The residential community that SummerHill Homes plans to build in Palo Alto bears little resemblance to most of the other housing applications that the city has been fielding over the past year.
Unlike the majority of the housing proposals currently a moving through the city's pipeline, this one is neither in Ventura nor anywhere near the city's two Caltrain stations or its main commercial arteries, University and California avenues.
Rather, it would stand just east of Greer Park and just west of U.S. Highway 101, on a commercial site that currently features a single-story, 32,500-square-foot office building and a parking lot. The new residential community would be located on a 2.3-acre site at 2850 W. Bayshore Road, which is zoned for commercial and industrial use.
If SummerHill gets the city's approval, this office building would give way to 48 three-story townhomes in eight six-unit buildings with a total of 82,287 square feet of residential living area between them. Each dwelling will be a three- or four-bedroom home, with an average living area of 1,723 square feet. Consistent with city law, seven of these townhomes would be offered at below market rate.
To help move the project along, SummerHill is relying on the provisions of Senate Bill 330, which effectively freezes the design standards that are in place at the time of the application submittal. The law prohibits the city from lowering the density of the development and limits the review process for housing projects to five meetings. The only other local developer that has applied to use SB 330 for their project is The Sobrato Organization, which is looking to build its own townhome development at 200 Portage Ave., next to the building that formerly housed Fry's Electronics.
To build the project, SummerHill will need the city to approve a conditional use permit, allowing residential use in the research, office and light manufacturing (ROLM) zone. The developer is also requesting a design enhancement exception that would authorize the development to exceed the site's 35-foot height limit. The new buildings would reach a height of 39.5 feet, according to the application.
In the application, the developer also touts the proposed location of the new residential community, noting its "close proximity to Greer Park, a short walk or bike ride to nearby schools, and convenient access to neighborhood shops and services at Edgewood Plaza and Midtown."
"With attractive landscaping, outdoor amenities and contemporary architecture, SummerHill expects the project to be a great homeownership opportunity for people living or working in Palo Alto," the application states.
The project is also relying on the State Density Bonus Law to increase its building area and the number of homes on the property. Whereas the zoning would typically allow a floor area ratio of 0.6, the developer is requesting a ratio of 1.08. John Hickey, SummerHill's director of development, noted in his letter to the city that relying on the underlying zoning would net a total of 27 units. Increasing it to 48 residences, as SummerHill has proposed, would allow the developer to reduce the costs for site improvement to support the seven below-market-rate units.
The SummerHill plan is one of two new housing proposals that are eying locations next to local parks. On Monday, the council reviewed and generally approved a development from Eden Housing that would bring 50 apartments to 525 E. Charleston Road, next to Mitchell Park. Aside from their park proximity, the two projects have little in common. While the Eden project earned plaudits from the council because it targets low-income residents and individuals with developmental disabilities, the SummerHill plan consists mostly of large, market-rate units that target families.
In requesting the design exception, Hickey noted that unlike most properties that are subject to residential zoning standards, this one is located "in a prominent location within view of U.S. 101, but more than 350 feet away from any other homes."
"As such, it is exceptionally well situated to include design features that enhance the appearance of the buildings from public viewpoints along U.S. 101 and the open space to the east, without casting additional shadows on or otherwise adversely affecting nearby residents."
While the developer is still going through the application process, the Architectural Review Board got an early look at the project in April, when it was in its early conceptual phase. In making the case for the project, Hickey suggested at the hearing that the fact that the project would occupy a commercial site is a good thing.
"I think that's key," Hickey said. "We won't be displacing any existing residents, which we think is a major plus."
One issue of concern that came up at the meeting was parking. While the project would include two parking spaces per unit, staff and board members urged the applicants to include guest parking as well.
Otherwise, the board was largely receptive to SummerHill's proposal. Board member Grace Lee called it an "opportunity for Palo Alto" because it would bring new residences to the city, while board member Peter Baltay called it a "good project," even as he requested numerous revisions to the proposed design, including landscaping improvements near the proposed 14-foot sound wall that would stand between the development and the highway. Baltay also recommended stronger connections between the new residential community and Greer Park, noting that the existing plans include a single gate on the side of the property with a pathway to the park.
"I think it's really important to find ways to let your property connect to the park in a better way for the benefit of your residents, who will inherently want to get to the park," Baltay said. "Having that one small gate just won't cut it."
