5 ms·

It isn’t a mandate to increase density. The proposed law removes limits. It doesn’t mandate anything. Existing limits are preventing market forces from working.

It isn’t a mandate to increase density. The proposed law removes limits. It doesn’t mandate anything. Existing limits are preventing market forces from working. In Berkeley there is a subway station surrounded by a five-acre parking lot. The owner of the parking list wishes to build there, but the city refuses to rezone the land, which is presently “U - Unclassified”. This law would remove Berkeley’s authority in the matter. In San Francisco 71% of the land is zoned for detached single family homes, despite virtually all of that city being within half a mile of a rail or light rail station. This bill would raise all of those limits.

logfromblammo 9y ago
A very common limit around the entire US is the municipality-wide building height restriction. Basically, the city outlaws any building taller than 40' above grade at its highest point. Between that, and minimum setbacks from the frontage line and other property lines, 90% of the work to prevent densification is already done. Once a building plan has grown to completely fill its legal envelope, there's nowhere else to go but down, and that becomes prohibitively expensive fast. The remaining 10% can be handled by mandating a minimum square footage per residential unit that is slightly more than half the theoretical maximum from a building at maximum height and minimum height on the mean lot size for that zone. Then no amount of building up or out can allow you to squeeze another unit onto your property. You have to resort to tricks like lowering ceiling heights. If you enact a law at the state level that triggers automatic lessening of restrictions on building heights or setbacks every time a municipality fails to grow enough housing, zoning boards will be a lot more tractable when a developer wants to build.
- ebikelaw 9y ago
  That's what SB827 does. If a property is within the given radius from a transit station or a high-frequency bus line, minimum height limits are imposed (between 45 and 85 feet, depending on other factors) and all design controls (parking requirements, floor area ratio, setbacks, bulk) are rendered ineffective.
  - ISL 9y ago
    Wow -- from afar, that's a great way to inspire local residents in bedroom communities to fight public transit.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      Which is exactly why it should apply uniformly to the whole municipality. It's the same mentality that uses the "within X' of a school" that elides over the fact that a sufficiently large X will cover everything in the jurisdiction. The PLSS grid system put a school at every other corner, so there was a school every 2 miles, and no child would have to walk more than 1.414 miles to reach one. So if you had defined a zone "within 7500' of a school" that would have been a synonym for "everywhere" that bakes in "think of the children" to your legislation. "Within X' of a public transit station" instead bakes in "think of the hordes of poor people".
    - 0xB31B1B 9y ago
      I volunteer in the SFBA for housing and transit advocacy. A loud minority of people already fight transit and successfully prevent it or water it down. The type of people who fight transit also fight housing. There isn’t really much headway for their coalitions to grow because they’re selfish old boomers who want to pull up the ladder, it’s not an message that inspires solidarity.
  - Vi0 9y ago
    Where in https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB827 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... does it say that? 65917.7.b.4.A and B both impose minimums on the maximum height limit that can be imposed. They do not impose a minimum on the height itself. This bill allows for building higher, it does not force it.
    - ebikelaw 9y ago
      I said “minimum height limits” read (minimum)(height limits) i.e. the height limits may not be lower.
phkahler 9y ago
>> It isn’t a mandate to increase density. The proposed law removes limits. It doesn’t mandate anything. When I read the article I got the impression it was a mandate to increase the number of homes. They talk about targets and rolling over targets into the next 8 years. That seems different than just saying to change zoning and approve more projects that are already desired.

logfromblammo 9y ago

A very common limit around the entire US is the municipality-wide building height restriction. Basically, the city outlaws any building taller than 40' above grade at its highest point. Between that, and minimum setbacks from the frontage line and other property lines, 90% of the work to prevent densification is already done. Once a building plan has grown to completely fill its legal envelope, there's nowhere else to go but down, and that becomes prohibitively expensive fast. The remaining 10% can be handled by mandating a minimum square footage per residential unit that is slightly more than half the theoretical maximum from a building at maximum height and minimum height on the mean lot size for that zone. Then no amount of building up or out can allow you to squeeze another unit onto your property. You have to resort to tricks like lowering ceiling heights. If you enact a law at the state level that triggers automatic lessening of restrictions on building heights or setbacks every time a municipality fails to grow enough housing, zoning boards will be a lot more tractable when a developer wants to build.

ebikelaw 9y ago
That's what SB827 does. If a property is within the given radius from a transit station or a high-frequency bus line, minimum height limits are imposed (between 45 and 85 feet, depending on other factors) and all design controls (parking requirements, floor area ratio, setbacks, bulk) are rendered ineffective.
- ISL 9y ago
  Wow -- from afar, that's a great way to inspire local residents in bedroom communities to fight public transit.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    Which is exactly why it should apply uniformly to the whole municipality. It's the same mentality that uses the "within X' of a school" that elides over the fact that a sufficiently large X will cover everything in the jurisdiction. The PLSS grid system put a school at every other corner, so there was a school every 2 miles, and no child would have to walk more than 1.414 miles to reach one. So if you had defined a zone "within 7500' of a school" that would have been a synonym for "everywhere" that bakes in "think of the children" to your legislation. "Within X' of a public transit station" instead bakes in "think of the hordes of poor people".
  - 0xB31B1B 9y ago
    I volunteer in the SFBA for housing and transit advocacy. A loud minority of people already fight transit and successfully prevent it or water it down. The type of people who fight transit also fight housing. There isn’t really much headway for their coalitions to grow because they’re selfish old boomers who want to pull up the ladder, it’s not an message that inspires solidarity.
- Vi0 9y ago
  Where in https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB827 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... does it say that? 65917.7.b.4.A and B both impose minimums on the maximum height limit that can be imposed. They do not impose a minimum on the height itself. This bill allows for building higher, it does not force it.
  - ebikelaw 9y ago
    I said “minimum height limits” read (minimum)(height limits) i.e. the height limits may not be lower.

phkahler 9y ago

>> It isn’t a mandate to increase density. The proposed law removes limits. It doesn’t mandate anything. When I read the article I got the impression it was a mandate to increase the number of homes. They talk about targets and rolling over targets into the next 8 years. That seems different than just saying to change zoning and approve more projects that are already desired.