Laserfiche WebLink
February 23,2022 <br /> Pleasanton Planning Commission <br /> City of Pleasanton <br /> Agenda Item 7 <br /> Dear Chairperson Chase and Planning Commissioners, <br /> Thank you for the opportunity to comment further on your proposed recommendations to the <br /> City Council for inclusion in the Housing Element update.In addition to staff's recommendations <br /> provided at the end of their report I have provided some additional policy suggestions I hope you <br /> will forward to the Council.These are based upon staffs discussion(page 2)regarding <br /> implementation of our current Housing Element's Goals 5 and 14,as well as Policy 36 and <br /> Program 36.1.My modifications to their recommendations are intended to improve Pleasanton's <br /> performance in these critical housing areas. <br /> RECOMMENDATIONS: <br /> I. Define"workforce housing"to reflect the true income characteristics of those currently <br /> employed by all businesses in Pleasanton,consistent with Goals 5, 14,Policy 36 and <br /> Program 36.1.This is option#1.Choosing option#2 treats most of our workforce as though <br /> they are unemployed,and unworthy of housing in our community. <br /> 2. Recommend an efficient land use strategy giving highest priority to developing affordable <br /> employee housing for those working at jobs in Pleasanton which pay less than 100%AMI. <br /> This group constitutes at least 60%of unmet housing need,a need that Pleasanton can only <br /> meet with nonprofit,mixed income housing.This category is truly Pleasanton's"missing <br /> housing".The City should follow the example of other job rich communities like Fremont <br /> which buy land to facilitate construction of nonprofit workforce housing. <br /> 3. Second highest priority should be the minority of the local workforce that earns more than <br /> 100%AMI.According to the charts provided by staff,the needs of this group can be <br /> adequately provided by market rate rental housing.The IZO could be used to provide more <br /> affordable units for households earning between 80 and 100%AMI.This should allow for <br /> profit developers to provide 25%-30%affordable units within their complex.(Archstone <br /> Hacienda provides 25%of its units at 80%AMI in perpetuity.)For sale development <br /> produces too few affordable units,and affordability is too difficult to track and maintain in <br /> perpetuity. <br /> 4. Develop Employer Assisted Housing(EAH)programs to serve all sizes of Pleasanton <br /> businesses,not just"select"businesses.The needs of small businesses may differ from those <br /> of corporations and large public agencies.But all businesses need access to affordable <br /> employee housing to thrive.This could provide an important use of your recommended <br /> increased business LIHF fees,as well as encouraging additional investment by businesses <br /> that paid lower LIHF fees in the past. <br /> 5. Require carbon neutral design for all housing developments.From rural residential(ala <br /> Spotorno Flat)to High Density Residential.This should be a fundamental aspect of all <br /> designs,not merely an option. <br />