Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Lot Mergers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Piedmont planners weigh lot‑merger incentives and whether benefits should require affordable units
Summary
At a May 11 study session, consultants and commissioners reviewed incentives to encourage consolidating small commercial lots — including parking reductions, sliding-scale bonuses and joint‑venture requirements — and debated whether incentives should be tied to commitments to affordable housing.
Andrew Hill, the consultant leading Piedmont’s "expanding housing options" initiative, told the Planning Commission on May 11 that the study session’s principal goal was to present options for incentives that could encourage consolidation of small adjacent commercial lots identified in the housing element. "The main focus of the study session tonight is on incentives for lot mergers and consolidation," he said.
Hill walked commissioners through architectural test fits on two clusters of small commercial parcels (on Highland and Grand avenues) and summarized incentives used in other Bay Area cities: expedited permitting, a modest local density bonus, reductions in parking counts, and allowing a greater share of compact parking spaces when multiple lots are merged. He described Oakland’s approach that permits a single project across contiguous parcels under disparate ownership if the owners enter a joint‑venture agreement, and noted sliding‑scale incentives used in Saratoga and Concord to reward consolidation of more lots.
Commissioners sought practical detail and local context. One member asked whether a local density bonus would be meaningful in Piedmont, where the base maximum in zones C and D is already high; Hill said an additional local bonus "may not offer much more of an incentive" here but that parking‑related incentives could be more effective given proximity to transit. He also reported that allowing up to 50% compact parking where three or more lots are merged could yield the equivalent of about a 12.5% reduction in parking demand on the test sites, lowering development cost and creating design flexibility.
Discussion focused on three tradeoffs: whether incentives should be made available only to projects that commit to affordable units; whether sliding scales (larger incentives for consolidating more parcels) are worthwhile given the limited number of eligible lots in parts of Piedmont; and operational pitfalls when multiple owners must agree to sell. Several commissioners said they wanted empirical backing for parking adjustments and asked staff to provide local precedents and data on prior compact‑space approvals.
A late public commenter, identified in the record as Dimitri, raised a public‑safety concern, citing narrow streets in hill areas and saying some jurisdictions favor "more and more on‑site parking" to accommodate emergency vehicles. Hill acknowledged that parking and compact‑space approaches are locally dependent and that compact stalls work better where drivers use smaller vehicles and transit is available.
Why it matters: the housing element commits the city to program actions that address feasibility constraints on small parcels; incentives for lot consolidation could affect the scale and feasibility of infill and mixed‑use projects in central commercial corridors and shape whether future projects include below‑market units.
Next steps: staff and consultants will carry commission feedback to a City Council study session planned next week and return to the commission with refined language, technical backup on parking impacts, and draft ordinance text for any recommended incentives or inclusionary requirements.
