News

Bill to allow more density in single-family zones passes Assembly

Housing advocates score second major victory this week

Santa Clara County owns land at 525 E. Charleston Road, where it is considering building housing for low-income residents at the site in Palo Alto. Photo taken Feb. 11, 2020 by Sammy Dallal.

A housing bill that would loosen up restrictions in single-family zones by allowing subdivisions for up to four dwellings cleared a critical hurdle on Thursday morning, when the state Assembly voted to approve the legislation.

Senate Bill 9, which is authored by Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, received 44 votes in the Assembly that it needed to move ahead, three more than required to pass. Having already cleared the state Senate, it will now return to the Senate for a concurrence vote before heading to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Unlike Senate Bill 1120, a similar bill that faltered on the dramatic final day of the 2020 legislative session, SB 9 includes provisions that aim to address concerns about wildfire protection and gentrification. To discourage institutional investors from evicting or displacing tenants, the bill excludes properties where a tenant has resided for three years. It also allows cities to deny applications for subdivision if they find that adding homes would increase fire threat.

While the final tally may still change as those Assembly members who hadn't yet voted do so, it will not change the outcome for SB 9, which is the second major housing bill to clear the Assembly this week. On Monday, the Assembly voted to pass Senate Bill 10, legislation authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, that allows cities to rezone properties to allow up to 10 dwellings per parcel, potentially overruling voter-adopted zoning restrictions. Assembly member Marc Berman, D-Menlo Park, voted in favor of both bills, helping to ensure their narrow passage.

Assembly member Robert Rivas, D-Salinas, who introduced the bill on the Assembly floor, told his colleagues that the bill, while not perfect, "will have a positive impact on our crippling housing crisis in California." He noted that it will cap the number of units that can be built on a lot at four, which includes accessory dwelling units.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

"The bottom line is, SB 9 will provide more opportunities for more working families to achieve the California dream and makes the path to homeownership in our state a more inclusive one," Rivas said.

Much like SB 10, the Atkins bill transcended party lines, with some Republicans voting to support it and some Democrats opposing it. Assembly member Adrin Nazarian, D-North Hollywood, was in the latter camp. He argued on the floor that by passing the bill without also considering the impact of increased density on utilities, parking and transportation, the legislation is setting up communities for long-term failure.

"We haven't dealt with a lot of the needs that go into complementing what increased housing means," Nazarian said. "We're going to be devastating those communities."

Seen as one of the cornerstones of the Assembly effort to address California's housing crisis, SB 9 has also been a subject of intense debate leading up to the Thursday vote. While housing advocates and the majority of Democrats in the Legislature see it as a critical step to bolster the state's housing stock, opponents of the bill have maintained that it will infringe on local control while doing little to improve housing affordability.

Palo Alto, which submitted a letter of opposition to SB 9, argued that "state driven ministerial or by-right housing approval processes fail to recognize the extensive public engagement associated with developing and adopting zoning ordinances and housing elements." The citizens group Livable California had strongly opposed SB 9, claiming that the bill "crushes single-family zoning in California, a threat to 7 million homeowners."

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Assembly member Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, strongly rejected these arguments as she urged her colleagues to support the bill.

"We need more housing solutions in this state," Wicks said. "Right now, in two-thirds of California, multifamily housing, 'missing-middle' housing is illegal. Let's legalize housing in California and vote for SB 9."

In a statement immediately after the vote, Atkins said SB 9 is "about opening the door for more families to pursue their version of the California Dream — whether that's building a home for an elderly parent, creating a new source of income, or buying that first house."

"It's about opportunity," she said.

In explaining his support for both SB 9 and SB 10, Berman cited the astronomical cost of housing in his district and the region’s failure to build enough housing to keep up with job growth.

Most Viewed Stories

Most Viewed Stories

The former Palo Alto council member also lauded the recent amendments to SB 9. The bill, he said, "won’t single-handedly solve our housing crisis, but it will help addressing housing affordability by creating duplexes and smaller single-family homes at more moderate price points."

"For decades we have failed to build enough housing in California, and we have failed the mot vulnerable among us," Berman said in a statement. "These two housing bills attempt to create a framework to restore some of the socioeconomic diversity that my district – one of the most expensive in the country – has lost."

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Bill to allow more density in single-family zones passes Assembly

Housing advocates score second major victory this week

A housing bill that would loosen up restrictions in single-family zones by allowing subdivisions for up to four dwellings cleared a critical hurdle on Thursday morning, when the state Assembly voted to approve the legislation.

