Belmont City Council
January 11, 2022

CITY OF BELMONT

CITY COUNCIL AND BELMONT FIRE

PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF

DIRECTORS
www.belmont.gov

1. ROLL CALL

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

4. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, January 11, 2022
7:00 PM
City Council Chambers
City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California

TELECONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS
Councilmembers will participate by teleconference under Government Code Section 54953(e), and City Council Resolution 2021-104. All votes shall be by roll call.

The meeting will be broadcast live to Belmont residents on Comcast Cable Channel 27, streamed live via the City’s website at www.Belmont.gov. The public may also attend the meeting in the City Council Chambers and address the council from the chambers. Social distancing must be practiced, and seating will be limited.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

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

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

If you wish to submit written public comment, you may send an email to [email protected] before the council considers the item. Please indicate the agenda item topic or agenda item number you wish to comment on in your email’s subject line. Any public comment regarding agenda items that are received from the publication of the agenda through the meeting date will be made part of the meeting record, but will not be read during the Council meeting.
1 A. San Mateo County Public Library Annual Report
B. Belmont Strategic Communications and Community Engagement Update Recommendation: This presentation will serve as brief update on the Belmont Strategic Communications and Community Engagement efforts since implementation. No action is required.

Attachment(s):

Communications Strategic Plan Update - Staff Report.pdf

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

6. COUNCILMEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS

7. CONSENT BUSINESS
Consent business items are considered to be routine in nature and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a member or staf request specific items to be removed for separate action. The City Attorney will read the title of ordinances to be adopted.

A. Monthly Financial Report
Recommendation: Receive November 2021 Financial Report
Attachment(s):

Monthly Financial Report November 2021
B. Continuation of Fully Virtual Meetings Jan-Feb 2022
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution (1) finding that as a result of the COVID-19 statewide emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees of council and citizen advisory body meetings, and that local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing, and (2) directing the Council’s Citizen Advisory Bodies to make consistent findings.

Attachment(s):

Continuation of Fully Virtual Meetings Jan - Feb 2022 - Staff Report Continuation of Fully Virtual Meetings Jan - Feb 2022 - Resolution C. Second Amendment to and Restatement of the JPA Establishing the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance
Recommendation: Approve the Second Amendment to and the Restatement of the Joint Powers Agreement for the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Alliance (Alliance) and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.

Attachment(s):
2nd Amendment to and Restatement of the JPA Establishing the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance - Staff Report
2nd Amendment to and Restatement of the JPA Establishing the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance - Resolution

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2 A. First Public Hearing for Transition from At-Large Elections to By District Elections for Council Seats and At Large Mayor
(Hearing will begin at 7:30 p.m.)
Recommendation: Receive presentation from City’s Consultant Districting Partners on a range of topics to facilitate a process of public education and involvement in a transparent and fair districting process.

Attachment(s):

Transition from At-Large Elections to By District Elections for Council Seats - Staff Report.

City of Belmont Districting 101 Presentation
B. Issuance of Tax-Exempt Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority for the Benefit of IH Three21 Belmont, LLC
Recommendation: 1. Conduct the public hearing under the requirements of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (“TEFRA”) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).

2. Adopt a resolution approving the issuance of tax-exempt revenue bonds by the CMFA for the benefit of IH Three21 Belmont LLC (the “Borrower”) to provide financing for the Three21 @ Belmont affordable housing project located at 301-321 Oxford Way.

Person's wishing to make public comment on this item are instructed to dial 1-844-854- 2222
Attachment(s):

TEFRA Bond Hearing Staff Report
TEFRA Bond Hearing - Resolution

9. GENERAL BUSINESS
General Business items are considered separately, typically in the order listed. The chair will call for public comment on each item when the body considers the item.

A. Review of Belmont General Plan Housing Element Update and Housing Development Projects
Recommendation: Receive update on Belmont General Plan Housing Element 2023-2030 update process and review of housing development projects.

Attachment(s):

Housing Element Update - Staff Report
Housing Element Update - Housing Development Activity

10. BRIEF VERBAL REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF

1. Verbal report from Councilmembers on Intergovernmental (IGR) and Subcommittee Assignments

2. Verbal report from City Manager

11. MATTERS OF INTEREST/CLARIFICATION
Items in this category are for discussion and direction to staf only. However, Council/Board may take final action on an item if there is no need for additional staf analysis. 3 A. Council Intergovernmental Assignments for Calendar Year 2022 Recommendation: The City Council should review and make changes to City Council Intergovernmental Assignments for calendar year 2022 as necessary.

Attachment(s):

Council Intergovernmental Assignments for 2022 Staff Report Council IGR Assignments 2021

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

Meeting information can also be accessed via the internet at:www.belmont.gov. All staff reports will be posted to the web in advance of the meeting, and any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council/District Board or Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, One Twin Pines Lane, during normal business hours and at the Council Chambers at City Hall, Second Floor, during the meeting. 4

Communications Strategic Plan Update - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 11, 2022
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Jozi Plut City Clerk/Communications Coordinator, [email protected] 650-595- 7414
Agenda Title: Belmont Strategic Communications and Community Engagement Update Agenda Action: For Information Only
Recommendation
This presentation will serve as brief update on the Belmont Strategic Communications and Community Engagement efforts since implementation. No action is required.

Strategic Focus Area
Quality of Life
Background
On March 11, 2020, the City Council and City’s Executive Leadership team participated in a community visioning and strategic planning workshop. One of the City Council’s goals and objectives was to establish more consistent community outreach and engagement efforts in the form of a Strategic Communications Plan and implementation. The City selected JPW Communications to consult with the City on this process.

The firm engaged in an extensive research phase and provided a report with findings and recommendations. On August 25, 2020, JPW provided an update on the Belmont Strategic Communications and Community Engagement efforts, including recommendations for the plan and ongoing outreach. At a September 22, 2020 City Council Study Session, JPW provided a draft plan containing the first two phases of the Belmont Strategic Communications and Community Engagement Plan. The session was designed to present the key message platform and gather City Council feedback in order to inform the final portion of the plan.

Analysis
In January 2021, Belmont City Council approved a 2020-2025 Strategic Communications Plan to focus and engage on the City’s five strategic focus areas:
• Economic Development & Housing
• Fiscal & Organizational Stability
• Infrastructure & Mobility
• Public Safety
• Quality of Life
Implementation of the plan began in July 2021. Since implementation, the City has accomplished several of the key recommendations from the Strategic Communications Plan including developing a Belmont brand that is used consistently, producing branded creative content that is implemented across City 5

Communications Strategic Plan Update - Staff Report
platforms, creating compelling community campaigns and providing consistent content, to residents and stakeholders. Additionally, outreach efforts and themes are outlined in a master content calendar, and an internal community information network has been established with the city departments to coordinate a consistent engagement.

In collaboration with JPW, staff updated and implemented various tools of communication to the public including reorganizing the City’s social media to reflect consistent, timely, and relevant messaging. The City’s website, notifications, and newsletter delivery are also in process of being further improved.

Alternatives

1. Not Applicable
Attachments
A. Community Engagement Efforts Presentation
Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Council Vision/Priority Posting of Agenda
6 FISCAL YEAR 2022
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - NOVEMBER 30, 2021

HIGHLIGHTS

PERFORMANCE AT

A GLANCE
REPORT
• General Fund balance increased
compared to prior YTD
• COVID-19 has negatively
impacted revenue stream related
to taxes

FUND RECAP AT A

GLANCE REPORT
Increasing Fund Balance to PY:
•General Fund
•Measure I
•Sewer Collection System
• Sewer Treatment
•Fleet & Equipment Management
Decreasing Fund Balance to PY:
• Planned Park
• Storm Drainage
• Infrastructure

CASH DISBURSEMENTS &

PURCHASE ORDER

ACTIVITY REPORT
•Amounts equal to and above $5,000

BUDGET VARIANCE
REPORT
• Management Discussion & Analysis
• Tax Trends
This report contains financial information which has not been reviewed or audited by an independent auditor, does not reflect the application of generally accepted accounting principles in all instances and is subject to future revision. This report has not been prepared with a view to informing an investment decision in any of the City’s bonds, notes or other obligations. Any projections, plans or other forward-looking statements included in this report are subject to a variety of uncertainties that could cause any actual plans or results to differ materially from any such statement. The information herein is not intended to be used by investors or potential investors in considering the purchase or sale of the City’s bonds, notes or other obligations and investors and potential investors should rely only on information filed by the City on the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s Electronic Municipal Market Access System for municipal securities disclosures and website, maintained on the World Wide Web at https://emma.msrb.org/
These financial reports are designed to provide a general overview of the City of Belmont’s interim finances. Questions concerning any information provided in these reports should be addressed to [email protected] or for additional information regarding the City’s financial activities, including past award winning audited financial statements, transparency efforts and best practices please visit the City at www.belmont.gov. 7 City of Belmont
Performance at a Glance
Results for the Period Ended November 30, 2021
(000's)
6/30/2012 $5,085 Audited
6/30/2013 $6,200 Audited
6/30/2014 $8,204 Audited
6/30/2015 $9,049 Audited
6/30/2016 $9,177 Audited
6/30/2017 $11,128 Audited
6/30/2018 $11,325 Audited
6/30/2019 $14,846 Audited
6/30/2020 $13,637 Audited
6/30/2021 $13,398 Audited
11/30/2021 $14,613 Unaudited
* excludes Measure I
\0
General Fund Balance Trends*
The General Fund balance is $14.6 million, a $1.2 million increase compared to amount at the prior fiscal year end. The increase compared to the 6/30/21 balance was primarily due to the receipt of $3.2 million in ARPA Federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds.

