Harbor Boulevard is located to the north, single-family residences are located to the west on Fifth & Sixth Avenues, and other commercial properties/uses are located east and south of the subject property. F Street and the San Carlos border is also located south of the project/subject site.
The project would be located at 1538 El Camino Real, Suite C, at the site of the former Jenny Craig outlet. The storefront is located within a small strip commercial shopping center on the west side of El Camino Real, south of the intersection of the west-bound leg of Harbor Boulevard. The shopping center also includes a variety of uses (Nail Salon, Lacrosse Sporting Goods shop, and other commercial uses).
Access to the property is provided via three site entry/exit driveways on El Camino Real. The existing commercial space is approximately 2,400 square feet; see Project Plans – Attachment 6.
Attachment 4 - Exhibit B - 1538 ECR Staff Report – RZ-DA-CUP-DR 719
Attachment 4 - Exhibit B - 1538 ECR Staff Report – RZ-DA-CUP-DR Although the subject property does back up against residential properties – see site vicinity map below, there is a significant grade difference between those residences and the proposed retail cannabis dispensary use. The backyards of these residences along Fifth Avenue are roughly 15 to 20 feet above the shopping center and are further separated by the extension of Civic Lane. Furthermore, there is no access to the storefront from the rear of the property as the shopping center building backs up directly against the property line and is fenced off at the rear. As a result, there is no direct interface between the (westerly) residential uses and the shopping center tenants; see photos below of the shopping center, side of property, and Civic Lane extension.
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Commercial Shopping Center, side of property, and westerly Civic Lane extension photos 720
Attachment 4 - Exhibit B - 1538 ECR Staff Report – RZ-DA-CUP-DR 721
Attachment 4 - Exhibit B - 1538 ECR Staff Report – RZ-DA-CUP-DR The applicant proposes minor interior (for the building) and exterior (for the property) tenant improvements (TI) that consist of the following:
• New non-bearing wall partitions, ceiling and wall finishes, casework, counters, shelving, plumbing fixtures, electrical lighting, and new HVAC system with carbon filters (no exhaust).
One existing ADA compliant bathroom to remain unchanged, and one existing ADA compliant bathroom to be modified.
• Minor exterior building/finish improvements (cosmetic) and new signage. • No proposed building envelope/structural changes are proposed. • Five (5) new concrete planter boxes to be installed along front of existing tenant space.
Proposed NUG Exterior Elevation Modifications
The proposed minor exterior elevation modifications (new trim paint elements and signage) are nonobtrusive and blend well with the adjoining commercial shopping center tenant spaces.
Zoning Designation
The property/project site is currently zoned Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) 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 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 722
Attachment 4 - Exhibit B - 1538 ECR Staff Report – RZ-DA-CUP-DR 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 property at 1538 El Camino Real is located within this established (November 2023) overlay area and is eligible for rezoning into this district – see Exhibit A to the Rezoning Ordinance provided as Attachment 2 to this report. The S-3 Overlay District was created previously and this application is to apply that overlay district to this particular site.
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 1538 El Camino Real property 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 NUG business represent their individual proposal and City negotiations with their ownership entity based on their unique business operational and financial model.
NUG Community Benefit Terms
• $50,000 one-time donation to Belmont Parks and Recreation towards purchase of a mobile recreation vehicle
• On-going community benefit contribution of 1.5% of gross receipts up to $12 million revenues, then 2% of gross receipts for revenues above $12 million starting after the first year of operation.
The community benefit contribution will be distributed as follows:
o 50% directly to the City to be used for Parks and Recreation for programming, scholarships, and capital needs.
o 50% to Belmont Community Foundation (BCF) with a provision that if BCF sunsets then the funds are assigned to the City.
Planning Commission Recommendation – Rezone & Development Agreement At the March 4, 2025 Planning Commission Hearing, the Commission reviewed the proposed Rezone of the subject property (1538 El Camino Real) 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 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.
723
Attachment 4 - Exhibit B - 1538 ECR Staff Report – RZ-DA-CUP-DR A majority of the Commission, and the general public, voiced concerns that the proposed use (a Retail Cannabis Business) was inappropriate for this particular location in consideration of its proximity to the existing residential uses to the west of the project site. Some members of the Commission also questioned whether the use was compatible with the other existing businesses in the shopping center. In addition, concerns were raised that nearby residents had not received sufficient notice that the use was proposed at this location.
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 disapprove the proposed 1538 El Camino Real property Rezone into the S-3 Overlay District, and NUG Retail Cannabis Business 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) conducted a public hearing on March 11, 2025 regarding the requested NUG 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 adjacent ECR commercial uses, and westerly located residential properties.
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.
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.
724
Attachment 4 - Exhibit B - 1538 ECR Staff Report – RZ-DA-CUP-DR (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 NUG Retail Cannabis Business use would be located in the Corridor Mixed-Use (CMU) area along south El Camino Real, in proximity to main city arterials and mass public transportation options (bus and rail). The project site is currently developed with a vacant commercial space for the proposed NUG Retail Cannabis use that is currently served by all required utilities. An interior 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. 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. Parking for staff will be addressed within the existing commercial center 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 vacant (former Jenny Craig space) for the proposed NUG Retail Cannabis Business use is proposed. Compliant accessible parking is already provided in the commercial shopping center, and the project would meet its parking requirement (1 space for each 250 square feet of space) for retail commercial uses in the BZO. 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.
El Camino Real will serve the proposed NUG Retail Cannabis Business property at 1538 El Camino Real, and has 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/or provided conditions of approval that should ensure that the proposed use will not adversely affect the general welfare of the City. Conditions of approval have been included that would require conformance with the California Building Code. The 725
Attachment 4 - Exhibit B - 1538 ECR Staff Report – RZ-DA-CUP-DR NUG 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 the 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 NUG 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 NUG 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 not result in more than one Cannabis Distribution use in the S-3 District.
Both proposed Cannabis Businesses (at 1538 and 1397 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 1538 El Camino Real) currently complies with or is 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 NUG security/operational plans. The NUG 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 NUG Security and 726
Attachment 4 - Exhibit B - 1538 ECR Staff Report – RZ-DA-CUP-DR Operational Plans have been conditionally approved. Final review, completion, and approval of the NUG 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 NUG Retail Cannabis Business for the subject property (1538 El Camino Real).
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 (NUG) for the subject property at 1538 El Camino Real is in compliance with the BZO Section 13.4.1 requirements.
The project involves an interior tenant improvement to the former Jenny Craig commercial shopping center space for the proposed NUG Retail Cannabis business. The proposed exterior improvements will be compatible with the architectural style and characteristics of the existing building. The proposed improvements do not include the use of extreme colors. New wall signage is proposed for the front façade of the existing commercial building tenant space. The sign will be viewable from the commercial shopping center parking lot and El Camino Real. The wall sign will consist of black internally-illuminated channel letters illustrating the “NUG” business name and logo.
Five new planter boxes will be installed within the parking lot adjacent to the building entrance. All other existing landscaping would remain in the shopping center and no protected trees would be pruned or removed to allow for construction of the project. The Zoning Administrator will recommend City Council approval of the project Design Review for the NUG Retail Cannabis Business for the subject property (1538 El Camino Real).
Development Regulations & Performance Standards Review
As per Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) Section 21.4.1(c) & (d), and in conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed NUG 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 NUG 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. 727
Attachment 4 - Exhibit B - 1538 ECR Staff Report – RZ-DA-CUP-DR The proposed NUG Retail Cannabis Business (at 1538 El Camino Real) is located further than 600 feet from any school or other proposed Cannabis Retail Business (Canna-Bel at 1397 El Camino Real). The NUG Business is also located further than 100 feet from any park or actively operated child day care center. See Attachment 7 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 7 which outlines the required 600/100 foot distances and NUG Business compliance with this regulation.
(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 NUG 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 NUG 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 NUG 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.
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 NUG 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. 728
Attachment 4 - Exhibit B - 1538 ECR Staff Report – RZ-DA-CUP-DR (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 NUG Retail Cannabis Business building at 1538 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 NUG operational/safety/security plan. Final review, completion, and approval of the aforementioned NUG 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 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 NUG 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 NUG 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 also 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 NUG 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. 729
Attachment 4 - Exhibit B - 1538 ECR Staff Report – RZ-DA-CUP-DR (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 NUG 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 the building.. Final review and completion of the operational/safety/security plan for the NUG 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 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, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) will recommend the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for the proposed Cannabis Retail Dispensary Business (“NUG”) at 1538 El Camino Real. 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 property 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 730
Attachment 4 - Exhibit B - 1538 ECR Staff Report – RZ-DA-CUP-DR 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 early June 2024, a notice/invitation was mailed out for a NUG Neighborhood Outreach event that occurred on June 25, 2024. The applicant reported mailing these notices to property owners (within 300 feet of the site), businesses, and residents to inform them of the project and inviting the neighbors to the on-site meeting with the Applicant Team. The meeting was designed to allow for any questions, comments, or concerns regarding the proposed business operations. City staff also attended the 6/25/24 outreach meeting, and one member of the public joined the meeting.
On March 19, 2025 from 5:15-6PM, NUG conducted a second Community/Neighborhood Outreach meeting (A Virtual “Meet & Greet”). The online meeting invitation was sent (on 3/12/25) to previous public email commenters on the project, and property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site. NUG’s objectives for the meeting were to provide insight/details related to their team’s experience, community benefits, neighborhood compatibility, and safety/security. At the 3/19/25 outreach meeting, two members of the public were in attendance. The project applicant made a presentation, and during the Q&A period at the end of the meeting no questions were asked; staff was also in attendance and observed the meeting.
The applicant has provided letters of support from surrounding commercial businesses regarding the proposed NUG Retail Cannabis Business. In addition, the City has received certain letters from Governmental Agencies who currently oversee other NUG and their affiliated Retail Cannabis Dispensary businesses that indicate their 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.
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 tonight’s meeting, the City has received a number of 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.
731
Attachment 4 - Exhibit B - 1538 ECR Staff Report – RZ-DA-CUP-DR 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 Area). 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. NUG 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 732
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Legend
1538 El Camino Real
300'
500'
1465
1510
1545
1576
1468
1406
1584
949
1448
1569
1464
910
1591
951
1559
1456
1546
1520
1608
1588
1532
1508
1500
1617
1612
950
1557
1560
1521
1513
1460
1469
1445
1421
1536
1556
1537
1504
1480
1540
1453
1515
1524
1410
970
1521
1449
1570
1579
1404
1565
1528
1553
1572 1621
1500
1455
1001
1516
1529
1600
1587
1538
1520
1540
1511
1561
1566
1561
1500
1583
1473
1457
1485 1440
1471
969
1573
1569 1600
1595
1552
1601
1539
1531
1480
1501
1501
1499
1465
1438
1437
1444
701
F
0 40 80 160 240 320 400 Feet
300/500 FOOT RADIUS MAP
1538 EL CAMINO REAL
733
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BELMONT REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1538 EL CAMINO REAL IN THE CITY OF BELMONT 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, J&L Belmont Plaza, LCC (“Property Owner)”, is the fee owner of the real property located at 1538 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 Corridor Mixed Use (CMU); and,
WHEREAS, NUG CV BLMT LLC, a California limited liability company (dba NUG) (“Developer”) has a leasehold interest in a portion of the Property and proposes to develop the Property for a cannabis retail use; and,
WHEREAS, the City received an application from Property Owner and Developer to establish a retail cannabis use on Property and seeking approval of an amendment to the Zoning Basemap Designation for the Property 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, 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, 734
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.
