Belmont City Council
January 30, 2023

CITY OF BELMONT

CITY COUNCIL AND BELMONT FIRE

PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF

DIRECTORS
www.belmont.gov

1. ROLL CALL

2. ITEMS OF BUSINESS

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Monday, January 30, 2023
12:45 PM
City Council Chambers
City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California

TELECONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS
Some Members may Participate Virtually
Being held under Gov. Code 54953(e)
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://belmont-gov.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.

Persons wishing to orally address the Council on the items of business listed below will be given an opportunity to do so before or during the Councils consideration of the item. 1 3. CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Govt. Code Section 54957.6) Agency designated representative: Afshin Oskoui, City Manager, Employee Organization American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 829

4. CONSENT BUSINESS

5. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Housing Element 2023-2031 Adoption and Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report

6. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Service Agreement with Good City Company for Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

7. ADJOURNMENT
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 items to be removed for separate action. The City Attorney will read the title of ordinances to be adopted.

Recommendation: 1) Consider Planning Commission recommendations. 2) Adopt a resolution certifying the Final EIR for the Housing Element 2023-2031 update to the City of Belmont 2035 General Plan as adequate and complete in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing Guidelines, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project.
3) Adopt a resolution amending the General Plan Housing Element.

Planning Commission Recommendation: The Belmont Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 17, 2023 and adopted resolutions recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR and adopt the General Plan Housing Element 2023-2031.

Attachment(s):

Staff Report
CEQA Resolution with Exhibits
Housing Element Resolution with Exhibits
HCD Comment Letter 11.22.22
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.

Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Services Agreement with the Good City Company for preparation of the Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Resolution
Belmont HIA Specific Plan Proposal
If you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 595-7413.

Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure 2 accessibility to this meeting. Meeting information can also be accessed via the internet at: www.belmont.gov.

All staf 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 Of ice, One Twin Pines Lane, during normal business hours and at the Council Chambers at City Hall, Second Floor, during the meeting. 3

01. Housing Element - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 30, 2023
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Jennifer Rose, Housing, Economic Development, and Finance Manager; [email protected]
Agenda Title: Housing Element 2023-2031 Adoption and Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
1) Consider Planning Commission recommendations.
2) Adopt a resolution certifying the Final EIR for the Housing Element 2023-2031 update to the City of Belmont 2035 General Plan as adequate and complete in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing Guidelines, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project.
3) Adopt a resolution amending the General Plan Housing Element.

Strategic Focus Area
Economic Development and Housing
Background
Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. State law requires California’s local governments to adopt a housing element as part of their “general plan” that demonstrates how the local government will meet state mandated housing planning requirements. The Belmont General Plan 2035, last comprehensively updated in 2017, serves as a local "blueprint" for how Belmont will grow and develop and includes the following required elements: land use; housing; circulation; parks, recreation and open space; conservation; safety; and noise.

The Housing Element must be updated on a regular schedule and is subject to specific regulatory requirements and process established by the state Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580-65589.11). Belmont’s Housing Element was last updated/adopted in 2015 as part of the Housing Element Law’s 5th housing element planning cycle covering the period from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2022. The 6th housing element planning cycle covers the period from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2030. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) must review and certify that each jurisdiction’s housing element meets all the requirements of the law.

The City of Belmont began the process of updating the Housing Element two years ago, retaining both a Housing Element project manager to work on the housing sites inventory, and an environmental consulting firm to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to CEQA. Belmont has also been fortunate to collaborate with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County through the 21 Elements regional 4

Housing Element
collaborative, which has provided robust community outreach and engagement activities, collaboration with regional housing advocates and stakeholders, and technical expertise for compliance with some of the new and more challenging Housing Element components required for this update.

A 45-day public review and comment period for the draft Housing Element 2023-2031 and Draft EIR was commenced June 30, 2022, and concluded August 15, 2022. During the public comment period, the Planning Commission held a meeting on July 19th, and the City Council held a meeting on July 26th to review the draft Housing Element and the Draft EIR and receive public comments. Both the Planning Commission and City Council directed staff to make revisions to the Housing Sites Inventory, including removal of sites zoned SC Service Commercial and elimination of a proposed zoning amendment to increase height in the CMU Corridor Mixed Use and VCS Village Station Core zoning districts. The updated Housing Element maintains these revisions approved by the Commission and Council. The July 2022 City Council staff report provides a good summary and analysis of the zoning amendments that were considered for this housing element cycle, and the revisions requested by the City Council.

Belmont submitted the draft Housing Element 2023-2031 to the HCD on August 24, 2022. HCD completed a 90-day review of the draft housing element and provided a detailed comment letter to the City on November 22, 2022. Since November, staff has been working to revise the draft housing element to respond to questions and comments raised by HCD during their review. The City team has also been drafting the Final EIR, including responses to comments received during the public comment period.

The City’s housing element website (www.belmont.gov/housingelement) has been updated to include the January 2023 revised Housing Element 2023-2031, as well as the Final EIR. The August 2022 HCD draft Housing Element and Draft EIR are also still available for reference.

The Belmont Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 17, 2023 to consider the revised Housing Element and Final EIR. After receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR and adopt the Housing Element 2023- 2031. The Planning Commission also approved some minor clean-up revisions to the housing element appendices.

Analysis
This analysis below provides a high-level summary of revisions that have been made to the housing element since Planning Commission and City Council review in July 2022, and submittal to HCD in August 2022.

The revised Housing Element was released for public review beginning on January 12, 2023. And the documents are presented with tracked changes to clearly identify where revisions have been made since August 2022. To help guide review of the redlined documents, staff has also prepared an HCD Response exhibit, which is attached to the housing element resolution (Attachment B). The HCD Response exhibit includes specific appendix and page references indicating where revisions were made in response to each HCD comment. The HCD Comment letter is also included as Attachment C.

Housing Needs Assessment – Appendix A
Overall Belmont did not receive many substantive comments on the Housing Needs Assessment, which analyzes demographic and housing trends and conditions in both Belmont and all of San Mateo County.

This section was revised to include supplemental data showing housing cost burden by tenure and income category which reveals the extent to which lower income groups, especially renters, pay too much for 5

Housing Element
housing costs. The City also added an assessment and quantification of housing rehabilitation needs, including input from the Belmont code enforcement officer on recent trends in code enforcement activity and overall condition of housing stock in Belmont. The state income limits were updated to reflect 2022 data and the City pointed HCD to previously provided needs analysis of extremely low-income households, including data on housing tenure and rates of overpayment.

Housing Constraints Analysis – Appendix B
The Housing Constraints section analyzes existing and potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the cost and supply of providing housing and requires agencies to identify actions to mitigate or remove housing constraints. A majority of the revisions requested by HCD on housing constraints include additional analysis or discussion of potential governmental constraints such as land use controls and zoning, parking requirements, development fees and other local development costs, on and off-site improvement requirements, and the local development review process—especially the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit to allow multi-family housing on the ground floor in the CMU district. Government regulations and fees have potential to constrain housing development.

During the last two housing element cycles, the City has made significant modifications and updates to planning and regulatory documents, including a comprehensive General Plan update, adopting the new Belmont Village Specific Plan and Corridor Mixed Use zoning district, and updated residential design guidelines. The City does not believe that local development standards preclude projects from achieving full development capacity, as demonstrated by the current pipeline of housing development projects; however, it is important to continue to monitor development standards that have potential to detrimentally impact the cost and supply of new housing, and the ability for developers to achieve maximum allowable densities. The City has added a program (Policy H.1.20) for which the City will conduct a peer agency review of zoning standards that have potential to impact the cost and supply of housing and make adjustments as needed to ensure our development standards remain feasible and achievable for developers, especially for affordable housing.

Several HCD comments were related to potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. The updated housing policies and programs (Appendix E) includes numerous actions to amend the zoning ordinance to comply with State law (updated definition of family) and remove zoning constraints for special needs group housing (allow supportive or group housing by-right in all residential districts). Many of these zoning amendments will return to the Planning Commission for consideration and adoption within one year of the housing element certification.

Housing Resources and RHNA Methodology – Appendix C
The Housing Sites Inventory has been updated using a template provided by HCD, which provides additional information for each selected parcel. HCD did not request any modifications to the housing opportunity sites that were selected by staff and amended/approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in July 2022. However, HCD did request supplemental information and analysis of the inventory sites, including details about the condition of existing structures and status of uses on non-vacant parcels, identifying lot consolidation opportunities, justification for including smaller parcels less than one half acre in size, and analysis of any environmental constraints.

Supplemental information has also been added to the Sites Inventory template (form provided by HCD), and additional analysis has been added to Appendix C.1. HCD requested more analysis and justification of 6

Housing Element
the methodology used to project the development capacity of the Sites Inventory, including analysis of pipeline projects and a comparison of pipeline project sites to properties included on the Sites Inventory.

The revisions provide additional information about the types of uses that existed on those project sites prior to lot acquisitions and consolidation. The housing element also includes a new program to promote small lot consolidation by waiving certain fees associated with that entitlement.

An important addition to the Housing Resources section is a discussion about incentives and concessions available to developers that help to mitigate constraints and promote residential development on non-vacant sites at all affordability levels. Staff identified the following tools that encourage housing development in Belmont:
• State and Local Density Bonus. The Density Bonus program allows affordable housing developers to request zoning incentives and waivers, such as a reduction in site development standards or modification of a zoning code requirement, that enable a project to achieve a higher project density and provide additional affordable housing units. This program has been used by nearly every recently built or approved project in Belmont, and the City expects this trend will continue to incentivize increased housing production during the next planning period. • Zoning Modifications to Promote Housing Production. The Housing Element includes Policy H.1.5 which directs the City to modify the zoning ordinance to incentivize increased housing unit production. The CMU Corridor Mixed Use zoning district, which includes a majority of property along the entire El Camino Real frontage, will be amended to increase the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) from 1.75 to 2.0 (up to 2.5 with provision of community benefits), and to eliminate the maximum residential density metric. Similarly, the VCS Village Station Core zoning district will be modified to increase the maximum floor area ratio from 1.5 to 2.0 (up to 2.5 with provision of community benefits); the VCS zoning district already has no maximum residential density metric.

Both of these amendments are anticipated to provide a financial incentive to housing developers and to encourage provision of affordable housing units, and the inclusionary housing requirement will be amended (Policy H.1.2) to further incentivize provision of lower-income housing units. The updated Housing Element does not propose any other land use changes or building height increases, per the July 2022 direction of the Commission and Council. • Affordable Housing Mitigation Fees. As detailed above in the Financial Resources section, the City collects inclusionary housing in-lieu fees along with housing commercial linkage fees (collectively referred to as “housing mitigation fees”) to be used for housing production and preservation. Policy H.1.2. directs the City to use these housing mitigation fees to fund affordable housing development and rehabilitation, with a priority on lower income levels and special needs housing.

Fair Housing Assessment (AFFH) – Appendix D
New to this housing cycle, housing element law now requires housing elements to include an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices, demonstrating the City’s ability to “affirmatively further fair housing” (AFFH). The fair housing assessment has been revised to include more detailed discussion and analysis of local fair housing issues in Belmont, which include various forms of housing discrimination for both renters and for persons trying to purchase a home, and instances of “steering” where housing providers influence a renter or buyers’ choice of housing based on protected characteristics. 7

Housing Element
The revised fair housing assessment also includes a local programs and services review, a review of prior housing element goals and programs that supported fair housing practices, a review of local housing policies that promote fair housing and neighborhood stabilization. The fair housing assessment also includes supplemental analysis of the local factors that contribute to segregation, disparate access to resources for persons living with disabilities, and disproportionate housing needs for protected classes or other special needs populations. As required by Assembly Bill 686, the fair housing assessment was also updated to include a detailed sites inventory analysis, with specific census tract sites analysis. Nearly all of Belmont is considered a high resource area, meaning the housing inventory sites all have strong access to transportation, education, and economic opportunity. The analysis also concluded that the reasonable physical distribution of housing sites in high resources areas helps reduce gentrification and displacement of renters.

Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs – Appendix E
Appendix E includes both a review of housing programs from the previous housing element, as well as new programs and policies designed to remove constraints and encourage affordable and fair housing in the next planning cycle. The previous housing element assessment (2015-2023) has been revised to provide quantified outcomes for each of the programs, and to indicate the impact programs have on provision of special needs housing population. Many of the long-range planning and zoning changes identified on the previous housing element have been very successful in facilitating new development of housing.

The goals, policies and programs for the next planning cycle have been updated to prioritize implementation of programs and zoning amendments that address fair housing issues or remove constraints to special needs populations and lower-income households. Many of these zoning amendments must be considered by the Planning Commission in the first year after certification of the housing element. A majority of the new programs added since August 2022 are related to removal of housing constraints and supporting a variety of housing types for all income levels. These policies and programs have also been updated to include all of the identified actions from the Fair Housing Action Plan which address fair housing issues and mitigate contributing factors. Contributing factors include lack of affordable housing, historically low housing production, lack of accessible units and housing discrimination for persons with disabilities or protected classes, and lack of knowledge or access to information about fair housing rights.

Public Participation – Appendix F
The summary of public participation and community engagement efforts was augmented to provide additional details on efforts made to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, with specific discussion of outreach to lower-income and special needs groups.

Outreach efforts over the past two years included targeted outreach to senior residents, targeted translation services, multi-lingual resident housing surveys, participation in a regional equity advisory group, and development of an accessible housing element website.

General Plan Amendment Evaluation
The General Plan amendment process is regulated through Belmont Zoning Ordinance (Section 16) and Government Code Section 65350. Section 16 also outlines the Planning Commission and City Council role in the amendment process, as well as the public hearing process. The City Council holds a public hearing to consider a General Plan Amendment and the Planning Commission recommendation, subject to the following:
8

Housing Element

1. The Council may approve, disapprove or modify the recommendation of the Planning Commission, if any. Substantial modifications of the proposed adoption or amendment must first be referred back to the Commission.

2. The Council may adopt or amend the General Plan only by resolution adopted by an affirmative vote of a majority of its total membership.

3. The Council may amend all or part of the General Plan if it deems it to be in the public interest.

4. The City Council may adopt changes to mandatory elements in the General Plan only four times per calendar year, except as provided in Government Code Section 65358.

Adoption of the General Plan Housing Element 2023-2031 complies with the Belmont Zoning Ordinance.

Environmental Review (CEQA)
The City of Belmont, as the lead agency for the Housing Element update, prepared a programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The DEIR was published for a 45-day public comment period from June 30, 2022, through August 15, 2022.

During the public comment period both the Planning Commission and City Council held meetings to consider the analysis provided in the DEIR, along with the draft Housing Element. Copies of the DEIR were made available electronically on the City’s website, a copy was available at Belmont City Hall, and a Notice of Completion (NOC) was posted at the San Mateo County Clerk’s office on June 30, 2022. During the 45-day public comment period, written comments were received from 127 residents.

No substantive inadequacies in the Draft EIR were identified during the public comment period, nor new previously unidentified significant impacts that require recirculation. Recirculation of an EIR is required when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review but before certification.

A Final EIR (FEIR) has been prepared that includes copies of comments received on the DEIR, and all responses to comments, as required by CEQA. The Final EIR, Draft EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) together comprise the EIR for the project. The City released the Final EIR for public review on January 6, 2023.

Significant unavoidable impacts were identified in the DEIR and FEIR related to noise generated by housing construction activity projected in the housing element. A Statement of Overriding Considerations will need to be adopted by City Council for this project for these identified significant and unavoidable impacts. The CEQA resolution includes a Statement of Overriding Considerations and sets forth how the benefits of the project outweigh its significant adverse environmental impact.

The Final EIR identified Air Quality and Noise impacts associated with the project that would be reduced to a level of less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP):

1. Air Quality Impact AQ-2: Construction facilitated by the project would temporarily increase air pollutant emissions, possibly creating localized areas of unhealthy air pollution levels or air 9

Housing Element
quality nuisances. Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2.

2. Air Quality Impact AQ-3: Development facilitated by the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations from carbon monoxide hotspots or toxic air contaminants. However, development facilitated by the project would site new sensitive land uses near substantial pollutant generating land uses along El Camino Real and near Highway 101.

Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3.

3. Noise ─ For projects involving pile drivers, vibratory rollers, or similar high-vibration equipment, the applicant shall prepare a Vibration Control Plan prior to the commencement of construction activities. The Vibration Control Plan shall be prepared by a licensed structural engineer and shall include methods to minimize vibration.

The attached Resolution (Attachment A) would certify the Final EIR and adopt required findings under CEQA for the Housing Element update.

Alternatives

1. Refer the Housing Element or Final EIR back to staff for revisions.

2. Provide alternative direction to City Council.

Attachments
All attachments are available on the City website www.belmont.gov/housingelement and are directly linked below. If you need assistance accessing meeting materials or would like to schedule a time to review documents at Belmont City Hall, please contact [email protected].

A. CEQA Resolution
B. Housing Element Resolution
C. HCD Comment Letter
D. CEQA Environmental Impact Report
Final Housing Element EIR
Draft Housing Element EIR
Appendix AQ - California Emissions Estimator Model Outputs Appendix BIO - Special-Status Plant Species Table
Appendix NOP - Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters Appendix NRG - Energy Fuel Consumption Calculations
Appendix PS - Public Services and Recreation Contact Log Appendix SITE - Draft Housing Opportunity Sites Table
Appendix TRA - VMT Impact Assessment Memorandum
E. Revised General Plan Housing Element 2023-2031
Executive Summary
10

Housing Element
Appendix A. Housing Needs Analysis
A.1. Housing Needs (Belmont)
A.2. Housing Needs (San Mateo County)
Appendix B. Housing Constraints Analysis
Appendix C. Housing Resources
C.1. Housing Resources and RHNA Methodology
C.2. Housing Sites Inventory (excel)
Appendix D. AFFH Fair Housing Assessment
D.1. Belmont Fair Housing Assessment
D.2. AFFH Community Engagement
D.3. Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities
D.4. Belmont Segregation Report
D.5. Fair Housing Laws and Regulations
D.6. AFFH Maps and Data Packet
Appendix E. Goals, Policies, and Programs
E.1. Review of 2015-2023 Housing Element Performance
E.2. Housing Element 2023-2031 Goals, Policies and Programs Appendix F. Public Participation
Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
Adoption of the Housing Element 2023-2031 does not have any direct financial implications for the City. Implementation of the goals, policies and programs identified in the Housing Element will require significant staff resources during the next eightyear planning period, which will be considered by the City Council during each annual budget review process.
☐ Funding Source Confirmed:

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Other*
*The City has also complied with the following public notification requirements:

1. A notice of public hearing was published in the Redwood City Tribune on January 18, 2023, Government Code Section 65090.

2. Public hearing notices were mailed to the owners of all property included on the Housing Sites Inventory, Government Code Section 65091(a)(1).

3. Notice of public hearing was posted in three public locations: Belmont City Hall, Belmont Library, and Barrett Community Center, Government Code Section 65090(a). 11

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN 2023- 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
WHEREAS, City of Belmont ("City") proposes updates to the Housing Element of the City's 2035 General Plan ("General Plan"), as well as associated amendments to other elements of the General Plan as necessary to ensure consistency (the "Project"); and, WHEREAS, the Housing Element is a required element of general plans pursuant to Government Code Section 65302(c); and,
WHEREAS, Article 10.6 (Housing Elements) of the Government Code requires the City to adopt a sixth revision to the Housing Element for the eight-year planning period 2023 through 2031 to accommodate the City's regional needs allocation ("RHNA") of 1,785 housing units; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an update to the Housing Element that would facilitate development of up to 2,392 new housing units, which meets the City's RHNA as well as additional units for a buffer to ensure that the City maintains adequate sites at all income levels throughout the Housing Element planning period; and,
WHEREAS, the City determined that the Project requires review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Sections 2100 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 1500 et seq.); and,
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2021, the City issued a Notice of Preparation of an EIR and Notice of Public Scoping Session for the Project; and,
WHEREAS, a scoping session was held on July 21, 2021 to provide responsible, trustee, federal agencies, and members of the public the opportunity to comment on the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be included in the EIR; and, WHEREAS, written comments from public agencies and members of the public were accepted during the 45-day scoping period that ended at close of business on August 5, 2021; and,
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was issued on June 30, 2022; and, WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 19, 2023 and the City Council held a public hearing on July 26, 2023, to receive comments on the Draft EIR; and,
12

WHEREAS, the 45-day public review and comment period concluded on August 15, 2022; and,
WHEREAS, the EIR is a program EIR, as authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, which analyzes the potentially significant environmental effects of the overall development potential of the Project and not the site-specific impacts of any individual development project, the details of which are not known at this time; and, WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Review ("Final EIR") consists of the Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Draft EIR, text revisions to the Draft EIR, and all documents incorporated there; and,
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2023, the Final EIR and Notice of Availability of the Final EIR and Notice of Public Hearings by the Planning Commission on January 17, 2023 was transmitted to the State Clearinghouse, and published in the Redwood City Tribune local newspaper; and,
WHEREAS, the Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Alternatives and Overriding Considerations for the General Plan Housing Element 2023-2031 update, (the “CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations”) attached hereto as Exhibits A through C and incorporated herein by reference, have been prepared in order to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code § 21081, subdivision (a); and, WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023 the Belmont Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted Resolutions No. 2023-001and 2023-002 recommending that the City Council of the City of Belmont certify the Final EIR for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update as adequate and complete in compliance with CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines, and as adequate and complete for consideration in making a decision on the merits of the Project.

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

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

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

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

SECTION 4. All comments submitted during the public review and comment period on the Draft EIR have been considered and responded to in the Final EIR, or included in the public record.
13

SECTION 5. No new comments or information has been submitted during the City Council hearings on the Housing Element and the Final EIR that would change the analysis or conclusions of the Final EIR.

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

SECTION 7. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update is adequate and complete in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City, and is adequate and complete for consideration in making a decision on the merits of the Project.

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

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

SECTION 10. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and incorporated herein by reference. * * *
ADOPTED January 30, 2023 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
14 City of Belmont Findings of Fact
Housing Element Update
1 EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS OF FACT

REGARDING THE CITY OF BELMONT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
(SCH NO. 2021070090)
The following Findings, the mitigation measures specified herein, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto are hereby adopted by the City of Belmont in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081, 21081.5 and 21081.6, and the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15091 and 15092 for the Housing Element Update (project).

A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The project analyzed in the environmental impact report (EIR) would involve an update to the Housing Element of the City’s 2035 General Plan for the 2023-2031 planning period, as described below. Pursuant to CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies that have jurisdiction over a proposed project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.

The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR for a 30-day agency and public review period starting on July 6, 2021 and ending on August 5, 2021 to obtain comments on the proposed scope of the EIR. Once the Draft EIR was prepared, the City of Belmont filed a notice of completion (NOC) with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to begin the 45-day public review period (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21161), which began on June 30, 2022, and ended on August 15, 2022. The Draft EIR was made available electronically on the City’s website. In addition, the NOC was posted at the San Mateo County Clerk’s office on June 30, 2022.

A notice of availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was published on June 30, 2022. As a result of these notification efforts, written comments on the content of the Draft EIR were received from 127 residents.

The City released the Final EIR for public review on January 6, 2023. The Final EIR consists of copies of all comments received on the Draft EIR, a list of commenters, and all responses to comments. The Final EIR, Draft EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) together comprise the EIR for the project. The analysis and conclusions contained in the EIR reflect the independent judgment of the City.

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Section 2 of the Draft EIR includes a detailed description of the project.

The project analyzed in the EIR would update the Housing Element of the City’s 2035 General Plan for the 2023- 2031 planning period, including goals, objectives, policies, and implementing programs to further the goal of meeting the existing and projected housing needs of all household income levels of the community and would apply to the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City of Belmont, which encompasses 4.7 square miles. The proposed project provides evidence of the City’s ability to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation through the year 2031, as established by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); and identifies any rezone program needed to reach the required housing capacity. The EIR analyzed 144 Housing Opportunity Sites as listed in Appendix SITE of the EIR; during the public review process for the Housing Element the City Council removed all parcels zoned SC Service Commercial, and several project sites were consolidated since the Draft EIR was preapred. The final Housing Element Sites Inventory includes 117 Housing Opportunity Sites that could accommodate up to 2,392 housing units. There are four contiguous Housing Opportunity Sites outside of City limits but within the City’s sphere of influence (sites 80, 83, 136, and 137). These sites are located on the eastern portion of the City and are bordered by Old County Road, O’Neill Avenue, Harbor Boulevard, and Elmer Street. A proposal to annex those sites into City limits has been received by the San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) and annexation approval is expected in 2023.

The project presents a comprehensive set of housing policies and actions for the years 2023-2031 and will encompass the entire City of Belmont. The project analyzed by the EIR will be based on the City’s latest RHNA 15 City of Belmont Findings of Fact
Housing Element Update
2 estimates and will:
 Update the General Plan's Housing Element to comply with State-mandated housing requirements.  Provide a framework, including rezoning sites as necessary, for accommodating approximately 1,785 new housing units, with a buffer of up to 687 new housing units to ensure ongoing compliance with No Net Loss provisions of State housing law, for a total of 2,392 units, at all levels of affordability within access to transit, Downtown jobs, services, and open spaces. Subsequent to preparation of the Draft EIR, the City Council conducted a Housing Element public review process which resulted in removal of twenty Housing Opportunity Sites from the inventory. Other revisions to the sites inventory, such as lot consolidations, are reflected in the final adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory.
 Be consistent with the City’s expectation for growth forecasts to exceed those in its 2035 General Plan and Belmont Village Specific Plan.
 Amend other elements of the City's General Plan as needed to maintain internal consistency between the elements.

The Belmont City Council approves the following component of the project following certification of the EIR:
 Amending the General Plan to update the Housing Element.

After adoption of the project, the City will submit the Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for final certification. The deadline for the City to submit its adopted Housing Element to HCD is January 31, 2023. HCD has an additional 60 days to certify the project after it has been adopted by City Council.

C. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND DISPOSITION OF

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

1. Noise Impact NOI-1: Development facilitated by the project outside the Belmont Village Planned Development Area (PDA) could involve construction with longer durations, substantial soil movement, or use of large, heavy-duty equipment near noise-sensitive land uses that would exceed the daytime noise limits and result in significant impacts even with implementation of mitigation. Therefore, impacts generated by temporary construction noise would be significant and unavoidable.

2. Noise Impact NOI-2: Development facilitated by the project would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels from off-site increases in traffic volumes. Permanent impacts to ambient noise levels would be significant and unavoidable.

3. Noise Impact NOI-3: Development facilitated by the project would be residential and not anticipated to involve operational activities that could result in substantial vibration or groundborne noise (such as use of heavy industrial equipment). If pile driving is performed during construction, vibration from this equipment may exceed applicable standards.

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

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

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

1. Air Quality Impact AQ-2: Construction facilitated by the project would temporarily increase air 16 City of Belmont Findings of Fact
Housing Element Update
3 pollutant emissions, possibly creating localized areas of unhealthy air pollution levels or air quality nuisances. Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2.

2. Air Quality Impact AQ-3: Development facilitated by the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations from carbon monoxide hotspots or toxic air contaminants.

However, development facilitated by the project would site new sensitive land uses near substantial pollutant generating land uses along El Camino Real and Near Highway 101. Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3.

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

1. Aesthetics Impact AES-1: The proposed project would not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista.

2. Aesthetics Impact AES-3: Development facilitated by the project has the potential to change the visual character in the corridor along El Camino Real. Buildings up to 65 feet in height could form an undesirable transition if developed close to lower-rise residences. In urbanized areas, development facilitated by the project along El Camino Real and east of the railroad alignment would conflict with regulations that govern building height. Impacts would be less than significant.

3. Aesthetics Impact AES-4: Development facilitated by the project would create new sources of light or glare that could adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant.

1. Air Quality Impact AQ-1: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

4. Biological Resources Impact BIO-5: The project would not conflict with the City’s ordinances and requirements protecting biological resources, such as trees.

5. Cultural Resources Impact CUL-1: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

6. Cultural Resources Impact CUL-2: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the significance of archaeological resources.

7. Cultural Resources Impact CUL-3: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on human remains.

8. Energy Impact E-1: Development facilitated by the project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

9. Energy Impact E-2: Development facilitated by the project would not conflict with or obstruct an applicable renewable energy or energy efficiency plan.

10. Geology and Soils Impact GEO-2: Development facilitated by the project could result in exposure of people or structures to a risk of loss, injury, or death from seismic events. Development facilitated by the project could be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or could become unstable resulting in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. With compliance of applicable laws and regulations, this impact would be less than significant. 17 City of Belmont Findings of Fact
Housing Element Update
4 11. Geology and Soils Impact GEO-3: Development facilitated by the project would include ground disturbance such as excavation and grading that would result in loose or exposed soil. Disturbed soil could be eroded by wind or during a storm event, which would result in the loss of topsoil. Adherence to permit requirements and city regulations would ensure this impact would be less than significant.

12. Geology and Soils Impact GEO-4: Future seismic events could result in liquefaction and lateral spreading of soils within the city. Development in these areas could be subject to liquefaction hazards. Compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) would reduce liquefaction hazards.

Existing safety element policies would apply to development facilitated by the proposed project in hazard zones for liquefaction or lateral spreading of soils. Impacts would be less than significant.

13. Geology and Soils Impact GEO-5: Development Facilitated by the project would occur on urban sites that would be served by existing sanitation infrastructure. New development facilitated by the project is not anticipated to include the use of septic systems.

14. Geology and Soils Impact GEO-6: The proposed project would not change the development potential on Housing Opportunity sites in terms of allowed ground disturbance or location of development. Impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

15. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact GHG-1: The project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment.

16. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact GHG-2: The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

17. Hazards Impact HAZ-1: Development facilitated by the project may result in the release of potentially hazardous materials and may occur within 0.25 mile of a school. However, compliance with regional and federal regulations related to hazardous materials and compliance with the Safety Element policies would minimize the risk of releases and exposure to these materials.

18. Hazards Impact HAZ-2: Development facilitated by the project could result in development on sites contaminated with hazardous materials. However, compliance with applicable regulations relating to site remediation would minimize impacts from development on contaminated sites, resulting in a less than significant impact.

19. Hazards Impact HAZ-3: Development facilitated by the project could result in a safety hazard or excessive noise from the San Carlos Airport for people residing in Housing Opportunity Sites.

However, compliance with General Plan goals and policies and San Carlos Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) goals and policies would minimize impacts from airport hazards and impacts would be less than significant.

20. Hazards Impact HAZ-4: Development facilitated by the project would not result in physical changes that could interfere with or impair emergency response or evacuation. Therefore, the project would not result in interference with these types of adopted plans.

21. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-1: Development facilitated by the project would not violate water quality standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

22. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-2: Development facilitated by the project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of local groundwater basins.

23. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-3: Development facilitated by the project may alter drainage patterns and increase runoff on individual Housing Opportunity Sites but would not result 18 City of Belmont Findings of Fact
Housing Element Update
5 in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, increased flooding on or off site, or contribute increased runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater systems or contribute substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

24. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-4: Development facilitated by the project could alter drainage patterns on or increase runoff from the Housing Opportunity Sites. The Housing Opportunity Sites within an area at risk from inundation by flood hazard would be required to comply with applicable General Plan and Belmont Village Specific Plan goals and policies to prevent impedance or redirection of flood flows or release of pollutants due to project inundation.

The Housing Opportunity Sites in areas at risk from post-wildfire flooding would be required to comply with applicable State, County, and City regulations and policies to reduce impacts from redirection of post-fire flows.

25. Land Use Impact LU-1: Project implementation would not physically divide an established community.

26. Land Use Impact LU-2: The project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

27. Population Impact POP-1: Growth resulting from the project would be anticipated and would not result in unplanned population growth.

28. Population Impact POP-2: Development facilitated by the project would occur on vacant, underutilized or underdeveloped lots, and would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing.

29. Public Services Impact PS-1: Development facilitated by the project would not require additional and/or expanded fire protection facilities.

30. Public Services Impact PS-2: Development facilitated by the project may result in the need for new or expanded police facilities. Conformance with General Plan policies and programs related to police protection would require the City to continue to provide funding and adequate staffing, facilities, equipment, and technology to meet existing and projected service demands and response times, which would reduce this impact. Furthermore, new or expanded facilities would be subject to environmental review under CEQA.

31. Public Services Impact PS-3: Development facilitated by the project may result in the need for additional and/or expanded school facilities. However, Government Code 65995 (b) would require funding for the provision or expansion of new school facilities to offset impacts from the project.

32. Public Services Impact PS-4: Development facilitated by the project would increase demand for parks and recreation services. However, conformance with BMC and General Plan policies and programs related to open space would require usable open space in new developments and payment of Quimby park in- lieu fees and park impact fees to ensure ongoing parkland maintenance to prevent deterioration.

