Sid Kapur
@sid-kap.bsky.social
ML engineer, interested in housing/transit/history/econ
📍Greater Boerum Hill Historic District, USA
📍Greater Boerum Hill Historic District, USA
SB 35 doesn't let you ignore the city's inclusionary rate
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_...
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_...
September 29, 2025 at 4:45 AM
SB 35 doesn't let you ignore the city's inclusionary rate
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_...
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_...
Rise and Fall of American Growth, p. 114 has this chart
September 27, 2025 at 5:35 AM
Rise and Fall of American Growth, p. 114 has this chart
My read is that either you meet 50% of SB 79 capacity throughout the city, and then all low-income sites are exempt, or you meet 40% of SB 79 capacity near a majority low-resource stop, and then other sites around that stop are exempt
(the word "low resource" is not used anywhere else in the bill)
(the word "low resource" is not used anywhere else in the bill)
September 24, 2025 at 9:07 PM
My read is that either you meet 50% of SB 79 capacity throughout the city, and then all low-income sites are exempt, or you meet 40% of SB 79 capacity near a majority low-resource stop, and then other sites around that stop are exempt
(the word "low resource" is not used anywhere else in the bill)
(the word "low resource" is not used anywhere else in the bill)
This is what I get if I do that, does this look right?
It's pretty similar to the HUD numbers for the Bay Area but much lower for LA, San Diego, and Sacramento
It's pretty similar to the HUD numbers for the Bay Area but much lower for LA, San Diego, and Sacramento
September 13, 2025 at 4:07 AM
This is what I get if I do that, does this look right?
It's pretty similar to the HUD numbers for the Bay Area but much lower for LA, San Diego, and Sacramento
It's pretty similar to the HUD numbers for the Bay Area but much lower for LA, San Diego, and Sacramento
Oh wow, these are even higher!
(Using the low-income row for each county * 0.3/12 from www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/defaul...)
(Using the low-income row for each county * 0.3/12 from www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/defaul...)
September 13, 2025 at 3:42 AM
Oh wow, these are even higher!
(Using the low-income row for each county * 0.3/12 from www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/defaul...)
(Using the low-income row for each county * 0.3/12 from www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/defaul...)
Trying to understand how expensive providing low-income IZ units is in California under SDBL/SB79.
If I did the math right (HUD low-income limit * 0.6/0.8*0.3/12, since HUD low-income limit is 80% of AMI but California low-income per HSC 50053 is 60% of AMI), this doesn't seem very onerous?
If I did the math right (HUD low-income limit * 0.6/0.8*0.3/12, since HUD low-income limit is 80% of AMI but California low-income per HSC 50053 is 60% of AMI), this doesn't seem very onerous?
September 13, 2025 at 1:16 AM
Trying to understand how expensive providing low-income IZ units is in California under SDBL/SB79.
If I did the math right (HUD low-income limit * 0.6/0.8*0.3/12, since HUD low-income limit is 80% of AMI but California low-income per HSC 50053 is 60% of AMI), this doesn't seem very onerous?
If I did the math right (HUD low-income limit * 0.6/0.8*0.3/12, since HUD low-income limit is 80% of AMI but California low-income per HSC 50053 is 60% of AMI), this doesn't seem very onerous?
All trips vs commute trips
www.researchgate.net/figure/Share...
www.researchgate.net/figure/Share...
September 2, 2025 at 1:41 AM
All trips vs commute trips
www.researchgate.net/figure/Share...
www.researchgate.net/figure/Share...
Ah, you're right about the height! But I think density and FAR should now be uncapped in all residential zones. So you should be able to build midrise up to 45' everywhere in Austin
August 29, 2025 at 2:40 AM
Ah, you're right about the height! But I think density and FAR should now be uncapped in all residential zones. So you should be able to build midrise up to 45' everywhere in Austin
Yeah the minimum unit size is a little weird
August 27, 2025 at 7:18 PM
Yeah the minimum unit size is a little weird
Here are the commercial areas where residential is newly allowed.
Height limit will be 45 ft in light blue areas, and either 20 stories/325 ft or unlimited (matching the existing height limit) in blue areas
content.civicplus.com/api/assets/1...
Height limit will be 45 ft in light blue areas, and either 20 stories/325 ft or unlimited (matching the existing height limit) in blue areas
content.civicplus.com/api/assets/1...
August 27, 2025 at 6:28 PM
Here are the commercial areas where residential is newly allowed.
Height limit will be 45 ft in light blue areas, and either 20 stories/325 ft or unlimited (matching the existing height limit) in blue areas
content.civicplus.com/api/assets/1...
Height limit will be 45 ft in light blue areas, and either 20 stories/325 ft or unlimited (matching the existing height limit) in blue areas
content.civicplus.com/api/assets/1...
