Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Certificate Of Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Belmont residents urge faster action on certificate of compliance for APN 043071010, say delays harm elderly owner
Summary
Two speakers told the Belmont City Council on June 24 that a certificate-of-compliance application for parcel APN 043071010 has been pending since 2023 and that planning-department delays are causing financial hardship for the parcel's elderly owner.
Two people with a stated ownership interest in APN 043071010 told the Belmont City Council on June 24 that a planning application for a certificate of compliance has been pending since 2023 and that repeated staff delays are causing financial and personal hardship.
Neil Eisen, who identified himself as a retired California litigation attorney and partial owner of the parcel, told the council the application was filed in 2023 and remains unresolved after roughly 26 months. "We made the application in 2023, 26 months ago," Eisen said. He said the applicants have been given numerous promised deadlines by city planning staff that were not met, that they paid "fees over $6,000," and that they "spent $30,000 on an engineer." Eisen said staff told him the matter was referred to the city attorney but that he had received no written response and had sent a demand letter on May 21, 2025.
A second speaker, Rick Louie, who called into the meeting, said the parcel was purchased at a U.S. Marshals auction in February 2009 and that the family paid taxes and sewer fees while the property remained undeveloped. Louie said his family had hoped to sell the parcel at fair market value to support the care of an elderly primary owner, whom he identified as 92–93 years old. He asked the city for "closure" so the family could support her care.
Eisen referenced a legal provision during his comments and cited "California government code section 66413.6(b)" when urging staff to act. Eisen told the council he had spoken with "Carlos" from the planning department and that Carlos agreed to meet the next day to try to resolve the matter; Eisen said their alternative would be to file in court.
The speakers asked for an accounting of fees; Eisen said the applicants had not received an accounting despite requests. Neither planning staff nor the city made a formal action on the record during the meeting; staff offered a meeting with the commenter to discuss next steps. The council did not vote on the matter at the June 24 meeting.
