POLICY BRIEFMAY 2021 UPDATE

An analysis of city and county compliance with California AB 1483 and recommendations to improve the transparency of development fees

IN CONSULTATION WITH TERNER CENTER

How Much Does It Cost to Permit a House?

Acknowledgements

Author: Hannah SchwartzIn Consultation With: The Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley

Special thanks to David Garcia, Terner Center Policy Director, for his deep partnership in this work from the beginning, and to Elizabeth Kneebone, Terner Center Research Director; Michael Lane, SPUR State Policy Director; and Nicholas Josefowitz, SPUR Chief of Policy, for their ongoing engagement in this work from the beginning and without whom this paper would not have been possible. Thanks also to Todd David, Oz Erickson, Jonathan Fearn, Pedro Galvao, Nevada Merriman, Gregg Miller, Mary Murphy, Andrea Osgood, Ken Rich, and Elizabeth Watty for their wisdom, insight and feedback.

Contents

Introduction 4

Background 5

Methodology 7

AB1483Compliance 7

Recommendations 10

Conclusion 12

AppendixofCities 13

DEVELOPMENTFEES 4

IntroductionCaliforniaisinthemidstofanenduringhousingaffordabilitycrisisthatisrootedinalackofhousingsupplyand

perpetuatedbythehighcostsofdevelopment.Thispaperfocusesononeobstacleinthedevelopmentprocess

thatcancontributetothesesteepcostsandhamperoverallhousingproduction:thelackoftransparencyaround

developmentfeesandrequirementsatthelocallevel.ThislackoftransparencyledtothepassageofAssembly

Bill1483in2019.AB1483(Grayson)putinplaceseveralfeetransparencymeasures,suchasrequiringthatlocal

policiesaroundfees,housingaffordabilityrequirementsandzoningbeclearlypostedonline.Insurveyinglocal

progresstowardmeetingtherequirementsofAB1483,SPURnotedawidespreadlackofcompliancewith

theprovisionsofthebill.Forinstance,lessthanhalfofthejurisdictionsexaminedappearedtopostallofthe

feesapplicabletonewhousingdevelopmentontheirwebsites.Basedonthisanalysis,SPURproposesasetof

recommendationstoimprovethetransparencyofresidentialdevelopmentfeesandrequirementsacrossthe

state.

PhotobySergioRuiz

BackgroundAnumberoflocalpolicydecisionscanincreasethecostsofhousingdevelopmentandultimatelyimpactthe

typeandamountofhousingproduced.Thesepolicydecisionsincludezoningdesignations,buildingcode

requirementsandotherlanduseregulations,aswellasthelengthandcomplexityofprojectapprovalprocesses.

Additionally,theamountsthatjurisdictionschargeinfeesandexactions(i.e.,contributionstothecommunity

thatlocalgovernmentsrequireofdevelopers)canincreaseprojectcosts,resultinginlesshousingproduction

andhigherhousingprices.Theprimaryexampleofsuchfeesisthedevelopmentimpactfee,whichcanbelevied

byvariousentitieswithinajurisdiction(e.g.,schooldistricts,utilitydistrictsandspecialdistricts).Development

impactfeesimposedbycitiesareintendedtopayfortheproject’simpactonpublicinfrastructure,suchas

parks,utilities,androads.Otherfeesandexactionscanalsobelevied,includingadministrativefeesthatcover

costsincurredbycitydepartmentsforprocessingandapprovingpermitsandapprovals.Whilethesumofthe

totalfeesandexactionschargedbylocalgovernmentcanvarysignificantlyacrossjurisdictions,theyoften

amounttobetween6%and18%oftotalconstructioncosts.1SPUR’srecentlypublishedreportMeeting the

NeedrecommendsthattheCaliforniaDepartmentofHousingandCommunityDevelopment(HCD)developa

mechanismtocapfeesinjurisdictionswherethetotalfeeburdenisundermininghousingproduction.2

Developmentfeesandrequirementsareoftencriticaltoensuringthatajurisdictioncanadequately

accommodatenewgrowth.However,existingresearchpointstotheneedforstateregulationinthisarea

toensurethatfeesarejustifiedandthatthetotalfeeburdendoesn’timpedenewhousingdevelopment.3

