HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation Appeal FrameworkSTAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Page 1 of 8
Agenda Item 7.1
DATE:June 15, 2021
TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation Appeal Framework
Prepared by: Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Each California city and county must update their General Plan Housing Element every eight years
to adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of
the community. State law mandates updates to the Housing Element, which plan for a city or
county’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation, no later than January 2023 for the 2023-2031
planning period. On May 20, 2021, the ABAG Executive Board approved the Final Regional
Housing Needs Allocation Methodology and Draft Allocation. The Draft Allocation assigns 3,719
units of housing to the City of Dublin. A jurisdiction may file an appeal of the Draft RHNA by July 9,
2021. Staff will present the City Council with the proposed framework for an appeal of the City’s
Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Provide feedback and direct Staff to submit an appeal of the City’s Draft Regional Housing Needs
Allocation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
Background
Housing Element Update
Each local government in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan
for the physical development of the jurisdiction. A certified Housing Element is one of seven
mandatory elements of the General Plan. Housing Element law, enacted in 1969, mandates local
governments update their Housing Element every eight years to demonstrate how the jurisdiction
has adequately planned to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic
1784
Page 2 of 8
segments of the community. The community’s housing need is determined through the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. The Housing Element must be updated and then
certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by January
2023 for the 2023-2031 planning period.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) is an advisory committee to the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) composed of elected officials, local jurisdiction staff members, and
stakeholders. The HMC was tasked with creating a methodology for distributing the Regional
Housing Needs Determination (RHND) across the local jurisdictions in the nine-county Bay Area.
Distribution of the RHND results in each jurisdiction’s RHNA, which is the total number of housing
units the jurisdiction must plan for in the next Housing Element update. State law provides a
series of statutory objectives that must be met in the RHNA methodology, including increasing
affordability in an equitable manner, improving the balance between low-wage jobs and lower-
income housing (jobs-housing fit), and addressing equity and fair housing. The statute also
requires consistency between the RHNA and regional plans, such as Plan Bay Area 2050.
On June 10, 2020, HCD released the RHND for the Bay Area, which identified 441,176 units (2.35
times the 187,990 units required in the current RHNA cycle). Distribution of the RHND includes
two key components: 1) allocation of the total regional housing need across local jurisdictions;
and 2) allocation of those total shares by income categories (i.e., very-low, low, moderate, and
above-moderate income).
The HMC met from October 2019 to September 2020 to develop a RHNA methodology. On
September 14, 2020, the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Danville, Livermore, Pleasanton, and
San Ramon submitted joint letters to the HMC and ABAG Executive Board expressing concerns
with the RHNA methodology under consideration and recommended a methodology that: 1)
focuses housing allocations in areas with the highest concentrations of jobs; 2) takes account of
geographic and other constraints to housing development; and 3) provides residents with access
to viable transit and transportation options. On September 18, 2020, the HMC forwarded a
recommended methodology to the ABAG Executive Committee without making modifications to
address the concerns expressed by the Tri-Valley communities.
On November 17, 2020, the City submitted a letter to the ABAG Executive Board again expressing
concerns that the RHNA methodology: 1) does not adequately address job-housing proximity; 2)
promotes auto dependence; 3) exasperates the jobs-housing imbalance; and 4) fails to consider
progress made during current RHNA cycle. On January 21, 2021, the ABAG Executive Board
approved the Draft RHNA Methodology without making modifications to address the City’s
concerns and submitted the draft methodology to HCD for review. Subsequently, on April 12,
2021, HCD sent a letter to ABAG confirming the Draft RHNA Methodology furthers the RHNA
objectives.
On May 20, 2021, the ABAG Executive Board, by a vote of 20-10, approved the Final RHNA
Methodology and Draft Allocations. The Draft Allocation assigns 3,719 units of housing to the City
of Dublin. Table 1 shows the City’s Draft Allocation by household income category for the 2023 –
2031 planning period:
1785
Page 3 of 8
Table 1. Dublin’s 2023-2031 Draft Allocation
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Draft RHNA 1,085 625 560 1,449 3,719
Draft RHNA Appeals Procedures
Pursuant to the Government Code, any local jurisdiction within the ABAG region may file an
appeal to modify its Draft Allocation or another jurisdiction’s Draft Allocation included as part of
ABAG’s Draft RHNA Plan. Additionally, HCD may also file an appeal to the Draft Allocation(s) of
one or more jurisdictions. The Appeals Procedures established by ABAG are provided as
Attachment 1 and provide fairly narrow grounds for filing an appeal. It is important to note that
the basis for an appeal is limited to the allocation and not the methodology used to determine that
allocation. Appeals must be submitted to ABAG using the prescribed RHNA Appeal Request Form
by 5:00 p.m. on July 9, 2021.
Appeals may be brought on one of the following three grounds:
1. ABAG failed to adequately consider information submitted in the local jurisdiction survey.
2. ABAG did not determine the jurisdiction’s allocation in accordance with its adopted
methodology and in a manner that furthers, and does not undermine, the RHNA objectives.
