5 ms·
For folks in the comments who didn't bother to read the first 5 pages (the summary) The judge interpreted the HAA as only applying to units that expand housing
by hayksaakian 4y ago
For folks in the comments who didn't bother to read the first 5 pages (the summary)
The judge interpreted the HAA as only applying to units that expand housing beyond single family homes.
The proposed project would be a 4000 square foot single family home in a neighborhood of roughly 1500-1600 square foot homes.
Either way I think the law is absurd here, but it's actually having the INTENDED affect.
Rather than building a luxurious single family home, the developer is encouraged to build a multi family home and actually expand the amount of housing available in the area.
This seems like a "win" if your goal is to increase housing supply.
- bdowling 4y ago> Rather than building a luxurious single family home, the developer is encouraged to build a multi family home and actually expand the amount of housing available in the area. The property here is a hillside 1.76 acre lot in a "heavily wooded" area of Marin County next to a creek and currently without vehicular access. No one is ever going to build a multi-family development there.
- tremon 4y agoGood, let's keep the woodland then.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- foxyv 4y agoUnfortunately, single family homes and R1 zoning have the most impact on wildlands by converting vast swaths of lands into low density streets and houses. If you want to keep woodland, you need to densify.
- zbrozek 4y agoThe developer can't build a multi-family home there because the parcel isn't zoned for it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- marklyon 4y agoA petty landowner would strive to maximize the land usage with the most nimby-objectionable, yet socially beneficial housing possible.