From: Justine Eller
To: x-City Clerk"s Office
Cc: Justine Eller
Subject: Attention City Clerk: Jim and Justine Eller Letter/Pictures for City of Belmont Public Hearing Re: 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive-Roadway Improvement Plan and New Single-Family Dwelling-Application No. 2015-0057 APN:
043-165-180
Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 1:20:16 PM
Importance: High
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important To the attention of our City Clerk and our Belmont City Council:
Feb 13th, 2024
Jim and Justine Eller
Monte Cresta Drive
Belmont, CA: 94002
M: 650-823-8575
Dear Belmont City Leaders:
We have lived in Belmont for almost 30 years. We are writing this letters with our concern for what is top of mind for Belmont and our community. This direction below is putting our community in harm’s way at a standpoint as to fire, landslides / additional land instability, environmental, and the ability to insure our properties in future years.
Wildfire planning: The current proposal does not comply with the Fire Code; requiring questionable exceptions from the Municipal Code; ignoring the CA AG guidance to cities to address the problems that we have all seen with our devastating wildfires in CA. Current Insurance adjusters have commented that our neighborhood was “Just Lucky” during the September 21, 2020fire and “ A disaster just waiting to happen". Without the planes and helicopter dropping water from Water Dog, we would have had a very different outcome. It was crazy and such a scare trying to exit with our animals and belongings in such a short time which may not be possible in future disasters.
Fire Department Updates:We were told that the Fire Dept. and Chief, Captain Kent Thrasher will be joining our meeting on Tuesday Feb 13th. We see a closeddoor meeting with them before our 7pm meeting. Is this not open to the community? We ha ve been told that we would be able to contact Captain Kent Thrasher, but have had no response or communication back with us after our reach out. The Fire Dept used to make fire inspections years ago when we first moved to Belmont. After a tour with one of that staff after our Canyon Fire, it was added that future inspections were on the table. The Kraft Property has not been maintained for brush removal since Mr. Kraft purchased. I believe neighbors have asked for trimming with no response, resulting to clear themselves. The winds that come across the canyon get very intense and with dry brush, we have yet another such emergency and fire waiting to happen.
Geotech / Landslide / Stormwater: the current proposal ignores the State requirement in the Seismic Hazard Act and does not fully analyze landslide risks that could lead to devastation to the neighbors.
Complex Project: there is clear evidence that the proposal is not compliant with a number of State and City laws; requiring numerous exceptions and variances; and the City is not fully disclosing information to the public that will be affected and that is necessary to evaluate and comment on the plan in a public setting as required by law. Why is this being rushed? Compliance with the San Juan Hills Area Plan and the Municipal Code:Compliance is a legal requirement under State law. Shouldn't residents be given the opportunity to present evidence to be judged by City decision makers?
The legality of the Parcels under the Subdivision Map Act and Floor Area transfer: - This is at minimum a policy question. This needs to be discussed openly and transparently and the City should not blindly do the developers bidding. Residents have a clear interest in the outcome and have legal rights.
Openness and Transparency: Why has the City created suddenly, without explanation, and contrary to past practices a new rule that prohibits copying of the relevant documents in this proposal. What is being hidden? Is this in the interest of anyone other than the developer? It has been so very hard to just view any of the plans in their complexity.
City staff determined that parts of the Municipal Code are unenforceable: What is the legal authority for this? Why is this not arbitrary and capricious? Can this be done arbitrarily by City staff for anything? Laws are changed with a legislative process, not the dictate of City staff.
Presentation, Communication, and Openness from the Kraft’s: Angela Schmiede/Mrs. Kraft has been presenting all documents along with addressing the city. Why is Mr. Kraft now turning all this over to her? Ms. Schmiede presents herself as an educator ( to be commended) not addressing that she is also an investor in this project along with her contractor husband. Mr. Kraft has been very debative to the neighbors and those concerned with this project and ramifications to our community. During their original presentation 8+ years ago on the property they presented their then plans, telling us all about the home being one they were building for their family. When we asked during this meeting about Mr. Kraft being a contractor and if this might be a build for sale, he became angry and ugly in his lash-out to those attending. Little if no communication has been made to any of my adjacent neighbors since our first very nasty called meeting by Mr. Kraft.
City Openness and Control: Why is the city been enabling the Kraft Project to move and control meetings? The last meeting with the council was during the Holiday time when most people are traveling or have a house full of guests. Many found it very hard to join the meetings as well as to respond accordingly and within the short window. In addition, this meeting with the City Council has now been moved up two weeks to the second week, not the fourth as communication by Carlos back in January.
Adjacent Landslides and Water Drainage: Please find Included pictures of theCity Property across from 2015. This land has been tarped for the last two years. The property owners on “All View“ above have added a new black iron fencing this last year, as the current fencing was compromised and falling (along with trees) with the landslides below. This landslidein turn blocked traffic on Monte Cresta. Our neighbors at 2015 Monte Cresta have been experiencing some flooding from the water and hills across from them. The Kraft project will only add to our current water run off down the street to the below storm drains which keep getting blocked, yet creating more water back up.
Water Holding Tank: During the last meeting with our council, Mrs. Kraft showed plans for the home along with the new proposed build including a water holding tank (as concernsfrom the homes on Alhambra below) and potential flooding to their homes. As the plan they want to pump this water up their hill to the street to Monte Cresta and to then drain down Monte Cresta Drive.
Can our street and homes/property stability tolerate yet more water runoff?We would like to see some kind of drains be added to the Kraft Build. We currently have had to q;st” ? This was touched on very briefly during our last Kraft Meeting with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission moved on from this discussion, with no resolution or next steps? Truly, dismissing these above issues exposes the City of Belmont to potential litigation and harm to the community now and in years to come.
