RESOLUTION NO. 2022-_____
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT APPROVING
ON APPEAL A SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AT 1513 FOLGER DRIVE (APN: 044-351-040) (APPL.NO. 2021-0037) WHEREAS, Anna Felver, applicant, on behalf of Elizabeth Jana Lui and Matthew Salazar, property owners, requests approval of a Single-Family Design Review to construct a new 3,968 square foot single-family residence and a Tree Removal Permit to remove three protected trees at 1513 Folger Drive, and,
WHEREAS, public hearings were duly noticed, held, and closed on December 21, 2021 and June 21, 2022; and,
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Number 2022-26 to approve a Single Family Design Review and Tree Removal Permit for the subject property; and,
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2022, Mr. Yadong Yu, adjacent property owner at 1515 Folger Drive, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision; and, WHEREAS, the City Council public hearing on the appeal was duly noticed, held, and closed on September 27, 2022; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby relies upon the staff report dated September 27, 2022 and the facts contained therein, as they pertain to the project, as its own findings of facts, along with any additional findings of facts made by the City Council at the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth and as included in the record.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
The City Council finds the required Single Family Design Review findings, Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) Section 13A.5 (a-f), are made in the affirmative as follows:
Residential Design Review
The required Single-Family Design Review findings, Section 13A.5 (a-f) of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance, are made in the affirmative as follows:
(a) The buildings and structures shown on the site plan will be:
150
1) Designed to be compatible with any existing development on the site; 2) Located and designed to minimize disruptions of existing public views, and to protect the profile of prominent ridgelines.
Although the proposed structure would have a roof height of 28-feet, the project does not appear to disrupt any public views as assessed from Folger Drive and the surrounding streets. The proposal does not appear to disrupt the profile of any prominent ridgelines. This finding is affirmed. (b) The overall site and building plans will achieve an acceptable balance of the following factors:
1) building bulk,
2) grading, including:
A) disturbed surface area, and
B) total cubic yards, cut and fill.
3) The aesthetic impacts of hardscape as viewed from a public vantage point.
Building bulk
The new dwelling would be a two-story home and would not exceed the BZO maximum building height requirement of 28-feet. The building walls would be stepped back at varying distances and the design would feature a deck and alternating exterior materials to mitigate perceived structural massing. The residence would also be partially screened by tree coverage and landscaping, thus further mitigating perceived building bulk.
Grading/Hardscape
Extensive landscaping, artificial turf, and decorative stone pavers are proposed to replace the asphalt parking lot. Additionally, a basketball court, swimming pool, outdoor living space and play area are included within the project scope. Overall, these improvements represent a significant decrease in hardscape for the site. The amount of hardscape proposed is appropriate for the site and would not be excessive as viewed from a public vantage point.
An estimated 72 cubic yards of cut is proposed; however, the volume of cut would remain and be repurposed on-site.
All three factors (building bulk, grading, and hardscape) appear to be appropriately addressed in the building design and site/groundwork to achieve an acceptable, complementary balance for the project. This finding is affirmed.
(c) All proposed accessory and support features, including driveway and parking surfaces, underfloor areas, retaining walls, utility services and other accessory structures will be integrated into the overall project design.
The project includes the removal of one of the two existing driveways and the addition of a swimming pool and spa in the rear yard. The driveway would be replaced with landscaping, artificial turf, and offset stone pavers providing access to the primary entry of the home. The 151
remaining driveway would allow access to the garage and provide the surface for the basketball court and required uncovered parking for the dwelling.
There is an existing 5 – 15-foot stone retaining wall along the north (rear) and east (right) property lines that exhibits significant signs of distress, cracking, outward rotation, and water seepage that would be replaced. The installation of new utilities (i.e., sewer connection, gas, electricity, etc.) to serve the dwelling would be governed by standard conditions of approval. This finding is affirmed. (d) The proposed landscape plan will incorporate:
1) Native plants appropriate to the site’s environmental setting and microclimate, and 2) Appropriate landscape screening of proposed accessory and support structures.
