[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 55 (Monday, March 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13450-13454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-6341]



[[Page 13449]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part V





Department of Housing and Urban Development





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



America's Affordable Communities Initiative, HUD's Initiative on 
Removal of Regulatory Barriers: Announcement of Incentive Criteria on 
Barrier Removal in HUD's FY 2004 Competitive Funding Allocations; 
Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 55 / Monday, March 22, 2004 / 
Notices  

[[Page 13450]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4882-N-03]


America's Affordable Communities Initiative, HUD's Initiative on 
Removal of Regulatory Barriers: Announcement of Incentive Criteria on 
Barrier Removal in HUD's FY 2004 Competitive Funding Allocations

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Through this notice HUD announces its intention to proceed to 
establish in the majority of its Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 notices of 
funding availability (NOFAs), including HUD's SuperNOFA, a policy 
priority for increasing the supply of affordable housing through the 
removal of regulatory barriers to affordable housing as proposed in a 
notice published on November 25, 2003. In proceeding to implement this 
proposal, HUD took into consideration the public comments received on 
the November 25, 2003, notice and changes were made in response to 
public comment as more fully discussed in this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General 
Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of General Counsel, 
Room 10282, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone (202) 708-1793 (this 
is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments 
may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal 
Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 25, 2003 (68 FR 66294), HUD published in the Federal 
Register a notice that announced its proposal to provide incentives to 
regulatory barrier removal in HUD's funding allocations, commencing 
with FY2004 competitive funding process. HUD proposed in the November 
25, 2003, notice to establish in the majority of its FY2004 NOFAs, 
including HUD's SuperNOFA, a policy priority for increasing the supply 
of affordable housing through the removal of regulatory barriers.

Policies Restricting Affordable Housing

    HUD's proposal published on November 25, 2003, derives from HUD's 
continuing efforts to increase opportunities for affordable rental and 
homeownership housing, which is one of the highest priorities of the 
Department. Over the last 15 years, there has been increased 
recognition that unnecessary, duplicative, excessive or discriminatory 
public processes often significantly increase the cost of housing 
development and rehabilitation. Often referred to as ``regulatory 
barriers to affordable housing,'' many public statutes, ordinances, 
regulatory requirements, or processes and procedures significantly 
impede the development or availability of affordable housing without 
providing a commensurate or demonstrable health or safety benefit. 
``Affordable housing'' is decent quality housing that low-, moderate-, 
and middle-income families can afford to buy or rent without spending 
more than 30 percent of their income. Spending more than 30 percent of 
income on shelter may require families to sacrifice other necessities 
of life.
    Addressing these barriers to housing affordability is a necessary 
component of any overall national housing policy. However, addressing 
such barriers must be viewed as a complement, not a substitute for 
other efforts to meet affordable housing needs. For many families, 
federal, state and local subsidies are fundamental tools for meeting 
these affordable housing needs. In many instances, however, other 
sometimes well-intentioned public policies work at cross-purposes with 
subsidy programs by imposing significant constraints. From exclusionary 
zoning that keeps out affordable housing, especially multifamily 
housing, to other regulations and requirements that unnecessarily raise 
the costs of construction, the need to address this issue is clear. For 
example, affordable rehabilitation is often constrained by outmoded 
building codes that require excessive renovation. Barrier removal will 
not only make it easier to find and get approval for affordable housing 
sites but it will also allow available subsidies to go further in 
meeting these needs. For housing for moderate-income families often 
referred to as ``work force'' housing, barrier removal can be the most 
essential component of meeting housing needs.
    The Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable 
Housing in its 1991 report ``Not in My Backyard: Removing Barriers to 
Affordable Housing'' (see http://www.huduser.org/bibliodb/Bibliography.asp?id=5806), estimated that these policies and procedures 
directly increase construction or rehabilitation costs by up to 35 
percent. Over the past twelve years, numerous academic studies have 
confirmed this finding. In addition to direct cost impacts, many 
policies and processes further exacerbate the problem by constraining 
overall housing supply with a general deleterious impact upon overall 
housing affordability. A 35 percent reduction in development costs 
would allow millions of American families to buy or rent housing that 
they currently cannot afford.
    In 1990, in the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act, 
Congress, for the first time, recognized the importance of public 
policies and processes to the supply of affordable housing. Section 
105(b)(4) requires state and local governments to explain as part of 
their Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)--now included 
in HUD's Consolidated Plan--whether a proposed public policy affects 
housing affordability and describe the jurisdiction's strategy to 
remove or ameliorate negative effects, if any, of such policies (see 24 
CFR 91.210(e) and 24 CFR 91.310(d)). Congress, in Title XII of the 1992 
Housing and Community Development Act, reiterated its interest in this 
important subject by authorizing grants for regulatory barrier removal 
and established a Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse (see 
www.regbarriers.org). In the American Homeownership Act of 2000, 
Congress reauthorized the Clearinghouse and simplified procedures for a 
barrier removal grant program. In June 2003, HUD announced ``America's 
Affordable Communities Initiative: Bringing Homes within Reach through 
Regulatory Reform.'' This departmentwide initiative will work with 
state and local governments to address regulatory barriers as well as 
address how HUD's own regulations may present barriers to affordable 
housing. Against this background, HUD developed the proposal published 
in the Federal Register on November 25, 2003.