3. A significant and unforeseen change in circumstances has occurred in the local jurisdiction
or jurisdictions that merits revision of information submitted as part of the local
jurisdiction survey. Appeals on this basis shall only be made by the jurisdiction or
jurisdictions where the change in circumstances has occurred.
The following outlines the key dates in the RHNA appeals process:
July 9, 2021: Deadline for jurisdictions and HCD to file an appeal of Draft Allocations.
August 30, 2021:Deadline for jurisdictions and HCD to comment on appeals submitted.
September - October 2021:ABAG Administrative Committee considers appeals (includes
public hearing). ABAG will provide a minimum of 21 days’ notice to jurisdictions in advance
of the appeals hearing.
October or November 2021:ABAG ratifies written final determination of each appeal and
issues Final Allocations that include adjustments from successful appeals. If the total of
successfully appealed units is less than 7% of the RHND (30,882 units), then ABAG shall
redistribute the units proportionately. If the successfully appealed units is more than 7% of
the RHND, then ABAG may develop its own methodology to redistribute the units.
November or December 2021:ABAG Executive Board will conduct a public hearing and
adopt Final RHNA Plan.
1786
Page 4 of 8
Appeals in Other Councils of Government
During the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, three other Councils of Government have already
completed their Regional Housing Needs Allocation process. To provide context to the appeals
process and to learn from past successes, Staff reviewed the appeals filed in these jurisdictions.
Following is a summary of the appeals outcomes for other Councils of Government:
Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG):No appeals filed.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG):Four appeals were filed with only
one partially upheld, affecting 135 units. The City of Coronado successfully argued the jobs
data used in the methodology was not verified and the City had different military housing
data. This resulted in an increase to the allocation for the City of Coronado and an increase
to the allocation for the City of Imperial Beach and the City of San Diego.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG):Forty-eight appeals were filed
with only two partially upheld. The County of Riverside successfully argued that they do
not have land use authority over the projected growth from the March Joint Powers
Authority, where 215 units were projected. The City of Pico Rivera successfully argued
there is a lack of available land suitable for residential use since the City lies within a flood
inundation area, due to the potential failure and/or spillway path of the Whittier Narrows
Dam, resulting in a reduction of their total allocation from 3,939 units to 1,024 units.
Analysis
The following illustrates the proposed framework for an appeal of Dublin’s RHNA. This framework
follows the grounds for an appeal as specified in the Appeals Procedures provided by ABAG and
noted above and included in Attachment 1.
Past Performance and Lack of Suitable Land (Appeal Grounds 1.b.ii):From 2010 to
2019, Dublin’s population increased from 46,036 to 66,147, a 44%increase, making Dublin
one of the fastest growing cities in California during that timeframe, due to significant steps
taken to facilitate the construction of both market-rate and affordable housing. During the
current RHNA cycle, the City has issued building permits for the construction of 4,396
dwelling units compared to our allocation of 2,285 units. Specifically, as of May 31, 2021,
the City has issued permits for 4,252 above-moderate income, 79 moderate income, 39
low-income, and 26 very low-income units. The City has an additional 2,682 units in the
project pipeline, further limiting available land suitable for development. Additionally,
Dublin is different from many other communities in the Bay Area, since a significant
portion of the City is comprised of new construction, which is not appropriate for
redevelopment opportunities.
Water Supply and Drought (Appeal Grounds 1.b.iand 3): Zone 7 Water Agency supplies
drinking water to local water retailers. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) is
the local water retailer for the City of Dublin. DSRSD contracts with Zone 7 to provide the
water supply that services Dublin residents. This 30-year contract expires in 2024.
1787
Page 5 of 8
Zone 7’s water supply has two major components: 1) incoming water supplies available
through contracts and water rights each year, and 2) accumulated water supplies in
storage derived from previous years. Incoming water supplies typically consist of annually
allocated imported surface water supply and local surface water runoff. Accumulated or
“banked” water supplies are available in local and non-local storage locations.
The Department of Water Resources operates the State Water Project (SWP). The SWP is
by far Zone 7’s largest water source, providing approximately 90% of the treated water
supplied to its customers on an annual average basis. Zone 7 anticipates future supply
deficits as SWP reliability continues to decline and Zone 7’s service area population grows.
DSRSD’s recently prepared the Draft 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, dated May
2021. The Urban Water Management Plan acknowledges that Dublin could experience
problems due to an expiring water supply contract, dependence on imported water
sources, and increased demand.
Additionally, the Department of Water Resources indicates “drought is best defined by its
impacts on a particular class of water users in a particular location. In this sense, drought is
a very local circumstance.” As discussed above, Dublin obtains the majority of its water
from imported sources. Therefore, drought conditions throughout California could have
significant impacts on access to water resources for the Dublin community. While drought
could have an impact on the entire region, the extent of those impacts is unknown at this
time. However, drought conditions could be more impactful on communities, like Dublin,
which source water from the delta. Water supplied from the delta is more susceptible to
problems due to endangered species and increased use by the agricultural industry.
An expiring contact, dependence on imported water sources, increased demand, and the
drought could create a challenge to provide water service for existing and planned growth.
This challenge could be compounded by the additional burden resulting from further
growth induced by RHNA.
