BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1537
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1537 (Levine)
As Amended April 21, 2014
Majority vote
HOUSING 7-0 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 8-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Chau, Beth Gaines, |Ayes:|Achadjian, Levine, |
| |Gordon, Brown, | |Bradford, Gordon, |
| |Maienschein, Quirk-Silva, | |Melendez, Mullin, Rendon, |
| |Yamada | |Waldron |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, | | |
| |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, | | |
| |Holden, Jones, Linder, | | |
| |Pan, Quirk, | | |
| |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner, | | |
| |Weber | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Creates a pilot program for Marin County to utilize a
"suburban" default density standard for accommodating its share
of affordable housing. Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that, for purposes of determining a jurisdiction's
"default density" for accommodating affordable housing, if a
county that is in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont,
California Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) has a
population of less than 400,000, that county is considered
suburban. If this county includes an incorporated city that
has a population of less than 100,000, this city is also
considered suburban.
2)Provides that this classification shall apply to a housing
element revision cycle that is in effect from July 1, 2014, to
December 31, 2023, inclusive.
AB 1537
Page 2
3)Requires that all jurisdictions affected by this legislation
report to the Assembly Housing and Community Development
Committee, the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee,
and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
regarding its progress in developing very low- and low-income
housing. The report must be provided twice, once, on or
before December 31, 2019, and a second time, on or before
December 31, 2023. The report is comprised of information
that is already required as part of all local governments'
annual Housing Element Progress Report to HCD.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, minor, non-reimbursable costs to the affected local
agencies to produce the required reports and make the necessary
administrative adjustments.
COMMENTS :
Purpose of the bill: According to the author, this bill will
refine the default density housing formula to allow for suburban
designations for the lower population in Marin County. This
bill is intended to help create momentum for more affordable
housing development in areas that have had challenges in getting
projects off the ground due to concerns about high density
development.
Housing Element Working Group: This bill will impact reforms to
housing element law that came out of the Housing Element Working
Group (HEWG). HEWG, which was convened by HCD in 2003, was a
broad-based group that included representatives from local
government, councils of governments (COGs), the for-profit and
non-profit development community, and affordable housing
advocacy groups. HCD proposed the group after several lengthy
and divisive Legislative battles over changes to housing element
law.
The HEWG met from June through November 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. The bills did not receive
AB 1537
Page 3
any "no" votes. One of these bills, AB 2348 (Mullin), Chapter
724, Statutes of 2004, 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.
Default density: 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
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.
This bill was introduced in response to concerns arising out of
AB 1537
Page 4
Marin County. Marin County is included in an MSA of two 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. 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 for one housing element cycle.
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 Marin County has 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 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
AB 1537
Page 5
a diverse group of stakeholders. In opponents' view, the bill
is a result of local opposition to affordable housing, and
legislating to accommodate this narrow opposition is the wrong
direction. Opponents point to the current lack of availability
of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income individuals
and families, and contend that this bill will have the effect of
making it even more costly to develop affordable housing in the
areas affected by the bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Rebecca Rabovsky / H. & C.D. / (916)
319-2085
FN: 0003478