SECTION 2. ZONING BASEMAP AMENDED
1. The Zoning Map of the City is amended as follows. The property comprising 1538 El Camino Real, as shown on Exhibit A (Zoning Base Map Section), is incorporated into the S-3 Cannabis Retail and Distribution Overlay District and retains its CMU district designation in accordance with Belmont Zoning Ordinance section 21.1.
735
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
736
737
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BELMONT APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR A RETAIL CANNABIS PROJECT (NUG) AT 1538 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, J&L Belmont Plaza, LCC (“Property Owner)”, is the fee owner of the real property located at 1538 El Camino Real within the City of Belmont (the “Property”); and, WHEREAS, NUG CV BLMT LLC, a California limited liability company (dba NUG) (“Developer”) has a leasehold interest in a portion of 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 Conditional 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 recommendation 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 738
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. FINDINGS
Based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report to the City Council dated March 25, 2025, the presentations 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, 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:
739
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
740
1750\37\3890832.2
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
NUG CV BLMT LLC
Related to the
Entitlement of a Retail Cannabis Use at 1538 El Camino Real, Suite C 741
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
i
1750\37\3890832.2
ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS .........................................................................................................2
1.1 Definitions.............................................................................................................2
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....................................................................................................10
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...........................16 ARTICLE V ANNUAL REVIEW .............................................................................................17
5.1 Time of Review...................................................................................................17
5.2 Required Information from Developer. ..............................................................17 742
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ii
1750\37\3890832.2
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. .............................................................................20 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...................................................................................................22 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.............................................................................................................23
11.1 Notices. ...............................................................................................................23 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.............................25
12.5 Further Assurances..............................................................................................26
12.6 Severability. ........................................................................................................26
12.7 Nondiscrimination...............................................................................................26
12.8 Developer Right to Rebuild. ...............................................................................26
12.9 Headings. ............................................................................................................26 743
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
iii
1750\37\3890832.2
12.10 Agreement is Entire Understanding....................................................................26
12.11 Interpretation.......................................................................................................27
12.12 Recordation of Termination................................................................................27
12.13 Signature Pages; Execution in Counterparts.......................................................27 744
1750\37\3890832.2
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 NUG CV BLMT LLC, a California limited liability company ("Developer") and J & L Belmont Plaza, 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 745
-2-
1750\37\3890832.2
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 but did not recommend approval to the City Council.
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.
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
1.1 Definitions.
746
-3-
1750\37\3890832.2
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.
1.1.21 "Impact Fees" are defined in Section 3.3.1.
1.1.22 "Notice of Default" is defined in Section 6.3.
747
-4-
1750\37\3890832.2
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:
(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;
748
-5-
1750\37\3890832.2
(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 NUG CV BLMT, LLC, a California limited liability company. For the purposes of this Agreement the Developer's office is located at 2301 Blanding Avenue, Suite 408, Alameda, California 94501.
(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;
(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;
749
-6-
1750\37\3890832.2
(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 J & L Belmont Plaza LLC, a California limited liability company. For the purposes of this Agreement the Property Owner's office is located at 843 Malcolm Road, Burlingame, California 94010.
(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 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.
750
-7-
1750\37\3890832.2
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 Events"):
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;
2.6.2 the Developer operates the Cannabis Business in a continued and unremedied 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 751
-8-
1750\37\3890832.2
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.
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.
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, 752
-9-
1750\37\3890832.2
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.
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. 753
-10-
1750\37\3890832.2
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
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.
754
-11-
1750\37\3890832.2
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 procedure, which are in force and effect within the jurisdiction of the City for the class of Subsequent Approvals being applied for.
755
-12-
1750\37\3890832.2
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.
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.
756
-13-
1750\37\3890832.2
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 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 757
-14-
1750\37\3890832.2
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 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.
758
-15-
1750\37\3890832.2
3.12.2 Public Benefits. In addition to the other benefits identified in Section 3.12, the Project will provide public benefits as follows:
(a) A donation of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to the City to be applied to the purchase of a mobile recreation vehicle for use by the Parks and Recreation Department. This payment shall be made by Developer within ninety days upon issuance of certificate of occupancy for the Project.
(b) An annual public benefit contribution of one and a half percent (1.5%) of gross receipts from operations of the Cannabis Business up to the first twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) of gross receipts and two (2%) percent of any gross receipts above that amount, to be contributed at the time of the business license tax payment (no later than February 28 of each year), distributed as follows:
(i) Fifty percent (50%) 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. (ii) Fifty percent (50%) to the City to be used for Parks and Recreation Department programming, scholarships, and capital needs.
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, 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 759
-16-
1750\37\3890832.2
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 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. 760
-17-
1750\37\3890832.2
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 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.
761
-18-
1750\37\3890832.2
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 the 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.
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 762
-19-
1750\37\3890832.2
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 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 763
-20-
1750\37\3890832.2
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.
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. 764
-21-
1750\37\3890832.2
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.
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 765
-22-
1750\37\3890832.2
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.
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 766
-23-
1750\37\3890832.2
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.
ARTICLE XI
NOTICES
11.1 Notices.
767
-24-
1750\37\3890832.2
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:
NUG CV BLMT, LLC
2601 C Blanding Avenue, STE 208
Alameda, CA 94501
With a copy to:
[Address info here, if a copy is to be sent]
Property Owner:
J & L Belmont Plaza LLC
843 Malcom Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
With a copy to:
[Address info here, if a copy is to be sent]
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 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.
768
-25-
1750\37\3890832.2
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.
12.4 Reimbursement of Development Agreement Costs and Fees. 769
-26-
1750\37\3890832.2
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.
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 770
-27-
1750\37\3890832.2
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]
771
-28-
1750\37\3890832.2
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: ____________________________
NUG CV BLMT, LLC
a California Limited Liability Company
By: ____________________________
By: ____________________________
Dated: ____________________________
ATTEST:
By: ____________________________
Jozi Plut, City Clerk
Dated: ____________________________
J & L Belmont Plaza LLC
a California Limited Liability Company
By: ____________________________
By: ____________________________
Dated: ____________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ____________________________
Scott Rennie, City Attorney
Dated: ____________________________
772
-29-
1750\37\3890832.2
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)
773
-30-
1750\37\3890832.2
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)
774
EXHIBIT A
-1-
1750\37\3890832.2
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
Real property in the City of Belmont, County of San Mateo, State of California, described as follows:
LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 AND 20 IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "BAY VIEW HEIGHTS, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIF.", FILED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON OCTOBER 18, 1926 IN BOOK 14 OF MAPS AT PAGE(S) 39 AND 40.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF LOT 14, BLOCK 1 AS CONVEYED TO
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 30, 1930 IN BOOK 488, PAGE 72 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 11, 12 AND 13 IN BLOCK 1 AS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED JULY 24, 1930 IN BOOK 482, PAGE 411 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF LOT 15 IN BLOCK 1 AS
CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 30, 1930 IN BOOK 483, PAGE 269 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
APN: 045-253-290, JPN : 045-025-253-29A
775
EXHIBIT B
-1-
1750\37\3890832.2
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: ______________________________
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
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
796
• 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. 797
(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:
798
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 799
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
800
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).
801
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 802
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, 803
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:
804
“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:
805
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
806
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). 807
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 808
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.
809
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). 810
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
811
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):
812
• 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).
813
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, 814
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.
815
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 816
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
817
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 818
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
819
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. 820
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. 821
• 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. 822
• 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).
823
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, 824
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. 825
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. 826
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 827
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).
828
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). 829
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 830
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). 831
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).
832
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.
833
EXHIBIT 1 TO ATTACHMENT 5
834
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
835
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
836
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
837
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
838
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
839
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
840
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
841
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
842
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
843
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
844
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
845
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
846
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
847
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
848
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
849
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
850
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
851
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
852
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
853
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
854
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
855
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
856
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
857
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
858
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
859
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
860
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
861
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
862
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
863
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
864
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
865
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
866
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
867
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
868
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
869
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
870
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
871
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
872
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
873
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
874
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
875
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
876
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
877
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
878
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
879
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
880
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
881
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
882
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
883
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
884
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
885
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
886
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
887
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
888
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
889
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
890
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
891
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,
892
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, 893
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,
894
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
895
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. 896
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.
897
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.
898
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. 899
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.
900
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. 901
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:
902
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. 903
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.
904
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 905
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.
906
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. 907
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.
908
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. 909
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.
910
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.
911
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;
912
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.
913
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. 914
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.
915
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.
916
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 917
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.
918
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.
919
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. 920
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.
921
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:
922
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. 923
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.
924
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. 925
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
926
This page intentionally left blank.
927
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. 928
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.
929
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.
930
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
931
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
932
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
933
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
934
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.
935
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
936
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
937
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 938
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.
939
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER 2024 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) STATUTES & GUIDELINES – SECTION 15303
1538 El Camino Real – NUG 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 (NUG) at 1538 El Camino Real, will only result in the conversion of existing small structures from one use (vacant former commercial space) 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).
940
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute the original and unpublished work of BSG Engineering and the same may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the written consent of BSG Engineering.
DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS:
STAMP:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT No.:
DRAWING TITLE:
DRAWN: CHECKED:
SHEET No.:
No.
