Belmont City Council
April 11, 2023

CITY OF BELMONT

CITY COUNCIL AND BELMONT FIRE

PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF

DIRECTORS
www.belmont.gov

1. ROLL CALL

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

4. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation Celebrating April 22th as Earth Day
B. AYSO 12UB - President’s Cup Recognition

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, April 11, 2023
7:00 PM
City Council Chambers
City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California
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 Chambers and address the Council from the Chambers.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

To maximize time for live public comment, we encourage members of the public to provide comments by joining the Committee 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 Committee Chair.

If you wish to submit written public comment, you may send an email to [email protected] before the council considers the item. Please indicate the agenda item topic or agenda item number you wish to comment on in your email’s subject line. Any public comment regarding agenda items that are received from the publication of the agenda through the meeting date will be made part of the meeting record but will not be read during the Council meeting.
1 C. Belmont Library Update

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

6. COUNCILMEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS

7. CONSENT BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes
B. Opposition to California Business Roundtable Initiative C. Funds Transfer Agreement Between the California Department of Transportation and the City of Belmont for the Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor Improvement Project D. Establishing No-Parking Zones at Various Locations and approval of the Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Body on any City matter not on the agenda. The period for public comment at this point in the agenda is limited to 15 minutes, with a maximum of 3 minutes per speaker. Speakers who requested but did not receive an opportunity to speak during this comment period will be given an opportunity to address the Body later in the meeting. State law prohibits the Body from acting on non-agenda items.

Consent business items are considered to be routine in nature and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a member or staf request specific items to be removed for separate action.

The City Attorney will read the title of ordinances to be adopted.

Recommendation: Consider modifications and approve minutes Attachment(s):

City Council Regular Meeting, March 28, 2023
BFPD Meeting, March 28, 2023
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution opposing Initiative No. 21-0042A1 by the California Business Roundtable Initiative
Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Resolution
Oppose Letter
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute and fund transfer agreement for the Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor Project (Project) between the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Belmont Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Resolution
Exhibit A - Fund-Transfer-Agreement - ADLP (DRAFT).

Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the establishment of 1) a no-parking zone (red zone) on Maywood Drive at Ralston Avenue; 2) no-parking zones (red zones) on the curb returns at the intersections of Hallmark Drive and Soho Circle, Paddington Court, Wakefield Drive, the intersection of Somerset Drive and Wakefield Drive (south side only), and Leigh Way at Hallmark Drive and Somerset Drive; 3) a no-parking zone (red zone) on Monserat Avenue at Cipriani Boulevard in front of 2736 Monserat Avenue; 4) a Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy, and to authorize the City Engineer to approve future amendments to the Policy
2 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS (none)

9. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Housing Element Annual Progress Report 2022 and Housing Successor Annual Report FY 2022
B. Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo to Join a MultiJurisdictional Safety Element and Authorization of Project Funding C. Belmont Strategic Communications and Community Engagement Update

10. BRIEF VERBAL REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF

11. MATTERS OF INTEREST/CLARIFICATION
Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Resolution
Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy 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: Review the Housing Element Annual Progress Report 2022 and the Housing Successor Annual Report FY 2022, and direct transmittal to the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Housing Element APR 2022
Housing Successor Annual Report FY 2022
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with San Mateo County to join the MultiJurisdictional Safety Element Project with consultant support from PlaceWorks, Inc. and Community Planning Collaborative for the term of May 1, 2023 through May 1, 2026 with a total obligation not to exceed $155,113
Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Resolution
MOU
MOU Exhibit A – City of Belmont Project Contribution
MOU Exhibit B – PlaceWorks Scope and Fee Proposals
MOU Exhibit C – Community Planning Collaborative Scope and Fee Proposals Recommendation: Receive update on the City of Belmont's Strategic Communications and Community Engagement efforts since implementation. No action is required Attachment(s):

Staff Report
A. Verbal report from Councilmembers on Intergovernmental (IGR) and Subcommittee Assignments
B. Verbal report from City Manager
3 12. ADJOURNMENT
Items in this category are for discussion and direction to staf only. However, Council/Board may take final action on an item if there is no need for additional staf analysis.

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 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. 4 Combined Agency Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page | 1

MEETING MINUTES OF CITY OF BELMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BELMONT FIRE

PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING
City Council Chambers, City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2023
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM
ROLL CALL:

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Latimerlo, Pang-Maganaris, McCune, Hurt COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Mates

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Vice Mayor Hurt.

REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
No Closes Session on this agenda.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation Declaring the Month of April National Poetry Month Vice Mayor Hurt read the proclamation.

Belmont Poet Laurette Korde provided an overview of her projects as Belmont’s Poet Laurette and recited her poem ‘Not a Woman Poem’ in honor of Women’s History Month.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
No member of the public came forward to speak.

Email Correspondence received.

COUNCILMEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmember Pang-Maganaris commented on the recent school gun violence incident in Nashville Tennessee.

Vice-Mayor, echoed the sentiments and commented on Belmont’s safe storage laws. She provided updates on upcoming community events including the Mayor’s State of the City on March 31st.

She reminded the community that park and open space restrictions remain in place due to the continued stormy season.

CONSENT BUSINESS
Approved City Council and Fire Protection meeting minutes as presented; City Council Regular Meeting February 28, 20232, City Council Special Meeting March 2, 2023-Strategic Workshop BFPD Meeting Minutes February 28.2023, City Council Special and Regular Meeting March 14, 2023 BFPD Meeting Minutes March 14, 2023
February Monthly Financial Reports
Resolution 2023-030 Designating Personnel To Act As Agent For The City Of Belmont When Seeking Financial Assistance After A Disaster
5 Combined Agency Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page | 2
Resolution 2023-031 Awarding a Contract to Bear Electric Solutions Inc. for the Ralston Avenue Adaptive Signal Control Technology System Project, Cabinet Relocation, city contract number 2023-623
Resolution 2023-032 Authorizing the City Manager to sign the necessary documents for the City of Belmont to participate in upcoming and future National Prescription Opiate Litigation Settlements
Resolution 2023-033 Ratifying The Proclamation Of A Local Emergency By The Director Of Emergency Services Related To The March 2023 Storms, Ratifying The Director’s Order Of Succession, And Proclaiming A Local Emergency
ACTION: On a motion made by Councilmember McCune and seconded by Councilmember Latimerlo the consent business was approved by a roll call vote (4-1 Mates absent). 7:24 P.M. at this time Vice Mayor Hurt opened the Belmont Fire Protection District meeting to consider a vote the designation of personnel to act as agent for the city of Belmont when seeking financial assistance after a disaster.

PUBLIC HEARINGS (none)

GENERAL BUSINESS
Standard Conditions of Approval for Large Development Projects Senior Planner DiDonato provided an overview of the list of standard conditions of approval (SDR) for large and complex development projects. He stated that this memorializes the SDRs and conditions of approval (COA) and requires all applicants to agree to them as applicable as part of the application process, he explained that this process does not add or delete current City development standards. He stated that the Planning Commission and staff recommend adoption of the SDRs and COAs and making the single finding that these standards would substantially mitigate environmental effects.

Public Comment
None
Council deliberation ensued. In response to Council inquiry Mr. DiDonato explained that project specific conditions of approval may be added as needed.

Council concurred on the efficiency and transparency of the proposed codification of the conditions.

Council discussion concluded.

ACTION: On a Motion made by Councilmember McCune and seconded by Councilmember Latimerlo Resolution 2023-034 Adoption Of Standard Development Requirements and Standard Conditions of Approval for Large and Complex Development Projects was approved by a roll call vote ( 4-1 Mates absent).
6 Combined Agency Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page | 3

BRIEF VERBAL REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF
Verbal report from Councilmembers on Intergovernmental (IGR) and Subcommittee Assignments
Councilmembers reported on their IGR’s.

Verbal report from City Manager
City Manager Oskoui commended staff on their response to the ongoing weather issues. He announced that the Parks and Recreation Summer Activities Guide is in mailboxes and registration is open.

MATTERS OF INTEREST/CLARIFICATION
None
ADJOURNMENT at this time being 7:45 P.M., in memory of the lives lost in the Nashville Covenant School shooting on March 27, 2023 and for those who need to heal from the trauma the Vice Mayor called for a moment of silence.

Jozi Plut
City Clerk
7 REGULAR MEETING

BELMONT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
March 28, 2023

MEETING MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETINGS OF DIRECTORS OF BELMONT FIRE

PROTECTION DISTRICT
City Council Chambers, City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2023
CALL TO ORDER 7:00 PM

ROLL CALL
DIRECTORS PRESENT: Latimerlo, McCune, Pang-Maganaris, Hurt, DIRECTORS ABSENT: Mates

CONSENT BUSINESS
ACTION: On a motion made by Director and seconded by Director the Resolution 2023-002 Designating Personnel To Act As Agents For The Belmont Fire Protection District When Seeking Financial Assistance After A Disaster was unanimously approved by a roll call vote. (4-1 Mates absent).

ADJOURNMENT at this time being 7:45 P.M.
.

Jozi Plut
District Secretary
8

Opposition to Initiative No. 21-0042A1

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: April 11, 2023
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Grace Castaneda, Finance Director, (650) 595-7436, [email protected] Agenda Title: Opposition to California Business Roundtable Initiative Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution opposing Initiative No. 21-0042A1 by The California Business Roundtable Initiative.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would amend the California Constitution with provisions that limit voters’ authority and input, adopt new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and may make it more difficult to impose fines and penalties for violation of state and local laws.

The measure puts billions of local government tax and fee revenues at risk statewide with related core public service impacts. It would also have significant negative impacts on the City of Belmont’s operations and core service delivery.

The proposed constitutional initiative is sponsored by the California Business Roundtable. On January 4, 2022, the California Business Roundtable filed the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” or AG# 21-0042A1. On February 1, 2023, the measure qualified for the November 2024 ballot.

The League of California Cities, along with a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses, strongly opposes this initiative.

Analysis
More specifically, the Initiative includes the following impacts:

Fees and Charges:
• Except for licensing and other regulatory fees, fees and charges may not exceed the “actual cost” of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. “Actual cost” is the “minimum amount necessary.” The burden to prove the fee or charge does not exceed “actual cost” is changed to “clear and convincing” evidence.
• Requires fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property and the amount paid to purchase or rent government property to be “reasonable.” These fees and charges are currently allowed to be market-based. Whether the amount is “reasonable” (introducing a new 9

Opposition to Initiative No. 21-0042A1
legal standard aiming to force below market fee and charge amounts) must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.” The standard may significantly reduce the amount large companies (e.g., oil, utilities, gas, railroads, garbage/refuse, cable, and other corporations) will pay for the use of local public property.
• Prohibits fees on new development based on vehicle miles traveled.

Taxes:
• Taxes and fees adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless reenacted.
• Invalidates Upland decision that allows a majority of local voters to pass special taxes. The measure specifies that taxes proposed by the initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council.
• Expressly prohibits local advisory measures which allow local voters to express a preference for how local general tax dollars should be spent.
• Requires voter approval to expand existing taxes (e.g., Utility, Transient Occupancy) to new territory (e.g., annexations) or to expand the tax base (e.g., new utility service) • New taxes can only be imposed for a specific time period. • City charters may not be amended to include a tax or fee. • All state taxes require majority voter approval.

Fines and Penalties:
• May require voter approval of fines, penalties, and levies for corporations and property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties.

Local government revenue-raising authority is currently substantially restricted by state statute and constitutional provisions, including the voter approved provisions of Proposition 13 of 1978, Proposition 218 of 1996, and Proposition 26 of 2010. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act adds and expands restrictions on voters and local government tax and fee authority.

Fees and Taxes
Local governments levy a variety of fees and other charges to provide core public services. Major examples of affected fees and charges are:
• Nuisance abatement charges, such as for weed, rubbish, and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs. • Commercial franchise fees.
• Emergency response fees, such as in connection with DUI. • Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.
• Document processing and duplication fees.
• Transit fees, tolls, parking fees, and public airport and harbor use fees. • Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services, garbage disposal tipping fees.

Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates 10

Opposition to Initiative No. 21-0042A1
and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities. Most of these would be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies, including council-adopted increases to simply accommodate inflation, Cal Cities estimates the amount of local government fee and charge revenue at risk is approximately $2 billion per year including those adopted since Jan. 1, 2022. Over ten years, $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues will be at heightened legal peril.

Some examples of Belmont’s affected fees and charges include facility use charges and fees for parks and recreation services.

Hundreds of local tax measures were approved in 2022 that likely do not comply with the provisions of the initiative. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voter-approved measures will cease a year after the effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures, unless the tax is re-submitted for voter approval.

Reductions on local government tax revenues have impacts on core services and infrastructure including fire and emergency response, law enforcement, streets and roads, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention, and mental health services.

Some examples of Belmont’s affected revenue measure and service impacts include the voter-approved Transient Occupancy Tax measure in November 2022 that provides essential City services including public safety and streets maintenance.

Fines and Penalties
Under existing law, cities are required to provide due process before imposing a penalty or fine for violation of its municipal code:

1. A local agency must adopt administrative procedures that govern imposing fines and penalties, including providing a reasonable period of time for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or remedy the violation [Gov't Code 53069.4].

2. Notice must be given to the violating party before imposing the penalty; and give the party an opportunity to be heard and present any facts or arguments [Merco Construction Engineers v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1969) 274 CA 2d 154, 166].

3. The fine may not be "excessive" [U.S. Constitution amendments VIII and XIV].

The initiative converts administratively-imposed fines and penalties into taxes unless a new, undefined, and ambiguous “adjudicatory due process” is followed. This provision may put at risk authority to impose fines and penalties for violations of state and local law.

Some examples of Belmont’s affected fines and penalties include abandoned vehicles fines and parking violations.

Approval of the attached resolution will authorize the City Manager to oppose the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act on behalf of the City of Belmont, and to send the attached Oppose Letter (Attachment B) joining the No on Initiative 21-0042A1 coalition to the League of California Cities, along with a copy of the adopted resolution.
11

Opposition to Initiative No. 21-0042A1
Alternatives

1. Take No Action

2. Provide staff alternative direction.

Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Oppose Letter
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will take billions of dollars away from local government services statewide. In particular for Belmont, essential services such as public safety and streets maintenance will be impacted, with fee revenue amount put at risk, increased legal defense costs, invalidation of taxes or future reduction of tax revenues, and delayed annexations/development.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
12

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT OPPOSING INITIATIVE NO. 21-0042A1, THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations and developers is spending millions to push a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2024 statewide ballot; and,
WHEREAS, the measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure, and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and,
WHEREAS, the measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure and our environment; and,
WHEREAS, the measure may make it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and,
WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to local services at risk and could force cuts to fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more.

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

SECTION 1. That the City of Belmont opposes Initiative 21-0042A1; SECTION 2. That the City of Belmont will join the No on Initiative 21-0042A1 coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, education, labor, local government, and infrastructure groups throughout the state.

SECTION 3. That staff is directed to email a copy of this adopted resolution to the League of California Cities at [email protected].
* * *
13

ADOPTED April 11, 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 One Twin Pines Lane
Belmont, CA 94002
April __, 2023
Bismarck Obando
Director of Public Affairs, League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Letter Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1
On April 11, 2023, the City of Belmont voted to oppose Initiative 21-0042A1, a deceptive, developer-sponsored proposition aimed for the November 2024 statewide ballot that would significantly jeopardize cities’ ability to provide essential services and infrastructure for our residents.

The measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and projects and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters can express a preference on how they want their local tax dollars spent.

This measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including impacts on local infrastructure and our environment.

This measure also may make it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods.

Unless defeated, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to local services at risk, and could force cuts to fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more.

In particular for Belmont, essential services such as public safety and streets maintenance will be impacted, with fee revenue amount put at risk, increased legal defense costs, invalidation of taxes or future reduction of tax revenues, and delayed annexations/development.

The measure benefits wealthy corporations and real estate developers while decimating our local communities and neighborhoods.
15 You may list the City of Belmont in formal opposition to Initiative #21-0042A1 and include our city as part of the growing coalition of public safety, labor, local government, infrastructure advocates, and other organizations throughout the state opposed to this deceptive proposition.

Sincerely,
Afshin Oskoui
City Manager
City of Belmont
16

Fund Transfer Agreement for the Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor Improvement Project - Staff Report_ao_rev

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: April 11, 2023
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Matt Hoang, Department of Public Works, (650)637-2998, [email protected] Agenda Title: Funds Transfer Agreement Between the California Department of Transportation and the City of Belmont for the Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor Improvement Project
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a fund transfer agreement for the Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor Improvement Project (Project) between the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Belmont.

Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
The Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor Improvement Project is a multi-agency regional transportation improvement project involving the cities of Belmont, San Carlos, and two School Districts (Sequoia Union High School and San Carlos School District) along the Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor. The Project’s goal is to improve traffic circulation for all modes of transit, provide safety improvements, relief for peak hour traffic congestion, and installation of green infrastructure. The Project continues to be the top City Council strategic goal for multi-modal improvements.

Since 2014, the Project has received extensive community input and continuing through the current year.

Several public presentations and workshops were held to share the Project with the public and to move forward in the design phase.

In June 2022, Assemblymember Kevin Mullin announced funding for the Project in the amount of $3,500,000 which was included in the State budget bills for Legislature approval and signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom.

The Project is currently fully funded for the design phase through the working partnership with the City of San Carlos. As the Project is making progress with design, City staff is continuing to pursue funding opportunities to fund the Project’s construction phase.

Analysis
17

Fund Transfer Agreement for the Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor Improvement Project - Staff Report_ao_rev The Project proposes corridor improvements along Alameda de Las Pulgas, between Ralston Avenue and Cranfield Avenue to address peak period traffic congestion, mobility, multi-modal transportation accommodation and safety among other improvements . The project’s proposed improvements includes but not limited to the following:
• Three modern mini-roundabouts to replace the inefficient stop-controlled intersections • One new traffic signal-controlled intersection at the intersection of Carlmont Avenue and Alameda de Las Pulgas
• Accessibility improvements (curb ramps, sidewalk, crosswalks, and driveways) • Safety improvements (buffered Class II and Class III bike facilities, dedicated bicycle ramps, raised medians, and pavement striping)
• Green infrastructure improvements for stormwater runoff control and treatment The corridor improvements, as listed above, are to be constructed pending full project funding. The project may be phased if only partial funds are identified. The $3,500,000 is critical seed money for seeking other grants to fully fund all phases of the Project. It is essential that the $3,500,000 also has independent utility to construct a distinct phase if necessary.

In order for the City of Belmont to receive funds, the City will need to enter into a fund transfer agreement with Caltrans. The City and Caltrans are in process of finalizing the funding agreement and the draft agreement attached outlines the required deadlines, documentation, and general terms and conditions for funding. The requested action authorizes the City Manager to finalize the negotiations with the State for timely execution of the agreement to secure the funding allocated to the City.

Alternatives

1. Do not accept the funds

2. Return to staff for additional information
Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Exhibit A – Fund Transfer Agreement
Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
☐ Funding Source Confirmed:

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda 18

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FUND TRANSFER

AGREEMENT FOR THE ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT

PROJECT BETWEEN THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

AND THE CITY OF BELMONT
WHEREAS, the Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor Improvement Project was initiated to improve mobility, traffic circulation, provide relief for peak hour traffic congestion, and improve operations and safety for all modes of transportation along Alameda de Las Pulgas between Ralston Avenue and Cranfield Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Belmont is eligible to receive Federal and/or State funding for certain Transportation Projects through the California Department of Transportation; and, WHEREAS, Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements and/or Fund Transfer Agreements must be executed with the California Department of Transportation before such funds can be claimed; and, WHEREAS, the City of Belmont wishes to delegate the authority to execute these agreements and any amendments thereto to the City Manager.

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

SECTION 1. The City Manager is authorized to execute a fund transfer agreement, Exhibit A, with the California Department of Transportation for the Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor Improvement Project.
* * *
ADOPTED April 11, 2023 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
19

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
20 Funds Transfer Agreement Between the California Department of Transportation and the City of Belmont

1.1 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Belmont ( City ) hereby enter into this Funds Transfer Agreement (Agreement) on the terms and conditions set forth below.

1.2 This Agreement is not valid until signed by both parties. This Agreement shall expire on City’s completion of its obligations under this Agreement, but may be extended by amending this Agreement.

BACKGROUND

2.1 Section 19.56, subdivision (g)(AH) of the Budget Act of 2021 (the Act) appropriated $3,500,000 (the Funds) from the State General Fund to Caltrans, to be allocated to City for the Belmont Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor Project.

2.2 Caltrans determined the best method for allocation to ensure the funds are used for the purposes specified in Section 19.56 of the Act is a funds transfer agreement.

2.3 The Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor Project is a multi-agency regional transportation improvement project involving the cities of Belmont, San Carlos, and two School Districts (Sequoia Union High School and San Carlos School District) along the Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor. The corridor is home to the Carlmont High schools (student enrollment of approximately 2,300), the Carlmont Shopping Center, businesses, City’s library, and several residential neighborhoods which serves as the main thoroughfare for many residents of both Belmont and San Carlos. In addition, the corridor experiences heavy traffic congestion during peak hours when school is in session.

The Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor Project’s goal is to improve traffic circulation for all modes of transit, provide safety improvements, relief for peak hour traffic congestion, and installation of green infrastructure. The corridor improvements, as listed below, are to be constructed pending full project funding. The project may be phased if only partial funds are encumbered

SCOPE OF WORK

3.1 The Funds provided under this Agreement will be used to construct corridor improvements along Alameda de Las Pulgas, between Ralston Avenue and Cranfield Avenue (Project). The proposed scope of work includes right-ofway acquisition and construction of the following improvements:
21 Funds Transfer Agreement Between the California Department of Transportation and the City of Belmont
2 • Three mini-roundabouts to replace the inefficient stop-controlled intersections [phasing possible depending on funding availability] • One new traffic signal-controlled intersection at Carlmont Avenue and Alameda de Las Pulgas intersection
• Accessibility improvements (curb ramps, sidewalk, crosswalks, and driveways)
• Safety improvements (buffered Class II and Class III bike facilities, dedicated bicycle ramps, raised medians, and pavement striping) • Green infrastructure improvements for stormwater runoff control and treatment
The Project has received extensive community input since 2014 and continuing through the current year. The Project is the top City Council strategic goal for multi-modal improvements. The $3,500,000 is critical seed money for seeking other grants to fully fund all phases of the Project. The $3,500,000 also has independent utility to construct the distinct phases.

3.2 City attests that it shall only use Funds for the Project specified in the Act.

City’s self- attestation verifying the intended use of funds shall be provided to the Department prior to the release of any funds.

FUNDING, COSTS, COST LIMITATION, & PAYMENT

4.1 The Funds will be encumbered within 2 days of the effective date of this Agreement. Pursuant to Section 19.56 of the Act, if the Funds are not encumbered by June 30, 2022, they shall revert to the State’s General Fund.

4.2 Payments shall be made as authorized by Sections 19.56(c) and 19.57(c) of the Act.

4.3 Within 30 days of expending all of the Funds or upon completion or termination of Project, whichever comes first, City shall submit to Caltrans a Project Closeout Report. The Project Closeout Report at a minimum shall include a description of completed Project component(s) and a description of Project outcomes. Photographs of the Project are encouraged to be included.

4.4 Any Project costs paid using the Funds that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 48 CFR, Part 31 or 2 CFR, Part 200, are subject to repayment by City to Caltrans.

4.5 City shall return any unspent Funds to Caltrans at the conclusion, completion, or termination of the Project.

INQUIRIES & NOTICES
22 Funds Transfer Agreement Between the California Department of Transportation and the City of Belmont
3 5.1 All inquiries during the term of this Agreement will be directed to the representatives listed below:

For Caltrans:

Name:

Address:

Phone Number:

Email:

For City:

Name: Matt Hoang
Address: 1 Twin Pines Ln, Suite 385
Phone Number: (650)637-2998
Email: [email protected]

5.2 Each party may change their representative listed above upon 10 calendar days’ written or emailed notice to the other party and without the need for amending this Agreement.

OTHER TERMS & CONDITIONS

6.1 Drug-Free Workplace Requirements: City will comply with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 and will provide a drugfree workplace by taking the following actions:
a. Publish a statement notifying employees that unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions to be taken against employees for violations.
b. Establish a Drug-Free Awareness Program to inform employees about:
1) the dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
2) the person's or organization's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
3) any available counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and,
4) penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations.
c. Every employee who works on the proposed Agreement will:
1) receive a copy of the company's drug-free workplace policy statement; and,
2) agree to abide by the terms of the company's statement as a condition of employment on the Agreement.

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under the Agreement or termination of the Agreement or both and City may be ineligible for award of any future State agreements if Caltrans or the State Department of General Services determines that any of the following has occurred: City has made false certification, or violated the certification by failing to carry out the requirements as noted above. (Gov. Code §8350 et seq.) 23 Funds Transfer Agreement Between the California Department of Transportation and the City of Belmont
4 6.2 Conflict of Interest: City needs to be aware of the following provisions regarding current or former state employees. If City has any questions on the status of any person rendering services or involved with the Agreement, Caltrans must be contacted immediately for clarification.

Current State Employees (Pub. Contract Code §10410):
1). No officer or employee shall engage in any employment, activity or enterprise from which the officer or employee receives compensation or has a financial interest and which is sponsored or funded by any state agency, unless the employment, activity or enterprise is required as a condition of regular state employment. 2). No officer or employee shall contract on his or her own behalf as an independent contractor with any state agency to provide goods or services.

Former State Employees (Pub. Contract Code §10411):
1). For the two-year period from the date he or she left state employment, no former state officer or employee may enter into a contract in which he or she engaged in any of the negotiations, transactions, planning, arrangements or any part of the decisionmaking process relevant to the contract while employed in any capacity by any state agency.
2). For the twelve-month period from the date he or she left state employment, no former state officer or employee may enter into a contract with any state agency if he or she was employed by that state agency in a policy-making position in the same general subject area as the proposed contract within the 12-month period prior to his or her leaving state service.

If City violates any provisions of above paragraphs, such action by City shall render this Agreement void. (Pub. Contract Code §10420.) If the Agreement is rendered void, [Agency Title] shall return all Funds.

6.3 Labor Code/Workers' Compensation: City needs to be aware of the provisions which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions, and City affirms to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work described in this Agreement. (Labor Code § 3700.) 24 Funds Transfer Agreement Between the California Department of Transportation and the City of Belmont
5 6.4. Americans With Disabilities Act: City assures the State that it complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA. (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.)

6.5. City Name Change: An amendment is required to change City’s name as listed on this Agreement. Upon receipt of legal documentation of the name change the State will process the amendment. Payment of invoices presented with a new name cannot be paid prior to approval of said amendment.

6.6. Resolution: A county, city, district, or other local public body must provide the State with a copy of a resolution, order, motion, or ordinance of the local governing body which by law has authority to enter into an agreement, authorizing execution of the agreement.

6.7. Air or Water Pollution Violation: Under State law, City shall not be: (1) in violation of any order or resolution not subject to review promulgated by the State Air Resources Board or an air pollution control district; (2) subject to cease and desist order not subject to review issued pursuant to Section 13301 of the Water Code for violation of waste discharge requirements or discharge prohibitions; or (3) finally determined to be in violation of provisions of federal law relating to air or water pollution.

6.8. Audit: City agrees that Caltrans, the California Department of General Services, the California State Auditor’s Office, or other State agency with a legitimate business purpose, or their designated representative(s) shall have the right to review and to copy any records and supporting documentation pertaining to the performance of this Agreement. City agrees to maintain such records for possible audit for a minimum of three (3) years after final payment, unless a longer period of record retention is stipulated.

6.9. Amendments: No amendment or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties. Any amendment signed by City must be approved by its Board of Directors as evidenced by a resolution, order, motion, or ordinance of the City and a copy provided to Caltrans. No oral understanding or agreement not incorporated in the Agreement is binding on any of the parties.

6.10. Caltrans and City shall continue with their responsibilities under this Agreement during any dispute.

6.11 This Agreement may be executed in separate counterparts. 25 Funds Transfer Agreement Between the California Department of Transportation and the City of Belmont
6 6.12 An electronically signed copy of this Agreement shall have the same force and effect as if it were signed manually.
26 Funds Transfer Agreement Between the California Department of Transportation and the City of Belmont
7 State:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Printed Name:

Signature:

Deputy Director for Planning & Modal
Programs
Date:

Local Agency:

City of Belmont
Printed Name:

Signature:

Title:

Date:

Accounting Certification
27

Recommended Red Curb Installations at Various Locations and the New Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy and Procedures - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: April 11, 2023
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Tracy Scramaglia, Public Works, (650) 595-7469, [email protected] Agenda Title: Establishing No-Parking Zones at Various Locations and approval of the Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution approving the establishment of 1) a no-parking zone (red zone) on Maywood Drive at Ralston Avenue; 2) no-parking zones (red zones) on the curb returns at the intersections of Hallmark Drive and Soho Circle, Paddington Court, Wakefield Drive, the intersection of Somerset Drive and Wakefield Drive (south side only), and Leigh Way at Hallmark Drive and Somerset Drive; 3) a no-parking zone (red zone) on Monserat Avenue at Cipriani Boulevard in front of 2736 Monserat Avenue; 4) a Residential OnStreet Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy, and to authorize the City Engineer to approve future amendments to the Policy.

Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
The Parking and Traffic Safety Committee (PTSC) received the following requests from members of the community:

1. Maywood Drive at Ralston Avenue
Vehicles park on the southwest corner of Maywood Drive at Ralston Avenue. Parked vehicles are not visible when making a right turn from eastbound Ralston Avenue onto southbound Maywood Drive. Requesting red curb on Maywood Drive at Ralston Avenue.

