When you see something like this (940 and 960 High Street, Palo Alto, CA):
- 8 minutes walk from Palo Alto Caltrain, or from University Avenue in the center of downtown
- zoned for 35 foot high residential construction (RT-35)
- in a location that has had high rents for years
1/3
3
4
1
25
Then I think it's clear the city is placing obstacles in the way of construction of housing.
Maybe it's the zoning (RT-35, part of the SOFA II plan) which, while it says it's for 35-foot residential or mixed use, doesn't really allow what you'd think that means.
2/4
1
2
8
This restrictive zoning includes the floor area ratio (FAR) limit of either 1.15:1 or 1.3:1 (!!!!), the setbacks (15 feet front and sides, 10 feet rear), and the parking requirements (1 space per 1 bedroom or smaller unit, 2 spaces per 2 bedroom or larger unit).
3/4
1
1
9
Or maybe it's the amount of process that @cityofpaloalto puts in the way of any construction that isn't a single family home or a zoning-conformant office building or other business.
4/4
1
1
7
In late 2003 (I think, the date on the final SOFA II report is December 2003), the RT-35 zone was created, with 55 parcels zoned RT-35.
I just clicked on all 55 of them in the @cityofpaloalto parcel reports at xmap.cityofpaloalto.org/parc… .
5/6
Dec 25, 2020 · 1:34 AM UTC
1
3
How many of those 55 parcels zoned RT-35 were developed in 2004 or later (by "Year Built SCCA")?
None!
(The 10 parcels zoned RT-50 did a little better; 2 were developed: 101 Forest and 801/809 Alma.)
I'd say this makes it pretty hard to call the SOFA II plan a success.
6/6
1
1
7