The property is currently landscaped with trees, shrubbery, and natural grasses along the perimeter of the site. The applicant has proposed extensive new landscaping and surface textures to break up the existing asphalt parking lot. Three protected trees have been proposed for removal due to their proximity to the proposed improvements. A condition of approval would require the project to be reviewed by Mid-Peninsula Water District prior to issuance of a building permit. This finding is affirmed.
(e) The project will be in substantial compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines and Residential Design Criteria as applicable.
The project incorporates the standard of Prescribed Articulation from the Residential Design Criteria to address the building bulk at all applicable elevations. The proposed building facades appear well-articulated at each elevation. The home would be broadly articulated by a combination of varying rooflines and building walls that would be offset at varying distances to help break up the building mass. As such, the proposed building bulk is in compliance with the City’s Residential Design Criteria standards.
The applicant has made significant efforts to ensure the proposed addition would be substantially compliant with the Residential Design Guidelines. The project would maintain a consistent contemporary architectural theme and avoid mixing features of different styles, as dictated by Guideline A-1. In accordance with Guideline A-4, the design uses multiple architectural features to create visual appeal on the front façade. The proposal would also comply with Guideline B-1 by avoiding flat two-story building walls, increasing the stepbacks of upper stories, and including varying rooflines. Furthermore, the project incorporates new landscaping to compliment the building architecture and mitigate building bulk as recommended by Guideline D-2 and minimizes the aesthetic impacts of hardscape by incorporating different surface treatments. As such, the proposal is substantially compliant with the Residential Design Guidelines.
Both the Residential Design Criteria and Residential Design Guidelines have been adequately addressed by the proposed design. This finding is affirmed. (f) City staff and consultants have provided technical review and conditions of approval have been adopted, as applicable, regarding project-related grading, drainage, storm-water 152
runoff, vehicular and pedestrian access, site stability, structural encroachments, and construction impacts.
As part of the project review process, the City’s Department of Public Works, Fire Department, Police Department, and Community Development Department (Planning and Building Divisions) have compiled a list of project-specific conditions of approval which would be required during construction. All construction would be completed in compliance with the California Building Code and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards as administered by the City of Belmont. This finding is affirmed.
Tree Removal Permit
The requisite Tree Removal findings, (Chapter 25-7 (b)-(c) of the Belmont City Code), are made in the affirmative as follows:
b) “The reviewing authority shall issue a permit to remove the following trees without consideration of the criteria in subsection (c):
(1) Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus);
(2) Dwarf Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus ‘Compacta’); (3) Monterey Pine;
(4) Palm (all species);
(5) Acacia (all species);
(6) a dead tree (any species); and
(7) Any tree that a public utility is required to remove under California Public Utility Commission regulations.”
The applicant has requested Tree Removal Permit approval for three protected trees. The subject removals are Coast Live Oak, Southern Magnolia and Bottle Brush trees, two species that do not fall on the above list. Chapter 25-7 (c) of the Belmont City Code dictates that trees that do not fall on the list shall be considered under the following criteria for permit determination:
(1) Criteria Supporting Removal (2) Criteria Supporting Retention 153
(A) The tree is: (i) in poor condition; (ii) at the relative end of its life span of the particular species; (iii)
diseased or infested beyond reasonable remediation;
(iv) has poor structural integrity; (v) is in danger of falling; or, (vi) poses a safety hazard.
(B) The particular tree species is undesirable due to
characteristics such as invasiveness, tendency toward
limb failure, and fire hazard.
(C) The tree is damaging or interfering with existing
structures, site improvements, or utility services.
(D) Removal of the tree is needed in order to construct improvements or otherwise allow conforming use of
the property.
(E) Proximity of the tree to existing or proposed
structures.
(A) The tree is located outside the
developable area of the property.
(B) The tree and its location contribute
substantially to the aesthetic appeal of
the property or the neighborhood.
(C) The effect of the requested tree
removal on the remaining number,
species, size and location of existing
trees on the site and in the area,
including trees mutually dependent on
each other for survival, structural
integrity or aesthetics.
