From: Tom Holt
To: x-City Clerk"s Office
Cc: Laura Russell
Subject: Agenda Item 11.B: Belmont Harbor Industrial Area Specific Plan Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 5:16:14 PM
Good evening, Council Members. My name is Tom Holt. I'm a Partner at Beam Reach, a Bay Area real estate development and investment firm with property interests in the Harbor Industrial Area.
First, I want to thank staff for the tremendous effort that's gone into this process. The level of community engagement reflects a genuine commitment to getting this Specific Plan right, and we appreciate that collaborative approach.
I'm here tonight to voice our strong support for the proposed Master Plan concept as a new project type within the HIA framework.
The most successful neighborhoods share a common trait: a real sense of place built on a mix of uses that keeps a district active throughout the day — not just during the 9-to-5 workday, but into the evenings and weekends. Pure single-use employment districts often struggle to generate that kind of sustained energy and vitality. By creating a pathway for master-planned sites that thoughtfully integrate residential with employment uses, the City has an opportunity to help the HIA become that kind of dynamic, self-sustaining district.
We also think this approach appropriately balances flexibility with discretion. Limiting the Master Plan pathway to larger sites (or a grouping of larger sites), requiring a legislative process with full City Council approval, and applying guardrails gives the City real tools to shape outcomes, rather than ceding control to the more rigid mandates.
It's important to build in flexibility now. A mechanism like the Master Plan concept increases the odds that the Specific Plan remains viable and implementable upon adoption and across future market cycles.
We'd also encourage the Council to consider extending the HIA-1 designation along the entirety of the Old County Road frontage, rather than the partial coverage currently proposed. This corridor functions as a gateway into the HIA, and providing consistent flexibility along this frontage enhances the likelihood of the successful redevelopment of these prominently located parcels.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to continuing to work with staff as this process moves toward adoption.
Tom Holt
Beam Reach
415-439-9425
From: Giuliano
To: x-City Clerk"s Office; City Council
Cc: P&R Comm; x-Public Works
Subject: Comments for the City Council meeting on Tuesday July 14 Date: Saturday, July 11, 2026 5:33:15 PM
Some written comments for next Tuesday's City Council meeting.
Belmont Village Bicycle Improvement Project completion
Summary: A for effort, D for execution. Some good, too much bad.
Details:
HIller was blocked at Oneill. This was converted to a modal filter! Modal filters stop cars but let bikes through! This is really needed because Hiller leads to/from the bike bridge. The best part of this project! Hopefully as the HIA progresses, a non shared bike and ped path at Irwin or Judson can extend this through to Industrial.
Bike box on Ralston east bound at South Road is great. It will permit cyclists to get in front of traffic where they are more visible, and prevent many unintentional merge conflicts by drivers. At least when the light is red. We need something for when the light is green. Extending the bike lane would be best. Safety is more important than providing free parking spots to the apartment building owners across the street for the use of their tenants.
Removal of some parking on 5th is good.
Added class 2 and 3 bike lane on Ralston west bound between Hiller and Old County is a nice thought and appreciated.
Unfortunately, not one inch of protected bike lanes was added.
Research consistently and uniformly reports in study after study after study: class 2 and class 3 bike lanes do little to improve safety. They provide the impression that something was done, without doing anything. Please, if you do not believe me, look it up. It's a simple search. scholar.google.com: do class 2 and 3 bike lanes improve safety 85% to 90% of folks will not use class 2 and 3 bike lanes. We have spent a ton of money on changes that only 10%-15% of folks will use. When will we start building real bike lanes that are safe and that people will use? Again, if you doubt me, look it up. scholar.google.com: how many folks will ride on class 2 or 3 bike lanes.
Class 2 and 3 bike lanes give the impression that y'all are doing something, but there is no impact on safety, usage, or mode shift. City documents all state the need to move car trips to other modes. You need to do something that will make this possible.
Class 2 bike lanes on 6th are door zone bike lanes that actually make things worse, that make riding more dangerous. These class 2 bike lanes are actually worse than what was there before. 12%-25% of cyclist injuries come from being "doored", and that's where bike lanes were added. AIEEEEEEEE!!!
Standard cycling practice, what cycling instructors teach to folks, is to never ride in the door zone, even if there is a bike lane there. Congrats, we just built some bike lanes that folks should not use.
