To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Belmont City Council From: Doug Ricket
Date: October 27, 2025
Re: Appeal to uphold the BVSP’s Active Use requirements for 580 Masonic Way Dear Mayor and Council Members,
As a Belmont resident, I support the Belmont Village Specific Plan’s vision of “an attractive, mixed use, vibrant downtown” that was passed into law by the City Council in 2017. Like you, I look forward to welcoming new neighbors to our wonderful city.
At 580 Masonic Way, residents have enjoyed a variety of local businesses within walking distance:
● An Indian restaurant
● A dry cleaners
● A sushi restaurant
● A chiropractor
● A dentist
● A salon
● A daycare
1. We all want active use
● The City Council enacted the Belmont Village Specific Plan, to provide “opportunities to shop, dine, work, live, and play in a compact, mixed-use environment.” (BVSP Introduction, page 1) ● Residents overwhelmingly support ground-floor active use, with dozens speaking in favor at the public hearing on 580 Masonic Way and dozens signing a petition this week. (Exhibit 1: Petition) ● Planning Commissioners spoke passionately in favor of mixed-use at the hearing on 580 Masonic Way on August 19th. (Exhibit 2: Commissioner quotes) ● Prometheus Real Estate Group’s website reads: “We build neighborhoods, not properties. To us, a neighborhood is a living, breathing thing that provides people with community, connection and comfort.” (https://prometheusapartments.com/our-story - We Create)
2. The plan for 580 Masonic does not meet the Active Use Frontage Overlay requirements.
The BVSP’s Active Use Frontage Overlay (AUFO) covers Masonic Way. It requires “that the ground level has uses that are accessible to the general public, are engaging to pedestrians walking by, and generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and thus contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity.” It also requires “all spaces must be designed to accommodate active uses”. (BVSP Land Use, 2-18) 1 California Government code sec, 65455 gives the BVSP priority over the Zoning Code, and the Zoning Code section 31.1.6 itself actually reinforces this, stating that in any conflict, the BVSP prevails.
However, the proposed design for 580 Masonic includes only two, non-active uses:
● An inward-facing gym, accessible only to residents, and with no door to the sidewalk as required by Zoning Code 31.4(L). This is clearly:
○ Not accessible to the general public,
○ Not engaging to pedestrians walking by; and
○ Does not generate walk-in pedestrian clientele.
● A 130’x20’ lobby, covering nearly the entire length of the frontage. While “entrance lobbies to upper-floor residential uses” is listed as an acceptable use, stretching the lobby to cover nearly the entire length of the front clearly violates the intent of the BVSP because it is ○ Not accessible to the general public,
○ Not engaging to pedestrians walking by, and
○ Does not generate walk-in pedestrian clientele.
○ In this case the extreme width is far more than reasonable for the primary function it serves; instead this non-active use has been co-opted in order to make the whole frontage non-active.
3. Where do we go from here?
The staff report released October 24, 2025, encourages the city council to accept that the uses above are “active,” which does not meet the clear letter or spirit of the law.
As the only alternative, the report says the city can immediately grant the developer an “incentive” to waive the AUFO. But the developer has not applied for such an incentive, so it cannot be granted today.
It is also not clear that such an incentive being requested is a foregone conclusion, because the proposed design has four other problems, so the developer may need to use all its incentives to manage those.
In addition to Problem #1, Noncompliance with the AUFO as detailed above, the staff’s Revised Development Standards Evaluation noted four other problems but incorrectly ignored them:
Problem #2: Noncompliance with Village Street Active Use The requirement: The BVSP designates that:
● Wessex and Granada are Village Main Streets, with 75% active use required. ● Hiller is a Village Avenue, with 50% active use required. (BVSP Appendix A and Zoning Code Table 31-3)
The proposed plan has no active use on these streets.
Staff’s evaluation marked this requirement “N/A,” claimingFootnote #2 under Zoning Code Table 31-1 (Use Regulations) overrules the active use requirement. See Exhibit 7. 2 The law: While the footnote allows ground-floor residential as a permitted use, that footnote does not remove any other ground-floor requirements, such the active use requirement, which is listed in Zoning Code Table 31-3 (Streetscape Standards). Both apply together: for example, on Hiller, the Streetscape Standards require 50% active use, while the footnote on Use Regulations allows residential for the other 50%.
Problem #3: Noncompliance with Transparency
The requirement: Zoning Code Table 31-3 requires 75% window transparency on Village Main Streets and 50% on Village Avenues.
Staff’s evaluation marks this “N/A” because the proposed plan fails to meet the standard. The justification is again Footnote #2 in Zoning Table 31-1, but as above, that footnote does not remove any other ground floor requirements such as transparency. The justification continues that transparency would “conflict with the principally permitted and proposed residential use.” The law: No law, neither the Zoning Code nor the BVSP, gives the staff discretion to unilaterally waive the transparency standard. Even if staff would prefer an all-residential building, they are required to uphold the BVSP’s standards, which lead to mixed-use. The code notes that exceptions are permitted only through a formal Design Review by the Planning Commission, and only for certain specified conditions.
