HCD: Trends in Certified Elements

At the beginning of 2021, Abundant Housing LA and YIMBY Law reviewed multiple housing elements that had been certified for the 6th by the Housing and Community Development (HCD) Department of the State of California. Our organizations were concerned that HCD was not applying sufficiently strong standards to these elements, and our letter outlines our concerns and encouraged appropriate enforcement of future housing element drafts. CA YIMBY provided edits and is a co-signatory.

February 19, 2021

Dear Director Velasquez:

We are writing on behalf of ​YIMBY Law,​ whose mission is to make housing in California more accessible and affordable through enforcement of state housing law, ​Abundant Housing LA​, a pro-housing, nonprofit advocacy organization working to help solve the housing crisis in Los Angeles County, and ​California YIMBY,​ a pro-housing statewide advocacy organization that works to make our state affordable to live, work, and raise a family. Our organizations closely collaborate on advocacy and engagement in housing policy at all levels of government, particularly relating to the housing element update process.

First, we wish to offer you and your colleagues at HCD our sincere thanks for your engagement with our organizations and our allies on the housing element update process. The ​Site Inventory Guidebook sets appropriately high standards for the site inventory assessment portion of the housing element update, and it has been a very detailed and invaluable resource for us. Additionally, your team has been generous in making time to answer our questions and provide feedback on our ideas. We genuinely appreciate the opportunity to partner with you and hope to continue building on this relationship.

Our organizations and allies have recently spent hundreds of hours reviewing draft and adopted housing elements—from Eureka, San Diego, Arroyo Grande, Arcata, Encinitas, Redding, Pismo Beach, Vista, West Sacramento, Calabasas, and elsewhere throughout the state—that are in various stages of certification by HCD. Through this work, we have identified several trends in certified housing element updates, which appear to be incongruous with state law and HCD guidelines. We submit this letter with our questions and concerns for your consideration and request your response to the points raised herein.

1. Likelihood of Development

According to the ​Site Inventory Guidebook (pp. 20-21), a site inventory must include an analysis of the “likelihood of residential development,” which is “based on the rate at which similar parcels were developed during the previous planning period.” Barring such an analysis, local agencies are instructed to “report the proportion of parcels in the previous housing element’s site inventory that were developed during the previous planning period.” The ​Site Inventory Guidebook thus makes it abundantly clear that cities must accommodate enough ​realistic capacity to accommodate the RHNA target (through the site inventory and, if necessary, through rezoning) Simply demonstrating that the city has ​theoretical capacity that is equal to the RHNA target is insufficient, since not all theoretical capacity will be permitted during the 6th Cycle.

Therefore, it is concerning that most of the housing elements we have reviewed completely omit an analysis of inventoried parcels’ likelihood of development. We find this requirement of the utmost importance because it compels the local agency to reconcile their housing element with realistic development trends and projections.

For instance, the City of San Diego’s 6th Cycle housing element included no analysis of the likelihood of development of any of the parcels in its site inventory. At a minimum, San Diego should have proportionally factored development totals from the previous planning period into its zoned capacity for the current planning period. During the 5th Cycle, San Diego permitted 42,275 homes, which is approximately 27% of the citywide capacity assuming development of all sites (158,000 homes) at the beginning of the 5th Cycle. Taking this assumption that zoned capacity has a 27% chance of being built during the 6th Cycle—again, barring any analysis or evidence that a higher rate will be observed in the 6th Cycle—San Diego should therefore zone for about 400,000 homes (0.27 * 400,134 = 108,036) in order to achieve its 6th Cycle RHNA target of 108,036 homes.

Another example is that of the City of West Sacramento. Like San Diego, the City analyzed the capacity assuming development of all of its sites; however, there is no analysis in their housing element of the likelihood that any, or even one, of those inventoried sites would be developed. During the 5th Cycle, West Sacramento permitted 1,494 homes, which is approximately 11.4% of the city’s total zoned capacity (13,082 homes) at the beginning of the 5th Cycle2. Taking this assumption that zoned capacity has an 11.4% chance of being built during the 6th Cycle—again, no analysis or evidence exists to suggest a higher rate will be observed in the 6th Cycle—the City of West Sacramento should therefore zone for more than 52,000 homes (0.114 * 52,430 = 5,977) in order to achieve its 6th Cycle RHNA target of 5,977 homes.

(Download full letter to continue reading)