State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, rolled his eyes when he heard the news that Woodside would suspend projects under Senate Bill 9, California's new split-lot law, earlier this month using an exemption for being a mountain lion habitat.
"Two of my favorite things for a moment collided," said Wiener, a prominent housing advocate, of housing and mountain lions, in an interview with The Almanac.
He reacted to Woodside's exemption: "I rolled my eyes because Woodside's argument was so frivolous and so absurd. The idea that you can build a mansion and it won't harm mountain lions, but if you build a duplex that will harm mountain lions. Unfortunately this type of approach is not uncommon."
Wiener noted that most cities in California are working very hard to comply with the law and it's just a minority who are trying to evade it.
For decades, the state looked the other way when cities and towns didn't comply with housing laws, he said. Over the last six or seven years, it has tightened longstanding 40- to 50-year-old laws and put teeth to them, he noted.
For example, days after The Almanac reported the story and others followed suit, Attorney General Rob Bonta sent a letter to Woodside officials warning that the town can't exempt itself from state housing law by claiming it's a mountain lion habitat, Wiener noted.
Other examples of resistance to state housing mandates
In Pasadena, residents have pushed to exempt historic districts in town from SB 9, state legislation that took effect last month and allows homeowners to split single-family lots and construct up to four residential units.
Some city officials take "aggressive positions" about wildfire zones in their communities to block housing projects, he said.
"We always exempt very high severity wildfire zones from our bills," Wiener said. "The reality is we need housing in a lot of different locations and we need to make communities more fire resilient."
San Mateo County, like much of the state, is confronting a housing shortage. Since 2010, just 10,000 homes have been built, while 100,000 jobs have been created. Many residents are spending more than 30% of their income on housing, said Brandi Campbell Wood, a senior planner with Baird + Driskell Community Planning, during an April 14, 2021, talk on housing needs on the Peninsula.
Portola Valley residents have implored the Town Council to limit building because of concerns about fire safety. Two Portola Valley residents asked the Town Council to take similar action as Woodside in a Feb. 1 letter to town officials.
Drought concerns could become one more way to stifle development, according to a report by Bloomberg Law. A possible moratorium on new water connections by the Marin Municipal Water District stalled one affordable housing project last year.
"Buildings don't use water, people use water," Wiener said.
Atherton officials called to discontinue train service in town in 2020 because of decreased ridership, but also because they thought that they could be on the hook to allow more housing to be built near the train station if it continued operating. The concern was Wiener's SB 50, a bill that would have required cities to allow new apartment buildings in any place that is either: within a half-mile of a rail transit station, within a quarter-mile of a high-frequency bus stop or within a "job-rich" neighborhood.
Atherton's reaction didn't surprise Wiener, who said towns and cities have all sorts of strategies for blocking housing.
Wiener said he has several housing projects he's working on this year and he is "very focused" on student housing initiatives.
Wiener will continue to monitor SB 9's implementation and that of other state housing laws.
Comments
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Feb 23, 2022 at 12:38 pm
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2022 at 12:38 pm
I recommend that local communities move to meet the letter of the law & ask their residents for their views going forward. After all, the Towns/Cities & even the State should implement the "Will of the People". SB-9 was pushed through the legislature by the Democratic Super-majority, with little resistance or publicity. Residence are only now waking up to the reality of the land grab & neutering of their local zoning/rules/desires.
The local politicians should follow the the will of their employers (the local voters). Reading the comments on the Almanac and talking with locals, the sentiment appears to support a referendum to void SB-9. If that is what thew locals want, the Town Officials should support it.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Feb 23, 2022 at 2:19 pm
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2022 at 2:19 pm
Scott Wiener is a dictator in-training. It is amazing how his opinion trumps any landowner, individual, or local municipality. Arrogance in the extreme. Please Scott do tell us what car we should be allowed to drive, and while you are at it, how about legalizing narcotics - oh wait, you are already hard at work on that one.
He claims only a minority of towns are against his dictate - what about the several hundred communities that signed the now-pulled petition to repeal SB9?
Stop voting for and electing people like Scott Wiener who seem singularly focused on stripping away any individual choice of Californians.
Registered user
Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Feb 23, 2022 at 3:30 pm
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2022 at 3:30 pm
Betsy, Cyber, I heartily disagree. "Local control" and associated local zoning laws are some of the most housing-onerous regulations in the Bay Area. Half-acre lot minimums and no ADUs / multi-unit zoning in our land-limited region epitomize the kind of regulations that artificially constrain housing supply. Your approach is never going not help with affordability.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Feb 23, 2022 at 3:52 pm
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2022 at 3:52 pm
Kevin:
nothing but government subsidies is going to help "affordability" in this area. The land costs too much and the cost of construction is too high. It has nothing to do with land use restrictions. "Affordable housing" in this area is a myth.
