Belmont Needs More Trees

Protect our Belmont Trees, our Wooded Settings and our Environment!

Protecting our trees provides many benefits for our “Beautiful Mountain” city. Trees play an important role in energy conservation by reducing heat buildup, and providing shade and wind control. By absorbing runoff and stabilizing soils they protect property and reduce the burden on storm drains. Trees absorb air pollution and produce the very air we breathe. They provide habitat for a variety of wildlife and keep the birds chirping throughout our neighborhoods! They enhance our lovely wooded settings, reduce noise, and increase our property values by 20% according to the US Forest Service. But most of all, trees are our leading defense against Climate Change.

Check out this tree calculator that monetizes your benefits in terms of energy air quality, property value and storm drains.
http://www.treebenefits.com/calculator/index.cfm

Belmont’s Urban Forest Lags Behind Neighboring Cities

Belmont’s Tree Ordinance should be Simple, Equitable and Educational.

Keep the Tree Ordinance Simple:

1. Urge Council to protect ALL species of trees, not only “Heritage” trees (Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Redwood, Madrone, Bay Laurel and Buckeye). A large healthy Maple or Cedar is no less valuable than a “Heritage” species; ALL species of healthy trees benefit the urban forest, which needs diversity to thrive.
2. Urge Council to simplify the rule by setting one uniform standard: Protect trees 10 inch or larger DBH (Diameter at Breast Height – about the size of a telephone pole.) These large canopied trees make the greatest contributions to our urban forest. (The Council is considering allowing healthy trees up to 14 inch DBH to be removed without permit and replacement.)

Keep the Tree Ordinance Equitable:

1. Urge Council to eliminate FEES for permits to remove dead, damaged, high-risk, diseased or infested trees as defined in “criteria supporting removal”, Section 25.7 (A), (B) and (C) in the current Tree Ordinance. (as proposed by City Council – June 2017.)
2. A 15 gallon replacement tree should be required on a 1:1 basis. The replacement tree should provide a comparable environmental benefit: for example, an oak tree cannot be replaced by a lemon tree!

Keep the Tree Ordinance Educational:

1. Urge Council to create a citizen’s Tree Advisory Board. The focus of the board should be to educate residents about species of replacement trees that will thrive in their zone, with the goal of creating a diverse and better suited ecosystem.
2. Urge Council to grant authority for the Tree Advisory Board to provide a free-of-charge arbitration for residents seeking a 1 time exception to a tree removal policy.
3. Keep Belmont a “Tree City” as defined by the National Arbor Day Foundation and National Association of State Foresters.

Voice your concerns and keep Belmont a beautiful “Tree City”.

Read about some misconceptions of our current Tree Ordinance:
https://patch.com/california/belmont-ca/shedding-a-little-light-on-belmont-tree-ordinance

Please email:
citycouncil@belmont.gov
Urge them to protect ALL species of trees with diameters as small as 10 inch DBH because Belmont needs more trees!

Please also copy-paste the same email message for the public record via the link below:
Click here to provide comments for public record.

Protect your property values, your neighborhood character
and your quality of life. 

 

Thank You Neighbors for Your Support and Help!

With your help and support by writing emails, attending and speaking at the Planning Commission and Council meetings, Ask Belmont Citizens (ABC) was able to minimize the changes and impacts to Council’s Maximum Floor Area Cap that now include a sliding scale with a maximum of 4,500 square feet (sf) for those lots greater than 10,000 sf.  For lots less than 10,000 sf, the existing 3,500 square foot cap remains and in addition, larger setbacks will be required for any construction beyond 3,500 sq ft. Garage space continues to be included in the maximum floor area.

As Mayor Reed stated at the Council meeting on Nov. 22, “We started this process in a very different place and, because of feedback from the community, we’re in a different place today” (San Mateo Daily Journal).  ABC started a citizen’s referendum which overturned all 37 of their zoning proposals approximately 18 months ago. Through the collective opposition by ABC members and supporters, Council subsequently dropped their floor area cap from unlimited to 4,500 sf, tightened limits on secondary units, and retained garage requirements for new homes and larger expansions.

However, we need to continue our vigilance regarding the following items:

1. Interior additions above a home’s FAR for the lot will be approved by the Zoning Administrator without neighbor involvement.
2. Two council members have announced their intent to exclude garage area from the cap, thereby adding a potential 450 sf for every lot.
3. The findings for FAE have been weakened so that the Commission will have less authority to deny projects that are overly large for the lot or devalue neighbors’ property.

