HomeMy WebLinkAbout6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Process S City of Huntington Beach
File #: 20-2011 MEETING DATE: 11/16/2020
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 a status update on the 61h 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 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (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. Due to the COVID-19
pandemic, there has not been a status update for several months. However, this update provides a
summary of recent activity that has occurred with respect to the RHNA process.
Financial Impact:
Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file the Regional Housing Needs Assessment process status update.
Alternative Action(s):
Provide staff with alternative direction.
Analysis:
The Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) original RHNA schedule provided for
RHNA allocations to be distributed to SCAG jurisdictions in April 2020. Pursuant to State law, the
trigger for RHNA allocation distribution is SCAG adoption of the Connect SoCal Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). For several reasons, SCAG
delayed full adoption of the RTP/SCS for 120 days.
The Regional Council adopted the RTP/SCS on September 3, 2020, and SCAG distributed the draft
RHNA Allocation to local jurisdictions on September 4, 2020. The City received its RHNA allocation
as shown in the table below. It should be noted that Mayor Semeta, the City's SCAG representative,
City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 2 Printed on 11/12/2020
powere `d a Legistarlm
File #: 20-2011 MEETING DATE: 11/16/2020
voted no on the adoption of the RTP/SCS, and the City submitted a comment letter citing concerns
with the final document (Attachment 2).
City of Huntington Beach O Cycle RHNA Allocation
(based on the September 3, 2020 Regional Council vote)
Income Category Number of Units
Very-low income (<50% AMI) 3,652
Low income (50-80% AMI) 2,179
Moderate income (80-120% AMI) 2,303
Above Moderate/Market rate (>120% AMI) 5,203
Total RHNA 13,337
The RHNA allocation appeals process began on September 11, 2020, and ended at 5 p.m. on
October 26, 2020, in accordance with the adopted RHNA Appeals Procedures. The City submitted a
RHNA appeal, which is provided in Attachment 1. No other jurisdiction or agency appealed
Huntington Beach's RHNA allocation. In total, SCAG received 52 appeals. It is anticipated that
appeal hearings will occur between mid-December and mid-January. The RHNA process, including
the City's final RHNA allocation, is anticipated to be completed by mid-February 2021.
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 RHNA Appeal (Note: This attachment contains the City's RHNA Appeal Form
and Bases for Appeal; all other RHNA Appeal Attachments can be viewed on the SCAG website at
http://www.scag.ca.gov/prog rams/Pages/6th-Cycle-RH NA-Appeals-Filed.aspx)
2. City of Huntington Beach Final SCAG Connect SoCal Comment Letter
City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 2 Printed on 11/12/2020
powered54,Legistarlm
Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)Appeal Request Form
All appeal requests and supporting documentation must be received by SCAG October 26,2020,5 p.m.
Appeals and supporting documentation should be submitted to housingoscaq.ca.gov.
Late submissions will not be accepted.
Date: Jurisdiction Subject to This Appeal Filing:
(to file another appeal,please use another form)
10/26/20 Huntington Beach
Filing Party(Jurisdiction or HCD)
Jurisdiction-Huntington Beach
Filing Party Contact Name Filing Party Email:
Michael E. Gates michael.gates@surfcity-hb.org
APPEAL AUTHORIZED BY:
Name: Lyn Semeta PLEASE SELECT BELOW:
Q Mayor
El Chief Administrative Office
City Manager
Chair of County Board of Supervisors
Planning Director
Ei Other:
BASES FOR APPEAL
01 Application of the adopted Final RHNA Methodology for the 6th Cycle RHNA(2021-2029)
❑ Local Planning Factors and/or Information Related to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing(See
Government Code Section 65584.04(b)(2)and (e))
8 Existing or projected jobs-housing balance
❑ Sewer or water infrastructure constraints for additional development
® 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 purposes of comparable Regional Transportation
Plans
❑ County-city agreements to direct growth toward incorporated areas of County
❑ Loss of units contained in assisted housing developments
❑ High housing cost burdens
® The rate of overcrowding
❑ Housing needs of farmworkers
® Housing needs generated by the presence of a university campus within a jurisdiction
❑ Loss of units during a state of emergency
I@ The region's greenhouse gas emissions targets
❑ Affirmatively furthering fair housing
❑ Changed Circumstances(Per Government Code Section 65584.05(b),appeals based on change of
circumstance can only be made by the jurisdiction or jurisdictions where the change in circumstance
occurred)
FOR STAFF USE ONLY:
Date Hearing Date: Planner:
55
Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)Appeal Reauest Form
All appeal requests and supporting documentation must be received by SCAG October 26,2020,S p.m.
Appeals and supporting documentation should be submitted to housinq@scag.ca.gov.
Late submissions will not be accepted.
Brief statement on why this revision is necessary to further the intent of the objectives listed in
Government Code Section 65584(please refer to Exhibit C of the Appeals Guidelines):
4'
Please include supporting documentation for evidence asneeded,and attach additional pages if"you need more room
Please refer to Attachment No. 1 for statements on why the revisions are necessary
to further the intent of the objectives listed in Government Code Section 65584.
Brief Description of Appeal Request and Desired Outcome:
Please refer to Attachment No. 1 for a full and detailed description of the appeal
request, desired outcome and statements on why the revisions are necessary to
further the intent of the objectives listed in Government Code Section 65584.
Number of units requested to be reduced or added to the jurisdiction's draft RHNA allocation(circle one :
wee A acff-pAq- l
Reduced for specific Added
reduction numbers
List of Supporting Documentation, by Title and Number of Pages See attached index for full list of
(Numbers mazy be continued to accommodate additional supporting' ocumentation): Attachments
1. Description of Appeal Request, Desired Outcome and Statements on why the o
2. City of Huntington Beach Proposed Appeals to City Allocations in the Regional o
3. Copy of All Letters Submitted to SCAG During RHNA Process, 29 Pages
FOR STAFF USE ONLY:
Date Hearing Date: Planner:
56
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page I of 33
Description of the City's Appeal, Desired Outcome and Statements on Why
Huntington Beach's Requested Revision is Necessary to
Further the Intent of State Law
The City of Huntington Beach (City) appeals the Draft 6th Cycle (2021-2029) RHNA
allocation to the City (City RHNA Allocation) totaling 13,337 units, which consists of 3,652
very-low income units, 2,179 low income units, 2,303 moderate income units, and 5,203
above-moderate income units. This Appeal is based upon empirical data that is
comparable to the data used by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and which is
supported by evidence, including expert reports.
A revision to the City RHNA Allocation is necessary to further the intent and objectives of
State law, and to further sound and established principles of planning and land use, such
as placing housing where it is actually needed. As the State legislature has found:
[I]nsufficient housing in job centers hinders the state's environmental quality
and runs counter to the state's environmental goals. In particular, when
Californians seeking affordable housing are forced to drive longer distances
to work, an increased amount of greenhouse gases and other pollutants is
released and puts in jeopardy the achievement of the state's climate
goals....
(California Government Code Section 65584(a)(3).)
The City RHNA Allocation is not consistent with the development pattern included in the
sustainable communities strategy, or with preventing urban sprawl by encouraging
efficient development patterns (i.e., placing housing in or near adequate job centers,
ensuring adequate infrastructure including water supply, and protecting environmental
and open space resources and reducing greenhouse gases). SCAG's determination of
the City RHNA Allocation does not further the objectives of State Planning Law. SCAG
did not reasonably apply the methodology and requisites of state law, but instead created
an illegal, arbitrary and capricious methodology of allocation. For each of the arguments
set forth below, SCAG and HCD failed to create and apply a methodology that supports
the legally mandated objectives of state law. Instead, these agencies used a political
process, adopting and abusing unfettered discretion to hap-hazardously determine the
City RHNA Allocation.
In addition, the State's attempt to impose RHNA allocation upon Charter Cities violates
the State Constitution. For over 120 years, the California Constitution has recognized and
advanced "the principle that the municipality itself knew better what it wanted and needed
than the state at large...." (Fragley v. Phelan (1899) 126 Cal. 383, 387 (Garroutte, J.).)
"The state constitution is... the highest expression of the will of the people of the state,
57
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 2 of 33
and so far as it speaks, represents the state." (Ex Parte Braun (1903) 141 Cal. 204, 211.)
Article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution authorizes municipalities to organize
themselves under city charters and further provides: "City charters adopted pursuant to
this Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal
affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith." (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5(a)
(emphasis added).)
For nearly quite as long as charter city home rule has been established in our Constitution,
the Legislature has consistently recognized charter cities' local control and home rule
over their land use and zoning decisions. The State is now using a housing crisis and
environmental greenhouse gas reduction goals to force one-size-fits-all land use policies
upon Charter Cities. However, it is the City's contention, consonant with the California
Constitution, that the City knows best how to manage the use of its land and resources
to meet local needs. The State's attempt to impose RHNA allocation requirements is in
and of itself an illegal act.
As detailed in a letter sent to SCAG by the City of Huntington Beach, SCAG failed to
follow the process outlined in California Government Code Section 65584.04(b)—(f) when
it voted to follow an arbitrary and capricious formula that incorrectly allocated
approximately 6,000 additional RHNA units to the City of Huntington Beach. This vote
was not based upon any empirical data, and was not based on the rule of law, but was
instead based on last minute political wrangling. Government Code 65584.3(a) requires
that actions taken by SCAG be done according to a vote provided for in established rules
following general principles of due process. Huntington Beach was not provided due
process in participating in this vote. This new formula had no corresponding analysis as
to access to high quality transit or access to jobs. This allocation undermines and does
not promote the critical objectives of socioeconomic equity, placement of housing that
can be reached quickly by transit, and achievement of statewide greenhouse gas
emissions reduction goals. Housing Law requires that RHNA should be allocated based
upon empirical data, not political determinations. The result of this arbitrary and capricious
allocation of RHNA is to over exaggerate the actual need for housing in Huntington Beach
and corresponding Cities.
The City requests its allocation of Housing units be reduced as described below.
58
City of Huntington Beach--Attachment No.1
Page 3 of 33
!I. Huntington Beach Issues on Appeal
A. Appeal Issue #1 — The portion of Beach Boulevard. within the City is incorrectly
identified as a High Quality Transit Area.
