BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1537
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ed Chau, Chair
AB 1537 (Levine) - As Introduced: January 22, 2014
SUBJECT : Land use: housing element: default densities
SUMMARY : Specifies that, for purposes of determining a
jurisdiction's "default density" for accommodating affordable
housing, a county shall be considered suburban if it is located
in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) with a population of
two million or greater, and has a population of less than
400,000 persons. A city within this county would also be
considered suburban if it has a population of less than 100,000
persons.
EXISTING LAW
1)Requires every city and county to prepare and adopt a general
plan containing seven mandatory elements, including a housing
element. (Government Code Sections 65300 and 65302)
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. (Government Code
Section 65583)
3)Requires cities and counties located within the territory of a
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) to 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. (Government Code 65588)
4)Requires, prior to each housing element revision, that each
council of governments (COG), in conjunction with the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), prepare
a regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) and allocate to
each jurisdiction in the region its fair share of the housing
need for all income categories. Where a COG does not exist,
HCD determines the local share of the region's housing need.
AB 1537
Page 2
(Government Code Sections 65584-65584.09)
5)Divides the RHNA into the following income categories:
a) Very low-income (50% or lower of area median income);
b) Low-income (80% or lower of area median income);
c) Moderate-income (between 80% and 120% of area median
income); and
d) Above moderate-income (exceeding 120% area median
income).
(Government Code Section 65584)
6)Requires housing elements to include an inventory of land
suitable for residential development that identifies enough
sites that can be developed for housing within the planning
period to accommodate the jurisdiction's entire share of the
RHNA. (Government Code Sections 65583 and 65583.2)
7)Allows a jurisdiction to do either of the following in order
to show that a site is adequate to accommodate some portion of
its share of the RHNA for lower-income households:
a) Provide an analysis demonstrating that the site is
adequate to support lower-income housing development at its
zoned density level, and requires the analysis to include,
but not be limited to, 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; or
b) Zone the site at the jurisdiction's "default" density
level.
(Government Code Section 65583.2)
8)Establishes the following "default" density levels for
purposes of establishing a site's adequacy for supporting
lower-income housing development:
AB 1537
Page 3
a) 30 units per acre for metropolitan jurisdictions,
generally defined as any city or county (except for
jurisdictions of less than 25,000 persons) in a
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) with a population of
2 million persons or greater and any city or county over
100,000 persons in any size MSA.
b) 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 persons) and jurisdictions under 25,000
persons in larger MSAs.
c) 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).
d) 10 units per acre for unincorporated areas in all
non-metropolitan counties.
(Government Code Section 65583.2)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
Background:
Every local government is required to prepare a housing element
as part of its general plan. The housing element process starts
when HCD determines the number of new housing units a region is
projected to need at all income levels (very low-, low-,
moderate-, and above-moderate income) over the course of the
next housing element planning period to accommodate population
growth and overcome existing deficiencies in the housing supply.
This number is known as the regional housing needs assessment
(RHNA). The COG for the region, or HCD for areas with no COG,
then assigns a share of the RHNA number to every city and county
in the region based on a variety of factors.
In preparing its housing element, a city or county must show how
AB 1537
Page 4
it plans to accommodate its share of the RHNA. The housing
element must include an inventory of sites already zoned for
housing. If a community does not have enough sites within its
existing inventory of residentially zoned land to accommodate
its entire RHNA, then the community must adopt a program to
rezone land within the first three years of the planning period.
Cities and counties are required to demonstrate that sites are
adequate to accommodate housing for each 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 can be used as a proxy for affordability.
Jurisdictions may establish the adequacy of a site for very low-
or low-income housing by showing that it is zoned at the
"default" density (also referred to as the Mullin density).
These densities range from 10 to 30 units per acre depending on
the type of jurisdiction. Jurisdictions may also include sites
zoned at lower densities by providing an analysis of how the
lower density can accommodate the need for affordable housing.
Arguments in Support:
Supporters of the bill argue that the default density standards
are in need of refinement due to inconsistent outcomes. They
explain that certain cities and counties within larger
multi-county MSAs are considered "metropolitan" under the
current default density standards despite being suburban or
rural in character. Specifically, supporters point to the fact
that unincorporated Sonoma County, which is in a less populous
MSA, is considered "suburban" despite having a higher population
than unincorporated Marin County. Supporters also point to the
fact that Marin has the same default density standard as San
Francisco due to its inclusion in the same MSA.
