CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA PACKET

Page 3 of 5 population, with a lesser focus on housing for lower-income families, those experiencing homelessness, and certain other target populations, such as veterans. Each of these populations has housing needs that are not well met in Pleasanton. As described in the memo, the target population would heavily influence the type of housing that would need to be built, and decisions such as site size, amenities, location, and related services, affect overall project costs and eligibility for various types of non-local funding. 2) Should the City's focus be on a "quick build" project that could potentially be constructed at relatively low cost and address the most urgent housing needs, or on creation of more permanent and long-term housing solutions that come with higher costs and a longer period to plan, design, fund and build? As described in the background memorandum, cities have developed a number of "quick build" projects using non-traditional and innovative approaches (e.g., tiny homes, quick-build modular units). The key advantage of these projects is how rapidly and relatively less expensively they can be constructed, which is beneficial when considering populations with particularly critical needs, such as those experiencing homelessness. However, such projects generally require the donation of a site (whether a City property or one donated by a non-profit or religious organization) as well as ongoing funding for costs of operation and provision of services. Additionally, in some circumstances and locations, housing projects for homeless residents could generate neighborhood concerns that must be addressed. On the other hand, while traditional, stick-built projects may generate fewer such concerns, and create a permanent stock of new units, they are substantially more expensive to build, typically requiring several years to plan and design, to assemble funding, and to construct. And, because permanent housing typically demands a project size (75+ units) and high- density, multi-family building types to be financially feasible and competitive for necessary funding, projects can also cause neighborhood concerns around perceived project impacts. 3) What City resources should be considered to support a project? The obvious manner in which the City could support an affordable housing project would be by allocating a portion of the existing Lower Income Housing Fund (LIHF) balance, which is a fund restricted for this purpose. However, the City Council could also direct staff to explore potential use of City-owned land via a ground lease arrangement, allocation of formula-based allocations of state and federal funds, and in-kind support such as waiver of fees or other City- levied charges, or support through entitlement (e.g., completion of the CEQA document). As discussed at length in the background memo, the substantial costs associated (in particular) with housing construction mean that any project will realistically rely on several funding sources, of which local funds may end up being a small fraction. There is currently more than $14 million in the Lower Income Housing Fund, and the LIHF balance is projected to increase significantly (to $18-$20 million) once several approved housing projects in the pipeline pay their required affordable housing fees in accordance with the IZO requirements. However, it is noted that the City annually allocates LIHF to various housing programs and to cover City administration costs, and there may be benefit in holding back an increment of the available funds to allow the City to take advantage of (as yet unforeseen) opportunities for partnerships or investments in affordable housing, subject to development of a future strategy and/or policy guidance to evaluate such requests (see discussion below). Page 63 of 90