Supervisors hear housing report showing low progress on very‑low income RHNA targets; emergency housing vouchers slated to end

Orange County supervisors on March 25 reviewed a public‑works and housing update that flagged slow progress toward state RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) obligations and raised immediate concern about the federal emergency housing voucher program.

Supervisor Katrina Foley and others discussed a RHNA shortfall highlighted in the report. The board heard that the county has completed about 3.23% of its targeted low‑income units (the report cited 69 low‑income units built so far for the current RHNA cycle), while the county is doing better on moderate‑income production. Supervisor Sarmiento and Supervisor Foley urged more aggressive strategies to increase supply for low‑ and very‑low‑income households, including small‑scale housing and site identification across the county.

Julie Bidwell, director of OC Housing & Community Development, told the board the March report had been prepared before the March 6 HUD notice that changed emergency housing voucher funding. She said the county had been expecting roughly $12 million in emergency voucher funding but that HUD’s notice effectively defunded those vouchers such that the county will lose the subsidy beginning in September 2025. Bidwell said the emergency housing voucher funding is rental assistance (not a single physical project) and therefore was not reflected in the public‑works site report. She indicated a separate report would address voucher funding and impacts to residents.

Supervisors pressed staff on how county‑funded housing projects are credited in RHNA accounting when projects are sited in partner cities, and discussed whether the county can negotiate transfer of RHNA credits with cities that have met or nearly met their targets. Bidwell explained that some funding is regional in nature (for example Mental Health Services Act funds) and that credit transfers are optional under current practice; she said where the county owns property or uses localized funds it sometimes requires the receiving city to transfer RHNA credit. Supervisor Foley asked staff to analyze whether existing law requires optional transfers or only permits them, and to come back with suggested language or policy changes if the law allows it.

Board members also discussed siting barriers, a county pilot concept for small‑scale or “tiny homes” to quickly add lower‑cost units, and coordination with the Civic Center master plan and other site programs. The board approved the item as a routine progress report; the larger fiscal and programmatic impacts will be addressed in subsequent reports.

Action taken: the board approved the housing report (item 4) after discussion and directed staff to return with further analysis on RHNA credit transfers and on the implications of the emergency voucher defunding.