#bw_planning

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

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

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.

No peninsula cities allow units of this size. Seven neighboring communities - Burlingame, Foster City, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, San Carlos, San Mateo, and Redwood City - limit the floor area for secondary units to 640 sf (aside from limited special exceptions). For perspective, 640 sf represents a 3 car garage or an average 1-bedroom apartment.  Why should Belmont allow 1,000 sf houses in the backyard of houses?  Instead of protecting our low density neighborhoods and our quality of life, the Council proposes to liberalize oversight and allow:

1,000 sf units up to 2 bedrooms

Only one added parking space for renters, even if the dwelling lacks the required 2-car garage plus 2 driveway spaces

NO Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement, except for a few lots smaller than 5,000 sf 

Do we need Conditional Use Permit (CUP) oversight for Secondary Units?  (Yes)

Already, Belmont allows owners to build units up to 399 sf (detached) or 640 sf (attached) without a CUP.  However, where other cities simply ban larger units completely, Belmont instead allows them with a CUP. Why? Because it gives owners options while also considering traffic, street parking, noise, safety, privacy and other adverse impacts on neighbors’ quality of life.  A CUP insures that the proposed use is compatible to other land uses and does not place an undue burden on existing roads, utilities such as water and sewer, and services such as schools, fire and EMS, police, and public health.  This seems a fair expectation in exchange for the privilege of having a supersized secondary unit.

Council proposes to eliminate CUP for these larger secondary units, requiring only a building permit and design review, and making Belmont’s regulation the most lax of local cities.  If state law does, as staff claims, forbid requirement of CUP review for larger units, then Belmont should follow the lead of other cities and forbid larger units altogether.

Now, with many aspects of zoning protections being diminished by the Council, it is even more important that Council either retain the CUP requirements for secondary units greater than 640 sf, or eliminate the right to build oversized units altogether.  

Are there Unintended Consequences?  (Yes, many)

Two houses, and two families living on one single-family lot can potentially double the neighborhood population.  Secondary Dwellings will increase the intensity of use, school enrollment, traffic, and street parking, and will overburden city utilities and services.  

The advent of Airbnb is a game changer.  An increasing number of homeowners desperate for additional income to pay their huge mortgages will build secondary dwelling units to become Airbnb hotels for tourists in a single family residential neighborhood.  Do we want tourists who come and go anytime during the day and night to disrupt our tranquil way of life?

Secondary dwelling units provide income for the owners but at the expense of reducing the property value of their neighbors.

Conclusion

Belmont is already in compliance with California state requirements on secondary units; therefore, we don’t need to expand the presence of secondary units and increase the numbers of dwellings in our single family residential neighborhoods.  Capping the maximum secondary unit size to 640 sf and 1 bedroom, similar to our neighboring communities, will keep our neighborhoods peaceful, residents safe, and preserve our quality of life.  Requiring CUP for units larger than 640 sf or eliminating those units altogether will ensure minimal negative impact on traffic, street parking, utilities, city services, and limit Airbnb rentals to tourists.

______________________________________________________________

Visit ABC website for the two previous articles in the series on Secondary Dwelling Units.

Please submit your thoughts and comments to the Belmont website and email the Planning Commission at [email protected] as soon as possible so that they will be included in the staff report when the agenda is published or come to the Planning Commission meeting on a yet to be determined date in June when these decisions will be made.

Please put your comments on the record, and please attend and speak at these hearings. ABC volunteers worked hard to give you this opportunity to have your voice heard – please don’t waste it.

And please pass this email along to your neighbors!

Please explain when the developer must conduct his community outreach and when we will receive a notice from the city that the projects are being considered by the Planning Commission.

Is there some reason that there is not a large notice posted in front of the property advising passersby about the development plans?  This is very commonly done in other municipalities and would serve to be transparent about what is planned here.  This is a major development, not just one new house.  It means that where there was once one house with one driveway, there will be four houses with three driveways.

