Agenda packet — San Carlos City Council, February 28, 2022 (part 2 of 3)

Building
Placement Table 1

Rear
Setbacks

There shall be no rear setback
required for interior lots.

Setbacks with Landscaping: 7th Street, 9th
Street, 10th Street, G Street, and Valley
Boulevard
Ground Floor
Transparency
The ground floor building facade facing
a street frontage line, where the
ground floor use is non-residential,
shall consist of a minimum 45 percent
area of glass doors, windows, or other
transparent materials.

Ground Floor Transparency
Good
Neighbor
Where the side of a lot abuts a
residential zone, the minimum side
setback shall be ten feet. Those
portions of a building that abuts a
residential zone, where the proposed
structure is over 35 feet tall, shall be
setback a minimum of 20 feet from that
property line. Where vehicular access
is taken from the side of a lot, the
building shall be set
back a minimum of
25 feet from that side.

Where the rear of a lot abuts a
residential zone, the minimum rear
setback shall be 15 feet. Where
vehicular access is taken from the rear
of a lot, the building shall be setback a
minimum of 25 feet. Those portions of
a building that abut a residential zone,
where the proposed structure is over
35 feet tall, shall be setback a
minimum of 20 feet from that property
line. Where vehicular access is taken
from the side of a lot, the building shall

Good Neighbor

3-80
COMMUNITY. COMMERCE. PLACE

DOWNTOWN CORE & CORRIDORS

SPECIFIC PLAN
Land Use and Urban Form3
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW DRAFT - 8.05.14
Downtown Extension: District Standards

BUILDING FORM AND MASSING

STANDARD INTERPRETATION

HEIGHT AND FORM
Minimum Height
A. 20’ minimum as measured
from adjacent sidewalk or
finish grade.

Maximum Height
A. 45’ maximum as measured
from adjacent sidewalk or
average finish grade.

Height Bonus Criteria
A. 55’ maximum in Tier 1 area
(see Figure 3-3)
Plate Height
A. Commercial and mixed-use
ground floor plate heights shall
be a minimum of 14 feet.

Building Facades
A. No building façade visible
from a public street shall
extend more than 50’ in
length without a 5’ minimum
variation in the wall plane.

B. Buildings shall be designed to
meet the intent of the design
guidelines presented in Section

3.3. Fullerton Specifi c Plan
Development Standards Graphics
12 March 2014
Downtown Expansion
Plate Height
14’
MIN.

Fullerton Specifi c Plan
Development Standards Graphics
12 March 2014
Downtown Expansion
Building Form
50’ MAX. 5’ MIN.

Plate Height
Building Facade

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 12 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN TWO: PREPARING THE PLAN
Projects featured here: El Monte Downtown TOD Specific Plan (El Monte), Norma Triangle Overlay District and Design Guidelines (West Hollywood), Downtown Colton Development Code and Design Guidelines (Colton)

WAYFINDING
E St
F St
BNSF Railroad
G St
Connection to South Colton
12th St
B

HISTORIC LIGHTING FACADE IMPROVEMENTPUBLIC ART HISTORIC/RAILROAD THEMEENHANCED PAVING H St
LEGEND
Restaurant Row
Rail Car
Pocket Park/Plaza
Pedestrian Corridor
(Diagonal Parking)
Core Opportunity Area Paseo
Multi-modal Transit Station
Primary Gateway/
Enhanced Intersection
Opportunity Sites
Secondary Gateway
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Bus Rapid Tranist
(Proposed Holt Line)
Streetscape Improvements
(Street furnishings & trees)
Mixed-Use Downtown
General Commercial
Medium Residential
Public/Institutional
Single-Family Residential
Multiple Family Residential
Existing New

CLASS I BIKE PATH CLASS II BIKE LANE CLASS III BIKE ROUTE DRAFT
7-7-15DOWNTOWN COLTON visiON pOsTer

PASEO ENHANCEMENTS/OUTDOOR DINING CONCEPT

SECONDARY GATEWAY
Before
A

PRIMARY GATEWAY/ENHANCED INTERSECTION CONCEPT
Before
Before After
Colton Ave
10th St
7th St
D St
6th St
B
La Cadena Dr
Valley Blvd
Valley BlvdB
B
C St
Mt. Vernon Ave
9th St
A
B
A
C
A
C
sTreeT paviNg TreaTmeNT | DOWNTOWN iDeNTifiCaTiON | Way fiNDiNg | pubLiC arT bike paThs & WaLkiNg paTh CONNeCTiON | pubLiC spaCes & pOCkeT parks

LAND USE
DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET2-2
2 April 08, 2016
Figure 2-1 Specific Plan Sub-Area Map
Station
Sub-Area
Station
Sub-Area
Main Street
Sub-Area
Monte Vista
Sub-Area
Monte Vista
Sub-Area
Zόcalo
Sub-Area
Existing
R2-PRD
Existing
MMU

2.2 SUB-AREAS
The Specific Plan area is divided into four (4) sub-areas.

Each unique sub-area includes a customized set of
permitted land uses and development standards. Sub-
area boundaries were developed by considering existing
land uses, streets, parcel size, proximity to various
community-wide destinations, and future development
potential. Applicants should identify which sub-area their project is located within and refer to the development
standards that apply to their project. The sub-area
boundaries are shown in Figure 2-1 and are described as follows:

Main Street Sub-Area
The Main Street Sub-Area is the economic, cultural, and historical “heart” of El Monte. It includes many existing mom-and-pop retail and dining establishments. Much
of Main Street has been improved with wide sidewalks,
street furnishings, and pockets of enhanced landscaping.

A network of alleys and paseos allow for access to/from parking areas and adjacent sub-areas.

The Main Street Sub-Area is envisioned to be revitalized with façade improvements and vertical mixed-use
development with residential or office above retail.

Buildings up to three stories in height will line Main Street and buildings up to four stories in height will front along Valley Boulevard.

Valley Mall has been
renamed Main Street to
bring greater awareness to
the cultural and traditional
“heart” of Downtown El
Monte.

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REVIEW

NORMA TRIANGLE SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGN
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3
OCTOBER 1, 2016
• No portion of second floor front elevation may cantilever. • Minimum 60% of the second story front elevation shall be set back a minimum of 3 feet from first floor wall.
• Must meet one of the following options:

SCALE AND MASSING
Option 1: Floor
area of second
level shall not
exceed 75% of the
first level floor area
and front and side
building elevations
shall have a
variation of at least
3 feet in depth and
width
Building Massing and Modulation
Option 2: A minimum of
25% of each building
elevation shall be set
back at least 3 feet
from the remaining area
of the elevational plane

LAND USE
DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET2-18
2 April 08, 2016

MAIN STREET SUB-AREA
Figure 2-21 Alley Setback
Figure 2-24 Building Roof Form
9) Alley Setback (Figure 2-21)
a. 8’ minimum improved pedestrian access and
landscaping shall be provided adjacent to a
facade fronting an alley.
10) Outdoor Dining (Figure 2-22)
a. Shall comply with 17.45.110 - Outdoor Dining, of
the City’s Municipal Code.
b. Outdoor dining shall not impede pedestrian or
ADA accessibility within the right-of-way.
11) Main Street Facades (Figure 2-23, 2-24)
The following requirements are intended to create
building forms that are pedestrian friendly and are
representative of El Monte’s historical character.
a. Buildings shall provide a primary entrance and
façade on Main Street.
b. 50% minimum transparent glazing on first floor
façade for retail uses adjacent to a public street.

Opaque or reflective glazing is not permitted.
c. Along Main Street and Lexington Avenue,
buildings greater than 40’ of linear street
frontage shall be designed to replicate a
traditional 20’-40’ storefront facade with a
minimum 6” variation in wall plane.
d. Building roof-lines shall provide variations in
height a maximum distance of 40’ in wall plane
length.
e. Parcels backing or siding onto paseos, parks,
or plazas shall be designed with building
articulation requirements consistent with Main
Street facade requirements.
13) Parking Standards - Refer to Section 2.3.2
No on-site parking is required for existing building
square footage. One hundred (100) percent of
parking required for net-new development may be
satisfied with an in-lieu fee. Existing displaced public parking shall be located on-site and shall be made
available for public use.

Figure 2-22 Outdoor Dining
Figure 2-23 Building Facade Form Variation
40’
max
3’ Min3’ Min 5’
Min
5’
Min
50% min transparent
glazing
40’
max 40’
max
Greater than 40’6” Min
Entry
Material
Change
Roof
Change
20’-40’

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 13 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN THREE: UNDERSTANDING IMPLEMENTATION
A SAMPLING OF RRM'S BUILT WORK...

Projects featured here: Paseo Chapala Mixed-Use Development (Santa Barbara), Pier Avenue Streetscape (Hermosa Beach), Marina Downtown Specific Plan, Long Beach Parklet and Outdoor Dining, Newman Downtown Plaza, Claremont Village West Specific Plan

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 14 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

URBAN PARKS AND
PLAZAS

1. Ojai Arcade Plaza, Ojai

2. Avenue of Flags, Buellton, CA

3. Atascadero Sunken Gardens,
Atascadero, CA

4. Lemoore Downtown Plaza,
Lemoore, CA
1 2
3 4

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 15 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

STREETSCAPES AND

MEDIAN REFURBISHMENT

1. Atascadero Streetscape, Atascadero

2. Village Drive and Pine Knot Avenue Streetscape,
Big Bear Lake

3. Maclay Avenue Streetscape Plan, San Fernando

4. Old Town Improvements, Calabasas

5. Pier Avenue Streetscape Improvements,
Hermosa Beach
1 2
3 4
5 6.j.3
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 16 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

PLACEMAKING

1. Ojai Arcade Plaza, Ojai

2. Prince Memorial Greenway, Santa Rosa

3. Avila Beach Front Street Enhancement, Avila Beach

4. Oroville Centennial Plaza, Oroville

5. Venice Beach Oceanfront Walk, Venice
1 2
3 4
5 6.j.3
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 17 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

ARGUELLO PARK

RENOVATION MASTER PLAN

SAN CARLOS, CA
NOTABLE INFO AND STATS:

Client: City of San Carlos
Project Size: 27 Acres
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Planning, Surveying,
Landscape Architecture
RRM completed the Arguello Park Renovation Master Plan for the 27- acre multipurpose park in San Carlos. The Master Plan includes active use ball fields, tennis courts, scenic open space, and a trails system for the hills that surround the park. To develop a community-based plan, RRM conducted multiple community and neighborhood workshops resulting in a plan that restores the trails system, reconditions a little league baseball diamond where Barry Bonds got his start in baseball, restores a historic man-made waterfall, develops a unique playground facility, creates ADA accessibility, renews picnic areas, and improves fire management. RRM’s surveyors also provided the aerial topographic, boundary and detail surveys of the sports facilities. Arguello Park was constructed per RRM’s plans and successfully opened to the public.

OUR TEAM’S SAN CARLOS EXPERIENCE
• San Carlos Transit Center Parking Lot Landscape Improvement • Extension of Downtown Street Closure & Parklet Program, Exemption • Alexandria Center for Life Science, EIR
• 777 Industrial Road Reuse, MND
• Housing and Safety General Plan Updates
• Traffic Impact Analysis for 700 Laurel Block Closure
• Belmont/Walnut All-Way Stop Analysis
• 808 Alameda De Las Pulgas Parking and TDM Plan

ARGUELLO PARK

RENOVATION MASTER PLAN
“RRM Design Group provided an excellent
design for renovation of Arguello Park, our
largest and most beloved park in San Carlos.“
--------
Barry E. Weiss, Parks and Recreation Director,
City of San Carlos
RRM Design Group and our subconsultants are proud to have worked in partnership with the City of San Carlos on multiple projects f or m ore t han a d ecade. O ur m ultidisciplinary t eam o f p lanners, a rchitects, l andscape a rchitects, a nd e ngineers, a long with o ur s ubconsultants, h ave w orked o n m ultiple p rojects f or t he C ity, a nd w e w ould b e p leased t o p artner o nce a gain o n t he Downtown Specific Plan for San Carlos.

LOCAL EXPERIENCE
A note about the City of San Carlos. . .

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 18 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN AZUSA

DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN

AND TOD GENERAL PLAN/

DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE

AZUSA, CA
NOTABLE INFO AND STATS:

Client: City of Azusa
Project Timeline: 2014-2016
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Planning, Architecture, Engineering,
Landscape Architecture
The City of Azusa retained RRM to prepare a 350-
acre Downtown Specific Plan and TOD General Plan/
Development Code Update focusing on Azusa’s
downtown, two future Gold Line transit stations, and
adjacent residential neighborhoods. Funded through a Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)
grant, the work effort addresses a mix of commercial,
residential, and entertainment-related land uses that will be instrumental in creating a vibrant mixed-use, pedestrian- oriented environment. The project market analysis informs recommended land uses and development standards, which are complemented by design guidelines to ensure high quality, compatible development. Inclusive community engagement
incorporates ideas voiced by residents, business owners, and decision-makers. The overall effort is complemented by an integrated CEQA process for an Environmental Impact
Report.

Award of Merit for
Economic Planning
& Development
--------
- APA Los Angeles Section,
2016

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 19 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

BALBOA VILLAGE

DESIGN GUIDELINES,

STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT

PLAN, AND WAYFINDING SIGN

PROGRAM

NEWPORT BEACH, CA
NOTABLE INFO AND STATS:

Client: City of Newport Beach
Planning Timeline: 2014-2015
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Planning, Architecture, Landscape
Architecture
The City of Newport Beach hired RRM Design Group to assist with a three-pronged revitalization effort for Balboa Village. Work product included updating the Balboa Village Design Guidelines, creating c onceptual s treetscape i mprovement p lans f or t he p rimary Village streets, and developing a wayfinding sign program (provided by Graphic Solutions). The project was completed in six months, included six public meetings, was unanimously approved by City Council, and came in on time and
under budget!

BALBOA BOULEVARD EXISTING

CONDITIONS

BALBOA BOULEVARD EXISTING

CONDITION

BALBOA BOULEVARD GATEWAY SITE FURNISHINGS

BALBOA BOULEVARD EXISTING

CONDITIONS

BALBOA BOULEVARD PROPOSED

IMPROVEMENTS

SCULPTURAL ART ELEMENTS EXISTING MAIN STREET

INTERSECTION WITH PAVERS

BALBOA BOULEVARD PROPOSED

IMPROVEMENTS

PALM NIGHT LIGHTING
1 1
2 2
3 5
5 3
Palm Trees
Focal Trees
(One location in
median at “A”
Street)
Araucaria heterophylla
Norfolk Island Pine
Phoenix dactylifera
Date Palm

ENTRY GATEWAY
BALBOA VILLAGE SKETCHES 7/25/14
SHEET 7
1 FURNISHINGS

ACCENT POT
POTS

COLOR PALETTE
No Outlet Sign
No Outlet Sign

VEHICULAR DIRECTIONAL SIGN BUS STOP

PEDESTRIAN LIGHT POST BANNER
*Banners shall be located on all
existing pedestrian light posts on
Balboa Boulevard. Pedestrian light
posts will have small banners,
approximately 18 inches by 4 feet.

Banners shall be attached to the
posts with street pole brackets with
rods. Banners shall be located a
minimum of 8 feet from the ground
plane, for a comfortable pedestrian
walking environment.

Locations:
• Adams Street and Balboa Boulevard Intersection
• Pier Lot
*All bus stop locations shall be signed. It
is recommended that benches and trash
receptacles also be provided for users at
each bus stop. If there is room, bus
shelters shall be provided. Bus shelter
design should adhere to ADA
requirements as well as the surrounding
environment. An example bus stop
shelter is shown to the right.

A
A
A A
A A A
A A

A A A A A AA AA
B
B
B
B B
B

B B B B
B B B

B B B B B
B
B
Albizia julibrissin
Silk Tree
CanopyTrees
Arbutus menziesii
Paci/f_ic Madrone
Arbutus unedo
Strawberry Tree
Spathodea campanulata
African Tulip Tree
Magnolia grandi/f_lora
Southern Magnolia
Graphic: Courtesy of Graphic Solutions
“ I have been extremely pleased with the work of staff
and outside consultants in achieving this goal and,
in particular, with the work of RRM Design Group in
leading the formulation and consideration of the final
recommendations.”
--------
Mike Henn, City Councilmember, City of Newport Beach

BALBOA VILLAGE

DESIGN GUIDELINES UPDATE
OCTOBER 2014

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 20 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

EL MONTE

DOWNTOWN TOD

SPECIFIC PLAN

EL MONTE, CA
NOTABLE INFO AND STATS:

Client: City of El Monte
via Evan Brooks Associates
Project Timeline: 2013-2017
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Planning, Architecture, Engineering,
Landscape Architecture
The City of El Monte selected RRM Design Group to develop a Downtown Main Street TOD Specific Plan. The project
provides the regulatory land use and planning framework for implementing the vision articulated in the adopted 201 1 Vision El Monte General Plan. The plan focuses on the revitalization and plans for physical improvements to Main Street and infuses the downtown with new housing
opportunities. In addition, RRM was asked to develop
streetscape improvement construction documents to
enhance the City’s downtown urban core. The streetscape beautification, now under construction, is the first phase of enhancements, which include pedestrian crossing
improvements, new street trees, landscape planted parkways, and new seating areas along this vibrant street. The design also includes improvements to paseo access to the street, new street pedestrian lighting, traffic calming features, and the design of bioswales and permeable pavement to capture urban storm runoff.

LAND USE
DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET2-18
2 April 08, 2016

LAND USE

DOWNTOWN

MAIN STREE T

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 21 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN Downtown Core/Brea Harbor
VISION
DRAFT 8-21-13
COMMUNITY. COMMERCE. PLACE

DOWNTOWN CORE &CORRIDORS

SPECIFIC PLAN
Legend
Commercial
Mixed-useMedium Density Residential
Office
Potential Existing
Potential Existing
Industrial Government
Transportation Center
Low Density Residential
Plaza, Paseo, Alley
Parking StructurePHigh Density Residential
Religious Institutions
School
FULLERTON CORE AND CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN | Project Study Areas APRIL 11, 2013

NOT TO SCALE
5 5
91 91
57 City Limits
City Limits
Brea/
Harbor

STUDY AREAS
DowntownCore
East Corridor
University Area
Orangethorpe/Harbor
Orangethorpe/Euclid
Orangethorpe/Brookhurst
Orangethorpe/Magnolia
West Commonwealth
ORANGETHORPE AVE.

ORANGETHORPE AVE.ORANGETHORPE AVE.

VALENCIA AVE.

COMMONWEALTH AVE. COMMONWEALTH AVE.

VALENCIA AVE.

KIMBERLY AVE.

CHAPMAN AVE.

NUTWOOD AVE.

YORBA LINDA BLVD.

CHAPMAN AVE.

WILSHIRE AVE.WILSHIRE AVE.

MAGNOLIA AVE.

S. GILBERT ST.

EUCLID AVE.EUCLID AVE.

STATE COLLEGE BLVD.

HARBOR BLVD.

LEMON ST. LEMON ST.

PAMONA AVE.

HIGHLAND DR.

MALDEN AVE.

BERKELEY AVE.

RAYMOND AVE.

ACACIA AVE.

N.GILBERT
ST.

MALVERN AVE.

BASTANCHURY
RD.

HARBOR
BLVD.

N. BREA
BLVD.

BROOKHURST RD.
project
studyareas
Superior
Court of
Orange
County
City Hall
Public Library
Ladera Vista
Junior High
School
Commonwealth
Elementary School
Fullerton
College
Fullerton
Union
High
School
Costco
Fullerton
Metrolink
Target
Food 4 Less
Nicolas
Junior High
School
Orangethorpe
ElementarySchool
Buena Park
High School
Fullerton
Municipal Airport
Hunt Branch
Library
Sunny Hills
High School
Amerige Heights
Town Center
Pacific Drive
Elementary
School
Troy High
School
California State
University Fullerton
COMMUNITY. COMMERCE. PLACE

DOWNTOWN CORE &CORRIDORS

SPECIFIC PLAN
Extend the character of downtown1. north on
Harbor
Create 2. pedestrian-friendly spaces
Provide for more 3. family-oriented uses and
activities
Protect and leverage 4. historical resources and
architecture
Foster 5. higher-quality retail uses
Add shade trees and 6. streetscape beatification
Upgrade existing storefronts7. and buildings
Tame regional traffic8. on Harbor Boulevard
Enhance 9. pedestrian connectivity, transit, and
bike opportunities
Shape opportunities for 10. retail, office, and multi-
family residential uses
Perspective Sketch
Vision of Downtown at Harbor Ave./Commonwealth Ave.
looking northwest.

Harbor Blvd. Street Section
Extend downtown streetscapes northward towards Berkeley Ave.

Visual preference survey
photos Paseo
District GatewayHistoric Commercial
Mixed-use
Visual preference
survey photos
Wilshire Ave. Street Section
Perspective Sketch
Perspective Sketch
Vision Principles
Key Map
Incorporate bike boulevard into street section
Downtown Entry Monument - Harbor Blvd. at
Berkeley Ave.

Scale 1:200
Chapman Ave./Harbor Ave. Perspective
Develop a palette of unified, dark green
benches and waste receptacles
N
Commonwealth Ave.

Harbor Ave.

Unified pedestrian
and street level
green street lights.

N. Harbor Blvd.

N. Brea Blvd.

N. Berkeley Ave.

W. Valley View Dr.

E. Glenwood Ave.

La Mancha
Shopping
Center
County
Courthouse
E. Brookdale Pl.

W. Malvern Ave.

W. Brookdale Pl.

E. Union Ave.W. Union Ave.

Ellis Pl.

W. Chapman Ave.

Bike
Connection
Bike
Connection
E. Chapman Ave.

E. Commonwealth Ave.

Villa del Sol
Shopping Center
Fullerton
Transportation
Center
City Pointe
Apartments
Towers
Towers
Fullerton Union
High School
W. Whiting Ave.

W. Wilshire Ave. E. Wilshire Ave.

W. Amerige Ave. E. Amerige Ave.

W. Commonwealth Ave.

W. Santa Fe Ave.

W. Walnut Ave. E. Walnut Ave.

E. Truslow Ave.W. Truslow Ave.

N. Berkeley Ave.

N. Harbor Blvd.S. Harbor Blvd.

E. Walnut Ave.

S. Highland Ave. N. Highland Ave.

N. Malden Ave.

N. Pomona Ave.

N. Lemon St.S. Lemon St.
1 2
3 1
3 2
Potential parking structure and mixed-use buildings
on underutilized parcels.

Potential mid-block mixed-use development of
parking lots with 4- to 5-story residential above.

Increase pedestrian connections with mid-block plazas
and paseos.

Potential mid-block paseo.

Extension of downtown character to Berkeley
Avenue with infill and streetscape improvements.

Potential additional gateway feature.

Pedestrian-oriented commercial development.

Continue revitalization of SOCO district.

Existing SOCO gateway.

P
P
P P
P
P
P
A
B
B
A

FULLERTON

DOWNTOWN CORE &

CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN

FULLERTON, CA
NOTABLE INFO AND STATS:

Client: City of Fullerton
Project Timeline: 2012-2015
Project Size: 1,310 Acres
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Planning, Architecture, Graphic Design
As a result of a national recruitment process, the City of Fullerton retained RRM Design Group to prepare the 1,310- acre Fullerton Downtown Core and Corridors Specific
Plan. Funded through a California Sustainable Communities Planning Grant, the project focuses on developing a
community-based vision for downtown Fullerton and its
major entry corridors, including Harbor, Commonwealth,
Chapman, Euclid, and Orangethorpe. The resulting Specific Plan provides clear direction on how properties within the various districts should be developed, as well as addresses a variety of issues including mobility, bike and pedestrian improvements, streetscape enhancements, sustainability, infrastructure, historic resources, architectural guidelines and incentives for amenities. Form-based approaches, market- driven revitalization, complete streets and sustainability are emphasized. The broad community engagement process
included a 36-member advisory committee, community
workshops, charrettes, focus groups and online forums.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 22 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN “The City of Gilroy just adopted a
brand-new Downtown Specific Plan...
much of the credit is due to RRM
Design Group, and their successful
facilitation in bringing together a
plethora of wants & needs. The RRM
Design team was very much a part of
our achievement.”
--------
- Bill Faus, Former Planning Division Manager,
Planning Commission, City of Gilroy
GILROY

DOWNTOWN VISIONING

CHARRETTE, SPECIFIC PLAN,

AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

GILROY, CA
NOTABLE INFO AND STATS:

Client: City of Gilroy
Project Timeline: 2004-2006
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Planning, Landscape Architecture,
Architecture
RRM was retained by the City of Gilroy to craft a Specific Plan for its downtown area centered on its busy MTA rail transit station in its historic downtown core. Beginning with a three-day visioning charrette and interactive exercises, interviews, and walking tours, RRM Design Group engaged local residents, merchants, land owners, and developers in identifying issues and goals for the City of Gilroy's Specific Plan. Working with the Downtown Task Force, RRM's team
of urban designers, landscape architects, architects, and support staff, RRM developed a Specific Plan that has created a vibrant downtown hub showcasing restored historic
buildings, striking new buildings near its bustling transit center with regional rail service, new housing development, mixed-use development, pedestrian-oriented public spaces and amenities, and a new town plaza. The plan introduced alternative residential housing types such as live/work and lofts and transit-oriented mixed uses to surround and
complement the Gilroy Caltrain multimodal station. The plan area is approximately 160 acres composed of 416 parcels.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 23 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

LOS ALTOS DOWNTOWN

VISION PLAN

LOS ALTOS, CA
NOTABLE INFO AND STATS:

Client: City of Los Altos
Project Timeline: Adopted in 2018
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Planning, Architecture, Landscape
Architecture
RRM was retained by the City of Los Altos to craft a 20- year Vision Plan for the 76-acre downtown area. Through a robust outreach process that included unique, targeted outreach events and a variety of online engagement, a
community-based vision plan was crafted that maintains the history, values, and desired intensity of development, while also allowing for incremental change that builds upon the exceptional character and qualities of Los Altos. The community was initially divided over building height and the amount of change they wanted in the downtown, but
they all agreed that the lack of vitality and activity in the weekends was an issue, through the outreach, we were
able to develop a plan that garnered their support. The plan envisions a series of public spaces, office, residential, and commercial uses, and walkable and bike-friendly solutions.

This fulfills the community vision for the downtown area while also incorporating a phasing action plan that identifies short-, mid-, and long-term implementation items to guide the City’s efforts.

AFTER
“The Vision for Downtown Los Altos that
you and your team at RRM developed is
taking root and generating some interest
here in the Bay Area region.”
--------
Jon Biggs, Community Development Department, City of Los Altos Award of Merit, Comprehensive Planning
--------
- American Planning Association (APA),
Northern California Chapter, 2020
BEFORE

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 24 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

SAN YSIDRO

HISTORIC VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN

SAN DIEGO, CA
NOTABLE INFO AND STATS:

Client: City of San Diego
Project Timeline: 2015-2017
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Planning, Landscape Architecture
As part of the San Ysidro Community Plan work effort,
RRM developed the San Ysidro Historic Village Specific
Plan and crafted and facilitated a multi-layered bilingual public engagement strategy to solicit input from this highly spirited and culturally diverse community. Situated on the US/Mexico border in south San Diego County, San Ysidro is a port- of-entry and the busiest border crossing in the world. The Specific Plan is located within San Ysidro’s historic center, “the heart” of the community and roughly a half mile square, providing convenient access to goods and services within a 10-15 minute walk surrounding San Diego’s Beyer Boulevard Trolley Station. The plan provides realistic and context- specific concepts that consider land use, mobility, parking, infrastructure, market demand, and design opportunities and constraints to catalyze development projects appropriate for and in support of the larger vision established within the San Ysidro Community Plan.

SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
• Point of entry wayfinding signage
• Neighborhood pocket park utilizing
old fire station site
• 15,000sf Library
• Community linear park playground
• 50-Unit senior village apartments
• 137-Unit affordable housing
development
Beyer
Boulevard
Trolley
District
2 2
1 1

COMMUNITY PLAYGROUND NEIGHBORHOOD POCKET PARK WAYFINDING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

SAN YSIDRO BLVD VISION
2 2
1 1
3 5
5 4
4 3
Beyer
Boulevard
Trolley
District
2 2
1 1

PROJECT SUCCESS TO DATE

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 25 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN March 27, 2012
CITY OF walnuT Creek
shadelands gateway specific plan
0’ 50’
scale: 1”=50’
100’ 150’25’ 200’
lanD uSe COnCePTS: OPTIOn 3
Outdoor
Dining
Patio
loading
Parking
Parking
Parking
Parking
Parking
Shadelands
Green
water
Feature
Parking
Parking
Gateway
Feature
YGnaCIO ValleY rOaD
Oak GrOVe rOaD
CITruS aVenue
nOrTH VIa MOnTe
SHaDelanDS DrIVe
lanD uSe SQ. FT.

Safeway 55,000
retail 41,000
restaurant 20,000
Health Club 12,000
Office over retail 20,000
Senior Housing (85 units)
Health
ClubSenior
Housing
(3 Story)
Grocery Store
Mid-Size retail
Small retail
Small
rest.

Small
ret.

Small
rest.

Small
retail
Sit-Down
rest.

Plan elements
Site access
• Oak grove Road - right in/right
out (offset from citrus ave.)
• shadelands drive - full access
• north Via Monte - full access
• ygnacio Valley Road - right in only
Circulation
• central loop road around park
• pedestrian/Bike loop trail around
site
• interior sidewalk around park
Building Orientation
• Buildings along ygnacio Valley Rd.
• Building orientation toward
central park
Common Green/Park
• central park/open space with
water feature
• natural parkway with water
feature diagonally through site
• tree grove preserved at citrus
ave.
land uses
• park
• senior housing - on corner of
north Via Monte and shadelands
dr.
• Office - corner of Oak grove Rd.
and shadelands dr.
• Retail/Restaurant - minimum
amount of retail/restaurant
• safeway
• at corner of ygnacio Valley
Road and north Via Monte
• surface parking
Office Over
retail/
Small retail/
Small rest.

SHADELANDS

GATEWAY

SPECIFIC PLAN

WALNUT CREEK, CA
NOTABLE INFO AND STATS:

Client: City of Walnut Creek
Project Timeline: 2011-2014
Project Size: 25 Acres
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Planning, Civil Engineering, Architecture
RRM Design Group was retained by the City of
Walnut Creek to prepare a Specific Plan, General
Plan amendment, and rezoning for a strategically
located 25-acre parcel owned by Safeway Stores at
the strategic eastern gateway to the city. This project involved significant public outreach working with an
appointed steering committee to develop a mixed-use
plan for a pedestrian-oriented project that serves the neighborhood while preserving mature oak trees and
providing open space. The Specific Plan introduced new
uses into the area, and spurred new development of
Senior Housing, commercial, and recreation uses. The
built project has revitalized the Shadelands Business Park, one of the main employment centers of the community.
“Redevelopment of the Safeway
site was a highly-visible, politically
charged, labor-intensive project...

RRM Design Group exhibited dexterity
and the utmost professionalism
throughout.”
--------
Ethan Bindernagel, AICP , Senior Planner,
City of Walnut Creek
Award of Merit, Implementation Plan -
Small Jurisdiction
--------
- APA Northern California Chapter, 2018

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 26 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY BUILDING AND

DESIGN REGULATIONS

HANDBOOK

PALO ALTO, CA
NOTABLE INFO AND STATS:

Client: Stanford University
Project Timeline: 2019-Present
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Planning, Architecture,
Landscape Architecture
Stanford University Faculty Staff Housing and Land Use
Environmental Planning Departments retained RRM
Design Group to revise an existing set of development
standards that were difficult to understand and onerous.

RRM developed materials to guide future home
improvements proposed by residents in the faculty
subdivisions in a thoughtful and sustainable way. The
Building and Design Regulations Handbook provides
residents, design professionals, and the University with a clear and common understanding of the process for
proposed alterations to existing residential development, and intentions for the planning, design, and review of new development.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 27 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

YORBA LINDA

TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN

YORBA LINDA, CA
NOTABLE INFO AND STATS:

Client: City of Yorba Linda
Project Timeline: 2009-2015
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Planning, Architecture,
Landscape Architecture, Graphic Design
AWARDS & RECOGNITION:

Planning Achievement Award:

Hard Won Victories
American Planning Association (APA),
California Chapter, Orange County Section, 2012
The Town Center Specific Plan was developed as a result of significant public dissatisfaction, which resulted in the City Council’s rescinding an approved development plan, passing a citizen’s “right-to-vote” referendum on development issues, unseating the City Council majority, and a change in several senior management staff positions. RRM led an intensive community engagement process with months of public
meetings, workshops, study sessions, and public hearings while developing a plan that was ultimately embraced by the community and adopted unanimously by the City Council.

Key features of the Specific Plan for this include retail land use districts, infusion of residential land uses, relocation of an existing public library from a prime retail location to the central core of the planning area, inclusion of a public open space, design guidelines based on the existing historic architectural palette and a “tiered-density” approach to allow the Specific Plan to be adopted ahead of the required community-wide vote.
“RRM is [...] commended for advocating
a higher quality built environment without
losing sight of community expectations and
market realities.”
--------
Steve K. Harris, AICP , Director of Community
Development, City of Yorba Linda

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 28 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN NORTH 40

SPECIFIC PLAN

LOS GATOS, CA
NOTABLE INFO AND STATS:

Client: City of Los Gatos
Project Timeline: 2010-2016
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Planning, Architecture
RRM Design Group worked with the Town of Los Gatos
to guide a community-based process for the North 40
Specific Plan. The North 40 is an approximately 40-
acre site within the charming town of Los Gatos. RRM
facilitated two interactive community workshops, over
twenty Advisory Committee meetings, Town Council,
and Planning Commission meetings to help shape
the vision for this important piece of property. The
Specific Plan lays out a vision, development standards, design guidelines and an implementation plan for a
mixed-use district that has strong pedestrian and multi- modal connections to the surrounding neighborhoods,
downtown and Vasona Light Rail Station.
2-5
Last Modifi ed: October 7, 2013
North 40 Specific Plan
Land Use and Development Standards 22
85 17
C2 ST

NODDIN AVESOUTH A ST
R2 ST

NORTH A STSOUTH A STNEIGHBORHOOD ST

LLLALALALLALLLLALALALALALALALLALALALALALALLALLALALALALALLLLALLLALLALALLLALLALALLLALLALLALALLALALALALALALALALALLLALALLALLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRKRKRKRKRKRRRRRKRKRRRRRRKRKRRKRRKRRRRRRRRRRKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVVEVEVEVEVEVEVVEVVVVVVEVVEVVVEVVEVVEVVVVEVVEVVVVEVEVVVVEVEVVEVVEVEVEEEEEE LARK AVE

LOLOOLOLOLOLOOOLLOLOLOOOOLOLOLOLOOOLOLOLLOOOOOOOOOLOLLOLOOOLOLOLOLOLOOLOOLLLL SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS GAGAGAAAAAAAAAGAAGAGAGAGAAAAAAGAAGAAGGAAGGGAAGAGAAGAGGAGAGAAGAGAAGGGAGGGAGAAGAAGAAAAAGAAAGGAGGAGGGGAAAGAGAAATOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTTOTOTTTTOTTTTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTTTTOTTTOTOOOTOOTTOTTOTOTOOOTTOTOOOOTOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS BLBLBLBLBLLBBLBLLBLLBLBLBLBBLBLBLBLBLBBLBLBLBLLBLBLBLBLBLBBLBBLBLBBLBLBBBLBLBLBBLVDVDVDVDVDVDVDDVDVVDVVDDVDVDVDVDVDVDVDDDVDVVDVVDVDVDDDVVDDVDVDDDDDDDDDDDDVDDVVVVDDDDDVDDDVDDVDDVDDVVDDDVLOS GATOS BLVD

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

EEEEEEE

CACACACAAAAAAACACAAACACACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMIMMIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

CACCACACACACACACACCACCACCACACCACACACACACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

MMMMMMMIMMMMMIMIMMMIMMIMIMIMIIMMIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

CACACACACCCCCCACCCACACCCCACACCCACAACAACACCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMIMIMIMMMMMMMMIMMIMIMIMMIMIMIMIMIMMIMMMMMMMIMIMMMMMIMMIMIMIMMMMMIMMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

CACCCCACACACCCAAAACACACACAAAAMIMIMIMMIMIMIMMIMIMIMMMNNNNNNNNN

BURTON RD

DISTRICT LEGEND
LARK

DISTRICT

TRANSITION

DISTRICT

NORTHERN

DISTRICT

DISTRICT
EDGE

OVERLA Y
ZONE

PERIMETER

OVERLA Y
ZONE
Figure 2-1 District Plan
N
“The Town of Los Gatos recently retained RRM to prepare a large scale specific plan for a mixed use development.

Having worked with RRM prior on a successful downtown specific plan, we were confident that they would be able to provide high quality work. Moreover, we selected RRM over a number of very qualified firms since we knew that this high profile project would be extremely sensitive and require the “hand holding” of our highly engaged and discerning community. RRM staff hit the ground running and have successfully engaged the community in a variety of ways, including workshops, on-line surveys and are currently creating engaging outreach brochures. I am particularly satisfied with their ability to keep the project on track and within budget despite having to revise and the project milestones due to the need for increase oversight committee involvement. I highly recommend RRM due to their solid public outreach skills, project management and ability to work very well with staff and our elected officials.” --------
Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development, Town of Los Gatos

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 29 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

SCOTTS VALLEY

TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN

SCOTTS VALLEY, CA
NOTABLE INFO AND STATS:

Client: City of Scotts Valley
Project Timeline: 2007-2009
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Planning, Landscape Architecture,
Architecture
RRM Design Group was retained by the City of Scotts Valley to conduct a public outreach process that involved key stakeholder interviews, steering committee meetings, a community charrette, design alternatives workshop, and a visual preference survey. The outreach process was successful bringing land owners, business owners, residents and agencies to consensus on a vision plan for a new town center and a specific plan with guidelines to implement that vision. The 57-acre site is comprised of a mix of ownerships, between the City of Scotts Valley and a number of private landowners, as well as other public landowners including the federal government (which operates a post office and the regional transportation authority’s transit facility in the project area). The objective for this project was to create a transit oriented, mixed use, pedestrian friendly downtown area, where none exists today, by integrating a mixed-use development and taking advantage of the proximity to civic uses and the transit center to encourage non-vehicular modes of transportation.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 30 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN DUBLIN

OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
& ADU PROTOTYPES

DUBLIN, CA
NOTABLE INFO AND STATS:

Client: City of Dublin
Project Timeline: 2016-Present
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Planning, Architecture,
Landscape Architecture
The City of Dublin hired RRM Design Group to develop
clearly defined objective design standards endorsed by the community and decision-makers that can be applied to
multifamily and mixed-use residential projects. The intent of the project is to ensure that new residential development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, that quality materials are used, that building form and scale are appropriate to the site, and that development complies with the intent of SB35 laws to facilitate and expedite construction of housing. The final product will include clearly written standards with easy-to-use graphics. Given the lack of large sites for new housing projects, the City is promoting the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). To assist in this effort, RRM is developing prototype plans including elevations, floor plans for garage conversion, and building permit plans for ADUs that will save property owners
money, expedite the permit process, and help ensure well- designed ADUs are built.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 31 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN 5 3

style and should be revised to integrate exposed rafters with larger overhangs at hipped elements and/or curved molding at wall/roof juncture at gabled elements (CZC

19.28.110.C.2).

Windows for the proposed project include both single lite fixed and sliding window types.

While not inappropriate, applicant should integrate casement windows with divided lites within the project design, most
importantly at the Front Elevat
ion (CZC 19.28.110.C.2).

In addition, while header deta
il at windows is noted and approp
riate to style, applicant
should look for opportunities to integrate sill detail as well to further accentuate selected architectural style (CZC 19.28.110.C.2). Moreover, unclear from provided plan set whether or not windows are recessed, typical of the selected style (CZC 19.28.110.C.2).

Applicant should clarify with staff going forward. As it relates to adequate proportioning and location, second story arched window appropriate to style, however lacks adequate
“breathing room” from roof banding above and should be revised. If spacing limited, alternate window desig
n with accent awning detail may be appropriate. Applicant has also proposed stylistic appropriate heavy wood, arched front door with wrought iron accent as well as ornate garage door with divided lites at upper portion of garage door, considered appropriate to selected style (CZC 19.28.110.C.2).

Many design details proposed are consistent with the “Spanish” architectural style. This includes decorative wrought iron, window trim, arched elements, column details, among others. However, to further enhance selected style, it is recommended the applicant look for opportunities to incorporate additional stylistic appropriate detailing such as shutters, decorative tile, wood detailing, among other potent
ial design interventions (CZC

19.28.110.C.2). For example, tile detailing could be incorporated at/near primary building entry or patio wall, with shutters at Front/Side Eevat ions. Emphasis should
continue to be placed on Front Elevation for design interventions, with complementary elements carried onto other elevations that appear to be lacking adequate detailing in some areas.

The project proposes two balcony areas within the design, one at the front and one at the rear of the second story, and includes both covered and uncovered portions. While balconies are present within the neighborhood and appropriate t o the selected
architectural style, including half-height wall with wrought iron railing at top, we have concerns with the designs as currently proposed. In comparing N ew Upper Floor Plan
Sheet 6 to project floor plans, unclear whether or not full wall proposed at southeast corner balcony, as plans appear to show full height wall. Moreover, the balcony at southeast corner is closest to existing single-story residence to the south and may provide unobstructed views to private yard space. Applicant should revise balcony design at southeast corner of building to minimize views to sou th. This could include
extending low wall to filter views, introducing wood trellis element, potted plants with

4 vertical, evergreen landscaping, and/or reducing size of balcony, among other potential design interventions.

As noted on the provided Colors Board, colors proposed for the project include a white/light gray as the primary wall color, with medium gray for base color, and darker brown for windows, trim, and accents. Materials identified incl ude smooth stucco, gray
barrel tile roofing and what appears to be wood or faux wood door materials. To ensure adequate staff understanding of proposed colors and materials for the project and to ensure consistency with the selected style, applicant should pr ovide revised Colors
Board that identifies proposed colors and manufacturer as well as materials not currently identified (CZC 19.28.110.C.4). Moreover, while stucco accent color appropriately applied at Front Elevation, applicant should consider extending to Side and Rear Elevations to ensure design consistency on all sides o f the structure (CZC

19.28.110.C.6). Lastly, rather than gray barrel roof tile as shown, applicant should consider red barrel roof tile to
enhance selected architectural style.

General Comments
As discussed above, adjacency to existing single-story residence to the south presents potential concerns based on project design as proposed. The applicant has proposed Podocarpus Fern Pine
along the perimeter, a fast-growing evergreen planting to provi de
screening. Applicant should verify with staff the type of box sized proposed to ensure substantial screening occurs in
a timely manner once project is complete (CZC

19.28.110.C.3).

Upper Floor Plan
Example of tile detailing applied
at front entry door surround.

Pursue integration of addition stylistic appropriate detailing to enhance architectural style.

Heavy wood
elements
with wrought
iron railing.

Wood corbels.

Decorative
Shutters.

Gable end detail.

Clarify balcony design at southeast corner.

Appears to show full height wall.

Revise balcony design to minimize views to
south. This could include low wall to filter views,
introducing wood trellis element, potted plant with
vertical, evergreen landscaping, and/or reducing
size of balcony, among other options.

CUPERTINO

RESIDENTIAL/MIXED-USE

DESIGN STANDARDS &

DESIGN REVIEW SERVICES

CUPERTINO, CA
NOTABLE INFO AND STATS:

Client: City of Cupertino
Project Timeline: 2019-Present
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Planning, Architecture
In response to recent housing legislation, the City of
Cupertino hired RRM to develop objective design standards for multifamily residential and mixed-use residential projects.

RRM created objective standards that improve the overall quality for projects built within the City of Cupertino, conducted thoughtful and appropriate community outreach, and prepared environmental documents.

RRM also contracted with the City of Cupertino to provide on-demand consulting services for the architectural review of various development plans. The goal is to improve
the overall quality of the projects built within the City of Cupertino through improved architectural design by
providing observations, conclusions, reports and appropriate recommendations in the architectural field. RRM used high levels of skill in technical areas relating to the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and any applicable specific plan and knowledge of architectural design principles.

SEPTEMBER 2021 DRAFT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CITYWIDE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
3 2

II. Project Background, Density Bonus Law, and Purpose of this Review Project Background
The proposed project is located on a 7.9-acre site directly east of Route 85 and west of the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue intersection. The project is proposing 267 housing units, 27 senior care rooms, and 20,000 square-feet of commercial space spread across two buildings. The maximum density allowed under the General Plan is 30 dwelling units per acre, or 237 dwelling units in total. The housing unit mix includes 18 Rowhouses, 70 Townhomes, 131 Market Rate Senior Apartments, 27 senior care rooms, and 48 Below Market Rate (“affordable”) Senior Apartments. A total of 44,945 square-feet of common open space, as well as 2,915 square-feet of common retail outdoor space is also proposed. Based on the number and affordability levels of the affordable housing units in the project, the applicant is requesting three (3) waivers of the development standards for height, slope setback, and dispersion of the affordable units throughout the project under the State Density Bonus Law, the City’s local Density Bonus Ordinance (Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.56), and the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual.

Density Bonus Law
The City of Cupertino has adopted its own local ordinance implementing Government Code Section 65915, State Density Bonus Law, as it relates to provision of affordable housing units within development projects. The City’s ordinance is Chapter 19.56 of the City’s Zoning Code. Chapter 19.56 contains the specific requirements for projects to qualify for a density bonus and for receiving incentives or concessions, waivers, and reductions of parking standards.

Purpose of this Review
As mentioned above, the applicant is proposing to include 48 Below Market Rate Senior Apartment units within the project and, based on the number and affordability levels of these Below Market Rate units, the applicant has requested waivers of three (3) City development standards for height, slope line setback, and dispersion of affordable units.

The applicant has stated in its submittals that application of these development standards would physically preclude the proposed project. This review does not address the affordable unit dispersion waiver requested by the applicant, but provides an analysis of whether the proposed project could be accommodated on the property without the requested height and slope line setback waivers. This review also analyzes whether the base density for the site can be accommodated on the property without the requested height and slope setback waivers.

3 III. Density Bonus Waiver Review
In order to provide a baseline understanding of the currently proposed project, Site Setbacks Sheet G203 was brought into Sketchup, a 3D modeling program, at scale (1 inch = 40 feet) as indicated on the plan sheet. This to-scale site plan provided the foundation for recreating the proposed project in 3D in order to allow for the more in- depth analysis requested by the City as part of this review effort. Other relevant project information, such as property boundary locations, setback locations, floor-to-floor heights, was also captured in the model to inform the analysis portion of this effort as shown below. It should also be mentioned that the slope line setback standard was also modeled at the 45-degree angle from curbline to allow for a clear understanding of how this standard would or would not affect the project design.

Once this was completed, the following three scenarios were analyzed to assist in determining whether the proposed project would be physically precluded without the requested waivers of height and slope line setback standards.

A. Project without Height or Slope Setback Line Waivers: Scenario One Under the Project without Height or Slope Setback Line Waivers, both the height and slope setback line waivers were removed from the project. This limited the building heights to 45-feet and included the 45-degree slope setback from curbline requirements.

As seen in the graphic below, removal of both waivers necessitated moving a significant portion of the Market Rate Senior Apartments from Building 1 to a new location along Stevens Creek Boulevard and a portion of Mary Avenue to accommodate the slope line setback requirement. In general, additional site area required to accommodate the expanded building footprint area, surface parking, and internal roadway layout reduced the total square footage of common residential and common landscape open space areas at ground level below the amount required by HOCSP 1.01.040.C.2.A.

This scenario maintains the overall housing unit number and product type mix identified under the Proposed Project, including retail square footage and retail support space, as well as the proximity of Below Market Rate Senior Apartment units to retail and the nearby senior center.

Physical Preclusion:
 Decrease in total size of Below Market Rate Senior Apartment units at top floor due to slope line setback requirement along Stevens Creek Boulevard and portion of Mary Avenue.
 Loss of required common residential and common landscape open space areas at ground level to accommodate reconfiguration of building footprint Proposed Project - Site Plan
Central
Green
Proposed Project - Bird’s Eye
*Density Bonus Units location assumed and part of Market Rate Senior Apartment unit total for the purposes of this analysis.

Building 1
Building 2
Townhomes
Rowhomes
Affordable Senior Apts.

Market Rate Senior Apts.

Market Rate Senior Density Bonus Apts.*
Retail
Landscaped Area/Open Space
Internal Roads/Surface Parking
Central
Green
Central
Green
Central
Green
Footprint of
Underground
Parking
Roof
Deck
4 3

The adjacent properties to the south of the project site feature two single-story, single- family homes. The applicant has appropriately incorporated larger, enhanced screening trees along portions of the southern boundary to minimize and filter views. However, enhanced screening trees not shown along southern property line at southwest portion.

Going forward, applicant should continue application of the larger, enhanced screening trees along the entire southern boundary to further minimize and filter views from future residences.

Architecture

Through integration of projecting and recessing wall planes, wall height variation, and roofline variation, the applicant has begun to reduce the massing of the individual buildings. While wall plane variation is proposed, the applicant should continue to pursue reducing the overall scale and massing of the project, as it appears “bulky” and “top heavy”, with some areas appearing overly complex. In addition, cantilevered massing elements proposed enhance the “bulky” and “top heavy” appearance, lacking the appearance of structural integrity within the design. Going forward, applicant should look for opportunities to minimize the scale of large, “bulky” massing elements, whether stepping back upper stories, continuing cantilevered elements to ground plane, and/or providing corbels or other design interventions to provide appearance of structural integrity at floating massing elements. For example, large, “bulky” massing element at Front Elevation of Building Type #1 appears to tower over primary unit entries below with small post support appearing inadequate. Moreover, applicant has proposed a large number of vertical massing elements that accentuates the three-story building height. To minimize verticality, applicant should look for opportunities to integrate one- and two-story massing elements to provide horizontal balance while enhancing pedestrian scale and orientation within the project design; with emphasis placed along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard. Lastly, applicant has utilized a number of thin, tacked on massing elements to emphasize unit entries or entry massing. To enhance design, applicant should revise to make tacked on massing appear more integral with overall project design. For example, metal awnings with tie backs at primary unit entries could be more appropriate to provide emphasis rather than thin, tacked on massing elements as proposed.

Roof type proposed for the project is noted as built-up parapet, considered appropriate to the selected “Contemporary” architectural style. To minimize the appearance of long, unarticulated rooflines, the applicant has appropriately jogged roof height throughout project design. While design approach not inappropriate, applicant should look for opportunities to integrate simple banding at parapet to enhance project design.

3 The adjacent properties to the south of the project site feature two single-story, single- family homes. The applicant has appropriately incorporated larger, enhanced screening trees along portions of the southern boundary to minimize and filter views. However, enhanced screening trees not shown along southern property line at southwest portion.

Going forward, applicant should continue application of the larger, enhanced screening trees along the entire southern boundary to further minimize and filter views from future residences.

Architecture

4 Applicant has proposed a variety of articulation within the project design, including awning/overhangs, railings, window frame detail, and fenestration to aide in enhancing the visual aesthetic while minimizing blank wall planes within the overall project design.

To further enhance project articulation, applicant should look for opportunities to further integrate window frame detail, awnings, and/or other articulation at street facing elevations. For example, window frame detail could be applied at Front Elevation of Unit Type #3, while awnings could be refined at primary unit entries and/or at upper windows as “eyebrows” at other elevations. In reviewing Sheet A1.13, Rear Elevation of Building Type #3, elevation appears as one large, blank wall plane. Applicant should integrate additional articulation and/or other design interventions to further minimize this blank wall plane within project design.

Windows proposed for the project include single-hung and fixed window type in a variety of sizes and configurations, considered appropriate to the selected architectural style.

Doors for the project include a stylistic appropriate primary entry door and garage door.

While applicant has generally aligned windows both vertically and horizontally across all elevations, applicant may consider additional refinements to windows at Front Elevations at all Unit Types to ensure vertical and horizontal balance.

Primary unit entries for the individual residences are oriented towards and take access from both Stevens Creek Boulevard and North Foothill Boulevard. While applicant has begun to bring attention to these primary building elements through use of awning/overhangs and unique door colors, we have a number of concerns with the primary entries as currently proposed. In general, primary entries appear “tucked away” and “hidden” within the overall building composition. Moreover, entry compositions appear overly complex and further the appearance of being “tucked away” within building design. For example, Front Elevation Sheet A1.13, entry appears hidden at street scene. Going forward, applicant should pursue design interventions to bring greater attention to primary entries, while simplifying their composition within the overall project design. If privacy at street is a concern, applicant should consider other design interventions appropriate to the selected architectural style to address privacy concerns while maintaining visibility at street. Lastly, while applicant has begun to individualize primary entry doors through use of accent colors, applicant should consider integrating additional primary entry door colors to further individualize units and enhance overall project design.

Colors and materials for the project are considered appropriate to the selected architectural style. Colors proposed include White Duck SW 7010, Thunderous SW 6201, Black Fox SW 7020, White Raisin SW 7606, and Lemon Verbena SW 7726, with Materials proposed include aluminum siding in Dark Cherry, modern architectural metal railing and window frames, glass, and stone veneer in Sandollar. However, we have a number of concerns with the color and materials palette for the project as proposed. In Unit Type #1 - Front Elevation Unit Type #3 - Front Elevation Massing elements at entries appear “tacked on”.

Revise to make massing appear more integral or
refine entry massing design.

Cantilevered elements appear
supported by rafters/corbels.

Entry integrated into design
and highlighted through
appropriately attached
elements.

Third-story setback alternated
to provide appearance of two-
and three-story elements.

Third-story recessed behind
Front Elevation to minimize
appearance and emphasize
pedestrian scale.

Example Three-Story Residential

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 32 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

MASTER PLAN

S LIVERMORE AVE

RAILROAD AVE

EAST/WEST ROAD

NEW COMMERCIAL

THEATRE

FUTURE RESIDENTIAL

FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
NEW

COMMERCIAL

SCIENCE & SOCIETY
CENTER
Linear Park (Public)
Flexible Event Plaza
Gateway With Park Signage
Service Access
Connection to First Street
Interactive
Science-Themed
Play Features
Outdoor
Dining, Typ.

Seat Wall, Typ
Lawn
Stockmen’s
Park Monument
Play Area
Bench, Typ.

Future Parking Structure Parking Parking

EXISTING

BUILDING

BLACKSMITH SQUARE

EXISTING

BUILDING

STREET TREE
Ulmus parviflora
(Chinese Elm)

SHADE TREE OPTIONS
Platanus x acerifolia
(London Plane Tree)
Koelreuteria paniculata
(Goldenrain Tree)
Prunus cerasifera
‘Krauter Vesuvius’
(Purple Leaf Plum)

ACCENT TREE OPTIONS
X Chitalpa tashkentensis
(Chitalpa)
Lagerstroemia ‘Natchez’
(White Crape Myrtle)
Cercis canadensis
(Eastern Redbud)

PLAZA & PATIO TREE OPTIONS
Ginkgo biloba ‘Autumn Gold’
(Maidenhair Tree)
Zelkova serrata
(Sawleaf Zelkova)
Stockmen’s Park will pay homage to its namesake
association in the following ways:

1. Stockmen’s Statue, sculpted in heroic scale, is a tribute to Livermore’s sons and daughters that served their country in World War I. The piece depicts a rancher swapping his cowboy hat with a military helmet. It will be accompanied by an interpretive plaque with historical information.

2. Cattle Brands representing ranching families from
throughout the Livermore Area will be integrated into site features – such as etched into concrete.

STOCKMEN’S PARK
LIVERMORE, CA.
0’ 60’30’ 15’ 90’
AUGUST 21, 2018SCALE 1” = 30’
RRM Design Group worked with the City to lead an extensive community engagement process to convert a parking lot into a new town square, Stockmen’s Park. The new community hub includes direct connections to Livermore’s downtown commercial district, nearby Bankhead Theater, and surrounding pocket parks and plazas.

