|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Palo Alto’s effort to create a housing boom at the city’s southern edge received a boost on May 6, when the City Council approved a condominium complex on a block of San Antonio Road that city leaders believe teems with growth potential.
The 75-unit project at 800 San Antonio Road will occupy an area that has seen an influx of housing applications in recent years. The council had already approved a 102-apartment complex at 788 San Antonio Road and it is reviewing three other projects: a senior-housing project with 22 units and eight-bed nursing at 824 San Antonio Road; a 350-apartment complex proposed for 3997 Fabian Way; and a 198-apartment development that would occupy 762 San Antonio Road.
Of the four projects, the development that Yorke Lee is looking to build at 800 San Antonio Road is the only one that is relying on a “planned home zone,” a tool that allows builders to negotiate with city leaders over exemptions from the zoning code. It is the first project to win approval under the zoning designation since the City Council agreed to revive it in 2020.
The council voted 6-1, with council member Lydia Kou dissenting, to give the project its final green light. In doing so, it followed the unanimous recommendations of the city’s Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission, which reviewed the proposal in March and April, respectively.
The May 6 public hearing reflected, in many ways, the city’s changing attitude on housing. In years past, projects seeking waivers from zoning rules through this process inevitably encountered neighborhood opposition, intense negotiations over the public benefits that the developer would need to provide and, in some cases, litigation. Community outrage over what was formerly known as “planned community” projects prompted the council to suspend the tool in 2013 before reviving it under a new name and brand in 2020 as part of an effort to encourage more housing.
But even though council members and residents largely praised the project, they expressed some misgivings about the city’s general vision — or lack thereof — for the San Antonio corridor. Even though the council plans to add about 2,000 housing units along and around San Antonio, the city has no real plan for adding neighborhood amenities like retail, park space and bike improvements.
Planning staff are now in the process of soliciting a firm to help create a coordinated plan for this largely commercial and industrial area, an effort that is set to kick off this summer. The fact that new housing projects are advancing before the planning has begun has created a quandary of sorts for council members, who found themselves ruling on the application before this planning effort had begun.
Vice Mayor Ed Lauing, who serves on the council’s Housing Committee, noted that the council has a “wish list” for the amenities it wants to see in the San Antonio area but no real master plan. That, he said, is a problem.
“Until we either own all that area or have a master plan developed, that is going to continue to be a risk,” Lauing said. “I actually wake up some nights thinking about that.”
“Because we’re not being able to plan that, we’re being able to kind of take what we can get and try to make it better due to the efforts of staff.”
One area of concern is tree removal. The project at 800 San Antonio would entail removal of 10 trees. The developer would plant seven trees and pay a $15,600 in-lieu fee that would allow planting of 24 additional trees elsewhere in the city. Jean-Paul Renaud, executive director of the tree-planting nonprofit group Canopy, noted that south Palo Alto already has a tree shortage and urged the council not to further exacerbate the problem.
While Palo Alto has citywide canopy coverage of 37%, in south Palo Alto, the number is 21% and is “heading in the wrong direction,” Renaud said.
“If Palo Alto is to meet its (sustainability) goal of 40% canopy coverage by 2030, this area of the city should be of particular importance to us all,” Renaud said. “Especially if this is the beginning of a long-term strategy for this corridor.”
Penny Ellson, a bike advocate who lives close to San Antonio, urged the council to also consider the transportation needs of San Antonio’s future residents, particularly those who wish to cycle. While the project will include a bike room with direct access to the street and the building’s main lobby, Ellson suggested that this amenity won’t be particularly meaningful if San Antonio remains as dangerous for cyclists as it is today.
“Bicycle parking cannot be considered sufficient facilities to encourage and support bicycling as the Comprehensive Plan requires if the owner of the parked bike can’t leave the premises safely due to the dangerously poor infrastructure on the street,” Ellson said.
Planning Director Jonathan Lait said both of these issues will be addressed in the coming months as the city puts together a long-term strategy for the San Antonio corridor.
“We’re moving quickly to address those issues, especially the canopy,” Lait said.
As part of its approval, the council added a condition requiring the developer to dedicate a public easement for future transportation improvements within 120 days of a request by the city. Kou, who supported such an easement, nevertheless voted against the project and decried the lack of broader planning for the area around the project site.
Mayor Greer Stone also acknowledged that the project isn’t perfect but, like most of his colleagues, he concluded that the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. He lauded the developer’s decision to include as part of the project 15 below-market-rate units. Six would be dedicated for residents in the “very low” income category; five for those in the “low” category; and four for those in the “moderate” category.
“Overall, I think this is a really good project and I’m excited to see it move forward,” Stone said.
Glad to hear that ‘thinking’ in our northern neighbor is starting to turn more ‘urban’ and less The Farm. Better ‘thinking’ than just kneejerking “NO!”
There are many urban issues (parks and transportation) that obviously have to be worked on. IMO: Those should not delay residential construction in PA, anymore than in MV.