13 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 4 P21-0751, 6t" Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element Update Review and provide a recommendation on draft Preliminary Report sections for the 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element Update. Community Development Director Ellen Clark introduced the item and provided a brief overview of the various steps and meetings to be held related to the Housing Element Update (HEU) process. Jen Murillo, Lisa Wise Consulting, presented the specifics of the item in the Agenda Report related to preliminary report appendices; update process; Housing Needs Assessment including household income and tenure, employment, special housing needs, housing stock, and housing cost burden; Housing Constraints Analysis; Existing Programs Review; and Housing Resources. Associate Planner Jennifer Hagen continued the presentation related to community outreach including community meetings, stakeholder meetings, and community -wide survey; potential future policy discussion items; site selection criteria update; and next steps. Commissioner Nibert thanked staff and the consultant for their work thus far on the Housing Element Update. He asked if the Planning Commission collaborated with neighboring cities on the process. Ms. Clark stated staff had reached out to other neighboring cities and expressed enthusiasm about the Collaborative, initiated by Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), particularly for the cities within Alameda County to collaborate on ideas and initiatives. Commissioner Nibert stated the Collaborative was a good effort and mentioned his hope that information be shared and communicated among other planning staffs. He referenced comments related to future and existing programs to target those that live and work in Pleasanton and the reality of prioritizing for those that both live and work in the City. Ms. Clark stated many housing programs incorporated a local preference element for applicants, but in some case the funding sources dictated the extent to which this could be used as a factor. Commissioner Nibert inquired about dissatisfaction on the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process and whether the process had been benchmarked against other nearby cities. Ms. Clark stated she was unaware of whether staff had benchmarked the process across other neighboring cities and explained the use and benefits of PUDs in Pleasanton, including to provide flexibility in projects, or used to address discretionary re -zonings. Commissioner Nibert asked if when concerns are raised related to the PUD process, whether staff had an objective way of knowing the magnitude of the decisions. Ms. Clark explained the City's current effort to create Objective Design Standards (ODS) were oriented to prevent uncertainty by laying out a clear set of rules for developers. Commissioner Allen discussed the public survey results and Attachment B (Summary of Community Meeting on June 24, 2021) indicating many households were living in 3 -bedroom and larger homes, yet only a bit more than eight percent of the households had five or more people. She asked if there was data showing how the City had performed in past housing cycles in relation to the current application process. Ms. Clark stated she did not have the data immediately to hand, but staff could report back. Commissioner Allen requested data on other cities known to be job centers and the percentage employees employed in job centers. Ms. Clark stated the City of Dublin had a worse ratio of residents working locally than Pleasanton, Excerpt: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, September 22, 2021 Page 1 of 6