_"Actually, I don’t think that your point (b) is accurate."_ -- 12AB34CD

Actually the point is correct, and your explanation indicates a lack of understanding the difference between wishful thinking and market realities.

First, a substantial number of single-family homes _would_ have been rezoned to allow conventional apartments and similar condos.

Second. the market doesn't support redevelopment with family-friendly, workforce housing in close-in residential areas. The market drives higher-cost housing, regardless of form, including single-family redevelopment, so-called "missing middle" and apartments and condos. (Note that "condos" can include forms other than "apartment-like.")

Third. R-1 already allows ADUs on R-1 lots, as well as duplexes (some of which already exist) in the current single-family area.

This kind of well-intentioned, but woefully disconnected from reality, representation of the actual code provisions and effects of SW-SAZ has been a real problem. 

-- Paul