From: Ray DeVeaux
To: x-City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Agenda Topic 8E - Second reading of text amendments of Belmont Zoning Ordinance Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 12:24:54 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important To whom it may concern,
I would like to oppose changing the building heights and setbacks for the CMU district in the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. The current 45 foot height limit listed in section 5A.1.12 is more than ample, as most buildings along the El Camino corridor do not exceed 2 stories. Also reducing the minimum setbacks as listed in section 5A.1.12 from 15 feet in the rear yard to 10 feet would be fine if the adjoining lot was commercial, but not acceptable if the adjoining lot is a R-1 single family residential. There should be more space separating residential from commercial as tall commercial buildings will cast large shadows over the adjoining residential property for long periods of time. The upper story setbacks should also be maintained when the adjoining lot is residential, as the upper story setbacks will help reduce the long periods of shadows. Also, reducing the parking requirement for hotels / motels in section 8.4.1C from 1 per lodging room to .5 per lodging room seems to be excessive, except for properties within 500 feet of the Caltrain station.
Thank you
Ray DeVeaux
From: Brian
To: x-City Clerk"s Office
Cc: Rob Gill; Laura Russell
Subject: Concern Regarding Proposed CMU Zoning Regulation when adjacent to Residential SFH - City Council Meeting Dec 9th
Date: Monday, December 8, 2025 3:30:48 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed Commercial Mixed Use zoning changes, specifically, the staff's recommended setbacks requirement will impact adjacent residential properties.
The Planning Committee, after weighing the tradeoffs, recommended a satisfactory solution of a 15 ft setback with an additional 5 ft setback every 2 floor. This reflects a thoughtful balance between development needs and the preservation of residential quality of life, and I believe it is a fair and acceptable standard.
However, I was troubled to learn that staff have subsequently submitted their own recommendation, proposing a 10 ft setback with a additional 5 ft setback starting only on the 3rd floor. This could allow a 74 degree daylight plane that is not only significantly higher than the Planning Committee's recommendation, but is well above the normal accepted range of 45-60 degrees when residential zones are next to commercial zones. (Examples of cities that follow this requirement are Seattle, Portland, Vancouver to name a few)
Allowing a 74-degree daylight plane would have severe and detrimental consequences for homeowners in affected residential zones. It would permit commercial structures to be built excessively close and high, leading to a substantial loss of natural daylight, increased overshadowing, and a significant reduction in privacy for neighboring homes. This encroachment would inevitably diminish the quality of life for residents, negatively impact property values, and fundamentally alter the character of our residential neighborhoods.
Furthermore, I would like to comment on the staff's presentation 2 weeks ago. While my own property was used as an example in their proposal, a survey I conducted of 12 directly impacted houses revealed that my site is not the worse site impacted. At least four other homes homes would be in a far worse situation than mine. Unlike my property, these 4 other lots do not benefit from a 10% grade that would naturally "hide" and mitigate the visual impact of a tall commercial building constructed next to them. The staff's example, therefore, does not accurately represent the full extent of the negative impact across the neighborhood.
To illustrate the what it could look like, I've used 807 North Road as an example. I've also attached photos of the other sites that would similarly be impacted Under the Planning Commission's recommendation: A commercial building could still be 6 stories high, but its upper floors would be required to step back further, creating a more gradual transition and preserving a significant amount of natural light and open sky for the adjacent residential properties. This design would feel less imposing and more integrated into the neighborhood's character, maintaining a reasonable sense of privacy and daylight for homes like those on South Street. In the worse case like 807 North Street, the Daylight plane would be 64 degrees which is still higher than what is typically allowed in other cities by a few degrees Under the Staff's recommendation, The same 6-story commercial building could be built significantly closer to the property line, towering over single-family homes. This would result in severe overshadowing, casting long shadows for much of the day, dramatically reducing direct sunlight into homes and yards, and creating an oppressive "canyon effect." Residents would experience a profound loss of privacy as upper floors of the commercial building would look directly into their living spaces and backyards. The difference between these two scenarios is not just technical; it fundamentally impacts the daily lives and well-being of our residents.
When the staff presented their proposal, they stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation would inherently reduce the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of a commercial building. I believe this claim is a bit misleading. Their example demonstrated how the Planning Commission's recommendations would impact a pre-conceived design.
However, it is entirely feasible to design a new 6 story commercial structure, that fully utilizes the 2.5 FAR limit while still adhering to the Planning Commission's more reasonable guidelines. The Planning Commission's recommendations do not stifle commercial development but rather encourages thoughtful and responsible design that respects adjacent residential areas.
It is also crucial to note the disproportionate impact of these proposals. These ordinances would realistically only affect three potential commercial sites but could dramatically and negatively impact at least 12 residential homes, severely compromising their livability and value.
The staffed also asserted that requiring additional setbacks in upper floors would be a burden on developers. This would only impact floors above 4 stores high and for such a large 6 story development, I estimate it would be a trivial 1% to the overall cost to build . This minimal cost is not a significant burden for a developer and is a small price to ask for the sake of being... neighborly and creating a buffer between a 6- story commercial structure and a single-story residential home. It is a reasonable compromise that prioritizes community well-being without unduly hindering development.
Such drastic departures from established best practices, and an unwilling to ask for trivial additional costs from developers unevenly prioritize commercial interests at the direct expense of the well-being and rights of our community members. The planning committee's proposal does not prevent commercial buildings to be fully built out on a lot, it merely pushes the presence of a building forward onto El Camino instead of onto a single floor SFH
I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the staff's recommendation. Instead, I implore you to uphold the Planning Committee's more reasonable and residentfriendly recommendation, or even to consider a stricter standard that truly protects our residential communities. Your decision on this matter will have a lasting impact on the livability and sustainability of our city.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this critical issue. I trust that you will make a decision that prioritizes the health, comfort, and long-term well-being of your constituents.
Sincerely,
Brian Tsang
800 Anita Ave
Belmont, CA 94002