DATE DESCRIPTION
DATES ISSUED:
SCALE:
CAD FILE: PLOT DATE:
BSG ENGINEERING
851 81st Avenue Ste 304
Oakland, California 94621
Ph:415-521-0655
[email protected] NUG RETAIL CANNABIS DISPENSARY 1538 EL CAMINO REAL STE C BELMONT, CA 94002
VICINITY MAP
SITE MAP
PROJECT DATA
BSG
A-1
225
225 BELMONT PLANS 8/26/24
NUG RETAIL CANNABIS DISPENSARY
PROJECT DATA
DISPENSARY ADDRESS 1538 EL CAMINO REAL STE C
APN 045-253-290
OWNER J & L BELMONT PLAZA LLC
OWNER ADDRESS 843 MALCOM ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
LOT AREA 0.46 ACRE (PER COUNTY RECORD)
CONSTRUCTION TYPE VB
SPRINKLERS NO
ZONING VCMU (VILLAGE CORRIDOR MIXED USE)
EXISTING BUILDING INFORMATION
BUILDING OCCUPANCY MERCANITILE (M)
NO. DWELLING UNITS 0
NO. RETAIL UNITS 4
NO. ACCESSORY UNITS 0
TOTAL BUILDING AREA 8,076 SF SF
PARKING SPACES 18
PROPOSED BUILDING INFORMATION
BUILDING OCCUPANCY MERCANTILE (M)
NO. DWELLING UNITS 0
NO. RETAIL UNITS 4
TOTAL BUILDING AREA 8,076 SF SF
PARKING SPACES 18
SUITE C TENANT SPACE INFORMATION
SUITE C OCCUPANCY CANNABIS MERCANTILE (M)
SUITE C AREA 2,400 SF
SUITE C OCCUPANT LOAD 27 PERSONS
1538 EL CAMINO REAL STE C, BELMONT
SHEET INDEX
A-1 VICINITY MAP, SITE MAPS, PROJECT INFO
A-2 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN
A-3 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN
A-4 ELEVATIONS
A-5 PHOTOS
APPLICANT INFORMATION
APPLICANT NAME NUG CV BLMT LLC
PRIMARY CONTACT RAJIV J. POTTABATHNI
CONTACT ADDRESS 2601C BLANDING AVENUE STE 408
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
PARKING INFORMATION
18 CAR SPACES PROVIDED (2 ADA COMPLIANT)
3 SHORT TERM BIKE SPACES ON SIDEWALK
6 LONG TERM BIKE SPACES IN PARKING LOT
SIGNAGE AREA CALCULATION
THE CITY OF BELMONT ALLOWS ONE WALL SIGN PER STREET FRONTAGE WITH A MAXIMUM AREA OF 24SQAURE FEET.THE PROPOSED NUG SIGN OVER THE MAIN ENTRANCE IS 12 SQUARE FEET.
· PROPOSED NEW TENANT IMPROVEMENT FOR A CANNABIS RETAIL DISPENSARY. BUILDING IS EXISTING WITH INTERIOR TENANT
IMPROVEMENTS ONLY. NO CHANGE IN USE: EXISTING RETAIL SPACE INTO NEW RETAIL SPACE. · NO PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE/STRUCTURAL CHANGES. · NEW NON-BEARING WALL PARTITIONS, CEILING AND WALL FINISHES,
CASEWORK, COUNTERS, SHELVING, PLUMBING FIXTURES, AND ELECTRICAL
LIGHTING
· NEW HVAC SYSTEM WITH CARBON FILTERS, NO EXHAUST
· MINOR FINISH IMPROVEMENTS (COSMETIC) ON EXTERIOR SURFACE AND
NEW SIGNAGE
· ONE EXISTING ADA COMPLIANT BATHROOM TO REMAIN UNCHANGED · ONE EXISTING ADA COMPLIANT BATHROOM TO BE MODIFIED
· FIVE CONCRETE PLANTER BOXES INSTALLED ALONG FRONT OF TENANT SPACE TO MITIGATE VEHICLES FROM CRASHING THROUGH WALL.
SCOPE OF WORK
941
4" 3' NUG RETAIL CANNABIS DISPENSARY 1538 EL CAMINO REAL STE C BELMONT, CA 94010
EXISTING FLOOR
PLAN
BSG
A-2
174
1004 B 8/26/24
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute the original and unpublished work of BSG Engineering and the same may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the written consent of BSG Engineering.
DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS:
STAMP:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT No.:
DRAWING TITLE:
DRAWN: CHECKED:
SHEET No.:
No.
DATE DESCRIPTION
DATES ISSUED:
SCALE:
CAD FILE: PLOT DATE:
BSG ENGINEERING
851 81st Avenue Ste 304
Oakland, California 94607
Ph:415-521-0655
[email protected]
DEMOLITION NOTES
ALL WALLS PROPOSED FOR DEMOLITION ARE NON LOAD BEARING
PARTITION WALLS
942
NUG RETAIL CANNABIS DISPENSARY 1538 EL CAMINO REAL STE C BELMONT, CA 94010
PROPOSED FLOOR
PLAN
BSG
A-3
174
1004 B 8/26/24
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute the original and unpublished work of BSG Engineering and the same may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the written consent of BSG Engineering.
DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS:
STAMP:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT No.:
DRAWING TITLE:
DRAWN: CHECKED:
SHEET No.:
No.
DATE DESCRIPTION
DATES ISSUED:
SCALE:
CAD FILE: PLOT DATE:
BSG ENGINEERING
851 81st Avenue Ste 304
Oakland, California 94607
Ph:415-521-0655
[email protected]
ACCESS NOTES
LIMITED AREA(S) ACCESS
OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, EMPLOYEES AND CITY/ COUNTY/ STATE
OFFICIALS OR COMPANY ADVISORS/ CONSULTANTS WITH VISITOR REGISTRATION AND IDENTIFICATION BADGE. (MGMT OFFICE, BREAK ROOM,
SECURE STORAGE, SERVICE COUNTER/ POS AREA)
RESTRICTED AREA(S) ACCESS
VALID IDENTIFICATION FOR AGE VERIFICATION REQUIRED. ONLY QUALIFIED MEDICAL PATIENTS (18 & OVER) WITH CDPH OR PHYSICIAN AUTHORIZATION AND RECREATION/ADULT-USE CUSTOMERS (21 & OVER). EMPLOYEES, AUTHORIZED VENDORS, AND OR LICENSED DISTRIBUTORS (21 & OVER) WITH VISITOR REGISTRATION AND IDENTIFICATION BADGE. (SALES,
CHECK-IN, RESTROOM)
OCCUPANT LOAD CALCULATION
MERCANTILE OCCUPANT LOAD = 1,270 SF / 60 = 21 PERSONS
BUSINESS OCCUPANT LOAD = 527 SF / 100 = 5 PERSONS
STORAGE OCCUPANT LOAD = 325 SF / 300 = 1 PERSON
TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD = 27 PERSONS
943
SLING IT! LACROSSE
bottle and bottega
VALE NAILS
JENNY CRAIG
WEIGHT LOSS NUG RETAIL CANNABIS DISPENSARY 1538 EL CAMINO REAL STE C BELMONT, CA 94010
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
BSG
A-4
174
1004 B 8/26/24
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute the original and unpublished work of BSG Engineering and the same may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the written consent of BSG Engineering.
DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS:
STAMP:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT No.:
DRAWING TITLE:
DRAWN: CHECKED:
SHEET No.:
No.
DATE DESCRIPTION
DATES ISSUED:
SCALE:
CAD FILE: PLOT DATE:
BSG ENGINEERING
851 81st Avenue Ste 304
Oakland, California 94607
Ph:415-521-0655
[email protected]
EXTERIOR NOTE
THE ONLY PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE EXTERIOR FACADE IS THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING "JENNY CRAIG" WALL SIGN AND INSTALLATION OF NEW "NUG" WALL SIGN.
944
NUG RETAIL CANNABIS DISPENSARY 1538 EL CAMINO REAL STE C BELMONT, CA 94010 PHOTOS
BSG
A-5
174
1004 B 8/26/24
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute the original and unpublished work of BSG Engineering and the same may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the written consent of BSG Engineering.
DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS:
STAMP:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT No.:
DRAWING TITLE:
DRAWN: CHECKED:
SHEET No.:
No.
DATE DESCRIPTION
DATES ISSUED:
SCALE:
CAD FILE: PLOT DATE:
BSG ENGINEERING
851 81st Avenue Ste 304
Oakland, California 94607
Ph:415-521-0655
[email protected]
945
ATTACHMENT 7 - Omitted
946
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 600' Buffer from 1538
ECR
1538 El Camino Real
1397 El Camino Real
1397
1538
F
0 50 100 200 300 400 500 Feet
600' BUFFER FROM 1538 EL CAMINO REAL
1538 EL CAMINO REAL
947
100-Foot Proximity Aerials
948
600-Foot Proximity Aerials
949
950
951
ATTACHMENT 9
NUG Community/Neighborhood Outreach Materials
1. Business Endorsement Letters
2. Government Agency Business Review Communications
3. Outreach Meeting Invites– May 2024 & March 2025
4. Public Comment Emails Received
1046 952
LETTERS & STATEMENTS of
ENDORSEMENT | RECOMMENDATION | GOOD STANDING | SUPPORT
In favor of the Applicant, NUG CV BLMT LLC, and its Owners Applicant: NUG CV BLMT LLC
(OWNERS: Rajiv J. Pottabathni, Hrant Ekmekjian, & Adam Peterson | CEO: Dr. John Oram) ❖ Letters of Endorsement & Recommendation for the Applicant (4) ➢ John Seybert, Former City of Redwood City Mayor (Support for Rajiv J. Pottabathni) ➢ Carol Dutra-Vernaci, Former City of Union City Mayor (Support for Rajiv J. Pottabathni) ➢ Supervisor Maureen Mulheren, Former City of Ukiah Mayor (Support for Hrant Ekmekjian) ➢ Barbara Jiang, Property Owner of 1538 El Camino Real (Support for Hrant Ekmekjian) ❖ Letters of Good Standing & Verification for Owners of the Applicant (8) ➢ City of Union City (Jiva UC dba Lemonnade, Owned by Rajiv J. Pottabathni) ➢ City of San Bernardino (Jiva SBD dba Cookies San Bern., Owned by Rajiv J. Pottabathni) ➢ City of Tracy (Jiva TCY dba Tracy Farms, Owned by Rajiv J. Pottabathni) ➢ City of Napa (Jiva NPA dba Cookies Napa, Owned by Rajiv J. Pottabathni) ➢ City of Ukiah (Ukiah Valley Holistics dba CannaVine, Owned by Hrant Ekmekjian) ➢ City of San Leandro (DSWC dba Nug Wellness, Owned Adam Peterson & Dr. John Oram) ➢ City of Red Bluff (Nug RB dba Nug Red Bluff, Owned by Adam Peterson & Dr. John Oram) ➢ City of El Cerrito (ECWC Partners dba Nug EC, Owned by Adam Peterson & Dr. John Oram) ❖ Letters of Support from Belmont Residents and/or Business Owners (8) ❖ Support and/or Non-Opposition Memo w/Signatures from Belmont Residents/Businesses (16) ❖ Nextdoor.com Belmont Resident General Cannabis Public Support Comments (8) ❖ Odor Mitigation & Air Quality Memo
❖ Cannabis Waste Management Services Memo
1047 953
…from the desk of John D. Seybert
(Former Mayor, City of Redwood City)
__________________________ March 15th, 2025
City of Belmont
Mayor’s Office & City Council
1 Twin Pines Ln.
Belmont, CA 94002
RE: Letter of Endorsement & Recommendation for NUG CV BLMT LLC (the “Applicant”) Madame Mayor & City Council Members,
I am writing this letter of endorsement regarding the application submitted on behalf of NUG CV BLMT LLC, the “Applicant,” for an opportunity to secure a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Cannabis Business License to operate a Commercial Cannabis Business retail storefront with delivery services in Belmont (“City”). As a former Planning Commissioner, City Council Member, and Mayor of Redwood City, I understand and am familiar with the sensitives of the commercial cannabis businesses,
I am familiar with the Applicant's comprehensive RFP and believe it demonstrates business merit, operational compliance, security measures, neighborhood compatibility strategies, and community benefits in alignment with the City's Strategic Plan. I am also familiar with the proposed location (1538 El Camino Real) and am confident it is a suitable site.