33. Public Services Impact PS-5: Development facilitated by the project would increase demand for the use of public facilities such as libraries, resulting in the need for additional open hours and staffing and possibly the expansion of the Belmont Library. However, conformance with General Plan policies related to libraries would require the City to continue to support improvements to the Belmont Library. Furthermore, any future plans to expand the Belmont Library would be subject to environmental review under CEQA.
19 City of Belmont Findings of Fact
Housing Element Update
6 34. Public Services Impact PS-6: Development facilitated by the project increase demand for the use of existing parks and recreational facilities, and may require the construction or expansion of additional parks and open space. However, developers would be required to adhere to policies in the General Plan and BMC and pay parkland fees for new development. Fees would fund park improvements and maintenance and thus would avoid or adequately mitigate physical deterioration.

35. Transportation Impact TRA-1: The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

36. Transportation Impact TRA-2: The project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

37. Transportation Impact TRA-3: The project would not substantially increase hazards because of a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

38. Transportation Impact TRA-4: The project would not have the potential to result in inadequate emergency access.

39. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact TCR-1: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the significance of a tribal cultural resource.

40. Utilities Impact UTIL-1: Development facilitated by the project may require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities within the city. While new connections to existing utility service systems would be required, such connections would not result in disturbance beyond individual development sites and adjacent infrastructure corridors and would not result in significant environmental effects.

41. Utilities Impact UTIL-2: Development facilitated by the project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. The project would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

42. Wildfire Impact WFR-1: The project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.

43. Wildfire Impact WFR-2: The project would not expose people or structures to significant risks resulting from wildfires such as exacerbated pollution concentrations, the uncontrolled spread of wildfires, flooding, or landslides.

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

1. Aesthetics Impact AES-2: Housing Opportunity sites are not within or prominently visible from designated or eligible Scenic Highways.

2. Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

3. Biological Resources Impact BIO-2: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on 20 City of Belmont Findings of Fact
Housing Element Update
7 riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities.

4. Biological Resources Impact BIO-3: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on jurisdictional state or federally protected wetlands

5. Biological Resources Impact BIO-4: The project would not have an impact on wildlife movement.

6. Biological Resources Impact BIO-6: There are no Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans applicable to the Housing Opportunity Sites. Development facilitated by the project would have no impact.

7. Geology and Soils Impact GEO-1: Development facilitated by the project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault

8. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-5: Development facilitated by the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. There is no applicable sustainable groundwater management plan.

9. Noise Impact NOI-4: There are no Potential Sites within the noise contours for an airstrip or airport as depicted on the airport land use plan, and no impacts would occur from exposing residents or workers to excessive aircraft noise levels.

10. Wildfire Impact WFR-3: The project would not require installation or maintenance of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment beyond that anticipated under current zoning.

G. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
When making findings, the lead agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the mitigation measures it has adopted or made a condition of project approval to mitigateor avoid significant effects on the environment. The City hereby adopts the MMRP for the project, included as Section 3.0 of the Final EIR. The mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and adopted and incorporated into the project will be monitored pursuant to this program.

H. ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the EIR examined a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts. The City has reviewed the impacts associated with each alternative as compared with the proposed project, and has also considered each alternative’s feasibility, considering a range of economic, environmental, social, and legal factors. Overall, the City concluded that Alternative 1 (No Project Alternative) would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the No Project Alternative is determined to be environmentally superior, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Of the other alternatives evaluated in the EIR, the proposed project would be the environmentally superior alternative as it would either avoid or lessen the severity of most impacts of the proposed project. The proposed project would meet all four of the project objectives identified in Section 2, Project Description, and the SItes Inventory as amended by the City Council, by providing a framework for accommodating a total of 2,392 units at all levels of affordability within access to transit, Downtown jobs, services, and open spaces; plan for a buffer of approximately 687 units to ensure ongoing compliance with the No Net Loss provision of State housing law; be consistent with the City’s expectation for growth forecasts to exceed those in its 2021 General Plan and Belmont Village Specific Plan by 2022; and anticipate better zoning utilization efforts targeted along the entire El Camino Real corridor.

The following alternatives are evaluated in the Final EIR:
21 City of Belmont Findings of Fact
Housing Element Update
8 Alternative 1 (No Project) The No Project Alternative assumes there is no change in zoning or General Plan land use designations for the parcels identified by the project. Current uses on the sites would continue under this alternative, with future full buildout of the Housing Opportunity Sites limited by the existing zoning and General Plan designations. Buildout of the Housing Opportunity Sites under existing zoning would allow for up to 2,216 total housing units, housing a population of 5,540 residents. This alternative would only accomplish two of the four objectives identified for the project. It would not accomplish the project objectives of planning a buffer of up to 1,415 new housing units to ensure ongoing compliance with the No Net Loss provisions of State housing law and it would not anticipate better zoning utilization along the El Camino Real corridor.

Alternative 2 (Increased Density/Height): This alternative analyzes the same number of Housing Opportunity Sites as the proposed project, but selected sites along the El Camino Real corridor could be developed with retail located on the first floor and up to 9 floors of residential units on the floors above, rather than the maximum of six stories under the proposed project The Housing Opportunity Sites identified as sites for increased density/height under this alternative are listed in Section 6, Alternatives, and shown in Figure 6- 1 of the EIR.

Alternative 2 would result in approximately 4,335 new dwelling units and approximately 10,837 new residents.

This would equate to approximately 1,035 more units and approximately 2,587 more new residents than the proposed project. This pattern of development would encourage locally serving retail uses along with residences at the Housing Opportunity Sites, which would reduce the vehicle miles travelled for residents of those sites and surrounding areas because they would live closer to more and potentially a wider variety of commercial uses and services. This alternative would meet or exceed all of the project objectives.

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

J. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City base their findings and decisions contained herein. Documents related to this proposed project are located in the City’s offices located at One Twin Pines Lane, Suite 310, Belmont, California 94002 and online at https://www.belmont.gov/housingelement.
22 City of Belmont Statement of Overriding Considerations Housing Element Update
1 EXHIBIT B
THE CITY OF BELMONT’S STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS

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

Noise

1. Impact NOI-1: Temporary construction noise induced by development outside of the Belmont Village PDA.

2. Impact NOI-2: Increase in ambient noise levels from off-site increases in traffic.

3. Impact NOI-3: If pile driving is performed, vibration from this equipment may exceed applicable standards.

II Project Benefits
The proposed project offers benefits that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects.

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

The below stated reasons summarize benefits, goals, and objectives of the proposed project. These overriding considerations justify approval of the proposed project. Each of the project benefits discussed below is a separate and independent basis for these findings. These benefits include the following:
23 City of Belmont Statement of Overriding Considerations Housing Element Update
2 New Housing. The project creates the regulatory framework to improve and develop households of various sizes to meet the needs of residents at different income levels. To meet the targets set by Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the City must accommodate the production of abundant and affordable new housing in a wide diversity of forms. Implementation of the proposed project would prioritize use of public funds, encourage partnerships with different nonprofits and other groups to establish pre-approved accessory dwelling unit (ADU) plans and utilize local ordinances that require developers to create more affordable units. In addition, the proposed project would help to streamline housing development, update the City’s Zoning Code, create minimum densities for housing projects, develop policies for missing middle housing, and streamline the application review and processing timelines for affordable housing projects.

Preservation of Existing Housing. The proposed project would aid in preventing the conversion of existing affordable housing units from becoming market rate after renegotiating agreements.

This would help to preserve the existing middle and lower-income housing available in the city. The proposed project incentivizes upgrades to low-income homes through rehabilitation, accessibility modifications, or energy efficiency changes in order to maintain the existing housing stock.

Preventing Displacement. The proposed project includes policies that when implemented will help to prevent gentrification and displacement of lower-income households. In addition, the proposed project implements the City’s Fair Housing Action Plan.

Community Engagement Improvements. The project would improve access and awareness of housing programs, with an emphasis on fair housing education and information, through the use of a robust and proactive public outreach strategy. The project would provide education and information on regulatory requirements and specific programs and protections offered locally, regionally, and by the State. Through the implementation of the proposed project, the City would improve access to housing for all income groups and special needs communities. Improved public outreach programs implemented by the project would be effective at reaching the communities most effected by housing policies and programs.

III Summary
The City is obligated by Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines to balance identified project benefits against the unavoidable environmental impacts when determining whether to approve a project. The City finds that the benefits of the project listed above will outweigh the significant unavoidable noise impacts.
24 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1

EXHIBIT C

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

FOR THE CITY OF BELMONT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
(SCH NO. 2021070090)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the City of Belmont Housing Element update. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6). This MMRP is designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during project implementation. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), specifications are made herein that identify the action required and the monitoring that must occur.

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

The following table identifies each mitigation measure included in the EIR, the action required for the measure to be implemented, the time at which the monitoring is to occur, the monitoring frequency, and the agency or party responsible for ensuring that the monitoring is performed. In addition, the table includes columns for compliance verification. These columns will be filled out by the monitoring agency or party and would document monitoring compliance. Where an impact was identified to be less than significant, no mitigation measures were required. 25 City of Belmont
Housing Element Update
MMRP
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required
When Monitoring
to Occur
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Air Quality
AQ-1: Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
All development facilitated by the project shall be required to reduce construction emissions of reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) by implementing the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures (described below) or equivalent,
expanded, or modified measures based on project and sitespecific conditions.

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads)
shall be watered two times per day, with priority given to the use of recycled water for this activity when
feasible.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street
sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping shall be prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved
shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads
shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the
California airborne toxics control measure Title 13,
Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations
[CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a
certified visible emissions evaluator.
 Implement the
BAAQMD’s Basic
Construction
Mitigation Measures
or equivalent,
expanded, or
modified measures
based on project and
site-specific
conditions.

Ongoing
throughout all
development
facilitated by the
project
Continuously
as needed
City of
Belmont
Community
Development
Department –
Planning
Division,
Developer,
and On-site
Construction
Manager
26 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required
When Monitoring
to Occur
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments

8. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the
telephone number and person to contact at the lead
agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to
ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

AQ-2: Additional Construction Mitigation Measures
In addition to implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ1, for a project that meets the following conditions the City shall condition the project to implement BAAQMD CEQA
Air Quality Guidelines’ Additional Construction
Mitigation Measures:

1. Exceed the BAAQMD construction screening threshold
of a change in allowable dwelling units of 114 dwelling units for single-family residences or 240 dwelling units for multifamily residences

2. Would result in a change in allowable dwelling units of more than 40 units

3. Would require demolition or simultaneous occurrence
of more than two construction phases

4. Simultaneous construction of more than one land use
type (e.g., a mixed-use project involving commercial
and residential)

5. Extensive material transport of more than 10,000 cubic yards In addition to implementation of Mitigation
Measure AQ-1, for Draft Housing Opportunity Sites
that meet the criteria listed above, the following
measures (or equivalent, expanded, or modified
measures based on project- and sites-specific
conditions) shall be implemented throughout
construction of the project:

1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a
frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil
moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be
verified by lab samples or moisture probe.
 Implement

BAAQMD CEQA
Air Quality
Guidelines’
Additional
Construction
Mitigation Measures
during projects that
meet qualifying
conditions.

Ongoing
throughout
development
facilitated by
projects that meet
conditions outlined
in AQ-2
Continuously
as needed
City of
Belmont
Community
Development
Department –
Planning
Division,
Developer,
and On-site
Construction
Manager
27 City of Belmont
Housing Element Update
MMRP
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required
When Monitoring
to Occur
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments

2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds
exceed 20 mph.

3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas
of construction. Wind breaks should have at
maximum 50 percent air porosity.

4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating
native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed
areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately
until vegetation is established.

5. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation,
grading, and ground-disturbing construction
activities on the same area at any one time shall be
limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the
amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.

6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

7. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the
paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12- inch
compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

8. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be
installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways
from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.

9. Minimizing the idling time of diesel-powered
construction equipment to 2 minutes.

10. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower)
to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned,
leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a
project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX
reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to
the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable
options for reducing emissions include the use of
late model engines, low-emission diesel products,
alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, aftertreatment products, add-on devices such as 28 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required
When Monitoring
to Occur
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
particulate filters, and/or other options as such
become available.

11. Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local
requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3:

Architectural Coatings).

12. Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel
trucks, and generators be equipped with Best
Available Control Technology for emission
reductions of NOx and PM.

13. Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets
CARB’s most recent certification standard for offroad heavy-duty diesel engines.

AQ-3 Roadway Health Risk Assessment
Prior to issuance of building permits for residential
developments within 1,000 feet of State Route 82 (i.e., El Camino Real), a roadway health risk assessment (HRA)
shall be prepared by a qualified air quality analyst. An HRA shall also be prepared for residential development on Site 27 since it is within 500 feet of Highway 101. The roadway HRAs shall demonstrate that roadway impacts are below the BAAQMD’s single-source risk and hazard
thresholds. If risks and hazards exceed the applicable
BAAQMD thresholds, then feasible project design features such as high-efficiency filtration shall be incorporated into the project. Screening tools may be used to assess health risks in lieu of a roadway HRA if said tools are the most current published BAAQMD tools.
 Retain a qualified
air quality analyst to
prepare a roadway
health risk
assessment (HRA).
 Incorporate feasible
project design
features such as
high-efficiency
filtration into
projects that exceed
applicable
BAAQMD
thresholds.

Prior to issuance of
building permits
for residential
developments
within 1,000 feet
of State Route 82
and Site 27.

As needed
Once for each
development
as needed
As needed
City of
Belmont
Community
Development
Department –
Planning
Division,
Developer,
and On-site
Construction
Manager
29 City of Belmont
Housing Element Update
MMRP
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required
When Monitoring
to Occur
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Noise
NOI-1 Vibration Control Plan
For projects involving pile drivers, vibratory rollers, or similar high-vibration equipment, the applicant shall
prepare a Vibration Control Plan prior to the
commencement of construction activities. The Vibration
Control Plan shall be prepared by a licensed structural engineer and shall include methods to minimize vibration, including, but not limited to:
 Use of drilled piles or similar method (e.g., cast-inplace systems) rather than pile driving  Use of resonance-free vibratory pile drivers
 Use of rubber-tired equipment rather than metaltracked equipment Avoiding the use of vibrating equipment when allowed by best engineering practices
The Vibration Control Plan shall include a pre-construction survey letter establishing baseline conditions of all
buildings within a 50-foot radius as well as at potentially affected extremely fragile buildings/historical resources and/or residential structures within the vicinity of the construction site. The condition of existing potentially affected properties shall be documented by photos and
description of existing condition of building facades,
noting any existing cracks. The survey letter shall provide a shoring design to protect such buildings and structures from potential damage. At the conclusion of vibration
causing activities, the qualified structural engineer hired by the applicant shall issue a follow-up letter describing damage, if any, to impacted buildings. The letter shall include recommendations for any repair, as may be
necessary, in conformance with the Secretary of the
Interior Standards. Repairs shall be undertaken and
completed by the contractor and monitored by a qualified structural engineer in conformance with all applicable
codes including the California Historical Building Code (Part 8 of Title 24).
 Retain a licensed
structural engineer
to prepare a
Vibration Control
Plan
 Include a preconstruction survey
letter in the
Vibration Control
Plan establishing
baseline conditions
of buildings.
 Issue a follow-up
letter describing any
damage to impacted
buildings and
recommendations
for any repair.
 Submit a Statement
of Compliance
signed by the
applicant and owner
to the City Building
Department
 Designate a
Preservation
Director and post
this person’s contact
information in a
location near the
project site that it is
clearly visible to the
nearby receptors
most likely to be
disturbed.

Prior to the
commencement of
construction
activities
Prior to the
commencement of
construction
activities
At the conclusion
of vibration
causing activities
At plan check and
prior to the
issuance of any
permit
Prior to vibration
causing activities,
and throughout
construction
Once, or as
requested by
the City
Once
Once
Once
Once, and
contact
information
shall remain
visible
continuously
throughout
construction
City of
Belmont
Community
Development
Department –
Planning
Division,
Developer,
and On-site
Construction
Manager
30 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 7
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required
When Monitoring
to Occur
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
A Statement of Compliance signed by the applicant and
owner is required to be submitted to the City Building
Department at plan check and prior to the issuance of any permit. The Vibration Control Plan, prepared as outlined above shall be documented by a qualified structural
engineer, and shall be provided to the City upon request. A Preservation Director shall be designated and this person’s contact information shall be posted in a location near the project site that it is clearly visible to the nearby receptors most likely to be disturbed. The Director would manage
complaints and concerns resulting from activities that
cause vibrations. The severity of the vibration concern should be assessed by the Director, and if necessary,
evaluated by a qualified noise and vibration control
consultant.
31 City of Belmont
Housing Element Update
MMRP
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 8
This page intentionally left blank.
32

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT AND ADOPT THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE 2035 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PERIOD OF 2023-2031, IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE HOUSING ELEMENT LAW WHEREAS, the California Legislature has found that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and,
WHEREAS, the Legislature has further found that “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and, WHEREAS, the Legislature recently adopted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) which states that “In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita… California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over 7 years”; and, WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City of Belmont adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City of Belmont's ("City") regional housing need allocation ("RHNA") of 1,785 units, comprised of 488 very low income units, 281 low income units, 283 moderate income units, and 733 above moderate income units; and,
WHEREAS, to comply with State Housing Element Law, the City has prepared Housing Element 2023-2031 (the "Housing Element") in compliance with State Housing Element Law and has identified sites that can accommodate housing units meeting the City’s RHNA allocation; and, WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq., adoption of the Housing Element constitutes a General Plan Amendment; and, WHEREAS, the preparation, adoption, and implementation of the Housing Element requires a diligent effort to include all economic segments of the community; and, WHEREAS, the City conducted extensive community outreach over twenty months, beginning in April 2021, as described in detail in Appendix F to the proposed Housing Element Update; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65585 (b), on July 1, 2022, the City posted the draft Housing Element and requested public comment for a 45-day review period, and on August 24, 2022, after responding to public comments, the City submitted the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its review; and,
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2022, the City received a letter from HCD providing its 33

findings regarding the draft Housing Element; and,
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2023, the City published a revised draft Housing Element responding to HCD’s findings and requested public comment on the draft, and a summary of the responses to HCD’s comments are provided in Exhibit A to this resolution; and, WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023 the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and consider a Resolution regarding the proposed Housing Element, reviewed the Housing Element and all pertinent maps, documents and exhibits, including HCD’s findings, the City’s response to HCD’s findings, the staff report and all attachments, and oral and written public comments; and, WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed housing element, pertinent maps, documents and exhibits, including HCD's findings, the City's response to HCD's findings, the staff report and all attachments, and oral and writing public comments, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Housing Element; and WHEREAS, on January 30, 2023, the City Council conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and consider this Resolution and the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) regarding the proposed Housing Element, and all pertinent maps, documents and exhibits, including HCD's findings, the City's response to HCD's findings, the staff report and all attachments, and oral and written public comments; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Belmont has certified the Final EIR as adequate and complete in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and as adequate and complete for consideration in making a decision on the merits of the Project, which as defined includes the proposed Housing Element.

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

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.

SECTION 2. The Housing Element substantially complies with State Housing Element Law, as provided in Government Code §65580 et seq., and contains all provisions required by State Housing Element Law, as shown in Exhibit B to this resolution and incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 3. Based on substantial evidence in the record, including the characteristics of sites zoned for mixed use, commercial, or industrial use that have converted to residential use, including condition of property, type of use, record of recent improvements, and ratio of building value to land value, proximity to transit, and as discussed in detail in Appendix C of the 2023- 2031 Housing Element, the existing uses on the non-vacant sites identified in the site inventory to accommodate the RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period and therefore do not constitute an impediment to planned residential development on the identified sites during the planning period.

SECTION 4. As required by Government Code § 65585(e), the City Council has considered the findings made by the Department of Housing and Community Development included in the Department's letter to the City dated November 22, 2022 consistent with Government Code §65585(f) and as described in Exhibit A to this resolution, incorporated by this 34

reference, the City Council has changed the Housing Element in response to the findings of the Department to substantially comply with the requirements of the State Housing Element Law as interpreted by HCD.

SECTION 5. The City of Belmont 2015-2023 Housing Element is hereby repealed in its entirety, and the City of Belmont 2023-2031 Housing Element, incorporated by this reference and on file in the Belmont Community Development Department, is adopted.

SECTION 6. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION 7. The Community Development Director or designee is hereby directed to file all necessary materials with the Department of Housing and Community Development for the Department to find that the Housing Element is in conformance with State Housing Element Law and is further directed and authorized to make non-substantive changes to the Housing Element to make it internally consistent or to address any non-substantive changes or amendments required by the Department to achieve a finding of substantial conformance with State Housing Element Law.

SECTION 8. The Community Development Director or designee is hereby directed to distribute copies of the Housing Element in the manner provided in Government Code §§65357 and 65589.7.
* * *
ADOPTED January 30, 2023 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
35 EXHIBIT A
Responses to HCD Letter (11/22/2022)
Housing
Element
Section
HCD
Item #
HCD Comment City Response Location of Changes
Review and
Revise
A A thorough program-by-program review is necessary to evaluate City's performance in addressing housing goals.

As part of this analysis, the element should describe the actual results of the prior element’s programs with results quantified where possible. This information and analysis provide the basis for developing a more effective housing program.

A summary of prior housing element
achievements, including a quantified
summary of units built by income level
and detailed review of each program
was included in Appendix E.1. The
detailed program review has been
updated to include quantitative results.

Appendix E.1. (summary & table)
Review and
Revise
A In addition, the element states that the City is removing the program incentivizing lot consolidation. However, the City’s current sites inventory may rely on lot consolidation to accommodate the Regional Housing Need. If so, rather than removing the program, the element must analyze how the program could be modified to increase its effectiveness to support the lot consolidation strategy to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations.

A program has been added to waive lot
consolidation fees for projects that
provide 20% of units to lower-income
households.

Appendix E.2. Programs
Review and
Revise
A As part of the evaluation of programs in the past cycle, the element must analyze the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed households, farmworkers and persons experiencing homelessness).

Programs should be revised as appropriate to reflect the results of this evaluation.

The detailed program review table has
been updated to include special needs
analysis for each program.

Appendix E.1. (table)
Housing
Needs,
Resources and
Constraints --
AFFH
B.1 Enforcement and Outreach: The element must include the City’s ability to provide enforcement and outreach capacity which can consist of actions such as the City’s ability to investigate complaints, obtain remedies, or the City’s ability to engage in fair housing testing.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added.

Appendix D.1, AFFH Page 9 et seq.

Housing
Needs,
Resources and
Constraints --
AFFH
B.1 The element must address the City’s enforcement capacity including findings, lawsuits, and the City’s process to refer fair housing cases. In addition, the element must summarize fair housing issues related to enforcement and outreach capacity and relationship to other fair housing issue areas. The analysis must also describe compliance with existing fair housing laws and regulations and include information on fair housing outreach capacity.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added.

Appendix D.1, AFFH Page 9 et seq.

Housing
Needs,
Resources and
Constraints --
AFFH
B.1 Integration and Segregation: The element includes some data on integration and segregation at the regional and local level; however, additional information is needed. The element should describe the factors that contribute to the identified segregation of white majority census tracts. This could include an analysis of high diversity census tracts along Highway 101 and include contributing factors to the segregation of White residents majority tracts.

For disability status, the element indicates a significant population figure living with at least one disability, concentrated in the central part of the City. The element should expand on the analysis of access to housing, services, and living conditions of this population and the City’s ability to meet their needs as well as include a regional analysis for persons with disabilities. For familial status, the element should analyze local concentrations geographically within the City.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added.

Appendix D.1, AFFH Page 26 et seq.; see
also Sites Inventory analysis beginning on
page 50
Housing
Needs,
Resources and
Constraints --
AFFH
B.1 Racial/Ethnic Areas of Concentration of Poverty and Affluence (R/ECAP): The element includes information relative to R/ECAP within the City but should also include a regional analysis. In addition, the element must also address concentrated areas of affluence both locally and regionally. The analysis should evaluate the patterns and changes over time at a local and regional level and consider other relevant factors, such as public participation, past policies, practices, and investments and demographic trends.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added.

Appendix D.1, AFFH Page 30 et seq.; see
also Sites Inventory analysis beginning on
page 50
Housing Element Resolution
Exhibit A Page 1 of 9 36

EXHIBIT A
Responses to HCD Letter (11/22/2022)
Housing
Needs,
Resources and
Constraints --
AFFH
B.1 Disparities in Access to Opportunity: The element provides some information on the access to opportunity; however, a complete analysis should include the local and regional disparities of the educational, environmental, transportation, persons living with disabilities, and economic scores through local, federal, and/or state data. For disparities in access to opportunity for employment, the element states the City has an overwhelming positive economic outlook but identifies lower employment scores in two areas. The element should evaluate this information for patterns and trends including comparisons to the surrounding county; describe access to jobs for protected classes; and analyze what contributes to the lower employment score in two areas in the TCAC maps.

For disparities in access to opportunity for transportation, the element should assess whether there are any disproportionate access opportunities to public transit or infrastructure for protected classes. In addition, the element should analyze access to transit throughout the City. For disparities in access to opportunity for environment, the element states the City scores well on environmental outcomes. However, the element must describe what contributes to the one low scoring area within the City as well as provide a regional analysis comparing the City to the surrounding region.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added.

Appendix D.1, AFFH Page 39 et seq.; see
also Sites Inventory analysis beginning on
page 50
Housing
Needs,
Resources and
Constraints --
AFFH
B.1 Disproportionate Housing Needs Including Displacement: While the element includes some data on disproportionate needs, additional information is needed. The element must analyze geographic concentrations of cost burden (by tenure), overcrowding, and substandard housing within the City as well as provide a regional analysis comparing the City to the surrounding region. For disproportionate housing needs for persons experiencing homelessness, the element sites data regarding the County’s homeless population but does not include the City’s homeless population; however, the element must include the City’s homeless data and analyze existing trends and policies in the City that exclude homeless populations or force homeless populations onto surrounding areas. Lastly, the element must also describe and analyze areas sensitive to displacement beyond units at-risk, including an analysis of displacement risk due to disaster (e.g., earthquake, fire, and flood).

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added.

Appendix D.1, AFFH Page 44 et seq.; see
also Sites Inventory analysis beginning on
page 50
Housing
Needs,
Resources and
Constraints --
AFFH
B.1 Site Inventory: The element must include an analysis demonstrating whether sites identified to meet the RHNA are distributed throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. The element must address and analyze the RHNA sites that are near Highway 101, which is noted as having the worst environmental score in the entire jurisdiction. In addition, most sites are located in the Belmont Village Zoning District and must be analyzed to whether the site selection will exacerbate conditions. The element must also describe how the City is promoting housing mobility in single-family areas. In addition, the element must analyze affects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, access to opportunity). The element should discuss whether the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates conditions. If sites exacerbate conditions or isolates the RHNA by income group, the element should identify further program actions (not limited to the RHNA) that will be taken to promote equitable quality of life throughout the community (e.g., housing mobility and new opportunities in higher resource areas).

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added.

Appendix D.1, AFFH page 50 et seq.

Housing
Needs,
Resources and
Constraints --
AFFH
B.1 Contributing Factors: The element identifies many contributing factors to fair housing issues. The element must prioritize these factors to better formulate policies and programs and carry out meaningful actions to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). In addition, the element must describe how the actions in the Belmont AFFH Action Plan are tied to the housing element programs and include implementation.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added.

Appendix D.1, AFFH page 67 et seq.

Housing
Needs,
Resources and
Constraints --
Other
B.2 Extremely Low-Income Households (ELI): While the element quantifies the total number of ELI households, it must also quantify the number of projected ELI households and analyze their housing needs. The analysis of ELI housing needs should consider tenure and rates of overpayment.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added.

Appendix A.1, Needs Section page 23 et
seq.; see also narrative throughout D.1
AFFH
Housing Element Resolution
Exhibit A Page 2 of 9 37

EXHIBIT A
Responses to HCD Letter (11/22/2022)
Housing
Needs,
Resources and
Constraints --
Other
B.3 Overpayment: The element must quantify and analyze the number of lower-income households overpaying by tenure (i.e., renter and owner).

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added.

Appendix A.1, Needs Section page 51 et
seq.; see also narrative throughout D.1
AFFH
Housing
Needs,
Resources and
Constraints --
Other
B.3 Housing Stock Condition: While the element includes an estimate of rehabilitation need based on housing age, it must include analysis of the condition of the existing housing stock and estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. For example, the analysis could include estimates from a recent windshield survey or sampling, estimates from the code enforcement agency, or information from knowledgeable builders/developers, including non-profit housing developers or organizations.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added.

Appendix A.1, Needs Section page 41 et
seq.

Inventory 4 Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The City’s RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built since June 30, 2022; however, the element must demonstrate their affordability based on actual sales price, rent level or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed restrictions). The element should also discuss the status, any barriers to development and other relevant factors to demonstrate their availability in the planning period.

Information pertaining to pipeline has
been revised and updated.

Appendix C.1, Table 7, Page 18
Inventory 4 Sites Inventory: The element must list sites by parcel number, parcel size, zoning, general plan designation, describing existing uses for any nonvacant sites and include a calculation of the realistic capacity of each site.

While the element includes some of these requirements, the inventory must include parcel size, zoning, general plan designation, a description of existing uses for any nonvacant sites, and which sites are assumed to be consolidated. For sites that will accommodate the lower-income RHNA, the sites inventory must also clearly identify nonvacant sites identified in a prior adopted housing element or vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive planning periods.

The spreadhseet of sites has been
updated, and is available both in PDF
form and as a spreadsheet.

Appendix C.2.

Inventory 4 Realistic Capacity: While the element provides assumptions of buildout for sites included in the inventory, it must also provide support for these assumptions. For example, the element should demonstrate what specific trends, factors, and other evidence led to the assumptions. In addition, the element should include additional examples to support the density of 59 dwelling units per acre for small sites under half an acre and clarify whether the density of 113 dwelling units per acre for sites larger than half-acre include State Density Bonus provisions in the Belmont Village Specific Plan. The analysis should also clarify if capacity assumptions are the same for all sites regardless of zoning designation. The estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. The element must also analyze the likelihood that the identified units will be developed as noted in the inventory in zones that allow nonresidential uses (e.g., mixeduse). This analysis should consider the likelihood of nonresidential development in mixed-use and commercial areas, performance standards, and development trends supporting residential development.

In determining realistic capacity, all
developments were included, not select
projects. The City provides a number of
benefits to assist developers obtain
higher densities beyond the density
bonus. The trend for the last decade
illustrates that very little new
commercial is being developed, as
residenital is the preferred option.

Appendix C.1, page 8 et seq. for
information on incentives and
concessions; revised discussion of
realistic capacity begins on page 14
Inventory 4 AB 725: To be in compliance, the element should demonstrate that at least 25 percent of moderate-income units will be in areas zones for at least four units, but not more than 100 units per acre. And that at least 25 percent of above moderate-income units will be located in areas zoned for at least four units of housing per parcel A new analysis demonstrates that the
City is in compliance with AB 725.

Appendix C.1. Page 21, AB 725
Compliance
Housing Element Resolution
Exhibit A Page 3 of 9 38

EXHIBIT A
Responses to HCD Letter (11/22/2022)
Inventory 4 City-Owned Sites: The element must include additional discussion on each of the City- Owned sites identified to accommodate the RHNA. Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). In addition, the housing element must include a description of whether there are any plans to sell the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.

All City-owned sites have projects
proposed on them already, so further
analysis is not needed.

Appendix C.1. page 20, City Owned
Properties.

Inventory 4 Small Sites: Sites smaller than an half acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lowerincome housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower-income housing units as projected for the site or unless the housing element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A).). For example, a site with a proposed and approved housing development that contains units affordable to lower income households would be an appropriate site to accommodate housing for lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(C).) If lots are expected to be consolidated, the analysis could describe the City’s role or track record in facilitating past lot consolidation, common ownership, policies, or incentives offered or proposed to encourage and facilitate lot consolidation or other conditions rendering parcels suitable and ready for lot consolidation.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added to address this comment.

Appendix C.1. page 16
Inventory 4 Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites. The methodology must consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may impede additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g).) For sites with residential uses, the inventory could also describe structural conditions or other circumstances and trends demonstrating the redevelopment potential to more intense residential uses. For nonresidential sites, the inventory could also describe whether the use is operating, marginal or discontinued, and the condition of the structure or could describe any expressed interest in redevelopment. In addition, the element could describe how sites in Table 9 (page E-23) relate to the sites identified in the inventory and describe site conditions, any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, and any developer interests.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added to address this comment.

Appendix C.1. page 24 et seq.; see also
sites inventory column V added
If the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lowerincome households, the housing element must demonstrate that the existing use is not an impediment to additional residential development in the planning period (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).). This can be demonstrated by providing substantial evidence that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2). For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added to address this comment.

Note also the City will make findings
upon adoption.