Board member David Hirsch went further and suggested a design revision featuring a platform, with a common parking area under the platform and housing above it. He also recommended that SummerHill consider including rental units to better reflect the fact that more than 40% of the city's population consists of renters.
"It seems to me like a really nice project like this ought to have a mix — like Palo Alto — and offer the possibility of rental housing within the format of rental-and-ownership housing," Hirsch said.
Comments
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 30, 2021 at 11:12 am
Registered user
on Sep 30, 2021 at 11:12 am
There is a similar development nearby at the corner of Loma Verde. Parking on Loma Verde is so problematic now that the city has to put no parking signs up to enable the street sweeper get by.
There is also parking problems at the units on Bayshore near Oregon, also close by.
Cars parking on Bayshore will be a problem. Visitors will park in Greer Park parking which will make it difficult for anyone visiting the park bringing sports equipment or picnic items to find parking.
Regardless of how much parking provided and visitor parking, my gut feeling is people will still park on the street.
With the new bike bridge, Bayshore is going to have much more bike traffic. The bike lanes on Bayshore are abysmal.
Please look into whether parking, traffic, and bike concerns are going to be impacted by this. I suspect it will be a mess.
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Sep 30, 2021 at 12:05 pm
Registered user
on Sep 30, 2021 at 12:05 pm
This sounds like a great project! *FINALLY* a development that does not force people to live in shoeboxes, which is the nature of every El Camino-area proposed development without exception. 1700 square foot units are large enough for couples and families w/kids, unlike the 350-square-foot "micro" units that other developers are pushing. A lovely relief.
There will be no parking issue here. I have been down this road countless times, as well as at Greer Park, and the concept of a parking shortage is irrational. Additionally, two parking spots per unit is ample to provide for guests. Car ownership is going down, not up, and it's counterproductive to ruin a good design with parking spots that will remain empty -- just like the parking garage monstrocities that the City Council giddily wasted limited taxpayer funds on near Cal Ave., which continue to stand empty and a blight in the neighborhood.
Regardless, the way to avoid traffic and parking challenges is to bring back -- and enhance -- public shuttles, and invest in safe bike lanes. The more viable alternatives there are to driving, the fewer cars there will be on the street.
When City Council cut the shuttle system last year, and also put on hold essential improvements for bike paths, our elected leaders created numerous parking and traffic problems that easily can be remedied by making our city easy to travel by bike and shuttle. Few people would choose to drive if a convenient, clean, free shuttle were available to take them to their destination without need to park. We must prioritize alternatives to single occupancy vehicles or our quality of life will continue to decline. It's simple, not complicated, and would benefit businesses and residents alike. What is City Council waiting for?
In the meantime, I deeply hope that this exciting development and rare opportunity to reclaim corporate property for the residents is given the city support it wholly deserves.
Registered user
University South
on Sep 30, 2021 at 1:42 pm
Registered user
on Sep 30, 2021 at 1:42 pm
Why is the city not out in front in finding sites to redevelop? We could get get a lot more housing if the Council members would not just complain about how difficult it is to build housing and actually promoted housing.
Instead of writing useless letters complaining about SB9 and SB10, rezone the city for housing and meet the RHNA requirement without all the whining that makes Palo Alto the object of the SF Chronicle's scorn.
Registered user
Midtown
on Sep 30, 2021 at 1:59 pm
Registered user
on Sep 30, 2021 at 1:59 pm
Concurring with Ms. Eisenberg and while we are at it, why not build new housing ALL along the frontage road from Oregon Expressway to Charleston Road?
Most of those older office complexes are vacant and visual eyesores.
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Sep 30, 2021 at 3:19 pm
Registered user
on Sep 30, 2021 at 3:19 pm
The reality.
I lived in the Woodland Creek apartments for almost a year with my toddler. I faced the creek, so there was a row of apartments that buffered me from the freeway. The freeway noise at night was almost unbearable. It would only quiet down after 2 AM, and then start up again at 5 AM. The young man who lived across from us told me he used to try and sleep in the hallway with earplugs, and pillows around his head and body to minimize the rumble and vibration from the traffic on 101.
The other problem was the fine particulate black soot from the freeway which managed to seep in, and coat everything in our new apartment each day, even though we never opened the windows (which faced the creek), and had central air conditioning. It was a horrible location.