Senate Bill 9, which is authored by Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, received 44 votes in the Assembly that it needed to move ahead, three more than required to pass. Having already cleared the state Senate, it will now return to the Senate for a concurrence vote before heading to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Unlike Senate Bill 1120, a similar bill that faltered on the dramatic final day of the 2020 legislative session, SB 9 includes provisions that aim to address concerns about wildfire protection and gentrification. To discourage institutional investors from evicting or displacing tenants, the bill excludes properties where a tenant has resided for three years. It also allows cities to deny applications for subdivision if they find that adding homes would increase fire threat.

While the final tally may still change as those Assembly members who hadn't yet voted do so, it will not change the outcome for SB 9, which is the second major housing bill to clear the Assembly this week. On Monday, the Assembly voted to pass Senate Bill 10, legislation authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, that allows cities to rezone properties to allow up to 10 dwellings per parcel, potentially overruling voter-adopted zoning restrictions. Assembly member Marc Berman, D-Menlo Park, voted in favor of both bills, helping to ensure their narrow passage.

Assembly member Robert Rivas, D-Salinas, who introduced the bill on the Assembly floor, told his colleagues that the bill, while not perfect, "will have a positive impact on our crippling housing crisis in California." He noted that it will cap the number of units that can be built on a lot at four, which includes accessory dwelling units.

"The bottom line is, SB 9 will provide more opportunities for more working families to achieve the California dream and makes the path to homeownership in our state a more inclusive one," Rivas said.

Much like SB 10, the Atkins bill transcended party lines, with some Republicans voting to support it and some Democrats opposing it. Assembly member Adrin Nazarian, D-North Hollywood, was in the latter camp. He argued on the floor that by passing the bill without also considering the impact of increased density on utilities, parking and transportation, the legislation is setting up communities for long-term failure.

"We haven't dealt with a lot of the needs that go into complementing what increased housing means," Nazarian said. "We're going to be devastating those communities."

Seen as one of the cornerstones of the Assembly effort to address California's housing crisis, SB 9 has also been a subject of intense debate leading up to the Thursday vote. While housing advocates and the majority of Democrats in the Legislature see it as a critical step to bolster the state's housing stock, opponents of the bill have maintained that it will infringe on local control while doing little to improve housing affordability.

Palo Alto, which submitted a letter of opposition to SB 9, argued that "state driven ministerial or by-right housing approval processes fail to recognize the extensive public engagement associated with developing and adopting zoning ordinances and housing elements." The citizens group Livable California had strongly opposed SB 9, claiming that the bill "crushes single-family zoning in California, a threat to 7 million homeowners."

Assembly member Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, strongly rejected these arguments as she urged her colleagues to support the bill.

"We need more housing solutions in this state," Wicks said. "Right now, in two-thirds of California, multifamily housing, 'missing-middle' housing is illegal. Let's legalize housing in California and vote for SB 9."

In a statement immediately after the vote, Atkins said SB 9 is "about opening the door for more families to pursue their version of the California Dream — whether that's building a home for an elderly parent, creating a new source of income, or buying that first house."

"It's about opportunity," she said.

In explaining his support for both SB 9 and SB 10, Berman cited the astronomical cost of housing in his district and the region’s failure to build enough housing to keep up with job growth.

The former Palo Alto council member also lauded the recent amendments to SB 9. The bill, he said, "won’t single-handedly solve our housing crisis, but it will help addressing housing affordability by creating duplexes and smaller single-family homes at more moderate price points."

"For decades we have failed to build enough housing in California, and we have failed the mot vulnerable among us," Berman said in a statement. "These two housing bills attempt to create a framework to restore some of the socioeconomic diversity that my district – one of the most expensive in the country – has lost."

Comments

felix
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 26, 2021 at 6:38 pm
felix, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Aug 26, 2021 at 6:38 pm

Aside from the rest of the nightmarish impacts of these Bills, one word - water. Where's it coming from for this housing? Is some magical source of water included in these Bills? Of course not.
Apparently water doesn't concern Marc Berman. Good thing we can vote him out of office in 2022.





Rob
Registered user
Midtown
on Aug 26, 2021 at 7:53 pm
Rob, Midtown
Registered user
on Aug 26, 2021 at 7:53 pm

It will help stem the flow of people from Caifornia to Arizona and Nevada (or from the West Bay to Central Valley), where they compete for the same water sources, such as the Colorado. Housing people in multi-unit housing means less room for thirsty landscaping and newer buildings with fewer leaks.


RPopp
Registered user
Monroe Park
on Aug 27, 2021 at 10:33 am
RPopp, Monroe Park
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2021 at 10:33 am

Gennady,
"Assembly member Marc Berman, D-Menlo Park, voted in favor of both bills, helping to ensure their narrow passage." ??!!

SB9 had significant support at the State level!! Since when is 45-19 narrow passage??

BTW - Thank you Assembly member Marc Berman!


Native to the BAY
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 27, 2021 at 11:59 am
Native to the BAY, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2021 at 11:59 am

Finally GS a better balanced article. Facts not fiction, please. Interesting that two other articles today crying out for stronger voter rights to combat hate and exclusivity. Put the three together plus address climate change and the path to house with tolerance and safety wins. Speaking of water. Plenty of commercial builds and single family home builds approval, sucking ground water as I write this. And don’t even get me started on all the gleaming swimming pools and hot tubs in use and being installed right here. Just the facts, please. Elders living in mansions alone with pools and purdy lush landscapes. Yuk, yuk. Not. May the masses win on this.


Stepheny
Registered user
Midtown
on Aug 27, 2021 at 1:57 pm
Stepheny , Midtown
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2021 at 1:57 pm

The idea of single family homes seems to spark outrage and envy in many posters. Not everyone needs to live in Palo Alto -- especially Assemblyman Marc Berman. He didn't represent the wishes of his constituents on the City Council and particularly doesn't now that he is in the State Assembly. He refused to meet with representatives of almost 300 of us who opposed this socialistic SB 9 bill. I trust that we will vote him out of the assembly in 2022.

Landscaping does take up water, but it also helps clean the air and reduce the heat from the asphalt and concrete which is overweighted in dense housing. Turning Palo Alto and its environs into a concrete jungle will make it so no one will want to live here.


Online Name
Registered user
University South
on Aug 27, 2021 at 2:26 pm
Online Name, University South
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2021 at 2:26 pm

I certainly voiced my opinion to vote NO on these SBs, but he didn't seem to see things that way. I think it is a terrible disservice to communities to put the state wishes ahead of how we would like to buld out our communities. Shame on Marc Berman and Josh Becker.

We cannot just ignore the water issue. It is not going to increase just wishing it so. When every developer tells us how they are going to manage that, it could be time to listen to all of the exceptions they are asking for.


Eric Filseth
Registered user
Downtown North
on Aug 27, 2021 at 2:54 pm
Eric Filseth, Downtown North
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2021 at 2:54 pm

SB9 and SB10 have nothing to do with housing affordability or any “socioeconomic diversity framework,” as even proponents like the Terner Center acknowledge (citing Symbolism instead). These bills are strictly about Control; voters can’t be trusted to zone their own communities, so Authority must step in:

• SB9 bans single-family home zoning everywhere in California, even if communities want it as part of their housing mix.

• SB10 lets governments override certain voter initiatives on residential zoning, even if they pass at the ballot box.

Both bills are incredibly hostile to local voters. I’m not aware of any other bill that explicitly lets government overturn a voted-on election result; at least not in California.

Assembly Members like to talk about housing justice, but hate talking about what these bills actually do, for two reasons:

- First, it makes them look bad. Polls consistently show majorities of Bay Area voters want these decisions made locally. Special interests prefer Sacramento, a single point of lobbying. “Control” discussions imply AM’s favor faraway dirigistes and special interests over their own constituents.

- Second, there is no good answer to the question, “if XYZ zoning change really would benefit communities, why wouldn’t local voters make that change themselves?”

The only answer is a bad one: some AM’s believe over 50% of voters are stupid or venal or both, so therefore their votes shouldn’t count. That’s not something you hear a lot in America. But if you do think you’re stupid and venal and your vote shouldn’t count, you now know which AM’s agree with you.

Sacramento knows SB9/SB10 don’t help affordability. They’re what AM Kevin Kiley last month called “a strategy of avoidance, where we look like we’re doing something to address housing, but actually avoiding the much bigger issues that are responsible.” Symbolism, at voter expense.

It's poor work from Sacramento, and no voter representation locally. We can do better.