Appendix C.1. page 24 et seq.; see also
sites inventory column V added
Inventory 4 Replacement Housing Requirements: If the sites inventory identifies sites with existing residential uses, it must identify whether they are affordable to lower-income households or describe whether the additional residential development on the site requires the demolition of the existing residential use. For nonvacant sites with existing, vacated, or demolished residential uses and occupied by, or subject to an affordability requirement for, lowerincome households within the last five years there must be a replacement housing program for units affordable to lower-income households (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(3)). Absent a replacement housing program, these sites are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households. The replacement housing program has the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section. 65915, subdivision (c)(3). The housing element must be revised to include such analysis and a program, if necessary.

No sites in the inventory have existing
housing. A program has been added to
address other replacement housing
requirements.

Policy H 2.4
Housing Element Resolution
Exhibit A Page 4 of 9 39

EXHIBIT A
Responses to HCD Letter (11/22/2022)
Inventory 4 Infrastructure: While the element includes a general discussion on water and sewer capacity, it must demonstrate sufficient existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utility capacity to accommodate the City’s regional housing need for the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (b).) Additional narrative and analysis has
been added to address this comment.

Appendix C.1. page 17 et seq.

Inventory 4 For your information, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers.

HCD recommends including a cover memo describing the City ’s housing element, including the City’s housing needs and regional housing need. The element should demonstrate compliance with these requirements and add or modify programs, if necessary. For additional information and sample cover memo, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/priority-for-water-and-sewer.

A program has been added to ensure
compliance with this requirement
Policy H 1.15
Inventory 4 Environmental Constraints: While the element generally describes a few environmental conditions within the City, it must describe any known environmental constraints or conditions (e.g., shape, accessibility, easements, contamination) within the City that could impact housing development in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (b).)
Additional narrative and analysis has
been added to address this comment.

Appendix C.1. page 18 et seq.

Inventory 4 Electronic Sites Inventory: Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-elements-hcd for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance. Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to [email protected].

The City has prepared an updated sites
inventory in the prescribed electronic
format.

Zoning for a
Variety of
Housing Types
4 Multifamily Housing : On page B-18, the element states that a conditional use permit (CUP) is required for multifamily housing in the R-3, R-4, and HRO-3 zones. The element must analyze the CUP process as a potential constraint on housing supply and affordability. The analysis should identify findings of approval for the CUP and their potential impact on development approval certainty, timing, and cost. The element must demonstrate this process is not a constraint or it must include a program to address and remove or mitigate the CUP requirement.

In 2020, the City removed the CUP
requirement in R distircts. The narrative
has been updated to reflect these
changes.

Appendix B.1. page 19
Zoning for a
Variety of
Housing Types
4 Accessory Dwelling Units: The element indicates the City modified its zoning code to ease barriers to the development of accessory dwelling units (ADU’s). However, after a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which were not consistent with State ADU Law. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU non-compliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should add a program to update the City’s ADU ordinance to comply with state law.

The City will await the compliance letter.

A program has been revise to ensure
compliance.

Policy H 1.3
Zoning for a
Variety of
Housing Types
4 Emergency Shelters: The housing element must demonstrate the permit processing, development, and management standards for emergency shelters are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters. The element should describe the permit processing, development, and management standards of the S-2 Emergency Shelter Combining District that allows emergency shelters by-right.

In addition, the element should describe the capacity of sites included in the overlay to accommodate the City’s need. Lastly, the element should describe how emergency shelter parking requirements comply with AB139/Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A) or include a program to comply with this requirement.

The narrative has been updated to
respond to this comment. In addition,
two programs have been added.

Appendix B.1. page 21, and policies H

1.11 and 1.16
Zoning for a
Variety of
Housing Types
4 Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing : Transitional housing and supportive housing must be permitted as a residential use in all zones allowing residential uses and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) While the element states that the City complies with these requirements, according to the table on Page B-19, transitional housing is not allowed in Village zoning districts where multifamily is allowed. The element must ensure consistency between the analysis and the tables and add programs as appropriate.

Two programs have been added to
ensure compliance with this
requirement.

Policies H 1.8 and H 1.17
Housing Element Resolution
Exhibit A Page 5 of 9 40

EXHIBIT A
Responses to HCD Letter (11/22/2022)
Constraints 5 Land Use Controls: The analysis must evaluate the cumulative impacts of land use controls on the cost and supply of housing, including the ability to achieve maximum densities and cost and supply of housing. Specifically, the analysis must analyze the minimum floor area per unit (1,450 square feet) in the CMU zone, the limit of twostories in the R-3 zone as constraints on housing development, and open space requirements in the R-3, R-4, and CMU zones. In addition, the element should analyze minimum setbacks for mixed-use developments when next to residential zones. The element should add or modify programs to address or remove identified constraints. The element should also analyze the CUP requirement for housing on the ground floor level in the Corridor Mixed- Use District and whether one hundred percent commercial or residential developments are allowed in mixed-use zones.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added to address these comments.

In addition, a new program has been
added.

See new Program H.1.20, Zoning
Constraints Review.

Appendix B.1. Pages 25, Residential
Development Standards discussion.

R-2/R-3 Height Discission Appendix B.1.

See Appendix B.1. Pages 39-40,
Conditional Use Permit Process for
discussion of ground floor CUP
requirement in CMU district
Constraints 5 Parking: The element must analyze the parking requirements (p. B-25) of more than one space per studio and onebedroom unit in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones. Should the analysis determine the parking standards or permit procedures are a constraint on residential development, it must include a program to address or remove any identified constraints.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added to address these comments.

In addition, a new program has been
added.

Appendix B.1. page 21, and policy H 1.18
Constraints 5 Zoning Fees and Transparency: The element must list all fees and clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning and development standards, and fees for each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1(a)(1).

The City already includes all of its zoning
fees and development standards. A
program has been included to identify
how often the information will be
updated.

Appendix B.1. page 32, and policy H 4.1
Constraints 5 Fees and Exaction: The element must describe all required fees for single family and multifamily housing development, including impact fees, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could identify the total amount of fees and their proportion to the development costs for both single family and multifamily housing. The element should include typical fees for zone changes, General Plan changes, tentative maps, lot consolidation, etc. The element should also analyze the identified fees as a percent of the total development cost for both single family and multifamily developments and add a program as appropriate.

The constraints narrative has been
updated with additional information on
fees and exactions to respond to this
comment.

Appendix B.1. page 29 et seq.

Constraints 5 Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element describes the use permit procedure for housing, it must further describe and analyze the City’s permit processing and approval procedures by zone and housing type (e.g., multifamily rental housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing). The analysis must evaluate the processing and permit procedures’ impacts as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability and analyze CUP findings as a constraint on multifamily development. For example, the analysis should consider processing and approval procedures and time for typical single- and multi-family developments, including type of permit, level of review, approval findings and any discretionary approval procedures.

The constraints narrative has been
updated with additional information on
processing and permitting to respond to
this comment.

Appendix B.1. page 36 et seq.

Constraints 5 SB 35 Streamlining Provisions: The element includes program H.4.1 to update the City’s website with resources for SB 35, it should clarify whether the City has procedures consistent with streamlining procedures pursuant to Government Code section 65913.4 in place and include programs as appropriate.

The narrative has been updated to
respond to this comment, and H 4.1 has
been amended.

Policy H 4.1
Constraints 5 Local Ordinances: The element must specifically analyze locally adopted ordinances such as inclusionary ordinances or short-term rental ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.

A section regarding inclusionary zoning
has been added to the constraints
analysis.

Appendix B.1. page 33 et seq.

Constraints 5 Design Review: The element must describe and analyze the design review guidelines and process, including approval procedures and decision-making criteria, for their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could describe required findings and discuss whether objective standards and guidelines improve development certainty and mitigate cost impacts. The element must demonstrate this process is not a constraint or include a program to address this permitting requirement, as appropriate.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added to address this comment.

Appendix B.1. page 39 et seq.

Housing Element Resolution
Exhibit A Page 6 of 9 41

EXHIBIT A
Responses to HCD Letter (11/22/2022)
Constraints 5 Codes and Enforcement: The element must describe and analyze any local amendments to the building code and their degree and type of enforcement for impacts on housing supply and affordability.

There are no local amendments to the
building code.

Appendix B.1. page 34
Constraints 5 On/Off-Site Improvements: The element must identify subdivision level improvement requirements, such as minimum street widths (e.g., 40-foot minimum street width) and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added to discuss on and off-site
improvements.

Appendix B.1. page 35 et seq.

Constraints 5 Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element must include an analysis of zoning, development standards, building codes, and process and permit procedures as potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. The analysis must describe the findings and approval procedure for the City’s Reasonable Accommodation procedure. In addition, while the element describes the City’s definition of family, it should analyze the requirement of requiring “structured organization and stability”, whether this is a potential constraint on housing for persons with disabilities and add or modify programs as appropriate.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added to address these comment.

In addition, a program has been added.

Appendix B.1. page 42, Definitions of
family and housing for people with
disabilities, and reasonable
accommodation procedures; see also
policy H 1.12
Constraints 5 While the element describes how group homes for six or fewer and seven or more are allowed within the City, they must be analyzed as a constraint and add programs as appropriate. Specifically, the CUP requirement for group homes for six or fewer residents in the HRO zone and the CUP requirement for group homes for seven or more residents in all residential zones. For your information, zoning should simply implement a barrier-free definition of family instead of subjecting, potentially persons with disabilities, to special regulations such as the number of persons, population types and licenses. These housing types should not be excluded from residential zones, most notably low-density zones, which can constrain the availability of housing choices for persons with disabilities. Requiring these housing types to obtain a special use or CUP could potentially subject housing for persons with disabilities to higher discretionary exceptions processes and standards where an applicant must, for example, demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood, unlike other residential uses.

Additional narrative and analysis has
been added to address these comment.

In addition, a program has been added.

Appendix B.1. page 42; see also policy H

1.12 Needs 6 While the element includes a list of at-risk properties during the planning period, it must analyze properties at-risk within the next ten years. In addition, HCD data shows an additional property, Horizons Apartments, at-risk of expiring within the next ten years. The element should include an analysis of all at-risk properties within the City.

The Horizons Apartment is not at risk of
conversion to market rate within ten
years. It is owned by a nonprofit
housing developer, and the first
expiration date is 2039. HCD's records
are incorrect. There is a program to
monitor all projects with expiring
contracts and take appropriate action to
preserve these units.

Policy H 2.1
Programs C.1 Programs must demonstrate that they will have a beneficial impact within the planning period. Beneficial impact means specific commitment to deliverables, measurable metrics or objectives, definitive deadlines, dates, or benchmarks for implementation. Deliverables should occur early in the planning period to ensure actual housing outcomes. To address the program requirements of Government Code section 65583, subd. (c) (1-6), and to facilitate implementation, programs must include: (1) specific actions the local government will take during the planning period; (2) timelines that result in beneficial impacts within the planning period; (3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials. Programs to be revised include the following:

All programs have been updated with
specific actions and timelines and, where
appropriate, speciic metrics.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Programs C.1 All programs should be evaluated to ensure meaningful and specific actions and objectives. Programs containing unclear language (e.g., “Evaluate”; “Consider”; “Encourage”; etc.) should be amended to include more specific and measurable actions. Programs to be revised include, but are not limited to, Programs H1.2 (Use Public Funding for Low/Moderate Income Housing), H1.4 (Housing Funds Investment Strategy), H2.4 (Require Replacement Units), and H3.1 (Expand Tenant Protections).

All programs have been updated with
specific actions and timelines and, where
appropriate, speciic metrics.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Programs C.1 Program H1.2 (Use Public Funding for Low/Moderate Income Housing): This program should be revised to include a commitment beyond explore in action B. in addition, the element should describe how the inclusionary requirement will be modified in action C.

This has been updated to respond to this
comment.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Housing Element Resolution
Exhibit A Page 7 of 9 42

EXHIBIT A
Responses to HCD Letter (11/22/2022)
Programs C.1 Program H2.1 (Support Retention of Existing Lower Income Units): This program should be revised to include specific timing for implementation prior to each action and tie this program to State Preservation Notice Law.

This has been updated to respond to this
comment.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Programs C.1 Program H2.3 (Target Rehabilitation Funding to Special Needs Groups): This program should be revised to include proactive outreach as well as implement the rehabilitation actions earlier in the planning period.

This has been updated to respond to this
comment.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Programs C.1 Program H2.5 (Housing Service Organization Partnerships): This program should be revised to include the frequency and how often actions will occur.

This has been updated to respond to this
comment.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Programs C.1 Program H3.1 (Expand Tenant Protections): This program should be revised to include proactive outreach actions. This has been updated to respond to this comment.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Programs C.1 Program H3.2 (Home Ownership Financing): This program should be revised to include higher frequencies of hosting workshops during the planning period.

This has been updated to respond to this
comment.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Programs C.2 As noted in Finding B4, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

Based on the analyses, the site inventory
is complete
Programs C.2 Incentives and Concessions: As the element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households, it should include a program(s) to promote residential development of those sites. The program(s) could commit to provide financial assistance, regulatory concessions, or incentives to encourage and facilitate new, or more intense, residential development on the sites. Examples of incentives include identifying and targeting specific financial resources and reducing appropriate development standards.

A new section is included in constraints
to explain how the City provides
incentives and concessions to encourage
housing developments
Appendix C.1., Page 8, Other Incentives
and Concessions
Programs C.2 Program H1.4 (Housing Funds Investment Strategy): This program should be revised to state when priorities will be implemented and should address special needs housing for persons with developmental disabilities.

This has been updated to respond to this
comment.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Programs C.2 Program H1.5 (Update Zoning Code): If the element must rezones sites to accommodate the RHNA for lowerincome households, a program must commit to a number of units (shortfall), acreage, allowable densities, appropriate development standards and meet all the by right requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). For example, sites and zoning must permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households.

No rezonings are needed to
accommodate the RHNA allocation by
income category
See Appendix C.1., pages 13 et seq.

Programs C.2 Programs H1.8 (Evaluate and Update Permanent Supportive Housing Requirements) and H2.3 (Target Rehabilitation Funding to Special Needs Groups): These programs should be revised to include an earlier implementation timeframe.

This has been updated to respond to this
comment.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Programs C.3 The element must include a program(s) with specific actions and timelines to assist in the development of housing for ELI households. The program(s) could commit the at least annual proactive outreach with affordable developers, priority processing, granting fee waivers or deferrals, modifying development standards, granting concessions and incentives for housing developments that include units affordable to extremely low-income households; assisting, supporting, or pursuing funding applications; and outreach and coordination with affordable housing developers.

This has been updated to respond to this
comment.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Programs C.3 In addition, the element must also include a program(s) to assist in the development of housing for all special needs households including persons with disabilities. Program actions could include proactive outreach and assistance to non-profit service providers and developers, prioritizing some funding for housing developments affordable to special needs households and offering financial incentives or regulatory concessions to encourage a variety of housing types.

This has been updated to respond to this
comment.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Housing Element Resolution
Exhibit A Page 8 of 9 43

EXHIBIT A
Responses to HCD Letter (11/22/2022)
Programs C.4 As noted in Finding B5, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints.

Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

This has been updated to respond to this
comment.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Programs C.4 Program to Mitigate Non-Governmental Constraints: The element must be revised to include a program that mitigates non-governmental constraints that create a gap in the jurisdictions ability to meet RHNA by income category (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(3).).

The constraints narrative has been
updated with additional information on
actions to mitigate nongovernmental
constaints.

Appendix B.1. page 17; see also policy H

1.5 Programs C.4 Program H1.1 (Monitor Regional Housing Need Allocation): This program should be revised to include no net loss and mitigation policies with adequate sites policies to mitigate unmet RHNA due to changes in production.

This has been updated to respond to this
comment.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Programs C.4 Program H1.10 (Update Requirements for Farmworker Housing): This program must move up timing to be implemented earlier in the planning period. In addition, the program should cite the government code for farmworker housing.

This has been updated to respond to this
comment.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Programs C.4 Program H1.11 (Update Requirements for Homeless Persons): The program should clarify zoning will be updated to permit these uses in multifamily zones as well as mixed use zones pursuant to AB 101, Government Code section 65660.

This has been updated to respond to this
comment.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Programs C.4 Program H1.12 (Update Requirements for Residential Care Facilities): This program should be revised to ensure residential care facilities for seven or more persons are allowed in all zones allowing residential uses based on objective criteria to facilitate approval certainty.

This has been updated to respond to this
comment.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
AFFH C.5 As noted in Finding B1, the element requires a complete AFFH analysis. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs. Goals and actions must significantly seek to overcome contributing factors to fair housing issues. The element must include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs, actions, and fair housing results. In addition, the element must tie the fair housing action plan to the AFFH program. Given that most of the City is considered a high resource community, the element could focus on programs that enhance housing mobility and encourage development of more housing choices and affordable housing. Programs also need to be based on identified contributing factors, be significant and meaningful. The element must add, and revise programs based on a complete analysis and listing and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place- based strategies for community preservation and revitalization, and displacement protection.

Based on the analyses, the AFFH is
complete.

Programs C.6 Program H1.3 (Incentivize ADU Development): This program should be revised to include actions to update the City’s ADU ordinance to comply with state law. In addition, this program should clarify how often ADU fees will be monitored and include implementation for best practices review and include proactive outreach to the community.

This has been updated to respond to this
comment.

See E.4, Housing Element Goals, Policies
and Programs, and AFFH Action Plan
Quantified
Objectives
D While the element includes quantified objectives for projected development (page E-40), it must also include quantified objectives estimating the number of housing units by income category that can be rehabilitated and conserved over the planning period.

The City does not have the financial and
staffing resources available to maintain
an ongoing local rehab program.

However, the quantified objectives does
include 15 lower income units to be
rehabilitated over the eight years as
resources permit.

See Executive Summary E-46 as well as
policy H 2.3
Public
Participation
E While the element includes a general summary of the public participation process, it must also demonstrate diligent efforts were made to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. The element should be revised to discuss outreach to lower-income and special needs groups during the public participation efforts, solicitation efforts for survey responses, and participation in community workshops, and if translation services were provided.

Appendix F.1 has been updated to
provide additional information on
outreach activities.

See Appendix F.1, page 13 et seq.

General Plan
Consistency
F While the element discusses how internal consistency will be achieved with other elements of the general plan as part of the housing element update, it should also discuss how internal consistency will be maintained throughout the planning period.

Additional narrative has been included
to address this comment
Executive Summary page E-8
Housing Element Resolution
Exhibit A Page 9 of 9 44
Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 1 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
Section 65583
The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.

See below for details
The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factorybuilt housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.

See below for details
The element shall contain all of the following:
(a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include all of the following:

Housing Needs: Appendix A
Resources: Appendix C
Constraints: Appendix B
(a)(1) An analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections Appendix A, A-11 through A-33 (a)(1) A quantification of the locality’s existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, including extremely low income households, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 50105 and Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. These existing and projected needs shall include the locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584.

Local agencies shall calculate the subset of very low income households allotted under Section 65584 that qualify as extremely low income households. The local agency may either use available census data to calculate the percentage of very low income households that qualify as extremely low income households or presume that 50 percent of the very low income households qualify as extremely low income households. The number of extremely low income households and very low income households shall equal the jurisdiction’s allocation of very low income households pursuant to Section 65584.

A-9 et seq.; extremely low income
households, A-23 et seq. and throughout
the AFFH analysis, Appendix D
(a)(2) An analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay,
A-48 et seq.
(a)(2) housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and A-54 et seq. (a)(2) housing stock condition. A-40 et seq.
(a)(3) An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an See Appendix C, Resources, as well as
Executive Summary H-16 et seq.; see also
electronic sites inventory, as well as AFFH
Attachment D.1. Sites Inventory Analysis
45 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 2 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. Note: Please see Section 65583.2 regarding the land inventory.
[Note that AB 2339 (Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022) amended Section 65583(a)(4). It does not apply to ABAG-area housing elements unless the first draft of the housing element is submitted to ABAG after January 31, 2023 or a draft is submitted after April 1, 2023.

Therefore the sections below include the statutory provisions of Section 65583(a)(4) effective in 2022. Jurisdictions adopting their housing element after January 1, 2023 should describe why AB 2339 is not applicable to them.]
(a)(4)(A) The identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The identified zone or zones shall include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7), except that each local government shall identify a zone or zones that can accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter.

Constraints B-21 and Policy H.1.16
(a)(4)(A) If the local government cannot identify a zone or zones with sufficient capacity, the local government shall include a program to amend its zoning ordinance to meet the requirements of this paragraph within one year of the adoption of the housing element. The local government may identify additional zones where emergency shelters are permitted with a conditional use permit.

Constraints B-21 and Policy H.1.16
(a)(4)(A) The local government shall also demonstrate that existing or proposed permit processing, development, and management standards are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters.

Constraints B-21 and Policy H.1.16
(a)(4)(A) Emergency shelters may only be subject to those development and management standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone except that a local government may apply written, objective standards that include all of the following:
(i) The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility. (ii) Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone.
(iii) The size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas. (iv) The provision of onsite management.
(v) The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart.

Constraints B-21 and Policy H.1.16
46 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 3 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(vi) The length of stay.
(vii) Lighting.
(viii) Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation. (a)(4)(B) The permit processing, development, and management standards applied under this paragraph shall not be deemed to be discretionary acts within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).

Constraints B-21 and Policy H.1.16
(a)(4)(C) A local government that can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the department the existence of one or more emergency shelters either within its jurisdiction or pursuant to a multijurisdictional agreement that can accommodate that jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) may comply with the zoning requirements of subparagraph (A) by identifying a zone or zones where new emergency shelters are allowed with a conditional use permit.

Constraints B-21 and Policy H.1.16
(a)(4)(D) A local government with an existing ordinance or ordinances that comply with this paragraph shall not be required to take additional action to identify zones for emergency shelters. The housing element must only describe how existing ordinances, policies, and standards are consistent with the requirements of this paragraph.

Constraints B-21 and Policy H.1.16
(a)(5) An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and [Note: The types of housing identified in Section 65583(c)(1) include multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.]
See the entirety of Appendix B
(a)(5) for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), B-41 et seq. (a)(5) including land use controls, B-23 et seq.
(a)(5) building codes and their enforcement, B-34 et seq. (a)(5) site improvements, B-35
(a)(5) fees and other exactions required of developers, B-29 et seq. (a)(5) local processing and permit procedures, B-36 et seq. (a)(5) and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.

B-32 et seq.
47 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 4 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(a)(5) The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584
See Constraints B-43 and policies H.1.3,
H.1.5, H.1.6, H.1.7, and others in the
Section of policies H.1
(a)(5) and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7).

See Constraints B-41 et seq. and policies
H.1.4, H.1.12, H.1.17, H.1.19, H.2.3, and
AFFH Action 4.2
(a)(6) An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing,
B-6 et seq.
(a)(6) the price of land, B-6
(a)(6) the cost of construction, B-6 et seq.
(a)(6) the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2,
B-9 et seq.
(a)(6) and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584.

B-16 et seq.
(a)(6) The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing.

B-17 et seq.
(a)(7) An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the Appendix A, A-57 et seq. (a)(7) elderly; A-61 et seq.
(a)(7) persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability, as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code;
A-62 et seq.
(a)(7) large families; A-57
(a)(7) farmworkers; A-72 et seq.
(a)(7) families with female heads of households; A-59 et seq. (a)(7) and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. A-66 et seq. (a)(7) The need for emergency shelter shall be assessed based on the capacity necessary to accommodate the most recent homeless point-in-time count conducted before the start of the planning period, the need for emergency shelter based on number of beds available on a yearround and seasonal basis, the number of shelter beds that go unused on an average monthly A-66 et seq.
48 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 5 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
basis within a one-year period, and the percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to permanent housing solutions.
(a)(7) The need for emergency shelter may be reduced by the number of supportive housing units that are identified in an adopted 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness and that are either vacant or for which funding has been identified to allow construction during the planning period.

A-66 et seq.
(a)(7) An analysis of special housing needs by a city or county may include an analysis of the need for frequent user coordinated care housing services.

A-66 et seq.
(a)(8) An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. Cities and counties are encouraged to include weatherization and energy efficiency improvements as part of publicly subsidized housing rehabilitation projects. This may include energy efficiency measures that encompass the building envelope, its heating and cooling systems, and its electrical system.

Executive Summary , H-33
(a)(9) An analysis of existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use. “Assisted housing developments,” for the purpose of this section, shall mean multifamily rental housing that receives governmental assistance under federal programs listed in subdivision (a) of Section 65863.10, state and local multifamily revenue bond programs, local redevelopment programs, the federal Community Development Block Grant Program, or local in-lieu fees. “Assisted housing developments” shall also include multifamily rental units that were developed pursuant to a local inclusionary housing program or used to qualify for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915.

A-37 et seq.; see also detailed analysis in
Executive Summary H-14 et seq.
(a)(9)(A) The analysis shall include a listing of each development by project name and address, the type of governmental assistance received, the earliest possible date of change from lowincome use, and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could be lost from the locality’s low-income housing stock in each year during the 10-year period. For purposes of state and federally funded projects, the analysis required by this subparagraph need only contain information available on a statewide basis.

Executive Summary H-14 et seq.
(a)(9)(B) The analysis shall estimate the total cost of producing new rental housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace the units that could change from low-income use, and an estimated cost of preserving the assisted housing developments. This cost analysis for Executive Summary H-14 et seq.
49 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 6 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
replacement housing may be done aggregately for each five-year period and does not have to contain a project-by-project cost estimate.
(a)(9)(C) The analysis shall identify public and private nonprofit corporations known to the local government that have legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage these housing developments.

Executive Summary H-14 et seq.
(a)(9)(D) The analysis shall identify and consider the use of all federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs that can be used to preserve, for lower income households, the assisted housing developments, identified in this paragraph, including, but not limited to, federal Community Development Block Grant Program funds, tax increment funds received by a redevelopment agency of the community, and administrative fees received by a housing authority operating within the community. In considering the use of these financing and subsidy programs, the analysis shall identify the amounts of funds under each available program that have not been legally obligated for other purposes and that could be available for use in preserving assisted housing developments.

Executive Summary H-14 et seq.
(b) (1) A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing and to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing.

Goals, policies and programs: Appendix E
Quantified objectives: Executive Summary ,
H-47 et seq.
(2) It is recognized that the total housing needs identified pursuant to subdivision (a) may exceed available resources and the community’s ability to satisfy this need within the content of the general plan requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300). Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs.

The quantified objectives shall establish the maximum number of housing units by income category, including extremely low income, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time period.

See above
(c) A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, that may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element
Appendix E, page 37 et seq.
(c) through the administration of land use and development controls, See Appendix E, especially programs under Policies under goal H.1
50 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 7 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(c) the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, See Appendix E, especially programs under Policies under goal H.1
(c) the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available,
Policies H.1.2, H.1.4, H.2.1, and H.2.3
(c) and the utilization of moneys in a low- and moderate-income housing fund of an agency if the locality has established a redevelopment project area pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code).

N/A
In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall do all of the following:
(c)(1) Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Section 65584.09.

See Policy H.1.5
(c)(1) Sites shall be identified as needed to affirmatively further fair housing See Appendix D, Attachment D.1 Belmont AFFH Sites Analysis; see also Appendix E for
the complete list of programs
(c)(1) and to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing,
Programs in Goal H.1, as well as AFFH
Actions 1.2, 1.3, and 2.1
(c)(1) factory-built housing, See Constraints B-21 and Policy H.1.9 (c)(1) mobilehomes, Constraints B-21 and Policy H.1.9
(c)(1) housing for agricultural employees, Constraints B-19 and Policy H.1.10 (c)(1) supportive housing, See Constraints B-22 and Policy H.1.17, H.1.8
(c)(1) single-room occupancy units, Constraints B-22
(c)(1) emergency shelters, Constraints B-21 and policies H.1.11, H.1.16 (c)(1) and transitional housing. Constraints B-22 and Policy H.1.17 (c)(1)(A) Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, rezoning of those sites, including adoption of minimum density and 51 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 8 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
development standards, for jurisdictions with an eight-year housing element planning period pursuant to Section 65588, shall be completed no later than three years after either the date the housing element is adopted pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 65585 or the date that is 90 days after receipt of comments from the department pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65585, whichever is earlier, unless the deadline is extended pursuant to subdivision (f).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, for a local government that fails to adopt a housing element that the department has found to be in substantial compliance with this article within 120 days of the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element, rezoning of those sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element.
(c)(1)(B) Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 65583.2. The identification of sites shall include all components specified in Section 65583.2. Note: Please see Section 65583.2 regarding the land inventory and conformance with subdivision (h).

See Policy H.1.5
(c)(1)(C) Where the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for farmworker housing, the program shall provide for sufficient sites to meet the need with zoning that permits farmworker housing use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of the development of farmworker housing for low- and very low income households.

Constraints B-19 and Policy H.1.10
(c)(2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households.

Programs in Goal H.1, as well as AFFH
Actions 1.2, 1.3, and 2.1
(c)(3) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels
B-17 et seq. and Policies under Goal H.1
(c)(3) and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.

See Constraints B-41 et seq. and policies
H.1.4, H.1.12, H.1.17, H.1.19, H.2.3, and
AFFH Action 4.2
52 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 9 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(c)(3) Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.

Constraints B-22; see also policies H.1.12,
H.1.17
(c)(3)Supportive housing, as defined in Section 65650, shall be a use by right in all zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, as provided in Article 11 (commencing with Section 65650).

Constraints B-22; see also policies H.1.12,
H.1.17
(c)(4) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock, which may include addressing ways to mitigate the loss of dwelling units demolished by public or private action.

AFFH Action 4.1, and Policies H.1.4, H.2.3,
H.2.4,
(c)(5) Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.

See entirety of Appendix D and its
attachments
(c)(6) Preserve for lower income households the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a).

Policies H.2.1, H.2.2, and AFFH Action 4.1
(c)(6) The program for preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary, all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs identified in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available.

Policies H.2.1, H.2.2, and AFFH Action 4.1;
see also discussion in Executive Summary
page 14 et seq.
(c)(6) The program may include strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance. (c)(7) Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. For purposes of this paragraph, “accessory dwelling units” has the same meaning as “accessory dwelling unit” as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2.

Policy H.1.3 and AFFH Action 1.3
(c)(8) Include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions and the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals.

See Appendix E, page 37 et seq.
(c)(9) Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.

Executive Summary H-34 et seq., and the
entirety of Appendix F
53 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 10 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(c)(10)(A) Affirmatively further fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2. The program shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction that shall include all of the following components:
(c)(10)(A)(i) A summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction Appendix D, page 6 et seq. (c)(10)(A)(i) and an assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and fair housing outreach capacity.

D-8 et seq.
(c)(10)(A)(ii) An analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends,
D-25 et seq.
(c)(10)(A)(ii)racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, D-30 et seq. (c)(10)(A)(ii) disparities in access to opportunity, D-39 et seq. and Attachment D.3 (c)(10)(A)(ii) and disproportionate housing needs, D-44 et seq. (c)(10)(A)(ii) including displacement risk. D-47 et seq. (c)(10)(A)(ii) The analysis shall identify and examine such patterns, trends, areas, disparities, and needs, both within the jurisdiction.

Woven throughout Appendix D
(c)(10)(A)(ii) and comparing the jurisdiction to the region in which it is located, based on race and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2) and Section 65008.

Woven throughout Appendix D
(c)(10)(A)(iii) An assessment of the contributing factors, including the local and regional historical origins
D-67 et seq.
(c)(10)(A)(iii) and current policies and practices, for the fair housing issues identified under clauses (i) and (ii).

D-8 et seq.
(c)(10)(A)(iv) An identification of the jurisdiction’s fair housing priorities and goals, giving highest priority to those factors identified in clause (iii) that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance, D-6 et seq.; see also AFFH Action items in
Appendix E.
(c)(10)(A)(iv) and identifying the metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved.

AFFH Action items in Appendix E.
(c)(10)(A)(v) Strategies and actions to implement those priorities and goals, which may include, but are not limited to, enhancing mobility strategies
AFFH Action items in Appendix E.
(c)(10)(A)(v) and encouraging development of new affordable housing in areas of opportunity, AFFH Action items in Appendix E. (c)(10)(A)(v) as well as place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing,
AFFH Action items in Appendix E.
(c)(10)(A)(v) and protecting existing residents from displacement. AFFH Action items in Appendix E. 54 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 11 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(c)(10)(B) A jurisdiction that completes or revises an assessment of fair housing pursuant to Subpart A (commencing with Section 5.150) of Part 5 of Subtitle A of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as published in Volume 80 of the Federal Register, Number 136, page 42272, dated July 16, 2015, or an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice in accordance with the requirements of Section 91.225 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations in effect before August 17, 2015, may incorporate relevant portions of that assessment or revised assessment of fair housing or analysis or revised analysis of impediments to fair housing into its housing element.

N/A
(c)(10)(C) The requirements of this paragraph shall apply to housing elements due to be revised pursuant to Section 65588 on or after January 1, 2021.

