Long Beach, California
Wednesday, October 15, 2008; 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm

Presiding:
LeFrancis Arnold, Chair
Sandy Kaplan, Vice Chair
Randall Traw, Vice Chair
Steve White, Committee Liaison

C.A.R. Staff:
Dave Milton
Matthew Roberts

I. Opening Comments

II. Introduction of 2009 Committee Leadership

Chair- Steve White
Vice Chair- Cas Pinkowski
Vice Chair- Georgia Richardson
Committee Liaison- Le Francis Arnold

III. State Legislation

A. C.A.R-Sponsored Bill

AB 1366 (Portantino) Regional Housing Decisions and Annual Housing Element Report- This bill will strengthen the annual housing element reporting process that governs local housing actions and provide a reporting structure that will help local governments’ to focus on the regional impact of their housing decisions. HCD is promulgating a form that is currently available on a voluntary basis until it is fully approved. The form is intended to facilitate submission of the housing element portion of the annual general plan status report. AB 1366 will create an incentive program to encourage timely filing of the annual report by conditioning the receipt of funding from the CalHome, BEGIN, and the Infill Incentive Grant programs on both the adoption of an HCD - approved housing element and submittal of the annual progress report to HCD within the previous 12 months. AB 1366 encourages local agencies to include more specific planning descriptions designed to meet the localities' share of its regional housing need and help identify those jurisdictions that meet or exceed regional housing goals. It has a delayed effective date tied to the first April 1 reporting date following final approval of the HCD Form for the annual progress report.
Status: Enrolled to the Governor

B. Bills of Interest

AB 239 (DeSaulnier) Recording Fees- Contra Costa and San Mateo Counties- Originally a re-introduction of SB 521 from 2006, AB 239 would have authorized Contra Costa County to impose a document recording fee surcharge of $1 per page (not including the first page) on the recordation of real estate-related documents. C.A.R. opposed AB 239 because it imposed a document recording fee without exempting documents already subject to the documentary transfer tax and because the funds generated by the document recording fee would have been used for purposes which bear no relation to document recording. In April 2008, due primarily to C.A.R. opposition, AB 239 was "gutted and amended" to address a non real estate-related matter.
Position and Status: Dropped

AB 1875 (Huff) Mitigation of Residential Care Facilities Over-concentration- Current law requires new residential care facilities to submit an application with the Director of Social Services. It will be denied if the director finds that there is an "overconcentration" of residential care facilities in the area, which is defined as when the new facility is located within 300 feet of an existing facility. However, the director may obtain local government’s approval to allow placement of a new facility inside the 300 foot limitation. AB 1875 would have changed the definition of "overconcentration" to be1, 000 feet or less.
Position: Favor Status: Died in Assembly Human Services Committee

AB 2069 (Jones) Clarification of "No Net Loss" Zoning Law-This bill clarifies the definition of "lower residential density" under the no-net-loss zoning law, providing more specificity as to what conditions trigger application of the law. According to the author's office, "No-net-loss zoning law is plainly intended to protect residentially zoned sites from being used for non-housing uses, if they are still needed to meet a city or county's housing demand. The current no-net-loss statute contains an ambiguity. By its terms, it is generally triggered by an action of the local government to reduce the residential density of the site. However in the case of a double-zoned site, it is not clear that approval of a commercial use that is consistent with the site's commercial zoning is a reduction in residential density that would trigger the protections of no-net-loss zoning law.” To remove any ambiguity and to ensure consistent application of no-net-loss zoning law, this bill clarifies that the law also covers double-zoned sites. It will help ensure that local governments do not use double-zoning as a means of avoiding their obligation to make land available for higher-density, affordable housing."
Position: Favor Status: Enrolled to the Governor

AB 2280 (Saldana) Density Bonus Law Reform- Existing law, established by C.A.R.-sponsored SB 1818 of 2004, codifies the minimum densities used for determining if localities have identified sufficient sites to meet their fair share of regional housing needs. The League of Cities sponsored AB 2280 to provide “greater clarity and better balance between the number of affordable housing units the community receives and what the developer gets in terms of concessions, incentives, and waivers.” As introduced, this bill would have increased the number of units that must be built for very low-, low- and moderate- income housing by 10% across the board in order for housing developers to receive a density bonus. It also proposed to require that seniors housing be 100% seniors to receive the applicable density bonus, and resale provisions were made more restrictive. C.A.R. opposed these portions of the bill that effectively eviscerated the work done by C.A.R. in 2004. Primarily due to C.A.R. opposition, the author removed all of the language modifying SB 1818’s 2004 provisions and returned the language to current law status, thus eliminating C.A.R.’s opposition.
Position: Watch Status: Enrolled to the Governor