1. Bases for Appeal:
a. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584.05(b)(1) SCAG
failed to adequately consider the information the City of Huntington
Beach submitted to address existing or projected jobs housing balance,
the region's greenhouse gas emissions targets, and the distribution of a
comparable period of regional transportation plans and opportunities to
maximize the use of public transportation and existing transportation
infrastructure .
b. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584.05(b)(2) SCAG
failed to determine the City's share of the regional housing need in a
manner that furthers and does not undermine the following objectives
listed in Section 65584(d):
• Promoting socioeconomic equity and the achievement of the
region's greenhouse gas reduction targets (Section
65584(d)(2))
Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs
and housing, including an improved balance between the
number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units
affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction (Section
65584(d)(3))
As noted in multiple public comments from the City,' the portion of Beach Boulevard within
the City is incorrectly identified as a High Quality Transit Area (HQTA). Government Code
Section 65584.04(e)(3) requires the RHNA methodology to include "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." SCAG's Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
explains that HQTAs "are based on state statutory definitions of high-quality transit
corridors (HQTCs) and major transit stops. SCAG's RHNA Methodology to determine a
jurisdiction's existing housing need "assigns 50 percent of regional existing need based
on a jurisdiction's share of the region's population within the high quality transit areas
(HQTAs) based on future 2045 HQTAs." However, SCAG's application of HQTC is
incorrect. Public Resources Code Section 21155(b) defines a high-quality transit corridor
(HQTC) as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than
15 minutes during peak commute hours." Public Resources Code Section 21155(b) does
A copy of each letter sent by the City is attached hereto—refer to Attachment No. 3.
59
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 4 of 33
not include future planned facilities within the definition. SCAG's RHNA methodology
creates its own definition of HQTC as inclusive of planned HQTC, which conflicts with the
statutory definition. This new definition is illegal and cannot be used in calculation of
RHNA.
SCAG's RHNA methodology designates all of Beach Boulevard within the City as a
HQTA. According to SCAG2:
Peak Period Bus Service Interval (Frequency)
To determine whether the peak commute bus service interval (also called
frequency) meets the statutory threshold of 15 minutes or less, SCAG uses
the peak period defined in its regional travel demand model. The morning
peak is defined as Gam to gam and the afternoon peak is defined as 3pm
to 7pm. A transit operator may have a different, board-adopted or de facto
peak period; in such cases SCAG will accept requests to use operator-
specific peak-hour periods on a case-by-case basis.
SCAG uses the total population of bus trips during the combined seven-
hour morning and afternoon peak periods to determine the peak frequency
at a bus stop. This is done for each bus route, by direction. The peak
frequency is calculated by dividing 420 minutes (the seven hour peak
converted to minutes) by the total peak bus trips. This average frequency
should be 15 minutes or less in order to qualify. The threshold is strict, at
15.0 minutes.
Beach Boulevard in Huntington Beach has failed to meet the HQTA definition at any time
during the RHNA process, including the baseline year 2016. During 2016, 2017 and 2018,
Route 29 met the HQTA threshold only northbound during the morning peak and
southbound during the evening peak. Additionally, based on the October 13, 2019 Orange
County Transportation Authority(OCTA) Bus Schedule3, there are no bus stops on Beach
Boulevard within the City of Huntington Beach with headway times of 15 minutes or less.
Route 29 services Beach Boulevard from the City of La Habra to PCH in the City. The
shortest headway time during peak hours for bus service is on the Route 29 stop at
PCH/1 st Street (which is clearly not a stop on Beach Boulevard)traveling southbound with
an average headway time of 18.23 minutes during the PM peak hours. Most stops have
an average peak hour headway time of approximately 19-25 minutes. Some stops, such
as the Beach Boulevard/Talbert Avenue stop, have peak hour headway times of 40-49
minutes. One stop (Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue) did not list any stop times as part
2 SCAG Meeting of the Technical Working Group, "High Quality Transit Corridors and Major Transit
Stops," (Agenda item 1-d)
http://www.scag.ca,govicommittees/CommitteeDocLibrary/twql 01619fulla-qn.pdf
3 OCTA Bus Book http://www octa net/ebusbook/CompleteBusBook,pdf
60
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 5 of 33
of any route for this stop. It must also be noted that OCTA eliminated Route 211 in
October 2019, which serviced Huntington Beach to Irvine (a major Orange County job
center) due to low ridership.
Peak period service on Route 29 was reduced 19% from 2018 to 2019. In 2018, a total
of 102 buses served the two stops, which was reduced to 83 buses in 2019. This service
reduction was maintained in the February 2020 schedule. Route 29 has failed to meet the
HQTA frequency threshold during either peak period as of the February 9, 2020 (pre-
COVIDI9) bus schedule (Table 1-1). Route 29 does not meet the HQTA service
frequency threshold in any of the peak periods in the City, south of Heil Avenue4. For this
reason as well, the area from Heil Avenue south to the southern route terminal at Pacific
Coast Highway and First Street in the City is wrongly designated as an HQTA.
Although Route 29 has been indicated as an HQTA in the "2018 OCTA Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP)" in Figure 4.10, reaffirmed by SCAG in response to a request
for correction by the City of Huntington Beach5, OCTA's 2018 LRTP6 Figure 4.1 — Local,
Community, and Bravo! Final Route Recommendations recommends that Route 29
receive a reduction in frequency of service. This will add further delay to the 19-25 minute
average peak hour headway service times on Beach Boulevard. In addition, the City of
Huntington Beach has engaged with OCTA regarding implementation of their 2018 Long
Range Transportation Plan, including the Final Beach Boulevard Corridor Feasibility
Study (Study). The suggested improvement elements within the Study are conceptual
and are not developed into any specific project to be implemented on any specific
timeline. It is at the discretion and capability of the local jurisdiction to coordinate
implementation and infrastructure improvements with all relevant agencies, such as
CalTrans. For example, if Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to achieve service at 15 minute
intervals is hypothetically chosen to be implemented for a portion of Beach Boulevard, a
subsequent specific BRT study is required to determine potential alignments, project
limits, and other details. There is no requirement upon any City within the Study or OCTA
to implement any particular recommendation of the study or the LRTP, and no evidence
that Beach Boulevard is currently, or will be in 2045, an HQTA.
111
4 Peak periods are defined by SCAG as 6:0o am to 9:00 am and 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm. SCAG, "Connect
SoCal: Community Input: Public Participation and Consultation: Master Response No. 1: Regional
Housing Needs Assessment," page 92,
https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/Proposed/PfConnectSoCal Public-Participation-Appendix-
2.pdf.http•//www scan ca gov/committees/committeeDocLibrary/twa101619fullagn.pdf
s SCAG, "Connect SoCal: Community Input: Public Participation and Consultation: Master Response No.
1: Regional Housing Needs Assessment," page 92,
https://www.connectsocal.orc/Documents/Proposed/pfConnectSoCal Public-Participation-Appendix-
2.pdf,
6 OCTA Long Range Transportation Plan, Figure 4.1
http�//www.octa.net/pdf/OCTALRTPI 1 1618FINAL.pdf
61
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 6 of 33
Finally, the OCTA Board of Directors wrote a letter dated March 23, 2020 to Governor
Newsom discussing the impact of COVID19 on their operations. The following excerpt
describes the changes in circumstances that have created a substantial strain on the
ability of OCTA to provide transit service:
The COVID-19 response has fundamentally changed the way people
interact, and the resulting collapse of nonessential economic activity will
have a dramatic impact on the availability of federal, state, and local
funding. Short-term revenue decreases will cause extraordinary budgetary
constraints. OCTA collects approximately $48 million annually in transit
fares, which partially fund bus operations that help our agency maintain
ridership. Transit fares are expected to decrease significantly as a result of
our current ridership decline. OCTA will also see a severe decline in
revenues from Orange County's half-cent sales tax dedicated to
transportation improvements, Measure M2. During the Great Recession,
OCTA saw a 20 percent decrease in sales tax revenue and ridership
levels never fully recovered. If the impacts are similar from COVID-19,
long-lasting impacts will be felt systemwide. Similarly, gas tax revenues
are likely to fall as people across the country heed social distancing
guidance, which will only exacerbate the Highway Trust Fund's on-going
structural revenue deficit. Given the likelihood of long-term revenue
instability, OCTA is planning for an uncertain future while maintaining
our long-standing commitment to fiscal responsibility. (Emphasis
Added)
SCAG must acknowledge that the COVID19 pandemic has truly shifted mobility methods,
transit patterns, and the way people utilize public transportation within the region.
Decreased OCTA funding and reduced on-time performance reliability7 demonstrates not
only that the identification of HQTA in the City is inaccurate.
2. Requested Revision
It is estimated that only 7.2% of the City's population lives in HQTAs that are not appealed.
(Attachment No. 2 - Wendell Cox Expert Report) This is a reduction from the 36.4%
incorrectly determined by SCAG to reside in an HQTA in the City. This requires an
estimated reduction of 80.7%, or 2,455 units from the City's HQTA allocation of 3,059
units and an additional 1,170 units from the residual adjustment. The total requested
reduction due to inaccurate HQTA data is 3,625 units.
111
OCTA June 22, 2020 Board Agenda Packet-Item 22: Bus Operations Performance Measurement
https:llocta.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=EI&ID=749492&GUID=34OAlAOO-DE29-4BB5-845E-
B1697E8B9FB7
62
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 7 of 33
3. Statement as to why this revision is necessary to further the intent of the
obLectives listed in Government Code Section 65584
This revision is necessary to further the intent of the objectives listed in Government Code
Section 65884 because the present allocation method undermines and does not promote
socioeconomic equity. (Government Code § 65584(d)(2).) The present allocation method
also undermines and does not promote an improved intraregional relationship between
jobs and housing, including an improved balance between the number of low-wage jobs
and the number of housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction.
(Government Code § 65584(d)(3).)
In addition, SCAG's incorrect assumptions for HQTA in Huntington Beach undermine and
do not promote important intentions of SCAG's Connect SoCa/ 2020-2045 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, such as housing construction in
transit rich areas (page 4), strategies that result in reduced demand for single occupancy
vehicle use (page 10) and land use patterns that facilitate multimodal access to work
(page 25).8
Generally, the objectives of state law and SCAG's Sustainable Communities Strategy
would be served by a larger share of solo drivers being attracted from their cars to transit
and other non-motorized modes. Minimization of solo driving commutes requires
considerably better transit job access. State and regional policies have been adopted to
seek these objectives by constructing housing units close to jobs that can be filled by
nearby resident workers.
The higher number of units incorrectly allocated to Huntington Beach will also have
related consequences, because the city has more limited transit job access measures
than other jurisdictions and areas of Orange County, Los Angeles County and the 5-
county Los Angeles-Long Beach combined statistical area (CSA).9
The City has virtually no 30-minute transit access to the richest job centers in the CSA.
