Plumas County planning staff presented the housing element’s quantified objectives and sought commission guidance on realistic targets for new construction, rehabilitation and preservation over the upcoming planning period.

Staff told the commission the county’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) figure is 154 units, divided among very low, low, moderate and above-moderate income categories. Staff explained the state directs that extremely low-income units be counted within the very-low category, and staff recommended estimating about 25% of the very-low allocation as extremely low; using that method, staff said the county’s draft identifies nine extremely low units inside the 38-unit very-low total.

Commissioners and staff discussed whether the quantified objectives should tightly match RHNA or reflect a realistic projection based on recent construction trends and new potential projects. Staff noted one known multifamily project (a proposed permanent supportive housing project) and discussed a separate potential contribution of about 50 units (referred to by staff as the Vinton project) that could affect very-low/low totals if realized.

For conservation and preservation objectives, staff recommended relying on Community Development Commission (CDC) programs that already perform weatherization work; staff reported the CDC served roughly 51 clients in 2023 and 49 clients in 2024 and characterized an average of about 50 weatherization clients per year. Based on that work, staff proposed quantified preservation/conservation objectives over the planning period (the draft presented allocated units across extremely low, very low and low categories tied to the CDC’s weatherization throughput).

The commission also discussed housing rehabilitation goals. Staff and commissioners noted the CDC does not currently operate a housing-rehabilitation program; prior element Program 14 had called for pursuing a rehab program but the CDC has not established one. Commissioners suggested the county should explore feasible mechanisms — including using seed funding (staff noted the Dixie Fire Collaborative provided $25,000 as seed money to the CDC for a down-payment assistance feasibility study) and state programs (staff referenced the MORE program for mobile-home-park rehab) — and consider tracking permit data (ADUs, mobile-home replacement or rehab, building-permit entries) to document rehabilitation and intended ADU use.

Commissioners debated numerical targets for rehab and new construction. Staff described a conservative rehab placeholder based on previous cycles (seven units) and proposed adjusting targets if the CDC or other partners can demonstrate program capacity. Commissioners suggested the county track permit reviews and consider adding modest increases to extremely low and moderate categories where feasible, but also emphasized targets should be realistic given private-market activity and capacity to deliver subsidized projects.

Staff said the housing element public-review draft will circulate for 30 days; the document may still carry bracketed/placeholder language for items that require further agency or stakeholder confirmation. Staff recommended public workshops during the 30-day comment period and noted that state submittal timelines require planning staff to respond to comments and then transmit the element to the state after local adoption steps are complete.

The commission gave staff feedback to: (1) treat quantified objectives as realistic forecasts tied to local capacity and recent trends; (2) consult the CDC about a housing-rehab program before finalizing rehab targets; and (3) use permit data where possible to track ADU intended use and mobile-home rehab/replacement.