​​When Palo Alto officials built a new path for streamlined approval of housing projects, their goal was to create more affordable housing and meet the ambitious, state-mandated goal of adding more than 6,000 units to the city’s housing stock.
The new process, which the city adopted in 2022, limits the number of public hearings and allows just one discussion — and no votes — by the city’s Architectural Review Board before the planning director makes a ruling. The new rules severely blunt the ability of the once-influential board to influence building’s design and shift the decision-making power to planning staff.
But as last week’s public hearing on a new townhouse development in south Palo Alto shows, not all board members seem thrilled with the way that staff is exercising this power. During a heated discussion, two board members repeatedly suggested that staff had failed to live up to the city’s housing goals as it advanced the proposal from SummerHill Homes for a 29-townhouse project at 4345 El Camino Real, a site that is currently occupied by the Country Inn Motel.
Located on the city’s borders with Mountain View and Los Altos, the proposed condominium development would be split between two lots straddling Cesano Court. The smaller lot, north of Cesano, would have two buildings containing eight condominiums; the larger lot, south of Cesano, would have three buildings and 21 condominiums. Each building would be three stories high and include a roof deck and a balcony for each unit.
“The idea here is to develop a contemporary urban-suburban type of community that fits well with the range of residential densities in the area,” John Hickey, vice president of development for SummerHill Homes, told the board at the Sept. 19 review.
While the architectural board is technically an advisory body, it has played a powerful role in the city’s review process, routinely requesting major revisions on significant development process. At times, its vote of endorsement came only after several rounds of reviews spanning many months.
But for streamlined projects, the board only gets one public hearing in which it can comment but not vote. The Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council, which have traditionally vetted all large developments, don’t get any public hearings at all.
During their Sept. 19 discussion, two board members argued that the SummerHill project falls short in one significant way: It does not provide enough housing. Board members David Hirsch and Peter Baltay both lamented that by proposing just 29 units, SummerHill is failing to comply with the Housing Element, which identifies the site for 43 future dwellings. Both suggested that staff is being too lenient with the applicants by not pushing for more housing.
Hisrch was particularly adamant about the project’s shortcomings and argued that the smaller site would be perfectly suitable for an apartment building with many more units than SummerHill is proposing. He also argued that the project fails to meet the city’s requirements that any development with more than 1 acre of space include two different housing types.
In this case, even though the project makes up 1.3 acres, it is split between two parcels, each of which is less than an acre in size. Because of this alignment, staff from the Department of Planning and Development Services concluded that this requirement does not need to be enforced and SummerHill was allowed to employ one housing type for all five buildings.
“Developers are very capable of development that would have solved the density problem. You did not make a choice to do that,” Hirsch said at the Sept. 19 hearing. “I’d say the smaller property could have easily accommodated 5-story (multi-family) dwelling and massing would relate to the neighbors pretty well.”
Baltay agreed with Hirsch and argued that planning staff should be more aggressive with developers in pushing for the city’s overall policies and objectives.
“We need more housing in Palo Alto. We need to get to our full housing complement and this building is only 70% of it. Why not? Why hadn’t we pushed them harder to do more?
“This is one tool the planning department can use to get greater density of housing and i think they should be making every effort to do that,” Baltay said.
Jodi Gerhardt, the city’s manager of current planning, noted that the Housing Element includes a “buffer zone” of more than 700 units in case any particular site fails to meet its stated goal. Staff is doing its best to encourage developers to comply with the housing plan. In cases where they fall short, the city can rely on this buffer, she said.
“With each project, we’re talking to developers and making sure: Can they add units to get us close to the numbers? All these conversations are happening.” Gerhardt said.
Other board members argued that the project is perfectly suitable for the area, which is already dominated by multi-family developments and hotels. Chair Kendra Rosenberg had no qualms about either the unit count or the building types. The project, she said, complies with the city’s zoning requirements and should be approved.
Unlike smaller apartments, townhouses provide the opportunity for families to be in Palo Alto, she said.
“I actually feel very strongly that this is an extremely appropriate site for townhomes,” Chair Kendra Rosenberg said.
Board member Moussam Adcock agreed and called the SummerHill developemt a “great project.” Vice Chair Yingxi Chen also supported it and noted that the neighborhood in which the project is proposed already has a huge mix of housing types.
“While we need more units in this town, we also need to balance the needs for different groups of people, whether it’s for families or individuals,” Vice Chair Yingxi Chen said.
Hirsch and Baltay conceded that SummerHill did a fine job in designing the townhome development. But Baltay argued that the city is merely “reacting” to applications rather than proactively planning to create bike paths and developments with higher density.
“Let’s use the bully pulpit we have, use the leverage as an applicant is getting permits to get things that really count:Â higher density, bike paths. Those are basic. We constantly push for those things,” Baltay said.
Will this project realize completion of the bike/ped path between Del Medio and Cesano Ct., I wonder? Mountain View already completed their part on the Mountain View side.