News

Plan for condominium development near Greer Park wins support

Planning commission strongly backs SummerHill's proposal on Bayshore Road

SummerHill Homes has proposed a 48-townhome development at 2850 W. Bayshore Road. Rendering courtesy SDG Architects.

A proposal to build a condominium community next to Greer Park appears to be on the fast track toward approval thanks to new housing laws and enthusiastic vote of support on Wednesday from the Planning and Transportation Commission.

The development from SummerHill Homes calls for building 48 three-story condominiums at 2850 W. Bayshore Road, a commercial site that currently includes a one-story office building. The planning commission on Wednesday voted 6-0, with Commissioner Cari Templeton absent, to support the vesting tentative map for the development, which allows SummerHill to divide the 2.3-acre site into condominiums.

The commission's strong show of support for the project positions it well for final approval by the City Council, which is set to receive it next month. Commissioner Keith Reckdahl was one of several members who lauded the project because it converts offices to housing, a key strategy for Palo Alto as it seeks to meet its regional obligations for new housing and to reduce its jobs-housing imbalance.

"That's really good because you take something that requires housing, and you're producing housing, so it helps on both ends of the spectrum," Reckdahl said of the conversion. "And also, there is no existing housing that gets eliminated or existing tenants that need to be replaced."

Commission Chair Ed Lauing echoed this sentiment.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

"I just couldn't be more delighted with the concept of removing office and putting housing in there because that solves a double whammy for us as a city because the current ratio is out of whack and that help us a lot," Lauing said.

The commission's vote in favor of the project comes just a month after the project suffered a setback at a hearing of the Architectural Review Board, which unanimously recommended rejecting the project. At its April 21 hearing, the board strongly criticized the proposed development, with members arguing that it does not have a "unified and coherent design," does not create an "internal sense of order" and fails to promote safety for bicyclists and pedestrians.

In the past, criticism would typically trigger further revisions and reviews and stretch out the approval process by months. But thanks to recent laws such as Senate Bill 330 and the Housing Accountability Act, a prolonged review process is no longer an option. Absent very specific findings that the project violates local zoning codes, runs counter to the Comprehensive Plan or would cause "serious public health problems," the city must approve the project within 90 days of the certification of the project's environmental analysis. It is also limited to five public hearings, which includes reviews by all boards and commissions, the council hearing and any potential appeals.

The laws have upended the city's approval process. In the past, a vesting tentative map — which locks in entitlements for the developer — wouldn't be considered until after a developer completed the architectural review process and obtained the needed permits for the project (In this case, SummerHill needs a conditional use permit to build residential units at a site zoned for research, office and limited manufacturing use). With the new deadlines in place, the council will find itself considering all of these items at the same meeting.

While the commission generally supported the project, Vice Chair Doria Summa said she feels the commission is "very constrained" by the housing laws and agreed with the Architectural Review Board's concerns that the streets in the new development are not bike- and pedestrian-friendly.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

"On the one hand, we like getting all the housing and we appreciate the applicant for going in that direction," Summa said. "On the other hand, the ARB was unanimous in feeling it was not adequate in this way."

John Hickey, vice president of development at SummerHill, said the company tried to design the circulation so that it really focused on pedestrians. He noted that the entrance to the eight buildings fronts Bayshore Road while the garages are in the back. The project does not seek to create a shared route for vehicles and pedestrians, he said.

The project does, however, include bike improvements along Bayshore, Hickey said. The existing northbound bike lane would be widened and a new southbound bike lane would be created between the project site and Colorado Avenue.

Hickey likened the proposed project to similar condominium communities in the area, including Sterling Park and Oregon Green.

"The site is very well-suited for this type of development and density of development," Hickey told the commission.

Commissioner Giselle Roohparvar, who lives in a condominium complex near Fabian Way, said communities of this sort create an opportunity for young families like her own to live in Palo Alto. She said she is very excited about the project. Townhomes of the sort proposed by SummerHill often serve as "starter homes" for people who cannot afford to spend $5 million to $6 million for a home, which is typical in Palo Alto.

She also argued that building a residential community on Bayshore Road would bring the added benefit of making the area safer.

"When I walk up and down Bayshore and Fabian with my daughter, it feels very cold and industrial and I do want it to have more of a community feel, to feel safer, frankly. Because it's dead at night and on weekends otherwise," Roohparvar said.

