Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu And Lease To Locals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission presses staff for local cost data, ADU counts and a plan for lease‑to‑locals workforce rentals
Summary
Commissioners discussed the county’s 21 ADUs built during the previous cycle, the lease‑to‑locals concept to convert vacant or short‑term rental units into workforce housing, and the need for third‑party construction takeoffs and builder outreach to understand realistic construction costs and implementation pathways.
Commissioners used the housing element workshop to probe feasibility of locally actionable programs: preapproved ADU plans, a ‘lease‑to‑locals’ subsidy model and builder outreach to reduce construction costs.
Staff reported that 21 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were built in Plumas County during the 2019–2024 period and that HCD’s calculator assigns those ADUs to income categories based on market value. “The 21 units should stay focused in the very low and low,” Tim Evans, who runs the ADU calculations, said, describing the HCD approach to assigning built units to income categories.
On lease‑to‑locals, staff explained the model: identify second‑home or short‑term‑rental parcels from assessor and transient‑occupancy tax data, draft a homeowner outreach letter through the Plumas County Housing Council, and offer an owner subsidy that would top rental income up to market rate while allowing a workforce rent for tenants. Staff emphasized that an administrative entity (likely not the county) would need to run the program and that the county’s role would be coordination and possible seed funding.
Commissioners and staff agreed on two near‑term needs: better construction‑cost data for the preapproved ADU plans and a local housing study. Commissioners suggested an RFQ or a direct letter to local contractors to provide takeoffs on preapproved plans or to evaluate critical mass for builders (for example, whether a builder needs 10–30 contiguous lots to reduce per‑unit cost). Staff noted the planning commission has consultant budget authority that could support an RFP for cost estimates or a request for information (RFI) to local builders.
Why it matters: Without realistic, locally derived construction costs and clear administrative arrangements for programs like lease‑to‑locals, the county risks adopting goals and programs that are not implementable or that will not produce the intended affordable or workforce housing outcomes.
Next steps: Staff will follow up on an existing county offering of preapproved ADU construction documents (two permit applications are already in process), pursue contractor takeoffs either pro bono or via consultant funds, and return with estimates to help the commission prioritize programs in the draft housing element.
