The county needs to seriously reevaluate their permitting costs...there was a suggestion to have a low fixed cost single permit for existing granny units...this needs to happen...…....there is tons of open space...can ANY of it be rezoned for multi family housing..?

Please embrace, support and encourage groups like Habitat for Humanity. Given the size and scope of Placer County it is disappointing to see such a small presence of Habitat for Humanity in this county. In contrast to the 1 home built in Placer County, the smaller Nevada County Habitat for Hmanity has a 16 unit development in progress and another 19 in the works. We need to step up the pace in Placer County! Tiny homes for vets should alstroemerias be encouraged like is done in Davis.

I'm all for mixing housing types withing communities - duplexes and triplexes,townhouses and condos next to single family units within a development. It provides for greater diversity and a more interesting look to neighborhoods. AND it allows for lower income residents to have similar access to amenities that higher income residents enjoy, like great schools and parks.

So not build units without parking. I think it is necessary to have a parking space for everyone.

Allow mini-high density subdivisions where the County approves layouts of 1, 2 and 3 acres- different parking options like a group lot, carport. Allow these without sidewalks and street lights and to use septic systems. Allow innovative septic systems that can work on poor soils. Don't want mobile homes becoming parked as second dwelling units.

As a commercial appraiser, I've given this a lot of thought. People complain that government fees are the reason housing costs so much. While that contributes, its caps out at a certain point. Its land costs in many cases. If you could make the apartments around the Galleria mall, (just as an example) be 4-6 stories tall instead of 2-3, you would only have material/government costs. The land is already owned. Maybe a parking garage where there is currently a lot. Maybe even units on top of the mall. There are so many options when you go vertical. I guess this is a county survey, not city, but the same could apply in other areas.

require all new development to construction ten percent or more of the units as affordable

Do NOT mix multi-units among single family units as is done in Davis. Totally ruins neighborhoods with many rentals not being kept up.

Require rental units to be a minimum of 30 days by single renter.

What I would like to see built is "loft units" over businesses or in-law/granny units or flats on current properties.

Putting more and more small unit homes into the rural communities will exhaust police and fire and tax roads and schools far beyond what they were designed to handle. If this continues, all the charm that brings high value homes to the area will be gone.

Stop building big housing unit with big building identification numbers on them use public lands if you have to make communities 300 to 800 square foot homes on 1200 foot lot and sell them to people that won’t them charge .5% tax use your power to give people back the pride of ownership and those people will build a better community.

Fee reductions, ease regulatory requirements and delays (CEQA reform), incentivize development of afford housing units through grants of land etc. In high density units it’s not unreasonable to require 20 percent of the units be affordable.

Vacation Home Rental restrictions because they are reducing available housing for full-time residents. Consider programs to incentivize renting existing units to full time residents (subsidies/financial benefits to owners). On a larger scale, we need to reconsider the wisdom of encouraging more people to live in fire-prone areas. Relying on continuous population growth for a (presumably) healthy economy is just getting us into more trouble!!!! Let's figure out better ways to improve our economy!!!!

While density can be a scary word to people, it's important that higher density is allowed in some areas- more multi-family units in town centers and also duplexs or triplexs allowed in single family home neighborhoods.

Remove the governmental red tape to fast track the affordable housing options within our county. We also need a couple levels of "affordable" from county subsidized for those coming out of a temporary shelter (as in Auburn) to our seniors and low income. A great example of multi family, affordable housing in West Roseville is Vintage Square at Westpark. I do not know what they rent for now but at one point a 1 bedroom after you lived there paying "full" rent and were on a waiting list was $663. That type of multi-housing is perfect throughout our county for our seniors (they have elevators) and low income citizens with the exception of they should put washers and dryers in the units instead of a community laundry room. As a homeowner in Placer County, I would not mind my tax dollars going to assist low income/seniors or someone coming out of a shelter with housing needs.

require a percentage of accessible housing units be built for every mcmansion, so that the people who are required to maintain said mcmansions (house keepers, grounds keepers, snow removal contractors, etc) have a place to live. Require those accessible homes are actually built, not just fees collected.

