Removing Governmental Constraints

Government Code Section 65583(a) requires “An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels,…including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures.…”

Government constraints may include:

• Design guidelines
• Growth management systems
• Parking standards
• Procedural reform
• Street and infrastructure standards
• Zoning standards & building codes

Design Guidelines and Design Review: Many communities have adopted design guidelines and design review procedures in an effort to improve the quality of design and ensure that new buildings fit into the context of existing development. Design review can supplement development regulations by addressing issues that cannot easily be quantified in an ordinance. The advantage of using design review to promote affordable housing is that it addresses a major concern of neighbors—the fear that the development will be ugly, too bulky, and out of character with the neighborhood.

Good design is often the key to overcoming concerns about density because well designed higher density buildings can be much more acceptable than poorly designed lower density buildings.  But design review can create problems if the guidelines are vague and the process too cumbersome, affordable housing will be discouraged. As a general rule, quantifiable standards should be in the zoning ordinance while more subjective provisions should be in the design guidelines. Good design guidelines will help the process to be as objective as possible.

During the Housing Element Process:

• Review the General Plan. The general plan should provide the policy guidance for a design review system.
• Encourage Community Participation. Consider organizing a task force of community representatives, interdepartmental staff, design professionals, and local developers to help define a workable set of design guidelines and design review procedures that respond to community priorities and support affordability goals.
• Review Existing Guidelines and Review Procedures. If guidelines and review procedures exist, they should be reviewed and evaluated. How much additional time do they add to the development review process? Are guidelines overly vague? Do they support an objective review process? Interviews with local staff and recent development applicants can shed light on existing strengths and weaknesses.
• Consider Good and Bad Design Examples from the Local Area. Conduct a participatory assessment of community design examples from the local area to identify building styles and designs that people like, as well as those that they don’t like. It is often possible to distill from these a set of general guidelines that can help ensure that future developments help to replicate desirable design examples.
• Consider Experiences from Other Jurisdictions. Talk to staff and developers in adjacent jurisdictions to see if they have successful design review programs that you can draw upon.

Growth Management Systems Some growth management mechanisms enact outright limits to the quantity of new residential development. These are often in the form of numerical caps on the number of new dwelling units that can be approved during a given period of time. Sometimes, the cap is applied equally to all units regardless of location or affordability, while other jurisdictions provide exemptions and/or incentives for affordable housing and/or city-centered development. No matter how a numerical cap is structured, a community may not restrict growth to less than the number of units necessary to meet its share of the regional need for housing for all income levels during the five-year period covered by the housing element. Other forms of growth management include limiting growth in specific areas, establishing Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs), or restricting major development until certain infrastructure performance standards are achieved. The relationship between growth controls and housing affordability is a complex topic on which only limited research has been done. Because the factors involved vary significantly between jurisdictions, it is difficult to draw lessons from one experience and apply it to all others. Factors that may affect the impact of growth management policies on housing affordability include the inventory of residential development sites (either vacant or through re-use), the density allowed on those residential sites, the vacancy rate in existing residential units, local demand for housing, and the availability of housing in adjacent jurisdictions. A well-designed growth management system can support community livability, environmental protection, and housing affordability. For example, an UGB combined with encouragement of infill and affordable housing development can encourage more compact forms of development in strategic locations, thereby protecting environmental resources; promoting transit use, bicycling and walking; and reducing per-unit housing costs through better land utilization and efficient use of existing infrastructure.

During the Housing Element Process:

• Examine Existing Systems. Growth management systems may not be necessary in those communities that have already established good planning programs and effective mechanisms to implement these programs. Therefore, the first step is to improve the existing planning and regulatory systems.
• Analyze Impacts of Existing Systems on Affordability. When preparing the housing element, include an analysis of the effect of existing growth management systems on the development of housing for all income levels and whether the systems hinder the community in meeting its share of the regional housing needs.
• Analyze Impacts of Existing and Proposed Systems on Fair Housing Laws. When preparing the housing element, include an analysis of whether existing growth management systems may have a negative effect on persons protected by fair housing laws. If new growth management systems are contemplated, their impacts on housing prices and “fair housing” should be carefully evaluated before and during the drafting processReview Zoning Ordinances. Consider whether local ordinances allow and encourage higher density, infill development, second units, mixed-uses, and other techniques that might compensate for any adverse affects of growth controls.
• Encourage Effective Public Debate. Inability to manage growth can create a political backlash and encourage residents to pursue “policy by initiative.” Growth management should be discussed as part of the public process of a General Plan revision.
• Establish an Advisory Committee. Advisory committees may be useful to oversee design and implementation of the ordinance and ensure community support for affordable housing.

Parking Standards  Parking standards can have a significant affect on housing affordability as well as on the ability to achieve designated densities. Too often, parking standards fail to take into account the real vehicle ownership rates and use patterns of the development’s prospective residents, resulting in excessive onsite parking. Excessive parking requirements reduce the number of units that can be provided in the development, add to the per-unit costs, encourage automobile use, and reduce the potential for other site and building amenities. They can also have a significant impact on building design and perceived density, making a relatively low-density development appear to be much higher density and resulting in large portions of the site being covered in asphalt rather than in landscaping or other amenities. Lastly, because parking construction costs are passed on as a housing cost, tenants are forced to pay for a parking space (or even two spaces) whether the spaces are used or not.

