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.

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.

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.

@davidbaron will answer this better than I will.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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).