HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200127_SB 50_Housing Development Incentives_ Oppose Unless Ammended
27 January 2020
The Honorable Scott Wiener
Senator, California State Senate
State Capitol Building, Room 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 50 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning. Housing Development Incentives
Oppose Unless Amended (as amended 01/06/2020)
Dear Senator Wiener:
The City of San Luis Obispo must continue to oppose SB 50 unless the measure is further amended to
address our key concerns. The amendments taken on January 6, 2020 do not take into account our
primary objections to SB 50. However, the City of San Luis Obispo is pleased to see that recent
amendments attempt to create an alternative planning process for jurisdictions to develop a “local
flexibility plan” that, if approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD), would exempt cities from nearly all aspects of SB 50, with the exception of requiring fourplexes in
single‐family zones. Unfortunately, we can’t evaluate whether the “local flexibility plan” is a viable
alternative because the amendments do not clearly identify the elements of the plan.
Specific Concerns with the January 6, 2020 Amendments
It appears that the intent of the amendments are to provide local governments with an opportunity to
develop their own plan to meet the goals and objectives of SB 50. Although the goal of increased
density around transit is clear; the goal of the bill regarding a jobs‐rich housing project is not.
The amendments, as drafted, raise the following concerns:
Without clearly identified criteria, we are unable to evaluate whether the “local flexibility
plan” is actually viable alternative planning option.
OPR and HCD are tasked with developing “rules, regulations, or guidelines” for the submission
and approval of a local flexibility plan” without sufficient direction from the Legislature. This
rulemaking process is exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act, thus allowing the Office
of Planning and Research (OPR) and HCD to craft rules, regulations, or guidelines with little to no
public input or oversight.
The elements of the plan are not clear: Further Legislative direction is required.
o “Achieve a standard of transportation efficiency as great or greater than if the local
government were to grant equitable communities incentives.” SB 50 does not contain
any language regarding “transportation efficiency.” Therefore, it is not possible to
determine how HCD, OPR or a local government will determine how to meet this
standard or how a “local flexibility plan” is expected to comply with this standard.
o “Increase overall feasible housing capacity for households of lower, moderate, and
above moderate incomes, considering economic factors such as cost of likely
construction types, affordable housing requirements, and the impact of local
development fees.” The override provisions of SB 50 do not contain any language
regarding “feasible housing capacity for households of lower, moderate, and above
moderate incomes,” nor does it address “economic factors such as cost of likely
construction types, affordable housing requirements, and the impact of local
development fees.” Therefore, it is not possible to determine how HCD, OPR or a local
government will determine how to meet this standard or how a “local flexibility plan” is
expected to comply with this standard.
o SB 50’s “community plan” for sensitive communities provides a much clearer alternative
and should be considered as a possible alternative planning process for all jurisdictions.
Remaining Objections to SB 50
If the City were to elect not to develop a “local flexibility plan” or if HCD does not approve a submitted
“local flexibility plan” by January 1, 2023, our City would then be required to give a developer an
“equitable communities incentive”, which overrides locally developed and adopted height limitations,
housing densities, and parking requirements. Many statewide standards, enacted by the Legislature,
are included in the State’s Planning law. Standards should be established by the Legislature, not by
individual developers.
Developers of certain housing projects should not be allowed to override locally developed (and HCD‐
approved) housing elements which identify adequate sites with sufficient density to accommodate a
city’s share of the regional housing need. Specifically, the City has significant concerns with the
following, which are in alignment with the League’s concerns:
Wasting time and money. SB 50 would greatly undermine locally adopted General Plans,
Housing Elements (which are certified by the HCD, and Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS).
By allowing developers to override state approved housing plans, SB 50 seriously calls to
question the need for cities to develop these community‐based plans and the justification for
spending millions of state and local funds on the planning process. HCD spends a significant
amount of money and staff time to review and certify housing elements for 482 cities. In 2019
alone, HCD allocated nearly $130 million to local governments to update their housing plans and
approval processes. The 2019/2020 State Budget allocated an additional $250 million on local
plans. Why would the Legislature pass a bill that encourages developers to defy these plans and
essentially waste millions of taxpayer dollars?
What is the full scope of SB 50? As presently drafted, it is very difficult to determine what
constitutes a “jobs‐rich area” since the Department of Housing and Community Development
and the Office of Planning and Research are largely tasked with making that determination. It is
hard to understand why the Legislature would want the Executive Branch to define essential
terms that have broad implications for how SB 50 would be implemented. Additionally, by not
defining “jobs‐rich area” in statute, there is no way of knowing if SB 50 will actually accomplish
its stated goal.
Two‐tiered process that exempts cities with a population of less than 50,000 that are in a county
with a population of less than 600,000, from the most extreme provisions of the measure. It is
unclear why these cities should be treated differently than a similar size city in a county with a
population over 600,000. Instead of arbitrarily establishing a population metric, it would be
much more appropriate to consider the full range of community characteristics when
determining which areas of the state SB 50 should apply.
For these reasons, the City of San Luis Obispo opposes SB 50 unless amended.
Sincerely,
Heidi Harmon
Mayor
City of San Luis Obispo
cc. State Senator Bill Monning, fax (916) 651‐4917
State Assembly Member Jordan Cunningham, fax (916) 319‐2135
Dave Mullinax, League of California Cities, dmullinax@cacities.org
League of California Cities, cityletters@cacities.org
San Luis Obispo City Council