The City's adoption of regulated a cannabis business retail program reflects a forward-thinking approach that will help residents of Belmont and San Mateo County to safely access medical and adult-use cannabis. I supported decriminalization of cannabis when I served on City Council in Redwood City, in part because the evidence made clear that locals were using cannabis to effectively manage pain, treat other specific physical conditions or ailments, and to alleviate stress. I applaud the City's leadership on this program and am I confident that its implementation will generate significant economic benefits for Belmont and not be a deterrent to the fabric of the community.
I have known the Applicant's Managing Director, Raj Pottabathni, for several years, and believe his team will be a responsible cannabis business operator and valuable member of the community. The Applicant's local first approach, equity inclusion policies for employment, and charitable contribution commitments shall be welcomed by City residents. Furthermore, I believe that the Applicant's history of operational prowess, compliance, and experience within the industry operating over twenty CCB retail locations will be an ideal fit for Belmont.
I support the Applicant for consideration of a CUP and believe if selected, they will strive to maintain a harmonious relationship with the City. Given the community benefits they are offering and the fact that their application meets all City requirements, I respectfully recommend for your vote of approval on March 25th. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
_________________________
John D. Seybert
Former Mayor, City of Redwood City (2015-2017)
[email protected]
(650) 533-5053
Cc: Mayor Mates, Vice Mayor Pang-Maganaris, Councilmembers: Cathy Jordan, Tom McCune, Gina Latimerlo 1048 954
…from the desk of Carol Dutra-Vernaci
(Former Mayor, City of Union City)
______________________________
March 15, 2025
City of Belmont
Mayor’s Office & City Council
1 Twin Pines Ln.
Belmont, CA 94002
RE: Letter of Endorsement & Recommendation for NUG CV BLMT LLC (the “Applicant”) Madame Mayor & City Council Members,
I am writing this letter of endorsement and recommendation regarding the application submitted on behalf of NUG CV BLMT LLC, the “Applicant,” for an opportunity to secure a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Cannabis Business License to operate a Commercial Cannabis Business (CCB) retail storefront with delivery services in Belmont (“City”).
As a former mayor of Union City (I just termed out December 10, 2024), I understand and am familiar with establishing a CCB program within a municipality. One of the Applicant’s owners, Raj Pottabathni, was one of three companies that was selected in Union City for a CCB retail storefront, and since May 2022, he has established a successful and compliant cannabis retail location at 30545 Union City Blvd known as Lemonnade.
The City's adoption of a regulated cannabis business retail program reflects a forward-thinking approach that will help residents of Belmont and San Mateo County to safely access medical and adult-use cannabis. I supported decriminalization of cannabis when I served on City Council in Union City, and I applaud the City's leadership for developing a cannabis retail program and I am confident that its implementation will generate economic benefits for Belmont, without being an impairment to the fabric of the community.
I believe Raj Pottabathni and his Applicant group demonstrate professionalism, business merit, operational compliance, security/safety measures, and neighborhood compatibility strategies that will be a value add for Belmont. I have known Raj since 2018, and from my experience, Raj is communicative, responsive, and transparent. Raj worked closely with Union City Staff and the Police Department to address any concerns regarding public safety.
I support the Applicant for being awarded a CUP and believe if selected, they will strive to maintain a harmonious relationship with the City. Understanding the community benefits the Applicant is providing and that their proposed project meets all City requirements, I respectfully recommend that City Council approves this application. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
_________________________
Carol Dutra-Vernaci
Former Mayor, City of Union City (2012-2024)
[email protected]
(510) 432-6211
Cc: Mayor Mates, Vice Mayor Pang-Maganaris, Cathy Jordan, Tom McCune, Gina Latimerlo 1049 955
MAUREEN MULHEREN
Supervisor
Second District
OFFICE PHONE: (707) 463-4221
DIRECT LINE: (707) 391-3664
OFFICE FAX: (707) 463-7237
MAILING ADDRESS:
501 Low Gap Road, Room 1010
Ukiah, CA 95482
COUNTY OF MENDOCINO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
501 Low Gap Road • Room 1010
Ukiah, California 95482
March 15th, 2025
City of Belmont
Mayors Office & City Council
1 Twin Pines Ln.
Belmont, CA 94002
RE: Letter of Endorsement & Recommendation for NUG CV BLMT LLC (the “Applicant”) Madame Mayor & City Council Members,
Currently, I am the Mendocino County Second District Supervisor and served as a City of Ukiah elected official with for over a decade. I am writing this letter of endorsement and recommendation regarding the application submitted on behalf of NUG CV BLMT LLC, the “Applicant,” for an opportunity to secure a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Cannabis Business License to operate a Commercial Cannabis Business (CCB) retail storefront with delivery services in Belmont (“City”).
As a former Mayor and City Council Member of Ukiah, I was part of the process to establish a legal commercial cannabis business program in Ukiah. Hrant Ekmekjian, one of the Applicant’s owners, was the first company that was selected in Ukiah for a cannabis retail storefront. Hrant’s store, CannaVine, has been open and serving the public since February 2019.
It is good to see that Belmont had adopted a regulated cannabis business retail program. I was in support of medical cannabis and its transition to adult-use as I believe cannabis retail allows patients and customers respectively to seek and purchase lab tested cannabis products legally and safely.
I believe Hrant Ekmekjian, and his Applicant group demonstrate professionalism, business merit, operational compliance, active security/safety measures, and neighborhood compatibility strategies that I expect him to establish and continue in Belmont. I have known Hrant since 2018, and from my experience, he has been communicative, responsive, and transparent.
I support the Applicant for being awarded a CUP and believe if selected, they will strive to maintain a harmonious relationship with the City. Understanding the community benefits the Applicant is providing and that their proposed project meets all City requirements, I respectfully recommend that City Council approves this application. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Maureen Mulheren
Mendocino County Second District Supervisor (2021-Present) Former Mayor & City Council Member, City of Ukiah (2014-2020) [email protected]
(707) 391-3664 mobile 1050 96
March 14th, 2025
City of Belmont
Mayor’s Office & City Council
1 Twin Pines Ln.
Belmont, CA 94002
RE: Letter of Support & Recommendation for NUG CV BLMT LLC (the “Applicant”) @ 1538 ECR STE C Madame Mayor & Council Members,
My name is Barbara Jiang, and I have owned and managed a commercial mixed-use property on El Camino Real (1538 El Camino Real) in Belmont (“City”) for almost 12 years. As a longtime local resident to San Mateo County, I am a dedicated member of Belmont’s business community and the San Mateo County general community and take great pride in investing into the City and helping achieve its’ full potential. I support Belmont’s Commercial Cannabis Business Program and recommend the Applicant be considered and selected a for a cannabis business permit to operate a CCB retail storefront with delivery services at my property.
The Applicant’s Retail Operations Director and co-owner, Hrant Ekmekjian, is local to the San Mateo County Area (living in Foster City) and is qualified with experience in the cannabis retail industry in California. His partners are also cannabis retail operators and together, they have over 30 cannabis businesses. He supports community benefits, local hiring, and social justice within the cannabis industry as he participates in San Francisco’s social equity program. He champions the voice of the City through his community benefits proposal that supports the City’s Strategic Plan.
I have communicated with co-owner Adam Peterson on several occasions, he owns and manages Nug Inc., which operates over 10 commercial cannabis retail stores in California. I own the property with my brother (Henry Jiang), and we both visited a Nug retail store in San Leandro and were pleased with their operation. They are part of the Applicant group, and I believe their retail operational prowess, coupled with Hrant’s dedication for the community, will make for a valuable asset to the City.
I am impressed with the quality layout and design of the proposed cannabis retail storefront, along with the professionalism presented by the Applicant. After my conversations with Hrant and Adam, I feel assured that the Applicant will be a positive addition to this neighborhood. I have secured a lease agreement with the Applicant and their business will provide an additional level of security for its surroundings.
I encourage the City to approve the Applicant’s proposal, in that I know this will be a big step in the right direction for the City. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions. I am available by mobile phone or email.
Best Regards,
__________________________________
Barabara Jiang
Property Owner (1538 El Camino Real)
[email protected]
M: (415) 812-2432
1051 97
March 18, 2025
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of Belmont
Attention: City Manager’s Office
1 Twin Pines Lane
Belmont, CA 94002
RE: LETTER OF GOOD STANDING – JIVA UC LLC
Dear City Manager Oskoui,
The City of Union City (“City”) has worked with Raj Pottabathni, an owner of Jiva UC LLC (“Company”), who received a Commercial Cannabis Use (“CCU”) permit in 2020. The Company was selected as one of three Commercial Cannabis Business (“CCB”) retailers permitted to operate a storefront with delivery service in the City. Since May 2022, the Company has operated a quality CCB retail storefront at 30545 Union City Boulevard, known as Lemonnade.
To date, the Company has made community benefit contributions totaling $60,000 (annually $15,000/year). This is consistent with the Company’s CCU permit and established Conditions of Approval pursuant to Resolution No. 5564-20, Section 58 & 59. A portion of the community benefit contributions are directed to the City’s Police Department for Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) and Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) training, in addition to other training programs for Police Officers as identified by the Chief of Police.
The remainder of the community benefit contributions help fund programming under the City’s Youth and Family Services Division (within the Community & Recreation Services Department), which provides support services to those in need. Specifically, this includes the development and implementation of a juvenile diversion program that aims to redirect at-risk youth from entering the juvenile justice system and reduce the occurrence of juvenile crime. In recent years, the funding has also been directed towards the City’s CAREavan Program, which provides a safe place to park and sleep overnight for families and/or individuals who have been displaced, are temporarily homeless, and living in their vehicles.
From the City’s experience, Raj has been communicative, responsive, and transparent. Raj and the Company have been receptive to feedback and have worked collaboratively with the City. Not only has Raj been professional, but he has demonstrated the ability to develop a successful, sustainable, and harmonious CCB retail operation here in Union City. We imagine he would endeavor to do the same and be a good businesses partner to the City of Belmont.