Respectively:
Jim and Justine Eller
PS: please find attached pictures of the slide at the turn on Monte Cresta Drive along with a typical day of parked cars at the end of Monte Cresta Drive.
This hill continually slides and is adding water and mud which flows down Monte Cresta towards Barclay which is only storm drains for all of this block of Monte Cresta. ______________________________________________
This area has been tapped previously as well.
____________________________________________
Current new retaining walls also collapsing
________________________________
Back yards giving way to the Hillside below.
Water from these hills is also washing down Monte Cresta along with Mud during all our storms.
______________________________________________________
We can have up to +5 more cars at the end of the street on any given day and at night.
It is impossible to turn around and for some of the families to even get in and out of their driveways.
There are also two huge Eucalyptus trees on the ride not captured in this picture which should also be removed as previous removal of others.
From: jennifer lai
To: x-City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Comment on 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive - Roadway Improvement Plan and New Single-Family Dwelling - Appl. No. PA2015-0057
Date: Monday, February 12, 2024 10:06:33 PM
Hello,
I am writing regarding the Public Hearing for the 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive scheduled for Tuesday, Feb 13, 2024.
First, would you please email me a copy of all geotechnical reports and information addressing the 2018 SHMA, including the City peer review, if one has been done? I understand that there are discrepancies between reports prepared by the Engineer of Record on this project vs earlier reports, and I'm curious to understand why the findings have changed.
I have concerns that have not been addressed regarding the compliance of the proposed project and the safety risks it poses to our neighbors. I would appreciate a response.
Potential code and process violations:
1. Proposal violates the San Juan Hills Area Plan, Policy 10, because it fails to provide a cost analysis of a potential through road. It’s inappropriate to proceed with a cul de sac plan without having an informed estimate for the through road
2. Additionally, the proposal fails to satisfy Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9 as required documents and analysis does not appear to be complete
3. Lack of neighborhood outreach – I was never informed about this project from the proposed builder, nor have I seen any design, drawings, or plans. I feel that the public has not been adequately informed as required under CEQA Importantly, I am also concerned that potential slope instability and soil erosion has not been adequately analyzed or addressed in the design of road improvements:
1. The Geotech analysis and reports and City geologist peer review do not adequately evaluate landslide risk in a way that meets the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act requirements. Based on the mandatory procedures and guidelines, a quantitative slope stability analysis is required. Additionally, the Planning Department should fully evaluate the project for compliance with the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, and that the proposal fully complies with the requirements of the Act.
2. Our area is a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and the proposed cul de sac does not comply with emergency access requirements
Ultimately, I urge you to consider the safety of all neighbors involved.
My property, located downhill from the proposed development, is supported by a roughly 15-foot-high retaining wall integral to the foundation of my house. Given this, any soil instability, erosion, landslide, or even excessive water runoff poses a serious risk. Such events could lead to a collapse of the retaining wall, potentially causing instability in my house itself.
In light of these risks, I seek clarification and assurance from the city regarding indemnification against risks and expenses should this development lead to damage or loss:
1. Will the city provide indemnification to my family for any risks and expenses that may arise from potential damages linked to the issues I have outlined in relation to this proposed development?
2. In the event that the development causes damage to my retaining wall or house foundation, will the city accept financial responsibility for the necessary repairs?
3. Additionally, will the city extend this indemnification to all existing homes in the community, covering risks and expenses that may arise from potential damages associated with the concerns I have detailed regarding this proposed development?
These questions are crucial, not only for the protection of my property but also for ensuring the overall safety and stability of the neighborhood. I look forward to a prompt and detailed response addressing these concerns.
Respectfully,
Your neighbors, the Lai family (Jennifer and Jonathan Lai) 2936 Alhambra Dr
February 12, 2024
As residents of Belmont for over 45 years, we appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Notice of Public Hearing - 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive - Roadway Improvement Plan and New Single-Family Dwelling - Appl. No. PA2015-0057 Agenda Item 8B.
We oppose Belmont’s City Council approving the Findings and Exceptions contained in subject Resolution. We previously submitted written comments to the Planning Commission on November 20, 2023, opposing approval of subject Application. We do not believe that our prior comments were appropriately addressed by the Planning Commission and urge the Council to review our comments (which are part of Attachment D to Agenda item 8B) in their entirety before making a determination on this matter. We continue to believe that the positions articulated in those comments are correct and are disappointed in the approach taken by the Staff and Planning Commission.
Given the brief amount of time the Council will have to address Appl. No. PA2015-0057 Agenda Item 8B on February 13, 2024, at this point, we will focus our comments on a few of the many issues we raised earlier.
The Resolution Is Based Upon Faulty Logic, and Conclusory Statements not supported by facts in the Project Record, thereby leading to Incorrect Findings, and the Granting of Exceptions
This hearing addresses two discrete, but related projects: A Roadway Improvement Plan and a Single Family Design Review. A Roadway Improvement Plan is required under Belmont City Code Section 7-13(a) to ensure that the site for the proposed new single-family dwelling is adjacent to an improved street. Although the home construction requires an improved road, the road itself can and should be designed and constructed without any consideration of what may ultimately be connected to the road. Stated differently, the improved Road must be designed to stand on its own.
Unfortunately, there is a melding of the Road Improvement Plan and the proposed single-family house throughout subject Resolution.
Specifically, the faulty logic and conclusion applies to the analysis for the length of the cul-de-sac, incorrectly leading to Finding (g) and the proposed granting of an exception for the road length.
