Beautiful Mountain Blog of Belmont

Belmont's Proposed Sewer Lateral Requirement Might Just Stink

We initiated this post on the Belmont Patch and wanted to make sure the residents of Belmont know what their City Council is working on as the newest proposal in keepoing Belmont's residence safe.

I tend to stay away from expressing our opinions about the machinations of Belmont’s City Council but I thought their recent proposal which burdens every home seller with a sewer lateral inspection and repair requirement needs some public scrutiny.  

What is a sewer lateral?

It’s the underground pipe that runs from your home to the public sewer system.

What’s the issue?

In some cases, the sewer lateral can leak or even break causing sewage to seep into the ground—similar as to a leach field used in septic systems but not as sanitary. It also has the unwanted effect of possibly allowing ground water (from rain for example) to enter the sewer system which can overburden the system.

What’s the Fix?

First, you have to learn if you have a faulty sewer lateral. There is a relatively inexpensive smoke test which Belmont has been employing to detect faulty sewer laterals. The more expensive way to discover this is through a field test with a camera which is snaked through your sewer line to detect visible deficiencies.

How much does it cost if I need to repair my sewer lateral?

That depends. An short run and easy fix from your home to the street might cost under a thousand dollars but could also reach ten times that amount if there are difficulties in reaching the sewer lateral or, as in the case of many Belmont homes, the sewer lateral has a very extensive run across multiple properties before it reaches the main city sewer line.

What the City of Belmont is considering:

The Belmont City Council has been deliberating whether or not to force each homeowner to perform a test and if necessary repair the sewer lateral before they can sell their home. That proposal is called a “point of sale” or POS proposal.

What’s the problem with their proposal?

There are several issues with this approach which could cause a homeowner a problem should they need to sell their home and either not have the funds to repair the sewer lateral, or not have the time before the close of escrow. Amendments to this proposal include ways a homeowner could negotiate with a buyer to inherit the burden but so far the proposed workarounds appear to be at odds with lending and escrow institutional requirements.

What’s the answer?

The City of Belmont is currently testing sewer laterals utilizing a smoke test which offers the added benefit of detecting downspouts that may be discharging roof runoff into the sewer system rather than the storm drains. Should they find a leak they could then require the homeowner to repair their sewer lateral and have the opportunity to secure financing if needed.

The POS proposal seeks to limit the sewer lateral test to a relatively small subset of homes—only those which sell in a given year, which in 2012 was only 236—while the easily performed smoke test could potentially reach far more homes.

One wonders if the city is truly interested in fixing the sewer lateral problem or pushing it off onto those who will have little voice in the next election—those selling their home and moving away.

UPDATE--I attended the meeting with the Belmont staff and council on Thursday, the 14^th to hear their newest idea of the Point of Sale requirement for sewer laterals. Be clear, the City Council has directed the staff to discuss how to best implement the POS, not whether or not the POS is the best way to deal with the issue.

Clearly there is a need to repair broken sewer lateral lines in our city. Having sewage seep into the surrounding ground is not ideal, but the larger problem appears to be the amount of water which enters broken sewer laterals during and after heavy rains. This water then ends up taxing an already overburdened treatment system and anyone who lives in Belmont knows the cost of maintaining our sewer system keeps getting past along in the form of rate increases on our property tax bills.

But is it leaking water into our sewer laterals which is the major culprit or is it the city’s very own main lines? The smoke tests which the city has been performing clearly revealed one of the greatest issues are folks who have tied their downspouts into the sewer system rather than divert the water to run down the curb and into the storm drain. So again we question, are we moving forward armed with all of the information we need or just moving forward to give the impression we’re making progress?

The rainy season is almost over and we’d suggest the council, which appears ahead of their skis right now, take a step back and get more information and input before storming ahead. Gathering more information from lending institutions, title companies and plumbing contractors who specialize in sewer lateral replacement might prove to be a good start. Having the city deliver the results of their smoke testing to the public for scrutiny might also show some good faith that these decisions are based on solid data; then set a date for action prior to next years’ rainy season.

