.
Feedback

Belmont City Council Denies CSUS Application

Councilmember Christine Wozniak: "This is the most controversial issue I've had in my five years on Council."

In a 3-2 vote, Belmont City Council denied the application of Crystal Springs Uplands School (CSUS) to build a middle school campus on Davis Drive Tuesday night.

"We are very disappointed in the City Council's decision, but would like to thank the Belmont community for its overwhelming support of our school," said a representative of CSUS.

The singular motion that brought the project to an abrupt halt centered around the General Plan Amendment, which would have allowed the city to rezone the Davis Drive office park property that is currently designated as industrial, to commercial to accommodate the school campus.

Councilmembers Warden, Wozniak and Feierbach voted "yes" on the motion to deny the application; Councilmembers Leiberman and Braunstein voted "no" on the motion.

"We need more commercial property in our community, not more schools," said Councilmember Christine Wozniak.

The motion was made by Feierbach after more than two hours of discussion and public comment. Approximately 15 members addressed the council; most were in favor of the project.

Wozniak said that changing the city's General Plan to allow for the school to take the place of the former commercial buildings would make it easier to change again.

"I don't believe in changing the General Plan for one applicant, because when we make that change, we are changing the vision for our community," said Wozniak.

Mayor Dave Warden was also against changing the General Plan, but said he struggled with his decision.

"I want to do the right thing, but there's no right answer here. It's a land use issue, it's a planning issue. I have to draw on my knowledge of the community, and this comes down to putting a middle school in the middle of a business park," said Warden.

After nearly two-and-a-half hours of discussion and public comment  Councilmember Feierbach made a motion.

"I move that we direct staff to prepare a resolution to deny the application for a General Plan amendment," said Feierbach, which essentially made any discussion of the other four project entitlements moot since the rezoning of the property was the cornerstone of the entire application.

Feierbach read from a prepared statement prior to making the motion, in which she outlined her reasoning for not supporting the application. Her reasons included loss of tax revenue and increased traffic on Ralston Avenue.

"I was enthusiastic about the project in the beginning, but then started looking at all of these other things," said Feierbach.

She added that the mailers sent out by CSUS and the discussions that took place on Belmont Patch also turned her away from the project.

"I couldn't recover from it," she said.

Councilmembers Warren Lieberman and David Braunstein each said they still had some reservations about the project, but were open to further discussion.

Lieberman said he thought the General Plan Amendment should be considered in close alignment with the project's Development Agreement, which outlines the legal and monetary aspects of the application. Part of the Development Agreement included a one time payment of $1 million to the city, and $250,000 per year to offset the loss of property taxes.

"The positive incremental revenue that would be generated from CSUS would allow us to take on projects we might not otherwise be able to do, such as turf the Belmont Sports Complex," said Lieberman.

And David Braunstein stressed the weight of the issue on council.

"You have no idea how seriously we take this issue and how many hours we've put into it. Your input is not lost on us," Braunstein said to the audience and the applicant.

"At the end of the day, I can see where it would make sense to allow CSUS to come to Belmont. With businesses on Davis Drive and CSUS, we can get into a win-win situation," added Braunstein.

Mayor Dave Warden said he had received more than 350 emails and dozens of phone calls about the project.

"At the end of the day, both sides have compelling reasons for being for or against the project. And I've tried to weigh them, but I have to justify my decision, and it is my decision. This has been a torturous process for me," said Warden.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Belmont Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
DJ May 20, 2013 at 05:51 am
Please come to the San Mateo City Council meeting tonight at 7:00 or shortly after and voice yourRead More concern about replacing our community's skating rink with a retail store. Bring something to read/do while we wait for our turn to speak. City of San Mateo 330 West 20th Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 dina.artzt@comcast.net if you are interested in updates on our cause.
CP May 15, 2013 at 10:05 am
The City has spent time working with the developer, behind closed doors it would seem, yet inputRead More from the public was an afterthought due to MANY families showing up at a May 6 City Council Meeting (not on the Agenda, yet rink to close June 1 !) So many kids spoke so sincerely and eloquently how the closure would hurt them and their friends. Does San Mateo City Hall care about the residents of our community? Especially the children. City Hall has the upper hand (the Master Plan agreement), we expect them to step up. Why has City Hall allowed SPI to make the children of our community suffer so much agony and pain over this process? Shame on City Hall for letting this drag out !!
CP May 13, 2013 at 02:30 am
Don't give up....the kids are worth it! It is wrong for SPI to be in non-compliance with the masterRead More plan. City Hall should be filing some type of injunction to stop closure of the ice center....this is not right. Repeat of what happened with 7 Eleven on North San Mateo Drive when the developer ignored our City ordinances/plans. Why is this happening again in our City of San Mateo?
Z April 5, 2013 at 03:23 pm
I suggest contacting Menlo Park Presbyterian Churh 650.323.8600 or Peninsula Covenant Church (650)Read More 365-8094 Blessings to you!
Linda Thomas April 5, 2013 at 03:14 pm
Eileen, you are heartily invited to visit the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Redwood City. WeRead More are a welcoming, caring group of about 177 people who find music, laughter, social, intellectual and social action pursuits to be eminently spiritual. Our services are at 10:30 a.m. Sundays at 2124 Brewster St. Best work advice at this time is to keep checking Craig's List, the Peninsula section, under both Etc. and part-time jobs.
Joc C May 14, 2013 at 06:49 pm
Parents supporting Redwood Shores Schools for Redwood Shores Kids, very well said. You have my fullRead More support.
Pearl April 29, 2013 at 06:51 pm
Thanks for sharing, Ari!!!! It's been my experience that when you volunteer, you get back way moreRead More than you give! Thanks for the great example you are setting for us all.
Kelly O'Dea April 29, 2013 at 06:23 pm
Ari-Thanks for sharing the adventures of your volunteering projects! You are a great inspiration toRead More our entire community and we are all very proud to have you as a spokesperson on how volunteering can make a huge impact! Thank you very much! Keep on having fun!
Joan S. Dentler (Editor) April 29, 2013 at 04:13 pm
This is a great reminder that any other local volunteers who would like to share their projects withRead More the community may do so on Belmont Patch! Simply email the editor at joan.dentler@patch.com. Great job Ari!
KP May 2, 2013 at 09:43 pm
Again, thank you Brian for this great article about Nesbit. I'm unsure of how it turned into aRead More sounding board for the petulant to vent but those of us who know how wonderful Nesbit is sure appreciate your article.
Joc C May 2, 2013 at 09:30 pm
API of 800 is not bad but parents are comparing it with other schools in the district. There areRead More other issues that make parents unhappy. The residents in RWS and Belmont Shores are paying property tax which contributes to the building of RWSE. There is an expectation that their kids will go to the kids they help fund. The RWS parents are unhappy because they were told they would not be affected by the no boundary policy. Then, a year later 26 families are affected. No one like surprises. The board's decision to use a 'walking distance' algorithm to promote neighborhood schools is not working. Well, hypothetically if Nesbit API is over 900 and the other schools has API of 800, would we still have this discussion? We would not know for sure but something to think about if API is a factor among others.
Brannigan May 2, 2013 at 08:40 pm
I just moved into the neighborhood behind Iron Gate and we bought in Belmont because of the schools.Read More I am kinda shocked to find people bashing Nesbit. The API score is over 800, has great diversity, and the location seems to be pretty convenient. Our son has 2 more years before he starts, but we wouldn't mind one bit if we ended up at Nesbit. What's the difference of 100 points on API that an extra 5 minutes of father-son tutoring time can't fix. Besides, we all end up at Ralston and Carlmont anyways. To me, those are the schools that matter most.