City explores exceeding height cap for housing
The City Council on Monday flirted with the idea of increasing certain height limits and loosening parking restrictions in an effort to spark housing construction.
The suggestions were made last week during a discussion of a plan approved last year to encourage the creation of up to 4,500 new housing units through 2030 to deal with a growing jobs/ housing gap.
Among other suggestions, the council directed staff to explore the feasibility of requiring that up to 25 percent of units in new housing developments be built below market where the city allows its 50-foot height limit to be exceeded. It also asked staff to look into eliminating some parking requirements or allowing developers to provide spaces off-site.
Noting that San Jose may require 40 percent of new housing units to be offered below market, two council members suggested Palo Alto consider going up to 30 percent.
But others said that could scare off developers or lead to projects that residents will consider too dense.
The council instead ended up voting 6-3 to increase the requirement for below-market housing from 20 percent to 25 percent, with Vice Mayor Eric Filseth and councilmen Greg Scharff and Adrian Fine dissenting.
Fine said any projects with more than 25 percent below-market units would “throw our height limit out the window” and Scharff said exploring projects higher than 50 feet “seems like a complete waste of time.”
Mayor Liz Kniss suggested going above 20 percent would necessitate breaking the height limit.
“I don’t think we’re ready to go through the 50-foot limit or get rid of parking,” she said.
The council also voted 6-3 to remove an item from the work plan that would have allowed redeveloping city-owned parking lots into housing units. The vote was 6-3 to eliminate the item, with Kniss, Wolbach and Fine opposed.
Filseth and Councilwoman Karen Holman argued that the city shouldn’t give up public land for housing, even if it is leased out.
Scharff pointed out that if the city didn’t allow its lots to be redeveloped, the new public safety building project wouldn’t be advancing.
“We can’t buy land, we can’t afford it,” Scharff said. “Self-driving cars may be coming and we will turn parking lots into parks.”
Added Wolbach, “I can’t think of a better use of a parking lot than keeping parking and putting housing on top.”
An attempt to add the issue of RV dwellers to the housing plan failed on a 6-3 vote, with Lydia Kou, Holman and Councilman Tom DuBois in favor.
Kou suggested exploring the creation of an RV park with a bathroom and suggested the water treatment plant in the baylands as a potential site.
“When we talk about the housing crisis, people without homes are the biggest thing,” De Bois said. “This definitely should be in our housing plan, some beef around what we’re going to do with the homeless community.”
Fine said the council should explore that as a separate action.
“I don’t think we’ve scoped the problems with RV dwellers now,” Fine said. “This is a policy choice and I don’t support putting it in the plan.”