The ongoing battle between local control advocates and a lawmaker seeking to overhaul state housing policy ramped up over a recent proposal seeking to incentivize residential development near public transportation.
Senate Bill 827, authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, served as the most recent catalyst for debate between the local legislator and those wishing to preserve the authority of local elected officials when considering housing proposals.
Wiener, who represents San Francisco and a slice of northern San Mateo County, said the bill loosening density regulations near public transit stops could combat the state’s affordability crisis. Most notably, the bill aims to boost allowable building height limits in certain cases to a maximum 85 feet, while also exempting qualified projects from local parking and density limits.
Critics though claim the proposal merely seeks to take away the ability of city councils, planning departments and other local representatives traditionally charged with guiding community development.
“The biggest issue is stripping away planning documents and handing this decision over to developers,” said Jason Rhine, a legislative representative with the League of California Cities.
Wiener refuted such claims though, and said the proposal merely seeks to reclaim some authority for the Legislature in housing matters, which is badly needed considering the breadth of the state’s affordability crunch.
“There are local communities which have created policies that are not sustainable, and I do believe the state has a role to play,” said Wiener.
Under SB 827, properties one-half mile from large public transit stations and one-quarter-mile from frequently used bus stops would be exempt from local zoning regulations such as maximum allowable densities, minimum parking requirements and height limits between 45 feet and 85 feet, or four to eight stories.
Wiener’s most recent proposal dovetails with his work on Senate Bill 35, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown last year amidst a slate of new laws seeking to facilitate housing construction, with a focus on transit-oriented development.
Despite the success of last year’s housing law push, Wiener has said he intends to keep the pressure on over the coming legislative session. Such a desire comes to the chagrin of Rhine, who said it may be wiser to hold off on crafting more bills in favor of letting the most recent round of laws take hold.
Wiener’s interest in continuing to craft new housing laws has drawn positive reviews from local legislators who laud the legislative effort to quell the affordability crisis.
Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-South San Francisco, lent his support to Wiener’s most recent effort, while also noting the need to keep an eye to local control.
“SB 827 provides a solid starting point for building more housing. As we evaluate our affordable housing options, we should strongly consider balancing the preservation of local land use authority with making it easier to make sure affordable housing is built,” he said in an email.
Mullin recently proposed bills separately aiming to address affordable housing by facilitating financing and also seeking to again allow cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies.
Mullin said the agencies were an effective mechanism for local elected officials to build new housing, until Brown vanquished them during the Great Recession. Wiener too said he supports bringing back redevelopment agencies, answering the call of those who claim his housing effort worsens a financial struggle for cities to implement new policies.
Recommended for you
“The state was wrong to do that …. We should bring it back with an emphasis on infrastructure and affordable housing,” Wiener said, regarding redevelopment.
Assemblyman Marc Berman, D-Palo Alto, meanwhile was reticent to lend his support to Wiener’s bill while it is still in its formative stages.
“The bill is in the Senate now and will go through several committees in the Senate and the Assembly, where I expect many changes to be made, before I have an opportunity to vote on it on the Assembly floor. I am waiting to see what the details of the bill are before I take a position,” he said in an email.
His stance regarding forthcoming changes are already beginning to come to fruition, as Wiener released a list of proposed amendments to the bill Tuesday, Feb. 27. Many of the changes are designed to preserve existing affordable housing developments in the transit zones standing to be affected by the legislation.
“These amendments largely focus on concerns some have expressed about displacement and demolition,” said Wiener. “We want to add new density while assuring the people who are already living there, particularly low-income people, are not pushed out.”
State Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, also was reticent to take a position on the most recent bill, with an assumption it will continue to take shape over the coming weeks and months.
“It’s hard to really have an opinion on something that is not really what it will be eventually,” he said.
He did note though the bill, as constructed, stands to offer a profound effect on the communities he represents.
“It could have some very major impacts on certain communities that would change the entire character of a community and I don’t think that is his intent, and I think those will be some of the changes we will see,” he said.
For Wiener’s part, he said the bill is part of a continued legislative push on the housing front which should not be viewed as an unwillingness to work with local communities.
“We are not having a state takeover of housing, but having a better balance of local control that operates within the state control,” he said.
(650) 344-5200 ext. 105
Note to readers: this article has been amended to correct a quote by state Senator Wiener which was inaccurately attributed to Assemblyman Berman.
(32) comments
So let me get this straight, the so called demand for housing prompts the peninsula cities to build mega multi dwelling fancy dancy apartments to solve the problem. The big question is who in their right mind will or can pay this amount of cash for rent?
https://prometheusapartments.com/san-francisco-bay-area-apartments/san-francisco-peninsula/trestle?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1q28qbXg2QIVDHt-Ch1aEQi_EAAYASAAEgIVa_D_BwE
I'm bet there are plenty of hi-paid hi-tech young singles ready to move into the new rentals or they wouldn't be building them. Without a moratorium on massive job creation, housing and other infrastructure won't catch up.
