City Council Subcommittee Agendas and Minutes

City Council Legislative Subcommittee Agenda 70 N. First Street, Campbell CA Thursday, March 11,2021 1:30 pm VIA Telecommunication NOTE: To protect our constituents, City officials, and City staff, the City requests all members of the public follow the guidance of the California Department of Health Services, and the County of Santa Clara Health Officer Order, to help control the spread of COVID-19. Additional information regarding COVID-19 is available on the City’s website at www.campbellca.gov. This Legislative Subcommittee Meeting will be conducted via telecommunication and is compliant with provisions of the Brown Act and Executive Order N-29-20 issued by the Governor. The following Subcommittee members are listed to permit them to appear electronically or telephonically at the Legislative Subcommittee meeting on Thursday, March 11, 2021: Mayor Elizabeth “Liz” Gibbons and Councilmember Sergio Lopez. Members of the public will not be able to attend meetings at the Campbell City Council Chamber physically. The Legislative Subcommittee Meeting will be live streamed on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/cityofcampbell) Public comment for the City Council meeting will be accepted via email at clerksoffice@campbellca.gov prior to the meeting. Please indicate in the subject line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.” Comments will be read during the Oral Requests comment period. Written comments received by 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 10, 2021 will be posted on the website and distributed to the subcommittee before the meeting. Special Meeting of the Legislative Subcommittee CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMENT New Business 1. 2021 State Legislation - Bills to Watch* Recommended Action: Review and discuss proposed legislation and provide direction to staff. ADJOURN *2021 State Legislation Bills Matrix Pursuant to the Executive Order, and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need assistance to participate in the Legislative Subcommittee meeting, please contact Diana Johnson in the City Manager’s Office at 408-866-2125 or by e-mail dianaj@campbellca.gov  2021 Legislation - Bills to Watch Bill Sponsor(s) Summary HOUSING ACA 1 Local Aguiar- The California Constitution prohibits the ad valorem tax rate on real property from exceeding 1% of the full government Curry cash value of the property, subject to certain exceptions. This measure would create an additional financing: exception to the 1% limit that would authorize a city, county, city and county, or special district to levy an affordable ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund the construction, reconstruction, housing and rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive public housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those purposes, if the proposition proposing that infrastructure: tax is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, or city and county, as applicable, and the voter approval. proposition includes specified accountability requirements. AB 59 Mitigation Gabriel Current law authorizes any party to protest the imposition of a fee, dedication, reservation, or other Fee Act: Fees: exactions imposed on a development project within 90 or 120 days of the imposition of the fee, as Notice and applicable, and specifies procedures for those protests and actions. The Mitigation Fee Act imposes the Timelines same requirements on a local agency for a new or increased fee for public facilities. Current law, for specified fees, requires any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance, resolution, or motion adopting a new fee or service charge or modifying an existing fee or service charge to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance, resolution, or motion. Current law also provides that, if an ordinance, resolution, or motion provides for an automatic adjustment in a fee or service charge and the adjustment results in an increase in the fee or service charge, that any action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the increase to be commenced within 120 days of the increase. This bill would increase, for fees and service charges and for fees for specified public facilities, the time for mailing the notice of the time and place of the meeting to at least 45 days before the meeting. AB 71 Statewide Luz Rivas, • Establishes a revenue source to fund various State programs focused on solving the homeless crisis. Homelessness Bloom, • Creates a funding source for developers to develop housing with wrap-around services (continuum of Solutions Chiu, and care) in certain jurisdictions. Program Wicks AB 115 Planning Bloom Housing development an authorized use on a site designated for commercial if at least 20 percent of the and Zoning: project units are deed-restricted affordable. The development would need to comply with all local Housing standards, including: Development 1  2021 Legislation - Bills to Watch Bill Sponsor(s) Summary — Not adjacent to industrial uses and is more infill in nature with urban uses on 75 percent of the perimeter; and — Height limits, FAR, and density thresholds are defined in the law that takes into consideration local standards but is the greatest of the