Streamline the permitting process for ALL applicants and make it less expensive. If you are going to pack people in like sardines, make sure that the units are soundproofed to the hilt and there is plenty of parking for everybody.

more multi use buildings with residential units above small business

Build an Ekistic community of several thousand housing units w/support services. All parking on the perimeters, with electric transport inside

Good idea to get input on more affordable housing in Placer Co but as long as the steady influx of Bay Area residents keep buying here, they push the housing prices up because they buy all cash with multiple offers on properties. Not sure if smaller housing units will do much good for those who are already priced out of the housing market in Placer County.

Require developers to build housing - not pay in-lieu fees. Why haven't the in-lieu fees resulted in any housing units going to ground in Placer County?

I think we need to be more realistic about the younger generation. They are more interested in travelling and doing things with their money that big homes are not such a priority anymore. We should accommodate that need by utilizing first, existing and empty buildings or new complexes that go up rather than spread out and parking should be included. If our tax dollars are used to subsidize, then more accountability for low income families should be undertaken to ensure they are paying their proportionate share. I think simply furnished units with built in or drop down furnishings should also be an option that could be easily included and they should be forced to sign agreements that make them adhere to health and safety standards so these units are well maintained. People generally take pride in their surrounds if they are pleasing to the eye and clean.

When I wanted to add one bedroom (don't get me started about how you don't permit one bedrooms) Placer County wanted in excess of $50,000 for parks, fire, roads, etc. I get that someone has to pay for these services and I feel like I do, however, these fees preclude me from adding a rental unit. I could provide a nice place for people to live, but I'm priced out by permit fees.

Lighten up on regulations and let home/property owners build and/or rent out smaller units as they wish. There are lots of buildings already standing that should be occupied long BEFORE we consider building new developments.

Allow units to be built over businesses like seen in Portland, Seattle, LA, and most other states. I just don't understand why this part of CA either doesn't sanction it or allow it. I cannot remember the name of those communities but it may be called mulit-purpose residential properties.

Allow for more employment opportunities within a .5 mile radius of small housing multiple unit homes/apts.

Evaluate residential building fees to ensure they promote their construction of small units instead of restricting the construction of small units

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are the most likely way to achieve more housing units in the Lake Tahoe Basin; but to actually see more ADU construction projects the County must discontinue the practice of requiring a deed restriction. It puts an unnecessary cloud on title and stifles your otherwise laudabe housing ovjectives. Another “tool” to open up less expensive development projects would be to aggressively press for a lowering of the IPES line to mirror the rest of the Basin. Finally, making contact with the CTC might prove useful, in that they hold a number of “buildable” parcels in their inventory, many of which would be infill projects in existing higher density areas.

Granny units should be approved and permitted more easily.

Make all vacation home construction include at least one full time rental unit for work force not short term rental

Grandfather in existing "mother-in-law" type units so they are legal and can increase the property value for the owners. win-win

1. Davis’ University Village model with county as a partner on HOA board to define bylaws, closely monitor and expedite enforcement. 2. Lease to own option incentives for new, affordable developments? 3. Build community, incentives, and enforce standards quickly in new multi-unit developments. Subsidized self-help center for home maintenance needs for affordable housing communities, with recognition and rewards for curb appeal and code adherence. Community collaboration spruce up days. Everyone wants to live in a nice area. Help insure affordable homes don’t become an eyesore because of barriers of time, skill, financial, or aesthetic standards. Have attractive, individual, homey architecture and community interaction spaces to foster frequent informal interaction needed to build a sense of community and mutual accountability. Insure quality support equipment (i.e. chairs, benches, tables) are there so eyesore equipment isn’t brought and left to supplement the need.

Allow more 2nd units in a lot. Stop putting so much open land in land- trust to never allow Developement & why is 4.6 acres the smallest parcel in rural area? Why not allow many more 1 & .5 acre lots??? Stop putting us in the urban areas...with mass transit. No one wants mass transit in its current configuration offerings. Until I can catch light rail from Roseville to Downtown Sac don’t talk about mass transit.

Seniors need affordable housing in a group setting. Small units so we can live independently but be close enough to help each other out. Many of us can take care of ourselves but just need the comfort of knowing we are surrounded by other seniors.

Negotiate land and development fees to make it more attractive for developers to build affordable housing units.