SummerHill's proposed development is also benefitting from a lack of public opposition. No one spoke out against the project at Wednesday's hearing, while a few residents submitted letters supporting it. Palo Alto Forward, a nonprofit that advocates for more housing, was among them. Katie Causey, community engagement manager of Palo Alto Forward, noted in her letter that seven of the 48 condominiums will be offered at below-market-rate (Hickey said they would be designated for "moderate" level, which connotes between 80% and 100% of area median income). She also supported the developer's plan to turn an office site into a residential community, consistent with the goals of the city's Housing Element.

"Rejection of this project will raise doubts about the viability of the many commercial sites planned for housing in the site inventory," Causey wrote.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Get uninterrupted access to important local city government news. Become a member today.

Plan for condominium development near Greer Park wins support

Planning commission strongly backs SummerHill's proposal on Bayshore Road

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Thu, May 26, 2022, 9:09 am

A proposal to build a condominium community next to Greer Park appears to be on the fast track toward approval thanks to new housing laws and enthusiastic vote of support on Wednesday from the Planning and Transportation Commission.

The development from SummerHill Homes calls for building 48 three-story condominiums at 2850 W. Bayshore Road, a commercial site that currently includes a one-story office building. The planning commission on Wednesday voted 6-0, with Commissioner Cari Templeton absent, to support the vesting tentative map for the development, which allows SummerHill to divide the 2.3-acre site into condominiums.

The commission's strong show of support for the project positions it well for final approval by the City Council, which is set to receive it next month. Commissioner Keith Reckdahl was one of several members who lauded the project because it converts offices to housing, a key strategy for Palo Alto as it seeks to meet its regional obligations for new housing and to reduce its jobs-housing imbalance.

"That's really good because you take something that requires housing, and you're producing housing, so it helps on both ends of the spectrum," Reckdahl said of the conversion. "And also, there is no existing housing that gets eliminated or existing tenants that need to be replaced."

Commission Chair Ed Lauing echoed this sentiment.

"I just couldn't be more delighted with the concept of removing office and putting housing in there because that solves a double whammy for us as a city because the current ratio is out of whack and that help us a lot," Lauing said.

The commission's vote in favor of the project comes just a month after the project suffered a setback at a hearing of the Architectural Review Board, which unanimously recommended rejecting the project. At its April 21 hearing, the board strongly criticized the proposed development, with members arguing that it does not have a "unified and coherent design," does not create an "internal sense of order" and fails to promote safety for bicyclists and pedestrians.

In the past, criticism would typically trigger further revisions and reviews and stretch out the approval process by months. But thanks to recent laws such as Senate Bill 330 and the Housing Accountability Act, a prolonged review process is no longer an option. Absent very specific findings that the project violates local zoning codes, runs counter to the Comprehensive Plan or would cause "serious public health problems," the city must approve the project within 90 days of the certification of the project's environmental analysis. It is also limited to five public hearings, which includes reviews by all boards and commissions, the council hearing and any potential appeals.

The laws have upended the city's approval process. In the past, a vesting tentative map — which locks in entitlements for the developer — wouldn't be considered until after a developer completed the architectural review process and obtained the needed permits for the project (In this case, SummerHill needs a conditional use permit to build residential units at a site zoned for research, office and limited manufacturing use). With the new deadlines in place, the council will find itself considering all of these items at the same meeting.

While the commission generally supported the project, Vice Chair Doria Summa said she feels the commission is "very constrained" by the housing laws and agreed with the Architectural Review Board's concerns that the streets in the new development are not bike- and pedestrian-friendly.

"On the one hand, we like getting all the housing and we appreciate the applicant for going in that direction," Summa said. "On the other hand, the ARB was unanimous in feeling it was not adequate in this way."

John Hickey, vice president of development at SummerHill, said the company tried to design the circulation so that it really focused on pedestrians. He noted that the entrance to the eight buildings fronts Bayshore Road while the garages are in the back. The project does not seek to create a shared route for vehicles and pedestrians, he said.

The project does, however, include bike improvements along Bayshore, Hickey said. The existing northbound bike lane would be widened and a new southbound bike lane would be created between the project site and Colorado Avenue.

Hickey likened the proposed project to similar condominium communities in the area, including Sterling Park and Oregon Green.

"The site is very well-suited for this type of development and density of development," Hickey told the commission.

Commissioner Giselle Roohparvar, who lives in a condominium complex near Fabian Way, said communities of this sort create an opportunity for young families like her own to live in Palo Alto. She said she is very excited about the project. Townhomes of the sort proposed by SummerHill often serve as "starter homes" for people who cannot afford to spend $5 million to $6 million for a home, which is typical in Palo Alto.