Stepheny
Registered user
Midtown
on Aug 27, 2021 at 2:59 pm
Stepheny , Midtown
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2021 at 2:59 pm
Native to the BAY
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 27, 2021 at 3:54 pm
Native to the BAY, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2021 at 3:54 pm

Thanks EF, I am all in and YES to housing SB9 and SB10. I ask aside from most likely having a second or third home, or having a rental property and having inherited your wealth -- Have you ever had to cover the cost of your rent ? Or have been threatened by choices like keeping a job or paying your rent and feeding yourself . CC has not help out any rental resident other than city throwing up some bad links on website. It's terrible that CC has pushed its responsible to all residents - not just whinny single family home owners - by hiding behind zoom meetings and COVID crisis when it meets their end!
50% of PA area residents rent and the tide is changing in our favor. Can't hide the truth!!
YES!
• SB9 bans single-family home zoning everywhere in California, even if communities want it as part of their housing mix.
AND YES!
• SB10 lets governments override certain voter initiatives on residential zoning, even if they pass at the ballot box.


anon1234
Registered user
College Terrace
on Aug 27, 2021 at 4:14 pm
anon1234, College Terrace
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2021 at 4:14 pm

city Council member Filseth is correct in his observations.

Furthermore, unfortunately the press has not accurately reported on these recently proposed legislative changes. The bills allow 6 units at least per parcel with almost no set-backs and destroy backyard habitat.


SB 9 and 10 and other such bills being proposed undermine the democratic process and have the potential to destroy neighborhoods and the environment in our cities.

These bills will do nothing to help lower and middle income people nor will they help minority communities.

These bills and the politics that are behind seem to be designed to be confusing and confuse well meaning people to think that they are progressive and will help with housing affordability issues in our state.

These bills do not in any way address affordability of housing or other issues that continue to divide our options based on wealth.

These bills are not popular in California with voters so We must renter hold our elected accountable for their actions voting for them.

Web Link


anon1234
Registered user
College Terrace
on Aug 27, 2021 at 4:34 pm
anon1234, College Terrace
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2021 at 4:34 pm

Sorry, the word “renter “ is not supposed to be in the last sentence


Native to the BAY
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 27, 2021 at 5:50 pm
Native to the BAY, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2021 at 5:50 pm

@Aaron1234 “per parcel with almost no set-backs and destroy backyard habitat” is NYMBY attitude — totally self centered. Privates property , in the case of SB9 & 19’s passage, does not always win . Reeks of invasive capitalism (a non democratic value) —- weed it out!


anon1234
Registered user
College Terrace
on Aug 27, 2021 at 6:22 pm
anon1234, College Terrace
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2021 at 6:22 pm

Native to the bay …..
I’m not sure I understand your point.
The properties will still be private property
That will have more monetary value for the owner which is likely to be investor group or other business concern not a family.


Native to the BAY
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 27, 2021 at 6:50 pm
Native to the BAY, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2021 at 6:50 pm

Anon123 Until real-estate associations cap bid wars / top dollar amounts it will remain prohibitive for anyone to rent or buy. Capitalist investments in luxury commercial (commute workers) land use is not democratic — density along transit is sustainable . Facts over fiction. We are all investors in our communities not just w cash insentives.


tmp
Registered user
Downtown North
on Aug 27, 2021 at 11:10 pm
tmp, Downtown North
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2021 at 11:10 pm

The world is overpopulated. Humans are killing every other species as we burn down the planet and use up all the fresh water and rather than limit population growth in a respectful and fair manner we double down and cram in more people to use more energy, water and add more pollution to the world. What brilliant leaders and we have elected from such a strong thinking electorate.


Annette
Registered user
College Terrace
on Aug 28, 2021 at 3:15 pm
Annette, College Terrace
Registered user
on Aug 28, 2021 at 3:15 pm

Oh how I wish Bill Johnson would bring back the "like" button as I would like Eric Filseth's comments above. Everyone in our local communities who seeks affordable housing should be appalled by the false hope offered by the proponents of these bills. And everyone who is offended at being called racist for living in a R1 zone should be, too. (Don't get irate; I understand that past practices such a red-lining existed here). Let's recognize that such practices were retired for good reason and not play the "it's racist" card for purposes of promoting legislation that has more downside than up.

Everyone: there's still time to write Newsom. Do it! He needs to know where Californians stand on these bills.


