CITY OF BELMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BELMONT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

www.belmont.gov

NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:00 PM One Twin Pines Lane, City Hall Emergency Operations Center, Second Floor, Belmont, California

AGENDA

This Special Meeting is called to consider the items of business listed below.

1. ROLL CALL

2. ITEMS OF BUSINESS Persons wishing to orally address the Council on the items of business listed below will be given an opportunity to do so before or during the Council’s consideration of the item.

A. STUDY SESSION (1) Informational Report Regarding the Belmont Creek Study Recommendation: Receive information report regarding the Belmont Creek Study on the long-term approach to address the creek maintenance and improvements within the watershed Attachment(s): Staff Report Watershed Map Watershed Study Presentation (Power Point)

3. ADJOURNMENT

If you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 595-7413. The speech and hearing-impaired may call (650)637-2999 for TDD services. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Meeting information can also be accessed via the internet at: www.belmont.gov. All staff reports will be posted to the web in advance of the meeting, and any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council/District Board regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, One Twin Pines Lane, during normal business hours and at the Council Chambers at City Hall, Second Floor, during the meeting. Meeting Date: October 28, 2014 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: Study Session

Agency: City of Belmont Staff Contact: Leticia Alvarez, Public Works, 595-7469, [email protected] Afshin Oskoui, Public Works, 595-7459, [email protected] Jonathan Gervais, Parks & Recreation, 595-7488, [email protected]

Agenda Title: Informational Report Regarding the Belmont Creek Study

Agenda Action: No Action

Recommendation Receive informational report regarding the Belmont Creek Study on the long-term approach to address the creek maintenance and improvements within the watershed.

Background Belmont Creek dredging between El Camino Real and Old County Road is part of an on-going effort by the City to reduce the potential for flooding in the area during the winter rainy season. The City has dredged this portion of Belmont Creek five times in the last seven years. Because of the potential impact to the creek and the habitat, permits are required from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Army Corp. and the Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB), among others. Additionally, last year Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (Novartis) in San Carlos initiated a dredging project in the creek adjacent to their facilities due to previous flooding problems.

During the permitting process for both projects, the permitting agencies required that the Cities of Belmont, San Carlos and the County of San Mateo as well as Caltrans and Redwood City (which are indirectly affected) work in collaboration for a long-term approach to address the on-going maintenance and creek improvements within each jurisdiction. For the last year, staff has been working with the regulatory agencies and the entities involved on a comprehensive watershed study project which was funded by Novartis.

Analysis WRECO was the consultant selected by Novartis to perform the study, developed nine conceptual alternatives and presented them to the project stakeholders, including Novartis, RWQCB, Caltrain, Caltrans, San Mateo County, and the Cities of Belmont, Redwood City, and San Carlos. Five alternatives were selected by the stakeholders for further analysis using hydraulic models developed by WRECO. This modeling allowed WRECO to determine the effectiveness of each of the alternatives. These alternatives included improvements of operations and design of Water Dog Lake, an off-line basin and floodplain restoration at Twin Pines Park, a parallel culvert bypass through Harbor Boulevard, flood walls through lower Belmont Creek, and tide gates at Marine Parkway.

Page 1 of 2

Through field reconnaissance, creek data gathering, and stakeholders’ input, WRECO developed a hydrologic model of the watershed and hydraulic models of the existing condition and for each chosen alternative. These models showed the impact comparisons for each of the chosen alternatives. The hydraulic models showed that, individually, none of the alternatives would have a significant impact on the flooding of Belmont Creek.

WRECO developed a “Preferred Alternative” that took elements of the individual alternatives that showed the most effectiveness in the modeling phase and modified them until modeling indicated that they would significantly reduce the flooding issue for the 10-year storm event. This alternative was achieved by enlarging the by-pass culvert on Harbor Boulevard and restoring the floodplain at Twin Pines Park. Combining the two elements would greatly reduce the sedimentation that has caused issues within the lower Belmont Creek and allow much larger flows to pass through the lower Belmont Creek. In addition, low impact development measures could be incorporated into Harbor Boulevard when it is reconstructed over the by-pass culvert. The measures could include porous pavement and bio-retention areas. This preferred alternative has the most potential for reducing the flood risk in the lower portion of Belmont Creek from Old County Road to Highway 101, while at the same time providing water quality improvements and environmental enhancements.

This project has been of great interest to the regulatory agencies due the nature of the evaluation in integrating flood control, water quality protection and habitat restoration for the Belmont Creek watershed. The RWWQCB is very interested in working with the agencies involved for application of grant funding and working with the other regulatory agencies to pursue a potential watershed-based permitting strategy with all the regulatory agencies.

Alternatives 1. Take No Action

Attachments A. Map – Belmont Creek Watershed B. Belmont Creek Watershed Study Presentation

Fiscal Impact

No Impact/Not Applicable

Funding Source Confirmed:

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach: Council Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda Staff Council Vision/Priority Other* Citizen Initiated Discretionary Action Other* Plan Implementation*

*

Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT A

MAP OF BELMONT CREEK WATERSHED

Dr. Martin Renner, Novartis Grant Wilcox, P.E., CEG, WRECO

October 28, 2014 The Belmont Creek Watershed Study is Sponsored by:

2 Today we will discuss: ó Project History and Background ó Summary of Initial Alternatives ó Summary of Studied Alternatives ó Review of Preferred Alternative ó Benefits of Preferred Alternative ó Impacts of Preferred Alternative ó Mitigation and Additional Benefits of Twin Pines Park ó Next Steps

3 Novartis Site Background ó In 2010, Novartis manufacturing was down for over 2-1/2 weeks and the cost of repair was approximately $615,000. Repair costs in 2011 were approximately $100,000. ó Flood gates ó Completed in 2011 ó Cost ~$1.2 million ó Dredging ó Completed in September 2013 ó Cost ~$230,000 ó Improved local channel capacity from 3.5-year event

4 Recent History of Flooding at Novartis Site

2010 Storm ó Overbank flows escaped near Old County Road, traveled along Quarry Road, and reached Novartis property April 2010

April 2010

5 Recent History of Flooding at Novartis Site 2010 Storm

Creek (northwest side) Lot entrance (northeast side)

Quarry Road (south side) Front of facility (northeast side)

6 Sedimentation Build-up Downstream

04/01/14

04/02/14

7 Initial Alternatives Explored ó Alternative 1: Operations and Design of Water Dog Lake ó Alternative 2: Upstream Basins at Carlmont Drive, Village Drive, and Carlmont High School Baseball Field Off Club Drive ó Alternative 3: Low Impact Development Measures ó Alternative 4: Creek Daylighting Through a Portion of Silverado Senior Living Facility ó Alternative 5: Floodplain Restoration and Offline Basin for Temporary Storage at Twin Pines Park ó Alternative 6: Parallel Overflow Pipes from Old County Road down to Harbor Blvd and/or Quarry Rd. with New Culvert at 101 ó Alternatives 7: New Cross Culvert at Old County Rd., Industrial, and 101 and Channel Improvement with Short Flood Walls on Lower Belmont Creek ó Alternative 8: Floodgate and Pump at Shoreway Road/Marine Parkway ó Alternative 9: Floodgates and Pump near Oracle Bridge

8 Alternatives Studied ó Alternative 1: Operations and Design of Water Dog Lake ó Alternative 5: Floodplain Restoration and Offline Basin for Temporary Storage at Twin Pines Park ó Alternative 6: Parallel Overflow Pipes from Old County Road down to Harbor Blvd and/or Quarry Rd. with New Culvert at 101 ó Alternatives 7: New Cross Culvert at Old County Rd., Industrial, and 101 and Channel Improvement with Short Flood Walls on Lower Belmont Creek ó Alternative 8: Floodgate and Pump at Shoreway Road/Marine Parkway

9 Preferred Alternative

10 Preferred Alternative ó Result: Reduces flooding through lower Belmont Creek ó Sediment Traps with Sumps that can be periodically cleaned out, reducing dredging needs ó Permeable Pavers can be proposed over removed roadway portions

11 Impacts from Preferred Alternative ó Estimated Construction Cost: ~$16 million ó Temporary traffic lane closures ó Utility relocations

12 Benefits of Preferred Alternative

ó Flood Risk Reduced for 10-year storm event ó Minimized inundation along lower Belmont Creek and nearby businesses ó Flow contained within channel of lower Belmont Creek ó Lower cost of damage repair for local businesses over time. ó Water Quality ó Less overflow spilling into local streets ó Less sediment load through creek ó Additional benefits with Twin Pines Park floodplain restoration

13 Mitigation and Additional Benefits of Twin Pines Park ó Ideal location for sediment load to be captured along re- established floodplain ó Reduces sediment load downstream and erosion through the park ó Floodplain reduces peak flow and time of concentration downstream ó Creation of habitat for local species

14 Next Steps: ó What to do in the Interim? ó Dredging? ó Short term goals ó Decision Making Structure ó Joint Powers Authority ó Memorandum of Understanding ó Funding ó Grants ó Flood Protection, FEMA ó Environmental/LID ó Packaged/Combination Projects ó Bonds ó City/San Mateo County Budgets

15 QUESTIONS

16 CITY OF BELMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BELMONT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS www.belmont.gov

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, October 28, 2014 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California

1. ROLL CALL

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

4. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Red Ribbon Week Poster Contest Winners

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any City matter not on the agenda. The period for public comment at this point in the agenda is limited to 15 minutes, with a maximum of 3 minutes per speaker. Speakers who requested but did not receive an opportunity to speak during this initial comment period will be given an opportunity to address the Council later in the agenda. State law prohibits the Council from acting on non-agenda items.

6. COUNCILMEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS

7. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered to be routine in nature and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Councilmember or staff request specific items to be removed for separate action. The City Attorney will read the title of ordinances to be adopted. A. Waive further reading of proposed ordinances B. Approval of Minutes Recommendation: Motion to Approve Minutes as Presented Attachments(s): Minutes of Special and Regular Meeting of October 14, 2014

C. Fuel Purchase Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the purchase of unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel from Valley Oil Company for an amount not to exceed $25,000 Attachments(s): Staff Report Resolution D. Renewal of Police Department's Emergency Notification System Recommendation: Resolution authorizing the payment of the 2014-2015 annual renewal charge with Rapid Notify, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $6,500 Attachments(s): Staff Report Resolution E. Ordinance Rezoning Property at 576-600 El Camino Real (Second Reading) Recommendation: Adopt an Ordinance for a Rezone and Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) Attachments(s): Ordinance F. Request to allow construction outside of the permitted hours of work at the Wells Fargo Bank located at 1075 Ralston Avenue Recommendation: Approve a motion allowing ACC Environmental Consultants to work outside the allowed hours of construction, commencing at 5:00 pm and concluding at 11:00 pm from Monday, November 3, 2014 through Tuesday, November 11, 2014 at 1075 Ralston Avenue Attachments(s): Staff Report Article VIII, Noise Control, City Code G. Authorize Service Agreement with MIG Consultants Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Service Agreement with MIG Consultants for an amount not to exceed $164,960 (Applicant Funded) for environmental review services (Environmental Impact Report) for the proposed Crystal Springs Upland School at 6-8 and 10 Davis Drive Attachments(s): Staff Report Resolution Scope of Work

COMBINED AGENCY MEETING October 28, 2014 Page 2 H. Compliance with Conditions of Approval for Autobahn Motors Dealership Reconstruction Project at 700 Island Parkway Recommendation: Approve a motion confirming that the Parks & Recreation Department Conditions of Approval for the Autobahn Motors Dealership Reconstruction Project at 700 Island Parkway have been complied with and complete Attachments(s): Staff Report I. Procure Self-Service Mobile Application for Belmont Residents and Staff Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Public Stuff, Inc., for the creation, implementation, configuration, integration and maintenance of a self-service mobile application in an amount not to exceed $10,400 annually Attachments(s): Staff Report Resolution J. Procure Additional Telephone Licenses and Corresponding Maintenance Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to issue a purchase order to Xtelesis, Inc., to procure and maintain ShoreTel telephone licenses in an amount not to exceed $10,465 Attachments(s): Staff Report Resolution K. Traffic Signal Software Upgrade Purchase Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the purchase of Traffic Signal Software QuicNet Pro Upgrade from McCain, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $8,475 Attachments(s): Staff Report Resolution L. Monthly Financial Reports Recommendation: Motion to Receive Monthly Financial Reports Attachments(s): Monthly Financial Reports

COMBINED AGENCY MEETING October 28, 2014 Page 3 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Amendments to Parkland Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements for Residential Subdivisions, Establishment of Park Impact Fees for Other Residential and Non-Residential Projects, and Procedures for Impact Fees Recommendation: 1) Introduce an Ordinance Adding Article III, Development Impact Fees, to Belmont City Code Chapter 17; 2) Introduce an Ordinance Adding Article IV, Parkland Dedication Requirements and In-Lieu Fees, to Belmont City Code Chapter 17, and amending Section 6.10 of Ordinance No. 530; 3) Adopt a Resolution Amending Park In-Lieu Fees for Residential Subdivisions; 4) Adopt a Resolution Establishing Park Impact Fees for Residential and Non-Residential Development Projects Attachment(s): Staff Report Impact Fee Ordinance Quimby Act Ordinance Resolution Adopting Park Impact Fees (Section XXIIA of the City of Belmont Fee Schedule) Resolution Amending Park In-Lieu Fees for Residential Subdivisions October 2014 Park Impact Fee Nexus Study Final Report October 2014 Quimby Land Dedication Requirement and In-Lieu Fee Study

9. OTHER BUSINESS A. Residential Solid Waste Rate Structure Recommendation: Discuss the information presented and provide direction to staff regarding the residential solid waste rate structure Attachment(s): Staff Report HDR Technical Memorandum 2015 Solid Waste Rates Presentation B. Consideration of Belmont Zoning and Tree Ordinance Amendments Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the City Council comment and provide direction for preparation of Zone Text Amendments to the Belmont Zoning Ordinance and Tree Ordinance Attachment(s): Staff Report Comparison Tables and Potential Modifications

COMBINED AGENCY MEETING October 28, 2014 Page 4 10. COMMISSION, COMMITTEE, AND COUNCIL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ASSIGNMENT UPDATES, AND STAFF ITEMS A. Verbal report from Councilmembers on Intergovernmental (IGR) and Subcommittee Assignments B. Verbal report from City Manager

11. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS (if necessary) This point in the agenda is reserved for speakers who could not be accommodated in the initial public comment period.

12. MATTERS OF COUNCIL INTEREST/CLARIFICATION Items in this category are for discussion and direction to staff only. No final policy action will be taken by Council/Board.

13. ADJOURNMENT

If you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 595-7413. The speech and hearing-impaired may call (650) 637-2999 for TDD services. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Meeting information can also be accessed via the internet at: www.belmont.gov. All staff reports will be posted to the web in advance of the meeting, and any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council/District Board regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, One Twin Pines Lane, during normal business hours and at the Council Chambers at City Hall, Second Floor, during the meeting.

Regular meetings televised on Comcast Channel 27, and web streamed via City’s website at www.belmont.gov

COMBINED AGENCY MEETING October 28, 2014 Page 5

REGULAR MEETING Minutes of Special and Regular Meeting of October 14, 2014 One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, CA

CONVENE CLOSED SESSION 6:30 P.M. REGULAR MEETING

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Initiation of litigation under Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4): One case

Council Present: Wright, Braunstein, Reed, Stone, Lieberman Council Absent: None

ADJOURN: 6:50 P.M. Terri Cook City Clerk

REGULAR MEETING

ROLL CALL Council Present: Wright, Braunstein, Reed, Stone, Lieberman Council Absent: None

Mayor Lieberman pointed out that a fallen firefighter memorial was held this past weekend. He requested a moment of silence for Craig Hunt, a pilot under contract with Cal Fire, who was recently killed fighting a fire.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Fire Captain Thrasher and members of the Belmont/San Mateo/Foster City Fire Departments.

REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Rennie stated there were no reportable action.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Presentation by Wade Leschyn, Belmont's Appointee to the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District Wade Leschyn, Belmont Trustee to the District, provided a history of the formation of the District, including the expansion in 2008 to address vector as well as mosquitoes. He outlined services available to deal with mosquito and wasp abatement, as well as vector such as raccoons, skunks and opossums. He provided an update on the occurrence of West Nile Virus in the area, and tick issues at Waterdog Lake resulting in incidents of Lyme disease. He described a new issue involving raccoon roundworm.

AGENDA AMENDMENTS Mayor Lieberman suggested that the item related to the reappointment to the San Mateo County

COMBINED AGENCY MEETING October 14, 2014 Page 1

Mosquito and Vector Control District be considered at this time.

Consideration of Resolution Reappointing Wade Leschyn to the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District ACTION: On a motion by Councilmember Braunstein, seconded by Councilmember Stone, Resolution 2014-135 Reappointing Wade Leschyn to a four-year term on the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District was unanimously approved.

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

James Baka, Belmont resident, commented regarding a stormwater pipe problem in the area above his street which is resulting in runoff into the creek. He described attempts to abate the situation and his interactions with City staff on this matter.

Perry Kennan, Belmont resident, commented regarding the lack of a local newspaper. He noted that council questions and answers on the agenda items are not made available to the public.

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmember Stone. Fund A Need event for helping low-income seniors.

Councilmember Wright described a recent Fire Station 14 visit she made.

Mayor Lieberman made the following announcements: 1) Chamber of Commerce speaker series. 2) HIP Housing home sharing need, 3) Belmont Community Players final melodrama, 4) upcoming election, 5) general plan kickoff event.

COMMENTS REGARDING ITEMS ON CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Braunstein thanked Merry Moppet School for their contribution toward the maintenance of Merry Moppet Lane.

Councilmember Reed provided information regarding the Infrastructure Ad Hoc Committee’s efforts that led to the recommendation of the agreement with the Lew Edwards Group for outreach to the community on the City’s infrastructure needs.

Mayor Lieberman pointed out that passage of the Consent Calendar includes the cancellation of the November 11th City meeting.

ITEMS APPROVED ON CONSENT CALENDAR Waive further reading of proposed ordinances Minutes of Special City Council Meeting (Closed Session) of September 17, 2014, Special and Regular City Council Meeting of September 23, 2014, and Regular Belmont Fire Protection District Meeting of September 23, 2014

COMBINED AGENCY MEETING October 14, 2014 Page 2

Motion to Cancel Regular Council Meeting of November 11, 2014 (Veteran’s Day) Resolution 2014-136 Accepting a Donation from Merry Moppet School for Maintenance of Merry Moppet Lane Resolution 2014-137 Accepting a 10-foot Wide Storm Drain Easement at 2609 and 2611 Monte Cresta Drive Resolution 2014-138 Revising The City's Conflict Of Interest Code, Updating The Appendix Of Designated Employees And Amending The Disclosure Categories Resolution 2014-139 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Service Agreement with The Lew Edwards Group for Communications Outreach and Consulting Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $76,250 and Approving a Contingency of $11,438

ACTION: On a motion by Councilmember Reed, seconded by Councilmember Braunstein, the Consent Agenda was unanimously approved.

HEARINGS Mitigated Negative Declaration, Rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PD), and Vesting Tentative Map for a Mixed-Use (Commercial/Residential) Development at 576-600 El Camino Real Community Development Director de Melo noted that this is the first mixed-use project to be proposed in Belmont in a number of years. He described the necessary entitlements, as well as the Planning Commission review and recommendation. He provided details of the project, and outlined the planned development process as well as the environmental review.

Mayor Lieberman opened the Public Hearing.

Mark Haesloop, on behalf of the Project Applicant, described assemblage of lots that provided a large enough space to accommodate the proposed development. He provided a history of the project. He pointed out that the current zoning code is outdated and does not provide for design standards for residential use in this zoning. He described proposed uses. He discussed the issue of affordable housing. He pointed out that all of his projects have provided for affordable units. This will be a condition of approval for the project. He addressed the issue of charging stations and noted that the two proposed are for the commercial parking areas. He pointed out that the residential garage could include additional charging spaces as governed by CC&R’s (Creeds, Covenants and Restrictions).

The applicant and staff responded to Council questions regarding parking and options for uses of the retail space.

Perry Kennan, Belmont resident, stated that the staff report indicated no fiscal impact. He pointed out that there could be a positive impact due to increase in property taxes. Community Development Director de Melo acknowledged the additional revenues such as increased property taxes, and permit and park fees, and clarified that additional services would be provided to the new development.

Mayor Lieberman closed the Public Hearing.

COMBINED AGENCY MEETING October 14, 2014 Page 3

Councilmember Reed stated that the Planning Commission performed its due diligence in vetting this project, which will be an improvement to the site. He explained that he is comfortable with the future detailed development phase. He expressed concerns regarding excessive tree fees. He commented regarding the need for low-income housing.

Councilmember Stone expressed concerns regarding the affordable housing component and a need for an inclusionary housing ordinance. He expressed a desire for a plan for how to use the park-in- lieu fees.

Councilmember Braunstein noted that he initially had concerns regarding height, which were allayed by visiting the site. He expressed support for the project.

Mayor Lieberman expressed concerns regarding the inclusion of theaters as a use-by-right.

City Attorney Rennie outlined corrections to be made in the proposed resolutions, and he pointed out that the resolutions should go into effect when the ordinance goes into effect. He also outlined a proposed change to the ordinance language.

ACTION: On a motion by Councilmember Reed, seconded by Councilmember Stone, and unanimously approved to 1) approve Resolution 2014-140 Approving Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2) introduce an ordinance rezoning property to PD (Planned Unit Development), amended to remove theater use as a use-by-right, and 3) Resolution 2014-141 Approving Vesting Tentative Map

COMMISSION, COMMITTEE, AND COUNCIL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ASSIGNMENT UPDATES, AND STAFF ITEMS Report from Audit Committee Regarding Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2014 City Treasurer Violet described review of audit report by audit committee. He outlined the independent auditor’s review and findings of the annual finances, which addresses the financial health of the city. He noted a clean audit, no issues, and an unqualified opinion. He explained that the roles and responsibilities of the Audit Committee and Finance Commission were discussed. He pointed out that other cities in San Mateo County were surveyed, and none has both a finance commission and an audit committee. He also commented on the need to address capital needs.

Perry Kennan, Belmont resident, pointed out that this item is not a report from the audit committee but a presentation of the audit. He stated that the Finance Director should be making a presentation about the finances, and that unfunded liabilities and deferred maintenance need to be addressed.

City Treasurer Violet explained the procedure for the audit of public entities. He clarified that the City is not a publicly-traded company, and different rules apply. He further clarified that monthly financial reports and the mid-year budget review is the time when Finance Director provides updates

COMBINED AGENCY MEETING October 14, 2014 Page 4

regarding the budget. He pointed out that the City has no control over unfunded liabilities as dictated by CalPERS.

Mayor Lieberman clarified that the audit is not intended to address the budget, only to ensure the city is following appropriate procedures for financial controls.

ACTION: On a motion by Councilmember Braunstein, seconded by Councilmember Reed, the Annual Financial Report was unanimously accepted.

Verbal report from Councilmembers on Intergovernmental (IGR) and Subcommittee Assignments Councilmember Stone commented regarding 1) Council of Cities, 2) School Leadership Lunch, 3) the League’s Policy Making Group’s discussion regarding electrification of Caltrain, 3) Sea Level Rise Finance Committee, 4) Library Donor Fund, and 5) a South Bay Waste Management Authority Meeting.

Councilmember Reed spoke regarding the HEART (Housing Endowment and Regional Trust) tour of a new low-incoming housing project in San Mateo.

Councilmember Braunstein spoke regarding a recent C/CAG meeting.

Mayor Lieberman spoke regarding Silicon Valley Clean Water Agency activities.

Verbal Report from City Manager City Manager Scoles commented regarding the upcoming General Plan workshop and the general fund balance.

MATTERS OF COUNCIL INTEREST/CLARIFICATION Consideration of Resolution Regarding Clear-Cut Logging (Mayor Lieberman, as requested by the Sierra Club) Mayor Lieberman pointed out that the City Council does not traditionally take positions beyond those that affect Belmont directly. He noted the connection of this resolution to Belmont’s value on open space. He pointed out that several cities have adopted similar resolutions.

Councilmember Stone expressed support for the proposed resolution.

Councilmember Reed stated that he is not in a position to make an informed vote on this matter and suggested it be continued.

Discussion ensued regarding the Item 13 process.

ACTION: On a motion by Councilmember Reed, seconded by Councilmember Stone, this matter was unanimously continued to a date uncertain.

COMBINED AGENCY MEETING October 14, 2014 Page 5

ADJOURNMENT at this time, being 10:00 P.M.

Terri Cook City Clerk

Meeting televised and videotaped.

COMBINED AGENCY MEETING October 14, 2014 Page 6 Meeting Date: October 28, 2014 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #7C

Agency: City of Belmont Staff Contact: Rico Acquisti, Public Works - Fleet Management, 650-595-7466, [email protected]

Agenda Title: Authorizing the Purchase of Unleaded Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Agenda Action: Resolution

Recommendation Adopt a resolution authorizing the purchase of unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel from Valley Oil Company for an amount not to exceed $25,000.

Background Fleet Management routinely purchases fuel used by both the City of Belmont and the Belmont Fire Protection District. Fuel must be purchased regularly in order to maintain an adequate inventory for refueling vehicles and equipment. A bid request was sent out via email to four fuel venders. Valley Oil Company was the lowest bidder.

Analysis Fleet Management is responsible for the fuel dispensing island located at the Corporation Yard. Because fuel is consumed daily, Fleet Management monitors the fuel inventory and places an order before running low. Maintaining an adequate fuel inventory is essential to ensuring vehicles and equipment are available for routine assignments as well as responding to emergencies.

Alternatives 1. Take no action 2. Refer back to staff for further information

Attachments A. Resolution

Fiscal Impact

No Impact/Not Applicable Funding Source Confirmed: 573-0-000-1711/Fuel

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach: Council Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda Staff Council Vision/Priority Other* Citizen Initiated Discretionary Action Other* Plan Implementation*

*

Page 1 of 1

RESOLUTION NO. 2014-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF UNLEADED GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL FROM VALLEY OIL COMPANY FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000

WHEREAS, Fleet Management routinely purchases fuel used by both the City of Belmont and the Belmont Fire Protection District; and,

WHEREAS, fuel must be purchased regularly in order to maintain an adequate inventory for refueling vehicles and equipment; and,

WHEREAS, the funds for this operational expense is allocated in the FY 2015 budget, Account No. 573-0-000-1711/Fuel.

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

SECTION 1. The City Manager is authorized to purchase unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel from Valley Oil Company for an amount not to exceed $25,000.

* * *

ADOPTED October 28, 2014, by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 28, 2014 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #7-D

Agency: City of Belmont Staff Contact: Captain Patrick Halleran, Police Department, 650-595-7430, [email protected] Agenda Title: Renewal of the Police Department Emergency Notification System with Rapid Notify Inc.

Agenda Action: Resolution

Recommendation Adopt a resolution authorizing the payment of the 2014-2015 annual renewal charge for Police Department Emergency Notification System with Rapid Notify Inc. in an amount not to exceed $6,500.

Background The Belmont Police Department has used the Rapid Notify Emergency Notification System to deliver recorded emergency notifications to the community for over 12 years. The system uses both landline telephone numbers provided by AT&T as well as non-landline numbers entered into the system by the public via a link on the City of Belmont website.

Analysis The Emergency Notification System is a valuable tool used by both the Police and other City Departments for providing important information to the community.

Alternatives 1. Provide Alternate Direction. 2. Take No Action.

Attachments A. Resolution

Fiscal Impact

No Impact/Not Applicable Funding Source Confirmed: Acct# 101-604-8530

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach: Council Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda Staff Council Vision/Priority Other* Citizen Initiated Discretionary Action Other* Plan Implementation*

RESOLUTION NO. 2014-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF THE 2014-2015 ANNUAL RENEWAL CHARGE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM TO RAPID NOTIFY INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6,500

WHEREAS, the Belmont Police Department has used the Rapid Notify Emergency Notification System to deliver recorded emergency notifications to residents and businesses in the City for over 12 years; and,

WHEREAS, the system uses both landline telephone numbers provided by AT&T as well as non-landline numbers entered into the system by the public via a link on the City of Belmont website; and,

WHEREAS, the Emergency Notification System is a valuable tool used by both the Police and other City Departments for providing important information to the community.

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

Section 1. The City of Belmont is Authorized to Pay the 2014-2015 Annual Renewal Charge for the Police Department Emergency Notification System to Rapid Notify Inc. in an Amount not to exceed $6,500.

* * *

ADOPTED October 28, 2014, by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BELMONT ADOPTING A REZONE AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (CDP) FOR THE MIXED-USE (COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL) PROJECT AT 576-600 EL CAMINO REAL (APPL. NO. 2013-0054)

WHEREAS, Belmino, LLC, applicant, on behalf of the property owner, CHS Development Group, requests a Rezoning of 576-600 El Camino Real from Highway Commercial (C-3) to Planned Unit Development (PD), and approval of the associated Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) for a Mixed-Use (Commercial/Residential) development; and,

WHEREAS, on September 2, 2014, and September 16, 2014, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider public testimony and a staff report for the requested entitlements, and recommended the City Council approve the entitlements; and,

WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation, public testimony, and a staff report on the requested entitlements; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council hereby adopts the staff report dated October 14, 2014, and the facts contained therein as its own findings of fact; and,

WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, in a separate action, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment in considering all reports, recommendations and testimony associated with the project.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. REZONING AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

(a) Based on the evidence before the City Council, the City Council finds the proposed Rezoning of the subject property (576-600 El Camino Real) from Highway Commercial (C-3) to Planned Unit Development (PD) is consistent with the General Plan, and is required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan for the City.

(b) Based on the evidence before the City Council, the City Council finds the proposed Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) is consistent with the General Plan, and is required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan for the City.

(c) The application to establish the Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) for the Mixed-Use (Commercial/Residential) Project at 576-600 El Camino Real is approved based on the findings set forth herein and subject to the additional performance standards set forth in Attachment “D” (Performance Standards – Conceptual Development Plan) to the October 14, 2014 staff report to the City Council, which are made a part of Exhibit “1” to this Ordinance and attached hereto.

(d) After reviewing all the relevant evidence before the City Council, including the

Page 1 of 5 information provided in the staff reports and enclosures to the Planning Commission and City Council, the public hearings and testimony received, the City Council incorporates herein by reference and adopts the analysis and findings in the staff report to the City Council dated October 14, 2014, as its own findings of fact under Belmont Zoning Ordinance Sections 12.3.B and 16.7 related to the Rezoning and the Conceptual Development Plan.

(e) The City Council of the City of Belmont hereby amends the zoning maps of the City of Belmont by rezoning 576-600 El Camino Real APN 044-201-190, 044-201-230, and 044-222- 060 from Highway Commercial (C-3) District to Planned Unit Development (PD) District and adopting Exhibit “1” to this ordinance as the conceptual development plan for the district.