2. Hallmark Drive
During running events at the Crystal Springs Cross Country Course Open Space, vehicles park in the curb returns along Hallmark Drive. This forces pedestrians into the street and blocks access to curb ramps at the intersections. Requesting red curb at the intersection of Wakefield Drive and Hallmark Drive.

3. Monserat Avenue at Cipriani Boulevard:

Vehicles park on the south side of Monserat Avenue at Cipriani Boulevard in front of 2736 Monserat Avenue. When vehicles park here, it blocks an area used as a sidewalk by school children. Requesting red curb in front of 2736 Monserat Avenue. 28

Recommended Red Curb Installations at Various Locations and the New Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy and Procedures - Staff Report
In addition to the public requests above, the PTSC also reviewed the new Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy.

Residents and businesses within a 300-foot radius of the requests and interested residents outside the area were notified of and invited to the PTSC meeting held on March 15, 2023. No objections were received before or at the meeting to the proposed changes.

Analysis
Staff performed an investigation and reviewed existing traffic and parking patterns in the subject neighborhoods on February 8, 2023. The main concerns were to balance elimination of the parking with improved sight lines, traffic safety and the parking needs of the neighborhoods. It was determined that the establishment of “No Parking” zones as shown below will provide a safer pedestrian and vehicle access, while preserving spaces for neighborhood parking needs. In lieu of red zones, or in some cases to supplement those zones, no-parking signage may be installed and enforced so long as at least two signs are visible from any portion of the parking area. The PTSC recommends approval of the parking changes per the exhibits below.

Maywood Drive at Ralston Avenue
Approximately 20’ of no-parking zone (one parking space) along Maywood Drive at the location shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Maywood Drive and Ralston Avenue
29

Recommended Red Curb Installations at Various Locations and the New Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy and Procedures - Staff Report
Hallmark Drive
Paint the curb returns red at the locations shown in Figures 2 and 3 below to enhance parking compliance.

No parking spaces are proposed to be removed.

Figure 2: Locations of new red curbs on Hallmark Drive at Soho Circle, Paddington Court, Wakefield Drive and Somerset Drive/Wakefield (south side only)
30

Recommended Red Curb Installations at Various Locations and the New Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy and Procedures - Staff Report
Figure 3: Locations of new red curbs on Leigh Way at Hallmark Drive and Somerset Drive Monserat Avenue at Cipriani Boulevard
Approximately 30’ of a no-parking zone (removal of one parking space) along Monserat Avenue at the location shown in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Location of new red curb on Monserat Avenue at Cipriani Boulevard The Public Works Department has an operational budget for these types of requests, so no additional funds are needed for the work completed by City forces.
31

Recommended Red Curb Installations at Various Locations and the New Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy and Procedures - Staff Report
To comply with State and Federal accessibility guidelines and regulations and to accommodate the needs of the community, the Public Works Department created the Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy. A resident can apply to have designated on-street accessible parking in when no reasonable off-street parking option is available. The City will be posting the Policy document and application on its website. The PTSC recommends that the Belmont City Council approve the Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy. These procedures were developed in an effort to meet the needs of the community while following the standards of practice for installation of blue curb markings. Additionally, this policy establishes the standards and procedures by which curb marking requests are reviewed and implemented. To minimize future delays in updating the Policy in compliance with changes in law or administrative procedures, future amendments to the Policy are proposed to be approved at the staff level and will be performed through addendum and insertion of revised pages.

Alternatives

1. Take no action

2. Refer to staff for further information
Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed: Expenditures have been incorporated in the Street Maintenance Fund for the PTSC recommended improvements.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Other*
*Notices were sent out to residents and businesses within a 300’ radius of the proposed changes and interested residents outside the area regarding the items being on the PTSC agenda. The public PTSC meeting was also listed on the City’s website Calendar events and City Manager’s Weekly Update. 32

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT APPROVING ESTABLISHMENT OF 1) A NO-PARKING ZONE (RED ZONE) ON MAYWOOD DRIVE AT RALSTON AVENUE; 2) NO-PARKING ZONES (RED

ZONES) ON THE CURB RETURNS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF HALLMARK

DRIVE AND SOHO CIRCLE, PADDINGTON COURT, WAKEFIELD DRIVE, THE

INTERSECTION OF SOMERSET DRIVE AND WAKEFIELD DRIVE (SOUTH SIDE ONLY), AND LEIGH WAY AT HALLMARK DRIVE AND SOMERSET DRIVE; 3) A

NO-PARKING ZONE (RED ZONE) ON MONSERAT AVENUE AT CIPRIANI BOULEVARD IN FRONT OF 2736 MONSERAT AVENUE; 4) A RESIDENTIAL ONSTREET ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY WHEREAS, the Parking and Traffic Safety Committee (PTSC) received requests to establish no-parking zones on Maywood Drive at Ralston Avenue, Hallmark Drive, Monserat Drive at Cipriani Boulevard; and,
WHEREAS, the PTSC reviewed the Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy and Procedures; and,
WHEREAS, residents and businesses within a 300-foot radius of the requests and interested residents outside the area were notified of and invited to the PTSC meeting held on March 15, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the PTSC recommends to establish no-parking zones on Maywood Drive at Ralston Avenue, Hallmark Drive, Monserat Drive at Cipriani Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the PTSC recommends approval of the Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy.

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

SECTION 1. Approves establishment of no-parking zones on Maywood Drive at Ralston Avenue, Hallmark Drive, Monserat Drive at Cipriani Boulevard as shown in Figures 1 through 4 of the staff report.

SECTION 2. Approves the Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy and Procedures as shown in Attachment B of the staff report.

SECTION 3. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to approve and adopt future amendments to the Residential On-Street Accessible Parking Spaces Administrative Policy and Procedures.
* * *
ADOPTED April 11, 2023 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:
33

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk

Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
34 City of Belmont
Residential On-Street
Accessible Parking Spaces
Administrative Policy and
Procedures
Prepared by:

City of Belmont
Public Works Department
March 2023
35 2
Policy
Objective
The objective of this policy is to comply with the State and Federal accessibility guidelines and regulations and to accommodate the needs of the community by designating on-street accessible parking spaces in residential areas when no reasonable off-street parking option is available.

Only applications from or on behalf of Certified Disabled Persons that satisfy the Installation Criteria set forth below, and that agree to the following Installation Conditions and Agreements will be considered.

Purpose
On-street accessible parking spaces will be considered when:
 Off-street parking is not available for an applicant or parking demands in the neighborhood impede the ability of the applicant to have general use of on-street parking convenient to their residence.
 On-street accessible parking provides the shortest, most reasonable, and accessible path of travel to the residence.
 The parking complies with applicable ADA requirements.

On-street accessible parking spaces are NOT:
• A reserved parking space for the applicant.
• A means to reserve a private parking space in front of an individual’s house. • For temporary or short-term use by the applicant.

Installation Criteria
The following information is used in evaluating applications by a resident with disabilities or on behalf of another with disabilities who frequents the residence on a continuous and on-going basis.

The information must be provided by or demonstrated by the applicant to a City staff member during a coordinated site visit:
• Proof of permanent disability and possession of disabled plate or placard • Proof of garage impact
• Proof of driveway impact
36 3
The following elements are considered to ensure that no significant impacts result from the installation of a disabled parking space:
• Existing Parking Restrictions: Existing parking or regulatory restrictions that prohibit parking in front of the applicant’s residence.
• Parking Demand: Existing on-street parking demand during evenings and weekends exceeding 70% of the available on-street parking within 500-FT of the requested disabled parking space location.
• Other existing disabled parking space within 500-FT of the proposed location. • Passenger Side-Vehicle Entry: If passenger side-entry of the applicant’s vehicle is required, the sidewalk or park strip in front of the proposed disabled parking space should be unobstructed or mitigated for access.
• Roadway Safety: Unusual roadway characteristics that may impact roadway operations or entry/exit from the driver-side of the applicant’s vehicle such as curves in the roadway or pavement failures.

Application Process
The decision to install an on-street accessible parking space is based on:
 The availability, condition, and slope of the applicant’s existing driveway and garage.  The location and accessibility of the on-street parking space requested by the applicant.  The availability and demand of on-street parking in the neighborhood.  The specific needs of the applicant.

THE CITY OF BELMONT PREFERS THAT ACCESSIBLE PARKING BE
LOCATED OFF-STREET WHENEVER FEASIBLE.
37 4
Procedures
Evaluation
Public Works staff will consider the following when evaluating an application for on-street accessible parking. To qualify for an accessible on-street parking space, the applicant must demonstrate the following.

1. Availability and function of applicant’s existing off-street parking. o Applicant has no garage or a garage interior that is less than 14 feet in width or less than 17 feet if the applicant owns a lift-equipped van. o Applicant has no driveway or a driveway that is less than 14 feet in width or less than 17 feet if the applicant owns a lift-equipped van and the driveway CANNOT be widened to accommodate access.
o Applicant’s driveway is not an adequate length for accessibility (minimum of 18’– 0” from face of structure to back of walk).

2. Condition of on-street parking space requested by applicant. o The requested on-street space is immediately adjacent to an ADA compliant ramp or a substantially compliant driveway approach with a clear path of travel. o The requested on-street parking space is located so that persons with disabilities are not compelled to wheel or walk behind or in front of parked vehicles other than their own. o There are no obstructions on the sidewalk adjacent to and for the full length of the parking space.

3. Availability and demand of on-street parking in the neighborhood. o On-street parking in the neighborhood is heavily utilized (more than 70%) in the vicinity of the proposed space.
o There is no existing on-street accessible space in reasonable proximity that can be utilized by the applicant.

4. Nature of request
o The request for the on-street space is for long-term nature and NOT for temporary use. 38 5
Notes:
o If the on-street space is not located in proximity to an ADA compliant curb ramp or driveway approach for accessto the sidewalk or walkway, the accessible space may need to be provided in a different location such as at the nearest corner with an accessible curb ramp. If no accessible curb ramps are installed at the nearest corner, a compliant curb ramp may need to be installed prior to providing the accessible parking space. o If there is a park strip or landscape area adjacent to the proposed space between the curb and sidewalk, a concrete landing area may need to be constructed for van accessible loading and unloading prior to providing the accessible parking space.

Submittal Requirements
The applicant is required to submit the following:

1. A completed application, demonstrating compliance with Evaluation criteria 1 through 4 above.

2. Proof of a valid CA DMV disabled person (DP) parking placard or license plate from the applicant, such as license plate number, copy of the placard identification (ID) card, or placard number.

3. Proof of residency.

4. Written justification from the applicant for requesting the installation of an on-street accessible parking space in-lieu of using the driveway.

Review of Application

1. Review submitted material from applicant.

2. Review the applicant’s garage, driveway and access area, including driveway width and slope for accessibility. Determine if the applicant’s driveway or off-street parking is sufficient to accommodate accessible parking needs. If possible, explore alternative options with the applicant including widening the existing driveway if feasible per current City code requirements. Where possible, the City will work with the applicant to accommodate accessible parking off-street.

3. Review the application to ensure that fire hydrants, Fire Department Connections, or public egress from any building are blocked.

4. Conduct a site investigation of the surrounding street with consultation of the applicant. The site is surveyed for parking utilization and existing on-street accessible parking spaces in the area. 39 6

5. Determine if there is a shortage of on-street parking in the area. The utilization of on-street parking spaces in the vicinity of the proposed space must exceed 70% if parking in the area is to be defined as heavy.

6. Determine the slope of the roadway centerline in the vicinity of the proposed space which should not exceed a slope of 8.33%.

7. On-street accessible parking space should be located adjacent to a compliant curb ramp or driveway. If not, the request may be relocated to the nearest ADA compliant curb ramp at a corner.

8. The Public Works Director or designee will approve or deny a request for on-street accessible parking based on the information gathered during the evaluation process. The decision of the Public Works Director is final unless appealed to the City Manager.8. A letter will be mailed to the resident indicating the Public Works Director decision.

9. If approved, the applicant must complete any required sidewalk area or driveway modifications before a service request for installation is issued. The limits of the on-street accessible space and sign location are marked in the field by Public Works staff for proper installation. High priority should be identified on the work order so that the space can be installed as soon as possible, pending weather delays and work crew availability.
40 7
Appeals
A decision to approve or deny the request may be appealed to the City Manager, who is the City’s ADA Coordinator, in accordance with the Belmont ADA Complaint Procedure policy (Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) | City of Belmont) and this policy document.

Residents will have forty-five (45) calendar days to appeal the decision to the City Manager following mailing of the notification of the Public Works Director decision.

Submitted appeals shall:
a. Be in writing.
b. Provide grounds for the appeal specifying how the decision is not in alignment with this policy.
c. Identify specific actions being appealed (curb marking placement, installing an ADA compliant curb ramp, constructing a concrete landing, etc.). d. Include a recommended alternative action.

Appeals will be heard by the City Manager de novo.

Annual Reapplication

1. For an on-street accessible parking space to remain, the applicant must submit biannually his/her Proof of Residency and Proof of Disability. The applicant may be required to fill out and submit a reapplication form to Public Works if the on street or off-site conditions have changed since the original application. This reapplication form will be sent out annually to all residents with a previously approved space. All reapplication forms must be submitted by July 1 of each year. If an application was approved within 6 months of the reapplication date, reapplication is not needed until the following year.

2. There will be no charge for annual reapplication.

3. f no reapplication form is received by July 1, staff will attempt a second means of contact. This may include a second letter, a phone call, an e-mail or a personal visit by staff to the residence.

Should no response be forthcoming from the applicant within 30 days, the curb markings may be removed.
41 8
Application for Removal

1. An on-street accessible parking stall can be removed following the submittal of a written application for removal.

2. If a party other than the person who requested the space installation submits the application for removal, the original applicant is contacted to determine if the space is still being used.

3. Public Works may obtain input as necessary regarding on-street accessible parking space utilization.

4. If determined to be active or currently being used by others, the individual who initiated the request for removal will be notified and the accessible parking space will remain in place.

5. If determined that the accessible space is not be utilized or only sparsely being utilized, the application forremovalwill be approved and notification will be sentto allresidents on the street.

A 45-day appeal period for that determination will follow, after which the curb markings will be removed.

Procedure Review
The on-street accessible parking space procedures will be reviewed by Public Works periodically to determine their applicability, compliance with the state and federal law including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), recommendations by the California Department of Transportation (CADOT), and approach to customer service.
42

Annual Housing Reports

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: April 11, 2023
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Jennifer Rose, Finance Department, [email protected] Agenda Title: Housing Element Annual Progress Report 2022 and Housing Successor Annual Report FY 2022
Agenda Action: For Information Only
Recommendation
Review the Housing Element Annual Progress Report 2022 and the Housing Successor Annual Report FY 2022, and direct transmittal to the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Strategic Focus Area
Economic Development and Housing
Background
Housing Element Annual Progress Report 2022
Government Code 65400 requires each governing body to prepare an annual report on the status and progress of implementing the jurisdiction’s Housing Element of the General Plan. Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (APR), using forms and definitions adopted by HCD, are due annually by April, covering the preceding calendar year. Therefore, this year’s report evaluates the progress made towards implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element programs and housing production during the time period between January 1, 2022 and December 31, 2022. The Housing Element Annual Progress Report 2022 is included as Attachment A.

Housing Successor Annual Report Fiscal Year 2022
Housing Successor entities must provide an Annual Report that details compliance with the expenditure limitations detailed in Senate Bill 341 (H&SC 34176.1(f)) during each five-year compliance period. The reporting period began on January 1, 2016 and ended on December 31, 2021, and is monitored by fiscal year. The information should be reported at the same time as the Housing Element Annual Report due in April of each calendar year. The current reporting period is fiscal year 2022, covering July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. The Housing Successor Annual Report FY 2022 is included as Attachment B.

Analysis
Housing Element Annual Progress Report 2022
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) 5th cycle covers the years 2015 through 2022, making 2022 the eighth and final year of the planning period. The City of Belmont has made significant progress on Housing Element program implementation and has seen an related increase in housing unit approvals and production. As of December 31, 2022, the City has issued building permits for 732 new housing units, 43

Annual Housing Reports
exceeding the City’s total RHNA-5 allocation by 264 units. Total unit production for 2022 (i.e. building permits issued) was 224 permitted units, including 27 low-income inclusionary units and an 30 accessory dwelling units. As shown in the table below, while the City surpassed the total RHNA-5 allocation, there is still remaining need for very-low income units.

INCOME
LEVEL RHNA 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 TOTALUNITS RHNA
NEED
Very Low 116 22 22 94
Low 63 44 38 27 109
Moderate 67 4 9 12 11 12 30 78
Above Mod 222 7 7 109 6 9 218 167 523
Total Units 468 7 7 113 15 12 86 268 224 732
In addition to the permitted units summarized above, the City of Belmont has approved entitlements for an additional 209 units, 162 of which are affordable, and is currently processing development review applications for 242 more units.

Other notable achievements during 2022 include:
• Housing Mitigation Funds – The City collected $150,615 in Housing Impact/Inclusionary Fees in FY 2022.
• Funding for Affordable Housing – After updating the housing impact/mitigation fees and the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee back in 2021, the City had continued to generate a steady stream of funding that must be used to develop new affordable housing and mitigate the impact that new development activity has on the need for more local affordable housing. In 2022 the City Council adopted resolutions authorizing two affordable housing loans:
o Up to $2.5 million dollars to ROEM Development Corporation for development of a 125- unti 100% affordable project at El Camino Real and Belmont Avenue. o Up to $1 million dollars to Linc Housing Corporation for development of a 37-unit 100% affordable project at El Camino Real and Hill Street.
• Nonprofit Assistance – The City continued to provide financial assistance to non-profit affordable housing organizations including HIP Housing and HEART of San Mateo County. • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) – In recent years the City has adopted numerous amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to comply with state law and streamline the review process for ADUs.

The City issued building permits for 30 new ADUs in 2022, an impressive achievement. A total of 78 ADU’s have been permitted during this current RHNA cycle, which are considered naturally affordable moderate-income housing units.

Housing Successor Annual Report
The Housing Successor Annual Report for the Low Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund (Belmont Affordable Housing Fund 275) has been prepared pursuant to CA Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1(f) and is included as Attachment B. The financial data contained in this report is based on the Belmont Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (audit) prepared by Maze and Associates for fiscal year 2022. The report includes summaries of the deposits to, ending balance of, and expenditures from the 44

Annual Housing Reports
Belmont Affordable Housing Fund. The report also includes a description of the Housing Successor Agency’s Assets, including real property and loans receivable. Based on the information provided in the attached report, the Belmont Housing Successor remains in compliance with all applicable sections of the Health and Safety Code.

Alternatives

1. Direct staff to make amendments to the Annual Housing Reports.

2. Take no action.

Attachments
A. Housing Element Annual Progress Report 2022
B. Housing Successor Annual Report FY 2022
Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
☐
Funding Source
Confirmed:

Insert Acct # and additional
information
Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda 45 Jurisdiction Belmont
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 27
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 30
167
224
Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed
SFA 15 15 0
SFD 2 2 0
2 to 4 0 0 0
5+ 0 177 0
ADU 19 30 8
MH 0 0 0
Total 36 224 8
5 6
6 0
0 0
0 0
Income Rental Ownership Total
Very Low 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0
Moderate 0 0 0
Above Moderate 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0
Total Units Constructed with Streamlining
Units Constructed - SB 35 Streamlining Permits
Total Housing Units Approved:

Total Housing Units Disapproved:

Use of SB 35 Streamlining Provisions
Number of Applications for Streamlining
Number of Streamlining Applications Approved
Total Developments Approved with Streamlining
Above Moderate
Total Units
Note: Units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals Housing Applications Summary
Total Housing Applications Submitted:

Number of Proposed Units in All Applications Received:

Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
46 Jurisdiction Belmont ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning
Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
1 3 4
RHNA Allocation
by Income Level 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Units to
Date (all
years)
Total Remaining
RHNA by Income
Level
Deed Restricted - - - - - 22 - - -
Non-Deed
Restricted - - - - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - - - - - 44 38 27 -
Non-Deed
Restricted - - - - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed
Restricted - - 4 9 12 11 12 30 -
Above
Moderate 222 7 7 109 6 - 9 218 167 - 523 -
468
7 7 113 15 12 86 268 224 - 732 94
5 6 7
Extremely lowIncome Need 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023Total Units to Date
Total Units
Remaining
58 - - - - - - - - - - 58
Progress toward extremely low-income housing need, as determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1).

Extremely Low-Income Units*
This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs.

Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here
Moderate
67 78 -
Total RHNA
Total Units
Income Level
Very Low
116 22 94
Low
63 109 -
Table B
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
2 47
2 3 5 6
Above Entitlement
Moderate- Date
Approved
Income
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 0 0 19 17 36
44043200 718 Alameda de las Pulgas B2021-0044 SFD O 1 2/18/2020 1 45090020 1811 Ralston Avenue B2019-0504 ADU R 1 5/20/2020 1 44242040 0 Arthur Avenue B2020-0113 SFD O 1 3/10/2020 1 45090690 1661 Ralston Avenue B2020-0368 SFD O 1 8/4/2020 1 43181110 2620 Belmont Canyon Road B2020-0223 ADU R 1 7/22/2020 1 44281130 816 Covington Road B2020-0393 SFD O 1 11/17/2020 1 45151390 800 South Road B2021-0005 ADU R 1 10/7/2021
1 45372140 1015 CONTINENTALS WAY B2021-0034 ADU R 1 9/10/2021 1 45372140 1015 CONTINENTALS WAY B2021-0035 ADU R 1 9/10/2021 1 43262150 2309 WOOSTER AVE B2021-0249 ADU R 1 9/29/2021 1 44242380 2407 CORONET BLVD B2021-0283 ADU R 1 11/17/2021 1 44085240 2019 LYON AVE B2021-0295 ADU R 1 9/30/2021
1 # of Units
issued
Entitlements
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Table A2
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Prior
APN+
Current
APN Street Address Project
Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Unit
Category
(SFA,SFD
,2 to
4,5+,ADU,
MH)
Project Identifier Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement 1 4
48 2 3 5 6
Above Entitlement
Moderate- Date
Approved
Income
# of Units
issued
Entitlements
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Table A2
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Prior
APN+
Current
APN Street Address Project
Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Unit
Category
(SFA,SFD
,2 to
4,5+,ADU,
MH)
Project Identifier Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement 1 4
44112310 1520 WILLIAMS ST B2021-0365 ADU R 1 12/9/2021
1 40335120 1180 GRANADA ST B2021-0380 ADU R 1 12/2/2021 1 44056070 1913 LYON AVE B2021-0468 ADU R 1 12/23/2021
1 44131170 1614 NOTRE DAME AVE B2020-0374 ADU R 1 3/12/2021 1 43263200 2704 NEWLANDS AVE B2020-0370 ADU R 1 6/18/2021 1 43062380 3826 NAUGHTON AVE B2020-0367 ADU R 1 5/27/2021 1 44283330 813 COVINGTON RD B2020-0333 ADU R 1 5/7/2021 1 44281120 818 COVINGTON RD B2020-0238 ADU R 1 1/13/2021 1 43222370 0 LONGFELLOW DRIVE B2018-0487 SFD O 1 10/21/2020 1 43272260 2514 DEKOVEN AVE B2020-0018 SFD O 1 6/18/2020 1 45151350 901 HOLLY ROAD - PARCEL
A
B2021-0176 SFD O 1 3/2/2021
1 45151340 901 HOLLY RD - PARCEL B B2021-0177 SFD O 1 3/2/2021 1 49
2 3 5 6
Above Entitlement
Moderate- Date
Approved
Income
# of Units
issued
Entitlements
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Table A2
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Prior
APN+
Current
APN Street Address Project
Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Unit
Category
(SFA,SFD
,2 to
4,5+,ADU,
MH)
Project Identifier Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement 1 4
40290260 815 OLD COUNTY RD B2021-0273 5+ R 27 150 6/1/2021 177
44351040 1513 FOLGER DR
ADU
Added
2022
B2021-0534;
B2022-0498 SFD O 1 1 1/19/2023
2 46031070 1325 OLD COUNTY ROAD B2019-0345 5+ R 38 212 5/28/2021 250
43221330 3301 Haskins Drive B2020-0137 SFD O 1 5/16/2022 1 44242040 2123 ARTHUR AVE B2020-0196 ADU R 1 11/10/2020 1 45372140 1016 CONTINENTALS WAY B2021-0003 ADU R 1 10/15/2021 1 45372140 1016 CONTINENTALS WAY B2021-0033 ADU R 1 9/10/2021 1 43222390 3210 LONGFELLOW DR B2021-0197 ADU R 1 8/4/2022 1 45133010 1500 SOLANA DR B2021-0262 ADU R 1 1/25/2022
1 44242380 2407 CORONET BLVD B2021-0283 ADU R 1 11/17/2021 1 44112310 1520 WILLIAMS ST B2021-0365 ADU R 1 12/9/2021 1 44041070 2133 LYON AVE B2021-0379 ADU R 1 3/10/2022
1 50
2 3 5 6
Above Entitlement
Moderate- Date
Approved
Income
# of Units
issued
Entitlements
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Table A2
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Prior
APN+
Current
APN Street Address Project
Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Unit
Category
(SFA,SFD
,2 to
4,5+,ADU,
MH)
Project Identifier Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement 1 4
40262080 415 HILLER ST B2021-0390 ADU R 1 1/4/2022
1 43211290 3214 UPPER LOCK AVE B2021-0391 ADU R 1 6/7/2022 1 45462060 2551 SOMERSET DR B2021-0408 ADU R 1 1/26/2022 1 45204220 775 BUCKLAND AVE B2021-0434 ADU R 1 1/24/2022 1 45151090 926 SOUTH RD B2021-0435 ADU R 1 5/23/2022
1 04524401
0,
04524415
0,
04524416
0 45244210 1365 Fifth Ave (5TH &

BROADWAY)
Firehouse
Square
Phase 2
Townhom
es
B2021-0463 SFA O 15 7/12/2022
15 44056070 1913 LYON AVE B2021-0468 ADU R 1 12/23/2021 1 45152090 860 LAUREL AVE B2021-0479 ADU R 1 3/14/2022
1 44312070 912 AVON ST B2021-0492 ADU R 1 1/24/2022 1
44102010 1700 MILLS AVE B2021-0513 ADU R 1 4/8/2022
1 43322020 2504 RALSTON AVE B2022-0029 ADU R 1 4/22/2022 1 44013220 2115 LYON AVE B2022-0031 ADU R 1 4/15/2022
1 44112090 1543 WINDING WAY B2022-0035 ADU R 1 6/28/2022 1 51
2 3 5 6
Above Entitlement
Moderate- Date
Approved
Income
# of Units
issued
Entitlements
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Table A2
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Prior
APN+
Current
APN Street Address Project
Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Unit
Category
(SFA,SFD
,2 to
4,5+,ADU,
MH)
Project Identifier Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement 1 4
44142110 917 RUTH AVE B2022-0048 ADU R 1 6/2/2022
1 44032320 2520 READ AVE B2022-0236 SFD O 1 9/28/2022
1 44053080 2014 MONROE AVE B2022-0256 ADU R 1 11/19/2022 1 44271320 2427 CORONET BLVD #A B2022-0260 ADU R 1 8/25/2022 1 44152130 800 ANITA AVE B2022-0315 ADU R 1 10/7/2022
1 44342410 1506 PINE KNOLL DR B2022-0331 ADU R 1 11/14/2022 1 52
8 9
Above
ModerateIncome
0 0 27 0 0 30 167 224
44043200 718 Alameda de las Pulgas 1 10/6/2021 1
45090020 1811 Ralston Avenue 1 1/1/2021 1
44242040 0 Arthur Avenue 1 4/29/2021 1
45090690 1661 Ralston Avenue 1 8/27/2021 1
43181110 2620 Belmont Canyon Road 1 8/18/2021 1
44281130 816 Covington Road 1 7/7/2021 1
45151390 800 South Road 1 11/17/2021 1
45372140 1015 CONTINENTALS WAY 1 8/5/2022 1
45372140 1015 CONTINENTALS WAY 1 8/5/2022 1
43262150 2309 WOOSTER AVE 1 10/25/2021 1
44242380 2407 CORONET BLVD 1 4/11/2022 1
44085240 2019 LYON AVE 1 10/27/2021 1
44112310 1520 WILLIAMS ST 1 1/18/2022 1
40335120 1180 GRANADA ST 1 12/22/2021 1
44056070 1913 LYON AVE 1 1/19/2022 1
44131170 1614 NOTRE DAME AVE 1 5/21/2021 1
43263200 2704 NEWLANDS AVE 1 7/23/2021 1
43062380 3826 NAUGHTON AVE 1 7/15/2021 1
44283330 813 COVINGTON RD 1 11/9/2021 1
44281120 818 COVINGTON RD 1 3/5/2021 1
43222370 0 LONGFELLOW DRIVE 1 6/11/2021 1
43272260 2514 DEKOVEN AVE 1 8/9/2021 1
45151350 901 HOLLY ROAD - PARCEL A 0
45151340 901 HOLLY RD - PARCEL B 0
40290260 815 OLD COUNTY RD 27 150 4/28/2022 177
44351040 1513 FOLGER DR ADU Added 2022 0
46031070 1325 OLD COUNTY ROAD 38 212 5/8/2021 250
43221330 3301 Haskins Drive 1 6/27/2022 1
44242040 2123 ARTHUR AVE 1 1/14/2022 1
45372140 1016 CONTINENTALS WAY 1 9/8/2022 1
45372140 1016 CONTINENTALS WAY 1 8/5/2022 1
43222390 3210 LONGFELLOW DR 1 12/12/2022 1
Table A2
7 Project Identifier
Current
APN Street Address Project Name+
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Building
Permits Date
Issued
# of Units
Issued
Building
Permits
Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units 53 8 9
Above
ModerateIncome
Table A2
7 Project Identifier
Current
APN Street Address Project Name+
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Building
Permits Date
Issued
# of Units
Issued
Building
Permits
Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units 45133010 1500 SOLANA DR 1 4/22/2022 1
44242380 2407 CORONET BLVD 1 4/11/2022 1
44112310 1520 WILLIAMS ST 1 1/18/2022 1
44041070 2133 LYON AVE 1 3/15/2022 1
40262080 415 HILLER ST 1 1/7/2022 1
43211290 3214 UPPER LOCK AVE 1 6/17/2022 1
45462060 2551 SOMERSET DR 1 9/2/2022 1
45204220 775 BUCKLAND AVE 1 2/23/2022 1
45151090 926 SOUTH RD 1 5/24/2022 1
45244210 1365 Fifth Ave (5TH &