(Attachment No. 2 —Wendell Cox Expert Report.) This is unlikely to change materially in
the foreseeable future. This is in contrast to the huge transit investments in urban rail and
busways have been and are being further developed in Los Angeles County, with the
intent of materially increasing transit access and creating a more compact urban form.
The promotion of socioeconomic equity is undermined by the overestimate of residents
in HQTAs in the City, which results in a higher RHNA Allocation to the city of Huntington
Beach than is warranted. Potential new residents will have considerably less economic
8 Page numbers refer to the Sustainable Communities Strategy within the Connect SoCal 2020-2045
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
8 This analysis uses the Los Angeles-Long Beach combined statistical area (the SCAG area, without
Imperial County), which is the largest labor market definition by the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget. As a labor market area, the CSA is also a housing market.
63
City of Huntington Beach —Attachment No.1
Page 8 of 33
opportunity due to the limited transit job access. As a result, low-income residents moving
to the City are likely to face significant impediments to socioeconomic advancement. The
higher allocation to the City will undermine the intraregional relationship between jobs
and housing because transit access is so limited. Conversely, the interregional
relationship between jobs and housing would be promoted by allocating a smaller number
of units to the City. Consistent with trends already evident in research prepared for SCAG
(Attachment No. 2 — Wendell Cox Expert Report), the limited transit job access from the
City is likely to require workers to purchase cars to access far-flung employment
opportunities. This means higher incidence of solo commuting and high commuting
expenses. The longer transit commutes significantly reduce the incentive for some
potential workers to seek employment and imposes a substantial drag on socioeconomic
advancement for those that do.
Relatively short commute times are crucial for transit to maintain its market share. In the
United States, the average drive alone time is less than 30 minutes and is 26.8 minutes
in Orange County. By comparison, transit commute times average 53.6 minutes10 in
Orange County, nearly double the drive alone time.
Around the country, a 30-minute standard is increasingly being used to evaluate transit
and automobile commuting. SCAG uses a 30-minute standard for auto trips, though uses
45-minutes for transit trips in its RHNA allocation. The Puget Sound Regional Council
(Seattle area) uses a 30-minute standard for both auto and transit trips. The Center for
Neighborhood Technology (CNT) publishes comprehensive 30-minute transit commute
data within many metropolitan areas, including estimates from virtually any address
(below). The University of Minnesota Accessibility Observatory publishes 30-minute
transit and car job access estimates for 50 of the nation's largest metropolitan areas.
As the data below indicates, access to jobs by transit tends to be considerably lower than
by driving alone. For RHNA to encourage transit commuting rather than driving alone,
affordable housing needs to be built in jobs-rich areas, where transit can be more
competitive with the auto.
However, the transit trends in the SCAG region are working against any such policy
objective. Low-income workers are buying cars, and they are abandoning transit.
A SCAG sponsored research report noted:"
111
10 Derived from American Community Survey, 2013/2017.
11 Michael Manville, Bryan Taylor and Evelyn Blumenberg, "Failing Transit Ridership: California and
Southern California,"January 2018.
https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/ITS SCAG Transit Ridership.pdf.
64
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No-1
Page 9 of 33
Driving is relatively easy, while moving around by means other than driving is not.
These circumstances give people strong economic and social incentives to acquire
cars, and --- once they have cars —to drive more and ride transit less.
With its below average transit job access, residents of the allocated housing are likely to
obtain vehicles to improve their employment prospects.
The following facts are asserted in support of the appeal analysis:
(1) Lower Income Worker Transit Commuting is Declining
Low income residents are far more likely to drive alone than to commute by transit and
this is becoming increasingly so. In Orange County, workers with earnings below the
poverty line are 12 times as likely to drive alone than to commute by transit. In the last
seven years (200612010) to 2013/2017) transit commuting by workers below the poverty
line has decreased by 41%. By comparison, in Los Angeles County, below poverty line
commuters are only four times as likely to drive alone, while, in the 5-county CSA, workers
below the poverty line are six times as likely to drive alone(Table 1-2). A similar downward
trend in low-income commuting is evident in both Los Angeles County and the CSA
(Figure 1).
The very demographic that is the primary target of affordable housing under RHNA drives
alone at a rate similar to that of all workers and is increasingly abandoning transit.
Table 1-2
Commuting by Workers Earning Less than 100%of the Poverty Line
Drive Alone
Drive Alone per Transit
Share Transit Share Ratio
Los Angeles County 58.8% 14.4% 4
Orange County 68.2% 5.9% 12
Los Angeles-Long Beach CSA 62.2% 10.7% 6
Derived from American Community Survey, 2013/2017
65
City of Huntington Beach —Attachment No.1
Page 10 of 33
Below Poverty Line Transit Commuting
2008/2012 TO 2013/2017
20%
18.2%
18%
169'a
14.4%
13.7%
0
14%
d 12% 10.7%
c`o 10.0% r� r'
g 10%
5.9%
0/ r� rG
G 6 "fin-- n ..y. m,,,;,,» ✓�,
Orange County Los Angeles County Los Angeles-Long Beach
CSA
Derived from American Community Survey Figure 1
(2) Huntington Beach residents are far more likely to drive alone than to use transit.
Among the City's residents, driving alone accounts for 80% of commuting, while transit's
market share (1.1%) is less than one half that of Orange County overall (2.3%). About 75
times (7,500%) as many workers from the City drive alone as use transit. This is more
than twice the rate of Orange County overall (36x) and more than six times the rate of
Los Angeles County (12x). The drive alone-to-transit ratio in the City is also well above
that of the five-county CSA average of 57 times (Table 1-3).
Table 1-3
Driving Alone&Transit Commuting: 2013/2017
Drive Alone
times
Drive Alone Transit Transit
Huntington Beach 79.7% 1.1% 75
Los Angeles County 73.7% 63% 12
Orange County 78.6% 2.2% 36
Los Angeles-Long Beach CSA 77.2% 1.3% 57
Derived from American Community Survey, 2013/2017
111
111
111
66
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 11 of 33
Further, as previously noted, bus ridership is declining in Orange County. OCTA bus
ridership dropped 46 percent, from 68.9 million in 2008 to 37.3 million in 2019.12 The
COVIDI9 pandemic has led to even greater ridership losses and uncertainty with respect
to when or even if, ridership will return to previous levels. It is inconceivable that there will
be a sufficient increase in Huntington Beach transit service to sustain a materially larger
share of workers.
(3) 30-minute transit access to jobs from Huntington Beach is materially less than the
CSA, Los Angeles County and Orange County.
Estimates of 30-minute transit jobs access are reported by the Alitransit.cnt.org website
(Alltransit), sponsored by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT). Estimates are
provided at the metropolitan, county, and city levels for much of the United States, and
specific street address inquiries are available.
Alltransit data indicates that transit employment access from the City is far below that of
Orange County, Los Angeles County and a number of constituent jurisdictions (Table 1-
4) 13
• Approximately 134,000 jobs, overall, can be reached by transit within 30
minutes from the City. By comparison, 30-minute job access was 2.4 times
higher in Los Angeles County (322,000) and 1.3 times higher, on average,
in Orange County (173,000). On average, 217,000 jobs can be reached by
transit within the SCAG region, 1.6 times that from the City.
• Approximately 40,000 jobs requiring no more than a high school education
were accessible by transit in 30 minutes from the City. By comparison, 30-
minute job access was 2.4 times higher in Los Angeles County (97,000),
1.3 times higher, on average, in Orange County (52,000) and 1.6 times
higher overall in the SCAG region.
12 From American Public Transportation Association Fourth Quarter Ridership Reports
(https://www.al)ta,com/wp
content/uploads/Resources/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2008 g4 ridership APTA.pdf and
https://www.apta.com/w -content/uploads/2019-Q4-Ridership-APTA,pdf}.
13 Data downloaded October 11, 2019.
67
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 12 of 33
Table 1-4
30-Minute Transit Access to Jobs(Average Household)
Jobs Requiring
High School
All Jobs Education or Less
Huntington Beach 133,743 39,989
Los Angeles County 321,664 96,821
Orange County 172,595 51,261
SCAG Region 216,605 65,198
Source:Al[transit.ent.org
30-minute transit access is even lower in Huntington Beach compared to jobs rich areas,
especially in central Los Angeles County. Examples are indicated in Table 1-5. This is
largely due to proximity to the most transit oriented major job center in the SCAG region
(downtown Los Angeles).
• In three of the areas, near the densest employment center in the CSA,
where much of the regional transit system converges (downtown Los
Angeles), more than 1,000,000 jobs can be accessed within 30-minutes.
This is between eight and nine times the transit access from the City.
Residents of a number of other areas have 30-minute transit access to more
than 500,000 jobs, which is far greater than the City's transit access of
134,000 jobs.
• In these three areas, more than 330,000 jobs requiring a high school
education or less can be accessed in 30-minutes, which is from 8.5 to 9.2
times the transit access from the City. Residents of a number of other areas
have 30-minute transit access to more than 150,000 of these jobs, which is
far greater than the City's transit access of 40,000 jobs (Table 1-5).
68
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No-1
Page 13 of 33
Table 1-5
30-Minute Transit Access to Jobs(Average Household)
Huntington Beach &Jobs/Transit Rich Area Examples
Jobs Requiring
High School
All Jobs Education or Less
Huntington Beach 133,743 39,989
Los Angeles Historic Core 1,186,787 367,904
Los Angeles Bunker Hill 1,144,474 354,787
Los Angeles Civic Center 1,100,441 338,936
Mid-Wilshire 928,498 259,051
Westlake-Dockweiler 909,290 272,787
Silver Lake 837,378 2431677
Echo Park 832,655 247,299
Hollywood 768,614 210,600
Pico-Union 767,775 229,565
Boyle Heights 682,286 221,743
Westwood 654,120 177,267
Culver City 566,368 156,318
East Los Angeles 485,477 156,809
Source:Alltransit.cnt.org
CNT does not produce similar data for driving alone.
Comparative transit and drive alone employment access data is available from the
University of Minnesota Accessibility Observatory (http://access.umn.edu/) for 50 of the
largest metropolitan areas. In 2017, the average resident of the Los Angeles metropolitan
area (Los Angeles and Orange County) could reach 33 times (3,300%) as many jobs in
30 minutes driving alone as by transit.14
(4) Actual transit access to jobs in much of the 5-county CSA, measured by commuting
behavior, is considerably higher than that of Huntington Beach.