PLUS the Tree ordinance is still pending review and Council proposes to eliminate protection for all but a few species of large trees!  ABC welcomes your continuing support to protect our charming community from unwanted zoning changes and help keep Belmont beautiful!

Hidden Dangers of 5,000 sf Maximum Home Size!

9 Paddington Ct is the poster child for what really can happen to our neighborhoods. The photos below reveal how Council’s proposal of 5,000 sf home size with increased setback requirements can exacerbate the impact to neighbors.

Email Council and urge them to:

1. Keep the current 3,500 sf floor area cap, yet allow larger homes to be built with Floor Area Exception if the lot size and slope can support it based on a sliding scale with increased setbacks.
2. Keep the Floor Area Exception process for homes over 3,500 sf, as increased setbacks are not enough to protect Paddington Ct.
   For the privilege of building homes larger than 3,500 sf comes the obligation to insure that it doesn’t adversely affect neighborhood fit, views and privacy.
3. Solve the REAL issue by reducing the Floor Area Exception fees and approval time for larger homes, not by a blanket increase of the maximum floor area cap to 5,000 sf.
4. Accept Planning Commission’s unanimous decision to count garage space toward floor area cap.

As all public hearings have now been closed, only emails will be accepted by City Council before final deliberations on Tuesday, Nov. 22nd at 7 pm in City Hall. This is our final chance to voice our concerns against this unnecessary zoning change that can only benefit developers to the detriment of all residents.

Email now at citycouncil@belmont.gov AND ATTEND the Council meeting on Nov 22 to make sure Council respects the voices of residents.

Council Poised to Increase Home Size Up to 5,000 SF

Final Hearing on Wednesday, November 9, 7:00 pm

Belmont City Hall

Will you sit idle while Council defies both resident input and the General Plan?

Your attendance at this hearing is urgently needed to stop this unwarranted action.

If you cannot attend the hearing, please write the Council at citycouncil@belmont.gov.

Protect your property value, your neighborhood character, and your quality of life.

Planning Commission Recommends 5,000 SF Homes Without Knowing the Impact

The Planning Commission’s November 9th recommendation to Belmont City Council is to increase the allowed home size on lots that are larger than 10,000 sf. Their decision was made without study of the number of lots impacted, their location, and the scale of the impact. This data is easily available had they asked.

Planning Commission’s Recommendation

• Lots larger than 10,000 sf will have a sliding scale cap up to 5,000 sf. Max floor area =  3,500 sf + (0.15 x lot area in excess of 10,000 sf.)
• Setbacks must be wider for New homes (not remodels/expansions) larger than 3,500 sf.
• Floor Area Exception criteria have more narrowly qualified views, privacy and fit.

Sliding Scale Floor Area Caps for Large Lots

The Commission based their recommendation on the notion that large lots are currently constrained from expanding. The data contradicts this assumption. Under current floor area caps, 86% of these lots already have expansion potential averaging 806 sf. The proposal would increase that potential to an average 1,326 sf.  Belmont’s average home size citywide is under 2,400 sf. So at 2,765 sf, these homes on large lots are already bigger than the citywide average.

18% of Belmont lots are over 10,000 sf, and all but a few will gain expansion potential with the Commission’s recommendation.  The table below shows where these lots are clustered, and the disproportionate impact on a few neighborhoods; in Belmont Heights, 49% of R-1 lots can expand.  In the McDougal R-1E and R-1H districts already having 4,500 sf floor area caps, nearly all lots would be granted 5,000 sf caps.

 

Wider Setback Requirement is Moot

Acknowledging expressed concerns that larger homes negatively impact neighbors, the Planning Commission voted to require wider setbacks for New homes larger than 3,500 sf. However, existing homes are allowed to retain their existing narrow setbacks. And 99% of these lots have existing homes where the wider setback requirement will not apply. While it’s some relief that expansions cannot increase the encroachment, they do have the right to build 5,000 sf homes closer to lot lines than even the commission deems appropriate. And there is no finding in the Design Review process to prevent this.

Loosened Criteria for Floor Area Exceptions

Belmont already allows applicants to build beyond their lot floor area cap when the commission approves a Floor Area Exception. This process allows the commission to evaluate the fit of the home relative to the neighborhood, views, neighbor privacy and parking. Fewer lots will now need this review. And to compound the gift of added floor area by right, the Commission also made it easier to grant these exceptions by removing neighborhood fit as a requirement, and qualifying what constitutes a “view” or “privacy.”

Read the November 9, 2016 City Council staff report here.