BROADWAY)
Firehouse Square Phase 2
Townhomes 15 7/14/2022 15
44056070 1913 LYON AVE 1 1/19/2022 1
45152090 860 LAUREL AVE 1 3/16/2022 1
44312070 912 AVON ST 1 2/7/2022 1
44102010 1700 MILLS AVE 1 4/21/2022 1
43322020 2504 RALSTON AVE 1 5/25/2022 1
44013220 2115 LYON AVE 1 6/24/2022 1
44112090 1543 WINDING WAY 1 7/20/2022 1
44142110 917 RUTH AVE 1 6/20/2022 1
44032320 2520 READ AVE 1 10/14/2022 1
44053080 2014 MONROE AVE 1 11/28/2022 1
44271320 2427 CORONET BLVD #A 1 11/18/2022 1
44152130 800 ANITA AVE 1 11/14/2022 1
44342410 1506 PINE KNOLL DR 1 11/28/2022 1
54 Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units 11 12
0 0 0 0 0 7 1 8
44043200 718 Alameda de las Pulgas 0
45090020 1811 Ralston Avenue 1 8/2/2022 1
44242040 0 Arthur Avenue 0
45090690 1661 Ralston Avenue 0
43181110 2620 Belmont Canyon Road 0
44281130 816 Covington Road 0
45151390 800 South Road 1 11/21/2022 1
45372140 1015 CONTINENTALS WAY 0
45372140 1015 CONTINENTALS WAY 0
43262150 2309 WOOSTER AVE 0
44242380 2407 CORONET BLVD 0
44085240 2019 LYON AVE 1 5/18/2022 1
44112310 1520 WILLIAMS ST 0
40335120 1180 GRANADA ST 1 5/13/2022 1
44056070 1913 LYON AVE 1 5/10/2022 1
44131170 1614 NOTRE DAME AVE 0
43263200 2704 NEWLANDS AVE 1 5/16/2022 1
43062380 3826 NAUGHTON AVE 1 5/17/2022 1
44283330 813 COVINGTON RD 1 2/28/2023 1
44281120 818 COVINGTON RD 1 12/14/2022 1
43222370 0 LONGFELLOW DRIVE 0
43272260 2514 DEKOVEN AVE 0
45151350 901 HOLLY ROAD - PARCEL A 0
45151340 901 HOLLY RD - PARCEL B 0
40290260 815 OLD COUNTY RD 0
44351040 1513 FOLGER DR 0
46031070 1325 OLD COUNTY ROAD 0
43221330 3301 Haskins Drive 0
44242040 2123 ARTHUR AVE 0
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Certificates of
Occupancy or
other forms of
readiness
(see
instructions)
# of Units
issued
Certificates of
Occupancy or
other forms of
readiness
Table A2
Above
Moderate
Income
Project Identifier Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy 10 Current
APN Street Address Project
Name+
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
55 Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units 11 12
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Certificates of
Occupancy or
other forms of
readiness
(see
instructions)
# of Units
issued
Certificates of
Occupancy or
other forms of
readiness
Table A2
Above
Moderate
Income
Project Identifier Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy 10 Current
APN Street Address Project
Name+
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
45372140 1016 CONTINENTALS WAY 0
45372140 1016 CONTINENTALS WAY 0
43222390 3210 LONGFELLOW DR 0
45133010 1500 SOLANA DR 0
44242380 2407 CORONET BLVD 0
44112310 1520 WILLIAMS ST 0
44041070 2133 LYON AVE 0
40262080 415 HILLER ST 0
43211290 3214 UPPER LOCK AVE 0
45462060 2551 SOMERSET DR 0
45204220 775 BUCKLAND AVE 0
45151090 926 SOUTH RD 0
45244210 1365 Fifth Ave (5TH &

BROADWAY)
Firehouse
Square
Phase 2
Townhomes
0 44056070 1913 LYON AVE 0
45152090 860 LAUREL AVE 0
44312070 912 AVON ST 0
44102010 1700 MILLS AVE 0
43322020 2504 RALSTON AVE 0
44013220 2115 LYON AVE 0
44112090 1543 WINDING WAY 0
44142110 917 RUTH AVE 0
44032320 2520 READ AVE 0
44053080 2014 MONROE AVE 0
44271320 2427 CORONET BLVD #A 0
44152130 800 ANITA AVE 0
44342410 1506 PINE KNOLL DR 0
56 Jurisdiction Belmont ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting
Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning
Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Date
Application
Submitted
Total
Approved
Units by
Project
2 3 4 6 7
Unit
Category
(SFA,SFD
,2 to
4,5+,ADU
,MH)
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 6
43251040 100 Alameda de las Pulgas PA2021-0055 SFD O
5/17/2022
1 1 2 2
43221210 3288 Oak Court PA2021-0058 SFD O 2/1/2022 1 1 1 44032320 2520 Read Avenue-1 PA2021-0065 SFD O 5/3/2022 1 1 1 44032330 2520 Read Avenue-2 PA2022-0010 SFD O 12/6/2022 1 1 1 44351040 1513 Folger Avenue B2022-0498 ADU R 12/16/2022 1 1 1 Total

APPROVED
Units by
project
Housing Development Applications Submitted

TABLE A
Above
Moderate
Income
Date
Application
Submitted+
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Total

PROPOSED
Units by
Project
Prior APN+ Current
APN Street Address Local Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Project Identifier Unit Types Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes 1 5
57 Jurisdiction Belmont
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
1 2 3 4
Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status of Program Implementation Action 1: Continue to implement code enforcement activities. Action 1: Ongoing Action 2: Maintain an inventory of code enforcement actions in order to determine citywide trends, such as overcrowding, and evaluate potential actions the City can take to counter these trends.

Action 2: Ongoing
Action 3: Code enforcement staff shall distribute information to property owners related to county-wide rehabilitation program/funding opportunities , as well as any local rehabilitation program opportunities made available by the Housing Successor, subject to availability of funding in the housing asset fund (Program 2.2)
Action 3: Ongoing
Action 1: Establish and maintain an Existing Conditions Survey for singlefamily properties. Action 1: December 2016 Action 2: Implement a two-year pilot Residential Records Report and Inspection Program. Action 2: December 2017
Action 3: Evaluate and determine whether to adopt a final Residential Records Report and Inspection Program. Action 3: December 2019

1.3 Condominium
Conversion Ordinance Action 1: Continue to enforce the Condominium Conversion Ordinance. Action 1: Ongoing Ongoing; no specific activity to report.

Action 1: Continue to streamline and enforce the annual reporting required to verify income limits of affordable units with an emphasis on for-profit owners. Action 1: Ongoing Actions 1 and 2: Ongoing property management activities.

Action 2: Provide technical assistance to property owners and/or organizations interested in purchasing and maintaining the properties should the owners be interested in selling as necessary and when feasible.

Action 2: Ongoing
Action 3: Meet with Belmont Village property managers to explore alternative resources, and establish contact with public and non-profit housing service providers that may offer technical or financial resources to Belmont Village operators and tenants. Ensure compliance with State law.

Action 3: April 2015 Actions 3: COMPLETED. No alternative funding was identified for these units, tenants were given one year notification and connected with alternative service providers.

Action 4: Adopt an ordinance for “At Risk” units requiring one-year notice to residents, the City and the San Mateo County Department of Housing of all proposed conversions of subsidized housing units to market rents.

Action 4: December 2015 Action 4: No ordinance has been adopted to date, but staff has complied with the suggested notification requirements.

Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.

1.1 Code Enforcement Ongoing Code Enforcement activities conducted by the Belmont Police Department.

1.2 Residential Records
Report and Inspection
Program
No specific action to report on actions 1-3. This program has not been implemented due to lack of staffing resources to implement and sustain such a program. Permit Center staff continue to provide residential records data to interested parties to support real estate transactions and housing projects.

1.4 Preservation of
Affordable Housing

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
Table D
Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583 Housing Programs Progress Report
58 Action 1: Evaluate programs and policies and provide recommendations as part of 21 Elements. Action 1: December 2015 Actions 1-2: COMPLETED. City adopted Housing Preference Policy to offer application priority to displaced San Mateo County residents.

Action 2: Provide findings and recommendations to City Council. Action 2: July 2016 Action 3: Adopt appropriate programs and policies to address displacement within 2 years of adoption of the housing element. Action 3: March 2017 Action 3: COMPLETED; Housing Preference Policy Adopted.

Action 4: Monitor programs and policies annually for effectiveness. Action 4: Ongoing Action 4: Ongoing; semi-annual housing program reports to the Belmont City Council.

Action 1: Develop a real property Development and Disposition Plan by the end of 2015. Action 1: December 2015 Action 1: COMPLETED.

Action 2: Transfer or sell real property assets to leverage provision and development of affordable housing projects for all income groups including extremely low, very low, and low income households.

Action 2: Ongoing
Action 2: IN PROGRESS. The City has identified a tentative owner for two special needs group homes; County of San Mateo took actions to forgive outstanding debts on these properties. Tenant Relocation Plan and Housing Replacement Plans were adopted in March 2019; Tenants were successfully relocated in July and August 2019. Realtor selected via RFP, sale of four properties pending; proceeds from market rate sales will be used to fund pipeline 100% affordable housing projects.

Action 3: Complete the San Mateo County-Wide Affordable Housing Nexus Study by February 2015. Action 3: February 2015
Action 4: Develop and Implement an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and adopt Housing Impact Fees by December 2015. Action 4: December 2015 Actions 3 & 4: COMPLETED. Inclusionary Ordiannce adopted January 2017; Inclusionary rental ordiannce adopted Fall 2018.

Action 5: Ensure ongoing compliance with California Health and Safety Code. Action 5: COMPLETED; ongoing.

Action 1: Continue to annually monitor City-owned rental properties to ensure that affordability is being maintained. Action 1: Annually Action 1: COMPLETED; annual/ongoing.

Action 2: In compliance with SB 341, the Housing Successor must initiate activity on affordable housing real property assets by August 31, 2017. BY June 2015, the Housing Successor shall work with the City Attorney to clarify permitted uses of real property assets.

Action 2: June 2015
Action 2: COMPLETED June 2015. All Housing Successor properties have been rezoned via Belmont Village Specific Plan and El Camino Corridor mixed-use zoning policies; several properties subject to RFP process and new housing development proposal.

Action 3: By December 2015, the Housing Successor shall hold meetings with San Mateo County affordable housing developers/service providers to determine what opportunities are available for rehabilitation of housing units in Belmont.

Action 3: December 2015 Action 3: December 2015 The City has held meetings with affordable housing developers to discuss opportunities for rehabilitation projects. No sites identified.

Action 4: By December 2016, the Housing Successor shall develop a housing asset funds disposition program (subject to funding availability) that provides local funding for rehabilitation of existing housing units.

Action 4: December 2016
Action 4: December 2016 The City Housing Successor maintains an Affordable Housing Fund that is funded by housing impact/mitigation fees, and other developer contributions. The CIty of Belmont committed $5.65 million towards the Belmont Firehouse Square affordable housing project which is now under construction.

Action 5: By June 2017, the Housing Successor shall develop and implement a housing rehabilitation outreach program (subject to funding availability).

Information shall be posted to the City of Belmont website, and distributed to residents via code enforcement staff (Program 1.1).

Action 5: June 2017 Action 5: No activity to report.

1.5 Anti-Displacement
Policy

2.1 Affordable Housing
Development

2.2 Affordable Housing
Rehabilitation, Operation,
and Management
59 Action 1: Adopt new comprehensive zoning regulations for the Belmont Village Priority Development Area. The zoning will: Action 1: December 2015 Allow high-quality, mixed-use, high-density (30-45 units/acre), 40-50 foot-tall development; Action 2: December 2015
Consider alternative parking arrangements such as shared parking, parking districts, or requirement for parking to be behind primary buildings; Action 3: June 2016 Streamline the development process; and Action 4: June 2016 Incorporate provisions to protect the economic viability of existing commercial uses, while considering the quality of life for new residents.

Action 2: Adopt design guidelines for the Villages of Belmont Area to clarify requirements and facilitate the development review process.

Action 3: Adopt Belmont Village Specific/Implementation Plan using C/CAG PDA Planning Grant Funds.

Action 4: Replace the Downtown Specific Plan with a new Belmont Village Specific/Implementation Plan in the General Plan.

Action 1: Revise development review process and permit materials to be distributed at the permit center and on the City’s website to explain the various steps in the process. This includes what materials need to be submitted and when and how long review will take at each juncture.

Action 1: June 2015 Action 1: COMPLETED. Significant overhauls to the design review process adopted in 2015 and 2016.

Website upgraded, planning and building application materials upgraded and modernized.

Action 2: Continue to meet with private and nonprofit housing developers on a regular basis. Consider hosting an annual developer roundtable to discuss development opportunity sites and other development issues.

Action 2: Ongoing Action 2: COMPLETED. Ongoing meetings with affordable housing developers to discuss opportunities in the CIty of Belmont.

Action 1: Develop, adopt and implement a lot consolidation program to allow for the assembly of multiple continuous parcels. The program will consider incentives such as:

Action 1: June 2017 Action 1: Density bonus program updated and City financial assets applies to project consolidating smaller lots.

Density bonuses (Program 4.3), Action 2: Ongoing
Direct Affordable Housing funds to leverage consolidation (Program 2.1), and Action 2: Map created discussions ongoing, no other specific action to report.

Other available incentives.

Action 2: The Housing Successor Agency will work directly with property owners and affordable housing developers to facilitate consolidation of parcels by:

Conducting an outreach program beginning in Spring 2015 to potential affordable housing developers;
Providing a map of opportunity sites, such as the ones identified in the Housing Element, on the City’s website as well as on handouts at the Permit Center, by December 2015; and,
Evaluating the potential to vacate alleys or rights-of-way that are no longer needed for public use for consolidation with adjacent sites.

2.5 Site Consolidation

2.3 Belmont Village
Priority Development Area
Strategy
COMPLETED. All actions completed November 2017.

2.4 Developer Outreach
60 Action 1: Modify the Second Dwelling Unit zoning requirements and permitting process to facilitate the development of new second dwelling units.

Action 1: December 2015
Actions 1 & 3: COMPLETED. The City adopted modifications to the zoning ordinance and streamlined the processing time for second dwelling units. A corresponding increase in production of accessory dwelling units has followed.

Action 2: Develop a Second Unit Legalization Program, which would potentially provide incentives to legalize non-recognized second units. Action 2: December 2017 Action 3: Analyze existing secondary dwelling unit ordinance to ensure compliance with State law, and update the zoning ordinance as necessary. Action 3: December 2015 Action 2: The City was awarded $160,000 of SB2 Planning Grant Program funds; the grant application specified that a portion of the funds will be utilized to promote Accessory Dwelling Unit production and legalization, including consideration of an amnesty program. Work program anticipated in 2020/2021.

Action 1: Consider allowing development standards to be modified for small lots, rather than requiring applicants to apply for a variance or a zone change, if projects can demonstrate that they comply with design guidelines and do not cause substantial adverse impacts on adjoining properties.

Action 1: December 2015
Action 2: Consider working with affordable housing developers and/or management companies to manage groups of smaller housing developments in order to create economies of scale and support affordable housing development.

Action 2: December 2017
Action 1: Adopt zone texts amendments for properties along the El Camino Real transit corridor to facilitate mixed-use and development of a variety of housing types, and allowing up to 45 dwelling units per acre when certain design criteria are met.

Action 1: December 2016
Action 1: COMPLETED. Adopted November 2017. The City expects to expand certain Belmont Village Specific Plan Zoning standards that facilitate housing development (i.e. no density metric, further increased FAR and reduced parking) to the entire El Camino Real Corridor to prepare for the RHNA-6 Housing planning cycle.

Action 2: Consider modifying the zoning requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for all multi-family development projects. Action 2: December 2016 Action 2: COMPLETED, modifications adopted December 2016 for certain projects.

Action 1: Prepare and Adopt update to Belmont General Plan 2035. Action 1: June 2016 Action 2: Prepare and adopt Program Environmental Impact Report that analyzing forecasting development within the Belmont Village Priority Development Area and along the El Camino Real corridor.

Action 2: June 2016
Action 1: By Spring 2015, adopt zone text amendments amending residential development standards and design review thresholds. Action 1: June 2015 Action 1: COMPLETED (adopted 2015 and 2016). The City adopted comprehensive modifications to residential design standards and the design review process, making it easier for residents to make improvements to existing housing stock, and increasing the number of new dwelling proposed on the few remaining vacant sites.

Action 2: By Summer 2015, adopt revisions to the Belmont Tree Ordinance. Action 2: August 2015 Action 2. COMPLETED. Adopted November 2017.

3.1 Mortgage Credit
Certificate
Action 1: Actively educate prospective buyers about the program by distributing materials, posting materials on the City website, and meeting with realtors and homebuilders.

Action 1: Ongoing
Action 1: The City of Belmont, in partnership with HEART of San Mateo County, hosted a first-time homebuyer workshop in April 2019. Options for first-time and low-income homebuyers was distributed and posted to the City's Website.

2.10 Update Residential
Development Standards

2.6 Second Units

2.7 Promotion of Small
Lot Development
No specific activity to report. Following adoption of the Belmont Village Specific Plan and creation of the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning district, the City has seen a significant decrease in request for variances and zoning changes because the new zoning regulations are flexible and allow for mixed-use development activity in the priority development areas.

2.8 El Camino Real Transit
Corridor

2.9 Belmont General Plan
Update Actions 1 and 2: COMPLETED. Adopted November 2017. 61 Action 1: Set up a meeting between City and County staff members responsible for the Section 8 program so that City staff become better educated about the opportunities available through the program.

Action 1: December 2015
Action 1: COMPLETED. The City has established a line of communication with the County to ensure Belmont Affordable Housing projects are considered for project based vouchers. So far two projects have been awardded vouchers.

Action 2: Publicize Section 8 by posting information about the program on the City’s website and make information available at the Permit Center. Action 2: December 2015 Action 2: Ongoing, No specific activity to report.

Action 3: Encourage new housing developers and management companies to participate in the Housing Choices Voucher Program or the Project-based Program during preparation of future development agreements or affordable housing programs.

Action 3: Ongoing
Action 3: COMPLETED. The City has partnered with two affordable housing developers for two City-owned project sites to building over 100 affordable housing units. In 2019 both developers were awarded projectbased vouches from San Mateo County Department of Housing.

Action 1: Continue to provide financial assistance to community service organizations such as HIP Housing, when financially appropriate. Action 1: Ongoing Action 2: Publicize the programs through its website, and flyers at the permit center and senior and community center. Action 2: December 2015 Action 1: Continue to participate in HEART, or other comparable programs. Action 1: Ongoing Action 1: COMPLETED. The City is an active participant in HEART and provides an annual member agency contribution.

Action 2: Actively publicize the revolving affordable housing loan program and First-time Homebuyers loan program available through HEART. Action 2: December 2015 Action 2: COMPLETED. The City of Belmont hosted a HEART First Time Homebuyer workship in April 2019.

Action 1: Develop a partnership with Shelter Network to support their efforts to house homeless families and individuals. Action 1: December 2015 Action 1: No specific activity to report.

Action 2: Review Emergency Shelter zoning regulations for ongoing compliance with state law (annually). Action 2: December 2015 Action 2: COMPLETED. The City ensures ongoing compliance.

Action 1: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to remove the R-5 Zoning District. Any uses that are currently permitted in the R-5 District may be permitted in an alternative district.

Action 1: June 2016 Action 1: COMPLETED November 2017.

Action 2: Ensure that information related to zoning for special needs housing is available at the Permit Center and on the City of Belmont website. Action 2: December 2015 Action 2. COMPLETED/ongoing; the Permit Center was remodeled to provide an ADA compiance permitting experience; required information on ADA zoning available at permit center. New housing website still needs to be updated.

Action 3: Work with special needs housing service providers to develop incentives for development of extremely low income housing such as expedited processing, zoning exceptions that provide certain financial relief, and supporting applications for grant or other funding opportunities.

Action 3: Ongoing Action 3: COMPLETED. Hill St/El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project (on City Housing Successor owned property) will provide 100% very-low or extremely low units (plus one manager unit), total 37 units.

Action 4: The City shall reach out annually to developers of supportive housing to encourage development of project targeted for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities.

Action 4: Annually Action 4: COMPLETED. Two pending City-owned Affordable Housing projects must provide a minumum 5% of units to special needs populations.

Action 1: Continue to allow the transfer of development rights or floor area within the San Juan Area. Action 1: Ongoing Action 1: COMPLETED; ongoing compliance.

Action 2: Consider the feasibility of amending the transfer of development rights program in order to allow development rights to be transferred from the hillside areas to priority development areas.

Action 2: December 2016
Action 2: No specific activity to report.

Action 1: Implement the density bonus program as follows:

Develop a density bonus information website and program materials/handouts;
Provide information materials to all potential target site and El Camino Real corridor developers.

4.1 Special Needs and
Extremely Low Income
Housing

4.2 Transfer of
Development Rights

4.3 Density Bonus
Program Action 1: Ongoing
Action 1: COMPLETED and ongoing; the Density Bonus Section of the Zoning Ordinance os available on the City Website, City staff have engaged in numerous discussions with housing developers to implement density bonus opportunities; the Hill Street/EL Camino Real Affordable Housing Project on City-owned property is expected to receive a devsity bonus in 2020

3.2 Section 8 Rental
Assistance

3.3 Nonprofic Assistance
Actions 1 and 2: COMPLETED, ongoing. The City continues to provide direct financial assistance to HIP Housing. The City has met with Project Sentinal representatives to help promote their housing services to residents. The City Website includes links to various housing nonprofit organizations.

3.4 HEART

3.5 Emergency Shelters
62 Action 1: Ensure that the development process complies with State law. This will entail: Action 1: Ongoing Action 1: COMPLETED. Planners ensure ongoing compliance with all applicable CEQA processing times.

Eliminating any time used to determine the level of environmental review for secondary dwelling units, as these are generally CEQA-exempt; Action 2: December 2016 Capping the number of days needed to act on a CEQA-exempt single-family unit permit application to 60 days; and,
Action 2: COMPLETED. BVSP and Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zoning for El Camino Real corridor both adopted in November 2017. No separate multi-family design guidelines document has been adopted to date.

Capping the number of days needed to act on a multi-family permit application that requires an EIR to 180 days (90 days if the project requires an EIR and at least 49 percent of the units are affordable ), and 60 days if the project requires a Negative Declaration or is CEQA-exempt.

Action 2: Adopt design guidelines for multi-unit and mixed-use development projects.

4.5 Planned Development Action 1: Continue to allow Planned Development zoning. Action 1: Ongoing Action 1: COMPLETED; No specific activity to report.

Action 1: Consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multi-family residential and mixed-use projects (for example, reduce the studio unit parking requirement from 2 spaces per unit to 1 space per unit).

Action 1: June 2016
Action 2: Develop shared parking strategies as part of the Belmont Village Implementation Plan, and evaluate the feasibility of establishing parking districts within the Belmont Village area to fund shared parking infrastructure.

Action 2: December 2016

4.7 Multi-Family
Development
Action 1: When multi-family residential and mixed-use development design guidelines are adopted, amend the Zoning Ordinance to remove the conditional use permit requirement for multi-family development projects in high-density residential or mixed-use zones.

Action 1: June 2017
Action 1: COMPLETED. The Belmont Village zoning districts and the Corridor Mixed Use zoning district, both adopted in 2017, allow multi-family residential housing development by right (no CUP) when not located on the ground floor. In 2020 the City amended the zoning ordinance to remove the CUP requirement for multifamily housing in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts.

Action 1: Publicize the Peninsula Conflict-Resolution Center (PCRC) at the permit center. Action 1: Ongoing Action 1: COMPLETED.

Action 2: Provide program support to PCRC and other fair housing nonprofit organizations, such as Project Sentinel. Action 2: Ongoing Action 2: COMPLETED. Belmont staff has met with Project Sentinel staff and promotes their services to residents when appropriate.

Action 1: Continue to offer program support to the Center for Independence of the Disabled (CID) to provide housing accessibility modifications for the disabled in Belmont.

Action 1: Ongoing Actions 1-3: Ongoing, no specific activity to report.

Action 2: Post information on the City website regarding housing opportunities for the disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities, and a link to the County’s website for additional housing options.

Action 2: December 2015
Action 3: Provide clear information on the City’s website and at the Permit Center related to the City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance that provides exceptions in zoning and land-use for housing for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities.

Action 3: December 2015 Action 4: COMPLETED.

Action 4: By December 2015, the City shall review the Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance to ensure ongoing compliance with state law. Action 2: December 2015

4.6 Parking
Actions 1 and 2: COMPLETED. The BVSP and the General Plan Phase I Zoning (adopted November 2017) allow for shared parking serving more than one use when certain criteria are met. Overall parking requirements for mixed use projects were reduced.

5.1 Fair Housing Program

5.2 Housing for the
Disabled

4.4 Development Review
Process
63 Action 1: Adopt Conservation Element of the Belmont General Plan 2035. Action 1: December 2015 Action 1: COMPLETED.

Action 2: Continue to participate in the PG&E Sustainable Solutions Turnkey program and implement the audit identified energy conservation projects. Action 2: Ongoing Action 2: COMPLETED.

Action 3: Provide program outreach and support, as needed, to Energy Conservation programs such as Peninsula Sunshares, Bay Rea Regional Energy Network (BayREN), and other state or federal programs promoting residential energy conservation.

Action 3: Ongoing Action 3: COMPLETED. The City participated in Peninsula Sunshares, and authorized three additional PACE financing program administrators to operate in Belmont for installing clean energy improvements.

Action 4: Review the zoning ordinance to improve solar access provisions. Action 4: December 2017 Action 4: No specific activity to report.

Action 1: Adopt guidelines to encourage on-site solar energy systems. Action 1: December 2017 Action 2: Provide informational brochures about solar energy systems and available financial resources at the permit center. Action 2: Ongoing Action 3: Consider using City solar farms as demonstration projects for local residents to learn more about solar energy. Action 3: December 2018 Action 4: Participate in the Peninsula SunShares group photovoltaic buy-in program.

Action 2: Ongoing
Action 1: Adopt guidelines to encourage low-water landscaping. Action 1: December 2016 Action 2: Provide informational brochures about drought-resistant and lowwater landscaping options that are specific to Belmont’s geography and native habitats.

Action 2: December 2016
Action 1: Deliver the adopted Housing Element to the Mid-Peninsula Water District and Silicon Valley Clean Water within one month of adoption. Action 1: June 2015 Action 1: COMPLETED June 2015.

Action 2: Provide information on the City website about the adopted sewer priority policy for affordable housing projects. Action 2: December 2015 Action 2: COMPLETED; Sewer Priority Policy available on the City Website.

6.5 Update the General
Plan
Action 1: Update the City of Belmont General Plan in order to integrate land use and transportation planning. Action 1: June 2016 Action 1: COMPLETED; adopted November 2017.

6.3 Promote Water
Conservation
Actions 1-2: The City actively promotes the Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for all development activity.

6.4 Adequate Water and
Sewer Services

6.1 Promote Energy
Conservation

6.2 Support On-Site
Alternative Energy
Generation
Actions 1-4: No specific activity to report. The City adopted a Climate Action Plan in November 2017 and has begun working on implementation. The City is working to install vehicle battery charging stations on City property.
64 Item # FY 2022
1 $0
2 LMIHAF Revenues:

Sale of Capital Assets (LMI Property) $ 4,050,000
Rental/lease income $ 80,800
Interest Income $ 2,757
Loan Interest $ -
Miscellaneous $ 7,401
TOTAL: $ 4,140,958
3 Statement of Fund Balance @ 6/30/22 Year End (Source: FY2022 ACFR) $ 6,467,886 4 Description of expenditures from LMIHAF
LMIHAF Expenditures:

Occupied Affordable Rental Housing Operations:

Expenditures on Low Income $ 44,834
Expenditures on Very Low Income $ 14,945
Expenditures on Extremely Low Income $ 14,945
Administrative Costs $ 75,713
Housing Successor Owned LMI Property Tax $ 21,631
Housing Element Update and EIR $ 275,386
$ 447,453
The amount deposited to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund, distinguishing between amounts deposited pursuant to subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 34191.4, amounts deposited for other items listed on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule, and other amounts deposited.

SENATE BILL 341 ANNUAL HOUSING SUCCESSOR REPORT

CITY OF BELMONT LOW MODERATE INCOME HOUSING ASSET FUND
Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
Per H&SC 34176.1
The amount the city, county, or city and county received pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 34191.4.
65 5
Statuatory Value of Real Property, the value of loans/grants receivable, and the sum of these two amounts.