The question of course today is why a POS vs. requiring each property owner to test and fix their sewer laterals? If the City Council is truly concerned about fixing the issue, a POS requirement severs to only uncover a small percentage of the defective sever lateral lines—commensurate with home many homes sell each year. Since it’s an election year, this seems a politically palatable way to deliver bad news—only those moving would be affected by the cost (estimated to average $7,500 per household). But is it the best answer to the problem? Probably not.

If the council is truly concerned with the health and safety of its citizens it might continue down the path of requiring each and every homeowner to remedy this situation independent on whether or not they are moving. I’m struggling with this but the only reason I can see for not requiring every homeowner to repair their lateral is it would be politically unfavorable.

If the City Council has its way a POS would be eminent. The staff has been directed to develop a step-by-step plan for administrating this new burden. The proposal, if I can paraphrase it and as it stands now, is before a home could be transferred, it would need to have a certification the sewer lateral is intact. That encumbers the homeowner to order and pay for a sewer lateral camera inspection costing about $150-$200 dollars depending upon ease of access. The results of the test and camera footage shall be delivered to the public works department for analysis—promised not to take more than a day or two. If your sewer lateral passes, you get to pass “GO”. If not, you will be required to fix it and provide a certification to the city prior to the close of escrow. Of course the city will have its hand out for encroachment permits, building permits and so forth and they’ve offered no proposed relief on these fees in order for homeowners to comply. Or, the third option presented on Thursday, was that the buyer of the property could sign a pledge to repair the sewer later at their expense with 180 days of closing—and deliver a deposit as security of performance—an amount which has yet to be determined.

Of course this will raise all sorts of red flags for lenders, who if they get wind this requirement exists, will force the repair of the sewer lateral prior to the close of escrow as part of a lending requirement. So while we applaud the city staff for attempting a workaround, their third prong option still has some kinks in it. Namely that once the seller and buyer negotiate who will pay for this repair those negotiations will become part of the contract—the very contract the lender will scrutinize and thus require a sewer lateral certification before they will lend on the property.

As REALTORS, we’re used to handling city issues in the form of disclosure such as the new smoking ordinance, school boundary issue, or even dog and alarm licensing requirements so this newest burden which the city apparently feels we are fighting just for the sake of having to do less work, is really a non sequester for us. What this will burden is the home sale transaction—the seller and the buyer—to find a way to appease the city’s new requirement without unwittingly defrauding the lender at the same time.

The views expressed here are my own--Drew Morgan and not necesarily the views of the National Association of REALTORS, The California Association of REALTOS, The San Mateo Association of Realtors or even my wife.

Belmont Just Became a More Safe Place to Live-Limiting Real Estate Signs

Helping to spur the real estate recovery, and at the same time tackle the city’s need for cash, we can thank the great leaders of Belmont for taking on one more urgent problem in the midst of our city’s financial crises—rampant real estate signs. "You have to hand it to Belmont for taking on such a controversial issue in the midst of the worst real estate market in our country's history. They [Belmont] are once again leading by example and ending decades of carnage caused by the deluge of real estate signs on Sundays", said a Belmont resident who wished to remain anonymous.

On March 11^th the city of Belmont adopted an update to its zoning ordinance regulating the use of temporary real estate signs during open houses.

The new ordinance will limit directional “A” frame type signs to three per open house. These signs are limited to private property and cannot be displayed in the public right of way. “Perfect”, said founding member of BADD, Belmont against Dumb Directionals. “These signs are totally out of control. They’re everywhere and they’re confusing. One will point in one direction and another right next to it might point in a completely opposite direction. How is one to know which way to go? And they are literally in plain view for hours [1-4] on Sunday! It’s distracting to say the least and more often than not an accident waiting to happen”.

 

According to folklore purportedly instigated by the indigenous Ohlone inhabitants and perpetuated by modern day Devil Canyon worshippers, many potential buyers who have innocently followed the dizzying display of open house signs into the San Juan canyon (Diablo Canyon) have never returned. “It’s a problem we’ve been dealing with for years—[real estate] agents will lead buyers down into our vast canyons with no clear signs of how to get out. This new ordinance will put a stop to that. There’s no way a buyer will be able to find an open house on our windy roads with three stupid signs. This end-run will solve our problems”. They continued, “We had considered sneaking it in with the tree ordinance but then someone mentioned a view ordinance and that’s the last thing we want on people’s minds so we stuck with or original zoning law changes”.

