Belmont City Council
March 25, 2025

• Safety Site access (security) and haul routes
• Labor compliance Materials certification
• Submittals Extra work or change of conditions
• Schedule updates Permit and utility agreements
• Order of work Weekly meetings
• Quality control Pay requests
Any questions or apparent issues that may be present at this time will be discussed and resolved prior to the contractor's mobilization. An agenda, action items and meeting minutes will be prepared and distributed.

2.0.2 Pre-Construction Training – None anticipated.

2.0.3 Pre-Construction Photo and Video Documentation - MNS will photograph areas of construction just prior to actual construction. Each photograph will record the date and time and will be made available to the City upon request during construction and turned over to the City with project files after construction.

2.1 Contract Administration
MNS will provide Construction Contract Administration Services as required to maintain accurate documentation of the construction. MNS will utilize CMIS, a cloud-based contract administration system for the project.

2.1.1 Construction Management Plan - MNS will prepare a Construction Management Plan that outlines the roles and responsibilities of the CM team during construction.

The CM Plan will establish the protocol and procedures to be followed during construction such as submittal and RFI review; CCO review and approval; correspondence; contract administration and documentation requirements. The Plan will be submitted to the City for review prior to construction.

2.1.2 Correspondence and Reports – As part of the Construction Administration, MNS will manage all correspondence including tracking submittals, RFIs, CCOs, progress pay estimates, meeting minutes, testing reports, and furnishing reports on a regular basis as required by the City. Other correspondence will be produced as appropriate to the project status.

2.1.3 Submittal Review and Coordination - Prior to beginning the submittal process, MNS will work with the design engineer to develop a list of the required submittals.

This will be used to ensure all items are submitted and done so in a reasonable amount of time prior to the work they pertain to. The majority of the submittals will be seen at the start of the project. This list can be reviewed at progress meetings and used proactively to help the contractor make submittals with a reasonable amount of time for sufficient review and acceptance without delay to construction. MNS will coordinate with the design engineer for the efficient review and processing of all submittals including shop drawings, product data, and project specific plans. An updated submittal log will be maintained to accurately track review and approval of all submittals. 396
Scope of Work
Sewer Rehab Project 2025

2.1.4 RFI Review - MNS will review and coordinate with the design engineer (if needed) the resolution of contractor requests for information (RFIs) and other requests in a timely manner. MNS will maintain a running log.

2.1.5 Contract Time/Delays - MNS will track all working days and non-working days including weather days, CCO days, and other delays and will provide a weekly update of contract time at the weekly meeting. MNS will review any contractor requests for time extension and will make a recommendation to the City. Such requests will be cross referenced with the contractor’s baseline schedule.

2.1.6 Material Substitutions - Submittals which are non-standard or substitute alternatives for items specified, will be forwarded to the design engineer for review. MNS will also be proactive in soliciting information from the contractor after award of bid to determine which items, if any, they may be substituting.

2.1.7 Weekly Meetings - MNS will hold a weekly construction meeting. The meetings are a valuable tool utilized to discuss project issues and concerns, discuss upcoming work items, coordination with plant operations, potential contract change orders, cost and schedule impacts, permit requirements, submittals, RFIs, and quality of work. The contractor will prepare a three-week look-ahead schedule to be reviewed and discussed at the meeting. Discussion on the contractor’s upcoming schedule is important to anticipate any potential conflicts. MNS will prepare and distribute meeting minutes.

2.1.8 Reports - MNS will prepare a monthly report which summarizes the construction cost and progress. The report will include contract progress, costs including change orders, submittal log, RFI log, change order log, updated progress payments, photos depicting work performed that month, summary of work performed, and discussion of project issues and any unique construction techniques being performed.

2.1.9 Certified Payroll Review - MNS will spot review the contractor’s certified payroll for completeness, accuracy, and prevailing wage compliance. MNS will perform periodic employee interviews to verify contractor’s labor compliance and employees are being paid correctly in accordance to their duties. Any discrepancies will be brought to the contractor’s attention and the City will be notified.

2.1.10 Permits - MNS will verify that contractor is adhering to and has maintained all permits applicable to the project including the Storm Water General Construction Permit.

2.2 Photo Record Maintenance
MNS will regularly photograph construction activity in digital format and deliver in electronic format.

2.3 Inspection
MNS will provide an onsite inspector. The inspectors’ primary duties will be to inspect and verify that all work in place meets the requirements of the contract plans and specifications, shop drawings, change orders, and O & M manuals as well as maintenance of project documentation.

2.3.1 Daily Inspection Diaries - The project inspector will maintain daily written records of work, including notation of such things as weather, personnel and equipment on-site, sub-contractors on site, discussions held with contractor and others, project issues that arise, material and equipment received for on-site storage, etc. The inspector will maintain photo documentation as discussed previously.
397
Scope of Work
Sewer Rehab Project 2025

2.3.2 Special Inspections - MNS will coordinate with the design engineer to determine and provide special inspections that may be required for construction.

2.3.3 Record Drawing Maintenance - MNS will regularly review the contractor’s record set for completeness and accuracy as well as keeping a separate As-Built set throughout the project.

2.3.4 Verification of Material and Equipment - As material arrives on site, the MNS inspector will verify that the delivered items conform to the project specifications and approved submittals, prior to approving them for use on the project.

2.3.5 Acceptance/Performance Testing - The project inspector will coordinate acceptance and performance testing of each system or piece of equipment in conformance with the requirements of the written specifications, industry standards and controlling codes.

2.3.6 Off-Site Inspections – We will schedule and coordinate all off-site inspections.

2.4 Quality Assurance
MNS will review and inspect all work in progress to assure that it meets the requirements and quality of work outlined in the contract documents. Any deficient work will be rejected.

2.5 Site Visits
The MNS Construction Manager will visit the work site to stay abreast of the ongoing work and monitor the progress of the work. The CM will coordinate with the on-site inspector to assure construction quality.

2.6 Safety
MNS will review and ensure compliance of the contractor’s safety plan as well as Cal OSHA requirements. We will notify the contractor of safety problems immediately and direct the contractor to suspend work if imminent hazard is not immediately remedied or a dangerous condition persists.

2.7 Construction Materials Testing
MNS will coordinate with the City’s materials testing firm, to assure all material meets the project documents. All tests will be logged and copies of all test reports will be maintained in the project files.

2.8 Progress Payments
Our cost control system will be used to track and monitor the actual construction costs on each contract. The tracking of contract item payments and quantities is incorporated into the progress payment spreadsheet. Tracking of contract change order payments, extra work, and supplemental work will also utilize electronic spreadsheet tracking. The project monthly and overall cost as well as the contingency balance will be verified as part of the monthly progress pay request review and submission. Upon our review and approval of the contractor’s payment request, we will forward a copy of the Monthly Payment Report form to the City for final approval and payment.
398
Scope of Work
Sewer Rehab Project 2025

2.9 Schedule
MNS will assure that the contractors maintain an up to date schedule. MNS will review the contractors’ baseline and monthly schedule updates, coordinate changes, and forward written conclusions to the City. We will review to ensure milestone dates and any shutdown dates for tie-in’s are realized in the schedule. The schedule will be used as the basis of determination for granting extra days relative to change orders. Should a contractor start to fall behind schedule, we will request a Recovery schedule and discuss methods to expedite the work. This is one of the more useful tools in controlling both costs and budget for the project.

2.10 Change Order Processing and Review
Prior to the start of construction, MNS will meet with the City to establish change order procedures. During construction MNS will review and evaluate contractor change order requests, recommend solutions, verify costs, negotiate change orders, prepare change order form, and maintain a log of all change orders and costs. MNS will coordinate design-related changes with the design engineer or other affected agencies and check to make sure all pertinent information is provided for timely review. All changes are reviewed against the project schedule to determine any time impact. Upon evaluation of any changes, MNS will make a recommendation to the City.

2.11 Claims Management
The main objective relating to claims on any project is to avoid them when possible. Good tools toward accomplishing this are to anticipate and address any potential problems before they occur, provide timely response to RFIs, promptly process change orders, thoroughly review the contractor's schedule and provide experienced review of the project work. If unforeseen conditions occur, MNS will work to identify and resolve cost & schedule related issues to keep the project on schedule and within budget. During construction MNS will work to assure that conflicts in the field are identified ahead of the scheduled work the conflict could affect, work to reduce or minimize third party impacts to the work, and notify the contractor in a timely manner such that his schedule is not disrupted.

Notices of Potential Claims submitted by the contractor will be acted on and processed in a timely manner in accordance with the Contract Documents. Detailed record keeping throughout the project is paramount in evaluating the validity and costs associated with any notice of potential claim (NOPC). It is the objective of MNS to resolve any potential claims at the job level prior to becoming actual claims.

2.12 SWPPP Support
MNS will review the contractor’s SWPPP and will provide storm water oversight throughout the project. We will monitor to verify the contractor is complying with the SWPPP requirements such as BMP maintenance and routine reporting.
399
Scope of Work
Sewer Rehab Project 2025

TASK 3 – PROJECT CLOSEOUT
MNS will be proactive during the close out of the Contract.

3.1 “Punchlist” Inspection
The project inspector and Construction Manager will administer the specifications’ final acceptance requirements and develop a deficiency list (punch-list) for the work performed, notify the contractor, and re-inspect the completed work. MNS will also conduct a final inspection in presence of City representatives and the contractor.

3.2 Record Drawing
MNS will review the contractors’ record set for completeness and accuracy and will compare with our field copy. Submittal of Final Record Drawings will be required prior to recommending final completion.

3.3 Closeout
Upon satisfactory completion of all contract work, we will perform a final inspection, compile final invoices, assemble and submit contract closeout packages, prepare project closeout files and reports and recommend final acceptance of the project. A certificate of completion will be submitted to the City.

3.4 Final Report
MNS will prepare a final construction report for the project. At a minimum the report shall contain the following:
- Final costs of the project (items, change orders and settled claims) - Summary of key dates (advertisement, bid opening, award, pre-construction meeting, first working day, completion date)
- Summary of working days, non-working days, change order days, weather days, and other days
- Summary of change orders (approved costs and final costs) - Final progress pay estimate spreadsheet with final contingency balance - Discussion of significant issues or problems encountered or addressed during construction

400
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Submittals/Procurement
Construction
Project Closeout
Role Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Principal In-Charge 4 4 8 355.00 373.00 2,840.00 $
Resident Engineer 24 24 48 285.00 300.00 13,680.00 $
Senior Inspector 16 16 32 210.00 221.00 6,720.00 $
Office Administrator 16 16 32 140.00 147.00 4,480.00 $
0 0 0 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 27,720.00 $
Principal In-Charge 4 4 4 4 16 355.00 373.00 5,680.00 $ Resident Engineer 86 86 86 86 344 285.00 300.00 98,040.00 $ Senior Inspector 172 172 172 172 688 210.00 221.00 144,480.00 $ Office Administrator 10 10 10 10 40 140.00 147.00 5,600.00 $ 0 0 0 0 0 272 272 272 272 0 0 0 0 0 0 1088 253,800.00 $ Principal In-Charge 4 4 8 355.00 373.00 2,840.00 $
Resident Engineer 36 24 60 285.00 300.00 17,100.00 $
Senior Inspector 24 16 40 210.00 221.00 8,400.00 $
Office Administrator 16 16 32 140.00 147.00 4,480.00 $
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 60 0 0 0 0 140 32, $ 820.00
0 0 0 60 60 272 272 272 272 80 60 0 0 0 0 1348 314,340.00 $ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION TOTALNotes:

1. Durations based on a 4 month construction phase.2. Hours and costs are an estimate only; actual hours and costs will be based on contractor's schedule.3. Overtime not included in this cost estimate. Any OT would be billed per MNS Standard Fee Schedule.4. Construction Inspector's rate subject to adjustment if DIR Prevailing Wage rates are applicable.

HOURLY RATE
Yujia LuoYujia Luo
Kevin BarteauxKevin BarteauxKevin Barteaux

SUB-TOTAL
TASK 2 Construction
Peter TestaPeter TestaPeter Testa
Yujia Luo
2025 2026
$ 1,000.00
Direct Expenses

DIRECT EXPENSES SUB-TOTAL
TASK 1 Pre-Construction
Joe Pope
Field/Direct Costs

SUB-TOTAL
TOTALS
TASK 3 Project Closeout
Joe Pope

SUB-TOTAL
Joe Pope

TOTAL COST
$ 1,000.00
2025 2026
$ 315,340.00
Construction Management and Inspection Services
2025 Sewer Rehab Project
City of Belmont

TOTAL COST
Staff
PHASE
Project Schedule
TOTAL
HOURS
PHASE
2025 2026
401
20 2 5 STANDARD SCHEDULE OF FEES

PROJECT/PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Principal-In-Charge.............................. $375
Senior Project/Program Manager .....340
Project/Program Manager ...................290
Assistant Project/Program Manager 265
Senior Project Coordinator..................210
Project Coordinator................................175

ENGINEERING
Principal Engineer.................................$325 Lead Engineer........................................... 285 Supervising Engineer............................. 270
Senior Project Engineer ........................ 245
Project Engineer ...................................... 220 Associate Engineer ................................. 200 Assistant Engineer .................................. 185

SURVEYING
Principal Surveyor.................................$295 Lead Surveyor........................................... 285 Supervising Surveyor............................. 245
Senior Project Surveyor ........................ 220
Project Surveyor ...................................... 195 Associate Project Surveyor.................. 185
Assistant Project Surveyor................... 170
Party Chief (PW)....................................... 200 Chainperson (PW)................................... 170 One-Person Survey Crew (PW)........... 240

TECHNICAL SUPPORT
CADD Manager......................................$210
Supervising Technician ......................... 185
Senior Technician.................................... 175 Engineering Technician......................... 140

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Principal Construction Manager......$355
Senior Construction Manager............ 305
Senior Resident Engineer..................... 295
Resident Engineer................................... 285 Structure Representative...................... 280
Construction Manager.......................... 245
Assistant Resident Engineer................ 225
Sr. Construction Inspector (PW) ....... 210
Construction Inspector (PW) ............. 195
Office Administrator .............................. 155

PLANNING
Planning Director..................................$250 City Planner/Planning Manager......... 230
Principal Planner...................................... 215 Senior Planner.......................................... 200 Associate Planner.................................... 170 Assistant Planner..................................... 140 Planning Technician............................... 120

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
Senior Management Analyst ............$210
Management Analyst ............................ 180
IT Technician............................................. 150 Graphics/Visualization Specialist....... 160
Administrative Assistant....................... 110

GOVERNMENT SERVICES
City Engineer ..........................................$280 Deputy City Engineer............................. 250
Assistant City Engineer ......................... 235
Plan Check Engineer.............................. 195
Permit Engineer....................................... 185 City Inspector ........................................... 175 Senior City Inspector (PW) ................. 210
City Inspector (PW)................................. 195 Principal Stormwater Specialist ......... 240
Senior Stormwater Specialist.............. 210
Stormwater Specialist............................ 180
Stormwater Technician ......................... 160
Building Official ....................................... 275 Senior Building Inspector..................... 210
Building Inspector................................... 185 Senior Grant Writer................................ 200 Grant Writer.............................................. 190 Associate Grant Writer.......................... 170
Assistant Grant Writer........................... 155

DIRECT EXPENSES
Use of outside consultants as well as copies, blueprints, survey stakes, monuments, computer plots, telephone, travel (out of area) and all similar charges directly connected with the work will be charged at cost plus fifteen percent (15%). Mileage will be charged at the current federal mileage reimbursement rate.

PREVAILING WAGE RATES
Rates shown with Prevailing Wage “(PW)” annotation are used for field work on projects subject to federal or state prevailing wage law and are subject to increases per DIR.

ANNUAL ESCALATION
Standard fee rates provided for each classification are subject to 5% annual escalation or the most recent US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, whichever is higher.

OVERTIME
Overtime for non-exempt employees will be charged at 1.5 x hourly rate; overtime for exempt employees and other classifications will be charged at 1 x hourly rate.

Rev. 1/21/2025 402
Joseph Pope | RESUME PG 1
RESUME
Joseph Pope, PE
Vice President of Construction Management Water
Firm
 MNS Engineers, Inc.

Areas of Expertise
 Organizational leadership
 Water/wastewater resources
 Client relations
 Process improvement
 Contract management
 Team building
Years of Experience
 27 Total
 <1 With MNS (start date 8/8/2024)
 27 Prior to MNS
Licensing
 Professional Civil Engineer, CA No. 63533
 Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD)
Certifications
 CalOES Safety Assessment Program
 Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Certification
Education
 MS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California Los Angeles
 BS, Environmental Resources Engineering, Humbolt State University
Affiliations
 American Public Works Association
 American Water Works Association
 Association of California Water Agencies
 Society of American Military Engineers
Mr. Pope is a collaborative civil engineer with over 27 years of progressive, executive management experience
leading large municipal and federal Public Works
organizations. Joe is a recognized visionary leader in
managing large interdisciplinary engineering, operations, and planning teams in the efficient delivery of sustainable facilities, construction, environmental, water, wastewater, and electrical utilities. He is an exceptional problem
solver with excellent communication skills and an ethical and inspirational leader.

Newell Creek Pipeline Felton/Graham Hill Project,
City of Santa Cruz, CA. Principal Construction Manager.

This $21M project includes installation of approximately 23,400 linear feet of 24-inch ductile iron pipe, a 100-foot crossing over a river, 90-foot trenchless railroad crossing, existing pipeline and facility abandonment, cathodic
protection system, and pavement improvements in
environmentally sensitive habitats and high traffic areas. (12/2024 - Present)
Wastewater Program, City of Gonzales, CA. Principal
Project Manager. The City of Gonzales has initiated an
aggressive wastewater program to address compliance
with regulatory requirements. The program undertakes
several components of the wastewater system including
construction of over two miles of 24/27-inch PVC
conveyance piping, a new one MGD industrial
wastewater treatment facility, rehabilitation of the existing municipal wastewater treatment plant, and future
expansion of both treatment plants. (8/2024-Present)
Biosolids and Energy Phase 1 (BESP1), Goleta
Sanitary District, Santa Barbara, CA. Principal
Construction Manager. The Goleta Sanitary District
(GSD) has undertaken the BESP1 project, which
includes construction of a new, pre-stressed concrete
digester, installation of a cogeneration system with an integrated digester gas cleaning system, improvements
to the digester heating system, as well as construction of associated demolition, yard piping, and electrical and
instrumentation. The project site is within Coastal
Commission jurisdiction, requiring compliance with a
Coastal Development permit, and is also within the direct vicinity of the Santa Barbara airport, requiring Federal Aviation Administration permitting and coordination. In addition, the WWTP is within a Native American
archeological area of interest, requiring close
coordination with paleontological and archeological
monitors during excavation. Overall Cost: $9.9M
(08/2024 - 08/2025)
403
Joseph Pope | RESUME PG 2
RESUME
Ventura County Public Works Agency, CA. Director of
Water and Sanitation. Joe was the Department Director
for 80 employees, overseeing a $90 million annual
budget and was responsible for managing water,
wastewater, recycled water, and solid waste services for special districts and unincorporated areas of Ventura
County. (05/2019 – 06/2024)
Piru Tertiary Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade,
Piru, CA. As Department Director, led Water and
Sanitation team in the planning, permitting, design, and construction of $7M tertiary treatment plant upgrade for Ventura County Waterworks District No. 16. The project
installed a bio-solids dewatering belt press, ozone and chemical pre-treatment systems, electrodialysis reversal membranes, and evaporation pond facilities to achieve a high recovery rate desalination process for removal of
high TDS and Chlorides to meet permit requirements.
(01/2020 - 12/2023).

Somis Ranch Farmworker Housing Project, Somis,
CA. As Department Director, the Water and Sanitation
team led in the planning, design, permitting, and
construction of all potable water infrastructure for new four-lot subdivision farmworker housing community.

Construction included construction of an existing water tower. The 26-acre site included phase 1 construction of 200 individual units and all service connections. Project included installation 8-inch PVC, 10-inch PVC and 3,000 feet of 12-inch PVC water lines within and adjacent to the Caltrans right-of-way. The scope also included new
electrical duct bank, sewer lines and communications
lines and abandonment of existing 4-inch and 8-inch
lines, and construction of a new 300,000 gallon welded
steel, coated water tank. (05/2019 - 08/2023).

Piru Battery/Microgrid Project, Piru, CA. As
Department Director, led team in the design and
installation of a 140kW battery energy storage system
and smart microgrid to improve the Piru Wastewater
Treatment Plant's resiliency during power shutoff events, allowing the plan to island from the grid for up to 18
hours. Project funding of $918,380 obtained through
CPUC SGIP program. (02/2021 - 04/2023)
Well No. 2 Iron and Manganese Facility, County of
Ventura, CA. As Department Director, led Water and
Sanitation team in the planning, permitting, design, and construction of a $3M iron and manganese wellhead
treatment facility for Ventura County Waterworks District No. 19, Somis, CA. The Well No. 2 iron and manganese
removal facilities project included the installation of three horizontal greensand filters, a reclaim tank and chemical treatment facilities. (05/2019-07/2021).

Ventura County Naval Base, Point Mugu, CA. Public
Works Director. Joe served a Navy Base population of
19,000 and led a 300 person Public Works Department
with a $250 million annual budget. He was responsible
for the maintenance and operation of 1,600 facilities, c ivil works, utility infrastructure, roads, services and construction contracting, environmental and code
compliance, facilities, fleet management, and urban
planning. (06/2016 – 05/2019)
Navy Expeditionary Combat Command Pacific, HI.

Director of Operations – Asia Pacific Region. Joe
collaborated with a diverse team of stakeholders in the annual execution of over $20 million in Navy
Expeditionary Operations in support of the Pacific
Command Theater Security Cooperation Program.
(06/2014 – 05/2016)
NAVFAC Hawaii, Pearl Harbor, HI. Director of Design,
Construction, and Service Contracting. Joe led 150
engineers, architects, contracting officers, and
engineering technicians in the execution of over 370
construction contracts and 96 facilities service contracts worth over $1 billion. Joe also supported a Joint Base
population of 52,000 personnel. (07/2012 – 06/2014)
Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133, Gulfport,
MS. Executive Officer. Joe was second-in-command of a
600-person Naval Mobile Construction Battalion. He
supervised 70 employees and a $20 million budget. Joe
deployed overseas to provide contingency construction,
humanitarian assistance, disaster recovery, and
peacetime construction. (06/2010 – 07/2012)
Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, DC. Senior
Strategic Facilities Analyst. Joe served as the Shore
Readiness Planning Programming Budget Execution and
Models/Metrics Analyst, coordinating the programming of the Navy’s $9 billion annual infrastructure program. He developed Navy policies to guide future infrastructure
development. (12/2008 – 06/2010)
United States Senate, Washington, DC. Legislative
Fellow. Joe served Senator Barbara Mikulski in support
of Defense and Veterans Affairs Policies. (12/2007 –
12/2008)
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Headquarters, Washington, DC. Executive Assistant.

Joe served as the Executive Assistant to the Deputy
Chief of Civil Engineers and provided planning, design, construction and maintenance, acquisition and real
estate services, and environmental and contingency
engineering for the Navy ashore. (07/2006 – 12/2007)
404
Joseph Pope | RESUME PG 3
RESUME
Naval Mobile Construction Battalion Forty, Port
Hueneme, CA. Company Commander/Assistant
Operations Officer/Officer-in-Charge. Joe was
responsible for planning projects, training, and
operational reporting requirements for a 600-person
Construction Battalion. (08/2003 – 08/2005)
Naval Air Station Sigonella, Sicily, Italy. Public Works Planning and Operations Officer. Joe was responsible for the planning, code compliance, technical plan review,
maintenance, construction, and repair of facilities and operation of utilities while leading 180 employees. He
served a Navy Base population of 7,200 personnel.
(10/2000 – 08/2003)
405
Kevin Barteaux, PE | RESUME PG 1
RESUME
Kevin Barteaux, PE
Senior Construction Manager
Firm
 MNS Engineers, Inc.

Areas of Expertise
 Construction management
 Risk management and claims negations
Years of Experience
 27 Total
 1 With MNS (since 2023)
Licensing
 Professional Civil Engineer, CA No. 58392
Education
 BS, Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Military Service
 United States Army, Ft. Carson, CO (March 85 – March
88)
 United States Marine Corps, Kaneohe Bay MCAS, HI
(July 81 – July 84)
Awards
 APWA Northern California Chapter Project of the Year
($5M-$25M), 2013
 SFPUC O'Shaughnessy Team Award Winner, 2010
Mr. Barteaux has more than 27 years of experience
administering and managing construction projects and
programs. Kevin has managed all project phases from
planning through design and construction. He is also
skilled in risk management and claims negations,
mitigation, and avoidance. He also brings experience in contract administration, claims prevention, team
dynamics, risk analysis, and total quality management
(TQM). His experience includes:

Sanitary System Improvements Project, City of Mill
Valley, CA. Resident Engineer. The project entails
repairing and replacing segments of sanitary sewer
pipelines and manholes throughout the City of Mill Valley.

Methods include open-cut repairs, spot repairs, cured-inplace-pipe lining (CIPP), and pipe bursting. Other elements include implementation of a water pollution
control plan; traffic control; potholing to locate utilities; asphalt removal; removal and replacement of concrete
curbs and gutters, sidewalks, and driveways; clearing
and grubbing, excavation, subgrade preparation, and
placement and compaction of aggregate base;
rehabilitation, reconnection and repair/replacement of
sewer laterals; placement of asphalt concrete pavement; and applying striping and markers. (02/2024-Present)
Fire Station No. 1 PRVs Relocation, City of Milpitas,
CA. Resident Engineer. The scope of work involves
abandoning and relocating two existing underground
water supply pressure reducing facilities to above ground locations. Modifications for the 12-inch PRS and 16-inch PRS systems include removing and disposing of the
associated gate valves, anchor blocks, valve anodes,
and anode test stations. In addition, the project involves the receipt, installation, calibration, and commissioning of the 12-inch PRV and 16-inch PRV owner supplied
valves. (08/2024-Present)
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation
Commission (SCCRTC), CA. Resident Engineer.

Kevin’s projects included:
• Valencia Creek Sewer Relocation
• Lower Rodeo Trunk Line Replacement
• Arana Sewer Trunk Line Sewer Replacement
These projects repaired and replaced existing public
sewer lines within the County of Santa Cruz.

Construction elements consisted of replacing
deteriorating ACP sanitary sewer trunklines, tying pipes into manholes, adding/replacing manholes, rehabilitation 406
Kevin Barteaux, PE | RESUME PG 2
RESUME
of spray-on liners, and replacing pavement associated
with sewer trenching. The construction methods included open-cut trenching and trenchless micro-tunneling to
install the new sewer pipes. All work occurred within the existing right-of-way of the old pipelines. Additional
improvements included the slurry seal of paved roads,
parking areas, and drives. MNS provided construction
management services during construction and project
close-out. Additionally, MNS construction inspectors
inspected and monitored the projects to ensure
construction is in accordance with the project contract documents including compliance with cleanup, safety,
and traffic control standards. (10/2023 to 09/2024
Bay Corridor Distribution and Transmission Projects,
CCSF Public Utilities Commission – Construction
Management Bureau, San Francisco, CA. Program
Construction Manager. Managed teams of Resident
Engineers, Office Engineers, Construction and
Environmental Inspectors, and office staff involved in a $150M Design-Build program to install high-voltage
electrical substations, vaults and duct banks, as well as high-pressure waterlines (AWSS), and sewer pipelines
along the San Francisco Bay Corridor. (02/2018 to
05/2020)
Infrastructure Projects, CCSF Public Utilities
Commission – Construction Management Bureau,
San Francisco, CA. Construction Manager and Resident
Engineer. Duties involved managing and supervising
teams of professional engineers, junior engineers,
construction inspectors, environmental consultants,
safety officials, public relations representatives, and office staff to ensure the safe, lawful, and timely
completion of the projects. Individual responsibilities included anticipating and resolving potential claims,
initiating and negotiating change orders, ensuring all
contract work was performed in accordance with the
plans and specifications, solving field-related problems as they arose, and managing the construction schedule
and budget to ensure the team completed the projects on time and within budget. (02/2006 to 01/2018)
Projects included:
• Griffith Yard Improvements. $17M project to
develop a vacant site to serve as the field
headquarters for the City’s Sewer Operations Unit.
• Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant
Emergency Repairs. $14M project to make
emergency repairs to a sewage treatment plant’s
digesters and sludge bins in San Francisco.
• Cordilleras Micro-Tunnel. $5.3 M project to bore a
72-inch-diameter tunnel and install approximately
1400 linear feet of 60-inch-diameter steel pipeline in
Redwood City, CA.
• Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements.
$20.4M project to increase the capacity of the
reservoir by raising the height of the dam’s parapet
walls, widening its spillway, and enlarging the stilling basin.
• San Andreas Pipeline Installation. $17.1M project
to install approximately 4.4 miles of 36-inch-diameter
water transmission main from Daly City into San
Francisco.
• East-West Transmission Main Installation. $23.2M
project to install approximately 4.7 miles of 36-inch
and 42-inch-diameter water-transmission main
across San Francisco, including a jack and bore
tunnel under Interstate 280.

Local Water Main Replacement Projects, CCSF
Public Utilities Commission – Construction
Management Bureau, San Francisco, CA. Section
Manager. Managed a ten-person team of professional
engineers and construction inspectors to provide
construction management services for a $31M annual
program to install new ductile-iron water mains
throughout San Francisco. Duties included supervising
and monitoring the staff and serving as the Resident
Engineer on each individual project. (09/2003 to 01/2006) Watershed Roadway and Fence Projects, CCSF
Public Utilities Commission – Construction
Management Bureau, San Francisco, CA. Project
Manager. Managed all phases of nine roadway and
fence projects within San Francisco’s Crystal Springs
watershed. Duties included the preparation of project
plans and work breakdown structures, coordinating the
preparation of environmental and geotechnical reports,
soliciting and approving proposals from consultants,
design engineers, and construction managers,
coordinating work between SFPUC departments and
other City agencies, preparing Commission agenda
items, and meeting with stakeholders to ensure
satisfactory results. (08/2002 to 08/2003)
Various Civil Engineering Projects, CCSF Recreation
and Park Department, San Francisco, CA. Project
Director. Serving as the Department Civil Engineer in the Capital Projects Division, managed and coordinated all
phases of construction projects that varied in size and complexity. Projects included drainage upgrades and
erosion controls at various neighborhood parks,
restoration of dunes and wetlands along the San
Francisco shoreline, dredging and sand mining at the SF Marina, developing master plans for neighborhood parks, and rehabilitating lakes and relocating underground
utilities in Golden Gate Park. Responsibilities included reporting to the Recreation and Parks Commission and
407
Kevin Barteaux, PE | RESUME PG 3
RESUME
other committees, facilitating neighborhood meetings,
and providing input for community taskforce teams.
(08/1999 to 07/2002)
PUC/DPW One-Point-of-Contact for Spot Paving and
Sewer Repairs, CCSF Department of Public Works –
Bureau of Construction Management, San Francisco,
CA. Program Manager. Assigned as the one-point-of
contact between the Public Utilities Commission and the Department of Public Works for a $10M annual spot
paving and sewer repair program throughout San
Francisco. In addition to prioritizing work assignments, additional duties included contract preparation and
administration, compiling budget and expenditure
reports, providing public outreach for local residents and merchants, supervising construction inspectors, and
making engineering decisions in the field when problems arose. (11/1997 to 07/1999)
Utilities Relocation Project, San Francisco
International Airport, CCSF Department of Public
Works, Bureau of Construction Management, San
Francisco, CA. Office Engineer. Provided construction
management assistance for an $8M project to construct
a sewage pump station at the San Francisco
International Airport. Special duties included coordinating work between different Contractors and airport personnel within confined work areas, negotiating change orders
and potential claims, and supervising the work of office and field personnel. (01/1996 to 10/1997)
North Embarcadero Roadway and F-Line Extension,
CCSF Department of Public Works, Bureau of
Construction Management, San Francisco, CA. Field
Engineer. Provided construction management assistance
for a $24M project to realign and renovate San
Francisco’s waterfront area along the Embarcadero.

Specific duties included estimating costs for Proposed
Change Orders and potential claims, verifying and
approving progress payments, inspecting and monitoring
Force Accounts and Disputed Work Orders, and
assuming Resident Engineer duties for the project
closeout phase. (11/1994 to 12/1995)
Saint Mary’s High School Gymnasium, Nibbi
Brothers, Albany, CA. Assistant Project Manager. Kevin
provided project management assistance for a $4M
project to enlarge a high school gymnasium. Duties
included preparing contracts and scopes of work for
subcontractors, creating and monitoring computerized
CPM schedules, conducting time analysis studies to help justify construction delays in other projects, and ensuring the timely submission of RFIs, PCOs, Progress
Payments, and submittals. (04/1994 to 11/1994)
408
Peter Testa | RESUME PG 1
RESUME
Peter Testa
Design Engineer
Firm
 MNS Engineers, Inc.

Areas of Expertise
 Structural engineering principles and calculations
 California Building Code in Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2
 Waterproofing design for buildings
 Construction inspection
 Structure waterproofing design
Building construction
Years of Experience
 35 Total
 3 With MNS (since 2021)
 30 Prior to MNS
Education
BS, Civil Engineering (Emphasis in Structural
Engineering), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA
Mr. Testa has over 35 years of project management
experience with the City of San Jose Public Works
Department and prepared several in-house designs of
civil and architectural types of projects. Peter is also proficient in AutoCAD and MS Office Suite. His
experience includes:

Main Lift Odor Emission Control Facility, City of
Milpitas, CA. Project Manager. MNS is providing project management services for construction of an odor
emission control facility at the City’s Main Sewage Pump Station. The project includes the demolition of existing piping, concrete pads, and asphalt concrete (AC). The
project also includes the installation of a trickling biofilter with associated duct work, piping, anchors, mechanical
equipment ,electronic control panels, and reinforced
concrete equipment pads. Construction value
$1,293,500. (3/2021 – current)
Lower Rodeo Trunkline Replacement, County of
Santa Cruz, CA. Project Manager. Project consists of
replacement of 1,688 linear feet of aging sewer lines, line existing manholes, and replace manhole frame and lids.

Construction value: $1.4M. (8/2023 – current)
Primary Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation and
Electrical Upgrade, City of Palo Alto, CA. Project
Manager. MNS is currently providing construction
management services and loan administration for the
Primary Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation and
Equipment Room Electrical Upgrade Project funded by
the California State Water Resources Control Board
Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The $13.9M project
entails planning, design, and procurement to rehabilitate and upgrade PSTs and primary effluent channel
structure, sludge collection mechanism system drive
units, primary sludge and scrum piping, electrical Motor Control Center (MCCs), and ancillary systems to improve reliability of treatment processes at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). (09/2021 – current)
Hiller Street Sanitary Sewer Main Upgrade, City of
Belmont, CA. Project Manager. This project replaced
sewer lines in the vicinity of Hiller Street and Wessex Way to accommodate new developments. The project
included the replacement of 402-feet of existing 6-inch sewer with 15-inch sewer main; replacement of 1,406-
feet of existing 8-inch with 15-inch sewer main;
replacement of 50-feet of existing 10-inch with 15-inch sewer main with a connection to the Hiller Street Pump
Station; repair of existing manholes and installation of 409
Peter Testa | RESUME PG 2
RESUME
new manholes, roadway repairs; concrete curb and
gutter replacement; and the restoration of private
property. MNS performed a technical and constructability review, and construction inspection services. Peter’s
responsibilities included recording the progress of the project and tracking labor hours and materials for extra work; verifying contractor’s on site specifications; and reporting safety practices for a 12’ deep trench with poor soil conditions. Construction value: $1.4M (09/22 –
06/2023)
Valencia Creek Sewer Relocation, County of Santa
Cruz, CA. Assistant Resident Engineer/Construction
Inspector. Project consists of installing steel pipe casing and new sewer line by pilot tube guided boring
underneath a railroad and Highway One in Aptos. Other
sewer installation methods used are cured-in-place pipe and traditional open cut trench. Peter’s responsibilities include reviewing and distributing project documents
(e.g. submittals, change orders);coordinating with
general contractor, design engineers and city staff;
tracking and reporting expenditures; facilitating week
progress meeting and project inspection. Construction
value: $2.64M. (6/2023 – current)
City Facilities Architectural Services Division, City of San Jose, CA. Associate Engineer. Peter managed
multiple projects, each over $5M in construction value, through the Decade of Investment bonds period such as
Fire Stations (FS) 34, 35, and Cambrian Library. Peter
also completed struggling projects, notably, FS 12, 13, 17, 19, and 24; assisted with the civil design of each
station driveway and grades; and developed standard
Fire Station Driveway Details. Additional responsibilities included preparing site plans for numerous projects, most recently, FS 21 to design and co-manage the site for C3 compliance. Other notable projects included the Happy
Hollow (HHPZ) Pedestrian Bridge, the Animal Care
Center, HHPZ Alligator Exhibit, and the Agnews
Demolition Project. Peter managed public project
budgets, project scheduling, and cost estimating using
RS Means Costworks among other tools. (06/2001 –
05/2019)
Rodriguez Street Sewer Rehabilitation Project,
County of Santa Cruz, CA. Construction Inspector. This
project replaced approximately 625-feet of existing public sewer lines in Rodriguez Street. Project elements
included the replacement and repair of deteriorating 6- inch sanitary sewer pipe, rehabilitating manholes in
despair, and replacing pavement associated with sewer
trenching including slurry seal over 2,400 square yards on Rodriguez Street. The construction method was to
open cut trench and install the new sewer pipes. All work occurred within the existing paved roads. MNS provided
construction management services. Responsibilities
included inspecting and monitoring the projects to ensure construction is in accordance with the project contract documents including compliance with cleanup, safety,
and traffic control standards. (2022)
Architectural Engineering Division, Civil Structural
Section, City of San Jose, CA. Civil Engineer I/II. Peter managed various projects and consultant agreements,
prepared contract documents for public bid, reviewed
plans and structural calculations for compliance with the California Building Code, managed construction of public projects in a variety of disciplines, prepared and
managed consultant agreements, and coordinated with
agencies in and out of the City of San Jose. Projects
involved deposit of soil at landfills for environmental compliance, site grading and surveying, leaking
underground fuel tank investigations and removals, fuel tank installations above and below ground, soil
contamination investigations and clean up, downtown
streetscapes, municipal water distribution, wood
buildings, concrete construction, waterproofing of roof systems, restroom remodeling at the airport, parking lots, and demolition projects. Peter provided design and
construction management services for the $1.2M East
Santa Clara Street Sidewalk Improvement Project.
(06/2001 – 05/2019)
WM. Jay Hammond & Associates, Newark, CA.

Structural Engineering. Peter provided structural
engineering for constructed buildings and design work for concrete foundations, retaining walls, and steel sign
frames. (05/1989 – 10/1989)
Atlas Hydraulic Corporation, Hayward, CA.

Engineering Intern. Atlas specializes in underground
tanks for containment of hazardous materials. Peter
worked under a civil engineer and performed the
following: inspections for tank removals and installations, estimating, and designing tank hold down systems and
drafting. (02/1988 – 08/1988)
410
Yujia Luo | RESUME PG 1

RESUMES
Yujia Luo
Office Engineer
Firm
 MNS Engineers, Inc.

Areas of Expertise
 Revit
 AUTOCAD
 MS Project
 SAP: SFD and BMD analysis
 Plane Surveying
 MATLAB
 Primavera P6
 WaterGEMs (examined and analyzed the water
distribution network)
 GIS
Years of Experience
 3
 2 with MNS
 1 Prior to MNS
Education
 BS, Civil Engineering, San Jose State University,
San Jose, CA, 2021
 AS, Math and Science, Contra Costa College,
San Pablo, CA, 2019
 AA, Economics, Contra Costa College, San Pablo, CA,
2019
Ms. Luo is skilled in project communication and
coordination and has provided construction
administration support on numerous projects involving
Caltrans LAPM. As the Office Engineer, Yujia will be
responsible for managing the project files, labor
compliance, assisting with progress payments, tracking
change orders, submittals, RFIs, monthly reports, as well as tracking of materials. She is also proficient in in Revit (structural concrete design and 3D interior); AUTOCAD
(develop and modify 3D models); MS Project; SAP (SFD
and BMD analysis); Plane Surveying; MATLAB;
Primavera P6; Microsoft Office Suites; WaterGEMs
(examined and analyzed the water distribution network), and GIS. Her experience includes:

Construction Management On-Call Services—Storm
Damage Projects, County of Santa Cruz, CA. Office
Engineer. MNS is providing construction management
services for federal, state, and locally funded projects.

The projects vary in scope and size and include roadway rehabilitation, widening and/or realignment of existing facilities, relocation of existing facilities, and construction of new facilities. Assigned task orders for federally
funded storm-damaged road repair projects include: Glen Haven Road ($415k); Valencia Road ($3.3M); North
Rodeo Gulch ($1.1M); Cox Road ($600K); Cox Road
($900K); Glen Haven ($1.2M); Branciforte Drive ($1.3M); Lower Highland Way ($375K); Browns Valley Road;
Valencia Road ($654K); Trout Gulch Road ($310K);
Trout Gulch Road ($370K); Eureka Cyn Road and Green
Valley Road. Assisted the County with reviewing the
EWBs and managed the project files.

Maresa Culvert Rehabilitation, County of Santa Cruz,
CA. Office Engineer. MNS provided Construction
Management Services, including project management,
pre-construction, coordination, contract administration, construction inspection, and project closeout services for culvert rehabilitation at MP 9.02.