Problem #4: Noncompliance with Build-to
The requirement: Zoning Code 31.4.1(J) requires 70% of the street wall to be located within 10 feet of the sidewalk, for “Village Station Core” lots, which includes 580 Masonic.
Staff’s evaluation notes the Wessex frontage meets only 45%, and Hiller only 35%, but excuses these as “N/A” because application of this standard would require “an oddly shaped building” and “strict application would require the building to be built out on all four sides when a typical project only has one or two street frontages. Building out to all four frontages would exceed lot coverage or require an empty space in the middle of the building.” The law: The zoning code does not provide exceptions for subjective determinations by staff such as “oddly shaped” or number of frontages. The code authorizes exceptions only through a formal Design Review by the Planning Commission. Zoning Code Table 31-2 shows that the build-to requirement applies to Village Station Core (VSC), but not to Village High Density Residential (VHDR). 580 Masonic is VSC, and was not up-zoned to VHDR, so build-to applies.
The staff’s concern about lot coverage could be easily addressed by adding a courtyard.
Problem #5: Noncompliance with Setback
The requirement: Zoning Code Table 31-3 requires setbacks of 0-5 feet from the sidewalk.
Staff’s evaluation found three streets out of compliance: Masonic, Wessex, and Hiller, but excused them in the same response to “build-to” above.
3 The law: Again, for setbacks, the zoning code provides no exceptions due to “oddly shaped lots” and does not confer upon city staff the authority to unilaterally waive this requirement. There could be an exception for Masonic’s 10’ setback if it had outdoor seating for a restaurant, but it does not.
State Law does not require approval as-is:
Zoning code 31 states that “by-right sites” are subject to “design review based on objective standards.” It does not waive objective standards or authorize city staff to waive them unilaterally. Similarly the Density Bonus Law allows the applicant to request waivers of standards that “physically preclude construction,” but waivers are not created unilaterally by a staff memo; they are granted by the Planning Commission.
The city staff report states: “Under California State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) and the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the applicant must first identify a ‘base project’ that is consistent with all relevant objective development standards.” The 580 Masonic base project is not compliant due to the five problems above.
It may be possible to use incentives to overcome some of the five problems above, although I believe none of the items above “physically preclude construction.” For example, Prometheus previously submitted a plan with four “active use” sites along Masonic Way, showing that construction is possible. I support the project’s construction and would like to see it built, as long as it is creating a positive neighborhood, not just a property, as per Prometheus’s mission.
4. The Neighbors’ Request
I respectfully request the City Council, city staff, and Prometheus to work collaboratively with neighboring residents on a plan that delivers the vision of the BVSP for a “vibrant town center” including “retail stores, restaurants, cafes, markets, bars, personal and convenience services, childcare services” (BVSP 2-18).
I would love to collaborate to design a new development that both residents and neighbors will love. New retail stores have opened nearby in 2025, including a bakery, a burger restaurant, a bicycle shop, a dance studio, an ice cream shop, and a beer hall, indicating that retail demand is strong and the inclusion of ground-floor commercial can be financially rewarding to Prometheus. I will speak for my neighbors in saying we would be delighted to help make that come true.
Sincerely,
Doug Ricket
4 Exhibit 1: Petition
We, residents of Belmont, appreciate having local businesses within walking distance of our homes. We want to see the Belmont Village Specific Plan's vision of a "vibrant, mixed use" downtown with a pedestrian-friendly environment rich with retail shops and services supporting the residents. We petition the city council to uphold the BVSP's requirements for ground floor "active use" including at 580 Masonic Way.
Doug Ricket
Annie Chung
Bhushan Gupta
Kent Dep
Jenille Dao
Susan Kellett
David Sheldon
Sayre Happich
Taiwei Kuo
Jerrica DeAlba
Jennifer Hennings
Chehade Karam
Rammprasad Ganapathy
Danielle Enderson
David You
Justin Haroon
Jill Elkington
Jennifer Sydenham
Denice Leong
Shimin Guo
Jo Ann Arneson
Michael Gaffney
Norma Prado
Vanessa Sandoval
Michael S. Smith
Miguel Ramos
Kimberly wong
Jehilen Ayala
Amey Shroff
Lisa Tatola
Chun Yang
Larry Stein
Marie Stein
Gaetano Amato
Janet Amato
Robert Amato
William Amato
Kathy Gilbreath
Laura Klieves
Kelly O’Dea
Sushma Shiravanthe
Dennis A Myers
Simone Dasher
Lyra Ghose
Alex Pomeranz
Nancy Coe
Michael Craig
Jenny Tsai
Pokyong chee
Sven Edlund
Susan Uccelli
Yasmin Singh
Carol Ong
Lisa Chan
Aundrea Silva
Dennis Tran
Desmond Meza
Yamini Ohol-Gupta
Gaurav Gupta
Akhil Sundaram
Debra Moyle
Nikki Moyle
William Miyle
Ryan Lee
Casey Key
Scott Stokell
Richard El-Kadi
Take Ogawa
Marjorie Goodwin
David Waters
Karina Wong
Christopher West
Nicola Falzon
Maria West
Christina Mantel
Jessica Schmierer
Juan Napoles
Puja Tanwani
5 Exhibit 2. Comments by Planning Commissioners on 8/19/2025 meeting:
Planning commissioners supported requiring ground floor active use, but believed their hands were tied:
● Joanne Adamkewicz
○ “The staff report quotes the BVSP about the vibrant mixed use we're supposed to have – well, that’s not what we’re getting.”
