Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Element topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission studies alternative housing program; members press staff on feasibility, RHNA counts and transit
Summary
At its April 8 meeting, the Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission heard staff introduce Housing Element Program 6.5 — a plan to enable microunits, co‑living and intergenerational models. Commissioners said financing, parking and local transit — not zoning alone — are the primary barriers and asked staff for targeted maps and next steps.
Sam Krishnan, the city planner leading the Housing Element Program 6.5 presentation, told the Planning & Transportation Commission on April 8 that the initiative aims to broaden the range of housing types the city will permit. “Program 6.5 focuses on enabling more innovative housing types, particularly microunits, shared housing, and intergenerational models,” Krishnan said, describing examples and state rules that affect whether alternative forms count toward the city’s regional housing goals.
Commissioners responded with practical concerns. Vice Chair Chang said zoning changes alone would not make projects pencil out in Palo Alto and urged staff to prioritize financial feasibility and transportation access. “This struck me as not so much a regulatory and local buy‑in problem as much as an economics and transportation problem,” she said. Commissioner G and others flagged that microunits have succeeded where high transit access and a dense market exist, but that “we’re not comparing apples to apples” with Berkeley and San Francisco examples.
Staff briefed the commission on three prototype approaches: urban microunits with shared amenities and low or no parking; suburban co‑housing with private homes clustered around shared facilities; and programmatic, intergenerational housing paired with services. Krishnan explained how HCD (the state Department of Housing and Community Development) currently treats shared and group quarter configurations for RHNA counting and said the state is considering changes that could alter unit counts going forward.
Commissioners asked the project team to return with more precise materials. Requests included a map showing the small area identified in the housing element as an overcrowding hotspot (properties between Highway 101 and the East Palo Alto border), clearer breakdowns of the ACS cost‑burden numbers staff cited, and a targeted analysis of which alternative housing prototypes are most likely to be feasible in Palo Alto’s market. Greg, the consultant from Placeworks who helped prepare examples, said the team had found developer interest in some co‑housing prototypes, but that microunits require a high degree of density to be financially viable.
Several commissioners suggested pilot approaches tied to transit‑adjacent locations. Commissioner Hecman and others pointed to the Caltrain/California Avenue TOD as a logical place to relax parking and open‑space requirements for microunits, while multiple members suggested exploring senior and intergenerational models as likely near‑term opportunities. Commissioners also recommended folding Program 6.5 work into the SB79 ad hoc planning effort so the city can coordinate transit‑oriented zoning changes.
Next steps: staff will develop targeted zoning approaches and maps based on the feedback, including potential code definitions and standards for the different prototypes, and return to the commission with draft regulatory options and financial feasibility inputs later in the process. The commission requested the team bring a map of overcrowding hotspots and clearer RHNA‑count examples at the next briefing.
