BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1690
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 7, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
AB 1690 (Gordon) - As Introduced: February 13, 2014
SUBJECT : Local planning: housing elements.
SUMMARY : Deletes the requirement that a local government, when
it fails to identify adequate sites in its housing element and
must adopt a rezoning program, rezone at least 50% of its
affordable housing sites on land designated for residential use
and for which nonresidential uses or mixed-uses are not
permitted, and instead, requires the program to accommodate at
least 50% of the affordable housing need on sites designated for
residential use or mixed-uses.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires every city and county to prepare and adopt a general
plan containing seven mandatory elements, including a housing
element.
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.
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.
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 1690
Page 2
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).
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.
7)Requires that, where the inventory of sites does not identify
adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all
household income levels, rezoning of those sites, including
adoption of minimum density and development standards, is
required by a specified deadline.
8)Requires the rezoning program to accommodate 100 % of the need
for housing for very low- and low-income households for which
site capacity has not been identified in the inventory of
sites. These sites must:
a) Be zoned to permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily
residential use by-right during the planning period;
b) Be zoned with minimum density and development standards
that permit between 16 and 20 units per acre, depending on
the jurisdiction; and,
c) Accommodate at least 50% of the very low- and low-income
housing need on sites designated for residential use and
for which nonresidential uses or mixed-uses are not
permitted.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
AB 1690
Page 3
1)Purpose of this bill . This bill deletes the requirement that
a local government, when it fails to identify adequate sites
in its housing element and must adopt a rezoning program,
rezone at least 50% of its affordable housing sites on land
designated for residential use and for which nonresidential
uses or mixed-uses are not permitted, and instead, requires
the program to accommodate at least 50% of the affordable
housing need on sites designated for residential use or
mixed-uses.
This bill is author-sponsored.
2)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 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. When a local government's housing element
does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for
groups of all household income levels, it must rezone those
sites by a specific deadline during the planning period. This
rezoning program has to accommodate 100% of the RHNA need for
very low- and low-income households, for which site capacity
has not been identified, on sites that are zoned to permit
owner occupied and rental multifamily use by-right during the
planning period. These zones must allow for, depending on the
jurisdiction, between 16 and 20 units per acre. At least 50%
of the very low- and low-income housing need must be
accommodated on sites designated for residential use and for
which nonresidential uses or mixed-uses are not permitted.
3)Author's statement . According to the author, "Under existing
law, a jurisdiction must plan to accommodate at-least 50% of
its low-income and very low-income housing needs assessment
AB 1690
Page 4
(RHNA) on "sites designated for residential use and for which
nonresidential uses or mixed-uses are not permitted" [GOV
65583.2(h)]. As jurisdictions, particularly built-out urban
communities, add more zoning designations and overlays this
type of restrictive segregation of use is increasingly rare.
"The intention of this restriction was ostensibly to ensure
that at-least on these few sites housing could be built
without having to compete against other uses. Conventionally,
low-income and very low-income housing has been largely built
by non-profit housing agencies that are singularly focused on
residential construction.
"However, many of these agencies have gotten quite good at
building mixed-use projects and at building housing into
larger mixed-use planned united developments (PUDs) and in
mixed-use priority development areas (PDAs). And while
commercial lenders may (anecdotally) be more wary of mixed-use
affordable housing projects, the issue is market-relative.
Mixed-use projects may not make sense in every community,
particularly in more rural settings, but they do make sense
and have been successful in the urban areas of this state
where most future growth will be concentrated (and where
commercial construction markets have remained most
competitive, and commercial occupancy rates are highest).
This bill allows local agencies additional flexibility on how
best to plan in their communities.
"From a state perspective, encouraging mixed-use development
(and more broadly encouraging housing in higher-density
communities near public transit and job-centers) is critical
to California's smart growth goals. In addition to furthering
SB 375's goals of building walkable and transit-friendly
communities, planning for these low-income and very-low income
units on mixed-use sites (particularly as part of
transit-oriented developments, or TODs) is now necessary to
ensure competitiveness for federal transit funds.
"Integrating commercial uses into a low-income or very
low-income project can also provide benefits from a
development perspective. In a strong commercial real estate
market, making a portion of a project commercial (like ground
floor retail) can help offset construction costs increasing
the affordability of residential units. A commercial
component can also make a project more attractive to a
AB 1690
Page 5
community, like a food desert, starved for services.
"The most direct benefit of accommodating more low-income and
very-low income residents in mixed-use projects is that they
are less likely to be isolated from jobs and services.
AB 1690 will allow local cities and counties the option of
planning for growth in a way that better integrates new low-
and very low-income housing into communities."
4)Concerns . A joint letter dated April 29, 2014, from the
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the Western
Center on Law & Poverty raises several concerns with the bill,
including that the bill, in its present form, "would remove
the modest and reasonable balance struck between promoting
mixed-used development and facilitating affordable housing
development." The groups are hopeful that continued
discussions with the author will yield a result that advances
the shared goal of increased affordable housing.
5)Arguments in support . Supporters argue that California's
communities have a wide variety of land use needs and that
many communities are utilizing mixed-used properties to help
create walkable and sustainable communities, and that this
bill furthers these goals.
6)Arguments in opposition . None on file.
7)Double-referral . This bill was heard by the Housing and
Community Development Committee on April 30, 2014, and passed
with a 7-0 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Building Industry Association
California State Association of Counties
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo
League of California Cities
Concerns
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Opposition
AB 1690
Page 6
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958