Among the City's commuters reaching work in less than 30 minutes, 133 times as many
drive alone as use transit. This is five times the 5-county CSA rate (26x), eight times the
Los Angeles County rate (17x) and more than double that of Orange County (59x) (Table
1-6).
14 CNT and the University of Minnesota use different criteria for transit access.
69
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 14 of 33
Table 1-6
Commuters Reaching Jobs in Less than 30 Minutes(of all commuters)
Drive Alone
Drive Alone per Transit
Share Transit Share Ratio
Huntington Beach 45.3% 0.3% 133
Los Angeles County 40.2% 2.4% 17
Orange County 49.4% 0.8% 59
Los Angeles-Long Beach GSA 43.6% 1.7% 26
Derived from American Community Survey,201312017
Transit is far more competitive in other parts of the SCAG region than in the City. This is
illustrated by ACS data for Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs).15 In the SCAG PUMA
with the lowest drive alone to transit ratio, only 2.3 times as many commuters drive alone
as use transit (Los Angeles County [Central]--LA City [Central/Koreatown PUMA])
Huntington Beach's 133 drive alone to transit 30 minute commute ratio is 58 times that
figure.
Among the nation's more than 2,300 PUMAs, the Los Angeles County [Central]--LA City
[Central/Koreatown PUMA] had the 27th highest population density in 2013/2017. It also
has the highest transit market share (27.3%) of any PUMA in the CSA. This PUMA also
contains some of the most intense transit service in the SCAG region. The region's only
station serving two fully grade separate subway lines is in the Los Angeles County
[Central]--LA City [Central/Koreatown PUMA].
Another 17 PUMA's have 30-minute drive alone to transit commute ratios no greater than
one-tenth that of Huntington Beach (Table 1-7).
15 PUMAs are analysis zones designated by the.Census Bureau that divide the United States into areas
of similar population, averaging 130,000. PUMAs are especially helpful for examining somewhat smaller
area data within large jurisdictions, such as the cities of Los Angeles, Anaheim and Santa Ana.
70
City of Huntington Beach-Attachment No.1
Page 15 of 33
Table 1-7
Local Areas(PUMAS)with Less than 1/10th Huntington Beach Drive Alone to Transit Commuting Ratio
Commuters Reaching Jobs in Less than 30 Minutes(of all commuters)
Drive
Drive Alone per
Alone Transit Transit
Share Share Ratio
Huntington Beach 45.3% 0.3% 133.2
Los Angeles County(Central)--LA City(Central/Koreatown)PUMA 253% 11,0% 2.3
Los Angeles County--LA City(East Central/Silver Lake,Echo Park&Westlake)PUMA 27.9% 11.5% 2.4
Los Angeles County(Central)--LA City(Southeast/East Vernon)PUMA 28.9% 9.5% 3.0
Los Angeles County--LA City(Central/Univ,of Southern California&Exposition Park)PUMA 22.8% 6.2% 3.7
Los Angeles County(Central)--LA City(East Central/Central City&Boyle Heights)PUMA 30.6% 74% 4.1
Los Angeles County(Central)--LA City(East Central/Hollywood)PUMA 31.7% 7.6% 4.2
Los Angeles County(Central)--Huntington Park City,Florence-Graham&Walnut Park PUMA 32.1% 4.4% 7.2
Los Angeles County(South Central)--LA City(South Central/Watts)PUMA 28.6% 3.8% 7.5
Los Angeles County(Central)--East Los Angeles PUMA 37.8% 4.4% 8.6
Los Angeles County(South)--Lang Beach City(Southwest&Port)PUMA 36.5% 4.1% 8.8
Los Angeles County(North)--LA City(North CentrallMission Hills&Panorama City)PUMA 37.1% 4.1% 9.1
Los Angeles County--LA City(Mount Washington,Highland Park&Glassell Park)PUMA 35.3% 37% 9.6
Los Angeles County(Southeast)--Long Beach(Central)&Signal Hill Cities PUMA 40.5% 3.7% 11.0
Los Angeles County(South Central)--LA City(South CentrallWestmont)PUMA 29.8% 2.7% 11.2
Los Angeles County(Northwest)--LA City(North Central/Van Nuys&North Sherman Oaks)PUMA 34.6% 2.9% 11.8
Los Angeles County(West Central)--LA City(West Central/Westwood&West Los Angeles)PUMA 45.5% 3.7% 12.4
Los Angeles County(West Central)--LA City(Central/Hancock Park&Mid-Wilshire)PUMA 40.7% 3.2% 12.7
Los Angeles County(Centrai)--LA City(Central/West Adams&Baldwin Hills)PUMA 34.2% 2.6% 13.2
Derived from American Community Survey,201312017
71
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.I
Page 16 of 33
B. Appeal Issue#2—SCAG Incorrectly Projected Household Growth and Employable
Population
1. Bases for Appeal:
a, Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584.05(b)(1) SCAG
failed to adequately consider the information regarding the City's
existing and projected jobs and housing relationship.
b. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584.05(b)(2) SCAG
failed to determine the City's share of the regional housing need in a
manner that furthers and does not undermine the following objectives
listed in Section 65584(d):
• Promoting socioeconomic equity and the achievement of the
region's greenhouse gas reduction targets (Section
65584(d)(2))
• Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs
and housing, including an improved balance between the
number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units
affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction (Section
65584(d)(3))
California Government Code 65584.01(a) uses a projection year as the basis for the
development of housing need. SCAG defines the "projection period" as that period
between July 1, 2021 and October 1, 2029. On that basis, SCAG should have limited its
analysis to regional growth projections for that period. However, because SCAG's
projections for the period ending in 2030 did not generate sufficient household formation
to justify the HCD's allocation to the Southern California region, SCAG improperly
introduced growth projections to 2045 in order to be able to reach "total housing need in
excess of household growth...." In other words, as stated in SCAG's methodology, HCD's
determination of 1,341,827 housing units needed between 2021 and 2029 exceeds
SCAG's own projection of housing unit demand. SCAG appears to have determined that
the only way to reconcile the disparity was to include projections to 2045. The basis for
the methodology SCAG has implemented, therefore, is fundamentally f►awed.
SCAG has used this flawed basis to differentiate between Projected Need and Existing
Need. The Projected Need calculation is presented as that need for each jurisdiction for
the planning period of 2021 to 2029. For the City, that calculation results in a RHNA
allocation of 441 housing units, which is consistent with the projected household growth
for the planning period. However, since the Projected Need calculations for all SCAG
jurisdictions, calculated based on 2030 growth projections, did not add up to HCD's
allocation of 1.3 million units, SCAG improperly determined that the difference between
the HCD's allocation and the Projected Need should be assumed to be Existing Need.
This backwards presumption, unsupported in the methodology, is that there are 836,857
72
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 17 of 33
households in the SCAG region that are currently unhoused. Further, in order to allocate
this backwards-reasoned assumed Existing Need, and because SCAG's own growth
forecasts did not support the HCD allocation, SCAG used growth projections all the way
out to 2045. This presumption, especially as the basis for the calculation of the current
and future regional housing needs for all SCAG jurisdictions, is unfounded and
unsupported.
SCAG projected the City's household growth to reach 79,565 in 203016. By 2045, there
are expected to be 80,309 households in the City17. By substituting the 2045 household
data for the period through 2030, the methodology over-estimates household growth in
the planning period by 744 units, and population by 1,905.
In addition, the methodology bases Job Accessibility on total population, not on
employable population. According to the US Census, 66.7% of the City's population is in
the labor force (both employed and unemployed)18. The City will have a 2030 total
population of 203,405. Its employable population will be 135,671. This population should
have been the basis for job accessibility by population, not the inflated gross population.
The City's corrected dataset should reflect:
• Total 2030 Population: 203,405 (not 205,310 as shown in the Methodology
Worksheet)
• Total 2030 Employable Population: 135,671 (not 205,310 as shown in the
Methodology Worksheet)
• Total Job Accessibility by Population: 23,824 (not 36,052 as shown in the
Methodology Worksheet)
• Existing Job Need: 3,673 (not 5,534 as shown in the Methodology
Worksheet).
2. Requested Revision
On the basis of the above analysis, the requested reduction based on the
inaccurate application of the household growth and employment population is a
reduction of 1,861 units.
111
111
I/l
16 Draft RHNA Methodology Data Appendix, prepared by SCAG.
17 Ibid.
16 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, US Census Bureau
73
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 18 of 33
3. Statement as to why this revision is necessary to further the intent of the
objectives listed in Government Code Section 65584
The requested reduction is necessary to further the RHNA objectives of increasing the
housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and
counties within the region in an equitable manner; and promoting an improved
intraregional relationship between jobs and housing.
The use of longer term projections results in an inequitable RHNA allocation because the
data is so unreliable. This is illustrated by the downward revisions in state Department of
Finance population forecasts. In 2007, the DOF projected a state population of 59.7
million by 2050. The DOF January 2020 revised projection is 44.9 million. This reduction
of almost 15 million residents is more people than live in all but four states (California,
Texas, Florida and New York).
The current 2045 DOF population projection for the six SCAG counties combined is 20.5
million, approximately 9 % below the SCAG figure for the same year (22.5 million), as
indicated in the RHNA Allocation spreadsheet. Household projections generally also
show the same pattern. Taking Los Angeles County as an example, in 2007, the DOF
projected it would have 13.1 million residents by 2050. The DOF's latest 2050
projection is 10.1 million residents, which is below the DOF's current estimate of10.3
million residents (indicating that population is projected to decrease).
The changing demographic trends in California make longer term projections particularly
unreliable. To use them in calculating and allocating the Existing Need is arbitrary and
illogical, resulting in RHNA allocations that are unreasonably high and inequitable. In
addition, the use of 2045 projections is inconsistent with state law and the legislative
intent.
74
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No,1
Page 19 of 33
C. Appeal Issue #3 — The SCAG allocation of the regional housing need fails to
account for the low rate of housing overcrowding in the City
1. Bases for Appeal:
a. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584.05(b)(1) SCAG
failed to adequately consider the information regarding the rate of
overcrowding.
b. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584.05(b)(2) SCAG
failed to determine the City's share of the regional housing need in a
manner that furthers and does not undermine the following objectives
listed in Section 65584(d):
• Promoting socioeconomic equity and the achievement of the
region's greenhouse gas reduction targets (Section
65584(d)(2))
• Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs
and housing, including an improved balance between the
number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units
affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction (Section
65584(d)(3))
In 2018, the Legislature required the addition of an overcrowding measure to the
determination of housing need by HCD. Approximately 34% of the RHNA allocation for
the SCAG region is attributable to the overcrowding measure. However, the SCAG RHNA
methodology did not reflect the level of overcrowding in the City.
