HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-27 e-packet@6:00Tuesday, July 27, 2021
6:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers
33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA
Special City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
Hybrid meeting
July 27, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
HYBRID IN-PERSON/VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE
The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff
and the public while allowing for public participation.
Councilmembers Coleman, Flores and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego and essential City
staff will participate via Teleconference.
Pursuant to Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953, all votes shall be by roll call due to
council members participating by teleconference.
This meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Governor ’s Executive Orders N-29-20,
N-63-20 and N-08-21 allowing for deviation of Teleconference Rules required by the Brown Act & pursuant
to the order of San Mateo County Department of Public Health regarding gatherings during the coronavirus
(COVID-19) outbreak, and recommendations to follow social distancing procedures, the City of South San
Francisco will hold the Special City Council meeting through a hybrid of in -person attendance with the City
Council, designated staff, and limited members of the public at the City Council Chambers and through the
virtual platform, Zoom. In-person attendance by members of the public will be subject to maximum capacity
and current health and safety protocols.
American Disability Act:
The City Clerk will provide materials in appropriate alternative formats to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Please send a written request to City Clerk Rosa Govea Acosta at 400 Grand Avenue, South
San Francisco, CA 94080, or email at [email protected]. Include your name, address, phone number, a brief
description of the requested materials, and preferred alternative format service at least 24-hours before the
meeting.
Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability -related modification or
accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the Office of the
City Clerk by email at [email protected], 24-hours before the meeting.
Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City of South San Francisco to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/3/2021
July 27, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
ZOOM LINK BELOW -NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED
Join Zoom meeting
https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/84702955885
(Enter your email and name)
Join by One Tap Mobile :
US: +16699006833,,84702955885# or +13462487799,,84702955885#
Join by Telephone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833 or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free)
Webinar ID: 847 0295 5885
How to observe the Meeting (no public comment):
1) Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26 or Comcast, Channel 27
2) https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council
How to submit written Public Comment before the City Council Meeting:
Use the eComment portal by clicking on the following link: https://ci-ssf-ca.granicusideas.com/meetings or by
visiting the City Council meeting's agenda page. eComments are also directly sent to the iLegislate application
used by City Council and staff.
How to provide Public Comment during the City Council Meeting:
1) By Phone: (669) 900-6833. Webinar ID is 847 0295 5885. Click *9 to raise a hand to speak. Click *6 to
unmute when called.
By One tap mobile: US: +16699006833,,84702955885# or +13462487799,,84702955885#
2) Online at: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/84702955885
a. Enter an email address and name. The name will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your
turn to speak.
b. When the Clerk calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on "raise hand." Speakers will be notified
shortly before they are called to speak.
c. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
IN-PERSON: Please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber ’s and submit it
to the City Clerk. Be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public
comment. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for
the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/3/2021
July 27, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
Call to Order.
Roll Call.
Agenda Review.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Presentation on Proposed State Legislation SB 9 and SB 10. (Niccolo De Luca,
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc., Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner, and Nell Selander, Deputy
Director of Economic Development and Housing)
1.
Adjournment.
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/3/2021
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-388 Agenda Date:7/27/2021
Version:1 Item #:1.
Presentation on Proposed State Legislation SB 9 and SB 10.(Niccolo De Luca, Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.,
Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner, and Nell Selander, Deputy Director of Economic Development and Housing)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff will present a summary and analysis of SB 9 and SB 10 for the City Council’s consideration and
comments.
Attachments
1.Staff Report/Memorandum on SB 9 and SB 10
2.Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/16/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
State Capitol Office ▪ 925 L Street • Suite 1404 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone (916) 447-4086 • Fax (916) 444-0383
Federal Office ▪ 600 Pennsylvania SE • Suite 207 • Washington, DC 20003 • Phone (202) 546-8696 • Fax (202) 546-4555
Southern California Office ▪ 1401 Dove Street • Suite 330 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215
Central California Office ▪ 744 P Street • Suite 308 • Fresno, CA 93721 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215
Northern California Office ▪ 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza • Suite 204 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone (510) 835-9050 • Fax (510) 835-9030
MEMO
To: Mike Futrell, City Manager, South San Francisco
From: Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.
Date: July 13, 2021
Subject: Senate Bill 9 (Atkins) Summary and overview of Senate Bill 10 (Wiener)
Summary of Senate Bill 9
SB 9 is a reintroduction of SB 1120 from the 2019-20 legislative session. SB 1120 was approved
by the Assembly on the final night of session but was not returned to the Senate in time for a
concurrence vote prior to the adjournment of session.
Senate Bill 9 requires cities and counties to ministerially allow either or both of the following if they
meet specified conditions. As you know, ministerial approval is also known as ‘over the counter
approval’.
A housing development of no more than two units (a duplex).
The subdivision of a parcel into two approximately equal parcels (urban lot split).
To be eligible, a development or parcel to be subdivided must be located within an urbanized area
or urban cluster which includes the residential neighborhoods of South San Francisco and cannot
be located on any of the following:
Prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance;
Wetlands;
Land within the very high fire hazard severity zone, unless the development
complies with state mitigation requirements;
A hazardous waste site;
An earthquake fault zone;
Land within the 100-year floodplain or a floodway;
Land identified for conservation under a natural community conservation plan, or
lands under conservation easement;
Habitat for protected species; or
A historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or
a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or
district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
Duplex provisions. SB 9 requires a housing development containing no more than two units to
be permitted ministerially in single family zones if the development meets certain conditions,
including the requirements on eligible parcels above. A development can include adding one unit
to an existing unit, or constructing two new units; however, the project cannot include demolition
2
of more than 25 percent of the exterior walls of an existing structure, unless a local ordinanc e is
more permissive or if the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the past three years.
