In a tense planning commission meeting last week, it became clear that recent California laws making it easier to build housing have effectively gutted local control
If you are thinking about how to vote on the City Council election consider this. The Valentine project would not be allowed such high density except that the City Council on January 6, 2026, voted to implement AB1033 Condo ADU ordinance. This was two weeks after the city received Grupe's Master Planning Application proposing 20 lots with 39 units for condominium purposes. Mauer, Zollman, Carter and Hinton voted yes. Only Jill McLewis voted against the proposal.
Exactly as the law was intended. Bring on the housing. I wonder how many of the people protesting bought their houses for a bushel of apples back in the 70s and pay like 100 a month in property taxes.
The state has mandated these laws which are a boon to developers and do not allow for local input. Grupe Investment Company is a billion dollar company. None of its executives will live in this housing nor will they live in the middle class neighborhoods that surround this development. The executives will live in large houses with huge setbacks and lawns and trees and privacy. Their property values won't be driven down by having new dense multi-family housing placed next to theirs. They won't suddenly have 80 new cars on their street. While these laws have good intentions, the people who will feel them the most are middle class people who purchased and paid for their homes with zoning in place that would theoretically protect their privacy, their investments and their quality of life.These YIMBY laws are to create more affordable housing; they will also have an impact on working and middle class people whose neighborhoods will be most targeted by new development. Your single family home now has a 6plex next to it with little set-backs and 6 cars. California is a huge state with dynamic regional nuisances. The housing solution for downtown San Jose is different than for a suburban neighborhood in Sebastopol. Sebastopol has many examples of infill housing - two story apartment complexes that have more breathing room and more generous setbacks, trees and green space. There are multi-unit examples all over town from Burbank Heights to apartment complexes on Bodega Highway to the new Habitat for Humanity Homes. Sebastopol has a lot of options from co-housing to apartments to ADUs. Huntley Square and the Canopy are coming on-line and also offer density by design for the "missing in the middle". This project seems to be taking egregious advantage of the state laws, especially the condo conversion of ADUs, which is a developers dream law. Grupe could reduce the number of ADUs to provide more space, more privacy and more green space but there is zero reason for them to do this because their bottom line is their bottom line. They are here to make money and they sure as heck won't be living in the units they create. In the end, commercial real estate will shape the face of our neighborhoods. It was elected officials that voted in these laws to enable developers. We will know more overtime how these new state mandated developments work out - who lives in them, how much money is made, and if they are successful in providing housing. Density by design can be very empowering for residents; co-housing and urban row housing are good examples. It is unclear if this project will yield the same community ties or if, as a corporate endeavor by an investment group, the design is merely about lining their wallets with as much money as possible. What happens when density becomes about maximum profitability? I guess we will wait and see.
Friends who come to visit from 'away' are always shocked that Sebastopol has managed to remain a small, unique town that developers haven't turned into the monotonous and charm free clone towns all over the country. How sad that the state has now handed developers an easy entree to every last unspoiled place in California...and makes removing trees and the birds that depend on trees much easier. So sad.
We are voting for Council Members in November. Ask if they support more local control. Four members of our City Council - Hinton, Carter, Zollman, Maurer - voted in favor of AB1033 which allows for condo conversion, which these developers are employing. The only Council Member who voted against was McLewis. McLewis also wanted to join with other Californian cities at CalCities to get more local control over zoning. Hinton, Carter and Zollman voted against her. Maurer supported her. Vote for McLewis if you want more local input on zoning.
Between the year 2000 and 2026 the median home price in California has skyrocketed by 386.6%, while the broader U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose by roughly 94.0%. So the State's (and Planning Commission's) steps are in the right direction: increase supply.
The crystal ball says many of these will be second homes, short term rentals and pied a terres for the wealthy from overseas. If the "Builders Solution" continues it will look like NJ here, from where so many here escaped. But the realtors and builders will do well, them move somewhere more desirable.
Cut to zero people with the kind of money to own a Pied-à-terre in western Sonoma county contemplating buying a unit in this place. That's a comical notion. They're buying 3M dollar places in Occidental or Healdsburg. You may want to have your Crystal Ball checked for foggy glass.
Using “dog whistle “ words as you do (there are liberal dog whistles too) simply masks a lack of understanding of the historic forces in play here. The changes in California law which are in play here are a response to earlier NIMBY local responses. Maybe the so called American Dream no longer realistic but until that question is addressed directly or indirectly we will have these challenges to confront.
