BILL ANALYSIS SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: sb 326 SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: strickland VERSION: 4/13/09 Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: yes Hearing date: April 28, 2009 SUBJECT: Housing elements and foreclosures DESCRIPTION: This bill requires cities and counties to include within the housing needs assessment portion of their housing elements a quantification of their existing and projected foreclosure rates and an analysis of the impact of foreclosures on housing needs. ANALYSIS: The Planning and Zoning Law requires cities and counties to prepare and adopt a general plan, including a housing element, to guide the future growth of a community. Following a staggered statutory schedule, cities and counties located within the territory of a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) must revise their housing elements every eight years, and cities and counties in rural non-MPO regions must revise their housing elements every five years. 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. 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. This bill requires cities and counties to include within the SB 326 (STRICKLAND) Page 2 housing needs assessment portion of their housing elements a quantification of their existing and projected foreclosure rates and an analysis of the impact of foreclosures on housing needs. COMMENTS: 1.Purpose of the bill . Foreclosure rates are at historic highs, and with the recession and banks tightening their lending guidelines, many foreclosed homes cannot be sold. These homes are generally left vacant and can become a blight on the community. They can also become a magnet for crime. By requiring cities and counties to analyze the impact of foreclosures, this bill seeks to facilitate local efforts to address the impacts. 2.Already allowed but not required . While housing element law does specify a number of items that must be included within the housing needs assessment portion of a city or county's housing element, nothing prevents a city or county from adding additional data or analysis that is relevant to the jurisdiction's housing needs. As a result, cities and counties may already quantify the level of foreclosures and analyze its impact on housing needs as part of the housing element. This bill simply requires such an analysis. 3.A cyclical concern . Historically, foreclosure rates have averaged about one percent. While this average masks a fairly large degree of variation from year to year, it is generally only during times of economic stress or recession that high rates of foreclosure cause concern from a public policy perspective. Over the last 30 years in California, foreclosure rates have hit or exceeded two percent only during the recession of the mid 1990s and now. A housing element covers an eight-year planning period in most cases. It is not clear how the quantification and analysis of foreclosure rates at a point in time when the housing element is being developed will inform decisions regarding medium-term housing programs and planning. 4.Projecting foreclosure rates . This bill requires cities and counties to quantify their projected foreclosure rates. While cities and counties can probably obtain such projections readily from various sources, it is not clear that their accuracy can be relied on over the medium term. For example, most projections available in 2006 probably did not come close to predicting the foreclosure rates that developed in 2008 and SB 326 (STRICKLAND) Page 3 2009, if they even predicted an increase at all. POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on Wednesday, April 22, 2009) SUPPORT: County of Santa Barbara (sponsor) OPPOSED: None received.