Simultaneously, RRM prepared design guidelines for the greater downtown area to serve as a design manual for consistent and cohesive public and private development in the downtown core.

This new civic greenspace is the centerpiece of the City’s larger Downtown Concept Plan, and will feature significant cultural facilities around a central lawn – a black-box theatre, a Science Center, and a heroic scale bronze statue – in addition to new restaurant STOCKMEN’S PARK

AND DOWNTOWN CORE

LANDSCAPE CONCEPT

LIVERMORE, CA
NOTABLE INFO & STATS:

Client: City of Livermore
Project Timeline: 2018-2020
Project Size: 3.1 acre
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Landscape Architecture,
Civil Engineering, Planning
Engineering Excellence Award
--------
American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC),
Bay Bridge Chapter, 2020

DOWNTOWN LIVERMORE CONCEPT PLAN

LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES
DRAFT
September 12, 2018
and c ommercial b uildings,
and adjacent multifamily
residential. RRM has worked
closely with stakeholder
groups like the Stockmen’s
Rodeo Association, the
statue artist, local businesses,
and community groups to
design the park including
special features to celebrate
the region’s culture and
historical context.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 33 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

SAN MATEO

CENTRAL PARK

MASTER PLAN UPDATE

SAN MATEO, CA
NOTABLE INFO & STATS:

Client: City of San Mateo
Project Timeline: 2013-Present
Project Size: 16.3 Acres
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Landscape Architecture, Architecture,
Engineering, Surveying, Public Outreach
Central Park – the jewel of downtown San Mateo – dates back to 1924, and was originally the site of the private Kohl estate.

The park balances many uses, ranging from passive (picnicking, playgrounds, Japanese Tea Gardens, Community Center) to active uses (baseball, tennis). The park also currently plays host to many of the San Mateo community’s larger events and festivals, such as a summer concert series, and a winter ice skating rink. The City retained RRM Design Group to prepare a new long-range master plan with significant input from the community. These outreach efforts included public meetings, focus group sessions, key stakeholder meetings, and a variety of social media outlets. After receiving direction from the Park and Recreation Commission and City Council, RRM prepared alternatives to address park planning concepts consistent with the planning objectives.

CENTRAL PARK PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 2021

SAN MATEO, CA

ADVENTURE VILLAGE SITE PLAN
0’ 32’16’ 8’ 48’
SCALE 1” = 16’
Frog Bubbling Brook Water Feature
Tot climber with small slide
Owl’s Nest Quiet Cubby
Willow hut
Stone seat walls
Sensory features along path
Parent picnic table
Toddler tables
Fairy Garden (Fairy Play House with
slide, Magical Snail play sculpture,
Fairy Ring mushroom steppers/seats)
Existing ficus tree root flare
Lower deck seating area
Stacked log climber
Stone cairn climbers
Layered stone wall
Zip line
Sculptural spinners
Magical Bird Climber
Stone entry plaza with public art
Willow arch entry to treasure hunt
Snake Sand Area
Flexible use lawn area
New restroom
New trees
Existing tree trunk locations
Group picnic shelter with BBQs
Wood/composite gathering deck
with tables
Fabric shade shelter over gathering nodes
Music Area
Swing Zone (high swings, basket, tire,
toddler bucket, belt, ADA harness seats)
Individual picnic area

FITZGERALD FIELD

EL CAMINO REAL

EXISTING GROUP
PICNIC

FUTURE TENNIS

COURT LOCATION

EXISTING TRAIN RIDE
New entry monument and planting
3’-high perimeter fence
Playground gated entry point
Passive picnic area beneath trees
Group picnic area
Top deck with tables
Rope tunnel
Climbing wall
Slide at boardwalk top deck
Stairs to existing train ride entry
LEGEND
1 1
10 10
19 19
28 28
37 37
2 2
2 2
2 2
11 11
20 20
29 29
38 38
38 3
3 3
3 3
3 12
12 21
21 41
41 50
50 30
30 39
39 4
4 4
4 4
13 13
22 22
42 42
51 51
51 51
46 46
55 55
55 55 55
58 58
58 58
58 56
56 59
59 59
59 31
31 40
40 49
49 5
5 14
14 23
23 43
43 43
43 43
52 52
52 32
32 6
6 15
15 24
24 44
44 44
44 44
44 44
44 53
53 53
47 47
33 33
7 7
16 16
25 25
45 45
54 54
54 54
54 57
57 48
48 34
34 8
8 17
17 26
26 35
35 35
35 9
9 18
18 27
27 36
36 +0’+2.5’
+7’
+10.5’
+5’
+13.5’
+5’
+7.5’
+8’
Rubber/artificial turf mound
2-story Wizard Tower with tube slide from second floor
Hobbit House beneath mound
Elf House Play Tower with overlook deck and bridges to mounds Pod climbers
Stone wall
Stairs to second floor of Lookout Tower
Accessible circulation with sensory features along perimeter of wall Slide coming off of stone mound
2-story Lookout Tower with accessible wide slide
Mulch area
Sand
Decomposed granite
Poured-in-place rubber/cork surfacing
Engineered wood fiber
Artificial turf
Decorative concrete
Existing paving
New concrete path
27 15
16 1239
31 30
33 6.j.3
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 34 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN lvvv

CITY OF LONG BEACH
CONsuLTING d
EsIGN rEvIEw
ALAMITOs
BAY rEvITALIZATION &
sHOPPING CENTEr r
EMOdEL

PACIFIC COA
sT HIGHwAY & EAsT 2Nd sT., LONG BEACH CAOCTOBEr 3, 2012#1411124 A1
sHEET INdEX:

A1 - urban design Context
A2 - site Planning Comments
A3 - Landscape Plan Comments
A4 - Architectural
design Comments
A5 - Architectural
design Comments
A6 - Architectural
design Comments
urBAN dEsIGN CONTEXT
Google Earth Aerial Photograph NTs southern Gateway to Long Beach
from Huntington Beach and west-
minister along PCH and 2nd
street.

Proposed monument sign located
in the prominent landscape area
adjacent to intersection should
better reflect the community
image.

PCH
2ND STREET
Commercial node composed of
multiple commercial buildings and
shopping center.

Proposed new redevelopment
of sea Port Hotel site with “PCH
& 2nd” shopping center. Atten-
tion should be given to providing
a compatible design and image
between the two centers.
street trees provide a memorable
pattern, attention should be given
to tree specie selection as it rein-
forces the community image.

SITE

GATEWAY

COMMERCIAL
NODE
Project site is within a visually •
sensitive area and the
project should strengthen the
community character
use of street furniture and tex-•
tured paving that connects pub-
lic sidewalks to building entries
and pedestrian plazas/usable
open space is encouraged
Prominent south-bound views of
back of shopping center create
the importance of four-sided
architecture.

GATEwAY
LEGENd
COMMErCIAL
NOdE
sITE
Context | Understanding the Urban Fabric
13 3
Context
Draft - August 2014Placemaking
The previous sections described the elements of natural features, corridors, and public space within a regional context across the City
� However, most people experience the City at the everyday scale of neighborhoods and centers, like Downtown Long Beach, where pedestrian and commercial activities are focused
� These are the places that often define a city’s sense of itself, and making a variety of great places across diverse terrain and communities is what great cities are about� Understanding the existing character or spirit of a place, paired with a vision of its potential future, provides a framework to support “placemaking” of these vital centers�
The scale of each place can vary from just a couple of blocks to a larger reach in larger districts
� There are “commercial/corner nodes” which are more like an auto-oriented regional commercial center, and “pedestrian-oriented places” which look more like a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood center �
Both of these types of places must consider pedestrians and cars, but they server two very different purposes
�
In each, the challenge will be to enhance the pedestrian experience and not simply facilitate the movement of
traffic through these places
� In creating a comprehensive “placemaking” vision, it will be essential to balance the needs of automobiles and pedestrians
� In partnership with the communities, these centers will be refined and will inform the recommended development standards and
guidelines�
Increasing density will also need to be considered to
make some of the neighborhood centers more viable
�
Providing a mix of services that include provision for
additional housing options will help to create livable
communities that integrate strategies for mobility, density, and amenities � Selecting key focus areas within the neighborhood centers will provide a catalyst and example of how a place can evolve into a vibrant center of activity for the neighborhood� Most great cities possess a rich variety of styles and form� Recommendations at the General Plan level need to provide enough guidance to offer inspiration and allow for creativity and great design to flourish�
Placeholder
Placeholder
Placeholder
Urban Design Element | City of Long Beach
32 Urban Design
Plan
4 Draft - August 2014
Map UD-3

PLACETYPE MAP

ARTESIA
FWY

SAN DIEGO FWY

LONG BEACH FWY
TER
M

INAL IS

LAND AVE

UNION PACIFIC RR
UN
ION
PACIF
IC R
R

SAN DIEGO FWY

LONG BEACH FWY

ARTESIA FWY
SAN G
AB
RIE
L
RIVER
FW
Y
TE
RMIN

AL ISLAND AVE
W
SHORE
LI
NE D
R E

1/4 MI
1/4 MI
RADIUS :

UPRR
MTA
MTA
MTA
RADIUS :
0 0.5
1 0.25
Mile

ARTESIA FWY

ARTESIA
CHER
RY
SOUTH

LONG BEACH BLVD

DEL AMO BLVD
DIEGO
SPRING
WILLOW

PACIFIC COAST
CHERRY

SANTA FE

ANAHEIM
7TH
7TH
BEACH

PACIFIC COAST PACIFIC COAST
SPRING
2ND
L A
County

PARAMOUNT DOWNEY

ATLANTIC
ORANGE
MARKET

DEL AMO

CARSONORANGE
CONANT
SAN
ANTON
IO
SAN
FWY

BROADWAY OCEAN
CHERRY
ORANGE
OCEAN

HARBOR SCENIC
OCEAN
2ND
LOYNES
ELIOT
XIM
ENO

ATHERTON
PARK
APPIAN
WILLOW

WARDLOW

STEARNS
CLARK
CLARK

SAN DIEGO FWY
70TH
4TH

LOS ANGELES RIVER

PACIFIC

BROADWAY
SAN
GAB

RIEL RIV
ER

ALAMITOS
4TH

HARDING
7TH
10TH

ANAHEIM
City of
Carson
City of
Seal Beach
City of
Compton
City of
Signal Hill
City of
Paramount City of
Bellflower
City of
Hawaiian
City of
Los Angeles
City of
Lakewood
405
605
710
605
405
405
405
710
710
91 22
47 103
91 SANTA FE
BIXBY

PACIFIC
TEMPLE
City of
Los Alamitos
405
405
710
47 103
91 COYOTES DIAGNAL
CARSON
3RD

STUDEBAKER

BELLFLOWER

LAKEWOOD

PALO VERDE

REDONDO

TERMINO JUNIPERO

SAN GABRIEL RIVER
Legend
OS - Open Space
CN - Contemporary Neighborhood
FN - Founding Neighborhood
Multiple Family Residential
Neighborhood Serving Center or Corridor
Transit -Oriented Development
MFR -L - Multiple Family Residential - Low
MFR -M - Multiple Family Residential - Moderate
NSC-L - Neighborhood Serving Center or Corridor - Low
NSC-M - Neighborhood Serving Center or Corridor - Low
TOD-L - Transit-Oriented Development - Low
TOD-M - Transit-Oriented Development - Moderate
CC - Community Commercial
I - Industrial
NI - Neo Industrial
RSF - Regional Serving Facility
DT - Downtown
WF - Waterfront
PlaceTypes
The City of Long Beach hired RRM to assist with specialized planning services, including design review, special studies, peer reviews, and other similar tasks. As part of this contract, RRM has provided a significant amount of support to the General Plan Update process including, preparing the Urban Design Element and Noise Element, assisting with graphics and peer review of the Land Use Element, and facilitating an extensive multi-lingual outreach effort including surveys, pop-up events, traditional workshops, and informational campaigns to ensure community-driven Elements. The Urban Design Element outlines strategies and policies intended for long-term effects of incorporating sustainable design practices, promoting health and wellness opportunities, appropriate transitions for infill development, protection of the existing neighborhood character, and creating vibrant and active public spaces into development decisions.

A variety of visual simulations and renderings were developed to depict improvements to the public realm and future development potential. RRM Design Group also developed a Parklet and Outdoor Dining Handbook that provides design guidelines and development standards to enhance the public realm with vibrant outdoor spaces that activate the street, foster social interaction, and improve pedestrian activity adjacent to businesses.

LONG BEACH

ON-CALL PLANNING SERVICES

LONG BEACH, CA
NOTABLE INFO AND STATS:

Client: City of Long Beach
Project Timeline: 2012-Present
RRM SERVICES PROVIDED:

Planning, Architecture,
Landscape Architecture
MArINA drIvE ELEvATION
PArkING/sHOPs ELEvAITON
2Nd sTrEET ELEvATION
PACIFIC COAsT HIGHw
AY ELEvATION
lvvv

CITY OF LONG BEACH
CONsuLTING d
EsIGN rEvIEw
ALAMITOs
BAY rEvITALIZATION &
sHOPPING CENTEr r
EMOdEL

PACIFIC COA
sT HIGHwAY & EAsT 2Nd sT., LONG BEACH CA
OCTOBEr 3, 2012
#1411124
A6
ArCHITECTurAL dEsIGN COMMENTs
Berkeley Bowl Marketplace, Berkeley, California
Cvs Pharmacy, Prairie village, Missouri
Cvs Pharmacy, New Jersey
show how trash enclosure
design can be better integrated
into the building architecture. Cvs architectural style, materials and colors should fit with Long Beach’s
desire for a contemporary and modern
architectural style.

The proposed Prairie village Cvs
Pharmacy is a good example of
how corporate architecture can be
modified to fit into a community’s
character and provide more
pedestrian level fenestration
The Cvs corporate architectural style,
as shown below, is not recommended
nor is a spanish architectural style.

It is recommended that a more
contemporary style be developed that
has a coastal or marina influence. The side entry building design may be appropriate. Translucent
panels help make fenestration
appear larger.

Additional
fenestration on
side elevations
(2nd st. & Marina
dr.) is strongly
recommended.
recommend at
least the current
amount of bank
fenestration for
new remodel on
each elevation.

An old safeway Grocery store in Berkeley was remodeled by architect david Trachtenberg creating an updated and contemporary design. Good proportion of glazing to solid mass with interesting roof lines and accent lighting.

Corner building entry and
additional pedestrian level
glazing is encouraged to achieve
4-sided architecture.

Canopy and awnings at a
pedestrian scale help reduce the
building height and mass.
lvvv
CITY OF LONG BEACH CONsuLTING dEsIGN rEvIEw
ALAMITOs BAY rEvITALIZATION & sHOPPING CENTEr r EMOdEL
PACIFIC COAsT HIGHwAY & EAsT 2Nd sT., LONG BEACH CA
OCTOBEr 3, 2012
#1411124
A4
ArCHITECTurAL
dEsIGN COMMENTs
Consider using
contemporary roof form/
material to achieve an
architectectural style more
compatible with the City
of Long Beach’s image. A
spanish architectural style is
not recommended.

Main building entry should be
oriented towards 2nd street
if possible with an integrated
landscape plaza. If the entry
remains oriented towards Marina
drive, then the facade facing 2nd
Street should a significant amount of
fenestration.
recommend providing increased
fenestration to the main entry area and a
less massive architectural style. Please
review the images of the wholefood’s
Market in Tustin (sht. A5) and the Berkeley
Bowl Marketplace (sht. A6) for successful
grocery store remodels. Both provide the
level of fenestration that are recommended.

Translucent glazing helps make the
tower more contemporary looking
and lightens the mass.

Corner entry creates a small
pedestrai oriented plaza with raised
planters and seating.

There is a current proposal for rede-
velopment of sea Port Hotel site with
the “PCH & 2nd” shopping center.

Attention should be given to providing
a compatible design and image be-
tween these two shopping centers.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 35 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

SAN CARLOS
825-835 INDUSTRIAL ROAD

SAN CARLOS, CA
NOTABLE INFO & STATS:

Client: City of San Carlos
Project Size: Office buildings totaling
528,500 sf and a 1,510 space parking garage
Lamphier-Gregory
A private developer acquired an 8-acre site located at 825-835 Industrial Road, adjacent to Highway 101. The project involved replacing six existing one-story industrial buildings with twin equally-sized six-story Class A office buildings totaling 528,500 square feet and a 1,510 space multi-story parking garage.

It was assumed at the outset that a full Environmental Impact Report would be required for the project because of anticipated significant impacts. However, technical studies including traffic, air quality, noise study and others all concluded that potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels by implementing appropriate mitigation measures. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was adopted with project approvals in 2016.

Following approval of the project and adoption of the IS/MND, the project was subsequently revised to that under construction today.

When presented with the project revisions that were triggering City staff to request consideration under CEQA, Lamphier- Gregory supported the use of targeted supplemental technical analyses to demonstrate that no further review would be required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The revised project was approved in June 2018 and is currently under construction.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 36 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

SAN CARLOS

ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS/SAN

CARLOS AVENUE CORRIDOR ROAD

SAN CARLOS, CA
NOTABLE INFO :

Client: City of San Carlos
This study provided an evaluation of potential circulation improvements to Alameda de las Pulgas between Ralston
Avenue and Club Drive-Dartmouth Avenue. W-Trans
evaluated pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular circulation issues along the corridor in the vicinity of Carlmont
High School and Tierra Linda Middle School. The project included data collection, review and analysis, alternatives/ options development and public outreach. Alternatives
were developed that include options for traffic (bicycle and vehicular) circulation, pedestrian circulation, and parking within the public right-of-way and on both school campuses.

Also considered were alternative school entrances/exits, traffic control measures for the corridor and side streets and alternatives for improving transit through the corridor.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 37 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

ANTIOCH

ECONOMIC BASELINE ANALYSIS

AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

STRATEGIC PLAN

SAN CARLOS, CA
NOTABLE INFO :

Client: City of Antioch
Project Timeline: 2020-Present
TNDG is currently leading the preparation of an Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) for the City of Antioch.

This work has involved the completion of a range of technical background studies (workforce demographic analysis, real estate demand forecasts, and a target industry study), as well as the facilitation of a series of virtual stakeholder workshops (the “Antioch Economic Development Summit”). The
target industry analysis included an in-depth review of the major industrial growth opportunities in the larger East Bay region. The final EDSP (currently underway) will consist of recommended citywide economic development policies and marketing materials focused on leveraging key developable areas (Somersville Towne Center, BART station area, and waterfront industrial sites).

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 38 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

LIVERMORE

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

LIVERMORE, CA
NOTABLE INFO:

Client: City of LIvermore
GPA is assisting PlaceWorks with the 2045 General
Plan Update for the City of Livermore as it relates to
historical resources. Services to date have included a
summary of existing conditions and policies. Additional services for this ongoing project will consist of the
evaluation of land use alternatives, policy options and recommendations, preparing a technical report to be incorporated into the EIR chapter for the General Plan
update, and responding to comments on the Final EIR as
they relate to historical resources.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 39 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

REFERENCES
RRM’s staff members who will serve as members of the City of San Carlos Downtown Specific Plan are all available to serve the interests of this project. As a multidisciplinary design firm with over 160 professionals on staff, our workload list is very extensive. To balance this workload, we assign staff members to the entire life cycle of a project. As such, we have prioritized our staff’s availability for your project, and are ready to hit the ground running. If you check our references, you will find that our clients appreciate our work and the high level of service we provide.

The following is a partial list of public agency clients RRM has worked with in the past 12 months:
• City of Capitola
• City of Concord
• City of Cupertino
• City of Dinuba
• City of Dixon
• City of Dublin
• City of El Cajon
• City of Goleta
• City of La Puenta
• City of Long Beach
• City of Merced
• City of Morro Bay
• City of Murrieta
• City of Newman
• City of Port Hueneme
• City of Porterville
• City of Rosemead
• City of San Juan Capistrano
• City of San Luis Obispo
• City of San Ramon
• City of Santa Barbara
• County of Santa Barbara
• City of Santa Cruz
• County of Santa Cruz
• City of Santa Paula
• City of Temple City
• City of Ventura
• County of Ventura
• City of Vista
• City of Walnut Creek

BRENDA WISNESKI, AICP
Director of Community Development
(Former Deputy Community Development Director with the
City of Newport Beach)
City of Dana Point
33282 Golden Lantern
Dana Point, CA 92629
(949) 248-3560 | [email protected]
PROJECT(S):

Balboa Village Design Guidelines, Streetscape Improvement Plan, and Wayfinding Sign Program
See full project description on page 19

JESSICA VON BORCK, LEED AP
Executive Director of Land Use
Stanford University
450 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305
(650) 723-2300 | [email protected]
PROJECT(S):

Standford University Building & Design Regulations Handbook See full project description on page 27
North 40 Specific Plan
See full project description on page 29
Fremont Design Guidelines and Design Review Services
WHITNEY McNAIR
Senior Associate Provost and
Executive Director, Faculty Staff Housing
Stanford University
P.O. Box 20410
Stanford, CA 94309
(650) 799-4380 | [email protected]
PROJECT(S):

Standford University Building & Design Regulations Handbook See full project description on page 27

ETHAN BINDERNAGEL, AICP
Community Development Director and
Assistant City Manager
(Former Planning Manager with the City of Walnut Creek) City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
(925) 671-5284 | [email protected]
PROJECT(S):

Shadelands Gateway Specific Plan
See full project description on page 25

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 40 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

DARREN CHOY

PE, ENV SP
Civil Engineer

SCOTT MARTIN

AIA, LEED AP , CNU-A
Architect

LAMPHIER-GREGORY
Rebecca Auld

DEBBIE JEWELL
PLA
Urban Design +
Landscape A rchitect

JAMI WILLIAMS, CNU-A
PROJECT MANAGER + COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

DIANE BATHGATE, AICP , CNU-A

PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE

CI TY OF SA N CA RLOS

RRM DESIGN GROUP

SUBCONSULTANTS

ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE

ENVIRONMENTAL
URBAN DESIGN

ASSEMBLING OUR TEAM
RRM is dedicated to Creating Environments People Enjoy. We understand what it takes for a Specific Plan to be successful. Our team has extensive experience engaging with the public and private sides of planning efforts. Whether a large adaptive reuse Specific Plan or a small affordable housing entitlement project, we give both the same amount of care and attention. We understand the desires of a community and how to balance that with the needs of private property owners and developers. We listen, collaborate, and bring solutions to the table that are place-based yet realistic in the sense that future projects can be implemented and brought to fruition.

W-TRANS
Brian Canepa
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

NATELSON DALE GROUP
Roger Dale

ECONOMICS

ABRAHAM SHEPPARD

DEPUTY ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER
IN-HOUSE PROJECT SUPPORT STAFF

ARCHITECTS / PLANNERS

URBAN DESIGNERS / ENGINEERS

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
RRM Design Group has a variety of in-house resources
which assist with special projects when needed.

GPA CONSULTING
Andrea G alvin

HISTORICAL

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 41 41SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN With drive to serve both the community and the environment, Diane Bathgate e mbodies c ompassionate l eadership a s a P rincipal a t R RM. H er collaborative a pproach t o l eadership a nd d esign f osters a n a ll-inclusive space f or c reativity a nd p roblem-solving. S pecializing i n b oth p ublic and p rivate s ectors, D iane o ffers a v ersatile a pproach t o p lanning a nd design. H er e xperience s pans f rom l and-use p lanning a nd u rban d esign to e nvironmental c onsulting a nd c ommunity l eadership. U ltimately, her e xpansive k nowledge a nd c ommitment t o p ublic w ellbeing f uel her p rofessional e ndeavors. V aluing c ollaboration a nd m utual r espect, Diane i s d edicated t o c reating p rojects t hat n ot o nly f ulfill e ach c lient’s need but benefit the greater community.

INTRODUCING DIANE... DIANE BATHGATE | AICP , CNU-A

PRINCIPAL

OTHER RELEVANT PROJECTS
• Agoura Village Specific Plan,
Agoura Hills
• Alhambra General Plan Update,
Alhambra
• American Canyon Contract Planning
Services, American Canyon
• Azusa TOD General Plan/Development
Code Update and Specific Plan, Azusa
• Balboa Avenue Station Area Specific
Plan, San Diego
• Big Bear Village Specific Plan Update,
Big Bear Lake
• Colton Downtown Development Code
and Design Manual, Colton
• El Monte Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, El Monte
• Encinitas SB 2 Planning Grant
(Objective Design Standards), Encinitas
• Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and
Design Guidelines, Rialto
• Fullerton Downtown Core & Corridors
Specific Plan, Fullerton
• Gilroy Downtown Visioning Charrette,
Specific Plan, and Design Guidelines,
Gilroy
• Huntington Beach Downtown Specific
Plan, Huntington Beach
• Huntington Park Downtown Specific
Plan, Huntington Park
• North 40 Specific Plan, Los Gatos
• North Sierra Corridor Plan, Specific
Plan, and EIR, Inyo County
• Pomona Downtown Specific Plan
Update, Pomona
• Salinas Public Art Master Plan, Salinas,
• Santa Cruz County Coastal
Restoration/Reuse Plan (Davenport
Cement Plant), Davenport
• Shadelands Gateway Specific Plan,
Walnut Creek
• Soledad Miravale III Specific Plan,
Soledad
• Stanford’s San Juan Residential
District, Palo Alto
• Stanton Livable Beach Boulevard
Mobility Plan, Stanton
• Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific
Plan, Thousand Oaks
• Whittier Boulevard Specific Plan
Improvements, Whittier
• Yorba Linda Housing Element
Implementation Program (Multifamily
Design Guidelines), Yorba Linda
• Yorba Linda Town Center Specific Plan,
Yorba Linda

CREATING

ENVIRONMENTS
PEOPLE
ENJOY
Project Role
Principal-in-Charge
Experience
35 Years Experience
17+ Years with RRM
Education
Bachelor of Arts, Environmental
Studies and Psychology, University
of California, Santa Barbara, CA
Graduate Studies, Public
Administration, California State
University, Long Beach, CA
Coursework, Planning Law,
Environmental Design,
Architecture, University of
California, Irvine, CA
Accreditations
• Affiliations
Certifications • Licenses
Congress for the New Urbanism
Accredited (CNU-A)
American Planning Association
(APA)
American Institute of Certified
Planners (AICP)
Association of Environmental
Professionals (AEP)
The City of Rosemead hired RRM to complete the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. The Southern California Association of Governments allocated 4,612 units for Rosemead’s 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers.

The forthcoming Housing Element outlines development feasibility and strategies for those units, considering the State’s ever-changing housing legislation, the City’s existing Housing Element, General Plan, and other related documents. The project team is completing the policy document this year as the adoption of the element is mandated by October 2021. Furthermore, Senate Bill 379 (SB379) prompted a complimentary public safety element update and the development of environmental justice policies, both of which are being addressed as a part of this effort.

In response to COVID, the City of Brea found creative ways to extend the indoor retail/restaurant space outdoors and successfully built a parklet in the right-of-way on West Birch Street. In collaboration with the Brea Downtown Owners Association, the City hired RRM to enhance West Birch Street with six additional parklets between Madrona Avenue and Walnut Avenue. RRM provided a feasibility study to include concept designs, best practice standards, pros and cons, opinion of probable costs, and other considerations. The designs were based on the Business Owner’s Association parklet concept as a starting point and existing as-builts of West Birch Street. The feasibility study was be presented at a City Council study session in September 2021. §¨¦10 Del Mar Ave
Hellman Ave Whitmore St
0 200100
Feet ´
1 inch = 200 feet (24x36 Sheet Size)
Date: 6/11/2020
Freeway Corridor Mixed-Use Overlay
Rosemead Freeway Corridor Mixed-Use Overlay
Area One
Area Information
Number of Parcels
Total Area Acreage
Parcel Size Ranges
95 28.1

0.05 - 2.4 AC
(1,750 - 104,500 SF)
Relevant Project Experience: Rosemead Housing Element Update Relevant Project Experience: Downtown Brea Parklets Feasibility Study Additional Relevant Projects with Project Descriptions
Starting on page 25, you will find additional relevant projects from our team with project details, descriptions, and graphics.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 42 42SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN With a B achelor o f A rchitecture d egree a nd a M aster o f B usiness Administration, J ami p ossesses t he q ualities n ecessary t o p roduce creative, r ealistic a nd b usiness-conscious d esign s olutions t hat w ill guide f uture i mprovements o f t he C ity o f S an C arlos. W ith o ver 2 0 years o f e xperience a s a n u rban d esigner a nd p roject m anager, J ami’s unique p erspective e nables h er t o a dvance p rojects f rom t he e arly community o utreach a nd v isioning s tages t o t he d evelopment o f u rban design p lans a nd p olicy d ocuments t hat a re c reative y et r ealistic a nd implementation f ocused. S he i s w ell-versed i n s mart g rowth, m ixed-use and t ransit-oriented p lanning p rinciples t hat m aximize q uality d esign, minimize c osts, a nd b uild o n c ommunity c onsensus. S he e xcels i n p ublic outreach, i dentifying p ublic c oncerns a nd p references a nd t ranslating them i nto c utting-edge w orkable d esigns a nd p olicy d ocuments t hat can b e e asily u nderstood b y c ommunity m embers a nd i mplemented by h er p ublic a gency c lients. F urther, h er s trong c ommunication a nd organization s kills c onsistently e nsure s he d elivers p rojects o n t ime and on budget, always focusing on client satisfaction.

INTRODUCING JAMI... JAMI WILLIAMS | CNU-A

PRINCIPAL

OTHER RELEVANT PROJECTS
• Agoura Village Specific Plan,
Agoura Hills
• Azusa TOD General Plan/Development
Code Update and Specific Plan, Azusa,
• Balboa Avenue Station Area Specific
Plan, San Diego
• Balboa Village Design Guidelines,
Streetscape Improvement Plan, and
Wayfinding Sign Program,
Newport Beach
• Capitola Mall Design Peer Review
Services, Capitola
• Claremont Village West Specific Plan
and Design Guidelines, Claremont
• Colton Downtown Development Code
and Design Manual, Colton
• Cupertino Consulting Architectural
Review Services, Cupertino
• Dublin Citywide Multifamily Design
Standards, Dublin
• Dublin On-Call Contract Planning
Services - On-Site, Dublin
• El Monte Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, El Monte
• Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and
Design Guidelines, Rialto
• Fremont Design Guidelines and Design
Review Services, Fremont
• Fullerton Downtown Core & Corridors
Specific Plan, Fullerton
• Gilroy Downtown Visioning Charrette,
Specific Plan, and Design Guidelines,
Gilroy
• Hayward Industrial District Regulations
Update, Hayward
• Huntington Beach Downtown Specific
Plan, Huntington Beach
• Huntington Park Downtown Specific
Plan, Huntington Park
• Merced County Community Plans
(Franklin-Beachwood), Merced County
• Morgan Hill Design Guidelines,
Morgan Hill
• North 40 Specific Plan, Los Gatos
• North Sierra Corridor Plan, Specific
Plan, and EIR, Inyo County
• Northgate Boulevard Master Plan,
Sacramento
• Ojai Arcade Plaza, Ojai
• Pomona Downtown Specific Plan
Update, Pomona
• San Ysidro Community Plan Update,
San Diego
• San Ysidro Historic Village Specific
Plan, San Diego
• Shadelands Gateway Specific Plan,
Walnut Creek
• Soledad Miravale III Specific Plan,
Soledad
• Stanford’s San Juan Residential
District, Palo Alto
• Stanton Livable Beach Boulevard
Mobility Plan, Stanton
• Whittier Boulevard Specific Plan
Improvements, Whittier
• Yorba Linda Town Center Specific Plan,
Yorba Linda
The Specific Plan proved to be a successful guiding document that resulted in the implementation of an economically vibrant, pedestrian-oriented mixed-use neighborhood. Uses currently established are in the planning stage include a blend of senior or affordable housing, retail, restaurants, a health club, and green space. It involved significant public outreach working with an appointed Advisory Committee to develop a mixed-use and pedestrian-oriented project that serves the neighborhood while preserving mature oak trees and providing open space.

Relevant Project Experience: Shadelands Gateway Specific Plan Relevant Project Experience: North 40 Specific Plan

CREATING

ENVIRONMENTS
PEOPLE
ENJOY
Project Role
Project Manager
Experience
23 Years Experience
20+ Years with RRM
Education
Master of Business Administration,
Architecture Management Track,
California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo, CA
Bachelor of Architecture,
California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo, CA
Semester Design Program, Ecole
Des Beaux Art Americaines De
Fontainbleau, France
Associate of Science, Cuyamaca
College, San Diego, CA
Accreditations
• Affiliations
Certifications • Licenses
Congress for New Urbanism
Accredited (CNU-A)
American Planning Association
(APA), Member
Urban Land Institute (ULI),
Associate Member
Additional Relevant Projects with Project Descriptions
Starting on page 25, you will find additional relevant projects from our team with project details, descriptions, and graphics.

“We found RRM staff, particularly Jami Williams, to be
highly responsive, consistently met the project timelines and consciousness. The staff was always available for
meetings and were flexible in adding additional advisory committees and public outreach meetings. I would have no hesitation in hiring RRM for another project!”
--------
- Wendie Rooney, Former Director of Community Development, Town of Los Gatos

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 43 43SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN With a life-long interest in the built environment and a diverse range of education and experience in urban design and planning, Abe is an integral player in all of his projects. His experience includes multimodal corridor planning/design, site and neighborhood design, community and specific plans, design guidelines, and active transportation plans. Additionally, Abe empowers his projects’ communities through inclusive engagement campaigns and targeted outreach, seeking diverse ranges of input to help shape community- driven plans and projects. His passion for creating places and spaces that improve individuals’ daily experiences results in functional and practical projects and are imaginative in a way that enhances both his clients’ and communities’ quality of life.

INTRODUCING ABRAHAM... ABRAHAM SHEPPARD

SENIOR URBAN DESIGNER

OTHER RELEVANT PROJECTS
• Alisal Complete Streets Corridor Plan,
Salinas*
• Alisal Vibrancy Plan, Salinas*
• Avenal Active Transportation and Safe
Routes to School Plan, Avenal*
• Bay Area Slow Streets Implementation
Toolkit, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC)*
• Carlsbad Objective Design Standards,
Carlsbad
• Carpinteria Downtown Design Overlay
Program, Carpinteria
• Ceres Citywide Active Transportation
Plan, Ceres*
• Cloverdale Downtown Development
Concepts and Zoning Districts Update,
Cloverdale*
• Commuter Hub Branding and
Wayfinding Project, Metropolitan
Transportation Commission*
• Connecting the Core Plan, Brea*
• Cupertino Residential/Mixed-Use
Design Standards, Cupertino
• Downtown Livermore Visioning Project,
Livermore*
• El Segundo Downtown Specific Plan
Update, El Segundo
• Empire Yards Plan,
Rancho Cucamonga*
• Goleta Objective Design Standards
for Multiple Dwelling and Mixed-Use
Developments, Goleta
• Greater Higgins Area Plan,
Nevada County*
• Green Places: Urban Greening and
Placemaking Toolkit, Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro)*
• Green TI: Terminal Island Freeway
Decommissioning Project, Glendale*
• Healdsburg North Entry Area Plan*
• Livable West Long Beach (West Long
Beach Livability Plan), Long Beach*
• Los Angeles Complete Streets Design
Guide. Los Angeles*
• Los Gatos Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan, Los Gatos*
• Mariners’ Mile Revitalization Master
Plan, Newport Beach*
• Mobility Plan 2035 – General Plan
Update, Los Angeles*
• Pacheco Boulevard and Pioneer Road
Complete Streets Plans, Los Banos*
• Richmond Ferry to Bridge to Greenway
Complete Streets Plan, Richmond*
• Santa Barbara Bicycle Master Plan,
Santa Barbara*
• Santa Barbara Historic Preservation
Guidelines, Santa Barbara*
• Space 134 Freeway Cap Park,
Glendale*
• Upper Ridge Community Plan,
Butte County*
• Vista Zoning Code Amendments, Vista
Abraham serves as Senior Urban Designer for the Downtown Specific Plan Update in El Segundo.

This project will provide an actionable, community-driven vision for this small-city downtown through multifaceted collaboration with community members, local businesses, and City leaders. The Plan Update will provide place-specific standards and guidance to promote future physical and economic development, strengthen multimodal connections, identify downtown parking solutions, determine needed infrastructure improvements, and promote a vibrant downtown while enhancing existing character.

RICHMOND ST

MAIN ST

STANDARD ST

EUCALYPTUS DR

CONCORD ST

MARIPOSA AVE

HOLLY AVE

GRAND AVE

PINE AVE

FRANKLIN AVE

EL SEGUNDO BLVD

DISTRICT MAP
LEGEND
JOB# 2151-01-CU20
NOVEMBER, 2021

CITY OF EL SEGUNDO

DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE
0 feet160
1"=80'
80 240
FIGURE #
Main Street District
Main Street Transitional District
Richmond Street District
North Richmond Street District
Grand Avenue District
West Grand Avenue Transitional District
Downtown Specific Plan
Project Area Boundary

EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN
Relevant Project Experience: El Segundo Downtown Specific Plan

CREATING

ENVIRONMENTS
PEOPLE
ENJOY
Project Role
Assistant Project Manager
Experience
8 Years Experience
Education

Bachelor of Arts, Urban Studies
and Architectural Studies, Brown
University, Providence, RI
Master of City and Regional
Planning, Urban Design,
California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo, CA
Landscape Architecture
Certificate Program, University
of California, Berkeley, CA
Accreditations • Affiliations
Certifications • Licenses
American Planning Association
(APA), Member
San Francisco Bay Area Planning
and Urban Research Association
(SPUR), Member
* Work Performed Prior to
Joining RRM
Additional Relevant Projects with Project Descriptions
Starting on page 25, you will find additional relevant projects from our team with project details, descriptions, and graphics.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 44 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN DEBBIEW JEWELL | PLA

URBAN DESIGNER
Debbie is an Urban Designer with RRM Design Group and is a licensed landscape architect within the State of California. With over 25 years of experience assisting with the development of specific plans, design guidelines, streetscape master plans, and providing landscape architectural support to many of RRM’s urban projects. Debbie also plays a key role in providing design review services for cities throughout the State.

RELEVANT PROJECTS
• Agoura Village Specific Plan,
Agoura Hills
• Avenal Downtown Vision Plan,
Avenal
• Big Bear Village Specific Plan
Update, Big Bear Lake
• Capitola Mall Design Peer Review
Services, Capitola
• Carpinteria Downtown Design
Overlay Program, Carpinteria
• Claremont Village West Specific
Plan and Design Guidelines,
Claremont
• Cupertino Consulting Architectural
Review Services, Cupertino
• Dublin Citywide Multifamily Design
Standards, Dublin
• Dublin On-Call Contract Planning
Services - On-Site, Dublin
• East Colorado Boulevard Specific
Plan, Pasadena
• El Monte Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, El Monte
• Fremont Design Guidelines and
Design Review Services, Fremont
• Fresno Uptown Arts District, Fresno
• Gilroy Streetscape, Gilroy
• Mission Plaza Expansion,
San Luis Obispo
• Monterey Catellus Parcels Master
Plan, Monterey
• Morgan Hill Design Guidelines,
Morgan Hill
• North 40 Specific Plan, Los Gatos
• Northgate Boulevard Master Plan,
Sacramento
• Ojai Arcade Plaza, Ojai
• Santa Cruz County Coastal
Restoration/Reuse Plan (Davenport
Cement Plant), Davenport
• Shadelands Gateway Specific Plan,
Walnut Creek
• SLO Wayfinding Signage Program,
San Luis Obispo
• Soledad Miravale III Specific Plan,
Soledad
• Stanton Livable Beach Boulevard
Mobility Plan, Stanton
• Tehachapi Downtown Master Plan,
Tehachapi
• Villa Del Monte Revitalization/
ADA Study and On-Call Planning
Services, Monterey
• Yorba Linda Town Center Specific
Plan, Yorba Linda

EDUCATION
• Bachelor of Landscape Architecture,
California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo, CA
• Associate of Arts, Fine Arts,
Drawing and Painting, Academy of
Art College, San Francisco, CA
ACCREDITATIONS •
LICENSES • AFFILIATIONS
• Professional Landscape Architect,
CA, 5308

CREATING

ENVIRONMENTS
PEOPLE
ENJOY
Project Role

URBAN DESIGNER
+ LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECT
Experience
28 YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 45 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN DARREN CHOY | PE, ENV SP

MANAGER OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
With over a decade of experience in civil engineering and design, Darren Choy brings an all-encompassing lens to each of his projects.

His multidisciplinary approach fosters a collaborative space for his team and his client. Darren’s projects include recreational parks, public plazas, streetscapes, and stormwater development, specializing in land development and public works engineering. From quality control and community engagement to business and staff management, his expansive view of engineering and design is an asset to all who work with him. A diligent leader and team player, Darren’s commitment to excellence is reflected in each of his projects.

RELEVANT PROJECTS
• Anaheim Center City Corridors
Specific Plan, Anaheim
• Arastradero Rd-Los Trancos Creek
Storm Damage Repair, Palo Alto*
• Arcadia Gold Line Station
Pedestrian Linkage, Arcadia
• Belmont Creek Watershed
Management Plan, Belmont*
• Capitola Mall Design Peer Review
Services, Capitola
• Carlsbad Village Grand Ave
Improvements, Carlsbad Village*
• Cater Finished Water Reservoir
Resiliency Design Services,
Santa Barbara
• Oakland Complete Streets, Oakland*
• Contra Loma Estates Park
Renovation, Antioch
• Coyote Creek Parkway Perry’s Hill,
Watsonville
• El Segundo Downtown Specific Plan
Update, El Segundo
• Grove Park Field and Playground
Renovations, Berkeley
• Kennedy Park Construction
Documents and Construction
Support, Hayward
• King City Downtown Plaza,
King City
• Livermore Downtown Core
Landscape Concept and
Stockmen’s Park, Livermore
• Mia’s Dream Come True
Playground, Hayward
• Pleasanton All-Abilities Playground,
Pleasanton
• Redwood City Downtown Parks and
Bay Connectivity, Redwood City
• Rosemead Freeway Corridor Mixed-
Use Overlay Zone, Rosemead
• San Lorenzo Park Construction
Documents, San Lorenzo
• San Pablo Park Improvements,
Berkeley
• Santa Cruz Rail Trail Segments 7,
8, 9, 10, and 11, Santa Cruz
• Tennyson Park Construction
Documents, Hayward
• Veterans Park, Livermore
• Watsonville Slough Farm Trails,
Watsonville

EDUCATION
• Bachelor of Science, Civil
Engineering, University of California,
Irvine, CA
• Minor, Business Management,
University of California, Irvine, CA
ACCREDITATIONS •
LICENSES • AFFILIATIONS
• Professional Engineer, CA, 82708

CREATING

ENVIRONMENTS
PEOPLE
ENJOY
Project Role

CIVIL ENGINEER
Experience
14 YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE

* Work Performed Prior to
Joining RRM

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 46 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN SCOTT MARTIN | AIA, LEED AP , CNU-A

PRINCIPAL
Scott is a talented architect with a keen ability to be innovative and sensitive to clients’ needs. His project focus and experience are wide-ranging, from illustration, master planning, urban design, needs assessments, design review to the production and construction of facilities. Scott is a LEED Accredited Professional and has a h igh level of expertise in designing and implementing sustainable solutions.

Scott’s unique relationship with both public and private clients gives him an understanding of the realities of development and community priorities. He excels in working directly with owner and user groups to set project goals and priorities. Scott blends cohesive design solutions with his strong technical skills to bring a project’s vision to reality.

RELEVANT PROJECTS
• Azusa TOD General Plan/
Development Code Update and
Specific Plan, Azusa
• Balboa Avenue Station Area
Specific Plan, San Diego
• Balboa Village Design Guidelines,
Streetscape Improvement Plan, and
Wayfinding Sign Program,
Newport Beach
• Capitola Mall Design Peer Review
Services, Capitola
• Code and Design Manual, Colton
• El Monte Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, El Monte
• Fullerton Downtown Core &
Corridors Specific Plan, Fullerton
• Gilroy Downtown Visioning
Charrette, Specific Plan, and
Design Guidelines, Gilroy
• Huntington Beach Downtown
Specific Plan, Huntington Beach
• Huntington Park Downtown
Specific Plan, Huntington Park
• Los Altos Downtown Vision, Los Altos
• Mirabella San Francisco Bay/
Parkview Plaza EIR, Foster City
• Mission Plaza Assessment and
Master Plan, San Luis Obispo
• North 40 Specific Plan, Los Gatos
• Pomona Downtown Specific Plan
Update, Pomona
• San Ysidro Historic Village Specific
Plan, San Diego
• Santa Ana Downtown Vision
Strategy Plan, Santa Ana
• Scotts Valley Town Center Specific
Plan and EIR, Scotts Valley
• Shadelands Gateway Specific Plan,
Walnut Creek
• Stanford’s San Juan Residential
District, Palo Alto
• Stanton Livable Beach Boulevard
Mobility Plan, Stanton
• Yorba Linda Town Center Specific
Plan, Yorba Linda

EDUCATION
• Bachelor of Science, Architecture,
California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo, CA
ACCREDITATIONS •
LICENSES • AFFILIATIONS
• Architect, CA, C32348
• Architect, CO, 00405508
• Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design Accredited
Professional (LEED AP)
• Congress for the New Urbanism
Accredited (CNU-A)
• American Institute of Architects
(AIA), San Luis Obispo Chapter,
Member
• San Luis Obispo Chamber of
Commerce Economic Development
Committee

CREATING

ENVIRONMENTS
PEOPLE
ENJOY
Project Role

ARCHITECT
Experience
21 YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 47 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

REBECCA AULD

VICE PRESIDENT
Rebecca has leveraged a background in research science with 18 years of experience in urban planning and environmental analysis to provide expertise and efficiency for clients navigating the California Environmental Quality Act process. As Principal and Vice President with Lamphier- Gregory, Rebecca acts as the environmental review project lead and primary report preparer and excels in coordinating technical teams and synthesizing and clearly communicating complex technical material while working to meet challenging schedule targets.

In her 16+ years with Lamphier-Gregory, Rebecca has served or is serving as the primary report preparer and project manager for numerous environmental review projects throughout the Bay Area.

Rebecca has worked closely with the City of San Carlos on environmental review since 201 1 and is especially familiar with the City policies, processes, and preferences.

RELEVANT PROJECTS
• Extension of Downtown Street
Closure and Parklet Program,
Exemption, San Carlos
• Alexandria Center for Life Science,
EIR, San Carlos
• 841 Old County Road Office/R&D,
MND, San Carlos
• 777 Industrial Road Reuse, MND,
San Carlos
• 825-835 Industrial Road Office/
R&D, MND and Section 15162
Assessment, San Carlos
• Oyster Point Specific Plan, EIR,
Subsequent EIR, and Section 15162
Assessment, South San Francisco
• West Oakland Specific Plan and
West Oakland BART TOD, EIR and
Addendum, Oakland

EDUCATION
• Master of Urban and Regional
Planning (MURP), University of
California, Irvine, CA
• Bachelor of Science, Environmental
Forest Biology, State University
of New York, College of
Environmental Science & Forestry
(SUNY ESF), Syracuse, NY
Project Role

ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW PROJECT

MANAGER
Experience
16 YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 48 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

BRIAN CANEPA, TDM-CP

PRINCIPAL
Brian Canepa is a principal specializing in innovative parking, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans designed to promote prudent sustainability and maximize available resources. His work ranges from developing programs to reduce traffic and parking impacts to shared parking and financial modeling with a special emphasis on academic campuses.

Brian brings years of experience in developing countless parking and TDM plans for a wide range of clients, including public, private, and non-profit entities, as well as many academic campuses. His efforts have produced quantifiable traffic reductions and implementable shared parking and TDM plans. Brian’s approach to transportation planning is a blend of technical expertise and stakeholder engagement. He has a distinct ability to engage key stakeholders and community members and effectively communicate complex technical material in straightforward terms to highlight inherent trade-offs and potential outcomes. The resulting transportation plans produce traffic reductions, parking management, and other products strongly endorsed by community members and participants.

RELEVANT PROJECTS
• San Carlos Housing and Safety
Element Updates, San Carlos
• Traffic Impact Analysis for 700
Laurel Block Closure, San Carlos
• Belmont Village Specific Plan,
Belmont
• Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan,
Milpitas
• El Camino Real Corridor Study,
Menlo Park
• Life Sciences Campus Traffic
Impact Study, San Carlos
• Alameda De Las Pulgas/San Carlos
Avenue Corridor, San Carlos
• On-Call Traffic Engineering
Services, San Carlos
• Traffic Signal Design at Industrial
Road/East San Carlos Avenue, San
Carlos
• Pedestrian Safety Improvement Plan
for San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos

EDUCATION
• Master’s of Urban and Regional
Planning- Transportation Planning,
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
• Master of Arts, Political
Management, The George
Washington University,
Washington, DC
• Bachelor of Arts, History, Bates
College, Lewiston, ME
ACCREDITATIONS •
LICENSES • AFFILIATIONS
• Transportation Demand
Management, Certified Professional
(TDM-CP)
Project Role

TRANSPORTATION

PROJECT MANAGER
Experience
18 YEAR OF

EXPERIENCE

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 49 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN Project Role

PROJECT

ECONOMIST
Experience
34 YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE

ROGER DALE

PRINCIPAL
Roger has been affiliated with The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) since 1988 and currently serves as the firm’s managing principal. His background encompasses the fields of real estate development, economic development, and regional economic analysis. His project experience includes real estate market forecasting, pro forma financial analysis, demographic research and modeling, fiscal impact analysis, downtown revitalization, business retention/attraction, and infrastructure financing programs. He has completed feasibility studies and development strategies for mixed-use projects in Antioch, Pinole, San Ramon, Huntington Beach, Rosemead, Alhambra, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Azusa, Covina, Pomona, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and Fullerton.

RELEVANT PROJECTS
• Market and Financial Analysis for
General Plan Update, San Ramon
• Market Analysis for Economic
Development Plan, Antioch
• Market Analysis for Economic
Development Plan, Pinole
• Economic Feasibility Studies for
Downtown/TOD Projects,
Santa Monica
• Implementation/Financing Strategy
for Downtown Specific Plan,
Huntington Park
• Market Study and Implementation
Strategy for Downtown Specific
Plan, Fullerton
• Market Study for Downtown
Specific Plan, Huntington Beach
• Market Study for General Plan
Update, Monterey Park
• Market and Financial Feasibility
Studies for East Colorado Boulevard
Specific Plan, Pasadena
• Market Study and Development
Strategy for Gold Line Station Area
Plans, Azusa

EDUCATION
• Master of Arts, Resource &
Environmental Economics, University
of California, Riverside, CA
• Bachelor of Arts, Economics,
Claremont McKenna College,
Claremont, CA
ACCREDITATIONS •
LICENSES • AFFILIATIONS
• California Association for Local
Economic Development (CALED)
• International Economic
Development Council
• Roberts Environmental Center
(Board Member)

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 50 SECTION 2 | Firm Information, Qualifications & Experience | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN Project Role

ARCHITECTURAL

HISTORIAN
Experience
26 YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE

ANDREA GALVIN

PRINCIPAL
Andrea is the President and Principal Architectural Historian of GPA and has been professionally involved in researching and documenting historic districts, sites, buildings, and structures since 1995. Her experience includes working for the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the California Department of Transportation, and the California Office of Historic Preservation. Andrea has a deep understanding of the environmental review process related to historic resources and a close working relationship with decision-makers. Her past projects have included assisting numerous municipalities in developing historic preservation programs, managing large-scale historic resource surveys, and preparing Section 106 and CEQA compliance reports.

Many of Andrea’s projects have involved coordinating with multiple local, state, and federal agencies and conducting public outreach with stakeholder groups. She has conducted training on a wide variety of topics at conferences and workshops throughout California and is an active member of several state and national preservation organizations.

RELEVANT PROJECTS
• Livermore General Plan Update,
Livermore
• Midtown Specific Plan, Long Beach,
• Historic Resources Element
Update, Yorba Linda
• Nelles Correctional Facility Specific
Plan, Whittier
• Historic Context Statement and
Citywide Historic Resource Survey
Update, Livermore
• Historic Resource Survey and
Context Statement Citywide
Update, Non-Residential
Properties, Whittier
• Historic Resource Survey and
Context Statement,
Huntington Beach
• San Ysidro Land Port of Entry
Master Plan, Historic Customs
House, San Ysidro

EDUCATION
• Master of Science, Historic
Preservation, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
• Preservation Planning Certificate,
Istanbul Technical University,
Istanbul, Turkey
• Bachelor of Science, Environmental
Design, University of California,
Davis, CA
ACCREDITATIONS •
LICENSES • AFFILIATIONS
• California Preservation Foundation
• National Trust for Historic
Preservation
• Los Angeles Conservancy
• Meets the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications
Standards for history and
architectural history pursuant to
the Code of Federal Regulations, 36
CFR Part 61, Appendix A

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 51 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN RRM PROJECT
BUENA PARK MULTI-MODAL MOBILITY ACTION PLAN

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Buena Park, California
Section
3SC OPE OF SE RVICES
Downtown Specific Plan

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 52 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The RFP clearly identifies project expectations, and we are confident that we can deliver on these expectations. Our scope has been organized with supplemental information to better inform how we would approach each task. We are prepared to adjust this work plan as necessary to best satisfy the City’s objectives, budget, and time frames.

TASK 1: PROJECT COMMENCEMENT

INFORMATION GATHERING
Review Background Research
RRM will gather and review data that is relevant
to this project. The primary purpose of this effort
is to get up to speed on past and current planning
efforts and harness the wealth of existing data that
can be used in the Specific Plan Process. RRM team
will collect and review data relevant to creating the
Specific Plan, including the General Plan, existing
strategic plans, General Plan EIR, appendices, and
the Zoning Ordinance. The consultant shall also
review the recently adopted Economic Development
Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the
Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan, and the
East Side Innovation District Vision Plan, relevant
development projects, plus work with staff to gain an
understanding of the status of the Housing Element
Update, and other planning efforts that have a bearing
on the effort. In addition, the consultant will work
with other City departments, such as Public Works,
for relevant infrastructure plans and standards.

Stakeholder Interviews
RRM will conduct a series of stakeholder interviews
to solicit input from community members and
organizations. The interviews involve a series of half- hour to one-hour confidential meetings (held via video/ teleconference). The purpose of these meetings is to
listen to the wants, needs, issues and observations
about the Downtown in a more private setting. The
interviews are used to identify key issues to be solved and allow the consultant team to understand the
desires regarding physical improvements and quality
of life strategies. The stakeholder interview task is
a critical step in gaining a candid understanding of
conditions and issues from a variety of perspectives.

RRM will collaborate with City staff to identify
stakeholders, which could include representatives
of local organizations, residents, decision makers,
business owners, property owners, and developers
within the Downtown and surrounding area. RRM
will conduct up to 16 interviews, and we ask that City
staff notify and manage the meeting invitations of the
stakeholders.

Deliverables:
• Collection and review of relevant data as described
above
• Prepare for and attend up to eight (8) hours of
virtual interviews scheduled back-to-back over a
maximum of two (2) days. Scope assumes up to 16
interviews for groups of up to four (4) participants
with similar interests

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 53 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

KICKOFF MEETING WITH KEY CITY STAFF

AND CONSULTANT
The project team will meet with City staff at an
in-person kickoff meeting to initiate the project.

The intent of the meeting is to establish a mutual
understanding of the key issues and discuss the
scope of work, roles and responsibilities, key
stakeholders, staff expectations, and project
timeline. The team will also lay out significant
project milestones, meeting times and deliverable
targets. We will conduct a City-led site tour to gain
additional insight related to community character
and recent development projects, issues, and ideas
for the Specific Plan area. The RRM team will
also utilize the notes and photos gathered from a
previous site tour with staff.

