Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Masonic Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Belmont council affirms Planning Commission, approves 140‑unit project at 500–580 Masonic amid neighborhood objections
Summary
After more than two hours of staff briefings, applicant and appellant presentations and public comment, the City Council voted 5–0 to deny an appeal and adopt findings approving a 140‑unit by‑right housing project at 500–580 Masonic Way (including 25 lower‑income units). Neighbors raised concerns that the design removes promised ground‑floor active
Belmont’s City Council on Oct. 28 voted 5–0 to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and approve entitlements for a 140‑unit apartment building at 500–580 Masonic Way, rejecting a neighborhood appeal that said the design violated the Belmont Village Specific Plan’s active‑use requirements.
What the council approved: The project as approved by the Planning Commission and affirmed by council includes a roughly 147,000‑square‑foot, five‑story residential building with 140 units (39 studios, 68 one‑bedrooms and 33 two‑bedrooms), 138 parking spaces and 142 bicycle spaces. The developer intends to provide 25 lower‑income units (roughly 20 percent), generating eligibility for state density‑bonus provisions and by‑right processing under current California law. The staff report and the draft council resolution cite consistency with the General Plan and adopted Belmont Village specific plan as interpreted by staff and the community development director.
Planning and legal background: Deputy Community Development Director Laura Russell told council the project was submitted in August 2023 and met the statutory criteria for by‑right processing because it is a pipeline site in the city’s certified housing element and meets affordability thresholds. Russell explained that the city amended zoning in January 2024 after HCD review so that by‑right projects may include residential uses on ground floors (removing a conditional‑use requirement for such projects) and that staff interpreted the specific‑plan active‑use language as implemented by the zoning, concluding the proposed ground‑floor program complied with objective standards. Consultants and staff repeatedly reminded the council that the Housing Accountability Act requires a timely written notice of noncompliance from the city within 30 days of a project’s completeness determination; absent that notice, a project is deemed consistent under state law.
What the opponents said: Appellants and neighborhood speakers argued the building does not meet the specific‑plan requirement that ground‑floor frontage be accessible to the general public and that it "generate walk‑in pedestrian clientele." Appellant Doug Ricketts (and his attorney) said the long main lobby and a private fitness room in the proposed design were resident‑only amenities, not public storefronts, and that the project thus departs from the village‑core vision. Residents and the petition circulated by neighbors emphasized the value of on‑site cafes, retail and services for walkable village life.
Applicant response: Don Peterson and Jonathan Stone of Prometheus Real Estate Group, the applicant, said the development is intended to be a housing‑first project, with ground‑floor amenity spaces designed to serve residents and to limit long periods of “dark” vacant commercial storefronts. Architect Alan Jones described the design as an intentionally articulated base that connects to surrounding residential scale and said the eastern garden will be publicly accessible and include community‑garden plots; Prometheus said the pocket garden’s walking path will be open to the public even if certain internal amenities remain resident‑oriented.
Council deliberation and vote: Council members acknowledged the neighborhood’s strong preference for publicly accessible storefronts but concluded that staff’s zoning interpretation and the city’s prior code amendments to comply with HCD made the project eligible for by‑right approval. Councilmembers also discussed the legal and financial risks of denying a by‑right project (including exposure to state enforcement and potential attorney‑fee awards). After deliberation the council adopted the resolution prepared by staff and denied the appeal by a 5–0 vote.
Why it matters: The vote highlights the tension between local design goals for walkable commercial frontages and statewide legal changes that expand by‑right housing approvals and density‑bonus remedies. The decision also underscores the practical consequences of the Housing Accountability Act and recent amendments: when staff does not identify noncompliance within the state’s 30‑day window, projects are effectively deemed consistent and difficult for cities to overturn without risk of exposure.
Public record and next steps: The council’s action affirms all planning entitlements attached to the staff resolution (design review, grading, tree removal permit, affordable housing plan, transportation demand management plan and the density bonus findings). Prometheus may pursue ground‑floor leasing once construction is under way or may later request incentives or waivers for different frontages; any change to the approved entitlements would require a return to the appropriate decision body.
