BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2208
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 11, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2208 (Santiago) - As Amended April 4, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Housing and Community |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: |Development | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Local Government | |8 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY: This bill adds to the list of the types of sites that
a local government can identify as suitable for residential
development in their housing element. Specifically, this bill:
AB 2208
Page 2
1)Adds 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
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 a property that is being used for the
accountable agency's current program purposes that can be
satisfied with only a portion of the property.
FISCAL EFFECT:
No state fiscal impact. Although local costs to inventory
existing sites and make suitability determinations could be
substantial, local agencies have the authority to levy services
charges or fees for housing element related costs and thus, any
local costs are not reimbursable.
AB 2208
Page 3
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, "In many urban, dense areas,
there is a distinct lack of land that can be used for
affordable housing. 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.
This bill takes an important step in this direction by
requiring that local governments specifically consider
non-traditional spaces in their property surveys for housing.
This bill 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. In preparing its housing element, a city or county
must show how it plans to accommodate its share of the
regional housing needs assessment (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
AB 2208
Page 4
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 would add underutilized sites and public buildings
that are capable of having residential developments
constructed above the existing structure to the types of sites
that can be identified to accommodate the jurisdictions' share
of RHNA.
3)Arguments in Support. Supporters (cities) 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.
4)Arguments in Opposition. According to the American Planning
Association, California Chapter, "the requirement to assess
the potential addition of housing on top of existing public
facilities isn't viable. In order to add additional floors to
an existing operating public facility, the facility must be
built with the knowledge or potential for adding housing so
that the structure below the housing meets code requirements
to carry the weight and height of the added housing
development."
AB 2208
Page 5
There are also 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.
5)Related Legislation. This is one of six Assembly bills
addressing density bonus issues before this committee today.
a) AB 1934 (Santiago) creates a density bonus for
commercial developers that partner with an affordable
housing developer to construct a mixed-used development.
b) AB 2299 (Bloom) requires, instead of allows, a local
agency to, by ordinance, provide for the creation of second
units in single-family and multifamily residential zones,
and makes a number of other changes specifying what is
required to be in the ordinance.
c) AB 2442 (Holden) requires local agencies to grant a
density bonus when an applicant for a housing development
agrees to construct housing for transitional foster youth,
disabled veterans, or homeless persons.
d) AB 2501 (Bloom and Low) makes a number of changes to
density bonus law.
e) AB 2556 (Nazarian) requires a jurisdiction, in cases
where a proposed development is replacing existing
affordable housing units, to adopt a rebuttable presumption
regarding the number and type of affordable housing units
necessary for density bonus eligibility.
AB 2208
Page 6
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081