Rodriguez Street Sewer Rehabilitation Project,
County of Santa Cruz, CA. Office Engineer. This project replaced approximately 625-feet of existing public sewer lines in Rodriguez Street. Project elements included the replacement and repair of deteriorating 6-inch sanitary sewer pipe, rehabilitating manholes in despair, and
replacing pavement associated with sewer trenching
including slurry seal over 2,400 square yards on
Rodriguez Street. The construction method was to open
cut trench and install the new sewer pipes. All work
occurred within the existing paved roads. MNS provided
411
Yujia Luo | RESUME PG 2

RESUMES
construction management services. Responsibilities
included project communication and coordination, public relations, contract administration, CPM schedule review and approval, cost control and progress pay estimates,
submittal/Request for Information (RFI) approval, change orders and claims management, quality assurance
materials testing services, quality assurance of quality control inspection reports, quality assurance construction staking, and Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP)
and Site Specific Safety Plan compliance.

East Cliff Drive Sewer Replacement Project, Santa
Cruz County, CA. Office Engineer. This project repairs
and replaces existing public sewer lines along East Cliff Drive and portions of 13th Avenue and Corcoran Avenue.

Construction elements consist of replacing a
deteriorating 8-inch sanitary sewer main pipe and larger trunk line pipes, tying pipes into existing manholes,
rehabilitating manholes by either lining with polymer
concrete inserts or spray-on liners, and replacing
pavement associated with sewer trenching. The
construction method is open-cut trench to install the new sewer pipes. All work occurs within the existing paved
roads. Additional improvements include replacing
pavement and adding new green bike lanes along East
Cliff and Portola Drives within portions of the project area. MNS provides construction management services
during construction and project close-out.

Pajaro River Bridge Rehabilitation, County of Santa
Cruz, CA. Office Engineer. MNS provided Construction
Management Services, including project management,
pre-construction, coordination, contract administration, construction inspection, and project closeout services to repair the storm-damaged Pajaro River Bridge.

On-Call Construction Management/Construction
Inspection, County of Sonoma, CA. Office Engineer.

MNS services include resident engineering, construction inspection, material testing coordination, and public
outreach notifications coordination. The 2022 Pavement
Preservation Program, Project C22401 project improved
and rehabilitated over 21 miles of roadway with asphalt concrete overlays (some sections included full-depth
reclamation treatments), chip and slurry seals along with associated flagging, traffic signal modification with MultiSensor Video Detection System (MSVDS) with video imaging and radar technologies, metal beam guard rail
(MBGR), ditch maintenance, culvert replacement, traffic control, pavement repair of structural sections, cold
planning, shoulder backing, and delineation of the new
pavement surface. Construction cost is $21M.

Strawberry Road Rehabilitation, County of Marin, CA.

Office Engineer. This project restored the road condition on two residential streets in the Strawberry
neighborhood: Bayview Terrace and Deer Hill Court.

Improvements included cold planing existing pavement,
existing base material recompaction, hot mix asphalt
paving, drainage upgrades (free of ponding on both
streets), and curb and gutter replacement. MNS provided construction management services including the
following: weekly progress meetings; cost and scheduling management; assistance with public notifications and
awareness; construction inspection; and materials testing services. The project was funded through the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle) and the County’s Road and Bridge
Rehabilitation fund.

TCEP – Quiet Zone Safety Engineering Measures,
City of Emeryville, CA. Office Engineer. Tasks for this $2M DIR ID: 406106 project included the following:
prepare and review monthly construction estimates,
conduct periodic construction inspections, take
inspection photos and prepare inspector daily report,
create the force analysis excel spreadsheet, CCOs and
correspondence, review the Certified Payroll to make
sure it meets the prevailing wage rate, maintain project log sheets and project files.

Pothole and Base Repair No. 2, Port Chicago and
Bates, City of Concord. Office Engineer. This $1.9M
DIR ID: 424040 project included roughly 200,000 square
feet of pothole and base repair work along Port Chicago Highway and Bates Avenue in the City of Concord. Work
included traffic control, staging of the work, SWPPP
management, asphalt concrete removal, hot mix asphalt
placement, pavement marking and striping removal and
installation, and replacement of detector loops at all
major intersections along Port Chicago Highway up to
Bates Avenue Intersection. All work was performed at
night to reduce impacts on local business and traffic on Port Chicago Highway and Bates Avenue. Assisted the
inspector in marking out the stationing on the field and administrative tasks.

Water Treatment Foundation Strengthening, City of
Pittsburg, CA. Project Manager. Yujia read and
analyzed the plan from the consultant company,
prepared site status reports, created an Engineer’s
Estimate, oversaw the development of project schedules, ensured the project complied with all regulatory
requirements, and prepared daily reports during the
construction phase.
412
Yujia Luo | RESUME PG 3

RESUMES
Speed Hump Installation, City of Pittsburg, CA.

Project Manager. For this $45k project, Yujia assisted the Traffic Engineer in planning, documentation,
implementation, and overall management of projects;
provided a comparison of bids and scope review;
prepared contracts and ensured the contractor’s
insurance was current before initiating work; ensured the contractor followed the Traffic Control Plan during the construction; and prepared daily reports. (12/2020 to
02/2022)
CDBG ADA Curb Ramp Installation Project, City of
Pittsburg, CA 94565. Project Assistant. ($170k)
Identified the quantities number of ADA curb ramps that needed to be installed and took measurements of old
curb ramps that needed to be demolished, prepared the
RFQ, assisted the Project Manager with bid opening,
assisted the Project manager in preparing documents for pre-construction meeting, and prepared daily reports.
(11/2021 to 05/2021)
Laguna Seca Raceway Start/Finish Bridge
Replacement and Track Overlay, County of Monterey.

Office Engineer. This $10M project replaced the existing start/finish pedestrian bridge and repaved the existing racetrack. The demolition work included the existing
bridges, starter’s platform, columns, and footings. The construction work included two prefabricated pedestrian bridge segments and concrete bridge footings and
abutments; a starter’s stand; concrete pedestrian
walkways, ramps, and stairs; railings and fencing;
retaining walls; earthwork and drainage improvements;
and utility relocations. The racetrack repaving work
consisted of micro milling and cold planning of AC
pavement; Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) patching and paving;
overlaying with specialty racetrack HMA mix;
construction of HMA shoulders; chip sealing shoulder
areas; reconstruction of racetrack curbs; shoulder
grading; drainage improvements; and other
miscellaneous construction. The project, which began in November 2022, fell behind schedule due to the nearrecord rainfall, erosion, and flooding. However, through the continuing support of the project stakeholders and
MNS crew, the project accelerated with double shifts to be ready in time to host the first two events of the
season. MNS provided construction management and
inspection support throughout the project. (8/2022 to
2023)
Pajaro River Bridge Rehabilitation, County of Santa
Cruz, CA. Office Engineer. MNS provided Construction
Management Services, including project management,
pre-construction, coordination, contract administration, construction inspection, and project closeout services to repair the storm-damaged Pajaro River Bridge. (10/2022
to 8/2023)
Maresa Culvert Rehabilitation, County of Santa Cruz,
CA. Office Engineer. MNS provided Construction
Management Services, including project management,
pre-construction, coordination, contract administration, construction inspection, and project closeout services for culvert rehabilitation at MP 9.02. SCRTC.210046.04
(2/2023 to 3/2023)
413

Revised Master Employee Pay Schedule – January 2025

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 25, 2025
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Laura Kirby, Human Resources Management Analyst, [email protected] Agenda Title: Revised Master Employee Pay Schedule – January 2025 Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution amending the City's Master Employee Pay Schedule to maintain compliance with California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) regulations.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
In accordance with CalPERS regulations and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 570.5, the City must maintain a detailed record of all established positions, including pay rates, effective dates, time base, and revision history. The City Council most recently approved the Master Employee Pay Schedule in December 2024 through Resolution No. 2024-80.

Analysis
The updates captured in the revised Master Employee Pay Schedule (Exhibit A) are limited to the following:

Wage Adjustments
• Implementing the January 2025 wage increases for the Belmont Police Officers Association (BPOA), as approved by the City Council in the 2025-2028 Memorandum of Understanding. • Implementing the January 2025 wage increase for the Mid-Management Confidential Employees Association (MMCEA), as approved by the City Council in the 2025-2028 Memorandum of Understanding.
• Implementing the January 2025 wage increase for the Unrepresented Confidential and City Clerk employee groups, which maintain wage parity with the MMCEA group.

Alternatives

1. Provide staff with alternate direction to the proposed Master Employee Pay Schedule in whole or in part

2. Take No Action
414

Revised Master Employee Pay Schedule – January 2025
Attachments
A. Resolution
Exhibit A – City of Belmont Master Employee Pay Schedule – January 2025 Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

The updated pay schedule is a labor contract obligation with direct fiscal impact. Funding for these increases will be incorporated into the budget and long-term financial plan.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda 415

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT ADOPTING THE CITY’S REVISED MASTER EMPLOYEE PAY SCHEDULE IN ACCORDANCE

WITH CALFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the latest version of the City’s Master Employee Pay Schedule was approved by the City Council on December 3, 2024 via Resolution 2024-80; and, WHEREAS, California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) regulations, as outlined in California Code of Regulations Section 570.5, require that pay schedules must be approved and adopted by the City Council during a public meeting; and, WHEREAS, Pay rates approved by the City Council through the Belmont Police Officers Association Memorandum of Understanding and the Mid-Management Confidential Employee Association Memorandum of Understanding for the 2025-2028 period necessitate updates to the publicly available pay schedule to ensure compliance with CalPERS regulations:
and,
WHEREAS, the Unrepresented Confidential and City Clerk groups align their wage structure with the Mid-Management Confidential Employee Association group, as outlined in their approved compensation and benefits plans, necessitating corresponding adjustments to their pay rates.

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

SECTION 1. The Revised Master Employee Pay Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A is approved and adopted.
* * *
ADOPTED March 25, 2025 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
416

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
417

Memorandum of Understanding with the Belmont Police Officers Association - Staff Report – BPOA Memorandum of Understanding

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 25, 2025
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Ann Ritzma, Interim Administrative Services Director, [email protected] Agenda Title: Memorandum of Understanding with the Belmont Police Officers Association Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Belmont and the Belmont Police Officers Association for the period January 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028, with an optional extension through June 30, 2029.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
The current Memorandum Understanding between the City of Belmont and the Belmont Police Officers Association (BPOA) expires June 30, 2025. In late 2024, the City and BPOA proactively opened labor negotiations ahead of schedule to address wage disparity and the ongoing challenges of recruitment and retention. The City’s negotiating team and the BPOA negotiation team have been meeting in good faith and the parties reached tentative agreement on February 25, 2025.

Analysis
The proposed Memorandum of Understanding includes the following key provisions:

Sworn Employee Salary Adjustments
• January 5, 2025 - 4%
• July 6, 2025 – 3.5%
• January 4, 2026 – 3.5%
• First full pay period of July 2026 – 3.5% (minimum) – 5% (maximum) based on Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the San Francisco Area April 2025-April 2026
• First full pay period of July 2027 - 4% (minimum) – 5% (maximum) based on Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the San Francisco Area April 2026-April 2027
• Pending optional MOU extension, first full pay period of July 2028 -– 3.5% (minimum) – 5% (maximum) based on Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the San Francisco Area April 2027-April 2028 418

Memorandum of Understanding with the Belmont Police Officers Association - Staff Report – BPOA Memorandum of Understanding Non-Sworn Employee Salary Adjustments
• January 4, 2026 - 4%
• First full pay period of January 2027 – 3.5%
• First full pay period of January 2028 – 3.5%
• Pending optional MOU extension, first full pay period of January 2029 -– 3.5% (minimum) – 5% (maximum) based on Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the San Francisco Area April 2027-April 2028 Limited Reopener for Sworn Market Equity Adjustments
The City will conduct a salary survey for all sworn classifications in December 2026. Both parties agree to use the same benchmark jurisdictions of Redwood City, Palo Alto, Atherton, Campbell, San Mateo, Los Gatos, Colma, Menlo Park, Foster City, San Mateo County, Daly City, Los Altos, South San Francisco, Hillsborough, East Palo Alto, Brisbane, San Bruno, Burlingame, and Pacifica. In January 2027, if the salary survey for the sworn positions (Police Officer, Police Corporal, and Police Sergeant) reveals that all of these classifications are more than three and one-half percent (3.5%) below the median, the parties will reopen negotiations specifically to address the potential market equity adjustment for the Police Officer, Police Corporal, and/or Police Sergeant positions.

Sworn Retention Incentive
Effective the first full pay period in July 2025, and each July thereafter, employees in sworn classifications with a minimum of 10 years of law enforcement experience, including at least one (1) year in a special assignment or collateral duty, will receive a lump sum payment of $3,000.

Dispatcher POST Incentive
Effective the first full pay period in July 2025, and the first full pay period in each July thereafter, employees in dispatcher classifications with at least six months of dispatcher experience with the City of Belmont and that possess an Intermediate POST Certificate shall receive a lump sum payment of $1,000.

Effective the first full pay period in July 2025, and the first full pay period in each July thereafter, employees in dispatcher classifications with at least six months of dispatcher experience and that possess an Advanced POST Certificate shall receive a lump sum payment of $1,500.

An employee eligible to receive both the Intermediate POST Certificate pay and the Advanced POST Certificate pay will only receive the Advanced POST Certificate pay and not both.

Digital Evidence Production Pay
Effective the first full pay period in July 2025, and the first full pay period in each July thereafter, nonsworn records personnel regularly performing digital evidence and records management, storage, and retrieval functions for one year or more as determined by the Police Chief shall receive a lump sum payment of $1,250.
419

Memorandum of Understanding with the Belmont Police Officers Association - Staff Report – BPOA Memorandum of Understanding Alternatives

1. Provide staff with alternate direction in full or in part

2. Take No Action
Attachments
A. Resolution
a. Exhibit A - BPOA Revised Compensation Plan - Itemized Fiscal Impacts by Fund and Division
b. Exhibit B - Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Belmont and the Belmont Police Officers Association
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

The financial impact of the revisions to the compensation and benefit plan have been analyzed. The current fiscal year budget had included an assumption of overall personnel cost increases across labor groups; however, the proposed terms of the BPOA MOU will require a supplemental appropriation for the division listed in Exhibit A of the Resolution (Attachment A) to reflect the personnel cost adjustment in the BPOA Safety employee group. Subsequent revisions to the Compensation and Benefit Plan as outlined above will be incorporated into the FY 2025-26 budget and long-term financial plan.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda 420

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF

BELMONT AND THE BELMONT POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION FOR THE TERM JANUARY 1, 2025 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2028
WHEREAS, representatives from the City of Belmont and the Belmont Police Officers Association (BPOA) have engaged in good faith negotiations in accordance with Government Code Section 3500, et seq.; and,
WHEREAS, the City has carefully considered the presentations made by BPOA on behalf of its members; and,
WHEREAS, the parties have reached agreement on wages, hours, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment for the period from January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028, with an option for the Association to extend the term by one additional year through June 30, 2029; and,
WHEREAS, the budget for the current fiscal year had included an assumption of overall personnel cost increases across labor groups; however, the proposed terms of the BPOA Memorandum of Understanding will require a supplemental appropriation for the division listed in Exhibit A to reflect the wage adjustment in the BPOA Safety employee group; and,
WHEREAS, the representatives from both parties have collaboratively prepared a written Memorandum of Understanding, titled “Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Belmont and the Belmont Police Officers Association”, attached hereto as Exhibit B and presented to the City Council for approval.

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

SECTION 1. The terms outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding, attached as Exhibit B are hereby approved.

SECTION 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute and implement the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the City.

SECTION 3. The City Manager, in consultation with the BPOA, is authorized to make minor amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding, provided such amendments are consistent with the intent of this resolution and do not materially alter the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding.

SECTION 4. The supplemental budget appropriation for fiscal year 2024-25 listed in Exhibit A is approved.
* * *
421

ADOPTED March 25, 2025 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
422
Exhibit A
City of Belmont
BPOA Revised Compensation Plan -
Itemized Fiscal Impacts by Fund and Division
Fund Account # Division
Amount
Increase
Supplemental Law Enforcement
227 2-601-8101 Police - Crime Control $12,000
FY 2024-25
The budget for the current fiscal year had included an assumption of overall personnel cost increases across labor groups; however, the proposed terms of the BPOA MOU will require a supplemental appropriation for the following division to reflect the wage adjustment in the BPOA Safety employee group:
423

Memorandum of Understanding with the Mid-Management Confidential Employees Assocation - Staff Report – MMCEA Memorandum of Understanding

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 25, 2025
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Ann Ritzma, Interim Administrative Services Director, [email protected] Agenda Title: Memorandum of Understanding with the Mid-Management Confidential Employees Association
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Belmont and the Mid-Management Confidential Employees Association for the period January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2028.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
The current Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Belmont and the Mid-Management Confidential Employees Association (MMCEA) expired on December 31, 2024. The City’s negotiating team and the MMCEA negotiation team have been meeting in good faith since late 2024. The parties reached tentative agreement on February 24, 2025 with MMCEA membership ratifying on March 7, 2025.

Analysis
The proposed Memorandum of Understanding includes the following key provision:

Salary Adjustments
• January 5, 2025 – 4%
• January 4, 2026 – 3% – 5% - Increase based on the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the San Francisco Area (previously SF-Oakland-Hayward), October 2024 to October 2025 with a minimum increase of three (3%) and a maximum increase of five percent (5.0%). • First full pay period in January 2027 – 3% – 5% - Increase based on the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the San Francisco Area (previously SF-Oakland-Hayward), October 2025 to October 2026 with a minimum increase of three (3%) and a maximum increase of five percent (5.0%). • First full pay period in January 2028 – 3.5% – 5% - Increase based on the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the San Francisco Area (previously SF-Oakland-Hayward), October 2026 to October 2027 with a minimum increase of three and one half (3.5%) and a maximum increase of five percent (5.0%). 424

Memorandum of Understanding with the Mid-Management Confidential Employees Assocation - Staff Report – MMCEA Memorandum of Understanding
• First full pay period of July 2028 - Classifications that are more than 4% below median after January 2028 increases will be moved to 4% below median. Adjustments based on December 2027 salary survey conducted by the City.

Creation of Labor Management Subcommittee
• Assist in the creation of new performance evaluation form • Explore enhancements to the groups dental plan.

Tuition Reimbursement
• Increase the tuition reimbursement amount from $1,000 to $2,500 per year.

Certification Pay
• ISA Certified Arborist certification monthly payment of $350.00 upon certification and maintenance of certification.

Alternatives

1. Provide staff with alternative direction in whole or in part.

2. Take No Action
Attachments
A. Resolution
a. Exhibit A - MMCEA Revised Compensation Plan - Itemized Fiscal Impacts by Fund and Division
b. Exhibit B - Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Belmont and the MidManagement Confidential Employees Association.

Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

The financial impact of the revisions to the compensation and benefit plan have been analyzed. The current fiscal year budget had included an assumption of overall personnel cost increases across labor groups; however, the proposed terms of the MMCEA MOU will require a supplemental appropriation for the divisions listed in Exhibit A of the Resolution (Attachment A) to reflect the personnel cost adjustment in the MMCEA employee group. Subsequent revisions to the Compensation and Benefit Plan as outlined above will be incorporated into the FY 2025-26 budget and long-term financial plan.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda 425

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF

BELMONT AND THE MID-MANAGEMENT CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION FOR THE TERM JANUARY 1, 2025 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2028 WHEREAS, representatives from the City of Belmont and the Mid-Management Confidential Employees Association (MMCEA)have engaged in good faith negotiations in accordance with Government Code Section 3500, et seq.; and, WHEREAS, the City has carefully considered the presentations made by MMCEA on behalf of its members; and,
WHEREAS, the parties have reached agreement on wages, hours, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment for the period January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2028; and,
WHEREAS, the budget for the current fiscal year had included an assumption of overall personnel cost increases across labor groups; however, the proposed terms of the MMCEA Memorandum of Understanding will require a supplemental appropriation for the division listed in Exhibit A to reflect the wage adjustment in the MMCEA employee group; and,
WHEREAS, the representatives from both parties have collaboratively prepared a written Memorandum of Understanding, titled “Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Belmont and the Mid-Management Confidential Employees Association”, attached hereto as Exhibit B and presented to the City Council for approval.

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

SECTION 1. The terms outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding attached hereto as Exhibit B are hereby approved.

SECTION 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute and implement the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the City.

SECTION 3. The City Manager, in consultation with MMCEA, is authorized to make minor amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding, provided such amendments are consistent with the intent of this resolution and do not materially alter the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding.

SECTION 4. The supplemental budget appropriation for fiscal year 2024-25 listed in Exhibit A is approved.
* * *
ADOPTED March 25, 2025 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:
426

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
427
Exhibit A
City of Belmont
MMCEA Revised Compensation Plan -
Itemized Fiscal Impacts by Fund and Division
Fund Account # Division
Amount
Increase
General Fund
101 1-111-8101 City Manager - Executive Management $10,000 101 1-401-8101 Administrative Services - People Operations $5,000 101 1-503-8101 Finance - Risk Management $5,000
Total Supplemental Appropriation $20,000
FY 2024-25
The budget for the current fiscal year had included an assumption of overall personnel cost increases across labor groups; however, the proposed terms of the MMCEA MOU will require a supplemental appropriation for the following divisions to reflect the wage adjustment in the MMCEA employee group:
428

Staff Report - Revised Compensation and Benefits Plan for Unrepresented Confidential Employee Group

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 25, 2025
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Laura Kirby, Human Resources Management Analyst, [email protected] Agenda Title: Revised Compensation and Benefits Plan for Unrepresented Confidential Employee Group
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution approving revisions to the compensation and benefit plan for the unrepresented and confidential employee group.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
Established in November 2023, the benefits plan for the unrepresented and confidential employee group formalizes the compensation and benefits offered to those outside collective bargaining and employment agreements. A key provision ensures wage and benefit alignment with the Mid-Management Confidential employee group.

Analysis
The Mid-Management Confidential Employee Association recently concluded labor negotiations, resulting in a four-year labor agreement. As part of this agreement, wage adjustments include:
• 4% salary increase effective January 5, 2025.
• Annual wage adjustments in January 2026 and 2027, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with a minimum increase of 3% and a maximum of 5%.
• Annual wage adjustment in January 2028, based on Consumer Price Index (CPI), with a minimum increase of 3.5% and a maximum of 5%.
• July 2028 adjustment: Following a December 2027 salary survey conducted by the City, any classification that remains more than 4% below the median after the January 2028 wage increase will be adjusted to within 4% of the median.

The proposed revisions to the Compensation and Benefit Plan for Unrepresented Confidential Employees are limited to these wage adjustments, ensuring continued parity with the Mid-Management Confidential Employee Association.
429

Revised Compensation and Benefit Plan for Unrepresented and Confidential Employees - Staff Report Alternatives

1. Provide staff with alternative direction in whole or in part

2. Take No Action
Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Compensation and Benefits Plan for the Unrepresented Confidential Employee Group Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

The financial impact of the revisions to the compensation and benefit plan have been analyzed. The budget for the current fiscal year had included an assumption of overall personnel cost increases across labor groups and is sufficient to cover for the wage increase for the remainder of the current fiscal year for the Unrepresented and Confidential Employee group; therefore, no supplemental budget appropriation in FY 2024-25 is
required. Subsequent revisions to the Compensation and Benefit Plan as outlined above will be incorporated into the FY 2025-26 budget and long-term financial plan.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda 430

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT REVISING

THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS PLAN FOR THE UNREPRESENTED AND

CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEE GROUP
WHEREAS, the Compensation and Benefits Plan for the Unrepresented and Confidential Employee Group was initially established in November 2023 via Resolution 2023-096; and,
WHEREAS, the plan provides wage and benefit parity with the City’s MidManagement Confidential Employee Association ; and, WHEREAS, revisions have been made to the plan to maintain wage equity with the Mid-Management Confidential Employee Association, incorporating wage adjustments consistent with those recently negotiated for that group.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows: The revised Compensation and Benefits plan for the Unrepresented and Confidential Employee Group is hereby adopted effective March 25, 2025.
* * *
ADOPTED March 25, 2025 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
431

Development Entitlements for Two Retail Cannabis Dispensary Businesses on south El Camino Real

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 25, 2025
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Carlos de Melo, Community Development Director, (650) 595-7440 [email protected]
Agenda Title: Development Entitlements for Two Retail Cannabis Dispensary Businesses on the south El Camino Real corridor
Agenda Action: Ordinance
Recommendation
(1) Consider two development entitlement applications from separate applicants for cannabis retail businesses proposed to be located at 1397 El Camino Real (Canna-Bel) and 1538 El Camino Real (NUG), and for each application consider the Planning Commission recommendations for rezoning the applicable property and approval of a development agreement for the project, and Zoning Administrator recommendations for Conditional Use Permit and Design Review entitlements for the project. (2) For the 1397 El Camino Real project, introduce an ordinance rezoning 1397 El Camino Real and APN 045-243-050 into the S-3 Cannabis Overlay District, introduce an ordinance approving a development agreement for the project, and direct staff to place a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for the project on a meeting agenda with adoption of the ordinances. (3) For the 1538 El Camino Real project, introduce an ordinance rezoning 1538 El Camino Real into the S-3 Cannabis Overlay District, introduce an ordinance approving a development agreement for the project, and direct staff to place a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for the project on a meeting agenda with adoption of the ordinances.

Strategic Focus Area
Economic Development and Housing
Background
Since January 2021, the Belmont City Council has carefully evaluated the possibility of allowing cannabis-related businesses to operate within the City. After a thorough public engagement process, the Council adopted key policy changes in November 2023, establishing a framework for cannabis businesses in a designated area along the south El Camino Real corridor. This structured approach was intended to ensure economic benefits and enhanced retail experience while maintaining safety and compatibility with community values. The City Council has taken a deliberate, community-focused approach to cannabis regulation, ensuring robust public safety measures while allowing for responsible economic growth. With ongoing oversight and community engagement, the implementation of cannabis businesses in Belmont will continue to align with the City's values and strategic goals. 432

Development Entitlements for Two Retail Cannabis Dispensary Businesses on the south El Camino Real corridor Community Engagement & Policy Development
The City Council prioritized public input throughout the process, holding multiple study sessions, public hearings, and community discussions. The policy development process included the following key milestones:
• January 2021 - December 2022: The Council considered revenue diversification strategies, including the potential for cannabis businesses, and directed staff to study policy options. • Public Study Sessions (April 2022, September 2022, March 2023): Residents and stakeholders provided feedback on locations, regulations, and potential impacts. • Planning Commission Hearings (May 2023, July 2023): The Planning Commission reviewed zoning considerations, safety concerns, and recommended regulations to the City Council. • City Council Hearings (September 2023, October 2023): The Council refined policy details, including business limits and operational requirements, based on community and expert input. • Final Land Use Regulations Policy Adoption (November 2023): The Council approved General Plan amendments and zoning regulations that allow for up to two retail cannabis businesses and one distribution business within the south El Camino Real corridor, with strict distance and safety requirements.
• Regulatory Permit Framework Adoption (February 2024): The Council approved the regulatory framework for the permitting of cannabis business operations by the Police Department, including review of security measures, background checks, inspections, and ongoing monitoring of operations.

For a more detailed timeline please refer to Attachment 2.

Cannabis Business Regulations
A new S-3 Cannabis Retail and Distribution Overlay District, Attachment A, was established along south El Camino Real (between O’Neill Avenue and F Street). Businesses seeking to operate must apply to be rezoned into the S-3 District, obtain a Conditional Use Permit, and obtain a regulatory Cannabis Business Permit from the Police Department once land use entitlements have been granted. Key regulations include:
• Limited Number of Businesses: Up to two cannabis retail businesses and one distribution business.
• Distance Requirements: Businesses must be at least 600 feet apart and cannot be adjacent to schools, childcare facilities, or parks.
• Security & Safety Measures: Strict operational requirements, including background checks, security plans, and compliance with state licensing laws. These operational requirements are reviewed annually.

Economic & Community Considerations
The Belmont General Plan and Belmont Village Specific Plan support mixed commercial activities that enhance economic growth. The introduction of regulated cannabis businesses is expected to:
• Generate tax revenue to support public services.
• Provide controlled access to legal cannabis, reducing reliance on unregulated markets. • Increase local economic opportunities and job creation. 433

Development Entitlements for Two Retail Cannabis Dispensary Businesses on the south El Camino Real corridor • Enhance the local retail experience by providing community-serving businesses, reducing the need for residents to travel outside the City for these products, and keeping economic resources within the community.

Retail cannabis uses have the potential to bring additional people to downtown/commercial and mixeduse areas during both the daytime and early evening hours. Given Belmont’s limited tax revenue sources, optimizing revenue generation from this emerging sector is essential to maintaining fiscal sustainability and supporting community services. While a few cities in San Mateo County currently permit retail cannabis businesses, the local market remains unsaturated. However, retail cannabis is a highly volatile industry where success is not guaranteed.

To better understand potential outcomes, staff engaged with other jurisdictions that have implemented cannabis retail storefronts. These discussions revealed that while some businesses thrive, others struggle or close, with success often dependent on a variety of unpredictable factors. Cities have found that different business models and retail approaches appeal to distinct customer segments, making it difficult to predict which businesses will ultimately succeed.

Pre-Qualification Process
To ensure only responsible operators enter the Belmont market, the City Manager’s Office implemented a pre-qualification process for cannabis businesses. This allowed staff to evaluate proposals based on site attributes, business operations, security measures, and community benefits. • Review Team: Staff from the City Manager’s Office, Police Department, City Attorney’s Office, and Community Development assessed all applications.
• Results: Four retail businesses applied; two—Canna-Bel (1397 El Camino Real) and NUG (1538 El Camino Real)—were invited to proceed.
• Next Steps: The City Council is being asked to consider the development entitlements for two Cannabis Businesses on El Camino Real at this meeting as shown in Attachment 3 - Exhibit A and Attachment 4 - Exhibit B of the report.

Recent City Council Actions
At its February 11, 2025, meeting, the City Council reviewed the cannabis business community benefits term sheets and reaffirmed its commitment to allowing up to two cannabis retail businesses to seek rezoning and development agreement approvals within the south El Camino Real area. The Council also directed staff to proceed with reviewing both cannabis retail applications (1397 and 1538 El Camino Real) to diversify the City’s economic portfolio, provide better retail opportunity for the community, and provide a contingency plan should one operator prove unviable.

Analysis
A cannabis business seeking to operate in the City must apply to be rezoned into the S-3 Cannabis Retail and Distribution Overlay District which extends along the southern portion of El Camino Real, from O’Neill Avenue on the north to F Street and the San Carlos border to the south, obtain use permit and design review approvals, and obtain a regulatory cannabis business permit from the Police Department once land use entitlements have been granted. Key regulations for cannabis retail uses include:
• Limited Number of Businesses: Up to two cannabis retail businesses may be allowed. 434

Development Entitlements for Two Retail Cannabis Dispensary Businesses on the south El Camino Real corridor • Separation Requirements: When initially established, cannabis businesses must be at least 600 feet apart and cannot be adjacent to schools, childcare facilities, or parks. The public entrance to a cannabis retail businesses may not be located immediately adjacent to a facility that primarily provides services or hosts activities for minors on the same frontage as the entrance. • Security & Safety Measures: Strict operational requirements, including background checks, security plans, and compliance with state licensing laws. These operational requirements are reviewed annually.

Land Use Entitlement Review
Both applicants are requesting that their properties be rezoned into the S-3 Overlay District and are seeking the required use permit and design review entitlements. The S-3 Overlay District regulations (Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) Section 21.4.2(b)) allows up to two cannabis retail businesses in the District.

Both applicants properties are located within the area eligible to be included in the Overlay District and if both are approved would be the only two cannabis uses in the District – see Attachment 1 to this report.

The use permit may only be approved under District regulations (BZO 21.4.1(b)(3)) if specified findings can be made. The findings ensure that the siting of each project at a particular location within the District is compatible with other land uses, can appropriately accommodate the use, and is compliant with the locational and performance standards for cannabis uses. Design review is required for any new building or exterior building alteration to ensure projects are consistent with established requirements for building design, signage, and landscaping.

In addition to the required zoning entitlements, both projects have proposed development agreements. The proposed development agreements provide a mechanism for the projects to provide community benefits to the City and specify remedies for non-performance of the proposed community benefits as well as nonperformance of the regulatory and operating requirements related to this specialized business type.

Before approving a request to rezone property or enter into a development agreement, the Council must first hold a public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and find the action is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. Development agreements must also be consistent with the zoning and other land use regulations applicable to the property.

Land Use Element Section 2.4 in the 2035 General Plan provides that allowing commercial cannabis uses in appropriate commercial areas of the City should be considered and identifies the south El Camino Real corridor as an area to be considered. Land Use Element Policy 2.6-7 guides the implementation of Section

2.4 by identifying two actions needed to carry out Section 2.4. The first, Action 2.6-7.1, directs the creation of a Commercial Cannabis Retail & Distribution Overlay District to which property may be rezoned in order to regulate commercial cannabis land uses. The second, Action 2.6-7.2, directs the creation of licensing regulations for owners and operators of commercial cannabis businesses that do not run with the land and regulate owner and operator qualifications, business operating requirements, security standards, compliance and renewal in order to protect public and safety.

The City has completed both General Plan actions needed to allow commercial cannabis business to locate along the south El Camino Real corridor and to appropriate regulate commercial cannabis land uses and businesses to ensure public health and safety. These actions also incorporated cannabis uses into the 435

Development Entitlements for Two Retail Cannabis Dispensary Businesses on the south El Camino Real corridor zoning plan. On November 28, 2023, the Council adopted Ordinance 2023-1173 establishing the S-3 Cannabis Retail and Distribution Overlay District for the south El Camino Real area and regulations for the district. Those regulations require a use permit for retail cannabis uses and establish locational requirements, development standards and performance standards. On February 13, 2024, the Council adopted Ordinance 2024-1176 establishing comprehensive licensing regulations for cannabis businesses.

Those regulations establish background requirements, security plan requirements, operating standards, and strict compliance requirements to ensure the businesses do not have significant detrimental effects on the community and surrounding properties.

Police Department Operational/Security Plan Review
The Police Department (PD) review for the cannabis business permit centers on the operational/safety plan, security plan, and state licensing to ensure that this use will operate in accordance with all applicable laws (i.e., use of products on site or in public places would be prohibited, security personnel would be required to prevent sales to minors and loitering, cannabis products and graphics representing cannabis products may not be visible from the exterior of the facility, and products must be stored and sold from inside a completely enclosed building). In addition, background checks are required for the ownership and management team and all employees.

Both the Canna-Bel (1397 ECR) and NUG (1538 ECR) applications were preliminarily checked and cleared by the Police Department (PD). Their operational/security plans were evaluated by the PD, and meetings were completed with the applicants to ensure their operational and security plans met all of the requirements described in the city ordinance. The Canna-Bel & NUG operational and security plans have been conditionally approved, pending a compliance check when installation and construction would be completed for each building/property. Background checks have been completed for all owners and managers and will be completed for all prospective employees, if their entitlement applications are approved.

Approval Process
Rezoning and Development Agreements.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 4, 2025 to review the rezoning and development agreement applications for each project and has provided recommendations on each application to the City Council.

Use Permit and Design Review. Under Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) Section 21.4.1.b(2), the Zoning Administrator is the reviewing authority for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Design Review (DR) entitlements required for a cannabis retail use. The Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on March 11, 2025 to take public comment on those entitlements for the two applications. Because the CUP and DR entitlements for each project are dependent on the Council approving a rezoning entitlement for the project, the Zoning Administrator’s actions on those entitlements are forwarded to the Council as recommendations for Council action under BZO Section 10.5.1(b).

On March 25, 2025, the City Council is holding a public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission for the rezoning and development agreement entitlements for each project, and if the Council wishes to proceed with approving one or both applications, to introduce the ordinances that will rezone the property for the project and to introduce an ordinance that will approve the development 436

Development Entitlements for Two Retail Cannabis Dispensary Businesses on the south El Camino Real corridor agreement for the project. The Council will also consider the Zoning Administrator recommendations for the CUP and the DR entitlements for each project. The final action on these items will occur at the April 8, 2025 meeting.

Pending the approval of the land use entitlements, the Police Department will finalize their review of the Cannabis Business Permit, including completing background checks on all employees of the subject businesses.

Alternatives

1. Refer back to staff for additional information.

2. Continue the item for further discussion.

Attachments

1. Established S-3 Overlay District

2. Community Engagement & Policy Development Timeline

3. Exhibit A - 1397 El Camino Real & APN 045-243-050 – Rezone to S-3 Overlay District, Development Agreement, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review

4. Exhibit B - 1538 El Camino Real – Rezone to S-3 Overlay District, Development Agreement, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review
Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to this informational report. Future operation of cannabis retail businesses within the City will generate revenue from business and sales taxes, as well as through community benefit contributions.
☐ Funding Source Confirmed:

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Council Vision/Priority Other*
*E-Notification of agendas, public notification as required for the March 25, 2025 City Council meeting. 437
South El Camino Real Subject Parcels
1480 1409
1425
1306
1559
1595
1540
1359
1406
1510
1325
1340
1520
1300
1316
1328 1336
1360
1397
1314
1318
1320
1324
1322
1324
1332
701
1405
1300
1340
1344
875
1428
1404
1400
1404
1408
1408
1360
1364
900
1444
1455
1471
1464
1410
950
1417
1425
1429
1600
1650
1300
1350
700
1416
1400
1416
1424 951
1469
1499
1438
1440
1500
1432
1440
1448
1437
1445
1453
1465
1485
1408
1520
1480
1504
1400
1409
1456
1460
1468 1501
1513
1521 1501
1433
1441
1449 1424
1432
1440
1417
1425
1433 1538
1441 1500 1531
1539 1070 1553
1569
1579
1583
1528
1536
951
1591
1549
1250
1432
1120
1601
1556
1515
1521 1529 1537
1051 1587
1561
1516
1540
1552
1545
1557
1517
1500
1508
1525
1560
1570
1576 1584
1569
1533
1541
1524
1540 1540
1500
1501 1516
1518 1588
910
1546
1509
1517
1557
1561 1600
1565 1573
1548
1556
1566
1577
1557 1564
1001
1525
1533
1541
1549
950
969
970 949
1608 1560
1564
1617
1645
1565
1612
1572
1602
1612
1628
1621 1625
1627 1633
1021
1581 1041
1601
1572 1580
1588
1512
1516
1520
1524
1530
1536
1345
1306
625
615
1421
605
555
435
539
525
1309 550
604
477
545
1337
1442
1456
1460
1325
1335
1457
1465
1473
1511
800
601
1329
1335
600
608
608
0 125 250 500 750 1,000 Feet
Attachment 1 - Adopted S-3 Overlay Zone
South El Camino Real
438
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & POLICY DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE ATTACHMENT 2 1 Background on Cannabis Policy Analysis & Formulation – 2021-2024 A statewide initiative entitled the “Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act” (“AUMA”) was approved by California voters on the November 2016 ballot. AUMA decriminalizes (under California law), controls and regulates the cultivation, processing, manufacture, distribution, testing and sale of nonmedical marijuana, including marijuana products, for use by adults 21 years of age or older. AUMA also taxes the commercial growth and retail sale of marijuana. It does not, and cannot, affect federal regulations as to marijuana or its derivatives.

AUMA expressly preserves local control over the regulation of marijuana-related businesses and marijuana-related land uses (Business & Professions Code § 26200, et seq.) At the City Council’s strategic planning workshop held in January 2021, the Council considered several different options for diversifying City revenues and quality of life services as part of a strategy aimed at promoting fiscal sustainability and diversifying revenues. One of the potential new revenue sources identified during that discussion was the legalization and local regulation of commercial cannabis activities. The Council subsequently authorized staff to conduct preliminary assessment of policy options available to the City for consideration at future study sessions.

At its April 13, 2021, November 3, 2021, and March 22, 2022 Study Sessions, the City Council provided feedback to staff regarding establishing cannabis businesses (commercial retail & distribution) within certain areas of Belmont. At their April 12, 2022 meeting, the City Council introduced a draft ordinance which embodied a number of necessary Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) amendments to implement the development standards applicable within the proposed cannabis overlay districts, and corresponding Zoning Basemap designation amendments to establish the overlay location areas where Cannabis Retail & Distribution – S-3; and Distribution Only – S-4 would be permitted.

At their June 7, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the draft ordinance regarding the BZO amendments to implement the development standards applicable within the proposed cannabis overlay districts and corresponding Zoning Basemap amendments for the proposed S-3 & S-4 overlay districts. Significant public testimony was heard during the June 7, 2022 Commission meeting (both in-person or through virtual participation). At the conclusion of Commission discussion, the Commission forwarded recommendations to reconsider the scope/location of the potential overlay districts.

At their July 12, 2022 meeting, the City Council conducted a public hearing and considered the Draft Ordinance regarding the BZO amendments, including the Planning Commission recommendations to scale back the areas for potential overlay district zoning. Significant public testimony was also heard during the July 12, 2022 Council meeting; the public comments indicated a strong majority to abandon the zoning amendments proposal, or at a minimum, reconsider the boundaries of the proposed overlay districts. At the conclusion of Council discussion on the matter, the Council did not take action on the proposed amendments and continued the project, pending further analysis and public outreach.

At the City Council’s Strategic Priorities Workshop in March 2023, staff reviewed a range of initiatives under consideration and future action centering on the City’s strategic focus areas (Infrastructure & Mobility, Economic Development & Housing, Fiscal & Organizational Stability, Public Safety, and Quality of Life). During the course of Council discussion on these topic areas, the Council reiterated a commitment tomaximizing existing sources ofrevenue and identifying new 439
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & POLICY DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE ATTACHMENT 2 2 revenue sources to maintain financial stability for the City. The Council further indicated interest in continued exploration of potential Cannabis use regulations within reason, and in appropriate locations in the City.

At their July 25, 2023 meeting, the City Council considered and provided staff direction to explore a modified Overlay Zoning approach for Cannabis Retail & Distribution uses within the City limiting the area of eligibility for potential cannabis uses to properties along south El Camino Real between O’Neill Avenue and the San Carlos border.

