Belmont OKs controversial development

Frustrated residents have also cited traffic concerns especially on Hiller Street and the lack of congruence with the rest of the neighborhood.

The Planning Commission approved the project in August, however, several did so begrudgingly and said they felt that legally, their hands were tied. Commissioner Nathan Majeski derided the developer, saying the development was “ugly” and that Prometheus’ attempts to push through an unpopular building were “pathetic.”

Jonathan Stone, senior director at Prometheus Real Estate Group, said most of the ground-floor labeling in prior plans — such as areas designated as “parlor” or “coworking” — were always intended for residents, not the public, which may have caused confusion. Alan Jones, the project’s architect, said the plan still adheres to city goals with the Belmont Village Specific Plan and also its housing element, a state-mandated document outlining how the city will achieve its housing goals between 2023-31.

“We believe it contributes to the city’s vision as outlined in the Belmont plan. The project supports a diversity of housing opportunities in the village, it adds much needed housing near transit, it contributes to a vibrant downtown, and it supports economic activity and investment,” Jones said.

City staff have also maintained that, though the Belmont Village Specific Plan envisioned a mix of vibrant use of publicly accessible spaces, ground-floor residential use was technically always allowed, however, it required a conditional use permit. At the beginning of last year, the permit requirement was removed for certain projects — of which this development would qualify. Publicly-accessible entrance lobbies were also always included as part of the allowed ground-floor uses. 

Soon after the commission’s decision, Doug Ricket filed an appeal, stating among other issues, that while the city does not have the ability to review subjective standards for projects like this, it still has the ability to make determinations on objective standards, of which the ground-floor retail requirement applies.

Since 2017 when the plan was approved, state-level housing policy has also increasingly restricted cities’ ability to deny projects or mandate significant changes, especially if they provide a certain threshold of affordable units or are within a certain radius of major transit areas. Staff added that because of the amount of housing provided, including affordable units, the project qualifies under state law for certain incentives and waivers. 

However, Ricket’s letter states the waivers only apply to “city standards that would block the construction of the bonus units, such as the height, bulk and street wall height waivers in this project,” of which this standard does not apply.

“The heart of this thing is that we want active use,” Ricket said during the council meeting, referring to publicly-accessible businesses and areas on the ground floor. 

Even if the council determined that the current proposal did not align with the design standards, staff said the developer could apply for an incentive to remove the city’s ground floor requirements, and the determination would hinge on whether the incentive would result in a cost reduction. According to the staff report, the requirement would be met because “ground floor commercial uses are known to add cost to development projects due to different financing requirements from the rest of the building and difficulty in leasing small commercial spaces. … Many small commercial spaces remain vacant for years in Peninsula cities. As a result, the City would be required to grant the incentive.”

Similar to planning commissioners, some councilmembers lamented the developer’s rapport with the surrounding neighborhood over the last several years, not just regarding ground floor retail but over other legal arguments. 

While Councilmember Gina Latimerlo said she welcomed the housing, she added she was disappointed in how the relationship with the developers and the community has unfolded.

“The way the process has been handled by the owners and the developers from the beginning is a case study in how to really piss off a community that you’re walking into. You opened by suing the neighbors and now have finished by breaking your four or five-year-long word to the community,” Latimerlo said.

However, the City Council unanimously approved the project on legal grounds.

“I’m hoping in the future there’s some way we can make more active use for the community because honestly, the community ... is not opposed to the housing,” Councilmember Cathy Jordan said. “They just want more active use for themselves and the neighborhood.”