Belmont Watch

In the minutes of Audit Committee meetings, public comments have nearly always been reduced to one sentence that is vague and lacks sufficient details for understanding. In some cases, public comments on specific Agenda items were misstated or omitted altogether.

One example of lack of detail is that I repeatedly asked the Committee and City Council over the past two years to reject draft budgets and annual financial reports because they grossly exaggerated the City’s infrastructure needs.[1] I provided detailed support for my position, but the Committee minutes say only that I asked that the documents not be approved, without giving any reason or rationale. This constitutes censorship that conceals the nature of the problem from the public. In every case, the Committee, Council and Finance Director would not even discuss the evidence I provided, and the documents were unanimously approved.

In a unique instance where a Committee member agreed with my comments, new Member Kim stated on 3/27/17 that my request was “eminently reasonable” that accounting records show separately the costs of spending on street pavement by Public Works employees (Fund 231). Finance Director Fil seemed shocked at having to respond to my request, but told Kim it would be “a challenge” to provide those records because it was “something we don’t readily have.” My request for those records and the resulting discussion between Kim and Fil were completely omitted from the minutes. This omission concealed from residents the fact that it may not be possible to determine overall spending on street pavement, even though most of the new Measure I funding has been allocated for that purpose.

In two instances, statements that were clearly false were left in the minutes, despite my objections. The minutes for June 2016 falsely said I read questions from another resident, and the minutes for November 2016 falsely said that Member Stone moved approval of the minutes. I made audio recordings of meetings since October 2015, and told the Committee they clearly showed these errors. However, Chair Violet took the lead in moving approval of the minutes anyway, without changes. It shows a serious lack of ethics to knowingly approve official documents with errors, whether the errors are large or small.

Contributing to a lack of transparency is the fact that Audit Committee meetings are not video or audio recorded, and meetings are always held on weekday mornings, making it difficult for working residents to attend. This is in contrast to meetings of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks and Recreation Commission, which are televised, video recorded, and held in the evenings. The same was true for meetings of the Finance Commission, before its duties were assumed by the Audit Committee in 2015. I and other residents have asked for years that meetings be recorded, to no avail.[2,3]

 Without recordings, it is critical that the minutes be detailed for understanding of the proceedings. Aren’t the City’s financial operations at least as important to residents as its zoning and parks decisions, so that Audit Committee meetings should also be held in the evenings and recorded?

 The minutes are prepared by an employee of Finance Director Fil, which is a conflict of interest because the Committee oversees the Finance Department. As a result, it is not surprising that the minutes water down or omit comments critical of Fil or the Finance Department. To be more objective, the minutes should be prepared by someone independent of Fil.

Belmont’s Audit Committee, City Treasurer, and City Council have failed to exercise their responsibility for independent oversight of the Finance Department. By suppressing dissenting points of view from the public, these elected officials have facilitated the manipulation of residents by Fil and City Manager Greg Scoles on financial issues. This has contributed to Belmont’s burdensome taxes and user fees.

The Audit Committee and Finance Department are accountable to all residents, but this requires much higher levels of transparency and responsiveness than have been shown.

 REFERENCES:

[1] https://belmontwatch.tumblr.com/post/132389790630/belmont-continues-to-push-false-infrastructure

[2] https://belmontwatch.tumblr.com/post/113827760820/audit-committee-meetings-need-public-transparency

Other Key Takeaways from the previous workshop

Based on the feedback collected at the open house (Nov 3, 2016), the following design preferences and considerations emerged:

School Drop-Off Lane Back-up. Despite improvements made to the roadway in front of Ralston Middle School traffic back-up often occurs due to cars waiting to pick up students and not pulling forward into empty spaces.

West Bound Travelers. Issues with cars using Tahoe Drive or other neighborhood shortcuts to avoid dropping off in the actual school parking lot are  likely due to West-bound travelers wanting to continue West after drop-off.

