BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: ab 1690
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: gordon
VERSION: 2/13/14
Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: no
Hearing date: June 24, 2014
SUBJECT:
Housing element sites
DESCRIPTION:
This bill replaces the housing element law requirement that 50%
of the capacity rezoned to accommodate lower-income housing be
reserved exclusively for residential uses with a requirement
that 50% of the capacity be designated for residential or mixed
uses.
ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Zoning Law requires cities and counties to
prepare and adopt a general plan, including a housing element,
to guide the future growth of a community. Following a
staggered schedule, cities and counties located within the
territory of a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) must
revise their housing elements every eight years, and cities and
counties in rural non-MPO regions must revise their housing
elements every five years. These five- and eight-year periods
are known as the housing element planning period.
Before each revision, each community receives its fair share of
housing for each income category through the regional housing
needs assessment (RHNA) process. A housing element must
identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs,
identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning to meet its
share of the RHNA, and ensure that regulatory systems provide
opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing
development.
As part of the process to identify adequate sites, a city or
county first prepares an inventory of existing sites zoned for
housing. When the inventory of existing sites is insufficient
to accommodate the need for one or more income categories, the
housing element must contain a program to rezone sites within
AB 1690 (GORDON) Page 2
the first three years of the planning period. If needed to
accommodate the need for very low- or low-income households, the
city or county must rezone sites to permit multifamily
residential use by right (i.e., projects consistent with the
zoning standards are approved ministerially without a
discretionary action) at a minimum density of 16 or 20 units to
the acre. At least 50% of the capacity on these sites must be
reserved exclusively for residential uses.
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
reviews both draft and adopted housing elements to determine
whether or not they are in substantial compliance with the law.
This bill replaces the requirement that 50% of the capacity
rezoned to accommodate lower-income housing be reserved
exclusively for residential uses with a requirement that 50% of
the capacity be designated for residential or mixed uses.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose of the bill . According to the author, mixed-use
developments make sense and have been successful in the urban
areas of this state where most future growth will be
concentrated. Moreover, encouraging mixed-use development is
critical to California's smart growth goals and, near transit
at least, necessary to ensure competitiveness for federal
transit funds. In some cases, integrating rent-paying
commercial uses into an affordable housing development can
help subsidize affordability. Most importantly, mixed-use
projects can bring residents closer to jobs and services.
This bill gives cities and counties additional flexibility on
how best to plan in their communities.
2.Increases the likelihood of commercial development on
affordable housing sites . Traditionally, zoning ordinances
have segregated land uses (e.g., housing, shopping, industry).
More recently, many cities and counties have adopted
mixed-use zones that allow for a combination of these uses on
a particular site. These mixed-use zones, however, do not
necessarily require mixed uses or the inclusion of housing on
a site. As a result, allowing a city or county to count
mixed-use sites towards accommodating its affordable housing
needs could result in commercial development occupying all or
large portions of sites needed for affordable housing.
AB 1690 (GORDON) Page 3
Current law partially protects against this result by
requiring that half of rezoned sites be reserved exclusively
for housing. By removing this protection, this bill increases
competition for, and therefore the cost of, affordable housing
sites and increases the likelihood that these sites will be
developed without affordable housing. Moreover, in
jurisdictions that do require mixed uses but have weak
commercial markets, requiring mixed uses may make housing
projects unfeasible or less affordable. The committee may
wish to consider amending the bill to allow a city or county
to accommodate all of its very low- and low-income housing
need on sites designated for mixed uses only if those sites
allow 100% residential use and require at least 50%
residential floor area.
3.Arguments in opposition . Opponents argue that developing
affordable housing on mixed-use sites is more difficult and
expensive than on residentially zoned sites. The loss of
redevelopment funding has made mixed-use development only more
challenging. By limiting the use of mixed-use zones as
affordable housing sites, current law creates the greatest
potential for affordable housing development. This bill
removes that modest restriction.
4.Chaptering conflict . This bill has a chaptering conflict with
AB 1537 (Levine). The author will need to resolve these
conflicts prior to final passage.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 76-0
L Gov: 8-0
H&CD: 7-0
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, June 18,
2014.)
SUPPORT: California Building Industry Association
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
City of Santa Monica
AB 1690 (GORDON) Page 4
City/County Association of Government of San
Mateo County
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
League of California Cities
OPPOSED: California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Western Center on Law and Poverty