She also argued that building a residential community on Bayshore Road would bring the added benefit of making the area safer.

"When I walk up and down Bayshore and Fabian with my daughter, it feels very cold and industrial and I do want it to have more of a community feel, to feel safer, frankly. Because it's dead at night and on weekends otherwise," Roohparvar said.

SummerHill's proposed development is also benefitting from a lack of public opposition. No one spoke out against the project at Wednesday's hearing, while a few residents submitted letters supporting it. Palo Alto Forward, a nonprofit that advocates for more housing, was among them. Katie Causey, community engagement manager of Palo Alto Forward, noted in her letter that seven of the 48 condominiums will be offered at below-market-rate (Hickey said they would be designated for "moderate" level, which connotes between 80% and 100% of area median income). She also supported the developer's plan to turn an office site into a residential community, consistent with the goals of the city's Housing Element.

"Rejection of this project will raise doubts about the viability of the many commercial sites planned for housing in the site inventory," Causey wrote.

Comments

Bystander
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2022 at 11:10 am
Bystander, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on May 26, 2022 at 11:10 am

I have no comments on this but it is very noisy there and parking will be a must. It is already hard to park at Greer Park for sports activities and if the residents park their cars in the park it will make for difficulties for park users.

Bayshore is not easy to drive at present as many are avoiding the Express Lane mess on 101 by diverting to Bayshore and there is much more traffic than before. This might be something not expected when the plans were drawn.


Observer
Registered user
Menlo Park
on May 26, 2022 at 3:47 pm
Observer, Menlo Park
Registered user
on May 26, 2022 at 3:47 pm

I take it each condo has three floors. Will they each have an elevator so the elderly and handicapped are not prevented from buying a condo. Curious as to how ADA regs might impact the housing. If the city is making any concessions to the developer to get the so called low market units I would think there would be even more of a case for accessibility. If no elevators I wonder what the potential is for ADA law suits and delay of or stopping this needed housing.


Anne
Registered user
Midtown
on May 27, 2022 at 11:26 am
Anne, Midtown
Registered user
on May 27, 2022 at 11:26 am

I guess if buyers are OK with living next to the freeway, with all the noise and pollution they will be exposed to, more power to them.

Folks who live along Colorado and Amarillo are going to have to get used to a lot more noise and traffic than they are currently used to, because this is a terrible location if you want access to mass transit. I live on Loma Verde and the Sterling Park development at the end of the street doubled the density of Loma Verde Ave. housing in one fell swoop with it's ~100 units.

I would support propositions designed to rein in these unconstitutional new housing laws that take away local control.


mjh
Registered user
College Terrace
on May 27, 2022 at 4:39 pm
mjh, College Terrace
Registered user
on May 27, 2022 at 4:39 pm

Those who advocate for Palo Alto to add the 6000 new housing units as mandated by the state want housing built irrespective of available neighborhood amenities, city infrastructure, freeway and train noise, or elevators. Sacramento has now mandated that if a proposed housing development meets minimal standards the city must issue building permits. Just because they are not appealing or up to some people's standards, that's no reason to deny someone else the opportunity of being able to live in them.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 27, 2022 at 5:57 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on May 27, 2022 at 5:57 pm

Thank you, mjh, for speaking some much-needed common sense.


Citizen
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 28, 2022 at 1:16 am
Citizen, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on May 28, 2022 at 1:16 am

This is a perfect place for such a development.

Observer,
I wonder if developers build these tall skinny homes to avoid elevators etc and thus maximizing their return.

Palo Alto has long acted as if disability isn’t part if it’s inclusionary housing aspirations or urban planning. The powers that be think if a few things here or there are minimally accessible, that’s enough, universal design unischmersal design.

Given the jobs available here and the difficulties those with disabilities face to get employment, I’m still shocked at how housing development around here is perennially so unsuitable for people with mobility limitations.

Good catch. I didn’t see that. Not sure what one can do. It’s good news about office to housing conversion.


William Hitchens
Registered user
Mountain View
on May 31, 2022 at 5:47 pm
William Hitchens, Mountain View
Registered user
on May 31, 2022 at 5:47 pm

Appropriate for medium density "infill" housing. It'll be "nice and quiet" due to the proximity to Hwy 101. That's where PA should be building all of its "infill" housing --- where no one sensible wants to live. South El Camino Real also is an ideal candidate up to Page Mill.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.