N/A
(d)(1) A local government may satisfy all or part of its requirement to identify a zone or zones suitable for the development of emergency shelters pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) by adopting and implementing a multijurisdictional agreement, with a maximum of two other adjacent communities, that requires the participating jurisdictions to develop at least one yearround emergency shelter within two years of the beginning of the planning period.

N/A
(d)(2) The agreement shall allocate a portion of the new shelter capacity to each jurisdiction as credit toward its emergency shelter need, and each jurisdiction shall describe how the capacity was allocated as part of its housing element.

N/A
(d)(3) Each member jurisdiction of a multijurisdictional agreement shall describe in its housing element all of the following:

N/A
(d)(3)(A) How the joint facility will meet the jurisdiction’s emergency shelter need. (d)(3)(B) The jurisdiction’s contribution to the facility for both the development and ongoing operation and management of the facility.
(d)(3)(C) The amount and source of the funding that the jurisdiction contributes to the facility.

N/A
(d)(4) The aggregate capacity claimed by the participating jurisdictions in their housing elements shall not exceed the actual capacity of the shelter.

N/A
(e) Except as otherwise provided in this article, amendments to this article that alter the required content of a housing element shall apply to both of the following: [Note that this provision is applicable to AB 2339 (Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022), which amended Section 65583(a)(4). Jurisdictions adopting their housing element after January 1, 2023 should describe why this amendment is not applicable to them.] N/A
55 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 12 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(1) A housing element or housing element amendment prepared pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, when a city, county, or city and county submits a draft to the department for review pursuant to Section 65585 more than 90 days after the effective date of the amendment to this section.

N/A
(2) Any housing element or housing element amendment prepared pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, when the city, county, or city and county fails to submit the first draft to the department before the due date specified in Section 65588 or 65584.02.

N/A
(f) – (j): Not applicable N/A
Section 65583.1(a)
(a) The Department of Housing and Community Development, in evaluating a proposed or adopted housing element for substantial compliance with this article, … may also allow a city or county to identify sites for accessory dwelling units based on the number of accessory dwelling units developed in the prior housing element planning period whether or not the units are permitted by right, the need for these units in the community, the resources or incentives available for their development, and any other relevant factors, as determined by the department.

C-22 et seq.
(b) Sites that contain permanent housing units located on a military base undergoing closure or conversion as a result of action pursuant to the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526), the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510), or any subsequent act requiring the closure or conversion of a military base may be identified as an adequate site if the housing element demonstrates that the housing units will be available for occupancy by households within the planning period of the element. No sites containing housing units scheduled or planned for demolition or conversion to nonresidential uses shall qualify as an adequate site.

N/A
Note: If communities are using the provisions of Section 65583.1(c), which allow RHNA credit for conversion of non-affordable to affordable housing and for preservation of existing affordable housing at risk of loss, the applicable provisions need to be added to this table.

N/A
Section 65583.2
(a) A city’s or county’s inventory of land suitable for residential development pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 shall be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with paragraph (10) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583, Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-10 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 11 et seq.
56 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 13 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(a) that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584. As used in this section, “land suitable for residential development” includes all of the following sites that meet the standards set forth in subdivisions (c) and (g):

Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-10 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 11 et seq.
(a)(1) Vacant sites zoned for residential use. Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially C-10 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 11 et seq.
(a)(2) Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allows residential development. Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially C-10 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 11 et seq.
(a)(3) Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density, including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-10 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 11 et seq.
(a)(4) Sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for residential use, and for which the housing element includes a program to rezone the site, as necessary, rezoned for, to permit residential use, including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county.

Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-10 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 11 et seq.
(b) The inventory of land shall include all of the following:
(b)(1) A listing of properties by assessor parcel number. See electronic sites inventory (b)(2) The size of each property listed pursuant to paragraph (1), and the general plan designation and zoning of each property.

See electronic sites inventory
(b)(3) For nonvacant sites, a description of the existing use of each property. See electronic sites inventory (b)(3) If a site subject to this paragraph is owned by the city or county, the description shall also include whether there are any plans to dispose of the property during the planning period and how the city or county will comply with Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.

See electronic sites inventory
(b)(4) A general description of any environmental constraints to the development of housing within the jurisdiction, the documentation for which has been made available to the jurisdiction. This information need not be identified on a site-specific basis.

See electronic sites inventory
(b)(5)(A) A description of existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply, including the availability and access to distribution facilities.

See electronic sites inventory
(b)(5)(B) Parcels included in the inventory must have sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan, including a program or plan of a See electronic sites inventory
57 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 14 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
public or private entity providing water or sewer service, to secure sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply to support housing development. This paragraph does not impose any additional duty on the city or county to construct, finance, or otherwise provide water, sewer, or dry utilities to parcels included in the inventory.
(b)(6) Sites identified as available for housing for above moderate-income households in areas not served by public sewer systems. This information need not be identified on a site-specific basis.

N/A
(b)(7) A map that shows the location of the sites included in the inventory, such as the land use map from the jurisdiction’s general plan, for reference purposes only.

See Housing Resources, Appendix C
(c) Based on the information provided in subdivision (b), a city or county shall determine whether each site in the inventory can accommodate the development of some portion of its share of the regional housing need by income level during the planning period, as determined pursuant to Section 65584. The inventory shall specify for each site the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site and whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing.

See electronic sites inventory
(c) A nonvacant site identified pursuant to paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (a) in a prior housing element and a vacant site that has been included in two or more consecutive planning periods that was not approved to develop a portion of the locality’s housing need shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate a portion of the housing need for lower income households that must be accommodated in the current housing element planning period unless the site is zoned at residential densities consistent with paragraph (3) of this subdivision and the site is subject to a program in the housing element requiring rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. An unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county pursuant to clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) shall not be subject to the requirements of this subdivision to allow residential use by right.

Policy H.1.7
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, for a local government that fails to adopt a housing element that the department has found to be in substantial compliance with state law within 120 days of the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element, rezoning pursuant to this subdivision shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element. 58 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 15 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(c) The analysis shall determine whether the inventory can provide for a variety of types of housing, including multifamily rental housing,
Programs in Goal H.1, as well as AFFH
Actions 1.2, 1.3, and 2.1
(c) factory-built housing, mobilehomes, See Constraints B-21 and Policy H.1.9 (c) housing for agricultural employees Constraints B-19 and Policy H.1.10 (c) supportive housing, See Constraints B-22 and Policy H.1.17, H.1.8
(c) single-room occupancy units, Constraints B-22
(c) emergency shelters, and Constraints B-21 and policies H.1.11, H.1.16 (c) transitional housing Constraints B-22 and Policy H.1.17 (c) and whether the inventory affirmatively furthers fair housing . see Appendix D Attachment D.1 Belmont AFFH Sites Analysis
(c) The city or county shall determine the number of housing units that can be accommodated on each site as follows:
(c)(1) If local law or regulations require the development of a site at a minimum density, the department shall accept the planning agency’s calculation of the total housing unit capacity on that site based on the established minimum density. If the city or county does not adopt a law or regulation requiring the development of a site at a minimum density, then it shall demonstrate how the number of units determined for that site pursuant to this subdivision will be accommodated.

Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory
(c)(2) The number of units calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements requirement identified in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583,
Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory
(c)(2) the realistic development capacity for the site, Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory
(c)(2) typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction,
Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory
(c)(2) and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities.

Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
59 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 16 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory
(c)(2)(A) A site smaller than half an acre shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to the department that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing.

Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory
(c)(2)(B) A site larger than 10 acres shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to the department that the site can be developed as lower income housing.

Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory
(c)(2)(B) For purposes of this subparagraph, “site” means that portion of a parcel or parcels designated to accommodate lower income housing needs pursuant to this subdivision. (c)(2)(C) A site may be presumed to be realistic for development to accommodate lower income housing need if, at the time of the adoption of the housing element, a development affordable to lower income households has been proposed and approved for development on the site. (c)(3) For the number of units calculated to accommodate its share of the regional housing need for lower income households pursuant to paragraph (2), a city or county shall do either of the following:
(c)(3)(A) Provide an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities accommodate this need.

The analysis shall include, but is not limited to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, or information based on development project experience within a zone or zones that provide housing for lower income households.

Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory
(c)(3)(B) The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households:
(i) For an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county and for a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area: sites allowing at least 15 units per acre. (ii) For an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county not included in clause (i): sites allowing at least 10 units per acre.
(iii) For a suburban jurisdiction: sites allowing at least 20 units per acre. (iv) For a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county: sites allowing at least 30 units per acre.

Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory; all sites in the inventory can
accommodate at least 30 u/ac
(4)(A) For a metropolitan jurisdiction:
60 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 17 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(4)(A)(i) At least 25 percent of the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for moderate-income housing shall be allocated to sites with zoning that allows at least 4 units of housing, but not more than 100 units per acre of housing.

Appendix C, page 23
(4)(A)(ii) At least 25 percent of the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for above moderate-income housing shall be allocated to sites with zoning that allows at least 4 units of housing.

Appendix C, page 23
(B) The allocation of moderate-income and above moderate-income housing to sites pursuant to this paragraph shall not be a basis for the jurisdiction to do either of the following:
(i) Deny a project that does not comply with the allocation. (ii) Impose a price minimum, price maximum, price control, or any other exaction or condition of approval in lieu thereof. This clause does not prohibit a jurisdiction from imposing any price minimum, price maximum, price control, exaction, or condition in lieu thereof, pursuant to any other law.
(iii) The provisions of this subparagraph do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law with regard to the allocation of sites pursuant to this section. (C) This paragraph does not apply to an unincorporated area. (D) For purposes of this paragraph:
(i) “Housing development project” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5.
(ii) “Unit of housing” does not include an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that could be approved pursuant to Section 65852.2 or Section 65852.22 or through a local ordinance or other provision implementing either of those sections. This paragraph shall not limit the ability of a local government to count the actual production of accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units in an annual progress report submitted pursuant to Section 65400 or other progress report as determined by the department. (E) Nothing in this subdivision shall preclude the subdivision of a parcel, provided that the subdivision is subject to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)) or any other applicable law authorizing the subdivision of land. (d) For purposes of this section, a metropolitan county, nonmetropolitan county, and nonmetropolitan county with a micropolitan area shall be as determined by the United States Census Bureau. A nonmetropolitan county with a micropolitan area includes the following counties: Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Nevada, Tehama, and Tuolumne and other 61 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 18 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
counties as may be determined by the United States Census Bureau to be nonmetropolitan counties with micropolitan areas in the future.
(e) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a jurisdiction shall be considered suburban if the jurisdiction does not meet the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) and is located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of less than 2,000,000 in population, unless that jurisdiction’s population is greater than 100,000, in which case it shall be considered metropolitan. A county, not including the City and County of San Francisco, shall be considered suburban unless the county is in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population in which case the county shall be considered metropolitan. (2)(A)(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a county that is in the San Francisco-OaklandFremont California MSA has a population of less than 400,000, that county shall be considered suburban. If this county includes an incorporated city that has a population of less than 100,000, this city shall also be considered suburban. This paragraph shall apply to a housing element revision cycle, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) of Section 65588, that is in effect from July 1, 2014, to December 31, 2028, inclusive. (2)(A)(ii) A county subject to this subparagraph shall utilize the sum existing in the county’s housing trust fund as of June 30, 2013, for the development and preservation of housing affordable to low- and very low income households.
(2)(B) A jurisdiction that is classified as suburban pursuant to this paragraph shall report to the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development, the Senate Committee on Housing, and the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding its progress in developing low- and very low income housing consistent with the requirements of Section 65400. The report shall be provided three times: once, on or before December 31, 2019, which report shall address the initial four years of the housing element cycle, a second time, on or before December 31, 2023, which report shall address the subsequent four years of the housing element cycle, and a third time, on or before December 31, 2027, which report shall address the subsequent four years of the housing element cycle and the cycle as a whole. The reports shall be provided consistent with the requirements of Section 9795. (f) A jurisdiction shall be considered metropolitan if the jurisdiction does not meet the requirements for “suburban area” above and is located in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population, unless that jurisdiction’s population is less than 25,000 in which case it shall be considered suburban.
62 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 19 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(g)(1) For sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) [non-vacant sites], the city or county shall specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential.

Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory
(g)(1) The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory
(g)(1) the city’s or county’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development,
Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory
(g)(1) the current market demand for the existing use, Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory
(g)(1) an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory
(g)(1) development trends, Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory
(g)(1) market conditions, Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory
(g)(1) and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.

Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory
63 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 20 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(g)(2) In addition to the analysis required in paragraph (1), when a city or county is relying on nonvacant sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) to accommodate 50 percent or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology used to determine additional development potential shall demonstrate that the existing use identified pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element. An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.

Appendix C, Housing Resources, especially
C-14 et seq, as well as Executive Summary
page 18 et seq.; See electronic sites
inventory. In addition, the resolution
adopting the Housing Element contains
specific findings regarding existing uses as
not constituting impediments to further
development.
(g)(3) Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to the requirements in paragraphs (1) and (2), sites that currently have residential uses, or within the past five years have had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low or very low income, subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power, or occupied by low or very low income households, shall be subject to a policy requiring the replacement of all those units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on the site. Replacement requirements shall be consistent with those set forth in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915.

Policy H.2.4
(h) The program required by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 shall accommodate 100 percent of the need for housing for very low and low-income households allocated pursuant to Section 65584 for which site capacity has not been identified in the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) on sites that shall be zoned to permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right for developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households during the planning period.

N/A
(h) These sites shall be zoned with minimum density and development standards that permit at least
N/A
(h) 16 units per site at a density of at least 16 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), N/A
(h) shall be at least 20 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clauses (iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c)
N/A
(h) and shall meet the standards set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b).

N/A
64 Belmont Housing Element Statutory Requirements Compliance Checklist January 2023 Page 21 of 21
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(h) At least 50 percent of the very low and low-income housing need shall be accommodated on sites designated for residential use and for which nonresidential uses or mixed uses are not permitted, except that a city or county may accommodate all of the very low and low-income housing need on sites designated for mixed uses if those sites allow 100 percent residential use and require that residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project.

N/A
(i) For purposes of this section and Section 65583, the phrase “use by right” shall mean that the local government’s review of the owner-occupied or multifamily residential use may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Any subdivision of the sites shall be subject to all laws, including, but not limited to, the local government ordinance implementing the Subdivision Map Act.

N/A
(i) A local ordinance may provide that “use by right” does not exempt the use from design review. However, that design review shall not constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

N/A
(i) Use by right for all rental multifamily residential housing shall be provided in accordance with subdivision (f) of Section 65589.5.

N/A
(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, within one-half mile of a Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit station, housing density requirements in place on June 30, 2014, shall apply.

N/A
65 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
November 22, 2022
Carlos de Melo, Director
Community Development Department
City of Belmont
1 Twin Pines Ln
Belmont, CA 94002
Dear Carlos de Melo:

RE: City of Belmont’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Belmont’s (City) draft housing element received for review on August 24, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on November 17, 2022 with yourself, Jennifer Rose, and consultant Diana Elrod. In addition, HCD considered comments from the Greenbelt Alliance, Campaign for Fair Housing Elements, and YIMBY Law pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).

The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Please be aware, if the City fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until rezones to accommodate a shortfall of sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c), paragraph (1), subparagraph (A) and Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c) are completed.
66 Carlos de Melo, Director

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.

HCD is committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Molivann Phlong, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
67 City of Belmont’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 1 November 22, 2022

APPENDIX

CITY OF BELMONT
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).)
A thorough program-by-program review is necessary to evaluate City's performance in addressing housing goals. As part of this analysis, the element should describe the actual results of the prior element’s programs with results quantified where possible. This information and analysis provide the basis for developing a more effective housing program. In addition, the element states that the City is removing the program incentivizing lot consolidation.

However, the City’s current sites inventory may rely on lot consolidation to accommodate the Regional Housing Need. If so, rather than removing the program, the element must analyze how the program could be modified to increase its effectiveness to support the lot consolidation strategy to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations.

As part of the evaluation of programs in the past cycle, the element must analyze the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed households, farmworkers and persons experiencing homelessness). Programs should be revised as appropriate to reflect the results of this evaluation.

B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A)) Enforcement and Outreach: The element must include the City’s ability to provide enforcement and outreach capacity which can consist of actions such as the City’s ability to investigate complaints, obtain remedies, or the City’s ability to engage in fair housing testing. The element must address the City’s enforcement capacity including findings, lawsuits, and the City’s process to refer fair housing cases. In addition, the element must 68 City of Belmont’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 2 November 22, 2022
summarize fair housing issues related to enforcement and outreach capacity and relationship to other fair housing issue areas. The analysis must also describe compliance with existing fair housing laws and regulations and include information on fair housing outreach capacity.

Integration and Segregation: The element includes some data on integration and segregation at the regional and local level; however, additional information is needed. The element should describe the factors that contribute to the identified segregation of white majority census tracts. This could include an analysis of high diversity census tracts along Highway 101 and include contributing factors to the segregation of White residents majority tracts. For disability status, the element indicates a significant population figure living with at least one disability, concentrated in the central part of the City. The element should expand on the analysis of access to housing, services, and living conditions of this population and the City’s ability to meet their needs as well as include a regional analysis for persons with disabilities. For familial status, the element should analyze local concentrations geographically within the City.

Racial/Ethnic Areas of Concentration of Poverty and Affluence (R/ECAP): The element includes information relative to R/ECAP within the City but should also include a regional analysis. In addition, the element must also address concentrated areas of affluence both locally and regionally. The analysis should evaluate the patterns and changes over time at a local and regional level and consider other relevant factors, such as public participation, past policies, practices, and investments and demographic trends.

Disparities in Access to Opportunity: The element provides some information on the access to opportunity; however, a complete analysis should include the local and regional disparities of the educational, environmental, transportation, persons living with disabilities, and economic scores through local, federal, and/or state data. For disparities in access to opportunity for employment, the element states the City has an overwhelming positive economic outlook but identifies lower employment scores in two areas. The element should evaluate this information for patterns and trends including comparisons to the surrounding county; describe access to jobs for protected classes; and analyze what contributes to the lower employment score in two areas in the TCAC maps. For disparities in access to opportunity for transportation, the element should assess whether there are any disproportionate access opportunities to public transit or infrastructure for protected classes. In addition, the element should analyze access to transit throughout the City. For disparities in access to opportunity for environment, the element states the City scores well on environmental outcomes. However, the element must describe what contributes to the one low scoring area within the City as well as provide a regional analysis comparing the City to the surrounding region.

Disproportionate Housing Needs Including Displacement: While the element includes some data on disproportionate needs, additional information is needed. The element must analyze geographic concentrations of cost burden (by tenure), overcrowding, and substandard housing within the City as well as provide a regional analysis comparing the City to the surrounding region. For disproportionate housing needs for persons experiencing homelessness, the element sites data regarding the County’s homeless population but does not include the City’s homeless population; however, the element 69 City of Belmont’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 3 November 22, 2022
must include the City’s homeless data and analyze existing trends and policies in the City that exclude homeless populations or force homeless populations onto surrounding areas.

Lastly, the element must also describe and analyze areas sensitive to displacement beyond units at-risk, including an analysis of displacement risk due to disaster (e.g., earthquake, fire, and flood).

Site Inventory: The element must include an analysis demonstrating whether sites identified to meet the RHNA are distributed throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. The element must address and analyze the RHNA sites that are near Highway 101, which is noted as having the worst environmental score in the entire jurisdiction. In addition, most sites are located in the Belmont Village Zoning District and must be analyzed to whether the site selection will exacerbate conditions. The element must also describe how the City is promoting housing mobility in single-family areas. In addition, the element must analyze affects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, access to opportunity). The element should discuss whether the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates conditions. If sites exacerbate conditions or isolates the RHNA by income group, the element should identify further program actions (not limited to the RHNA) that will be taken to promote equitable quality of life throughout the community (e.g., housing mobility and new opportunities in higher resource areas).

Contributing Factors: The element identifies many contributing factors to fair housing issues. The element must prioritize these factors to better formulate policies and programs and carry out meaningful actions to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). In addition, the element must describe how the actions in the Belmont AFFH Action Plan are tied to the housing element programs and include implementation.

2. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).) Extremely Low-Income Households (ELI): While the element quantifies the total number of ELI households, it must also quantify the number of projected ELI households and analyze their housing needs. The analysis of ELI housing needs should consider tenure and rates of overpayment.

3. Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Overpayment: The element must quantify and analyze the number of lower-income households overpaying by tenure (i.e., renter and owner).

Housing Stock Condition: While the element includes an estimate of rehabilitation need based on housing age, it must include analysis of the condition of the existing housing stock and estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. For example, the analysis could include estimates from a recent windshield survey or sampling, estimates from the code enforcement agency, or information from 70 City of Belmont’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 4 November 22, 2022
knowledgeable builders/developers, including non-profit housing developers or organizations.

4. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The City’s RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built since June 30, 2022; however, the element must demonstrate their affordability based on actual sales price, rent level or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed restrictions). The element should also discuss the status, any barriers to development and other relevant factors to demonstrate their availability in the planning period.

Sites Inventory: The element must list sites by parcel number, parcel size, zoning, general plan designation, describing existing uses for any nonvacant sites and include a calculation of the realistic capacity of each site. While the element includes some of these requirements, the inventory must include parcel size, zoning, general plan designation, a description of existing uses for any nonvacant sites, and which sites are assumed to be consolidated. For sites that will accommodate the lower-income RHNA, the sites inventory must also clearly identify nonvacant sites identified in a prior adopted housing element or vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive planning periods.

Realistic Capacity: While the element provides assumptions of buildout for sites included in the inventory, it must also provide support for these assumptions. For example, the element should demonstrate what specific trends, factors, and other evidence led to the assumptions. In addition, the element should include additional examples to support the density of 59 dwelling units per acre for small sites under half an acre and clarify whether the density of 113 dwelling units per acre for sites larger than half-acre include State Density Bonus provisions in the Belmont Village Specific Plan. The analysis should also clarify if capacity assumptions are the same for all sites regardless of zoning designation.

The estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities.

The element must also analyze the likelihood that the identified units will be developed as noted in the inventory in zones that allow nonresidential uses (e.g., mixed-use). This analysis should consider the likelihood of nonresidential development in mixed-use and commercial areas, performance standards, and development trends supporting residential development.

AB 725: For jurisdictions that are considered Metropolitan, the element must identify at least 25 percent of the remaining moderate and above moderate RHNA on sites that allow at least four units of housing (e.g., four plex or greater). (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(4).)
71 City of Belmont’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 5 November 22, 2022
City-Owned Sites: The element must include additional discussion on each of the CityOwned sites identified to accommodate the RHNA. Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). In addition, the housing element must include a description of whether there are any plans to sell the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.

Small Sites: Sites smaller than an half acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower-income housing units as projected for the site or unless the housing element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A).). For example, a site with a proposed and approved housing development that contains units affordable to lower income households would be an appropriate site to accommodate housing for lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(C).) If lots are expected to be consolidated, the analysis could describe the City’s role or track record in facilitating past lot consolidation, common ownership, policies, or incentives offered or proposed to encourage and facilitate lot consolidation or other conditions rendering parcels suitable and ready for lot consolidation.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites. The methodology must consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may impede additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g).) For sites with residential uses, the inventory could also describe structural conditions or other circumstances and trends demonstrating the redevelopment potential to more intense residential uses. For nonresidential sites, the inventory could also describe whether the use is operating, marginal or discontinued, and the condition of the structure or could describe any expressed interest in redevelopment. In addition, the element could describe how sites in Table 9 (page E-23) relate to the sites identified in the inventory and describe site conditions, any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, and any developer interests.

If the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households, the housing element must demonstrate that the existing use is not an impediment to additional residential development in the planning period (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).).
72 City of Belmont’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 6 November 22, 2022
This can be demonstrated by providing substantial evidence that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2). For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning.

Replacement Housing Requirements: If the sites inventory identifies sites with existing residential uses, it must identify whether they are affordable to lower-income households or describe whether the additional residential development on the site requires the demolition of the existing residential use. For nonvacant sites with existing, vacated, or demolished residential uses and occupied by, or subject to an affordability requirement for, lower-income households within the last five years there must be a replacement housing program for units affordable to lower-income households (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(3)). Absent a replacement housing program, these sites are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households. The replacement housing program has the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section. 65915, subdivision (c)(3). The housing element must be revised to include such analysis and a program, if necessary.

Infrastructure: While the element includes a general discussion on water and sewer capacity, it must demonstrate sufficient existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utility capacity to accommodate the City’s regional housing need for the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (b).)
For your information, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. HCD recommends including a cover memo describing the City ’s housing element, including the City’s housing needs and regional housing need. The element should demonstrate compliance with these requirements and add or modify programs, if necessary. For additional information and sample cover memo, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/priority-for-water-and-sewer.

Environmental Constraints: While the element generally describes a few environmental conditions within the City, it must describe any known environmental constraints or conditions (e.g., shape, accessibility, easements, contamination) within the City that could impact housing development in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (b).) Electronic Sites Inventory: Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-elements-hcd for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance. Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to [email protected]. 73 City of Belmont’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 7 November 22, 2022
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Multifamily Housing: On page B-18, the element states that a conditional use permit (CUP) is required for multifamily housing in the R-3, R-4, and HRO-3 zones. The element must analyze the CUP process as a potential constraint on housing supply and affordability. The analysis should identify findings of approval for the CUP and their potential impact on development approval certainty, timing, and cost. The element must demonstrate this process is not a constraint or it must include a program to address and remove or mitigate the CUP requirement. • Accessory Dwelling Units: The element indicates the City modified its zoning code to ease barriers to the development of accessory dwelling units (ADU’s). However, after a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which were not consistent with State ADU Law. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU non-compliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should add a program to update the City’s ADU ordinance to comply with state law. • Emergency Shelters: The housing element must demonstrate the permit processing, development, and management standards for emergency shelters are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters. The element should describe the permit processing, development, and management standards of the S-2 Emergency Shelter Combining District that allows emergency shelters by-right. In addition, the element should describe the capacity of sites included in the overlay to accommodate the City’s need. Lastly, the element should describe how emergency shelter parking requirements comply with AB139/Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A) or include a program to comply with this requirement. • Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing: Transitional housing and supportive housing must be permitted as a residential use in all zones allowing residential uses and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) While the element states that the City complies with these requirements, according to the table on Page B-19, transitional housing is not allowed in Village zoning districts where multifamily is allowed. The element must ensure consistency between the analysis and the tables and add programs as appropriate.

5. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land Use Controls: The analysis must evaluate the cumulative impacts of land use controls on the cost and supply of housing, including the ability to achieve maximum densities and cost and supply of housing. Specifically, the analysis must analyze the minimum floor area per unit (1,450 square feet) in the CMU zone, the limit of two-stories in the R-3 zone as constraints on housing development, and open space requirements in the 74 City of Belmont’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 8 November 22, 2022
R-3, R-4, and CMU zones. In addition, the element should analyze minimum setbacks for mixed-use developments when next to residential zones. The element should add or modify programs to address or remove identified constraints. The element should also analyze the CUP requirement for housing on the ground floor level in the Corridor MixedUse District and whether one hundred percent commercial or residential developments are allowed in mixed-use zones.

Parking: The element must analyze the parking requirements (p. B-25) of more than one space per studio and one-bedroom unit in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones. Should the analysis determine the parking standards or permit procedures are a constraint on residential development, it must include a program to address or remove any identified constraints.

Zoning and Fees Transparency: The element must clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all fees, inclusionary requirements, and zoning and development standards for each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1(a)(1).

Fees and Exaction: The element must describe all required fees for single family and multifamily housing development, including impact fees, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could identify the total amount of fees and their proportion to the development costs for both single family and multifamily housing. The element should include typical fees for zone changes, General Plan changes, tentative maps, lot consolidation, etc. The element should also analyze the identified fees as a percent of the total development cost for both single family and multifamily developments and add a program as appropriate.

Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element describes the use permit procedure for housing, it must further describe and analyze the City’s permit processing and approval procedures by zone and housing type (e.g., multifamily rental housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing). The analysis must evaluate the processing and permit procedures’ impacts as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability and analyze CUP findings as a constraint on multifamily development. For example, the analysis should consider processing and approval procedures and time for typical single- and multi-family developments, including type of permit, level of review, approval findings and any discretionary approval procedures.

SB 35 Streamlining Provisions: The element includes program H.4.1 to update the City’s website with resources for SB 35, it should clarify whether the City has procedures consistent with streamlining procedures pursuant to Government Code section 65913.4 in place and include programs as appropriate.

Local Ordinances: The element must specifically analyze locally adopted ordinances such as inclusionary ordinances or short-term rental ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.

Design Review: The element must describe and analyze the design review guidelines and process, including approval procedures and decision-making criteria, for their impact as 75 City of Belmont’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 9 November 22, 2022
potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could describe required findings and discuss whether objective standards and guidelines improve development certainty and mitigate cost impacts. The element must demonstrate this process is not a constraint or include a program to address this permitting requirement, as appropriate.

Codes and Enforcement: The element must describe and analyze any local amendments to the building code and their degree and type of enforcement for impacts on housing supply and affordability.

On/Off-Site Improvements: The element must identify subdivision level improvement requirements, such as minimum street widths (e.g., 40-foot minimum street width) and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability.

Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element must include an analysis of zoning, development standards, building codes, and process and permit procedures as potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. The analysis must describe the findings and approval procedure for the City’s Reasonable Accommodation procedure. In addition, while the element describes the City’s definition of family, it should analyze the requirement of requiring “structured organization and stability”, whether this is a potential constraint on housing for persons with disabilities and add or modify programs as appropriate.

While the element describes how group homes for six or fewer and seven or more are allowed within the City, they must be analyzed as a constraint and add programs as appropriate. Specifically, the CUP requirement for group homes for six or fewer residents in the HRO zone and the CUP requirement for group homes for seven or more residents in all residential zones. For your information, zoning should simply implement a barrier-free definition of family instead of subjecting, potentially persons with disabilities, to special regulations such as the number of persons, population types and licenses. These housing types should not be excluded from residential zones, most notably low-density zones, which can constrain the availability of housing choices for persons with disabilities.

Requiring these housing types to obtain a special use or CUP could potentially subject housing for persons with disabilities to higher discretionary exceptions processes and standards where an applicant must, for example, demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood, unlike other residential uses.

6. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-lowincome housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).).

While the element includes a list of at-risk properties during the planning period, it must analyze properties at-risk within the next ten years. In addition, HCD data shows an additional property, Horizons Apartments, at-risk of expiring within the next ten years. The element should include an analysis of all at-risk properties within the City. 76 City of Belmont’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 10 November 22, 2022
C. Housing Programs

1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
Programs must demonstrate that they will have a beneficial impact within the planning period. Beneficial impact means specific commitment to deliverables, measurable metrics or objectives, definitive deadlines, dates, or benchmarks for implementation. Deliverables should occur early in the planning period to ensure actual housing outcomes. To address the program requirements of Government Code section 65583, subd. (c) (1-6), and to facilitate implementation, programs must include: (1) specific actions the local government will take during the planning period; (2) timelines that result in beneficial impacts within the planning period; (3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials. Programs to be revised include the following:

All programs should be evaluated to ensure meaningful and specific actions and objectives. Programs containing unclear language (e.g., “Evaluate”; “Consider”; “Encourage”; etc.) should be amended to include more specific and measurable actions.

Programs to be revised include, but are not limited to, Programs H1.2 (Use Public Funding for Low/Moderate Income Housing), H1.4 (Housing Funds Investment Strategy), H2.4 (Require Replacement Units), and H3.1 (Expand Tenant Protections). • Program H1.2 (Use Public Funding for Low/Moderate Income Housing): This program should be revised to include a commitment beyond explore in action B. in addition, the element should describe how the inclusionary requirement will be modified in action C.
• Program H2.1 (Support Retention of Existing Lower Income Units): This program should be revised to include specific timing for implementation prior to each action and tie this program to State Preservation Notice Law.
• Program H2.3 (Target Rehabilitation Funding to Special Needs Groups): This program should be revised to include proactive outreach as well as implement the rehabilitation actions earlier in the planning period.
• Program H2.5 (Housing Service Organization Partnerships): This program should be revised to include the frequency and how often actions will occur. • Program H3.1 (Expand Tenant Protections): This program should be revised to include proactive outreach actions.
• Program H3.2 (Home Ownership Financing): This program should be revised to include higher frequencies of hosting workshops during the planning period.

2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
77 City of Belmont’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 11 November 22, 2022
As noted in Finding B4, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

Incentives and Concessions: As the element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households, it should include a program(s) to promote residential development of those sites. The program(s) could commit to provide financial assistance, regulatory concessions, or incentives to encourage and facilitate new, or more intense, residential development on the sites. Examples of incentives include identifying and targeting specific financial resources and reducing appropriate development standards.

Program H1.4 (Housing Funds Investment Strategy): This program should be revised to state when priorities will be implemented and should address special needs housing for persons with developmental disabilities.

