housing element and rhna

1. 1
LAFCo and the RHNA
Presented by
Adam Lindgren
CALAFCO
September 6, 2006

2. 2
Overview
 Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg and housing
 Housing Element and the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment
 Introduction to the tensions btwn CKH and RHNA
and opportunities to coordinate the CKH and RHNA
mandates

3. 3
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg
Local Government Reorganization
Act of 2000, Gov't C 56000 et seq.

4. 4
Purpose of CKH
 Gov’t Code Sections 56001, 56300, 56301, 56434
 Efficient delivery of services
 Promote orderly growth and development
 Discourage sprawl – tension Govt C 56001
 Consider local conditions and circumstances
 Preserve open space & agriculture
 Provide housing for all incomes

5. 5
Features of LAFCo Mission
 Balance competing interests and policies
 Bring order to regional land use patterns
 LAFCo has considerable discretion in carrying out its
mandate
 CKH states a preference to accommodate additional
growth within or through the expansion of the boundaries of
those local agencies which can best accommodate and
provide necessary governmental services and housing for
persons and families of all incomes in the most efficient
manner feasible

6. 6
RHNA Law
Housing Element Law,
Gov't C 65580 et seq.

7. 7
The Housing Element & RHNA
 Narrower focus – making housing available for all
Californians
 State policy – implementation is intergovernmental,
but it flows from the top down
 Requires every local gov’t to plan for a certain
allocated amount of the State’s housing goal – the
RHNA

8. 8
The Housing Element & RHNA
 How is the RHNA mandate imposed?
 Housing Element is a mandatory part of City and County
General Plans
 Housing Element update req’d every 5 years; must
accommodate the allocated RHNA
 Each Housing Element must plan for its assigned RHNA
numbers
 Gov’t C 65584 recognizes that future housing production may
not meet RHNA numbers
 Housing Element to be approved by HCD

9. 9
The RHNA Process
 Every local Government gets RHNA numbers
 Housing Element must plan to accommodate the
allocated RHNA, otherwise not certified
 Failure to have a certified Housing Element leaves
a local gov’t more vulnerable to suits
 25% of local gov’ts do not have an approved Housing
Element

10. 10
The RHNA Process
 State Housing & Community Dev. Dept. determines
the existing and projected need for housing for each
region, in consultation with each Council of
Governments (Gov’t C 65584.01)
 COGs develop a methodology and distribute the
regional housing need, with input from local
governments and the public (Gov’t C 65584.02)

11. 11
CKH factors for a change of organization or
reorganization (Gov’t C 56668) compared to RHNA
factors to allocate housing needs (Gov’t C 65584.04)
 Affect on achieving RHNA
 Land area and land use
 Likelihood of growth
 Orderly development
 Adequacy of governmental
services
 Effect on ag lands
 Consistency with general and
specific plans
 Effect on local governmental
structure in the county
 Demand for housing
 Available land for development
 Jobs and housing relationship
 Capacity of sewer and water
service
 County policies to preserve ag
land
 Agreements to direct growth
toward cities
 Not growth control

12. 12
The RHNA - 2004 Changes
 Since 2004 (AB 2158), regional housing need
calculated by HCD in consultation with COGs
 During the Housing Element update, local gov’ts
may transfer up to 500 RHNA units if they meet
certain qualifications
 Solano County is assigned 2000 units, at best can
transfer ¼ of its allocation to cities

13. 13
RHNA Issues
 Local Gov’ts have raised issues with RHNA in prior
Housing Element update cycles:
 Unrealistic regional housing need and/or allocation
 Sprawl producing
 Failure to consider ag & open space
 Failure to consider citizen growth initiatives
 Difficulty with intra-county RHNA transfers

14. 14
Concerns with Tension Between RHNA
and LAFCo Mandates
 Local gov’ts attempting to meet RHNA numbers by annexations and
SOI expansions
 LAFCo must consider Ag & Open Space, whether desired changes
result in orderly growth
 In some instances, LAFCo may have difficulty reconciling the factors
so as to approve application
 Result local gov’ts not able to achieve RHNA numbers or led to
annexations and SOI expansions in conflict with CKH purposes and
requirements
 Tension tends to get worse as open space diminishes and housing
costs increase

15. 15
Potential Bright Spots: Opportunities to
Coordinate CKH and RHNA Mandates
 Several changes were made to Housing Element
Law in 2004 that allow COG’s a larger role in RHNA
forecasting, and RHNA’s being allocated to facilitate
smart growth, blueprint
 Many local officials are optimistic about the effect of
these changes

16. 16
Potential Bright Spots: Opportunities to
Coordinate CKH and RHNA Mandates
 2006 AB 2158, enrolled
 Adds adopted SOI’s to list of factors COGs consider in allocating projected
housing needs
 AB 3042, back to Committee
 To allow intra-county transfers within a COG
 Solano County
 Directing growth into cities; agreements to give County revenue
with adding sales tax generators
 Fresno
 Coordination to annex lands with logical boundaries