Canopy was going to be affordable, right up until they put up the sign with prices from $899,999 (one assumes carpet and tile are additional?). Developers are businesspeople. They look at the market and see average houses selling for around $1MM. Why would they price their units below market. The goal is to recoup their investment plus a profit. The only reason they offer a few "affordable units" is to circumvent what many believe are reasonable restrictions.
No one is talking about what will be the affordable price. Chat GPT looked at Sebastopol's affordability methodology. At 120% of the area median income - qualifying buyers would have an income of $192,000. With mortgage rates at 6%, "affordable" for that income would be $600,000-700,000. There are complexities and many unknowns in this calculation. The point is at best they are offering "moderate income" units to get some very significant concessions that will impact the neighborhood.
Ok what about the ADU's? Yes, they are smaller so they should cost less. The very first condo ADU to be sold in California was in San Jose and sold for $530,000 ($749/sq.ft). Looking at attached home sales (similar size to ADU but attached) in Sebastopol since April 2025, they range from $437 a square foot up to $631/sqft.
The Valentine ADUs are similar in size to attached homes that already exist in Sebastopol. Since they are new and detached, we could estimate the Valentine ADU price to be closer to the $600/sq ft range. A 749 square foot ADU would be priced at $450,000. This price is similar to 10 attached single homes that sold in Sebastopol since April 2025 (range $295,000-$615,000) with a median price of $446,000.
Data is important in these discussions. The data here shows that the city council voting for AB1033 created the path for a high-density subdivision in an area residents expected to remain moderate density. All rationalized because the city is building more affordable housing in Sebastopol. Only problem is there is literally no reason to expect that the developer is into helping more people get into affordable housing. The goal is to maximize the number of dollars that can be realized per acre, and this developer is batting 1000!
Which are the dog whistle words and historic forces? The only force in play is greed, the builders can build (maybe), the realtors can sell (maybe) and if prices go down then some people close to underwater will loser their homes and the bankers will do well too. And politicos get huge contributions from all three. Meanwhile Sebastopol becomes something the people here don't want.
There is very little empirical evidence that supply/demand works so that building more housing will reduce prices. It is accepted without question or without proof. There are idealized graphs in economics books but only a few cherry picked examples if even that. Supply is only one of many factors in the cost of housing along with interest rates (rising), material cost (rising), labor cost (rising), taxes (rising), etc. etc.
Also, many of these units will not be bought by people but by Hedge Funds who will charge outrageous rents or maybe leave them empty to jack up the price of housing.
Let's also explain why there is such a housing shortage if population is declining in CA? Maybe people have an unrealistic expectation of where they might live. Not everyone can live in Sebastopol or the Riveriera or Nantucket. Not everyone can drive a Lexus of BMW. Not everyone can afford expensive vacations. Not everyone can afford to stay in a swanky Sebastopol Hotel. Maybe we need government action for all those too?
The crystal ball says that an effort will be made to force Sebastopol to grant tax abatements to reach the mandated housing goal. If the Barlow Hotel, why not housing.
Ask City Council candidates if they support more local control over zoning. You will be voting in a few weeks. How our elected officials vote does matter. If you'd like more local control over zoning, vote for McLewis. She has the best record on this issue. At the local level, Zollman, Mauer, Carter and Hinton voted yes on AB1033 - the condo conversion law despite the fact that myself and other citizens pointed out the fact that developers would use this to increase density and it is a horrible planning law due to the fact that ADUs don't pay impact fees when they are developed. McLewis was the only council member to vote no. More recently, Zollman, Carter and Hinton voted down the opportunity for Sebastopol to join other Californian cities to retain more local control via CalCities. McLewis wanted to join with other cities to gain more local control at the CalCities meeting and Zollman, Carter, and Hinton said no. Sebastopol could have avoided the over density of the Valentine project if they voted no on AB1033. They could advocate for more local control by empowering Mayor McLewis at CalCities. There is the potential that developers will start buying single family homes on large lots and cramming in more housing like this. With the almost non-existent set backs and ADU condo conversion, typical suburban lots could become attractive development opportunities when interest rates come down. As I've pointed out before, NYC row housing in the East and West village has more set backs than these Californian laws. If you've ever walked about New York, you'll notice that the older buildings have a 4-8 foot set back from the sidewalk in the form of a stoop and stairs and the back of the buildings have 6-12 rear set backs so there is a large continuous green space in the middle of each City block. For those concerned about permeable ground for storm water and the development of the urban canopy to help ward against climate change and urban heat islands, these new zoning codes with limited permeable ground space, no room for big trees and limited green space for heat reduction are adding to the problem. Density by design adds to the urban canopy, adds permeable ground space and adds green space. I support density by design and also support local control. Most people support new development. Yet at the same time, development needs to be in concert with community values and respectful of existing standards. Do we want historical homes downtown torn down for multi-unit buildings because you could get more units on the same lot? Do we want to lose all neighborhood character in the name of high density? Woodmark is another example of an outside developer using density and state laws to bypass local input. These large development are a nexus of state and federal regulation. Without local control, they simply become financial exercises for large developers who are trying to get the most bang for their buck.
