project conditions.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 to compensate affected riparian habitat through riparian restoration and enhancement would reduce the impact to less than significant with mitigation.

7. Biological Resources Impact BIO-3: Based on the Project design and the limits of USACE jurisdiction, Project implementation would permanently impact up to 0.026 acre and temporarily impact up to 0.045 acre of federally protected waters of the U.S. Project construction would permanently impact up to 0.073 acre and temporarily impact 0.144 acre of waters of the State and CDFW regulated area protected under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-6 and BIO-7 and stormwater and water quality best management practices (BMPs), such as wattles, silt fence, and other stormwater protection measures included in Mitigation Measure HYD-1 as required by 817

the Section 401 Water Quality Certification and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit would reduce the impact to less than significant with mitigation.

8. Biological Resources Impact BIO-5: The Project would remove up to seven protected trees. Since the City of Belmont is the implementing entity, the Project would obtain an administrative Tree Removal Permit. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

9. Biological Resources Impact C-BIO-1: The Project, in combination with past, present, and probable future in the Project area, would not result in significant adverse cumulative impacts on biological resources. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 through BIO-7, the Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable, and the impact would be less than significant.

10. Cultural Resources Impact CUL-2: Substantial ground disturbance within a recorded historical resource (P-41-000152) would materially impair the resource’s physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 to CUL-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts to P-41-000152 to a less-than-significant level.

11. Cultural Resources Impact CUL-3: In the event that Project construction activities result in disturbance of human remains, impacts on the human remains resulting from the Project would be significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce this impact to a less-thansignificant level through adherence to State regulations regarding treatment of human remains and coordination with Native American representatives, in the case of any potential indigenous human remains.

12. Cultural Resources Impact C-CUL-1: The Project, in combination with past, present, and probable future projects in the Project area, would not result in significant adverse cumulative cultural resources impacts.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 to CUL-4 would reduce Project impacts on archaeological resources and human remains, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Therefore, implementing these mitigation measures would reduce the contribution of the Project to cumulative impacts on archaeological resources and human remains to less than cumulatively considerable, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

13. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-1: If water is present in Belmont Creek during construction of the sediment detention basin or during bank stabilization activities, concrete used for the sediment detention basin or excavation and equipment access associated with bank stabilization could release pollutants directly into Belmont Creek and degrade water quality, resulting in a significant impact. In addition, if work areas must be isolated and dewatered, installation of coffer dams and dewatering without proper management could release pollutants into Belmont Creek. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, water quality impacts of Project construction would be less than significant with mitigation.
818

14. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-3: The Project would reduce the sediment load along the 200-foot-long reach of Belmont Creek, which could erode the unarmored banks downstream of the Project, resulting in a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-2 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring monitoring of the downstream reach for increased erosion due to Project operations and modifying Project operations to avoid further exacerbating erosion.

15. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-8: Project construction would include work in Belmont Creek channel that could adversely affect water quality by increasing turbidity and potentially releasing fuels and other chemicals associated with construction equipment into Belmont Creek. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, the Project would not obstruct implementation of the water quality control plan, and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

16. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact C-HYD-1: The Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact related to substantially degrading surface or groundwater quality, conflicting with or obstructing implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, or resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. The City of Belmont would implement the requirements of the California Construction Stormwater General Permit and prepare and implement site-specific, effective stormwater BMPs. Additionally, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would also be implemented during Project construction to further reduce impacts on water quality. As a result, impacts from the Project related to water quality would not be cumulatively considerable in combination with the other cumulative projects, and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

17. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact C-HYD-2: The Project’s contribution to impacts related to erosion or siltation would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in a potentially significant impact; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-2 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

18. Geology and Soils Impact f), from Appendix B, Initial Study: Encountering and inadvertently destroying significant paleontological resource(s) during Project construction would be a significant impact.

Therefore, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would be required to reduce the Project’s impacts on significant paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level.

19. Noise Impact a), from Appendix B, Initial Study: The Project would include equipment that could generate noise during construction and operation. Implementation of noise reduction measures outlined in Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would mitigate noise exposure to sensitive receptors from construction activities to the extent feasible to be consistent with the General Plan and Municipal code. Therefore, the Project would not generate 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 and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

20. Noise Impact b), Appendix B, Initial Study: The Project would include equipment that could generate vibration during construction and operation. Mitigation Measure NOI-2, would ensure that vibration avoidance and reduction measures are implemented to address potentially significant impacts and reduce them to less than significant with mitigation.
819

For a detailed description of impacts and mitigation measures, see the appropriate text in the Final EIR.

E. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR
The Final EIR prepared for the Project identified impacts that would be less than significant with no mitigation measures required:

1. Air Quality Impact AIR-4: The Project would not result in substantial short-term or long-term odors, and the impact would be less than significant.

2. Air Quality Impact AIR-5: The Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction or operation, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and the impact would be less than significant.

3. Air Quality Impact AIR-6: The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas emissions.

4. Impact C-AIR-2: The Project, combined with health risk impacts from other sources in the Project vicinity, would result in less than significant cumulative health risk impacts.

5. Biological Resources Impact BIO-4: The Project would not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites and the construction and operational impact would be less than significant.

6. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-2: The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that sustainable management of the groundwater basin would be impeded, a less-than-significant impact.

7. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-4: The Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, a less-thansignificant impact.

8. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-5: The Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage system or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, a less-than-significant impact.

9. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-6: The Project is designed to intentionally impede and redirect flood flows from Belmont Creek into the stormwater storage facility in a manner that would reduce flooding downstream. The Project would reduce the total floodplain area in lower Belmont Creek by up to 12 acres compared to existing conditions. Therefore, while the Project would impede or redirect flood flows, by doing so the Project would reduce flooding and therefore would result in less-thansignificant impacts.

10. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-7: The Project site is not within a tsunami or seiche zone.

The portion of Belmont Creek within the Project site is mapped within a flood hazard zone. However, during operations the Project would not store or use potential water quality pollutants within the area 820

mapped as a flood hazard zone. The Project would not increase the risk of releasing pollutants due to Project inundation, a less-than-significant impact.

11. Aesthetic Impact b): The Project’s stormwater storage facility would be underground and would not be visible to the public after construction. Impacts on scenic resources would therefore be temporary and less than significant.

12. Aesthetics Impact c): Once construction is complete, the Project area would be consistent with the existing visual character of the park and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

13. Energy Impact a): Energy use would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary during construction or operation of the Project and the impact would be less than significant.

14. Energy Impact b): Neither construction nor operation of the Project would conflict with renewable energy plans or energy efficiency plans applicable to the Project and the impact would be less than significant.

15. Geology and Soils Impact a.ii): Adherence to the applicable CBC requirements and local agency enforcement would reduce the risk that the Project would directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, impacts related to ground shaking during Project construction and operation would be less than significant.

16. Geology and Soils Impact a.iii): Adherence to the applicable CBC requirements and local agency enforcement would reduce the risk that the Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving liquefaction. Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction during Project construction and operation would be less than significant.

17. Geology and Soils Impact b): Implementation of the mandatory requirements of the SWPPP and established BMPs would avoid the potential for significant impacts associated with loss of topsoil and erosion; thus, the impact would be less than significant.

18. Geology and Soils Impact c): Compliance with the CBC and implementation of recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Exploration report would avoid or reduce impacts related to unstable soils to less than significant.

19. Geology and Soils Impact d): Adherence to the requirements of the CBC and the recommendations in the Geotechnical Exploration report, as described in Draft EIR Section 2.5.6, Geotechnical Recommendations of the Project Description, would avoid impacts resulting from potentially expansive soils, and the impact would therefore be less than significant.

20. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact a, b): The transport, use, storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials for the Project would be adequately controlled through compliance with existing regulatory requirements during construction. This impact would be less than significant. 821

21. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact f): Adherence to existing traffic rules-of-the-road would ensure that the Project does not impair or interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan, and the impact would be less than significant.