○ “Ground floor active use is something the city really needs.” ○ “Current state law … removes almost all decision making power from this body and from the city.”
● Cherry Twigg
○ “I reflect the views of Commissioner Adamkewicz.”
○ “There’s certain things that are very limited that we’re allowed to comment on at this point.”
● David Kramer
○ “I agree … we should try to incentivize more mixed use.” ○ “But our hands are kind of tied here.”
● Nathan Majeski
○ “I see a lot of places where I don’t feel like the objective standards are followed.” ○ “It’s brutalist, it’s ugly. It isn’t sensitive to the community around it.” ● Brian Kulich
○ “I agree that this has a lot of problems.”
○ “Because of certain rules the state has imposed upon us, I feel like I have to make the findings.”
6 Exhibit 3 C. Map of AUFO, BVSP Chapter 2, “Land Use”, Page 11, Source: https://www.belmont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/16499/638580149884370000 ● Masonic Way is mapped for Active Use Frontage Overlay, requiring 100% active use. 7 Exhibit 4. Ground floor proposed layout
Source:
https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/3542485/Attachment_3_Exhib it_A_-_Applicant_Materials.pdf
● Masonic Way frontage does not meet 100% active use requirements. ● Granada, Wessex, and Hiller do not meet 50-75% active use requirements. 8 Exhibit 5. Street designations
Source: BVSP Appendix A, page 26
https://www.belmont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/16535/636658019230370000 ● Wessex, Granada, and Masonic are all Village Main Streets requiring 75% and 100% active use. ● Hiller is a Village Avenue requiring 50% active use.
9 Exhibit 6. “Active Use Frontage Overlay”
BVSP Land Use, page 2-18
Source: https://www.belmont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/16499/638580149884370000 Active Use Frontage Overlay
Several streets within the Village Core and Station Core districts are shown with Active Use Frontage Overlay on the Land Use Diagram. This designation requires that the ground level has uses that are accessible to the general public, are engaging to pedestrians walking by, and generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and thus contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity. Listed in Table 2-5, active uses may include, but are not limited to: retail stores, restaurants, cafes, markets, bars, theaters and performing arts venues, parks, plazas, commercial recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services, tourism-oriented services, banks, childcare services, libraries, museums, galleries, and entrance lobbies to upper-floor residential uses. While office and other less active non-residential uses may be permitted at ground level on an interim basis at the discretion of the Planning Commission, all spaces must be designed to accommodate active uses, as outlined in Chapter 4, Urban Design. See Table 31-1, Village District Use Regulations, in Appendix A for further specification. (emphasis added)
10 Exhibit 7. Footnote #2
City of Belmont Zoning Ordinance, page 31-16
Source: https://www.belmont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/20071/638596612258070000 “2. A project will be processed by right as defined in Government Code Section 65583.2(i), and only design review based on objective standards shall be required, if at least 20 percent of the units are designated as affordable to lower income households as defined in Government Code Section 65584, no subdivision is required, and the project is proposed wholly on a parcel that is identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as subject to by right processing. In such projects, multiple-unit dwellings are permitted on the ground floor, and such projects are exempt from CEQA.26” (Emphasis added)
● Objective standards are still required
● Residential use is allowed
● Nowhere are Active Use requirements overridden
● ⇒ Therefore Active use requirements and ground-floor residential coexist 11 Exhibit 8. Base Plan for current project
Source file: Masonic580_BaseProject.12.20.24.pdf
https://belm-trk.aspgov.com/eTRAKiT/viewAttachment.aspx?Group=PROJECT&ActivityNo=PA2023-0 032&key=MG%3a2501100850450056
● This base plan is non-compliant with the active uses required by the BVSP on all four frontages of the ground floor, identical to the full plan. 12 Exhibit 9. Prior Base Plan as of August 2nd, 2024
Source file: 580 MASONIC BASE SCHEME PACKET 20240802.pdf https://belm-trk.aspgov.com/eTRAKiT/viewAttachment.aspx?Group=PROJECT&ActivityNo=PA2023-0 032&key=DD%3a2408151025390280
● This version of the base plan submitted by the developer 8/22/204, shows that ground floor residential (the same 70 units) is not in conflict with 100% active use on Masonic Way’s AUFO.