The state has been passing laws requiring cities to allow more housing to be built. Local control has meant saying no to housing, across the state. That is why we are in the housing crisis we find ourselves. From 1960 - 1979 we built about 1,500 housing units in Sebastopol. Many of them were in the Valentine neighborhood of this proposed development. Between 1980 and 1999 we built just under 1,000 housing units in Sebastopol. From 2000-2020 we built 155 housing units in Sebastopol. This is what local control has done for us. If we can't allow the housing to be built on our own, I'm all for the state stepping and requiring it.
Density by design, set backs that allow for privacy, permeable ground and tree canopy, and new buildings that respect a neighborhood's integrity is what I'd like to see. The lack of housing is driven by building costs, labor costs, infrastructure costs and state regulation (beyond the zoning appeals). I think a range of housing at different price points is possible without losing basic quality of life as it has been demonstrated across our urban cities from San Francisco row housing in the Sunset to multi-family buildings in the East Village. Thus far, I do not think the State has had a great record in terms of producing beautiful, affordable housing that connects communities. I also don't think any of our elected officials live in the type of zero setback, no trees, crappy material developments like the one on Valentine that is being proposed. Our elected officials are always in bed with Commercial Real Estate developers. Commercial Real Estate, as an industry, controls huge amounts of wealth and influence in California, which is why they got the Prop. 13 benefit at the last minute. My guess is that these laws were designed by rich commercial developers and have been made super appealing to liberals by the various YIMBY campaigns. I think in the end, the people who will benefit the most from these initiatives won't be people getting nice, affordable housing but those who have ownerships shares in the companies who build them. Thus far, I don't see anyone supporting these developments moving into them but maybe you will try it and let us know how it is. ;)
Really glad to see this project be recommended. It's so sad to see friends and family leave because they can't afford it here, and building more market rate units is a start to chipping away at that problem.
I will be curious to see if your friends and family members will be occupying these units. Thus far Canopy has not sold any units. While I'm a supporter of density by design, these units have less setbacks than row housing in NYC where the housing in the East and West Village is built with at least 4 foot set backs from the sidewalks and at least 10 feet rear set backs so that the center of any city block has a huge green buffer zone. My guess is that many of the people who seek this "increase in supply" housing with narrow set backs will not actually live in it.
Condos and townhomes offered for sale allow people to begin building equity in their homes and foster pride of ownership and belonging. This project proposes to build “middle housing” that fills the gap between rental apartments and single family home ownership that Sebastopol (and California) is so severely lacking. I think that is a very good thing.
Just looking at the numbers it is apparent that this project fits the zoning for that piece of property. When the City accepted AB1033, every residential parcel in town got a bump in property value due to the potential for adding an ADU condo. This project just takes creative advantage of that by building ADUs into the original development. We desperately need entry level ownership housing and if a small setback concession will get it, I support that. We have enough large homes with generous setbacks.
I am a little disturbed by some of the comments painting real estate developers as evil, profit driven villains. Everyone in business seeks to make a profit and seldom do business owners and their employees live in equal housing. Almost every home west of Murphy and North of Bodega was built by subdivision developers as was Swain Woods, Valley View, and all the homes North of Covert. Even many of the older homes in the historic parts of town were built as parts of “developments”. You can even see repeated designs in Victorians, Queen Annes and Craftsman bungalows all around town indicating they were built by one builder.
My biggest gripe is with the design of the homes themselves. There are so many good examples of well designed, simple, smaller homes and cottages that they could draw on but instead all the buildings have strange rooflines and unnecessary material add-ons that look silly and will cheapen the appearance of what should be attractive smaller homes. Maybe this type of design is popular in Orange County where the Architects are from, but they look very out of place here.
