Deniz Bolbol

Overview of the PROS Plan

The basic purpose of Belmont’s Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan is to set the framework for decision makers in the planning, maintenance, development, and or rehabilitation of Belmont’s Parks and open space system for a 15-year horizon. Belmont’s last PROS plan was completed in 1992, so it was long overdue for a revamp.

What’s happened so far in Belmont’s PROS Plan process

In February of 2021, the City kicked off the PROS plan process, which was expected to take one year to complete. The City did an outstanding job of creating a community-driven plan, and bent over backwards to get input from the entire community. The process included 19 Parks and Recreation Commission meetings, four City Council meetings, 11 focus groups, a community-wide survey that got more than 2,800 responses, a dedicated website (www.belmontPROSplan.com), and an “open house” event at Waterdog open space, where the public could talk directly with city staff and the environmental consultants that it hired.

Although the process was originally supposed to take a year, it got dragged out to over a year and half, thanks to a handful of affluent homeowners who live next to the trailheads. They demanded wholesale changes to open space policies that were totally out of step with the community’s wishes. They showed up at just about every meeting, berating the commission and staff, demanding severe restrictions to recreational use, including having Waterdog open space designated a “nature preserve,” excluding bicycles from all singletrack, and completely decommissioning the popular Lake Loop trail.

All of the issues were thoroughly evaluated by City staff, as well as the city’s independent environmental consulting firm. The conclusion was that the habitat in Belmont’s open space is healthy, and that existing multi-use recreation policies are not causing significant harm to the environment. For example, the trails consist of 1.3% of the land in the open space, and of that 1.3%, less than 10% had significant erosion. No reason was found to make radical changes to Belmont’s inclusive policies—which have been in place for over 30 years—of allowing hikers, cyclists, trail runners, and dog walkers to share and enjoy all of the trails. Data from the PROS plan confirmed that over 80% of the community wants to keep these inclusive policies in place. The PROS plan includes new policies to balance recreation and conservation by adding safety features to trails and protecting riparian habitat.

In short, the plan followed the science, gave the community what it wanted, and built in recommendations to continue to keep our open space sustainable and in great shape. The Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously voted to approve the plan and send it to City Council, and City Council was supposed to vote on it at its July 26 meeting. (The final draft plan can be viewed here.)

A single homeowner has thrown sand in the gears of the PROS plan

Unfortunately, the PROS plan has now ground to a halt because a lawyer, hired by failed 2018 City Council candidate Deniz Bolbol, has threatened the City with a lawsuit under CEQA.

What is CEQA?

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a California statute passed in 1970 and signed into law by then-Governor Ronald Reagan to institute a statewide policy of environmental protection. CEQA does not directly regulate land uses, but instead requires state and local agencies within California to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of environmental impacts of proposed projects and adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts. Generally speaking, CEQA only applies to “projects” that a public agency does that has the potential to either (1) cause a direct physical change in the environment or (2) cause a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

CEQA law is very complicated and technical, and complying with it is very costly for public agencies. It is usually beyond the expertise of even the most seasoned city attorneys, and typically, specialty legal counsel and CEQA consultants have to be brought in. Unless the City can prove CEQA doesn’t apply to its action (by proving exemptions or preparing complex documents called “negative declarations” or “mitigated negative declarations”), it must undergo an Environmental Impact Review (EIR) process, which can take many months or even years. EIR costs cities tens of thousands of dollars in staff and consultant time.

The dark side of CEQA and “greenmailing”

At this point, you may be scratching your head and thinking “wait a minute, how is the PROS plan a “project,” since it’s just a plan and a framework for the future, and it doesn’t break ground on any new construction?” CEQA shouldn’t apply to the PROS plan, and the city shouldn’t have to delay it for months or spend tens of thousands of dollars to do an EIR. But here’s the problem: CEQA allows a person suing the city to recover their attorney’s fees if they prevail in a CEQA suit. (But the City doesn’t get to recover its fees if it prevails, so it’s “heads you lose, tails I win.”) This has spawned a cottage industry of opportunistic lawyers who bring questionable CEQA suits, run their fees up to the hilt, and “greenmail” cities. (The Atlantic wrote an excellent article about this here.) Most people have heard of frivolous “shakedown” lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—CEQA lawsuits can be very similar.