Native to the BAY
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 28, 2021 at 3:31 pm
Native to the BAY, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Aug 28, 2021 at 3:31 pm

@tmp Q How is overpopulation, climate crisis , COVID pandemic that our planet is besieged w now helping our local fellow mankind breathing the oxygen you also breath : It’s right now: un-affordable housing, unhoused humans here on our streets! What are you taking action on to combat local emergencies affecting those without stable housing who yes, are born and raised right here? Local Selfish greed is a huge contributor to causing such current crisis. Sad.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 28, 2021 at 4:03 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Aug 28, 2021 at 4:03 pm

Echoing Annette's points but a;so a DISLIKE button for the absurdity of the claims these bills will miraculously increase affordability WITHOUT affordable provisions.

The inattention to the details of the bills by the public, the cynical lies by Berman and Becker that they were too too busy to pay attention to details and the unbelievable spin by the density lobbyists make me wonder. Congrats for turning those who did pay attention into the big bad selfish NIMBYs when it was their backers who spent $200,000,000 lobbying to underpay their gig workers.

Did you catch the quote by one the most vocal Peninsula For Everyone/YIMBY lobbyists that seniors should be "thrilled" that they can "finally" age in p0ace with the rents they can FINALLY collect with all the dwellings they can now build in their backyards?

How many DECADES will those lucky seniors have to live to break even? ADUs cost $ $$$,$$$ each to build. Higher property assessments and higher tax payments are forever.

See also PT Barnum.


Annette
Registered user
College Terrace
on Aug 28, 2021 at 5:45 pm
Annette, College Terrace
Registered user
on Aug 28, 2021 at 5:45 pm

Like Online Name, I also wonder. How long will it take for those who think SB9 and SB10 are dandy answers to the largely self-inflicted housing deficit to realize that they've been duped? Maybe when their neighbor quietly sells to an investor (or other developer or Stanford) and the single story home next to them is replaced with several taller, closer buildings. Or when the electrical grid buckles. Or the water supply is so woefully insufficient that everyone's allowance is severely reduced. Or every street is crammed with cars. Or the tree canopy (and all its many benefits) shrinks so that more and more pricey housing can be built. Or there's an overwhelming fire. THAT (not an appreciable amount of badly needed affordable housing) is what Atkins, Weiner, Berman, Becker et al are handing us. These bills do not require contribution to infrastructure. They're lousy. Better solutions, including legislation that would achieve what's needed, have been introduced.


Bystander
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 28, 2021 at 5:49 pm
Bystander, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Aug 28, 2021 at 5:49 pm

I agree with Annette and Online Name and also would like to see the return of the like button.

Reading discussion on Nextdoor I have seen that people want to build ADUs for homeoffices and as guest houses for visiting relatives. I suspect AirBnB rentals in some way and even Stanford Students are much more likely to be living in these rather than restaurant or retail workers with families. Are we really expecting that a police officer or teacher with a family are likely to want to live in a backyard cottage or granny flat?


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 28, 2021 at 7:07 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Aug 28, 2021 at 7:07 pm

Re the drought / water shortages: reconstituted waste water or Toilet-to-Tap.

Yum. Can't wait to hear the spin on that and so much more.


Tecsi
Registered user
Mountain View
on Aug 28, 2021 at 9:00 pm
Tecsi, Mountain View
Registered user
on Aug 28, 2021 at 9:00 pm

Our well-intended legislators are not connecting the dots.

To wit, from Rivas: "The bottom line is, SB 9 will provide more opportunities for more working families to achieve the California dream and makes the path to homeownership in our state a more inclusive one," Rivas said.

Tell me specifically where in Silicon Valley SB9 is going to provide a home for for "working families"?

Good intentions and naive bills don’t fix problems. Our legislators need to walk us through, neighborhood-by-neighborhood, how SB9 will solve affordable housing


Native to the BAY
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 29, 2021 at 4:44 pm
Native to the BAY, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Aug 29, 2021 at 4:44 pm

Much ADU about noth’n. City keeps throwing non solutions at a Zoom wall hoping something will stick. Palo Alto must embrace the inevitable. Many tools for more action for its inflationary un-affordability practices. It’s eminent — land rich, renter serfdom is coming to an end.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 29, 2021 at 5:52 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Aug 29, 2021 at 5:52 pm

@Native to the BAY, could you be a bit more specific about all those many tools to enhance affordability and end serfdom? Extra credit for covering the 2 new housing bills and their specific provisions re affordability.

