Agenda packet — Belmont City Council, September 10, 2024 (part 3 of 4)

573
2 0.1 Table of content

0.1 Table of content .................................................................................................... 2

0.2 List of figures ....................................................................................................... 3

0.3 List of tables ........................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4

1.1 Purpose of this Report ............................................................................................. 4

1.2 Defining Segregation ............................................................................................... 5

1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area ........................................................................... 5

1.4 Segregation and Land Use ......................................................................................... 6 2 Racial Segregation in City of Belmont ............................................................................... 8

2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within City of Belmont) ......................................... 8

2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between Belmont and other jurisdictions) ................................16 3 Income Segregation in City of Belmont ........................................................................... 21

3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within Belmont) ................................................21

3.2 Regional Income Segregation (between Belmont and other jurisdictions) ...............................27 4 Appendix 1: Summary of Findings ................................................................................. 31

4.1 Segregation in City of Belmont .................................................................................31

4.2 Segregation Between City of Belmont and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region ...............31 5 Appendix 2: Segregation Data ...................................................................................... 33 6 References .............................................................................................................. 37 C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 2 ends

574
3 0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of Belmont (2020) ............................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for Belmont Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ........11 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Belmont Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ....14 Figure 4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in Belmont Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ...........................................................................................................................15 Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of Belmont and Surrounding Areas (2020) ..................................................16 Figure 6: Racial Demographics of Belmont Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) .......................18 Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Belmont and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020) .............19 Figure 8: Income Dot Map of Belmont (2015) .............................................................................22 Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Belmont Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ...................................................................................................................................24 Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Belmont Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ...........................................................................................................................26 Figure 11: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for Belmont Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ...................................................................................................................................27 Figure 12: Income Dot Map of Belmont and Surrounding Areas (2015) ...............................................28 Figure 13: Income Demographics of Belmont Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ................29

0.3 List of tables
Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Belmont ..............................................10 Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Belmont ..........................................13 Table 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within Belmont ..............................................15 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, Belmont and the Region ........................................................17 Table 5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures ..........................................................................20 Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Belmont ....................................23 Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Belmont ................................25 Table 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within Belmont ............................................26 Table 9: Population by Income Group, Belmont and the Region ......................................................28 Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures .......................................................................30 Table 11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in Belmont ........................................................33 Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in Belmont ......................................................34 Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures .........................................................................35 Table 14: Regional Income Segregation Measures .......................................................................35 Table 15: Population by Racial Group, Belmont and the Region ......................................................36 Table 16: Population by Income Group, Belmont and the Region .....................................................36 C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 3 ends

575
4 1 INTRODUCTION
The requirement to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) is derived from The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex—and was later amended to include familial status and disability.1 The 2015 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and California Assembly Bill 686 (2018) mandate that each jurisdiction takes meaningful action to address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity.23 AB 686 requires that jurisdictions incorporate AFFH into their Housing Elements, which includes inclusive community participation, an assessment of fair housing, a site inventory reflective of AFFH, and the development of goals, policies, and programs to meaningfully address local fair housing issues. ABAG and UC Merced have prepared this report to assist Bay Area jurisdictions with the Assessment of Fair Housing section of the Housing Element.

Assessment of Fair Housing Components
The Assessment of Fair Housing includes five components, which are discussed in detail on pages 22-43 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo:

A: Summary of fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity B: Integration and segregation patterns, and trends related to people with protected characteristics
C: Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty D: Disparities in access to opportunity
E: Disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk

1.1 Purpose of this Report
This report describes racial and income segregation in Bay Area jurisdictions. Local jurisdiction staff can use the information in this report to help fulfill a portion of the second component of the Assessment of Fair Housing, which requires analysis of integration and segregation patterns and trends related to people with protected characteristics and lower incomes. Jurisdictions will still need to perform a similar analysis for familial status and populations with disability.

This report provides segregation measures for both the local jurisdiction and the region using several indices. For segregation between neighborhoods within a city (intra-city segregation), this report includes isolation indices, dissimilarity indices, and Theil’s-H index. The isolation index measures 1 https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2
2 HCD AFFH Guidance Memo
3 The 2015 HUD rule was reversed in 2020 and partially reinstated in 2021.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 4 ends

576
5 segregation for a single group, while the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two groups.

The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once. HCD’s AFFH guidelines require local jurisdictions to include isolation indices and dissimilarity indices in the Housing Element. Theil’s H index is provided in addition to these required measures. For segregation between cities within the Bay Area (inter-city segregation), this report includes dissimilarity indices at the regional level as required by HCD’s AFFH guidelines. HCD’s AFFH guidelines also require jurisdictions to compare conditions at the local level to the rest of the region; and this report presents the difference in the racial and income composition of a jurisdiction relative to the region as a whole to satisfy the comparison requirement.

1.2 Defining Segregation
Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. This report examines two spatial forms of segregation: neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and city level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area.

Neighborhood level segregation (within a jurisdiction, or intra-city): Segregation of race and income groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. For example, if a local jurisdiction has a population that is 20% Latinx, but some neighborhoods are 80% Latinx while others have nearly no Latinx residents, that jurisdiction would have segregated neighborhoods.

City level segregation (between jurisdictions in a region, or inter-city): Race and income divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region. A region could be very diverse with equal numbers of white, Asian, Black, and Latinx residents, but the region could also be highly segregated with each city comprised solely of one racial group.

There are many factors that have contributed to the generation and maintenance of segregation.

Historically, racial segregation stemmed from explicit discrimination against people of color, such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and discrimination in mortgage lending. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and local governments (Rothstein 2017).

Segregation patterns are also affected by policies that appear race-neutral, such as land use decisions and the regulation of housing development.

Segregation has resulted in vastly unequal access to public goods such as quality schools, neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public safety (Trounstine 2015). This generational lack of access for many communities, particularly people of color and lower income residents, has often resulted in poor life outcomes, including lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates (Chetty and Hendren 2018, Ananat 2011, Burch 2014, Cutler and Glaeser 1997, Sampson 2012, Sharkey 2013).

1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area
Across the San Francisco Bay Area, white residents and above moderate-income residents are significantly more segregated from other racial and income groups (see Appendix 2). The highest levels of racial segregation occur between the Black and white populations. The analysis completed for this report indicates that the amount of racial segregation both within Bay Area cities and across jurisdictions in the region has decreased since the year 2000. This finding is consistent with recent research from the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, which concluded that “[a]lthough 7 C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 5 ends

577
6 of the 9 Bay Area counties were more segregated in 2020 than they were in either 1980 or 1990, racial residential segregation in the region appears to have peaked around the year 2000 and has generally declined since.”4
However, compared to cities in other parts of California, Bay Area jurisdictions have more neighborhood level segregation between residents from different racial groups. Additionally, there is also more racial segregation between Bay Area cities compared to other regions in the state.

1.4 Segregation and Land Use
It is difficult to address segregation patterns without an analysis of both historical and existing land use policies that impact segregation patterns. Land use regulations influence what kind of housing is built in a city or neighborhood (Lens and Monkkonen 2016, Pendall 2000). These land use regulations in turn impact demographics: they can be used to affect the number of houses in a community, the number of people who live in the community, the wealth of the people who live in the community, and where within the community they reside (Trounstine 2018). Given disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity, the ability to afford housing in different neighborhoods, as influenced by land use regulations, is highly differentiated across racial and ethnic groups (Bayer, McMillan, and Reuben 2004).5 ABAG/MTC plans to issue a separate report detailing the existing land use policies that influence segregation patterns in the Bay Area.
4 For more information, see https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-segregated-cities-bay-area-2020. 5 Using a household-weighted median of Bay Area county median household incomes, regional values were $61,050 for Black residents, $122,174 for Asian/Pacific Islander residents, $121,794 for white residents, and $76,306 for Latinx residents. For the source data, see U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B19013B, Table B19013D, B19013H, and B19013I.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 6 ends

578
7 Definition of Terms - Geographies
Neighborhood: In this report, “neighborhoods” are approximated by tracts.6 Tracts are statistical geographic units defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of disseminating data. In the Bay Area, tracts contain on average 4,500 residents. Nearly all Bay Area jurisdictions contain at least two census tracts, with larger jurisdictions containing dozens of tracts.

Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is used to refer to the 109 cities, towns, and unincorporated county areas that are members of ABAG. Though not all ABAG jurisdictions are cities, this report also uses the term “city” interchangeably with “jurisdiction” in some places.

Region: The region is the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, which is comprised of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Solano County, and Sonoma County.
6 Throughout this report, neighborhood level segregation measures are calculated using census tract data.

However, the racial dot maps in Figure 1 and Figure 5 use data from census blocks, while the income group dot maps in Figure 8 and Figure 12 use data from census block groups. These maps use data derived from a smaller geographic scale to better show spatial differences in where different groups live. Census block groups are subdivisions of census tracts, and census blocks are subdivisions of block groups. In the Bay Area, block groups contain on average 1,500 people, while census blocks contain on average 95 people.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 7 ends

579
8 2 RACIAL SEGREGATION IN CITY OF BELMONT
Definition of Terms - Racial/Ethnic Groups
The U.S. Census Bureau classifies racial groups (e.g. white or Black/African American) separately from Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.7 This report combines U.S. Census Bureau definitions for race and ethnicity into the following racial groups:

White: Non-Hispanic white
Latinx: Hispanic or Latino of any race8
Black: Non-Hispanic Black/African American
Asian/Pacific Islander: Non-Hispanic Asian or Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander People of Color: All who are not non-Hispanic white (including people who identify as “some other race” or “two or more races”)9

2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within City of Belmont) Racial dot maps are useful for visualizing how multiple racial groups are distributed within a specific geography. The racial dot map of Belmont in Figure 1 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of racial groups within the jurisdiction. Generally, when the distribution of dots does not suggest patterns or clustering, segregation measures tend to be lower. Conversely, when clusters of certain groups are apparent on a racial dot map, segregation measures may be higher. 7 More information about the Census Bureau’s definitions of racial groups is available here:
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html. 8 The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx to refer to this racial/ethnic group. 9 Given the uncertainty in the data for population size estimates for racial and ethnic groups not included in the Latinx, Black, or Asian/Pacific Islander categories, this report only analyzes these racial groups in the aggregate People of Color category.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 8 ends

580
9 Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of Belmont (2020)
Universe: Population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for City of Belmont and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.

There are many ways to quantitatively measure segregation. Each measure captures a different aspect of the ways in which groups are divided within a community. One way to measure segregation is by using an isolation index:
• The isolation index compares each neighborhood’s composition to the jurisdiction’s demographics as a whole.
• This index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that a particular group is more isolated from other groups.
• Isolation indices indicate the potential for contact between different groups. The index can be interpreted as the experience of the average member of that group. For example, if the isolation index is .65 for Latinx residents in a city, then the average Latinx resident in that city lives in a neighborhood that is 65% Latinx.

Within City of Belmont the most isolated racial group is white residents. Belmont’s isolation index of

0.485 for white residents means that the average white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 48.5% white. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values for all racial groups in Belmont for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 1 below. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the white population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 9 ends

581
10 The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different racial groups in 2020.10 The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by racial groups in this jurisdiction. For example, Table 1 indicates the average isolation index value for white residents across all Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.491, meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 49.1% white.

Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Belmont Belmont Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.166 0.215 0.302 0.245
Black/African American 0.016 0.018 0.014 0.053
Latinx 0.092 0.124 0.130 0.251
White 0.712 0.624 0.485 0.491
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Figure 2 below shows how racial isolation index values in Belmont compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of isolation index values among Bay Area jurisdictions.

Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the isolation index value for that group in City of Belmont, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the isolation index for that group. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels for racial groups in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region. 10 This average only includes the 104 jurisdictions that have more than one census tract, which is true for all comparisons of Bay Area jurisdictions’ segregation measures in this report. The segregation measures in this report are calculated by comparing the demographics of a jurisdiction’s census tracts to the jurisdiction’s demographics, and such calculations cannot be made for the five jurisdictions with only one census tract (Brisbane, Calistoga, Portola Valley, Rio Vista, and Yountville).

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 10 ends

582
11 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for Belmont Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Another way to measure segregation is by using a dissimilarity index:
• This index measures how evenly any two groups are distributed across neighborhoods relative to their representation in a city overall. The dissimilarity index at the jurisdiction level can be interpreted as the share of one group that would have to move neighborhoods to create perfect integration for these two groups.
• The dissimilarity index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that groups are more unevenly distributed (e.g. they tend to live in different neighborhoods).

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 11 ends

583
12 Dissimilarity Index Guidance for Cities with Small Racial Group Populations The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population.

HCD’s AFFH guidance requires the Housing Element to include the dissimilarity index values for racial groups, but also offers flexibility in emphasizing the importance of various measures. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 4), jurisdiction staff use the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of their jurisdiction’s neighborhood-level segregation patterns (intra-city segregation).

If a jurisdiction has a very small population of a racial group, this indicates that segregation between the jurisdiction and the region (inter-city segregation) is likely to be an important feature of the jurisdiction’s segregation patterns.

In City of Belmont, the Black/African American group is 1.2 percent of the population - so staff should be aware of this small population size when evaluating dissimilarity index values involving this group.

Table 2 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Belmont between white residents and residents who are Black, Latinx, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The table also provides the dissimilarity index between white residents and all residents of color in the jurisdiction, and all dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods (2000, 2010, and 2020).

In Belmont the highest segregation is between Black and white residents (see Table 2). Belmont’s Black /white dissimilarity index of 0.165 means that 16.5% of Black (or white) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Black residents and white residents.

However, local jurisdiction staff should note that this dissimilarity index value is not a reliable data point due to small population size. See callout box above for more information.

The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average dissimilarity index values for these racial group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation between communities of color are from white residents in this jurisdiction.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 12 ends

584
13 For example, Table 2 indicates that the average Latinx/white dissimilarity index for a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.207, so on average 20.7% of Latinx (or white residents) in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create perfect integration between Latinx and white residents in that jurisdiction.

Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Belmont Belmont Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.161 0.156 0.088 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.151* 0.175* 0.165* 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.151 0.142 0.119 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.141 0.139 0.087 0.168
Universe: Population.

Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial group making up less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.

Figure 3 below shows how dissimilarity index values in City of Belmont compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group pairing, the spread of dots represents the range of dissimilarity index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each racial group pairing notes the dissimilarity index value in Belmont, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing. Similar to Figure 2, local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels between white residents and communities of color in their jurisdiction compare to the rest of the region. However, staff should be mindful of whether a racial group in their jurisdiction has a small population (approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population), as the dissimilarity index value is less reliable for small populations.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 13 ends

585
14 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Belmont Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Note: The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 4), jurisdiction staff could focus on the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of neighborhood-level racial segregation in their jurisdiction.

The Theil’s H Index can be used to measure segregation between all groups within a jurisdiction:
• This index measures how diverse each neighborhood is compared to the diversity of the whole city. Neighborhoods are weighted by their size, so that larger neighborhoods play a more significant role in determining the total measure of segregation. • The index ranges from 0 to 1. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all neighborhoods within a city have the same demographics as the whole city. A value of 1 would mean each group lives exclusively in their own, separate neighborhood.
• For jurisdictions with a high degree of diversity (multiple racial groups comprise more than 10% of the population), Theil’s H offers the clearest summary of overall segregation.

The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood racial segregation in Belmont for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 3 below. The “Bay Area Average” column in the table provides the average Theil’s H Index across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. Between 2010 and 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Belmont declined, suggesting that there is now less neighborhood level racial segregation within the jurisdiction. In 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Belmont was C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 14 ends

586
15 lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating that neighborhood level racial segregation in Belmont is less than in the average Bay Area city.

Table 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within Belmont Belmont Bay Area
Average
Index 2000 2010 2020 2020
Theil's H Multi-racial 0.014 0.015 0.007 0.042
Universe: Population.

Figure 4 below shows how Theil’s H index values for racial segregation in Belmont compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction.

Additionally, the black line notes the Theil’s H index value for neighborhood racial segregation in Belmont, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil’s H index value across Bay Area jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare how neighborhood racial segregation levels in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.

Figure 4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in Belmont Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 15 ends

587
16 2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between Belmont and other jurisdictions)
At the regional level, segregation is measured between cities instead of between neighborhoods. Racial dot maps are not only useful for examining neighborhood racial segregation within a jurisdiction, but these maps can also be used to explore the racial demographic differences between different jurisdictions in the region. Figure 5 below presents a racial dot map showing the spatial distribution of racial groups in Belmont as well as in nearby Bay Area cities.

Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of Belmont and Surrounding Areas (2020) Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

To understand how each city contributes to the total segregation of the Bay Area, one can look at the difference in the racial composition of a jurisdiction compared to the racial composition of the region as a whole. The racial demographics in Belmont for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 4 below. The table also provides the racial composition of the nine-county Bay Area. As of 2020, Belmont has a higher share of white residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a higher share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 16 ends

588
17 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, Belmont and the Region Belmont Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 15.3% 20.4% 29.9% 28.2%
Black/African American 1.5% 1.6% 1.2% 5.6%
Latinx 8.3% 11.5% 12.4% 24.4%
Other or Multiple Races 4.4% 5.2% 8.6% 5.9%
White 70.4% 61.3% 47.9% 35.8%
Universe: Population.

Figure 6 below compares the racial demographics in Belmont to those of all 109 Bay Area jurisdictions.11 In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group’s representation among Bay Area jurisdictions.

Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the percentage of the population of City of Belmont represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among all 109 jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare the representation of different racial groups in their jurisdiction to those groups’ representation in other jurisdictions in the region, which can indicate the extent of segregation between this jurisdiction and the region.
11 While comparisons of segregation measures are made only using the 104 jurisdictions with more than one census tract, this comparison of jurisdiction level demographic data can be made using all 109 jurisdictions.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 17 ends

589
18 Figure 6: Racial Demographics of Belmont Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

The map in Figure 7 below also illustrates regional racial segregation between Belmont and other jurisdictions. This map demonstrates how the percentage of people of color in Belmont and surrounding jurisdictions compares to the Bay Area as a whole:
• Jurisdictions shaded orange have a share of people of color that is less than the Bay Area as a whole, and the degree of difference is greater than five percentage points. • Jurisdictions shaded white have a share of people of color comparable to the regional percentage of people of color (within five percentage points). • Jurisdictions shaded grey have a share of people of color that is more than five percentage points greater than the regional percentage of people of color.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 18 ends

590
19 Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Belmont and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020)
Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

Note: People of color refer to persons not identifying as non-Hispanic white. The nine-county Bay Area is the reference region for this map.

Segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating regional values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Table 5 presents dissimilarity index, isolation index, and Theil’s H index values for racial segregation for the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2010 and 2020. In the previous section of this report focused on neighborhood level racial segregation, these indices were calculated by comparing the racial demographics of the census tracts within a jurisdiction to the demographics of the jurisdiction as a whole. In Table 5, these measures are calculated by comparing the racial demographics of local jurisdictions to the region’s racial makeup. For example, looking at the 2020 data, Table 5 shows the white isolation index value for the region is 0.429, meaning that on average white Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is 42.9% white in 2020. An example of regional dissimilarity index values in Table 5 is the Black/white dissimilarity index value of 0.459, which means that across the region 45.9% of Black (or white) residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to evenly distribute Black and white residents across Bay Area jurisdictions. The dissimilarity index values in Table 5 reflect recommendations made in HCD’s AFFH guidance for calculating dissimilarity at the region level.12 The regional value for the Theil’s H index measures how 12 For more information on HCD’s recommendations regarding data considerations for analyzing integration and segregation patterns, see page 31 of the AFFH Guidance Memo.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 19 ends

591
20 diverse each Bay Area jurisdiction is compared to the racial diversity of the whole region. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all jurisdictions within the Bay Area have the same racial demographics as the entire region, while a value of 1 would mean each racial group lives exclusively in their own separate jurisdiction. The regional Theil’s H index value for racial segregation decreased slightly between 2010 and 2020, meaning that racial groups in the Bay Area are now slightly less separated by the borders between jurisdictions.

Table 5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2020
Isolation Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.317 0.378
Black/African American 0.144 0.118
Latinx 0.283 0.291
White 0.496 0.429
People of Color 0.629 0.682
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.384 0.369
Black/African American vs. White 0.475 0.459
Latinx vs. White 0.301 0.297
People of Color vs. White 0.296 0.293
Theil's H Multi-racial All Racial Groups 0.103 0.097
Universe: Population.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 20 ends

592
21 3 INCOME SEGREGATION IN CITY OF BELMONT
Definition of Terms - Income Groups
When analyzing segregation by income, this report uses income group designations consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the Housing Element:

Very low-income: individuals earning less than 50% of Area Median Income (AMI)
Low-income: individuals earning 50%-80% of AMI
Moderate-income: individuals earning 80%-120% of AMI
Above moderate-income: individuals earning 120% or more of AMI Additionally, this report uses the term “lower-income” to refer to all people who earn less than 80% of AMI, which includes both low-income and very low-income individuals.

The income groups described above are based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculations for AMI. HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and VallejoFairfield Metro Area (Solano County).

The income categories used in this report are based on the AMI for the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within Belmont) Income segregation can be measured using similar indices as racial segregation. Income dot maps, similar to the racial dot maps shown in Figures 1 and 5, are useful for visualizing segregation between multiple income groups at the same time. The income dot map of Belmont in Figure 8 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of income groups within the jurisdiction. As with the racial dot maps, when the dots show lack of a pattern or clustering, income segregation measures tend to be lower, and conversely, when clusters are apparent, the segregation measures may be higher as well.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 21 ends

593
22 Figure 8: Income Dot Map of Belmont (2015)
Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for City of Belmont and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of individuals.

The isolation index values for all income groups in Belmont for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 6 below.13 Above Moderate-income residents are the most isolated income group in Belmont.

Belmont’s isolation index of 0.527 for these residents means that the average Above Moderate-income resident in Belmont lives in a neighborhood that is 52.7% Above Moderate-income. Among all income groups, the Very Low-income population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.

Similar to the tables presented earlier for neighborhood racial segregation, the “Bay Area Average” column in Table 6 provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different income groups in 2015. The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by income groups in this jurisdiction. For example, Table 6 indicates the average isolation index value for very low-income residents across Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.269, 13 This report presents data for income segregation for the years 2010 and 2015, which is different than the time periods used for racial segregation. This deviation stems from the data source recommended for income segregation calculations in HCD’s AFFH Guidelines. This data source most recently updated with data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. For more information on HCD’s recommendations for calculating income segregation, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidelines.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 22 ends

594
23 meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a very low-income resident lives in a neighborhood that is 26.9% very low-income.

Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Belmont Belmont Bay Area
Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.173 0.243 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.146 0.125 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.213 0.182 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.513 0.527 0.507
Universe: Population.

Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

Figure 9 below shows how income group isolation index values in Belmont compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group, the spread of dots represents the range of isolation index values among Bay Area jurisdictions.

Additionally, the black line within each income group notes the isolation index value for that group in Belmont, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the isolation index for that group. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels for income groups in their jurisdiction compare to the rest of the region.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 23 ends

595
24 Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Belmont Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

Table 7 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Belmont between residents who are lower-income (earning less than 80% of AMI) and those who are not lowerincome (earning above 80% of AMI). This data aligns with the requirements described in HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo for identifying dissimilarity for lower-income households.14 Segregation in Belmont between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income increased between 2010 and 2015. Additionally, Table 7 shows dissimilarity index values for the level of segregation in Albany between residents who are very low-income (earning less than 50% of AMI) and those who are above moderate-income (earning above 120% of AMI). This supplementary data point provides additional nuance to an analysis of income segregation, as this index value indicates the extent to which a jurisdiction’s lowest and highest income residents live in separate neighborhoods.

Similar to other tables in this report, the “Bay Area Average” column shows the average dissimilarity index values for these income group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2015. For example, Table 7 indicates that the average dissimilarity index between lower-income residents and other residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.198, so on average 19.8% of lower-income residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in that jurisdiction.
14 For more information, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 24 ends

596
25 In 2015, the income segregation in Belmont between lower-income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions (See Table 7). This means that the lowerincome residents are more segregated from other residents within Belmont compared to other Jurisdictions in the region.

Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Belmont
Belmont Bay Area
Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.188 0.244 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.209 0.237 0.253
Universe: Population.

Figure 10 below shows how dissimilarity index values for income segregation in Belmont compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group pairing, the spread of dots represents the range of dissimilarity index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each income group pairing notes the dissimilarity index value in Belmont, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels between lower-income residents and wealthier residents in their jurisdiction compared to the rest of the region.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 25 ends

597
26 Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Belmont Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood income group segregation in Belmont for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 8 below. The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average Theil’s H Index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different income groups in 2015. By 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income segregation in Belmont was more than it had been in 2010.

In 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income group segregation in Belmont was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating there is less neighborhood level income segregation in Belmont than in the average Bay Area city.

Table 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within Belmont Belmont Bay Area
Average
Index 2010 2015 2015
Theil's H Multi-income 0.018 0.033 0.043
Universe: Population.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 26 ends

598
27 Figure 11 below shows how Theil’s H index values for income group segregation in Belmont compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2015. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction.

Additionally, the black line notes the Theil’s H index value for income group segregation in Belmont, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil’s H index value across Bay Area jurisdictions.

Local staff can use this chart to compare how neighborhood income group segregation levels in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.

Figure 11: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for Belmont Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

3.2 Regional Income Segregation (between Belmont and other jurisdictions)
At the regional level, segregation is measured between jurisdictions instead of between neighborhoods.

Income dot maps are not only useful for examining neighborhood income segregation within a jurisdiction, but these maps can also be used to explore income demographic differences between jurisdictions in the region. Figure 12 below presents an income dot map showing the spatial distribution of income groups in Belmont as well as in nearby Bay Area jurisdictions.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 27 ends

599
28 Figure 12: Income Dot Map of Belmont and Surrounding Areas (2015) Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

When looking at income segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area, one can examine how Belmont differs from the region. The income demographics in Belmont for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 9 below. The table also provides the income composition of the nine-county Bay Area in 2015. As of that year, Belmont had a lower share of very low-income residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of low-income residents, a similar share of moderate-income residents, and a higher share of above moderate-income residents.

Table 9: Population by Income Group, Belmont and the Region Belmont Bay Area
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 15.7% 21.99% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 13.56% 10.7% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 21.12% 17.12% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 49.62% 50.19% 39.4%
C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 28 ends

600
29 Universe: Population.

Source: Data for 2015 is from Housing U.S. Department of and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

Figure 13 below compares the income demographics in Belmont to other Bay Area jurisdictions.15 Like the chart in Figure 3, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group’s representation among Bay Area jurisdictions. The smallest range is among jurisdictions’ moderate-income populations, while Bay Area jurisdictions vary the most in the share of their population that is above moderate-income. Additionally, the black lines within each income group note the percentage of Belmont population represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among other jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare the representation of different income groups in their jurisdiction to those groups’ representation in other jurisdictions in the region, which can indicate the extent of segregation between this jurisdiction and the region.