HCD describes the overcrowding adjustment as follows:
Overcrowding Adjustment: In regions where overcrowding is greater than
the U.S overcrowding rate of 3.35%, HCD applies an adjustment based on
the amount the region's overcrowding rate (10.11%) exceeds the U.S.
overcrowding rate (3.35%) based on the 2013-2017 5-year ACS data. For
SCAG that difference is 6.76%.19
However, the SCAG allocation formula does not reflect the differences in overcrowding
rates by jurisdiction. The City has a far lower overcrowding rate than the SCAG region, at
3.66%,which is little more than the US overcrowding rate of 3.35%, a difference of 0.31%.
SCAG's failure to specifically adjust the RHNA allocation for overcrowding, effectively
imposing a blanket allocation for overcrowding, applies the regional average excess
overcrowding rate of 6.76% to the City. This is more than 20 times the City's actual
excess overcrowding rate.211
19 Calculated from data in HCD Regional Housing Need Determination Letter, August 22, 2019.
20 Note: By an alternative measure, which defines overcrowding based on multiple households occupying
the same housing unit(additional households are called "subfamilies" (ACS 2013-2017 table C-11014)
75
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 20 of 33
2. Requested Revision
As noted, the Huntington Beach overcrowding rate (relative to the national rate) is
considerably less than that of the SCAG region. Approximately 34% of the overall SCAG
allocation is attributable the HCD overcrowding adjustment. At this rate, the overall
Huntington Beach allocation includes 4,564 units due to the blanket application of the
SCAG overcrowding adjustment. The Huntington Beach RHNA allocation should reflect
an overcrowding adjustment of 0.31%, rather than the SCAG overall overcrowding
adjustment of 6.76%, which results in a requested reduction of 4,354 units and an
additional 2,074 units residual reduction. The total requested reduction due to
inaccurate overcrowding rate application is 6,428.
3. _Statement as to why this revision is necessary to further the intent of the
objectives listed in Government Code Section 65584
As discussed, this revision is necessary to further the intent of the objectives listed in
Government Code Section 65884 because the present allocation method undermines
and does not promote socioeconomic equity" (Section 65584(d)(2)). The present
allocation method also undermines and does not promote an improved intraregional
relationship between jobs and housing, including an improved balance between the
number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units affordable to low-wage workers
in each jurisdiction (Section 65584(d)(3)).
The promotion of socioeconomic equity is undermined by failing to apply the City's actual
overcrowding rate instead of the SCAG region average rate. Residents of the City will
have considerably less economic opportunity due to the limited transit job access. As a
result, low-income residents moving to Huntington Beach are likely to face significant
impediments to socioeconomic advancement.
The higher allocation to Huntington Beach will undermine the intraregional relationship
between jobs and housing because transit access is so limited. Conversely, the
interregional relationship between jobs and housing would be promoted by allocating a
smaller number of units to Huntington Beach.
In addition, SCAG's failure to adjust the RHNA Allocation for the actual level of
overcrowding in the City undermines and does not promote important intentions of
SCAG's Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy, such as housing construction in transit rich areas (page 4),
strategies that result in reduced demand for single occupancy vehicle use (page 10) and
land use patterns that facilitate multimodal access to work (page 25).
Huntington Beach's overcrowding rate is 19% below the national average (3.66% compared to the US
average of 3.26%).
76
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 21 of 33
Generally, the objectives of state law and SCAG's Sustainable Communities Strategy
would be served by a larger share of solo drivers being attracted from their cars to utilize
transit and other nonmotorized modes. Minimization of solo driving commutes requires
considerably better transit job access. State and regional policies have been adopted to
seek these objectives by constructing housing units close to jobs that can be filled by
nearby resident workers.
Additionally, the same four justification assertions from the City's HQTA (Issue #1) are
made in support of a revision to adjust for overcrowding rate to ensure that the RHNA
allocation furthers the RHNA objectives in furthering socioeconomic equity and improving
the intraregional relationship between jobs and housing. (Wendell Cox Expert Report —
Attachment No. 2)
77
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 22 of 33
D. Appeal Issue #4 — The Final RHNA methodology does not address the housing
needs generated by the presence of public or private universities in Huntington
Beach.
1. Bases for Appeal:
Pursuant to California Government Code Section
65584.05(b)(1) SCAG failed to adequately consider
information submitted regarding 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.
The Final RHNA methodology21 does not address the housing needs generated by the
presence of public or private universities, which does not comply with the Government
Code Section 65584.04(e)(9). SCAG's Executive Summary of the RHNA methodology
indicates that "evaluation of survey responses that indicated a presence of a university
within their boundaries, SCAG staff concludes that most housing needs related to
university enrollment are addressed and met by dormitories provided by the institution
both on- and off-campus." Additionally, some SCAG jurisdictions "have indicated outside
of the survey that off-campus student housing is an important issue within their
jurisdictions and are in dialogue with HCD to determine how this type of housing can be
integrated into their local housing elements. SCAG ultimately recommends that"housing
needs generated by a public or private university be addressed in the jurisdiction's
housing element if it is applicable" because "this circumstance only applies to a handful
of jurisdictions."
It must be noted that the SCAG survey sent to university jurisdictions and any
communications from those jurisdictions about university housing "outside of the survey"
is another example of illegal political manipulation of the RHNA process by Riverside and
Los Angeles County. Prior to the November 7th Regional Council meeting, Mayor Bailey
of Riverside repeatedly brought up concerns during public meeting discussions regarding
university housing and its marked impact on Riverside's inability to meet its RHNA. Mayor
Bailey suddenly ceased to bring up university housing at the November 7th meeting, likely
as he was informed that the housing needs generated by universities would only ensure
that Riverside's RHNA would increase to accommodate this real, quantifiable need for
housing.
21 Final RHNA methodology http:/Iwww scaq ca gov/programs/Documents/RHNA/SCAG-Final-RH_NA-
Methodology-030520.pdf
78
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 23 of 33
Additionally, SCAG's own conclusion notes that only most, not all housing needs related
to university enrollment are addressed and met by dormitories provided by the institution
both on- and off-campus. The topic of off-campus housing provided by each institution is
a vital topic for the RHNA methodology. Many universities develop their own long range
housing and expansion plans in order to define their growth within the campus and
vicinity. For example, the UCLA Student Housing Master Plan22 notes that between 2014-
2019 their off-campus apartment inventory increased by 736 beds through university
acquisition of existing housing units. Universities are removing existing housing units from
the market available to the general population and reserving them solely for students.
Further, UCLA's 2018 Long Range Development Plan Amendment and Student Housing
Projects SEIR23 concludes the following:
The current demand for housing on campus exceeds existing supply. Even
with the additional beds from new developments, redevelopments,
conversion of faculty buildings, and renovations, UCLA Housing is meeting
current guarantees for undergraduate and transfer students by maintaining
higher than desired triple occupancy percentages (putting three students in
rooms designed for two students).
SCAG area universities are acquiring private market properties for student conversions
and it is still not enough housing to meet the demand generated by their housing needs.
Universities are contributing to an issue that is also included in the RHNA methodology—
overcrowding. A university room actually designed for two students only counts for one
person based on SCAG's persons per room analysis, and universities are actually
housing up to three people per such room. UCLA's Student Housing Master Plan notes
that "since the early 1990s, occupancy with triple rooms has exceeded 125 percent."
Additionally, the California State University System Basic Needs lnitiative24 found that
10.9% of CSU students had experienced homelessness in the past 12 months. There is
an increased demand for housing in university jurisdictions, which in turn increases price
and overcrowding among students while simultaneously removing existing housing stock
available to the local non-student population.
22 UCLA Student Housing Master Plan 2016-2026 http•//wscuc.ucla.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2019101/C5 23 UCLA Student Housing Master Plan 2016-26.pdf
23 UCLA Long Range Development Plan Amendment and Student Housing Projects SEIR (2018)
http://www.capitalprograms.ucla,edu/content/PDF/UCLA LRDP Amendment Final SEIR-
Januarv20l8.pdf
24 California State University System Basic Needs Initiative https://www2 calstate.edu/impact-of-the-
csu/student-success/basic-needs-
initiative/Documents/BasicNeedsStudy p-hasell withAccessibilitycomments.pdf
79
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 24 of 33
It is clear that the housing needs generated by universities in the SCAG region have not
been sufficiently considered in previous housing element cycles and have not been
considered in the 6th Cycle RHNA, either. An accurate quantitative analysis of housing
needs within SCAG university jurisdictions is necessary to affirmatively further fair
housing by promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of
environmental and agricultural resources, the encouragement of efficient development
patterns, and the achievement of the region's greenhouse gas reductions targets. Failure
to address these needs does not further the five statutory requirements of RHNA, does
not comply with the statutory requirements of the RHNA methodology, and does not
comply with statutes requiring Connect SoCal and RHNA to be consistent (Government
Code Section 65080(b)(2)(B) and Section 65584.04(m)).
2. Requested Revision
The total requested reduction due to failure to consider the housing needs of
universities is 360 units,
3. Statement as to why this revision is necessary to further the intent of the
objectives listed in Government Code Section 65584.
The RHNA methodology completely ignores its statutory requirement to consider housing
needs for universities in compliance with Government Code Section 65584.04(e)(9).
Approximately 14% of SCAG's jurisdictions (27 cities out of 197 jurisdictions) have a
public or private university presence, which is much greater than a "handful" as
characterized by the SCAG Executive Summary. This assumption completely discounts
the impact placed on specific jurisdictions by State schools, and improperly spreads the
impact to all SCAG jurisdictions.
In order to determine if SCAG's assumptions were valid, the City commissioned an
analysis of the published off-campus demand for housing for 13 total University of
California and California State University campuses within the SCAG region (Attachment
No. 16 — Terra Nova Planning and Research Inc. Memorandum). In order to analyze the
future demand for off-campus housing, each school's planning documents were collected
and analyzed. Once the total future growth patterns and need for housing was
determined, the demand for the period from 2020 to 2030 was developed. The analysis
found that a total of 27,826 students will require off-campus housing in the region within
these two public university systems by 2030. This represents 2.7% of the total RHNA for
the planning period. Since this impact has been spread across the entire SCAG
jurisdiction, rather than assigned to those jurisdictions who will be impacted, Huntington
Beach's total RHNA should be reduced by 2.7%, (360 units). This reduction is necessary
to ensure that RHNA objectives to increase the housing supply and promote intraregional
jobs/housing relationship are furthered.