standards. • This bill would sunset on January 1, 2031. AB 215 Housing Chiu The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development Element within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. That law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to determine whether the housing element is in substantial compliance with specified provisions of that law. That law also requires HCD to notify a city, county, or city and county, and authorizes HCD to notify the office of the Attorney General, that the city, county, or city and county is in violation of state law if HCD finds that the housing element or an amendment to the housing element does not substantially comply with specified provisions of the Planning and Zoning Law, or that the local government has taken action or failed to act in violation of specified provisions of law. This bill would add the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 to those specified provisions of law. AB 617 Planning Davies Would authorize a city or county, by agreement, to transfer all or a portion of its allocation of regional and Zoning: housing need to another city or county. The bill would allow the transferring city to pay the transferee city Regional Housing or county an amount determined by that agreement, as well as a surcharge to offset the impacts and Needs: Exchange associated costs of the additional housing on the transferee city. The bill would also require the of Allocation transferring city or county and the transferee city or county to report to the council of governments and the department specified information about the transfer, as provided. AB 1258 Housing Nguyen Current law requires each city, county, or city and county to prepare and adopt a general plan for its Element: jurisdiction that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. Under existing law, a Regional Housing part of the housing element is an assessment of housing needs, which includes the locality’s share of the Need Plan: regional housing need. Under existing law the appropriate council of governments, or for cities and Judicial Review counties without a council of governments, the Department of Housing and Community Development, adopts a final regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each locality in the region. This bill would subject the final regional housing need plan to judicial review. AB 1401 Friedman Would prohibit a local government from imposing a minimum parking requirement, or enforcing a Residential and minimum parking requirement, on residential, commercial, or other development if the development is commercial 2  2021 Legislation - Bills to Watch Bill Sponsor(s) Summary development: located on a parcel that is within one-half mile walking distance of public transit, as defined, or located parking within a low-vehicle miles traveled area, as defined. requirements. SB 5 Housing Atkins, Authorizes Legislature to issue bonds. Proceeds from bonds would be directed toward housing finance Bond Act Caballero, activities focused on homelessness and ELI, VLI households. Unclear if the funds would be directed into Mcguire, existing programs that serve these populations or if new programs would be established. Rubio, Skinner, and Wiener SB 6 Local Caballero, This bill designates a housing development project, a parcel within a commercial zone not adjacent to an Planning: Eggman, industrial site, as an allowable use on a neighborhood lot if it complies with various requirements, one of Housing: and Rubio which includes: the density for a housing development must meet or exceed the density appropriate for Commercial lower income households according to the local jurisdiction. Zones SB 8 Density Skinner • Reduces the incentive criteria for LI: 17 percent for two incentives and 24 percent for three incentives Bonus (down from 20 percent and 30 percent, respectively). • Increases density bonus maximum to 50 percent for MOD. • Adjustments to transit and parking. • Allows the City SB 9 Housing Atkins, • Allows for split lots in areas currently zoned single-family. Development: Caballero, • Two-unit projects ministerial approval. Approvals Rubio, and • The City can develop standards as long as they do not physically preclude development. Wiener SB 10 Planning Wiener Would allow for small projects of 10 or fewer units to be approved without going through extended and Zoning: environmental reviews. Housing • Focused on jobs-rich, urban infill areas within the City. Development: Density 3  2021 Legislation - Bills to Watch Bill Sponsor(s) Summary SB 15 Housing Portantino Grant program to assist local government to rezone idle retail sites (big box or commercial shopping Development: centers) for work force housing. This would be an annual grant. Incentives: The • Idle defined as at least 80 percent of leased or rentable square footage not occupied for at least one Rezoning of Idle year. Retail Sites Zoning would be by right. • Work force housing for lower- or moderate-income households with 55-year affordability term for a rental and 45-year term for ownership. SB 478 Planning Wiener The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development and Zoning Law: within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. The law also requires the housing Department of Housing and Community