Real Property Owned by Housing Successor Agency $ 4,058,295 Loans Receivable (Notes) $ 4,271,268
Total Real Property Plus Loans Receivable $ 8,329,563
6 Description of Transfers:

Description of transfer made, if any, to another housing successor agency pursuant to H&SC 34176.1(c)(2), including whether the funds are encumbered and the status of projects, if any, for which the transferred LMIHAF will be used.

No Transfer Made Per H&SC 34176.1(C)(2)
7 Project Descriptions:

A description of any project for which the housing successor receives or holds property tax revenue pursuant to the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule and the status of that project.
8 Status of Compliance with Section 33334.16:

Real Property Owned by Housing Successor Agency Date
Acquired
DOF Transfer
Approved
Deadline to
Initiate Activity
APN 045-244-150, 1365 Fifth Avenue 12/31/1996 8/30/2012 8/31/2017 APN 044-222-140, 730 El Camino Real 8/30/1994 8/30/2012 8/31/2017 APN 040-261-060, 503 Crestview 5/5/1997 8/30/2012 8/31/2017 APN 045-261-010/020/030, 1000 O'Neill Ave #1 & #2 8/2/1994 8/30/2012 8/31/2017 APN 040-500-170, 30 Oxford Place 9/5/2007 8/30/2012 8/31/2017 APN 106-190-070, 300 Davey Glen Rd #3507 2/19/2009 8/30/2012 8/31/2017 APN 106-270-060, 400 Davey Glen Rd #4606 1/30/2009 8/30/2012 8/31/2017 APN 044-222-180, 780 El Camino Real 9/25/2008 8/30/2012 8/31/2017 APN 045-162-070, 868, 870, 876 El Camino Real 4/2/2009 8/30/2012 8/31/2017 APN 045-244-160, 875 O'Neill Avenue 12/31/1996 8/30/2012 8/31/2017 APN 045-162-080, 884 El Camino Real, 810 Hill Street 3/10/2010 8/30/2012 8/31/2017 APN 045-162-090, 898 El Camino Real, 800 Hill Street 3/10/2010 8/30/2012 8/31/2017 APN 045-163-070, 900 El Camino Real 8/20/2010 8/30/2012 8/31/2017 APN 045-182-220, 1085 Sixth Avenue 3/20/1996 8/30/2012 8/31/2017 APN 045-182-260, 843 Ralston Avenue 10/20/1998 8/30/2012 8/31/2017 APN 045-244-010, 1300 El Camino Real 3/14/2011 8/30/2012 8/31/2017 Rezoned via Belmont Village Specific Plan,
adopted November 2017; Developed with interim
use open space plaza.

Firehouse Square Phase 1 Affordable Housing
Project; long term lease executed August 2020,
project construction to be completed in 2023.

Rezoned via Belmont Village Specific Plan
(November 2017); Affordable Housing Project ENA
with LINC Housing (July 2021)
Firehouse Square Phase 1 Affordable Housing
Project; long term lease executed August 2020,
project construction to be completed in 2023.

DDLA with Linc Housing approved by City Council
in February 2023.

DDLA with Linc Housing approved by City Council
in February 2023.

DDLA with Linc Housing approved by City Council
in February 2023.

Rezoned via Belmont Village Specific Plan,
adopted November 2017.

Occupied, 6-units very-low income special needs
group home
Occupied, 2-units moderate-income
Property sold FY 2022
Property sold FY 2022
Property sold FY 2022
RFP for development of affordable housing issued
June 2017; rezoned via General Plan Phase I
Zoning November 2017.

The Housing Successor does not receive or hold property tax revenue; the Belmont Successor Agency fully dissolved in June 2022 and Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules are no longer prepared.

For interests in real property acquired by the former redevelopment agency prior to February 1, 2012, a status update on compliance with Section 33334.16. For interests in real property acquired on or after February 1, 2012, a status update on the project.

Status of Compliance with 33334.16
(All properties compliant FY2022)
Firehouse Square Phase 2 Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA) Executed
10/31/19; Property sold FY 2022.

Occupied, 6-units low-income special needs group
home (Kainos)
66 9 Outstanding Obligations Per 33413
A description of any outstanding obligations pursuant to Section 33413 that remained to transfer to the housing successor on February 1, 2012, of the housing successor’s progress in meeting those obligations, and of the housing successor’s plans to meet unmet obligations.
10 Income Restrictions:
5% of Real Property Assets & Loans Receivable (Notes): $ 416,478.17 Total Expenditures
Total Expenditures per CAFR: Expenditures In Excess of 5% Cap FY 2014 $ 46,970.12 $ -
FY 2015 $ 105,896.00 $ -
FY 2016 $ 135,031.00 $ -
FY 2017 $ 244,126.56 $ -
FY 2018 $ 157,155.40 $ -
FY 2019 $ 124,547.52 $ -
FY 2020 $ 468,573.00 $ 56,730.02
FY 2021 $ 215,889.00 $ -
FY 2022 $ 447,453.00 $ 30,974.83
Total $ 813,726.60 $ 56,730.02
11 Senior Housing Restrictions:

Unit Category
Assisted Senior Rental Units 0
Total Assisted Rental Units 312
Percentage Senior Rental Housing 0%
12 Excess Surplus: LMIHF Deposits
FY 2022 $ (4,140,958)
FY 2021 $ (285,230)
FY 2020 $ (94,253)
FY 2019 (124,285) $
FY 2018 (130,861) $
FY 2017 (126,233) $
FY 2016 (354,097) $
FY 2015 (122,871) $
Total: $ (5,378,788)
Use of Excess Surplus:

In FY 2023, total revenues deposited into the LMIHF Affordable Housing Fund was $4,140,958. This included sale os three propertyies acquired with LMI funds by the former Belmont Redevelopment Agency. All sale proceeds have been correctly deposted into Fund 275. The City Council has approved two Affordable Housing loans to recently approve 100% affordable projects that meet the affordability restrictions. The first is a loan up to $2.5 million to ROEM Development Corporation for development of 125 affordable units at El Camino Real and Belmont Avenue. The second is a loan up to $1 million to Linc Housing Corporation for development of 37 affordable units at Hill Street and El Camino Real. These loans are expected to be paid out in FY 2024.

The Belmont Housing Successor does not have
any obligations to fulfill under Section 33413.

After expenditures allowed for monitoring and preserving the long-term affordability of units, the housing successor shall expend all funds remaining in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund for the development of housing affordable to and occupied by households earning 80 percent or less of the area median income, with at least 30 percent of these remaining funds expended for the development of rental housing affordable to and occupied by households earning 30 percent or less of the area median income and no more than 20 percent of these remaining funds expended for the development of housing affordable to and occupied by households earning between 60 percent and 80 percent of the area median income. A housing successor shall demonstrate in the annual report described in subdivision (f), for 2019, and every five years thereafter, that the housing successor’s expenditures from January 1, 2014, through the end of the latest fiscal year covered in the report comply with the requirements of this subparagraph.

The percentage of units of deed-restricted rental housing restricted to seniors and assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the previous 10 years in relation to the aggregate number of units of deed-restricted rental housing assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the same time period.

The amount of any excess surplus, the amount of time that the successor agency has had excess surplus, and the housing successor’s plan for eliminating the excess surplus. “Excess surplus” is defined as an unencumbered amount in the account that exceeds the greater of one million dollars ($1,000,000) or the aggregate amount deposited into the account during the housing successor's preceding four fiscal years, whichever is greater (H&SC 34176.1(d)).
67 13 Homeownership Unit Inventory:
(A) The Number of those Units. (A) 19 Units
(B)
(C)
No loan repayments received in FY 2022.
(D) Whether the housing successor has contracted with any outside entity for the (D) management of the units and, if so, the identity of the entity.

The Belmont Housing Successor does not
currently contract with any outside entity for
bmr unit management.

An inventory of homeownership units assisted by the former redevelopment agency or the housing successor that are subject to covenants or restrictions or to an adopted program that protects the former redevelopment agency’s investment of moneys from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 33334.3. This inventory shall include all of the following information:
(B) In the first report pursuant to this subdivision, the number of units lost to the portfolio after February 1, 2012, and the reason or reasons for those losses. For all subsequent reports, the number of the units lost to the portfolio in the last fiscal year and the reason for those losses.

No units have been lost to the portfolio
during the fiscal year.
(C) Any funds returned to the housing successor as part of an adopted program that protects the former redevelopment agency’s investment of moneys from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund.

The Housing Successor received loan
repayments totalling $320,680 in FY 2021
68

Safety Element Update

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: April 11, 2023
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Jennifer Rose, Housing, Economic Development, & Finance Manager, [email protected]
Agenda Title: Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo to Join a MultiJurisdictional Safety Element and Authorization of Project Funding Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with San Mateo County to join the Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Project with consultant support from PlaceWorks, Inc. and Community Planning Collaborative for the term of May 1, 2023 through May 1, 2026 with a total obligation not to exceed $155,113.

Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
The Belmont General Plan, adopted in November 2017, is a policy document that guides long range development of the City. It provides analysis, goals and policies related to land use, housing, transportation and circulation, parks recreation and open spaces, environmental quality, noise, and public health and safety.

Recent changes in State law require an update to the Safety Element of the General Plan. A Safety Element is a required element, or section, of a county or city’s general plan and includes the following main components.

1. Updated background information and mapping on hazardous conditions and evacuation concerns;

2. A vulnerability assessment that considers how climate change may affect natural hazards in the community, and the effects on populations and assets;

3. Amendments to goals, policies, objectives, and implementation measures, especially as they relate to climate change resiliency; and

4. Alignment of programs from other County planning documents and State resources.

In recent years, the complexity of safety elements has increased in response to new State requirements, more sophisticated mapping, and expanded community outreach based on higher levels of public interest in climate change and hazard planning.
69

Safety Element Update
• Assembly Bill (AB) 162 (2007) requires updates to flood hazard information and policies. • Senate Bill (SB) 1241 (2012) requires updates to fire hazard information and policies. • SB 379 (2015), amending Government Code Section 65302(g), requires cities and counties to include climate adaptation and resiliency information, policies, and implementation strategies in their safety elements. SB 379 also requires cities and counties to comply with updated safety element requirements following revision of a local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP) on or after January 1, 2017, or, if the local jurisdiction had not adopted a LHMP, beginning on or before January 1, 2022.
• SB 99 (2019) imposes requirements related to evacuations and wildfires, including a requirement to identify areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. • Detailed guidance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and Office of Emergency Services to local governments on how to prepare vulnerability assessments was not available until July 2020.

While the City of Belmont updated its Safety Element as part of the comprehensive General Plan update in November 2017, additional work is necessary for full compliance with the subjects of climate change adaptation and evacuation planning.

In late 2021, several agencies in San Mateo County expressed interest in collaborating on an update of their respective safety elements. The cities, towns, and County of San Mateo have a strong history of collaboration and resource sharing on housing-related initiatives through the 21 Elements Project. In addition, all 21 jurisdictions in the county collaborated on a Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP) which was completed in December 2021, providing baseline information for the safety element updates.

The purpose of this project is to address these safety element legal requirements and to share analysis and resources for greater efficiency for the jurisdictions participating in this collaborative effort. This project will update the safety elements of the County of San Mateo and six participating San Mateo County municipalities (Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, and San Bruno) to comply with latest requirements for safety elements, as described above and codified at Government Code 65302. The cities of Brisbane and Pacifica are participating in a few tasks, like the vulnerability analysis, but are not requesting a complete safety element update.

Analysis
In September 2022, the San Mateo County Planning and Building Department released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Project. The Department received two proposals in response to the RFP. The evaluation and selection committee determined the proposal submitted by PlaceWorks to be the most suitable based on the overall criteria of project understanding, qualifications of the consulting team, relative project experience, project approach and methodology, and proposed cost.

PlaceWorks has extensive experience with creating general plans, safety elements, and local hazard mitigation plans throughout California. Recently, PlaceWorks completed safety elements, vulnerability assessments, and/or climate adaptation plans for Santa Barbara County (2022) and the following Bay Area 70

Safety Element Update
communities: Contra Costa County, Solano County, Benicia, Dixon, Lafayette, Orinda, Rio Vista, San Mateo, Santa Rosa, Suisun City, Vacaville, Vallejo, and Windsor. PlaceWorks also has experience supporting a multi-jurisdictional safety element process in Solano County.

The scope of work for this project includes thoughtful approaches to community engagement and equity.

PlaceWorks has partnered with Climate Resilient Communities, a local nonprofit, to help lead engagement and outreach to community groups and hard-to-reach community members, and to provide equity reviews of work products. Climate Resilient Communities is a community-based organization dedicated to serving the underrepresented through empowering community voices to implement climate solutions that bring about unity and resilience.

Community Planning Collaborative (formerly Baird + Driskell Community Planning) has acted as the project manager for the Safety Element Collaborative Project through the Collaborative’s initial formation and the RFP process, ensuring that the voice of each participating agency is heard, and their needs addressed. Community Planning Collaborative also served as the lead consultant for the 21 Elements Project, which was originally created to assist San Mateo County jurisdictions (20 cities and the County) with required Housing Element updates and has now expanded to assist with other general plan updates.

Pursuant to San Mateo County Administrative Memorandum B-1, the County Community Development Director executed an agreement with Community Planning Collaborative to continue to serve as project manager for the Safety Element Collaborative Project, for a term of May 1, 2023 through May 1, 2026 and in an amount not to exceed $92,400.

Each participating agency will enter a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with San Mateo County to participate in the Safety Element Collaborative. This MOU outlines the services to be performed by the consultants and the participating agency’s contribution toward the costs of consultant services. All participating jurisdictions will have a staff member representing their agency on a Collaborative Steering Committee, which will oversee project progress and provide input the project direction or issues.

The San Mateo County Planning and Building Department will serve as the fiscal agent for the Safety Element Collaborative. As fiscal agent, the County will enter into agreements with the designated consultants and pay consultant invoices using deposits from all participating agencies.

Additional partners in the Safety Element Collaborative Project include the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability and San Mateo County Department of Emergency Management. A key stakeholder for this collaborative is OneShoreline, the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District.

OneShoreline will be a valuable resource for collaboration, clarification, and input on several aspects of the project.

Fiscal Impact
The term of the PlaceWorks, Inc. agreement is May 1, 2023, through May 1, 2026, in an amount not to exceed $1,224,016. Each participating agency is responsible for funding their portion of the agreement and project management costs, which, for the City of Belmont, is $143,178.

The term of the Community Planning Collaborative agreement is May 1, 2023 through May 1, 2026, in 71

Safety Element Update
an amount not to exceed $92,400. Each participating agency is responsible for funding their portion of the agreement, which, for the City of Belmont, is $11,935.

The City of Belmont’s full project contribution is $155,113. This amount was approved for the FY 2023 Budget via City Council Resolution 2023-024, as a part of the mid-year budget review.

City of Belmont Project Contributions
Safety Element Consulting (PlaceWorks)
Description Cost
Base Contract $118,507
Additional Scope Items
(public meetings/technical support)
$0
CEQA Contingency $12,821
General Contingency $11,851
Subtotal $143,178
Project Management (Community Planning Collaborative – 21 Elements) Description Cost
Base Contract $11,935
Subtotal $11,935
Total Contributions $155,113
Next Steps
To address the legal requirements to update the Safety Element of the General Plan and to share analysis and resources for greater efficiency, staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with San Mateo County to join the Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Project with consultant support from PlaceWorks, Inc. and Community Planning Collaborative for the term of May 1, 2023 through May 1, 2026 with a total obligation not to exceed $155,113.

On April 25, 2023, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors will consider approving the agreement with PlaceWorks and the MOUs with the municipalities of Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, and San Bruno, as agency participants in the Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Project.

Alternatives

1. Take no action, thereby deferring the Safety Element Update 72

Safety Element Update
Attachments
A. Resolution
B. MOU
C. MOU Exhibit A – City of Belmont Project Contribution D. MOU Exhibit B – PlaceWorks Scope and Fee Proposals
E. MOU Exhibit C – Community Planning Collaborative Scope and Fee Proposals Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

The City’s full project contribution of $155,113 was approved for the FY 2023 budget via City Council Resolution 2023-024, as a part of the FY 2023 mid-year budget review.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda 73

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT AUTHORIZING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR A MULTIJURISDICTIONAL SAFETY ELEMENT PROJECT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN

MATEO TO JOIN WITH THE MUNICIPALITIES OF ATHERTON, BELMONT,

BRISBANE, BURLINGAME, EAST PALO ALTO, HALF MOON BAY, PACIFICA, SAN BRUNO AS AGENCY PARTICIPANTS AND AUTHORIZING $155,113 OF

FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the cities, towns and County of San Mateo have a strong history of collaboration and resource sharing on various planning studies and initiatives, including a new initiative to participate in the Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Project (“Project”); and, WHEREAS, recent changes to State law require local jurisdictions to review and update the safety elements of the general plans to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies, fire hazards, flood hazards, and evacuation routes; and, WHEREAS, nine (9) jurisdictions in San Mateo County have formed a Safety Element Collaborative to address the legal requirements to update safety elements and to share analysis and resources for greater efficiency for the jurisdictions participating in this collaborative effort; and,
WHEREAS, seven (7) of the jurisdictions will participate in the Project’s full scope of work (Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County), and two (2) of the jurisdictions will participate in certain tasks (Brisbane and Pacifica); and,
WHEREAS, for the seven (7) jurisdictions participating in the Project’s full scope of work, a legally compliant safety element will be produced; and, WHEREAS, through a competitive request for proposals (RFP) process facilitated by San Mateo County, PlaceWorks, Inc. (“Contractor”) was identified as the preferred firm to provide consulting services for the development and outreach associated with the Project; and, WHEREAS, Community Planning Collaborative, the consulting firm for the 21 Elements Project, has served as the project manager (“Project Manager”) for the Safety Element Collaborative through the Collaboratives’ initial formation and the RFP process to ensure the voice of each participating agency is heard and their needs addressed; and, WHEREAS, Community Planning Collaborative will continue to serve as Project Manager for the Safety Element Collaborative for the duration of the Project; and, WHEREAS, the County will serve as fiscal agent for the Project and will enter into contracts with PlaceWorks, Inc. and Community Planning Collaborative and oversee the payment of invoices on behalf of the participating agencies; and, WHEREAS, each participating agency will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding 74

with the County outlining the roles of each participating agency, the County, the consultants, and the funding obligations for the Project.

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

SECTION 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with San Mateo County to join the Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Project with consultant support from PlaceWorks, Inc. and Community Planning Collaborative for the term of May 1, 2023 through May 1, 2026 with a total obligation not to exceed $155,113.

SECTION 2. The City Manager, in consultation with and agreement between the County and other participants, is authorized to make minor changes to the Memorandum of Understanding that may be necessary to ensure consistency, accuracy and clarification across all of the participating jurisdictions.
* * *
ADOPTED April 11, 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
75 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Between

SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
and

CITY OF BELMONT
for the

MULTIJURISDICTIONAL SAFETY ELEMENT PROJECT
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), effective the 1st day of May, 2023 is entered into by and between the County of San Mateo (“County”) and the City of Belmont (“Agency”), together referred to herein as the "Parties."
WHEREAS, the County and cities and towns in San Mateo County have a strong history of collaboration and resource sharing on various planning studies and initiatives, including a new initiative to participate in the Multijurisdictional Safety Element Project (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, recent changes to State law require local jurisdictions to review and update the safety elements of their general plans to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies, fire hazards, flood hazards, and evacuation routes; and WHEREAS, nine (9) jurisdictions in San Mateo County have formed a Safety Element Collaborative (“Collaborative” and “Collaborative Partners”) to address the legal requirement to update safety elements and to share analysis and resources for greater efficiency for the jurisdictions participating in this collaborative effort; and WHEREAS, seven (7) jurisdictions will participate in the full project scope of work (Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, San Mateo County), and two (2) jurisdictions will only participate in certain tasks (Brisbane, Pacifica); and
WHEREAS, for those agencies participating in the Collaborative’s full scope of work, a legally compliant safety element will be produced; and
WHEREAS, through a competitive RFP process facilitated by San Mateo County, PlaceWorks (“Contractor”) was identified as the preferred firm to provide consulting services 76 for the Project for tasks such as community engagement, the vulnerability assessment, and drafting updated safety elements; and
WHEREAS, Community Planning Collaborative, the consulting firm for the 21 Elements Project, has served as the project manager (“Project Manager”) for the Safety Element Collaborative through the Collaboratives’ initial formation and the RFP process to ensure the voice of each participating agency is heard and their needs addressed; and WHEREAS, Community Planning Collaborative will continue to serve as the Project Manager for the Safety Element Collaborative for the duration of the Project; and WHEREAS, the County will serve as the fiscal agent for the Project; and WHEREAS, the total cost of the Project is $1,316,416 and the Agency’s contribution is $155,113; and
WHEREAS, the County and Agency desire to enter into this MOU to memorialize the understanding that the Parties will work cooperatively to implement and fund the Project in accordance with the Parties will work cooperatively to implement and fund the Project in accordance with Exhibits A, B & C.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County and Agency agree as follows:

I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this MOU is to memorialize the understanding between the County and Agency that (1) the Agency wishes to participate in the Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Project, (2) the Agency wishes to utilize the Contractor and the Project Manager as the consulting team, and (3) the County will serve as the fiscal agent to facilitate the Project.

II. EXHIBITS
The following exhibits are attached to this MOU and incorporated into this MOU by this reference:

Exhibit A – Project Contributions by Agency
Exhibit B – PlaceWorks - Scope of Work and Fee Proposals Exhibit C – Community Planning Collaborative – Scope of Work and Fee Proposal 77 III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
a. The County will serve as the Fiscal Agent for the Project and will enter into separate agreements with Contractor and Project Manager. The County will review and process payments and invoices on behalf of the Collaborative Partners to the consultants pursuant to the terms of the relevant consulting agreements. b. The Agency will provide funding as set forth in Exhibit A for the Project and will participate in obligations identified in the Scope of Work in Exhibit B, including participating in the overall plan development and implementation. c. Community Planning Collaborative will serve as Project Manager and will manage and implement all aspects of the Project, in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit C.
d. PlaceWorks will serve as Contractor and will carry out the tasks described in the Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit B.

IV. FUNDING AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
a. Agency agrees to pay the County for the Agency contribution identified in Exhibit A of this MOU. The Agency agrees to pay the County either (1) 100% of its contribution by June 1, 2023, (2) 50% of its contribution by June 1, 2023 and the remaining 50% by August 1, 2023, or (3) 20% of its contribution by June 1, 2023, 60% by August 1, 2023, and the remaining 20% by August 1, 2024. The Agency will notify the County of its payment selection upon execution of this MOU.

1. The Contractor will submit invoices to the Project Manager on a monthly basis for Project activities. A brief narrative progress report shall be included with each invoice. The Project Manager will review the Contractor’s invoices and submit the invoices to the County for payment.

2. The Project Manager will submit the Project Manager’s invoices and brief narrative progress reports to the County on a monthly basis for review and payment.

3. The Contractor and Project Manager will provide a quarterly accounting of invoices, charged and remaining funds for each Collaborative Partner to the County and Agency.
b. The County and Agency each agree they are not entitled to reimbursement of costs incurred while performing obligations as set forth in Section III, Scope of Work Responsibilities.
c. In the event that the actual costs of completing the scopes of work, as set forth in Exhibits B and C, exceed the budgets set forth in Exhibits B or C, respectively, the Collaborative Partners, including the County and Agency, will confer and agree either to reduce the relevant scope of work and/or to provide additional funding subject to further written mutual agreement of the Parties. The Collaborative Partners agree to use best efforts in such case to reach resolution without causing a Project delay.
d. At the conclusion of the Project, the Project Manager will submit a final accounting to each Collaborative Partner with any remaining funds returned to each Collaborative Partner or a final invoice if required.
78 V. TERM
This MOU shall be effective from May 1, 2023 to May 1, 2026, unless terminated sooner pursuant to Section XIV.

VI. AMENDMENTS
The Agency contact, or designee, is authorized to make minor modifications to the scopes of work in Exhibits B and C, in consultation with the Project Manager and County, to respond to necessary changes as the Project evolves as long as the Project cost does not exceed the total approved cost estimate in Exhibit A. Such minor modifications to the scopes of work shall be documented in writing, but shall not require an amendment to this MOU.

This MOU can be amended, modified, or supplemented only in writing(s) signed by both Parties. No oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein will be binding on either of the Parties.

VII. INDEMNIFICATION
a. It is agreed that Agency shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify County and its officers, employees, agents, and servants from any and all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought by a third party which arise out of the terms and conditions of this MOU and which result from the acts or omissions of Agency and/or its officers, employees, agents, and servants. b. Agency shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify County from and against any and all claims for wages, salaries, benefits, taxes, and all other withholdings and charges payable to, or in respect to, Agency’s representatives for services provided under this MOU.
c. It is agreed that County shall defend, save harmless, and indemnify Agency and its officers, employees, agents, and servants from any and all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought by a third party which arise out of the terms and conditions of this MOU and which result from the acts or omissions of County and/or its officers and employees.
d. The duty of each party to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the other as set forth herein shall include the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code.
e. In the event of concurrent negligence (or intentional/reckless acts) of County and/or its officers and employees, on the one hand, and Agency and/or its officers, employees, agents, and servants, on the other hand, then the liability for any and all claims for injuries or damage to persons and/or property which arise out of terms and conditions of this MOU shall be apportioned according to the California theory of comparative fault.
f. This indemnification will survive termination or expiration of this MOU. 79 VIII. NOTICES
a. All notices and communications deemed by either party to be necessary or desirable must be in writing and may be given by personal delivery to a representative of the other party or by mailing the same, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

If to the County:

San Mateo County Planning & Building Department
455 County Center
2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Steve Monowitz, Director of Community Development
650/363-1861; [email protected]
If to the Agency:

City of Belmont
One Twin Pines Lane
Belmont, CA
Carlos de Melo, Community Development Director
650/595-7440; [email protected]
b. The address to which mailings may be made may be changed from time to time by notice mailed as described above. Any notice given by mail will be deemed given on the day after that on which it is deposited in the United States Mail as provided above.

IX. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
The Parties agree and understand that the work/services performed by either of the Parties or any consultant retained by either of the Parties under this MOU are performed as independent contractors and not as employees or agents of the other party. Nothing herein will be deemed to create any joint venture between the County and Agency.

X. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
Neither party will assign, transfer, or otherwise substitute its interest in this MOU, nor its obligations, without the prior written consent of the other party. All obligations created under this MOU will be binding on, and the rights established herein will inure to the benefit of, any successors or assigns of the Parties.

XI. COMPLIANCE
The Parties must comply with any and all laws, statues, ordinances, rules, regulations, or requirements of the federal, state, and local governments, and any agency thereof, which relate to or in any manner affect the performance of this MOU.

XII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The Parties agree to work together in good faith to resolve any dispute arising from this 80 MOU and agree to refer any dispute not resolved within 30 days to the County’s Community Development Director and Agency’s Planning Director for resolution. In the event resolution cannot be reached, the Parties may submit the dispute to mediation by a neutral party mutually agreed to by the Parties prior to initiating any formal action in court.

XIII. TERMINATION
Either Party may terminate this MOU with or without cause upon 30 days' prior written notice. If either Party terminates this MOU with or without cause, the Agency will be responsible for its pro rata share of costs incurred by the County or the County’s Project consultants up through the effective date of termination.

XIV. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this MOU is be deemed invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that provision will be reformed and/or construed consistently with applicable law as nearly as possible to reflect the original intentions of this MOU; and in any event, the remaining provisions of this MOU will remain in full force and effect.

XV. GOVERNING LAW
This MOU will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to contracts that are made and performed entirely in California.

XVI. NO WAIVER
No waiver of any default or breach of any covenant of this MOU by either party will be implied from any omission by either party to take action on account of such default if such default persists or is repeated. No express waiver will affect any default not specified in the waiver, and the waiver will be operative only for the time or extent stated.

The consent or approval by either party to or of any act by either party requiring further consent or approval will not be deemed to waive or render necessary consent or approval to any subsequent, similar acts.
81 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this MOU as follows:

CITY OF BELMONT
By: ____________________________
Julia Mates, Mayor
ATTEST:

By:________________________________
Afshin Oskoui, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ____________________________
Scott Rennie, City Attorney

SAN MATEO COUNTY
By: ____________________________
David Pine, President, Board of
Supervisors, County of San Mateo
ATTEST:

By:_________________________________
Michael Callagy, Clerk of Said Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ____________________________
Melissa Andrikopoulos, County Attorney
82 EXHIBIT A
City of Belmont Project Contributions
Safety Element Consulting (PlaceWorks)
Description Cost
Base Contract $118,507
Additional Scope Items
(public meetings/technical support)
$0
CEQA Contingency $12,821
General Contingency $11,851
Subtotal $143,178
Project Management (Community Planning Collaborative – 21 Elements) Description Cost
Base Contract $11,935
Subtotal $11,935
Total Contributions $155,113
83 Multi-Jurisdictional Safety
Element Update
for the County of San Mateo
February 9, 2023 | Revised Proposal for Services
84 Multi-Jurisdictional Safety
Element Update
for the County of San Mateo
February 9, 2023 | Revised Proposal for Services
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE www.placeworks.com
Prepared By: PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
t 510.848.3815
In Association with:

Atlas Planning Solutions
Nexus Planning & Research
Climate Resilient Communities
85 Technical
Proposal
86 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 3

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Understanding and Approach
California residents understand that natural hazards are an inescapable and inherent character of our state, and San Mateo County is no exception. Lakes and streams regularly shrink and swell in cycles of drought and downpours, hills and forests turn dry and burn, and the ground occasionally shakes and rumbles. As a background of all of this, the consequences of global climate change alter our expectations of normality, changing the frequency and intensity of many of our natural hazards, often with increasingly severe effects.