Registered user
Downtown North
on Sep 30, 2021 at 4:01 pm
Registered user
on Sep 30, 2021 at 4:01 pm
The developer is asking to build a project that it too tall, exceeds the allowed floor area ratio, and will add to the water usage and pollution level of the city and state. Everyone pretends that they care about the ongoing and worsening water situation in the state and they claim they care about global warming and the extinction crisis - but what we get is more development and profits for developers. The city needs to say no to any exceptions and needs to discourage these projects.
The state just took away most zoning ability for local governments with SB9 and SB10 which automatically allow a doubling of all housing by legalizing lot splitting. Those laws alone have the potential to add thousands of homes to the city. Stop pushing this excessive growth down our throats and worsening the problems that we already have. Say no to any add-ons for developers.
Registered user
Midtown
on Sep 30, 2021 at 5:52 pm
Registered user
on Sep 30, 2021 at 5:52 pm
No to any zoning changes this developer wants especially height requirements.
We don't need any more traffic or parking problems in Midtown. Loma Verde is already a freeway when it is supposed to be a nice residential street. Why does Palo Alto south of Oregon have to put up with all the new high density developments?
I forgot to add.....is there ANY mass transit close to this location? I'm guessing not.
Why would anyone want to live right next to 101 with all the noise and pollution? Ugh.
I have to say, Rebecca Eisenberg's claims regarding two parking spaces per unit being sufficient are not at all realistic. Unfortunately the article did not specify whether the parking spaces take the form of an attached garage or outside/underground garage parking. At my HOA we have two car attached garages and a number of visitor spots. Plenty of residents park their belongings in the garage and use the visitor spots, plus, because everyone wants to jam in to Palo Alto to access the good schools, our units house a much greater density of people in each unit than they used to, resulting inolo even greater demand for parking. This is the reality, not the wishful thinking Ms. Eisenberg engages in.
I would never take a shuttle because I don't like to wait. My time is valuable and unless shuttles are running every 5 minutes and going exactly where I want to go, using them is a waste of time. Cycling makes sense in decent weather, if I'm not shopping, which is when I usually use my car.
Summerhill mentions schools are within walking distance. Witness the crazy amount of activity near schools in the morning and afternoon because most of the parents are DRIVINGh their kid to and from school.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 30, 2021 at 6:34 pm
Registered user
on Sep 30, 2021 at 6:34 pm
More thoughts.
No public transport near this site.
As for schools, Ohlone is the nearest elementary public school and it is lottery only. It would be walking distance.
This area is Paly and there are no bus routes from this area to Paly. Middle schools are a long walk.
Registered user
Palo Verde
on Sep 30, 2021 at 8:03 pm
Registered user
on Sep 30, 2021 at 8:03 pm
@Rebecca, the assertion that "There will be no parking issue here" is what seems irrational, given the ample evidence provided by the recent similar residential development at the corner of Loma Verde and Bayshore, which has at least some guest parking. Please provide any reasons why anyone should believe that the 20+ cars that overflow onto both sides of Loma Verde would not be repeated with this proposed new development, with or without expanded shuttle service.
Not to mention the weekend soccer events at Greer Park that currently overflow to fill all available street parking along Bayshore in a way that would make any bicyclist want to avoid that route.
It is wishful thinking that the demand for cars will suddenly decline despite the massive time savings and individual freedom cars provide in a suburban setting. But of course the goal of most real estate developers and real estate agents driving these agendas is to transform the entire Bay Area into an urban environment (except of course in their own neighborhoods in Atherton, Woodside, Portola Valley, etc.).
Registered user
Community Center
on Oct 1, 2021 at 9:27 am
Registered user
on Oct 1, 2021 at 9:27 am
Many people reside in homes and apartments along freeways. Just put up a sound barrier wall.
No different than living by the railroad tracks (i.e. Alma/Central Expressway).
Registered user
Midtown
on Oct 1, 2021 at 11:32 am
Registered user
on Oct 1, 2021 at 11:32 am
It's a good idea, but it'll get Palo Alto'd and die a slow death.