Population Decrease (Appeal Grounds 2 and 3):California’s population dipped by
approximately 182,000 residents last year, bringing the state’s total to approximately
39,466,000 people as of January 1, 2021, according to new population estimates and
housing data released by the California Department of Finance on May 7, 2021. This
reduction of 0.46% represents the first 12-month decline since state population estimates
have been recorded. Locally, Dublin’s population decreased from 65,161 to 64,695, a
decrease of 466 residents or 0.7%. Dublin’s population decline was more than 1.5 times the
State average. If the declining population trend continues, it could translate to decreased
households in 2050, which is a factor used for calculating the City’s allocation.
Overcrowding (Appeal Grounds 1.b.g and 2):According to the Embarcadero Institute,
the Department of Finance (DOF) factors overcrowding and cost-burdening into their
household projections. These projections are developed by multiplying the estimated
population by the headship rate (the proportion of the population who will be head of a
1788
Page 6 of 8
household). The DOF, in conjunction with HCD, uses higher headship rates to reflect
optimal conditions and intentionally “alleviate the burdens of high housing cost and
overcrowding.” The Embarcadero Institute report asserts that Senate Bill 828 caused the
state to double count the overcrowding numbers, resulting in an increase of approximately
104,000 units throughout the Bay Area. If correct, this could have inflated the projected
housing need in Dublin by 877 units when compared to the percentage of the Bay Area’s
RHND the City was allocated.
Vacancy Rate (Appeal Grounds 2):According to the Embarcadero Institute, Senate Bill
828 wrongly assumed a 5% vacancy rate in owner-occupied housing is healthy.
Government Code 65584.01(b)(1)(E) specifies a 5% vacancy rate applies only to the rental
housing market. In the U.S. homeowner vacancy has hovered around 1.5% since the ‘70s,
briefly reaching 3% during the foreclosure crisis. This incorrect assumption erroneously
projected a need for approximately 59,000 additional units throughout the Bay Area. This
could have inflated the housing need in Dublin by 497 units, when compared to the
percentage of the Bay Area’s RHND the City was allocated.
High Opportunity Areas (Appeal Grounds 2):With the Final RHNA Methodology, ABAG
allocates more housing units to jurisdictions with a higher percentage of households living
in areas labelled High Resource or Highest Resource on the 2020 Opportunity Map. The
Opportunity Map, prepared by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
(TCAC), stems from HCD’s policy goals to avoid further segregation and concentration of
poverty and to encourage access to opportunity through affordable housing programs. The
map uses publicly available data sources to identify areas in the state where characteristics
have been shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health
outcomes for low-income families. The majority of Dublin is labelled High Resource or
Highest Resource on the 2020 Opportunity Map.
However, according to the 2019 American Community Survey, 61.1% of the Dublin
population racially identify as minorities or multi-racial. By relying on the 2020
Opportunity Map and not factoring demographic data, more housing is allocated to Dublin
compared to other jurisdictions throughout the area. This methodology detracts from
HCD’s policy goal to promote diversity since more housing must be planned in Dublin,
rather than in more segregated portions of the Bay Area, thus prioritizing economics over
racial diversity.
Facilitating the production of housing for lower income households in high opportunity
areas is laudable. However, the Draft RHNA assigns 1,449 above-moderate income units to
Dublin. Above-moderate income units are effectively market rate housing. While in general,
additional units have the potential to further diversity goals, assigning more market rate
housing to Dublin does not achieve the stated purpose of providing affordable housing and
access to opportunity for lower-income households. This methodology also fails to
acknowledge the City’s past performance in the above-moderate income category. During
the current RHNA cycle the City has already issued permits for 4,252 above-moderate
income units, thus exceeding the current RHNA allocation of 618 units by 688% in the
1789
Page 7 of 8
above-moderate income category. Requiring the City to plan for an additional 1,449 above-
moderate income units ignores Dublin’s past production and unfairly burden’s Dublin with
providing more of the region’s share of market rate housing.
Coronavirus Pandemic (Appeal Grounds 3):The Coronavirus pandemic has significantly
altered the way our job sector operates by increasing telecommuting options and
decreasing reliance on traditional office space. By decreasing the demand for office space,
the Bay Area’s major employment centers of the South Bay, Oakland, and San Francisco
have more available, suitable land and can replace office space with housing, in turn
decreasing the demand for housing in outer suburban areas such as Dublin. The increased
telecommuting options also provide opportunities for workers to live outside the Bay Area.
Thus, having the potential to further reduce the need for additional housing in the Bay
Area.
Additionally, the pandemic significantly decreased public transit ridership, which will
transform where Bay Area residents will live, work, and travel. Some experts argue that
transit operators in need of riders and revenue will never fully recover, thus increasing the
use of single-occupancy vehicles and its associated traffic and environmental impacts. In
Dublin, approximately 60% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the transportation
sector. To offset these impacts and meet the State and region’s greenhouse gas emissions
targets, provided by the State Air Resources Board, it is more crucial than ever to ensure
the Regional Housing Needs Allocation promotes a jobs-housing balance, as public
transportation may become a less reliable commute alternative.
