Laserfiche WebLink
the public. Since many neighborhoods have unique characteristics that may not be <br />reflected in other areas, modifications to the code to allow additional units or an <br />alternative style of housing would be aligned with the objectives of the policy in addition <br />to be customized to fit in with and be aligned with the preferences of the neighborhood. <br />California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) Workforce Housing <br />Program <br />Another approach is to evaluate unique financing programs. In April, City Council is <br />anticipated to review and evaluate the Workforce Housing Program, run by the <br />California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA), which supports <br />local jurisdiction's acquisition and conversion of market -rate apartment projects to deed - <br />restricted moderate -income housing units. <br />The City Council will be requested to provide direction on whether the City should join <br />the Joint Powers Authority that administers the program, which would facilitate the City <br />participating in the program should an opportunity for a specific project arise. <br />SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED POLICY DIRECTION <br />The following is a summary of staff's recommendation regarding the various policy <br />topics in this report, along with recommendations from the Planning Commission and <br />Housing Commission: <br />1. LIHF. <br />Staff recommends the following: <br />Consider increasing LIHF fees based on the current Nexus Study. <br />Consider a more comprehensive update to LIHF and supporting Nexus <br />Study as a future effort, potentially starting 2-3 years after adoption of the <br />Housing Element cycle. <br />Retain the existing policy basis for expenditure of LIHF that allows flexibility <br />for the City Council to allocate these funds as needs and opportunities arise. <br />Staff notes that the gap between the current, and the maximum fee levels varies <br />widely between land use categories, and it unlikely to be appropriate to increase <br />every fee to the maximum allowable, since doing so could have a significant <br />unintended consequence if it discouraged investment in Pleasanton of otherwise <br />desirable uses (e.g., sales -tax generating retail, or high -wage employment). <br />Planning Commission: The Planning Commission was generally supportive of <br />increasing the LIHF, to the extent recommended by the existing Nexus Study, <br />with a follow-up study to occur as needed in the future. The Planning <br />Commission also expressed that the fees should be proportionally more for <br />larger homes than for smaller homes. <br />Page 12 of 16 <br />