General Fund
Fund Balance ‐ YTD Fund Deficits
As shown on the Fund Recap at a Glance (page 3), the Recreation Fund, RMRA Street Project, Library Bond Debt Service, and Facilities Management Fund have deficits that are expected to be eliminated in a future period. The Successor Agency Trust Fund reflects a deficit of $4.3 million due to the nature of the fund type, in which the entire outstanding debt balance is recorded. There are insufficient assets currently available to offset the liability; however, future receipts, both near and long‐term, from the County Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund are expected to repay the bonds. $0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
General Fund Balance Trend
(in millions)
June November
$0 $20 $40 $60
Budget
Expenditures
Actual
Expenditures
Budget
Revenues
Actual
Revenues
All Funds Revenues & Expenditures
YTD Comparison (in millions)
50%
44%
3%2%1%
Capital Improvement Plan
Streets Sewer
Technology Recreational Facilities
Parks & Open Space
2 8
Audited Unaudited PY YTD
Fund Fund Bal. YTD YTD PY YTD YTD YTD PY YTD Fund Bal. Fund Bal.

Fund Name 06/30/21 Budget Actual (Under) % Actual Budget Actual Under % Actual 11/30/21 11/30/20 (1) (2) Over (3) (Over) (1)+(2)‐(3)

GENERAL FUND
101 General $13,398 $10,981 $9,441 ($1,540) 86% $6,908 $10,767 $8,227 $2,540 76% $10,708 $ 14,613 12,257 102 Measure I 3,751 843 624 (219) 74% 552 1,713 715 997 42% 202 3,660 1,922

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
205 Recreation 21 1,162 589 (573) 51% 636 1,114 1,072 42 96% 1,037 (462) (111) 206 Library Maintenance & Operation 962 128 0 (128) 0% 1 186 142 44 76% 142 820 1,020 207 Athletic Field Maintenance 377 32 37 6 118% 53 42 26 16 62% 16 389 332 208 City Tree 326 3 5 2 172% 7 31 13 18 41% 24 318 363
209 Senior Services Donation 86 2 0 (2) 0% 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 86 84 210 Development Services 417 2,166 1,741 (425) 80% 2,211 2,221 1,815 405 82% 1,561 342 416 212 General Plan Maintenance 738 84 56 (28) 67% 133 154 0 154 0% 51 794 453 223 Belmont Fire Protection District 15,403 6,121 1,012 (5,109) 17% 1,037 4,817 6,379 (1,563) 132% 5,934 10,037 8,233 225 Police Grants and Donations 35 0 0 (0) 7% (0) 2 1 1 55% 0 34 35 227 Supplemental Law Enforcement 0 88 96 8 109% 82 88 92 (4) 105% 86 4 30 231 Street Maintenance 711 1,214 466 (748) 38% 419 982 815 168 83% 930 362 359 232 RMRA Street Project 323 222 181 (42) 81% 168 740 611 129 83% 12 (107) 641 233 Measure W 250 111 103 (8) 93% 385 250 0 250 0% 0 353 0234 Street Improvements 2,161 1,501 1,793 292 119% 521 1,924 1,122 802 58% 499 2,832 643237 Traffic Impact ‐ 703 0 (703) 0% 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0239 Public Art ‐ 231 0 (231) 0% 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 275 Affordable Housing Successor 3,688 1,725 28 (1,697) 2% 231 232 189 43 81% 80 3,527 3,648 277 Inclusionary Housing 2,385 117 0 (117) 0% 2 0 0 0 N/A 1,000 2,385 2,154 Total Special Revenue 27,885 15,612 6,108 (9,504) 39% 5,886 12,782 12,278 504 96% 11,372 21,715 18,299

CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
308 General Facilities 827 2 0 (1) 6% 7 187 5 182 2% 103 823 994 310 Infrastructure 2,302 510 0 (510) 0% 4 840 180 660 21% 1 2,122 3,102312 Comcast PEG Program 363 1 0 (1) 7% 1 50 0 50 0% 11 363 370341 Planned Park 357 1,254 0 (1,254) 0% 7 399 83 317 21% 3,059 275 6,408 342 Park Impact 1,397 1,325 0 (1,325) 0% 17 1,354 0 1,354 0% 0 1,397 349 343 Open Space 206 0 0 (0) 7% 0 29 6 23 21% 12 200 239
704 Special Assessment Districts 308 0 0 (0) 7% 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 308 304 Total Capital Projects 5,760 3,093 1 (3,092) 0% 36 2,859 273 2,586 10% 3,186 5,487 11,766

DEBT SERVICE & OTHER FUNDS
406 Library Bond Debt Service 267 282 0 (282) 0% (0) 285 516 (231) 181% 507 (249) (11) 501‐505 Sewer Collection System 20,034 7,428 51 (7,377) 1% 985 7,455 3,799 3,656 51% 6,898 16,286 9,011 507 Sewer Treatment 24,301 1,347 1 (1,346) 0% (2) 2,256 2,528 (272) 112% 2,973 21,774 15,039 525 Storm Drainage Enterprise 3,585 953 241 (712) 25% 569 1,140 704 436 62% 857 3,122 4,268530 Solid Waste Management 1,582 208 167 (41) 80% 164 206 143 63 70% 167 1,606 1,431 570 Worker's Compensation 1,337 323 290 (34) 90% 285 274 551 (277) 201% 520 1,076 513 571 Liability Insurance 3,375 202 (1,458) (1,660) ‐722% (1,236) 664 458 206 69% 444 1,459 2,179 572 Self Funded Vision ‐ 5 4 (1) 89% 6 5 (4) 10 ‐78% (3) 9 7 573 Fleet & Equipment Management 5,831 2,120 2,134 14 101% 2,194 2,185 1,464 720 67% 1,659 6,500 3,367 574 Facilities Management 41 1,118 695 (423) 62% 758 873 875 (2) 100% 786 (138) 334 575 Benefit Prefunding 1,396 607 525 (83) 86% 590 621 910 (288) 146% 998 1,011 1,427 775 Successor Agency Trust Fund1 (3,430) 1 0 (0) 14% 1 0 826 (826) N/A 766 (4,256) (5,695) Total Debt & Other 58,319 14,594 2,651 (11,944) 18% 4,315 15,964 12,770 3,194 80% 16,572 48,200 31,870 Total All Funds $109,114 $45,123 $18,824 ($26,298) 42% $17,697 $44,084 $34,263 $9,821 78% $42,040 $93,675 $76,114 Fund Types:
1 The Successor Agency Trust Fund is a Fiduciary Fund and is only displayed here for informational and reporting purposes.

Variance
City of Belmont
Fund Recap at a Glance
Results for the Period Ended November 30, 2021
(000's)
General Fund ‐ Used to account for and report all financial resources not accounted for and reported in another fund.

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

Capital Projects Funds ‐ Used to account for and report financial resources that are restricted, committed, or assigned to expenditure for capital outlays, including the acquisition or construction of capital facilities and other capital assets.

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

Variance
Revenues Expenditures
9 3
City of Belmont
Budget Variance Report
General Fund / All Other Funds
Results for the Period Ended November 30, 2021
(000's)
General Fund All Other Funds
Year to Date (YTD) Annual PY YTD Year to Date (YTD) Annual PY YTD Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual

REVENUES
Taxes $6,829 $3,809 ($3,019) 56% a $16,388 $3,385 $7,718 $1,992 ($5,726) 26% a $18,523 $1,928 Property Taxes             2,657                636           (2,022) 24% *             6,378                593              6,057                988           (5,070) 91% 14,537                       1,066 Sales Taxes             1,597             1,185               (412) 74% 3,833                          1,522              1,252             1,004               (248) 71% 3,006                             862 Other Taxes             2,574             1,988               (585) 77% *             6,177             1,270                  ‐ 408                                (408) 99% 980                 ‐ Licenses and permits 447                                333               (114) 75% b             1,073                425                 768                754                 (14) 98% 1,844                             770 Intergovernmental 1,440                          3,314             1,875 230% 3,456                             447              2,778             1,032           (1,746) 37% d             6,667                457 Charge for services 1,704                          1,639                 (65) 96% 4,090                          2,556           17,677             6,009         (11,669) 34% e          42,426             6,775 Fines and forfeits 68                                    43                 (26) 63% 164                                   ‐ 60                   ‐                  ‐                  N/A                  ‐ ‐ 376                288                 (88) 77% 902                                 (12)                 280                117               (163) 42% f                672                228 Miscellaneous 118                                  15               (103) 13% c                282                  47                   58               (538)                ‐ (597) 921% g                140           (1,529) Other financing sources                  ‐ ‐                  ‐                  N/A                  ‐ ‐                               1,563                  17           (1,545) 1% h             3,750                    4 Operating transfers in                  ‐ ‐                  ‐                  N/A                  ‐ ‐                                ‐ 3,299                            (3,299) i             7,918             2,155 Total Revenues 10,981                      9,441           (1,540) 86% 26,354                      6,908           34,142            9,383         (24,759) 27% 81,940                    10,789

