Anonymous user
SB827: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
||
Line 22:
Richard Hall @rihallix [https://twitter.com/rihallix/status/949786475071094784 3:35 PM - 6 Jan 2018] from San Rafael, CA<br/> Replying to @TaupeAvenger<br/> "The community no longer has a say. #sb827 forces zoning changes by state fiat. With #sb35 passed all voices of resident stakeholders, councils, mayors are forcibly suppressed. Developers take control."
@Hyper_lexic<br/> I think it might go too far in the reach - minimum 45’ zoning on current residential side streets would be a real shock.<br/>
▼
=== Transit could be cut back to circumvent the bill requirements ===
Line 36:
*(@damianISgoodman) on [https://twitter.com/damienISgoodmon/status/949104538870403072 Twitter, 4 Jan 2018]).<br/> "Final word for tonight on @Scott_Wiener's SB 827: Has anyone denied that the bill would lead to massive demolition of housing in low-income 'hoods like South LA? Heck, isn't that exactly what the YIMBYs are applauding? #SB827 #Colonizers #Gentrification
*blog post: "[http://www.crenshawsubway.org/sb_827_must_be_stopped_to_protect_south_la SB 827 Is a Declaration of War on South LA]." ''Crenshaw Subway Coalition ''blog, 5 Jan 2018.
▲
Dragonfly on Deck @IDoTheThinking<br/> "I would just prioritize <br/> 1) Provisions for tenants displaced by larger projects for guarantee return residency. Could maybe exempt this for smaller dwelling conversions, say a duplex into a 2-story apt."
Line 54 ⟶ 58:
@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.”
Dragonfly on Deck @IDoTheThinking<br/> "I would just prioritize <br/> 1) Provisions for tenants displaced by larger projects for guarantee return residency. Could maybe exempt this for smaller dwelling conversions, say a duplex into a 2-story apt."
Line 78 ⟶ 86:
@alon_levy<br/> "The transit agency isn't run by NIMBYs, and 8-story density naturally fills more buses at low subsidy."
=== Chicken-and-egg problem of development requiring transit service and vice versa ===
@derivativeburke<br/> "you might have a chicken and egg problem where a high density development can’t be approved until the bus/train line goes there but the bus line shouldn’t run empty for years."
removing parking requirements will be infeasible or unacceptable
Line 120 ⟶ 134:
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."
=== Doesn't address [[CEQA]] (California Environmental Quality Act) ===
@Hyper_lexic<br/> on the flip side I don’t think it addresses CEQA
=== How might this interact with, override or be blocked by historic designations? ===
@DanKeshet<br/> "How will this interact with historic zoning? If it trumps it, will we see demos of truly historic places? If not, will cities just landmark everything?"
| |||