|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
For the second time in two years, a local developer is proposing to demolish the Country Inn Motel in south Palo Alto to construct a residential community with private streets on El Camino Real, near the city’s borders with Mountain View and Los Altos.
According to plans that SummerHill Homes submitted last month, the development at 4345 El Camino Real would consist of 29 three-story townhomes in five buildings, two on the north side of Cesano Court and three on the south side of Cesano. The new community would replace the motel and a commercial building that includes Peninsula Piano Brokers, Massage Envy and Classic Kitchen & Bath.
The development will consist of three- and four-bedroom dwellings, with four units offered at below-market-rate level for residents with “moderate” incomes, according to the plans. The designation refers to households that make between 80% and 120% of the county’s area median income.
In pitching the project, SummerHill is touting the site’s proximity to the San Antonio Caltrain station and easy access to San Antonio Center in Mountain View.
“With attractive landscaping, outdoor amenities, and contemporary architecture, SummerHill expects the project to be an excellent homeownership opportunity for people living or working in Palo Alto,” John Hickey, vice president for development at SummerHill, wrote to the city as part of the application.
The proposal from SummerHill represents the second attempt by a property owner to convert the commercially zoned site to residential use. In 2022, Toll Brothers pitched a plan to build 55 condominiums, six townhomes and six accessory dwelling units through the city’s “planned home zoning” process, which gives council members ample leeway to demand revisions or deny applications.
The Toll Brothers project, which envisioned a 60-foot-tall building with condominiums, did not advance. During a September 2022 public hearing, members of the City Council criticized various aspects of the proposal, including the developer’s plans to remove several protected trees and to demolish a retail building.
The SummerHill plan is somewhat less ambitious. The newly submitted plans show that the proposed townhome buildings will vary in height but would range between 40 feet and 48 feet, well within the city’s 50-foot height limit. Each dwelling will have about 1,763 square feet of living space, according to the application.
The townhome development will also include ground-floor patios, balconies, roof decks and a total of 60 off-street parking spaces, according to the application. It will also include community open spaces with tables, seating areas and an electric grill with counters for prep space, according to the application.
SummerHill is also requesting a streamlined review process by invoking Senate Bill 330, which limits the number of public hearings on the project and prevents the city from adopting new zoning rules or design standards for a property after an application has been filed.
Unlike the prior plan, the current one is not seeking a zone change. SummerHill is, however, seeking waivers from several development standards, including code provisions that require retail preservation and prohibit tree removal. The developer is also looking for loosening of rules that govern side and rear setbacks and that limit construction of roof decks.
According to the application, SummerHill is currently under contract to purchase the project site and one of its goals is to “ensure that the project is financially feasible,” Hickey wrote. He argued in his letter that retaining retail on the site would conflict with that goal because retail space at the site “would not be able to generate revenue sufficient to cover the cost of land and construction.”
“Therefore, dedicated retail space would incur a loss for the project,” Hickey wrote. “Furthermore, dedicated retail, office, or other commercial space would displace proposed residential uses, which would reduce the project’s contribution towards meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation.”
Sounds good to me. And avoiding the stuck-in-the-mud Palo Alto Process for housing development, by using new state housing law (#330), is just another example of Why we have the supremacy of State Law over Local Control.
-The most local of Local Control / complete libertarianism / I can do with My Own Property what I want! The State cannot control, limit, or force / The LOCALS cannot control, limit, or force (opps – does that maybe go Too Far Residentialists?)
Agreed.