Anonymous user
SB827: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
||
Line 42:
=== Windfall for property owners, without any value capture or inclusionary requirements ===
Shane Phillips @shanedphillips<br/> “By far the biggest [concern] I've heard, and it's something I agree with, is the lack of any inclusionary requirements. This is a significant upzone for most areas, and a windfall for current owners. Should be relatively easy to require 10-15% affordable.
My assumption is that this was a negotiating tactic to let advocates bring this in later in the process, but I feel like it's created some bad blood from the outset.
For a concrete example, LA has new Transit-Oriented Communities guidelines for basically the same areas as SB 827, and this would theoretically overwrite those without adding significant density, but would eliminate the existing (and IMO reasonable) affordability requirements."
<br/> Stable Genius With Good Brain @ebarcuzzi:<br/> "Yeah, I think that's very necessary and is intentionally being left out as a bargaining chip. Which is smart."
@shanedphillips<br/> “I thought that at first, but I'm starting to think that it's such a large and obvious oversight that it's pissing a lot of people off (not me, to be clear). I don't want it to poison the well before the bill can even start to gain momentum.”
Line 74 ⟶ 86:
"Basically, if they're not attempting to manage on street demand through permit pricing, then they shouldn't be complaining about zeroing out parking requirements, imo."
Adina Levin @alevin<br/> “the challenge several years ago with some of the walkability conditions is that banks wouldn't finance mixed-use or less parking; presumably legal requirements helped loosen bank financing (?). dunno if still needed for that reason."
=== Does, could, or would this lead to wanted mixed-use development? ["Transit Oriented Coffee"] ===
@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?”
@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/>
@fromira<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."
@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."
Line 90 ⟶ 114:
from @BelmontRenters (Kevin Burke).
=== Area affected is very sensitive to where distance radius is centered ===
Eric Fischer @enf<br/> "By talking about fractions of parcels it is very sensitive to exactly where the radius around each transit stop is considered to be centered."
| |||