Land Use Authority (Appeal Grounds 2):The City does not have land use authority over
the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks) or the United States Department of
Justice. Both locations should not be used for calculating the City’s Draft Allocation.
Staff is seeking feedback and direction from the City Council on the proposed framework to use as
the basis for filing an appeal of Dublin’s RHNA. With direction from the City Council, Staff will
prepare and file a timely appeal by the July 9, 2021 deadline.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The informational report on the Housing Element Update and Regional Housing Needs Allocation
is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
Strategy 3: Create More Affordable Housing Opportunities.
Objective E: Update the City’s General Plan Housing Element in accordance with state law and to
ensure an adequate supply of sites to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation
for the period 2023-31.
1790
Page 8 of 8
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The City Council Agenda was posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA Cycle Appeals Procedures
1791
ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA Appeals Procedures | May 2021 | Page 1
2023-2031 RHNA Cycle Appeals Procedures
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.05, any local jurisdiction within the ABAG region may file an appeal to modify its Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Allocation or another jurisdiction’s Draft RHNA Allocation included as part of ABAG’s Draft RHNA Plan. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) may also file an appeal to the Draft RHNA Allocation for one or more jurisdictions. No appeal shall be allowed relating to post-appeal reallocation adjustments made by ABAG, as further described in Section I.I, below. For the purposes of these procedures, the entity filing an appeal is referred to as an “applicant.”
Note: This document contains a description of the appeals procedures, which are designed to comply with applicable provisions of the Government Code. Applicants are encouraged to review the full content of relevant code sections. In any apparent conflict between these procedures and the Code, the Code provisions will prevail.
I. APPEALS PROCESS
A.DEADLINE TO FILEThe period to file appeals shall commence on May 25, 2021, which shall be deemed as thedate of receipt by jurisdictions and HCD of the Draft RHNA Plan. To comply withGovernment Code Section 65584.05(b), a jurisdiction or HCD seeking to appeal a Draft
RHNA Allocation must submit an appeal by 5:00 p.m. PST on July 9, 2021. ABAG will not
accept late appeals.
B.FORM OF APPEAL
The local jurisdiction or HCD shall state the basis and specific reasons for its appeal on the
RHNA Appeal Request Form prepared by ABAG (see Attachment A for an example of theinformation to be included in the form). Additional documents may be submitted by thelocal jurisdiction as attachments, and all such attachments should be properly labeled and
numbered.
C.BASES FOR APPEAL
Per Government Code Section 65584.05, a local jurisdiction or HCD shall only be entitled tofile an appeal based upon the three criteria listed below. Appeals based on “change ofcircumstance” can only be filed by the jurisdiction or jurisdictions where the change incircumstance occurred.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.05, appeals shall be based upon comparable data available for all affected jurisdictions and accepted planning methodology, and supported by adequate documentation, and shall include a statement as to why the revision is necessary to further the intent of the objectives listed in Government Code Section 65584(d). An appeal shall be consistent with, and not to the detriment of, the development
Attachment 1
1792
ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA Appeals Procedures | May 2021 | Page 2
pattern in the sustainable communities strategy (Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint). Applicants should ensure that their appeal satisfies the criteria in the applicable Government Code section. Appeals may be brought on one of the following three grounds: 1. Information about Local Planning Factors and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing from
the Local Jurisdiction Survey – That ABAG failed to consider information submitted
relating to certain local factors outlined in Government Code Section 65584.04(e) and affirmatively furthering fair housing pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.04(b)(2) and 65584(d)(5) including the following:
a. Each jurisdiction’s existing and projected jobs and housing relationship. b. The opportunities and constraints to development of additional housing in each jurisdiction, including the following: i. Lack of capacity for sewer or water service due to federal or state laws, regulations or regulatory actions, or supply and distribution decisions made by a sewer or water service provider other than the local jurisdiction that preclude the jurisdiction from providing necessary infrastructure for additional development during the planning period. ii. The availability of land suitable for urban development or for conversion to residential use, the availability of underutilized land, and opportunities for infill development and increased residential densities. ABAG may not limit its consideration of suitable housing sites or land suitable for urban development to existing zoning ordinances and land use restrictions of a locality, but shall consider the potential for increased residential development under alternative zoning ordinances and land use restrictions. The determination of available land suitable for urban development may exclude lands where the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources has determined that the flood management infrastructure designed to protect that land is not adequate to avoid the risk of flooding.
iii. Lands preserved or protected from urban development under existing federal or state programs, or both, designed to protect open space, farmland, environmental habitats, and natural resources on a long-term basis, including land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation that is subject to a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction that prohibits or restricts conversion to non-agricultural uses.