Look at apartment behind River Ranch. Property that used to have racquet ball courts could be remodeled and easily add to housing inventory. A tiny home village would be great. We need workforce housing not just low income. Make it easier for current home owners to build in-law units ( lower fees and requirements and streamline the process)

Since plaster County is in a very unique area that covers such a vast landscape we should utilize the land appropriately and not think about multiple housing units stacked up on each other rather We should highlight Developments that would be Welcome mean for new families children and also consider where they’re located to minimize any potential criminal activity such as creek areas close to small businesses and other low income driven properties

I vote for more smaller housing complex units (15-20 max) over the larger complexes (100+ units) as it gets trickier for parking and too many conflicting personalities and lifestyles.

I have no trouble with "inclusionary zoning" (requiring new development to include smaller, cheaper units). That is the ONLY way to get developers to build workforce housing -- they'll always think of a way out, or buy their way out, otherwise.

People who would choose smaller units tend to live more simply, therefore, building in Downtown (Rocklin) would help revitalize the area. I would avoid having high density housing near large home neighborhoods.

stop with the self deception by planning about fees. Planning has tried every political skill in the book to gain amatuers to give complicated suggestions about a decision that no one wishes to be the voters problem. Nimbi's do not want the underserved homeless near them . The City businesses' do not want the homeless close to wander around the customers. The City and County talk about sending them all somewhere out of state with tax dollar tickets. The non profits who are quite capable of helping these unfortunates that are on their ear for many reasons and just need a meal, a shelter, and a productive income. These folks can find that now with the new internship program signed into law by the President that the SBA is managing. The sick and addicted can find similar assistance from the coalition of proffessional non profits who also need a separate micro housing location of 400 units away from the City .

Encourage small housing developments to collaborate with their housing developers to secure land that would allow higher density and his affordable to lower income. Also require concurrent development of affordable housing units rather than acceptance of fees for larger housing developments.

Provide reduced connection and periodic fixed utility fees for small units/dwellings rather than having each low-occupancy unit charged the same as standard residences with higher fees.

Provide incentives for people to create granny flat or mother inlaw units to rent to lower income folks.

Consider buying or mediating the sale of existing multi-unit properties and mobile home parks so that current affordable housing is not lost. Here is an example: https://www.trulia.com/p/ca/tahoe-city/2815-lake-forest-rd-tahoe-city-ca-96145--2086357602

We certainly need more units for aging seniors. We need flexible homes that can help families transition from young children, aging parents, and "bounce back" young adults. We need communities where individuals can live without being dependent on a vehicle (which assists low income individuals as well as environmentalists). We need BIKE trails that are actually CONNECTED to one another so they can truly be used as commute routes. Walkable communities. But - we need our green and open spaces. We need the country to recognize and support those who are working to live a more sustainable/economic lifestyle (solar, electric vehicles, public transport etc). This lightens dependency on vehicle ownership and opens options for everyone.

In law units should allow full kitchens (I believe this may have recently changed to allow already - permits for retrofitting stovetops into these units should be prioritized).

A rent stabilization ordinance which limits how much rent can be increased year to year would help, as would limits on how much a landlord can raise rents on units after they are vacated. Too often this results in price gouging of new tenants.

The housing choices are plenty. Look at all the apartments and multi-family units up and down blue oaks blvd. It is ridiculous. Cram as much housing in one square inch as possible. Look at the end of pleasant grove past fiddyment. It is a sea of alley ways and units crowding the street.

Allowing caretaker units (granny-flats) on most existing and new homesites would fit best in the Tahoe community. Also building small apartment buildings on redeveloped properties would help, while still not creating any ugly behemoth projects.

Remember to make sure the infrastructure can support the proposed number of units.

I think this is a challenging problem. As a N. Auburn resident, my feeling of security has been impacted by the shelter in DeWitt. I am someone that volunteers with Gathering In and I hope they can make positive changes to better my neighborhood so we improve to where it feels safe to walk at night with the dog or spouse. We live in N. Auburn to enjoy the semi-rural nature of the community. High density housing in large units will greatly impact that as well as our infrastructure isn’t prepared for high density. Hwy 49 does not need more cars nor does it need to be widen, we must grow smartly. Not just grow based on demand. Auburn could become the next Roseville, Rocklin, etc.