Figure 13: Income Demographics of Belmont Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data. 15 While comparisons of segregation measures are made only using the 104 jurisdictions with more than one census tract, this comparison of jurisdiction level demographic data can be made using all 109 jurisdictions.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 29 ends

601
30 Income segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating regional values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Similar to the regional racial segregation measures shown in Table 5, Table 10 presents dissimilarity index, isolation index, and Theil’s H index values for income segregation for the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2010 and 2015. In the previous section of this report focused on neighborhood level income segregation, segregation indices were calculated by comparing the income demographics of the census tracts within a jurisdiction to the demographics of the jurisdiction as a whole. In Table 10, these measures are calculated by comparing the income demographics of local jurisdictions to the region’s income group makeup. For example, looking at 2015 data, Table 10 shows the regional isolation index value for very low-income residents is

0.315 for 2015, meaning that on average very low-income Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is 31.5% very low-income. The regional dissimilarity index for lower-income residents and other residents is 0.194 in 2015, which means that across the region 19.4% of lower-income residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in the Bay Area as a whole. The regional value for the Theil’s H index measures how diverse each Bay Area jurisdiction is compared to the income group diversity of the whole region. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all jurisdictions within the Bay Area have the same income demographics as the entire region, while a value of 1 would mean each income group lives exclusively in their own separate jurisdiction. The regional Theil’s H index value for income segregation decreased slightly between 2010 and 2015, meaning that income groups in the Bay Area are now slightly less separated by the borders between jurisdictions.

Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2015
Isolation Index Regional Level
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.277 0.315
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.157 0.154
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.185 0.180
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.467 0.435
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.186 0.194
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.238 0.248
Theil's H Multi-income All Income Groups 0.034 0.032
Universe: Population.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 30 ends

602
31 4 APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

4.1 Segregation in City of Belmont
• The isolation index measures the segregation of a single group, and the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two different groups. The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once. • As of 2020, white residents are the most segregated compared to other racial groups in Belmont, as measured by the isolation index. White residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups. • Among all racial groups, the white population’s isolation index value has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020. • According to the dissimilarity index, within Belmont the highest level of racial segregation is between Black and white residents.16 However, local jurisdiction staff should note that this dissimilarity index value is not a reliable data point due to small population size. • According to the Theil’s H-Index, neighborhood racial segregation in Belmont declined between 2010 and 2020. Neighborhood income segregation increased between 2010 and 2015. • Above Moderate-income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups in Belmont. Above Moderate-income residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups.
• Among all income groups, the Very Low-income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.
• According to the dissimilarity index, segregation between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income has increased between 2010 and 2015. In 2015, the income segregation in Belmont between lower-income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions.

4.2 Segregation Between City of Belmont and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region
• Belmont has a higher share of white residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a higher share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.
16 The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 15 in Appendix 2), jurisdiction staff could focus on the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of neighborhood-level racial segregation in their jurisdiction.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 31 ends

603
32 • Regarding income groups, Belmont has a lower share of very low-income residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of low-income residents, a similar share of moderate-income residents, and a higher share of above moderate-income residents.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 32 ends

604
33 5 APPENDIX 2: SEGREGATION DATA
Appendix 2 combines tabular data presented throughout this report into a more condensed format. This data compilation is intended to enable local jurisdiction staff and their consultants to easily reference this data and re-use the data in the Housing Element or other relevant documents/analyses.

Table 11 in this appendix combines data from Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 in the body of the report.

Table 12 in this appendix combines data from Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 in the body of the report.

Table 13 represents a duplication of Table 5 in the body of the report; Table 14 represents a duplication of Table 10 in the body of the report; Table 15 in this appendix represents a duplication of Table 4 in the body of the report, while Table 16 represents a duplication of Table 9 in the body of the report.

Table 11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in Belmont Belmont Bay Area
Average
Index Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Isolation
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.166 0.215 0.302 0.245
Black/African American 0.016 0.018 0.014 0.053
Latinx 0.092 0.124 0.130 0.251
White 0.712 0.624 0.485 0.491
Dissimilarity
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.161 0.156 0.088 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.151* 0.175* 0.165* 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.151 0.142 0.119 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.141 0.139 0.087 0.168
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.014 0.015 0.007 0.042
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial group making up less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 33 ends

605
34 Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in Belmont Belmont Bay Area
Average
Index Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Isolation
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.173 0.243 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.146 0.125 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.213 0.182 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.513 0.527 0.507
Dissimilarity
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.188 0.244 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.209 0.237 0.253
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.018 0.033 0.043
Universe: Population.

Source: Income data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 34 ends

606
35 Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2020
Isolation Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.317 0.378
Black/African American 0.144 0.118
Latinx 0.283 0.291
White 0.496 0.429
People of Color 0.629 0.682
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.384 0.369
Black/African American vs. White 0.475 0.459
Latinx vs. White 0.301 0.297
People of Color vs. White 0.296 0.293
Theil's H Multi-racial All Racial Groups 0.103 0.097
Universe: Population.

Table 14: Regional Income Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2015
Isolation Index Regional Level
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.277 0.315
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.157 0.154
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.185 0.180
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.467 0.435
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.186 0.194
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.238 0.248
Theil's H Multi-income All Income Groups 0.034 0.032
Universe: Population.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 35 ends

607
36 Table 15: Population by Racial Group, Belmont and the Region Belmont Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 15.3% 20.44% 29.86% 35.8%
Black/African American 1.55% 1.56% 1.23% 5.6%
Latinx 8.32% 11.52% 12.43% 28.2%
Other or Multiple Races 4.4% 5.21% 8.58% 24.4%
White 70.44% 61.28% 47.9% 5.9%
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Table 16: Population by Income Group, Belmont and the Region Belmont Bay Area
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 15.7% 21.99% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 13.56% 10.7% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 21.12% 17.12% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 49.62% 50.19% 39.4%
Universe: Population.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 36 ends

608
37 6 REFERENCES
Ananat, Elizabeth Oltmans. 2011. “The wrong side(s) of the tracks: The causal effects of racial segregation on urban poverty and inequality,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3: 34-

66. Bayer, Patrick, Robert McMillan, and Kim S. Rueben. 2004. “What Drives Racial Segregation? New Evidence using Census Microdata,” Journal of Urban Economics 56(3): 514-535.

Burch, Traci. 2014. “The Old Jim Crow: Racial Residential Segregation and Imprisonment,” Law and Policy 36(3): 223-255.

Chetty, Raj and Nathanial Hendren. 2018. “The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility I: Childhood Exposure Effects,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(3):1107-1162 Cutler, David M., and Edward L. Glaeser. 1997. “Are ghettos good or bad?,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(3): 827-72.

Lens, Michael and Paavo Monkkonen. 2016. “Do Strict Land Use Regulations Make Metropolitan Areas More Segregated by Income?,” Journal of the American Planning Association 82(1): 6–21.

Pendall, Rolf. 2000. “Local Land-Use Regulation and the Chain of Exclusion,” Journal of the American Planning Association 66(2): 125-142.

Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of how our Government Segregated America. New York: Liveright Publishing.

Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sharkey, Patrick. 2013. Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Trounstine, Jessica. 2015. “Segregation and Inequality in Public Goods,” American Journal of Political Science 60(3): 709-725.

Trounstine, Jessica. 2018. Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities. New York: Cambridge University Press.

C.4. Belmont Segregation Report | 2023-2031

Page 37 ends

609
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.5. FAIR HOUSING LAWS, PAGE 1 AFFH Attachment C.5.

Fair Housing Laws & Regulations
This appendix summarizes key state laws and regulations related to mitigating housing discrimination and expanding housing choice.

California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2) is the state fair housing law that prohibits those engaged in the housing business—landlords, real estate agents, home sellers, builders, mortgage lenders, and others—from discriminating against tenants or homeowners.

California law protects individuals from illegal discrimination by housing providers based on:
 Race, color
 Ancestry, national origin
 Citizenship, immigration status
 Primary language
 Age
 Religion
 Disability, mental or physical
 Sex, gender
 Gender identity, gender expression
 Marital status
 Familial status
 Source of income
 Military or veteran status
Government Code section 65008. Covers actions of a city, county, city and county, or other local government agency, and makes those actions null and void if the action denies an individual or group of individuals the enjoyment of residence, landownership, tenancy, or other land use in the state because of membership in a protected class, the method of financing, and/or the intended occupancy.
 For example, a violation under Government Code section 65008 may occur if a jurisdiction applied more scrutiny to reviewing and approving an affordable 610
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.5. FAIR HOUSING LAWS, PAGE 2 development as compared to market-rate developments, or multifamily housing as compared to single family homes.
 Government Code section 65008, subdivision (e), authorizes preferential treatment of affordable housing
Government Code section 8899.50 requires all public agencies to administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing and avoid any action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.

Government Code section 11135 et seq. requires full and equal access to all programs and activities operated, administered, or funded with financial assistance from the state, regardless of one’s membership or perceived membership in a protected class.

Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, section 65915) requires California jurisdictions to adopt ordinances that specify how density bonuses will be offered to incentivize affordable housing. The state law contains the minimum specifications for density bonuses.

Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, section 65589.5) prohibits local agencies from disapproving housing developments, including farmworker housing and emergency shelters, or requiring conditions that make such housing infeasible except under certain conditions specified in the law.

No-Net-Loss Law (Gov. Code, section 65863) is meant to ensure that development opportunities remain available throughout a jurisdiction’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA) period, especially for low and moderate income households. It prohibits jurisdictions from lowering residential densities without substantial evidence.

Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code, section 65913.1) requires jurisdictions to designate and zone sufficient vacant land for residential use with sufficient standards in relation to growth projections.

Excessive subdivision standards (Gov. Code, section 65913.2) prohibits jurisdictions from imposing design criteria that make residential development infeasible.

Limits on growth controls (Gov. Code, section 65302.8) describes how flood plains are used in comprehensive planning and zoning.

Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, section 65583, esp. subds. (c) (5), (c) (10) governs state-required housing elements.
611
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 1 APPENDIX C.6. Belmont AFFH Maps and Data Packet
Figure I-1.

Fair Housing Assistance Organizations, San Mateo County Source: Organization Websites
Figure I-2.

Fair Housing
Complaints Filed
with HUD by
Basis, San Mateo
County, 2017-
2021
Source:

HUD
Name
Project
Sentinel Northern California
1490 El Camino
Real, Santa Clara,
CA 95050
(800) 339-6043 https://www.housing.org/
Legal Aid
Society of San
Mateo County
San Mateo County
330 Twin Dolphin
Drive, Suite 123,
Redwood City, CA
94065
(650) 558-0915 https://www.legalaidsmc.org/h
ousing-resources
Community
Legal Services
of East Palo
Alto
East Palo Alto,
Menlo Park,
Burlingame,
Mountain View,
Redwood City, and
San Francisco
1861 Bay Road,
East Palo Alto, CA
94303
(650)-326-6440 https://clsepa.org/services/#ho
using
Service Area Address Phone Website
Disability 8 9 3 9 3 32 56%
Race 3 5 2 1 11 19%
Familial Status 4 3 1 8 14%
National Origin 2 1 3 5%
Religion 1 1 2 4%
Sex 1 1 2%
Total cases 17 18 5 11 6 57 100%
2017-2021 Total
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Cases % of Total
612
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 2 Figure I-3.

HCD Fair Housing Inquiries by
City, January 2013-March 2021
Note:

Atherton, Brisbane, Colma, Hillsborough, Millbrae, and
Portola Valley had no inquiries during this time.

Source:

California Department of Housing and Community
Development
613
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 3 Figure I-4.

FHEO Inquiries by City to HCD, Belmont, 2013-2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 614
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 4 Figure I-5.

HCD Fair Housing Inquiries by Bias, January 2013-March 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Jurisdiction
Atherton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Belmont 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 9
Brisbane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Burlingame 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 6
Colma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Daly City 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 9 16
East Palo Alto 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 7
Foster City 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7
Half Moon Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Hillsborough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Menlo Park 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 9
Millbrae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pacifica 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 9
Portola Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redwood City 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 15 24
San Bruno 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
San Carlos 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 4
San Mateo 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 16 26
South San Francisco 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 6
Woodside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Disability Race Total
Familial
Status
National
Origin Religion Sex Color
None
Cited
615
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 5 Figure I-6.

Public Housing Buildings, San Mateo County
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 616
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 6 Figure I-7.

Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 617
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 7 SECTION II. Integration and Segregation
Race and ethnicity.

Figure II-1.

Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-2.

Population by Race and Ethnicity, Belmont, 2000-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
618
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 8 Figure II-3.

Senior and Youth Population by Race, Belmont, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-4.

Area Median Income by Race and Ethnicity, Belmont, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
619
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 9 Figure II-5.

Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity, Belmont, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
620
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 10 Figure II-6.
% Non-White Population by Census Block Groups, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 621
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 11 Figure II-7.

White Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 622
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 12 Figure II-8.

Asian Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 623
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 13 Figure II-9.

Hispanic Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 624
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 14 Figure II-10.

Neighborhood Segregation by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 625
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 15 Figure II-11.

Diversity Index by Block Group, 2010
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 626
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 16 Figure II-12.

Diversity Index by Block Group, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 627
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 17 Disability status.

Figure II-13.

Share of Population by Disability Status, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
628
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 18 Figure II-14.
% of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 629
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 19 Familial status.

Figure II-15.

Age Distribution, Belmont, 2000-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-16.

Share of Households by Size, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
630
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 20 Figure II-17.

Share of Households by Type, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-18.

Share of Households by Presence of Children (Less than 18 years old), 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
631
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 21 Figure II-19.

Housing Type by Tenure, Belmont, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-20.

Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure, Belmont, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
632
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 22 Figure II-21.
% of Children in Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 633
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 23 Figure II-22.
% Households with Single Female with Children by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 634
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 24 Figure II-23.
% of Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 635
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 25 Figure II-24.
% of Adults Living Alone by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 636
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 26 Household income.

Figure II-25.

Share of Households by Area Median Income (AMI), 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
637
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 27 Figure II-26.

Median Household Income by Block Group, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 638
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 28 Figure II-27.

Low to Moderate Income Population by Block Group
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 639
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 29 Figure II-28.

Poverty Status by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 640
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 30 Figure II-29.

R/ECAPs and Edge R/ECAPs, 2010
Note: R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County (19.4% in 2010). Edge R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a nonwhite population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is two times the average tract poverty rate for the County (13% in 2010).

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 641
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 31 Figure II-30.

R/ECAPs and Edge R/ECAPs, 2019
Note: R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County (19.1% in 2010). Edge R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a nonwhite population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is two times the average tract poverty rate for the County (12.8% in 2019).

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 642
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 32 SECTION III. Access to Opportunity
Education
Appendix item: Access to education supplement—findings from a countywide analysis of access to education and educational outcomes by protected class. 643
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 33 Figure III-1.

TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 644
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 34 Employment
Figure III-2.

Jobs by Industry, Belmont, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
645
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 35 Figure III-3.

Job Holders by Industry, Belmont, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-4.

Jobs to Household Ratio, Belmont, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
646
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 36 Figure III-5.

Jobs to Worker Ratio by Wage, Belmont, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-6.

Unemployment Rate, 2010-2021
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
647
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 37 Figure III-7.

TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 648
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 38 Figure III-8.

Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group, 2017
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 649
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 39 Environment
Figure III-9.

TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 650
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 40 Figure III-10.

CalEnviroScreen by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 651
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 41 Figure III-11.

Healthy Places Index by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 652
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 42 Patterns in disparities in access to opportunity.

Figure III-12.

Population Living in Moderate and High Resource Ares by Race and Ethnicity, Belmont, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-13.

Population with Limited English Proficiency, Belmont, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
653
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 43 Figure III-14.

TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 654
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 44 Figure III-15.

Social Vulnerability Index by Census Tract, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 655
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 45 Figure III-16.

SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 656
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 46 Disparities in access to opportunity for persons with disabilities.

Figure III-17.

Population by Disability Status, Belmont, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-18.

Disability by Type for the Non-Institutionalized Population 18 Years and Over, Belmont, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
657
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 47 Figure III-19.

Disability by Type for Seniors (65 years and over), Belmont, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-20.

Employment by Disability Status, Belmont, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
658
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 48 Figure III-21.

Share of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 659
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 49 SECTION IV. Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing needs.

Figure IV-1.

Population Indexed to 1990
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-2.

Housing Permits
Issued by Income
Group, Belmont,
2015-2019
Source:

ABAG Housing Needs Data
Workbook
660
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 50 Figure IV-3.

Housing Units by Year
Built, Belmont
Source:

ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-4.

Distribution of Home Value for Owner Occupied Units, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
661
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 51 Figure IV-5.

Zillow Home Value Index, 2001-2020
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-6.

Distribution of Contract Rents for Renter Occupied Units, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
662
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 52 Figure IV-7.

Median Contract Rent, 2009-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Cost burden and severe cost burden.

Figure IV-8.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Jurisdiction, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
663
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 53 Figure IV-9.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Tenure, Belmont, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-10.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Area Median Income (AMI), Belmont, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
664
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 54 Figure IV-11.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Race and Ethnicity, Belmont, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-12.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Family Size, Belmont, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
665
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 55 Figure IV-13.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 666
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 56 Figure IV-14.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Owner Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 667
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 57 Overcrowding.

Figure IV-15.

Occupants per Room by Jurisdiction, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-16.

Occupants per Room by Tenure, Belmont, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
668
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 58 Figure IV-17.

Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, Belmont, 2019
Note: Overcrowding is indicated by more than 1 person per room.

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-18.

Occupants per Room by AMI, Belmont, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
669
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 59 Figure IV-19.

Overcrowded Households by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 670
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 60 Substandard housing.

Figure IV-20.

Percent of Units Lacking Complete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities, Belmont, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Homelessness.

Figure IV-21.

Homelessness by
Household Type
and Shelter Status,
San Mateo County,
2019
Source:

ABAG Housing Needs Data
Workbook
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 0 68 198
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 0 271 74
Unsheltered 1 62 838
People in
Households
Solely
Children
People in
Households
Without
Children
People in
Households
with Adults
and Children
671
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 61 Figure IV-22.

Share of General and Homeless Populations by Race, San Mateo County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-23.

Share of General and Homeless Populations by Ethnicity, San Mateo County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
672
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 62 Figure IV-24.

Characteristics of the Population Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Displacement.

Figure IV-25.

Location of Population One Year Ago, Belmont, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 46 0 70 31 10
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 46 3 46 4 14
Unsheltered 20 0 189 34 103
Chronic
Substance Abuse HIV/AIDS
Severely
Mentally Ill Veterans
Victims of Domestic
Violence
673
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 63 Figure IV-26.

Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence, Belmont, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-27.

Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion, Belmont, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
674
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 64 Figure IV-28.

Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 675
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 65 Figure IV-29.

Location Affordability Index by Census Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 676
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 66 Figure IV-30.

Share of Renter Occupied Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 677
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 67 Figure IV-31.

Special Flood Hazard Areas, 2000
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 678
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 68 Other considerations.

Figure IV-32.

Mortgage Applications by Race and Ethnicity, Belmont, 2018-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-33.

Mortgage Application Denial Rate by Race and Ethnicity, Belmont, 2018- 679
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX C.6. MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 69 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
680
B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR

HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS,

POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
681
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS This page intentionally left blank
682
B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 1
2015-2023 BELMONT HOUSING

ELEMENT PERFORMANCE REVIEW
The update of our Housing Element provides an opportunity to reflect on past achievements and challenges, identifying what is working and what is getting in the way in meeting Belmont’s housing needs.

The following summary highlights key accomplishments and challenges from the previous Housing Element’s planning period (2015-2023). This information will help ensure that the updated element for 2023 to 2031 builds on success, responds to lessons learned and positions us to better achieve our community’s housing priorities.

A more detailed program-by-program review of progress and performance is provided in the table to follow.

PAST ACHIEVEMENTS
There is a lot to be proud of as we reflect on implementation of the Belmont Housing Element over the past eight years:
 We built more housing than ever before. Belmont surpassed our total RHNA allocation for the 5th Housing Element cycle based on building permits issued, though not all affordability levels were met. This is an incredible leap from the previous housing cycle, where we only built 31 units in eight years. Between 2015 and 2022, we permitted a total of 715 units, a tremendous achievement which speaks to the significant work put in by our staff, Council, and the community. Permitted units included 510 above market rate multi-family units, 84 low-income multi-family units, 35 very low-income multi-family units, 11 extremely lowincome multi-family units, 27 single-family homes, and 75 ADUs (see Table D-2).  We supported new affordable housing. Through our Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, use of City land, and partnership with nonprofit housing developers, we have helped create 205 new affordable units that are providing much needed housing for our lower-income residents. Examples of new developments including affordable housing are:
 Firehouse Square, across the street from the train station, built by MidPen Housing on City-owned land, providing 65 new units of affordable housing;  The ROEM Development at 803 Belmont Avenue, approved in May 2022 and starting construction in Spring 2024, consisting of 125 new affordable rental units;  Artisan Crossings, a 250-unit development completed in 2024 that includes 38 lowincome units as a result of the City’s inclusionary zoning requirements; and, 683
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 2  815 Old County Road, a 177-unit development completed in 2024 that includes 27 lowincome inclusionary housing units.  We laid the groundwork for a better planned city. In 2017, we updated our General Plan for the first time since 1982, which will help ensure that we are planning for the future we want. We also adopted the Belmont Village Specific Plan, extended many of the more flexible zoning standards to all properties along the El Camino Real corridor, and created a new Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zone along El Camino Real. We also went from zoning in terms of dwelling units per acre to floor area ratio (FAR), which has helped increase project densities and provide more housing units.
 ADUs have ramped up. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs), also referred to as second units or in-law units, have become increasingly popular after the City adopted a new ADU ordinance in response to changes in State law and removed its previous mandatory parking replacement policy. Interested homeowners can now add ADUs to their property more easily and many are, helping to create new rental housing in existing neighborhoods.

Between 2018 and 2022, we permitted an average of 15 new ADUs per year; however, that number is increasing. The City issued permits for 27 new ADUs in 2022 and 21 in 2023.  We developed additional funding resources. We have secured different financing sources to support our housing programs and services, including housing impact fees, commercial linkage fees, and inclusionary housing in-lieu funds.
 We adopted an Anti-Displacement Policy. As land values have increased and market rate housing developments have come in, there are concerns that lower-income residents and naturally occurring affordable housing (i.e., non-subsidized housing) are being displaced. In February 2022, the City adopted a Housing Preference Policy that prioritizes residents who live/work in San Mateo County or who have been displaced from a housing unit in San Mateo County in the last three years; this helps people stay in their communities and near their jobs.

As shown in tables D-1 and D-2, Belmont has made significant progress in approving and developing housing and meeting its RHNA obligations since 2015.

REMAINING CHALLENGES
While we got a lot done, there is a lot we still need to work on. One of the major challenges that kept us from achieving all our housing goals was limited staff capacity. Our staff is small, and we must address the needs of complex housing projects while also ensuring ongoing compliance with significant changes in State law pertaining to development review procedures.

Additionally, once new units are built, they require ongoing management and compliance checks, which will stretch our staff resources even further. 684
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 3
TABLE D-1. ACCOMPLISHMENTS, 2015-2023
New Construction ELI VLI LI MOD ABOVE MOD Total
Single-family Residential Units (2015 -2022) 0 0 0 0 27 27 ADUs (2015-2022) 0 0 0 75 0 75
400 El Camino Real (The Ashton) 0 0 0 0 73 73
576-600 El Camino Real 0 0 0 0 32 32
Firehouse Square Phase 1 (Affordable) 11 35 19 0 1 66
1325 Old County Road (Artisan Crossings) 0 0 38 0 212 250 815 Old County Road 0 0 27 0 150 177
Firehouse Square Phase 2 (Market rate) 0 0 0 0 15 15
Total 11 35 84 75 510 715
Source: Belmont’s Review of 2015-2023 Housing Element Performance TABLE D-2. QUANTIFIED RHNA OUTCOMES, 2015-2023
Objectives vs. Actual by Income RHNA Actual
Percent of
RHNA Met
Extremely low-income 63 11 17%
Very low-income 63 35 56%
Low-income 76 84 111%
Moderate-income 70 75 107%
Above moderate-income 200 510 256%
Total 472 715 151%
Source: Belmont’s Review of 2015-2023 Housing Element Performance.

OPPORTUNITIES AHEAD
The following are things already in motion based on existing work efforts, trends, and lessons learned that we are incorporating in our updated Housing Element.  We are developing new ADU programs to do even more. We plan to strengthen our city’s ADU program by undertaking a second unit legalization program. This will make sure that second units which were constructed before the current ADU ordinances are incorporated into our legal housing stock once they meet all safety codes.  There are more incentives than ever to build housing. For example, lot consolidation— which is linked to more efficient housing construction because of economies of scale—has historically been a challenge in Belmont. However, we are now seeing that these challenges are being overcome because of the market demand and housing needs. We’ve identified small sites that, when grouped together, can sustain housing developments, and we currently have a site consolidation program to facilitate that process. 685
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 4  We’re prepared to handle our new housing targets. Thanks to the updates of our General Plan and Belmont Village Specific Plan, we will be able to amend these documents to make sure we can plan for future RHNA numbers without needing to undertake major rezoning. 2015-2023 BELMONT HOUSING ELEMENT: EVALUATION
In addition to this status report, the State Department of Housing and Community Development has provided guidance on reporting about the impact of actions on special needs groups; specifically, “Provide a description of how past programs were effective in addressing the housing needs of the special populations. This analysis can be done as part of describing the effectiveness of the program if the jurisdiction has multiple programs to specifically address housing needs of special needs populations or if specific programs were not included, provide a summary of the cumulative results of the programs in addressing the housing need terms of units or services by special need group.”
Because of its small size and the fact that it is not an entitlement jurisdiction with federal funds, the City does not provide direct services to individuals or households and as such does not have a mechanism for tracking services to special needs groups. In addition, with the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies in 2012, the City lost its primary source of funding to assist in the development of affordable housing, including housing that would serve special needs groups.

The following status update includes information on special needs groups only to the extent that information was made available to the City.
686
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 5
TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation Goal 1: Assure the quality, safety, and livability of existing housing and the continued high quality of residential neighborhoods.

1.1 Code Enforcement Action 1: Continue to implement code enforcement activities.

Action 2: Maintain an inventory of code enforcement
actions to determine citywide trends – such as
overcrowding – and evaluate potential actions the City
can take to counter these trends.

Action 3: Code enforcement staff shall distribute
information to property owners related to countywide
rehabilitation programs and/or 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)
All actions are ongoing and conducted by the
Belmont Police Department.

Effectiveness: Actions 1 and 2 have been effective in
ensuring quality of housing stock. The data
maintained by Code Enforcement suggests common
themes for enforcement are more related to
property maintenance, abandoned vehicles, noise,
and smoking in multi-family housing units (prohibited
in Belmont).

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for standard code
enforcement services conducted by the Belmont
Police Department.

Quantification: No quantification data available for
this action.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Ongoing.

Police Department will continue to
administer code enforcement
activities.

The updated Housing Element
includes a program to partner with
organizations that provide repair
and energy-efficiency
improvements for properties
occupied by low-income residents
(Program H2.4)
Code enforcement can continue to
distribute fair housing and housing
rehabilitation information.

1.2 Residential Records
Report and Inspection
Program
Action 1: Establish and maintain an Existing Conditions Survey for single-family properties.

Action 2: Implement a two-year pilot Residential Records Report and Inspection Program.

Action 3: Evaluate and determine whether to adopt a
final Residential Records Report and Inspection Program.

No specific action to report on programs 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.

Effectiveness: Not effective as it has not been
implemented.

Appropriateness: No longer needed.

Quantification: No program activity.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Remove.
687
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 6 TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

1.3 Condominium
Conversion Ordinance
Action 1: Continue to enforce the Condominium
Conversion Ordinance.

Completed; ongoing.

Effectiveness: Although the ordinance has not been
used during the current planning period, it continues
to be an effective mechanism for maintaining rental
uses.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity.

Quantification: zero rental units converted to
condominiums during the current period.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Ongoing.