Urban lot splits. SB 9 requires a city or county to ministerially approve or deny a parcel map or
a tentative and final map for an urban lot split that meets specified requirements, in addition to
the requirements for eligible parcels that apply to both duplexes and urban lot splits. Specifically,
the urban lot split must meet the following requirements:
The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create two new parcels of
approximately equal size, such that one parcel cannot be smaller than 40 percent
of the size of the original lot.
Both newly created parcels are no smaller than 1,200 square feet, unless the local
agency adopts a smaller minimum lot size.
The parcel being subdivided is located within a residential zone.
The proposed lot split would not require demolition or alteration of rent-restricted
housing, housing where an owner has exercised their rights under the Ellis Act within
the past 15 years, or housing that has been occupied by tenants in the past three
years.
The parcel being subdivided was not previously created through an urban lot split,
and none of the adjoining parcels were created by an urban lot split and owned by
the same owner or anyone working in concert with the owner.
SB 9 allows a local agency to approve the lot split only if it conforms to all applicable objective
requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, except where the bill says otherwise.
SB 9 prohibits a local agency from imposing regulations that require dedications of rights-of-way
or the construction of offsite improvements for parcels created through an urban lot
split. However, a local agency may require easements needed for the provision of public services
and facilities and require that the parcel have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public
right-of-way, as well as any other conditions that allowed under the Subdivision Map Act that do
not conflict with the bill. Local agencies must require that the uses allowed on a lot created by an
urban lot split are limited to residential uses.
SB 9 allows, until January 1, 2027, a local agency to impose conditions that an applicant be either:
An owner-occupant for one year from the date of approval of the urban lot split; or
A qualified nonprofit corporation that receives a welfare exemption from the
property tax pursuant to specified sections of law.
Local agencies cannot otherwise impose owner occupancy standards under the bill and cannot
require the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions.
SB 9 prohibits developing more than two units on each of the resulting parcels from a lot split,
including ADUs and JADUs.
Provisions applicable to duplexes and urban lot splits. SB 9 prohibits projects or lot splits
that would require demolition or alteration of an existing housing unit of any of the following types
of housing:
Rent-restricted housing, including deed-restricted affordable housing and housing
subject to rent or price control by a public entity’s police power;
3
Housing that has been the subject of an Ellis Act eviction within the past 15 years;
or
Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
SB 9 also prohibits the development of accessory dwelling units on parcels that use both the
urban lot split and duplex provisions of the bill.
SB 9 allows a local agency to impose objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards that do
not conflict with the provisions of the bill. However, a city or county cannot require a project or lot
split to comply with any standard that would physically preclude two units of at least 800 square
feet from being built. SB 9 also prohibits a local agency from requiring a setback for an existing
structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an
existing structure. Otherwise local agencies may not require greater than a four-foot setback. SB
9 also applies the limitations on parking requirements from ADU law to both duplexes and urban
lot splits under the bill.
SB 9 allows a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement the duplex and urban lot split
requirements and provides that such an ordinance is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act. It also provides that nothing in the bill supersedes the Coastal Act of
1976, except that a local government is not required to hold public hearings for coastal
development permit applications. Local agencies also cannot deny a project or lot split because
it proposed adjacent or connected structures, so long as they comply with the building code. A
local agency must also require that a rental of any unit permitted by the bill is for a term of longer
than 30 days.
SB 9 requires local agencies to report the number of units produced and applications for urban
lot splits in their annual report to the Department of Housing and Community Development on the
implementation of their general plan.
Status
Senate Bill is currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and has not yet been set for a
hearing date. The next stop after that hearing would be the full Assembly floor. The bill has been
amended twice.
The bill has moved through the following committees:
Senate Housing Committee with 7 yes votes and 2 no votes.
Senate Governance and Finance with 5 yes votes and zero no votes.
Senate Appropriations Committee with 5 yes votes and 2 no votes.
The Senate floor with 28 yes votes, 6 no votes, and 6 abstentions
Assembly Local Government Committee with 5 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 2 abstentions
Assembly Housing Committee with 5 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 2 abstentions
Support
According to the author, “Senate Bill 9 promotes small-scale neighborhood residential
development by streamlining the process for a homeowner to create a duplex or subdivide an
existing lot. SB 9 strikes an appropriate balance between respecting local control and creating an
environment and opportunity for neighborhood scale development that benefits the broader
community. To that end, the bill includes numerous safeguards to ensure that it responsibly
4
creates duplexes and strategically increases housing opportunities for homeowners, renters, and
families alike.
“At a time when many Californians are experiencing economic insecurity caused by the pandemic,
this bill will provide more options for families to maintain and build intergenerational wealth – a
currency we know is crucial to combatting inequity and creating social mobility. SB 9 provides
flexibility for multigenerational housing by allowing homeowners to build a modest unit on their
property so that their aging parent or adult child can have an affordable place to live.
“Building off the successes of ADU law, SB 9 offers solutions that work in partnership with a
number of bills included in the Senate’s Housing Package, ‘Building Opportunities For All’ aimed
at combating the State’s housing crisis.”