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Ordinance shall take effect and will be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption.

SECTION 3. PUBLICATION AND POSTING

The City Clerk has caused to be published a summary of this ordinance, prepared by the City Attorney under Government Code Section 36933, subdivision (c), once, in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in San Mateo County and circulated in the City of Belmont, at least five days before the date of adoption. A certified copy of the full text of the ordinance was posted in the office of the City Clerk since at least five days before this date of adoption. Within 15 days after adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause the summary of this ordinance to be published again with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance; and the City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of this adopted ordinance with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance. * * * The City Council of the City of Belmont, California introduced the foregoing ordinance, on October 14, 2014 and adopted the ordinance at a regular meeting held on October 28, 2014 by the following vote:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

Page 2 of 5 Exhibit “1” Ordinance No._____

Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) and Land Uses Mixed-Use Development (Commercial/Residential) 576-600 El Camino Real (Appl. No.PA2013-0054)

This Exhibit “1” to Ordinance No. _____ establishes the Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) and Land Uses for the Mixed-Use Development (Commercial/Residential) at 576-600 El Camino Real:

1. The Detailed Development Plan shall be consistent with the following design standards, which are derived from the plans on file and date stamped August 25, 2014 and as amended on September 16, 2014.

Criteria CDP Standards Proposed Project Lot Area 39,411 sq. ft. 39,411 sq. ft. Mixed-Use (Residential & Commercial) Mixed-Use (Residential & Use(s) Commercial) Density 36 units/acre 36 units/acre Height 46 feet for building 50 feet for elevator override/mechanical 49.5 feet equipment and shielding FAR 2.2 – includes garage level 2.28 – includes garage level

1.55 – for commercial and 1.57 – for commercial and residential levels residential levels

Gross sq. ft. Maximum 90,000 sq. ft. – includes underground garage level

Maximum 62,000 sq. ft. for commercial and 87,490 sq. ft. – includes underground residential levels garage level

Maximum Ground Floor - 14,500 sq. ft. – 60,970 sq. ft. for commercial and includes bike, trash areas; maximum 11,000 residential levels commercial sq. ft. –

Maximum Upper Floors (Residential) – 23,000 sq. ft. per floor; 46,000 sq. ft. total Landscaping 30% 30% Parking • Residential 62 Spaces - maximum 27% compact spaces 62 Spaces • Commercial 34 Spaces - maximum 25% compact spaces 34 Spaces • Total Minimum 96 Spaces 96 Spaces Setbacks • Front As per approved CDP plans 13 feet • Left Side As per approved CDP plans 8 feet

Page 3 of 5 • Right Side As per approved CDP plans 10 feet • Rear As per approved CDP plans 15 feet

2. Building Materials: The project shall include use of true materials, such as stucco, stone, wood, metal, and/or glass.

3. Building/Site Uses: All building/site uses shall be subject to the following use requirements:

Key P – Permitted by Right C – Conditional Use Permit Required X – Prohibited Residential Multiple Unit Residential Condominiums P Home Occupation P – subject to Homeowners Association Approval Commercial Uses Retail - First Floor P General Retail P Auto Related Accessories P Hardware Store, Building Materials, Equipment & Services C Used Merchandise C Pawnshop X Tobacco Sales, Smoke Shop, E-Cigarette, Vape Shop X Artist Studio (Non-Furnace) P Food & Beverage General Market or Convenience Market P Alcoholic Beverage Sales (Retail) P Alcoholic Beverage/Wine Shop W/Tasting P Food Preparation/Restaurant C Eating and Drinking Establishments (All) C Food Service Sales & Consumption (Coffee Shop, Bakery without P on-site preparation) Animal/Pet Sales/Service Animal Retail Sales (Live Pet Store) C Animal Clinic/Grooming (no boarding) C Animal Hospital (boarding) X Retail/General & Personal Services General Merchandise P Laundromat - Self-Service X Drycleaner X Maintenance and Repair Service P Funeral Parlor/ Mortuary X State Certified Massage Therapy X Personal Improvement Services C Personal Services P

Page 4 of 5 Nail or Hair Salon X Gymnasium, Exercise Studio, Martial Arts P Schools X Financial/Real Estate Services Bank, Credit Union, Brokerage Firm, Retail Bank Service P Automated Teller Machines P Check Cashing, Payday Loan, Bail Bonds X Real Estate Brokerage P Title Company P Offices General Offices P Medical/Dental/Legal P Lodging C Recreation - Commercial Indoor C Outdoor X Adult Oriented Business X Theatres C Vehicle Sales, Leasing, Rental C Industrial Use Classifications Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing C Research and Development C Self Storage X Parking Facility, Public or Commercial X Cultural Institution P Communication & Utilities Use Classifications Wireless Communication Facilities • Building Mounted Antenna C • Co-located Wireless Facility C • Monopole Antenna X Utilities, Minor P Utilities, Major X Solar energy system P Other Uses Ancillary Use to Permitted/Conditional Use P/C Temporary Uses C Uses with exterior refrigeration or equipment C Sales/storage of flammable liquids/fuels X Uses open 11:00 pm - 7 am C Drive-through uses X

Page 5 of 5 Meeting Date: October 28, 2014 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #7-F

Agency: City of Belmont Staff Contact: Mark Nolfi, Building Official, (650) 595-7450, [email protected]

Agenda Title: Request to allow construction outside of the permitted hours of work at the Wells Fargo Bank located at 1045 Ralston Avenue

Agenda Action: Motion

Recommendation Approve a motion allowing ACC Environmental Consultants to work outside the allowed hours of construction, commencing at 5:00 p.m. and concluding at 11:00 p.m. from Monday, November 3rd through Tuesday, November 11th at 1045 Ralston Avenue.

Background The roofing materials on the Wells Fargo Bank at 1045 Ralston Avenue are failing and in need of replacement. It has been determined that the composition shingles contain asbestos and must be removed by a hazardous materials abatement company. The bank and the abatement company are requesting this work to be performed outside of regular business hours.

Article VIII, Noise Control, of the City Code limits the hours for construction activity to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction activity or related activities are allowed outside of these hours or on Sundays and Holidays. ACC Environmental Consultants are seeking an exemption to start construction at 5:00 p.m. and end at 11:00 p.m.

Analysis It is the practice of abatement companies to remove asbestos at exterior locations after normal business hours and on weekends. This is to minimize potential exposure to pedestrian traffic and the building occupants. Other construction activities, such as the installation of the replacement composition shingles, would occur during allowed hours for construction.

ACC Environmental Consultants would take the following measures to lessen the impact of the abatement activity on the surrounding neighbors: • Notify residents and businesses in a 300 foot radius of the removal schedule • Perform the work as per Cal-OSHA and Bay Area Air Quality Management District requirements • All removal work will be performed by hand without power equipment • The waste material will be lowered by hand into dumpsters • Dumpsters will be staged on the side of the property opposite Ralston Avenue

Page 1 of 2

• Work in the areas closest to Ralston Avenue will occur early in the shift, between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. • Temporary lighting will face away from Ralston Avenue to minimize lighting disturbance

ACC Environmental Consultants proposed a start time of 6:00 p.m. and a stop time of 2:00 a.m. Staff could not support these times. Staff believes that mobilization by the contractors can commence at 5:00 p.m. and removal of the hazardous materials can begin at the close of business. An 11:00 p.m. stop time is consistent with the required closing hours of adjacent businesses.

The proposed schedule is dependent on clear weather.

Alternatives 1. Limit the hours to a time other than what is proposed. 2. Deny the request

Attachments A. Article VIII, Noise Control, of the City Code

Fiscal Impact

No Impact/Not Applicable Funding Source Confirmed:

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach: Council Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda Staff Council Vision/Priority Other* Citizen Initiated Discretionary Action Other* Plan Implementation*

Page 2 of 2

ARTICLE VIII. - NOISE CONTROL

Sec. 15-100. - Declaration of policy.

In accordance with adopted goals and policies of the general plan which call for "a noise environment that maintains a healthy living environment; fosters relaxation and recreation; is conducive to the work environment; and provides pleasant living conditions," It is declared to be the policy of the city to protect the peace, health and safety of its citizens from unreasonable noises from all sources including, but not limited to, those specified in this chapter. (Ord. No. 1018, § 1, 7-25-06) Sec. 15-101. - Definitions.

Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this chapter shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this chapter its most reasonable application. (a) "A-Weighting" means a filter network designed to transform a frequency spectrum to that which is heard by the human ear. (b) "Construction activities" means the grading, demolition, alteration, repair, remodeling or other improvements of existing or new structures, or property which require any City permit, and the use of powered equipment in connection with such activities. (c) "Daytime" means the period from 8:00 a.m. to sunset, Monday through Friday; and 10:00 a.m. to sunset, Saturday, Sunday and Holidays (d) "Decibel (dB)" means a unit for measuring the amplitude of sound, equal to twenty (20) times the logarithm to the base ten (10) of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is twenty (20) micropascals. (e) "Delivery" means the delivery or pickup or the arrival for delivery or pickup of goods, wares and merchandise by the use of a motorized vehicle, other than an automobile or train. (f) "Equivalent-energy level (Leq)" means the level of a steady-state noise that has the same sound energy as a given time-varying noise. (g) "Holidays" means the follow days: New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas Day. (h) "Impulsive sound" means sound of short duration, usually less than one (1) second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay. Examples of impulsive sounds include explosions, drop impacts and firearm discharge. (i) "Multifamily dwelling" means any housing unit where two (2) or more dwellings are separated by a common wall, floor or ceiling, including but not limited to apartments, condominiums and townhouses. (j) "Nighttime" means the period outside the hours of "daytime" as herein defined. (k) "Noise disturbance" means any source of sound which exceeds the noise limitations permitted in section 15-102. For purposes of this section sources of sound shall include but not be limited to the following: amplified music, loudspeakers, radios, televisions, stereos, musical instruments, powered toys or models, swimming pools or spas, industrial machinery, manufacturing equipment, pile drivers, air compressors, paint sprayers, motors, pumps, blowers, air conditioners, cooling towers, ventilating fans, fork lifts, loaders, tractors, concerts, mechanical equipment, human voices, electrical appliances, vacuum cleaners, powered

Page 1

equipment, chain saws, beepers, motor vehicles, carpet cleaning vehicles, and attached equipment not operated on a street or highway, etc. (l) "Noise level" means the amplitude of sound pressure referenced to twenty (20) micropascals, measured in decibels, using the A-weighting network (for the purposes of this chapter). (m) "Noise level measurement" means the procedure of measuring sound consisting of the usage of a precision sound level meter (SLM), as defined in the section, set to "fast" response. If the sound level meter is analog with a VU meter, then the response shall be "slow" unless the noise issue is impulsive. The meter must be calibrated before any measurements and the microphone shall be a minimum of three and one-half (3½) feet from any wall, floor or other large sound reflecting surface. The meter shall be protected from wind or other extraneous noise by the use of screens, shields or other appropriate devices. (n) "Precision sound level meter" means a sound pressure level measuring instrument which conforms to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specification S1.4 for Type 1 or Type 2 measuring instruments. (o) "Powered equipment" means a motorized device (other than a motor vehicle) powered by electricity, batteries or fuel. Powered equipment includes but is not limited to: lawn mowers, hedgers, parking lot sweepers, carpet cleaning vehicles, saws, sanders, motors, pumps, generators, blowers, wood chippers, vacuums, drills and nail guns. (p) "Residential property" means any property legally used for a single family or multifamily dwelling as defined in the Belmont Zoning Ordinance. (Ord. No. 1018, § 1, 7-25-06) Sec. 15-102. - Noise limitations.

(a) Except as otherwise permitted in this chapter, any source of sound in excess of the sound level limits set forth in section 15-102 shall constitute a noise disturbance. For purposes of determining sound levels from any source of sound, sound level measurements shall be made at a point on the receiving property nearest where the sound source at issue generates the highest sound level. Sound level measurements shall be made with a precision sound level meter (Type 1 or 2) set to A- weighting, and "fast" response for fluctuating sound. Slow or fast response may be used for continual sources. For repetitive, impulsive sound, the one (1) second rms maximum level (Lmax) shall be used. For continuous sound, use the average level or Leq. In multifamily residential structures, the microphone shall be placed no closer than three and one-half (3½) feet from the wall through which the source of sound at issue is transmitting. The microphone shall also be placed five (5) feet above the floor regardless of whether the source of sound at issue transmits through the floor, ceiling or wall. (1) For all sources of sound measured from any residential property: a. "Nighttime" hours— 55 dBA b. "Daytime" hours— 65 dBA (b) For all sources of sound within a multifamily residential structure transmitting through a common interior partition (wall, floor or ceiling) from one (1) dwelling unit to another: (1) "Nighttime" hours— 35 dBA (2) "Daytime" hours— 45 dBA (c) For all sources of sound measured from any non-residential property (1) "Nighttime" hours— 55 dBA (2) "Daytime" hours— 65 dBA

Page 2

(d) Corrections for character of sound: In the event the alleged offensive noise contains a steady, audible tone, such as a whine, screech, beating, pulsating, throbbing or hum the standards set forth in subsections 15-102(a)(1) and (2) shall be reduced by five (5) dB. (e) Any and all excessively annoying, loud or unusual noises or vibrations shall be considered a noise disturbance if such noise or noises: (1) Offend the peace and quiet of persons of ordinary or reasonable sensibilities, or (2) Interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property (f) Construction activities are subject to the following regulations: (1) Construction activity noise. All construction and related activities, which require a city permit, including the use of powered equipment in connection with such activities, shall be allowed only during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction activity or related activities shall be allowed outside of the aforementioned hours or on Sundays and Holidays. All gasoline-powered construction equipment shall be equipped with an operating muffler or baffling system as originally provided by the manufacturer, and no modification to these systems is permitted. (g) Powered equipment noise. Powered equipment used for non-construction activities, shall be allowed between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. No powered equipment shall be allowed outside of the aforementioned hours. All gasoline-powered equipment shall be equipped with an operating muffler or baffling system as originally provided by the manufacturer, and no modification to these systems is permitted. (h) It shall be unlawful to create, permit, allow or maintain a noise disturbance in Belmont. (Ord. No. 1018, § 1, 7-25-06) Sec. 15-103. - Exceptions.

The following are exceptions to the noise limitations set forth in section 15-102. (a) Residential property maintenance. (1) Residential property maintenance that does not involve construction activities as defined in subsection 15-102(f) or the use of powered equipment as defined in subsection 15-102(g), personally done by residents or property owners to maintain or improve their property, may occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays. (b) Deliveries. (1) Deliveries to food retailers and restaurants, (2) Deliveries to other commercial and industrial businesses between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Businesses (as described in section (1) and (2) above) with an active Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which regulate hours of operation must adhere to the approved hours as specified in the CUP.

(c) Street sweeping. (1) Street sweeping is allowed Monday through Friday between the hours of 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (d) Parking lot sweeping.

Page 3

(1) Parking lot sweeping is allowed Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (e) Garbage collection. (1) Garbage collection times are governed by the city's franchise agreement. (f) Conditionally permitted activities. (1) In the event that the provisions of this article conflict with any provisions of the Belmont Municipal Code, Belmont Zoning Ordinance, or a valid conditional use permit, those provisions would control. (g) Special events. (1) Any event or use for which a special event permit has been issued by the city that specifically allows noise levels to be exceeded. (h) [Exceptions.] he following activities are not subject to the regulations of this chapter: a. Emergency construction, emergency clean-up, and emergency maintenance activities approved by a city department. b. Capital improvement projects if the city council, at the time of advertising for bids, allows for a construction schedule which would provide for work outside the hours authorized by this article. c. The city may respond to emergencies as an appropriate exercise of the police power to protect health, safety and welfare of the citizens and property in the city. The city will, if timing allows, provide notice to properties immediately adjacent to the emergency prior to commencement of this work. (Ord. No. 1018, § 1, 7-25-06) Sec. 15-104. - Time for compliance.

(a) Commercial or industrial uses in existence prior to August 24, 2006 that require mechanical equipment upgrades or changes to comply with this chapter, shall be granted a six (6) month period within which to comply with provisions of this chapter. Any facility not in compliance by the end of such six (6) month period may apply for a temporary permit to be excluded from the provisions of this chapter. Staff may grant the permit upon finding that diligent efforts are being made to comply and a firm date that full compliance is provided. (b) Except as provided in subsection (a) of this section, all other operations in existence prior to the date this chapter went into effect shall have three (3) months to comply with the provisions of this chapter or apply for a temporary permit for additional time to comply. (Ord. No. 1018, § 1, 7-25-06) Sec. 15-105. - Administration.

The provisions of this chapter shall be administered by the chief of police and his or her authorized representatives, except where expressly provided otherwise. All other officers and employees of the city shall assist and cooperate in the administration and enforcement of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1018, § 1, 7-25-06) Sec. 15-106. - Violations.

Violations of this chapter shall be considered a public nuisance. Violations may be enforced by any civil, administrative or criminal remedies, including but not limited to the provisions of the Belmont Municipal Code Section 1-8 and Chapter 30.

Page 4

(Ord. No. 1018, § 1, 7-25-06)

Page 5 Meeting Date: October 28, 2014 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #7-G

Agency: City of Belmont Staff Contact: Carlos de Melo, Community Development Department, (650) 595-7440 [email protected]

Agenda Title: Service Agreement with MIG Consultants for Environmental Review Services

Agenda Action: Resolution

Recommendation Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Service Agreement with MIG Consultants for an amount not to exceed $164,960 (Applicant Funded) for environmental review services (Environmental Impact Report) for the proposed Crystal Springs Upland School at 6-8 and 10 Davis Drive.

Background In January 2014, the City received a development review application from Crystal Springs Upland School (CSUS) to construct an independent private middle school (grades 6-8) for up to 240 students. The proposed project is a resubmittal and revision of a CSUS proposal for the subject property in 2012.

The City previously engaged the services of Knapp Planning & Environmental Consulting for environmental review services for the project. Knapp Consulting prepared the environmental review documents (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) for the previous 2012 CSUS project. Knapp Consulting collected data, and began preparing an Initial Study for the project.

After adoption of the Ralston Avenue Corridor Study (August 2014), and in conjunction with initial environmental study preparation, it was determined that a project-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be the appropriate environmental review path for the project. Staff subsequently requested proposals and scopes of work for preparation of the EIR from five environmental consulting firms; three firms provided proposals within the allotted time period.

Staff reviewed the submitted proposals and is recommending that the City engage the services of MIG Consultants to prepare the EIR for the current CSUS submittal. MIG is an experienced, professional, and qualified environmental services and planning firm that has worked on similar projects in the Bay Area. Staff believes that the estimated costs for the environmental review services are reasonable, and the scope of work is appropriate for the proposed project.

Analysis The City Council is requested to authorize a Service Agreement between the City of Belmont and MIG Consultants for an amount not to exceed $164,960. MIG will evaluate the development proposal and prepare the associated project environmental study. Their scope of work, draft schedule, and costs are outlined in their summary proposal (see Attachment B).

Alternatives 1. Solicit additional proposals from other consultants. 2. Take no action.

Attachments Resolution - Consultant Scope of Work

Fiscal Impact The total cost of this review will be paid by the project applicant. The project applicant will deposit the entire amount for the agreement into the Environmental Review/Consultant Service Fee fund, account number: 210-5-905-8366. City staff will manage the work of MIG Consultants and review and approve all invoices prior to payment. There will be no fiscal impact to the City.

No Impact/Not Applicable X Funding Source Confirmed: 210-5-905-8366

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach: Council Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda Staff Council Vision/Priority Other Citizen Initiated Discretionary Action Other Plan Implementation

Page 2 of 2

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT AUTHORIZING A SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BELMONT AND MIG CONSULTANTS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $164,960 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES FOR A PROPOSED PRIVATE MIDDLE SCHOOL FOR CRYSTAL SPRINGS UPLAND SCHOOL AT 6-8 AND 10 DAVIS DRIVE

WHEREAS, the City of Belmont has received a development review application to construct a private middle school for Crystal Springs Upland School (CSUS) at 6-8 and 10 Davis Drive; and,

WHEREAS, preparation of an environmental study is required for this proposed project; and,

WHEREAS, City Staff has received a proposal from MIG Consultants for Environmental Review Services and finds that the estimated costs are reasonable, and that the scope of work is appropriate for the project; and,

WHEREAS, the project applicant, Crystal Springs Upland School (CSUS), has agreed to the use of MIG Consultants for the project. All requisite fees will be deposited by CSUS in the City’s Environmental Review/Consultant Service Fee account to cover all costs for the environmental review services.

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

SECTION 1. To authorize the City Manager to enter into a Service Agreement between the City of Belmont and MIG Consultants in an amount not to exceed $164,960 for environmental review services for the proposed private middle school project for Crystal Springs Upland School (CSUS) at 6-8 and 10 Davis Drive.

* * *

ADOPTED October 28, 2014, by the City Council of the City of Belmont by the following vote:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

Meeting Date: October 28, 2014 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #7-H

Agency: City of Belmont Staff Contact: Carlos de Melo, Community Development Director, (650) 595-7440 [email protected]

Agenda Title: Compliance with Conditions of Approval for Autobahn Motors Dealership Reconstruction Project at 700 Island Parkway

Agenda Action: Motion

Recommendation Approve a motion confirming that the Parks & Recreation Department Conditions of Approval for the Autobahn Motors Dealership Reconstruction Project at 700 Island Parkway have been complied with and completed.

Background/Analysis The proposed project entails reconstruction of the existing Autobahn Motors Sales/Service facility at the site. The project will modernize the facility, modify the relative space for sales and service functions, and increase total square footage by 5,322 square feet.

On May 6, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, reviewed the project, and recommended City Council approval of a Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) Amendment for the Planned Development (PD) Zoned site, and the project Environmental Study (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration). On May 27, 2014, the City Council conducted a public hearing, reviewed the project, and approved the CDP Amendment for the PD-Zoned site. The Council also certified the project Environmental Study (IS/MND). The Council approval was subject to the following two Parks and Recreation Department Conditions of Approval:

1. The applicant shall install fencing or netting required to prevent baseballs or softballs from the Belmont Sports Complex from landing in the Autobahn Motors parking lot. A plan to address this condition shall be presented to the City Council for review and approval prior to building permit issuance for the project.

2. The applicant shall install a vehicle gate in the fence with the Belmont Sports Complex for access between the sites. The City requests the ability to occasionally use the gate to bring in equipment to the South Field. Use would be coordinated with Autobahn management. A plan to address this condition shall be presented to the City Council for review and approval prior to building permit issuance for the project.

Staff met with Autobahn Motors representatives to determine how to best meet the above-described conditions of approval. In evaluating the baseball/softball fencing Condition Number 1, it was determined (via site inspection) that it would be more appropriate and effective if the subject

Page 1 of 2

improvements were located along the existing right field fence line of the South Field (softball field) rather than on the Autobahn site. This approach would increase the current 10-foot high fence (adjacent to the dugout) to 30 feet for a distance of 200 feet along the right field line. Staff sought and received a fence construction proposal for this design; the cost for these improvements is estimated at $52,920. As such, staff is recommending that the cost of these improvements be equally shared between the City and Autobahn Motors.

To facilitate and manage this work, the City can establish a Capital Improvement Project, add it to the mid-year budget, and fund the City’s half from the Athletic Maintenance Field Fund. The proposed fencing design/modifications are anticipated to greatly reduce the likelihood of baseballs/softballs travelling from the South Field to the dealership property to the south. Staff believes this action plan satisfies Condition Number 1.

Moreover, Autobahn Motors has committed to replacement of the vehicle gate (Condition Number 2) to better facilitate access (if/when needed) from the dealership property to the Belmont Sports Complex. These improvements are already indicated in the project building permit plans which are currently under review by the City.

In summary, staff has worked with Autobahn Motors to meet the two Parks and Recreation Conditions of Approval and recommends the Council concur with the action plan for the project.

Alternatives 1. Provide direction to staff on an alternative approach to satisfy the Conditions of Approval.

Attachments None

Fiscal Impact

No Impact/Not Applicable Funding Source Confirmed: The City will establish a Capital Improvement Project to facilitate construction of the Sports Complex fencing modifications. Autobahn Motors will reimburse the City for half ($26,460) of the fencing costs. City funding for the pro-rata share of the project costs would be provided via the Athletic Fields Maintenance Fund; the Capital Project (and budget) would be established in conjunction with the FY2014-2015 Budget Mid-Year Review (February 2015).

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach: Council Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda Staff Council Vision/Priority Other* Citizen Initiated Discretionary Action Other* Plan Implementation*

Page 2 of 2

Meeting Date: October 28, 2014 Agenda Item # 7I

STAFF REPORT Agency: City of Belmont Staff Contact: Jason Eggers, GIS Coordinator, (650) 598-4206, [email protected] Agenda Title: Procure Self-Service Mobile Application for Belmont Residents and Staff Agenda Action: Resolution

Recommendation Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Public Stuff, Inc., for the creation, implementation, configuration, integration and maintenance of a self-service mobile application in an amount not to exceed $10,400 annually.

Background The City’s current work order management system is neither accessible by Belmont residents or by City staff working in the field. Service requests and follow-up action are channeled through a few staff members, via email, phone-calls and/or in-office visits. This workflow can be significantly enhanced by the use of a web-based mobile applications.

Analysis Information Technology, in line with Council’s priority for improving Citizen Engagement, has researched solutions for improving the way the City receives and manages service requests through the use of a self-serve mobile applications.

The benefits of a self-service mobile application include:

 The ability for the public to access City information, and submit service requests (pothole, faulty street light) via an application that resides on a computer or mobile device, e.g., smartphone or tablet.

 Enhance the ability for staff members and field workers to receive and conduct business from the field.

 A single point of entry and data repository for service requests and work order management, eliminating redundant work and potential data errors.

 An increase in accountability and transparency with online reporting tools and dashboards provided to both citizens and City management.

Page 1 of 3

Staff determined that a successful mobile application would include:

 Intuitive interface to submit requests that is fully accessible from the internet, smartphones and tablets.

 A method for attaching electronic images (i.e. photographs) to a service request.

 Map based, location-aware technology (i.e. GPS) input for detailed and accurate service request location.

 Proper work flow management to ensure service requests are routed to the proper department or individual and then back to the requestor with status and action taken.

 Online reports accessible to residents and City Staff, to aid in data transparency and resource management.

After weighing various options, Information Technology Department selected Public Stuff, Inc. to create the mobile application and integrate it with City’s work order management system, Infor/Hansen. Public Stuff, Inc., applications are used by several other agencies in the region, and recently successfully completed an integration with Infor/Hansen for Dayton, Ohio.

Public Stuff, Inc. has a proven track-record in providing applications that meet the project requirements as outlined above. In addition, Public Stuff, Inc. provided the only solution that included proven integration with the City’s Infor/Hansen application.

The City has the option to extend the contract for two one-year terms at the same annual cost of $10,400.

Alternatives 1. Deny this recommendation. 2. Refer back to staff for more information and/or alternative options.

Attachments A. Resolution B. Order Form Agreement

Fiscal Impact

No Impact/Not Applicable Funding Source Confirmed: Acct # 573-1-302-9040

Page 2 of 3

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach: Council Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda Staff Council Vision/Priority Other* Citizen Initiated Discretionary Action Other* Plan Implementation*

* Information Technology Strategic Business Plan and City Council Priority – Citizen Engagement

Page 3 of 3

Please complete the information highlighted in yellow below.

Date September 12th, 2014 Order form valid thru September 30th, 2014

Pro Edition Order Schedule (OS) Confirmation

General Information Client Name City of Belmont, CA

Client Contact Jason Eggers 650.598.4206

Client Contact Email [email protected]

Accounts Payable Information Accounts payable contact will receive invoice via email. Please enter their information below: AP Contact Jason Eggers AP Address City of Belmont, CA 1 Twin Pines Lane, Suite 365 Belmont, CA 94002

AP Contact Email [email protected]

Agreement Term Invoices will be sent out using the term start and end dates below: Term Start October 1st, 2014

Term End December 31st, 2015

PublicStuff, Inc. 214 W 29th Street, Room 205, New York, NY 10001 | email: sales@publicstuff.com | phone: (347) 442-7227

Description of Services

PublicStuff, Inc. (“PublicStuff”) will provide Client with access to PublicStuff’s citizen engagement & workflow management suite (the “Services”), which includes the following:

● Custom branded smartphone applications ● Public-facing web portal ● Cloud-based CRM and administrative dashboard

Staff User Accounts 50 included

Mobile Application City branded in-app store application for iOS & Android with Unlimited widgets. General Blackberry app.

Mapping Features Google (standard) and ESRI (enhanced)

API & Integration Yes Support

Voice & SMS Features Toll Free Phone & Text #’s (add-on’s)

Reporting Enhanced reporting with analytics

System Configuration Remote, account manager assisted

Training Remote, account manager assisted

Account Support Account Management support is available Monday through Friday between 9:00am and 6:00pm EST, excluding holidays.

PublicStuff, Inc. 214 W 29th Street, Room 205, New York, NY 10001 | email: [email protected] | phone: (347) 442-7227

Products & Pricing Conditions

Products & Services Product Billing Frequency Price

PublicStuff Pro 10/01/14 – 12/31/14 No Charge

Hansen Bi-directional Integration 10/01/14 – 12/31/14 No Charge

PublicStuff Pro 1/1/15 – 12/31/15 $6,900

Hansen Bi-directional Integration 1/1/15 – 12/31/15 $5,000

If billing frequency for any product or service above is Annual or any other period of time, the price shown for that item is the amount to be billed at each billing interval during the Agreement Term.

Purchase Order Information Is a purchase order (PO) required for the purchase or payment of the products on this order schedule? ⬚ No ⬚ Yes

If yes, please complete the following:

PO Number

PO Amount

Payment PublicStuff will send Client invoices on an upfront basis based on the PublicStuff Agreement Term Start Date. Payments will be due on or before January 1st, 2015. Any changes to the Term Start Date needs to be approved in writing by both parties. Should PublicStuff not receive payment when due, PublicStuff reserves the right to discontinue Services upon ten days prior with written notice. Client will be responsible for all costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys fees) PublicStuff incurs in collecting late payments not disputed in good faith.

PublicStuff, Inc. 214 W 29th Street, Room 205, New York, NY 10001 | email: [email protected] | phone: (347) 442-7227

Piggyback Option Clause Inclusion is not mandatory and will have no bearing on the contract.