80
E. Appeal Issue #5 — SCAG failed to consider the impact of sea level rise, planning
for coastal inundation and FEMA designated flood zones when allocating RHNA
to the City.
1. Bases for Appeal:
a. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584.04(e)(2)(B), SCAG
failed to adequately consider the City's 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. 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.
b. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584.05(b)(1) SCAG failed
to adequately consider the information the City of Huntington Beach submitted
to address existing or projected jobs housing balance and the region's
greenhouse gas emissions targets.
c. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584.05(b)(2)
SCAG failed to determine the City's share of the regional housing
need in a manner that furthers and does not undermine the
following objectives listed in Section 65584(d):Promoting
socioeconomic equity and the achievement of the region's
greenhouse gas reduction targets (Section 65584(d)(2))
Sea Level Rise
The State of California is highly concerned with the impact of sea level rise and planning
for coastal inundation. The State's Ocean Protection Council adopted its first sea level
rise guidance document in March 2013. The California Coastal Commission (CCC) has
adopted multiple guidance documents since 2015 regarding climate change, sea level
rise, and coastal inundation utilizing the best available data. At their May 13, 2020
meeting, the CCC adopted a document titled, "Making California's Coast Resilient to Sea
Level Rise: Principles for Aligned State Action25." This document is a tool for aligned,
25 https•//documents coastal ca pov/reports/2020/5/W6jz/w6g-5-2020-report.pdf
https•Hdocuments coastal ca p,ov/reports/2020/5/W6g/w6g-5-2020-exhibits.pdf
81
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 26 of 33
consistent state agency action in planning and preparing for a minimum baseline 3.5 feet
of sea level rise statewide. The principles are intended to guide unified, effective action
towards sea level rise resilience for California's coastal communities, ecosystems, and
economies across state agencies in order to improve effectiveness in addressing this
immediate challenge.
The development of the RHNA methodology necessitates contributions from all relevant
stakeholders throughout the SCAG region. The CCC has not been engaged in the public
review process. The CCC is a key stakeholder for jurisdictions in the coastal zone across
Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange counties. Development proposals in the coastal zone
are subject to final approval of the CCC even if the jurisdiction has a certified Local
Coastal Program. The CCC has the ability to appeal a City's approval of any project within
the coastal zone and conduct their own review of the project, which may ultimately result
in project disapproval beyond control of the City. Rezoning and associated land use
changes required to adequately plan for RHNA allocations will necessitate a Local
Coastal Program Amendment for all jurisdictions with certified Local Coastal Programs.
Coastal jurisdictions may adopt land use changes to comply with RHNA requirements,
but there is no guarantee that those changes will be approved by the CCC.
The authority of the CCC to make decisions based on sea level rise is specifically noted
in Public Resources Code Section 30006.5 Legislative findings and declarations;
technical advice and recommendations:
"The Legislature further finds and declares that sound and timely scientific
recommendations are necessary for many coastal planning, conservation, and
development decisions and that the commission should, in addition to developing
its own expertise in significant applicable fields of science, interact with members
of the scientific and academic communities in the social, physical, and natural
sciences so that the commission may receive technical advice and
recommendations with regard to its decision making, especially with regard to
issues such as coastal erosion and geology, marine biodiversity, wetland
restoration, the question of sea level rise, desalination plants, and the cumulative
impact of coastal zone developments."
Further, the CCC's 2018 Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance for development in areas
subject to sea level rise requires coastal cities to complete Local Coastal Program
Updates/Amendments 26 (which will be necessary as a result of RHNA) to do the
following:
16 CCC Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance Chapter 5.Addressing Sea Level Rise in Local Coastal Programs
https //documents coasta( ca gov/assets/slr/guidance/2018/5 Ch5 2018AdoptedSLRGuidanceUpdate.p
df
82
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 27 of 33
It is likely that policies throughout the LCP will need to be revised or
developed to address impacts from sea level rise. Two major types of
updates to the LCP will likely be needed to address sea level rise:
2. Updated land use and zoning designations, as well as programs to
facilitate adaptive community responses, to reduce risks to specific coastal
resources. For example, the LCP could modify the zoning of undeveloped
land located upland of wetlands from residential to open space in order to
provide the opportunity for wetlands to migrate inland, and protect wetlands
for the future.
The CCC Guidelines specifically recommend rezoning residential land to open space in
order to accommodate managed retreat of areas subject to sea level rise. The associated
challenges the City, and other coastal cities, faces result in vast.amounts of land that are
not suitable or safe for any type of development with permanent structures, including
residences.
To further demonstrate the significance of sea level rise in Land use planning, Chapter 7
of the CCC Guidelines27 includes specific adaptation strategies to consider in the planning
and development review processes. These strategies include "gradually removing and
relocating existing development" within vulnerable areas. This is a challenge unique to
coastal cities, which the RHNA Allocation failed to include for analysis. The adaptation
strategies also include the following, which will impact all types of development other than
protected open space in areas vulnerable to sea level rise, which will have a significant
negative impact on the SCAG region's ability to achieve GHG emission reduction goals:
A.4 Limit new development in hazardous areas: Restrict or limit construction
of new development in zones or overlay areas that have been identified or
designated as hazardous areas to avoid or minimize impacts to coastal
resources and property from sea level rise impacts.
A.7 Limit subdivisions in areas vulnerable to sea level rise: Prohibit any new
land divisions, including subdivisions, lot splits, lot line adjustments, and/or
certificates of compliance that create new beachfront or blufftop lots unless
the lots can meet specific criteria that ensure that when the lots are
developed, the development will not be exposed to hazards or pose any
risks to protection of coastal resources.
A.9a Develop a plan to remove or relocate structures that become
threatened: Require new development authorized through a CDP that is
27 CCC Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance Chapter 7:Adaptation Strategies
.https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/slr/guidanceZ2018/7 Ch7 2018AdoptedSLRGuidanceUpdate.pdf
83
City of Huntington Beach —Attachment No.1
Page 28 of 33
subject to wave action, erosion, or other hazards to be removed or relocated
if it becomes threatened in the future.
A.10 Ensure that current and future risks are assumed by the property
owner: New development should be undertaken in such a way that the
consequences from development in high hazard areas will not be passed
on to public or coastal resources. Recognize that over time, sea level rise
will cause the public trust boundary to move inland. Establish standards,
permit conditions, and deed restrictions that ensure that current and future
risks are assumed by the property owner. Consider policies that would
encourage or require property owners to set aside money, such as in the
form of a bond, as a contingency if it becomes necessary to modify,
relocate, or remove development that becomes threatened in the future.
Goal: Encourage the removal of development that is threatened by sea level
rise
A.15 Use Rolling Easements: The term "rolling easement" refers to the
policy or policies intended to allow coastal lands and habitats including
beaches and wetlands to migrate landward over time as the mean high tide
line and public trust boundary moves inland with sea level rise. Such
policies often restrict the use of shoreline protective structures (such as the
,'no future seawall" limitation sometimes used by the Commission), limit new
development, and encourage the removal of structures that are seaward (or
become seaward over time) of a designated boundary. This boundary may
be designated based on such variables as the mean high tide line, dune
vegetation line, or other dynamic line or legal requirement. Despite the term
"rolling easements," not all of the strategies related to rolling easements
actually involve the use of recorded easements.
A.18 Acquisition and buyout programs: Acquisition includes the acquiring of
land from the individual landowner(s). Structures are typically demolished
or relocated, the property is restored, and future development on the land
is restricted. Such a program is often used in combination with a TDR
program that can provide incentives for relocation. Undeveloped lands are
conserved as open space or public parks. LCPs can include policies to
encourage the local government to establish an acquisition plan or buyout
program to acquire property at risk from flooding or other hazards.
The CCC is actively implementing these guidelines. For example, a property within the
City's certified LCP has a land use designation of medium density residential. The
property owner submitted an entitlement application to the City to permit the development
of 48 residential condominiums. This included four deed-restricted moderate income
ownership units and payment of approximately $200,000 in fees dedicated towards
development of affordable units in the City. The City coordinated a meeting with the
84
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 29 of 33
applicant and the CCC in an effort to bring new housing stock, including affordable
housing opportunities within 800 feet of the state beach, to the City. The CCC explicitly
stated they would not support residential development on this property due to hazard risks
from sea level rise even though the existing, approved land use designation is medium
density residential. The applicant has subsequently withdrawn their entitlement
application. The applicant is now selling the property, which will likely be developed with
a commercial parking lot.
SCAG's RHNA methodology has not addressed the impact of sea level rise, coastal
inundation, and other coastal issues which affect the ability of coastal jurisdictions to plan
for their RHNA Allocations. SCAG's 2017 RTP Data Map Book for Huntington Beach
includes an exhibit depicting "Sea Level Rise Impacted Areas (2 feet) 2040 Scenario in
Orange County28." Nearly all of the lowest lying land in Orange County is within the City
and its annexation of Sunset Beach; .a small portion affects Newport Beach and Seal
Beach. The data from the Map Book does not utilize the best available science/data as
the State has since revised SLR analysis to plan for a baseline of 3.5 feet of SLR
statewide. It must also be noted that the Map Book contains these exhibits and
information regarding SLR, but SCAG does not utilize them for any analysis within
Connect SoCal or RHNA.
The Map Book's exhibit for Potential Will Parcels in City of Huntington Beach also
contains errors that do not affirmatively further fair housing. Notably, this exhibit depicts
an existing 265 unit mobile home park as a refill parcel (north of PCH and east of Beach
Blvd. — 80 Huntington SQ. SCAG's own documents undermine the statutory objectives
to affirmatively further fair housing by designating a mobile home park, one of the most
affordable existing housing developments in the City's coastal zone, as an area desirable
for redevelopment. This is another example of the unattainable goals set by SCAG and
competing interests created by RHNA that result in a RHNA allocation that is unrealistic
for the City to achieve. It should be noted that the City provided input to delete this map
from the map data book and use the City's own GIS files for vacant properties.