Based upon the project plans and arborist’s report submitted for the property, the subject trees are recommended for removal due to their proximity to the proposed site improvements. As such, the proposal strongly aligns with Criteria A, D and E supporting removal. It is possible that the trees contribute some aesthetic value to the property, as referred to in Criteria B supporting retention, but given their suboptimal locations, they are unlikely to contribute much aesthetic value as seen from a public vantage point. The proposal includes new landscaping that would improve the aesthetics of the subject site. Therefore, the criteria supporting tree removal outweigh the criteria supporting retention.
The City Council has considered the applicant’s request for a Tree Removal Permit and finds that the project meets the Criteria for Permit Determination in Chapter 25-7 (c) of the City of Belmont Municipal Code. This finding is affirmed.
SECTION 2. DETERMINATION
The City Council approves the application for Single-Family Design Review to construct a new 3,968 square foot single-family residence, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove three protected trees subject to the attached conditions in Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed new single-family home is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by provision of Section 15301, Class 3 (a):
154
“One single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.”
The applicant has proposed to construct a new single-family residence. Therefore, the proposal meets the requirements for CEQA exemption.
* * *
ADOPTED September 27, 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
155
1513 Folger Dr - Staff Report
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 27, 2022
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Tim Shek, Associate Planner
Agenda Title: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Application No. 2021-0037 for a Single Family Design Review (SFDR) and Tree Removal Permit at 1513 Folger Drive (CEQA Exemption: Section 15301)
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution either (1) approving Application No. 2021-0037 for the Single Family Design Review (SFDR) and Tree Removal Permit for 1513 Folger Drive (staff’s recommendation) or (2) denying the application.
Strategic Focus Area
Not Applicable
Background
At their December 21, 2021 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a Single-Family Design Review (SFDR) to construct a new 3,975 square foot single-family residence, and Tree Removal Permit to remove six protected trees at 1513 Folger Drive, which resulted in a vote (4-0, with three Commissioners absent) to continue the application for redesign. The Commissioners expressed concerns with the proposed building bulk, the potential impact on public views, and the removal of three protected trees for a potential future Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) that would not be within the scope of the Planning Commission’s review.
At their June 21, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2022-0037, by a 4-0 vote (three Commissioners absent) approving the redesigned 3,968 square foot residence and Tree Removal Permit to remove three protected trees based off the project modifications below:
• The proposed dwelling was redesigned to reduce the overall perceived building bulk with changes made to the rooflines, exterior materials, and colors.
• The number of protected trees proposed for removal was reduced from six to three, all within the proximity of the proposed dwelling under review.
• The applicant submitted perspective drawings to provide a better understanding of the proposed dwelling in context to the site and surrounding properties to illustrate that public views would be minimally impacted. The applicant has also included a written description of the site context and a summary of the design revisions (see Attachment C).
On July 1, 2022, Yadong Yu, adjacent property owner at 1515 Folger Drive, submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission decision (see Attachment B).
156
1513 Folger Dr - Staff Report
Discussion
Belmont’s Ordinances Regarding Single Family & Duplex Residential Design Review Entitlements Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 13A provides:
13A.1 PURPOSE – The regulations in Section 13A establish standards that allow residential property owners to develop their property while ensuring that the development is in harmony with and preserves the City’s tranquil, safe and desirable neighborhoods. These regulations, as augmented by the Residential Design Guidelines, together with Section 4 are intended to provide a predictable and consistent framework for review of residential projects.
In rendering its decision pursuant to Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 13A, the Planning Commission must consider all testimony offered and grant a Single Family Design Review and Tree Removal Permit only when it finds evidence to support the required findings of Section 13A.5 (a-f) of the Zoning Ordinance1. Each of the findings must be made in the affirmative if the Single Family Design Review and Tree Removal Permit are to be granted.
1 13A.5 STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL. The reviewing authority may approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application for residential design review. The reviewing body may approve or conditionally approve a residential design review if it makes the following findings:
(a) The buildings and structures shown on the site plan will be:
(1) Designed to be compatible with any existing development on the site; (2) Located and designed to minimize disruptions of existing public views, and to protect the profile of prominentridgelines.
(b) The overall site and building plans will achieve an acceptable balance of the following factors:
(1) building bulk,
(2) grading, including
(A) disturbed surface area, and
(B) total cubic yards, cut and fill.
