Dave Clark
406 Alder Lane
San Mateo
415 971-5760
[email protected]
Tuesday, October 14th
Belmont City Council
I’m with the bannering team of Indivisible San Mateo. We are respectful, non-violent citizens seeking to reach our neighbors about the current maga political movement.
Since June we have been supporting bannering at eight to twelve locations on the peninsula and have reached over 3 million motor voters (at 120 cars /minute). At Belmont, we’ve had a half dozen amicable visits by police and highway patrol. Recently, and this is only at Belmont, we have been told that we cannot attach to the inside of the fence. I would like to know why policy changed and how we can resolve this and continue to express our first amendment rights which are being threatened by our federal government.
Our group takes care to ensure each bannering event is safe and does not place added burden on law enforcement. In fact, we have not reported the minor harassment we experienced as we know that local police have more important matters. We designate a safety monitor, use orange cones to alert bike/ped traYic, and leave the overpass cleaner than we found it. We use large format fabric banners as they are more readable and safer in high winds than hand held signs. We would like to continue to secure the banners to the inside of the fencing.
We plan to banner on the overpass for No Kings Day, this coming Saturday October 18th.
We have received an 8 page memo from BPD about sign ordinances and will use PVC frames and not attach.
Second point concerns safety.
Trump and others in power have recently labelled demonstrators like ourselves as terrorists and are encouraging violence and revenge. Contrast that to Indivisible which is based on non-violence.
Our group is also one of 300 Visibility Brigade chapters nationwide and we track incidents against demonstrators on overpasses. The reason I am here is that if we don’t open up channels for cooperation with BPD it get’s worse, at least in red regions. Once maga appears they don’t go away and the tension if not physical violence always increases.
On September 23rd the right wing “turning point for America” bannered at Ralston. A Washington Post ADL analysis showed that 80% of the violent extremist infractions were right wing with left wing accounting for around 7%.
How to we accommodate a group which may decide to have signs with Nazi flags, and biblical quotes, or (as in Seattle) masked men with guns. These people have a history of minor violence on the Belmont overpass.
I urge BPD to develop a contingency plan for the events on October 18th in Belmont, including the overpass, should right wing protestors attend.
From: Govind Narayan
To: x-City Clerk"s Office
Cc: Brigitte Shearer
Subject: Public Comment for 10/14/2025 City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 12:56:10 PM
Attachments: Belmont City Council Meeting Comment_10.14.2025_Govind Narayan.pdf You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Hi!
My name is Govind Narayan and I live on Belburn Drive. I am looking forward to participating in the City's initiatives and helping wherever I can over the coming months and years.
As a starting point, I'm planning to attend the Council Meeting this evening, find the speaking slip, and make a comment in support of the new Community Center in under 3 mins.
I've also attached a letter to the Council re a maintenance garage that I would love included (cc Brigitte).
Both are for Agenda item 10A Belmont Community Center Master Plan Update.
Thanks,
Govind Narayan
312-918-8683
Govind Narayan
1812 Belburn Dr, Belmont, CA 94002
[email protected] | 312-918-8683
October 14, 2025
To: Belmont City Council
City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, CA 94002
Subject: Request for Redesign of Belmont Community Center to Address Park Maintenance Garage Placement
Dear Members of the Belmont City Council,
I am writing as a resident of Belburn Drive to share my concerns about the proposed placement of the maintenance garage and adjacent refuse area for the new Belmont Community Center. Given the direct impact on nearby homes, I respectfully request that the City consider alternatives that better protect neighborhood safety, livability, and property values while maintaining the project’s operational effectiveness.
Safety Considerations
The section of Belburn Drive opposite the Community Center is home to eight young children, including two sets of infant twins. Many more neighborhood children regularly walk from their homes to the Community Center along this same route. Locating the maintenance garage directly across from our homes—especially with the expected increase in heavy vehicle and equipment movement—creates foreseeable safety risks for children and pedestrians. As parents and neighbors, we are eager to support the Community Center’s success, but we also hope its design reflects Belmont’s broader commitment to safe, family-friendly neighborhoods.
Neighborhood and Property Impacts
The proposed garage and refuse area would have a continuous visual and auditory presence in a residential zone and are reasonably expected to diminish surrounding property values. Belmont residents have made substantial investments in this neighborhood, and it would be regrettable if a civic project of this magnitude knowingly imposed disproportionate impacts on a group of residential frontages. I respectfully ask that the City acknowledge these foreseeable effects and take corrective action now, while the design remains conceptual.
Precedents and Recommendations:
I have researched comparable Bay Area projects and found compelling examples where maintenance garages were either removed or relocated to less sensitive areas to address similar neighborhood concerns while maintaining community center functionality.
1. Menlo Park, CA – Veterans Community Center (2018–2022):
The initial design included a public works storage and maintenance annex adjacent to single-family homes on Oak Grove Avenue. Following resident feedback, the City Council removed the maintenance component and consolidated operations within an existing city yard a mile away. This adjustment was praised by both residents and city staff.