We cannot ignore these hazardous conditions, nor can we completely eliminate the risk they pose. The continued success of San Mateo County, as with the rest of our region and state, depends on finding ways to adapt to these conditions and increase our resilience to their harmful effects. We can reduce the chance of these hazards occurring, design our physical and social systems to resist their effects, and plan for rapid, effective responses and recovery when they do inevitably happen. The Safety Element of each jurisdiction’s General Plan serves as a comprehensive framework and foundation for
community resilience with goals, policies, and programs that address safety issues in the community, providing
opportunities to build community resilience throughout all phases of the emergency management cycle.

The PlaceWorks team understands that nine jurisdictions in San Mateo County have formed a Safety Element Collaborative (Collaborative) for a coordinated update of their Safety Elements (or in the case of Brisbane and Pacifica, selected aspects of the Safety Element). The Collaborative includes the County of San Mateo and the Cities of Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, and San Bruno (also referred to as Participating Agencies or Participating Jurisdictions). The updated Safety Elements should be responsive to all applicable State laws and pertinent public safety issues, including climate change, the intersection between risks and equity, and evacuation access. For many of these communities, there is a significant amount of overlap in the types of hazard conditions they must address (refer to Table 1). In addition, they should integrate with other safety-related planning efforts, including the recently updated Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, local emergency operation plans, and climate adaptation plans, and comprehensively address both short-term and long-term safety and resilience issues.

Disaster
Response
Mitigation Recovery
Preparation
The emergency management cycle
87 Technical Proposal
4 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update Table 1. Participating Jurisdictions and Hazards of Concern Jurisdiction Scope
Participation
Hazards of Concern
Dam
Inundation
Evacuation
Concerns Flooding GeologicLandslides
GeologicLiquefaction
Sea
Level
Rise
Tsunami
Wildfire

CAL FIRE
review
San Mateo
County
Full        
Atherton Full    
Belmont Full ex. SB 99        
Brisbane VA & Maps      
Burlingame Full      
East Palo
Alto
Full      
Half Moon
Bay
Full        
Pacifica VA & Maps      
San Bruno Full      
Tailored Holistic Planning
While recognizing the importance of having safety elements that are tailored to each community, the PlaceWorks team understands that these elements must mesh and sync up with each other to create a unified framework to public safety and resilience as much as possible. The successful efforts of OneShoreline illustrate how effective a county-wide approach can be when it comes to policy frameworks, capital projects, educational efforts, and data sharing, among others. Although not all jurisdictions in San Mateo County are participating in this project, we still intend to pursue cross-boundary analyses and solutions that can help inform surrounding communities and which other communities may be able to join later. For example, unincorporated San Mateo County, Half Moon Bay, and Belmont include very high fire hazard severity zones.

As feasible, a unified approach to reduce the risks to new and existing development in these zones can help ensure increased protection across community limits and make sure these Participating Jurisdictions are prepared for any future fires.

The PlaceWorks team understands that despite the relatively close proximity of the nine Participating Jurisdictions, there are substantial differences between these communities. These differences include physical distinctions, such as terrain and distribution of land uses; socioeconomic differences among community residents, such as income; a range of community characteristics, including quality and age of housing stock; exposure to different hazards and safety issues; and numerous other factors. 88 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 5
We know that this project cannot be approached as a single Safety Element distributed to each community.

Each community must receive analyses, policies, community engagement strategies, and other resources as part of their Safety Element that is uniquely prepared for that community’s needs. Pacifica’s vulnerabilities are different from Belmont’s, and many policy solutions that work for East Palo Alto are not likely to be applicable to Atherton. We pride ourselves on working with municipal agency staff, community-based organizations (CBOs), and other local experts to better understand the unique challenges and opportunities facing each community, allowing us to prepare plans that are specifically suited to each jurisdiction and not cookie-cutter “one-size-fits-all” documents.

Assessing Vulnerability Through an Equity Lens
The PlaceWorks team is aware that acknowledging and helping to correct inequities is a key principle of this planning effort, and this is a topic we are eager to address. Our team understands the nexus between equity and resilience, recognizing that lack of access to secure housing, financial resources, healthcare and education, decision-making, and numerous other consequences of systemic injustices and marginalization make an individual or a group more likely to be harmed by natural hazards and their consequences, both directly and indirectly. Many populations in the Participating Jurisdictions have experienced such discrimination and vulnerability, and we see a key part of our role as learning from their experiences and using our understanding of equity issues to elevate their needs and priorities.

Part of our understanding of equity, disproportionate impacts, and vulnerability is knowing the different forms that these issues take. There are numerous factors that contribute to vulnerability, and we want to make sure that the updated Safety Elements comprehensively address these issues. For example, it is well known that income and other financial resources are one of the biggest determinants of resilience. Higherincome persons can more easily afford to rehabilitate and harden their homes, pay for protective resources, absorb temporary loss of income from hazard-related impacts, relocate to less vulnerable areas, and take many other steps to reduce their vulnerability. However, this does not mean that wealthy individuals may not also be vulnerable to the effects of natural hazards. In a county where the median income for a family of four is $166,000, factors such as overpaying for housing, overcoming obstacles to home ownership (e.g., lack of affordable homes, saving for down payment), and overcrowding can contribute substantially to vulnerability. Social isolation, access and functional needs, chronic health conditions, and many other factors also make an individual more sensitive to natural hazards regardless of their financial resources. A key goal of these Safety Element updates will focus on working with community members, CBOs, and jurisdiction staff to ensure that these plans include a comprehensive understanding of vulnerability that accurately reflects • Brisbane: 4,850
•Unincorporated
San Mateo
County: 129,270
Population
• East Palo Alto:
$83,510
•Atherton: Over
$250,000
Median
household
income
•Half Moon Bay:
49%
• San Bruno: 84%
Percentage of
houses built
before 1980
89 Technical Proposal
6 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update the very real needs and priorities of the most at-risk groups, while also not excluding those who may not be considered “traditionally” vulnerable but who may still suffer disproportionate impacts.

County-wide income limits for a household of four and median household income.

Taking the Long View
Under recent changes to State law, safety elements must be reviewed and updated (as needed) at least every eight years. Despite this, safety elements must continue to provide a framework for long-term safety and resilience. While they can (and should) include relevant short-term actions, as a part of the General Plan, a safety element should traditionally support community action for 15 to 30 years. However, the PlaceWorks team understands that this historic horizon is no longer sufficient in the era of climate change, and that our communities should be planning for conditions decades in the future. We know that a building or piece of critical infrastructure constructed during the eight-year active period of these safety elements may still be operational by 2100. For example, Census data shows that approximately 11 percent of the houses in San Mateo
County were constructed before 1940, long before the
advent of modern building codes, safety standards, or
many of the other land use planning tools that inform
today’s development. Meanwhile, consider that State
guidance recommends planning for at least 84 inches of
sea level rise by 2100, a level that would cause significant inundation in parts of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and the
unincorporated county, and would likely create impacts in $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000
Acutely
low
Extremely
low Very low Low Moderate
Above
moderate
East Palo
Alto
County average, San
Bruno, and Brisbane
Belmont Atherton
Pacifica and
Half Moon Bay
2100 sea level rise projections in East Palo Alto, according to Adapting to Rising Tides modeling.

Burlingame
90 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 7
all other communities. We understand the importance of planning our communities now to account for longterm future conditions, helping to ensure that future generations, including the infrastructure and critical facilities that they rely on, are out of harm’s way as much as possible and are prepared for hazard events.

Inclusive Community Engagement
Any plan must have support from the community, or its success is in jeopardy. The PlaceWorks team understands the importance of building community backing for the Safety Element updates. Our approach to community engagement for comprehensive planning and resilience projects ensures that community member concerns, goals, priorities, and values are elevated in the Safety Element updates and made central to their intent. Our approach to public engagement emphasizes the importance of conducting outreach to as broad a segment of the community as possible, including to people who historically have not participated in community planning efforts. This includes using a range of in-person and virtual engagement approaches and tools, using interactive and compelling ways to gather community feedback, and making information available to community members in plain, easy-to-understand ways to help support informed participation.

Critically, we intend to collaborate very closely with CBOs and jurisdictions’ staff to understand how best to reach out to community members, to learn what strategies have been successful in the past, as well as what’s working well now in similar projects in Participating Jurisdictions, and to improve the engagement process.

We also intend to collaborate with CBOs and jurisdiction staff to conduct outreach in other languages, as necessary.

Feasible Implementation
We cannot overstate the importance of implementation, and as many of our staff are former public jurisdiction staff themselves, the PlaceWorks team understands that a plan that only sits on the shelf is of no value to anyone regardless of how nicely it reads or how well it was put together. It is critical that the strategies in the Safety Elements be appropriate and feasible for the communities, including that they can be implemented with available staff time, funding levels, and other resources. Right now, there are numerous opportunities to fund safety, resilience, and adaptation work coming from regional, state, and federal sources, as well as private organizations. We plan to prepare Safety Elements that help to best position the Participating Jurisdictions to secure these funds and take advantage of other emerging resources that can support these efforts.
91 Technical Proposal
8 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update Scope of Work
PlaceWorks supports the work program presented in the Request for Proposals (RFP) with minor modifications. The work program described in this section includes all tasks identified in the RFP plus an additional sub task for project management and coordination with the Community Planning Collaborative (CPC) Project Manager in Task 1 and small modifications to combine sub tasks. Task 1, project coordination and communication, is an ongoing task. Task 2, community engagement and equity approach, will occur throughout the process with targeted outreach or touchpoints at key points in the process. Tasks 3 through 10 will occur sequentially as each task builds up to the final review and approval of the Safety Element.

Our Scope of Work presents our proposed approach to the project; however, we look forward to discussing the approach with the Collaborative and adjusting it as needed to support achievement of the project goals.

We recognize that not all Participating Agencies will participate in all tasks. Our understanding of agency participation by task is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Participating Agency Participation by Task
Participating Agency Participation by Task
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Atherton         
Belmont          
Brisbane    
Burlingame         
East Palo Alto         
Half Moon Bay          
Pacifica   
San Bruno         
Unincorporated San
Mateo County
         
92 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 9
Task 1. Project Coordination and Communication

1.1 Collaborative Steering Committee
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The PlaceWorks team will participate in meetings with the Collaborative Steering Committee throughout the project. As noted in the RFP, we anticipate this Collaborative will include participation by at least one representative from each Participating City and San Mateo County, in addition to the CPC Project Manager and staff the PlaceWorks team.

Meetings of the Collaborative Steering Committee will be opportunities to share information, provide feedback at key points in the process, discuss options and opportunities for community engagement, and review approaches to addressing key hazards of concern.

As part of the project kick-off meeting, we propose to review the project schedule and identify topics, key project milestones, and opportunities to engage the Collaborative Steering Committee. Some topics, like community engagement, will likely occur on each meeting agenda, though the time needed will vary by phase of the project. For scoping purposes, we anticipate up to nine (9) meetings by video conference with the Steering Committee.

PlaceWorks will develop the meeting approach and draft agenda in collaboration with the CPC Project Manager and prepare deliverables and presentation materials for each meeting. PlaceWorks and the CPC Project Manager will identify key decisions and discussion items for each agenda. PlaceWorks will review meeting materials with the CPC Project Manager before distribution to the Committee members. After each meeting, the CPC Project Manager will prepare and distribute a high-level summary of key points, action items, decisions, and next steps. PlaceWorks understands the CPC Project Manager will facilitate each meeting and that the PlaceWorks team will lead presentation and discussion of our work products during the meeting. All meetings will be held online through Zoom.

Our scope for this task assumes the CPC Project Manager will lead the formation and overall coordination of this Committee and serve as the Committee’s primary point of contact. At the time of project initiation, the Committee and PlaceWorks will confirm the preferred option(s) for sharing files, either through email or through a file-sharing site that is accessible by all Committee members.

1.2 Participating Agency Technical Advisory Committees and 1x1 Support Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Each Participating Agency has the option to create a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to provide topicspecific feedback and guidance on the development of their jurisdiction’s Safety Element. TACs may include staff representatives from planning, building, public works, emergency management, parks, police/sheriff, Collaborative Steering
Committee Members
Project Manager:

Community Planning
Collaborative (CPC)/21
Elements
Representatives from 8
Participating Cities and
County of San Mateo Dept.
of Planning & Building and
Office of Sustainability
Consultant Team
93 Technical Proposal
10 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update fire, city manager/county executive’s office, and other departments as identified by the Participating Agency.

Each TAC will be coordinated by the key staff from the Participating Agency who will use materials prepared by PlaceWorks to support their discussions and decisions.

The role of the TAC is to support preparation of the Safety Element Update and to provide communityspecific expertise and background to the project team. We recommend TACs review interim and draft project deliverables and provide important feedback to the PlaceWorks team. An example of an interim deliverable is the review of draft lists of populations, hazards, and assets and confirmation of mapped data that will be used to inform the key task of vulnerability scoring. This interim deliverable leads to the main task of conducting a Vulnerability Assessment. It will be important to the success of the Safety Element for Participating Agency staff with direct knowledge and local expertise to contribute to the project. Most meetings will be to ensure key tasks are moving forward and producing locally appropriate results, although some meetings might need to be reserved for focused issue-specific discussions, like wildfire or flooding.

Some of the work of the TAC can be done through email and may not require an in-person or virtual meeting of all members. We recommend a brief kick-off for each TAC that includes a review of the project schedule and roles and responsibilities to set expectations. The formation and role of TAC will vary by Participating Agency. For budgeting purposes, we will provide the following support for each Participating Agency per their request:
» Cities of Atherton, Brisbane, and Pacifica: No formal TAC meetings; all coordination will occur by email.

PlaceWorks will support informal communication and coordination appropriate to key deliverables. » Cities of Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, and San Bruno: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved for PlaceWorks staff to participate in TAC meetings (virtual attendance).
» County of San Mateo: Meeting support and attendance in up to eight (8) TAC meetings. Our budget assumes 6 hours of PlaceWorks team time to prepare for, attend, and summarize each meeting, assuming average TAC meeting duration is 90 minutes.

For each meeting, the PlaceWorks team will provide a briefing packet that includes draft project deliverables and project updates that each agency can share with their own internal jurisdiction-specific TAC. The timing of the meetings will align with key product deliverables and milestones. In our experience, we have found it helpful to agency staff and the project when the consultant team is available to meet with interdepartmental teams, like TACs, to review materials, questions, and comments in a timely manner and ensuring an efficient and consistent process. Our participation is at the discretion of the project team and the budget.

In addition to TACs, one-on-one meetings with the key staff from the Participating Agencies will be helpful throughout the project, in addition to the Collaborative Steering Committee and TAC meetings. These oneon-one meetings will allow time for more detailed review and discussion of key issues or deliverables for one community. Between scheduled meetings, PlaceWorks will be available to coordinate and communicate with Participating Agencies by email or by phone if that is easier.

Our budget assumes time for at least three one-on-one meetings (up to 1-hour meeting time per meeting) by video conference for each Participating Agency. As part of this task, we will also offer all Participating Jurisdictions up to four (4), shared drop-in sessions or “office hours” as an additional opportunity for Participating Agency staff to sign-up or drop-in with a question. Office hours will be hosted through Zoom with the option for small breakout rooms based on a topic or deliverable. 94 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 11

1.4 Ongoing Project Management
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Consistent and regular communication between the CPC Project Manager and the PlaceWorks team throughout the project will provide the opportunity for the project team to coordinate and keep the project moving forward on time and within budget. This task includes a project kick-off meeting and regular project check-ins of the project management team. At the project kick-off meeting, we will establish a schedule for project check-ins with the CPC Project Manager.

Our budget assumes one monthly 1-hour meeting during most of the project or one 30-minute check-in meeting twice a month, throughout the 24-month project. During these progress meetings, the PlaceWorks project management team and CPC Project Manager will discuss deliverables and active tasks for the Safety Element Update, identify any issues of concern and potentials solutions, and generally review the progress of the project. Other staff may join occasional meetings as needed. Prior to each meeting, we will work with staff to draft an agenda and identify the necessary participants to best meet the needs of each meeting. The status meetings will be in addition to regular email and phone communication between project team members.

This task includes project management activities, such as monitoring and tracking the budget, preparing and reviewing monthly invoices, maintaining the schedule, and managing the overall team throughout the process. The monthly invoice will detail PlaceWorks’ labor and expenses by task.

Deliverables:
» Monthly invoices and progress memos (electronic).
» Regular check-in meetings with the CPC Project Manager, including agenda preparation and action item summaries (by email).
» Regular email communication and coordination with the CPC Project Manager and leads for each Participating Agency.
» Preparation for and participation of the project management team in up to nine (9) meetings of the Collaborative Steering Committee (online/virtual).
» Preparation for and participation in Technical Advisory Committee meetings as follows:
» Town of Atherton: No TAC meetings; email coordination/communication only. » City of Belmont: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved for PlaceWorks staff to participate in one or more TAC meetings (virtual attendance). » City of Brisbane: No TAC meetings; email coordination/communication only. » City of Burlingame: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved for PlaceWorks staff to participate in one or more TAC meetings (virtual attendance). » City of East Palo Alto: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved for PlaceWorks staff to participate in one or more TAC meetings (virtual attendance). » City of Half Moon Bay: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved for PlaceWorks staff to participate in one or more TAC meetings (virtual attendance). » City of Pacifica: No TAC meetings; email coordination/communication only. » City of San Bruno: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved for PlaceWorks staff to participate in one or more TAC meeting (virtual attendance). 95 Technical Proposal
12 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update » County of San Mateo: Full support, including attendance, for up to eight (8) TAC meetings. » Participation in up to three (3) one-on-one meetings with Participating Agencies (online/virtual).

Participating Jurisdictions can use their contingency budget if additional meeting time is needed. » Up to four (4) virtual, shared office hour sessions (1 hour per session).

Task 2. Community Engagement and Equity Approach
Project success depends on successful community engagement. PlaceWorks ensures this by working with clients to create a solid yet flexible community engagement plan that will guide engagement efforts throughout the project. We strive for a community engagement process that invites participation, provides a safe and inclusive collaborative space, builds capacity, and strengthens community relationships and ensures the end product reflects the community’s experience and goals.

Our team offers the San Mateo County Collaborative expertise in community engagement and how community engagement can inform and improve the technical tasks, like the Vulnerability Assessment and policy development. Our team has recently worked in communities, like Butte County, Santa Rosa, and Santa Barbara County that experienced devastating hazard events and has developed engagement plans that are sensitive to and create space for the emotional, social, and physical disruption and loss, and trauma, caused by these events and supportive techniques to reflect and improve the community’s public safety and hazard mitigation framework to support recovery and resiliency in the face of likely future events. We also have worked in Bay Area and Peninsula communities to integrate equity and environmental justice into comprehensive plans. We look forward to the opportunity to partner with the Participating Agencies and CBOs to engage with stakeholders in the Participating Jurisdictions. We recognize that many communities have started conversations around climate change, adaptation, and resilience, and our team will work diligently to get up-to-speed with recent and ongoing work to ensure it is incorporated into the project and the outreach approach.

We support the Community Engagement tasks presented in the RFP and offer the following approach to these tasks. In some instances, we found the RFP approach to be similar to our recommendation. We recognize these are minimum levels of outreach; however, we have followed many of the same tasks in similar projects and find them to be successful for a Safety Element Update as scoped in Tasks 3-10. As noted in the RFP, we recognize the following assumptions for this task:
 PlaceWorks will lead the development and implementation of certain tasks and defer to CBO partners and/or Participating Agency staff to lead other tasks, with support from the PlaceWorks team, as noted in the sub-task descriptions.
 PlaceWorks commits to designing outreach materials to be easily accessible to non-technical audiences and include the use of graphics and illustrations.
 PlaceWorks and CRC will provide language translation as identified in this Scope of Work. Language translation will be limited to public outreach and communication items identified in Task 2. The contingency budget is available to support additional translation and/or interpretation if requested by the Participating Jurisdictions. PlaceWorks will ensure that there is sufficient time to review and translate materials and ensure they meet equity and inclusion goals.
96 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 13
 PlaceWorks will attend only online outreach events, while most in-person events will be attended by agency staff or contracted CBOs. In our task descriptions, we have noted opportunities for PlaceWorks to support in-person events if needed.
 Each Participating Agency will use their communication channels (social media, web) to publicize the outreach initiatives. PlaceWorks will provide marketing content to support these tools.

2.1 Community Engagement Plan
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

We begin our community engagement planning process for every project with preparation of an outreach and engagement approach or Community Engagement Plan (CEP). The engagement plan is the foundation for the engagement process and provides transparency to all participants throughout the process. We follow the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2)’s core values and code of ethics in our approach and design our strategies with IAP2’s Spectrum of Public Participation in mind, with flexibility to support community-driven processes. PlaceWorks is a member of IAP2 and supports ongoing training of our staff to ensure we are responsive to best practices and techniques.

For each phase of the planning process, we collaborate with staff to identify the desired level of engagement on the spectrum (inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower), who should be involved, why they should be involved, what their involvement will mean to the process and project, how they should be involved, and how we will use their input in the process and project. We work with our clients to develop goals and their commitment to the public for the outreach and planning process, and to ensure those goals and objectives are shared with all stakeholders throughout the process.

Developing and implementing a strong community engagement process is a cornerstone of our work. As a result, PlaceWorks’ projects reflect the interests and concerns of community members and decision makers.

We employ a variety of in-person and online outreach tools—including workshops, open houses, stakeholder discussion groups, listening sessions, pop-up events, intercept surveys, phone calls, online surveys, and special events—to elicit creative input and participation from all stakeholders. By successfully opening dialogue and building support, we help move projects from vision to final approval. We are also able to support translation and interpretation in a variety of languages.

At the kick-off meeting with the Collaborative Steering Committee, we will facilitate an outreach assessment and discussion with Participating Agency staff to learn about previous, ongoing, and planned community engagement approaches and strategies for similar projects, begin to identify key stakeholders and opportunities for engagement, and discuss goals and objectives for the engagement process. Following the kick-off meeting, PlaceWorks will prepare a draft Community Engagement Plan (CEP) integrating the feedback and guidance from Participating Agencies. We anticipate the draft CEP that will be shared with the Collaborative Steering Committee and the prospective CBO(s) for review and input. Following their review, PlaceWorks will revise the CEP, discuss revisions with staff, and prepare a working draft CEP. This version will guide the outreach and engagement activities, with the option to modify as needed to respond to unexpected information or changes in conditions.
97 Technical Proposal
14 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update For scoping purposes, we anticipate that the CEP will include the following:
 The purpose and desired outcomes for community engagement throughout the planning process and for the project overall.
 Identify target audiences and include a list of community stakeholders with identification of their networks and areas of expertise, preferred outreach and engagement opportunities for stakeholder types, and key questions and information for stakeholders.
 Public information items, including the project timeline, a process chart showing the relationship of community engagement activities to the plan preparation process, deliverables, and similar materials.  Protocol for documenting engagement activities and sharing the results with the project team and members of the public.
 Indicators of assessing effectiveness of community engagement and a process to collect information.  A protocol for communication, including how the project will be branded and messaged.  Protocol for marketing in-person and online engagement events. Promotion of the project and related community engagement opportunities will be through a mix of techniques to reach residents and stakeholders, including articles in agency newsletters, inclusion in newsletters or e-blasts from Council or Board members, social media postings, newspaper advertisements, postings on online community calendars, email blasts, word of mouth, and other techniques found successful by agency and CBO staff for similar projects.
 Protocol for interpretation and translation of English to Spanish for events and materials.  A description of community engagement activities, including targeted stakeholders, purposes, costs, timing, and approach for each activity based on the activities included in Task 2. This will include general community engagement and strategies for inclusive and equity-focused engagement to engage communities that are traditionally under-represented in planning processes.  A schedule of outreach activities, including the responsible team members, location, format, and needs for each event.
 Roles and responsibilities of the PlaceWorks team, Participating Agencies, the CPC project manager, CBOs, community members and stakeholders, and supporting agencies.

2.2 Equity Approach
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

As noted in the RFP, we’ve retained the Equity Approach as a stand-alone task; however, we anticipate preparation of this approach as part of the Community Engagement Plan though it will be identified separately. The intention of this task is to clearly identify how equity will be incorporated into public engagement and all aspects of project development and execution. As part of our approach to integrating equity into project development, we will review best practices and case studies used in the region to assess goals, policies, and actions with equity considerations. In addition, we will ensure the community and 98 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 15
stakeholder engagement approach is sensitive to community characteristics. We support the Collaborative’s acknowledgement that communities of color, low-income communities, persons with disabilities, and other historically underrepresented groups bear a disproportionately high-risk burden in relation to natural hazards and face higher exposure to hazards with fewer resources to withstand and recover from them. We fully support and commit to meaningfully engagement of these groups throughout this project to ensure that their lived experiences with hazard risk and priorities for policies and implementation strategies are reflected in the updated Safety Elements.

2.3 Community-Based Organizations Partnerships
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

In most of our recent comprehensive planning and community-scale design projects, PlaceWorks has partnered with one or more CBOs to support general and focused community outreach and engagement.

We highlighted two examples of these partnerships in our discussion of our firm’s cultural competence. In addition to PlaceWorks’ experience with CBOs in the county and the Bay Area, our teaming partners Atlas Planning Solutions and Nexus Planning are currently contracting with CBO partners to support outreach for the Santa Clara County Safety Element Update. We anticipate some CBOs supporting the Santa Clara County project that are based in San Mateo County will also have an interest in the San Mateo County Collaborative Safety Element Update project.

Our goal is to continue successful partnerships in previous efforts to conduct targeted outreach with small group meetings, pop-up events, and other engagement efforts. We agree that CBOs are trusted voices within their communities and can provide targeted outreach to groups based on hazard issues, geography, special needs, or equitable engagement.

This task will be led by Climate Resilient Communities (CRC), a local CBO that is well established in the county with trusted partnerships and a successful track record with engagement and community-driven planning for climate resilience. CRC is part of the PlaceWorks outreach and engagement team and will have a leading role in the identification and engagement of San Mateo County-based CBOs in this process and the targeted outreach and engagement for hard-to-reach community members. Their work to identify, include, and engage local CBOs is integrated into multiple outreach and engagement sub-tasks. CRC will also provide equity-focused reviews of select project deliverables to ensure goals, policies, and implementation programs reflect the input and expertise received during community and stakeholder engagement.

This task is primarily dedicated to coordination with and compensation for the local CBO participation. CRC will be a collaborator in the preparation of the overall Community Engagement Plan, during which time their role in supporting multiple outreach tasks will be defined. CRC will lead identification of and outreach to key CBO partners as well as representatives of hard-to-reach and vulnerable populations that might not be represented by a formal CBO. CRC’s work on this project will build from lessons learned and successes in similar outreach and engagement supporting the LHMP and adaptation planning work in the county.

The budget for this task assumes compensation of targeted stakeholders up to $25 per hour, assuming an average of 2 hours per meeting, activity, or event. During preparation of the engagement plan, the project team will detail the terms of eligibility for compensation. Priority use of the compensation will be to support engagement of hard-to-reach community groups, vulnerability populations, and others as outline in Task 2.5 99 Technical Proposal
16 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update with funds also being available for participation in community workshops and review of draft materials if supported by the Collaborative. The approach to compensation will be transparent, accountable, and equitable.

2.4 Community Workshops
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

As part of a community engagement plan, we anticipate community workshops serving as one key opportunity for broad community engagement. The purpose of the community workshops will be to provide agency-wide and county-wide opportunities for the public to provide input and engage with the Safety Element process. We support the use of virtual community workshops to provide opportunities for broad access. As we have worked with our clients to provide meaningful engagement opportunities throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and changing conditions, PlaceWorks developed guiding principles and best practices for virtual engagement and developed expertise in using various online meeting and collaboration tools. The agenda and activities used for each workshop will reflect the desired outcomes and expected participants for the workshop. During virtual meetings, we use a mix of presentations, polls, small group discussions with dedicated facilitators and notetakers, transparent and live notetaking using Google Docs (or similar online tool), and a variety of online activities using Mentimeter, Jamboard, or similar tools to receive input and feedback.

We ensure our virtual meetings are accessible during and after the event. During the meeting, we enable the chat feature, provide closed captioning and an option for interpretation to other languages as appropriate to our projects and clients. Before the meeting, we provide workshop registrants and participants with pre-meeting materials and emails. We supplement our virtual meetings with online content, usually through a project website, online surveys, and social media posts. These materials will be provided in English and translated to Spanish as noted in the list of deliverables for this task. After the meeting, we will send a post-event survey and provide a recording that can be posted on the project website for viewing at the convenience of stakeholders. We prefer to use the Zoom platform to host virtual workshops or events, but we are comfortable and able to use other software if preferred by Participating Agencies.

For each workshop series, PlaceWorks will provide the workshop approach, agenda, marketing materials (e.g. flyer, e-blast/newsletter content, social media content), a PowerPoint presentation with speaking notes, facilitator training, appropriate digital engagement tools, a meeting summary, meeting recording, and a summary for each phase. We will coordinate and collaborate with partner CBOs on workshop design and materials to ensure that the workshops are accessible to a wide range of community members. For each workshop, the PlaceWorks team will provide a facilitator/moderator and a key staff member to present technical or project details. We can provide additional staff on a time-and-materials basis. As noted in the RFP, workshop approaches that use breakout rooms will be supported by Participating Agency staff and/or partner CBOs following facilitator training provided by PlaceWorks. PlaceWorks will manage logistics.