The City of Union City looks forward to maintaining a continued good-standing relationship with Raj and the Company. Thank you, and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to me directly.
Sincerely,
Joan Malloy
City Manager
City of Union City
cc: Jennifer Phan, Deputy City Manager
1052 98
290 North D St, San Bernardino, CA 92401 | P: 909-384-5357 | www.SBCity.org Community Development & Housing Department
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 17, 2025
City of Belmont
Mayor’s Office & City Council
1 Twin Pines Ln.
Belmont, CA 94002
RE: Letter of “Good Standing” for Rajiv “Raj” Pottabathni (Jiva SBD LLC) The City of San Bernardino (“City”) has worked with Raj Pottabathni, an owner of Jiva SBD LLC dba Cookies San Bernardino (“Company”), who was awarded a Commercial Cannabis Business (“CCB”) retail permit since selecting the Company as 1 of 5 CCB retailers to operate a storefront with delivery service in the City in early 2019.
Since the beginning of the process, the Company has been receptive to feedback and collaborative with the City. The Company has been operating a successful Commercial Cannabis retail storefront (494 W.
Orange Show Road, STE A D & E, San Bernardino) that has been open to the public since September 2020.
To date, the Company has paid all applicable taxes/fees and has been operating in compliance with City regulations with no violations, consistent with their commitment to operate in accordance with their subject Cannabis Business Permit (CBP) approval.
From my experience, Raj is communicative, responsive, and transparent. He has demonstrated the ability to develop a successful, sustainable, and harmonious CCB retail operation. I believe that he is professional and shall be an added value to the City of Belmont.
The City looks forward to maintaining a good-standing relationship with Raj and the Company, and supports their continued stability as a CCB retail operator. Thank you, and if you have any questions, please feel to reach out to me directly.
Sincere Regards,
Stephanie Castro
Economic Development Project Manager
[email protected]
(909) 384-5561
1053 99
Raj J. Pottabathni <[email protected]>
Rajiv “Raj” Pottabathni & Jiva TCY LLC
1 message
Miguel Contreras <[email protected]> Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 2:38 PM To: "Raj J. Pottabathni" <[email protected]>
Good Afternoon,
The Tracy Police Department has worked with Raj Pottabathni, an owner of Jiva TCY LLC dba Tracy Farms (“Company”), since selecting his company through the City’s RFP process. Since then, the Company has received a Cannabis Business Permit (“CBP”) and Conditional Use Permit to operate a commercial cannabis retail storefront with delivery service in the City back in late 2022. The Company has been operating a cannabis retail storefront (951 N. Central Avenue) that has been open to the public since April, 2024.
Raj has been responsive and communicative throughout the process. I have Raj’s cell phone number and can easily reach out to him if needed. He has demonstrated the ability to develop a compliant cannabis retail business. Tracy PD looks forward to maintaining a good-standing relationship with Raj and the Company and supports their continued stability as a legally licensee commercial cannabis retail operator. If you have any questions, please contact me directly.
Thank you,
MIGUEL CONTRERAS, CAPTAIN
BUREAU OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS
1000 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE – TRACY, CA 95376
VOICE: (209) 831.6618 - FAX: (209) 831.4017
3/18/25, 11:01 PM Jiva Life Mail - Rajiv “Raj” Pottabathni & Jiva TCY LLC https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=6df092f293&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1826961950467074478&simpl=msg-f:1826961950467074478 1/1 1054 960
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 19th, 2025
City of Belmont
Mayor’s Office & City Council
1 Twin Pines Ln.
Belmont, CA 94002
RE: Letter of “Good Standing” for Rajiv “Raj” Pottabathni (Jiva NPA LLC) The City of Napa (“City”) has worked with Raj Pottabathni, an owner of Jiva NPA LLC dba Cookies Napa (“Company”), who has received a Cannabis Establishment Clearance (“CEC”) certificate as a retail permit to operate a storefront with delivery service in the City in December of 2020.
Since the beginning of the process, the Company has been receptive to feedback and collaborative with the City. The Company has been operating a CEC retail storefront (2481 Second Street) that has been open to the public since June of 2022.
To date, the Company has successfully renewed its CEC annually, paid all applicable taxes/fees, and appears to have been operating in compliance with the City’s requirements for cannabis retailers., From my experience, Raj is communicative, responsive, and transparent. He has demonstrated the ability to develop a successful, sustainable, and harmonious CCB retail operation. I believe that he is professional and shall be a value add to the City of Belmont.
The City of Napa looks forward to maintaining a good-standing relationship with Raj and the Company, and supports their continued stability as a CEC retail operator. Thank you, and if you have any questions, please feel to reach out to me directly.
Sincere Regards,
Paul O’Neill
Assistant Planner
Community Development Department, City of Napa
1600 First Street, Napa, CA 94559
P: (707) 257-9530
E: [email protected]
Cc: Mayor Mates, Vice Mayor Pang-Maganaris, Councilmembers: Cathy Jordan, Tom McCune, Gina Latimerlo 1055 961
City of Ukiah
CO~I MUNITY l)~_\'f.LOl'M l' N'I DF.PARTM~.NT
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 171h, 2025
City of Belmont
Mayor's Office & City Council
1 Twin Pines Ln.
Belmont, CA 94002
RE: Letter of "Good Standing" for Brant Ekmekjian
To Whom It May Concern,
The City of Ukiah (the "City") has worked with Hrant Ekmekjian, owner of Ukiah Valley Holistics, Inc., doing business as CannaVine (the "Company"), for over seven years.
Mr. Ekmekjian was initially approved under Major Use Permit (MaUP) File No. 17-2841 in September 2017 to operate a cannabis dispensary at 1230 Airport Park Boulevard, Suite C. Since then, he has successfully renewed, sustained, and expanded the business while maintaining full compliance with all City regulations and operational expectations.
Since its establishment, the Company has undergone multiple permit approvals and renewals, as summarized below:
TABLE 1 - PERMIT HISTORY
09/27/2017: 17-2841 - Original Major Use Permit approved by Planning Commission to allow a medical marijuana dispensary.
12/20/2018: 18-3809 - Minor Amendment Approval by Zoning Administrator to allow adult use cannabis products
12/20/2018: 18-4111 -Annual Use Permit Renewal approved by Zoning Administrator 12/18/2019: 19-4970 - Annual Use Permit Renewal approved by Zoning Administrator 01/12/2021: 20-5823 - Annual Use Permit Renewal approved by Zoning Administrator 0 I/ 19/2022: 21-6698 - Annual Use Permit Renewal approved by Zoning Administrator; no subsequent renewals required based on upates to Ukiah City Code. 03/14/2024: 23-9153 - Request to amend MaUP 17-2841 to allow distribution of cannabis products; no subsequent renewal requirement approved by Zoning Administrator The Company has demonstrated compliance with all City regulations, maintaining good standing in terms of regulatory adherence, permit related payments, and operational integrity. Since opening its storefront to the public, the Company has successfully operated a Commercial Cannabis-Related Business ("CCB") retail establishment, including delivery services. In 2024, the Company expanded operations to incorporate cannabis distribution in accordance with an approved amendment to MaUP 17-2841.
The City acknowledges that Hrant Ekmekjian has maintained compliance with all required permit conditions and applicable municipal regulations. There have been no reported violations, code enforcement actions, or related reports from the Ukiah Police Department regarding the Company's operations.
Through9ut the permitting and operational process, Mr. Ekmekjian has maintained open communication with the City and has adhered to all conditions of approval. The continued and successful operation of a cannabis-related business in Ukiah for over 7 years is a demonstration of his stewardship and adherence to regulatory standards.
In summation, CannaVine has served as an example of a well-regulated, compliant, and professionally managed cannabis retail business. The City of Ukiah acknowledges the Company's continued adherence to local requirements and looks forward to its sustained compliance and success. 1056 962
COMMUNITY DH ' l'.I.OPM l'N r DEPARTM E:-:T
If you require further infonnation, please feel free to contact me directly.
Best Regards,
2 ,.~ :Jw?
Chief Planning Manager
City of Ukiah - Planning Services Division
300 Seminary A venue
Ukiah, California 95482
Main: (707) 463- 6215
JDavis@,CityoOJkiah,cpm
Cc: Mayor Mates, Vice Mayor Pang-Maganaris, Councilmembers: Cathy Jordan, Tom McCune, Gina Latimerlo 1057 963
1058 964
~The City of Red Bluff is an Equal Opportunity Provider~ City of Belmont
Attn: Mayor’s Office & City Council
1 Twin Pines Ln.
Belmont, CA 94002
RE: Letter of Good Standing for NUG
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter serves as verification that NUG is a licensed commercial cannabis operator in the city of Red Bluff. NUG is a strong operator with a proven track record of compliance with municipal and State regulations, including timely payment of licensing fees and gross receipts taxes. In addition, NUG is a good corporate citizen and continues to provide community benefits to our City.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Beth Lindauer
Community Development Director
city of red bluff
Community Development Department
555 Washington Street, Red Bluff, California 96080
(530) 527-2605; Fax (530) 529-6878
www.cityofredbluff.org
1059 965
The City of El Cerrito
Community Development Department
10890 San Pablo Avenue | El Cerrito, CA 94530
www.el-cerrito.org/CommDev
March 19, 2025
City of Belmont
Attn: Mayor’s Office & City Council
1 Twin Pines Ln.
Belmont, CA 94002
RE: Letter of Good Standing for NUG
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter serves as verification that NUG is a licensed commercial cannabis operator in El Cerrito since 2021. NUG has a proven track record of compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and Cannabis Operating Permit, including timely payment of licensing fees and community benefit fees. In addition, NUG participates with the El Cerrito Chamber of Commerce and sponsors City events such as our annual 4th of July WorldOne Festival.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by email [email protected] or phone at 510-215-4339.
Thank you,
Melanie Mintz
Community Development Director
Docusign Envelope ID: 7E9D378D-77F7-4C08-8AA1-CA746746F7BE 1060 96
March 16, 2025
City of Belmont Mayor’s Office
RE: Letter of Support & Recommendation for Hrant Ekmekjian & NUG CV BLMT (“Applicant”) Mayor & Council Members,
My name is Norman Jaser and I am the owner of Golden State Smog Center at 1150 Old County Road (STE A) in Belmont. I have proudly been operating and serving the residents in Belmont for over 13 years. I am writing this letter of support in regard to the application submitted by Hrant Ekmekjian and NUG CV BLMT for an opportunity to secure a permit to operate a Commercial Cannabis Business (“CCB”) retail storefront with delivery services in the City. The Applicant has developed a comprehensive plan demonstrating its CCB merit, operational compliance, security measures, neighborhood integration strategies and was invited to the City’s final review process.