Sidewalk Safety. Adding a   sidewalk alongside the roadway may not be a safe or desirable feature. Students should be protected from walking right next to the busy roadway.

Tahoe Drive Traffic. Most complaints of traffic are from student drop-off on Tahoe Drive. Residents stressed the congestion in Tahoe Drive and some do not believe our design will discourage drop-off in the neighborhood.

References

Three Additional Stop Lights Proposed for Ralston Avenue (published 060115)  http://belmontwatch.tumblr.com/post/120482341050/three-additional-stop-lights-proposed-for-ralston

Ralston Avenue Corridor Study

http://www.ralstonavenuecorridorstudy.org/belmont-ralston/documents/

The proposed Ordinance states that the Committee will meet just once per year and its duty is to “review the annual audit” of Measure I revenue, and report on “the accuracy of the auditor’s findings.” So, the function of the Committee is to audit the auditor. Unless the auditor is incompetent and Committee members are more competent, the Committee’s role is a wasteful and meaningless duplication of effort. It appears that the Committee was never intended to accomplish anything of substance, but was just used as a campaign tool to provide voters with an illusion of accountability and transparency.

Measure I states that “the City Council shall determine…other duties of the committee,” but it appears the Council doesn’t plan to assign any other duties that might make the Committee’s work meaningful. It is not enough for the Committee to verify only that the expected $1.3 million per year from Measure I is spent on pavement and storm drains. The City currently spends about $1.7 million per year from its general fund on these purposes, and it could simply substitute Measure I funds for most of this spending without increasing total spending on these needs.

To be meaningful, the committee’s scope should be expanded to include authority to detect and report on this type of shell game. This would entail comparing total spending on street pavement and storm drains in 2017 and later years, with spending in prior years, to ensure that spending in these areas has increased substantially as a result of Measure I. This would include accounting for new revenues from other sources, such as the two new hotels and Crystal Springs Upland School, to determine the impact and importance of Measure I by itself.

Please let the City Council know before or during their meeting tonight that you would like the Advisory Committee to have the broader authority necessary to measure the impact of Measure I funds on total spending on pavement and storm drains.

Petrochemicals, most minerals, fresh water and arable land are on the decline. These finite resources can never be replaced and we are consuming them at an alarming rate. We have destroyed many of our natural forests and have supplanted many of the remaining ones - including the great biodiversity they support - with monoculture tree farms. Our fisheries are being decimated. Our population is 3 or 4 times greater than what leading scientists say the planet can sustain. At this juncture in our history we should be totally committed to sustainable energy and sustainable living. Instead, we are heading for a cliff from which there is no return.

In Belmont, the City Council has introduced zoning regulations which would allow significantly bigger houses (expanding the floor area cap from 3,500 sq ft to 5,000 sq ft) which would result in more material and energy consumption. This is the opposite direction from where we should be heading.

"Thinking globally and acting locally" is a world view which recognizes how communities are interconnected and interdependent - environmentally, ecologically, economically and spiritually. In today's crowded world, If one village consumes more than its share of resources, concentrates more wealth, over-populates or pollutes more than its neighbors, then the others suffer. In this light, we in Belmont are already living beyond our means. Not only are we robbing other villages of their fair share, but we are selfishly appropriating precious finite resources from our own children and future generations to maintain an unsustainable lifestyle. Not to address this destructive trend in a determined and dedicated manner is irresponsible and immoral.

The California Energy Commission's  2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report established the goal that new building standards achieve "net zero energy" levels by 2020 for residences and by 2030 for commercial buildings. A net zero energy building consumes only as much energy on an annual basis as can be generated with an on-site renewable energy system. With three short years to go, instead of moving closer to this goal, the City of Belmont is recommending significantly increasing house size - the single biggest culprit in energy consumption.

The average new single-family American residence in 1950 was 983 square feet and housed 3.8 people (259 sq ft/person). Today, it is 2505 square feet and houses 2.54 people (986 sq ft/person). These figures demonstrate how houses have become much less efficient over the years with such drastically disproportionate size-to-occupant ratios. This is the opposite of sustainable.