Conclusory statements lead to an incorrect proposed granting of an exception for the size of the turnaround.
1 Incorrect Findings and Related Exceptions
We oppose the following Findings and Related Exceptions:
1. Finding (g) [see page 7 of 19 in the Resolution],
2. The exceptions requested for the length of Monte Cresta Drive, and a smaller turnaround.
3. Finding (b) [see page 5 of 19 in the Resolution]
4. Finding (a) [see page 3 of 19 in the Resolution]
Finding (g) states: If the project is for a cul-de-sac, the length and turnaround design are appropriate and consistent with emergency access requirements.
We disagree. The existing Monte Cresta Drive from its intersection with Barclay Way to the current terminus is listed as 800 feet, which is the maximum allowed without an exception being granted. Allowing a longer cul-de-sac in a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) area that has a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (HFHSZ) designation from Cal Fire is inappropriate, even if it physically could be constructed.
Safety should be a high priority. Let us not forget that the area in question is a few hundred feet from the site of a wildfire a few years ago; that wildfire necessitated a helicopter with a bucket scooping water from Water Dog Lake and dropping it on the fire to extinguish it. With climate change making matters worse, the City Council should not in any way be diluting safety requirements at this time.
If the Resolution before the City Council in this matter is approved by the City Council, the Council would be exposing Belmont’s residents to unreasonable and unsafe conditions in violation of its duty to protect the residents of Belmont. Thus, what might be argued at best as extremely poor judgment by the Council, could result in the loss of lives and absolute ruin of our community.
As matters stand, we researched the city codes of nearby cities regarding maximum cul-de-sac length. Belmont already exceeds the allowable lengths in nearby cities, as shown in the following Table:
Allowable cul-de-sac lengths
Belmont 800'
SSF 500'
Hillsborough 500'
San Carlos 500'
Mountain View 400’*700' in R1, R2
Los Altos 400'
Sunnyvale 400'
Menlo Park 350'
Palo Alto 350'
2 Brisbane 300'
Atherton 300'
Redwood City 250'
Burlingame 250'
Why on earth would the City of Belmont decide to place its citizens at even greater risk than other neighboring communities? This is exactly what would happen by granting a further exception to the maximum 800 foot length for the cul-de-sac to accommodate the 870 foot cut-de-sac proposed by Applicant.
Additionally, homes, buildings or other structures such as Applicant’s proposed singlefamily house must be treated as independent from the Road and the Road must be addressed first. This is because the Road may exist without a house while a house may not be built without an existing Road. Unfortunately, as described below, there is an incorrect melding of the two, leading to an improper evaluation of the Roadway Improvement Plan.
The existing cul-de-sac at the terminus of Monte Cresta Drive currently serves 17 homes along the 2800 block of Monte Cresta Drive. BCC 7-13(e)(4)(i) requires that a specific evaluation be made of the number of lots/houses/occupants to be served by the cul-de-sac and the type of construction of buildings (e.g., fire-retardant roofs and siding, interior sprinklers). However, the City fails to evaluate the existing homes and mistakenly examines only the single-family home proposed in this Project, concluding that the proposed home will be properly constructed. That faulty logic, which considers only a proposed home instead of the 17 existing homes on Monte Cresta Drive, results in an incorrect analysis, inappropriate conclusion, and improper justification for granting an exception to allow Monte Cresta Drive to be lengthened to become an 870 foot long dead end street.
There is nothing in the Project Record providing a detailed analysis of the existing homes. For example, how many occupants are in the homes? Are there fire-retardant roofs and siding for those homes? Are there interior sprinklers at those homes? Hence, there is no justification in the Project Record for an exception allowing an 870 foot long dead end street in Belmont. The requested exception for the road length is not justified as it is not supported by the facts and thus draws an incorrect conclusion. Hence, the exception should NOT be made and finding (g) should not be made.
3 Re: Granting of Exceptions to Hillside Road Standards [see Resolution page 17]
We disagree with the granting of the proposed exemption to eliminate parking lanes.
The applicant is requesting an exception to the Road Standards to eliminate parking lanes. However, the root cause of the problem is an inadequately sized turnaround that the staff supports with a Conclusory Statement not supported by facts in the Project Record. This in turn leads to an incorrect Finding, and the proposed granting of Exceptions. Staff states in finding (c) on page 17 of the Resolution, that reducing the standard is necessary to avoid excessive grading or vegetation removal or to reduce the risk of erosion, flooding or slope failure. They also say that due to the existing unimproved right-of-way width fronting the site, there is not adequate space to construct a larger turnaround to accommodate parking lanes and a fire truck turnaround and that the construction of a larger turnaround would require right-of way dedications from the adjacent privately owned properties, resulting in additional grading (cut and fill material), vegetation removal, construction of steep retaining walls, and additional project hardscape.
First, the fact that a larger turnaround size would require right-of way dedications from the adjacent privately owned properties does not justify not building a proper turnaround. It is the responsibility of a road developer to acquire whatever rights are necessary to build a proper road/turnaround. There is nothing in the Project Record demonstrating that the Applicant even explored acquiring the necessary rights.There is, however, a statement that “The additional grading, retaining walls, and rightof way dedications would make the project economically infeasible.” The City and its residents should not be encumbered with an inadequate turnaround due to the road builder’s desire to minimize costs and associated failure to do what it takes to build a proper road.
Second, the current grading and drainage plan prepared by the project civil engineer shows that approximately 150 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 650 CY of fill would be necessary for the construction of the project.
