BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 303|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 303
Author: Ducheny (D)
Amended: 5/2/07
Vote: 21
SEN. TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 10-0, 3/27/07
AYES: Lowenthal, McClintock, Ashburn, Cedillo, Corbett,
Dutton, Harman, Kehoe, Oropeza, Torlakson
NO VOTE RECORDED: Simitian
SENATE ENV. QUALITY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 4/26/07
AYES: Simitian, Aanestad, Florez, Kuehl, Lowenthal,
Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 12-1, 05/31/07
AYES: Torlakson, Aanestad, Ashburn, Cedillo, Corbett,
Dutton, Florez, Kuehl, Ridley-Thomas, Steinberg, Wyland,
Yee
NOES: Cox
NO VOTE RECORDED: Battin, Oropeza, Runner, Simitian
SUBJECT : Housing element law
SOURCE : California Major Builders Council
DIGEST : This bill requires cities and counties to update
their general plans at least every ten years to accommodate
a planning period of at least 20 years, expands the housing
element planning period from five to 10 years, requires
CONTINUED
SB 303
Page
2
cities and counties to complete any necessary rezonings to
meet their housing needs concurrent with adoption of the
housing element, significantly increases the requirements
for the open space element, and makes other changes to
general plan and housing element law.
ANALYSIS : The Planning and Zoning Law requires cities
and counties to prepare and adopt a general plan to guide
the future growth of a community. Every general plan must
contain seven elements: land use, circulation, housing,
conservation, open-space, noise, and safety. While the law
requires cities and counties to "prepare, periodically
review, and revise, as necessary" their general plans,
there is no established deadline for doing so outside of
the housing element. Based on local planners' responses
compiled in The California Planner's Book of Lists, 2006 ,
the Governor's Office of Planning and Research identified
304 cities and 39 counties that have not comprehensively
revised their general plans within the last 10 years.
Cities and counties must revise their housing elements
every five years, following a staggered statutory schedule.
Before each revision, each community is assigned its fair
share of housing for each income category through the
regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) process. A
housing element must identify and analyze existing and
projected housing needs, identify adequate sites with
appropriate zoning to meet its share of the RHNA, and
ensure that regulatory systems provide opportunities for,
and do not unduly constrain, housing development.
Under current law, cities and counties are required to
demonstrate that sites are adequate to accommodate housing
for each respective income group based on the zoning after
taking into consideration individual site factors such as
property size, existing uses, environmental constraints,
and economic constraints. With respect to the zoning,
density is used as a proxy for affordability.
Jurisdictions may establish the adequacy of a site for very
low- or low-income housing by demonstrating that the site
realistically allows the densities established in statute
(commonly referred to as the "Mullin" densities) or by
providing an analysis of how a lower density can
accommodate the need for affordable housing. The
SB 303
Page
3
safe-harbor Mullin densities are 30 units per acre for
jurisdictions in metropolitan counties, 20 units per acre
in "suburban" jurisdictions, 15 units per acre in cities in
non-metropolitan counties, and 10 units per acre in
unincorporated areas in non-metropolitan counties.
To the extent that a community does not have adequate sites
within its existing inventory of residentially zoned land,
then the community must adopt a program to rezone land at
appropriate densities to accommodate the community's
housing need for all income groups. With respect to sites
rezoned to accommodate its need for very low- and
low-income housing, the new zoning must allow multifamily
residential use by right (i.e., without discretionary
review of individual projects other than design review).
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
reviews both draft and adopted housing elements to
determine whether or not they are in substantial compliance
with the law. The rezonings that a city or county commits
to in its program often occur after the housing element is
adopted and reviewed by HCD, sometimes years into the
planning period.
This bill imposes increased requirements on cities and
counties relative to the development and adoption of
general plans, including the following relevant provisions:
1.Requires all elements of a general plan, except the
housing element and open space elements to encompass a
20-year planning period, and be updated at least every 10
years.
2.Requires zoning ordinances to be consistent with the
general plan by the subsequent housing element update.
3.Maintains the requirement to update the housing element
every five years, but expand the "regional housing needs
assessment" to cover a 10-year period, which means the
housing element will be required to accommodate the
ten-year housing needs, including the designation of
various types of housing for all income levels, as
specified.
SB 303
Page
4
4.Requires the housing element to include sites zoned to
accommodate the five-year housing needs.
5.Expands the requirements for the open space element to
conform with the requirements for the housing element,
including updating the open space element on the same
schedule as the housing element to cover the same 10-year
planning period, and requiring review by a state entity
on the same schedule.
6.Authorizes a property owner to bring an action to require
that the zoning on its property be made consistent with
the general plan.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2007-08 2008-09
2009-10 Fund
HCD housing $200 $400
$400 General
element review
Resources Agency Unknown, probably $250 annually
to General
open-space review review expanded open-space
elements
on five-year
schedule
Local mandate Unknown, potentially
reimbursable General
mandate
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/31/07)
Access to Independence
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
SB 303
Page
5
Allied Housing
Alvarado & Associates, LLC
Asian Law Alliance
Asian Pacific Islander Small Business Program
Barratt American, Inc.