Development to notify the city, county, or city and county, and development authorizes the department to notify the Attorney General, that the city, county, or city and county is in projects. violation of state law if the department finds that the housing element or an amendment to that element, or any specified action or failure to act, does not substantially comply with the law as it pertains to housing elements or that any local government has taken an action in violation of certain housing laws. This bill would prohibit a local agency, as defined, from imposing specified standards, including a minimum lot size that exceeds an unspecified number of square feet on parcels zoned for at least 2, but not more than 4, units or a minimum lot size that exceeds an unspecified number of square feet on parcels zoned for at least 5, but not more than 10, units. SB 765 Accessory The Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, provides for the creation of accessory dwelling units by dwelling units: local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance setbacks. with specified standards and conditions. Current law prohibits a local agency’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance from imposing a setback requirement of more than 4 feet from the side and rear lot lines for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. This bill would remove the above- described prohibition on a local agency’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance, and would instead provide that the rear and side yard setback requirements for accessory dwelling units may be set by the local agency. The bill would authorize an accessory dwelling unit applicant to submit a request to the local agency for an alternative rear and side yard setback requirement if the local agency’s setback requirements make the building of the accessory dwelling unit infeasible. 4  2021 Legislation - Bills to Watch TRANSPORTATION AB 1091 Santa Berman Current law creates the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) with various powers and duties Clara Valley relative to transportation projects and services and the operation of public transit in the County of Santa Transportation Clara. Current law vests the government of the VTA in a 12-member board of directors whose terms of Authority: Board office are two years. Under existing law, only members of the county board of supervisors and city council of Directors members and mayors of cities in the county are authorized to serve on the board. Current law provides for the appointment of the board members by those local governments, as specified. This bill, on and after July 1, 2022, would reduce the size of the board to 9 members, increase their terms of office to 4 years, and provide for residents living in the county, rather than local officials, to serve on the board, as specified. BROADBAND AB 14 Aguiar- Existing law establishes the State Department of Education in state government, and vests the department Communications: Curry with specified powers and duties relating to the state’s public school system. This bill would authorize local Broadband educational agencies to report to the department their pupils’ estimated needs for computing devices and Services: internet connectivity adequate for at-home learning. The bill would require the department, in California consultation with the Public Utilities Commission, to compile that information and to annually post that Advanced compiled information on the department’s internet website. Services Fund AB 34 Muratsuchi Would propose a $10 billion general obligation bond measure on the November 2022 ballot to provide Communications: funding for statewide broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved communities throughout the Broadband for All State, and funds could be allocated to cities, among other entities. Act of 2022 SB 4 Gonzalez Current law establishes the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, known as “GO-Biz,” Communications: within the Governor’s office to serve the Governor as the lead entity for economic strategy and the California marketing of California on issues relating to business development, private sector Advanced investment, and economic growth. This bill would require the office to coordinate with other relevant Services Fund state and local agencies and national organizations to explore ways to facilitate streamlining of local land use approvals and construction permit processes for projects related to broadband infrastructure deployment and connectivity. 