For scoping purposes, we assume two series of workshops with two workshops in each round for a total of four virtual community workshops for the project. During development of the Community Engagement Plan, we will further develop the timing and content of the workshop; though as noted in the RFP, we anticipate 100
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 17
one round of workshops during Task 3, preparation of the vulnerability assessment, and one round during Tasks 5 and 6, during development of goals, policies, and implementation actions.

All community workshops will be facilitated in English. Simultaneous interpretation from English to Spanish or other languages can be provided on a time-and-materials basis upon request. The contingency budget can be used to accommodate these costs at the request of a Participating Agency.

2.5 Hard-to-Reach / Community Group Meetings
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The Community Engagement Plan will provide options and recommendations for smaller community group meetings or activities to complement the larger community workshops and allow outreach to specific groups that are often hard-to-reach, historically underrepresented in community engagement, identified as vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, and/or offer focused expertise on a certain hazard, population, hazard, or other component of the project. We’ve found in-person, small group meetings to be excellent opportunities to have meaningful discussions and receive helpful input for climate adaptation and resilience projects. Through preparation of the Community Engagement Plan, we will determine the locations and target participants for these meetings. They could address specific geographic areas, topics, vulnerable populations and communities, and/or historically underrepresented groups.

PlaceWorks, in partnership with our CBO partner Climate Resilient Communities (CRC), will create a Toolkit for these small group meetings. The Toolkit could include a PowerPoint presentation with discussion questions and/or live polling exercises and promotional flyer and text for promotion through various networks. As noted in the RFP, Agency Staff and/or CRC will use the Toolkits to present Safety Element information and lead discussions with community groups. The groups will be identified during preparation of the Engagement Plan (Task 2.1).

CRC staff will organize, promote, and attend a minimum of seven in-person Hard-to-reach/Community Group Meetings to provide technical expertise, answer questions, and take notes on community input.

Simultaneous interpretation from English to Spanish or other languages can be provided on a time-andmaterials basis upon request. CRC will identify language needs during preparation of the meeting approaches and invitation lists for these meetings.

2.6 Stakeholder Meetings
In addition to engagement of community organizations, the Safety Element updates will benefit from engagement of other key stakeholders, such as service providers and partners in emergency preparedness, risk reduction, response, and management. This task targets private and public sector service providers like utilities (PG&E, water/wastewater providers, Caltrans, OneShoreline, etc.). Engaging service providers (including public, non-profit, and for-profit providers of energy, water, transportation, and communication services), agency partners, business owners, employers, public land managers, and other community partners early in the process supports preparation of the vulnerability assessment and safety elements. This focused engagement supports preparation of goals, policies, and strategies that build upon the successes and lessons learned, leverage existing and potential programs that share resilience goals and/or co-benefits, 101
Technical Proposal
18 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update reflects shared values, and ensures a collaborative and equitable approach to implementation. The PlaceWorks team will coordinate with the Collaborative to prepare a stakeholder list during preparation of the engagement plans, recognizing the Participating Agencies have several stakeholder groups with which to coordinate and leverage for guidance, input, and feedback.

The approach to engagement will be small, facilitated group meetings or conversations hosted through Zoom. Each group can be organized by location, stakeholder type, hazard, asset, or population group.

PlaceWorks will lead preparation of meeting logistics, agenda, discussion questions, facilitation, and a summary for each meeting. The full series will include up to six meetings of 8-12 participants (no more than 15 per group) and will occur during Task 3, preparation of mapping and the vulnerability assessment. The PlaceWorks team will provide a facilitator and notetaker for each meeting. At the completion of all stakeholder meetings, PlaceWorks will prepare a memo summarizing what we heard during the discussions.

2.7 Develop Project Website
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

PlaceWorks will create and maintain an accessible and engaging website for the Safety Element Update. The website will contain information about the project, including an explanation of the project, its key steps and products, and what it means to stakeholders; a description of the Safety Element preparation process; project schedule and updates as major milestones are achieved; links to each Participating Jurisdiction’s website for review of existing safety elements and related materials; a document library; links to other relevant resources; frequently asked questions (and answers); contact information; and an opportunity to submit comments and questions, if desired. The website can be organized to allow viewing by geographic area as well as by key topics and hazards.

The website will also provide information about upcoming events and activities, including community events, online engagement opportunities, and Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisors meetings on the Safety Element Updates. Activities may include online surveys and interactive exercises. Public review draft documents will be posted on the website when available, and links to other online engagement or interactive products developed for the project, such as Esri-based maps, will also be provided if desired.

PlaceWorks staff will be responsible for creating, managing, and updating the website for the duration of the project. PlaceWorks will prepare a mock-up of the website for the Collaborative’s review and approval prior to building it. PlaceWorks will share a draft build of the website for the Collaborative’s review and incorporate staff comments prior to launching the website. This scope does not assume significant redesign or restructuring of the website once it is launched. Upon completion of the project, PlaceWorks can transfer management of the website to the County if desired.
102
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 19

2.8Mapped Survey Tool
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Leveraging Survey123 for ArcGIS, PlaceWorks will create an interactive, map-based online survey that stakeholders can access with any device with an internet connection (i.e., computer, tablet, smartphone, or similar devices). Survey123 allows for web-based survey forms and for the creation of interactive activities that incorporate the online surveys with interactive activities that allow the user to place location-based comments, attach images, and incorporate other geographic information in their responses. (This feature is optimized when using a smart phone with location services enabled.)
This tool will connect residents with information, decision makers, and other residents in a professionally facilitated community discussion that builds public awareness of and trust in the project process, without constraints on the time, place, or method of public input. We propose to use this mapped survey tool to support community outreach and engagement related to identification of hazards, impacts, and adaptive capacity as part of the Vulnerability Assessment. Based on recent storm events, we anticipate receiving valuable information related to experiences with wildfire and flooding in particular.

PlaceWorks will prepare one survey activity during Task 3 related to hazard mapping and vulnerability assessment. The survey will be available in English and Spanish.

2.9 Story Map
Interested agencies: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

PlaceWorks will design and format the results of the mapping, vulnerability assessment, and safety element goals and policies using Esri’s Story Map application. A Story Map will complement the traditional hard-copy materials and provide a way for the public to interact with the maps and data more closely. This interactive platform could be used to help promote the project as well as provide a dynamic and accessible platform where users can explore the data and gain deeper insights into the key hazard and climate issues affecting their community. This Story Map will be available beginning with the public review of the vulnerability assessment results. We will add more information about the draft goals, policies, and objectives to the Story Map in advance of the public review of draft safety elements.

Story Maps provide a platform that is highly suited for Safety Element engagement and allows for the combination of dynamic and interactive maps with narrative text, diagrams, images, and a full range of multimedia content. While most planning processes strive to create a “living, breathing, document,” the Story Map application empowers agencies to truly achieve this goal. The digital platform allows for regular and seamless updates to the content prior to adoption and into implementation. 103
Technical Proposal
20 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update

2.10 Community Input Report
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

In addition to providing summaries of outreach and engagement events and activities for each touchpoint, PlaceWorks will lead preparation of a consolidated report that summarizes all outreach efforts for this project, the input received, and how input was included or not included in the Vulnerability Assessment, mapping, or Safety Elements. The Community Input Report will include feedback from all public outreach led by PlaceWorks, CBO partners, or Participating Agency staff, including engagement with hard-to-reach and underrepresented communities. In support of this report, PlaceWorks will provide a data collection and summary template to all project teammates leading outreach to ensure consistency in assessment and presentation of information. The report will include graphics, images, tables, and charts as appropriate to share results and summaries of key takeaways. In the presentation of outreach and engagement results in this report, PlaceWorks will not attribute comments to specific stakeholders or organizations to protect privacy and ensure open engagement in the process, unless specifically requested by a stakeholder or organization; however, we will provide a list of types of stakeholders and organizations engaged in each touchpoint.

Deliverables:
» Public Engagement Plan (draft and final, electronic)
» Equity Approach (draft and final, electronic)
» Community Based Organization Partnership, including compensation for up to 400 participants at $50 per 2-hour meeting.
» Two series Virtual Community Workshops (two workshops per series) with the following materials for each series:
» Agenda, meeting approach, agenda, facilitation, and small group facilitator training.. » Workshop promotional flyer and text for Collaborative member announcements/e-blasts in English and Spanish
» Content for posting by Participating Agencies to their social media accounts, including suggested text for posts and supporting graphics. Text will be provided in English and Spanish. » PowerPoint presentation and use of break-out rooms, surveys, and/or live polling exercises available in English and Spanish.
» Summary notes from all workshops, including easy segmentation for each Participating Jurisdiction. » Two members of PlaceWorks team for each workshop. Additional staff can be provided with authorization of the contingency budget.
» Community Group Meetings Support and Toolkits and in-person facilitation and notetaking with up to 7 meetings lead by CRC.
» Six stakeholder meetings (virtual), including an agenda, discussion questions, facilitation, and note taking for each meeting.
» Project Website design, hosting, and content updates (English) during project. » Community Input Report (draft and final, electronic, English only) » Mapped Survey Tool (draft and final, English and Spanish) » Story Map includes draft outline, template, and content and final Story Map (English with option to provide Spanish with contingency funds).
104
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 21
TASK 3. Vulnerability Assessment and Hazard Maps
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The vulnerability assessment and hazard mapping are core parts of the technical work needed to update the Safety Element. The vulnerability assessment helps community members, agency staff, and decision makers understand how community hazards may alter conditions due to climate change and what parts of the community (people and places) are most at risk. Not only is the vulnerability assessment required by State law, but it helps each community clearly understand the potential and far-reaching effects of climate change.

The vulnerability assessment incorporates hazard mapping that translates technical reports and data into an easy-to-understand visual that drives home the threats posed by natural hazards. Understanding the extent of wildfire hazard zones, projected flood inundation areas for sea level rise, how hazard areas overlap with critical infrastructure, and other key facts illustrated by hazard mapping helps the community clearly grasp the potential effects on their well-being.

The PlaceWorks team has unrivaled experience preparing vulnerability assessments and has worked closely with State agencies to write this guidance. Our GIS experts have prepared both static and dynamic mapping for hundreds of communities and are well versed in using the latest interactive visualization tools to communicate hazard issues to members of the public and agency decision makers.

3.1 GIS Database for Hazards
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Spatial data is at the heart of understanding current hazard conditions and potential future risks caused by the effects of climate change. The PlaceWorks team understands that precise, accurate, and up‐to‐date data play a critical role in the planning process and are necessary to garner support and incorporate ideas from community members. PlaceWorks’ team of GIS experts have an intimate knowledge of the available datasets, including a deep understanding of the key components and underlying data that define each layer. Building on work done on past studies in the region, the PlaceWorks GIS team will start by gathering GIS datasets that speak to existing hazards and future climate conditions, including the potential effects of climate change.

These datasets include, but are not limited to the following natural hazards:
• Seismic hazards
» Faults (on and offshore)
» Shaking potential
» Liquefaction potential
» Level of earthquake hazard
• Water hazards
» Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Special Flood Hazard Area » Department of Water Resources (DWR) Awareness zones
» Dam inundation areas
» Sea level rise and coastal flooding
» Coastal erosion due to sea level rise
105
Technical Proposal
22 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update » Tsunami inundation zones (including any State mapping updates) » Levees
• Fire Hazards
» Fire hazard severity zones
» Future fire risk projections
» Historic wildfire perimeters
» Wildland-urban interface
» Tree mortality
• Other Hazards
» Landsides and debris flows
» Smoke and air quality
» Heat islands tree equity score
• Future Climate Projections
» Extreme precipitation events and drought
» Extreme heat and cold
PlaceWorks will ask Participating Jurisdictions that include human-made/caused hazards in their existing safety elements to confirm if those hazards should be retained and updated. These hazards could include hazardous materials, airport operation-related hazards, or others requested by the community or decisionmakers. This scope of work does not include updates to noise modeling and contours or noiserelated goals, policies, and implementation programs.

Deliverables:
» Geodatabase of hazard data (electronic, draft and final) » Memo summarizing GIS database and any associated methods (electronic, draft and final)

3.2 GIS Database for Asset Layers
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Along with the comprehensive set of hazards data, the PlaceWorks team will prepare a GIS database of community assets that may be affected by climate change and so should be analyzed in the vulnerability assessment. These assets will include aspects of the built environment, including public and private buildings, infrastructure, habitats, and natural resources. Community assets will include assets that span jurisdictions, such as freeways, the Caltrain line, and natural ecosystems, as well as assets that are fully within each community. Preparation of this database will be done in consultation and collaboration with Participating Jurisdictions through Steering Committee and TAC meetings and with community members and stakeholders through Task 2.

These datasets include, but are not limited to:
• Bicycles and pedestrian trails
• Communication towers
• Commercial centers
• Electricity transmission lines and substations
• Forest and woodland habitat
106
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 23
• Government administrative buildings
• Grassland and chaparral habitat
• Historic buildings
• Highways and major roadways
• Medical facilities
• Natural gas pipelines
• Parks and other recreation facilities
• Public transit infrastructure, including bus stops, Caltrain stations, and BART stations. • Police and fire stations
• Railway lines
• Residential structures
• Road and rail bridges
• Schools
• Water and wastewater infrastructure
• Wetland and riparian habitat
Deliverables:
» List of assets for each community (electronic, draft and final) » Memo summarizing GIS database and any associated methods (electronic, draft and final)

3.3 Identify Sensitive Populations
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Although everyone is likely to be affected by climate change, not everyone is likely to be affected to the same degree. We know that certain populations are likely to be disproportionately affected, including many groups that already face systemic inequities, marginalization, and environmental racism. Climate change is already exacerbating many of the challenges faced by these populations, and in the absence of robust action to correct these issues, such inequities are likely to only get worse. The vulnerability assessment will help identify these sensitive populations and describe the threats they face, forming a foundation for necessary action to reduce these challenges and move to a more equitable future.

The PlaceWorks team will collaborate with Participating Jurisdiction staff, key stakeholders, and the broader community through the engagement and equity approach discussed in Task 2, to identify sensitive populations in the Participating Jurisdictions. We anticipate using as refined and detailed data as possible from the US Census Bureau, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the California Healthy Places Index, and other sources. After developing an initial list, we will consult and collaborate with Participating Jurisdictions through Steering Committee and TAC meetings and with community members and stakeholders through Task 2 to ensure this list is accurate and comprehensive before beginning the vulnerability assessment. We expect that this effort will occur in parallel with conversations about the connection between climate change and inequity, which may be part of community engagement efforts or stand-alone small group discussions. Our past experiences in the county and working in other jurisdictions throughout the state informs our methodical, yet flexible approach to collaboration. We believe the engagement process is iterative, whereby information is revealed, analyzed, and validated through continuous, transparent engagement with the public. Our team anticipates developing strong, trusting 107
Technical Proposal
24 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update connections from the start of the project, ensuring that as we begin analytical tasks, we don’t rely solely on external data sources to tell the community’s story.

We want to ensure that the list of sensitive populations reflects the full range of groups who may be disproportionately affected by climate change hazards. This includes people who are socially and physically isolated, have limited financial resources, face elevated exposure to hazards, have underlying behavioral or physical health issues, and other groups. We understand that the harm posed by natural hazards, especially those driven or influenced by climate change, can lead to physical injuries, impacts to mental health, economic damages, and reduced well-being and quality of life.

We will identify sensitive populations unique to each Participating Jurisdiction. While there are likely to be similarities across the communities in San Mateo County, the different histories and socioeconomic characteristics of each community necessitates tailored responses driven by individual community needs.

This will let us create vulnerability assessments with a continuous framework and format, but that reflect the unique conditions in each Participating Jurisdiction.

Deliverables:
» List of sensitive populations for each community (electronic, draft and final)

3.4 Prepare Asset Lists
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Along with the list of sensitive populations, the PlaceWorks team will also work with Participating Jurisdiction staff, stakeholders, and community members to prepare a list of for inclusion in the vulnerability assessment.

This list will be based on the assets included in the GIS database discussed in Task 3.2, along with some additional assets, such as key community services and economic drivers, which may not be able to be easily mapped but are still a critical component of their communities. This approach allows for a vulnerability assessment that more accurately reflects the breadth of climate change effects and can identify potential vulnerabilities that might not show up in a more limited analysis.

After preparing an initial list of assets for each Participating Jurisdiction, the PlaceWorks team will vet this list with Participating Jurisdiction staff, key stakeholders, and community members through engagement activities presented in Task 2. Through CBO engagement described in Task 2, CRC will ensure CBOs are involved in this review, even if the assets are not directly related to their missions, since many such organizations could rely on these assets for their daily operations and have a detailed understanding of how such assets may be affected. After this review, we will prepare a final list of assets for inclusion in the vulnerability assessment.

WHY ANALYZE SERVICES

SEPARATE FROM
INFRASTRUCTURE?
Often, climate change can
affect an important service
without damaging the
underlying infrastructure
that the service depends on.

For example, droughts can
threaten a community’s
reliable water supply
without damaging water
pipelines, pumps, or
treatment plants. Analyzing
services and infrastructure
separately lets the
vulnerability assessment
more accurately consider a
fuller range of effects that
climate change may have.
108
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 25
Deliverables:
» List of assets for each Participating Jurisdiction (electronic, draft and final)

3.5 Identify Flood and Fire Hazard Data
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

State law requires that safety elements address flood and fire hazards in the jurisdiction, as well as develop specific policy language to help protect communities against these hazards. The PlaceWorks team has already secured many of the necessary pieces of data as part of our work on safety elements and related documents across the state, but we will work with jurisdiction staff to secure the remaining data and to confirm the relevance of the files we have already obtained.

We expect that we will collect or confirm the following datasets, consistent with the list in the RFP and our understanding of Sections 65302(g)(2) and 65302(g)(3) of the California Government Code:
• Flood hazard maps as prepared by FEMA. This will cover all areas identified as 100-year (including all Zone A designations) and 500-year floodplains. At the time of writing, these maps appear to have been updated between 2012 and 2019, but we will incorporate any new mapping as it becomes available. • DWR 100-year Flood Awareness zones.
• Levees and the areas they protect, along with identification of areas that have a reduced flood risk as a result and areas that may be subjected to flooding in the event of levee failure and overtopping. We expect this will include areas at risk of overtopping as a result of sea level rise, as identified in the Adapting to Rising Tides modeling or other relevant datasets.
• Dam failure inundation maps that are available from DWR, as well as any other inundation mapping that may be available from the California Office of Emergency Services or other resources. • Sea level rise datasets available from the San Mateo County Sea Level Rise Mapping Tool, the Sea Level Rise Risk Assessment for County-owned and operated assets and leased facilities, and the shallow/emergent groundwater data from the San Francisco Estuary Institute. Additional datasets may include the San Mateo County Sea Level Rise Project Database of major existing and planned sea level rise adaptation projects.

Finally, detailed information can be extracted and analyzed from the United States Geological Survey’s Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) of storm-induced coastal flooding and erosion for both current and future sea-level rise scenarios for San Mateo County (CoSMoS V3.1). • Fire Hazard Severity Zones, as prepared by CAL FIRE. We will identify the areas in the unincorporated county designated as Moderate, High, or Very High, as well as the areas in incorporated communities designated as Very High. Our team is aware that these maps currently date to 2007, and that CAL FIRE is in the process of updating them, with the expectation that updated mapping will be available over the timeframe of this project. We will use the most up-to-date mapping in all circumstances. • Wildland-urban interface zone mapping, based on regional, state, and federal studies. • Public and other critical facilities in mapped flood and wildfire hazard zones. Such facilities may include roads and highways, power lines, public safety buildings, community centers, schools, hospitals, and others to be determined in coordination with jurisdiction staff and CBOs. • Current and future land uses in mapped flood and wildfire hazard zones. • Records of past flood and wildfire events in Participating Jurisdictions and the region, including information on any injuries or death, extent and cost of damage, and other disruptions as available. 109
Technical Proposal
26 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update • The local, regional, state, and federal agencies responsible for flood and wildfire protection in the Participating Jurisdictions.

We will collect this data for all Participating Jurisdictions, which will inform the hazard mapping, vulnerability assessment, and background information sections. They will also be integrated into the online map viewer.

As part of these tasks, the data will help identify areas of greatest exposure to flood and wildfire hazards, as well as the people, buildings, infrastructure, and other key assets in these areas who are most at risk. Based on these findings, we expect that these data will inform policies in the Safety Elements intended to help increase resilience to these hazards, prioritizing the areas, people, and assets who face the greatest potential for harm.

Based on our initial survey of available data, we are not aware of any flood hazard mapping from the US Army Corps of Engineers, or of any 200-year floodplains, in San Mateo County. However, we will conduct a more thorough review of the available data and will include any new information as it becomes available.

Deliverables:
» Geodatabase of hazard mapping (electronic, draft and final) » List of other relevant data sources (electronic, draft and final)

3.6 Evacuation Constraints Analysis
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

In 2019, the State adopted Senate Bill (SB) 99, requiring that Safety Elements identify residential areas in any hazard area that lack at least two emergency evacuation routes. This law is intended to help identify evacuation-constrained areas and to indicate where any additional resources may be necessary to facilitate a smooth and effective evacuation if there is ever such a need for it. The PlaceWorks team has developed an approach to identifying these areas that we have vetted with CAL FIRE and used in numerous communities across the state.

Given the widespread potential of some hazard issues
across San Mateo County (such as seismic hazards), and
the fact that hazards may occur outside of mapped hazard zones (such as recent wildfires, which have burned in
areas not officially identified as fire hazard zones), we recommend that the SB 99 analysis apply to all residential properties in the Participating Jurisdictions. We will
identify the roads that can function as likely evacuation routes, including highways, arterials, and relevant
neighborhood roads, in coordination with jurisdiction
staff. We then assess the distance between residential
parcels and likely evacuation routes, as measured along the road network. Parcels that lack convenient access to multiple evacuation routes, or to a single evacuation route that would allow them to evacuate in multiple directions, are flagged as potentially evacuation constrained. We
Screenshot from an evacuation constraints analysis,
identifying residential parcels that lack convenient access to multiple evacuation routes or options. Properties on
roadways with a single access point are particularly at risk of evacuation constraints.
110
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 27
then vet these parcels with Participating Jurisdiction staff, community members, and local emergency responders to confirm their accuracy.

We understand that the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research is developing guidance to support evacuation analysis. We are prepared to modify our approach as necessary to comply with any guidance from the State that may be released prior to the completion of this project, or to better meet the needs of Participating Jurisdictions. We can review our method with staff before beginning work to make sure it is suitable and appropriate for all communities. We also understand that an Assembly Bill (AB) 747 analysis will be conducted separately and is not part of this project. To the extent possible, we will sync our efforts with that analysis to use the same datasets and other fundamental assumptions.

Deliverables:
» GIS layers of evacuation constraints analysis results (electronic, draft and final) » Memo summarizing method for evacuation constraints analysis (electronic, draft and final)

3.7 Vulnerability Assessment
Exposure
The presence of
populations or assets that
are subject to climate
hazards.

Sensitivity
Levels to which a
population or asset would
be affected by exposure to
a changing climate.

Potential Impact
Potential effects on a
population or asset based
on its exposure and
sensitivity to a hazard.

Adaptive Capacity
The ability to moderate
harm or exploit
opportunities.

Vulnerability
The degree to which
natural, built, and human
systems are susceptible to
harm.

Adapted from the Adaptation
Planning Guide
111
Technical Proposal
28 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update After we confirm the lists of sensitive populations and assets, identify the hazard zones and supporting data, and prepare hazard mapping, the PlaceWorks team will prepare vulnerability assessments for all Participating Jurisdictions. We will prepare this in accordance with the recommendations in the Adaptation Planning Guide.

San Mateo County has already performed a substantial vulnerability assessment of sea level rise on community, built, and natural assets. Through the Sea Change program, the County has a strong understanding as to how rising seas pose risks to its people and places. The PlaceWorks team does not intend to redo the sea level rise vulnerability assessment, but rather extract information to (1) Inform policies and actions in the Safety Element related to flooding and coastal hazards; and (2) Inform the development of policies and actions for hazards or vulnerabilities that may be exacerbated or influenced by sea level rise impacts.

We will begin by identifying the current risk posed by these hazards and how these hazards are likely to change in the future given climate change projections and other considerations. We will assess which of the populations and assets are likely to be harmed, given their locations, degree of connection, and other factors, collectively known as the exposure. We will next determine how susceptible each population and asset is to each relevant hazard (the sensitivity). This will allow us to identify the impact, or the anticipated effects that a population or asset may experience as a result of climate change-related hazards on future conditions. We will then assess the adaptive capacity of all populations and assets for each relevant hazard, determining their ability to resist or respond to these impacts. Based on the combined impact and adaptive capacity score, we can assign a draft vulnerability score.

Low Impact Medium Impact High Impact
Low Adaptive
Capacity V3 (medium vulnerability) V4 (high vulnerability) V5 (severe vulnerability) Medium Adaptive
Capacity V2 (low vulnerability) V3 (medium vulnerability) V4 (high vulnerability) High Adaptive
Capacity V1 (minimal vulnerability) V2 (low vulnerability) V3 (medium vulnerability) An illustration of how impact and adaptive capacity scores can translate to vulnerability, on a five-point scale from Minimal to Severe.
112
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 29
The impact and adaptive capacity analyses and the resulting vulnerability score will draw on data from numerous sources. We will look at published reports and studies that describe the impacts and adaptive capacities of relevant populations and hazards, tailoring these findings to ensure they are applicable to the Participating Jurisdictions. These sources include academic papers, State and regional reports, and publications from nonprofits, CBOs, and other groups. We will use the GIS data layers identified in earlier tasks to inform the findings of the vulnerability assessment. For example, we will look at where sensitive populations are concentrated to see if they may be more exposed to a hazard than other groups or if they are farther away from facilities that can provide resources during emergencies. Where relevant, we will split populations or assets by jurisdiction or region, recognizing that the vulnerability of the same population or asset may vary depending on location.

We will make sure that the vulnerability assessment also considers cascading and indirect impacts. This involves identifying instances in which one hazard situation may lead to another (such as a severe wind event that contributes to a significant wildfire), or in instances where a population or asset is not directly harmed by a hazard but is ultimately susceptible to the effects of other direct damage (such as a flood that damages an important business and forces it to close, creating economic harm for employees, even if they were not physically harmed). Consideration of these factors allows us to conduct a more holistic vulnerability assessment, taking a much wider range of potential effects of climate change into account. By extension, this supports greater opportunities for resilience in the updated Safety Elements.

We will prepare an individual vulnerability assessment for each Participating Jurisdiction, but we will prepare these sets of scores in coordination with each other, drawing on common datasets and studies to the extent they are relevant. This approach will allow us to make sure that the findings of the vulnerability assessment are tailored to the unique conditions present in each Participating Jurisdiction, but also that they have a common background and foundation. This balance will help identify appropriate responses to the issues facing each Participating Jurisdiction, as well as common vulnerabilities across San Mateo County that support regional collaboration and resilience efforts.

It is critical that we vet the findings of the vulnerability assessment with the community and Participating Jurisdiction staff. While the PlaceWorks team is proud of our expertise on this subject, we recognize that we do not have the on-the-ground experience of people and organizations who have been living and working in these communities for years. We plan to submit all potential data sources for staff and the community to confirm through the activities identified in the Community Engagement Plan (see Task 2). All draft vulnerability assessment scores will be released for public review following review by Participating Jurisdiction. This approach allows us to incorporate the lived experience of the community and staff thoroughly into the assessment process, creating a vulnerability assessment that is more accurate and better representative of local understanding. Based on our experience with other communities, we expect this to be a conversation between all involved to refine the scores and get to a set of results that satisfy both the legal requirements and the needs of the participants.

CASCADING EFFECTS
Instances where one climate
change-related hazard
results in another.

INDIRECT EFFECTS
When a population or asset
is not directly harmed by
hazardous conditions, but
experiences impacts as a
result of other damage.
113
Technical Proposal
30 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update Deliverables:
» Summary of vulnerability assessment methods and relevant hazards (electronic, draft and final) » Vulnerability assessment scoring results for review (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction)

3.8 Summarize Results of Vulnerability Assessment
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

An important part of the Safety Element Update will be helping members of the community and other involved stakeholders understand the risks present in their community and what can be done to improve resilience. The PlaceWorks team will prepare vulnerability assessment summaries to support this goal and to help build a foundation of key findings that can be used to inform the development of resilience policies.

We will prepare these written summaries after Participating Jurisdiction staff review the findings of the vulnerability assessment and we revise the scores accordingly to respond to these comments. We will draft one summary for each Participating Jurisdiction. These summaries can function as stand-alone reports but can also act as appendices to the Safety Elements or other resilience documents as appropriate. We will submit a proposed outline of the written reports to Participating Jurisdiction staff to ensure that the approach meets expectations before drafting the summaries.

These summaries will highlight the primary hazards of concern, along with the populations and assets who are most vulnerable and why. The summaries will include a brief methodological description, explaining the process that the team used to prepare the vulnerability assessment. We will write these summaries to be easily accessible to community members without over-simplifying the content or omitting important details.

We will also make use of mapping and GIS files, including any already-prepared mapping, to help explain key issues.

As with the vulnerability assessment scores themselves, we will submit the drafts of the vulnerability assessment summaries to members of the public, jurisdiction staff, key CBOs and other stakeholders, the Technical Advisory Committees and Collaborative Steering Committee, and other groups, consistent with the approach laid out in the Public Engagement Plan. We expect that these reviewers will provide feedback on the written summaries to make sure that they are highlighting important issues, presenting findings in a way that is consistent with community experiences, and meeting all other expectations. We will revise the written reports to incorporate these comments and ensure that the reports serve community needs.