HUD's November 25, 2003, Proposal

    HUD's proposal, published on November 25, 2003, called for a new 
policy priority to be added to the list of policy priorities that HUD 
traditionally includes in its NOFAs. As a policy priority in HUD's 
NOFAs (and like other policy priorities in HUD NOFAs), higher rating 
points would be available to (1) governmental applicants that are able 
to demonstrate successful efforts in removing regulatory barriers to 
affordable housing, and (2) nongovernmental applicants that are 
associated with jurisdictions that have undertaken successful efforts 
in removing barriers. The proposal advised

[[Page 13451]]

that for the higher rating points to be obtained applicants had to 
respond to a series of evaluative questions that HUD determined were 
significantly important and have broad-based applicability to measure 
state, local, and tribal government efforts at regulatory reform and 
which serve as good ``markers'' for effective regulatory reform.
    HUD solicited public comment from prospective applicants of HUD 
funding as well as other interested members of the public. The November 
25, 2003, notice originally called for a public comment deadline of 
December 29, 2003, but HUD extended the deadline to January 12, 2004.

II. Overview of Comments Received on Proposal

    HUD received 37 public comments in response to the November 25, 
2003, notice. The commenters consisted of state and local housing 
agencies, state and local community development agencies, nonprofit 
organizations that provide housing services, and organizations 
representative of the building industry, including manufactured 
housing; model code developers, and states, counties and cities.
    The majority of the commenters were supportive of HUD's proposal, 
and within this group, several of the commenters offered suggestions on 
how the proposal could be strengthened and improved. Other comments 
applauded the objective of the proposal but expressed concern whether 
HUD's proposal was the best vehicle to achieve this objective. Some of 
the commenters offered alternative proposals for HUD's consideration 
and others also offered suggestions on revisions to the proposal that 
they believed might lead to more effective implementation.
    Concerns expressed by some of the commenters included: A possible 
adverse impact on nonprofit organizations that are unable to influence 
the actions of the governments in the areas in which they do business; 
the possible adverse impact on small rural communities that might find 
it difficult to compete in this category with large urban communities 
and large nonprofit organizations; the additional administrative burden 
that may be imposed on applicants seeking the higher points under this 
priority; the proposal fails to consider the great variety of 
regulations used by cities across the nation, which may be viewed as 
barriers; and the proposed policy priority will inappropriately affect 
local land use decisionmaking (e.g., limiting a government's access to 
funding unless it compromises its local authority). Suggestions 
submitted by the commenters included limiting the policy priority to 
those funding allocations limited to housing production; delaying the 
implementation to allow HUD additional time to educate jurisdictions 
and the public about this policy; testing the effectiveness of this 
policy through a pilot program; and reducing the points to one point 
for the first year of implementation, and gradually increasing the 
points in each fiscal year. Two commenters recommended that HUD's Self-
Help Homeownership Opportunities Program (SHOP) program not be subject 
to the proposal. Many commenters offered revisions, deletions or 
additions to the evaluative criteria proposed to be used in the 
November 25, 2003, notice. Several comments included requests for 
definitions in the final notice to ensure consistent application by all 
applicants.
    HUD appreciated the comments submitted in response to the November 
25, 2003, notice. Although HUD is not delaying implementation, or 
implementing as a pilot, or limiting to funding allocations for housing 
production, or reducing points, or removing the SHOP program from the 
covered list of programs, HUD is making several changes to the 
evaluative criteria. The following section highlights the more 
significant changes being made to the criteria.