SCAG fails to address this critical information from the CCC. Coastal cities are explicitly
unable to accommodate any development, especially residential development as it is
specifically vulnerable and unable to adapt to managed retreat, within areas of sea level
rise. The CCC expects all Local Coastal Programs to recognize that lands adjacent to the
Pacific Ocean and harbors will extend inward as a direct result of sea level rise 29. This
information alone indicates that coastal cities will lose land available for development(and
land that is currently developed) to the public trust boundary. The CCC recommends that
coastal cities purchase land within sea level rise areas and remove all associated
structures to conserve the land as open space.
28 http://scagrtpscs net/Documents/DataMapBooks/HuntingtonBeach.pdf
29 California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance
https://documents.coastal,ca.gov/assets/sir/ciuidance/201 8/0 Full 2018AdoptedSLRGuidanceUpdate.pdf
85
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 30 of 33
The development challenges faced by coastal cities due to sea level rise are arbitrarily
and capriciously ignored by SCAG throughout the RHNA and Connect SoCal process to
accommodate political will from other areas of the SCAG region. Connect Socal and its
PEIR characterize coastal cities as opposed to new development due to "community
resistance to new housing, especially medium and high density projects." In orderto serve
political will in the LA and Inland areas of SCAG, the RTP/SCS and RHNA purposefully
do not acknowledge any relevant information regarding the significant negative
environmental impacts and CCC prohibition on coastal development other than protected
open space within areas subject to sea level rise, including SCAG's own Data Map
Book exhibits produced in 2017. Excluding this pertinent analysis from the RHNA and
RTP/SCS process only serves to enable Connect Socal and RHNA to arbitrarily and
capriciously achieve on paper Governor Newsom's admitted "stretch goal" to construct
3.5 million units in California by 2025.
All areas within the SCAG region that are subject to sea level rise, including the City, must
be accurately identified in Connect SoCal and RHNA, removed from the model scenarios
in each, and also excluded from the RHNA calculation (including but not limited to job
accessibility, HQTA proximity, reallocated residual need, and additional social equity
adjustments) in order for Connect SoCal and RHNA to be consistent (Government Code
Section 65080(b)(2)(B) and Section 65584.04(m)).
FEMA Designated Areas of Flood Hazard Risk
The RHNA allocation does not include any analysis of land areas located in or near a
100-year flood hazard zone. Approximately 2.4 square miles of land within Huntington
Beach is within a FEMA designated 100-year flood hazard zone30. Exponentially more
area of land within the City is located near a 100-year flood hazard zone in MM HYD-4 of
Connect SoCal's PEIR. The City's land that is within or near a 100-year flood hazard zone
must be excluded from the RHNA calculation (including but not limited to job.accessibility,
HQTA proximity, reallocated residual need, and additional social equity adjustments).
The analysis presented above regarding sea level rise and FEMA flood zone areas
demonstrates the environmental challenges faced by the City. These challenges result in
the City's inability to accommodate any type of development other than protected open
space in these areas, which will have a significant negative impact on the region's ability
to achieve statewide GHG emission reduction goals.
2. Requested Revision
Residential uses in the coastal zone represent 34% of the land area in the coastal zone,
15% of the total residential acreage in the City, and 6.5% of the total land area of the City.
The total requested reduction based on failure to account for areas unavailable due
30 hgpss•//msc fema gov/portal/search?AddressOuery=huntington%20beach%2C%2ocagsearchresultsanchor
86
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 31 of 33
to hazards from sea level rise impacts is 866 units (6.5% of the draft RHNA
allocation).
Approximately 2.4 square miles of land within the City is located in a FEMA-designated
flood zone. This equates to approximately 8.5% of the City's total land area. The total
requested reduction based on failure to account for areas unavailable due to
hazards from FEMA designated flood zones is 1,134 units (8.5% of the draft RHNA
allocation).
3. Statement as to why this revision is necessary to further the intent of the
objectives listed in Government Code Section 65584
As discussed, this revision is necessary to further the intent of the objectives listed in
Government Code Section 65884 because the present allocation method undermines
and does not promote "infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection
of environmental and agricultural resources, the encouragement of efficient
development patterns, and the achievement of the region's greenhouse gas
reductions targets provided by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Section
65080." (Section 65584(d)(2) (emphasis added).) The present allocation method also
undermines and does not promote an improved intraregional relationship between jobs
and housing, including an improved balance between the number of low-wage jobs and
the number of housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction (Section
65584(d)(3)).
The promotion of socioeconomic equity is undermined by failing to correctly consider 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 in compliance with Government Code Section
65584.04(e)(2)(B),. because SCAG has not considered areas subject to sea level rise,
FEMA designated flood zones, or areas of tsunami hazard. The City has considerably
less land available for urban development than analyzed in the RHNA process, resulting
in reduced economic opportunity due to the City's limited ability to increase the housing
supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability. The RHNA Allocation does
not further an increase in housing supply in all cities and counties within the region in an
equitable manner in that it unreasonably allocates units to the City that would either
never be approved due to CCC actions or put new residents (including lower-income
peoples and at-risk populations) in an substantial physical and economic danger due to
environmental hazards.
87
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 32 of 33
F. Appeal Issue #6 — Residual Adjustment
1. Bases for Appeal
The "Residual Adjustment" is not found in State law, and is therefore an illegal and
arbitrary and capricious methodology. The SCAG residual adjustment is so high that it
materially undermines and fails to promote other substantial statutory objectives, which
may be of greater importance given state and regional policy priorities (Wendell Cox
Expert Report—Attachment No. 2).
Approximately one-third (32%) of the City RHNA Allocation is attributable to the SCAG
residual adjustment (redistribution methodology), comprising 4,303 of the 13,337 units
allocated to the City. Subdivision (d)(2) of Section 65584 requires a RHNA allocation to
further an objective of"socioeconomic equity," addressing fundamental human economic
needs and upward mobility. By basing such a large portion of the RHNA allocation to
lower"the proportion of housing need when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately
high share of households in that income category..." the potential to promote
"socioeconomic equity" is materially diminished. The methodology substantially increases
the City RHNA Allocation irrespective of, and detrimental to, the City's ability to promote
socioeconomic equity, in comparison to other jurisdictions.
The promotion of socioeconomic equity is undermined by failing to apply the City's
overcrowding rate instead of the SCAG region average rate. Under the current City RHNA
Allocation, residents will have considerably less economic opportunity due to limited
transit job access, in both absolute and relative terms. As a result, low-income residents
moving to the City are likely to face significant impediments to socioeconomic
advancement. The higher allocation to the City will undermine the intraregional
relationship between jobs and housing because transit access is so limited.
Santa Ana has one of the best Jobs Accessibility and HQTA shares of all the Orange
County cities. Santa Ana's share of the regional HQTA 2045 population is 3.11% and the
share of job accessibility is 2.66%, which represent the highest and second highest
shares in Orange County respectively. As such, they should have a much higher RHNA
allocation in order to truly reflect the statutory objectives. According to the current SCAG
methodology, Santa Ana should have an additional 23,168 units. However, Santa Ana's
RHNA allocation is arbitrarily capped at 3,087 due to its reported 2045 household growth.
Because they are identified as a disadvantaged community, their share of the RHNA
allocation is redistributed within the County to cities, such as the City, with significantly
worse transit and jobs access. This is not only contrary to the RHNA objectives, it conflicts
with many of the preferred policies of the state, California Air Resources Board, HCD,
and the recently approved Connect SoCal (2020 RTP/SCS). This arbitrary household
growth cap is based on Santa Ana's self-reported growth, which is outdated and
misleading. According to the City of Santa Ana website, over 10,000 units are either under
construction, approved or currently under review and should be counted toward their 2045
88
City of Huntington Beach—Attachment No.1
Page 33 of 33
household growth. This also doesn't include additional growth that would be permitted
under their General Plan Update, which is the final phases of approva.
A more modest residual adjustment allocation to the City would better promote
socioeconomic equity by taking into account the capacity of the City's transit job access
to support residents' efforts to obtain jobs and socioeconomic security and advancement,
while still easing the challenges faced by disadvantaged cities. For example, a residual
adjustment allocation one-fifth that of the current method to jurisdictions with richer transit
and jobs environments. could benefit a large number of households by placing housing
where the opportunities for upward mobility are better, while moderating the allocations
for disadvantaged cities. (Expert report Wendell Cox)
2. Requested Revision
The total reduction based on the suggested residual adjustment is 3,442 units.
3. Statement as to why this revision is necessary to further the intent of the
objectives listed in Government Code Section 65584.
As discussed, this revision is necessary to further the intent of the objectives listed in
Government Code Section 65884 because the present allocation method undermines
and does not promote "infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection
of environmental and agricultural resources, the encouragement of efficient
development patterns, and the achievement of the region's greenhouse gas
reductions targets provided by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Section
65080" (Section 65584(d)(2) (emphasis added).) The present allocation method also
undermines and does not promote an improved intraregional relationship between jobs
and housing, including an improved balance between the number of low-wage jobs and
the number of housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction (Section
65584(d)(3)).
89
.......... ... .......
s
�a „ CItyHuntingtonBeach
...
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division Code Enforcement Division Building Division
714/536-5271 714/375-5155 714/536-5241
September 2, 2020
Kome Ajise
Southern California Association of Governments
900 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Submitted via email to: ajise@scag.ca.gov
Re: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMENT LETTER - SCAG FINAL ADOPTION OF
CONNECT SOCAl,AND PROGRAM ElR
Dear Mr. Ajise,
The City of Huntington Beach appreciates SCAG's public outreach efforts for the Connect SoCal
and RHNA process. The following comments and concerns are offered for your consideration in
response to SCAG's 120 day Connect SoCal delay to conduct additional public outreach.
SCAG Disregards Coastal Issues in Connect SoCal and RHNA Methodology
Through its various administrative agencies, the State of California has declared that the impact
of sea level rise and planning for coastal inundation is of great concern. The State's Ocean
Protection Council (OPC) adopted its first sea level rise guidance document in March 2013. The
California Coastal Commission (CCC) has adopted multiple guidance documents since 2015
regarding climate change, sea level rise, and coastal inundation utilizing the best available data.
At their May 13, 2020 meeting, the CCC adopted a document titled, "Making California's Coast
Resilient to Sea Level Rise: Principles for Aligned State Action." CCC said that the document is
a tool for aligned, consistent state agency action in planning and preparing for a minimum baseline
3.5 feet of sea level rise statewide.. The principles outlined in the document are intended to guide
unified, effective action towards sea level rise resilience for California's coastal communities,
ecosystems, and economies across state agencies in order to improve effectiveness in
addressing this immediate challenge.