Normal size houses are almost always greener than big houses. A recent article in the Journal of Industrial Ecology concluded: A 1,500-square-foot house with mediocre energy-performance standards uses far less energy for heating and cooling than a 3,000-square-foot "green" house of comparable geometry that has much better energy detailing.  Size for the sake of size creates a vicious financial and resource-wasting cycle. Buyers spend more on their homes, more to heat and cool them, and more on resources to maintain them.

In the 21st century, the focus should be on quality, not quantity in new home construction. This means REAL sustainable construction, not the typical "green washing"!  This will happen when green building evolves from guilt-removing fashion to a far-reaching instrument of change. And house size will be the biggest factor.

Responding to these compelling realities, I suggest that the City adopt a floor area cap of 2,500 sq. ft. with an exception process that might allow a 3,200 sq. ft. house for larger than average families.

Future generations are depending on us to reverse runaway growth and consumption. They need us to be good stewards of our communities and the planet. Belmont is an excellent place to start. With education and citizen involvement, we have the opportunity to be the trend setter for other communities. Let us make Belmont a leader in population stabilization, sustainable clean energy and, as much as possible, living within our means. Rather than changing our zoning laws to accommodate overbuilding, let's craft them to encourage energy efficient standards such as passive and active solar, water capturing and recycling, the use of recycled building materials, and micro-hydroelectric power from Water Dog Lake and along Belmont Creek. These are the kinds of considerations that can turn us away from that rapidly approaching cliff. These are the kinds of actions that will lead us to be good neighbors in this rapidly shrinking global village.

Sincerely,

Michael O'Neill

Expenditures: Street Pavement - Spending of $2.8 million per year would raise the condition of our streets from poor to good (Pavement Condition Index of 70) in just 7.5 years, based on data in the CAPS Pavement Management Report from last year.

Storm Drains - Spending of $2.9 million per year would satisfy all the medium and high priority needs identified in the 2009 BKF Storm Drain Study in 8 years, including an extra 30% for cost increases. The most urgent storm drain upgrades costing $5.8 million, as identified in the 2017 Budget, could be completed in the first two years. This includes $2 million to replace or reline all the metal pipes - the only ones that are deteriorating.

We have detailed support for all our numbers, which Measure I proponents don’t want to discuss. Let's keep our eye on the civic ball and focus on the big dollars, not this sales tax sideshow that would raise only $1.3 million per year.

Vote NO on Measure I.

Visit www.stopmeasurei.com

Instead of establishing a policy to prioritize projects,  or making a 5-year budget to see how far our already growing revenues would get us, their FIRST action was to hire a pollster to ascertain voter’s stomach for a TAX. The poll results were not good, so they then hired another consultant to market the idea of a tax for infrastructure.Finally, when a second poll indicated voters would still not approve a tax, the “Infrastructure Committee” recommended AGAINST putting it on the ballot. That was 2015 – the last time the committee officially met.

Fast forward to 2016 and staff independently hired a third poll, and recommended Council put the measure on the ballot – claiming it was the “Committee” recommendation, when in fact the Committee had not met publicly for a year. I do not buy their story. Several financial professionals have examined the data and assert the city has growing revenue to improve streets. Witness the 5 large commercial projects under construction, adding a 10% revenue bump alone!  Something doesn’t add up, and I’m not willing to commit my unborn grandchildren to a tax until 2046, based on staff manipulation. Especially not a General Tax, that will be used for anything that staff manipulates future councils into buying. I VOTE NO on Measure I.

Kristin Mercer

The City’s ballot statement reads the $1.3 million “would provide funding for maintaining general City of Belmont services/facilities such as ……… “.

“Such as” means “including, but not limited to”.

belmont.gov states:      “Measure I would generate around $1.3 Million annually and could” (repeat could) “be used to address aging infrastructure items such as such as pothole repair, repairing and maintaining neighborhood streets, storm drain repair as well as public safety services.”

