A controversial housing bill that could bring taller buildings to certain California neighborhoods cleared its second hurdle Wednesday, scoring a decisive committee vote after several changes designed to make it more palatable to its many opponents. Senate Bill 50 gathered the votes it needed to pass out of the state Senate Governance and Finance Committee, but the bill looks different now than when it was first introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco. Wiener’s bill has been heavily attacked by city leaders worried it would usurp their local planning control and apply one-size-fits-all zoning rules throughout the state, and by activists worried it would accelerate gentrification and lead to the displacement of more low-income residents. In response, Wiener amended the bill to include some exemptions for smaller cities and counties, a provision to make sure affordable housing is built with SB 50 projects, and several other tweaks. The changes merged Wiener’s bill with SB 4 by Sen. Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg. 1/4 Today, Sen. Mike McGuire & I are announcing an agreement on #SB50, #MoreHOMES Act. Sen. McGuire will become a co-author of SB 50. SB 4 (his own zoning reform bill) will not move forward. We now have a united front behind SB 50 to reform CA zoning & address our housing crisis. — Scott Wiener (@Scott_Wiener) April 24, 2019 “Every city and county in the Golden State needs to do their part with housing …The strategy of ‘no’ no longer works,” McGuire, chair of the Governance and Finance Committee, said Wednesday. “At the same time, we know we need to take into account the unique differences of jurisdictions.” The hearing was packed Wednesday with dozens of supporters and opponents of the bill. Emotions were running high, and McGuire had to remind attendees to refrain from hissing, booing or clapping. SB 50 now moves on to the Senate Appropriations Committee. If it passes there, it will move on to the Senate floor. SB 4 will not advance. SB 50 would override local zoning rules to allow taller and denser residential buildings near transit hubs and in “job-rich” communities, in an effort to get more units of housing built and ease the state’s shortage. Under the new version of the bill, smaller cities and counties would get special treatment, while small coastal cities, historic districts and fire-prone areas would be exempt. In counties with 600,000 or fewer residents, projects within a half mile of rail or ferry terminals would generally abide by a scaled-back version of SB 50 — they could increase their height by one story. For example, if the neighborhood is zoned for three-story buildings, a developer could build up to four stories under SB 50. Previously, SB would have allowed developers in any city to build four or five-story apartments near rail stations. The new one-story rules apply only if a city has a population of more than 50,000. Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco and San Mateo counties all had populations of more than 600,000 as of last year. Marin, Napa, Monterey, Santa Cruz and Sonoma counties were among those that had fewer, and would be eligible for special treatment under SB 50. In another major change, the new SB 50 would require streamlined approval of fourplexes on vacant land in any residentially zoned neighborhood in California. 4/4 The legislative process for SB 50 is far from over, but today is a big win for the legislation and for Californians, so many of whom need housing. — Scott Wiener (@Scott_Wiener) April 24, 2019 The compromises didn’t appease many of the bill’s opponents, who lined up to voice their dissent Wednesday. Norma Garcia, director of policy and advocacy for the nonprofit Mission Economic Development Agency, worried the legislators haven’t done enough research on the impact SB 50 will have on low-income communities vulnerable to gentrification. “We’re talking about rezoning the entire state without a study, and I just can’t imagine that that is prudent,” she said. “I think as a state we need to be careful about how we do this.” Wiener has attempted to address gentrification concerns. SB 50 would not allow developers to tear down an existing building if a tenant has lived there within the last seven years. Certain low-income communities would get an extra five years to comply with the new zoning rules. And before developers could move tenants into a market-rate SB 50 project, they would have to secure building permits for their required accompanying affordable housing units. “I’m very sensitive to making sure we’re not displacing people,” Wiener said. “This is about adding housing, not displacing residents who are already residing in a neighborhood.” David Reyes, director of planning and community development for the city of Pasadena, complained the bill is now a “two-sizes-fit-all” solution, instead of a “one-size-fits-all.” If it becomes law, it will destroy the hard-fought partnerships formed between city officials, local residents and developers each time a new building is proposed, he said. “What cities will do in response to a bill like this, is sue the state,” Reyes said. A recent study by the Embarcadero Institute, a nonprofit with connections to a Palo Alto-based slow-growth group, said the original SB 50’s zoning rules could potentially allow Palo Alto to triple in size — a claim Wiener dismissed as “misleading” and “absurd.” Several tenants rights organizations lined up Wednesday to oppose the bill, as did representatives from cities including Danville, Pleasanton, Orinda, Walnut Creek, Beverly Hills and Redondo Beach. Supporters included construction industry groups, the California Association of Realtors, environmental protection groups, the AARP, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s office and Facebook. Related Articles Bill to ease zoning rules near transit and jobs throughout California advances California gears up for round 2 on controversial battle over more homes near transit Palo Alto could almost triple in size under controversial housing bill, new report says McGuire, who has been working with Wiener for three months to come up with a compromise bill both can stomach, said their efforts aren’t done. “This is not an easy bill. Will there need to be more work? You betcha,” McGuire said. But, he said, “it sets us on a path that doesn’t adopt a one-size-fits-all approach, and it ensures that change does come to communities big and small.” Staff writer Katy Murphy contributed to this report.