Agenda

Return

11.

LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Meeting Date:	05/14/2018
Subject: Regional Housing Needs Allocation Bills SB 828 (Wiener) and AB 1771 (Bloom)
Submitted For:	LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Department:	County Administrator
Referral No.:	2018-15
Referral Name:	Regional Housing Needs Allocation Bills
Presenter:	L. DeLaney & C. Christian	Contact:	L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097

Information

Referral History:

CSAC has been working with UCC and RCRC and a technical working group of planners from the California County Planning Directors Association to provide feedback and discuss potential amendments to two bills which both seek to recast California’s regional housing needs process. The bills would touch on both the process for determining regional housing needs and the allocation of those regional needs among individual jurisdictions.

There have been recurrent policy discussions of linking state funding for various purposes to local government “compliance” with regional housing needs goals. Local governments have argued correctly that the mandate in the regional housing needs law is to plan and zone for housing, while linking funding to issuance of building permits as compared to allocations of land zoned for housing ignores many factors beyond local government control.

Accordingly, CSAC is interested in ensuring that any changes to the RHNA process: 1) result in more realistic allocations of planned growth for unincorporated counties, 2) support other state policy objectives (promoting infill, etc), and 3) recognize that is fundamentally a planning and zoning requirement.

Detailed information on remaining issues and requests for comments on the two RHNA-related bills, SB 828 and AB 1771, is provided below. This legislation will be discussed at the CSAC Housing, Land Use and Transportation Policy Committee meeting on Thursday, May 17 at 8:45 AM. The presentation will include analysis by CSAC on current housing needs allocations with a focus on unincorporated county allocations.

Referral Update:

SB 828 (Wiener) was heard for the first time in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on April 26. The committee asked for three amendments, which are now in print (see: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB828):

Rezoning sites for 125% of allocation by income (vs. 200%) in Sec. 1 (CSAC is interested in feedback on this change);

Change “shall” to “should” in the language concerning broad purpose of RHNA in Sec. 2 (According to CSAC staff, the new language is an improvement, but is still problematic.); and

Remove the reference to “filtering” in Sec. 5 (Section 65584.04(i)(5)(B)).

In addition to these amendments, the author had to commit to working with the chair and stakeholders, including councils of government, counties, and cities. CSAC, RCC and UCC met with Senator Wiener’s office and the committee consultant on to reiterate CSAC concerns as well as potential shared goals (i.e. realistic allocations focused in areas with high demand for housing).

A CSAC/UCC/RCRC “concerns” letter on SB 828 is available online here: http://blob.capitoltrack.com/17blobs/5d888a9c-f8de-494e-9cf2-4fd0f5ede030. This letter outlines some of CSAC's general principals on RHNA. CSAC's future correspondence will focused on more specific language changes. Depending on the willingness of the author to address the concerns outlined below, the position may move from “concerns” to “oppose unless amended.”

Remaining issues with SB 828 and Requests for Comments

Clarifying RHNA intent language to ensure that RHNA remains a planning tool and recognizes that, despite zoning, there are many factors beyond local government control that contribute to whether housing is produced or not (Section 65584(a)(2)).

Rezoning to Meet Adequate Sites: Appropriate standard for rezoning when adequate sites are not identified in housing element (the “125%” issue) and how this links to SB 166 (Skinner, 2017); consideration of the “developed areas” language, whether this is appropriate, and how it links to AB 1397 (Low, 2017) (Section 65583(c)(1)).

HCD housing backlog “audit” – CSAC staff thinks this is highly likely to be amended out of the bill in Appropriations (or cause the bill to be held), but are seeking feedback. CSAC might like to see it removed no matter what, or perhaps limit it to metropolitan counties (Section 65584.01.1).

The unappealable “deficit rollover” – The associations are arguing that this provision is entirely unworkable; that it doubles-down on current unrealistically large allocations to unincorporated areas; that it fails to account for entitled but unbuilt projects; that it encourages zoning for sprawl, especially in jurisdictions where housing demand is low; and that it is unnecessary if broader problems with regional assessments and jurisdictional allocations are addressed (Section 65584.01.(c)(4)). This general issue was raised by several members and the Chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.

Regional Assessment Factors: Ensuring that the appropriate factors are added to the criteria for regional housing needs assessment—CSAC would appreciate feedback on other factors that may need to be considered by HCD/COGs. While some of the factors included in the bill will likely promote allocations that are more realistic with unincorporated areas and better aligned with employment and the state’s infill goals, some factors seem unrealistic (e.g. 6% rental vacancy rate) (Section 65584.01(b)(1)(A-H)).

Allocation Plan Factors: Ensuring that the appropriate factors are included in the criteria for the jurisdictional allocations of the region’s housing needs – again would appreciate feedback on these factors. Note that CSAC also recognizes the need for general clean up new language in this subdivision: What is a “high” allocation? How can an allocation plan “demonstrate” that it will reverse racial and wealth disparities? Etc. (Section 65584.04(i)(1-5).

AB 1771 (Bloom) was also heard in policy committee this week. The most recent text is available online here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1771

CSAC, UCC and RCRC have not issued a letter on this bill yet, but are interested in your feedback on the following issues:

Allocation Plan Objectives: Ensuring that the appropriate objectives are included in the criteria for the jurisdictional allocations of the region’s housing needs (Section 65584(d-f)).

Factors for Allocation Methodology: Ensuring that appropriate factors are considered in the allocation methodology developed by the COGs, and the appropriate role for HCD in determining whether or not the methodology furthers, and does not undermine, the objectives in 65584(d) (Section 65584.04(d)).

Appeals Process: Appropriateness of adding an opportunity for “housing groups” to appeal one or more jurisdiction’s allocation of the regional housing need and other changes to the appeals process in Section 3 of the bill (Section 65584.05(a-j)). Note: an alternative approach under consideration by some opponents of the bill would be to limit the grounds on which a local agency can appeal its allocation rather than creating a new appeals process.

Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):

PROVIDE feedback to staff on SB 828 (Weiner) and AB 1771 (Bloom): Planning and Zoning: Regional Housing Needs Assessment, which will be provided to CSAC staff as requested.

Attachments
No file(s) attached.