Thanks.


Ryan
Registered user
Barron Park
on Aug 29, 2021 at 8:48 pm
Ryan, Barron Park
Registered user
on Aug 29, 2021 at 8:48 pm

This is terrible. We don't have the water for it anyway. It will destroy the environment.

Please vote some real people in so we can reverse this.


Robert Prescott
Registered user
Barron Park
on Aug 30, 2021 at 9:01 am
Robert Prescott, Barron Park
Registered user
on Aug 30, 2021 at 9:01 am
Beatrice Ignacio
Registered user
another community
on Aug 30, 2021 at 9:15 am
Beatrice Ignacio, another community
Registered user
on Aug 30, 2021 at 9:15 am
Consider Your Options.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2021 at 12:22 pm
Consider Your Options. , Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Aug 30, 2021 at 12:22 pm

Becker and Berman just lost my vote. With legislation, the devil is ALWAYS in the details. We need to be able to count on our representatives to be informed on those. It is what we elected them to do. They didn't read the fine print.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 30, 2021 at 12:52 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Aug 30, 2021 at 12:52 pm

"Becker and Berman just lost my vote. With legislation, the devil is ALWAYS in the details. We need to be able to count on our representatives to be informed on those. It is what we elected them to do. They didn't read the fine print."

Absolutely. And they dissembled and evaded, some would say lied, while wasting the time of hundreds of people in Zoom meetings.

After Becker's repeated Zoom claims that he "was having trouble wrapping his mind around" the bills one local wit suggested we mail him turbans to ease his brain.

Berman was less smooth but no less evasive, referring all ZOOM questions to his legislative aide.


Annette
Registered user
College Terrace
on Aug 30, 2021 at 3:21 pm
Annette, College Terrace
Registered user
on Aug 30, 2021 at 3:21 pm

@Consider Your Options: I think you nailed it: "they didn't read".

Legislation as impactful as SB9 and SB10 should be priority reading for our representatives. Berman's Artful Dodger performance comes as no surprise. I am less familiar with Becker, but now know him to be the same. We, including those who support SB9 and SB10, deserve better. Our legislators should know the impact of every aspect of any bill they support and make themselves available to debate such bills in advance of voting.

I expect we will learn that these bills are close to 100% about politics and close to 0% about affordable housing. Weiner's been posturing to get one of his housing bills passed for years. Newsom needs support to survive the recall. And every last one of the politicos in Sacramento needs donations for their re-election campaigns. One sure way to win that kind of $upport is to support legislation that benefits those with the deepest pockets. It's sad that they enlist true believers to do their bidding b/c the delight those people are feeling now is likely to be very short-lived. These bills will not make Palo Alto affordable, but that sure is a good sound bite.


Pat Markevitch
Registered user
Downtown North
on Aug 30, 2021 at 4:13 pm
Pat Markevitch, Downtown North
Registered user
on Aug 30, 2021 at 4:13 pm

Annette,

@Consider Your Options: I think you nailed it: "they didn't read".

Actually, I believe they did read it. They just didn't want to own up to it because they would lose votes. They are right, they will lose votes.


Eric Filseth
Registered user
Downtown North
on Aug 30, 2021 at 5:30 pm
Eric Filseth, Downtown North
Registered user
on Aug 30, 2021 at 5:30 pm

@NATIVE’s “tide is changing” suggestion isn’t supported by data. Even YIMBY polls show most voters want to decide community zoning locally, not have it imposed from Sacramento (Web Link page 13).

Much of the above discussion misses the point of these bills. People shouldn’t get wrapped up in the distraction-campaign, “wouldn’t it be great if housing were less expensive?” (which few disagree with).

The right question to ask your representative isn’t whether the zoning actions in SB9 will make Peninsula housing affordable to those currently priced out. The right questions are:


> Do you trust me and my neighbors to zone our own community?


> How can you ask for my vote to empower you as my state representative,
> when you don’t respect my vote on land use, and per SB10 are actually
> willing to suppress it after I’ve cast it?


I expect this will fall on deaf ears in some quarters, but this post isn’t really about housing. I want good government. Sacramento has been singularly ineffective at dealing with many challenging social issues, including this one. I agree with Assemblyman Kiley that the root problem there is a fear of entrenched special interests, a cult of “we know it all,” and far too much comfort with virtue-signaling measures that don’t really move the needle, vacuously rationalized as “every little bit helps.” Not enough, it doesn’t.