Registered user
Midtown
on Oct 5, 2021 at 11:13 am
Registered user
on Oct 5, 2021 at 11:13 am
Since I no longer live in Palo Alto, perhaps I shouldn't comment on this subject. However, in reading all the comments by citizens who obviously care about the quality of life in PA, I am struck by all the negative reactions to this proposed project. TMP, especially, makes valid points with his (her?) concerns about increased water usage and pollution, but I have to ask, WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE AS A REMEDY TO THE CRITICAL HOUSING SHORTAGE that has people sleeping in their cars, or else spending 4+ hours of every day commuting from the Central Valley? This is a situation that calls for solutions, NOT criticism, in my opinion.
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Oct 6, 2021 at 7:11 pm
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2021 at 7:11 pm
If you're not planning for the other parts that must grow (water, power, sewer, schools, police, fire, transportation) it's just more housing because we want more housing and we'll worry about the rest later (or, how PA got so overcrowded in the first place). None of the projects will solve the housing demand - more housing will grow more demand. It's possible that PA can't afford more density without continuing Ponzi financing. Peninsula businesses and governments should endorse decentralization and build back better elsewhere.
Registered user
College Terrace
on Oct 6, 2021 at 8:04 pm
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2021 at 8:04 pm
I think this is a wonderful project! Housing for families is critical! There are so many young families renting. Many want homeownership to foster stability. I hope there are more family housing projects in Palo Alto!
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Oct 7, 2021 at 8:28 am
Registered user
on Oct 7, 2021 at 8:28 am
All of these projects always float the same promises - it will alleviate the housing crunch, bring new revenues and jobs to the city, etc. But that doesn't really happen. The availability of housing is worse, the roads more congested, the city is evermore challenged to squeeze in more cars and find more water and utilities, support it's growing budget and push out it's looming unfunded liabilities. How much density is too much? Society doesn't flourish confined to shoeboxes, without places to play and meet and share time with others. These things have to be part of the design. This is why people move to Texas - even with the negatives - and there are lot's of negatives - affordable space to live is a must. It is interesting that this project is tagged as a 'community' - a housing block, by itself, isn't a 'community'
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 7, 2021 at 11:32 am
Registered user
on Oct 7, 2021 at 11:32 am
TV news did a report on what $500k could buy in other areas of the country. From the look of many of the homes being shown in this report, it looked very like they were trying to encourage people to move. If a family can buy a 5 bedroom, 5 bath home in move in condition on a large lot for $499,000 what are the incentives to stay here?
Registered user
University South
on Oct 7, 2021 at 6:08 pm
Registered user
on Oct 7, 2021 at 6:08 pm
Bystander,
Some people have jobs here and some people have family here. Also, you may want to live in a mansion but many people prefer smaller spaces.
Registered user
Green Acres
on Oct 8, 2021 at 4:14 pm
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2021 at 4:14 pm
Reading Rebecca’s and Eileen’s comments I wonder if they have actually driven by or walked 1033 Amarillo, as I have. They may have and, if so, it makes their comments more difficult to understand. If they have not, they should.
“1033 Amarillo” actually has four small “cottage” units on it: 1031, 1033, 1035, and 1037 Amarillo. According to Zillow, three have two bedrooms, one has one bedroom and all four are between 800 and 900sf in size.
“1033 Amarillo” was purchased in April for $5,000,000 (according to Zillow and Redfin). The four cottage units, which seem suitable for very low-, low- and moderate-income people, will be history if this “great”, “exciting”, “wonderful” project proceeds. Instead, there will be six or eight units each sharing an allocated portion of that $5,000,000 plus development approval, demolition, construction and financing, etc. costs. Oh yes, and developer profits – cannot forget that. Accordingly, the new units will be more expensive that the units existing there now, and, most likely, there will not be four units affordable to very low-, low or moderate-income people as exist there now.
All in the name of the SB9’s objective of having more housing, while in this instance eliminating four units of housing that appear to be truly affordable to people who do not have well-paid, tech-employee incomes.
Progress? Not in my mind. Not even close.
Registered user
Barron Park
on Oct 11, 2021 at 8:26 am
Registered user
on Oct 11, 2021 at 8:26 am
This story references proposals for 183 new housing units in Palo Alto. These homes would be constructed and occupied in the midst of the the 3rd worst drought in the last 100 years -- a drought that won't end with a single 'normally' wet winter. To me, that's a far more important consideration than parking and shuttle routes.