Fortunately, there is a simple fix. Remove parking on one side of 6th, providing the space to create protected bike lanes; or at least bike lanes that are out of the door zone.
There is a glut of parking here, with 3/4's completely unused 90% of the time.
The south bound Class 2 bike lane on 6th ends suddenly where the sidewalk jogs into it. If I recall correctly, California DOT requires that in such cases the bike lane merge at least 100 feet before it ends, not precipitously as is done here. If it isn't CA DOT, it's one of the other transit agencies.
The worst: not one inch of additional protected bike lanes on Ralston or Alameda, not one inch of any kind of bike lanes on the prime arterial cycling routes in Belmont, and core parts of Safe Routes to Schools to near every school in Belmont.
The only thing that provides actual safety and results in more folks shifting from driving to cycling, is the one thing y'all refuse to do.
Belmont Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) Specific Plan Update HIA planning is a critical component of Belmont's future. It will result in major changes to Belmont's business, retail, housing, and transit.
The staff report and slide deck included in the agenda packet have good discussions of the permitted building structure, in particular heights and setbacks with some discussion of housing. They also discuss meetings with developers and nearby residents.
But the agenda packet documents are nearly silent on retail and transit. Nor do they mention any targeted discussions with the community members most interested in transit.
The HIA project has the possibility of a fundamental shift and massive improvement in Belmont's retail landscape. It affords the possibility of finally having a real business district with restaurants, and shops, and retail as it develops. But crickets on this vitally important topic.
Even more important is the near silence on transit, especially prioritizing active transport within and access to it; integration with mass transit via CalTrain and SamTrans on ECR; and no mention of what will be done to minimize car commuting to the office space built within it.
Belmont must require that office space developments within the HIA will severely restrict on site parking. With the current plans for the number of parking spots, we can expect 100,000 more car trips per day, if adopted uniformly between similar projects between Ralston and Brittan. Imagine the impact on congestion! This is just not tenable. The City can not let this happen.
The vast majority of this project is within 1/2 miles of the CalTrain station. All of it within 3/4 of a mile. CalTrain and SamTrans are the clear best commute modes for this area.
The City must create governance structures that will severely limit car parking, and additionally must create zoning and convenants that will require developers, owners, and tenants to :
provide shuttles and subsidized passes to employees within the HIA encourage employees to walk and ride via financial incentives.
These requirements should not require any particular level of inducements, but rather should require use to rise until performance targets are reached. X% mass/active transit for those living farther than D miles from work, Y% of mass/active transit for those living within D miles of work.
There is literally no real discussion of transit mode planning. The only thing said: "On January 23, 2024 the City Council affirmed ..., safety for all modes". That's it. Not even 10% of what was said about building heights and offsets, the desires of local residents, or of potential builders. This is an opportunity for Belmont to build real people oriented transit.
Why no discussion of prioritizing mass and active transit. Why no discussion of providing enhanced access, for example a corridor between Oneill/ and Harbor at Hiller, Irwin, or Judson with separate bike and ped lanes, so that folks using the bike/ped bridge have direct access to Industrial. Why no discussion of a lane diet to 1 lane in each direction on Harbor and Industrial with speeds restricted to 15mph, with wide separated class 4 bike lanes and wide sidewalk for pedestrians, restaurant seating, and shop/retail use? Just as the plan contains detailed descriptions of what the buildings and housing will look like, it should similarly plan for what transit and retail will look like.
Thanks much!
giuliano
--
Drive a bike a bit more often and cars a bit less. You'll be healthier and happier, and so will our world.
Reach out if you'd like to learn to cycle more safely (LCI #7105). https://bikesiliconvalley.org
https://www.peopleforbikes.org/news/your-bike-advocacy-playbook From: Joanne Adamkewicz
To: City Council
Cc: x-community development
Subject: public comment on Council agenda item 11B, HIA plan update Date: Sunday, July 12, 2026 9:41:31 PM
Attachments: image.png
Dear City Council and staff,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the HIA Specific Plan Update. Throughout the HIA planning process, city staff and the Council have shown great responsiveness to resident input and concerns. The updated height step back requirements, along with the proposed design guidelines for the O’Neill Avenue transition area (automatic window shades; well designed parking garages; etc.), are a positive change.