The City will continue to
administer this ordinance as
required by the Municipal Code.

No new program required.

1.4 Preservation of
Affordable Housing
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 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 3: 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.

Actions 1 and 2 are ongoing. Action 3 – no ordinance
has been adopted to date, but staff and project
managers have complied with the recommended
extended notification requirements.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective in
preventing loss of units at risk of conversion.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity;
additional modifications will assist in strengthening
protections.

Quantification: The City maintained 257 affordable
housing units.

Special Needs Analysis: Many of Belmont’s
subsidized housing units serve special needs
populations, including lower-income households.

While there is no risk of loss of subsidized units
during the next planning period, the City will begin
looking for long term sustainable solutions for
affordable housing serving special needs groups.

Retain modified program to
identify service provider to
manage the rapidly growing
portfolio of affordable housing
units (Program H2.2).
688
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 7
TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

1.5 Anti-Displacement
Policy
Action 1: Adopt appropriate programs and policies such
as density bonus program and fair housing program to
address displacement within 2 years of adoption of the
housing element.

Action 2: Monitor programs and policies annually for
effectiveness.

Action 3: Complete anti-displacement analysis through 21 Elements and anti-displacement nexus study.

Action 1: The City updated the Density Bonus
program in 2014 to comply with State law. The City
also adopted an anti-displacement housing
preference policy in 2022 that prioritizes affordable
housing units for people who live/work in San Mateo
County or have been displaced from housing in the
last three years.

Action 2: Ongoing.

Action 3: Ongoing.

Effectiveness: Program will be effective in preventing
loss of units at risk of displacement.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity;
additional modifications will assist in strengthening
protections.

Quantification: This program does not have
quantifiable activity to report.

Special Needs Analysis: The adopted housing
preference policy helps income-qualified Belmont
and San County residents from being displaced from
the community as housing prices continue to rise.

Retain revised tenant protections
program (Program H5.6).
689
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 8 TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation Goal 2: Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types at appropriate locations.

2.1 Affordable Housing
Development
Action 1: Work to have legalization / amnesty program
for ADUs
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 3: Complete the San Mateo County-Wide
Affordable Housing Nexus Study by February 2015.

Action 4: Develop and Implement an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and adopt Housing Impact Fees by December
2015.

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

Action 1: No activity.

Action 2: 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, Sale of four properties anticipated to
close in July 2022 and proceeds from market rate
sales will be used to fund pipeline 100% affordable
housing projects.

Actions 3 and 4: Inclusionary Ordinance adopted
January 2017; Inclusionary rental ordinance adopted
Fall 2018; Nexus study available. Completed.

Action 5: Ongoing.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective in creating
new affordable units through both funding
mechanisms and creating BMR units.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity;
additional modifications will assist in addressing
deeper affordability and assistance to special needs
households.

Quantification: Belmont generated $2.9M from sale
of three real property assets (3 units) that the City
has allocated to two pipeline affordable housing
projects that will produce 162 new affordable units.

The Belmont Inclusionary Ordinance has generated
$766,369 of in-lieu fees and 102 restricted affordable
housing units (65 units completed in 2023, 37 units
recently approved).

Special Needs Analysis: The City has allocated $3.5M
of housing funds to projects that include lowerincome units and a 5% unit set aside for households at risk of homelessness (per San Mateo County AHF).

Retain revised program to use
public funds for development of
lower-income housing (Program
H1.2).
690
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 9

2.2 Affordable Housing
Rehabilitation, Operation,
and Management
Action 1: Continue to annually monitor City-owned rental properties to ensure that affordability is being
maintained.

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 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 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 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 1: Annual, completed, ongoing.

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

Action 3: December 2015, the city held meetings
with affordable housing developers to discuss
opportunities for rehabilitation projects. No sites
identified.

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. Further funding to be
acquired through generative properties.

Action 5: No activity to report.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective in
retaining units in the housing stock.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity;
additional modifications will assist in addressing
deeper affordability and assistance to special needs
households.

Quantification: The City invested land and $5.65M of
Low-Moderate Income (LMI) housing funds in the
Firehouse Square Project. The City committed an
additional $3.5M towards two additional affordable
housing projects. The program has not yet facilitated
housing unit rehabilitation.

Special Needs Analysis: Projects that have or will
receive affordable housing funds from the City of
Belmont maintain a minimum 5% unit set aside for
households at risk of homelessness and include
restricted lower-income housing units.

The Housing Element includes a
revised program to partner with
organizations that provide repair
and energy-efficiency
improvements for properties
occupied by low-income residents
(Program H2.4).
691
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 10 TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

2.3 Belmont Village
Priority Development Area
Strategy
Action 1: Adopt new comprehensive zoning regulations
for the Belmont Village Priority Development Area. The
zoning will:
 Allow high-quality, mixed-use, high-density (30-45
units/acre), 40-50 foot-tall development;
 Consider alternative parking arrangements such as
shared parking, parking districts, or requirement for
parking to be behind primary buildings; Streamline the
development process; and
 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: Completed December 2015.

Action 2: Completed December 2015.

Action 3: Completed June 2016.

Action 4: Completed June 2016.

All actions completed as of November 2017.

Effectiveness: Program has been creating zoning
regulations to facilitate new housing development.

Appropriateness: As these actions are completed, no
additional need for them.

Quantification: Through June 2023, five multi-family
housing projects have been approved and permitted
in either the BVSP area or along the El Camino Real
corridor, resulting in construction of 670 new multifamily housing units.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Completed, remove.

The Housing Element includes a
new program to modify CMU
zoning district to eliminate
maximum density and allow
increased FAR to align with the
successful BVSP zoning standards
(Program H4.1, completed January
2024).
692
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 11
TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

2.4 Developer Outreach 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 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 1: June 2015, 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: Ongoing, regular meetings with affordable
housing developers to discuss opportunities in the
City of Belmont.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective in
developing positive relationships with developers
and providing critical information to them.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity;
additional modifications will help strengthen
resources available to facilitate development.

Quantification: No quantifiable activity to report.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

A new program has been included
to ensure information and
materials related to streamlined
development review options (SB
35) are available on the City
website, at City Hall, and that staff
are prepared to implement
streamlined review (Program
H4.6).
693
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 12 TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

2.5 Site Consolidation 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:
 Density bonuses (Program 4.3),
 Direct Affordable Housing funds to leverage
consolidation (Program 2.1), and 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-ofway that are no longer needed for public use for consolidation with adjacent sites.

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

Action 2: Map created discussions ongoing, no other
specific action to report.

Effectiveness: Program has been moderately
effective, since small lot consolidation has not been a significant constraint in Belmont.

Appropriateness: Current program actions no longer
needed. Create new program to offer financial
incentive for projects that include lower-income
housing units.

Quantification: The City has approved and permitted
eight multi-family housing projects during the 5th
cycle planning period, all of which required lot
consolidations. These lot consolidations will facilitate development of 789 new multi-family housing units.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Small lot consolidation has not
proven to be an ongoing
governmental constraint based on
the City’s current development
pipeline. A table showing
development of housing on nonvacant sites is included in the Chapter 6, Adequate Sites.

The updated Housing Element
includes a program to waive lot
consolidation fees for projects that
provide very and extremely lowincome housing units (Program H4.3).
694
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 13
TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

2.6 Second Units Action 1: Modify the Second Dwelling Unit zoning requirements and permitting process to facilitate the
development of new second dwelling units.

Action 2: Develop a Second Unit Legalization Program,
which would potentially provide incentives to legalize
non-recognized second units.

Action 3: Analyze existing secondary dwelling unit
ordinance to ensure compliance with State law, and
update the zoning ordinance as necessary.

Actions 1 and 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: The City was awarded $160,000 of SB2
Planning Grant Program funds; the grant application
specified that a portion of the funds could be utilized to promote ADU production/legalization, including
consideration of an amnesty program.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective in
developing new ADUs.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity;
additional modifications will help strengthen
resources available to facilitate development.

Quantification: From 2017 through 2022, Belmont
issued building permits for 74 new accessory
dwelling units.

Special Needs Analysis: ADUs often provide naturally
affordable units that are smaller in size and more
accessible to renters.

Revised programs are proposed
that incentivize ADU development
during the next planning period
through a series of targeted
actions (Programs H5.9, H5.10,
H5.11, and H5.12).
695
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 14 TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

2.7 Promotion of Small Lot
Development
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 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 1: December 2015. No activity to report.

Action 2: December 2017. No activity to report.

No specific activity to report on either action.

Effectiveness: Program has been moderately
effective, since small lot consolidation has not been a significant constraint in Belmont.

Appropriateness: Lot consolidation has reduced
reliance on development of stand-alone small lots.

No longer needed.

Quantification: Small lot consolidation has facilitated development of five multi-family housing projects
and 613 new multi-family housing units.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Remove prior actions. 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.

A new program has been included
to waive lot consolidation fees for
projects that provide very- and
extremely low-income housing
units (Program H4.3).

2.8 El Camino Real Transit
Corridor
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 2: Consider modifying the zoning requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for all multi-family development projects.

Action 1: Completed. Adopted Nov. 2017
Action 2: Completed. Adopted December 2016.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective in creating
greater opportunities for higher-density multi-family
developments.

Appropriateness: As these actions are completed, no
further need.

Quantification: no quantifiable activity to report.

Special Needs Analysis: High-density zoning
standards have helped facilitate an increase in
housing development activity which continues to
generate new inclusionary affordable housing units.

Remove; completed.
696
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 15
TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

2.9 Belmont General Plan
Update
Action 1: Prepare and Adopt update to Belmont General
Plan 2035.

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 1: Completed. Adopted November 2017.

Action 2: Completed. Adopted November 2017.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective in
implementing zoning text amendments.

Appropriateness: As these actions are completed, no
further need.

Quantification: Since the General Plan and EIR were
adopted in 2017, seven multi-family housing projects
have been able to tier off the previously completed
environmental review (CEQA exemptions of
Addendum to the General Plan EIR), resulting in
expedited development review of 789 new housing
units.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Remove; completed.
697
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 16 TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

2.10 Update Residential
Development Standards
Action 1: By Spring 2015, adopt zone text amendments
amending residential development standards and design
review thresholds.

Action 2: By Summer 2015, adopt revisions to the
Belmont Tree Ordinance.

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: Completed. Adopted Nov 2017.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective in
implementing new development standards.

Appropriateness: As these actions are completed, no
further need.

Quantification: In addition to 41 new single-family
residential homes being built during the current
planning period, Belmont has processed 271 singlefamily design review applications under the City’s recently adopted tiered residential design review
standards that allow more building additions and
remodels to be approved by the zoning administrator
in a streamlined timeframe.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Remove; completed.
698
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 17
TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation Goal 3: Expand and protect housing opportunities for all economic segments and special needs groups within the community.

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. 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.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective in helping
residents learn about housing opportunities.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity.

Quantification: The City hosted one first-time
homebuyer workshop.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

The City will continue to partner
with HEART to promote home
ownership opportunities and
programs. Program H3.1 commits
the City to hosting first-time
homebuyer workshops during the
next planning period.
699
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 18 TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

3.2 Section 8 Rental
Assistance
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 2: Publicize Section 8 by posting information about the program on the City’s website and make information
available at the Permit Center.

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 1: Completed and ongoing. 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 awarded vouchers.

Action 2: Ongoing. No specific activity to report.

Action 3: Completed and ongoing. 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 project-based vouches from San
Mateo County Department of Housing.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective in helping
residents learn about housing opportunities through
the Section 8 program.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity;
modifications will help strengthen the ability to reach more people about the requirements.

Quantification: Two affordable housing projects in
Belmont have been awarded project-based vouchers
that will help support lower-income households.

Special Needs Analysis: Project based vouchers will
support lower-income households.

Retain updated program. The
Housing Element includes Program
H5.1 focused on improving access
to housing information to address
the lack of access to information
about fair housing rights, including
Section 8 program information
and rules.
700
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 19
TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

3.3 Non-profit Assistance Action 1: Continue to provide financial assistance to community service organizations such as HIP Housing,
when financially appropriate.

Action 2: Publicize the programs through its website, and flyers at the permit center and senior and community
center.

Actions 1 and 2: Completed and ongoing.

The City continues to provide direct financial
assistance to HIP Housing and has met with Project
Sentinel representatives to help promote their
housing services to residents. The City Website now
includes links to various housing nonprofit
organizations.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective in
targeting assistance to nonprofits.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity.

Quantification: During the current housing element
planning period, Belmont contributed $40,000 to HIP
Housing to support administration of their Home
Sharing program and other housing programs
targeting lower-income households in the City of
Belmont.

Special Needs Analysis: Both HIP Housing and Project
Sentinel provide programming and outreach to
special needs populations, including households as
risk of homelessness.

Ongoing; the City will continue to
provide financial resources and/or
program outreach support to HIP
Housing, HEART, Project Sentinel,
and other housing organizations
that support special needs groups
or lower-income households.
701
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 20 TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

3.4 HEART Action 1: Continue to participate in HEART, or other comparable programs.

Action 2: Actively publicize the revolving affordable
housing loan program and First-time Homebuyers loan
program available through HEART.

Action 1: Completed and ongoing. The City is an
active participant in HEART and provides an annual
member agency contribution.

Action 2: Completed. The City of Belmont hosted a
HEART First Time Homebuyer workshop in April
2019.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective in
targeting assistance to nonprofits.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity.

Quantification: The City partnered with HEART to
host one first-time homebuyer workshop during the
current planning period.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Ongoing, the city will continue to
be a HEART member agency and
the Housing Element includes a
new program to partner with
stakeholders, including HEART, to
offer first time homebuyer
workshops in Belmont (Program
H3.1).

3.5 Emergency Shelters Action 1: Develop a partnership with Shelter Network to support their efforts to house homeless families and
individuals.

Action 2: Review Emergency Shelter zoning regulations
for ongoing compliance with state law (annually).

Action 1: Ongoing. No specific activity to report.

Action 2: Completed and ongoing. The city ensures
ongoing compliance.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective ensuring
the City complies with the requirements to allow
emergency shelters.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity;
modifications will update to include low-barrier
navigation centers.

Quantification: No quantifiable activity to report.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program during the
previous planning period.

Retain updated program to update
the Zoning Ordinance to define
low-barrier navigation centers and
allow them in the same zones
where emergency shelters are
permitted (Program H4.1).
702
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 21
TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation Goal 4: Where appropriate, mitigate unnecessary governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.

4.1 Special Needs and
Extremely Low-Income
Housing
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 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 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 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 1: Completed November 2017.

Action 2: Ongoing. Permit Center was remodeled to
provide an ADA compliance permitting experience;
required information on ADA zoning available at
permit center.

Action 3: Ongoing and completed. Mid-Pen Housing
built 22 very low-income units in the Firehouse
Square project on City Housing Successor owned
property. Hill St/El Camino Real Affordable Housing
Project (on City Housing Successor owned property)
will provide 22 very-low-income units, and in June
2022 the City authorized application for SB 35
streamlined review.

Action 4: Annual, ongoing, and completed; Two
pending City-owned Affordable Housing projects
must provide a minimum 5% of units to special needs
populations, a trend which will continue.

Effectiveness: Program has been moderately
effective in targeting assistance groups with special
needs and extremely low-income households.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity;
modifications will strengthen ways to address the
housing needs of special needs groups.

Quantification: The City has permitted 76 very lowincome housing units during the current planning period.

Special Needs Analysis: The City has successfully
provided land and funding resources to projects that
include both very low-income units and units set
aside for special needs populations, including
households at risk of homelessness. More
programming needed during the next planning
period to reach other special needs populations.

Update. The Housing Element
includes programs targeted
towards supporting development
of housing for special needs
groups (Programs H5.10 and
H5.11,).
703
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 22 TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

4.2 Transfer of
Development Rights
Action 1: Continue to allow the transfer of development rights or floor area within the San Juan Area.

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

Action 1: Completed and ongoing. Continued
compliance in transfer of rights.

Action 2: Ongoing. No specific activity to report.

Effectiveness: Program has been moderately
effective creating additional opportunities for new
development.

Appropriateness: With proposed changes to remove
the density metric from the zoning code, there is no
further need for this activity.

Quantification: no quantifiable activity to report.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Remove; this program is no longer
needed to facilitate more housing
growth in the City’s priority
development area.
704
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 23
TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

4.3 Density Bonus Program Action 1: Implement the Density Bonus Program as follows:
 Develop a Density Bonus information website and
program materials and/or handouts.
 Provide information materials to all potential target site and El Camino Real corridor developers.

Completed and ongoing. The Density Bonus section
of the Zoning Ordinance is 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 Cityowned property received a density bonus in 2020.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective creating
additional opportunities for new development.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need to provide
opportunity to use density bonus, and with proposed
modifications it will strengthen opportunities to
address the needs of special needs groups.

Quantification: Belmont approved five multi-family
residential housing projects that took advantage of
State and local density bonus provisions in order to
achieve higher project densities. The City is reviewing three additional housing projects that include a
density bonus component.

Special Needs Analysis: Nearly all housing
development projects during the previous planning
period took advantage of a density bonus in
exchange for provision of affordable housing units. A
majority of these units were low-income; an updated
density bonus program in the next planning period
will strengthen opportunities to support lowerincome households and special needs group.

The Housing Element includes a
program to monitor and analyze
the interrelationship between the
zoning standards, objective design
standards, and State Density
Bonus to identify and remove
constraints to housing
development (Program H4.5).
705
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 24 TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

4.4 Development Review
Process
Action 1: Ensure that the development process complies
with State law. This will entail:
 Eliminating any time used to determine the level of
environmental review for secondary dwelling units, as
these are generally CEQA-exempt;
 Capping the number of days needed to act on a CEQAexempt single-family unit permit application to 60 days; and,
 Capping the number of days needed to act on a multifamily permit application that requires an EIR to 180 days (90 days if the project requires an EIR and at least 49% of the units are affordable), and 60 days if the
project requires a Negative Declaration or is CEQAexempt.

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

Action 1: Completed and ongoing. Planners ensure
ongoing compliance with all applicable CEQA
processing times.

Action 2: Completed and ongoing. BVSP and Corridor
Mixed Use (CMU) zoning for El Camino Real corridor
both adopted in November 2017 and include
updated design guidelines that provide clarity in the
development review process.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective ensuring
the City complies with development review
requirements.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity;
modifications will add new compliance measures
pertaining to SB 35, SB 330 and others.

Quantification: The City approved its first SB 35
eligible project in February 2023.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

A new program has been included
to ensure information and
materials related to streamlined
development review options (SB
35) are available on the City
website and at City Hall, and that
staff are prepared to implement
streamlined review (Program
H4.6).

4.5 Planned Development Action 1: Continue to allow Planned Development zoning. Action 1: Completed and ongoing. No specific activity to report.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective allowing
Planned Development Zoning.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity.

Quantification: no quantifiable activity to report.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Ongoing.
706
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 25
TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

4.6 Parking 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 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 1 and 2. Both 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, and reduced parking in exchange for
community benefits. Overall parking requirements
for mixed use projects were reduced.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective in reducing
parking requirements as a constraint.

Appropriateness: As these actions are complete,
there is no longer a need for them.

Quantification: All affordable housing projects
entitled during the previous planning period allowed
reduced parking standards either as part of a density
bonus waiver or community benefit zoning incentive.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Remove, completed.
707
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 26 TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

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: 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 multi-family housing in the R-3 and R-4 zoning
districts.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective in
removing the conditional use permit as a constraint.

As detailed in the Housing Constraints section, five
multi-family housing development projects were
approved with a CUP entitlement without significant
financial or development review time impacts. The
CUP continues to be a tool for ensuring projects
meet ongoing operational and maintenance
obligations.

Appropriateness: As these actions are complete,
there is no longer a need for them.

Quantification: no quantifiable activity to report.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Remove; completed.
708
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 27
TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation Goal 5: Ensure fair and equal housing opportunity for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, family type, ancestry, national origin, color, or other protected status.

5.1 Fair Housing Program Action 1: Publicize the Peninsula Conflict-Resolution Center (PCRC) at the permit center.

Action 2: Provide program support to PCRC and other fair housing nonprofit organizations, such as Project Sentinel.

Actions 1 and 2: Completed and ongoing.

Belmont staff has met with PCRC and Project Sentinel
staff and promotes their services to residents when
appropriate.

Effectiveness: Program has been moderately
effective in targeting assistance to groups with
special needs and extremely low-income households.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity;
modifications will strengthen ways to address the fair
housing needs of special needs groups.

Quantification: no quantifiable activity to report.

Special Needs Analysis: City staff were able to
connect Belmont residents with organizations
supporting special needs housing.

The Housing Element includes
partnering with Project Sentinel to
provide fair housing training for
landlords and tenants every two
years (Program H5.5).

5.2 Housing for the
Disabled
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 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 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 4: By December 2015, the City shall review the
Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance to ensure
ongoing compliance with state law.

All Actions: Completed and ongoing. No specific
activity to report.

Effectiveness: Program has been moderately
effective in targeting assistance to groups with
special needs and extremely low-income households.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity;
modifications will strengthen ways to address the
housing needs of special needs groups.

Quantification: no quantifiable activity to report.

Special Needs Analysis: City staff were able to
connect Belmont residents with organizations
supporting special needs housing.

Update. The Housing Element
includes programs targeted
towards supporting development
of housing for special needs
groups (Programs H5.10 and
H5.11,).
709
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 28 TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation Goal 6: Promote the conservation of natural resources throughout the Belmont community.

6.1 Promote Energy
Conservation
Action 1: Adopt Conservation Element of the Belmont
General Plan 2035.

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

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 4: Review the zoning ordinance to improve solar
access provisions.

Action 1: Completed.

Action 2: Completed and ongoing.

Action 3: Completed and ongoing. 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: No specific activity to report.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective promoting
energy conservation.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity.

Quantification: no quantifiable activity to report.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Ongoing. The City continues to
implement the Climate Action
Plan, and to adopt new reach
building codes to promote
sustainable construction.

6.2 Support On-Site
Alternative Energy
Generation
Action 1: Adopt guidelines to encourage on-site solar
energy systems.

Action 2: Provide informational brochures about solar
energy systems and available financial resources at the permit center.

Action 3: Consider using City solar farms as
demonstration projects for residents to learn more about solar energy.

Action 4: Participate in the Peninsula SunShares group
photovoltaic buy-in program.

No specific activity to report on any actions. The city adopted a Climate Action Plan in November 2017
and is working on implementation. The City is
working to install vehicle battery charging stations on City property.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective promoting
energy conservation.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity.

Quantification: no quantifiable activity to report.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Ongoing. The City standard
conditions of approval and
General Plan EIR mitigation
measures include requirements to
promote alternative energy
generation when possible.
710
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 29
TABLE D-3. EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation

6.3 Promote Water
Conservation
Action 1: Adopt guidelines to encourage low-water
landscaping.

Action 2: Provide informational brochures about droughtresistant and low-water landscaping options that are specific to Belmont’s geography and native habitats.

Ongoing, The City actively promotes the Department
of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance for all development activity.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective promoting
conservation.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity.

Quantification: no quantifiable activity to report.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Ongoing.

6.4 Adequate Water and
Sewer Services
Action 1: Deliver the adopted Housing Element to the
Mid-Peninsula Water District and Silicon Valley Clean
Water within one month of adoption.

Action 2: Provide information on the City website about the adopted sewer priority policy for affordable housing projects.

Action 1: Completed (adopted June 2015).

Action 2: Completed; Sewer Priority Policy available
on the City Website.

Effectiveness: Program has been effective in
communicating information.

Appropriateness: Ongoing need for this activity.

Quantification: no quantifiable activity to report.

Special Needs Analysis: No information on special
needs is available for this program.

Ongoing. The Belmont Housing
Element will be delivered to all
agencies impacted by housing
growth, including the water
district.

6.5 Update the General
Plan
Action 1: Update the City of Belmont General Plan to
integrate land use and transportation planning.

Completed (adopted November 2017).

Effectiveness: Program has been effective in
updating the General Plan.

Appropriateness: As these actions are complete,
there is no longer a need for them.

Quantification: no quantifiable activity to report.

Special Needs Analysis: Considerations and
accommodations for special needs populations are
included in the Goals and Policies in the General
Plan.

Remove; completed.
711
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 30 This page intentionally left blank
712
B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031
APPENDIX E: OUTREACH
713
APPENDIX E: OUTREACH
This page intentionally left blank
714
B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Community Outreach Summary ....................................................................................... 1

1.1 Website and Social Media Summary........................................................................ 1

1.2 Community Meetings .............................................................................................. 1

1.3 Other Outreach Strategies ...................................................................................... 2

1.4 Key Takeaways........................................................................................................ 3

1.5 What We Accomplished...........................................................................................4 Website and Social Media........................................................................................4

1.6 Public Meetings and Hearings.................................................................................. 5 Introductory Meeting to the Housing Element Update............................................6 All About RHNA Webinar.........................................................................................6 Stakeholder Listening Session Series.......................................................................6 Creating an Affordable Future Webinar Series.........................................................8 City of Belmont Public Meetings..............................................................................9

1.7 Other Community Outreach Strategies ................................................................. 10

1.8 Special Needs Community Outreach Efforts...........................................................13 715
APPENDIX E: OUTREACH
ii
This page intentionally left blank
716
B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 1

1. COMMUNITY OUTREACH SUMMARY
The Housing Element is an important document that will shape the future of our community.

Therefore, it is important that it reflects the vision of the people who make the City of Belmont special. To accomplish this, Belmont developed and implemented an outreach plan designed to reach as many community members who live and work here as possible. For some of the community outreach activities, Belmont partnered with other San Mateo County jurisdictions for a first-of-its-kind Countywide outreach effort through an award-winning collaboration called 21 Elements. A summary of public participation and community outreach activities and key takeaways are included below.

1.1 WEBSITE AND SOCIAL MEDIA SUMMARY
 Belmont developed a City webpage at www.belmont.gov/housingelement to host all information and resources related to the Housing Element update. The webpage hosted an archive of past Belmont Housing Elements, recordings and other materials from community engagement activities, and multiple ways for people to provide feedback, including a virtual sites map. The City website’s homepage also included a banner linking visitors to the Housing Element webpage.
 Belmont participated in and helped shape the “Let’s Talk Housing” regional housing collaboration. Let’s Talk Housing developed a Countywide website available in five languages, a Belmont webpage (www.letstalkhousing.org/belmont) detailing the City’s timeline, engagement activities, and resources that also linked to the Belmont website, videos about the process in several languages, and a social media presence. As of February 2022, the website has been visited more than 17,000 times, with more than 20% from mobile devices.
 Belmont created a dedicated e-notification list to keep interested parties informed about the Housing Element update process.
 Belmont utilized a variety of social media platforms to inform the community about the Housing Element update process and to solicit community survey responses.

1.2 COMMUNITY MEETINGS
Belmont participated in several housing meetings and webinars in partnership with 21 Elements, including the following.
 Introduction to the Housing Element – A housing element overview with breakout discussion rooms that was part of a series of introductory meetings attended by more than 1,000 community members countywide.
717
APPENDIX E: OUTREACH
2  All About RHNA – A webinar offering a deep dive into the RHNA allocation process and the opportunity sites methodology.
 Stakeholder Listening Sessions – Four meetings where staff from all County jurisdictions could listen to and hold breakout discussions with housing stakeholder groups arranged by topic. More than 30 groups participated.
 Creating an Affordable Future – A four-part webinar series to help educate community members about local housing issues.