Deliverables:
• Prepare for and attend one (1) kickoff meeting and
site tour

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY
RRM believes an effective community outreach
program creates confidence in the planning
process, promotes broad-based understanding
and consensus, and reflects the community’s
interests and needs. We also believe every project
and community deserves a customized approach
to maximize success. We understand the City of
San Carlos values input from your community and
advocates community engagement throughout the
planning p rocess o f a ny s trategic p lans. W e w ill w ork with staff to develop a community engagement plan
that will achieve the following goals:
• Engage the Downtown Advisory Committee
(DTAC) representing a wide range of community
stakeholders
• Provide information to the DTAC and broader
community regarding the goals and policies of the
Specific Plan
• Invite input on features of the existing City policies and programs that have been successful and those
that have been less successful
• Provide information to the community and City
commissions and committees, including but not
limited to the Planning Commission, Economic
Development Advisory Committee, Transportation
and Circulation Commission, the Youth Advisory
Council and the 2-member City Council
Downtown Subcommittee regarding the purpose
of the plan and clearly describe the impacts,
benefits, the scope and contents of the plan, and
implementation t iming
• Provide opportunities for stakeholders and
interested community members to plan for the
future of their community, including seeking input
on t he v ision f or t he a rea, l and u se, t he p ublic r ealm, streetscape, and the final preferred alternative
RRM will work with staff to further develop and
refine a community engagement strategy and launch
a comprehensive effort to educate, inform, and
build interest in this planning effort. Community
engagement will focus on the community-at-large,
directly affected stakeholders, including property
owners, businesses, residents and interest groups,
and civic decision-makers. It will be tailored to
bring new participants into the conversation as
well as engage established stakeholders such as
the Downtown Advisory Committee (DTAC) and
more participation by San Carlos’ committees and
commissions, such as the Youth Advisory Council,
the Parks and Recreation and Culture Commission,
the Economic Development Advisory Commission,
the Transportation & Circulation Commission, the
Planning Commission, and City Council. In addition,
RRM will provide check-ins with the two-member
City Council Downtown Subcommittee throughout
the P lan p rocess. O ur g oal i s t o d esign t he c ommunity outreach to engage the public and community leaders
in a fun and interactive way that will educate them on
the value and purpose of this project, create a shared
vision, and obtain their feedback.

COVID Flexibility
RRM has experience with several strategies and
approaches f or C OVID s afe c ommunity e ngagement.

We can help you navigate this as it rapidly changes,
including online platforms to engage the community,
online meetings, videos to update and present
concepts, online surveys, and a robust website
presence.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 54 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN As part of this task, the following components
will be addressed in complement to community
engagement meetings and events described in
subsequent tasks.

Project Logo and Flyer
RRM will collaborate with City staff to develop a
project logo to be used throughout the project effort.

As part of this task, RRM will also prepare a graphically oriented and easy-to-understand informational flyer
to provide an overview of the project, City contact
information, and additional project-related information.

Website, Social Media, and ‘Spotlight’ Updates
RRM will collaborate with City staff to leverage
existing online resources, including social media
platforms and the ‘Spotlight’ newsletter, and
determine how new resources can augment online
outreach efforts. RRM will work with staff to set
up a project web page to provide background and
meeting information, reports, and maps related to
the project provide up to four email/social media
project updates and companion graphics (developed
as part of other tasks) for City distribution.

Online Questionnaire/My Social Pinpoint
Development
In recent years, it has become evident that there
is proportionately more participation when an
individual can provide input on their own time and in
a location that best suits their availability and needs.

This doesn’t replace the synergy that can come from
a workshop, but it does allow for a broader audience
of participants. With this in mind, RRM will develop
an online questionnaire and a Social Pinpoint survey
to gather initial public input. The Social Pinpoint
survey tool is an interactive mapping tool that allows
stakeholders to pinpoint their comments, ideas, and
concerns regarding the Downtown. The map will be
focused on the study area, and custom icon labels will
be developed to help group comments by relevant
categories. While this platform’s main feature is the
mapping component, a traditional multiple-choice
survey can also be incorporated if needed. Social
Pinpoint is available on desktop, mobile and tablet
devices. The team will ensure the platform is public-
focused with no technical jargon and easy to use.

Downtown Subcommittee Meetings
Throughout the process, RRM will prepare for
and virtually participate in up to eight meetings
with the two-member City Council Downtown
Subcommittee to provide check-ins and project
updates. It is anticipated that RRM will assist staff in facilitating these updates on a q uarterly basis. Should additional subconsultants’ attendance be requested,
an additional fee for their attendance shall apply.

Deliverables
• One (1) conference call to discuss Community
Engagement Strategy and a summary memorandum
• Project logo and flyer and one round of revisions based on a consolidated redline markup provided by the City
• Coordinate with City to set up project webpage on
City website
• Prepare up to four (4) email/social media project
updates with informational material to be distributed
and posted on the City website, including one round
of revisions based on a consolidated redline markup
provided by the City
• One (1) online questionnaire and/or My Social Pinpoint survey including one round of edits
• Up to eight (8) virtual meetings with the City Council Downtown Subcommittee
• Individual meeting materials, visualization tools, and other materials are described as part of specific tasks within this scope

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Throughout this phase of the project, RRM will need
to coordinate with City staff, various
departments, subconsultants, and interest groups.

This task is intended to allow for necessary
coordination between the project team members
and City staff, including teleconferences, meetings,
correspondence, record-keeping, electronic file
management, and additional necessary coordination.

Deliverables:
• Ongoing project coordination and management, as
described above. This assumes an average of six (6)
hours per month for up to twenty-four (24) months

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 55 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN TASK 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND INITIAL OUTREACH

EXISTING CONDITIONS
RRM will work with City staff to collect and review
relevant digital and GIS data to prepare a project
base map. The information will include City-provided
data and analysis of the study area’s potential issues, opportunities, constraints, and challenges. GIS parcel, zoning, right-of-way, land use and ownership data to
be provided by the City. The map will provide the
foundation for the opportunities and constraints
analysis, the community outreach exhibits, and
planning exhibits for the Specific Plan. The RRM
team will evaluate the project study area’s existing
physical and regulatory conditions and create
an opportunity and constraints exhibit including
existing land use, physical conditions; urban form;
public realm; streetscape, pending and approved
development projects, planned public and private
improvement projects (as identified by the City),
circulation network, transit use; historic resources;
and development constraints. While the majority of
the environmental analysis will need to occur once
the Downtown Specific Plan is defined, Lamphier-
Gregory will weigh in on possible environmental
implications of contemplated planning approaches.

Infrastructure Existing Conditions Analysis
Analysis RRM Design Group’s engineering staff
will research the existing public utilities within
the plan area, including the general condition and
characteristics of existing public utilities (water,
sewer, storm drain) based on the review of existing
public records documents and discussions with the
City s taff. T he a nalysis w ill i ncorporate t he c ondition and capacities of existing utilities that the City
managed and identified within:
• City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
• San Carlos 2030 General Plan
• Citywide Storm Drain System Master Plan
• City Sewer Collection System Master Plan
• City Sanitary Sewer Management Plan
• Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan
• San Carlos Civic Facilities Master Plan
• San Mateo Countywide Sustainable Master
Streets Plan
• San Mateo County Stormwater Resource Plan
In addition, RRM will include a summary of existing
conditions for private utilities (telephone, electric, gas, cable) based on information made available by service
providers in the plan area. Findings will be summarized in a memorandum that will provide an overview of the
key infrastructure systems in the area and note which
systems will require updates to support development
allowed under the current General Plan.

Transportation and Mobility
W-Trans will conduct a review of existing and planned
transportation facilities, focusing on elements such as multimodal connectivity within the Downtown across
El Camino Real to the Caltrain station, circulation
considering the varying mobility and economic needs
of El Camino Real and Laurel Street, and on- and off-
street public and private parking resources including
their operations and regulations (e.g., requirements
and in-lieu fees) in the City Code. The existing
conditions review will rely on existing data and
does not assume the collection of new information.

W-Trans will prepare a technical memorandum
summarizing the existing conditions analysis findings.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 56 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN Prepare Planning Principles
In this task, the consulting team will collaborate with City staff to draft a set of planning principles that
will help guide the Specific Plan process. Planning
principles will be based on the initial stakeholder
input and other information generated in the
first two tasks. Key principles will likely relate
to desirable land use mixes, public open spaces,
circulation, parking, housing, building form, street
beautification, and pedestrian-oriented elements.

Deliverables:
• Gather and review available digital data
• One (1) digital copy of the base map with
opportunities and constraints layer and one round of
revisions based on a single redline markup of staff
comments
• Memorandum summarizing infrastructure findings
• Memorandum summarizing transportation/mobility
findings
• Summary of Specific Plan guiding principles
PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Advisory Committee (DTAC) Meeting #1
RRM will prepare for and facilitate a series of
Downtown Revitalization Committee virtual
meetings that will be strategically timed to gather
input from the committee early in and throughout
the process. The committee will be a critical
part of the process to help identify issues and
opportunities, give our team valuable feedback, and
help shape the Specific Plan document. The DTAC
will be made up of a wide range of community
stakeholders. Members will be identified and asked
to participate by staff and selected by the City
Council. The purpose of the DTAC is to involve
the community in the Plan process in a focused,
technically oriented manner, to be leaders and a
voice for the community, and to ensure that their
input and interests are heard and reflected. The
group will help review plan concepts developed
by the consultants and ensure that community
sentiment is reflected in the plan.

This initial meeting with the DTAC will be
conducted virtually and occur after the completion
of the existing conditions and opportunities analysis.

The purpose of the meeting is to review project
objectives and existing conditions analysis and solicit input on opportunities, issues, and hopes for the
area and preliminary planning principles.

Community Workshop # 1 – Visioning and
Issue Identification
With assistance from the City, RRM will conduct
the first public workshop virtually to identify the
community’s needs, issues, and opportunities
regarding the revitalization of Downtown San Carlos.

This workshop will provide input that will inform
planning concepts that adequately and accurately
reflect the community’s desires, concerns, and needs.

In the first portion of the workshop, participants will be guided through the background and timeline of the
planning effort and the planning principles. Attendees
will engage in interactive exercises. Exercises may
involve forms of “polling” participants.

Online Survey
RRM will develop an online survey (using Survey
Monkey or a similar program) to provide project
information and solicit additional public comments
and feedback. Survey access information would be
provided at public meetings, posted on the project
web page, included in community meeting notices,
and linked to the Social Pinpoint Map.

Focus Group Meetings
RRM will facilitate up to four additional virtual focus group meetings, as necessary, to solicit additional
input from specific or unique audiences.

Deliverables:
• One (1) video conference call with DTAC, including
agenda, notice, facilitation, meeting materials, and notes.

City staff will be responsible for meeting notification • RRM will prepare workshop materials, notice,
facilitation, and summary. City staff will be responsible for meeting notification

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 57 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN • Online survey including one (1) round of revisions (for those that could not attend the community workshop)
• Up to four (4) consultant/staff virtual meetings with community groups, residents, business owners, etc.,
upon request. RRM will prepare the agenda, notice,
facilitation, meeting materials, and notes. City staff will be responsible for meeting notification

HISTORICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
GPA Consulting (GPA) will prepare a Historical
Resources Inventory update for the Downtown
Specific Plan study area, which would consist of a
reconnaissance-level survey to identify known and
potential historical resources in the study area.

Additional work to prepare Historic Surveys and
Historic Evaluations on key sites may be necessary
depending on the findings of the Historic Resources
Inventory and City staff direction. This additional work, if requested, would be completed under a separate
scope and cost. Also, to support the environmental
review for the Specific Plan (anticipated to be an
EIR), GPA will identify mitigation measures for future
projects that involve potential historical resources..

Conduct Research
GPA will review information on known resources
located within the Specific Plan study area to identify existing resources. This will include but not be
limited to the 1991 San Carlos Historic Resources
Inventory and records managed by the State Office of
Historic Preservation (SOHP), including the California
Historical R esources I nformation S ystem ( CHRIS) a nd the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD).

The cost estimate assumes the CHRIS record search
fee will not exceed $1,000. General research GPA
will also conduct limited research of general historical trends relevant to the study area sufficient to identify properties that may have a significant association.

As this is a reconnaissance-level survey, extensive
property-specific research will not be conducted,
and a comprehensive historical context statement
will not be prepared. As mentioned in GPA’s project
understanding above and as stated by the City’s
response to the RFP pre-proposal conference FAQs,
City staff may request additional work to prepare
Historic Surveys and Historic Evaluations on key sites
depending on the results of the Historic Resources
Inventory. This additional work, if requested, would
be completed under a separate scope and cost.

Conduct Reconnaissance Survey
GPA will drive and/or walk the Specific Plan study
area and identify properties that are more than 45
years old with a moderate to a high level of integrity
that might require evaluation in the future as part of
future projects because they have the potential for
historic significance. The project team will photograph these properties and prepare a spreadsheet indicating
the results of the reconnaissance-level survey. RRM
will use the spreadsheet to map known and potential
historical resources on the Existing Conditions Map.

NOTE: GPA will not prepare DPR 523 series inventory
forms on identified properties as part of this scope of work.

Prepare Draft Report
GPA will prepare a summary report of the survey
findings. The information will include A) existing
setting, B) regulatory framework, C) identification of
existing resources, D) identification of potential new
resources, E) thresholds for “significant impact” and
“substantial adverse change” pursuant to CEQA, F)
mitigation measures for future projects that impact
historical resources.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control
GPA will internally peer review the draft report
and submit the report to the Client for review and
comment.

Prepare Final Report
GPA staff will modify the reports based on Client and
City comments and respond to public comments, as
necessary (not to exceed 8 hours) for the Final EIR.

Deliverables
• Gather and review available digital data
• Historic Inventory Summary Report

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 58 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN TASK 3: CONCEPT PLAN ALTERNATIVES

TWO CONCEPT PLAN ALTERNATIVES
RRM will develop two different “high-level” urban
design scenarios following the initial meetings
and outreach. Alternative scenarios will promote
the development of walkable neighborhoods and
enhance opportunities for residents to easily access
services and facilities throughout the plan area and
beyond the plan’s boundaries.

RRM’s planners, urban designers, architects,
landscape architects, and engineers will collaborate
with the City and project teammates to generate
realistic concepts that consider development,
placemaking, and design opportunities and
constraints. It will include draft district boundaries established to attract and promote desired
development and uses, mixed-use, and infill
development with recommended densities and
development standards that facilitate development.

The alternatives will be illustrated in a plan view
graphic as an overlay to the base map. RRM
will develop illustrative graphics/renderings to
illustrate concepts as part of this task. Topics may
include streetscape improvements/cross-sections,
proposed furnishing and landscape palette, facade
improvements (before and after images), birds-eye
or street-level illustrations capturing the overall
Downtown vision. The fee for this task assumes up
to four renderings taking up to 20 hours each. We
request that City staff assist in identifying proposed locations.

W-Trans will collaborate with the team to develop
alternatives that strive to enhance multimodal
circulation and safety to and within the downtown
area and provide a holistic approach to parking
management and regulation. A strong emphasis will
be placed on analyzing the impacts and trade-offs of
potential street closures, parklets, or other features designed to increase the vitality of Downtown
while creating a new approach to parking that
coordinates downtown resources and makes
frequenting Downtown a seamless experience for
visitors, residents, and employees; estimations of
the site-wide parking demand associated with each
alternative based on shared parking principles will
be developed and summarized for each alternative.

The alternative development will include an analysis
of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and the respective
differences between the alternatives.

Better integration of pedestrian and bicycle safety,
access, and parking will also be a key element of
the alternatives analysis. A comparative analysis of
multimodal circulation will be conducted for each
alternative. E valuation c riteria w ill i nclude p edestrian and bicycle connectivity within the Downtown, level
and convenience of transit service including bus and
rail access, multimodal connectivity to existing and
planned n etworks b eyond t he D owntown, i nfluences of parking strategies, and the effects of vehicle
traffic for selected relevant roadway segments.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 59 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN The key concepts and graphics will be integrated
into a PowerPoint and the basis for the Specific Plan.

Topics will include:
• Achievement of a mix of housing, commercial,
and office uses
• Building height and increased densities, and a
modal split of reduced/consolidated parking
within the Plan area and increased transit,
walking, and bicycling
• Motor vehicle, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
circulation
• Roadway design alternatives including sidewalk
width, public amenities/furniture, and on-street
parking
• Location and design of public spaces,
sustainability features and community facility
options, illustrating how these fit into the built
environment
Projected Build-out Assumptions
Projected build-out calculates the total square feet of building space that will ultimately occupy the Specific Plan area. As part of this task, RRM will utilize existing land use data provided by the City and the proposed
development potential of the Specific Plan area to
develop the estimated net gain of non-residential
square footage and residential dwelling units per acre
within the Specific Plan area. A projected net gain in
building space organized by land use will be necessary
to determine potential traffic and environmental
impacts of any new land use changes within the
planning area. In order to accurately calculate build-
out, the square footage of existing buildings will need to be provided by staff; however, if the information is not readily available, RRM can assist in assembling the existing data as part of a separately negotiated task.

Following the development of the alternatives, RRM
will facilitate a series of meetings to gather input and direction. Creative and interactive techniques will be
used to understand participants’ preferences.

Deliverables:
• One (1) PowerPoint illustrating project alternatives
and including computer illustrations and graphics as
described above. One round of revisions based on a
single redline set of comments and input provided
during a teleconference call with staff. Following
revision, RRM will prepare a simple matrix with
build-out assumptions
PHASE 3 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
RRM will meet virtually with the Advisory
Committee to review the Alternatives and discuss
a Preferred Concept Plan formulation. The meeting
will include a PowerPoint presentation and a survey
wherein RRM will display contrasting images of
similar features, allowing participants to use our
interactive computer software to express their
preferences for the images presented.

Community Workshop # 2
With assistance from the City, RRM will conduct a
second public workshop virtually to solicit feedback
on the alternatives. Materials and content will be
similar to those utilized at the DTAC #2 meeting.

Online Survey
RRM will develop an online survey (using Survey
Monkey or a similar program) to provide project
information and solicit additional public comments
and feedback on the project alternatives. Survey
access information would be provided at public
meetings, posted on the project web page, included
in community meeting notices, and could be linked
to the Social Pinpoint Map.

Focus Group Meetings
RRM will facilitate up to four (4) additional virtual
focus group meetings, as necessary, to solicit
additional input from specific or unique audiences.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 60 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN Council and Planning Commission Study
Session
Midway through the effort, RRM will prepare for and
virtually facilitate a public study session with the City Council and the Planning Commission. The intent is
to provide an overview of the process, share the input
received from the community engagement to date, and
collect feedback and direction for the Specific Plan.

Conducting the study sessions will provide the team
with insight into Council and Commission priorities
and interests as we develop the Specific Plan.

Deliverables:
• One (1) video conference call with DTAC, including
agenda, notice, facilitation, meeting materials, and notes.

City staff will be responsible for meeting notification • RRM will prepare workshop materials, notice, facilitation and summary. City staff will be responsible for meeting notification
• Online survey including one (1) round of revisions (for those that could not attend the community workshop)
• Up to four (4) consultant/staff virtual meetings with community groups, residents, business owners, etc.,
upon request. RRM will prepare agenda, notice,
facilitation, meeting materials, and notes. City staff will be responsible for meeting notification
• Meeting materials and facilitation of up to two (2)
virtual study sessions

ECONOMIC STUDIES
TNDG will assist preparation and implementation
of the Specific Plan. The economic studies
will effectively define the Downtown’s “real
world” development potentials and enhance its
attractiveness to private investment. This work will
include the following major components:
• Market Analysis to quantify future
development demand for specifically targeted
land uses within the Specific Plan area
• Development Community Outreach
to “truth test” the market study findings and
identify City policies that would improve the
Specific Plan’s effectiveness in attracting private
investment
• Pro Forma Financial Analysis to determine
the development densities that would be
needed to allow for feasible development/
redevelopment projects in the Plan area. The
pro forma analysis will specifically consider
the potential for higher-density housing to
incentivize the development of ancillary
commercial space
• Implementation Recommendations
outlining priorities, timelines, strategies, catalyst
projects, programs, and economic incentives
necessary to attract desired private investment
to the Plan area. The recommendations will also
identify potential funding sources and financing
mechanisms for Specific Plan implementation
TNDG’s proposed tasks are described in greater
detail below.

The market demand analysis is to quantify
immediate and longer-term development
opportunities within the Plan area and to identify
policy measures necessary to achieve these
potentials. The market analysis will provide an
important “reality check” stakeholder expectations
regarding future development in the Plan area and
inform TNDG’s implementation recommendations.

Given that the Plan area includes a mix of
“greenfield” and infill/redevelopment opportunities,
the market study will consist of an evaluation of
potentials for intensifying and revitalizing older
commercial sites. To appropriately focus the market
study effort, TNDG would coordinate with City
staff and RRM Design Group early in the process to
identify key sites or subareas within the Plan area
where future development or redevelopment is
most likely to occur. TNDG’s market analysis will
include the following land use categories:
• Residential
• Retail/restaurant
• Professional office space
• Hotel/lodging f acilities

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 61 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN Whereas the initial market study will be citywide
in scope, the findings will ultimately be applied to
identify specific development opportunities in the
Downtown area. As such, the market study will
enable the planning team to understand the unique
market potentials of the Downtown within the
context of citywide demand patterns.

In addition to providing an areawide framework for
quantifying Downtown development demand, the
analysis will also consider qualitative issues affecting the development potentials of Downtown sub-
areas and key opportunity sites. In this regard, the
analysis will identify the specific market niches or
types of development (in terms of density, market
orientation, etc.) that would be appropriate for the
unique character of each subarea/site.

Development community outreach. TNDG will
conduct an online focus group meeting with selected
developers and property owners. The purposes
of this meeting will be to discuss the financial
and other practical challenges associated with
development in the Plan area and to identify the
real-world incentives that would be most effective in
encouraging targeted project types.

TNDG will coordinate with City staff to create a list
of developers and property owners to invite to this
meeting. As appropriate, TNDG would also conduct
one-on-one interviews with selected developers
to further develop ideas discussed during the initial
meeting.

Pro forma financial analysis will define feasible
development densities/intensities for targeted land
use types in the Plan area (and potentially
on specific “opportunity sites”). This information
regarding “developer feasible” densities will inform
the planning team’s recommendations regarding
development standards and allowable densities. It
could also potentially be used to facilitate integrating Housing Element objectives with Specific Plan
development op portunities.

Deliverables
• Gather and review available digital data
• One (1) digital copy of the economic analysis
summary memorandum and one round of revisions
based on a single redline markup of staff comments

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 62 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN TASK 4: SPECIFIC PLAN PREPARATION

PREPARATION OF PREFERRED CONCEPT
PLAN
Based on input received at the second DTAC
meeting, community meetings, and input received
from other community outreach methods, RRM, in
consultation with City staff, will develop a preferred
concept plan, which will serve as a basis for the
draft Specific Plan. The preferred alternative may
be one of the alternative scenarios or a hybrid of
the alternatives. This task will include a refined
preferred plan exhibit and modifications to the
graphics previously developed, as necessary, as well
as a final project build-out assumption.

Deliverables:
• One (1) PowerPoint illustrating project preferred
plan and including revised computer illustrations and
graphics as described above. One (1) round of revisions based on a single redline set of comments and input
provided during a teleconference call with staff
PHASE 4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Advisory Committee (DTAC) Meeting #3
Advisory Committee (DTAC) Meeting #3 RRM will
meet with the Advisory Committee to review the
Preferred Concept Plan. The meeting will include
a PowerPoint presentation and a survey wherein
RRM will display contrasting images of similar
features, allowing participants to use our interactive computer software to express their preferences
for the images presented. It is anticipated that this
meeting will be conducted in person.

Community Workshop # 3
With assistance from the City, RRM will conduct a
second public workshop to solicit feedback on the
Preferred Concept. Materials and content will be
similar to those utilized at the DTAC #3 meeting. It
is anticipated that this meeting will be conducted in
person.

Commission Meetings
RRM will facilitate up to four additional virtual
meetings with the Youth Advisory Council,
Economic Development Advisory Commission,
Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission, and
Transportation and Circulation Commission to
solicit input on the preferred plan.

Council and Planning Commission Study Session
RRM will prepare for and facilitate a public study
session with the City Council and the Planning
Commission. The intent is to provide an overview
of the process, share the input received from
the community engagement to date, and collect
feedback and direction for the Specific Plan.

Conducting a study session will provide the team
with insight into Council and Commission priorities
and interests as we develop the Specific Plan. It is
anticipated that the meeting will be conducted in
person.

Deliverables:
• One (1) meeting with DTAC, including agenda,
notice, facilitation, meeting materials, and notes.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 63 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN • Up to four (4) virtual commission meetings. RRM
will prepare agenda, notice, facilitation, meeting
materials, and notes. It is assumed that the same
presentation will be used at all meetings. City staff
will be responsible for meeting notification
• Meeting materials and facilitation of up to two (2)
study sessions

PREPARATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES PLAN
RRM’s civil department will prepare an Infrastructure
Development and Services Plan and Budget to
determine the infrastructure needed to support
land uses and public improvements identified in the
preferred alternative at a preliminary engineering level.

The analysis shall describe infrastructure conditions
and improvements needed to support the plan in
terms of water, wastewater, storm drainage (including
low impact development and green infrastructure),
electricity, gas, cable, telephone service, internet/
fiber, transportation, greenways, ADA retrofits, parks, and City amenities (e.g., bike racks, lighting, benches).

Distinction shall be made between improvements
needed for existing versus future development so
future costs can be appropriately attributed. In
addition, increased demand for public services such as
transit, schools, police, and fire required to serve the Plan a rea s hould b e i dentified, w ith a n e stimate o f co sts associated with providing those services. Infrastructure related to private and developing infrastructure such
as on-demand and autonomous vehicles will also
be included, based on available applicable data and
projections. The plan and budget shall:
• Analyze and summarize existing and needed
service capacities
• Assess the services envisioned in the Specific
Plan and those that would be needed with the
preferred alternative
• Include phasing and construction issues and
strategies
• Provide de scriptions o f n eeded p ublic
improvements, i ncluding s treet i mprovements t o
City standards, traffic and transit improvements
(both capital and service), upsizing of water,
and wastewater mains and storm drains,
undergrounding utilities, and park acquisition
and development costs
• Provide descriptions of needed improvements
associated with private utilities, such as
natural gas, electric, phone, cable and internet
connectivity
• Provide descriptions of any changes required to
public services and facilities; and provide cost
estimates and phasing recommendations for
needed improvements and services by system or
type within the Plan area
This task will utilize project and cost data from
previous work performed in City, County, or local
studies (e.g., master plans) with modifications
for cost inflation. Cost estimating will also utilize
Caltrans District 4 unit cost data, RRM’s recent
internal project unit costs, and City-provided recent
bid pricing. This task does not include existing
and proposed utility modeling, existing pavement
condition analysis, or traffic technical studies.

Infrastructure recommendations and projections
will utilize previously developed City and County
(including C/CAG and OneShoreline) planning
documents and the results of the Existing Conditions
task. RRM will work with the City to establish phasing and prioritization criteria (quantitative, qualitative, score weighting) and graphical representation.

Recommended design criteria will be based on
current City, County, and State standards (e.g.,
Caltrans, Fire Code, ADA) and planning documents
(e.g., CCAG Sustainable Streets Master Plan)
considering future conditions such as climate change.

This recommended design criteria could be used as
the framework for a “universal design standard” of
the City for future projects. The draft Infrastructure
Development and Services Plan will be reviewed by
staff and service providers. Any comments will be
provided in a single redline draft for correction prior to inclusion into the Specific Plan.

Deliverables:
• The infrastructure development and services plan
will be formatted as a chapter of the specific plan.

One (1) round of revisions based on a single redline
set of comments and input provided during a
teleconference call with staff

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 64 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

PREPARE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OF THE

SPECIFIC PLAN
Administrative Draft Specific Plan
RRM will prepare a draft Specific Plan in compliance
with State law. The updated plan will serve
as the City’s long-range, comprehensive land
use, circulation, and implementation plan for
guiding development within the Plan boundary.

We recommend the following Specific Plan
organizational structure but will structure the
document to meet the needs of the City best.

1. Introduction
The Introduction discusses the purpose, intent, and
organization of this document. It describes the
Specific Plan area boundaries, the goals of the plan, a description of the planning process, the community
outreach process associated with the project, and
the Specific Plan’s relationship to City documents
and policies. It also will include the planning
principles and additional visioning material.

2. Land Use
This section will include a detailed land use plan that can also serve as a zoning map. It will also address
the allowable land uses building form and site
development standards and parking.

3. Mobility and Public Realm Improvement
This chapter provides direction for public
improvements for the entire Specific Plan area.

Topics will likely include public plazas and parks,
street design and public right-of-way improvements
such as parking, medians, street trees, lighting,
street furnishings, crosswalks, and landscaping. It will focus on mobility, including pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, suggested roadway improvements, public
transit, and bicycle route concepts.

4. Infrastructure and Public Facilities
RRM will utilize data prepared in the task above
to summarize the conditions of the infrastructure
and public facilities in the Specific Plan area.

Subjects addressed include water supply, sewer
and wastewater, storm drainage, dry utilities, solid
waste, police and fire protection, schools, and
parks..

5. Implementation
Based on the market and financial studies results,
this chapter will recommend strategic public
improvements and identify key catalyst projects
and programs needed to make the Specific Plan
vision a reality. This task will provide a “toolbox”
of potential implementation strategies, density
bonuses, and financing mechanisms available to
achieve t he s hort a nd l ong-term g oals o f t he u pdated Specific Plan. Particular emphasis will be given to
identifying opportunities to leverage public financing with private investment. The overall implementation
plan will include the following components:
• Identification and prioritization of key
opportunity s ites
• Recommended timing of public improvements
• Identification of municipal incentives necessary
to attract desired tenants/land uses
• Designation of lead agencies for implementation
of Specific Plan actions
• Identification of potential funding sources and
financing mechanisms (these recommendations
will be specifically tied to the Infrastructure
Development and Services Plan)

6. Administration
This chapter describes the authority of the
Specific Plan, non-conforming uses and structures,
processing requirements and the administrative
procedures required for amendments and/or
modifications to the Specific Plan. It is anticipated
that staff would contribute to the content located
within this chapter.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 65 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN Screencheck Draft Specific Plan
Following the completion of the Administrative Draft
Specific Plan and receipt of the single set of redlined comments from the City on the Administrative Draft,
RRM will produce a Screencheck Draft Specific
Plan. At this point, all of the City’s comments will
have been integrated, and this draft will provide an
additional internal review opportunity prior to the
development of the Public Review Draft.

Public Review Draft Specific Plan
The Screecheck Draft Specific Plan will be finalized
to produce a Public Review Draft in this task.

Deliverables:
• RRM team will assemble all consultant and
City data into a comprehensive Specific Plan
draft, format the document, and produce one
(1) electronic and one (1) hard copy of the
Administrative Draft Specific Plan. This draft is
for in-house administrative review only and will be
refined for the Screencheck Draft
• City will provide one (1) consolidated marked-up
redline version of all comments, and RRM will make
such revisions. RRM will provide one (1) electronic
and one (1) hard copy of the Screencheck Draft
Specific Plan
• City will provide one (1) consolidated marked-up
redline version of all comments, and RRM will make
such revisions. RRM will provide one (1) electronic
and one (1) hard copy of the Public Review Draft
Specific Plan
PHASE 5 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Advisory Committee Meeting # 4
RRM will meet with the Advisory Committee to
present and discuss the Public Review Draft Specific
Plan.

Community Open House # 4
With assistance from the City, RRM will conduct
an open house to receive feedback on the Public
Review Draft Specific Plan.

Commission Meetings
RRM will facilitate up to four additional meetings
with the Youth Advisory Council, Economic
Development Advisory Commission, Parks,
Recreation and Culture Commission, and
Transportation and Circulation Commission to
solicit input on the Public Review Draft Specific Plan.

Planning Commission Study Session
RRM will prepare for and facilitate a joint study session with the Planning Commission to collect feedback on
the Public Review Specific Plan. It is anticipated that this meeting will be conducted in person.

City Council Study Session
RRM will prepare for and facilitate a joint study
session with the City Council to collect feedback on
the Public Review Specific Plan. It is anticipated that this meeting will be conducted in person.

Deliverables:
• One (1) PowerPoint summarizing the primary
content of the Public Review Draft Specific Plan
• One (1) meeting with DTAC, including agenda,
notice, facilitation, meeting materials, and notes.

City staff will be responsible for meeting notification • RRM will prepare open house materials, notice,
facilitation and summary. City staff will be
responsible for meeting notification, logistics and
refreshments
• Up to four (4) commission meetings. RRM will
prepare agenda, notice, facilitation, meeting
materials, and notes. It is assumed that the same
presentation will be used at all meetings. City staff
will be responsible for meeting notification
• Meeting materials and facilitation for up to two (2)
study sessions

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 209
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 66 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

PREPARE HEARING DRAFT OF THE

SPECIFIC PLAN
Hearing Draft
This draft is intended to integrate comments and
feedback collected during the preliminary public review phase Staff shall provide a redline version of requested modifications following the public review period.

Specific Plan Consultation and Referrals
State Law requires consultation with a variety of
Federal, State, regional, and local agencies whenever
a jurisdiction updates or amends its general plan
(e.g., Native American Tribes, Military Branches,
Airport Land Use Commission). These statutes
are located throughout the Government Code
and have varying requirements for when draft and
final documents must be submitted and how long
agencies have to review and provide comments.

The consultants will maintain a checklist of agency
consultation requirements that we will use to
ensure the City provides the Specific Plan to the
appropriate agencies. RRM does not anticipate this
scope item necessary for this work effort.

Deliverables:
• RRM will provide one (1) electronic and one (1) hard
copy of the Hearing Draft Specific Plan
• RRM’s scope is limited to researching and
recommending consultation requirements but does
not include additional meetings, notice preparation,
etc.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 210
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 67 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN TASK 5: SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTION

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The consultant will coordinate with the City
regarding the type of environmental clearance
determined appropriate for the plan. It is anticipated
that the project will use the General Plan EIR for
clearance, depending on the findings of the initial
study prepared for the Specific Plan.

Consistent with the direction indicated in the RFP
and FAQ, we propose preparing an Environmental
Checklist (sometimes called an Initial Study)
document to assess whether the potential impacts
of t he D owntown S pecific P lan h ave b een a dequately analyzed under a Prior EIR (this could be the current
General Plan EIR or the upcoming focused General
Plan update environmental review or a combination
of the two) or whether any new or substantially
increased impacts could be mitigated through
standard conditions or new measures.

The Environmental Checklist will assess all
environmental topic areas in a format consistent
with the CEQA Guidelines Appendix N, which
includes columns to indicate whether impacts are
within those previously analyzed in a Prior EIR.

We will include a discussion of conclusions of the
Prior EIR(s) as they are relevant to the Downtown
Specific Plan and indicate whether and how impacts
would be changed with the implementation of the
Downtown Specific Plan. As a Specific Plan and
not individual development projects, our analysis
will only be at a programmatic level. Individual
developments are proposed under the Downtown
Specific Plan. They would likely require project-
specific environmental review.

Depending on the results of the Environmental
Checklist, this scope assumes the Environmental
Checklist document would then be finalized and
issued as either an Exemption due to consistency
with a Community Plan/zoning (§15183) or Infill
Streamlining (§15183.3), or an Addendum to the
General Plan EIR (§15164). This scope covers any
of these resultant documents, but other possible
outcomes are listed below.

If the Environmental Checklist determines that
impacts of the Downtown Specific Plan cannot be
demonstrated to be within conclusions of the Prior
EIR, it may require additional quantification or other technical analysis not included in this scope and
may necessitate the issuance of the Environmental
Checklist as a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(§15070) if new or more severe impacts are
identified but which can be mitigated through new
measures. I f t he E nvironmental C hecklist d etermines that the Downtown Specific Plan could result in
new or worsened impacts that cannot be reduced
below significance levels through implementation
of standard conditions, mitigation measures from
the Prior EIR(s), or mitigation measures, the
Environmental Checklist would be issued as an Initial
Study (§15063), and a Subsequent or Supplemental
EIR (§15162, §15163) would need to be prepared. We
would coordinate the appropriate additional scope
and budget if any of these scenarios is determined to
be r equired.

Downtown Specific Plan Description
Once the planning team has defined the Downtown
Specific Plan to the point that environmental analysis
will be initiated, Lamphier-Gregory will work with
them to identify a project description suitable
for inclusion in the CEQA document. Our scope
assumes that the Planning Team will provide any
necessary figures.

CEQA ANALYSIS AND DOCUMENTATION
Streamlined Environmental Checklist
A streamlined Environmental Checklist consistent
with Appendix N of the CEQA Guidelines will be
prepared that addresses each environmental impact
category and does the following:

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 68 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN • Identifies each environmental impact found to
be associated with the Downtown Specific Plan
within the Prior EIR(s)
• Identifies mitigation measures pursuant to the
Prior EIR(s) and standard conditions of approval
required of the Downtown Specific Plan
• Documents whether the Downtown Specific
Plan would result in new significant impacts that
were not analyzed in the Prior EIR(s) or more
severe impacts
• Documents whether the Downtown Specific
Plan would result in new significant impacts or
more severe impacts resulting from substantial
new information since the Prior EIR(s)
• Identifies additional mitigation measures as
necessary to address new or more severe
significant i mpacts
This scope assumes that this Environmental
Checklist will be used to provide substantial
evidence as necessary to support an Exemption
due to consistency with a Community Plan/ zoning
(§15183) or Infill Streamlining (§15183.3), or an
Addendum to the General Plan EIR (§15164).
(The Environmental Checklist may also be issued
as a Mitigated Negative Declaration (§15070) or
as an Initial Study (§15063) for a Subsequent or
Supplemental EIR (§15162, §15163), but as discussed
in the Approach above, these efforts would require
additional scope and budget.)
As a programmatic analysis of a Downtown Specific
Plan tiering off a General Plan EIR, this scope
anticipates environmental conclusions will be largely
based on procedures or conditions identified in the
General Plan or Downtown Specific Plan, which will
be implemented by individual development projects
as they are proposed.

This scope assumes reliance on the General Plan
analysis for programmatic assessment of biological
resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas
reduction requirements (including the Climate
Action Plan), noise requirements, and wildfire.

Lamphier-Gregory will discuss and incorporate
conclusions from the Prior EIR as appropriate to the
Downtown Specific Plan in these topic areas, and no
additional technical analysis is proposed.

This scope assumes that if required for the
Downtown Specific Plan, the following technical
analyses will be provided through the Planning Team:

Visual Modeling, Historic Resources Inventory,
Drainage a nd F looding P lans, Population a nd W orker Estimates, Public Services and Recreation Planning,
Transportation Assessment, and Utilities Planning.

Lamphier-Gregory will discuss and incorporate
conclusions from these documents to be supplied by
the Planning Team as necessary, and no additional
technical analysis is proposed.

This scope assumes Lamphier-Gregory will
additionally conduct the following analysis tasks for
the Downtown Specific Plan analysis: Bay Area Air
Quality Management District request for stationary
source emitters in the vicinity, Search of the Native
American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands Files
and the Northwest Information Systems Records,
preparation of letters for the City’s use in offering
consultation to tribal contacts, and searches of the
EnviroStor and GeoTracker databases for known
hazardous materials in the vicinity.

Assessment of Consistency with Infill
Performance Standards per CEQA
Guidelines §15183.3 and Appendix M
If applicable, a brief assessment of the Downtown
Specific Plan against infill performance standards
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15183.3 and
Appendix M will be included as an Attachment to
the Environmental Checklist.

Assessment of Consistency with Community
Plan/Zoning per CEQA Guidelines §15183
If applicable, a brief assessment of the Downtown
Specific Plan against Community Plan/zoning
consistency criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§15183 will be included as an Attachment to the
Environmental Ch ecklist.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 69 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN This will consist of information from the Planning
Team and City staff to demonstrate consistency
with relevant policies and regulations. It will also
include a brief discussion of other criteria, including new significant effects, substantial new information, and standards conditions, which will be largely
addressed through reference to the Prior EIR(s) and
Environmental Ch ecklist d ocument.

Prepare Draft CEQA Document; City Review
and Document Revisions
The above discussion and analysis will be packaged
as an Environmental Checklist adequate to provide
substantial evidence as necessary to support an
Exemption due to consistency with a Community
Plan/ zoning (§15183) or Infill Development (§15183.3), or an Addendum to the Specific Plan EIR (§15164).

The administrative draft document will be submitted
to the City of San Carlos for internal review. Upon
receiving City staff comments on this initial draft
CEQA document, we will discuss and resolve any
outstanding issues and make revisions consistent
with these discussions. Our scope assumes two
administrative drafts plus a screencheck draft prior
to finalization. Our scope assumes all draft and
final documents will be submitted digitally. If hard
copies are requested, we can coordinate to add an
appropriate budget.

While no public review period or distribution is
required for the assumed CEQA documents, the
State Clearinghouse now requires the submittal of
all documents for their files. Lamphier-Gregory will
work with the City to complete the Clearinghouse
submittal forms and submit them via their online
CEQA submittal process.

Post-Issuance Staff Assistance
As requested, Lamphier-Gregory will assist City staff
in reviewing the staff report, staff presentation, and any other staff report materials required for hearings. This scope assumed a level of effort consistent with the
review of these documents and not full preparation.

Following action on the Downtown Specific Plan,
Lamphier-Gregory will assist the City in preparing
a Notice of Exemption (NOE) or Notice of
Determination (NOD) as appropriate. Lamphier-
Gregory will again submit digitally to the State
Clearinghouse. This scope assumes the City will
otherwise handle any distribution, filing, and/or posting.

PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC

HEARING
The consultant will facilitate a public hearing with
the Planning Commission to review and make a
recommendation to the City Council regarding
the Specific Plan. An errata sheet may be used to
document any Planning Commission suggested
revisions to be presented to City Council.

Deliverables:
• Prepare for and attend hearing, including assisting with facilitation, developing the PowerPoint, and reviewing
and commenting on staff reports. Draft errata sheet.

City staff will be responsible for meeting notification

CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION HEARING
The consultant will facilitate a City Council public
hearing to adopt the Specific Plan.

Deliverables:
• Prepare for and attend hearing, including assisting with facilitation, developing the PowerPoint, and reviewing
and commenting on staff reports. Draft errata sheet.

City staff will be responsible for meeting notification

FINAL SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT
Following the action taken by the City Council, RRM
will make the final edits and modifications to the Specific Plan. It is assumed that one set of revisions will be
made, incorporating both the Planning Commission
recommendations a nd C ity C ouncil a ction. E rrata s heets may be used to discuss preferred changes between the
Planning Commission and City Council hearings.

Deliverables:
• Make final edits and provide an electronic file of the final Specific Plan

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 70 SECTION 3 | Scope of Services | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
Reimbursable expenses include but are not limited to report reproduction, postage and handling of drawings and documents, long-distance communications, fees paid to authorities having jurisdiction over the project, and travel expenses. Reimbursable automobile travel mileage will be billed at the current IRS business standard mileage rate. Clients shall reimburse RRM Design Group for incidental expenses incurred by RRM Design Group or any sub-consultant they may hire in the interest of this Agreement. Fees for employee rates, sub-consultant expenses, reimbursable expenses, and RRM Design Group reproductions shall be billed to the Client on a percentage of completion or an as-performed basis as agreed by the parties. Incidental expenses incurred by RRM Design Group or any subconsultant it may hire to perform services for this project are reimbursed by the Client at actual cost plus 10% to cover its overhead and administrative expenses.

CONTINGENCY
A contingency has been included to accommodate potential unforeseen issues that may arise during the planning process. We recommend that the City establish a budget contingency of approximately 10% of the total estimated budget that may be drawn upon to cover additional consulting expenses resulting from City requests outside of the approved scope of work. All additional services would be processed on an as-needed basis based on a formal written request from City staff to the consultant. No additional services beyond the quoted fees may be charged to the City without prior written authorization.

WORK PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS
• Meeting Notices. The City is responsible for printing and distributing physical meeting notices when needed. If requested, the costs of providing printing and/or distribution of meeting notices would be on a time and materials basis.
• Meeting Attendance. Unless otherwise specified, the project budget assumes virtual attendance by RRM staff only at meetings is identified in the work program. The costs of additional, subconsultant or in-person meeting attendance would be on a time and materials basis if requested. • Draft Documents. A draft of each document will be provided to staff and revised based on a single set of consolidated comments providing clear direction.
• Printing. This budget assumes the City will be responsible for printing and distributing documents. • Environmental Review. The team is prepared and qualified to provide any form of environmental clearance; however, if more than is specified within this scope is requested, the RRM team will provide a scope and fee.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 71 SECTION 4 | Project Schedule | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN RRM PROJECT
COLTON DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DESIGN MANUAL
Los Altos, California
Section
4PR OJECT SC HEDULE
Downtown Specific Plan

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 215
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 72 72SECTION 4 | Project Schedule | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

SPECIFIC PLAN

ADOPTION

CONCEPT
PLAN

ALTERNATIVES

PROJECT

INITIATION &

ANALYSIS

SPECIFIC PLAN

PREPARATION

EL SEGUNDO DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE TIMELINE
• Information Gathering
• Kickoff Meeting
• Existing Conditions
Analysis
• Concept Plan Alternatives
• Projected Build-out
Assumptions
• Economic Studies
• Preferred Concept Plan
• Infrastructure Plan
•
•
• Specific Plan Drafts (4)
1&2 3 4 5
Website,
Social Media
& ‘Spotlight’
Updates Website,
Social Media
& ‘Spotlight’
Updates
Website,
Social Media
& ‘Spotlight’
Updates
Completion
Target:
24 Months
Downtown
Subcommittee
Meetings
Downtown
Subcommittee
Meetings
Commission
Meetings
City Council
Adoption
Hearing
Planning
Commission
Hearing
DTAC
Meeting 1
DTAC
Meeting 2
DTAC
Meeting 4
DTAC
Meeting 3
Study
Sessions
Study
Sessions
Community
Workshop 1
Stakeholder
Interviews Community
Workshop 2
Community
Workshop 3
Online
Survey 1
Online
Survey 2
Online
Survey 3
Focus Group
Meetings
Focus Group
Meetings
Website,
Social Media
& ‘Spotlight’
Updates
Downtown
Subcommittee
Meetings
Commission
Meetings
City Council
Study
Session
Planning
Comm Study
Session
Community
Open House
• Environmental Review
• Final Specific Plan
Virtual EngagementVirtual Engagement Virtual EngagementVirtual Engagement In-Person EngagementIn-Person Engagement
Virtual Engagement Virtual Engagement
In-Person Engagement
Hybrid Engagement
MONTHS 1-4 MONTHS 3-7 MONTHS 5-18 MONTHS 17-24

PROJECT SCHEDULE

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 216
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 73 SECTION 5 | Cost Proposal | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN RRM PROJECT
SAN YSIDRO HISTORIC VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
San Diego, California
Section
5CO ST PR OPOSAL
Downtown Specific Plan

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 217
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 74 SECTION 5 | Cost Proposal | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN FEE
TYPE
1 Project Commencement/On-Going Services T&M 134,827$
Information Gathering T&M 19,140$
Kickoff Meeting with Key City Staff and Consultant T&M 25,507$ Community Engagement Strategy (Ongoing) T&M 52,260$
Project Management T&M 37,920$
2 Existing Conditions and Initial Outreach T&M 95,002$
Existing Conditions T&M 28,596$
Phase 2 Community Engagement (Virtual) T&M 30,880$
Historical Resources Inventory T&M 35,526$
3 Concept Plan Alternatives T&M 181,289$
Two Concept Plan Alternatives T&M 57,344$
Phase 3 Community Engagement (Virtual) T&M 43,160$
Economic Studies T&M 80,785$
4 Specific Plan Preparation T&M 305,400$
Preparation of Preferred Concept Plan T&M 10,716$
Phase 4 Community Engagement (Hybrid) T&M 47,240$
Preparation of Infrastructure Development & Services Plan T&M 43,880$ Prepare Admin Draft of the Specific Plan T&M 102,868$
Prepare Screencheck Review Draft of the Specific Plan T&M 24,928$ Prepare Public Review Draft of the Specific Plan T&M 4,860$ Phase 5 Community Engagement (In-Person) T&M 56,580$
Specific Plan Consultation and Referrals T&M 1,840$
Prepare Hearing Draft of the Specific Plan T&M 12,488$
5 Specific Plan Adoption T&M 89,040$
Environmental Review T&M 78,780$
Planning Commission Public Hearing T&M 3,610$
City Council Adoption Hearing T&M 3,190$
Final Specific Plan Document T&M 3,460$
Task Value: 805,558$
805,558$
13,868$
80,556$
899,981$
TASKS
San Carlos Downtown Specific Plan
February 15, 2022
Subtotal
Reimbursable Expenses
10% Contingency
Estimated Project Total (including contingency)

COST PROPOSAL

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 218
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 75 75SECTION 5 | Cost Proposal | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN RRM
DIANE

BATHGATE
RRM
JAMI

WILLIAMS
RRM
ABE

SHEPPARD
RRM
DEBBIE
JEWELL
RRM
DARREN
CHOY
RRM
SCOTT
MARTIN

RRMSTAFF W-TRANS NATELSON
DALE

LAMPHIER-

GREGORY GPA
230 $ per hour 235 $ per hour 170 $ per hour 142 $ per hour 200 $ per hour 220 $ per hour 105 $ per hour FEE
TYPE
1 Project Commencement/On-Going Services T&M 134,827$ 32 $7,360 264 $62,040 158 $26,860 16 $2,272 32 $6,400 16 $3,520 136 $14,280 Information Gathering T&M 19,140$ 0 $0 12 $2,820 24 $4,080 0 $0 24 $4,800 0 $0 8 $840 Kickoff Meeting with Key City Staff and Consultant T&M 25,507$ 16 $3,680 20 $4,700 20 $3,400 16 $2,272 8 $1,600 16 $3,520 8 $840 Community Engagement Strategy (Ongoing) T&M 52,260$ 16 $3,680 88 $20,680 90 $15,300 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 120 $12,600 Project Management T&M 37,920$ 0 $0 144 $33,840 24 $4,080 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2 Existing Conditions and Initial Outreach T&M 95,002$ 12 $2,760 72 $16,920 68 $11,560 8 $1,136 40 $8,000 4 $880 72 $7,560 - Existing Conditions T&M 28,596$ 2 $460 8 $1,880 16 $2,720 8 $1,136 40 $8,000 4 $880 24 $2,520 Phase 2 Community Engagement (Virtual) T&M 30,880$ 8 $1,840 64 $15,040 48 $8,160 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 48 $5,040 Historical Resources Inventory T&M 35,526$ 2 $460 0 $0 4 $680 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 3 Concept Plan Alternatives T&M 181,289$ 12 $2,760 124 $29,140 112 $19,040 12 $1,704 24 $4,800 40 $8,800 168 $17,640 Two Concept Plan Alternatives T&M 57,344$ 4 $920 24 $5,640 48 $8,160 12 $1,704 24 $4,800 16 $3,520 80 $8,400 Phase 3 Community Engagement (Virtual) T&M 43,160$ 8 $1,840 96 $22,560 56 $9,520 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 88 $9,240 Economic Studies T&M 80,785$ 0 $0 4 $940 8 $1,360 0 $0 0 $0 24 $5,280 0 $0 4 Specific Plan Preparation T&M 305,400$ 52 $11,960 364 $85,540 268 $45,560 40 $5,680 216 $43,200 52 $11,440 584 $61,320 Preparation of Preferred Concept Plan T&M 10,716$ 2 $460 8 $1,880 8 $1,360 8 $1,136 4 $800 4 $880 40 $4,200 Phase 4 Community Engagement (Hybrid) T&M 47,240$ 6 $1,380 108 $25,380 76 $12,920 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 72 $7,560 Preparation of Infrastructure Development & Services Plan T&M 43,880$ 0 $0 0 $0 8 $1,360 0 $0 200 $40,000 0 $0 24 $2,520 Prepare Admin Draft of the Specific Plan T&M 102,868$ 16 $3,680 40 $9,400 64 $10,880 24 $3,408 4 $800 40 $8,800 240 $25,200 Prepare Screencheck Review Draft of the Specific Plan T&M 24,928$ 8 $1,840 24 $5,640 40 $6,800 4 $568 4 $800 4 $880 80 $8,400 Prepare Public Review Draft of the Specific Plan T&M 4,860$ 2 $460 8 $1,880 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 24 $2,520 Phase 5 Community Engagement (In-Person) T&M 56,580$ 6 $1,380 160 $37,600 64 $10,880 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 64 $6, 720 Specific Plan Consultation and Referrals T&M 1,840$ 8 $1,840 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Prepare Hearing Draft of the Specific Plan T&M 12,488$ 4 $920 16 $3,760 8 $1,360 4 $568 4 $800 4 $880 40 $4,200 5 Specific Plan Adoption T&M 89,040$ 24 $5,520 24 $5,640 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 44 $4,620 Environmental Review T&M 78,780$ 24 $5,520 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Planning Commission Public Hearing T&M 3,610$ 0 $0 10 $2,350 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 12 $1,260 City Council Adoption Hearing T&M 3,190$ 0 $0 10 $2,350 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 8 $840 Final Specific Plan Document T&M 3,460$ 0 $0 4 $940 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 24 $2,520 Task Value: 805,558$
805,558$
13,868$
80,556$
899,981$
TASKS
9,020 2,041 1,034 -
Architect Production Mobility Economics Environmental Historic San Carlos Downtown Specific Plan
February 15, 2022
Principal-in-Charge Project Manager Assistant
Project Manager Urban Designer Civil Engineer
6,600
2,041 1,034
lump sum
per task
lump sum
per task
lump sum
per task
lump sum
per task
2,420
11,000 800 34,386
11,000
24,200 73,205 - -
24,200
800
34,386
40,700 - - -
73,205
40,700
12,100 - 61,160 -
12,100 61,160
Fee Footnote
Estimated fees for tasks shown as “Time and Materials” (T&M) are provided for informational purposes.

Amounts billed for these tasks, which will reflect actual hours, may be more or less than the estimate given.

Reimbursable Expenses
Incidental expenses incurred by RRM Design Group or any subconsultant it may hire to perform services for this project are reimbursed by the client at actual cost plus 10% to cover its overhead and administrative expenses.

Adjustment to Hourly Billing Rates
RRM reserves the right to adjust hourly rates on an annual basis.

Subtotal
Reimbursable Expenses
10% Contingency
Estimated Project Total (including contingency)

COST PROPOSAL

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 219
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 76 SECTION 6 | Sample Agreement Change Requests | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN RRM PROJECT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Alhambra, California
Section
6SA MPLE AG REEMENT CH ANGE RE QUESTS
Downtown Specific Plan

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 220
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 77 SECTION 6 | Sample Agreement Change Requests | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

SAMPLE AGREEMENT CHANGE REQUESTS
RRM Design Group is in substantial agreement with the City’s proposed Professional Services Agreement, however there are some items that we feel would be of mutual benefit to discuss. Our ability to meet your insurance requirements is provided on the following page.

2. T erm; Termination.
. . . Nothing herein contained shall be deemed a limitation upon the right of CITY to terminate this Agreement for cause, or otherwise to exercise such rights or pursue such remedies as may accrue to CITY hereunder.

CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement upon giving CITY ten (10) calendar days prior written notice for any of the following: (1) breach by CITY of any material term of this Agreement, including but not limited to Payment Terms; (2) material changes in the conditions under which this Agreement was entered into, the Scope of Services or the nature of the Project, and the failure of the parties to reach agreement on the compensation and schedule adjustments necessitated by such changes; (3) suspension of the Project or the CONSULTANT’s services by CITY for more than ninety (90) calendar days, consecutive or in the aggregate.

12. Insurance.
(a) Precluding cancellation or reduction in per occurrence limits before the expiration of thirty (30) days (10 days for nonpayment) after City shall have received written notification of cancellation in coverage or reduction in per occurrence limits by first class mail; a ten (10) day written notice to CITY shall apply to non-payment of premium. CONSULTANT shall provide thirty (30) days written notice to CITY prior to implementation of a reduction of limits or material change of insurance coverage as specified herein.

Special Risks or Circumstances
CITY reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances at CITY’s sole cost and expense.