1793
ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA Appeals Procedures | May 2021 | Page 3
iv. County policies to preserve prime agricultural land, as defined pursuant to Government Code Section 56064, within an unincorporated area and land within an unincorporated area zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation that is subject to a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction that prohibits or restricts its conversion to non-agricultural uses.
c. The distribution of household growth assumed for purposes of a comparable
period of regional transportation plans and opportunities to maximize the use of
public transportation and existing transportation infrastructure.
d. Agreements between a county and cities in a county to direct growth toward
incorporated areas of the county and land within an unincorporated area zoned
or designated for agricultural protection or preservation that is subject to a local
ballot measure that was approved by the voters of the jurisdiction that prohibits or restricts conversion to nonagricultural uses.
e. The loss of units contained in assisted housing developments, as defined in Government Code Section 65583(a)(9), that changed to non-low-income use through mortgage prepayment, subsidy contract expirations, or termination of use restrictions.
f. The percentage of existing households at each of the income levels listed in
Government Code Section 65584(e) that are paying more than 30 percent and
more than 50 percent of their income in rent.
g. The rate of overcrowding.
h. The housing needs of farmworkers.
i. The housing needs generated by the presence of a private university or a campus of the California State University or the University of California within any
member jurisdiction.
j. The housing needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness. k. The loss of units during a state of emergency that was declared by the Governor
pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with
Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2), during the planning period immediately
preceding the relevant revision pursuant to Section 65588 that have yet to be rebuilt or replaced at the time of the analysis. For purposes of these guidelines, this applies to loss of units during a state of emergency occurring since January
1794
ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA Appeals Procedures | May 2021 | Page 4
31, 2015 and have not yet been rebuilt or replaced by February 5, 2020 (the deadline for jurisdictions to submit surveys to ABAG).
l. The region’s greenhouse gas emissions targets provided by the State Air
Resources Board pursuant to Section 65080, to be met by Plan Bay Area 2050.
m. Information based upon the issues, strategies, and actions that are included, as
available in an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice or an Assessment
of Fair Housing completed by any city or county or the California Department of
Housing and Community Development, and in housing elements.
2. Methodology – That ABAG failed to determine the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing needs in accordance with the information described in the Final RHNA Methodology approved by ABAG on May 20, 2021, and in a manner that furthers, and does not undermine the five objectives listed in Government Code Section 65584(d). 3. Changed Circumstances – That a significant and unforeseen change in circumstance has occurred in the jurisdiction after February 5, 2020 (the deadline for jurisdictions to submit surveys to ABAG) and merits a revision of the information previously submitted by the local jurisdiction. Appeals on this basis shall only be made by the jurisdiction or
jurisdictions where the change in circumstances has occurred.
D. LIMITS ON SCOPE OF APPEAL
Existing law explicitly limits ABAG’s scope of review of appeals. Specifically, ABAG shall not
grant any appeal based upon the following:
1. Any other criteria other than the criteria in Section I.C above.
2. A local jurisdiction’s existing zoning ordinances and land use restrictions, including but
not limited to, the contents of the local jurisdiction’s current general plan. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 65584.04(e)(2)(B), ABAG may not limit its consideration of
suitable housing sites or land suitable for urban development to existing zoning ordinances and land use restrictions of a locality, but shall consider the potential for increased residential development under alternative zoning ordinances and land use restrictions. 3. Any local ordinance, policy, voter-approved measure or standard limiting residential development. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.04(g)(1), any ordinance, policy, voter-approved measure, or standard of a city or county that directly or indirectly limits the number of residential building permits shall not be a justification for a determination or a reduction in a city’s or county’s share of regional housing need. 4. Prior underproduction of housing in a jurisdiction from the previous regional housing need allocation. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.04)(g)(2), prior
1795
ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA Appeals Procedures | May 2021 | Page 5
underproduction of housing in a jurisdiction from the previous housing need allocation, as determined by each jurisdiction’s annual production report submitted pursuant to Government Code Section 65400(a)(2)(H) cannot be used as a justification for a determination or reduction in a jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need. 5. Stable population numbers in a jurisdiction. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.04(g)(3), stable population growth from the previous regional housing needs cycle
cannot be used as a justification for a determination or reduction in a jurisdiction’s share
of the regional housing need.
E. COMMENTS ON APPEALS
At the close of the appeals period as set forth in I.A., ABAG shall notify all jurisdictions within
the region and HCD of all appeals and shall make all materials submitted in support of each
appeal available on its website after the close of the appeals filing period. Members of the
public who are interested in receiving notification about appeals submitted can sign up on
the ABAG website. ABAG will accept comments on submitted appeals from jurisdictions,
HCD, and members of the public for 45 days following the end of the appeals filing period.
All comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. PST on August 30, 2021. ABAG will not accept late
comments. Members of the public who are interested in receiving notification about comments received can sign up on the ABAG website. ABAG will notify jurisdictions, HCD, and members of the public who have signed up on the ABAG website about comments received following the end of the comment period. F. HEARING BODY The ABAG Executive Board has delegated the responsibility of considering appeals regarding Draft RHNA Allocations to the ABAG Administrative Committee. All decisions on RHNA appeals made by the Administrative Committee are considered final and will not be reviewed by the ABAG Executive Board. G. APPEAL HEARING ABAG shall conduct one public hearing to consider all appeals filed and comments received on the appeals no later than September 26, 2021. This public hearing may be continued (over several days if necessary) until all appeals are heard. Notice shall be provided to the
appealing jurisdictions, commenting jurisdictions, HCD, and members of the public who
have signed up on the ABAG website at least 21 days in advance of the hearing. Consistent
with the requirements of the Brown Act, members of the public may submit written
comments in advance of the meeting or provide oral comments at the meeting. Per
Government Code Section 65584.05(i), ABAG may extend the deadline to conduct the
appeals hearing by up to thirty (30) days.
