PC 092221 - Laserfiche WebLink

• Review the Lower Income Housing Fee and other City fees to ensure development addresses housing demands created • Address "affordability by design"and encourage production of smaller, more affordable market rate units • Consideration of innovative, smaller-scale "missing middle"housing types to provide housing opportunities in scale and character with existing neighborhoods • ADU streamlining, including pre-approved ADU Designs Commissioner Gaidos suggested including the outcome of the Housing Commission / City Council discussion from a few years ago, with respect to housing programs. He stated the prevailing sentiment was that those that could afford to build an ADU were not likely renting it to those needing affordable housing, and that it would not be practical to police, regulate or deed restrict ADUs in that manner. He stated the Housing Commission had increased the funding amount the City would provide for first time home buyers, and he suggested this information be noted in the HEU programs analysis. Commissioner Allen provided her top future policy discussions as follows: 1 and 2) Programs and policies to create more affordability and missing middle; 3) Inclusionary zoning (and she provided suggested modification to the language); 4) additional incentives to encourage 100- percent affordable projects; and 5) Reviewing lower income housing fee. Ms. Clark suggested reviewing the list to determine if there were any that were missing or policies that should be removed. Chair Brown stated it was a comprehensive list that was difficult to prioritize. He suggested a targeted program for homelessness. He requested clarification on "missing middle." Ms. Clark explained that missing middle generally reflected the mid-range scale of multiple-family housing types (e.g. duplexes to fourplexes) and how to build them at a scale that would fit in a typical single-family neighborhood. She stated bills like SB9 were oriented towards the "missing middle" as an effort to create more infill in single family areas. Commissioner Morgan mentioned that the previous RHNA cycle had produced minimal low- income housing, versus that at market rate, so inquired how to increase that rate or percentage and economics of affordable housing. Commissioner Nibert suggested innovation and consideration of all funding sources. Chair Brown asked if there was pooling of resources to determine various sources of funding and types of housing products. Ms. Clark responded that there were various resources and funding at the State level and an opportunity to learn from colleagues. Chair Brown asked if there was a clearing house of information. Ms. Clark discussed the Alameda County Collaborative and ABAG who were actively working to create this type of resource. Commissioner Allen suggested consideration of ways to encourage large-scale corporations to provide land and housing. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 10 September 22, 2021 ould consider all public comments and information. He followed up to a previous comment made by Commissioner Morgan and mentioned below market rate occupants are still cost burdened; he further discussed a recent article he read where another city had entered into an affordable housing contract that had reduced rent of a standard below market rate apartment about $200. He mentioned that although it was a reduction, it was still priced rather high, and expressed his concern that even after completing this process, if the root of the problem is not addressed, the City might face a similar situation where the housing needs would not be fulfilled. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 10 September 22, 2021