5  2021 Legislation - Bills to Watch GOVERNANCE AB 339 State and Lee Current law requires all meetings, as defined, of a house of the Legislature or a committee thereof to be Local open and public, and requires all persons to be permitted to attend the meetings, except as specified. This Government: bill would require all meetings, including gatherings using teleconference technology, to include an Open Meetings opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option that provides closed captioning services and requires both a call-in and an internet-based service option to be provided to the public. SB 278 Public Leyva Would establish new procedures under Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL) for cases in which PERS Employees’ determines that the benefits of a member or annuitant are, or would be, based on disallowed Retirement compensation that conflicts with PEPRA and other specified laws and thus impermissible under PERL. The System: bill would also apply these procedures retroactively to determinations made on or after January 1, 2017, if disallowed an appeal has been filed and the employee member, survivor, or beneficiary has not exhausted their compensation: administrative or legal remedies. At the threshold, after determining that compensation for an employee benefit member reported by the state, school employer, or a contracting agency is disallowed, the bill would adjustments. require the applicable employer to discontinue the reporting of the disallowed compensation. The bill would require that contributions made on the disallowed compensation, for active members, be credited against future contributions on behalf of the state, school employer, or contracting agency that reported the disallowed compensation and would require that the state, school employer, or contracting agency return to the member any contributions paid by the member or on the member’s behalf. REVENUE AND TAXATION SB 555 Local McGuire This bill would authorize a local agency to enact an ordinance exclusively delegating its authority to collect Agencies: any transient occupancy tax imposed by that local agency on short-term rentals to the California Transient Department of Tax and Fee Administration and to enter into a contract with the department for purposes Occupancy taxes: of registration, rate posting, collection, and transmission of revenues necessary to collect and administer Online Short any transient occupancy tax imposed on a short-term rental as specified in this bill. Term Rental Facilitator: This bill would require the department to perform those functions, as specified, and would require all local Collection charges collected by the department to be deposited in the Local Charges for Short-term Rentals Fund, which would be created by the bill in the State Treasury. This bill would continuously appropriate all amounts in the fund to the department and would require the department to transmit the funds to the local agencies periodically as promptly as feasible, as provided. Local agencies that do not currently have a TOT collection agreement would be able to opt-in to the program. 6  2021 Legislation - Bills to Watch ENERGY AB 987 Electrical Low Would require increased reporting for Investor Owned Utilities on planned and unplanned electricity Corporations: outages (City of San Jose is a sponsor) Reporting. 7 MEMORANDUM City of Campbell City Manager’s Office To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: March 10, 2021 From: Margarita F. Mendoza, Administrative Analyst Via: Brian Loventhal, City Manager Subject: Communication – SB 9 & SB 10 Opposition At the request of Councilmember Susan M. Landry, the attached communication from West Bay Citizen's Committee (WBCC) in opposition to Senate Bill 9 and Senate Bill 10 is provided for your information. The statements and analysis contained in the attachment was created by WBCC. A copy of the information provided in the staff prepared “Bills to Watch” Matrix as it relates to both of the referenced bills is below. SB 9 Housing Atkins, • Allows for split lots in areas currently zoned single-family. Development: Caballero, • Two-unit projects ministerial approval. Approvals Rubio, and • The City can develop standards as long as they do not Wiener physically preclude development. SB 10 Wiener Would allow for small projects of 10 or fewer units to be Planning and approved without going through extended environmental Zoning: reviews. Housing • Focused on jobs-rich, urban infill areas within the City. Development: Density  WBCC opposes SB 9 and SB 10 for these reasons: • SB 9 does not mandate affordable housing and studies show upzoning single-family parcels does NOT provide affordable housing • SB 9 is NOT a bill that provides for “duplexes” – this is deliberately misleading when it is clear that SB 9 allow 4 – 8 units to be built on a single-family lot • Remote Work – aka “Work from Home” (WFH) has drastically affected the amount of housing needed in the Bay Area as jobs are moving out of the Bay Area to less expensive areas • There has been an exodus to the suburbs, to other parts of California and to other states – how many housing units do we really need? • Upzoning in mass transit areas leads to gentrification • The Bay Area does not have a mass transit system that can support increased density • Neither SB 9 nor SB 10 takes into account the impact on transportation (roads) and infrastructure (sewers, police, fire, water, schools, blocking of rooftop solar panels) • Housing has become a standard in investment portfolios both in the US and abroad (and lots of it is sitting empty) • SB 10 is an outrageous attempt to take away rights guaranteed to Californians by the California Constitution • SB 10 allows a simple majority on any city council to overturn voter-approved citizen initiatives that protect open space, canyons, shorelines, urban boundaries, and other land, overriding a 108-year- old California voter right • Stripping citizens and local jurisdictions of the right to control zoning and development leads to costly litigation • SB 10 allows the 10-Unit Structures to be exempt from CEQA • SB 10 creates wildfire and earthquake risk not allowed by current zoning regulations • The state needs to invest in affordable housing and seek other creative ways to finance the building and maintenance of affordable housing and improve transportation First, we must make it clear – we believe there is NO “housing crisis” – there is only an affordable housing crisis. There is an abundance of market rate housing and developers are looking to build even more market rate housing should SB 9 and SB 10 be enacted into law. Nothing in either of these bills guarantees that any affordable housing units will be built! That’s a very important point – neither SB 9 nor SB 10 requires any affordable housing! https://mailchi.mp/8e9f2d15031b/were-solving-the-wrong-crisis?e=0547b46ed0 You said you are a real fan of data and would prefer that we provide you with data to help you formulate your position on these bills. We are honoring your request. The purpose of SB 9 and SB 10 is to upzone single-family parcels to allow developers to build from 4 to 8 (SB 9) or 10 (SB 10) housing units on what was a single-family lot with one housing unit. These bills are promoted as “solutions” to the lack of affordable housing in California when, after taking a closer look, you will notice that there is not even one provision in either bill that mandates affordable housing. The proponents of these bills and their predecessors simply imply that because multiple smaller units are being built to replace one larger single-family home, common sense dictates that these smaller units will be more affordable. Studies show that is not the case. 1 SB 9 does not mandate affordable housing and studies show upzoning single-family parcels does NOT provide affordable housing 1. Vancouver passed a similar ordinance in 2018 allowing duplexes to replace single-family homes. An analysis of the cost of duplexes that replaced single-family homes in Vancouver in 2020 shows that the premise that duplexes will cost less is false. Out of the 22 sales, 16 half-duplexes, or 73%, sold for more than what the detached home cost. And even in the few cases where duplexes are cheaper than the detached they replaced, they’re cheaper by 10% or less. https://openhousing.ca/2020/12/21/nearly-3-in-4-half-duplexes-sold-for-more-than-the-single- detached-homes-they-replaced/ 2. A study by Yonah Freemark, a doctoral student in urban planning at MIT, evaluated the impact of upzonings near transit stops in Chicago neighborhoods, first in 2013 and later in 2015, to see if they had any impact on housing development. Freemark analyzed building permit data in upzoned areas between 2010 and 2018, before, during and after the upzonings took place. His hypothesis was that upzoning would increase the likelihood that housing development would occur, and that prices and rents would begin to fall. Freemark came to two very surprising conclusions. [T]he short-term, local- level impacts of upzoning are higher property prices but no additional new housing construction.” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1078087418824672?journalCode=uarb& 3. Patrick Condon, author of Sick City, and the James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Livable Environments at the University of British Columbia, writes about how the pandemic has brought the issues of race, inequality and unaffordability to the forefront as well, illustrating how all of these ills can be traced to unequal access to urban land. Patrick Condon walks the reader through that history, proving that most of these problems are rooted in the inflation of urban land value — land that is no longer priced for its value for housing but as an asset class in a global market hungry for assets of all kinds. The American wage earner who is most affected by COVID is also the worst hit by the surging price of urban land which has made the essential commodity of housing increasingly inaccessible. Not only does Condon dive deep into myriad and credible references to prove these points, but he also wraps up the conversation with some eminently practical and widely precedented policy actions that municipalities can enact — policy tools to establish housing justice at the same time slowing the flow of land value increases into the pockets of land speculators. Click here for Sick City Courtesy of Livable California https://www.livablecalifornia.org/vancouver-smartest-planner-prof-patrick-condon-calls-california- upzoning-a-costly-mistake-2-6-21/ 4. Los Angeles Councilman Paul Koretz provides comments on SB 9 – no mandate for affordable housing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRo_3oY3dxI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX2o0ODZbNU 5. Livable California comments re SB 9: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCthagr6r90 6. The League of California Cities opposes SB 9: 2  https://www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-Articles/2021/February/Cal-Cities-opposes-unless- amended-legislation-seek 7. Wendell Cox, an American urban policy analyst and academic and the principal and sole owner of Demographia, speaking on Covid & Urbanization, Working at Home, Densification, Housing Affordability, Population & Migration, and Transit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCthagr6r90 