III. Overview of Changes Made to the Evaluative Criteria

    Based upon the comments received, extensive changes and additions 
have been made to the evaluative criteria in the notice published on 
November 25, 2003. PART A now contains 20 questions as opposed to 13 
questions in the November 25, 2003, notice. PART B now contains 15 
questions as opposed to 6 questions in the November 25, 2003, notice. A 
greater number of questions will permit more jurisdictions and 
applicants to reach the applicable threshold for receiving one or two 
points. A number of commenters stated that many questions in the 
November 25, 2003, notice had component elements that prevented an 
affirmative response if one of the major elements was met but not 
another. In response to this comment, this final notice divides several 
compound questions into component parts so that an applicant can 
respond to an individual component and be graded for the response to 
the individual component. However, in those few cases where two 
elements must be joined for a meaningful response, this final notice 
maintains the compound question. In a number of questions, the 
evaluative criteria now provide for alternative responses, which should 
also assist applicants in responding affirmatively. Several questions 
were also revised to reflect comments that suggested that few 
jurisdictions would be able to claim credit for regulatory reforms that 
had been made. For example, the proposed question A2 ``Does your 
jurisdiction have impact fees?'' has been eliminated and two new 
questions (A5 and A6) have been included that more accurately reflect 
the reality of municipal financing and measure significant but 
achievable efforts at regulatory reform. Other questions were rewritten 
to reflect comments that suggested that the original questions required 
clarification. This final notice also adds a number of new questions 
that commenters recommended as ones that would present additional 
meaningful indicia of state and local regulatory reform efforts (see 
new questions A4, A19 and A20). In Part B, a number of new questions 
have also been added such as B7, B8, B10, and B11 to reflect and 
recognize the impact of reforms to state enabling legislation and other 
efforts that a number of states have taken to address regulatory 
issues.

IV. Programs Covered By Incentive Criteria on Barrier Removal

    The programs that are subject to the questions, evaluation and 
rating system described in this notice were not changed from those 
listed in the November 25, 2003, notice. The programs include, but are 
not necessarily limited to the HUD programs and initiatives listed in 
this Section IV, which are those for which Congress generally 
appropriates funding on an annual basis and for which HUD generally 
issues a NOFA to make funding available.

 Alaskan Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions 
Assisting Communities (AN/NHIAC)
 Assisted Living Conversion Program
 Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI)
 Community Outreach Partnership Centers
 Continuum of Care
     Supportive Housing Program (SHP)
     Shelter Plus Care (S+C)
     Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation SRO Program 
for Homeless Individuals
     Shelter Plus Care Renewals
 Doctoral Dissertation Research Grant Program
 Early Doctoral Student Research Grant Program
 Fair Housing Initiatives Program

[[Page 13452]]

 Healthy Homes Demonstration
 Healthy Homes Technical Studies
 Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities 
(HSIAC)
 Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program 
(HBCU)
 HOPE VI
 Housing Counseling Program
 Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA)
 HUD Urban Scholars Fellowship Program
 Lead Action Elimination Program (LEAP)
 Lead Based Paint Hazard Control Program
 Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration
 Lead Outreach Grant Program
 Lead Technical Studies Program
 Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) 
Program
     ROSS for Resident Service Delivery Models--
Elderly
     ROSS for Resident Service Delivery Models--
Family
     ROSS for Neighborhood Networks
     ROSS for Homeownership Supportive Services
 Rural Housing and Economic Development
 Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly
 Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons With 
Disabilities
 Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing
 Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUP)
 Youthbuild
    For SHOP and HUD programs that may be similar to SHOP in which 
large national or regional organizations distribute HUD funds on a 
competitive basis among organizations to facilitate the funded-
programs' eligible activities, the larger organizations will implement 
the policy priority through their funding availability documents. That 
is, the organizations competing for the HUD funds made available by the 
larger organizations will have the opportunity, through their 
application for funds, to claim the points made available for this 
policy priority.
    The list of programs that would be covered by regulatory barrier 
policy priority reflects the Department's objective to apply this 
policy priority to as many HUD-funded programs as possible.