EXPENDITURES
General government 2,653                          1,994               (659) 75% 6,367 2,716 3,405                           3,392                 (13) 100% 8,173 3,644 Public safety 6,013                          5,445               (568) 91% 14,431 5,430 4,907                           6,473             1,566 132% j 11,776 6,021 Streets and utilities                  ‐ ‐                  ‐                  N/A                  ‐ ‐                            16,061             9,425           (6,636) 59% 38,547                    10,837 Culture and recreation 845                                788                 (57) 93% 2,027 949 2,771                           2,274               (497) 82% 6,650 5,223 Urban redevelopment                  ‐ ‐                  ‐                  N/A                 ‐              1,764             1,511               (253) 86% 4,234              2,292 Debt service                  ‐ ‐                  ‐                  N/A                  ‐ ‐                               2,366             2,962                595 125% k             5,679             2,774 Operating transfer out 1,256              ‐                            (1,256) 3,015 1,614 2,043               ‐                            (2,043) 4,903 542 Total Expenditures 10,767                      8,227           (2,540) 76% 25,840                    10,708           33,317          26,036           (7,281) 78% 79,962                    31,331 $214 $1,214 $514 ($3,801) $824 ($16,653) ($32,040) $1,979 ($20,542) Management Discussion and Analysis
(Items with unfavorable budget variance more than $0.1 million) General Fund:

Revenues
Other Funds
Revenues
Other Funds
Expenditures
e) Charges for Services – The Sewer Use Fee (Collection & Treatment), budgeted for $17M, is included as part of the City’s Property Tax bill to be received semi‐annually, typically in April and December. d)  Intergovernmental ‐ The revenue will be received in a future reporting period and includes activities related to the prior fiscal year, which are subject to accounting adjustment. h)  Other Financing Sources – The budget assumes a sale of $3.8M in housing capital assets which is anticipated to occur in a subsequent period. j) Public safety ‐ First quarter payments of $1.6M to BSCFD and $2.1M to San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department. f)  Use of Money and Property–the LAIF interest rate continues to decline resulting in lower investment returns. k) Debt Service ‐the semi‐annual interest and annual principal payments were remitted in July. b)  Licenses and Permits – Business License revenue will be received in a future reporting period and includes activities related to the prior fiscal year, which are subject to accounting adjustment. c)  Miscellaneous – The budget variance is primarily due to the timing of the annual CSUS Public Service Fee, which will be received in a future reporting period. **  July TOT revenues received were for June activities and accrued to the previous FY. July revenues will be received in August.

EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER
(UNDER) EXPENDITURES
Trends
Use of money and property
a)  Taxes – The budget variance is primarily due to the timing of semi‐annual property tax receipts received in December and April. In addition, the majority of Sales Tax and Transient Occupancy Taxes received in July are related to June activities, which are subject to an accounting adjustment. COVID‐19 impacts are occurring. *) Beginning with the December 2020 monthly financial report, Property Tax in lieu of VLF and excess ERAF are reported under Property Taxes, not Other Taxes. g)  Miscellaneous– This revenue is subject to an accounting adjustment during the fiscal year closing process related to claims liability. i)  Operating Transfers In – The budget assumes operating transfers, which will be recorded at the end of the fiscal year based on actual results. ‐$650
‐$450
‐$250
‐$50
$150
$350
$550
$750
$950
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Thousands
Sales Taxes & TOT ‐ Monthly Comparison
Sales Taxes FY 21 Sales Taxes FY 22 TOT FY 21 TOT FY 22 $0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 Thousands
Major General Fund Taxes ‐ 10‐year Trends
Prop Tax Sales Taxes TOT
4 10
City of Belmont
Disbursements & Purchase Order Activity Report
Results for the Period Ended November 30, 2021
Vendor Description Date No. Amount
ANDREINI BROS., INC. BELMONT CREEK DREDGING 11/12/21 1202191 24,120.50 ARNOTT, SANDIE SEWER USAGE FEES 11/12/21 1202208 95,840.52 BAMACOR, INC. CSUS CUSTODIAL 11/5/21 EFT00026886 19,941.00 BELMONT REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL MARCH‐JUNE SCHOOL WATER 11/5/21 1202169 44,241.28 BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORP LIFE, LTD BENEFITS OCTOBER 21 11/12/21 EFT00026919 5,962.21 BROADCAST MICROWAVE SERVICES LLC MOUNTS 11/19/21 EFT00026989 30,124.01 CALPERS COB CONTRIBUTION PPE 10/22/21 11/4/21 DAJ000006996 106,329.33 CALPERS NOVEMBER HEALTH PREMIUM 11/12/21 DAJ000007003 158,257.14 CITY OF BELMONT EMPLOYEES PAYROLL 11/5/2021 11/4/21 DAJ000007031 392,133.51 CITY OF BELMONT EMPLOYEES PAYROLL 11/5/2021 11/4/21 DAJ000007032 91,999.10 CITY OF BELMONT EMPLOYEES PAYROLL 11/19/2021 11/18/21 DAJ000007034 398,606.77 CITY OF BELMONT EMPLOYEES PAYROLL 11/19/2021 11/19/21 DAJ000007036 98,068.83 CITY OF BELMONT EMPLOYEES PAYROLL 11/24/2021 11/24/21 DAJ000007039 6,207.35 CITY OF BELMONT EMPLOYEES PAYROLL 11/26/2021 11/26/21 IAJ000007041 6,194.12 COMFORT INTERNATIONAL INC FS15 HVAC REPLACEMENT 11/19/21 1202216 41,113.00 CREEKSIDE GRILL SEPTEMBER MEALS 11/5/21 EFT00026867 6,115.98 EDD PPE 11/19/21 TAXES 11/19/21 DAJ000007008 35,380.13
EDD/OR REVENUE PPE 11/05/21 TAXES 11/5/21 DAJ000006997 33,853.69 GATES & ASSOCIATES PROS MASTER PLAN SERVICES 11/19/21 EFT00027034 8,318.00 HEART OF SAN MATEO COUNTY MEMBER DUES 7/121 ‐ 6/30/22 11/19/21 EFT00027015 8,498.00 HOM, DANIEL OCTOBER SERVICES 11/12/21 EFT00026933 5,325.00 ICMARC DEF COMP ACCT# 302442 11/24/21 DAJ000007013 37,817.96 ICMARC DEF COMP ACCT# 106201 11/24/21 DAJ000007014 20,739.05 ICMARC DEF COMP ACCT#302442 11/9/21 DAJ000007000 38,251.71 ICMARC DEF COMP ACCT 80336 11/9/21 DAJ000007001 5,425.00 ICMARC DEF COMP ACCT # 803366 11/23/21 DAJ000007010 5,175.00 JONES HALL APLC WIFIA REVIEW 11/19/21 EFT00026997 6,625.00 JPW COMMUNICATIONS LLC MONTHLY STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION 11/19/21 EFT00026991 7,863.75 MANAGEMENT PARTNERS MILESTONE‐PAYROLL REVIEW 11/5/21 EFT00026896 10,600.00 MID‐PENINSULA WATER DISTRICT WATER SERVICE‐VARIOUS SITES 11/5/21 EFT00026888 21,472.06 MNS ENGINEERS INC TO#4 SVCS THRU 08/31/2021 11/5/21 EFT00026879 37,435.51 PAVEMENT ENGINEERING INC SVCS THRU 09/30/2021 22 PAVEMENT 11/5/21 1202181 7,360.00 PBIA DENTAL BENEFITS SEPTEMBER 11/12/21 EFT00026915 38,855.45 RINCON CONSULTANTS OCTOBER SERVICES 11/12/21 EFT00026932 67,580.95 RSG INC OCTOBER SERVICES 11/12/21 EFT00026924 5,083.75
SILICON VALLEY CLEAN WATER DECEMBER CONTRIBUTION 11/19/21 EFT00026974 282,253.00 THE LEW EDWARDS GROUP MEDIA BLAST, CITY MANAGER UPDATE 11/19/21 1202233 5,175.00 U.S. BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM OCTOBER CAL CARD STMT 11/19/21 1202234 23,476.44 Total Disbursements in Excess of $5,000 2,237,819.10 $
Total Count                         38
Disbursements Amounts Equal to $5,000 and Above
5 11
City of Belmont
Disbursements & Purchase Order Activity Report
Results for the Period Ended November 30, 2021
Vendor Description Date No. Amount
Disbursements Amounts Equal to $5,000 and Above
Vendor Description Date No. Amount
WOOD RODGERS INC STORM DRAIN IMPROVE PROJECT 11/2/21 22 00022 200,000.00 WOOD RODGERS INC MEASURE I STORM PROJECT 11/2/21 22 00022 337,025.00 BROADCAST MICROWAVE SERVICES L TAHOE M8 SYSTEM CORE I7 11/15/21 22 00024 11,083.08 LINKTURE CORP EV CHARGING STATION DESIGN 11/30/21 22 00028 18,000.00 BETTER SOURCE LLC CM OFFICE RENOVATION 11/30/21 22 00029 12,989.97 Total Purchase Orders Issued in Excess of $5,000 579,098.05 $ Total Count                           5
Purchase Order Amounts Equal to $5,000 and Above
6 12
Beginning Balance
October 31, 2021 Receipts Disbursements
Ending Balance
November 30, 2021
City of Belmont 73,141,467.36 $ 3,639,912.37 $ (2,449,110.67) $ 74,332,269.06 $ Belmont Fire Protection District 9,568,317.13 537,134.00 (76,091.37) 10,029,359.76 Successor Agency of the RDA 207,570.80 - (6,496.08) 201,074.72 Total $ 4,177,046.37 82,917,355.29 $ (2,531,698.12) $ 84,562,703.54 $ -
Deposit Investments Pool Total
City of Belmont, Belmont Fire Protection District, $ 82,997,849.38 1,564,854.16 $ 84,562,703.54 $ & Successor Agency of RDA -
Respectfully Submitted,
s/b Grace Castaneda
Grace Castaneda
City Treasurer
I certify that this report accurately reflects all investments of City of Belmont, Belmont Fire Protection District, and Successor Agency, and is in conformance with the adopted Investment Policy mandated by Government Code 53646. Furthermore, I certify to the best of my knowledge, sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the Agency's budgeted expenditure requirement for the next six months.