If you are thinking about how to vote on the City Council election consider this. The Valentine project would not be allowed such high density except that the City Council on January 6, 2026, voted to implement AB1033 Condo ADU ordinance. This was two weeks after the city received Grupe's Master Planning Application proposing 20 lots with 39 units for condominium purposes. Mauer, Zollman, Carter and Hinton voted yes. Only Jill McLewis voted against the proposal.
Exactly as the law was intended. Bring on the housing. I wonder how many of the people protesting bought their houses for a bushel of apples back in the 70s and pay like 100 a month in property taxes.
The state has mandated these laws which are a boon to developers and do not allow for local input. Grupe Investment Company is a billion dollar company. None of its executives will live in this housing nor will they live in the middle class neighborhoods that surround this development. The executives will live in large houses with huge setbacks and lawns and trees and privacy. Their property values won't be driven down by having new dense multi-family housing placed next to theirs. They won't suddenly have 80 new cars on their street. While these laws have good intentions, the people who will feel them the most are middle class people who purchased and paid for their homes with zoning in place that would theoretically protect their privacy, their investments and their quality of life.These YIMBY laws are to create more affordable housing; they will also have an impact on working and middle class people whose neighborhoods will be most targeted by new development. Your single family home now has a 6plex next to it with little set-backs and 6 cars. California is a huge state with dynamic regional nuisances. The housing solution for downtown San Jose is different than for a suburban neighborhood in Sebastopol. Sebastopol has many examples of infill housing - two story apartment complexes that have more breathing room and more generous setbacks, trees and green space. There are multi-unit examples all over town from Burbank Heights to apartment complexes on Bodega Highway to the new Habitat for Humanity Homes. Sebastopol has a lot of options from co-housing to apartments to ADUs. Huntley Square and the Canopy are coming on-line and also offer density by design for the "missing in the middle". This project seems to be taking egregious advantage of the state laws, especially the condo conversion of ADUs, which is a developers dream law. Grupe could reduce the number of ADUs to provide more space, more privacy and more green space but there is zero reason for them to do this because their bottom line is their bottom line. They are here to make money and they sure as heck won't be living in the units they create. In the end, commercial real estate will shape the face of our neighborhoods. It was elected officials that voted in these laws to enable developers. We will know more overtime how these new state mandated developments work out - who lives in them, how much money is made, and if they are successful in providing housing. Density by design can be very empowering for residents; co-housing and urban row housing are good examples. It is unclear if this project will yield the same community ties or if, as a corporate endeavor by an investment group, the design is merely about lining their wallets with as much money as possible. What happens when density becomes about maximum profitability? I guess we will wait and see.
Friends who come to visit from 'away' are always shocked that Sebastopol has managed to remain a small, unique town that developers haven't turned into the monotonous and charm free clone towns all over the country. How sad that the state has now handed developers an easy entree to every last unspoiled place in California...and makes removing trees and the birds that depend on trees much easier. So sad.
We are voting for Council Members in November. Ask if they support more local control. Four members of our City Council - Hinton, Carter, Zollman, Maurer - voted in favor of AB1033 which allows for condo conversion, which these developers are employing. The only Council Member who voted against was McLewis. McLewis also wanted to join with other Californian cities at CalCities to get more local control over zoning. Hinton, Carter and Zollman voted against her. Maurer supported her. Vote for McLewis if you want more local input on zoning.
Between the year 2000 and 2026 the median home price in California has skyrocketed by 386.6%, while the broader U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose by roughly 94.0%. So the State's (and Planning Commission's) steps are in the right direction: increase supply.
The crystal ball says many of these will be second homes, short term rentals and pied a terres for the wealthy from overseas. If the "Builders Solution" continues it will look like NJ here, from where so many here escaped. But the realtors and builders will do well, them move somewhere more desirable.
Cut to zero people with the kind of money to own a Pied-à-terre in western Sonoma county contemplating buying a unit in this place. That's a comical notion. They're buying 3M dollar places in Occidental or Healdsburg. You may want to have your Crystal Ball checked for foggy glass.
Did you escape here from NJ? And now you want to roll up the welcome mat?
Using “dog whistle “ words as you do (there are liberal dog whistles too) simply masks a lack of understanding of the historic forces in play here. The changes in California law which are in play here are a response to earlier NIMBY local responses. Maybe the so called American Dream no longer realistic but until that question is addressed directly or indirectly we will have these challenges to confront.