The conclusory statement in the Resolution that the construction of a larger turnaround would require additional, excessive grading (cut and fill material), vegetation removal, construction of steep retaining walls, and additional project hardscape is not supported by anything in the Project Record showing how much additional grading beyond the current 800CY of cut and fill would be necessary and what constitutes “excessive grading.” There also is nothing in the Project Record showing the vegetation removal, construction of steep retaining walls, and additional project hardscape that would be required.
The requested exception for the turnaround size is NOT justified and should NOT be made. Thus, finding (c) on page 17 of the Resolution should not be made. 4 Finding (b) on page 5 of the Resolution that the proposed project provides adequate vehicular turnaround space cannot be made since the granting of a smaller turnaround space is not justified as described above.
Furthermore, since findings (g) and (b) cannot be made, the Class 32 Exemption finding (a) on page 3 of the Resolution cannot be made since the road improvement plan is NOT consistent with the purposes and policies of the San Juan Hills Area Plan.
Since the project is NOT consistent with applicable City Code regulations, such consistency being a requirement for a CEQA Class 32 Exemption InFill, the Project does NOT qualify for CEQA Exemption and should not be approved by the City Council.
Judgement/policy is the responsibility of the City Council. We believe that it is important that the City Council exercise sound judgement because peoples lives will be at risk if the Council makes incorrect findings based upon an incomplete, incorrect analysis. Simply because the Application has taken some time to come before the Council, does not mean that the City Council should ignore its duty and responsibility to protect its residents.
Furthermore, does the City Council want to be individually and collectively responsible for a safety disaster the Council helped to create by approving an approach to development, i.e. an 870 foot long dead end road, that is far outside the bounds of reasonable safety rules established by local, neighboring communities? We would hope that would not be the legacy Council members collectively or as individuals would want.
We respectfully request the City Council not adopt the Resolution presented in the Staff Report, but instead direct staff to prepare a Resolution based on findings provided by the City Council to deny the exceptions to the Hillside Road Standards which would otherwise allow a 870 foot long cul-de-sac and a 29.5 foot turnaround at the end of the cul-de-sac.
Mark Herbach and Etta Herbach
5 Monte Cresta Letter To City Council
Casey Krueger
2811 Monte Cresta Dr.
Belmont
City Council Meeting Feb 13, 2024
Public Hearing for 2800 block of Monte Cresta Drive – Road Improvement Plan and New Single Dwelling – Application No. 2015-0057
Dear City Council,
I have lived at 2811 Monte Cresta Dr in Belmont for over 11 years, along with my two kids (ages 10 and 12). My bedroom window, my daughter's bedroom window, and our back deck look directly into the proposed house development. The new construction would affect my view and privacy considerably.
Please see the pictures below displaying the view from my back deck with a red circle showing the location of the proposed construction (presented in bottom picture). My daughter loves looking out her window at the view and draws it regularly (see drawing in picture below)!
1. Additional Neighborhood Outreach: Per a lawyer’s suggestion, I reached out to Jeff Kraft via e-mail on Feb 8 to ask if he is open to meeting and discussing any possible modifications to their construction in order to have a decreased impact on my home and family. I understand there was neighborhood outreach back in 2017, but somehow I missed that. Given that it has been 7 years, I ask that you require a new neighborhood outreach so that we have the opportunity to discuss.
This usually occurs with new construction and is considered neighborly! I hope Belmont continues to be considered a friendly and family-centered place to live.
2. Stop Incremental Road Development: The 1988 City resolution that amended the Belmont General Plan and incorporated the San Juan Hills Area Plan stated, “This policy will permanently end incremental development of unimproved roads which has created problems for the provision of fire and police services, storm drainage and a haphazard pattern of road development.” In the summary and responses to public comments, it stated that “this project would not create an incremental extension of the unimproved road”, presumably because the applicant is funding it and adjoining property owners with road frontage will have reciprocal obligation to maintain the improved road? Does that mean that no additional properties will be allowed to be built and the road cannot be extended even further? Please consider making a provision to ensure additional incremental road development is not conducted and no further homes may be constructed at the end of this road.
3. Preservation of Belmont Terrain: “In 1988, the City adopted new zoning provisions designed to encourage the preservation of the steepest and most unstable slopes and to minimize the destruction of unique terrain features which are important to the character of the City”. This proposed construction would be built on what I would describe as one of the steepest slopes (49% grade) and require removal of a giant live oak tree with animals living in it (a unique terrain feature visible in red circle of picture below). I ask that you uphold these zoning provisions and act based on the intention of these laws.
4. Contract for a Quantitative Slope Stability Analysis: The City's geologist in 2020 on another hillside project (not as steep as this) wrote, "The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) requires a quantitative analysis of seismic slope stability be conducted for those development projects falling under the requirements of the SHMA. Projects such as singlefamily residential structures of two stories or less are typically exempt from the requirements of SHMA unless directed by the local Building Official."
The Kraft's project is a 3 story dwelling: "The project submittal plans describe the proposed project as a two-story residence, not including the upper-level garage at street level. However, the conceptual project plans show on the upper level a small living/entertainment area attached to an outside rooftop balcony.
Therefore, the structure could be considered as having three levels of living space, and as such would become subject to the requirements of the SHMA." Therefore, the City should require a quantitative slope stability analysis.
I appreciate the time the city has spent reviewing this proposal carefully and responding to previous comments from concerned neighbors. I am asking for additional neighborhood outreach, careful consideration about stopping incremental road development, thoughtfulness about preserving Belmont’s unique terrain and character, and requiring a quantitative slope analysis to ensure safety. I am advocating for my daughter and family in order to ensure that this project is completed in a safe, compliant, and neighborly manner. As city council members, you represent Belmont citizens. Please advocate for us!