15. Notice. All notices required by this Agreement shall be given to the CITY and CONSULTANT in writing, by first class certified mail, return-receipt r equested, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

20. G overning Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any suit or action initiated by either party shall be brought in the County of San Mateo, California. In the event of litigation between the parties hereto to enforce any provision of the Agreement, the unsuccessful party will pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation of the successful party as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract) 78 SECTION 6 | Sample Agreement Change Requests | PR OPOSAL FOR DO WNTOWN SP ECIFIC PL AN

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURER F :

INSURER E :

INSURER D :

INSURER C :

INSURER B :

INSURER A :

NAIC #
NAME:

CONTACT
(A/C, No):

FAX
E-MAIL
ADDRESS:

PRODUCER
(A/C, No, Ext):

PHONE

INSURED
REVISION NUMBER:CERTIFICATE NUMBER:COVERAGES
IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.

If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

OTHER:
(Per accident)
(Ea accident)
$
$
N / A
SUBR
WVD
ADDL
INSD

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $
$
$
$PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY (Per accident)
BODILY INJURY (Per person)

COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT

AUTOS ONLY

AUTOSAUTOS ONLY

NON-OWNED

SCHEDULEDOWNED

ANY AUTO

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Y / N

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
(Mandatory in NH)
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
If yes, describe under

ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
$
$
$
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
ER
OTH-

STATUTE
PER

LIMITS(MM/DD/YYYY)

POLICY EXP
(MM/DD/YYYY)

POLICY EFF

POLICY NUMBERTYPE OF INSURANCELTR
INSR
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

EXCESS LIAB
UMBRELLA LIAB $EACH OCCURRENCE
$AGGREGATE
$
OCCUR

CLAIMS-MADE
DED RETENTION $
$PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG
$GENERAL AGGREGATE
$PERSONAL & ADV INJURY
$MED EXP (Any one person)
$EACH OCCURRENCE

DAMAGE TO RENTED
$PREMISES (Ea occurrence)

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY

CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:

POLICY PRO-

JECT LOC

CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE

DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)

CANCELLATION

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
ACORD 25 (2016/03)
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

CERTIFICATE HOLDER
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
HIRED

AUTOS ONLY
6/27/2021
AssuredPartners Design Professionals Insurance Services, LLC 3697
Mt. Diablo Blvd Suite 230
Lafayette CA 94549
Marie Swaney
[email protected]
License#: 6003745 Evanston Insurance Company 35378
RRMDESI-02 Sentinel Insurance Company 11000
RRM Design Group
805
543-1794
3765 S. Higuera St., Suite 102
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Trumbull Insurance Company 27120
HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY 38288
2130976610
B X 1,000,000
X 1,000,000
X Contractual Liab 10,000
Included 1,000,000
2,000,000
X
Y Y 84SBWBG6537 6/30/2021 6/30/2022
2,000,000
C 1,000,000
X
X X
Y Y 84UEGAC1692 6/30/2021 6/30/2022
B X X 5,000,000Y 84SBWBG6537 6/30/2021Y 6/30/2022
5,000,000
X 10,000
D XY 84WEGAG7CTV 6/30/2021 6/30/2022
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
A Professional Liability &
Contr.

Pollution Liab Included
MKLV7PL0004779 6/30/2021 6/30/2022 Per Claim
Aggregate Limit
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
Umbrella policy is a follow-form to its underlying Policies: General Liability/Auto Liability/Employers Liability. AM Best's Rating of Policies above: A/XV or greater.

Proof
of coverage(s)
30 Day Notice will be sent to holder
For Proposal Purposes
. . .

6.j.3
Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: RRM Scope of Work (Award Downtown Contract)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: February 28, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Approving Professional Services Agreements for On - Call Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering and Special Testing and Inspection, and Traffic and Transportat ion Engineering for One -Year with an Option for Two (2) One -Year Extensions in a Total Annual Not -To- Exceed Amount of $3,800,000; and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Associated Agreements.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Counc il adopt a Resolution approving p rofessional services agreements for on -call civil engineering, geotechnical engineering and special t esting and inspection, and traffic and transportation e ngineering (“on-call services”) for one -year with an option for two one-year extensions for a total annual not-to-exceed amount of $3,800,000 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the associated agreements.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

No funding needs to be encumbered to enter into these o n-call engineering agreements. Funds will be encumbered , as needed, from Council-approved Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”) projects during the term of the agreements.

The current two -year CIP budget cycle for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2021 -22 and FY 2022 -23 has a budget of approximately $20 to $25 million. Approximately 15% of that amount, or roughly $3.8 million, is estimated for design, material testing, and construction management.

Funding for these projects will come from the Wastewater, Gas Tax, General Fund Capital, Park-In-Lieu, and Parking-In-Lieu funds per the approved budget in FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-

23. BACKGROUND:

This item is being brought to the City Council as the action exceeds the authority of the City Manager.

Staff has identified the need to secure p rofessional ser vices a greements for on-call services with consulting firms in order to address the delivery needs of the CIP.

6.k
Packet Pg. 223
2 The CIP includes a number of projects for sanitary and storm sewers, pavement rehabilitation, and traffic, parks, and facilities improvements that will require the services of professional engineering firms.

Pavement Rehabilitation: Per the latest five year master plan for pavement rehabilitation, staff anticipates rehabilitating approximately eighteen to twenty miles of street s annually.

Rehabilitation of streets also includes construction or reconstruction of curb ramps , as well as traffic striping and pavement marking improvements in conjunction with the approved Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation: The Sanitar y Sewer Master Plan has identified deficiencies within the City’s sanitary sewer system that will need to be addressed through additional capacity assurance projects. In addition, there has been an increase in severe defects identified for repair.

Storm Drain Rehabilitation: In January 2016, the City completed a Citywide Storm Drain System Master Plan that identified storm drainage defici encies throughout the c ity. The Master Plan identified $53 million in improvement work to upsize existing storm infrastructure.

Geotechnical Engineering and Special Testing: In conjunction with pavement and utility rehabilitation projects, geotechnical engineering and special testing are often required to perform site observations or special testing completion in accordance with City standards.

Traffic and Transportation Engineering: Staff continues to receive a high volume of requests to reduce speeding, implement traffic calming, improve pedestrian safety, and install all -way stop controls along City streets and intersections.

A request for qualifications was issued on December 15, 2021 for the three on-call services disciplines. On January 14, 2022, twenty-three statements of qualifications were received.

Staff reviewed the statements based on set criteria as we ll as the firms’ demonstration of thorough knowledge and expertise, and selected the following firms for each discipline:

ON-CALL SERVICES DISCIPLINES CONSULTANT FIRMS
Civil Engineering (Sanitary Sewer, Storm,
Pavement Design, Construction Management
and Inspection)
Bellecci & Associates
Mott MacDonald
HDR Wreco
Geotechnical Engineering and Special
Testing
ENGEO
Ninyo & Moore
Transportation & Traffic Engineering W-Trans
Advanced Mobility Group

ANALYSIS:

Staff recommends approval of the abovementioned firms. In addition, staff recommends that the City award professional services a greements to the recommended firms, with the stated annual not-to-exceed amounts per calendar year based on the table below:

6.k
Packet Pg. 224
3 ON-CALL SERVICES DISCIPLINES CONSULTANT FIRMS AMOUNT
Civil Engineering (Sanitary sewer,
Storm, Pavement Design, Construction
Management & Inspection)
Bellecci & Associates $1,000,000
Mott MacDonald $1,000,000
HDR Wreco $1,000,000
Geotechnical Engineering & Special
Testing
ENGEO $100,000
Ninyo & Moore $100,000
Traffic & Transportation Engineering W-Trans $300,000
Advanced Mobility
Group
$300,000
TOTAL: $3,800,000

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution approving profe ssional services a greements for on-call services for one-year with an option for two one-year extensions in a total annual not-to-exceed amount of $3,800,000 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the associated agreements; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Steven Machida,
Public Works Director

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution - On-Call Engineering

6.k
Packet Pg. 225
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

APPROVING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS FOR ON-CALL CIVIL

ENGINEERING, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND SPECIAL TESTING AND

INSPECTION, AND TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING FOR ONE-YEAR WITH AN OPTION FOR TWO (2) ONE-YEAR EXTENSIONS IN A TOTAL ANNUAL NOT-TO- EXCEED AMOUNT OF $3,800,000; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ASSOCIATED AGREEMENTS.

WHEREAS, staff has identified the need to secure professional services agreements for on-call civil engineering, geotechnical engineering and special testing, and traffic and transportation engineering (“on-call services”) with consulting firms to address the delivery needs of the Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”); and

WHEREAS, the CIP includes a number of projects for sanitary and storm sewers, pavement rehabilitation, traffic, parks, and facilities improvements that will require the services of professional engineering firms; and

WHEREAS, a request-for-qualifications was issued on December 15, 2021 for the on-call services disciplines and on January 14, 2022, twenty-three statements of qualifications were received; and

WHEREAS, staff reviewed the statements based on set criteria as well as the submitting firms’ demonstration of thorough knowledge and expertise, and selected firms for each discipline; and

WHEREAS, staff recommends an annual not -to-exceed amount to provide maximum flexibility; and

WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of the selected firms and awarding professional services agreements with the stated annual not-to-exceed amounts per calendar year based on the table below:

ON-CALL SERVICES DISCIPLINES CONSULTANT FIRMS AMOUNT
Civil Engineering (Sanitary sewer,
Storm, Pavement Design, Construction
Management & Inspection)
Bellecci & Associates $1,000,000
Mott MacDonald $1,000,000
HDR Wreco $1,000,000
Geotechnical Engineering & Special
Testing
ENGEO $100,000
Ninyo & Moore $100,000
Traffic & Transportation Engineering W-Trans $300,000
Advanced Mobility
Group
$300,000
TOTAL: $3,800,000

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the San Carlos City Council approves professional services agreements for on -call services for one-year, with an option for two one-

6.k.1
Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: Resolution - On-Call Engineering (Award On-Call Engineering Services) year extensions, in a total annual not-to-exceed amount of $3,800,000, and authorizes the City Manager to execute the associated agreements.

* * * * *

I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 28th day of February 2022, by the following vote:

________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:

___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

6.k.1
Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: Resolution - On-Call Engineering (Award On-Call Engineering Services)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: February 28, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement and Appropriate Funds from the General Capital Projects Fund 0025 ("Fund 25") to Prepare Objective Design and Development Standards for Single - Family, Multi -Family and Mixed -Use Residential Projects at a Cost Not to Exceed $305,095 with MIG.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council a dopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement and appropriate funds from the General Capital Project Fund 0025 (“Fund 25”) to prepare the Objective Design and Development Standards ( “ODDS”) for single- family, multi-family, and mixed-use residential projects at a cost not to exceed $305,095 with MIG.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

This work will require the City Council to create a project and appropriate $305,095 from Fund 25 to cover the costs. There is sufficient funding in Fund 25 to cover this request.

BACKGROUND:

In November 2011, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update to the San Carlos Zoning Ordinance. This update incorporated design regulations, such as building placement, building form, and architectural articulation . It included commercial development , as well as standards specific to a variety of housing types (multi -family, mixed-use, and single-family residential). In 2018, a new Maximum Floor Area (“MFA”) was adopted for RS -6 Single -Family Residential Zoning Districts. These standards applied to single -family residential developm ent within the RS-6 Zoning District and did not apply to single -family residential development in other districts.

This standard was adopted as a response to concerns from the community about house sizes being too large and not compatible with existing dev elopment. The process included in -depth public participation including an advisory committee that studied this issue.

Since that time , there have been a variety of State laws aimed at adding additional housing units including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), and SB-9 units (primary units of up to 800 square feet). These laws require a certain amount of square footage to be exempt from City calculations. Therefore, the MFA may apply to only the main residence, not necessarily any additional units.

6.l
Packet Pg. 228
2 Further, r ecent changes to State law require that cities adopt and act on residential development applications based on whether the project complies with ODDS. Objective design standards are intended to be measurable an d verifiable (i.e., no “gray” area) , leaving no room for interpretation or personal judgment, as opposed to subjective standards that are subject to interpretation. State laws like SB 9 and the Housing Accountability Act, as amended in 2019 by SB 330 , restrict the standards and regulations that local agencies, including the City, may impose on qualifying projects. For example, SB 9 and SB 330 specify that local agencies may impose only objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards that do not conflict with the statutes.

The City currently relies on a combination of objective and subjective design standards, implemented through a design review process with the City’s Residential Design Review Committee (RDRC) and Planning Commission, to regulate the d esign of most housing projects.

This includes meeting largely subjective design review criteria (SCMC 18.29.060) as part of the findings to grant project approval. The City is interested in creating a thorough set of objective design standards to govern th e development of single -family, multi -family, and mixed -use residential development proposals.

Staff finds it necessary to a dopt clear, easy-to-interpret objective standards and regulations to provide predictability to the community and developers in the development process. Adopting objective standards for new residential development will allow developers and property owners to have a clear understanding of the community’s expectations for how new residential development will look, and how it will fit in with existing development.

Additionally, the default statutory standards contained within these State laws do not include objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards. These include, but are not limited to floor area, lot coverage, height, fencing regulations, hillside overlay regulations, subdivision, and other site development standards and regulations which normally are found in the San Carlos Municipal Code.

Therefore, it is critically important that the City update current regulations to cle arly lay out objective standards that reflect the community’s vision ; otherwise, the City will have limited ability to shape the design of new residential developments , especially since many of these developments will require ministerial review whereby no public meeting or hearing can be required.

Adoption of these standards will be important for all residential projects to ensure orderly, streamlined development as the City plans for its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of at least 2,735 new housing units.

Although many State laws apply to projects with more than one residential unit (2+), the scope of work and final deliverable for this project will apply to all residential projects, including single - family, multi-family, and mixed-use residential projects. The City expects this project to provide standards that will be consistent with the requirements for objective standards in compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 35 (Government Code Section 65913.4) and the Housing Accountability Act, as amended in 2019 by SB 330, and requirements of the recently adopted SB 9. Staff also anticipates that future state laws will require objective standards for all types of housing projects and having these standards in effect, prior to the passage of any such law , will allow the City to be more proactive with implementation of these laws.

6.l
Packet Pg. 229
3 To address these issues and formulate a mechanism to ensure orderly development through objective standards, staff developed a scope of work that will address ODDS for single-family, multi-family, and mixed-use residential projects.

ANALYSIS:

Civic Engagement Strategy
Staff is proposing various strategies to engage the community and encourage participation in evaluating the issues of all type of residential development. This would include stakeholder meetings, a study session with the RDRC and Planning Commission, a City Council Study Session, citywide community workshops, and meetings with the City Council. All meetings will be supported with high quality visualization materials.

Consultant Selection
On November 1, 2021, the Community Development Department issued a request for proposals (RFP) (Attachment 2) soliciting a firm to prepare ODDS for all residential projects, including single-family, multi-family, and mixed-use residential projects.

The RFP was sent to nine firms, posted on the City’s website, Planetizen (a professionally recognized independent resource for planning) and Congress for New Urbanism (CNU). Three firms responded with proposals and were interviewed by City s taff consisting of: Lisa Porras, Advance Planning Manager; Andrea Mardesich, Principal Planner; Rucha Dande, Associate Planner; and, Meghan Riddlespurger, Assistant Planner. After careful consideration, City staff recommends MIG to prepare the ODDS based on its competitive costs, demonstrated expertise, similar project experience, understanding of the State laws, integrated design team, strong design and excellent graphics, approach to the scope of work and good fit for the community.

MIG’s scope of work is included as Attachment 3.

Firm’s Similar Experience
The project team at MIG has demonstrated past experience preparing objective design standards in neighboring jurisdictions such as City of San Mateo, County of Santa Cruz , and City of Hemet. Staff believes this past experience is very relevant to the project scope, and will help inform ODDS for San Carlos.

Scope of Work
The work proposed to be completed by MIG (Attachment 3) includes: city tour; review of existing ordinances, site analysis and best prac tices; gather relevant background materials; current project review; develop an outreach plan and strategy, study sessions with the RDRC, Planning Commission and City Council; and citywide community open houses; diagrams and graphics; preparation of administrative, draft and final objective standards; public hearings; environmental review and project administration.

The optional tasks include online surveys, bilingual survey, additional community workshops, additional review of Objective Standards study, a dditional Planning Commission and City Council hearings and alternative environmental review.

Objective Standards and Senate Bill 9 (SB 9)
SB 9 (The California HOME Act) was signed by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2021, and became effective January 1, 2022. SB 9 requires local agencies to grant approval of SB 9 qualified projects and subdivision, within only single-family zones, without any public hearing or discretionary (subjective) review. In response to the provisions of SB 9, on Monday, January 10,

6.l
Packet Pg. 230
4 2022, the San Carlos City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance to impos e interim regulations and objective standards for the subdivision and development of qualified SB 9 properties. This Urgency O rdinance, including the objective standards for SB 9 projects, was extended for a period of 10 months and 15 days on February 14, 2022. The extension was requested to allow staff time to work on a permanent ordinance and develop comprehensive objective standards for SB 9 projects.

Since all SB 9 projects are limited to single-family zones only, staff anticipates the new objective standards developed for single -family homes will be applicable to all SB 9 projects. Staff anticipates the objective design standards for single -family homes to be developed on a priority basis through a phased approach. This would ensure that objective sta ndards for SB 9 projects are ready for use when the permanent SB 9 ordinance is adopted later this year.

Project Timeline
The project is anticipated to occur over an 18-month period beginning with a project kickoff in March, upon execution of the contrac t with MIG. However, the immediate work will be focused on objective standards first for SB -9 single-family residential projects so that staff may return to the Council with a permanent SB-9 ordinance by October of this year.

Budget
The budget is broken down into nine tasks:

Task 1 Project Initiation and Management $22,170
Task 2 Data Gathering and Document Research and Review $30,460 Task 3 Public Outreach $45,470
Task 4 Objective Design Standards $13,360
Task 5 Final Objective Design Standards $18,890
Task 6 Public Review, Adoption, and Implementation Aids $7,480 Task 7 Objective Design Standards Adoption $2,390
Task 8 Additional Meetings (for Task 3) $46,875
Task 9 Environmental Review $39,050
10% Contingency $22,615
Optional Tasks $56,335
Grand Total $305,095

CONCLUSION:

The proposed agreement for professional services has a term beginning upon execution and ending upon completion of the project. The agreement is for $305,095 including a 10% contingency and optional tasks for a total not to exceed $305,095.

ALTERNATIVES:

The options available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement and appropriate funds from Fund 25 to prepare the ODDS for the Single-Family, Multi-family and Mixed-use residential projects at a cost not to exceed $305,095 with MIG; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

6.l
Packet Pg. 231
5 3. Provide staff with alternate direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Al Savay, AICP
Community Development Director

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

2. RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021

3. MIG Proposal and Budget

6.l
Packet Pg. 232
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 - _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 0025 (“FUND 25”) TO

PREPARE OBJECTIVE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY,

MULTI-FAMILY AND MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $305,095 WITH MIG.
___________________________________________________________________________

WHEREAS, the City of San Carlos (the City) recognizes the need for additional housing which is a statewide concern; and

WHEREAS, the City is updating its Housing Element to accommodate for additional units and to identify impediments to the creation of more housing; and

WHEREAS, there is an immediate need for the City to update its standards for all residential projects to ensure orderly, streamlined development in an effort to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of at least 2,735 new housing units; and

WHEREAS, the City currently relies on a combination of objective and subjective design standards, implemented through a design review process with staff, the Residential Design Review Committee (RDRC) and Planning Commission to regulate the design of most housing projects; and

WHEREAS, recent changes to State law require that cities adopt and ministerially act on residential development applications based on whether the project complies with Objective Design and Development Standards; and

WHEREAS, preparation of Objective Design and Development Standards for single- family, multi-family, and mixed-use residential projects will set design expectations for the community, promote cohesive development, and facilitate the production of more housing by reducing uncertainty for developers; and

WHEREAS, on November 1, 2021 the City releas ed a request for proposals (RFP) soliciting a firm to prepare the Objective Design and Development Standards; and

WHEREAS, the Community Development Department sent the RFP to nine firms, posted the RFP on the websites of the City, Planetizen, and Congress for New Urbanism; and

WHEREAS, in January 2022 the Community Development Department received three proposals from qualified firms that were reviewed for completeness and ranked by approach, qualifications and experience, and in February 2022 interviewed all firms; and

WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommends MIG to prepare the objective design and development standards due to its depth of relevant experience, understanding of the State laws, competitive cost and approach to the work.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Carl os hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement for professional services to prepare an objective design and development standards with MIG for a term beginning upon execution

6.l.1
Packet Pg. 233
Attachment: Resolution (Objective Design Standards)
and expiring upon the conclusion of the project and appropriates funds from Fund 25 in an amount not to exceed $305,095.

* * * * * * *

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________________ NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________________ ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________________

CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos

APPROVED:

___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

6.l.1
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: Resolution (Objective Design Standards)
1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS | CITY OF SAN CARLOS

Request for Proposal (RFP)
Objective Design Standards
 Single-Family Residential
 Multi-Family Residential
 Mixed-Use Residential

Release Date: Monday, November 1, 2021

Due: Monday , January 10, 2022 , by 4 :00 p.m.

Attn: Lisa Porras , Planning Manager

[email protected]

Planning Division
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 9470

THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS | CITY OF SAN CARLOS Electronic Submittals shall be delivered to: [email protected]

CONTENTS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 2 Introduction and Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4

SCOPE OF WORK ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 5 Step 1: Project Initiation and Management ................................................................................................................................ 5 Step 2: Data Gathering and Document Research and Review .................................................................................................... 5 Step 3: Public Outreach ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 Step 4: Objective Design Standards and Environmental Review ................................................................................................ 7 Step 5: Final Objective Design Standards Documents ................................................................................................................. 8 Step 6: Public Review, Adoption and Implementation Aids ........................................................................................................ 8 Step 7: Objection Design Standards Adoption ............................................................................................................................ 9 Concurrent Planning Efforts ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Schedule ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Pre-Proposal Conference ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 City Resources Available .............................................................................................................................................................. 9 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) 3 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS | CITY OF SAN CARLOS Request for Proposal

Introduction

The City of San Carlos (City) is issuing this Request for Proposals (RFP) to retain the services of a consultant firm with demonstrated experience preparing Objective Design Standards for all residential projects, including single-family, multi- family and mixed-use residential projects. Multi-family residential objective design standards will apply to both multi-family and mixed-use residential development projects. This document includes background information, outlines the proposed scope of work for the p roject, details the submission requirements in response to this RFP, and explains the consultant selection process.

Background

San Carlos is located on the San Francisco Peninsula in San Mateo County. It is approximately 25 miles south of San Francisco and 26 miles north of San Jose. The city is about 6 square miles and has a population of just under 30,000. Highway 101 runs through the eastern portion of the City, near an assortment of industrial and commercial uses, including a small airport and a small neighborhood of single-family homes. The west side of town extends into the San ta Cruz Mountains and is largely single-family residential with the exception of the El Camino Real and Laurel Street corridors and the City’s downtown.

In November 2011 the San Carlos City Council adopted a comprehensive update to the San Carlos Zoning Ordinance and amended subdivision lot size requirements simultaneously. Prior to this update, the Zoning Ordinance was a conventional use-based code. The Zoning Ordinance now includes design regulations such as building placement, building form and architectural articulation. The mixed -use districts emphasize walkability and support transit ridership. A few years after adoption, San Carlos began to see a significant increase in the amount of development applications being submitted. Many applications included tearing down older, single -family homes and replacing them with larger homes resulting in a new Maximum Floor Area (“MFA”) adopted in 2018 . Also , since the 2011 Zoning Ordinance update, the City has seen more interest in three to four story mixed -use residential projects in the downtown and surrounding areas. The San Carlos community has expressed concerns about the potential effects of 4 -story mixed-use structures adjacent to single -family residential zoning districts. While the City already has “transitional standards” built into the Zoning Ordinance to address these issues, a maximum height of 4 -stories could still present land use compatibility iss ues and even more so as the City seeks to increase height and density to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) of at least 2,735 new housing units.

Recent changes to State law require that cities adopt and act on residential development applications based on whether the project complies with objective design and development standards. Objective standards require no interpretation or personal judgment, as opposed to subjective standards that are subject to interpretation. Objective design standards are intended to be measurable and verifiable ( i.e., no “gray” area for interpretation). Adoption of clear , easy to interpret objective standards and regulations provide predictability to the community and developers in the development process. Adopting objective standards for new residential development will allow developers and property owners to have a clear understanding of the community’s expectations for how new residential development will look, and how it will fit in with existing development.

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) 4 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS | CITY OF SAN CARLOS Although State laws apply to projects with more than one residential unit (2+), this scope of work and final deliverable will apply to all residential projects , including single-family, multi -family and mixed-use residential projects. It is critically important that the City update current regulations to clearly lay out objective standards that reflect the community’s vision, otherwise the City will have minimal ability to shape the design of new residential developments. The City currently relies on a combination of objective and subjective design standards, implemented through a design review process with the City’s Residential Design Review Committee and Planning Commission , to regulate the design of most housing projects . This includes meeting largely subjective Design Review Criteria (SCMC 18.29.060) as part of the findings to grant project approval.

The City is interested in creating a thorough set of objective design standards to govern the development of multiple dwelling housing, both for single-family, multi-family, and mixed-use residential development proposals. The City expects this project to provide standards that will be consistent with the requirements for objective standards in compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 35 (Government Code Section 65913.4) and the Housing Accountability Act, as amended in 2019 by SB 330, and requirements of the recently adopted Senate Bill (SB) 9.

Project Objectives

The City seeks to adopt Objective Design Standards that would:

 Be in compliance with State law
 Streamline project review and permitting
 Bring consistency and clarity to project review and permitting  Be verifiable and measurable
 Ensure consistent application of standards for single-family homes with and without accessory dwelling units (ADUs)  Ensure consistent application of standards for multi-family and residential mixed-use development projects  Facilitate context-appropriate, high-quality design
 Update current regulations to clearly lay out objective standards that reflect the community’s vision  Implement policies of the San Carlos 2030 General Plan  Balance property rights of individual single-family homeowners with the community’s desire to maintain the scale of the existing residential neighborhoods
 Reflect the City’s desire to maintain high design standards throughout the community  Improve compatibility between new development and surrounding neighborhoods  Preserve the best qualities of the downtown
 Prevent a new layer of governmental constraints on the production of housing  Maintain residential density standards while improving current massing guidelines to better fit projects into the neighborhood
 Include clear development standards, specifications, performance approaches, graphic illustrations, and representations
 Incorporate an easy to read and understandable format with supporting design graphics

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) 5 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS | CITY OF SAN CARLOS Scope of Work

This Request for Proposal (RFP) is calling for a consultant team to develop objective design standards for two housing types, single-family residential and multi-family/residential mixed-use. With the input of residents, stakeholders, and staff, the City desires to produce objective design standards that reflect the goals and priorities of the City while satisfying the requirements of State law.

The consultant will be responsible for undertaking all necessary steps for this analysis and resulting modifications to the Zoning Code, as directed by staff and within the agreed upon time frame. Modifications must be integrated into the City’s regulatory framework established within the existing Zoning Ordinance in a manner that ensures overall quality and structure of the current Code, procedural consistency, aligns with state and local legal requirements, provides clarity as to applicability of existing regulations, and maximizes effectiveness of the code.

The process and the document will include the steps below and conclude with the Council adopting the standards. When responding to this RFP, the City requests that the consultant team explain its approach to each of the steps below.

Step 1: Project Initiation and Management

 Kick-off Meeting. Following the initial review of existing data, meet with City staff, in person or via video conferencing, to establish a mutual understanding of the key issues, discuss expectations, and lay out project milestones, meeting times, public workshops, and deliverables.  City Tour. Conduct an in -person city tour, to gain additional insight related to community character and recent development projects.
 Ongoing meetings with the Community Development Director, Principal Planner, and Planning Manager as needed.

Step 2: Data Gathering and Document Research and Review

 Document Review. Conduct a technical review and analysis the City’s existing policy documents, development standards and regulations, and permit procedures, including the City’s General Plan and San Carlos Municipal Code Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
 Review Existing Ordinance, Site Analysis and Best Practices . The consultant is expected to review the releva nt sections of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and become familiar with the physical form of specific areas of the City. This may include conducting site visits with staff to review patterns and scales of existing development and assess the quality, scale and placement of new structures recently approved. City staff will provide consultants with data regarding the size, placement, height of new residential structures that have been approved by the City, as well as any other data readily available that would be useful during the evaluation phase. The consultant will draw on the best practices of surrounding cities as part of the analysis.  Current Project Review. Review representative sets of project plans currently under review, including those that have been controversial and/or appealed, as well as recently approved for single-family and multi-family development to understand how development standards are currently being interpreted and applied during the present permit

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) 6 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS | CITY OF SAN CARLOS review process. In addition, public comments from relevant Residential Design Review Committee (RDRC) and Planning Commission meeting minutes will help highlight key concerns and sentiment from the public and decision makers. This task would also require meeting with the Principal Planner from Current Planning to discuss challenges and opportunities.
 Site Analysis. Identify areas with a potential for single-family, multi-family and mixed-use residential development and document key physical characteristics of the existing surrounding c ommunity and neighborhoods. The site analysis will serve as a visual inventory of the City in order to provide detailed information to develop appropriate City-specific objective standards. This effort will also help guide and focus the study while also en abling the project team, City staff, decision makers, and the public to better understand where such development is more likely to occur.
 Anticipate Taller, Denser Buildings. As part of the ongoing effort to update San Carlos’ Housing Element for 2023 - 2031, the city is anticipating taller, denser buildings to accommodate a significantly higher housing needs allocation than in prior years. This includes exploring raising building heights from 50 ft. to 75 ft. tall, with an increased density of 50 units/acre to 120 units/acre. Accordingly, objective design standards will also need to account for high quality design standards for this new building typology likely to emerge in the City in the coming years.

Step 3: Public Outreach

The consultant will conduct outreach to the community to evaluate and discern the most enduring and desirable qualities of residential development. To help increase public participation, outreach will include a mix of techniques that offer opportunities for citizens, local businesse s and agencies, and other interested parties to participate during the process.

Outreach efforts will communicate using aerial mapping, and other imagery and graphic tools to help those involved to understand design concepts and development standards. Techniques that effectively foster input must also be used to assure participants that their voices have been heard in the effort to gain consensus and reach common ground in the resulting objective design standards.

 Outreach Plan. Prepare an Outreach Plan that identifies all public outreach activities for the project. The program must have the flexibility to allow redirection and variations where needed.  Phases of Outreach. Three sets of specific outreach phases are envisioned to be held at key stages during the planning process to provide opportunities for public education and informal comment on choices being considered, including:
o Project Introduction and Issue Identification. Outreach events associated with this stage of the project will introduce the pr oject objectives and highlight the key issues to be considered. This event will include photographs, graphics, and examples of how other communities may have resolved similar issues. Initial impressions and findings will be shared, and the community’s issu es and concerns will be heard and documented.
o Public Review Draft Standards. This set of outreach events will allow the project team to present the draft standards and get additional public feedback. Study sessions with the Planning Commission and Residential Design Review Committee may be warranted. City staff will identify and reserve meeting locations and logistics.
o Public Hearing Draft Standards. Outreach events associated with this stage of the project will allow the project team to present and get f eedback on the draft design standards that will be considered by the

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) 7 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS | CITY OF SAN CARLOS Planning Commission and City Council through the formal hearing process for review, recommendation, and adoption. The consultant will assist staff with formal presentations to the City’s Planning Commission and City Council. Consultants should be prepared to attend two meetings of the Planning Commission and two meetings of the City Council.
 Outreach Events. The consultant shall identify best practices or methods for obtaining community input as well as presentation of material in various settings.
o One-on-one and small group discussions with stakeholders, including, but not limited to, the Residential Design Review Committee, affordable housing developers, and local designers and architects, conducted in person or using a video conferencing platform. A series of small group meetings can be held early in the process to discover the most critical issues for the City and what the project should focus on to ensure success. A series of meetings may also be held later in the project to get additional feedback on standards as they are being developed and provide a sounding board for draft design standards. o Online workshops using tools such as breakout rooms, chat, visual notetaking, webinars, and online voting to make the workshops interactive.
o In-person workshops using a variety of tools to make the workshops interactive or open house forums, where community members can view materials and interact with City staff and consultants. o Visualization Materials. Informative graphics and illustrations will be provided to enable participants to visualize information and effect of various approaches.  Outreach Materials. Consultant may be called upon to create public outreach materials or content for official City newsletters, and material that can be posted on a variety of social media outlets utilized by the City, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Next Door.
o The consultant will provide informatio n that can be posted onto the City’s website. As staff deems appropriate, the consultant will provide materials including text, photographs, maps, renderings, and other images for the website.
o The Consultant will draft a press release to inform residents about the planning efforts to be undertaken.

Step 4: Objective Design Standards and Environmental Review

The consultant shall put together the following design standards for City Council consideration.

 Buffer Zones: For multi -family developments adjacent to a single -family neighborhood. The consultant team to evaluate current transitional standards and assess whether and how these might be strengthened to meet community and city objectives.
 Building articulation refers to three-dimensional changes in the outside walls of a building, including projections and overhangs like decks or bay windows, voids provided by recessed entryways or walkways, or step-backs of second or third stories from lower stories.
 Massing composition, including horizontal and vertical façade orientation  Building materials – High quality, innovative building materials  Landscaping requirements including objective landscape screening standards for buffering between different uses and building scales and provide green neighborhoods

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) 8 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS | CITY OF SAN CARLOS  Location and configuration of parking
 Relationship with neighboring structures as well as sidewalks and streets in the public right-of-way, including building setbacks, articulation, location of parking, and other design elements

For this project, the City anticipates completion of a Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15168 (c) and (e). The consultant should include a separate line item for completion of this work, which may be completed by the consultant, City staff or another outside consultant.

Step 5: Final Objective Design Standards Documents

Through the process of developing the final Objective Design Standards document, there will be three draft documents produced, as follows:
 Administrative Draft. Prepare illustrated objective design standards for single-family and multi-family/residential mixed-use development. Standards will reflect the variety of building types and architectural styles appropriate in San Carlos and address topics such as site planning, bu ilding massing and elements, building frontages, entrances, exterior materials, landscaping, utilitarian/mechanical elements of building design, etc.

The draft standards will consist of objective design standards applicable to single-family and multi-family/residential mixed-use development and standards applicable to specific typologies based on development types (such as garden apartment, townhome, apartment building, etc.), design type, lot size and configuration, or other organizing principle. It is anticipated that at least four typologies may be identified.

The project team will test the standards on prototypical sites to ensure the standards enable the intended development. Images and exhibits representing a suggested design topic or standard, many which will contain text callouts helping to illustrate the design intent, will be prepared. As needed and directed by staff, prepare graphic illustrations to augment written design standards. New or improved graphics will correlate to the standards found in the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
 Public Review Draft. Review staff comments on the administrative draft standards and prepare the Public Review Draft Design Standards.
 Public Hearing Draft. Based on comments received on the Public Review Draft, prepare Public Hearing Draft Design Standards for consideration through the formal review and adoption process.

Step 6: Public Review, Adoption, and Implementation Aids

The following deliverables will be provided as part of the final adoption and implementation of Objective Design Standards:
 Public Hearings. Prepare all required visual aids, printed material, and make formal public presentations at up to two Planning Commission hearings and two City Council hearings to support adoption of the Objective Design Standards.  Final Objective Design Standards. Based on City Council action, prepare the final Objective Design Standards document for reproduction, dissemination, and integration into Title 18 Zoning Standards.

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) 9 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS | CITY OF SAN CARLOS  Common Procedures and Design Review : Other sections of the Zoning Ordinance, su ch as Common Procedures (SCMC 18.27) or Design Review (SCMC 18.29), are likely to warrant change because of the modifications.

Step 7: Objective Design Standards Adoption

The consultant team will lead the community and decision-makers through the adoption process.

Concurrent Planning Efforts

The City is undertaking a comprehensive, housing-related update to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (for height and density increases). The process started in 2020 and will conclude in 2023, with the adoption of the General Plan amendments, Zoning Ordinance amendments, and the Housing Element. More information can be found here:
www.SanCarlos2040.org

Schedule

It is expected that this process will begin in later February 2022 and will take approximately 12-18 months to complete.

However, because of the scope of this project, the City is open to discussing project completion in phases, due to a preferred expedited schedule for single-family development as a result of the recent passage of Senate Bill 9.

Pre-Proposal Conference

A pre-proposal conference call will be held via Zoom on December 8, 2021 at 11:00 am where questions will be answered.

Interested parties should join the Zoom Meeting at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81522304351 or call +1 669 900 9128, Meeting ID: 815 2230 4351.

City Resources Available

The City of San Carlos has the following resources available to support the work, outreach, and materials needed to complete the Scope of Work:
 Mapping/GIS (in contact with CalCAD)
 Video Recordings for Public Outreach (in contract with PenTV)  Newsletters for Civic Engagement (City under contract with consultant who prepares quarterly newsletters sent to every resident “City of Good Living”, as well as focused topic brochures known as “Spotlight.”)  Social Media: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Next Door

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) 10 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS | CITY OF SAN CARLOS

Submittal Requirements

All Proposals shall include the following minimum information:

1. Cover Letter- Indicate interest and commitment to perform the above services for the City of San Carlos. Include contact information (physical address, telephone, and email address) for the primary person responsible for the proposal who will be the point of contact for the City on the correspondence and communications pertaining to the proposal. The cover letter should also summarize the key points of the consulting firms’ interests and qualifications and pertinent areas of expertise.

2. Relevant Experience - List projects completed by the Consultant relevant to the scope of services contained herein that have been completed in the last five years. Discuss the firm's uniqueness to best perform these services for the City.

3. Current Clients/Projects - Provide a list of all clients doing business with the Consultant in the past 12 months and identify any projects within the City of San Carlos in the past 12 months.

4. Scope of Work and Timeline: provide a Scope of Work that responds to the tasks outline in this RFP with an estimated timeline to complete each task.

5. Estimated Fee and Budget - Provide a fee and budget estimate that includes a list of hourly billing rates for each proposed team member. Include all direct and indirect expenses and transportation fees. Provide a cost estimate for completing each task outlined in the scope of work. In the event the City wishes to authorize the single-family design standards ahead of the multi-family/residential mixed-use design standards, provide a separate cost estimate for completing the single-family standards and the multi-family/residential mixed-use standards, including separate community outreach and adoption process.

Submittal: Interested individuals or firms shall submit one electronic copy, via email, by Monday, January 10, 2022, by 4 p.m. to [email protected]

Attachments:

City of San Carlos Professional Services Agreement

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) Agreement for Professional Services 11 Revised 07/16/2021

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

This Agreement is made and entered into as of __________________ by and between the City of San Carlos hereinafter called "CITY" and ____________________ hereinafter called "CONSULTANT".

RECITALS

This Agreement is entered into with reference to the following facts and circumstances:

A. That CITY desires to engage CONSULTANT to render certain professional services in the CITY;

B. That CONSULTANT is qualified to provide such services to the CITY and;

THEREFORE, the CITY has elected to engage the services of CONSULTANT upon the terms and conditions as hereinafter set forth.

1. Services. The services to be performed by CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall include thos e services set forth in Exhibit A , which is, by this reference, incorporated herein and made a part hereof as though it were fully set forth herein.

Performance of the work specified in said Exhibit is hereby made an obligation of CONSULTANT under this Agreement, subject to any changes that may be made subsequently hereto upon the mutual written agreement of the said parties.

Where in conflict, the terms of this Agreement supersede and prevail over any terms set forth in Exhibit A.

2. Term; Termination. (a) The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the date hereinabove written and shall expire upon completion of performance of services hereunder by CONSULTANT. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of (a) above, CITY may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving written notice not less than ten (10) days prior to the effective date of termination, which date shall be included in said notice. In the event of such termination, CITY shall compensate

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) Agreement for Professional Services 12 Revised 07/16/2021 CONSULTANT for services rendered, and reimburse CONSULTANT for costs and expenses incurred, to the date of termination, calculated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3. In ascertaining the services actually rendered to the date of termination, consideration shall be given both to completed work and work in process of completion. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed a limitation upon the right of CITY to terminate this Agreement for cause, or otherwise to exercise such rights or pursue such remedies as may accrue to CITY hereunder.

3. Compensation; Expenses; Payment. CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for all services performed by CONSULTANT hereunder in an amount based upon CONSULTANT’s hourly rates during the time of the performance of said services.

A copy of CONSULTANT’s hourly rates for which services hereunder shall be performed are set forth in CONSULTANT’s fee schedule marked Exhibit B hereof, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.

Notwithstanding th e foregoing, the combined total of compensation and reimbursement of costs payable hereunder shall not exceed the sum of _____________________ ($________________) unless the performance of services and/or reimbursement of costs and expenses in excess of sa id amounts have been approved in advance of performing such services or incurring such costs and expenses by CITY’s City Manager (for contracts less than $75,000 or authorized by City Council action for contracts $75,000 or more by motion duly made and carried).

Compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses hereunder shall be payable upon monthly billing therefor by CONSULTANT to CITY, which billing shall include an itemized statement, briefly describing by task and labor category or cost/expense items billed.

4. Additional Services . In the event CITY desires the performance of additional services not otherwise included within the services described in Exhibit A, such services shall be authorized in advance of the performance thereof by CITY’s City Manager (for contracts less than $75,000 or authorized by City Council action for contracts $75,000 or more by motion duly made and carried). Such amendment to this Agreement shall include a description of the services to be performed thereunder, the maxim um compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses payable therefor, the time of performance thereof, and such other matters as the parties deem appropriate for the accomplishment of such services.

Any additional services causing the total contract pr ice to exceed $75,000, shall require approval by the City Council. Except to the extent modified by written amendment, all other terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed incorporated in each such amendment.

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 246
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) Agreement for Professional Services 13 Revised 07/16/2021

5. Records. CONSULTANT shall keep and maintain accurate records of all time expended and costs and expenses incurred relating to services to be performed by CONSULTANT hereunder. Said records shall be available to CITY for review and copying during regular business hours at CONSULTANT’s place of business or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties.

6. Authorization. This Agreement becomes effective when endorsed by both parties in the space provided below.

7. Reliance on Professional Skill of CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT represents that it has the necessary professional skills to perform the services required and the CITY shall rely on such skills of the CONSULTANT to do and perform the work. In performing services hereunder CONSULTANT shall adhere to the standards generally prevailing for the performance of expert consulting services similar to those to be performed by CONSULTANT hereunder. CONSULTANT acknowledges the importance to CITY of the skill, competency, ability to appropriately work with CITY staff and expertise of individual staff assigned to the project, and accordingly the individuals assigned to the Project must be acceptable to CITY.

8. Documents. All documents, plans, drawings, renderings, and other papers, or copies thereof, as finally rendered, prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, shall, upon preparation and delivery to CITY, become the property of CITY.

9. Relationship of Parties. It is understood that the relationship of CONSULTANT to the CITY is that of an independent contractor and all persons working for or under the direction of CONSULTANT are its agents or employees and not agents or employees of the CITY.

10. Schedule. CONSULTANT shall adhere to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A; provided, that CITY shall grant reasonable extensions of time for the performance of such services occasioned by governmental reviews of CONSULTANT’s work product or other unavoidable delays; provided, further, that such unavoidable delay shall not include strikes, lockouts, work stoppages, or other labor disturba nces conducted by, or on behalf of, CONSULTANT’s officers or employees.

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 247
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) Agreement for Professional Services 14 Revised 07/16/2021 CONSULTANT acknowledges the importance to CITY of CITY’s Project schedule and agrees to put forth its best professional efforts to perform its services under this Agreement in a manner consistent with that schedule.

11. Indemnity. CONSULTANT shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its officers, employees, agents and volunteers from and against all liability, loss, damage, expense, and cost (including, without limitation, reasonable le gal counsel fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with CONSULTANT’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct in the performance of work hereunder, or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except such loss or damage caused by the active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California and will survive termination of this Agreement. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify CITY its officers, employees, agents and volunteers against any responsibi lity or liability in contravention of Section 2782 of the California Civil Code.

12. Insurance. CONSULTANT shall acquire and maintain Workers’ Compensation, employer’s liability, commercial general liability, owned and non-owned and hired automobile liability, and professional liability insurance covering risks relating to CONSULTANT’s services to be performed hereunder in form subject to the approval of the City Attorney and/or CITY’s Risk Manager. The minimum amounts of coverage corresponding to the aforesaid categories of insurance per insurable event, shall be as follows:

Insurance Category Minimum Limits

Workers’ Compensation statutory minimum

Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. CONSULTANT shall submit to City
a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in
favor of City, its officers, agents, employees,
and volunteers.

Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 (to $5,000,000 depending on exposure) per occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury, and property damag e,

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) Agreement for Professional Services 15 Revised 07/16/2021 including without limitation, blanket
contractual liability and coverage for
explosion, collapse and underground
property damage hazards. If a general
aggregate limit applies, either the general
aggregate limit shall apply separately to this
project/location or the general aggregate
limit shall be twice the required occurrence
limit. Coverage must be at least as broad as
Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01.

Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage (coverage required to the
extent applicable to CONSULTANT’s vehicle
usage in performing services hereunder)

1Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and if a general aggregate limit applies, general aggregate
limit shall be twice the required occurrence
limit.

Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall furnish CITY with certificates and copies of information or declaration pages of the insurance required hereunder and, with respect to evidence of commercial general liability and automobile liability insurance coverage, original endorsements:

(a) Precluding cancellation or reduction in per occurrence limits before the expiration of thirty (30) days (10 days for nonpayment) after City shall have received written notification of cancellation in coverage or reduction in per occurrence limits by first class mail;

(b) CONSULTANT’s general liability policies shall be primary and non - contributory, and be endorsed using Insurance Services Office form CG 20 10 to provide that City and its office rs, officials, employees, and agents shall be additional insured under such policies. An endorsement providing

1 Note: Professional liability insuranc e coverage is not required if the contractor/vendor/consultant is not providing a service regulated by the state. (Examples of service providers regulated by the state are insurance agents, professional engineers, doctors, certified public accountants, la wyers, etc.) Please check and initial the following if professional liability is NOT required for this agreement.  Recommended ______ [Project Manager]  Approved _______[Risk Manager]

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 249
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) Agreement for Professional Services 16 Revised 07/16/2021 completed operations coverage for the additional insured, ISO form CG 20 37, is also required.

Claims Made Policies
If any of the required policies provide claims-made coverage:

1. The Retroactive Date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.

2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.

3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims- made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.

Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the CITY with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the CITY before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The CITY reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

Waiver of Subrogation
Consultant hereby grants to CITY a waiver of any right to su brogation which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. This provision applies regardless of whether or not the CITY has requested or received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

Special Risks or Circumstances
CITY reserves the right to modify th ese requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 250
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) Agreement for Professional Services 17 Revised 07/16/2021

Coverage
It is a requirement under this agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits shall be made available to the Additional Insured and shall be (1) the minimum c overage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy, whichever is greater.

Primary and Non-Contributory Coverage
The Additional Insured coverage under the Consultant’s policy shall be “primary and non-contributory” as will not seek contribution from the CITY insurance or self- insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 12.

Excess Insurance
The limits of insurance required in this agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of CITY before the CITY insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

13. Workers’ Compensation. CONSULTANT acknowledges and certifies awareness of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and CONSULTANT certifies and agrees to compliance with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this agreement.

14. Non-Discrimination. The CONSULTANT hereby assures that it will comply with Subchapter VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC Section 2000 (e)(17), to the end that CONSULTANT will not exclude any person from participation in, b e denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subject to discrimination from any project, program, or activity supported by this Agreement, based on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, age, or religion,. CONSULTANT shall comply with i ts EEO Certification (Form PW -7). In addition, CONSUTLANT will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The CONSULTANT will take affirmative

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 251
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) Agreement for Professional Services 18 Revised 07/16/2021 action to insure that applicants are employed and the employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, advancement, demotion, transfer, recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The CONSULTANT shall at all times be in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Americans With Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities.

The CONSULTANT agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment any notices provided by the CITY setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause.

15. Notice. All notices required by this Agreement shall be given to the CITY and CONSULTANT in writing, by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

CITY: City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
Attention: ____________________

CONSULTANT: ____________________________
(Fill in CONSULTANT Name, Address, Phone
Number, and Project Manager for CONSULTANT)

16. Non-Assignment. This Agreement is not assignable either in whole or in part.

17. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by written agreement signed by both parties.

18. Business Registration. VENDOR agrees to comply with Chapter 5.04 of the Municipal Code and pay all fees required to be paid.

19. Validity. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) Agreement for Professional Services 19 Revised 07/16/2021

20. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any suit or action initiated by either party shall be brought in the County of San Mateo, California. In the event of litigation between the part ies hereto to enforce any provision of the Agreement, the unsuccessful party will pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation of the successful party.

21. Mediation. Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, the parties shall meet in mediation and attempt to reach a resolution with the assistance of a mutually acceptable mediator. Neither party shall be permitted to file legal action without first meeting in mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated resolution. The costs of the mediator, if any, shall be paid equally by the parties.

If a mediated settlement is reached neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of the settlement and each party shall bear its own legal costs.

If a party ref uses or fails to participate in mediation in good faith prior to filing a lawsuit, then that party shall be barred from recovery of attorneys fees and costs of suit.

22. Conflict of Interest . CONSULTANT may serve other clients, but none who are active within the City of San Carlos or who conduct business that would place CONSULTANT in a "conflict of interest" as that term is defined in State law.

23. Entire Agreement. Each party acknowledges that this agreement, the exhibits hereto, and the documents incorporated by reference herein constitute the complete agreement and exclusive statement of the terms and conditions between the parties, which supercedes and merges all prior proposals, understandings and all other agreements, verbal and written, between the parties relating to the subject matter of this agreement. This agreement may not be modified or altered except by written instrument duly executed by both parties.

[SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW]

6.l.2
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: RFP - Residential Objective Standards Nov 1 2021 (Objective Design Standards) Objective Design Standards
• Single-Family Residential
• Multi-Family Residential
• Mixed-Use Residential

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
800 Hearst Avenue | Berkeley, CA 92104 | (510) 845-7549 | www.migcom.com PROPOSAL | FEBRUARY 18, 2022 (REVISED)

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) 800 Hearst Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
P (510) 845-7549
F (510) 845-8750
www.migcom.com

PLANNING / DESIGN / COMMUNICATIONS / MANAGEMENT / TECHNOLOGY / SCIENCE

CALIFORNIA

BERKELEY, FULLERTON,

LOS ANGELES, PASADENA,

RIVERSIDE, SACRAMENTO,

SAN DIEGO, SAN JOSE,

AND SONOMA

COLORADO
DENVER
OREGON

PORTLAND
TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO

WASHINGTON

SEATTLE
January 14, 2022
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
Planning Division
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
Re: Proposal for Objective Design Standards
Dear Ms. Porras and Members of the Selection Committee:

The City of San Carlos looks to further its reputation for producing quality housing projects by preparing objective design standards that will clearly establish expectations for new housing and mixed-use development projects. From our work with you on the Housing Element, we know that the City prides itself on insisting upon high design quality and approving housing projects that will have positive, long-lasting community impact. For San Carlos, we recommend creating a context-sensitive, graphically rich, and easily enforceable set of standards through both zoning ordinance regulations and an illustrated guide to support continued production of high-design quality development projects.

In the Request for Proposals, the City clearly states the primary project goal: to create high-quality, enforceable objective design standards that will: 1) help to streamline the review and approval process for housing projects and 2) provide more certainty to applicants, decision-makers, residents, and the public. Toward this end, the City envisions updating the current regulations to clearly lay out objective standards that reflect the community’s vision, for which the City currently relies upon a combination of objective and subjective design standards—implemented through a design review process with the City’s Residential Design Review Committee and Planning Commission—to regulate the design of most housing projects.

To keep the program focused on graphic and language clarity, our project approach and scope strategically deploy engagement with the community, developers, and City officials, with careful attention to the timing of meeting forums so that the level of input received can inform each step. In addition, we have described a suite of optional events that we have used in other similar projects to maximize public awareness and participation.

While you know MIG from our current work updating the Housing and Safety Elements, contract planning, and various CEQA assignments, our expertise also includes land use planning, urban design, and place-making. MIG’s award-winning design team has been recognized for the plans we have prepared to enhance urban environments, such as the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan in El Cerrito and the Burlingame Zoning Code.

RIGHT TEAM: The MIG Team taps into the full range and many strengths of our multidisciplinary firm. Our team will be led by Laura Stetson and Rishi Dhody, both of whom are seasoned planners and designers with extensive experience in creating objective design standards for diverse cities, including recent work in El Cerrito, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Richmond, and Burlingame. Laura and Rishi will be supported by our in-house staff of urban planners and designers, landscape architects, and zoning and CEQA experts.

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 255
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

PLANNING / DESIGN / COMMUNICATIONS / MANAGEMENT / TECHNOLOGY / SCIENCE RIGHT EXPERIENCE: While the requirement to provide objective design standards is relatively new, MIG has worked for four decades on producing zoning regulations and design standards that reflect each community’s unique design aesthetic. We are currently preparing or have completed objective design standards for six communities to comply with current law and advance design expectations.

This experience tells us that neither the approach nor the standards produced are the same in any jurisdiction. Only through detailed study and deep community conversations do we learn how to “right size” the work for each client.

RIGHT APPROACH: Our approach includes intensive community conversations to learn design expectations and gain an understanding of how existing subjective regulations can be “objectified” and coupled with new regulations in a manner that will give the community comfort regarding eliminating truly discretionary review processes for new residential and mixed-use projects that are consistent with land use and zoning regulations—and objective design standards specifically. Thus, getting the objective design standards “right” will be critical as decision-makers may not be able to substantially modify or deny consistent applications. The public must be confident that the standards will produce projects that meet San Carlos’ expectations. Our design team will be able to present illustrative examples of projects resulting from the new standards.

RIGHT INNOVATIONS: MIG works collaboratively with our clients, stakeholders, and the local community to assure the community’s character is protected, its vision articulated, and specific actions are in place to create positive and lasting change. Even before the constraints on public gatherings imposed by COVID-19, MIG was using the virtual environment to conduct workshops and community meetings. We will design and carry out activities that engage participants easily via their computers and allow for in-depth feedback on the ideas presented.

The MIG Team provides the ideal combination of skills, know-how, local understanding, creativity, and experience to ensure this is a successful process for San Carlos. We are excited about this opportunity and look forward to sharing our ideas with you. Please contact Rishi Dhody or me if you have questions or would like additional information. We continue to work from our home offices during the pandemic and can be reached as follows:

Laura Stetson: [email protected] , (818) 388-4286
Rishi Dhody: [email protected], (510) 514-8826
Sincerely,

Laura R. Stetson, AICP
Principal-in-Charge

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 256
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

CONTENTS
01 Relevant Experience
Firm Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Key Staff Resumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Relevant Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 02 Current Clients/Projects . . . . . . . . 20 03 Scope of Work and Timeline . . . . . . . 27 04 Estimated Fee and Budget. . . . . . . .40

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 257
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 1 01 Relevant Experience
MIG improves, adapts, and creates organizations,
environments, and tools for human development. We are a community of designers, planners, engineers, scientists, and storytellers who engage people in creative problem-solving and collective action. We believe that the physical and social environment around us have a profound impact on our lives, and this belief shapes the principles that guide our work:
» Communities can plan their own futures.
» The world needs an ecological perspective.
» Great projects work for everyone.
» Elegant design inspires new thinking.
» Every project presents an opportunity to advance racial and social equity.
» All work must be context driven.

For four decades, MIG has served public and private clients of every size and jurisdiction—from cities, counties, and special districts to regulatory agencies and developers—as a full-service planning and design firm. Our multidisciplinary staff has the background and experience to prepare plans and design documents for a wide variety of projects,
including site-specific infrastructure, residential, institutional, mixed-use, and transit-oriented developments; downtowns and streetscapes; and broader policy initiatives like specific, general, and regional plans as well as open space and river corridor plans.

MIG, Inc., is at the forefront of innovation.