CITY OF BELMONT

TREASURER'S REPORT
November-21
Balance Summary
Agency Receipts and Disbursements Summary
treasurer report 11-2021

13 Investment Type Issuer
Maturity
Date Par Amount
Current Market
Value Interest Total
Investment
Period Rate
Pricing
Source Manager
Deposit
General Account Wells Fargo 1,564,854.16 $ 1,564,854.16 $ Bank Bank Investments:

L.A.I.F.-POOL State of California Daily 71,662,716.46 71,653,662.66 12,122.94 90 days 0.203% LAIF LAIF L.A.I.F.-BONDS State of California Daily 11,335,132.92 11,333,700.85 1,917.53 90 days 0.203% LAIF LAIF Total 84,562,703.54 $ 84,552,217.67 $ 14,040.47 $
s/b Grace Castaneda
S/B John Violet
Investment Detail

CITY OF BELMONT

TREASURER'S REPORT
November-21
Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 LAIF Pool 58,268,678 71,948,678 70,945,936 72,815,936 70,007,936 81,417,064 86,767,064 89,207,064 77,614,409 76,259,409 72,364,409 70,512,716 71,662,716 LAIF Bond 17,683,018 16,238,018 15,976,273 14,891,273 14,319,434 12,724,049 12,724,049 12,528,951 11,819,298 11,329,012 11,329,012 11,333,701 11,333,701 LAIF Rate 0.576% 0.540% 0.458% 0.407% 0.357% 0.339% 0.315% 0.262% 0.221% 0.221% 0.206% 0.203% 0.203%

0.00%

0.10%

0.20%

0.30%

0.40%

0.50%

0.60%

0.70%
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
$80,000,000
$90,000,000
$100,000,000
City of Belmont Investment Portfolio Trends

Continuation of Fully Virtual Meetings Jan - Feb 2022 - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 11, 2022
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Scott Rennie, City Attorney
Agenda Title: Continuation of Fully Virtual Meetings Jan-Feb 2022 Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution (1) finding that as a result of the COVID-19 statewide emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees of council and citizen advisory body meetings, and that local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing, and (2) directing the Council’s Citizen Advisory Bodies to make consistent findings.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency on March 4, 2020, and subsequently issued a series of Executive Orders (N-25-20, N-29-20, and N-08-21) that effectively suspended certain provisions of the Brown Act governing the use of teleconferencing by local legislative bodies and allowed them to hold fully virtual meetings. The Governor recently signed Assembly Bill 361, an urgency measure that takes effect immediately, that adds new requirements to the Brown Act for holding fully virtual meetings during a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor.

These new teleconferencing requirements will expire January 1, 2024. The Governor also issued Executive Order N-15-21 clarifying that the new teleconferencing provisions in AB 361 are suspended through September 30, 2021, and that after that date cities wishing to hold fully virtual meetings during the remaining COVID-19 state of emergency must comply with the provisions of AB 361.

Under Government Code Section 54953(e) as amended by AB 361, fully virtual meetings are allowed during a proclaimed state of emergency if either:

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

2. The legislative body determines by majority vote that as a result of the emergency meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. This finding must be renewed after 30 days.

In order to continue to use teleconference to hold fully virtual meetings, the legislative body must reconsider at least every 30 days the circumstances of the emergency and whether the above findings can continue to be made.

In addition, AB 361 adds new procedural requirements for fully virtual meetings, such as giving the public 15

Continuation of Fully Virtual Meetings Jan - Feb 2022 - Staff Report ability to address the legislative body directly, providing information on how to address the body, providing either a call-in or internet-based service option, stopping the meeting if the call-in or internetbased option fails, comments may not be required to be submitted in advance, pre-registrations (except as required by call-in or internet platform) is prohibited, and public members must be given a reasonable time to register to provide public comment.

On August 2, 2021, the County Health Officer issued the current public health order, Order C19-12, requiring face coverings when indoors for all individuals in workplaces and public settings regardless of vaccination status and with limited exceptions. The order does not expressly require or recommended measures to promote social distancing. Order C19-12 states that the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant has been circulating in San Mateo County since April 2021, is highly transmissible in indoor settings, and requires multi-component prevention strategies to reduce spread. The Order also states that despite San Mateo County’s high vaccination rates, the county is still experiencing substantial levels of community transmission due to the Delta variant with most COVID-19 cases among unvaccinated residents, the proportion of breakthrough cases increasing, and hospitalizations increasing primarily among unvaccinated persons.

On October 14, 2021, the San Mateo County Health Department chief published a message indicating the most recent experience of the virus in San Mateo County continues to move in a positive direction.

However, the county has not achieved the criteria to lift the indoor mask mandate and the August 2, 2021 Health Officer order continues to remain in effect.

On November 15, 2021, the San Mateo County Health Officer issued a statement, as part of an order rescinding previous home quarantine and home isolation orders, that case rates are declining but transmission rates of COVID-19 remain high and the risk of COVID-19 variants are still unknown. The statement also advises that individuals continue to follow guidance released by the United States Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) including their sub-agency United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”), and California Department of Social Services (“CDSS”). The CDC continues to recommend that if possible individuals should maintain 6 feet of separation from other people outside their home. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/preventgetting-sick/prevention.html.

The California Department of Public Health and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have cautioned that the Delta variant of COVID-19 is highly transmissible, may cause more severe illness, and that even fully vaccinated individuals can spread the virus to others, resulting in rapid and alarming rates of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019- ncov/variants/delta-variant.html. The CDC reports as of December 20, 2021 that the Omicron variant will likely spread more easily than the original virus and that anyone with Omicron infection can spread the virus to others, even if they are vaccinated or don’t have symptoms. The CDC also reports there is insufficient data at this time to know whether Omicron infections, and especially reinfections and breakthrough infections in people who are fully vaccinated, cause more severe illness or death than infection with other variants. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/omicron-variant.html 16

Continuation of Fully Virtual Meetings Jan - Feb 2022 - Staff Report Analysis
As of January 4, 2022, vaccination rates in San Mateo County are high. However, the emergence of the Omicron variant has contributed to a surge of cases and hospitalizations both nationwide and in the county.

San Mateo County COVID-19 case rates jumped 376% in the seven-day period ending January 2, 2022.

County hospitalizations for COVID jumped 138% in the same time period. Despite sustained efforts to impede its transmission, the COVID-19 remains a significant public health hazard among both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals and continues to spread and impact nearly all parts of city operations.

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

Staff concludes that the council may continue to reasonably find, based on the available public health information pertaining to COVID-19, that meeting in person by the city’s legislative bodies at this time would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. Staff also concludes that the Council may also reasonably find that the County Health Officer recommends individuals follow CDC guidance which continues to encourage six feet of separation between individuals outside their home as a COVID19 prevention strategy and therefore that local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing in settings such as legislative body meetings.

Alternatives

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

2. Consider other findings.

Attachments
A. Draft Resolution
Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
☐ Funding Source Confirmed:

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
17

RESOLUTION NO. 2022 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT MAKING

FINDINGS FOR CONTINUED USE OF FULLY VIRTUAL MEETINGS AND

DIRECTING CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES TO MAKE CONSISTENT FINDINGS WHEREAS, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency on March 4, 2020, and the state of emergency remains in effect; and, WHEREAS, the Governor issued a series of Executive Orders (N-25-20, N-29-20, and N-08-21) that effectively suspended certain provisions of the Brown Act governing the use of teleconferencing by local legislative bodies and allowed them to hold fully virtual meetings; and, WHEREAS, on September 28, 2021, the City Council found that the Governor had declared a state of emergency that remains in effect due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that meeting in person at that time without the benefits of the teleconferencing means authorized by Government Code Section 54953, subdivision (e) as amended by AB 361, would present imminent risks to the health or safety of meeting attendees, including meetings attendees of the full council and its permanent subcommittees; and,
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2021, the San Mateo County Health Department chief published a message indicating the most recent experience of the virus in San Mateo County continues to move in a positive direction; however, the county has yet to achieve the established criteria to lift indoor mask mandates; and,
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-089 finding that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the Council and its permanent subcommittees to meet safely in person; and,
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2021, the San Mateo County Health Officer issued a statement, as part of an order rescinding previous home quarantine and home isolation orders, that case rates are declining but transmission rates of COVID-19 remain high and the risk of COVID-19 variants are still unknown, and advised that individuals continue to follow guidance released by the United States Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) including their sub-agency United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”), and California Department of Social Services (“CDSS”); and, WHEREAS, San Mateo County has not achieved the criteria established for lifting the indoor mask mandate; and,
WHEREAS, San Mateo County is currently experiencing a surge of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations; and,
WHEREAS, the CDC continues to recommend that if possible individuals should maintain 6 feet of separation from other people outside their home.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:
18

SECTION 1. The Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and finds that:
(a) The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the Council, its permanent subcommittees, and the citizen advisor bodies and other subordinate legislative bodies of the city to meet safely in person.
(b) Local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

SECTION 2. The subordinately legislative bodies of the city, including the commissions and other citizen advisory bodies, are directed to make findings consistent with the findings herein unless the body finds by clear and convincing evidence that circumstances considered by the Council at its January 11, 2022 regular meeting have since changed and neither of the findings in Section 1(a) or (b) can be made, or the Council directs otherwise. Any finding inconsistent with the findings in Section 1 is subject to review and vacation by the Council.

SECTION 3. This Resolution is effective immediately.
* * *
ADOPTED January 11, 2022 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
19

2nd Amendment to and Restatement of the JPA Establishing the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 11, 2022
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Peter Brown, Public Works Director, (650) 595-7469, [email protected] Elizabeth Wada, Associate Civil Engineer, (650) 595-7468, [email protected] Agenda Title: Second Amendment to and Restatement of the JPA Establishing the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Approve the Second Amendment to and the Restatement of the Joint Powers Agreement for the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Alliance (Alliance) and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.