I have known Hrant for over 30 years. He is my brother in-law, and father to my niece (17), and nephew (14). He is also an amazing uncle to my two young children. Born, and raised in San Mateo County, I know he understands the importance of being a responsible, respectable cannabis operator, and the importance of that to our community. I know he will create a beautiful and inviting retail dispensary like all his others that the community will be proud of. He does not cut corners and takes pride in his businesses. He is also a very hands-on business owner. He has shared his desire to establish a CCB retail location in Belmont and has shared concepts from his community benefits proposal that supports the City’s strategic priorities and goals. Hrant has given me assurance that his business will be an excellent corporate citizen in Belmont and committed to appropriate community support.
The Applicant team are experienced in the cannabis industry with over 15 cannabis stores in California. I expect them to operate in compliance and be a good additional to Belmont’s business community. I support and recommend Hrant and his Applicant team to receive the appropriate permit and licenses to establish a cannabis retail store at 1538 El Camino Real (STE C).
Best Wishes,
Norman Jaser
Golden State Smog Center
650-799-5390
[email protected]
1061 97
March 17, 2025
RE: Letter of Support for Hrant Ekmekjian/NUG
Dear City of Belmont Council,
I am Henry Zadoori, a longtime resident of Belmont. I am honored to write this letter in support of Hrant Ekmekjian, and NUG’s application to establish a dispensary in the City of Belmont. Having known Hrant for over a decade, I can confidently attest to his professionalism, integrity, and strong commitment to operating a responsible and fully compliant business.
Hrant understands the importance of strict adherence to all local and state regulations, and he is dedicated to ensuring his dispensary operates with the highest level of compliance. Additionally, security is a top priority for Hrant and his team. He is committed to implementing robust security measures to ensure the safety of customers, employees, and the surrounding community. His approach includes advanced security protocols, surveillance systems, and trained personnel to maintain a secure, yet inviting, and well-regulated environment.
The legalization of cannabis has provided an opportunity for safe, regulated access to a product that benefits many individuals, from medical patients seeking relief to responsible adult consumers. A well-managed dispensary like the one Hrant proposes will contribute positively to the community by generating tax revenue, creating jobs, and eliminating the risks associated with the unregulated market. By providing safe, lab-tested products and proper education to consumers, legal dispensaries play a crucial role in ensuring that cannabis use is responsible and well-monitored.
Beyond compliance and security, Hrant is a dedicated entrepreneur who values community engagement and responsible business practices. He is committed to fostering a positive relationship with the City of Belmont, working closely with local officials and law enforcement to ensure his dispensary operates with full transparency and accountability.
I strongly support Hrant Ekmekjian and NUG’s application and believe his dispensary will serve as a model of professionalism and compliance in Belmont. Thank you for the consideration, and I hope that you allow the NUG team to move forward.
Sincerely,
Henry Zadoori
18 Rinconada Circle
Belmont, CA 94002
650-339-2121
1062 98
March 16, 2025
RE: Letter of Support Hrant Ekmekjian & NUG
City of Belmont,
I am writing this letter of support about the application for a Retail Dispensary at 1538 El Camino Real STE C on behalf of Hrant Ekmekjian and his NUG group for an opportunity to secure a permit to operate in the City of Belmont.
I have known the Hrant for over 35 years as he is a local to San Mateo County. His two kids go to high school at Hillsdale, and I know he is committed to being a responsible business operator in Belmont. For years, he has shared his desire to establish a retail location in San Mateo County. He has shared his community benefits proposal that supports the City’s by providing annual financial donations. I believe he will be a responsible cannabis retail operator and valuable member of the community. He has given me assurance that his business will be a value add in Belmont and is committed to community support through his Development Agreement. I especially love the fact that so much help will go towards the Parks & Recreation Department.
I believe that the company’s overall ownership group has a history of operational compliance, and experience within the industry operating multiple retail locations in California will be an ideal fit for Belmont.
I recommend the Applicant for consideration of a cannabis retail storefront permit and believe if selected they will do a great job creating a beautiful, inviting location that all of Belmont would be proud to support Sincere regards,
Vahan Derounian
[email protected]
(650) 302-3255
1063 99
March 14, 2025
RE: Letter of Support for Hrant Ekmekjian with NUG CV BLMT Belmont City Council,
My name is Rima Stepanian, and I have been a resident of Belmont for over 2 decades. I am writing this letter of support to the applicant Hrant Ekmekjian with NUG CV BLMT to open and operate a cannabis store at the old Jenny Craig on 1538 El Camino Real. It looks like they have developed a detailed operational plan ns security measures, which he assured has been approved by the Belmont Police Dept. He also said they are entering into a Development Agreement with Belmont to contribute money annually.
Belmont’s adoption of having 2 cannabis dispensaries is perfect to support the needs of its residents. I support decriminalization and legalization of cannabis, because the evidence shows that dispensaries are a positive to the communities they are in if run properly. Dispensaries give access to adults who use cannabis for a multitude of reasons including pain management, sleep, and stress relief. I am proud to be in a city in San Mateo County that is in support of what we as a state legalized in 2018.
I have known Mr. Ekmekjian for over a decade. I was introduced to him through family friends. I have seen his success in the industry, and shop at his San Francisco location myself. He has a deep desire to establish a retail location in Belmont and has shared concepts for his store. I believe he will be a responsible operator and become a valuable member in our community. He has given me assurance that the NUG team is committed to the City of Belmont. Furthermore, they seem to have a plan to hire locally, and I am a big supporter of that. I believe their commitment to running a professional and inviting business will be a reward to this city.
Sincerely,
Rima Stepanian Z.
[email protected]
1064 970
March 11, 2025
RE: Letter of Support for Hrant Ekmekjian / NUG CV BLMT (“NUG”) Dear Belmont Council Members,
I am writing to express my full support for NUG and its application to operate in the City of Belmont.
Having known Hrant Ekmekjian for over 20 years, I can personally attest to his professionalism, and love for retail cannabis. Legal cannabis is already present in the City of Belmont—whether through licensed delivery services, residents purchasing from dispensaries in nearby cities, or worst of all the black market. However, despite the legal sale and use of cannabis within city limits, Belmont is currently receiving none of the economic benefits, while surrounding communities like San Bruno, Daly City and Redwood City collect substantial tax revenue from cannabis sales. By approving a licensed dispensary, I believe Belmont has the opportunity to capture these tax dollars, create local jobs, and ensure that sales occur in a highly regulated, secure environment, which puts myself and family at ease.
The financial impact of legal cannabis is undeniable if used properly. Cities that have welcomed dispensaries have been able to fund public services such as education, infrastructure, and public safety programs. Belmont has the chance to benefit from these revenues rather than continuing to lose them to neighboring towns. After reading the community benefits in the proposed Development Agreement, I am confident NUG’s monetary contributions will be welcomed by the City of Belmont.
Additionally, allowing a local dispensary will provide safe, legal, and convenient access for Belmont residents, eliminating the need to travel to other cities or rely on delivery services. A dispensary operated by NUG will ensure that all sales are strictly regulated, lab-tested, and sold only to verified customers, reducing the risks associated with unregulated markets.
Hrant has assured me security and compliance will be top priorities for NUG. We have discussed the implementation of what he called state-of-the-art security measures, including 24/7 off site surveillance, ID verification, and strict inventory controls, ensuring that all operations meet or exceed state and local regulations. This will enhance public safety while providing a responsible, legal alternative to illicit sales in my opinion.
I strongly believe that approving NUG will allow Belmont to finally benefit from the legal cannabis industry that is already operating within the city, ensuring that tax revenue stays local, more local jobs are available, businesses thrive, and consumers have access to a safe and well-regulated dispensary. I whole heartedly support Hrant Ekmekjian, and the entire NUG team opening their doors here in Belmont Regards,
Teveen Malek-Madani
(650) 766-3671
1065 971
March 18, 2025
City of Belmont
RE: Letter of Support & Recommendation for Hrant Ekmekjian & NUG CV BLMT (“Applicant”) Dear Mayor, Council Members and City Manager,
My name is Shaunt Shahkarami and I am a proud Belmont resident of over 40 years. I was born and raised in Belmont and understand what our community is all about. I have a love for Belmont as its tight-nit community and amazing people provided me with the support I needed to grow.
I am writing this letter of support on the behalf of the Applicant for a Commercial Cannabis Retail storefront with delivery services in Belmont. The Applicant has a comprehensive application demonstrating its merit, operational compliance and most importantly, security measures.
I have known Hrant Ekmekjian for over 30 years and have seen his passion for cannabis retail blossom over the last 18 years into a thriving business with the multiple locations he operates. His passion for this industry is unmatched. He loves what he does and given the opportunity to serve our community, I know Hrant will be an ambassador to this community. I know what it means to him to be a leader in this space, as he strives to make sure to make his family proud and show his teenage kids the importance of the responsibility he is handed when he opens a retail store. He is also born and raised in San Mateo County and currently lives in Foster City. To me this is an important point, as I believe it allows him to understand our community and what we are about.
I strongly recommend and support the Applicant for consideration to be awarded CCB retail permit. I am proud that Hrant and his team will strive to maintain a harmonious relationship with Belmont and support community-based organizations, civic organizations and social service organizations. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you.
Regards,
Shaunt Shahkarami
2800 Wemberly Drive
Belmont, CA 94002
650-346-6904 | [email protected]
1066 972
March 15, 2025
RE: Letter of Support for Hrant Ekmekjian & NUG CV BLMT’s Application Belmont Mayor & City Council Members,
My name is Sandra Jaser, and I co-own and work at a local Belmont service business for automobiles. I have been proudly operating and serving the city of Belmont and its residents for almost 10 years. I am writing this letter to support Hrant and his team to develop a cannabis retail store at 1538 El Camino Real.
I have known the applicant, Hrant, for 8 years. As a relative of his, I know he appreciates the responsibility of being a good steward to the community. I know Hrant loves what he does, and serving people in a beautiful, inviting setting is his ultimate passion.
Over the last year he has shared his hopes and desire to be selected by the City to establish a cannabis retail location in Belmont and has shared his vision with me. Hrant is so excited for this opportunity to be granted to him. I know he would do a great job and be a good asset for Belmont.
I would love to see the applicant receive the necessary permit, because I know through his passion and love for community, and cannabis, he will create a a first-class experience for everyone who seeks quality lab tested, cannabis in an inviting environment that will be safe and secure for its staff and customers.
Sincerely,
Sandra J.
650-389-3042
1067 973
March 13th, 2025
RE: Letter of Support for Hrant Ekmekjian (NUG CV BLMT) Mayor, Council Members, & City Manager’s Office,
My name is Sahag, and I have been a resident of Belmont for 20 years now. I am writing this letter of support in regard to the application submitted by Hrant Ekmekjian of NUG CV BLMT, for an opportunity to secure a permit to operate a cannabis retail store and delivery services in our city. Hrant and the NUG team have created a great plan that includes, operational compliance, and addresses security measures.
