19 ATTACHMENT 3 - Laserfiche WebLink

a. Are you planning to add the remaining specific, rather than "on- going", implementation information to these Programs before the Housing Element is adopted? If not, how will the public and the City's partners track implementation of the Housing Element? b. If implementation steps live in another document such as the CAP2.0 or the Bicycle Trails Plan, can you refer to those documents in the Housing Element Programs? 3. Tables 2.1 and 2.2, Page 16. Alameda County added the category "Acutely low income (0-15% of AMI)" effective January 1, 2022. The 6th RHNA Cycle numbers in Table 2.2 do not include Acutely Low goals and "Extremely Low is assumed to be 50% of the Very Low allocation.' a. Why doesn't Pleasanton's RHNA allocation have separate lines for Extremely Low, or even Acutely Low, with numerical goals, or no goal in the case of Acutely Low, for those lines in Table 2.2? b. We do know that 50% of our Very Low numbers are assumed to be Extremely Low. Why aren't they broken out, especially in Table 3.1 on page 18? 4. Program 1.3 Page 22 addresses Pleasanton's opportunity, through special legislation, to plan for and develop the BART site with potentially 100% affordable housing. a. Why isn't Pleasanton with its limited resources partnering with a non- profit developer in planning for the BART site, including looking for funding sources? A non-profit developer brought in early would assure that the plan for the site is cost effective and affordable. 5. I personally appreciate Programs 1.8 and 1.9 regarding ADUs, an elegant solution to the piece of the affordability crisis. I just completed the construction of my ADU(!!) and look forward to hearing from the City about my plans for my ADU. 6. At Risk Housing Assessment and Tables, A-16 through A-18. Pages A65- 68. From page A65 "Since 2001, the City has required all affordability restrictions remain in effect in perpetuity, and the City is unaware of any units that are at risk of conversion to market rate in the next 10 years". Per table A-16 Pleasanton has 1123 units at low risk, therefore they are not in perpetuity or the State's numbers are not accurate. a. What units are included in the State's 1123 number? b. Even if they are not at risk in the next ten years, shouldn't we be tracking them now? In Table A-17, the "Expire Year" column is blank. In Table A-17, four developments totaling 374 units were built before 2001, when "in perpetuity" was not required. 2