I agree: To declare all of Woodside mountain lion habitat and so blunt SB 9, was not a particularly good idea. Neither was the General Attorney’s definition of the term “habitat” implying that all the animals (deer, coyotes, foxes, turkeys) roaming around on our properties are legally not supposed to consider them their habitat. Because areas with houses on it do not qualify as wildlife habitat, according to the GA.

In the discussion of the need for additional housing, and particularly affordable housing, I am missing one aspect though: The shortage, in the Valley, of houses and apartments at affordable prices is caused largely by major tech companies like Facebook et al who are adding more and more very well-payed employees to their workforce. Their need for housing and ability to pay higher rents has made it increasingly difficult for long-time residents to stay in their houses and appartments. Same goes for service providers and their their original habitat within our local communities – school teachers, Stanford professors and staff included. The tech companies, reporting huge profits, have done very little to create living space for their employees. They are thus passing certain costs of their operation on to the public. And the State, recognizing the problem and not wanting to see those companies move to Texas like Tesla, invent such laws as SB 9 to split properties and create room for ADU’s. Small wonder some people call mountain lions for help.

SB-9 brings back memories of Robert Penn Warren's novel All the Kings Men read back in H.S. days. The take home message according to my instructor was: Does the end justify the (politician's) means? The end is town folk & local government no longer have a seat at the table. The means now dictates from Sacramento i.e. If you've seen one Redwood tree (substitute mountain lion) you've seen them all.

Sadly I expect the more certain candidates fight SB9, the more supporters of NIMBY policies will come out to vote.

The housing crunch exists in almost every community in California, not just those near the big tech companies.

People fail to realize how the housing crunch is related to the fact schools and employers struggle to find employees, how it drives inflation, and how it’s the reason most of our children will have to move far away instead of settling nearby.

That is unless you are lucky enough to be subsiding their cost of living for decades to come.

Just remember that you can’t really raise a family in an 800 sq ft ADU. That cap is another burden on helping families.

MEMORANDUM DT: February 7, 2022
TO: Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative
FR: Sabrina Venskus, Esq. (venskus@lawsv.com)
RE: Analysis of Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative
Short Answer
Based on application of canons of statutory construction, we believe a court could not reasonably interpret the proposed amendment as allowing local governments to enact local laws that conflict with state environmental, anti-discrimination, or fair housing laws. In the unlikely event that a county or city attempts to enact a local law that conflicts with state environmental laws like CEQA, or fair housing laws like FEHA, and the enactment is judicially challenged, the courts, after correctly interpreting the initiative, should strike the offending law as an improper use of the home rule. A ballot statement and proponent’s argument contained in the official voter pamphlet expressly stating the drafters’ intent is to uphold all other non-land use planning or zoning state laws, including those that protect the environment and natural resources and ensure fair housing and anti-discrimination laws remain intact is recommended.

Background
Some well-intentioned interest groups have expressed fear that the ONV initiative would permit local jurisdictions to enact local laws that conflict with existing environmental statutes, such as CEQA, CESA, Porter-Cologne, and proposed laws such as prohibition on building in Very High Fire Zones. While mistrust of local government is to some extent historically justified, the ONV initiative is intended to mitigate the detrimental effects of the state legislature’s recent over-reach into home rule enshrined in 2 the California Constitution (Cal. Const., Art. XI.) Specifically, up-zoning by fiat by the state legislature (SB 9) without consideration of local communities’ natural resources constraints, infrastructure deficiencies, or current zoning that may already provide for byright development of the allocated RHNA requirements (e.g., Cit

Los Altos Hills is my community. Kind thanks.