As one California Court of Appeal recently noted, "something is very wrong" with CEQA if it can so easily be "subverted into an instrument for the oppression and delay of social, economic, or recreational development and advancement." Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (May 12, 2022, A159860) Cal.Rptr.3d (2022 WL 198892)

In our opinion, the CIty of Belmont is now being “greenmailed” by a single homeowner who is disgruntled that the final draft PROS plan didn’t conform to her extreme views. The City’s environmental consultants found no scientific or policy reason to include unprecedented restrictions to recreation in the plan that the homeowner was demanding, so now the homeowner is suing to try to get her way. Because the City now faces the threat of an award of hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees (thanks to CEQA’s unlevel playing field), it must now hire CEQA attorneys and consultants and spend tens of thousands of dollars to refute all of the claims of a single homeowner and her lawyer.

What’s next?

When will the City complete its CEQA process and finally approve the PROS plan? Nobody can say for certain, but at minimum it will be several more months. We are confident that the City will dot all of its “i’s” and cross all of its “t’s” to make sure the PROS plan will come out intact through this process. It may require some minor tweaks to be fully CEQA compliant, but we hope the City will stand up to this legal bullying and won’t make any fundamental changes to the plan. Unfortunately, this further process is going to significantly delay the plan that the Parks and Recreation Commission worked so hard on, and it will cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.

I want everyone to be able to enjoy the trails in Waterdog. What can I do to help?

Because the CEQA process can be so long, it’s almost certain that the next City Council, not the current one, will be making the ultimate decision on the PROS plan. At this juncture, the most important way to preserve our access to open space is to vote for and support candidates for City Council and Mayor who take an inclusive approach to open space management.

At the upcoming November 8, 2022 election, Belmont will be electing its very first at-large mayor (elected by the whole city). The two candidates are Julia Mates (current mayor and councilmember) and Warren Lieberman (current councilmember). Our members have interviewed both candidates to get their positions on open space. Julia Mates is clearly the best candidate for those who feel open space should remain open to all. Julia is not a mountain biker, nor does she have any ties to the cycling community, but she hikes the open space with her school-age children, she understands Waterdog’s culture and traditions of sharing, and she solidly supports inclusive open space management policies. We support Julia Mates because she has a “we’re all in this together” approach, and her vision includes keeping the open spaces open and accessible to the whole community.

In stark contrast, Warren Lieberman has been in office for nearly 20 years, and we think he would use his office to take care of special interests. His political patrons and allies include the very people who are trying to limit access to our open space. He has consistently spoken in favor of segregating trails and designating “hiker only” trails. One of his campaign platforms is to “re-commit to protecting our parks and open space” which is a dog whistle to his well-heeled constituents who are working to keep people out away from the open space that adjoins their houses. Unlike Mr. Lieberman, Julia is not beholden to these special interests.

At this point, the single most important thing we can do to keep our open space open is to support Julia’s bid for Mayor. If Mr. Lieberman wins, he and his allies will push to delay the PROS plan and revise it to restrict access. One of his closest allies wrote an article in the San Mateo Daily Journal calling for exactly that. The bias and misinformation in that article was called out here and here. (Note: if the article/letters are behind a paywall, clear your browser cookies.)

There are several ways you can help Julia win, including donating a few bucks to her campaign, displaying her lawn sign (if you live in Belmont), and spreading the word among your friends and neighbors. We encourage you to visit www.juliamates.com where you can learn more about her. Her website has a contact form to request a sign, and a donation link.