In addition, the City of Belmont coordinated and hosted several public meetings to review components of the Housing Element update. All the following meetings’ recordings and materials can be found on the City’s Housing Element webpage.  Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Workshop (March 23, 2022) – A virtual community meeting to review AFFH and new Housing Element requirements.  Housing Element Community Workshop (June 27, 2022) – A highly-attended virtual meeting to review the Housing Element update and the connection between housing growth and transportation, parks, and other land use planning efforts within the city.

1.3 OTHER OUTREACH STRATEGIES
 Community Postcard Mailer #1 – Direct postcard mailer in March 2022 to all residential units in Belmont introducing the Housing Element update, promoting the online AFFH survey, and promoting the March AFFH Community Workshop. The postcard was also distributed at the Belmont Library and Twin Pines Senior and Community Center; invitation for comments in Spanish included.
 AFFH Fair Housing Online Survey – To gather insight on community needs and priorities.

Survey link provided in direct postcard mailer to all residential units in Belmont and shared on social media (Facebook, NextDoor, Instagram, and Twitter), the City website, the Citywide Weekly Update community email, and citywide utility bill insert mailer. The survey was made available in English, Spanish, simplified Chinese, Tagalog, and Vietnamese, receiving 174 survey responses.
 Community Postcard Mailer #2 – Direct postcard mailer to all residential units advertising where to find the draft Housing Element and Environmental Impact Review (EIR) and promoting the June community housing workshop. The postcard was also distributed at the Belmont Library and Twin Pines Senior and Community Center; invitation for comments in Spanish included.
 Citywide Utility Bill Inserts – The City designed and distributed an informational flyer with the quarterly municipal sewer utility bill that included information about the Housing Element Update, a short URL link to the AFFH Fair Housing Survey, the Housing Element web address, and a housing email address for people to provide comments. 718
APPENDIX E: OUTREACH
B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 3
 Equity Advisory Group – Belmont supported an Equity Advisory Group with 21 Elements to ensure outreach was structured to meet with stakeholders where they were at as much as possible.

It is more important than ever to include as many voices as possible in the Housing Element.

Housing Elements, at their best, provide an opportunity for everyone to add their voice to the conversation. However, too often, many people are left out of the process. Renters, workers, young families, youth, people of color, immigrants, refugees, non-English speakers, and people with disabilities are often unable to participate in outreach activities when scheduled, don’t know how to get involved, or don’t trust the process. Our goal was to change that. Specifically, we did the following.
 Ensured opportunities were available to receive information and provide feedback in multiple languages, offering direct foreign language translation services by request.  Designed a website that was mobile friendly, with accessibility features and in multiple languages (lower-income residents, young adults, and people of color are more likely to use their phones).
 Participated in an Equity Advisory Group consisting of 18 organizations across San Mateo County that provided feedback on outreach and materials, and shared information about the Housing Element update and how to participate in the process with the communities they serve.
 Launched an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Survey that received 174 responses.

1.4 KEY TAKEAWAYS
Below is a summary of key takeaways that emerged throughout the outreach process.  Housing is personal. People often have differing views on housing because it is a very personal issue tied to feelings of safety, belonging, and identify. Often, comments reflected people’s current housing situation. Those with safe, stable housing that they can afford were more concerned with potential change. Those without were generally more interested in bolder policies and more housing. Throughout the outreach process, many people shared meaningful stories of being priced out of their communities or of their children not being able to live in the community where they grew up.
 The price of housing is a major concern. Through survey responses and people who spoke during community meetings, many Belmont residents voiced concerns about the high cost of renting or buying a home today, either for themselves, friends, or family. It is an issue that touches many lives.
 More housing is needed. Generally, participants agreed that Belmont needs more housing, particularly affordable housing. However, there were diverging views on how to accomplish this, where housing should go, and what it should look like. 719
APPENDIX E: OUTREACH
4  Single-family neighborhoods are polarizing. While some people voiced their interest in up-zoning sites near single-family neighborhoods, most Belmont homeowners wanted to protect single-family neighborhoods and the property investments they had made.  Affordable housing is a top concern. Many felt that more needed to be done to promote affordable housing. They also felt developers should be eligible for incentives and opportunities that make them more competitive.
 Better information resources. People wanted to know how to find affordable housing in their communities and navigate the process of applying for it.  Issues are connected. Transportation, infrastructure like storm and sewer facilities, adequate park and recreational space, climate change, and access to living wage jobs and education opportunities are all tied to housing and quality of life. These issues are not siloed in people’s lives and there is a desire to address them in interconnected ways. The June 2022 community workshop included Belmont staff from Housing, Planning, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation to provide comprehensive information about housing growth in Belmont.
 Regional input matters, but there’s more to figure out. Building a broader sense of community and sharing resources at the countywide level was valuable. However, it was more important to this process to engage non-resident community members on jurisdiction-specific input. The City will continue to utilize some of the Housing Element engagement strategies for future community engagement efforts to insure inclusion in outreach.
 Diversity in participation was a challenge. Despite partnering with organizations to engage with the hardest to reach communities and providing multilingual outreach, achieving diversity in participation was challenging. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, organizations already operating on limited resources were focused on supporting more immediate needs, while the added stresses of life coupled with the digital divide added additional barriers for many.

1.5 WHAT WE ACCOMPLISHED
Belmont developed a diverse outreach plan to hear from as many community members as possible. The following provides a more detailed summary of Belmont’s community engagement activities related to the RHNA 6 Housing Element update process.

WEBSITE AND SOCIAL MEDIA
As a starting point for accomplishing extensive outreach, Belmont developed a clear online presence with all the information needed to understand the update process and know how to participate.
 Belmont webpage and social media communications. Belmont has invested significant resources and staffing in the last few years to modernize our digital communication 720
APPENDIX E: OUTREACH
B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 5
strategies and better reach community stakeholders. Specifically for the Housing Element update, Belmont developed a City webpage (www.belmont.gov/housingelement) to host all information and resources related to the Housing Element update. The webpage hosted an archive of past Belmont Housing Elements, recordings and materials from all community engagement activities, and multiple ways for people to provide feedback, including a virtual housing opportunity sites map. The City’s main homepage also included a banner directly linking visitors to the Housing Element webpage. The webpage was mobile-friendly, with accessibility features. As part of this communications redesign, Belmont also utilized a variety of social media platforms, in addition to more traditional email newsletters, to put out information related to the Housing Element update. All community engagement activities, including meetings, workshops, and online surveys were heavily advertised on all social media channels (NextDoor being the most heavily used, plus Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn). The Citywide Weekly Update community email, issued every Friday, reaches many community members and regularly featured information on the Housing Element update process. During the public comment period in particular, the City sent out regular digital communications and reminders to the community.  Let’s Talk Housing website. To reach a broader audience and supplement Belmont’s Housing Element webpage, the City joined the 21 Elements group in launching the “Let’s Talk Housing” website in March 2021. Our goal was to clearly explain what a Housing Element is, why it matters, and how to get involved. It was made available in Arabic, Chinese, English, Spanish, and Tagalog, designed to be responsive on all types of devices, and including accessibility features. As part of this effort, a Belmont-specific information page was created with our proposed timeline, information on engagement activities, and resources that were also linked to the City website. As of January 2022, the website has been viewed more than 17,000 times, with more than 20% occurring from mobile devices. “Let’s Talk Housing” Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube accounts were also created and maintained to keep people informed about upcoming or past events.  Informational videos on the Housing Element update. After completing a series of introductory meetings on the Housing Element Update (see below), Belmont supported 21 Elements in developing shorter, four-minute snippets to ensure information was more accessible and less onerous than watching an hour-long meeting. Two videos were produced in Arabic, Chinese, English, Spanish, and Tagalog: “What is a Housing Element and How it Works” and “Countywide Trends and Why Housing Elements Matter.” The videos were made available on the Let’s Talk Housing YouTube channel and website, as well as shared on social media. Belmont also pushed these information videos out on all our local communication channels.

1.6 PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HEARINGS
Belmont held and participated in a variety of virtual meetings, primarily virtual, to inform the public about the Housing Element and hear what matters most to the community. While inperson meeting space was available for some of the more recent Housing Element study 721
APPENDIX E: OUTREACH
6 sessions, Belmont found that most community members enjoyed the flexibility of participating virtually. Meetings were designed to keep Belmont officials and community members aware of the process timeline, provide input on the different steps and draft information as it became available, and engage in discussion with City staff to share concerns, questions, or support for housing policies.

INTRODUCTORY MEETING TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Belmont participated in a collaborative virtual countywide meeting about the Housing Element update. Held on April 8, 2021, the meeting provided community members with an introduction to the Housing Element update, why it matters, information on the Let’s Talk Housing outreach effort, and countywide trends. Belmont staff facilitated a breakout room discussion with community members on housing needs, concerns, and opportunities and answered any questions. A poll was given during the meeting to identify who was joining and, more importantly, who was missing from the conversation. This included collecting information on whether they rented or owned, who they lived with, and their age and ethnicity. Time for questions was allotted throughout, and after the meeting, a meeting survey was provided to all participants, along with all discussed resources and links. Thirty-five people registered for the meeting, six of whom lived in Belmont. Of the participants, five said that they had lived in the City for over 21 years, and all of the residents owned their own homes. Of the participants, five identified as White and one as Asian, and the majority (66%) were between the ages of 50 and

69. In total, 1,024 people registered for the meeting series, and 264 registered for the All About RHNA meeting. Of those who registered for the series, the majority identified as White (66%) or Asian (15%) and were 50 years or older; nearly half were 50 to 69 years old, and almost a fifth were over 70. Almost half had lived over 21 years in their homes, and three-fourths owned their own homes.

ALL ABOUT RHNA WEBINAR
Belmont helped promote the “All About RHNA” webinar hosted by 21 Elements in April 2021 to provide information and answer community questions about the RHNA process; 264 people registered and 80 questions were answered over three hours. The recording of this meeting and the FAQ can be found at https://www.letstalkhousing.org/past-events.

STAKEHOLDER LISTENING SESSION SERIES
Belmont joined 21 Elements for a facilitated series of four listening sessions held between September and November 2021 to hear from various stakeholders who operate countywide or across multiple jurisdictions. The sessions convened over 30 groups, including fair housing organizations, housing advocates, builders/developers (affordable and market rate), and service providers to provide observations on housing needs and input for policy consideration.

Summaries of each session can be found at http://www.21elements.com/communityengagement. 722
APPENDIX E: OUTREACH
B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 7
Key themes and stakeholder groups included the following.  Fair Housing – Concern for the end of the eviction moratorium, the importance of transitoriented affordable housing and anti-displacement policies, and the need for education around accessibility regulations and tenant protections. The following eight stakeholder groups provided this feedback.
 Center for Independence www.cidsanmateo.org
 Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto (CLSEPA) www.clsepa.org  Housing Equality Law Project www.housingequality.org
 Legal Aid for San Mateo County www.legalaidsmc.org
 Project Sentinel www.housing.org
 Housing Choices www.housingchoices.org
 Public Interest Law Project www.pilpca.org
 Root Policy Research www.rootpolicy.com
 Housing Advocates – Concern for rent increases and the need for ongoing outreach to underserved and diverse communities, workforce housing, deeply affordable and dense infill, and tenant protections for the most vulnerable. The following six stakeholder groups provided this feedback.
 Housing Leadership Council www.hlcsmc.org
 Faith in Action www.faithinactionba.org
 Greenbelt Alliance www.greenbelt.org
 San Mateo County Central Labor Council www.sanmateolaborcouncil.org  Peninsula for Everyone www.peninsulaforeveryone.org
 San Mateo County Association of Realtors www.samcar.org  Builders and Developers – Local funding; tax credit availability; and concern that appropriate sites limit affordable housing while sites, construction costs, and city processes limit market rate housing. The following 12 stakeholder groups provided this feedback.  Affirmed Housing (Affordable) www.affirmedhousing.com  BRIDGE Housing (Affordable) www.bridgehousing.com
 The Core Companies (Affordable, Market Rate) www.thecorecompanies.com  Eden Housing (Affordable) www.edenhousing.org
 Greystar (Market Rate) www.greystar.com
 Habitat for Humanity (Affordable) www.habitatsf.org
 HIP Housing (Affordable) www.hiphousing.org
 Mercy Housing (Affordable) www.mercyhousing.org
 MidPen Housing (Affordable) www.midpen-housing.org
 Sand Hill Property Company (Affordable, Market Rate) www.shpco.com  Sares | Regis (Market Rate) www.srgnc.com
 Summerhill Apartment Communities (Market Rate) www.shapartments.com  Service Providers – More affordable housing and vouchers or subsidies for market rate housing are needed, along with on-site services and housing near transit, and jurisdictions 723
APPENDIX E: OUTREACH
8 should work with providers and people experiencing issues before creating programs. The following ten stakeholder groups provided this feedback.  Abode Services www.adobeservices.org
 Daly City Partnership www.dcpartnership.org
 El Concilio www.el-concillio.com
 HIP Housing www.hiphousing.org
 LifeMoves www.lifemoves.org
 Mental Health Association of San Mateo County www.mhasmc.org  National Alliance on Mental Illness www.namisanmateo.org  Ombudsman of San Mateo County www.ossmc.org
 Samaritan House San Mateo www.samaritanhousesanmateo.org  Youth Leadership Institute www.yil.org

CREATING AN AFFORDABLE FUTURE WEBINAR SERIES
Belmont and 21 Elements offered a four-part countywide webinar series in fall of 2021 to help educate community members about local housing issues. The sessions were advertised and offered in Cantonese, Mandarin, and Spanish, though participation in non-English channels was limited. All meetings and materials can be found at https://www.letstalkhousing.org/pastevents.

The following topics, and how each intersects with regional housing challenges and opportunities, were explored.
 Why Affordability Matters – Why housing affordability matters to public health, community fabric and to county residents, families, workers, and employers  Housing and Racial Equity – Why and how our communities have become segregated by race, why it is a problem, and how it has become embedded in our policies and systems  Housing in a Climate of Change – What is the connection between housing policy and climate change and a walk through the Housing and Climate Readiness Toolkit  Putting it All Together for a Better Future – How design and planning for much-needed new infill housing can be an opportunity to address existing challenges in our communities The series included speaker presentations, audience questions and answers, breakout sessions for connection, and debrief discussions. Participants were eager to discuss and learn more about housing challenges in their community. They asked questions, commented in the chat, and shared feedback in a post-event survey. Overall, comments were positive and in favor of more housing, though some were focused on the need for new affordable housing. There was a lot of interest in seeing more housing built (especially housing that is affordable), concern about change or impacts to schools, parking, and quality of life, and personal struggles with finding housing that is affordable and accessible. Some participants wanted more in-depth education and discussion of next steps, while others had more basic questions. 724
APPENDIX E: OUTREACH
B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 9
In total, 754 registered for the series. Of those who shared, the majority identified as White (55%) or Asian (24%) and ranged between 30 and 70 years old. Over half have lived in the county for over 21 years and nearly two-thirds owned their homes. For more information, see the Summary at http://www.21elements.com/community-engagement.

CITY OF BELMONT PUBLIC MEETINGS
 City Council Public Study Session (May 11, 2021) – The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the draft RHNA allocation process and numbers, show the City Council and community members the proposed update timeline, and talk about some of the new topics that would be included in the updated Housing Element.
 City Council Public Meeting (January 11, 2022) – This was another virtual check-in with the City Council and community on progress made towards the Housing Element update, with an emphasis on work completed in preparing an Environmental Impact Report.  Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Workshop (March 23, 2022) – This was a virtual community meeting to review Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) and new Housing Element requirements. This workshop was promoted heavily on the City’s social media channels and all housing units in the City of Belmont received a direct postcard mailing with information in English, Spanish, and Chinese promoting the workshop and inviting people to take the online AFFH survey. The offer for translation services was made but no requests were received.
 City Council Public Study Session (April 26, 2022) – This presentation focused on reviewing draft Housing Sites, AFFH assessment, and draft Housing Element programs.

This meeting was the first deep dive into the Housing Element documents and data, and the study session format allowed the Council to ask many questions about new topics like AFFH.
 Planning Commission Public Study Session (May 17, 2022) – This presentation also focused on reviewing draft housing sites, AFFH assessment, and draft Housing Element programs. This highly-attended meeting was an opportunity for both the Planning Commission and the Belmont community to dive into some of the important components of the Housing Element update. A lot of community feedback centered on the draft housing opportunity sites and concerns about locating a majority of the proposed housing sites along the El Camino Real and Old County Road corridors.  Housing Element Community Workshop (June 27, 2022) – As a follow up to the Planning Commission meeting held in May, the City held a community workshop to discuss the RHNA allocation process, the housing sites methodology, and some of the land use changes proposed for the next Housing Element cycle. This meeting was attended by 71 people, and was hosted by City staff from Housing, Finance, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and Planning Departments. Staff’s presentation aimed to show how housing and population growth are guiding principles in the work done by all City departments.

Specific feedback on housing opportunity sites included a desire to limit building heights, provide more parking, and address traffic impacts.
725
APPENDIX E: OUTREACH
10  Planning Commission Draft Housing Element and EIR Review (July 19, 2022) – This was a well-attended meeting for Planning Commission consideration of the full draft Housing Element and draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The meeting was available to attend both in-person and virtually and the Commission heard over 45 public speakers, ultimately making a series of recommendations to the City Council for modifications to the rezoning programs and Sites Inventory.
 City Council Draft Housing Element and EIR Review (July 26, 2022) – This was another well-attended public meeting that lasted over 4 hours, with more than 45 in-person and virtual speakers. Ultimately, the Council concurred with the Planning Commission recommendations to modify the proposed zoning amendments and remove sites from the Housing Sites Inventory.
 Planning Commission Housing Element and EIR Review (January 17, 2023) – At this meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised draft of the Housing Element and final EIR and recommended that the City Council adopt the Housing Element and certify the EIR.
 City Council Public Meeting Certifying the Final Programmatic EIR and Adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element (January 30, 2023) – At this meeting the City Council adopted the Housing Element and certified the EIR.
 City Council Public Study Session (September 26, 2023) – This presentation focused on reviewing additional policies related to AFFH and provide an update on the revisions made in response to the April 2023 HCD comment letter.
 City Council Public Study Session (March 26, 2024) – This presentation focused on new Housing Mobility programs in response to HCD comments that will support more housing opportunities across the city, specifically targeting low–density neighborhoods in response to the December 2023 HCD comment letter.

1.7 OTHER COMMUNITY OUTREACH STRATEGIES
Belmont set out to collect as much feedback as possible from the community, and to ensure we were reaching as many people as possible and doing so thoughtfully. Acknowledging that virtual engagement was not always accessible for all community members, the City has tried to reach all Belmont residents by sending information directly to them.  Two Direct Mailer Postcards – Belmont sent two Housing Element update postcard mailers to every residential unit in the City of Belmont. To generate this mailing list, the City reached out to residential facilities where individual housing/residential units don’t typically show up on a community mailing list. This included two special needs group homes and two senior assisted living facilities. The City also made the mailers available at the Twin Pines Senior and Community Center grab-and-go lunch program, and at City Hall.

The postcards included verbiage in English, Spanish, and Chinese, informing residents about upcoming community workshops, with a QR code and web addresses inviting them to provide feedback to the City via online surveys, email, or directly contacting City staff. 726
APPENDIX E: OUTREACH
B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 11
The City has received positive feedback from residents who received the postcards and were able to participate in engagement activities.

Community Mailer Postcard #1 (front and back)
Community Mailer Postcard #2 (front and back)
 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Survey – As is summarized in the AFFH Appendix, 21 Elements conducted a countywide survey of San Mateo County residents to support the AFFH analysis of Housing Elements. Survey questions explored residents perceptions of housing, affordability, and neighborhood challenges, as well as experiences with displacement and housing discrimination. It also asked about residents’ access to economic opportunity, captured through their reported challenges with transportation, employment, and K-12 education. The survey included questions about residents’ current housing situation, housing, neighborhood and affordability challenges, healthy neighborhood indicators, access to opportunity, and experience with displacement and housing discrimination. The survey was available online, in both Spanish and English, in a format accessible to screen readers, and promoted through jurisdictional communications and social media as well as partner networks. Out of the 2,382 respondents, 89 were Belmont residents.
727
APPENDIX E: OUTREACH
12  Equity Advisory Group – In alignment with community outreach best practices, it was important to include the guidance of and foster partnerships with community organizations to help ensure everyone’s voices were heard during the Housing Element update. In response, an Equity Advisory Group (EAG) was formed, consisting of 15 organizations or leaders countywide that are advancing equity and affordable housing. A stipend of $1,500 was originally provided for meeting four to five times over 12 months to advise on Housing Element outreach and help get the word out to the communities they work with. After meeting twice in 2021, it was decided the best use of the EAG moving forward was to provide more focused support in 2022 based on jurisdictional needs and organizational expertise. To-date, EAG members have facilitated and hosted community meetings in partnership with 21 Elements, collected community housing stories to put a face to housing needs, advised on messaging, and amplified events and activities to their communities. The EAG continue to work collaboratively with jurisdictions and deepen partnerships, as well as connect community members to the Housing Element update process. All participating organizations are featured on the Let’s Talk Housing website, and include the following.  Ayudando Lations A Soñar (ALAS) www.alashmb.org
 Community Legal Services www.clsepa.org
 El Comite de Vecinos del Lado Oeste (El Comite)
www.tenantstogether.org/resources/el-comité-de-vecinos-del-lado-oeste-east-paloalto  EPACANDO www.epacando.org
 Faith in Action www.faithinaction.org/federation/faith-in-action-bay-area/  Housing Choices www.housingchoices.org
 Housing Leadership Council www.hlcsmc.org
 Menlo Together www.menlotogether.org
 Nuestra Casa www.nuestracasa.org
 One San Mateo www.onesanmateo.org
 Peninsula for Everyone www.peninsulaforeveryone.org
 Puente de la Costa Sur www.mypuente.org
 San Mateo County Health www.gethealthysmc.org
 Youth Leadership Institute www.yli.org/region/san-mateo  Youth United for Community Action www.youthunited.net  Interactive Housing Sites Inventory Map – In July 2021, as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report scoping process, the City created an interactive map of the draft Housing Sites Inventory. The map enabled viewers to scroll around the City and select specific parcels to get additional information such a land use, zoning, and property size. During the required public comment period, map viewers were able to use the mapping tool to provide specific comments or feedback directly onto any of the draft housing opportunity sites. This interactive tool was successful at enabling the City to obtain site-specific comments and feedback on the draft Housing Sites Inventory, but to also provided a platform for residents to share their concerns about a significant growth in housing development in Belmont. Neighbors expressed concerns 728
APPENDIX E: OUTREACH
B ELMONT H OUSING E LEMENT 2023 - 2031 13
related to increased traffic and parking problems, increased building heights, and access to park and recreation facilities as well as impacts on local schools. The City used this feedback to host a community listening session in June 2022 that was hosting by City staff from several departments to share what other infrastructure projects are planned to help accommodate citywide housing growth. The following word cloud diagram was generated using comments received on the interactive map.

1.8 SPECIAL NEEDS COMMUNITY OUTREACH EFFORTS
During the Housing Element development process, Belmont made diligent efforts to engage all economic segments of the Belmont community, including special needs populations. These efforts are detailed above and summarized below.
 Belmont Senior Residents – One of the largest special needs housing populations in Belmont are seniors. With an aging senior population, several senior living facilities are located in Belmont and a robust senior and community center is located near Belmont City Hall. During the Housing Element development process, the City made sure that both the Fair Housing community mailer and the public notice mailer were delivered to all residential tenants in Belmont; the City reached out to senior living facilities to ensure distribution of materials to residents who might not otherwise be on community or property owner mailing lists. The City also made sure to provide printed materials at the Twin Pines Senior and Community Center grab-and-go lunches, which were extremely well-attended during the COVID-19 pandemic closure of other traditional community gathering spaces.  Translation Services – To ensure non-English speaking residents had opportunities to participate in the community engagement process, the City made sure to include both Spanish and simplified Chinese translation on printed and digital communications that invited residents to provide input on the Housing Element development process in their language of preference (see example below). Written translation services were provided by ABAG. The City of Belmont Housing Element webpage continues to include verbiage in Spanish offering residents to provide written feedback in their language of preference. 729
APPENDIX E: OUTREACH
14 Example of Printed Material Translation
 Resident Housing Surveys – The City participated in the ABAG Regional Housing Technical Assistance (RHTA) online housing survey, which was made available in English, Spanish, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and simplified Chinese. Belmont also participated in a countywide fair housing survey, which was available online, in both Spanish and English, in a format accessible to screen readers, and promoted through City communications and social media as well as through partner networks. Out of the 2,382 respondents, 89 were Belmont residents.
 Equity Advisory Group – Belmont participated in an EAG with 21 Elements to ensure outreach was designed to meet with community stakeholders where they were at as much as possible. The EAG consisting of 18 organizations across San Mateo County that provided feedback on outreach and materials and shared information about the Housing Element update and how to participate in the process with the communities they serve. In addition, Belmont has provided direct Housing Element updates, meeting invitations, and other related Housing Element development materials to various housing service providers who have been engaged with the City during the two-year process. See above for more details on the EAG effort and community participants.
 Accessible City Housing Element Website – The City created a Housing Element update website that was mobile friendly, with accessibility features and in multiple languages, recognizing that lower-income residents, young adults, and people of color are more likely to use their phones to access information about the Housing Element process. 730

Page 1 of 6 ends

Review Solid Waste Rate Application and Revise Maximum Rates for Collection Services for 2025 - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Nisha Patel, Public Works Dept., (650) 595-7459, [email protected] Alberto Espinoza, Public Works Dept., (650) 595-7465, [email protected] Agenda Title: Review Solid Waste Rate Application and Revise Maximum Rates for Collection Services for 2025
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution stating the City of Belmont’s intent to revise the maximum rates that may be charged for solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials collection services effective January 1, 2025, and set a Public Hearing date for November 12, 2024.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
On August 28, 2018, the Council authorized the City Manager to finalize and execute an Amended and Restated Franchise Agreement (Agreement) with Recology of San Mateo County (Recology) for recyclable materials, organic materials, and solid waste collection from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2035. The Agreement provides for an annual review of the maximum rates that Recology may charge Belmont residential and commercial customers for regular and unscheduled services. Each year, Recology proposes, City staff analyzes, and the City Council adopts solid waste rates that do not exceed Recology’s maximum rates.

On July 31, 2024, Recology provided the City their 2025 rate application and detailed worksheet outlining their calculation of the maximum rates. In August, as part of the City’sreview process, the City retained the services of HDR, Inc. (HDR)to confirm that the rates proposed by Recology were calculated in accordance with the Agreement and associated amendments. HDR and City staff have reviewed and confirmed that the rate adjustment application and the accompanying maximum rate schedules submitted by Recology seeking an 2.04% increase in 2025 over 2024 rates meets the terms of the Agreement.

Thisreport is the firststep in the City’s processto approve the maximum ratesthat may be charged forsolid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials collection services. In November, the City will hold a public hearing following the procedures of Proposition 218 to adopt the calendar year 2025 solid waste rates.
731

Page 2 of 6 ends

Review Solid Waste Rate Application and Revise Maximum Rates for Collection Services for 2025 - Staff Report Analysis
Recology is proposing total contractor compensation of $9,938,659 for 2025. The percentage change between the 2025 total target revenue of $9,938,659 and the 2024 target revenue of 9,740,247 results in the adjustment multiplier rate of 2.04%, which is consistent with methodology of the Agreement. The adjustment multiplier rate of 2.04% is the proposed 2025 rate increase to the residential and commercial carts and bins and it accounts for CPI cost increases such as labor costs, fuel, general expenses, SB 1383 program implementation, depreciation, interests, incentives and disincentives, direct costs components, and agency payments.