Citizens Rebel Against Public signs, CRAPS, founder said “It’s completely understandable why this emergency ordinance was implemented. Real Estate signs have caused an untold number of traffic related deaths in our fine city. Panicky homebuyers desperate to be the first to an open house have tunnel vision—once they see a real estate sign that’s all they can focus on. They are hell-bent-for-leather getting to an open house and they have no respect for the laws of our fine city. Believe me when I tell you, if this doesn't work we’ll look next at outlawing open houses altogether. Who needs them now anyway, that’s what virtual tours are for”.

How bad is it? The traffic cameras at Ralston and El Camino which were installed with great success, reducing an incalculable number of fatalities, are evidence that this new ordinance needed to be enacted. “We noticed that red light violations skyrocket when open house signs are in plain sight. Having real estate signs on public property can longer be tolerated. It's a public nuisance like everything else our citizens do”.

Belmont may save millions of dollars with this new law. “We were going to hold a special election but we snuck this one in and managed to avoid public scrutiny. That’s efficient government at work and will help solve our city’s financial woes”.

In addition to the many citations which will gleefully be handed out to unwitting real estate agents, the city hopes to cash in on the storage fees for each sign collected. “We haven’t established any exact dollar amount but it will be proportional to the price of the home being sold—that’s only fair—perhaps one percent will stop these agents or at least put them out of business”.

 

 

 

 

 

Belmont Just Became a More Safe Place to Live-Limiting Real Estate Signs

Helping to spur the real estate recovery, and at the same time tackle the city’s need for cash, we can thank our great leaders of Belmont for taking on one more urgent problem in the midst of our city’s financial crises—rampant real estate signs. "You have to hand it to Belmont for taking on such a controversial issue in the midst of the worst real estate market in our country's history. They [Belmont] are once again leading by example and ending decades or carnage caused by the deluge of real estate signs on Sundays", said a Belmont resident who wished to remain anonymous.

On March 11^th the city of Belmont adopted an update to its zoning ordinance regulating the use of temporary real estate signs during open houses.

The new ordinance will limit directional “A” frame type signs to three per open house. These signs are limited to private property and cannot be displayed in the public right of way. “Perfect”, said founding member of BADD, Belmont against Dumb Directionals. “These signs are totally out of control. They’re everywhere and they’re confusing. One will point in one direction and another right next to it might point in a completely opposite direction. How is one to know which way to go? And they are literally in plain view for hours [1-4] on Sunday! It’s distracting to say the least and more often than not an accident waiting to happen”.

 

According to folklore purportedly instigated by the indigenous Ohlone inhabitants and perpetuated by modern day Devil Canyon worshippers, many potential buyers who have innocently followed the dizzying display of open house signs into the San Juan canyon (Diablo Canyon) have never returned. “It’s a problem we’ve been dealing with for years—[real estate] agents will lead buyers down into our vast canyons with no clear signs of how to get out. This new ordinance will put a stop to that. There’s no way a buyer will be able to find an open house on our windy roads with three stupid signs. This end-run will solve our problems”. They continued, “We had considered sneaking it in with the tree ordinance but then someone mentioned a view ordinance and that’s the last things we want on people’s minds so we stuck with or original zoning law changes”.

Citizens Rebel Against Public signs, CRAPS, founder said “It’s completely understandable why this emergency ordinance was implemented. Real Estate signs have caused untold number of traffic related deaths in our fine city. Panicky homebuyers desperate to be the first to an open house have tunnel vision—once they see a real estate sign that’s all they can focus on. They are hell-bent-for-leather getting to an open house and they have no respect for the laws of our fine city. Believe me when I tell you, if this doesn't work we’ll look next at outlawing open houses altogether. Who needs them now anyway, that’s what virtual tours are for”.

