The vote followed the council's usual ideological division, with those favoring more city development voting to lower the fees for offices and those favoring slower city growth preferring the fee structure that was approved in December. But with the pro-growth side now enjoying a narrow majority, it was their proposal that carried the day, with Councilman Adrian Fine leading the way.
The biggest change concerns office and research-and-development projects, which currently are assessed an affordable-housing fee of $20.37 square foot. The council in December moved to raise it to $60 per square foot, a decision that was informed by extensive studies by staff and consultants. On Monday night, the council's more growth-friendly wing, which consists of Mayor Greg Scharff, Vice Mayor Liz Kniss, Adrian Fine, Greg Tanaka and Cory Wolbach, reset the new office rate at $35 per square foot.
The council also rolled back a December decision to raise the housing-impact fee for new hotels from $20.37 to $30 per square foot, leaving it at its previous rate.
At the same time, the council raised the fees that would be charged for detached single-family homes from the previously approved level of $50 to $75 per square foot. For condominiums and attached single-family homes, the fee would be $50 per square foot, the same level that was adopted in December.
The council's change of course on affordable-housing fees was made possible by the vagaries of its calendar. When the council approves an ordinance, it typically has to formally adopt it at a subsequent meeting on what is called a "second reading." Though the second reading is usually a formality, in this case it occurred in January, shortly after the new council was sworn in. Led by Fine and Tanaka, who was also elected in November, the council then moved to reopen the issue and take fresh votes, effectively nullifying the December ordinance before it ever had a chance to kick in.
Fine, who reviewed the ordinance last year as a member of the Planning and Transportation Commission, said he and others were worried that the city was moving too quickly on the fees and that it hasn't "reached the sweet spot" for encouraging fees without discouraging development.
"We don't want to use fees to punish development or halt office growth," Fine said, making a pitch for lowering the approved office impact fee to $35 per square foot.
While Fine crafted the bulk of the new motion, Scharff made a few significant contributions, including raising fees for single-family homes to $75 per square foot. He also noted that a $60 office fee is far higher than in any neighboring jurisdiction and called it "outrageous."
"I actually think the notion that we should make policy and incentivize not having office through a fee structure and not zoning is inappropriate," Scharff said. "What you want to do is be judicious and not move in a radical way. Going from $20 to $60 is a radical and not judicious movement in my view."
The four dissenting voters — Tom DuBois, Eric Filseth, Karen Holman and Lydia Kou — all supported sticking with the December changes. Once Kou's motion to do that failed, they made several other tries to adjust the fee schedule, with each attempt failing by the same 5-4 vote.
DuBois, in supporting the fees approved in December, argued that properties developed in Palo Alto bring in a greater return on investment than in other cities. The city, he said, is facing the consequences of all these developments, and the higher fees will create opportunities for more affordable housing, an amenity that every council member agrees is sorely needed.
"I don't think the council should be focused on serving developers," DuBois said. "We should be serving voters; we should be trying to get affordable housing."
Holman made a proposal to raise fees for office developments to $50 per square foot, but that, too, faltered by the 4-5 tally.
The slow-growth camp all took issue with making fees for detached single-family homes twice as high as for office developments. Filseth, Holman and Kou all agreed with DuBois that this sends the wrong message, with Kou calling Fine's proposal "disingenuous."
While unusual, the decision to reverse an already approved decision wasn't particularly surprising in this case. Scharff, Kniss and Wolbach had all voted against the December ordinance, and Tanaka and Fine — their political allies during the November election — had each expressed concerns about it as members of the Planning and Transportation Commission.
For DuBois, Holman and Filseth, all of whom had voted in December on the new fees, the Monday vote was a disappointing reversal. Filseth called the new schedule worse than the one that was on the books before the December vote (and which — because of the lack of a second reading — is still on the books). Holman was blunt in her assessment.
"I think this really is a step backward," she said.
This story contains 891 words.
Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.
If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.