13 - Laserfiche WebLink

the data to help tailor to the local conditions since the information provided in the draft Preliminary Report followed the format and content sent by the State. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Housing Needs Assessment — Are there any comments on the Housing Needs Assessment (Appendix A)? Commissioner Nibert referenced the draft Preliminary Report and asked about the reference to over 70 percent of Pleasanton housing stock being single-family, attached and detached, however multiple family housing of five or more units had experienced more growth in the last decade. He asked the measure of growth and future expectations. Ms. Clark explained that the shift came from the large number of multi -family housing development projects constructed following the last Housing Element Cycle and the pent-up demand for high density housing and housing development with a number of sites and developers ready to move forward following adoption of the Housing Element. The opportunity to construct several thousand units of new multi -family housing had an effect of the relative proportion of multi -family housing in the City. Commissioner Nibert inquired if the same demand currently existed, or would exist when the current Housing Element Cycle was approved. Ms. Clark stated she felt that was likely, because of the continued desire for people to live in Pleasanton; the level of interest from developers over the past several years; and the expressed interest she had seen in developing new sites for housing. The lack of new entitlements in the past several years may create a surge in new production following conclusion of the current cycle. Commissioner Allen agreed that a deeper dive into the data was necessary. She stated the report appeared to reflect the need for more 1- or 2 -person households and 1- or 2 -bedroom units versus larger, multi -bedroom units. She anticipated demand at all levels but suggested determining the greatest needs for Pleasanton. She stated Section A3.4 could use more depth to provide additional understanding. She requested additional data on the following: 1) a breakout of where people worked and where employees came from on Page A11, work/job balance; and 2) performance over the past 5-10 years on housing stock, including single-family projects like Lund Ranch, in Figure A19 on Page A23. Chair Brown stated the data was from 2013-2019, published in 2021, and questioned about the shift in data due to the pandemic and jobs that might permanently transition to working remotely from home. David Bergman, Lisa Wise Consulting, stated the structure of the labor market mattered and that the type of labor market might rebound but it was to be determined. Chair Brown stated he was trying to understand the high-tech sector as it related to the City's labor force. Mr. Bergman responded that data could be provided on the high industrial section and occupational structure. Chair Brown requested data on high tech, remote work to provide housing where the workplace existed. Commissioner Nibert requested information on essential workers residing in Pleasanton. Ms. Clark suggested clearly defining essential worker/workforce group, since it could encompass many professions. Commissioner Nibert mentioned public comment received related to an inventory of for rent and for sale affordable and senior housing. Ms. Clark indicated a list of deed restricted affordable housing projects in Pleasanton could be provided. Ms. Hagen stated all existing inventory and existing projects would be included in the site inventory appendix, which would be brought to the Commission at a later date. Ms. Clark noted a comment Excerpt: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, September 22, 2021 Page 3 of 6