21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Public Comments February 22, 2022 Re: Item 7, Pleasanton Housing Element Policies, February 23, 2022 Agenda Dear Planning Commissioners, ATTACHMENT 7 Following are my observations on the recommendations in the staff report and a few more recommendations. These and other recommendations create an "Affordable Housing Toolbox" that the Commission, Council, and staff can pick and choose from in the future. 1. Define Workforce Housing I support Definition #1 with a slight adjustment. "Housing intended for and affordable to Pleasanton employees and households earning local wages... ". Call it "Pleasanton Workforce", which I believe was the intent in the past. The phrase has morphed over time to represent a specific income subset which I think is unfortunate. Everyone in the workforce works. Limiting it implies otherwise. We can build housing targeted for all AMIs relative to their % of jobs in Pleasanton and our RHNA requirements. 2. Streamline ADU Production Yes. The ADU I am building would have been more affordable and quicker to build if these elements had been in place. Yes, ask ADU companies to submit sample plans. Mine already has. 3. Complete Objective Design Standards Yes. Make them achievable but not too expensive. We want to create housing, not scare it away. Has Pleasanton ever had a development working group of non-profit and for-profit developers look at design guidelines to assess feasibility and suggest less expensive modifications? I recommend it. 4. Small Units, Multifamily Guidelines Yes. I sent you an article from the East Bay Times that discusses smaller units in Hayward. More tools might need to be added to the Affordable Housing Toolbox to make these available in a for-profit setting. 5. Municipal Code Amendments for Small-scale Infill Yes, for every type of housing. Please do not use the phrase "Missing Middle". Pleasanton is missing every housing type, except Above Moderate Income. It is jargon that may work in cities with only low income and high-income units. 15