8. Peter Calthorpe, the San Francisco-based architect, urban designer and urban planner who has taught at UC Berkeley, U of Washington, U of Oregon, and the U of North Carolina and developed the concept of Transit Oriented Development in 1990, speaking on the Bay Area Crisis of Housing and Transportation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZaMQ47mQSM 9. When given the opportunity, developers and real estate investors will always build higher market-rate or luxury housing—especially in areas like the Bay Area. Studies have shown that upzoned units are often more expensive than the original unit that they replaced. https://www.forbes.com/sites/petesaunders1/2019/02/22/maybe-upzoning-doesnt-always-lead-to- lower-home-prices/?sh=5bb50db04dd3 10. Inspired by Ronald Reagan’s supply-side policies, deregulation is now favored by Democratic majorities at LA’s City Hall, the California State legislature, and in Washington, DC. https://citywatchla.com/index.php/cw/los-angeles/21183-cut-from-the-same-cloth-municipal-state- and-federal-officials-spout-urban-reaganomics-to-solve-the-housing-crisis 11. Big Tech and developers are the biggest backers of Weiner’s and Atkins’ bills to up zone single-family residences. Why is that? https://www.housinghumanright.org/inside-game-california-yimby-scott-wiener-and-big-tech- troubling-housing-push/ Remote Work – aka “Work from Home” (WFH) has drastically affected the amount of housing needed in the Bay Area as jobs are moving out of the Bay Area to less expensive areas 1. The Wall Street Journal reports on March 6, 2021 that as much as a quarter of the 160-million strong U.S. labor force is expected to stay fully remote in the long term, and many more are likely to work remotely a significant part of the time. The effects of the significant shift to remote-work has had the most effect on the Bay Area, resulting in an exodus of residents to other parts of California and other states that offer less costly housing and a better quality of life. As a result, job growth predictions and housing needs projections based on pre-Covid norms are no longer valid. https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-remote-work-is-reshaping-americas-urban-geography- 11614960100?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink 2. More and more companies are allowing Work From Home and employees are moving to areas with lower cost of living. Salesforce reveals new “Work From Anywhere” policy. 3  https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/09/salesforce-reveals-new-work-from-anywhere-plan- for-its-employees/ 3. Covid – and the Ongoing Global Workplace Revolution https://quillette.com/2021/02/14/covid-19-and-the-ongoing-global-workplace-revolution/ There has been an exodus to the suburbs, to other parts of California and to other states – how many housing units do we really need? 1. A new study of the 11-county Bay Area region by the California Policy Lab at UC Berkeley and UCLA shows the exodus in Bay Area migration has accelerated in recent months. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/04/covid-economy-bay-area-residents-exit-region- growing-numbers-jobs-tech/ 2. People were leaving California for lower cost states before the Covid pandemic. They were leaving for areas where they could buy a single-family home at a reasonable price. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/82-percent-of-Bay-Area-renters-plan-to-leave- 11823639.php https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/02/08/packing-up-and-moving-out-bay-area-exodus- continues/ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SVLFbKwrLLnH8XTF8QdG8q1qAxVsyVV2/view?usp=sharing 3. Recent data show that the Bay Area has experienced a net loss of population with people moving to other parts of the state or out of state. https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/Data-keeps-piling-up-No-mass-exodus-from- 16001934.php 4. During the pandemic, there has been an upsurge in young families leaving condos in the cities and looking for single-family homes with backyards in residential neighborhoods. Having a larger home and green space has been more important to tech workers since Work From Home has become the norm. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/01/how-millennials-are-changing-the-luxury-real-estate- market/ Studies show that upzoning in mass transit areas leads to gentrification 1. Assemblyman Chiu and Senator Weiner attack fellow elected representatives that oppose SB 9 because it does not provide for affordable housing and will gentrify the districts they represent and actually reduce the amount of available affordable housing. https://48hills.org/2021/03/chiu-wiener-attack-left-right-pincers-on-housing/ 2. UCLA and London School of Economics Professor Michael Storper reported that when given the opportunity, developers and real estate investors will always build higher market-rate or luxury housing—especially in areas like the Bay Area. Studies have shown that upzoned units are often 4  more expensive than the original unit that they replaced. This also leads to massive gentrification. https://www.planningreport.com/2019/03/15/blanket-upzoning-blunt-instrument-wont-solve- affordable-housing-crisis https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boston-chinatown-gentrification_n_5a6b05fae4b01fbbefb0b992 3. In a study by Rodriquez-Pose and Storper in 2019, blanket changes in zoning were shown to be unlikely to increase domestic migration or to improve affordability for lower-income households in prosperous areas. They would, however, increase gentrification within metropolitan areas and would not appreciably decrease income inequality. https://voxeu.org/article/we-cannot-build-our-way-out-inequality 4. Gentrification is the end result of these misguided housing bills. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/24/berkeley-to-end-single-family-residential-zoning- citing-racist-ties/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-cities-want-to-end-single-family-home- 15983648.php https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0042098019859458 https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/10-surprising-cities-that-are-gentrifying-the-fastest/ https://blavity.com/the-story-of-uberbae-boyfriend?category1=black-twitter&category2=black- twitter The Bay Area does not have a mass transit system that can support increased density 1. Rather than an effective and widespread mass transit system, the Bay Area has a BART system that does not serve the Peninsula – the area that is most crowded, has the highest land prices, and that creates the most jobs at present. So the very idea that people can or will use mass transit to easily get to and from their jobs, to other venues etc. is nonsensical. Trillions of dollars would need to be invested in the Bay Area to build a marginally functional mass transit system. “Bart is facing a $975 million loss over the next three years https://www.ktvu.com/news/bay-area-mass-transits-future-in-jeopardy-experts-say “If you are outside of a dense central area, transit just isn’t competitive,” Wasserman said. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/23/bay-area-traffic-is-terrible-so-why-are-fewer-people- taking-transit/ Neither SB 9 nor SB 10 takes into account the impact on Transportation (Roads) and Infrastructure (Sewers, Police, Fire, Water, Schools, Blocking of Rooftop Solar Panels) 1. Historically, housing near transit has been lower income, but there is nothing in these bills to ensure that new units are affordable so former lower income tenants who depended on that public transit will not now be cut off from it. 5  2. Solar panels can be affected for a single-family home if a large duplex is put next to the home and shades the solar panels. Defeats the purpose of solar panels for single family homes if large homes are built next door. 3. Traffic assessments now require VTM (vehicle miles traveled) -new law as of July 2020 vs LOS traffic reports which cities were previously required to assess. Some cities will still do both for an EIR/CEQA. Any building application that increases vehicle emissions is not healthy for the community. 4. Professor Joel Kotkin, Chapman University, speaking on housing, transit, wealth, home ownership, jobs, pay, leaving California, and density vs. environmental quality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gtkM37kDhE Click here for his slides https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu69XOeoa0o Housing has become a standard in investment portfolios both in the US and abroad (and lots of it is sitting empty) 1. Rather than being bought in order to develop multifamily luxury housing, many single-family homes on the Peninsula are being bought as investments mostly by foreign nationals seeking to move their money to a safe harbor. Our communities are seeing the number of these “ghost houses” increase. Driving the price of land up by upzoning provides an incentive to increase these ghost investments. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/03/buy-to-leave-housing-investment- policy https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/05/hedge-city-vancouver-chinese-foreign-capital/ SB 10 is an outrageous attempt to take away rights guaranteed to Californians by the California Constitution. 2. SB 10 by state Sen. Scott Wiener would override the 108-year-old constitutional right of Californians to launch and pass ballot initiatives that politicians cannot undo. These citizens’ initiatives protect shorelines, canyons, urban boundaries, open space and neighborhoods. The state constitution prohibits the vote of a majority of a city council to undo the vote of the majority of the voters of a city – SB 10 would destroy that constitutional safeguard. A vote to strip Californians of a right guaranteed by the state constitution should, at the very least, be approved by voters in a state-wide election. 