20 - Laserfiche WebLink

4. The current fee schedule is a disincentive to building smaller, more affordable units; the fee schedule charges on a per-unit basis, regardless of unit size. 5. Higher density projects (i.e., podium construction) are too expensive to build in the Tri - Valley area. 6. Development standards need to be reevaluated to increase flexibility in housing production, especially maximum height standards and parking regulations Downtown. The Downtown height limit of two stories combined with parking requirements makes vertical mixed-use projects challenging. 7. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is inefficient and time -intensive, often taking over a year (i.e., 14 to 16 months); some applicants hire consultants to help navigate the process. The same PUD process applies to all residential projects regardless of size. 8. City staff capacity is limited to process development applications, which also extends the entitlement process. 9. A clear and concise set of rules should be established for development. 10. The political environment regarding new housing in Pleasanton is challenging. There is a perception that there isn't a "need" for more affordable housing because lower-income households still find ways to remain. 11. The preference for developing larger homes limits the ability of essential workers, non- profit staff, and commuter populations from moving into the city. 12. It is difficult to get connected to the proper persons at service and support organizations. This is critical to provide accurate information and guidance to support underserved groups. C. Policy/Program Recommendations 1. Educate all renters and potential eligible populations about available housing programs and services. Provide services and support in multiple languages. 2. Improve collaboration and communication between the City, non-profit organizations, service providers, and social workers to have processes in place and to educate qualifying population about affordable housing programs and services. Replicate what has been done in Livermore, which has been effective. 3. Develop policies that generate funds to build needed housing types. The City should consider research into more innovate funding sources (e.g., raising taxes on market -rate housing for the affordable housing trust fund). 4. Explore various programs and policies that encourage equal opportunity to housing such as permanent affordability and inclusionary zoning. 5. Proactively work with non-profit developers to understand barriers to development and how to reduce those barriers. 6. Streamline the permitting process to reduce cost of development and time spent on entitlement. An expensive development process will defeat any well-intentioned policy due to excess time and money spent on the administrative process and approval procedures. 03:; Csos Stre,�!, San Luis Obispo, CA K40 i 1 (805) 595 1345 I lisawiseconsulting com 1 3