RethinkWaste, also known as the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA), is a joint powers authority formed by eleven local government jurisdictions (City of Belmont, City of Burlingame, City of East Palo Alto, City of Foster City, Town of Hillsborough, City of Menlo Park, City of Redwood City, City of San Carlos, City of San Mateo, the County of San Mateo and the West Bay Sanitary District) in San Mateo County, California. RethinkWaste owns and manages the Shoreway Environmental Center in San Carlos which receives all the recyclables, green waste and garbage collected from the Member Agencies.

Table 1 is a summary of the changes in total target revenue from 2024 to 2025.

Table 1
Summary of Changes in Total Target Revenue from 2024 to 2025 Cost Component
2024
Target
Revenue
2025
Target
Revenue
$
Difference
%
Difference
Base Contractor Compensation
Direct Labor Related $2,382,648 $2,455,457 $72,808 3.06% Direct Fuel Costs 287,249 322,119 34,870 12.14%
General Expense Direct & Indirect 1,393,783 1,446,287 52,503 3.77% Depreciation 281,317 281,317 0 0.00%
Profit 456,105 472,919 16,815 3.69%
Interest 73,679 73,679 0 0.00%
Total Base Compensation $4,874,782 $5,051,777 $176,996 3.63% Performance (Inc.) / Dis. (6,147) (4,487) 1,660 -27.01% Total Pass Thru Costs
Disposal Projected Cost (i) $2,241,715 $2,434,527 $192,812 8.60% Disposal Actual Prior Year Cost (ii) 1,843,054 2,114,505 271,451 14.73% Disposal Prior Projected Cost (iii) (1,745,620) (2,241,715) (496,095) 28.42% Agency Payments 2,532,464 2,584,050 51,587 2.04%
Total Pass Thru Costs $4,871,613 $4,891,367 $19,755 0.41% Total Target Revenue $9,740,247 $9,938,658 $198,410 2.04% 732

Page 3 of 6 ends

Review Solid Waste Rate Application and Revise Maximum Rates for Collection Services for 2025 - Staff Report Table 2 shows the present monthly rates, the proposed monthly rates with the 2.04% rate increase, and the monthly change (for illustrative purposes) for residential customers.

Table 2
Summary of the Present, Proposed, and Monthly Change
Present Proposed
Monthly 2025 $/Month
Schedule Schedule Description Rate Rates Change
R20G Residential Waste - 20 Gallons $40.21 $41.03 $0.82 R32G Residential Waste - 32 Gallons 47.97 48.95 0.98
R64G Residential Waste - 64 Gallons 94.43 96.36 1.93
R96G Residential Waste - 96 Gallons 141.65 144.54 2.89
Commercial customers have similar service to residential customers, but they have the option to adjust the number of pickups per week. In 2025, it is estimated that the commercial rates (Schedule L) will increase by 2.04% for all cart sizes. Table 3 is a summary of the calculated maximum commercial solid waste rates by cart size. Some minor rounding of the rates may occur for purposes of ease of administration.

Table 3
Summary of Calculated Maximum Commercial Solid Waste

COMMERCIAL CARTS
Cart Size (in Gallons)
20 32 64 96
# of Pickups Per Week
1 $52.35 $58.12 $112.40 $162.46
2 107.69 119.66 226.80 332.78
3 160.34 178.12 344.13 505.02
4 220.12 244.57 462.71 683.13
5 278.50 309.42 588.16 863.66
6 348.47 387.17 716.74 1,087.16
7 424.49 471.64 839.05 1,268.34
733

Page 4 of 6 ends

Review Solid Waste Rate Application and Revise Maximum Rates for Collection Services for 2025 - Staff Report

COMMERCIAL CARTS ORGANICS
Cart Size (in Gallons)
32 64 96
# of Pickups Per Week
1 $40.71 $78.70 $113.72
2 83.76 158.76 232.94
3 124.68 240.88 353.51
4 171.22 323.92 478.18
5 216.60 411.72 604.56
6 271.05 501.68 761.00
7 330.17 587.33 887.84
Some commercial customers have larger bins which range in size from 1 yard to 6 yards. Commercial waste customers also have the option of different levels of service and can select the number of pick-ups per week. Table 4 is a summary of the calculated maximum commercial solid waste rates for 2025 for the larger bin sizes. It is estimated that the rates (Schedule L) will increase by 2.04% for all bin sizes.

Table 4
Summary of Calculated Maximum Commercial Solid Waste

COMMERCIAL BINS
Bin Size (in Cubic Yards)
1 2 3 4 6
# of Pickups Per Week
1 $272.61 $548.36 $827.02 $1,128.96 $1,736.26
2 555.02 1,105.73 1,664.02 2,277.43 3,521.40
3 842.26 1,668.35 2,505.93 3,425.93 5,293.26
4 1,132.86 2,235.07 3,350.35 4,587.49 7,050.05
5 1,425.79 2,809.80 4,197.69 5,753.95 8,831.87
6 1,779.46 3,317.14 5,095.81 6,968.80 10,676.95
7 2,099.54 3,928.58 6,000.20 8,209.08 12,505.21
734

Page 5 of 6 ends

Review Solid Waste Rate Application and Revise Maximum Rates for Collection Services for 2025 - Staff Report

COMMERCIAL BINS ORGANICS
Bin Size (in Cubic Yards)
1 2 3 4 6
# of Pickups Per Week
1 $190.84 $383.86 $578.90 $790.28 $1,215.39
2 388.50 773.99 1,164.85 1,594.20 2,464.99
3 589.57 1,167.86 1,754.16 2,398.14 3,705.27
4 793.00 1,564.54 2,345.25 3,211.25 4,935.04
5 998.06 1,966.83 2,938.37 4,027.75 6,182.32
6 1,245.63 2,321.99 3,567.07 4,878.21 7,473.85
7 1,469.69 2,750.01 4,200.14 5,746.36 8,753.64

GARBAGE COMPACTORS
Commercial Waste 3 Yard Compactor $1,985.89
Solid Waste Compactor Rate Per Yard $152.78
The monthly fee above includes the following:

Recycling container at customer's requested size
Additional Services
Recology also provides several services that are not considered regularly scheduled services. Those miscellaneous charges are itemized in Exhibit A, Attachment Q of the attached Resolution. In summary, an overall rate increases of 3.77% is being proposed.

Proposition 218
The City is committed to promoting public participation in City activities. Towards this end, it has been the City’s practice to notice and conduct protest hearing proceedings with respect to solid waste maximum rates in the manner set forth in Article XIII D, Section 6(a) of the California Constitution and Section 53755 of the Government Code. That process requires that a notice be mailed to solid waste customers not less than forty-five days prior to any public hearing affecting any rate.

Customers and property owners have the right to submit written protests against the proposed charges and may do so by mail or in person to the City Clerk no later than the conclusion of the public hearing. If written protests against the charges are presented by owners of a majority of the affected parcels, the City Council may not impose the charges.

The attached resolution authorizes the initiation of the Proposition 218 process based on the maximum rates in accordance with the Guidelines for the Submission and Tabulation of Protests in Exhibit B, and sets a public hearing for November 12, 2024.
735

Page 6 of 6 ends

Review Solid Waste Rate Application and Revise Maximum Rates for Collection Services for 2025 - Staff Report Alternatives

1. Take no action.

2. Adjust rates differently while meeting the requirements of the Agreement.

Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Recology 2025 Rate Application
C. HDR Inc. Report – Solid Waste Rate Analysis
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed: The recommended rate increases will cover the solid waste program's revenue requirements.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda

736

Page 1 of 12 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT STATING

ITS INTENT TO ADJUST THE MAXIMUM RATES THAT MAY BE CHARGED FOR

SOLID WASTE, RECYCLABLE MATERIALS, AND ORGANIC MATERIALS COLLECTION SERVICES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2025 AND SETTING A PUBLIC

HEARING
WHEREAS, solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials collection services are provided in the City of Belmont by Recology San Mateo County (Recology) pursuant to a franchise agreement with the City; and,
WHEREAS, the franchise agreement with Recology provides for an annual review of the maximum rates that Recology may charge Belmont residential and commercial customers; and,
WHEREAS, Recology provided the City a letter and detailed worksheet outlining their calculation of the maximum rates for Rate Year 2025 which include a proposed 2.04% increase; and,
WHEREAS, the City is contractually obligated to set maximum rates and desires to conduct a proceeding to adjust the schedule of charges as itemized in Exhibit A.

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

SECTION 1. Proposes rate revisions and methodology generally described in Exhibits “A” and “B” to this Resolution, which are incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. On November 12, 2024, at 7:00 PM or as soon thereafter as may be practicable in the City Council Chambers located at One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, CA, or online via Zoom ( https://belmont-gov.zoom.us), the City Council will hold a public hearing in accordance with the procedures in California Constitution Article XIIID with respect to the proposed rates. At this hearing, all interested persons will be permitted to present oral and written testimony with respect to the proposed rates and methodology.

SECTION 3. Direct staff to give notice of the hearing in the manner required by law.

SECTION 4. The City will accept and tabulate protests against the proposed rate revision following the procedures set forth in Exhibit “B” to this Resolution, which is incorporated herein by reference.
* * *
ADOPTED September 10, 2024 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:
737

Page 2 of 12 ends

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
738

Page 3 of 12 ends

Exhibit A to Resolution
Attachment L
Maximum Rate Schedule
Effective January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025
Monthly Rate
20 32 64 96
1 Pickup Per Week $41.03 $48.95 $96.36 $144.54
Residential customers are billed based on their Garbage Cart size.

The monthly rate above includes the following:

One (1) Garbage Cart provided to customer
Curbside Household Hazardous Waste Collection
One (1) 64-Gallon Recycling Cart and (1) 96-Gallon Yard Waste Cart

RESIDENTIAL CARTS
Cart Size (in Gallons)
739

Page 4 of 12 ends

Attachment L
Maximum Rate Schedule
Effective January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025
Monthly Rate
20 32 64 96
1 $52.35 $58.12 $112.40 $162.46
2 107.69 119.66 226.80 332.78
3 160.34 178.12 344.13 505.02
4 220.12 244.57 462.71 683.13
5 278.50 309.42 588.16 863.66
6 348.47 387.17 716.74 1,087.16
7 424.49 471.64 839.05 1,268.34
The monthly rate above includes the following:

One (1) Garbage Cart
Recycling Cart
32 64 96
1 $40.71 $78.70 $113.72
2 83.76 158.76 232.94
3 124.68 240.88 353.51
4 171.22 323.92 478.18
5 216.60 411.72 604.56
6 271.05 501.68 761.00
7 330.17 587.33 887.84
NoteOrganics containers are charged at seventy percent (70%) of the similar Garbage commercial cart rate above container size and service levels for Garbage, representing a thirty percent (30%) discount
Cart Size (in Gallons)
# of Pickups Per Week

COMMERCIAL CARTS
Cart Size (in Gallons)
# of Pickups Per Week

COMMERCIAL CARTS ORGANICS
740

Page 5 of 12 ends

Attachment L
Maximum Rate Schedule
Effective January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025
Monthly Rate
741

Page 6 of 12 ends

Attachment L
Maximum Rate Schedule
Effective January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025
Monthly Rate
Commercial Waste 3 Yard Compactor $1,985.89
Solid Waste Compactor Rate Per Yard $152.78
The monthly fee above includes the following:

Recycling container at customer's requested size

GARBAGE COMPACTORS
742

Page 7 of 12 ends

Schedule Q
Additional Services
No. Additional Service Category Reference
Agency-Approved Maximum
Rate Description
1 Single-Family Dwelling
Backyard Collection Service
Section 5.02.A See Maximum Rate in the table
at the end of this Attachment
See Maximum Rate in the table at
the end of this Attachment
2 Long Distance Service for
MFD, Mixed Use, and
Commercial Accounts (Note:
only applicable to Containers
with wheels)
Section 5.02.B,

5.02.C; 8.02 B
A - No more than 10% of base
monthly Maximum Rate of the
Collection Rate for each
Container requiring Long
Distance Service
B - 25% of base monthly Rate of
the Collection Rate for each
Container requiring Long
Distance Service
A - Distance greater than 50 feet and
less than or equal to 100 feet
B - Distance greater than 100 feet
Distance shall be measured from the
face of the curb, or from the edge of
the roadway nearest the closest edge
of the Container, if there is no curb.

No. Additional Service Category Reference
Agency-Approved Maximum
Rate Description
3 Container Relocation Service Section 5.02.B and

8.02.B
A - 12% of base monthly Rate of
the Collection Rate for each
Container requiring Container
Relocation Service
B - 27% of base monthly Rate of
the Collection Rate for each
Container requiring Container
Relocation Service
A - Distance greater than 50 feet and
less than or equal to 100 feet
B - Distance greater than 100 feet
Distance shall be measured from the
face of the curb, or from the edge of
the roadway nearest the closest edge
of the Container, if there is no curb.
4 On-Call, Pick-up for SFD, MFD,
Mixed Use, and Commercial
Customers
Section 5.02.A,

5.02.B, and 5.02.C
25% of the base monthly Rate for
the size of Container Collected
once per week.

Per Collection event per Container
for Collection requested by Customer
743

Page 8 of 12 ends

Schedule Q
Additional Services (Continued)
No. Additional Service Category Reference
Agency-Approved Maximum
Rate Description
5 Return Trip (SFD, MFD, Mixed
Use, or Commercial)
Sections

5.02.A, B, C;

5.03.A, B, C;

5.04.A, B, C
$20.92 for SFD
$20.92 for Commercial, Mixed
Use, and MFD
Per Collection event (i.e. request to
return and provide Collection service
after the Customer failed to properly
set out their Container(s) for
regularly scheduled Collection)
6 Additional Targeted
Recyclable Materials or
Organic Materials Cart Service
for SFD
Sections

5.03.A and

5.04.A
$1.37 per Recycling Cart
$4.16 per Organic Materials Cart
Per Cart month (any Cart size). Six
month minimum charge required.

Includes one-time Cart delivery upon
start of service and removal of Cart
when service is discontinued by
Customer.
7 Additional On-Call Bulky Item
Collection
Sections

5.05,

5.06 $113.74 Per Bulky Item Collection event (in
addition to the events provided at no
charge to Customer pursuant to
Section 5.12)
8 Collect Contaminated
Targeted Recyclable Materials
or Organic Materials
Container
Section 6.03.A and

8.02.F
25% of base monthly Solid Waste
Rate for the size of Container
Collected once per week plus
Return Trip Fee if applicable
Per Collection event for Container
with Contamination Level greater
than the maximum level pursuant to
Table 1 in Section 6.02.B
9 Lock Service (Key Service) Section 8.02.B A - $11.85 per usage B - $13.24 per usage
Monthly cost:

A-Residential Customers
B-Commercial Customers
10 Lock Purchase Section 8.02.B $23.71 per lock Per lock No. Additional Service Category Reference
Agency-Approved Maximum
Rate Description
11 Overage Service Section 8.02.G 100% of the base monthly Solid Waste Collection Rate
Per Collection event (after the first
two events)
12 Overage Bags Cost Section 8.02.G 50% of the base monthly Solid Waste Collection Rate or $11.14
minimum
Per bag
13 Container Cleaning Service Section 8.05.D A - $69.73 B - $118.54
A - per Cart
B - per Bin or Drop-Box Charge only
applies to cleaning or Container
exchange in addition to the service to
be provided at no charge to the
Customer pursuant to Section 8.05.D.
14 Dirty Cart Replacement
(Exchange) Service
Section 8.05.D A - $90.65
B - $104.60
C - $118.54
A - per 32 gallon Cart
B - per 64 gallon Cart
C - per 96 gallon Cart
Charge only applies to cleaning or
Container exchange in addition to the
service to be provided at no charge to
the Customer pursuant to Section

8.05.D.
15 Additional Confidential
Document Destruction Service
Event
Section 5.07 $1,673.47 Per event
744

Page 9 of 12 ends

Schedule Q
Additional Services (Continued)
No. Additional Service Category Reference
Agency-Approved Maximum
Rate Description
16 Additional Compost Material
Delivery
Section 5.11 A - $174.31 per delivery
B - $348.65 per delivery
A - "one-way" only delivery by
Contractor where Contractor delivers
to and unloads compost at an Agencyapproved location
B- "Round-trip" delivery by
Contractor where Contractor delivers
compost in a Drop Box to an Agencyapproved location and returns at a later time or date to pick up the Drop
Box and any remaining compost
(charge includes the delivery of and
later pick-up of the Drop Box)
17 Community Drop-Off Events Section 5.13 $28,449.23 per event or day Per event or day targeting 5,000 households. Does not include
disposal or public education
expenses.

Page 10 of 12 ends

Schedule Q
Additional Services (Continued)
** One (1) Solid
Waste Cart
Two (2) Solid
Waste Carts
Three (3) Solid
Waste Carts
Four (4) Solid
Waste Carts
Distance <= 50 feet $25.08 $40.03 $80.12 $120.15
50 < Distance <= 100 feet 29.29 44.25 84.29 124.35
100 < Distance <= 150 feet 33.45 48.42 88.45 128.53
150 < Distance <= 200 feet 37.66 52.61 92.64 132.73
200 < Distance <= 250 feet 41.83 56.78 96.85 136.91
250 < Distance <= 300 feet 46.02 60.96 101.03 141.07
300 < Distance <= 350 feet 50.21 65.14 105.22 145.25
Each additional 50 foot
increment over 350 feet
** Distance shall be measured from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the roadway nearest the closest edge of the Cart, if there is no curb.

Backyard Collection Service Charge for Single Family Dwellings (Section 5.02.A)
Amount equal the difference between the Charge for 250 to 300 feet and 300 to 350 feet
* Backyard Collection Service Charges are charges added to the base monthly Rate for Single-Family Collection service, and cover the provision of Backyard Collection Service for all Customer's Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Organic Materials Carts. 746

Page 11 of 12 ends

Exhibit B to Resolution

GUIDELINES FOR THE SUBMISSION AND TABULATION OF PROTESTS

SOLID WASTE FEES
Submission of Protests

1. Any property owner or solid waste customer may submit a written protest to the City Clerk, either by delivery to the office of the City Clerk or by submitting the protest at the public hearing. Protests must be received by the end of the public hearing. No postmarks will be accepted.

2. Each protest must identify the affected property (by assessor’s parcel number or street address) and include the signature of the record property owner or solid waste customer. Email protests cannot be accepted. Although oral comments at the public hearing will not qualify as a formal protest unless accompanied by a writing, the City Council welcomes input from the community during the public hearing on the proposed fees.

3. If a parcel served by the City is owned by more than a single record owner or customer, each owner or customer may submit a protest, but only one protest will be counted per parcel and any one protest submitted in accordance with these rules will be sufficient to count as a protest for that property.

4. In order to be valid a protest must bear the original signature of the record owner or customer with respect to the property identified on the protest. Protests not bearing the original signature of a record owner or customer shall not be counted.

5. Any person who submits a protest may withdraw it by submitting to the City Clerk a writing request that the protest be withdrawn. The withdrawal of a protest shall contain sufficient information to identify the affected parcel and the name of the record owner or record customer who submitted both the protest and the request that it be withdrawn.

6. A fee protest proceeding is not an election.

7. To ensure transparency and accountability in the fee protest tabulation, protests shall constitute disclosable public records from and after the time they are received.

Tabulation of Protests.

1. The City Clerk shall determine the validity of all protests. The City Clerk shall not accept as valid any protest if the City Clerk determines that any of the following conditions exist:
a. The protest does not identify a property served by the City. b. The protest does not bear an original signature of a record owner of the parcel identified on the protest or of the customer on the parcel. 747

Page 12 of 12 ends

c. The protest does not state its opposition to the proposed fees. d. The protest was not received by the City Clerk before the close of the public hearing on the proposed fees.
e. A request to withdraw the protest is received prior to the close of the public hearing on the proposed fees.

3. The City Clerk’s decision that a protest is not valid or does not apply to a specific fee shall constitute a final action of the City and shall not be subject to any internal appeal.

4. A majority protest exists if written protests are timely submitted and not withdrawn by the record owners of a majority of the properties subject to the proposed fee.

5. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Clerk shall complete the tabulation of all protests received, including those received during the public hearing and shall report the results of the tabulation to the City Council upon completion. If review of the protests received demonstrates that the number received is manifestly less than onehalf of the parcels served by the City with respect to the fee which is the subject of the protest, then the Clerk may advise the City Council of the absence of a majority protest without determining the validity of all protests.
748
July 31, 2024
Ms. Nisha Patel
Director of Public Works
City of Belmont
One Twin Pines Lane, Suite 320
Belmont, CA 94002
Re: Rate Year 2025 Rate Application
Dear Ms. Patel:

Enclosed is our Rate Year 2025 Rate Application, Calculation of Actual Disposal Expense (April 2023 through March 2024), Calculation of Projected Disposal Costs (April 2024 – March 2025), Performance Incentive/Disincentive schedule, Attachment L for 2025, CPI index data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Attachment Q schedules for 2025.

In accordance with Article 11 of the Franchise Agreement for Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials and Solid Waste Collection Services, we applied the following methodology to our calculations:
• Wages for CBAs Component – Multiplied the Wage Component of $1,310,584 by the CPI-W-Wages Index for April 2024 (346.671) and divided that by the CPI-W-Wages Index for April 2020 (290.304). The calculated Wages for CBAs Component for Rate Year 2025 is $1,565,054.
• Benefits for CBAs Component – Multiplied the Benefits Component of $608,287 by the CPI-W-Medical Index for April 2024 (587.011) and divided that by the CPI-W-Medical Index for April 2020 (548.136). The calculated Benefits for CBAs Component for Rate Year 2025 is $651,428.
• Payroll Taxes Component – Multiplied the Wages for CBAs Component of $1,565,054 by the effective payroll tax rate of 8.1%. The calculated Payroll Taxes Component for Rate Year 2025 is $126,769.
• Workers Compensation Insurance Component – Multiplied the Workers Compensation Insurance Component of $93,961 by the CPI-W-Wages Index for April 2024 (346.671) and divided that by the CPI-W-Wages Index for April 2020 (290.304).

The calculated Workers Compensation Insurance Component for Rate Year 2025 is $112,205.
• Direct Fuel Component - Multiplied the Direct Fuel Component of $169,992 by CPI-UMotor Fuel Index for April 2024 (397.919) and divided that by the CPI-U-Motor Fuel 749
Index for April 2020 (209.994). The calculated Direct Fuel Component for Rate Year 2025 is $322,119.
• General Expenses Direct Component – Multiplied the General Expenses Direct Component of $191,163 by the CPI-U-General Index for April 2024 (351.247) and divided that by the CPI-U-General Index for April 2020 (298.074). The calculated General Expenses Direct Component for Rate Year 2025 is $225,264. • General Expenses Indirect Component – Multiplied the General Expenses Indirect Component of $1,020,220 by the CPI-U-General Index for April 2024 (351.247) and divided that by the CPI-U-General Index for April 2020 (298.074). The calculated General Expenses Indirect Component for Rate Year 2025 is $1,202,216. • SBWMA Approved SB 1383 Costs Component – Multiplied the SBWMA Approved SB 1383 Costs Component of $18,124 by the CPI-U-General Index for April 2024 (351.247) and divided that by the CPI-U-General Index for April 2024 (338.496). The calculated SBWMA Approved SB 1383 Costs Component for Rate Year 2025 is $18,807.
• Disposal Costs Component – The Disposal Costs Component equals (i) Contractor’s reasonable good faith projection of Disposal Costs for the period from April 1 of the Current Year through March 31 of the Adjustment Year ($2,434,527), plus (ii) Contractor’s actual Disposal Costs for the period from April 1 of the Prior Year through March 31 of the Current Year ($2,114,505), minus (iii) Contractor’s previous projection of Disposal Costs for the period described in clause (ii) ($2,241,715). The calculation of projected disposal costs used in (i) assumed volumes delievered to the Designated Disposal Site using actual volumes delivered during the quarter April 1, 2024 through June 30, 2024, then duplicating those volumes for the next three quarters. The disposal rates are the anticipated rates for 2024 and 2025 at the Designated Disposal Site. The total Disposal Component equals $2,307,317 ($2,434,527 + $2,114,505 - $2,241,715). • Performance-Based Component – Incentives and disincentives were reviewed by RRS consultants and are included in the rate year 2025 compensation application. Incentives total $0 and disincentives total $ 4,487 for a combined disincentive amount of $4,487.

Based on the calculations described above, the Total Target Revenue increase for Rate Year 2025 is 2.04%. The Rate Year 2025 Rate Application includes a calculation of the Potential Cap Carry Forward of $ zero. The Attachment L for 2025 is calculated at 2.04%.

If you have any questions, or need any additional information, please call me at (650) 595-3900.

