The densities of sites identified in the inventory must be sufficient to encourage and facilitate the development of housing affordable to lower-income households (Section 65583.2(c)(3)(A) &(B).
Requisite Analysis
To identify the sites and establish the number of units that can accommodate the local government’s share of the regional housing need for lower-income households, the housing element must include an analysis that demonstrates the identified zone and densities that encourage and facilitate the development of housing for lower-income households. To provide local governments with greater certainty and clarity in evaluating and determining what densities facilitate the development of housing affordable to lower-income households, the statute provides two options:
At a minimum, the analysis must describe the following:
- Market demand and trends.
- Financial feasibility.
- Information based on residential project experience within a zone where the densities facilitated the development of housing for lower-income households.
Information gathered from local developers and examples of recent, residential projects that provide housing for lower-income households is helpful in establishing the appropriateness of the zone. It is recognized that housing affordable to lower-income households requires significant subsidies and financial assistance. However, for the purpose of the adequate sites analysis and the appropriateness of zoning, identifying examples of lower-density, subsidized housing projects alone, is not sufficient or appropriate to demonstrate the adequacy of a zone and/or density to accommodate the housing affordable to lower-income households.
In addition, the analysis of “appropriate zoning” should not include residential build-out projections resulting from the implementation of a jurisdiction’s inclusionary program, because this tool is not a substitute for addressing the “adequate sites” requirement. For example, most communities have found that inclusionary policies work best when the underlying zoning and development standards act to significantly promote housing affordability, including the provision of higher densities and flexible development standards.
As an alternative to preparing the analysis described above, Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B) allows local governments to utilize “default” density standards deemed adequate to meet the “appropriate zoning” test. The purpose is to provide a numerical density standard for local governments, resulting in greater certainty in the housing element review process. Specifically, if a local government has adopted density standards that comply with population-based criteria, no further analysis is required to establish the adequacy of density standard.
| Default Densities Appropriate to Accommodate Housing for Lower-Income Households by Region | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| I Incorporated cities within nonmetropolitan/rural counties and nonmetropolitan counties with *micropolitan areas | II Unincorporated areas in all nonmetropolitan counties not included under I | III Suburban jurisdictions | IV Metropolitan jurisdictions |
| Nonmetropolitan counties with micropolitan areas include: Del Norte Humboldt Lassen Lake Mendocino Nevada Tehama Tuolumne | Note: Following list excludes those counties with *micropolitan areas as outlined in I Alpine Amador Calaveras Colusa Glenn Inyo Mariposa Modoc Mono Plumas Sierra Siskiyou Trinity | Note: Suburban jurisdictions include cities and counties located within a **Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and have a population of less than 2 million. (Cities in a MSA with a population greater than 100,000 are considered metropolitan.) Butte Fresno Imperial Kern Kings Madera Marin*** Merced Monterey Napa San Joaquin San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Santa Cruz Shasta Solano Sonoma Stanislaus Sutter Tulare Ventura Yuba | Note: Metropolitan jurisdictions include cities and counties located within a **Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) with a population of more than 2 million (Cities in a MSA with a population less than 25,000 are considered suburban.) Alameda Contra Costa El Dorado Los Angeles Orange Placer Riverside Sacramento San Benito San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Yolo |
| Density: At least 15 dwelling units/acre | Density: At least 10 dwelling units/acre | Density: At least 20 dwelling units/acre | Density: At least 30 dwelling units/acre |
*Micropolitan: Urban cluster of at least a 10,000 population, but less than a 50,000 population.
**Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA): A city with 50,000 or more inhabitants, or the presence of an Urbanized Area (UA) and a total population of at least 100,000.
***Housing Elements Gov. Code Section 65583.2(e)(2)(A)(i): If a county that is in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont California MSA has a population of less than 400,000, that county shall be considered suburban. If this county includes an incorporated city that has a population of less than 100,000, this city shall also be considered suburban. This paragraph shall apply to a housing element revision cycle, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) of Section 65588, that is in effect from July 1, 2014, to December 31, 2028, inclusive.
Helpful Hints
Local governments should reach out to the development community (both for- and nonprofit) for feedback and input on the ranges of density needed to promote project feasibility for housing affordable to lower-income households.
In the description of individual projects, the housing element could describe the amount of per-unit subsidy needed to make the units affordable to lower-income households.