Program H1.5 (Update Zoning Code): If the element must rezones sites to accommodate the RHNA for lower-income households, a program must commit to a number of units (shortfall), acreage, allowable densities, appropriate development standards and meet all the by right requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). For example, sites and zoning must permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households.

Programs H1.8 (Evaluate and Update Permanent Supportive Housing Requirements) and H2.3 (Target Rehabilitation Funding to Special Needs Groups): These programs should be revised to include an earlier implementation timeframe.

3. The Housing Element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)
The element must include a program(s) with specific actions and timelines to assist in the development of housing for ELI households. The program(s) could commit the at least annual proactive outreach with affordable developers, priority processing, granting fee waivers or deferrals, modifying development standards, granting concessions and incentives for housing developments that include units affordable to extremely low-income households; assisting, supporting, or pursuing funding applications; and outreach and coordination with affordable housing developers.

In addition, the element must also include a program(s) to assist in the development of housing for all special needs households including persons with disabilities. Program actions could include proactive outreach and assistance to non-profit service providers and developers, prioritizing some funding for housing developments affordable to special 78 City of Belmont’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 12 November 22, 2022
needs households and offering financial incentives or regulatory concessions to encourage a variety of housing types.

4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.

The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
As noted in Finding B5, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

Program to Mitigate Non-Governmental Constraints: The element must be revised to include a program that mitigates non-governmental constraints that create a gap in the jurisdictions ability to meet RHNA by income category (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(3).).

Program H1.1 (Monitor Regional Housing Need Allocation): This program should be revised to include no net loss and mitigation policies with adequate sites policies to mitigate unmet RHNA due to changes in production.

Program H1.10 (Update Requirements for Farmworker Housing): This program must move up timing to be implemented earlier in the planning period. In addition, the program should cite the government code for farmworker housing.

Program H1.11 (Update Requirements for Homeless Persons): The program should clarify zoning will be updated to permit these uses in multifamily zones as well as mixed use zones pursuant to AB 101, Government Code section 65660.

Program H1.12 (Update Requirements for Residential Care Facilities): This program should be revised to ensure residential care facilities for seven or more persons are allowed in all zones allowing residential uses based on objective criteria to facilitate approval certainty.

5. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding B1, the element requires a complete AFFH analysis. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs. Goals and actions must significantly seek to overcome contributing factors to fair housing issues. The element must include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs, actions, and fair housing results. In addition, the element must tie the fair housing action plan to the AFFH program. Given that most of the City is considered a high resource community, the element could focus on programs that enhance housing mobility and encourage development of more housing choices and affordable housing. Programs also need to be based on identified contributing factors, be significant and meaningful. The 79 City of Belmont’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 13 November 22, 2022
element must add, and revise programs based on a complete analysis and listing and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, placebased strategies for community preservation and revitalization, and displacement protection.

6. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) Program H1.3 (Incentivize ADU Development): This program should be revised to include actions to update the City’s ADU ordinance to comply with state law. In addition, this program should clarify how often ADU fees will be monitored and include implementation for best practices review and include proactive outreach to the community.

D. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).) While the element includes quantified objectives for projected development (page E-40), it must also include quantified objectives estimating the number of housing units by income category that can be rehabilitated and conserved over the planning period.

E. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) While the element includes a general summary of the public participation process, it must also demonstrate diligent efforts were made to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. The element should be revised to discuss outreach to lower-income and special needs groups during the public participation efforts, solicitation efforts for survey responses, and participation in community workshops, and if translation services were provided.

F. Consistency with General Plan
The Housing Element shall describe the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) While the element discusses how internal consistency will be achieved with other elements of the general plan as part of the housing element update, it should also discuss how internal consistency will be maintained throughout the planning period. 80

SR - GCC Service Agreement - HIA Specific Plan-EIR - 1-30-23CC

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 30, 2023
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Carlos de Melo, Community Development Director, (650) 595-7440 [email protected]
Agenda Title: Service Agreement with Good City Company for Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Services Agreement with the Good City Company for preparation of the Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Strategic Focus Area
Economic Development and Housing
Background
The Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) is not within the Belmont city limits but is in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County to the southeast of the city (see aerial map on next page). The HIA is within Belmont’s approved Sphere of Influence (SOI). The area is bounded by O’Neill Avenue and the Belmont city limits to the north; Old County Road and the Belmont city limits to the west; Belmont Creek and City of San Carlos to the south; and US 101 to the east.

The approximately 62-acre area consists largely of industrial land uses, with some commercial uses and a mobile home park. Of the 62 acres, 45 acres are occupied by industrial uses and 11 acres are the right-ofways of Harbor Boulevard, O’Neill Avenue, Old County Road, Elmer Street and Industrial Way. The mobile home park is located on 3.5 acres. Within the HIA, industrial uses occupy over 72 percent of the land.

The HIA has been identified as a special study area, and previous studies have indicated that annexation of the HIA to Belmont would diversify Belmont’s existing labor source and add to the City’s total employment by around 20 percent. A key objective identified in the City’s 2017 General Plan (GP) update was to advance long-term efforts to achieve annexation of the HIA and fully integrate it into the Belmont community. Below are pertinent 2017 GP Land Use Element Goals & Policies to the HIA Annexation effort:
• GOAL 2.21 Pursue annexation of the Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) and bring it into the Belmont city limits.
• Policy 2.21-1 Collaborate with San Mateo County to draft a mutually agreeable annexation agreement.
81

SR - GCC Service Agreement - HIA Specific Plan-EIR - 1-30-23CC • Policy 2.21-2 Expand opportunities for HIA
property owners and businesses through application of
land use designations for the area that would allow
commercial, light industrial, retail, hotel, and research and development uses throughout, as well as high density residential uses in HIA-1 only.
• Policy 2.21-3 Support infrastructure improvements
and efforts to improve flood control in the HIA.

The City has prezoned the area and established two land use designations for the HIA. HIA-1 continues to
accommodate the light industrial uses traditionally
present in the area, as well as retail, hotel, research and development. Given its close proximity to the established (2017) Belmont Village Specific Plan Area (BVSP),
HIA-1 also allows for high density residential uses. HIA2, the larger of the two HIA designations in terms of acreage, allows for the same mix of uses except for the exclusion of residential uses and the additional
accommodation of large floorplate retail uses meant to
attract big box tenants. As the area redevelops over time, creation and preservation of middle-class jobs should be balanced with new commercial/office and residential
development opportunities.

The City has also been working collaboratively with the County of San Mateo on the framework, timeline, and
associated agreements necessary to facilitate the
wholesale annexation of the subject lands to Belmont’s
jurisdiction. Two development project applications within the Unincorporated HIA have also already been filed with the City of Belmont, and in consultation with County staff on land use evaluation, infrastructure assessment, and CEQA clearance. One is located at 608 Harbor Boulevard – a 103 Residential Apartment Unit development, and at 601 Harbor Boulevard – a 375,000 sq. ft. Biotech/Life Sciences/Office development. Discussions with the County center on interim annexation tasks for these lands of the subject projects, while the comprehensive process of full annexation of the balance of the Unincorporated HIA lands project is completed.

The City has determined that a Specific Plan as defined by State of California statute (§65450 et seq.) is a key complimentary piece, in combination with infrastructure evaluation, and successfully forged agreements with the County of San Mateo, to systematically implement a sustainable long-range land use vision for the area. An HIA Specific Plan would also create a logical extension of the goals, objectives, and implementation actions of the BVSP, and further establish this area for long-term dynamic, vibrant, mixed-use growth for the City.
82

SR - GCC Service Agreement - HIA Specific Plan-EIR - 1-30-23CC Analysis
In October 2022, the City issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) for preparation of the HIA Specific Plan & EIR Project. The City sent the proposal to ten (10) firms and received two submissions that were deemed as responsive to the RFP requirements. Both firms were interviewed in mid-December 2022. An interview panel of Senior Management Team (SMT) members scoring resulted in Good City Company being the top-ranked firm (and with their team of sub-consultants) the most qualified to perform the work associated with the HIA Specific Plan and accompanying EIR.

Good City Company is an experienced and highly qualified General Plan, Environmental Services, Current Planning, and Urban Planning firm that has worked on numerous projects in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. The Good City Company assembled an experienced team, were better versed on the existing conditions/constraints/challenges for the HIA Planning Area and presented a more robust and targeted public outreach plan. The HIA planning process and EIR preparation will be embodied in a 24- month work plan, with projected Plan and EIR adoption in Q1 2025.

The estimated project cost consists of a labor budget of approximately $983,281; with direct additional costs of $14,900, the total budget is estimated at $998,181. A recommended 10% contingency of $99,818 and inclusion of a few Optional tasks ($19,120) would result in a total budget and contingency of $1,117,119. The Project Budget is based on the cost of time and materials. Should the City have a study or studies in progress that will yield information relevant to the project which will be available during the project schedule, such studies may be substituted for equivalent tasks in the Scope of Work and the Project Budget will be adjusted accordingly. Staff believes that the not-to-exceed cost for consulting services is reasonable, and the scope of work is appropriate for the proposed project.

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the procurement of planning & environmental services for the HIA Specific Plan/EIR from the Good City Company based on the tasks/scope/budget set forth in Attachment B to the proposed resolution accompanying this report.

For a project of this scale/complexity, the authorization for procurement of planning/environmental services requested is limited to the amount of available funds appropriated within the fiscal year budget for that purpose. As such, project cost coverage is contingent upon the availability of existing General Plan Maintenance funds (Fund 212), with the expectation that service costs are anticipated to be recouped over time from fees collected from development project applicants within the to-be-established HIA Planning Area.

Alternatives

1. Solicit proposals from other consulting firms.

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.

3. Take no action.

Attachments
A. Resolution
B. HIA Specific Plan/EIR Scope of Work/Budget – Good City Company 83

SR - GCC Service Agreement - HIA Specific Plan-EIR - 1-30-23CC Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed: 212-5-906-8351
The Council adopted the FY 2022-23 operating budget inclusive of the General Plan Maintenance Fund – (account number: 212-5-906-8351) designed for utilization of such funds for long-range planning efforts and companion environmental review services. In this case, a long-range planning and environmental assessment project with a not-to-exceed cost of $1,117,119. This project cost is anticipated to be repaid via anticipated development, housing, and CEQA impact fees to be established in conjunction with this project.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Council Council Vision/Priority Posting of Agenda
84

RESOLUTION NO. 2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH GOOD CITY COMPANY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,117,119 FOR

LONG-RANGE PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR THE HARBOR

INDUSTRIAL AREA (HIA) SPECIFIC PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT (EIR)
WHEREAS, the City has need from time to time of planning and environmental services related to larger scale, complex development projects and long-range planning that require skilled planners/project managers with particular expertise; and, WHEREAS, the Good City Company has demonstrated expertise in the long-range planning and environmental assessment field; and,
WHEREAS, The Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) has been identified as a special study area, and previous studies have indicated that annexation of the HIA to Belmont would diversify Belmont’s existing labor source and add to the City’s total employment by around 20 percent.

A key objective identified in the City’s 2017 General Plan (GP) update was to advance longterm efforts to achieve annexation of the HIA and fully integrate it into the Belmont community; and,
WHEREAS, the City has been working collaboratively with the County of San Mateo on the framework, timeline, and associated agreements necessary to facilitate the wholesale annexation of the subject lands to Belmont’s jurisdiction; and, WHEREAS, The City has determined that a Specific Plan as defined by State of California statute (§65450 et seq.) is a key complimentary piece, in combination with infrastructure evaluation, and successfully forged agreements with the County of San Mateo, to systematically implement a sustainable long-range land use vision for the area. An HIA Specific Plan would also create a logical extension of the goals, objectives, and implementation actions of the adopted 2017 Belmont Village Specific Plan (BVSP), and further establish this area for long-term dynamic, vibrant, mixed-use growth for the City; and, WHEREAS, the City of Belmont conducted a competitive consultant solicitation, evaluation, and selection process for the HIA Specific Plan and EIR Project; and, WHEREAS, Good City Company capably responded to the City’s Request For Proposals (RFP) for the Project, availed their project team for interviews by the City’s Consultant Selection Committee, and were found to be the best qualified firm to perform the tasks associated with an HIA Specific Plan and EIR Project; and,
WHEREAS, the proposal from Good City Company (Consultant) will include performance of services generally including: Analysis of existing land use conditions and opportunities, land use alternatives analysis, development of Specific Plan components and policy framework, development of parking and infrastructure strategies, preparation of design 85

standards and guidelines, conducting an environmental review, and production of an HIA Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and, WHEREAS, the Project Budget is based on the cost of time and materials. Should the City have a study or studies in progress that will yield information relevant to the project which will be available during the project schedule, such studies may be substituted for equivalent tasks in the Scope of Work and the Project Budget will be adjusted accordingly; and, WHEREAS, in reliance upon Consultant’s documentation of its qualifications, the City finds that Consultant has demonstrated the requisite qualifications, experience, training, and expertise to perform the requested services.

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

SECTION 1. The City Manager is authorized to execute an agreement with the Good City Company to provide long-range planning/environmental services for preparation of the Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Project consistent with the scope, budget, and rates set forth in the Good City Company proposal outlined herein as Attachment B in an amount not to exceed $1,117,119. This authorization granted herein for procurement of planning/environmental services is limited to the amount of available funds appropriated within a fiscal year budget for that purpose. * * *
ADOPTED January 30, 2023 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
86 GOOD CITY COMPANY
in collaboration with
Proposal to Prepare the
Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) Specific Plan and
Environmental Impact Report for the City of Belmont
Revised: January 18, 2023
87 Cover Letter
Project Team
Project Understanding/Approach
Work Plan
Project Schedule
Project Budget
References
Attachments

1. W-Trans Access, Connectivity, Transit, and Parking Analysis Scope of Work

2. Resumes and Staff Biographies

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 4
6 8
27 29
31 32
40 Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 88 November 7, 2022
Carlos de Melo, Community Development Director
City of Belmont
Community Development Department
One Twin Pines Lane, Suite 310
Belmont, CA 94002
RE: Response to RFP for Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report
Dear Carlos:

Good City Company (Good City), a California corporation, is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare the Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report for the City of Belmont. For decades, Good City, formerly known as Neal Martin & Associates, has provided local government consulting services for jurisdictions in Northern California. Good City is headquartered in nearby San Carlos. We provide an array of services to support local government that include community development, advance planning, public engagement, economic development, planning and building services, executive management, and budgeting and finance.

Our team is prepared to successfully manage and lead a multi-disciplinary team of consultants.

Good City has assembled an experienced consultant team to provide professional planning and environmental review services to develop a community engagement strategy, develop a specific plan, conduct an environmental review, and prepare related zoning amendments for City Council consideration.

Good City will manage all activities for the project and act as an extension of city staff at community meetings and public hearings for the project. The team of consultants has expertise in:
» Urban planning
» Economic development
» Building and landscape architecture
» Engineering and infrastructure
» CEQA review
» Transportation and mobility
» Public engagement
» Project management

COVER LETTER
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 2 89 Good City was recently involved in the completion the City of San Carlos’s East Side Vision Study. Good City staff also has experience developing, managing, and implementing General Plan updates, specific plans and major zoning or General Plan amendments.

Good City’s Aaron Aknin will serve as Principal in Charge for the Project. Having served as an executive overseeing community development, planning and economic development for the Cities of San Bruno, Palo Alto, and Redwood City, Mr. Aknin brings substantive experience in short- and long-term planning and economic development, development review, and management of large, complex development proposals.

The day-to-day project will be managed by Carol Johnson as Planning Director, who has over 30 years of experience in long-range planning, land use planning, and community outreach in California, Oregon, and Arizona. She has served as a planning director or manager for several agencies over the past 15 years. Ms. Johnson oversaw review of the first major development in downtown Berkeley in over 50 years, directed the development of Berkeley’s Adeline Corridor Specific Plan, and was responsible for the City of Concord’s Downtown Plan. She has implemented the plans through zoning amendments, design regulations, capital improvement plans, and private development requests.

In addition to Mr. Aknin and Ms. Johnson will be supported by Senior/Principal Planners and Assistant/Associate Planners as needed. Good City staff will be responsible for overall Project Management, coordination between the City, community, and sub consultants.

As owner/principal, I have the authority to contractually bind Good City and the following proposal will remain good for no less than sixty (60) days from the submission deadline. We look forward to the opportunity to work with the City of Belmont and discuss our services and qualifications with you. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. I can be reached at (415) 845-8344 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Aaron Aknin, AICP, Principal
(415) 845-8344
Good City Company
1351 Laurel St
San Carlos, CA 94070
www.goodcityco.com

COVER LETTER
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 3 90 PROJECT
TEAM

PROJECT TEAM
Good City has assembled the following team for the City of Belmont. Aaron Aknin will serve as Principal-in-Charge. Carol Johnson will serve as Planning Director/Project Manager. Christopher Dacumos, Nicholas Hamilton, Christopher Nicholas, and Jamie Bourne will be available to support the Project Manager. Resumes and staff biographies can be found in the Attachments section.

AARON AKNIN, AICP
Principal-in-Charge
Staff biography on page 42

CAROL JOHNSON, AICP
Planning Director/Project Manager
Staff biography on page 45

NICHOLAS HAMILTON
Senior Planner
Staff biography on page 49

CHRISTOPHER NICHOLAS
Senior Planner
Staff biography on page 51

JAMIE BOURNE
Assistant Planner
Staff biography on page 52

CHRISTOPHER DACUMOS
Senior Planner
Staff biography on page 47
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 4 91 The whole consultant team consists of the following. Resumes and staff biographies for individual staff can be found int he Attachments section.

PROJECT TEAM

GOOD CITY COMPANY
Land Use, Community Benefits, and
Implementation Strategy

PLAN TO PLACE
Public engagement

BOTTOMLEY

DESIGN &

PLANNING
Landscape architects,
urban streetscape

URBAN FIELD
STUDIO
Architecture, massing

MARK THOMAS &

COMPANY
Infrastructure
including wastewater
and stormwater

W-TRANS
Transportation

ALTA PLANNING

AND DESIGN
Bicycle, pedestrian,
last mile mobility
MIG
Environmental
analysis, California
Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
compliance
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 5 92 PROJECT

UNDERSTANDING

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Introduction
Good City Company (GCC) has prepared the scope of work detailed below, for the Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) Specific Plan. The HIA Specific Plan will set the vision for upcoming private sector investment and public sector improvements. The process will include technical research and public input and will provide the groundwork for annexation and integration into the City of Belmont. The HIA (both Areas 1 and 2) is intended to provide for light industrial, retail, hotel, and research and development uses, and as the area redevelops over time, creation and preservation of middle-class jobs should be balanced with new office and residential development opportunities.

HIA-1 would also allow for high-density residential uses while HIA-2 would allow for large floorplate retail uses.

General Approach
The following section outlines our proposed work plan for all phases of the Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) Specific Plan (also referred to as the Specific Plan). The approach is to organize the program into eight tasks, from project initiation to publishing the final Specific Plan, zoning amendments, and EIR documents. The sequence of work products, community meetings, and City Council/ Planning Commission meetings are graphically illustrated in the schedule diagram that follows.

The task-by-task descriptions following the Work Plan present our detailed approach to data collection, analysis, policy formulation, and preparation of the documents. Initials in parentheses following the sub-section heading identify the lead firm for each sub-task. “Team” identifies the whole consultant team which consists of the following:
» Good City Company (GCC): prime consultant, project management, land use strategy and policy planning
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 6 93 » Plan to Place: public engagement
» Urban Field Studio: architecture, massing
» Bottomley Design and Planning (Bottomley): landscape architects, urban streetscape » Mark Thomas & Company (Mark Thomas): Infrastructure including wastewater and stormwater » W-Trans: Transportation
» Alta Planning + Design (Alta): Bicycle, pedestrian, last mile mobility » MIG: Environmental analysis, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance Please note for key elements for the tasks listed in the following Work Plan, as well as in the final Specific Plan, Good City will create short, “explainer videos” that detail subjects and concepts in a succinct way. These videos will be easily sharable on the City’s social media accounts, as well as included on the project’s website and accessible during the public review process. Graphics will also be designed to provide context or information.

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 7 94 WORK
PLAN

WORK PLAN
Task 1: Project Commencement and Community
Engagement Strategy
Objective: Share information and create the foundation for efficient and effective work throughout the process.

A. Kickoff Meeting and Field Visit (GCC, Team): In a kickoff meeting with staff, the team will identify existing background materials, technical reports in progress and data sources; clarify roles and responsibilities and establish communication protocol; and discuss any program modifications and key project milestones. The Team and staff will conduct a walking tour of the study area, with a focus on opportunities and constraints.

B. Engagement Strategy (Plan to Place, GCC): Plan to Place will collaborate with the Good City Co. team and City staff team to prepare an Engagement Plan to be refined throughout the course of the project to ensure its effectiveness. This will be a living, shared resource that all members of the project team, including City staff, will have access to update throughout the project. The Engagement Strategy will be designed to:
» Outline project goals and objectives;
» Craft strategies that will reach, educate and engage the community throughout the Area Plan process;
» Confirm schedule, format, and resources for all engagement activities through the shared resource;
» Outline outreach tools including social media outlets to reach specific audiences (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, NextDoor along with newsletters, blogs, videos) and virtual platforms for engagement (e.g., ZOOM, Miro, Padlet, Mentimeter or equivalent) in addition traditional mailing and survey tools;
» Identify target demographic and interest groups, methods of communication and engagement Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 8 95 with hard-to-reach groups and special needs populations, and metrics to analyze progress and effectiveness; and
» Confirm coordination, facilitation and communication responsibilities.

Engagement Strategy elements could include:
» Project Messaging (Plan to Place, GCC): In an effort to set accurate expectations and understanding of Area Plan process, Plan to Place will collaborate with the project team in an iterative process to prepare project messaging templates (Fact Sheets or FAQs) that will continue to evolve throughout the duration of the project. This important collateral will be critical in helping identify the overall project objectives and helping provide answers to common questions, how information will be disseminated and how the input gathered will be used to inform the process. These materials will help emphasize the importance of input from diverse perspectives. It is anticipated that City staff and the consultant team will co-create the language for these documents, and the consultant team will maintain, organize and simplify the language to ensure the messaging is up to date and user-friendly. » Outreach and Branding Materials (Plan to Place, GCC): In order to prepare an identifiable and consistent brand for this project, the consultant team can also lead the following tasks:
» Style Guide - The first step to creating branding materials will be to prepare a Style Guide that identifies the fonts, color schemes, and graphic design elements. The proposed Style Guide will build off existing branding resources.
» Outreach templates – Once the Style Guide is approved, the consultant team can create a project logo if desired and related icons, outreach templates (e.g., digital Belmont Harbor Industrial Area Plan - Community Engagement Scope + Budget 3 / physical postcard, social media posts), document templates and graphic style guidelines. » Project Website (Plan to Place, GCC): If desired, Plan to Place can prepare a wireframe structure for and launch a dedicated project website which can be linked from the City’s website. The consultant team will work collaboratively with City staff to develop the content for the website. Using Squarespace, a web- based content management system (CMS), the site will serve as the primary portal for the engagement effort and will include:
» Project objectives and timeline;
» Project updates and news;
» Upcoming events and meeting summaries;
» Resources; and
» Opportunities to submit ideas and subscribe to project mailing lists.

The website can integrate social networking tools that are already in use and also accommodate additional applications customized for project-specific functions as needed.

WORK PLAN
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 9 96 The website can also be linked to online feedback forms and interactive tools prepared in other tasks and gather topic specific feedback.

Engagement activities will take place throughout the development of the Specific Plan, and could include:
» Stakeholder and Focus Group Meetings (Plan to Place, GCC): The Plan to Place and Good City Co. team will help organize and facilitate four one-on-one stakeholder or larger focus group meetings designed to meet with key stakeholders that may include members of Planning Commission and City Council, nearby business owners, property owners, the HIA ownership group, development community representatives, community groups and non-profits, and community ambassadors and representatives of from nearby residential areas such as the Homeview Neighborhood Association, Sterling Downs Neighborhood Association, and Downtown Neighborhood Association of Belmont. The consultant team will work with City staff to identify stakeholders and to prepare agendas, discussion prompts, and activities for each meeting. It is anticipated that these meetings will be facilitated through virtual meeting platforms. The stakeholders could play a critical role as connectors to difficult to reach members of the community. » Virtual Community Workshop (Plan to Place, GCC, Team): The consultant team will collaborate with City staff to prepare for and execute two virtual community-wide workshops (one each for Task 2 and Task 3) to provide community members, stakeholders and decision makers with a forum to learn about and share input on the Area Plan process.

The consultant team will use accessible virtual interactive meeting formats to share information and field questions to address community concerns. It is anticipated that live polling, small group activities, simultaneous interpretation, and other interactive tools will be used to complement virtual meeting platforms. Community workshops will be advertised digitally on social media platforms and email list services, and potentially through physical mailers, depending on the City’s preference and capacity, to reach all residents and workers.
» Pop-Up Events (Plan to Place, GCC): To supplement the anticipated virtual community workshops, Plan to Place and Good City Co. will collaborate with City staff to prepare materials for and facilitate four in-person pop-up/intercept events to meet with the community at times and locations that are convenient to them. The pop-up events will occur for Task 2 and Task 3, two each, respectively. It is anticipated that these informal workshops will be a resource to share information about the planning effort and gather input through efficient interactive activities.
» Feedback Forms (Plan to Place, GCC): The consultant team will collaborate with City

WORK PLAN
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 10 97 staff to prepare the content form for an online survey or feedback form that will capture demographic information in addition to relevant topics that will inform the Area Plan. The consultant team will summarize the results into a key themes memo supported by summary graphics and direct quotes. The feedback forms are anticipated to be administered and analyzed through Google Forms, or an equivalent software. The feedback forms can also be printed and distributed through pop-up events at key locations to provide ease of access. » Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions (GCC): The Good City Co. team will work with City staff to prepare for and lead Study Sessions with the Planning Commission and City Council members which will most likely occur during a special meeting in a virtual meeting format. These Study Sessions can occur with both bodies concurrently or with each body independently.

WORK PLAN
Meetings:
» Team kick-off and site visit
Products:
» Draft Engagement Strategy
» Outreach and Branding Materials
» Project Website
» Feedback Forms
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 11 98 Task 2: Existing Conditions and Opportunities Analysis (Existing Conditions Profile)
Objective: Existing conditions analysis of the Specific Plan area, including preparation of a short existing conditions memorandum documenting land use, opportunity sites, and key development constraints. Include a summary of recent market demand analysis and opportunity sites assessment from a market/financial standpoint.

A. Prepare Land Use Existing Conditions and Opportunities Analysis (GCC, Urban Field Studio, Bottomley): The memorandum will follow the format of the Working Papers completed for the General Plan Update and the Belmont Village Specific Plan. It will largely consist of maps with supporting narrative. The following information will be compiled:
» Existing land use and densities/intensities in the Planning Area, based on information from the City, County Assessor’s office, the General Plan Update, and focused fieldwork; » Vacant and opportunity sites, based on technical analysis and fieldwork, and the work on opportunity sites analysis already completed for the General Plan and other ongoing efforts by other team members;
» Identify physical characteristics of land use and building types; » Identify public realm and streetscape conditions;
» Existing land use designations and zoning districts, as well as the San Carlos Airport Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and, » Objectives identified in previous planning and design studies, including the General Plan and the various planning and zoning documents affecting the area.

Optional Task: Bottomley could prepare a 3D model of existing conditions/typical site of streetscape conditions. Assuming the modeling of four conditions: $4,120.

B. Prepare Access, Connectivity, Transit, and Parking Analysis (W-Trans; Alta): W-Trans, with support from Alta, will build on the transportation background report prepared for the Belmont General Plan Update, with a particular focusing on the HIA Plan Area. Caltrain and SamTrans staff will be consulted as part of the stakeholder outreach and through ongoing coordination, in addition to City staff. This information will be used to develop a multimodal access and connectivity strategy for the HIA as well as serve as the basis for the environmental setting for the EIR. This effort would include:

WORK PLAN
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 12 99 » Summarizing relevant portions of the existing transportation data from the General Plan. » An assessment of the General Plan Circulation Element to determine which areas of that document merit further review/detail, and which would be appropriate to update in the HIA Specific Plan.

As part of this task, W-Trans will prepare an Existing Conditions Profile. This will include the following subtasks:
» Collect and Review Existing Information and Data, including traffic counts, weekday a.m. and p.m. counts at 19 intersections, and bi-directional counts along six segments. » Field Reconnaissance visits during a typical weekday to observe multiple elements » Traffic operations analysis of the study intersections and roadway segments will be conducted.

As detailed in the attachment, the final list of study intersections and segments will be confirmed with City staff.

C. Biological Resources Report (MIG): Prepare a Biological Resources Report to identify sensitive biological resources within the Specific Plan area, including special-status fish and wildlife species (e.g., Central California coast steelhead, California red-legged frog, and southern green sturgeon), wildlife habitat or movement corridors, including migratory birds and bird-building strike potential, wetlands and creeks, and riparian or other sensitive resources. Review existing information, conduct field reconnaissance, and prepare a report with up to two rounds of revisions.

D. Conduct Infrastructure Analysis (Mark Thomas): Mark Thomas will research existing master plans, including the sewer master plan being prepared by Audra, and the storm drain master plan being prepared by Wood Rodgers, as well was relevant As-Built information to develop a background infrastructure assessment. The assessment will identify the major utility infrastructure that serves the area, including sanitary sewer, water and storm drain facilities. Existing flooding and sea level rise maps will be included. Based on the reviewed data, Mark Thomas will assess the capacities of the existing systems within the Specific Plan area and a brief memo will be prepared identifying the existing conditions. This assessment does not include dry utilities (i.e., power service, telephone service, etc.).

E. Stakeholder/ Focus Group Meeting (GCC, Plan to Place): The Engagement Strategy developed in Task 1.B will be implemented throughout the plan process. As part of this step, the GCC team will help organize and facilitate one-on-one stakeholder or larger focus group meetings designed

WORK PLAN
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 13 100
to meet with key stakeholders to learn about the area and share input on the Area Plan process.

Participation at the monthly meeting of the Harbor Industrial Area ownership group may also serve this purpose.

F. Community Workshop / Open House #1/ Pop-Up Event (Plan to Place, GCC, Team): As part of this step, the consultant team will collaborate with City staff to prepare for and execute virtual community-wide workshops to provide community members, stakeholders and decision makers a forum to learn about and share input on the Area Plan process, as described above under Task 1.B, Engagement Strategy.

G. Conduct Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting (GCC): Results of the existing conditions and market demand analysis, and the workshop will be presented at a virtual joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting, or at a meeting of the Planning Commission alone.

Their feedback and ideas for alternatives will be gathered to inform the next task.

WORK PLAN
Meetings:
» Community Workshop
» Planning Commission and/or City Council Meeting
Products:
» Land Use Existing Conditions and Opportunities Analysis » Access, Connectivity, Transit, and Parking Analysis
» Infrastructure Analysis
» Market Demand Analysis
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 14 101
Task 3: Alternatives Development
Objective: Engage community and decision-makers on choices/concepts relating to land uses, densities/intensities and desired building design characteristics; nodes and focal points; linkages enhancement; streetscape improvement proposals; transit, bikeway, and pedestrian design choices.

A. Frame Plan Area Choices (GCC, Team): In consultation with staff, GCC will prepare summary memoranda and materials for community workshop “stations” (see Task 3.D, below) that consider different alternatives, consisting of maps, graphics, images, and accompanying text. The concepts will consider redevelopment opportunities and basic circulation patterns. The alternatives will explore opportunities for land use distribution, mix, type, and intensity of development; building heights; linkages to Caltrain/transit access and circulation for various transportation modes; and parking. In consultation with staff and GCC, Bottomley will prepare two streetscape 3D model/ sketches of public realm plan concepts.

In consultation with staff and GCC, Alta will work with W-Trans to create a “transportation and connectivity” station to identify the existing transportation network (including pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and vehicular), connections to major destinations, and gaps. Alta and W-Trans will develop up to 4 workshop boards and staff one community meeting.

Optional Task: Bottomley could prepare two additional 3D model/sketches for approximately $1,500.

B. Key Opportunity Sites Concepts and Feasibility Analysis (Urban Field Studio, GCC): In consultation with GCC, Urban Field Studio will develop prototypical massing for up to three major opportunity sites or three options for one site with conceptual site plans, sections, or massing diagram with numerical summaries that reflect various development programs, use mixes, height/ intensity, and parking standards and arrangements.

Urban Field Studio will provide a second iteration based on the feasibility analysis and input from the team and City.

Optional Task: Urban Field Studio can prepare renderings for massing diagrams for approximately $12,000.

C. Stakeholder Engagement (GCC, Plan to Place): As specific proposals are drawn, we will conduct

WORK PLAN
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 15 102
C. Stakeholder Engagement (GCC, Plan to Place): As specific proposals are drawn, we will conduct up to five follow-up meetings with stakeholders that participated in Task 2 to solicit reactions and feedback before the Preferred Plan is drafted.