22. Land Use and Planning b): The Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, and the impact would be less than significant.

23. Recreation Impact a): Due to the temporary nature of construction and the availability of other facilities in the area, the Project would not increase the use of recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The impact would be less than significant.

Transportation Impact a): Construction activities associated with the Project would not generate traffic volume increases that would significantly affect traffic flow on area roadways. The performance of public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the area likewise would not be adversely affected. This impact would be less than significant.

24. Transportation Impact b): Construction-generated trips would be temporary and existing Department of Public Works staff would perform regular operations, maintenance, and inspection of the proposed infrastructure. The Project would not generate substantial traffic volume and would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) during construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant.

25. Transportation Impact c): The Project would not make any changes to the design of the existing street network or driveway access points. Therefore, potential transportation hazard impacts related to road design would be less than significant.

26. Transportation Impact d): Adherence to existing traffic rules-of-the-road would ensure that the Project’s construction impacts to emergency access would be less than significant.

27. Utilities and Service Systems a): The Project would not require the relocation or construction of water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities; thus, this impact would be less than significant.

28. Utilities and Service Systems b): The minimal water needs for the Project would be well within the available water supplies provided by Mid-Peninsula Water District, and there would therefore be sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development.

The impact would be less than significant.

29. Utilities and Service Systems d): Based on the daily and remaining capacity of local landfills, the Project would not generate waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, and the impact would be less than significant.

30. Utilities and Service Systems e): Specifications for Project construction would contain requirements for the handling, storage, cleanup, and disposal of hazardous materials, including petroleum-based products or other construction pollutants. The Project would comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to solid waste, and the impact would be less than significant. 822

F. AREAS OF NO IMPACT IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR
The Final EIR prepared for the project identified areas in which the project would have no impact:

1. Biological Resources Impact BIO-6: The Project site is not located within the planning area of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, there would be no impact from Project construction or operation.

2. Cultural Resources Impact CUL-1: One architectural resource 50 years of age or older, the Twin Pines Park, has been identified in the Project area. The resource has been evaluated as not eligible for the California Register and, therefore, does not qualify as an historical resource according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. As a result, the Project would have no impact on historical resources and no mitigation measures would be required.

3. Aesthetics Impact a): The Project site is not within the viewshed of a scenic vista and the existing parking lot would be restored to a similar condition after Project construction is complete. Therefore, there would be no effect on scenic vistas, and there would be no impact.

4. Aesthetics Impact d): There would be no new source of substantial light or glare which would affect daytime or nighttime views in the area and there would be no impact.

5. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impact a): Implementation of the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, and there would be no impact.

6. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impact b): The Project site is not zoned for agricultural use or on land that is restricted under a Williamson Act contract (CDC, 2016). Therefore, there would be no impact.

7. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impact c and d): Project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production or result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. There would be no impact.

8. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impact e): The Project area is not currently used for farmland or agricultural uses therefore, there would be no impact.

9. Geology and Soils Impact a.i): The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects related to surface fault rupture and there would be no impact.

10. Geology and Soils Impact a.iv): As there are no habitable structures proposed as part of the Project, and the surrounding area has a low susceptibility to landslides, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects involving landslides and there would be no impact related to landslides, either seismic or gravity-induced.
823

11. Geology and Soils Impact e): The Project would not install any septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact related to adequate soil to support such systems.

12. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact c): There are no schools within 0.25 miles of the Project site.

Therefore, the Project would not produce hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials in the vicinity of an existing or planned school, and there would be no impact.

13. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact d): A review of the Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database and the State Water Resource Control Board GeoTracker database records indicate that the Project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials, nor are there any sites in the vicinity of the Project site. There would be no impact under this criterion.

14. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact e): The Project site is not within any of the safety zones or noise contours established for the San Carlos Airport, there would be no impact related to safety or noise hazards to people that may be working or residing in the area.

15. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact g): The Project site is not within a Local Responsibility Area and is not designated by the City of Belmont as a High Fire Hazard Area or Very High Fire Hazard Area.

Therefore, there would be no impact related to wildland fires.

16. Land Use and Planning Impact a): The Project would not result in the physical division or isolation of an established community and there would be no impact.

17. Mineral Resources Impact a, b): there are no known mineral resources located in the Project vicinity that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state The City’s General Plan did not identify any locally important mineral resource recovery sites on or near the Project site. There would be no impact on mineral resources.

18. Noise Impact c): Construction workers for the Project may be exposed to periodic short-term aircraft overflight noise associated with this airport; however, the average construction activity noise levels that the workers would be exposed to would be greater than the average overflight noise levels that they would be exposed to. Therefore, there would be no impact.

19. Population and Housing Impact a, b): The Project would not induce population growth or displace existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. There would be no impact on Population and Housing.

20. Public Services Impact a): Project construction and operation would not result in an increase in population, no new or expanded public services would be required and there would be no impact on Public Resources.

21. Recreation Impact b): There would be no impact related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

22. Utilities and Service Systems Impact c): The construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities would therefore not be required, therefore, there would be no impact. 824

23. Wildfire a-d): The Project site is within a Local Responsibility Area and is not designated by the City of Belmont as a High Fire Hazard Area or Very High Fire Hazard Area. Additionally, the Project does not include installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate wildfire risks. Therefore, the significance criteria do not apply to the Project, and there would be no impact.

G. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
When making findings, the lead agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the mitigation measures it has adopted or made a condition of project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.

The City hereby adopts the MMRP for the Project, included as Attachment C. The mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and adopted and incorporated into the Project will be monitored pursuant to this program.

H. ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the EIR examined a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project that would attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts. The City has reviewed the impacts associated with each alternative as compared with the Project, and has also considered each alternative’s feasibility, considering a range of economic, environmental, social, and legal factors. Overall, the City concluded that the proposed Project would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would detain the most stormwater since it would be located furthest down the watershed and would capture water from various tributaries, the Water Dog Lake subwatershed, and Belmont Creek itself. No other alternative would capture and retain as much water and meet the Project objectives to the same degree.

The following alternatives are evaluated in the EIR:

Alternative 1 (No Project). Under the No Project Alternative, none of the actions described in Chapter 2, including construction and operation of the underground stormwater storage facility, diversion weir, outlet pipe, sediment chamber, bank stabilization measures, or in-stream check structure would occur. Continued flooding along Belmont Creek, particularly downstream of the Project, would continue to occur and could increase in subsequent years if the Project is not implemented.

Alternative 2 (Hidden Canyon Park). Hidden Canyon Park is a City-owned and operated public park located at 2642 Carlmont Drive. The park is approximately 140 acres, and includes a public parking lot and the Elevator Trail. The detention basin would store approximately 4.14 acre-feet of stormwater by replacing an existing 60- inch reinforced concrete pipe and installing an 18-inch outfall pipe and an emergency overflow structure. The 27,300-square-foot underground detention basin would require 9,100 cubic yards of excavation, along with landscaping and surface restoration. Overall, this alternative would reduce peak flow during a 50-year, 3-hour storm event by 37 cubic feet per second (cfs).

Alternative 3 (Norte Dame Belmont High School Softball Field). Notre Dame Belmont High School is a Catholic women’s college preparatory high school located at 1540 Ralston Ave. The softball field is located on the high school’s campus just outside the Moore Pavilion. The Alternative 3 area is approximately 2.6 acres and contains an existing play court, parking lot, and softball field. The detention basin would store approximately

11.12 acre-feet of stormwater and would include the installation of 24-inch inlet and outlet pipes and an emergency overflow structure. The 102,840-square-foot underground detention basin would require 38,089 cubic 825

yards of excavation, along with softball field-specific surface improvements. Overall, this alternative would reduce peak flow during a 50-year, 3-hour storm event by 70 cfs.