Despite the declaration by State agencies concerning sea level rise, it is notable that the OPC
and the CCC have not been engaged in the public review process. The CCC and the OPC are
key stakeholders for jurisdictions in the coastal zone across the State Development proposals
in the coastal zone are subject to final approval of the CCC even if the jurisdiction has a certified
Local Coastal Program. The CCC has the ability to appeal a City's approval of any project within
90
2
the coastal zone and conduct their own review of the project, which may ultimately result in project
disapproval beyond control of the City. Rezoning and associated land use changes required to
adequately plan for the current RHNA methodology allocations will necessitate a Local Coastal
Program Amendment for all jurisdictions with certified Local Coastal Programs. Coastal
jurisdictions may adopt land use changes to comply with RHNA requirements, but there is no
guarantee that those changes will be approved by the CCC.
SCAG's Connect SoCal and RHNA methodology have not addressed the impact of sea level rise
(SLR), coastal inundation, and other coastal issues or the ability of coastal jurisdictions to plan for
their RHNA. SCAG's 2017 RTP Data Map Book for Huntington Beach includes an exhibit
depicting "Sea Level Rise Impacted Areas (2 feet) 2040 Scenario in Orange County'." Nearly all
of the lowest lying land in Orange County is within Huntington Beach and its annexation of Sunset
Beach; a small portion affects Newport Beach and Seal Beach. The data from the Map Book
does not utilize the best available science/data as the State has since revised SLR analysis to
plan for a baseline of 3.5 feet of SLR statewide. It must also be noted that the Map Book contains
these exhibits and information regarding SLR but SCAG does not utilize them for any analysis
within Connect SoCal or RHNA.
SCAG fails to address this critical information from the CCC. Coastal cities are explicitly unable
to accommodate any new development (especially residential development) in the Coastal Zone
and adjacent areas, as it is specifically vulnerable and unable to adapt to managed retreat within
areas of sea level rise. The CCC expects all LCPs to recognize that public lands adjacent to the
Pacific Ocean and harbors will extend inward as a direct result of sea level rise'. This information
alone indicates that coastal cities will lose land available for development (and land that is
currently developed) to the public trust boundary. , The CCC also recommends that coastal cities
purchase land within areas of sea level rise to remove all associated structures and conserve the
land as open space.
The development challenges faced by coastal cities due to sea level rise appear to be completely
ignored by SCAG throughout the RHNA and Connect SoCal process and replaced with the politics
from other areas of the SCAG region to keep RHNA numbers and housing out of their jurisdictions.
Connect Socal, including the associated Program E1R, characterize coastal cities as resistant to
new development due to "community resistance to new housing, especially medium and high
density projects." It appears that SCAG purposefully does not acknowledge any relevant
information regarding the significant negative environmental impacts and CCC policies on
development other than protected open space within areas subject to sea level rise, including
SCAG's own Data Map Book exhibits produced in 2017. Excluding this pertinent analysis from
the RHNA and RTP/SCS process enables Connect Socal and RHNA to arbitrarily and capriciously
achieve Governor Newsom's admitted "stretch goal" to construct 3.5 million units in California by
2025.
1 http://scagrtpscs,net/Documents/DataMapBooks/HuntingtonBeach.pdf
' California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance
https://docurnents.coastal.ca.clov/assets/sIr/quidance/2018/0 Full 2018AdoptedSLRGuidanceUpdate.pdf
91
3
All lands within the state of California that are subject to sea level rise, including those within the
SCAG region such as Huntington Beach, must be accurately identified in Connect SoCal and the
PEIR, removed from the model scenarios in each, and also excluded from the RHNA calculation
(including but not limited to job accessibility, HQTA proximity, reallocated residual need, and
additional social equity adjustments) in order for Connect SoCal and RHNA to be consistent
(Government Code Section 65080(b)(2)(B) and Section 65584.04(m)).
High Quality Transit Areas(HQTA}1ligh Quality Transit Corridors (HQTC)
As noted in multiple public comments from the City of Huntington Beach, the portion of Beach
Boulevard within the City is incorrectly identified as HQTA. Public Resources Code Section 21155
(b) defines a high-quality transit corridor as "a corridor with fixed route bus service with service
intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours." It must be emphasized that
Public Resources Code Section 21155 (b) does not include planned HQTC within the definition.
Further, Government Code Section 65584.04 (e)(3) requires the RHNA methodology to include
"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." SCAG's Final RHNA Allocation Methodology'explains that HQTAs
"are based on state statutory definitions of high❑quality transit corridors (HQTCs) and major
transit stops." However, SCAG's application of HQTC is incorrect. Public Resources Code
Section 21155 (b) does not include planned HQTC within its definition. SCAG's RHNA
methodology creates its own definition of HQTC as inclusive of planned HQTC which conflicts
with the statutory definition. The Public Resources Code identified above does not include future
planned facilities in the definition of HQTC. This new definition is illegal and cannot be used in
calculation of RHNA.
Again, SCAG's RHNA Methodology to determine a jurisdiction's existing housing need "assigns
50 percent of regional existing need based on a jurisdiction's share of region's population within
the high quality transit areas (HQTAs) based on future 2045 HQTAs." This does not adhere to
state statutory definitions of high❑quality transit corridors and must be revised to accurately reflect
Public Resources Code Section 21155 (b).
To correctly calculate RHNA numbers, SCAG must engage OCTA and other transit operators in
the region amid the pandemic to discuss the post COVID-19 feasibility of implementing planned
public transit improvements due to budget, cleaning, liability, and health/safety issues.
During his August 24, 2020 COVID-19 press conference, Governor Newsom stated the following
regarding the new tiered color system for public health:
"We don't put up green because we don't believe that there is a green light that just says go back
to the way things were or back to the pre-pandemic mindset."
3 http://www.scag.ca.gov/programs/Documents/RHNA/SCAG-Final-RHNA-Methodology-030520.pdf
92
4
Based on statements made by the Governor, the State of California does not anticipate life in
California returning to pre-pandemic conditions through the 6th Cycle planning period.
Despite this, SCAG maintains throughout the September 3, 2020 Regional Council meeting staff
report that it has no information regarding the effects of the pandemic. This is misleading and
untrue. In addition to the Governors statements, and a host of empirical data regarding COVID-
19 and its effects on society, the September 2, 2020 SCAG Executive Administration Committee
meeting agenda includes findings and conclusions regarding a SCAG commissioned Housing
Production Study that provides updated information regarding the impacts of the pandemic on the
region. Despite this new data concerning COVID-19, the State desires to proceed forward with a
"pre-pandemic" plan. SCAG should not adopt Connect SoCal until it adequately analyzes the
effects of COVID-19 on housing needs in the State. In part, adoption of the pre-pandemic plan
in the wake of unprecedented COVID-19 economic downturn and drop in public transit use will
not enable the SCAG region to achieve SB 375 reduced GHG emissions goals.
Further, the City of Huntington Beach has engaged the Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA) regarding implementation of their 2018 Long Range Transportation Plan, including the
Final Beach Boulevard Corridor Feasibility Study (Study). OCTA emphasizes the Study is
designed to be flexible and adapt to each jurisdiction for their respective needs. The Study lays
the foundation for the Beach Blvd. Corridor, but is not used as a rigid implementation arm of the
OCTA LRTP. The suggested improvement elements within the Study are conceptual and are not
developed into any specific project to be implemented on any specific timeline. It is at the
discretion of the local jurisdiction to coordinate implementation and infrastructure improvements
with all relevant agencies, such as CalTrans. For example, if Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)to achieve
service at 15 minute intervals is hypothetically chosen to be implemented for a portion of Beach
Boulevard, a subsequent specific BRT study is required to determine potential alignments, project
limits, and other details. There is no requirement upon any City within the Study or OCTA to
implement any recommendation of the OCTA LRTP.
Additionally, the OCTA Board of Directors wrote a letter dated March 23, 2020 to Governor
Newsom discussing the impact of COVID-19 on their operations. The following excerpt describes
the change in circumstances which has created a specific strain on the ability of OCTA to provide
transit service:
"The COVID19 response has fundamentally changed the way people interact, and the resulting
collapse of nonessential economic activity will have a dramatic impact on the availability of
federal, state, and local funding. Short-term revenue decreases will cause extraordinary
budgetary constraints. OCTA collects approximately $48 million annually in transit fares, which
partially fund bus operations that help our agency maintain ridership. Transit fare are expected
to decrease significantly as a result of our current ridership decline. OCTA will also see a severe
decline in revenues from Orange County's half-cent sales tax dedicated to transportation
improvements, Measure M2. During the Great Recession, OCTA saw a 20 percent decrease in
sales tax revenue and ridership levels never fully recovered. If the impacts are similar from
COVID-19, long-lasting impacts will be felt systemwide. Similarly, gas tax revenues are likely to
93
5
fall as people across the country heed social distancing guidance, which will only exacerbate the
Highway Trust Fund's on-going structural revenue deficit. Given the likelihood of long-term
revenue instability, OCTA is planning for an uncertain future while maintaining our long-standing
commitment to fiscal responsibility."
SCAG must engage OCTA and all other transportation agencies in response to a public health
pandemic that has truly shifted mobility methods,transit patterns, and the way people utilize public
transportation within the region. Decreased OCTA funding and reduced on-time performance
reliability4 indicates that the identification of HQTA within the SCAG region, including in Huntington
Beach, must be reevaluated as part of the RTP/SCS and RHNA process. If the approved RHNA
methodology and associated HQTA is implemented, GHG emissions will be increased severely
as 1.3 million housing units will be constructed without HQTA service as defined by PRC 21155
(b).
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing analysis, real and appreciable damages will be sustained by the City
of Huntington Beach and current/future Californians if the RHNA and RTP/SCS process do not
acknowledge and analyze this information and modify the proposed RHNA numbers. SCAG and
HCD must reconsider RHNA and RTP/SCS process in compliance with state law.
Sincerely,
Oliver Chi
City Manager
Cc: Lyn Semeta, Mayor
Michael Gates, City Attorney
Mike Vigliotta, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Jennifer Villasenor, Deputy Director of Community Development
Nicolle Aube, Associate Planner
4 OCTA June 22, 2020 Board Agenda Packet-Item 22: Bus Operations Performance Measurement
hht s;//octa.legistar.com View.ashx?M=E1&ID=749492&GUID=340AIA00-DE29-4B85-845E-
B1697E8B9FB7
94