BILL ANALYSIS
AB 414
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 414 (Jones)
As Amended April 19, 2007
Majority vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 4-2 HOUSING 5-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Caballero, De La Torre, |Ayes:|Saldana, Bass, Hancock, |
| |Lieber, Ma | |Mullin, |
| | | |Swanson |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Houston, La Malfa |Nays:|Garcia, Sharon Runner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Places limits on the ability of cities and counties to
include vacant sites zoned for both commercial and residential
uses in their housing element's inventory of land suitable for
residential development. Specifically, this bill :
1)Places the following limits on the inclusion of vacant sites
zoned for nonresidential uses that also allow residential
development but for which the zoning or development standards
allow substantially all of the site to be developed without
residential uses:
a) Requires the housing unit capacity of these types of
sites as identified in the housing element to be limited to
one-half of their total residential development capacity;
b) Requires that any determination that a portion of a
locality's share of the regional housing need for
lower-income households can be accommodated on these types
of sites be based on the proportion of the locality's
lower-income housing need that was met on such sites in the
prior planning period; and,
c) Prevents cities and counties from allocating more than
30% of their share of the regional housing need for
lower-income households to these types of sites.
2)States that the limitations do not apply to sites designated
AB 414
Page 2
as mixed-use on which both residential and commercial uses are
permitted and on which an exclusively nonresidential use is
not permitted.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires every city and county to prepare and adopt a general
plan containing seven elements: land use, circulation,
housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety.
2)Requires a jurisdiction's housing element to identify and
analyze existing and projected housing needs, identify
adequate sites with appropriate zoning to meet the housing
needs
of all income segments of the community, and ensure that
regulatory systems provide opportunities for, and do not
unduly constrain, housing development.
3)Requires cities and counties to revise their housing elements
every five years based on a staggered statutory schedule.
4)Requires, prior to each housing element revision, each council
of government (COG), in conjunction with the Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD), to prepare a regional
housing needs assessment (RHNA) and allocates to each
jurisdiction in the region its fair share of the housing need
for all income categories.
5)Allows vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allow
residential development to be included in the housing
element's inventory of land suitable for residential
development.
6)Requires cities and counties to determine what portion of
their share of the regional housing need by income level can
be accommodated on each site included in their inventory of
land suitable for residential development.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This bill places limits on cities and counties using
"double-zoned" sites, vacant sites zoned for nonresidential uses
that allow residential development, to meet their obligation to
zone enough sites to accommodate their share of the regional
AB 414
Page 3
housing need. Under the provisions of this bill, the housing
unit capacity for a double-zoned site would be limited to
one-half of what the site's total housing capacity would be if
it were to be developed with exclusively residential uses. In
addition, the inclusion of these sites in the housing element
inventory would be based on the jurisdiction's track record in
accommodating housing on such sites in the prior planning
period. In total, cities and counties could allocate no more
than 30% of their share of the regional housing need for
lower-income households to double-zoned sites.
This bill makes a distinction between mixed-use sites and
double-zoned sites and states that the limitations do not apply
to mixed-use sites. These sites are defined as being sites on
which both residential and nonresidential uses are allowed and
which must be developed with a mix of both uses.
According to the sponsor, the California Rural Legal Assistance
Foundation, unlike mixed use zoning, double zoning creates an
either/or situation where the site may be used for residential
or nonresidential purposes. This double zoning forces
affordable housing providers to compete with commercial
developers for the same piece of land. The sponsor maintains
that more often than not, these sites end up being developed
exclusively for commercial purposes. Thus, sites that were
identified in the housing element as being suitable for housing
are lost from the available inventory of land and affordable
housing developers are left with fewer options for locating
projects.
When reviewing a local agency's housing element, HCD already
asks the city or county to justify the housing numbers assigned
to double-zoned sites that can potentially be developed with no
housing at all. HCD looks at both the jurisdiction's past
performance in accommodating housing on double-zoned sites and
whether the housing numbers attributed to such sites are
realistic in light of development standards and other factors.
Given that HCD already limits the use of double-zoned sites in
meeting a jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need, it
is unclear whether the problems the sponsor cites are really
widespread. Nonetheless, it may be helpful to codify HCD's
existing practice so that cities and counties understand at the
outset of the housing element preparation process what
justification is required when including double-zoned sites in
AB 414
Page 4
their inventory of sites suitable for housing.
Opponents of this bill believe that HCD's existing review
process for double-zoned sites is sufficient and that there is
no widespread abuse of double-zoned sites. They are concerned
that this bill is unnecessarily placing constraints on
jurisdictions that have a good track record with double-zoned
sites. The author has been working with the opponents and it
appears that they may be close to a solution that will be
agreeable to all parties.
The Legislature may wish to consider whether it is necessary to
limit the housing unit capacity on double-zoned sites to
one-half of the actual residential capacity. If a local
agency's ability to use these sites is already being constrained
by past performance, it seems unnecessary to include such a cap.
Analysis Prepared by : Anya Lawler / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
FN: 0000663