V. Evaluation Criteria

    Although the policies and processes that affect housing 
affordability are many and diverse, the following evaluative questions 
have been determined to be significantly important and have broad-based 
applicability to measure state, local, and tribal government efforts at 
regulatory reform so as to be considered good ``markers'' for effective 
regulatory reform.
    All applicants submitting applications in response to FY2004 NOFAs 
will be invited to address the questions below to be eligible to 
receive points allocated for the policy priority of regulatory barrier 
removal.
    Local jurisdictions and counties with land use and building 
regulatory authority applying for funding, as well as housing 
authorities, nonprofit organizations, and other qualified applicants 
applying for funding for a project located in these jurisdictions, are 
invited to answer the 20 questions in Part A. A limited number of these 
questions expressly request the applicant to provide brief 
documentation in the application and are so indicated. For all other 
questions, for any affirmative statement made, the applicant must 
supply either a reference, URL, or a brief statement indicating where 
the back up information may be found and a point of contact including a 
telephone number and/or email address. The Department may request the 
applicant to subsequently submit supporting or clarifying documentation 
for any affirmative statements made. For those applications in which 
regulating authority is split between jurisdictions (e.g. county and 
town) the applicant should answer the question for that jurisdiction 
that has regulating authority over the issue at question. An applicant 
that scores at least five in Column 2 will receive 1 point in the NOFA 
evaluation. An applicant that scores 10 or greater in Column 2 will 
receive 2 points in the evaluation.
    State agencies or departments applying for funding, as well as 
housing authorities, nonprofit organizations and other qualified 
applicants applying for funds for projects located in unincorporated 
areas or areas otherwise not covered in Part A are invited to answer 
the 15 questions in Part B. Under Part B an applicant that scores at 
least four in Column 2 will receive 1 point in the NOFA evaluation. 
Under Part B an applicant that scores eight or greater will receive 2 
points in the respective evaluation.
    Applicants that will be providing services in multiple 
jurisdictions can choose to address the questions in either Part A or 
Part B for that jurisdiction in which the preponderance of services 
will be performed if an award is made. In no case can an applicant 
receive for this policy priority greater than 2 points for barrier 
removal activities. For applicants that are tribes or Tribally 
Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs), the tribes or TDHEs can choose to 
complete either Part A or Part B based upon a determination by the 
tribes or TDHE as to whether the tribe's or the TDHE's association with 
the local jurisdiction or the state would be the more advantageous for 
its application.

    Note: Upon completion of all NOFA evaluations, grant selections 
and awards, it is HUD's intent to add relevant data obtained from 
this evaluative factor to the database on state and local regulatory 
reform actions maintained at the Regulatory Barrier Clearinghouse 
Web site (at www.huduser.org/rbc/) used by states, localities and 
housing providers to identify regulatory barriers and learn of 
exemplary local efforts at regulatory reform.


 Part A.--Local Jurisdictions, Counties Exercising Land Use and Building
 Regulatory Authority and Other Applicants Applying for Projects Located
                    in Such Jurisdictions or Counties
                      [Collectively, jurisdiction]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             1.                2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Does your jurisdiction's           No--              Yes--
 comprehensive plan (or in the case
 of a tribe or TDHE, a local Indian
 Housing Plan) include a ``housing
 element? A local comprehensive plan
 means the adopted official
 statement of a legislative body of
 a local government that sets forth
 (in words, maps, illustrations, and/
 or tables) goals, policies, and
 guidelines intended to direct the
 present and future physical,
 social, and economic development
 that occurs within its planning
 jurisdiction and that includes a
 unified physical plan for the
 public development of land and
 water. If your jurisdiction does
 not have a local comprehensive plan
 with a ``housing element,'' please
 enter no. If no, skip to question
  4.
2. If your jurisdiction has a         No--              Yes--
 comprehensive plan with a housing
 element, does the plan provide
 estimates of current and
 anticipated housing needs, taking
 into account the anticipated growth
 of the region, for existing and
 future residents, including low-,
 moderate-, and middle-income
 families, for at least the next
 five years?