Strategic Focus Area
Not Applicable
Background
The Alliance was established in 2000 to assist the public and private sectors in the County of San Mateo with reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. The Alliance was originally created through a Joint Powers Agreement (“JPA”) among fifteen cities in the County.

In 2005, the County of San Mateo along with the Towns of Atherton and Hillsborough became members of the Alliance. To accomplish this, all 15 original members together with the 3 new members approved and executed a First Amendment to and Restatement of the Joint Powers Agreement. The amended JPA provided for the addition of the new members and revised the committee structure of the Alliance. The Alliance is funded by the regional BAAQMD, CCAG, SMCTA, and a few other sources. No dues are required of members in the Alliance.

Analysis
Three additional cities are now interested in joining the Alliance. The City of Menlo Park and the Town of Portola Valley desire to join the Alliance, and the Town of Woodside may consider membership as well. To facilitate adding these new members, the Alliance Board of Directors at its meeting on September 16, 2021, reviewed the proposed Second Amendment to and Restatement of the Joint Powers Agreement establishing the Alliance and approved it for presentation to both current and new members for approval and execution. In addition to increasing the membership of the Alliance, this Second Amendment updates and refreshes the first section of the original JPA on "Purpose" to reflect the Alliance's recently adopted Mission and Vision Statements as set forth in its Strategic Plan, and clarifies that the Alliance has developed a new brand and has become known to the public as "Commute.org."

1. As a current member of the Alliance, staff recommends that it is in the interest of the City of Belmont to approve the Second Amendment. With this approval, Belmont ensures its needs are 20

2nd Amendment to and Restatement of the JPA Establishing the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance - Staff Report acknowledged and addressed within the larger purview of San Mateo County, as well as provide input to meet the changing needs of the Alliance’s collective roadways. With the branding of “Commute.org”, Belmont also maintains its high standard for public outreach and input.

Alternatives

1. Take No Action.

2. Refer back to staff for more information.

Attachments
A. Resolution
B. JPA Amendment Letter
C. “Second Amendment to and Restatement of the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance” Agreement
Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
☐ Funding Source Confirmed:

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
21

RESOLUTION NO. 2022 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO AND RESTATEMENT OF THE

JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE PENINSULA TRAFFIC

REFLIEF ALLIANCE
WHEREAS, the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (“Alliance”) was established in 2000 through a Joint Powers Agreement (“JPA”) executed by fifteen cities in the County of San Mateo, to assist the public and private sectors in achieving traffic congestion relief; and,
WHEREAS, in 2005, the JPA was amended to include the County of San Mateo, and the Towns of Atherton and Hillsborough as members of the Alliance, bringing the total membership to 18 agencies, all of which approved and executed the Amendment to and Restatement of the Joint Powers Agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Menlo Park and the Town of Portola Valley desire to join the Alliance and the Town of Woodside may consider membership as well; and, WHEREAS, adding members to the Alliance requires all of the current members as well as the new members to approve and execute a Second Amendment of the Joint Powers Agreement; and,
WHEREAS, in addition to expanding the membership of the Alliance, the proposed Second Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement takes the opportunity to update and refresh the JPA by (1) revising the first section on "Purpose" to reflect the Alliance's recently adopted Mission and Vision Statements as set forth in its Strategic Plan and (2) clarifying that the Alliance has developed a new brand and has become known to the public as "Commute.org"; and,
WHEREAS, at its meeting on September 16, 2021, the Alliance Board of Directors reviewed the proposed Second Amendment to and Restatement of the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance that incorporates the changes recited above and approved this Second Amendment for presentation to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of current and new members for approval and execution of same.

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

SECTION 1. The City of Belmont hereby approves the Second Amendment to and Restatement of the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance; and,
SECTION 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement. * * *
22

ADOPTED January 11, 2022 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk

Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
23

Transition from At-Large Elections to By District Elections for Council Seats - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 11, 2022
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Jozi Plut, City Clerk/Communications Coordinator, [email protected], 650-595- 7414
Agenda Title: First Public Hearing for Transition from At-Large Elections to By District Elections for Council Seats and At Large Mayor
Agenda Action: Discussion & Direction
Recommendation
Receive presentation from City’s Consultant Districting Partners on a range of topics to facilitate a process of public education and involvement in a transparent and fair districting process.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
On July 30, 2021, the City received a letter from Kevin Shenkman, of the law firm Shenkman & Hughes, alleging that the City's at-large election system violated the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA) on behalf of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project alleging violation of California Voting Rights Act demanding the city change to its at-large method of electing councilmembers.

The CVRA was adopted in 2002 and is based upon the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“FVRA”) with some important differences that make at-large election systems much more susceptible to legal challenge.

For a plaintiff to be successful in a claim of violation under the FVRA relating to at-large elections, the plaintiff must show that: 1) a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to form a majority of the eligible voters in a single-member district; 2) there is racially-polarized voting; and 3) there is “white bloc voting” (the term used by the courts reviewing such cases) sufficient usually to prevent minority voters from electing candidates of their choice. If a plaintiff proves these three elements, then the federal court will consider whether, under the "totality of circumstances," the votes of minority voters are diluted by the at-large election system.

The CVRA removes two of these factors. It eliminates what is known as the “geographically compact” FVRA precondition (e.g., can a majority-minority district be drawn) as well as the “totality of the circumstances” or “reasonableness” test. Because the CVRA eliminates some of the elements that a plaintiff must prove, a lawsuit brought under the CVRA is substantially more difficult to defend than a claim under the FVRA. As a result of the lower threshold for proving a claim under the CVRA, many jurisdictions have voluntarily switched to district based election systems instead of facing litigation.

An “at-large” system of elections is subject to legal challenge under the CVRA if that method of election impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the 24

Transition from At-Large Elections to By District Elections for Council Seats - Staff Report outcome of the election, as a result of the dilution or the abridgment of the rights of the voters who are members of the protected class. The threshold of proof to establish a violation is low and does not require discriminatory intent.

Many dozens of cities and other public agencies in California have been sued under the CVRA. Prevailing CVRA plaintiffs are guaranteed to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs. With the exception of one case still in litigation, all public entities that have tried to contest the conversion to elections by district have either lost or have agreed to make the transition. In either instance, these jurisdictions have paid at least a portion of the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs. Further, those cities that have litigated CVRA cases have paid millions of dollars in fees and were still forced to transition to by-district elections.

The Council met in closed session on October 26, 2021, to consider the litigation threat and held a public study session on November 2, 2021, to consider transitioning to district-based elections and whether to directly elect the mayor at-large. The Council concurred to transition to district elections with four districts and an at-large Mayor. At a regular Council meeting on November 9, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution 2021-096 outlining the city’s intent to change the City's system of election for the City Council from an at-large system to a district-based system by adoption of an ordinance. The district-based elections system will be in use in the City's General Municipal Election for City Councilmembers beginning in November 2022.

The City Council authorized the City Manager to retain legal, demographic, and communication services to assist the City in its transition to a district-based elections system for the election of City Council members. The City Manager retained the services of Hanson Bridgett LLP, who retained Redistricting Partners to assist the City in its transition to district-based elections by providing a detailed analysis of the City’s current demographics and other information or data necessary to prepare a draft map or maps that divide(s) the City into voting districts in a manner consistent with the intent and purpose of the CVRA, the Federal Voting Rights Act, and all other federal and state laws Analysis
Working with the consultant, staff has established a project schedule to determine and set the new districts for election of City Council members and set the final sequence of elections from those districts, as soon as practicable, but in any case, by April 12, 2022 which will allow the City provide information on the new districts and order of elections well in advance of the May 2022 deadline set by the County Elections Official in preparation for the November 2022 election. The project will establish four districts which: are in compliance with one person, one vote requirements; are intended to ensure the opportunity of the City's protected minority groups with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise; and include consideration of topography, geography, cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity and compactness of territory, non-disturbance to existing precincts for purposes of implementation, as well as maintaining vital communities of interest.

This process will require participation from the public to create election districts that are balanced in size and protect the interest of the communities within those districts. U.S. Census Bureau Data from 2020, the most recent census, will be used during this process to ensure equal representation by each elected official. The consultant will draw one or more draft maps and staff will publish any map draft at least seven days before consideration at a public hearing. Any revised draft map to be considered at a subsequent public hearing will be published at least seven days before the subsequent public hearing. The 25

Transition from At-Large Elections to By District Elections for Council Seats - Staff Report City will hold at least two additional hearings to discuss and seek public input on the draft map(s) and proposed sequence of elections, if necessary.

Staff will post information regarding the proposed transition to a district-based election system, including maps, notices, agendas and other information and to establish a means of communication to answer questions from the public.

This Pre-Map Presentation provides the City Council and community the principles of districting, opportunity for pre-map public input on communities of interest. Presentation from the public of any maps identifying communities, discussion of preferences of neighborhoods, geographic or other features that should be considered in drawing of public plans. The following two hearings for this process have been scheduled for January 25, and February 8, 2022. Additionally, staff will conduct a community workshop on February 19, 2022, for public input on draft maps and will continue to update the City’s website as more information and dates become available. Ultimately, in March 2022, the City will conduct the final hearing before the City Council for the approval of a final plan with election selection. The final plan must be public for at least seven days prior to the meeting.

To receive additional information about by-district elections, or to ask questions, interested persons may contact City Clerk Jozi Plut at [email protected].