How bad is it? The traffic cameras at Ralston and El Camino which were installed with great success, reducing an incalculable number of fatalities are evidence that this new ordinance needed to be enacted. “We noticed that red light violations skyrocket when open house signs are in plain sight. Having real estate signs on public property can longer be tolerated. Its public nuisance like everything else our citizens do”.

Belmont may save millions of dollars with this new law. “We were going to hold a special election but we snuck this one in and managed to avoid public scrutiny”. That’s efficient government at work and will help solve our city’s financial woes”. And in addition to the many citations which will gleefully be handed out to unwitting real estate agents, the city hopes to cash in on the storage fees for each sign collected. “We haven’t established any exact dollar amount but it will be proportional to the price of the home being sold—that’s only fair—perhaps one percent will stop these agents or at least put them out of business”.

 

 

 

 

 

Public announcement regarding health care for children

From the Department of Insurance:

Act Before March 1^st to get Lower Premiums for the Health Care Your Children May Need!!

Important Enrollment Window Closing Soon

If your children are uninsured, there are new options to get them covered, but it's important to act now!
Visit finder.healthcare.gov to search for coverage options. 

Individual Insurance

With many employers cutting back on health insurance, more Californians may need to shop directly with an insurance company or insurance agent for child or family coverage. This "individual market" insurance can be expensive, but keeping some important rules in mind may help:

• No More Denials for "Pre-Existing Conditions"
  Because of the new federal health care law, all children must be offered health coverage if they apply. Insurance companies can no longer deny kids coverage because of a "pre-existing condition" like asthma or diabetes.
• Apply Before March 1^st to Avoid Much Higher Costs
  If you wait and apply after the "open enrollment period" ends on March 1^st, you could face much higher premium costs since there are no limits on premiums outside the open enrollment period. After March 1st, the next "open enrollment period" is the month your child was born. For example, if your child's birthday is August 8^th, you can apply during the entire month of August, without facing significantly higher premiums. (There are other open enrollment periods based on changes in family circumstances such as a birth, divorce, job loss, or loss of public coverage.)
• Keep Your Children Insured to Avoid Higher Costs
  You may face a significant penalty premium increase (20 percent) if you let your child's coverage end and then apply again, so keep your children insured.
• You Have Protections if Your Child is Denied Coverage
  Remember, the health care law means that no child should be denied insurance for health reasons. If your child is denied coverage for any reason, call the state health insurance hotline at 1-888-466-2219.

Affordable Insurance Options: Healthy Families and Medi-Cal

If a private insurance plan is unaffordable, don't give up. With the recession hitting California families hard, low-cost or no-cost insurance from Healthy Families and Medi-Cal keep millions of California kids healthy. Your child may qualify if your family income is up to roughly $46,000 annually (for a family of three - higher for larger families). For more information call 1-877-KIDS NOW or visit www.100percentcampaign.org/needinsurance/.

Your Job

If you have health coverage through your job, it is not affected by this open enrollment period and you should check with your employer to see if your child can join your health plan too.

 

December 10th--Property Tax Deadline

Today, December 10^th is the last day to pay your property taxes in California. Many people wait until the December 10^th deadline to pay their property taxes though they are due November 10^th, becasue there’s no penalty until after the December deadline.

The fiscal year for California property taxes runs from July 1^st through June 30^th of each year, which is why your property taxes cover those specific dates. There are two payment vouchers, one for the first installment and another for installment numbers two. Installment number one is collected in arrears in November as it covers the time period from July 1^st through the end of the year. This payment is due November 10^th and delinquent December 10^th of each year.

The second installment is due on February 10th but the tax collector gives you and additional 30 days to make this payment as it is not delinquent until April 10^th.

For those trying to get all the airline miles possible, there’s an easy on-line payment option but be aware that a 2.5% surcharge will be applied for this convenience.