Sincerely,
John Zirelli
John Zirelli
General Manager
Recology San Mateo County
750
SBWMA- SBWMA SBWMA- Adjusted
Adjusted Approved Adjusted April 2020 April 2024 2025
2021 SB 1383 2021 Plus CPI CPI Rate Year
Cost Description Basis for Adjustment Values Costs SB 1383 Index Index Compensation Direct Labor Related
Wages for CBA's CPI-W: CWURS49BSA0 1,310,584 1,310,584 290.304 346.671 1,565,054 Benefits for CBA's CPI-W-Medical: CUURS49BSAM 608,287 608,287 548.136 587.011 651,428 Payroll Taxes Effective Rate: 8.1% 109,005 109,005 na na 126,769 Workers Compensation CPI-W: CWURS49BSA0 93,961 93,961 290.304 346.671 112,205 Direct Fuel Costs CPI-U-Motor Fuel: CUURS49BSETB 169,992 169,992 209.994 397.919 322,119 General Expenses Direct CPI-U: CUURS49BSA0 191,163 191,163 298.074 351.247 225,264 General Expenses Indirect CPI-U: CUURS49BSA0 1,020,220 - 1,020,220 298.074 351.247 1,202,216 SBWMA Approved SB 1383 Costs CPI-U: CUURS49BSA0 - 18,124 18,124 338.496 351.247 18,807 (1) General Expenses Depreciation Fixed 281,317 281,317 na na 281,317 Profit Calculation Operating Ratio of 90.5% 397,271 397,271 na na 472,919 Interest Fixed 73,679 73,679 na na 73,679
Performance Incentives Based on Annual Report - - na na - Performance Disincentives Based on Annual Report - - na na (4,487) Base Contractor's Compensation 4,255,478 18,124 4,273,602 5,047,290 Disposal Cost Component (i) Projected Next Rate Year 1,732,663 2,434,527 Disposal Cost Component (ii) Actual Prior Year 2,114,505 Disposal Cost Component (iii) Less Projected Prior Year (2,241,715) Agency Payments 2,051,120 2,584,051
Total Contractor Compensation 8,039,261 8,057,385 9,938,659 (1) Note: The SB 1383 cost of $18,124 is added to base costs starting in year 2024 and is subject to CPI-U adjustment beginning in year rate 2025 using the beginning CPI Index from April 2023 rather than April 2020. 2024
Total Contractor Compensation 9,938,659
Cap Carry Forward 11.11 -
Total Target Revenue 9,938,659
2024 Target Revenue 9,740,247
Adjustment Multiplier 2.04%
5% Cap Calculation 11.11
Adjusted Contractor's Compensation 2025 5,051,777
Adjusted Contractor's Compensation 2024 4,874,782
difference 176,996
5 % of Adjusted Contractor's Compensation 2024 243,739
Potential Cap Carry Forward 0
Recology San Mateo County
City of Belmont
Refuse Rate Index Calculation
751
Recology San Mateo County
City of Belmont
Actual Disposal Calculation (Apr 2023 - Mar 2024)
Rate Year 2025

BELMONT CITY VEHICLES
Solid Bulky Solid
Waste Green/Org Items Waste Green/Org Dirt C&D Concrete Asphalt Refrigerators APR 573.85 454.26 3.22 39.37 16.81 8.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 MAY 662.89 522.18 2.55 36.58 2.00 15.84 0.00 42.36 0.00 0.00 JUN 640.01 482.35 2.16 30.99 2.67 146.21 0.00 21.85 0.00 0.00 JUL 587.43 420.07 1.83 19.81 6.81 32.11 0.00 49.00 0.00 0.00 AUG 641.13 456.90 1.60 42.36 12.30 38.59 0.00 14.68 0.00 0.00 SEP 592.56 399.59 1.96 31.02 2.41 32.78 0.00 14.32 0.00 0.00 OCT 615.31 405.82 2.74 35.82 14.61 138.69 0.43 20.14 0.00 0.00 NOV 623.60 415.70 3.26 86.80 2.38 16.45 8.44 7.72 0.00 0.00 DEC 618.19 452.07 4.20 31.57 10.98 43.81 2.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 subtotal Apr - Dec 2023 5554.97 4008.94 23.52 354.32 70.97 472.92 11.57 170.07 0.00 1.00 JAN 629.27 471.88 0.00 49.21 6.03 21.20 0.00 0.00 7.12 0.00 FEB 603.24 451.77 2.84 44.22 9.22 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAR 622.06 482.48 2.40 43.75 28.41 51.92 0.00 0.00 9.99 0.00 subtotal Jan - Mar 2024 1854.57 1406.13 5.24 137.18 43.66 74.41 0.00 0.00 17.11 0.00 SBWMA Total 7409.54 5415.07 28.76 491.50 114.63 547.33 11.57 170.07 17.11 1.00 Rate Apr 2023 - Dec 2023 $139.00 $150.00 $139.00 $139.00 $150.00 $121.00 $136.00 $121.00 $136.00 $53.00 Rate Jan 2024 - Mar 2024 $165.00 $178.00 $165.00 $165.00 $178.00 $146.00 $165.00 $146.00 $170.00 $53.00 Per Item Cost $1,078,144.88 $851,632.14 $4,133.88 $71,885.18 $18,416.98 $68,087.18 $1,573.52 $20,578.47 $53.00 Total Disposal $2,114,505.23
752
Recology San Mateo County
City of Belmont
Projected Disposal Calculation (Apr 2024 - Mar 2025)
Rate Year 2025

BELMONT CITY VEHICLES
Solid Bulky Solid Each
Waste Green/Org Items Waste Green/Org Dirt C&D Refrigerator APR (Actual) 650.48 488.62 3.53 42.97 4.64 95.75 0.00 0.00 MAY (Actual) 636.66 490.32 1.62 37.48 9.70 24.47 0.00 0.00 JUN (Actual) 558.93 385.35 2.40 35.75 11.96 43.85 0.00 1.00 JUL 650.48 488.62 3.53 42.97 4.64 95.75 0.00 0.00
AUG 636.66 490.32 1.62 37.48 9.70 24.47 0.00 0.00
SEP 558.93 385.35 2.40 35.75 11.96 43.85 0.00 1.00
OCT 650.48 488.62 3.53 42.97 4.64 95.75 0.00 0.00
NOV 636.66 490.32 1.62 37.48 9.70 24.47 0.00 0.00
DEC 558.93 385.35 2.40 35.75 11.96 43.85 0.00 1.00
subtotal Apr - Dec 5,538.21 4,092.87 22.65 348.60 78.90 492.21 0.00 3.00 JAN 650.48 488.62 3.53 42.97 4.64 95.75 0.00 0.00
FEB 636.66 490.32 1.62 37.48 9.70 24.47 0.00 0.00
MAR 558.93 385.35 2.40 35.75 11.96 43.85 0.00 1.00
subtotal Jan - Mar 1,846.07 1,364.29 7.55 116.20 26.30 164.07 0.00 1.00 SBWMA Total 7,384.28 5,457.16 30.20 464.80 105.20 656.28 0.00 4.00 Rates Apr 2024 - Dec 2024 $165.00 $178.00 $165.00 $165.00 $178.00 $146.00 $165.00 $58.00 Rates Jan 2025 - Mar 2025 $178.20 $192.24 $173.75 $178.20 $192.24 $161.40 $186.00 $58.00 Per Item Cost $ 1,242,774.32 $ 990,801.97 $ 5,049.06 $ 78,225.84 $ 19,100.11 $ 98,343.56 $ - $ 232.00 Total Disposal $ 2,434,526.87
753
Recology San Mateo County
Incentives and Disincentives
Year 2023
Member Agency
SFD and
Commercial
Missed P/U
Events
Average
Speed of
Answer
90 Second
Max Hold
Time
Diversion
Maximum
Incentives and
Disincentives1
Belmont $0 $14,800 $6,562 ($11,228) $4,487
Burlingame $53 $34,428 $15,265 ($26,120) $10,490
East Palo Alto $53 $23,939 $10,614 ($18,162) $7,310
Foster City $0 $21,230 $9,413 ($16,107) $6,436
Hillsborough $0 $5,478 $2,429 ($4,156) $1,661
Menlo Park $106 $31,140 $13,807 ($23,626) $9,547
North Fair Oaks $0 $11,769 $5,218 ($8,929) $3,568
Redwood City $212 $70,079 $31,071 ($53,167) $21,457
San Carlos $53 $25,209 $11,177 ($19,126) $7,695
San Mateo $212 $80,555 $35,716 ($61,116) $24,633
County Franchised Area $0 $7,892 $3,499 ($5,987) $2,392 WBSD $0 $3,342 $1,482 ($2,535) $1,013
Total $690 $329,860 $146,252 ($250,260) $100,690
Negative number in parenthesis denotes Incentive payment due to Recology. 1 In accordance with Attachment I, the maximum annual incentive or disincentive, except for SingleFamily and Commercial Missed Pick-up Events is $100,000 or ($100,000).

Performance Incentive/Disincentive Payments 2023
Performance Incentives and Disincentives
754
Adjustment Multiplier 2.04%

RESIDENTIAL RATES
R20G RES WASTE 20G 41.03
R32G RES WASTE 32 GAL 48.95
R64G RES WASTE 64 GAL 96.36
R96G RES WASTE 96 GAL 144.54
COMMERCIAL/MULTI FAMILY RATES Times Per Week
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
C1YG COMML WASTE 1 YD 272.61 555.02 842.26 1,132.86 1,425.79 1,779.46 2,099.54 C1YO COMML ORGANICS 1 YD 190.84 388.50 589.57 793.00 998.06 1,245.63 1,469.69 C15CG COMML WASTE 1.5 YD COMPACTOR 993.10 1,986.21 2,979.31 3,972.42 4,965.52 5,958.63 6,951.73 C15CO COMML ORGANICS 1.5 YD COMPACTOR 695.18 1,390.35 2,085.52 2,780.69 3,475.87 4,171.04 4,866.22 C20G COMML WASTE 20 GALLON 52.35 107.69 160.34 220.12 278.50 348.47 424.49 C2YG1 COMML WASTE 2 YD 548.36 1,105.73 1,668.35 2,235.07 2,809.80 3,317.14 3,928.58 C2YO COMML ORGANICS 2 YD 383.86 773.99 1,167.86 1,564.54 1,966.83 2,321.99 2,750.01 C32G COMML WASTE 32 GALLON 58.12 119.66 178.12 244.57 309.42 387.17 471.64 C32O COMML ORGANICS 32 GAL 40.71 83.76 124.68 171.22 216.60 271.05 330.17 C3CG COMML WASTE 3 YD COMPACTOR 1,985.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C3YG COMML WASTE 3 YD 827.02 1,664.02 2,505.93 3,350.35 4,197.69 5,095.81 6,000.20 C3YO COMML ORGANICS 3 YD 578.90 1,164.85 1,754.16 2,345.25 2,938.37 3,567.07 4,200.14 C4YG1 COMML WASTE 4 YD 1,128.96 2,277.43 3,425.93 4,587.49 5,753.95 6,968.80 8,209.08 C4YO COMML ORGANICS 4 YD 790.28 1,594.20 2,398.14 3,211.25 4,027.75 4,878.21 5,746.36 C64G COMML WASTE 64 GALLON 112.40 226.80 344.13 462.71 588.16 716.74 839.05 C64O COMML ORGANICS 64 GAL 78.70 158.76 240.88 323.92 411.72 501.68 587.33 C6YG1 COMML WASTE 6 YD 1,736.26 3,521.40 5,293.26 7,050.05 8,831.87 10,676.95 12,505.21 C6YO COMML ORGANICS 6 YD 1,215.39 2,464.99 3,705.27 4,935.04 6,182.32 7,473.85 8,753.64 C96G COMML WASTE 96 GALLON 162.46 332.78 505.02 683.13 863.66 1,087.16 1,268.34 C96O COMML ORGANICS 96 GAL 113.72 232.94 353.51 478.18 604.56 761.00 887.84 SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR RATE PER YARD 152.78
Rate Year 2025
Recology San Mateo County
City of Belmont
Attachment L
755
Series Id:

Series
Title:

Area:

Item:

Base
Period:

Years:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2014 245.148 247.932 250.085 249.877 250.508 247.680 248.326 247.097 249.555 2015 249.809 252.875 254.736 256.060 256.107 255.492 253.910 252.041 255.780 2016 257.141 259.386 261.017 262.326 264.026 263.222 260.830 258.715 262.946 2017 265.569 268.896 269.508 269.827 271.272 271.342 268.990 267.426 270.555 2018 275.699 278.039 280.219 281.536 283.183 283.278 279.572 277.035 282.110 2019 284.758 288.266 288.581 288.514 291.707 289.456 288.192 286.615 289.770 2020 292.010 290.304 292.420 293.062 294.442 295.687 292.601 291.297 293.906 2021 297.170 302.294 304.971 307.423 309.656 312.019 304.602 300.275 308.928 2022 316.463 322.021 328.137 325.932 329.331 326.465 323.900 320.408 327.391 2023 331.875 333.478 335.725 336.663 337.698 335.597 334.662 332.718 336.605 2024 341.595 346.671 345.789 343.520
Series Id:

Series
Title:

Area:

Item:

Base
Period:

Years:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2014 440.573 448.951
2016 486.042 486.894 488.508 486.068
2017 485.741 491.228 493.123 489.826 493.957 493.055 490.720 489.198 492.241 2018 500.434 504.092 511.465 508.677 510.198 539.595 508.623 502.138 515.108 2019 519.339 537.178 538.854 551.902 554.645 541.173 532.698 549.647 2020 545.970 548.136 549.438 548.733 549.432 545.016 548.802 549.120 548.484 2021 555.065 555.675 551.518 550.215 556.119 561.352 553.445 552.681 554.209 2022 567.774 573.254 583.038 591.731 587.405 580.306 571.613 588.998 2023 583.268 586.550 591.060 594.003 592.166 588.750 586.600 590.899 2024 586.760 587.011 591.992 588.625
All items in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, urban wage earners and clerical workers, not seasonally adjusted
CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) Original Data Value
CWURS49BSA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Medical care
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
All items
1982-84=100
2014 to 2024
CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
Original Data Value
CUURS49BSAM
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Medical care in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, all
urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
1982-84=100
2014 to 2024
756
Series Id:

Series
Title:

Area:

Item:

Base
Period:

Years:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2014 273.919 279.844 297.341 313.061 315.401 312.578 308.499 297.489 287.115 268.189 242.194 216.165 284.316 298.691 269.942 2015 193.209 209.050 250.324 240.323 269.479 253.019 257.434 247.551 223.945 208.973 202.552 196.642 229.375 235.901 222.850 2016 195.010 178.296 191.074 202.420 208.843 213.139 209.663 197.818 204.532 207.138 200.994 200.151 200.757 198.130 203.383 2017 208.379 212.552 223.591 224.219 229.642 227.099 218.805 221.035 233.253 227.464 236.297 232.445 224.565 220.914 228.217 2018 239.938 248.958 254.538 264.816 276.100 277.231 275.852 273.651 274.578 284.833 278.051 264.929 267.790 260.264 275.316 2019 255.355 251.375 259.552 290.028 297.662 280.364 272.104 263.865 268.181 300.258 286.954 261.728 273.952 272.389 275.515 2020 254.945 251.171 235.263 209.994 208.040 220.382 229.239 236.785 239.082 236.633 236.201 237.489 232.935 229.966 235.905 2021 246.145 253.600 277.844 289.079 301.702 310.278 315.657 322.785 321.903 330.112 343.726 342.260 304.591 279.775 329.407 2022 340.187 343.538 408.338 414.030 435.497 464.377 428.878 391.441 401.663 435.974 383.334 325.704 397.747 400.995 394.499 2023 323.764 340.659 354.292 354.844 349.579 350.034 351.675 370.944 398.486 401.688 366.097 340.105 358.514 345.529 371.499 2024 335.924 331.815 359.973 397.919 386.142 359.602 361.896 Series Id:

Series
Title:

Area:

Item:

Base
Period:

Years:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2014 248.615 251.495 253.317 253.354 254.503 252.273 251.985 250.507 253.463 2015 254.910 257.622 259.117 259.917 261.019 260.289 258.572 256.723 260.421 2016 262.600 264.565 266.041 267.853 270.306 269.483 266.344 263.911 268.777 2017 271.626 274.589 275.304 275.893 277.570 277.414 274.924 273.306 276.542 2018 281.308 283.422 286.062 287.664 289.673 289.896 285.550 282.666 288.435 2019 291.227 294.801 295.259 295.490 298.443 297.007 295.004 293.150 296.859 2020 299.690 298.074 300.032 300.182 301.736 302.948 300.084 299.109 301.059 2021 304.387 309.419 309.497 311.167 313.265 315.805 309.721 306.724 312.718 2022 320.195 324.878 330.539 328.871 332.062 331.222 327.060 323.408 330.711 2023 337.173 338.496 340.056 340.094 341.219 339.915 339.050 337.689 340.411 2024 345.151 351.247 351.064 347.857
2014 to 2024
CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
Original Data Value
CUURS49BSETB
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Motor fuel in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
Motor fuel
1982-84=100
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
All items
1982-84=100
2014 to 2024
CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
Original Data Value
CUURS49BSA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
All items in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted
757

ATTACHMENT Q
SCHEDULE OF CONTRACTOR’S MAXIMUM RATES

FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Collection Services Franchise Agreement with Recology San Mateo County Attachment Q City of Belmont Additional Services

Page 1 of 5 ends

For Rate Years Eleven (2021) through the remaining Rate Years in the Term, the Maximum Rate for additional services specified in Attachment Q shall be adjusted annually in accordance with Section 11.05. For Rate Year 2025, the current effective Maximum Rates are multiplied by the April 2024 CPI-U-General value of 351.247 and divided by the April 2023 CPI-U-General value of 338.496.

The Maximum Rate for additional services for Rate Year Ten (2020) shall be the Maximum Rates for Rate Year Ten (2020) as determined under the 2009 Franchise Agreement. These amounts will be adjusted as provided in Section 11.05 of this Agreement to determine the Maximum Rates for Rate Year Eleven (2021).

Two additional services are included in this Attachment Q there were not in Attachment Q of the 2009 Franchise Agreement. The two new services are Container Relocation Service and AgencySpecific Reporting for Abandoned Waste Collections. Maximum Rates for these services are presented in the table below.

Charges for Additional Services may not exceed the Maximum Rates approved by the City for the respective Rate Year.

Service Reference
AgencyApproved
Maximum Rate
Description
Additional Services for Customers
1 Single-Family Dwelling
Backyard Collection
Service
Section

5.02.A
See Maximum
Rate in the table at
the end of this
Attachment
See Maximum Rate in the table
at the end of this Attachment
2 Long Distance Service for
MFD, Mixed Use, and
Commercial Accounts
(Note: only applicable to
Containers with wheels)
Sections

5.02.B,

5.02.C; and

8.02.B
A – No more than
10% of base
monthly Maximum
Rate of the
Collection Rate for
each Container
requiring Long
Distance Service
B – 25% of base
monthly Rate of
the Collection Rate
for each Container
requiring Long
Distance Service
A – Distance greater than 50 feet
and less than or equal to 100
feet
B – Distance greater than 100
feet
Distance shall be measured from
the face of the curb, or from the
edge of the roadway nearest the
closest edge of the Container, if
there is no curb.
758

ATTACHMENT Q
SCHEDULE OF CONTRACTOR’S MAXIMUM RATES

FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Collection Services Franchise Agreement with Recology San Mateo County Attachment Q City of Belmont Additional Services

Page 2 of 5 ends

Service Reference
AgencyApproved
Maximum Rate
Description
3 Container Relocation
Service
Sections

5.02B and

8.02B
A – 12% of base
monthly rate of the
Collection Rate for
each Container
requiring Container
Relocation Service
B – 27% of base
monthly Rate of
the Collection Rate
for each Container
requiring Container
Relocation Service
A – Distance greater than 50 feet
and less than or equal to 100
feet
B – Distance greater than 100
feet
Distance shall be measured from
the face of the curb, or from the
edge of the roadway nearest the
closest edge of the Container, if
there is no curb.
4 On-Call Pick-up for SFD,
MFD, Mixed Use, and
Commercial Customers
Sections

5.02.A,

5.02.B, and

5.02.C
25% of the base
monthly Rate for
the size of
Container
Collected once per
week
Per Collection event per
Container for Collection
requested by Customer
5 Return Trip (SFD, MFD,
Mixed Use, or
Commercial)
Sections

5.02.A, B, C;

5.03.A, B, C;

5.04.A, B, C
$20.92 for SFD
$20.92 for
Commercial, Mixed
Use, and MFD
Per Collection event (i.e.,
request to return and provide
Collection service after the
Customer failed to properly set
out their Container(s) for
regularly scheduled Collection)
6 Additional Targeted
Recyclable Materials or
Organic Materials Cart
Service for SFD
Sections

5.03.A and

5.04.A
$1.37 per
Recycling Cart
$4.16 per Organic
Materials Cart
Per Cart per month (any Cart
size). Six month minimum
charge required. Includes onetime Cart delivery upon start of service and removal of Cart
when service is discontinued by
Customer.
7 Additional On-Call Bulky
Item Collection
Sections

5.05, 5.06
$113.74 Per Bulky Item Collection event
(in addition to the events
provided at no charge to
Customer pursuant to Section

5.12)
759

ATTACHMENT Q
SCHEDULE OF CONTRACTOR’S MAXIMUM RATES

FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Collection Services Franchise Agreement with Recology San Mateo County Attachment Q City of Belmont Additional Services

Page 3 of 5 ends

Service Reference
AgencyApproved
Maximum Rate
Description
8 Collect Contaminated
Targeted Recyclable
Materials or Organic
Materials Container
Section

6.03.A and

8.02.F
25% of the base
monthly Solid
Waste Rate for the
size of Container
Collected once per
week
plus
Return Trip Fee if
applicable
Per Collection event for
Container with Contamination
Level greater than the maximum
level pursuant to Table 1 in
Section 6.02.B
9 Lock Service (Key
Service)
Section

8.02.B
A – $11.85 per
usage
B – $13.24 per
usage
Monthly cost:

A – Residential Customers
B – Commercial Customers
10 Lock Purchase Section

8.02.B
$23.71 per lock Per lock
11 Overage Service Section

8.02.G
100% of the base
monthly Solid
Waste Collection
Rate
Per Collection event (after the
first two events)
12 Overage Bags Cost Section

8.02.G
50% of the base
monthly Solid
Waste Collection
Rate or $11.14
minimum
Per bag
13 Container Cleaning
Service
Section

8.05.D
A – $69.73
B – $118.54
A – per Cart
B – per Bin or Drop-Box
Charge only applies to cleaning
or Container exchange in
addition to the service to be
provided at no charge to the
Customer pursuant to Section

8.05.D
760

ATTACHMENT Q
SCHEDULE OF CONTRACTOR’S MAXIMUM RATES

FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Collection Services Franchise Agreement with Recology San Mateo County Attachment Q City of Belmont Additional Services

Page 4 of 5 ends

Service Reference
AgencyApproved
Maximum Rate
Description
14 Dirty Cart Replacement
(Exchange) Service
Section

8.05.D
A – $90.65
B – $104.60
C – $118.54
A – per 32 gallon Cart
B – per 64 gallon Cart
C – per 96 gallon Cart
Charge only applies to cleaning
or Container exchange in
addition to the service to be
provided at no charge to the
Customer pursuant to Section

8.05.D
Additional Services for Agency
15 Additional Confidential
Document Destruction
Service Event
Section 5.07 $1,673.47 Per event
16 Additional Compost
Material Delivery
Section 5.11 A – $174.31 per
delivery
B – $348.65 per
delivery
A – “one-way” only delivery by
Contractor where Contractor
delivers to and unloads compost
at an Agency-approved location
B – “Round-trip” delivery by
Contractor where Contractor
delivers compost in a Drop Box
to an Agency-approved location
and returns at a later time or
date to pick up the Drop Box and
any remaining compost (charge
includes the delivery of and later
pick-up of the Drop Box)
17 Community Drop-Off
Events
Section 5.13 $28,449.23 per
event or day
Per event or day targeting 5,000
households. Does not include
disposal or public education
expenses.
18 Collection for AgencySponsored and NonAgency sponsored Community Events
Section 5.08 A – $4,183.70
B – $6,972.84
C – $10,459.27
A – One day event with a
projected 2,500 or fewer
attendees
B – One (1) or two (2) day
events with a projected 2,501 to
7,500 attendees per day
C – One (1) or two (2) day
events with a projected 7,501 to
10,000 attendees per day
761

ATTACHMENT Q
SCHEDULE OF CONTRACTOR’S MAXIMUM RATES

FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Collection Services Franchise Agreement with Recology San Mateo County Attachment Q City of Belmont Additional Services

Page 5 of 5 ends

Backyard Collection Service Charge
for Single-Family Dwellings*
(Section 5.02.A)
Distance from Curb**
Backyard
Charge for
Customers
with One (1)
Solid Waste
Cart
Backyard
Charge for
Customers with
Two (2) Solid
Waste Carts
Backyard
Charge for
Customers with
Three (3) Solid
Waste Carts
Backyard
Charge for
Customers with
Four (4) Solid
Waste Carts
Distance <= 50 feet $25.08 $40.03 $80.12 $120.15
50 < Distance <= 100 feet $29.29 $44.25 $84.29 $124.35
100 < Distance <= 150 feet $33.45 $48.42 $88.45 $128.53 150 < Distance <= 200 feet $37.66 $52.61 $92.64 $132.73 200 < Distance <= 250 feet $41.83 $56.78 $96.85 $136.91 250 < Distance <= 300 feet $46.02 $60.96 $101.03 $141.07 300 < Distance <= 350 feet $50.21 $65.14 $105.22 $145.25 Each additional 50 foot
increment over 350 feet
Amount equals the difference
between the Charge for 250 to 300 feet and 300 to 350 feet * Backyard Collection Service Charges are charges added to the base monthly Rate for Single-Family Collection service, and cover the provision of Backyard Collection Service for all of Customer’s Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Organic Materials Carts.
** Distance shall be measured from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the roadway nearest the closest edge of the Cart, if there is no curb. 762
Draft Report
Review of the 2025 Solid Waste Rates
City of Belmont
August 2024
763
929 108th Ave NE, Suite 1300
Bellevue, WA 98004
August 22, 2024
Ms. Nisha Patel, P.E.

Public Works Director
City of Belmont
One Twin Pines Lane Suite 385
Belmont, California 94002
Subject: Review of the 2025 Solid Waste Rates Final Report Dear Ms. Patel:

HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) was retained by the City of Belmont (City) to provide professional and technical rate services as they relate to the City’s solid waste utility. The City is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA) and has a franchise agreement with Recology of San Mateo County (Recology) for solid waste collection services, including the collection of recycling and organic materials. Through the franchise agreement, the annual compensation for Recology’s services is contractually determined. Recology has provided to the City their calculation of the maximum rates for both regularly scheduled services, and additional services, for Rate Year 2025, based on their July 31st rate year 2025 application letter. The franchise agreement calls for the City to adopt solid waste retail rates, but not at a level which exceeds the Contractor’s “Maximum Rates for Regularly Scheduled Services”.

HDR and the City have reviewed Recology’s calculations and this report summarizes our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. This report and HDR’s technical review were developed utilizing the City’s and Recology’s accounting, operating, and management records. HDR has relied upon this information to conduct our limited review, which provides the basis for our findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report.

We appreciate the assistance provided by City staff, management, and City Council. More importantly, we appreciate the opportunity to work with City on this project.

Sincerely yours,
HDR Engineering, Inc.

Shawn Koorn
Associate Vice President
764
Table of Contents i
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
Executive Summary
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 Limitations of HDR’s Review .............................................................................................. 1 Overview of the Agreement .............................................................................................. 2 Regularly Scheduled Service (Attachment L) –
Review of Recology’s Calculated Maximum ...................................................................... 3 Additional Services (Attachment Q) – Review of Recology’s Calculated Maximum ......... 4 Summary Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................. 5 City Council Review ............................................................................................................ 5 Summary of the Review of Solid Waste Rates ................................................................... 5 1 Introduction and Overview of the Report

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 6

1.2 Limitations of HDR’s Review.................................................................................... 6

1.3 Organization of the Report ...................................................................................... 7 2 Overview of the Agreement

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 8

2.2 Overview of the Agreement .................................................................................... 8

2.3 Regularly Scheduled Services (Attachment L) ......................................................... 9

2.4 Additional Services (Attachment Q) ...................................................................... 10

2.5 Summary ................................................................................................................ 10 3 Review of Recology’s Calculated Maximum Rates for Regularly Scheduled Services

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Overview of Recology’s 2024 Rate Application..................................................... 11

3.3 Overview of General Approach Used to Review the Costs ................................... 12

3.4 Summary Conclusions of HDR’s Review of Maximum Rate Calculations ............. 13

3.5 HDR’s Detailed Review of the Total Target Revenue Calculations ....................... 13

3.5.1 CPI Value Adjustment .............................................................................. 13

3.6 Conclusions Regarding the Calculation of the Maximum Rate ............................. 16 4 Review of the Proposed 2023 Solid Waste Rates

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Residential Regularly Scheduled Service (Attachment L)...................................... 17

4.3 Commercial Carts Regularly Scheduled Service (Attachment L) ........................... 17

4.4 Commercial Waste Bins Regularly Scheduled Service ......................................... 19

4.5 Commercial Organics Bins Regularly Scheduled Service ...................................... 21

4.6 Commercial Organics Carts Regularly Scheduled Service .................................... 23 Table of Contents
765
Table of Contents ii
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates

4.7 Other Miscellaneous Solid Waste Rates ............................................................... 25

4.8 Rate for Additional Services (Attachment Q) ........................................................ 25

4.9 City Council Review ............................................................................................... 25

4.10 Summary ................................................................................................................ 26 5 Summary of the Solid Waste Rate Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 27

5.2 Summary Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................... 27

5.3 Looking Ahead – Future Rate Adjustment to 2024 ............................................... 27

5.4 Summary ................................................................................................................ 27 Technical Appendix A – Attachment L Rates – Regularly Scheduled Rates Technical Appendix B – Attachment Q Rates – Additional Services 766
Executive Summary 1
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
Introduction
The City of Belmont (City) is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA). On August 28, 2018, the City finalized an Amended and Restated Franchise Agreement (Agreement) with Recology of San Mateo County (Recology) for solid waste collection services, including the collection of recycling and organic materials. The Agreement is for the 15-year period of 2021 to 2035. Through the Agreement (i.e., 7.01.A.5, 11.01.A, 11.06), the annual compensation for Recology’s collection and recycling services is contractually determined. At the same time, the Agreement calls for the City to adopt solid waste rates, but not at a level which exceeds the Contractor’s “Maximum Rates for Regularly Scheduled and Additional Services”.