Another way to help is letting City officials know you want them to keep managing Belmont’s trails in an inclusive way, as they have for the past 30+ years, letting them know you support multi-use trails, and that you don’t want to see any major changes to the current draft of the PROS plan. You can email the City at prcomm@belmont.gov, citycouncil@belmont.gov, and info@belmontprosplan.com. The City values input from open space visitors from neighboring communities, because they are stakeholders too, but it’s especially important that it hears from Belmont residents because those are the City officials’ direct constituents.

You can also speak directly to the City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission during public comment period at their meetings. At every meeting, whether or not the PROS plan is on the agenda, you can speak on that topic, either in person or via Zoom. The City’s page showing upcoming meetings and agendas is here.

We are thrilled to announce that we have crossed a major milestone: our membership now includes over 3,000 people who are invested in the outcome of recreation at Waterdog.

In a recent PROS committee meeting, commission member David Braunstein fell into the all-too-common "both sides" fallacy, implying that those who oppose recreation in the open space should have their views taken with the same weight as the overwhelming majority who support it.

The community has soundly rejected this anti-recreation agenda, as illustrated by failed runs for City Council on this platform by the loudest and most persistent of this minority, Pat Cuviello and Deniz Bolbol. These would-be ringleaders complain over and over, while those who support the Stewards' stance on recreation at Waterdog swell into the thousands. Their attack on the Crystal Springs Cross Country Course was also met with outrage by the community.

This handful of people tries to pit user groups against each other, and pushes a false narrative that this is a battle between hikers vs. bikers. The PROS survey and other public input consistently shows that hikers, cyclists, dog walkers, and runners all want the same thing: a continuation of Waterdog’s decades of successful shared-use policies. To the extent there are two groups, they consist of (1) a handful of people who are demanding radical and wholesale changes to open space policies, and (2) the rest of the community.

Let's reject this "both sides" premise once and for all, implement the sound improvements recently proposed for the open space, and get back to enjoying this incredible resource.

The Belmont Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Master Plan process is making its way through the Parks & Recreation Commission and ultimately to City Council. The Master Plan is a planning blueprint for the next 15-20 years to guide the City's network of parks, facilities and recreational services for the future, including Waterdog open space.

As part of that process, the city has hired a consultant (Gates & Associates) to prepare the plan with community input, and the Belmont Parks & Recreation has convened a PROS Committee, comprised of various local stakeholders, which holds meetings and receives public comment and emails to take the pulse of the community. The process is open and transparent. the PROS plan has a website, and emails to the PROS Committee are publicly available here.

There is a handful of residents of the Belmont Heights neighborhood that adjoins the Waterdog Open Space who are lobbying to restrict recreational access to the open space, and to have it designated as a nature preserve. Of this small group, two of the most vocal are husband-and-wife duo Pat Cuviello and Deniz Bolbol. Mr. Cuviello ran for Belmont City Council in the 2020 election and lost, getting only 7.16% of the vote. Ms. Bolbol ran for Belmont City Council in 2018 and lost as well. Both of these individuals are animal rights activists who have sued in connection with their activism, and Ms. Bolbol has a current lawsuit against the City of Belmont in connection with her demands for records relating to the PROS Plan.

In the ongoing PROS master plan process, there has been a tremendous amount of feedback from community stakeholders about the open space. As detailed in this article, a PROS plan survey was conducted, and there was excellent turnout. The results clearly showed that there is strong community support for keeping the status quo at Waterdog, i.e. having the successful and sustainable multi-use by hikers, trail runners, cyclists, and dog walkers continue, as it has for decades.

If you take the time to read through all the email feedback, you'll see the community stakeholders (i.e. people who actually live in the area and use the open space) overwhelmingly support the status quo. We actually counted up the letters. In January/February, there were 98 letters for continued recreational access, and 15 against. In March there were 110 letters for, and 0 against. Consistently, the majority of letters are in favor of continued access, and the same group of 10-15 people tend send "against" letters every month.