We are leading local, regional, and national
planning and design initiatives to create
context-based objective standards; ensure
accessibility and equity; engage, educate,
and empower people through participatory
processes; facilitate strategy development
for social change; create playful and
inclusive communities; reimagine streets
and repurpose infrastructure; revitalize
cities and restore ecosystems; and
promote environmental stewardship by
recognizing that the health of the natural
and built world is mutually dependent.

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 258
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 2 MIG offers a unique combination of community planning,
urban design, and public engagement expertise that
brings community interests together to frame land use,
transportation, and urban design issues. From vision and concept development to final planning and construction
documents, MIG has a successful track record in the
planning and design of environments that contribute to
community livability and enable residents to lead healthy, active lifestyles. As national thought leaders, we are
positioned to present best practices and innovations
that cut across disciplines. Our staff provide a base of knowledge that bridges technical expertise and values,
facilitating consensus among all parties to ensure a
successfully implemented project. Our approach is based on a thorough understanding of existing conditions and
guiding regulations; efficiency and accuracy in information gathering and analysis; and creativity and innovation in communications, problem-solving, and implementation.

RELEVANT AREAS OF EXPERTISE
» Objective Design Standards
» Urban Design and Placemaking
» Downtown Neighborhood Master Planning
» Streetscapes, Corridors, Green Streets,
and Complete Streets
» Community Outreach and Involvement
» Stakeholder Facilitation and Consensus Building
» Landscape Architecture, Parks, Plazas,
and Public Realm Design
» Universal Design and Accessibility
» Sustainability and Resiliency Planning
» Mapping and GIS Analysis
» Strategic Communications and Graphic Design
Project Team

MANAGEMENT TEAM
Laura Stetson, Principal-in-Charge , has over 30 years of experience preparing objective design standards; general plans and other community planning studies; housing
elements; zoning codes and other regulatory documents;
and CEQA documentation at the programmatic and
project level. She has a proven track record of overseeing complex, high-profile, and technically oriented projects.

Rishi Dhody, Project Manager, will be the day-to-day
contact and will guide the overall project direction and strategy. With extensive experience in managing projects, he will be active in all aspects of the project—ensuring that the process remains on schedule and within budget, and meets the project’s goals.

Mukul Malhotra, Consulting Principal, will supplement
the team with his sound technical planning skills and
innovative thinking, combined with great facilitation and organizational talents. Originally an architect, Mukul
gravitated toward urban design because it yields greater impact beyond just the physical environment—urban
design sets the stage for public life affecting how people live, work, play, and move around.

SUPPORT TEAM
» Christine Thomson, Urban Designer
» Lisa Brownfield, Zoning Specialist
» Joan Chaplick, Engagement Specialist
» Marco Hinojosa, Associate Planner

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 259
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 3

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
» Land Use Planning
» General Plans
» Zoning Codes
» Specific Plans
» Meeting Facilitation
» CEQA Documentation

EDUCATION
» BS, Environmental Earth
Science, Stanford University
» Graduate Coursework
in Public Administration,
American University

CERTIFICATIONS
» AICP Certified Planner

AFFILIATIONS
» American Planning
Association (APA)
» American Institute of
Certified Planners (AICP)
» California Planning
Roundtable
Laura Stetson, AICP

PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE
Laura Stetson’s leadership and award-winning expertise in land use planning and zoning has contributed to the thoughtful revitalization of many cities throughout California. For Laura, it all started with her fascination for maps and the stories they tell about cities. Understanding the spatial layout of a community and its human impacts enables her to use policy to shape the environment in a positive way. In turn, the policy documents she helps to craft—general plans, specific plans, zoning codes, and CEQA documents —guide positive change for the people in those communities. A self-defined “fixer,” Laura uses her management and facilitation skills to engage clients and stakeholders in collaborative problem-solving. If vision is considered both a starting point and overarching goal for planning, Laura’s strength lies in taking that vision and mapping out the best routes to implementation. She methodically analyzes and synthesizes the potential implications and outcomes associated with policies that regulate not only how land will be used, but what, where, and how desirable new construction occurs. Because the plans she develops have long-term impacts, Laura strives to ensure that they meet multiple objectives and are adaptable to changing circumstances. With her 30+ years of experience, she offers a deep reservoir of knowledge to assist communities of every size and variety find the right path forward.

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
» San Mateo Objective Design
Standards, San Mateo, CA
» Agoura Hills Objective Design
Standards, Agoura Hills, CA
» Hemet Objective Design and
Development Standards,
Hemet, CA
» San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations,
San Luis Obispo, CA
» Paso Robles Housing Element,
Paso Robles, CA
» Atascadero Housing Element,
Atascadero, CA
» Burlingame Zoning Code,
Burlingame, CA
» Temple City Sign Code,
Temple City, CA
» Arcadia Zoning and Subdivision
Codes, Arcadia, CA
» Baldwin Park Zoning and Subdivision
Codes, Baldwin Park, CA
» Duarte Development Code,
Duarte, CA
» Garden Grove Mixed Use
Regulations, Garden Grove, CA
» La Mirada Zoning Code,
La Mirada, CA
» La Puente Zoning Code,
La Puente, CA
» Loma Linda Sign Regulations,
Loma Linda, CA
» Los Alamitos Zoning and Subdivision
Code Comprehensive Update,
Los Alamitos, CA
» Azusa General Plan, Azusa, CA
» Baldwin Park General Plan,
Baldwin Park, CA
» Claremont General Plan,
Claremont, CA

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 4 Rishi Dhody

PROJECT MANAGER
Rishi Dhody supports MIG’s urban design and planning practice through innovation and implementation of community-oriented planning and urban design projects. Rishi provides graphic design, writing, and ideation support on a large range of projects from downtown plans to streetscape designs across the country.

Rishi has worked on a wide variety of comprehensive and urban design plans with a focus on creating distinctive place types for different neighborhoods and districts. He helps create innovative urban design and land use plans, design guidelines and standards, municipal and form-based codes, and transformative Complete Street designs. Rishi is passionate about creating resilient neighborhoods.

A multidisciplinary designer, Rishi collaboratively works with diverse teams including planners, architects, landscape architects, and engineers. He is also experienced in facilitating a variety of community engagement forums, including design charrettes, community workshops, and open houses.

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
» San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan
and Objective Design Standards, El
Cerrito and Richmond, CA
» Santa Cruz County Objective
Design Standards,
Santa Cruz County, CA
» San Mateo Objective Design
Standards, San Mateo, CA
» Patrick Henry Drive and
Freedom Circle Specific Plan,
Santa Clara, CA
» Fairfield Downtown Specific Plan,
Fairfield, CA
» Urban Village Urban Design Plan,
San Jose, CA
» SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan,
San Antonio, Tx
» Brisbane Parkside Area Precise
Plan, Brisbane, CA
» Iron Triangle Neighborhood
Sidewalk and Streetscape
Improvements, Richmond, CA
» Zona Cultural District Urban and
Streetscape Design Plan,
San Antonio, Tx
» Downtown Complete Street
Streetscape and Urban Design
Plan, Mobile, AL
» Downtown Greensboro Urban
Design Streetscape Plan,
Greensboro, NC
» Downtown Winston Salem Urban
Design Plan, Winston Salem, NC

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
» Objective Design Standards
» Urban Design
» Land Use Planning
» Specific Plans
» Comprehensive Planning
» Sustainable Design

EDUCATION
» MUD, University of California,
Berkeley
» BArch, Dr. D.Y. Patil College
of Engineering and
Technology

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 5

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
» Objective Design Standards
» Urban Planning and Design
» Specific Plans
» Complete Streets
» Community Development
» Community and Stakeholder
Engagement and Meeting
Facilitation

EDUCATION
» Master of Urban Design,
University of California,
Berkeley
» Diploma in Architecture,
Sushant School of Art and
Architecture, Gurgaon, India

SELECTED AWARDS
» 2017 APWA Texas Chapter
Public Works Project of the
Y ear, Hemisfair Interior Area
Streets (East Nueva & Water)
» 2014 IDA Achievement
Award, re:Streets Planning
Initiative
» 2011 Best Projects California,
McGraw-Hill/ENR Merit
Award Winner, Long Beach
Transit Mall Streetscape
Improvements
Mukul Malhotra

CONSULTING PRINCIPAL / URBAN DESIGN DIRECTOR
Mukul Malhotra is an award-winning urban designer and nationally recognized expert and innovator in objective design standards, master plans, and complete streets. Originally an architect, Mukul gravitated toward urban design because it yields greater impact beyond just the physical environment—urban design sets the stage for public life affecting how people live, work, play, and move around.

He is committed to not only advancing the communities he works in around the country, but also to moving the dial up a notch on the profession itself. As one of the creators of MIG’s re:Streets Initiative, Mukul leads a multidisciplinary Street Design Studio that explores what America’s roadways would be like if they were designed for living instead of just driving. His projects have addressed issues related to urban development and revitalization, urban forestation and green infrastructure in the planning and design of the public realm, pedestrian- and transit-oriented design, and preservation of neighborhood and city character.

From downtowns and inner-city neighborhoods to new communities and university campuses, Mukul’s creativity and interdisciplinary approach have given shape and form to countless places and spaces across California.

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
» Santa Cruz County Objective Design
Standards, Santa Cruz County, CA
» San Mateo Objective Design
Standards, San Mateo, CA
» San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and
Objective Design Standards,
El Cerrito and Richmond, CA
» Upper Market Street Community
Vision and Design Plan,
San Francisco, CA
» Brisbane Parkside Area Precise Plan,
Brisbane, CA
» San Jose Urban Village Plans,
San Jose, CA
» San Antonio Tomorrow Area Plans
Phase I, San Antonio, Tx
» Atlantic and Washington Boulevards
Corridor Specific Plans,
Commerce, CA
» Barrio Logan Community Plan,
San Diego, CA
» Northeast Line Light Rail Stations,
Sacramento, CA
» West Capitol Avenue Streetscape
Master Plan, West Sacramento, CA
» R Street Urban Design and
Development Code Plan,
Sacramento, CA
» Gold Line TOD Plans and Market
Studies, Los Angeles, CA
» Ankeny/Burnside Urban Design Plan,
Portland, OR
» Denver TOD Plans, Denver, CO
» Sunol Town Center Pedestrian
Improvements for a Livable
Community, Sunol, CA
» re:Streets Conference and Traveling
Workshops, Berkeley, Boulder,
Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Encinitas,
Laramie, San Antonio, St. Louis

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 6

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
» Objective Design Standards
» Urban Planning and Design
» Housing
» Community Revitalization
» Environmental Planning
» Sustainable Design
» Community Engagement

EDUCATION
» MS, Environment &
Resources, University of
Wisconsin
» MA, Urban and Environmental
Planning, University of Virginia
» MA, Architecture, University of
Virginia
» BA, Urban Studies / Geology,
Brown University

CERTIFICATIONS
» American Institute of Certified
Planners (AICP)
» LEED Accredited Professional
(LEED AP)

AFFILIATIONS
» American Planning
Association (APA)
» San Francisco Planning and
Urban Research Association
(SPUR)
» Building Green Sustainable
Community Design Leader
(SCDL)
Christine Thomson, AICP, LEED AP

URBAN DESIGNER
As a planner and designer, Christine Scott Thomson offers lessons learned and wisdom earned from 25 years of work on a variety of projects at every scale—from a single building to neighborhoods to districts to entire cities.

Christine was first drawn to the field by a curiosity about how societies formed and the resulting relationship between the built and natural environments.

Her passion for sustaining those environments keeps her focused on finding greener solutions that work to increase the health and prosperity of human and natural ecosystems. She is also passionate about getting the details right and contributing to her local community, where she recently served as a Planning Commissioner for the City of Emeryville for four years. Christine’s ability to talk across disciplines and quickly identify the root causes of conflicts and areas of mutual opportunity enables her to facilitate consensus toward shared decisions and solutions. As a manager, she is direct, detail-oriented, and dedicated to staying on the leading edge of innovation and creativity to deliver actionable, tactical plans that integrate sustainability, align policy with outcomes, and clearly guide implementation.

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
» San Mateo Objective Design
Standards, San Mateo, CA
» Agoura Hills Objective Design
Standards, Agoura Hills, CA
» Phase II Oakland EcoBlock: A Zero
Net Energy, Low Water Use Retrofit
Neighborhood Demonstration
Project, Oakland, CA*
» UC ANR Hansen Agricultural
Research and Extension Center,
Santa Paula, CA
» India Basin Mixed-Use Project,
San Francisco, CA*
» Berryessa BART Urban Village Plan,
San Jose, CA*
» North First Street Urban Village Plan,
San Jose, CA*
» Phase I Oakland EcoBlock: A Zero
Net Energy, Low Water Use Retrofit
Neighborhood Planning Study,
Oakland, CA*
» UC Santa Cruz Long Range
Development Plan, Santa Cruz, CA*
» SF State RTC Master Plan,
Tiburon, CA*
» Bay Area Waterfront Development,
Confidential, CA*
» Menlo Community Residential,
Menlo, CA*
» Milwaukee’s Inner Harbor,
Milwaukee, WI*
» University of Wisconsin-Madison
Perspectives on Neighborhoods
Built Around Smart Growth
Principals, Madison, WI*
» Milwaukee River Greenway Master
Plan, Milwaukee, WI*
» West Side Master Plan, Wausau, WI*

* Work completed prior to joining MIG

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 7

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
» Project Management
» General and Specific Plans
» Sustainability
» Land Use Planning and
Policy

EDUCATION
» MA, Architecture and Urban
Planning, University of
California, Los Angeles
» BS, Urban Planning,
California State Polytechnic
University, Pomona

CERTIFICATIONS
» AICP Certified Planner

AFFILIATIONS
» American Planning
Association (APA)
» American Institute of
Certified Planners (AICP)
Lisa Brownfield, AICP

ZONING SPECIALIST
Lisa Brownfield leverages her 30+ years of planning expertise to help public and private clients find and define the best path forward on issues ranging from land use and housing to sustainability and circulation. As a child, Lisa had an innate curiosity for cities and she used to picture how vacant or run-down spaces could be improved. Now she directs and manages projects that create positive change for entire cities and their residents. Lisa is adept at working collaboratively with client staff, ensuring that they have a sense of ownership and accomplishment throughout the planning process. The diversity and depth of her experience allows her to frame discussions, keeping projects moving toward successful outcomes. Whether she’s developing a general plan, zoning code, or environmental analysis, Lisa’s focus is always on the future and the potential benefits that can be achieved for each community.

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
» Adelanto North 2035: Sustainable
Comprehensive Plan, Adelanto, CA
» Agoura Hills General Plan Phase I,
Agoura Hills, CA
» Arrow Highway Corridor Specific
Plan, Glendora, CA
» Azusa General Plan and
Development Code, Azusa, CA
» Big Bear Lake Moonridge Corridor
Specific Plan and EIR,
Big Bear Lake, CA
» Commerce General Plan,
Commerce, CA
» Costa Mesa General Plan Update
and EIR, Costa Mesa, CA
» Cudahy General Plan and Zoning
Code, Cudahy, CA
» Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific
Plan, Rosemead, CA
» Half Moon Bay Housing Strategy
Study, Half Moon Bay, CA
» Huntington Beach General Plan,
Huntington Beach, CA
» Inglewood International Industrial
Corridor Specific Plan,
Inglewood, CA
» Inner Harbor Specific Plan,
Redwood City, CA
» Monrovia Housing Element Update,
Monrovia, CA
» Monrovia TOD Specific Plans,
Monrovia, CA
» Redwood City General Plan Update,
Redwood City, CA
» Redwood City Inner Harbor Specific
Plan, Redwood City, CA
» Rosemead General Plan,
Rosemead, CA
» San Carlos Housing Element and
Safety Element, San Carlos, CA
» Sphere of Influence Specific Plan
and EIR, Ontario, CA
» Westlake Village General Plan
Update, Westlake Village, CA
» Whittier General Plan and Housing
Element Update, Whittier, CA

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 8

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
» Public Outreach and
Involvement
» Community Planning and
Engagement
» Organizational Development
» Facilitation
» Parks and Recreation Master
Planning
» Natural Resources
Management
» Transportation Public
Outreach and Involvement

EDUCATION
» MRP, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
» BS, Environmental Resource
Management, Pennsylvania
State University, University
Park
Joan Chaplick, AICP

ENGAGEMENT SPECIALIST
Joan Chaplick is an expert public outreach strategist and facilitator who has been engaging communities in collaborative planning and design for over two decades. Joan’s work has supported the advancement and implementation of projects impacting hundreds of communities throughout the West, including transportation, infrastructure, natural resources, recreation, land use, and organizational development. She enjoys bringing people with different perspectives together to solve commonly defined problems. Her quick thinking, humor, and ability to inject focus and clarity to a discussion have been honed through her experience in theater and storytelling. Whether it’s an intimate strategic planning session or a large-scale community workshop, Joan’s facilitation style builds trust and consensus – keeping the conversation on track while allowing new ideas to be revealed and explored. She crafts and directs public and stakeholder involvement processes that incorporate multilingual outreach techniques and tools to ensure that projects reflect and respond to each community’s diverse needs. Joan creates a conduit for clients and their constituents to talk to and listen to each other, so they are mutually invested in a project’s success — ultimately, saving time and resources for everyone’s benefit.

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
» San Carlos Housing and Safety
Elements, San Carlos, CA
» Fairfax Town Forum on Residential
Housing Ordinance, Fairfax, CA
» Marin County Housing and Safety
Elements, Marin County, CA
» Redwood City Focused General
Plan Update (Housing, Safety, and
Enviornmental Justice Elements),
Redwood City, CA
» Town of Fairfax Town Forum on
Residential Housing Ordinance,
Town of Fairfax, CA
» Henderson Consolidated Plan and
Housing Strategy Outreach and
Planning Assistance, Henderson, NV
» Southern Nevada Strong, Regional
Plan to Balance Housing, Jobs and
Transportation, Las Vegas Region, NV
» Mountain View 2030 Visioning
Process and General Plan Update,
Mountain View, CA
» Hillsborough Accessory Dwelling
Unit Ordinance Workshop,
Hillsborough, CA
» Envision Alachua, Planning and
Visioning Process, Gainesville, FL
» Facebook Willow Village Community
Outreach, Menlo Park, CA
» MTC Plan Bay Area Community
Workshops, Bay Area, CA
» BART LEP Factor 3 Outreach Project,
Bay Area, CA
» Presidio Trust Community
Meeting Process for the Main Post
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement Report, San Francisco, CA
» Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Conservation Plan
Stakeholder Group Process,
Santa Clara Valley, CA
» Caltrans Statewide On-Call Planning
Public Engagement Contract,
Sacramento, CA

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 9

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
» Objective Design Standards
» Transportation Planning
» Geographic Information
Systems (GIS)
» Land Use Planning
» Equity Planning
» Zoning and Development
Regulations
» Stakeholder and Public
Engagement.

EDUCATION
» BA, Public Administration,
University of Texas at San
Antonio
» MS, Urban and Regional
Planning, University of Texas
at San Antonio

CERTIFICATIONS
» AICP Certified Planner
Marco Hinojosa, AICP

ASSOCIATE PLANNER
As an urban planner Marco Hinojosa is passionate about understanding community needs and engaging the public by creating an inclusive environment for all. He has a strong focus on equity, Vision Zero, and GIS. His experience in land use, transportation planning, community engagement, and zoning has given him the opportunity to develop a wide array of skills. These selected projects have incorporated elements such as cross-agency coordination, mapping, data analysis, design recommendations, and report writing. Together, these resourceful and broad-based skills provide him the expertise to contribute to a wide array of projects from multiple disciplines.

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
» Santa Cruz County Objective Design
Standards, Santa Cruz County, CA
» San Mateo Objective Design
Standards, San Mateo, CA
» San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan
and Objective Design Standards, El
Cerrito and Richmond, CA
» Agoura Hills Objective Design
Standards, Agoura Hills, CA
» San Marcos Comprehensive Plan
Update, San Marcos, Tx
» Marin County Housing and Safety
Element General Plan Update,
Marin County, CA
» Regional and Rural Edition of the
Los Angeles Countywide Parks
Needs Assessment,
Los Angeles County, CA
» Southwestern Medical District Urban
Streetscape Project, Dallas, T x
» Zona Cultural Streetscape Design
Guidelines, San Antonio, T x

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 10

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
» CEQA Compliance
» CEQA-General Plan
» Integration and
Streamlining
» CEQA Statutes and Laws
» EIRs, MNDs, Initial Studies
» Technical Review and
Editing
» Specific Plan Standards and
Guidelines
» Meeting Facilitation

EDUCATION
» MS, Architecture and Urban
Planning, University of
California, Los Angeles
» BA, Psychology, Boston
University
» Teaching Certificate in
Early Childhood Education,
University of California, Los
Angeles
» California Clear Multiple
Subject Teaching
Credential, Los Angeles
District Intern Program

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
» Association of
Environmental
Professionals
Ray Pendro

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
Ray Pendro is a highly accomplished planner and CEQA expert who has managed and prepared environmental documentation for projects associated with every planned environment at every scale—from street to freeway; single building or neighborhood to entire city; seaside to mountainside; urban to rural; and many spaces in between. Ray’s fascination with cities and human behavior drew him to the field over 30 years ago and continues to inspire him today.

He engages people in collaborative problem-solving, bringing together the expertise of client staff and consultant teams to make informed decisions and find workable solutions. His comprehensive knowledge of CEQA guidelines and case law combined with his proficient writing skills enable him to communicate complex technical data clearly and concisely. Ray’s work makes it possible for projects to be implemented without confusion or legal entanglement; ultimately leading to the reactivation of a city block or construction of new housing or adoption of a general plan—all for the improvement of cities and the people in them.

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
» San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and
Objective Design Standards,
El Cerrito and Richmond, CA
» Patrick Henry Drive and
Freedom Circle Specific Plan,
Santa Clara, CA
» Fairfield Downtown Specific Plan,
Fairfield, CA
» Burlingame General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance EIR, Burlingame, CA
» Stanford Outpatient Center Project
EIR, Redwood City, CA
» Stanford in Redwood City Precise
Plan EIR, Redwood City and Stanford
University, CA
» Downtown Precise Plan EIR and
On-Call CEQA Services,
Redwood City, CA
» Marina Shores Village Mixed Use
Project EIR, Redwood City, CA
» Hayward General Plan Update EIR,
Hayward, CA
» North Fair Oaks Community Plan EIR,
San Mateo County, CA
» Bruno Transit Corridors Plan EIR, San
Bruno, CA
» San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan EIR,
El Cerrito/Richmond, CA
» Hercules Bayfront Master Plan EIR,
Hercules, CA
» Downtown Improvement Plan EIR,
Sunnyvale, CA
» El Cerrito Hampton Inn CEQA, El
Cerrito, CA
» Hercules Circulation Element,
Hercules, CA
» Hercules Safeway, Hercules, CA
» Sonoma County On-Call CEQA
Services, Sonoma, CA
» Saint Mary’s College Campus Master
Plan Update, Moraga, CA
» Palo Alto Public Safety Building and
California Avenue Parking Garage
EIR, Palo Alto, CA

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 267
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 11

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
» CEQA Compliance
» Land Use Analysis
» Technical Editing

EDUCATION
» BA, History, University of
California, Davis

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
» Association of
Environmental
Professionals
Steve Ridone

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER / ENGINEER
Steve Ridone is a Senior Project Associate with five years of environmental planning experience. He has assisted in preparing environmental documents (initial studies and EIRs) and master plans, research for background conditions reports and constraints analysis, and other planning and land use analysis tasks.

Steve’s experience also includes environmental data review, land use analysis, technical editing and research, project application material review, technical editing, and subcontract preparation and coordination.

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
» San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and
Objective Design Standards,
El Cerrito and Richmond, CA
» Patrick Henry Drive and
Freedom Circle Specific Plan,
Santa Clara, CA
» Fairfield Downtown Specific Plan,
Fairfield, CA
» Barrio Logan Community Plan,
San Diego, CA
» Gold Line TOD Plans and Market
Studies, Los Angeles, CA
» Hemisfair Civic Park, San Antonio, T x
» Mills Park Center Initial Study, City of
San Bruno, CA
» Various IS/MNDs, Sonoma County
On-Call CEQA services,
Sonoma County, CA
» 841 San Bruno Avenue Initial Study,
City of San Bruno, CA
» 851 Main Street Project SEIR,
Redwood City, CA
» Burlingame General Plan Update
– Existing Conditions Report,
Burlingame, CA
» Callan Subdivision EIR,
Hillsborough, CA
» City of Hercules Circulation Element
Update ND, Hercules, CA
» Claremont Hills Wilderness Park
Master Plan, Claremont, CA
» Crystal Springs Uplands School EIR,
Belmont, CA
» Downtown Redwood City Precise
Plan EIR On-Call CEQA Services,
Redwood City, CA
» King County Large Wood/River
Recreation Assessment,
King County, WA
» La Palma General Plan Update EIR,
La Palma, CA
» Tolay Lake Regional Park Master
Plan and EIR, Sonoma County, CA
» Upper Methow River Recreation
Assessment, Yakama Nation, WA

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 12 San Mateo Objective Design Standards

SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA
In response to State legislation in 2017 and 2019, cities throughout California are working to increase the
supply of affordable housing options. With MIG’s expert guidance, the City of San Mateo is acting on these new
regulations to create Objective Design Standards (ODS)
that remove challenges presented by existing processes
and streamline the development of multifamily residential and mixed-use projects.

Like many cities, San Mateo’s existing zoning code
development standards are supplemented by Multifamily
Design Guidelines that developers and designers
use to establish the “look and feel” of a project—its
density, height, distance from the road or property line, appearance, etc. Because the guidelines are descriptive rather than quantified, they are open to interpretation by the applicant as well as the Planning Commissioners
charged with reviewing and reaching consensus approval
for each application. This discretionary process can
be laborious, frustrating, and time-consuming for all
parties. Further, the City’s many specific plans establish supplementary design guidelines associated with the
geographic area that each specific plan covers.

Working closely with City Planning staff, MIG assessed
the existing applicable standards and solicited input
from community members, developers, and architects to
create objective standards from the subjective guidelines.

Tailored to San Mateo’s character and community, the
ODS are quantifiable and specific, leaving no question
as to whether the application complies or not. With the ODS in place, City staff can conduct a ministerial review to determine if the standards are met and the application can proceed without the involvement of the Planning
Commission.

Project Duration: 2020 - ongoing

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 13 Santa Cruz County Objective Design Standards

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA
MIG worked with the County of Santa Cruz to create
Objective Design Standards (ODS) and Development
Regulations along major commercial corridors, transit
thoroughfares, and residential streets. The Design
Standards advance concepts described in previous
general plans, neighborhood plans, and multimodal
corridor plans.

The ODS provide County staff and private developers
with a graphically rich, user-friendly document for
different types of development along the corridor,
including single-family and multi-family residential,
vertical and horizontal mixed-use, work flex, and
residential flex. The project uses a hybrid form-based
approach to present standards and guidelines for
residential, retail, office, mixed-use, public facilities, parks, and open spaces. These standards were tested in
catalytic opportunity sites across the county.

For this three-year project, MIG provided a full range of outreach and communications services, including design
charrettes with County staff and community workshops
in the Pleasure Point community to test different
development concepts and standards.

Project Duration: 2019 - 2021

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 14 MIG created the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and
Objective Design Standards (ODS) in collaboration
with the cities of El Cerrito and Richmond. This
multijurisdictional effort guides development in the San Pablo Avenue corridor, including two BART stations.

The Plan standardizes El Cerrito Plaza and Del Norte
development regulations along a major commercial
and transit thoroughfare, providing a unified look and
feel along the Avenue while helping to maximize the
development potential of transit-oriented development
sites in downtown, midtown, and uptown sections of El
Cerrito.

The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan advances policies
and concepts that MIG developed for the El Cerrito and
Richmond General Plans. It provides the cities and private developers with a graphically rich, user-friendly document for all future land use and design decisions along the
Avenue. The Plan focuses on implementation and
streamlining development processes in the corridor.

The Specific Plan uses a place-oriented, form-based
approach to present ODS and guidelines for residential, retail, office, mixed-use, public facilities, parks, and open spaces. In addition, the Specific Plan identifies
catalytic opportunity sites for locations for specific types of business development, housing opportunities, public
facilities, and transit connections that help strengthen and enhance the Avenue as a community amenity.

Project Duration: 2013 - ongoing
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan

EL CERRITO AND RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 15 City North Vision Plan, Patrick Henry Drive
Specific Plan, and Freedom Circle Specific Plan

SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
MIG is leading three concurrent projects in Santa
Clara to assist the City in addressing its jobs/housing imbalance, accommodating growth and creating livable
high-density neighborhoods. The planning process
includes preparation of a comprehensive Vision Plan
for the broader geographical area (“City North”) in
which the Specific Plan areas are located to articulate a unifying vision for these neighborhoods, broadly analyze the infrastructure and service needs to support new
development, and establish a framework for how these
new neighborhoods will become part of a complete
community.

The City North Vision Plan will include guiding
planning principles and transformative land use and
mobility strategies that will tie together several distinct neighborhoods in northern Santa Clara. The Vision Plan
will leverage existing assets – including VTA Light Rail service and two creekside trails – to reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and further traffic impacts.

The Patrick Henry Drive and Freedom Circle Specific
Plans will build on the Vision Plan principles and
concepts to guide the transformation of two aging,
low-density commercial areas into dynamic, dense
mixed-use neighborhoods with a full array of community
amenities. MIG is leading an interdisciplinary team of
planning experts as well as stakeholder and community
engagement, including facilitating meetings of several
property owners and developers. The Specific Plans
will include infrastructure and financing plans to guide development and equitable funding of public benefits
and shared amenities.

Project Duration: 2018 - ongoing

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 16 San Carlos Accessory Dwelling Units

SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA
MIG worked with the City of San Carlos to develop
a series of graphic exhibits illustrating potential
outcomes from the State of California’s Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) laws. The project was conducted
to serve as an informative exercise to provide the City’s Planning Commission clear visual exhibits of how ADU
development could be built out in a variety of scenarios within San Carlos’ residential neighborhoods, taking into account the massing and scale impacts of new structures on existing lots.

The illustrations developed by MIG staff depicted a
range of scenarios across different lot sizes and included drawings of different ADU configurations and sizes,
ranging from attached and detached units to garage
conversions. Additionally, the exhibits documented
exact dimensions and floor area calculations allowing for detailed analysis of the ADU law impacts. The exhibits
and analysis performed by MIG were invaluable in
communicating how the new ADU law intersects with
existing context and development standards in San
Carlos, providing robust and accurate visual resources
and data to inform decision-marking and understand the
size and scale of potential new ADU development.

Project Duration: January - March 2020

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 273
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 17 MIG led an MTC/ABAG Proposition 84 grant-funded
project to develop a vision for the transformation of the Downtown and West Texas Street neighborhoods of
Fairfield, a community of 109,000+ residents and the
Solano County seat. This process included extensive
community discussion about how to improve and
revitalize both the public and private realms, focusing on specific Complete Streets solutions for major roadways
within the plan area. The West Texas Street corridor is an older commercial district that was developed along
historic Lincoln Highway/ Highway 40. The corridor
includes a mix of stand-alone commercial buildings, older shopping strips, service stations, and restaurants.

The MIG Team also identified ways to revitalize the
corridor with new retail, commercial, and residential
uses, supported by a re-imagined West Texas Street that includes a reduced number of travel lanes (road diet)
to allow room for cycle tracks, street trees, improved
landscaping, enhanced pedestrian amenities and safety,
and new restaurant space within the right-of-way. In
addition, MIG developed concepts for utilizing a large
public right-of-way along Broadway Street as an area to incorporate desperately needed park and open space
improvements.

The adopted plan is focused on a form-based approach
with specific use and development standards,
regulatory and financial incentives, and objective
design standards that created a strategic framework
for the City, property owners, developers, and the
community to implement change over time. This hybrid
approach clarified development requirements and
included specific development prototypes that have
been economically tested in the Fairfield market. This
has resulted in the streamlining of new multifamily and mixed-use projects within the Downtown Fairfield area
and close to major transit hubs.

Project Duration: 2015 - 2017
Heart of Fairfield Downtown Specific Plan and EIR

FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 274
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 18

RELEVANT ISSUES

SELECT PLANNING AND DESIGN

PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Policy/Planning and Objective
Design Standards
Innovative and Creative
Approach
Integrated Stakeholder and
Community Engagement
Associated CEQA/EIR
Mixed-Use
Downtowns/Town Centers
Placemaking and Identity
Housing Opportunities
Job Opportunities
Economic Development
Adaptive Reuse
Multimodal Mobility and Active
Transportation
Infrastructure
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and ODS, El Cerrito Santa Cruz County Objective Design Standards San Mateo Objective Design Standards Hemet Objective Design Standards Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan and EIR Freedom Circle and Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plans,
Santa Clara

Downtown Vallejo Plan
R Street Urban Design and Development Code Plan, Sacramento Northeast Sacramento Urban Design Plan Smoky Hollow Specific Plan and EIR, El Segundo Duarte T own Center Specific Plan and Implementation Covina Town Center Specific Plan and EIR Poway Road Complete Streets and Specific Plan Truckee Donner Pass Road Corridor Study and Design Standards Euclid and National Master Plans, San Diego Desert Fashion Plaza, Palm Springs Commerce Green Zones: Corridor Specific Plans Downtown Hawthorne Specific Plan Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, Pasadena Monrovia TOD Specific Plans and CEQA Los Angeles Great Streets Planning Initiative and Great Streets Challenge

Garden Grove Mixed-Use Zoning Redwood City Mixed-Use Zoning East Los Angeles/Boyle Heights Metro Gold Line Transit- Oriented Urban Design Plan

El Monte Spectrum Centre Specific Plan

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) R ELEVANT Ex PERIENCE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 19 References
City of Santa Clara (for Rishi Dhody)
John Davidson, Principal Planner
Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050
(408) 768-2369
[email protected]
City of Burlingame (for Laura Stetson and Joan Chaplick) Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager
Community Development Department – Planning Division
(650) 558-7256
[email protected]
Santa Cruz County (for Mukul Malhotra)
Stephanie Hansen, Interim Assistant Director
Santa Cruz County Planning Department
701 Ocean Street, 4th Floor
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 454-3112
[email protected]
City of El Cerrito (for Mukul Malhotra)
Sean Moss, AICP, Planning Manager
City of El Cerrito
10890 San Pablo Avenue
El Cerrito, CA 94530
(510) 215.4359
[email protected]

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 276
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 20 2905 Lawrrence Street, LLC
8920 Sunset Boulevard, LLC
95 Royal Center LLC
Able City, LLC
Acacia Real Estate Group, Inc.

Ada County Highway District (ACHD)
Adams County
Adept Building and Construction
Aggie Gateway
Alliance for Pioneer Square
America Walks
AMMCOR Management Company
Anderson Brulé Architects, Inc.

Anderson Mason Dale Architects, P.C.

Andrew Lane Winery
Anjali Grant Design, LLC
Applied Development Economics, Inc.

ARC Architects
Arcadis U.S. Inc.

Architectural Resources Group
Architecture Design Collaborative
Artik Art and Architecture
ARUP
Aspire Public Schools
Atlantis Group, LLC
Atlas Planning Solutions
Austin Peterson
Barghausen Consulting Engineers
Barings, LLC
Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture
Bay Area Air Quality Management
District
Bay Area Discovery Museum
Bellevue Downtown Association
Bennett Engineering Services
Berliner Architects
Beth von Emster
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.

BKF Engineers
Blueprint Capital Services, LLC
Bohannan Huston, Inc.

BOOS Development Group, Inc.

Boulder Associates Architects
Brennan and Kirsten Slavik
Brixton Capital
Brown and Caldwell
Bureau Veritas North America, Inc.

Burgess Design
Buro Happold Consulting Engineers,
Inc.

C P & Y, Inc.
c|a Architects
California Department of General
Services, Real Estate Division,
Professional Services Branch
California Department Of
Transportation
California State University,
Sacramento
California Water Service Co.

California Watershed Engineering
Corporation
Cannon
Cannon Design
Capstone Advisors
Cardno, Inc.

Carleton Mangement, Inc.

Carole Connell
Carollo: Denver
Carrier Johnson + CULTURE
CARS Community Arts Resources
CBRE
CBRE | Property Management
Cedarwood Waldorf School
CenterPointe Senior Living, LLC
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste
Authority
Centro San Antonio
CH Johnson Consulting
CH2M Hill, Inc.

Charlotte Mecklenburg Government
Center
Chen Ryan Associates, Inc.

Child Advocates of Silicon Valley
Cielo Housing Development, LP
CIM Group, LP
City and County of Denver
City of Agoura Hills
City of Alameda
City of Albany (OR)
City of Amarillo
City of American Canyon
City of Anaheim Planning Department
City of Atascadero
City of Azusa
City of Bakersfield
City of Baldwin Park
City of Banks (OR)
City of Bellevue
City of Belmont
MIG Clients Current or within Past Year
02 Current Clients/Projects

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 277
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

CURRENT C LIENTS /P ROJECTS
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 21 City of Belmont, Community
Development Department
City of Boulder
City of Brisbane
City of Burbank
City of Burlingame
City of Carlsbad
City of Carnation (WA)
City of Charlotte (NC)
City of Chino Hills
City of Clayton
City of Coeur D’alene
City of Colorado Springs
City of Colton
City of Columbia City (OR)
City of Commerce
City of Corpus Christi
City of Covina
City of Cupertino
City of Downey
City of Duarte
City of Durango
City of Eastvale
City of El Cerrito
City of El Paso de Robles
City of El Segundo
City of Fairview (OR) - Pubilc Works
Department
City of Forest Grove (OR)
City of Garden Grove
City of Gaston (OR)
City of Gladstone
City of Golden
City of Grand Terrace
City of Grover Beach
City of Half Moon Bay
City of Hayward
City of Healdsburg
City of Hemet
City of Hercules
City of Hermosa Beach - Department
of Public Works
City of Hillsboro
City of Hope
City of Houston
City of Irvine
City of John Day
City of Keizer (OR)
City of La Habra Heights
City of Laguna Hills
City of Lake Elsinore
City of Lake Oswego
City of Lancaster
City of Lindsay
City of Livermore
City of Loma Linda
City of Los Angeles
City of Los Angeles Department of
City Planning
City of Loveland
City of Lynnwood Public Works Dept.

City of Lynnwood (WA)
City of Martinez
City of Menifee
City of Menlo Park
City of Monroe (WA)
City of Monrovia
City of Moses Lake
City of Mt. Shasta
City of New Braunfels (T x)
City of Newberg
City of Norwalk
City of Oxnard
City of Palm Desert
City of Palo Alto - Foothills Park and
Pearson Arastradero Preserve
City of Palo Alto, Community Services
Department
City of Paramount
City of Pasadena
City of Pasadena Planning and
Development Department
City of Pasco (WA) Community
Services
City of Patterson
City of Philomath
City of Pleasanton
City of Prineville (OR)
City of Puyallup
City of Rancho Cordova
City of Redwood City
City of Renton
City of Richmond
City of Riverside
City of Rohnert Park Public Works
Department
City of Rosemead
City of Sacramento
City of Sacramento - Dept. of Public
Works
City of Salinas
City of Sammamish
City of San Antonio
City of San Bruno
City of San Carlos
City of San Diego
City of San Fernando
City of San Jose
City of San Jose - Parks, Recreation
and Neighborhood Services

MIG CLIENTS CURRENT OR WITHIN PAST YEAR (CONTINUED)

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 278
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

CURRENT C LIENTS /P ROJECTS
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 22 City of San Jose, Dept of
Transportation
City of San Marcos (T x)
City of San Mateo
City of San Rafael
City of Santa Ana
City of Santa Clara
City of Santa Fe Springs
City of Sausalito
City of Seattle
City of Seattle, Seattle City Light
Department
City of Shoreline (WA)
City of Sierra Madre
City of Signal Hill
City of South Pasadena
City of Sumner (WA)
City of Tigard
City of Troutdale
City of Tualatin
City of Vacaville
City of Vernonia
City of Walnut
City of Watsonville
City of West Covina
City of Westminster
City of Wheat Ridge
City of Whittier
City of Wood Village (OR)
Cityfi LLC
Civic San Diego
Claremont McKenna College
Claremont University Consortium
Clarion Associates, LLC
CO Architects
Coalition for Responsible Community
Development (CRCD)
Code Studio
Code Unlimited Inc. (CodeUL)
Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatlet, PC
Columbia County (OR) - Public Works,
Road Department
Community Resource Center
Commute Seattle
Compass Danbe Real Estate Partners
LLC
Concord Engineering
Connector Partnership Joint Venture
Conor Commercial Real Estate
CONSOR Engineers, LLC
Copart
Corporation of the Fine Arts Museums
of San Francisco
Cotton Shires and Associates, Inc.

Cottonwood Partners
County of Los Angeles Dept. of Parks
and Recreation
County of Marin
County of Napa
County of Placer
County of Riverside
County of Sacramento
County of San Diego
County of San Diego Department of
Planning and Development Services
County of San Diego Health and
Human Services Agency
County of San Diego, Department of
Purchasing and Contracting
County of San Mateo
County of Santa Barbara
County of Santa Clara
County of Santa Clara, Social Services
Agency
County of Santa Cruz
County of Sonoma Department of
Health Services
County of Ventura
County of Yolo
COWI North America, Inc
Craft Water Services
Craftwater Engineering, Inc.

Crow Holdings Industrial
Daniel Iacofano
David Malmuth Development
Denver Zoological Foundation
Designs Northwest Architects
Disability Rights Advocates
DLR Group
Dorman Associates, Inc.

DOWL
Downtown Council of Kansas City,
Missouri
Downtown Fort Worth, Inc.

Downtown Madison, Inc.

Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.

Duval Decker Architects
E & S Ring Management Corp.
e360
Eagle Rock School
East Bay Regional Park District
Eastern Los Angeles Family Resource
Center
Eco Tower, LLC
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Edenbridge, Inc.

EJE Academies
Elizabeth Park and Recreation District
Entrada Owner LLC
EPG Properties
Fehr & Peers
Feiro Marine Life Center

MIG CLIENTS CURRENT OR WITHIN PAST YEAR (CONTINUED)

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

CURRENT C LIENTS /P ROJECTS
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 23 FFA Architecture and Interiors, Inc
First 5 Commission of San Diego
First 5 Contra Costa
First 5 San Francisco
Fort Vancouver National Historic Park
Frank and Lynette Mckeown
Freelance Media Buying
Friends of Waterfront Seattle
Front Porch Development
Fullmer Construction
Fuscoe Engineering
Gannett Fleming, Inc.

Garcia and Associates
GEI Consultants, Inc.

General Services Administration
Gensler
GMPA Architects, Inc.

Goldrich Kest
Gonzalez Goodale Architects
Government Training Agency
Green River College
Gulfarium Marine Adventure Park
H.G. Fenton Company
Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc.

Harley Ellis Devereaux (HED)
Harris & Associates, Inc.

HDR
Heartland LLC
Heffron Transportation Inc.

Hemisfair Park Area Redevelopment
Corporation
Hennebery Eddy Architects, Inc.

Highland Estates Development, LLC
HMC Architects Formerly known as
Beverly Prior Architects
HMC Group
HNTB
Hood River Urban Renewal Agency
HR Green, Inc.

Huitt Zollars
Hyland Hills Park & Recreation District

IBI GROUP
ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc.

IDI Logistics
IMEG Corp.

Industrial Outdoor Ventures
International School Bangkok
Inter-Pro Property Corporation
Interwest Consulting Group
IQHQ-RaDD I, LLC
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

Jewish Family and Children’s Service
of Greater Philadelphia
JMDiaz, Inc.

Jones & Jones Architects
KASL Consulting Engineers

KFA, LLP
Kiewit-Parsons, A JV
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
(Dallas)
KOA Corporation
Kohl’s Property Development
KPFF Consulting Engineers
Kyoto USA (Sequoia Foundation)
LA County Dept of Parks and
Recreation
LA Fashion District Business
Improvement District
La Veranda, LP
Langdon Wilson
Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory
LCDG Architecture
LGE California, LLC
Lightstone
Lisa Sachs
Literacy for Environmental Justice
Longo Investment Inc.

Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County Development
Authority
MAAC
Marin Municipal Water District
McDonald Property Group
METRO
Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC)
Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission
MG2
MGA North LLC
Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates,
Inc
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District
Mike Gustafson
Milpitas Unified School District
Mintier Harnish
Mithun
Morgan CPS
Mountain House Community Services
District
Mountains Recreation & Conservation
Authority
Mt. Hood Community College
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Mullen Wilshire Blvd. (LA) Owner, LLC
Muller Engineering Company
MulvannyG2 Architecture
MW Investment Group, LLC

MIG CLIENTS CURRENT OR WITHIN PAST YEAR (CONTINUED)

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 280
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

CURRENT C LIENTS /P ROJECTS
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 24 MWA Architects, Inc.

NAC Architecture
Napa County Public Works
Department
Natural Systems Design
Neighborhood House Association
Neighborhood Partners , LLC
New Urban West Inc.

NMS Properties, Inc.

NMS Yale, LLC
OC Parks Capitol Improvements
Division
Omnitrans
Orange County Public Works
Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development
Oregon Department of Transportation
OTAK - Colorado
Owen Group Limited Partnership (a
Bureau Veritas Co.)
Pacific Studio
Pakpour Consulting Group
Pal Consultants
Pape Dawson
Pape-Dawson Engineers, Inc.

Parsons Transportation Group
Paul Murdoch Architects
PBWS Architects
Penninsula Trails Coalition
Pepper Construction
Perkins + Will
Pfeiffer - a Perkins Eastman Studio
Placer County Department of Facility
Services
PlaceWorks
Port of Oakland
Port of San Diego (POSD)
Preservation Texas, Inc.

Proficiency 215 LLC
Project PLAE
Prologis - Pacific Division
PSOMAS
Purissima Hills Water District
QDG Architecture
Quickhaven
Quincy Engineering, Inc.

Quinn Evans Architects, Inc.

Ratcliff Architects
RC Superior / RC Superior Metro
District
Realterm Logistics
Regional Transportation Commission
of Southern Nevada
Regis University
Related Companies of California, LLC
Rethink Waste
Rick Engineering Company
Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
Robert Peccia & Associates
Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects,
Inc.

RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture
Inc.

S/L/A/M Collaborative
Sage Architectural Alliance
San Diego Comic Convention
San Diego Community College
District
San Diego County Superintendent of
Schools
San Francisco Botanical Garden
Society
San Francisco Municipal Trans.

Agency
San Francisco Parks Alliance
San Francisco Recreation and Park
Department
San Mateo County Parks Foundation
Sand Hill Property Company
Schacht Aslani Architects
Schemata Workshop
Seattle Housing Authority
Seattle Parks & Recreation
SHED Seattle LLC
Sinuon Em
Sitka Sound Science Center
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
SKL
SMR Architects
Snow Kreilich
Sonoma Botanical Garden
South Orange County Community
College District
Southwest Designs Group Architects
St. Mary’s College
Staley Point Capital
Stantec
Stantec Architecture
StarPoint Properties
State of CA, Park & Rec. Dept.

State Of California
State of Washington Department of
Natural Resources
StopWaste.Org
Studio Pacifica
Sunriver Owners Association
Surinder Pal Singh
SvR Design Company

MIG CLIENTS CURRENT OR WITHIN PAST YEAR (CONTINUED)

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

CURRENT C LIENTS /P ROJECTS
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 25 SWCA Environmental Consultants
Sweetwater Authority
Swift Lee Office
System Management Group
T. Y. Lin International
Tahltan Central Government
Tait & Associates, Inc.

Talitha Consults
Target Corporation
tBP Architecture
Ted Tokio Tanaka Architects
Templeton Community Services
District
Texas Trees Foundation
The Aspen Institute
The Miller Hull Partnership
The Olin Studio
The Regents of the University of
California
The Wonderful Company
ThereSquared
Toluca Lake Beautification Partners
Toni Cupal
Toole Design Group
Town of Addison (Tx)
Town of Danville
Town of Firestone
Town of Moraga
Town of Mountain Village
Town of Portola Valley
Town of Truckee
Toyota Motor North America
Transportation Solutions, Inc.

U. S. Department of Transportation /
FTA
UC Agriculture and Natural Resources
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Davis Design
& Construction Management
University of California, San Diego
University of Southern California
Urban Cohousing Associates, Inc.

Urban Insight
Urban Villages
USA Properties Fund, Inc.

V+M Structural Inc.

Various Client for MMP
VDA Real Estate Services
Village Partners, Inc.

Washington State Parks and
Recreation Commission
Waste Management - Portland (Billing)
Watry Design, Inc.

WCC & E Properties, LLC
West Contra Costa Transportation
Advisory Committee
West Edge Architects, Inc.

Westberg White, Inc.

Westbound Communications
Wild Child
Willdan Engineering
Wilsey Ham
Woodland Park Zoo
Workshop Architects
Wright Runstad & Company
WSP USA INC.

WSP USA Solutions Inc.

WTS Advancing Women in
Transportation
Yolo County Community Services
Department
Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects LLP

MIG CLIENTS CURRENT OR WITHIN PAST YEAR (CONTINUED)

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

CURRENT C LIENTS /P ROJECTS
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 26 MIG Projects in San Carlos in the Past Year
» San Carlos Focused General Plan Update and Zoning
Ordinance Revisions, San Carlos, CA
» San Carlos On-Call Planning Services, San Carlos, CA
» 808 Alameda Project Facilitation San Carlos, CA
» San Carlos Graphics ADU Update, San Carlos, CA
» 308 Phelps Drive Project Facilitation and CEQA,
San Carlos, CA
» Shoreway Center Project Facilitation and CEQA,
San Carlos, CA
» Phase 2 Vista Del Grande, Project Facilitation,
San Carlos, CA
» On-Call CEQA Consulting Services, San Carlos, CA
» 626-648 Walnut St Mixed-Use Development Rev. CE,
San Carlos, CA
» 1030 Brittan Ave Commercial Office Building CEQA,
San Carlos, CA
» Shoreway Center CEQA, San Carlos, CA
» 405 Industrial Road CEQA, San Carlos, CA

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 27 03 Scope of Work and Timeline
Work Plan
The MIG Team’s proposed scope of work builds from
the City of San Carlos’s task structure identified in the Request for Proposals (RFP) for preparing Objective
Design Standards (ODS) for all residential projects,
including single-family, multi-family, duplex, triplex, fourplex, and mixed-use residential projects. This
structure presents a detailed, logical series of tasks, with information from each step creating the foundation for
the next step. The work will support San Carlos’s tradition of high-quality design and assist in creating housing,
continuing the City’s success as a dynamic, distinctive, and welcoming community. Our approach intentionally
and genuinely includes an inclusive, community-centered outreach and engagement process to ensure we fully
reach all members of our communities as we develop the
design standards and solutions.

The City seeks to adopt ODS that will achieve the
following objectives:
» Comply with State law
» Streamline project review and permitting
» Bring consistency and clarity to project review and
permitting
» Be verifiable and measurable
» Ensure consistent application of standards for single- family homes with and without accessory dwelling units
(ADUs)
» Ensure consistent application of standards for multi- family and residential mixed-use development projects.
» Facilitate context-appropriate, high-quality design
» Update current regulations to lay out ODS that reflect the community’s vision clearly
» Implement policies of the San Carlos 2030 General
Plan
» Balance property rights of individual single-family
homeowners with the community’s desire to maintain
the scale of the existing residential neighborhoods
» Reflect the City’s desire to maintain high design
standards throughout the community
» Improve compatibility between new development and
surrounding neighborhoods
» Preserve the best qualities of the downtown
» Prevent a new layer of governmental constraints on the production of housing
» Maintain residential density standards while improving current massing guidelines to better fit projects into the neighborhood
» Include clear development standards, specifications,
performance approaches, graphic illustrations, and
representations
» Incorporate an easy-to-read and understandable format with supporting design graphics

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 284
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

S COPE OF W ORK AND T IMELINE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 28 For this project to succeed, City staff must be a key
partner throughout the entire process. We understand
that numerous staff will assist the project as key partners.

Therefore, each of the following tasks is described
directly from the RFP and original descriptions of MIG’s work program and processes, allowing adequate review
and comment time for the community/stakeholders
and City staff. Immediately following, we have provided clarification and identified the City staff’s anticipated role.

Due to the current Covid-19 situation, all MIG staff
continue to work remotely. All meetings and community
engagement in this scope are assumed to be conducted
virtually unless otherwise indicated.

TASK 1 – PROJECT INITIATION AND MANAGEMENT
This task covers communication and coordination
between the MIG team and City staff, including the
kick-off meeting, City tour with City staff, regular check-in meetings, video/phone conferences, email exchanges,
and other communications to ensure timely delivery and
adoption of the City’s ODS, as well as documentation and billing for the project. In addition, this proposal identifies the number of meetings anticipated and expectations for planning staff and lays out strategies to ensure clear and timely communication and effective project coordination.

Task 1.1 Kick-off Meeting
Following the initial review of existing data, the project will commence with a kick-off meeting with City staff via video conferencing. The kick-off meeting will initiate the project, confirm the project approach and objectives,
establish a mutual understanding of the key issues,
discuss expectations, layout project milestones, meeting times, public workshops, and deliverables. The meeting
will also discuss desired outcomes for the ODS ordinance, refine the project scope and schedule, and determine
communication protocols.

The kick-off meeting will be designed to accomplish the following objectives:
» Understand key issues
» Discuss the project schedule
» Confirm engagement goals and expectations
» Identify and collect all City resources for existing
document review
» Identify desired outcomes for the ODS
» Confirm team member roles and responsibilities
» Confirm review process for deliverables
The MIG Team will work with City staff before and after the kick-off meeting to refine the preliminary scope
of working and schedule. Then, a final scope will be
included as an exhibit to the contract.

The MIG team will prepare the meeting agenda, facilitate the discussion, and provide a brief electronic meeting
summary.

Task 1.1 Deliverables:
» Participation in Project Kick-off Meeting (virtual) up to three MIG Team members
» Refined work program and project schedule
(Word/PDF)
» Kick-off meeting summary (Word/PDF)
Task 1.2 City Tour
The MIG Team and City staff will also tour the City to
gain additional insights related to community character and recent development projects. MIG team will visit
neighborhoods to fully understand the character of
housing elements and design parameters, and other
challenges and opportunities. MIG will photo-document
the tour.

Task 1.2 Deliverables:
» Participation in City tour with City Staff (in-person) up to two MIG Team members.

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 285
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

S COPE OF W ORK AND T IMELINE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 29 Task 1.3 Ongoing Meetings and Project
Management
This task includes bi-weekly coordination teleconferences throughout the project. These meetings will consist
of meetings with Community Development Director,
Principal Planner, and Planning Manager as needed
throughout the project. In addition to regularly scheduled meetings and calls, it is anticipated that the MIG Project Manager and additional team members, as needed,
will participate in ongoing project coordination and
communication with the City. MIG staff will design the
meeting agenda and provide a brief electronic summary
of the meetings. In addition, MIG will prepare monthly
invoices and brief progress summaries for City staff
review and approval. The invoices will include a summary of all staff tasks, time, and direct expenses. The monthly progress summary will identify tasks completed during
the previous month and identify upcoming tasks, events, and deliverables for the upcoming month. The progress
summary will be formatted as a simple memorandum and
attached to monthly invoices. Adjustments to the overall project schedule will occur if needed every month as part of the progress reports.

Task 1.3 Deliverables:
» Participation in bi-weekly teleconferences with City
staff for updates and ongoing coordination
» Meeting summaries (Word/PDF)
» Monthly progress reports and invoices
(Word/Excel/PDF)
TASK 2 – DATA GATHERING AND DOCUMENT

RESEARCH AND REVIEW
The MIG Team will review and assess the City’s existing documents, including the development standards within
the City’s 2030 General Plan and San Carlos Municipal
Code, for importance and priority in providing the
necessary background for this project.

Task 2.1 Document Review
The MIG team will conduct a technical review and analysis of the City’s existing policy documents, development
standards and regulations, and permit procedures,
including the City’s 2030 General Plan and San Carlos
Municipal Code Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The
City is undertaking a comprehensive, housing-related
update to the 2030 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
(for height and density increases). The MIG team will
review the 2030 General Plan amendments, Zoning
Ordinance amendments, and the Housing Element and
summarize the understanding. It is assumed that the
City will provide one set of consolidated, non-conflicting comments on the summary.