Should the Floor Area Cap be Raised?
The Myths and Truths

Belmont Council proposes to raise the floor area cap from 3500 sf to 5000 sf. Should the floor area cap be raised?  After you consider these Myths and Truths, you will conclude the answer is “No.”

Protect your neighborhood character, your property value, and your quality of life.

The Myth: Raising the floor area cap to 5000 sf is needed to remodel current homes.  

The Truth: 

• The average single family home in Belmont is 2,400 sf, well below the maximum allowed 3,500 sf.
• 95% of homes in Belmont are smaller than the current floor area cap of 3,500 sf (4500 sf for R-1H).
• Under existing zoning, 68% of homes can add at least 400 sf, 59% can add at least 640 sf and 41% can add at least 1,000 sf.

This represents plenty of opportunities for homeowners to expand to accommodate growing families and remodel under the existing floor area cap.

(Note: 400 sf is the size of a 2 car garage, 640 sf is the size of a 1 bedroom apartment, and 1,000 sf is the size of a 2 bedroom house.)

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, privacy and property values are not lost [Section 4.2.10 (D)(2)].  Raising the floor area cap to 5,000 sf automatically entitles owners to expand by right, regardless of the impact to neighbors’ rights and property values. 

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. 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?  Read more – How Do McMansions Affect Your Home Investment?

Myth: New homes are always more “green” than an older homes.

The Truth: The most significant factor in energy efficiency is home size. A larger home always consumes more energy for construction, heating, cooling and maintenance than a smaller home. Data shows that even an older unimproved home will consume less energy than a new “green” oversized home. Read more – What Does it Really Mean to be “Green”?

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; bigger homes have more bedrooms, and more bedroom correlates with more cars!

The Myth: Belmont has the most restrictive zoning requirements.  

The Truth:  Recent revisions to Belmont’s garage ordinance have relieved these restrictions. A survey of surrounding cities has confirmed Belmont’s floor area allowances are generous compared to comparable cities. Read more – Other Cities’ Floor Area Allowances. And data shows the majority of lots have plenty of room for expansion within existing floor area allowances. Read more – Revealing Data on Belmont’s Home Sizes.

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. Belmont is overly weighted with residential, 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: Affordability is a pressing problem. Traffic and the air-quality it impacts are pressing. Water shortages are pressing. Maintaining quality education in an overflowing school district is pressing. Enabling the affluent few to widen the gulf between the “haves” and the “have more” is NOT a pressing problem, and is NOT a priority for Belmont residents.

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.

Submit your concerns to the Belmont Zoning website. And email the Planning Commission at planningcomm@belmont.gov and the Belmont Council at citycouncil@belmont.gov.

Planning Commission Still Considering
Unnecessary Changes to Floor Area Cap

A fairly large crowd of 30 Belmont residents spoke at the Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Floor Area Cap on Tuesday, 10/18. 20 of those 30 opposed these 3 Unnecessary Changes:

1. Raising the home size to 5,000 square feet (sf)
2. Excluding the garage from the total floor area cap
3. Modifying the definitions and criteria for Floor Area Exceptions.

Over 100 emails were sent, both pro and con, and were still being received as the meeting began. However, our initial take from the meeting is that the Planning Commission is leaning toward the unnecessary changes. Commission Chair McCune said he was not against large houses and suggested extra standards including larger setbacks for larger homes on a tiered basis but that would complicate the rules even further.

Commission discussion and decision will continue Monday, Oct. 24 at 7 pm for them to finalize their recommendations to Council. WE need them to focus on the concerns of the residents! This Commission has demonstrated they are more likely to make the right and conscientious decision when there are lots of citizen eyes upon them – so please come to JUST WATCH – this could make a huge difference in their recommendations.

REASONS SPEAKERS GAVE TO REJECT LARGER HOMES:

1. Any city with forward thinking leadership, facing a local and global energy crisis, would realize that a more responsible home size is in fact 2,500 sf instead of 3,500. This would require about a third less energy usage over the lifetime of the house. National data cited by staff shows nationwide average home size just over 2,500 sf. Aren’t we living in a region already over-crowded, over-priced, and totally out of buildable land? How can we as citizens of this planet, and especially this region, justify larger homes when we’ve already overbuilt and overconsumed by every world standard?

2. The changes are totally unnecessary since the 3,500 sf cap does not prevent residents who want larger homes to apply under a Floor Area Exception Process (FAE). The FAE permits a larger house if it doesn’t impact neighbors’ views and privacy. For the 9 Paddington Court application, raising the floor cap to 5,000 sf would allow the applicant to build this oversized house BY RIGHT, without the Floor Area Exception, thus blocking views and invading privacy. The Staff report confirmed there was no demand for such large houses and there was plenty of potential for residents to expand under the current 3,500 cap so that begs the question, “Why are we changing this ordinance?”

