PC 092221 - Laserfiche WebLink

Senator, an Alameda County Supervisor and a State Assemblyperson all gathered for a photo opportunity at the site; about six to eight months later an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was conducted, and to date no progress had been made on the project and BART now operated at 25-percent as a result of the COVID pandemic. He suggested the rationale for the project be reviewed and both the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton needed to determine the best use for the land. He mentioned the existing 3,000 space parking lot next to the vacant land, yet there had been a significant decrease in the demand for parking related to changes in BART ridership and the land should be repurposed. Chair Brown acknowledged the public comment provided and noted it would be at staff's discretion to follow up with the individual who provided public comment. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS 4. P21-0751, 6th 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 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 10 September 22, 2021