Step 3: NEW Reliance on nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA…

Determine if more than 50 percent of the lower income RHNA is on nonvacant sites.

• Calculate the sum of lower income RHNA capacity on vacant sites and other alternatives not related to capacity on nonvacant sites (e.g., accessory dwelling units, vacant sites to be rezoned (see Part E)).

• Subtract that sum from the total lower income RHNA to get the amount of RHNA needed to be accommodated on nonvacant sites.

• Determine if this number is greater than 50 percent of the RHNA.

Example calculation for a jurisdiction with a lower income RHNA of 500:

If Yes: Move to Step 3A

If No: Move to Step 4

Site Inventory Guidebook

Page 26

May 2020

Step 3A: If a housing element relies on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of its RHNA for lower income households, the nonvacant site’s existing use is presumed to impede additional residential development, unless the housing element describes findings based on substantial evidence that the use will likely be discontinued during the planning period. The housing element must include the following:

• As part of the resolution adopting the housing elements, findings stating the uses on nonvacant sites identified in the inventory to accommodate the RHNA for lower income is likely to be discontinued during the planning period and the factors used to make that determination. This can be included in the body or in the recital section of the resolution.

Example: WHEREAS, based on <name factors here (e.g., expiring leases, dilapidated building conditions, etc.)>, the existing uses on the sites identified in the site inventory to accommodate the lower income RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period, and therefore do not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element.

• The housing element should describe the findings and include a description of the substantial evidence they are based on.

In general, substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. An example of substantial evidence would be a nonvacant site with a grocery store and with a building lease expiring in a year, and evidence that the store has entered into a lease to relocate to another site subsequent to the lease expiring.

Examples of substantial evidence that an existing use will likely be discontinued in the current planning period include, but are not limited to:

• The lease for the existing use expires early within the planning period,

• The building is dilapidated, and the structure is likely to be removed, or a demolition permit has been issued for the existing uses,

• There is a development agreement that exists to develop the site within the planning period,

• The entity operating the existing use has agreed to move to another location early enough within the planning period to allow residential development within the planning period.

• The property owner provides a letter stating its intention to develop the property with residences during the planning period.

If multiple sites make up a common existing use and the same factors affect each of the sites, the same findings can be used for each of the sites (e.g., an abandoned shopping mall with sites under common ownership that will not be restored to commercial use located in an area where there is recent residential development). The “substantial evidence” would indicate the existing use will not impede further residential development or that the existing use will be discontinued during the planning period. In this type of situation, use of the same findings for each of the multiple sites would be appropriate.

Site Inventory Guidebook

Page 27

May 2020

However, the same finding for multiple sites in a specific area may not be appropriate if their characteristics widely vary. For example, nonvacant sites with differing existing uses and lacking in common ownership, whether contiguous or located in the same general area, may not rely on a generalized analysis. While the sites may be located in an area with common economic issues, individual owners may not wish to sell their property or redevelop their site with residential uses. In addition, each site’s existing use, e.g., grocery store, retail shop, parking lot, and offices, may have lease agreements of different lengths of time or the owner may not wish to relocate or redevelop the site with a more intensive residential use. In this type of situation, use of the same findings for the multiple sites would not be appropriate.