|
|
|
|
|
|
by foolfoolz
3083 days ago
|
|
|
SB 827 creates density and height zoning minimums near transit.
Under SB 827, parcels within a half-mile of high-connectivity transit
hub — like BART, Muni, Caltrain, and LA Metro stations — will
be required to have no density maximums (such as single family
home mandates), no parking minimums, and a minimum height limit
of between 45 and 85 feet, depending on various factors, such
as whether the parcel is on a larger corridor and whether it is
immediately adjacent to the station. A local ordinance can increase
that height but not go below it. SB 827 allows for many more
smaller apartment buildings, described as the “missing middle”
between high-rise steel construction and single family homes.
I think this is overstepping a lot and I hope it fails. Muni is very much within san francisco where there is high density housing, but does this mean all stops? There's a million muni stops and some of them are in areas that don't need such high density. BART can travel very far outside the city to less dense areas. Some caltrain stations are very suburban. This says all parcels within half mile of those station need to be higher density, that is a LOT of homes. You are telling those people who live there that they can never rebuild? If they want to rebuild their house they need to make it into an apartment complex? Is their parcel even big enough for that?There's hundreds and hundreds of 5,000sqft lots within a half mile of caltrain. Your house burns down in a fire, you cant build it back? A 45 foot house would be at least 3 stories. It's one thing to say we need more dense homes in this area. But if the area was designed and laid our for single family homes with small single family lots, how is putting a 3 story house on those small lots going to help? It's also saying there's no minimum parking requirements. Not that you could really get any underground parking on some of these lots but street parking is going to be trashed as well? It's the suburbs! You do need a car out there! Caltrain/Bart is not the only form of transportation you use! This seems really shortsighted and ignores the problem that each city and community is a little different. Some cities along the Bart/Caltrain lines could handle this. Others could not. A top down approach saying everything is the same and must follow these rules is not going to work |
|
|
Is it possible you have misparsed "minimum height limit" as a set of minimum requirements on height? I believe it refers to a minimum on height limits, saying that lots cannot be zoned to be one-story-only. Your hypothetical family will be able to rebuild under this.
> This seems really shortsighted and ignores the problem that each city and community is a little different. Some cities along the Bart/Caltrain lines could handle this. Others could not. A top down approach saying everything is the same and must follow these rules is not going to work
You're absolutely right right! This is, in a great many ways, very far from an ideal approach. It refuses to offer the kind of flexibility that individual cities and communities could use to best benefit their residents.
The problem is that these cities and communities have taken that liberty and spent decades abusing it. They have, by and large, used their rights to decide that the appropriate amount of development for them is little to none. This legislation has the feel of a response to those abuses.