Specifically,feetransparencyiskeytoensuringthathomebuilderscaneasilyaccessfeeinformationandthat

theycanaccuratelycalculatethecostofbuildinghousinginanygivenjurisdiction.TheTernerCenter’s2019

studyResidential Impact Fees in Californiafoundthatimpactfeesareoftenhardtolocateoncitywebsitesor

aremissingaltogether.Additionally,nexusstudies(seefigure1),whichjustifyimpactfeeamounts,canalsobe

challengingtofind,missingoroutdated.4

Specialdistricts—Californiahasover5,000—complicatethepicturefurtherbylevyingtheirownfeeson

developmentprojects.Despitethecomplexityofthesefees,andthelackofconformityacrossthestate,most

jurisdictionsprovidenoguidelinesforcalculatingfeesorestimatingthetotalfeeamountforanygivenproject.

Thelackoffeetransparencyandnecessaryguidance,particularlyattheoutsetofaproject,resultsin

unforeseenprojectcosts,whichincreasesrisksfordevelopersandcanresultinprojectdelays,potentially

causingfewerhomestobebuilt.Italsocreatesbarriersforsmallerandnewercommunity-leddevelopers,

whohaveneithertheexperience,relationshipsorcapitaltowadethroughtheuncertainty,effectivelylimiting

thesupplyofsmallerprojects.Themurkynatureoffeesandrequirementsacrossjurisdictionsalsoresultsin

inadequatedataonthetruecostsofproducinghousinginCalifornia,whichconfoundsourabilitytomake

progressonhousingaffordabilityoverall.5

1 SarahMawhorter,DavidGarciaandHayleyRaetz,ItAllAddsUp:TheCostofHousingDevelopmentFeesinSevenCaliforniaCities,TernerCenterforHousingInnovation,March

2018,https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/it-all-adds-up-development-fees

2 SarahKarlinsky,MeetingtheNeed:ThePathto2.2MillionNewHomesintheBayAreaby2070,SPUR,https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/SPUR_Meeting_the_

Need.pdf

3 Feeamount(inadditiontofeetransparency)isalsoanissuethatshouldbeaddressedwithstateregulation.Seemoreat:https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/

SPUR_Meeting_the_Need.pdf

4 HayleyRaetzetal.,Residential Impact Fees in California,TernerCenterforHousingInnovation,August2019,https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/

Residential_Impact_Fees_in_California_August_2019.pdf

5 Thereareongoingeffortstoimprovetheavailabilityofdataatthelocalandstatelevels,includingSB477(Weiner),which,ifpassed,wouldrequirejurisdictionstoreportthe

informationmandatedfromAB1483intheirAnnualProgressReportstotheHCD.

ROOFTOPSOLAR 5

DEVELOPMENT FEES 6

ToaddressthelackoffeetransparencyacrossCalifornia,AssemblymemberTimGraysonintroducedAB1483

in2019.6Thelegislationrequirescities,countiesandspecialdistrictstomakehousingdevelopmentinformation

accessibletothepublicontheirwebsites.Suchinformationincludesthefeeschedule,impactfeenexusstudies,

zoningordinances,developmentanddesignstandards,andseveralexactions,includingconstructionexcise

taxes,7publicartrequirementsorin-lieupayments,Mello-Roostaxes,8andmandateddedicationstoparklandor

otherin-lieufees.(Formoreontheserequirements,seefigure1.)AB1483alsorequiresHCDtodevelopa10-year

housingdatastrategythatincludesanevaluationofdatapriorities,aplanforhowtoachievemoreconsistent

terminologyforhousingdataacrossthestate,anassessmentofthequalityofdatasubmittedbyjurisdictions’

annualreports,andrecommendationsbasedonthatassessment.Thislegislationrepresentsanimportantstep

towardmandatingabaselineleveloffeetransparencyacrossalljurisdictionsinthestate.Toevaluatetheimpact

ofAB1483andassessfeetransparencymorebroadly,SPUR,inconsultationwiththeTernerCenter,analyzeda

selectionofjurisdictionsacrossthestateandconductedstakeholderinterviews.