[[Page 13453]]

 
3. Does your zoning ordinance and     No--              Yes--
 map, development and subdivision
 regulations or other land use
 controls conform to the
 jurisdiction's comprehensive plan
 regarding housing needs by
 providing: (a) sufficient land use
 and density categories (multifamily
 housing, duplexes, small lot homes
 and other similar elements); and
 (b) sufficient land zoned or mapped
 ``as of right'' in these
 categories, that can permit the
 building of affordable housing
 addressing the needs identified in
 the plan? (For purposes of this
 notice, ``as-of-right,'' as applied
 to zoning, means uses and
 development standards that are
 determined in advance and
 specifically authorized by the
 zoning ordinance. The ordinance is
 largely self-enforcing because
 little or no discretion occurs in
 its administration.) If the
 jurisdiction has chosen not to have
 either zoning, or other development
 controls that have varying
 standards based upon districts or
 zones, the applicant may also enter
 yes.
4. Does your jurisdiction's zoning    Yes--             No--
 ordinance set minimum building size
 requirements that exceed the local
 housing or health code or is
 otherwise not based upon explicit
 health standards?
5. If your jurisdiction has           No--              Yes--
 development impact fees, are the
 fees specified and calculated under
 local or state statutory criteria?
 If no, skip to question 7.
6. If yes to question 5,     No--              Yes--
 does the statute provide criteria
 that set standards for the
 allowable type of capital
 investments that have a direct
 relationship between the fee and
 the development (nexus), and a
 method for fee calculation?
7. If your jurisdiction has impact    No--              Yes--
 or other significant fees, does the
 jurisdiction provide waivers of
 these fees for affordable housing?
8. Has your jurisdiction adopted      No--              Yes--
 specific building code language
 regarding housing rehabilitation
 that encourages such rehabilitation
 through gradated regulatory
 requirements applicable as
 different levels of work are
 performed in existing buildings?
 Such code language increases
 regulatory requirements (the
 additional improvements required as
 a matter of regulatory policy) in
 proportion to the extent of
 rehabilitation that an owner/
 developer chooses to do on a
 voluntary basis. For further
 information see HUD publication:
 ``Smart Codes in Your Community: A
 Guide to Building Rehabilitation
 Codes'' (www.huduser.org/publications/destech/smartcodes.html).
9. Does your jurisdiction use a       No--              Yes--
 recent version (i.e. published
 within the last five years or, if
 no recent version has been
 published, the last version
 published) of one of the nationally
 recognized model building codes
 (i.e., the International Code
 Council (ICC), the Building
 Officials and Code Administrators
 International (BOCA), the Southern
 Building Code Congress
 International (SBCI), the
 International Conference of
 Building Officials (ICBO), the
 National Fire Protection
 Association (NFPA)) without
 significant technical amendment or
 modification? In the case of a
 tribe or TDHE, has a recent version
 of one of the model building codes
 as described above been adopted or,
 alternatively, has the tribe or
 TDHE adopted a building code that
 is substantially equivalent to one
 or more of the recognized model
 building codes?
Alternatively, if a significant
 technical amendment has been made
 to the above model codes, can the
 jurisdiction supply supporting data
 that the amendments do not
 negatively impact affordability?
10. Does your jurisdiction's zoning   No--              Yes--
 ordinance or land use regulations
 permit manufactured (HUD-Code)
 housing ``as of right'' in all
