Anonymous user
SB827: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
||
Line 48:
<blockquote>''"California could add more than five million new housing units in “housing hot spots”—which is more than enough to close the state’s housing gap. In aggregate, '''there is capacity to build as many as''' '''225,000 housing units on vacant urban land that is already zoned for multifamily housing; 1.2 million to three million housing units within a half mile of major transit hubs'''; nearly 800,000 units by allowing homeowners to add units to their homes; nearly one million units on land zoned for multifamily development but underutilized; and more than 600,000 affordable single-family units on “adjacent” land currently dedicated to non-residential uses."''</blockquote>
== Concerns ==
Line 134 ⟶ 135:
=== Does, could, or would this lead to
=== see David Edmondson. “[ttp://www.thegreatermarin.org/blog/2018/1/8/what-transit-oriented-development-should-look-like What transit-oriented development should look like.]” ''The Greater Marin'' blog, 8 January 2018. ===
=== ===
@DanKeshet<br/> “Common concern that it might not apply to commercially-zoned property, allowing cities to zone those low-rise. (Why not apply the same rules to commercial properties?) Related: if developers can overrule commercial zoning, will it allow mixed use?”▼
▲=== @DanKeshet 8 Jan 2018<br/> “Common concern that it might not apply to commercially-zoned property, allowing cities to zone those low-rise. (Why not apply the same rules to commercial properties?) Related: if developers can overrule commercial zoning, will it allow mixed use?” ===
@brezina<br/> "I worry about demolition of really good stuff we don’t build anymore like single urban lot 3-4 story mixed use (ground floor 12 foot ceiling commercial and apartments above). But I also think the market values these enough not to tear them down."<br/> ▼
▲@brezina 6 Jan 2018<br/> "I worry about demolition of really good stuff we don’t build anymore like single urban lot 3-4 story mixed use (ground floor 12 foot ceiling commercial and apartments above). But I also think the market values these enough not to tear them down."<br/>
@fromira<br/> "Also it seems like it doesn’t really allow for mixed use?"▼
▲@fromira 6 Jan 2018<br/> "Also it seems like it doesn’t really allow for mixed use?"
<br/> @peterpedroson<br/> "Seems like it allows it but doesn't require it, which in most high market areas essentially means just housing."▼
▲<br/> @peterpedroson 6 Jan 2018<br/> "Seems like it allows it but doesn't require it, which in most high market areas essentially means just housing."
@fromira<br/> "Sure, but I think it’s fine for cities to mandate ground floor retail near transit. Transit-oriented coffee is one of the key features of transit."▼
▲@fromira 6 Jan 2018<br/> "Sure, but I think it’s fine for cities to mandate ground floor retail near transit. Transit-oriented coffee is one of the key features of transit."
Alex Visotzky @alexvisotzky Jan 4<br/> "there's a lot of places (in LA City, in LA County, all over the state) where there's transit but the development being proposed is shorter than that 45-85 feet height minimum--not sure the rents & land values will support that kind of density. parking changes will help, yes 9/267"
| |||