Task 2.1 Deliverables:
» Memorandum summary assessing existing City
documents (Word/PPT/PDF)
Task 2.2 Review Existing Ordinance, Site Analysis,
and Best Practices
The MIG team will review the relevant sections of the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and become familiar
with the physical form of specific areas of the City. This may include conducting site visits with staff to review patterns and scales of existing development and assess
the quality, scale, and placement of new structures
recently approved. City staff will provide the MIG Team with data regarding the size, placement, height of new
residential structures approved by the City, and any
other data readily available that would be useful during the evaluation phase. The MIG Team will draw on
the best practices of surrounding cities as part of the analysis. It is assumed that the City will provide one set of consolidated, non-conflicting comments on the summary.

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 286
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

S COPE OF W ORK AND T IMELINE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 30 Task 2.2 Deliverables:
» Memorandum summary assessing existing City
ordinances (Word/PPT/PDF)
» Site Analysis summary (Word/PPT/Jpeg/PDF)
» Summary of best practices in designing housing with
energy-efficient construction, efficient site planning, amenities supporting public health (Word/PPT/PDF)
Task 2.3 Current Project Review
The MIG Team will review representative sets of project plans currently under review, including those that have been controversial and/or appealed, as well as recently approved for single-family and multi-family development, to understand how development standards are currently
being interpreted and applied during the current permit review process. In addition, public comments from
relevant Residential Design Review Committee (RDRC)
and Planning Commission meeting minutes will help
highlight key concerns and sentiment from the public
and decision-makers. This task would also require
meeting with the Principal Planner from Current Planning to discuss challenges and opportunities. It is assumed
that the City will provide one set of consolidated,
non-conflicting comments on the summary.

Task 2.3 Deliverables:
» Memorandum summary of existing and planned
projects (Word/PPT/PDF)
Task 2.4 Site Analysis
The MIG team will Identify areas with a potential for
single-family, multi-family, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and mixed-use residential development and document
key physical characteristics of the existing surrounding community and neighborhoods. The site analysis will
serve as a visual inventory of the City to provide detailed information to develop appropriate City-specific ODS.

This effort will also help guide and focus the study while enabling the project team, City staff, decision-makers, and the public to understand better where such
development is more likely to occur. It is assumed that the City will provide one set of consolidated, non-conflicting comments on the summary.

Task 2.4 Deliverables:
» Identify potential sites for single-family, multi-family, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and mixed-use
residential development for the development of ODS.
(PPT/PDF)
TASK 2.5 ANTICIPATE TALLER, DENSER BUILDINGS
As part of the ongoing effort to update the Housing
Element for 2023-2031, the City is anticipating taller, denser buildings to accommodate a significantly higher
housing needs allocation than in prior years. This includes exploring raising building height limits from 50 feet to 75 feet, with an increased density of 50 units/acre to
120 units/acre. Accordingly, the MIG team will develop
ODS that will also need to account for high-quality
design standards for this new building typology likely
to emerge in the coming years. It is assumed that the
City will provide one set of consolidated, non-conflicting comments on the summary.

Task 2.5 Deliverables:
» Building typologies for taller, denser buildings.
(PPT/PDF)

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 287
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

S COPE OF W ORK AND T IMELINE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 31 TASK 3 – PUBLIC OUTREACH
The MIG Team will develop a strategy for engagement
with residents, local businesses and agencies, and other interested parties to participate during the process. The MIG team will also engage with the developers and City
officials to understand some of the past challenges and delays in terms of the City’s development process. The
MIG Team will also engage with other project teams
leading other related housing efforts, including the San Carlos Zoning Update, Zoning Ordinance, Regional
Housing Needs Allocation to ensure that the ODS project is well informed, transparent, easily understood, and
meets the desires of the City.

Task 3.1 Outreach Plan
The MIG Team will develop a Comprehensive Outreach
Plan in collaboration with City staff to define ODS’s
outreach and engagement approach. The plans will include outreach goals, identify target audiences, identify outreach methods, and include an engagement schedule. This
includes identifying a list of developers/stakeholders, key business owners, and groups sourced from stakeholder
partners and City agencies. MIG team will submit a concise outreach plan for City to review. It is assumed that the City will provide one set of consolidated, non-conflicting comments on the Outreach Plan.

Outreach plans will be developed in compliance with
applicable Covid19 health orders while promoting
engagement for persons with limited or no internet
access to the extent necessary.

Task 3.1 Deliverables:
» Comprehensive Outreach Plan (Word/Pdf)
Task 3.2 Phases of Outreach and Events
Three sets of specific outreach phases will occur at
key stages during the planning process to provide
opportunities for public education and informal comment on choices being considered, including:

Task 3.2.1: Project Introduction and Issue Identification:

Community Vision – MIG team will hold a series of up to five one-hour one-on-one meetings and small discussion
groups with stakeholders, including, but not limited to, the Residential Design Review Committee, affordable
housing developers, and local designers and architects, conducted virtually through Zoom or other video
conferencing platform. This series of meetings will focus on identifying the most critical issues for the City and what the project should focus on to ensure success. Following these series of meetings, MIG will hold Community
Workshop #1 that will invite the community to hear ideas and lessons learned from recent experience project
approvals. The workshop will introduce project objectives and highlight the key issues to be considered. This event will include photographs, graphics, and examples of how other communities may have resolved similar issues.

Initial impressions and findings will be shared from the stakeholder meetings, and the community’s issues and
concerns will be heard and documented. This workshop
will be facilitated and planned by the MIG Team, and
City staff will coordinate meeting invites. MIG anticipates up to three staff members will attend the workshop. It is assumed that the City will provide one set of consolidated, non-conflicting comments on the presentation materials
prepared by MIG. To complement Community Workshop
#1, the MIG Team proposes to develop an online survey to get broad-based input, design ideas from the community, and preferred design standards. The online survey will be interactive and allow to gather feedback from all corners of the community.

Task 3.2.1 Deliverables:
» Schedule up to five (5) one-hour stakeholder meetings (virtual)
» Participation and facilitation on Community Workshop
(virtual) with up to three (3) MIG Team members
» Online survey questionnaire (Mapita/PDF)

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 288
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

S COPE OF W ORK AND T IMELINE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 32 Task 3.2.2: Public Review Draft Standards – During
this phase, the MIG team, will hold Community
Workshop/Open House #2 and invite the community
and stakeholders to review the draft standards and get
additional public feedback. This workshop will build
on the first workshop and summarize the community’s
vision from Task 3.2.1, and present draft standards to the community. The workshop will be facilitated and planned by the MIG Team, and City staff will coordinate meeting invites. MIG anticipates up to three staff members will attend the workshop/open house. In addition, the MIG
team will prepare graphic exhibits that will include
design standards for different types of residential
projects, including single-family, multi-family, duplex, triplex, fourplex, and mixed-use residential projects for prototypical sites identified in Task 2.4. In addition to the community workshop, the MIG team also proposes to
conduct an online survey as an optional task to gather
input from the community. Please refer to Optional Task B for the description.

Study sessions with the Planning Commission (covered
in TASK 6) and Residential Design Review Committee will be engaged in this process. City staff will identify and reserve meeting locations and logistics. It is assumed
that the City will provide one set of consolidated,
non-conflicting comments on the presentation materials
prepared by MIG.

Task 3.2.2 Deliverables:
» Participation and facilitation on Community Workshop
#2 (virtual) with up to three (3) MIG Team members
» Attend study sessions with Planning Commission (TASK
6) and Residential Design Review Committee Meetings
with up to two (2) MIG team members.

Task 3.2.3: Public Hearing Draft Standards – The MIG
Team will assist staff with formal presentations to the Planning Commission and City Council. MIG team will
attend up to two Planning Commission meetings and up
to two Council meetings. The outreach events associated with this stage of the project will allow the project team to present and get feedback on the draft design standards
that the Planning Commission and City Council will
consider through the formal hearing process for review, recommendation, and adoption. It is assumed that the
City will provide one set of consolidated, non-conflicting comments on the presentation materials prepared by
MIG.

Task 3.2.3 Deliverables:
» Prepare draft and final meeting presentations (PPT/PDF) » Participation in up to two (2) Planning Commission
Meeting and up to two (2) City Council meetings (virtual)

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 289
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

S COPE OF W ORK AND T IMELINE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 33 Task 3.3 Outreach Materials
The MIG Team will develop a range of community
outreach and engagement materials as part of this
project. These materials include key project information, goals, timeline, anticipated questions; develop an
updateable template for promotional paper and digital
flyers for print and digital distribution and social media graphics for distribution on City and partner social media accounts; create posters and materials that present
visualized materials including text, photographs, maps, renderings, and other images for the City website and
social media platforms. This task also includes the
development of a draft press release to inform residents about the planning efforts to be undertaken. It is assumed that the City will provide one set of consolidated,
non-conflicting comments on the outreach materials.

Task 3.3 Deliverables:
» Outreach materials such as text, photographs, maps,
renderings, and other images for print and digital
distribution on City’s website and social media
platforms (Word/PPT/PDF)
TASK 4 – OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
Task 4.1 Objective Design Standards
The MIG Team will prepare a prescriptive ODS document,
including renderings, diagrams, and examples to serve
as the illustrative complement document to the ODS. The goal of the document is that it is crafted to provide clarity with the intent to reduce the design review and overall entitlement processing timeline for projects.

MIG team will put together the following design standards for City Council consideration:
» Buffer Zones: For multi-family developments adjacent
to a single-family neighborhood. The MIG team will
evaluate current transitional standards and assess
whether and how these might be strengthened to meet
community and city objectives.
» Building articulation refers to three-dimensional
changes in the outside walls of a building, including
projections and overhangs like decks or bay windows,
voids provided by recessed entryways or walkways, or
step-backs of second or third stories from lower stories. » Massing composition, including horizontal and vertical façade orientation
» Building materials – High-quality, innovative building materials
» Landscaping requirements including objective
landscape screening standards for buffering between
different uses and building scales and provide green
neighborhoods
» Location and configuration of parking
» Relationship with neighboring structures as well
as sidewalks and streets in the public right-of-way,
including building setbacks, articulation, location of
parking, and other design elements
The ODS must be fully illustrated through tables,
charts, and diagrams to reduce design review timelines
ultimately. Therefore, the MIG Team will approach the
ODS as a comprehensive and integrated product, a
fully illustrated package with parts that will serve as an illustrated guide for developer/applicant audiences.

It is assumed that the City will provide one set of
consolidated, non-conflicting comments on the materials prepared by MIG.

Task 4.1 Deliverables:
» Prepare draft ODS with illustrations (InDesign/PDF/PPT)

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 290
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

S COPE OF W ORK AND T IMELINE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 34 TASK 5 – FINAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
The MIG team will develop up to three draft documents
described below to develop the final ODS document.

Task 5.1 Administrative Draft
MIG will prepare an illustrated administrative draft ODS document for single-family and multi-family/residential mixed-use development based on the feedback received
from staff and community input. Standards will reflect
the variety of building types and architectural styles
appropriate in San Carlos and address topics such as
site planning, building massing and elements, building
frontages, entrances, exterior materials, landscaping,
utilitarian/mechanical elements of building design, etc.

The draft standards will consist of ODS applicable to
single-family and multi-family/residential mixed-use
development and standards applicable to specific
typologies based on development types (such as garden
apartment, townhome, apartment building, etc.), design
type, lot size, and configuration, or other organizing
principles. It is anticipated that at least four typologies may be identified. The project team will test the standards on prototypical sites to ensure the standards enable the intended development. Images and exhibits representing
a suggested design topic or standard, many of which will contain text callouts helping to illustrate the design intent, will be prepared. In addition, the MIG team will prepare graphic illustrations to augment written design standards as needed and directed by staff. New or improved
graphics will correlate to the City’s Zoning Ordinance
standards. The City will review the Administrative Draft and provide comments to MIG in track-changes format,
consolidating all of the staff comments. Following
receipt of comments, MIG and the City will discuss the
administrative draft and identify any needed refinements for the subsequent Public Review Draft. It is assumed
that the City will provide one set of consolidated,
non-conflicting comments on the materials prepared by
MIG.

Task 5.1 Deliverables:
» Prepare Administrative Draft ODS with illustrations
(InDesign/PDF)
Task 5.2 Public Review Draft
MIG will revise the administrative draft and prepare a
public draft of the ODS. The public draft will be based on direction and commentary from City staff. It is assumed that the City will provide one set of consolidated,
non-conflicting comments on the materials prepared by
MIG.

Task 5.2 Deliverables:
» Prepare Public Review Draft ODS with illustrations
(InDesign/PDF)
Task 5.3 Public Hearing Draft
Based on the Public Review Draft comments, the MIG
team will prepare Public Hearing Draft Design Standards for consideration through the formal review and adoption process. It is assumed that the City will provide one set of consolidated, non-conflicting comments on the materials prepared by MIG.

Task 5.3 Deliverables:
» Prepare Public Hearing Draft ODS for formal review and adoption process (InDesign/PDF)

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 291
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

S COPE OF W ORK AND T IMELINE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 35 TASK 6 – PUBLIC REVIEW, ADOPTION, AND

IMPLEMENTATION AIDS
The MIG Team shall refine all standards, guidelines,
tools, and examples for recommendation to the City
Council hearings and Planning Commission hearings. In
addition, tools such as renderings and visual examples
will be refined to assist applicants with a better upfront understanding of requirements to reduce overall timelines associated with design review.

The MIG Team will finalize all materials and prepare
a comprehensive presentation of all materials for the
recommendation.

The MIG Team will prepare the final ODS document for
reproduction, dissemination, and integration into Title 18 Zoning Standards based on City Council action.

It is anticipated that other sections of the Zoning
Ordinance, such as Common Procedures (SCMC 18.27) or
Design Review (SCMC 18.29), are likely to warrant change because of the modifications. MIG Team will address
these changes in the final document. We have provided
an allowance for this task, as the scope of the revisions is not known at this time.

Task 6 Deliverables:
» Prepare Final ODS presentations for City Council and
Planning Commission hearings (InDesign/PDF/PPT)
» Attendance in up to two (2) City Council Meetings and up to two (2) Planning Commission meetings
TASK 7 – OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS (ODS)

ADOPTION
Following City Council and Planning Commission’s
direction received from the meetings in Task 6, MIG Team will revise the Public Hearing Draft for adoption.

Task 7 Deliverables:
» Prepare Final ODS for adoption (InDesign/PDF)
TASK 8 – ADDITIONAL MEETINGS AS PART OF TASK
3 FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
The MIG Team proposes the following tasks as part of
additional meetings for expediting the Single Family
Residential for adoption in conforming to SB9 standards.

Task 8.1 City Council Study Sessions
To advance work for single-family residential ODS, MIG
proposes to have a study session with the City Council to review and discuss standards conforming to SB9 laws.

MIG team will attend and facilitate up to one (1) study session with City Council. The meeting associated with
this stage of the project will allow the project team to present and get feedback on the design standards
so the City Council will consider through the formal
hearing process for review, recommendation, and
adoption. It is assumed that the City will provide one
set of consolidated, non-conflicting comments on the
presentation materials prepared by MIG.

Task 8.1 Deliverables:
» Attend up to one (1) City Council Study Sessions with up to two (2) MIG team members.

Task 8.2 Planning Commission and Design Review
Board Study Sessions
To advance work for single-family residential ODS,
MIG proposes to have a study session with Planning
Commission and Design Review Board to review and
discuss standards conforming to SB9 laws.

MIG team will attend and facilitate up to one (1) study session with Planning Commission and Design Review
Board. The meeting associated with this stage of the
project will allow the project team to present and get
feedback on the design standards so the Planning

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 292
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

S COPE OF W ORK AND T IMELINE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 36 Commission and Design Review Board will consider
through the formal hearing process for review,
recommendation, and adoption. It is assumed that the
City will provide one set of consolidated, non-conflicting comments on the presentation materials prepared by MIG.

Task 8.2 Deliverables:
» Attend up to one (1) Planning Commission and Design
Review Board Study Sessions with up to two (2) MIG
team members.

Task 8.3 Sub Committee Meeting
To advance work for single-family residential ODS, MIG
proposes to have a meeting sub-committee to review and
discuss standards conforming to SB9 laws.

MIG team will attend and facilitate up to one (1) meeting with the sub-committee. The meeting associated with this stage of the project will allow the project team to present and get feedback on the design standards. It is assumed that the City will provide one set of consolidated,
non-conflicting comments on the presentation materials
prepared by MIG.

Task 8.3 Deliverables:
» Attend up to one (1) sub-committee meeting with up to two (2) MIG team members.

Task 8.4 Community Workshop #3 for Single
Family Residential
During this task, the MIG team will hold a Community
Workshop/Open House #3 and invite the community
and stakeholders to review the draft standards and get
additional public feedback focusing on design standards for single-family residential. This workshop will build on the first workshop and summarize the community’s
vision from Task 3.2.1, and present draft standards to the community. The workshop will be facilitated and planned by the MIG Team, and City staff will coordinate meeting invites. MIG anticipates up to three staff members will attend the workshop/open house. In addition, the MIG
team will prepare graphic exhibits that will include design standards for a single-family residential project for the prototypical site identified in Task 2.4. In addition to the community workshop, the MIG team also proposes to
conduct an online survey as an optional task to gather
input from the community. Please refer to Optional Task A for the description.

Task 8.4 Deliverables:
» Participation and facilitation on Community Workshop
#3 (virtual) with up to three (3) MIG Team members
Task 8.5 Preparation for Meetings in TASK 8
This task includes preparing materials for the additional rounds of meeting as identified in Task 8.1 to 8.4, which prepares graphics exhibits that will consist of design
standards for the single-family residential project for the prototypical site identified in Task 2.4. It also includes time for incorporating changes to the standards followed by the meetings in Task 8.1 to 8.4. It is assumed that the City will provide one set of consolidated, non-conflicting comments on the presentation materials prepared by MIG
for each round of meetings in Task 8.

Task 8.5 Deliverables:
» Prepare working draft ODS with illustrations (InDesign/

PDF/PPT)

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 293
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

S COPE OF W ORK AND T IMELINE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 37 TASK 9 – ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Task 9 CEQA Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/
ND) Draft and Final Review for Single Family, Multi-
Family and Mixed-use
We anticipate preparation of either:
(1) a CEQA Initial Study/ Negative Declaration (IS/ND)
pursuant to Article 6 (Negative Declaration Process,
Sections 15070-15075) of the CEQA Guidelines, or
(2) an Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section
15060(c)(2) (e.g., the ODS themselves will not result in direct or indirect physical environmental changes) and
Section 15061(b)(3) (“common sense exemption”).

A CEQA exemption may be appropriate because the ODS
(1) will not authorize any specific development project, (2) will not increase the allowable densities and intensities of use beyond those already being analyzed in the Housing
Element EIR (underway), and (3) will be intended to
implement policy requirements of the Housing Element.

An Exemption may be appropriate, based on the City’s
legal interpretation of the Exemption’s applicability, in collaboration with MIG. If a CEQA Exemption is decided
upon, MIG will prepare a CEQA Appendix G checklist
(Environmental Checklist Form), with supporting
documentation, to provide the substantial evidence that the Exemption applies. An Exemption is not subject to
the CEQA public review requirements. The CEQA exempt
option is covered in optional TASK A.

If an IS/ND is considered the appropriate CEQA
document, MIG will also prepare an Appendix G checklist, with supporting documentation. The IS/ND will provide
substantial evidence that no substantial direct or indirect physical environmental changes (i.e., environmental
impacts) will result from the Objective Design Standards, and that no mitigation is required. Part of the IS/ND
process will include incorporating any necessary changes to the ODS to ensure that no CEQA mitigation measures
are required. An IS/ND is subject to the CEQA public
review requirements. The MIG budget is calculated based on a CEQA IS/ND Draft and Final report.

Task 9 Deliverables:
» As applicable, all required CEQA notices and the
appropriate CEQA document (including administrative
draft, final [public] draft, and responses to comments
memo), plus any associated required documentation,
in conformance with all CEQA requirements. The MIG
Team will provide all documents via email.

OPTIONAL TASKS
Following are the optional tasks that MIG Team would like to propose in addition to the tasks outlined in the RFP.

Task A – CEQA Exempt - Draft and Final Review for
Single Family, Multi-Family and Mixed-use
MIG will prepare a CEQA Appendix G checklist
(Environmental Checklist Form), with supporting
documentation, to provide substantial evidence that the Exemption applies. An Exemption is not subject to the
CEQA public review requirements.

Task A Deliverables:
» As applicable, all required CEQA notices and the
appropriate CEQA document (including administrative
draft, final [public] draft, and responses to comments
memo), plus any associated required documentation,
in conformance with all CEQA requirements. The MIG
Team will provide all documents via email.

Task B - Online Survey to compliment with
Workshops/Open House
To complement Community Workshops, MIG Team
proposes the development of an online survey to get
broad-based input, design ideas from the community,
and preferred design standards. The online surveys will be interactive and allow to gather feedback on the draft standards from all corners of the community.

Task B Deliverables:
» Online survey questionnaire during Community
Workshops (Mapita/PDF)

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 294
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

S COPE OF W ORK AND T IMELINE
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 38 Task C - Online Survey - Bilingual
To facilitate the Community Surveys, MIG proposes
the development of a bilingual survey format to get
broad-based input, design ideas from the community, and preferred design standards. The online surveys will be
interactive and allow to gather feedback from all corners of the community.

Task C Deliverables:
» Online survey questionnaire during the #1 Community
Workshop (Mapita/PDF)
Task D - Additional Community Workshop with
Developers
This workshop will build off the first workshop and
provide an update on feedback received from the
Planning Commission meeting and Community Open
House. The MIG Team will introduce the preliminary draft of ODS and make revisions based on feedback. MIG
Team will facilitate the meeting and prepare the meeting presentation, agenda, and a meeting summary.

Task D Deliverables:
» Participation and facilitation on Community Workshop
(virtual) with Developers with up to three (3) MIG Team members
Task E - Additional Rounds of Draft Objective
Design Standards
Based on the comments received during the interim
stages of the project, if the City would like the MIG
team to update the document, the MIG team proposes
an optional task to incorporate these comments.

It is assumed that the City will provide one set of
consolidated, non-conflicting comments on the materials prepared by MIG.

Task E Deliverables:
» Implement comments and changes to the draft
Objective Design Standards. (InDesign/PDF)
Task F - Attendance in Planning Commission/
Council Hearing
The MIG Team will be available to attend additional
meetings with the Planning Commission and City
Council beyond those identified above and, on a time,
-and-materials basis. It is assumed that the City shall notify the MIG team for attendance and participation
in any additional meetings and refine the standards,
guidelines, tools, and examples for recommendation
to the City Council hearings and Planning Commission
hearings. The MIG Team will finalize all materials and
prepare a comprehensive presentation of all materials for the recommendation.

Task F Deliverables:
» Attendance at additional Planning Commission and City Council hearings as requested

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

S COPE OF W ORK AND T IMELINE
process scheduleObjective Design Standards

CITY OF SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA
2022 2023
JAN 14, 2022

ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW

PROJECT

MANAGEMENT

PROJECT

INITIATION

DRAFT OBJECTIVE

DESIGN STANDARDS

FINAL OBJECTIVE

DESIGN STANDARDS

PROCESS ANDDELIVERABLES
Kick-Off Meeting
and City T our Bi-weekly Project Calls
Final PlanAdministrative
Draft
Public
Draft
Final
Draft
Draft Objective
Design Standards Outline
Digital Data Analysis,
GIS, and Mapping
Document
Review
Inventory of
Existing Data
Project Website
Development
Stakeholder and Community
Meetings/Workshops #1
Stakeholder and Community
Meetings/Workshops #2
Open House
Interactive
Online Engagement
(Optional Task)
Interactive
Online Engagement
(Optional Task)
City Council
Meeting #1
City Council
Meeting #2
Planing
Commission
Meeting #1
Planing
Commission
Meeting #2
Posted Plan

FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 40 04 Estimated Fee and Budget
City of San Carlos
Objective Design Standards
2/17/2022
Hrs@ 225 Hrs@ 250 Hrs@ 135 Hrs@ 195 Hrs@ 170 Hrs@ 220 Hrs@ 90 Hrs@ 85 Hrs@ 195 Hrs@ 155 Hours Cost TASK 1 PROJECT INITIATION AND MANAGEMENT

1.1 Kick-off Meeting 2 450 2 500 4 540 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1,490

1.2 City Tour 8 1,800 0 8 1,080 0 8 1,360 0 0 0 0 0 500 24 4,740

1.3a On-going Meetings and Project Management - SF 8 1,800 4 1,000 16 2,160 0 0 0 0 12 1,020 0 0 500 40 6,480

1.3b On-going Meetings and Project Management - MF & MU 12 2,700 8 2,000 24 3,240 0 0 0 0 12 1,020 0 0 500 56 9,460 Subtotal 30 6,750 14 3,500 52 7,020 0 0 8 1,360 0 0 0 0 24 2,040 0 0 0 0 1,500 128 22,170 TASK 2 DATA GATHERING AND DOCUMENT RESEARCH AND REVIEW

2.1 Document Review - SF 1 225 1 250 6 810 1 195 1 170 0 6 540 0 0 0 16 2,190

2.1 Document Review - MF & MU 3 675 1 250 10 1,350 1 195 1 170 0 10 900 0 0 0 26 3,540

2.2 Review Existing Ordinance, Site Analysis and Best Practices - SF 1 225 1 250 12 1,620 2 390 4 680 0 12 1,080 0 0 0 32 4,245

2.2 Review Existing Ordinance, Site Analysis and Best Practices - MF & MU 3 675 1 250 8 1,080 2 390 4 680 0 20 1,800 0 0 0 38 4,875

2.3 Current Project Review - SF 1 225 1 250 4 540 1 195 2 340 0 16 1,440 0 0 0 25 2,990

2.3 Current Project Review - MF & MU 3 675 1 250 8 1,080 1 195 2 340 0 8 720 0 0 0 23 3,260

2.4a Site Analysis - SF 2 450 1 250 4 540 1 195 2 340 0 4 360 0 0 0 14 2,135

2.4b Site Analysis - MF & MU 6 1,350 1 250 8 1,080 3 585 6 1,020 0 8 720 0 0 0 32 5,005

2.5 Anticipate Taller, Denser Buildings - SF 1 225 1 250 2 270 1 195 1 170 0 0 0 0 0 6 1,110

2.5 Anticipate Taller, Denser Buildings - MF & MU 1 225 1 250 2 270 1 195 1 170 0 0 0 0 0 6 1,110 Subtotal 22 4,950 10 2,500 64 8,640 14 2,730 24 4,080 0 0 84 7,560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 218 30,460 TASK 3 PUBLIC OUTREACH

3.1 Outreach Plan - SF 1 225 1 250 3 405 0 0 2 440 6 540 0 0 0 13 1,860

3.1 Outreach Plan - MF & MU 1 225 1 250 5 675 0 0 2 440 10 900 0 0 0 19 2,490

3.2 Phases of Outreach and Events

3.2.1a Project Introduction and Issue Identification: Community Vision - SF - Workshop #1 2 450 2 500 12 1,620 0 6 1,020 2 440 12 1,080 2 170 0 0 3,000 3 8 8,280

3.2.1b Project Introduction and Issue Identification: Community Vision - MF & MU - Workshop #1 2 450 2 500 20 2,700 0 10 1,700 6 1,320 28 2,520 2 170 0 0 70 9,360

3.2.2a Public Review Draft Standards - SF - Workshop #2 2 450 2 500 10 1,350 0 6 1,020 2 440 6 540 2 170 0 0 200 30 4,670

3.2.2b Public Review Draft Standards - MF & MU - Workshop #2 2 450 2 500 14 1,890 0 10 1,700 2 440 10 900 2 170 0 0 200 42 6,250

3.2.3a Public Hearing Draft Standards - SF 1 225 1 250 4 540 0 2 340 0 2 180 0 0 0 200 10 1,735

3.2.3b Public Hearing Draft Standards - MF & MU 1 225 1 250 8 1,080 0 6 1,020 0 2 180 0 0 0 200 18 2,955

3.3a Outreach Materials - SF 1 225 1 250 12 1,620 0 0 1 220 10 900 0 0 0 25 3,215

3.3b Outreach Materials - MF & MU 1 225 1 250 20 2,700 0 0 1 220 14 1,260 0 0 0 37 4,655 Subtotal 14 3,150 14 3,500 108 14,580 0 0 40 6,800 18 3,960 100 9,000 8 680 0 0 0 0 3,800 302 45,470 TASK 4 OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS

4.1 Objective Design Standards - SF 6 1,350 2 500 16 2,160 0 0 0 10 900 0 0 0 100 34 5,010

4.1 Objective Design Standards - MF & MU 10 2,250 6 1,500 24 3,240 0 0 0 14 1,260 0 0 0 100 54 8,350 Subtotal 16 3,600 8 2,000 40 5,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 2,160 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 88 13,360 TASK 5 FINAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS

5.1a Administrative Draft - SF 2 450 2 500 4 540 1 195 2 340 0 12 1,080 0 0 0 100 23 3,205

5.1b Administrative Draft - MF & MU 4 900 2 500 8 1,080 1 195 6 1,020 0 20 1,800 0 0 0 100 41 5,595

5.2a Public Review Draft - SF 2 450 1 250 2 270 1 195 2 340 0 16 1,440 0 0 0 100 24 3,045

5.2b Public Review Draft - MF & MU 2 450 1 250 6 810 1 195 4 680 0 8 720 0 0 0 100 22 3,205

5.3a Public Hearing Draft - SF 1 225 1 250 2 270 1 195 2 340 0 8 720 0 0 0 100 15 2,100

5.3b Public Hearing Draft - MF & MU 1 225 1 250 2 270 1 195 2 340 0 4 360 0 0 0 100 11 1,740 Subtotal 12 2,700 8 2,000 24 3,240 6 1,170 18 3,060 0 0 68 6,120 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 136 18,890 TASK 6 PUBLIC REVIEW, ADOPTION, AND IMPLEMENTATION AIDS

6.1a Public Meetings - SF 1 225 1 250 2 270 0 2 340 0 0 0 0 0 400 6 1,485

6.1b Public Meetings - MF & MU 1 225 1 250 6 810 0 6 1,020 0 0 0 0 0 400 14 2,705

6.2a Final Objective Design Standards - SF 1 225 1 250 2 270 0 1 170 0 2 180 0 0 0 100 7 1,195

6.2b Final Objective Design Standards - MF & MU 1 225 1 250 6 810 0 1 170 0 6 540 0 0 0 100 15 2,095 Subtotal 4 900 4 1,000 16 2,160 0 0 10 1,700 0 0 8 720 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 42 7,480 TASK 7 OBJECTVE DESIGN STANDARDS ADOPTION

7.1a Adoption - SF 1 225 1 250 2 270 0 1 170 0 2 180 0 0 0 100 7 1,195

7.1b Adoption - MF & MU 1 225 1 250 2 270 0 1 170 0 2 180 0 0 0 100 7 1,195 Subtotal 2 450 2 500 4 540 0 0 2 340 0 0 4 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 14 2,390 TASK 8 ADDITIONAL MEETINGS AS PART OF TASK 3 - SF

8.1 City Council Study Session 1 225 1 250 4 540 0 4 680 0 8 720 0 0 0 18 2,415

8.2 Planing Commission + DRB Study Session 1 225 1 250 4 540 0 4 680 0 8 720 0 0 0 18 2,415

8.3 Sub Committee Meeting 1 225 1 250 4 540 0 4 680 0 8 720 0 0 0 18 2,415

8.4 Public Review Draft Standards - SF - Workshop #3 2 450 2 500 16 2,160 0 8 1,360 2 440 32 2,880 0 0 0 400 62 8,190

8.5 Preparation for Meetings in Phase 8 12 2,700 12 3,000 80 10,800 0 40 6,800 6 1,320 72 6,480 4 340 0 0 226 31,440 Subtotal 17 3,825 17 4,250 108 14,580 0 0 60 10,200 8 1,760 128 11,520 4 340 0 0 0 0 400 342 46,875 TASK 9 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

9.1 CEQA Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) Draft Review - SF 0 0 8 1,080 0 0 0 10 900 0 18 3,510 30 4,650 66 10,140

9.2 CEQA Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) Draft Review - MF & MU 0 0 12 1,620 0 0 0 14 1,260 0 24 4,680 40 6,200 90 13,760

9.3 CEQA Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) Final Review - SF 0 0 4 540 0 0 0 4 360 0 12 2,340 22 3,410 42 6,650

9.4 CEQA Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) Final Review - MF & MU 0 0 6 810 0 0 0 6 540 0 16 3,120 26 4,030 54 8,500 Subtotal 0 0 0 0 30 4,050 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 3,060 0 0 70 13,650 118 18,290 0 252 39,050 117 26,325 77 19,250 446 60,210 20 3,900 162 27,540 26 5,720 450 40,500 36 3,060 70 13,650 118 18,290 7,700 1522 226,145 Contingency - 10% (not to be spent without authorization from the City) 22,615 TOTAL + EXPENSES 248,760
Date:2/17/2022City of San Carlos - Objective Design Standards Notes: SF - Single Family; MF - Multi-family; MU - Mixed-use Grand Total
Rishi Dhody
Project ManagerConsulting Principal /
Urban Design Director
Lisa Brownfield
Director of Environmental
Planning
Ray Pendro Steve Ridone
Sr. Environmental
Planner/Engineer
Direct
Costs
Budget
Christine Thomson
Urban Planner
Joan Chaplick
Senior Engagement
Specialist
Mukul Malhotra
Principal-in-Charge
Laura Stetson
Urban Planner
MIG
Marco Hinojosa Farah Tekbali
Associate Planner Project Admin.

TOTAL
MIG. Inc 1

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards) City of San Carlos
Objective Design Standards
2/17/2022
Hrs@ 225 Hrs@ 250 Hrs@ 135 Hrs@ 195 Hrs@ 170 Hrs@ 220 Hrs@ 90 Hrs@ 85 Hrs@ 195 Hrs@ 155 Hours Cost Date:2/17/2022City of San Carlos - Objective Design Standards Rishi Dhody
Project ManagerConsulting Principal /
Urban Design Director
Lisa Brownfield
Director of Environmental
Planning
Ray Pendro Steve Ridone
Sr. Environmental
Planner/Engineer
Direct
Costs
Budget
Christine Thomson
Urban Planner
Joan Chaplick
Senior Engagement
Specialist
Mukul Malhotra
Principal-in-Charge
Laura Stetson
Urban Planner
MIG
Marco Hinojosa Farah Tekbali
Associate Planner Project Admin.

TOTAL
TASK A1 CEQA Exempt - SF (Alternate to Task 9.1 and 9.3) 0 0 8 1,080 0 0 0 8 720 0 24 4,680 36 5,580 76 12,060 TASK A2 CEQA Exempt - MF & MU (Alternate to Task 9.2 and 9.3) 0 0 10 1,350 0 0 0 12 1,080 0 32 6,240 52 8,060 106 16,730 TASK B Online Survey 8 1,800 4 1,000 12 1,620 0 4 680 2 440 40 3,600 0 0 0 70 9,140 TASK C Online Survey - Bilingual 1 225 1 250 2 270 0 0 0 24 2,160 0 0 0 28 2,905 TASK D Additional Community Workshop 2 450 2 500 16 2,160 0 8 1,360 2 440 32 2,880 0 0 0 400 62 8,190 TASK E Additional Rounds of Draft ODS 1 225 1 250 12 1,620 0 8 1,360 0 16 1,440 0 0 0 38 4,895 TASK F Attendance in Planning Commision/Council Hearing 1 225 1 250 4 540 0 4 680 0 0 8 720 0 0 0 18 2,415

OPTIONAL TASKS
MIG. Inc 2
City of San Carlos | Objective Design Standards 41

E STIMATED F EE AND B UDGET
Optional Tasks

6.l.3
Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: MIG Proposal and Budget (Objective Design Standards)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: February 28, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Discuss Below Market Rate Ordinance and Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Possible Amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 18.16:

Affordable Housing Programs.

RECOMMENDATION:

The purpose of this study session is for the City Council to hear input from staff and the public regarding possible amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 18.16: Affordable Housing Programs, which would encourage the development of more affordable housing.

Staff recommends that the City Council consider the information presented, hear public input , and provide direction to staff that will be used to prepare amendments that will be considered by both the Planning Commission and the City Council at a later date.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

BACKGROUND:

To encourage the development of affordable housing throughout the city, the City of San Carlos adopted Chapter 18.16 (Affordable Housing Programs) in Title 18 (Zoning) of the San Carlos Municipal Code. Chapter 18.1 6 is an "inclusionary housing" ordinance, which requires a specified share of new residential construction be affordable at below market rate ( “BMR”) to households at lower- and moderate-income levels.

One of the City’s strategic goals is to actively encourage and support the creation of housing to provide a safe, inclusive, diverse, and affordable supply by facilitating development of housing for all income levels. “Objective #1” under the City’s housing goal is to increase the number of BMR housing units in order to meet local and regional housing requirements. The Council directed staff to pursue this objective by updating the City’s BMR ordinance.

The City subsequently retained Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. ( “EPS”) to assist with reviewing San Carl os’ inclusionary housing requirements and develop recommendations on how to increase the production of BMR housing in the community. These recommendations were then shared in a draft memorandum along with the associated findings and analyses. City staff an d EPS thereafter met on two occasions with City Council Housing Subcommittee

8.a
Packet Pg. 299
2 Members John Dugan and Ron Collins to refine these recommendations to what is being shared in this staff report.

On November 15, 2021, staff held a Study Session with the Plannin g Commission to share these proposed recommendations. During th e Study Session, the Planning Commission voiced its support for the proposed changes which included higher inclusionary requirements for ownership units, extending affordability periods to run in perpetuity, addressing issues surrounding unbundled parking, and the proposed City density bonus.

ANALYSIS:

Current Requirements

The City currently requires all residential developments of seven or more units to set aside 15% of their units as BMR housing. These BMR units are then allocated to different income levels depending on whether the units are ownership or rental developments, as listed in the table below:

Existing Requirements
Ownership Projects: 10% Moderate Income
5% Low Income
Rental Projects: 10% Very Low Income
5% Low Income

Developers are not allowed to pay a fee in lieu of providing the required units, except for small projects under seven units or fractional units (e.g., if a 28 -unit project should provide 4.2 BMR units, the developer would provide four units and the fee could be charged for the 0.2 units).

Overview of Comparable Jurisdictions:

In considering potential changes to the City’s inclusionary requirements, it is helpful to understand how these policies are being i mplemented in comparable jurisdictions. To provide this context, EPS surveyed the cities of San Mateo County and Santa Clara County, as well as the City of Fremont in Alameda County. This survey found that San Carlos’ 15% overall inclusionary requirement i s consistent with the average requirements in other cities. However, when breaking the requirements down by income levels, some divergence was noted.

The City’s requirement for ownership developments of 10% Moderate Income and 5% Low Income is in line with neighboring jurisdictions. However, the City’s requirement for rental developments of 10% Very Low Income and 5% Low Income was found to be more aggressive than most other cities. The only other cities to require 10% or more Very Low Income units did so as an alternative to 20% Low Income units or for developments on properties of more than five acres.

Recommended Changes to Inclusionary Levels:

With the above considerations in mind , staff and EPS set out to analyze potential changes to the City’s inclusionary requirements. EPS prepared financial pro formas reflecting the expected

8.a
Packet Pg. 300
3 costs of new development, and compared those costs to the revenues that could be generated from the projects given various mixes of market -rate and affordable housing. Thes e pro formas were then analyzed to find a scenario that resulted in more affordable units and/or units at deeper income levels , while not inhibiting a developer’s return on investment to the point that such projects would no longer be feasible.

Ownership Projects:

With regard to ownership projects, the research showed that there is room to both increase the proportion of units required and lower the income level required. As a result, staff plans to recommend that the inclusionary requirement for ownershi p developments be changed to 20% at Low Income (70% AMI). This is a change from the current requirement of 10% at Moderate Income plus 5% at Low Income.

Staff has heard from the development community that this change may discourage projects that do not se ek to utilize the state density bonus. This would likely include projects that focus on larger units at lower overall densities.

Rental Projects:

With regard to rental projects, the research showed that developments are already facing feasibility challenges with the current requirement of 10% at Very Low Income and 5% Low Income. Rental developments are generally considered feasible when they are projected to achieve greater than a 5% yield on cost. Under the City’s current inclusionary requirements a medium sized rental development is estimated to achieve a 4.9% yield on cost.

In an effort to determine the impact the City’s inclusionary requirement is having on rental developments, EPS also ran a scenario under which no requirement existed and a develop er was not required to build any affordable units. Under this scenario the estimated yield on cost increased to 5.2%, suggesting that the City’s inclusionary requirement plays a smaller impact on project feasibility than broader market conditions such as land, labor, and construction costs.

For this reason , the only change that staff plans to recommend to the inclusionary ordinance with regard to rentals is to add an additional option for developers to construct 15% of units at the Very Low Income level. A project that met this alternative inclusionary standard would be entitled to a 50% density bonus under State law, whereas a project that meets the City’s current inclusionary standard would only be entitled to a 32.5% bonus, and EPS’s analysis , as well as observed developer preferences , demonstrates the significant value of density bonus units.

Technically, this would already be allowed under the City’s current requirements, but highlighting the 15% at Very Low Income option will help draw attention to th e maximum State density bonus of 50% that projects are entitled to pursue.

Density Bonus Considerations:

The above inclusionary requirements are made much more feasible by the existence of California’s State density bonus. The State density bonus law mandates that cities provide an increase in the maximum density allowed by local zoning regulations for developments that include certain amounts of affordable housing units. For example, under staff’s recommended inclusionary level for ownership units of 20% at Low Income , a project would be entitled to a 35% density bonus, greatly increasing the profitability of the project.

8.a
Packet Pg. 301
4 However, even with the State density bonus, most rental developments in San Carlos face an upward battle in terms of feasibility. For this reason , the Council may wish to consider an improved City density bonus, specifically for rental developments.

San Carlos currently implements a City density bonus program , which grants one additional market-rate unit for every unit at Low Income or lower that is included in a project. This City density bonus is generally less favorable than the State bonus and as a result is rarely utilized.

However, the City could consider increasing this City bonus for rental units to help improve their feasibility and produce more affordable units.

The City could accomplish this by setting a fixed bonus rate that equals or exceeds the highest rates provided by the State, such as 4:1 for each Very Low Income unit and 2:1 for each Low Income unit, and allowing all o f the affordable units to trigger bonus units rather than requiring the developer to select only one income level to apply. Under such a program, a 100 -unit rental project meeting the City’s current ordinance would qualify for 50 bonus units as seen in the table below:

100 Unit Rental
Project State Density Bonus Proposed City Density Bonus Base Units: 100 100
BMR Units: 10 Very Low Income
5 Low Income
10 Very Low Income
5 Low Income
Bonus Units: 33 50
Total Units: 133 150

This change could help to improve the feasibility of rental projects in San Carlos and increase the number of apartments built in the city. This idea was met with support when presented to the City’s Planning Commission.

Developers that utilized this proposed City density bonus w ould still be able to use certain provisions of the State density bonus. As a result, some may choose to utilize the City bonus to obtain additional units and the State bonus for concessions on height, parking, or other areas.

While this change could imp rove rental project feasibility , another option is to instead address this through zoning changes in the upcoming update to the City’s Housing Element. City staff have heard from the development community that increases to the City’s height and density limits would have the greatest impact on the feasibility of rental projects.

Additional Below Market Rate Ordinance Changes:

In addition to the above changes to the inclusionary portion of the City’s BMR Ordinance, staff also plans to recommend the following changes:

 Decrease the threshold requiring that a BMR unit be built for ownership units from seven to five units. This would align with the increased requirement that 20% of units be

8.a
Packet Pg. 302
5 designated Low Income. The threshold would remain seven units for renta l developments.
 Change affordability periods to run in perpetuity. The City’s Municipal Code currently states that the affordability period shall be not less than 45 years for ownership units and not less than 55 years for rental units.
 Ensure that BMR units do not lose parking due to unbundled parking strategies. o Rental Units: Amend the definition of “rent” in the Municipal Code to include all fees paid for parking and require that BMR units be offered amenities, such as parking, equivalent to those of market rate units.
o Ownership Units: Require that BMR units include parking spaces at a ratio equivalent to that of market rate units. In developments that include unbundled parking spaces, parking spaces must be included in the affordable sale price for BMR units at a ratio equivalent to what the distribution of parking spaces among all units would have been were the spaces not unbundled.

Summary of Proposed Changes:

Inclusionary Requirements
Existing Requirements Recommended Changes
Ownership
Projects:
10% Moderate Income
5% Low Income
20% Low Income
Rental
Projects:
10% Very Low Income
5% Low Income
Present Policy; AND
15% Very Low Income Alternative

City Density Bonus

Allow rental projects to add bonus market rate units at a ratio of 4:1 for each Very Low Income unit and 2:1 for each Low Income unit that is included.

BMR Unit Construction Threshold

Decrease the threshold requiring a BMR unit be built for ownership units from seven to five units. Threshold would remain seven units for rental developments.

Affordability Periods

Change affordability periods to run in perpetuity.

Restrictions on Unbundled Parking

Amend the Municipal Code to ensure that BMR units do not lose access to parking as a result of unbundled parking strategies.

8.a
Packet Pg. 303
6 NEXT STEPS:

At this time, staff is only seeking feedback on the recommendations outlined in this staff report.

Depending on the Council’s guidance, the next step in this process would be to draft formal amendments to the City’s BMR ordinance based on the Council’s feedback. Staff would then return to the Planning Commission to seek a recommendation on whether the Council should adopt these proposed changes. Following this, staff would return to the City Council with a proposed Resolution adopting the Council’s desired amendments to the BMR Ordinance.

Respectfully submitted by:

Al Savay, AICP
Community Development Director

Adam Aronson, Economic Development
and Housing Manager

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations

8.a
Packet Pg. 304

D RAFT M EMORANDUM
To: Al Savay and Adam Aronson, City of San Carlos
From: Darin Smith and Ashley Boots
Subject: Findings and Recommendations: Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations; EPS #191081
Date: November 1, 2021
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) was retained by the City of San Carlos (City) to review its inclusionary housing requirements and ensure that production of market rate and below market rate housing units is optimized. The City’s goal is to ensure its policies encourage development of a range of housing options to address market pressures, mitigate displacement, and enable housing for future residents.

The City currently requires new housing developments to provide 15 percent of newly built units at Below Market Rate (BMR) levels. For rental projects, the developer must provide 10 percent of units at Very Low Income (up to 50 percent of Area Median Income [AMI]) and 5 percent of units at Low Income (up to 60 percent of AMI). For ownership projects, the targeted price points are higher, as developers need to provide 5 percent of units at Low Income (up to 80 percent of AMI) and 10 percent of units at Moderate Income (up to 100 percent of AMI).

Developers are not allowed to pay a fee in lieu of providing the required units, except for small projects under 7 units or fractional units (e.g., if a 28-unit project should provide 4.2 BMR units, the developer would provide four units and the fee could be charged for the 0.2 units).

This analysis evaluates the feasibility of potential changes to the City’s affordable housing programs to inform levels of inclusionary requirements that may be supported with minimal adverse impact on new development. The memo describes an overview of comparable jurisdictions’ inclusionary requirements, a discussion on the State’s Density Bonus Law, a detailing of EPS’s approach to the feasibility analysis, and recommendations for staff regarding the update to the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 2

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx Summary of Findings
The primary memo findings are summarized below.

1. San Carlos’s 15 percent inclusionary requirements are in line with average requirements, compared to neighboring jurisdictions in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Among the cities surveyed, there is a range of affordability requirements, from very-low to low- to moderate income. Seven jurisdictions require higher than 15 percent of units be affordable, including some with 20 percent inclusionary on the rental side and 20 – 25 percent on the for-sale side. However, San Carlos requires a higher percentage of very low-income units in rental projects than most jurisdictions and sets its low-income unit pricing below levels found in some jurisdictions, and thus can be considered to have a relatively aggressive policy for rentals already.

2. The State Density Bonus Law affects project feasibility by allowing increased numbers of units compared to base zoning, in exchange for providing certain proportions of affordable units at various income levels. This incentive program is triggered by right when developers meet local inclusionary housing standards, and can result in financial benefits to developers on both the cost and revenue side. With greater density per acre, the result is a lower per-unit land cost, and the allowance of additional market-rate units increases the proportion of market-rate to affordable units, which can improve profit margins. These benefits can be especially significant in high-value housing markets like San Carlos.

3. On the for-sale side, the analysis reveals that there are several different variations to the current inclusionary standards that can yield better financial results for the developer, particularly as they capitalize on the advantages of the State density bonus law. For example, the City may consider updating the current ordinance to a scenario requiring 20 percent of units at low-income (70 percent of AMI). This scenario increases the inclusionary percentage from 15 to 20 percent, meets an identified need in the community, and allows a 35 percent density bonus that appears to offer strong value to the developer.

4. On the rental side, the analysis again identifies several alternatives to the current requirements that can yield the same or greater number of affordable units while also yielding preferable financial returns to the developer. However, the City’s current rental policy is already relatively aggressive and rental housing appears to face feasibility challenges until the market fully recovers following the COVID pandemic. Under these circumstances, EPS suggests that the City consider providing options from which developers may choose based on their own preferences and projections: 1) retaining its current standards – 15 percent of units with 10 percent very low and 5 percent low income; and 2) 15 percent all at very low income, which would maximize the State density bonus incentive.

This alternative appears to yield even greater financial returns than under the current ordinance because it would qualify for a greater density bonus, but also provides deeper affordability, and may be preferable to certain developers.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 3

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx

5. Due to economies of scale, projects of different sizes can have significantly different cost profiles, and larger projects appear to be more able to absorb the implicit cost of inclusionary housing requirements. Like some nearby jurisdictions, San Carlos may consider increasing its inclusionary standards for larger projects. Research suggests that a 100-unit apartment project can be expected to have lower costs per unit than a 50-unit apartment project. However, this does not necessarily mean that projects with greater density can afford to provide more inclusionary units, and in fact the inverse may be true. For example, a 50-unit townhome project may be able to support more affordable units than can a 50-unit multifamily apartment complex. Cities like Palo Alto have addressed this complexity by basing a higher inclusionary standard on the physical size of the land (less than or greater than five acres) rather than based on the number of units in the project, as the economies of scale have more to do with project size than project density.

6. If the City is concerned about the feasibility of housing development in general and rental housing in particular, it could consider allowing more or larger projects to pay an in-lieu fee rather than providing inclusionary units on-site. Given the choice between the City’s current inclusionary standards and its maximum in-lieu fees of roughly $27 per square foot, analysis herein suggests the in-lieu fees yield better financial returns.

Of course, the City would need to consider whether it prefers to collect and utilize such fees – for example, to provide matching funds for 100 percent affordable projects – or to have affordable units distributed throughout otherwise market-rate projects.

7. The City could also consider amending its own density bonus program to provide a more generous incentive, especially for rental developments. The current policy granting one additional market-rate units per affordable unit is generally less generous than the State density bonus program. Increasing that ratio to add more market-rate units per affordable unit would provide a more meaningful financial incentive, and could exceed the incentive provided by the State program. For example, granting four bonus units for each very low income unit plus two bonus units for each low income units would significantly enhance the feasibility of a new rental development in San Carlos, even if the City were to retain its current rental inclusionary standards requiring 10 percent very low income units and 5 percent low income units.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 4

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx Overview of Comparable Jurisdictions
In considering potential changes to the City’s inclusionary requirements, it is helpful to understand how these policies are being implemented in comparable jurisdictions. To provide this context, EPS surveyed the cities of Santa Clara County and San Mateo County, along with neighboring Fremont in Alameda County. Inclusionary policies are subject to change, as San Carlos is considering, so it is important to note that Santa Clara County cities were surveyed as of February 2021, and San Mateo County cities were surveyed as of July 2019. 1 Of the
geographies researched, 14 did not have any inclusionary housing policies, while 22 did.2 Inclusionary requirements adopted by jurisdictions in these counties vary based on local policy preferences, including factors such as the number of units in the development or the type of housing (i.e., rental, condo, townhome, or single family). The charts on the following pages are divided into requirements for new rental development versus requirements for new for-sale developments, which often vary in cities. The charts also highlight the range of affordability requirements among the cities, from very-low to low- to moderate income.

On the rental side, a few cities had requirements higher than San Carlos’s 15 percent for some or all projects. Figure 1 shows that in general, 15 percent is a standard proportion. However, very few cities match San Carlos’s current standard that 10 percent of all rental units should be very-low-income; most require a lower proportion of these deeply affordable units or none at all.

As such, San Carlos’s current inclusionary standards for rental housing are on the more aggressive and progressive end of the range in nearby cities, and efforts to increase those standards would further separate San Carlos from the majority of its peer cities.

1 The San Mateo County jurisdictions were surveyed as part of an EPS assignment for the City of San Mateo in 2019. San Mateo subsequently updated its own inclusionary policy in 2020, and the figures presented herein reflect that 2020 update for the City of San Mateo. 2 Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Gilroy, Hillsborough, Los Altos Hills, Millbrae, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Portola Valley, Saratoga, and Woodside did not have inclusionary policies.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 5

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx Figure 1 Inclusionary Requiremen ts for New Rental Development

*In Los Gatos, projects 20-100 units can be required to provide up to 20 percent inclusionary, as the number of units increase. 20-unit projects are only required to provide 10 percent.

Figure 2 shows that San Carlos’s current 15 percent requirement is still the most common overall percentage, but more cities require 20 or 25 percent inclusionary units for for-sale projects than do for rental projects. Some cities require for-sale projects to include very-low income units, whereas San Carlos requires only low- and moderate-income units in for-sale projects. This comparison suggests that San Carlos’s inclusionary standards for for-sale projects are not as comparatively aggressive as are the city’s standards for rental housing and might be increased in terms of percentage and income-level targets while remaining within the established range of nearby jurisdictions.

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%

VLI LOW MOD

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 309
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 6

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx Figure 2 Inclusionary Requirements for New For-Sale Development

Note that in many cities there are a mix of income levels required, with specific allocations to each, and in other cities there is a range of levels referenced in policy but without the allocations specified. Also of note is the City of Mountain View, which updated its policy in 2019 to increase the ownership percentage requirement for rowhouses and townhouses to meet a 25 percent on- site requirement, with 15 percent affordable to a weighted average of 100 percent AMI and 10 percent affordable to a weighted average of 135 percent. For projects other than rowhouses and townhouses, and for all rental projects, a 15 percent requirement is in place in Mountain View.

The City of Los Altos also has a unique ordinance that varies percentage requirements by number of units, and on the rental side for projects with 10 or more units, gives developers the option between providing more units at the low-income level, or fewer units at the very low- income level.

State Density Bonus Law
First enacted by legislature in 1979, the State of California Density Bonus Law mandates that cities provide an increase in the maximum density allowed by local zoning regulations for developments that include certain amounts of affordable housing units. Under Assembly Bill (AB) 2345, the law has been updated to afford a higher amount of density bonus percentage in exchange for increased inclusionary provisions and/ or deeper levels of affordability. Table 1 lays out the maximum bonus allowed before AB 2345, compared to what is now effective as of January 1
st, 2021.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%

VLI LOW MOD

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 310
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 7

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx Table 1 Maximum Density Bonus Tiers

Pre-2021 Density Bonus Law AB 2345 Amendments
Very Low Income 35% bonus for 11% of units 50% bonus for 15% of units Low Income 35% bonus for 20% of units 50% bonus for 24% of units Moderate Income 35% bonus for 40%* of units 50% bonus for 44%* of units *For sale units only; no density bonus is provided for moderate income rental units.

Source: “California's AB 2345 Expands and Enhances Density Bonus Law Development Incentives.” Gibson Dunn, 26 Jan. 2021, www.gibsondunn.com/californias-ab-2345-expands-and-enhances-density-bonus-law-development- incentives/.