(3) The aesthetic impacts of hardscape as viewed from a public vantage point. (c) All proposed accessory and support features, including driveway and parking surfaces, underfloor areas, retaining walls, utility services and other accessory structures will be integrated into the overall project design.
(d) The proposed landscape plan will incorporate:
(1) Native plants appropriate to the site’s environmental setting and microclimate, and (2) Appropriate landscape screening of proposed accessory and support structures. (e) The project will be in substantial compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines and Residential Design Criteria as applicable.
(f) City staff and consultants have provided technical review and conditions of approval are included, as applicable, regarding project-related grading, drainage, storm-water runoff, vehicular and pedestrian access, site stability, structural encroachments, and construction impacts. 157
1513 Folger Dr - Staff Report
Planning Commission Action
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission conclusively determined that it could make all of the findings required by Section 13A.5 (See Attachment D – Planning Commission Resolution 2022-26 and 6/21/2022 Draft Meeting Minutes)
Belmont’s Ordinance Regarding Appeals
10.11.5 Consideration of Appeal
(a) When a timely and complete notice of appeal is filed, the Zoning Administrator shall schedule the matter for consideration by the appeal body and prepare a report on the matter. (b) Appealed matters are considered de novo by the appeal body. The appeal body shall follow the same notice and determination procedures that govern the lesser approval authority’s action on the entitlement, and any other procedures required by law. (c) The appellant must deliver to the Zoning Administrator all written materials that he or she wishes the appeal body to consider no later than 5 business days before the meeting at which the appeal is first considered. The appellant may supplement these materials with additional written materials to rebut any written information first provided to appeal body after or less than 24 hours before Appellant submitted his or her initial materials. The appeal body may extend or waive the timing requirements in this paragraph for good cause. The appeal body shall continue the meeting and the hearing of evidence as necessary for due process.
When an administrative zoning entitlement is appealed to the City Council, the Council conducts a new determination process. The new determination process includes the Council conducting a new public hearing to receive evidence, making its own independent findings of fact from the evidence presented at the hearing and in the record, applying the findings of facts to the existing regulations and making a determination on the matter based on those findings and existing regulations.
Analysis
Proposed New Dwelling
The proposed new two-story home would have four-bedrooms and four-and-a-half-bathrooms. The 2,080 square foot ground floor consists of a two-car garage, a bedroom, one-and-a-half bathrooms, a living and dining room, kitchen, study, and playroom. The proposed 1,359 square foot second floor consists of a master suite, two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The residence would be compliant with all relevant floor area ratio, setback, parking, and height limit standards.
Exterior Materials/Colors
The proposed contemporary residence would be finished in white batten board and black trim with a slate gray composite shingle roof, accented with varying stone veneer, horizontal cedar, and dark gray siding. 158
1513 Folger Dr - Staff Report
Landscaping and Groundwork
Extensive landscaping, artificial turf, and decorative stone pavers are proposed to replace the asphalt parking lot. Additionally, a basketball court, swimming pool, outdoor living space and play area are included within the project scope. As noted earlier, three protected trees are proposed for removal.
There is an existing 5 – 15-foot stone retaining wall along the north (rear) and east (right) property lines that exhibits significant signs of distress, cracking, outward rotation, and water seepage that has been recommended for replacement by the project engineers.
Minor clearing and grading are required for the site groundwork as the addition would have minimal impact on the ground area.
PROJECT DATA
Criteria Existing Proposed
Home
Required Development
Standards
Lot Size 13,169 sq. ft. No Change No Change
Slope 12% No Change No Change
FAR N/A .302 Max .525
Square Footage N/A 3,968 sq. ft. Max 3,975 sq. ft.
Parking N/A Two-car garage;
Two uncovered
Min two-car garage;
Two uncovered
Setbacks:
Front N/A 20’ Min 20’
Side (right) N/A 20’9” Min 15% of lot width
Side (left) N/A 20’9” Min 15% of lot width
Rear N/A 25’ Min 25’
Driveway length N/A Approx. 40’ Min 18’
Height N/A 27’11” Max 28’
ZONING CONFORMANCE
The proposed new home meets all applicable setback, height, parking, and permitted use regulations of the R-1B zoning district.