FIGURE 1

AB 1483’s Transparency RequirementsAB1483 requires cities, counties and special districts to

make the following housing development information

accessible to the public on their websites.

AB 1483 requirement What it is

Fee schedule

A fee schedule is a list of a jurisdiction’s fees that may be levied for a variety of purposes. Jurisdictions vary significantly in how they structure their fee schedules; some have a master fee schedule that includes all fees across departments, while others have department-specific fee schedules. AB 1483 requires that each jurisdiction post all fees applicable to housing development.

Impact fee nexus studies

Impact fee nexus studies are required by the Mitigation Fee Act (first passed in 1987) to explain the connection (or “nexus”) between a proposed development and the alleged impact it will have on a jurisdiction’s infrastructure and services, thereby justifying the impact fee amounts. AB 1483 requires jurisdictions to post “an archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies, or equivalent.”

Affordability requirements

Affordability requirements mandate that developments include a specified percentage of the units as affordable units or provide “an alternative means of compliance with that requirement including, but not limited to, in-lieu fees, land dedication, off-site construction, or acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units.”9

Zoning ordinances

Zoning ordinances define the types of developments, such as residential or commercial, that can be built in geographic zones throughout a jurisdiction. Zoning ordinances often specify other regulations, such as parcel size and density. AB 1483 requires jurisdictions to post all zoning ordinances that specify the zoning requirements for each parcel.

Development and design standards

Development standards, otherwise known as design standards, specify requirements such as the dis-tance between a proposed development and other buildings (the “setback”) and certain aspects of the architectural design. AB 1483 requires jurisdictions to post all development standards that apply to each parcel.

Dedications to parkland or in-lieu feesDedications to parkland or in-lieu fees require developers to dedicate a specified amount of land for public open space or pay an in-lieu fee that the jurisdiction will use to acquire land or develop park facili-ties. To comply with AB 1483, jurisdictions must make this requirement available on their websites.

6 CaliforniaLegislature,AssemblyBillNo.1483,https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1483

7 Aconstructionexcisetaxisataximposedonallbuildingpermitapplicationsfornewconstructionandadditionstoexistingstructures.Constructionexcisetaxesareoftensetat

auniformrateandbasedontheaveragevaluationpersquarefootforeachtypeofconstruction.

8 AMello-RoostaxisaparceltaximposedonpropertyownerswithinaspecialtypeofCommunityFacilitiesDistrictknownasaMello-RoosDistrict.Thenameisderivedfromthe

co-authorsofthebillthatenabledthecreationofMello-RoosDistricts,StateSenatorHenryJ.Mello(D-Watsonville)andAssemblypersonMikeRoos(D-LosAngeles).

9 CaliforniaLegislature,AssemblyBillNo.1483,https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1483

DEVELOPMENT FEES 7

MethodologyToanalyzetheimpactofAB1483,SPURsurveyedthewebsitesof60jurisdictions(50citiesand10counties)and

evaluatedtheaccessibilityoftherequiredinformationanddocuments.10The60jurisdictionswereselectedto

ensureadiversityofsizeandgeography.

ThisanalysisexaminedlocalcompliancewithrequirementsimposedbyAB1483thatarebroadlyapplicable

tocitiesandcountiesacrossthestate:feeschedules,anarchiveofimpactfeenexusstudies,affordability

requirements,zoningordinances,developmentanddesignstandards,anddedicationstoparklandorin-lieufees.

ItdidnotexaminecompliancewithsomeAB1483requirements,suchaspublicartrequirements,construction

excisetaxes,andMello-Roostaxes,asitwasoftendifficulttodeterminewhethertheseweremissingfroma

jurisdiction’swebsiteornotapplicabletothatjurisdiction.

Tobetterunderstandtheexperienceofnavigatingthisstageofthedevelopmentprocessandassessingfees,

SPURspokewithlocalgovernmentstaff,housingdevelopers,landuselawexpertsandotherstakeholders.

