Anonymous user
SB827: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
||
Line 8:
== Summary ==
Line 20:
The bill would create the transit-rich housing bous as new California Government Code sub-section 65917.7, thus within Chapter 4.3, "Density Bonuses and Other Incentives." The required purpose of such incentives anywhere in this Chapter is "contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of lower income housing." according to Section 65917.
<blockquote>In enacting this chapter it is the intent of the Legislature that the density bonus or other incentives offered by the city, county, or city and county pursuant to this chapter shall contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of lower income housing in proposed housing developments. In the absence of an agreement by a developer in accordance with Section 65915, a locality shall not offer a density bonus or any other incentive that would undermine the intent of this chapter."</font><br/> ''[http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=65917 - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=65917] =====''</blockquote>
== Background ==
Line 124:
@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."
<br/> In lower-demand places, this could push development *outside* the transit-rich radius
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"
Alex Visotzky @alexvisotzky Jan 4<br/> "I'm worried that what developers do there is move outside that half mile radius to get their projects built and we end up seeing more sprawl, more development AWAY from transit. again, I need to think about this one more. 10/267"<br/>
=== <br/> This would concentrate new housing next to health hazards, since transit-rich locations are usually near high-traffic roads ===
| |||