Along with the benefit of increased density, developers are entitled to various incentives and concessions, based on the affordability percentages and depths included in a project. To be eligible for one concession, a project must include 5 percent very low, 10 percent low or 10 percent moderate income units. Two concessions are allowed with the provision of 10 percent very low, 17 percent low (previously 20 percent, before AB 2345), or 20 percent moderate income units. Providing 15 percent very low, 24 percent low (30 percent, pre-AB 2345), or 30 percent moderate income units will yield three concessions. These concessions could include a reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning or architectural design requirements, approval of mixed-use zoning, or any other identifiable cost reduction incentive.

The City of San Carlos implements a density bonus program in compliance with the state law.

Under State law, simply by complying with the City’s inclusionary requirements, new housing developments qualify for this density bonus (and development concessions) at various amounts according to the percent and level of affordability. For example, projects that meet the City’s standard by providing 10 percent of units at very-low-income for a rental project would qualify for a 32.5 percent density bonus while projects that meet the 15 percent low-income option for a rental project would qualify for a 27.5 percent density bonus. Note that the inclusionary requirement is applied to the “base” density, or number of units in the project before accounting for density bonus, rather than applied to the total number of units; thus, bonus units can all be offered at market rate.

The density bonus law has multiple effects on the financial feasibility of a project. On the cost side, for example, greater density per acre results in a lower per-unit land cost. From a revenue perspective, since the inclusionary requirement is applied to the base number of units rather than the total number of units, the extra units allowed through the density bonus can all be priced at market rate, thus increasing the proportion of market-rate to affordable units, which can improve profit margins. Since the density bonus provision varies depending on the percent and level of affordability, projects in high-value areas such as San Carlos can actually yield higher profit margins by providing very low-income units rather than low-income units. The sensitivity testing described on the following pages accounts for the effects of density bonus.

In San Carlos, the City’s Density Bonus states that residential developments with one or more on-site below market rate units that are affordable to low-income households, or to a lower income category, may be granted one additional unit for each unit affordable to low-income households or to a lower income category (Section 18.17.030). As the State law provides a more

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 311
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 8

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx generous benefit, EPS has applied it, instead of the City ordinance, to the scenarios analyzed within this memo. However, alternatives to the City’s current density bonus program are evaluated at the end of this memorandum.

Approach and Assumptions
The City has asked EPS to explore the financial implications of inclusionary housing requirements that exceed those currently in place, whether by increasing the proportion of units that must be affordable, by decreasing the household income levels targeted, or both. To do this, EPS has prepared financial pro formas reflecting the expected costs of new development, and compared those costs to the revenues that could be generated from the projects given various mixes of market-rate and affordable housing. EPS has endeavored to identify potential “win-win” scenarios, in which the development’s affordability would be enhanced but so would the developer’s return on investment, relative to adhering to the City’s current inclusionary standards.

Ownership Scenarios
As a case study for evaluating the development economics of various inclusionary requirements, EPS leveraged a 2019 feasibility study for a 28-unit luxury condominium project proposed in San Carlos. Key revenue and cost assumptions were held unaltered from that proposal for simplicity.

Using the same framework, EPS evaluated a number of scenarios, adjusting the percentage and/or depth of affordability in each. Outlined below are the various percentages and levels of affordability tested against the current ownership ordinance:

Current Ordinance – 15 percent Inclusionary with 5 percent Low (70 percent AMI), 10 percent Moderate (110 percent AMI); this scenario is automatically eligible for a 10 percent density bonus under State law.

S-1 – 15 percent Inclusionary with 11 percent Low (70 percent AMI) and 4 percent Moderate (110 percent AMI); this scenario models the actual approach the 626 Walnut St. project developer opted to pursue, choosing to include units at deeper affordability levels for greater density bonus (21.5 percent).

S-2 - 20 percent Inclusionary with 11 percent Very Low (50 percent AMI) and 9 percent Moderate (110 percent AMI); this scenario increases the inclusionary percentage from 15 to 20 percent, provides a mix of affordability, and is eligible for a 35 percent density bonus - the previous maximum amount afforded before A.B. 2345 was passed.

S-3 - 20 percent Inclusionary with all 20 percent Low (70 percent AMI); this scenario increases the inclusionary percentage from 15 to 20 percent, and achieves the previous 35 percent density bonus maximum.

S-4 - 20 percent Inclusionary with 10 percent Low (70 percent AMI) and 10 percent Moderate (110 percent AMI); this scenario increases the inclusionary percentage from 15 to 20 percent, but only achieves a 20 percent bonus due to less affordability depth.

S-5 - 20 percent Inclusionary with 11 percent Very Low (50 percent AMI) and 9 percent Low (70 percent AMI); this scenario increases the inclusionary percentage from 15 to 20 percent, and achieves the previous 35 percent density bonus maximum.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 312
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 9

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx S-6 - 20 percent Inclusionary with 15 percent Very Low (50 percent AMI) and 5 percent Low (70 percent AMI); this scenario increases the inclusionary percentage from 15 to 20 percent, and achieves the current 50 percent density bonus maximum afforded through A.B. 2345.

S-7 - 24 percent Inclusionary with 24 percent Low (70 percent AMI); this scenario increases the inclusionary percentage from 15 to 24 percent, and achieves the current 50 percent density bonus maximum afforded through A.B. 2345.

Each scenario assumed the same 28 base units, and maximized the State Density bonus for additional units allowable given the affordability parameters regarding the proportion of units and their targeted income levels. The City’s current inclusionary standards result in a 10 percent density bonus for for-sale projects. Scenarios S-2, S-3, and S-5 were all eligible to achieve the pre-A.B. 2345 maximum density bonus of 35 percent, increasing the total number of units to 38.

Utilizing A.B. 2345 in Scenarios S-6 and S-7 allowed for the new maximum density bonus of 50 percent, yielding 42 units overall.

The proposed project featured large condominium units, with an average size of 1,802 square feet reflecting three-bedroom units. Market-rate unit values of $1,847,050 were used from the prior study, and affordable unit prices retained from the prior study were based on HUD Income Limits for San Mateo County. Commission and Closing costs were subtracted from the unit revenues for a net sales revenue amount. On the costs side, land and carrying costs of $12,720,000 were held constant across all scenarios, and construction and other costs of $960,647 per unit were assumed. These revenue and cost estimates inform a range of profit margins (net revenue divided by total cost), which vary by scenario, as shown in Table 2.

The results suggest that there are several different variations to the current inclusionary standards that can yield better financial results for the developer, particularly as they capitalize on the advantages of the State density bonus law. Each bonus unit can be offered at market- rate pricing, which is highly profitable in San Carlos. Indeed, the results of scenario S-1 – which reflect the actual affordability strategy ultimately pursued by the developers of 626 Walnut Street – illustrate that a developer had financial incentive to exceed the City’s inclusionary standard in order to realize the benefits of the density bonus program. Six other affordability scenarios are shown to produce similar advantages to developers while also increasing the affordability results relative to the City’s current inclusionary standards for for-sale housing.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 10

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx Table 2 Ownership Scenarios

Program
Eligible Density Bonus
Base Units (for Inclusionary Req.)
Units in Project after Density Bonus
Value/ Revenue Total Revenue Total Revenue Total Revenue Total Revenue Tot al Revenue Total Revenue Total Revenue Total Item Unit1
Units Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Uni ts Value Units Value Revenues
MR Units $1,847,050 27 $49,870,350 31 $57,258,550 32 $59,105,600 32 $59, 105,600 28 $51,717,400 32 $59,105,600 36 $66,493,800 35 $64,646,750 VLI Units $116,000 0 $0 0 $0 3 $348,000 0 $0 0 $0 3 $348,000 4 $464,000 0 $0 Low Units $221,100 1 $221,100 3 $663,300 0 $0 6 $1,326,600 3 $663,300 3 $663 ,300 2 $442,200 7 $1,547,700 Mod Units $526,100 3 $1,578,300 1 $526,100 3 $1,578,300 0 $0 3 $1,578,300 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Commissions & Closing -$53,779 -$1,667,140 -$1,882,255 -$2,043,591 0 -$2,043,591 0 -$1,828,476 0 -$2,043,591 0 -$2,258,705 0 -$2,258,705 Total 31 $50,002,610 35 $56,565,696 38 $58,988,309 38 $58,388,609 34 $52,130,524 38 $58,073,309 42 $65,141,295 42 $63,935,745 Costs
Land Purchase + Carrying Costs $12,720,000 $12,720,000 $12,720,000 $12,720,000 $12,720,000 $12,720,000 $12,720,000 $12,720,000 Hard + Soft Costs $960,647 $29,780,057 $33,622,645 $36,504,586 $36,504,586 $32,661,998 $36,504,586 $40,347,174 $40,347,174 Total $42,500,057 $46,342,645 $49,224,586 $49,224,586 $45,381,998 $49,224,586 $53,067,174 $53,067,174 Profit Margin $7,502,553 $10,223,051 $9,763,723 $9,164,023 $6,748,52 6 $8,848,723 $12,074,121 $10,868,571 Profit Margin (% of Costs) 17.65% 22.06% 19.84% 18.62% 14.87% 17.98% 2 2.75% 20.48% 1 Market values, affordable values, development costs, and land costs all reflect figures from 2019 proposal for 626 Walnut Street. 2 Scenario models the actual approach the 626 Walnut St. project developer opted to pursue, choosing to include units at deeper affordability levels for greater density bonus. 34 S-4
20% Inclusionary:
10% LOW (70% AMI)
10% MOD (110% AMI)
3 Effective January 2021, Assembly Bill 2345 amends the Density Bonus Law to expand development incentives for affordable housing projects, including increasing the maximum density bonus from thirty-five percent to fifty percent.

S-3 S-5Current Ordinance S-2S-1 2
15% Inclusionary: 20% Inclusionary: 20% Inclusionary: 20% Inclusionary:
5% LOW (70% AMI), 11% VLI (50% AMI), 20% LOW (70% AMI) 11% VLI (50% AMI), 10% MOD (110% AMI) 9% MOD (110% AMI) 9% LOW (70% AMI)
28 10.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%
28 28 28

20.0%
28 21.5%
31 38 38
S-6 3
20% Inclusionary:
15% VLI (50% AMI),
5% LOW (70% AMI)

50.0%
28 S-7 3
24% Inclusionary:
24% LOW (70% AMI)
42 50.0%
2828
35 15% Inclusionary:
11% LOW (70% AMI),
4% MOD (110% AMI)
38 42

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 11

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx Rental Scenarios
On the rental side, EPS compiled project descriptions and cost estimates from other recent projects in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and vetted the assumptions with locally active developers. Land acquisition costs were derived from market transactions and similarly vetted with local developers for reasonableness.
3 For income assumptions, EPS compiled market-rate
and affordable rents based on conditions and requirements in San Carlos.4 As the standard metric for feasibility, EPS modeled the annual yield on cost, calculating aggregate Net Operating Income (NOI) divided by development costs. As on the ownership side, EPS evaluated a number of scenarios, adjusting the percentage and/or depth of affordability in each. Outlined below are the various percentages and levels of affordability tested against the current rental ordinance:

Current Ordinance – 15 percent Inclusionary with 10 percent Very Low (50 percent AMI), 5 percent Low (60 percent AMI); this scenario is automatically eligible for a 32.5 percent density bonus under State law.

R-1 – 20 percent Inclusionary with 11 percent Very Low (50 percent AMI) and 9 percent Moderate (110 percent AMI); this scenario increases the inclusionary percentage from 15 to 20 percent, and achieves the previous 35 percent density bonus maximum.

R-2 – 20 percent Inclusionary with 20 percent Low (60 percent AMI); this scenario increases the inclusionary percentage from 15 to 20 percent, and achieves a 35 percent density bonus.

R-3 – 20 percent Inclusionary with 11 percent Very Low (50 percent AMI) and 9 percent Low (60 percent AMI); this scenario increases the inclusionary percentage from 15 to 20 percent, and achieves a 35 percent density bonus.

R-4 – 20 percent Inclusionary with 15 percent Very Low (50 percent AMI) and 5 percent Low (60 percent AMI); this scenario increases the inclusionary percentage from 15 to 20 percent, and achieves the current 50 percent density bonus maximum afforded through A.B. 2345.

R-5 – 24 percent Inclusionary with 24 percent Low (60 percent AMI); this scenario increases the inclusionary percentage from 15 to 24 percent, and achieves the current 50 percent density bonus maximum afforded through A.B. 2345.

R-6 – 15 percent Inclusionary, all at Very Low (50 percent AMI); this scenario maintains the inclusionary percentage at 15 percent, and achieves the current 50 percent density bonus maximum afforded through A.B. 2345.

R-7 – 15 percent Inclusionary, with 10 percent Very Low (50 percent AMI) and 5 percent Moderate (110 percent AMI); this scenario maintains the inclusionary percentage at 15

3 The land cost assumptions for the 626 Walnut Street project were identified as being at the top end of the market, and local developers suggested using lower land costs for the rental analysis. 4 Note that the market-rate rents reflect pre-COVID conditions, and this analysis assumes a recovery of rents to 2019 levels rather than continuing of the reduced rents found in 2020 and early 2021 during the pandemic.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 315
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 12

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx percent, achieves the same 32.5 percent density bonus as under the current ordinance, but increases the value of some affordable units by increasing the income level from Low to Moderate.

For modeling purposes, each scenario assumed a one-acre site and a base density of 59 dwelling units per acre5, and maximized the State Density bonus for additional units allowable given the affordability parameters. Scenarios R-1 through R-3 were all eligible to achieve the pre-A.B. 2345 maximum density bonus of 35 percent, increasing the total number of units to 80. Utilizing A.B. 2345 in R-4, R-5, and R-6 allowed for the new maximum density bonus of 50 percent, yielding 89 units overall.

Income assumptions on Table 3 include market rate rents of $4.25 per square foot for a 1,050 net square foot two-bedroom unit, reflecting the pre-COVID market average peak. Affordable rents were informed by the 2020 income limits for San Mateo County as determined by HUD, State of CA HCD, and County of San Mateo. EPS then deducts the cost of utilities paid by the tenants to get net rents, and then deducts the operating expenses paid by the developer/operator and assumes a small but standard vacancy factor to calculate the Net Operating Income per unit at various income levels.

Table 3 Estimated Revenue Generation per Rental Unit by Income Level

5 This is the maximum density allowed under the City’s multifamily district “RM-59” (San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.04 – Residential Districts).

Item Market Rate
Moderate
Income Low Income
Very Low
Income
(110% of AMI) (60% of AMI) (50% of AMI)
Income Limit [1] N/A $148,115 $80,790 $67,325
Total Annual Housing Costs at 30% of Income N/A $44,435 $24,237 $20 ,198 Less Utility Costs/Year [2] N/A $3,216 $3,216 $3,216
Annual Rent $53,550 $41,219 $21,021 $16,982
Monthly Rent [3] $4,463 $3,435 $1,752 $1,415
Max Monthly Rent per the City's Ordinance na na $2,020 $1,683 Operating Expenses per Unit/Year [4] $13,388 $11,000 $11,000 $11,00 0 Vacancy 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Net Operating Income $38,154 $28,708 $9,520 $5,682
[2] 2021 utility allowance schedule for San Mateo County. Assumes natural gas heating and cooking.

Sources: CoStar; HCD Income Limits; San Mateo County Housing Authority; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [1] BMR unit rents informed by 2021 3-person household income limits for San Mateo County as determined by HUD, State of California HCD, and County of San Mateo.
[4] Operating expenses assume 25% of rental income for market rate and a per-unit estimate from a 2018 CTCAC application for a proposed development in San Mateo for BMR.
[3] Market rate monthly rent assumes $4.25 per square foot for a 1050 net sq. ft. 2-bedroom unit. This assumption reflects the pre-COVID market average peak.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 316
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 13

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx On the cost side, EPS used a land price of $6.85 million per acre, based on market data from 12 transactions from 2017-2020 for properties to be built for residential use. Aside from land, the cost of constructing the buildings is assumed to be modestly higher on a per-square-foot basis than was assumed for the for-sale project.6. These revenue and cost estimates inform a range of yield on cost percentages, which vary by scenario, as shown in Table 4.

The analysis reveals that most scenarios (including the current ordinance) approach but fall just short of the 5.0 percent yield on cost threshold EPS customarily sees as a minimum for projects considered feasible and financeable.7 Of the seven new scenarios tested, only three are shown to improve upon the current ordinance’s financial result. All new scenarios do maintain or increase the inclusionary percentage from the current 15 percent requirements, up to 20 or 24 percent.

The 20 percent requirement represented in Scenario R-1, at 11 percent Very Low and 9 percent Moderate income, results in a yield on cost metric above both the current ordinance’s result and just reaching the 5.0 percent feasibility threshold. However, this scenario includes a significant amount of moderate-income rental units that are priced at nearly 80 percent of market rate rents, so this scenario may not yield significant benefit for lower-income households in San Carlos.

By contrast, Scenarios R-2 through R-5 requires 20 percent affordable units at a combination of very-low and low incomes, but all fall short of the financial returns under the City’s current ordinance despite greater density bonuses than the 32.5 percent under the current ordinance.

Scenario R-6 maintains the current 15 percent inclusionary requirement, but with all 15 percent at very-low income, a project would be eligible for a 50 percent density bonus. These added market-rate units generate such significant income that this scenario achieves a higher financial return than under the current ordinance, despite the units being offered at lower incomes, and reaches the 5.0 percent yield on cost feasibility threshold.

Scenario R-7 is similar to the current ordinance at 15 percent overall inclusionary units, but trades the 5 percent low-income units for moderate-income units. The density bonus remains the same as under the current ordinance, but overall rental income increases, and this scenario does achieve the 5.0 yield on cost threshold, but does not increase the number or affordability of inclusionary units relative to the City’s current ordinance.

These rental scenarios represent the most feasible alternatives EPS has tested, including others not shown that aimed to prioritize low-income units, and some that use higher rents (such as 70 percent of AMI rather than 60 percent) and would not qualify for the State density bonus

6 Smaller units frequently have higher costs per square foot because expensive construction components like kitchen and bathroom fixtures and finishes are spread over fewer square feet. 7 “Yield on cost” is calculated by dividing a project’s net operating income (gross rents less vacancies and operating expenses) by the total costs of development. A projected yield on cost of 5.0 percent has been a common threshold for securing construction financing on several Bay Area projects in which EPS has been involved in recent years. Table 6 below indicates that a rental project in San Carlos with no inclusionary requirement could be expected to achieve a yield on cost of 5.2 percent, thus representing a feasible project.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 317
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 14

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx program but would trigger the City’s density bonus incentive. Though there are clearly limits to what might be required, this analysis demonstrates that several alternatives can both enhance affordability and feasibility. Some communities give developers more than one option in their inclusionary ordinances, and San Carlos could consider this approach.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 318
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 15

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx Table 4 Rental Scenario Feasibility Results

R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7
Item 15% Inclusionary 20% Inclusionary 20% Inclusionary 20% Inclusionar y 20% Inclusionary 24% Inclusionary 15% Inclusionary 15% Inclusiona ry 20% LOW (60% AMI) 11% VLI (50% AMI)
9% LOW (60% AMI)
15% VLI (50% AMI)
5% LOW (60% AMI) 24% LOW (60% AMI) 15% VLI (50% AMI) 10% VLI (50% AMI) 5% MOD (110% AMI)
B a s e D e n s i t y ( D U / A c r e ) 5 9 5 95 95 95 95 95 95 9 Eligible Density Bonus 32.5% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 32.5% Density (DU/Acre) after Density Bonus 78 80 80 80 89 89 89 78 Base Units (for Inclusionary Req.) 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 Units in Project after Density Bonus 78 80 80 80 89 89 89 78 Total Project Costs
Land Costs (1.0 acres) $6,855,120 $6,855,120 $6,855,120 $6,855,120 $ 6,855,120 $6,855,120 $6,855,120 $6,855,120 All Else $48,678,595 $49,815,000 $49,815,000 $49,815,000 $55,419,188 $55,419,188 # $55,419,188 $48,569,625 Total $55,533,715 $56,670,120 $56,670,120 $56,670,120 $62,274,307 $62 ,274,307 $62,274,307 $55,424,745 Units by Price Point
M a r k e t R a t e U n i t s 6 9 6 96 86 97 77 58 06 9 Annual NOI/Unit $38,154 $38,154 $38,154 $38,154 $38,154 $38,154 $38,15 4 $38,154 Aggregate NOI of Market Rate Units $2,632,652 $2,632,652 $2,594,49 8 $2,632,652 $2,937,887 $2,861,578 $3,052,350 $2,632,652 Moderate Income Units (110% of AMI) 0 5 00000 3
Annual NOI/Unit $28,708 $28,708 $28,708 $28,708 $28,708 $28,708 $28,70 8 $28,708 Aggregate NOI of Moderate Income Units $0 $143,538 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $86,1 23 Low Income Units (60% of AMI) 3 0 1 253 1 4 00
Annual NOI/Unit $9,520 $9,520 $9,520 $9,520 $9,520 $9,520 $9,520 $9,520 Aggregate NOI of Low Income Units $28,560 $0 $114,239 $47,600 $28,56 0 $133,279 $0 $0 VLI Units (50% of AMI) 66 0 69 0 96
Annual NOI/Unit $5,682 $5,682 $5,682 $5,682 $5,682 $5,682 $5,682 $5,682 Aggregate NOI of VLI Units $34,095 $34,095 $0 $34,095 $51,142 $0 $51,1 42 $34,095 Total Project NOI $2,695,306 $2,810,284 $2,708,737 $2,714,346 $3,017 ,589 $2,994,857 $3,103,492 $2,752,869 Weighted Avg. NOI/Unit $34,555 $35,129 $33,859 $33,929 $33,905 $33,650 $34,871 $35,293 Yield on Cost 4.9% 5.0% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0%
Sources: City of San Carlos; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Current Ordinance R-1
10% VLI (50% AMI)
5% LOW (60% AMI)
11% VLI (50% AMI)
9% MOD (110% AMI)

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 319
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 16

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx Conclusions
Ownership
Based on the methodology and assumptions, there appears to be room for the City to adjust the inclusionary requirements on for-sale condos to yield deeper levels of affordability as well as improved project feasibility for developers. Under the current requirement, 15 percent inclusionary (with 5 percent at low and 10 percent at moderate) yields a profit margin of close to 18 percent – an attractive return for a developer in EPS’s experience.

From the seven ownership scenarios tested, all but one (S-4) resulted in a higher profit margin than the baseline project reflective of the current ordinance. Scenario S-1, which models the actual approach the 626 Walnut St. project developer opted to pursue, maintained the required 15 percent inclusionary requirement, but included deeper affordability to achieve a greater density bonus. The developer’s voluntary adjustment to the City’s requirements demonstrates that enhanced affordability can also enhance profitability.

Scenario S-2, with the shift to 20 percent inclusionary, qualifies for a 35 percent density bonus and mathematically achieves a nearly 20 percent profit margin. However, this scenario assumes that 11 percent of the base units are priced at very low-income, and staff from San Carlos and other cities have indicated challenges finding households who can qualify for and maintain a mortgage at this income level. Scenario S-3 strikes a potentially appealing balance between affordability (20 percent low-income units) and profitability, which again exceeds the baseline reflecting the City’s current ordinance. Scenarios S-6 and S-7 both utilize the expanded Density Bonus Law to achieve 50 percent density bonuses and yield higher profit margins than under the current ordinance. S-6, the most mathematically profitable scenario tested, increases the inclusionary requirement to 20 percent, but again depends on very low-income units that may be difficult to sell to qualified households. The final iteration, S-7, has the highest inclusionary requirement, at 24 percent low-income units.

The scenarios tested demonstrate the significant value that the State-mandated density bonus affords the project, because the development could include several additional market-rate units (with a high achievable price point of over $1.8 million and a correspondingly high profit margin) in exchange for providing a few affordable units.

Recommendations
From conversations with City staff, EPS understands that low-income units are highest in demand on the City’s BMR waitlist. As such, it is recommended that the City consider updating the current ordinance to a scenario like S-3 – 20 percent at low-income (70 percent AMI). This scenario increases the inclusionary percentage from 15 to 20 percent, and triggers a 35 percent density bonus that offers strong value to the developer. S-3 balances profitability and provision of affordable units, and appears to align well with the City’s housing waitlist needs. Such a standard would also move San Carlos toward the upper range of nearby jurisdictions’ for-sale inclusionary programs, and thus would be more consistent with the City’s comparatively aggressive standards for rental developments.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 320
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 17

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx Rental
Under the current ordinance, the projected yield on cost for the rental prototype falls below the

5.0 percent minimum threshold EPS customarily sees for projects considered feasible and financeable. As such, EPS concludes that rental housing faces feasibility challenges under current market and regulatory circumstances.

Two scenarios tested (R-1 an R-6) appear to achieve greater feasibility to that under the current ordinance, while also enhancing affordability outcomes by either increasing the total number of affordable units or decreasing the incomes for which those units are priced. Scenario R-1 requires 20 percent inclusionary, with a mix of very low-income (11 percent) and moderate income (9 percent) that qualifies for the pre-A.B. 2345 density bonus maximum of 35 percent.

However, it essentially trades the low-income units required under the current ordinance for moderate income units. As shown on Table 3, these moderate-income units are not deeply discounted from market rates, so affordability of the City’s housing stock is not greatly enhanced through these moderate-income units.

By providing 15 percent of units at very low incomes, Scenario R-6 maximizes the current allowable density bonus of 50 percent under A.B. 2345. The added income from the greater number of market-rate units pushes the yield on cost up to a feasible level for this scenario, despite the average rents for affordable units being lower than under the City’s current ordinance.

Recommendations
The current City ordinance requiring 15 percent affordable housing at very low and low-income levels is among the more aggressive requirements in the Silicon Valley/Peninsula area. While 15 percent inclusionary housing is common, as is a mix of very low and low-income pricing, San Carlos requires twice as many very low units as low units while other communities allow a more even split or skew toward low rather than very low units. Rental housing appears to face feasibility challenges due to high development costs, even as the market is showing signs of recovery from the COVID pandemic. Under these circumstances, EPS suggests that the City maintain its ordinance’s leading position in affordable housing policy but not push too stringently, lest the resulting policy make projects infeasible and yield fewer total units and affordable units rather than more. EPS recommends that San Carlos consider retaining its current rental standards – 15 percent of units with 10 percent very low and 5 percent low income – but add an option allowing all 15 percent to be provided at very low income (as under Scenario R-6).

Developers could evaluate these options to determine which would yield the optimal financial returns for their specific project.

A Note on Project Size and Economies of Scale
City staff has indicated that many development projects in San Carlos are expected to occur on relatively small lots, given the mostly built-out nature of the community. The analysis provided herein presumes certain projects sizes and associated cost assumptions, but altering those size assumptions significantly may yield different analytical results. For example, according to the cost estimating firm RS Means, a 100-to-150 unit apartment project could be expected to have per-square-foot costs roughly 12 percent lower than a project that is 59-to-89 units as in EPS’s baseline analysis. Conversely, a project of 25-to-38 units could be expected to have costs roughly 25 percent higher than the baseline assumptions on a per-square-foot basis. Such differences can result from efficiencies in all aspects of the project – land acquisition costs, design costs, construction costs, and the actual physical efficiency of the buildings themselves.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 321
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 18

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx Similar cost differences could be expected for for-sale development. EPS has conducted sensitivity tests reflecting this scale of cost adjustment for multi-family rental projects, resulting in the following findings:

Table 5 Sensitivity Testing on Econ omies of Scale for Rental Scenarios

Scenario
Inclusionary Requirements Yield on Cost by Project Size Moderate Low Very Low 59-89 Units 100-150 Units 25-38 Units Current
Ordinance
0% 5% 10% 4.9% 5.5% 4.0%
R-1 9% 0% 11% 5.0% 5.5% 4.0%
R-2 0% 20% 0% 4.8% 5.4% 3.9%
R-3 0% 9% 11% 4.8% 5.3% 3.9%
R-4 0% 5% 15% 4.8% 5.5% 4.0%
R-5 0% 24% 0% 4.8% 5.4% 3.9%
R-6 0% 0% 15% 5.0% 5.6% 4.1%
R-7 5% 0% 10% 5.0% 5.6% 4.0%

As indicated above, adjusting for these types of efficiencies or inefficiencies while holding rents and sale prices constant would result in larger projects being more able to bear the costs of increased inclusionary requirements, while small projects would be less able to do so. Some communities aim to recognize and account for these differences in their inclusionary policies. For example, Los Gatos requires 10 percent inclusionary units for projects of five to 19 units, then escalates that proportion all the way up to 20 percent inclusionary for projects with 100 or more units. Los Altos requires 15 percent moderate income units for projects under 10 units, but requires lower income levels for projects with 10 or more units. Palo Alto adjusts their requirements based on the land size rather than unit count, with projects over five acres providing 20 percent inclusionary units versus 15 percent for projects under five acres.

EPS believes Palo Alto’s approach of basing the increased inclusionary standards on the physical size of the site more directly aligns with economies of scale than does the approach related to the number of units, which may merely reflect a difference in density. For example, a townhome project may be much less dense than a multifamily project, but also can have much lower construction costs per square foot, while the townhome’s market-rate price may be even greater and the affordable unit price stays the same. In such a scenario, the lower density townhome project may in fact be able to support a higher inclusionary standard than can the multifamily project. Cities like Palo Alto have addressed this complexity by basing a higher inclusionary standard on the physical size of the land (less than or greater than five acres) rather than based on the number of units in the project, as the economies of scale have more to do with project

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 322
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 19

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx size than project density. A 120-unit multifamily project would have economies of scale relative to a 20-unit multifamily project, but a 120-unit townhome project on six acres may be able to afford far more inclusionary units than a 120-unit multifamily project on two acres.

San Carlos may consider a similar approach in which larger projects have higher inclusionary standards than smaller projects. Such size-based standards might apply to both rental and for- sale projects.

In-Lieu Fees
Another option the City of San Carlos might consider is allowing more projects to pay the in-lieu fee rather than providing units on-site. At present, the City only allows the in-lieu fee for projects with fewer than seven units, or projects that would be subject to a fractional unit – for instance, a 28-unit project required to provide 4.2 inclusionary units would build four units and pay the fee for the 0.2 remaining units.

In 2020, the City had a graduated scale of in-lieu fees that topped out at roughly $27 per square foot for apartments, single-family homes, and additions, and $20 per square foot for condos and subdivisions. Even at roughly $27 per square foot, these fees would represent a less financially onerous requirement than providing inclusionary units. As shown on Table 6, a project built as all market-rate units with no affordable housing obligation is projected to have a 5.2 percent yield on cost. As shown below and previously on Table 4, a similar project that meets the City’s current inclusionary requirements and utilizes a 32.5 percent density bonus as allowed under State law is estimated to have a yield on cost of 4.9 percent – below the targeted feasibility threshold of 5.0. By comparison, if the developer were given the option to pay the City’s in-lieu fee instead of providing any inclusionary units on-site, the project would not receive any density bonus units and the total development costs per unit would increase by the amount of the in-lieu fees, plus the land costs would be higher per unit because there are fewer units. Still, this analysis indicates that the higher achievable rents – because all of the units are market-rate – would produce a yield on cost of 5.0 percent – not quite as high as a fully market-rate project with no affordability requirements at all, but higher than if the affordable units were provided on- site.

The in-lieu fee tested herein was set by the City, and the City has the option of re-setting the in- lieu fee to a level that may be more revenue-neutral to developers. Still, each market-rate unit has an opportunity to increase in income and value according to general market trends, while inclusionary units are constrained to rent increases allowed by the City or State. Given these choices, most developers could be expected to prefer the in-lieu fee option anytime it is available and reasonably commensurate with the on-site inclusionary requirements.

Some communities have determined that they prefer to have inclusionary units built on-site because a) the affordable units arrive at the same time as market-rate units and b) they are attracted to the idea that affordable units are distributed throughout projects and throughout the city. Other communities and their staff members have prioritized the receipt of in-lieu fees because they can use them as matching or gap financing dollars to achieve more units at lower income levels, typically by partnering with non-profit developers who utilize other funding sources such as Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The City of San Carlos could consider the merits of each such outcome in the context of local housing needs, policy preferences, and feasibility constraints, and determine whether it may be desirable to allow more or larger projects to pay the in-lieu fees rather than producing inclusionary units on-site.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 323
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 20

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx

Table 6 Feasibility of Inclusionary Units versus In-Lieu Fees

Amended City Density Bonus Program
Section 18.17.030 of the City’s Municipal Code8 states that:
“residential developments with one or more on-site below market rate units that are affordable to low-income households, or to a lower income category, may be granted one additional unit for each unit affordable to low-income households or to a lower income category.”
A developer can choose to exercise this City density bonus instead of the State’s density bonus, but cannot exercise both bonus incentives. This City program appears to have limited value – a 100-unit project that meets the City’s current inclusionary requirements by providing 10 very low units and five low-income units would be granted 33 additional market-rate units under the State’s density bonus, compared to only 15 such bonus units under the City’s incentive.

However, the City could elect to increase the proportion of bonus units to enhance the incentive.

8 Chapter 18.17 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES (codepublishing.com) All Market-Rate
Current 15% Inclusionary
+ Density Bonus All Market-Rate + In-Lieu Fee
Development Program Assumptions
Base Density/Acre 59 59 59
Density Bonus 0.0% 32.5% 0.0%
Total Density/Acre 59 78 59
Net Unit Size 1,050 1,050 1,050
Number of Bedrooms 2 2 2
Parking Spaces/Unit 1.5 1.5 1.5
Cost Assumptions
Direct Costs
Direct Construction Costs/Net SF $375 $375 $375
Direct Construction Costs/Unit $393,750 $393,750 $393,750 Parking Construction Costs/Space $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 Parking Construction Costs/Unit $67,500 $67,500 $67,500 Subtotal, Direct Costs/Unit $461,250 $461,250 $461,250
Indirect Costs as a % of Direct Costs 35% 35% 35%
Indirect Costs/Unit $161,438 $161,438 $161,438
In-Lieu Fees/Net SF [2] $0 $0 $26.86
Total In-Lieu Fees $0 $0 $28,203
Total Cost/Unit without Land $622,688 $622,688 $650,891 Total Cost/Net SF without Land $593 $593 $620
Land/Acre $6,855,120 $6,855,120 $6,855,120
Land/Unit $116,188 $87,689 $116,188
Total Cost/Unit $738,876 $710,377 $767,079
Average Net Operating Income/Unit [3] $38,154 $34,555 $38,154 Yield on Cost 5.2% 4.9% 5.0%
Source: City of San Carlos; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Rental 4-5 Stories with Podium Parking [1]
[3] Scenarios A and C reflect the NOI for market-rate units only, while Scenario B reflects the average NOI with 10% Very Low and 5% Low Income units as shown on Table 4. [2] In 2020, San Carlos's fee schedule charged and in-lieu fee of $161.16 times the average square footage of units in a 6-unit project. This translates to $26.86 per net square foot. [1] Density assumption provided by City of San Carlos. Unit sizes, parking ratios, and development costs informed by recently built units (2015-2019) in and around San Carlos.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 324
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 21

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx As shown below, the State program provides different proportions of bonus units based on the proportion and income level of the on-site affordable units provided. In general, a developer would receive more bonus units for providing very low income units than for the same number of low income units. Importantly, a developer can only exercise one of the income-level-based bonuses under the State law – for instance, a project providing 10 percent very-low and 10 percent low income units could only claim one of those income categories for bonus purposes, and thus would likely choose the 32.5 percent bonus for the very low units rather than the 20 percent bonus for the low income units.

Very Low Income Low Income
Percent of
Affordable Units
Percent Density
Bonus
Ratio of
Bonus Units:

Affordable Units
Percent Density
Bonus
Ratio of
Bonus Units:

Affordable Units
5% 20.0% 4.00 N/A N/A
10% 32.5% 3.25 20.0% 2.00
15% 50.0% 3.33 27.5% 1.83
20% 50.0% 2.50 35.0% 1.75
25% 50.0% 2.00 50.0% 2.00
Source: California-Density-Bonus-Law_2021.pdf (meyersnave.com) If San Carlos were to offer a higher proportion of bonus units, then the local density bonus program would add more value than the State’s program assuming other aspects of the State’s program were retained.9 The City could accomplish this by setting a fixed bonus rate that equals or exceeds the highest rates provided by the State, such as 4:1 for each very low income unit or 2:1 for each low income unit and allowing all of the affordable units to trigger bonus units rather than requiring the developer to select only one income level to apply. Under such a program, a 100-unit project meeting the City’s current ordinance would qualify for 50 bonus units (4 for each of 10 very low units plus 2 for each of 5 low income units), compared to 33 bonus units under the State program (3.25 for each of the 10 very low units). With this level of incentive through the local density bonus program, a 59-unit project’s yield on cost metric would increase from 4.9 percent to 5.0 percent, and would thus become a feasible project in EPS’s estimation.

9 Under the State density bonus program, and project providing affordable units can also receive amendments, waivers and concessions to local design standards, height limits, setbacks, parking ratios, and other project details, each of which can enhance the feasibility of development even if the developer does not elect to build the bonus units.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 325
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 22

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx Appendix
Table A-1. Inclusionary Requirements in Co mparable Jurisdictions (2019-2021 surveys)

Very Low Income
Low
Income Moderate Income
Above Moderate
Income
San Carlos
Ownership 5.0% 10.0% 15.0%
Rental 10.0% 5.0% 15.0%
Campbell [1]
Ownership - 7.5% 7.5% 15.0%
Rental 6.0% 9.0% - 15.0%
Cupertino [2]
Ownership -- 20.0% 20.0%
Rental 9.0% 6.0% - 15.0%
Daly City
Ownership 20.0% 20.0%
Rental 10.0% 10.0%
Foster City
Ownership 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 20.0%
Rental 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 20.0%
Fremont [3]
Ownership 7.0% 3.4% 3.0% 13.4%
Rental 7.4% 2.4% 3.1% 12.9%
Gilroy [4] --- -
Ownership - - 15.0% 15.0%
Rental 15.0% 15.0%
Half Moon Bay
Ownership 6.0% 7.0% 7.0% 20.0%
Rental 6.0% 7.0% 7.0% 20.0%
Los Altos [5]
Ownership & Rental (5-9 units) 15.0% 15.0%
Ownership (10 or more units) 3.0% 3.0% 9.0% 15.0%
Rental (10 or more units) - Option 1 - 20.0% - 20.0%
Rental (10 or more units) - Option 2 15.0%
Los Altos Hills --- -
Los Gatos [6]
5 - 19 Units -- 10.0% 10.0%
20 - 100 Units -- 10 - 20% 10 - 20%
101+ Units - - 20.0% 20.0%
Menlo Park
Ownership 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 15.0%
Rental 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 15.0%
Milpitas [7]
Ownership - - 15.0% 15.0%
Rental 7.5% 7.5% 15.0%
Monte Sereno --- -
Morgan Hill [8] - - -
Ownership - - 15.0% 15.0%
Rental 7.5% 7.5% - 15.0%
Mountain View [9]
Ownership (Non rowhouse/ townhouse) - 15.0% 15.0%
Ownership (Rowhouse/ townhouse) - 15.0% 10.0% 25.0%
Rental - 15.0% 15.0%
Pacifica
Ownership 6.0% 4.5% 4.5% 15.0%
Rental 6.0% 4.5% 4.5% 15.0%
Palo Alto [10]
Ownership Option 1 (<5 acres) 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 15.0%
Ownership Option 2 (>5 acres) 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 20.0%
Rental Option 1 (<5 acres) 7.5% 7.5% - 15.0%
Rental Option 2 (>5 acres) 10.0% 10.0% - 20.0%
Jurisdiction
Minimum Inclusionary Requirement Total
Inclusionary
Requirement

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 326
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance) Draft Memorandum November 1, 2021
Economic Study of San Carlos’ Housing Regulations Page 23

Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\191000s\191081SanCarlosHousing\Deliverables\191081_Memo_110121.docx Table A-1 Continued.

Very Low Income
Low
Income Moderate Income
Above Moderate
Income
Redwood City
Ownership ` - 15.0% 15.0%
Rental 5.0% 5.0% 10.0% 20.0%
San Jose [11]
Ownership - - 15.0% 15.0%
Rental 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 15.0%
San Mateo
Ownership 15.0% 15.0%
Rental - 15.0% - 15.0%
Santa Clara [12]
Ownership - - 15.0% 15.0%
Rental - - 15.0% 15.0%
Saratoga --- -
South San Francisco
Ownership - 7.5% 7.5% 15.0%
Rental 5.0% 10.0% - 15.0%
Sunnyvale [13]
Ownership - - 12.5% 12.5%
Rental 5.0% 10.0% - 15.0%
Jurisdiction
Minimum Inclusionary Requirement Total
Inclusionary
Requirement
Sources: Select City websites, fee schedule documents, and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [9] Mountain View: For projects other than rowhouses and townhouses, ownership inclusionary requirement applies to developments with 3 or more units and income levels must reach a weighted average of 100% AMI using a miminum of two income levels. For ownership rowhouses and townhouses, projects must meet a 25% on-site requirement with 15% affordable to a weighted average of 100% AMI and 10% affordable to a weighted average of 135%, using a miminum of two income levels. Rental requirement applies to developments with 5 or more units. Affordable units must be provided to low and moderate income households (50%-120% AMI), to a minimum of two income levels for a weighted average of 65% of AMI. [10] Palo Alto: Applies to developments with 5 or more units that are less than 5 acres. Projects with five or more acres of land must provide 20% developed as BMR units and different affordability levels apply. Projects that cause the loss of existing rental housing may need to provide a 25% BMR component. [11] San Jose: Requirement is applicable to projects with 10 or more units. The Downtown High-Rise Incentive Program is still in effect, so any new projects in the downtown area are exempt from the inclusionary requirements so long as they comply with all terms including height requirements and the requirement to obtain all Certificates of Occupancy on or prior to June 30, 2021. [13] Sunnyvale: Applicable to projects with 8 or more units. [3] Fremont: Applies to projects with two or more units. Ownership units have three primary options to meet the requirement: (1) The provision of on-site affordable units (shown above); (2) A fee-only option; or (3) A fee + moderate units provision option. For the last option, projects may provide on-site moderate units (3.5% for attached projects, 4.5% for detached projects) and pay a fee of $18.50 psf for attached projects or $17.50 psf for detached projects. For rental projects, payment of a fee of $8.75 psf for units up to 700 square feet and $17.50 psf for units over 700 square feet is required in addition to the on-site affordable units.
[2] Cupertino: Applies to projects of seven or more units. Projects of six ownership units or fewer can either build one below market rate (BMR) unit or pay the Housing Mitigation fee. Minimum affordability of ownership BMR units is 50% at median income and 50% at moderate income. [4] Gilroy: Only required in the Neighborhood district. [5] Los Altos: For projects 5-9 units, developer can select which income level to include (moderate, low, very low or some combination). For rental projects 10 or more, developer can choose between providing fewer units at deeper affordability, or more units at a less affordable level. [6] Los Gatos: Applies to developments with 5 or more units. Developments with 5-19 units have a 10% inclusionary requirement, while developments with 20- 100 units have a 22.5% inclusionary requirement. Developments with 101 or more units have a 20% requirement. Requirements are the same for for-sale and tl[7] Milpitas: Applies to developments with 10 or more units. [8] Morgan Hill: For sale and rental projects of two or more in Downtown require 10 percent inclusionary instead of 15.

Note: Of the selected jurisdictions surveyed, Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga do not have an inclusionary requirement. [12] Santa Clara: Applies to developments with 10 or more units. [1] Campbell: Applies to developments with 10 or more units.

8.a.1
Packet Pg. 327
Attachment: BMR Ordinance Findings and Recommendations (BMR Ordinance)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: February 28, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Discuss the City's Beekeeping Regulations and Administrative Policy and Provide Direction on Recommended Updates or Changes to Staff.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive a report on current beekeeping regulations in the c ity, understand the public’s opinion regarding the City’s beekeeping code and administrative policy, and provide staff direction on what, if any, changes or updates the Council would like to make. Staff is not recommending that the Council m ake any decisions at this time.

Staff will develop and propose a solution that the City Council may consider for adoption at a future City Council meeting.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications with receiving this report.

BACKGROUND:

City of San Carlos Beekeeping Regulations

Section 6.40.330 of the San Carlos Municipal Code (“Code”) makes it “unlawful for any person to keep, maintain or cause to be kept or maintained any household p ets or other animals not otherwise permitted herein without having first obtained a permit as provided herein.” T he Code does not define “animal,” nor does it make any explicit references to bees or beekeeping.

The City’s Beekeeping Practices Administra tive Policy (“Policy”) dated September 15, 2009 (Attachment 1) “supplements the Animal Control Chapter 6.04 of the Municipal Code” and defines beekeeping “as the maintenance of honey bee colonies in hives by humans.” The Policy states that “[a] beekeeper keeps bees in order to collect honey and bee swax for the purpose of pollinating vegetation, to produce bees for sale to other beekeepers, and/or for purpose satisfying natural scientific curiosity.”

One of the stated purposes of the City’s beekeeping pe rmit requirement is “to ensure that beekeeping on certain-sized parcels in single -family residential zones will not be detrimental or injurious to property and to the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.” The Policy defines twelve beekeeping permit requirements, as well as conditions for enforcement, den ial, and revocation of permits. The most notable permit requirements of the Policy, requirements “4”, “5”, “6”, and “7”, are listed below:

8.b
Packet Pg. 328
2 4. “No more than two (2) hives may be maintained on any lot or parcel. One (1) bee colony and/or hive box will be allowed in single-family residential parcels which are greater than 10,000 square feet in size, provided, that for every 10,000 feet in excess of 10, 000 square feet, there may be one additional hive.

5. No hive may be kept or maintained within ten (10) feet of any property line on the lot or parcel upon which such hives are suitable, or within fifty (30) feet of any dwelling unit other than occupied by the person maintaining the hive(s).

6. Hives entrances must be oriented to face a house or building on the premises. Hive must be located in an area of the property which is surrounded by a solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height.

7. All properties must provide constant water supply adequate to the needs of all hives located on the premises.”

As the designated enforcer of beekeeping policies, procedures, rules , and regulations , the Community Development Department has established a $365 “Domestic Fowl and Non- Household Pets” fee to cover the cost of staff time rel ated to plan and site review. To date, the Community Development Department’s Building Code Division has not received a single application for a be ekeeping permit. The City’s Code Enforcement Offi cer has received two complaints related to beekeeping in San Carlos since 2012.

Other Cities’ Beekeeping Regulations

As shown in the Beekeepers’ Guild of San Mateo County’s (“Beekeepers’ Guild”) map of beekeeping regulations in San Mateo County (Attachme nt 2), beekeeping is no longer banned in any city in the county . M ost cities in the county rely on their nuisance codes to address complaints related to beekeeping in their communities. Furthermore, the map suggests that beekeeping in San Carlos is “very r estricted,” compared with the City of Redwood City and Town of Hillsborough where beekeeping is “restricted .” The table below compares the restrictions among the cities of San Carlos and Redwood City and the Town of Hillsborough.

San Carlos Redwood City Hillsborough
Hives Limits One hive per 10,000
square feet; two
hives per lot
regardless of size
Two hives per 3,000
square feet; no hive
limit on parcels
greater than 3,000
square feet
Three hives or
swarms per
residential property
Distance of hives
from property lines
and neighbors’
dwellings
10 feet from property
line; 30 feet from
neighbors’ dwelling
unit
25 feet from any
dwelling on an
adjacent property
50 feet from any
street, dwelling or
place of place of
public assemblage
Hive exterior Must be surrounded
by solid, 6 feet high
fence

Water supply for
bees
Required Required

8.b
Packet Pg. 329
3 Public Opinion

The City has received numerous requests to consider repealing its beekeeping restrictions as seen in Attachment 3. The opinions voiced by residents, non -residents, and regional organizations can be categorized into three general themes: (1) the restrictions are an effective ban on beekeeping; (2) the restrictions are fear based; (3) the benefits of beekeeping far outweigh any risks or nuisances posed by beekeeping.

Public Opinion Theme #1: San Carlos Beekeeping Restrictions Are an Effective Ban on Beekeeping

During January 2022, staff was copied on 29 emails to councilmembers urging the Council to repeal the City’s beekeeping restrictions and to instead follow a “nuisance based” approach.

Many comments stated that due to the typical parcel size in San Carlos, the limitation of one hive per 10,000 square feet and two hives per lot makes beekeeping impossible for many residents. Of the approximately 7,939 l ots in the city zoned R S-6, “single family residential ,” 16% are 10,000 square feet or greater. Furthermore, the requirements that hives be 10 feet from property lines and 30 feet from neighbors’ dwelling s are also unachievable for many property owners . In their emails, residents, non -residents, and organization representatives urged the City Council to implement a nuisance based approach to addressing complaints whereby staff would address and evaluate complaints according to th e City’s existing nuisance laws on an as-needed basis.

Public Opinion Theme #2: Beekeeping Restrictions Are Not Based on Facts

On February 9, 2022, staff met with two San Carlos residents and Bee Legal Coordinator Nicki Irvine of the Beekeepers’ Guild’s Bee Legal Task Force to dis cuss the Cit y’s beekeeping restrictions. Just as she had in her letter dated October 20, 2021 , “Proposal to Use Nuisance and Mitigation to Regulate Beekeeping in San Carlos ,” (“October Letter”) (Attachment 4) Ms.

Irvine explained that lack of understanding about bee behaviors, including swarms, and the inability to distinguish non -aggressive honey bees from yellow jackets and wasps are the primary reasons why some individuals and cities feel the need to have beekeeping restrictions.

She urged the City to work with agencies like the Beekeepers’ Guild to promote education about bees and beekeeping best practices.

Public Opinion Theme #3: The benefits of beekeeping outweigh the nuisances posed by beekeeping.

At the meeting with staff on February 9, 2022, San Carlos residents urged the City to focus on the benefits of beekeeping and highlighted many of the themes expressed in the October Letter from Ms. Irvine. Some of the points made in the letter are listed below:
 “Bees play a critical role both in our environment and for agricultural production in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Honey bees pollinate more than 100 fruit and vegetable crops and also produce honey, beeswax, propolis, and other useful substances. To support and promote local food production, maintain natural habitats, and out of concern for declining pollinator populations, the Bay Area has seen an i ncrease in backyard beekeeping. Beekeepers serve their communities as knowledgeable citizens who help to educate and lead as we work to overcome a variety of challenges for local pollination, from losses of bees to habitat restoration.”
 “Pollinator declines, including high rates of annual losses in honey bee populations, are well documented and widely recognized by the public since colony collapse disorder hit

8.b
Packet Pg. 330
4 the news nearly 15 years ago. The Bee Informed Partnership (BIP) has conducted an annual survey nationwide since 2007 documenting that honey bee colony losses have fluctuated at unacceptably high levels of 30-45%.”
 “Maintaining plants that dep end on bee pollination is now recognized as an important management tool in response to increasing fire incidence due to climate change.

Without knowledgeable efforts to maintain pollinators, local habitats will convert to wind - pollinated plants, which are more susceptible to future fire.”

Honey Bee Behavior

During the meeting with staff on February 9, 2022 , Ms. Irvine outlined two types of honey bee behavior that do, in fact, have the potential to pose nuisances: flyway and searching for a water source. Flyway is the direction in which bees fly when exiting a hive. Regulations defining fence height and distance of hives from property lines and neighboring dwellings were presumably implemented to mitigate against this potential nuisance. According to Ms. Irvine, flyway can be managed by facing the openings of two hives toward each other so that honey bees fly out and directly up. She suggested that the restriction of one hive per 10,000 square feet limits a beekeeper’s ability to direct flyway. Furthermore, she suggested that lat ticed fencing around hives can be quite effective for directing flyway.

The other nuisance that may be posed by honey bees is that they may seek water from neighboring water sources (such as a pool) if a clean water source isn’t made available near their hives. For this reason, many beekeeping regulations require beekeepers to maintain a fresh water source.

One type of bee behavior that cannot be controlled by traditional regulations is swarming.

According to Eric C. Mussen of UC Davis’ Department of Entomology, [s]warming is the honey bee’s method of colony reproduction. The old queen and half of the worker bees leave their former nest and seek a new home mostly in the spring, but sometimes in late summer. A few worker honey bees, we call “scouts,” fly around areas in the vicinity of the old hive searching for a suitable, new habitat (the correct sized cavity with an easily protected entrance)… The outpouring of bees from the hive forms a large, buzzing cloud of insects that seem s to be going every direction at once. That flying group of honey bees is the swarm. .. The bees coalesce into a single group, on an object. The group properly is called a “cluster,” but most peop le still refer to it as a swarm.”i

According to an online fact sheet titled “Frequently Asked Questions About Honey Bee Swarms” posted by Clemson University’s College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Sciences on March 27, 2020, “[t]ypically, swarms only stay in one place for a few hours or maybe a day, but some swarms may remain for several days.”

To address the phenomenon of swarming , which can appear to be intimidating to individuals unfamiliar with honey bee behavior, organizations such as the Beekeepers’ Guild offer free honey bee colony removal services. In fact, according to Ms. Irvine’s October Letter, “[t]he San Mateo County Bee Legal program started a Beekeeping Site Evaluator Program in 2015 to help mitigate complaints. We offer services for free to cities that use a nuisance policy. A trained beekeeper evaluates if there is a nuisance and then provides recommendations to rectifying the issue, if necessary. The San Mateo Guild’s Site Evaluators have had only four calls since 2015, and they have successfully resolved all these complaints. They also have c ontact with the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center in case t heir services are ever needed. These mitigation

8.b
Packet Pg. 331
5 services reduce the workload for Code Enforcement while helping neighbors to come to an agreement or help to educate neighbors if there is no nuisance.”

ANALYSIS:

The purpose of this study session is for the Council to discuss how it wants to address the public’s concern that the City of San Carlos maintains an overly restrictive Policy on beekeeping. If the Council determines that it would like t o modify or repeal the City’s beekeeping regulations, staff will research and develop solutions that best address the Council’s recommendation and present its proposal to the Council for review and adoption at a later Council meeting.

In order to facilitate discussion, staff recommends that the Council address the following topics:

1. What are the nuisances posed by honey bees?

2. Where do Councilmembers stand on the spectrum of most restrictive to least restrictive approaches to regulating beekeeping based up on “Spectrum of Approaches to Regulating Beekeeping in San Carlos” below?

3. How, if at all, should the City make use of the services of organizations like the Beekeepers’ Guild?

Spectrum of Approaches to Regulating Beekeeping in San Carlos

Most restrictive: Keep t he existing Code and Policy, which outlines twelve beekeeping permit requirements.

Restrictive: Remove the permit requirement, but keep some regulations such as the number of hives allowed, hive distances from dwellings, and water requirements.

Somewhat Restrictive : Remove the permit requirement. Implement a specific beekeeping nuisance-based regulation to address the two most common sources of beekeeping complaints – the provisioning of water and bee flyway.

Least restrictive: Remove the permi t requirement for beekeeping and address nuisance complaints on an as -needed basis per section 6.04.325 of the Code titled “Sanitary keeping of animals” which states: “It is unlawful and shall constitute a public nuisance for any person to keep within the limits of the City any animal which unreasonably disturbs the peace and comfort of the inhabitants of the neighborhood in which such animal is kept, or interferes with any person in the reasonable and comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or creates a significant risk of injury to life or property. The person who in any instance under the authorization of this chapter is engaged in enforcing the provisions of this chapter shall utilize the citation method of enforcement provided in this chapter if that procedure is reasonably and practicably available to abate the nuisance in preference to the summary abatement procedure of enforcement provided in this chapter. (Ord. 1482 § 1 (part), 2015)”

While seemingly less restrictive than the “somewhat restrictiv e” approach listed above, this approach may encourage more fear based neighbor complaints since it does not limit the types of nuisance to the provisioning of water and flyway.