 residential districts and zoning
 classifications in which similar
 site-built housing is permitted,
 subject to design, density,
 building size, foundation
 requirements, and other similar
 requirements applicable to other
 housing that will be deemed realty,
 irrespective of the method of
 production?
11. Within the past five years, has   No--              Yes--
 a jurisdiction official (i.e.,
 chief executive, mayor, county
 chairman, city manager,
 administrator, or a tribally
 recognized official, etc.), the
 local legislative body, or planning
 commission, directly, or in
 partnership with major private or
 public stakeholders, convened or
 funded comprehensive studies,
 commissions, or hearings, or has
 the jurisdiction established a
 formal ongoing process, to review
 the rules, regulations, development
 standards, and processes of the
 jurisdiction to assess their impact
 on the supply of affordable
 housing?
12. Within the past five years, has   No--              Yes--
 the jurisdiction initiated major
 regulatory reforms either as a
 result of the above study or as a
 result of information identified in
 the barrier component of the
 jurisdiction's ``HUD Consolidated
 Plan?'' If yes, attach a brief list
 of these major regulatory reforms.
13. Within the past five years has    No--              Yes--
 your jurisdiction modified
 infrastructure standards and/or
 authorized the use of new
 infrastructure technologies (e.g.,
 water, sewer, street width) to
 significantly reduce the cost of
 housing?
14. Does your jurisdiction give ``as- No--              Yes--
 of-right'' density bonuses
 sufficient to offset the cost of
 building below market units as an
 incentive for any market rate
 residential development that
 includes a portion of affordable
 housing? (As applied to density
 bonuses, ``as of right'' means a
 density bonus granted for a fixed
 percentage or number of additional
 market rate dwelling units in
 exchange for the provision of a
 fixed number or percentage of
 affordable dwelling units and
 without the use of discretion in
 determining the number of
 additional market rate units.)
15. Has your jurisdiction             No--              Yes--
 established a single, consolidated
 permit application process for
 housing development that includes
 building, zoning, engineering,
 environmental, and related permits?
Alternatively, does your
 jurisdiction conduct concurrent not
 sequential, reviews for all
 required permits and approvals?
16. Does your jurisdiction provide    No--              Yes--
 for expedited or ``fast track''
 permitting and approvals for all
 affordable housing projects in your
 community?
17. Has your jurisdiction             No--              Yes--
 established time limits for
 government review and approval or
 disapproval of development permits
 in which failure to act, after the
 application is deemed complete, by
 the government within the
 designated time period, results in
 automatic approval?
18. Does your jurisdiction allow      No--              Yes--
 ``accessory apartments'' either as:
 (a) a special exception or
 conditional use in all single-
 family residential zones, or (b)
 ``as of right'' in a majority of
 residential districts otherwise
 zoned for single-family housing?
19. Does your jurisdiction have an    No--              Yes--
 explicit policy that adjusts or
 waives existing parking
 requirements for all affordable
 housing developments?
20. Does your jurisdiction require    Yes--             No--
 affordable housing projects to
 undergo public review or special
 hearings when the project is
 otherwise in full compliance with
 the zoning ordinance and other
 development regulations?
    Total Points:...................  ------            ------
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 13454]]


