EyzonBelmont

Vote NO on VTA Measure B because mega commutes are gumming up the commute and there is no linkage to jobs, housing and transportation as required by SB375’s Sustainable Communities Strategy.

My perspective on Affordable Housing published in the Daily Journal concerns the tendency to overlook real solutions. More efficient and equitable housing in walkable communities reduces energy lost to commutes and climate change. http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/opinions/2015-12-28/guest-perspective-a-realistic-approach-to-affordable-housing/1776425155805.html

Photo by Gladwyn: Manhattan epitomizes the affordability transportation link.

Belmont’sbicycle infrastructure can leave you scratching your head. For example bike lanes recently appeared on Fifth Ave from Broadway to E street. Meanwhile bike lanes on Old County are conspicuously absent- San Mateo to the north and to the south both San Carlos and Redwood City have amazing bike lanes installed. On Ralston at 101 the city shared millions o dollars in costs with Redwood City to rebuild the interchange around 1998- yet bike lanes from Redwood City terminate on the east side of the interchange. Council in turn is constantly harping about how well they get along with neighboring jurisdictions. Clearly talk is cheap and doesn’t translate into paint on the road.

Photo from Sfgate showing separated bike lanes in Golden Gate Park.

10% of households make up a quarter of the garbage on the road.

Item 9 Solid Waste Rates on the 10/28/14 City Council Agenda.

If you convert the number of cans into 32 gallon equivalents you get

20e=1157 households

32= 4146

64e=1310

96e=234

AND WHY IS IT THE LARGEST SEGMENT OF BELMONT'S INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS?

Stormwater is the result of modification to the floodplain or stream flow in nature. Modification is  coded in stream setbacks and C3 requirements. Because of development stormwater  becomes a risk to development. The risk is ameliorated with flood insurance to make development feasible in places where better heads should prevail. 

Harbor at Old County flooded in 2012

Damage occurs because when large volumes of runoff flow quickly into streams and rivers or undercut a bank. Examples of damage in Belmont are the flooding of Old County Road at Harbor from Belmont Creek and the bank undercut on Marsten off Christian. The quantified damage from stormwater in Belmont's budget  is $45M;  but larger problems exist off Reed, Old County, Hillman, Marburger, etc and  easily place the actual cost at three times that.

THE USGS DESCRIBES STORMWATER THUS:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs07603/

Over the past century, the United States has become an increasingly urban society. The changes in land use associated with urban development affect flooding in many ways. Removing vegetation and soil, grading the land surface, and constructing drainage networks increase runoff to streams from rainfall and snowmelt. As a result, the peak discharge, volume, and frequency of floods increase in nearby streams. Changes to stream channels during urban development can limit their capacity to convey floodwaters. Roads and buildings constructed in flood-prone areas are exposed to increased flood hazards, including inundation and erosion, as new development continues. Information about streamflow and how it is affected by land use can help communities reduce their current and future vulnerability to floods...

Last night the Belmont City Council chalked up one more score over the public. For past scores see the stone deaf council continues to vote against the public. On Talbyrn last night the council did not respond to most of the issues of substance that the public raised, preferring to rely on Traffic and some made up conjectures.

So far not one community appeal has been upheld by this council. Small wonder, after the mayor publicly thanked the Chamber of Commerce for paying for his state of the city speech! Developers appear to be getting the upper hand over the citizens.

The community denials so far:

Valley View- allow a retaining wall in the public right of way and do not recognize an easement for public access on a paper trail.

Valley View- said paper trails may not exist despite historical use and respect.

Valley View- Permitted the largest grading project in the city’s residential building history with 150 heavy haulers for the project adjacent to 1704 which could result in over $1M in damage to the road.

Bartlett- saw fault with the donation of three contiguous lots to the city’s open space program because of the loss of a grand total of $810/- to the general fund AND the sewer assessment!

Council authorized a study of traffic conditions to propose solutions on Ralston Avenue in Belmont last year. The Ralston Corridor Study has put together $9M of solutions one of which is to route bicycle traffic through Twin Pines park.

There are a number of problems with this suggestion:

Dumb- Parks have different rules and enforcement from streets that are designed to used 24/7/365. Twin Pines like other parks around the area has signs informing users that it will close at sundown. With day light savings time, that closure would occur during the commute period. How can the Public Works Department justify spending regional transportation funds when the access is unclear?