Live in your "stock and pack" and leave the rest of us alone.
What’s far worse than “stack and pack” is “spread and sprawl” ... which equates to super long, soul-crushing, unsustainable, road- and highway-clogging car commutes from hopelessly auto-dependent bedroom (commuter) communities consisting of clusters of walled-off tract homes.
In reviewing data from the US Census Bureau it appears that of all 9 counties, San Francisco is actually the worst offender in creating jobs without housing. It started bad and got even worse while Wiener was on their board of Supervisors there. SF has 3 jobs for every 2 workers. I was as surprised as anyone. I would have bet it was Santa Clara County. Most of the other counties are in approximate balance. Anyway, results are here:
http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2018/03/sf-bay-area-1-live-work-commute.html
and
http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2018/03/sf-bay-area-2-live-work-commute.html
If this passes, we should shut down all local governments.
Local planning is the most meaningful work of local governments and the further government is removed from its citizens, the less useful and efficient it becomes.
Local>State>Federal
I'm at least glad Wiener is a proponent of this. If Kevin Leon (his real name) jumps on board, it will have the visible support of the worst our State has to offer.
The real problem is the Democratic majority in our State legislature. They are the problem; They listen to Silicon Valley, Biotech Valley, the housing fanatics, the developers. As a long time democrat who is no longer affiliated with any party, it is really sad to see what has happened to the party that used to listen to the people and now its ears are only for the lobbyists who are continuously on their case, wining and dining them.. Not coincidentally these companies with their armies of lobbyists, contribute large sums of money to their campaign coffers. Basic tenor: FOLLOW THE MONEY!
(Edited by staff.)"State Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, also was reticent to take a position on the most recent bill, with an assumption it will continue to take shape over the coming weeks and months.
“It’s hard to really have an opinion on something that is not really what it will be eventually,” he said
Jerry, you've made your opinion about allowing parents to medicate their K-12 kids with marijuana products. Is that what it will be eventually?
Far healthier than using opioids like Vicodin and Oxycodone, Citizen, and completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.
Hey Wiener, why not work on the infrastructure first,then think about affordable housing after that's done. Affordable housing? you mean cheaply built apartments constructed from the cheapest material,built by the cheapest paid "craftsmen",who work for the cheapest out of town contractor? Then after they're completed, charge the poor renter $4.00 sq.ft.a month to live there.(monthly) The jury is still out for the shacks built here in Redwood City. Give it 5 years before the major repairs to begin. Its the new saying; "you don't get what you paid for, you get less,and you'll pay a lot for it"
Isn't there a BART station in Milbrae with zero housing (besides what was already there before the station was built)?
Exactly, communities/ businesses were in place long before any BART stations were built. You want housing by public transportation destinations? Fine, build some houses. 2,3 and 4 BD single family homes. In order for the peninsula to grow and develop successfully, main thoroughfares and highways must be widened. More efficient bus routes are a must since there certainly is no room for increased train tracks. Unfortunately highway and road construction is not a money maker for developers , businessmen/bankers, real estate companies/agents etc. I'm not buying the notion of multi dwelling hi rise apartments located by train stations will reduce Bay Area gridlock.
All the recent fighting over the developments by Millbrae Station show why SB-827 is needed. Every town thinks building housing is somebody else's problem, but in aggregate this means that not nearly enough housing gets built. In the midst of the worst housing crisis in recent US history, all the city council can talk about is how to squeeze more commercial development into the TODs. Local governments have repeatedly shown themselves as incapable of zoning for enough housing to meet demand, because they only represent the interests of landowners rather than the needs of the bay area.
If 827 had been in force during the big run up in tech jobs, there would now be much more balance of housing and jobs in Mountain View, Palo Alto and Menlo Park. This would have created much less of an externality on the rest of the Bay Area, and rents would be much more affordable. This is the change the Bay Area needs, and it can only be done at the state level.
Wiener is in the pockets of the developers and YIMBY. They are coming for your communities. Make no mistake about it! There are a lot of SFR bedroom communities these developers want to rezone and rebuild and with state control it can happen.
Scott Weiner has been working in close collaboration with an organization called California YIMBY, which is notable for its "Sue the Suburbs" campaign. Make no mistake, this is a hostile takeover of the suburbs by folks who think they know better. Contact your legislators and tell them to #resist!
Those same suburbs added tens of thousands of jobs over the past several years, and virtually NO new housing. You simply cannot expect to profit from those jobs (via sales taxes paid by workers, and property taxes paid by developers), and not add more housing. The only thing that should be resisted here is the illogical, emotional appeals of people such as yourself, Bruce.