● Masonic Way is shown hosting 4 active use businesses, labeled:
○ Neighborhood HQ
○ The Parlor
○ Co-work
○ Cafe
13 From: Kristin Hawley
To: Julia Mates - Mayor; Gina Latimerlo; [email protected]; x-City Clerk"s Office Subject: 580 Masonic in the Sterling Downs Area
Date: Monday, October 27, 2025 10:54:53 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important I want to remind the council of the Belmont Village Specific Plan (a) To create an attractive, vibrant, mixed use town center for Belmont, offering shopping, restaurants, entertainment, employment, and residential uses in a compact, pedestrian oriented setting; (b) To enhance pedestrian and bicycle connections so that residents, visitors, and workers can safely and conveniently walk, bike, and take transit to, from, and within Belmont Village; and (c) To support design of building frontages, streetscapes, and public spaces that will create a lively and attractive public realm with a distinct.
The 580 Masonic site does not have any shops, restaurants or mix use on the lower level.
The 580 Masonic site does not have convenient walking paths around the new structure.
The 580 Masonic site does not have public spaces.
The 580 does have parking which 951 Old County will not.
I feel badly for Homeview and the surrounding area. Because it is ludicrous for you to think that just because this 951 Old County is for low income residence that the people will not have cars.. How do you think they will get their children to doctors, after school events and vacation travel? I am speaking firsthand about the parking. The apartment at Laurie Meadows often use Sterling View Ave as their parking lot for their extra cars. The parking issue will happen with these two apartments on Masonic and Old County.
Sterling Downs neighborhood wants shops on the eastern side of El Camino not just apartment housing.
Remember the Belmont Village Plan in your vote. We want small coffee houses for neighborhood gathering and retail shops to be include in the 580 Masonic Site.
It is bad enough that the council is shoving the 580 Masonic down our throats in our Sterling Downs neighborhood, you also are having the 951 Old County property impact our neighborhood.
I feel we are imploding here with new housing and no thought for infrastructure and or shop, restaurants or parking..
Belmont has the new developments at the Hayden, Firehouse Square, new development by Belmont Ave, new housing by Harbor and now 580 Masonic and 951 Old County. It is all located in the eastern section of Belmont. IT IS ENOUGH. Share the housing issue all across Belmont, not just in one area.
The Housing Element Plan required the housing to be around transportation. Make SamTrans put a bus to other location and build in other locations rather than jamming it down the eastern section.
Sterling Downs will also be impacted by the new development on Old County and Laurie Meadows where the old gas station was.
I don't see any new plan that would include the issue of traffic back up on Old County. (But of course since 951 Old County thinks that people will take public transportation, I guess that those residents will not add to the traffic backup issue..NOT!)
I live on Sterling View Ave and during the afternoon, I sometimes cannot get out of my driveway because of the backup on Old County.
Belmont and San Mateo traffic people need to get together to solve the backup issue on Old County at 42nd.
50 year resident of Sterling Downs
Kristin Hawley
503 Sterling View Ave
Kristin Hawley
From: Giuliano
To: City Council; Planning Comm
Subject: Item 10A of October 28 meeting: 1301 Shoreway Road Development Agreement Date: Friday, October 24, 2025 11:40:12 PM
Hi all,
We need an increased business presence in Belmont. Not the least to diversify our tax base. I want to support this project. But I can't as it is. This project is terribly flawed. But, the fix is easy. Please restrict the amount of car parking to 200 spaces, and require a significant increase in bike parking spots.
1626 parking spots is vastly too much parking being provided. The documents included in the packet do not mention even a single space for bike parking. We need a significant mode shift to trains. We simply must transition away from all cars all the time. This project is 1 mile from the Belmont CalTrain and SamTrans station. The station is just a 5 minute shuttle ride from this project. A 7 minute bike ride. Caltrain permits commuters to bring bikes on the train, they are the perfect "last mile" vehicle, but it is only viable if there is on site bike parking. There needs to be at least .5 bike parking spots for each employee.
If you fail to do something to force mode shift, well, then, your statements saying that you want mode shift are just words. That you want a vibrant alive downtown core are just words.
That you care about public health, equity, youth and elder autonomy are just words. Ashes.
They are lies, unless you are willing to actually do something. Please, create the sort of city you say you want. Stop prioritizing cars, cars, more cars, and only cars and start requiring a real mode shift to mass transit and active transit.
This project includes an 8 story office building and a 7 story office building totaling 542,000 sq/ft. And a 9 story parking garage totaling 443,000 sq/ft with 1626 car parking spaces. That is nearly as many sq/ft for parking as for office space. This is far too many cars, and far too much unproductive square feet of space.
There is already too much parking being created for too many cars by the RWC 1 Twin Dolphin and 200 Twin Dolphin projects. 1 Twin Dolphin will add 700 car parking spots. 200 Twin Dolphin will add another 700 car parking spots. The Belmont HIA is looking to add a few million more sq/ft of office space. At these ratios that is another 7,000 to 10,000 parking spots. At least. Ditto San Carlos two projects for at least another 10,000+ cars. A total of at least 20,000 more cars. It could easily be 30,000 more cars. 20,000+ more cars will result in 40,000 more daily commute trips on 101 and local roads. Plus another 10,000 to 20,000 trips on local roads for dining, recreation, errands, etc.
We as a society simply can not afford to continue to support cars, cars, and only cars. We have to shift modes. And that means you have to do something. Not "we", but "you. Because YOU are the literally the only ones with the power to do anything.
Thanks,
giuliano
--
Drive a bike a bit more often and cars a bit less. You'll be healthier and happier, and so will our world.
October 27, 2025
By Email
Mayor Julia Mates and Members of the City Council
c/o City Clerk
City of Belmont
One Twin Pines Lane, #330
Belmont, CA 94002
[email protected]
Re: 580 Masonic Way – Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Design Review, Grading Plan, Tree Removal Permit, Affordable Housing Plan, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and State Density Bonus
Dear Mayor Mates and Councilmembers:
This office represents Doug Ricket, the appellant in the above-referenced matter, and submits the following points and authorities on his behalf.
For the reasons described below, the City Council should uphold the appeal and reverse the Planning Commission’s August 19, 2025 approval actions. Despite earlier claims to the contrary made to the Planning Commission, the proposed 580 Masonic Way Project (“Project”) remains fully subject to the 100 percent “active use” requirements of the Belmont Village Specific Plan (“BVSP”)’s Active Use Frontage Overlay (“AUFO”), which mandate active, outward-facing, publicly accessible commercial and related uses along the Project’s Masonic Way frontage.
When the Project first came before the Planning Commission, the staff report did not address the Project’s compliance with the AUFO. Staff apparently had concluded that because the Project included only residential uses and was permissible “by right,” the AUFO requirements did not apply. The current staff report now concedes that the Project is subject to the AUFO’s requirements, but finds that the Belmont City Council
October 27, 2025
proposed 130’ wide lobby and private gym constitute “active uses” and that the requirements are therefore satisfied. As will be discussed further below, the Project’s proposed private lobby and gym, which are not open to the public, do not constitute active uses as defined in the BVSP.
Beyond the AUFO violations, the Project also fails to comply with multiple additional objective development standards established in the BVSP and Zoning Ordinance, including ground-floor transparency requirements, build-to-line requirements, active use requirements on non-Masonic frontages, and setback requirements. Rather than requiring compliance or processing formal waiver applications under the Density Bonus Law, the Community Development Director has unilaterally marked these standards as “not applicable” in the updated Development Standards Evaluation, effectively granting de facto waivers without following the mandatory procedures required by state law and the Zoning Code.
Please note that Mr. Ricket fully supports residential development at this location, including affordable housing, and has no objections to the height or density of the Project as proposed. He has appealed the Planning Commission’s action to ensure that the active use requirements of the BVSP are enforced, and that the City’s broadly supported vision for a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented Village area is maintained.
I. Even with “By Right” Entitlements, the Project Must Still Comply With Mandatory Land Use Requirements of the BVSP, Including the AUFO.
At the August 19 hearing, the Planning Commission was told, wrongly, that it had no choice but to approve the Project despite its clear non-compliance with the AUFO’s “active use” mandate, because the Project qualifies for streamlined by-right processing under Government Code section 65583.2. Although the current staff report appears to acknowledge that the Project must in fact comply with the AUFO, we present the following analysis lest there remain any lingering doubts regarding this legal requirement.
Government Code section 65583.2(i) prohibits cities from requiring discretionary permits or review for qualifying housing developments in a manner that would constitute a “project” for purposes of CEQA compliance. However, nothing in this statute exempts such projects from clear, objective land use restrictions and Belmont City Council
October 27, 2025
requirements contained in a governing general plan or specific plan such as the BVSP. To the contrary, California law is explicit that all development must be consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (Gov’t Code §§ 65300, 65455, 65850; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 570.) Moreover, any zoning enactment must itself be consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. (Gov’t Code §§ 65860, 65455; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 536.)
In this case, the BVSP is the controlling land use document for the Project site. The BVSP’s AUFO is mapped on the Land Use Diagram (BVSP Figure 2-4) and described in the Land Use chapter (BVSP pp. 2-18 to 2-19). The Project site’s Masonic Way frontage is clearly included in the AUFO. The AUFO in turn mandates that the Project’s “ground level has uses that are accessible to the general public, are engaging to pedestrians walking by, and generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and thus contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity.” (BVSP p. 2-18.) The AUFO therefore constitutes a land use requirement, not merely a design guideline or development standard.
1 By prescribing the range of active, publicly accessible uses required on the ground floor of any development fronting designated streets in the Village or Station Core Districts (see Table 2-5, BVSP p. 2-19),
2 including Masonic Way at Granada
Street, the AUFO ensures that residential development in the Village or Station Core Districts adheres to the BVSP’s vision for a vibrant, active, pedestrian-oriented Village commercial area. That vision is to:
Realize Belmont Village’s potential as the city’s center of civic life with a unique sense of place. Create an attractive, vibrant, mixed use town center for Belmont, offering shopping, restaurants, entertainment, employment, and residential uses in a compact, pedestrian-oriented setting. Enhance pedestrian 1 A “development standard” is a requirement that specifies the physical characteristics of a development. Examples include standards regulating setbacks, lot coverage, open space, height limits, floor-area ratio, and parking requirements. (See Gov’t Code § 65915(o)(2).) 2 These include uses open to the public such as cafes, restaurants, childcare facilities, libraries, galleries, bars, offices serving walk-in clientele. While “entrance lobbies for upper-floor residential uses” are permitted, they plainly cannot supplant all or most outward-facing uses along the frontages subject to the AUFO.
Belmont City Council
October 27, 2025
and bicycle connections so that residents, visitors, and workers can walk, bike, and take transit. Design streets and public spaces to create a lively and attractive public realm with a distinctive identity.
(BVSP, p. 1-6.)
Again, by-right processing under Government Code section 65583.2 simply means the City cannot impose additional CEQA or discretionary review requirements for qualifying housing projects. It does not mean a project can bypass mandatory requirements of a specific plan. To the contrary, if that were the case by-right processing would effectively repeal all specific plans, a result clearly not intended by the Legislature.
II. As a Matter of Law, the Zoning Ordinance’s Note 2 in Table 31-1 Cannot Override the BVSP/AUFO
To support its claim that no active uses are required along the Project’s Masonic Way frontage, the applicant and Community Development Director (“CDD”) have pointed to Note 2 in Table 31-1 of the Zoning Ordinance. That Note provides that for qualifying by-right projects, “multiple-unit dwellings are permitted on the ground floor.” The reliance on Note 2 to bypass the AUFO’s active use requirements is misplaced. First, Note 2 by its own terms does not purport to eliminate or supplant the active use requirements of the AUFO. It simply provides that multiple residences may be placed on a project’s ground floor – which is precisely what this Project proposes for the three sides not fronting Masonic Way.
Second, even if it did seek to override the AUFO’s restrictions, it could not as a matter of law do so since, as described above, the BVSP and AUFO control over any conflicting provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. (Gov’t Code § 65860.) Indeed, Section 31 of the Zoning Ordinance, which is expressly intended to “implement the Belmont Village Specific Plan and to realize Belmont Village’s potential as the city’s center of civic life with a unique sense of place,” itself provides that:
These Village Zoning District Regulations are intended to be consistent with the Belmont Village Specific Plan and ensure that all new development and alterations and additions to existing uses that are subject to discretionary review are consistent with this Specific Plan. Should any provisions of this section be determined inconsistent with the Specific Plan, the Specific Plan prevails.
Belmont City Council
October 27, 2025
(Zoning Ordinance, § 31.1.6(a), boldface added.)
III. Note 2 Does Not Prohibit Active Uses; It Simply Allows Residential Uses on the Ground Floor.
Critically, nothing in Note 2 of Table 31-1 states that ground-floor uses must be exclusively residential or that active uses are prohibited. Note 2 merely states that multiple-unit dwellings are permitted on the ground floor. Permitted does not mean required or exclusive. Thus, Note 2’s plain language allows both residential and active uses on the ground floor. The applicant could easily comply with both the Specific Plan and Table 31-1 of the Zoning Ordinance by providing active uses (such as retail, café, or community-serving space) along the Masonic Way frontage while maintaining residential units on the other three sides. This is a standard configuration in mixeduse, transit-oriented developments throughout California.
The applicant’s and CDD’s interpretation of Note 2, that it requires all ground-floor space to be residential, and thus somehow prohibits any active uses, contradicts both the text of Note 2 and the purpose of the AUFO. This interpretation renders the AUFO effectively meaningless for all by-right housing projects, directly undermining the BVSP’s vision for a vibrant, mixed use Village area.
IV. The Proposed Lobby and Gym Are Not Active Uses as Defined in the AUFO.
Even if the City were to determine that some non-retail uses could satisfy the AUFO, the proposed lobby and fitness center fail to meet the definition of active uses.
The BVSP explicitly requires that projects within the AUFO area have ground level uses that are “accessible to the general public, are engaging to pedestrians walking by, and generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and thus contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity.” (BVSP p. 2-18, boldface added.) Table 2-5 lists permitted active uses, including retail stores, restaurants, cafes, markets, personal services, parks, galleries, libraries, and similar publicly accessible uses (BVSP p. 2-19).