Alternatives

1. Provide Staff with other direction.

Attachments
A. PPT Presentation from Districting Partners
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

City Council approved appropriation of $180,000 at its October 26, 2021 meeting that is to be incorporated as part of the mid year review for costs associated with this process.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
26 City of Belmont Districting
2021- 2022
27 Agenda
Things we will cover:
• The California Voting Rights Act (CVRA)
• What is Districting
• Traditional Districting/Redistricting Principles
• The Fair Maps Act
• How the public can participate in the process
• Public Hearing Schedule
28 What is the CVRA?
The California Voting Rights Act is a state law that
prohibits the use of At Large Election Systems in local government if there is Racially Polarized Voting.
“At Large” is defined as anything other than a system in which an elected official lives in a district, and is only elected by members of that district.
“Racially Polarized Voting” is defined as differences in voting patterns which can be shown to be correlated to race, religion, national origin, or membership in any other protected class. 29 What is the CVRA?
The California Voting Rights Act takes the principles of the Federal Voting Rights Act and expands it regarding
districted elections in two key ways:

While Federal law uses “majority minority” districts as a standard for vulnerability, the CVRA only requires “ability to influence.” The CVRA requires that plaintiffs get full reimbursement for legal fees associated with any successful challenge.
30 What is the CVRA?
The California Voting Rights Act takes the principles of the Federal Voting Rights Act and expands it regarding
districted elections in two key ways:

While Federal law uses “majority minority” districts as a standard for vulnerability, the CVRA only requires “ability to influence.” The CVRA requires that plaintiffs get full reimbursement for legal fees associated with any successful challenge. These can be lessened or eliminated if the district follows a strict and prompt process for districting.
31 What is Districting
Definition
Districting is the initial process of creating election district boundaries.

These boundaries determine:
• Eligibility to run for office – must live within boundaries to qualify for election.
• Who votes in the election – only voters within the district vote for their councilmember.
32 What is Districting
Definition
Districting is the initial process of creating election district boundaries.

These boundaries do not determine:
• How the city decides to govern. The city can still work to achieve goals that benefit the city as a whole rather than the interests of any single district.
• How services or relationships between the city and the public are managed.
33 Traditional Districting Principles
There are a number of criteria that have been used
nationally and upheld by courts.
• Relatively equal size – people, not citizens
• Contiguous – districts should not hop/jump
• Keep districts compact – appearance/function
• Maintain “communities of interest”
• Follow city/county/local government lines
Preventing a Districting from Becoming a Gerrymander
34 Traditional Districting Principles
There are a number of criteria that have been used
nationally and upheld by courts.
• Relatively equal size – people, not citizens
• Contiguous – districts should not hop/jump
• Keep districts compact – appearance/function
• Maintain “communities of interest”
• Follow city/county/local government lines
Preventing a Districting from Becoming a Gerrymander
35 Equal Population
Utilizing the US Census Decennial File
What is “equal” population has been a
key subject in districting litigation.
• Population Equality is based on
“People” not citizens or voters or
other metrics.
• 10% deviation or better.
36 Traditional Districting Principles
There are a number of criteria that have been used
nationally and upheld by courts.
• Relatively equal size – people, not citizens
• Contiguous – districts should not hop/jump
• Keep districts compact – appearance/function
• Maintain “communities of interest”
• Follow city/county/local government lines
Preventing a Districting from Becoming a Gerrymander
37 Contiguity
Two definitions for what is contiguous
Contiguity should be thought of as
“literal” and “functional.”
• An area that is one whole
piece is “literally contiguous.”
• An area that represents
how the population functions
or how people are connected
is “functionally contiguous.”
38 Traditional Districting Principles
There are a number of criteria that have been used
nationally and upheld by courts.
• Relatively equal size – people, not citizens
• Contiguous – districts should not hop/jump
• Keep districts compact – appearance/function
• Maintain “communities of interest”
• Follow city/county/local government lines
Preventing a Districting from Becoming a Gerrymander
39 Compactness
Determining what is “compact”
The measure of compactness can get
complicated.
• Ratio of the circumference of
a district and the area of a district.
• Measuring the number of distinct
straight lines and the number of
kinks and bends.
• Simply outlawing funny shapes. 40
Traditional Districting Principles
There are a number of criteria that have been used
nationally and upheld by courts.
• Relatively equal size – people, not citizens
• Contiguous – districts should not hop/jump
• Keep districts compact – appearance/function
• Maintain “communities of interest”
• Follow city/county/local government lines
Preventing a Districting from Becoming a Gerrymander
41 Communities of Interest
Communities of interest are the building blocks of districts.

A community of interest includes ethnic and language minorities and other groups.
• Subjective
• Open-ended to be as inclusive as possible
Examples of Voting Rights Act Communities
• Latinos
• Asians
• African Americans
Bringing like people together for representation
42 Communities of Interest
Communities of interest are the building blocks of districts.

A community of interest includes ethnic and language minorities and other groups.
• Subjective
• Open-ended to be as inclusive as possible
Examples of Voting Rights Act Communities
• Latinos
• Asians
• African Americans
While communities of interest may include race, it cannot be the predominant factor in drawing district boundaries.

Bringing like people together for representation
43 Communities of Interest
A community of interest includes ethnic and language
minorities and other groups.

Other Communities, example are:
• People living near an industry (farming, higher
education, manufacturing)
• Senior Citizens or Students
• Downtown / Urban
• Rural or Agricultural
• Homeowners or Renters
Bringing like-minded people together for representation 44 Communities of Interest
Three Critical Questions in Defining YOUR Community
Communities can be best described by answering these three questions:
• Does the community have a shared culture, characteristics or bond?
• Is the community geographic in nature? Is the community able to be mapped?
• What is the community’s relationship with the jurisdiction being districted? How is it affected by the policy decisions made by the elected officials?
45 Traditional Districting Principles
There are a number of criteria that have been used
nationally and upheld by courts.
• Relatively equal size – people, not citizens
• Contiguous – districts should not hop/jump
• Keep districts compact – appearance/function
• Maintain “communities of interest”
• Follow city/county/local government lines
Preventing a Districting from Becoming a Gerrymander
46 Traditional Districting Principles
Starting in 2020, cities and counties doing redistricting have additional criteria they must follow under the
California Fair Maps Act.
• Process/transparency when conducting redistricting
• Not using incumbent or candidate residence as a Community of Interest
• Not drawing districts to advantage a political party
Preventing a Districting from becoming a Gerrymander
47 48
49 Next Steps
Upcoming Hearings
January 11, 2022 Public Hearing on Districting
January 25, 2022 Public Hearing on Process
February 8, 2022 Draft Map Presentation
February 19, 2022 Outreach Presentation
February 22, 2022 Second Draft Map Presentation
March 8, 2022 Final Vote & Reading of Ordinance
50 51

TEFRA Hearing

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 11, 2022
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Jennifer Rose, Housing & Economic Development Manager, [email protected] Agenda Title: Issuance of Tax-Exempt Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority for the Benefit of IH Three21 Belmont, LLC
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation

1. Conduct the public hearing under the requirements of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (“TEFRA”) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).

2. Adopt a resolution approving the issuance of tax-exempt revenue bonds by the CMFA for the benefit of IH Three21 Belmont LLC (the “Borrower”) to provide financing for the Three21 @ Belmont affordable housing project located at 301-321 Oxford Way.

Strategic Focus Area
Economic Development and Housing
Background
The California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) was created on January 1, 2004 pursuant to a joint exercise of powers agreement to assist local governments, non-profit organizations and businesses with the issuance of taxable and tax-exempt bonds aimed at improving the standard of living in California. The CMFA’s representatives and its Board of Directors have considerable experience in bond financings. To date, over 300 municipalities have become members of CMFA.

IH Three21 Belmont LLC (the “Borrower”) has requested that the CMFA issue and sell revenue bonds in the maximum principal amount of $40,000,000, for the purpose of making a loan to the Borrower, to enable the Borrower to finance or refinance the costs of the acquisition, development, construction and equipping of a 65-unit multifamily rental housing development for low-income families and residents, located at 301-321 Oxford Way, Belmont, California (the “Project”).

In order for all, or a portion of, the Bonds to qualify as tax-exempt bonds, the City of Belmont must conduct a public hearing pursuant to the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (the “TEFRA Hearing”), providing members of the community an opportunity to comment on the use of tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the Project.

Public Notice of this TEFRA Hearing was published December 28, 2021 in a general circulation newspaper and posted at City Hall.
52

TEFRA Bond Hearing - Staff Report
Analysis
The Bonds to be issued by the CMFA for the Project will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower, and the City will have no financial, legal, moral obligation, liability or responsibility for the Project or the repayment of the Bonds for the financing of the Project. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the Bonds are not obligations of the City or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower.

The Board of Directors of the California Foundation for Stronger Communities, a California non-profit public benefit corporation (the “Foundation”), acts as the Board of Directors for the CMFA. Through its conduit issuance activities, the CMFA shares a portion of the issuance fees it receives with its member communities and donates a portion of these issuance fees to the Foundation for the support of local charities. With respect to the City of Belmont, it is expected that that a portion of the issuance fee attributable to the City will be granted by the CMFA to the general fund of the City. Such grant may be used for any lawful purpose of the City.

As a condition of receiving tax-exempt bond financing, the subject multi-family project must restrict a minimum of 20% of the units to households earning less than 50% Area Median Income (AMI), and at least 55% of the units must earn less than 80% AMI. Approval of the Resolution (Attachment A) will facilitate provision of more affordable housing, which is a strategic objective of the City and consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan Housing Element. Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution.

Alternatives

1. Take No Action; the requested Project financing could not proceed, and the Project would not be converted to affordable housing.