<doc-sep>Regulating the pace of change is a valid goal. But the bill includes meaningful safeguards, added after similar concerns sank a version of the legislation last year. It would protect the existing stock of rental housing by excluding from the new development rules any property used as rental housing at any point in the previous seven years. It would give some lower-income communities five years to develop alternate plans for allowing increased construction. And it would require larger developments to include a specified share of subsidized units or to provide funding for affordable-housing construction . Opponents of the legislation also seem confused about the mechanics of the marketplace. The spread of gentrification in California is driven by the lack of housing. The state’s population continues to grow; the question confronting policymakers is where to put those people. Under the current rules, the state’s effective plan is to cede urban areas to the wealthy while forcing less affluent families to live on the state’s ever-more-distant suburban fringes. The alternative of concentrating density along transit lines would allow more people to live in the parts of California with better jobs and services — and shorter commutes. That would mitigate economic inequality. Precisely because the bill rewrites the rules for so much California land, it is likely to facilitate development at a wide range of price points. But even if the new construction is disproportionately upscale, it could serve to reduce development pressures on communities outside the rezoned areas. It is not, to be sure, a silver bullet. Even if the state can reduce rents and home prices by greatly increasing the amount of new housing, California still needs to find the means and will to subsidize housing for those who cannot afford market-rate units. But it would be a mistake to preserve some affordable housing by preventing the construction of more affordable housing. The bill also is a necessary piece of the response to another crisis: climate change. Cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles — landscapes of tall buildings, concrete and traffic-clogged streets — are the most environmentally friendly places for human life on earth. The Harvard economist Edward Glaeser has calculated that the residents of California’s core cities use about one-fourth less carbon per year than the residents of the surrounding suburbs. Better yet, the residents of California’s cities use less carbon than the residents of any other large American cities because the temperate climate limits the use of air-conditioning and heating. The paradox, as Mr. Glaeser notes, is that the California coast — the most environmentally friendly place in America for dense housing — is one of the hardest places to build such housing. It is time to rewrite the rules: The solution to California’s housing crisis is more housing.<doc-sep>SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers advanced a proposal to make it harder for local officials to block construction of apartment buildings around public transit after its author agreed Wednesday to carve out separate rules for more lightly populated counties. Sen. Scott Wiener, the San Francisco Democrat behind the bill to spur denser housing development in California cities, announced a deal with Sen. Mike McGuire that folded the Healdsburg Democrat’s similar but more limited measure into Wiener’s SB50. The combined bill, which passed the Senate Governance and Finance Committee with bipartisan support, would allow residential buildings of at least four or five stories within half a mile of rail stations and ferry terminals, provided those projects meet other local design standards. Wiener agreed to limit the rules changes to counties with more than 600,000 people. There are 15 counties in California that qualify, including San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa Clara. The bill would also remove density limits within a quarter-mile of stops on bus lines with frequent service and in high-income census tracts with lots of jobs and good schools, regardless of their proximity to transit. That would open neighborhoods previously zoned for single-family homes to apartments and condominiums. The new SB50 creates an exemption to the proposed rules for coastal zones in cities with fewer than 50,000 people, areas at high risk of fire and state-designated historic districts. “We need to move away from this notion that housing is somehow a punishment,” Wiener said at the committee hearing, where city officials and affordable-housing advocates lined up against the bill. “We are making it harder for working families to be able to survive and thrive,” he said. For counties with a population of less than 600,000, including Sonoma and Marin in McGuire’s district, the new bill adopts provisions laid out in the North Bay senator’s now-abandoned competing measure, SB4. Those provide a streamlined approval process and allow up to one extra story for buildings within a half-mile of transit stops, but only in cities with more than 50,000 people. Rural and suburban communities in the smaller counties would be exempt. Throughout the state, SB50 would create an expedited process to convert vacant plots and homes in residential areas to apartment buildings of up to four units. McGuire said that what works for downtown Los Angeles does not necessarily work for Santa Rosa, but that all cities must do their part to address a shortage of housing in the state. “No community should see dramatic change, but every community should see some change,” he said. “I do believe this bill is trying to strike that balance.” But SB50 is likely to encounter continued stiff opposition from local officials as it moves to another committee vote and then potentially the Senate floor. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is among the local government bodies that have come out against the bill, though Mayor London Breed supports it. David Reyes, the director of planning and community development for Pasadena, objected to state lawmakers imposing requirements that would limit local residents’ ability to establish their own zoning rules. “What cities will do in response to a bill like this is sue the state,” he said. Groups advocating for tenants rights also remain skeptical of SB50, which they argue will prioritize luxury developments over affordable housing. Dozens of opponents showed up at Wednesday’s hearing, led by members of Housing Is a Human Right. The group, backed by AIDS Healthcare Foundation founder Michael Weinstein, sent out a mailer this month comparing SB50 to San Francisco’s urban renewal policies that razed largely African American neighborhoods in the mid-20th century. René Moya, director of Housing Is a Human Right, said Wiener’s bill would “further fuel the engine of gentrification that is displacing working-class communities of color in California.” SB50 does not extend its development benefits to sites with housing that renters have occupied within the previous seven years or that the owners have pulled from the rental market through Ellis Act evictions in the previous 15 years. It includes a process for neighborhoods with large numbers of poor residents to establish their own zoning rules and a requirement that apartment projects include affordable units. In his revised bill, Wiener committed to working with housing advocates to determine what percentage of units should be set aside for low-income people. “Displacement happens when people get pushed out because housing costs go through the roof because we don’t have enough housing,” Wiener said. He said California needs to build housing of all types to address a shortage estimated at more than 3 million homes. Alexei Koseff is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: alexei.koseff@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @akoseff<doc-sep>
High-profile housing legislation to allow mid-rise apartment construction near mass transit across California advanced in a state Senate committee Wednesday after two lawmakers reached an agreement that would limit its effect on smaller counties and along the coast, but eliminate zoning that allows for only single-family homes in much of the state. Under changes to Senate Bill 50, communities in Los Angeles, San Francisco and 13 other counties with populations larger than 600,000 would have to allow four- to five-story apartment buildings near rail lines, and smaller apartments and townhomes in wealthy neighborhoods near job centers. But in smaller counties, including Marin, Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara, cities would be required to permit height increases near rail one story taller than existing zoning as well as fourplexes in many single-family-only areas. Neighborhoods along the California coastline also would not have to permit buildings as tall or construction as dense as required further inland. The deal is a concession to Sen. Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg), the chairman of the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, who represents smaller coastal counties, including wealthy communities in Marin County that have a history of pushing back against low-income and higher-density development. McGuire had been critical of SB 50 for not taking into account differences between large and small cities, and he authored less aggressive legislation to increase height limits and densities. As part of the agreement, McGuire withdrew his bill and supported SB 50. “A one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work for every community in California, and the strategy of ‘no’ no longer works,” McGuire said. “No matter if you are a large city, a small city, an urban county, a rural county, everyone has to do their part to be able to combat this crisis of lack of affordable housing.” Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), the author of SB 50, said the changes made Wednesday would broaden the bill’s support in the Legislature. He emphasized that the new language would make it easier to build fourplexes on parcels zoned for single-family homes across the state. “I think we have a very, very strong agreement on SB 50 that will help address the deep housing crisis that California faces,” Wiener said. California housing bill targeting wealthy cities could rezone nearly all of Palo Alto » Negotiations over SB 50, which continued through the hearing Wednesday, revealed the difficulties in trying to craft statewide legislation that tackles zoning issues, which are largely the concern of cities and counties, and also don’t neatly fall along partisan lines. Two Republican state senators, John Moorlach of Costa Mesa and Jim Nielsen of Gerber, support the bill, praising its promise to increase home building. Democratic Sen. Bob Hertzberg of Van Nuys spoke in opposition, saying the legislation was too complicated to move forward without a deeper study of its effects on neighborhoods. Under the previous version of the bill, more than 40% of the developable land in the city of Los Angeles would have faced increases to density of some kind, according to a city study. In addition, wealthy suburbs such as Palo Alto and others in Silicon Valley along with affluent Marin County enclaves would have had to allow apartment construction in many single-family-only neighborhoods. Though Wednesday’s revisions don’t appear to make dramatic changes to those rules in Los Angeles and Silicon Valley, the amended bill would make less of an impact in Marin County. Lawmakers have faced substantial criticism for excluding Marin from some of the state’s strictest housing mandates. Two years ago, legislators allowed the county to place additional restrictions on development beyond those permitted in other regions. The legislation authorizing that change was inserted into a bill tied to the state budget and not required to go through the regular committee process. McGuire, who represents Marin and Sonoma counties among other Northern California communities, said suburban and rural counties should be treated differently in housing policy. “What works for downtown L.A. will not work for downtown Santa Rosa,” McGuire said. “More housing, more affordable housing, will be built under this bill respecting the population at hand.” Despite the deal, opposition to the bill remains strong, predominantly from local governments that would lose some power to shape their communities and advocates concerned about gentrification and displacement. David Reyes, planning director for the city of Pasadena, testified at the hearing that cities often spend significant time trying to engage residents before allowing large-scale changes to zoning, a process that wouldn’t happen under SB 50.