RT @MilesTaylorUSA: REPORT: White House orders NASA to destroy satellite used for monitoring climate change, according to NPR. The censorsh….

RT @JesseJenkins: Project Warpspeed was probably the most consequential and unqualified success of Trump's first term, and mRNA vaccines on….

RT @PolicyEngineer: 79 percent of NY construction workers aren't union members.

RT @cwarshaw: Journalists - if you're trying to determine the partisan fairness of new congressional districting plans, check out https://t….

RT @rohanaras: I have a new piece up (first with @NiskanenCenter!). The federal government spends billions of dollars on transit each year.….

Great summary of Warren-Scott ROAD to Housing Act ⤵️.

RT @JohnArnoldFndtn: A study on a UBI pilot in Oakland shows how research can be presented to reflect the authors’ biases rather than provi….

Your periodic reminder that the City of Los Angeles is classified as a “prohousing jurisdiction” by California.

RT @mattyglesias: The murder rate is lower today than it was in 1965 before mass immigration destroyed American society. .

GC 65915(r) reinforces the argument by negative implication.

Curious to hear from, among others, @DRand2024 @ceqalaw @eric_biber @housingdefense @Yimby_Law @quarter_nine @CohenSite . /end.

Finally, to the extent that density decontrol operates as a de facto downzoning (relative to the circa-2018 state of affairs), would the density-decontrol ordinance violate SB 330? . /10.

Has @California_HCD issued any guidance that confirms (or rejects) my thesis that under density-based zoning, objective development standards are irrelevant to the base project?. Has any court addressed this question? (even a superior court in an unciteable opinion?) . /9.

In this example, "upzoning" via density decontrol results in a potential 20,000 sqft, 10-unit project becoming, at best, a 1307 sqft, 6-unit project. What am I missing? . /8.

On a 1/4 acre lot w/ FAR limit of 0.1, the "density-decontrol" base project would be capped at 1089 square feet. Maybe the developer could squeeze in 5 micro units of 218 sqft apiece, deed restrict 1, and claim the 20% bonus to build a 6th 218 sqft micro unit. /7.

But if city "upzones" the site w/ density-decontrol ordinance (and corresponding GP amendment) that leaves all other standards in place, the base project would have to be designed using the method in GC 65915(o)(6)(A), i.e., complying with the FAR limit. /6.

So a developer could, e.g., propose a base project consisting of 0.25 (lot size) * 32 (GP density) = 8 condos w/ 2000 sqft each, deed-restrict 1 for low-income housing, and get a 20% bonus, which (rounding up) yields a 10-unit, 20k sqft project. /4.

SDBL says that under density-based zoning, a "base project" needs to comply w/ greater of zoned or GP density. SDBL is silent on whether project must also comply w/ other dev. standards. However, by neg. implication of GC 65915(o)(6)(A), other dev. standards are irrelevant. /3

Here's the motivating example: .- developer owns a 1/4 acre lot.- zoned density (cap) is 12 du/acre; general plan allows up to 32 du/acre.- the objective development standards include a FAR limit of 0.1 (yes, extreme, but useful as an illustration). /2.

I have a State Density Bonus Law question for CA housing nerds. I'm trying to understand whether local density-decontrol ordinances (putative upzonings) can in fact operate as restrictive downzonings. 🧵/11.