Alternative 4 (Notre Dame de Namur Soccer Field). Notre Dame de Namur University College is a private Catholic university located at 1500 Ralston Ave. The Koret soccer field is located on the southern corner of the University campus. The Alternative 4 area is approximately 1.7 acres and contains an existing soccer field, bleachers, and fencing. The detention basin would store 8.77 acre feet of stormwater and would involve the installation of 24-inch inlet and outlet pipes and an emergency overflow structure. The 72,000-square-foot underground detention basin would require 26,667 cubic yards of excavation, along with soccer field−specific surface improvements. Overall, this alternative would reduce peak flow during a 50-year, 3-hour storm event by 68 cfs.

Alternative 5 (Carlmont High School Softball Field). Carlmont High School is a public high school managed by the Sequioa Union High School District, and located at 1400 Alameda de Las Pulgas in Belmont. The softball field is in the northern portion of campus, adjacent to a surface parking lot and the performing arts center. The detention basin would store 13.08 acre feet of stormwater and would require the installation of a 36-inch inlet pipe, a 24-inch outlet pipe, and an emergency overflow structure. The 131,574-square-foot underground detention basin would require 38,985 cubic yards of excavation, along with softball field−specific surface improvements.

Overall, this alternative would reduce peak flow during a 50-year, 3-hour storm event by 16 cfs.

I. RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED
No new or substantial changes to the EIR were proposed as a result of the public comment process. The Final EIR responds to comments and makes only minor technical changes, clarifications or additions to the EIR. The minor changes, clarifications, and additions to the EIR do not identify any new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts. Therefore, recirculation of the EIR is not required.

J. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials, including the Notice of Preparation (NOP), comments received on the NOP, Notice of Availability (NOA), all other public notices issued by the City in relation to the Project or the EIR, Draft Environmental Impact Report including associated appendices and technical materials cited, Final Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), staff reports associated with Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the Project, minutes and recordings of the discussions regarding the Project at public hearings held by the Planning Commission and City Council, comments and staff responses entered into the record orally and in writing, and those categories of materials identified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City base its findings and decisions contained herein. Documents related to this Project are located in the City’s offices located at One Twin Pines Lane, Suite 385, Belmont, California 94002 and online at www.belmont.gov/stormwaterbasin. 826

EXHIBIT B
THE CITY OF BELMONT’S STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR

THE TWIN PINES PARK STORWATER DETENTION BASIN PROJECT
(Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.)
I. Introduction
As set forth in Exhibit A, the City has found that the Project will result in significant adverse environmental impacts related to tribal cultural resources that cannot be avoided following adoption and implementation of feasible mitigation measures described in the EIR, and that specific economic, legal, social, or other considerations make infeasible additional mitigation measures. In addition, there are no feasible project alternatives that would mitigate or avoid all of the Project’s significant environmental impacts. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21002, 21002.1, and 21081, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City of Belmont City Council finds that, having balanced the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, against its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, approval of the proposed Project provides benefits that outweigh the Project's unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and that the adverse environmental effects are therefore acceptable. These significant effects are listed below, and the following section identifies the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, specific benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial evidence supporting the benefits of the Project can be found in Exhibit A, in the Project itself, and in the record of proceedings as defined in Exhibit A, Section J. The City further finds that each of the Project benefits discussed below is a separate and independent basis for these findings. The reasons set forth below are based on the EIR and other information in the administrative record.

Tribal Cultural Resources

1. Impact TCR-1: The Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined in PRC Section 21074.

2. Impact C-TCR-1: The Project, in combination with past, and probable future projects in the Project area, would result in significant adverse cumulative tribal cultural resources impacts.

II. Project Benefits
The Project offers benefits that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The City of Belmont adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City of Belmont recognizes that significant and unavoidable impacts would result from implementation of the Project, as discussed above. Having (i) adopted all feasible mitigation measures, (ii) rejected as infeasible additional mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed Project discussed in Exhibit A, (iii) recognized all significant, unavoidable impacts, and (iv) balanced the benefits of the Project against the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, the City of Belmont hereby finds that the benefits outweigh and override the significant unavoidable impacts for the reasons stated below. 827

The below stated reasons summarize benefits, goals, and objectives of the Project. These overriding considerations justify approval of the Project. Each of the Project benefits discussed below is a separate and independent basis for these findings. These benefits include the following:

Increase Flood Protection. To achieve the Project objective of reducing downstream flooding and maximizing flood protection, the Project would reduce the size of the floodplain in Lower Belmont Creek, upstream of the culvert under US 101, from 120.5 acres to 111 acres during a large flood (an event with a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year). The Project would also reduce the floodplain area during more frequent events. This would minimize disruption and damage to public and private landowners related to flooding.

Reduce Erosion and Prevent Failure of Stream Banks. Concrete retaining walls would be constructed along the northern bank of Belmont Creek at the upstream and downstream ends of the sediment chamber to prevent structure undermining and provide channel stability. Approximately 120 linear feet of bank stabilization consisting of riprap would be placed along the southern bank of Belmont Creek starting near the upstream concrete retaining wall to prevent failure of stream banks.

Reduce Downstream Sedimentation. The Project includes construction of a sediment chamber designed to capture coarse sediment prior to stormflows passing over the weir and into the storage facility. The sediment chamber would be sized to capture approximately 200 cubic yards of course sediment, and would be maintained by removing sediment on an as needed basis.

Improve Water Quality. The Project is designed to provide ancillary water quality benefits through pollutant capture and removal. Stormwater and water quality best management practices such as wattles, silt fence, and other stormwater protection measures would be implemented as required by the Section 401 Water Quality Certification and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.

III. Summary
The City is obligated by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 to balance identified project benefits against the unavoidable environmental impacts when determining whether to approve a project. The City finds that the benefits of the Project listed above will outweigh the significant unavoidable tribal cultural resources impacts.
828

EXHIBIT C

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF BELMONT’S TWIN PINES PARK STORMWATER DETENTION BASIN PROJECT (SCH NO. 2023100139)
Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the City of Belmont’s Twin Pines Park Stormwater Detention Basin Project. CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6). This MMRP is designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during project implementation. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Final EIR, specifications are made herein that identify the action required and the monitoring that must occur.

In addition to ensuring implementation of mitigation measures, the MMRP provides feedback to agency staff and decision-makers during project implementation and identifies the need for enforcement action before irreversible environmental damage occurs. This MMRP will be used by City staff or the City’s consultant to determine compliance with permit conditions.

The following table identifies each mitigation measure included in the EIR, the action required for the measure to be implemented, the time at which the monitoring is to occur, the monitoring frequency, and the agency or party responsible for ensuring that the monitoring is performed. In addition, the table includes columns for compliance verification. These columns will be filled out by the monitoring agency or party and would document monitoring compliance. Where an impact was identified to be less than significant, no mitigation measures were required. 829

TABLE C-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE TWIN PINES PARK STORMWATER DETENTION BASIN PROJECT 830

831

Mitigation Measure
Implementing Actions/
Responsible Party Timing
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Implement BAAQMD’s Basic and Enhanced Best Management Practices for ConstructionRelated Fugitive Dust Emissions1 During Project construction, the construction contractor shall reduce construction-related fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) by implementing BAAQMD’s basic best management practices for construction-related fugitive dust emissions at all construction and staging areas. The following measures are based on BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA guidelines. The construction contractor shall comply with the following:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping shall be prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, driveways, or driving surfaces shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. • All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. • Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
• Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. • Limit the simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities. • Install wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
• Plant vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
• Minimize the amount of excavated material or waste materials stored at the site. • Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to construction areas, including previously graded areas, that are inactive for at least 10 calendar days.

