East Palo Alto Council approves Sandhill's 4-Corners projects over planning commission denial

The East Palo Alto City Council on March 4 approved two housing projects at 1675 Bay Road after an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial.

The developments, submitted by Sandhill Property Company, would split the roughly 6.03-acre site into a 4.61-acre townhome parcel and a 1.45-acre mixed-use parcel. Mike Kramer, Sandhill's representative, said the townhome plan includes 106 for-sale units with 11 below-market-rate homes and two on-site garage spaces per unit; the mixed-use building would add 168 rental apartments with 25 below-market-rate units and roughly 5,500 square feet of ground-floor retail. Kramer said the projects would be all-electric, include substantial new landscaping and pedestrian connections to nearby Jack Farrell Park, and would pay about $8 million in development-impact and infrastructure fees to the city and local agencies.

"We have been working on this property for seven years," Kramer told the council, describing outreach that led the team to increase retail and spread affordable units among market-rate units.

Applicant counsel Corey Calfee framed the council's decision as constrained by state housing law and the Housing Accountability Act. "When a housing development project is compliant with all applicable objective standards ... the City generally cannot deny the project," Calfee said, urging approval to avoid litigation and to bring housing online.

Public reaction was mixed. Several residents and business representatives urged approval, citing the long-vacant lot, potential jobs and tax revenue, and added housing supply. Labor representatives pressed the developer to commit to union contractors and apprenticeship opportunities. Other speakers criticized the amount of affordable housing and said alternative compliance had reduced inclusionary requirements; a number of commenters also flagged property maintenance concerns at other Sandhill-owned properties and asked for stronger labor and affordability guarantees.

Council deliberations focused on three threads: (1) whether the projects meet the city's objective development standards when modified under state density-bonus law; (2) whether the reduced retail footprint and alternative-affordability compliance shortchange the community; and (3) legal exposure if the city denied projects that meet objective standards. Staff and the city attorney repeatedly pointed to state statutes (SB 330, AB 130, the Housing Accountability Act and state density-bonus law) that limit local discretion for qualifying housing projects.

A motion to adopt a resolution approving the mixed-use project passed on a roll-call vote of 4 to 1, with Councilmember Romero opposing. The separate motion to approve the townhome project passed by the same margin.

Councilmember A (motion sponsor) said approving the projects reluctantly reflected the legal reality and the need to bring housing and revenue to the city. Councilmember B (dissenting) said the result "strips away community benefits" and vowed to press for stronger local-hire commitments and additional commercial square footage in future projects.

What happens next: Staff will finalize the design-review resolutions and permit conditions adopted by the council. The approvals include design review, a tentative map for the townhomes, and tree-removal permits; staff and the applicant will return with implementation details and any monitoring commitments discussed during the hearing.

Vote at a glance: Mixed-use project — approved (4 yes, 1 no); Townhome project — approved (4 yes, 1 no).