19 ATTACHMENT 3 - Laserfiche WebLink

June 20, 2022 Housing Commissioners Planning Commissioners Mayor and City Council members Re: City of Pleasanton 2023-2031 Housing Element —Public Review Draft Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft document. I commend staff on drafting a tight, comprehensive Draft Housing Element which reflects much of the feedback from the many Housing Element meetings and comments. I have a few questions: 1. Consolidating goals and policies can be very positive. Simplification can be good. I am concerned about eliminating some Goals, for example, those addressing non-profit developers (former Goal 6). Non-profit development is a key goal to address housing affordability. Recently Concord lost the for- profit developer of their BART site. That would be unlikely to happen with a non-profit developer. If every building site in the new Housing Element was built with 15-20% inclusionary units, we would not meet our RHNA goals, nor would we have many very low, extremely low or acutely low units. a. Why was the concept of using non-profit development eliminated as a goal and instead appears in policies and programs? Can it be reinstated? 2. Many Programs within the new Goals include "responsible agency, timing, funding and quantified objectives". Some Programs have very specific information in these categories, many are vague, using "on-going" under '`timing" and have no "quantitative objectives." Goal 1's Programs are clearly fleshed out. Goal 2's Programs are less so, particularly Program 2.11 Public/Private partnerships, Program 2.9 Public funding, and Program 2.10 Monitoring legislation. Each of these deals with potential funding, one of the most, if not the most, critical components for affordable housing. From my experience, if specific timing and quantitative objectives are not laid out, they are unlikely to happen. The remaining Goals have many similar gaps in accountability. 1