Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rhna Cycle 7 Allocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
HCOG board selects 50/50 jobs-and-population RHNA methodology and increases income-category adjustment to 20%
Summary
The board identified alternative 1 — a 50% jobs / 50% population weighting — and approved a 20% income-category adjustment as its preferred methodology to allocate the 5,962-unit RHNA cycle 7 regional housing need. The decision starts a 60‑day public review period required by state law.
The Humboldt County Association of Governments board on Sept. 18 identified a 50% jobs / 50% population weighting with a 20% income‑category adjustment as its preferred methodology for allocating the region’s RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) for cycle 7.
HCOG staff presented the RHNA determination received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on July 15, 2025, which totals 5,962 housing units for the region. Staff explained RHNA is a planning requirement that directs jurisdictions to plan for a specified number of units across income categories over the upcoming eight-year housing cycle, and emphasized that RHNA assigns planning targets rather than mandates construction. “This is not an expectation that these units are necessarily constructed or caused to be constructed by local agencies,” a presenter said.
HCOG staff and the regional RHNA working group recommended the 50/50 jobs/population split (alternative 1) because it balances locating housing near jobs and infrastructure (to reduce vehicle miles traveled) while addressing overcrowding, cost burden and vacancy issues that affect all jurisdictions. Under alternative 1 the region’s allocation would be distributed to jurisdictions using equal weight between the jurisdictions’ share of jobs and population; staff provided a follow-up step that distributes each jurisdiction’s total across the required income categories using a regional-average baseline and an income-category adjustment factor.
For cycle 7 staff recommended increasing HCOG’s customary income-category adjustment from 10% to 20% to further push allocations toward a more balanced distribution of unit types across jurisdictions. Staff presented an allocation table showing total units per jurisdiction under alternative 1 (for example: unincorporated county ~2,500 units; Eureka ~1,700 units) and a breakdown of units by state-mandated affordability categories under the 20% adjustment.
Presenters noted data inputs: HCD’s July 15 RHNA determination, Department of Finance population projections and American Community Survey indicators such as overcrowding, vacancy and cost-burden metrics. Staff also described that while the methodology does not treat water or sewer capacity as an explicit arithmetic factor, agency planning and public-works staff have been consulted and, except for Trinidad which has site-specific wastewater constraints, local agencies indicated available utility capacity to support planning-level allocations.
Board members and municipal staff asked questions about median family income (the region’s MFI cited by staff was $88,300), ADUs and how student housing projects (Cal Poly Humboldt) are counted. Kristin Kenyon, Eureka’s development services director, explained that ADU yield in a housing element is constrained by historical build rates and implementation measures HCD requires to count ADUs for RHNA credit; she said Eureka was allowed to count an assumed 20 ADUs per year in its housing-element inventory because HCD requires evidence of realistic implementation.
After public consultation and a 60‑day agency comment period — scheduled to begin following the board’s selection — HCOG will hold a public hearing and then seek final board approval at its December meeting. Staff asked the board to identify the preferred alternative to trigger the statutorily required public review; the board voted in favor of the recommended alternative and the 20% adjustment by motion. The decision starts the 60‑day public review period and staff indicated plans to coordinate with HCD and local agencies during that period.
No penalties for failing to produce housing are imposed by RHNA in the immediate sense, staff said; compliance and enforcement issues are more directly tied to housing element certification and subsequent grant eligibility processes. Staff described ongoing outreach to HCD and the regional working group to reconcile RHNA and housing-element processes and to help jurisdictions plan implementation strategies.