Best Regards,
Casey Krueger
Kim Moore
2817 Monte Cresta Dr.
Belmont
Regarding: City Council Mee�ng February 13, 2024
Public Hearing for 2800 block of Monte Cresta Drive – Road Improvement Plan and New Single Dwelling – Applica�on No. 2015-0057
Dear Council Member,
My name is Kim Moore and I live at 2817 Monte Cresta Dr. I have lived in my home since 1989 and have enjoyed the peaceful neighborhood and beau�ful sunsets. The Kra� project directly affects my family’s quality of life and my home’s appeal. Other neighbors are also affected as they too have western views.
Fire Safety: The fire in 2021 in our neighborhood was a frightening experience. We had to evacuate and leave quickly. I don’t know if you have ever had an evacua�on experience but unless you have, it is very difficult to know what it really feels like. It is very upse�ng that we must feel unsafe in our own home given the current climate situa�on. We are in a high fire danger area and if you had viewed the last planning mee�ng in November you would have seen and heard Mary Parden’s opinion, a local Farmers insurance agent speak about how dangerous it is to add more houses to the area. If I had just bought my home, it would be difficult to insure it. The Kra� project itself may be hardened however fire can come from any direc�on so how does that really make the neighborhood safer? How do we know that our insurance company won’t reevaluate our house and consider it uninsurable with the addi�on of more houses and a longer cul-de-sac with a small turn around painted red. Mr. Kra� claims to be concerned about fire safety however has never cleared vegeta�on on his property, my son has done it all these years as it as it is required to clear 100 feet from your house. I ask you to please review the informa�on presented to you a litle closer and really imagine the impact it has on the rest of us.
I don’t understand how a longer cul-de-sac with a turn-around that isn’t of normal size can be considered safe enough and it isn’t much beter than what is there now. If one fire truck can turn around it isn’t enough. We had several trucks and a helicopter during the last fire but what if it wasn’t available? Pain�ng the curb red will likely be unsuccessful to prevent parking there as people will con�nue to park there unless it is monitored by the city 24/7. Many kids park there especially in the summer because there is a nice party spot out on the trail with a beau�ful bay view that is very atrac�ve to young people. At least if the road went all the way through there would be another way out. I don’t see how this can be compliant. The planning commission is approving this project at the expense of our safety and the enjoyment of our homes and privacy.
End incremental road development: The amendment in 1988 to the General plan and incorporated the San Juan Hills Area Plan stated, “This policy will permanently end incremental development of unimproved roads which has created problems for the provision of fire and police services, storm drainage and a haphazard pattern of road development.” We bought our house in 1989 and did not sign up for road development. What does this mean going forward since that amendment doesn’t mean anything now? The amendment cared about the people living in the area and that was even before climate change was really talked about. We know our climate will only get more worse so why is this project allowed. It is wrong on so many levels.
Drainage: I would also like to know if a pole story is required for the whole project and if not, why not. I would like to know exactly where the water tanks will be, what they look like and exactly where the house is going. I have work that needs to be done and my neighbors views and mine are heavily affected. What happens if the tanks fail? Are they underground or above ground, what do we all have to look at? Slides are also a problem in our area, there is one just down the street from me that they are trying to tarp, but it doesn’t look like the effort is successful.
Con�nuance: When we met with Carlos, we were told that the council mee�ng was set for February 27th and that has suddenly changed to Tuesday, the 13th. When speaking with Carlos, he made it clear that any ques�ons we had he would only refer to the staff reports. This project started 8 years ago but it was not un�l the November 2023 planning commission mee�ng that the recommenda�ons came to light just 4 days before the mee�ng. We have met with a lawyer and would like to request a con�nuance, so we have �me to communicate with the applicant and sa�sfy our ques�ons from the staff.
Conclusion: Please remember this is our home that we love and are just trying to protect it.
This project is a mistake and will cause more problems for our neighborhood than it is worth.
Please consider a con�nuance and give your ci�zens a fair chance.
Thank you,
Kim Moore
Re: Belmont City Council meeting February 13, 2024 - Item 8.b From: Jeff Marshall – 3250 Upper Lock Ave, Belmont CA – [email protected] Dear Belmont City Council members,
Thank you in advance for you attention to this matter.
I would like to begin with a set of statements regarding this proposed project:
• The project proposal is in conflict with Belmont’s adopted fire code provisions for fire apparatus access (California Fire Code Section 503 and Appendix D). The fire code has provisions for exceptions to be made to those provisions but that process has not been followed (Section 104.8). In July 2023 the California Attorney General released guidance for analyzing development projects in wildfire risk areas1. That guidance, while not mandatory, is ignored for this project. • The project is in conflict with the letter and the intent of the San Juan Hills Area Plan and the Municipal Code provisions for road improvement plans on unimproved roads. This project does not “resolve the design and financing of road improvements along the entire unimproved road on which [the] property is located…”2, and is the first increment in prohibited incremental development (as defined in the SJHAP) of unimproved Monte Cresta from both ends. It creates and exacerbates the historical problems with incremental road extensions that were identified by the San Juan committee3 in the 1980s, which was one of the main justifications for the City to adopt the San Juan Hills Area Plan in 1988. • Approving the Road Improvement plan requires the City Council members to make a finding that, “A stable, safe, through road cannot be reasonably constructed because of physical constraints.”4 But then, with respect to the requirement to address access to properties that abut parts of the road that would not be improved (~1750 feet), owners’ legal parcel access as a property right on a dedicated street is claimed to be able to be provided by building that through road (which has been found to be technically possible but expensive to construct). Reconciling these contradictory findings has not been explained. • The proposed use of the Floor Area Transfer procedures in the Municipal Code to legalize lots that have been determined to have been created in violation of the state Subdivision Map Act was never envisioned at the time the Municipal Code was written and has no precedent for the City. The FAR process was created to transfer legal development rights from one legal lot to another5. There has been no explanation for how an illegally created lot can have legal development-right floor area to be transferred, without first legalizing the parcel to create development rights. Or why the Zoning Ordinance should apply to illegally created parcels before they are legalized. This is a policy decision that will have significant future impact for the City.