⬚ Agree to extend to other State Municipalities ⬚ Do not agree to extend prices to other State Municipalities

Acceptance & Authorization This Order Schedule (“OS”) is entered into between Client and PublicStuff. Client accepts and agrees to adhere to the Terms and Conditions for PublicStuff Services hereby incorporated by reference and available at: http://pro.publicstuff.com/terms which, together with this OS will be referenced as the “Agreement.” This Agreement between Client and PublicStuff, which Client hereby acknowledges and accepts, constitutes the entire agreement between PublicStuff and Client governing the Services referenced above. Client represents that its signatory below has the authority to bind Client to the terms of this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement are Confidential Information.

PublicStuff, Inc Client:

By: By:

Printed Name: Surya Yalamanchili Printed Name:

Title: CEO Title

Date: Date:

PublicStuff, Inc. 214 W 29th Street, Room 205, New York, NY 10001 | email: [email protected] | phone: (347) 442-7227

Meeting Date: October 28, 2014 Agenda Item # 7J

STAFF REPORT Agency: City of Belmont Staff Contact: Bill Mitchell, IT Director (650) 637-2970 [email protected] Agenda Title: Procure Additional Telephone Licenses and Corresponding Maintenance Agenda Action: Resolution

Recommendation Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to issue a purchase order to Xtelesis, Inc., to procure and maintain ShoreTel telephone licenses in an amount not to exceed $10,465.

Background In May, the City Council approved the procurement and implementation of a ShoreTel Voice over IP (VoIP) phone system from Xtelesis, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $120,508. The new phone system became operational on Oct 2, 2014.

Additional funds are requested for required telephone licenses not accounted for in the initial quote. This oversight was due to poor documentation of the previous telephone system coupled with a misunderstanding of licensing requirements for non-VoIP telephones connected to ShoreTel equipment.

Analysis The below table reflects the adjusted cost/savings of the ShoreTel system over the next three years.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Savings Previous Phone System Annual Telephone Charges $ 107,916.00 $ 107,916.00 $ 107,916.00

Replacement Phone System Initial ShoreTel Capital Cost $ 120,508.00 Additional Funds Required $ 10,465.00 Annual Telephone Charges $ 36,752.00 $ 36,752.00 $ 36,752.00

Annual Savings $ (59,809.00) $ 71,164.00 $ 71,164.00 $ 82,519.00

ShoreTel licensing will be procured from Xtelesis, Inc., under the Western States Cooperative Agreement (WSCA) a Governmental Purchasing Alliance (GPA). Purchasing under this GPA meets the City’s purchasing policy per Resolution 9438.

The ShoreTel solution will result in $82,519 savings over the next three years.

Page 1 of 2

Alternatives 1. Take no action 2. Deny recommendation 3. Refer back to staff for more information and/or alternative options.

Attachments A. Resolution B. Quotes

Fiscal Impact

No Impact/Not Applicable Funding Source Confirmed: 573-1-302-9040

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach: Council Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda Staff Council Vision/Priority Other* Citizen Initiated Discretionary Action Other* Plan Implementation*

* Information Technology Work Plan

Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: October 28, 2014 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #7K

Agency: City of Belmont Staff Contact: Bozhena Palatnik, Public Works, 595-7463, [email protected] Agenda Title: Authorizing Purchase of Traffic Signal Software QuicNet Pro Upgrade Agenda Action: Resolution

Recommendation Adopt a resolution authorizing the purchase of Traffic Signal Software QuicNet Pro Upgrade from McCain, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $8,475.

Background In 1991, the City purchased BiTran Systems QuicNet Traffic Management System Software to remotely operate traffic signal controllers throughout the City. In early 2000, the software was upgraded by McCain, Inc. who purchased BiTran Systems. QuicNet Software is now outdated and cannot successfully communicate with traffic controllers and operate traffic signals effectively.

Analysis Staff requested a quote from McCain, Inc. to upgrade the software and the necessary components of the hardware. The cost of the upgrade is $8,475 that includes updated software/hardware, installation, configuration, one-year maintenance agreement, update of the intersection system map, and an on-site training. The City was offered a much reduced cost for this package due to our agency’s size. To ensure continued operability and future support, the City will subscribe to an annual maintenance agreement for approximately $5,000 per year. The maintenance agreement will cover upgrade of the software, 8-hours of remote support, and four quarterly maintenance sessions in which they will back-up and optimize our QuicNet System.

Alternatives 1. Take no action 2. Refer back to staff for further information

Attachments A. Resolution

Fiscal Impact

No Impact/Not Applicable Funding Source Confirmed: 231-3-701-8359/Computer Software License

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach: Council Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda Staff Council Vision/Priority Other* Citizen Initiated Discretionary Action Other* Plan Implementation*

Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL SOFTWARE QUICNET PRO UPGRADE FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,475

WHEREAS, the cost of the upgrade is $8,475 that includes updated software/hardware, installation, configuration, one-year maintenance agreement, update of the intersection system map, and an on-site training; and,

WHEREAS, the City will subscribe to an annual maintenance agreement that will cover upgrade of the software, 8-hours of remote support, and four quarterly maintenance sessions in which they will back-up and optimize our QuicNet System; and,

WHEREAS, the funds for this purchase is allocated in the FY 2015 budget, Account Number 231-3-701-8359/Computer Software license.

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

SECTION 1. The City Manager is authorized to purchase the Traffic Signal Software QuicNet Pro Upgrade from McCain, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $8,475.

* * *

ADOPTED October 28, 2014, by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

Page 1 of 1 Memorandum

To: City Council Finance Commission CC: City Manager, City Clerk, City Treasurer and Department Heads From: Thomas Fil, Finance Director Date: October 8, 2014 Re: Monthly Financial Report–September 2014

Please find attached the monthly financial reports.

The financial results for the period are embodied in three separate reports:

Performance at a Glance. This report measures performance in two important areas: General Fund balance 10 year trends and year to date revenues and expenditures on a budget to actual basis. These measurements are indicative of the City’s general financial health and the ability to meet expected results. The financial highlights are provided.

Fund Recap at a Glance. This report lists all year to date revenue and expenditure activity by fund. Furthermore, a comparison to budget is provided. This report is intended to highlight economic activity at the fund level and focus attention on budgetary compliance.

Budget Variance Report. This report compares year to date budget against actual for each major revenue source and expenditure function. In addition, a chart of major tax revenues two year treads is presented with the management discussion and analysis.

The purchase and disbursements activity for the period are embodied in a single report:

Cash Disbursements and Purchase Order Activity Report. This report lists the disbursements and purchase orders issued for the amount equal to and above $5,000 for the period.

Please feel free to call me at (650)595-7435, if you have any questions.

City of Belmont Performance at a Glance Results for the Period Ended September 30, 2014 (000's)

General Fund Balance Trends General Fund Balance Trend 6/30/2005 $2,507 Audited $10,000 6/30/2006 $3,544 Audited

$8,000 6/30/2007 $4,112 Audited 6/30/2008 $4,388 Audited $6,000 6/30/2009 $3,704 Audited $4,000 6/30/2010 $2,329 Audited

$2,000 6/30/2011 $3,818 Audited 6/30/2012 $5,085 Audited $0 6/30/2013 $6,200 Audited June September 6/30/2014 $8,204 Audited 9/30/2014 $5,578 Unaudited 6/30/2013 0

Revenues & Expenditures (All Funds) YTD Budget vs. YTD Actual Revenues & Expenditures (All Funds) YTD Budget vs. YTD Actual $20,000 $18,000 Favorable $16,000 YTD YTD (Unfavorable) $14,000 Budget Actual Variance $12,000 $10,000 Revenues $17,915 $7,859 ($10,056) $8,000 Taxes 6,183 971 (5,212) $6,000 Bond Proceeds 2,261 6 (2,255) $4,000 Others 9,472 6,882 (2,589) $2,000 Expenditures 16,425 16,091 334 $0 Operating 9,498 9,749 (251) Budget Actual Budget Actual Capital Projects 5,769 4,898 872 Revenues Revenues Expenditures Expenditures Others 1,157 1,444 (287) Net Change $1,491 ($8,232) ($9,723) Taxes, Operating Exp. Bond Proceeds, Capital Projects Others

General Fund Through the first quarter of FY 2015 the General Fund balance has decreased by $2.6 million to $5.6 million over the prior fiscal year end. In September, General Fund year-to-date (YTD) revenues of $2.4 million are at 50% of the YTD budget. General Fund YTD expenditures of $5.0 million are at 101% of the YTD budget. Fund Balance - YTD Fund Deficits As shown in the chart of Fund Recap at a Glance on page 3, the Recreation Fund, the Supplemental Law Enforcement Fund, and the Street Maintenance Fund have deficits that are expected to be eliminated in a future period. The Library Bond Debt Service Fund deficit is due to the combination of the timing difference in the semi-annual tax received in December and April and the 1st installment of semi-annual bond payments made in July. The Worker's Compensation Fund and Liability Insurance Fund deficits are from the payment of annual insurance premiums in July. The RDA Retirement Obligation Fund (Successor Agency) Trust Fund reflects a deficit of $7.3 million that due to the nature of the fund type, the entire outstanding debt balance is recorded and there are insufficient assets currently available to offset the liability; however, future receipts, both near and long-term, from the County Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund are expected to repay the bonds.

2 City of Belmont Fund Recap at a Glance Results for the Period Ended September 30, 2014 (000's)

Audited Revenues Expenditures CY YTD PY YTD Fund Fund Balance YTD YTD Variance PY YTD YTD YTD Variance PY YTD Fund Balance Fund Balance Fund Name 06/30/14 Budget Actual % Actual Budget Actual % Actual 09/30/14 09/30/13 (1) (2) (3) (1)+(2)-(3) GENERAL FUND 101 General $8,204 $4,701 $2,352 50% $1,286 $4,939 $4,978 101% $2,749 $ 5,578 $ 3,691 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 205 Recreation 0 561 563 100% 321 561 641 114% 421 (78) (70) 206 Library Maintenance/Operation 953 74 0 0% 0 83 82 100% 61 871 914 207 Athletic Field Maintenance 156 18 6 33% 3 10 10 98% 4 152 126 208 City Tree 311 6 114 1815% 1 12 8 66% 0 418 233 210 Development Services 0 632 740 117% 300 654 581 89% 348 159 13 212 General Plan 99 148 156 106% 10 144 2 1% 26 253 43 223 Fire Protection District 4,167 2,274 317 14% 161 2,290 2,229 97% 1,168 2,255 2,927 225 Police Grants and Donations 5 0 1 440% 0 1 0 0% 0 6 8 227 Supplemental Law Enforcement 0 35 27 76% 8 35 36 102% 21 (9) (18) 231 Street Maintenance 0 481 337 70% 218 490 449 92% 316 (112) (139) 234 Street Improvements 1,540 574 144 25% 217 873 580 67% 256 1,104 1,284 275 Affordable Housing Successor 4,002 176 58 33% 14 182 22 12% 8 4,037 4,030 Total Special Revenue 11,233 4,978 2,463 49% 1,252 5,332 4,640 87% 2,628 9,056 9,351 CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS 308 General Facilities 536 0 0 N/A 38 14 (4) -29% 0 541 430 310 Emergency Repair 333 167 167 100% 0 0 0 N/A 0 499 333 312 Comcast PEG Program 351 0 0 0% 0 5 0 0% 9 351 357 341 Planned Park 314 0 286 N/A 2 77 4 5% 10 597 342 343 San Juan Canyon Open Space 344 0 0 0% 0 16 0 1% 1 344 (1,557) 704 Special Assessment Districts 296 0 0 N/A 4 0 0 N/A 0 296 296 Total Capital Projects 2,175 167 453 271% 44 113 (0) 0% 20 2,628 200 DEBT SERVICE & OTHER FUNDS 406 Library Bond Debt Service 308 165 0 0% 0 169 456 270% 443 (148) (121) 501-505 Sewer Collection System 9,641 4,274 180 4% 50 2,617 2,271 87% 1,912 7,550 5,822 507 Sewer Treatment System 6,866 779 0 0% 0 147 212 145% 201 6,654 12,315 525 Storm Drainage Enterprise 4,055 500 266 53% 200 500 365 73% 216 3,956 4,204 530 Solid Waste Management 622 125 157 125% 86 115 67 58% 80 712 244 570 Worker's Compensation 84 272 259 95% 135 208 728 349% 717 (384) (483) 571 Liability Insurance 102 107 122 115% 50 106 249 234% 246 (25) 290 572 Self Funded Vision 0 8 6 68% 5 8 2 21% 2 4 5 573 Fleet & Equipment Management 2,117 632 624 99% 302 919 736 80% 350 2,006 2,353 574 Facilities Management 0 410 411 100% 242 410 374 91% 216 37 78 575 Benefit Stabilization 0 226 215 95% 129 203 169 83% 122 46 87 576 BFPD-Benefit Stabilization 4 53 53 100% 0 53 9 16% 2 49 (3) 710 Net Six 348 42 34 80% 57 109 67 61% 22 314 397 775 RDA Retirement Obligation Fund (Successor Agency) (6,754) 477 266 56% 0 473 770 163% 1,335 (7,258) (9,282) Total Debt & Other 17,393 8,070 2,592 32% 1,256 6,041 6,474 107% 5,863 13,512 15,906 Total All Funds $39,005 $17,915 $7,859 44% $3,837 $16,425 $16,091 98% $11,259 30,773$ $29,148

3 City of Belmont Budget Variance Report General Fund / All Other Funds for the Period Ended September 30, 2014 (000's)

General Fund All Other Funds Year to Date (YTD) Annual PY YTD Year to Date (YTD) Annual PY YTD Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual REVENUES Taxes $ 3,235 $ 863 $ (2,372) 27 a $ 12,940 $ 531 $ 2,948 $ 108 $ (2,840) 4 a $ 11,792 $ 121 Property Taxes 1,647 193 (1,454) 12 6,589 13 2,606 10 (2,596) 0 10,423 22 Sales Taxes 533 215 (318) 40 2,133 168 177 98 (79) 55 708 98 Other Taxes 1,055 455 (599) 43 4,219 351 165 - (165) 661 - Licenses and permits 229 190 (39) 83 914 419 221 311 90 141 884 168 Intergovernmental 67 78 11 117 266 77 751 164 (587) 22 b 3,004 168 Charge for services 1,033 1,056 23 102 4,132 953 5,739 3,227 (2,512) 56 c 22,956 2,147 Fines and forfeits 57 35 (23) 61 229 52 - - - - 23 Use of money and property 80 84 4 104 320 64 135 132 (3) 98 540 135 Miscellaneous - 47 47 - 33 172 572 400 333 687 254 Other financing sources - - - - - 2,261 6 (2,255) 0 d 9,043 5 Operating transfers in - - - - - 988 988 (0) 100 3,954 854 Total Revenues $ 4,701 $ 2,352 $ (2,349) 50 $ 18,802 $ 2,129 $ 13,215 $ 5,508 $ (7,707) 42 $ 52,859 $ 3,875 EXPENDITURES General government 1,255 1,282 (28) 102 5,019 1,010 1,450 1,883 (433) 130 e 5,800 1,605 Public safety 2,628 2,623 5 100 10,512 2,325 2,488 2,340 147 94 9,951 1,901 Streets and Utilities - - - - - 4,450 3,646 804 82 17,799 3,407 Culture and recreation 469 485 (16) 103 1,876 380 1,208 1,135 73 94 4,832 985 Urban redevelopment - - - - 1,320 1,252 68 95 5,278 1,838 Debt service - - - - - 169 456 (287) 270 f 676 443 Operating Transfer out 588 588 (0) 100 2,350 396 401 401 0 100 1,603 458 Total Expenditures $ 4,939 $ 4,978 $ (38) 101 $ 19,758 $ 4,111 $ 11,485 $ 11,113 $ 372 97 $ 45,941 $ 10,638 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ (239) $ (2,626) $ (2,387) $ (955) $ (1,982) $ 1,730 $ (5,606) $ (7,336) $ 6,919 $ (6,762)

Management Discussion and Analysis (Items with unfavorable budget variance more than $0.1 million) General Fund: a) Taxes – The budget variance is primarily due to the timing of semi-annual property tax receipts received in December and April. In addition, the majority of Sales Tax and Transient Occupancy Taxes received in July are related to June activities, which are subject to accounting adjustment. Other Funds: Revenues- b) Intergovernmental – The County Road Fund Contribution of $0.3 million is received annually towards the end of the fiscal year. Federal and State grants of $1.2 million will be received once the related Street Improvement projects occur. Other revenues are expected to be received in future periods. c) Charges for Services – The Sewer Use Fee (Collection & Treatment), budgeted for $10.9 million, is included as part of the City’s Property Tax bill to be received semi-annually, typically in April and December. d) Other Financing Sources – The budget assumed the issuance of Sewer Bond of $9.0 million, which will occur in a future period. Expenditures- e) General Government – The Liability and Workers Compensation annual premiums of $0.9 million was paid in July. f) Debt Service – The semi-annual bond payment for the Library CFD Bonds was paid in July.

Trends

$600 Sales Taxes & TOT - Monthly Comparison Major General Fund Taxes - 10-year Trends $5,000

$500 $4,500

$400 $4,000

$300 $3,500

$200 Thousands $3,000 Thousands

$2,500 $100

$2,000 $- Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun $1,500

$(100) $1,000

$(200) $500

$(300) $0 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 Sales Taxes FY 13/14 Sales Taxes FY 14/15 TOT FY 13/14 TOT FY 14/15 Property Taxes Sales Taxes TOT

4 City of Belmont Disbursements & Purchase Order Activity Report For the Period Ended September 30, 2014

Disbursements Amounts Equal to $5,000 and Above Vendor Description Date No. Amount AMERICAN ASPHALT REPAIR AND 2014 SLURRY SEAL PROJ/CCN524 9/26/2014 1068587 $260,889.06 BAMACOR, INC. CUSTODIAL SERVICES & SUPPLIES-VARIOUS SITES 9/12/2014 1068427 $7,274.19 BAMACOR, INC. CUSTODIAL SERVICES & SUPPLIES-VARIOUS SITES 9/19/2014 1068491 $8,601.77 BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT DESIGN 9/12/2014 1068428 $70,247.50 BELMONT FIRE EMPLOYEES DIRECT DEPOSIT 9/15/14 9/15/2014 2554 $86,896.13 BELMONT FIRE EMPLOYEES DIRECT DEPOSIT 9/30/14 9/30/2014 2569 $95,343.85 BELMONT REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL SCHOOL WATER AUGUST 9/26/2014 1068593 $5,633.65 CALPERS BFPD 457 CONTRIBUTIONS 8/29/14 9/8/2014 2534 $5,293.40 CALPERS BFPD PERS CONTRIBUTION 8/29/14 9/8/2014 2534 $30,445.29 CALPERS BFPD 457 CONTRIBUTIONS 9/15/14 9/19/2014 2557 $5,293.40 CALPERS BFPD PERS CONTRIBUTIONS 9/15/14 9/19/2014 2559 $30,071.37 CALPERS CITY PERS CONTRIBUTION 7/15/14* 9/19/2014 2560 $139,242.57 CALPERS CITY PERS CONTRIBUTION 7/31/14* 9/19/2014 2556 $141,083.40 CALPERS CITY PERS CONTRIBUTION 8/15/14* 9/25/2014 2568 $138,793.26 CIGNA CITY & BFPD LIFE INSURANCE 9/19/2014 2558 $6,416.49 CITY OF BELMONT EMPLOYEES DIRECT DEPOSIT 9/15/14 9/15/2014 2539 $360,439.16 CITY OF BELMONT EMPLOYEES DIRECT DEPOSIT 9/30/14 9/30/2014 2565 $363,918.81 EURO STYLE MANAGEMENT, INC. SENIOR CENTER PROJECT CCN 2013-519 9/19/2014 1068511 $5,587.24 FOLGER GRAPHICS PRINTING-FALL 2014 RECREATION GUIDE 9/26/2014 1068608 $5,851.45 FOSTER CITY, CITY OF 1ST QTR. FIRE MANAGEMENT SERVICES 9/19/2014 1068516 $23,333.33 GOLDFARB & LIPMAN LEGAL SERVICES-LIABILITY CLAIM 9/26/2014 1068610 $8,176.87 HDR ENGINEERING INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-SEWER RATE STUDY 9/12/2014 EFT519 $9,200.00 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 DEFERRED COMP PLAN-EE & ER 9/5/2014 1068391 $37,232.89 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 DEFERRED COMP PLAN-EE & ER 9/19/2014 1068532 $37,724.61 L.N. CURTIS & SONS FIRE TURNOUTS AND WILDLAND GEAR 9/5/2014 1068395 $8,279.77 L.N. CURTIS & SONS FIRE TURNOUTS AND WILDLAND GEAR 9/19/2014 EFT539 $5,285.31 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE SMERC FY 14-15 MEMBERSHIP DUES 9/19/2014 1068536 $5,077.00 LU, SLIM TRUST FUND DEPOSIT REFUND #3101 9/5/2014 1068397 $16,200.00 MAD SCIENCE OF THE BAY AREA INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT-SPY ACADEMY 9/19/2014 1068539 $5,945.00 MALEKOS, ANNEMARIE REFUND BELMONT COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTER FEES 9/12/2014 1068452 $13,080.00 MAZE & ASSOCIATES FY 14 AUDIT SERVICES-CITY, BFPD, NET SIX 9/19/2014 1068540 $32,400.00 MID-PENINSULA WATER DISTRICT WATER SERVICE-VARIOUS SITES & BUCKLAND SITE LEASE 9/12/2014 1068454 $30,681.59 NASH, TERI INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 9/26/2014 EFT623 $14,000.00 NAZARETH VISTA LLC SEPTEMBER SENIOR HOUSING SUBSIDY 9/5/2014 1068399 $12,210.00 NEJASMICH, INC. TRUST DEPOSIT REFUND #3131 AND #3130 9/26/2014 1068639 $20,000.00 PBIA DENTAL PREMIUMS SEPTEMBER 2014 9/5/2014 1068402 $18,846.20 PBIA DENTAL PREMIUMS AUGUST 2014 9/19/2014 1068548 $18,962.31 PG&E GAS & ELECTRICITY-VARIOUS SITES 9/5/2014 1068405 $11,749.04 PG&E GAS & ELECTRICITY-VARIOUS SITES 9/19/2014 1068552 $14,414.22 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLER DOF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (SUCCESSOR AGENCY) 9/29/2014 2567 $256,710.77 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION-SM COUNTY OES JPA 9/19/2014 1068559 $36,059.00 SPORTYKIDS LLC INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT CAMPS 9/19/2014 EFT529 $7,125.40 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENG. ASSOC. BASE STN. RADIO EQUIPT. 9/19/2014 1068567 $8,079.00 TELEWORKS, INC. TELEWORKS ANNUAL MAIN/SUPPORT 9/5/2014 1068413 $11,925.00 TRIVAD NAS SERVER 9/5/2014 1068414 $9,352.20 TRIVAD NW BACKUPS EQUP AND INSTALL 9/26/2014 EFT551 $30,827.85 U.S. BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM CREDIT CARDS-VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS 9/19/2014 1068573 $17,486.68 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY & BFPD EE & ER TAXES 8/29/14 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 9/2/2014 2585 $47,818.69 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY & BFPD EE & ER TAXES 9/15/14 2583 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 9/17/2014 $25,888.36

5 City of Belmont Disbursements & Purchase Order Activity Report For the Period Ended September 30, 2014

Disbursements Amounts Equal to $5,000 and Above Vendor Description Date No. Amount U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY & CITY EE & ER TAXES 8/29/14 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 9/2/2014 2584 $114,996.10 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY & CITY EE & ER TAXES 9/15/14 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 9/17/2014 2582 $111,874.39 VALLEY OIL COMPANY UNLEADED FUEL-VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS 9/26/2014 EFT562 $8,759.44 WOODSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTR WFPD STATION ALERTING INSTALL-NET SIX 9/19/2014 1068581 $30,000.00 Total Disbursements in Excess of $5,000 $2,827,023.01 Total Count 53 *A CALPERS SYSTEM ISSUE PREVENTED REPORTING AND PAYMENT OF CITY PERS CONTRIBUTIONS UNTIL SEPTEMBER.

Purchase Order Amounts Equal to $5,000 and Above Vendor Description Date No. Amount AUDIO VISUAL EQUIPMENT & INSTALL & SYSTEM INSTALL VMI, INC. & WARRANTY FOR EOC 9/29/2014 15 03592 $6,566.40 L.N. CURTIS & SONS 9 - EMS RESCUE COATS 9/15/2014 15-01520 $5,640.75 DYETT & BHATIA CONSULTANT - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 9/4/2014 15-03588 $550,000.00 DELL TECHNOLOGY REFRESH-DESKTOPS, LAPTOPS 9/18/2014 15-03590 $13,206.39 PROCUREMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A WIRELESS TRIVAD NETWORK 9/29/2014 15-03591 $17,695.00 CASEY CONSTRUCTION INC STORM PUMP STATION LID 9/4/2014 15-04867 $98,340.00 VALLEY OIL COMPANY FUEL 9/9/2014 15-04868 $25,000.00 TRINET CONSTRUCTION MARSTEN AVE STORM DRAIN 9/18/2014 15-04869 $52,663.00 RALSTON SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJ CON# EXPRESS PLUMBING 2014-526 9/19/2014 15-04870 $779,350.00 BAYSIDE STRIPE & SEAL THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS 9/19/2014 $23,042.00 Total Purchase Orders Issued in Excess of $5,000 $1,571,503.54 Total Count 10

6 CITY OF BELMONT TREASURER'S REPORT September-14

Agency Receipts and Disbursements Summary

Beginning Balance Ending Balance September 1, 2014 Receipts Disbursements September 30, 2014

City of Belmont $ 12,921,303.23 $ 2,043,995.98 $ 996,625.02 $ 15,961,924.23 Belmont Fire Protection District 3,233,312.48 215,781.05 (1,129,487.04) 2,319,606.49 Fire Net 6 Communications JPA 365,341.15 - (44,243.50) 321,097.65 Successor Agency of the RDA 1 4,478,054.71 - (3,065,497.76) 1,412,556.95

Total $ 20,998,011.57 $ 2,259,777.03 $ (3,242,603.28) $ 20,015,185.32 -

Balance Summary

Deposit Investments Pool Total

City of Belmont, Belmont Fire Protection District, $ 1,180,734.07 $ 18,834,451.25 $ 20,015,185.32 Fire Net 6 & Successor Agency of RDA -

1 In accordance with ABX1 26, the Belmont Redevelopment Agency was dissolved January 31, 2012 and the Successor Agency to the former RDA was established on February 1, 2012.

I certify that this report accurately reflects all investments of City of Belmont, Belmont Fire Protection District, Net Six, and Successor Agency, and is in conformance with the adopted Investment Policy mandated by Government Code 53646. Furthermore, I certify to the best of my knowledge, sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the Agency's budgeted expenditure requirement for the next six months.

Respectfully Submitted,

John Violet City Treasurer

Page 1 of 2 treasurer report 9-2014.xls CITY OF BELMONT TREASURER'S REPORT September-14

Investment Detail

Maturity Current Market Investment Pricing Investment Type Issuer Date Par Amount Value Interest Total Period Rate Source Manager

Deposit General Account Wells Fargo Daily $ 1,180,734.07 $ 1,180,734.07 Bank Bank

Investments: L.A.I.F.-POOL State of California Daily 17,719,924.58 17,725,218.41 3,632.58 90 days 0.246% LAIF LAIF L.A.I.F.-BONDS** State of California Daily 1,114,526.67 1,114,859.63 228.48 90 days 0.246% LAIF LAIF Total $ 20,015,185.32 $ 20,020,812.11 $ 3,861.06

**L.A.I.F-RDA Bond account was opened 12/99, Sewer Bond account was opened 12/01, Sewer Treatment Bond account was opened 3/10.

City of Belmont Investment Portfolio Trends $35,000,000 0.70%

$30,000,000 0.60%

$25,000,000 0.50%

$20,000,000 0.40%

$15,000,000 0.30%

$10,000,000 0.20%

$5,000,000 0.10%

$0 0.00% Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 LAIF-Pool 17,897,469 18,126,268 17,961,268 27,666,268 27,749,022 26,394,022 25,339,022 31,683,612 31,048,612 26,428,612 23,698,830 19,344,925 17,719,925 LAIF-Bonds 4,696,157 4,699,194 4,699,194 4,699,194 4,702,222 4,702,222 4,702,222 4,704,895 4,704,895 4,388,080 1,114,527 1,114,527 1,114,527 Interest Rate 0.26% 0.27% 0.26% 0.26% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.24% 0.26% 0.25%

Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: October 28, 2014 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #8A

Agency: City of Belmont Staff Contact: Scott Rennie, City Attorney, (650) 595-7409, [email protected] Thomas Fil, Finance Department, (650) 595-7435, [email protected] Jonathan Gervais, Park & Recreation, (650) 595-7488, [email protected]

Agenda Title: Amendments to Parkland Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements for Residential Subdivisions, Establishment of Park Impact Fees for Other Residential and Non- Residential Projects, and Procedures for Impact Fees

Agenda Action: Ordinances and Resolutions

Recommendation 1. Introduce an Ordinance Adding Article III, Development Impact Fees, to Belmont City Code Chapter 17. 2. Introduce an Ordinance Adding Article IV, Parkland Dedication Requirements and In-Lieu Fees, to Belmont City Code Chapter 17, and amending Section 6.10 of Ordinance No. 530. 3. Adopt a Resolution Amending Park In-Lieu Fees for Residential Subdivisions. 4. Adopt a Resolution Establishing Park Impact Fees for Residential and Non-Residential Development Projects.

Background Presently, the City imposes parkland dedication requirements on new residential subdivisions but does not collect a Parks & Recreation impact fee for other new development. The absence of this fee results in an inequity of cost sharing on development. Additionally, the City needs to update its parkland dedication requirements with each decennial census.

In September 2012, Council approved Resolution No. 2012-093 engaging SCI Consulting Group to develop a Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Study. The overall objective was for the consultant to assist the City with a capital study supporting a development impact fee on residential development for Parks & Recreation facilities, following guidelines set forth by the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.). The City’s existing parkland dedication and in-lieu fee requirements for parkland was also updated following the authority granted by Government Code Section 66477 (The Quimby Act).

Analysis SCI has completed their study and has issued reports for both the Park Impact Fee Nexus Study and the Quimby Land Dedication Requirement and In-Lieu Fee Study. These reports provide a justification for the establishment of a Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee and include calculations for two development fees: Park Land In-Lieu Fees and Park Impact Fees. The nexus analysis for Park Impact Fees provides all necessary data and findings to implement these fees under the Mitigation Fee Act, and analyzes Park Land Dedication Fees under Quimby Act requirements.