By doing so, the City Council recognized that while the City has taken a deliberate and careful approach to the evolving cannabis program statewide and locally, retaining and maximizing opportunities for local businesses as the backbone of our community will benefit the City in terms of retail and medicinal services provided to the community and revenues generated, and can increase safety and reduce crimes from illegal cannabis operations and delivery services. In the meanwhile, several peninsula cities were either providing or expanding retail cannabis opportunities in this area, and they have proven to be generally safe. With the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code changes it would provide Belmont an opportunity to evaluate potential business proposals and to reduce retail and sales tax leakage to neighboring jurisdictions, with a proven cannabis track record, and allow to meet the community’s needs to evolve with the industry.

At their October 17, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, and considered the proposed:
• Land Use Element Amendments to the 2035 General Plan that would potentially allow for commercial cannabis land uses in the South El Camino Real area of the City, and, • A Draft Ordinance establishing potential cannabis retail and distribution zoning regulations for properties should they rezone within the area along south El Camino Real from O’Neill Avenue to the San Carlos border (S-3 Overlay Zone).

At the conclusion of October 17, 2023 Commission discussion, the Commission approved two resolutions (by a vote of three for and two against) recommending City Council approval of the proposed General Plan Land Use Element amendments, and Zoning Ordinance amendments regarding cannabis retail and distribution zoning regulations. The Planning Commissioners that voted against the recommendation were opposed to allowing any cannabis use within Belmont and did not cite specific concerns with the language proposed in the General Plan amendment and the Zoning Ordinance.

On November 14, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the General Plan amendments and the adoption of the S-3 Overlay Zone to allow for cannabis retail and distribution uses. The final land use policy framework was approved at the November 28, 2023 meeting. The City Council also provided review and feedback on the proposed pre-qualification process, to be run by the City Manager’s Office, for potential applicants for rezoning at the November 28, 2023 meeting.

As a follow-up item, the City Council held a public hearing on January 23, 2024 for an ordinance adopting the regulatory permit framework for review of the operational and security provisions of cannabis operations by the Police Department. The Council approved the regulatory framework on February 13, 2024, requiring Police review of State licensing, building security, background checks, inspections, and ongoing monitoring of operations on an annual basis. 440

1397 ECR – RZ-DA-CUP-DR
ATTACHMENT 3 – Exhibit A
Meeting Date: March 25, 2025
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Carlos de Melo, Community Development Director, (650) 595-7440 [email protected]
Agenda Title: 1397 El Camino Real & APN 045-243-050 – Rezone to S-3 Overlay District, Development Agreement, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review Agenda Action: Ordinance
Recommendation
Introduce an ordinance rezoning 1397 El Camino Real and APN 045-243-050 into the S-3 Cannabis Overlay District, introduce an ordinance approving a development agreement for the project, and direct staff to place a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for the project on a meeting agenda with adoption of the ordinance.

Strategic Focus Area
Economic Development and Housing
Background
The subject property is located in the City’s established S-3 Cannabis Retail & Distribution Overlay District along south El Camino Real. A full background/analysis of the City’s 2035 General Plan Land Use Element & Belmont Zoning Code Amendments to establish Cannabis Business Development Regulations, Performance Standards, the S-3 Overlay Zone, and the required entitlement structure, and review authority is discussed in the Development Entitlements for Two Retail Cannabis Dispensary Businesses on south El Camino Real corridor Staff Report. Please refer to the background/analysis and attachments in this report and its applicability to the requested entitlements for the proposed Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Dispensary Business for the subject site.

Site Location/Project Description
The projectsite islocated on the 1300 Block of the eastside of El Camino Real at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard (See Figure 1 on next page). The Firehouse Square mixed-use (residential/commercial) development, mixed commercial uses, and single-family residences are located to the north and west on Fifth Avenue, Broadway Avenue, and O’Neill Avenue. Other commercial properties/uses are located south, and the Harbor Industrial Area is located east of the subject property.

The project will be located at 1397 El Camino Real, at the site of the current Sumac restaurant. The property is a stand-alone commercial building at the corner of El Camino Real and the east-bound leg of Harbor Boulevard that backs up to the Caltrain railroad tracks. The property/project site includes a portion of APN 045-243-050 that will serve as off-street parking for the business. The project has secured a lease agreement with the property owner of APN 045-243-050 (Caltrain) to utilize this parking lot.

Access to the property is provided via an entry/exit driveway on El Camino Real. 441

1397 ECR – RZ-DA-CUP-DR
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
The existing commercial space is approximately 1,100 square feet. See Project Plans – Attachment 6.

The applicant proposes minor interior (for the building) and exterior (for the property) tenant improvements (TI) that consist of the following:
• New interior building partition walls, lighting, split HVAC & condenser units, and an ADA accessible bathroom.
• Exterior building finish material enhancements (brick face). • New wrought-iron fencing/gate with security enhancements and exterior building signage. • New landscaping along both the south Harbor Boulevard frontage, and northern property frontage; the proposed landscaping consists of a combination of new tree and shrub plantings. • An existing patio along the El Camino Real frontage will be removed.

Existing Building Photos
442

1397 ECR – RZ-DA-CUP-DR
Proposed El Camino Real Building Elevations
In general, the proposed modificationsto the site and building are non-obtrusive and are intended to blend with the adjacent commercial area building form, layout, and design. 443

1397 ECR – RZ-DA-CUP-DR
Analysis
Zoning Designation
The property/project site is currently zoned Village Corridor Mixed Use (VCMU) and is located within the area eligible to be included in the S-3 Cannabis Overlay District.

Rezoning
The S-3 Cannabis Retail and Distribution Overlay District is a zoning combining district for the area along the southern corridor of El Camino Real (from O’Neill Avenue on the north to F Street and the San Carlos border to the south) that allows cannabis use regulations to be combined with existing zoning.

The Belmont Zoning Map would be amended to include the S-3 District overlay designation for any applicable property should it be rezoned to the S-3 District within the established boundary area. The subject properties at 1397 El Camino Real and APN 045-243-050 are located within this established (November 2023) overlay area and are eligible for rezoning into this district – see Exhibit A to the Rezoning Ordinance provided as Attachment 2. The S-3 Overlay District was created previously and this application is to apply that overlay district to these particular sites.

As per Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) Section 16.1.2 – “Zoning Amendment Process”, and BZO Section 16.1.2(b) – Findings, the Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed Rezoning of the 1397 El Camino Real & APN 045-243-050 properties into the established S-3 Cannabis Retail & Distribution Overlay Combining District.

Development Agreement (DA)
The Development Agreement (DA) with this cannabis retail business provides a mechanism for the City to memorialize the proposed community benefit offer and the ability for the City to outline specific remedies for non-payment of the proposed community benefits, business license taxes, or other applicable fees. In addition, the Development Agreement provides another lever for the City to ensure compliance with the operating requirements, including the unique security measures, related to this specialized business type. The term of the Development Agreement will be for a 10-year period with an option to renew for an additional 10 years; see Exhibit A to the Development Agreement Ordinance provided as Attachment 3.

The community benefit contributions provided by the Canna-Bel business represent their individual proposal and City negotiations with their ownership entity based on their unique business operational and financial model.

Canna-Bel Community Benefit Terms:

On-going community benefit contribution of 1.5% of gross receipts starting after the first year of operation. The community benefit contribution will be distributed as follows:
o 30% directly to the City to be used for Parks and Recreation programming, scholarships, and capital needs.
o 40% to Belmont Community Fund with a provision that if Belmont Community Fund sunsets then the funds are assigned to the City.
444

1397 ECR – RZ-DA-CUP-DR
o 30% discretionary, the use of which will be determined on an annual basis by the Canna-Bel Community Advisory Board (made up of designated community stakeholders).

Planning Commission Recommendation – Rezone & Development Agreement At the March 4, 2025 Planning Commission Hearing, the Commission reviewed the proposed Rezone of the subject property (1397 El Camino Real & APN 045-243-050) into the established (November 2023) S-3 Cannabis Retail/Distribution Overlay Zone along south El Camino Real, and the Development Agreement (DA) Terms for the project. The City did receive a number of public correspondence emails (10+) leading up to the 3/4/25 Commission Hearing for this item. Additional emails and public testimony was offered at the 3/4/25 Commission meeting.

General public concerns centered on the belief that the proposed use (a Retail Cannabis Business) is inappropriate in consideration of existing residential uses to the west of the project site. Public speakers also indicated public health and safety concerns and incompatibility of the proposed Cannabis Retail Business to surrounding commercial and residential uses. See Attachment 9 for a full accounting of all email correspondence received from the required mailout/posting of the March 4, 2025 Commission Public Hearing Notice (which occurred on 2/12/25) through March 20, 2025. Any additional correspondence received from 3/21 through 3/24 will be forwarded to the City Council.

At the conclusion of their 3/4/25 discussion and deliberation, the Commission voted 4-2 to recommend the City Council approve the Rezone and Development Agreement.

Conditional Use Permit & Design Review
As per Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) Sections 10.7.3 and 21.4.1.b(2), the Zoning Administrator (ZA) is the Reviewing Authority for the Cannabis Retail Conditional Use Permit application. Design Review analysis as per BZO Section 13 is required for any new building or exterior building alteration to ensure projects are consistent with established requirements for building design, signage, and landscaping. The Zoning Administrator analysis of the required Conditional Use Permit (CUP) & Design Review (DR) Findings is provided below.

The Zoning Administrator (ZA) also conducted a public hearing on March 11, 2025 regarding the requested Canna-Bel Conditional Use Permit & Design Review entitlements, and received public testimony. General public comments were similar in nature to those received at the 3/4/25 Planning Commission Hearing. Public correspondence received via email or public comments offered at the 3/11/25 ZA Hearing focused on concerns that the proposed use (a Retail Cannabis Business) is inappropriate in consideration of existing residential uses to the west of the project site.

Public speakers also indicated similar concerns and incompatibility of the proposed Cannabis Retail Business when compared to surrounding commercial and residential uses. As per the BZO, no action was required to be taken at the 3/11/25 Zoning Administrator Hearing; the ZA hearing was designed to serve as another public comment opportunity regarding the proposed project. 445

1397 ECR – RZ-DA-CUP-DR
Findings For Conditional Use Permit & Design Review
Required CUP Findings as per Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) Section 10.7.3(a) Findings. The Zoning Administrator may grant a Use Permit only if it finds the proposed use is in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan and this Ordinance and that the following conditions have been met. The Zoning Administrator must deny the application for a Use Permit if it is unable to make the findings.
(1) The location of the proposed use is compatible to other land uses in the general neighborhood area and does not place an undue burden on existing transportation, utilities and service facilities in the vicinity.

The proposed Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business use would be located in the Belmont Village area, in proximity to main city arterials and mass public transportation options (bus and rail). The project site is currently developed with a restaurant building that is currently served by all required utilities. A remodel of the building is proposed to accommodate the proposed Cannabis Retail Business. No upgrades or extension of transportation or utility facilities would be required for the project. The project is not required to provide outdoor recreational space. Representatives from the City’s Police Department and Fire District have not identified any service concerns for the project.

A site circulation evaluation has been conducted by city staff. The project will refurbish and stripe an existing parking lot (currently owned by Caltrain and under lease agreement for use by the Canna-Bel business. Conditions of approval will be required to address any gate closure/access, parking, or safety impacts from the project. Parking for staff will be addressed within this parking lot.

Based on the foregoing, the location of the proposed project would not place an undue burden on parking, traffic circulation, or utilities serving the neighborhood, and would be compatible with surrounding uses in the established (November 2023) S-3 Cannabis Retail/Distribution Overlay District along south El Camino Real. This Finding is affirmed.
(2) The site is of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use together with all yards, open spaces, walls and fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and such other provisions required by this Ordinance.

No expansion of the building is proposed; a remodel of the existing restaurant to a Retail Cannabis Business use is proposed. Compliant accessible parking would be provided, and the project would meet its parking requirement (1 space for each 250 square feet of space) for retail commercial uses in the BZO; the proposed parking lot/restriping modifications for site will result in 13 spaces for the property.

Building lighting would be upgraded to meet current city standards. Thus, the project site is of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use. This Finding is affirmed. (3) The site will be served by streets of capacity sufficient to carry the traffic generated by the proposed use.
446

1397 ECR – RZ-DA-CUP-DR
El Camino Real and Harbor Boulevard, which intersect at the proposed Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business property at 1397 El Camino Real, have sufficient capacity to carry the traffic generated by the proposed use. This Finding is affirmed.
(4) The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions upon which approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity or the general welfare of the City.

All relevant City departments have reviewed the proposal and will require conditions of approval that should ensure that the proposed use will not adversely affect the general welfare of the City. Conditions of approval will also be included that would require conformance with the California Building Code. The Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business is also required to comply with all Chapter 13 Belmont City Code Statutes and Regulations for Safety, Registration, and Operation. In particular, as per City Code Section 13-53, the Retail Cannabis Business shall obtain a Business Registration Certificate (i.e. Police Permit) prior to operation. Therefore, as proposed and with incorporation of and adherence to conditions of approval, this Finding is affirmed.

Required CUP Supplemental Findings as per Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) 21.4.1(b)(3) (A) The establishment of the proposed use complies with the applicable development regulations.

The proposed Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business has been evaluated in conjunction with the adopted BZO Section 21.4.1(c) Development Regulations. The proposed project either already complies with these established regulations or has been conditioned to comply. This Finding is affirmed. (B) For a Cannabis Retail Use Permit, there are no more than two lawfully approved Cannabis Retail uses and approval of the use permit will not result in more than two Cannabis Retail uses in the S-3 District.

There is one other Retail Cannabis Business proposed within the established (November 2023) S-3 South El Camino Real Retail/Distribution Cannabis Overlay District. Approval of the Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business Use will not result in more than two Cannabis Retail Uses in the S-3 District. This Finding is affirmed.
(C) For a Cannabis Distribution Use Permit, there is no more than one lawfully approved Cannabis Distribution use and approval of the use permit will notresult in more than one Cannabis Distribution use in the S-3 District.

Both proposed Cannabis Businesses (at 1397 and 1538 El Camino Real) are retail based. No Cannabis Distribution Uses are currently proposed in the established S-3 District. This Finding is affirmed. (D)The use permit conditions require the use to comply with the performance standards in subsection (d) unless a modification is expressly approved by the permit.

The project (a proposed Retail Cannabis Business at 1397 El Camino Real) currently complies with or 447

1397 ECR – RZ-DA-CUP-DR
will be conditioned to comply with the adopted (November 2023) BZO Section 21.4.1(d) Performance Standards. This Finding is affirmed.
(E) The Police Department has reviewed and approved security and operations plans for the use at the proposed facility.

As noted earlier, the Police Department (PD) has completed a preliminary review of the proposed CannaBel security/operational plans. The Canna-Bel Business application was also preliminarily checked and cleared by the Police Department (PD). Their operational and security plans were evaluated by the PD to ensure these plans meet all of the requirements described in the city ordinance. The Canna-Bel Security and Operational Plans have been conditionally approved. Final review, completion, and approval of the Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business Security/Operational plans will be required prior to obtaining a Business Registration Certificate (i.e. Police Permit) prior to an operation start for the business. A Condition of Approval will be added regarding compliance with these requirements. This Finding is affirmed.

The Zoning Administrator will recommend City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business for the subject property (1397 El Camino Real & APN 045-243- 050).

Design Review
The project is required to be evaluated based on Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) Section 13.4.1 – Design Review. The proposed project – a new Retail Cannabis Business use (Canna-Bel) for the subject property at 1397 El Camino Real & APN 045-243-050 is in compliance with the BZO Section 13.4.1 requirements.

As indicated earlier, the project includes minor interior building improvements (to the current Sumac Restaurant building) that will consist of new interior building partition walls, lighting, and a new HVAC system and ADA accessible bathroom. Exterior building finish (beige/brown brick face color) material enhancements are also proposed as well as a new black wrought-iron fencing/gate with security enhancements. New landscaping for both the south Harbor Boulevard frontage, and northern property frontage is included in the Canna-Bel Design proposal. The proposed landscaping will consist of a combination of new tree and shrub plantings. An existing patio along the El Camino Real frontage will also be removed. The project also includes restriping enhancements to the rear (eastern) parking lot that will serve the Cannabis Retail business.

The new signage will consist of a combination of “Canna-Bel” individual letter and logo elements in a gold color. The new signage is proposed to be installed within the entry gate and remodeled exterior front façade of the building. The new signage will be viewable from the El Camino Real property frontage.

The proposed improvements do not include the use of extreme colors. The Zoning Administrator will recommend City Council approval of the project Design Review for the Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business for the subject property (1397 El Camino Real & APN 045-243-050). 448

1397 ECR – RZ-DA-CUP-DR
Development Regulations & Performance Standards Review
As per BZO Section 21.4.1(c) & (d), and in conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business, an assessment on the consistency and compliance with the adopted (November 2023) Cannabis Use Development Regulations and Performance Standards is required.

Below is an analysis of those BZO regulations and standards.

Development Regulations
(1) The use may only be established and operate inside a completely enclosed building.

The proposed Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business is designed, required, and conditioned to operate completely within the building. This regulation has been met. (2) The location of a Cannabis Retail or Cannabis Distribution use when initially established must comply with the following:
(A) The use must be at least 600 feet from a school or other Cannabis Retail or Cannabis Distribution use and at least 100 feet from parks and actively operated child day care centers.

The proposed Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business (at 1397 El Camino Real) is located further than 600 feet from any school or other proposed Cannabis Retail Business (NUG at 1538 El Camino Real). The Canna-Bel Business is also located further than 100 feet from any park or actively operated child day care center. See Attachment 8 for the 600 & 100 foot proximity analysis based on the above required factors. This regulation has been met.
(B) The distances in subparagraph (A) are measured from the building containing the Cannabis Retail or Cannabis Distribution use by the length of the shortest path of travel over which the general public has a right to travel to the boundary of a property containing the incompatible use.

See Attachment 8 which outlines the required 600/100 foot distances and Canna-Bel Business compliance with this regulation. This regulation has been met. (C) The public entrance to the Cannabis Retail or Cannabis Distribution use may not be located immediately adjacent to a youth-oriented business on the same frontage as the entrance.

The proposed Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business is not located adjacent to or near a youth-oriented business. This regulation has been met.
(3) The site and building must be suitably designed to be secure.

As noted earlier in this report, the Canna-Bel Business application was preliminarily checked and cleared by the Police Department (PD). Their security plan was evaluated by the PD to ensure the plan met all of the requirements described in the city ordinance. The Canna-Bel Security Plan has been conditionally approved, pending a compliance check when the installation and construction has been completed for the building/property. A Condition of Approval will be required regarding compliance with this development regulation.
449

1397 ECR – RZ-DA-CUP-DR
Performance Standards
(1) State Licensing. The use must fully comply with all applicable operational rules and regulations governing commercial cannabis activity in Business & Professions Code Division 10.

The Police Department will contribute to the compliance analysis of this Performance Standard. A condition of approval will be required regarding adherence to this performance standard. (2) Hours of Operation. A use may be open and operate only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.

The Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business will only be allowed to be open during the aforementioned operating hours. A condition of approval will be included to require compliance with this performance standard.
(3) Consumption. Consumption of cannabis on the premise must not be allowed.

A condition of approval will be included to require compliance with this performance standard. (4) Smoking. Smoking or vaping of any kind on premises must not be allowed.

A condition of approval will be included to require compliance with this performance standard. (5) Odor. Cannabis odor must not be detectible outside the building from any place accessible to the public or from adjoining private property.

The new HVAC system for the proposed Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business building at 1397 El Camino Real will replace the existing system and be in full compliance with California Building Codes as well as the Rules and Regulations of the California Department of Cannabis. As such, there is not an expectation of cannabis odor emanating from the (remodeled) building. In addition, no cannabis will be permitted to be consumed in or around the premises by smoking or vaping. A condition of approval will be included to require compliance with this performance standard. (6) Public services. Operation of the business must not place a burden on the provision of public services disproportionate to other retail uses.

The Police Department (PD) has completed a preliminary review of the proposed Canna-Bel operational/safety/security plan. Final review, completion, and approval of the aforementioned CannaBel Retail Cannabis Business plans will be required prior to obtaining a Business Registration Certificate (i.e. Police Permit) prior to an operation start for the business. The proposed retail cannabis business is not expected to create a disproportionate public service burden in comparison to other commercial retail uses within the community.
(7) Exterior Security Lighting. Adequate external lighting must be provided for security purposes. The lighting shall be sufficient to provide illumination and clear visibility to all outdoor areas, with 450

1397 ECR – RZ-DA-CUP-DR
minimal spillover on adjacent properties. The lighting must be stationary, directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, and compatible with the neighborhood.

As noted earlier, the Canna-Bel Business application was preliminarily checked and cleared by the Police Department (PD). Both of their security and lighting plans were evaluated by the PD to ensure these plans met all of the requirements described in the city ordinance. The Canna-Bel Security & Lighting Plans have been conditionally approved, pending a compliance check when the installation and construction has been completed for the building/property. A Condition of Approval will be required regarding compliance with this performance standard.
(8) Security. On-site security must be provided for Cannabis Retail or Cannabis Distribution uses during the hours of operation when clients are present.

The Canna-Bel Security Plan was preliminarily checked and has been conditionally approved by the Police Department (PD), pending a compliance check when the installation and construction has been completed for the building/property. Their security plan was evaluated by the PD to ensure the plan meets all of the requirements described in the city ordinance. (9) Commercial Cannabis Permit. The use must fully comply with all applicable local permit rules and regulations governing commercial cannabis activity, including operational permit requirements and conditions and approved operational plans under any other city ordinance or code.

The Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business is required to comply with all Chapter 13 Belmont City Code Statutes and Regulations for Safety, Registration, and Operation. In particular, as per City Code Section 13-53, the Retail Cannabis Business shall obtain a Business Registration Certificate (i.e. Police Permit) prior to operation. A condition of approval will be included to require compliance with this performance standard.
(10) In the event of a conflict between the requirements of the use permit and the requirements of a local operations permit issued by the police department, the more restrictive performance requirements apply.

A condition of approval will be included to require compliance with this performance standard.

As noted earlier, the Police Department (PD) review centered on the operational/safety plan, security plan, and state licensing to ensure that this use will operate in accordance with all applicable laws (i.e., use of products on site or in public places would be prohibited, security personnel would be required to prevent sales to minors and loitering, cannabis products and graphics representing cannabis products may not be visible from the exterior of the facility, and products must be stored and sold from inside a completely enclosed building). Final review and completion of the operational/safety/security plan for the Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business will be required prior to obtaining a Business Registration Certificate (i.e. Police Permit) prior to an operation start for the business.

As proposed and to be conditioned, no noise, lighting, parking, traffic or circulation impacts are anticipated from the project. A Condition of approval will also be included that would require 451

1397 ECR – RZ-DA-CUP-DR
conformance with the California Building Code. All relevant City departments have reviewed the proposal and will provide conditions of approval that should ensure that the proposed use will not adversely affect the general welfare of the City.

Zoning Administrator Recommendation
Based on the analysis of the BZO Cannabis Use Development Regulations and Performance Standards, and required Conditional Use Permit & Design Review Findings as described earlier in this report, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) will recommend the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for the proposed Cannabis Retail Dispensary Business (“Canna-Bel”) at 1397 El Camino Real & APN 045-243-050. A Resolution for the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review will be included in the April 8, 2025 City Council meeting agenda.

Environmental Assessment
The proposed Rezoning of the subject properties into the established S-3 Cannabis Retail & Distribution Overlay District, Development Agreement (DA), Conditional Use Permit, and Design Review (i.e. “The Project”) are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), in particular CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The City previously prepared and adopted (November 2023) an Addendum to the City’s 2017 General Plan/Belmont Village Specific Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that is appropriate and can continue to serve as the environmental assessment for the aforementioned entitlements. The scope of the current project would create no new effects or require new mitigation measures compared to what was outlined in the City’s 2017 General Plan/Belmont Village Specific Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project is consistent with the approved November 2023 Addendum. As such, no new environmental document is required.

The project would occur in an area where all public services and facilities are available to the properties eligible for inclusion in the established S-3 District. The subject property is not located in environmentally-sensitive area and is already developed with existing commercial uses/structures or parking lots. In addition, the project is also Categorically Exempt as per the CEQA Guidelines/Statutes - Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).

Community/Neighborhood Outreach
Community/Neighborhood Outreach is required in conjunction with Discretionary Review applications. In April 2024, invitations and notice to neighboring properties were mailed regarding the potential Cannabis Dispensary Business at 1397 El Camino Real (and APN 045-243-050). The invitation notified neighboring property owners, businesses, and residents about an on-site meeting with the Applicant Team and current property owner that was held on May 11, 2024. City Staff and the Applicant Team attended the neighborhood outreach meeting; however, no members of the public attended.

The applicant has also provided letters of support (13) from surrounding commercial businesses regarding the proposed Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business. In addition, the City has received two letters from City/County of San Francisco Governmental Agencies who currently oversee the three Canna-Bel affiliated businesses that indicate these businesses continue to operate in good standing.

In addition to the required mailings within the 300-foot radius of the project site, City staff has provided information on the dates and times of the Planning Commission public hearing, the Zoning Administrator hearing, and the City Council public hearing in the City’s weekly newsletters. 452

1397 ECR – RZ-DA-CUP-DR
Since the mailout of the public notice for the March 4, 2025 Planning Commission Public Hearing and through publication of the City Council agenda for the March 25, 2025 meeting, the City has received emails from the public regarding the project; a compilation of all outreach materials and the aforementioned emails is included in Attachment 9 – Community/Neighborhood Outreach. As noted earlier, any additional correspondence received from 3/21 through 3/24 will be forwarded to the City Council.

Findings For Approval
The entitlement requests require the City Council to make certain findings in order to approve or disapprove the project. Attachment 2 includes the Ordinance and required findings for the Rezone into the established (November 2023) S-3 Cannabis Retail/Distribution Overlay District (south El Camino Real corridor). Attachment 3 includes the Ordinance and required findings for the project/business Development Agreement (DA). The Conditional Use Permit & Design Review Resolution and required findings for the project is recommended to be placed on the April 8, 2025 City Council agenda with adoption of the Rezone and Development Agreement Ordinances.

Alternatives

1. Refer back to staff for additional information.

2. Continue the item for further discussion.

Attachments

1. 300-500 Foot Radius Map

2. Rezone Ordinance & Exhibit A

3. Development Agreement Ordinance & Exhibit A

4. Planning Commission Resolutions – March 4, 2025 & March 11, 2025 Zoning Administrator Staff Report

5. CEQA Addendum & Exhibits

6. Project Plans

7. Canna-Bel Operational/Security/Safety Plans

8. 600-Foot Buffer Map & 600/100-Foot Proximity Aerial Maps

9. Community/Neighborhood Outreach Materials
Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to this action. Future operation of cannabis retail businesses within the City will generate revenue from business and sales taxes, as well as through community benefit contributions.
☐ Funding Source Confirmed:
☐
Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Council Council Vision/Priority Other*
*E-Notification of agendas, public notification as required for the March 25, 2025 City Council meeting 453
^
}
µ
Œ



•W

•
Œ
]Ud
}
ud
}
uU'

Œ
u
]
vU&KUEKUh^'^UžK
‰

v^
š
Œ




šD

‰

}
v
š
Œ
]

µ
š
}
Œ
•U

v

š
Z

'/^h
•


Œ
}
u
u
µ
v
]
š
Ç
>


P


v

íïõó

o

u
]
v
}Z



o
ïìì–
ñìì–
íîõì
íîìí
íðìò
íïòì
ííìì
ííðí
íððô
òíñ
íðòð
òðí
íðñò
íðïî
íðîð
òìí
íððì
íðìñ
íðìô
íðìð
íïïò
íïïî
íïîî
íïîô
íïïñ
íïíò
õìí
íîñì
ííòì
íííì
íðòì
íðòõ
íððñ
íðíò
íðîñ
íðîô
íïòð
íïðð íðìô
íïðì
óìì
íðîí
íîòñ
õìì
íîóí
íîññ íïïñ òìð
ôðñ
õìí
íïìò
ííòí
íïîñ
íñìð
íðôì
õññ
íîõó
õîñ
íïíô
íðñï
íïõó
íïñì
òìô
íïïó
íïìì
õïñ
íðíì
íïîñ
íðìð
íðìì
íîñì
íïìò
íîòì
íðññ
íïîð
ôôñ
ôóñ
íïðì
íïðñ
ííôì
õìì
íïìì
íîðì
íðóí
íïîð
íïîì
ííñì
íïìì
ííðì
òñí
íðõõ
íðòñ
íðïó
íðìì íðîõ
íððð
íðíó
óìí
íïòì
òîñ
òìñ
òìô
íïíð
íïîõ
íîñì
òïí
íïòñ
íïìì
%
     )HHW
ïììlæìì&KKdZ/h^DW
íïõó
>D/EKZ
>
454

ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BELMONT REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT AND AROUND 1397 EL CAMINO REAL INTO THE S-3 CANNABIS RETAIL AND

DISTRIBUTION OVERLAY DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2023, the Belmont City Council provided direction to staff to explore consideration of Land Use Element Amendments to the 2035 General Plan that would potentially allow for commercial cannabis uses in the south El Camino Real area of the City; and, WHEREAS, on November 14, 2023, the Council adopted Resolution 2023-090 amending the Land Use Element of the 2035 General Plan to allow for commercial cannabis land uses in the south El Camino Real area of the City; and,
WHEREAS, 2035 General Plan Land Use Element Section 2.4 as amended declares that allowing commercial cannabis uses in appropriate commercial areas of the City should be considered and identifies the south El Camino Real as an area to be considered, and Policy 2.6-7 and actions 2.6-

7.1 and 2.6-7.2 established implementation goals of adopting a zoning overlay district for the area and establishing licensing regulations for commercial cannabis business; and, WHEREAS, on November 28, 2023, the Council adopted Ordinance 2023-1173 establishing the S-3 Cannabis Retail and Distribution Overlay District for the south El Camino Real area and regulations for the district; and,
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2024, the Council adopted Ordinance 2024-1176 establishing licensing regulations for cannabis businesses; and,
WHEREAS, Bechwati Properties, LCC (“Property Owner)”, is the fee owner of the real property located at 1397 El Camino Real within the City of Belmont and more particular shown on the Zoning Basemap Section attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Property”) which is currently zoned Village Corridor Mixed Use (VCMU); and,
WHEREAS, Belmont A & E Green Solutions, Inc., a California corporation (dba Canna-Bel) (“Developer”) has a leasehold interest in the Property and proposes to develop the Property for a cannabis retail use; and,
WHEREAS, the City received an application from the Property Owner and Developer to establish a retail cannabis use on the Property and seeking approval of an amendment to the Zoning Basemap Designation for the Property and incorporating it into the S-3 Cannabis Retail and Distribution Overlay District, as well as Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Development Agreement entitlements (the “Project”); and,
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider public testimony and a staff report for the request to rezone the Property, and rendered a recommendation as to whether the City Council should rezone the Property as requested; and, 455

WHEREAS, on the March 25, 2025, the Council held a duly noticed public hearing to take testimony from the public and the applicant, to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and to receive a staff report and information about the Project, and at the conclusion of the hearing introduced this ordinance; and, WHEREAS, on April 8, 2025, the Council at a duly noticed regular meeting the ordinance was presented for adoption by Council in accordance with state law.

WHEREAS, Council previously certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) that evaluated the environmental impacts of the City’s 2035 General Plan, Phase I Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan (BVSP), and Climate Action Plan (CAP) on October 24, 2017 (the “General Plan EIR” – SCH #2016082075), making required findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and a statement of overriding consideration for that project on November 14, 2017; and, WHEREAS, the City subsequently prepared an addendum examining the environmental effects of amending General Plan Land Use Element Section 2.4 and Policy 2.6-7, and establishing the S-3 Overlay District to allow up to two cannabis retail uses and one cannabis distribution use and found that the project would create no new effects or require new mitigation measures, and having considered the effects peculiar to the proposed Project at the Property, similarly finds the Project would create no new effects or require new mitigation measures.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS

1. The Council finds the above recitals are true and correct. The Council incorporates as part of its findings herein the findings previously made by Resolution 2023-090 and the findings in the related staff reports previously presented to the Planning Commission and Council.

2. The Council finds that adoption of this ordinance will not result in more than two retail cannabis businesses within the S-3 Overlay District and is consistent with BZO section

21.4.2(b)(2).

3. The Council finds that, as of the date of its adoption, this ordinance will not result in a retail cannabis use being located within 600 feet of a school or other cannabis retail or cannabis distribution use or within 100 feet of parks and actively operated child day care centers, and will not result in the public entrance of a cannabis retail use being located immediately adjacent to a youth-oriented business on the same frontage as the entrance, and is consistent with BZO section

21.4.1(c)(2).

4. Having reviewing all the relevant evidence before the City Council, including the information provided in the staff reports and enclosures to the Planning Commission and City Council and testimony from the public and applicant, the Council finds that the proposed Zoning Basemap (Section) designation amendment incorporating the Property into the S-3 Cannabis Retail and Distribution Overlay District is consistent with General Plan, the Belmont Village Specific Plan and the Zoning Plan.
456

SECTION 2. ZONING BASEMAP AMENDED

1. The Zoning Map of the City is amended as follows. The property comprising 1397 El Camino Real and the adjoining parking lot included within APN 045-243-050, asshown on Exhibit A (Zoning Base Map Section), is incorporated into the S-3 Cannabis Retail and Distribution Overlay District and retains its VCMU district designation in accordance with Belmont Zoning Ordinance section 21.1.

SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
457
458

ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BELMONT APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR A RETAIL CANNABIS PROJECT (CANNA-BEL) AT 1397 EL

CAMINO REAL IN THE CITY OF BELMONT
WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 65864 et seq. authorize the City of Belmont to enter into agreements for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in such property; and, WHEREAS, the City of Belmont has enacted Section 28 of the Belmont Zoning ordinance to govern the processing of development agreements by the City; and, WHEREAS, Bechwati Properties, LCC (“Property Owner)”, is the fee owner of the real property located at 1397 El Camino Real within the City of Belmont (the “Property”); and, WHEREAS, Belmont A & E Green Solutions, Inc., a California corporation (dba Canna-Bel) (“Developer”) has a leasehold interest in the Property and proposes to develop the Property for a cannabis retail use; and,
WHEREAS, Developer and Property Owner have applied for entitlements to improve the Property and operate a cannabis retail use on the Property, including a rezoning of the property into the S3 Cannabis Retail and Distribution Overlay District, a use permit and design review under Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 21.4.1(b), and a development agreement (the “Project”), and, WHEREAS, to ensure that the intent of the City, Developer and Property Owner with respect to the approvals for the project entitlements is carried out, the parties desire voluntarily to enter into the Development Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A to Attachment “3”, to facilitate development of the Project subject to the conditions and requirements included in the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider public testimony and a staff report for the requested development agreement, and rendered a recommend as to whether the City Council should approve the development agreement; and,
WHEREAS, on the March 25, 2025, the Council held a duly noticed public hearing to take testimony from the public and the applicant, to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and to receive a staff report and information about the Project, and at the conclusion of the hearing introduced this ordinance; and, WHEREAS, on April 8, 2025, the Council at a duly noticed regular meeting at which the ordinance was presented for adoption by Council in accordance with state law.

WHEREAS, Council previously certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) that evaluated the environmental impacts of the City’s 2035 General Plan, Phase I Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan (BVSP), and Climate Action Plan (CAP) on October 24, 2017 (the “General Plan EIR” – SCH #2016082075), making required findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and a statement of overriding consideration for that project on November 14, 2017; and, 459

WHEREAS, the City subsequently prepared an addendum examining the environmental effects of amending General Plan Land Use Element Section 2.4 and Policy 2.6-7, and establishing the S-3 Overlay District to allow up to two cannabis retail uses and one cannabis distributions use and found that the project would create no new effects or require new mitigation measures, and having considered the effects peculiar to the proposed Project at the Property, similarly finds the Project would create no new effects or require new mitigation measures.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS
Based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report to the City Council dated March 25, 2025, the presentation to the Council and supporting documents and any public testimony received, and in accordance with Government Code Section 65867.5(b) and Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 28.8(b), the City Council finds that the provisions of the Development Agreement are consistent with the City's General Plan, the Belmont Village Specific Plan, and the zoning and other land use regulations applicable to the Property.

SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVAL
The Development Agreement for the Project is approved. The Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the Development Agreement on behalf of the City.

SECTION 3. RECORDATION
No later than 10 days after the Development Agreement is effective and has been executed by all parties, the City Clerk is to record a copy of the Development Agreement with the San Mateo County Recorder, as required by Government Code Section 65868.5.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Ordinance takes effect 30 days after its adoption. * * *
The City Council of the City of Belmont, California introduced the foregoing ordinance, on March 25, 2025 and adopted the ordinance at a regular meeting held on [insert date], 2025 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
460

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
461
1750\36\3890249.2
EXHIBIT A to ATTACHMENT 3

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Belmont
City Clerk's Office
One Twin Pines Lane
Belmont, California 94002
Exempt from Recording Fee
Government Code Section 27383
(Space Above For Recorder's Use)

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
By and Between

THE CITY OF BELMONT
and
BELMONT A & E GREEN SOLUTIONS, INC.

DBA CANNA-BEL
Related to the
Entitlement of a Retail Cannabis Use at 1397 El Camino Real 462

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
i
1750\36\3890249.2
ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Definitions............................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Capitalized Terms. ................................................................................................ 4

1.3 Exhibits. ................................................................................................................ 4 ARTICLE II GENERAL PROVISIONS ...................................................................................... 4

2.1 Parties. ................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Description of Property. ........................................................................................ 7

2.3 Effective Date. ...................................................................................................... 7

2.4 Execution and Recording. ..................................................................................... 7

2.5 Term. ..................................................................................................................... 7

2.6 Suspension. ........................................................................................................... 7

2.7 Termination. .......................................................................................................... 8

2.8 Force Majeure. ...................................................................................................... 8

2.9 Provisions Required by Statute. ............................................................................ 9 ARTICLE III DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY .............................................................. 9

3.1 Use of the Property and Applicable Law. ............................................................. 9

3.2 No Conflicting Enactments. ................................................................................ 10

3.3 Fees and Taxes. ................................................................................................... 11

3.4 Timing of Development. ..................................................................................... 11

3.5 Reservations of Authority. .................................................................................. 11

3.6 Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations. ................................................... 12

3.7 Initiatives and Referenda. ................................................................................... 12

3.8 Compliance with Requirements of Other Governmental Entities. ..................... 12

3.9 City's Police Power. ............................................................................................ 13

3.10 Subsequent Development Approvals for the Property........................................ 14

3.11 Life of City Approvals and Subsequent Approvals. ........................................... 14

3.12 Developer Obligations and Public Benefits. ....................................................... 14

3.13 Mutual Obligations of the Parties. ...................................................................... 15

ARTICLE IV AMENDMENT, CANCELLATION, AND TERMINATION OF
AGREEMENT .................................................................................................... 16

4.1 Amendment or Cancellation Procedure. ............................................................. 16

4.2 Requirement for a Writing. ................................................................................. 16

4.3 Amendments to Development Agreement Legislation. ...................................... 16

4.4 Amendment of City Approvals. .......................................................................... 16

4.5 Effect of Termination on Developer's Rights and Obligations. .......................... 17 ARTICLE V ANNUAL REVIEW ............................................................................................. 17

5.1 Time of Review................................................................................................... 17

5.2 Required Information from Developer. .............................................................. 18 463

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ii
1750\36\3890249.2

5.3 Determination of Good Faith Compliance. ......................................................... 18

5.4 No Waiver. .......................................................................................................... 18

5.5 Reservation of Rights. ......................................................................................... 19 ARTICLE VI DEFAULT, REMEDIES, AND TERMINATION .............................................. 19

6.1 Default................................................................................................................. 19

6.2 Remedies for Default. ......................................................................................... 19

6.3 Notice and Procedure Regarding Defaults. ......................................................... 20

6.4 Mutual Agreement for Cure of Certain Defaults. ............................................... 20

6.5 Alternative Procedure Regarding Defaults; Annual Review. ............................. 20

6.6 Failure to Assert; No Waiver. ............................................................................. 21 ARTICLE VII ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE .............................................................................. 21 ARTICLE VIII TRANSFERS, ASSIGNMENTS ...................................................................... 21

8.1 Covenants Running with the Land. ..................................................................... 21

8.2 Assignment and Transfer. ................................................................................... 21 ARTICLE IX MORTGAGEE PROTECTION .......................................................................... 22

9.1 Mortgage Protection............................................................................................ 22

9.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. .................................................................................. 22

9.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee. ......................................................................... 22

9.4 No Supersedure. .................................................................................................. 23 ARTICLE X INDEMNIFICATION ........................................................................................... 23

10.1 No Duty of City; Hold Harmless. ....................................................................... 23

10.2 Indemnification. .................................................................................................. 23

10.3 Joint and Several Liability. ................................................................................. 23 ARTICLE XI NOTICES............................................................................................................. 24

11.1 Notices. ............................................................................................................... 24 ARTICLE XII MISCELLANEOUS ........................................................................................... 25

12.1 Third-Party Legal Challenge. .............................................................................. 25

12.2 Bankruptcy. ......................................................................................................... 25

12.3 Applicable Law/Venue. ...................................................................................... 25

12.4 Reimbursement of Development Agreement Costs and Fees............................. 26

12.5 Further Assurances.............................................................................................. 26

12.6 Severability. ........................................................................................................ 26

12.7 Nondiscrimination............................................................................................... 26

12.8 Developer Right to Rebuild. ............................................................................... 26

12.9 Headings. ............................................................................................................ 26 464

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
iii
1750\36\3890249.2

12.10 Agreement is Entire Understanding. ................................................................... 26

12.11 Interpretation. ...................................................................................................... 27

12.12 Recordation of Termination. ............................................................................... 27

12.13 Signature Pages; Execution in Counterparts. ...................................................... 27 465
1750\36\3890249.2

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into on the _____ day of __________, 2025, by and between the CITY OF BELMONT, a municipal corporation ("City"), and Belmont A & E Green Solutions, Inc. (dba Canna-Bel), a California corporation ("Developer") and Bechwati Properties LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, (the "Property Owner"), under the authority of Sections 65864 – 65869.5 of the California Government Code and Section 28 of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance. The City, Developer, and Property Owner are, from time to time, individually referred to in this Agreement as a "Party" and collectively referred to as the "Parties."