I believe a local city can simply expect to profit any way their residents see fit. And by the looks of it, there's going to some shaking down of city councils up and down the peninsula come election time.
It's clearly longtime residents of the Bay Area suburbs vs. hi rise apartment real estate tycoons (& their lobbyists)
No, they can't, and now they're going to be on the receiving end of State action because of it. You cannot add tens of thousands of jobs and just expect those workers to live elsewhere. It's a correction of a failed policy, not a shakedown. And there are plenty of long-time residents, myself included, who will back the State up on that.
Thanks for this article. This is a perfect example of legislators creating a problem, and then demanding inappropriate solutions that create even more problems. No, cities and counties did not create the housing affordability crisis; state legislators and regional bureaucrats did, by herding populations into tight transit corridors. Obviously, when you limit the supply of land, you will have either sky-high housing cost or stack and pack. And by the way, the cost of building stack and pack housing is greater than building single family homes, again jacking up costs. Put Wiener on notice you will not accept stack and pack in your community.
Well said, Marcy!
That's patently false, Marcy. The housing crisis was created by local governments and homeowners failing to approve the requisite number of new housing units to match the influx of jobs. It's completely unacceptable. SB827 cannot come soon enough.
What housing crisis? When did it become a crisis? Are there really that many people who can't find a 1 bad apartment for $2500?
It became a crisis when the Peninsula added 72,800 jobs and only 3,800 housing units over a five year period. It became a crisis when median rental prices doubled in that same timeframe. It became a crisis when people began seeing their rents raised hundreds of dollars a month. It became a crisis when people like you started believing that $2,500 a month was a reasonable price to pay for a 1-bd apartment.
SMC Citizen: That's an amazingly heartless comment. Yes, there are lots of people who can't get a $2500 apartment. They're called the poor and middle class. Renters on the peninsula have been squeezed by towns "profit[ing] any way their residents see fit" and prioritizing property values and jobs over spaces for people to live. That persistent selfishness of landowners is exactly why SB-827 is needed.
John Morris and lucaswiman, my $2500 for a 1 BD comment was totally sarcastic. Of course $2500 is too much, but don't even try to blame the residents/homeowners of the peninsula for rising rents/cost of real estate, or no availability of housing. we just live here and I'm very sorry for the folks who are paying the amount of a home mortgage for 1 months rent, but do you really think the price of these apartments will ever decrease?
here's the going rate for Redwood City apartments next to CalTrain. this is what I call unacceptable.
https://www.themarstonbywindsor.com/brochure.aspx
It's certainly not all or even most homeowners, but there is a very vocal and politically well connected group of people who go to planning commission meetings and city council meetings, always arguing for shorter buildings, less development, no ADUs, etc., etc. They've been extremely successful at that. It's certainly not the only factor, but it's probably the second biggest factor. (The biggest factor in my opinion is zoning regulations, though anti-housing activists also oppose altering the zoning code to allow more construction.)
You can see this happening across the bay area from Berkeley to San Francisco to Millbrae to Mountain View, and it's been going on for decades. There have been some major successes from housing activists in the past 1-2 years, but most of them are still in the planning or construction phases, and aren't on the market yet.
As for whether I believe the prices will ever come down, yes, I do. We've seen this start to happen in Seattle as they've built more housing. Over the past 10 years, we saw an enormous run-up in rents as more jobs were added, while very few housing units were added. I don't think it's crazy to think that when/if we work through that backlog of housing demand, prices will stabilize, and then start to fall. It's likely that new units will continue to be expensive for some time, but the older stock of apartments will get cheaper, rents won't go up 10-20% every year, etc.
That will take years, and require a major overhaul to how housing planning is done (of which SB-827 is part). But I do think it's possible.
Watch this Bill closely! It not only "could have some very major impacts on certain communities that would change the entire character of a community," but be devastating! Many long-time residents are already searching for new homes out of this area and mess with the high taxes, traffic and congestion, lack of infrastructure, earthquake potential, need for levies for flooding, and crowding ...all impediments to quality of life which was just rated at the bottom of the scale by U.S New Annual Report (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings). We must all speak up and oppose SB 827.
Make Wiener prove all of his statements BEFORE anything like this is approved...... Otherwise, it's just another profit windfall for stack and pack developers...
Reads like a lot of stack and pack.
League of California Cities opposes SB827. See http://www.cacities.org/Policy-Advocacy/Action-Center/SB-827-(Wiener)-Planning-and-Zoning.
I am from Chicago. We called them projects. Total disaster. Encourage your city councils and county board of supervisors to oppose SB-827.
well for now,the rule is 10% deemed for "affordable housing" (make less that apprx. $85,000-$90,000 a year, family of 4) when it increases to 80-100%,then we'll call them "the projects" ( 8-10 years)
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.