• This is an extremely Complex Project. Past road improvement plan projects have been evaluated with at least several Planning Commission meetings, including Study Sessions, in order to educate the Planning Commissioners about the SJHAP and the relevant Municipal Code provisions and give adequate opportunity for public involvement in projects that have material effect on neighborhoods. • It is true that this project has been in the works for many years. The public had opportunity to review most project documents and attend several previous hearings. But it was only on the Friday before the Tuesday Planning Commission meeting in November that the public was able to know what the recommendation of 1 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Wildfire%20guidance%20final%20%283%29.pdf 2 San Juan Hills Area Plan, policy 10, page 52
3 San Juan Hills Area Plan, policy 10, page 26
4 Belmont Municipal Code section 7-13-e-10
5 https://smartpreservation.net/belmont-california/
planning staff would be and how staff would analyze and evaluate the project. Without that information it was impossible for the public to know what the City’s next steps would be – e.g. recommending approval.
This imposes a significant limit for public participation and involvement for a detailed project such as this.
As our elected representatives I am sure you see the importance of public involvement and public trust in our government.
My previous submittals have included these, and other points. I don’t expect any of the City Council members to take my word as gospel for any of the above statements. In fact, I believe that City staff has disputed each of these points. My statements should be subject to scrutiny and challenge, as should those of City staff. But, each of these points can be verified or refuted with factual analysis. All I ask is that my fellow Belmont residents and I be given a fair and open forum for dialogue. As you know, a PC or CC meeting does not allow for dialogue.
This process, at this point, has been and continues to be quite adversarial. But I ask you to question whether or not it needs to be - and perhaps there is another, better, way.
The legal system is inherently adversarial, and lawyers are trained in that and, at least in my personal and professional experience, it is easy to get sucked into that process. It can be a deep, dark, and expensive for everyone, black hole. I think many of us view the upcoming national election with concern. The country has become so polarized that neither party can seem to find a way to work with the other side. It seems like inevitably one side just wants to demonize the other side. Perhaps naively, I would like to hope that small-town democratic government could be better. It is in our hands to try to make it so.
Some of us have reached out to City Council members in the past and have been told that talking is not possible because of the issue of ex-parte communication preceding quasi-judicial decision making. I understood that in theory, but I could not quite reconcile it with open government and the constitutional rights of citizens in relation to their government representatives. I raised this issue with an attorney well practiced in land use and California municipal law recently. Her answer was enlightening. She said that there is in fact no inherent prohibition for citizens such as myself and my neighbors meeting with our elected representatives for a project such as this before decision making. It is up to the representative to decide whether they want to meet or not. This is not to say that there is no concern, but it can be easily addressed with transparency. I suspect that each of you has been advised by the City attorney to refuse meetings based on this. I respectfully submit that there is another legal view. I am confident each of you has chosen to serve in your position because you want to make Belmont a better place for all of us. Please give us the opportunity to talk openly to our elected government.
City staff is clearly urging the City Council to approve this project. I understand that this has been a project for them for 8 years, has been long and difficult, and getting it done with would be a relief. But there are alternatives. You can delay this to a future date – and you can create a forum where discussion could take place. You could meet with your constituents and openly hear their concerns and perspectives. You could use that as a way to judge for yourself.
There are other paths as well. You could remand this back to the Planning Commission and require a study session that would allow dialog. You could create a 2 person City Council subcommittee to further investigate and report back to the entire Council. Frankly, since there are two or three other SJHAP road improvement projects currently in process (including another one on unimproved Monte Cresta, i.e. “incremental”) that will be coming to the PC and the CC in the near future – I respectively submit that this would be beneficial for the City and Belmont residents alike. I also suggest that combining this project on the south end of unimproved Monte Cresta with the inprocess application for a road extension on the north end of unimproved Monte Cresta should be required for SJHAP and Municipal Code compliance.
If you have not done so recently, I urge you to spend the time to read or re-read the San Juan Hills Area plan in detail. I have always been impressed with the community effort that went into putting together that document: the creation of the San Juan Committee, the open meetings to put together a draft plan, followed by the number of Planning Commission meetings and City Council meetings with open discussion and debate that led to its adoption.
Our City predecessors looked at balancing safe development with the creation of rare and valuable permanent natural open space - and laid out a plan for the future. The Belmont of today has many of the same challenges. Let’s learn from what worked in the past.
Let’s try to be better. Let’s talk. Let’s work together.
From: Louise Morin
To: x-City Clerk"s Office; City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Hearing for 2800 block of Monte Cresta Drive - Road Improvement Plan and New Single Dwelling - Application No. 2015-0057
Date: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 9:00:53 PM
Pierre St-Hilaire, Ph.D.
Louise Morin, B.Sc.
2712 All View way
Belmont
To: City Council
Feb 13, 2024
Public Hearing for 2800 block of Monte Cresta Drive - Road Improvement Plan and New Single Dwelling - Application No. 2015-0057
We strongly disagree to granting any exceptions requested for this development. 1) FAR transfer does not comply with existing hillside policies in the Belmont General plan, and the San Juan Hills Area Plan, zoning code section 4.7.11 (b) and (c) and the existing HRO-2 Floor area ratio standards table of the zoning code.