 Part B--State Agencies and Departments or Other Applicants Applying for
 Projects Located in Unincorporated Areas or Areas Otherwise Not Covered
                                in Part A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             1.                2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Does your state, either in its     No----            Yes----
 planning and zoning enabling
 legislation or in any other
 legislation, require localities
 regulating development have a
 comprehensive plan with a ``housing
 element?'' If no, skip to question
  4
2. Does your state require that a     No----            Yes----
 local jurisdiction's comprehensive
 plan estimate current and
 anticipated housing needs, taking
 into account the anticipated growth
 of the region, for existing and
 future residents, including low-,
 moderate-, and middle-income
 families, for at least the next
 five years?
3. Does your state's zoning enabling  No----            Yes----
 legislation require that a local
 jurisdiction's zoning ordinance
 have: (a) sufficient land use and
 density categories (multifamily
 housing, duplexes, small lot homes
 and other similar elements); and
 (b) sufficient land zoned or mapped
 in these categories, that can
 permit the building of affordable
 housing that addresses the needs
 identified in the comprehensive
 plan?
4. Does your state have an agency or  No----            Yes----
 office that includes a specific
 mission to determine whether local
 governments have policies or
 procedures that are raising costs
 or otherwise discouraging
 affordable housing?
5. Does your state have a legal or    No----            Yes----
 administrative requirement that
 local governments undertake
 periodic self-evaluation of
 regulations and processes to assess
 their impact upon housing
 affordability and undertake actions
 to address these barriers to
 affordability?
6. Does your state have a technical   No----            Yes----
 assistance or education program for
 local jurisdictions that includes
 assisting them in identifying
 regulatory barriers and in
 recommending strategies to local
 governments for their removal?
7. Does your state have specific      No----            Yes----
 enabling legislation for local
 impact fees? If no, skip to
 question 9.
8. If yes to question 7,     No----            Yes----
 does the state statute provide
 criteria that set standards for the
 allowable type of capital
 investments that have a direct
 relationship between the fee and
 the development (nexus) and a
 method for fee calculation?
9. Does your state provide            No----            Yes----
 significant financial assistance to
 local governments for housing,
 community development and/or
 transportation that includes
 funding prioritization or linking
 funding on the basis of local
 regulatory barrier removal
 activities?
10. Does your state have a mandatory  No----            Yes----
 state-wide building code that (a)
 does not permit local technical
 amendments and (b) uses a recent
 version (i.e., published within the
 last five years or, if no recent
 version has been published, the
 last version published) of one of
 the nationally recognized model
 building codes (i.e., the
 International Code Council (ICC),
 the Building Officials and Code
 Administrators International
 (BOCA), the Southern Building Code
 Congress International (SBCI), the
 International Conference of
 Building Officials (ICBO), the
 National Fire Protection
 Association (NFPA)) without
 significant technical amendment or
 modification?
Alternatively, if the state has made
 significant technical amendments to
 the model code, can the state
 supply supporting data that the
 amendments do not negatively impact
 affordability?
11. Has your state adopted mandatory  No----            Yes----
 building code language regarding
 housing rehabilitation that
 encourages rehabilitation through
 gradated regulatory requirements
 applicable as different levels of
 work are performed in existing
 buildings? Such language increases
 regulatory requirements (the
 additional improvements required as
 a matter of regulatory policy) in
 proportion to the extent of
 rehabilitation that an owner/
 developer chooses to do on a
 voluntary basis and. For further
 information see HUD publication:
 ``Smart Codes in Your Community: A
 Guide to Building Rehabilitation
 Codes'' (www.huduser.org/publications/destech/smartcodes.html).
12. Within the past five years has    No----            Yes----
 your state made any changes to its
 own processes or requirements to
 streamline or consolidate the
 state's own approval processes
 involving permits for water or
 wastewater, environmental review,
 or other state-administered permits
 or programs involving housing
 development. If yes, briefly list
 these changes.
13. Within the past five years, has   No----            Yes----
 your state (i.e., Governor,
 legislature, planning department)
 directly or in partnership with
 major private or public
 stakeholders, convened or funded
 comprehensive studies, commissions,
 or panels to review state or local
 rules, regulations, development
 standards, and processes to assess
 their impact on the supply of
 affordable housing?
14. Within the past five years, has   No----            Yes----
 the state initiated major
 regulatory reforms either as a
 result of the above study or as a
 result of information identified in
 the barrier component of the
 state's ``Consolidated Plan
 submitted to HUD?'' If yes, briefly
 list these major regulatory
 reforms.
15. Has the state undertaken any      No----            Yes----
 other actions regarding local
 jurisdiction's regulation of
 housing development including
 permitting, land use, building or
 subdivision regulations, or other
 related administrative procedures?
 If yes, briefly list these actions.
    Total Points:...................  --------          --------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assist NOFA applicants in reviewing their state and local 
regulatory environments so they can effectively address the questions 
above that are to be incorporated in all FY2004 NOFAs, the Department 
recommends visiting HUD's Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse (RBC) at 
www.huduser.org/rbc/. This Web site was created to support state, 
local, and tribal governments and other organizations seeking 
information about laws, regulations, and policies affecting the 
development, maintenance, improvement, availability and cost of 
affordable housing. To encourage better understanding of the impact of 
regulatory issues on housing affordability the Web site includes an 
extensive bibliography of major studies and guidance materials to 
assist state, local and tribal governments in fashioning solutions and 
approaches to expanding housing affordability through regulatory reform 
at www.huduser.org/rbc/relevant_publications.html.

    Dated: March 9, 2004.
A. Bryant Applegate,
Senior Counsel and Director of America's Affordable Communities 
Initiative.
[FR Doc. 04-6341 Filed 3-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P