Imo, they bent backwards to deny this development referring to ambiguity and trying to follow the intent. The intent of the law is clearly to build more housing

Imo, they bent backwards to deny this development referring to ambiguity and trying to follow the intent. The intent of the law is clearly to build more housing and somehow they decided that this intent excludes one of the main types of residential dwelling in the USA. Seems like a conspiracy to me. > As originally enacted, the statutory definition provided that “housing development project” meant “a use consisting of either of the following: [¶] (A) Residential units only. ... > This matters because unless we know the full meaning of “housing development project,” it is difficult to evaluate the parties’ central dispute: whether the plural term “residential units” includes the singular “residential unit.” This is just bonkers.