Supporters contend that local governments affected by AB 1537
often face difficulty zoning for a default density of 30 units
per acre, which impacts their ability to promote affordable
housing. In this view, reducing the default density would
create momentum for more affordable housing projects by
addressing local concerns about high-density housing.
Supporters argue that the bill would allow specific communities
more flexibility to zone land suitable for affordable housing in
a way that fits within the communities' individual
AB 1537
Page 5
circumstances.
Arguments in Opposition:
Opponents of the bill point to the fact that default densities
are not mandatory. In establishing the adequacy of sites for
affordable housing, local governments can either zone the site
at the default density or provide HCD with an analysis
demonstrating that the site is adequate to support lower-income
housing development at its zoned density level, including
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.
Opponents also point to the issue that default density standards
were instituted after a lengthy working group process involving
a diverse group of stakeholders. In opponents' view, the bill
is a result of local opposition to affordable housing, and
changing state housing policy to accommodate this narrow
opposition, without any provisions that zoning at a lower
density will actually result in more affordable housing, is the
wrong direction. Opponents point to the current lack of
availability of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income
individuals and families, including seniors, and contend that AB
1537 will have the effect of making it even more costly to
develop affordable housing in the areas affected by the bill.
Purpose of the Bill:
According to the author, AB 1537 will refine the default density
housing formula to allow for suburban designations for the lower
population counties of Marin, Yolo, El Dorado, and Placer. The
bill is intended to help create momentum for more affordable
housing development in counties that have had challenges in
getting projects off the ground due to concerns about high
density development.
Staff Comments:
AB 1537 will impact reforms to housing element law that came out
of the Housing Element Working Group (HEWG). The group, which
was convened by HCD in 2003, was a broad-based group that
included representatives from local government, COGs, the
for-profit and non-profit development community, and affordable
housing advocacy groups. HCD proposed the group after several
AB 1537
Page 6
lengthy and divisive Legislative battles over changes to housing
element law.
The HEWG met from June through November of 2003 and reached
consensus on reform proposals in three major areas: the
regional housing needs allocation process, increasing housing
development certainty, and the identification of adequate sites.
The bills that implemented the reform proposals represented a
consensus agreement and received broad bi-partisan support
throughout the legislative process. No "no" votes were cast
against the bills. One of these bills, AB 2348 (Mullin) amended
housing element law by clarifying the land inventory
requirements to provide local governments more certainty about
the statutory requirements. Amongst other things, AB 2348
established the default densities, also known as "Mullin"
densities, for affordable housing sites.
In establishing the adequacy of sites for affordable housing,
current law allows a city or county to either zone the site at
the default density or provide an analysis demonstrating that
the site is adequate to support lower-income housing development
at its zoned density level. The default density is not
mandatory, but was intended to provide an option for local
governments to streamline the housing element approval process.
If a local government can show that affordable housing can be
developed within the jurisdiction at lower densities, then the
law allows these lower density sites to count towards meeting a
share of the jurisdiction's RHNA for lower-income households.
AB 1537 was introduced in response to concerns arising out of
Marin County. Marin County is included in an MSA of 2 million
persons or greater. Several cities within the County have
populations of less than 25,000, and are already considered
"suburban" under the default density standards. In Marin, this
bill would reduce the default density from 30 units per acre to
20 units per acre in the cities of Novato and San Rafael, and in
unincorporated Marin County. This bill would also reduce the
default density in portions of El Dorado, Yolo, and Placer
counties, although stemming from issues in Marin County.
Reducing default density levels may have the effect of
increasing the price of affordable housing development and
thereby making it a less attractive option for developers. In a
county such as Marin, with one of the least affordable housing
markets in the nation and nearly 60% of its workforce commuting
AB 1537
Page 7
into the county from other areas, sufficient affordable housing
development is something that should be promoted. While there
may certainly be legitimate concerns about the default density
standards, and nothing precludes the Legislature from revisiting
this issue, it may not be a prudent course of action to take a
piecemeal approach.
Double referred: If AB 1537 passes this committee, the bill will
be referred to the Committee on Local Government.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Bridge Housing
California State Association of Counties
Center for Sustainable Neighborhoods
County of Marin
Domus Development
EAH Housing
Eden Housing
El Dorado County
League of California Cities
Marin County Council of Mayors and Council members
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH)
Opposition
Western Center on Law and Poverty
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
LeadingAge California
Analysis Prepared by : Rebecca Rabovsky / H. & C.D. / (916)
319-2085