After watching the failed last-minute maneuver by San Mateo NIMBYs to remove 200 units from the 961-home Concar Passage project last night, it's worth considering the policy reasons for WHY California state housing law strongly discourages such last-minute downzonings. (thread)

My first job out of college was as an assistant at a Hollywood talent agency, working for a few different agents who represented television writers. Unlike a lot of people who work for agencies, I actually had very nice bosses who taught me a lot.

One of the best negotiating tricks I learned was the closing ask. After a lot of back-and-forth where both sides are exhausted, it’s very powerful to say, “Okay, if I can get X for my client, then I’m ready to close this deal.”

More often than not, the other side will agree -- even if X is a bit more of a stretch than they would normally accept -- because they’re ready to move onto other business.

The developer of the Concar Passage project was pretty upfront that he was in just such a position last night. They’ve clearly spent millions upon millions developing the project, and the lengthy approval timeline had already cost them $100k’s in financial penalties.

There was a last-minute push by some NIMBY neighborhood groups and sympathetic councilmembers to grant the project approval IF the developer agreed to convert a 261-unit apartment building on the site to a less dense 61-unit townhome development.

The NIMBY neighbors claimed that they wanted to support homeownership, but in the middle of a housing shortage, losing 200 rental apartments is not worth a marginal increase in the ownership options on the site. The main goal was simply fewer homes.

The San Mateo city attorney expressed a number of reservations with making such a last-minute change, including a lack of public noticing (a lot of supporters of the full 961-unit development may have skipped the meeting) and conflicts with state law.

Early in public comment, Victoria Fierce ( @akronisticlotor) of @carla_org warned that California’s Housing Accountability Act applies to this project and that the city was still experiencing the consequences of when they last violated the Act in 2017:

Later, @SonjaTrauss, the ED of @Yimby_Law, warned that the law prevents the council from denying the 961-unit project and that “the HAA is there for the future residents, for the renters”:

There is very good reason that state law discourages cities from denying or downsizing housing projects like this at the last minute: it’s the moment when cities have the most leverage and developers have the least.

Like the worn-out business affairs exec at a television studio talking to my agent boss, the developer just wants to move on. California housing approval processes are notoriously lengthy and every day that passes without approval puts more pressure on developers.

It also means families are further delayed from moving into those new homes and extends our region’s housing shortage that much longer.

So if city councils were allowed to say, “Okay, we’re going to deny the project you proposed, but if you cut X units, then we’ll give you that approval you’re desperate for,” some developers might take them up on it.

Thankfully, state law prevents such negotiating shenanigans in the final hours of a multi-year housing development process. SB 330, for instance, outlaws a lot of the tactics that NIMBY cities have used in the past to delay or deny housing projects: https://sd09.senate.ca.gov/news/20191009-gov-newsom-signs-sb-330-%E2%80%9Chousing-crisis-act-2019%E2%80%9D

And as a result of the heroic work by state legislators like SB 330 author @NancySkinnerCA, 200 more families will one day be able to call San Mateo home.

I hope our Assemblymember @kevinmullin and future State Senator @JoshBeckerSV keep these dynamics in mind as they contemplate further ways to ensure the Peninsula builds its fair share of desperately needed housing.

And for a full rundown of last night’s events, check out @cafedujord’s excellent live tweet thread here: https://twitter.com/cafedujord/status/1295565202465779712

A follow-up thought: I understand why Councilmembers @DianePapan and @EricRodriguez wanted to hear out the less dense counter-proposal. When a group of your constituents comes to you with concerns about a project and ideas for fixes, you want to listen to them.

However, the appropriate time to discuss heights and densities is during a General Plan and zoning process. If neighbors felt the housing density was inappropriate in a certain area of the city, that should've been brought up when that area's zoning was set.

What state law makes clear is that the # of units in a given housing project is NOT up for discussion once an application has been submitted. It may not be denied, and it may not be downzoned.

If residents have feedback on a proposal, great! Talk about what community amenities are most desirable, how to improve pedestrian, bike, and car infrastructure, and where to put open space.

But housing densities and the # of units in a project are off the table. Blame state law if you wish, but make that clear to your constituents so they don't get their hopes up making an ask that would not be legal.