Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council accepts 4 Corners townhome alternative compliance for 106 townhomes; staff recommended denial
Summary
A separate hearing on a 106‑unit 4 Corners townhome project ended with council approval of an alternative‑compliance plan (11 units deed‑restricted at 120% AMI), despite staff finding the proposal offers a 35% loss in public benefit compared with ordinance requirements. Council substituted a motion and approved the item; staff will proceed with standard inclusionary processing if the alternative is finalized.
HEART staff presented a townhome application for the 4 Corners site — a 106‑unit for‑sale townhome proposal — and said the applicant was requesting an alternative compliance plan that would provide 11 affordable units at 120% AMI instead of the ordinance’s higher number and affordability depth. Staff calculated the applicant’s alternative would produce a roughly 35% loss in public benefit compared with what the ordinance’s alternative compliance would require and recommended denial.
Mike Kramer for Sandhill reiterated feasibility concerns, citing a consultant report and the developer’s experience that strict ordinance levels make for‑sale product infeasible. Kramer argued the townhomes would provide homeownership opportunities for moderate‑income families in East Palo Alto and, combined with the mixed‑use project, contribute to the city’s fiscal base.
Public comment again split: neighborhood advocates pushed to preserve deeper affordability and protect existing residents; business and infrastructure advocates and some residents urged development to improve safety, sidewalks and retail. After debate and a substitute motion to accept the alternative compliance option as drafted by the city attorney, the council voted to approve the townhome alternative. Staff said it will proceed with inclusionary agreements, impact analysis and the entitlement process, and council asked for clarity on sales price assumptions and the distribution of unit sizes for the deed‑restricted homes.