We note that these 2 additional houses are on Redfin, Zillow, etc.  https://www.redfin.com/CA/Belmont/2904-San-Juan-Blvd-94002/home/1257449.  The listing makes it seem like the permits for these houses are a forgone conclusion.

We have copied the following individuals on this email:

- The Belmont Planning and Council members;

-Nearby neighbors, to ensure prompt communication from the City of Belmont;

-The organization Belmont watch in the event that they wish to post this letter on their web site; and

-The San Mateo Daily Journal in the event that a reporter from their staff would like to take a closer look at the real life impact of Belmont's new development code.

Sincerely,

Erica Sloan, and Bob and Trish Yeats, San Juan Blvd residents.

Existing Parking Conditions

The Central, Cipriani, Downtown and Homeview neighborhoods have large numbers of homes with less than a 2-car garage (see table above, based on audited and adjusted City and County records). As you can see in the pictures, especially in the hilly neighborhoods, cars are already overflowing onto streets with no shoulders while others are parked on sidewalks creating safety issues. Given the existing conditions in these neighborhoods, we should be asking: Is it prudent to reduce the parking standards for home expansions, even if some neighborhoods cannot support additional street parking?

What Are the Current Requirements and Can They Be Improved?

Current Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) 8.1.4 requires an upgrade to an enclosed 2-car garage when any of the following triggers occur:

(a)  600 or more square feet of gross floor area is added to the dwelling

(b)  Any floor area modification proposed to a home that is currently 3,000 square feet or larger, or that results in a dwelling becoming 3,000 square feet or larger

(c)  Any floor area modification proposed to a dwelling that currently has four or more bedrooms, or that results in an increase in the number of bedrooms from three or fewer to four or more

(d)  Two or more bedrooms are being added to such dwelling, regardless of whether any existing bedrooms are eliminated

Suggested improvement: Eliminate requirement (d). Without this requirement, homes with 0 or 1-car garages with a gross floor area of fewer than 2400 sf can add up to 599 sf, for example, as long as the remodeled home has 3 bedrooms or fewer.  A 599 sf addition is the equivalent of a family room and master bedroom. This one policy change will relieve the burden for the majority of families who are seeking to add or rearrange a single bedroom or family room.

What Are the Council’s Proposals?

Council proposes to eliminate ALL of the current triggers, (a) through (d) above, to facilitate remodels and thus, certain large additions and additions resulting in four or five bedrooms would no longer require four parking spaces much less a second garage space.

Is this smart? Is it safe? Are the changes consistent with zoning goals? The answer to all these questions is No.

It is not smart because hundreds of homes with 0 or 1-car garages in the most impacted neighborhoods have the potential for significant expansion of 1,000 square feet or more (see chart above).  The proposed amendments would allow homes to expand to maximum allowed sizes with only 3 parking spaces. It is easy to see how, over time, hundreds of extra cars that would otherwise be required to be parked on-site, would end up in the streets.

It is not safe because additional cars on narrow streets without sidewalks create safety hazards for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists, and can make access for emergency vehicles challenging. Public safety needs to be a priority.

It is not consistent with stated zoning goals and policies. Ordinance Section 8.1.2 stipulates that required parking shall be provided when the intensity of use is increased through additional floor area or capacity. Council’s proposal does not comply with this policy.

What Can Be Done to Alleviate Belmont's Garage and Parking Challenges While Maintaining Safety at the Same Time?

Eliminate requirement (d) of BZO Section 8.1.4

Reduce the dimensions of a standard garage from 20 x 20.

Allow paving a wider area in front of a one-car garage in order to park two cars side-by-side

Allow tandem parking in driveways to count toward the required spaces.

Create an exception process that would allow homeowners to reduce the parking requirement by one space if certain objective findings are met or if complying with the parking requirement could be considered an excessive financial burden

Visit ABC website for additional information on these issues.

Please put your comments on the record as soon as possible so that they are recorded by the staff and submitted to the Planning Commission and Council before public hearings, and please attend and speak at these hearings. ABC volunteers worked hard to give you this opportunity to have your voice heard – please don’t waste it.