Supporters of SB 9 include: Darrell Steinberg-Mayor, Sacramento; Libby Schaaf-Mayor, City of
Oakland; Todd Gloria-Mayor, City of San Diego; Jon Wizard-Councilmember, City of Seaside;
Zach Hilton-City Council Member, City of Gilroy; AARP; Abundant Housing LA; ADU Task Force
East Bay; All Home; American Planning Association, California Chapter; Bay Area Council; Bridge
Housing Corporation; Cal Chamber; California YIMBY; Casita Coalition; California Building
Industry Assn; Chan Zuckerberg Initiative; Circulate San Diego; City of Marywood; East Bay for
Everyone; Facebook, INC.; Fieldstead and Company, INC.; Generation Housing; Greenbelt
Alliance; Habitat for Humanity California; Hello Housing; Housing Action Coalition; Local
Government Commission; Long Beach YIMBY; Los Angeles Business Council; Midpen Housing;
Midpen Housing Corporation; Modular Building Institute; Monterey; County of; Mountain View
YIMBY; National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals; Non-profit Housing
Association of Northern California; North Bay Leadership Council; Northern Neighbors; Peninsula
for Everyone; People for Housing - Orange County; San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce;
San Fernando Valley YIMBY; San Francisco YIMBY; Sand Hill Property Company; Santa Cruz
YIMBY; Share Sonoma County; Silicon Valley Leadership Group; South Bay YIMBY; South
Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth; Spur; Streets for People Bay Area; Sv@home;
Techequity Collaborative; Tent Makers; Terner Center for Housing Innovation At the University of
California, Berkeley; The Two Hundred; Tmg Partners; United Way of Greater Los Angeles; Urban
Environmentalists; YIMBY Action; YIMBY Democrats of San Diego County; Zillow Group.
Opposition
Most of the opposition to SB 9 is based on the loss of local control, that is to say, local
governments feel that they are in the best place to plan for, and approve, housing in their
communities and that SB 9 represents an overreach by the State. Opponents argue that the
streamlined ministerial review provisions contained with SB 9 will upend proper local housing
planning, which could potentially result in over-crowding, inadequate supporting infrastructure,
and could lead to speculative abuses by investors/developers.
It should be noted that the League of California Cities has adopted an Oppose Unless Amended
position on SB 9 (Atkins). The amendments requested by the League are:
Clarify that a property owner using SB 9 is limited to constructing two residential units,
not two residential units and additional accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on the same
parcel;
Require a housing developer to acquire a building permit within one year of a lot split, so
that speculators do not sell lots and never build homes;
Allow local governments to require adequate access for police, fire and other public
safety vehicles and equipment;
Prohibit developers from using SB 9 in very high fire hazard severity zones;
5
Allow cities to determine a range of lot sizes suitable for SB 9 development projects;
Ensure HCD provides Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) credit for production
of SB 9 units;
Allow local governments to consider local conditions such as hillsides, lot dimensions,
natural hazards, available infrastructure, etc. when approving or denying housing project
applications;
Allow local governments to continue to determine parking standards; and
Ensure large-scale investors and builders do not exploit SB 9 provisions.
Opponents of SB 9 include: Adams Hill Neighborhood Association; Aids Healthcare Foundation;
Alameda Citizens Task Force; Albany Neighbors United; Berkeley Associated Neighbors Against
Non-affordable Housing; Berkeley Flatlanders Group; Blue Dove Neighborhood; Burton Valley
Neighborhoods Group; California Alliance of Local Electeds; California Cities for Local Control;
California Contract Cities Association; Century Glen HOA; Cherrywood Leimert Park Block Club;
Citizens Preserving Venice; City of Arcata; City of Azusa; City of Bellflower; City of Belmont; City
of Beverly Hills; City of Brea; City of Brentwood; City of Burbank; City of Camarillo; City of
Carpinteria; City of Carson; City of Cerritos; City of Chino; City of Chino Hills; City of Clayton; City
of Clearlake; City of Clovis; City of Colton; City of Corona; City of Cypress; City of D iamond Bar;
City of Dorris; City of Downey; City of Eastvale; City of El Segundo; City of Escalon; City of
Fortuna; City of Foster City; City of Fountain Valley; City of Garden Grove; City of Glendora; City
of Grand Terrace; City of Half Moon Bay; City of Hesperia; City of Hidden Hills; City of Inglewood;
City of Irvine; City of Irwindale; City of Kerman; City of King; City of La Palma; City of La Quinta;
City of La Verne; City of Lafayette; City of Laguna Beach; City of Laguna Niguel; City of Lakeport;
City of Lancaster; City of Los Alamitos; City of Los Altos; City of Lomita; City of Martinez; City of
Menifee; City of Merced; City of Mission Viejo; City of Monterey; City of Moorpark; City of Murrieta;
City of Newport Beach; City of Norwalk; City of Novato; City of Oakdale; City of Ontario; City of
Orinda; City of Palo Alto; City of Palos Verdes Estates; City of Paramount; City of Pismo Beach;
City of Placentia; City of Pleasanton; City of Poway; City of Rancho Cucamonga; City of Rancho
Palos Verdes; City of Rancho Santa Margarita; City of Redding; City of Redondo Beach; City of
Rohnert Park; City of San Dimas; City of San Jacinto; City of San Marcos; City of San Marino;
City of Santa Clara; City of Santa Clarita; City of Saratoga; City of Signal Hill; City of South
Pasadena; City of Stanton; City of Sunnyvale; City of Temecula; City of Thousand Oaks; City of
Torrance; City of Tracy; City of Vacaville; City of Ventura; City of Vista; City of Westlake Village;
City of Whittier; City of Yorba Linda; College Terrace Residents Association; Committee to Save
the Hollywoodland Specific Plan; Community Associations Institute - California Legislative Action
Committee; Comstock Hills Homeowners Association; Craftsman Village Historic District;
Cupertino; City of; D4ward; Dublin; City of; Durand Ridge United; El Dorado Park South
Neighborhood Association - Long Beach; Hidden Hill Community Association; Hills 2000 Friends
