Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors discuss RHNA shortfalls and warned of $12 million emergency‑vouchers loss
Summary
Board members reviewed the county housing report and discussed low‑income RHNA shortfalls (board cited 3.23% of low‑income target achieved and 69 units reported), the use of small‑scale housing and concerns that $12,000,000 in Emergency Housing Voucher funding is being defunded starting September 2025, per OC Housing staff.
At the March 25 meeting the Board of Supervisors reviewed a routine OC Public Works housing status report and heard questions from board members about where the county stands on its RHNA goals and how county‑funded projects are credited.
Supervisor Doug Chaffee and Supervisor (name in record) framed the item as an opportunity to check progress; Supervisor Don Sorrento noted the county has achieved roughly 3.23% of its targeted low‑income units and reported “only 69 low income units so far in the RHNA cycle.” Supervisors discussed adding small‑scale housing (often called tiny homes) as a faster path to add supply and stressed the need to spread units countywide rather than concentrate them in a few cities.
Vice Chair Katrina Foley asked whether the recent HUD notice about Emergency Housing Vouchers — which OC Housing staff described as $12,000,000 in expected funding — had been included in the report. Julie Bidwell, Director of OC Housing & Community Development, said the March 6 HUD notice arrived after the report filing and that the report update did not reflect the defunding; she said the emergency vouchers represent rental assistance (not a physical location) and that voucher recipients live throughout the county. Bidwell also explained rules for transferring RHNA credits: jurisdictions can agree to transfer credits but transfers are optional and not automatic; some funding sources that are county‑administered include optional transfer policies tied to negotiated agreements with cities.
Supervisors asked staff to analyze whether voluntary transfers and the county’s current agreements are legal requirements or policy choices and to return with recommendations on whether to tighten language so county‑funded units receive clearer credit toward RHNA where the law allows. Several board members emphasized the need for earlier notice when funding streams change and for better tracking of county‑funded projects so the county receives appropriate recognition and credit in housing‑production tallies.
What happens next: staff said policy and legal analyses will be pursued and that the housing report will be supplemented in later updates to account for HUD’s voucher change if necessary.
