SB 715 mandates that each council of governments (COG), or a delegate subregion, prepare a written methodology for distributing the region’s existing and projected regional housing need at least two years before the next RHNA revision. The methodology must incorporate a set of statutory factors, be developed through a standardized survey of member jurisdictions and public participation, and be published with supporting data and an explanation of how the factors and fair housing objectives were applied.
Significantly, the bill requires that housing units lost during a Governor-declared state of emergency that remain unreplaced at the time of RHNA analysis be allocated—at least in part—away from the jurisdictions where the losses occurred, taking into account the risk those areas face of future recurrence. The draft methodology is subject to a 60-day review by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and the statute prohibits certain local policies (like permit caps or prior underproduction) from being used to reduce a jurisdiction’s RHNA share.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires COGs (or delegate subregions) to produce and publish a proposed RHNA allocation methodology, based on a standardized survey of member jurisdictions, specific statutory factors (jobs-housing balance, infrastructure constraints, climate and safety risks, assisted-housing loss, homelessness, etc.), and public input. It also directs that units lost in Governor-declared emergencies that remain unrebuilt be allotted regionally rather than automatically to the place they were lost.
Who It Affects
Councils of governments and their planning staff, cities and counties required to respond to COG surveys, HCD reviewers, housing element planners, and jurisdictions that may gain or lose RHNA allocations—particularly areas affected by disasters, jurisdictions with constrained infrastructure, and regions managing assisted-housing loss.
Why It Matters
The measure folds disaster recovery, fair housing data, and climate and infrastructure constraints into the RHNA formula, shifting some allocation decisions from local discretion to regionally standardized methods and state review. That combination changes incentives around where capacity is measured, who bears rebuilding responsibility, and how regional planners balance equity, climate risk, and transportation planning.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 715 creates a step-by-step process for how regional bodies must create a RHNA allocation methodology. Two or more years before a RHNA cycle revision, the COG (or delegate subregion) must prepare a proposed methodology that explains how it will distribute the region’s total housing need among member jurisdictions.
The law requires the COG to gather standardized information from local governments through a survey conducted within the six months preceding methodology development and to use that data as source material where available.
The survey must collect information needed to apply the statutory factors in subdivision (e), and the COG must compile and report fair housing issues, strategies, and actions found in local Analyses of Impediments or Assessments of Fair Housing and local housing elements. The compiled fair housing report must describe common themes, effective strategies (including strategies to avoid displacement), and significant regional barriers to affirmatively furthering fair housing.
COGs may reuse this material in regional transportation plans or other regional documents.One of the bill’s most consequential procedural rules addresses units permanently or temporarily lost during a Governor-declared emergency that have not been rebuilt by the RHNA analysis date. SB 715 requires that some or all of those lost units be reallocated to jurisdictions other than where the loss occurred, and that the allocation consider the likelihood of recurrence of the emergency conditions.
The statute also lists a menu of factors COGs must consider when crafting methodologies — from jobs-housing relationships and sewer/water capacity limits to FEMA flood findings, wildfire and evacuation constraints, assisted-housing conversions, homelessness needs, farmworker housing, and the presence of university campuses.After the public comment period (including at least one hearing), the COG posts a draft methodology with supporting data and explains how each factor was used. The draft goes to HCD for a 60-day written review.
If HCD finds the methodology inconsistent with the RHNA objectives, the COG must either revise it or adopt it with written findings supported by substantial evidence explaining why it still furthers statutory objectives. If HCD’s review is not completed in time, the COG may proceed; but HCD can review the adopted methodology within 45 days.
The statute also prohibits using certain local rules—such as permit limits, prior underproduction, or stable population—as grounds to reduce a locality’s RHNA allocation. SB 715 became operative January 1, 2025.
The Five Things You Need to Know
COGs must prepare a proposed RHNA allocation methodology at least two years before a scheduled RHNA revision and post the proposal with supporting data and explanations online.
No more than six months before drafting the methodology, COGs must survey each member jurisdiction for standardized data, including fair housing analyses and housing element content, and use that data where available.
Units lost during a Governor-declared state of emergency that remain unreplaced at analysis must be allocated—at least in part—to jurisdictions other than where the loss occurred, with allocations considering risk of recurrence.
HCD has 60 days to review a draft methodology and must issue written findings; if HCD objects, the COG must either revise the methodology or adopt it with findings backed by substantial evidence; HCD may later review the adopted methodology within 45 days.
The bill bars certain local criteria—ordinances limiting permit numbers, prior RHNA underproduction, and stable population—as justifications to reduce a jurisdiction’s RHNA share.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Timing and core requirement for a regional allocation methodology
This subsection requires each council of governments or delegate subregion to develop a proposed methodology at least two years before a RHNA revision. It also expressly requires the methodology to further the statutory RHNA objectives and to provide for allocation of at least some housing need tied to units lost during a Governor-declared emergency to jurisdictions other than those where the units were lost, considering the risk those jurisdictions face of similar future losses.
Jurisdictional survey and data standardization
COGs must survey member jurisdictions within six months prior to developing the methodology, requesting data tied to the statutory factors. The bill directs COGs to obtain comparable, readily available data and to treat local responses as source material when building the methodology. It also permits jurisdictions to submit information directly if a COG fails to conduct the survey.