Bethel Missionary Baptist Church
Beyond Shelter
Brehm Communities
BRIDGE Housing
California Association of Realtors
California Black Chamber Foundation
California Building Industry Association
California Business Roundtable
California Chamber of Commerce
California Coalition for Rural Housing
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
California Council of Churches Impact
California Federation of Teachers
California Housing Consortium
California State Firefighters Association
Calistoga Affordable Housing, Inc.
Cal-Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers
Carson Black Chamber of Commerce
Coalition of Women from Asia and the Middle East
Communities Actively Living Independent & Free
Congress of California Seniors
Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California
Corman Leigh Communities
Delco Builders & Developers
Father Joe's Villages
HomeAid Northern California
Loaves and Fishes
Los Angeles Conservation Corps
Martha's Village & Kitchen, Inc.
National AIDS Foundation, Josue Homes
Neighborhood Housing Services of Orange County
Orange County Business Council
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Ponderosa Homes II, Inc.
Sacred Heart Parish
Saint John Missionary Baptist Association
Samaritan Reach
San Diego Housing Federation
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
SB 303
Page
6
San Diego Urban Economic Corporation
San Mateo County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Self Help for the Elderly
Signature Properties
Solari Enterprises, Inc.
St. Vincent de Paul Village
The John Stewart Company
Toussaint Youth Villages - Toussaint Teen Center
Tri-City Homeless Coalition
United California Mortgage and Financial Services
West Bay Housing Corporation
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/31/07)
American Planning Association
California League of Conservation Voters
California State Association of Counties
Cities of Alhambra, Antioch, Arroyo Grande, Barstow, Bell,
Bell Gardens, Bellflower, Belmont, Beverly Hills, Bishop,
Brea, Buena Park, Burbank, Burlingame, Calabasas,
Calistoga, Campbell, Carmel by the Sea, Cerritos, Chino,
Chino Hills, Claremont, Clovis, Colton, Commerce,
Compton, Daly City, Diamond Bar, Downey, Emeryville,
Fairfield, Fontana, Fortuna, Garden Grove, Goleta,
Hermosa Beach, Hesperia, Highland, Huntington Park,
Inglewood, La Habra, La Mirada, La Quinta, Lafayette,
Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Lakewood, Lancaster, Live
Oak, Livermore, Lompoc, Long Beach, Marysville, Monrovia,
Montclair, Monte Serano, Moorpark, Moreno Valley, Mt.
Shasta, Murrieta, Norwalk, Novato, Ontario, Palo Alto,
Paramount, Pasadena, Pico Rivera, Placerville, Poway,
Rancho Cucamonga, Ranchos Palos Verdes, Paso Robles,
Redlands, Redondo Beach, Rialto, Roseville, Sacramento,
San Bernardino, San Buenaventura, San Mateo, San Rafael,
Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Santa Fe Springs,
Santa Maria, Santa Rosa, Scotts Valley, Seaside,
Sebastopol, Signal Hill, Solvang, South San Francisco,
Sunnyvale, Temple City, Torrance, Tustin, Vacaville,
Ventura, Victorville, Walnut Creek, Watsonville, Westlake
Village, Windsor, and Whittier
Contra Costa County
Environment California
Latino Caucus
League of California Cities
SB 303
Page
7
Monterey County Mayors' Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Sierra Club California
Rohnert Park City Council
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
a University of California Berkeley study concluded that
California's housing affordability crisis stems from a lack
of supply. The main reason for this lack of housing is a
local government planning and permitting process that is
broken. In many jurisdictions, there is little land zoned
for residential development. Where residential uses are
allowed, it is often at lower densities at which only
higher-income units are economically feasible, and even
these sites are often subject to discretionary votes by the
local government that can prevent housing from being built.
A University of California report found that there is
virtually no certainty that a project consistent with a
general plan will be approved, much less in a timely,
cost-efficient manner. In fact, it can take nearly a
decade for new projects to receive approval while project
costs skyrocket. A separate Harvard University study found
that local barriers to development in California add 40% to
home prices.
This bill seeks to lay the foundation for meeting
California's housing needs by focusing on two key issues:
land supply and certainty in the entitlement process. The
bill requires every general plan to encompass a planning
period of 20 years and every housing element to set aside
enough land with appropriate zoning in place to supply
housing at all income levels to accommodate the ten-year
projected population growth. The bill also limits the
ability of local governments to deny or reduce densities on
proposed development that are consistent with the housing
element.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Writing in opposition, the
League of California Cities, argues that the combination of
extending the RHNA to ten years and requiring upfront
zoning will trigger significant sprawl because no time is
provided to phase in the availability of housing sites.
Due to the lack of apparent sites in developed areas,
SB 303
Page
8
prezoning will be easier in suburban and rural communities
that can more readily plan on annexations. The League also
objects to site-specific findings, the requirement to
establish market demand for each site, the attorney fees
provisions, and the lack of a funding mechanism to
accomplish the requirements of the bill.
JJA:cm 6/1/07 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****