Registered user
Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Feb 23, 2022 at 4:52 pm
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2022 at 4:52 pm
Menlo Voter is absolutely right.
Simply wishing for or legislating for affordable housing will not accomplish anything.
If we as a society want affordable housing then we are going to have to be willing to pay for significant taxpayer funded subsidies.
Sadly I suspect most of the proponents of affordable housing would not be personally willing to pay the new taxes required to fund such subsidies.
Registered user
Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Feb 24, 2022 at 7:44 am
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 7:44 am
Menlo Voter, Peter, both of you know that your claims are a cop-out. Menlo Park has a number of BMR units both for rent and for purchase, but those didn’t arrive via direct government subsidy - they came from developers (or developers fees) and zoning flexibility on density. Bay Area cities can absolutely increase housing supply, even for BMR units if they get more flexible with zoning and trade off greater density for more units including BMR units. This article about Long Island’s housing scarcity highlights one of the roots of the problem (land scarcity does exacerbate the issue here).
“The state has allowed local governments to operate like private clubs that exist for the purpose of denying opportunities to people who can’t afford to buy a single-family home.”
Web Link
Registered user
Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Feb 24, 2022 at 9:18 am
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 9:18 am
There is no free lunch.
Developers who provide BMR units do so by taxing the buyers of their market rate units with a higher purchase cost. This is a government mandated subsidy which INCREASES housing costs for some buyers to benefit the BMR renters/purchasers.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Feb 24, 2022 at 1:25 pm
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 1:25 pm
Kevin:
And what do those BMR units cost? Are they really "affordable"? When they built Menlo Commons they were required to include four BMR units. When the project was complete they could not sell them because no one could qualify. The developers ended up buying the units themselves and renting them out at BMR. Just barely BMR.
You're ignoring simple economics.
Registered user
Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Feb 24, 2022 at 4:56 pm
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 4:56 pm
Sorry guys, you’re grasping at straws to defend exclusionary zoning, while trying to take aim at something that actually works. I live in a development that has a number of highly desirable BMR purchase units. And Peter, localities also give the developers something to make the “taxation” more palatable, usually greater density.
Registered user
Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Feb 24, 2022 at 5:21 pm
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 5:21 pm
Giving the developer more density has no impact on the increased cost that they pass on to the market rate buyers.
Sorry there is no free lunch.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Feb 24, 2022 at 6:07 pm
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 6:07 pm
No Kevin, we're grasping simple economics which you continue to ignore.
Registered user
Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Feb 25, 2022 at 4:32 pm
Registered user
on Feb 25, 2022 at 4:32 pm
Kevin - Please explain why it is fair to force market rate purchasers in a housing development to bear the costs of the BMR units in their development rather than having those costs borne by the entire community.
Registered user
Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Feb 25, 2022 at 4:44 pm
Registered user
on Feb 25, 2022 at 4:44 pm
Giving the developer more density has no impact on the increased cost that they pass on to the market rate buyers.
Peter, I think you are wrong on this one, The developer will not charge more for market-rate units to make up for having to build BMR's, He can't,
Any developer will charge whatever the market will bear, regardless of BMR's not because.
Registered user
Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Feb 25, 2022 at 5:15 pm
Registered user
on Feb 25, 2022 at 5:15 pm
"Peter, I think you are wrong on this one, The developer will not charge more for market-rate units to make up for having to build BMR's, He can't,"
Wrong - the developer MUST generate a profit and if he/she has to provide BMR units they will simply transfer that cost to their pricing for their market rate units. And the market accepts those inflated prices simply because demand exceeds supply for new housing.
Registered user
Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Feb 25, 2022 at 5:51 pm
Registered user
on Feb 25, 2022 at 5:51 pm
Peter, you left off the last and most important part of my comment.
"Any developer will charge whatever the market will bear, regardless of BMR's not because".
Unless you are saying inversely a developer will charge less than market rate for units built in a property without BMR'S,
As an old Navy buddy used to say "ain't likely"
Registered user
Atherton: West of Alameda
on Feb 26, 2022 at 9:54 am
Registered user
on Feb 26, 2022 at 9:54 am
Scott Wiener would have us all practicing socialism and following his orders.