Deliverables:
» Outline of vulnerability assessment summaries (electronic, draft and final) » Vulnerability assessment summaries for each Participating Agency (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction)

3.9 Online Map Viewer
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The goal of the online data viewer is to provide the project team, Technical Advisory Committee members, stakeholder groups, and community members with a comprehensive repository of the GIS data layers used for the vulnerability assessment along with the results of our analysis. Metadata will be included for each 114
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 31
layer presented through the online map viewer, which will provide details on the source data and analysis methodology where applicable. PlaceWorks will use the latest web mapping technology available through ArcGIS Online to create a user-friendly streamlined application that will provide users with deep understanding of each of the included datasets and how they work together to answer key questions and shed light on current and future conditions.

PlaceWorks team will use this task to supplement and enhance the County’s existing map viewer that was created for the 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. If this is desired, we can modify our process above to ensure our efforts expand on this existing resource and further enhances the outcomes. This allows the Collaborative to capitalize on efficiencies from past work and enhancements that expand both the knowledge base and usability of this information for all agencies participating in the process.

Deliverables:
» Online map viewer (electronic, draft and final)

3.10 Hazard Maps for Inclusion in Safety Element
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

PlaceWorks understands the importance of communicating technical information to a broad audience using well‐designed maps. PlaceWorks staff has the unique ability to understand complex planning issues and distill them in an accessible, graphically‐rich way. The California Government Code requires that the Safety Element includes up-to-date maps. The PlaceWorks GIS team will prepare a comprehensive set of maps for the Safety Element that will include data gathered in Tasks 3.1, GIS Database for Hazards, and 3.2, GIS Database for Asset Layers. We will prepare a base map with community facilities and infrastructure and once reviewed and approved by City staff, we will use the base map to create the hazard maps for the Background Report.

Deliverables:
» A set of PDF maps (electronic, draft and final)
Task 4. Background Information on Hazards
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The background reports of the updated Safety Elements provide important context and other information that helps describe the issues present in the community. This information serves as a foundation for the updated policies, along with the results of the vulnerability assessment, hazard mapping, and other analyses.

When written well, these documents help explain relevant issues to members of the public, jurisdiction staff and officials, and other engaged stakeholders.

We know the importance of preparing these background reports to be thorough and complete, while still ensuring that they are engaging and interesting. Despite their often-technical nature, we pride ourselves in writing background reports that can be easily understood, allowing them to serve as valuable educational materials in the Safety Element process. We will prepare a stand-alone background report for each Participating Jurisdiction.
115
Technical Proposal
32 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update

4.1 Update Hazard Background Information
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The PlaceWorks team will prepare a background report for each participating jurisdiction, complying with all State laws and guidance regarding what must be included in this document. We expect that these background reports will discuss the regulatory context that informs the Safety Element, the purpose of the Safety Element and the reason for updating them, and each of the key issue areas. For issues that relate to a specific hazard, such as wildfire or floods, we will introduce the hazard and why it is a community concern; discuss past events in the Participating Jurisdiction or region; review the agency or agencies responsible for protecting against it; and the future risk posed by it, including changes as a result of climate change. For issues not related to a specific hazard, such as evacuations or emergency preparation, we will discuss other relevant topics as needed to give the reader a good understanding of the issue and include mapping and graphics, where relevant.

We plan to draft the background reports as stand-alone documents that can function as appendices to the main Safety Element, along with the vulnerability assessment summaries discussed in Task 3.8. We recommend this approach, as it allows us to incorporate sections of the background report into the main Safety Element document, providing context to the policies while keeping much of the detailed information in the appendix. However, if desired by Participating Jurisdictions, we can draft the background reports to be part of the main document.

For all the background reports, we intend to follow the same basic format, although we recognize that the issues discussed will vary from community to community, and some communities may wish to organize topics differently. We will prepare an outline of the background report for review by jurisdiction staff and other interested stakeholders before drafting the reports themselves. We will provide the final background reports in the same formatted template for the draft Safety Elements themselves discussed in Task 7.

Deliverables:
» Outline of background reports (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction) » Background reports for each Participating Agency (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
Task 5. Goals, Objectives, and Policies
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Developing goals, objectives, and policies into a framework is a major step in element development for a jurisdiction. The previous tasks help set a strong foundation that this framework builds upon to ensure future development and activities within a community are safer and more resilient. For many jurisdictions, policies can take many forms depending on the issues that need to be addressed. For that reason, this task will work with each jurisdiction to understand their needs and the types of policies that work best. 116
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 33
Examples of the types of policies that can be included in the updated Safety Elements.

5.1 Regional Best Practices Summary
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The diversity of jurisdictions involved in this project requires a thorough review of best practice examples from across the region, including a review of plans, policies, and programs prepared and implemented by cities and partner agencies in San Mateo County that are not participating in this collaborative. Based on the results of the Vulnerability Assessment (Task 3) and the review of the existing plans discussed in Task 5.2 the PlaceWorks team will work to identify the policy needs for each jurisdiction. While we know there are crosscutting issues that all Participating Jurisdictions may face, there are a number of ways to address these issues to better accommodate individual community needs. This summary will focus on key factors such as:
 Methods for monitoring and evaluating progress towards risk-reduction goals.  Applicable guidance pertaining to resilience.
 Equity-focused climate change policies.
 Cross-cutting issues that may affect many jurisdictions.  Regional initiatives and collaboration that promote and enhance resilience at the local level.

We will identify potential solutions that take advantage of best practices and successful efforts in the county and nearby communities, informed by jurisdiction staff and key stakeholders, input from members of the community, and emerging opportunities in San Mateo County and the region. Following our review of best practices appropriate to the project, PlaceWorks will prepare a Best Practices Summary Memo tailored to the specific conditions in the Participating. We will build from and complement existing and planned efforts whenever possible, allowing for a more efficient use of time and resources that avoid unnecessary Programmatic: Strategies to expand or create new programs, activities, and initiatives.

Plans, regulations, and policy development: Strategies to revise policies, plans, regulations, and guidelines.

Capital improvement projects: Strategies to address physical and functional needs in the built and natural environment, or to secure funding for these projects.

Education, outreach, and coordination: Strategies to begin or expand partnerships and relationships, communication, and expanding awareness.

Evaluation: Strategies to improve feedback, input, and data and information to conduct further or new analyses.
117
Technical Proposal
34 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update duplication. At the same time, we plan to recommend entirely new programs where appropriate. This will include actions that San Mateo County and Participating Jurisdictions can launch in partnership with other agencies and CBOs.

Deliverables:
» Regional Best Practices Summary Memorandum (electronic, draft and final)

5.2 Review of Existing Plans, Requirements, and
Gaps
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The PlaceWorks team will prepare a review of each participating jurisdiction’s existing Safety Element (or comparable document), along with other relevant sections of the General Plan and other supporting documents, such as the Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, climate action/adaptation or sustainability plans, and emergency operations plans. We will check each existing Safety Element for consistency with current State requirements and identify any content that can be incorporated from supporting documents or other technical documents to help meet these requirements.

While consistency with State laws is an important objective for Safety Elements, it is not the only standard that they have to meet. We expect that the vulnerability assessments will identify key gaps in each community’s adaptation and resilience approach that are critical to community well-being, but which may not be explicitly required by the State. Similarly, we expect that community members, CBOs, and other stakeholders who participate in the public engagement process will raise other issues that the updated Safety Elements should address but are not mandated to do so. There may also be other best practices or emerging opportunities that will be helpful to the updated Safety Elements.

We will prepare a gap analysis memo identifying these additional issues that we recommend the updated Safety Elements address.

As part of this review, we will also consider the policies in the existing Safety Elements and provide recommendations for whether to keep policies as-is, modify them, or remove them. We will use current State requirements and the results of the gap analysis to inform these recommendations. As a part of this work, we will coordinate with local jurisdiction staff to understand which policies have already been implemented, what policies have been effective, and where policies can be revised or improved to better meet the needs of the community.

We understand that the adoption dates of the existing Safety Elements vary widely across the Participating Jurisdictions. Some were adopted within the past few years, while others are a few decades old. We expect that compliance with current State laws and other community needs will be at least partly a function of age and are prepared to make more substantial recommendations as needed.

RECENT STATE

REQUIREMENTS
- Include detailed
information about flood and
wildfire risks.
- Include specific policies
related to reducing the
threat from floods and
wildfires.
- Prepare a climate change
vulnerability assessment.
- Include policies to improve
adaptation and resilience to
climate-related hazards.
- Assess evacuation
constraints of residential
areas.
118
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 35
Deliverables:
» Review matrix for consistency with State laws (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction) » Review matrix of existing policies and recommendations (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
» Gap analysis memo (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction)

5.3 Draft Goals, Policies, and Objectives
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The PlaceWorks team will work with local jurisdiction staff, CRC, and other key stakeholders to prepare a set of draft goals, policies, and objectives for each of the updated Safety Elements. These goals, policies, and objectives will respond to State requirements, findings in the vulnerability assessment, results from the gap assessment, and input from the public engagement process. The overarching goal will be to provide increased protection for all populations, buildings and infrastructure, and other assets in the community, with a specific focus on populations and assets that are uniquely susceptible.

The PlaceWorks team, in partnership with CRC, will ensure the draft goals, policies, and objectives incorporate the equity approach prepared as part of Task 2. As part of this commitment, when drafting and reviewing the goals, policies, and objectives, the PlaceWorks team will use the County’s equity assessment tool, or other tool as directed by the Participating Jurisdiction or recommended through best practice. As part of the equity review, CRC will ensure the draft goals, policies, and objectives fairly incorporate comments, suggestions, and requests received through the engagement and outreach activities conducted as part of Task 2.

We will draft the goals, policies, and objectives to take advantage of the full range of strategies available for local communities to improve public safety, adapt to changing conditions, and grow their community resilience. These may include new regulatory standards or development review processes, educational efforts, community partnerships, specific capital improvement projects, and more involved planning processes. We will also recommend goals, policies, and objectives that support monitoring and reporting of Safety Element strategies to determine their effectiveness and to allow them to be revised in future updates.

We will incorporate recommendations from the Adaptation Planning Guide, California Climate Adaptation Strategy, and other reports and guidance documents where appropriate. We will include strategies from existing local plans, such as policies in the Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and OneShoreline’s priority projects, where it makes sense to have a clear linkage between the documents. State law also requires including certain strategies in the draft elements, such as policies around siting new critical facilities outside of hazard-prone areas and using natural infrastructure systems to support resilience efforts.

Deliverables:
» Draft Goals, Policies, and Objectives Memorandum (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction) » Equity Assessment of draft goals, policies, and objectives. 119
Technical Proposal
36 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update

5.4 Revise Goals, Policies, and Objectives
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Upon completion of Task 5.3, the Goals, Policies, and Objectives will be shared with the Technical Advisory Committees, stakeholder groups, and members of the public for review and feedback. Based on this feedback, which will be integrated with engagement and outreach opportunities in Task 2, the PlaceWorks team will gather input received and identify the changes and recommendations necessary and what content was removed or not included in the final draft. In our experience, many goals, policies, and objectives that do not make it into a Safety Element are usually out of scope from what a Safety Element is intended to accomplish or may be infeasible because of political or financial constraints. However, as part of this task, any goals, policies, and objectives that aren’t taken forward will be documented to ensure decision makers understand how the process informed the final element development.

Deliverables:
» Final Goals, Policies, and Objectives Memorandum (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction) Task 6. Implementation Measures
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The implementation measures will build upon the data collection efforts, vulnerability assessment, and community and stakeholder feedback to detail the specific steps required to implement the Safety Element policies. Collectively, the measures will also serve as a guidance and reference document for the jurisdictional staff from each city. The PlaceWorks team will develop a framework with the full list of the implementation measures to include which agencies, partners, or departments are responsible for implementation; agency, department, or partner implementation costs based on a scale of low to medium to high (i.e., $, $$, $$$); timeframe for implementation on a scale of near-term or long-term; and potential funding opportunities.

These metrics will be used to prioritize implementation of the Safety Element policies and actions. Our team’s standard planning and analytical process already includes collecting a variety of these variables. Therefore, our team will provide efficiencies for the cities and County in development of the measures.

6.1 Develop Draft Implementation Measures
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

We will develop draft implementation measures designed to carry out the updated goals, policies, and objectives of each jurisdiction. As part of the implementation measure development, the team will review state and federal guidance, including guidance for equitable climate planning from sources such as the California Adaptation Planning Guide, the Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN), and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). We will also review examples of best practices from other relevant local jurisdictions throughout the state to identify resilience and adaptation projects and programs that may be advantageous for the Participating Jurisdictions to consider and incorporate. We will identify needed updates to zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, Local Coastal Programs, building regulations, and 120
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 37
similar to inform the creation or revision of goals, policies, and objectives. Implementation measures from SB 379 (Government Code Section 65302(g)(4)I) and SB 1241 (Government Code Section 65302(g)(3)(C)) will be incorporated as appropriate to comply with state law. In keeping with our team’s holistic integration of equity in our planning processes, we will objectively evaluate the placement of projects, benefits and burdens, and cumulative risks to historically underserved communities from the implementation measures.

The PlaceWorks team, in partnership with CRC, will ensure the draft implementation measures incorporate the equity approach prepared as part of Task 2. As part of this commitment, when drafting and reviewing the implementation measures the PlaceWorks team will use an equity assessment tool, either prepared by the Participating Jurisdiction or recommended through best practice. As part of the equity review, CRC will ensure the draft implementation measures fairly incorporate comments, suggestions, and requests received through the engagement and outreach activities conducted as part of Task 2.

6.2 Revise Implementation Measures
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The project team will share draft implementation measures, and any prioritization as determined by Participating Jurisdictions, with the Technical Advisory Committees, stakeholder groups, and members of the public, as determined by the Public Engagement Plan to gather feedback and input. We will revise draft implementation measures based on that feedback and input, and then will use the Community Input Report to communicate what implementation measures were or were not incorporated. This subtask should incorporate with Task 2.

6.3 Implementation Recommendations
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The team will offer recommendations for critical next steps to implement the mitigation measures, including strategies for the: (1) monitoring and evaluation of implementation of measures; (2) bundling of measures to optimize efficiencies in funding, planning, and implementation; and (3) incorporation of new, best available science and best management practices. This document will also include any recommendations on prioritization as made by Participating Jurisdictions.

Deliverables
» Implementation Measures Document (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction) » Recommended Next Steps: Implementation Memorandum (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
121
Technical Proposal
38 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update Task 7. Safety Elements Drafted for Jurisdictions
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

After all the individual segments of the Safety Element updates are ready, we will assemble the results into a complete Safety Element. These documents will incorporate all the content and analyses prepared to date.

As a part of this stage of the work, we anticipate preparing two drafts of each Safety Element: an administrative draft for jurisdiction staff, and a public review draft for widespread review that includes staff revisions.

The PlaceWorks team, in partnership with CRC, will ensure the draft safety elements incorporate the equity approach prepared as part of Task 2. As part of this commitment, when drafting and reviewing the safety elements the PlaceWorks team will use an equity assessment tool, either prepared by the Participating Jurisdiction or recommended through best practice. As part of the equity review, CRC will ensure the draft safety elements fairly incorporate comments, suggestions, and requests received through the engagement and outreach activities conducted as part of Task 2.

7.1 Administrative Draft Safety Elements for Jurisdictions Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The PlaceWorks team will prepare a stand-alone administrative draft Safety Element for each of the Participating Jurisdictions. These Safety Elements will compile all the previously prepared content. We expect that the Safety Elements will include the goals, objectives, and policies from Task 5, the implementation measures from Task 6, and all relevant mapping. We recommend incorporating short sections of text from the background reports and vulnerability assessment summaries to help provide important context while keeping the elements short and streamlined. However, if desired, we can fully include the content from these documents to create a much larger element. We will confirm preferences with jurisdiction staff before preparing the combined element.

We will include the final Community Input Report prepared as part of Task 2.8 along with the administrative draft Safety Element. This will illustrate how we incorporated feedback and comments from the public engagement process into the element. If requested, we can also include a section in the main body of the element to discuss how public comments have informed the preparation of the document.

Prior to preparing the administrative draft Safety Elements, we will prepare a template for the document.

These templates may be the same across all jurisdictions or may be unique to each Participating Jurisdiction, depending on staff preferences. We can also use an existing General Plan template or prepare the new template to match existing styles.

Deliverables:
» Safety Element template (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction) » Administrative draft Safety Element (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction) » Community Input Report (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction) 122
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 39

7.2 Public Review Draft Safety Elements
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

After each jurisdiction’s staff provide us with a compiled set of comments on the administrative draft Safety Element, we will make revisions in response to the feedback. This will include a discussion with jurisdiction staff to review potential changes and confirm the revisions. We will return the revised draft Safety Elements to jurisdiction staff for review by members of the public.

Deliverables:
» Public review draft Safety Element (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction) TASK 8. CEQA Analysis
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

PlaceWorks will prepare the required environmental review for each of the seven proposed Safety Elements pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Over the years, PlaceWorks has prepared a variety of CEQA documents for Safety Elements, including making use of CEQA streamlining mechanisms such as the Common Sense Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)) and General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addenda (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). In some cases, PlaceWorks has also prepared Negative Declarations or Mitigated Negative Declarations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15071) and Focused EIRs (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168).

PlaceWorks understands that each of the six proposed Safety Elements will come with their own unique circumstances and proposed changes. However, the proposed action for each jurisdiction, the adoption of an updated Safety Element, in general would have no effect on the environment because they do not commit the County or City to any particular development project. In addition, the updated Safety Elements, as we understand them to date, would consist of County/City conditions of approval, existing regulatory requirements, and other best practices that are adopted for the purpose of reducing the effects of land use development and infrastructure projects on the environment. For these reasons and based on our previous work preparing Safety Element updates, we believe that the preparation of either a CEQA Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) or a General Plan EIR Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 will be appropriate for the proposed Safety Elements.

However, if the proposed Safety Elements require changes to the project or mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, this scope of work also includes the preparation of Negative Declaration (ND) as a contingency. If impacts cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level and an EIR is required, then PlaceWorks will collaborate with staff to discuss next steps and modify scope of work, budget, and schedule as appropriate.

Additionally, because each Safety Element update constitutes an amendment to the General Plan for each jurisdiction, our scope of work under this task also includes assisting the County and each City with Native American tribal consultation pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18. 123
Technical Proposal
40 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update The following Tasks 8.1 through 8.4 describe the scope of work for the preparation of the CEQA streamlining documents and Native American tribal consultation that PlaceWorks will complete for each Safety Element Update. Task 8.5 is an optional, add-on task for Participating Jurisdictions that determine, after preparation of the Environmental Checklist Memo in Task 8.2, to prepare an Initial Study and Negative Declaration, which will also include tribal consultation as directed by AB 52.

8.1 CEQA Project Management and Initiation
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Terri McCracken will serve as the Principal-in-Charge. Vivian Kha and Miles Barker will serve as the Project Managers for each participating jurisdiction. Terri will be responsible for overseeing the preparation and final review of the CEQA document, as well as overseeing the budget and schedule. Vivian and Miles will serve as the day-to-day contact and will oversee the coordination of data needs and conference calls. Vivian and Miles will also be responsible for overall team coordination throughout the preparation of the CEQA document.

For the initiation of each CEQA process, the CEQA management team will begin by reviewing all relevant documents pertaining to proposed Safety Elements for baseline information and any certified/approved CEQA documents to be used for tiering. PlaceWorks will then schedule and participate in a kick-off meeting with staff to discuss expectations and concerns, and to review key issues, information needs, work products, and delivery schedule. The data to be used for environmental impact analysis will also be reviewed at this meeting to ensure it is fully aligned with that used on other CEQA documents in the jurisdiction.

8.2 Environmental Checklist Memo
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Making use of the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, PlaceWorks will prepare a qualitative memo (i.e., no technical modeling will be conducted) following the environmental checklist topics to support the preparation of a notice of exemption (NOE) or General Plan EIR Addendum for the proposed Safety Elements depending on the appropriateness and the preference of the jurisdiction as discussed at the kick-off meeting in Task 8.1. Given the Safety Element is a required part of the General Plan, the memo will address each environmental topic at a programmatic level. PlaceWorks will make maximum use of existing information from each jurisdiction and other governmental agencies.

Deliverable(s):
» Administrative and Final Draft Environmental Checklist Memo (Word and PDF formats) 124
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 41

8.3 Prepare CEQA Document – Notice of Exemption or Addendum Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Based on the outcome of the environmental checklist memo and preferences of the jurisdiction as described in Task 8.2, PlaceWorks will prepare either a NOE pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15062, an Addendum to the General Plan EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, or a Negative Declaration (refer to Task

8.5). This task presents the approach to preparation of an Exemption or Addendum. If a Participating Jurisdiction selects a Negative Declaration, that work is described in Optional Task 8.5. The CEQA document will include a brief project description and through the preparation of the environmental checklist memo in Task 8.2 and will provide the substantial evidence to demonstrate how the proposed projects would not result in any significant effects. The CEQA document will be submitted to the jurisdiction for review, as follows:
» One electronic copy of an Administrative Draft to the jurisdiction for review. Staff will provide PlaceWorks with a single set of consolidated comments on the Administrative Draft. » One electronic copy of a revised, second draft as an electronic “Screencheck.” PlaceWorks assumes that a minimal level of effort, not exceeding four hours, would be required to respond to a single set of consolidated comments from the jurisdiction on the Screencheck Draft.

Following approval of the Screencheck, PlaceWorks will provide the jurisdiction with one electronic copy of the Final document for inclusion in the staff reports and approval by the decision-making body.

If it is determined that potential impacts from the proposed Safety Elements require changes to the project or mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, then Task 8.5 would be implemented based on collaboration with staff.

Following the approval of the Safety Elements, PlaceWorks will prepare the Notice of Determination (NOD).

Our scope of work assumes that staff will be responsible for overseeing the filing of the NOE (if the selected document) and NOD with the County Clerk following the approval of the proposed projects and PlaceWorks will post the NOE/NOD with the State Clearinghouse.

Deliverable(s):
» Administrative, Screencheck, and Final Draft NOD/NOE (Word and PDF formats) » Administrative and Final Draft NOE/NOD (Word and PDF formats) Our proposed schedule for the environmental review includes two-week review periods for the jurisdiction at each submittal phase. Applying these assumptions and depending on the receipt of all the project materials, we anticipate that each CEQA document can be completed within 60 days. 125
Technical Proposal
42 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update

8.4 Native American Tribal Consultation (SB 18)
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

PlaceWorks will complete the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) form requesting a tribal contact list for each jurisdiction. Using the addresses on the list from NAHC, PlaceWorks will draft letters (on the letterhead of each jurisdiction) to each of the tribes on the NAHC list inquiring whether they want consultation. As consultation is a government-to-government process, it must be initiated by the local government agency, and counties are usually represented at the consultation(s). PlaceWorks can facilitate and attend the consultation(s); however, each jurisdiction must be represented. Following the consultation meetings (or conference calls), PlaceWorks will provide a record for the environmental documentation showing that consultation has been completed. Completion of the SB 18 process is needed prior to acting on the project.

Deliverable(s):
» Draft letter to the NAHC
» Draft letters to the identified tribes
» Facilitation, attendance, and documentation of requested consultations

8.5 Optional Add-on: Prepare Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conduct AB 52 Tribal Consultation
Potential Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Based on the outcome of the environmental checklist memo and preferences of the Participating Jurisdiction as described in Task 8.2, PlaceWorks will complete a Negative Declaration form in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15071. PlaceWorks will prepare a Screencheck of the environmental checklist memo as an Initial Study, responding to staff comments on the Administrative Draft document described in Task 8.2.

If mitigation measures are required, PlaceWorks will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program (MMRP) for the mitigation measures pursuant to the jurisdiction’s policies and procedures. The MMRP, shown in tabular form, will identify responsibility for implementing and monitoring each mitigation measure, along with monitoring triggers and reporting frequencies.

PlaceWorks will draft a Notice of Intent (NOI) of a Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. PlaceWorks will work together with agency staff to prepare a master distribution list. PlaceWorks will be responsible for circulation to the State Clearinghouse, and mailings to local, regional, and state agencies.

Agency staff will be responsible for local noticing.

A maximum 30-day public review period will be required under CEQA if the notification of a State Agency(s) is determined to be necessary, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. This scope does not include participation in any public hearings conducted during the 30-day review period.

While not required under CEQA, following the close of the public review period, PlaceWorks will respond to substantive comments received on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration in a memorandum form. This scope of work includes 8 hours of PlaceWorks time to respond to comments in an Administrative Draft Response to Comments Memorandum. If public comments exceed assumptions and more than 8 hours is required to 126
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 43
address comments received on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, we will request use of contingency funds or a contract amendment to complete Response to Comments. We will prepare an Administrative Draft Response to Comments Memorandum for review by staff. Based on staff comments, we will complete revisions and deliver a Final Response to Comments Memorandum.

If it is determined that the preparation of a CEQA document requires public circulation (Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR), consultation with any Native American tribes that have requested consultation pursuant to AB 52 would be required, which can be combined with outreach efforts described in Task 8.4.

Deliverables:
» Screencheck and Public Review Drafts of the IS/ND (Word and PDF formats) » Administrative and Public Review Draft of the MMRP (Word and PDF formats) » Administrative and Final Draft of the NOI (Word and PDF formats) » Administrative and Final Draft of the Response to Comments Memorandum (Word and PDF formats) » Draft letters to the identified tribes
» Facilitation, attendance, and documentation of requested consultations Task 9: Board of Forestry Review
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Half Moon Bay, and San Mateo County.

Any Participating Jurisdiction that includes State Responsibility Areas or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones must submit its updated Safety Element to the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board of Forestry) at least 90 days prior to adoption, per State law. The PlaceWorks team has collaborated extensively with staff from CAL FIRE’s Land Use Planning Program, who review the Safety Elements and present them to the Board of Forestry and has established very good working relationships with them. We work closely with CAL FIRE staff to address any recommended revisions to the Safety Element informally, before submitting them to the Board of Forestry. Many of our Safety Elements require no revisions before going to the Board of Forestry, and all others need only minor changes. We have never had the Board of Forestry recommend changes for any Safety Element that we have submitted.

Per California Government Code 51178, the State Fire Marshal is required to provide local agencies with the areas within their jurisdiction that meet Fire Hazard Severity Zone criteria for their local adoption and implementation, including inclusion in the Safety Element of the General Plan. Cal FIRE has been working to review, update, identify, and map Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas. We anticipate CAL FI–E - Office of the State Fire Marshal will begin providing local governments updated draft Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps for Local Responsibility Areas in mid to late 2023 or possibly early 2024. These updated maps could change High Fire Severity Areas within the incorporated cities, which could result in the requirement for CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry review for additional cities than currently identified in this task.

The PlaceWorks team can provide Task 9 services to additional Participating Jurisdictions upon Participating Jurisdiction approval through the use of the contingency budget. 127
Technical Proposal
44 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update

9.1 CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry Safety Element Review
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Half Moon Bay, and San Mateo County.

As required by State law, PlaceWorks will submit draft Safety Elements to CAL FIRE’s Land Use Planning Program for all applicable jurisdictions. CAL FIRE staff will review the draft Safety Elements and make recommendations. We will discuss any recommendations with jurisdiction staff and will either revise the Safety Element in response or will provide a written explanation for why the revision has not been made. We will make all appropriate revisions to the Safety Element before CAL FIRE staff pass the element on to the Board of Forestry. We recommend that we submit the Safety Elements to CAL FIRE staff at the beginning of the public review process.

State law requires that any jurisdiction containing State Responsibility Areas or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones must submit their Safety Element to CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry. Currently, this applies to Belmont, Half Moon Bay, and unincorporated San Mateo County. However, we are aware that CAL FIRE is currently revising their hazard severity zone mapping, and it is possible that additional communities may include Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in this updated mapping. The updated mapping is expected to be released sometime in 2023.

Deliverables:
» CAL FIRE Safety Element review checklist (electronic, for each relevant Participating Jurisdiction) and submittal to CAL FIRE.
» Coordination, and meetings if needed, with CAL FIRE staff during review of Safety Element. » Participation in Board of Forestry Resource Protection Committee meeting during review of Safety Element (1 virtual meeting per participating jurisdiction).

Task 10: Public Agency Boards – Review and Approval
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Each Participating Agency’s Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisors must formally review the draft Safety Element and its associated environmental review document. To support a successful review and adoption of each Safety Element, we will support staff to provide regular updates to their Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisors as informational items or as Commission/Council/Board workshops or study sessions at key points during the process. At the end of the process, after all public and external agency comments are incorporated into the draft Safety Elements, they will be ready for final review and adoption by each jurisdiction through public hearings. These hearings will be the culmination of the Safety Element Update process and will allow members of the public to provide additional input prior to adoption. The PlaceWorks team will work with Participating Jurisdiction staff materials in support of these hearings.
128
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 45

10.1 Prepare Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor Materials
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

During the planning process, the PlaceWorks team will prepare a Planning Commission/City Council/Board of Supervisors Briefing Packet for Participating Jurisdiction staff at three points in the process: (1) project initiation/vulnerability assessment, (2) draft goals, policies, and action preparation, and (3) draft element review. These Briefing Packets will provide an overview of the project status in a brief memo and set of slides that will highlight work completed to-date, opportunities for public engagement, and next steps.

Participating Jurisdiction staff will be responsible for putting this content into agency specific templates or formats, modifying it if needed to include jurisdiction specific details, and for presenting it to their Planning Commission/City Council/Board of Supervisors.

