Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Rhna topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

MCOG holds public hearing on draft RHNA methodology after appealing state'proposed allocation

5929761 · October 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

MCOG opened a public hearing on its draft regional housing needs allocation methodology as staff awaits a state response to the county'wide appeal of the proposed unit allocation.

Mendocino Council of Governments staff opened a public hearing on the agency's draft methodology for distributing the region's forthcoming Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The hearing is part of MCOG's preparation while it awaits a response from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to an earlier appeal.

Staff said HCD proposed an allocation of 6,456 additional housing units for the Mendocino region for the 2027'2035 cycle and that MCOG submitted an appeal on Sept. 14 asking that the allocation be reduced to 4,936 units based on the data and adjustments staff believe were not correctly applied. Staff told the board the appeal triggers a 45'day review period for HCD; if HCD does not respond within that period MCOG will proceed as if the appeal were denied.

During the hearing MCOG staff explained the draft methodology determines how any final RHNA number will be allocated across jurisdictions and is separate from the state's determination of the regional total. Board members and staff discussed long'standing concerns that the RHNA process does not adequately reflect rural conditions and noted state-level legislative changes would be the most effective remedy. One board member asked whether additional appeals are available; staff said the statute provides that failure to respond within 45 days means the jurisdiction should proceed with the original allocation.

Two members of the public spoke in favor of staff's work on the appeal and methodology. A public commenter identified as "Gizmo" thanked staff and Janet by name for outreach work. Another commenter, Peter McNamee, urged MCOG to align harbor and transportation planning with sea'level rise studies; his remarks were taken under the Noyo Harbor agenda item but referenced RHNA concerns about climate impacts.

No board action was required at the close of the hearing. Staff said it will continue the methodology work concurrently while awaiting HCD's decision and will return with next steps after the 45'day appeal period or when HCD issues its determination.