Read on Twitter
New from CA's housing department: a spreadsheet that cities will have use to report estimates of their "capacity" for new housing under current & planned zoning, for upcoming planning cycle. There's good news ... and bad news. 1/n
The good news: cities that can't accommodate their share of "regional need" under current zoning must provide parcel identifiers & associated permissive density ranges *after planned rezoning,* as part of their housing element. 2/n
This matters b/c state law (HAA) says cities can't deny a 20% BMR project if its density is "consistent with the housing element," even if zoning is more restrictive. But that rule has no bite unless housing element states future densities for specific parcels. Now, it will. 3/n
In other words, even if city fails to carry out the rezoning promised in housing element, developers will still be able to develop sites to densities that city said the rezoning would allow. 4/n
Now, the bad news: form does not require reporting of sites' (estimated) likelihood of development during planning period. This factor is *essential* to any realistic assessment of plan's capacity to accommodate new housing during planning period. 5/n https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1276906004114898946
In theory, cities must still consider likelihood of development when assessing site's "realistic capacity" (the spreadsheet doesn't rescind the guidance cited in tweet 5/n) but its omission from the form is an invitation for cities to fudge it... 6/n
and this omission will also make it hard for academics or @California_HCD to test local governments' assumptions against outcomes down the road. 7/end @CamnerLeonora @Yimby_Law @anthonydedousis @kookie13 @elpaavo
