Regional housing need: determination: consultation with councils of governments.

Senator Seyarto’s proposal weaves regional housing planning more tightly with the councils of governments by requiring the Department of Housing and Community Development to consult each COG on the assumptions and methodology used to determine regional housing needs for the fourth and subsequent housing-element revisions, with explicit deadlines and a structured data-input framework. The measure also introduces a formal written determination after consultation and an objection pathway for COGs, and it links a set of university enrollment considerations to anticipated household growth, all within a framework that preserves a jobs-versus-housing balance at the regional level.

Key mechanisms centre on a detailed consultation and data-collection process. For the fourth and later revisions, the department must base its determination on population projections from the Department of Finance and on regional population forecasts used in the regional transportation plan, consult with each COG, and choose the projection that best aligns with a defined tolerance; if the COG and the DOF projections diverge beyond the tolerance, the two bodies must meet to resolve variances, with the DOF projection prevailing if no agreement is reached. Prior to developing the region’s housing need, the department must meet with the COGs to discuss data assumptions and methodology, and the COGs must supply a data package covering categories such as anticipated household growth, household size, overcrowding, headship rates, vacancy rates (with a healthy-market benchmark of at least 5 percent), other population characteristics, the jobs–housing relationship, cost burden, housing losses during emergencies, and homelessness data sources consistent with department guidance. After consultation, the department issues a written determination; the COG may file an objection within 30 days, and the department has up to 45 days to issue a final written determination, with anti-objection rules for regions subject to specific distribution requirements.

In addition, the bill distinguishes timelines by revision year—26 months before the revision for the fourth through sixth revisions, a 7th-revision schedule with varied lead times for certain COGs (and 38 months for most others), and an 8th and subsequent revision standard of 38 months—before data and determinations are finalized. An alternative Section 1.5 version adds that anticipated household growth must also account for changes in UC and CSU enrollment as forecasted by the universities under existing enrollment forecasting provisions, with the same consultation framework and timing structure as Section 1. A separate administrative provision creates a sequencing condition: the UC/CSU-enrollment input version becomes operative only if both this bill and a companion measure are enacted and become effective by a specified date, and only if this bill is enacted after that companion measure; otherwise, the Section 1 provisions may not become operative.

The bill’s changes affect multiple actors and the policy framework surrounding housing-element updates. The Department of Housing and Community Development and the Department of Finance would coordinate with the councils of governments to collect expanded data inputs, apply the agreed methodology, and respond to objections, while local jurisdictions rely on the resulting regional housing need determinations to guide their element updates. The approach expands data requirements—encompassing homelessness data, housing vacancy dynamics, cost-burden measures, and the housing-loss context during emergencies—and embeds them in a formal, written, and reviewable decision process. It also tightens the link between housing need projections and regional employment forecasts, and—in the UC/CSU enrollment variant—ties university enrollment trends more directly to anticipated household growth. The framework introduces procedural complexity and potential scheduling implications for revisions, with cost considerations concentrated in administrative time and data coordination rather than new appropriations.