It's a little-known, wonky California housing requirement that almost every town, city and county fails.
It's the bedrock for planning and building badly needed new homes across the state and in the housing-starved Bay Area.
But critics say it isn't working. It's underestimated housing needs for decades, they say. And it rewards politics over progress.
The Regional Housing Need Allocation reveals how little influence the state has over local housing decisions and how difficult it might be to regain power.
"It's highly politicized and arbitrary," said Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, an advocate of reforming state housing laws. The housing guidelines have underestimated the booming economy and growing population, he said. "It's important that we get RHNA right."
RHNA assigns specific numbers of housing units for each jurisdiction in the state, guiding local governments to build low-income apartments and luxury homes to serve all segments of the community. Local boards identify sites for potential development in their communities.
Efforts to change the RHNA planning process could force towns, cities and counties to address long-neglected or dismissed housing needs and give state lawmakers and courts a bigger stick against local boards unwilling to approve new developments.
But lobbyists for counties and cities are resisting more changes, saying state laws can't address an issue central to the housing shortage _ the high cost of new construction. Some local elected leaders also fear losing the ability to shape their communities and respond to residents.
RHNA requires jurisdictions to plan for housing in eight-year cycles. Counties and cities must identify specific properties for housing expansion. Sometimes the land is vacant, but often the parcels have long-standing businesses, apartments or other buildings requiring redevelopment.
State, regional and local officials review and revise the plans, and the state gives jurisdictions specific goals to build a range of housing.
Then, critics say, local governments simply ignore the recommendations.
"For the most part, cities don't care," said Russell Hancock, president and CEO of Joint Venture Silicon Valley. "It's purely advisory."
State lawmakers established RHNA in 1969 to ensure that local governments plan for the housing needs of their entire community. It requires cities and towns to include housing growth in their general land-use plans.
Although municipalities plan for housing, it often hasn't been built. In February, the state housing department found that 97 percent of jurisdictions didn't keep pace with population growth.
"Clearly, the requirements are not being met, and there's not enough enforcement being done," said Heather Bromfield, a housing research analyst at the University of California, Berkeley.
A Berkeley study also found racial disparities in the housing assessment. Cities with a higher percentage of white residents usually received lower targets for building affordable housing.
Low targets for affluent communities sparked a Twitter feud between Wiener and former Beverly Hills Mayor John Mirisch. Beverly Hills was the rare city to meet its goal for low and moderate-income housing _ three units. "No city should get a RHNA allocation of three," Wiener said. "It's absurd."
Under a new law this year, local governments that do not meet their goals must fast-track certain types of development in their communities. But cities and developers say the law will affect only a few projects around the Bay Area and is unlikely to spark new construction. Developers say a lack of money for affordable housing stalls development, even if a project wins a fast-track designation.
Bills have been introduced this year to attack the state's deepening housing shortage, including measures to increase housing density around transit hubs. One bill, by Wiener, attempts to put more truth and teeth into RHNA numbers.
Wiener's bill calls for a statewide reassessment of housing needs and sets higher goals for lagging cities. It mandates that communities with high income growth _ such as the Bay Area _ plan for a higher rate of development and provide for all income levels, particularly for poor and moderate-income families.
It would double the amount of low and very low-income housing included in a plan to encourage cities to build more.
Bay Area governments have badly under-developed in recent years, according to local planning studies. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group estimates that the region added more than six times as many jobs as homes between 2010 and 2015.
The League of California Cities has not taken a position on Wiener's bill but opposes other proposals to change planning guidelines. Jason Rhine, a lobbyist for the league, said cities are still adjusting to last year's housing reform package.
Rhine said most jurisdictions "are doing a pretty good job" reaching RHNA goals for market-rate housing. "At the end of the day, cities have identified many, many sites to develop on."
He doubted the measures in Wiener's bill would lead to more housing. "Just because you have more sites doesn't mean you're going to have more development," Rhine said.
Developers agree that expensive land and construction costs in the Bay Area force builders to develop high-end properties to make a profit.
Paul Campos, a lobbyist for the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area, said change is necessary. Builders want well-planned developments to face less red tape from local boards. "Cities and counties have been given monopolies on what land is available," he said. "The last 40 years have shown, especially in the Bay Area, those monopoly powers have been abused."
Wiener cautioned against quick fixes, as opponents gather against the bill and other housing proposals. "It took us 50 years to dig into this housing hole," he said. "It's going to take us some time to get out."