The City’s pleas for funds for sub-standard roads which have dismal average pavement condition indices (P.C.I.’s) of 56 overall and 52 for residential streets are understandable.

This deplorable situation has resulted from the City’s decade long underfunding of the overlay/top sealing of roads with abysmal P.C.I.’s.

But the $39 million ($1.3 x 30 years) Measure I, without any guarantees that the greater proportion of the $39 million would be spent on roads, is not the answer.  

Instead, the City should propose a specific tax measure with a 2/3 majority. But first the City will need to be much more transparent about the costs of, and existing available funds for, improving residential streets.

Meanwhile refuse the City’s no accountability “blank check” request.

Vote No on Measure I.

Perry Kennan

The logic of the other councillors was that if construction did not commence immediately the City would most likely lose a $250,000, soon to expire, Federal Grant. In the opinion of this writer that is a waste of $1 million of taxpayers' money, including the quarter million of federal taxes. It should also be noted that there has been no maintenance of the sidewalk in what must have been the last ten years. Seventy percent of the width of the sidewalk is effectively not 100% useable because it is partly covered by soil slippage that has fallen onto it from the eroded embankment. That said, the entire length, including the 2 1/4 ft wide short section adjacent to the cinder block retaining wall, is definitely usable to a person using a walker as I demonstrated using photos and the walker during the Public Forum section of a recent City Council meeting. Perry Kennan

The City Manager’s Staff Report is not exactly a well written and convincing document. It states the half cent tax is needed in order to:

1) Maintain 911 emergency response times and neighborhood police patrols.

2) Fix streets

3) Improve deteriorated storm drains and protect the water quality of our creeks.

4) Develop sources of revenue that cannot be hijacked by the State.

A major deficiency of the Report is that it omits any financial projections for the years 2016 to (say) 2025 supporting the City’s cry for help?

As regards the four areas of need listed above:

1) Police. Did the City really pay $50,000, or whatever, for two surveys by consultants to learn safety is the number one concern of Belmont citizens?  They might just as well have asked citizens if they beat their spouses. One question the consultants did not ask was "Should Belmont consider switching to another provider of police services?" Per one estimate based on San Carlos the potential saving is nearly $1 million annually. I do not favor such a switch myself but other residents might feel differently.

2) Fix streets. Many times have I spoken at council meetings on the need for the City Council to schedule a council meeting to establish goals for "fix". These pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Fix means bring the three classes of streets (arterial, collector and residential) up to a certain standard as measured by their pavement condition indices (P.C.I.s).  Many citizens believe that the City Manager has a philosophy of "Staff knows best; Leave it to Us; No, we don't need citizen Help, and that's why we dispensed with the Finance Commission".

3) Improve storm drains. The most current report in the Infrastructure Binder in the Belmont Library is a report dated 2007. So, where does the City stand today?  Stop the scare stories. Give residents the facts and the dollars available compared with the dollars needed.

4) Sacramento. The only way to stop the state from purloining Belmont revenues is to secede from California (a la what Texas maintains it has the option to do). In any event, the State is currently flush with funds and a raid on Belmont's Treasury is unlikely at this time.

In summary, the City Manager has dropped the ball. Insufficient financial information provided to residents too late in the day. This is an example of the “solution” being presented to residents without the “problem” having been properly defined.  In the San Mateo Daily Journal it was stated "Let's see what the residents want”. Good. I concur. BUT first define the problem.

The draft ordinance may be an attempt by the City to fly a trial balloon. Instead a lead balloon seems a more likely description because the Staff Report’s lack of supporting data, which absence will be received negatively by voters.

Continuing metaphorically, the City Manager’s proposal looks like a "Hail Mary Pass", if not a bomb (in NFL parlance) or a floater, which will bomb.

