From the first version of SB 827 to this version of SB 50, I think California went from solving the housing crisis for the top 80% of households in one fell swoop and giving the others some breathing room to solving it just for the top 10-20%. Which is still pretty good!
This tweet is unavailable
3
7
2
50
Basically allows for chopping up existing houses into multifamily buildings and not much else. It used to be quite common, not sure it would be nowadays given stricter building codes and habitability rules (i.e., probably can’t do it bathroom-less SRO-style)
4
1
14
That’s what I thought too but the actual text doesn’t seem to be concerned with allowing for a demolition and then rebuilding. Vacant just means a site without buildings. There’s no look back or anything. So seems you can just 1) demo and 2) get fourplex permit per SB 50.
1
Yeah but since you’re still subject to underlying single-family FAR constraints, how often will that really be viable?
2
Replying to @MarketUrbanism @matthewplan @mattyglesias
In Palo Alto, I think it would be pretty viable. R-1 minimum lot size is 6000 ft², max FAR 0.45:1, so a minimum *conformant* lot would allow 2700 ft² of floor area, which is reasonably dividable. I think the biggest deal with the fourplex part is the ministerial approval.

May 11, 2019 · 5:08 PM UTC

2
Replying to @davidbaron @MarketUrbanism @matthewplan @mattyglesias
oops, actually 2550ft², not 2700², since there's a sliding scale.
Replying to @davidbaron @matthewplan @mattyglesias
You generally need to at least triple density for tearing down an existing structure to be viable, since per-buildable-sq.-ft. land values tend to be a third or less of a built property's value. So that only works if it's got a 900-sq. ft. house on it
1
1
What about retrofit of existing houses built out to basically that size already?
1
more replies