Planning commission approves 140‑unit apartment project at 500–580 Masonic Way after contentious public comment

The Belmont City Planning Commission voted 5‑1 Tuesday to approve a by‑right application for a 140‑unit apartment development at 500–580 Masonic Way presented by Prometheus Real Estate Group. The motion (application PA2023‑032, assessor parcel 4,031,510) approved design review, a grading plan, a tree removal permit, an affordable housing plan, a transportation demand management plan and state density bonus entitlements. The vote followed a lengthy staff presentation, an applicant design presentation and extensive public comment expressing safety, traffic and neighborhood‑character concerns.

Staff summary and legal context

Deputy Community Development Director Laura Russell told commissioners the project would demolish the existing commercial center on the block bounded by Masonic Way, Granada Street, Wessex Way and Hiller Street and build a roughly 147,000‑square‑foot, five‑story building with 140 dwelling units (39 studios, 68 one‑bedrooms and 33 two‑bedrooms). The proposal includes 25 affordable units, 138 vehicle parking spaces and 142 bicycle parking spaces. Staff reported the proposed floor‑area‑ratio is about 2.73; the underlying zoning limit is 1.5 but density bonus law allows an increase (the applicant’s analysis shows a 70‑unit base project and a 70‑unit density bonus for a total of 140 units).

Russell explained the project is eligible for “by‑right” processing under state housing law (the presentation referenced the Housing Crisis Act, described in the staff presentation as Senate Bill 330) and the California state density bonus law. Because the site is a carry‑forward site from the city’s certified housing element and the proposal includes a qualifying share of lower‑income units, the project must be reviewed against objective development standards only; under the statute, such qualifying projects are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process, Russell said. The project therefore proceeds with objective‑standard entitlements only; staff provided a resolution that strikes subjective findings from the standard template to reflect that limitation.

Major project specifics

- Units and size: 140 units total; unit mix 39 studios / 68 1‑beds / 33 2‑beds; ~147,000 sq ft building footprint/area. - Height and bulk: Proposed height 60 feet (five stories). The zoning district maximum listed in the staff report is 45 feet; the applicant requests density bonus waivers to accommodate additional floor area and massing. Staff pointed to a mapping of the building massing that shows several locations where fourth and fifth‑floor plate percentages exceed the typical code limit (code allows fourth and above at 70% of first‑floor plate; applicant proposes 77% in some areas) and therefore requests density bonus waivers for bulk standards. - Parking and transit: Project provides 138 vehicle spaces and 142 bicycle spaces; staff noted that state law (referenced in the staff presentation as the 2022 law creating a half‑mile radius around major transit stops) removes local minimum vehicle parking requirements near major transit. The applicant voluntarily proposes parking that matches the city’s parking standard. - Affordable housing and density bonus: Staff said the applicant proposes a mix of affordable units that includes very low‑income and moderate‑income units; the project’s base project (70 units) plus density bonus (70 units) yields the 140‑unit total. Staff and legal counsel noted the project’s affordable plan and unit distribution will be implemented via an affordable housing agreement recorded on title. - Grading and trees: The grading plan shows about 3,000 cubic yards of cut, under 1,000 cubic yards of fill and 2,200 cubic yards exported. Three protected trees are proposed for removal; the resolution includes standard tree‑removal findings with subjective language struck for the by‑right review. - Transportation Demand Management (TDM): The project must meet the city’s TDM menu for the required points; staff noted the applicant proposes transit passes, high bicycle parking and ride‑matching services and that adherence will be monitored by Public Works.

Applicant presentation and design

Prometheus representatives said they are a long‑established Bay Area multi‑family owner/operator and retained Jones Architecture for design. The architect described a U‑shaped building with a podium courtyard, a lobby and resident amenity space fronting Masonic Way, ground‑floor residential units facing Wessex Way, and an enclosed parking podium. The design includes a small publicly accessible garden triangle on the odd lot corner; the applicant stated the garden plots would be managed and maintained by the project operator but that pedestrian access would be available in the setback area.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns

More than a dozen residents from Sterling Downs and nearby neighborhoods spoke during the public hearing. The most frequently raised concerns were: increased traffic and congestion on Hiller Street and nearby intersections (neighbors said the Hiller/Ralston corridor is congested at commute times and school drop‑off/pick‑up), safety of Nesbitt Elementary children walking near the site, the adequacy and timing of construction‑period management (employee parking, haul routes and guarding pedestrian routes), the proposed location of trash/dumpster pick up on Hiller, preservation of ground‑floor commercial uses and “active uses” that the Belmont Village Specific Plan intends for Masonic Way, and potential groundwater, subsidence or foundation impacts from excavation. Speakers also objected to the loss of existing neighborhood businesses in the Village plan area and asked whether impact fees would be spent locally.

Staff and applicant responses

Staff and the applicant addressed many issues during Q&A: staff said the project was analyzed under city‑accepted traffic methods and, for the traffic comparison, consultant counts of driveway trips at the existing commercial center showed higher peak‑hour driveway trips than the estimate for residential trips from the proposed project. The applicant and civil/geo consultants said geotechnical studies have been completed and would be reviewed further during building‑permit submittal; project foundations and a mat foundation were described as engineered to address local soil conditions. Staff pointed to conditions that require a construction management plan (CMP) that will be reviewed and approved by the city; staff agreed to provide a summarized CMP and to extend project documents to the city’s major‑projects page and to notify Nesbitt School and the 300‑foot notification list when the CMP is finalized.

Vote and next steps

The motion to approve (recorded in the meeting as a resolution adopting the entitlements under by‑right processing pursuant to Government Code sections referenced in the motion) passed on roll call: Commissioner Adam Kavich — Aye; Commissioner Kramer — Aye; Chair (recorded in the transcript as Coolidge) — Aye; Commissioner Majeski — Nay; Commissioner Twigg — Aye; Commissioner Jadalla — Aye. Tally: 5‑1. The resolution and supporting documents note the project is appealable to the City Council within 10 calendar days; implementation will proceed through building‑permit review and standard conditions of approval (grading, tree replacement/mitigation, affordable housing agreement, TDM monitoring, CMP and construction‑phase conditions).