Belmont residents sue over new development

Much of the backlash has centered on the lack of publicly accessible, ground floor retail and commercial use, something that was explicitly encouraged in the city’s 2017 Belmont Village Specific Plan document — and what many believed were in the project’s original plans.

Toward the end of January, the Belmont Village Community Association filed a complaint against the city, alleging it unlawfully approved the project. The complaint states that the lack of public amenities violates standards outlined in the city’s Belmont Village plan that requires “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.”

“Rather than requiring compliance with these objective standards as required by law, the City’s planning staff erroneously determined them to be ‘not applicable,’” the complaint reads.

In an emailed statement, a Belmont Village Community Association spokesperson said that it’s suing “to uphold the power of city councils over their zoning and to uphold the existing law in the city of Belmont which requires ground floor retail at this site. Best of all, compliance with ground floor retail can be added without reducing or impeding the housing construction, so we see the possibility of win-win for all parties to achieve their goals.”

In previous meetings held last year, city staff have 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.

The decision was also complicated by the fact that state law allows numerous exemptions, bonuses and waivers for developments that provide a certain amount of housing, especially affordable units, or are within a certain distance from major public transit. City officials, including planning commissioners, had previously said that they felt their hands were tied, as the developer would likely be able to override the determination via state law if the city denied the application.

And because the city had not found any inconsistencies in the objective design standards within 30 days of receiving the application, staff previously stated that meant the standards had to effectively be deemed adequate.

The complaint also challenged that notion, however, stating the city’s approval “was the direct result of erroneous advice from the City Attorney.”

“We believe this position is incorrect because it would unconstitutionally disenfranchise Belmont’s citizens and their elected city council,” the BVCA spokesperson said.

The city and Prometheus said it would not comment on pending litigation.