RECITALS
A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Government Code Sections 65864 – 65869.5 (the "Development Agreement Statute"), which authorizes the City and any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property to enter into a development agreement and, among other things, establish certain development rights in property which is the subject of a development project application. The City Council of the City of Belmont (the "City Council") adopted Section 28 of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance to govern the processing of development agreements by the City.

B. The operation of commercial cannabis activities is a highly regulated business activity and is subject to various state and local laws and regulations. On November 28, 2023, the City adopted a resolution amending the Land Use Element of the 2035 General Plan that would allow for commercial cannabis land uses and establishment of an overlay zone allowing for potential cannabis retail and distribution businesses.

C. Government Code Section 65865 requires than an applicant for a development agreement hold a legal or equitable interest in the real property that is the subject of the development agreement.

D. Developer affirms that it has a leasehold interest in that certain property located within the City of Belmont, County of San Mateo, State of California, as further described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property") pursuant to a lease with the Property Owner for the purpose of carrying out this Project.

E. Developer is a Cannabis Business and has applied for entitlements and permits to operate a Cannabis Retail establishment, as may be modified in the City Approvals defined in Recital F below (the "Project").

F. The following approvals, entitlements, and findings were adopted by the City with respect to the Project after duly and properly noticed public hearings:
i. On ________, the Council found the Project consistent with the certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) that evaluated the environmental impacts of the City’s 2035 General Plan, Phase I Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan (BVSP), and Climate Action 466
-2-
1750\36\3890249.2
Plan (CAP) on October 24, 2017 (the “General Plan EIR” – SCH #2016082075) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), found the Project would create no new effects or require new mitigation measures, and that no further environmental document was needed. ii. On _____, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. ___________, rezoning the Property to the S-3 Overlay District.
iii. On ___, the City Council adopted Resolution No. ____, approving the Conditional Use Permit for the Cannabis Retail use.
iv. On _____, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. ___ approving this Development Agreement as more fully set forth below.

The City actions identified above are collectively the "City Approvals." G. The development of the Project may require future discretionary approvals and will require ministerial approvals from the City, potentially including, but not limited to, encroachment permits, demolition permits, grading permits, building permits, and certificates of occupancy ("Subsequent Approvals").

H. To ensure that the intent of the City and Developer with respect to the City Approvals is carried out, the Parties desire voluntarily to enter into this Agreement to facilitate development of the Project subject to the conditions and requirements included in this Agreement.

I. The Planning Commission reviewed this Agreement at a public hearing held on March 4, 2025 and as part of its recommendation to the City Council determined that this Agreement is consistent with the City's general plan, any applicable specific plan, and any zoning or land use regulations applicable to the Property.

J. The City Council reviewed this Agreement at a public hearing held on _____________ and found that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the City's general plan and any applicable specific plan and are consistent with the zoning and other land use regulations applicable to the property, as well as the Development Agreement Statute, and, therefore, approved this Agreement by Ordinance No. ______________, introduced on ____________ and adopted on ______________ (the "Adoption Date"). Ordinance No. ____ (the "Enacting Ordinance") will become effective on ______________ (the "Effective Date").

NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing Recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, City and Developer agree as follows:

AGREEMENT
The introductory paragraph, the Recitals, and all defined terms set forth therein are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if hereinafter fully and completely rewritten. 467
-3-
1750\36\3890249.2

ARTICLE I

DEFINITIONS

1.1 Definitions.

The following defined terms are used in this Agreement:

1.1.1 "Adoption Date" is defined in Recital J.

1.1.2 "Agreement" is defined in the first paragraph, page 1.

1.1.3 "Annual Review Form" is defined in Section 5.2.

1.1.4 "Applicable Law" is defined in Section 3.1.4.

1.1.5 "Assignment" is defined in Section 8.2.

1.1.6 "Cannabis Business" means any business operating a cannabis retail or a cannabis distribution use, either as the sole use or in combination with other uses, on or from property located within the City of Belmont and includes not-for-profit retail and distribution use.

1.1.7 "Cannabis Retail" means a use involving the retail sale of cannabis or cannabis products to customers at fixed located locations or by delivery.

1.1.8 "CEQA" is defined in Recital F.

1.1.9 "City" is defined in the first paragraph, page 1 and in Section 2.1.1.

1.1.10 "City Approvals" is defined in Recital F.

1.1.11 "City Council" is defined in Recital A.

1.1.12 "City Law" is defined in Section 3.2.

1.1.13 "Complaining Party" is defined in Section 6.3.

1.1.14 "Declaration of Default" is defined in Section 6.3.

1.1.15 "Default" is defined in Section 6.1.

1.1.16 "Defaulting Party" is defined in Section 6.3.

1.1.17 "Development Agreement Statute" is defined in Recital A.

1.1.18 "Developer" is defined in the first paragraph, page 1 and in Section 2.1.2.

1.1.19 "Effective Date" is defined in Recital J and in Section 2.3.

1.1.20 "Enacting Ordinance" is defined in Recital J.
468
-4-
1750\36\3890249.2

1.1.21 "Impact Fees" are defined in Section 3.3.1.

1.1.22 "Notice of Default" is defined in Section 6.3.

1.1.23 "Party" and "Parties" are defined in the first paragraph, page 1.

1.1.24 "Project" is defined in Recital F.

1.1.25 "Property" is defined in Recital D.

1.1.26 "Property Owner" is defined in the first paragraph, page 1.

1.1.27 "Subsequent Approvals" is defined in Recital G.

1.1.28 "Term" is defined in Section 2.5.

1.1.29 "Third Party Challenge" is defined in Section 12.1.

1.1.30 "Vesting Statutes" is defined in Section 3.12.3.

1.2 Capitalized Terms.

If any capitalized terms contained in this Agreement are not defined above, then any such terms shall have the meaning otherwise ascribed to them in this Agreement.

1.3 Exhibits.

The following Exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement:

Exhibit A: Legal Description
Exhibit B: Annual Review Form

ARTICLE II

GENERAL PROVISIONS

2.1 Parties.

2.1.1 The City.
(a) The City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California. The office of the City is located at One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California 94002. "City," as used in this Agreement, includes the City of Belmont and any assignee or successor to its rights, powers and responsibilities. (b) The City represents and warrants that, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement:
469
-5-
1750\36\3890249.2
(i) The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance of the obligations of City have been duly authorized by all necessary actions and approvals required for a municipal corporation;
(ii) The City is in good standing and has all necessary powers under the laws of the State of California and in all other respects to enter into and perform the undertakings and obligations of this Agreement; and
(iii) This Agreement is a valid obligation of City enforceable in accordance with its terms.

2.1.2 The Developer.
(a) Developer is Belmont A&E Green Solutions, Inc., a California corporation. For the purposes of this Agreement the Developer's office is located at 2052 Monroe Avenue, Belmont California, 94002.
(b) Developer represents and warrants that, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Developer:
(i) Has entered into a lease agreement with Property Owner of the Property;
(ii) Is duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California;
(iii) Is qualified and authorized to do business in the State of California and has duly complied with all requirements pertaining thereto; and (iv) Is in good standing and has all necessary powers under the laws of the State of California to lease property and in all other respects enter into and perform the undertakings and obligations of this Agreement.
(c) Developer further represents and warrants:
(i) That no approvals or consents of any persons are necessary for the execution, delivery or performance of this Agreement by Developer, except as have been obtained;
(ii) That the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance of the obligations of Developer have been duly authorized by all necessary actions and approvals required under any partnership or other agreement for the limited partnership constituting Developer;
(iii) That this Agreement is a legal, valid, and binding obligation of Developer enforceable in accordance with its terms;
470
-6-
1750\36\3890249.2
(iv) That the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by the Developer does not and will not materially conflict with, or constitute a material violation or material breach of, or constitute a default under (a) the partnership agreements of the Developer, (b) any law, rule, or regulation binding upon or applicable to the Developer, or (c) any material agreements to which Developer is a party;
(v) That, unless otherwise disclosed in writing to the City prior to the date of Council adoption of this Agreement and except for threats of litigation expressed in public hearings relating to the City Approvals, to the Developer's actual knowledge, there is no existing or pending or threatened litigation, suit, action, or proceeding before any court or administrative agency affecting the Developer or the Property that would, if adversely determined, materially and adversely affect the Developer's ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement or to develop and operate the Project; and
(vi) That Developer or any person or entity owning or operating the Property, has duly obtained and maintained, or will duly obtain and maintain, all licenses, permits, consents, and approvals required by all applicable governmental authorities to develop, sell, lease, own, and operate the Project on the Property.

2.1.3 The Property Owner.
(a) Property Owner is Bechwati Properties, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company. For the purposes of this Agreement the Property Owner's office is located at 43053 Sabercat Place, Fremont California 94539.
(b) Property Owner represents and warrants that, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Property Owner:
(i) Is the legal owner of the Property;
(ii) Has entered into a lease agreement with Developer; (iii) Consents to the terms of this Agreement;
(iv) Consents to the recordation of this Agreement against the title of the Property.

2.1.4 Relationship of City and Developer.

The Parties specifically acknowledge that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by the Parties and that the Developer is an independent contracting entity and not an agent or partner of City. The Parties further acknowledge that no Party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder and that each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants, and conditions contained in this Agreement.

None of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between or among the Parties in the business of Developer or Property Owner, the affairs of the 471
-7-
1750\36\3890249.2
City, or otherwise. The Parties hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained in this Agreement or in any document executed in connection with this Agreement shall be construed as making City, Property Owner, or Developer joint venturers or partners.

This Agreement does not require the Developer or Developer's contractors to pay prevailing wages if the Project is not a "public work" apart from any potentially applicable State Labor Code requirements and implementing regulations of the Department of Industrial Relations pertaining to "public works" (collectively, "Prevailing Wage Laws"). The Parties agree and acknowledge that the City makes no representation as to the applicability of Prevailing Wage Laws to the Project, and it is the Developer's sole responsibility to determine which, if any, Prevailing Wage Laws apply.

2.2 Description of Property.

The Property which is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit A attached hereto.

2.3 Effective Date.

This Agreement shall become effective upon the effective date of the Enacting Ordinance approving this Agreement (the "Effective Date"), as set forth in Recital J of this Agreement.

2.4 Execution and Recording.

The Developer and Property Owner have executed and acknowledged this Agreement. Not later than ten (10) days after the Adoption Date, the City shall execute and acknowledge this Agreement. Not later than ten (10) days after the Effective Date, the City Clerk shall cause recordation of this Agreement with the San Mateo County Recorder against the Property, provided that a referendum applicable to the Enacting Ordinance has not been timely submitted to the City.

2.5 Term.

The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date and continue for a period of ten (10) years from the Effective Date (the "Term"), unless the Term is terminated, modified, or extended by the terms of this Agreement. Upon City's sole discretion, the Term may be extended for an additional ten (10) year term and so long as the Project is in compliance with all applicable conditions of approval and City Law.

2.6 Suspension.

The Developer must cease all Cannabis Business operations, upon notification by the City of the occurrence of any of the following events ("Suspension Event"):

2.6.1 the Developer is in Default and has not cured such Default in accordance with Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of this Agreement;
472
-8-
1750\36\3890249.2

2.6.2 the Developer operates the Cannabis Business in a manner that endangers public health and safety, including but not limited to (i) failing to prevent conduct of patrons in and around the immediate vicinity of the Property that is disruptive, creates excessive noise, constitutes a nuisance, or is unlawful, (ii) failing to deter crimes against patrons on the Property or in the immediate vicinity of the Property, or (iii) failing to operate the business in strict accordance with all state and local permits and regulatory requirements;

2.6.3 any permit or license necessary to operate a Cannabis Business is suspended.

The City will provide written notification to Developer of a Suspension Event and the reason for such suspension. Within ten (10) business days of City providing such notice Developer may request the suspension be lifted and Developer's reason for lifting the suspension. Upon receipt of such request from Developer, City will schedule a public hearing before the City Council at the earliest available City Council meeting, but not later than sixty (60) days from the date of the request. The City Council shall consider the suspension and may either (i) end the suspension, (ii) end the suspension upon certain conditions being fulfilled, or (iii) terminate this Agreement. If Developer has not requested the suspension be lifted within ten (10) business days, the City may elect to terminate this Agreement.

2.7 Termination.

This Agreement shall terminate upon the occurrence of any of the following events:

2.7.1 the expiration of the Term;

2.7.2 the Developer no longer has a possessory, legal or other equitable interest in the Property;

2.7.3 the Developer has ceased all operations related to the Project on the Property for a period of thirty (30) consecutive days;

2.7.4 Federal enforcement of the Federal Controlled Substances Act against Developer, Property Owner, or City;

2.7.5 any permit or license necessary to operate a Cannabis Business is terminated;

2.7.6 pursuant to a public hearing or other termination in accordance with Section

2.6. Upon termination of this Agreement, either by expiration of otherwise, Developer shall have no right to engage in any Cannabis Business on the Property, except as the City Council may affirmatively allow by appropriate subsequent action.

2.8 Force Majeure.
473
-9-
1750\36\3890249.2

2.8.1 Performance by either City or Developer shall not be deemed to be in Default, and the Term shall be extended, where delays are due to: (a) natural disasters that are not caused by, are outside the reasonable control of, and at the time of entering into this Agreement are not known to and cannot be anticipated by the Developer, including without limitation floods, earthquakes, and fires; (b) a fire or flood during construction after issuance of a building permit, whether or not the result of a natural disaster, a third party, or negligence by Developer or Developer's employee, agent or contractor (but not intentional acts or gross misconduct of the Developer); and (c) third-party litigation challenging this Agreement, the City Approvals, or the Subsequent Approvals, which delays any activity contemplated herein.

2.8.2 An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period of the enforced delay, shall commence to run from the time of commencement of the cause, and will be deemed granted if notice by the Party claiming such extension and demonstrating that the delay is caused by an event of Force Majeure, is sent to the other within ten (10) days from the commencement of the cause and such extension of time is not rejected in writing by the other Party within ten (10) days of receipt of the notice. In the event the other Party rejects such notice, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith for a period of at least 30 calendar days. In no event shall the cumulative period of enforced delay under this Section 2.6 exceed one (1) year.

Notwithstanding this Section 2.6, the limitation on Impact Fees provided in Section 3.3 below may not be extended due to enforced delay.

2.9 Provisions Required by Statute.

The Development Agreement Statute provides, among other things, that a development agreement shall specify the following:

2.9.1 Duration of the Agreement. See Sections 2.5 and 2.6 of this Agreement.

2.9.2 Permitted Uses of the Property. See Section 3.1.2 of this Agreement.

2.9.3 Density or Intensity of Uses. See Section 3.1.2 of this Agreement and the City Approvals.

2.9.4 Maximum Height and Size of Proposed Buildings. See Section 3.1.2 of this Agreement and the City Approvals.

2.9.5 Reservation or Dedication of Land for Public Purposes. See Section 3.1.2 of this Agreement and the City Approvals.

2.9.6 Periodic Review at Least Annually. See Article V of this Agreement.

ARTICLE III

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY

3.1 Use of the Property and Applicable Law.

3.1.1 Subject to Agreement.
474
-10-
1750\36\3890249.2
The Property is hereby made subject to the provisions of this Agreement. All development of, or on, the Property, or any portion thereof, shall be undertaken only in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement and with Applicable Law. Developer shall additionally be required to obtain all state required licenses required for the operation of a Cannabis Business.

3.1.2 Permitted Uses.

The permitted uses of the Property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes shall be governed by Applicable Law.

3.1.3 Laws Governing Cannabis Activities.

The operation of a Cannabis Business is a highly regulated business activity and is subject to various state and local laws and regulations. This Agreement does not, and the City cannot and does not intent to, give Developer the right to continue its operations without complying with applicable state and local laws governing its operations. Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all applicable state permits, approvals and consents, even if the applicable state laws and regulations are altered following the Effective Date.

3.1.4 Applicable Law.
"Applicable Law" includes the City Approvals, this Agreement, the Subsequent Approvals when approved by the City, and those City ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, standards, policies, conditions, and specifications applicable to the Property in effect on the Effective Date, except as otherwise provided in Sections 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, and 3.12.

3.2 No Conflicting Enactments.

Except as and to the extent required by state or federal law, and subject to the provisions of this Agreement and Sections 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, and 3.12 below, the City shall not impose on the Property any plan, ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, standard, policy, condition, or specification, including by initiative (each individually, a "City Law"), that has any of the following effects on the rights provided by Applicable Law:

3.2.1 Changes any land use designation or permitted use of the Property from that shown in Applicable Law;

3.2.2 Limits or controls the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of the approval, development, or construction of all or any part of the Property except as set forth in Applicable Law; or

3.2.3 Limits or restricts any right specifically granted by the City Approvals, including but not limited to permitted uses and density and intensity of use and maximum height and size of buildings; or
475
-11-
1750\36\3890249.2

3.2.4 Imposes any requirements for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes except as set forth in Applicable Law.

3.3 Fees and Taxes.

3.3.1 Impact Fees. Developer shall pay if and when due all Impact Fees imposed by the City which are in force and effect within the jurisdiction of the City for the class of Subsequent Approvals being applied for. "Impact Fees" are the monetary amount charged by City in connection with a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of mitigating the impacts of the development project or development of the public facilities related to the development project, including any "fee" as that term is defined by Government Code Section 66000(b). No Impact Fees will be assessed for the entitlements that are being granted under this Development Agreement.

3.3.2 Business License Tax. Developer shall pay to the City when due the business license tax, in accordance with the provisions of City of Belmont City Code Chapter 23, Article 6. Any failure to pay such business license tax shall be considered a default of this Agreement.

3.4 Timing of Development.

Developer has no obligation to develop or to construct the Project. The timing, sequencing, and phasing of the Project is solely the responsibility of Developer in the exercise of its business judgment so long as it is consistent with Applicable Law. In particular, the Parties desire to avoid the result of Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465, where the failure of the parties therein to consider and expressly provide for the timing of the development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties' agreement. The Parties therefore acknowledge that Developer shall have the right to develop the Project at such time as Developer deems appropriate in the exercise of its business judgment so long as such development is consistent with Applicable Law.

3.5 Reservations of Authority.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, and notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3.2, at the time Subsequent Approvals are applied for, the following regulations and provisions shall apply to those Subsequent Approvals as they are in effect at the time of those Subsequent Approvals:

3.5.1 Processing fees and processing charges of every kind and nature imposed by the City, including application, inspection, and monitoring fees, which are in force and effect within the jurisdiction of the City for the class of Subsequent Approvals being applied for.

3.5.2 All taxes, assessments, and use charges imposed by the City which are in force and effect within the jurisdiction of the City for a broadly based class of taxpayers, land, or Subsequent Approvals, as applicable, on which they are imposed.

3.5.3 Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matter of 476
-12-
1750\36\3890249.2
procedure, which are in force and effect within the jurisdiction of the City for the class of Subsequent Approvals being applied for.

3.5.4 Regulations governing construction standards and specifications including, without limitation, the California Building Standards Codes and local amendments thereto, city grading regulations, and all other uniform construction codes which are in force and effect within the jurisdiction of the City for the class of Subsequent Approvals being applied for.

3.6 Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations.

The City may, during the term of this Agreement, apply such newer City Laws that are in force and effect within the jurisdiction of the City for the class of Subsequent Approvals being applied for and which are not in conflict with the terms of this Agreement. The City may also modify the Applicable Law to address a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety that cannot reasonably be addressed by other means. Nothing in this Agreement limits the City’s authority to apply and enforce the regulations in Belmont City Code Chapter 13 applicable to cannabis businesses to a cannabis business operating or seeking to operate on the Property or to apply and enforce such newer cannabis business regulations as may be adopted from time to time.

3.7 Initiatives and Referenda.

3.7.1 If, during the Term of this Agreement, any City Law is enacted or imposed by a citizen-sponsored initiative or referendum, or by the City Council directly or indirectly in connection with any proposed initiative or referendum, which City Law would conflict with this Agreement, such City Law shall not apply to the Property. The Parties, however, acknowledge that the City's approval of this Agreement is a legislative action subject to referendum.

3.7.2 Without limiting the generality of any of the foregoing, no moratorium imposed by the City affecting subdivision maps, building permits, or other Subsequent Approvals shall apply to the Property during the Term of this Agreement. Developer agrees and understands that the City does not have authority or jurisdiction over another public agency's authority to grant a moratorium.

3.7.3 The timing, sequencing, and phasing of development within the Project shall be consistent with those timing, sequencing and phasing provisions specified in this Agreement, the City Approvals, and Applicable Law.

3.7.4 The City shall cooperate with Developer and shall undertake such actions as may be necessary to ensure this Agreement remains in full force and effect and that no conflicting enactments are imposed on the Property, except as otherwise authorized by this Agreement.

3.8 Compliance with Requirements of Other Governmental Entities.

3.8.1 During the Term, Developer, at no cost to City, shall comply with lawful requirements of, and obtain all permits and approvals required by other local, regional, state and federal agencies having jurisdiction over Developer's activities in furtherance of this Agreement. 477
-13-
1750\36\3890249.2
Developer shall pay all required fees when due to federal, state, regional, or other local governmental agencies other than the City and acknowledges that City does not control the amount of any such fees.

3.8.2 City shall cooperate with Developer in Developer's effort to obtain permits and approvals from federal, state, regional, and other local governmental agencies, provided that same does not impose any costs on or require the City to incur any costs without compensation or reimbursement, or require the City to amend any of the City's policies, regulations, or ordinances.

3.8.3 As provided in California Government Code Section 65869.5, this Agreement shall not preclude the application to the Property of changes in state or federal laws, regulations, plans, or policies, and the City may enforce changes in local laws, regulations, plans or policies that are specifically mandated by changes in state or federal laws, regulations, plans or policies or required to prevent the City from incurring liabilities or other costs resulting from such changes. In the event changes in the state or federal laws prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be modified as may be necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or regulations. The Parties shall meet and confer in good faith in order to determine whether such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified as may be necessary to comply with changes in the law, and City and Developer shall agree to such action as may be reasonably required. It is the intent of the Parties that any such modification be limited to that which is necessary and to preserve to the extent possible the original intent of the Parties in entering into this Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the City or Developer from contesting by any available means (including administrative or judicial proceedings) the applicability to the Property of any such state or federal laws or regulations.

3.8.4 To the extent that any actions of federal or state agencies (or actions of other governmental agencies, including City, required by federal or state agencies, or actions of City taken in good faith to the extent necessary to prevent the City from incurring liability as a result of failure to comply with actions of federal, state or other governmental agencies) have the effect of preventing, delaying, or modifying development or the use of the Property or any portion thereof, City shall not in any manner be liable for any such prevention, delay, or modification.

Such actions include, but are not limited to, state and federal cannabis regulations and actions of the City or other governmental agencies as a result; flood plain or wetlands or endangered species designations and actions of City or other governmental agencies as a result; the imposition of air quality or transportation measures or sanctions and actions of City or other governmental agencies as a result; or changes to CEQA and actions of City or other governmental agencies as a result.

As a condition to being able to proceed with development, Developer may be required, at its cost, to participate in such regional or local programs and to be subject to such development restrictions as may be necessary or appropriate by reason of actions of federal, state or other governmental agencies (or action of City taken in order to prevent adverse impacts upon City by actions of federal, state, or other governmental agencies).

3.9 City's Police Power.

The Parties acknowledge this Agreement constitutes a lawful limitation on the City's police power. The Parties further acknowledge and agree that the limitations, reservations, and 478
-14-
1750\36\3890249.2
exceptions contained in this Agreement are intended to reserve to the City that part of its police power which are not otherwise addressed in this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed to reserve to the City those parts of its police powers which cannot be restricted by contract. Subject to the limitations specified in this Agreement, the City intends that rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications of City applicable to the development of the Project shall be the Applicable Law.

3.10 Subsequent Development Approvals for the Property.

3.10.1 Applications for Subsequent Approvals are anticipated to be submitted to the City by the Developer. Applications for Subsequent Approvals shall be processed diligently in good faith by the City and considered in a manner consistent with the rights granted by this Agreement and Applicable Law.

3.10.2 Nothing herein shall limit the ability of the City to require the necessary reports, analyses, or studies to assist in determining whether the requested Subsequent Approval is consistent with Applicable Law and this Agreement. City's review of the Subsequent Approvals shall be consistent with this Agreement, including without limitation Section 3.2 of this Agreement. To the extent that is consistent with CEQA, as determined by the City in its reasonable discretion, City shall utilize the Environmental Impact Report as described in Recital F to review the environmental effects of the Subsequent Approvals.

3.10.3 Notwithstanding the above, as required by Government Code Section 65867.5, any and all tentative maps prepared for a subdivision of the Property shall comply with the provisions of Government Code Section 66473.7, if applicable.

3.11 Life of City Approvals and Subsequent Approvals.

If any City Approval or Subsequent Approval shall expire during the Term of this Agreement, Developer shall retain all vested rights contained in this Agreement and shall be entitled to re-approval of the City Approval or Subsequent Approval consistent with Applicable Law for the Term of this Agreement.

3.12 Developer Obligations and Public Benefits.

As a material consideration for the long term assurances, vested rights, and other City obligations provided by this Agreement and as a material inducement to City to enter into this Agreement, Developer has offered and agreed to provide the public benefits to the City listed in this Section 3.12 and has further agreed to comply with all of its obligations under this Agreement, including in particular the obligations set forth in this Section 3.12.

3.12.1 Compliance with Agreement and Applicable Law. In addition to any other obligations of Developer set forth herein, in consideration of City entering into this Agreement, Developer has agreed that if Developer commences development of the Property and proceeds to develop the Property, such development shall be in conformance with all of the terms, covenants, and requirements of this Agreement and Applicable Law, and Developer shall perform those specific obligations and provide those specific contributions identified in the conditions of 479
-15-
1750\36\3890249.2
approval and exhibits to the City Approvals. Developer shall pay when due all fees and costs which are imposed on all or any portion of the Property, whether imposed by City or other agencies, as provided in this Article III.

3.12.2 Public Benefits. In addition to the other benefits identified in Section 3.12, the Project will provide an annual public benefit contribution of one and a half percent (1.5%) of gross receipts from operations of the Cannabis Business, to be contributed at the time of the business license tax payment (no later than February 28 of each year), distributed as follows:
(a) Forty percent (40%) to Belmont Community Foundation.

Developer shall provide documentation to the City's satisfaction demonstrating that this contribution was made. If this foundation ceases to exist, Developer shall provide these funds to the City and the City may use these funds as it deems appropriate. (b) Thirty percent (30%) to the City to be used for Parks and Recreation Department programming, scholarships, and capital needs. (c) Thirty percent (30%) to be distributed on an annual basis to one or more nonprofit organizations or activities serving city residents based on the recommendation of the Canna-Bel Community Advisory Board, which is to be made up of Belmont community stakeholders. The membership of the Advisory Board shall be disclosed on an annual basis as part of the annual review of the Development Agreement obligations as outlined in Section 5.2. No member of the Advisory Board shall have a personal financial interest in any organization that is a recipient of a distribution. A recipient organization may share a common board member with the Advisory Board and this, alone, will not create a violation of this section as long as that member does not have a personal financial interest in the outcome.

3.12.3 Waiver of Vesting Statutes. As a material consideration for the long term assurances, vested rights, and other City obligations provided by this Agreement and as a material inducement to City to enter into this Agreement, Developer further agrees that, as long as this Agreement is in effect, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern and control the City Law to be applied to this development of the Property over any contrary or inconsistent provisions of Section 66498.1 et seq. of the Government Code or any other statute which purports to provide vested rights ("Vesting Statutes"). Developer waives the benefits of any Vesting Statute as it may be inconsistent or contrary to the provisions of this Agreement, including but not limited to vesting of development fees of all types. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section, the Parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement vests Developer's rights to develop the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and the provisions of state and local law concerning development agreements.

3.13 Mutual Obligations of the Parties.

City has agreed to provide Developer with the long term assurances, vested rights, and other City obligations described in this Agreement, including in particular those obligations described in this Article III, in consideration for the Developer obligations contained in this Agreement, including in particular those Developer obligations described in this Article III.

Developer has agreed to provide City with the Developer obligations contained in this Agreement, 480
-16-
1750\36\3890249.2
including in particular those Developer obligations described in this Article III, in consideration for the City obligations described in this Agreement, including in particular those obligations described in this Article III. To ensure that the understanding of the Parties and mutual consideration remain effective, should either Party bring any administrative, legal, or equitable action or other proceeding to set aside or otherwise make ineffective any of the City or Developer obligations described in this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated by the Party against whom the proceeding is brought at that Party's sole discretion.

ARTICLE IV

AMENDMENT, CANCELLATION, AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT

4.1 Amendment or Cancellation Procedure.

The Parties may mutually agree to amend or cancel this Agreement in whole or in part. As required by Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 28.10, any amendment to or cancellation of this Agreement may be made only if the City follows the same procedures prescribed by Government Code 65864 et seq. and those procedures prescribed in Section 28 of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 360 as amended) for entering into a new development agreement, including but not limited to public hearings before the Belmont Planning Commission and City Council and adoption of the amendment or cancellation by ordinance.

4.2 Requirement for a Writing.

No amendment to or cancellation of this Agreement or any provision of this Agreement shall be effective for any purpose unless adopted in accordance with the procedures prescribed in Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 28 and specifically set forth in a writing that refers expressly to this Agreement and is signed by duly authorized representatives of the Parties. The City Clerk shall record an appropriate notice of any amendment or cancellation with the San Mateo County Recorder not later than ten (10) days after the effective date of the action effecting such amendment or cancellation, accompanied by a legal description of the Property.

4.3 Amendments to Development Agreement Legislation.

This Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Statute, as those provisions existed at the date of execution of this Agreement. No amendment or addition to the Development Agreement Statute which would materially affect the interpretation or enforceability of this Agreement shall be applicable to this Agreement unless such amendment or addition is specifically required by the California State Legislature, or is mandated by a court of competent jurisdiction. If such amendment or change is permissive (as opposed to mandatory), this Agreement shall not be affected unless the Parties mutually agree in writing, after following the procedures in Section 4.1, to amend this Agreement to permit such applicability.

4.4 Amendment of City Approvals.

To the extent permitted by local, state, and federal law, any City Approval may, from time to time, be amended or modified by submittal of an application from the Developer and following the procedures for such amendment or modification contained in the Belmont City Code and 481
-17-
1750\36\3890249.2
Belmont Zoning Ordinance as applicable. Upon any approval of such an amendment or modification, the amendment or modification to the City Approval shall automatically be deemed to be incorporated into the Applicable Law without any further requirement to amend this Agreement.

4.5 Effect of Termination on Developer's Rights and Obligations.

4.5.1 Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, should the Developer or its successor seek to develop the Project, termination or cancellation of this Agreement or termination of the rights of Developer as to the entire Property, or any part the Property, shall not affect any requirement to comply with the City Approvals, the terms and conditions of any other Subsequent Approval, nor any payments then due and owing to City, nor shall it affect the covenants of Developer specified in Section 4.5.2 below to continue after the termination or cancellation of this Agreement. Developer understands and agrees that the City Approvals may be substantially modified in light of the circumstances resulting from the termination or cancellation of this Agreement or Developer's rights under this Agreement, and Developer shall have no rights to challenge such a modification by reason of this Agreement other than the rights, if any, Developer would have in the absence of this Agreement.

4.5.2 Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the following provisions of this Agreement shall survive and remain in effect following termination or cancellation of this Agreement for so long as necessary to give them full force and effect with respect to claims or rights of City arising prior to termination or cancellation:
(a) Section 3.12 (Developer Obligations), to the extent such obligations have not been met upon termination or cancellation;
(b) Section 4.5.1 (Developer's obligations upon termination or cancellation);
(c) Section 6.2 (Remedies; limitation on damages and exceptions thereto; accrued obligations);
(d) Section 10.2 (Indemnification);
(e) Section 10.3 (Joint and Several Liability); and
(f) Section 12.1.1 (Indemnification – Third Party Challenge).

ARTICLE V

ANNUAL REVIEW

5.1 Time of Review.

To determine Developer's good faith compliance with this Agreement, and in compliance with Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 28.12, the City shall review this Agreement and all actions taken with respect to the development of the Property at least every twelve months from 482
-18-
1750\36\3890249.2
the Effective Date, commencing on the first anniversary of the Effective Date. The date for the annual review may be modified by agreement between the Parties, so long as the review occurs at least every twelve months, or the City may elect to initiate a review at any time.

5.2 Required Information from Developer.

It is the Developer's responsibility to apply in a timely fashion for the annual review by submitting a written request to the Community Development Director, including a completed Annual Review Form in the form provided in Exhibit B (the "Annual Review Form") no more than sixty (60) and no less than thirty (30) days prior to the review date. The burden of proof, by substantial evidence, of good faith compliance shall be upon Developer. Developer shall provide the evidence determined necessary by the Community Development Director to demonstrate good faith compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. Developer shall provide detailed evidence of Developer's compliance with each obligation under this Agreement, including but not limited to the provisions of Section 3.12 and other information reasonably requested by the Community Development Director to determine compliance. The Community Development Director may conduct the annual review notwithstanding Developer's failure to submit the written request.

Failure to submit the written request or to list or describe compliance with an obligation is substantial evidence that the Developer has not complied in good faith with the obligation and the provisions of this Agreement. Costs reasonably incurred by the City in connection with the annual review and any related hearings shall be paid by Developer in accordance with the City's schedule of fees in effect at the time of review.

5.3 Determination of Good Faith Compliance.

If the Community Development Director determines in writing that, based upon substantial evidence, Developer has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the annual review shall be concluded. If the Developer fails to submit a timely periodic review application or the Community Development Director finds that, based upon substantial evidence, Developer has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Community Development Director shall prepare a written notice describing the failure to comply and notify the Developer as required by Section 11.1 and any other person who has requested notice concerning this Agreement. If Developer fails to demonstrate compliance to the Community Development Director's satisfaction within 30 days from the date of the notice, the Community Development Director shall forward the matter to the City Council with his or her recommendation.

If the City Council determines, based upon substantial evidence that Developer has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the annual review shall be concluded. If, however, the City Council determines, based upon substantial evidence, that Developer has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City Council may terminate or modify this Agreement as authorized by Government Code Section 65865.1 after complying with the provisions of this Agreement and the notice and hearing procedures contained in Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 28 or successor provision.

5.4 No Waiver.
483
-19-
1750\36\3890249.2
Failure of City to timely conduct an annual review shall not constitute a waiver by City of its right to do so at a later date nor a waiver of its rights to otherwise enforce the provisions of this Agreement, nor shall Developer have or assert any defense to such enforcement by reason of any failure to conduct an annual review. City does not waive any claim of defect or Default by Developer if, following periodic review as required by this Article V, City does not propose to modify or terminate this Agreement. City's failure to timely complete an annual review shall not constitute nor be asserted as a Default by Developer.

5.5 Reservation of Rights.

The rights and powers of the City Council under this Article V are in addition to, and shall not limit, the rights of the City to terminate or take other action under this Agreement on account of an event of Default by Developer.

ARTICLE VI

DEFAULT, REMEDIES, AND TERMINATION

6.1 Default.

A Party's violation of any material term of this Agreement or failure by any Party to perform any material obligation of this Agreement shall constitute a default ("Default").

Additionally, the occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a Default by Developer: (i) failure to pay when due any fee, tax, or payment required to be paid under this Agreement, City ordinance or resolution, or California State law, if the failure to pay continues for three (3) days after written notice of the failure from the City; (ii) failure to make the contributions or public benefit payments set out in Section 3.12.2 if failure to pay continues for three (3) days after written notice of the failure from the City; and (iii) operating the Cannabis Business in a manner that is not compliant with Belmont City Code Chapter 13 as may be amended. While Developer is in Default under this Agreement, City shall not be obligated to issue any permit or grant any Subsequent Approval until Developer cures the Default.

6.2 Remedies for Default.

City and Developer acknowledge that the purpose of this Agreement is to carry out the Parties' objectives as set forth in the Recitals. City and Developer agree that to determine a sum of money which would adequately compensate either Party for choices they have made which would be foreclosed should the Property not be developed as contemplated by this Agreement is not possible and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, City and Developer agree that in the event of a breach of this Agreement, the only remedies available to the non-breaching Party shall be: (a) suits for specific performance to remedy a specific breach, (b) suits for declaratory or injunctive relief, (c) suits for mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085, or special writs, and (d) termination or cancellation of this Agreement or, at the option of City in the event of breach by Developer, termination of the rights of Developer under this Agreement. Monetary damages shall not be awarded to either Party. This exclusion on damages is limited to a breach of this Agreement and shall not preclude actions by a Party to enforce payments of monies due or the performance of obligations requiring the expenditures of money under the terms of Section 3.12 of this Agreement. All of these remedies shall be cumulative and 484
-20-
1750\36\3890249.2
not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one or more of these remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. Developer expressly agrees that the City, any City agencies and their respective elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, volunteers, and representatives (collectively, for the purposes of this Section 6.2, "City") shall not be liable for any monetary damage for a Default by the City or any claims against City arising out of this Agreement. Developer hereby expressly waives any such monetary damages against the City. Any legal action by a Party alleging a Default must be filed within ninety (90) days from date of Declaration of Default after following the procedures in Sections 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5, as applicable.

6.3 Notice and Procedure Regarding Defaults.

Before initiating any action for relief specified in Section 6.2 for an alleged breach of this Agreement, the Party claiming breach (the "Complaining Party") must deliver to the other Party (the "Defaulting Party") a written notice of breach (the "Notice of Default"). The Notice of Default must specify the reasons for the allegation of Default with reasonable particularity. Within thirty (30) days, unless a shorter period is provided in this Agreement, the Defaulting Party must either:
(a) use good faith efforts to cure the breach or, if such cure is of the nature to take longer than 30 days, to follow the procedures specified in Section 6.4 below, or (b) if in the determination of the Defaulting Party, the event does not constitute a breach of this Agreement, the Defaulting Party, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Notice of Default, must deliver to the Complaining Party a notice which sets forth with reasonable particularity the reasons that a Default has not occurred.

Failure to respond within the thirty (30)-day period may not be deemed an admission of the Default, but the Complaining Party may proceed to pursue its remedies under this Article VI. After conclusion of the thirty (30)-day period, the Complaining Party may declare a Default by providing written notice to the Defaulting Party (the "Declaration of Default"), subject to the provisions of Section 6.4, and may proceed to pursue its remedies under this Article VI.

6.4 Mutual Agreement for Cure of Certain Defaults.

If the Defaulting Party believes that the Default cannot practically be cured within the thirty (30)-day period (or shorter period as provided in this Agreement), the Defaulting Party is not in Default provided that: (a) the cure is commenced during the applicable period after receipt of the Notice of Default; (b) within the thirty applicable period, the Defaulting Party provides a schedule to the Complaining Party for cure of the Default, subject to the reasonable approval of the Complaining Party; and (c) the cure is completed in accordance with the schedule agreed to by the Parties, or such additional time as agreed by the Complaining Party. If the Parties cannot mutually agree on a schedule for cure of the Default, at the conclusion of the initial thirty (30)-day period (or shorter period as provided in this Agreement), the Complaining Party may issue a Declaration of Default and proceed to pursue its remedies under this Article VI.

6.5 Alternative Procedure Regarding Defaults; Annual Review.

If the City Council determines, at the conclusion of the annual review undertaken as required by Article V, that Developer has not complied in good faith with the terms of this Agreement, then the determination constitutes a Declaration of Default, and City may proceed to pursue any remedies under this Article VI in addition to those remedies available under Article V. 485
-21-
1750\36\3890249.2

6.6 Failure to Assert; No Waiver.

Any failures or delays by a Complaining Party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any Default shall not operate as a waiver of any Default or of any such rights or remedies.

Delays by a Complaining Party in asserting any of its rights and remedies, irrespective of the length of the delay, shall not deprive the Complaining Party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert, or enforce any such rights or remedies, nor constitute a waiver of such Party's right to demand strict compliance by such other Party in the future. No waiver by a Party of a Default shall be effective or binding upon such Party unless made in writing by such Party, and no such waiver shall be implied from any omission by a Party to take any action with respect to such Default.

ARTICLE VII

ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE
Either Party may request an estoppel certificate at the time of the annual compliance review, or within sixty (60) days of the annual compliance review. Either Party may, additionally, request an estoppel certificate at any other time by delivering written notice to the other Party, along with a complete periodic review application, including the required fee, as described in Section 5.2, requesting the other Party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of that Party, (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and is a binding obligation of the Parties, (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified or, if so amended or modified, identifying the amendments or modifications, and (c) the requesting Party is not in Default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in Default, to describe the nature of any Defaults. If this request is made by Developer, Developer shall pay any required fees in place at the time of request. The Party who receives the request shall execute and return the estoppel certificate within thirty (30) days following receipt of the request and items identified in Section 5.2, if required.

The City Manager shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Developer.

Developer and City acknowledge that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees and Mortgagees.

ARTICLE VIII

TRANSFERS, ASSIGNMENTS

8.1 Covenants Running with the Land.

Except as otherwise more specifically provided in Section 8.2 below, this Agreement and all of its provisions, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations, shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective successors (by merger, consolidation, or otherwise) and assigns, and all other persons or entities acquiring the Property, or any interest therein, and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns, as provided in Government Code Section 65868.5.