I think it is highly possible that tonight wisdom will prevail and the City Council will decline to approve the draft half cent sales tax resolution and ordinance submitted by the City Manager.

Perry Kennan Belmont

Open Letter to the Belmont Planning Commission 7-17-2016                                        

The DRAFT minutes of the 7-7-2016 P.C. meeting concerning Amendments to Section 24 (Secondary Dwelling Unit) are skimpy to say the least. Yes, a good job has been done to post the said minutes for approval on Friday 7-16-2016 (i.e. within nine days of the meeting to which they refer). But the details of the consensus reached by the PC at the 7-7-2016 meeting are conspicuously absent.

The draft minutes awaiting PC approval currently state only: "By Commission consensus, this item was continued. Staff would return to the Commission with a revised resolution to include Commission recommendations for City Council."

Please add Community Development Director, Carlos de Melo's summary at 2 hours 47 minutes into the 2 hour 51 minute meeting (see video http://belmont-ca.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=285 ) when Director de Melo stated that he would (excluding the wording in red which he did not state but which has been added by me for my own clarification): 

1) Reduce the maximum that requires a CUP (Conditional Use Requirement) from 8,000 sq ft to 5,000 sq ft  (as proposed at 7-7-2016)

2) Continue to allow via ministerial review 399 sq ft and 640 sq ft (Tier 1 ??)

3) Maximum unit size (Tier 2 ??) of second unit allowable via Single Family Design Review Process to be 800 sq ft (rather than 1,000 sq ft as proposed at 7-7-2016 PC meeting) 399-800 sf detached, 640 – 800 sf within the envelope

4) (add a new exception process) Higher maximum unit size (Tier 3 ??) of second unit allowable via Single Family Design Review Process up to 1,000 to be permitted via a Conditional Use Permit process yet to be developed by Director de Melo. 800-1000 sf requires Design Review AND Floor Area Exception findings.

5) Maximum size of any second unit to be no greater than 35% of total floor space regardless of tier.

Again, please expand the draft minutes to include the above so that the general public can understand in what direction proposed changes to the secondary dwelling units ordinance MIGHT take.

Thank you.

Perry Kennan

The Staff Report states that the City Council on June 28th "directed the Council's Infrastructure Subcommittee to work with staff to identify proposed solutions," and that "the Council's Infrastructure Subcommittee recommends the Council consider this ballot measure."  There is no public record of this happening:

http://belmont-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=356&meta_id=14612 [page 2, para. 2]  

Before consideration by the Council, the survey questions and results should have been discussed at a public meeting of the Infrastructure Committee with the opportunity for public comment.  At the very least, the survey report, including the questions and results, should have been included in the agenda for the Council meeting on Tuesday, which it has not:

http://belmont-ca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=356 [item 9A]

I previously asked City Manager Scoles for the survey narrative and questions, but he wouldn't provide them to me.  The wording of the narrative and questions is important to determine whether participants were misled.

The proposed Resolution falsely states that "current and projected City revenues are insufficient to maintain the City's infrastructure at its present deteriorated condition and prevent accelerating decline in the condition of the City's streets and storm drains."

http://belmont-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=356&meta_id=14613 [p. 1, para. 7]

This is clearly false because the City has been spending much more than the $1.2 million needed to maintain the City's streets this year and last year, and it would cost only $1.7 million to replace the City's metal storm drain pipes, which are the only pipes that are deteriorated.  The remaining concrete and plastic pipes are only about halfway through their 100-year estimated lives.

New projected revenue sources will provide more than the $1.3 million per year from the half-cent sales tax, and are enough by themselves to bring the City's infrastructure into acceptable condition over time.  I calculate that the planned Marriott and Hilton hotels will generate revenue of at least $1.5 million per year, and other large developments under construction or in the planning stages, including CSUS, will add hundreds of thousands more dollars.  So, there is no need for a new sales tax.

Plus, the proposed sales tax is a general tax that may be used for any City purpose.  There is no guarantee that the proceeds will be used to pay for infrastructure, or that they won't be used for increased staff salaries and benefits.