During the Housing Element Process:

• Form a Task Force. Although parking is closely related to design issues such as setbacks, height, and bulk, it may be useful to assemble a task force to just review parking requirements. The task force should include jurisdictional staff from departments responsible for housing, planning, and transportation; residential and commercial architects; business owners; community representatives; and, if available, parking and transportation experts. Wide participation helps to frame the issues, evaluate solutions, and generate a positive community attitude toward the recommendations.
• Review Parking Requirements. All parking requirements should be reviewed to determine if they are reasonable in light of contemporary development patterns, automobile ownership rates, and driving habits.
• Review Data on Parking Utilization. Take into consideration recent studies on the factors that impact vehicle ownership rates (e.g., income, age, access to transit, etc.). If possible, collect data on actual parking utilization in various types of developments in the local area (e.g., for affordable housing developments, senior developments, and in various neighborhood areas served by transit). Compare this data with existing parking requirements.

Procedural Reform  Procedural reform is an important part of the preparation of the housing element because of the need for programs for identifying sites and removing constraints. Developers estimate that every month required for processing a development application adds at least 1 to 2 percent to the overall cost of a housing development. When development processing requires a year or more, the resulting impact on housing costs can be significant.

By reviewing and streamlining land use and development review procedures, local jurisdictions can help keep housing costs down. Procedural reform should increase the level of fairness, certainty, and efficiency in the development review process while maintaining adequate protections for community livability and environmental quality.

During the Housing Element Process:

• Form a Task Force or Committee. Consider forming a task force that includes builders, community representatives, and officials to review existing procedures. Another approach is to form an interdepartmental committee of responsible staff members.
• Review Recent Permit Data. Review city or county records to determine the length of the process from application to permit, the number of reviews required, the number of departments or boards reviewing, and the types of information and details required.
• Identify Procedural Issues and Barriers. Involve builders, departmental staff, and community representatives in identifying factors that add unnecessary time and cost to the development review process. Use this analysis to define meaningful programs in the housing element for streamlining land use and development review procedures.

Street and Infrastructure Standards  When designed and implemented appropriately, site-planning innovations can provide a win-win outcome, reducing housing construction costs while also creating developments that are more pedestrian friendly. Communities can modify their subdivision and engineering requirements for topics such as street widths, or use performance-based standards in place of prescriptive planning and engineering standards.

During the Housing Element Process...

• Establish a Task Force. Some communities have assembled a housing task force including non-profit and for-profit organizations, public agencies, and community representatives to review local regulatory processes, including street and infrastructure standards. Any task force should include representatives from all departments whose mission is affected by development standards. In particular, the involvement of public works, engineering, fire, and public safety officials is critical in any decision to modify development standards.
• Involve the Community and Provide Accurate, Accessible Information. Wide participation helps pinpoint regulatory reform possibilities and generates a positive community attitude toward the recommendations. A public information program can help explain the benefits of modified standards in relation to livability and safety. Design charrettes and computer simulations are useful tools that can help residents visualize alternative development patterns.
• Review Codes and Standards. Review the local codes and standards for unnecessary or costly requirements that contribute to construction costs, as well as excessive permit fees.
• Emphasize the Relationship Between Standards and Livability. Site and engineering standards have a direct impact on the livability of a neighborhood, especially on pedestrian and bicycle friendliness, safety, and opportunities for social interaction. These considerations should be an integral part of deliberations on site and engineering standards.

Zoning Standards & Building Codes  Zoning Standards and Building Codes can have significant affect on housing affordability.  They can also act as a barrier to achieving designated densities or have unintentional impacts on community design and character.  Inflexible standards may inhibit innovative housing types and design.  The housing element process is an opportunity to establish clear community housing and design goals and to ensure that zoning and building standards are consistent with those goals.

Resources:

HUD Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse publishes a bimonthly Newsletter Breakthroughs. You can subscribe by sending an e-mail to rbc@huduser.org and type: "Subscribe" in the subject of your message. Breakthroughs contains successful, interesting strategies for overcoming regulatory barriers to affordable housing. Many of these strategies have been drawn from actual submissions sent in by Clearinghouse participants. Volume 7, No 2 (the most recent issue) contains an article on Parking Regulations and Housing Affordability and Incentive Zoning.
An archive of articles can be found at:
http://www.huduser.org/rbc/newsletter/index.html

Smart Codes in Your Community: A Guide to Building Rehabilitation Codes, provides a broad overview of the general regulatory environment governing the use and reuse of existing buildings. It also provides examples of state and local efforts to reduce regulatory complexity and suggests possible strategies to help spur reinvestment in the existing building infrastructure. To download, go to:
http://www.huduser.org/intercept.asp?loc=/Publications/pdf/smartcodes.pdf