BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






           SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE       BILL NO: ab 542
          SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN              AUTHOR:  allen
                                                         VERSION: 6/27/12
          Analysis by:  Mark Stivers                     FISCAL:  no
          Hearing date:  July 3, 2012



          SUBJECT:

          Housing element law:  alternative to default densities

          DESCRIPTION:

          This bill further defines what a city or county, if it chooses 
          not to utilize the statutory default densities, must demonstrate 
          in its housing element to show that its adopted densities 
          accommodate housing affordable to lower-income households.

          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.  Cities and counties 
          located within the territory of a metropolitan planning 
          organization (MPO) must revise their housing elements every 
          eight years following the adoption of every other regional 
          transportation plan.  Cities and counties in rural non-MPO 
          regions must revise their housing elements every five years.  

          Before each revision, each community receives its fair share of 
          housing need for four separate income categories (very low-, 
          low-, moderate-, and above-moderate income households) through a 
          two-step process known as the regional housing needs assessment 
          (RHNA).  In the first step, the Department of Housing and 
          Community Development (HCD) determines the aggregate housing 
          need for the region during the planning period the housing 
          element will cover.  In the second step, the council of 
          governments (COG) for the region allocates the regional housing 
          need to each city and county within the region.  

          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.  HCD reviews both draft 




          AB 542 (ALLEN)                                         Page 2

                                                                       


          and adopted housing elements to determine whether or not they 
          are in substantial compliance with the law.  

          With respect to identifying sites with appropriate zoning, a 
          city or county must, through a site-specific analysis, calculate 
          the capacity of each site to accommodate during the housing 
          element planning period some portion of its share of the RHNA by 
          income level, taking into account the realistic density for the 
          site, land use controls, and environmental constraints.  This is 
          referred to below as the site capacity requirement.  

          In addition, the city or county must provide an analysis 
          demonstrating how its adopted densities accommodate the need for 
          affordable housing, meaning how the densities allow for 
          economies of scale that facilitate the production of affordable 
          housing with minimum public subsidy.  This is referred to below 
          as the requirement for an analysis that adopted densities can 
          accommodate the need for affordable housing.  A city or county 
          must make this demonstration in one of two ways:

           Provide an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities 
            accommodate lower-income housing based on market demand, 
            financial feasibility, or recent development experience.

           Document that adopted densities meet or exceed the following 
            default densities established in statute and known as the 
            default densities:

                 30 units per acre for metropolitan jurisdictions, 
               generally defined as any city or county (except for 
               jurisdictions of less than 25,000 population) in a 
               Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) with a population of 2 
               million persons or greater and any city or county over 
               100,000 population in any size MSA.
                 20 units per acre for suburban jurisdictions, generally 
               defined as cities and counties in an MSA of less than 2 
               million persons (except for jurisdictions over 100,000 
               population) and jurisdictions under 25,000 population in 
               larger MSAs. 
                 15 units per acre for incorporated cities within 
               non-metropolitan counties and for non-metropolitan counties 
               that have micropolitan areas (i.e., Del Norte, Humboldt, 
               Lake, Mendocino, Nevada, Tehama, and Tuolumne Counties).
                 10 units per acre for unincorporated areas in all 
               non-metropolitan counties.





          AB 542 (ALLEN)                                         Page 3

                                                                       


           This bill  :

           More clearly differentiates the site capacity requirement from 
            the requirement for an analysis that adopted densities can 
            accommodate the need for affordable housing.

           Provides for a more focused and site-specific analysis of the 
            appropriateness of adopted densities by repealing the current 
            language requiring a general analysis of factors such as 
            market demand, financial feasibility, or information based on 
            development project experience within a zone or zones that 
            provide housing for lower-income households and instead 
            requiring that the analysis be based on substantial evidence 
            and include one or more of the following for the sites 
            designated for lower-income housing:

                 An analysis demonstrating the financial feasibility of 
               newly constructing unsubsidized, market-rate housing that 
               is affordable to low- and very low-income households at the 
               adopted densities.
                 An analysis demonstrating that the total development 
               cost per unit of newly constructing housing affordable to 
               lower-income households at the adopted densities does not 
               exceed the total development cost per unit of newly 
               constructing housing affordable to lower-income households 
               at the default densities and that the adopted densities do 
               not reduce the ability of housing developments affordable 
               to lower-income households to obtain subsidies to meet all 
               anticipated funding gaps.  
          
          COMMENTS:

           1.Purpose of the bill  .  Housing element law requires cities and 
            counties that choose not to utilize the default densities to 
            demonstrate that their adopted densities accommodate housing 
            affordable to lower-income households.  The statute provides 
            very little guidance, however, on what the alternative 
            analysis must include to make this demonstration.  This lack 
            of clarity has led to differing interpretations from the 
            various housing element stakeholders, including HCD, local 
            governments, and housing advocates.  This bill seeks to 
            provide this guidance by clearly delineating two ways in which 
            cities and counties may show that their adopted densities 
            accommodate affordable housing:  1) by showing that newly 
            constructed, unsubsidized, market-rate units will be 
            affordable to low- and very-low income households, 




          AB 542 (ALLEN)                                         Page 4

                                                                       


            respectively; or 2) by showing that densities less than the 
            default densities do not increase development costs for 
            affordable housing and do not reduce the ability of such 
            developments to obtain subsidies to meet all anticipated 
            funding gaps.  This bill represents the work product of an 
            informal working group consisting of county representatives, 
            housing advocates, and HCD staff.   

           2.Does not affect determination of adequate sites  .  While more 
            clearly differentiating the site capacity requirement from the 
            requirement for an analysis of adopted densities, this bill 
            does not alter the criteria by which available sites are 
            deemed adequate to accommodate lower-income housing.  The 
            capacity for each site is determined by utilizing the acreage 
            available for development, applying a minimum or realistic 
            density for the site, and accounting for land use controls 
            (e.g. setbacks, parking, and open space requirements).  Other 
            factors that make a site unsuitable, such as height limits 
            that prevent densities from being achieved, infrastructure 
            deficiencies, or the fact that a site is too small or too 
            large to realistically accommodate an affordable housing 
            development are considered constraints, which the local 
            government must also address.  
          
          Assembly Votes:
               
               Previous votes are not relevant.

          POSITIONS:  (Communicated to the committee before noon on 
          Wednesday,                                             June 27, 
          2012)

               SUPPORT:  County of Napa (sponsor)

               OPPOSED:  None received.