Page 1 of 6 Quimby Act Update and Park Impact Fees

Over the next twenty years, new development within the City will create a need for additional park and recreational facilities since the existing facilities are insufficient in number, size, location, and the kinds of recreational opportunities which they present to meet the needs of both the City’s existing service population and additional service population generated by such new development. According to the City’s Master Plan and current population estimates, the City will grow by approximately 2,419 residents by 2035. Based on the City’s General Plan and Parks and Open Space Master Plan, the City’s goal is to provide five acres of neighborhood and community park facilities for every 1,000 new residents.

Park Impact Fee Nexus Study – The purpose of the Park Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Nexus Study”) is to establish the legal and policy basis for the imposition of new citywide park impact fees on new residential and nonresidential development within the City of Belmont. The Nexus Study was prepared concurrently with the Quimby Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Study. The Quimby Study updates the City’s Land Dedication and In- Lieu Fee program for new residential subdivisions will be discussed later in this report. The proposed park impact fee program is designed to ensure that all new development pays their fair share of the cost of development of new parks, trails and open space in order for the City to maintain its existing level of service. The proposed impact fee does not include payments for land acquisition.

In order to impose park impact fees, the Nexus Study must demonstrate that a reasonable relationship or “nexus” exists between new development that occurs within the City and the need for additional park and recreational facilities as a result of new development. More specifically, this Nexus Study presents the necessary findings in order to meet the procedural requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, which are as follows:

• Identify the purpose of the fee; • Identify the use to which the fee is to be put; • Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; • Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; • Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

Summary of Park Impact Fee Nexus Study Results – Based on the research and analysis conducted for this Nexus Study, the following general findings are presented:

1. Park impact fees are needed to ensure that the City can construct park and recreation facilities and improvements needed for the service population growth created by new development. 2. Based on the City’s current population and existing park facilities, the City’s existing level of service (LOS) is 3.77 acres of developed parks, 0.37 miles of trails and 12.13 acres of open space for every 1,000 residents. The City’s Master Plan LOS goal for the acquisition and development of park is 5 acres of parks for every 1,000 residents.

Page 2 of 6 Quimby Act Update and Park Impact Fees

3. Based on recent cost estimates for Davey Glen Park, the average cost for new park development is $448,000 per acre. 4. A reasonable relationship or “nexus” exists between new development in the City and the need for additional developed parks and recreational facilities as a result of new development. 5. This park impact fee program and proposed park impact fees for the City are consistent with the policies of the City of Belmont General Plan.

Park Impact Fee Nexus Study Recommendations – Based on the findings presented in this Nexus Study, the following are the general recommendations provided by SCI:

1. The City of Belmont should adopt the following park impact fees in order to fairly allocate the cost of park development attributable to new development.

Proposed Park Land Use Category Impact Fees

Residential Development Per Unit Single-Family Detached $5,079 Single-Family Attached $4,513 Multi-Family Residential $3,795 Additional Residential Unit $1,888 Nonresidential Development Per Sq. Ft. Retail / Other Commercial $0.36 Office $0.52 Industrial $0.35

2. The City should periodically conduct a review of park development costs and building trends in the City. If costs change significantly in either direction, this Nexus Study should be updated and the park impact fees adjusted accordingly. 3. The City’s park impact fees should be adopted and implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Quimby Land Dedication Requirement and In-Lieu Fee Study – The California Subdivision Map Act contains specific enabling legislation for the dedication of land or fees in lieu of land dedication for neighborhood and community parks by a city, county or special district. This legislation, codified as Government Code Section 66477, and known commonly as the “Quimby Act,” also establishes the criteria for determination the land dedication requirement and in-lieu fee based on specific park standards.

There are two factors that determine the amount of land that may be required to be dedicated for a new subdivision with more than 50 units. These factors are multiplied by the number of dwelling units in the proposed subdivision to determine acreage to be dedicated for neighborhood and community parks. For subdivisions with 50 units or less, only the payment of fees in-lieu of land may be required. In this case,

Page 3 of 6 Quimby Act Update and Park Impact Fees

the Quimby land dedication requirement is multiplied by the fair market of the land that would otherwise be required to be dedicated for parks to establish the Park Land in-lieu fee.

The Quimby Dedication Requirement and In-Lieu Fee Study recalculates the three factors that determine City’s permissible land dedication requirement and In-Lieu Fees. Additionally, this Study makes specific recommendations for changes in the City’s Quimby Ordinance (Ordinance No. 530, Section 6.10).

Based on a review of the Quimby Act, the 2010 U.S. Census, and the City’s Quimby Ordinance, SCI presents the following key findings:

1. The City’s current land dedication requirement and in-lieu fee are based on 5 acres per 1,000 residents; an average household size of 2.71 persons for a single-family detached home, 2.41 persons for a single-family attached home and 1.72 person per multi-family unit; and land value at $2,400,000 per acre. 2. The City’s current land dedication requirement and in-lieu fee are shown below.

Quimby Dedication Requirement Quimby In-Lieu Fee Residential Land Use (per sq. ft.) (per unit)

Single-Family Detached Housing 590 $32,507 Single-Family Attached Housing 525 $28,926 Multi-Family Housing 375 $20,661

3. Based on the City’s current park inventory and population, the City has 3.87 acres per 1,000 residents. Therefore, the City’s maximum dedication requirement allowed under the Quimby Act is 3.87 acres of land for every new 1,000 residents. 4. Based on 2010 U.S. Census information, the average household size for single-family detached homes, single-family attached homes and multi-family units is 2.69, 2.39 and 2.01 persons per dwelling unit, respectively, for the City of Belmont. 5. For the purpose of determining the Quimby in-lieu fees, the fair market value of land in the City is estimated to be $2,928,000 per acre.

Summary of General Recommendations for Quimby Land Dedication Requirement – Based on the findings presented in the Study, SCI presents the following general recommendations:

1. The City should establish a Quimby land dedication requirement based on 3.87 acres per 1,000 residents and average household sizes based on the 2010 U.S. Census for the three residential land use categories shown below.

Page 4 of 6 Quimby Act Update and Park Impact Fees

PROPOSED QUIMBY DEDICATION REQUIREMENT Proposed Quimby Land Dedication Residential Land Use Requirement Square Feet per Unit Single-Family Detached Housing 453 Single-Family Attached Housing 403 Multi-Family Housing 339

2. The City should amend the City’s Quimby park in-lieu fees to reflect the new Quimby land dedication requirement and land values of $2,928,000 per acre. The proposed in-lieu fees are presented in the following table.

JUSTIFIED QUIMBY IN-LIEU FEES Justified Quimby Land Dedication Residential Land Use Requirement Square Feet per Unit Single-Family Detached Housing $30,450 Single-Family Attached Housing $27,089 Multi-Family Housing $22,787

3. The City should periodically conduct a review of the fair market value of land in the City. If land values change significantly in either direction, the Quimby in-lieu fees should be adjusted accordingly. 4. If a subdivider disputes the established fair market land value, the value shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser retained by the City. All cost to obtain such appraisal should be borne by the subdivider. 5. The Quimby land dedication requirement and in-lieu fees only mitigate the cost of land to provide new parks. Park impact fees as proposed include only the cost of required improvements to parkland and are not duplicated for residential subdivisions by the City’s Quimby program.

CEQA Status – Adoption of the ordinances and fees is not a project as defined under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), in that they consist of the creation of government funding mechanisms and other government fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.

Next Steps – Two new ordinances are proposed to authorize the proposed fees and to update the City's existing ordinance regarding parkland dedication and in-lieu fees.

Page 5 of 6 Quimby Act Update and Park Impact Fees

The first ordinance would add Article III, Development Impact Fees, to Chapter 17 of the City's City Code. This ordinance provides a framework for the City Council to adopt impact fees, such as the proposed Park Impact Fee, by resolution. The City's authority to adopt impact fees is not limited to park fees but extends to any impact fees adopted by the City, such as traffic impact fees and affordable housing impact fees.

The second ordinance would update the City's existing parkland dedication ordinance to conform with the Quimby Act and the results of the Parkland Dedication study. It also contains standards for parkland to be dedicated to the City and provides for a maximum 20 percent credit for private open space which meets strict standards.

The two resolutions provide for the adoption of the proposed fees. The fees will go into effect 60 days after adoption, provided that the two ordinances become effective.

Staff recommends that the Council open the public hearing, and, after closing the hearing, introduce the ordinances and adopt the resolutions including the fees as proposed.

Alternatives 1. Provide staff with alternative direction. 2. Take no action.

Attachments A. Impact Fee Ordinance B. Quimby Act Ordinance C. Resolution Adopting Park Impact Fees (Section XXIIA of the City of Belmont Fee Schedule) D. Resolution Amending Park In-Lieu Fees for Residential Subdivisions E. October 2014 Park Impact Fee Nexus Study Final Report F. October 2014 Quimby Land Dedication Requirement and In-Lieu Fee Study

Fiscal Impact

No Impact/Not Applicable Funding Source Confirmed: The Park Impact Fee is expected to generate between $3,795 and $5,079 per residential unit developed. The Quimby Act Fee is expected to generate between $20,661 and $32,507 per dwelling unit developed. Source: Purpose: Public Outreach: Council Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda Staff Council Vision/Priority Other* Citizen Initiated Discretionary Action Other* Plan Implementation* ∗ Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Sections 6062a, 66018, and 66019.

∗ Notice of the Public Hearing was posted on the City’s website Page 6 of 6 Quimby Act Update and Park Impact Fees ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT ADDING ARTICLE III, DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, TO CHAPTER 17 OF THE BELMONT CITY CODE

WHEREAS, Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution authorizes the City of Belmont (“City”) to enact measures that protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens; and,

WHEREAS, new development in the City may create the need for new capital improvements in the City, such as the need for public facilities, streets and roads, and affordable housing; and,

WHEREAS, as part of its review of new development under California Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Sections 65000 et seq.), the City reviews the need for new capital improvements in the City created by new development; and,

WHEREAS, the City desires to mitigate the detrimental impacts of new development on the need for new capital improvements by, in part, adopting development impact fees that are reasonably related to the burdens created by such development; and,

WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) prescribes procedures for the imposition of development impact fees; and,

WHEREAS, the City desires to adopt procedures consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act for the imposition of development impact fees; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered the staff report and all oral and written presentations; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Belmont City Code to authorize the establishment of development impact fees.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. BCC CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE III ADDED

Article III is added to Belmont City Code Chapter 17 to read:

ARTICLE III - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

DIVISION I. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS

Sec. 17.50 Authority and reference to article. Sec. 17.51 Purpose of fees. Sec. 17.52 Use of fees. Sec. 17.53 Calculation of fees by implementing resolutions. Sec. 17.54 Definitions.

DIVISION II. PAYMENT OF FEES

Page 1 of 9 Sec. 17.60 Obligation to pay fees. Sec. 17.61 Timing of payment. Sec. 17.62 Amount of payment.

DIVISION III. CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

Sec. 17.70 Application for potential credit. Sec. 17.71 Timing of application. Sec. 17.72 Amount of potential credit. Sec. 17.73 Reimbursement agreements.

DIVISION IV. FEE PROTESTS AND ADJUSTMENTS

Sec. 17.80 Notice of protest rights. Sec. 17.81 Costs of protest. Sec. 17.82 Applicant’s acknowledgment of adjustment or waiver.

DIVISION I. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS

Sec. 17-50 Authority and reference to article.

This article may be referred to as the “impact fee ordinance,” and is adopted under the authority of California Constitution Article XI, Section 7, California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. (hereinafter “Mitigation Fee Act”), California Government Code Sections 65000 et seq. (the planning and zoning law), and in accordance with the findings set forth in the ordinances codified in this article.

Sec. 17-51 Purpose of fees.

The purpose of this article is to establish impact fees that will be imposed upon development projects for the purpose of mitigating the detrimental impacts of development projects upon the need for certain capital improvements.

Sec. 17-52 Use of fees.

(a) The fees imposed by the city under this article shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the estimated reasonable cost of providing specified capital improvements, the need for which is attributable to development projects.

(b) As described in each implementing resolution, the fees shall be imposed based on specified capital improvement categories, which may include, without limitation, fees for transportation improvements, park land and facilities, police and fire facilities, affordable housing, and other capital improvements.

(c) For each separate improvement category, a separate fee shall be calculated and imposed, and each separately imposed fee shall be collected by the city and deposited in a separate and distinct “fee fund,” subject to the accounting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Page 2 of 9 (d) To more effectively mitigate the impact of new development and maximize the use of fee revenues, fee revenues may be used as temporary loans from one fee fund to another fee fund if the director makes findings, subject to the review and approval of the city council, of the following:

(1) Based upon planned phasing of the capital improvements, and anticipated timing of fee revenues to be collected, it is in the city’s best interests to allow the temporary loan.

(2) All requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act have been satisfied, including a specification of the amount loaned, the date of repayment, and the interest rate to be paid.

Sec. 17-53. Calculation of fees by implementing resolutions.

(a) In any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project, a technical report shall be prepared for each capital improvement category, subject to city council approval by implementing resolution.

(b) Each technical report shall:

(1) Identify the purpose of the fee by identifying the estimated types and quantities of development projects subject to the fee and their impact on the specified capital improvements.

(2) Identify the use of the fee by specifying the category of capital improvements to be funded by the fee.

(3) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the city’s use of the fee and the types of development projects on which the fee is to be imposed.

(4) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the capital improvements and the types of development projects on which the fee is to be imposed.

(5) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the specified capital improvement attributable to the development projects on which the fee is to be imposed. This shall include two elements:

(A) a quantification of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the specified capital improvements, which may include the estimated costs of land acquisition, design, construction, construction administration, general administration (including establishment and enforcement) of the fee program, and contingencies; and

(B) an identification of the method by which the city quantifies the proportionate responsibility of each development project for the cost of the specified capital improvements, which may be satisfied by establishing a formula which reasonably quantifies the proportionate responsibility of various types of development projects using standardized units of measurement.

Sec. 17-54. Definitions.

For the purposes of this article III, these terms shall have the following definitions:

Page 3 of 9 “Change of use” means any proposed use of an existing structure (or a previously existing structure) on a parcel which: (a) requires a building permit or other permit or city approval (such as a conditional use permit), and (b) the proposed use is included in a different property use category (as defined in implementing resolutions) than the last legal use of the existing structure.

“Development project” means any project undertaken for the purpose of development and shall specifically include a project involving the issuance of a building permit for construction or reconstruction, or any other permit or city approval required for construction or reconstruction or a change of use. "Development project" shall specifically include any change of use.

"Director" means the city's in finance director or person designated by the city manager to act as the director for purposes of this article.

“Fee” means a development impact fee imposed by the city in accordance with this article. “Fee” does not include fees charged in lieu of park land dedication under Government Code Section 66477, which are imposed under Belmont City Code Chapter 17, Article IV.

“Inflation index” means a recognized standard index (such as the Consumer Price Index), as determined in an implementing resolution to be a reasonable method of calculating the impact of inflation upon cost estimates set forth in implementing resolutions.

“Permit” means the city building permit required for a development project, or, if the development project consists of a change of use for which no building permit is required, any other permit or city approval required for the change of use.

DIVISION II. PAYMENT OF FEES

Sec. 17-60 Obligation to pay fees.

(a) Each applicant for city approval of a development project (including applications for a change of use) shall pay impact fees to the city, in accordance with the amounts set forth in implementing resolutions, unless the applicant establishes, to the satisfaction of the director, entitlement to a fee credit under Division III of this article or a fee adjustment under Division IV of this article.

(b) The obligation to pay impact fees under this article shall not replace an applicant’s obligation to mitigate development project impacts in accordance with other requirements of state or local law.

Sec. 17-61 Timing of payment.

(a) Nonresidential Developments. The fees for all nonresidential uses within a development project shall be paid in full before the issuance of the permit required for that use.

(b) Residential Developments. The fees for all residential uses within a development project shall be paid in a lump sum when the first dwelling in the development project receives its final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first; unless the

Page 4 of 9 implementing resolution for that fee makes the findings required by Government Code Section 66007(b)(1) and requires payment in full before the issuance of the permit required for that use.

(c) Affordable Housing Developments. For development projects that include lower income housing units meeting the criteria set forth in Government Code Section 66007(b)(2)(A), the fees for a development project shall be paid in a lump sum when the first dwelling in the development project receives its final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.

(d) Post-Permit Fee Agreement. If the fee is to be paid after permit issuance, the applicant shall, as a condition of permit issuance, enter into a written agreement with the city as provided in this subsection. The written agreement with the city shall be recorded in the office of the San Mateo County recorder.

(1) Contents of Agreement. The agreement shall be signed by the property owner, be in a form approved by the city attorney, and contain all of the following:

(A) A legal description of the property;

(B) A provision that the agreement runs with the land, constitutes a lien on the property for the payment of the fees from the date of recordation and is enforceable against successors in interest;

(C) A provision that the fees must be paid before final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever is first. Neither a final building inspection nor a certificate of occupancy shall be approved until all fees are paid, and no occupancy shall be permitted until the fees are paid; and

(D) A statement of the amount of the fees due.

(2) Release of Obligation. When the fees are paid in full, the city shall record a release of the obligation.

(3) Compliance. No city official or agency may issue a permit with respect to a development project unless either the fees required by this article have been paid as required by subsections (a) and (b) or an agreement meeting the criteria set forth in this subsection (d) has been entered into and recorded in connection with the development project. No city official or agency may approve a final inspection or issue a certificate of occupancy for a development project, or otherwise allow occupancy of a development project, until the fees required by this article with respect to such development project are paid in accordance with this section.

Sec. 17-62 Amount of payment.

(a) The amount of any fee to be paid for a development project shall be the amount of the fee in effect at the time that full payment is made to the city.

(b) The amount of any fee to be paid in connection with a change of use shall be:

(1) the amount of the fee required by subsection (a) of this section for the proposed use,

Page 5 of 9 (2) minus the amount of the fee for the last legal use of the existing structure or site.

(c) In the event that a partial fee payment is made for any development project, the full fee to be paid shall be the amount of the fee in effect at the time that full payment is made to the city, less the amount of the previous partial payment.

(d) An applicant may request a refund of a fee previously paid in accordance with this article only if the applicant provides written documentation to the satisfaction of the director that:

(1) the building permit (including any permit or city approval on which the fee was imposed) is cancelled or voided,

(2) work has not progressed on the building or other permit which would allow commencement of a new use or change of use, and

(3) the city has not already committed the fees to the construction of capital improvements. Any refund made under this subsection may include a deduction to cover the city’s administrative costs of processing the refund.

(e) The applicant shall have the burden of proving the amount of any fee previously paid, the date on which payment was made, and the development project for which payment was made.

DIVISION III. CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

Sec. 17-70. Application for potential credit.

(a) Applicants may receive credit for providing a capital improvement to the city against impact fees otherwise owed only as provided in this Division III.

(b) To be eligible for a credit, an applicant must submit a written application to the director that:

(1) Describes the specified capital improvements proposed to be provided by the applicant, with a cross-reference to the description of the specified capital improvements in the relevant implementing resolution.

(2) Identifies the estimated cost of providing the specified capital improvements (including construction, design, and land acquisition) for which the applicant is requesting credit.

(3) Describes the development project for which the credit is requested to apply.

(4) Demonstrates that either:

(A) the applicant is required, as a condition of approval for the development project, to construct the specified capital improvements; or

(B) the applicant requests to build one or more specified capital improvements which

Page 6 of 9 benefit the development project.

(5) To the extent that credit for land acquisition costs are requested, demonstrates that:

(A) the land is required for the capital improvement needs of the city; and

(B) the amount of credit for the land acquisition is equal to a reasonable estimate of the fair market value of the land based upon the costs of a property appraisal completed by a certified MAI appraiser retained by the City at the applicant's expense.

Sec. 17-71 Timing of application.

The application for credit shall be submitted by the applicant to the city at the time of the first application for any city approval for the development project. If the city requires the applicant to construct the capital improvement as a condition of approval for the development project, the applicant may apply for credit before recordation of a final or parcel map for the project or before issuance of a building permit, whichever comes first.

Sec. 17-72 Amount of potential credit.

(a) The director shall review the application for credit and recommend to the approval body whether it is in the city's best interest to allow the applicant to provide the proposed capital improvement and receive a credit rather than pay the fee.

(b) If the approval body approves the application for credit, the applicant will be entitled to credit against fees otherwise owed, provided that the applicant enters into an agreement with the city which includes the following essential terms:

(1) The design of the specified capital improvement is approved by the city.

(2) The applicant agrees to provide the specified capital improvements in return for the credit.

(3) The amount of credit available to the applicant shall not exceed the lesser of:

(A) the applicant’s actual cost of providing the specified capital improvement or purchasing land to be dedicated, to be evidenced by the submittal of written documentation to the satisfaction of the director, and

(B) the estimated cost of providing the specified capital improvement or land dedicated, as identified in the implementing resolution.

(4) The applicant provides improvement security in a form and amount acceptable to the city.

(5) The applicant identifies the development projects to which the credit will be applied.

(6) The credit may only be applied to fees which would otherwise be owed for the capital improvement category relevant to the specified capital improvement.

Page 7 of 9 Sec. 17-73 Reimbursement agreements.

If the city requires or approves construction of a capital improvement by an applicant, the city may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the applicant for that portion of the cost of the public facility which exceeds the need for the public facility attributable to and reasonably related to the development project, to be reimbursed by applicants for other development projects using those capital improvements.

DIVISION IV. FEE PROTESTS AND ADJUSTMENTS

Sec. 17-80 Notice of protest rights.

Each applicant is hereby notified that, in order to protest the imposition of any impact fee required by this article, the protest must be filed in accordance with the requirements of this article and the Mitigation Fee Act. Failure of any person to comply with the protest requirements of this article or the Mitigation Fee Act shall bar that person from any action or proceeding or any defense of invalidity or unreasonableness of the imposition.

Sec. 17-81 Costs of protest.

The applicant shall pay all city costs related to any protest. At the time of the applicant’s protest, the applicant shall pay a deposit in an amount established by the city to cover the estimated reasonable cost of processing the protest and any appeal. If the deposit is not adequate to cover all city costs, the applicant shall pay the difference within 15 days after receipt of written notice from the director.

Sec. 17-82 Applicant’s acknowledgment of adjustment or waiver.

As a condition of any adjustment or waiver made for a fee imposed upon a particular development project, the applicant may be required to provide an acknowledgment and waiver, in a form acceptable to the director, of any further right to protest or appeal the city’s imposition of fees for that development project.

SECTION 2. CEQA EXEMPTION

The City Council finds, under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3), that this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it is not a Project which has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The Council therefore directs that a Notice of Exemption be filed with the Alameda County Clerk in accordance with the CEQA guidelines.

SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Belmont hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section or subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.

Page 8 of 9 SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Ordinance shall take effect and will be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption.

SECTION 5. PUBLICATION AND POSTING

The City Clerk has caused to be published a summary of this ordinance, prepared by the City Attorney under Government Code Section 36933, subdivision (c) of the, once, in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in San Mateo County and circulated in the City of Belmont, at least five days before the date of adoption. A certified copy of the full text of the ordinance was posted in the office of the City Clerk since at least five days before this date of adoption. Within 15 days after adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause the summary of this ordinance to be published again with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance; and the City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of this adopted ordinance with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance. * * * The City Council of the City of Belmont, California introduced the foregoing ordinance, on October 28, 2014 and adopted the ordinance at a regular meeting held on [insert date], 2014 by the following vote:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

Page 9 of 9 ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BELMONT AMENDING SUBDIVISION PARKLAND DEDICATION AND IN-LIEU FEE REQUIREMENTS AND REORGANIZING THOSE PROVISIONS INTO BELMONT CITY CODE CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE IV

WHEREAS, Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution authorizes the City of Belmont (“City”) to enact measures that protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens; and

WHEREAS, the Quimby Act, Government Code Section 66477, authorizes a city to require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative map or parcel map; and

WHEREAS, the City has adopted the Parks and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan and the City of Belmont Park and Open Space Master Plan (“Master Plan”) dated November 10, 1992, containing definite policies and standards for parks and recreational facilities, including a standard of 5.0 acres of neighborhood and community parks for every 1,000 residents; and

WHEREAS, SCI Consulting Group has conducted a study for the City entitled “City of Belmont Quimby Land Dedication Requirement and In-Lieu Fee Study” (“Quimby Study”), dated October 2014, to determine population and persons per household as shown in the 2010 census, existing neighborhood and community park area, and land value, and to demonstrate that the amount of land to be dedicated and fees to be paid bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by future inhabitants of subdivisions; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered the staff report, the Quimby Study, and all oral and written presentations; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the City's existing ordinance regarding the dedication of parkland and the payment of in-lieu fees (the "Parkland Dedication Ordinance") to incorporate the results of the Quimby Study and to ensure that the Parkland Dedication Ordinance is consistent with State law.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS.

The City Council hereby adopts the findings set forth in the recitals to this Ordinance

SECTION 2. BELMONT SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE NO. 530 AMENDED

Ordinance No. 530, Section 6.10, Dedication of Land or Payment of Fees for Park and Recreation Purposes, is amended to read:

A. Parkland dedication and in lieu fee requirements are set forth in Belmont City Code Chapter 17, Article IV.

1750\10\1594142.1 Page 1 of 7 10/21/2014 SECTION 3. BCC CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE 4 ADDED

Belmont City Code Chapter 17 is amended by adding Article IV, Parkland Dedication Requirements and In-Lieu Fees, to read:

ARTICLE IV. – PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS AND IN-LIEU FEES

Sec. 17-100 Subdivision Ordinance Amended

This Article sets forth and amends requirements for the dedication of land and the payment of in-lieu fees previously set forth in the Belmont Subdivision Ordinance, Ordinance No. 530, Section 6.10.

Sec. 17-101 Authority

This Article is adopted in accordance with the provisions of the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) which is a part of the Subdivision Map Act, and implements the Parks and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan and the City of Belmont Park and Open Space Master Plan.

Sec. 17-102 Purpose and Scope

(a) This Article provides for the dedication of land, the payment of fees in-lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of residential subdivisions.

(b) This Article does not apply to commercial or industrial subdivisions or to condominium projects or stock cooperatives that consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment building that is more than five years old when no dwelling units are added.

(c) Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and not used for residential purposes are exempted from the requirements of this Article. However, in that event, a condition shall be placed on the approval of a parcel map that if a building permit is requested for construction of a residential structure or structures on one or more of the parcels within four years, an in- lieu fee shall be paid by the owner of each parcel as a condition of the issuance of the permit.

Sec. 17-103 Tentative and Final Maps Conditions.

(a) Tentative Map Conditions. As a condition of approval of a tentative map or tentative parcel map for a residential subdivision, the approving body must require that land be offered for dedication, in-lieu fees to be paid, or both, for park and recreational purposes, according to the standards and formula contained in this chapter.

(b) Final Map Conditions. At the time of final map or parcel map approval for recordation, the subdivider must, as required by the conditions of approval, offer to dedicate land, pay an in-lieu fee, or both, and provide improvement agreements and security for improvement of parkland for which the subdivider is receiving a credit.

(c) Limitation on Requiring Dedication of Land. In accordance with Government Code

1750\10\1594142.1 Page 2 of 7 10/21/2014 Section 66477(a)(7), the approving body may require dedication of land without the subdivider’s consent only for:

(1) Residential subdivisions containing more than fifty parcels; or

(2) Residential condominium, stock cooperative, or community apartment project containing more than fifty dwelling units, even if the development contains fewer than fifty parcels.

(d) Fees Required When Parkland Not Dedicated. The approving body must require payment of an in-lieu fee as provided in Section 17-105 when parkland is not dedicated.

Sec. 17-104 Standards and Formula for Dedication of Parkland.

(a) Parkland Dedication Standard. The City’s General Plan establishes a goal of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. However, under the Quimby Act, the City’s maximum dedication requirement is its existing ratio of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents. The area of existing neighborhood and community parks is 3.87 acres per 1,000 residents. For purposes of this Article, the City therefore adopts a parkland dedication standard of 3.87 acres of parkland for every 1,000 persons.

(b) Calculation of Dedication Requirement. Under the Quimby Act, a subdivision’s dedication requirement is calculated based on the average number of persons for each dwelling unit type (single-family, single-family attached, multi-family) as established by the most recent federal census. The average household size in the 2010 federal census is shown in Columns 1 and 2 in the following table. The parkland dedication requirement per dwelling type (Column 3) is computed by multiplying the average number of persons per dwelling type in Column 2 by the dedication standard in subsection (a). The subdivision’s acreage dedication requirement (Column 4) is calculated by multiplying Column 3 by the number of dwelling units of each dwelling unit type contained in the subdivision and adding up the total acreage.

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Dwelling Avg. Persons/ Land Dedication Requirement Acreage Dedication Unit Dwelling Acres Per Dwelling Type Requirement Type (2010 Federal (Column 2 x parkland dedication census) standard) Single Family 2.69 0.0104103 (Column 3 multiplied by Detached number of Dwellings) Single Family 2.39 0.0092493 (Column 3 multiplied by Attached number of Dwellings) Multi- family 2.01 0.0077787 (Column 3 multiplied by number of Dwellings)

Total Acreage to be Dedicated = sum of column 4 ______acres

1750\10\1594142.1 Page 3 of 7 10/21/2014 Sec. 17-105 Formula for Fees in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication.

(a) When a fee is required to be paid in-lieu of parkland dedication, the amount of the fee is be based upon the amount of land required to be dedicated as determined in Section 17- 104(b). The City Council will establish a fee amount per acre of land required to be dedicated based on the estimated fair market value of land in the City. The City Council will establish the fee amount by resolution which it may amend from time to time.

(b) A subdivider may request that the City complete an appraisal of the fair market value of the subdivided property. The appraisal shall be completed by a certified MAI appraiser retained by the City at the subdivider's expense. If the appraisal determines that the fair market value of the subdivided property varies from the estimated fair market value adopted by the City Council by more than five percent, the in-lieu fee shall be based on the appraised value of the subdivided property as determined by the appraisal.

Sec. 17-106 Use of In-Lieu Fees.

(a) All in-lieu fees collected shall be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. As specified in the City of Belmont Park and Open Space Master Plan, community parks serve an area within a four-mile radius, and so serve residents in the entire City of Belmont and all subdivisions. Neighborhood parks serve subdivisions that are within a one-half mile radius of the park or within the same planning area, as planning areas are shown in the City of Belmont Park and Open Space Master Plan.

(b) The City shall develop a schedule specifying how, when, and where it will use the fees to acquire and develop park or recreational facilities to serve the residents of the subdivision. Fees not committed within the timeframe required by Government Code Section 66477(a)(6) shall be distributed as provided therein.

Sec. 17-107 Procedure and Standards for Determining Requirement for Land or Fee for Tentative Maps.