Canopy was going to be affordable, right up until they put up the sign with prices from $899,999 (one assumes carpet and tile are additional?). Developers are businesspeople. They look at the market and see average houses selling for around $1MM. Why would they price their units below market. The goal is to recoup their investment plus a profit. The only reason they offer a few "affordable units" is to circumvent what many believe are reasonable restrictions.
No one is talking about what will be the affordable price. Chat GPT looked at Sebastopol's affordability methodology. At 120% of the area median income - qualifying buyers would have an income of $192,000. With mortgage rates at 6%, "affordable" for that income would be $600,000-700,000. There are complexities and many unknowns in this calculation. The point is at best they are offering "moderate income" units to get some very significant concessions that will impact the neighborhood.
Ok what about the ADU's? Yes, they are smaller so they should cost less. The very first condo ADU to be sold in California was in San Jose and sold for $530,000 ($749/sq.ft). Looking at attached home sales (similar size to ADU but attached) in Sebastopol since April 2025, they range from $437 a square foot up to $631/sqft.
The Valentine ADUs are similar in size to attached homes that already exist in Sebastopol. Since they are new and detached, we could estimate the Valentine ADU price to be closer to the $600/sq ft range. A 749 square foot ADU would be priced at $450,000. This price is similar to 10 attached single homes that sold in Sebastopol since April 2025 (range $295,000-$615,000) with a median price of $446,000.
Data is important in these discussions. The data here shows that the city council voting for AB1033 created the path for a high-density subdivision in an area residents expected to remain moderate density. All rationalized because the city is building more affordable housing in Sebastopol. Only problem is there is literally no reason to expect that the developer is into helping more people get into affordable housing. The goal is to maximize the number of dollars that can be realized per acre, and this developer is batting 1000!
The ADUs will be VRBOed and become short term rentals.
Amen!
Which are the dog whistle words and historic forces? The only force in play is greed, the builders can build (maybe), the realtors can sell (maybe) and if prices go down then some people close to underwater will loser their homes and the bankers will do well too. And politicos get huge contributions from all three. Meanwhile Sebastopol becomes something the people here don't want.
There is very little empirical evidence that supply/demand works so that building more housing will reduce prices. It is accepted without question or without proof. There are idealized graphs in economics books but only a few cherry picked examples if even that. Supply is only one of many factors in the cost of housing along with interest rates (rising), material cost (rising), labor cost (rising), taxes (rising), etc. etc.
Also, many of these units will not be bought by people but by Hedge Funds who will charge outrageous rents or maybe leave them empty to jack up the price of housing.
Let's also explain why there is such a housing shortage if population is declining in CA? Maybe people have an unrealistic expectation of where they might live. Not everyone can live in Sebastopol or the Riveriera or Nantucket. Not everyone can drive a Lexus of BMW. Not everyone can afford expensive vacations. Not everyone can afford to stay in a swanky Sebastopol Hotel. Maybe we need government action for all those too?
The crystal ball says that an effort will be made to force Sebastopol to grant tax abatements to reach the mandated housing goal. If the Barlow Hotel, why not housing.
Ask City Council candidates if they support more local control over zoning. You will be voting in a few weeks. How our elected officials vote does matter. If you'd like more local control over zoning, vote for McLewis. She has the best record on this issue. At the local level, Zollman, Mauer, Carter and Hinton voted yes on AB1033 - the condo conversion law despite the fact that myself and other citizens pointed out the fact that developers would use this to increase density and it is a horrible planning law due to the fact that ADUs don't pay impact fees when they are developed. McLewis was the only council member to vote no. More recently, Zollman, Carter and Hinton voted down the opportunity for Sebastopol to join other Californian cities to retain more local control via CalCities. McLewis wanted to join with other cities to gain more local control at the CalCities meeting and Zollman, Carter, and Hinton said no. Sebastopol could have avoided the over density of the Valentine project if they voted no on AB1033. They could advocate for more local control by empowering Mayor McLewis at CalCities. There is the potential that developers will start buying single family homes on large lots and cramming in more housing like this. With the almost non-existent set backs and ADU condo conversion, typical suburban lots could become attractive development opportunities when interest rates come down. As I've pointed out before, NYC row housing in the East and West village has more set backs than these Californian laws. If you've ever walked about New York, you'll notice that the older buildings have a 4-8 foot set back from the sidewalk in the form of a stoop and stairs and the back of the buildings have 6-12 rear set backs so there is a large continuous green space in the middle of each City block. For those concerned about permeable ground for storm water and the development of the urban canopy to help ward against climate change and urban heat islands, these new zoning codes with limited permeable ground space, no room for big trees and limited green space for heat reduction are adding to the problem. Density by design adds to the urban canopy, adds permeable ground space and adds green space. I support density by design and also support local control. Most people support new development. Yet at the same time, development needs to be in concert with community values and respectful of existing standards. Do we want historical homes downtown torn down for multi-unit buildings because you could get more units on the same lot? Do we want to lose all neighborhood character in the name of high density? Woodmark is another example of an outside developer using density and state laws to bypass local input. These large development are a nexus of state and federal regulation. Without local control, they simply become financial exercises for large developers who are trying to get the most bang for their buck.