8.2 Assignment and Transfer.
486
-22-
1750\36\3890249.2
Developer and Property Owner shall not have the right to sell, assign, or transfer all or any part of its rights, title, and interests in all or a portion of the Property or Project subject to or a part of this Agreement, to any person, firm, corporation, or entity during the Term of this Agreement without consent of the City. This assignment prohibition applies to the corporate and business entities of Developer that are a Party to this Agreement. Any assignment or transfer prohibited by this Agreement will be considered an immediate breach of this Agreement and City may elect to immediate terminate this Agreement.

ARTICLE IX

MORTGAGEE PROTECTION

9.1 Mortgage Protection.

This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property or any portion of the Property after the date of recording of this Agreement, including the lien of any deed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement (including but not limited to City's remedies to terminate the rights of Developer (and its successors and assigns) under this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement, and to seek other relief as provided in this Agreement) shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise.

9.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement to construct or complete the construction of improvements on the Property, or to guarantee such construction or completion; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements on the Property other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Agreement, or otherwise under Applicable Law.

9.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee.

If City receives a written notice from a Mortgagee, Developer or any approved assignee requesting a copy of any Notice of Default given Developer or any approved or permitted assignee and specifying the address for service, then City shall deliver to the Mortgagee at Mortgagee's cost (or Developer's cost), concurrently with service to Developer, any notice given to Developer with respect to any claim by City the Developer is in Default under this Agreement, and if City issues a Declaration of Default, City shall if so requested by the Mortgagee likewise serve at Mortgagee's cost (or Developer's cost) notice on the Mortgagee concurrently with service on Developer. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of Default claimed in the Notice of Default or Declaration of Default.
487
-23-
1750\36\3890249.2

9.4 No Supersedure.

Nothing in this Article IX shall be deemed to supersede or release a Mortgagee or modify a Mortgagee's obligations under any subdivision improvement agreement or other obligation incurred with respect to the Property outside this Agreement, nor shall any provision of this Article IX constitute an obligation of City to the Mortgagee, except as to the notice requirements of Section 9.3.

ARTICLE X

INDEMNIFICATION

10.1 No Duty of City; Hold Harmless.

It is specifically understood and agreed by the Parties that the Project contemplated by this Agreement is a private development, that City has no interest in or responsibility for or duty to third persons concerning any of said improvements, and that Developer shall have full power over and exclusive control of the Property subject only to the limitations and obligations of Developer under this Agreement.

10.2 Indemnification.

Developer hereby agrees to and shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, any City agencies and their respective elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, volunteers, and representatives (collectively, for the purposes of this Section

10.2, "City") from any and all loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, costs, and damages (whether in contract, tort, or strict liability, including but not limited to personal injury, death at any time, and property damage) and from any and all third party claims, demands, and actions in law or equity (including attorneys' fees and litigation expenses) directly or indirectly arising or alleged to have arisen out of or in any way related to: (a) the approval of this Agreement or the City Approvals; (b) any development or use of the Property under this Agreement or the City Approvals; and (c) any actions or inactions by the Developer or its contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction or improvement of the Property and the Project; excepting to the extent arising from the intentional acts or willful misconduct of City, its elected and appointed representatives, officers, agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors.

This indemnification and hold harmless agreement applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operations referred to in this Section 10.2, regardless of whether or not City prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications for the Property, but does not apply to damages and claims for damages caused by City with respect to public improvements and facilities after City has accepted responsibility for them.

10.3 Joint and Several Liability.

Developer and Property Owner shall be jointly and severally liable for any amount due under this Agreement. Developer and Property Owner agree that the City may impose a lien and seek foreclosure on any parcel of the Property due to any default by Developer. 488
-24-
1750\36\3890249.2

ARTICLE XI

NOTICES

11.1 Notices.

Notices, demands, correspondence and communications between City, Developer, and Property Owner shall be sufficiently given if: (a) personally delivered; (b) dispatched by next day delivery by a reputable carrier such as Federal Express or DHL to the offices of City, Property Owner, and Developer indicated below, provided that a receipt for delivery is provided; or (c) sent by registered or certified mail, or express mail, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid.

City:

City Manager
City of Belmont
One Twin Pines Lane
Belmont, California 94002
With copy to:

City Attorney
City of Belmont
One Twin Pines Lane
Belmont, California 94002
Developer:

Belmont A&E Green Solutions, Inc.
2052 Monroe Ave
Belmont, CA 94002
With a copy to:
[Address info here, if a copy is to be sent]
Property Owner:

Bechwati Properties LLC
43053 Sabercat Place
Fremont, CA 94539
Any Party may change its mailing address at any time by giving written notice of such change to the other Party in the manner provided herein at least then (10) days prior to the date such change is effective. All notices under this Agreement shall be deemed given and received on 489
-25-
1750\36\3890249.2
the earlier of the date personal delivery is made or on the delivery date or attempted delivery date shown on the return receipt or air bill.

ARTICLE XII

MISCELLANEOUS

12.1 Third-Party Legal Challenge.

In the event of any legal action, claim, or proceeding instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement, the City Approvals, or the Subsequent Approvals ("Third Party Challenge"), the responsibilities of the Parties shall be as follows.

12.1.1 Indemnification.

The Developer shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any Third Party Challenge, and the Developer shall reimburse City for all costs (including court costs and expenses) and attorneys' fees incurred by City in defense of such action or other proceeding. In its sole discretion, City may tender its defense of such action to Developer or defend the action itself. Upon a tender of defense to Developer by City, Developer shall defend through counsel approved by City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, and Developer shall bear all attorneys' fees and costs from the date of tender. Under no circumstances shall Developer be required to pay or perform any settlement arising out of a Third Party Challenge unless the settlement is expressly approved by Developer.

12.1.2 City Cooperation.

The City shall promptly notify the Developer of any Third Party Challenge and shall cooperate fully in the defense of the Third Party Challenge.

12.1.3 Invalidity.

If any part of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unlawful as the result of a Third Party Challenge, the Parties shall use their best efforts to cure any inadequacies or deficiencies identified by the court in a manner consistent with the express and implied intent of this Agreement, and then to adopt or re-enact such part of this Agreement as necessary or desirable to permit implementation of this Agreement.

12.2 Bankruptcy.

The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

12.3 Applicable Law/Venue.

This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any legal actions under this Agreement shall be brought only in the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo, State of California.
490
-26-
1750\36\3890249.2

12.4 Reimbursement of Development Agreement Costs and Fees.

Developer shall reimburse City for all its reasonable and actual costs, fees, and expenses incurred in drafting, reviewing, revising, and processing this Agreement, including, but not limited to, recording fees, ordinance publication fees, staff time in preparing staff reports, and staff time, including legal counsel and special counsel fees, for preparation and review of this Agreement and changes requested by Developer.

12.5 Further Assurances.

Each Party covenants, on behalf of itself and its successors, heirs, and assigns, to take all actions and do all things, and to execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if required, any and all documents and writings that may be necessary or proper to achieve the purposes and objectives of this Agreement.

12.6 Severability.

Except as otherwise provided herein, if any provision of this Agreement, or the application of this Agreement to any person or entity, be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or its application to persons or entities, shall not be affected except as necessarily required by the determination of invalidity, and each term of this Agreement shall be valid and enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the Parties, except if the effect of such a determination of invalidity is to deprive a Party of an essential benefit of its bargain under this Agreement, then the Party so deprived shall have the option to terminate this entire Agreement based on such determination.

12.7 Nondiscrimination.

Developer covenants by and for itself and any successors in interest that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, or national origin in the development of the Property in furtherance of this Agreement. The foregoing covenant shall run with the land.

12.8 Developer Right to Rebuild.

City agrees that Developer may renovate or rebuild a development located on the Property within the Term of this Agreement should it become necessary due to natural disaster, including but not limited to fire, flood, or earthquake. Any such renovation or rebuilding shall comply with the Applicable Law and this Agreement.

12.9 Headings.

Section headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement.

12.10 Agreement is Entire Understanding.
491
-27-
1750\36\3890249.2
This Agreement is executed in one original, which constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, any prior correspondence, memoranda, agreements, warranties, or representations are superseded in total by this Agreement.

12.11 Interpretation.

Each Party to this Agreement has had an opportunity to review the Agreement, confer with legal counsel regarding the meaning of the Agreement, and negotiate revisions to the Agreement.

Accordingly, neither Party shall rely upon Civil Code Section 1654 in order to interpret any uncertainty in the meaning of the Agreement.

12.12 Recordation of Termination.

Upon termination of this Agreement or expiration of the Term, a written statement acknowledging such termination shall be executed by Developer and City and shall be recorded by City in the Official Records of San Mateo County, California.

12.13 Signature Pages; Execution in Counterparts.

For convenience, the signatures of the Parties to this Agreement may be executed and acknowledged on separate pages in counterparts which, when attached to this Agreement, shall constitute this as one complete Agreement.
[Signatures on the Following Page]
492
-28-
1750\36\3890249.2
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

CITY OF BELMONT,
a municipal corporation
By: ____________________________
Afshin Oskoui, City Manager
Dated: ____________________________
Belmont A&E Green Solutions, Inc.
a California Corporation
By: ____________________________
By: ____________________________
Dated: ____________________________
ATTEST:

By: ____________________________
Jozi Plut, City Clerk
Dated: ____________________________
Bechwati Properties LLC,
a California Limited Liability Company
By: ____________________________
By: ____________________________
Dated: ____________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ____________________________
Scott Rennie, City Attorney
Dated: ____________________________
493
-29-
1750\36\3890249.2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California )
County of ______________________ )
On _________________________, before me, ,
(insert name of notary)
Notary Public, personally appeared ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature (Seal)
494
-30-
1750\36\3890249.2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California )
County of ______________________ )
On _________________________, before me, ,
(insert name of notary)
Notary Public, personally appeared ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature (Seal)
495

EXHIBIT A
-1-
1750\36\3890249.2

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
Portion of Lot 2, as designated on the Map entitled, “Bay View Heights Subdivision No. 3, San Mateo County, California”, which map was filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Mateo County, State of California on September 24, 1927 in Book 16 of Maps, at Page 35, more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at a point on the Northeasterly line of said Lot, distant thereon South 43° 56’ East 554.65 feet from its intersection with the Southeasterly line of O’Neill Avenue as shown on the aforementioned map, said point of beginning being the Southeasterly corner of lands conveyed by Norman F. Meyer and Ann E. Meyer to Mae R. Mather by deed dated August 6, 1953 and recorded August 13, 1953, in Volume 2459 of Official Records at Page 63; thence South 43° 56’ East 4.97 feet; thence South 44° 26’ East 101.52 feet; thence South 45° 26’ East 48.16 feet, more or less to its intersection with the Northerly line of lands described as Parcel One in the deed from California Pacific Title & Trust Company, a corporation, to the State of California, dated June 2, 1930, and recorded June 10, 1930 in Book 477 of Official Records of San Mateo County at Page 268, thence Westerly and Northwesterly along the boundary of land described in said deed, on an arc of curve to the right, from a tangent which bears South 89° 30’ West and with a radius of 50 feet; through a central angle of 46° 28’ an arc distance of 40.55 feet to a point on a line parallel with and 50 feet Northeasterly from the center line survey of the State Highway; thence North 44° 02’ West, along said parallel line 117.09 feet to a point, which point is the most Southerly point of lands conveyed by Norman F. Meyer and Ann E. Meyer to Mae R. Mather by deed dated August 6, 1953, and recorded August 13, 1953, in Volume 2459 of Official Records at Page 63; thence North 42° 30’ East parallel with the Southeasterly line of O’Neill Avenue, to the point of beginning.

APN: 045-243-040
496

EXHIBIT B
-1-
1750\36\3890249.2

EXHIBIT B

ANNUAL REVIEW FORM
This Annual Review Form is submitted to the City of Belmont ("City") by __________________________________________ ("Developer") pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Section 65865.1 and Section 28 of the Belmont City Code regarding Owner's good faith compliance with its obligations under the Development Agreement between the City and Developer having an Effective Date of ________________, 20__ ("Development Agreement"). All terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Development Agreement:

Annual Review Period: ______________ to ______________.

Describe in detail each Developer obligation included in the Development Agreement, including but not limited to those in Section 3.12, and describe in detail Developer compliance with each obligation.

Describe any extension as a result of enforced delay under Section 2.6 of the Development Agreement. Provide copies of any notices provided to the City under Section 2.6.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, DEVELOPER has executed this Annual Review Form as of this _______ day of ______________, 20__.

DEVELOPER:
________________________,
a ___________________________
By: ______________________________
Name: ______________________________
Title: ______________________________
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
Attachment 5 & Exhibits

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

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

Development Project
Commercial Cannabis Overlay Zone Amendments: The project considers Land Use Element Amendments to the 2035 General Plan that would potentially allow for Commercial Cannabis Land Uses in the South El Camino Real area of the City; and Zoning Ordinance (“BZO”) Amendments to establish potential Cannabis Retail & Distribution (S-3) Zoning Regulations should a property rezone to the S-3 District along South El Camino Real. The specific regulations for sale and distribution of cannabis products are described in greater detail below. The draft General Plan and Ordinance Amendments are included as attachments to the November 14, 2023 City Council Staff Report. These Amendments include the following modifications:

1. Modifications to the narrative section of the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element related to El Camino Real; and adding policies to Goal 2.6 and Goal 2.17. See Attachment 1 – Proposed General Plan Amendments Resolution and Exhibit (Attachment 3) which describes the South El Camino Real boundary area.

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

3. Establishing S-3 Cannabis Retail & Distribution Overlay District in Section 21 (Combining Districts) to provide regulations for cannabis uses should properties be rezoned to the S-3 Overlay District. This potential overlay zoning area is located along both east & west side fronting properties on South El Camino Real (ECR) from O’Neill Avenue to the southern border (of San Carlos) – see Attachment 2 (Zoning Amendments Ordinance) and Exhibit (Attachment 3) which describes the South El Camino Real boundary area. The regulations include:
• Cannabis Retail & Distribution Definitions
• Zoning Administrator Review Authority
• Use Permit Requirements
• Development Regulations
518
• Performance Standards

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

6. The proposed Cannabis Use Performance Standards include the following:
(1) State Licensing. The use must fully comply with all applicable operational rules and regulations governing commercial cannabis activity in Business & Professions Code Division 10.
(2) Hours of Operation. A use may be open and operate only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
(3) Consumption. Consumption of cannabis on the premise must not be allowed. (4) Smoking. Smoking or vaping of any kind on premises must not be allowed. (5) Odor. Cannabis odor must not be detectible outside the building from any place accessible to the public or from adjoining private property.
(6) Public services. Operation of the business must not place a burden on the provision of public services disproportionate to other retail uses.
(7) Exterior Security Lighting. Adequate external lighting must be provided for security purposes. The lighting shall be sufficient to provide illumination and clear visibility to all outdoor areas, with minimal spillover on adjacent properties. The lighting must be stationary, directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, and compatible with the neighborhood.
(8) Security. On-site security must be provided for Cannabis Retail or Cannabis Distribution uses during the hours of operation when clients are present. 519
(9) Commercial Cannabis Permit. The use must fully comply with all applicable local permit rules and regulations governing commercial cannabis activity, including operational permit requirements and conditions and approved operational plans under any other city ordinance or code.
(10) In the event of a conflict between the requirements of the use permit and the requirements of a local operations permit issued by the police department, the more restrictive performance requirements apply.

A maximum of up to two (2) commercial retail cannabis use permits are allowed, and a maximum of one (1) cannabis distribution use permits are allowed, as lawfully permitted via the Cannabis Regulatory Ordinance, and Zoning Administrator Use Permit review process.

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

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

CEQA Authority for the Addendum
The CEQA Guidelines establish the type of environmental documentation that is required when changes to a project occur after an EIR has been adopted. Section 15164(a) states:
“The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” When the lead agency has previously adopted an EIR, no new EIR need be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following, per Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
520
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Project Evaluation
General Plan / BVSP Buildout
The General Plan EIR considered all potential environmental impacts under an assumed maximum buildout for the City and the BVSP Area in 2035. Since the adoption of the General Plan EIR, there have been no major commercial development projects approved within the BVSP Area, or within the City at large. The table below provides the maximum BVSP buildout identified in the GP EIR, and the approved commercial development to date.

Table 1- BVSP Buildout & Commercial Development Projects 2013 Year 2035 Year Growth Remaining
Jobs 1,440 2,450 30 975
Non-Residential
sq. ft. 679,000 1,044,000 5,102 359,698
As provided in Table 1 above, there are still numerous jobs, and non-residential floor area within the remaining development limits of the BVSP project area. It should be noted that the potential subject overlay district area (South El Camino Real) is generally already developed with existing commercial uses/structures. No development is proposed in conjunction with the proposed General Plan/Zoning Amendments Project. Individual Cannabis Retail or Distribution operators would be subject to CEQA clearance for the subject properties intended for operation.

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

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

The tables and discussion reference Table ES-3 of the General Plan EIR (see Exhibits), which provides an outline of the significant impacts of the General Plan, and the policies and mitigation 521
measures designed to reduce these impacts to the extent possible. The MMRP adopted for the General Plan EIR is also referenced (see Exhibits).

Table 2-Aesthtics
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigationsthat
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.1-1 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.1-2 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.1-3 No No No
Impact 4.1-4 No No No
522
Aesthetics: There are no scenic vistas or scenic corridors in the overlay areas where the project would occur (Impacts 4.1-1 & 4.1-2). Individual development projects would be required to be consistent with all other objective development and design standards, street frontage standards, lighting standards (i.e., full cutoff lighting) and design standards identified in the DEIR and the BVSP to reduce aesthetic impacts to less than significant ((Impacts 4.1-3 & 4.1-4).

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

Air Quality Plans & Standards
The General Plan and BVSP would be consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regional air quality strategy (Impact 4.2-1). The General Plan EIR indicates that individual development projects have the potential for construction and operational emissions in excess of BAAQMD’s project level thresholds; however, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 would reduce construction related emissions, and Mitigation Measure AQ-5 would address operational-related emissions (see Exhibits). Thus, Individual Cannabis Retail or Distribution projects would be required to implement the following mitigation measures as conditions of project approval (Impacts 4.2-2 through 4.2-4).
523
Air Quality Mitigation Measures
Number Mitigation Measure
AQ-1 Require Tier 4 engines on Construction Equipment. All applicants proposing development of projects within Belmont shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to further reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all offroad equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall operate on an EPA-approved Tier 4 or newer engine. Exemptions can be made for specialized equipment where Tier 4 engines are not commercially available within 200 miles of the project site. The construction contract must identify these pieces of equipment, document their unavailability, and ensure that they operate on no less than an EPA- approved Tier 3 engine. ARB regulations will result in the percentage of Tier 4 engines increasing over the next several years.

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

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

Air Quality Mitigation Measures
Number Mitigation Measure
AQ-4 Require Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices. All applicants proposing development of projects within Belmont shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related fugitive dust by implementing BAAQMD’s basic control measures at all construction and staging areas. The following measures are based on BAAQMD’s current CEQA guidelines.
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) will be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite will be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, driveways, or driving surfaces shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved will be completed as soon as 524
possible. Building pads will be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

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

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

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

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

Carbon Monoxide
Traffic volumes under the General Plan and BVSP would not result in carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations in excess of the state or federal 1- or 8-hour CO standards. Consequently. CO concentrations in 2035 would be lower than under existing (2013) conditions, despite an increase in traffic volumes. This decrease is due to expected improvements in vehicle engine technology, 525
fuel efficiency, and turnover in older, more heavily polluting vehicles, which reduces exhaust emissions. Since predicted CO concentrations would not violate the NAAQS, the impact of traffic conditions on ambient CO levels in the Planning Area would be less than significant (Impact 4.2- 6).

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

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

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

Migratory Birds
Nesting migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. Should proposed project construction occur in close proximity to trees on adjacent sites, which may disturb nesting migratory birds, significant impacts to migratory birds would not occur with adherence to the following measure:
526
“If tree removal or ground disturbance activities are scheduled to commence during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), preconstruction nesting bird surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist in order to identify possible nesting activity. A construction-free buffer of suitable dimensions must be established around active nests (typically up to 50 feet for passerines and up to 250 feet for raptors, depending on the location and species) for the duration of the project or until it has been determined that the chicks have fledged and are independent of their parents."
The City utilizes a standard condition of project approval (COA) to protect nesting migratory birds.

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

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

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

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

Tree Protection
General Plan policies require compliance with the City's adopted tree preservation ordinance (Chapter 25 of the City Code). The Tree Ordinance provides a process and standards for review of projects that may impact or remove protected trees. Environmental impacts are considered mitigated for projects that adhere to this policy. Thus, if tree removal is associated with individual development projects, adherence to the requirements of the Tree Ordinance (i.e., submittal of an Arborist Report with recommendations for tree protections) and the following standard conditions of approval:
527
COAs – Tree Protection
• The applicant shall implement the Tree Protection Guidelines identified in the Arborist Report, prepared for the project; the project arborist shallreview the final building and grading plans, and confirm in writing any changes to the design recommendations. The guidelines shall be included on a plan sheet submitted with the building permit application. • Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit written confirmation from the Project Arborist that all tree protection measures, and pre-construction treatments have been installed and inspected, and that they meet the arborist’s specifications. • Any approved grading, construction, demolition or other work within the tree protection zone shall be monitored by the project arborist.
• Tree protection devices are to remain until all site work has been completed within the work area. Fences or other protection devices may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Project Arborist.
• If unplanned or unapproved tree injuries or tree removals occur during project construction, the applicant shall contact City Planning Staff. Additional permits may be required. • After completion of exterior construction work and before final building permit inspection, the applicant shall submit a final written report/letter from the Project Arborist. Said report/letter shall provide an evaluation of the construction impacts to the subject tree’s health or structural stability, and shall identify any additional provisions that may be required to these address impacts. The applicant shall be responsible to implement these recommendations. A final report may be required on the effectiveness of the measures.

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

Table 5 – Cultural Resources
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.4-1 No No No
Impact 4.4-2 No No No
Impact 4.4-3 No No No
Impact 4.4-4 No No No
Impact 4.4-5 No No No
528
Cultural Resources:

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

No project sites are listed, but numerous buildings would meet the forty-five-year threshold for review of potential historical impacts. As previously discussed, no development is proposed in conjunction with the recommended General Plan/Zoning Amendments. An individual Cannabis Retail or Distribution operator would be subject to CEQA clearance for the subject property intended for operation, including an evaluation for impacts to historical structures (consistent with the policies of the General Plan EIR). As such, no new potential impacts not identified in the General Plan EIR would occur from the development project (Impact 4.4-1).

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

Although implementation of project grading plans may result in actions that could adversely affect archaeological resources, the General Plan includes policies and regulations that would minimize or avoid impacts by requiring the protection and preservation of such resources. Specifically, the General Plan includes Policies 5.12-1, 5.12-2 and 2.2-2 and Actions 5.12-1a, and 5.12-2b that require establishing guidelines and mitigation programs when sites of archaeological, paleontological, and/or cultural concern would be disturbed by development, including:
1) Reviewing records for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive.
2) Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA).
3) Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity. 4) Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of project approval (i.e., halting construction when resources are uncovered, evaluating the find, and implementing avoidance measures and/or mitigation plans as required by CEQA). 529
The recommendations in a Cultural Resources Evaluation are required to be noted on the project plans. The City’s standard project conditions of approval (COAs) conditions of approval are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

1. The descendants of the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or 530

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

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

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

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

COA - Erosion Control
• The applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be used to prevent soil, dirt, and debris from entering the storm drain system. The plan shall include the following items:
a) A site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography, and slopes; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal area; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourses or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas. b) Erosion and sediment controls to be used during construction, selected as appropriate from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Erosion and P.O. Box 791, Oakland, CA 94604-0791.
531
c) Methods and procedures to stabilize denuded areas and install and maintain temporary erosion and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established.
d) Provision for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on-site, such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, fiber rolls, silt fence, check dams, storm drain inlet protection, soil blankets or mats, covers for soil stock piles and/or other measures. e) Provisions for installing vegetative cover in disturbed areas, including areas to be seeded, planted, and/or mulched, and types of vegetation proposed. f) Provision for diverting on-site runoff around exposed areas and diverting off-site runoff around the project site (e.g., swales and dikes).
g) Notes, specifications, and/or attachments describing the construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetation and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material; types of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation.

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

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

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

Consistent with the policies in the General Plan EIR and the requirements of the City Code, applicants would be required to submit a detailed geotechnical investigation for individual projects, which would be peer reviewed by the City’s consulting geologist. The standard City procedure requires geotechnical clearance (i.e., a concurrence from the City’s consulting geologist that the proposed project development is suitable for the site from a geotechnical perspective). 532
This recommendation includes standard conditions requiring geotechnical review of final building and grading plans and field inspections during construction, as follows:

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

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

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

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

Table 7 – Energy, Greenhouse Gases & Climate Change
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.6-1 No No No
Impact 4.6-2 No No No
Impact 4.6-3 No No No
Impact 4.6-4 No No No
Impact 4.6-5 No No No
533
Energy, Greenhouse Gases & Climate Change:

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

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

Potential individual development projects would be located in the South El Camino Real area of the City, and would be consistent with all applicableGeneral Plan,BVSP andCAP policies designed to reduce energy waste and inefficiency. Further, these projects would be required to comply with the most current state energy code requirements of CalGREEN (green building code), and state and local water efficiency requirements. Thus, no new impacts would occur, and impacts would be less than significant (Impact 4.6-1 and 4.6-2).

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

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

Action 5.10-3.a - Require applicants proposing new development projects within the Planning Area to require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related GHG emissions by implementing BAAQMD’s recommended best management practices, including (but not limited to) the following measures (based on BAAQMD’s (2011) CEQA Guidelines):
534
• Use local building materials of at least 10 percent (sourced from within 100 miles of the planning area).
• Recycle and reuse at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials.

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

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

Individual development projects would be located in the South El Camino Real area, and would be consistent with all applicable General Plan, and CAP policies designed to reduce GHGs.

Adherence to Action 5.10-3 and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 will be required of the project as conditions of project approval, as follows:

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

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

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

4.6-5).
535
Table 8 – Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.7-1 No No No
Impact 4.7-2 No No No
Impact 4.7-3 No No No
Impact 4.7-4 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.7-5 No No No
Impact 4.7-6 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.7-7 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.7-8 N/A N/A N/A
Hazards & Hazardous Materials:

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

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

The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the policies of the General Plan, and existing state and local regulations would reduce the impact of hazardous materials use, storage, 536
disposal, and accidental release to less than significant; however, the General Plan EIR analysis indicates that the review of environmental risks did not include any sampling, site-specific review, laboratory analysis, or physical inspection of buildings or site surfaces. The EIR notes that sitespecific investigation for projects developed under the General Plan Project will be required to address hazardous materials conditions. As such, Phase I environmental site assessments are required for specific projects, and if a Phase I assessment indicates the presence or likely presence of contamination, a Phase II soil/groundwater testing and remediation is required before development may occur.

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

Types of Potential Impacts
Individual development projects with soil or water contamination are subject to both construction and operational impacts.
537
Construction Impacts
Project-related grading and excavation/removal of soils has the potential to adversely impact construction workers, and surrounding sensitive receptors. The CUPA (San Mateo County Environmental Health) requires applicants to submit a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to mitigate the potential impacts from the detections of soil vapor and potential unanticipated conditions that may be encountered during grading and planned for excavation during development activities (e.g., abandoned USTs, abandoned sumps or pits containing unknown liquids, etc.), and to provide for compliance with environmental regulations pertaining to conditions at the Site.

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

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

No portions of the potential S-3 (Cannabis Retail & Distribution) overlay zone are within a ¼ mile of Central and Nesbit Elementary Schools. The DTSC website does not include the potential development project sites on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5. As such, individual development projects would not involve the handling of acutely hazardous materials within a ¼ mile of a public school. In addition, the potential project sites are not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, or adjacent to a wildfire urban interface (WUI).

Lastly, individual development projects (cannabis retail and distribution uses) would not close roadways or impair implementation of an emergency response/evacuation plan (i.e., they would not block ingress or egress of emergency responders or evacuees). Thus, there would be no projectrelated impacts in these areas (Impacts 4.7-3, 4.7-4, 4.7-6, 4.7-7, & 4.7-8).

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

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

Each ALUCP prevents exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within an airport influence 538
area over a 20-year horizon and are intended to encourage land uses in the vicinity surrounding an airport that are compatible with the airport land uses. California law requires that local government agencies affected by an ALUCP update their General and Specific Plans to be consistent with the ALUCP (California Government Code, Section 65302.3).

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

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

Typical conditions for new projects are as follows:

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

Table 9 – Hydrology, Flooding & Water Quality
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.8-1 No No No
Impact 4.8-2 No No No
Impact 4.8-3 No No No
Impact 4.8-4 No No No
Impact 4.8-5 No No No
Impact 4.8-6 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.8-7 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.8-8 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.8-9 N/A N/A N/A
539
Hydrology, Flooding & Water Quality:

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

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

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

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

The Department of Public Works reviews individual development projects for compliance with all state and federal water quality requirements. In addition, the project is required to comply with General Plan and BVSP policies related to: 1) the incorporation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce construction and operational water pollutant loads; 2) implementation of Urban 540
Design guidelines for Low Impact Development (as applicable for Special projects); 3) streetscape and landscape designs that manage stormwater, to ensure that runoff potential does not exceed the storm drain system’s capacity; 4) documentation of the site investigation and cleanup of impacted soils or groundwater provided to City staff during development project review; and 5) remediation and cleanup of impacted waters in compliance with federal and State standards (if applicable).

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

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

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

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

Table 10 – Land Use, Population & Housing
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.9-1 No No No
Impact 4.9-2 No No No
Impact 4.9-3 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.9-4 No No No
Impact 4.9-5 N/A N/A N/A
541
Land Use, Population & Housing:

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

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

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

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

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

Construction Noise & Vibration
The General Plan EIR indicates that construction noise and vibration associated with future development (i.e., General Plan and BVSP buildout) could expose sensitive receptors to noise and vibration levels that exceed the standards identified in the General Plan (a potentially significant and unavoidable impact). Increased operational noise from traffic, trains, and stationary sources is also identified as a potentially significant and unavoidable impact. 542
The potential construction noise, ground borne vibration, and operational noise impacts of the General Plan/BVSP buildout cannot be fully mitigated at the Program EIR (General Plan EIR) level, because of the uncertainty involved in evaluating the impacts on all potential future users of new development. The evaluation of noise impacts is “project/location specific” and noise impacts change over time as development occurs and traffic patterns change. Thus, in order to address potential noise impacts, the General Plan EIR: 1) identified comprehensive policies to limit the exposure of sensitive receptors to construction noise, ground borne vibration, and operational noise; and 2) required that applicants for individual development projects evaluate potential noise and vibration impacts, and develop appropriate mitigation measures to reduce these impacts.

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

Construction Noise – COAs
• The applicant shall ensure that the following preventative and monitoring measures are enforced during grading and building operations:
o Limit construction activity to the hours listed in the City Noise Ordinance. (8:00 am to 5:00 pm on weekdays, 10:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, no construction activity on Sundays and holidays).
o Schedule highest noise-generating activity and construction activity away from noisesensitive land uses. o Equip internal combustion engine-driven equipment with original factory (or equivalent) intake and exhaust mufflers which are maintained in good condition. o Prohibit and post signs prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. o Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and portable generators as far as practicable from noise-sensitive land uses. o Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary equipment where feasible and available.
o Designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would respond to neighborhood complaints about construction noise by determining the cause of the noise complaints and require implementation of reasonable measures to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. 543
• The applicant shall notify property owners within 300 feet of the project site two weeks prior to the initiation of construction activities on site. A schedule of construction activities, and a copy of the noise control plan shall be included with this notice. • Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that a condition of contract of all contractors and subcontractors requires the use of internal combustion engine-driven equipment with original factory (or equivalent) intake and exhaust mufflers, which are maintained in good condition.
• Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that a condition of contract of all contractors and subcontractors requires the use of “quiet” air compressors and other stationary equipment. If the applicant demonstrates that the use of quiet air compressors and other stationary equipment is not feasible, moveable sound barriers or portable sound huts shall be used for noise mitigation.

Construction Vibration COAs
• After obtaining permission from the subject property owners, the applicant shall conduct preconstruction crack photo surveys, and install vibration monitors at the sensitive receptor sites shown in the Vibration Assessment. The applicant shall submit a copy of the crack photo survey and written confirmation from the Project Acoustic Consultant that all required monitors have been installed and inspected, and that they meet the consultant’s specifications, prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
• The applicant shall designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site.
• Neighboring property owners within 300 feet of the project site shall be noticed of the construction activities and construction schedule (including estimated dates of various construction phases) at least two weeks prior to the start of construction. • Vibration monitors shall be placed at the sensitive receptors to monitor construction activities and make sure the project thresholds are met. Real-time alerts must be sent to the Contractor in case of near threshold vibration levels or in case of threshold exceedances. In case of exceedances, work must stop, and the source of the exceedance must be identified, and the required mitigation measure should be incorporated.
• Building structures near the project shall be checked for cracks and any cracks shall be monitored. Preconstruction crack photo surveys shall be conducted. If minor cracks are reported or existing cracks propagate, vibration project action levels must be restricted. 544
• Whenever possible, construction or equipment activity generating relatively high levels of vibration shall not occur at the same time and shall be spaced as far apart in time as possible from one another. In general, the most severe activities shall be reserved for the middle of the day (noon). If activities must occur simultaneously, they shall be performed as far away from one-another as possible within the construction zone.
• All deliveries of material and equipment shall occur during daytime hours, including queueing of construction vehicles outside the site. Vehicles delivering materials and equipment shall be operated in strict conformance with regulations established by the United States Department of Transportation and all State and Local requirements. All materials and equipment shall be stored on-site and within the confines of the construction barricades. • Stationary and portable construction equipment shall be located at positions where the noise/vibration impact to nearby noise/vibration-sensitive receptors is minimal. At times where the equipment cannot be positioned at a minimal noise/vibration impacting location, mitigation devices shall be implemented, as determined by the Project Acoustic Consultant or designated Vibration Monitor.
• After construction activities are complete, the applicant shall conduct a post-construction crack photo survey of previously surveyed buildings. The post construction survey, and a summary letter of any resulting actions taken (repairs or restitutions) shall be provided to the Community Development Department, prior to final building permit inspection.

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

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

4.10-6).
545
Table 12 – Public Services & Recreation
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.11-1 No No No
Impact 4.11-2 No No No
Impact 4.11-3 No No No
Impact 4.11-4 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.11-5 No No No
Public Services & Recreation:

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

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

A development proposal submitted under the new regulations would be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure appropriate fire mitigation measures are incorporated. The Police Department would review development proposals for compliance with a City Commercial Cannabis Permit, and state licensing requirements. The Police Department would also review and approve the applicant’s security and operations plans, prior to approval of a CUP to establish the use. The security and operations plans would identify lighting, alarm/surveillance, patron management, and security personnel requirements to ensure safe operation of the business. The Police Department would collect appropriate permit fees to cover the cost of time reviewing Cannabis Use Permits, and for any subsequent inspections, or monitoring of operations. Thus, 546
impacts to fire and police services from individual development projects would be less than significant (Impact 4.11-1).

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

Intersections & Road Segments
General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR indicates that buildout of the General Plan /BVSP would cause intersections and road/highway segments to fall below the established significance criteria for City of Belmont and City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) road segments/intersections. The EIR lists the impacted segments/intersections, and identifies physical improvements (mitigations), such as installation of traffic signals and turning lanes, to reduce impacts to less than significant levels; however, the EIR notes that the physical improvements proposed are not always feasible due to right-of-way constraints, and that in many cases the prescribed improvements would conflict with corridor plans, and General Plan, BVSP, and CAP policies related to creating “Complete Streets,” resulting in secondary impacts. As such, the EIR concludes that impacts to the identified segments/intersections would remain potentially “Significant and Unavoidable.” In order to certify the General Plan EIR with Significant and Unavoidable impacts, the City Council made certain findings required by CEQA, and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. This statement essentially communicated that the City had determined that the potential benefits of the project (General Plan, BVSP, CAP adoption and buildout of the General Plan/BVSP) outweighed its potential impacts. The City Council made the required CEQA Findings and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, prior to approval of the General Plan update and approval of the BVSP and Corridor Mixed-Use Zoning. 547
The adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations does not mean that future development projects need not comply with General Plan/BVSP policies designed to reduce intersection impacts, or that applicants for development projects would not be responsible to address their project-related impacts. General Plan, BVSP and CAP Policies encourage improving multimodal infrastructure, and coordinating land use and circulation in a way that would reduce vehicle trips.

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

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

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

LOS A represents free flowing conditions and little to no delay to vehicles while LOS F represents congested conditions with higher delays and long queues for vehicles. LOS analysis and mitigation measures are different from VMT in that they would typically support strategies that encourage faster automobile travel times, reduce peak commute time congestion, implement roadway widening and other infrastructure or strategies that could encourage travel by single-occupant vehicles; however, LOS is a useful metric for determining a project’s potential circulation impacts, as it can be used to identify when an intersection with stop signs should be replaced with a traffic signal, when a new turn lane is needed, and when queuing may exceed a turn pocket length. 548
for evaluating potential impacts. In addition, a project that is not expected to create significant VMT impacts could still have LOS operational impacts. Thus, it is possible that a CEQA analysis evaluating VMT may not be required, but an operational analysis to identify intersection impacts will be needed.

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

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

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

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

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

4.12-4, Impact 4.12-5 & Impact 4.12-7).

Operations Impacts to Airports
The General Plan EIR indicates that policies of the General Plan/BVSP would not modify planning or operations at airports, or introduce land use patterns that would cause substantial risks to or from airports. The project would be consistent with General Plan/BVSP policies related to airports 549
and would not conflict with an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUC). Therefore, no impacts to airport operations would result from the development project (Impact 4.12-6).

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

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

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

Individual development projects would be required to construct frontage improvements consistent with the City’s adopted Complete Streets standards, and applicants would be required to contribute a fair-share portion fees for the construction of road improvements, based on project impacts to roadway intersections and segments. The projects will also be reviewed by all appropriate safety personnel to ensure that project plans are compliant with emergency access requirements. As such, development project-related impacts to emergency access are less than significant (Impact 4.12- 9).
550
Table 14 – Utilities
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.12-1 No No No
Impact 4.12-2 No No No
Impact 4.12-3 No No No
Impact 4.12-4 No No No
Impact 4.12-5 No No No
Impact 4.12-6 No No No
Impact 4.12-7 No No No
Utilities:

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

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

Unlike residential projects and large scale commercial buildings, retail sales and distribution uses are not significant generators of wastewater. The City has adequate wastewater treatment capacity available for these projects, and conditions of project approval would require the applicant to pay sewer impact fees. As a result of compliance with existing regulations, implementation of General Plan /BVSP policies, and the payment of impact fees by the applicant, the potential impacts to wastewater treatment would be less than significant (Impact 4.13-1). 551
New Facilities/Supply – Water
Water supply in Belmont is provided by the Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD). In accordance with state law, MPWD prepared an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in 2015. Urban Water Management Plans are prepared by urban water suppliers every 5 years. These plans support the suppliers’ long-term (20-year) resource planning to ensure that adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water needs. MPWD’s 2015 UWMP indicates that water supply is sufficient to meet current and projected demands in Belmont.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project applicants would also need to secure an Intent to Serve letter from MPWD, and projects would be required to be meet all applicable CALGreen standards at the time of building permit 552
issuance. Subject to these measures and implementation of MM UTIL-1, project-specific impacts would be less than significant (Impacts 4.13-2 & 4.13-4).

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

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

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

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

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

Unlike residential projects and large scale commercial buildings, retail sales and distribution uses are not significant generators of wastewater. The City’s standard process include the submittal of sanitary sewer evaluations for individual development projects. The evaluations determine the potential impacts of the project, and provide mitigation measures to ensure that significant impacts (i.e., system deficiencies that result in release of untreated waters) would not occur. Fair share contributions would be required of individual development projects to address the future needs of the system. Subject to the implementation of this standard City process, project specific impacts would be less than significant (Impact 4.13-2 & 4.13-5). 553
Stormwater Facilities
Stormwater Volume & Capacities
The General Plan EIR indicates that new development under the General Plan/BVSP would allow for the redevelopment of existing developed areas that would generate increased stormwater volumes in portions of Belmont. Increased flows would in turn create a need for new infrastructure in growth areas, to accommodate infiltration of stormwater or to convey stormwater to detention basins to prevent flooding. Construction of new stormwater infrastructure could in and of itself have adverse effects on the physical environment; however, the required improvements would occur within rights-of-way and other already disturbed areas within previously developed areas.

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

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

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

Thus, individual development projects, as proposed and conditioned, would comply with NPDES permit requirements, and all relevant General Plan/BVSP Policies designed to reduce stormwater impacts. These projects would be required to implement Urban Design guidelines for Low Impact Development (as applicable), and would convey stormwater to detention basins to prevent flooding. As a result of implementation of the policies and zoning regulations of the BVSP, as well as the General Plan, CAP, and other existing regulations, the impact of these proposed projects would be less than significant (Impact 4.13-3).
554
Solid Waste
The General Plan EIR indicates that implementation of the General Plan/BVSP would result in additional population and increased solid waste generation within the city. AB 939 requires local governments to divert 50 percent of their community’s solid waste, and the recent goal that has been set by CalRecycle of 75 percent recycling, composting, or source reduction of solid waste by 2020. These disposal targets for Belmont were met for both residential and employment disposal for the years 2013-2015.