(a) Parks and Recreation Commission Review. Before the approval of any tentative map with fifty or more units, any condominium project with fifty or more dwelling units, any tentative map or tentative parcel map where parkland dedication is proposed or improvements to dedicated parkland are proposed, or any tentative map or tentative parcel map where a credit for private recreational facilities is proposed, the Park and Recreation Commission shall consider, after a report and recommendation from the Park and Recreation Director, whether land should be dedicated, whether in-lieu fees should be paid by the subdivider, whether improvements should be made to neighborhood or community parks or dedicated land, whether a credit should be given for private recreational facilities, or any combination, in accordance with the standards in this Article and the criteria listed in this Section. The recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission shall be submitted to the approving body in its review of the tentative map or tentative parcel map.

(b) Suitability of Proposed Parkland. Land proposed for dedication must meet the following standards:

1750\10\1594142.1 Page 4 of 7 10/21/2014 (1) Use of the land as parkland must be consistent with the goals and policies General Plan, any applicable specific plan, and the City of Belmont Park and Open Space Master Plan

(2) The proposed parkland must be suitable for the type of park being developed considering location, physical attributes, sufficiency of size and shape, constraints, and proximity to existing parkland.

(3) The proposed parkland must have access to a public street.

(4) Park and recreational purposes may include land for the activity of "recreational community gardening," as defined in the Quimby Act.

(c) Parkland Outside a Subdivision. The City may approve the proposed dedication of parkland not located within the subdivision provided that the land proposed for dedication will serve the subdivision as described in Section 17-106(a) and is otherwise suitable as described in this Section 17-107(b).

(d) Fee in Lieu of Dedication. If the proposed dedication of land does not meet the standards set forth in subsection (b), the subdivider shall pay a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee amount shall be determined in accordance with Section 17-105.

(e) Land Dedication and Fee In Lieu of Dedication. The subdivider may both dedicate land and pay a fee in lieu of dedication when land suitable for dedication is smaller than that required by Section 17-104.

(f) Improvements to Dedicated Parkland. If the subdivider proposes to provide improvements and equipment on dedicated land, the proposed improvements and equipment shall be consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, the City of Belmont Park and Open Space Master Plan, and any other applicable adopted standards. If the approving body for the tentative map or tentative parcel map approves the improvements and equipment, the value of the improvements and equipment shall be determined by the Park and Recreation Director, and the value of the improvements and equipment shall be a credit against the dedication of land or payment of fees otherwise required by this Article.

(g) Credit for Private Recreational Facilities. A credit may be granted for private recreational facilities provided within common interest developments, as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code, against required land dedications or in lieu fees if all of the following standards are met:

(1) The private facilities are consistent with the all of the standards for mini-parks, neighborhood parks, or community parks contained in the City of Belmont Park and Open Space Master Plan.

(2) The private facilities are open to the public.

(3) The use of the private facilities is restricted to park and recreation purposes and their private ownership and maintenance are assured by recorded covenants that run with the land and cannot be eliminated without the consent of the City.

1750\10\1594142.1 Page 5 of 7 10/21/2014 (4) Credit granted for private recreational facilities shall be from zero percent to twenty percent of the amount of required land dedication or in lieu fee imposed by this Article. In no case shall credit exceed twenty percent. The amount of credit shall be determined based on the degree to which the private facilities complement existing or proposed public facilities serving the subdivision, as shown in the City of Belmont Park and Open Space Master Plan; and the degree to which the private facilities reduce the burden on existing or proposed public park facilities serving the subdivision.

Sec. 17-108 Implementation.

(a) At the time of filing the final map or parcel map for recordation, the subdivider must offer to dedicate any land as required, pay any required in-lieu fee, and provide improvement agreements and security for improvement of parkland for which the subdivider is receiving a credit.

(b) The City Council will accept, accept subject to improvement, or reject the offer of dedication at the time of map approval.

(c) The subdivider must coordinate any required improvements to public or private park and recreational facilities with the development of the subdivision to assure the availability of recreational facilities to serve the residents of the area.

SECTION 4. CEQA. EXEMPTION

The City Council finds, under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(4), that this ordinance is not a project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that it involves the creation of a governmental funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. The Council therefore directs that a Notice of Exemption be filed with the San Mateo County Clerk in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Belmont hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section or subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Ordinance shall take effect and will be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption.

SECTION 7. PUBLICATION AND POSTING

The City Clerk has caused to be published a summary of this ordinance, prepared by the City Attorney under Government Code Section 36933, subdivision (c), once, in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in San Mateo County and circulated in the City of

1750\10\1594142.1 Page 6 of 7 10/21/2014 Belmont, at least five days before the date of adoption. A certified copy of the full text of the ordinance was posted in the office of the City Clerk since at least five days before this date of adoption. Within 15 days after adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause the summary of this ordinance to be published again with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance; and the City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of this adopted ordinance with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance. * * * The City Council of the City of Belmont, California introduced the foregoing ordinance, on October 28, 2014 and adopted the ordinance at a regular meeting held on [insert date], 2014 by the following vote:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

1750\10\1594142.1 Page 7 of 7 10/21/2014 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT ADOPTING PARK IMPACT FEES (SECTION XXIIA OF THE CITY OF BELMONT FEE SCHEDULE)

WHEREAS, to mitigate the detrimental impacts of development projects upon the need for certain capital improvements, the City Council has considered and introduced on this same date Belmont City Code Chapter 17, Article III (the "Development Impact Fee Ordinance") which establishes procedures for the adoption of development impact fees; and,

WHEREAS, the City of Belmont has adopted the Parks and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan and the City of Belmont Park and Open Space Master Plan (“Master Plan”) dated November 10, 1992, containing definite policies and standards for parks and recreational facilities, including desired improvements for park facilities; and,

WHEREAS, while the City has adopted parkland dedication requirements and park in- lieu fees under California Government Code Section 66477 (the "Quimby Act"), not all development projects in the City which create the need for parks must pay park in-lieu fees, nor do park in-lieu fees include the costs of open space acquisition and park development; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the technical study prepared by the SCI Consulting Group entitled “City of Belmont Park Impact Fee Nexus Study” (“Nexus Study”), dated October 2014, which, in accordance with the provisions of the Development Impact Fee Ordinance, has identified the purpose of the park impact fee, identified the intended use of the fee, determined how there is a reasonable relationship between the intended use of the fee and the types of development projects on which the fee is to be imposed, determined how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the capital improvements and the types of development projects on which the fee is to be imposed, and determined how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the specified capital improvement attributable to the development projects on which the fee is to be imposed; and,

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Development Impact Fee Ordinance, the City Council desires to adopt this implementing resolution to establish park impact fees consistent with the findings of the Nexus Study; and,

WHEREAS, at least ten days prior to the date this resolution is being heard, data was made available to the public indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, including general fund revenues in accordance with Government Code Section 66019; and,

WHEREAS, at least fourteen days prior to the date this resolution is being heard, notice was provided to those persons or organizations who had requested notice of these fees, in accordance with Government Code Section 66019; and,

WHEREAS, notice of the hearing on the proposed fees was published twice in the

Page 1 of 2 manner set forth in section 6062a as required by Government Code Section 66018; and,

WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the City Council on October 28, 2014.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows based on all information submitted to or considered by the City Council during its deliberations on this matter:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2. Section XIIA of the City of Belmont Fee Schedule is hereby added to read as shown in Attachment A.

SECTION 3. The City Council may review park impact fees from time to time. For any annual period during which the City Council does not review the park impact fee, fee amounts shall be adjusted once by the community development director based on the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers – San Francisco Region.

SECTION 4. The adoption of this Resolution is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act because it is the creation of a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)

SECTION 5. This Resolution shall go into full force and effect on December 27, 2014 or on the effective date of the Development Impact Fee Ordinance, whichever is later.

* * *

ADOPTED October 28, 2014, by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

Page 2 of 2

ATTACHMENT A

XIIA. PARK IMPACT FEES

1. Residential Development FEE PER Fee per dwelling unit: DWELLING UNIT

Single-Family Detached Housing: $5,079

Single-Family Attached Housing: $4,513

Multifamily Housing: $3,795

Second Dwelling Unit: $1,888

"Single-Family Detached Housing" means free-standing dwelling units on separate parcels that do not share a common wall.

"Single-Family Attached Housing" means one-family dwelling units on separate parcels that share a common wall, such as townhomes.

"Multifamily Housing" means dwelling units contained in buildings designed for two or more families that are not on separate parcels, such as condominiums. "Multifamily Housing" includes mobilehomes.

"Second Dwelling Unit" means a dwelling units constructed under the second dwelling unit provisions contained in Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 24.

Page 1 of 2

2. Non-Residential Development FEE PER Fee per square foot: SQUARE FOOT

Retail and Other Commercial Uses: $0.36

Office Uses: $0.52

Industrial Uses: $0.35

"Retail and Other Commercial Uses" means all non-residential uses that are not Office or Industrial uses.

"Office Uses" means general, professional, and medical offices.

"Industrial Uses" means all manufacturing facilities.

3. Credits. Credits shall be given for dedication of land, payment of park in-lieu fees, improvements to dedicated parkland, or private recreational facilities approved by the City and provided under the Parkland Dedication Ordinance (Belmont City Code Chapter 17, Article IV).

Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT AMENDING PARK IN-LIEU FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS (SECTION XII OF THE CITY OF BELMONT FEE SCHEDULE).

WHEREAS, the Quimby Act, Government Code Section 66477, authorizes a city to require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative map or parcel map for residential subdivisions; and,

WHEREAS, the City has adopted the Parks and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan and the City of Belmont Park and Open Space Master Plan (“Master Plan”) dated November 10, 1992, containing definite policies and standards for parks and recreational facilities, including a standard of 5.0 acres of neighborhood and community parks for every 1,000 residents; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the study prepared by the SCI Consulting Group entitled “City of Belmont Quimby Land Dedication Requirement and In-Lieu Fee Study” (“Quimby Study”), dated October 2014, which determined population and persons per household as shown in the 2010 census, calculated existing neighborhood and community park area and land value, and demonstrated that the amount of land to be dedicated and fees to be paid bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by future inhabitants of subdivisions; and,

WHEREAS, the Quimby Study determined that the fair market value of land in the City of Belmont suitable for development of parks is $2,928,000 per acre; and,

WHEREAS, to incorporate the results of the Quimby Study and to ensure that its subdivision ordinance is consistent with State law, the General Plan, and the Master Plan, the City Council has introduced on this same date an ordinance amending the City's parkland dedication and in-lieu fee requirements (Belmont City Code Chapter 17, Article IV) (the “Parkland Dedication Ordinance”); and,

WHEREAS, the Parkland Dedication Ordinance establishes the procedure for calculating fees in-lieu of land dedication for residential subdivisions under the Quimby Act and provides that the City Council shall adopt by resolution the specific in-lieu fee amount; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the in-lieu fee amount; and,

WHEREAS, at least ten days prior to the date this resolution is being heard, data was made available to the public indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, including general fund revenues in accordance with Government Code Section 66019; and,

WHEREAS, at least fourteen days prior to the date this resolution is being heard, notice

Page 1 of 2 was provided to those persons or organizations who had requested notice of these fees, in accordance with Government Code Section 66019; and,

WHEREAS, notice of the hearing on the proposed fees was published twice in the manner set forth in section 6062a as required by Government Code Section 66018; and,

WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the City Council on October 28, 2014.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows based on all information submitted to or considered by the City Council during its deliberations on this matter:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2. Section XII of the City of Belmont Fee Schedule is hereby amended to read as shown in Attachment A.

SECTION 3. The adoption of the this Resolution is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act because it is the creation of a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)

SECTION 4. The fees imposed by this Resolution shall be applicable to all subdivisions where the tentative map or tentative parcel map is filed on or after thirty days following the effective date of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance.

* * *

ADOPTED October 28, 2014, by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

Page 2 of 2

ATTACHMENT A

XII. PARK IN-LIEU FEES – RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS

1. Park In-Lieu Fee FEE PER Fee per dwelling unit contained in residential subdivisions: DWELLING UNIT

Single-Family Detached Housing: 453 land sq. ft. per unit x $2,928,000 / 43,560 = $30,450

Single-Family Attached Housing: 403 land sq. ft. per unit x $2,928,000 / 43,560 = $27,089

Multifamily Housing: 339 sq. ft. per unit x $2,928,000 / 43,560 = $22,787

"Single-Family Detached Housing" means free-standing dwelling units on separate parcels that do not share a common wall.

"Single-Family Attached Housing" means one-family dwelling units on separate parcels that share a common wall, such as townhomes.

"Multifamily Housing" means dwelling units contained in buildings designed for two or more families that are not on separate parcels, such as condominiums. "Multifamily Housing" includes mobilehomes.

2. Credits. Credits may be given for dedication of land, improvements to dedicated parkland, or private recreational facilities meeting the standards described in Belmont City Code Chapter 17, Article IV.

3. Land Value. Park in-lieu fees are based on a land value of $2,928,000 per acre. A subdivider may request that the City complete an appraisal to determine the fair market value of the subdivider's property as described in Section 17-105 of the Belmont City Code.

Page 1 of 1

CITY OF BELMONT

PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY

OCTOBER 2014 FINAL REPORT

PREPARED FOR: BELMONT CITY COUNCIL

PREPARED BY: SCIConsultingGroup 4745 MANGELS BOULEVARD FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA 94534 PHONE 707.430.4300 FAX 707.430.4319 www.sci-cg.com

(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

PAGE i

CITY OF BELMONT

CITY COUNCIL Warren Lieberman, Mayor David Braunstein, Vice Mayor Eric Reed, Council Member Charles Stone, Council Member Cathy Wright, Council Member

CITY MANAGER Greg Scoles

FINANCE DIRECTOR Thomas Fil

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Carlos de Melo

PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR Jonathan Gervais

CITY ATTORNEY Scott Rennie

LEGAL COUNSEL Barbara E. Kautz, Goldfarb & Lipman LLP

CONSULTANT Blair Aas, SCI Consulting Group

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This Park Impact Fee Nexus Study was prepared by SCI Consulting Group under contract with the City of Belmont.

The work was accomplished under the general direction of Thomas Fil, Finance Director of the City of Belmont.

We would like to acknowledge the special efforts made by individuals and organizations to this project:

Jonathan Gervais, Parks and Recreation Department Nawel Voelker, City of Belmont Finance Department Carlos de Melo, Community Development Department Scott Rennie, City Attorney Barbara E. Kautz, Goldfarb & Lipman LLP

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

INTRODUCTION ...... 1 METHODOLOGY / APPROACH ...... 1 NEXUS REQUIREMENTS ...... 2 SUMMARY OF GENERAL FINDINGS ...... 3 SUMMARY OF GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 4

EXISTING PARK FACILITIES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ...... 5

PER CAPITA COST COMPONENTS ...... 7

DEVELOPMENT COSTS PER CAPITA ...... 7

RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION ...... 9

PARK IMPACT FEE COST COMPONENTS ...... 9 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES ...... 9 DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY FACTOR ...... 10 RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE ...... 11 NEXUS FINDINGS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE ...... 11

NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION ...... 13

EMPLOYEE EQUIVALENT DEMAND FACTOR ...... 13 NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEE FACTOR ...... 14 COST PER EMPLOYEE ...... 14 NONRESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES ...... 15 NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION ...... 15 NEXUS FINDINGS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEES ...... 16

PARK IMPACT FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION ...... 18

APPENDIX A – CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION THROUGH 2035 (CITY OF BELMONT) ... 21

APPENDIX B – PARK AND OPEN SPACE INVENTORY ...... 22

APPENDIX C – PARK IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE BY COST COMPONENT ...... 23

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE iv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 – PROPOSED PARK IMPACT FEES ...... 4 FIGURE 2 – EXISTING PARK FACILITIES AND COMPARISON OF LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ..... 6 FIGURE 3 – PARK DEVELOPMENT COST PER CAPITA ...... 7 FIGURE 4 – TRAIL DEVELOPMENT COST PER CAPITA ...... 8 FIGURE 5 – PARK IMPACT FEE COST COMPONENTS ...... 9 FIGURE 6 – DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY FACTOR (CITY OF BELMONT) ...... 10 FIGURE 7 – RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE ...... 11 FIGURE 8 – EMPLOYEE EQUIVALENT DEMAND FACTOR...... 13 FIGURE 9 – NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEE FACTOR ...... 14 FIGURE 10 – COST PER EMPLOYEE ...... 14 FIGURE 11 – NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE ...... 16 FIGURE 12 – POPULATION PROJECTION THROUGH 2035 ...... 21 FIGURE 13 – PARK AND OPEN SPACE INVENTORY ...... 22 FIGURE 14 – PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE BY COST COMPONENT ...... 23 FIGURE 15 – NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE BY COST COMPONENT...... 23

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION Over the next twenty years, new development within the City of Belmont (“City”) will create a need for additional park and recreational facilities since the existing park and recreational facilities are insufficient in number, size, location, and the kinds of recreational opportunities which they present to meet the park and recreational needs of both the City’s existing service population and additional service population generated by such new development. Based on the City’s General Plan and Parks and Open Space Master Plan, the City’s goal is to provide five acres of neighborhood and community park facilities for every one thousand new residents.

In order to provide adequate funding to achieve these long-term objectives, park impact fees are need to fund new development’s share of the cost of new park and recreational facilities and improvements. According to the City’s Master Plan and current population estimates, the City will grow to approximately 28,735 residents by 2035. This Park Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Nexus Study”) was prepared pursuant to the “Mitigation Fee Act” as found in Government Code § 66000 et seq. The purpose of this Nexus Study is to establish the legal and policy basis for the imposition of new citywide park impact fees (“fees”) on new residential and nonresidential development within the City of Belmont (“City”).

This Nexus Study was prepared parallel to another study entitled Quimby Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Study, April 2014 (“Quimby Study”). The Quimby Study updates City’s Quimby Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee program and details the City’s requirements for dedication of land for parks or fees in lieu of land dedication for new residential subdivisions. The Quimby Study looks only at the need for park improvements and facilities and does not included land costs required for park expansion. Consequently the two fees do not pay for the same public improvements.

METHODOLOGY / APPROACH Since the need for park and recreational services is service population driven, this Nexus Study utilizes a per capita standard-based methodology to determine the City’s park impact fees. Under this method, the cost components are based on the City’s existing level of service (“LOS”) standard for park, open space and trail development. This conservative approach excludes any costs associated with new City recreational facilities such as gymnasiums, community centers and aquatic facilities.

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 2

The per capita cost of park, open space and trail development needed to serve new residential development are established within this Nexus Study. The total per capita costs are then applied to four residential land uses categories according to their respective occupancy (population) per dwelling unit to establish a cost / fee per new dwelling unit.

For nonresidential park impact fees, total per capita costs are first multiplied by an employee equivalent demand factor and a nonresident employee factor to determine the cost per employee. The cost per employee is then applied to three nonresidential land use categories according to their respective employment density to establish a cost / fee per square foot of new building area.

NEXUS REQUIREMENTS In order to impose park impact fees, this Nexus Study demonstrates that a reasonable relationship or “nexus” exists between new development that occurs within the City and the need for additional park and recreational facilities as a result of new development. More specifically, this Nexus Study presents the necessary findings in order to meet the procedural requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, also known as AB 1600, which are as follows:

. Identify the purpose of the fee; . Identify the use to which the fee is to be put; . Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; . Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; . Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 3

SUMMARY OF GENERAL FINDINGS Based on the research and analysis conducted for this Nexus Study, the following general findings are presented: 1. Park impact fees, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, are needed to ensure that the City can construct park and recreation facilities and improvements needed for the population growth created by new development. 2. Based on the City’s current population and existing park facilities, the City’s existing LOS is 3.87 acres of park area, 0.37 miles of trails and 12.13 acres of open space for every 1,000 residents. The City’s Master Plan LOS goal is 5 acres of developed neighborhood and community parks for every 1,000 residents. 3. Based on recent cost estimates for Davey Glen Park, the average cost for new park development is $448,000 per acre. 4. A reasonable relationship or “nexus” exists between new development in the City and the need for additional developed parks and recreational facilities as a result of new development. 5. This park impact fee program and proposed park impact fees for the City are consistent with the policies of the City of Belmont General Plan.

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 4

SUMMARY OF GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings presented in this Nexus Study, the following general recommendations are presented: 1. The City of Belmont should adopt park impact fees in order to fairly allocate the cost of park development attributable to new development.

FIGURE 1 – PROPOSED PARK IMPACT FEES

Proposed Park Land Use Catergory Impact Fees

Residential Development Per Unit Single-Family Detached $5,079 Single-Family Attached $4,513 Multi-Family Residential $3,795 Second Unit $1,888 Nonresidential Development Per Sq. Ft. Retail / Other Commercial $0.36 Office $0.52 Industrial $0.35

2. The City should periodically conduct a review of park development costs and building trends in the City. If costs change significantly in either direction, this Nexus Study should be updated and the park impact fees adjusted accordingly. 3. The City’s park impact fees should be adopted and implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code § 66000 et seq.).

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 5

EXISTING PARK FACILITIES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS

This Nexus Study utilizes a per capita-standard based methodology to determine the park impact fees because the need for and demand for park and recreational services is driven by its service population. Using this approach, new park and recreational facility costs are reduced to a cost per capita based on the City’s existing LOS standards for such facilities.

This section generally describes the City’s existing park facilities and Master Plan goals for each. Figure 2 on the following page presents the LOS standards used in this Nexus Study for determining the proposed park impact fees.

PARKS According to the City’s 1992 Parks and Open Space Master Plan, neighborhood parks are typically a combination playground and park designed primarily for non-supervised, non- organized recreation activities. They are typically 2 to 10 acres in size. Mini Parks are smaller parks (1/4 acre to 2 acres) located within a residential area to provide play areas for small children or passive siting areas for residents. Community parks, ideally 20 acres + in size, are designed for organized groups or team sports, while also providing facilities for individual and family activities. School parks are city parks developed on school district property in cooperation with the school to provide neighborhood park-type facilities.

The City has ten (10) neighborhood and mini parks, four (4) community parks, two (2) undeveloped parks and five (5) school parks totaling 101.7 acres or 3.87 acres for every 1,000 residents. The City’s Master Plan standard for parks is 5 acres per 1,000 residents. Therefore, the City has an existing deficit of 29.9 acres of park area. Additionally, to accommodate the anticipated population increase of 2,419 new residents by 2035, an additional 9.4 acres of park area will be required of new development to maintain the City’s existing level of service. The acquisition of additional parkland will need to be funded with other sources of funds.

TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE AREAS Open space areas are for passive uses and provide space for trails, picnic sites and jogging circuits. They also provide use of waterways or serve as transportation corridors for trails. The City owns and maintains 9.6 miles of trails and 319.3 acres of open space area within the City. It is the City’s intention to continue the development of these areas when opportunities arise.

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 6

NEXUS STUDY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Figure 2 below presents the City’s Master Plan and existing level of service for parks, open space and trails. The LOS standards used in this Nexus Study for determining the park impact fee are shown in the last column of the table.

FIGURE 2 – EXISTING PARK FACILITIES AND COMPARISON OF LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS

Level of Service ("LOS") Standard per 1,000 residents Existing 1992 Master Type of Park / Area Facilities Plan Existing Nexus Study

Acres (Acres per 1,000 Residents) Neigborhood / Mini 22.1 3 0.84 0.84 Community 40.3 2 1.53 1.53 School Park Area 1 36.9 NA 1.40 1.40 Total Developed Park Area 99.30 5.00 3.77 3.77

Undeveloped Park Area 2.43 NA 0.09 Excluded Open Space 319.3 NA 12.13 12.13

Miles (Miles per 1,000 Residents) Trails 9.6 NA 0.37 0.37

Sources: City of Belmont Parks and Open Space Master Plan; Belmont "Parks at a Glance"

Notes: 1 Represents only the area of school sites used for park and recreational activities.

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 7

PER CAPITA COST COMPONENTS

This section presents the per capita cost calculation for park, open space and trail development and other associated costs based on the City’s existing level of service standard for each.

DEVELOPMENT COSTS PER CAPITA The figure below calculates the per capita cost of developing new parks in the City. As presented, the City’s existing LOS standards are multiplied by their respective average development cost per acre to arrive at a per capita cost. The average park development cost per acre shown is based on recent cost estimates for the development of Davey Glen Park. The average development cost for trails assumes $2.50 per linear foot for a 10 foot wide paved trail.

FIGURE 3 – PARK DEVELOPMENT COST PER CAPITA

Average Acres per 1,000 Acres per Development Cost Land Type Residents 1 Capita 1 Cost per Acre 2 per Capita Calc a b = a / 1,000 c d = b * c

Developed Parks 3.77 0.00377 $448,000 $1,688.96 Open Space 12.13 0.01213 $5,000 $60.67 Total Parks and Open Space 15.90 0.01590 $1,749.63

Source: City of Belmont Parks and Recreation Department

Notes: 1 Based on the City's existing level of service for developed parks and open space area. See Figure 2. 2 Based on estimated development cost per acre for 1.08 acre Davey Glen Park and rounded to the nearest thousand.

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 8

FIGURE 4 – TRAIL DEVELOPMENT COST PER CAPITA

Average Miles per 1,000 Miles per Development Cost Type of Park Population 1 Capita 1 Cost per Mile 2 per Capita Calc a b = a / 1,000 c d = b * c

Trails 0.37000 0.00037 $132,000 $48.84

Source: City of Belmont Parks and Recreation Department

Notes: 1 Based on the City's existing level of service for trails. See Figure 2. 2 Based on $2.50 per linear foot for a 10-foot-wide paved pathway.

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 9

RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION

This section presents the calculation of the residential park impact fees based on the per capita cost for park, open space and trail development and fee program administrative costs for the different residential land uses in the City.

PARK IMPACT FEE COST COMPONENTS The figure below summarizes the per capita cost components calculated in the previous section and includes an additional 5 percent for administration of the park impact fee program. Other City recreational facilities such as gymnasiums, community centers and aquatic facilities have been excluded from the Nexus Study and the resulting park impact fees. As shown, the sum of the three per capita cost components is $1,888.39.

FIGURE 5 – PARK IMPACT FEE COST COMPONENTS

Per Capita Cost Components Costs Development (Parks,Trails and Open Space) $1,798.47 Park Impact Fee Program Administration 1 $89.92 Total Cost per Capita $1,888.39

Notes: 1 Estimated at 5 percent of total costs for the administration of the park impact fee program including periodic nexus study updates, collection, accounting, annual reporting and other associated costs.

RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES The Mitigation Fee Act requires that development impact fees be determined in a way that ensures a reasonable relationship between the fee and the type of development on which the fee is imposed. Therefore, since the demand for and need for park and recreational services created by the City’s service population and since different residential land uses have varying household sizes, the park impact fee is expressed on a per unit basis based on their respective dwelling unit occupancy factor for three residential land use categories.

This Study also incorporates the addition of another residential unit to an existing property as a fourth category (labeled as “Second Unit”).

The four residential land use categories are as follows: . "Single-family detached" means free-standing one-family dwelling units.

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 10

. "Single-family attached" means one-family dwelling units on separate parcels that share a common wall, such as townhomes. . Multi-family residential” means buildings or structures designed for two or more families for living or sleeping purposes and having a kitchen and bath facilities for each family. . “Second unit” means an additional living unit, or granny flat, either a detached or attached dwelling unit, which provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons with provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary residence.

DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY FACTOR Based on 2010 U.S. Census information for City of Belmont, the figure below presents the dwelling unit occupancy factor calculation for three residential land use categories shown below. Insufficient data exists to calculate the average occupancy of additional residential units in the City; therefore, a conservative estimate of 1.0 person per unit is utilized.

FIGURE 6 – DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY FACTOR (CITY OF BELMONT)

Dwelling Occupied Total Unit Dwelling Number of Occupancy Land Use Categories Units Occupants Factor Calc a b c = a / b

Single-Family Detached 6,092 16,387 2.69 Single-Family Attached 545 1,303 2.39 Multi-Family Residential 3,654 7,341 2.01 Second Units NA NA 1.00

Average (2010 Census) 10,291 25,031 2.43

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 11

RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE The figure below presents the calculation of the proposed residential park impact fee. As shown, each per unit fee for the four residential land use categories are determined by multiplying total cost per capita by their respective dwelling unit occupancy factor.

FIGURE 7 – RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE Dwelling Unit Proposed Residential Land Use Total Cost Per Occupancy Residential Park Catergory Capita 1 Factor 2 Impact Fee 3 Calc a b c = a * b

Single-Family Detached $1,888.39 2.69 $5,079 Single-Family Attached $1,888.39 2.39 $4,513 Multi-Family Residential $1,888.39 2.01 $3,795 Second Unit $1,888.39 1.00 $1,888

Notes: 1 See Figure 5. 2 See Figure 6. 3 Proposed residential park impact fees are rounded down to the nearest dollar.

NEXUS FINDINGS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE This section frames the results of the Nexus Study in terms of the legislated requirements to demonstrate the legal justification of the residential park impact fee. The justification of the park impact fees on new development must provide information as set forth in Government Code § 66000 et seq. These requirements are discussed below.

IDENTIFY THE PURPOSE OF THE FEES The purpose of the residential park impact fee is for development of parks, open space areas and trails and associated recreational facilities to meet the needs of the new residential population generated by new residential development.

IDENTIFY THE USE OF THE FEES Fee revenue collected on new residential construction may be used to pay for any of the following: . Construction / development of park and recreational facilities; . Development of open space areas and trails; . Park impact fee program administration costs including periodic nexus study updates, collection, documentation, accounting, annual reporting requirements and other associated costs;

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 12

. Other related park and recreational facility costs resulting from population growth caused by new residential development.

Fee revenue may not be used to fund the following: . City operational costs . Park maintenance or repair costs

The City does not anticipate that general fund or monies other than the fee proceeds will be available to fund the development of future parks, open space areas and trails.

DETERMINE HOW THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEES’ USE AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON WHICH THE FEES ARE IMPOSED Since the need for park and recreational services is in part population-driven, new residential development in the City will generate additional need for new parks and recreational services and the corresponding need for various facilities. The fee will be used to develop and expand the City’s park and recreational facilities required to serve new development. The fee’s use (development of parks, open space areas and trials) is therefore reasonably related to the type of project (new residential development) upon which it’s imposed.

DETERMINE HOW THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NEED FOR THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ON WHICH THE FEES ARE IMPOSED Each new residential development project will generate additional need for park and recreational services and the associated need for parks, open space areas and trails. The need is measured in proportion to the occupancy per dwelling unit for four housing categories and the City’s existing park standards.

DETERMINE HOW THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE FEES AND THE COST OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES OR PORTION OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT ON WHICH THE FEES ARE IMPOSED The amount of park and recreational facilities needed to serve a unit of development is based on the City’s existing LOS standard for providing such facilities. The cost of park, open space and trail development and fee program administrative costs are defined on a cost per capita basis. These per capita costs are then applied to four housing types based on their respective dwelling unit occupancy factor.