Attachments
A. Resolution
Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
The City of Belmont General Fund will receive a small
allocation of the bond issuance fees to cover minimal
administrative costs associated with this action.
☐ Funding Source Confirmed:

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Other* Statutory/Contractual Requirement Other**
* California Municipal Finance Authority
** A Notice of Public Hearing was published by CMFA on 12/28/2021. 53

RESOLUTION NO. 2022 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF TAX EXEMPT REVENUE BONDS BY THE

CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF IH THREE21 BELMONT LLC, TO PROVIDE FINANCING FOR THE ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION, IMPROVEMENT AND EQUIPPING OF THREE21 @ BELMONT

APARTMENTS AND OTHER RELATED ACTIONS
WHEREAS, IH Three21 Belmont LLC (the “Borrower”) which is an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”) has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “Authority”) adopt a plan of financing providing for the issuance of qualified 501(c)(3) bonds as defined in Section 145 of the Code in one or more series issued from time to time, including bonds issued to refund such qualified 501(c)(3) bonds in one or more series from time to time, and at no time to exceed $40,000,000 in aggregate principal amount (the “Bonds”), to finance or refinance the acquisition, rehabilitation, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 301-321 Oxford Way, Belmont, California (the “Project”); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved by the City of Belmont (the “City”) because the Project is located within the territorial limits of the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Belmont City Council is the elected legislative body of the City of Belmont and is one of the “applicable elected representatives” required to approve the issuance of the Bonds under Section 147(f) of the Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the City Council approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority in order to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 4 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, dated as of January 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”), among certain local agencies, including the City; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the City Council has, following notice duly given, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds, and now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority.

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

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitute approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority, for the purposes of (a) Section 147(f) of the Code by the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is located, in accordance with said Section 147(f) and (b) Section 4 of the Agreement.
54

SECTION 3. The issuance of the Bonds shall be subject to the approval of the Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party. The City shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to the Bonds.

SECTION 4. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to (i) provide any financing to acquire or construct the Project or any refinancing of the Project; (ii) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, installation or operation of the Project; (iii) make any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the Authority; or (iv) take any further action with respect to the Authority or its membership therein.

SECTION 5. The officers and officials of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to execute and deliver any and all documents which they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this resolution and the financing transaction herein authorized.

SECTION 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. * * *
ADOPTED January 11, 2022 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
55

Housing Element Update - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 11, 2022
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Jennifer Rose, Housing Manager, Finance Department, [email protected] Agenda Title: Review of Belmont General Plan Housing Element Update and Housing Development Projects
Agenda Action: For Information Only
Recommendation
Receive update on Belmont General Plan Housing Element 2023-2030 update process and review of housing development projects.

Strategic Focus Area
Economic Development and Housing
Background
The Housing Element is part of Belmont’s General Plan and identifies policies and programs to meet the housing needs of the City’s current and future residents. State law requires that every city and county in California adopt or update their General Plan Housing Element approximately every eight years. The state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews and certifies that each jurisdiction’s Housing Element meets all the requirements of the law. Belmont’s previous Housing Element was adopted in 2015 and the new document must be adopted by January 2023.

The current Housing Element update requires a more extensive work effort than the previous cycle for several reasons. Belmont’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is significantly higher than last cycle, 1,785 compared to 468 units. Additionally, changes in state law make it more challenging to identify sites that can count towards meeting the RHNA requirement. Recently adopted housing element rules, such as requirements for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), are in effect for the first time this cycle and require new analysis.

The City is collaborating with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County to complete our Housing Element through 21 Elements, with additional support from a Housing Element Project Manager and an environmental consulting firm preparing a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

This study session provides a brief summary of the current housing element update process and remaining work efforts, and includes a brief overview of current housing development activity. No action is required by the City Council at this time.
56

Housing Element Update
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
To determine how much housing a jurisdiction needs to plan for during a housing element cycle, HCD looks at several factors like how many jobs there are, how close people live to their place of work, and how many new jobs and new people the jurisdiction expects. After doing this, they assign each region a number called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determines how much each Bay Area city is responsible for based on their size and how they are expected to grow by 2050, according to Plan Bay Area. Cities do not need to ensure these homes are built, but they do need to put in place the proper zoning and address constraints so the private sector can build the housing. Almost all cities in the Bay Area have a significantly higher target this RHNA cycle than in the past primarily due to changes required by a new law that better accounts for existing overcrowding. Belmont’s income-specific sixth-cycle RHNA allocation is:

Belmont RHNA-6 Allocation
Very Low Income: 488 units
Low Income: 281 units
Moderate Income: 283 units
Above Mod Income: 733 units
Total: 1,785 units
Housing Element Update Process
The sixth-cycle Housing Element covers years 2023-2031 and includes several major components:

1. Housing Needs Assessment: Analyze demographic and housing trends and conditions.

2. Constraints Analysis: Analyze and address existing and potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the development of housing.

3. Evaluation of Past Performance: Assess progress in implementing the policies and programs from the prior Housing Element.

4. Housing Sites Inventory: Identify housing sites available for development or redevelopment, ensuring that there is sufficient capacity to address the Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

5. Policies and Programs: Establish policies and programs to address the identified housing needs.

6. Community Outreach and Engagement: Conduct a thorough program of community engagement, with a particular focus on outreach to traditionally underrepresented groups.

The work effort to update the Belmont Housing Element was initiated in February 2020. The following is a summary of completed activities:
• February 2020 – the City engaged Diana Elrod Consulting to serve as the Housing Element Project Manager and begin a sites inventory analysis of available properties in Belmont. • December 2020 – After completing a thorough selection process, the City retained Rincon Consultants, Inc. to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report that would analyze all potential environmental impacts of the planned development contemplated in the Housing Element Update.
57

Housing Element Update
• April 2021 – First community engagement meeting held on April 8, 2021, “Intro to the Housing Element Update,” in collaboration with the Let’s Talk Housing Countywide outreach effort. • May 2021 – City Council Study Session to review housing element update workplan and RHNA allocation.
• July 2021 – CEQA EIR Notice of Preparation issued along with a public inventory map showing draft housing opportunity sites; EIR Scoping meeting held on July 21, 2021. • October 2021 – Kickoff the first of several Countywide community stakeholder listening sessions. • December 2021 – Staff review of working draft EIR sections completed. • January 2022 – Draft “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH) section completed; review with HCD scheduled.

The follow table summarizes remaining work tasks and timeline for completion over the next year, which includes a significant level of community engagement and public meetings. Note that the Housing Element must be adopted and submitted to HCD for final certification no later than January 31, 2023.

Proposed Schedule for Housing Element Update
Community Engagement Efforts January-March 2022
City Council (CC) and Planning Commission (PC) Study Sessions March 2022 Release of Draft EIR & Housing Element (45 Day Public Review) April 2022 CC and PC Public Review of Housing Element & Draft EIR Late May 2022 Submit Draft Housing Element to HCD for 60 Day Review June 2022 Respond to HCD Comments October 2022
Revise Draft Housing Element November 2022
Adoption Hearings CC & PC January 2023
Submit Adopted Housing Element to HCD January 31, 2023
Other Long Range Planning Efforts
The draft housing opportunity sites for the Belmont sixth-cycle housing element include several properties that will need to be rezoned to accommodate the forecasted housing development. The State recently adopted legislation requiring that any rezoning efforts required to meet the RHNA allocation must be completed within one year of adoption of the housing element update. The City will need to complete several zone text amendments in 2023 to remain in compliance with the housing element.

The Belmont RHNA allocation and Housing Element update will also plan for population growth that exceeds the forecasts included in the Belmont 2035 General Plan and Belmont Village Specific Plan (both adopted in November 2017). Subsequent to adoption of the Housing Element update in January 2023, the City will be required to prepare corresponding updates to the Land Use section of the General Plan and the Belmont Village Specific Plan. Additionally, the State of California passed legislation which now requires that all cities and counties prepare updates to the Safety Element of the General Plan to provide programs and policies related to hazard evacuation for all planned housing growth. All of these long-range planning efforts will need to be completed in a timely manner following adoption of the housing element. 58

Housing Element Update
Pipeline Development Activity
The City is currently processing a number of multi-family residential developments, which are in various stages of review, in advance of scheduling public hearing. The size/scale, unit type, and location of these projects are variable. Most are apartment rental developments, some are all affordable, and others include affordable units consistent with the City’s statutory minimum. While project locations do vary, a general trend is that these proposed developments are located within or directly adjacent to the City’s El Camino Real Transit Corridor.

Attachment A provides a snapshot of current development activity projects in the City, and includes 597 new housing units. Of these units, sixteen are for-sale townhomes and the rest are rental apartments, and a total of 226 units will be reserved as affordable to low-income households. The City of Belmont remains on track to meet our current fifth-cycle RHNA allocation for the total number of new housing units, and will continue to have a significant amount of new housing unit development in the next housing cycle.

Attachments
A. Current Housing Development Activity – November 2021 Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
☐ Funding Source Confirmed:

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Plan Implementation* Posting of Agenda
* Belmont General Plan Housing Element
59 Current Residential Development Activity in the City of Belmont City Council Meeting January 11, 2022
815 Old County Road
Description: 177 Residential Apartment Units;
15% (27 units) reserved as affordable housing
Applicant: Carmel Partners
Review Authority: Planning Commission
Status: Approved June 2021; Project grading
has commenced, Primary construction activity
anticipated Q1 2022
800-803 Belmont Avenue (at El Camino Real)
Description: 125 Affordable Residential Apartment Units Applicant: ROEM, Inc.