AB 1483 ComplianceInasurveyof60jurisdictions,SPURfoundthatmanyjurisdictionshaveyettocomeintocompliancewith

AB1483,astheirwebsitesoftenhaveincompleteorunreliableinformationregardingdevelopmentfeesand

requirements.Assessingthefullsuiteofapplicablefeesforanygivenhousingproject,letalonecalculatingthose

feeswithanydegreeofaccuracy,remainschallenging.

However,severaljurisdictionsaremakingstridestoimprovethetransparencyoftheirfeesanddevelopment

requirementsthroughimprovedonlinetoolsandresources.Theseimprovementsprovideexamplesofbest

practicesthatcouldbeadoptedacrossthestate,asdiscussedintheRecommendationssection.SPUR’sfindings,

brokendownbyAB1483requirement,aredescribedbelow.

Key to Graphs:N/A: Thisjurisdictiondoesnothavethefeeorrequirement.

Unknown:Itisunknownwhetherthisinformationismissingornotapplicable.(Thislabelonlyappliesto

affordabilityrequirementsanddedicationstoparkland.)

Missing:Thisrequirementisapplicabletothejurisdiction,butitisnotavailableonline.

Challenging to locate online:Therequiredinformationisonlinebutinalocationthatischallengingtofind,such

asinaresolutionwithincitycouncilmeetingmaterials.

Outdated: Therequiredinformationisoutdated.

Outdated or incomplete: Therequiredinformationisoutdatedand/ordoesnotappeartobecomplete.(This

labelonlyappliestofeeschedules,asthatwastheonlyrequirementwhereSPURrecordedcompleteness.)

Straightforward to locate: Therequiredinformationispostedonthejurisdiction’swebsiteinalocationwhereit

10 Seeappendixforlistofjurisdictions.

DEVELOPMENT FEES 8

isaccessible,suchastheplanningorbuildingdepartmentlandingpage.

Straightforward to locate and complete: Inadditiontobeingaccessible,therequiredinformationappearstobe

comprehensive.(Thislabelonlyappliestofeeschedules,asthatwastheonlyrequirementwhereSPURrecorded

completeness.)

Comprehensive fee sched-ules were available on less than half of websites.Jurisdictionsdifferedsignificantlyinhowthey

structuredtheirfeeschedulesandinwhatinformation

theyprovidedintheirfeeschedules.Justunderhalf

ofthesurveyedjurisdictionspostedonescheduleor

multiplefeeschedulesthatappearedtoincludethefull

suiteoffees.Another39%ofthejurisdictionsdisplayed

feescheduleinformationthatwasincompleteand/or

outdated.Forexample,itwascommonforawebsitetoprovideapermitfeeschedulebuthavenoinformation

regardingimpactfees.

Consequently,whilethemajorityofcitieshadadevelopmentfeeschedule(ormultiplefeeschedules),it

oftendidnotcoverallofthejurisdiction’sapplicablefees.Forexample,afeeschedulemightnotincludefees

chargedacrossalldepartments,leadingtoinaccurateestimatesofwhatdeveloperswillultimatelyowe.Inour

interviews,developerscitedthelackofconsistencyamongfeeschedulesasafactorthatleadstoconfusionand

notedthatitisrarelypossibletoarriveatafeeestimatebasedontheinformationavailableonline.Calculating

feeswithaccuracyoftenrequiresthedevelopertohavesignificantexperienceworkinginthejurisdiction,and

eventhen,runningintounanticipatedfeesiscommon.

Over three-quarters of jurisdictions reviewed did not have nexus studies available as required by AB 1483.TheMitigationFeeActrequiresnexusstudiesinorder

toquantifytherelationshipbetweennewdevelopment

anditsimpactonpublicinfrastructureandservices.

Withoutaccesstonexusstudies,itisunclearhow

impactfeeshavebeencalculatedandwhetherthe

feesarejustified.AB1483mandatesthatjurisdictions’

websitesinclude“anarchiveofimpactfeenexus

studies,costofservicestudies,orequivalent,asspecified.”Only18.7%ofthesurveyedwebsitespostednexus

studies.Onlytwocities,TurlockandCampbell,appearedtopostanarchiveofnexusstudies,asrequired.