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

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

Determination
None of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or negative declaration have occurred: 1) the potential development associated with establishing potential Cannabis Overlay District zoning for retail sales and distribution of cannabis products along South El Camino Real is within the buildout of the EIR, and thus no substantial changes are required to the EIR analysis; 2) the environmental setting of the Project Area and the relevant land use regulations adopted remain generally unchanged since the Original Project was approved in November 2017. In addition, there has been no large-scale commercial development approved in the BVSP Area or the City at large, and the circumstances under which the General Plan EIR was adopted have not changed; and 3) there is no new information that was not known at the time the impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and individual development projects undertaken within the potential overlay district would not result in any significant impacts not considered under the original EIR. Therefore, as provided by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Addendum is the appropriate documentation to address the changes, if any, made by the Project.
555
EXHIBIT 1 TO ATTACHMENT 5
556
update is comprehensive, and includes all State-required elements other than the Housing Element, which was last updated in 2015 and is not part of the Proposed Project.

Following adoption of the General Plan, the City intends to undertake a comprehensive zoning update to implement the proposed General Plan's policies and actions. The first step in that process is the Phase I Zoning, which provides a zoning framework and review process that will ensure that new development conforms to proposed General Plan policies and land use designations immediately following General Plan adoption. The Phase I Zoning provides a legal basis to require conformity and, conversely, enable the City to modify or deny nonconforming projects.

Along with the preparation of its General Plan Update, the City of Belmont undertook a parallel planning process for the area known as Belmont Village. Belmont Village is currently the primary development focus of the City. It has been designated a "Priority Development Area" by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments due to its potential to support new housing and employment near transit. This designation qualifies the City to receive funding to develop a Specific Plan for the area, as well as potential future additional grants for specific projects and public improvements consistent with the Specific Plan. Currently, Belmont has an analogous Plan: the Downtown Specific Plan. Adopted in 1990 and amended in 1995, the Downtown Specific Plan will be replaced by the Belmont Village Specific Plan.

Additionally, Belmont has prepared its first Climate Action Plan (CAP), a comprehensive plan for addressing a community's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A CAP, or similar qualified greenhouse gas reduction strategy, can serve as a mitigation strategy under CEQA for GHG/climate change impacts associated with a proposed project. Belmont's CAP aligns with the Belmont General Plan Update and the Belmont Village Specific Plan. Specifically, the CAP quantifies existing and projected GHG emissions in the General Plan Update Planning Area3 through horizon year 2035 resulting from activities within the Planning Area and the region, and it includes 2035 reduction targets. The CAP also contains a suite of quantified reduction strategies, performance standards, and a framework for implementation to achieve the required reduction. Once the CAP is adopted, projects consistent with the proposed General Plan (and the BVSP, if applicable) and CAP will undergo a streamlined process for mitigation of GHG emissions under CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5.

The City of Belmont is situated in San Mateo County, halfway between San Francisco and San Jose.

Belmont is bisected by El Camino Real, Alameda de las Pulgas, and Caltrain tracks (the peninsula commuter rail line and transportation corridor running in a north-south direction). Ralston Avenue connects the city and the region in an east-west direction from Highway 92/Interstate 280 to Highway 101. The city is within easy driving distance of the Pacific coast, three major airports, and major employment centers including San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and the East Bay. Belmont Village is located inside the Planning Area within city limits, and it encompasses approximately 80 acres centered around the intersection of El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue. 3 Throughout this document, the term "Planning Area" is used to refer to the General Plan Update Planning Area. The Belmont Village Specific Plan Planning Area is referred to as the "BVSP Area." 1-2
557
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Key Features of the Proposed Project
General Plan
The maps and policies in the General Plan are structured around the following key vision statements. An ongoing public participation process has provided opportunities for community input to the Belmont General Plan Update. Early in the planning process, the community was engaged through a citywide survey, workshops, community conversations and stakeholder interviews to establish priorities for future planning, resulting in the following vision statements that have been affirmed through subsequent input from the public and decision-makers.

Distinctive Community Development
• Belmont prides itself on being unique.
• Its small-town ambiance sets itself apart as a tranquil, inclusive, safe and desirable place to live, work and play.
• We get involved in town matters because we care about living here. • We connect with each other in all kinds of gathering places. • We value and celebrate a strong commitment to diversity, inclusion, safety, equality and dignity for all individuals in Belmont.
• Our strong sense of community and enjoyment of the town's assets and activities deepen as we become better informed and connected.

Easy Mobility
• We put a priority on getting out of, into, and through town efficiently. • Bicyclists, walkers, and other non-drivers get where they are going easily and safely. • We require safe residential streets and smooth flowing thoroughfares.

Natural Beauty
• We choose to make our home among these beautiful hills, trees, parks, views, and open spaces.
• Our natural surroundings inspire us to play, create, and contemplate. • Our actions today preserve and enhance Belmont's beauty to make it even lovelier for our grandchildren.
• Our wooded residential areas are diverse, peaceful, and well maintained.

Thriving Culture
• Belmont is a wonderfully safe, culturally diverse and supportive place to raise a family. • We facilitate lifelong learning in our academic, artistic, athletic, and social dimensions and we thrive on interconnection with the rest of the world. • Our schools and library are the pride of the community. • Our university is intrinsic to Belmont's social, artistic, and economic life. • The arts thrive in this creative, appreciative town - the arts hub of the peninsula. • Our history makes Belmont what it is, and we preserve that heritage for our children. 1-3
558
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Thriving Economy
• A charming, vibrant town center is at the heart of our civic and economic life. • Our economy prospers with a mix of attractive, successful businesses that fit with our community character.
• We look first in our town shops and restaurants for what we need. • Education, arts, and the economy flourish in concert.

The General Plan Update comprises the following chapters, meeting the requirements for general plans under California Government Code §65302 for elements that a general plan must contain.

Each element of the Plan includes goals, policies, and actions, which together articulate a vision for Belmont. Goals define an ideal future related to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community; they set directions for policies. Policies are specified ends or conditions that are an intermediate step towards attaining a goal; they are specific statements to guide decision-making.

Actions are implementation measures that the City will undertake to accomplish the objective of the policy.

1. Introduction

2. Land Use Element

3. Circulation Element

4. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element

5. Conservation Element

6. Safety Element

7. Noise Element
Phase I Zoning
As stated above, the Phase I Zoning is the first step in implementing the General Plan land use regulations and policy direction. The Phase I Zoning provides a legal basis to require conformity and, conversely, enable the City to modify or deny nonconforming projects.

The Phase I Zoning includes the following elements:

1. Amend Section 2, Definitions. Provides additional definitions and adds rules for height measurement.

2. Amend Section 3, Zoning Districts Established. Adds Regional Commercial (RC), Corridor Mixed Use (CMU), Harbor Industrial Area (HIA-1 and HIA-2), Open Space Privately-Owned (OS-PO), and Public and Semi-Public (PS) zoning districts.

3. Amend Section 5, Commercial Districts. Replaces Section 5.4, "Highway Commercial District or C-3 District," with a new Section 5.4, "Regional Commercial or RC District."

4. Add Section SA, Corridor Mixed Use District. Provides regulations for the new CMU District.

5. Add Section SB, Harbor Industrial Area. Provides regulations for the new HIA-1 and HIA-2 Districts.
1-4
559
Chapter I: Executive Summary

6. Add Section SC, Public/Semi-Public District. Provides regulations for the new PS District.

7. Repeal Section 7, Agricultural. Removes the Agricultural and Open Space District.

8. Add Section 6C, Open Space Privately-Owned District. Provides regulations for the new OSPO District.

9. Add Section 7A, Off-street Parking and Loading in Commercial Mixed Use and Regional Commercial Districts. Provides off-street parking and loading regulations that apply to the CMU and RC Districts.

10. Amend Section 9.5, Uses - Exceptions and Provisions. Add Section 9.5.2 on Recycling Collection Facilities.

11. Amend Section 10, Planning Procedures. Add 10.6 on General Plan Conformity, Procedures.

12. Appendix A: Guidelines for Establishing Peak Hour Trip Credits for TDM Measures.

Specifies how many peak hour trips will be credited for each of a series of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures.

Belmont Village Specific Plan
The BVSP meets requirements of California Government Code §65451 governing the contents of specific plans. It includes the following chapters:

1. Introduction and Background. Provides project background and purpose, vision statement and guiding principles, a summary of community outreach, legal context, and plan organization.

2. Land Use. Presents key features of the Village Planning Area, the Land Use Diagram and classifications, density and intensity standards, potential new development at BVSP buildout, affordable housing strategies, and historic resources.

13. Mobility. Addresses pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, automobile circulation, transit and transportation demand management measures, and parking strategies.

14. Urban Design. Provides guidance for the development of the built environment in the Planning Area, from streetscape improvements and wayfinding, to detailed development standards and building design guidelines. In addition, the chapter presents illustrative concepts for three areas in the Village.

15. Infrastructure and Public Services. Includes direction for public utilities and services to ensure all development in the Planning Area is accommodated by adequate city infrastructure and services. Describes the park, school, and community facilities in the Planning Area to serve current and future residents.

16. Environmental Sustainability, Health, and Safety. Addresses key environmental issues that will potentially have an impact on the design and location of new development, including hydrology and flooding, geology and seismicity, hazardous materials and air contaminants, biological resources, and noise.

17. Implementation. Outlines measures for consistency with the General Plan and Municipal Code, phasing, implementation mechanisms, and financing strategies for infrastructure and public improvements identified in the Plan.
1-5
560
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Appendix - Village Zoning. Provides zoning regulations that will implement the Belmont Village Specific Plan.

The Belmont Village Specific Plan's Vision Statement is as follows: "Realize Belmont Village's potential as the City's center of civic life with a unique sense of place. Create an attractive, vibrant, mixed use town center for Belmont, offering shopping, restaurants, entertainment, employment, and residential uses in a compact, pedestrian-oriented setting. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle connections so that residents, visitors, and workers can walk, bike, and take transit. Design streets and public spaces to create a lively and attractive public realm with a distinctive identity." Climate Action Plan
The CAP includes the following chapters:

1. Introduction and Background. Provides project background and purpose, overview of climate science, projected San Francisco Bay Area climate impacts, and State policy and regulatory context. It also provides an overview of regional efforts, local efforts, and the process of creating the CAP.

2. Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast. Describes inventory sources and data collection process. Provides baseline emissions inventory for 2005, followed by emissions forecasts for 2020 and 2035. It concludes with emission reduction targets.

3. Climate Action Strategies. Provides climate action strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including goals and measures related to energy, transportation, land use, and solid waste. Also describes climate adaptation strategies.

4. Implementation. Prioritizes measures for emission reduction strategies, describes the results of the measure prioritization, summary of the measures, and how the emission targets will be met. Also describes the management strategy for GHG reductions, how to involve the public, and the timeline.

5. Monitoring and Improvement. Describes the efforts the City will take to monitor progress towards emissions targets.

6. Conclusion. Summarizes the purpose of the CAP and its key strategies.

Estimated Buildout of the Proposed General Plan and Specific Plan General Plan
Full development under the General Plan is referred to as "buildout." Although the General Plan envisions policies and land use intentions in the Plan to be realized by 2035, the year is not intended to be certain; nor does the designation of a site for a certain use necessarily mean the site will be built or redeveloped with that use in the next 20 years. The Land Use Element of the proposed General Plan provides a more detailed analysis of General Plan buildout.

In 2013, the Planning Area's population was approximately 26,400. Table ES-I shows that the population in the Planning Area is expected to grow by about 4,100 people by 2035, which is an increase of 15.5 percent from the population 2013 and an annual growth rate of 0.7 percent. By 2035, total households are expected to increase by 1,500 households, or 13.8 percent, with an annual 1-6
561
Chapter I: Executive Summary
growth rate of 0.6 percent. About 3,300 new jobs are expected in the Planning Area in 2035, a 32.7 percent increase from the total jobs in 2013, with an annual growth rate of 1.3 percent.

Table ES- I: Projected Growth in Planning Area, Belmont General Plan, 2013-2035
2013 2035
Population 26,400 30,500
Households 10,900 12,400
jobs 10,100 13,400
Sources: 2013 figures: C/CAG-VTA 2040 Model; Dyett & Bhatia; Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2016. 2035 figures: C/CAG-VTA 2040 Model; Dyett & Bhatia; Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2016.

Specific Plan
Like the Belmont General Plan Update, the BVSP uses a horizon year of 2035, and the growth projected to occur within the BVSP Area is included in the Belmont General Plan Update growth projections; i.e., the following growth projections do not increase the total growth planned for or permitted under the Belmont General Plan Update.

In 2013, Belmont Village had approximately 670 people in 340 housing units, and 1,440 jobs in 679,000 square feet. Table ES-2 summarizes the net total buildout within Belmont Village (the sum of existing development, current development projects, and net new development). About 560 new residential units are expected, increasing the total housing units to just under 900; with a population increase of about 1,100 residents, the total population is expected to be about 1,800. Nearly 365,000 square feet of new non-residential development is expected by 2035, bringing the total amount of non-residential development in the Village to about 1,044,000 square feet. Growth of about 1,000 new jobs is expected, increasing the total to about 2,450 employees in the area.

Table ES-2: Projected Growth in Belmont Village Specific Plan Area, 2013-2035 2013 2035 2013-2035 Growth
Total Population 670 1,780 1,110
Total Housing Units 340 890 560
Total jobs 1,440 2,450 910
Total Non-Residential Square Feet 679,000 1,044,000 364,800 Source: Dyett and Bhatia, 2016.
1-7
562
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Alternatives to the Proposed General Plan
The following alternatives are described and evaluated in this EIR:

Alternative I: Balanced Mixed Use
This alternative was designed to provide a more balanced jobs/housing ratio, representing a more even balance between commercial and residential development, in the Planning Area both in total and by neighborhood (where possible), which in turn has the potential to reduce total vehicle miles traveled by allowing more residents of the Planning Area to have the opportunity to live closer to retail and commercial destinations. A better match between commercial and residential land uses is achieved relative to the Proposed Project in part through two additional mixed-use nodes (outside of the BVSP Area) along Ralston Avenue, and more housing within close proximity to Notre Dame de Namur University (NDNU). Within the BVSP Area, more intense mixed use housing opportunities are created throughout the district, and a "live/work" land use designation is also introduced and applied to a cluster of parcels east of the Caltrain tracks and south of Ralston Avenue.

These changes in total result in potential for a more even balance of residential to commercial development in the BVSP Area than the Proposed Project.

No Project Alternative
The purpose of evaluating the No Project Alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the potential impacts of approving the project with the potential impacts of not approving the project.

The No Project analysis discusses both the existing conditions at the time the NOP is published as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved. The No Project scenario represents the continuation of the current General Plan (last updated in 1982) and Downtown Specific Plan (adopted in 1990 and amended in 1995) land use designations, with no Climate Action Plan in effect. It assumes that the existing General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Downtown Specific Plan would continue to guide development in the Planning Area until buildout in 2035. In relationship to the Proposed Project, the No Project Alternative:
• Has different land uses;
• Densities/intensities are lower, and mixed-use development and development of centers and walkable communities is not promoted to the level in the Proposed Project; • Is based on a different set of core values/goals and objectives; • Has lower residential capacity; and
• Has reduced alternate modes of transportation, connectivity, and street capacity. 1-8
563
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Areas of Controversy
Although there are no clear-cut areas of controversy, environmental impacts classified as significant and unavoidable have been identified in the resource topics of air quality and transportation, and inasmuch as they may be controversial to the general public, agencies, or stakeholders, they are described briefly here.

AIR QUALITY
The Proposed Project would not conflict with the BAAQMD's 2010 Clean Air Plan. Each plan includes numerous polices that would support the primary goals of the 2010 Clean Air Plan, including attainment of ambient air quality standards. The proposed General Plan and BVSP policies also incorporate all applicable control measures outlined under the 2010 Clean Air Plan, and would not hinder their implementation. Further, with implementation of the proposed General Plan and proposed Climate Action Plan (another element of the Proposed Project), per capita emissions will be lower than forecasted for the Planning Area under the 2010 Clean Air Plan, which will further help the region attain the ambient air quality standards.

While the proposed General Plan and the BVSP would be consistent with BAAQMD's regional air quality strategy, individual development projects may still generate construction and operational emissions in excess of BAAQMD's project-level thresholds. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 would reduce construction-related emissions, and Mitigation Measure AQ-5 would address operational-related emissions. Implementation of the comprehensive suite of proposed General Plan and BVSP policies would also reduce the severity of growth-oriented criteria pollutants by reducing VMT, encouraging transit, fostering bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and supporting sustainable land use patterns, including mixed-use design and increased density. However, as described below, even with implementation of the proposed General Plan and BVSP policies and the recommended mitigation measures, impacts from short-term construction and long-term operation would remain significant and unavoidable. These emissions would also result in a cumulatively considerable air quality impact within the SFBAAB.

The proposed General Plan and BVSP may expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations. Based on an inventory of existing stationary, roadway, and railway sources, several locations within the planning areas include sources currently in excess of BAAQMD's project-level and cumulative health risk thresholds. The proposed General Plan and BVSP both include policies to minimize risks to future residents. Operation of new stationary sources developed under the plans would be subject to the permit authority of the BAAQMD, which prohibits sources with health risks in excess of air district thresholds. Construction activities of future development may expose existing and future receptorsto significant health risks. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ- 2 would reduce construction-related emissions, and Mitigation Measure AQ-6 would provide a project-level evaluation of construction-related health risks from future projects within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. Despite these measures, there may be instances where project-specific conditions preclude the reduction of health risks below adopted thresholds, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.

Neither demolition activities nor increased traffic associated with the proposed General Plan and BVSP would expose receptors to significant pollutant concentrations. Specifically, demolition 1-9
564
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
activities would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 11-2 for the control of asbestos containing material (ACM). CO screening and modeling indicate that traffic volumes under the proposed General Plan and BVSP would not result in CO concentrations in excess of the state or federal 1- or 8-hour CO standards.

Development under the proposed General Plan and BVSP would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts associated with odors during construction and operation would be less than significant.

NOISE
The Proposed Project would result in both short-term and long-term changes to the existing noise environment in the Planning Area. Construction noise associated with future development that would be supported by the Proposed Project could expose sensitive receptors to noise levels that exceed the noise standards set forth in both the existing and proposed General Plan. Compliance with the time-of-day restrictions and noise muffling requirements for new construction in the City's Noise Ordinance, as well as the noise-reducing policies included in the proposed General Plan and BVSP, would reduce impacts on sensitive receptors to the extent feasible. However, even with these measures, it may not be feasible in all cases to mitigate construction noise of individual projects to a less-than-significant level. Thus, impacts from construction noise would be significant and unavoidable.

Similarly, long term operational noise from traffic, trains, and stationary sources could also increase compared to existing conditions, but would be limited in area through implementation of the policies of the proposed General Plan and BVSP. Changes in traffic noise as a result of the Proposed Project would be above the General Plan noise exposure standards for single-family residential uses in some locations as compared to existing conditions. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Construction activity could expose people to excessive groundborne vibration. Proposed General Plan policies would require that developers mitigate any vibration impacts on sensitive land uses to the extent feasible. However, even with these measures, it may not be feasible in all cases to mitigate vibration from individual construction projects to a less-than-significant level at all sensitive receptors. Thus, impacts from construction vibration would be significant and unavoidable.

Similarly, the development of sensitive land uses in areas with substantial vibration from trains could be significant. Proposed General Plan and BVSP policies would require future development along the Caltrain tracks to incorporate mitigation to reduce vibration, which would reduce impacts.

However, even with these measures, it may not be feasible in all cases to mitigate perceived vibration at all sensitive receptors. However, CEQA does not require analysis of impacts of the existing environment on a project pursuant to the California Supreme Court decision in California Building Industry Association vs. Bay Area Air Quality Management District(CBIA v. BAAQMD). Therefore, this impact would not be significant for CEQA purposes.

The Proposed Project area is not located within areas of excessive noise from either the San Carlos Airport or the San Francisco International Airport and no significant impacts are expected with respect to aircraft noise.
1-10
565
Chapter I: Executive Summary

TRANSPORTATION
Buildout of the Proposed Project in 2035 would result in added traffic demand within the Planning Area as well as regional roadways. Although the proposed Plans include roadway infrastructure improvements, increases in traffic demand would be expected to cause 35 of the 45 study intersections to exceed the thresholds of significance defined by the City and/or the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG):
• Ralston Avenue/SR 92 Westbound Ramps
• Ralston Avenue/SR 92 Eastbound Ramps
• Ralston Avenue/Hallmark Drive
• Ralston Avenue/Belmont Canyon Road
• Ralston Avenue/Tahoe Drive
• Ralston Avenue/Davis Drive
• Ralston Avenue/Cipriani Drive
• Ralston Avenue/Alameda de las Pulgas
• Ralston Avenue/Notre Dame Avenue
• Ralston Avenue/Chula Vista Drive
• Ralston Avenue/Notre Dame University Road
• Ralston Avenue/South Road
• Ralston Avenue/Sixth Avenue
• Ralston Avenue/El Camino Real
• Ralston Avenue/Old County Road
• Ralston Avenue/Elmer Street
• Ralston Avenue/Hiller Street
• Ralston Avenue/US 101 Southbound Ramps
• Ralston Avenue/US 101 Northbound Ramps - Island Parkway • Marine Parkway/Shoreway Road - Oracle Parkway
• Alameda de las Pulgas/Carlmont Drive
• Alameda de las Pulgas/Chula Vista Drive
• El Camino/Davey Glen Road
• El Camino Real/Middle Road
• El Camino Real/Flashner Lane
• El Camino Real/Emmett Avenue
• El Camino Real/Waltermire Street
• El Camino Real/O'Neill Avenue
• El Camino Real/Harbor Boulevard (North)
• El Camino Real/Harbor Boulevard (South)
• Old County Road/Masonic Way
• Old County Road/O'Neill Avenue
• Old County Road/Harbor Boulevard
• Fifth Avenue/O'Neill Avenue
• Sixth Avenue/O'Neill Avenue
The improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts at the study intersections would require the acquisition of significant right-of-way to construct additional turn or travel lanes and extensive traffic signal modification. However, the addition of through or turn lanes and traffic signal modification would result in secondary impacts, including increasing vehicle miles traveled; noncompliance with policies contained within adopted plans, and active mode accessibility; and fiscal 1-11
566
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
constraints due to the need to acquire right-of-way along built out corridors, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts.

The Proposed Project is also anticipated to result in significant impacts to the C/CAG Congestion Management Program (CMP) Arterial Roadway Network. El Camino Real is expected to operate at LOS E north of Ralston Avenue and LOS F south of Ralston Avenue during the p.m. peak hour.

As part of the proposed Project there would not be a reduction in travel lanes or other changes to the roadway configuration that would affect arterial segment performance. The Project would be expected to cause the intersection of El Camino Real/Ralston Avenue to operate at LOS F during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours, and the Project would add trips to the CMP roadway and exceed the LOS criteria established by C/CAG. In order to reduce the Proposed Project's impact on the El Camino Real roadway segments, additional travel lanes along the corridor would need to be constructed to provide sufficient capacity to serve traffic demand. The addition of through lanes would result in secondary impacts, including increasing VMT; non-compliance with policy contained within the Grand Boulevard Initiative, Complete Streets initiatives, and active mode accessibility; and fiscal constraints due to the need to acquire right-of-way along built out corridors, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts.

The Proposed Project would be expected to result in significant impacts to the C/CAG CMP Freeway Network. The Proposed Project is expected to result in more than a one percent increase in volume on all freeway segments operating deficiently under Existing Conditions. On the freeway segments operating acceptably under Existing Conditions, the projected traffic volumes would be expected increase the volume-to-capacity ratio above 1.00, resulting in LOS F operations. The following segments would be expected to operate deficiently:
• US 101 from East Hillsdale Boulevard to Ralston Avenue (Northbound and Southbound) • US 101 from Ralston Avenue to Harbor Boulevard (Southbound Only) • US 101 from Harbor Boulevard to Holly Street (Southbound Only) • US 101 from Holly Street to Ralston Avenue (Northbound Only) • SR 92 from Mariners Island Boulevard to US 101
• SR 92 from US 101 to El Camino Real
• SR 29 from El Camino Real to Alameda de las Pulgas
• SR 92 from Alameda de las Pulgas to West Hillsdale Boulevard • SR 92 from De Anza Boulevard to Ralston Avenue
• SR 92 from Ralston Avenue to 1-280
• 1-280 from Bunker Hill Drive/SR 35 to SR 92
• 1-280 from SR 92 to Edgewood Road
In order to reduce the Project's impacts on the study freeway segments, additional travel lanes on the freeway segment would need to be constructed to provide sufficient capacity to serve traffic demand. However, the addition of through lanes would result in secondary impacts, including increasing VMT and fiscal constraints due to the need to acquire right-of-way along built out corridors, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts.

Increased congestion along El Camino Real and other roadways in the study area could affect emergency vehicle response times, especially during AM and PM Peak-Hour commute times. To the same extent that the Project would affect average vehicle delay, there could be a corresponding change to the response times for emergency vehicles traveling through these locations; therefore, 1-12
567
Chapter I: Executive Summary
the impact of the Proposed Project on emergency access would be considered potentially significant.

Signal priority preemption equipment and strict adherence to emergency vehicle passing priority under state law could reduce the Project's impact on emergency access; however, these mitigation measures cannot be accurately quantified, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts.

Impacts Summary and Environmentally Superior
Alternative

IMPACTS SUMMARY
Table ES-3 presents the summary of the significant impacts of the Proposed Project identified in the EIR and the Proposed Project policies and mitigation measures that reduce these impacts to the extent possible. Detailed discussions of the impacts and proposed policies that would reduce impacts are in Chapter 4.

IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
As discussed in the comparative analysis in Chapter 5 of this Draft EIR, once the No Project Alternative is set aside (as provided by CEQA), Alternative 1 is the sole remaining alternative, and is therefore identified as the environmentally superior alternative.

In comparison to the Proposed Project, Alternative 1 would support more housing and fewer jobs, which would result in a more balanced jobs/housing ratio. Because the analysis of the Proposed Project showed notable VMT reductions at the TAZ level in areas of high density mixed use, the original intention of the design of Alternative 1 was to create additional nodes of mixed use development in order to further reduce VMT, and, subsequently, air quality and greenhouse gasrelated impacts. Housing is more evenly distributed throughout the Planning Area in Alternative 1, creating more of these mixed-use nodes and opportunities for shorter vehicle trips. While this balance does decrease VMT per service population relative to both the Proposed Project and the No Project Alternative by reducing trip lengths and the number of daily trips per service population, and would result in increased pedestrian/bicycle activity and transit ridership, the increased residential development in Alternative 1 would still result in higher total VMT in the Planning Area and thus greater localized impacts to air quality and traffic congestion in the Planning Area, as well as greater impacts to energy, GHGs, and climate change. Overall, the Proposed Project would have less of an impact than Alternative 1.
1-13
568
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Aesthetics

4.1-1 Implementation of the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Less than significant Proposed Project will
not have a substantial

2.13-1, 2.13-3, 2.13-7, 2.14-3, 2.14-4, 3.4-6, 4.4-1, 4.4-3, 4.5-4, 5.3-7 adverse effect on a
scenic vista. Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
Urban Design Chapter
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
TLl
Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.1-2 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not damage scenic
Mitigation Measures
None required.

No Impact
resources visible from
state- or countydesignated or eligible
scenic highways.

4.1-3 Implementation of the
Proposed Project could
substantially degrade the
existing visual character
or quality of the Planning
Area and its
surroundings.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.4-1, 2.4-3, 2.5-4, 2.5-7, 2.6-6, 2.13-2, 2.13-3, 2.13-7, 3.4-5 Proposed Phase I Zoning Regulations that Would Reduce the Impact Corridor Mixed Use District design standards
Regional Commercial District design standards
Harbor Industrial Area District design standards
Less than Significant
569
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
Urban Design Chapter development standards and design guidelines Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
TL2
Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.1-4 Implementation of the
Proposed Project could
create a new source of
substantial light or glare
that would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.13-4, 5.3-6
Proposed Phase I Zoning Provisions that Would Reduce the Impact The proposed Phase I Zoning amendments introduce a definition for "full cutoff lighting."
Less than Significant
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no policies in the Belmont Village Specific Plan that relate to this topic. General Plan policies also apply to the BVSP Area.

Proposed Climate Action Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
EMI
1-15
570
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Mitigation Measures
None required.

Air Quality

4.2-1 Implementation of the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Less than Significant Proposed Project would
not conflict with or
obstruct implementation
of the applicable air
quality plan.

2.1-2, 2.3-2, 2.5-6, 2.7-2, 2.13-6, 2.15-1, 3.1-2, 3.1-3, 3.1-4, 3.1-5, 3.2-1, 3.2-2,

3.2-3, 3.2-4, 3.2-5, 3.4-3, 3.4-10, 3.5-5, 3.5-8, 3.5-9, 3.5-13, 3.5-14, 3.5-15, 3.5-16,

3.6-1, 3.6-2, 3.6-3, 3.7-1, 3.7-2, 3.7-3, 3.7-4, 3.7-6, 3.7-7, 3.8-1, 5.3-8, 5.10-1, 5.10- 2, 5.10-4, 5.10-6, 5.11-1
Proposed Phase I Zoning Regulations that Would Reduce the Impact Section BA.7
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.1-1, 2.1-3, 2.1-5, 3.1-2, 3.2-1, 3.2-2, 3.2-8, 3.2-10, 3.2-18, 3.2-19, 3.2-20, 3.2-27,

3.2-29, 3.2-31, 3.2-32, 3.2-33, 3.2-35, 3.2-36, 3.3-1, 3.3-3, 3.4-1, 3.5-1, 5.4-1, 5.4- 2, 6.4-2, 6.4-3, 6.4-4, 6.4-5, 6.4-6, 6.4-7, 6.4-8, 6.4-9, 6.4-10 Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
ECl, EC2, EC4, ECS, EM3, EMS, Al, TLl, TL2, TL3, TMl, TM2, TM4 Mitigation Measures
None required.
1-16
571
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level

4.2-2 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
violate an air quality
Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.10-3
Significant and
Unavoidable
standard and contribute
substantially to an
existing or projected air
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
quality violation during
construction.

There are no policies in the Belmont Village Specific Plan that relate to this topic.

Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, AQ-4

4.2-3 Implementation of the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Significant and Proposed Project would
violate an air quality
standard and contribute
substantially to an
existing or projected air

2.1-2, 2.3-2, 2.5-6, 2.7-2, 2.13-6, 2.15-1, 3.1-2, 3.1-3, 3.1-4, 3.1-5, 3.2-1, 3.2-2,

3.2-3, 3.2-4, 3.2-5, 3.4-3, 3.4-10, 3.5-5, 3.5-8, 3.5-9, 3.5-13, 3.5-14, 3.5-15, 3.5-16,

3.6-1, 3.6-2, 3.6-3, 3.7-1, 3.7-2, 3.7-3, 3.7-4, 3.7-6, 3.7-7, 3.8-1, 5.3-8, 5.10-1, 5.10- 2, 5.10-4, 5.10-6, 5.11-1
unavoidable
quality violation during
operation. Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.1-1, 2.1-3, 2.1-5, 3.1-2, 3.2-1, 3.2-2, 3.2-8, 3.2-10, 3.2-18, 3.2-19, 3.2-20, 3.2-27,

3.2-29, 3.2-31, 3.2-32, 3.2-33, 3.2-35, 3.2-36, 3.3-1, 3.3-3, 3.4-1, 3.5-1, 5.4-1, 5.4- 2, 6.4-2, 6.4-3, 6.4-4, 6.4-5, 6.4-6, 6.4-7, 6.4-8, 6.4-9, 6.4-10 1-17
572
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact

2.1-1, 2.1-3, 2.1-5, 3.1-2, 3.2-1, 3.2-2, 3.2-8, 3.2-10, 3.2-18, 3.2-19, 3.2-20, 3.2-27,

3.2-29, 3.2-31, 3.2-32, 3.2-33, 3.2-35, 3.2-36, 3.3-1, 3.3-3, 3.4-1, 3.5-1, 5.4-1, 5.4- 2, 6.4-2, 6.4-3, 6.4-4, 6.4-5, 6.4-6, 6.4-7, 6.4-8, 6.4-9, 6.4-10 Mitigation Measures
AQ-5

4.2-4 Implementation of the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Significant and Proposed Project would
result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase
of a criteria pollutant for
which the project region

2.1-2, 2.3-2, 2.5-6, 2.7-2, 2.13-6, 2.15-1, 3.1-2, 3.1-3, 3.1-4, 3.1-5, 3.2-1, 3.2-2,

3.2-3, 3.2-4, 3.2-5, 3.4-3, 3.4-10, 3.5-5, 3.5-8, 3.5-9, 3.5-13, 3.5-14, 3.5-15, 3.5-16,

3.6-1, 3.6-2, 3.6-3, 3.7-1, 3.7-2, 3.7-3, 3.7-4, 3.7-6, 3.7-7, 3.8-1, 5.3-8, 5.10-1, 5.10- 2, 5.10-4, 5.10-6, 5.11-1
unavoidable
is a nonattainment area
for an applicable federal
or state ambient air
quality standard
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
(including releasing 2.1-1, 2.1-3, 2.1-5, 3.1-2, 3.2-1, 3.2-2, 3.2-8, 3.2-10, 3.2-18, 3.2-19, 3.2-20, 3.2-27, emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors).

3.2-29, 3.2-31, 3.2-32, 3.2-33, 3.2-35, 3.2-36, 3.3-1, 3.3-3, 3.4-1, 3.5-1, 5.4-1, 5.4- 2, 6.4-2, 6.4-3, 6.4-4, 6.4-5, 6.4-6, 6.4-7, 6.4-8, 6.4-9, 6.4-10 Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact

2.1-1, 2.1-3, 2.1-5, 3.1-2, 3.2-1, 3.2-2, 3.2-8, 3.2-10, 3.2-18, 3.2-19, 3.2-20, 3.2-27,

3.2-29, 3.2-31, 3.2-32, 3.2-33, 3.2-35, 3.2-36, 3.3-1, 3.3-3, 3.4-1, 3.5-1, 5.4-1, 5.4- 2, 6.4-2, 6.4-3, 6.4-4, 6.4-5, 6.4-6, 6.4-7, 6.4-8, 6.4-9, 6.4-10 1-18
573
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Mitigation Measures
AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5

4.2-5 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations
from new sources of
toxic air containments.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.10-5, 5.10-2
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

6.4-2, 6.4-3, 6.4-4, 6.4-5, 6.4-6, 6.4-9
Significant and
unavoidable
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
AQ-6

4.2-6 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
carbon monoxide
pollutant concentrations
from increased traffic.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.15-1, 3.4-3, 3.4-10
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

3.2-10, 3.2-24, 3.2-26
Less than significant
1-19
574
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
TL2, TL3
Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.2-7 Implementation of the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Less than significant Proposed Project would
not create objectionable
There are no strategies in the proposed General Plan that relate to this topic. odors affecting a
substantial number of
people.

Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Specific Plan that relate to this topic.

Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Biological Resources

4.3-1 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through
habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a
Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.14-3, 4.4-1, 4.4-6, 4.5-2, 4.5-3, 4.5-4, 5.1-1, 5.1-2, 5.1-3, 5.1-4, 5.3-1, 5.3-2,

5.3-3, 5.3-4, 5.4-3
Less than Significant
1-20
575
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations;
by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife; or by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

6.1-1, 6.2-2, 6.3-1
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
TLl
Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.3-2 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not have a substantial
adverse effect on riparian
habitat or other sensitive
natural communities
identified in local or
regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the
California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

4.5-2, 5.4-3, 5.3-2
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

6.1-1, 6.2-2
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
TLl
Mitigation Measures
None required.

Less than Significant

4.3-3 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not have a substantial
adverse effect on
federally protected
Proposed General Plan that Would Reduce the Impact

5.3-2, 5.4-3
Less than Significant
1-21
576
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including,
but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other
means.

Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

6.1-1, 6.2-2, 6.3-2
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.3-4 Implementation of the
proposed Project would
not interfere
substantially with the
movement of any native
resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or
with established native
resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.3-4, 5.4-3
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

6.3-2
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Less than Significant

4.3-5 Implementation of
proposed General Plan
would not conflict with
local policies or
Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.4-2, 4.5-4
No Impact
1-22
577
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level ordinances protecting
biological resources,
such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance.

Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no policies in the Belmont Village Specific Plan that relate to this topic. General Plan policies also apply to the BVSP Area.

Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.3-6 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not conflict with the
provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

No Impact
Cultural Resources

4.4-1 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not cause a substantial
change to the significance
of a historical resource,
defined as physical
demolition, destruction,
relocation, or alteration
Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.23-1, 2.23-2, 2.23-3, 2.23-4, 2.2-1, 2.2-3
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that would Reduce the Impact

2.2-1, 2.2-3
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
1-23
578
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level of the resource or its
immediate surroundings
such that the significance
of a historic resource
would be materially
impaired (Guidelines
Section 15064.5).

Mitigation Measures
CULT-I, CULT-2

4.4-2 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact

5.12-1, 5.12-2
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.2-2
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measure
None required.

Less than Significant

4.4-3 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique
geologic feature.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact

5.12-1, 5.12-2
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.2-2
Less than Significant
1-24
579
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measure
None required.

4.4-4 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of
formal cemeteries.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact

5.12-1, 5.12-2
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.2-2
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measure
None required.

Less than Significant

4.4-5 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource,
defined in Public
Resources Code section
Proposed General Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact

5.12-1, 5.12-2
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.2-2
Less than Significant
1-25
580
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural
landscape that is
geographically defined in
terms of the size and
scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a
California Native
American tribe, and that
meets the criteria set
forth in subdivision (a) of
Public Resources Code
section 21074.

Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measure
None required.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity

4.5-1 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not expose people or
structures to potential
substantial adverse
effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death
involving rupture of a
known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the
most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map or based on
other substantial
evidence of a known
fault; strong seismic
ground shaking; seismicrelated ground failure,
Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

3.4-6, 4.4-3, 5.2-1, 6.1-1, 6.1-2, 6.1-3, 6.1-4, 6.1-5, 6.1-6, 6.1-8, 6.1-9, 6.1-10,

6.1-11
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no policies in the Belmont Village Specific Plan that relate to this topic. General Plan policies also apply to the BVSP Area.

Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Less than Significant
1-26
581
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level including liquefaction;
and landslides.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.5-2 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not result in substantial
soil erosion or topsoil
loss.

Proposed General Plan that Would Reduce the Impact

3.4-6, 6.1-2, 6.1-5, 6.1-6
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

6.1-1
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Less than Significant

4.5-3 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not locate structures on
expansive soils or on a
geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in onor off-site landslide,
lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse and create
Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

6.1-1, 6.1-2, 6.1-3, 6.1-4, 6.1-5, 6.1-6
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Less than Significant
1-27
582
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level substantial risks to life or
property.

4.5-4 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not result in soils
incapable of adequately
supporting the use of
septic tanks or
alternative wastewater
disposal systems where
sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste
water.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.7-4
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no policies in the Belmont Village Specific Plan that relate to this topic. General Plan policies also apply to the BVSP area.

Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

No Impact
Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change

4.6-1 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not lead to wasteful,
inefficient, or
unnecessary
consumption of energy.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.3-2, 2.5-6, 3.2-1, 3.2-2, 3.2-3, 3.2-4, 3.2-5, 3.5-9, 3.6-1, 3.6-2, 3.6-3, 3.7-1, 3.7- 4, 3.7-6, 5.11-1
Proposed Phase I Zoning Regulations that Would Reduce the Impact Section 7A.7
Less than significant
1-28
583
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.1-1, 2.1-3, 2.1-5, 3.1-2, 3.2-2, 3.2-8, 3.2-18, 3.3-1, 3.3-3, 3.4-1, 5.4-1, 5.4-2, 6.4- 10 Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
ECl, EC2, EC3, EC4, ECS, EC6, EMl, EM3, EM4, EMS
Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.6-2 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not result in a substantial
adverse effect on local or
regional energy supplies,
peak or base period
energy demand, or
resource capacity.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

3.2-1, 5.11-1
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.4-1, 5.4-2
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
ECl, EC2, EC3, EC4, ECS, EC6, EMl, EM3, EM4, EMS
Mitigation Measures
None required.

Less than significant
1-29
584
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level

4.6-3 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
generate GHG
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, during
construction that may
have a significant impact
on the environment.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.10-3
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no policies in the Belmont Village Specific Plan that relate to this topic.

Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
AQ-2
Less than significant
with mitigation

4.6-4 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not generate GHG
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, during
operation that may have
a significant impact on
the environment.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.1-2, 2.13-6, 2.15-1, 2.3-2, 2.5-6, 3.1-3, 3.1-4, 3.1-5, 3.4-3, 3.4-10, 3.5-5, 3.5-8,

3.5-13, 3.5-14, 3.5-15, 3.5-16, 3.7-2, 3.7-3, 3.7-7, 3.8-1, 3.2-2, 3.2-3, 3.2-4, 3.2-5,

3.5-9, 3.6-1, 3.6-2, 3.6-3, 3.7-1 3.7-4, 3.7-6, 5.10-1, 5.10-6, 5.11-1 Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.1-1, 2.1-3, 2.1-5, 3.2-1, 3.2-10, 3.2-19, 3.2-20, 3.2-27, 3.2-29, 3.2-31, 3.2-32, 3.2- 33, 3.2-35, 3.2-36, 3.5-1, 3.2-2, 3.2-8, 3.2-18, 3.3-1, 3.3-3, 3.4-1, 5.1-4, 5.4-3, 5.4- 4, 5.4-5, 5.4-6, 5.4-7, 5.4-8, 5.2-5, 5.4-1, 5.4-2, 6.4-10, 6.4-6, 6.4-7, 6.4-8, 6.4-9 Less than significant
1-30
585
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
See measures described in Table 4.6-9.