The receiving site (043-165-180) has a slope of 49% and is 9,137 sq. ft. and does not meet the minimum net lot size of 403,333 sq. ft for that steepness. The receiving site must also be at least 20,000 square feet in area. The maximum home size for substandard lots with over 45% average slope is 900 sq. ft.
The transfer of floor area from the two other lots to add 2400 sq. ft to increase the home size to 3,299 is illegal. The receiving lot does not comply with the requirement that it should be a more suitable site for a home compared to the sending lot.
The sending lots are around 44% (based on the slope cut of the full road document which states the degrees closest to these 2 lots).
All lots are in the San Juan Hills area on an undeveloped road section.
The purpose of the floor area transfer is to allow property owners to transfer out of the area that are impossible or difficult to build while allowing the sending sites to be preserved by a conservation easement.
It is not intended to be used to overbuild a steep sloped site that is dangerous to build on.
The Project Is Inconsistent with Applicable Plans and Ordinances and Therefore Cannot Be Approved.
The question of consistency between the Project and the applicable plans and ordinances plays two distinct roles in the environmental review and project approval process. First, under CEQA, a conflict between a plan or ordinance and the Project is a significant impact that must be disclosed and analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (“ EIR”).
The environmental document’s conclusions regarding these impacts, like those for any other impact, must be supported by substantial evidence.
Second, under the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Project may not be approved in the face of such inconsistencies. The Project requires approval of a use permit. State law clearly requires these approvals to be consistent with the County’s General Plan. “The propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements.” Specifically, State law bars the grant of a use permit for an activity that would be inconsistent with a general plan.
The request for an exception should be denied because the CEQA analysis is missing.
In approving a conditional use permit for transferred floor area, you must make six findings.
For example, you must find that the proposed transfer will result in a better pattern of development from the standpoint of reduced grading, fewer street/utility extensions, and improved building site locations.
It certainly does not: it will lead to incremental development of the road which is forbidden by the SJHAP.
In creating the Hillside Residential and Open Space (HRO) zoning district, Belmont recognized the need to minimize the destruction of unique terrain features which are important to the character of the City.
Belmont also acknowledged that there are geologic problems, soils hazards, and steep slopes that generate public safety concerns.
To deal with these issues, Belmont concluded that hillside development should preserve the natural terrain and provide a density compatible with slope limitations.
Belmont does not gain anything by granting exceptions to allow this project to continue.
It creates a bad precedent that could lead to litigation in the future if the house was to landslide into the houses below.
2) Incomplete Geological Study
As engineers, it is our opinion that the geological study of the site where the home would be built is lacking. The two bores were on top of the Monte Cresta trail in the study for the full road feasibility. No bores have been analyzed for this specific project site.
They did not go beyond 10.2 feet but the project calls for reinforced concrete piers at least 16 inches that should extend 15 feet below and 12 feet into the bedrock.
The report also dates from a drought period. We have had significant rain events in the past year that can affect the area. It seems like the applicant has tried to cut cost and reused an old related report instead of doing due diligence for his project. "The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) requires a quantitative analysis of seismic slope stability be conducted for those development projects falling under the requirements of the SHMA. Projects such as single-family residential structures of two stories or less are typically exempt from the requirements of SHMA unless directed by the local Building Official."
There is no quantitative analysis of seismic slope stability for the Kraft project.
The project requires major grading. It is not clear where the soil that needs to be replaced to build the turnaround would be moved to.
I would like to highlight a section of the report that states the same concerns we have:
The primary geologic and geotechnical concerns for construction of the proposed residence and fire truck turnaround are:
1. the presence of the existing wedge-shaped fill along the southern side of the Monte Cresta Drive right-of-way;
2. the presence of the thin undocumented fill in the eastern portion of the site;
3. the steepness of the site for access for construction of foundation piers;
4. the need to dispose of roof water and storm water runoff on the site (rather than into an existing storm drain system); and
5. the probability of severe ground shaking at the site during a major earthquake in the area.
One can read the news about the Rolling Hills estate, in Palo Verdes Peninsula, where 12 houses fell in a landslide last July due to an undiscovered leaky pipe. The water weakened the clay layers weaving though the bedrock.
In January 2023, three houses were evacuated on San Juan blvd due to a mudslide. All of last week has been filed with news of mudslides in Southern California.
In 1998, we were evacuated during El Niño storms. Our house is on the top of the hill but the mudslides had started on the hill sides below. This is despite having installed five water pumps around the house to pump all the rain to the street sewage system. 3) Unsecured Financing
Regarding financing, Mr. Kraft needs to secure an agreement with Mr Campbell for the maintenance cost of the road extension.
"The adjoining property owners with road frontage will have reciprocal obligation to maintain the improved road until such time as the city council formally accepts the road into the city street system. Maintenance will include but not be limited to retaining walls, sidewalk, curb & gutter, pavement, signs, striping and drainage improvements.” 4)The MND Omits Critical Analyses.
The MND’s traffic analysis fails from its inception because it omits analysis of several key traffic impact areas. First, the MND fails to include any analysis of the adequacy of Monte Cresta Road to accommodate Project-related traffic.
Second, the MND fails to accurately analyze the Project’s parking adequacy and fails to consider the indirect impacts of parking along Monte Cresta in the absence of available on-site parking.