Residential Design Guidelines
The applicant has made significant efforts to ensure the proposed new dwelling would be more substantially compliant with the Residential Design Guidelines than the previous design. The project would maintain a consistent contemporary architectural theme and avoid mixing features of different styles, as dictated by Guideline A-1. In accordance with Guideline A-4, the design uses multiple architectural features to create visual appeal on the front façade. The proposal addresses Guideline B-1 by avoiding flat two-story building walls, increasing the step-backs of upper stories, and including varying rooflines. Furthermore, the project incorporates new landscaping to compliment the building architecture and mitigate building bulk as recommended by Guideline D-2 and seeks to minimize the aesthetic impacts 159
1513 Folger Dr - Staff Report
of hardscape by incorporating different surface treatments. As such, staff concludes that the Council may reasonably determine the proposal is substantially compliant with the Residential Design Guidelines.
Residential Design Criteria
The project incorporates the standard of Prescribed Articulation from the Residential Design Criteria to address the building bulk at all applicable elevations. The proposed building facades appear wellarticulated at each elevation. The home would be broadly articulated by a combination of varying rooflines and building walls that would be offset at varying distances to help break up the building mass. As such, staff concludes that the Council may reasonably determine the proposed building bulk is in compliance with the City’s Residential Design Criteria standards.
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed new residence does not change the intended land use of the site. The proposal is in conformance with the Low Density Residential General Plan designation.
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH
The applicant performed neighborhood outreach as detailed in the Neighborhood Outreach Materials (See Attachment F). The applicant reported mailing out copies of the plans and a description of the project to all neighbors within a 300-foot radius of the property, inviting any feedback or questions that neighbors might present in a virtual meeting. According to the applicant, thirteen people attended, and all were supportive of the project except for one neighbor who does not support construction of any new homes in the area. One neighbor who attended was supportive however has several concerns that are detailed in Attachment F. As such, the outreach requirements appear to have been met.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEQA)
The proposed new single-family home is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by provision of Section 15301, Class 3 (a):
“One single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.” The applicant has proposed to construct a new single-family residence. Therefore, the proposal meets the requirements for CEQA exemption.
Alternatives
1. Direct staff to prepare a resolution based on findings provided by the City Council to deny the Single Family Design Review and Tree Removal Permit to allow construction of a new single family dwelling for the property located at 1513 Folger Drive.
2. Continue the matter and direct staff to prepare an alternative course of action.
Attachments
A. City Council Resolution Approving the Single Family Design Review and Tree Removal Permit, 160
1513 Folger Dr - Staff Report
B. Appeal Application – 7/1/2022
C. Applicant’s Site Context and Design Revisions
D. Planning Commission Resolution 2022-26 Approving the Single Family Design Review and Tree Removal Permit, and Meeting Minutes
E. Project Plans & Materials
F. Neighborhood Outreach Summary
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:
Applicant has paid all applicable fees through the current application status, and will be charged other fees as applicable should the project be approved and advances to construction permitting phase.
Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:
Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
161
Appointment to Parks and Recreation Commission Non-Voting Seat - Staff Report
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 27, 2022
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Jozi Plut, City Clerk/Communications Coordinator, [email protected], 650-595- 7414
Agenda Title: Appointment to a Vacant Parks and Recreation Commission Non-Voting Seat Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt resolutions appointing one member to a vacant Parks and Recreation Commission non-voting seat and determine appointment period.
Strategic Focus Area
Not Applicable
Background
During the months of December 2021 and January 2022, the City of Belmont held a recruitment for applicants to fill open positions on the Planning, and Parks and Recreation Commissions for appointment periods through February 2023. The City has an open recruitment for two Youth Commission seats; however, no applications were received prior to the March 2022 appointments. Under Belmont City Code Section 2-162, appointment periods end on the last day of February of a given year though appointees remain in office until they resign their appointment in writing, their appointment is declared vacated, or a replacement is appointed and has taken the oath of office. The appointment period is typically one year for youth members under BCC Section 2-166(b)(2).
