_Minutes_February 9, 2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

force housing and non-profit housing, that the City should buy land and develop mixed-income housing ranging from moderate to very-low income; indicated the most successful affordable housing in Pleasanton were non-profit developments; and discussed the Chamber of Commerce's plan for Vision 2040, with affordable housing being the hot topic. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Gaidos agreed with Ms. Combs that the fees for both office and industrial could be raised, as he mentioned when the Commission reviewed the 10x Genomics project. He discussed the salaries of high-level employees versus the middle and lower class that could not afford to live where they work. He suggested raising office and industrial fees and stated he did not believe it would hamper development in the city because it was one of the crown jewel cities in the Bay Area and businesses wanted their name associated with Pleasanton. He agreed with the recommendations for the IZO. He stated in-lieu fees had a bad reputation but allowed projects like Sunflower Hill and Kottinger Gardens and rehousing grants which were critical to allow people to retain existing housing. He agreed with the square foot model like the City of Fremont and that Pleasanton needed to be aggressive when creating affordable housing. He stated in-fill projects would not create enough affordable housing and housing needed to be affordable by design. He stated housing for the middle class, teachers and similar workers was necessary. Commissioner Morgan agreed that there were opportunities to increase the lower income housing fees and a great starting point would be to look at neighboring cities fee structures, including South Bay cities. He agreed with a square foot model so bigger houses were paying higher fees than smaller houses. He suggested consideration of how the fees were being used to accomplish the City's goals. He stated it was worth time considering the percentage split between income levels. Commissioner Nibert agreed with Commissioner Gaidos regarding Pleasanton being an attractive place for businesses and, therefore, LIHF fees could be raised. He stated he favored the bold approach mentioned by Ms. Combs and suggested evaluating the effectiveness of current practices. He concurred with the need to secure nearby housing for the workforce. He agreed with staff's recommendations for IZO, LIHF, and Density Bonus Ordinance and would like to look at an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone in the future. Commissioner Allen agreed with aligning the percentage of affordable units required between multifamily and single-family to 20% and to clearly identify affordability levels. She stated she agreed with the first two recommendations on LIHF but would like to substantially raise the fees for non-residential very close to the maximum, because Pleasanton was an attractive place for businesses and the fees would not be a deterrent and the rate should provide the necessary units for the employees. She stated she would like to increase residential fees based on square footage or number of bedrooms and that tier pricing was critical. She suggested reconsidering the basis for the low-income housing study, especially for residential. She requested more data on the expenditure of funding and what percentage was directed at adding more housing versus the other programs, because HCD was looking at the number of built units. She stated it was worth exploring a housing overlay zone but the ordinance should align with State law for short term. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7 February 9, 2022 a business person would be equal with building a unit and paying an IZO. Ms. Clark explained the basis for the inclusionary zoning requirement, and the amount of the low-income housing fee were different and therefore, there was a disjuncture between the two fees (i.e. the in-lieu fee does not cover 100 % of the cost of constructing an affordable unit). Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7 February 9, 2022