3. Excluding the sq footage of Garages will open the door to any size “garage” in addition to 3.500 sf living space – a Trojan horse for added floor area.

4. Other cities DO cap floor area, contrary to Staff assertions. A 7,000 sf lot that Belmont allows 3,500 sf, would be capped at LESS FLOOR AREA in Burlingame, San Mateo, Menlo Park and Palo Alto. Plus NO OTHER CITY offers Floor Area Exceptions.

5. Loosening the Floor Area Exception findings with subjective terms like “Substantial Adverse Impact” and “quality of landmark” adds more complexity and places the burden of proof on neighbors instead of the applicant.

MYTHS CITED BY SUPPORTERS (with our debunks)

1. Floor Area Exception Fees too high and are a burden. The one-time fee burden on one resident pales in comparison with the potential property value loss of neighbors from an oversized and intrusive home next door. Council could lower the fees.

2. We don’t live in garage space so it should not count. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is not about your life, it’s about BUILT STRUCTURES consuming our land. A garage has the same bulk, footprint, hardscape as living space; it creates the same runoff and tree removal and blocks views the same as living space. ALL PENINSULA CITIES include garage area in the calculation of FAR.

3. Owners have a right to do whatever they want on their lot. That was the Wild West; we live in a suburban community and by choosing to live here you agree to respect the interest, property values and rights of neighbors. This is the social and legal contract of property rights.

PLEASE continue to voice your concerns via emails to the Commissioners, who themselves had more questions than answers such as:
– How many lots would actually be affected?
– What is the average house size in Belmont? (The answer is 2,400 sf provided by the Public).
– How does raising the cap affect neighbors such as those on Paddington Ct?
How does exempting the garage sq ft impact the smaller lots?

The Commission will continue Monday, Oct. 24 for final deliberations.
Look for the staff report on Friday, Oct. 21 on the Belmont.gov website.

Please continue to voice your concerns with emails to the Planning Commission and Council via: planningcomm@belmont.gov and citycouncil@belmont.gov

Please also copy-paste the same email message for the public record via the link below:
Click here to provide comments for public record.

Belmont’s Garage and Parking Challenges

The City Council is proposing to relax the garage/parking standards for single family home remodels. Current standards require a 2-car garage whenever a remodel modifies bedrooms or adds significant floor area, and this requirement prevents many homes from remodeling. New homes currently require an enclosed 2-car garage and the Council proposes to retain this policy.

Protect your neighborhood, your property value, and your quality of life.

What is the Real Problem?

In order to form an opinion on what parking requirements are reasonable, one has to understand the following:

• This is a neighborhood-specific issue: only four of the nine neighborhoods in the city have large percentages of homes with 0 or 1-car garages.
• This is not about aesthetics, carports, or street parking. It is about making neighborhoods safe for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists, and maintaining access for emergency vehicles. That is in the interest of all residents and should be the top priority for the City.
• The desire to reduce the burden on some families has to be balanced with safety for the neighborhood.
• The proposed rules should take into consideration both the current situation and the significant expansion potential over time.

Existing Parking Conditions                                 

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). The majority of streets in the hilly neighborhoods are winding and narrow, with no sidewalks, and in many stretches with little or no off-street parking. In contrast, the other Belmont neighborhoods have mostly 2-car garages, and the streets have sidewalks and provide ample on- and off-street parking.

As you can see in the pictures, especially in the hilly neighborhoods, parked 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, is it prudent to reduce the parking standards for home expansions, even when some neighborhoods cannot support additional street parking?

How do the Current Garage Requirements Restrict Home Expansions?

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

(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.

Council proposed definition of Bedroom:

2.16 BEDROOM – Any room at least seventy square feet or more in area in a residential structure which is not a kitchen, dining room, living room, or bathroom. Within such residential structure, any second living or dining room, or any den, study, or other similar room which is capable of being used for sleeping quarters that contains a closet, or to which a closet could be added, may also be considered a bedroom. Exceptions include but are not limited to rooms that are clearly incidental to the other living spaces of the home, such as laundry rooms, rooms that are left open to adjacent living areas of the home, such as alcoves and breakfast nooks, and rooms accessed solely through bedrooms of the home, such as walk-in closets.