Then, all of a sudden in May, over 100 identical form emails poured in that say this:

Dear Belmont Belmont,

As a local resident, someone who is concerned with wildlife and wilderness protection, and a supporter of In Defense of Animals, I am writing to urge you to prioritize the protection of wildlife and habitat at Waterdog Lake & Open Space in the PROS Master Plan. This must be done by reducing the number of trails and keeping mountain bikes on wide fire-road trails only. Belmont offers many recreational opportunities, but Waterdog is its primary natural open space, and only by prioritizing protection over recreation will we leave future generations of all species the same beautiful and essential wild land we witness today.

While opportunities for outdoor recreation and simply being able to enjoy nature are important, with increasingly little habitat in the Bay Area, this open space is critical for wildlife, and provides an invaluable and much-needed corridor that many species rely on and benefit from.

As a local resident, I value protecting and conserving Waterdog Open Space and wildlife habitat. If the current recreational usage of Waterdog continues, it will cease to function as a healthy native habitat for wildlife. I am also extremely concerned that allowing bikes on narrow trails will continue the damage to trails, running over and running out wild animals and habitat destruction. I sincerely hope you will put conservation first when planning the future of this open space, and prioritize the need to keep bikes on fire roads only to protect habitat and wildlife. Thank you for your kind consideration of this urgent matter.

While many of these form emails were signed by people with Bay Area addresses, there were also emails from people as far away as Beverly Hills, and even Tulsa, Oklahoma who state in their form email they are a "local resident." The form letters are addressed to "Dear Belmont Belmont," demonstrating the author does not have a good comprehension of the entity he/she is writing to. (There is no "Belmont Belmont" because there is no official, employee, commission, or committee in the City of Belmont named "Belmont.")

The form letter identifies the writer as a "supporter of In Defense of Animals" which is an "international animal protection organization with over 250,000 valued supporters". Nowhere in the letter is any evidence cited that "allowing bikes on narrow trails will continue the damage to trails, running over and running out wild animals and habitat destruction."

Is there a connection between Ms. Bolbol and Mr. Cuviello and this avalanche of generic emails to the PROS Committee from animal rights activists all over the country? We don't know. However, we believe these emails don't add anything to the discussion. In his 2021 State of the City Address, Mayor Charles Stone encouraged "...everyone in Belmont or even if you don’t live in Belmont if you use our facilities" to participate in the PROS survey. The City wants to hear from local community stakeholders in the PROS process. Cut-and-pasted content from activists from around the country who have likely never even seen the Waterdog Open Space—or even heard of our little town before they were told to send this email—does nothing to move the needle.

The Belmont Heights Civic Improvement Association (BHCIA)—a group whose leadership has been threatening recreational access at Waterdog Lake Open Space—are attacking another local resource: the Crystal Springs Cross Country Course.

What is the Crystal Springs Cross Country Course?

The Crystal Springs Cross Country Course is a wonderful regional resource for middle school and high school cross-country running teams. It is also a popular hiking and running destination for the general public. (Cycling and dogs are not allowed on the course.) The land is owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), who issues a permit to the San Mateo County Community College District (SMCCCD) to operate the course. During the three-month cross-country racing season, there are a number of track meets, which necessarily bring some temporary traffic to the neighboring homes in the Belmont Heights neighborhood. A little-known fact is that the income from the cross-country racing events not only funds maintenance of the venue during the racing season, but it also provides for year-round public access.

Who are the BHCIA?

Belmont Heights is a neighborhood of large single-family houses in Belmont that sits between the Waterdog Open Space and the Crystal Springs Cross Country Course. It has a private neighborhood association, the Belmont Heights Civic Improvement Association (BHCIA). It is not a true homeowners’ association with mandatory membership of all homes in the neighborhood. Rather, membership is voluntary, and residents of Belmont Heights can choose to pay $20 per year to join. Accordingly, the BHCIA does not represent all of the homeowners in Belmont Heights. The BHCIA is a private organization; it is not a governmental or quasi-governmental entity, and It has no authority to make decisions for anyone.