of The Hills; Hollywood Knolls Community Club; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; LA Brea
Hancock Homeowners Association; Lafayette Homeowners Association; Lakewood Village
Neighborhood Association; Las Virgenes-Malibu Council of Governments; Latino Alliance for
Community Engagement; League of California Cities; Linda Vista-Annandale Association; Livable
California; Livable Pasadena; Los Angeles County Division, League of California Cities; Los Feliz
Improvement Association; Mccmc; Miracle Mile Residential Association; Mission Street
Neighbors; Montecito Association; Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance Trees
Committee; Northeast Neighbors of Santa Monica; Pacific Palisades Community Council;
Resident Information Resource of Santa Monica; Residents of 47th Avenue; Riviera Homeowners
Association; SB Residents for Responsible Development; San Gabriel Valley Council of
Governments; Santa Monica Coalition for A Livable City ; Save Lafayette; Seaside Neighborhood
Association; Shadow Hills Property Owners Association; Sherman Oaks Homeowners
Association; South Bay Cities Council of Governments; South Bay Residents; Southshores
6
Homeowners Association; Sunnyvale United Neighbors; Sunset-Parkside Education and Action
Committee; Sustainable Tamalmonte; Temecula Valley Neighborhood Coalition; Town of Apple
Valley; Town of Colma; Town of Fairfax; Town of Mammoth Lakes; Town of Ross; United
Neighborhoods for Los Angeles; Ventura Council of Governments; Verdugo Woodlands West
Homeowners Association; West Pasadena Residents' Association; West Torrance Homeowners
Association; Westside Regional Alliance of Councils; Westwood Highland Homeowners
Association; Westwood Hills Property Owners Association; Westwood Homeowners Association;
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition; Windsor Square Association.
Analysis from TPA
The aim of SB 9 is to create additional housing units, to meet California’s housing demand,
through the development of small-scale residential development. The bill can accelerate the
development of duplexes, as well as additional housing units through the splitting of existing
residential lots.
The author, and supporters, of SB 9 believe that the bill will make it easier for individual property
owners to create additional housing opportunities by removing barriers to the development of
duplexes, and new housing through lot splits. While not every property owner will want to take
advantage of the duplex or lot split provisions, when viewed at a state-level, SB 9 could result in
significant housing opportunities that can be created in a more expedient manner than other
traditional developments. Additionally, the types of units that would be created through the usage
of SB 9 tend to be more affordable than other forms of new construction since they tend to be
smaller or located on smaller lot sizes.
For the author, SB 9 represents just one component of state policy that is needed to generate
additional housing opportunities in California. The Pro Tem has worked with other members of
her caucus, as well as with colleagues in the Assembly, to advance legislation that would increase
the number of housing units developed within California. These proposals include modifications
to density bonus law, facilitate the conversion of underutilized commercial/retail properties into
housing, and streamlining the approval of proposed housing developments. The Pro Tem has
worked to put forth proposals that will create housing along the spectrum of housing, from very
low- and low-income housing to moderate-income housing, and from large multifamily housing
developments to ADUs and JADUs. The end goal of the Pro Tem, and her supporters, is to create
all types of new housing, to meet the varied needs of all Californians that are in search of housing.
While the goal of creating more housing for all Californians is broadly supported at the state and
local levels, many of the proposals that are being pursued in California are operating under the
assumption that local governments are a primary hinderance to the development of new housing.
While there may be some jurisdictions in California that are more reluctant to develop new housing
bills such as SB 9, the State does not differentiate between cities that are working to meet the
housing needs of their communities versus those that do not.
The primary objections to SB 9 are based on the circumvention of land use planning and guiding
documents put into place by local governments, often developed through years-long processes
and deep community participation. Additionally, there are numerous laws in effect that require
local governments to plan for housing needs and yearly reporting on housing production to keep
cities accountable. SB 9 would allow individual projects to circumvent the community planning
and zoning law that has been adopted by local jurisdictions.
While SB 9 would allow the City to impose objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards,
the City could not require a project or lot split to comply with any standard that would physically
preclude two units of at least 800 square feet from being built.
7
Summary of Senate Bill 10
This legislation seeks to authorize a city or county to pass an ordinance that is not subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to zone any parcel for up to ten units of residential
density if the parcel is in a transit-rich area or an urban infill site. This is an opt in program and
the parcel must be in either: A transit-rich area, defined to mean a parcel within one-half mile of
a major transit stop or a parcel on a high-quality bus corridor, as specified and an urban infill site,
which is a site that satisfies all the following:
Located in a city if the city boundaries include some portion of either an urbanized area or
urban cluster, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel, or parcels wholly within the
boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster.
At least 75 percent of the perimeter adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses.
Zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use, or a general plan designation that
allows residential use or a mix of residential and non-residential uses, with at least two-
thirds of the square footage of the development designated for residential use.