In general, it makes sense to require more parking for larger homes – (a), (b) and (c) – because larger homes have the capacity for more residents, who would own more cars. Regardless of statistics cited by the Council, census data confirms Belmont households typically own at least 2 vehicles and 23% of households have 3 or more. Hillside neighborhoods are not near public transportation, and most residents require cars in their daily lives.

Is there a potential for more cars with bigger homes?  

YES! Among the valid reasons residents cite for expanding are:

– growing families
–  adult children living at home
–  parents moving in
–  live-in nanny/caretaker.

All of these reasons involve more residents, and thus more cars. Council is focusing on the needs of individual homeowners, yet failing to recognize the likelihood of additional cars in the neighborhoods. It is important that there be adequate on-site parking for residents, as well as street parking for visitors and service providers.

Issues to think about:

• Should parking requirements be considered in the overall context of the neighborhood and how much off-street parking is available?
• Should the Council relax the parking requirements, even if some neighborhoods cannot support additional street parking?
• Should the current requirements remain in place, with an exception process to reduce the requirement if objective findings can be made to avoid hardship?
• Are there any circumstances under which a remodel should be required to increase parking to two covered and two uncovered spaces?
  • an increase in gross square footage of 600 + sq ft?
  • a larger increase, e.g. 1000 sq ft?
  • having four or more bedrooms?
  • enlarging a home to over 3000 sq ft?
  • remodels affecting more than 60% of the existing structure?
• Is it adequate for homes with 4, 5 or more bedrooms to provide just three total parking spaces?
• Should the standard for parking requirements be triggered by the number of bedrooms (see definition above), or should it be based on total living area regardless of the number of bedrooms?

What Are the Council’s Proposals?

Council proposes to eliminate ALL of the current triggers, (a) through (d) above, to facilitate remodels. This would allow large additions to homes – resulting in up to four or five bedrooms – without having to provide four total 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’s 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.

8.1.2 When the intensity of use of any building, structure or premises shall be increased through the addition of dwelling units, gross floor area, seating capacity or other units of measurement specified herein for required parking or loading facilities, parking and loading facilities as required herein shall be provided for such increase in intensity of use.

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. Without this requirement, homes with 0 or 1-car garages with a gross floor area less than 2,400 sf can add up to 599 sf, as long as the remodeled home has 3 bedrooms (see council definition below) 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 seeking to add family space or rearrange bedrooms.
• 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. This would require a change in BZO Section 8.2.6(a)…. No parking or paving outside of the required paved driveway and parking surface area shall be permitted between the front of the dwelling and the front property line.
• 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

Let’s give the homeowners options for providing the standard 4 parking spaces on-site so that our streets and sidewalks are not impeded with parked cars.

It’s important to put your comments on the record as soon as possible. You can do that at the Belmont City website  and by email to the Planning Commission at planningcomm@belmont.gov.

Please attend and speak at the Planning Commission hearing (anticipated in April but not yet scheduled) when these decisions will be made. ABC volunteers worked hard to give you this opportunity to have your voice heard – please don’t waste it.

FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT:

1. Belmont City webpage on zoning and tree ordinance revisions project: http://www.belmont.gov/city-hall/community-development/zoning-text-amendments

2. Comparison Table of Current/Proposed Revisions: Zoning Comparison Table July 2015 PDF

3. Text of Ordinances with revisions shown in red-line:  Zoning Revisions July 14 2015 PDF and  Tree Ordinance revisions July 14 2015 PDF

 

Secondary Dwelling Units – In Your Neighbor’s Backyard (Part 3)

Dear Belmont Residents,

This is the final article in our series to further examine the Council’s proposal to allow Secondary Dwelling Units that are much larger than allowed by other cities, and to eliminate oversight of these units.  What are the unintended consequences of the proposed changes to the Secondary Dwelling Units ordinance?

Protect your neighborhood, your property value, and your quality of life.

---

Belmont Council wants to relax zoning regulations to allow the potential proliferation of Secondary Units as large as 40% of main dwelling (an increase from the current 30%), up to 1000 square feet (sf) without a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).  A 1000 square foot Secondary Unit, which is 56% larger than secondary units allowed in surrounding communities, is the equivalent of a 2-bedroom, 2-bath house with a living/dining/kitchen – in your neighbor’s backyard.  These changes may seem like minor tweaks to Council but can result in significant impacts to OUR quality of life; higher density in our neighborhoods, more students in our schools, more cars parked on streets, and more Airbnb rentals.

Should Belmont allow Secondary Dwelling Units that are 56% larger than surrounding communities? (No)

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 planningcomm@belmont.gov 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 May 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.