Construction Contractor Construction
1 BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District
832

Mitigation Measure
Implementing Actions/
Responsible Party Timing
Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Require Tier 4 Engines on Construction Equipment The construction contractor shall be required, as a condition of contract, to further reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all off-road equipment operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall operate on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved Tier 4 Final or newer engines. Exemptions can be made for specialized equipment where Tier 4 engines are not commercially available within 200 miles of the Project site. The construction contract must identify these pieces of equipment, document their unavailability, and ensure that they operate on no less than an EPA-approved Tier 3 engine. CARB regulations will result in an increasing percentage of Tier 4 engines in the construction equipment fleet over the next several years.

Construction Contractor Construction
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Worker Awareness Environmental Training Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall provide worker awareness environmental training to inform construction personnel about protected biological resources, including special-status species, their habitat, legal protections, and wetlands and waters of the U.S. and/or State. The training shall include photos of special-status species to aid in identification, the qualified biologist’s contact information, and the City’s point of contact. All construction personnel must undergo this training prior to working on the Project and a sign-in sheet shall be maintained to keep a record of those trained.

Qualified Biologist Pre-Construction and
Construction
833

Mitigation Measure
Implementing Actions/
Responsible Party Timing
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Pre-Construction Survey for Special Status Plants A qualified biologist shall conduct appropriately timed bloom surveys to identify any special-status plant species (bent-flowered fiddleneck and western leatherwood) that may occur within the Project site. The optimal identification window for bent-flowered fiddleneck is March through June while the window for western leatherwood is November through March (perennial and identifiable year-round). If a special-status plant is observed during the survey, a 10-foot buffer shall be placed around the plant for the construction contractor to avoid during construction. The biologist shall prepare a report of the special-status plant species survey and provide it to the Project lead engineer at the City.

If impacts to special-status plant species cannot be avoided, a restoration and mitigation plan would be prepared to provide plant salvage and relocation consistent with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidance. At a minimum, the plan shall include collection of reproductive structures from affected plants, a full description of microhabitat conditions necessary, seed germination requirements, assessments of potential transplant and enhancement sites, success and performance criteria, and monitoring programs, as well as measures to ensure long-term sustainability. The following considerations shall be met:
a. Prior to unavoidable and permanent disturbance to a population of a special-status plant species, propagules shall be collected from the population to be disturbed. This may include seed collection or cuttings, and these propagules shall be used to establish a new population in or near the Project site. Transplantation may be attempted but shall not be used as the primary means of plant salvage and new population creation, because for many local rare plant species, seeding may provide a better option to establish annual species. Irrigation shall be provided as necessary to ensure survival of new plantings. b. A minimum 5-year monitoring plan with adaptive management shall be implemented to document the success of new plant populations. Adequate assurances shall be provided to ensure long-term protection and management of lands to promote established rare plant populations. Success criteria for seeded or transplanted populations shall include at least 75 percent survival of salvaged or relocated plants after 5 years, a similar number of new plants (by area and numbers) to the impacted population, and minimal presence of invasive weeds at planting locations.

Qualified Biologist Pre-Construction and five
years Post-Construction
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Wildlife Exclusion Fencing
To prevent special-status species from entering the work area, the construction contractor shall install a multi-purpose protective barrier (such as silt fencing) at the upstream and downstream boundaries of the Project work site adjacent to suitable wildlife habitat.

If special-status species are found during pre-construction surveys, a qualified biologist shall oversee the fence installation. The fence shall be a minimum of 3 feet above ground surface with an additional 4 to 6 inches of fence material buried such that species cannot crawl under the fence. If a portion of the fence cannot be buried, it shall be continuously weighed down with sand or gravel bags. Fence installation shall occur within one day of any protected species relocation or within three days of pre-construction survey where protected species are determined to be absent, whichever occurs first.

No equipment mobilization, grading, clearing, or storage of equipment or machinery, or similar activity shall occur at the Project site until a qualified biologist has inspected and approved the wildlife exclusion fencing; and The City of Belmont shall ensure that the fencing is continuously maintained until all construction is complete.

Qualified Biologist,
Construction Contractor, and
the City of Belmont
Pre-Construction
834

Mitigation Measure
Implementing Actions/
Responsible Party Timing
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Pre-Construction Surveys for Special-status Bats Prior to any tree removal and the start of any construction activities expected to commence during the breeding season for specialstatus bat species (April 15 to August 31) or the winter torpor period (October 15 to February 28), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine whether active roosts are present on site or within 100 feet of the Project work site. Areas adjacent to the Project site that are inaccessible due to private property restrictions shall be surveyed using binoculars from the nearest vantage point. If no roosting bats are found, then no further mitigation is required and the biologist shall submit a letter report to the City summarizing the survey results. If at any time during the roosting season construction stops for a period of two weeks or longer, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted prior to resuming construction.

If roosting bats are found, the construction contractor shall avoid construction within 100 feet of the roost until breeding season or winter torpor is complete and a qualified biologist confirms bats are absent.

Construction Contractor,
Qualified Biologist, and the
City of Belmont
Pre-Construction and
Construction
835

Mitigation Measure
Implementing Actions/
Responsible Party Timing
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Pre-Construction/Activity Surveys for Common Nesting Birds If construction or operational (e.g., active maintenance) activities begin during the avian nesting season (February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist shall be retained by the City to conduct a pre-construction/activity survey for active nests in suitable nesting habitat within 500 feet of the construction and/or operation limits for nesting raptors and migratory birds. Areas adjacent to the work area that are inaccessible due to private property restrictions shall be surveyed using binoculars from the nearest vantage point. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than seven days prior to the onset of construction or operational activity. If no active nests are identified during the pre-construction/activity survey, no further mitigation is necessary. If construction or operational activities begin prior to February 1, it is assumed that no birds would nest in the Project construction or operation area during active construction/operational activities and no pre-construction/activity surveys are required. If at any time during the nesting season construction or operational activities stop for a period of two weeks or longer, pre-construction/activity surveys shall be conducted prior to construction or operational activities resuming.

If active nests are found during the survey, the City shall implement active nest protection measures to ensure that the nests would not be adversely affected, which would include establishing a no-work buffer zone around the active nest.

Active nest protection measures shall include, but not be limited to:

If active nests are found on or within 500 feet of the Project construction or operation limits, then the qualified biologist shall establish no-disturbance buffers for active nests of 250 feet for migratory non-raptor species and 500 feet for raptor species until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival.

Depending on conditions specific to each nest, and the relative location to proposed construction or operational activities, it may be feasible for construction or operational activities to occur as planned within the buffer without impacting the breeding/nesting effort. In this case (to be determined on a case-by-case basis), the nest(s) shall be monitored by a qualified biologist during any construction or operational activities within the buffer. If, in the professional opinion of the monitor, the Project would impact the nesting birds or young, the biologist shall immediately inform the construction or maintenance manager and the City, who shall stop construction or operational activities within the buffer until the nest is no longer active or a new buffer distance is agreed upon based on the biologist’s recommendations. Completion of nesting and fledging activities shall be determined by the qualified biologist.

If construction or operational activities begins outside of the breeding season (February 1 through September 15), then the City is permitted to continue construction or operational activities throughout the breeding season.

Qualified Biologist and the City
of Belmont
Pre-Construction
836

Mitigation Measure
Implementing Actions/
Responsible Party Timing
Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Compensation of Affected Riparian Habitat The City shall retain a qualified botanist, biologist, restoration ecologist, or landscape architect to develop a riparian habitat mitigation and monitoring plan. At a minimum, the City shall compensate impacted riparian areas at a ratio no less than 3:1 (compensation area to impact area) per CDFW policy. Compensation may occur in the form of on- or off-site (along adjacent reaches of Belmont Creek) restoration or enhancement by planting riparian vegetation and subsequent monitoring to ensure success is ultimately achieved. Monitoring shall occur for at least 5 years over the course of a 10-year timeline. The final mitigation ratio shall be determined in consultation with CDFW during the process of obtaining the necessary regulatory permits. At a minimum, success criteria shall include 75% coverage by native riparian species and 70% survival of restoration/enhancement plantings as compared to reference sites nearby by the end of the total 10-year timeline.