D. Community Workshop #2/ Pop-Up Event Area Choices and Site Concepts (GCC, Team support as needed): Conduct a virtual community workshop in which options and possibilities for opportunity sites and the HIA as a whole can be explored and compared. We envision a two hourlong event with “stations” on various topics. Structured feedback will be sought through polling, small group activities and other interactive tools. The desired structure, will be based on the materials prepared at the time and the nature and detail of feedback that we are hoping to get at this stage.

E. Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions (GCC): In one meeting each of the Planning Commission and the City Council, results from the community workshop and opportunity sites feasibility analysis will be presented and discussed. We will look for direction from the decisionmakers on preliminary direction for the Preferred Plan and its components.

WORK PLAN
Meetings
» Community Workshop #2/Pop-Up Event
» Planning Commission & City Council (2 total)
Products
» Key Choices Workshop Boards
» Opportunity Sites Concepts and Analysis
» Optional: 3D model/sketches of existing conditions
» Optional: Renderings for massing diagrams
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 16 103
Task 4: Land Use and Circulation Policy Framework
Objective: Develop specific recommendations to be included in the HIA Specific Plan, including a preferred land use and circulation plan for policy development. These plan components will establish the framework for the plan and a strategy for implementation.

A. Prepare Draft Preferred Land Use and Circulation Plan Policy Framework (GCC, Alta, W-Trans):

A Preferred Plan for land use and circulation, together with key goals/policies, will be developed.

The plan will primarily be a series of graphic depictions, and will describe all proposed land uses, including any land use mix requirements or incentives and major public improvements. Goals and key policies will be prepared to establish the guiding principles of the plan and framework for policies and implementation actions such as strategies for improving pedestrian corridors, transit access, and multi-modal connections.

B. Stakeholder Engagement (GCC, Plan to Place): Is the land use and circulation policy framework is developed, we will conduct up to five follow-up meetings with stakeholders that participated in Tasks 2 and 3 to solicit reactions and feedback before the Preferred Plan is drafted.

C. City Council and Planning Commission Meetings (GCC): In one meeting of each body, the Planning Commission and City Council will review the Draft Preferred Plan and key goals/policies and “sign off” on these before work on plan components begins. Any needed changes to the Preferred Plan will be made following the decision-making meetings.

WORK PLAN
Meetings
» Planning Commission & City Council
Products
» Draft Preferred Land Use and Circulation Plan Policy Framework Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 17 104
Task 5: Strategy Reports
Objective: Develop specific recommendations to be included in the HIA Specific Plan, including a preferred land use and circulation plan and other key maps/diagrams, densities/intensities, a framework for policy development, urban design standards, and an infrastructure needs assessment. Together these plan components will establish the framework for the plan and a strategy for implementation.

A. Land Use (GCC): GCC will refine and expand the materials prepared for the draft framework, including land use designations and associated development intensities as well as opportunity areas.

B. Multi-Modal Access, Connectivity, and Transportation Strategy (W-Trans, Alta): Collaborating closely with Caltrain, SamTrans and Commute.org, and starting with elements of the Ralston Avenue Corridor Improvements Plan and the Grand Boulevard Initiative, we will integrate the pedestrian and bicycle elements of the City’s General Plan, BVSP and other documents so that the plans complement one another where possible. If necessary, we will make recommendations for changes to the plans to coordinate the pedestrian and bicycle systems. W-Trans and Alta will work to develop strategies to improve connections between the HIA, Belmont Caltrain station, and surrounding destinations, including Nesbit Elementary School, the post office, retail, surrounding neighborhoods, the shared-use path/Highway 101 overcrossing, and others. This will include analyzing and making recommendations regarding all modes of transportation within the project area, addressing elements such as:
» Complete Street typologies (including up to five proposed street cross sections) that address modal priorities;
» Intersection improvements to better facilitate pedestrian and bicycle movement; » Key pedestrian corridors;
» Bicycle facility improvements;
» An effective parking plan;
» An integrated transit network, especially improving the relationship between Caltrain and SamTrans facilities and services; and
» Caltrain station and SamTrans bus stop improvements, if needed.

The recommendations will be designed to help achieve overall community goals for economic development, environmental protection and quality of life.

WORK PLAN
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 18 105
C. Parking Strategy/TDM Plan (W-Trans. Alta): W-Trans will recommend strategies to address parking demand and pricing. Strategies considered will include:
» Development of appropriate vehicular and bicycle parking standards and strategies, given the land use goals and vision for the Plan.
» W-Trans will also propose a concept-level Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the HIA. The TDM Plan will include strategies to reduce parking demand and encourage nonauto modes of transportation. W-Trans will outline the elements of a strategy and discuss items such as shared parking, location of new parking resources (on- street spaces and off-street lots and garages), and mechanisms for paying for parking (such as assessment districts, in-lieu fees, paid parking, etc.). Other TDM strategies (e.g., shuttles, transit incentives, etc.) that are appropriate for the HIA will also be explored.

W-Trans will also propose a concept-level Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the HIA. The TDM Plan will include strategies to reduce parking demand and encourage nonauto modes of transportation. We will outline the elements of a strategy and discuss items such as shared parking, location of new parking resources (on-street spaces and off-street lots and garages), and mechanisms for paying for parking (such as assessment districts, in-lieu fees, paid parking, etc.). Other TDM strategies (e.g., shuttles, transit incentives, etc.) that are appropriate for the HIA will also be explored.

D. Traffic Operations Analysis (W-Trans): W-Trans will work with our travel forecast modeling partner Kittelson & Associates (KAI) to conduct travel demand forecasting services for the proposed project. W-Trans has assumed that CCAG/VTA (who maintains the Santa Clara County/ San Mateo County Model) would provide model files to the City of Belmont at no additional fee, and KAI would code the model to reflect the proposed HIA project (preferred land use concept plan). These updated files would then be provided back to CCAG/VTA to run the model to provide output files to KAI for further processing. KAI would also ensure the 2040 model is reasonably consistent with the recent Belmont General Plan and Housing Element update.

KAI will provide Cumulative 2040 No Project and 2040 with HIA Project intersection turning forecasts to W-Trans for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour at the study intersections after making appropriate adjustments to the raw model turning volumes.

E. Draft Design Standards and Guidelines (Team): Draft design standards and guidelines will be developed that articulate sufficient detail to guide future development. They will draw from community and stakeholder input received to date as well as policies and strategies contained

WORK PLAN
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 19 106
within MTC’s Transit-Oriented Development and Pedestrian Program and Policy Framework.

Contents and topics will include:
» Densities, intensities, and building heights (GCC, Urban Field Studio) » Site planning, building form, and building orientation (Urban Field Studio, Bottomley, Alta) Street and streetscape design sections that include landscape, pedestrian/bicycle pathways and crossings, and streetscape furniture guidelines will be developed for street modifications for key access corridors. Bottomley will prepare up to two to-scale public realm cross sections depicting key recommended improvements and/or relationships to private development and transportation facilities. Bottomley will assist with descriptive policy text and cost estimates as needed.
» Gateway treatment recommendations (i.e., legibility, architectural compatibility, etc.) (Bottomley). Bottomley will prepare a diagrammatic plan indicating type and location of district gateways, and coordinate photos of comparable gateway types from other locations with GCC. Bottomley will assist with descriptive policy text and cost estimates as needed. » Special treatments such as bus stops, walkways, bicycle parking, and other points of interest/ accent points (Bottomley, Alta). Bottomley will prepare a diagrammatic plan indicating recommended improvements related to special pedestrian and bicycle facilities and assist CGG with descriptive policy text as needed.

Optional Task: Bottomley could prepare two additional 3D model/sketches for approximately $1,500.

F. Infrastructure Needs Assessment (Mark Thomas): Mark Thomas will prepare utility demand forecasts to determine whether the current infrastructure is capable of serving the preferred land use alternative and make recommendations on how to improve utility systems or identify future studies that may be needed. Mark Thomas will also develop:
» Infrastructure strategies for improving and/or replacing infrastructure in the core area to facilitate business attraction, and;
» Conceptual, order of magnitude infrastructure Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Forecasts (based on a per lineal foot cost of roadways and major utility improvements) for use in determining an order of magnitude cost for the infrastructure improvements Flooding and sea level rise will also be prepared in coordination with One Shoreline. It is assumed that all utility demand forecast information will be provided to the City for input into their overall utility system models for pipe size verification. No detailed utility modeling is included in this scope of work.

G. Implementation Plan and Program (GCC): GCC will create an implementation plan and

WORK PLAN
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 20 107
preliminary phasing strategy for property improvements and real estate development and the construction of infrastructure improvements based on the above tasks. Program will include measurable actions for a range of project applicants, reporting and feedback loops, new policies, and an estimated timeline for implementation of near- and long- term priorities, phasing of new infrastructure and public developments, and the infrastructure financing program.

H. Community Benefits (GCC): Annexation and rezoning of the HIA will benefit property owners, and it is important that Belmont and its residents share those benefits. Community benefits and amenities can either be obtained as baseline requirements for applicants or as part of community benefit negotiations in development agreements. GCC will synthesize the goals and objectives for community-serving amenities heard throughout the process and draft a benefits menu and implementation framework. GCC will draft a scale of benefits appropriate for the rezoning considered.

I. Planning Commission Study Session (GCC): The Planning Commission will consider the results of the analysis and key strategies presented in the subtasks above and give guidance for the development of the Draft Specific Plan.

WORK PLAN
Meetings
» Planning Commission
Products
» Preferred Plan and Policy Framework
» Multi-Modal Access, Connectivity, and Transportation Strategy » Parking Strategy/TDM Plan.
» Traffic Operations Analysis
» Draft Design Standards and Guidelines
» Infrastructure Needs Assessment
» Implementation Plan and Financing Strategy
» Estimate Service and Fiscal Impacts
» Optional: Annexation Advisory Services
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 21 108
Task 6: Draft HIA Specific Plan
Objective: Prepare the full Draft Specific Plan, incorporating the major substantive content developed during preceding tasks. GCC will prepare the Plan, with input on each section from the team members specified below.

A. Administrative Draft HIA Specific Plan (Team): Prepare the Administrative Draft Specific Plan with extensive illustrations and photos, using strategy reports from Task 4. Content of the Plan will include:
» Context (GCC). Planning process, public participation efforts, policy framework with context, vision, and goals.
» Land Use (GCC). Land use designations, permitted mixes, and development intensities.

Development potential, building square footage, and job projections. » Design Standards and Guidelines (GCC, Team). Pedestrian- and transit-oriented land use, building, open space, and street/urban design standards and regulations that enhance the walking environment and promote transit use and other alternative modes of transportation.

Bottomley and Alta will assist GCC to prepare and refine policy text for public realm, related standards and guidelines, and to coordinate text with relevant graphics, maps, and photos compiled during the course of the project.
» Key Opportunity Sites (GCC, Urban Field Studio). Concepts and guidelines for development of key opportunity sites previously studied.
» EIR Coordination with Specific Plan (MIG). This task allocates time for MIG CEQA staff to engage in discussions with GCC and the Specific Plan team to discuss policy development in key technical areas overlapping with environmental resources such as biology, hydrology, hazardous materials, transportation and mitigation measures identified to mitigate potentially significant impacts through revision of policies proposed in the draft Specific Plan or the addition of new policies to reduce the identified impacts to less than significant levels.

The intent of this task is to approach mitigating the project through robust and concise Specific Plan policies that address the potential environmental impacts identified in the EIR.

Additionally, this task could include coordinating with the City and the Planning Team to incorporate Belmont’s recently established standard Conditions of Approval (COAs) into the Specific Plan as policy requirements.
» Circulation and Access (GCC, W-Trans, Alta, Bottomley). Key improvements for circulation, access and connectivity, including pedestrian and bicycle paths, integration with the broader citywide context, and parking management strategies. Alta will reach out to SamTrans and Caltrain to see if they have ridership projections and station access by mode and will

WORK PLAN
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 22 109
incorporate into appropriate sections of the Circulation and Access chapter of the plan if available. Bottomley will prepare a diagrammatic map indicating key public realm improvements that support district connectivity, consistent with the analysis/recommendations of the City and GCC team. Bottomley will assist GCC to prepare and refine related policy text as needed. » Infrastructure (GCC, Mark Thomas). Infrastructure improvements that support policy and plan implementation. Planning-level estimates of capital improvement costs will also be included. » Community Benefits (GCC). The Community Benefits Framework, including priorities, types and implementation process.
» Implementation Program (GCC). The implementation program will collect in one place measurable actions, new policies, an estimated timeline for implementation (including near- and longer-term priorities), phasing of new infrastructure and public developments, and the infrastructure financing program. Options for funding mechanisms, including fee reimbursements, will be discussed and proposed.

B. Public Review Draft Specific Plan (GCC): Based on feedback from City staff, a Public Review Draft Plan will be prepared for discussion before the community open house/workshop and public hearings.

C. Community Open House (GCC): The Draft Specific Plan will be presented to the public for review and comment in a virtual “open house” format.

D. Joint Planning Commission and City Council Study Session (GCC): The Planning Commission and City Council will consider the Draft Specific Plan in a joint study session.

WORK PLAN
Meetings
» Open House/Community Workshop
» Joint Planning Commission/City Council Study Session
Products
» Administrative Draft Specific Plan
» Public Review Draft Specific Plan
» Optional: Environmental Resources and Review
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 23 110
Task 7: Environmental Review
Objective: Prepare the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which identify the significant effects on the environment and indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. The EIR will be structured as a programmatic document to facilitate future use by subsequent development projects.

A. Environmental Impact Report (MIG): MIG will prepare an EIR for the Plan; their detailed scope of work is attached. Based on MIG’s current knowledge of the environmental setting and understanding of the project features, MIG anticipates the project will have little to no impact on several environmental resource areas analyzed under CEQA, including Agricultural/ Forestry, Mineral Resources, Population/ Housing, Recreation, and Wildfire. The following resource areas will be discussed in greater detail in the EIR: Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resource; Cultural Resource; Energy; Greenhouse Gas; Hazards/ Hazardous Materials; Hydrology/ Water Quality; Land Use; Noise; Public Services/Utilities; and Transportation. MIG will coordinate closely with the team, providing input during the development of the Plan, and utilizing reports prepared by others for the EIR.

WORK PLAN
Meetings
» EIR Scoping Meeting
» Draft EIR Hearing
» Final EIR Hearing
Products
» Notice of Preparation
» Administrative Draft EIR
» Public Review Draft EIR
» Administrative Draft Response to Comment Document
» Public Review Response to Comment Document (Final EIR) » Notice of Completion
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 24 111
Task 8: Zoning
Objective: Prepare an updated zoning ordinance for the HIA, with the intention of streamlining proposed development project review for new projects, enabling greater flexibility in uses while ensuring compatibility and design consistency, and creating a cohesive look and feel for the planning area.

A. Administrative Draft Specific Plan Zoning Code (GCC): Based on technical analysis, design standards and guidelines, and plan policies, prepare an Administrative Draft Specific Plan Zoning Code. The code format will be based on discussions with Staff and/or the Planning Commission and may include form-based elements as well as use-based and/or performance- based elements. It will include building form standards, frontage types, public space standards, administrative standards, incentives, definitions, and updated parking regulations. The Zoning Code would be extensively illustrated and designed to be user- and implementation friendly.

B. Zoning Code Workshop (GCC): Review Draft Specific Plan Zoning Code at a virtual Community Workshop. This may be held as part of a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.

C. Public Review Draft Zoning Code (GCC): Review all comments on the Draft Specific Plan Zoning Code and prepare the Public Review Draft. Prepare an Administrative Draft for City staff review, and revise based on a consolidated set of comments. Meetings and/or calls with City staff will be scheduled to review outstanding issues.

WORK PLAN
Meetings
» Zoning Code Workshop/Planning Commission meeting
Products
» Administrative Draft Code
» Public Review Draft Code
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 25 112
Task 9: Public Review and Adoption; Final Specific Plan Objective: Conduct the public review and successfully take the Specific Plan and EIR through the public hearing process. The Specific Plan will be revised after adoption to reflect the Council’s decision.

A. Public Hearings (GCC): Present the Specific Plan and Final EIR at up to two Planning Commission and up to two City Council hearings for review and adoption.

B. Adopted Specific Plan (GCC): Following adoption by the City Council, revise the Draft Plan to incorporate specific text and diagram changes made by the City Council as part of adoption, if any.

WORK PLAN
Meetings
» Planning Commission Hearings (1 or 2)
» City Council Hearing (1 or 2)
Products
» Adopted Specific Plan
» Public Review Draft Code
Task 10: Project Management (GCC, Team)
Throughout the approximate 24-month process, the GCC Project Manager will be communicating regularly with the city and consultant team, tracking the budget, monitoring the schedule, and conducting other management tasks.

Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 26 113

PROJECT

SCHEDULE

PROJECT SCHEDULE
The following conceptual schedule provides a general overview of the tasks above and the associated time to complete, including time for City staff review. GCC anticipates this process to take approximately 24 months.

Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 27 114
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 28 HARBOR INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPUAL SCHEDULE, JANUARY 18, 2023 Month 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Task 0 Scope of Work
Review and Refine Scope of Work
Task 1 Project Kick-off and Community Engagement Strategy Kick off meeting and field visitEngagement Strategy
Task 2 Existing Conditions Profiles
Land Use, Building TypesAccess, Connectivity, Transit, ParkingInfrastructure Market Demand Analysis City Staff Review, Consultant Refinement Stakeholder/ Focus Group Meeting Community Workshop/ Pop-Up Events PC and CC Study Sessions  Task 3 Alternatives Development - Ideas and Concepts
Frame Plan Area ChoicesKey Opportunity Sites Concepts and Feasibility Analysis City Staff Review, Consultant Refinement Stakeholder Engagement Community Workshop #2/ Pop-Up Event PC and CC Study Sessions  Task 4 Land Use and Circulation Policy Framework
Prepare Draft Preferred LU and Circulation Plan Policy FrameCity Staff Review, Consultant Refinement Stakeholder Engagement PC and CC Meetings  Task 5 Strategy Reports
Land UseMulti-Modal Access, Connectivity and Transportation Strategy Parking Strategy/TDM-PlanTraffic Operation Analysis Draft Design Standards and Guidelines Infrastructure Needs AssessmentImplementation Plan and Program Estimate Service and Fiscal Impacts Financing Strategy Community BenefitsCity Staff Review, Consultant Refinement Planning Commission Study Session  Task 6 Draft HIA Specific Plan
Administrative Draft HIA Specific Plan City Staff Review, Consultant Refinement Public Review HIA Specific Plan Community Open-House Joint PC CC Study Session  Task 7 Environmental Review
Notice of Preparation
Administrative Draft EIRCity Staff Review, Consultant Refinement Public Review Draft EIR, 45 Day Public ReviewAdministrative Draft Response to Comment Document City Staff Review, Consultant Refinement Public Review Response to Comment Document (Final EIR)EIR Scoping Meeting Draft EIR Hearing Final EIR Hearing  Task 8 Zoning
Administrative Draft Specific Plan Zoning Code City Staff Review, Consultant Refinement Public Review Draft Zoning Code Zoning Code Workshop  Task 9 Public Review and Adoption, Final Specific Plan
Finalize Specific Plan Public Hearings 
115

PROJECT BUDGET

PROJECT
BUDGET
The following budget provides the estimated cost, per task, per consultant, resulting in a labor budget of approximately $983,281. With direct costs of $14,900, the total budget is estimated at $998,181. GCC recommends a 10% contingency in the amount of $99,818 resulting in a total budget and contingency of $1,097,999.

This Project Budget is based on the cost of time and materials. Should the City have a study or studies in progress that will yield information relevant to this project which will be available during the project schedule, such studies may be substituted for equivalent tasks in the Scope of Work and the Project Budget will be adjusted accordingly.

Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 29 116
30 HARBOR INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT BUDGET, January 2023 Good City Company Plan to Place Urban Field Studio Bottomley Design and Planning Mark Thomas & Company W-Trans Alta Planning + Design MIG Total Task 1 Project Kick-off and Community Engagement Strategy Kick off meeting, field visit, gather materials, start-up $ 10,900 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 3,000 $ 3,180 $ 3,100 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Engagement Strategy $ 5,100 $ 5,000
Messaging, Branding Materials, Project Website, & Feedback Forms $ 5,100 $ 28,500 Subtotal $ 21,100 $ 35,900 $ 2,400 $ 3,000 $ 3,180 $ 3,100 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $72,680 Task 2 Existing Conditions Profiles
Land Use, Building Types, Public Realm $ 10,300 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,000 Access, Connectivity, Transit, Parking $ 1,400 $ 16,300 $ 6,000 Biological Resources Report $ 14,900
Infrastructure $ 1,400 $ 13,940
Market Demand Analysis $ 1,400
City Staff Review, Consultant Refinement $ 1,800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Stakeholder/ Focus Group Meeting $ 5,100 $ 1,500 $ 3,118 Virtual Community Workshop & In-Person Pop-Up Events $ 10,300 $ 14,000 Joint PC and CC Study Session $ 8,100
Subtotal $ 39,800 $ 15,500 $ 4,300 $ 4,300 $ 18,058 $ 18,300 $ 7,000 $ 18,900 $126,158 Task 3 Alternatives Development - Ideas and Concepts
Frame Plan Area Choices $ 10,600 $ 690 $ 3,000 $ 5,400 $ 8,000 $ 3,000 Street design 3D sketches $ - $ 3,200
Key Opportunity Sites Concepts and Feasibility Analysis $ 4,600 $ 1,500 Building design 3D sketches $ - $ 5,000
City Staff Review, Consultant Refinement $ 4,000 $ 500 $ 1,580 $ 1,000 Stakeholder Engagement & Explainer Videos $ 5,100 $ 1,500 $ 1,000 Virtual Community Workshop #2 & In-Person Pop-Up Events $ 10,300 $ 14,000 PC Meeting and CC Meeting $ 9,600 $ 3,000
Subtotal $ 44,200 $ 18,500 $ 7,690 $ 7,780 $ 1,000 $ 5,400 $ 9,000 $ 3,000 $96,570 Task 4 Land Use and Circulation Policy Framework
Prepare Draft Preferred LU and Circulation Plan Policy Frame $ 24,400 $ 1,240 $ 1,320 $ 3,830 $ 5,482 City Staff Review, Consultant Refinement $ 7,700 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 PC and CC Meetings $ 8,300 $ 3,000
Subtotal $ 40,400 $ 3,000 $ 1,240 $ 1,320 $ - $ 4,830 $ 6,482 $ - $57,272 Task 5 Strategy Reports
Land Use $ 17,000 $ 3,000
Multi-Modal Access, Connectivity and Transportation Strategy $ 1,800 $ 5,100 $ 9,000 Parking Strategy/TDM-Plan $ 1,800 $ 5,100 $ 1,000
Traffic Operation Analysis $ 1,800 $ 33,500
Draft Design Standards and Guidelines $ 1,800 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 2,500 $ 4,000 $ 2,000 Street design 3D sketches $ - $ 2,000
Infrastructure Needs Assessment $ 1,800 $ 32,368
Implementation Plan and Program $ 5,500
Estimate Service and Fiscal Impacts $ 1,800
Financing Strategy $ 1,800
City Staff Review, Consultant Refinement $ 8,200 $ 1,000 $ 1,500 $ 3,200 Planning Commission Study Session $ 6,000 $ 3,000
Subtotal $ 49,300 $ 3,000 $ 5,000 $ 7,500 $ 32,368 $ 49,400 $ 14,000 $ 5,000 $165,568 Task 6 Draft HIA Specific Plan
Administrative Draft HIA Specific Plan $ 19,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,740 $ 7,236 $ 2,000 $ 8,500 $ 6,400 City Staff Review, Consultant Refinement $ 7,700 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Public Review HIA Specific Plan $ 7,700
Explainer Videos $ 4,200
Community Open-House $ 8,200 $ 7,200
Joint PC CC Study Session $ 6,000 $ 3,000
Subtotal $ 52,800 $ 10,200 $ 6,000 $ 6,740 $ 8,236 $ 3,100 $ 9,500 $ 6,400 $102,976 Task 7 Environmental Review
CEQA Scope Confirmation $ 1,400 $ 2,780
Project Initiation $ 1,400 $ 7,848
Public Review Draft EIR $ 10,400 $ 4,118 $ 49,500 $ 94,691 Response to Comment Document/ Final EIR $ 5,900 $ 13,400 $ 12,110 Explainer Videos $ -
Meetings and Hearings $ 4,500 $ 16,260
Subtotal $ 23,600 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,118 $ 62,900 $ - $ 133,689 $224,307 Task 8 Zoning
Administrative Draft Specific Plan Zoning Code $ 15,400 $ 1,470 $ 2,000 City Staff Review, Consultant Refinement $ 4,600
Public Review Draft Zoning Code $ 4,200
Zoning Code Workshop $ 6,000
Subtotal $ 30,200 $ - $ 1,470 $ 2,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $33,670 Task 9 Public Review and Adoption, Final Specific Plan
Finalize Specific Plan $ 17,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,160
Public Hearings $ 13,500
Subtotal $ 30,500 $ - $ 2,000 $ 3,160 $ - $ - $ - $ - $35,660 Task 10 Project Management
Project Management $ 42,200 $ 5,000 $ 12,850 $ 8,370 $68,420 Labor $ 3 74,100 $ 91,100 $ 3 0,100 $ 35,800 $ 6 6,960 $ 1 59,880 $ 47,982 $ 1 77,359 $983,281 Direct total costs $ 6,000 $ 1 ,500 $ 2,000 $ 1,200 $ 1 ,000 $ 3,200 $14,900 TOTAL $ 380,100 $ 92,600 $ 32,100 $ 37,000 $ 6 7,960 $ 1 59,880 $ 47,982 $ 180,559 $998,181 Contingency of 10% $99,818
Total with Contingency $1,097,999
Optional Tasks
3D model of existing streetscape conditions for Task 2 - Existing Conditions $ 4,120
3D model of 2 additional graphics for Task 3 - Alternatives Development $ 1,500 Prepare renderings for massing diagrams for Task 3 - Alternatives Development $ 12,000
3D model of 2 additional graphics for Task 5 - Strategy Reports $ 1,500 Annexation Advisory Services for Task 5 - Strategy Reports Subtotal of Optional Tasks $ - $ - $ 1 2,000 $ 7 ,120 $ - $ - $ - $ - $19,120 TOTAL OF PROJECT COSTS WITH CONTINGENCY AND OPTIONAL TASKS $1,117,119 117

REFERENCES

REFERENCES
City of San Carlos
Al Savay, Community Development Director
[email protected]
650-802-4209
Completion of East Side Innovation District Vision Plan. Working with Perkins&Will, Good City provided strategic advising services, playing an active role in developing the plan, assisting with community engagement, reviewing the draft plan, and provided direction to consultants.

City of South San Francisco
Mike Futrell, City Manager
[email protected]
650-877-8500
Project management of General Plan Update. Working with Raimi + Associates, Good City provides project management on behalf of the City for the comprehensive General Plan Update.

City of San Bruno
Darcy Smith, Assistant City Manager
[email protected]
650-616-7002
Planner services for the development of the Tanforan Master Plan. Good City provides planning services as part of a consultant team overseeing the development of the Tanforan Master Plan.

Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 31 118
32 ATTACHMENT 1:

W-Trans Access, Connectivity, Transit,
and Parking Analysis Scope of Work
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 119
33 ĞůŵŽŶƚ,ĂƌďŽƌ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůƌĞĂ;,/Ϳ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶ͕^ĐŽƉĞŽĨtŽƌŬ͕ tͲ dƌĂŶƐ
̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴ ͳ
Task 1 Project Start-Up
<ŝĐŬŽĨĨ DĞĞƚŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ &ŝĞůĚ sŝƐŝƚ͘ tͲdƌĂŶƐ ǁŝůů ƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞ ŝŶ Ă ŬŝĐŬŽĨĨ ŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ ǁŝƚŚ ƐƚĂĨĨ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚĞĂŵ͘dŚŝƐŵĂLJŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂǁĂůŬŝŶŐƚŽƵƌŽĨƚŚĞƐƚƵĚLJĂƌĞĂ ĂŶĚa “ƌŽůůͲƵƉͲƐůĞĞǀĞƐ” ǁŽƌŬƐĞƐƐŝŽŶ͘ Task 2 Existing Conditions Profile
WƌĞƉĂƌĞĐĐĞƐƐ͕ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͕dƌĂŶƐŝƚ͕ĂŶĚWĂƌŬŝŶŐŶĂůLJƐŝƐ͘ tͲdƌĂŶƐ͕ǁŝƚŚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĨƌŽŵůƚĂ͕ǁŝůů ďƵŝůĚŽŶƚŚĞƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶďĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚƌĞƉŽƌƚƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞĞůŵŽŶƚ 'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶhƉĚĂƚĞ͕ǁŝƚŚ ĂƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌĨŽĐƵƐŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞ,/WůĂŶƌĞĂ͘ĂůƚƌĂŝŶ ĂŶĚ^ĂŵdƌĂŶƐ ƐƚĂĨĨǁŝůůďĞĐŽŶƐƵůƚĞĚ ĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌ ŽƵƚƌĞĂĐŚ ĂŶĚ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ŽŶŐŽŝŶŐ ĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ŝŶ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ ƚŽ ŝƚLJ ƐƚĂĨĨ͘ dŚŝƐ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶǁŝůůďĞƵƐĞĚƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĂŵƵůƚŝŵŽĚĂůĂĐĐĞƐƐĂŶĚĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝǀŝƚLJƐƚƌĂƚĞŐLJĨŽƌƚŚĞ,/ ĂƐǁĞůů ĂƐƐĞƌǀĞĂƐƚŚĞďĂƐŝƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůƐĞƚƚŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞ /Z͘dŚŝƐĞĨĨŽƌƚǁŽƵůĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗
• ^ƵŵŵĂƌŝnjŝŶŐƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚƉŽƌƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶĚĂƚĂĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶ͘ • Ŷ ĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ 'ĞŶĞƌĂů WůĂŶ ŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ ƚŽ ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞ ǁŚŝĐŚ ĂƌĞĂƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĂƚ
ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚŵĞƌŝƚ ĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ ƌĞǀŝĞǁͬĚĞƚĂŝů͕ ĂŶĚǁŚŝĐŚ ǁŽƵůĚ ďĞ ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ƚŽ ƵƉĚĂƚĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ,/ ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶ͘
Ɛ ƉĂƌƚ ŽĨ ƚŚŝƐ ƚĂƐŬ͕ tͲdƌĂŶƐ ǁŝůů ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞ ĂŶ
džŝƐƚŝŶŐ ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ WƌŽĨŝůĞ͘ dŚŝƐ ǁŝůů ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ƚŚĞ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐƵďƚĂƐŬƐ͗
ϭ͘ ŽůůĞĐƚĂŶĚZĞǀŝĞǁ
džŝƐƚŝŶŐ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĂƚĂ
dƌĂĨĨŝĐĐŽƵŶƚƐ͘tĞŚĂǀĞĂƐƐƵŵĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐƚƵĚLJĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐƉĞƌŝŽĚƐǁŝůůďĞ͗ • ǁĞĞŬĚĂLJĂ͘ŵ͘;ϳ͗ϬϬĂ͘ŵ͘– ϵ͗ϬϬĂ͘ŵ͘Ϳ
• ǁĞĞŬĚĂLJƉ͘ŵ͘;ϰ͗ϬϬƉ͘ŵ͘– ϲ͗ϬϬƉ͘ŵ͘Ϳ
EĞǁŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƚƵƌŶŝŶŐŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚĐŽƵŶƚƐǁŝůůďĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐǁĞĞŬĚĂLJĂ͘ŵ͘ ĂŶĚƉ͘ŵ͘ ƉĞĂŬ ƉĞƌŝŽĚƐ͘dŚĞĨŝŶĂůůŝƐƚŽĨƐƚƵĚLJŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĐŽŶĨŝƌŵĞĚǁŝƚŚŝƚLJŽĨĞůŵŽŶƚƐƚĂĨĨƉƌŝŽƌ ƚŽƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽŵŵĞŶĐĞŵĞŶƚ͘ dƌĂĨĨŝĐĐŽƵŶƚƐǁŝůůďĞĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂůĐŽƵŶƚƐƚŽĂĚũƵƐƚ ĨŽƌƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůŽǀŝĚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘
ŝ͘ ZĂůƐƚŽŶǀĞŶƵĞͬ
ůĂŵŝŶŽZĞĂůΎ
ŝŝ͘ ZĂůƐƚŽŶǀĞŶƵĞͬKůĚŽƵŶƚLJZŽĂĚΎ
ŝŝŝ͘ ZĂůƐƚŽŶǀĞŶƵĞͬ
ůŵĞƌ^ƚƌĞĞƚ
ŝǀ͘ ZĂůƐƚŽŶǀĞŶƵĞͬ,ŝůůĞƌ^ƚƌĞĞƚΎ
ǀ͘ ZĂůƐƚŽŶǀĞŶƵĞͬh^ ϭϬϭ^ŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚZĂŵƉƐΎ
ǀŝ͘ ZĂůƐƚŽŶǀĞŶƵĞͬh^ϭϬϭEŽƌƚŚďŽƵŶĚZĂŵƉƐͲ/ƐůĂŶĚWĂƌŬǁĂLJΎ ǀŝŝ͘ KŶĞŝůůǀĞŶƵĞͬKůĚŽƵŶƚLJZŽĂĚ
ǀŝŝŝ͘ KŶĞŝůůǀĞŶƵĞͬ
ůŵĞƌ^ƚƌĞĞƚ
ŝdž͘ KŶĞŝůůǀĞŶƵĞͬ,ŝůůĞƌ^ƚƌĞĞƚ
120
34 ĞůŵŽŶƚ,ĂƌďŽƌ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůƌĞĂ;,/Ϳ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶ͕^ĐŽƉĞŽĨtŽƌŬ͕ tͲ dƌĂŶƐ
̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴ ʹ
dž͘ KŶĞŝůůǀĞŶƵĞͬ<ĂƌĞŶǀĞŶƵĞͲĂŝƌLJ>ĂŶĞ
džŝ͘ ,ĂƌďŽƌŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚEŽƌƚŚͬ
ůĂŵŝŶŽZĞĂůΎ
džŝŝ͘ ,ĂƌďŽƌŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚͬKůĚŽƵŶƚLJZŽĂĚΎ
džŝŝŝ͘ ,ĂƌďŽƌŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚͬ
ůŵĞƌ^ƚƌĞĞƚ
džŝǀ͘ ,ĂƌďŽƌŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚͬ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůZŽĂĚ
džǀ͘ ,ĂƌďŽƌŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚͬ<ĂƌĞŶǀĞŶƵĞ
džǀŝ͘ YƵĂƌƌLJZŽĂĚͬKůĚŽƵŶƚLJZŽĂĚΎΎ
džǀŝŝ͘ YƵĂƌƌLJZŽĂĚͬ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůZŽĂĚΎΎ
džǀŝŝŝ͘ ,ŽůůLJ^ƚƌĞĞƚͬKůĚŽƵŶƚLJZŽĂĚΎΎ
džŝdž͘ ,ŽůůLJ^ƚƌĞĞƚͬ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůZŽĂĚΎΎ
ΎƐƚƵĚLJŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŝŶĞůŵŽŶƚ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶĂŶĚs^W
ΎΎƐƚƵĚLJŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŝŶ^ĂŶĂƌůŽƐ
The following roadway segments were identified as those most critical to Belmont’s local ĐŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ƐLJƐƚĞŵ͕ ,/ ƉůĂŶ ĂƌĞĂ͕ ĂŶĚ ŝƚƐ ĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ ƚŽ ƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶĂů ƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŶĞƚǁŽƌŬ ;ĞĂĐŚǁĂƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶ ƚŚĞĞůŵŽŶƚ'ĞŶĞƌĂů WůĂŶĂŶĚ s^WͿ͘ ϮϰͲŚŽƵƌ ďŝͲĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů ĐŽƵŶƚƐ͕ ďLJ ŚŽƵƌ͕ǁŝůůďĞŐĂƚŚĞƌĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐĞŐŵĞŶƚƐ͗
ŝ͘
ůĂŵŝŶŽZĞĂů͕ďĞƚǁĞĞŶZĂůƐƚŽŶǀĞŶƵĞĂŶĚŶŽƌƚŚĞƌŶŝƚLJ>ŝŵŝƚƐ ŝŝ͘
ůĂŵŝŶŽZĞĂů͕ďĞƚǁĞĞŶZĂůƐƚŽŶǀĞŶƵĞĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŝƚLJ>ŝŵŝƚƐ ŝŝŝ͘ ZĂůƐƚŽŶǀĞŶƵĞ͕ďĞƚǁĞĞŶůĂŵĞĚĂĚĞůĂƐWƵůŐĂƐĂŶĚ^ŽƵƚŚZŽĂĚ ŝǀ͘ ZĂůƐƚŽŶǀĞŶƵĞ͕ďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ŽƵƚŚZŽĂĚĂŶĚ
ůĂŵŝŶŽZĞĂů
ǀ͘ ZĂůƐƚŽŶǀĞŶƵĞ͕ďĞƚǁĞĞŶ
ůĂŵŝŶŽZĞĂůĂŶĚh^ϭϬϭ
ǀŝ͘ KůĚŽƵŶƚLJZŽĂĚ͕ďĞƚǁĞĞŶZĂůƐƚŽŶǀĞŶƵĞĂŶĚƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŝƚLJůŝŵŝƚƐ dŚĞĨŝŶĂůůŝƐƚŽĨƐƚƵĚLJƌŽĂĚǁĂLJƐĞŐŵĞŶƚƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĐŽŶĨŝƌŵĞĚǁŝƚŚŝƚLJŽĨĞůŵŽŶƚƐƚĂĨĨƉƌŝŽƌƚŽ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽŵŵĞŶĐĞŵĞŶƚ͘
Ϯ͘ &ŝĞůĚZĞĐŽŶŶĂŝƐƐĂŶĐĞ
tͲdƌĂŶƐ ǁŝůů ĐŽŶĚƵĐƚ ĨŝĞůĚ ƌĞĐŽŶŶĂŝƐƐĂŶĐĞ ǀŝƐŝƚƐ ĚƵƌŝŶŐ Ă ƚLJƉŝĐĂů ǁĞĞŬĚĂLJ ;dƵĞƐĚĂLJ͕ tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂLJŽƌdŚƵƌƐĚĂLJͿ͘tĞǁŝůůŽďƐĞƌǀĞĂŶĚŶŽƚĞƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗ • ZŽĂĚǁĂLJĐƌŽƐƐͲƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ
• /ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶůĂŶĞŐĞŽŵĞƚƌLJĂŶĚĐŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĂƚŝŽŶ
• dƌĂĨĨŝĐĐŽŶƚƌŽůĚĞǀŝĐĞƐ
• ^ƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐůĂŶĚƵƐĞƐ
• ^ŝŐŚƚĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ
• >ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ͕ďŝĐLJĐůĞ͕ĂŶĚƚƌĂŶƐŝƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ϯ͘dƌĂĨĨŝĐKƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
121
35 ĞůŵŽŶƚ,ĂƌďŽƌ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůƌĞĂ;,/Ϳ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶ͕^ĐŽƉĞŽĨtŽƌŬ͕ tͲ dƌĂŶƐ
̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴ ͵
ŶĂůLJƐŝƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐƚƵĚLJ ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ ĂŶĚ ƌŽĂĚǁĂLJ ƐĞŐŵĞŶƚƐ ǁŝůů ďĞ ĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚ ƵƐŝŶŐ ŵĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĞƐƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ,ŝŐŚǁĂLJĂƉĂĐŝƚLJDĂŶƵĂů;,DͿ͕dƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ ŽĂƌĚ͕ ϮϬϬϬ ;Žƌ ŵŽƌĞ ƌĞĐĞŶƚ ǀĞƌƐŝŽŶƐ ƚŽ ĐŽŵƉůLJ ǁŝƚŚ ŝƚLJ d/ 'ƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐͿ͘  dŚĞ ƐŽĨƚǁĂƌĞ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ^LJŶĐŚƌŽĂŶĚͬŽƌ sŝƐƚƌŽǁŝůů ďĞ ƵƐĞĚ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ͘ tͲdƌĂŶƐǁŝůůƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĂ ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐƌĞƉŽƌƚĨŽƌŝƚLJƐƚĂĨĨƌĞǀŝĞǁ;ŽŶĞĚƌĂĨƚĂŶĚŽŶĞĨŝŶĂůĂƐƐƵŵĞĚͿ͘ Task 3 Ideas and Concepts (Alternatives Analysis)
&ƌĂŵĞŚŽŝĐĞƐ͘ /ŶĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚ ŝƚLJ ƐƚĂĨĨ͕tͲdƌĂŶƐǁŝůůƉƌĞƉĂƌĞƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶͲƌĞůĂƚĞĚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ ĨŽƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ “stations” that consider different alternatives, consisting of maps, graphics, ŝŵĂŐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚĂĐĐŽŵƉĂŶLJŝŶŐƚĞdžƚ͘dŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƐǁŝůůĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƌĞǀŝƚĂůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ͕ďĂƐŝĐĐŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ƉĂƚƚĞƌŶƐ͕ĂŶĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ͘dŚĞĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞƐǁŝůůĞdžƉůŽƌĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĨŽƌůŝŶŬĂŐĞƐƚŽ ĂůƚƌĂŝŶͬƚƌĂŶƐŝƚĂĐĐĞƐƐĂŶĚĐŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌǀĂƌŝŽƵƐƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶŵŽĚĞƐ͖ĂŶĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ͘ ůƚĂǁŝůůǁŽƌŬ ǁŝƚŚtͲTrans to create a “transportation and connectivity” station whiĐŚǁŝůůŝĚĞŶƚŝĨLJƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐ ƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶŶĞƚǁŽƌŬ;ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ͕ďŝĐLJĐůĞ͕ƚƌĂŶƐŝƚ͕ ĂŶĚǀĞŚŝĐƵůĂƌͿ͕ĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƐƚŽŵĂũŽƌ ĚĞƐƚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĂŶĚŐĂƉƐ͘
Task 4 Plan Components and Policy Framework
DƵůƚŝͲDŽĚĂůĐĐĞƐƐ͕ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͕ĂŶĚdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐLJ͘ tͲdƌĂŶƐ ǁŝůů ĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚĞ ĐůŽƐĞůLJ ǁŝƚŚ ƚƌĂŶƐŝƚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƌƐĂŶĚŝƚLJƐƚĂĨĨĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚŝƐƚĂƐŬ͘tĞǁŝůůŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞ 'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶ͕s^W ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐƚŽĨŽƌŵƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĂŶĚďŝĐLJĐůĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞ ,/^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶƐŽƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉůĂŶƐĂƌĞĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚŽŶĞĂŶŽƚŚĞƌ͘tͲdƌĂŶƐǁŝůůǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚůƚĂƚŽ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐƚŽŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞ,/͕s^W ĂůƚƌĂŝŶƐƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ĚĞƐƚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ƚŚĞƐŚĂƌĞĚƵƐĞƉĂƚŚͬ,ŝŐŚǁĂLJϭϬϭŽǀĞƌĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƐ͘dŚŝƐǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂŶĂůLJnjŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ŵĂŬŝŶŐ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐ Ăůů ŵŽĚĞƐ ŽĨ ƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ĂƌĞĂ͕ ĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŝŶŐĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƐƵĐŚĂƐ͗
• ŽŵƉůĞƚĞ ^ƚƌĞĞƚ ƚLJƉŽůŽŐŝĞƐ ;ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ƵƉ ƚŽĨŝǀĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ƐƚƌĞĞƚ ĐƌŽƐƐ ƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐͿ ƚŚĂƚ ĂĚĚƌĞƐƐ ŵŽĚĂůƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐ͖
• /ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐƚŽďĞƚƚĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚĂƚĞƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĂŶĚďŝĐLJĐůĞŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ͖ • <ĞLJƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƐ͖
• ŝĐLJĐůĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ͖
• ŶĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƉůĂŶ͖
• Ŷ ŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĚ ƚƌĂŶƐŝƚ ŶĞƚǁŽƌŬ͕ ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJ ŝŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƌĞůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŝƉ ďĞƚǁĞĞŶ ĂůƚƌĂŝŶ ĂŶĚ ^ĂŵdƌĂŶƐĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂŶĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͖ĂŶĚ
• ĂůƚƌĂŝŶ ƐƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ^ĂŵdƌĂŶƐďƵƐƐƚŽƉŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ŝĨŶĞĞĚĞĚ͘ dŚĞ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ ǁŝůů ďĞ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚ ƚŽ ŚĞůƉ ĂĐŚŝĞǀĞ ŽǀĞƌĂůů ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ŐŽĂůƐ ĨŽƌ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƋƵĂůŝƚLJŽĨůŝĨĞ͘ 122
36 ĞůŵŽŶƚ,ĂƌďŽƌ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůƌĞĂ;,/Ϳ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶ͕^ĐŽƉĞŽĨtŽƌŬ͕ tͲ dƌĂŶƐ
̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴ Ͷ
WĂƌŬŝŶŐ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐLJͬdD WůĂŶ͘ tͲdƌĂŶƐǁŝůůƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ ƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĚĞŵĂŶĚĂŶĚ ƉƌŝĐŝŶŐ͘ ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗
• ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ŽĨĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ǀĞŚŝĐƵůĂƌ ĂŶĚ ďŝĐLJĐůĞ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂŶĚ ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ͕ŐŝǀĞŶ ƚŚĞ ůĂŶĚƵƐĞŐŽĂůƐĂŶĚǀŝƐŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞWůĂŶ͘
• ^ŚĂƌĞĚ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ ƚŽ ŵĂdžŝŵŝnjĞ ƚŚĞ ĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ ŽĨ ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ ůŝŵŝƚ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƵŶŶĞĞĚĞĚŶĞǁƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ĂŶĚŵĂdžŝŵŝnjĞƚŚĞĨĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͘  ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƐƵƉƉůLJ ĂŶĚ ĚĞŵĂŶĚ ĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ ǁŝůů ďĞ ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚ ƚŽ ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞ ǁŚĞƚŚĞƌ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƵƉƉůLJǁŝůůďĞƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚƚŽĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞƚŚĞĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚǁĞĞŬĚĂLJƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĚĞŵĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌ ĞĂĐŚ ŚŽƌŝnjŽŶLJĞĂƌ͘  ƐŚĂƌĞĚ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŵŽĚĞů͕ ďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŶĐĞƉƚ ŽĨ ƌĞͲƵƐŝŶŐ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞĚĂLJďĂƐĞĚŽŶǀĂƌLJŝŶŐƉĞĂŬƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĚĞŵĂŶĚƚŝŵĞƐŽĨĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚůĂŶĚƵƐĞƐǁŝůůďĞ developed as part of this analysis. A comparison to the City’s Zoning code requirement will also ďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ͘
• tͲdƌĂŶƐ ǁŝůůĂůƐŽƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĂĐŽŶĐĞƉƚͲůĞǀĞůdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶĞŵĂŶĚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ;dDͿWůĂŶĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ,/͘dŚĞdDWůĂŶǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĚĞŵĂŶĚĂŶĚĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞŶŽŶͲĂƵƚŽ ŵŽĚĞƐŽĨƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘ tĞǁŝůůŽƵƚůŝŶĞƚŚĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨĂƐƚƌĂƚĞŐLJĂŶĚĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝƚĞŵƐƐƵĐŚĂƐ ƐŚĂƌĞĚ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ͕ ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ŶĞǁ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ ;ŽŶͲƐƚƌĞĞƚ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ĂŶĚ ŽĨĨͲƐƚƌĞĞƚ ůŽƚƐ ĂŶĚ ŐĂƌĂŐĞƐͿ͕ĂŶĚŵĞĐŚĂŶŝƐŵƐĨŽƌƉĂLJŝŶŐĨŽƌƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ;ƐƵĐŚĂƐĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐ͕ŝŶͲůŝĞƵĨĞĞƐ͕ƉĂŝĚ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ͕ĞƚĐ͘Ϳ͘KƚŚĞƌdDƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ;Ğ͘Ő͕͘ ƐŚƵƚƚůĞƐ͕ƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŶĐĞŶƚŝǀĞƐ͕ĞƚĐ͘ͿƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ĨŽƌƚŚĞ,/ǁŝůůĂůƐŽďĞĞdžƉůŽƌĞĚ͘
dƌĂĨĨŝĐKƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐŶĂůLJƐŝƐŽĨ,/^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶ͘tͲdƌĂŶƐǁŝůůǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚŽƵƌƚƌĂǀĞůĨŽƌĞĐĂƐƚŵŽĚĞůŝŶŐ ƉĂƌƚŶĞƌ<ŝƚƚĞůƐŽŶ;</ͿƚŽĐŽŶĚƵĐƚƚƌĂǀĞůĚĞŵĂŶĚĨŽƌĞĐĂƐƚŝŶŐƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘tĞ ŚĂǀĞ ĂƐƐƵŵĞĚ ƚŚĂƚ 'ͬsd ;ǁŚŽ ŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƐ ƚŚĞ ^ĂŶƚĂ ůĂƌĂ ŽƵŶƚLJͬ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ ŽƵŶƚLJDŽĚĞůͿ ǁŽƵůĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŵŽĚĞůĨŝůĞƐƚŽƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞůŵŽŶƚĂƚŶŽĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĨĞĞ͕ĂŶĚ</ǁŽƵůĚĐŽĚĞƚŚĞŵŽĚĞů ƚŽƌĞĨůĞĐƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ,/ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ;ƉƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚůĂŶĚƵƐĞĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƉůĂŶͿ͘dŚĞƐĞƵƉĚĂƚĞĚĨŝůĞƐǁŽƵůĚƚŚĞŶ ďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďĂĐŬƚŽ'ͬsd ƚŽƌƵŶƚŚĞŵŽĚĞůƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŽƵƚƉƵƚĨŝůĞƐƚŽ</ĨŽƌĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐ͘ </ǁŽƵůĚĂůƐŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĞϮϬϰϬŵŽĚĞůŝƐƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůLJĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐĞŶƚĞůŵŽŶƚ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶ ĂŶĚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚƵƉĚĂƚĞ͘
</ǁŝůůƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƵŵƵůĂƚŝǀĞϮϬϰϬEŽWƌŽũĞĐƚĂŶĚϮϬϰϬǁŝƚŚ,/WƌŽũĞĐƚŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƚƵƌŶŝŶŐĨŽƌĞĐĂƐƚƐ ƚŽ tͲdƌĂŶƐ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ Ă͘ŵ͘ ĂŶĚ Ɖ͘ŵ͘ ƉĞĂŬ ŚŽƵƌ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ ƐƚƵĚLJ ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ ĂĨƚĞƌ ŵĂŬŝŶŐ ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐƚŽƚŚĞƌĂǁŵŽĚĞůƚƵƌŶŝŶŐǀŽůƵŵĞƐ͘
ƌĂĨƚĞƐŝŐŶ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂŶĚ'ƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ͘ tͲdƌĂŶƐǁŝůůĂƐƐŝƐƚƚŚĞƚĞĂŵǁŝƚŚ ƌĂĨƚŝŶŐ ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ ĂŶĚ ŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƚĞ ƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚ ĚĞƚĂŝů ƚŽ ŐƵŝĚĞ ĨƵƚƵƌĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ Š‹• ™‹ŽŽ ‹ Ž—†‡
•–ƒ–‹‘ƒ

‡••”‡
‘‡†ƒ–‹‘•ƒ†—Ž–‹Ǧ‘†ƒŽ
‘‡
–‹‘•Ǥ
Task 5 Draft HIA Specific Plan
ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞƌĂĨƚ,/ ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶ͘ tͲdƌĂŶƐǁŝůůƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĐŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƉŽƌƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶ͕ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ͗
123
37 ĞůŵŽŶƚ,ĂƌďŽƌ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůƌĞĂ;,/Ϳ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶ͕^ĐŽƉĞŽĨtŽƌŬ͕ tͲ dƌĂŶƐ
̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴ ͷ
• ŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ĐĐĞƐƐ͘ <ĞLJ ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ ĨŽƌ ĐŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ĂĐĐĞƐƐ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͕ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ ĂŶĚ ďŝĐLJĐůĞ ƉĂƚŚƐ͕ ŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ďƌŽĂĚĞƌ ĐŝƚLJǁŝĚĞ ĐŽŶƚĞdžƚ͕ ĂŶĚ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ͘
Task 6 Environmental Review
˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ‡––‹‰ ƒ†
’ƒ
– ƒŽ›•‹•Ǥ Š‡ ‡ˆˆ‡
– ‘ˆ

 ’‡
‹ˆ‹
 Žƒ ’‘Ž‹
‹‡• ƒ†
†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ‘ –Š‡ ‡˜‹”‘‡– ™‹ŽŽ „‡ ƒƒŽ›œ‡† ƒ† •‹‰‹ˆ‹ ƒ– ‹’ƒ
–• ™‹ŽŽ „‡
‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†ǤŠ‡‹’ƒ
–ƒƒŽ›•‹•™‹ŽŽ„‡
‘’”‡Š‡•‹˜‡‹•
‘’‡ǡ
‘˜‡”‹‰ƒŽŽ”‡“—‹”‡‡–•Ǥ
• ”ƒˆˆ‹
 ƒ† ”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘Ǥ ƒŽ›•‹• ‘ˆ ‹’ƒ
–• ”‡Žƒ–‡† –‘ ‹
”‡‡–ƒŽ ‰”‘™–Š ƒ••‘
‹ƒ–‡†
™‹–Š–Š‡Žƒˆ‘”ƒŽŽ‘†‡•‘ˆ–”ƒˆˆ‹
‹
Ž—†‹‰ƒ—–‘‘„‹Ž‡•ǡ–”ƒ•‹–ǡ„‹
›
Ž‹•–•ǡƒ†’‡†‡•–”‹ƒ•Ǥ
Š‹•™‹ŽŽ‹
Ž—†‡ƒƒŽ›•‹•‘ˆ–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰–™‘ˆ—–—”‡•
‡ƒ”‹‘•™‹–Š–Š‡

’‡
‹ˆ‹
Žƒǣ
o š‹•–‹‰൅ƒ„‹‡––”ƒˆˆ‹
‰”‘™–Š„‡–™‡‡ʹͲͳͶƒ†ʹͲʹͲ൅”‘’‘•‡†

 ’‡
‹ˆ‹

ŽƒሺʹͲʹʹሻ
o ——Žƒ–‹˜‡ʹͲ͵ͷ™‹–Š

’‡
‹ˆ‹
Žƒ ሺ—•‹‰–Š‡ʹͲͶͲ
Ȁ‘†‡Žሻ
•’ƒ”–‘ˆ–Š‹•–ƒ•ǡǦ”ƒ•™‹ŽŽ’”‡’ƒ”‡ƒ –”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘ƒƒŽ›•‹•–Šƒ–™‹ŽŽ‹ Ž—†‡–Š‡
ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰•—„–ƒ••ǣ

1. dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ
ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞ
tͲdƌĂŶƐǁŝůůĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŶĞƚŶĞǁĚĂŝůLJĂŶĚƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐĂĚĚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƐƚƵĚLJ ĂƌĞĂďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƐŝnjĞ ĂŶĚƚLJƉĞŽĨ,/ůĂŶĚƵƐĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ͘

2. sĞŚŝĐůĞƐDŝůĞƐdƌĂǀĞůĞĚ;sDdͿŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
dŚĞ
YƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶƐƚƵĚLJƚŽďĞĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚďLJtͲdƌĂŶƐǁŝůůďĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƉƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚ,/ ƉůĂŶĂŶĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ͗
•
džŝƐƚŝŶŐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ
• ƵŵƵůĂƚŝǀĞϮϬϰϬEŽWƌŽũĞĐƚ
• ƵŵƵůĂƚŝǀĞϮϬϰϬǁŝƚŚĞůŵŽŶƚ,/^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶ
ZĞŐŝŽŶĂůƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶĚĂƚĂĨƌŽŵ'ͬsd’s travel demand model will be used to ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞ ƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůŐƌŽǁƚŚŝŶƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ ĂŶĚsDd ĨƌŽŵƐŽƵƌĐĞƐďĞLJŽŶĚĞůŵŽŶƚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ ŐƌŽǁƚŚŽŶh^ϭϬϭ ĂŶĚ^ZͲϴϮ͘ ĂƐĞLJĞĂƌĨŽƌĞĐĂƐƚƐǁŝůůďĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚĨŽƌϮϬϮϬ͕ĂŶĚĨƵƚƵƌĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ ĨŽƌĞĐĂƐƚƐĨŽƌĂďƵŝůĚŽƵƚLJĞĂƌŽĨϮϬϰϬ͘
sDdƉĞƌ^ϳϰϯ
124
38 ĞůŵŽŶƚ,ĂƌďŽƌ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůƌĞĂ;,/Ϳ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶ͕^ĐŽƉĞŽĨtŽƌŬ͕ tͲ dƌĂŶƐ
̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴ ͸
</ǁŝůůĞdžƚƌĂĐƚ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ;d ďĂƐĞĚͿ sDd ƉĞƌ ^ ϳϰϯ ƚŽ ĐŽŵƉůLJǁŝƚŚKWZ͕ ŝƚLJ Žƌ ͬ' sDd 'ƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ͘ dŚŝƐ ǁŝůů ďĞ sDd ƉĞƌ ĐĂƉŝƚĂ ĨŽƌ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ůĂŶĚ ƵƐĞƐ ĂŶĚ sDd ƉĞƌ ĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞ ĨŽƌ ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĂŶĚŽĨĨŝĐĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞƐ͘ </ǁŝůůĐŽŵƉĂƌĞƚŚĞsDdƉĞƌĐĂƉŝƚĂƚŽƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐsDdĂŶĚ ƚŚĞϮϬϰϬŶŽͲƉƌŽũĞĐƚsDd͘ tĞǁŝůůĐŽŶĨŝƌŵĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞsDdƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚƐĨŽƌĂ YŝŵƉĂĐƚĨŝŶĚŝŶŐ
ǁŝƚŚŝƚLJŽĨĞůŵŽŶƚƐƚĂĨĨ͘
ͬ'ZĞŐŝŽŶĂůZŽĂĚǁĂLJDWŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
dŚĞDWƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůƌŽĂĚǁĂLJĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƌŽĂĚǁĂLJƐĞŐŵĞŶƚƐŝŶĞůŵŽŶƚ͕ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐh^ϭϬϭ ŶŽƌƚŚ ĂŶĚ ƐŽƵƚŚ ŽĨ ,ĂƌďŽƌ ŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ ĂŶĚ ^Z ϴϮ ; ů ĂŵŝŶŽ ZĞĂůͿ ŶŽƌƚŚ ĂŶĚ ƐŽƵƚŚ ŽĨ ZĂůƐƚŽŶ
ǀĞŶƵĞ͘
^ƵƉƉŽƌƚĨŽƌŝƌ͕'ƌĞĞŶŚŽƵƐĞ'ĂƐĂŶĚEŽŝƐĞ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐ
</ǁŝůůǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚ'ͬsd ƐƚĂĨĨƚŽŽďƚĂŝŶƚŚĞŵŽĚĞůƌƵŶƐĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗ &Žƌ ŝƌYƵĂůŝƚLJĂŶĚ'ƌĞĞŶŚŽƵƐĞ'ĂƐ
ŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
ϭ͘ ǀĞƌĂŐĞĂŝůLJdƌŝƉƐĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐůĂŶĚƵƐĞƐ;ϮϬϮϬͿŝŶWůĂŶĂƌĞĂďLJůĂŶĚƵƐĞƚLJƉĞ Ϯ͘ sDdĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐ;ϮϬϮϬͿůĂŶĚƵƐĞƐŝŶƚŚĞWůĂŶƌĞĂ ϯ͘ ǀĞƌĂŐĞĂŝůLJdƌŝƉƐĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚϮϬϰϬEŽͲWƌŽũĞĐƚĂŶĚWƌŽũĞĐƚůĂŶĚƵƐĞƐŝŶWůĂŶĂƌĞĂ;Ăƚ ďƵŝůĚŽƵƚͿďLJůĂŶĚƵƐĞƚLJƉĞ
ϰ͘ sDdĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ϮϬϰϬEŽͲWƌŽũĞĐƚĂŶĚWƌŽũĞĐƚůĂŶĚƵƐĞƐŝŶ ƚŚĞWůĂŶƌĞĂ– 'W ƵŝůĚŽƵƚzĞĂƌ
ϱ͘ sDdďLJƐƉĞĞĚďŝŶ͕ŝĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ
ϲ͘ sDdďLJ/Ͳy͕yͲ/͕/Ͳ/;ĞdžĐůƵĚŝŶŐyͲyƚƌŝƉƐͿ͕ŝĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ &ŽƌEŽŝƐĞŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
ϳ͘ '/^͗ŝƚLJĞŶƚĞƌůŝŶĞĚĂƚĂǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐĞŐŵĞŶƚƐĐŽĚĞĚ;Ğ͘Ő͕͘y^ƚƌĞĞƚ– z^ƚƌĞĞƚƚŽ^ƚƌĞĞƚͿĨŽƌ ĂůůŚŝŐŚǁĂLJƐĂŶĚŵĂũŽƌƌŽĂĚǁĂLJƐĂŶĚĂƌƚĞƌŝĂůƐŝŶƚŚĞƐƚƵĚLJĂƌĞĂ ϴ͘ dƐĞŐŵĞŶƚǀŽůƵŵĞƐ;ďŽƚŚĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ŶŽƚŽŶĞͲǁĂLJͿĨŽƌĂůůŚŝŐŚǁĂLJ͕ŵĂũŽƌƌŽĂĚǁĂLJĂŶĚ ĂƌƚĞƌŝĂůƐĞŐŵĞŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJĂƌĞĂŝŶ W& Žƌ'/^^ŚĂƉĞĨŝůĞ;ŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐ džĐĞůĨŽƌŵĂƚͿ
͘
Ă͘
džŝƐƚŝŶŐͬĂƐĞ
ď͘ &ƵƚƵƌĞ
ϵ͘ ĂLJƚŝŵĞ;ϳD– ϳWDͿͬ
ǀĞŶŝŶŐ;ϳWD– ϭϬWDͿͬEŝŐŚƚƚŝŵĞ;ϭϬWD– ϳDͿƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ ƐƉůŝƚƐŽŶƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞƐĞŐŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚĨƵƚƵƌĞƚŝŵĞĨƌĂŵĞƐ 125
39 ĞůŵŽŶƚ,ĂƌďŽƌ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůƌĞĂ;,/Ϳ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶ͕^ĐŽƉĞŽĨtŽƌŬ͕ tͲ dƌĂŶƐ
̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴ ͹
ϭϬ͘ EƵŵďĞƌŽĨůĂŶĞƐͬƌŽĂĚǁĂLJǁŝĚƚŚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞƐĞŐŵĞŶƚƐ ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞƌĂĨƚ
/Z͕ƌĂĨƚ
/Z͕&ŝŶĂů
/Z
dŚĞĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞƌĂĨƚ
/ZdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ/ŵƉĂĐƚŶĂůLJƐŝƐZĞƉŽƌƚǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂůůĂƐƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶƐ͕ ĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ ƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐ͕ ĨŝŶĚŝŶŐƐ͕ ŐƌĂƉŚŝĐƐ͕ ŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ ĂŶĚ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘  /ƚ ǁŝůů ďĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ĞůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐĂůůLJ͕ĂŶĚŽŶůLJŽŶĞĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞƌĂĨƚ
/ZdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ/ŵƉĂĐƚŶĂůLJƐŝƐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůŝƐ
ŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ͘
&ŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ƌĞĐĞŝƉƚ ŽĨ ŽŶĞ ƐĞƚ ŽĨ ƵŶŝĨŝĞĚ ŶŽŶͲĐŽŶƚƌĂĚŝĐƚŽƌLJ ĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ ĨƌŽŵ ŝƚLJ ƐƚĂĨĨ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞƌĂĨƚ
/ZdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ/ŵƉĂĐƚŶĂůLJƐŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚ͕tͲdƌĂŶƐǁŝůůƌĞǀŝƐĞƚŚĞƌĞƉŽƌƚĂŶĚ ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞƚŚĞƌĂĨƚ
/ZdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ/ŵƉĂĐƚŶĂůLJƐŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚ͘dŚĞƌĂĨƚ
/ZdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ/ŵƉĂĐƚ
ŶĂůLJƐŝƐ ƌĞƉŽƌƚ ǁŝůů ďĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ĞůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐĂůůLJ͕ ĂŶĚ ŽŶůLJ ŽŶĞ ƌĂĨƚ /Z dƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ /ŵƉĂĐƚ
ŶĂůLJƐŝƐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ͘
tͲdƌĂŶƐŚĂǀĞďƵĚŐĞƚĞĚĨŽƌĂůŝŵŝƚĞĚŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƚƌĂĨĨŝĐͲƌĞůĂƚĞĚĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽŶƚŚĞ /Z͘tĞǁŝůů
ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĂĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŵĞŵŽƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĞůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐĂůůLJ͘EŽŽƚŚĞƌĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ ƚŽƚŚĞƌĂĨƚ
/ZdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ/ŵƉĂĐƚŶĂůLJƐŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƌĞĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚ͘ DŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ DĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ͘ WƌĂĐƚŝĐĂů ĂŶĚ ĨĞĂƐŝďůĞ ŵŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ ƚŽ ƌĞĚƵĐĞ ƚŚĞ ĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů ŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ ŽĨ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ,/ ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐ WůĂŶ ǁŝůů ďĞ ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚ͕ ĂƐ ǁĞůů ĂƐ ƚŚĞ ƉĂƌƚŝĞƐ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞ ĨŽƌ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ǁŝůů ďĞ ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚ͘ DŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ ǁŝůů ďĞ ŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚ ĂƐ ƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶ ƚŚĞ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐ WůĂŶ͕ ǁŚĞƌĞ ĨĞĂƐŝďůĞ͘tͲTrans will use the City’s TDM Plan policies to ĨŽƌŵƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŝŶŝƚŝĂůŵŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĂŶLJƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůsDdŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ͘ WƌŽũĞĐƚůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞƐ͘ dŚŝƐƐĞĐƚŝŽŶǁŝůůĂůƐŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐŽĨƚŚĞEŽWƌŽũĞĐƚůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚǁŝůů ďĞ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐ ůĂŶĚ ƵƐĞ ƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ĂŶĚ ƚǁŽ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞƐ͘ dŚĞ ƌĞůĂƚŝǀĞ ŵĞƌŝƚƐĂŶĚĚŝƐĂĚǀĂŶƚĂŐĞƐŽĨƚŚĞĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞƐǁŝůůďĞƋƵĂůŝƚĂƚŝǀĞůLJĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚ ĂŶĚĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ proposed Specific Plan. An “environmentally superior” alternative will be identified. The alternatives ĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐǁŝůůďĞůĞƐƐĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚƚŚĂŶƚŚĞĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘ 126
ATTACHMENT 2:

Experience of Key Personnel
Good City Company | 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070 | www.goodcityco.com 40 127

GOOD CITY

EDUCATION
B.A., Urban Studies,
San Francisco State
University
M.A., Public Policy, Cal
State Northridge

MEMBERSHIPS
American Institute of
Certified Planners
American Planning
Association
International City/
County Manager
Association

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Aknin, AICP, is a Principal and Co-Owner of Good City Company. He has nearly two decades of Bay Area municipal experience, including serving in an executive capacity for several different Peninsula cities.

