20 Reasons to Reject Increase in Home Size

Here are 20 reasons to reject the Planning Commission’s recommendation to increase the maximum home size for Belmont:

  1. Unnecessary – Of the 1172 large lots affected by the recommended change, 86% already have existing potential for expanding an average 780 sf within their current slope/floor area cap. Floor area caps are NOT constraining these homes. Staff asserts “there was no evidence of a substantial demand to maximize floor areas”, implying builders will not utilize this grant. So why plan for something we don’t need, and then HOPE it will not happen?
  2. Does Nothing to Help Starter Families  –Your professed goal was to make remodels easier for families. The proposal does nothing to help families in starter homes – it caters exclusively to owners of already large homes (400 sf bigger than the average 2,400 sf of all Belmont homes) on the most expensive properties in town. It only allows the biggest of homes to be even bigger, widening the gap between the “haves” and “have-more”.
  3. Belmont’s Floor Area Exception Works – Presented with the comparison of surrounding cities, Planning Commissioners agreed Belmont’s allowances are already generous. Plus Belmont allows exceptions not offered by other cities. The PC has granted 4 out of 5 requests for exceptions, and in their October 24 discussion they affirmed the projects they denied were clearly out of scale. However the PC proposal will permit by right the Paddington Court application that was unanimously denied by commissioners. Blanket entitlement of larger floor area is dangerous for these irregular lots. Case-by-case basis is the only fair way to address these requests.
  4. Design Review Cannot Stop Oversized Homes – Attorney Rennie often cautions that Design Review cannot deny an application that is within zoning standards. The commission cannot stop large homes on existing foundations if they are within floor area caps; they can only soften the design impacts. Raising caps entitles these homes by right and leaves the city no tools to stop inappropriate homes.
  5. Wider Setback Rules Will Not Apply – Acknowledging that larger homes need larger setbacks the PC recommended this for NEW homes. But every one of the 1172 lots have existing homes – which are allowed by right to build on their existing setbacks. Resident Tran Tran has an older home built on the property line of her 18,900 sf lot. The PC proposal will allow her to expand the existing home (on the property line) to 4,840 sf. by right (more than double current) and there is no ordinance or “finding” to stop her. Design Review can only soften the edges – it cannot deny development rights granted by zoning.
  6. Resident Opposition – 2/3 of written comments on the topic of home size opposed raising floor area caps. 2/3 of speakers at the PC hearing opposed raising caps. 70% of Feierbach’s unscientific survey opposed over 3,500 sf. Participants at the 2015 workshops – having no data –  all agreed larger homes could be permitted on a case-by-case basis (the current Floor Area Exception process), not by blanket entitlement. San Carlos Council is responding to resident demands to reduce home size. Read more – Good Growth SC.
  7. Invites Spec Developers to Profit at the Expense of the Neighborhood. Since 2012, 20 of the 25 new Belmont homes were builder spec – every one of them built 90% to 100% of maximum allowed.  Read more – 5,000 sf Spec Homes on Their Way to Belmont.  San Carlos permitted 60 new homes in this time, with average 4,165 sq.ft! Read more – Good Growth SC.
  8. Violates General Plan– Expanding on lots that are high slope, abutting open space, and far from major thoroughfares, clearly contradicts General Plan policies, including 1060: “Intensity of use of individual parcels and building should be governed by considerations of existing development patterns, water and air quality, accessibility, traffic generation, parking, noise, fire safety, drainage, natural hazards, resource conservation and aesthetics,” and “New development should be of a scale and character compatible with surrounding land uses and Belmont’ small city environment”
  9. Hydrology, Erosion and Water Quality – All but 5 of these large lots are in the hills, on an average slope of 25% (up to 50% slopes). Their runoff erodes the unstable downhill slopes and fire trails and pollutes Water Dog Lake. Even though these lots are large, individual examination shows their buildable space is the same as neighboring lots, and the excess  area is unbuildable slope These slopes are not appropriate for larger homes. This is exactly where planners discourage development.
  10. Undermines Fire Hazard Mitigation Policies – 50% of the large lots are in “Severe Fire Hazzard” zones of Skymont, Belmont Heights and Cipriani. In Skymont and Belmont Heights these large lots are on the rim of the canyon, looming over the open space. They will be indefensible from a canyon wildfire, especially an Oakland-type firestorm.
  11. Defies State Energy Efficiency Goals – California’s legislature wants to position our state for 21st century leadership. The California Energy Commission’s  2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report established the goal that residential building standards for new homes achieve “net zero energy” levels by 2020 – just 4 years away. Larger homes undermines these goals.
  12. Unsustainable and definitely not “green” – Data shows that energy usage per square foot increases geometrically with home size. A 5000 sf home consumes not twice, but 4-times the energy of a 2,500 sf home when construction, heating, cooling and maintenance are factored in. Even an older home of modest size uses less energy that a “green” monster home.
  13. Complex and Arbitrary. Your professed goal was to simplify, and make rules less arbitrary. The proposed formula is even more complex than current rules. Instead of relieving inequities it creates yet another strata of entitled lots. The numbers in the cap formula are arbitrary, with no statistical basis. Commission did not even take the time to count the affected lots or consider their location.
  14. Disproportionate Impact – Already the largest average homes in town, 44% of Belmont heights lots could expand, making a drastic change in the character of that neighborhood.
  15. Opposite of Affordable –  Making the biggest homes even bigger does not address the urgent current housing needs. Each starter home that is supersized eliminates one more middle income family. While other cities are working for affordable housing is this Council more focused on rewarding affluent supporters, realtors and developers??
  16. Reduces Neighbors Property Values – An article in Bloomberg explained how the lower price per square foot of monster homes drives down the value of adjacent normal sized homes. The article observed that nationwide larger homes are in less demand and slow the market turnover. With Prop 13, this directly equates to lower property tax revenue. Of course having your normal home dwarfed by the neighbor mansion, with less open space and loss of neighborhood charm, is another obvious property value degradation.
  17. Unequitable Entitlement – Having a large lot does not entitle one to a large home – it entitles one to a large yard. The principle of zoning is that owners in a district share the same rights and restrictions. The PC proposal creates yet another strata of entitlement, creating disparity rather than reducing it. We rely on zoning to establish equity, not create disparity and privileged entitlements.
  18. Infrastructure Burden Born by Others – Maintenance of the infrastructure in these outlying  areas, on a cost-per-use basis, is double that of more central districts. The added 1% tax revenue from the re-assessment of a remodeled home is not adequate to cover the added infrastructure costs, making all taxpayers subsidize the excesses of the few.
  19. Traffic and Air Quality – 50% the 1127 lots are in neighborhoods with sole access via Ralston Avenue or Alameda. These neighborhoods are not walkable and public transit here is nil. Staff presented (and Census data confirms) data showing the number of bedrooms correlates with vehicle ownership; larger homes equal more bedrooms, equals more cars. Increasing population in these neighborhoods will only exacerbate traffic and further degrade air quality.
  20. Counter to Plan Bay Area – The majority of these lots are far from public transit. Car-trips from outlying neighborhoods are the major contributor to traffic and degraded air quality. Intensified development in these areas is exactly what Plan Bay Area aims to stop.