Once the final mitigation ratio is determined and the mitigation and monitoring plan finalized through consultation between the City and CDFW, the City shall implement riparian restoration and enhancement within one year of Project-related impacts. The City shall retain a qualified botanist, biologist, restoration ecologist, or landscape architect to conduct routine monitoring per the mitigation and monitoring plan and evaluate its success. If success is achieved at the end of the monitoring period, no further action is necessary.

Qualified Biologist and the City
of Belmont
Pre-Construction and 10
years Post-Construction
Mitigation Measure BIO-7: No Net Loss of Waters of U.S. and/or State The City shall retain a qualified hydrologist, landscape architect, or biologist to develop a wetland mitigation and monitoring plan as a part of the permitting process, which shall include enhancement of Belmont Creek upstream of the Project site to improve physical conditions and stability, monitoring success criteria, annual monitoring intervals and duration (for at least 3 years), and adaptive management options. Mitigation may occur in the form of restoration, enhancement, or creation and shall be implemented within one year of Project-related impacts on waters of the U.S. and/or State to avoid temporal loss of wetland and other water functions and values. The exact mitigation ratio shall be determined in consultation with the applicable permitting agencies, which may include U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CDFW, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). At a minimum, the City shall compensate permanently impacted waters at a ratio no less than 1:1 per USACE and State no net loss policy.

Qualified Hydrologist,
landscape architect, or
biologist, and the City of
Belmont
Pre-Construction and three
years Post-Construction
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Development and Implementation of an Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan
A qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology and with experience in California archaeology, in coordination with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area (Muwekma) and the City, shall prepare and implement an Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan (ARDRTP) for the Project and, specifically, P-41-000152. The ARDRTP shall be approved by the City at least 60 days prior to Project construction. The ARDRTP shall be heavily based on Muwekma’s most likely descendent (MLD) treatment recommendations and shall include and require the following:
• Research Design: The ARDRTP shall outline the applicable cultural context for P-41-000152, within a regional context, identify research goals and questions that are applicable to P-41-000152, and list the data needs (types, quantities, quality) required to answer each research question. The research design shall address all four California Register Criteria (1 to 4) and identify the methods that will be required to inform treatment, such as subsurface investigation, documentary/archival research, and/or oral history.

Qualified Archaeologist, in
coordination with the
Muwekma, and the City of
Belmont
Pre-Construction
837

Mitigation Measure
Implementing Actions/
Responsible Party Timing
• Data Recovery Plan: The ARDRTP shall outline the field and laboratory methods to be employed, and any specialized studies that will be conducted, as part of the data recovery effort. These methods will likely include controlled volume archaeological excavations and artifact/feature analyses. The latter will be dependent on the specific archaeological material encountered but will likely include osteological analyses, faunal analyses, flaked-stone and ground-stone analyses, and radiocarbon dating, among others.
• Protocols for Native American Monitoring and Input: The ARDRTP shall outline the role and responsibilities of Native American Tribal representatives. It shall include communication protocols and an opportunity and timelines for review of the ARDRR. The ARDRTP shall include provisions for full-time Native American monitoring during field work (see Mitigation Measure CUL-2).
• Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan: The Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan shall outline the archaeological and Native American monitors responsibilities and requirements, communications protocol, treatment protocol, and reporting requirements (see Mitigation Measure CUL-2).
• Security Measures: The ARDRTP shall include recommended security measures to protect P-41-000152 from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally damaging activities during field work. • Procedures for Treatment of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects: The ARDRTP shall outline the protocols and procedures to be followed for treatment of human remains and associated funerary objects. These shall include stop-work and protective measures, notification protocols, and compliance with HSC Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98. • Curation Requirements: The ARDRTP shall stipulate the protocol and specifics for curation of archaeological materials.

Disposition of Native American archaeological materials and human remains shall be determined through consultation between the qualified archaeologist, Muwekma, and the City. Any significant non-indigenous archaeological materials shall be curated at a repository accredited by the American Association of Museums that meets the standards outlined in Code of Federal Regulations Title 36 Section 79.9. If no accredited repository accepts the collection, then it may be curated at a non-accredited repository as long as it meets the minimum standards set forth by 36 Code of Federal Regulations Section 79.9. If neither an accredited nor a non-accredited repository accepts the collection, then it may be offered to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, or donated to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes, to be determined by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with Muwekma and the City. • Reporting Requirements: Upon completion of data recovery for P-41-000152, the qualified archaeologist shall document the findings in an Archaeological Resources Data Recovery Report (ARDRR), whose development shall include participation and approval by Muwekma. The draft ARDRR shall be submitted to the City within 360 calendar days after completion of the data recovery, including laboratory analysis, and the final ARDRR shall be submitted to the City within 60 days after the receipt of City comments. The ARDRR shall meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for archaeological technical reporting and shall be submitted to the Northwest Information Center upon approval by the City unless the document contains information that any California Native American Tribes involved in its development determine should not be filed with the Northwest Information Center, in which case the report shall be submitted to the California Native American Heritage Commission.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Development and Implementation of a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan A qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology and with experience in California archaeology, in coordination with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area (Muwekma) and the City, shall prepare and implement a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan (CRMP) based on the final approved Project design. The CRMP shall be a component of the Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan (see Qualified Archaeologist, in
coordination with the
Muwekma, and the City of
Belmont
Pre-Construction
838

Mitigation Measure
Implementing Actions/
Responsible Party Timing
Mitigation Measure CUL-1), which shall be approved by the City at least 60 days prior to Project construction. The CRMP shall include:
• Provisions for Archaeological Monitoring: The CRMP shall outline the archaeological monitor(s) responsibilities and requirements.
• Provisions for Native American Monitoring and Input: The CRMP shall outline the Native American monitor(s) responsibilities and requirements. The CRMP shall include provisions for full-time Native American monitoring during field work (see Mitigation Measure CUL-1).
• Procedures for Discovery of Archaeological Resources: Procedures to be implemented in the event of an archaeological discovery (outside of data recovery; see Mitigation Measure CUL-1) shall be fully defined in the CRMP, and shall include stopwork and protective measures, notification protocols, procedures for significance assessments, and appropriate treatment measures.
• Procedures for Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects: The CRMP shall outline the protocols and procedures to be followed in the event that human remains and associated funerary objects are encountered during construction (outside of data recovery; see Mitigation Measure CUL-1). These shall include stop-work and protective measures, notification protocols, and compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98. • Curation Requirements: The CRMP shall stipulate the protocol and specifics for curation of archaeological materials in accordance with the ARDRTP (see Mitigation Measure CUL-1). • Reporting Requirements: Upon completion of cultural resources monitoring, the qualified archaeologist shall document the findings in a Cultural Resources Monitoring Report (CRMR), whose development shall include participation and approval by Muwekma. The draft CRMR shall be submitted to the City within 360 calendar days after completion of the construction monitoring, and the final CRMR shall be submitted to the City within 60 days after the receipt of City comments. The CRMR shall meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for archaeological technical reporting and shall be submitted to the Northwest Information Center upon approval by the City unless the document contains information that any California Native American Tribes involved in its development determine should not be filed with the Northwest Information Center, in which case the report shall be submitted to the California Native American Heritage Commission.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Development and Implementation of a Cultural Resources Awareness and Sensitivity Training Program
A qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology and with experience in California archaeology, in coordination with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area and the City, shall prepare and implement a Cultural Resources Awareness and Sensitivity Training Program (Program) for all construction and field workers involved in Project ground-disturbing activities. The Program shall include a presentation that covers, at a minimum, the types of cultural resources common to the area, regulatory protections for cultural resources, and the protocol for unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources and human remains (see Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2). Personnel working in areas of Project ground-disturbing activities shall receive the training prior to working in these areas. Written materials associated with the Program shall be provided to Project personnel as appropriate. Documentation of the training attendance shall be maintained by the City.