He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) and the American Planning Association. Aaron has frequently spoken at regional events, as well as served on panels at national conferences on topics related to development, downtown planning, transportation, parking, affordable housing, and related issues.

Most recently, Aaron was the Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director with the City of Redwood City. In this capacity, he oversaw a 70+ member department, which included the Planning, Housing, Engineering, Transportation, Front Counter Services, and Code Enforcement divisions. As the Assistant City Manager, he led key Citywide initiatives and also served as Interim City Manager in 2015.

Aaron was in Redwood City during a time of unprecedented growth and community involvement (2014-2019). During his half-decade with the City, the City reviewed and processed over 4,000 new housing units, as well as several million square feet of office space.

In addition, Aaron oversaw the implementation of the Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan, including several key amendments to the plan. Aaron helped shape a first of its kind community benefits program (“Partnership Redwood City”), adoption of several key affordable housing initiatives including an inclusionary housing ordinance, an Airbnb affordable housing tax and renter protections, and the adoption the Citywide Transportation Plan.

AARON AKNIN, AICP
Principal, Owner
41 128
Aaron was also deeply involved in economic development issues and served on the Redwood City Community Improvement Association (RCIA) Board. Aaron continues to serve on the RCIA Board and was recently appointed to the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors.

Finally, one of Aaron’s key focuses in Redwood City was improving the process, both for residents participating in policy making, as well as applicants, business owners and developers who chose to invest in the City.

Prior to coming to Redwood City, Aaron was with the City of Palo Alto in 2012-2014. He served as both the Assistant and Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment. In this capacity, he led the Planning and Transportation Divisions within the City. Key projects included the formation of the first Downtown Residential Permit Program (RPP), leading the downtown development cap process, providing direction related to the Comprehensive Plan (General Plan), being the Planning Commission liaison, and overseeing several Stanford related developments.

During his time in Palo Alto, Aaron focused much of his efforts on transparency by increasing the amount of available (and understandable) public information and building a connection within the community.

Aaron “grew up” as a local government professional within the City of San Bruno. He began his career in San Bruno in 2002 as an Assistant Planner, and left in 2012, after spending the last 5 years as the Community Development Director. As Community Development Director, he was in charge of the Planning, Building, and the Code Enforcement divisions in the City. He also staffed the Planning Commission and managed their agendas.

During his time in San Bruno, the Shops at Tanforan mall was

GOOD CITY
42 129
renovated for the first time in generations, and over 1,500 residential units were constructed citywide. This included over 1,000 units at “The Crossing” (former Navy Base) which included 315 affordable units. During Aaron’s tenure as Director, the first General Plan in 25 years was adopted, and the draft Transit Corridor Plan was released.

Most importantly, Aaron served as the Plan Section Chief during the PG&E Pipeline Explosion and worked closely with property owners during the immediate aftermath and in the months and years following the disaster.

Aaron grew up in the Peninsula, spent much of his adult life in San Francisco, and moved back to San Carlos in 2012. He lives there with his wife Cindy, and two kids.

GOOD CITY
43 130

EDUCATION
B.S., Geology,
Washington State
University
MUP, Urban Planning
with Certificate
in Urban Design,
University of
Washington

MEMBERSHIPS
American Institute of
Certified Planners
American Planning
Association
International City/
County Managers
Association
Urban Land Institute

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Carol Johnson is a dynamic and responsive urban planner, attuned to community needs, and adept at working with diverse groups in crafting policies, plans and implementation strategies in order to facilitate positive change. She has over 30 years of urban planning experience in both the public and private sectors, including serving as Planning Director for Multnomah County, Oregon; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Maricopa County, Arizona and Berkeley, California.

She has also worked as a planner in various capacities for cities in the states of Arizona, California, Connecticut and Washington.

Carol is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, the American Planning Association, the International City/County Managers Association and the Urban Land Institute.

Carol worked for the City of Berkeley as Planning Manager and Planning Director from 2014 to 2017. During her tenure, she oversaw the development review and approval of the first tall building in downtown Berkeley in almost 50 years. She also directed the development of the Adeline Corridor Specific Plan.

At the City of Concord she also served as the Planning Manager, and was responsible for the Concord Downtown Plan, including obtaining assistance of a Technical Advisory Panel from the Urban Land Institute to test the economic feasibility of the plan recommendations. For the Concord Safe Routes to Transit Plan, she incorporated culturally specific workshops to engage the community most impacted by the lack of safe pedestrian infrastructure.

While in Phoenix, Carol managed the in-house effort that resulted

CAROL JOHNSON, AICP
Planning Director

GOOD CITY
44 131
in the Downtown Phoenix Urban Form Code. It was a unique hybrid code incorporating concepts from form-based codes within the legal context of existing land use entitlements. The Urban Form Code served as the template for the Walkable Urban Code along the remainder of the light rail corridor. Carol also represented the City as a founding member of of the Sustainable Communities Working Group, a multi-agency/multi-sector organization that promoted the creation of equitable, affordable housing along the light rail corridor. She was one of four members responsible for obtaining a commitment for $20 million in loan funds from the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) and Raza Development
Fund (RDF) to develop affordable and attainable housing and support services along the light rail corridor. Carol’s final project with Phoenix was the development of a sustainability framework for the update of the Phoenix General Plan which also incorporated concepts of anticipatory governance.

GOOD CITY
45 132

OUR TEAM

EDUCATION
B.A., Social Welfare,
Public Policy Minor,
University of California,
Berkeley
Master of Public Affairs,
Certificate in Urban
Policy and Planning,
School of Public and
International Affairs,
Princeton University

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Chris Dacumos has 15+ years experience in government and has spent the past 7 years in community development. He was motivated to pursue a career in government to practice efficiency, community engagement, visioning, and sustainability. Chris joined Good City Company in 2020 focusing on planning and assisting with business operations and development. He is adept at working across departments with the ability to digest complex ideas or processes and build partnerships with different functional areas.

With Good City Company, Chris manages the development review process or assists in the management for large projects including residential and commercial development in cities along the Peninsula.

Some of these projects include:
» 1.2 million square feet (sf) of office project
» Mixed-use development consisting of 800,000 of office, lifescience, research development, and 95 units of housing » 52-acre development including open space, parks, office, research and development, and housing
» 330,000 sf life science project
» 191 hotel room development
Chris coordinates the environmental review of a school district workforce housing project, reviews large office development plans, and minor modifications to wireless cellular facilities. In addition to his planning duties, he also assists public agencies with contracts, policy, process, staffing, budget analyses, fee studies or updates, recruitment, and general project management.

With Good City, Chris also assists in business operations including

CHRISTOPHER DACUMOS
Senior Planner/Project Manager
46 133

OUR TEAM
human resources, developing proposals, and researching and implementing new technologies to improve operational efficiency.

Chris began as an aide to Congressman George Miller (retired) and then went on to graduate school where he studied public policy.

After graduate school, he assisted with mangrove restoration in wetlands in the Philippines. Following this experience, he went on to work for the San Mateo County Transportation District (Samtrans, Caltrain, and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority), the Town of Hillsborough, and the City of Redwood City. With the City of Redwood City, Chris managed the Ferry Financial Feasibility Study and Cost-Benefit & Economic Impact Analyses. The effort involved coordination between the City, the Port of Redwood City, and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority.
47 134

EDUCATION
B.A., Architecture, UC
Berkeley
M.I.A., Economic and
Political Development,
Urban and Social Policy,
Columbia University

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Nick Hamilton is an urban development and policy professional bringing 15+ years of experience in leading plan development and launching programs to advance equity, sustainability, and shared prosperity in communities across the U.S. and internationally.

Recent long-range planning experience includes General Plan and Housing Element updates, and municipal code updates to further Objective Design and Development Standards. Recent current planning experience includes coordinating local jurisdiction review of the redevelopment of former school sites into housing, high density Transit Oriented Development (TOD) projects, and associated CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) environmental reviews. He has also lent his expertise in community engagement and outreach to several initiatives for the cities of Brisbane, San Mateo, and San Bruno.

Nick brings a long track record establishing collaborative community revitalization initiatives in communities across the U.S. through his previous work for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and as Director of Urban Policy at Columbia University’s The American Assembly.

His architectural, urban design, and planning expertise was cultivated during his time at Davis Brody Bond, a nationally recognized architectural firm headquartered in New York. Projects there included multiple overseas diplomatic facilities for the US Department of State, Columbia University Northwest Corner Building, and the Lenox Terrace Apartments superblock infill project.

Nick is active in professional and civic organizations and has spoken

NICK HAMILTON
Senior Planner

GOOD CITY
48 135
at myriad conferences including the American Planning Association Advocacy and Policy Conference (2019) and has participated in the Urban Land Institute’s National Advisory Services Panel in Pittsburgh (2016). He currently serves on the boards of the Consortium for Sustainable Urbanization, which fosters solutions-oriented discourse between UN Habitat and US-based architectural and development organizations and professionals, and the Berkeley Student Cooperative Alumni Association. He was included as a Next City Vanguard in 2013.

GOOD CITY
49 136

EDUCATION
B.S., Graphic
Communication with
a concentration in
Archicitectural Design,
North Carolina A&T
State University
M.U.R.P., Urban and
Regional Planning,
Virginia Commonwealth
University

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Christopher Nicholas has 10+ years of experience working land use and transportation policy planning, project management, and transportation demand management. He began his career as a Housing & Community Development intern in Prince George County, Virginia working on long range plans, zoning, and policy research. Following graduate school, Christopher joined Crater Planning District Commission (CPDC) in Petersburg, Virginia where he worked on transportation plans, regional plans, policies, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Studies, bicycle/pedestrian plans, public participation planning and project management.

Prior to joining Good City, Christopher solved complex
transportation issues around vehicle miles traveled, California Environmental Quality Act, climate change involving development projects and the State Highway System for Caltrans. During his time at Caltrans, he was a guest speaker at the American Planning Association’s National Conference in San Francisco, partook in a 10-month rotation program involving the Overall Work Program, MPO/RTPA Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant and reviewing local development projects’ impacts on the State Highway System.

He also served as acting Branch Chief at Caltrans, managing a statewide staff of over 80 people and with a budget of over $7 million.

Mr. Nicholas grew up in Vallejo and spent 12 years on the East Coast between school and jobs. In his free time, Christopher enjoys traveling with his fiancée and daughter, working out, reading, and exploring new places.

CHRISTOPHER NICHOLAS, MURP
Senior Planner

GOOD CITY
50 137

EDUCATION
B.A, Environmental
Analysis and Design,
Urban and Regional
Planning Minor,
University of California,
Irvine

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Jamie is an urban planning professional with over eight years combined experience in Current Planning, Watershed Management, and Affordable Housing programming. She joins Good City Company as an Assistant Planner providing front counter services, zoning verifications, plan reviews, drafting of staff reports, and presentations to Planning Commissions. Additionally, she is a resource for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System compliance. Currently, Jamie is a contract Planner for the City of San Carlos and Town of Portola Valley, and assists as a deputy project manager for the City of San Leandro
Jamie previously worked in Watershed Management for Fuscoe Best Management Practice compliance, assisted in preparing complex environmental reports, and served as lead consultant for the City of Yorba Linda stormwater management and water quality programs.

Jamie also previously operated a General Contracting business and professional organizing company that specialized in remodels, move management, and general residential organizing services.

During college, Jamie interned for the California Coastal Commission Enforcement Division, City of Newport Beach Building Department, and Comprehensive Housing Services specializing in affordable housing services.

Outside of work, Jamie loves hiking, yoga, backpacking, snowboarding, and gardening.

JAMIE BOURNE
Assistant Planner

GOOD CITY
51 138
PLAN TO PLACE | KEY STAFF BIOS

DAVE JAVID
Founder + Principal
Dave from Plan to Place will be the point of contact and conduit between the Plan to Place team and Good City Company team and staff to review strategy, timeline and deliverables. Dave has over 20 years of experience leading a diverse range of award-winning community-based planning efforts. Dave’s experience as a project manager on vision, corridor, strategic specific plan and placemaking projects has provided invaluable insight on the opportunities and the challenges of balancing client objectives while meeting community expectations. By implementing a range of engagement and communication platforms, Dave has forged relationships with key community leaders to establish partnerships and a common dialogue that has led to successful policy outcomes.

PAUL KRONSER
Sr. Community Engagement and Design Specialist
Paul will collaborate with the project team on both outreach materials and communication templates along with assisting with facilitating meeting activities. Paul has over 10 years of experience in planning, urban design and community engagement. He has lead community outreach efforts to engage the public on various projects ranging from high density urban developments to rural active transportation grants. His experience has allowed him to gather skills in various community engagement methods, creating productive conversations around key issues facing communities today.

RACHAEL SHARKLAND
Outreach and Urban Design Specialist
Rachael will support with the project team to prepare outreach materials and assist with preparation, facilitation and summary of meetings and forums. Rachael has 10 years of experience working as a researcher, designer, and project manager on complex urban design projects including masterplans for higher education and health campuses and civic design and transit guidelines. Her background in dance, performance, and ecology inform her reverence for a holistic and participatory design process grounded in an ethics of resilience, equity, empathy, and agency.

She is committed to design and leadership that promotes expression and well-being. 52 139

JANE LIN / FOUNDING PARTNER, AIA

URBAN FIELD STUDIO
Jane is a licensed architect and urban designer with twenty years of experience working with municipalities and agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond. Her work includes urban design for streetscape improvements, transit area planning, revitalizing mixed-use districts, and supporting housing policy. Jane is a lecturer at UC Berkeley and teaches architecture to school aged students (K-12). It is important to Jane that large groups of non-designers become empowered with creative communication skills because they are the key to making our communities better.

SELECT PROJECTS

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
Milpitas Metro Specific Plan, City of Milpitas*
San Jose State Campus Master Plan*
Downtown Dublin Vision, City of Dublin*
Dublin SCS Properties, City of Dublin*
North Hollywood Station Guide for Development, Metro Joint Development* Old Town Newark Specific Plan, City of Newark*
Mission San Jose Commercial Strategy Study, City of Fremont* Belmont Specific Plan, City of Belmont CA
Community Design Charrettes, Delta Planning Commission* Coliseum Development Study, City of Oakland CA

DESIGN/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR

MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING
Emeryville Objective Design Standards, City of Emeryville San Leandro Multi-Family Design Standards, City of San Leandro* San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, City of Albany*
Irvington BART Station Area Plan, City of Fremont and BART*

ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH
* Projects with extensive engagement and outreach
TEACHING | Lecturer, UC Berkeley
ED 201 Master of Urban Design Studio
CP140 Urban Design and Placemaking
CP 208 Masters of City Planning Urban Design Studio

COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
ULI Urban Plan Juror, Facilitator, Curriculum Contributor, and Piedmont High School Champion
ULI Technical Assistance Panelist for the City of Dublin Panel Discussion Organizer for the San Francisco Urban Film Fest Piedmont Unified School District Facilities Steering Committee Piedmont Arts Fund Chair and Piedmont Makers Board Member Piedmont Racial Equity Campaign, Committee Member
Piedmont Housing Committee, Appointed Member

EDUCATION
University of California, Berkeley
Master of City Planning with
Concentration in Land Use, 2005
University of California, Berkeley
Master of Science in Architecture
with Concentration in Building
Science, 2005
University of California, Berkeley
Bachelor of Arts in Architecture,
1999

CERTIFICATIONS
Licensed Architect in California
LEED AP - ND Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design
Accredited Professional with a
Specialty in Neighborhood Design

ASSOCIATIONS
National League of Cities and ULI,
Rose Center for Public Leadership,
Faculty Advisor to the City of Tucson
ULI Associate Member
AIA East Bay Member
SPUR Member
SCUP Member

PROFESSIONAL AWARDS
Artist-In-Residence Educator with
LEAP Arts in Education
Eisner Prize in City Planning, UC
Berkeley
www.urbanfieldstudio.com
53 140
54 Bottomley Associates
Urban Design & City Planning
Bottomley Design & Planning 600 grand avenue suite 202 oakland ca 94610 tel: 510.663.3808 fax: 510.663.6304
Firm Overview
Bottomley Design & Planning (BDP) is an urban design and city planning firm specializing in pedestrian- and transit-oriented development planning and capital improvements projects. Work products include land use and development master plans, regulatory/zoning standards, design and development guidelines, and detailed designs and construction drawings for streets and public spaces. All BDP work is related to infill development in existing cities and towns, and promotes TOD, complete street, and green street design principles. BDP has prepared over thirty infill development-oriented planning documents containing form-based policies, development standards, design guidelines, and/or zoning code modifications. These plans typically include traffic/circulation and capital improvements components, as well as streetscape designs and concept land use and development plans, diagrams, and 3D illustrations.

Recent projects include the Bayhill Specific Plan for San Bruno, Millbrae Downtown and El Camino Real Specific Plan, Union City BART Area Specific Plan, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Mountain View Transit Center Master Plan, Redwood City El Camino Real PDA Plan, and the East Santa Clara Street and Winchester Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard urban village plans for San Jose.

Key Personnel
Terence Bottomley, AICP, RLA – Mr. Bottomley is owner/principal of Bottomley Design & Planning (BDP), and will be the project manager. He founded BDP in 1999, and has over thirty years of experience in urban design and urban planning consulting, mostly in the San Francisco Bay Area. Projects range from small-scale open space design to large-scale street improvement projects, infill- and TOD-oriented development master plans, form-based zoning standards, and large scale master planning for new town developments in western China. Mr. Bottomley is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, AICP, Urban Land Institute, American Society of Landscape Architects, American Institute of Architects, and a California-registered Landscape Architect, No. 3031.

From 1987 to 1999 Mr. Bottomley was a Principal of Freedman Tung & Bottomley Urban Design, located in San Francisco. He holds a Master of City Planning degree from UC Berkeley, and a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Planning/Landscape Architecture from Rutgers University.

Claire Vlach, AICP - Ms. Vlach has been an Associate at BDP since 2007, focusing on policy planning for development and capital improvement-related projects. Her work has included preparation of master development plans and regulatory documents, transportation- and streetscape-related urban design, mapping, 3D imaging, and public outreach/communications graphics. She will assist with public realm planning and illustrations. Ms. Vlach is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, AICP. She holds Master of Urban Design and Master of Urban Planning degrees from the University of Michigan, and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Vassar College.
141
55 2
Ritu Goel - Ms. Goel joined BDP in 2016. She has varied experience in architectural design, with a background in urban design and master planning. Ms. Goel has prepared detailed designs and construction documents for projects ranging from urban brownfield redevelopments, to campuses and small neighborhood infill developments. Her work at BDP has involved project reports, design guidelines, master plans, and streetscape and plaza design concepts. She will assist with the development/building elements of design concepts, 3D imaging, and written policies and guidelines. Ms. Goel holds a Master of Urban Design degree from the University of Michigan, and a Bachelor of Architecture degree from the National Institute of Technology Engineering College in India.

Project Examples
Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont CA
Time Frame: 2016
Responsibility: Subconsulting urban design services
Project Description: BDP assisted with detailed design recommendations and illustrations for streets and public spaces, focusing on connections to the Belmont Caltrain station and reconfiguration of Village streets and ways to accommodate infill development. Detailed 3D illustrations depict an updated district circulation hierarchy, including key bike routes and preferred pedestrian and vehicle access locations. Major policy recommendations include creating a new, pedestrian-focused main street along Fifth Avenue, cross-El Camino Real bike and pedestrian improvements, and a new atgrade ped/bike tunnel below the Caltrain rail line. Additional elements include upgraded bike lanes, widened sidewalks, and enhanced bus stop areas. The work included include ongoing coordination with land use, engineering, and traffic/transportation consultants, and presentations at staff and community meetings.

Client/Contact: Dyett & Bhatia; Sophie Martin, Principal; Rajeev Bhatia, Principal (415) 956-4300, [email protected]
Bayhill Specific Plan, San Bruno CA
Time Frame: 2017-2022
Responsibility: Subconsulting land use and urban design planning services Project Description: The Plan Area is a 92-acre business park that includes the headquarters of YouTube, Bayhill Shopping Center, and additional office and commercial/retail uses. The Specific Plan promotes long-term development of up to 4 million square feet of regional office space, up to 570 units of infill residential, and reconfigured mixed-use commercial development.

BDP assisted with preparation of land use and urban design policies, development prototypes and zoning standards, and detailed design recommendations and illustrations for streets and public spaces, key bike routes and bike lanes, enhanced bus stop/transit areas, and street crossing and sidewalk/streetscape improvements. Additional services included assistance with EIR alternatives, ongoing coordination with CEQA, engineering, and traffic/transportation consultants, staff and community meetings, and staff-level review of Phase 1 development plans.

Client/Contact: Matt Neuebaumer, Associate Planner, City of San Bruno, (650) 616-7042, [email protected]; Elaine Costello, FAICP, Special Advisor to the City of San Bruno, (650) 483-8960, [email protected]; Rajeev Bhatia, Principal (415) 956-4300, [email protected]
142
56 3
Millbrae Downtown and El Camino Real Specific Plan, Millbrae CA Time Frame: 2016 - Current
Responsibility: Subconsulting urban design and planning services The Plan Area includes Downtown, an adjacent segment of El Camino Real, and the Millbrae multi-modal transit station area. The overall objective is to capitalize on proximity of the transit center to revitalize downtown and promote sustainable development that enhances Millbrae’s overall quality of life. BDP participated in an intensive, four-workshop community planning effort and walking tour to explore issues, opportunities, and visions for the area. Important elements include infill and transit-oriented development, connectivity between the transit center and downtown, and the role and function of El Camino Real as a complement to downtown and key segment of the Grand Boulevard Initiative. Key issues include a planned high speed rail station and coordination with a parallel Active Transportation Plan for complete street pedestrian and bicycle access improvements. Work going forward is anticipated to include policy recommendations and guidelines for street crossing and sidewalk/streetscape improvements, bike ways, enhanced bus stop areas, and, and participation in staff and community meetings.

Client/Contact: MintierHarnish; Jim Harnish, Principal, (916) 446-0522, [email protected]; Jim Stickley, Principal, WRT, (415) 229-2801, [email protected]
Stanford in Redwood City Campus Precise Plan, Redwood City CA Time Frame: 2009-2016
Responsibility: Prime Consultant.

Project Description: The Precise Plan provides land use, urban design, and circulation policies to guide development of a neighborhood-sensitive workplace area on the site of the former MidPoint Technology Park. It contains new land use and zoning standards to guide transition of an older low-rise office complex to a denser, greener, and more architecturally attractive R&D campus. Buildout of the 48-acre site doubled, from approximately 1M to 2M square feet, with requirements to re-establish the local street grid, create a unifying greenway through the newlycreated blocks, and renovate Broadway to improve transit, pedestrian, and bicycle accessibility.

Work included ongoing coordination and review with Stanford University and City staff working teams, preparation of revised development, street layout, and phasing recommendations, site and street design illustrations and massing diagrams, and preparation of development policies, zoning standards, and architectural and site design guidelines. BDP prepared the final plan/document and assisted staff with public hearings. The project involved close coordination with EIR consultants MIG Inc., and Stanford planner/architects Perkins + Will. Client/Contact: City of Redwood City; Jill Ekas, Planning Director (former), Maureen Riordan, Senior Planner (former).

Current Contact: Blake Lyon, Planning Manager, 650-780-5934, [email protected].

El Camino Real PDA Plan, Redwood City CA
Time Frame: 2016-2017
Responsibility: Subconsulting urban design services
Project Description: Assist with detailed design recommendations and illustrations for configuring El Camino Real to accommodate planned TOD/infill development and improved pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access. The work included existing conditions analysis, detailed plan diagrams, and 3D 143
57 4
illustrations to depict a variety of capital improvements, including a range of bike lane options, sidewalk widening, enhanced bus stop areas, and crossing and sidewalk/streetscape improvements.

Services include conceptual development plans for frontage infill sites, and ongoing coordination with land use, engineering, and traffic/transportation consultants.

Client/Contact: Dyett & Bhatia; Sophie Martin, Principal; Rajeev Bhatia, Principal (415) 956-4300, [email protected]
East Santa Clara Street Urban Village Plan, San Jose CA Time Frame: 2016-2017
Responsibility: Prime Consultant.

Project Description: BDP assisted the City of San Jose, San Jose State University, and CommUniverCity to draft a detailed land use, urban design, and circulation plan for the East Santa Clara Street Urban Village. The San Jose 2040 General Plan anticipates 850 new residential units and 178,500 square feet of new commercial space in the area, and the Urban Village Plan provides a vision for meeting these future job and housing targets while revitalizing the district’s commercial core, and improving streets and public spaces. During the 2014-15 academic year, BDP assisted SJSU with lectures, critique sessions, and supporting planning graphics for student-facilitated community workshop meetings. In 2016-17 BDP provided City staff with land use, circulation, and building height text and policy diagrams, infill development prototypes, 3D corridor infill development and street improvement illustrations, and development standards and urban design guidelines for architecture, public spaces, and street improvements.

BDP Project Manager: Terence Bottomley
Client/Contacts: Matthew VanOosten, Project Manager; Lesley Xavier, Urban Village Planning Supervisor; Michael Brilliot, Community Development Manager, City of San José; Rick Kos, Professor, Urban & Regional Planning, SJSU
Current Contact: Jennifer Piozet, Planner III, (408)-535-7894, [email protected] References
City of Oakland
George Durney, ONI Project Manager, (510) 238-6150
Iris Starr, Transportation Planning and Funding Manager, (510) 774-1725 Ali Schwarz, CIP Coordinator/Project Delivery, (510) 238-7310 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Work performed over the years 1999-2017
Projects for the City of Oakland include Latham Square, Fruitvale Alive/Gap Closure Street Design Project, Telegraph Avenue Pedestrian Streetscape Improvement Plan, Downtown Oakland Streetscape Master Plan, Bellevue Avenue/Lake Merritt Park Gateway Improvements, Airport Gateway Urban Design Plan, Hegenberger Road Urban Design Improvements, Inner Telegraph Avenue/Uptown Streetscape Improvement Project, 14th Avenue Streetscape Improvement Plan, 18th Street Streetscape Improvement Project, and the Josie de la Cruz, Peralta Hacienda, and Lincoln Square/Alice Street neighborhood park improvement projects. 144
58 5
City of Napa
Robin Klingbeil, Economic Development Manager
City of Napa Community Development Department
1600 First Street
Napa, CA 94559
(707) 257-9502
Work performed over the years 1997-2016
Projects for the City of Napa include the Soscol Avenue Corridor/Downtown Riverfront Development & Design Guidelines, Downtown Riverfront Urban Design Master Plan, Napa River Parkway Master Plan, Tannery Bend Development & Design Guidelines, Downtown Napa Riverfront/Riverside Drive Vision Plan, and Downtown Plaza/Brown Street Corridor Concept.

San Mateo County Transit District
Megan Channell, Principal Strategic Development Planner 1250 San Carlos Avenue
PO Box 3006
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
(650) 622-7815
Work performed years 2007-2017
City of Redwood City
Jill Ekas, Planning Director (former)
Maureen Riordan, Senior Planner (former)
City of Redwood City
1017 Middlefield Road
Redwood City, CA 94063
(650) 780-7240
Work performed years 2002-2014
Ms. Ekas is currently Senior Management Analyst for the City of Half Moon Bay, (650) 726-8264 Ms. Riordan is currently Principal Planner for the City of Orinda, (925) 253-4211 Additional projects completed for Redwood City include the Peninsula Park and Marina Shores Village Precise Plans, North Main Street Precise Plan, Downtown Medical Center/Kaiser Precise Plan, and the Downtown Gateways/Broadway Streetscape Renovation projects. 145
59 Bottomley Associates
Urban Design & City Planning
Bottomley Design & Planning 600 grand avenue suite 202 oakland ca 94610 tel: 510.663.3808 fax: 510.663.6304

CLAIRE VLACH
Background
Ms. Vlach focuses on policy planning for development and capital improvements-related projects. Her work has included preparation of master development plans and regulatory documents, as well as transportation- and streetscape-related urban design, mapping, computer imaging, and communications graphics.

Experience
Associate, Bottomley Associates Urban Design & City Planning, Oakland, CA, 2007 - present • Safe Routes for Seniors Downtown Improvements Project, City of Hayward/W-Trans • Sonoma County Development Center Specific Plan, Sonoma County/Dyett & Bhatia • Newark Old Town Specific Plan/Thornton Avenue Street Redesign, City of Newark/Rhoades Planning Group
• Mountain View Transit Center Urban Design Guidelines, City of Mountain View/VTA/ Kimley-Horn
• Union City BART Area Specific Plan, Union City/Dyett & Bhatia • Latham Square Permanent Plaza Design, City of Oakland • Benicia Eastern Gateway Mixed-Use Zoning Study, City of Benicia/Ben Noble Planning • Bayhill Specific Plan, City of San Bruno/Dyett & Bhatia • Mountain View Transit Center Master Plan, City of Mountain View/VTA/Kimley-Horn • Lakeside Park/Fairyland Entrance Improvements, City of Oakland • El Camino Real Grand Boulevard Project, City of South San Francisco/Mark Thomas Inc. • Newark Old Town Specific Plan, City of Newark/Rhoades Planning Group • East Santa Clara Street Urban Village Plan, City of San Jose • Benicia Industrial Park Plan, City of Benicia/Dyett & Bhatia • Citywide Transportation Plan for Redwood City, City of Redwood City/Fehr & Peers • Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan, City of Menlo Park/W-Trans • Downtown Redwood City Transit Center Master Plan/Broadway Streetcar Study, City of Redwood City/CDM Smith
• El Camino Real Grand Boulevard Project, City of South San Francisco/Mark Thomas Inc. • Carolan Avenue Complete Street Improvements, City of Burlingame/Kimley-Horn • Fruitvale Alive Gap Closure Streetscape Project, City of Oakland/AECOM • Grand Boulevard Initiative: El Camino/Arroyo Complete Street Improvements, City of San Carlos/Mark Thomas & Co.
• Bellevue Drive/Lakeside Park Entry Improvements, City of Oakland • Napa Riverfront Riverside Drive Vision Plan, City of Napa • Grand Boulevard Initiative: Complete Street Case Studies Project, SamTrans/ Caltrans, Cities of Daly City, South San Francisco, San Bruno, San Carlos • Lake Merritt BART Station Area Master Plan, City of Oakland/Dyett & Bhatia • SR 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan, County of Napa/Dyett & Bhatia • Grand Boulevard Initiative: Multimodal Access Strategy & Design Guidelines, SamTrans/ VTA/Caltrans
• Stanford in Redwood City Campus Precise Plan, City of Redwood City 146
60 Claire Vlach