Also, "If true, this is a pretty minor change from R1 zoning."
Totally wrong. Even if you were increasing population density 1 to 1 (substantially more so with each unit) that is a 2X, 3X, and 4X increase in population density alone.
You've been a member here since 2016, but have very low karma and this seems to be among the only threads you've ever commented on, IE: this seems to be an issue that really matters to you. Can you share more info about your background and apparent passion for this topic?
FWIW: My little rural community is one of the first in our state to pass these kind of residential density changes. It's been good for us, but I definitely see where it has been jarring in more urban areas and hasn't really had the intended impact in either type of city.
California is no longer facing a housing shortage. It has immense urban space unfilled(double digit vacancy of commercial real estate), a second collapse of the tech sector which will result in more outflows, net negative migration, and a plethora of legislation to fix yesterday's problems at the state level with a sledgehammer(so too much, too late, in the wrong direction). The Bay Area is experiencing double digit value drops in the last month and exploding listing supply. Not one of these things are indicators of a shortage. In reality they tend to snowball into collapse. California will be increasingly dependent on property taxes that will be dropping like a rock while expanding programs in housing predicated on the opposite.
Homeless problems are real and I suspect being exacerbated by misappropriated policy instead of roofs over heads (40k empty units in SF alone).
Being a contrarian bear who has been here before requires thick skin. Additionally, the less popular the idea, the more merit. Considering the intelligence of the community, trading karma is well worth the signal.
Ok, eventually, if all the properties flip and are maximally developed. That would take many years. And even a quadplex is different than a multi unit apartment building.
Dublin, California went from a sleepy single family residence community with low crime to half multistory condos and apartments with crime, traffic, and cost of living increases in a half a child's time in school. Their city council got "motivated" and the builders went to work. It doesn't take long and often does not go as well as Dublin has. Dublin benefited from exceptional incomes from tech, for now.
Dublin, CA has been growing strongly for 40 straight years - the population grew 72% from 1980 to 1990 (presumably when many of those sleepy single family homes were built). Looking at the most recent crime statistics (and ignoring 2020, where crimes decreased drastically because of the pandemic), total number of crimes increased by 7% from 2015-2019 while the population increased by 17%, so crimes-per-capita has actually been decreasing. If cost-of-living increases has you concerned, reducing housing number of available housing units will probably not increase affordability in any way.
Totally wrong. Even if you were increasing population density 1 to 1 (substantially more so with each unit) that is a 2X, 3X, and 4X increase in population density alone.