According to the author, “SB 10 provides cities with a powerful, fast, and effective tool to allow
light-touch density exactly where it should be: near jobs, near public transportation, and in existing
urbanized areas. Specifically, SB 10 allows cities, if they choose, to rezone these non-sprawl
locations for up to ten-unit buildings in a streamlined way without CEQA. Given that cities face
significantly increased housing production goals under the revised Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) and are required by the state Housing Element Law to complete rezoning
to accommodate these goals…”
In a nutshell, the bill allows local agencies to pass an ordinance to allow up to 10 units of
residential density per parcel. To expedite this zoning action, the bill exempts these ordinances
from CEQA. To ensure that these CEQA exempt zoning ordinances are consistent with state fair
housing policies, this bill also requires local agencies to make a finding that the ordinance is
consistent with the local agencies’ AFFH obligations. The AFFH finding is essential to ensure that
a local agency adopts the ordinance in good faith and not in a manner that would disadvantage
certain types of developments, such as developments affordable to persons of low or moderate
income.
Support
AARP; Abundant Housing L; Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); Bay Area Council;
Bridge Housing Corporation; Calchamber; California Apartment Association; California
Association of Realtors; California Community Builders; California Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce; California Rental Housing Association; California State Association of Electrical
Workers; California State Pipe Trades Council; California Yimby; California Building Industry
Association; Circulate San Diego; City and County of San Francisco; City Council Member, City
of Gilroy; Council of Infill Builders; County of Monterey; Facebook; Fieldstead and Company, INC.
Gilroy City Council Member Office, Councilmember Zack Hilton; Greenbelt Alliance; Habitat for
Humanity California; Hollywood Chamber of Commerce; Housing Action Coalition; International
Union of Elevator Constructors; League of Women Voters of California; Local Government
Commission; Los Angeles Business Council; Mayor of City & County of San Francisco London
Breed; Metropolitan Transportation Commission; Modular Building Institute; Sacramento Area
Council of Governments; San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART); San Francisco
Yimby; Santa Barbara Women's Political Committee; Silicon Valley At Home (SV@HOME);
Silicon Valley Community Foundation; Silicon Valley Leadership Group San Francisco Bay Area
Planning and Research Association; The Central Valley Urban Institute; The Two Hundred; Tmg
Partners; United Way Bay Area; Western States Council Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation
8
Opposition
Alameda Citizens Task Force; Albany Neighbors United; Bel Air Skycrest Property Owners'
Association; Burton Valley Neighborhoods Group; California Cities for Local Control; Catalysts
Ceja Action; Center for Biological Diversity; Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment; City of
Camarillo; City of Jurupa Valley; City of Lomita; City of Palos Verdes Estates; City of Rancho
Palos Verdes; City of Santa Monica; Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods; Communities
for A Better Environment; Environmental Defense Center; Federation of Hillside and Canyon
Associations; Grayburn Avenue Block Club; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA);
Indivisible 43; Indivisible California Green Team; Indivisible Marin; Indivisible Normal Heights;
Indivisible Ross Valley; Indivisible San Jose; Las Virgenes-malibu Council of Governments; Latino
Alliance for Community Engagement; Mangan Park Neighborhood Association; Miracle Mile
Residential Association; New Livable California Dba Livable California; Physicians for Social
Responsibility - Los Angeles’ Poder; Progressive Democrats of America; Progressive Democrats
of Santa Monica Mountains; Redondo Beach; City of; Riviera Estates Association; Riviera
Homeowners Association; Rooted in Resistance; Save Lafayette; Sf Planning Association for The
Richmond; Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association; Sierra Club; Socal 350; South Bay Cities
Council of Governments; South Shores Community Association; Sunnyvale United Neighbors;
Sunset-parkside Education and Action Committee (SPEAK); Sustainable Tamalmonte; Temecula
Valley Neighborhood Coalition; The Valley Village Homeowners Association; Torrance; City of;
Tri-valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of Danville; United
Neighbors; West Pasadena Residents' Association; Westwood Hills Property Owners
Association; Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowners Association
Oppose Unless Amended
Aids Healthcare Foundation; California Housing Consortium; California Housing Partnership
Corporation; City of Agoura Hills; Endangered Habitats League; Housing California; Planning and
Conservation League
WWW.TOWNSENDPA.COM
SACRAMENTO • WASHINGTON, DC
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA • CENTRAL CALIFORNIA • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
City of South San
Francisco
Presentation on Senate Bill 9
and Senate Bill 10
July 27, 2021
Slide 2
Senate Bill 9
Senate Bill 9
California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency
(HOME) Act
•Senate Bill 9 has garnered significant public attention
•Adds by-right density to all single-family zoning districts
•Authored by Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins
•Currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee;
has not yet been set for a hearing date
•Next step after that hearing is the full Assembly floor
Slide 3
Senate Bill 9
SB 9 is a reintroduction of SB 1120 from the 2019-20 legislative
session.SB 1120 was approved by the Assembly on the final night of
session but was not returned to the Senate in time for a concurrence
vote prior to the adjournment of session.
Per the author of the legislation:
“Senate Bill 9 provides options for homeowners by streamlining the
process for a homeowner to create a duplex or subdivide an existing
lot.Building off the successes of ADU law,SB 9 strikes an appropriate
balance between respecting local control and creating an environment
and opportunity for neighborhood housing that benefits the broader
community.
To that end,the bill includes numerous safeguards to ensure that it
responsibly creates duplexes and strategically increases housing
opportunities for homeowners,renters,and families alike.“
Slide 4
Senate Bill 9
SB 9 requires cities to
•Approve two units or a two unit subdivision
•On any parcel zoned for single-family residential
•That is within an urbanized area and
•Not located in a hazard zone for fires,earthquakes
or floods,and
•Not located in a historical district
Prohibits demolition of existing affordable units, units
under rent control, or development of a property
where tenants have been evicted within three years;
Slide 5
Senate Bill 9
SB 9 Also:
•Prohibits demolition of existing affordable units, units under
rent control, or development of a property where tenants
have been evicted within three years;
•Prohibits zoning standards such as setbacks or design
requirements that would prevent development of two units;
•Prohibits any units created under this proposed bill to be
used as short-term vacation rentals; and
•Exempts parking requirement for properties located within
½ mile of public transit
Slide 6
Senate Bill 9
SB 9 Also:
•Prohibits new accessory dwelling units on parcels that use
both the urban lot split and duplex provisions of the bill.