AB 2451 (Davis) Workforce Housing- This bill identifies the growing disparity between the amounts earned by low-wage and moderate-wage workers and the amounts necessary to purchase or rent a dwelling in many areas within the state. Additionally, AB 2451 defines the term "workforce housing" to include those families who earn too much to qualify for affordable housing subsidies, but not enough to purchase or rent a dwelling in today's housing market.
Position: Watch Status: Died in Committee without a Hearing

AB 2594 (Mullin) Using Redevelopment Funds to Boost Affordable Housing- This bill will provide redevelopment agencies with the authority to utilize some of their funds to assist local low or moderate income homeowners to get out from under sub-prime loan difficulties they are experiencing, and facilitate the purchase of vacant foreclosed homes by low- or moderate-income families. The provisions of this bill would sunset January 1, 2013. C.A.R. supported AB 2594 because any step taken to remove foreclosed homes from the marketplace is a step towards re-invigorating local home ownership opportunities.
Position: Support Status: Enrolled to the Governor

AB 2604 (Torrico) Developer Fees Postponement- AB 2604 delays the collection of local government impact fees from housing developers until occupancy permits are issued, or the close of escrow, whichever occurs later. This bill will sunset on January 1, 2012. C.A.R. favored AB 2604 because it will help encourage the construction of new affordable housing.
Position: Favor Status: Signed by the Governor on August 1, 2008 (Chapter 246, Statutes of 2008)

AB 2863 (Leno) Independent Solar Energy Producers and Residential Installations- This bill proposes to regulate the relationship between homeowners and the solar generation companies that place solar systems on their property under long term maintenance and energy discount arrangements. C.A.R. initially opposed AB 2863 because it would have required an ambiguous disclosure to the buyer of electricity and the lessee of a generation system. C.A.R. worked with the author and sponsor to modify and standardize any recordation requirement and to clarify that attachment of solar equipment is like a fixture. As amended, AB 2863 requires specific disclosure language in the contracts for the systems, clarification that the maintenance contracts are between the original purchaser and the solar company unless the subsequent purchaser expressly agrees to continue with the contract, and recordation of these contracts in order to provide public notice of their existence. With these amendments, C.A.R. removed its opposition.
Position: Watch as amended Status: Enrolled to the Governor

IV. State Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) Search for Permanent Source(s) of Funding for Affordable Housing- An Update

Between February and June of this year, HCD conducted public hearings around the State in Chico, Fresno, Los Angeles, Oakland, Orange County, Riverside, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Sunnyvale seeking input from businesses, education consultants, environmental representatives and housing advocates (including local C.A.R. representatives), as to what recommendations they had for potential permanent affordable housing funding sources. These recommendations will be discussed later this year by a HCD-hosted Forum on Permanent Affordable Housing Funding Sources. This Forum will consist of 5 “Stakeholder” groups identified by HCD as crucial to the department’s final recommendations: C.A.R., the California Building Industries Association (CBIA), the California Chamber of Commerce, the League of Cities, and California State Association of Counties (CSAC). (The Attachments for Agenda Item IV are in PDF format and must be downloaded separately in the cover memo.  Attachments are the HCD- Stakeholder Recommendations from the regional permanent source meetings and the C.A.R. letter to HCD regarding C.A.R.’s position on the recommendations.)

V. Should there be state legislation preempting local vacant property registration ordinances to ensure consistent application of such ordinances statewide? - A discussion*

As the number of foreclosed properties has grown, local governments have become increasingly concerned about the upkeep of abandoned properties. Many have adopted new ordinances making banks that have taken back ownership of such properties responsible for maintaining the properties to specified standards. The Legislative Committee will be discussing this issue during its meeting to ultimately decide whether to recommend that C.A.R. should sponsor state legislation standardizing such ordinances.

VI. Federal Issues

A. H.R. 3221- “Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008”*
In response to the recent housing crisis, credit crunch and weakening economy, Congress passed and the President signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 in July. The purpose of this legislation is to stabilize the housing market and prevent a full economic recession.

B. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Federal Take-over*
Now that the Treasury has placed both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under conservatorship, Congress needs to begin the discussion of what the long term mission and role for the government sponsored enterprises (GSE’s) should be. When Congress meets again for their 111th Session, Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd will discuss and are likely to introduce legislation to address the future structure of the GSE’s.

C. Seller-Funded Down Payment Assistance Programs- An Update*
When Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) in July, it included a provision that will prevent the FHA from insuring mortgages utilizing seller-funded down payment assistance programs (DPAs) beginning on October 1, 2008.

D. Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
On September 18, 2008, the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Board, and Congressional Leaders from both parties announced the government was officially stepping in to bail out the financial industry as it sat upon the edge of collapsing.  Being termed as the “nuclear” option, these actions are unprecedented and rival that of those taken during the Great Depression.  (Please see IBP for further information)


VII. Other Business

VIII. Adjournment

* An Issues Briefing Paper will be included in the meeting material on each of these Agenda Items.