Tree-mendous Power Struggle

I have brought the idea of a proposed tree ordinance to the attention of several of the influential people I know in Belmont—some who hold sitting positions. They do not appear inclined to take-up the idea since I believe they tend to shy away from anything which is a political hot potato (unless it’s on their personal agenda). Though I give credit to Bill Dickenson for occasionally challenging his fellow council members, most of the members of our current council (and Planning Department) seem to believe that anything progressive is a threat; as opposed to the other extreme which believe that development should march forward unchecked. The problem with both of these positions is that they are extreme, and we need more fair minded, balanced, and objective people to help make Belmont a great town—prosperous, and with a sustainable and alluring quality of life. Don't get me wrong, I too love our open spaces and trees but there needs to be a balance struck when considering growth and changes. Until our Belmont City Council becomes more like real council--for the people--and less concerned with their own agenda’s, I fear nothing will change.

One need look no further than the example of the council’s decision to ban smoking in Belmont to see that these folks are thrusting upon us their personal agenda (see "Where there’s Smoke There’s Fire").

I bring this point up because it's just one more an example of what needs to change in Belmont. We need a council who will do what is right for the citizens of Belmont, not what is right for their personal vision of a town they want to create.

The current list of candidates includes two candidates who are strongly supported by the current council members Coralin Feierbach and Dave Warden—two like-minded members who would love nothing more than to eliminate any challenges to their control of the current council; Christine Wozniak, who currently sits on the oppressive planning department and David Braunstein, a teacher from Carlmont High School, who’s legacy is organizing the creation of the Belmont library.

The other opposing two Candidates Jason Born and Broderick Page are challenging the status quo and who the majority of the council desperately want not to win. It is my belief with the shenanigans of Dave Warden trying to decide if he should attempt a write-in campaign, and Dave Braunstein getting back into the race, has everything to do with Dave Warden wanting to leave the council yet clone himself before he does so by convincing David Braunstein to come back to the fray after dropping out. As found in this article by the San Mateo Daily News; "Mr. Warden said at the time, "… [He] was comfortable leaving the council because he endorsed two of the challengers running to take his place"; saying, "Mr. Warden believed newcomers Born and Page lacked experience."

Ask him how much experience he had when he got elected.

Want to make a change? Make a change in the council. I’m passing this along to Jason Born and Bill Dickenson since if there’s anyone who would even consider this I believe it to be them. Now all the citizens of Belmont have to do is vote.

Where There's Smoke There's Fire--Belmont's Smoking Ban

The smoking ordinance in Belmont was a classic example of what Belmont's city council is all about. Sure second hand smoke is bad but the issue brought before them was second hand smoke in attached adjacent living spaces--the genesis of the original complaint. However our council (coached by their cronies in other departments with similar agendas—can anyone say Planning Department?) decided to pursue a ban on all outdoor cigarette smoking in Belmont—notice I didn’t say all smoking?

Be clear, this was a personal agenda. Mayor Coralin’s trama had to do with being exposed to second hand smoke from her father and Council Member Dave Warden wanted Belmont to be a "smoke free city". Mr. Warden apparently anointed himself with deciding how one should personally care for themselves stating, "…This ordinance may save lives as it may force smokers to quit or limit smoking".

What they neglected to address was wood burning fireplaces and outdoor BBQ's--no doubt much worse contributors of air borne carcinogens. Mr. Warden’s argument for not banning other more caustic causes of airborne particulate matter such as that expelled by SUV’s was answered with—"[but] we need cars". So what’s his answer to this one—banning outdoor BBQ’s will stop people from eating unhealthy carcinogen laden foods AND stop the air borne particulate matter they cause. Why wasn’t that a part of the ordinance?

Did anyone notice the volumes of billowing smoke at the Save The Music benefit in Belmont wafting by the children

as they sang on stage? The city doesn’t need to bring in experts to intuitively know that the smoke produced that day alone no doubt exposed more people to more carcinogens than any outdoor citizen puffing away on a cigarette. This council is clearly about tolerance (or lack thereof) and what they personally believe should be acceptable.

Why did they ignore addressing these two issues if their real concern was for the health, welfare and safety of their constituents? Because they only wanted to trample on a minority who they knew would not garner any support; they knew that adding a ban on outdoor BBQ’s and wood burning fireplaces would raise too much opposition—they simply stuck with an ordinance which would get them maximum media attention with minimal resistance.

