Whether San Mateo County officials will back a controversial state housing bill aimed at boosting construction of homes near jobs and transit hubs will be up for debate among supervisors Tuesday as they review a resolution in support of state Sen. Scott Wiener’s Senate Bill 50.
In proposing county officials voice support for Senate Bill 50, Supervisor David Canepa is hoping to take aim at the state’s housing shortage, which he has seen put pressure on county residents in the form of astronomically high rents and down payments on homes that are out of reach for most. Slated to replace low-density zones near transportation and job centers with new standards if passed, SB 50 takes after Senate Bill 827, which Wiener, D-San Francisco, proposed last year to loosen building regulations in areas adjacent to transportation hubs as a means of incentivizing transit-oriented development.
With a growing number of Bay Area tech companies slated to announce initial public offerings, Canepa worried about the exodus of the county’s middle class to other counties and states. Acknowledging many of the county’s first responders live outside the county due to high housing costs, Canepa looked to the bill to take bold action on an issue expected to affect future generations across the state.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that we have to take dramatic action,” he said. “This is just not a San Mateo County issue.”
Though Supervisor Don Horsley joined Canepa in sponsoring the resolution, he said he intended to defer action on it until he is able to meet with groups who have voiced concerns about the proposed legislation and how it may affect specific cities. Though Horsley was hopeful about the animated conversations SB 50 has sparked across the state, he said he’s received several emails and phone calls from county residents with deep concerns about the bill and said he would like to meet with them before officials take such a resolution to a vote.
He added he has heard there may be some modifications to SB 50 as it goes through the legislative process that could factor into officials’ votes as well.
Recommended for you
“Before we actually decide whether we are going to support this or not, I want to hear their views,” he said.
Though Canepa acknowledged the concerns some have aired about the loss of local control on housing projects they feel could accompany SB 50, he felt cities will still have an opportunity to weigh in on design and review of developments with this particular bill. He acknowledged some cities are doing better than others in terms of meeting their state housing goals, but Canepa noted the nine Bay Area counties are behind in meeting their residents’ needs.
Canepa pegged Mission Street in Daly City and stretches of El Camino Real throughout the county as among the places where homes can be built in the future, which he felt would give many residents their first chance to purchase their own home or live in their own apartment. He looked to SB 50 to create the housing inventory needed to house service workers, teachers and others who have struggled to make ends meet, emphasizing that he was driven to voice support for SB 50 out of concern for future generations.
“The time is now, we have to take action,” he said. “What we are doing now is not working.”
Supervisors meet 9 a.m. Tuesday, March 12, at 400 County Center, Redwood City.
(650) 344-5200 ext. 106
(14) comments
Earth to Canepa...there are thousands of market units available for rent and for sale in San Mateo County....
The elephant in the room though is.... are these increased density proposals being made for affordable housing or market rate housing ?
Affordability is the real issue, and I think these politicians are conflating the two by simply building more un-affordable market rate housing.
Vincent - this fantasy you seem to have of there being myriad market-rate units available here is just that - a fantasy. Vacancy rates all along the Peninsula for *all* types of units are at record lows. We need more affordable homes, to be sure, but every single unit helps with the supply issue.
And to answer your question - yes! SB50 doesn't just apply to market-rate projects, it applies to 100% affordable ones as well. This will absolutely be a game changer for non-profit developers creating affordable housing state-wide.
Jordan...sorry but these are facts not fantasy.
Available today in San Mateo County :
1,820 Homes For Sale in San Mateo County, CA Homes.com
1,280 Rentals Available in San Mateo County CA Apartments.com
How much gentrification will you accept because the fact is that we have built thousands of units in the City of San Mateo that have done nothing to lower the price of housing.
Example Station Park Green costs for studios, 1 bdr. up to 2bdr. $3000-$5000. And there are plenty of units available at those market rate prices up and down the Peninsula.
Further, it seems to me that you and the rest of the Yimby's are the ones promoting a fantasy:
A N L A O R E P O R T
The California Legislative Analyst's Office 2015 report "California's High Housing Costs - Causes and Consequences" details: [From 1980-2010]
"If California had added 210,000 new housing units each year over the past three decades (as opposed to 120,000), [enough to keep California’s housing prices no more than 80% higher than the median for the U.S. as a whole--the price differential which existed in 1980] population would be much greater than it is today.
We estimate that around 7 million additional people would be living in California.
In some areas, particularly the Bay Area, population increases would be dramatic. For example, San Francisco’s population would be more than twice as large (1.7 million people versus around 800,000)."[18]
Facilitating additional housing of this magnitude will be extremely difficult. It could place strains on the state’s infrastructure and natural resources and alter the prized character of California’s coastal communities.
Vincent: Housing costs are a function of supply and demand. Affordability is not the "real issue". The real issue is lack of supply.
or lack of land on which to build
Shame on Mr. Canepa for supporting this awful piece of legislation that will take away local land use authority from those we elect to make such decisions. Hopefully, Mr. Horsely and the other members of the Board do not follow Canepa down this road to destruction.
Cities should be required to allow one unit of housing to be built for every job that is created. Cities that allow office buildings to be built but not housing for the people who work in those buildings are contributing to long commutes and clogged freeways. Hillsborough and Woodside are under no obligation to build more housing because they don't allow commercial buildings. If other cities don't want more housing they should stop approving the construction of office buildings.
In complete agreement!
SB 50 will do nothing for affordability. Go back and read the bill's text. It follows the local citie's affordable guidelines. This is a cash cow giveaway to developers. Also check out who Wiener's major donors are. If you want to fix this then require the large billion dollar companies like facebook and google to immediately start building stack and pack housing on their campuses. Not in our cities. They are the problem! If these supervisors vote to support this and it goes through it will be political suicide for them.
Stay in your own district, when is Mr. Canepa up for reelection? the junior supervisor who is the first to be elected by only his district, can't seem to get enough of telling other people in our county what they must do. Just stick to your Daly City Mr. Supervisor and stay away from San Mateo and my city's control over its own development.
Come to SSF and see all the building going on in the next few years there will be 2000 new units, all this does is destroy the quality of life for long time residents. Rather than bring more people in to live work on ways of transporting them in to work or stop allowing business to open. We don't have the infrastructure or the space for this. If I wants to live in a place like NYC I would move to NYC.
Gentrification....
If one reads the SB50 text one can see that here are two parts to Sen. Wiener’s SB 50 that will apply to our cities:
1) Transit-rich housing project or
2) Job rich housing project
The Transit-rich housing part is very clear, you can be adversely affected if you live near frequent bus routes.
However the Job rich housing part has not been well defined. From Sen. Wiener's office, they said that they are still working on that part.
That means that if SB50 passes, they can potentially build high density in any residential neighborhood not just near bus lines.
if you are interested in reading SB50 here is the text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50
SB 50 would empower developers to build 4-5 story apts and condos most anywhere they fancy - including in every neighborhood previously zoned for single-family homes. And it would lead to more state laws that eliminate local control of land use entirely.
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.