HomeMy WebLinkAboutReceive and File the Monthly Status Update on the 6th cycle (7) /b:):"✓UD 6-0-1
1posey -AWEAIT)
r City of Huntington Beach
F
File #: 19-1206 MEETING DATE: 12/16/2019
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Receive and file the monthly status update on the 6t' cycle Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) process
Statement of Issue:
During the July 15, 2019, City Council Study Session, Community Development staff presented an
overview of the 6th Cycle RHNA process and related items of information as directed by the City
Council. At the end of the study session, the City Council requested monthly updates on the status of
the 6th Cycle RHNA process. This update provides a summary of what has occurred since the last
monthly update on November 18, 2019.
Financial Impact:
There is no fiscal impact.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file the monthly Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process status update.
Alternative Action(s):
Provide alternative direction to staff.
Analysis:
On November 7, 2019, the SCAG Regional Council, made up of elected officials from the various
SCAG jurisdictions, considered the draft methodology. The Regional Council ultimately voted 43-19
to approve a methodology, proposed by Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey, which would result in a RHNA
allocation of approximately 13,321 units to the City of Huntington Beach. Mayor Semeta,
representing the City of Huntington Beach on the Regional Council, voted no on the motion. The
approved methodology has been forwarded to HCD for a 60-day review. If HCD approves the
methodology, SCAG will then distribute RHNA units to its member jurisdictions. This will most likely
occur in February 2020. An appeal period will follow the jurisdictional allocation.
Following the November 7, 2019, Regional Council meeting, the City sent a letter to HCD and SCAG
objecting to the Regional Council's action. A copy of the letter is attached to this report.
City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 2 Printed on 12/11/2019
powered7r%l Legistar-
File #: 19-1206 MEETING DATE: 12/16/2019
There are no SCAG Regional Council meetings in December or January. The next Regional Council
meeting is scheduled for February 6, 2020.
Environmental Status:
The filing of a status update on the 6th Cycle RHNA process is not a project as defined by Section
15378 of the CEQA Guidelines and is not subject to CEQA.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non-Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. City of Huntington Beach Letter to HCD and SCAG, dated November 20, 2019
City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 2 Printed on 12/11/2019
powered7g Legistar—
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
OFFICE Brian L. Williams
of the Chief Trial Counsel
L.T. ercer
CITY ATTORNEY CommunityGemia Prosecutor
Michael E. Gates
Jemma Dunn
City Attorney P.O.Box 190 Sr.Deputy City Attorney
2000 Main Street Daniel S.Cha
Huntington Beach,California 92648 Sr.Deputy City Attorney
Mike Vigliotta Telephone: (714)536-5555 Scott Field
Chief Assistant City Attorney Facsimile: (714)374-1590 Deputy City Attorney
November 20, 2019
Doug McCauley, Director
Tad Egawa, General Counsel
California Department of Housing and Community Development
2020 West El Camino Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95833
Bill Jahn, President
Kome Ajise, Executive Director
Joann Africa, Chief Counsel
Southern California Association of Governments
900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Jonathon T. Hughes, Regional Affairs Officer
Orange County Regional Office
OCTA Building
600 South Main Street, Suite 406
Orange, CA 92868
Re: SCAG's November 71" Illegal Action to Apportion Excessive, Arbitrary &
Capricious RHNA to the City of Huntington Beach for the 6"'Planning Cycle
Dear Messrs. McCauley, Egawa, Jahn,Ajise, Hughes and Ms. Africa,
We are writing to place into the record an objection to the illegal and blatantly unfair vote
that took place at the November 7, 2019, Southern California Association of Governments
("SCAG")Regional Council Meeting. As you know, in a substitute motion, in a 43-19
vote, SCAG took action to approve an"alternative"Regional Housing Needs Allocation
("RHNA") distribution method proposed by, and promoted by, Riverside Mayor Rusty
Bailey.
To be abundantly clear, this violates the law both procedurally and substantively.
218400.docx
73
Re: SCAG's November 71 Illegal Action to Apportion Excessive,Arbitrary&Capricious RHNA
November 20,2019
Page 2
First, the City of Huntington Beach did not receive proper or adequate notice that SCAG
would entertain such a vote on such an"alternative" and legally unsupported
methodology. It was not clearly part of the advance agenda and there was only a brief,
vague letter sent by email two days prior to Huntington Beach that this "alternative"
methodology was being contemplated. To the contrary, prior to this meeting, SCAG had
consistently and repeatedly set forth certain methodologies upon which the City of
Huntington Beach relied.