Mitigation Measures
None required

4.6-5 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.1-2, 2.13-6, 2.15-1, 2.3-2, 2.5-6, 3.1-3, 3.1-4, 3.1-5, 3.4-3, 3.4-10, 3.5-5, 3.5-8,

3.5-13, 3.5-14, 3.5-15, 3.5-16, 3.7-2, 3.7-3, 3.7-7, 3.8-1, 3.2-2, 3.2-3, 3.2-4, 3.2-5,

3.5-9, 3.6-1, 3.6-2, 3.6-3, 3.7-1 3.7-4, 3.7-6, 5.10-1, 5.10-6, 5.11-1 Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.1-1, 2.1-3, 2.1-5, 3.2-1, 3.2-10, 3.2-19, 3.2-20, 3.2-27, 3.2-29, 3.2-31, 3.2-32, 3.2- 33, 3.2-35, 3.2-36, 3.5-1, 3.2-2, 3.2-8, 3.2-18, 3.3-1, 3.3-3, 3.4-1, 5.1-4, 5.4-3, 5.4- 4, 5.4-5, 5.4-6, 5.4-7, 5.4-8, 5.2-5, 5.4-1, 5.4-2, 6.4-10, 6.4-6, 6.4-7, 6.4-8, 6.4-9 Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
See measures described in Table 4.6-9.

Mitigation Measures
None required
Less than significant
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.7-1 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
create a significant
Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

6.4-1, 6.4-2
Less than Significant
1-31
586
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level hazard to the public or
the environment through
the routine transport,
use, or disposal of
hazardous materials.

Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

6.4-6, 6.4-7, 6.4-9
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
EC3,EM4
Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.7-2 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment through
reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident
conditions involving the
release of hazardous
materials into the
environment.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

6.4-1, 6.4-2
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no policies in the BVSP that relate to this impact.

Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Less than Significant
1-32
587
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level

4.7-3 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
emit hazardous
emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile
of an existing or
proposed school.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact There are no policies in the proposed General Plan that relate to this impact.

Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no policies in the Belmont Village Specific Plan that relate to this impact.

Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
EC3,EM4
Mitigation Measures
None required.

Less than Significant

4.7-4 Implementation of the
Proposed Project could
result in development
located on a site which is
included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code
Section 65962.5 and thus
create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

6.3-1, 6.3-2, 6.3-3
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

6.4-1, 6.4-3
Less than Significant
1-33
588
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.7-5 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not result in a safety
hazard for people
residing or working
within an airport land
use plan area or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two
miles of a public airport
or public use airport.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.16-1, 2.16-2
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

6.6-1, 6.6-2
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Less than Significant

4.7-6 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
result in a safety hazard
for people residing or
working within the
Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.16-1, 2.16-2
No Impact
1-34
589
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level vicinity of a private
airstrip.

Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Belmont Village Specific Plan that relate to this topic.

Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.7-7 Implementation of the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Less than Significant Proposed Project could
impair implementation of
or physically interfere

6.7-1, 6.7-2, 6.7-3, 6.7-4, 6.7-5, 6.7-6, 6.7-7, 6.7-8, 6.7-9, 6.0-1, 6.9-2, 6.9-3, 6,10- 1 with an adopted
emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation
plan.

Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.6-2
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic. 1-35
590
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.7-8 Implementation of the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Less than Significant Proposed Project would
expose people or
structures to a significant

2.14-3, 4.4-7, 5.1-3, 6.6-1, 6.6-2, 6.6-3, 6.6-4, 6.6-5, 6.6-7, 6.6-8, 6.6-9, 6.6-20,

6.6-11
risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland
fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
urbanized areas or
where residences are
There are no strategies in the Belmont Village Specific Plan that relate to this topic.
intermixed with
wildlands.

Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Hydrology, Flooding, and Water Quality

4.8-1 Development under the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Less than Significant Proposed Project would
not violate any federal,

5.5-3, 6.2-9, 6.2-10
State, or local water
quality standards or
waste discharge
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
requirements. 5.1-3
1-36
591
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.8-2 Development under the
Proposed Project would
not substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially
with groundwater
recharge, such that there
would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a
lowering of local
groundwater tables.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

4.4-1, 4.4-3, 5.3-5, 5.9-2
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.1-7
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Less than Significant
Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.8-3 Development under the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Less than Significant Proposed Project would
not substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern

3.4-6, 4.5-2, 4.4-1, 4.4-3, 5.3-2, 5.4-1, 5.4-2, 5.4-3, 5.4-4, 5.5-4, 5.9-1, 5.9-2,

6.1-11
of the site or area,
1-37
592
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level including through the
alteration of the course
of a stream or river or
by increasing the rate or
amount of surface runoff,
in a manner that would
result in substantial
erosion, siltation, or
flooding on- or off-site.

Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
Urban Design Chapter

5.1-5, 5.1-3, 5.1-7, 6.1-1, 6.2-2, 6.3-2
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.8-4 Development under the
Proposed Project would
not create or contribute
runoff that would exceed
the capacity of existing
or planned storm drain
systems, or that would
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.9-1, 6.2-3
Proposed Phase I Zoning Regulations that Would Reduce the Impact Design Standards for Off-street Parking and Loading in Commercial Mixed Use and Regional Commercial Districts
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
Less than Significant
Urban Design Chapter: design guidelines for Low Impact Development

5.1-6, 5.1-5
Village Zoning: design standards for permeable surface parking Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
1-38
593
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.8-5 Development under the
Proposed Project would
not otherwise
Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.5-1, 5.5-2, 5.5-4, 5.5-5, 5.5-3
Less than Significant
substantially degrade Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce water quality. the Impact

6.4-1
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.8-6 Development under the
Proposed Project would
Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

6.2-5, 6.2-7, 6.2-8
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

6.2-1
Less than Significant
not place housing within
a I00-year flood hazard
area on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood
hazard delineation map.
1-39
594
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
Appendix D of the Climate Action Plan offers a selection of several possible adaptation measures to address sea level rise and increased flooding events.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.8-7 Development under the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Proposed Project would
not place within a I 00- 6.2-11, 6.2-13, 6.2-5
year flood hazard area
structures which would
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
impede or redirect flood
waters. 6.2-1
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
Appendix D of the Climate Action Plan offers a selection of several possible adaptation measures to address sea level rise and increased flooding events.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.8-8 Development under the
Proposed Project would
not expose people or
structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding,
Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.21-3, 5.11-3, 6.1-1, 6.2-1, 6.2-2, 6.2-4, 6.2-6, 6.2-12 Less than Significant
1-40
595
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level including flooding as a
result of the failure of a
levee or dam.

Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.1-8, 6.2-1
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
Appendix D of the Climate Action Plan offers a selection of several possible adaptation measures to address sea level rise and increased flooding events.

As discussed above, GHG emissions reductions due to all CAP measures reduce sea level rise.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.8-9 Development under the
Proposed Project would
not expose people or
structures to inundation
by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Safety Element

6.1-2, 6.1-3,6.1-5, 6.1-9
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
Less than Significant
There are no policies in the Belmont Village Specific Plan that relate to this topic. General Plan policies also apply to the BVSP Area.

Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic. 1-41
596
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Mitigation Measures
None required.

Land Use, Housing and Population

4.9-1 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not physically divide an
established community.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.1-2, 2.3-4, 2.5-5, 2.8-1, 3.1-3, 3.1-4, 3.5-13
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
Less than Significant

3.1-3, 3.2-26
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
TLl
Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.9-2 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not conflict with any
applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of
an agency with
jurisdiction over the
project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an
environmental effect.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.1-1, 2.10-1, 2.12-1, 2.12-2, 2.14-1, 2.14-2, 2.21-1, 2.21-2, 2.21-3, 4.1-4, 4.2-1,

4.4-3, 4.4-5, 4.5-4, 5.5-3, 5.10-6, 6.1-1, 6.1-4, 6.2-7, 6.2-8, 6.3-3, 6.10-1 Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no policies in the Belmont Village Specific Plan that relate to this topic. General Plan policies also apply to the BVSP Area.

Less than Significant
1-42
597
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
TL2, TLI
Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.9-3 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not conflict with any
Mitigation Measures
None required.

No Impact
applicable habitat
conservation plan or
natural community
conservation plan.

4.9-4 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not induce substantial
Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.8-1, 2.9-1
Less than Significant
population growth in an Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce area, either directly (for the Impact
example, by proposing
new homes and 3.1-2
businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through
extension of roads or
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
other infrastructure). TL2
Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.9-5 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not displace substantial
Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.3-1, 2.17-3, 2.18-1, 2.18-2
Less than Significant
1-43
598
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level numbers of existing Proposed Phase I Zoning Regulations that Would Reduce the Impact housing units or people,
necessitating the Unbundled Parking
construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere.

Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies and Regulations that Would Reduce the Impact

2.3-1, 2.3-3, 2.3-4, 2.3-6, 2.3-7, 2.3-8, 5.8-5
Village Zoning: Increased FAR, Height, and Density Incentives for Community Benefits Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Noise

4.10-1 Implementation of the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

7.1-1, 7.1-2, 7.1-3, 7.1-4, 7.1-5, 7.1-6, 7.1-7, 7.1-8, 7.1-9, 7.2-1, 7.3-1 Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies and Regulations that Would Reduce the Impact

6.5-1, 6.5-2, 6.5-3
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
TL2
Significant and
Proposed Project would Unavoidable
generate noise levels in
excess of standards
established in a local
general plan or noise
ordinance or applicable
standards of other
agencies during
construction.
1-44
599
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures have been identified that would be able to reduce, with a reasonable degree of certainty, construction-related noise impacts on existing sensitive receptors.

4.10-2 Implementation of the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Significant and Proposed Project would
generate excessive

7.1-10, 7.1-11 Unavoidable
groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies and Regulations that Would Reduce the Impact
levels during
construction. 6.5-4
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures have been identified that would be able to reduce, with a reasonable degree of certainty, vibration impacts on existing sensitive receptors from construction activities.

4.10-3 Implementation of the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Less than Significant Proposed Project would
not result in a substantial

7.1-1, 7.1-2, 7.1-3, 7.1-4, 7.1-5, 7.1-6, 7.1-7, 7.1-8, 7.1-9, 7.2-1, 7.3-1 permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies and Regulations that Would Reduce the Impact
the project vicinity above
levels existing without 6.5-1, 6.5-2, 6.5-3
the project.
1-45
600
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
TL2
Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.10-4 Implementation of the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Significant and Proposed Project would
result in a substantial

7.1-1, 7.1-2, 7.1-3, 7.1-4, 7.1-5, 7.1-6, 7.1-7, 7.1-8, 7.1-9, 7.2-1, 7.3-1 Unavoidable temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies and Regulations that Would Reduce the Impact
levels in the project
vicinity above levels 6.5-1, 6.5-2, 6.5-3
existing without the
project.

Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures have been identified that would be able to reduce, with a reasonable degree of certainty, noise impacts on existing sensitive receptors from construction activities.

4.10-5 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not expose people
residing or working in
the Planning Area to
excessive noise levels
associated with airports.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

7.3-2
Less than Significant
1-46
601
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies and Regulations that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no policies in the Belmont Village Specific Plan that would reduce this impact.

Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no policies in the Climate Action Plan that would reduce this impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.10-6 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not expose people
residing or working in
the Planning Area to
excessive noise levels
associated with private
airstrips.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact No impact would occur.

Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies and Regulations that Would Reduce the Impact
No impact would occur.

No lmpact.

Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Public Services and Recreation
1-47
602
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level

4.1 1-1 Implementation of the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.3-4, 2.9-1, 2.14-3, 4.4-7, 5.1-3, 6.6-2, 6.6-3, 6.6-4, 6.6-5, 6.6-6, 6.6-7, 6.6-8, 6.8- 3, 6.8-4, 6.9-2
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.6-1, 5.6-2, 5.6-3
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Less than Significant
Proposed Project would
not result in the need for
provision of increased
staffing, facilities, and
equipment necessary to
maintain acceptable
levels of fire and police
service in such a way
that could cause adverse
environmental effects.
(Less than Significant)

4.1 1-2 Implementation of the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Less than Significant Proposed Project would
not result in the need for

2.10-3, 2.9-1
provision of appropriate
increases in school
staffing of facilities in
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
such a way that could
cause adverse

5.7-1
environmental effects. Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
1-48
603
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level

4.1 1-3 Buildout of the Proposed
Project would not result Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Less than Significant
in an increase in the use
of existing parks and
recreational facilities

2.10-1, 2.9-1, 4.1-1. 4.1-2, 4.1-3, 4.2-1, 4.2-3, 4.3-1, 4.3-2, 4.4-5, 4.6-1, 4.6-2, 4.7- 1, 4.7-2, 4.7-3
such that substantial
physical deterioration
would occur or be
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
accelerated. 5.9-1, 5.9-2, 5.9-3, 5.9-4, 5.9-5, 5.9-6, 5.9-7, 5.9-9, 6.3-3 Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
TL2
Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.1 1-4 Buildout of the Proposed
Project would result in Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Less than Significant
the need for
development of new

2.3-4, 2.14-3, 2.10-1, 4.4-1, 4.1-1, 4.1-2, 4.2-1, 4.2-3, 4.3-2, 4.4-5 parks and recreational
facilities, but not in a
manner which might
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact
have an adverse physical
effect on the

6.3-3
environment. Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
TL2
1-49
604
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.1 1-5 Buildout of the Proposed
Project would result in
the need for provision of
appropriate increases in
other public facilities or
staffing of those facilities,
which could cause
adverse environmental
effects.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.10-2, 2.3-4, 2.9-1, 4.2-2
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.9-8, 5.9-2, 5.9-3, 5.9-4, 5.9-5, 5.9-7
Less than Significant
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Transportation

4.12-1 Buildout of the Proposed
Project would cause
intersections to fall
below the established
significance criteria for
the City of Belmont and
C/CAG for intersection
operation.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

3.1-1, 3.2-4, 3.3-5, 3.1-2, 3.1-3, 3.1-5, 3.2-5, 3.3-2, 3.4-3, 3.4-7, 3.1-4, 3.3-1, 3.3- 3, 3.6-2, 3.6-3, 3.10-1
Proposed Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

3.1-2, 3.4-1
Significant and
Unavoidable
1-50
605
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
TLI, TL2, TM2
Mitigation Measures

4.12-la, 4.12-lb, 4.12-lc, 4.12-ld, 4.12-le, 4.12-lf, 4.12-lg, 4.12-lh, 4.12-li,

4.12-lj, 4.12-lk, 4.12-11, 4.12-lm, 4.12-ln, 4.12-lo, 4.12-lp, 4.12-lq

4.12-2 Buildout of the proposed
Project would cause
roadway segment
operations to fall below
C/CAG's established
level of service
standards.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

3.4-5, 3.7-4, 3.7-7
Proposed Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

3.2-2, 3.2-10, 3.2-26
Significant and
Unavoidable
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
TLI, TL2, TM2
Mitigation Measures

4.12-2

4.12-3 The proposed Project Mitigation Measures Significant and would not cause freeway
segment operations to
4_12_3 Unavoidable
fall below C/CAG's
established levels.
1-5 I
606
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level

4.12-4 Adoption and
implementation of the Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Less than Significant
Proposed Project would
not conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or

3.5-1 - 3.5-17, 3.1-2-3.1-3, 3.1-5, 3.1-7, 3.4-1, 3.4-3-3.4-5, 3.4-9, 3.4-10, 3.9-1-

3.9-2, 3.6-3, 3.7-1-3.7-8
programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or Proposed Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact pedestrian facilities, or 3.1-2, 3.1-3, 3.2-1-3.2-4, 3.2-7-3.2-12, 3.2-14, and 3.2-16-3.2-23, 3.2-25-3.2-36, otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of

3.3-1-3.3-3
such facilities.

4.12-5 The proposed Project
will increase pedestrian
and bicycle activity.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

3.5-1-3.5-17, 3.1-1
Beneficial
Proposed Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

3.2-1-3.2-36
Mitigation Measures
None Required.

4.12-6 Adoption and Mitigation Measures Less than Significant implementation of the
Proposed Project would
None Required.
not modify the planning
or operations of San
Francisco International
Airport, or San Carlos
Airport, or introduce
land use pat-terns that
may cause substantial
1-52
607
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level safety risks to or from
air operations.

4.12-7 Implementation of the
proposed Project may
increase transit ridership.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

3.2-1, 3.2-2, 3.2-3, 3.7-1 3.7-2, 3.7-3, 3.7-4, 3.7-5, 3.7-6, 3.7-8 Less than Significant
Proposed Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

3.3-1, 3.3-2
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
TLI, TL2
Mitigation Measures
None Required.

4.12-8 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not result in any
hazardous design
features.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

3.9-1
Mitigation Measures
Less than Significant
None Required.

4.12-9 Adoption and
implementation of the
policies in the proposed
Project would not result
in inadequate emergency
access.

Mitigation Measures

4.12-9
Significant and
Unavoidable
1-53
608
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Utilities

4.13-1 Implementation of the
Proposed Project would
not exceed wastewater
treatment requirements
of the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality
Control Board.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact

5.7-1, 5.7-2, 5.7-3
Proposed Belmont Village Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.1-2
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Less than Significant

4.13-2 Development under the
Proposed Project would
not require or result in
the construction of new
water or wastewater
treatment facilities or the
expansion of existing
facilities, the
construction of which
could cause significant
environmental effects.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

2.3-4, 5.6-1, 5.6-3, 5.6-5
Proposed Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Urban Design Chapter: design guidelines for drip irrigation systems

5.1-4
Village Zoning: landscaping standards
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
1-54
609
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
TL1,EW1,EW2
Mitigation Measures
UTIL-1, UTIL-2, UTIL-3

4.13-3 Development under the
Proposed Project would Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Less than Significant
not require or result in
the construction of new

2.3-4, 5.9-2, 6.2-9
stormwater drainage
facilities or expansion of Proposed Phase I Zoning Regulations that Would Reduce the Impact existing facilities, the
construction of which
Design Standards for Off-street Parking and Loading in Commercial Mixed Use and Regional Commercial Districts
could cause significant
environmental effects. Proposed Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Urban Design Chapter: design guidelines for stormwater runoff

5.1-3, 5.1-5, 5.1-7
Village Zoning: design standards for parking lots and structures Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
TLl
Mitigation Measures
None required.
1-55
610
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level

4.13-4 Development under the
Proposed Project would
not have insufficient
water supplies available
to serve the project
from existing
entitlements and
resources, or require
new or expanded
entitlements.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.6-1, 5.6-3, 5.6-5, 5.7-3
Proposed Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Urban Design Chapter: design guidelines for drip irrigation systems

5.1-4
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
EW1,EW2
Mitigation Measures
None required.

Less than Significant

4.13-5 Development under the
Proposed Project would Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Less than Significant
with Mitigation
not result in a
determination by the

5.7-1, 5.7-2
wastewater treatment
provider which serves or Proposed Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact may serve Belmont that 5.1-2
it has inadequate capacity
to serve the Proposed
Project's projected
demand in addition to
the provider's existing
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
There are no strategies in the Climate Action Plan that relate to this topic. commitments.
1-56
611
Chapter I: Executive Summary
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Mitigation Measures
UTIL-2, UTIL-3

4.13-6 Development under the
Proposed Project would
be served by a landfill
with sufficient permitted
Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.8-1
Less than Significant
capacity to
accommodate the Proposed Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact project's solid waste
disposal needs.

5.2-1, 5.2-2, 5.2-3, 5.2-4
Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
WCI, WC2, WC4
Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.13-7 Development under the
Proposed Project would
comply with federal,
state, and local statutes
and regulations related
to solid waste.

Proposed General Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact

5.8-1
Proposed Specific Plan Policies that Would Reduce the Impact Less than Significant

5.2-1, 5.2-2, 5.2-3, 5.2-4
1-57
612
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Belmont General Plan Update, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan
Table ES-3: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Project Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed Project Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Level Proposed Climate Action Plan Measures that Would Reduce the Impact
WCI, WC2, WC3
Mitigation Measures
None required.
1-58
613
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2017 EXHIBIT 2 TO ATTACHMENT 5

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAKING ALL FINDINGS REQUIRED

UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA),

INCLUDING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND

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

BELMONT VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN (BVSP) & BELMONT VILLAGE ZONING (BVZ), AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA
WHEREAS, in July 2014, the City Council of the City of Belmont approved a program and process, and secured Consulting Services with Dyett & Bhatia, Urban & Regional Planners, for the 2035 General Plan (GP) Update Project and its subsequent policy documents including the Phase 1/Interim Zoning, and Climate Action Plan (CAP); and, WHEREAS, in April 2015, the City Council of the City of Belmont, through a competitive process, secured Consulting Services with Dyett & Bhatia, Urban & Regional Planners, for preparation of the Belmont Village Specific Plan (BVSP) and the Belmont Village Zoning (BVZ); and,
WHEREAS, the City of Belmont (“City”) determined that the Project requires review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code section 21000 et seq.); and,
WHEREAS, under CEQA Section 15168, the City prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the Project, potential alternatives to the Project and recommended mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, during the preparation of the 2035 General Plan, associated policy documents, and EIR, comments and participation was sought from the public and interested and affected groups and agencies including City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the California Air Resources Board, the County of San Mateo, City of San Carlos, City of San Mateo, City of Redwood City, all school districts, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Office of the Attorney General of the State of California and a number of other agencies, individuals and experts; and,
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation regarding the EIR and seeking public agency review and comment on September 1, 2016 for the period September 1, 2016 through October 3, 2016, and held a scoping meeting on September 6, 2016 before the Planning Commission to receive comments on topics and issues that should be evaluated in the Draft EIR; and,
614
2 WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was prepared in June 2017 and included an assessment of potential environmental effects, a description of possible mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and consideration of whether any alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen any potentially significant environmental effects of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the City published a Notice of Availability and Public Hearing for the Draft EIR for the Project in the Redwood City Examiner/Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the County of San Mateo, for the Draft EIR review period commencing on June 30, 2017; and, WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse #2016082075) on June 30, 2017 to begin a 50 day review and comment period ending August 18, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, the City also distributed the Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse for State Agency review; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on August 15, 2017 to receive public comments on the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, a letter dated August 21, 2017 was received from the State Clearinghouse on the Draft EIR and indicating distribution to the following Reviewing Agencies: Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 3; Cal Fire; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Division of Aeronautics; Office of Historic Preservation; Office of Emergency Services, California; California Highway Patrol; Department of Housing and Community Development; Caltrans, District 4; Public Utilities Commission; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Native American Heritage Commission and including written comments from the following agencies: Caltrans, District 4, and California Highway Patrol; and,
WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the public review period of the Draft EIR, a Final EIR (“FEIR”) was prepared which includes responses to comments on the Draft EIR and revisions to the Draft EIR in response to comments resulting from the public process and as a result of editorial review; and,
WHEREAS, CEQA requires analysis and a determination regarding the Project’s environmental impacts and mitigation measures that, in the City’s view, justify approval of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, all required public notices and public hearings were duly given and held according to law; and,
WHEREAS, duly and properly noticed public hearings were held before the City Planning Commission on October 2, 2017 and October 17, 2017; and, 615
3 WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, voted affirmatively to recommend to the City Council to make all findings required under CEQA, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and certify the FEIR, in accordance with CEQA; and,
WHEREAS, a duly and properly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on October 24, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2017, the City Council having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, voted affirmatively to certify the FEIR in accordance with CEQA under Resolution 2017-076; and, WHEREAS, no events that would require subsequent environmental review as described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred since the City of Belmont City Council certified the FEIR, in that no substantial changes have been made in the Project, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is being approved, and no new information of substantial importance has become known; and, WHEREAS, a duly and properly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on November 14, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, voted affirmatively to make all findings required under CEQA, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as more fully set forth in this Resolution as follows:

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

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

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

3. For impacts that cannot be reduced to a level that is less than significant, it adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution finding that specific social, economic, or other factors justify the Project’s unavoidable adverse environmental effects; and,
616
4 4. It adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as set forth in Exhibit B to this Resolution to ensure that the identified mitigation measures or Project changes are implemented; and,

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

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

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

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
617
1 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations

EXHIBIT A
TO RESOLUTION 2017-

CITY OF BELMONT

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

PHASE I ZONING,

BELMONT VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN,

BELMONT VILLAGE ZONING, AND

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN

PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
I. Introduction
The City of Belmont (the "City"), as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), prepared an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2016082075, the "EIR") for the 2035 General Plan Update, Phase I Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan (together, the "Project"). The EIR is a program-level EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines1 Section 15168 and consists of the Draft Environmental Impact Report released on June 30, 2017 (the "Draft EIR"), Appendices A through E of the Draft EIR, and the Final Environmental Impact Report released on September 28, 2017 (the "Final EIR"). The EIR addresses the potential environmental effects associated with the Project.
a. Project Description
As fully described in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR, the Project includes: (1) the 2035 General Plan Update, which provides the framework for land use and development in the City, prioritizing the preservation of open space and directing most new development to infill sites and identified opportunity sites; (2) the Phase 1 Zoning, which provides a regulatory framework that ensures that any new development, occurring prior to a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update, is consistent with proposed General Plan policies and land use designations; (3) the Belmont Village Specific Plan, which introduces new mixed-use districts in the downtown area that support a variety of land uses, including residential, employment, service, and entertainment uses and includes detailed zoning, permitted uses, form-based codes, and development standards for the downtown area; and (4) the Climate Action Plan, which addresses the community's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through quantified reduction strategies, performance standards, and a framework for implementation to achieve the required reduction.
1 The "CEQA Guidelines" are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. 618
2 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations b. Purpose of the Findings
The purpose of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (the "Findings") that follow is to satisfy CEQA's requirements as set forth Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and Sections 15091, 15092, 15093 and 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines associated with approval of the Project. These Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City Council (the "City Council") of the City regarding the Project's environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives, and the overriding considerations, which, in the City Council's judgment, justify approval of the Project despite its environmental effects. The Findings are divided into general sections. Each of these sections is further divided into subsections, each of which addresses a particular impact topic and/or requirement of law.

II. Project Objectives
Broadly, the Project is proposed to update the City's General Plan to meet the City's needs through 2035 and the requirements of California Government Code Section 65302, adopt a specific plan that meets the requirements of California Government Code Section 65451, adopt a Climate Action Plan to allow streamlined CEQA review of GHG emissions for future projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, and adopt zoning designations to implement the 2035 General Plan Update and the Belmont Village Specific Plan. As discussed in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR, the Project's specific objectives are as follows.
a. General Plan Objectives
i. Land Use Planning
• Promote a diversity of compatible land uses throughout the city, to enable people to live close to job locations, adequate and convenient commercial services, and public services and facilities such as transit, parks, and schools.
• Support the creation and enhancement of "complete neighborhoods" in Belmont, with wellintegrated single-family and multi-family residential development, pedestrian- and bicyclefriendly environments, and activity nodes featuring schools, parks, and neighborhood commercial areas.
• Provide balanced neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and density ranges to meet the diverse demographic, economic, and social needs of residents, while ensuring a cohesive urban form and regard for compatibility with surrounding uses and existing residential development.
• Preserve the character and enhance the quality of Belmont's residential neighborhoods. • Enhance the Belmont Village PDA and develop a distinct identify for the area as Belmont's vibrant town center for residents and visitors with commercial, residential, dining, civic, cultural, and entertainment activities.
• Promote opportunities for continued economic growth and vitality, resulting in wider shopping and dining opportunities for residents, increased local employment opportunities, enhanced attractions for visitors, increased sales tax revenues, and a stronger community image.
• Provide areas for diverse employment and business opportunities to promote diversity in Belmont's economic base.
619
3 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations • Promote infill development that makes efficient use of limited land supply, while ensuring compatibility and integration with existing uses.
• Foster new development that contributes positively to Belmont's built environment, provides benefits to the local community, and addresses potential impacts. • Ensure adequate provision of community-serving facilities such as recreation facilities, child daycare facilities, places of worship, schools and other educational institutions, and schools to serve current and future residents.
• Continue to collaborate and partner with Notre Dame de Namur University. • Support a balanced and integrated parks and open space system that links neighborhoods, provides outdoor recreation opportunities, promotes natural resource conservation, and serves multiple needs.
• Enhance Belmont's character and image as a desirable community with distinct visual qualities, small-town character, and connections to nature and open space. • Protect and enhance Belmont's hillside areas.
• Grow and develop in such a way that allows Belmont's unique character to flourish while recognizing the city's role in the broader region.
ii. Economic Opportunity
• Support a wide range of economic activity in Belmont that capitalizes on the city's location, strengthens the City's tax base, and ensures that Belmont has adequate fiscal resources to fund high quality public services for its residents and businesses. • Facilitate retention, expansion, attraction, and incubation of businesses in Belmont that will employ and serve Belmont residents and meet the city's economic development objectives. • Realize the community's vision for Belmont Village PDA as a vibrant, successful, engaging town center, with opportunities for residents to live, shop, work, and play. • Transform El Camino Real into a "grand boulevard" with a vibrant mix of land uses, a pedestrian-friendly streetscape, and enhanced transit and bicycle facilities. • Pursue annexation of the Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) and bring it into the Belmont city limits.
• Promote the continued development and revitalization of the Belmont's focus areas for economic growth as integral parts of the community and nodes of commercial, employment, or residential activity.
iii. Historic Preservation
• Conserve designated historic and cultural sites and structures that help define Belmont's identity and character.
iv. Circulation
• Provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and vehicles within and through the community that fosters accessibility and connectivity; accommodates a mixture of automobiles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians; and encourages higher transit ridership. • Reduce dependence on the automobile for travel and achieve a reduction in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) per capita of 15 percent by year 2035.
620
4 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations • Work cooperatively with other agencies and jurisdictions in the region to enhance connectivity between Belmont and the region and provide an efficient system for regional travel.
• Accommodate modes of transportation on routes that are designed within the context of the surrounding area to provide for the enjoyment and safety of the individual and to cause minimum interference and appropriate compatibility with adjacent uses of land. • Promote, provide, and maintain a safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle system of hiking and riding trails, pedestrian paths, bicycle paths and lanes to: promote active transportation; reduce dependence on automobiles; provide recreation; furnish easy access to trails; permit safe, pleasant travel among parts of the community; connect local areas and destinations within the city through trails and paths and regional trail and path systems; and create opportunities for nature and conservation education. • Promote Transportation Demand Management Programs and encourage increased transit use through convenient, safe, efficient, and cost-effective services. • Maintain and improve existing bus service in Belmont to provide transportation to commuter trains, local schools, and recreational facilities. • Provide a balanced and well-managed parking supply that accommodates demand while maximizing efficiency.
• Limit truck and other heavy traffic to the level necessary to reasonably serve local business and industry while minimizing disruptive effects on residents, businesses, and the functional organization of the community.
• Fund transportation improvement projects through the use of City funds, development fees, and grants.
v. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
• Provide an expanded, high quality, and diversified park system that serves the entire Belmont community, enhances community identity, and is conveniently located for community use.
• Ensure that a wide variety of public community and recreation facilities are available to the entire Belmont community for recreational, social, and cultural activities. • Improve the quantity and quality of recreational programming and services to provide varied recreational opportunities for the entire Belmont community. • Continue to develop and support a balanced and integrated open space system reflecting a variety of considerations, including natural resource conservation, outdoor recreation, and public health and safety, to ensure synergies between various open space components and compatibility with land use planning.
• Preserve and protect open space resources using various methods available to the City. • Improve and increase public access into open space areas where feasible and safe. • Pursue sufficient and dedicated funding for acquisition, operations, protection, maintenance, and management of parks, recreation facilities, and natural open spaces and to meet the recreational programming and service needs of the Belmont Community. vi. Open Space for Natural Resource Conservation
• Protect and maintain open space for the preservation of natural resources. 621
5 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations • Protect and preserve open space for public health, safety and recreation in areas that require special management for regulation.
vii. Biological Resources
• Protect and restore biological and ecological resources in Belmont, including sensitive wildlife species and their habitats.
viii. Hydrology, Water Quality, and Water Supply and Demand • Preserve and restore Belmont's waterways and adjacent corridors as valuable community resources that serve as plant and wildlife habitats, groundwater recharge facilities, flood control and irrigation components, and connections between open space areas. • Preserve water quality by promoting the protection of Belmont's creeks and other natural water bodies from pollution.
• Preserve water resources and provide for long-range community water needs by adopting best management practices for water use and conservation. ix. Wastewater, Solid Waste, and Stormwater
• Provide adequate wastewater collection, treatment, recycling and disposal facilities in a timely fashion to serve existing and future needs.
• Provide adequate solid waste facilities and services for the collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal of refuse.
• Maintain and improve the reliability of the City's storm drainage system, and promote best management practices to protect this system from flooding, enhance water quality, and prevent infrastructure deterioration.
x. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
• Reduce emissions of ozone-producing pollutants and particulate matter to improve regional air quality and protect the health of Belmont and Bay Area residents. • Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 15 percent below the 2005 baseline levels by 2020 and to 50 percent below the 2005 baseline levels by 2035. xi. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
• Preserve and protect areas and sites of prehistoric, cultural, and archaeological significance. xii. Safety
• Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic hazards.
• Protect the community from risks to life and property posed by flooding. • Protect soils, surface water, and groundwater from contamination from hazardous materials.
622
6 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations • Continue to promote the reduction, recycling, and safe disposal of household and business hazardous wastes through public education and awareness. • Ensure that utilities that are essential to contemporary life are available and adequate to meet the demands of the Belmont community while also ensuring the utilities maintain and enhance Belmont's physical diversity, visual qualities, and small-town characteristics. • Protect Belmont residents and businesses from potential fire hazards. • Foster an efficient and coordinated response to emergencies and natural disasters. • Provide a comprehensive program of safety services including police, fire, and medical response in Belmont.
• Support continuing public awareness of hazards, including avoidance, disaster preparedness, and emergency response procedures.
• Make infrastructure investments, enforce regulations, and disseminate information that will improve disaster response and recovery, with the goal of minimizing damage to people and property.
xiii. Noise
• Strive to achieve an acceptable noise environment for the environmental, health, and safety needs of present and future residents of Belmont.
• Protect noise-sensitive land uses, such as schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from encroachment of and exposure to excessive levels of noise. • Continue to work with other agencies, airports, and jurisdictions to reduce noise levels in Belmont created by their operations.
b. BVSP Objectives
i. Land Use
• Create a vibrant downtown that serves as the City's shopping, employment, activity, and community center, with a compact, walkable, pedestrian-scaled development that is connected to transit.
• Preserve and enhance the Village's cultural and historic context. • Provide a variety of housing types to accommodate different types of households, different income levels, different age groups, and different lifestyles. ii. Mobility
• Provide a vibrant, safe, and connected street network that facilitates multimodal movement of people within and to the Village Planning Area and ensuresthe citywide goal of reducing vehicle-miles travelled per capita by 15 percent.
• Provide safe and convenient access to transit.
• Meet citywide goals of reducing automobile trips through the implementation of Transportation Demand Management strategies.
• Provide parking that meets the needs of Belmont Village to ensure its vibrancy and economic vitality, while encouraging walking, cycling, and transit ridership as the primary modes of access to and within the Village Planning Area. 623
7 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations iii. Infrastructure and Public Services
• Continue the successful provision, maintenance, and operation of water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure utilities in Belmont to maintain the quality of life and accommodate future growth in the Village.
• Continue to provide adequate solid waste services for the collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal of refuse.
• Continue the successful provision, maintenance, and operation of infrastructure and public utilities to maintain the quality of life and serve the Village Planning Area. • Maintain Belmont as a safe and livable community.
• Ensure that new development adequately addresses public safety considerations in building design and site planning.
• Promote adequate and accessible public school facilities for the Village Planning Area. • Foster positive relationships between the Belmont Village and Notre Dame de Namur University communities.
• Provide a diverse range of parks, recreation, and community facilities and programming inside and within a ten-minute walk of the Village Planning Area. iv. Environmental Sustainability, Health, and Safety
• Preserve natural environmental processes that protect health and safety, such as water filtration through soil that protects water quality and riparian vegetation that minimizes erosion and flooding.
• Minimize the potential for loss of life, injury, property damage, and economic and social disruption resulting from natural and man-made hazards, including floods. • Protect and improve the quality of biological resources and habitat areas in the Village Planning Area.
• Ensure that infill development projects minimize exposure to hazardous materials and toxic air contaminants.
• Maintain a healthy noise environment in the Village Planning Area while accommodating the increased intensities and mix of uses intended to characterize Belmont Village in the future.
c. CAP Objectives
• Increase municipal, residential, and commercial energy efficiency, renewable energy, efficient water use, and green building.
• Reduce emissions from transportation through efficient land use, alternate modes of transportation, and operational innovations.
• Reduce solid waste generated and sent to landfills.

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

Accordingly, the City has taken the following actions in relation to the EIR to satisfy CEQA:
624
8 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations • The City sent the Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of the EIR to the State Clearinghouse and to state, local, and regional agencies on September 1, 2016. A public scoping meeting was held on September 6, 2016 to solicit additional input on the scope of the EIR. The City accepted written comments on the scope of the EIR until October 3, 2016, and concerns raised in response to the NOP and the September 6, 2016 hearing were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The written comments that the City received in response to the NOP are included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR.
• On June 30, 2017, the City published a Notice of Availability ("NOA") for the Draft EIR, and the Draft EIR was concurrently submitted to the Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse (the "State Clearinghouse") and circulated for public review and comment as well as to solicit comments from agencies and individuals on the adequacy and accuracy of the Draft EIR. The City distributed copies of the Draft EIR to state agencies, local governments, elected officials, groups, and interested parties on the City's mailing list (the "Noticed Parties"). The Draft EIR, along with the proposed 2035 General Plan Update, Phase I Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan were made available through three (3) websites maintained by the City:
www.belmont-2035generalplan.com
www.planbelmontvillage.com
www.belmont.gov/ClimateActionPlan
• The Draft EIR was also made available for public review in printed form at the public counter of the Community Development Department-Permit Center at Belmont City Hall and at the Belmont Public Library throughout the public comment period. • The Draft EIR's public review period encompassed 50 days between June 30, 2017 and August 18, 2017. The City's Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing on the Draft EIR on August 15, 2017, during the public review period. The City encouraged the public to provide oral comments at the hearings and submit written comments. The City transcribed all oral comments on the Draft EIR. Copies of all written comments and transcriptions of oral comments received during the public comment period are included in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR. • On September 28, 2017, the City released the Final EIR. All comments received on the Draft EIR during the public comment period were responded to and included in the Final EIR. Collectively the Final EIR and the Draft EIR as amended by the Final EIR constitute the EIR for the Project.
• On October 2, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing on certain components of the Project (the proposed 2035 General Plan Update, Phase I Zoning, and Climate Action Plan), and the Final EIR. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and approve the proposed 2035 General Plan Update, Phase I Zoning, and Climate Action Plan. 625
9 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations • On October 17, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing on certain components of the Project (the Belmont Village Specific Plan and the BVSP Zoning). The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the proposed the Belmont Village Specific Plan and the BVSP Zoning. • On October 24, 2017, the City Council certified the EIR following a duly and properly noticed public hearing.
• The 2035 General Plan Update, Phase I Zoning, and Climate Action Plan and the EIR came before the City Council on November 14, 2017 at a duly and properly noticed public hearing, and the City Council approved the Project and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and the Findings.

For purposes of CEQA and the analysis set forth in these Findings, the record of proceedings (the "Administrative Record") consists of the following documents and testimony, and at a minimum:
• The NOP, comments received on the NOP, the NOA, and all other public notices issued by the City in relation to the Project or the EIR;
• The EIR, including the Final EIR issued on September 28, 2017 and the Draft EIR as amended by the Final EIR, including all technical materials cited in the document; • The MMRP and all appendices to the Draft and Final EIR; • All non-draft and non-confidential reports and memoranda prepared by the City and its consultants in relation to the Project and the EIR;
• Minutes and transcripts of the discussions regarding the Project and/or Project components at public hearings or scoping meetings held by the Planning Commission and the City Council;
• Staff reports associated with Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the Project or the EIR;
• All of the comments and staff responses entered into the record orally and in writing between, as well as accompanying technical memoranda or evidence entered into the record;
• Matters of common knowledge to the City Council which they consider, such as the City's existing General Plan, any other applicable specific plans or other similar plans, and the City's Municipal Code; and,
• Any other category of material identified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6 prepared in connection with Project or the EIR.
626
10 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations The Community Development Department is designated as the custodian of the documents and record of proceedings on which this decision is based. The Community Development Department office is located at Belmont City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Suite 310, Belmont, California, 94002, and the telephone number is (650) 595-7417.

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Findings
In conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, this section of the Findings lists each significant environmental effect of the Project identified in the EIR; describes those mitigation measures recommended in the EIR; and, as required by Section 15091(a), finds that either: (i) the adopted mitigation measures have substantially lessened the significant effect; (ii) the adopted 627
11 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations mitigation measures, though implemented, do not substantially lessen the significant effect; (iii) the mitigation measures cannot be adopted and implemented because they are the responsibility of another public agency; or (iv) that specific considerations make mitigation measures infeasible.