I am a huge supporter of Belmont’s plan to have recreational cannabis be here in our city. Currently, I drive to Redwood City to get my gummies that give me a good night's sleep. I was told about CBN gummies by a family friend who also had trouble sleeping. I have realized over the last couple years that there are so many people I know that use cannabis for a multitude of reasons. I support legal cannabis because it is what this state voted for with Prop. 64. I have been to multiple dispensaries now and feel they are all stand up businesses who help take the black market out of our communities. To me, a legal, tested, clean product is very important to have access to. I commend the city’s leadership for making this a reality.
I have known Hrant for over 15 years now. For all those years he has been a cannabis retail entrepreneur. His stores are all very beautifully put together. He is a very enthusiastic and a hands-on operator. I am extremely confident that this is a group the City of Belmont can stand behind. They have vast experience in this industry.
I believe that two stores for Belmont will be the right amount to serve a community of this size. I was happy to see all the community benefits Hrant and his group are offering to the city and even donating $50K get a vehicle for Parks & Rec.
I recommend the Applicant for consideration for a dispensary license at 1538 El Camino Real, and believe if selected, they will strive to be the gold standard for the city.
Best,
Sahag A.
2572 Comstock Circle
Belmont, CA 94002
650-504-3514
1068 974
SUPPORT AND/OR NON-OPPOSITION
City of Belmont City Council:
❖ The following residents, business owners and/or property owners (“Neighbors'') have been made aware of NUG CV BLMT LLC (the “Company”) seeking a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) to operate Commercial Cannabis Business (“CCB”) retail storefront with delivery service pursuant to Belmont Municipal Code Chapter 13., Article III - Cannabis Business.
❖ The Company has submitted a CUP Application for approval to establish a CCB retail storefront to the City’s Community Development Department, who shall review and develop a “Staff Report” recommending approval to the City Council. That presentation and hearing at a City Council meeting is taking place on March 25th, 2025. A “Public Notice” from the City has been mailed to the Neighbors within 300’ feet, and the Company has posted the same Public Notice at the Company’s proposed CCB retail storefront site addressed 1538 El Camino Real, STE C, in the City of Belmont (the “Location”) more than ten (10) days prior the above referenced meeting date. ❖ The Company has been in contact with, and have had an open line of communication with the following Neighbors, and as such, the Neighbors below either support, or do not have any opposition to the Company developing and opening its CCB retail storefront at the proposed Location. Nor do the Neighbors believe that the Company’s Location, or its business operations would cause any harm or conflict with the Neighbor’s respective business, properties, and/or uses. Therefore, the following Neighbors or their designated representatives, as seen on Exhibit A, attached, have signed and acknowledged their support and/or non-opposition of the Company’s proposed CCB retail storefront at the Location.
VIRTUAL “MEET & GREET” INVITATION”: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2025 @ 5:15 via GOOGLE MEET ❖ An email from the City was sent to anyone who had emailed the City related to cannabis retail and the Company sent a phyical mailer to Neighbors within 300’ of the Location. ❖ We will be sharing information about our proposed business, a commercial cannabis retail storefront @ 1538 El Camino Real (STE C).
❖ Our objective is to provide insight and details related to our team’s experience, community benefits, neighborhood compatibility, and safety/security.
❖ We will be available to address any questions/comments/concerns you may have.Thank you. ❖ WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2025 @ 5:15 – 6:00PM via GOOGLE MEET ➢ Google Meet Video Call Link: https://meet.google.com/bsa-gxzx-qbg ➢ Or Dial: (US) +1 314-649-9018 | PIN: 490 123 401#
Sincere regards,
NUG CV BLMT LLC | CEO
Dr. John Oram
CEO, Retail Strategy Management & Medical/Science Liaison M: 510.409.9543
[email protected]
NUG CV BLMT LLC | OWNERSHIP GROUP
Rajiv “Raj” J. Pottabathni
Managing Director
M: 732.801.6300
[email protected]
Adam Peterson
President &
Business Development
[email protected]
Hrant Ekmekjian
Retail Operations &
Community Relations
[email protected]
NUG CV BLMT LLC | COMMERCIAL CANNABIS BUSINESS | RETAIL STOREFRONT | BELMONT, CA 1069 975 240 HARBOR BINO
Property Address
LASKY PRINTiNG
Business Name
NUG
2165 Covert An
Property Address
Business Name
Signature 0/18/25
Name:PATRiCK HAWKiNS
(Resident / Business Ownes or Property
Owner or their designated representative)
240 Harbor Biud Ster.
Property Address
Waldo Graphics
Business Name
sail Waldo
Signature
3/18/25
Date
Name: Call Waldo
(Resident / Business Owner / Property Owner
or their designated representative)
250 HARBOR BLUD
roperty Address
SANDERS AUTOmoTive
Business Name
3/18/25
Signature Date
Name: GEORGE CORR
(Resident Business Owner/ Property Owner
or their designated representative)
101 In custral Pa
Property Address
Business Name rosnan fumbing
tear 500 05-1925
Signature Date
Name: Joseph Trosnan
(Residenk Business Ownerd Property Owner
or their designated representative)
Signature
NamesLaotili
Date
(Resident/ Business Owner or Property Owner
or their designated representative)
1025 Ralston Ave
Property Address
The Balmant Classic Barber Shop
Business Name
Ateh f45r 318/25
Signature
Name: Joseph fersntater
(Resident +Business Owner / Property Owner
or their designated representative)
1024 sixtH Ave
Property Address
Zituakas
Business Name
Her 31/00/25
Name: YuNO Cerland
(Resident / Business Owner / Property Owner
or their designated representative)
645 HaRbr Blud
Property Address
Amily Arto Clos
Business Nam
320/25
Signature Date
Name: Josh MeLan
(Resident / Business Owner / Property Owner
or their designated representative)
NUG CV BLMT LLC | COMMERCIAL CANNABIS BUSINESS | RETAIL STOREFRONT | BELMONT, CA 1070 96
210 El Camino Real
Property Address
-Boy Area Boxing
Signature
3/17/25
Name: JaRe DeTaco
(Resident / Business Ownedor Property
Owner or their designated representative)
Property Address 1500 €/ Camine Refe
Godfather's.
Business Name
Signatur
3/18/25
Date
Vame:
or their designated representative)
300 El CAMINA Real
Property Address
Business Name
NUG
1426 El Caming Keal
Property Address
buskwackers shack
Business Name
Ath 3118/25
Signature Date
Name:> Anthony figueroa
(Resident / Business Owner or Property Owner
or their designated representative)
160 Old Canty Rel Belont, CA qual
Property Address
Maruin Gardens Restaurant
Business Name
Comelay 3/19/25
signature
Name: Alberto Merendez
(Resident /Business Owne? / Property Owner
or their designated representative)
ISZO EL CAMRIORL
Property Address
Amera Anto
Business Name
Signature
3/18/25
Date
Name: Seeed
(Resident Business Owner/ Property Owner
or their designated representative
12/20 el CamiNO TEA
Property Address
Laplat traven
Business Name - 3/19/25
Date
Name: JustiN Moore
(Resident / Business Owner / Property Owner
or their designated representative)
Signature Date
Name: Dran
(Resident /Business Owner / Property Owner
or their designated representative)
101 Industrial BD BelmontcA
Property Address
Vadilla construction
Business Name
3/19/25
Name: Ignacio Padilla
(Resident Business Ownen/ Property Owner
or their designated representative)
NUG CV BLMT LLC | COMMERCIAL CANNABIS BUSINESS | RETAIL STOREFRONT | BELMONT, CA 1071 97
1072 98
January19, 2024
RE: NUG CV BLMT LLC (the “Company”) Commercial Cannabis Business (“CCB”) Retail Storefront | Odor Mitigation & Air Quality Memo
City of Belmont,
My name is Trent Thiel, BS Chemical Engineering North Carolina State University. I have represented Camfil as the North American Molecular Filtration Segment Manager for the past 8 years and managed a process gas purification and dehydration service business in the California for 10 years prior to joining Camfil. For those of you unfamiliar with our company; Camfil is a global filtration company with over 3,000 employees, 9 PhD’s, 27 production and R&D facilities, two of which are dedicated solely to the research and development of molecular filtration. In 2012, a Canadian colleague of mine began working on a solution to resolve the odor issue on large scale medical cannabis cultivation facilities. Since then not only have we supported the cannabis industry with over $3 MM in solutions in 4 countries, and 17 states, but are now working on design criteria documents and partnering with companies that are essential to the growth and federal legalization of Cannabis Cultivation. This is how I became aware of the Company’s need for an odor control initiative.
Understanding Molecular Contaminants and How to Remove Them for Cannabis Airborne molecules impact businesses in several ways:
1) As odors 2) As irritants 3) As toxins or poisons 4) As corrosive and/or yield impacting agents Many molecules are known to be harmful to humans, the environment, manufacturing processes (microelectronics, pulp and paper, oil refining, etc.) and more sensitive items such as artifacts in museums and art galleries. Understanding the environment that you are in, the functions of your facility, and assets within your building is essential to selecting the most appropriate molecular filtration solution, and upon my review the Company, has gone above and beyond the requirements for their facility designation and application which I will address in the next section.
As the world leaders for the research and development of clean air filtration solutions we are frequently called upon to aide in new applications and emerging industries to help determine the most effective methods to remove particulate and gaseous contaminants. During our initial involvement with this industry a third party sampled the air in a cannabis cultivation facility in Canada with over 500,000 square feet of grow space and provided us with the results for simulation purposes. It was determined that there is nothing harmful exhausted from cannabis cultivation facilities, but there are specific odor profiles from the terpenes in cannabis. The main ones were identified as alpha-pinene, beta-pinene, beta myrcene, beta-caryophyllene and limonene.
In our molecular test rig in Trosa, Sweden (pictured below) we are able to test molecular filters and/or media in accordance with ASHRAE 145.1, ASHRAE 145.2, ISO 10121-1 and ISO 10121-2 under a wide range of temperature and humidity conditions and challenged with different gases at 2,000 CFM. In short, we are the only filtration company in the world capable of testing molecular filters and media at realistic operating conditions.
Our simulation for the cannabis industry was conducted using alpha-pinene as our surrogate for the previous listed terpenes and we were able to determine that with a 60% CTC coconut shell media can guarantee over a 99% initial removal efficiency of the cannabis terpenes.
Applying this Data for the Company
The first thing that places the Company’s facility function at a lower need for odor mitigation is the fact that, whether recreational or medical, there is no cultivation, no extraction, no drying, no trimming, and no product packaging.