Jerry Brown once said, “the easiest problems for the Legislature to fix are the ones it created itself” … the hard problems are hard. Autocracy won’t solve this one; it will take Sacramento and cities and local voters all working together. But these Sacramento Wienerbills drive wedges where instead they should build bridges, in pursuit of in practice very little, not worth it to anyone but the most rabid.

I don’t believe California is ungovernable, but it’s ungovernable this way. We can do better.


Annette
Registered user
College Terrace
on Aug 30, 2021 at 6:11 pm
Annette, College Terrace
Registered user
on Aug 30, 2021 at 6:11 pm

Please bring back that like button!

Eric Filseth: imagine the button is there and that it just ticked up one more after I read your last post.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 30, 2021 at 6:32 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Aug 30, 2021 at 6:32 pm

"I agree with Assemblyman Kiley that the root problem there is a fear of entrenched special interests, a cult of “we know it all,” and far too much comfort with virtue-signaling measures that don’t really move the needle, vacuously rationalized as “every little bit helps.” Not enough, it doesn’t."

Pressing the LIKE button repeatedly.

Much of the press coverage, including that quoting Wiener and Berman, noted that other extreme power-grab legislation has been intentionally -- cynically -- delayed until "there's a more receptive political climate" -- meaning they ADMIT they supported these bills knowing they're opposed by most of their constituents while caving to the special interests.


Annette
Registered user
College Terrace
on Aug 30, 2021 at 6:53 pm
Annette, College Terrace
Registered user
on Aug 30, 2021 at 6:53 pm

To connect the dots, read the article about the contributions to both sides of the recall campaign. Lots of developer/investor money. Weiner, Atkins, Berman, Becker et al are playing politics with local control and local communities. Newsom, too, but deftly and indirectly. Even if you happen to like the way things are tilting this time around, the impact of what they are doing has the potential for far-reaching and long lasting consequences. It's nonsense like this that paved the way for Trump to become President; fed up people express their displeasure at the polls.


chris
Registered user
University South
on Aug 31, 2021 at 12:01 pm
chris, University South
Registered user
on Aug 31, 2021 at 12:01 pm

The comments from City Council about state interference in local zoning are disingenuous.4

Prior to Eric Filseth's election to City Council in 2014, many more housing units were built in Palo Alto per year than have been built since. This is not a coincidence.

The current majority on City Council has taken a very strong anti-housing stance. Projects that were approved in the previous 2 decades would have no chance with this City Council. Mountain View and Menlo Park have been able to build housing much more successfully than Palo Alto in recent years.

There is a reason Marc Berman is not afraid of the Paper Tiger that is Palo Alto City Council.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 31, 2021 at 12:55 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Aug 31, 2021 at 12:55 pm

That's because for decades we had an extremely pro-development on the City Council that kept reducing council size to ensure they prevailed. So we ended up with the pro-development "Gang of Five" also known as "Liz's Kids."

As you noted, the voters voted for a long-needed change and hence the current council although the "pro-development" candidates not surprisingly out-raised their voter-supported opponents.

You may recall all the editorials decrying the "lack of civility" common during previous regimes as well as former Mayor Fine's very petulant outgoing message and the laughable and constant "claims" that tiny PASZ was better funded than the Chamber of Commerce, Silicon Valley Leadership Group etc.


Steve Dabrowski
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 31, 2021 at 1:47 pm
Steve Dabrowski, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Aug 31, 2021 at 1:47 pm

As to Annette's comment on writing to Newsom, that will be just as effective as writing to Berman. In other words a waste of time, he is full in on 9 and 10 and a fellow traveler with Weiner, Atkins, Berman, Becker et al. Vote to recall him before he can sign these into law and as a punishment for when he does, which he surely will!


Annette
Registered user
College Terrace
on Aug 31, 2021 at 2:01 pm
Annette, College Terrace
Registered user
on Aug 31, 2021 at 2:01 pm

@Chris - there's some truth in your "paper tiger" comment. I think it applies well to the relationship between past pro-development Councils (of which Berman was a member) and Senior Staff. I include in this the City Attorney's office and its history of being afraid of law suits. Developers know this. Exhibit A on that: the Hotel President. The ACLU also knows it and successfully used the City's reticence to stand its ground to push for a premature, essentially unplanned and thus problematic opening of Foothills Park. Years ago the City let a private company use the grounds at Cubberley for parties. This was contrary to policy but it happened anyway. And there's the un-enforced "public benefit" that only sometimes gets corrected. And I don't hear much from either the City Manager or the City Attorney's office about the recent serious crimes that have happened in Palo Alto. Paper Tiger indeed.