•Allows objective zoning,subdivision,and design
standards that do not require a project or lot split to
comply with any standard that would physically preclude
two units of at least 800 square feet from being built.
•Prohibits setbacks greater than a four-foot setback.
•Applies the limitations on parking requirements from ADU
law to both duplexes and urban lot splits under the bill.
Slide 7
Senate Bill 9
SB 9 Progress Through the Legislatures:
Senate Housing Committee:7 yes votes /2 no votes
Senate Governance &Finance:5 yes votes /zero no votes
Senate Appropriations Committee:5 yes votes /2 no votes
The Full Senate:28 yes votes /6 no votes /6 abstentions
Assembly Local Gov’t Committee:5 yes votes /1 no vote /
2 abstentions
Assembly Housing Committee:5 yes votes /1 no vote /
2 abstentions
Pending in Assembly Appropriations Committee:No Date Set
Full Assembly Vote after Passage in Appropriations Committee
Slide 8
Senate Bill 10
Senate Bill 10 (Wiener)
•Authorizes an ordinance that is not subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
•To upzone any parcel for up to ten units of residential
•In a transit-rich area or an urban infill site.
Currently on the Assembly Floor for final vote
Next step after Assembly vote is the full Senate Floor
Slide 9
Senate Bill 10
According to the author
"SB 10 provides cities with a powerful,fast,and effective tool
to allow light-touch density exactly where it should be:near
jobs,near public transportation,and in existing urbanized
areas.
SB 10 allows cities,if they choose,to rezone these non-
sprawl location for up to ten-unit buildings in a streamlined
way without CEQA.Given that cities face significantly
increased housing production goals under the revised
Regional Housing Needs Assessment and are required by the
state Housing Element Law to complete rezonings to
accommodate these goals,SB 10 is a powerful new tool for
cities to use in their comprehensive planning efforts.”
Slide 10
California Advocacy | Federal Advocacy | Grant Writing
www.TownsendPA.com | (949) 399-9050
Andres Ramirez
Associate
[email protected]
Niccolo De Luca
Senior Director
[email protected]
Agenda Item
1. 21-388 Presentation on Proposed State Legislation SB 9 and SB 10. (Niccolo De Luca, Townsend Public
Affairs, Inc., Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner, and Nell Selander, Deputy Director of Economic Development
and Housing)
Legislation Text Attachment 1: Staff Report Attachment 2: Presentation
13 Public Comments
Guest User at July 27, 2021 at 3:56pm PDT
Oppose
I oppose SB9 and SB10 and want to know the status is getting a park for kids in our Sunshine Gardens
neighborhood Thank you
Cynthia Marcopulos at July 27, 2021 at 3:46pm PDT
Oppose
I strongly urge you to oppose SB 9 and 10. Who sponsored SB 9 and 10? It was Scott Weiner who,
through legalized bribery called campaign contributions, is funded by the developers, the trade unions and
the real estate industry. Why isn’t there a push for this in Hillsborough, Atherton, Woodside, or Palo Alto?
It’s because this legalized bribery they’re paying their elected officials in the form of campaign
contributions assures them a quality of life that’s being denied to lower income communities like South
San Francisco, and it guarantees them they will not be transformed into another Daly City and what South
San Francisco is becoming. The Scott Weiners are created when the government allows legalized bribery,
and these campaign contributors are looking for a return on their bribes. We are facing our 6th year of drought, and the water is running scarce. In the city of Needles on the border
of California and Arizona, there is one drinkable well water for the entire population of this city. Global
warming is a concern, fisheries are dying, and it is important to follow smart design, but packing more and
more people into single family neighborhoods thinking you are solving the environmental and the housing
dilemma is not it while turning your backs on the gridlock that this overdevelopment is creating – just
look at El Camino. South San Francisco, and the adjoining cities, are not the only places people can live when other cities are
crying for residents – and they have the space and resources to support them. I am not going to reiterate that this push is for developers’ and real estate gains, or to line the coffers of
South San Francisco, yet we favor the biotech and the technology industries that demand to put roots in
our community. Yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle article entitled, “Fourplexes on every S.F. single-family lot?” states,
“The notion of allowing single-family homes to be converted to four units — already being explored by
Sacramento, Berkeley, South San Francisco and other cities…” What games are you playing with the residents of our fair city pretending you will be fair and balanced,
yet have already made a decision to support this detrimental legislation?
Guest User at July 27, 2021 at 3:44pm PDT
Oppose
Dear Mayor Addiego & Council Members:
The Winston Manor Community Association in SSF,as a group of concerned citizens,has been closely
following Senate Bills 9 & 10. In a previous letter we expressed our concerns regarding the impacts that
will result, if these bills are passed by the California State Senate, State Assembly and signed by the
Governor.
These bills will affect every single-family residential suburban neighborhood in California,that are near
large cities like San Francisco.For the reasons indicated below, it is the position of the Board of Directors
of the Association that these Bills are detrimental to the well-being of the community and to the economic
welfare for current and future residents.
The long-term impacts that will result from these Bills will permanently alter the quality of life in single-
family neighborhoods, in South San Francisco and in other cities in San Mateo County.
