Let’s try to keep SB9, SB10, and RHNA, separate. Yes, it’s confusing, but it’s important:
SB9: A heavily-contested law that allows property owners to put multiple structures on a lot currently-zoned single-family residential — with a variety of caveats around respecting local interests and safety. Independent of whether this law is great, or terrible, it has so far had no effect on Portola Valley, and may not, depending on who you believe. This isn’t to say that people shouldn’t vote their perspective, but it is not what we are struggling with locally, at least for now.
SB10: Lets towns be more aggressive about upzoning. Only an issue if our town wants to go that way. So far there isn’t any evidence of, or appetite for, that.
RHNA: _HERE_ is where our current “rubber meets the road.” This is the system that requires us to plan for 253 + buffer new housing units over the next “cycle” (8 years).
In short, revoking SB9 and/or SB10 may or may not be a good thing, and will no doubt make plenty of people happy (and plenty of others not), it wouldn’t change the current situation we are in. The TL;DR version — Changing SB9 and SB10 will not in any way effect the number of housing units Portola Valley needs to plan for. To affect that, then either modifications to the RHNA process, or some other creative thinking are needed. — David