19 ATTACHMENT 3 - Laserfiche WebLink

March 14, 2022 Pleasanton City Council City of Pleasanton Re:Agenda Item 21, I lousing Policy Direction Dear Mayor Brown and City Councilmembers, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these policy decisions. Let me begin by noting my support for the following Planning Commission and Housing Commission recommendations: • UHF,Consider increasing the LIHF based upon the current Nexus Study.The Staff report account of the Commissions'discussion focusses on the LIHF for housing. However,there was also Commission interest in increasing the LIHF for commercial development. • Consider using much more than the current proportion of only 55% of the LIHF for affordable housing production.The City should provide housing-related counseling and homeless prevention services from other funding sources. • Define"Workforce Housing"as Option#1,with the modification that it specify employees,households, and wages for those working for Pleasanton located businesses. (Housing Commission) • Streamline ADU production. • Complete Objective Design Standards • Consider Partnerships with Local Employers. (Commissions'discussion supported extending partnership opportunities to ALL Pleasanton employers,not just"Key"businesses. DISCUSSION RE: Staff Recommendations: • Page 5, Increasing the LIHF for commercial development. As I understand it,LIHFs are paid only by new commercial development on a previously undeveloped site. (For instance, I found nothing in the City's records regarding 10x Genomics paying into the LIHF as part of their development agreement, I assume because the property had already paid when the site developed as a shopping center.)Assuming commercial development only pays into the LIHF one time upon initial development,raising the LIHF should have little impact on Pleasanton's ability to attract commercial investment,since we have so little undeveloped land left. Fee free redevelopment is the more abundant option.Since we aren't planning to build another major shopping mall or business park, raising the commercial LIHF fee seems largely symbolic(exception: the Kiewit and Steelwave properties). A fee increase in Pleasanton could allow other Tri-Valley cities with more undeveloped land to raise their LIHFs.This could increase the amount of affordable workforce housing in the entire region to the benefit of all. With that long-term potential for redevelopment in mind,it might not be prudent to assume that all commercial development would remain"low intensity"for the long term.