The proposed Resolution declares that the urgent need for additional revenue is an "emergency," because the California constitution states that Belmont voters may vote on general tax measures only in odd-numbered years, unless the Council unanimously declares an emergency.  There is clearly no emergency in this case because current and projected revenues are adequate to maintain and steadily improve the City's infrastructure.

Thanks for your consideration.

Yours truly,

Timothy E. (Tim) Strinden

2. State law allows cities to regulate secondary units - don’t believe staff claims to the contrary. Cities can define transit-oriented districts where these units are encouraged, and prohibit them in outlying neighborhoods (where MTC policy discourages added density). The city CAN limit proliferation and set floor area caps so that the units do not grow to “duplex” density in a single family district.

65852.2. (a) (1) Any local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of second units in single- family and multifamily residential zones. The ordinance may do any of the following: (A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on criteria, that may include, but are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second units on traffic flow.

(B) Impose standards on second units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Places. (C) Provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the second unit is located, and that second units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot.

3. All surrounding cities cap secondary units at 640 sf, and where small exceptions are allowed they require huge lots, dedicated parking or larger setbacks – all more stringent than Belmont (see table attached). 640 sf is a sizable 1-bedroom apartment with a living room and full kitchen. The goal is a room for grandma – not a house for an entire family.

4. The State declares secondary units “shall not exceed 30% of existing living area” (65852.2(E)) below). This insures the units remain affordably sized, and not so large as to constitute added density. Do not defy this state guideline by expanding units to 40% of the main dwelling, as staff unwittingly proposed.

65852.2 (b) ...every local agency shall grant a variance or special use permit for the creation of a second unit if the second unit complies with all of the following:

(A) The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented. (B) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use. (C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling. (D) The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling.

(E) The increased floor area of an attached second unit shall not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area.

(F) The total area of floor space for a detached second unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. (G) Requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential construction in the zone in which the property is located.

(H) Local building code requirements which apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. (I) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required.

5. State law allows the city to require a Special Use Permit (see 65852.2(b) above). By completely eliminating CUP permit requirements staff unwittingly leaves the city unable to regulate and count these units in our housing inventory. There would be no record of their existence. Even though CUP will be eliminated, the city should require at least an administrative Special Use Permit (per state law) for secondary units.

6. Belmont’s current zoning does NOT allow “folks to build 1,200 sf” units as staff has claimed. Do the math: Based on 30% of the primary dwelling and a 3,500 sf cap the maximum allowed size is actually 810 sf., and even that requires a level 7,000 sf lot (just 5% of all Belmont lots). Staff claims are wrong – less than 1% of homes meet the criteria for a 1,200 sf second unit, and those would require a Floor Area Exception for a total floor area of 5,200 sf. (4000 sf main dwelling + 30% second unit = 5,200 sf).

With a CUP, BZO 24.3(e) allows a 2nd unit 30% of the main dwelling floor area. For a 2,700 sf home this is 810 sf (2,700 x .3) and 2,700 plus 810 sf exceeds the maximum allowed 3,500 sf. floor area cap.

7. Decreasing minimum lot size to 5,000 sf is the ONLY revision needed to meet State requirements. Without a CUP, Belmont currently requires a minimum lot of 8,000 sf – which only 34% of Belmont lots have. When the lot size minimum is lowered to 5,000 sf WITHOUT a CUP, then 90% of lots will qualify. This one change could enable/invite dozens more units. Until the response is known, all other staff proposals are unnecessary and possibly reckless. Make the lot-size revision now, but put all other proposals on hold.

The Myth: If the Floor Area Cap is raised, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) table will provide the proper home size guidelines.