Meet Jason Born

There are several new faces emerging as candidates for Belmont's city council. One I had the pleasure to meet was Jason Born. An articulate no nonsense sort, Jason Born could be a real asset to Belmont's leadership. You can read all about him on his web page at: http://www.bornforbelmont.com/

Belmont View Ordinance-Only a Vision?

Belmont—or beautiful mountain (beau mont)—is one of the most unique and charming cities on the peninsula. It’s heavily forested hillsides and undulating hills make for a delightful backdrop against the busy peninsula transportation arteries.

Belmont offers impressive views of San Francisco and the open space around Sugarloaf Mountain, the San Francisco Bay, and on any clear day Mt. Tamalpias, Mt. Diablo and Mt. Hamilton.

Belmont’s attributes are many but its highly coveted views are among the top reason people choose to live in Belmont.

The hills of Belmont weren’t always so heavily wooded as suggested by this rendering—published in "Heritage of the Wooded Hills—A Belmont History, by Ria Elena MacCrisken and available at the Belmont Historical Society. As Belmont neighborhoods developed tress were planted which forever changed the natural foliage into forested hillsides (one needs to look no further than the Watershed open space to see what Belmont’s hills probably looked like before it was populated).

Ironically, Belmont has no view or tree ordinance which regulates whether or not a tree can obstruct the view of a homeowner; one can’t build a structure to block a view but there’s nothing to regulate allowing a tree to grow unchecked into what once was someone’s impressive vista.

Many of the trees in Belmont which grow unattended such as eucalyptus are not indigenous to Belmont and in fact are not protected under Belmont’s existing tree ordinance—yet those are some of the most offensive trees in terms of obstructing views (well, and they’re pretty messy too).

When living in a society where our existence impacts others it’s essential to have ordinances to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. We currently have ordinances to protect the quality of life and Belmont should seriously consider adding a view ordinance which will allow for the responsible ownership of trees.

Balancing the rights of a homeowner to maintain their view against that of a nearby property owner to plant and grow trees where they wish is difficult as property ownership rights are always held in high regard—as they should be. Like anything else though, these views must be preserved and a balance must be struck between the property ownership rights of both parties.

Are trimming trees counterproductive to living green? Absolutely not. The International Society of Arboriculture not only recommends tree ordinances they go so far as to suggest how to structure one. Furthermore many adjacent towns which benefit from similar views already have such ordinances in place. Cities such as Tiburon and Berkeley, both where property values are substantially affected by their views, have adopted view ordinances to cope with urban tree growth and should serve as a guide to Belmont to act to preserve our declining views.

Local Government Goes On-Line

Did you know you can view many of Belmont's planning and council meetings on-line?. Turns out our sleepy little town really delivers when it comes to technology. If you are interested in watching your elected (and appointed) officials at work, read on:

The City of Belmont, in cooperation with The Mid peninsula Community Media Center is currently webcasting City Council Meetings. Viewers can tune in to the live webcasts the second and fourth Tuesday nights of the month beginning at 7:30pm, unless there is a study session, in which case the webcast begins at 6:30pm. Viewers can also see any past meeting since August 2006, or any particular agenda item within those meetings.

Tuesday, October 9th @ 7:30PM ~ City Council Meeting

Location:  City Council Chambers - One Twin Pines Lane

City Council meets on the second and fourth Tuesday of the month at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, One Twin Pines Lane in Belmont. Council meetings are broadcast live on Cable Channel 27 in Belmont.  If you would like to contact the City Council collectively, please use the following link:  CityCouncil@belmont.gov - Please be advised: Our Mail Server does not accept files over 2 megabytes. Planning Commission meetings broadcast live on Channel 27 - Also available on the Internet at: http://www.communitymediacenter.net/watch/belmont_webcast/index.html

The Planning Commission meetings can be viewed on-line on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. The archives are available on our web site at the link below:

http://www.communitymediacenter.net/watch/belmont_webcast/index.html