Unfortunately, the BHCIA board has been taken over by a handful of activists, including people who have recently run for Belmont City Council, but could not get elected. They are using the BHCIA, under the guise of representing the Belmont Heights neighborhood, to push their own agenda—even though this agenda is not supported by many Belmont Heights residents.

The Threat

The BHCIA Board has recently been on a crusade to limit the use of the nearby Crystal Springs Cross Country Course. At the outset, they stated that their goal was to limit events to “locals only”, but are now on the precipice of having all public access restricted. This should sound familiar to anyone who has been to any of the Belmont City Council and Parks and Recreation meetings in the past year or so, as they’re the same tactics being used in that forum to argue for severe restrictions to recreational use of Waterdog Open Space.

Without doing any polling or canvasing of BHCIA members or non-member residents of Belmont Heights to see if that is what the neighborhood wants, the leadership of BHCIA has demanded that the SMCCCD severely limit the number and scope of track meets at the course. (Video of the SMCCCD board’s August 25, 2021 meeting is available here: Board Meeting Videos | Board of Trustees | San Mateo County Community College District. Click on the link for the 8/25/21 meeting part 1, and fast forward to 2:12:00.) At this meeting there were 22 public speakers that made public comment against closing the course and/or limiting the number of events. By contrast, a paltry four public speakers, most of whom were BHCIA board members, spoke in favor of limiting access. At 2:21:16 in the video, a Belmont Heights resident provides an excellent explanation of how the BHCIA does not represent the neighborhood’s interests, nor did the BHCIA do any polling of the neighborhood residents before portraying that it speaks for the neighborhood as a whole.

Taking the same unreasonable stance they use at the Belmont city level to the San Mateo County Community College District (SMCCCD), which holds the permit to conduct the cross country events, the BHCIA has rejected all proposed compromises. Luckily, the community made it clear to the SMCCCD in public meetings that the BHCIA was not representing their desires, and succeeded in keeping the long-running cross country events intact.

Despite it being clear that the BHCIA leadership was not representing the interests of the area in this matter, its leadership escalated the issue to the SPFUC. The SFPUC is now considering revoking the permit for the cross country course entirely.A recent update from the SFPUC reads, "If an agreement is not reached among SMCCCD and the various stakeholders by the end of this calendar year, then we will take steps to revoke the existing license."

BHCIA President Deniz Bolbol—one of the primary individuals who speaks out on behalf of the BHCIA against recreational use at Waterdog—has personally been pressing this issue, speaking at meetings at both the SMCCCD- and SFPUC-level. Despite protests from many neighbors, Ms. Bolbol has escalated this agenda item, which now threatens public access to the course entirely. See this Nextdoor thread from Belmont mayor Charles Stone on the subject.

You can help stop this assault on our local treasures

Ms. Bolbol and the BHCIA's tactics have clearly created a threat to yet another beloved local resource. While we are a group dedicated to keeping Waterdog open to recreation, we're also community members invested in the Crystal Springs Cross Country Course, and want to show our support for keeping it open and available, as it has been for decades. Let's not let Ms. Bolbol and her BHCIA ruin this resource for Belmont and the wider community. Please email commission@sfwater.org to show your support for this issue today.

If you’ve come to our site because of the cross country course issue, welcome! Please consider signing up for our low-volume mailing list and help us stand up to these same people who seek to impose severe restrictions to recreational access in Waterdog Open Space. Help us keep our recreational resources open to all!

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="5760"]

“ Heat 2 is off ” by Malcolm Slaney is licensed under CC BY 2.0

“ Heat 2 is off ” by Malcolm Slaney is licensed under CC BY 2.0 [/caption]