They also created a new Single-Family Small Lot zone to comply with SB 15:
- 3000 sq ft lot size
- 15 ft front yard, 5 ft side yard, 10 ft year yard
- Max height 3 stories or 45 ft
- Max lot coverage 70%
content.civicplus.com/api/assets/e...
- 3000 sq ft lot size
- 15 ft front yard, 5 ft side yard, 10 ft year yard
- Max height 3 stories or 45 ft
- Max lot coverage 70%
content.civicplus.com/api/assets/e...
August 27, 2025 at 6:20 PM
They also created a new Single-Family Small Lot zone to comply with SB 15:
- 3000 sq ft lot size
- 15 ft front yard, 5 ft side yard, 10 ft year yard
- Max height 3 stories or 45 ft
- Max lot coverage 70%
content.civicplus.com/api/assets/e...
- 3000 sq ft lot size
- 15 ft front yard, 5 ft side yard, 10 ft year yard
- Max height 3 stories or 45 ft
- Max lot coverage 70%
content.civicplus.com/api/assets/e...
5% was considered a low rate in the 70s and 80s...
August 26, 2025 at 2:24 AM
5% was considered a low rate in the 70s and 80s...
I think AB602 only applies to new nexus studies, not existing impact fees, and it explicitly allows "different fees for different types of developments"
(Guessing single-fam/multi-fam are considered different types, type doesn't just mean resi vs comm)
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTe...
(Guessing single-fam/multi-fam are considered different types, type doesn't just mean resi vs comm)
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTe...
August 25, 2025 at 6:15 AM
I think AB602 only applies to new nexus studies, not existing impact fees, and it explicitly allows "different fees for different types of developments"
(Guessing single-fam/multi-fam are considered different types, type doesn't just mean resi vs comm)
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTe...
(Guessing single-fam/multi-fam are considered different types, type doesn't just mean resi vs comm)
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTe...
In contrast these were the 6 yes votes. 3 legislators from the far out parts of LA and the Bay, and 3 from richer parts of SF, Sacramento, and San Diego
July 17, 2025 at 4:07 AM
In contrast these were the 6 yes votes. 3 legislators from the far out parts of LA and the Bay, and 3 from richer parts of SF, Sacramento, and San Diego
These are the districts of the 4/10 members who didn't vote for SB 79 in committee today. 3 of them are from poorer or middle-class parts of LA. The legislators are all nonwhite (Ta, Pacheco, Rubio, Ransom)
bsky.app/profile/mnol...
bsky.app/profile/mnol...
July 17, 2025 at 4:01 AM
These are the districts of the 4/10 members who didn't vote for SB 79 in committee today. 3 of them are from poorer or middle-class parts of LA. The legislators are all nonwhite (Ta, Pacheco, Rubio, Ransom)
bsky.app/profile/mnol...
bsky.app/profile/mnol...
It's a new requirement for CEQA-exempt projects in SB130
14 days for city to send a letter to the tribe, 60 days for the tribe to respond, 14 days from receiving response to start the consultation, 45-60 days to finish the consultation
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTe...
14 days for city to send a letter to the tribe, 60 days for the tribe to respond, 14 days from receiving response to start the consultation, 45-60 days to finish the consultation
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTe...
July 9, 2025 at 4:11 PM
It's a new requirement for CEQA-exempt projects in SB130
14 days for city to send a letter to the tribe, 60 days for the tribe to respond, 14 days from receiving response to start the consultation, 45-60 days to finish the consultation
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTe...
14 days for city to send a letter to the tribe, 60 days for the tribe to respond, 14 days from receiving response to start the consultation, 45-60 days to finish the consultation
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTe...
It does seem like this project already fell under one of the CEQA exemption categories, and the city declared it CEQA-exempt. So I think it actually wouldn't make a difference in this case
July 2, 2025 at 4:40 AM
It does seem like this project already fell under one of the CEQA exemption categories, and the city declared it CEQA-exempt. So I think it actually wouldn't make a difference in this case
I'm getting 1.13 from 2000 to 2024
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanna...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanna...
July 1, 2025 at 4:47 AM
I'm getting 1.13 from 2000 to 2024
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanna...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanna...
I was today years old when I realized this album cover is a reference to suicide
June 18, 2025 at 5:07 AM
I was today years old when I realized this album cover is a reference to suicide
They built a bubble where you could breathe clean air, and almost immediately people started to hotbox it. Amazing
June 16, 2025 at 12:40 AM
They built a bubble where you could breathe clean air, and almost immediately people started to hotbox it. Amazing
They're not expanding it that much
www.pasadenastarnews.com/2025/03/24/a...
www.pasadenastarnews.com/2025/03/24/a...
June 7, 2025 at 4:48 AM
They're not expanding it that much
www.pasadenastarnews.com/2025/03/24/a...
www.pasadenastarnews.com/2025/03/24/a...