The Truth: The FAR tables are flawed, way too generous and will not provide the guidelines for proper home sizes. Contrary to myth, the FAR table does not prevent homes too big for their lots. For example, a large 40,000 sf lot with a 33% slope permits a resident to build a massive 14,560 sf house! This structure would be squeezed into the 8,000 sf portion of the entire lot representing only the usable, flat part near the front of the street. Steep lots lead to inappropriate sized homes based on the current FAR table and Belmont has many, many steep lots. If a larger size house is appropriate and does not impose on neighbor’s views and privacy, then the existing process of a Floor Area Exception is available. This has worked successfully and should continue to be used for handling these special cases.

The Myth: There is no difference between allowing 5,000 sf through a Floor Area Exception and raising the Maximum Floor Area Cap to 5,000 sf.

The Truth: Yes, there is a BIG difference between allowing 5000 sf automatically, and requiring the project meet the criteria for a Floor Area Exception. Currently, if an applicant wants to expand beyond the 3500 sf cap, the “Floor Area Exception” process requires notification of neighbors and public review by Planning Commission. These requirements protect the property rights of neighbors, so views and privacy are not lost [Section 4.2.10 (D)(2)] and property values of neighbors’ homes are not reduced. If the floor area cap is raised to 5,000 sf, as proposed by the Council, homes would be automatically entitled to expand regardless of the impact to neighbors’ rights, and property values. The neighbors would have NO opportunity to voice concerns for their own property rights. Hence, keeping the 3500 sf cap and allowing expansion through “Floor Area Exception” under the current zoning ordinances provides protections for neighbors while still allowing exceptions where they are appropriate.

The Myth: A bigger house next door will raise my property value.

The Truth: On the contrary, your property value could go down. Supersized homes sell for less money per square foot, and can also destroy the natural serenity, harmony and charm of the neighborhood. Oversized houses that loom over neighbors, look down over fences into other homes’ windows and yards, obstruct views, crowd natural surroundings, reduce the feeling of open space, and do not add to the appeal of a neighborhood. They can make a neighborhood less desirable and hurt property values.  Why would any buyer pay a premium for a “view” knowing that two adjacent neighbors can build monster homes that will block their views and invade their privacy in the future?  After ignoring supersizing for years in the Los Angeles areas, 20 neighborhoods recently banned them after suffering drops in their property values.

The Myth: Bigger houses don’t mean more people and cars.

The Truth: Yes, bigger houses definitely means more people, such as rooms rented out, adult children living at home, parents moving in, and live-in nanny/caretakers. All of these situations lead to more residents and thus more traffic congestion, more students in our classrooms, more cars parked on the streets, and more strain on city services. A City staff report confirmed that the number of bedrooms is the best indicator of parking demand. Thus more bedrooms correlates with more cars, and larger homes can accommodate more bedrooms.This means more people and more cars!

The Myth: Belmont has the most restrictive zoning requirements.  

The Truth: The floor area cap is not the restrictive part of zoning. Most homeowner complaints regarding zoning rules came from the Garage Addition requirement for small remodels. This requirement has now been eliminated. There is no indication that floor area caps have prevented a single “modest remodel”.

The Myth: Belmont has an obligation to allow bigger homes.

The Truth: Bigger homes are less affordable, and do nothing to help the housing affordability crisis. Nor does Belmont owe the region more housing; Belmont already has a higher housing to employment ratio than any of the surrounding cities. We are doing more than our fair share, and the city suffers economically for it with tax revenues overly dependent on property tax, to the neglect of commercial revenues.

The Myth: The new design review process will prevent “McMansions” in Belmont.

The Truth: The design review process aims to reduce the appearance of bulkiness, with setbacks and by breaking up large walls, but it does not limit the size and scale of the house, nor does it consider neighborhood “fit”. Raising the floor area cap to 5000 sf, along with legal Floor Area Exceptions, encourages “McMansions” to be built in Belmont.

The Myth: Larger homes will increase tax revenue.