Each appeal shall be heard individually before the Administrative Committee and a
preliminary decision on the appeal may be reached by the Committee. At the conclusion of
all the individual appeals, the Administrative Committee will take a final vote determining
the outcome for each appeal application. In the event an individual appeal involves a
1796
ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA Appeals Procedures | May 2021 | Page 6
Committee member’s or alternate’s respective jurisdiction, the member or alternate may not participate in the discussion of or vote on that individual item by the Administrative Committee. If the Committee decides to take one final vote ratifying prior preliminary decisions, a Committee member may participate in that vote and note for the record their abstention from the portion of the decision relating to their jurisdiction. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, RHNA appeals hearings may be conducted via
teleconference per the Governor’s executive orders or any amendments to the Brown Act.
ABAG-MTC staff will apprise the public of any updates to meeting procedures and will
include information relevant to public participation in the public noticing of the appeal
hearings.
Appeal Hearing Procedures
The hearing shall be conducted to provide applicants and jurisdictions that did not file
appeals but are the subject of an appeal with the opportunity to make their case regarding a
change in their Draft RHNA Allocation or another jurisdiction’s Draft RHNA Allocation. The
burden is on the applicants to prove that adjustment of the Allocation is appropriate under
the statutory standards set forth in the Government Code. The appeals hearing will be
organized by the specific jurisdiction subject to an appeal or appeals and will adhere to the following procedures: 1. Initial Arguments Applicants who have filed an appeal for a particular jurisdiction will have an opportunity to present their request and reasons to grant the appeal. The information and arguments presented by the applicant shall be limited to what was presented in the written appeal filed by the applicant. In the event of multiple appeals filed for a single jurisdiction, the subject jurisdiction will present their argument first if it has filed an appeal on its own Draft RHNA Allocation. Applicants may present their cases either on their own, or in coordination with other applicants, but each applicant shall be allotted five (5) minutes each. If the subject jurisdiction did not file an appeal on its own Draft RHNA Allocation, it will be given an opportunity to present after all applicants have provided initial arguments on their filed appeals. Any presentation from the jurisdiction who did not appeal but is the subject of the appeal is limited to five (5) minutes unless it is
responding to more than one appeal, in which case the jurisdiction is limited to eight (8)
minutes.
An appealing jurisdiction may choose to have technical staff present its case at the
hearing. At a minimum, technical staff should be available at the hearing to answer any
questions from the Administrative Committee.
2. Staff Response
After initial arguments are presented, ABAG-MTC staff will present their recommendation
to approve or deny the appeal(s) filed for the subject jurisdiction. The staff response is
limited to five (5) minutes.
1797
ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA Appeals Procedures | May 2021 | Page 7
3. Rebuttal Applicants and the jurisdiction who did not file an appeal but is the subject of the appeal may elect to provide a rebuttal but are limited to the arguments and evidence presented in the staff response. Each applicant and the subject jurisdiction that did not file an appeal on its own Draft RHNA Allocation will be allotted three (3) minutes each for a rebuttal.
4. Extension of Time Allotment
The Chair of the Administrative Committee may elect to grant additional time for any
presentation, staff response, or rebuttal in the interest of due process and equity.
5. Public Comment
Members of the public will have an opportunity to comment on the arguments
presented related to the appeal(s) for the subject jurisdiction under consideration. Each
speaker will be allotted two (2) minutes to speak, or as adjusted at the discretion of the
Chair.
6. Administrative Committee Discussion and Determination
After arguments and rebuttals are presented, the Administrative Committee may ask questions of applicants, the subject jurisdiction (if present), and ABAG-MTC staff. The Chair of the Administrative Committee may request that questions from the Administrative Committee be asked prior to a discussion among Administrative Committee members. Any voting Committee member may make a motion regarding the appeal(s) for the subject jurisdiction. The Committee will take a preliminary vote on the appeal(s) for a subject jurisdiction. The Administrative Committee is encouraged to make a single determination on the subject jurisdiction after hearing all arguments and presentations on each subject jurisdiction. The Administrative Committee shall generally administer appeal hearings according to these procedures. However, the Chair of the Committee has the discretion to adjust the procedures as deemed necessary and formal rules of evidence and procedure do not apply. Further, any alleged failure to adhere to these procedures shall not be grounds for overturning a decision.
H. DATA REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.05, appeals shall be based upon comparable
data available for all affected jurisdictions and accepted planning methodology and
supported by adequate documentation. To the extent a local jurisdiction submits evidentiary
documentation to ABAG in support of its appeal, such data shall meet the following
requirements:
1. The data shall be readily available for ABAG’s review and verification. Data should not be
constrained for use by proprietary conditions or other conditions rendering them
difficult to obtain or process.
1798
ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA Appeals Procedures | May 2021 | Page 8
2. The data shall be accurate, current, and reasonably free from defect. 3. The data shall be relevant and germane to the local jurisdiction’s basis of appeal. 4. The data shall be used to support a logical analysis relating to the local jurisdiction’s request for a change to its or another jurisdiction’s Draft RHNA Allocation.
I. DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AND POST-APPEAL REALLOCATION OF REGIONAL
HOUSING NEEDS
The Administrative Committee shall issue a written final determination on all filed appeals
after the conclusion of the public hearing. The written final determination shall consider
arguments and comments presented on revising the Draft RHNA Allocation of the subject
jurisdiction and make a determination that either accepts, rejects, or modifies the appeal for
each subject jurisdiction. Per Government Code Section 65584.05(e)(1), the Administrative
Committee has the discretion in its final determination on an appeal to require the
adjustment of the allocation of a local jurisdiction that is not the subject of an appeal, if the
adjustment(s) are supported by evidence and the Administrative Committee makes specific
findings in its determination on the appeal. The final determinations shall be based upon the information and methodology set forth in Government Code Section 65584.04 and whether the revision is necessary to further the objectives listed in Government Code Section 65584(d). The final determination shall include written findings as to how the determination is consistent with Government Code Section 65584.05. The final determinations for all appeals will be ratified by the Administrative Committee following release of the written final determinations on all filed appeals. The decision of the Administrative Committee shall be final, and local jurisdictions shall have no further right to appeal. In accordance with Government Code Section 65584.05(g), after the conclusion of the appeals process, ABAG shall distribute the adjustments proportionally to all Bay Area jurisdictions, including those jurisdictions whose Draft RHNA Allocation was successfully appealed. For purposes of these procedures, proportional distribution shall be based on the
share of regional housing needs after the appeals are determined and prior to the required
redistribution. The redistribution of units successfully appealed could result in increases to
the Draft RHNA Allocations for all jurisdictions.
If, consistent with Government Code Section 65584.05(e)(1), the Administrative Committee’s
final determination included adjustments to the allocations of a jurisdiction or jurisdictions
that were not the subject of an appeal, these adjustments may be excluded from the
cumulative total adjustments to be reallocated proportionally to all jurisdictions in the
region.
1799
ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA Appeals Procedures | May 2021 | Page 9
J. FINAL RHNA PLAN After ABAG reallocates units to all local jurisdictions resulting from successful appeals, the ABAG Executive Board shall review and consider adoption of the Final RHNA Plan for ABAG’s 2023-2031 RHNA. This is scheduled to occur in either November or December 2021. List of Attachments
• Attachment A: RHNA Appeal Request Form
1800
ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA Appeal Request Form | Page 1
2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Appeal Request
Submit appeal requests and supporting documentation to rhna@bayareametro.gov by 5:00 pm PST on July 9, 2021. Late submissions will not be accepted.
Jurisdiction Whose Allocation is Being Appealed:
______________________________________________________
Filing Party: __________________________________________ (Jurisdiction or HCD)
Contact Name: ______________________________________
Title: _________________________________________________
Phone: ______________________________________________
Email: ________________________________________________
Date: _________________________________________
APPEAL AUTHORIZED BY:
Name: _______________________________________
PLEASE SELECT BELOW:
Mayor
Chair, County Board of Supervisors
City Manager
Chief Administrative Officer
Other: __________________________________
IDENTIFY ONE OR MORE BASES FOR APPEAL [Government Code Section 65584.5(b)]
ABAG failed to adequately consider information submitted in the Local Jurisdiction Survey
regarding RHNA Factors (Government Code Section 65584.04(e)) and Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (See Government Code Section 65584.04(b)(2) and 65584(d)(5)):
Existing and projected jobs and housing relationship.
Sewer or water infrastructure constraints for additional development due to laws, regulatory
actions, or decisions made by a provider other than the local jurisdiction.
Availability of land suitable for urban development or for conversion to residential use.
Lands protected from urban development under existing federal or state programs.
County policies to preserve prime agricultural land.
Distribution of household growth assumed for Plan Bay Area 2050.
County-city agreements to direct growth toward incorporated areas of county.
Loss of units contained in assisted housing developments.
Households paying more than 30% or 50% of their income in rent.
The rate of overcrowding.
Housing needs of farmworkers.
Housing needs generated by the presence of a university campus within a jurisdiction.
Housing needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness.
Loss of units during a declared state of emergency from January 31, 2015 to February 5, 2020.
The region’s greenhouse gas emissions targets to be met by Plan Bay Area 2050.
Affirmatively furthering fair housing.
ABAG failed to determine the jurisdiction’s Draft RHNA Allocation in accordance with the Final
RHNA Methodology and in a manner that furthers, and does not undermine the RHNA
Objectives (see Government Code Section 65584(d) for the RHNA Objectives).
A significant and unforeseen change in circumstances has occurred in the local jurisdiction or
jurisdictions that merits a revision of the information submitted in the Local Jurisdiction Survey
(appeals based on change of circumstance can only be made by the jurisdiction or jurisdictions
where the change occurred).
1801
ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA Appeal Request Form | Page 2
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.05, appeals shall be based upon comparable data available for all affected jurisdictions and accepted planning methodology, and supported by adequate documentation, and shall include a statement as to why the revision is necessary to further the intent of the objectives listed in Government Code Section 65584(d). An appeal shall be consistent with, and not to the detriment of, the development pattern in the sustainable communities strategy (Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint).