In addition to the lack of adequate notice of the"alternative" RHNA distribution method
that ultimately occurred, the City of Huntington Beach was not allowed to provide any
meaningful input, or place any objections on the record at the meeting before the vote. In a
blatant disregard of controlling parliamentary rules, the Mayor Pro Tem of Huntington
Beach, Lyn Semeta's request to speak to the members was categorically denied—depriving
her and the City of Huntington Beach any opportunity to voice an objection to, or provide
any input to,the voting members before the vote was taken. Again, a blatant denial to
Huntington Beach to participate in the SCAG RHNA process.
Moreover, this illegal vote resulted in a massive shift of RHNA for the bth Cycle to coastal
cities. Prior to the November 7th vote, the City of Huntington Beach had been informed by
SCAG to anticipate a RHNA distribution for the 6th Cycle of 3,612 units. After the
November 7th vote by SCAG, the City of Huntington Beach has learned that the RHNA
distribution will be 13,300—a nearly 370% increase to the City of Huntington Beach.
This massive shift of RHNA to beach cities, like Huntington Beach, squarely undermines
SCAG's long and historical defense of the legality of the RHNA methodology. The City of
Huntington Beach on the other hand has long held, and has repeatedly voiced,that the
methodology for RHNA determinations has been flawed, wrought with political
manipulation, and not based on objective, verifiable real-world empirical data, this latest
vote on November 7th proves the very point that Huntington Beach has argued all along,
i.e., that there is no rational methodology at all.
In fact, peeling back the veil of false pretense, we now see these RHNAs amount to nothing
more than an arbitrary and capricious assignment of a zoning/development burdens
imposed on cities by a political majority from outside those cities.
SCAG Denied the City of Huntington Beach a Voice, Participation in the Process
For the past year,the SCAG RHNA subcommittee and the City of Huntington Beach have
been meeting monthly, parsing through complicated formulas in an effort to determine a
reasonable methodology that complies with RHNA statutory law. These formulas appear
to provide unbridled discretion regarding options like proximity to jobs, access to
transportation, available land to build on and projected household growth when
determining RHNA distribution. As the process evolved, many public meetings were held
throughout the SCAG region to discuss and obtain public comment on
the methodology. All of this input also included the opportunity for individual
74
Re: SCAG's November 7'Illegal Action to Apportion Excessive,Arbitrary&Capricious RHNA
November 20,2019
Page 3
jurisdictions to use estimation calculator tools provided by SCAG to ascertain impacts of
various proposed methodologies on their city. The jurisdictions each had the opportunity
to provide suggestions forchanging the proposed formulas and many cities, like
Huntington Beach, did provide suggestions.
At the end of this year-long process, SCAG staff proposed a final methodology to be voted
on at the November 7th Regional Council Meeting. Although we continue to object to the
1.3 million regional allocation, Huntington Beach and the other Orange County cities were
prepared to vote in favor of the SCAG staff-recommended methodology as it appeared to
be a fair, equitable formula for distribution based on reasonable factors, i.e., factors set
forth by State law. Bear in mind, with each change to the proposed methodology options
throughout the process, SCAG staff spent considerable time crunching the numbers,
applying the different factors so that at the time the Regional Council voted on the final
proposal,the methodology had been thoroughly vetted and analyzed for its impacts and
rationale as a"reasonable" methodology.
Unfortunately, at the 11 th hour, after ignoring earlier multiple opportunities to give input as
to why an alternate formula should be proposed, the elected officials of Riverside and Los
Angeles, in an apparent backroom deal, sprung new, "alternative" (irrational) methodology
that capriciously and baselessly shifted a massive portion of the RHNA distribution onto
Orange County,targeting, specifically, beach cities.
Notably, the day of the meeting, eleven of the fourteen Los Angeles City Council
Members, who are all able to cast votes due to their city's size, decided to attend the
SCAG's meeting to vote against smaller Orange County. It appears that many of these
Council Members never attended prior SCAG meetings. San Bernardino County voted in
support of the deal because it benefitted them as well. As a result of the massive, 11th hour,
"overnight"shift of RHNA to Orange County pursuant to the vote, Riverside's RHNA
went from 235,131 units to 165,696; San Bernardino's was reduced, 181,774 to 135,047;
and Orange County's increased dramatically from 107,978 units to 182,194.
It appears that the Los Angeles, Riverside contingent orchestrated the 1ph hour vote ahead
of time and therefore had time to line up multiple comment letters and multiple public
comment speakers in advance to come to the Regional Council Meeting to speak and
support the alternative methodology. Orange County, kept in the dark until the last
minute, did not.