Dumber- The park is very narrow in this section so any new right of way will come at the expense of large established trees that determine both the appearance of Ralston Ave, as well the park atmosphere within Twin Pines. Placing the path by the street in effect is a widening of the street, but the purpose, diverting bicycle traffic, has no observed success rate in an urban setting.

The city would benefit from accepting open space for four major reasons:

1- The land would link continuous corridors for streams, wildlife, and trails as noted by staff and public comments.

2- Open space reduces the cost of supplying what is becoming burdensome city services on the urban fringe- almost a $1m saved per ten dwelling.

3- Open space prevent land cover changes that result in downstream flooding in California according to the EPA.

4- reduce wildfire, from development on the urban fringe, that is the prime cause in the bar area according to the California Energy Commission's third assessment report.

Real Estate money hit the jackpot with the 2013 elections in Belmont. At the 3/25 council meeting Item 10 C. Involved Discussion and Direction Regarding Donation of Three Lots to the City of Belmont - Assessor's Parcel Numbers 043-041-090 and 100 (Bartlett Way) and 043-242-090 (Alhambra Drive). The staff report said the lots were contiguous or near land currently owned by the city of Belmont. One benefit of accepting the donation was the ability to connect trails across the land. However  the newly elected council were horrified at the lost of revenue from lots not developed. The donation came at near zero impacts to the city- a total of $60/- in general fund taxes and about $750/- in sewer fee taxes. The development-at-all-costs minded council proceeded to imagine a lot of problems with the almost free land donation. The main objection was the loss of revenue like CSUS. Running the numbers imply the city would have to get a hundred times larger donation to attain the losses of CSUS.

You probably believe a public utility operates in the public interest. Uh uh. Reuters reports that "A prolonged drought in California could lead to ratings downgrades on the state's water and public power utilities unless they show a willingness to raise prices."

And here we are conserving because of the drought! Not for some extra terrestrial reason like ensuring our grand children have a reliable supply of drinking water and salmon to eat! Conservation means money down the drain. 

The largest liability in the state is in the teacher's pension funds. The LA Times projects:

If lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown eliminate the fund's $71-billion shortfall over the next 20 years, the extra contributions needed from the state, schools and teachers would total a little more than $180 billion in that time period.

But if they put forward a 60-year plan, the total cost would be $622.8 billion. The analysis was created by the California State Teachers' Retirement System.

Image from google image.

  Belmont has a budget of $65M. It's unfunded liability for pensions is over $50M. The stormwater unfunded liability at Marburger, Holly, Notre Dame, Lyon, Harbor, and Hillman ($8M by itself) is equivalent, Now let’s look at unfunded liabilites elsewhere in CA. Surprisingly living largely beyond our means is a common trait. UC fees have gone up more that 100% since 2005, a period when the median American household has seen a decline in wealth of 35%. The UC system has a student to staff ratio of almost 1.14.

Image from Wikipedia Commons

Does one staff member for every student make sense! Here is the data from Wikipedia:

Endowment $11.227 billion (2013)[1]

Budget $22.7 billion (2011)[2]

President Janet Napolitano

Academic staff 18,896 (Fall 2011)[2]

Admin. staff 189,116 (Fall 2011)[2]

Staff total ------------------208,012

Students 236,691 (Fall 2012)[3]

Undergraduates 184,562 (Fall 2012)[3]

Postgraduates 52,129 (Fall 2012)[3]

Yesterday the regents discussed the possibility of raising fees again because of rising pension costs. The state funding proposal had failed to match “the regents’ November request for an additional $120.9 million in state support for pension and enrollment-growth funding… (which) would amount to only a fraction of the university’s largest liability: its pension system. The UC Retirement Plan, which is currently unfunded by the state, and other pension benefits represent billions in unfunded liabilities and remain a serious burden on the university as it seeks a sustainable model for predictable tuition increases over time and reliable funding for faculty, staff and capital projects.”

^ Jump up to:a b "Annual Endowment Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013; p.4" (PDF). Chief Investment Officer of the Regents of the University of California. Retrieved 2013-11-30.

^ Jump up to:a b c d "About the University of California".

San Diego has said that complying with stormwater regulations will cost as much as $4 billion over the next 17 years. By comparison, the city’s revenue in 2013 was $2.75 billion. Its unfunded pension liability—another cost many cities are facing—is $2.3 billion. By some estimates, stormwater utility fees for homeowners and businesses would have to increase 1,000% to meet expenses.