Qualified Archaeologist, in
coordination with the
Muwekma, and the City of
Belmont
Pre-Construction and
Construction
839

Mitigation Measure
Implementing Actions/
Responsible Party Timing
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Development and Installation of Public Informational Signage A qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology and with experience in California archaeology, in coordination with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area and the City, shall develop public informational signage with respect to P-41-000152 that shall: further educate the general public about the history and heritage of the California Native American Tribes cultural and geographically associated with the Project area; provide information about the ancestral San Francisco Bay Ohlone–speaking tribal groups that were brought under the sphere of influence of Missions San Francisco, Santa Clara, and San Jose; emphasize the ensuing adverse impacts to California Native Americans through the colonial eras of Spanish and American conquests and destruction; provide non-confidential information obtained through archaeological data recovery of P-41-000152 (see Mitigation Measure CUL-1); and provide a name for P-41- 000152 in an Ohlone language. The City shall install, in coordination with the Muwekma and other California Native American Tribes, the signage at or near the Project area, if feasible.

Qualified Archaeologist, in
coordination with the
Muwekma, and the City of
Belmont
Post-Construction
Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring
a. Project Paleontologist: The City shall retain a qualified professional paleontologist (qualified paleontologist) meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards as set forth in the “Definitions” section of Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources prior to demolition or grading. The qualified paleontologist shall attend the Project kick-off meeting and Project progress meetings on a regular basis, shall report to the site in the event potential paleontological resources are encountered, and shall implement the outlined duties. b. Worker Training: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity, the qualified paleontologist shall prepare paleontological resources sensitivity training materials for use during project-wide Worker Environmental Awareness Training (or equivalent).

The paleontological resources sensitivity training shall be conducted by a qualified environmental trainer working under the supervision of the qualified paleontologist. In the event construction crews are phased in, additional trainings shall be conducted for new construction personnel. The training session shall focus on the recognition of the types of paleontological resources that could be encountered within the Project site and the procedures to be followed if they are found, as outlined in an approved Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (discussed below). The City shall retain documentation demonstrating that all construction personnel attended the training prior to the start of work on the site. c. Paleontological Resources Discovery and Monitoring: The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan applicable to excavation deeper than 7 feet below ground surface. The City shall review and approve the plan at least 30 days prior to the start of construction. This plan shall address specifics of monitoring and mitigation and comply with the recommendations of the SVP, as follows:
i. The Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan shall clearly map portions of the Project which will excavate below 7 feet below ground surface in previously undisturbed sediments within the Project site that have high paleontological sensitivity, based on final Project design. ii. The qualified paleontologist shall establish in the Plan the type of paleontological resources monitoring for grounddisturbing activities which will excavate below 7 feet below ground surface, based on site observations, subsurface stratigraphy, or other factors. Monitoring shall be conducted either by trained workers or by qualified paleontological Professional Paleontologist
and the City of Belmont
Pre-Construction and
Construction
840

Mitigation Measure
Implementing Actions/
Responsible Party Timing
resource monitors meeting the SVP standards. If necessary, the qualified paleontologist shall identify and retain qualified paleontological resource monitors (qualified monitors) meeting the SVP standards. iii. Monitoring under the direction of the qualified paleontologist shall be conducted for all ground-disturbing activities which will excavate below 7 feet below ground surface in previously undisturbed sediments within the Project site that have high paleontological sensitivity, or as otherwise specified in the Plan. iv. The qualified paleontologist (based on site observations, subsurface stratigraphy, or other factors) may reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if they determine that the possibility of encountering significant paleontological resources is low.
v. If many pieces of heavy equipment are in use simultaneously but at diverse locations, each location will need to be individually monitored, if recommended by the qualified paleontologist. vi. Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils to evaluate and recover the fossil specimens, establishing a 50-foot buffer around fossils. vii. If construction or other personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work or location and regardless of whether the site is being monitored, work at the discovery location shall cease in a 50-foot radius of the discovery until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment.
viii. The qualified paleontologist shall determine the significance of any fossils discovered and shall determine the appropriate treatment for significant fossils in accordance with the SVP standards. ix. Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed as well as any discoveries. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to document the results of the monitoring effort and any curation of fossils and shall submit this report to the City for their records. d. Significant Fossil Treatment. If any find is deemed significant, as defined in the SVP standards, the qualified paleontologist shall salvage and prepare the fossil for permanent curation with a certified repository with retrievable storage following the SVP standards. The city shall retain a repository receipt from the curation facility.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: In-Water Construction Measures To the extent feasible, work below top of bank in Belmont Creek shall be completed during the dry season and when the channel is dry or contains little water. If construction activities must occur in the wetted channel of Belmont Creek, the City shall develop an inwater construction plan consisting of measures that reduce or avoid the release of pollutants into Belmont Creek. The City shall implement the in-water construction plan for the duration of construction activities in Belmont Creek. The in-water construction plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following types of measures:
• In-Water Concrete Use Measures. Where possible, poured concrete shall be excluded from contact with surface or groundwater during initial curing. During that time, runoff from the concrete shall not be allowed to enter surface or groundwater. If this is not feasible, commercial sealants that are non-toxic to aquatic life shall be applied before poured concrete comes into contact with flowing water.

City of Belmont Pre-Construction and
Construction
841

Mitigation Measure
Implementing Actions/
Responsible Party Timing
• Cofferdam Construction Measures. Construction of cofferdams shall begin in the upstream area and continue in a downstream direction, allowing water to drain from the area being isolated by the cofferdam, prior to closure. Cofferdams and stream diversion systems shall remain in place and be fully functional throughout the construction period. Stream diversions shall be limited to the shortest duration necessary to complete in-water work. In-water cofferdams shall be built in a manner that minimizes siltation and/or turbidity. Where possible, cofferdams shall be pushed into place. When appropriate, cofferdams shall be removed so surface elevations of water impounded above the cofferdam shall not be reduced at a rate greater than one inch per hour. All dewatering/diversion facilities shall be installed such that natural flow is maintained upstream and downstream of Project areas.
• Dewatering Plan. If dewatering is required to create a dry work area, the area to be dewatered shall encompass the minimum area and be in place for the minimum amount of time necessary to perform construction activities. The City shall prepare a dewatering plan with a description of the proposed dewatering structures, and appropriate types of best management practices for the installation, operation, maintenance, and removal of those structures. The best management practices shall be selected to allow water to flow through or around the dewatered area while avoiding increased stream velocity and preventing scour or turbidity during dewatering and bypass. Water pumped or removed from dewatered areas shall be conveyed in a manner that does not contribute turbidity to nearby receiving waters. If dewatering pumps are required, pumps shall be refueled in an area well away from the stream channel.

SECTION 1. Upon completion of construction activities, any diversions or barriers to flow shall be removed in a manner that will allow flow to resume with the least disturbance to the channel bed and banks to avoid creating turbidity. • In-Water Pile Driving Measures. If in-water pile driving is required, caissons or a continuous length of silt curtain shall be implemented surrounding the pile driving area to provide sediment containment and avoid the release of turbid water during pile driving. The silt curtain will restrict the surface visible turbidity plume to the area of pile construction and will control and contain the migration of re-suspended sediments at the water surface and at depth. • Bank Stabilization Materials Placement Measures. Material used for bank stabilization or in-water restoration shall minimize discharges of sediment or other forms of waste. Equipment shall not operate in standing or flowing waters. All materials placed in Belmont Creek shall be nontoxic.
842

Mitigation Measure
Implementing Actions/
Responsible Party Timing
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Geomorphic Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Prior to Project construction, the City shall develop a geomorphic monitoring and adaptive management plan, which shall specify an approach to monitoring Belmont Creek for accelerated channel erosion between the outlet of the sediment chamber and the culvert at 6th Avenue and O’Neill Street. The City shall complete baseline monitoring, as part of the geomorphic monitoring and adaptive management plan, prior to Project construction.

