Many cities are attempting to block Senate Bill 9 (SB 9). Although the attempts are often attacked for being “not in my back yard” (NIMBY), the efforts to block SB 9 don’t seem to originate from city residents. City Planning Departments and Architectural Review Boards (ARBs) appear to be behind the efforts.
In Silicon Valley one of the most prominent attempts was made by the town of Woodside which declared the whole town of Woodside to be a Mountain Lion habitat. In February 2022, the town backed away from that claim because it was facing a lawsuit, national attention, and a warning from California Attorney General Rob Bonta. However the town has not let up on its efforts to block SB 9. Previously on Jan 11, the Town Council passed an ordinance that capped the size of units built via SB 9 to 800 square feet. The town of Woodside also prohibited SB 9 units from having basements. To put this in perspective the pressure on cities to build more housing is tied to achieving a balance between residential and commercial uses. Woodside has essentially zero commercial uses and thus is not under the pressure that most Silicon Valley cities are to build more housing. By putting strict limits on what is allowed under an SB 9 building permit, the town of Woodside is exempting itself from the requirement that building permits only be denied because they don’t meet written objective requirements.
A different, limited approach, has just been (March 21, 2022) taken by the City of Palo Alto. The city voted to have the Historic Resources Board consider adding 130 homes to the historic register. Previously the city has reviewed houses on an individual basis when the owners apply for permits. It was reported that “Councilman Greer Stone contrasted Palo Alto from Pasadena, which was put on notice by Attorney General Rob Bonta last week for declaring large parts of the city as landmark districts to get around SB 9.” The city of Palo Alto has not notified the owners of the 130 properties under consideration. If you were an owner, wouldn’t you want to be notified?
The first SB 9 application in Palo Alto was for a large property, 408.8′ x 106.2′, to have four homes. It seems that the permit would not need to have been done as an SB 9 application. The SB 9 permit may have simply been a way to avoid arbitrary personal decisions by the Planning Department and the Architectural Review Board. Ultimately the City Planning Departments and Architectural Review Boards should be meeting the desires of their residents and complying with laws. Many city governments are responding to the provision of SB 9 that denials be based on written verifiable objective rules with inappropriate actions.