Ultimately, Recology bills the City’s customers for the solid waste services at the rates established and formally adopted by the Belmont City Council.

As a part of the overall rate setting process, Recology’s data and information is reviewed by an outside party prior to its use within the calculation of the City’s maximum rates. Once that data and information is confirmed, Recology calculates the “maximum rates for regularly scheduled and additional services” and provides a copy of those calculations to the City for their review and acceptance. This review and rate setting process is similar to the reviews that HDR has provided to the City annually since 2013, which the City has requested HDR to conduct for rate year 2025.

The Agreement contains specific language and exhibits related to the development of the maximum rates for a given year for both regularly scheduled services (Schedule L) and additional services (Schedule Q). Rate year 2021, the first year of the current Agreement, serves as the base year for adjusting rates in future years. HDR has reviewed the applicable portions of the Agreement as they pertain to the 2025 rate year1. From our understanding of the current Agreement and the rate setting requirements, HDR reviewed Recology’s submittal for the 2025 rate year. This report discusses the review undertaken by HDR for the 2025 rate year.

Limitations of HDR’s Review
HDR has provided a limited review of Recology’s maximum rate calculations for the 2025 rate year. As noted above, the data and information used by Recology to calculate the City’s maximum rates were independently reviewed by another outside firm. Given the outside review of Recology’s data and information, HDR and the City have assumed that the data and information input into Recology’s rate calculations are reasonable and appropriate. As part of the review, HDR did cross-check and verify the inputs into Recology’s model from the database of previously reviewed basic input data and information.

1 HDR assisted the City in negotiating a current franchise agreement with Recology and is very familiar with the requirements of the current agreement as it relates to rate setting (Article 11).

Executive Summary
767
Executive Summary 2
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
Within HDR’s review, four key items have been reviewed and verified. These included:
 A review of Recology’s methodology for compliance with our understanding of the required methodology specific for the 2025 rate year based on the current Agreement  A review of the data inputs and information used within the methodology to confirm that the costs and any other adjustments comply with the methodology for regularly scheduled services (Schedule L) for rate year 2025 as required in the current Agreement  A review of the data inputs and methodology used to adjust additional services (Schedule Q) for the 2025 rate year to confirm the use of the appropriate cost index, as specified in the current Agreement
 Confirmation/verification of the calculations (formulas) within the methodology as they apply to the 2025 rate year based on the current Agreement Overview of the Agreement
The Agreement with Recology is intended to continue to provide the City of Belmont community with high-quality waste collection, waste reduction, recycling, and composting programs. In order to maximize the quality of services and waste-diversion potential, the City granted to Recology an exclusive right to provide these services within the City. In order to balance that exclusive right to provide these solid waste services against the costs/rates associated with that program, the parties needed to develop an approach or methodology that fairly compensated (and limited) the charges that Recology could charge the City’s customers. To address this requirement, Article 11 of the Agreement contains specific language, and a methodology, for annually establishing the maximum rates for the up-coming calendar year for both regularly scheduled (Schedule L) and additional services (Schedule Q).

The Agreement provides for an orderly process and approach to establish rates for the City and compensation for Recology. The review being undertaken by the City and HDR is a part of that orderly process, and the City is performing its due diligence to verify and confirm that the maximum rates calculated by Recology are in accordance with the Agreement. The
agreement stipulates this as follows:

Article 11, “The Contractor’s Compensation, Pass-Through Costs and Rates” determines the annual compensation for Recology’s collection and recycling services. This calculation of annual compensation sets the Contractor’s “Maximum
Rates for Regularly Scheduled Services” (Attachment L) and “Additional Services” (Attachment Q). Within the franchise agreement, Attachment L is established in 11.04 of Article 11, Annual Adjustment of Maximum Rates for Schedule Services. Attachment Q is established in 11.05 of Article 11, Annual Adjustment of Maximum Rates for Additional Services.

The review being undertaken
by the City and HDR is a part of
that orderly process, and the
City is performing its due
diligence to verify and confirm
that the maximum rates
calculated by Recology are in
accordance with the
Agreement.
768
Executive Summary 3
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
Regularly Scheduled Service (Attachment L) – Review of Recology’s Calculated Maximum
On July 31, 2024, Recology provided to the City a letter outlining their calculation of the rates for rate year 2025. The City retained HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) to provide the rate review of the proposed 2025 rates as has been performed annually since 2013, which is to confirm that the overall methodology is in conformance with the current Agreement. In addition, HDR also verified or confirmed that the proper cost data appeared to be used within the analysis, and that the mathematical calculations are correct. In providing this review, HDR also attempted to independently calculate the rate index used for Schedule Q rates (e.g., consumer price index (CPIU General)). This report details the City’s process to revise the maximum rates that may be charged for solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials collection services for rate year 2025.

The rates that Recology charges its customers include Recology (contractor) compensation, SBWMA costs to operate the Shoreway transfer facility, waste disposal costs, franchise fees, and other related charges. Article 11 of the Agreement provides the framework or methodology for the determination of the maximum rate for the upcoming year. In very simple terms, the Agreement calls for Recology to annually take the existing maximum rate that is in effect and multiply each rate by an “adjustment multiplier”. The adjustment multiplier is essentially a cost index to develop Total Target Revenue for the rate year.

The rate adjustment multiplier is composed of three elements; the 2025 Base Contractor’s Compensation based on CPI cost adjustments, the 2024 Performance Incentive/Disincentive adjustment, and the 2025 pass through costs which comprise both disposal and agency payments. For 2025, these elements are a total rate index adjustment of 2.04% as shown in Table ES – 1.

Table ES – 1
Summary of 2025 Rate Adjustment to 2024 Rates
Cost Component
2024
Target
Revenue
2025
Target
Revenue
$
Difference
% Adjustment
to 2024 Rates
Total Base Compensation $4,874,782 $5,047,290 $178,996 3.63% Performance (Inc.) / Dis. (6,147) ($4,487) 1,660 -27.01% Pass Thru Costs 4,871,613 4,891,367 19,755 0.41%
Plus Disincentive Payable 2022 0 0 0 0.00%
Total Target Revenue $9,740,247 $9,938,658 $198,410 2.04% In the review of Recology’s Total Target Revenue for the 2025 rate year, HDR concluded that the total target revenue used the appropriate data and information for the time period and the calculations within the methodology were correct. As a result of our review, HDR concluded that based on the current Agreement, the City’s adopted solid waste rates for 2024 should be increased by 2.04% for rate year 2025 proposed rates. Provided in this report is a more detailed 769
Executive Summary 4
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
discussion of each of the elements of the calculation of the 2025 maximum rate calculation and the basis for HDR’s summary conclusion.

Presented below in Table ES – 2 are the present monthly residential rate and the proposed residential rates for 2025.

Table ES – 2
Summary of the Present and Proposed Residential Solid Waste Rates (Regularly Scheduled - $/Month)
Present Proposed
Monthly 2024 $/Month
Schedule Schedule Description Rate Rates Change
R20G Residential Waste - 20 Gallons $40.21 $41.03 $0.82 R32G Residential Waste - 32 Gallons 47.97 48.95 0.98
R64G Residential Waste - 64 Gallons 94.43 96.36 1.93
R96G Residential Waste - 96 Gallons 141.65 144.54 2.89
In addition to the above residential rates for regularly scheduled service, the City and Recology have a number of other rate schedules for regularly scheduled solid waste services. These include the following:
 Commercial Waste Carts (20 gallons to 96 gallons)
 Commercial Waste Bins (1 yard to 6 yards; 1 day to 7 days per week pickup)  Commercial Organics (1 yard to 6 yards; 1 day to 7 days per week pickup)  Commercial Organics Carts (20 gallons to 96 gallons; 1 day to 7 days per week pickup)  Commercial Waste 3 Yard Compactor
 Solid Waste Compactor (per yard)
Each of these commercial rate schedules were increased by the overall 2.04% rate increase. A more detailed discussion of these other regularly scheduled services can be found in Section 4 of the report and also within the Technical Appendices as Attachment L rate schedules.

Additional Services (Attachment Q) – Review of Recology’s Calculated Maximum
In addition to the regularly scheduled rates, there are also rates for “additional services”. The rates for additional services are contained in Attachment Q of the Agreement and are annually updated in accordance with the Agreement. Attachment Q is established in 11.05 of Article 11, Annual Adjustment of Maximum Rates for Additional Services.

The Maximum Rate set forth in Attachment Q is adjusted annually by multiplying the then effective April CPI-U General for the year in which rates are set and divided by the April CPI-U from the year prior to the year in which rates are set. For example, the April CPI-U-General is 351.247 for 2024 and the April CPI-U-General for 2023 is 338.496. Therefore, each Maximum Rate is multiplied by the April CPI-U-General for 2024 and divided by the April CPI-U-General for 770
Executive Summary 5
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
2023. This resulted in an overall rate increase of 3.77% (351.247 / 338.496) for Attachment Q rates effective in 2025 for the additional services.

A more detailed discussion of these additional services can be found in Section 4 of the report and also within the Technical Appendices as Attachment Q rate schedules.

Summary Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the limited review undertaken, it was the conclusion of HDR that the maximum rates, as calculated by Recology, were in conformance with the City’s current Agreement. In reaching this conclusion, HDR has relied on the data and information as supplied by the City and Recology.

Given that conclusion, HDR would recommend that the City revise the residential and commercial rates based on the proposed rates as provided in this report which reflects a 2.04% increase for the maximum rate calculation. Finally, the additional services (Attachment Q), as calculated by Recology and as reviewed within this report, should also be adopted for 2025 based on the CPI increase of 3.77%.

City Council Review
The results of the study will be presented to the City of Belmont City Council on September 10, 2024. This will reflect the proposed 2.04% rate adjustment for 2025 rates for the scheduled services, Schedule L, and a 3.77% rate adjustment for additional services, Schedule Q as outlined in this report. If accepted by the City Council, the City will distribute the customer notification as required by Proposition 218, and hold a public hearing no sooner than 45 days from the issuance of the customer notification.

Summary of the Review of Solid Waste Rates
This completes the summary review and analysis for the City’s solid waste rates. A full and complete discussion of the review of solid waste rates as calculated by Recology can be found in the following sections of this report.
771
Introduction and Overview of the Report 6
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates

1.1 Introduction
The City of Belmont (City) is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA). In 2018, the City signed an Agreement with Recology of San Mateo County (Recology) for solid waste collection services, including the collection of recycling and organic materials. As part of the Agreement (i.e., 7.01.A.5, 11.01.A, 11.06), the annual compensation for Recology’s collection and recycling services is contractually determined. At the same time, the Agreement calls for the City to adopt solid waste rates, but not at a level which exceeds the Contractor’s “Maximum Rates for Regularly Scheduled or Unscheduled Services”. Ultimately, Recology bills the City’s customers for the solid waste services at the rates established by the City of Belmont City Council.

The 2018 Agreement is for a 15-year term, for rate years 2021 through 2035. While the current Agreement is similar to the 2010 agreement, there are certain differences. Both franchise agreements contain specific language and exhibits related to the development of the maximum rates for a given year.

The general approach for rate adjustments (2022 – 2035) is based on changes in specific cost indices for the primary cost categories outlined by Recology for the base contractor’s compensation. For example, in 2025 the costs will be adjusted by the change in the specific cost indices from 2022 to 2024. These cost indices include CPI-U, CPI-U-Motor Fuel, CPI-W, etc. The Agreement has outlined each of the specific cost indices that will be used in escalating the base costs for future year rate adjustments. The total target revenues for rate year 2025 will be compared to the total target revenues for the prior year, in this case the 2024 rate year. This comparison will result in the rate multiplier to be applied to the adopted 2024 rates to establish the proposed 2025 rates.

1.2 Limitations of HDR’s Review
It is important to understand that HDR has provided a limited review of Recology’s maximum rate calculations for the 2025 rate year. The data and information used by Recology to calculate the City’s maximum rates were reviewed by another outside firm. HDR does not provide a review of this basic input data as a part of this review. Therefore, HDR and the City have assumed that the data and information input into Recology’s rate calculations are reasonable and appropriate.

Having said that, HDR did a limited cross-check to verify the inputs into Recology’s model, from the data of previously reviewed basic input data and information.

Within HDR’s review, the three key items reviewed were the overall methodology, compliance to the agreed upon methodology, and verification of the data inputs. First, the overall methodology is generally well-laid out within Article 11 of the current Agreement. Given that, HDR reviewed Recology’s methodology for compliance with our understanding of the required methodology for the 2025 rate year. At the same time, HDR also reviewed the data inputs and information used within the methodology as applied to the 2024 rate year. While the data and information were previously reviewed, the selection and use of the appropriate costs and 1 Introduction and Overview of the Report
772
Introduction and Overview of the Report 7
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
adjustment factors must comply with the methodology. Finally, HDR confirmed/verified the calculations (formulas) used within the methodology as applied to the 2025 rate year were accurate. As a part of HDR’s review, these three aspects of Recology’s rate filing were reviewed and verified.

1.3 Organization of the Report
This report is organized in a manner that reflects the general approach used by HDR to review Recology’s maximum rates for “Regularly Scheduled” and “Additional Services”. The next section of this report provides a brief overview of the relevant portions of the Agreement. Section 3 then provides a discussion and overview of the technical review undertaken by HDR of the Recology rate calculations. From that review, HDR was then able to review and verify the proposed maximum rates for Regularly Scheduled and Additional Services. The proposed maximum rates are discussed and shown in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 provides a summary of HDR’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations from this study.
773
Overview of the Agreement 8
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates

2.1 Introduction
An important starting point for reviewing the City’s solid waste rates is to gain an understanding of the current Agreement which is an extension of the original 2010 franchise agreement. This section of the report is intended to provide a brief overview of the relevant portions of the City’s current Agreement with Recology to help the reader better understand the basis for this review of the rates.

The review and discussion contained herein is not intended to be comprehensive in nature, nor provide any legal interpretation or opinion regarding the relevant portions of this Agreement as it relates to this study.

2.2 Overview of the Agreement
As noted, the agreement was extended in 2018 for an additional 15-year term for rate years 2021 through 2035. The Agreement is very similar to the 2010 franchise agreement but does contain some relevant changes to Article 11 which determines Recology’s compensation and the City’s solid waste rates. Similar to the 2010 agreement, for 2021 and beyond, Recology’s annual compensation for collection and recycling services is outlined in the Agreement and contractually determined. The Agreement calls for the City to establish and adopt solid waste rates, but not at a level which exceeds the Contractor’s “Maximum Rates for Regularly Scheduled Services” referred to as Attachment L and “Maximum Rates for
Additional Services”, referred to as Attachment Q2. The Agreement between the parties contains specific language and exhibits related to the development of the maximum
rates for a given year for both Attachments L and Q.

The Agreement provides for an orderly process and approach to establish rates for the City and compensation for
Recology. The review being undertaken by the City and HDR is a part of that orderly process, and the City is performing its due diligence to verify and confirm that the maximum rates calculated by Recology are in accordance with the Agreement for the 2025 rate year.

More specific to the Agreement, Article 11 – “The Contractor’s Compensation, Pass-Through Costs and Rates” provides the analytical framework for determining the annual compensation for Recology’s collection and recycling services. This calculation of annual compensation sets the Contractor’s “Maximum Rates for Regularly Scheduled Services” known as Attachment L and “Additional Services” known as Attachment Q. Attachment L is established in 11.04 of Article 11, Annual Adjustment of Maximum Rates for Schedule Services. Attachment Q is established in

11.05 of Article 11, Annual Adjustment of Maximum Rates for Additional Services. 2 Under the 2010 franchise agreement, Regularly Scheduled services were referred to as Attachment R and Additional Services was referred to as Schedule Q.
2 Overview of the Agreement
...and the City is performing
its due diligence to verify and
confirm that the maximum
rates calculated by Recology
are in accordance with the
Agreement for the 2024 rate
year.
774
Overview of the Agreement 9
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates

2.3 Regularly Scheduled Services (Attachment L)
As noted above, Article 11 of the Agreement provides the analytical framework or methodology for the determination of the maximum rates for the upcoming year. In very simple terms, the Agreement calls for Recology to annually take the existing maximum rate that is in effect and multiply each rate by the “adjustment multiplier”. The adjustment multiplier is essentially a “cost index” based on CPI value adjustments to arrive at the Total Target Revenue for the rate year.

The Total Target Revenue for the current year is divided by the prior year Total Target Revenue per 11.04.A. as follows:
“...Beginning with the adjustment for Rate Year 2022, each Maximum Rate set forth in Attachment L shall be adjusted annually by multiplying the then-effective Maximum Rate by the Adjustment Multiplier. The Adjustment Multiplier used to calculate the Maximum Rates that will be effective in a given Rate Year (the “Adjustment Year”) shall be calculated by dividing Total Target Revenue for the Adjustment Year (calculated pursuant to Table 2 below) by Total Target Revenue for the Rate Year prior to the Adjustment Year (the “Current Year”).”3
However, for only Rate Year 2022 the “prior” year will be the 2021 adjusted Total Target Revenue of $7,888,920 as follows in 11.04A.
“...For purposes of determining Maximum Rates for Rate Year 2022, Total Target Revenue for Rate Year 2021 shall be the same as Total Contractor’s Compensation for that year (i.e. $7,888,920).”4
Going forward in rate year 2023 to 2035 the adjustment multiplier will be the current year Total Target Revenue divided by the prior year Total Target Revenue. For example, for rate year 2025 the Total Target Revenue for 2025 rate year will be divided by the rate year 2024 Total Target Revenue.

The franchise agreement provides the cost index for the various components to calculate the Total Target Revenue. The Total Target Revenue is stated in total dollars. For example, the Total Target Revenue for 2024 is $9,740,248. Going forward, for each year the cost index is calculated by adding together the various component costs which are composed of the following cost elements:
 Direct Labor (Wages for CBA’s, Benefits for CBA’s, Payroll Taxes, Worker’s Compensation)  Direct Fuel Costs
 General Expenses Direct and Indirect
 General Expenses Depreciation
 Profit Calculation
 Interest
 Performance Incentives/Performance Disincentives
 Pass Through Costs
3 Franchise Agreement, Section 11.04(A), Adjustment Multiplier for Regularly Scheduled Services, p. 99. 4 Franchise Agreement, Section 11.04(A), Adjustment Multiplier for Regularly Scheduled Services, p. 99. 775
Overview of the Agreement 10
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
 Disposal Costs (i) Projected Next Year, (ii) Actual Prior Year, (iii) less Prior Projected Year)
 Agency Payments
The general approach for future year rate adjustments is based on changes in specific cost indices for the primary cost categories outlined by Recology for the base contractor’s compensation. For example, in 2025 the costs will be adjusted by the change in the specific cost indices from 2020 to 2024. These cost indices include CPI-U, CPI-U-Motor Fuel, CPI-W, etc. The current Agreement outlines each of the specific cost indices that will be used in escalating the base costs (adjusted 2021 Total Target Revenue) for future year rate adjustments. For rate year 2025, the 2025 Total Target Revenue of $9,938,658 is compared to the 2024 Total Target Revenue of $9,740,248.

Finally, the disposal costs are calculated separately from base contractor’s compensation. The current franchise agreement uses a similar approach to establishing the annual adjustments to the disposal costs. Essentially, all increases or changes in disposal costs are passed through as direct rate adjustments to the customer.

2.4 Additional Services (Attachment Q)
The rates for additional services are addressed in the current franchise agreement and are annually updated in accordance with the Agreement. Rates for Additional Services are discussed and established in 11.05 of Article 11, Annual Adjustment of Maximum Rates for Additional Services.

11.05 – Annual Adjustment of Maximum Rates for Additional Services A. The Maximum Rates for Rate Year 2021 for the additional services described in Attachment Q shall be the charges for those services determined under the SBWMA-wide methodology, adjusted as necessary to pass through the Franchise Fee and any other Agency fees under this Agreement. Beginning with the adjustment for Rate Year 2022, each Maximum Rate set forth in Attachment Q shall be adjusted annually by multiplying the then-effective Maximum Rate by April CPI-U-General for the year in which the calculation is made and dividing the result by April CPI-U-General for the year prior to the year in which the calculation is made. For example, to calculate the Maximum Rates set forth in Attachment Q effective in 2025, each such Maximum Rate effective in 2024 shall be multiplied by CPI-U-General for April 2024 and divided by CPI-U-General for April 2023.

The adjustment to Schedule Q is based upon a cost-indexing approach and a CPI for general inflation is used. As an example, assume the April 2026 CPI-U-General is 300.000 and the April 2025 CPI-U-General is 295.000. This would result in an adjustment to the Additional Services rates of 1.7%. (300.000 / 295.000 = 1.017 or 1.7%).

2.5 Summary
This section of the report has provided a brief overview of the relevant portions of the current Agreement with Recology. While this overview of the Agreement has been necessarily abbreviated, it is intended to provide an understanding of the basic framework or methodology used to calculate the maximum rates for Regularly Scheduled Services and Additional Services. 776
Review of Recology’s Calculated “Maximum Rates for Regularly Scheduled Services” 11 City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates

3.1 Introduction
As stated in the Agreement, Recology calculates the maximum rates for the up-coming calendar year. The calculated maximum rates are formula driven, and as noted in the prior section of the report, there is relatively clear language and numeric examples of the rate setting process. The purpose of this section of the report is to provide an overview of Recology’s rate filing to the City for the 2025 rate year, along with HDR’s technical review of that filing. Article 11.04 specifically outlines the establishment of maximum rates for 2025 and after for regularly scheduled services.

3.2 Overview of Recology’s 2024 Rate Application
On July 31, 2024, Recology provided to the City a letter and the detailed worksheets outlining their calculation of the maximum rates for rate year 2025. The rate application letter indicated a maximum increase adjustment of 2.04%. HDR reviewed that calculation and determined based on the information provided that it appears to agree with the current Agreement.

For 2025, the adjustment multiplier is based on CPI cost adjustment by component. HDR conducted a review of Recology’s calculations and determined, based on the information provided, that it appears to be in compliance with the Agreement. Provided below in Table 3 – 1 is an overview of Recology’s Total Target Revenue calculation for rate year 2025.

3 Review of Recology’s Calculated Maximum
Rates for Regularly Scheduled Services
777
Review of Recology’s Calculated “Maximum Rates for Regularly Scheduled Services” 12 City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
Table 3 – 1
Overview of Recology’s Total Target Revenue Calculation Rate Year 2025 Cost Component
Adj. 2021
Target
Revenue
April
2020 CPI
Index
April 2024
CPI Index
Change
2020
to 2024
2025
Target
Revenue
Direct Labor Related
Wages for CBA’a $1,310,584 290.304 346.671 1.194 $1,565,054 Benefits for CBA’s 608,287 548.136 587.011 1.071 651,428 Payroll Taxes 109,005 N/A N/A 126,769
Workers Compensation 93,961 290.304 346.671 1.194 112,205 Direct Fuel Costs 169,992 209.994 397.919 1.895 322,119 General Expense Direct & Indirect 1,211,383 298.074 351.247 1.178 1,427,480 SB 1383 (2024) 18,807
Depreciation 281,317 N/A N/A 281,317
Profit 397,271 N/A N/A 472,919
Interest 73,679 N/A N/A 73,679
Performance Inc./Disincentives 0 N/A N/A (4,487)
Base Contractor’s Compensation $4,255,479 $5,047,290
Agency Components $2,584,050
Disposal Projected Cost (i) 2,434,527
Disposal Actual Prior Year Cost (ii) 2,114,505
Disposal Prior Projected Cost (iii) (2,241,715)
Disposal Cost Component $4,891,367
Total Target Revenue $9,983,658
(i) The Contractor’s projected costs for April 1 of that calendar year through March 31 of the following year plus (ii) The Contractors’ actual costs April 1 of the year prior through March 31 of the calendar year minus (iii) The contractor’s previous projection.

As noted above, the City retained HDR to review the Recology calculations (Table 3 - 1) to confirm that the proper data appeared to be used within the analysis, and that the mathematical calculations were correct for the 2025 rate year. While Table 3 - 1 appears rather simple and straight-forward, the calculations are, in some cases, much more complex with other detailed worksheets behind them.

Provided below is a more detailed discussion of the analytical steps taken to review the Recology calculations and the results of our review.

3.3 Overview of General Approach Used to Review Costs
As noted in Section 2, an important starting point for reviewing Recology’s compensation is understanding the Agreement. HDR reviewed the documents, then independently reviewed the rate year 2025 maximum rate calculations. HDR developed spreadsheets to review and attempt to duplicate the Recology calculations for 2025. In this way, HDR could review the data sources 778
Review of Recology’s Calculated “Maximum Rates for Regularly Scheduled Services” 13 City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
used and verify their appropriateness, while at the same time, verifying the formulas used within the calculations.

3.4 Summary Conclusions of HDR’s Review of the Maximum Rate Calculations
Based on HDR’s review of Recology’s 2025 rate application, HDR concluded that the costs contained in Table 3 - 1 used appropriate cost data and information for the time period and the calculations within the methodology were correct. As a result of our independent review HDR concluded that based upon the existing Agreement, the maximum rates should be calculated based on the increase in rates of 2.04%.

3.5 HDR’s Detailed Review of the Total Target Revenue Calculations As previously discussed, the focus of HDR’s review was on the calculations used to establish the Total Target Revenue for rate year 2025 or the “Maximum Rates for Regularly Scheduled Services”. Article 11 of the Agreement form the basis for the calculations. As shown in Table 3 - 1, there is one primary calculation component to the maximum rate calculation, the CPI value adjustment.