As for Berman, his votes were "bought and paid for" years ago and he continues to serve that narrow slice of constituents quite well. This is disappointing but hardly surprising.

I hope this current CC does take a moderate, sensible approach to both commercial and residential development. There are three aspects of infrastructure that are especially concerning: water, the electrical grid, and fire safety. Existing infrastructure is hard pressed to service the current level of demand and when it comes to shortages and breakdowns, not one of those resources distinguishes between residential and commercial demand. Out is out.

SB9 (and SB10) will increase demand w/o offsetting that with a contribution to infrastructure. We know where the lopsided jobs:housing ratio has taken us. Why create a lopsided built environment:infrastructure ratio?






Andy
Registered user
Stanford
on Aug 31, 2021 at 3:36 pm
Andy, Stanford
Registered user
on Aug 31, 2021 at 3:36 pm

Any step to change the bizarre zoning laws of California is positive, but we need to MUCH more if we are going to reverse the housing crisis and make it so people can afford to live here.

We should encourage all of the following:

* Mixed-use developments

the more we have mixed-use, the less traffic and congestion and better land use; the old days of separate residential or office or commercial are no longer relevant in the post-pandemic world.

* Minimum heights for new developments and incentives to build as tall as possible

contrary to popular myth, the safest structures for earthquakes are tallest. When we build tall, we use dramatically increase land efficiency. Add interior parking and you can build many more homes on the same footprint.

We need to shift from "maximum heights" to "minimum heights" so over time, properties become taller. 5 stories is small everywhere except California. There's no reason there can't be a series of 15-20 story buildings at Stanford or anywhere in Palo Alto. Cluster them initially and then let's solve the crisis.


Allen Akin
Registered user
Professorville
on Aug 31, 2021 at 4:39 pm
Allen Akin, Professorville
Registered user
on Aug 31, 2021 at 4:39 pm

The average apartment size in Manhattan is 701 sq ft, and the average rent is $3872/mo ( Web Link ).

The average apartment size in Palo Alto is 822 sq ft, and the average rent is $3003/mo.

Building taller and more densely doesn't make housing more affordable because it drives up the price of land as well as the construction cost per square foot. As long as there are people with enough dollars to create demand, you can build tall/dense housing and make it profitable, but you can't make it cheap. When there aren't enough dollars around to create demand, you can't make it profitable, so it doesn't get built.

By the way, anyone else notice that SB9 concentrates its new development in areas that are neither mixed-use nor well-served by mass transit? So much for all those claims about promoting walkability and cutting carbon dioxide emissions.


Allen Akin
Registered user
Professorville
on Aug 31, 2021 at 6:31 pm
Allen Akin, Professorville
Registered user
on Aug 31, 2021 at 6:31 pm

Had a little glitch with web links. In case you were wondering where the Palo Alto apartment data came from, here it is: Web Link


I miss my small town feel
Registered user
another community
on Sep 1, 2021 at 5:37 pm
I miss my small town feel, another community
Registered user
on Sep 1, 2021 at 5:37 pm

Can we demand Newsom VETO SB 9 and 10 NOW before the recall election or we'll vote to recall him even if we hate the waste of money? We could then vote for the Libertarian to prove we are not Trumpers... just pissed off with getting the shaft from politicians bought and paid for by the developers, real estate agents and tech companies that want to make it easier to gentrify neighborhoods and build high end but dense housing.


Lennie
Registered user
Barron Park
on Sep 2, 2021 at 6:55 pm
Lennie, Barron Park
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2021 at 6:55 pm

I do not support allowing multiple housing units in residential neighborhoods. I do support the right of cities and communities to decide what they want their neighborhoods to look like. I was born and raised in another country. I have also lived in 5 states in the USA. I have never seen a situation in which single family neighborhoods could be transformed into high density, overcrowded communities by changes like those we are seeing in Sacramento right now.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

On Wednesday, we'll be launching a new website. To prepare and make sure all our content is available on the new platform, commenting on stories and in TownSquare has been disabled. When the new site is online, past comments will be available to be seen and we'll reinstate the ability to comment. We appreciate your patience while we make this transition.