Analysis
The City has since received one application for the non-voting Park and Recreation seat. The City Council held a panel interview of the applicant on September 19, 2022 to fill the following position:
Parks and Recreation Non-Voting Seat Term ending in February 2023:
Applicant: Edward Kogan
In order to fill one vacant position, the City Council is requested to adopt a resolution appointing one member to the Parks and Recreation Commission non-voting vacancies.
Alternatives
1. The City Council could choose to leave the positions vacant at this time.
2. The Council could choose to make the appointment for the duration of the current appointment cycle or extend the appointment to March of 2024.
3. Take no action.
162
Appointment to Parks and Recreation Commission Non-Voting Seat - Staff Report – P&R non-voting Commission Seat Appointment Attachments
A. Resolution
Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
☐ Funding Source Confirmed:
Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:
Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda 163
Non Voting Member P&R Commission
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 –
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT
APPOINTING A MEMBER TO ONE VACANT PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION NON-VOTING SEAT
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission includes two non-voting commission seats; and,
WHEREAS, the City has an ongoing recruitment for the two non-voting seats; and, WHEREAS, the City received one application and the City Council interviewed the candidate.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows: that the following resident is hereby appointed as non-voting member of the Belmont Parks & Recreation Commission for an appointment period from______ through _______. ________________________
* * *
ADOPTED September 27, 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
164
Affordable Housing Loan
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 27, 2022
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Jennifer Rose, Housing and Economic Development Manager Agenda Title: Affordable Housing Funds Loan Request for 800-803 Belmont Avenue Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and enter into a loan funding agreement with ROEM Development Corporation to provide up to $2.5 million of Belmont affordable housing funds for construction of a 125-unit affordable housing project at 800-803 Belmont Avenue.
Strategic Focus Area
Economic Development and Housing
Background
On May 10, 2022, the City Council approved ROEM Development Corporation’s (ROEM) application for development of a 125-unit affordable housing project located at 800-803 Belmont Avenue. The project entitlements included a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Grading Plan, Affordable Housing Plan, Density Bonus, and Tree Removal Permit.
The approved project includes the demolition of the existing Bel-Mateo Motel and the construction of a new multi-family residential structure. The site is situated on two parcels approximately 1.46-acres in size, located less than one-half (0.5) mile from the Belmont Caltrain station. Onsite project amenities will include but are not limited to the following: 6,500 square-foot outdoor recreation area, fitness center; resident club room; homework/computer room; resident services office; and a children’s play structure.
There are 152 parking spaces proposed within three levels of at grade parking in an enclosed garage.
The approved affordable housing plan for the project includes a range of unit sizes and affordability levels, as summarized below:
Unit Type 30% AMI 50% AMI 70% AMI Subtotal Percent
One-Bedroom 19 16 17 52 42%
Two-Bedroom 4 3 33 40 32%
Three-Bedroom 3 3 26 33* 26%
Total 26 22 76 125
*Includes one unrestricted manager’s unit.
165
Affordable Housing Loan
The project financing plan submitted by ROEM includes a combination of local, County, and State tax credit financing. ROEM was awarded $9.5 million from the San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund (AHF), and is currently applying for an additional $10 million in the AHF 10.0 cycle. ROEM’s project financing plan includes requesting a loan of $2.5 million from the City of Belmont Affordable Housing Fund (funding request letter provided as Attachment A).
Analysis
Housing Needs Analysis
The ROEM affordable housing project will provide low, very-low, and extremely low-income units that would contribute towards Belmont’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The table below shows how the ROEM project would impact Belmont’s RHNA compliance for the 2015-2023 planning period:
Belmont 2015-2023 Regional Housing Needs Allocation:
Income Level RHNA 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 ROEM* Total Units (w/ Project)
Very Low 116 22 64 86
Low 63 44 38 61 143
Moderate 67 4 9 12 11 12 48
Above Mod. 222 7 7 109 6 9 218 356
Total Units 468 7 7 113 15 12 86 268 125 633
*The RHNA table is populated to show total number of units that have received a building permit in each calendar year; the ROEM project is still working on obtaining building permits, but the units are shown here to demonstrate the impact this project would have on Belmont’s housing production.