Following completion of Tasks 2-9, the PlaceWorks team will prepare drafts of the Safety Elements incorporating all relevant comments from members of the public, CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry and other public agencies, and other stakeholders as relevant. These drafts will serve as the “public hearing drafts” that will be brought forward to the Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisors for review and adoption. Additionally, we will work with jurisdiction staff to support preparation of materials for the Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisors public hearings. This support may include preparing drafts of materials and reviewing content prepared by Participating Jurisdiction staff. We anticipate that such materials may be staff reports, presentations, resolutions, or other items that may be helpful for hearings. We will prepare all materials using consistent graphics, branding, and other design features as requested.

Deliverables:
» Public hearing draft Safety Element (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction) » Briefing packets (three, electronic, draft and final) » Staff report content and PowerPoint slides to support on study session during the final public review phase and two public hearings (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction, draft and final)

10.2 Attend Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor Meetings
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Staff from the PlaceWorks team will attend one study session of the Planning Commission or City Council (or a joint meeting) at the initial release of the draft Safety Element, and one Planning Commission, and one City Council/Board of Supervisor meeting for each participating jurisdiction at the adoption stage. We expect that these meetings will be in-person, although we are able to participate virtually if preferred. PlaceWorks will be prepared to support staff with presentations, respond to questions from officials, and fill other roles as needed.

If any Planning Commissions or City Councils/Board of Supervisors direct changes to the draft Safety Elements prior to recommendation/adoption, we will incorporate these changes into a separate final draft 129
Technical Proposal
46 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update following adoption. Otherwise, the public hearing drafts will serve as final drafts, with any necessary changes to reflect their adopted state.

Deliverables:
» Final draft Safety Element (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction) » Attendance at one study session and two public hearings (one Planning Commission meeting and one City Council/Board of Supervisors meeting) for Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County. Meeting attendance is assumed to be in person and includes travel time from the office location of the lead staff person assigned to the agency plus travel costs. Participating Jurisdictions can elect for virtual participation of the PlaceWorks team to reduce costs.

10.3 Add-on: Attend Additional Public Meetings
Participating Jurisdictions: East Palo Alto, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

We recognize that the preferences and processes for review of General Plan Amendments can vary by jurisdiction and that some Participating Jurisdictions may need additional meeting support beyond the three public meetings scoped in Task 10.2. Members of the PlaceWorks team can participate in additional meetings of the Planning Commission and/or City Council/Board of Supervisors if requested by Participating Jurisdiction staff. Participation in additional meetings may be virtual or in-person as desired. We can support Participating Jurisdiction staff to prepare or review any additional meeting materials as may be needed. This task assumes additional meeting support as noted below by jurisdiction; however, if additional meeting is requested, it can be available on a time-and-materials basis through the contingency budget. Meeting attendance is assumed to be in person and includes travel time from the office location of the lead staff person assigned to the agency plus travel costs. Jurisdictions can elect for virtual participation of the PlaceWorks team to reduce costs.
» East Palo Alto: One additional public meeting, hearing, or study session with Planning Commission and/or City Council.
» San Bruno: One additional public meeting, hearing, or study session with Planning Commission and/or City Council.
» San Mateo County: Three additional public meetings, hearings, or study sessions with the Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors.

Deliverables:
» Attendance at additional public hearings as noted.
» Support with meeting materials for additional meetings. (electronic, draft and final) 130
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 47
Project Schedule
PlaceWorks’ proposed schedule for completion of the Safety Element Multi-Agency Collaborative is shown in Figure 1. In our experience, Safety Element preparation with the tasks included in the proposed scope of work can average 18 to 24 months to allow for robust stakeholder engagement, potential delays with receipt of data from external agencies, and environmental review. We have prepared a 24-month schedule.

PlaceWorks has a strong track record in meeting project schedules and coordinating closely with its clients as part of our approach to quality project management. Our project management process allows for potential project delays to be revealed early and to identify options to keep the project on-track or to adjust the schedule if needed. We recommend reviewing and confirming a detailed schedule during contract negotiations or as part of project initiation. Over years of managing projects, we have developed a variety of tools to keep projects on schedule and ensure that staff are well informed at all times.  We maintain an up-to-date schedule throughout the project, to ensure that all team members are aware of upcoming meetings and product due dates.
 We stay in close, regular contact with staff and our community partners and document important decisions about the project in writing, which ensures that decisions are understood by all team members.  We schedule project due dates for staff with adequate time for editing and formatting into finished reports.

Our team takes a project management approach that focuses on providing a quality process and product in sync with the budget and schedule while enjoying our work and collaborating as a team to ensure that everyone’s strength and input are well-integrated. We approach project management as a dynamic process and one that is critical to the process. This starts during the preparation of the proposal and continues through the project initiation, execution, and completion. Our project manager maintains regular coordination and check-ins with the project team, including our teaming partners and clients. We use tools such as Deltek, Asana, MS Project, and others as needed to support our projects.

In addition to our overall project kick-off meeting, we begin each task by reviewing objectives, budget, schedule, roles, and workflows with all members of our team so that everyone knows both their individual roles and the big picture. We also review each task at completion to assess the work, identify any issues of concern for the project team, identify any lessons learned that should be applied to later tasks, and consider any potential scope or budget considerations. Our project managers assess financial project performance monthly as part of invoice preparation.

Our team uses ongoing quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) processes throughout the project development process as an integral component of our project management approach. We deliver work that is scientifically accurate, consistent with all legal requirements, and meets all needs of our clients. This not only includes plan documents and memos, but technical analyses, data workbooks, outreach materials, and all other work products prepared for our projects. All work is reviewed by the project manager and other senior PlaceWorks staff to ensure that it meets this rigorous set of criteria. A technical editor reviews all work to ensure accurate spelling and grammar, consistent tone, and proper sourcing. Our Word processing staff and graphic designers also review work products for consistent formatting and readability. 131
Technical Proposal
48 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update Figure 1 Project Schedule
Tasks April
2023 May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan
2024 Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 2025 Feb Mar Task 1. Project Coordination and Communication

1.1. Collaborative Steering Committee * * * * * * * *

1.2. Technical Advisory Committees and 1x1 Support * * * * * *

1.4. Ongoing Project Management * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Task 2. Community Engagement and Equity Approach

2.1. Public Engagement Plan

2.2. Equity Approach

2.3. Community Based Organizations Partnerships

2.4. Community Workshops * * * *

2.5. Hard-to-Reach/Community Group Meetings * * * * * * * * *

2.6. Stakeholder Meetings * * * * * * * *

2.7. Develop Project Website

2.8. Mapped Survey Tool

2.9. Story Map * *

2.10. Community Input Report
Task 3. Vulnerability Assessment and Hazard Maps

3.1. GIS Database for Hazards *

3.2. GIS Database for Asset Layers *

3.3. Identify Sensitive Populations *

3.4. Prepare Asset Lists *

3.5. Identify Flood and Fire Hazard Data *

3.6. Evacuation Constraints Analysis *

3.7. Vulnerability Assessment *

3.8. Summarize Results of Vulnerability Assessment *

3.9. Online Map Viewer

3.10. Hazard Maps for Inclusion in Safety Element
Task 4. Background Information on Hazards

4.1. Update Hazard Background Information
Task 5. Goals, Objectives, and Policies

5.1. Regional Best Practices Summary

5.2. Review of Existing Plans, Requirements, and Gaps

5.3. Draft Goals, Policies, and Objectives *

5.4. Revise Goals, Policies, and Objectives
Task 6. Implementation Measures

6.1. Develop Draft Implementation Measures *

6.2. Revise Implementation Measures

6.3. Implementation Recommendations
Task 7. Safety Elements Drafted for Jurisdiction

7.1. Administrative Draft Safety Elements for Jurisdictions

7.2. Public Review Draft Safety Elements
Task 8. CEQA Analysis

8.1. CEQA Project Management and Initiation *

8.2. Environmental Checklist Memo

8.3. CEQA Document

8.4. Native American Tribal Consultation
Task 9. Board of Forestry Review

9.1. CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry Safety Element Review * Task 10. Public Agency Boards - Review and Approval

10.1. Prepare Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor Materials

10.2. Attend Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor Meetings * * *

10.2. Attend Additional Public Hearings or Meetings * * * PlaceWorks Preparation of Project Task
Staff Review of Work Products
Meetings - Conference Calls or In-Person *
132
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 71

PRICE PROPOSAL
As shown in Table 3, the estimated cost to complete the scope of work described in this proposal is $1,224,016 for the baseline scope of work plus add-on tasks, expenses, and a contingency budget.

Table 4 shows the fee proposal broken down by agency. Tables 3 and 4 are included as separate files.

PlaceWorks bills its work on a time-and-materials basis with monthly invoices.

Assumptions
In addition to the assumptions for the scope of work, this cost estimate assumes that:
 PlaceWorks bills its work on a time-and-materials basis with monthly invoices.  Our cost estimate includes the meetings as scoped. Additional meetings will be billed on a time-andmaterials basis at the direction of the CPC Project Manager. At least one member of the project management team will attend project meetings, public workshops, and other public meetings identified in the scope.
 All products will be submitted to the City in electronic format, which includes Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, and Adobe Acrobat.
 Participating Jurisdiction staff will be responsible for TAC, planning commission, City Council/Board of Supervisors, and advisory body meeting logistics, including coordination, document production, applicable public noticing, mailing costs, room reservations, room set-up and take-down, refreshments, and final preparation and posting of staff reports.
133
Price Proposal
72 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update Table 3 – PlaceWorks Fee Proposal - Detailed by Task
Seale Krispi Rohr Jansen McCracken Mazur Guy/Giffin Barker/Kha Lau DiPierro Robbins/ Miller
Atlas Planning
Solutions
Nexus
Planning CRC
Principal-inChargeProject
Manager
Asst. Project
Manager
Principal
Advisor CEQA Lead GIS Principal
GIS
Associate Associate Website & Outreach
GIS
Analyst
Project
Planner
$250 $210 $175 $260 $245 $225 $155 $155 $165 $125 $140 $135 $135 $125 TASK 1. TASK 1. PROJECT COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION (9 agencies) 1 Collaborative Steering Committee 27 36 45 4 36 148 $565 $28,830 $3,150 $0 $0 $315 $3,465 $32,295 2 Participating Agency Support: Technical Advisory Committees and 1x1 Support 18 56 56 24 12 6 172 $636 $32,426 $9,440 $0 $0 $944 $10,384 $42,810 3 Ongoing project management 44 56 48 148 $623 $31,783 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,783 Task 1. Subtotal 89 148 149 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 12 6 468 $1,824 $93,039 $12,590 $0 $0 $1,259 $13,849 $106,888 TASK 2. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EQUITY APPROACH (8 agencies) 1 Public Engagement Plan (PEP) 8 8 8 8 16 2 50 $193 $9,863 $700 $0 $2,275 $298 $3,273 $13,136 2 Equity Approach 6 8 8 4 4 10 40 $154 $7,834 $350 $0 $2,020 $237 $2,607 $10,441 3 Community Based Organizations (CBOs) Partnerships 8 4 4 16 $71 $3,611 $0 $0 $21,275 $2,128 $23,403 $27,014 4 Community Workshops (4) 20 20 32 36 40 4 4 156 $540 $27,560 $700 $0 $3,650 $435 $4,785 $32,345 5 Hard-to-Reach / Community Group Meetings 2 4 4 12 6 2 2 32 $101 $5,151 $0 $0 $14,250 $1,425 $15,675 $20,826 6 Stakeholder Meetings 6 18 24 18 18 84 $296 $15,086 $2,100 $0 $0 $210 $2,310 $17,396 7 Develop Project Website 8 8 24 40 32 40 8 160 $509 $25,949 $1,180 $0 $0 $118 $1,298 $27,247 8 Mapped Survey Tool 4 4 8 2 4 16 50 12 100 $294 $15,014 $2,360 $0 $0 $236 $2,596 $17,610 9 Story Map 4 4 8 4 8 50 16 6 100 $294 $14,974 $1,180 $0 $0 $118 $1,298 $16,272 10 Community Input Report 6 8 16 40 2 4 4 80 $258 $13,148 $1,660 $0 $3,550 $521 $5,731 $18,879 Task 2. Subtotal 72 86 136 12 0 6 12 70 44 100 196 60 14 10 818 $2,710 $138,190 $10,230 $0 $47,020 $5,726 $62,976 $201,166 TASK 3. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND HAZARD MAPS (9 agencies) 1 GIS Database for Hazards 1 2 2 1 1 27 34 $96 $4,871 $700 $0 $840 $154 $1,694 $6,565 2 GIS Database for Asset Layers 1 2 9 1 1 27 41 $120 $6,120 $700 $0 $840 $154 $1,694 $7,814 3 Identify Sensitive Populations 2 9 18 4 1 16 18 16 4 88 $285 $14,530 $700 $0 $840 $154 $1,694 $16,224 4 Prepare Asset Lists 2 9 9 1 32 18 40 111 $339 $17,269 $700 $0 $840 $154 $1,694 $18,963 5 Identify Flood and Fire Hazard Data 2 9 9 2 2 32 56 $175 $8,900 $1,400 $0 $0 $140 $1,540 $10,440 6 Evacuation Constraints Analysis 8 8 16 2 16 96 146 $428 $21,838 $2,800 $0 $420 $322 $3,542 $25,380 7 Vulnerability Assessment 8 18 54 70 70 220 $718 $36,598 $2,800 $4,680 $1,180 $866 $9,526 $46,124 8 Summarize Results of Vulnerability Assessment 10 18 54 40 40 24 24 210 $675 $34,445 $2,800 $3,120 $1,180 $710 $7,810 $42,255 9 Online Map Viewer 2 8 16 2 9 60 97 $287 $14,612 $3,060 $0 $840 $390 $4,290 $18,902 10 Hazard Maps for Inclusion in Safety Element 2 9 18 2 9 72 112 $328 $16,713 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,713 Task 3. Subtotal 38 92 205 4 0 10 40 158 0 350 166 4 24 24 1115 $3,451 $175,896 $15,660 $7,800 $6,980 $3,044 $33,484 $209,380 TASK 4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON HAZARDS (8 agencies)
1 Update Hazard Background Information 8 24 32 60 68 30 24 246 $770 $39,280 $8,560 $1,560 $0 $1,012 $11,132 $50,412 Task 4. Subtotal 8 24 32 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 68 0 30 24 246 $770 $39,280 $8,560 $1,560 $0 $1,012 $11,132 $50,412 TASK 5. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES (7 agencies)
1 Regional Best Practices Summary 4 6 12 12 12 2 48 $163 $8,333 $1,530 $0 $0 $153 $1,683 $10,016 2 Review of Existing Plans, Requirements, and Gaps 7 12 14 40 48 8 8 137 $434 $22,154 $5,940 $2,340 $0 $828 $9,108 $31,262 3 Draft Goals, Policies, and Objectives 14 16 16 40 48 32 16 182 $578 $29,478 $11,800 $4,680 $4,650 $2,113 $23,243 $52,721 4 Revise Goals, Policies, and Objectives 7 12 12 20 24 16 8 99 $320 $16,310 $5,200 $3,120 $0 $832 $9,152 $25,462 Task 5. Subtotal 32 46 54 0 0 0 0 112 0 0 132 0 58 32 466 $1,495 $76,275 $24,470 $10,140 $4,650 $3,926 $43,186 $119,461 TASK 6. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES (7 agencies)
1 Develop Draft Implementation Measures 8 14 24 4 24 24 14 8 120 $403 $20,553 $9,440 $3,120 $4,650 $1,721 $18,931 $39,484 2 Revise Implementation Measures 4 4 24 16 16 4 68 $225 $11,485 $4,720 $1,560 $0 $628 $6,908 $18,393 3 Implementation Recommendations 8 14 24 16 16 4 82 $287 $14,647 $4,720 $1,560 $0 $628 $6,908 $21,555 Task 6. Subtotal 20 32 72 4 0 0 0 56 0 0 56 0 14 16 270 $915 $46,685 $18,880 $6,240 $4,650 $2,977 $32,747 $79,432 TASK 7. SAFETY ELEMENTS DRAFTED FOR JURISDICTION (7 agencies) 1 Administrative Draft Safety Elements for Jurisdictions 14 32 32 32 60 60 60 290 $896 $45,676 $9,960 $3,120 $4,225 $1,731 $19,036 $64,712 2 Public Review Draft Safety Elements 8 24 24 24 32 28 32 172 $544 $27,764 $7,820 $1,170 $0 $899 $9,889 $37,653 Task 7. Subtotal 22 56 56 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 92 0 88 92 462 $1,440 $73,440 $17,780 $4,290 $4,225 $2,630 $28,925 $102,365 TASK 8. CEQA ANALYSIS (7 agencies)
1 CEQA Project Management and Initiation 36 24 60 $251 $12,791 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,791 2 Environmental Checklist Memo 2 2 24 36 48 12 12 136 $441 $22,511 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,511 3 CEQA Document (NOE or Addendum) 2 2 4 12 24 36 12 12 104 $329 $16,769 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,769 4 Native American Tribal Consultation (SB 18) 4 24 36 48 112 $378 $19,258 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,258 Task 8. Subtotal 2 4 10 0 96 0 0 120 0 0 132 0 24 24 412 $1,399 $71,329 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,329 TASK 9. BOARD OF FORESTRY REVIEW (3 agencies)
1 CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry Safety Element Review 6 6 12 $46 $2,356 $7,080 $0 $0 $708 $7,788 $10,144 Task 9. Subtotal 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 $46 $2,356 $7,080 $0 $0 $708 $7,788 $10,144 TASK 10. PUBLIC AGENCY BOARDS – REVIEW AND APPROVAL (7 agencies) 1 Prepare Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor Materials 14 58 30 40 40 8 21 211 $733 $37,378 $7,600 $0 $0 $760 $8,360 $45,738 2 Attend Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor Meetings (21) 120 120 $504 $25,704 $8,400 $0 $0 $840 $9,240 $34,944 Task 10. Subtotal 14 178 30 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 40 8 21 0 331 $1,237 $63,082 $16,000 $0 $0 $1,600 $17,600 $80,682 Labor Hours Total 297 672 750 24 96 16 52 672 44 450 942 72 285 228 4600 956 170 529 Labor Dollars Total $74,250 $141,120 $131,250 $6,240 $23,520 $3,600 $8,060 $104,160 $7,260 $56,250 $131,880 $9,720 $38,475 $28,500 $15,287 $779,572 $131,250 $30,030 $67,525 $22,882 $251,687 $1,031,259

EXPENSES
PlaceWorks Reimbursable Expenses $8,487
Subconsultants' Reimbursable Expenses $2,500
Expenses Total $10,987
Subtotal: Baseline Tasks + Expenses $1,042,246

CONTINGENCY
Varies by agency $100,135
ADD ON TASKS - Vary by Agency

8.5 CEQA Contingency Add-on: Initial Study/Negative Declaration/AB 52 (per agency) 2 4 8 22 36 4 4 80 $251 $12,821 0 0 0 $0 $0 $64,105

10.3 Optional Add On: Attend Additional Public Meetings/Cost per meeting 8 8 $34 $1,714 $0 $0 $8,570

1.2 Additional TAC Meeting Support & Attendance (County only) 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 $8,960 Add-On Task Total $81,635

ALL TASKS
PlaceWorks Grand Total $1,224,016
PlaceWorks
Total
10% Subconsultant
Markup
Subconsultant
Safety Total
Element
Planning
SLR/VA Community
Outreach

PLACEWORKS SUBCONSULTANTS
Total
Labor
Budget
Hourly Rate:

GRAPHICS TECH.

EDITOR
WP/
CLERICAL PlaceWorks
Hours
PlaceWorks
2% Office
Expenses
134
Price Proposal
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 73
Table 4 – PlaceWorks Fee Proposal - By Agency

COUNTY ALL
San Mateo Atherton Belmont Brisbane Burlingame East Palo Alto Half Moon Bay Pacifica San Bruno Total Task 1. Project Coordination and Communication $ 14,095 $ 10,525 $ 14,095 $ 6,223 $ 14,095 $ 14,095 $ 14,095 $ 5,570 $ 14,095 $ 106,888 Task 2. Community Engagement and Equity Approach $ 102,394 $ - $ 19,754 $ 19,754 $ 19,754 $ 19,754 $ 19,754 $ 201,166 Task 3. Develop Vulnerability Assessment and Hazard Maps $ 67,839 $ 15,180 $ 15,180 $ 18,530 $ 18,530 $ 18,530 $ 18,530 $ 18,530 $ 18,530 $ 209,380 Task 4. Background Information on Hazards $ 10,082 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 $ 50,412 Task 5. Goals, Objectives, and Policies $ 29,865 $ 14,933 $ 14,933 $ 14,933 $ 14,933 $ 14,933 $ 14,933 $ 119,461 Task 6. Implementation Measures $ 19,858 $ 9,929 $ 9,929 $ 9,929 $ 9,929 $ 9,929 $ 9,929 $ 79,432 Task 7. Safety Elements Drafted for Jurisdictions $ 25,591 $ 12,796 $ 12,796 $ 12,796 $ 12,796 $ 12,796 $ 12,796 $ 102,365 Task 8. CEQA Analysis (Exemption or Addendum) $ 10,190 $ 10,190 $ 10,190 $ 10,190 $ 10,190 $ 10,190 $ 10,190 $ 71,329 Task 9. Board of Forestry Review $ 3,381 $ 3,381 $ 3,381 $ 10,144 Task 10. Public Agency Board – Review & Approval $ 11,526 $ 11,526 $ 11,526 $ 11,526 $ 11,526 $ 11,526 $ 11,526 $ 80,682 PW Reimbursable Expenses (Website Hosting, GIS fee, limited travel) $ 3,296 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 $ 10,987 PlaceWorks Total $ 298,118 $ 91,801 $ 118,507 $ 31,476 $ 118,475 $ 118,475 $ 121,857 $ 25,061 $ 118,475 $ 1,042,246 Add-On Tasks San Mateo Atherton Belmont Brisbane Burlingame East Palo Alto Half Moon Bay Pacifica San Bruno Total Additional TAC Meeting Support & Attendance $ 8,960 $ 8,960 Additional Public Agency Meetings $ 5,142 $ 1,714 $ 1,714 $ 8,570 Contingency - CEQA (Initial Study/Negative Declaration/AB 52 consultation) $ 12,821 $ 12,821 $ 12,821 $ 12,821 $ - $ 12,821 $ 64,105 Contingency - General (5% or 10%) $ 31,222 $ 4,590 $ 11,851 $ 3,148 $ 11,848 $ 12,019 $ 12,186 $ 1,253 $ 12,019 $ 100,135 PlaceWorks Total $ 356,263 $ 96,391 $ 143,178 $ 34,623 $ 130,323 $ 145,029 $ 146,863 $ 26,314 $ 145,029 $ 1,224,016 Baseline Scope of Work
CITIES
135
2635 Benvenue Ave
Berkeley, CA 94704
510.761.6001
[email protected] | planningcollaborative.com February 11, 2023
Katie Faulkner, Planner III
County of San Mateo
455 County Center
Redwood City, CA 94063
Subject: Project Management -- San Mateo County Safety Element Collaborative Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element
We are pleased to provide this proposal for continued project management services for the MultiJurisdictional Safety Element Collaborative.

For the past year, Community Planning Collaborative (formerly Baird + Driskell Community Planning) has been serving as the convenor, facilitator and project manager of a collaborative of nine agencies working together on efforts related to their Safety Elements. Specifically, Community Planning Collaborative (CPC) has acted the project manager for the Safety Element Collaborative project through the Collaborative’s initial formation and the RFP process, ensuring that the voice of each participating agency was heard, and their needs addressed. To date, Community Planning Collaborative acted project manager through their role as lead consultant for the 21 Elements Project. 21 Elements was originally created to assist San Mateo County jurisdictions (20 cities and the county) with required Housing Element updates and has now expanded to assist with other General Plan element updates.

With the selection of PlaceWorks, Inc. to serve as the professional Safety Element consultant, there is still the need to provide oversight and orchestration of this multi-agency effort over the next two years. To support staff from the nine agencies, CPC will convene and facilitate the Steering Committee meetings, meet with PlaceWorks to provide preliminary review and direction of process and product components; review public outreach and engagement materials and other deliverables; monitor and provide updates on budget and deliverable requirements to each agency; coordinate with PlaceWorks for efficient and effective work with all agencies; and prepare documents for staff for their communications to Planning Commissions and elected bodies.

As a Principal, Josh Abrams is authorized to bind CPC to the contents of this submittal and to negotiate contracts on behalf of CPC. We propose to have Cathy Capriola continue to serve as the Project Manager of the Safety Element Collaborative. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Josh Abrams
Principal
136
[email protected]

SCOPE OF WORK
In consideration of the payments set forth in Exhibit B, Contractor shall provide the following services:

Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element
Overall, serve as PROJECT MANAGER for the Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element project with nine public agencies in San Mateo County.
 Full Scope Participating Agencies: San Mateo County and six San Mateo County cities (Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, and San Bruno)  Partial Scope Participating Agencies: Cities of Brisbane and Pacifica; and

1. Steering Committee – Coordinate, facilitate and communicate with the agencies individually and together as a Collaborative Steering Committee throughout the project. Lead the Steering Committee and serve as the Committee’s primary point of contact. Ensure meetings of the Collaborative Steering Committee provide opportunities to share information, provide feedback at key points in the process, discuss options and opportunities for community engagement, and review approaches to addressing key hazards of concern. Review meeting materials prepared by PlaceWorks Team before distribution to the Committee members. After each meeting, prepare and distribute a high-level summary of key points, action items, decisions, and next steps.

2. Project Management – Monitor and oversee the overall project per the executed contract with PlaceWorks. Ensure timeline and project deliverables are met in a timely manner and at the quality expectation of the project.

3. Reporting & Agency Communication – Conduct quarterly check-in meetings with each participating agency and ensure concerns, ideas or issues are reviewed and resolved with the PlaceWorks Team.

Prepare quarterly project progress reports regarding status of the project, overall progress on budget, and update on individual agency costs to date.

4. Invoice Review & Budget Monitoring – Review submitted invoices by PlaceWorks; monitor and track invoices and submitted charges against the overall approved budget for the project as a whole and for each individual agency. Communicate with County as fiscal agent on monthly invoices and provide updates to the Steering Committee as a whole and individual agencies as needed.

5. Coordination with Lead Safety Element Consultant (PlaceWorks) – Coordinate on a regular basis with PlaceWorks on project process, deliverables, and community outreach. Provide guidance and conduct necessary outreach to individual agencies or the Steering Committee as a whole.

6. Work Product Review – Review all public engagement tools and products in a comprehensive manner.

Review technical work products (such as vulnerability analysis and individual safety elements) at a higher level focused on clarity and broad objectives with the detailed review to be completed by the individual agencies based on their specific knowledge and expertise).

7. Adoption Staff Reports – Prepare staff reports and enacting resolutions at the completion of the project for adoption of the completed Safety Elements by each jurisdiction. 137
[email protected]

8. Participate in Key Community Outreach Activities – Participate in occasional community outreach activities, such as the community workshops, to monitor outcomes and to understand the key community issues within the Safety Element processes.

9. Respond to Requests from Participating Agencies -- Provide easy and direct access for Jurisdictions to ask questions, distribute information, query other jurisdictions, obtain updated information on State laws and particular items of importance, etc.
138
[email protected]

FEE PROPOSAL
Contractor shall submit monthly invoices for services rendered during the prior month to [email protected], identifying the Agreement Number, specific work completed, the contract donot-exceed amount, and the amount remaining unspent under this Agreement. The invoice shall be based on the following fee schedule and terms as set forth in the table below which identify the overall budget, distribution of total hours by task, and the amount to be billed to the County by fiscal year. Modifications to the estimated annual billing amounts may be made separately, without amendment to this Agreement, through consultation between the Director of Community Development or designee, and Contractor followed by written authorization from the Director of Community Development or designee. County shall pay Contractor within thirty (30) business days of receipt of a satisfactory invoice.

In no event shall total payment for services under this Agreement exceed ninety two thousand four hundred dollars ($92,400) without a written amendment signed by both parties.

The hourly rate for this project is $200 per hour.

Estimated Annual Billing Amounts: The project spans three fiscal years and is roughly expected to be executed within these parameters:

FY 22/23 – 20% equal to $18,480
FY 23/24 – 60% equal to $55,440
FY 24/25 – 20% equal to $18,480
Hours Costs
Steering Committee Coordination 54 $10,800
Coordination Meetings with Fiscal Agent 36 $7,200
Coordination Meetings with Safety Element Consultant
Team
78 $15,600
Quarterly 1x1 Outreach to Participating Agencies &
Quarterly Reports on Progress, Timeline and Budget
Updates by Project and via Individual Agencies
136 $27,200
Monthly Invoice Review 48 $9,600
Review of Work Products & Community Engagement 60 $12,000 Preparation of Final Staff Report and Resolutions 10 $2,000 Sub-Total 422 $84,400
Contingency 40 $8,000
TOTAL 462 $92,400
139
[email protected]

COST SHARING
Below is a chart outlining the cost sharing based on scope of each agency (full scope with full public engagement; full scope with limited engagement; and partial scope with no public engagement and technical aspects only.)

AGENCY ESTIMATED COSTS
San Mateo County $11,935
Atherton $8,778
Belmont $11,935
Brisbane $6,006
Burlingame $11,935
East Palo Alto $11,935
Half Moon Bay $11,935
Pacifica $6,006
San Bruno $11,935
TOTAL $92,400
140