Loading...
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