Fee Schedule Breakdown

Nexus Fee Studies Breakdown

DEVELOPMENT FEES 9

Approximately one-quarter of jurisdictions posted their affordability requirements in an accessible location. Manyjurisdictionsdonothaveaffordability

requirements,andwithoutconfirmationfrom

planningstaff,itwaschallengingtoassesswhether

thisinformationwasmissingornotapplicabletoa

jurisdiction.InSPUR’ssurvey,42.4%ofjurisdictions

hadaffordabilityrequirementsontheirwebsites

(27.1%easilyaccessible,15.3%difficulttofind).For

another23.7%,itwasunclearwhethertherequirementsweremissingornotapplicable.In3.4%ofcases,

therequirementsweremissing,and30.5%ofjurisdictionsconfirmedthattheydonothaveaffordability

requirements.

Zoning ordinances were widely available across jurisdictions’ websites.Thevastmajorityofjurisdictions—91.5%—posted

zoningordinancesinaneasilyaccessiblelocation,

typicallywithintheirmunicipalcode,whichwasoften

linkedonamainplanningdepartment(orsimilar

department)webpage.Theaccessibilityofthis

informationisimportantbecauseitenablesthepublic

toassesswhattypesofdevelopmentcanbebuilt

throughoutthejurisdiction.

Development and design standards were available on just over 80% of websites but were often challenging to locate.Designstandardswererelativelyaccessible.Theywere

straightforwardtolocatefor55.9%ofjurisdictions.

Another27.1%postedthestandardsonline,butlocating

themoftenmeantsiftingthroughspecificplans,master

Affordability Requirements Breakdown

Zoning Ordinances Breakdown

Development/Design Standards Breakdown

DEVELOPMENT FEES 10

plansorthemunicipalcode.Ensuringthatdeveloperscanaccessthefulldesignstandardsisimportantbecause

thesestandardscanincursignificantadditionalcostsiftheyarenotaccountedforintheoriginalplan.

Approximately one-quarter of jurisdictions posted information about parkland dedication requirements in an accessible location.Dedicationstoparklandorin-lieufeesweresometimes,

butnotalways,includedonfeeschedulesandwere

oftendifficulttodistinguishfromothertypesofpark

fees.Aswithaffordabilityrequirements,itwasoften

challengingtoassesswhethertheserequirementswere

notapplicableorweremissing,withnearlyone-thirdofjurisdictionsfallingintothe“unknown”category.

RecommendationsBasedonthewebsiteanalysisandstakeholderinterviews,SPURrecommendsthefollowingbestpracticesto

furtherimprovethetransparencyofdevelopmentfees.

1 City and county websites should clearly direct users to landing pages where the information required

under AB 1483 is readily visible. Acrossthe60jurisdictionssurveyed,twocitieshadlandingpagesthat

containedtheinformationmandatedunderAB1483:SanJuanCapistranoandCampbell.Athirdcityhada

landingpagethatappearedtobeunderdevelopmentanddidnotincludemuchoftheinformationmandated

underAB1483.Adedicatedlandingpagecontainingtheinformationdevelopersneedinordertosubmita

housingdevelopmentproposal,includingtheinformationmandatedbyAB1483,isonewaytoensurethat

criticalinformationislocatedinanaccessiblelocation.Alandingpagewouldcreatetransparencyand

significantlyreduceuncertainty,spurringnewaffordableandmarket-ratehousingconstruction.Suchlanding

pagescouldalsobeexpandedtoincludealloftheinformation,beyondfees,thatgoesintodeterminingwhat

housingcanbebuiltinajurisdictionandwhatfeesandrequirementsareimposedonnewhomes.Jurisdictions

shouldincludealinktothislandingpageintheirHousingElementAnnualProgressReportstoHCD,whichHCD

couldthenusetoassesscomplianceannually.11

11 IfSB477passes,thenjurisdictionswillberequiredtoreporttheinformationmandatedunderAB1483intheirAnnualProgressReports.Alandingpagewouldstreamlinethis

process.

