earlier replies
Changes last year were in the right direction, but Palo Alto can and should do more to promote transit-oriented housing. We have the worst jobs-housing imbalance and the highest housing costs. Palo Alto's policy and process failures harm people throughout northern California.
1
1
If you can't make it to Palo Alto City Hall on Monday night, please email city.council@cityofpaloalto.org with personal stories about how housing crisis impacts your life. Conjoined housing and climate crises require bold and urgent action. Palo Alto needs to do better.
1
1
If you're coming, here is some light reading to prep you for the public hearing. cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/f… Full meeting agenda here: cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/f… Housing item is #7. A couple thoughts.
1
1
Zoning changes are movement in the right direction and aren't a sufficient response to the crises we face. Palo Alto needs bolder actions like: legalizing apartments citywide, unbundling the cost of parking spots from the cost of housing, increasing height limits, increasing FAR.
1
2
Although we appreciate the sentiment around trying maximum unit size (incentivizing small units), we do not want policies that discourage construction of 3-4 bedroom apartments for families. Instead, we should be legalizing our 1920's buildings. Bigger, taller, less/no parking.
1
6
@davidbaron will answer this better than I will.
1
I think the most constraining factor in Palo Alto's multifamily and mixed-use zones is generally FAR. The building envelope limits don't matter much, and the FAR increases in this package could be important. [1/N]
1
1
The units/acre number does matter a bit, to discourage buildings w/ lots of tiny units (such as Wilton Court, paloaltoonline.com/news/2019… ). Lifting it makes small units more plausible in downtown / cal ave / ECR (but not RM districts). Not sure if the market will build that in PA.

First affordable-housing project in seven years wins approval

On Monday night, the Palo Alto City Council approved the city's first development for low-income residents in more than seven years.

paloaltoonline.com
1
1
It's not clear (and I think many are pessimistic) whether the changes for downtown and cal ave mixed use areas are significant enough to encourage development of residential rather than commercial in those areas. Parking still makes that hard, & FAR still way less than I'd want.
1
1
Replying to @davidbaron @PaloAltoYimby @graue
My guess would be that the most significant change in this package will be to encourage substantially more and larger development along El Camino. I haven't actually vetted that guess by asking developers what they think, though.

Jan 28, 2019 · 4:47 PM UTC

2
1
Replying to @davidbaron @graue
Talked to some planners who explained that ECR parcels are challenging because they are small/skinny and have retail preservation.
Replying to @davidbaron @PaloAltoYimby @graue
I wish it were offering bigger changes for downtown and cal ave, i.e., more height, a lot more FAR, and avoiding the requirements that force underground parking (esp. for small buildings).
1
1
But I think it's largely progress -- modulo the risk that it pushes more development to ECR which is more car-dependent than the downtown area. (Not unlike Mountain View and Los Altos...)
1