Belmont weighs in on Senate Bill 50

That bill, proposed by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, would allow for greater housing density and building heights within quarter-mile and half-mile distances of transit stops and job centers.

Councilmembers did not vote on whether or not to support Wiener’s proposal during the meeting. However, they agreed that despite the senator’s laudable intentions, the bill poses a threat to Belmont’s single-family neighborhoods and is unnecessary at best in a city that has already taken significant steps to encourage housing production.

And those steps, including upzoning areas around the Caltrain station and El Camino Real, are paying off, councilmembers reiterated throughout the discussion.

Belmont is on track to exceed its Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals for the current cycle; 142 units have been permitted since 2015 with more than 390 units in the pipeline, including 140 affordable units. That’s compared to the previous eight-year RHNA cycle during which time the city issued just 31 building permits.

“Belmont is an example of what a city can do without a state mandate when they are committed to doing what they can to help the housing solution, but in a thoughtful manner,” Councilwoman Julia Mates said. “I support housing, but I believe cities should implement housing programs.”

Vice Mayor Warren Lieberman suggested SB 50 could be a good idea for some cities, but agreed that Belmont, for example, should not be subjected to those sorts of rules, especially when it has proven capable of addressing the housing crisis on its own.

“It seems to me that if a city is doing its fair share — and yes we need to define what that means — they need to be left to do their fair share in a way that they deem appropriate,” Lieberman said. “If [a city] is far below what needs to be done then I understand where there can be things that come in to nudge that city in the right direction.”

Community Development Director Carlos de Melo said SB 50’s height and density limits would kick in regardless of a city’s RHNA numbers. He said many Belmont neighborhoods would be affected if the bill were to become law, including the entire Homeview neighborhood, portions of Sterling Downs, parts of Sunny Slope, areas above Hill Street and Holly Street plus a segment of the Notre Dame de Namur University campus.

“The overarching sense is that single-family — R1 zoning — if it’s within these corridors will have the opportunity to have the zoning, in essence, be overridden for multi-family density,” de Melo said.

Belmont’s R1 neighborhoods currently have height limits of 28 feet while SB 50 allows up to 55-foot-tall buildings within a half-mile of transit stops.

Councilman Charles Stone offered a hypothetical that Belmont residents could expect should SB 50 be approved.

“When I read this legislation it would allow for an enterprising entrepreneur or developer to purchase three or four single-family home lots adjacent to each other and put multi-story multi-unit homes on them,” Stone said. “Conceivably, over time, you could be living in your single-family home neighborhood for 25 years and all of a sudden there’s a three or four-story apartment building right next to you.”

De Melo confirmed that Stone’s hypothetical scenario would indeed be possible if SB 50 became law, but said cobbling together a sufficient number of lots to accomplish that hypothetical is difficult. He also said there would still be plenty of hurdles to the development of tall apartment buildings in single-family neighborhoods, adding that the city would still retain control over some aspects of the entitlement process, including architectural design and possibly setbacks.

“To create the parking, to create the height, to create the access — you probably need more than you think,” he said. “Just because you have the land doesn’t mean you can make it all work and achieve that height. Lots of other factors come into play.”

Councilman Doug Kim acknowledged the regional housing crisis, the desperate need for housing and agreed that cities around the state can do better, but does not believe SB 50 is the way to address those problems.

“Clearly business as usual for cities collectively isn’t getting the job done,” he said, adding that Belmont is an exception to the rule. “The notion that you would undermine local control is obviously a third-rail issue for many and it should be, but to go beyond that and to attack the foundation of a lot of cities with their R1 neighborhoods I think is totally counterproductive. … At first blush many of these bills are not supportable.”

Stone wants to see more incentives in the current slate of housing bills.

“I don’t hear anyone offering any carrots,” Stone said. “I don’t hear anyone saying ‘we’re going to find a way to bring redevelopment back or we’re going to pour billions of dollars more into affordable housing.’ … I’d like to see from our partners in the state more carrots and less sticks.”

Mayor Davina Hurt said the passage of SB 50 could reverse the change in attitude toward transit-oriented development that has occurred in Belmont within the past five years.

“I think legislation with a one-size-fits-all attitude will hurt the good work that we’ve done thus far,” Hurt said. “I feel that we’ve brought many people in the community that before were not as open about housing production along with us to say ‘this is something that they can get along with.’ But if we usurp their voice to the degree that some of these legislative mandates have, I think we’ll start a revolt and many of those members you see up here that have been positive about housing may not be present.”

Stone agreed.

“The voters of Belmont have made their voices heard very clearly several times over the last three to four elections and what they’ve said is ‘we’re supportive of transit-oriented development and they’ve backed candidates who are supportive of transit-oriented development. But all of those candidates have also pledged to protect our single-family neighborhoods,” he said. “To the extent that this bill and the compact would allow for rather drastic changes to those single-family neighborhoods, I can’t quite get to a place where I’d be supportive of it.”

zachary@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102