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 13

NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION

In addition to the residents of the City, employees, who work in the City, also use and place demands upon the City’s park and recreational facilities. Just as future growth in the residential population will impact park facilities, future growth in the City’s employee population will also impact park facilities and additional park and recreational facilities are required for the future growth in employees within the City. Therefore, this section determines the park impact fee for nonresidential land uses.

EMPLOYEE EQUIVALENT DEMAND FACTOR Employees use park and recreational facilities in a variety of ways. They participate in lunchtime activities, community center functions, before-work and after-work group functions, weekend company functions, company sponsored sports leagues, lunchtime trail use, etc. However, one employee is generally not considered to have the same demand for or impact upon park facilities as one resident. In general, residents of the City can use the City’s park and recreation facilities year-round. Conversely, park and recreation facility use by employees is generally limited to shorter periods of time before and after work and during lunch or break times. This period of time available for park usage within the City is estimated to be two hours per day, five days per week. In order to establish an employee park usage factor of equivalence with residents, each resident is assumed to be able to use parks 16 hours per day, 365 days per year. Thus, for purposes of this Nexus Study, one employee is considered to have the equivalent park facilities demand of 0.09 residents.

FIGURE 8 – EMPLOYEE EQUIVALENT DEMAND FACTOR

Total Park Hours Available per Year 1 5,840 Hours Available to Employees for Park Use 2 520 Employee Equivalent Demand Factor 0.09

Notes: 1 365 days per year, 16 hours per day. 2 52 weeks per year, 5 days per week, 2 hours per day out of a 10 hour day in the District.

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 14

NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEE FACTOR In order to measure the impact from employees that do not live in the City, a nonresidential employee factor is determined using figures from the 2000 U.S. Census. As shown below, of the 13,919 employees working in the City in 2000, 12,512 were not residents of the City.1 Therefore, for purposes of this Nexus Study, it is assumed that 90% of employees generated by new nonresidential development with the City will reside outside the City. 2000 Census figures are found to be reasonably representative of the same ratio today.

FIGURE 9 – NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEE FACTOR

Total Workers 16 Years and Over 13,919 Workers 16 Years and Over Not Living in Place 12,512 Nonresident Employee Factor 0.90

Source: 2000 U.S. Census for Belmont, California

COST PER EMPLOYEE The figure below presents the calculation of the cost per employee based on the per capita cost multiplied by the residential equivalent factor and nonresident employee factor for nonresidential land uses. As shown the cost per employee is $1,290.19 or the equivalent of 8 percent of the per capita cost for a City resident.

FIGURE 10 – COST PER EMPLOYEE

Employee Equivalent Nonresident Land Use Per Capita Demand Employee Cost per Category Costs 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Employee Calc a b c d = a * b * c Nonresidential $1,888.39 0.09 0.90 $151.15

Notes: 1 See Figure 5. 2 See Figure 8. 3 See Figure 9.

1 Similar data is not available in the 2010 U.S. Census.

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 15

NONRESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES As mentioned earlier, the Mitigation Fee Act requires that development impact fees be determined in a way that ensures a reasonable relationship between the fee and the type of development on which the fee is imposed. Since different commercial / industrial land uses have varying employment densities, the nonresidential park impact fee is expressed on a per square footage basis based on their respective employment density for three nonresidential land use categories.

The three nonresidential land use categories are as follows: . "Retail / Other Commercial" means all retail, commercial, educational, hotel/motel and other commercial construction that is not office construction or industrial construction. . “Office” means all general, professional and medical office construction. . "Industrial" means all manufacturing construction.

NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION In order to determine the nonresidential park impact fee, the cost per employee is applied to the three nonresidential land uses by their employment density to arrive at nonresidential park impact fees per square foot. The employment density figures based on the Southern California Association of Government (“SCAG”) "Employment Density Study" dated October 31, 2001 prepared by The Natelson Company, Inc. Employment density studies are conducted infrequently. Other land appraisals and analyses within San Mateo County cite similar employment density figures, therefore the SCAG study is found to be representative of employment density with the City.2

Figure 11 on the following page presents the calculation of the proposed nonresidential park impact fee. As shown, each per square foot fee for the three nonresidential land use categories are determined by dividing total cost per employee by their respective building square footage per employee.

2 Housing Mitigation Nexus and Fee Study, 2014 for City of Sunnyvale and Big Wave Development Local Employee Projection for San Mateo County, 2014 by Enright and Company, Inc.

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 16

FIGURE 11 – NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE

Building Sq. Nonresidential Cost per Ft. Per Park Impact Fee Nonresidental Land Use Employee 1 Employee 2 (per sq. ft.) 3 Calc a b c = a / b

Retail / Other Commercial $151.15 420 $0.36 Office $151.15 290 $0.52 Industrial $151.15 433 $0.35

Notes: 1 Total per employee cost for nonresidential land uses. See Figure 12.

2 Employment density figures based on the Southern California Association of Government "Employment Density Study" dated October 31, 2001 prepared by The Natelson Company, Inc. The factors used represent the average values for the five county region. 3 Fees are rounded to the nearest cent.

NEXUS FINDINGS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEES This section frames the results of Nexus Study in terms of the legislated requirements to demonstrate the legal justification of the nonresidential park impact fee. The justification of the park impact fees on new development must provide information as set forth in Government Code § 66000 et seq. These requirements are discussed below.

IDENTIFY THE PURPOSE OF THE FEES The purpose of the park impact fee is for development of parks, open space areas and trials and associated recreational facilities to meet the needs of the new nonresident employee population generated by new nonresidential construction.

IDENTIFY THE USE OF THE FEES Revenue from fees collected on new nonresidential construction may be used to pay for any of the following: . Construction / development of park and recreational facilities; . Development of open space areas and trails; . Park impact fee program administration costs including periodic nexus study updates, collection, documentation, accounting, annual reporting requirements and other associated costs; and . Other related park and recreational facility costs resulting from population growth caused by new residential development.

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 17

Fee revenue may not be used to fund the following: . City operational costs; and . Park maintenance or repair costs.

The City does not anticipate that general fund or monies other than the fee proceeds will be available to fund the development of future parks, open space areas and trails.

DETERMINE HOW THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEES’ USE AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON WHICH THE FEES ARE IMPOSED New businesses will create new employees in the City who will use and create demand for new developed parks and recreational services and the corresponding need for various facilities. The nonresidential park impact fee will be used to develop and expand the City’s parks facilities, open space area and trails required to serve new development. The fee’s use (development of parks, open space areas and trials) is therefore reasonably related to the type of project (new nonresidential development) upon which it’s imposed.

DETERMINE HOW THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NEED FOR THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ON WHICH THE FEES ARE IMPOSED Each new nonresidential development project will generate additional demand for park services and the associated need for developed parks, open space and trails. The demand is measured in proportion to employee equivalent demand factor and the employment density for retail/other commercial, office and industrial land uses categories.

DETERMINE HOW THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE FEES AND THE COST OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES OR PORTION OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT ON WHICH THE FEES ARE IMPOSED The amount of park and recreational facilities needed to serve a unit of nonresidential development is determined by multiplying the determined cost per employee by the employment density for retail/other commercial, office and industrial land uses.

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 18

PARK IMPACT FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION

This section contains general recommendations for the adoption and administration of the park impact fee program based on the findings of this Nexus Study and for the interpretation and application of the park impact fees recommended herein. The specific statutory requirements for the adoption and implementation may be found in the Mitigation Fee Act (California Govt. Code § 66000 et seq.)

ADOPTION REQUIREMENTS The following are the general requirements for approval and adoption of the Park Impact Fee Nexus Study and proposed park impact fees. 1. The local agency shall conduct at least “one open and public meeting” as part of a regularly scheduled meeting on the proposed fees. 2. At least 14 days before the meeting, the local agency shall mail out a notice of the meeting to any interested party who filed a written request for notice of the adoption of new or increased fees. 3. At least 10 days before the meeting, the local agency is to make available to the public the Nexus Study for review. 4. At least 10 days before the public hearing, a notice of the time and place of the meeting, shall be published twice in a newspaper of general circulation. 5. The park impact fees take effect 60 days after adoption of the resolution or ordinance.

ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS The park impact fees should be expended solely for the purpose for which they were collected. Any interest earned by such account should be deposited in that account and expended solely for the purpose for which originally collected.

ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The following information must be made available to the public within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year: . a brief description of the type of fee in the account; . the amount of the fee; . the beginning and ending balance of the account; . the fees collected that year and the interest earned;

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 19

. an identification of each public improvement for which the fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures for each improvement; . an identification of an approximate date by which construction of the improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement; . a description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, the date on which any loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest to be returned to the account; and . the amount of money refunded under section Govt. Code § 66001.

FIVE-YEAR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS For the fifth fiscal year following the first receipt of any park impact fee proceeds, and every five years thereafter, the City shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted: . identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put; . demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged; . identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements; . designate the approximate dates on which the funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 20

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Current and Projected City Population through 2035 Appendix B – Park and Open Space Inventory Appendix C – Park Impact Fee Schedules by Cost Component

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 21

APPENDIX A – CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION THROUGH 2035 (CITY OF BELMONT)

FIGURE 12 – POPULATION PROJECTION THROUGH 2035

Population Projection 2010 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

City of Belmont 25,835 26,316 26,500 27,200 27,700 28,200 28,735

Source: 2010 U.S. Census, Association of Bay Area Governments 2009 Population Projections and California Department of Finance

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 22

APPENDIX B – PARK AND OPEN SPACE INVENTORY

FIGURE 13 – PARK AND OPEN SPACE INVENTORY

Name of Park / Area Acres

Neighborhood / Mini Parks Alexander Park 1.35 Cipriani Park 9.95 College View Park 0.11 Hallmark Park 5.21 Hastings Tot Lot 0.25 McDougal Park 3.01 O'Donnell Park 0.90 Patricia Wharton Park 0.10 Semeria Park 0.20 Wakefield Park 1.05 Total Neighborhood Parks 22.13

Community Parks Barrett Commumity Center 5.00 Belameda Park 2.89 Belmont Sports Complex 12.56 Twin Pines Park 19.82 Total Community Parks 40.27

School Park Acres 1 Fox School 6.1 Ralston Middle School 7.4 Carlmont High School 13.5 Central School 3.4 Nesbit School 6.5 Total School Park Acres 36.9

Open Space Hidden Canyon Park 23.73 San Juan Canyon Open Space 35.00 Waterdog Lake Open Space 260.58 Total Open Space 319.31

Undeveloped Parks Davey Glen Park 1.09 Ralston Ranch Park 1.34 Total Undeveloped Parks 2.43

Notes: 1 Represents only the area of school sites used for park and recreational activities.

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 23

APPENDIX C – PARK IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE BY COST COMPONENT

FIGURE 14 – PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE BY COST COMPONENT

Dwelling Per Capita & Per Unit Cost Components Unit Development Costs Residential Land Use Occupancy Fee Program Catergory Factor Parks Open Space Trails Administration Total

Per Capita Cost $1,688.96 $60.67 $48.84 $89.92 $1,888.39 Cost / Fee per Unit Single-Family Detached 2.69 $4,543 $163 $131 $242 $5,079 Single-Family Attached 2.39 $4,037 $145 $117 $215 $4,513 Multi-Family Residential 2.01 $3,395 $122 $98 $181 $3,795 Second Unit 1.00 $1,689 $61 $49 $90 $1,888

FIGURE 15 – NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE BY COST COMPONENT

Development Building (Parks,Trails Nonresidential Land Use Sq. Ft. Per and Open Fee Program Category Employee Space) Administration Total

Per Employee Cost $143.95 $7.20 $151.15 Cost / Fee per Sq. Ft. Retail / Other Commercial 420 $0.34 $0.02 $0.36 Office 290 $0.50 $0.02 $0.52 Industrial 433 $0.33 $0.02 $0.35

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 PAGE 24

(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

CITY OF BELMONT PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014

CITY OF BELMONT

QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY

OCTOBER 2014 FINAL REPORT

PREPARED FOR: BELMONT CITY COUNCIL

PREPARED BY: SCIConsultingGroup 4745 MANGELS BOULEVARD FAIRFIELD, CA 94534 PHONE 707.430.4300 FAX 707.430.4319 www.sci-cg.com

Page i

CITY OF BELMONT

CITY COUNCIL Warren Lieberman, Mayor David Braunstein, Vice Mayor Eric Reed, Council Member Charles Stone, Council Member Cathy Wright, Council Member

CITY MANAGER Greg Scoles

FINANCE DIRECTOR Thomas Fil

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Carlos de Melo

PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR Jonathan Gervais

CITY ATTORNEY Scott Rennie

LEGAL COUNSEL Barbara E. Kautz, Goldfarb & Lipman LLP

CONSULTANT Blair Aas, SCI Consulting Group

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

INTRODUCTION ...... 1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ...... 1 SUMMARY OF GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 2

DETERMINATION OF QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT ...... 4

QUIMBY LAND STANDARD ...... 4 DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY FACTORS ...... 4 QUIMBY DEDICATION REQUIREMENT ...... 6

DETERMINATION OF QUIMBY IN-LIEU FEES ...... 7

FAIR MARKET LAND VALUE FOR PARKS ...... 7

APPENDIX A – PARK AND SCHOOL GROUNDS INVENTORY ...... 10

APPENDIX B – CALIFORNIA GOVT. CODE § 66477 (“THE QUIMBY ACT”) ...... 11

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 Page iii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 – QUIMBY DEDICATION REQUIREMENT ...... 2 FIGURE 2 – QUIMBY IN-LIEU FEES ...... 3 FIGURE 3 – DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY FACTORS (CITY OF BELMONT) ...... 5 FIGURE 4 – JUSTIFIED QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT ...... 6 FIGURE 5 – JUSTIFIED QUIMBY IN-LIEU FEES ...... 8 FIGURE 6 – PARK INVENTORY ...... 10

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 PAGE 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION The California Government Code contains specific enabling legislation for the dedication of land or fee in lieu of land dedication for neighborhood and community parks by a city, county or special district. This legislation, codified as Section 66477 of the Government Code and known commonly as the “Quimby Act,” also establishes the criteria for determination the land dedication requirement and in-lieu fee based on specific park standards.

There are two factors that determine the amount of land that may be required to be dedicated for a new subdivision. These factors are multiplied by the number of respective dwelling units for the proposed subdivision to determine acreage to be dedicated for neighborhood and community parks. In some instances, the payment of a fee in lieu of land may be considered. In this case, the Quimby dedication requirement is multiplied by the fair-market of the land which would be otherwise be required to be dedicated for parks to establish the Quimby in-lieu fee.

This Quimby Dedication Requirement and In-Lieu Fee Study (“Study”) presents a recalculation of the three factors that determine City’s Quimby land dedication requirement and In-Lieu Fees. Additionally, this Study makes specific recommendations for changes in the City’s Quimby Ordinance.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS Based on a review of the Quimby Act, the 2010 U.S. Census, and the City’s Quimby Ordinance, the following key findings are presented: 1. The City’s current Quimby land dedication requirement and in-lieu fee are based on 5 acres per 1,000 residents; an average household size of 2.71 persons for a single-family detached home, 2.41 persons for a single-family attached home and 1.72 person per multi-family unit; and land value at $2,400,000 per acre.

2. The City’s current land dedication requirement and in-lieu fee are shown on the following page.

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 PAGE 2

FIGURE 1 – CURRENT QUIMBY DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE

Quimby Dedication Requirement Quimby In-Lieu Residential Land Use (per sq. ft.) Fee (per unit)

Single-Family Detached Housing 590 $32,507 Single-Family Attached Housing 525 $28,926 Multi-Family Housing 375 $20,661

3. Based on the City’s current park inventory and population, the City has 3.87 acres per 1,000 residents. Therefore, the City’s maximum dedication requirement allowed under the Quimby Act is 3.87 acres of land for every new 1,000 residents. 4. Based on 2010 U.S. Census information, the average household size for single- family detached homes, single-family attached homes and multi-family units is 2.69, 2.39 and 2.01 persons per dwelling unit, respectively, for the City of Belmont. 5. For the purpose of determining the Quimby in-lieu fees, the fair market value of land in the City is estimated to be $2,928,000 per acre.

SUMMARY OF GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings presented in this Study, the following general recommendations are presented: 1. The City may establish a Quimby land dedication requirement based on 3.87 acres per 1,000 residents and average dwelling unit occupancy based on figures from the 2010 U.S. Census for the three residential land use categories shown below.

FIGURE 2 – QUIMBY DEDICATION REQUIREMENT

Justified Quimby Land Dedication Residential Land Use Requirement Square Feet per Unit Single-Family Detached Housing 453 Single-Family Attached Housing 403 Multi-Family Housing 339

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 PAGE 3

2. The City may amend the City’s Quimby in-lieu fee to reflect the new Quimby land dedication requirement and land values of $2,928,000 per acre. The in-lieu fee is presented in the following table.

FIGURE 3 – QUIMBY IN-LIEU FEE

Justified Quimby Residential Land Use In-Lieu Fee Per Dwelling Unit Single-Family Detached Housing $30,450 Single-Family Attached Housing $27,089 Multi-Family Housing $22,787

3. The City should periodically conduct a review of the fair market value of land in the City. If land values change significantly in either direction, the Quimby in-lieu fee should be adjusted accordingly. 4. If a subdivider disputes the land value used to determine the in-lieu fee, the value shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser retained by the City. All cost to obtain such appraisal will be borne by the subdivder. 5. The Quimby land dedication requirement and in-lieu fee should be adopted and implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Quimby Act (California Govt. Code § 66477). 6. The Quimby land dedication requirement and/or in-lieu fee only mitigate the cost of land to provide new parks. Park impact fees include only the cost of required improvements to parkland and are not duplicated with the City’s Quimby program.1

1 This Study was prepared parallel to a Park Impact Fee Nexus Study to establish the legal and policy basis for the imposition of park impact fees to fund the development of parks, trails and open space.

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 PAGE 4

DETERMINATION OF QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT

QUIMBY LAND STANDARD Under the Quimby Act, the dedication of land, or payment of fees, or both, cannot exceed the proportionate amount necessary to provide three acres of park area per 1,000 persons residing within the subdivision, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area exceeds that limit, in which case the calculated amount may be adopted as a higher standard not to exceed five acres per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision.

Based on the City’s current park inventory, City residents are currently served by approximately 101.73 acres of park area. With a current population of approximately 26,316, this represents a ratio of 3.87 acres of neighborhood and community park land for every 1,000 residents of the City.

Since the City’s existing park area is exceeds 3 acres per 1,000 residents, the City’s maximum dedication requirement and/or fee allowed under the Quimby Act is the City’s current ratio – 3.87 acres of park land for every 1,000 residents.

DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY FACTORS Pursuant to Govt. Code § 64477(a)(2), the amount of land dedicated or fees paid shall be based upon a project’s population density, which shall be in part determined based on the average number of persons per household according to the most recent federal census.

Since the need for and demand for park and recreational services is inherently driven by population and since different residential land uses have varying household sizes, it is recommended that the land dedication requirement and in-lieu fees be expressed on a per unit based on their respective average household size for three residential land use categories.

The three residential land use categories are as follows:  "Single-family detached" means free-standing one-family dwelling units;  "Single-family attached" means one-family dwelling units on separate parcels that share a common wall, such as townhomes; and  Multi-family residential” means buildings or structures designed for two or more families for living or sleeping purposes and having a kitchen and bath facilities for each family. This category also includes mobile homes.

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 PAGE 5

Based on figures from the 2010 U.S. Census, figure 3 below presents the determination of dwelling unit occupancy factors for three residential land use categories.

FIGURE 4 – DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY FACTORS (CITY OF BELMONT)

Dwelling Occupied Total Unit Dwelling Number of Occupancy Land Use Categories Units Occupants Factors Calc a b c = a / b

Single-Family Detached 6,092 16,387 2.69 Single-Family Attached 545 1,303 2.39 Multi-Family Residential 3,654 7,341 2.01

Average (2010 Census) 10,291 25,031 2.43

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 PAGE 6

QUIMBY DEDICATION REQUIREMENT Based on the City’s Quimby standard of 3.87 acres per 1,000 residents allowed under the Quimby Act, the formula for calculating the dedication of land for the City within the City of Belmont is as follows:

Proposed Dwelling Unit Quimby Number of X Occupancy X Standard Units by Factor (0.00387 Housing Type acres per capita)

Figure 4 on the following page presents the City’s Quimby land dedication requirement expressed on a square footage of land basis for three residential land uses. As shown, the average number of persons per dwelling unit is determined on the basis of the housing type and the average household size for such land uses as of the 2010 U.S. Census.

FIGURE 5 – JUSTIFIED QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT

Quimby Standard (Acres Allowable Square Average Per 1,000 Footage per Residential Land Use Household Size 1 Population) 2 Dwelling Unit Calc a b c = (a * b) / 1,000 * 43,560

Single-Family Detached Housing 2.69 3.87 453 Single-Family Attached Housing 2.39 3.87 403 Multi-Family Housing 2.01 3.87 339

Notes: 1 Based on figures from 2010 U.S. Census for the City of Belmont. 2 The District's maximum allowable land per 1,000 residents standard under the Quimby Act.

For example, a 250 single-family home subdivision would require a 2.60 acre land dedication for park and recreational facilities. 250 453 113,250 Sq. Ft or Single-Family Lots X Required Land = 2.60 Acres of Land Area (sq. ft.) per Dedication for the Single-Family Lot Subdivision

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 PAGE 7

DETERMINATION OF QUIMBY IN-LIEU FEES

For proposed subdivisions containing fewer than 50 parcels, the Quimby Act allows for the payment of fees (“Quimby in-lieu fees”) in lieu of land dedication.3 The purpose of in-lieu fees is to accumulate enough funding from several developers to acquire land for the development of neighborhood and community parks within the City where the fees are collected. Moreover, while land dedication may be required for larger subdivisions, the City may require in-lieu fees only, or a combination of land dedication and in-lieu fees, to meet the park and recreation goals of the City.

FAIR MARKET LAND VALUE FOR PARKS In January 2008, the City retained real estate appraisers Hulberg & Associates, Inc. to conduct a land appraisal study. The study provided the City with a baseline land value for the land type normally acquired for City of Belmont parks. The land appraisal study found that the baseline market value for the land type normally acquired for City of Belmont neighborhood parks as of January 24, 2008 was $2,400,000 per acre.

In order to adjust the appraised land value to reasonably approximate the fair market value of land today, a commonly used approach is to adjust the appraised land value by the percentage change in the median home sales price within the City between the approximate date of the increase and the effective date of the land appraisal. As reported by Zillow Real Estate Network, the median home sales price within the City was $856,000 in December 2007 and $1,046,000 as of November 30, 2013 – resulting in a 22% increase. Therefore, the fair market value of land in the City of Belmont is estimated to be $2,928,000 per acre.

Figure 5 presents the calculation of the Quimby in-lieu fee is based on the City’s justified land dedication requirement for single family detached housing, single family attached housing and multi-family housing and the new fair market land value of $2,928,000 per acre.

3 However, when a multi-family development or stock cooperative exceeds 50 dwelling units, a dedication of land may be required, even though the number of parcels may be less than 50. Govt. Code § 66477(a)(7)

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 PAGE 8

FIGURE 6 – JUSTIFIED QUIMBY IN-LIEU FEE

Quimby Quimby Land Dedication Acquisition Requirement Cost (per Quimby In-Lieu Residential Land Use (per sq. ft.) capita) Fee (per unit) Calc a b c = a * b / 43,560

Single-Family Detached Housing 453 $2,928,000 $30,450 Single-Family Attached Housing 403 $2,928,000 $27,089 Multi-Family Housing 339 $2,928,000 $22,787

It is important to note that although the Quimby in lieu fee is calculated based on land value only, the Quimby Act allows in-lieu fee proceeds to be used for land acquisition, park development and the construction of new or rehabilitation of existing park and recreational facilities.

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 PAGE 9

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Park Inventory Appendix B – California Govt. Code § 66477 ("The Quimby Act")

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 PAGE 10

APPENDIX A – PARK INVENTORY

FIGURE 7 – PARK INVENTORY

Name of Park / Area Acres

Neighborhood Parks Alexander Park 1.35 Cipriani Park 9.95 College View Park 0.11 Hallmark Park 5.21 Hastings Tot Lot 0.25 McDougal Park 3.01 O'Donnell Park 0.90 Patricia Wharton Park 0.10 Semeria Park 0.20 Wakefield Park 1.05 Dave Glen Park 1.09 Ralson Ranch Park 1.34 Total Neighborhood Parks 24.56

Community Parks Barrett Commumity Center 5.00 Belameda Park 2.89 Belmont Sports Complex 12.56 Twin Pines Park 19.82 Total Community Parks 40.27

School Park Acres 1 Fox School 6.1 Ralston Middle School 7.4 Carlmont High School 13.5 Central School 3.4 Nesbit School 6.5 Total School Park Acres 36.9

Total Park Area 101.73 Population 26,316 Quimby Standard (per capita) 0.00387 Quimby Standard (per 1,000 population) 3.87

Notes: 1 Represents only the area of school sites used for park and recreational activities.

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 PAGE 11

APPENDIX B – CALIFORNIA GOVT. CODE § 66477 (“THE QUIMBY ACT”)

(a) The legislative body of a city or county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative map or parcel map, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The ordinance has been in effect for a period of 30 days prior to the filing of the tentative map of the subdivision or parcel map. (2) The ordinance includes definite standards for determining the proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of any fee to be paid in lieu thereof. The amount of land dedicated or fees paid shall be based upon the residential density, which shall be determined on the basis of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map or parcel map and the average number of persons per household. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the average number of persons per household by units in a structure is the same as that disclosed by the most recent available federal census or a census taken pursuant to Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 40200) of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4. However, the dedication of land, or the payment of fees, or both, shall not exceed the proportionate amount necessary to provide three acres of park area per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision subject to this section, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area, as calculated pursuant to this subdivision, exceeds that limit, in which case the legislative body may adopt the calculated amount as a higher standard not to exceed five acres per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision subject to this section. (A) The park area per 1,000 members of the population of the city, county, or local public agency shall be derived from the ratio that the amount of neighborhood and community park acreage bears to the total population of the city, county, or local public agency as shown in the most recent available federal census. The amount of neighborhood and community park acreage shall be the actual acreage of existing neighborhood and community parks of the city, county, or local public agency as shown on its records, plans, recreational element, maps, or reports as of the date of the most recent available federal census. (B) For cities incorporated after the date of the most recent available federal census, the park area per 1,000 members of the population of the city shall be derived from the ratio that the amount of neighborhood and community park acreage shown on the maps, records, or reports of the county in which the newly incorporated city is located bears to the total population of the new city as determined pursuant to Section 11005 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. In making any subsequent calculations pursuant to this section, the county in which the newly incorporated city is located shall not include the figures pertaining to the new city which were calculated pursuant to this paragraph. Fees shall be payable at the time of the recording of the final map or parcel map, or at a later time as may be prescribed by local ordinance. (3) (A) The land, fees, or combination thereof are to be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision, except as provided in subparagraph (B). (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), fees may be used for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities in a neighborhood other than the neighborhood in which the subdivision for which fees were paid as a condition to the approval of a tentative map or parcel map is located, if all of the following requirements are met:

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 PAGE 12

(i) The neighborhood in which the fees are to be expended has fewer than three acres of park area per 1,000 members of the neighborhood population. (ii) The neighborhood in which the subdivision for which the fees were paid has a park area per 1,000 members of the neighborhood population ratio that meets or exceeds the ratio calculated pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2), but in no event is less than three acres per 1,000 persons. (iii) The legislative body holds a public hearing before using the fees pursuant to this subparagraph. (iv) The legislative body makes a finding supported by substantial evidence that it is reasonably foreseeable that future inhabitants of the subdivision for which the fee is imposed will use the proposed park and recreational facilities in the neighborhood where the fees are used. (v) The fees are used within a specified radius that complies with the city’s or county’s ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a), and are consistent with the adopted general plan or specific plan of the city or county. For purposes of this clause, “specified radius” includes a planning area, zone of influence, or other geographic region designated by the city or county, that otherwise meets the requirements of this section. (4) The legislative body has adopted a general plan or specific plan containing policies and standards for parks and recreational facilities, and the park and recreational facilities are in accordance with definite principles and standards. (5) The amount and location of land to be dedicated or the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision. (6) (A) The city, county, or other local public agency to which the land or fees are conveyed or paid shall develop a schedule specifying how, when, and where it will use the land or fees, or both, to develop park or recreational facilities to serve the residents of the subdivision. Any fees collected under the ordinance shall be committed within five years after the payment of the fees or the issuance of building permits on one-half of the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later. If the fees are not committed, they, without any deductions, shall be distributed and paid to the then record owners of the subdivision in the same proportion that the size of their lot bears to the total area of all lots within the subdivision. (B) The city, county, or other local agency to which the land or fees are conveyed or paid may enter into a joint or shared use agreement with one or more other public districts in the jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, a school district or community college district, in order to provide access to park or recreational facilities to residents of subdivisions with fewer than three acres of park area per 1,000 members of the population. (7) Only the payment of fees may be required in subdivisions containing 50 parcels or less, except that when a condominium project, stock cooperative, or community apartment project, as those terms are defined in Sections 4105, 4125, and 4190 of the Civil Code, exceeds 50 dwelling units, dedication of land may be required notwithstanding that the number of parcels may be less than 50.

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 PAGE 13

(8) Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and not used for residential purposes shall be exempted from the requirements of this section. However, in that event, a condition may be placed on the approval of a parcel map that if a building permit is requested for construction of a residential structure or structures on one or more of the parcels within four years, the fee may be required to be paid by the owner of each parcel as a condition of the issuance of the permit. (9) If the subdivider provides park and recreational improvements to the dedicated land, the value of the improvements together with any equipment located thereon shall be a credit against the payment of fees or dedication of land required by the ordinance. (b) Land or fees required under this section shall be conveyed or paid directly to the local public agency which provides park and recreational services on a communitywide level and to the area within which the proposed development will be located, if that agency elects to accept the land or fee. The local agency accepting the land or funds shall develop the land or use the funds in the manner provided in this section. (c) If park and recreational services and facilities are provided by a public agency other than a city or county, the amount and location of land to be dedicated or fees to be paid shall, subject to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), be jointly determined by the city or county having jurisdiction and that other public agency. (d) This section does not apply to commercial or industrial subdivisions or to condominium projects or stock cooperatives that consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment building that is more than five years old when no new dwelling units are added. (e) Common interest developments, as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code, shall be eligible to receive a credit, as determined by the legislative body, against the amount of land required to be dedicated, or the amount of the fee imposed, pursuant to this section, for the value of private open space within the development which is usable for active recreational uses. (f) Park and recreation purposes shall include land and facilities for the activity of “recreational community gardening,” which activity consists of the cultivation by persons other than, or in addition to, the owner of the land, of plant material not for sale. (g) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Quimby Act.