3. Second, SB 10, like Wiener’s 2020 lookalike bill SB 902, would allow 10-unit market rate apartments to be built almost anywhere, via simple approval of a city council, regardless of existing zoning or the city’s General Plan. The concept of unaffordable market-rate 10-unit apartments allowed almost everywhere was also the core goal of Scott Wiener’s infamous SB 50, killed in January of 2020 by legislators. Under SB 10, the 10-unit market rate buildings could be approved by any of the 400-plus city councils in 6  California, on ANY land deemed “urban infill,” “transit rich,” or “jobs rich.” In defining the squishy term “urban infill,” city councils can deem land “underutilized” and thus “urban infill.” State employees would define which communities are “transit rich,” or “jobs rich” — a term even more squishy than “urban infill.” SB 10 would allow 10-unit market-rate apartment buildings on most blocks, in most communities. https://www.livablecalifornia.org/sb902-bad-housing-bill-lets-cities-override-voters-to-erect- luxury-apartments-everywhere/ Stripping citizens and local jurisdictions of the right to control zoning and development leads to costly litigation 1. The Minnesota Supreme Court recently ruled against the City of Minneapolis which adopted regulations doing away with single family residences. https://www.minneapolisaudubon.org/blog/2021/2/10/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-in-favor- of-environmental-justice-audubon-chapter-of-minneapolis https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S-PXerlfnPDohBMY6KaCNGcTZkTkoI9d/view?usp=sharing 10-Unit Structures are exempt from CEQA 1. SB10 allows cities to increase density up to ten-unit buildings in a streamlined way, “without” having to go through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Cities will also be able to designate these projects by right, meaning they can be approved ministerially and without lengthy approval process. Environmentalists worked hard to get the CEQA act. Why would we throw out CEQA for SB10? CEQA gives the community a voice in land use decisions. It requires decision-makers to adopt alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce significant adverse environmental aspects. This prevents damage to the environment through alternatives, mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring. SB 10 creates wildfire and earthquake risk not allowed by current zoning regulations 1. Duplexes 4 feet apart can increase the Risk and Hazards to the residents of the city if an earthquake or fire occurs. The Town council’s #1 responsibility is to protect the safety of residents. Building duplexes 4 feet apart will be considered negligent in the case of earthquake or fire. Will insurance cover losses? 2. Housing units that are close together make it much more difficult for fire and rescue personnel to fight fires and rescue people. “Gaining access to the building for rescue and ventilation will be a key objective. Firefighters may ladder the front and rear of the dwelling but might also need to ladder the side windows to perform rescues. There are a lot of challenges in raising ground ladders to the sides of these houses due to the proximity of neighboring structures, which have only a few feet to the property line. These challenges can slow rescue efforts and roof ventilation, allowing for greater fire spread and reducing the time that firefighters have in the building and on the roof.” https://www.firefighternation.com/firerescue/too-close-for-comfort/#gref 7  3. The Fire marshal recommends 100 feet between houses as a good defensible space for a fire. Usually 30 feet clearance from a house at a minimum with vegetation management the remainder of the 70 feet. “Proper clearance to 100 feet dramatically increases the chance of your house surviving a wildfire.” https://www.nolo.com/legal-updates/california-homeowners-in-fire-hazard-areas-must-comply- with-new-property-and-disclosure-laws-in-2020.html ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO SOLVE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS The state needs to invest in affordable housing and seek other creative ways to finance the building and maintenance of affordable housing 1. Government subsidies for affordable housing are shrinking while building costs are increasing, turning to America’s retirement piggy bank could be an important part of the solution. https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/trillions-money-for-affordable-housing 2. For more than three decades, programs in New York have used public pension funds to help finance development or preservation of affordable housing. Earlier this year, two community development corporations issued bonds, with much of the investment coming from private pension funds and mutual funds, to finance affordable housing. https://www.planetizen.com/news/2018/01/96849-pension-funds-can-save-affordable-housing 3. The state could invest in more business incentives for Work From Home; more distributed housing alleviates the need for draconian housing bills. 4. The state needs to improve transportation means that would efficiently move workers from the suburbs or outlying areas to their jobs. Our mass transit system is inadequate, dysfunctional and, in its current state, will not be used by inhabitants of the dense housing units planned for construction along the transit corridor. Parking requirements are eliminated in much of the dense transit corridor housing. Because mass transit is not an efficient or realistic means of transportation to work for any income level, the inhabitants of these housing units will have cars and therefore will exacerbate the problem of parking in residential areas, greatly increase traffic congestion and increase carbon emissions which negatively impact climate change. 8 ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE EFFECTS OF SB 9 AND SB 10 TO SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS 9 10 11 12 13