Belmont City Council
October 27, 2025
Under no plausible interpretation of the BVSP can a private lobby and gym satisfy this requirement. The Project’s proposed fitness center is a private amenity for the exclusive use of building residents. It is not open to the public, and will not generate walk-in pedestrian clientele or contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity along Masonic Way. The outsized residential lobby similarly serves only building residents and their guests. While the BVSP contemplates that entrance lobbies may be located on the ground floor in the AUFO, this exception is clearly intended for modest entrance vestibules, not as the dominant ground-floor use.
Indeed, the proposed entrance lobby, covering approximately 130 feet wide by 20 feet deep along the Masonic Way frontage, is not an incidental entrance feature; it is a dominant ground-floor use that displaces the active, publicly accessible uses required by the AUFO. Together with the fitness center, it creates a dead zone along Masonic Way—precisely the outcome the AUFO was designed to prevent.
V. The Project Can Comply with AUFO Requirements Without Reducing Unit Count.
The Project’s own floor plan demonstrates that the project can comply with the AUFO without reducing the number of residential units. Options include:
• Relocating the fitness center to an upper floor or to one of the non-AUFO frontages;
• Reducing the lobby size to a functional entrance vestibule and providing active uses (retail, café, or community space) along the remainder of the Masonic Way frontage; and/or
• Providing a publicly accessible community room or café that serves both residents and the broader public.
Many successful mixed-use projects incorporate ground-floor retail or community-serving uses along primary street frontages while providing residential amenities on upper floors or along secondary frontages. This is the model the BVSP explicitly requires.
Belmont City Council
October 27, 2025
VI. The Project Violates Multiple Additional Objective Development Standard That Cannot be Waived Unilaterally by the CDD.
In addition to failing to comply with the AUFO along Masonic Way, the Project violates numerous objective development standards established in the BVSP and Zoning Ordinance. The CDD has unilaterally marked these standards “N/A” without proper legal justification, effectively exempting the Project from compliance with the BVSP’s urban design framework. While the developer may seek a waiver from some of these objective standards under the Density Bonus Law, no such application has been forthcoming, and the City may not grant such waivers without following the mandatory procedures for doing so under both the Density Bonus Law itself, and the density bonus provisions of Section 26 of the City’s Zoning Code.
A. Ground-Floor Transparency Requirements (Section 31.4.K) Table 31-3 establishes minimum ground-level window transparency requirements for each street type to ensure visual engagement between building interiors and the pedestrian realm. The Wessex Way and Granada Street frontages (both Village Main Street) require 75 percent transparency; the Hiller Street frontage (Village Avenue) requires 50 percent transparency. The CDD marked all three requirements as “N/A” in the Development Standards Evaluation.
Section 31.4.K contains no exception for ground-floor residential uses. It applies to “exterior walls facing and within 20 feet of a front or street side lot line,” regardless of use. Compliance requires only window design changes, not reduction in density or unit count. Ground-floor residential units commonly include large windows meeting transparency requirements while maintaining privacy through raised elevations, window treatments, or landscaping. Since compliance requires only fenestration changes rather than removal of units, there is no “physical preclusion” justifying a Density Bonus Law waiver, even if the developer had applied for one.
B. Build-To-Line Requirements (Section 31.4.J)
Section 31.4.J requires buildings to be located at or within 10 feet of the sidewalk for 70 percent of each Village Avenue frontage. The Project fails to meet this requirement on both the Wessex Way (approximately 45 percent compliance) Belmont City Council
October 27, 2025
and Hiller Street (approximately 35 percent compliance) frontages. The CDD again marked these requirements as not applicable.
Although Section 31.4.J provides that “exceptions from this requirement for ground floor residential uses... may be approved through Design Review,” no Design Review has occurred because the Project is approvable “by right.” The developer has not requested a Density Bonus Law waiver for these requirements, and even if it had, compliance with them would not reduce residential density. To the contrary, it could create more building square footage by extending the building closer to the street.
C. Active Use Requirements Beyond Masonic Way
Beyond the 100 percent active use requirement on Masonic Way under the AUFO, other frontages are subject to the Zoning Code’s active use requirements based on their street type: Wessex Way and Granada Street (Village Main Street) require 75 percent active uses; Hiller Street (Village Avenue) requires 50 percent active uses. The CDD once again marked all these requirements “N/A.” The CDD’s justification appears to be that Note 2 in Table 31-1 permits ground-floor residential uses in by-right projects, and therefore active use requirements do not apply. As discussed above with respect to the AUFO, this interpretation is flawed: permitting residential uses does not prohibit active use requirements. The two are compatible. The Project could meet these active use requirements while maintaining total unit count by concentrating residential units on other frontages or upper floors. Regardless, the developer has not requested waivers for these requirements.
D. Setback Requirements (Table 31-3)
Table 31-3 requires setbacks of 0-5 feet from the sidewalk for all street types in the Village District. The CDD's Development Standards Evaluation found that the Project fails to comply with this requirement on three street frontages: Masonic Way, Wessex Way, and Hiller Street. Rather than requiring compliance or processing a Belmont City Council
October 27, 2025
formal waiver request, the CDD marked these violations as not applicable, relying on the same flawed reasoning applied to the build-to-line requirements discussed above.