Setting aside for a moment the procedural violations, the new/alternative methodology was
not fully analyzed for impacts by SCAG staff before the vote—in square violation of
substantive provisions of State law. This methodology was not previously supported by
SCAG staff. The new/alternative method fails to follow applicable State law in part by
removing local input and growth forecast data. The time staff ftom all jurisdictions spent
analyzing and providing data regarding the realities of our own individual jurisdictions, in
terms of cities' ability to build housing, was completely and illegally disregarded. The
current methodology ignores the very real constraints that coastal cities must cope with
75
Re: SCAG's November 71 Illegal Action to Apportion Excessive,Arbitrary&Capricious RHNA
November 20,2019
Page 4
such as obtaining Coastal Commission approvals for zoning and development, and the
scarcity and lack of available land and other environmental constraints—including
Huntington Beach's particular interest in preserving the only large undeveloped and natural
portion of the City—its beautiful and highly valued Wetlands.
SCAG Not Adhering to State Law, Prescribed Methodology
The Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)through Council of
Governments (COG)and/or Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
purports to identify certain existing and projected regional housing needs for alleged
projected State population and household growth. (Government Code § 65584, et
seq.) SCAG covers the six-county Southern California region counties of Imperial, Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura. The COG develops a Regional
Housing Need Allocation Plan (RHNA-Plan) allocating the region's share of the Statewide
need to cities and counties within the region." The typical scenario is that HCD, in
consultation with each COG, such as SCAG, determines the existing and projected housing
needs for each region. (Government Code § 65584.01 (describing the manner in which the
needs determination shall be made).)
The RHNA plan must be consistent with the following objectives: (1) increasing the
housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability within the region in
an equitable manner, which must result in each jurisdiction receiving an allocation for low-
and very low-income units; (2)promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity,
the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and the encouragement of
efficient development patterns; (3)promoting an improved intraregional relationship
between jobs and housing; and (4)allocating a lower proportion of housing needs to an
income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of
households in that category. (Government Code § 65584(d).)
According to HCD, "the RHNA-Plan process requires local governments to be accountable
for ensuring that projected housing needs can be accommodated and provides a benchmark
for evaluating the adequacy of local zoning and regulatory actions to ensure each local
government is providing sufficient appropriately designated land and opportunities for
housing development to address population growth and job generation." The November 71h
vote is in direct violation of State Housing law. Moreover,there is no evidence that the
State conducted an adequate constraints analysis such that projects built to accommodate
the City's additional RHNA numbers would be in conflict with the new State law and
regulation regarding water conservation. (Government Code Section 65584.04 (d)(2).)
In apparent contravention to the above State law authorities, it appears that SCAG is
unilaterally determining each jurisdiction's share of RHNA through an arbitrary,
capricious, and clearly politically motivated approach that is in contravention to State
law. What this does, especially for the 13,300 RHNA assigned to Huntington Beach, in
combination with the unconstitutional State mandates under SB 35, SB 166, SB 1333, and
AB 101, is create a situation where Huntington Beach and many other cities will
76
Re: SCAG's November 71 Illegal Action to Apportion Excessive,Arbitrary&Capricious RHNA
November 20,2019
Page 5
automatically be in violation of the newly passed State Housing laws. Such non-
compliance will immediately result, according to recent State laws, in massive monetary
damages to the City through the operation AB 101.
A scheme of laws that create an impossible situation for individuals and cities are illegal,
unconstitutional, and cannot stand. Clearly,the City of Huntington Beach's concerns with
this new proposed RHNA distribution are various, many of which have to do with what this
excessive RHNA figure means in the context of the recently-passed untenable, unworkable,
impractical, and unconstitutionally overreaching State Housing laws. Those are not the
complaints here. However,highlighting what excessive RHNA does to a city in light of
these laws is quite illuminating—and quite frankly demonstrates the punitive and
destructive nature of the State's grand housing proliferation scheme toward cities.
Based upon the foregoing and as a result of this illegal vote (if fully implemented),the City
of Huntington Beach will sustain real, appreciable damages. The November 7th vote by
SCAG, which resulted in a massive shift of distribution of RHNA to Huntington Beach in
the amount of 13,300 for the 6ch Cycle,procedurally and substantively violates State
Housing law.
As a result, SCAG must reconsider the November 71h vote in a manner that complies with
State law.
Very truly you
CHAEL E. GATES,
City Attorney
ERIK PETERSON,
Mayor
LYN SEMETA,
Mayor Pro Tern
Southern California Association of Governments
Regional Council Member, District 64
77