The Truth: In fact, the added infrastructure burden of big homes outweighs the small tax gain. On a $100,000 remodel, the property tax goes up $1,000 annually, of which the city receives only $100. Thus only .01% of assessed value goes to the city, and that is not enough to cover the added burden to city services, roads, storm drains, etc. Other cities depend on business taxes to broaden their tax revenue base.

The Myth: Single Family Residential Zoning is Belmont’s most pressing problem.

The Truth: It is hard to understand why Belmont Council has made residential zoning its main focus over the last three years. Is raising the Floor Area Cap a “trojan horse” for enabling more secondary dwellings to rent on Airbnb?

Call for Action:

As Mayor Reed recently said in his annual State of the City address, "manage the future, or have it run over you". We agree. However, encouraging growth without first planning the infrastructure needed to serve the increased population is not managing the future. Putting Hillsborough-sized houses on Belmont-sized lots will not turn Belmont into Hillsborough. Replacing small homes with larger homes will not increase affordability. Crowding large homes into a neighborhood of small lots will not increase property values. It is short-term thinking that, if followed, will lead to a future that will indeed run over us and ruin our beautiful Belmont.

The City reduced the amount for streets from $50 million last year to $42 million this year, mainly because last year’s estimate was based on data that was obsolete at the time. The figure of $42 million is still unrealistic because it includes $38 million to raise Belmont’s streets from a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 56 to an “optimal” PCI of 82, which is higher than for any other city in San Mateo County. Instead, City officials should consider lower and more affordable PCI goals.

The Budget Brief states that the City needs $57 million to upgrade its storm drains, and that it has a "50-year-old, deteriorated storm drain infrastructure." However, 94.5% of its storm drains are either reinforced concrete or plastic, with an expected life of 100 years, and they are only about halfway through their useful life. So, the system is far from “deteriorated.”

City officials should focus on the most critical storm drain needs, which total only about $10 million. The City claims in a Staff Report for the Council meeting Tuesday that “many of our pipes are completely deteriorated and rusted through.” This greatly distorts the problem because the metal pipes subject to rusting constitute only 5.5% of the City’s pipes, and would cost only about $1.7 million to replace. The other high priority is installing storm drains where none currently exist, for an estimated $8.4 million.

The City should drop its plan to spend $21 million to replace perfectly good drain pipe that backs up once every 10 years due to heavy rains, because the gutters are adequate to handle the overflow and it’s a minor inconvenience with which we can live.

Belmont’s improving finances are sufficient to fund infrastructure needs in the foreseeable future. The 2015 Staff Report on Street Pavement Condition estimated it would cost only $1.2 million per year to maintain the City's streets. For FY 2016, the City budgeted $1.5 million to pavement repair ("overlay") alone, which is more than enough to maintain and improve the streets.  For FY 2017, the Budget Brief says the City will allocate more than $1 million in “additional relief” for streets, and the FY 2017 Budget shows dedicated revenues of $3.1 million for Street Maintenance and Improvements from the gas tax and grants (Funds 231 and 234).

In addition, I calculate that transient occupancy, or hotel, taxes from the planned Marriott and Hilton hotels will generate revenue for Belmont of at least $1.5 million per year, which could be earmarked for streets and storm drains. So, there appear to be enough long-term revenue sources to ensure our streets and storm drains steadily improve in condition without raising taxes.

City Manager Scoles claimed that a recent survey of some residents indicated support for increased taxes for infrastructure and other purposes, but he would not provide me with the survey questions to see if they were worded to indicate there was a crisis with no solution except new taxes. If so, the survey results may be meaningless.

After the City’s outreach campaign last year, a survey found that only 42% of residents supported a utility users tax (UUT) and 52% supported a sales tax increase. While it dropped plans for a UUT, the Infrastructure Committee decided to continue to pursue a sales tax in the future, even though Scoles said the $1 million or $2 million it would generate wouldn’t be enough to solve the City’s problems.

So, why aren’t City officials looking at alternatives besides increased taxes, like prioritizing and focusing on the most critical problems, instead of spending more money on polling and outreach?