Number of units requested to be reduced or added to jurisdiction’s Draft RHNA Allocation:
Number of Units Reduced ______________________ Number of Units Added ________________________
Brief description of appeal request and statement on why this revision is necessary to further the intent of the objectives listed in Government Code Section 65584(d) and how
the revision is consistent with, and not to the detriment, of the development pattern in
Plan Bay Area 2050. Please include supporting documentation for evidence as needed, and
attach additional pages if you need more room.
List of supporting documentation, by title and number of pages
(Numbers may be continued to accommodate additional supporting documentation):
1. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1802
Item 7.1:
Regional Housing Needs
Allocation Appeal Framework
City Council
June 15, 2021
1803
Background
•Each city must adopt a General Plan
•Certified Housing Element is one of seven
mandatory element of the General Plan
•Update Housing Element every eight years
•Current Housing Element: 2014-2022
•Updated Housing Element: 2023-2031
1804
RHNA Process
•RHND: 441,176 units for the Bay Area
–2.35 times the 187,990 units in current RHNA Cycle
•Distribution of RHND includes:
–Allocation of total regional housing need across
local jurisdictions
–Allocation of total shares by income category
1805
Housing Methodology Committee
•Advisory Committee to ABAG staff comprised of
elected officials, local jurisdiction staff, and
stakeholders
•Advised ABAG on methodology to distribute
Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND)
•Statutory objectives:
–Increase affordability
–Improve balance of low wage jobs and lower income
housing
–Equity in fair housing
1806
Draft Methodology
•January 21, 2021 -ABAG Executive Board
approved the draft methodology without making
modifications to address City’s concerns
•Submitted the draft methodology to HCD for
review
•April 12, 2021 -HCD sent a letter to ABAG
confirming the draft methodology furthers the
RHNA objectives
1807
Final Methodology and
Draft Allocation
•May 20, 2021 -ABAG Executive Board
approved the final methodology and draft
allocations
•Draft allocation assigns 3,719 units to Dublin
Income
Category Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Units 1,085 625 560 1,449 3,719
1808
RHNA Appeal Procedures
•Local jurisdictions or HCD may appeal draft
allocation(s) by July 9, 2021
•Fairly narrow grounds for appeal:
–ABAG failed to adequately consider information
submitted in the local jurisdiction survey
–Allocation not in accordance with adopted
methodology
–Significant or unforeseen change in circumstances
1809
Key Dates
•July 9, 2021 –Appeal deadline.
•August 30, 2021 –Comments on appeals due.
•September/October 2021 –ABAG
Administrative Committee considers appeals.
•October/November 2021 –ABAG ratifies
determination on appeals and issues final
allocations.
•November/December 2021 –ABAG
Executive Board adopts Final RHNA Plan.
1810
Other Councils of Government
•SACOG –No appeals
•SANDAG –Four appeals with one partially
upheld
•SCAG –48 appeals with two partially upheld
1811
Past Performance and
Lack of Available Land
•Population increase by 44% between 2010-2019
•Permits issued for 4,396 units compared to
current allocation of 2,285 units
•Permits for 2,682 units in the project pipeline
1812
Water Supply and Drought
•Contract with Zone 7 tentatively expires in 2024
•Dependence on imported water sources
•Future supply deficits from the State Water
Project (supplies 90% of treated water) are
anticipated
•Increased demand compounds problems
•Drought impact unknown, but typically more
impactful when rely on delta water
1813
Population Decrease
•Dublin’s population decreased by 466 residents
or 0.7% in 2020
•Dublin’s population decline was more than 1.5
times the State average
•Population translates to households, which was
used for the methodology
1814
Overcrowding
•According to the Embarcadero Institute, the
Department of Finance factors overcrowding
and cost-burdening into their household
projections
•Projections developed by multiplying the
estimated population by the headship rate
•Double counting led to an increase of
approximately 104,000 units throughout Bay
Area
1815
Vacancy Rate
•Senate Bill 828 assumes a 5% vacancy rate in
owner-occupied housing is healthy
•5% vacancy rate should only apply to rental
housing market
•Vacancy rate is approximately 1.5% (3% during
foreclosure crisis)
•Assumption erroneously projected an additional
59,000 units throughout the Bay Area
1816
High Opportunity Areas
•Purpose of HOAs is to avoid further
segregation and concentration of poverty and
encourage access to opportunity through
affordable housing programs
•Maps do not factor in demographic data from
the American Community Survey
•Increases above-moderate income allocation,
not just affordable housing
1817
Coronavirus Pandemic
•Altered the way job sector operates by increasing
telecommuting options and decreasing reliance on
traditional office space
•Bay Area’s major employment centers have more
available land and can replace office space with
housing, in turn decreasing the demand for Dublin
•Job-housing balance more important to reach GHG
reduction targets since transit ridership has
decreased
1818
Land Use Authority
•City does not have land use authority over Camp
Parks or the Department of Justice properties
•Both locations should not be used for
calculating the City’s allocation
1819
Recommendation
•Provide feedback and direct Staff to submit an
appeal of the City’s Draft RHNA
1820
1821