BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2208
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Susan Talamantes Eggman, Chair
AB 2208
(Santiago) - As Amended April 4, 2016
SUBJECT: Local planning: housing element: inventory of land
for residential development.
SUMMARY: Adds, for purposes of the requirements of housing
element law, to the list of the types of sites that a local
government can identify as suitable for residential development
in the housing element. Specifically, this bill:
1)Adds, for purposes of the requirements of housing element law
that a city or county identify sites that can be developed for
housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to
provide for the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing
need for all income levels, the following to the list of land
suitable for residential development:
a) Buildings owned or under the control of a city or
county, zoned for residential use and capable of having
residential developments constructed above the existing
building;
b) Buildings owned or under the control of a city or a
county and zoned for nonresidential use that can be rezoned
AB 2208
Page 2
for residential use and are capable of having residential
developments constructed above the building;
c) Underutilized sites zoned for residential use; and,
d) Underutilized sites zoned for nonresidential use that
allow residential development.
1)Defines "underutilized sites" to mean properties or portions
of a property that are used only
at irregular periods or intermittently by the accountable agency
of the local government or property that is being used for the
accountable agency's current program purposes that can be
satisfied with only a portion of the property.
2)States that no reimbursement is necessary because a local
agency has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or
assessment sufficient to pay for the program or level of
service mandated by this act.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires every city and county to prepare and adopt a general
plan containing seven mandatory elements, including a housing
element.
2)Divides the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) into the
following income categories:
a) Very low-income (50% or lower of area median income),
including extremely low-income (30% or lower of area median
AB 2208
Page 3
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).
1)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.
2)Requires a local government to inventory land suitable for
residential development to identify sites that can be
developed to meet the jurisdiction's regional housing needs
for all income levels. Provides that "land suitable for
residential development" includes all of the following:
a) Vacant sites zoned for residential use;
b) Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allows
residential development;
AB 2208
Page 4
c) Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being
developed at higher density; and,
d) Sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be
redeveloped for and as necessary, rezoned for, residential
use.
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS:
1)Bill Summary. This bill adds, for purposes of the
requirements of housing element law that a city or county
identify sites that can be developed for housing within the
planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the
jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need for all
income levels, the following to the list of land suitable for
residential development:
a) Buildings owned or under the control of a city or
county, zoned for residential use and capable of having
residential developments constructed above the existing
building;
b) Buildings owned or under the control of a city or a
county and zoned for nonresidential use that can be rezoned
for residential use and are capable of having residential
developments constructed above the building;
c) Underutilized sites zoned for residential use; and,
AB 2208
Page 5
d) Underutilized sites zoned for nonresidential use that
allow residential development.
The bill defines "underutilized sites" to mean properties or
portions of a property that are used only at irregular periods
or intermittently by the accountable agency of the local
government or property that is being used for the accountable
agency's current program purposes that can be satisfied with
only a portion of the property.
This bill is an author-sponsored measure.
1)Author's Statement. According to the author, "In many urban,
dense areas, there is a distinct lack of land that can be used
for affordable housing. In fact, the City of Los Angeles is
about to hit its development limit. The city is now zoned to
house, at most, 4.2 million people. The current population is
3.9 million. There were 28,000 new housing starts in the Los
Angeles metro area last year (population 13 million), versus
64,000 in Houston (population two million). In California's
largest urban areas, and those where land costs are the
highest, it is particularly important that local governments
and developers both think outside the box on how to use land
and space more effectively. AB 2208 takes an important step
in this direction by requiring that local governments
specifically consider non-traditional spaces in their property
surveys for housing. AB 2208 requires local governments to
include underutilized land, and available air rights when
surveying property that may be applicable for use in
affordable housing as a part of their Housing Element."
2)Background. Every local government is required to prepare a
housing element as part of its general plan. The housing
element process starts when the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) determines the number of new
AB 2208
Page 6
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 council of
governments (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.
3)Building Up. According to an article in Governing Magazine
entitled "Why Don't More Cities Sell Air Rights?" published in
September 2014, "Public works projects often come at heavy
expense. Whether it's building new schools, municipal halls
AB 2208
Page 7
or other facilities, such projects produce not only upfront
costs, but depending on their magnitude, long-term debts.
There is however, a way to mitigate costs, or even make a
project more profitable: sell off the air rights."
The article also points out that "U.S. cities do not maximize
their use of public properties?It is in compact cities such as
Seattle - along with Boston, Chicago, New York City, San
Francisco and Washington, D. C - where utilizing air rights
would make the most sense?.after all, if proposed three-story
schools, libraries and recreation centers could instead sit
inside 50-story mixed-use towers, this would increase the
supply of affordable housing and office space, further
compelling people to locate centrally."
4)Policy Considerations. The Committee may wish to consider the
following:
a) Feasibility. Is it feasible to build residential units
on top of existing structures? The Committee may wish to
consider whether cities should be able to count these sites
toward the RHNA, if constructing residential developments
above existing buildings is not truly feasible. Also,
given the concerns around seismic safety in California, the
Committee may wish to consider whether it is prudent to
encourage developments on top of existing buildings that
were not originally built with the idea of expansion
upwards.
b) Cost of Reviewing Existing Properties. As noted by the
California State Association
of Counties in their letter of "Concerns," "Counties are
concerned?with the potential costs of reviewing existing
AB 2208
Page 8
properties to determine whether they can feasibly
accommodate housing development?.moreover, we are concerned
that the bill may put counties in the position of proving
why county-owned or controlled buildings or properties are
not appropriate for housing development rather than solely
allowing local jurisdictions the flexibility to inventory
these properties when they are clearly suitable for
development."
c) More Housing? The Committee may wish to consider whether
such a review of existing properties will actually result
in any additional housing being built on those sites.
5)Arguments in Support. Supporters argue that the expansion in
the bill will provide cities additional flexibility in meeting
their regional housing needs by identifying a greater number
of sites where housing can be built.
6)Arguments in Opposition. There are concerns that the
definition of "underutilized" and the public buildings on
which housing can be built above is not adequately developed
in the bill and could result in sites not suitable for
residential development being included in the jurisdiction's
housing element.
7)Double-Referral. This bill was heard by the Housing and
Community Development Committee on April 13, 2016, where it
passed with a 7-0 vote.
AB 2208
Page 9
AB 2208
Page 10
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
League of California Cities
California Council for Affordable Housing
Concerns
California State Association of Counties
Housing California
Opposition
American Planning Association, California Chapter (unless
amended)
AB 2208
Page 11
Analysis Prepared by:Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958