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

Unless otherwise noted, all page numbers shown below refer to the Draft EIR as modified by the Final EIR.
a. Air Quality.
i. Impact 4.2-2. Implementation of the Proposed Project would violate an air quality standard and contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during construction.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.2-35 of the Draft EIR. Construction permitted pursuant to the Project during a typical year may exceed BAAQMD's ROG and NOx thresholds as well as fugitive dust emissions.
(2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.2-39 are hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
• Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Require Tier 4 engines on Construction Equipment. • Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Require Construction Fleet to Use Renewable Diesel. • Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Require Low-VOC Coatings during Construction. • Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Require Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices. (3) Finding. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 will reduce NOx and other criteria pollutants from off-road equipment, whereas Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 will reduce fugitive ROG and dust emissions, respectively. Each of these mitigation measures have been required of the Project to reduce the potential air quality effects to the extent currently technically feasible. Although implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-4 would reduce the maximum daily emissions of ROG, PM10 and PM2.5 each to a less-thansignificant level, buildout of the General Plan and the BVSP would still exceed BAAQMD's NOx threshold. Therefore, air quality impacts related to construction permitted under the Project would remain significant and unavoidable.
628
12 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations ii. Impact 4.2-3. Implementation of the Proposed Project would violate an air quality standard and contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during operation.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.2-40 of the Draft EIR. Buildout of the Project has the potential to result in air quality impacts from mobile, area, and energy sources from long-term operations of the uses permitted pursuant to the Project.
(2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.2-44 is hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
• Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Promote Green Consumer Products. (3) Finding. Mitigation Measure AQ-5 requires developers to provide education regarding consumer products that generate lower than typical VOC emissions, however, the effect of this Mitigation Measure cannot be quantified because consumers cannot be required to use such products. In addition, the Project include numerous policies to promote a reduction in daily mobile, area, and energy source emissions generated by Project operations; however, even with all feasible reductions, the Project will still result in a net increase in criteria pollutant emissions that exceeds BAAQMD's project-level thresholds. Therefore, air quality impacts related to the operation of development permitted under the Project would remain significant and unavoidable.
iii. Impact 4.2-4. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.2-44 of the Draft EIR. ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions associated with development under the General Plan and BVSP would exceed BAAQMD's project level thresholds. The Project's cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact is further described beginning at page 6-7 of the Draft EIR.
(2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.2-46 are hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
• Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Require Tier 4 engines on Construction Equipment. • Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Require Construction Fleet to Use Renewable Diesel. • Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Require Low-VOC Coatings during Construction. • Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Require Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices. 629
13 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations • Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Promote Green Consumer Products. (3) Finding. The comprehensive suite of proposed General Plan and BVSP policies would ultimately reduce the severity of growth-oriented criteria pollutants, relative to conditions without the plans, for individual development projects; however, individual projects may still generate construction and operational emissions in excess of BAAQMD's project-level thresholds, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5. Therefore, air quality impacts related to criteria pollutant emissions under the Project would remain significant and unavoidable and would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
iv. Impact 4.2-5. Implementation of the Proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations from new sources of toxic air containments.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.2-47 of the Draft EIR. Individual projects developed pursuant to the General Plan or the BVSP may prevent the reduction of health risks from TAC exposure below adopted thresholds. The Project's cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact is further described beginning at page 6-8 of the Draft EIR.
(2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.2-50 is hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
• Mitigation Measure AQ-6: Require Future Projects Located within 1,000 Feet of Receptors Perform a Construction Health Risk Assessment.
(3) Finding. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce DPM exhaust from construction equipment and associated health risks. Mitigation Measure AQ-6 is also identified to provide a project-level evaluation of construction-related health risks from future projects within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. Although this would reduce operational health risks to current and future receptors, without specific details on the locations of building footprints or their construction schedules, a quantitative evaluation of potential health risk impacts is not possible, and it cannot conclusively be determined that health impacts from TAC exposure can be reduced below adopted thresholds. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable and would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
630
14 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations b. Cultural Resources.
i. Impact 4.4-1. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not cause a substantial change to the significance of a historical resource, defined as physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historic resource would be materially impaired.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.4-19 of the Draft EIR. The City includes multiple historical resources. Of the resources identified, the Project anticipates the redevelopment of the historic Firehouse Square building, which may result in the impairment of the resource's historical significance. (2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.4-21 are hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
• Mitigation Measure CULT-1: Require façade maintenance of the Firehouse Building. • Mitigation Measure CULT-2: Require historical signage at Firehouse Square. (3) Finding. Mitigation Measure CULT-1 requires any project applicant proposing physical changes to the Firehouse Building to maintain the existing structure's historic Spanish façade, while Mitigation Measure CULT-2 requires such a project to include detailed signage with historical information about the site, consistent with the recommendations of the historical evaluation prepared for the resource. In addition, the BVSP requires any development proposal at Firehouse Square to be reviewed and evaluated by a qualified architectural historian, and any site reuse must be done in accordance with the Municipal Code's standards for buildings on the Historical Resources Inventory. By maintaining the physical characteristics of the historical resource that convey the building's historical significance and documenting the factors that give the resource cultural significance, Mitigation Measures CULT- 1 and CULT-2 reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
c. Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change.
i. Impact 4.6-3. Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, during construction that may have a significant impact on the environment.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.6-27 of the Draft EIR. Development in Belmont permitted under the Project has the potential to produce GHG emissions that conflict with statewide emission goals. (2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.6-29 is hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
• Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Require Construction Fleet to Use Renewable Diesel. 631
15 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations (3) Finding. Development projects within Belmont under the Project would be required to use renewable diesel for all off-road diesel-powered equipment, pursuant to Mitigation Measure AQ-2. Implementation of this measure would reduce lifecycle GHG emissions (i.e., those produced by the extraction, refining, processing, and combustion of diesel) by 67 percent, relative to traditional diesel. This requirement is consistent with BAAQMD's recommended Best Management Practices for GHG emissions related to construction and would reduce emissions consistent with statewide goals. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-2 reduces the impact to a less than significant level.
d. Noise.
i. Impact 4.10-1. Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies during construction.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.10-22 of the Draft EIR. The Project would permit higher-intensity development and redevelopment in Belmont, which would require construction activities using heavy-duty machinery and equipment. Temporary increases in noise levels have the potential to exceed the noise standards defined in both the existing and the proposed General Plan. In addition, traffic increases associated with Project implementation have the potential to increase noise levels above the normally acceptable range for some uses. The Project's cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact is further described beginning at page 6-19 of the Draft EIR. (2) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would be able to reduce, with a reasonable degree of certainty, construction-related noise impacts on existing sensitive receptors. As discussed below, all feasible mitigation measures that would reduce traffic have been incorporated into the Project. (3) Finding. The Project includes comprehensive policies to limit the exposure of sensitive land uses to noise generating uses, and individual projects developed in accordance with the General Plan and the BVSP would be required to incorporate noise-reducing components. However, because of the uncertainty involved in evaluating the impact on all potential future users of new development, it is assumed that the Project's impact regarding noisegenerating uses would remain significant and unavoidable and that the Project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. ii. Impact 4.10-2. Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during construction.
632
16 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations (1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.10-39 of the Draft EIR. The Project would permit higher-intensity development and redevelopment in Belmont, which would require construction activities using heavy-duty machinery and equipment. As a result, groundborne vibration levels could temporarily exceed the threshold of significance for future and existing sensitive land uses. The Project's cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact is further described beginning at page 6-19 of the Draft EIR.
(2) Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures have been identified that would be able to reduce, with a reasonable degree of certainty, vibration impacts on existing sensitive receptors from construction activities.
(3) Finding. The Project includes comprehensive policies to limit the exposure of sensitive land uses to groundborne vibration caused by construction activities, and individual projects developed in accordance with the General Plan would be required to incorporate vibration-reducing components. However, because of the uncertainty involved in evaluating the impact on all potential future users of new development, it is assumed that the Project's impact regarding temporary impacts from construction activities causing groundborne vibrations would remain significant and unavoidable and that the Project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. iii. Impact 4.10-4. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.10-43 of the Draft EIR. The Project would permit higher-intensity development and redevelopment in Belmont, which would require construction activities using heavy-duty machinery and equipment. As a result, ambient noise levels could temporarily increase by above the City's thresholds.
(2) Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures have been identified that would be able to reduce, with a reasonable degree of certainty, reductions in ambient noise caused by construction for all future development in the City. (3) Finding. The Project would impose time-of-day restrictions on construction activities along with noise reducing requirements for new construction, however, it is not possible to conclude that all future development will be able to reduce its temporary contribution to ambient noise levels to necessary levels, therefore it is assumed that the Project's impact regarding temporary impacts from construction activities increasing ambient noise levels would remain significant and unavoidable.
633
17 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations e. Transportation.
i. Impact 4.12-1. Buildout of the Proposed Project would cause intersections to fall below the established significance criteria for the City of Belmont and C/CAG for intersection operation.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.12-126 of the Draft EIR. With projected traffic volumes associated with development permitted under the Project, the delay at the intersection of El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue would exceed the threshold for significance for CMP intersections. Twenty-one intersections identified on page 4.12-145 of the Draft EIR would warrant turn lane additions, and 27 intersections identified on page 4.12-157 of the Draft EIR would exceed the City's threshold for turn lane queue lengths. In addition, the following twelve intersections would potentially have significant impacts during operations in 2035:
• Ralston Ave/SR-92 WB Ramps (Signalized), expected to operate at LOS D during the a.m. peak hour;
• Ralston Ave/ Alameda de las Pulgas (Signalized), expected to operate at LOSE during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours;
• Ralston Avenue/Chula Vista Drive (TWSC), northbound approach expected to operate at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour and at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour; • Ralston Avenue/Notre Dame University Road (Roundabout), expected to operate at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour;
• Ralston Avenue/Sixth Avenue (Signalized, expected to operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour;
• Ralston Avenue/El Camino Real (Signalized), expected to operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours;
• Ralston Avenue/Old County Road (Signalized), expected to operate at LOS D during the a.m. peak hour and at LOSE during the p.m. peak hour;
• Alameda de las Pulgas/Chula Vista Drive (Roundabout), expected to operate at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour and at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour; • El Camino Real/Flashner Lane (TWSC), northbound approach expected to operate at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour;
• El Camino Real/O'Neill Avenue (Signalized), expected to operate at LOS C during the p.m. peak hour;
• El Camino Real/Harbor Boulevard (North) (Signalized), expected to operate at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour;
634
18 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations • El Camino Real/Waltermire Street would cause the Peak Hour traffic signal warrant to be met;
• Old County Road/O'Neill Avenue (TWSC), westbound approach expected to operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and at LOS D during the a.m. peak hour; and • Old County Road/Harbor Boulevard (Signalized), expected to operate at LOS D during the a.m. peak hour and at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour.
(2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.12-132 are hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
• Mitigation Measure 4.12-1c, 4.12-1n, 4.12-1o
(3) Finding. Mitigation is not feasible at the intersections of Ralston Ave/SR-92 WB Ramps, Ralston Ave/ Alameda de las Pulgas, Ralston Avenue/Notre Dame University Road, Ralston Avenue/Sixth Avenue, Ralston Avenue/El Camino Real, Ralston Avenue/Old County Road, Alameda de las Pulgas/Chula Vista Drive, El Camino Real/O'Neill Avenue, El Camino Real/Harbor Boulevard, or Old County Road/Harbor Boulevard due to rightof-way constraints and would conflict with policies within the Ralston Avenue Corridor Study and Improvement Plan, the City's Complete Streets initiatives, the General Plan vision and policy directives for safe and efficient active transportation. In addition, mitigation is not feasible at the intersection of El Camino Real/Flashner Lane because the installation of a traffic signal would require removal of a medial island along El Camino Real and approval from Caltrans. Mitigation is not feasible at Old County Road/O'Neill Avenue because the additional of new turn lanes would increase the pedestrian crossing distance adjacent to the planned Caltrain undercrossing at O'Neill Avenue. In addition, the installation of turn lanes or additional through lanes is not feasible because it would require the acquisition of substantial new rights-of-way and widen streets in conflict with other Project policies.

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

Therefore, the Project's impact would remain significant and unavoidable. ii. Impact 4.12-2. Buildout of the proposed Project would cause roadway segment operations to fall below C/CAG's established level of service standards.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.12-164 of the Draft EIR. With projected traffic volumes associated with development permitted under the Project, traffic volumes along El Camino Real's roadway segments north and south of Ralston Avenue exceed the threshold for significance for CMP arterial roadway segments.
635
19 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations (2) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 would require the addition of additional travel lanes along the El Camino Real corridor. (3) Finding. Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 is not feasible because it would require the acquisition of substantial new rights-of-way and widen streets in conflict with policies within the Ralston Avenue Corridor Study and Improvement Plan, the City's Complete Streets initiatives, the General Plan vision and policy directives for safe and efficient active transportation.

Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. iii. Impact 4.12-3. The proposed Project would cause freeway segment operations to fall below C/CAG's established levels.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.12-167 of the Draft EIR. With projected traffic volumes associated with development permitted under the Project, traffic volumes on freeway segments in the Project area would exceed C/CAG's threshold for significance for freeway operations. (2) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measure 4.12-3 would require the addition of additional travel lanes on freeways in the Project area. (3) Finding. Mitigation Measure 4.12-3 is not feasible because it would require the acquisition of substantial new rights-of-way and widen freeways in conflict with policies within the Ralston Avenue Corridor Study and Improvement Plan, the City's Complete Streets initiatives, the General Plan vision and policy directives for safe and efficient active transportation. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. iv. Impact 4.12-9. Adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.12-175 of the Draft EIR. With projected traffic volumes associated with development permitted under the Project, increased congestion on roadways in the Project area could affect emergency vehicle response times, particularly during AM and PM peak hours. (2) Mitigation Measure. The following mitigation measure as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.12-175 is hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
• Mitigation Measure 12-9: Signal Priority and Passing Priority. 636
20 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations (3) Finding.

Under Mitigation Measure 12-9 and state law, the use of the emergency vehicles' sirens to give such vehicles passing priority and the use of the emergency vehicles' signal priority preemption equipment to turn traffic signals red to stop traffic to allow the emergency vehicles to pass through the intersection would reduce the severity of this impact; however, the precise effect of Mitigation Measure 12-9 cannot be accurately quantified due to the unknown frequency of emergency calls and the varying nature of drivers' compliance with siren priority laws. Therefore, the impact is assumed to remain significant and unavoidable.
f. Utilities.
i. Impact 4.13-2. Development under the Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.13-32 of the Draft EIR. Implementation of the Project would result in future residential, commercial, and industrial land uses in the City, resulting in additional population that would generate additional demand for water and wastewater services, and therefore, an increased demand for water provision and wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment services over currently established levels.
(2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.13-35 is hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
• Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Require water line upsizing • Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Require sewer line upsizing • Mitigation Measure UTIL-3: Require upsizing of Shoreway Pump Station (3) Finding. As development intensification occurs throughout the BVSP area, upgrades from 6-inch to 8-inch water lines will be required along Old County Road between Masonic Way and Harbor Boulevard, along Ralston Avenue between Old County Road and Elmer Street, along Sixth Avenue between Hill Street and O'Neill Avenue, and along O'Neill Avenue between Sixth Avenue and El Camino Real. In addition, approximately 1,675 feet of sewer lines downstream of the BVSP area and the Shoreway Pump Station will be required to be upsized to accommodate projected growth in the BVSP permitted under the Project. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures UTIL-1, UTIL-2, and UTIL-3, the Project's impact would be less than significant.
637
21 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations ii. Impact 4.13-5. Development under the Proposed Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve Belmont that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Proposed Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.13-41 of the Draft EIR. Implementation of the Project would result in future residential, commercial, and industrial land uses in the City, resulting in additional population that would generate additional demand for wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment services over currently established levels.
(2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.13-43 is hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
• Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Require sewer line upsizing • Mitigation Measure UTIL-3: Require upsizing of Shoreway Pump Station (3) Finding. Approximately 1,675 feet of sewer lines downstream of the BVSP area and the Shoreway Pump Station will be required to be upsized to accommodate projected growth in the BVSP permitted under the Project. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures UTIL-2 and UTIL-3, the Project's impact would be less than significant.

VI. Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects
The following significant adverse effects of the Project with respect to Air Quality, Noise, and Transportation are found to be unavoidable despite the adoption by the City Council of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR:
• Implementation of the Proposed Project would violate an air quality standard and contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during construction. • Implementation of the Proposed Project would violate an air quality standard and contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during operation. • Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
• Implementation of the Proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations from new sources of toxic air containments. • Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies during construction.
638
22 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations • Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during construction.
• Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
• Buildout of the Proposed Project would cause intersections to fall below the established significance criteria for the City of Belmont and C/CAG for intersection operation. • Buildout of the proposed Project would cause roadway segment operations to fall below C/CAG's established level of service standards.
• The proposed Project would cause freeway segment operations to fall below C/CAG's established levels.
• Adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

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

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

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

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

This alternative was designed to provide a more balanced jobs/housing ratio, representing a more even balance between commercial and residential development, in Belmont both in total and by neighborhood (where possible), which in turn has the potential to reduce total vehicle miles traveled by allowing more residents to have the opportunity to live closer to retail and commercial destinations. A better match between commercial and residential land uses is achieved relative to the Proposed Project in part through two additional mixed-use nodes (outside of the BVSP Area) along Ralston Avenue, and more housing within close proximity to Notre Dame de Namur 639
23 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations University (NDNU). Within the BVSP Area, more intense mixed use housing opportunities are created throughout the district, and a "live/work" land use designation is also introduced and applied to a cluster of parcels east of the Caltrain tracks and south of Ralston Avenue. These changes in total result in potential for a more even balance of residential to commercial development in the BVSP Area than the Proposed Project. i. Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations make infeasible this alternative, and the Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative is less desirable than the Project and is rejected for the following reasons:
• The Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative would fail to meet some of the City's key Project objectives listed in Section II of these Findings.
• The Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative would not preserve the character and enhance the quality of Belmont's residential neighborhoods to the same extent as the Project, because it would allow new development styles in more locations than under the proposed Project. • By promoting less centralized growth than under the Project, the Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative may interfere with efforts to enhance the Belmont Village because projects in Belmont Village would have to compete with projects in other areas of the City. • Although this alternative would result in a General Plan Update that achieves compliance with all applicable state laws and regulations, it would not result in a General Plan that reflects the goals and aspirations of the community through the year 2035 to the same extent as the Project.
• The Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative would result in similar impacts to those in the Proposed Project for aesthetics; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology, flooding, and water quality; and public services and recreation.
• However, the higher population supported by the Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative in comparison to the Proposed Project would produce greater impacts in relation to population-related externalities such as police and fire services, schools, and demand for water supply and wastewater services.
• The longer construction duration of the Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative required to accommodate the additional development it permits would produce greater impacts related to noise as compared to the Project.
• The Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative would not reduce any of the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts to a less than significant level. All impacts that are significant and unavoidable under the Project would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative.
640
24 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations b. Alternative 2: the No Project Alternative.

The No Project scenario represents the continuation of the current General Plan (last updated in 1982) and Downtown Specific Plan (adopted in 1990 and amended in 1995) land use designations, with no Climate Action Plan in effect. It assumes that the existing General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Downtown Specific Plan would continue to guide development in the Planning Area until buildout in 2035. In relationship to the Proposed Project, the No Project Alternative: has different land uses; densities/intensities are lower, and mixed-use development and development of centers and walkable communities is not promoted to the level in the Proposed Project; is based on a different set of core values/goals and objectives; has lower residential capacity; and has reduced alternate modes of transportation, connectivity, and street capacity. i. Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations make infeasible this alternative, and the No Project Alternative is less desirable than the Project and is rejected for the following reasons:
• The No Project Alternative would fail to meet most of the City's key Project objectives listed in Section II of these Findings.
• The No Project Alternative would not enhance the Belmont Village or develop a distinct identify for the area as Belmont's vibrant town center for residents and visitors with commercial, residential, dining, civic, cultural, and entertainment activities. • The No Project Alternative would not promote opportunities for continued economic growth and vitality in Belmont or result in wider shopping and dining opportunities for residents.
• The No Project Alternative would not provide areas for diverse employment and business opportunities to promote diversity in Belmont's economic base. • The No Project Alternative would not include the transportation and infrastructure improvements that would occur under the proposed Project and it would not ensure adequate provision of community-serving facilities such as recreation facilities, child daycare facilities, places of worship, schools and other educational institutions, and schools to serve current and future residents.
• The No Project Alternative would not pursue annexation of the Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) and bring it into the Belmont city limits.
• The No Project Alternative would not yield an updated General Plan that reflects the community's goals or that complies with current state laws and regulations. • The No Project Alternative would not yield a specific plan for the Belmont Village to promote and facilitate development of a vibrant downtown that serves as the City's shopping, employment, activity, and community center.
641
25 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations • The No Project Alternative would not yield a Climate Action Plan to increase municipal, residential, and commercial energy efficiency, renewable energy, efficient water use, and green building or reduce emissions from transportation through efficient land use, alternate modes of transportation, and operational innovations.
c. Environmentally Superior Alternative. As discussed above and in Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR, Alternative 2: the No Project Alternative was identified as the environmentally superior alternative to the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen, to the greatest extent, the environmental impacts associated with the Project.

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

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

VIII. Statement of Overriding Considerations
In approving the Project, the City Council makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of its findings on the EIR. The City Council has considered the information contained in the EIR and all other public comments, responses to comments, and accompanying technical memoranda and staff reports included in the public record. 642
26 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations The City Council has carefully balanced the benefits of the Project against any adverse impacts identified in the EIR that could not be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critically, the BVSP identifies public capital improvements and public services that will encourage private reinvestment in the area to support and promote infill development that serves Belmont's residential and employment populations.
643
27 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations The Project incorporates all feasible mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible. No feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified to mitigate the remaining significant and unavoidable adverse effects of the Project.

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

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

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

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

A limited number of Project modifications require minor revisions to the EIR, and the following modifications are made by this reference:
644
28 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations i. Draft EIR page 3-16:

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

Policy 3.7-8. Support the California High Speed Rail Authority in the goal to bring high speed rail to the San Francisco Peninsula, while minimizing the community impacts of any potential railway infrastructure improvements. 645
29 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations c. Findings
The City Council finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that that none of the events described in Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred:
• As analyzed above, the Project modifications do not consist of substantial changes and do not require major revisions to the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This is supported by the fact that the Project modifications consist only of minor changes or amendments; because the Project does not include material changes, there are no changes that would require substantial revisions to the EIR. • No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is to be undertaken that will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This is supported by the fact that the EIR was certified on October 24, 2017, only three weeks before the Project is being considered, and the circumstances surrounding the implementation of the Project are substantially similar to when the EIR was certified.
• No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified, shows that:
o The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR, or o Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR, or
o Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the EIR, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative, or
o Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. This is supported by the fact that no new information, let alone new information of substantial importance, has been added to the record regarding the Project or the EIR.
646
30 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations Based upon the testimony and information presented at the hearing and upon review and consideration of the environmental documentation provided, the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, finds that the Project falls within the environmental parameters analyzed in the EIR, and that the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the EIR certified by City Council nor would new mitigation be required for the Project.

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

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

XIII. Incorporation by Reference
These findings incorporate the text of the EIR for the project, including the MMRP, City staff reports relating to the project and other documents relating to public hearings on the project, by reference, in their entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, project and cumulative impacts, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparison of the alternatives to the project, the determination of the environmentally superior alternative, and the reasons for approving the project. 647

EXHIBIT B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH No. 2016082075
Belmont 2035 General Plan
Phase I Zoning
Belmont Village Specific Plan
Belmont Village Zoning
Climate Action Plan
November 2017
648
This page intentionally left blank.
649
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 1 1 Purpose
Section 21081.6 to the State of California Public Resources Code requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project where an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has identified significant environmental effects to adopt a “reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects.” The City of Belmont (the "City") is the lead agency for the EIR for the Belmont General Plan, Phase I Zoning Regulations, and Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan (collectively referred to as the Proposed Project), SCH No. 2016082075, and therefore is responsible for implementation of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. An EIR has been prepared for the Proposed Project that addresses potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, recommends measures to mitigate these impacts.

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

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

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

3. Provide a record of the monitoring program;

4. Identify monitoring responsibility;

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

6. Establish the frequency and duration of monitoring; and

7. Utilize existing review processes wherever feasible.

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

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

The following consists of a monitoring program table noting the responsible entity for mitigation monitoring, the timing, and a list of all project-related mitigation measures. 650
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 2 This page intentionally left blank.
651
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 3 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
Air Quality
AQ-1 Require Tier 4 engines on Construction Project applicant Prior to issuance of Construction Equipment. All applicants proposing shall submit data grading and contractor and City development of projects within Belmont from contractor construction of Belmont shall require their contractors, as a permits Community condition of contract, to further reduce Development
construction-related exhaust emissions by Department
ensuring that all off-road equipment greater
than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for
more than 20 total hours over the entire
duration of construction activities shall
operate on an EPA-approved Tier 4 or
newer engine. Exemptions can be made for
specialized equipment where Tier 4 engines
are not commercially available within 200
miles of the project site. The construction
contract must identify these pieces of
equipment, document their unavailability,
and ensure that they operate on no less than
an EPA- approved Tier 3 engine. ARB
regulations will result in the percentage of
Tier 4 engines increasing over the next
several years.
652
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 4 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
AQ-2 Require Construction Fleet to Use
Renewable Diesel. All applicants
proposing development of projects within
Belmont shall require their contractors, as a
condition of contract, to reduce
construction-related exhaust emissions by
ensuring that all off-road equipment greater
than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for
more than 20 total hours over the entire
duration of construction activities shall
operate on renewable diesel (such as Diesel
high performance renewable). Renewable
diesel is currently commercially available
in San Francisco Bay Area.

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

Project applicant
shallsubmit data to
City of Belmont
and BAAQMD
Prior to
discretionary
project approval
City of Belmont
Community
Development
Department
AQ-4 Require Fugitive Dust Best Management
Practices. All applicants proposing
development of projects within Belmont
shall require their contractors, as a
condition of contract, to reduce
construction-related fugitive dust by
implementing BAAQMD’s basic control
Project applicant
shall submit data
from contractor
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Construction
contractor and City
of Belmont
Community
Development
Department
653
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 5 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
measures at all construction and staging
areas. The following measures are based on
BAAQMD’s current CEQA guidelines.
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas,
staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
un- paved access roads) will be watered
two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or
other loose material offsite will be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto
adjacent public roads will be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at
least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads,
driveways, or driving surfaces shall be
limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks
to be paved will be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads will be laid as soon
as possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the
telephone number and the name of the
person to contact at the lead agency
regarding dust complaints. This person will
respond and take corrective action within
48 hours. The phone number of the District
will also be visible to ensure compliance.

AQ-5 Promote Green Consumer Products. For
all projects developed within the Planning
Area, developer(s) shall provide education
for residential and commercial tenants
Project applicant
shall submit
planned electronic
correspondence
Prior to receipt of
certificate of final
occupancy
City of Belmont
Community
Development
Department
654
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 6 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
concerning green consumer products. Prior
to receipt of any certificate of final
occupancy, the project sponsors shall work
with the City of Belmont to develop
electronic correspondence to be distributed
by email to new residential and commercial
tenants that encourages the purchase of
consumer products that generate lower than
typical VOC emissions. Examples of green
products may include low-VOC
architectural coatings, cleaning supplies,
and consumer products, as well as
alternatively fueled landscaping equipment.

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

All applicants proposing development of
projects within 1,000 feet of existing
sensitive receptors, as defined by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), shall prepare a site-specific
construction health risk assessment (HRA).

If the HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction
of the City, that the health risk exposures
for adjacent receptors will be less than
BAAQMD project-level thresholds, then
additional mitigation would be unnecessary. However, if the HRA demonstrates that health risks would
exceed BAAQMD project- level
thresholds, additional feasible on- and
offsite mitigation shall be analyzed by the
applicant to help reduce risks to the greatest
extent practicable.

Project applicant
shall prepare sitespecific
construction health
risk assessment
Prior to
discretionary
project approval
City of Belmont
Community
Development
Department
655
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 7 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
Cultural Resources
CULT-1 Require façade maintenance of the
Firehouse Building. Any approved project
development that involves physical
changes to the Firehouse Building will be
required to maintain the recognizable
portion of the existing structure’s Spanish
façade and integrate it into the new
structure with complementary architecture.

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

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

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

Project applicants
shall contribute
proportionate share
payments towards
this improvement,
or pay the required
traffic impact fee
should an impact
fee program be
established that
includes this
intersection
Prior to
discretionary
project approval
City of Belmont
Public Works
Department
656
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 8 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record

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

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

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

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

Project applicants
shall contribute
proportionate share
payments towards
this improvement,
or pay the required
traffic impact fee
should an impact
fee program be
established that
Prior to
discretionary
project approval
City of Belmont
Public Works
Department.
657
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 9 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
includesthis
intersection

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

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

4.12-1n Same as 4.12-1c

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

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

Utilities
UTIL-1 Require water line upsizing. As
development intensification occurs
throughout the BVSP Area, upgrades from
6-inch to 8-inch water lines will be required
as necessary. The existing water lines in the
Project applicants
shall secure
verification that
water service can
be provided. As
Water system
capacity shall be
verified prior to
issuance of
grading permits for
City of Belmont
Public Works
Department and
Community
Development
658
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 10 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
BVSP Area are displayed in Figure 4.13-2,
and planned improvements are displayed in
Figure 4.13-3. Lines that are anticipated to
need upgrades include the 6-inch lines
along Old County Road between Masonic
Way and Harbor Boulevard, along Ralston
Avenue between Old County Road and
Elmer Street, along Sixth Avenue between
Hill Street and O’Neill Avenue, and along
O’Neill Avenue between Sixth Avenue and
El Camino Real. The physical
improvements will be subject to projectlevel environmental review as needed. projects are built in
accordance with
the Specific Plan,
City of Belmont
Public Works in
conjunction with
Mid-Peninsula
Water District
shall monitor
system capacity
and construct
necessary upgrades
over time.
individual projects.

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

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

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

Ongoing study and
monitoring of the
BVSP Area sewer
infrastructure shall
be performed by
the Public Works
Department and
Silicon Valley
Clean Water
City of Belmont
Public Works
Department and
Community
Development
Department;
Silicon Valley
Clean Water
659
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 11 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
and the Silicon
Valley Clean
Water Conveyance
System Master
Plan.

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

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

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

Ongoing study and
monitoring of the
BVSP Area sewer
infrastructure shall
be performed by
the Public Works
Department and
Silicon Valley
Clean Water
City of Belmont
Public Works
Department and
Community
Development
Department;
Silicon Valley
Clean Water
Policies Incorporated into the Project that Reduce Environmental Impacts 660
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 12 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
The EIR lists numerous policies contained in the General Plan, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan that reduce the environmental impacts of the project, in some cases to a level of insignificance. As permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(b), the monitoring plan
for these policies consists of City implementation and
enforcement of those policies.

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

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

City of Belmont
Community
Development
Department

1. Annual report on
general plan status.

2. As part of findings
of approval for
individual projects.
661
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER 2024 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) STATUTES & GUIDELINES – SECTION 15303
1397 El Camino Real & APN 045-243-050 – Canna-Bel Retail Cannabis Business 15303. NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include, but are not limited to:
(a) One single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. (b) A duplex or similar multi-family residential structure, totaling no more than four dwelling units.

In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartments, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units.
(c) A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive.
(d) Water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions, including street improvements, of reasonable length to serve such construction.
(e) Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.
(f) An accessory steam sterilization unit for the treatment of medical waste at a facility occupied by a medical waste generator, provided that the unit is installed and operated in accordance with the Medical Waste Management Act (Section 117600, et seq., of the Health and Safety Code) and accepts no offsite waste.

Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21084, Public Resources Code.

The proposed project, establishment of a proposed Retail Cannabis Business (Canna-Bel) at 1397 El Camino Real & APN 045-243-050, will only result in installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use (restaurant) to another (retail cannabis business) where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. As such, the project meets the Categorical Exemption requirements as per Section 15303, Class 3(c) & (d).
662
ISSUED DATE NO.

BUILDING 01.24.2025

PROJECT

TENANT IMPROVEMENT

ADDRESS
1397 EL CAMINO REAL
BELMONT, CA 94002
APN: 045243040

OWNER INFO BECHWATI PROPERTIES,
LLC
ADDRESS 43053 SABERCAT PLACE,
FREMONT, CA 94539
CONTACT INFO (510) 501-6564
[email protected]
DSD

DESIGNER INFO

DINA SHURRAB

ADDRESS
398 CYPRESS AVE,

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO , CA
94080

CONTACT INFO
951-414-7734
[email protected]
No.C24700
REN 10/31/25

SHEET DESCRIPTION

COVER SHEET

SYMBOLS

GENERAL NOTES

DRAWING INDEX
A0.0

BUILDING INFORMATION

SCOPE OF WORK

PLANNING INFORMATION

CODE CYCLE

PROPERTY OWNER
Bechwati Properties, LLC
C/O Cynthia Bechwati
43053 Sabercat Place,
Fremont CA 94539
[email protected]
(510) 501-6564

PROPERTY OWNER'S

AUTHORIZED AGENT
Philip Lesser
555 Laurel Avenue, #501
San Mateo CA 94401
(650) 346-2903
[email protected]
TENANT
Belmont A & E Green Solutions, Inc.

C/O Khader "Al" Elshawa
701 Freeport Lane,
Redwood Shores CA 94065
[email protected]
(415) 509-8664

ARCHITECT
SHATARA ARCHITECTURE, INC.

License #C24700 (expires 10/31/23)
890 7th Street
San Francisco CA 94107
(415) 871-1229
[email protected]

PROJECT TEAM INFO N

VICINITY MAP

PROJECT

LOCATION

GENERAL CONTRACTOR
Pacific Baldwin contractor Co.
443 Airport Blvd.#305
Burlingame Ca. 94010
Tel 510-517-1177
License #1003110
Exp. 03/25

BUILDING PHOTOS
663

EL CAMINO REAL

PARKING LOT HARBOR BLVD

ENTRANCE

EXISTING RESTAURANT

TO BE CONVERTED TO A CANNABIS DISPENSARY

CALTRAIN TRACK
ISSUED DATE NO.

BUILDING 01.24.2025

PROJECT

TENANT IMPROVEMENT

ADDRESS
1397 EL CAMINO REAL
BELMONT, CA 94002
APN: 045243040

OWNER INFO BECHWATI PROPERTIES,
LLC
ADDRESS 43053 SABERCAT PLACE,
FREMONT, CA 94539
CONTACT INFO (510) 501-6564
[email protected]
DSD

DESIGNER INFO

DINA SHURRAB

ADDRESS
398 CYPRESS AVE,

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO , CA
94080

CONTACT INFO
951-414-7734
[email protected]
No.C24700
REN 10/31/25
A1.0

SHEET DESCRIPTION

SITE PLAN
SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0" 1 EXISTING SITE PLAN
N
664

EL CAMINO REAL PARKING LOT
HARBOR BLVD ENTRANCE CALTRAIN TRACK CURBSIDE PICKUP EMPLOYEE/DELIVERY PARKING P1 P2 P3 E1 E2 E3 CUSTOMER PICKUP C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 LOADING AREA E4 NEW CANNABIS DISPENSARY P1 PICKUP PARKING C1 CUSTOMERS PARKING E1 EMPLOYEE PARKING ISSUED DATE NO. BUILDING 01.24.2025 PROJECT TENANT IMPROVEMENT ADDRESS 1397 EL CAMINO REAL BELMONT, CA 94002 APN: 045243040 OWNER INFO BECHWATI PROPERTIES, LLC ADDRESS 43053 SABERCAT PLACE, FREMONT, CA 94539 CONTACT INFO (510) 501-6564 [email protected] DSD DESIGNER INFO DINA SHURRAB ADDRESS 398 CYPRESS AVE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94080 CONTACT INFO 951-414-7734 [email protected] No.C24700 REN 10/31/25 A1.0.1 SHEET DESCRIPTION PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0" 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN N 665
KITCHEN P.O.S STORAGE ISSUED DATE NO. BUILDING 01.24.2025 PROJECT TENANT IMPROVEMENT ADDRESS 1397 EL CAMINO REAL BELMONT, CA 94002 APN: 045243040 OWNER INFO BECHWATI PROPERTIES, LLC ADDRESS 43053 SABERCAT PLACE, FREMONT, CA 94539 CONTACT INFO (510) 501-6564 [email protected] DSD DESIGNER INFO DINA SHURRAB ADDRESS 398 CYPRESS AVE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94080 CONTACT INFO 951-414-7734 [email protected] No.C24700 REN 10/31/25 A1.1 SHEET DESCRIPTION EXISTING PLANS N 2 EXISTING/DEMO FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE : 3/16"=1'-0" WEST / REAR ELEVATION SCALE : 1/4"=1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE : 1/4"=1'-0" 3 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE : 1/4"=1'-0" 4 EAST / FRONT ELEVATION SCALE : 1/4"=1'-0" 1 666
WAITING AREA RECEIVING AREA EMPLOYEE BATHROOM CASHIER COUNTER RETAIL AREA STORAGE ISSUED DATE NO. BUILDING 01.24.2025 PROJECT TENANT IMPROVEMENT ADDRESS 1397 EL CAMINO REAL BELMONT, CA 94002 APN: 045243040 OWNER INFO BECHWATI PROPERTIES, LLC ADDRESS 43053 SABERCAT PLACE, FREMONT, CA 94539 CONTACT INFO (510) 501-6564 [email protected] DSD DESIGNER INFO DINA SHURRAB ADDRESS 398 CYPRESS AVE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94080 CONTACT INFO 951-414-7734 [email protected] No.C24700 REN 10/31/25 A2.0 SHEET DESCRIPTION PROPOSED PLANS 1 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE : 1/4"=1'-0" N SECURITY GATE SPECS. B A INTERIOR ELEVATION AT WAITING AREA & RETAIL AREA SCALE : 3/8"=1'-0" INTERIOR ELEVATION AT BREAK ROOM SCALE : 3/8"=1'-0" C INTERIOR ELEVATION AT RETAIL AREA SCALE : 3/8"=1'-0" 667
C B 1397 C B 1397 ISSUED DATE NO. BUILDING 01.24.2025 PROJECT TENANT IMPROVEMENT ADDRESS 1397 EL CAMINO REAL BELMONT, CA 94002 APN: 045243040 OWNER INFO BECHWATI PROPERTIES, LLC ADDRESS 43053 SABERCAT PLACE, FREMONT, CA 94539 CONTACT INFO (510) 501-6564 [email protected] DSD DESIGNER INFO DINA SHURRAB ADDRESS 398 CYPRESS AVE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94080 CONTACT INFO 951-414-7734 [email protected] No.C24700 REN 10/31/25 A2.1 SHEET DESCRIPTION PROPOSED ELEVATIONS & SECTION EAST / FRONT ELEVATION SCALE : 1/4"=1'-0" 2 WEST / REAR ELEVATION SCALE : 1/4"=1'-0" 4 FULL FRONT ELEVATION SCALE : 3/16"=1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE : 1/4"=1'-0" 3 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE : 1/4"=1'-0" 5 668
WAITING AREA RETAIL AREA RECEIVING AREA STORAGE ISSUED DATE NO. BUILDING 01.24.2025 PROJECT TENANT IMPROVEMENT ADDRESS 1397 EL CAMINO REAL BELMONT, CA 94002 APN: 045243040 OWNER INFO BECHWATI PROPERTIES, LLC ADDRESS 43053 SABERCAT PLACE, FREMONT, CA 94539 CONTACT INFO (510) 501-6564 [email protected] DSD DESIGNER INFO DINA SHURRAB ADDRESS 398 CYPRESS AVE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94080 CONTACT INFO 951-414-7734 [email protected] No.C24700 REN 10/31/25 A2.2 SHEET DESCRIPTION PROPOSED ELECTRIC & MECHANICAL PLANS 2 PROPOSED MECHANICAL PLAN SCALE : 1/4"=1'-0" N 1 PROPOSED ELECTRICAL PLAN SCALE : 1/4"=1'-0" 669
ISSUED DATE NO. BUILDING 01.24.2025 PROJECT TENANT IMPROVEMENT ADDRESS 1397 EL CAMINO REAL BELMONT, CA 94002 APN: 045243040 OWNER INFO BECHWATI PROPERTIES, LLC ADDRESS 43053 SABERCAT PLACE, FREMONT, CA 94539 CONTACT INFO (510) 501-6564 [email protected] DSD DESIGNER INFO DINA SHURRAB ADDRESS 398 CYPRESS AVE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94080 CONTACT INFO 951-414-7734 [email protected] No.C24700 REN 10/31/25 A2.4 SHEET DESCRIPTION INTERIOR RENDERINGS 670
ATTACHMENT 7 - Omitted
671
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 600' Buffer
Building Footprints
1397 El Camino Real
1538 El Camino Real
1538
1397
F
0 60 120 240 360 480 600 Feet
600' BUFFER FROM 1397 EL CAMINO REAL
1397 EL CAMINO REAL
672
100-Foot Proximity Aerials
673
674
600-Foot Proximity Aerials
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
ATTACHMENT 4 – Exhibit A
Meeting Date: March 25, 2025
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Carlos de Melo, Community Development Director, (650) 595-7440 [email protected]
Agenda Title: 1538 El Camino Real – Rezone to S-3 Overlay District, Development Agreement, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review
Agenda Action: Ordinance
Recommendation
Introduce an ordinance rezoning 1538 El Camino Real into the S-3 Cannabis Overlay District, introduce an ordinance approving a development agreement for the project, and direct staff to place a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for the project on a meeting agenda with adoption of the ordinance.

Strategic Focus Area
Economic Development and Housing
Background
The subject property is located in the City’s established S-3 Cannabis Retail & Distribution Overlay District along south El Camino Real. A full background/analysis of the City’s 2035 General Plan Land Use Element & Belmont Zoning Code Amendments to establish Cannabis Business Development Regulations, Performance Standards, the S-3 Overlay Zone, and the required entitlement structure, and review authority is discussed in the Development Entitlements for Two Retail Cannabis Dispensary Businesses on the south El Camino Real corridor Staff Report. Please refer to the background/analysis and attachments in this report and its applicability to the requested entitlements for the proposed NUG Retail Cannabis Dispensary Business for the subject site.

Site Location/Project Description
The project site is located on the 1500 Block of the west side of El Camino Real (See Figure 1 on next page).