Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer previews 200‑unit mixed‑use plan for 4 Corners site; seeks waivers under SB 330
Summary
Sand Hill Property Company presented a preliminary application for a six‑story, 200‑unit mixed‑use building at 1675 Bay Road that would provide 20% below‑market units but proposes cutting required ground‑floor retail from 35% to about 6% and requests concessions tied to SB 330 vesting.
Sand Hill Property Company presented a preliminary application for a 200‑unit mixed‑use rental building at 1675 Bay Road, the long‑vacant 4 Corners site opposite City Hall. The company’s representative, Mike Kramer, said the proposal includes 200 mixed‑income rental apartments, a 20 percent below‑market‑rate (BMR) component or a City Council‑approved alternative compliance plan, and about 2,400 square feet of ground‑floor retail.
Planning staff framed the hearing as an informational preliminary application under California’s SB 330, which vests zoning standards in place when a complete application was filed. Consultant planner Chris Darkomos told the commission the applicant’s SB 330 submission was complete on 12/02/2024, which allows the project to rely on the 2013 Ravenswood Business District (RBD) specific plan standards. Darkomos also said the project proposes an FAR of 2.5 and a density near 101 units per acre under the density bonus rules.
Commissioners pressed the developer on several design and policy choices. Commissioner Monette asked, “I am looking at the amount of retail space… how do we get from 35 to 6?” The applicant acknowledged the community’s desire for more retail but said market and financing realities make large retail allocation infeasible: “Retail in this location is generally infeasible and must be subsidized by the other use,” Kramer said. He added that prior, denser proposals were not compatible with the updated specific plan and that tax‑credit financing typically requires placing affordable housing on a separate parcel.
Several commissioners and staff discussed concessions the applicant is seeking, including reduced ground‑floor retail, a 36‑foot ground‑floor depth instead of 40 feet, and a smaller rear setback. Darkomos noted that because this is a preliminary application, no formal approvals or appeals are triggered by tonight’s session. The Planning Commission and staff identified the next procedural steps: the applicant will file a formal application and tentative maps, CEQA review is expected to be abbreviated given prior studies of the site, and the item will also go before City Council on April 1.
The applicant said the final financing approach and timing are uncertain but that the townhome project may be more feasible to build first. Darkomos reminded the commission that requests for alternative compliance to the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance would require City Council consideration.
What’s next: staff and the applicant will refine the proposal and return with a formal application and additional community outreach; City Council review is scheduled next.