3.5.1 CPI Value Adjustment
The general approach for future year rate adjustments (2023 – 2035) is based on changes in specific cost indices for the primary cost categories outlined by Recology for the base contractor’s compensation. For example, in 2025, the 2021 adjusted base target revenue will be adjusted by the change in the specific cost indices from 2020 to 2024. These cost indices include CPI-U, CPIU-Motor Fuel, CPI-W, etc. The current Agreement outlines each of the specific cost indices that will be used in escalating the base adjusted target revenue for future year rate adjustments. For Rate Year 2025, and thereafter, the specific cost indices will compare for the current year index to the 2020 index and the 2021 adjusted Total Target Revenue. In simplified terms, general operating costs are adjusted annually by the use of a CPI value. The CPI value index is segregated into nine main components. They are as follows:
 Direct Labor - The direct labor includes wages for CBA’s, benefits for CBA’s, payroll taxes, and worker’s compensation. Wages for CBA’s, benefits for CBA’s, and worker’s compensation for base year 2021 is multiplied by the difference between the 2020 base year CPI for that component and the current year (2024) CPI for that component. In very simplified terms, the agreement uses the wages for CBAs at the start of the agreement of 2021 and then simply adjusts wages for CBAs by a CPI amount based on 2020 CPI and the current year CPI. Payroll tax is a formula based on the wage’s times 14.9%.  Direct Fuel – The fuel for base year 2021 is multiplied by the difference between the 2020 average price per gallon and the average price per gallon of fuel for the twelve month period ending March 31 of the Calendar Year.
 General Expense Direct and Indirect – The general expense base for 2021 is multiplied by the difference between the 2021 base year Consumer Price Index and the current year Consumer Price Index.
 Depreciation Vehicles, Containers, Indirect – The vehicle deprecation remains fixed at $196,818 for rate year 2022-2026. Values for rate years 2027-2035 shall be determined 779
Review of Recology’s Calculated “Maximum Rates for Regularly Scheduled Services” 14 City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
as part of the SBWMA-wide rate application for rate year 2027. The container depreciation remains fixed at $77,090 for rate years 2022-2035 unless additional containers are purchased. The indirect remains fixed at $7,409 for rate years 2022-2035.  Profit Calculation – The profit is calculated by taking the sum of direct labor, direct fuel, general expenses direct and indirect, and the depreciation vehicles, containers and indirect for the current rate year, divide by 0.905, and subtract from the result the sum of direct labor, direct fuel, general expenses direct and indirect, and the depreciation vehicles, containers and indirect for the current rate year components for the rate year.

This calculation represents application of the 90.5% operating ratio to Contractor’s calculated total annual cost of operations.
 Disposal Costs – (i) The Contractor’s projected costs for April 1 of that calendar year through March 31 of the following year plus (ii) the Contractors’ actual costs April 1 of the year prior through March 31 of the calendar year minus (iii) the contractor’s previous projection.
 Interest – The value remains fixed at $73,679 for rate years 2022-2035 unless additional vehicles or containers are purchased.
 Performance-Based – Is the sum of incentives and disincentives the year immediately preceding the Calendar Year of the Cost Index. The determination of incentives and disincentives is independently determined by another outside party.  Agency Payment – The anticipated amount of total Agency payments as detailed in Article 11 (direct labor, direct fuel, general expenses direct and indirect, depreciation, profit, interest, performance incentives & disincentives, and disposal costs, divided by (1 – 0.26) then multiplying the result by 0.26.

For each of the above components, HDR reviewed the source data and information used within Recology’s calculations. As a part of Recology’s packet of information, the source data used by Recology was attached to the application letter. While much of the cost data and information had previously been audited by another outside independent consultant, in those cases where other key assumptions to the analysis were needed (e.g., CPI index), HDR attempted to independently review them.

Based on the changes from the 2024 Total Target Revenue to the 2025 Total Target Revenue the costs increased by $198,410 or 2.04% overall ($9,938,658 - $9,740,247 = $198,410 or $198,410 / $9,740,247 = 2.04%). The majority of the components are based on specific cost indexes and/or formulas as explained previously. Disposal costs are based on projections and actuals and are made of three components the (i) Contractor’s projected costs, (ii) the Contractors’ actual costs of the year prior, and the (iii) Contractor’s previous projection. Provided below in Table 3 – 2 is a summary of the changes in target revenue compared from 2024 to 2025.

780
Review of Recology’s Calculated “Maximum Rates for Regularly Scheduled Services” 15 City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
Table 3 – 2
Summary of Changes in Total Target Revenue from 2024 to 2025 Cost Component
2024
Target
Revenue
2025
Target
Revenue
$
Difference
%
Difference
Base Contractor Compensation
Direct Labor Related $2,382,648 $2,455,457 $72,808 3.06% Direct Fuel Costs 287,249 322,119 34,870 12.14%
General Expense Direct & Indirect 1,393,783 1,446,287 52,503 3.77% Depreciation 281,317 281,317 0 0.00%
Profit 456,105 472,919 16,815 3.69%
Interest 73,679 73,679 0 0.00%
Total Base Compensation $4,874,782 $5,051,777 $176,996 3.63% Performance (Inc.) / Dis. (6,147) (4,487) 1,660 -27.01% Total Pass Thru Costs
Disposal Projected Cost (i) $2,241,715 $2,434,527 $192,812 8.60% Disposal Actual Prior Year Cost (ii) 1,843,054 2,114,505 271,451 14.73% Disposal Prior Projected Cost (iii) (1,745,620) (2,241,715) (496,095) 28.42% Agency Payments 2,532,464 2,584,050 51,587 2.04%
Total Pass Thru Costs $4,871,613 $4,891,367 $19,755 0.41% Plus Disincentive Payable 2021 0 0 0 0.00%
Total Target Revenue $9,740,247 $9,938,658 $198,410 2.04% In a more simplified or summarized manner, the rate adjustment multiplier is composed of three elements; the 2025 CPI cost adjustments, the 2024 Incentive/Disincentive adjustment, and the 2025 pass through costs which comprise both disposal and agency payments. Table 3 - 3 summarizes this adjustment by component.

Table 3 – 3
Summary of 2025 Rate Adjustment to 2024 Rates
Cost Component
2024
Target
Revenue
2025
Target
Revenue
$
Difference
% Adjustment
to 2024 Rates
Total Base Compensation $4,874,782 $5,051,777 $176,996 3.63% Performance (Inc.)./Dis. (6,147) ($4,487) 1,660 -27.01% Pass Thru Costs 4,871,613 4,891,367 19,755 0.41%
Plus Disincentive Payable 2022 0 0 0 0.00%
Total Target Revenue $9,740,247 $9,938,658 $198,410 2.04% 781
Review of Recology’s Calculated “Maximum Rates for Regularly Scheduled Services” 16 City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates

3.6 Conclusions Regarding the Calculation of the Maximum Rate Based on the review of the Recology rate calculation, HDR concluded that the calculation as provided by Recology appears appropriate and in keeping with the current Agreement. In reaching this conclusion, HDR reviewed and verified the data inputs into the calculation, while also confirming the overall methodology and calculations. Based on our review, the calculated Maximum Rate Index for 2025 is an increase of 2.04% in overall rates for regularly scheduled services.
782
Review of the Proposed 2025 Solid Waste Rates 17
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates

4.1 Introduction
In the previous section of this report, the cost basis for the City’s 2025 solid waste rates was reviewed and provides the basis for determining the City’s maximum rates for rate year 2025.

This section of the report will review the maximum solid waste rates for Regularly Scheduled Services (Attachment L) and Additional Services (Attachment Q).

4.2 Residential Regularly Scheduled Service (Attachment L) From the review of the rate index multiplier, it was concluded that the analysis developed by Recology appears to comply with the City’s Agreement. The overall adjustment to revenues derived from rates for 2025 is a 2.04% increase in the existing rates. In developing the calculated maximum rates, Recology provided a schedule of the rates. HDR reviewed the calculated maximum rates to confirm that they use the appropriate multiplier. Presented below is a discussion of the present solid waste rates and the proposed 2025 rates for residential and commercial customers. Provided below in Table 4 – 1 are the proposed 2025 Residential rates for Schedule L (regularly scheduled services).

Table 4 – 1
Summary of the Present and Proposed Residential Solid Waste Rates (Regularly Scheduled - $/Month)
Present Proposed
Monthly 2025 $/Month
Schedule Schedule Description Rate Rates Change
R20G Residential Waste - 20 Gallons $40.21 $41.03 $0.82 R32G Residential Waste - 32 Gallons 47.97 48.95 0.98
R64G Residential Waste - 64 Gallons 94.43 96.36 1.93
R96G Residential Waste - 96 Gallons 141.65 144.54 2.89

4.3 Commercial Carts Regularly Scheduled Service (Attachment L) Some commercial waste customers have similar service to the residential customers in that they have cart sizes that range from 20 gallons to 96 gallons. However, a difference between the residential and commercial service is the number of pick-ups per week. A commercial customer may choose their level of service (number of pick-ups per week). Presented in Table 4 – 2 is a summary of the current commercial rates and the calculated maximum rate for 2025. The maximum calculated rate assumes a 2.04% increase from the present rates. Some minor rounding of the rates may occur for purposes of ease of administration. 4 Review of the Proposed 2025 Solid Waste
Rates
783
Review of the Proposed 2025 Solid Waste Rates 18
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
Table 4 – 2
Summary of the Present and Calculated Max. Commercial Solid Waste Rates (By Gallon Cart Size; Regularly Scheduled - $/Month)
Collection – Times Per Week
Schedule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
C20G Commercial Waste – 20 Gallon
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $51.30 $105.54 $157.13 $215.72 $272.93 $341.50 $416.00 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $52.35 $107.69 $160.34 $220.12 $278.50 $348.47 $424.49 $/Month Change $1.05 $2.15 $3.21 $4.40 $5.57 $6.97 $8.49 C32G Commercial Waste – 32 Gallon
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $56.96 $117.27 $174.56 $239.68 $303.23 $379.43 $462.21 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $58.12 $119.66 $178.12 $244.57 $309.42 $387.17 $471.64 $/Month Change $1.16 $2.39 $3.56 $4.89 $6.19 $7.74 $9.43 C64G Commercial Waste – 64 Gallon
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $110.15 $222.27 $337.25 $453.46 $576.40 $702.41 $822.28 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $112.40 $226.80 $344.13 $462.71 $588.16 $716.74 $839.05 $/Month Change $2.25 $4.53 $6.88 $9.25 $11.76 $14.33 $16.77 C96G Commercial Waste – 96 Gallon
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $159.21 $326.13 $494.92 $669.47 $846.39 $1,065.43 $1,242.98 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $162.46 $332.78 $505.02 $683.13 $863.66 $1,087.16 $1,268.34 $/Month Change $3.25 $6.65 $10.10 $13.66 $17.27 $21.73 $25.36 784
Review of the Proposed 2025 Solid Waste Rates 19
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
As can be seen, the rates have maintained the existing structure for commercial waste customers with carts.

4.4 Commercial Waste Bins Regularly Scheduled Service
Other commercial customers have larger bins which range in size from 1 yard to 6 yards. These commercial waste customers also have the option of different levels of service and can select the number of pick-ups per week. Presented in Table 4 – 3 is a summary of the current commercial waste bin rates and the calculated maximum rate for 2025. The maximum calculated rate reflects a 2.04% increase from the present rates. Some minor rounding of the rates may occur for purposes of ease of administration.
785
Review of the Proposed 2025 Solid Waste Rates 20
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
Table 4 – 3
Summary of the Present and Calculated Max. Commercial Solid Waste Rates (By Yard Cart Size; Regularly Scheduled - $/Month)
Collection – Times Per Week
Schedule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
C1YG Commercial Waste - 1 Yard
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $267.16 $543.92 $825.42 $1,110.21 $1,397.29 $1,743.88 $2,057.57 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $272.61 $555.02 $842.26 $1,132.86 $1,425.79 $1,779.46 $2,099.54 $/Month Change $5.45 $11.10 $16.84 $22.65 $28.50 $35.58 $41.97 C2YG Commercial Waste - 2 Yard
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $537.40 $1,083.62 $1,635.00 $2,190.39 $2,753.62 $3,250.82 $3,850.04 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $548.36 $1,105.73 $1,668.35 $2,235.07 $2,809.80 $3,317.14 $3,928.58 $/Month Change $10.96 $22.11 $33.35 $44.68 $56.17 $66.32 $78.54 C2YG1 Commercial Waste - 2 Yard
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $537.40 $1,083.62 $1,635.00 $2,190.39 $2,753.62 $3,250.82 $3,850.04 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $548.36 $1,105.73 $1,668.35 $2,235.07 $2,809.80 $3,317.14 $3,928.58 $/Month Change $10.96 $22.11 $33.35 $44.68 $56.17 $66.32 $78.54 C3YG Commercial Waste - 3 Yard
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $810.49 $1,630.75 $2,455.83 $3,283.37 $4,113.77 $4,993.93 $5,880.24 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $827.02 $1,664.02 $2,505.93 $3,350.35 $4,197.69 $5,095.81 $6,000.20 $/Month Change $16.53 $33.27 $50.10 $66.98 $83.92 $101.88 $119.96 C4YG Commercial Waste - 4 Yard
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $1,106.39 $2,231.90 $3,357.44 $4,495.78 $5,638.92 $6,829.48 $8,044.96 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $1,128.96 $2,277.43 $3,425.93 $4,587.49 $5,753.95 $6,968.80 $8,209.08 $/Month Change $22.57 $45.53 $68.49 $91.71 $115.03 $139.32 $164.12 C6YG Commercial Waste - 6 Yard
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $1,701.55 $3,451.00 $5,187.44 $6,909.10 $8,655.30 $10,463.49 $12,255.20 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $1,736.26 $3,521.40 $5,293.26 $7,050.05 $8,831.87 $10,676.95 $12,505.21 $/Month Change $34.71 $70.40 $105.82 $140.95 $176.57 $213.46 $250.01 786
Review of the Proposed 2025 Solid Waste Rates 21
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
The commercial waste rates for customers with bins has also maintained the existing rate structure.

4.5 Commercial Organics Bins Regularly Scheduled Service The rate charged for commercial organics is tied to the commercial waste rate. Commercial organics rates are charged at 70% of the commercial waste rate, for a comparable size bin. Similar to the commercial waste bin customers, commercial organics customers have bins which range in size from 1 yard to 6 yards. Similar to the commercial waste customer, the commercial organics customers also have the option of different levels of service and can select the number of pickups per week. Presented in Table 4 – 4 is a summary of the current commercial organics bin rates and the calculated maximum rate for 2025. The maximum calculated rate assumes a 2.04% increase from the present rates. Some rounding of the rates may occur for purposes of ease of administration.
787
Review of the Proposed 2025 Solid Waste Rates 22
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
Table 4 – 4
Summary of the Present and Calculated Maximum Commercial Organics (By Bin Size in Yards; Regularly Scheduled - $/Month)
Collection – Times Per Week
Schedule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
C1YO Commercial Waste - 1 Yard
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $187.02 $380.73 $577.78 $777.15 $978.11 $1,220.73 $1,440.31 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $190.84 $388.50 $589.57 $793.00 $998.06 $1,245.63 $1,469.69 $/Month Change $3.82 $7.77 $11.79 $15.85 $19.95 $24.90 $29.38 C2YO Commercial Waste - 2 Yard
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $376.19 $758.52 $1,144.51 $1,533.26 $1,927.51 $2,275.57 $2,695.03 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $383.86 $773.99 $1,167.86 $1,564.54 $1,966.83 $2,321.99 $2,750.01 $/Month Change $7.67 $15.47 $23.35 $31.28 $39.32 $46.42 $54.98 C3YO Commercial Waste - 3 Yard
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $567.33 $1,141.56 $1,719.09 $2,298.36 $2,879.63 $3,495.76 $4,116.17 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $578.90 $1,164.85 $1,754.16 $2,345.25 $2,938.37 $3,567.07 $4,200.14 $/Month Change $11.57 $23.29 $35.07 $46.89 $58.74 $71.31 $83.97 C4YO Commercial Waste - 4 Yard
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $774.48 $1,562.33 $2,350.20 $3,147.05 $3,947.23 $4,780.68 $5,631.48 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $790.28 $1,594.20 $2,398.14 $3,211.25 $4,027.75 $4,878.21 $5,746.36 $/Month Change $15.80 $31.87 $47.94 $64.20 $80.52 $97.53 $114.88 C6YO Commercial Waste - 6 Yard
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $1,191.09 $2,415.71 $3,631.19 $4,836.38 $6,058.72 $7,324.43 $8,578.64 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $1,215.39 $2,464.99 $3,705.27 $4,935.04 $6,182.32 $7,473.85 $8,753.64 $/Month Change $24.30 $49.28 $74.08 $98.66 $123.60 $149.42 $175.00 788
Review of the Proposed 2025 Solid Waste Rates 23
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates

4.6 Commercial Organics Carts Regularly Scheduled Service Commercial customers can also have the smaller gallon-sized carts for organic waste. Presented in Table 4 – 5 is a summary of the current commercial organics cart rates and the calculated maximum rate for 2025. The maximum calculated rate assumes a 2.04% increase from the present rates. Some minor rounding of the rates may occur for purposes of ease of administration.
789
Review of the Proposed 2025 Solid Waste Rates 24
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
Table 4 – 5
Summary of the Present and Calculated Maximum Commercial Organics (By Gallon Cart Size; Regularly Scheduled - $/Month)
Collection – Times Per Week
Schedule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
C32O Commercial Organics – 32 Gallon
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $39.90 $82.09 $122.19 $167.80 $212.27 $265.63 $323.57 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $40.71 $83.76 $124.68 $171.22 $216.60 $271.05 $330.17 $/Month Change $0.81 $1.67 $2.49 $3.42 $4.33 $5.42 $6.60 C64O Commercial Organics – 64 Gallon
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $77.13 $155.59 $236.06 $317.44 $403.49 $491.65 $575.59 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $78.70 $158.76 $240.88 $323.92 $411.72 $501.68 $587.33 $/Month Change $1.57 $3.17 $4.82 $6.48 $8.23 $10.03 $11.74 C96O Commercial Organics – 96 Gallon
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $111.45 $228.28 $346.44 $468.62 $592.47 $745.79 $870.09 Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $113.72 $232.94 $353.51 $478.18 $604.56 $761.00 $887.84 $/Month Change $2.27 $4.66 $7.07 $9.56 $12.09 $15.21 $17.75 790
Review of the Proposed 2025 Solid Waste Rates 25
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates
The commercial organics cart rates have maintained the existing rate structure.

4.7 Other Miscellaneous Solid Waste Rates
The solid waste rates also include other solid waste rates for multi-family customers. The maximum calculated rate assumes a 2.04% increase from the present rates. Some minor rounding of the rates may occur for purposes of ease of administration. These rates are shown below in Table 4 – 6.

Table 4 – 6
Summary of the Present and Calculated Maximum Other Miscellaneous Solid Waste Rates (Regularly Scheduled - $/Month)
Schedule Rate
C3CG Commercial Waste 3 Yard Compactor
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $1,946.19
Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $1,985.89
$/Month Change $39.70
Solid Waste Compactor Rate Per Yard
Present 2024 Monthly Rate $149.73
Calculated Maximum 2025 Rate $152.78
$/Month Change $3.05

4.8 Rates for Additional Services (Attachment Q)
Recology also provides a number of services that are not considered “regularly scheduled” services and these particular services are not included as a part of the Attachment L rates discussed above. These services are considered “Additional Services” (i.e., Schedule Q) and as discussed in Section 2, they are adjusted using a cost index for general inflation.

The Maximum Rate set forth in Attachment Q is adjusted annually by multiplying the then effective April CPI-U General for the year in which rates are set and divided by the April CPI-U from the year prior to the year in which rates are set. For rate year 2025, the April CPI-U-General is 351.247 for 2024 and the April CPI-U-General for 2023 is 338.496. Therefore, each Maximum Rate is multiplied by the April CPI-U-General for 2024 and divided by the April CPI-U-General for 2023. This resulted in an overall rate increase of 3.77% (351.247 / 338.496) for Attachment Q rates effective in 2025 for the additional services. Details of the Additional Service rates (Schedule Q) can be found in Technical Appendix B.

4.9 City Council Review
The results of the study will be presented to the City of Belmont City Council on September 10, 2024. This will reflect the proposed 2.04% rate adjustment for 2025 rates for the scheduled services, Schedule L, and a 3.77% rate adjustment for additional services, Schedule Q as outlined in this report. If accepted by the City Council, the City will distribute the customer notification as required by Proposition 218, and hold a public hearing no sooner than 45 days from the issuance of the customer notification.
791
Review of the Proposed 2025 Solid Waste Rates 26
City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates

4.10 Summary
HDR reviewed the Recology rate calculation and concluded that the resulting maximum solid waste rates for both regularly scheduled services (Attachment L) and additional services (Attachment Q) for rate year 2025 were calculated in a manner which reflected the intent of the Agreement.
792
Summary of the Solid Waste Rate Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations 27 City of Belmont – Review of 2025 Solid Waste Rates

5.1 Introduction
This report has reviewed the calculated Maximum Rate as developed by Recology. HDR used a systematic process to review the base-year costs, along with the resulting maximum rates for regularly scheduled service.

5.2 Summary Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
HDR has confirmed that the rate adjustment application and the accompanying maximum rate schedules submitted by Recology meet the requirements of the Agreement. On September 10, 2024, HDR will present the proposed 2025 rates for Schedule L of 2.04% and unscheduled services, Schedule Q, of 3.77% to the City Council. If accepted by the City Council, a public hearing will be set and a customer notification mailed to the City’s customers.

5.3 Looking Ahead – Future Rate Adjustment to 2026
The 2026 rate adjustment will include CPI value adjustment components for the current year (2025 for rate year 2026) compared to the 2020 CPI value components and the adjusted 2021 target revenue. The multiplier will be based on the 2026 Total Target Revenue compared to the 2025 Total Target Revenue of $9,938,658.

5.4 Summary
This completes the review conducted by HDR for the City of Belmont on the proposed 2025 Solid Waste rates. This report has met the City’s requirement to conduct a due diligence on the proposed compensation to Recology and the resulting regularly scheduled and additional services solid waste rates.
5 Summary of Solid Waste Rate Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendations
793
The following table specifies Maximum Allowable Rates for Regularly Scheduled Services. These Maximum Rates shall be adjusted annually in accordance with Article 11. The following Attachment L rates are the proposed 2025 rates.

Attachment L
Maximum Rate Schedule
Effective January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025
Monthly Rate
Technical Appendix A – Attachment L
Regularly Scheduled Service
20 32 64 96
1 Pickup Per Week $41.03 $48.95 $96.36 $144.54
Residential customers are billed based on their Garbage Cart size.

The monthly rate above includes the following:

One (1) Garbage Cart provided to customer
Curbside Household Hazardous Waste Collection
One (1) 64-Gallon Recycling Cart and (1) 96-Gallon Yard Waste Cart

RESIDENTIAL CARTS
Cart Size (in Gallons)
794
Attachment L
Maximum Rate Schedule
Effective January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025
Monthly Rate
20 32 64 96
1 $52.35 $58.12 $112.40 $162.46
2 107.69 119.66 226.80 332.78
3 160.34 178.12 344.13 505.02
4 220.12 244.57 462.71 683.13
5 278.50 309.42 588.16 863.66
6 348.47 387.17 716.74 1,087.16
7 424.49 471.64 839.05 1,268.34
The monthly rate above includes the following:

One (1) Garbage Cart
Recycling Cart
32 64 96
1 $40.71 $78.70 $113.72
2 83.76 158.76 232.94
3 124.68 240.88 353.51
4 171.22 323.92 478.18
5 216.60 411.72 604.56
6 271.05 501.68 761.00
7 330.17 587.33 887.84
Note:Organics containers are charged at seventy percent (70%) of the similar Garbage commercial cart rate above container size and service levels for Garbage, representing a thirty percent (30%) discount
Cart Size (in Gallons) # of Pickups Per Week

COMMERCIAL CARTS
Cart Size (in Gallons) # of Pickups Per Week

COMMERCIAL CARTS ORGANICS
795
Attachment L
Maximum Rate Schedule
Effective January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025
Monthly Rate
796
Attachment L
Maximum Rate Schedule
Effective January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025
Monthly Rate
Commercial Waste 3 Yard Compactor $1,985.89
Solid Waste Compactor Rate Per Yard $152.78
The monthly fee above includes the following:

Recycling container at customer's requested size

GARBAGE COMPACTORS
797
The following table specifies Maximum Allowable Rates for Additional Services. These Maximum Rates shall be adjusted annually in accordance with Article 11. The following Attachment Q rates are the proposed 2025 rates.

Schedule Q
Additional Services (Continued)
Technical Appendix B – Attachment Q
Additional Services
No. Additional Service Category Reference
Agency-Approved Maximum
Rate Description
1 Single-Family Dwelling
Backyard Collection Service
Section 5.02.A See Maximum Rate in the table
at the end of this Attachment
See Maximum Rate in the table at
the end of this Attachment
2 Long Distance Service for
MFD, Mixed Use, and
Commercial Accounts (Note:
only applicable to Containers
with wheels)
Section 5.02.B,

No. Additional Service Category Reference
Agency-Approved Maximum
Rate Description
3 Container Relocation Service Section 5.02.B and

5.02.B, and 5.02.C
25% of the base monthly Rate for
the size of Container Collected
once per week.

Per Collection event per Container
for Collection requested by Customer
798
Schedule Q
Additional Services (Continued)
No. Additional Service Category Reference
Agency-Approved Maximum
Rate Description
5 Return Trip (SFD, MFD, Mixed
Use, or Commercial)
Sections

5.02.A, B, C;

5.03.A, B, C;

5.03.A and

5.04.A
$1.37 per Recycling Cart
$4.16 per Organic Materials Cart
Per Cart month (any Cart size). Six
month minimum charge required.

Includes one-time Cart delivery upon
start of service and removal of Cart
when service is discontinued by
Customer.
7 Additional On-Call Bulky Item
Collection
Sections

5.05,

8.05.D.
15 Additional Confidential
Document Destruction Service
Event
Section 5.07 $1,673.47 Per event
799
Schedule Q
Additional Services (Continued)
No. Additional Service Category Reference
Agency-Approved Maximum
Rate Description
16 Additional Compost Material
Delivery
Section 5.11 A - $174.31 per delivery
B - $348.65 per delivery
A - "one-way" only delivery by
Contractor where Contractor delivers
to and unloads compost at an Agencyapproved location
B- "Round-trip" delivery by
Contractor where Contractor delivers
compost in a Drop Box to an Agencyapproved location and returns at a later time or date to pick up the Drop
Box and any remaining compost
(charge includes the delivery of and
later pick-up of the Drop Box)
17 Community Drop-Off Events Section 5.13 $28,449.23 per event or day Per event or day targeting 5,000 households. Does not include
disposal or public education
expenses.

No. Additional Service Category Reference
Agency-Approved Maximum
Rate Description
18 Collection for AgencySponsored and Non-Agency
sponsored Community Events
Section 5.08 A - $4,183.70
B - $6,972.84
C - $10,459.27
A - One day event with a projected
2,500 or fewer attendees
B - One (1) or two (2) day events with
a projected 2,501 to 7,500 attendees
per day
C - One (1) or two (2) day events with
a projected 7,501 to 10,000 attendees
per day
800
Schedule Q
Additional Services (Continued)
Distance from Curb** One (1) Solid
Waste Cart
Two (2) Solid
Waste Carts
Three (3) Solid
Waste Carts
Four (4) Solid
Waste Carts
Distance <= 50 feet $25.08 $40.03 $80.12 $120.15
50 < Distance <= 100 feet 29.29 44.25 84.29 124.35
100 < Distance <= 150 feet 33.45 48.42 88.45 128.53
150 < Distance <= 200 feet 37.66 52.61 92.64 132.73
200 < Distance <= 250 feet 41.83 56.78 96.85 136.91
250 < Distance <= 300 feet 46.02 60.96 101.03 141.07
300 < Distance <= 350 feet 50.21 65.14 105.22 145.25
Each additional 50 foot
increment over 350 feet
** Distance shall be measured from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the roadway nearest the closest edge of the Cart, if there is no curb.

Page 1 of 9 ends

Belmont City CouncilSeptember 10, 2024

Belmont City Council
September 10, 2024