Generally speaking, the commission members did not seem enthused about crafting a robust housing element. Staff/consultants laid out aspects of the draft. Members were pressing them to add sites that were unlikely to be developed and when presented with upzoning strategies for adding multifamily developments in city commercial corridor they seemed resistant and wanted to try to keep commercial use on the first floor/create regulations on the aesthetics of the building facades. In particular, the section of potential AB 1851 developments seemed to turn into a discussion of commission members speculating that the consultant add all churches (and at one point even religious schools) in the city to boost the city's low income numbers. Most callers seemed most concerned about reduced parking requirements. 

In short, Susan Koleda and some consultants gave an overview of the housing element process and how many units of each type the city needed to produce for the next cycle.  They went over what options were available and the public and commissioners asked questions around what kinds of units (like ADUs) could be made available to meet those numbers. 

​

I don't think its fair to say if people were pro or against housing in this case.  Most of the questions were informational.  There were some questions like "what happens to parking if we choose to use AB1851 (god in my back yard) and then we have a problem finding parking on Sunday" but nothing obviously pro or against housing.