Actually up- hold the current regulation that all new housing projects have a certain number of units that need to be for low income housing! It has been YEARS that Placer Co. has allowed housing projects to not include ANY number of units for low income housing. The construction Company's and the Housing Development companies know that they can get away with discarding any plans for low income structures. And the County will systematically let them get away with it! Stop this practice. In addition, hire a construction company that specializes in low - income housing developments and build tiny house communities that have two locations w 30 Units each. That would be a great place to start.

More hotels and fewer short term rental choices - we already know from the 2016 housing study that there are enough housing units for the population - it's just that they are not being used appropriately. Resorts and large businesses need to be responsible for housing a percentage of their employees, especially if employees are seasonal. Counties need to to monitor employee housing more carefully.

This is particular to Tahoe.. Reduce permitting fees and TRPA parking and IPS scores.. especially since SLT doesn't have to meet the same BS IPS scores. It's totally unfair. Kill the damn sprinkler requirements, allow granny/in-law units. Allow container homes, tiny homes and pre-fab modulars. The design and architecture is much more appealing now and they can be much more affordable to build.

Revamp the public transportation to include more frequent buses, by adding a bus to split area currently covered by one bus, adding hours on Saturday night, and running on Sundays. Better public transport will bring in more development as it will allow workers to use it and encourage businesses to open in areas they might not have previously due to lack of customers or workers. Also encouraging current apartments and housing to allow income- based units in their buildings or properties and to lower move-in costs to allow families to afford housing.

Demand that developers include 15% of development is multiple unit housing.

Where I live there are 6 units, in 2 unit buildings, there is room for several tiny houses or a quadplex. The restrictions are limiting affordable units. Since the county accepts in lieu fees rather than making developers build the required units, then restrictions as to how many units can be on a property need to be relaxed

The county should address affordable housing properly, tiny homes are not adequate for families and create code enforcement nightmares. Developers should be "mandated" to construct affordable units within their projects. Mitigation fees are ridiculously low and create the problem of lack of affordable units.

I understand most apartment complexes are supposed to have a small percentage of affordable, low-cost units. Is there overview and enforcement about compliance? Reduce the obstacles for manufactured homes and mother-in-law structures on private property so more families can house and care for their elders while giving them a sense of independence and privacy. Establish local all-age manufactured home parks or developments for work-force families. Side note: How can low-income families and seniors get affordable, safe, and secure internet? AT&T is no longer offering DSL connections (if you let it go, you'll never get it back!), and all providers are emphasizing expensive, high-speed, whiz-bang connections that are difficult on budgets, whether you want/need that level of service or not. I think all complexes, developments, and parks should offer basic internet, that people can supplement or upgrade as they can afford or need.

I like the mountain housing council idea of encouraging/helping homeowners to legalize their granny flats to help house local workers. The idea of the new units being deeded with the property to be long term rentals would keep people from renting them as vrbo or air b&b rentals and help the local workers find housing that is affordable. It would also benefit homeowners in resale value of having two homes/a ready made income property included in their property listing. This would also help locals who want to buy a home afford that home by having a tenant to help pay their mortgage. Win, win.

County should wave fees associated with adding in-law unit if used for that purpose. As our population ages we should be helping families make this transition easier. In my case it will free up a 4br home that currently has one occupant. School fees should go away as well. The sell of home will increase taxes as will be paid at higher home price basis.

Reduce permit fees. Give incentives for smaller unit developments. Allow more mixed use buildings.

Build homes and housing units that are more affordable for those that live and work within the County. Stop building so many homes with so many upgrades already built in. Build simple functional homes with the basic appliances and people of lower to moderate income will be able to afford to stay in the area.

right now having a granny apt in one's house or a studio over a garage is legal only if one pays double TSA fees. That is unfair as a home's sewer use is determined by number of residents not number of broken up units.

Look at our existing inventory in the commercial areas, i.e. second floor opportunities for live-work or affordable housing units, mixed-use opportunities. This is a win-win as these areas are w/in walking distance to most services, jobs, and the bus stops. And while I know this is not specifically related to more housing choices but if we could implement a better transit system, the housing choices and locations could be expanded. I believe that is the first thing that needs to be fixed.

Allowing "mother-in-law" type units is a win-win. Homeowners are able to earn income, the housing will blend into existing neighborhoods. We don't want to create a "city"... it is a mountain community!