The result of the Bills will change current zoning and significantly increase land use and density. They
will allow,on existing single-family residential lots, the reconstruction or new construction of between 4
and 10 residential units per lot.
State Senate Scott Weiner of San Francisco is the author of SB 10. It is apparent that he only represents
San Francisco and is not concerned about his constituents in South San Francisco. As written, SB 9 & 10
have the potential to eliminate the existence of single-family homes and convert each lot into a
multifamily housing project.
These Bills were designed to impact Cities that are in “transit-rich / job rich areas”. They are not targeting
smaller cities in rural communities. They are designed to modify asuburban city like South San Francisco,
Pacifica, Daly City, Colma, San Bruno, etc.
These Bills will displace lower income individuals, to increase housing availability for higher income
individuals. When existing housing that is currently affordable is replaced, lower income individuals will
be forced to leave when properties are sold.
Single-family homes will be replaced with higher density housing. The higher cost of the multi-unit
housing will be unaffordable, to the lower income individuals who were displaced. These bills do not
guarantee low cost or affordable housing.
When lower cost housing is eliminated,the result is the gentrification of lower income individuals.This is
not a solution to increase affordable housing as these Bills will not reduce the cost of housing. The
availability of affordable housing will decrease, and the new high-density housing will be at a much
higher cost.
If a subsequent ordinance is approved by City Council, these changes will not occur overnight. Eventually,
when properties are sold or passed to future generations, significant changes will occur.
The quality of life that current residents have enjoyed and worked very hard to acquire will be lost for
future generations. Over the years they will witness firsthand the changes that will occur. The increases in
density that will result from the new construction of 4 to 10 units structures,will occur right next door.
There will be minimal or no usable outdoor space. Backyards for children and pets will be eliminated. On
street parking will be insufficient to serve the additional units. On-site parking will be inadequate to
support a 4 to 10-unit development.The additional units will also increase the demand for parks and
recreation, schools, and city services.
The deceptive language of these Bills mis represents its true intent. These Bills will directly allow housing
discrimination to occur to lower income individuals. If you eliminate affordable housing and replace it
with higher cost multi-unit housing, only higher income individuals will be able to afford the increase in
cost.
The Winston Manor Community Association respectfully requests that all Members of City Council state
their position jointly and individually, and state for the record if they support or oppose Senate Bills 9 &
10.
Thank you.
Mary Lou Froese at July 27, 2021 at 3:43pm PDT
Oppose
To members of the SSF Council:
I am against Senate Bill 9! My husband and I have been in our SSF home since 1965-- 56 years! We are
84 and 79 years old. Our now adult son and daughter went to Alta Loma and El Camino Schools. This bill
will aggravate the parking in our city. For several years, we have had a family with 5 drivers who have
had 10 or so cars on the street in front of other houses. We also have a home with several adult members
of a family renting out a room, thus increasing their 6 cars with 1-2 renters’ vehicles! As more family
members come home because they can’t afford their own place, everything worsens the city as a whole.
My lot is small. I can’t even imagine that it could be turned into 4-10 residential units! How many stories
would these new units be? With this dense housing bill, there will be a need for more services such as police, fire departments,
schools, waste management, grocery stores, etc. Water—the droughts will get worse. Where is the water
for these units coming from? What will happen to our green spaces? We have already seen the building surge and the problems they have created with much worse to come
with a “concrete landscape” overtaking our city. This bill is ideal for the investors and construction trade and does not “benefit the broader community” but
destroys it! Please say “no” to this bill!
Guest User at July 27, 2021 at 3:21pm PDT
Oppose
Thank you Mayor Addiego, Vice Mayor Nagales and council members for your time to hear from the
people of your city. Our water comes from multiple sources including wells if need be. Many wells
throughout California have dried up along with lakes and rivers being below normal levels. Just a few
days ago a few towns had their well water depleted and they now have no water source. With our State in
a severe drought with more droughts forecasted in the near future, what will happen when the water is not
there for us. Many cities across the country have put a stop on multi unit buildings going up. Some cities
started doing this in 2018. Brisbane is to build over 4,000 units and our PUC site 800. Our sewer and
waterlines will be more than maxed out. How many lines are 70 plus years old in our city?
SB9 & 10 don't take in to account the infrastructure. The bills include bypassing CEQA and the voice of
the people of this state.. No where do the bills mandate that one must rent a unit at affordable rates. In
Townsend's presentation they say, "Per the author". This means in Weiner's and the additional authors
words. You need an environmental or real estate lawyer to decipher the wording in these bills. It is not as
it appears. Please push back against SB 9 &10. Most of the comments in support of the bills are from
renters who do not own homes or those still living at home.. .No where is affordable in these bills.
Affordable is the word to be addressed. Thank you, Diane Stokes SSF resident
Guest User at July 27, 2021 at 2:06pm PDT
Good evening Mayor Addiego and council members,
We would like to know where you all stand on these bills and if you are going to represent us as the
constituents or SB 9 & 10?
We are asking you to please send a letter to our state officials opposing SB 9 & 10.