According to Chapter 2.2 of ASHRAE’s1 Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning Applications Handbook the Company’s dispensaries would qualify as Small Store Retail. Ventilation requirements of ASHRAE Standard 62.1 must be followed. Objectionable odors may necessitate special filtering, exhaust, and/or additional outdoor air intake. 1 ASHRAE is The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers is a global professional association seeking to advance heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration systems design and construction. 1073 99
Retail Commercial annabis Business Odor and Air Quality Memo THIEL, TRENT 2 The Company presented me with an air quality plan that is not necessary for their facility. Dispensaries had historically emitted some cannabis odor due to poor packaging or consumer handling onsite. However, when California legalized marijuana last year they also passed Assembly Bill 110 which stipulates that all marijuana packaging (including pop top bottles and exit packaging as well as other forms of cannabis packaging) must be certified child-resistant. This is forcing all dispensaries to use Mylar bags which have been known primarily for military food storage due to their high tensile strength, flexible material, and isolating barrier properties. Once sealed they will isolate the product inside from the outside. This isolation allows you to control the oxygen content, humidity, and light exposure. Ultimately creating an odor-proof seal.
Conclusion
Based on what I have been presented, the Company will be receiving all of their product in accordance with AB-110. Their plan states explicitly:
Upon inventory intake as per State of California BCC regulations, the Company will ONLY accept pre-packaged, sealed, childproof medical cannabis products. Additionally, all purchased products by patients are placed in odor proof mylar opaque exit packaging. This will reinforce that odor will be mitigated outside of the facility. § 5412. Packaging and Labeling (a) A retailer shall not accept, possess, or sell cannabis goods that are not packaged as they will be sold at final sale, in compliance with this division. (b) A retailer shall not package or label cannabis goods. Authority: Section 26013, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Sections 26010 and 26120, Business and Professions Code. § 5413. Exit Packaging Cannabis goods purchased by a customer shall not leave the retailer's premises unless the goods are placed in an opaque exit package. Authority: Section 26013, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Section 26120, Business and Professions Code The Company has proposed a reinforced steel door allows entry into limited access area that encompasses a secure product storage room and an enclosed temperature controlled storage room. The majority of pre-packaged product will be stored within these respective rooms. After business hours, all product that is housed within displays on the retail floor area is taken into the secure storage area.
There are two types of spaces within the Company’s CCB retail Storefront:
1) Product Storage (Limited Access Area)
a. There could be the potential for non-odor proof containers in this space. The primary concern for this space would be cannabis odor. I am recommending 10 to 12 air changes per hour in this space through a MERV 9A particulate filter followed by loose-fill thin bed molecular filter filled with a 60% CTC coconut shell media.
This could be in the configuration of panels or cylinders; both of which would have >95% initial removal efficiency in a single pass against the terpenes listed in this document. 2) Public Access and Office Space
a. This space would only have product in exit packaging, so the risk of odor is much lower. Particulate filtration would be the most important in this area with minimal molecular filtration for comfort air purposes. I am recommending MERV 9A particulate filtration on their supply air and to design their air handling units to provide 6 - 10 air changes per hour through a MERV 14A combination embedded media filter with an ozone rating of 9. A filter changeout every six months would be recommended. This would exceed the requirements set by ASHRAE standard 62.1 for indoor air quality based on their space qualification.
Should their retail commercial cannabis business fall under pharmacy qualifications there could be the need for more stringent filtration depending on the type of pharmacy it would qualify as. The Company has requested my consultative services to help design and implement the above recommendations should they be approved by the City of Belmont Simply put, based on general compliance with the California State BCC laws and my recommendations, the Company’s CCB retail facility will mitigate cannabis odor (if any) and improve air quality for employees and patients. Cannabis odor will not emit outdoors let alone into neighboring businesses. Should you have any questions regarding any details in this letter please feel free to contact me directly.
Trent Thiel / Molecular Filtration | Segment Manager | Camfil USA Phone: +1 (510) 325-9759 | Email: [email protected] | Web address: www.camfil.com 1074 980
GAIACA | 1st Fully Licensed, Compliant Cannabis Waste Management Company P.O. Box 188 | Gonzales, CA 93926 | 1-833-CAL-GAIA May 1, 2020
RE: Cannabis Waste Management Services for the proposed NUG Cannabis Retail Dispensary This letter is to confirm GAIACA’s intent to provide Cannabis Waste Management Services for the NUG CV BLMT LLC., (the “Company”) cannabis retail dispensary located in Belmont, California. GAIACA is a full-service solution, ready to assist current and future cannabis operators in meeting State requirements pertaining to compliant cannabis waste management. Regulatory compliance is of utmost importance in any field; especially in a new, burgeoning one such as the cannabis industry. Waste management services include, but are not limited to:
According to State Regulation, it is the responsibility of the operator to identify their waste streams as waste/cannabis waste/hazardous waste and follow all applicable rules and regulations for proper disposal [Title 16 CCR, Division 42 “BCC”; Title 17 CCR, Division 1 “CDPH”; Title 3 CCR, Division 8 “Cal-Cannabis / CDFA”; PRC, Division 30 “Waste Management”; Title 40 CFR, Part 239-282].
• GAIACA will conduct an initial site inspection to evaluate each operators’ needs and to help create a sitespecific waste program. GAIACA will also help the operator in identifying and profiling their cannabis waste for compliance.
It is a requirement of all operators obtaining a State license to submit a Waste Management Plan that clearly illustrates compliant waste handling and disposal procedures per local and State law [BCC §5054 (a)(b); CDPH §40290 (a); CDFA §8108].
• Following the evaluation, GAIACA will create a site-specific waste management plan, addressing all applicable local, State, and Federal laws.
If not managed onsite, operators must demonstrate that all waste is properly handled by a licensed and permitted cannabis waste service provider [BCC, §5054; CDPH, §40290; CDFA, §8308] • GAIACA is properly licensed to handle all streams of cannabis waste (hazardous and non-hazardous).
GAIACA will provide the operator a Certification of Compliance that can be visibly posted onsite, demonstrating to any State official that the operator has a compliant Waste Management Program in place.
The State requires all cannabis waste to be stored in a secured area on the licensed premises, preventing the public for harm [BCC §5054 (e); CDPH §40290 (b); CDFA §8308 (d)].
• GAIACA will provide secure and lockable drums for cannabis waste accumulation. GAIACA will advise on an appropriate location within the facility in which to store the drums. In addition to a main waste storage area, GAIACA can assist in setting up satellite accumulation points throughout the facility.
All cannabis waste must be properly disposed of. It is the obligation of the operator to mitigate potential sources of odor [BCC §5054 (c); CDPH §40290 (b); CDFA §8308 (e)].
• GAIACA’s HazMat-quality, UN-rated drums allow operators to easily and safely accumulate waste onsite.
All drums are non-reactive and air-tight to help with cannabis odor control. Drums are equipped with biodegradable inner bag liners to add an extra level of hygiene.
Cannabis goods intended for disposal shall remain on the licensed premises until rendered into cannabis waste. [§ 5054 BCC CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR) TITLE 16, DIVISION 42 (c)] • GAIACA utilizes a combination of internal industrial processes and strategic partnerships to further treat cannabis waste. The goal being to compost, recycle, and transform, rather than adding to our growing landfills. GAIACA is on a ‘zero-waste’ mission.
All cannabis waste must be tracked and traced, illustrating that the cannabis product has been rendered “unusable and unrecognizable” and deposited at a licensed compost/landfill/solid waste facility [BCC” §5049 (a)(6) & §5054 (f) & §5314 (a)(3); CDPH” §40290 (d); CDFA §8308 (i)(j)(k) & §8402]. • GAIACA will complete a cannabis waste manifest upon collection of waste. GAIACA’s waste manifest tracks the chain of custody of cannabis waste from its cradle (operator facility), through the rendering process, to its final grave (permitted compost/solid waste/recycling facility). GAIACA will provide the operator with a final Certificate of Destruction, showing proof of proper waste disposal. A copy will also be sent to the State, on behalf of the operator, to meet Track-and-Trace requirements.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our letter of intent to you. We look forward to working with you on this project.
If you have any questions please call us at 833.225.4242. 1075 981
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD | VIRTUAL “MEET & GREET” INVITATION | 03/19/25 @ 5:15 PM PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CANNABIS BUSINESS | RETAIL STOREFRONT & DELIVERY @ 1538 EL CAMINO REAL Dear Neighboring Residents, Business Owners & Property Owners:
❖ Please accept this online invitation to virtually meet and engage with NUG CV BLMT’s ownership team.
❖ We will be sharing information about our proposed business, a commercial cannabis retail storefront @ 1538 El Camino Real (STE C).
❖ Our objective is to provide insight and details related to our team’s experience, community benefits, neighborhood compatibility, and safety/security. ❖ We will be available to address any questions/comments/concerns you may have.
Thank you.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2025 @ 5:15 – 6:00PM via GOOGLE MEET Google Meet Video Call Link: https://meet.google.com/bsa-gxzx-qbg Or Dial: (US) +1 314-649-9018 | PIN: 490 123 401#
1076 982
1077 983
Public Comment Emails Received
1078 984
1079 985
1080 96
1081 97
1082 98
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Frederick Crosby
xcommunity development
Cannabis Dispensary at 1538 El Camino Real in Belmont
Monday, March 3, 2025 6:36:33 PM
I You don't often get email from
City Council Members,
I earp wh>: this is important
I understand you will be discussing allowing a cannabis dispensaiy at 1538 El Camino Real, next to my community. I'm not against those who use cannabis, but I think allowing this location is ridiculous. We've been waiting for this neighborhood to improve the amenities to make it that family-oriented community we all long for here. We had hoped for retail locations when they developed the high-density firehouse development and got nothing. The neighborhood continues to border on trashy once it touches El Camino with trash and empty beer bottles. This is not a step in the right direction.
As a pai·ent with a kid at Carlmont, and hearing and seeing the massive amounts of vaping aheady sunounding these students, the city council would be reckless to allow this and cleai·ly signaling this group is anti-family. There ai·e many other locations away from this main conidor to place this should some in the town want this.
Protect our kids.
Thanks,
Frederick Crosby
1549 Vine St
1083 99
1084 990
1085 991
1086 992
1087 993
1088 994
1089 995
From: Julie Behn
To: x-community development
Subject: Oppose the new proposal for cannabis store
Date: Monday, March 3, 2025 5:36:05 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Hello,
We are righting to express our opposition of the Cannabis store proposed to go in on El Camino near Harbor Blvd and Fifth Avenue. We live on Fifth Avenue and already experience high traffic in an area where kids play. We do not want this type of business being around our neighborhoods children and in our neighborhoods.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Mark and Julie Behn
1090 96
1091 97
1092 98
1093 99
100094
100195
100296
100397
100498
100599
100610
100711
100812
100913
1010104