I am still reviewing the bill as amended and will circulate a detailed analysis as that review is done but my notes so far are that:

1.  STATEWIDE ZONING TO PERMIT A MINIMUM OF 4 UNITS ON ANY PARCEL OF LAND, ANYWHERE IN THE STATE INCLUDING ALL COASTAL ZONES, EXCEPT DEL NORTE COUNTY.  There is no limitation on “NEIGHBORHOOD FAMILY PROJECTS” or “fourplex” upzoning so long as the project is on “vacant land” (which is redefined to include a parcel with an existing “substandard” structure unoccupied for the preceding 5 years) or, if the existing structure on the parcel has been occupied or is not substandard, then the demolition of up to 25% of the exterior and expansion of up to 15% of the square tootage is what is permitted to create up to 4 units.  The only coastal zone protection is from streamlining for coastal zone parcels within the jurisdiction of “local agencies” that have a population of less than 600,000.  See the definition of “eligible parcel” in Sections 65913.5(b)(1) and (3) and Section 65913.6(b). The “local agency” language here (as opposed to the “city” language in connection with the application of “equitable incentives” discussed below) means that even coastal areas and coastal zone parcels are subject to the upzoning of “neighborhood multifamily projects.”  This is because Government Code 66000 defines “local agency” to mean “any county, city, whether general law or chartered, city and county, school district, special district, authority, agency, any other municipal public corporation or district, or other political subdivision of the state.”  There is no coastal county in California with a population below 50,000 as of the 2010 census excecpt Del Norte in the far northwestern part of the state, bordering on Oregon and even there the exemption only applies to coastal zones as defined on a state level.

2.  ELIMINATION/EROSION OF OTHER COASTAL ZONE PROTECTION.   In addition to statewide upzoning, SB 50 clearly requires a coastal city with a population of more than 50,000 to approve “equitable incentives” development and no coatal protection in these larger cities has been preserved.   Coastal cities of more than 50,000 residents include not only the obvious — San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco — but also many more cities that seem less obvious like Oceanside, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Long Beach, Santa Monica, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Palo Alto, and Santa Cruz.

It is not clear whether parcels located within a local coastal protection zone as opposed to the coastal zones as originally defined in the California Coastal Act of 1976 are protected from the Equitable Incentives part of the bill (they clearly are not protected from the 4plex upzoning).  So for example, the Coastal Act specifically excludes  “the area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission” and otherwise extends inland from the sea by varying distances from 1000 yards to 5 miles inland from the high tide rise.  There are a whole set of ordinances, local plans and Coastal Commission regulations that have expanded the protections of the Coastal Act to parcels not strictly within the original state definition and SB 50 pretty clearly limits coastal zone protection to parcels “within a coastal zone, as defined in Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code.”  Section 65918.52(b)(2).

So not only do local agencies face absurd RHNA numbers from HCD but if SB 50 passes, will face absurd requirements for a local plan as conditions to HCD certification.

SB 50 as amended lost Senator Stone as a co-author but picked up Senator Roth and Assemblymember Quirk-Silva as co-authors.

More on this in the next day or two but bottom line, PLEASE REGISTER YOUR OPPOSITION LOUD AND CLEAR, BY PHONE, EMAIL, FAX AND ANY OTHER MEANS POSSIBLE.

Please focus on Senate Appropriations Committee, Governor Newsom, and your own senators and assemblymembers  for now.  Contact Information for Senate Appropriations Committee, other leadership and the Governor: