This flow chart captures the amendments made in Committee on April 24. Click here to view larger image. Image courtesy of Alfred Twu at firstcultural.com. A more detailed recap from the Finance Committee staff (with annotations) is below.

SB50 passes another hurdle and incorporates elements of SB4 (McGuire’s housing bill), which will pretty much disappear. For more on SB50 and how it will affect San Diego County, click here. There will likely be more hearings before the bill gets voted on by the Senate. SF Chronicle briefly summarizes the amendments to SB50 which were introduced today in the Finance committee hearing. The bill passes but will undergo some additional revisions before it makes it to the Senate floor.

Staff Summary and our brief analysis:

The following is a summary by the staff of the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance. The marked up legislation with the most recent changes is not yet available. I’ve added some notes in italics.

SB 50 will be amended to do all of the below.  SB 4 will be held in committee.

Statewide provisions:

  • Sensitive communities agreement with housing advocates:
    • Include at a minimum those areas: designated high segregation and poverty and low-resource in TCAC opportunity maps; top 25% Cal EnviroScreen scores; 2019 HUD qualified census tracts; potentially others. Will need to research exactly what this means. Hopefully will be elaborated in the revised bill shortly.
    • COGs run process to identify sensitive communities with minimum requirements for outreach to disadvantaged populations
    • Opt in before July 1, 2025 to planning process based on petition with 20% population in census tract signing and specified outreach requirements
  • Changes to ensure offsite affordable housing is actually built: no certificate of occupancy on market rate without building permit, and has to be near transit and within half mile of original project site. This is promising. In lieu fees do not go very far compared to onsite or at least “near-site” units.
  • Technical amendments to clarify how density bonus works. Yes, it is quite confusing and the density bonus + SB50 requirements could bring another set of unintended consequences.
  • Commitment to include inclusionary percentages that are worked out with housing advocates and agreeable to SGF committee. Which housing advocates?
  • Creation of fourplexes by right (regardless of jurisdiction population) in residential areas on vacant land and allows conversions of existing structure—but no demolition, as follows:
    • 75% of exterior walls must be intact and no more than +15% increase square footage.  Also has to abide by all other local regulations (setbacks, lot coverage, FAR, height, etc). I assume duplexes and triplexes are ok? Personally, I would advocate for duplexes for a certain period of time (10-15 years) and then open it up to triplex/fourplexes.
    • Must include SB 35 limitations on eligible parcels. Need to research this some more, but SB35 is very specific as to what qualifies.
  • Exempt very high fire hazard severity zones. Devil here is in the details. SB4’s language states that a parcel can be eligible if it is on “a site that has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.” so this could be a weak protection.
  • Exempt coastal zone in cities with populations less than 50,000. Exempts only the coastal zones and only in Del Mar, Solana Beach, Imperial Beach, Coronado would be exempt. All other cities including La Mesa, Encinitas, Escondido, Vista, San Marcos Oceanside, City of San Diego.
  • Restrict bill to infill parcels in coastal zone regardless of jurisdiction size. Seems reasonable, but again, how is infill defined?

In counties over 600,000 population:

  • In other words, San Diego County and most large coastal counties.
  • SB 50 zoning provisions regarding rail, ferry, job rich, and bus stop (as modified below):
    • Exempt contributing parcels in legislatively-adopted historic districts in existence as of 2010, and density bonus language going forward
    • Bus stops: Shorten headways to 10 minutes during peak times to qualify.  Clarify that it’s each line going in each direction.  Must have met the headway standard for the past 5 years. This makes the transit definition a little more concrete and not subject to political whims.
  • SB 50 parking (no parking around rail, 0.5 spaces per unit minimum elsewhere)

In counties 600,000 population or less, modify equitable communities incentive to:

  • Grant waiver from density (with minimum of 30 units/acre in urban jurisdictions and 20/units acre in suburban jurisdictions, as defined in existing law), height limits of zoning on the parcel plus one story, and floor area ratio of 0.6 times the # of stories for projects within half-mile around rail/ferry in cities over 50,000
  • Continue to work with Senate EQ on identifying a definition of “infill” that doesn’t induce sprawl.
  • Exempt floodplains per SB4
  • SB 4 parking applies: no parking minimum within ¼ mile of rail in cities over 100,000, 0.5 spaces per unit minimum elsewhere