The state has been passing laws requiring cities to allow more housing to be built. Local control has meant saying no to housing, across the state. That is why we are in the housing crisis we find ourselves. From 1960 - 1979 we built about 1,500 housing units in Sebastopol. Many of them were in the Valentine neighborhood of this proposed development. Between 1980 and 1999 we built just under 1,000 housing units in Sebastopol. From 2000-2020 we built 155 housing units in Sebastopol. This is what local control has done for us. If we can't allow the housing to be built on our own, I'm all for the state stepping and requiring it.
Density by design, set backs that allow for privacy, permeable ground and tree canopy, and new buildings that respect a neighborhood's integrity is what I'd like to see. The lack of housing is driven by building costs, labor costs, infrastructure costs and state regulation (beyond the zoning appeals). I think a range of housing at different price points is possible without losing basic quality of life as it has been demonstrated across our urban cities from San Francisco row housing in the Sunset to multi-family buildings in the East Village. Thus far, I do not think the State has had a great record in terms of producing beautiful, affordable housing that connects communities. I also don't think any of our elected officials live in the type of zero setback, no trees, crappy material developments like the one on Valentine that is being proposed. Our elected officials are always in bed with Commercial Real Estate developers. Commercial Real Estate, as an industry, controls huge amounts of wealth and influence in California, which is why they got the Prop. 13 benefit at the last minute. My guess is that these laws were designed by rich commercial developers and have been made super appealing to liberals by the various YIMBY campaigns. I think in the end, the people who will benefit the most from these initiatives won't be people getting nice, affordable housing but those who have ownerships shares in the companies who build them. Thus far, I don't see anyone supporting these developments moving into them but maybe you will try it and let us know how it is. ;)
Really glad to see this project be recommended. It's so sad to see friends and family leave because they can't afford it here, and building more market rate units is a start to chipping away at that problem.
I will be curious to see if your friends and family members will be occupying these units. Thus far Canopy has not sold any units. While I'm a supporter of density by design, these units have less setbacks than row housing in NYC where the housing in the East and West Village is built with at least 4 foot set backs from the sidewalks and at least 10 feet rear set backs so that the center of any city block has a huge green buffer zone. My guess is that many of the people who seek this "increase in supply" housing with narrow set backs will not actually live in it.
Condos and townhomes offered for sale allow people to begin building equity in their homes and foster pride of ownership and belonging. This project proposes to build “middle housing” that fills the gap between rental apartments and single family home ownership that Sebastopol (and California) is so severely lacking. I think that is a very good thing.
Just looking at the numbers it is apparent that this project fits the zoning for that piece of property. When the City accepted AB1033, every residential parcel in town got a bump in property value due to the potential for adding an ADU condo. This project just takes creative advantage of that by building ADUs into the original development. We desperately need entry level ownership housing and if a small setback concession will get it, I support that. We have enough large homes with generous setbacks.
I am a little disturbed by some of the comments painting real estate developers as evil, profit driven villains. Everyone in business seeks to make a profit and seldom do business owners and their employees live in equal housing. Almost every home west of Murphy and North of Bodega was built by subdivision developers as was Swain Woods, Valley View, and all the homes North of Covert. Even many of the older homes in the historic parts of town were built as parts of “developments”. You can even see repeated designs in Victorians, Queen Annes and Craftsman bungalows all around town indicating they were built by one builder.
My biggest gripe is with the design of the homes themselves. There are so many good examples of well designed, simple, smaller homes and cottages that they could draw on but instead all the buildings have strange rooflines and unnecessary material add-ons that look silly and will cheapen the appearance of what should be attractive smaller homes. Maybe this type of design is popular in Orange County where the Architects are from, but they look very out of place here.