First Salvo: SB50

In this portion I am going to go over three main issues, with the Bill's language its self.  This is after a second read. For reference I am using the amended March 11th, 2019 version (see: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50 ).  There are of course more expanded implications of the Bill that I would like to speak on at a later time.


SB 50 Section 1: 65589.5 (h)(4) (4) “Area median income” means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued availability of units for very low or low-income households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 30 years.

Area Median Income (AMI) within Los Angeles, is defined by the entire City of Los Angeles, not via the local areas (neighborhoods) within the City of Los Angeles. Thereby meaning that this bill does not distinguish between Beverly Hills and Boyle Heights in regards to development sites. I.E. does not target "richer communities" as advertised, but Los Angeles as a whole.

[Boyle Heights] has seen this issue come up time and time again in regards to Metro's TOC/TOD, and the issues faced regarding housing the people of Boyle Heights.  When first advertise[d], the AMI was pushed as being to address the 29k mark of the neighborhood.  Only to later be corrected, after the fact, when development had already begun, that it was actually closer to 65k.  Making the sites unaffordable to local residents.


65589.5 (j)(1)(A) "The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete."

Would deny any finding that has been shown to have a significant impact after the application was deemed complete. I.E. late but significant and adverse findings. Given the trend by the City to only do the minimum required postings and no public outreach is done, Stakeholders around the site would have no legal recourse after the date of approval.  Even if the site does indeed pose a significant risk.

65918.52 (c)(1) " If the local government has adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance requiring that the development include a certain number of units affordable to households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for moderate-income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income specified in Sections 50079.5, 50093, 50105, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code, and that ordinance requires that a new development include levels of affordable housing in excess of the requirements specified in paragraph (2), the residential development complies with that ordinance. The ordinance may provide alternative means of compliance that may include, but are not limited to, in-lieu fees, land dedication, offsite construction, or acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units."

Allows for developers to propose and develop units with 0 affordable housing if they "pay a fine" or promise to build elsewhere (i.e. not in "richer communities'). 

When you combine these three provision of the SB50 bill, it adversely put at risk the health, safety, and furthers economic imbalance seen on the Eastside; Boyle Heights, Lincoln Heights, and El Sereno specifically. It allows for the specific shunting of affordable housing from the economically rich areas of Los Angeles in to areas of lower property value.  Negating the promise of the Bill's adverts.