Upon Project completion the City shall implement monitoring consistent with the geomorphic monitoring and adaptive management plan. If monitoring identifies accelerated channel erosion, at the end of the dry season the City shall place a portion of removed sediment from the sediment chamber on the toe of the creek bank at the downstream edge of the Project area near the outlet pipe to passively augment sediment in the downstream reach. The City shall conduct a sediment study to estimate the amount of sediment that should be placed to provide sufficient passive augmentation.

The City shall monitor the placed sediment and downstream reach to assess whether sediment placement has reduced channel erosion to rates similar to current conditions. If sediment placement has not reduced the channel erosion attributable to the Project, additional sediment placement would be required. The City shall review the geomorphic monitoring and adaptive management plan annually to ensure it has been implemented or revised appropriately. After three consecutive years without sediment augmentation during which channel erosion rates in the downstream reach are similar to pre-Project conditions, the City shall no longer monitor the downstream reach for Project-related erosion.

City of Belmont Pre-Construction,
Construction, and
Operations and
Maintenance
Noise
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Construction Noise Reduction Measures.

The construction contractor shall implement the following noise reduction measures to reduce the impact of temporary constructionrelated noise on sensitive receptors:

1. Require construction equipment and trucks used for project construction to utilize the best available noise control techniques (including mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds).

2. Turn off construction equipment when not in use.

3. Locate stationary equipment, construction staging areas, and construction material areas as far from sensitive receptors as possible.

4. Require any impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, etc.) used for project construction be hydraulically or electrical powered wherever feasible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.

Where use of pneumatically powered tools is unavoidable, the use of an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust is recommended to lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. When feasible, external jackets on the impact equipment should also be incorporated to achieve a further reduction of 5 dBA. In the event that external jackets on impact equipment are not feasible, other best management practices shall be employed to reduce noise by 5 dBA. Whenever feasible, require the use of quieter procedures.

5. When construction takes place within 100 feet of sensitive receptors, use specific techniques such as, but not limited to, restrictions on construction timing, use of sound blankets on construction equipment, and the use of temporary walls and noise barriers to block and deflect noise.

Construction Contractor Construction
843

Mitigation Measure
Implementing Actions/
Responsible Party Timing
Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Vibration Avoidance from Compaction The construction contractor shall implement the following noise reduction measures to reduce the impact of temporary constructionrelated noise on nearby receptors:

1. Use non-vibratory, excavator-mounted compaction wheels and small, smooth drum rollers for final compaction of asphalt base and asphalt concrete, if within 50 feet of a historic structure or 15 feet of a conventionally constructed structure. If needed to meet compaction requirements, smaller vibratory rollers shall be used to minimize vibration levels during repaving activities where needed to meet vibration standards.

2. Avoid using vibratory rollers and clam shovel drops within 15 feet of buildings of conventional construction.

3. Construction methods shall be modified, or alternative construction methods shall be identified, and designed to reduce vibration levels below the limits of 0.5 PPV in/sec for modern structures.

Construction Contractor Construction
844

Amend 1 to the CA employment Agreement City Attorney Compensation - Staff Report_Sept 2024

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Stacey Stevenson, Interim Assistant City Manager – Special Projects, [email protected]
Agenda Title: First Amendment to Employment Agreement between the City of Belmont and City Attorney Scott M. Rennie
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution establishing compensation for the City Attorney; and authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to the City Attorney employment agreement.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
On September 13, 2011, the City Council of the City of Belmont unanimously adopted Resolution 10417, appointing Scott M. Rennie to the position of City Attorney. The Council-approved employment agreement governing the terms of Mr. Rennie’s appointment was effectuated as of October 3, 2011. To date, there have been a total of four amendments to the agreement. The employment agreement was amended on April 14, 2015 (Resolution 2015-048), April 25, 2017 (Resolution 2017-040), November 27, 2018 (Resolution 2018-082), and May 14, 2019 (Resolution 2019-045).

On November 9, 2022, Resolution 2022-105 approved a restated agreement between the City and Mr.

Rennie, amending the terms of compensation and benefits. The restated agreement created consistency with the City’s current format and language, and with current City practice and State law. Terms of the amended agreement include adjustments to base pay to $274,728, retroactive to the first full pay period in October 2021; and 3% increases effective the first full pay period in October 2022 and October 2023.

Other changes included an increase in automobile allowance from $400 to $550 and adjustments to leave accruals.

In or around October 2023, upon conducting Mr. Rennie’s performance evaluation, the City Council selected a sub-committee, comprised of Councilmembers Davina Hurt and Robin Pang-Maganaris to review and make a compensation recommendation based on performance, cost of living, and market position. The subcommittee was also granted the authority to meet and negotiate with Mr. Rennie. Having considered a market survey and performance, and having met with Mr. Rennie, the sub-committee reported to the full Council in Closed Session on July 23, 2024, regarding the status of their work and received direction to bring the matter to Open Session for discussion and consideration in a manner consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 54953(c)(3). 845

Amend 1 to the CA employment Agreement City Attorney Compensation - Staff Report_Sept 2024 Analysis
Under the terms of the current restated agreement, Mr. Rennie receives base compensation in the amount of $291,459 annually. Consistent with the direction of the full Council, the sub-committee directed staff to conduct a market survey, finding the City Attorney position for the City of Belmont to be below the market mean salary of $299,545. Staff also provided data showing that the twelve-month Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) increased by 2.9% in June 2023 and 3.2% in June 2024. Having considered the market and the cost of living, the Council sub-committee recommends an increase retroactive to October 2023 and an additional increase in October 2024.

The proposed first amendment to the employment agreement between the City of Belmont and Scott M.

Rennie increases the City Attorney’s base pay follows:
• A base pay of $300,203 retroactively effective the first full pay period in October 2023; and • A base pay of $309,209 effective the first full pay period in October 2024 All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Alternatives

1. Direct the City Council sub-committee to continue negotiations.

2. Take no action
Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Proposed Amendment No. 1 to City Attorney Employment Agreement C. Restated City Attorney Employment Agreement
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

A supplemental budget appropriation for the City Attorney Department is necessary and will be incorporated into the midyear budget review for the current fiscal year, if approved.

Associated salary and benefits for the City Attorney will be incorporated into next year’s budget development and longterm financial plan.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Council Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
846

RESOLUTION NO. 2024 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CITY

ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2011, the City Council of the City of Belmont unanimously adopted Resolution 10417, appointing Scott M. Rennie to the position of City Attorney, and an employment agreement governing the terms of Mr. Rennie’s appointment was effectuated as of October 3, 2011; and,
WHEREAS, the employment agreement has been amended four times, on April 14, 2015 (Resolution 2015-048), April 25, 2017 (Resolution 2017-040), November 27, 2018 (Resolution 2018-082), and May 14, 2019 (Resolution 2019-045) and, WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-105, approving a restated agreement with Mr. Rennie, which included adjustments to base pay, automobile allowance, and leave accruals; and.

WHEREAS, in or around October 2023, the City Council conducted Mr. Rennie’s performance evaluation and selected a sub-committee, to review and make a compensation recommendation based on performance, cost of living, and market position, and to meet and negotiate with Mr. Rennie; and,
WHEREAS, the sub-committee reported their findings to the full City Council in Closed Session on July 23, 2024, and received direction to bring the proposed amendment to the City Attorney Employment Agreement to Open Session for discussion and consideration; and,
WHEREAS, the market survey showed that the City Attorney’s base compensation for Belmont was below the market mean salary of $299,545, and the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) increased by 2.9% in June 2023 and 3.2% in June 2024; and, WHEREAS, the sub-committee recommends an increase in base pay for Mr. Rennie, effective October 2023 and October 2024, to better align with the market and cost of living adjustments.

