Misunderstandings on Scott Wiener’s Housing Bill, SB 50
California State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced State Senate Bill 50 (“SB 50”) late last year, and the bill caused quite the uproar. Although a vote on SB 50 has been delayed until 2020, SB 50 is not going away. Earlier this month, Wiener went to Palo Alto to state his case:
Wiener, 49, said SB50 is the answer to the state’s 3.5 million-home deficit, which he said is the result of a “systematic” downzoning of the state in the 1970s and 1980s, making it illegal to build apartment buildings in 75% of the state, including San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Zoning that only allows for single-family homes is a ban on affordable housing and income diversity, Wiener said.
“You’re putting up a sign that says ‘If you can’t afford the $3 million average single-family home in Palo Alto or the $2 million average single-family home in San Francisco, you’re not welcome to live here,’” Wiener said. “Zoning has always been viewed as a purely local concern, and I respect that as a former local elected official, but that no longer works.”
The bill, intended to combat the housing shortage in California, aims to limit a city’s ability to place height and density restrictions on housing within a specified radius of transit hubs, such as train stations and major bus lines. As the bill started to get some press, California homeowners mobilized.
Websites like Stop SB 50 produced maps purporting to illustrate how SB 50 would affect Californians, and the visuals were stunning. Here’s an example of Stop SB 50 shows the effect on San Francisco, with almost the entire city allowed to see buildings as high as 75 or 85 feet:
You may have seen posts, using maps like these, about SB 50 on social media websites, such as Facebook or NextDoor. On NextDoor, in particular, I saw passionate debate on both sides.
As a San Francisco resident, I saw many people pointing to a map like that above and arguing that SB 50 would affect the entire city, as train stations and bus lines permeate SF. Specifically, there were concerns that many of the cherished San Francisco neighborhoods would be taken over by developers who would tear down single and two-family homes and build tall, large, and unsightly multi-family dwellings. Others were concerned that the city’s roads, already congested by commuters and ride-sharing drivers, would become impossible to navigate, or wonder where all these new residents would park their cars.
But I noticed people seemed to argue with conflicting facts, and when that happens, you can guess that a game of Telephone has occurred, where one or both sides are using facts from a summary of a summary of the actual proposed legislation, and opposed to what’s really in the bill.
When SB 50 was discussed at my neighborhood association board meeting, I decided to skip past the anti-SB 50 literature being circulated statewide by neighborhood associations, and read the bill myself. So with all the misinformation out there, what does SB 50 really say? Will it really affect nearly 100% of San Francisco, as opponents suggest? Sorta. Before we unpack that, there are two crucial definitions in the bill.
The first is “High-quality bus corridor”, with “fixed route bus service” that has average intervals, of each line and in each direction, of no more than 10 minutes during the “three peak hours” between 6am-10am and 3pm-7pm, Monday through Friday, and intervals of no more than 20 minutes between the entirety of 6am-10am, Monday through Friday, and intervals of no more than 30 minutes between 8am and 10pm on Saturday and Sunday.
The second definition is “Major transit stop”, which “means a site containing an existing rail transit station or a ferry terminal served by either bus or rail transit service.
To keep things simple, I’ll call them bus corridors and train stations, respectively. So how does the bill affect what can be built near a bus corridor or a train station? We look to Sections 65918.52 and 65918.53. Section 65918.52 first sets out a host of requirements or exclusions for the project or the parcel. The pertinent issue here is whether it’s within 1/2 mile of a train station, or 1/4 mile of a bus corridor. If so, 65918.53(a)(1) provides a project a waiver on maximum controls on density and a waiver of parking requirements greater than 0.5 parking spots per unit.
But then Section 65918.53 provides further waivers for height restrictions, and here is where a lot of the confusion seems to rise. Section 65918.53(a)(2) waives height restrictions lower than 45 feet for a project located within a one-half mile radius, but outside a one-quarter mile radius, of a train station, and Section 65918.53(a)(3) waives height restrictions lower than 55 feet for a project located within a one-quarter mile radius of a train station. Further, all parking spot requirements are waived for projects within a one-quarter mile radius of a train station.
(It should also be noted that these waivers are for counties with more than 600,000 people as of the most recent census, which would affect only 15 of the 58 counties in California. For counties with less than 600,000 people, Section 65918.53(b) waives height restrictions “one story, or 15 feet, above the highest allowable height for mixed use or residential use.”)
But the important thing is that these height restrictions do not affect projects near bus corridors, only train stations, and that map you saw above ignores that distinction.
After reading the bill, I wondered if anyone else read the bill like I do and did a search. In fact, Senator Wiener wrote about his bill here. Here’s what he says on this topic:
Within ½ mile of fixed rail, a city may not impose maximum height limits lower than either 55 feet or 45 feet. (Bus stops and job-rich areas will not trigger height increases; rather local height limits will apply.)
(emphasis in original)
The bill is dense, but after reading it a few times I think it is clear that, as Senator Wiener says, the height limits only affect lots within 1/4 and 1/2 miles from train stations. For my neighborhood association, I was able to create a visual on a map of 1/2 and 1/4 miles from the two nearby train stations, and I was able to illustrate, most of “Miraloma” is unaffected by even the 1/2 mile radius:
You may have also noticed that in the previous map Stop SB 50 references 75 and 85-foot restrictions, instead of 45 and 55-foot restrictions. Per their website, that stems from the Density Bonus Law. Here’s what Stop SB 50 says:
Under state “Density Bonus” law, a developer can already add up to 3 floors (30 feet) to the height of a building, a financial reward given to developers who include a few affordable units. But under SB 50, a developer can add up to 3 floors atop the new limit of 45 or 55 feet. Areas in blue or dark pink would be forced to accept 5 to 8-story towers.
That is incorrect. The Density Bonus Law is Government Code Section 65915, et seq. The Density Bonus Law allows increased allowances on projects offering units to seniors and low income individuals, on a sliding scale, including an increase in permitted square footage, number of units, height, setback requirements, and other categories. But while Section 65918.53 in SB 50 specifically states a project qualifying under SB 50 can also apply for a Density Bonus, it is limited that the number of units and square footage, and excludes all other factors, including height.
This is not to say that the changes regarding density and parking would not bring significant changes to my neighborhood, and many others. It won’t, however, prevent the local government from enforcing height limits as extensively as opponents of SB 50 suggest.
Thomas J. O’Brien is an estate planning and litigation attorney in San Francisco. When he’s not busy reading and interpreting complicated proposed legislation, he enjoys spending time with his wife and two young children. He can be reached at thomas@obrienlegalgroup.com, or at www.obrienlegalgroup.com.