Dedications of Parkland or In-lieu Fees Breakdown

DEVELOPMENT FEES 11

2 HCD should develop a fee schedule template for all jurisdictions to utilize, as part of the 10-year

housing data strategy required by AB 1483. Whilejurisdictionsdifferinhowtheycalculatefeesandwhat

feestheycharge,abaselineforconsistencyinthewaythesefeesaredisplayedwouldallowthepublictoeasily

understandwhatfeeseachjurisdictionislevyingonhousingdevelopments.HCDshoulddevelopastandard

templateandalistofbestpracticesaroundpresentinginformationforallfeesandexactionsleviedbya

jurisdiction.Thetemplatecouldbeassimpleasalistofallfeeswiththeapproximatecostperunitorpersquare

foot,thedistricts/neighborhoodswhereeachfeeapplies,theusesthatthefeeappliestoandwhoshouldbe

contactedinordertocalculatetotalfees.Thetemplateshouldnotreplacemoreinnovativefeetools(suchasa

publiclyavailabletoolforcalculatingtotalprojectfees)butrathersupplementtheseapproaches.Theprimary

objectiveofthetemplateshouldbetoclearlyindicateallofthepotentialfeesthatdeveloperscouldencounter

whenconstructinghousinginthejurisdiction,includingfeesassociatedwithspecialdistricts,affordability

requirementsandparklanddedicationsorin-lieufees.

3 Jurisdictions should be required to provide a publicly available tool for calculating total project fees.

Ascities,countiesandspecialdistrictsdiffersignificantlyinhowtheylevyfeesonhousingdevelopments,

providingguidanceonhowtocalculatethefeestack(thecombinedcostofallfees)foranygivenprojectis

oftennecessaryinorderfordeveloperstoarriveatanaccuratefeeestimate.12Jurisdictionswithsimplefee

structurescouldprovideafeeestimatebybuildingtype—forexample,atotalfeeestimateforduplexes.

Jurisdictionswithmorecomplexfeestructurescouldofferafillableworksheetorcalculatorinwhichdevelopers

couldinputthespecificsoftheprojectandreceiveasummaryofthefeestack.Forexample,TheCityofTurlock

providesafillableworksheet,andtheCityofBerkeley’spermitcalculatorshowsoneexampleofacalculator

format(althoughitonlycomputespermitfees,nottotalfees).13SanFranciscoisintheprocessofdevelopinga

robustimpactfeecalculator,whichcouldserveasamodelforotherlargejurisdictions.14Forsmaller

jurisdictions,HCDshouldconsiderdevelopingafeeestimatecalculatorthatcouldbeeasilyandwidelyadopted.

4 The total fee estimate should be provided or confirmed on the day the application, not the project, is

deemed complete. SPUR’sinterviewsfoundthatunexpectedfeesorunexpectedfeeincreaseslateinthe

developmentprocessareacommonchallenge.Currently,thetimingoffeesvariesdependingonboththe

jurisdiction’sdevelopmentprocessandthetypeoffee.15Policymakersshouldconsiderrequiringjurisdictionsto

provideatotalfeeestimatealongwiththeformalletteracknowledgingthatanapplicationhasbeendeemed

complete.ThiswouldcomplementtheprovisionunderSB330(Skinner,2019)thatlimitsjurisdictions’abilityto

increasefeesonceanapplicationisdeemedcomplete.

Jurisdictionsthatrelyonacost-recoverymethodtocovertheiradministrativecostsshouldprovidefee

estimatesforcost-recoveryfeesbasedontheaveragesofthosefeesfromsimilarprojects.

Inaddition,lawmakerscouldrequirejurisdictionstoprovideapreliminaryfeeestimateaspartofthepre-

applicationprocess,helpingdevelopersballparkthetotalfeesthatwouldneedtobepaidandreducingtherisk

thatanunknownfeesurfaceslaterinthedevelopmentprocess.