Review Authority: City Council
Anticipated Public Hearings: Jan/Feb 2022
CEQA Review: Draft EIR public review starting November
2021
Funding: In October 2022, this project was awarded
$9.25M from the San Mateo County Affordable Housing
Fund (AHF).
800 Laurel Avenue
Description: 16 Residential (For Sale)
Townhome Units; Includes Rezoning to Planned
Development (PD) District
Applicant: Galen Ma & Victor Lo for Sierra Investments
Review Authority: City Council
Status: Approved by PC October 2021, CC review scheduled 11/23/21
900 El Camino Real (at Hill Street)
Description: 37 Affordable Residential
Apartment Units
Applicant: LINC Housing
Review Authority: City Council
Anticipated Public Hearing Review: Spring 2022
Funding: County AHF $1.9M
60 608 Harbor Boulevard (at Old County Road)
Description: 103 Residential Apartments, 15%
(16 units) reserved as affordable housing
Includes Annexation from Unincorporated San
Mateo County Lands (Harbor Industrial
Area) Applicant: Windy Hill Corporation
Review Authority: City Council
Anticipated Public Hearing Review: Q1 2022
580 Masonic Way
Description: 139 Residential Apartments, 15%
(21 units) reserved as affordable housing
Applicant: Prometheus Real Estate Group
Review Authority: City Council
Anticipated Public Hearing Review: Q4 2022
Projects Currently Under Construction
Firehouse Square, 1300 El Camino Real
Description: Mixed Use
(Residential/Commercial) Project includes 66
Affordable Residential Apartments, 15 Market
Rate Townhouses and 3,750 square feet of
Commercial Space.

Applicant: Midpen Housing & Sares Regis
Group
1325 Old County Road
Description: Mixed Use
(Residential/Commercial), 250 Residential
Apartments, 15% Affordable (38 units) and
3,000 Sq. Ft. Commercial/Community Use Flex
Space
Applicant: Windy Hill
Residential Development Activity Summary:
 Total New Housing Units: 928
 Under Construction: 316
 Restricted Affordable Units: 330
61

Council Intergovernmental Assignments for 2022 - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 11, 2022
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Jozi Plut, City Clerk/Communications Coordinator, [email protected], 650-595- 7414
Agenda Title: Council Intergovernmental Assignments for Calendar Year 2022 Agenda Action: Discussion & Direction
Recommendation
The City Council should review and make changes to City Council Intergovernmental Assignments for calendar year 2022 as necessary.

Strategic Focus Area
Not Applicable
Background
City Councilmembers serve on various regional Intergovernmental Committees and Commissions and as delegates to local organizations representing the City of Belmont. Additionally, Councilmembers also serve on a number of City subcommittees. These assignments are reviewed and modified annually following the reorganization of the Council and/or the swearing in of new Councilmembers.

Analysis
Councilmembers are assigned to various County-wide Intergovernmental Committees and Joint Powers Boards. Some of these assignments are conducted by the Mayor and Vice Mayor, as noted on Attachment A. Votes for the City Selection Committee appointments are made by the Mayor or his or her delegate at meetings conducted by San Mateo County staff at the monthly Council of Cities meetings.

Assignments in Belmont have historically been made by consensus when individual Councilmembers express their interest, desire, and availability for the various agencies and committees. If more than one Councilmember is interested in an assignment, a vote can be taken to determine the assignment. Note that some assignments have two delegates, while others have a delegate plus an alternate.

The Council should review the list and determine if any changes are to be made in the various assignments.

The Council could also consider eliminating any subcommittees that are no longer active or necessary; likewise, it could add any additional subcommittees if appropriate.

Alternatives

1. Do not take action or defer action to a subsequent meeting.

Attachments
A. List of 2021 Assignments
62

Council Intergovernmental Assignments for 2022 - Staff Report Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
63 Committee Delegate/Rep Alternates Schedule Contact
2+2 Committee with Mid-Peninsula Water District
Stone
Hurt
n/a As Needed Public Works Diector
2+2+2 Committee
Discuss issues that affect the Elementary School

Stone
Mates
n/a As Needed City Manager
Audit Subcommittee Vice Mayor
McCune
Quarterly Finance Director
Barrett Community Center Committee Lieberman
Mates
n/a As Needed City Manager/P&R
Director
Belmont-SC Fire Dept JPA Lieberman Stone
As Needed City Manager
(C/CAG) City/County Association of Governments
Boards Congestion Management Agency Hurt Mates
Monthly
2nd Thursday, 7:00 p.m..
650-599-1406
City Selection Subcommittee Mayor
Vice Mayor
As Needed
Cross Country Course Subcommittee Hurt
Stone
n/a As Needed City Manager/P&R
Director
Economic Development Subcommittee Lieberman
Mates
n/a
As Needed City Manager
Four Corners Ad Hoc Committee
Addressing traffic/circulation at Alameda/San Carlos
A C l Hi h
Stone
Lieberman
n/a As Needed City Manager
Liaison Senior Citizen Advisory Committee Stone Hurt
Odd Months
4th Tuesday, 3:00 P.M.

Parks and Rec
Liaison to Belmont Chamber of Commerce Stone
Mates
3rd Thurs, noon,
Motel 6
Mary Morrissey-Parden
Notre Dame de Namur University Advisory Board Hurt Mates As Needed City Manager

COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL
ASSIGNMENTS-2021
64 Placemaking Subcommittee Hurt
Mates
n/a As Needed Com Dev
Public Safety Subcommittee Hurt
Mates
n/a As Needed City Manager/Police Chief
Short-Term Rentals Stone
Lieberman
n/a As Needed City Attorney
Silicon Valley Clean Water
JPA for Waste Treatment Lieberman Hurt
Monthly,
3rd Monday, 8:00 a.m.
650-591-7121
Youth Advisory Committee Stone
McCune n/a
As Needed Parks and Rec
San Mateo County Pre-Hospital Emergency Services
JPA Lieberman Stone
Quarterly City Manager
Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance
Traffic issues Hurt Stone
Even months 3rd
Thursday, 8 am
ABAG General Assembly Representative
Regional planning agency for land use, housing,
environmental quality, and economic development Mayor Vice Mayor April, November General
Assembly Meetings
Peninsula Division, League of CA Cities
State and local legislative issues
(All Councilmembers invited)
Mayor Vice Mayor
Quarterly dinner meetings League of CA Cities
San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control
District
Independent Special District, keeps database on
mosquito sources
Citizen Representative:

Wade Leschyn
Term expires 12/22
n/a
Monthly 2nd Tuesday,
7:30 pm
650-344-8592
San Mateo County Library JPA
Policy direction, oversee budget, services & library
programs
Stone Mates
Quarterly plus one
2nd Monday, 8:00 A.M.

Ann-Marie Despaine,
Library Director
SFO Roundtable
Issues include Noise, Runway Configurations McCune Hurt 1st Wednesday of Month
6 x yr, 7:00 p.m.

James Casteñeda
(650) 363-1853
Joint Powers Authorities/Intergovernmental Agnecies
65 San Mateo County Emergency Service Council
Disaster Preparedness
Hurt McCune
Quarterly
3rd Thursday, 5:30 p.m.,
Courthouse
Lt. Craig Denton
(650) 599-1295
Kathleen Pape (650) 363-
4790
San Mateo County
Council of Cities/City Selection Committee
Guest Speakers, current issues
(All Councilmembers invited) Mayor Vice Mayor
Monthly-Dinner meeting
4th Friday, 6:00 p.m.

Sukhmani Purewal (650) 363-
1802
[email protected]
Regional Housing Needs Policy Committee
Stone Hurt
As Needed Carlos de Melo
Sandy Wong, C/CAG
Housing and Regional Trust (HEART) Member
Agency Committee Mates Stone
2-3 annually,
3rd Wed, 7:30 a.m.

HEART Exec Director,
(650) 204-5640
Grand Boulevard
Mates Vacant
2-3 times annually Carlos de Melo
Cal Mod (Caltrain Modernization) (LMPG)
Mcune Hurt
Last Thurs of Month
6-8 pm
(650) 508-6493
SBWMA (South Bay Waste Management Authority
– “Rethink Waste”) Hurt Stone
4th Thursdays, 2:00 p.m.,
San Carlos Rethink Waste
(650)802-3510
Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE)
Mates Stone
4th Thursdays
6:30 p.m.

City Manager
Home For All Initiative
Mates Stone
As Needed City Manager
San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department
Lieberman Stone
Quarterly City Manager
Association of Bay Area Governments
Regional planning agency for land use, housing,
environmental quality, and economic development
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
Authority over all reorganizations & boundary
changes within County
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Works to reduce air contaminants within the District
THESE APPOINTMENTS ARE MADE BY THE CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE (Council of Cities):
66 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
Reviews applications for state & federal
transportation funds, maintains regional
transportation plan for Bay Area
Community Development Committee
Reviews the needs & priorities for Community
Development Block Grant funds received by the
County
San Mateo County Transit District (Samtrans)
Set District Policies
2020 Peninsula Gateway Corridor
Technical Advisory Committee
Policy Advisory Committee
Congestion Management Program and
Environmental Quality Committee (CMEQ)
addresses environmental issues
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Technical
Advisory Committee (NPDES)
THESE APPOINTMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH C/CAG:

Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Congestion Management Program Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC)
Legislative Committee
Integrated Waste management (SWAC) Utilities Sustainability Task Force (USTF) California Identification System (Cal-ID)
Determine the placement of Random Access Network
equipment within the County
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain)
Set policy for operation of Peninsula Commute
Service
Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight
Committee
Review Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Fund
expenditures
Domestic Violence Council
Evaluate efforts to reduce domestic violence, raise
public awareness and collect statistics
San Mateo County Transportation Authority
(SAMTAC) Implement Measure A
HEART (Housing Endowment and Regional Trust)
Board
67