However, while I appreciate the staff's attempt to meet multiple goals, I oppose the proposal to allow housing in the HIA-2 zone via the Master Plan process. Rather we need to continue to support commercial and light industrial uses to maintain our tax base and provide business and job opportunities in the city.
Originally I supported additional housing in the HIA, as a way to take development pressure off of the mixed-use spaces elsewhere in Belmont. However the last 8 development projects approved in Belmont -- all 100% housing -- have shown that mixed use zoning ordinances are no longer effective. The only way to preserve commercial and industrial uses in an area is to forbid residential entirely. San Carlos has gone in this direction, allowing housing on only limited parcels in their recently approved Northeast Area Plan, with no allowance for housing in their industrial or R&D zones.
Belmont has the lowest jobs-to-housing ratio in all of San Mateo County cities, by far -- about half the ratio in San Carlos! [data at bottom]And as you are aware, Belmont is continuing to lose even more businesses, as each new development tears down existing commercial buildings and replaces them with 100% residential.
I see that staff shares this concern and is proposing the Master Plan approach to attempt to give the city some control over projects. However, as we have seen, the state can easily override any local requirements for mixed use. And language as proposed in the staff report will not get the job done: "Establish findings for approval that require projects to include land uses that benefit the community, such as ground floor commercial, community serving uses such as small scale recreation, or pocket parks/open spaces" That requirement is similar to what we already have in CMU and other zoning districts, and it doesn't work to preserve commercial use -- we get housing with a fountain or statue. Once we open the door to housing in HIA-2, housing is all we will get, as state and economic incentives are so heavily weighted towards residential. The developers telling you now that they want flexibility to put in mixed use development to help make their projects more viable will be under no obligation in the future to maintain ground floor commercial use. We have seen this movie before, and we didn't like the ending.
Please keep the HIA-2 zone exclusively for commercial and light industrial uses.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Joanne Adamkewicz
20 year Belmont resident and current member of the City of Belmont Planning Commission Data source: county Mid-Peninsula MultiModal Strategy, Section 2.2.1, page 21 From: Bobby Mock
To: City Manager; x-City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Belmont City Council 7.14 - Agenda Item L
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 4:22:41 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Belmont Server Refresh Proposal - 7.14.2026.pdf
City of Belmont - Nutanix on Dell Private Cloud - 7.14.2026.pdf City of Belmont - NTNX Software - 07.13.26.pdf
City of Belmont - Professional Services - 06.25.26.pdf
Hi Afshin,
As Belmont is finalizing a proposal from Eaton & Associates for a Nutanix proposal, two things worth flagging before signature:
1. The quote attached to tonight’s agenda item expired July 3rd. Component and hardware pricing are notoriously volatile right now, so whatever number gets requoted from here is an unknown — it could hold static, but unlikely it comes back at the same price if 2026 trends hold true. Worth getting a fresh, currently-valid quote before you finalize budget requests against it.
2. The NTNX software subscription term is three years, while the hardware warranty from Lenovo runs five. In Year 4, licensing and support will need to be renewed at whatever Nutanix's pricing is at that time — and the quote includes the line "Special pricing – this deal only," signaling the current per-core rate is a one-time negotiated number, not something you're guaranteed again at renewal.
Setting aside the choice to once again take a risk with a solution that locks a hardware investment in with a corresponding software platform, both of the above add up to the same underlying issue: real budget exposure with no contractual ceiling, both on hardware prices today and especially on the software renewal in year 2029.
Our proposal — Nutanix software running on Dell Private Cloud — is structured differently: a 5-year solution across the board with guaranteed not-to-exceed annual cost across the full term. Same Nutanix software stack, but the City knows its ceiling for the full hardware lifecycle on day one - not just the first 3 years of it. Plus – none of the exposure from a currently expired price in a volatile hardware market.
Happy to walk through a side-by-side on total 5-year cost of ownership if that would help as the city weighs its options. Even excluding the risk avoidance laid out above, I'm seeing a minimum 11% ROI for partnering with Redesign/Dell instead of Eaton/Lenovo.
Best,
Bobby Mock
Territory Manager
m: (517) 290‑4067
e: [email protected]
w: redesign-group.com
LinkedIn