Fair housing compilation and reporting
COGs must electronically report the compiled fair housing issues, strategies, and actions and highlight common themes and regional barriers to affirmatively furthering fair housing. The report must include effective local strategies—particularly those addressing displacement—and COGs may use the material in regional transportation plans and land-use assumptions.
Public participation and required factors for methodology
The law mandates active public engagement, including outreach to protected classes and households with special needs, publication of proposed methodologies and underlying assumptions, and at least one public hearing. Subdivision (e) provides a detailed list of factors COGs must consider where data allow: jobs-housing balance (including low-wage job estimates), infrastructure constraints (water/sewer capacity), land availability and infill potential, agricultural protections and voter-approvals, evacuation capacity, wildfire and sea level risks, assisted-housing loss, cost-burden metrics, overcrowding, farmworker and student housing needs, homelessness, regional greenhouse gas targets, and any other factors the COG adopts that further RHNA objectives.
Documentation, weighting, and forbidden justifications
COGs must explain in writing how each statutory factor was incorporated and may use numerical weighting; all supporting materials must be posted online. The statute also lists three categories that cannot justify reducing a jurisdiction’s RHNA share: rules that limit residential building permits, prior underproduction, and stable population from a prior cycle—eliminating those common local defenses against larger allocations.
Draft submission, HCD review, adoption, and post-adoption review
After public comment and consultation with HCD, COGs publish a draft methodology and submit it to HCD. HCD then has 60 days to issue written findings on whether the methodology furthers RHNA objectives. If HCD finds inconsistency, the COG must either revise or adopt with substantial-evidence findings explaining why the methodology nonetheless furthers objectives. If HCD misses the 60-day window, the COG may act without the findings; HCD retains 45 days post-adoption to review the final methodology.
Coordination with regional transportation planning and income categories
The allocation must be consistent with the sustainable communities strategy in the regional transportation plan and maintain the region’s total housing need by income category. For the seventh and later RHNA revisions, allocations must explicitly include acutely low and extremely low income categories. The approving resolution must demonstrate consistency with the sustainable communities strategy and the RHNA objectives.
Effective date
The section becomes operative January 1, 2025, meaning COGs and subregions must follow these rules for methodology development on or after that date.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Households displaced by Governor-declared emergencies — the bill embeds their lost units into regional allocations rather than leaving recovery solely to the impacted jurisdiction, increasing the chance that the region as a whole addresses replacement housing.
- Lower-income and protected-class households — mandatory compilation of fair housing analyses and explicit consideration of displacement, overcrowding, cost-burden, and homelessness channel attention and data into allocation decisions that can prioritize equity.
- Regions and metropolitan planners — standardized, documented methodologies and fair housing reports produce clearer inputs for sustainable communities strategies and regional transportation plans, improving coordination between housing and transportation planning.
- Jurisdictions with infrastructure capacity — cities or counties that have available water/sewer capacity, suitable infill sites, or fewer climate risks may receive larger RHNA shares, enabling targeted investment and development activity.
Who Bears the Cost
- Councils of governments — increased staffing, data collection, analysis, public engagement, and transparency obligations to run surveys, compile fair housing reports, publish methodologies, and respond to HCD review.
- Local jurisdictions — obligation to provide comparable data and fair housing materials and the risk of receiving larger RHNA allocations (and corresponding housing element requirements) if their conditions make them logical recipients for displaced-unit allocation.
- Department of Housing and Community Development — significant review workload and the need to produce detailed written findings within statutory deadlines, potentially requiring additional resources or prioritization.
- Jurisdictions that experienced disaster losses — they may see some lost-unit responsibility shifted elsewhere, reducing automatic rebuilding allocations and complicating local recovery planning and resource requests.
- Developers in high-risk areas — properties in jurisdictions excluded from receiving proportional lost-unit allocations due to risk considerations could face decreased development demand and shifting market dynamics.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether regional equity and resilience are best served by reallocating responsibility away from disaster-impacted localities toward jurisdictions with capacity, or whether recovery policy should prioritize rebuilding and local control so communities most harmed receive replacement housing; the bill privileges regional distribution and risk-based allocation, but that choice creates real trade-offs for local recovery, political accountability, and data-driven fairness.
SB 715 forces choices that are conceptually tidy but practically complex. Reallocating units lost in emergencies away from the place they were lost recognizes capacity constraints and recurrence risk, but it also severs the straightforward link between local loss and local replacement.
That can improve regional resilience planning but also leave disaster-impacted communities with fewer formal RHNA-driven tools for local rebuilding. The bill relies heavily on comparable, readily available local data; where jurisdictions lack consistent reporting or use different methodologies, COGs will face difficult judgement calls—and political pushback—about which data to privilege.
The department’s 60-day review clock creates another pressure point. HCD’s finding that a methodology does not further statutory objectives forces either COG revisions or adoption accompanied by substantial-evidence findings—an invitation to litigation over what counts as substantial evidence.
Allowing COGs to act if HCD misses the deadline limits review-induced gridlock but also shifts risk to post-adoption correction. Finally, the statute’s discretion to add extra factors (so long as they further RHNA objectives) introduces scope for subjective weighting; COGs could, intentionally or not, embed local deals or political compromises into ostensibly technical methodologies, undermining transparency or equity goals if not tightly documented.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.