My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2017-03-27 Closed and Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
AgdaPkt 2017-03-27 Closed and Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/11/2017 10:57:34 AM
Creation date
3/23/2017 4:24:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
3/27/2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
334
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />33 <br /> <br />SECONDARY UNITS AND URBAN INFILL: A literature Review (12 pp.) <br />By Jake Wegmann and Alison Nemirow (2011) <br />UC Berkeley: IURD <br />Library Call # D44 4.21 S43 2011 <br />This literature review examines the research on both infill development in general, and secondary units in <br />particular, with an eye towards understanding the similarities and differences between infill as it is more <br />traditionally understood – i.e., the development or redevelopment of entire parcels of land in an already urbanized <br />area – and the incremental type of infill that secondary unit development constitutes. <br />YES, BUT WILL THEY LET US BUILD? The Feasibility of Secondary Units in the East Bay (17 pp.) <br />By Alison Nemirow and Karen Chapple (2012) <br />UC Berkeley: IURD <br />Library Call # H44.5 1.1 Y47 2012 <br />This paper begins with a discussion of how to determine the development potential for secondary units, and then <br />provides an overview of how many secondary units can be built in the East Bay of San Francisco Bay Area under <br />current regulations. The next two sections examine key regulatory barriers in detail for the five cities in the study <br />(Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Oakland, and Richmond), looking at lot size, setbacks, parking requirements, and <br />procedural barriers. A sensitivity analysis then determines how many units could be built were the regulations to be <br />relaxed. <br />YES IN MY BACKYARD: Mobilizing the Market for Secondary Units (20 pp.) <br />By Karen Chapple, J. Weigmann, A. Nemirow, and C. Dentel-Post (2011) <br />UC Berkeley: Center for Community Innovation. <br />Library Call # B92 1.1 Y47 2011 <br />This study examines two puzzles that must be solved in order to scale up a secondary unit strategy: first, how can <br />city regulations best enable their construction? And second, what is the market for secondary units? Because <br />parking is such an important issue, we also examine the potential for secondary unit residents to rely on alternative <br />transportation modes, particular car share programs. The study looks at five adjacent cities in the East Bay of the <br />San Francisco Bay Area (Figure 1) -- Oakland, Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, and Richmond -- focusing on the <br />areas within ½ mile of five Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations. <br />Journal Articles and Working Papers: <br />BACKYARD HOMES LA (17 pp.) <br />By Dana Cuff, Tim Higgins, and Per-Johan Dahl, Eds. (2010) <br />Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles. <br />City Lab Project Book. <br />DEVELOPING PRIVATE ACCESSORY DWELLINGS (6 pp.) <br />By William P. Macht. Urbanland online. (June 26, 2015) <br />Library Location: Urbanland 74 (3/4) March/April 2015, pp. 154-161. <br /> <br /> <br />8.B. - Page 83
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.