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

SECTION 1. The Council approves Amendment No. 1 to the City Attorney Employment Agreement to implement the compensation adjustments as outlined in attached Exhibit A; and authorizes the Mayor to execute the amendment.
* * *
847

ADOPTED September 10, 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
848
Exhibit A to Resolution 2024-
First Amendment to the Employment Agreement
between the City of Belmont
and Scott M. Rennie (City Attorney)
This Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by the City of Belmont, a municipal corporation (hereinafter “City” or “Employer”), and Scott M. Rennie, (“Employee”).

City and Employee may be collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.” Recitals
A. On September 10, 2024, the City Council approved the Agreement between the Parties. This Agreement provides for the wages of Employee in the position of City Attorney.

B. The Parties desire to amend the Agreement to revise the terms of the Employment Agreement.

Terms of First Amendment
In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

Section 8 (Salary) is replaced in its entirety with the following:

A. City agrees to compensate Employee for services rendered in the position of City Attorney at an annual salary of $300,203 effective as of the first day of the first full pay period beginning on or after October 1, 2023. Employee will receive an annual salary of $309,209 effective on the first day of the first full pay period beginning on or after October 1, 2024. The salary paid to Employee will be paid in installments on the City’s normal paydays, in accordance with the City’s normal pay practices, and will be subject to customary withholding for taxes and other required or authorized deductions.

Except as amended herein, all provisions of the Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect.

City of Belmont Employee
By: _________________________ By: _________________________ Julia Mates Scott M. Rennie
Mayor
849

Second Amendment to CM Employment Agreement City Manager Compensation - Staff Report_Sept 2024_final

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Stacey Stevenson, Interim Assistant City Manager – Special Projects, [email protected]
Agenda Title: Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement Between the City of Belmont and City Manager, Afshin Oskoui
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution establishing compensation for the City Manager; and authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 2 to the City Manager employment agreement.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
On September 24, 2019, the City Council of the City of Belmont unanimously adopted Resolution 2019- 098, appointing Afshin Oskoui to the position of City Manager following a recruitment conducted by an executive search firm. The Council approved employment agreement governing the terms of Mr.

Oskoui’s appointment was effectuated as of September 1, 2019.

Upon completion of his first year of service, in consideration of the COVID19 global pandemic, the City Council and City Manager Oskoui did not consider adjustments to his contract at that time. Upon completion of his third year of service, the City Council approved the first amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement on November 8, 2022. The Council unanimously approved an amendment to Afshin Oskoui’s employment agreement, including three-incremental salary adjustments and an adjustment to leave accrual.

On November 14, 2023, upon conducting Mr. Oskoui’s performance evaluation, the City Council selected a sub-committee, comprised of Councilmembers Davina Hurt and Robin Pang-Maganaris to review and make a compensation recommendation based on performance and market position. The subcommittee was also granted the authority to meet and negotiate with Mr. Oskoui. Having considered a market survey and performance, and having met with Mr. Oskoui, the sub-committee reported to the full Council in Closed Session on July 23, 2024 regarding the status of their work and received direction to bring the proposed amendment to the provisions of the City Manager Employment Agreement to Open Session for discussion and consideration in a manner consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 54953(c)(3).

Analysis
Under City Manager Oskoui’s leadership during the evaluation period, the City has accomplished many achievements consistent with the City Council’s goals and strategic focus areas. Given these 850

City Manager Compensation - Staff Report_Sept 2024_final accomplishments, the City Council has provided direction to amend the City Manager Employment Agreement. The Second Amendment to the Agreement includes provisions that reflect the Council's direction, and which are based on performance over the past year. Consistent with the authority granted by the full City Council, the Council subcommittee directed staff to conduct a survey to determine the City Manager’s market position. Surveys represent a fixed moment in time for 2023. At the time of the survey, base pay for the City of Belmont City Manager was found to be in the ninth position out of eleven cities. The survey showed Belmont as $35,403 below the annual mean of the other eleven cities and $33,403 below the annual median.

Survey Summary
Highest Salary $399,482
Lowest Salary $288,180
Mean: $344,019
Median: $342,019
Belmont: $308,616
Having considered the market and having considered Mr. Oskoui’s outstanding performance in meeting the Council’s key directives, the subcommittee recommends an increase in compensation. The proposed second amendment to the employment agreement between the City of Belmont and Mr. Oskoui provides for a market adjustment increase in base pay retroactively effective the first full pay period in September 2023 for the performance period September 2023 to September 2024, and an increase effective the first full pay period in September 2024 for the performance period September 2023 to September 2024.

Base Pay
• A base pay of $339,000 retroactively effective the first full pay period in September 2023; and • A base pay of $352,560 effective the first full pay period in September 2024 All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Alternatives

1. Direct the City Council sub-committee to continue negotiations.

2. Take no action.

Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Proposed Amendment No. 2 to City Manager Employment Agreement Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

A supplemental budget appropriation for the City Manager Department is necessary and will be incorporated into the midyear budget review for the current fiscal year, if approved.

Associated salary and benefits for the City Manager will be incorporated into next year’s budget development and long851

City Manager Compensation - Staff Report_Sept 2024_final term financial plan.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Council Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
852

RESOLUTION NO. 2024 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR THE CITY MANAGER; AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE CITY

MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, on September 24, 2019, the City Council of the City of Belmont unanimously adopted Resolution 2019-098, appointing Afshin Oskoui to the position of City Manager effective of September 1, 2019; and,
WHEREAS, upon completion of his first year of service, the City Council and City Manager Oskoui did not consider adjustments to his contract due to the COVID-19 global pandemic; and,
WHEREAS, upon completion of his third year of service, the City Council approved the first amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement on November 8, 2022, which included three incremental salary adjustments and an adjustment to leave accrual; and.

WHEREAS, on November 14, 2023, upon conducting Mr. Oskoui’s performance evaluation, the City Council selected a sub-committee to review and make a compensation recommendation based on performance and market position, and to meet and negotiate with Mr. Oskoui; and,
WHEREAS, the sub-committee conducted a market survey and reviewed Mr. Oskoui’s performance, reporting their findings to the full City Council in Closed Session on July 23, 2024, and received direction to bring the proposed amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement to Open Session for discussion and consideration; and WHEREAS, the survey revealed that Belmont’s City Manager base pay was below the annual mean and median of comparable cities, and the sub-committee has recommended a market adjustment increase in compensation based on Mr. Oskoui’s performance; and WHEREAS, the proposed Second Amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement reflects the Council’s direction and includes provisions for an increase in base pay retroactively effective from the first full pay period in September 2023, and an additional increase effective from the first full pay period in September 2024.

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

SECTION 1. The Council approves Amendment No. 2 to the Employment Agreement for City Manager Afshin Oskoui; attached as Exhibit A; and authorizes the Mayor to execute the amendment.
* * *
853

ADOPTED September 10, 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
854
Exhibit A to Resolution 2024-
Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement
between the City of Belmont
and Afshin Oskoui (City Manager)
This Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by the City of Belmont, a municipal corporation (hereinafter “City” or “Employer”), and Afshin Oskoui, (“Employee”). City and Employee may be collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.” Recitals
A. On September 10, 2024, the City Council approved the Agreement between the Parties. This Agreement provides for the wages of Employee in the position of City Manager.

B. The Parties desire to amend the Agreement to revise the terms of the Employment Agreement.

Terms of Second Amendment
In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

Section 9 (Salary) is replaced in its entirety with the following:

A. City agrees to compensate Employee for services rendered in the position of City Manager at an annual salary of $339,00, effective as of the first day of the first full pay period beginning on or after September 1, 2023. Employee will receive an annual salary of $352,560 effective on the first day of the first full pay period beginning on or after September 1, 2024. The salary paid to Employee will be paid in installments on the City’s normal paydays, in accordance with the City’s normal pay practices, and shall be subject to customary withholding for taxes and other required or authorized deductions.

Except as amended herein, all provisions of the Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect.

City of Belmont Employee
By: _________________________ By: _________________________ Julia Mates Afshin Oskoui
Mayor
855