Thank you! Cindy Alger
Guest User at July 27, 2021 at 2:03pm PDT
Oppose
Dear City Council, My name is Kathleen ButlerTom and I live at 3xx Alta Loma Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080. I want to voice my opposition to any change to Single Family zoning in South San Francisco and
California which would permit homes to be demolished and apartments or fourplex units to be built. Existing law in South San Francisco already permits single family homes to add an accessory unit ADU,
which is more than adequate to add housing onto existing parcels. Please vote NO on my behalf to changes to the zoning of Single Family areas in South San Francisco and
California. Thank you, Kathleen ButlerTom
Guest User at July 27, 2021 at 12:37pm PDT
Support
Good evening Mayor Addiego, Vice-Mayor Nagales, and the members of the City Council. My name is
Ethan Mizzi and i am commenting on California State Senate Bills 9 and 10. I am in support of both bills
and strongly encourage the Council to consider endorsing them and sending an official writ of its support
to the State Legislature. as a region and a city we drastically need to build more housing and frankly
building duplexes and splitting lots is the barest of bare minimums as to what we need to do to tackle the
housing crisis. please support SB9 and SB10. thank you for your time
Roderick Bovee at July 27, 2021 at 10:55am PDT
Support
In the past, I've heard statements from leaders in our city that certain other cities in our region are not
doing enough to build housing and that a regional approach is needed. SB 9 finally provides a regional
approach that will ensure urbanized residential areas are held to a common standard for density, a standard
that is lower than the existing standard the city has for downtown. I have at least one single-family home
on my block that houses multiple families so this standard will not even be materially different from what
exists today. That SB 10, a bill that ensures local control over zoning processes, is also being attacked is
evidence of the bad faith that residential segregationists are continuing to employ to drive poor people
from our state.
I hope the council take the climate crisis and the housing affordability crisis seriously enough to support
this legislation and any other legislation that will enable our city and our region to build more housing in
existing low-density residential neighborhoods.
Formosa Paul at July 27, 2021 at 10:32am PDT
Oppose
As a long time resident of South San Francisco, my family and I are very much opposed to SB 9 and SB
10. We believe this plan will only serve to eventually turn our neighborhoods into the kind of high density
mess one can already see in Senator Scott Weiner's San Francisco neighborhoods. Yes, these bills will
undoubtedly increase density, but they will do nothing for affordability. In fact, houses that are now in the
$1M range, will be worth even more as tear-downs that will be turned into high rent apartments. The
American dream of home ownership will be destroyed, and no neighborhood in the state will be what it
once was. The list of supporters is full of those who will benefit from the destruction of R1 zoning -
construction trades. No surprise there. This idea of creating more housing by destroying our existing
neighborhoods is insane. There is plenty of existing zoning that can be used for new housing without this.
We urge the City Council to take a stand against this legislation.
Guest User at July 27, 2021 at 10:16am PDT
Oppose
On a micro level, street by street or even neighborhood level, our neighborhoods are already maxed from a
parking perspective. Adding more households in the form of an ADU would add further parking issues.
Our neighborhoods weren't set up for this type of growth.
I would suggest other forms of affordable housing be pursued. Larger complexes like 20 or 30 unit
buildings that are made from scratch can have parking in the bottom levels and living on the top. You see
that elsewhere why not continue?
ADUs are typically done for the financial gain of the person installing them. But the cost to the
surrounding neighbors is more congestion.
From a TECHNICAL standpoint, our fire hydrants are NOT equipped to handle more homes. I had my
fire hydrant tested in 2015 (on Greenwood in the Brentwood neighborhood) and found out that it was not
to our current standards. If we had a serious multi-home fire, the fire department would be overwhelmed.
Does adding more structures and lives to an already sub-standard fire safety system seem like the right
thing to do?
Additionally, on another TECHNICAL note, the SB9 specifically states not to add ADU in a fault line. I
am attaching a map to remind those that are considering adding more homes, we are setting ourselves up
for a perfect storm.
If I can not afford to live in an area, I would simply not live there. Growing up, I did not have resources
and income to live in the nicer towns or communities, so my family was required to live where we could
afford. There was a limited amount of housing that we could afford, once those were full we had to look
elsewhere. Coddling our community will only dilute our personal growth and development as a society.
We need to be resourceful and create sustainable communities in locations that are able to accommodate
the growth. The character building that I learned during my journey is something that I am grateful for and
looking back glad we got to experience.
John Baker at July 26, 2021 at 10:55am PDT
Support
Thank you for the staff reports on SBs 9 & 10.
As a community member who has long worked for the betterment of South San Francisco, I would like to
offer my support for both. We see too few housing opportunities from medium-income earners such as
teachers, non-tech/biotech professionals, and retail/commercial workers. Allowing duplexes by right in SB
9 is a huge step toward improving affordable housing access without the delays (and disruptions alleged
by opponents) that is seen in larger projects, and makes significant housing opportunities that can be
created in a more-expedient manner than other traditional developments. SB10, despite the fear-
mongering I've seen online, is even LESS disruptive, as it is both an opt-in for cities and only applies to
transit rich areas -- there is no "loss of local control," as all decisions would be made by a city's elected
leaders.
Please feel an obligation to address the housing crisis that previous councils and their decisions
contributed to, and don't fall prey to fear-mongering that puts aesthetics and vehicle access over the very
real needs of people desperate for housing they can afford.
Gabriel Rodriguez admin at July 22, 2021 at 2:09pm PDT
Oppose
Please read attached public comment from Cynthia Fitzgibbon.
Attachments: eComment_Redacted.pdf
Time Name Agenda Item Number
7/27/21 16:35:25 Rich garbarino 1
7/27/21 17:33:06 Cory David 1
7/27/21 17:48:06 Darryl Yip 1
7/27/21 17:53:38 Marty Romero 1
7/27/21 17:54:27 Erin chazer 1
7/27/21 17:54:35 Cathy Rosaia 1
7/27/21 17:55:25 Mike sutter 1
7/27/21 19:03:48 Tasso Mavroudis 1
Special City Council Meeting 7/27/2021
In-person Public Comment Speakers