Provision of lower-income units is critically important to meet housing needs and to support various special needs housing populations in Belmont that often face challenges such as overcrowding and cost burdened households (i.e. paying more than 30-50% of income on housing costs). Development of lowerincome units also typically requires larger public subsidies from a variety of funding sources.
Affordable Housing Funding Analysis
The City collects affordable housing funds primarily from two sources.
1. Affordable Housing Mitigation Fees:
Housing mitigation fees includes both the Commercial Linkage Fee (non-residential projects) and the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee (residential projects). In 2021, the City updated the housing mitigation fees to ensure new development is providing a fair share of funding needed to mitigate impacts on availability of affordable housing to serve new growth and development activity. These fees provide a small but steady stream of funding that must be used to develop or rehabilitate new affordable housing units.
166
Affordable Housing Loan
2. Sale of Housing Successor Agency Real Property Assets:
The City recently sold three real-property assets that were acquired by the former Belmont Redevelopment Agency using Low-Moderate Income (LMI) housing set-aside funds. The properties included one single-family home, one condominium unit (both formerly used as affordable rental units), and the sale of land for phase two of the Firehouse Square project (marketrate townhomes). Under the City’s Housing Replacement Plan, all proceeds from sale of LMI real-property assets are to be used to help build replacement affordable housing units in Belmont.
The use of the proceeds generated by the sale of LMI housing assets is largely controlled by the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1, which requires that LMI funds be spent only on extremely-low, very-low, and low-income housing (no moderate income or market rate housing).
A review of City housing fund balances confirms that Belmont has sufficient funding available to meet the current request from ROEM for a loan of $2.5 million, while still retaining fund balance that could be used for other affordable housing projects in the pipeline. The loan would be structured to be repaid using residual receipts, a common financing method used to facilitate low-income housing development. The loan would be repaid over the project affordability term, typically 55-years minimum.
Projects applying for competitive Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) are typically eligible to receive additional scoring points during the application review process when local and regional funding sources are included as part of the total project financing plan. Providing this project with Belmont affordable housing funds, in addition to the San Mateo County affordable housing funds, offers this project a competitive advantage to obtain other critical financing through the State.
Other Project Funding Terms
In addition to the request for a loan of affordable housing funds, the ROEM written request includes two additional terms for Council consideration.
Complimentary Funding Sources
The project funding awarded from the San Mateo County affordable housing fund includes a condition of funding approval requiring the project host jurisdiction (in this case, the City of Belmont) to provide one of the following to the project:
• Allocation of State, Local or Regional Housing Trust Funds; or • Contribution of City funding;
• Provision of cost-saving measure, including but not limited to fee reductions/waivers, by-right zoning, density bonus, parking reductions.
City Council support of the requested $2.5 million loan of Belmont affordable housing funds to the project would comply with the second bullet above. Additionally, in May 2022 the City Council approved a project density bonus pursuant to Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 5A.1.7, which would satisfy the third bullet listed above. The City is able to comply with the terms of funding approval required by San Mateo County for this project.
167
Affordable Housing Loan
Local Development Impact Fees
The funding request letter also includes a request by the developer for assurance that the County and City fees will be limited to no more than $18,000 per unit, or a total of $2.25 million. While Belmont cannot analyze fees assessed by San Mateo County for development projects, a brief review of applicable Belmont development fees indicates that the project would not exceed $18,000 per unit. The following is a summary of development fees applicable to the project:
• Park Impact Fee: $1,150,000
• Transportation Impact Fee: $718,000
• Public Art In Lieu Fee: Exempt (Affordable Housing)
• Housing Impact Fee: N/A (units provided on-site)
The resulting cost per-unit of development fees is $14,944 per unit. Staff believes that the project, as approved, would meet this requested financing term, but notes that all final project fees are confirmed during the building permit review process.