12 Raetzetal.Seenote4.

13 CityofTurlock,“DevelopmentFeeEstimate,”https://ci.turlock.ca.us/buildinginturlock/developmentfeeestimate/;andCityofBerkeley,“BuildingPermitFeeEstimator,”https://

www.cityofberkeley.info/permitfeeEstimator.aspx

14 SanFranciscoPlanning,“ImpactFeeCalculator,”https://sfcpc.github.io/ifc/

15 Raetzetal.Seenote4.

DEVELOPMENT FEES 12

5 The state should hold local jurisdictions accountable for fee transparency. Thetremendousnumberof

citiesthathaveyettocomeintocompliancewithAB1483suggeststhatthestategovernmentshould

holdjurisdictionsaccountableforfeetransparencyinamoredirectway.Thatwouldmeanregularlyassessing

whethercities,countiesandspecialdistrictsareincompliancewithAB1483andbringingproceedingsagainst

jurisdictionsthatareoutofcompliance.

Inaddition,HCDcouldrequirecitiestohaveabaselineleveloffeetransparencyinordertoqualifyfora

ProhousingDesignation(whichmakescitiesmorecompetitiveforcertainstateaffordablehousing,

transportationandinfrastructuregrants).Alternatively,HCDortheStateLegislaturecouldrequirecitiestohave

abaselineleveloffeetransparencybeforethecities’housingelementsareconsideredcomplete.16Acitywithan

incompletehousingelementrisksstatesanctionandcouldlosetheabilitytodenycertainzoning-compliant

housingdevelopments.

ConclusionDevelopmentfeesandrequirementscanaddsignificantcoststonewhousingdevelopment.Thehiddenand

convolutednatureofthesefeescreatesuncertaintyintheprocess,thusdeterringwould-bedevelopersand

unnecessarilyescalatingprojectexpensesinastatewhereit’salreadyexpensivetobuild.Thisincreasedcostand

uncertaintythreatenstoreducetheproductionofbothmarket-rateandaffordablehousing.AB1483mandates

transparencyindevelopmentfeesacrossthestateandisacriticalstepforward;however,asignificantnumber

ofjurisdictionsarenotyetadheringtotheprovisionsofthebill.Makingdevelopmentfeesandrequirements

transparentandaccessibletothepublic,ineveryjurisdictionacrossthestate,isonemeaningfulsteptoward

solvingCalifornia’shousingaffordabilitycrisis.

16 Housingelementsareplansthatthestaterequireseachcityandcountytoprepare.Theyprovideananalysisofajurisdiction’shousingneedsforallincomelevelsandstrategies

toprovideforthosehousingneeds.Theyareakeypartofeachjurisdiction’sgeneralplan.

DEVELOPMENTFEES 13

SPURsurveyedthewebsitesofthefollowing60jurisdictions(50citiesand10counties)forthisreport,and

evaluatedtheaccessibilityoftheinformationanddocumentsrequiredbyAB1483.10The60jurisdictionswere

selectedtoensureadiversityofsizeandgeography.

1. Anaheim

2. Auburn

3. Bakersfield

4. Berkeley

5. Bishop

6. Calexico

7. Campbell

8. Clovis

9. Coronado

10. DanaPoint

11. Delano

12. ElCajon

13. Eureka

14. FosterCity

15. Fresno

16. Hemet

17. HumboldtCounty

18. Huron

19. LaPalma

20. Larkspur

21. Lathrop

22. Livermore

23. LosGatos

24. MammothLakes

25. Modesto

26. MonoCounty

27. Montebello

28. NationalCity

29. Newark

30. Newman

31. Oceanside

32. OrangeCounty

33. Oxnard

34. PalmSprings

35. Palmdale

36. PismoBeach

37. Redding

38. Riverside

39. Sacramento

40.SanBernardinoCounty

41. SanDiego

42. SanFrancisco

43. SanJoaquinCounty

44.SanJose

45. SanJuanCapistrano

46. SanLuisObispoCounty

47. SanMateoCounty

48. SantaAna

49. SantaBarbaraCounty

50. SantaClarita

51. SantaRosa

52. SolanoCounty

53. SonomaCounty

54. SouthLakeTahoe

55. SouthSanFrancisco

56. Stockton

57. Torrance

58. Turlock

59. Upland

60.YubaCity

Appendix

DEVELOPMENT FEES 14

San Francisco | San José | Oakland

Ideas + action for a better cityspur.org

Throughresearch,educationandadvocacy,SPURworkstocreateanequitable,sustainableandprosperousregion.

Weareamember-supportednonprofitorganization.Joinus.