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 PAGE 14

(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

CITY OF BELMONT QUIMBY LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY, 2014 Meeting Date: October 28, 2014

STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #9A

Agency: City of Belmont Staff Contact: Leticia Alvarez, Asst. Public Works Director/City Engineer, 650-595-7469, [email protected]

Agenda Title: Discussion and Direction Regarding Residential Solid Waste Rate Structure

Agenda Action: Discussion and Direction

Recommendation Discuss the information presented and provide direction to staff regarding the residential solid waste rate structure.

Background The franchise agreement with Recology of San Mateo County (Recology) for Recyclable Materials, Organic materials and Solid Waste Collection, adopted by Council on April 12, 2010, provides for an annual review of the maximum rates that Recology may charge Belmont residential and commercial customers for regular and unscheduled services. Article 11 of the Agreement sets the methodology for calculating the revenue requirements including Pass-through Costs, which include disposal and processing costs at the Shoreway Environmental Center, and Agency fees.

On September 23, 2014, the City Council reviewed Recology’s calendar year 2015 rate application, and set a Public Hearing date for November 25, 2014. During that review, it was noted that the rates as shown in that public presentation would likely be lower than presented during that meeting since the City was working with Recology to resolve a reporting error on the City’s tonnage reports. Since that time, the tonnage report has been corrected, but the parties also noted that the prior year’s migration recovery surcharge needed to be “reversed” or removed from the City’s rates. The impact of these two changes in the calculation of the City’s maximum rates results in an overall reduction to the rates of 4.51%. Prior to these changes, the proposed adjustment to rates was an increase of 2.77%.

The reversal of the migration recovery surcharge from 2014 was an oversight by all parties. To the credit of Recology, they noted this oversight while reviewing the tonnage calculation. The impact of this change is to remove the prior year’s surcharge from the rates. The prior year’s migration recovery surcharge was 6.45%.

Page 1 of 6

Analysis

Adjustments to the Calculated Maximum Rates As was noted above, there were two adjustments made to the calculation of the maximum rates (Schedule R) since the September 23rd meeting. These were as follows:

• Correction of the Tonnage Reports • Reversal of the Migration Recovery Surcharge from 2014

With regard to the correction of the tonnage reports, the prior calculation had overstated the City’s solid waste tonnage by 421 tons (approximately 5%). The total net impact was a reduction to the City of approximately $52,000. Recology provided the City with an updated analysis of the calculated maximum rates for the 2015 rate period. A summary of the revised calculation is as follows:

Prior Updated Analysis Analysis CPI Cost Adjustment 2.88% 2.05% Migration Recovery Surcharge from 2014 0.00% −6.45% Migration Recovery Surcharge 2015 −0.11% −0.11% Total Rate Index Adjustment 2.77% −4.51%

In summary form, for 2015 the City’s solid waste rates will not be increased, but rather, reduced by an overall 4.51% (technically, Recology will multiply the current Schedule R rates by 95.49% to produce the revised or maximum rates as shown in Schedule R). This reduction in rates will affect both the residential and commercial solid waste rates.

Opportunity to Adjust Residential Cart Size Rate Relationships During the September 23, 2014 Council meeting, there was discussion regarding the pricing of the larger residential cart sizes and concern that the rate relationships between the various cart sizes may be tilted too heavily towards the larger cart sizes. The proposed reduction in the solid waste rates has created a unique opportunity for the City to make adjustments between the residential cart sizes, if deemed appropriate.

Present Rates and Customers by Cart Size – A starting point for the discussion is to have an understanding of the present rates and the number of residential customers by cart size. This information is provided below in Table A.

Page 2 of 6

Table A Overview of the Present Rate By Cart Size and Number of Carts Present No. of %of Cart Sizes Monthly Rate Price/Gallon [1] Carts Total 20 gallon $21.61 $1.032 1,861 27.6% 32 gallon 35.79 $1.068 4,146 61.5% 64 gallon 78.86 $1.177 655 9.7% 96 gallon 127.49 $1.268 78 1.2% 6,740 100.0% [1] – The calculation for the 20 gallon calculation is $21.61 ÷ 20 gallons = $1.032/gallon

As can be seen in Table 1, the rate varies by cart size and results in a higher cost per gallon for larger cart sizes. The cost differential on a per gallon basis between a 96 gallon cart and a 20 gallon cart is $0.236/gallon or about a 23% price differential (i.e. $1.268 vs. $1.032). While the pricing of the cart sizes may be a concern, it is also important to understand how many customers use the various cart sizes. As can be seen, approximately 89% of all residential customers have a cart size that is 32 gallons or less. The largest cart size, the 96 gallon cart, currently has only 78 customers or 1.2% of all carts.

Policy Objectives for Pricing By Cart Size Much like water conservation and efficient use, it can also be argued that pricing may be used to encourage efficient behavior for solid waste customers. Encouraging efficient behavior can be achieved by rewarding the desired efficient behavior (i.e. use of smaller can sizes) or discouraged by “penalty” pricing for larger can sizes.

As a policy matter, the City may want to encourage diversion of waste from landfills. State Assembly Bill 939, passed in 1989, established aggressive requirements for the state and its cities and counties to divert solid waste from landfills by implementing recycling and other waste program. Since the passage of AB 939, State lawmakers have continued to examine statewide disposal and recycling efforts. Given that, the policy objective of encouraging reduction in waste and the use of smaller cart sizes would seem to remain relevant for purposes of this rate/pricing discussion.

At this time, and when compared to other local jurisdictions, the pricing for the larger cart sizes (64 and 96 gallons) should be re-examined, and if needed, adjusted accordingly (see Table 2 in attached Technical Memorandum). The current rate for a 96 gallon cart is 5.9 times greater than the 20 gallon cart rate. As a point of reference, the volumetric relationship of a 96 gallon cart to a 20 gallon cart is 4.8 times greater. The average price differential for the regional customers is 4.85. However, contained within this regional average is a wide variation in pricing practices with a low price differential of 2.99 to a high of 7.12.

Rates are not strictly established on the basis of volume since there is a collection component and a disposal component. The disposal component is more volume oriented, while the collection component is more a function of the number of customers (stops/pickups). However, when the price ratio is at or near the 4.8, then the customers are essentially paying a price roughly equal on a per gallon basis.

Page 3 of 6

Review of the Residential Rate Options The City Council has several options on how to set the 2015 Solid Waste Rates. While meeting Recology’s Revenue Requirement four (4) different rate options were developed to be considered by the Council at this meeting. In summary form, a description of these options is as follows:

• Option 1 – Proposed Recology “Maximum Rates” assuming a 4.51% rate reduction applied equally across each residential cart size (status quo). • Option 2 – Hold the 20 and 32 gallon carts at their present rates and adjust (reduce) the 64 and 96 gallon carts to balance to the overall revenue adjustment. • Option 3 – All carts pay the same $/gallon rate • Option 4 – Adjust (reduce) the larger cart sizes more than the smaller cart sizes and assume a 10% differential on the $/gallon rate between the 20 gallon and 96 gallon cart size.

Given these options, various comparisons could then be made to better understand the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Table below provides a side-by-side comparison of the proposed monthly rates for each option, by cart size.

Table B Comparison of the Monthly Residential Rate by Cart Size

Present Cart Size Rate Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

20 Gallon Cart $21.61 $20.64 $21.61 $21.78 $21.00

32 Gallon Cart 35.79 34.18 35.79 34.84 34.86 64 Gallon Cart 78.86 75.30 64.06 69.68 71.03 96 Gallon Cart 127.49 121.74 103.56 104.52 111.30

______

Table C provides a comparison of the $/gallon rate that each option and cart is based upon.

Table C Comparison of the $/Gallon Rate by Cart Size

Present Cart Size Rate Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

20 Gallon Cart $1.08 $1.03 $1.08 $1.09 $1.05 32 Gallon Cart 1.12 1.07 1.12 1.09 1.09 64 Gallon Cart 1.23 1.18 1.00 1.09 1.11 96 Gallon Cart 1.33 1.27 1.08 1.09 1.16

______Page 4 of 6

As can be seen, the present rate and Option 1 rate design have increasing pricing on a $/gallon for the larger cart sizes. The key concern of the City Council is whether the increase or price differential between the smaller cart sizes and the larger cart sizes is too great. Options 2, 3 and 4 begin to address this question and concern. Option 2 held the 20 and 32 gallon carts at their present rates and then reduced the 64 and 96 gallon carts. In this case, the 64 gallon cart has the lowest $/gallon price and the 32 gallon the highest. In contrast to Option 2, Option 3 has set all cart sizes equal on a $/gallon basis. Finally, Option 4 has attempted to balance the pricing structure such that the pricing of the carts is graduated. This maintains the current pricing approach, but greatly reduces the differential between the smallest and largest carts.

The final comparison between the options is the bill comparison between the present rates and the proposed rates. Table D provides that comparison.

Table D Bill Comparison Between the Rate Options ($/Month)

Present Cart Size Rate Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Monthly Rates - 20 Gallon Cart $21.61 $20.64 $21.61 $21.78 $21.00 32 Gallon Cart 35.79 34.18 35.79 34.84 34.86 64 Gallon Cart 78.86 75.30 64.06 69.68 71.03 96 Gallon Cart 127.49 121.74 103.56 104.52 111.30

$/Month Change from the Present Rates 20 Gallon Cart ($0.97) $0.00 $0.17 ($0.61) 32 Gallon Cart ($1.61) $0.00 ($0.95) ($0.93) 64 Gallon Cart ($3.56) ($14.80) ($9.18) ($7.83) 96 Gallon Cart ($5.75) ($23.93) ($22.97) ($16.19)

% Change from the Present Rates 20 Gallon Cart -4.5% 0.0% 0.8% -2.8% 32 Gallon Cart -4.5% 0.0% -2.7% -2.6% 64 Gallon Cart -4.5% -18.8% -11.6% -9.9% 96 Gallon Cart -4.5% -18.8% -18.0% -12.7%

______

As shown in Table D, each of the options has a slightly different monthly rate and impacts to customers. When compared to the present rate, the $ change per month can be seen in the middle of the table. The bottom portion of the table is the percentage change over the comparable present rate.

Page 5 of 6

Cost-Basis for the Rate Options The City’s Franchise Agreement with Recology remains relevant to this discussion and each of the above rate options is designed to collect the same level of revenue (costs) as the “Attachment R, Maximum Rate Schedule” for residential customers.

City Council Policy Decision The City Council is asked to discuss the information provided and to provide direction as to the option which they believe best balances the policy issue of cart sizes and pricing against the environmental benefits of diversion of waste from landfills. In making a final policy decision, the City Council may consider the following observations:

• Option 1 – This is the status quo option in which the existing rate relationships are maintained and the 4.51% reduction is passed through to each rate. • Option 2 – This option holds the 20 and 32 gallon carts at their present rate and reduces the 64 and 96 gallon carts. • Option 3 – This is the option in which each cart pays the same $/gallon price. The one issue that may arise with this option is the 20 gallon cart size would be increased under this option while all other residential cart sizes are decreased. This option could certainly be modified to avoid this problem, but it was not considered at this point in time. • Option 4 – This option adjusts all rates downward. For the larger can sizes, this option strikes a balance between the level of reduction in Option 1, versus Options 2 and 3. It is also the only option which maintains an increasing price per gallon for the larger cart sizes (i.e. the more you dispose, the more it costs per gallon).

Upon receiving direction from the City Council, staff will prepare a revised “Attachment R, Maximum Rate Schedule” for adoption at the November 25, 2014 Public Hearing.

Alternatives 1. Take no action

Attachments A. HDR Technical Memorandum to Proposed 2015 Solid Waste Rates

Fiscal Impact

No Impact/Not Applicable Funding Source Confirmed:

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach: Council Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda Staff Council Vision/Priority Other* Citizen Initiated Discretionary Action Other* Plan Implementation*

Page 6 of 6

Technical Memorandum

From: Tom Gould, HDR To: Afshin Oskoui, City of Belmont Subject: Revisions to the Proposed 2015 Solid Waste Rates Date: October 17, 2014

Introduction HDR was retained by the City of Belmont (City) to provide professional and technical rate services as they relate to the City’s solid waste utility. The City is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA) and in 2010 signed a Franchise Agreement with Recology of San Mateo County (Recology) for solid waste collection services, including the collection of recycling and organic materials. Through the franchise agreement, the annual compensation for Recology’s collection and recycling services is contractually determined. On September 23, 2014, HDR met with the City Council to discuss the proposed 2015 solid waste rates. During that presentation, HDR noted that the rates as shown in that public presentation would likely be lower than presented during that meeting since the City was working with Recology to resolve a reporting error on the City’s tonnage reports. Since that time, the tonnage report has been corrected, but the parties also noted that the prior year’s migration recovery surcharge needed to be “reversed” or removed from the City’s rates. The impact of these two changes in the calculation of the City’s maximum rates results in an overall reduction to the rates of 4.51%. Prior to these changes, the proposed adjustment to rates was an increase of 2.77%. These adjustments are discussed in more detail below.

Adjustments to the Calculated Maximum Rates As was noted above, there were two adjustments made to the calculation of the maximum rates (Schedule R) since the September 23rd meeting. These were as follows: • Correction of the Tonnage Reports • Reversal of the Migration Recovery Surcharge from 2014 With regard to the correction of the tonnage reports, the prior calculation had overstated the City’s solid waste tonnage by 421 tons (approximately 5%). The impact of this change was a reduction in two components of the City’s maximum rate calculation; disposal costs and agency payments. The total net impact was a reduction to the City of approximately $52,000. The City and HDR worked with Recology to verify these adjustments and agree with the revised calculation.

The reversal of the migration recovery surcharge from 2014 was an oversight by all parties. To the credit of Recology, they noted this oversight while reviewing the tonnage calculation. The impact of this change is to remove the prior year’s surcharge from the rates. The prior year’s migration recovery surcharge was 6.45%.

Technical Memorandum – Revisions to the Proposed 2015 Solid Waste Rates 1 City of Belmont – Review of Solid Waste Rates Recology provided to the City an updated analysis of the calculated maximum rates for the 2015 rate period. A summary of the revised calculation is as follows:

Prior Updated Analysis Analysis CPI Cost Adjustment 2.88% 2.05% Migration Recovery Surcharge from 2014 0.00% −6.45% Migration Recovery Surcharge 2015 −0.11% −0.11% Total Rate Index Adjustment 2.77% −4.51%

In summary form, for 2015 the City’s solid waste rates will not be increased, but rather, reduced by an overall 4.51%.1 This reduction in rates will affect both the residential and commercial solid waste rates. Attached at the conclusion of this technical memorandum is a summary of the revised Schedule R rates assuming a 4.51% overall reduction. These are the Schedule R rates as proposed by Recology and reviewed by the City and HDR.

Opportunity to Adjust Residential Cart Size Rate Relationships During the September 23rd meeting with the City Council, there was a discussion concerning the pricing of the larger residential cart sizes and concern that the rate relationships between the various cart sizes may be tilted too heavily towards the larger cart sizes. The proposed reduction in overall Schedule R solid waste rates has created a unique opportunity for the City to make adjustments between the residential cart sizes, if deemed appropriate. To that end, HDR has provided the following analysis of the residential cart sizes and rates.

Present Rates and Customers by Cart Size – A starting point for the discussion is to have an understanding of the present rates and the number of residential customers by cart size. This information is provided below in Table 1.

Table 1 Overview of the Present Rate By Cart Size and Number of Carts

Present No. of % of Cart Sizes Monthly Rate Price/Gallon [1] Carts Total 20 gallon $21.61 $1.032 1,861 27.6% 32 gallon 35.79 $1.068 4,146 61.5% 64 gallon 78.86 $1.177 655 9.7% 96 gallon 127.49 $1.268 78 1.2% 6,740 100.0%

[1] – The calculation for the 20 gallon calculation is $21.61 ÷ 20 gallons = $1.032/gallon

1 Technically, Recology will multiply the current Schedule R rates by 95.49% to produce the revised or maximum Schedule R rates.

Technical Memorandum – Revisions to the Proposed 2015 Solid Waste Rates 2 City of Belmont – Review of Solid Waste Rates As can be seen in Table 1, the rate varies by cart size and results in a higher cost per gallon for larger cart sizes. The cost differential on a per gallon basis between a 96 gallon cart and a 20 gallon cart is $0.236/gallon or about a 23% price differential (i.e. $1.268 vs. $1.032). While the pricing of the cart sizes may be a concern, it is also important to understand how many customers use the various cart sizes. As can be seen, approximately 89% of all residential customers have a cart size that is 32 gallons or less. The largest cart size, the 96 gallon cart, currently has only 78 customers or 1.2% of all carts.

Policy Objectives for Pricing By Cart Size – Much like water conservation and efficient use, it can also be argued that pricing may be used to encourage efficient behavior for solid waste customers. Encouraging efficient behavior can be achieved by rewarding the desired efficient behavior (i.e. use of smaller can sizes) or discouraged by “penalty” pricing for larger can sizes.

When the City Council developed the rates at the start of this Franchise Agreement, it is HDR’s understanding that the City placed great policy emphasis on encouraging recycling and composting which was to be achieved, in part, via the pricing of the residential carts. With encouragement for greater recycling and composting, the Recology Franchise Agreement clearly anticipated the movement by customers from larger cart sizes to smaller cart sizes via the inclusion of the migration adjustment.

As a policy matter, the City should continue to encourage diversion of waste from landfills. State Assembly Bill 939, passed in 1989, established aggressive requirements for the state and its cities and counties to divert solid waste from landfills by implementing recycling and other waste program. Since the passage of AB 939, State lawmakers have continued to examine statewide disposal and recycling efforts. Given that, the policy objective of encouraging reduction in waste and the use of smaller cart sizes would seem to remain relevant for purposes of this rate/pricing discussion.

At this time, and when compared to other local jurisdictions, there is a sense that the pricing for the larger cart sizes (64 and 96 gallons) should be re-examined, and if needed, adjusted accordingly. One way in which this can be viewed in shown below in Table 2.

Technical Memorandum – Revisions to the Proposed 2015 Solid Waste Rates 3 City of Belmont – Review of Solid Waste Rates

Table 2 Comparison of the 2014 Monthly Pricing of 20 and 96 Gallon Carts

20 gal. 96 gal. Ratio of Rate Rate 96 to 20 gal.[1]

Atherton $27.00 $164.00 6.07 greater Belmont 21.61 127.49 5.90 Burlingame 12.90 70.80 5.49 Foster City 12.15 58.35 4.80 Hillsborough 42.40 117.40 2.77 Menlo Park 13.99 83.72 5.98 N. Fair Oaks 27.31 81.93 3.00 Redwood City 11.38 81.06 7.12 San Carlos 20.87 83.45 4.00 San Mateo 13.04 70.50 5.41 West Bay 23.30 110.00 4.72 Uninc SMC 29.42 88.00 2.99 Average 4.85 greater [1] – Volumetrically, 96 gallons is 4.8 times greater than 20 gallons As can be seen in the above table, the City currently charges a 96 gallon cart rate which is 5.9 times greater than the 20 gallon cart rate. As a point of reference, the volumetric relationship of a 96 gallon cart to a 20 gallon cart is 4.8 times greater. Interestingly, the average price differential for the regional customers is 4.85. However, contained within this regional average is a wide variation in pricing practices with a low price differential of 2.99 to a high of 7.12.

From Table 2 and the discussion above, one might assume that a ratio of 4.8 for pricing of the relationship between a 20 gallon and 96 gallon cart would be appropriate. Rates are not strictly established on the basis of volume since there is a collection component and a disposal component. The disposal component is more volume oriented, while the collection component is more a function of the number of customers (stops/pickups). However, when the price ratio is at or near the 4.8, then the customers are essentially paying a price roughly equal on a per gallon basis.

To better understand this opportunity for rate restructuring and the potential rate options, HDR developed a number of residential rate options for the City’s review. These are presented in more detail below.

Technical Memorandum – Revisions to the Proposed 2015 Solid Waste Rates 4 City of Belmont – Review of Solid Waste Rates Review of the Residential Rate Options For this review, four different rate options were developed. In summary form, a description of these options is as follows: • Option 1 – Proposed Recology “Maximum Rates” assuming a 4.51% rate reduction applied equally across each residential cart size (status quo). • Option 2 – Hold the 20 and 32 gallon carts at their present rates and adjust (reduce) the 64 and 96 gallon carts to balance to the overall revenue adjustment. • Option 3 – All carts pay the same $/gallon rate • Option 4 – Adjust (reduce) the larger cart sizes more than the smaller cart sizes and assume a 10% differential on the $/gallon rate between the 20 gallon and 96 gallon cart size.

Given these options, various comparisons could then be made to better understand the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Table 3 provides a side-by-side comparison of the proposed monthly rates for each option, by cart size.

Table 3 Comparison of the Monthly Residential Rate by Cart Size

Present Cart Size Rate Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 20 Gallon Cart $21.61 $20.64 $21.61 $21.78 $21.00 32 Gallon Cart 35.79 34.18 35.79 34.84 34.86 64 Gallon Cart 78.86 75.30 64.06 69.68 71.03 96 Gallon Cart 127.49 121.74 103.56 104.52 111.30

As can be seen in Table 3, each option produces slightly different rates for each cart size. As noted above, Option 1 is the rate which the City would normally adopt since it passes through the adjustment equally to each cart size (i.e. each rate receives a 4.51% reduction). In essence, the present rate and Option 1 should be the rates which the City compares to when evaluating each option.

While Table 3 provides an understanding of the monthly rates; Table 4 provides a comparison of the $/gallon rate that each option and cart is based upon.

Technical Memorandum – Revisions to the Proposed 2015 Solid Waste Rates 5 City of Belmont – Review of Solid Waste Rates

Table 4 Comparison of the $/Gallon Rate by Cart Size

Present Cart Size Rate Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 20 Gallon Cart $1.08 $1.03 $1.08 $1.09 $1.05 32 Gallon Cart 1.12 1.07 1.12 1.09 1.09 64 Gallon Cart 1.23 1.18 1.00 1.09 1.11 96 Gallon Cart 1.33 1.27 1.08 1.09 1.16

As can be seen, the present rate and Option 1 rate design have increasing pricing on a $/gallon for the larger cart sizes. The key concern of the City Council is whether the increase or price differential between the smaller cart sizes and the larger cart sizes is too great. Options 2, 3 and 4 begin to address this question and concern. Option 2 held the 20 and 32 gallon carts at their present rates and then reduced the 64 and 96 gallon carts. In this case, the 64 gallon cart has the lowest $/gallon price and the 32 gallon the highest. This pricing relationship may or may not make sense or be acceptable, particularly if the City desires to use pricing, to some extent, to encourage efficiency. In contrast to Option 2, Option 3 has set all cart sizes equal on a $/gallon basis. To some, this may seem very logical and appropriate. Finally, Option 4 has attempted to balance the pricing structure such that the pricing of the carts is graduated. This maintains the current pricing approach, but greatly reduces the differential between the smallest and largest carts.

One of the concepts previously discussed is to also consider the pricing relationship between a cart size and a 20 gallon cart. This is something of a variation of Table 4, but provides a slightly different perspective. Table 5, shown below, provides this pricing perspective.

Table 5 Rate Relationship to a 20-Gallon Cart (Number of Times Greater Than a 20 Gallon Cart)

Present Cart Size Rate Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 20 Gallon Cart 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 32 Gallon Cart 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.60 1.66 64 Gallon Cart 3.65 3.65 2.96 3.20 3.38 96 Gallon Cart 5.90 5.90 4.79 4.80 5.30

Table 5 is taking the rate (price) of each cart and comparing it to the price for a 20-gallon cart. For example, under the present rate a 96 gallon cart is $127.49. This price is 5.9 times greater

Technical Memorandum – Revisions to the Proposed 2015 Solid Waste Rates 6 City of Belmont – Review of Solid Waste Rates than the 20 gallon cart rate of $21.61. This may be relevant since, on a volumetric basis, the relationship or ratio of a 96 gallon cart to a 20 gallon cart is 4.80 (96 ÷ 20 = 4.80). For additional reference purposes, a 32 gallon cart is 1.60 and a 64 gallon cart is a ratio of 3.20 times greater than a 20 gallon cart.

Table 5 provides a summary the rate relationships for each option. From this perspective it is easy to see that each of the options has achieved the objective of reducing the relationships for the larger cart sizes (i.e. 64 and 96 gallons). Option 3, which provides equal pricing on a $/gallon basis essentially follows this volumetric approach. However, that statement is not intended to imply that Option 3 is the most equitable or appropriate option. Rather, it is simply the option which follows the volume of the cart size for pricing.

Table 6 is another variation of the information presented in Table 3. In Table 6, a comparison is made between the change in price between the various cart sizes and the 20 gallon - $/gallon rate.

Table 6 Comparison in the Change in Price Between the Cart Sizes and the 20-Gallon Rate

Present Cart Size Rate Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 20 Gallon Cart 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 32 Gallon Cart 4% 4% 4% 0% 4% 64 Gallon Cart 14% 14% -7% 0% 6% 96 Gallon Cart 23% 23% 0% 0% 10%

To better understand Table 6, under the present rates, the price per gallon for a 96 gallon cart is $1.33/gallon (See Table 4). The price per gallon for the 20 gallon cart is $1.08/gallon. That means that a 96 gallon cart pays 23% more on a $/gallon basis. Given that explanation of Table 6, as can be seen, Option 1 maintains these same relationships since it is the “pass-through” option. Interestingly, and as was noted in Table 4, under Option 2, the lowest price per gallon is for a 64 gallon cart. Under Option 3 there is no difference in the price per gallon. Finally, under Option 4, the pricing has been gradually increased to create some incentive for efficiency, but not at the same level as the present rates.

The final comparison between the options is the bill comparison between the present rates and the proposed rates. Table 7 provides that comparison.

Technical Memorandum – Revisions to the Proposed 2015 Solid Waste Rates 7 City of Belmont – Review of Solid Waste Rates

Table 7 Bill Comparison Between the Rate Options ($/Month)

Present Cart Size Rate Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Monthly Rates - 20 Gallon Cart $21.61 $20.64 $21.61 $21.78 $21.00 32 Gallon Cart 35.79 34.18 35.79 34.84 34.86 64 Gallon Cart 78.86 75.30 64.06 69.68 71.03 96 Gallon Cart 127.49 121.74 103.56 104.52 111.30

$/Month Change from the Present Rates 20 Gallon Cart ($0.97) $0.00 $0.17 ($0.61) 32 Gallon Cart ($1.61) $0.00 ($0.95) ($0.93) 64 Gallon Cart ($3.56) ($14.80) ($9.18) ($7.83) 96 Gallon Cart ($5.75) ($23.93) ($22.97) ($16.19)

% Change from the Present Rates 20 Gallon Cart -4.5% 0.0% 0.8% -2.8% 32 Gallon Cart -4.5% 0.0% -2.7% -2.6% 64 Gallon Cart -4.5% -18.8% -11.6% -9.9% 96 Gallon Cart -4.5% -18.8% -18.0% -12.7%

As shown in Table 7, each of the options has a slightly different monthly rate and impacts to customers. When compared to the present rate, the $ change per month can be seen in the middle of the table. The bottom portion of the table is the percentage change over the comparable present rate.

While the previous tables were helpful in understanding certain pricing and rate relationships, Table 7 provides an important perspective. For example, Option 2 does not provide any rate reduction to the 20 or 32 gallon carts. Under Option 3, the 20 gallon cart will actually see a slight increase to their rates. In comparison, Option 4 provides a decrease to all carts while providing larger decreases to the 64 and 96 gallon carts.

Cost-Basis for the Rate Options In developing the above rate options, HDR has based their development on the costs incurred by Recology to provide this service. The City’s Franchise Agreement with Recology remains relevant to this discussion and each of the above rate options is designed to collect the same level of revenue (costs) as the “Attachment R, Maximum Rate Schedule” for residential customers, which is attached at the conclusion of this technical memorandum.

Technical Memorandum – Revisions to the Proposed 2015 Solid Waste Rates 8 City of Belmont – Review of Solid Waste Rates

City Council Policy Decision While there are certain advantages and disadvantages to each of the options presented herein, the City Council will need to make a policy decision as to the option which they believe best balances the policy issue of cart sizes and affordable pricing against the environmental benefits of diversion of waste from landfills. In making a final policy decision, the City Council may consider the following observations provided by HDR. • Option 1 – This is the status quo option in which the existing rate relationships are maintained and the 4.51% reduction is passed through to each rate. • Option 2 – This option holds the 20 and 32 gallon carts at their present rate and reduces the 64 and 96 gallon carts. As noted previously 89% of the residential customers are in the 20 and 32 gallon cart size and not passing through some level of rate reduction to these customers may be a consideration. • Option 3 – This is the option in which each cart pays the same $/gallon price. The one issue that may arise with this option is the 20 gallon cart size would be increased under this option while all other residential cart sizes are decreased. This option could certainly be modified to avoid this problem, but it was not considered at this point in time. • Option 4 – This option adjusts all rates downward. Of the four options, this was the only option in which all residential customers would see a reduction in their monthly bill. For the larger can sizes, this option strikes a balance between the level of reduction in Option 1, versus Options 2 and 3. It is also the only option which maintains an increasing price per gallon for the larger cart sizes (i.e. the more you dispose, the more it costs per gallon) [See Table 4].

In summary, the City Council will need to make a policy decision concerning the option (or another alternative) which best balances the competing goals of the City to provide proper incentives for efficient use while providing affordable solid waste rates.