Funding Resolution
Approval of the attached resolution would authorize the City Manager to negotiate and enter into a loan funding agreement to provide up to $2.5 million of Belmont affordable housing funds for development of a 125-unit affordable housing project at 800-803 Belmont Avenue. In supporting the funding request, the City finds that:
The project provides lower-income housing units that are needed to help the City comply with its regional housing needs allocation (RHNA).
The City has affordable housing funds available to loan to the developer, and is required to spend those funds on low, very-low, or extremely low income housing in accordance with State law. Provision of local funding provides the project with a competitive advantage when applying for other affordable housing funding sources from the State.
Alternatives
1. Take no action; no funding approved.
2. Provide alternative funding proposal.
Attachments
A. Developer Funding Request Letter
B. Resolution
168
Affordable Housing Loan
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source
Confirmed:
The City has sufficient funding available in the Affordable Fund (275) and the Inclusionary Housing Fund (277) to provide an affordable housing loan to ROEM; however, the Council must authorize an appropriation in the FY 2023 budget to provide the requested loan. The attached resolution authorizes the following budget appropriations:
Affordable Housing Fund: 275-5-902-8589: $2,335,000
Inclusionary Housing Fund: 277-5-902-8589: $165,000
Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:
Staff Council Vision/Priority Posting of Agenda
169
170
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO A
LOAN FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH ROEM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TO PROVIDE UP TO $2.5 MILLION OF BELMONT AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 125-UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AT 800-803 BELMONT AVENUE
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolutions 2022-43 to 2022- 045 approving several entitlements requested by ROEM Development Corporation (ROEM) for development of a 125-unit affordable housing project located at 800-803 Belmont Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Plan for the project includes a range of unit sizes and affordability levels, with 26 units reserved for households making 30% of less of area median income, 22 units reserved for households making 50% or less of area median income, 76 units reserved for households earning 70% or less area median income, and one unrestricted manager’s unit, helping Belmont meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for provision of very-low and low-income housing units; and, WHEREAS, Belmont has been collecting Affordable Housing Mitigation Fees, including a commercial linkage fee for non-residential development, and an affordable housing in-lieu fee for residential development, for the purpose of funding the construction or rehabilitation of new affordable housing units within the City of Belmont; and, WHEREAS, the City, in its capacity as the Housing Successor to the former Belmont Redevelopment Agency, has recently disposed of certain real property assets that were acquired with low-moderate income housing tax increment set-aside funds, and that the City now intends to utilize the proceeds to fund construction of replacement affordable housing units reserved for low and very-low income households pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1; and,
WHEREAS, the City acknowledges that contribution of local affordable housing funds is an important part of a comprehensive project financing strategy that also includes San Mateo County Affordable Housing Funds and State low income housing tax credits (LIHTC); and, WHEREAS, the Belmont General Plan Housing Element 2015-2023 includes Program
2.1 “Affordable Housing Development”, which directs the City to leverage various financial resources – including sale of low-moderate income housing assets of the Housing Successor and adoption of Housing Mitigation Fees – to provide financial assistance to affordable housing projects in Belmont that provide extremely-low, very-low, and low-income housing units; and,
WHEREAS, the project developer, ROEM Development Corporation, is a successful and fully integrated affordable housing development company that has demonstrated the professional capacity to plan, build and manage large affordable housing projects; and, 171
WHEREAS, ROEM Development Corporation has submitted a request to the City for a loan of $2.5 million of Affordable Housing Funds that will be repaid during the project affordability term through residual receipts; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council supports the 125-unit affordable housing project and desires to see construction of more affordable housing units in Belmont.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Manager is authorized to negotiate and execute a loan funding agreement with ROEM Development Corporation for an amount not to exceed $2.5 million for construction of a 125-unit affordable housing project at 800-803 Belmont Avenue. The loan shall be repaid over the affordability term of the project from project residual receipts.
SECTION 2. A fiscal year 2023 budget appropriation is authorized to provide a multifamily housing loan of up to $2.5 million in affordable housing funds to ROEM Development Corporation. The source of loan funds shall be approximately$165,000 from the Inclusionary Housing Fund (277-5-902-8589) and approximately $2,335,000 from the Affordable Housing Fund (275-5-902-8589).
* * *
ADOPTED September 27, 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
172