The Zoning Code provides no exception to the setback requirements based on lot shape or configuration, and the CDD lacks authority to unilaterally waive this objective standard. While the Zoning Code does allow setbacks of up to 10 feet where outdoor seating areas are provided for restaurants or cafes (Table 31-3, note 1), the Project provides no such active uses along the Masonic Way frontage. Absent a formal waiver application demonstrating physical impossibility under the Density Bonus Law, the Project must comply with the 0-5 foot setback requirement.
E. The CDD has Granted De Facto Waivers Without Following Required Procedures.
Critically, the developer and CDD cannot bypass the Density Bonus Law’s waiver process by declaring that objective standards do not apply in the first instance.
Under the Density Bonus Law, objective standards apply unless (1) the applicant requests a waiver, and (2) demonstrates that compliance would physically preclude construction at the approved density (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1)). Belmont’s own Zoning ordinance implementing the Density Bonus Law provides that a developer requesting waivers “must provide a written proposal” submitted with a project’s entitlement application. Section 26.4(b)(3) requires “an explanation of the waiver(s)... and why they are necessary to make the construction of the project physically possible.” Section 26.8 requires the applicant to “show that without the waiver, the project would be physically impossible to construct.”
By marking standards “N/A” from the outset, the CDD has flouted this entire process. There is no written waiver proposal, no explanation of physical impossibility, no opportunity for public scrutiny, and no administrative record. The developer has effectively received Density Bonus Law waivers without satisfying the procedural and substantive requirements that both state law and Belmont's ordinance impose.
The City Council should reject this approach and require the Project to comply with all applicable objective development standards or, at minimum, require Belmont City Council
October 27, 2025
the developer to formally request waivers and demonstrate that legal criteria are satisfied.
3 VI. The Project Can Comply with AUFO Requirements Without Reducing Housing.
The Project’s own floor plan demonstrates that the project can comply with the AUFO without reducing the number of residential units. Options include:
• Relocating the fitness center to an upper floor or to one of the non-AUFO frontages;
• Reducing the lobby size to a functional entrance vestibule and providing active uses (retail, café, or community space) along the remainder of the Masonic Way frontage; and/or
• Providing a publicly accessible community room or café that serves both residents and the broader public.
Many successful mixed-use projects incorporate ground-floor retail or community-serving uses along primary street frontages while providing residential amenities on upper floors or along secondary frontages. This is the model the BVSP explicitly requires.
VII. Conclusion
Mr. Ricket’s appeal does not seek to block housing construction. It simply asks the City to fulfill its legal obligation to uphold the objective land use requirements of the BVSP, and thereby ensure the Project will contribute to the vibrant mixed-use downtown envisioned for current residents and those yet to come.
For these reasons, we respectfully ask the City Council to GRANT the appeal and require the developer to submit a revised Project plan that incorporates active uses along the Masonic Way frontage, consistent with BVSP/AUFO requirements. 3 Note, however, that because the AUFO requirements do not constitute “development standards” as defined in the Density Bonus Law, they are likely not subject to waiver under that statute. Only those provisions of the BVSP that constitute “development standards” as defined would be subject to waiver by the City Council.
Belmont City Council
October 27, 2025
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.
Most sincerely,
M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
Mark R. Wolfe
On behalf of Doug Ricket
MRW:
cc: Laura Russell, Deputy Community Development Director Rob Gill, Senior Planer
From: Max Reinhardt
To: x-City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Public Comments for City Council Meeting - 10/28/2025 (Item 6) Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 3:44:36 PM
Dear Clerk Plut,
I would like to have the following comments made part of and read during the public comment period (agenda Item 6 'Community Forum' for tonight's meeting.) "Dear Mayor & Council Members,
While I've in the past expressed frustrations and concerns over the delays in getting an application which I filed for a certificate of compliance (see PLN 2025-0004), the depth of my concern over this unfortunately hasn't lessened, in fact it has grown worse.
Against my efforts to work with the City, I've been virtually stonewalled with NO actual substantive update since July of this year. I filed the application in the beginning of December of 2024.
While City staff has responded to me from time to time, the typical response has run something like 'no determination has yet been made and we have no update otherwise at this time but your communication is acknowledged'. This is as much of a non-response type response as I could possibly imagine and grasp at. If the City Community Development Department is able to process much more complicated applications in a faster time period, I am left to ask why is there such a delay in processing my application and others who seem to also be taking a significantly long time. I heard from two other owners who were well in excess of a full year.
Recently, another local agency processed one for me (complicated one too) in 5 months. I hope that you will look into this matter as I believe it affects numerous stakeholders in the City"
(i.e. what's "quoted" is what I would like to be read aloud during the comments period. I will unfortunately be unable to speak myself tonight either in person or in Zoom during the actual CC meeting...)
Thanks,
Max