2. Palo Alto, CA – Mitchell Park Library & Community Center (2015):
In response to community input, the City deleted on-site maintenance storage for park equipment and upgraded existing city maintenance facilities to absorb the additional workload.
This demonstrated that large civic centers can operate effectively without embedded or hub-and-spoke maintenance infrastructure. (Architect: Group 4)
3. San Rafael, CA – Pickleweed Park Community Center Redevelopment (2019):
Based on neighborhood feedback, San Rafael relocated the initially proposed vehicle-accessible maintenance bay to the opposite side of the building, buffering it with landscaping and orienting it toward a commercial street (Bellam Blvd). This balanced operational needs with community compatibility. (Architect: Group 4)
4. San Francisco, CA – Citywide Design Guidelines (2018):
San Francisco’s planning standards explicitly discourage placing service, maintenance, and refuse areas along residential or pedestrian frontages. Section 1.3.3 (“Back of House and Service Areas”) directs that such functions be located to the rear of sites or adjacent to non-sensitive uses, with appropriate screening and buffering. This guideline reflects a regional best practice that Belmont can adopt to ensure operational areas do not adversely affect neighborhood character or property values.
Based on these precedents, I respectfully suggest the City Council consider one or more the following approaches:
1. Remove the On-Site Garage: Eliminate the garage entirely and consolidate maintenance functions at an existing city yard, as successfully done in Menlo Park and Palo Alto.
2. Relocate to a Less Sensitive Area: Move the garage to the side of the site adjoining commercial properties (e.g., near Chase Bank) and enhance screening through walls, berms, and landscaping, similar to the San Rafael example.
3. Conduct a Design Charrette: Convene a short collaborative session with Group 4 Architecture to explore these alternatives and ensure both operational and neighborhood needs are thoughtfully balanced.
Conclusion
Belmont has a proud tradition of community engagement and thoughtful design. The precedents above show that it is entirely feasible to achieve a high-functioning community center without compromising residential safety or quality of life. I urge the City Council to incorporate these lessons into the current conceptual design and direct the project team to evaluate feasible alternatives. Doing so will not only strengthen community support for forthcoming funding votes but also ensure the long-term success of this important civic investment.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Govind Narayan
Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Commercial Development Adjacent to Residential Neighborhood
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the specific plan for the Harbor Industrial Area which is being considered at tonight’s meeting. While I recognize the importance of thoughtful growth and economic opportunity, the current proposal raises concerns due to the magnitude of its scale and the proximity to our established residential neighborhood comprised primarily of single-family homes.
While I appreciate the increased setback on O’Neill, the proposed maximum height remains disproportionate to the neighborhood and risks permanently altering its character. While I would love to suggest that the height limit remains as it stands today at 65 feet, I recognize that’s unrealistic given the goals of the project. However, 155 feet is still egregious. Responsible development should enhance a community, not overwhelm it. This is overwhelming:
In addition, I am concerned about potential light pollution, traƯic congestion, and parking overflow that such a large-scale development will bring. These impacts could erode the quality of life for existing residents and create ongoing safety and livability challenges. I look forward to learning from the environmental impact report how the impacts of this project will be mitigated.
While the proposed residential transition area for the south side of O’Neill sounds nice in theory, I’m reading between the lines. The staƯ report states the following:
“It should also be noted that any new residential development would be subject to applicable State housing laws, including the State Density Bonus Law, which allows for potential modifications to local development standards or increases in density under certain conditions. As such, while the proposed zoning provides a framework for neighborhood-compatible residential development, there remains some uncertainty regarding the ultimate form of future projects that may take advantage of these State provisions.”
I interpret this to mean that the floodgates would be opened for an aƯordable housing developer to come in and bypass local jurisdiction and zoning and construct a tower like those being planned at 678 Ralston and 951 Old County on the opposite side of the Homeview neighborhood. This would eƯectively negate the intended purpose of planning for townhomes there and would result in Homeview surrounded by massive aƯordable housing complexes on both sides. If that is the case, I vehemently oppose this approach.
Most importantly, whatever happens with the HIA plan, I strongly urge you not to open the gates at the ends of our Homeview streets. These closures are vital for maintaining neighborhood safety, walkability, and a sense of community…..especially for families and children. It’s one of the many reasons my husband and I purchased our home 17 years ago and why we continue choosing to raise our children here. Preserving these dead ends is critical to protecting the peaceful character of our neighborhood. Not convinced? Pull up a chair on Elmer Street for 10 minutes and watch how fast cars fly down the block. Then imagine children trying to ride a bike there.
Finally, I thank you for your time and consideration of these concerns. One of the Council-adopted guiding principals for this project is “CONTEXT SENSITIVE STANDARDS - Generate design and development standards that are both sensitive to the existing neighborhood fabric and flexible to accommodate future growth.” I trust the Council will honor this and ensure that any approved project is one that reflects responsible, community-centered planning and demonstrates sensitivity to primary stakeholders, i.e. Homeview residents.
Respectfully,
Noreen Leek, Homeview Resident