Third, the MND fails to evaluate impacts related to inadequate emergency access. Given that Monte Cresta is already at the maximum length for a cul-de-sac, the MND should have analyzed whether it could safely accommodate traffic during an emergency, such as during a fire. This omission is particularly troubling given the inadequate parking on the Project-site and the likelihood that overflow parking would take place along Monte Cresta, narrowing the road even further.
Considering that climate change has only reinforced the importance of enforcing regulations of our general plans, it is of the outermost importance for this project to comply.
From: Kenneth Wach
To: Planning Comm
Cc: Julia Mates - Mayor; Thomas McCune; City Council; Rob Gill; Geri Crane Subject: Roadway Improvement Plan and New Single-Family Dwelling - Appl. No. PA2015-0057 Agenda Item 8B.
Date: Monday, February 12, 2024 8:38:29 PM
Attachments: IMG_4942.PNG
Belmont Planning Commission:
We are 30 year residents of Belmont, residing at 2711 Sequoia Way. We are writing to express our strong disapproval of the "2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive - Roadway Improvement Plan and New Single-Family Dwelling - Appl. No. PA2015-0057" (Agenda Item 8B at the February 13, 2024 public hearing).
We want to highlight three areas of concern:
1) There is clear disagreement on the facts supporting this proposal.
We have watched with great interest and some incredulity the back and forth between the planning commission and various concerned residents regarding whether or not the proposal conforms with many relevant rules and regulations across multiple involved agencies. We are not experts on these regulations. But we can plainly see that there is not a shared, common view of the facts. You currently have multiple residents believing that this proposal does not comply with various guidelines, and that the proposed exceptions and variances are in violation of the letter and spirit of the rules. You owe it to the entire community to resolve these disputes satisfactorily.
You are all smart, well meaning people. Get in a room and discuss the matter until there is agreement. Approval without this agreement will only build up hard feelings and distrust which will resurface -- probably more vociferously -- in future planning decisions. 2) There is no rationale for making an exception to the rules.
Your Summary and Response to Public Comments indicates that exceptions to the hillside road standards and Conditional Use Permit are warranted because "The Public Works Department and Fire Department (have) reviewed the project and can recommend approval of the exceptions with the stipulation that the turnaround includes "No Parking" and "red curb" to provide for adequate emergency access. Just because these agencies can recommend approval does not mean that you can or should comply. Additionally, these comments don't constitute an exception. They are simply additional criteria. If these items are required by the Fire Department and Public Works Department, then the guidelines should be updated to include them. They are requirements. An "exception" involves judgment -- i.e. some intentional reason to deviate from the requirements.
Why are you making an exception? What principles are you using for not following the guidelines?
3) It is unnecessarily risky for the community. You are literally playing with fire and setting a horrible precedent.
Our property was burned in the 2020 San Juan fire, resulting in significant damage to our yard. Thankfully, the house was spared but we were lucky. It was a high humidity day, and the winds were light. We do not wish the experience our family went through that day on anyone. Why would the city even consider building in this area? You are encroaching on dry, undeveloped land at the uphill end of a canyon! Fires travel uphill – fast. The 2020 fire was man-made. Does it make sense to add more families in the area, thereby increasing the possibility of accidents that would lead to another fire? If you live in the area around All View and Barclay, you know that at 7:45am on a weekday, it can take 20 minutes or more to get down to Notre Dame College on Ralston. This is insane. Can you imagine what it will look like if an evacuation is underway? People won't be able to get out and fire trucks won't be able to get in. Lives will be at risk. We understand this is only one more house, but that is poor logic. It is one more family being put at risk. This would also be a precedent that would undoubtedly be referenced by the other, truly insane, proposal to add 330 feet and five large houses to the other end of Monte Cresta.
In case the fire has receded from your memory, we are attaching three pictures: 1) an overview of the canyon with firefighters on our neighbors' roof, 2) all the fire engines arrayed around the canyon fighting the fire, and 3) the damage at our property. If you lived through what we lived through, you would dismiss this proposal posthaste.
Thank you for listening to our input on this project.
Ken Wach and Geri Crane
From: G Mintz
To: x-City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Agenda Item 8B, 2/13/24
Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 4:43:16 PM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Re: Application No. PA 2015-0057, Item 8B, Belmont City Council Agenda for February 13, 2024.
My name is Gail Mintz and I live at 2810 Alhambra Drive just below the lot being considered for development this evening.
My concerns are first with seismic and geological instability in this area. In 2018, a California Geological Survey published a Seismic Hazard Zone Map and Report for Belmont and identified the Monte Cresta area as a zone of Required Investigation (ZOR) for earthquake induced landslides. Was this even considered and incorporated into the permit review?
My second concern is with storm drainage from the property above. According to a GeoTechnical engineer I utilized, there are existing drainage patterns on the slope above us which run towards our home. The slope is approximately 1 H: 1V. Existing vegetation on the lot above contains current runoff and we have constructed a retaining wall and 2 drainage systems which address current runoff.
The applicant’s engineering firm, in the Romig report stated that although no water was found in their borings, it could develop in periods of heavy rainfall as perched water atop the bedrock. This would place the waters in sandy soil under the fill on the steep slope. They stated the proper handling of storm water is a critical item for the safe development of the site. I understand that the proposed holding tanks are supposed to address this issue. However, my concerns are as follows:
1) as a condition of rendering a building permit, I am requesting that there be an annual testing and inspection of the holding tanks by the current owner of the house as well as testing of the pumps and load testing of the back up generators and this information be reported to the City. 2)The safety of our home and family could be impacted should we have a storm in the 50 year+ magnitude as we had in the early 1980’s and there is insufficient control of runoff from this property. At that time all exposed top soil came downhill with the intense rains. We do not want it to occur again.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sent from my iPad