8.b
Packet Pg. 332
6 ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Provide staff with direction on what, if any, changes or updates the Council would like to make to the City’s existing beekeeping regulations; or

2. Do not provide direction to proceed.

Respectfully submitted by:

Nil Blackburn,

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. City of San Carlos Beekeeping Policy 9.15.09

2. Map of Beekeeping Regulations in San Mateo County

3. Letters Received by Council January 2022 in Support of Nuisance Based Approach

4. October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal

i https://archive.beebiology.ucdavis.edu/HONEYBEES/swarms.html

8.b
Packet Pg. 333
ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

BEEKEEPING PRACTICES

ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY

PUPOSE:

The City supports an efficient and humanely enforced animal control program specified in Chapter

6.04 of the City of San Carlos Municipal Code. The purpose of this policy is to protect the interests of San Carlos residents and to reinforce public health, safety and welfare, by adopting consistent and standard procedures for beekeeping practices.

As the Municipal Code affords responsibilities fo r Animal Control program to Police Chief or his/her designee, this policy is issued with the authority of the Chief of Police to designate the Community Development Director to enforce policies, procedures, rules and regulations as they relate to beekeeping practices within San Carlos city limits.

This policy supplements the Animal Control Chapter 6.04 of the Municipal Code. The Municipal Code governs in the event of any conflict.

DEFINITIONS:

“Beekeeping” is defined as the maintenance of honey bee colonies in hives by humans. A beekeeper keeps bees in order to collect honey and beewax for the purpose of pollinating vegetation, to produce bees for sale to other beekeepers, and/or for purpose satisfying natural scientific curiosity.

“Bee colony” is the group of bees which consists of the queen, the drones, and the workers, which live in the box or similar receptacle.

“Hive Box” means any box, receptacle, or container made or prepared for the use of bees, or similar container of which bees have taken possession. A hive box is usually called a Langstroth deep or super, and is roughly 19.75 inches long, 16.5 inches wide, and 9.5 inches tall. It contains 10 frames of foundation on which the bees build comb for producing brood and food. A hive box requires some kind of top board, some kind of bottom board, and an entrance which is usually incorporated in the bottom board.

BEEKEEPING PERMIT:

It is unlawful for any person to keep , maintain sell or trade any hive of bees on any lot or parcel within the City without first obtaining a permit under the Animal Control Chapter, Section 6.04.330 of the Municipal Code.

The purpose of the beekeeping permit is to provide appropriate review and consideration of small scale beekeeping under the direction of the Community Development Director or his/her designee, and to ensure that beekeeping on certain -sized parcels in single -family residential zones will not be detrimental or injurious to property and to the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.

8.b.1
Packet Pg. 334
Attachment: City of San Carlos Beekeeping Policy 9.15.09 (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) A. Permit Requirements

1. A permit may be granted only if all of the criteria for the use specified in Section 6.04.340 of the Municipal Code and this policy are met.

2. Application for a beekeeping permit must be made on the form prescribed for this purpose by the City and filed with the Community Development Department. The application must be signed by an owner or lawful tenant of the lot or parcel for which the application is submitted.

3. The application must be accompanied by such maps, site plans, and other drawings, or information required or necessary to enable the Community Development Director or his/her designee to make the determinations.

4. No more than two (2) hives may be maintained on any lot or parcel. One (1) bee colony and/or hive box will be allowed in single-family residential parcels which are greater than 10,000 square feet in size, provided, that for every 10,000 feet in excess of 10,000 square feet, there may be one additional hive.

5. No hive may be kept or maintained within ten (10) feet of any side property line on the lot or parcel upon which such hives are suitable, or within fifty (50) feet of any dwelling unit other than occupied by the person maintaining the hive(s).

6. Hives entrances must be oriented to face a house or building on the premises and surrounded by a solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height, located in rear yard no farther than thirty (30) feet from such hives.

7. All properties must provide constant water supply adequate to the needs of all hives located on the premises.

8. Every person maintaining bees on the premises shall identify the bee hives by affixing and maintaining a sign on the property entrance showing the n ame of the owner, and his address and telephone number. The sign shall be lettered in black at least one inch in height on a white or light background. The beekeeper shall obtain an approved sign from the Community Development Department for a nonrefundabl e fee and shall surrender such sign in the event of the revocation of the permit, approved relocation of bee hives, or other reasonable cause (Municipal Code 6.04.120 F).

9. The Community Development Director or his/her designee shall inspect the premises upon which the bee hives are to be located and determine that the premises meet the conditions specified in this policy and that the issuance of a permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.

10. The permit is valid for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of issuance and is subject to renewal and approval each year pending conditions and requirements existing as of the date of renewal.

11. The permit may not be sold, assigned or transferred, and may cover only the premises designated and the person to whom the permit was originally issued.

8.b.1
Packet Pg. 335
Attachment: City of San Carlos Beekeeping Policy 9.15.09 (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy)

12. The filing fees for the permit application, inspection and signage must be determined under the City’s Uniform Fee Schedule and adopted by resolution of the City Council. No application may be accepted as complete until all fees have been paid.

ENFORCEMENT:

Community Development Department shall inspect the premises of each bee keeper at least once a year and at such additional times as it deems necessary. The Community Development Director or his/her designee may investigate or require any further information or documentation, which would assist in determining whether the statements made by the applicant are correct and whether the permit should be issued.

B. Denial or Revocation of the Permit

Community Development Director or his/her designee may deny or revoke a permit issued pursuant to this policy in any of the following situations:

1. It was determined by inspection of the premises where the hive(s) are maintained that the applicant cannot comply with the requirements of this policy, the Municipal Code, or applicable State law, or the permit holder is in violation of the permit conditions.

2. The beekeeper refuses to permit the animal control officer a reasonable right of inspection of the premises to ensure compliance with applicable State law, the Municipal Code, and this policy.

3. The beekeeper fails to file an application for permit renewal or pay the permit fee prior to the permit anniversary date.

4. Community Development Director or his/her designee has a reason to believe that the applicant or permit holder has willfully withheld or falsified any information required for a permit.

5. The proposed beekeeping use, location of the bee colony/hive box, its effect, and the resulting number of beekeeping permits in a neighborhood will be detrimental or injurious to property and to the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.

PERMIT REVOCATION PROCESS:

Per Section 6.04.360 of the Municipal Code, a permit may be revoked or suspended in the following manner: A notice of intention to revoke beekeeping permit shall be mailed to the applicant specifying wherein he/she has failed to comply with any terms or conditions specified in the permit, the Municipal Code, this policy, or any other law. The notice will require the permittee to appear before the City Manager at a date and hour specified not less than five days af ter the mailing of such notice to the permittee, and showing cause why the permit should not be revoked or suspended. At such time and place, the permittee shall have the right to appear in person or by counsel and introduce such evidence as he/she may desire. A permittee dissatisfied with the decision may appeal to the City Council which shall hold a public hearing on the matter. The City Council may continue the hearing from time to time. The decision of the City Council shall be final.

8.b.1
Packet Pg. 336
Attachment: City of San Carlos Beekeeping Policy 9.15.09 (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy)

Map of Beekeeping Regulations in San Mateo County
Attachment 2
Image taken from Beekeepers Guild of San Mateo County:
https://www.sanmateobeeguild.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/02/bee_regs_2021.pdf

8.b.2
Packet Pg. 337
Attachment: Map of Beekeeping Regulations in San Mateo County (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) ATTACHMENT 3
Authors of letters received by the Council and Assistant City Manager during January 2022 in support of repealing beekeeping restrictions and using a nuisance based approach to addressing issues and concerns raised.

Kris Gulesserian
Claudia Blaine Resident
Karen A. Dogonniuck Resident
Laura Majerus Former Resident (owns rental in SC)
Jennifer Wisnom Resident
Barbara Kelsey Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
Shannon Shankle President Emerita, SMBG
Nickie Irvine San Mateo County Bee Legal
Christine Kohl-Zaugg Sustainable San Mateo County
Jennifer Dirking Resident
Gail Ghose Resident
Shilpa Thanawala Resident
Gregory Parmer-Lohan Sequoia High School Sustainability Club President Jessica Blodgett
Susan D. Wheeler Resident
Reyhaneh Eghbali Co-lead San Carlos 4-H
Kathleen Gallagher Resident
Andrew Griscom Menlo Park Resident
Ted Jackson Resident
Denise Charlebois Resident
Michael Lude Resident
Peter Broadwell San Mateo Beekeepers Guild
Patricia Johnson
Jean Marshall Gilbert Resident
Scot Marsters
Jehane Johnson
Paul Johnson
Becky McDonald
Sam Herzberg Resident

8.b.3
Packet Pg. 338
Attachment: Letters Received by Council January 2022 in Support of Nuisance Based Approach (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 1 ATTACHMENT 4

To: Mayor Laura Parmer-Lohan
From: San Carlos Bee Legal –
Nickie Irvine (San Mateo County Bee Legal Coordinator) [email protected]; 650-727- 7961
Sam Herzberg (San Carlos) [email protected]; 650/556-5191 Raymond Larios (SMC Bee Legal Member) [email protected] Date: Oct 20, 2021
Subject: Proposal to Use Nuisance and Mitigation to Regulate Beekeeping in San Carlos

Recommendation
Reduce the effective ban on beekeeping in San Carlos:
 Eliminate the Administrative Beekeeping Policy;
 Eliminate the Animal permit requirement for bees in the San Carlos code;  Use a nuisance-mitigation approach to regulate beekeeping. Draw on the free services of the Site Evaluator Program of Beekeepers’ Guild of San Mateo County’s Site Evaluator Program for assessing nuisance.

Importance of Beekeeping in San Mateo County
Bees play a critical role both in our environment and for agricultural production in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Honey bees pollinate more than 100 fruit and vegetable crops and also produce honey, beeswax, propolis, and other useful substances. To support and promote local food production, maintain natural habitats, and out of concern for declining pollinator populations, the Bay Area has seen an increase in backyard beekeeping. Beekeepers serve their communities as knowledgeable citizens who help to educate and lead as we work to overcome a variety of challenges for local pollination, from losses of bees to habitat restoration.

Pollinator declines, including high rates of annual losses in honey bee populations, are well documented and widely recognized by the public since colony collapse disorder hit the news nearly 15 years ago. The Bee Informed Partnership (BIP) has conducted an annual survey nationwide since 2007 documenting that honey bee colony losses have fluctuated at unacceptably high levels of 30-45%. The graph of Honey Bee Colony Annual Losses from 2007 to 2020 below is considered “a barometer of honey bee health in the United States” and includes 1 in 10 honey bee colonies in its results (BIP Loss & Management Survey webpage).

Furthermore, summer losses are now unexpectedly high since 2019 now exceeding the normal pattern of winter losses. The annual hive census conducted from 2012 to 2018 by the Beekeepers’ Guild of San Mateo County shows a similar pattern locally in our county.

The Beekeepers’ Guild of San Mateo County is a nonprofit organization founded in 1979 that educates beekeepers and the public. Its membership ranges from people just learning about bees to master beekeepers with many years of experience. The Bee Guild membership has grown to 420 in 2021 as concerns about pollinator losses have become widely known by the public.

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 339
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 2 Honey Bee Colony Annual Losses 2007-2020
From Bee Informed Partnership based on their Annual National Loss and Management Survey

The Bee Guild, along with beekeeping associations in all Bay Area counties, educate beekeepers at all levels. They learn from, and coordinate with, bee researchers nationwide. They have a long track record of positive interactions with the public providing outreach and education at the County Fair, in schools and libraries, and at their free meetings.

Their website lists contacts for trained beekeepers who collect reproductive swarms for free before they can establish a colony, and maintain a hive removal list of beekeepers who offer their services to extract bees that set up home in structures or other unwanted locations, along with the associated comb with brood, honey and pollen. Finally, they encourage San Mateo County beekeepers to register their hives with the State’s BeeWhere program, as required by state law, so that County Agricultural Commissioners can help maintain the health of local bee populations.

Background to Beekeeping in San Carlos
San Carlos is the only remaining city in San Mateo County with an effective ban on beekeeping, which includes a broad animal permitting requirement in Chapter 6.04 (Animal Control) of the Municipal Code and then a highly restrictive Administrative Beekeeping Policy, which outlines the requirements for getting a permit to keep bees.

Section 6.04.330 titled “Permit required” states: “It is unlawful for any person to keep, maintain or cause to be kept or maintained any household pets or other animals not otherwise permitted herein without having first obtained a permit as provided herein. (Ord. 1482 § 1 (part), 2015:

Ord. 1365 § 1 (part), 2005)”. Although bees are not specifically mentioned in this Section, bees are not excluded from this permitting requirement. Furthermore, a specific Administrative Policy provides the criteria for beekeepers to obtain this permit, which are so onerous that no

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 340
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 3 beekeeper has been able to obtain a permit, and the requirements can make it hard to manage bee colonies for survival.

The Administrative Policy is titled Beekeeping Policy. The Bee Legal was informed by staff in 2013 that this Administrative Policy was developed in 2011. This policy includes a wide variety of severe restrictions that must be met before a beekeeper can legally keep bees.

 Hive restrictions allow no more than 2 colonies for single-family residential parcels greater than 20,000 sq ft. and 1 colony for lots of at least 10,000 sq ft.  Restrictions on where a hive can be located on the property include 10-ft setbacks from property lines, or 50 feet from neighboring dwellings (though 30 ft is also listed, so it is not clear which distance takes precedence).
 Hives must face the home on the property and be surrounded by a 6-ft solid fence.

The lot size and zoning requirements mean that almost no residents would be able to apply for a beekeeping permit, and distance setbacks from neighbors also rule out lots that are not wide enough.

The severe limitations on hive numbers and setbacks make it hard to apply Beekeeping Best Practices. The hive number restrictions make it hard to propagate new colonies to ensure that bees with good genetics will survive. The setbacks can make it hard to site a colony properly for optimal bee health. Furthermore, the extreme requirements intended to control the bee flyway are not based on a scientific understanding of bee behavior. Overall, these requirements do not take normal good beekeeping recommendations into account.

Extreme restrictions on beekeeping do not eliminate honey bees from the environment in San Carlos – the species Apis mellifera is naturalized throughout the United States and lives in tree cavities, openings in houses and other enclosed spaces they find. Feral honey bees swarm to reproduce their colonies each year, as the old queen looks for a new home and new queens are raised.

The current policy undermines the benefits of beekeeping for the population of San Carlos as a whole. Communal benefits include:
 pollination that increases fruit and vegetable production within 3-5 miles;  wild ecosystem services to pollinate plants in native habitats;  free swarm removal to reduce the nuisance of feral swarms;  local honey that many people use for pollen allergies, as well as other hive products, such as beeswax;
 legal beekeepers also provide educational opportunities to their neighbors and the larger community.

Maintaining plants that depend on bee pollination is now recognized as an important management tool in response to increasing fire incidence due to climate change. Without knowledgeable efforts to maintain pollinators, local habitats will convert to wind-pollinated plants, which are more susceptible to future fire. (For more information see the video produced by Fire Safe Marin, April 22, 2021 The Compatibility of Fire Prevention and Protection of

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 341
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 4 Biodiversity featuring Bonnie Morse of Bonnie Bee & Co.) Educating the public about how best to restore habitats is a service that knowledgeable beekeepers can share with their community. For example, the Bee Audacious program 10x10+10 encourages pollinator plantings.

Public Support for Beekeeping and Pollinators
Many residents of San Carlos already recognize the importance of pollinators; before the pandemic 225 San Carlos residents signed a 2019-20 petition to use a nuisance-mitigation regulatory approach to beekeeping. The broader public also supports improved policies to beekeeping with 1325 signatures collected in San Mateo County (see Appendix 1: Petition).

History of Beekeeping Regulation in Bay Area Counties, San Mateo County, and San Carlos
Many Bay Area jurisdictions never enacted specific beekeeping regulations and used private nuisance law as a backup for neighbor complaints. See the Maps on the next page of Beekeeping Regulations in San Mateo County comparing 2013 with the present situation in 2021.

In 2017 County Supervisor Don Horsley wrote in support of a policy changing the City of San Mateo’s code, “The County of San Mateo promotes beekeeping in our approach to regulation of this activity…. We use nuisance laws as the regulatory framework for addressing complaints.

This approach has proven effective in the county. … Given ongoing threats to pollination that put at risk the services bees provide to our communities, I would like to see the entire county employ a similarly bee-friendly policy and would welcome the City of San Mateo’s leadership to pave the way for a uniform policy throughout the county.” (Sept 6, 2017, Appendix 2)

Traditionally 67% of jurisdictions in San Mateo County (14 of 21 jurisdictions including all of the county lands represented by Don Horsley) either did not mention bees or declared that honey bees were not considered dangerous exotic animals. These range from the most populous cities to agricultural, rural, and wildlands in county lands. Likewise, San Francisco has always used a nuisance-based approach, as has most of Marin County, and large swaths of Alameda County.

Private nuisance law is the underlying regulatory framework. (See Appendix 3: Burlingame Staff Attorney report for rescinding their beekeeping regulation in 2018.)

San Francisco codes simply state that honey bees are not considered a wild and potentially dangerous animal or a public health nuisance because they are bees. The health department designates expert beekeepers on call to advise about neighbor complaints to determine if there is a nuisance and to recommend any changes to bee management. Private nuisance law is always a backup option for neighbors.

Marin uses nuisance in 84% of jurisdictions in the County, from small hamlets to the largest city in the county – San Rafael. Most never had regulations. In June 2014 San Rafael rescinded their expensive permitting requirement and now call on expert beekeepers for mitigation services to evaluate rare neighbor complaints.

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 342
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 5 Maps of San Mateo County Beekeeping Regulations 2013 to present. In 2013 67% of jurisdictions (14 of 21) regulated beekeeping with nuisance and mitigation. Currently the number has risen to 86% (18 of 21). Two have minor or moderate restrictions, and San Carlos has an effective ban.

▪ Pescadero
▪ S an G re go rio
▪ L a H o n d a
P o rto la V alley
W o o d s id e
Atherton
M e n lo P ark
E as t P alo A lto
R e d w o o d C ity
S an C arlo s
Belmont
S an M ate o
H ills b o ro u gh F o s te r C ity
B u rlin gam e
M illb raeP ac ific a
Montara
E l G ran ad a
H alf M o o n B ay
S o u th S an F ran c is c o
B ris b an e
D aly C ity
C o lm a
S an B ru n o
S an M ateo
C o u n ty
0 2 .5 5
m ile s
R e d w o o d S ho re s
SFO
2013
▪ Pescadero
▪ S an G re go rio
▪ L a H o n d a
P o rto la V alley
W o o d s id e
Atherton
M e n lo P ark
E as t P alo A lto
R e d w o o d C ity
S an C arlo s
Belmont
S an M ate o
H ills b o ro u gh F o s te r C ity
B u rlin gam e
M illb raeP ac ific a
Montara
E l G ran ad a
H alf M o o n B ay
S o u th S an F ran c is c o
B ris b an e
D aly C ity
C o lm a
S an B ru n o
R e d w o o d S ho re s
SFO
Current
B e e ke e p in g R e gu late d b y
M itigatio n -N u is an c e
B e e ke e p in g B an n e d
B e e ke e p in g V e ry R e s tric te d
B e e ke e p in g R e s tric te d

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 343
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 6 San Mateo County Bee Legal Program
In 2013 members of the Beekeepers’ Guild of San Mateo County started the Bee Legal program to change onerous regulations in seven jurisdictions. We spent over a year surveying local governments about the level of beekeeping complaints and evaluating which regulatory approaches were most effective.

Beekeeping Results in Few Complaints
The San Mateo County Bee Legal surveyed complaints in San Mateo County and found that there were few-to-no complaints in the 21 county jurisdictions over 5-10 years. Cities with restrictions received more complaints when neighbors noticed hives, even though the bees had not created any tangible problems. Code Enforcement was forced to respond to more fear-based inquiries in cities with restrictions than they did in jurisdictions using nuisance. Additionally, hives often had to be moved out of town, at great cost to the beekeeper, even if no bother to the neighbors was documented.

Bee Legal Finds Nuisance More Effective than Restrictions for Regulating Beekeeping We researched policy options with city governments (especially with Code Enforcement), with experienced beekeepers, and by reviewing the range of approaches used across the country. We learned about the effectiveness of using mitigation to evaluate nuisance from the California State Apiarist who provided evaluation services to Elk Grove, California. The Head of Code Enforcement in Elk Grove (who taught code enforcement in the local college) told us that bees don’t know about zoning and property lines, and that policy should be based on addressing specific problems. Other code enforcement officers have subsequently verified the advantages of this approach.

The Bee Legal found that well-intentioned restrictions on beekeeping using lot size, zoning, setbacks, hive limits, permits, and other mechanisms often resulted in worse outcomes for bees, neighbors, and beekeepers. Beekeepers were not able to properly site and manage their bees for survival and for neighbor comfort as they can with nuisance. Beekeepers were often forced to move colonies even though no nuisance was defined. A regulatory approach using a combination of nuisance and mitigation is more flexible as it directly addresses neighbor concerns, unlike restrictions.

Beekeeping Regulatory Changes Since 2016
Since 2016, the Bee Legal has worked successfully with five of the seven restrictive cities to change their regulations. Four of these adopted a nuisance-mitigation approach (San Mateo City, Burlingame, Pacifica, and Foster City), and one (Redwood City) imposed minor restrictions and a nuisance clause.

Three of four cities overturned their bans or effective bans on beekeeping. Foster City eliminated a total ban on beekeeping, and two other cities overturned their effective bans (Pacifica and Redwood City). As a result, 86% of San Mateo jurisdictions now use a nuisance approach, which has worked effectively to date.

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 344
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 7 The four cities that enacted a nuisance approach to regulating bees since 2013 took two approaches to using nuisance. One is to rescind regulation and use private nuisance law with no beekeeping regulation on the books. The second is to enact a specific beekeeping nuisance regulation in their municipal code.

Burlingame and Foster City have rescinded their regulations on beekeeping and neighbors now have access to private nuisance law to address concerns about neighbor beekeeping. This is in line with the 14 jurisdictions that have always taken this approach. In contrast, San Mateo and Pacifica enacted specific beekeeping nuisance regulations. See Appendix 4: Five Recent Beekeeping Nuisance Approaches in San Mateo County.

Bee Legal Trains Site Evaluators to Assess Neighbor Complaints Mitigating neighbor complaints involves evaluating whether there is a persistent nuisance and finding solutions to reduce or eliminate the neighbor’s concern. This service has been provided to Bay Area jurisdictions by expert beekeepers known to local government, or more formally by beekeeping organizations. San Francisco, San Jose, and some Marin County jurisdictions use an informal approach to call a well-respected beekeeper they have identified. The San Mateo County Bee Legal program started a Beekeeping Site Evaluator Program in 2015 to help mitigate complaints. We offer services for free to cities that use a nuisance policy. A trained beekeeper evaluates if there is a nuisance and then provides recommendations for rectifying the issue if necessary.

The San Mateo Guild’s Site Evaluators have had only four calls since 2015, and they have successfully resolved all these complaints. They also have contact with the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center in case their services are ever needed. These mitigation services reduce the workload for Code Enforcement while helping neighbors to come to an agreement or help to educate neighbors if there is no nuisance.

San Carlos is now the only city with an effective ban on beekeeping in our county. Hillsborough has restrictions based largely on hive limits and setbacks, and Redwood City has a setback requirement and a small minimum lot size, as well as a nuisance regulation.

Advantages to a Nuisance-Mitigation Based Approach
Nuisance allows conflict resolution to identify and address specific neighbor concerns, without unnecessarily removing bees based on arbitrary code restrictions.

Mitigation of specific complaints is an effective first step to resolving conflict for both neighbors, and is more cost- and time-effective for cities given that few complaints are registered about beekeeping.

Beekeepers are better able to use well-established practices when their decisions are not restricted by non-scientific regulations that do not address bee behavior or neighbor concerns.

They learn through active beekeeper associations to manage bees for health and survival.

Without oppressive restrictions, they feel more comfortable letting others know about their beekeeping activities, which helps to educate the larger community about the importance of pollinators to both our food supply and to conserving pollinator plants in natural habitats. In the

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 345
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 8 rare cases when a complaint occurs, site evaluations provide guidance to improve management and avoid a nuisance.

Recommendations for Changes to Beekeeping Regulation in San Carlos The Bee Legal recommends three changes to the current way that beekeeping is regulated in San Carlos

1. Eliminate the current San Carlos Administrative Beekeeping Policy.

2. Eliminate the requirement that residents must obtain a permit for keeping bees.

3. Use Site Evaluator services to assess/ mitigate neighbor complaints

We recommend that a beekeeping nuisance approach be adopted to regulate beekeeping and that complaints be evaluated by knowledgeable beekeepers to assess nuisance and provide win-win solutions to address neighbor concerns and promote pollinators.

1. Eliminate the Administrative Beekeeping Policy
Most importantly we recommend that the current San Carlos Administrative Beekeeping Policy be eliminated and removed from the city website. It lays out onerous conditions for obtaining a permit for bees, which nearly all residents are unable to meet. It is the reason that the city has an effective ban on beekeeping. San Carlos needs beekeepers and this policy does not allow them to openly provide services that the city needs.

2. Eliminate the Permitting Requirement for Beekeeping in the San Carlos Municipal Code Different options exist for eliminating honey bees from the permitting requirements of Code

6.04.330. Even though bees are not specifically mentioned in the code, they are not excluded.

Their inclusion is clear because the staff of San Carlos laid out the above Beekeeping Policy provisions to specify their interpretation of beekeeping permit requirements.

Option A. The quickest option to exclude bees from permitting would be to add a definition to the San Carlos Animal Code (in 6.04.010 Definitions) specifying that “animals” only include vertebrates. Since honey bees are invertebrates they would thus be excluded from the provisions of Chapter 6.04 Animal Control. An example of such an approach to defining “Animals” is found in the Fremont Animal Code as follows: “‘Animal’ means any live vertebrate creature, domestic or wild, except fish.”

Once honey bees are no longer subject to permitting in the Municipal Code (even if they would only be exempted as an invertebrate and not specifically mentioned), then any neighbors with complaints could take advantage of private nuisance law.

Option B. A second option is to add a specific beekeeping nuisance-based regulation to the Animal Code. No permit would be required for this approach. We share our proposed wording for such a code in Appendix 5, which is currently being promoted by the Alameda County Sheriff as they revise their beekeeping regulations. It includes requirements to address the two most common sources of beekeeping complaints – the provisioning of water and the control of the bee flyway – and then says that the failure to address these requirements constitutes a nuisance. This wording limits what constitutes a nuisance to the most common sources of

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 346
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 9 nuisance making it easier to assess and remedy the complaint, and less likely that a neighbor will simply be litigious if there is an ongoing strained relationship unrelated to beekeeping.

This wording could be included in Section 6.04.210B Keeping of specific animals (following Section 6.04.210A Keeping of domestic fowl and rabbits).

A specific beekeeping nuisance clause would make it clear that San Carlos promotes beekeeping that does not create a nuisance. With “nothing on the books” (as would be the case in Option A above) the public and indeed future staff may not understand that beekeeping is accepted in San Carlos and that private nuisance is the chosen approach to regulating beekeeping. With Option B – “something on the books” – both the public and staff know that beekeeping is possible and the requirements for a beekeeping nuisance are clearly laid out.

Another way forward is to start by eliminating invertebrates from the definition of animals – the quickest approach. Then staff and council can evaluate whether the Nuisance-Mitigation policy is working. If changes are deemed necessary in the future, then Option B could be enacted.

3. Use Free Site Evaluator Services to Assess and Mitigate Neighbor Complaints Establish a procedure whereby the City of San Carlos calls on the Site Evaluator Program of the Beekeepers’ Guild of San Mateo County to assess neighbor complaints about beekeeping.

Expert beekeepers can (1) assess whether the subject of a complaint is creating a nuisance, and (2) recommend appropriate remedies.

This approach is cost effective for two reasons. The services of the Site Evaluators are free.

They also provide advice to the city and usually resolve the conflict so that city staff do not have to respond in person. The Burlingame City Attorney described the success of Site Evaluators in addressing a neighbor complaint in her staff memo recommending rescinding beekeeping regulations (see Appendix 3). Our Site Evaluator saved Burlingame’s Code Enforcement significant time dealing with an ongoing neighbor conflict that was not actually a beekeeping nuisance.

As discussed above, this dual approach – first relying on nuisance law to address complaints and then evaluating and mitigating any nuisance that might occur – is used widely in the Bay Area. It has proved both very effective and supportive of good bee management and cost effective for cities reducing staff time. Good for bees, good for neighbors, and good for beekeepers.

Legal beekeepers make a major contribution to their communities by teaching neighbors about bees and pollination, helping to reduce fear of bees, and educating our community about the role bees play in sustaining our food systems and our environment. Children especially learn quickly and enjoy spending time around bees. Most people’s fear turns to curiosity and joy once they have an opportunity to learn how bee colonies are organized. Therefore, legalizing the work of keeping bees increases general knowledge of our local environment, and helps us to devise other important ways to protect pollinators, including encouraging our neighborhoods to plant pollinator-friendly plants and address the crisis we all face.

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 347
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 10 We look forward to helping in any way we can to discuss options for changing the way beekeeping is regulated in San Carlos, so that beekeepers can become partners in helping the city to promote pollinators.

Appendix 1: Results of Bee Legal Petition to Support Changing Beekeeping Regulations

In 2019 - 2020 the San Mateo County Bee Legal collected signatures on the following petition supporting using a nuisance-mitigation approach as part of a campaign to change local beekeeping regulations. Our effort was halted after February by the Covid pandemic. A summary of the numbers of signatures obtained follows. Copies of the petition and signature pages can be shared.

Help Save the Honeybees!
Honeybees face unprecedented crisis, and are important for pollination and the security of our food supply. I support a more bee-friendly policy for the five remaining San Mateo cities that restrict beekeeping. I would like them to follow the example of the rest of San Mateo and San Francisco Counties, which successfully use a nuisance mitigation approach to resolve the occasional complaint. Let’s remove the barriers to managing healthy honeybee colonies, which make it hard for beekeepers to improve conditions for bees.

Numbers of signatures:

San Carlos residents 225

Total San Mateo County residents 1325
Non-San Mateo County signatures 172
(mainly Bay Area) -------
Total Petition Signatures 1497

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 348
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 11 Appendix 2: County Supervisor Don Horsley’s Email of Support to City of San Mateo From: Don Horsley
To: Christine Ferry
Cc: David Lim; Joe Goethals; Rick Bonilla; Maureen Freschet; Diane Papan; Christine Ferry; Kathy Kleinbaum
Subject: Evaluation of Existing Beekeeping Ordinance Thursday, September 14, 2017 Date: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 10:03:14 AM

September 6, 2017 (via email)

Dear City of San Mateo Sustainability Commissioners
Chair Sherrie Taguchi, Vice Chair Rafael Reyes, Josh Hugg, Adam Lorraine, and Greg St. Clair [email protected]
San Mateo City Staff
Christine Ferry, Sustainability Program Manager [email protected] Kathy Kleinbaum, Deputy City Manager [email protected]

Cc: San Mateo City Councilors
David Lim, Mayor [email protected]
Joe Goethals, Vice Mayor [email protected]
Rick Bonilla [email protected]
Maureen Freschet [email protected]
Diane Papan [email protected]

I understand that the Sustainability Commission of the City of San Mateo will evaluate your existing beekeeping ordinance on Thursday September 14, 2017 and recommend changes to the City Council to promote both the health of our pollinators and the co-existence of bees and people in your city. I commend you for considering the reversal of current restrictions, which create many barriers to managing healthy honeybee colonies and make it hard for beekeepers to improve conditions for bees in our community.

I thought that I would share with you the approach that the County takes with bee keeping activities.

The County of San Mateo promotes beekeeping in our approach to regulation of this activity. We do not consider honey-producing bees to be venomous animals under our Animal Control regulations, and we use nuisance law as the regulatory framework for addressing complaints. This approach has proven effective in the county. As far as I know, in my experience we have had almost no complaints – only one neighbor call ever in the County – and it was resolved without citation.

I understand that an additional 13 county jurisdictions – for a total of two-thirds of the county – use a similar nuisance-based approach and also report in some cases no complaints to few complaints, resolved effectively by management changes.

As my friends in the Bee Keeping Guild tell me, encouraging bee keeping results that, in

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 349
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 12 most of the county, there are many benefits that honey bees provide and the valuable services of our trained beekeepers who can tend bees openly, educate about the role of pollinators in their neighborhoods, share how to plant for pollinators to improve pollinator habitat, and experiment to improve bee survival including participating in local, regional, and national research. Honey bees visit backyard gardens within 3-5 miles of their hives and improve pollination of fruit trees, vegetables, and berries to provide high quality, nutritious local food to our community. Gardeners notice improved pollination when bee colonies are well distributed through their neighborhoods. Furthermore, our citizens enjoy the benefits of local, raw honey sold in farmers markets and other locations.

A more bee-friendly policy has become especially critical over the last decade when deep declines in bee populations began to raise concerns worldwide about our food supply. The latest data from 2016 show that hive losses continue to be unsustainable – 44% losses nationally (BIP census) and 43% in our county (Beekeepers’ Guild of San Mateo County Annual Hive Census). Bees pollinate 35% of our food supply and are key to the production and quality of most fruits and vegetables.

Given ongoing threats to pollinators that put at risk the services bees provide to our communities, I would like to see the entire county employ a similarly bee-friendly policy. I would welcome the City of San Mateo’s leadership to pave the way for a uniform policy throughout the county. I hope that your actions will provide a positive example to the other six cities with restrictive policies.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Don Horsley
San Mateo County Supervisor

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 350
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 13 Appendix 3: Burlingame City Attorney Kathleen Kane’s Staff Report on Rescinding Beekeeping Regulations, Dec 17, 2018

p.1

STAFF
REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9a
MEETING DATE: December 17, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: December 17, 2018
From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-
7204
Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Deleting
Municipal Code Section 9.08.040 Bees

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the introduction of an ordinance deleting Section

9.08.040 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to eliminate restrictions on bee keeping in the city. In order to do so, the Council should:

A. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff.

B. Request that the City Clerk read the title of the proposed ordinance.

C. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the ordinance.

D. Conduct a public hearing.

E. Following the public hearing, discuss the ordinance and determine whether to bring it back for second reading and adoption. If the Council is in favor of the ordinance, direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption.

BACKGROUND
Burlingame’s current restriction on back yard beekeeping dates from 1941. Under the existing ordinance, it is unlawful to keep more than one hive of bees upon any single lot, within 200 feet of a dwelling house.

This provision was passed with a suite of other ordinances designed to regulate animals and to make sure that Burlingame did not acquire an agricultural character in its development. At the time of its passage, there was no known threat to pollinators.

In the decades since, it has become clear that Burlingame has not developed in an agricultural pattern.

Additionally, there is a newly recognized threat to pollinator populations in North America.1 Moreover, information on backyard beekeeping has become much more widely available, including the promulgation of best practices instruction for amateurs through such groups as the Beekeepers’ Guild of San Mateo County.2 In light of these changed circumstances, a citizens’ group approached Council with a request to remove the one-hive limitation in the existing ordinance and to offer

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 351
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 14 ___________________________________
1 See, e.g., Goulson, Dave, Nicholls, Elizabeth, et al., “Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers,” Science 27 March 2015: Vol 347, Issue 6229. 2 Best practices information includes guidance on hive placement. Honey bees ascend quickly to their flight height which is higher than any human is tall within a few feet of their hive entrance, making the 200 foot setback in the prior ordinance unsupported if the objective is to prevent bees interacting with people nearby.

p. 2
support to local backyard beekeepers in maintaining best practices. Council agreed and directed staff to return with appropriate revisions.

DISCUSSION
In reviewing possible revisions to the Code, it became clear that the most supportable option was to remove the existing one-hive limitation. That limitation is not supported by modern science regarding bee behavior. Substituting subjective standards whereby a violation of the ordinance hinges on the personal feelings of annoyance by another is neither enforceable – given the lack of a clear rule – nor constitutionally sound.

The Beekeepers’ Guild of San Mateo County has offered its assistance in providing education, consultation, and informal dispute resolution assistance for backyard beekeepers in Burlingame.

Beekeeping-related complaints are rare. Staff is aware of only one in the last 5.5 years, and it was part of a series of otherwise unrelated complaints between neighbors who have an existing, strained relationship. For that one complaint, however, and despite the difficult circumstances of the overall relationship, the Beekeepers’ Guild was able to offer information to the complainant and guidance to the beekeeper that removed beekeeping as an issue of contention. <my itals>. Staff anticipates continuing with a robust advice and consultation program with the Guild in support of the new ordinance, if it passes. Where necessary, referrals to the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center for mediation services can also be used. Finally, aggrieved neighbors can still make use of either private nuisance causes of action, if applicable, or violations of any other portion of the Code (such as noise, attraction of vermin, etc.) that may apply to egregious behavior <my itals>. The proposed ordinance would align the Code with existing understanding of bee behavior and remove barriers to addressing on a micro level the wider crisis in pollinator populations.

The proposed ordinance does not require review under the California Environmental Quality Act because the actual number of additional hives in Burlingame is not anticipated to be significant as a result of this proposed change.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact on the City General Fund.

Exhibit:

Proposed Ordinance

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 352
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 15 Appendix 4: Five Recent Beekeeping Nuisance Approaches in San Mateo County

Since 2016 five cities in San Mateo County changed their beekeeping regulations. Three approaches were applied to using nuisance:

(a) no mention of beekeeping in the code so that private nuisance law is used as a recourse (Burlingame and Foster City);
(b) a specific beekeeping nuisance clause enacted in the city code (San Mateo and Pacifica); (c) minor restrictions enacted in the city code with a beekeeping nuisance regulation as backup (Redwood City).

A. Two cities rescinded their beekeeping regulations entirely and now use private nuisance as a recourse for neighbors with a complaint.

Burlingame
Dec 2018: The city of Burlingame rescinded their beekeeping regulations and now uses private nuisance as a recourse. The City Attorney and Code Enforcement were very happy with the services of the Beekeeping Site Evaluator Program. They felt that this approach would be best for promoting beekeeping and aligned with the rest of the county. See Appendix 3 for details of City Attorney Kathleen Kane’s reasoning.

Foster City
Sept 2021: Foster City rescinded its ban on beekeeping as follows.

Title 6, Animal Control
Chapter 6.04, Animal Control

Section 6.04.320 Keeping of other animals prohibited.

It is unlawful to keep any of the following:

A. Any fowl, reptile or animal which normally lives in a wild habitat and is a curiosity to the local community, whether wild or domesticated at the time of its keeping; or B. Domestic fowl; or
C. Bees.

B. Two cities adopted a specific beekeeping nuisance regulation in their Municipal Code

Pacifica
Aug 2020: The City of Pacifica had an effective ban on beekeeping and wanted to encourage the services of local beekeepers. They rescinded their highly restrictive regulations, and the City Attorney composed the following public nuisance regulation, which maintains a very broad definition of nuisance.

Sec. 5-25.03. - Public nuisance conditions.
(35) All apiaries maintained for the purposes of keeping bees shall be kept in a manner that does not disturb the peace.

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 353
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 16 City of San Mateo
Nov 2017: The City Attorney for San Mateo used a specific beekeeping nuisance regulation but detailed two nuisance conditions that should be managed to avoid creating a nuisance to neighbors.

Chapter 8.28 BEES

8.28.010 Keeping of Bees – Conditions.

8.28.020 Nuisance when.

8.28.010 KEEPING OF BEES - CONDITIONS.

A. Adequate Water Source Required
All properties on which beehives are kept must provide for adequate water sources on the property at all times of year and must ensure that they do not become a mosquito-breeding site.

Adequate sources are ones that provide both an amount of fresh water necessary for the amount of bees or beehives and a method for the bees to be able to gain a good footing to obtain the water.

B. Flyway Required.

Beekeepers shall manage the direction and angle of the bee flyway from the entrance of the hive by properly siting and orienting the hives and by using flyway barriers as needed to modify the angle in order to keep the flyway over the beekeeper’s property until the bees are flying eight or more feet above the ground

8.28.020 NUISANCE WHEN.

No person shall manage bees under such conditions as to create a source of constant annoyance or discomfort to any person.

C. Redwood City rescinded its effective ban on beekeeping and instituted a combination of restrictions and nuisance (Oct 2016)
CHAPTER 21: OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 21.7. - KEEPING OF BEES—DISTANCE FROM DWELLINGS:

A bee hive shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any dwelling on an adjacent property.

Sec. 21.8. - KEEPING OF BEES—QUANTITIES AND CONDITIONS
All hives shall be provided with an adequate and constant water supply on-site. Parcels of 3,000 square feet or less shall not contain more than two bee hives.

Sec. 21.9. - KEEPING OF BEES - NUISANCE:

A public nuisance shall be declared when bees are not kept in accordance with this article. Public nuisances are subject to code enforcement and potential remedies to correct the violation as provided for in this Code.

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 354
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy) 17 Appendix 5: Bee Legal’s Proposed Wording for a Nuisance-Based Code for Keeping of Honey Bees

Section 6.04.310B Keeping of honey bees

Definitions
Apiaries: The location where bees are kept in hive(s).

Bees: Honey bees of the genus, Apis mellifera
Flyway: The flight path of bees as they come and go from a hive

Keeping of Bees – Conditions.

Adequate sources are those that provide both an amount of water necessary for the number of bees or beehives and a method for the bees to safely access the water.

B. Flyway Control Required.

Beekeepers shall manage the direction and angle of the bee flyway from the entrance of the hive by properly siting and orienting the hives, and by using flyway barriers as needed to modify the departure angle, such that bees reach a height of eight or more feet above the ground.

Nuisance When.

8.b.4
Packet Pg. 355
Attachment: October 2021 Letter from Bee Legal (Discuss Beekeeping Ordinance and Policy)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: February 28, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Introducing an Ordinance Repealing San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 8.27 - Disposable Food Service Ware and Adopting a New Chapter 8.27 - Disposable Food Service W are, Regulating the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities to Align with New State Laws.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Co uncil introduce an ordinance repealing San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 8.27 “Disposable Food Serv ice Ware ” and adopting a n ew Chapter 8.27 “Disposable Food Service Ware” in order to align with new State laws.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with introducing the Ordinance.

BACKGROUND:

On October 25, 2021 , the San Carlos City Council adopted the County of San Mateo’s Model Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance (“Ordinance”). The Ordinance requires certain foodware be fiber -based compostable and restricts the distribution of single -use foodware accessories. The Council established an October 1, 2022 enforcement date in order to allow time for outreach and education and to enable food facilities to use up the ir existing foodware inventories. The Council authorized the County of San Mateo to conduct enforcement and lea d education and outreach efforts with support from City staff. Thirteen other jurisdictions, including the County, have adopted the same Ordinance.

Also in October 2021, Governor Newsom signed new State laws AB 1276 and AB 1200 that placed restrictions on single -use foodware across the state. AB 1276 requires that foodware accessories including straws, utensils, stirrers, splas h sticks, and condiment packets be made available only upon request and directs local governments to authorize an enforcement agen cy to enforce these statutes by June 1, 2022. The law , however, does not provide a specific implementation date. AB 1200 prohibits the sale or distribution of any single -use foodware, comprised of paper or other plant -based natural fiber that contains inte ntionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). AB 1200 goes into effect on January 1, 2023.

9.a
Packet Pg. 356
2 While the Ordinance adopted by the City Council is mostly aligned with the requirements in the new State laws, some discrepancies do exist. To ensure consistency, the County amended the original Ordinance and recommends that cities do the same.

ANALYSIS:

To align the Ordinance with the new S tate laws AB 1276 and AB 1200 the following changes are recommended:

Changes to the Disposable Foodware Ordinance to Align with AB 1276:

1. Current Ordinance requirement : All food facilities may offer single -use foodware accessories to consumers and distribute those accessories upon acceptance by the customer.

New AB 1276 requirement : Food facilities ca n offer single -use foodware accessories only at drive-throughs and public airports.

Recommended change to the Ordinance : Amend the Ordinance so that only food facility drive -throughs and food facilities at public airports can offer accessories to consumers.

2. Current Ordinance requirement : Food facilities may distribute foodware accessories using dispensers and have them available at self -serve areas, including in open bins/containers for consumers to grab-and-go.

New AB 1276 requirement : Open bins/contai ners are not allowed for distribution of accessories. Consumers must request them from the employee and/or food facilities may have them available at refillable dispensers that dispense accessories one item at a time.

Recommended change to the Ordinance: Amend the Ordinance so that food facilities cannot have available accessories in open bins/containers at self -serve areas for consumers to grab -and-go, and explicitly state that dispensers can only dispense accessories one item at a time.

3. Current Ordinan ce requirement : Food facilities are not prohibited from using self - serve, refillable bulk condiment dispensers (there is no reference to bulk condiment dispensers in the Ordinance).

New AB 1276 requirement : Food facilities are explicitly allowed to use s elf-serve, refillable bulk condiment dispensers to distribute condiments.

Recommended change to the Ordinance : Amend the Ordinance to explicitly allow for the use of refillable bulk condiment dispensers.

Changes to the Disposable Foodware Ordinance to Align with AB 1200:

1. Current Ordinance requirement: Plates, bowls, cups, food trays, clamshells, and other containers must not contain PFAS.

9.a
Packet Pg. 357
3 New AB 1200 requirement : Prohibits the sale of any single -use foodware in the state containing PFAS starting on January 1, 2023.

Recommended change to the Ordinance : Sunset the PFAS requirements currently in the Ordinance on December 31, 2022. The City and County will look to the State to assume responsibility for implementing and enforcing the prohibition of PFAS starting on January 1, 2023.

Next Steps:

If the Council adopts the changes, staff will continue outreach efforts to make sure all food facilities are aware of the Ordinance requirements and are connected to resources ahead of the October 1, 2022 enforcement start date.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Introduce an Ordinance repealing San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 8.27 “Disposable Food Service Ware” and adopting a new Chapter 8.27 “Disposable Food Service Ware ” in order to align with new State laws; or

2. Do not introduce the Ordinance; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Nil Blackburn,

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Ordinance - Disposable Food Service Ware Updates

9.a
Packet Pg. 358
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS REPEALING SAN CARLOS MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.27 – DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE, AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 8.27 - DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE

WARE, REGULATING THE USE OF DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE BY FOOD FACILITIES TO ALIGN WITH NEW STATE LAWS.

The City Council of the City of San Carlos does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, the San Carlos City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1573, also known as the “Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance” on October 2 5, 2021 with the purpose of reducing single-use plastic and other food service ware waste, improving the health and safety of San Carlos community members, and helping keep the city’s waterways clean and safe; and

WHEREAS, the Ordinance will go into effect and subject to enforcement on October 1, 2022; and

WHEREAS, the San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan includes Strategy 26 to require food facilities use non -plastic, compostable food service ware when distributing prepared food; and

WHEREAS, on October 5, 2021, AB 1276 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom. AB 1276 restricts the distribution of single -use foodware accessories by restaurants and other food facilities; and

WHEREAS, on October 5, 2021, AB 1200 was signed into law the Governor Gavin Newsom mandating that no person shall distribute, sell, or offer for sale in the state any food packaging (includi ng single -use foodware) that contains regulated perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”); and

WHEREAS, the Ordinance includes requirements that are well aligned with many of the requirements on foodware in AB 1276 and AB 1200. However, some discrepancies exist. As such, the Ordinance must be amended to ensure alignment with requirements in both State bills; and

WHEREAS, the City Council does, accordingly, find and declare that it should repeal and replace in its entirety Chapter 8.27 of the San Carlos Municipal Code to ensure the City’s requirements around single -use foodware accessories distribution and PFAS regulation in single-us foodware align with the State of California’s requirements; and SECTION 2: The City Council hereby repeals Chapter 8.27 of the San Carlos Municipal Code and adopts a new Chapter 8.27 to be numbered and entitled and to read as follows:

CHAPTER 8.27 REGULATING THE USE OF DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE

8.27.010 – Definitions.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 359
Attachment: Ordinance - Disposable Food Service Ware Updates (Amend Food Services Ware) For purposes of this Chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:

(a) “Aluminum Foil-based” means any Disposable Food Service Ware composed entirely of aluminum, including but not limited to aluminum tray liners, aluminum foil, and aluminum foil baskets.
(b) “Compostable” means that an item or material:

1. Meets standards for compostability from a certified/approved independent third - party approved by the City Manager or designee, in collaboration with local waste processors, haulers, and/or other entities, as needed; and/or

2. Is any variation of acceptable materials that will break down or otherwise become part of usable compost in a safe and timely manner as determined by the City Manager or designee, in collaboration with local waste processors, haulers, and/or other entities, as needed; and

3. Is Natural Fiber -based. Compostable items may include those that are made entirely of Natural Fiber or Natural Fiber-based items that are coated or lined with biologically based polymer, such as, but not limited to corn or other plant sources (e.g., compostable plastics), if certified/approved by independent third parties approved by the City Manager or designee.
“Compostable” does not include items made entirely/primarily of biologically based polymer (e.g., PLA, PHA, or other compostable plastic), even if labeled or certified as compostable.
(c) “Disposable” means designed to be discarded after a single or limited number of uses and not designed or manufactured for long-term multiple reuse. (d) “Food Service Ware” means food contact products used for serving, distributing, holding, packaging, and/or transporting Prepared Food including, but not limited to plates, cups, bowls, trays, clamshell containers, boxes, utensils, straws, lids, and food contact paper (e.g., wraps, bags, tray liners, etc.). The term "Food Service Ware" includes Food Service Ware Accessories and Standard Condiment in Disposable packaging. (e) “Food Service Ware Accessories” include different types of Food Service Ware such as straws, stirrers, Utensils, condiment cups and packets, cocktail sticks/picks, toothpicks, napkins, cup spill plugs, cup sleeves, and other similar accessory or accompanying Food Service Ware used as part of food or beverage service or packaging. Detachable lids for beverage cups and food containers are not considered a Food Service Ware Accessory. (f) “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)” means a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom. (g) “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) Restrictions” mean either of the following:

1. PFAS has not been intentionally added to a product or product component.

2. The presence of PFAS in a product or product component is below 100 parts per million, as measured in total organic fluorine.
(h) “Food Facility” means an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food to the public for human consumption, as defined by the California Health and Safety Code Section 113789 or successor . It includes both permanent and temporary food facilities. Public schools are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. (i) “Food Scrap Composting Method” means (1) self-hauling of food scraps to a permitted composting facility or a transfer station that accepts food scraps that will be transferred to a permitted composting facility for on-site compost processing, (2) food scrap compost collection service provided by a curbside hauler, or (3) on-site food scrap composting. (j) “Healthcare Facilities” mean places that provide healthcare to the public. Healthcare Facilities includes, but is not limited to hospitals, clinics, outpatient care centers, nursing homes, psychiatric care centers, medical offices, hospice homes, mental health a nd

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 360
Attachment: Ordinance - Disposable Food Service Ware Updates (Amend Food Services Ware) addiction treatment centers, orthopedic and other rehabilitation centers, urgent care, birth centers, etc.
(k) “Natural Fiber/Natural Fiber-based” means a plant or animal-based, non-synthetic fiber, including but not limited to products made from paper, sug arcane, bamboo, wheat stems/stalk, hay, wood, etc.
(l) “Non-Compostable” means not meeting the definition of Compostable set forth in this Chapter.
(m) “Polystyrene-based” means and includes expanded polystyrene, which is a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, form molding, and extrusion-blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). The term "polystyrene" also includes polystyrene that has been expanded or blown using a gaseous blowing agent into a solid foam (expanded polystyrene [EPS]) and clear or solid polystyrene known as oriented polystyrene. (n) “Prepackaged Food” means any properly labeled processed food, prepackaged to prevent any direct human contact with the food product upon distribution from the manufacturer and prepared at an approved source.
(o) “Prepared Food” means food or beverages that undergo a cooking or food preparation technique on the Food Facility’s premises for consumption by the public. Cooking or food preparation technique includes, but is not limited to the following:

1. Cooking methods, utilizing the application of heat, such as steaming, microwaving, simmering, boiling, broiling, grilling, frying, or roasting.

2. Beverage preparation, such as blending, brewing, steeping, juicing, diluting, or pouring.

3. Food preparation tec hniques, such as defrosting, rinsing, washing, diluting, cutting, portioning, mixing, blending, assembling, coating, dipping, garnishing, decorating, or icing.

Prepared Food does not include raw eggs or raw, butchered meats, fish, and/or poultry sold from a butcher case, a refrigerator case, or similar retail appliance. (p) “Standard Condiment” means relishes, spices, sauces, confections, or seasonings that require no additional preparation and that are usually used on a food item after preparation, and includes different types such as ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, soy sauce, hot sauce, salsa, salt, pepper, and sugar/sugar substitutes. (q) “Takeout Food” means Prepared Food that is purchased to be consumed off a Food Facility’s premises. Takeout Food includes Prepared Foo d delivered by a Food Facility or by a third-party Takeout Food Delivery Service.
(r) “Takeout Food Delivery Service” is a service for online food ordering and delivery of Prepared Food from a Food Facility to a customer. This service can be provided directly by the Food Facility or by a third-party.
(s) “Utensils” include different types of instruments used to assist the consumption of food, specifically, forks, knives, spoons, sporks, chopsticks, and tongs.

8.27.020 – Distribution of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories and Standard Condiment.
(a) Except as provided in Subsections (b) and (c), Food Facilities, for on-premise dining and off-premise dining (e.g., Takeout Food Delivery Service, catering off -site, etc.), shall not provide any Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories or Standard Condiment in Disposable packaging to a consumer unless the specific type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory (including different types of Utensils) or specific type of Standard Condiment is requested by the consumer.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 361
Attachment: Ordinance - Disposable Food Service Ware Updates (Amend Food Services Ware) (b) Food Facilities may ask a drive-through consumer if the consumer wants a specific type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory (including different types of Utensils), if the item is necessary for the consumer to consume Prepared Food or to prevent spills of or safely transport Prepared Food.
(c) Food Facilities that are located entirely within a public use airport, as defined in Section

77.3 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, may ask a walk -through consumer if the consumer wants a specific type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory (including different types of Utensils), if the item is necessary for the consumer to consume Prepared Food or to prevent spills of or safely transport Prepared Food. (d) Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories and Standard Condiment in Disposable packaging provided by Food Facilities for use by consumers shall not be bundled or packaged in a manner that prohibits a consumer from taking only the type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory (including different types of Utensils) or type of Standard Condiment desired without also having to take a different type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory or type of Standard Condiment. Food Facilities cannot distribute Disposable Utensils that are bundled or packaged together. Each type of Utensil (e.g., fork, spoon, knife, etc.) must be specifically requested by the consumer in order for a Food Facility to provide the item(s).
(e) Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit a Food Facility from making unwrapped Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories available to a consumer usi ng refillable self -service dispensers that dispense different types of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories one item at a time to allow for Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories to be obtained. (f) Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit a Food Facility from making Standard Condiment available to a consumer using refillable self -service dispensers to allow for Standard Condiment to be obtained. Food Facilities that offer Standard Condiment are encouraged to use bulk dispensers for the condiments rather t han condiments packaged for single - use.
(g) Takeout Food Delivery Services shall provide consumers with the option to proactively request the different types of available Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories (including different types of Utensils) and the different types of Standard Condiment from a Food Facility serving Prepared Food. The default option on the digital ordering/point-of- sale platforms of Takeout Food Delivery Services shall be that no Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories or Standard Condiment are requested. (h) Takeout Food Delivery Services shall provide Food Facilities the ability to tailor the digital ordering/point-of-sale platforms so that Food Facilities can customize and itemize the different types of available Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories (including different types of Utensils) and the different types of available Standard Condiments for consumers to proactively select.
(i) If a Food Facility uses any Takeout Food Delivery Service, the Food Facility shall customize its menu w ith an itemized list and/or provide options of the different types of available Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories (including different types of Utensils) and the different types of available Standard Condiments for consumers to proactively select. O nly those specific types of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories (including different types of Utensils) or specific types of Standard Condiment proactively requested by the consumer shall be provided by the Food Facility. If a consumer does not request any Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories or Standard Condiment, no Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories or Standard Condiment shall be provided by the Food Facility for delivery of Prepared Food. Pursuant to Subsection (d), each type of Utensil ( e.g., fork, spoon, knife, etc.) offered by the Food Facility shall also be listed individually, unbundled on the menu and provided by the Food Facility for delivery along with the Prepared Food only if requested by the consumer.

San Carlos City CouncilFebruary 28, 2022

San Carlos City Council
February 28, 2022