Technical Memorandum – Revisions to the Proposed 2015 Solid Waste Rates 9 City of Belmont – Review of Solid Waste Rates

Summary of the Proposed Recology Schedule R Rates

Attachment R Maximum Rate Schedule Effective January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 Monthly Rate

RESIDENTIAL CARTS

Cart Size (in Gallons) 20 32 64 96 1 Pickup Per Week $20.64 $34.18 $75.30 $121.74

Residential customers are billed based on their Garbage Cart size. The monthly rate above includes the following: One (1) Garbage Cart provided to customer Curbside Household Hazardous Waste Collection One (1) 64-Gallon Recycling Cart and (1) 96-Gallon Yard Waste Cart

Technical Memorandum – Revisions to the Proposed 2015 Solid Waste Rates 10 City of Belmont – Review of Solid Waste Rates Attachment R Maximum Rate Schedule Effective January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 Monthly Rate

COMMERCIAL CARTS

Cart Size (in Gallons)

20 32 64 96 1 $37.29 $41.42 $80.09 $115.74 2 76.71 85.24 161.58 237.07 3 114.20 126.89 245.14 359.77 4 156.81 174.23 329.63 486.65 5 198.40 220.44 419.01 615.26 6 248.25 275.83 510.59 774.49

# of Pickups Per Week 7 302.41 336.00 597.74 903.56

The monthly rate above includes the following: One (1) Garbage Cart Recycling Cart Multi-Family Customers are charged $0.34 * Residential Units for Household Hazardous Waste Collection in addition to above

COMMERCIAL CARTS ORGANICS

Cart Size (in Gallons) 32 64 96 1 $29.00 $56.07 $81.02 2 59.67 113.10 165.94 3 88.82 171.60 251.84 4 121.97 230.74 340.65 5 154.31 293.32 430.68

6 193.08 357.40 542.14

# of Pickups Per Week 7 235.21 418.41 632.50

Note: Organics containers are charged at seventy percent (70%) of the similar Garbage commercial cart rate above container size and service levels for Garbage, representing a thirty percent (30%) discount

Technical Memorandum – Revisions to the Proposed 2015 Solid Waste Rates 11 City of Belmont – Review of Solid Waste Rates Attachment R Maximum Rate Schedule Effective January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 Monthly Rate

COMMERCIAL BINS

Bin Size (in Cubic Yards) 1 2 3 4 6

1 $194.21 $390.65 $589.17 $804.26 $1,236.92

2 395.39 787.71 1,185.45 1,622.43 2,508.63

3 600.03 1,188.52 1,785.20 2,440.61 3,770.88 4 807.04 1,592.25 2,386.77 3,268.10 5,022.41 5 1,015.72 2,001.68 2,990.41 4,099.08 6,291.76 6 1,267.67 2,363.11 3,630.22 4,964.54 7,606.18

# of Pickups Per Week 7 1,495.70 2,798.70 4,274.50 5,848.10 8,908.63

The monthly rate above includes the following:

One (1) Garbage Bin

Recycling container at customer's requested size

COMMERCIAL BINS ORGANICS

Bin Size (in Cubic Yards)

1 2 3 4 6

1 $135.95 $273.46 $412.42 $562.98 $865.85

2 276.77 551.40 829.83 1,135.70 1,756.04 3 420.01 831.97 1,249.65 1,708.42 2,639.61 4 564.93 1,114.57 1,670.73 2,287.66 3,515.69 5 711.01 1,401.17 2,093.28 2,869.35 4,404.24 6 887.38 1,654.17 2,541.16 3,475.19 5,324.33

# of Pickups Per Week 7 1,047.00 1,959.09 2,992.15 4,093.67 6,236.04

Note: Organics containers are charged at seventy percent (70%) of the similar

garbage container size above and service level for garbage, representing a thirty percent (30%) discount

Technical Memorandum – Revisions to the Proposed 2015 Solid Waste Rates 12 City of Belmont – Review of Solid Waste Rates Attachment R Maximum Rate Schedule Effective January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 Monthly Rate

GARBAGE COMPACTORS

Commercial Waste 3 Yard Compactor $1,414.75

Solid Waste Compactor Rate Per Yard $108.85 Household Hazardous Waste Fee Per Unit $0.34 Total Solid Waste Compactor Rate Per Yard $109.19

The monthly fee above includes the following: Recycling container at customer's requested size

Technical Memorandum – Revisions to the Proposed 2015 Solid Waste Rates 13 City of Belmont – Review of Solid Waste Rates Meeting Date: October 28, 2014 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #9-B

Agency: City of Belmont Contact: City Council Subcommittee (Council Members Stone and Reed) Agenda Title: Consideration of Belmont Zoning and Tree Ordinance Amendments Agenda Action: Discussion and Direction

Recommendation The Subcommittee recommends that the City Council comment and provide direction for preparation of Zone Text Amendments to the Belmont Zoning Ordinance and Tree Ordinance.

Background & Summary In March 2014, the City Council formed a Subcommittee to consider options for amending/updating city ordinances to better meet the needs of the Belmont community. As the vast majority of entitlement applications are requests for Single Family Design Review (SFDR), the Subcommittee focused its efforts by evaluating Zoning Ordinance and Tree Ordinance provisions that relate to the SFDR process (i.e., SFDR thresholds, parking requirements/parking upgrades for single family homes, and tree removal associated with SFDR). In addition, the Subcommittee compared SFDR Ordinance and parking provisions in Belmont to similar provisions in four adjacent jurisdictions. The Subcommittee found as follows:

• Belmont has the lowest threshold for Planning Commission SFDR review, the most stringent parking/parking upgrade requirements for single family homes, and the least available objective criteria for evaluating SFDR applications as compared to four adjacent jurisdictions.

• There are provisions within the Belmont Zoning Ordinance and Tree Ordinance that are outdated, do not address identifiable development impacts and, at times result in a lengthy, inefficient and/or uncertain permit process for applicants and homeowners.

Given the findings identified above, the Subcommittee is recommending modifications to the Belmont Zoning Ordinance and Tree Ordinance. A specific list of issues/concerns and potential modifications to the ordinances (remedies) are attached for City Council consideration (discussion and direction).

Process If the City Council determines that it is appropriate to make modifications to the Zoning Ordinance and/or Tree Ordinance, the anticipated (step by step) process could be as follows:

1. Respond to Council questions/comments and concerns – modify scope of work/calendar accordingly 2. Prepare specific Ordinance language 3. Evaluate ancillary changes to the City Code, Zoning Ordinance and/or Tree Ordinance 4. Prepare new objective SFDR criteria (i.e., upper level step backs, daylight plane, a prescribed level of articulation, etc.). 5. Prepare Environmental Review – if applicable

Page 1 of 2

6. Council First Reading of Draft Ordinance(s) 7. Obtain recommendations from Planning Commission and/or Parks and Recreation Commission 8. Council Public Hearing – Adoption of Final Ordinance(s) 9. Implementation of Ordinance(s) a. Modification of internal process/timing with City departments and consultants b. Amendment of submittal requirements/fees c. Creation of new handouts and posting of materials on the City Website

Calendar Dependent on the full scope of the project, and as directed by City Council. It is estimated that Council review of draft ordinance(s), in part or as a whole, could occur as early as December 2014.

Alternatives 1. Direct the Subcommittee to discontinue working with staff on Zone Text Amendments. 2. Continue the matter for future consideration. 3. Take alternative action, based upon Council discussion.

Attachments: Comparison Tables and Potential Modifications A. Summary, Notes and Comparison Tables B. Specific Issues/Concerns and Potential Modifications to the Ordinances C. Detailed Comparison Tables

Fiscal Impact

No Impact/Not Applicable Funding Source Confirmed: Should the City Council determine that it is appropriate to process ordinance modifications, the Subcommittee recommends that the Council establish a not-to-exceed threshold of 150 hours of staff time (City Council Priorities Fund); permit fees would be modified (reduced) to cover the costs of modified permitting process, as applicable.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach: Council Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda Staff Council Vision/Priority Other Citizen Initiated Discretionary Action Other* Plan Implementation * City Council Subcommittee

Page 2 of 2 Attachment A - Basic Summary Table – Comparison SFDR & Parking SFDR Objective Parking Standard DR City SFDR – Main Triggers Parking New SFD Tier(s) Criteria Additions Guide • New homes • 2nd story additions 4 Beds = 2 (1/1) Same – based on Burlingame PC Yes Yes • Recon 5 Beds = 3 (2/1) resulting # bedrooms • Plate height inc. • New 2-story Homes SFD -3, 000 SF = 2 (2/0) ZA & Same – based on San Mateo • 2nd story add. to 1 story SFD Yes SFD – 3.749 SF. = 3 (2/1) Yes Staff resulting sq. ft. • Reconstruction 50% SFD>3,750 (0/1)/750 SF • New homes • 1st & 2nd story add = home> 3K / lot < 7.5K RDRC st nd Additions allowed w/o San Carlos • 1 & 2 story > FAR/slope Yes SFD = 2 (2/0) parking upgrade if no Yes • 1st & 2nd story < FAR/slope D/U added Staff • Acc. Structures, decks, etc. • SFDR + other Entitlements PC No upgrade req. if SFD - 4 Beds = 2 (2/0) Redwood • New Homes SFD will have no ZA Yes SFD> 4 Beds = 2 (2/0) No City nd more than 3 beds & • 2 Story Additions + 0.5/ bedroom (uncover) 2K Sq. Ft • Add. 600+ SF • Any Mods – SFD • New Homes 3K or becomes • 400 SF. gross addition Belmont 3K, 4 beds or • Grading- 500 cubic yards PC No SFD = 4 (2/2) Yes (Existing) becomes 4 beds • Grading – endanger tree • Two beds added – • Land disturb. – 6,000 SF regardless of # removed

Attachment A Summary, Notes & Comparison Tables

Notes:

• Many jurisdictions have formal staff level design review for small additions (San Rafael, San Carlos, Millbrae, etc.). • While not indicated in the table, all jurisdictions have zoning review for building additions of all types (zoning compliance review, site plan review, plan check, etc.). • Jurisdictions that incorporate objective criteria into their zoning code and/or require that all additions comply with design guidelines effectively have an informal design review process (Burlingame, San Mateo, Redwood City and San Carlos). This lower level review based on objective standards ensures that potential impacts are mitigated in a cost effective/time effective way. • Belmont planning staff currently reviews additions below 400 sq. ft. for FAR, setbacks, height and parking, but not bulk/design (i.e., building permit plan check).

Conclusions from Table:

• Belmont is the only city within the survey group that does not include objective standards for bulk within the Zoning Ordinance beyond setbacks, height, and floor area ratio - FAR (i.e., daylight plane, second story step back, prescribed articulation, etc.). • Belmont has no staff level or zoning administrator (ZA) level SFDR, and the lowest threshold for Planning Commission (PC) level SFDR. • Belmont is the only city within the survey group where SFDR can be triggered by projects with no discernable exterior modifications (i.e., conversion of underfloor space). • Belmont has the highest parking demand (4 spaces). All other cities within the survey group require two spaces for homes of up to four bedrooms or 3,749 sq. ft. (dependent upon jurisdiction). • Belmont is the only city within the survey group that calculates parking demand based upon areas that are already dedicated to parking; San Mateo uses floor area as a threshold, but does not include the garage for these calculations. • Belmont is the only city within the survey group that requires parking upgrades for projects that do not increase parking demand. For example, Belmont requires parking upgrades for any modification to homes of 3,000 sq. ft. or more, and for any modification to homes with 4 bedrooms or more; Belmont also requires parking upgrades for projects that add two bedrooms, no matter how many bedrooms are removed.

Attachment B Specific Issues/Concerns and Potential Ordinance Modifications

Approach to Review of Text Amendments

The following approach (system of review) for the Zone Text Amendments is recommended:

• Impact-based: The Ordinances should address only identifiable development impacts. • Objective: Whenever possible (quantifiable, measurable) review criteria should be included. • Appropriate Review Level/Process: The level of review and the extent (time/cost) of the review process should be commensurate with the scope of the project.

Project Scope

Based upon the evaluation of the Council Subcommittee and the approach identified above, it is recommended that portions of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance and Tree Ordinance be modified as follows:

SFDR Findings Review Guidance

Current Issues

SFDR includes both technical and design related findings. A distinction between these findings can be found within the Residential Design Guidelines (RDG); however the RDG language is not codified within the SFDR findings of the BZO.

Potential Modifications

Include distinction between technical and design related findings within the SFDR findings of the BZO. Provide guidance on how these findings of fact can be made. Refine language of SFDR Findings to reflect conditional affirmation of findings as appropriate.

SFDR Thresholds & Level of Review

Current Issues

SFDR by the Planning Commission is currently required for additions of 400 sq. ft., and for development projects of any size that endanger a protected tree. The 400 Gross sq. ft. threshold is not justified by any particular impact and an SFDR is required even on the ground floor or underneath the existing footprint. No tiered system is available for review of additions with greater or lesser impacts (i.e., upper vs lower floor, etc.). Tree removals can trigger SFDR review for very small additions that would normally be processed with a building permit.

Attachment B Specific Issues/Concerns and Potential Ordinance Modifications

Potential Modifications – Multi-tier review

Administrative/Staff SFDR – Tier I Thresholds

• Ground floor additions up to 499 sq. ft., provided that the plate height of the addition together with crawl space would not exceed twelve feet, and/or the new roof height would not exceed eighteen feet (both measured from finished grade). • Enclosure of carports & additions of any size that do not increase the foot print of the home (i.e., underfloor and attic areas that are made habitable)

Administrative/Staff SFDR – Tier I Process (two weeks to 45 days)

• Staff reviews project based upon Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) checklist, and SFDR Findings. • Reviews proposed building exterior for consistency with existing buildings colors/materials, window design, and roof forms. • Conducts site visit for carport enclosures and additions beyond footprint. • No notice required. • For additions between 250 sq. ft. and 499 sq. ft. neighborhood outreach to bordering neighbors would be required. • Fee to cover staff time on hourly rates beyond building permit plan check fees. • Staff has ability to refer projects that do not comply with RDG to ZA.

Zoning Administrator (ZA) SFDR – Tier II Thresholds

• Ground floor additions where the plate height of the addition together with crawl space would exceed twelve feet, and/or the new roof height would exceed eighteen feet (both measured from finished grade). • Ground floor additions from 500 sq. ft. to 999 sq. ft. • Upper floor additions up to 499 sq. ft. • Combination of upper and lower floor addition less than 999 sq. ft.

Zoning Administrator (ZA) SFDR – Tier II Process (30 to 60 days)

• Applicant required to conduct neighborhood outreach & submit formal application, including geotechnical review (if required). • Mandatory pre-application meeting with staff required (fees to be determined). • Staff reviews project based upon Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) checklist, and SFDR Findings. • Staff reviews project based upon objective criteria (i.e., upper level step backs, daylight plane, a prescribed level of articulation, etc.). To be determined. • Staff conducts site visit and prepares report for ZA • Site posted, and notice of optional hearing request mailed to property owners within 300 feet. If no hearing is requested within 10 days, the ZA takes action. • Appealable to the PC. PC confirms ZA decision –process complete. PC reverses ZA decision – automatic CC review for final disposition.

2

Attachment B Specific Issues/Concerns and Potential Ordinance Modifications

• Fees to be determined • ZA has ability to refer projects to the PC if he/she determines it is in the public interest.

Planning Commission (PC) SFDR – Tier III Thresholds

• New Single Family Homes • Grading more than 500 cubic yards • Upper floor additions 500 sq. ft. or more • Combination of upper and lower floor addition of 1,000 sq. ft. or more • SFDR with other PC level entitlements (i.e., Variance or Conditional Use Permit)

Planning Commission (PC) SFDR – Tier III Process (90-180 days)

• Mandatory pre-application meeting with staff required (fees to be determined). • Current Process & Fees + new objective criteria (i.e., upper level step backs, daylight plane, a prescribed level of articulation, etc.). To be determined.

Potential Modifications – SFDR - Delete Protected Tree Threshold

Tree removal would be reviewed by Parks and Recreation/Tree Board, unless project would otherwise require review by PC.

Parking Standards & Upgrades

Current Issues

Current parking requirements for single family homes in Belmont (two covered and two uncovered) are not consistent with vehicle ownership by household (The 2012 American Community Survey by the US Census Bureau and CLR Search indicate that 66-76 % of Belmont households have two or fewer vehicles). In addition, current thresholds for parking upgrades do not relate to specific impacts (600 sq. ft. non-bedroom addition), and modifications that don’t change net number of bedrooms still require upgrade.

The current upgrade threshold that any modification to a home of 3,000 sq. ft. or with four or more bedrooms is also not connected to an impact, as floor area or bedrooms may not be added (i.e., kitchen expansions, and remodeling triggers parking upgrades).

The bedroom definition is too broad, and does not allow for enlargement of the public spaces of the home (i.e., expanded great room areas or kitchen alcove seating areas, etc.).

Potential Modifications

3

Attachment B Specific Issues/Concerns and Potential Ordinance Modifications

Revised Thresholds

• New homes – three spaces (two covered and one uncovered) Garage or carport • Additions to existing homes resulting in a total of five bedrooms – three spaces required but only one is required to be covered. • Additions resulting in four bedrooms or less – two spaces required – one covered.

Considerations

• Covered or uncovered spaces may be in tandem; uncovered space may extend to inside of sidewalk where sidewalk exists (within right-of-way provided it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of Public Works that the space would not obstruct a future sidewalk installation. • Change bedroom definition to include only fully enclosed areas within the home (i.e., areas not open to the public space of the home).

Exceptions (optional)

• Parking Exception based upon the ability to provide two uncovered spaces on site, and/or objective conditions within the neighborhood (street parking within 100 linear feet of the site).

Setback Regulations

Current Issues & Potential Modifications

Current setback requirements are outdated, convoluted and/or inflexible. Specific issues are related to the following BZO provisions:

Setback Averaging – requires that applicants calculate the average front setback within 400 feet on both sides of their property and the same side of the street. The intent is for all of the homes on the street to be aligned along similar front setbacks. This provision is appropriate for large plat subdivisions along straight/flat roads. Consider using right-of–way width to calculate front setback (current provision requires 20 foot front setback for 40-foot wide R-O-W, and 15 foot front setback for 50-foot wide R-O-W.

Continuation of Non-conforming Setbacks – prohibits applicant from continuing building line along non-conforming setbacks, without a Variance approval. Most prevalent issue is the continuation of side yard setbacks for narrow lots. Consider allowing for the continuance of side yard non-conforming setbacks based upon specific criteria (i.e., maintain minimum five feet, first floor only unless daylight plane standards are met or a specified amount of articulation and/or material modification is provided).

Driveway Bridges – require a Variance for front yard structures over 6 feet in height. Consider allowing driveway bridges for down slopping lots which are necessary to gain site access and reduce grading. Encroachments within the right-of-way would still require permits. 4

Attachment B Specific Issues/Concerns and Potential Ordinance Modifications

Stairs/landings in side yard areas- not permitted in side yard areas unless on grade or a Variance is approved resulting in difficulty providing necessary ingress/egress for occupants. Consider allowing stairs/landing meeting minimum building code regulations for width on narrow, sloped lots.

Calculation of side yard setbacks – current BZO provisions uses 10% of average width, where lot area/ maximum lot depth equals average width. Subdivision Ordinance uses 10% of average of front and rear property line length. Consider modifying for consistency with Subdivision Ordinance.

Tree Ordinance

Current Issues

The Tree Ordinance is too broad, expensive to comply with, and promotes the maintenance of non-native, invasive tree species. Specific issues are as follows:

• Development Review aspects are mainly Biomass concerned to the exclusion of other factors- non-native trees, invasive tree species, trees in poor condition, and trees that are fire hazards.

• Protected Trees – Any tree equal to or greater than 10 inch DBH – Too Broad. Original version of this Tree Ordinance allowed the collection of full development review removal fees for what are usually considered non-desired species (Acacia, Eucalyptus Globulus, and Monterey Pine tree species). This provision was removed by the Council based upon a request from an applicant. However, no premium is given to desirable trees over undesirable trees.

• Damage & Fees – very broadly defined to include any tree impact outside of pruning to increase the health of the tree – Permit fee could be collected – no establishment of baseline to access condition/damage/amount of fee afterwards.

• PC Review of Entitlements – no findings.

Section 25 of the Belmont City Code (Tree Ordinance) requires that protected tree removals proposed in conjunction with development permits be processed by the Community Development Department/Planning Commission; however, the Tree Ordinance does not include any required findings (basis for approval/denial) for tree removal permits processed by the Community Development Department/Planning Commission.

• Replacement Trees – biomass weighted

The identified intent of replacement plantings is to facilitate a bio-mass and tree canopy equivalent to that lost with the tree removal. No quantifiable criteria are provided within the Tree Ordinance to assist in determining the number of tree 5

Attachment B Specific Issues/Concerns and Potential Ordinance Modifications

plantings to obtain an equivalent bio-mass/tree canopy; however, the size and number of replacement trees is required to be based upon the size, number, and species of the tree(s) removed, and the number and density of existing trees on the subject property.

In terms of replanting requirements, all protected size trees are treated equally under the Tree Ordinance (except for Acacia, Eucalyptus Globulus, and Monterey Pine tree species). No other general exceptions or reductions in tree removal replanting amounts are given for non-native trees, invasive tree species, or trees in poor condition. In addition, there is no allowance specified with the Ordinance for trees removed as part of a required fire/vegetation management plan (i.e., for development occurring in Wildland Urban Interface areas).

• PC Discretion – Too Broad

Section 25-7 (Conditions attached to permits) of the Tree Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to impose conditional requirements for the granting of a tree removal permit including any or all of the following: 1) tree replacement of up to 3:1 for protected tree removal and 1:1 for removal of protected size Acacia, Eucalyptus Globulus, or Monterey Pine trees; 2) payment of tree removal fees in accordance with the latest adopted fee schedule; 3) continued tree maintenance for new trees and replacement plantings; and 4) payment of a security deposit for replanting when five or more protected trees are removed.

Potential Modifications

Consider the following modifications to the Tree Ordinance:

• Modify review authority within the Tree Ordinance to the Parks and Recreation Department for all SFDR projects that are not otherwise required to go the Planning Commission (i.e., PC review of tree removal pursuant to the SFDR thresholds discussed above).

• Prepare Findings for PC review of Tree Removal Permits for all types of applications (SFDR, Multi-family and Commercial Design Review, etc.).

• Revise the protected tree definition. Include a category for heritage trees using desirable species (oak, madrone, buckeye, redwood, etc.) of a specified size.

• Adopt a more precise definition of tree damage. Include establishment of baseline to access condition/damage/amount of potential fee and/or replanting required afterwards

• Modify tree removal findings (reasons for removal), replanting requirements, and fees appropriate to tree species, size, and condition. Include a provision for trees being removed as part of an approved vegetation/fire management plan.

6

Attachment B Specific Issues/Concerns and Potential Ordinance Modifications

• Allow for removal by right of invasive and active pyro-phytic trees (i.e., eucalyptus), after identification/conformation of species by Parks and Recreation.

• Potential consideration of replacement trees at a one-to-one basis. This replacement ratio also could be dependent on the type, size and condition of the tree being removed.

7

Attachment B - Basic Summary Table – SFDR & Parking (Belmont Proposed) SFDR Objective Parking Standard DR City SFDR – Main Triggers Parking New SFD Tier(s) Criteria Additions Guide • Ground floor up to 499 sq. ft., (plate height of the addition + crawl space not > 12 Ft.; Roof not > 18 ft. Informal/ • Enclosure of carports & Staff additions of any size that do not increase the foot print of the home • Ground floor up to 499 sq. Additions resulting in not meeting standards above 5 or less bedrooms = • Ground floor additions from 500 sq. ft. to 999 sq. ft. 3 spaces (1covered and 2 uncovered) Belmont • Upper floor additions up to New SFD = 3 Spaces ZA (proposed) 499 sq. ft. Yes (2 covered in carport or Additions resulting in Yes TBD garage, and one 1 • Combination of upper and 4 bedrooms or less = lower floor addition less than uncovered ) 2 spaces (1covered 999 sq. ft. and 1 uncovered)

• New Single Family Homes • Upper floor additions 500 sq. ft. or more • Combination of upper and lower floor addition of 1,000 PC sq. ft. or more • SFDR with other PC level entitlements (i.e., Variance or CUP)

Attachment C - Single Family Design Review (SFDR) – Comparison Table

City SFDR Threshold Review Level DR Guide Objective Criteria Staff ZA PC

• New Homes X Yes Second Story Step Backs & • Second Story Additions Declining Height Envelope Burlingame • Increase in Single Story Plate Height above 9 Ft. (i.e., Daylight Plane) • Construction of a new Attached Garage • Reconstruction of 50% or more of Exterior Walls

• New Two-Story Homes X Yes Daylight Plane • Reconstruction of 50% or more of a home • Second-story additions to single-story homes San Mateo • Small Second-story additions to two-story homes (from 50-200 sq. ft.), do not require a public hearing if consistent with DR Guidelines. Notice is mailed and project is approved if no comments are received within 10 days

Attachment C - Single Family Design Review (SFDR) – Comparison Table

DR City SFDR Threshold Review Level Objective Criteria Guide Staff RDRC PC

• New Residences X* Yes • Upper Story Step-backs of at least 4 feet for at least • 1st or 2nd story additions that result in residences 70% of lower story walls greater than 3,000 sq. ft. of floor area (including garage), on lots less than 7,500 sq. ft. • Minimum porch projection or recession of • 1st or 2nd story additions which meet or exceed five feet with an area of no FARs based upon average cross slope as follows: less than 40 sq. ft.

Cross Slope FAR • Minimum window trim 1 inch in depth, or minimum 0-4.9% 0.40 recessed window of 2 5-19.9% 0.30 inches San Carlos 20-29.9% 0.25

30+% 0.20 • Street facades can run no

more than 25 continuous

feet with a window, *The Residential Design Review Committee is projection, offset or recess comprised of 3 appointed members: (PC, citizen, of the building wall at and design professional) least one foot in depth.

• Side yard elevations require at least one vertical and one horizontal plane break of at least 3 feet each.

Attachment C- Single Family Design Review (SFDR) – Comparison Table

City SFDR Threshold Review Level DR Guide Objective Criteria

Staff RDRC PC

SFDR when combined with other PC entitlements X Yes Yes – see above

• 1st or 2nd story additions which do not meet or exceed FARs based upon average cross slope identified for RDRC review X Yes Yes – see above

• Accessory structures, decks, covered patios

San Carlos In addition to above: (cont.) 25% of lot + slope of lot (not to exceed 85%) shall stay in natural state

SFDR in Hillside Overlay – same thresholds Yes 20 foot maximum height (lots with 10% slope or greater) of downhill building elevation – 5 foot step back to next building elevation

Under floor maximum of 6 ft. in height

Attachment C - Single Family Design Review (SFDR) – Comparison Table

City SFDR Threshold Review Level DR Guide Objective Criteria Staff ZA PC

Redwood • New Homes X No Second Story Step Backs City • Second Story Additions & Remodels

• New Dwellings, or X Yes No

• New Gross Floor Area of 400 sf or more, or

• Grading:

o 500 or more cy combined cut / fill, or

o 6,000 or more SF disturbed area, or

Belmont o Any grading which will require removal or endanger a protected tree, as defined, or

• Tree Removal / Excessive pruning associated with any Planning Commission entitlement for single family or duplex residential development, or

• Encroachments associated with any Planning Commission entitlement for single family or duplex residential development (encroachments subject only to recommendation to City Council)

Attachment C- Single-Family Dwelling Parking Standards – Comparison Table

City New Homes Parking Upgrade Triggers Considerations Exception (s)

Addition: Results in 4 bedrooms No Tandem Parking Variance 4 Bedroom Homes – 2 spaces total (2 spaces required) (one covered & one uncovered) Garage or Carport for

Addition: Results in 5 bedrooms additions – conforms at 5 Bedroom Homes – 3 spaces total (3 spaces required) 18’ width x 20’ length (two covered and one uncovered) for two cars Burlingame

Covered - (garage or carport) Uncovered parking may 1 space - 10’ width x 20’ length extend into right-of-way 2 space - 20’ width x 20’ length (inner edge of sidewalk,

curb or street depending Uncovered – 9’width x 20’ length on street improvements)

SFD under 3,000 sq. ft.* – 2 spaces Same as standards for new homes To be determined (code Variance (covered in garage) unclear – contact with San Mateo required) SFD 3,000-3,749 sq. ft.* – 3 spaces (2 garage spaces & 1uncovered)

San Mateo SFD above 3,750 sq. ft.* – 3 spaces (2 garage spaces & 1uncovered) + one uncovered space/750 sq. ft.*

*floor area does not include garage, and uninhabitable accessory structures

Attachment C- Single-Family Dwelling Parking Standards – Comparison Table

City New Homes Parking Upgrade Triggers Considerations Exception (s)

Single Family Home – 2 covered Per the Non-conformities chapter - Tandem Parking Variance spaces (garage or carport) Additions can occur without allowed parking upgrades provided that new dwelling units are not created. Homes constructed Covered - (garage or carport) before 1954 may 1 space - 10’ width x 20’ length convert parking to living 2 space - 20’ width x 20’ length space if one off-street parking space is San Carlos provided

Garage or Carport for additions – conforms at 16’ width x 20’ length for two cars

Garage setback of 5 feet Hillside Overlay Same as above to reduce grading

Attachment C - Single-Family Dwelling Parking Standards – Comparison Table

City New Homes Parking Upgrade Triggers Considerations Exception (s)

Single Family Home containing 4 Additions permitted without SFD legal non- Use Permit bedrooms or less – 2 covered spaces parking upgrade provided: conforming for parking Variance (garage or carport) size or location may be • Addition does not occupy enlarged if: SFD containing more than 4 current parking area bedrooms – 2 covered spaces + 0.5 • the site has an spaces for each additional bedroom • The home will have no more adequate number of (rounds up) than 3 bedrooms after the total spaces; addition • the enlargement Accessory Unit would not occupy 1 covered space • The home will include no more existing parking than 2,000 sq. ft. after the spaces; Covered - (garage or carport) addition • 10-foot driveway Redwood width is maintained City • Driveway has 10 feet in width unless legally established with May exceed 2,000 sq. ft. less width and not upgrade parking if CUP is approved with standards: • No more than 3 bedrooms • No bedrooms are added

• No accessory dwelling on site

• No more than 200

sq. ft. is added

Attachment C - Single-Family Dwelling Parking Standards – Comparison Table

City New Homes Parking Upgrade Triggers Considerations Exception (s)

Single Family Home - 4 spaces • 600 or more square feet of gross Garage of 17’ width and Variance 2 covered in garage floor area is added to the 18’ length conforming 2 uncovered in driveway dwelling for additions – however • Any floor area modification garage floor area reserve proposed to a home that is required. Accessory Unit (2nd Unit) currently 3,000 square feet or (no additional spaces) larger, or that results in a BEDROOM – dwelling becoming 3,000 square Any room at least Covered - (20’ width x 20’ length) feet or larger seventy square feet or Uncovered – (17’ width x 18’ • Any floor area modification more in area in a length) proposed to a dwelling that residential structure currently has four or more which is not a kitchen, dining room, living Belmont bedrooms, or that results in an increase in the number of room, or bathroom. bedrooms from three or fewer to Within such residential four or more structure, any second • Two or more bedrooms are living or dining room, being added to such dwelling, or any den, study, or regardless of whether any other similar room existing bedrooms are which is capable of eliminated being used for sleeping quarters that contains a closet, or to which a closet could be added, shall also be considered a bedroom.