PC 092221 - Laserfiche WebLink

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, whereas the City of Livermore had a better balance, with about 20 percent of employees working locally. She stated staff could also bring back additional data. Commissioner Morgan referenced the written correspondence received and inquired about additional sources of funding for lower income housing projects. Ms. Clark stated staff was always searching for funds and welcomed suggestions. She mentioned both the Federal and State governments had recently allocated more funding towards housing to help subsidize affordable housing, which was a positive. Commissioner Gaidos thanked staff and the consultant for the work completed thus far. He mentioned the diversity of the cities within the Tri-Valley and those across Alameda County. He asked and confirmed that eight percent of jobs in Pleasanton were occupied or employed by Pleasanton residents, but 15.2 percent of working Pleasanton residents worked in Pleasanton in 2018. He discussed Dublin residents that worked in Dublin. He encouraged development of housing for the forgotten class. Chair Brown mentioned his desire to hear more about the survey and inquired of any mention or recognition of East Pleasanton as a site. Ms. Hagen stated in a question on where new housing opportunities should be located, 65 respondents (out of 486) mentioned housing in East Pleasanton. Chair Brown mentioned the allowance for non-Pleasanton residents to attend Pleasanton schools. Ms. Clark responded that when staff had the ability to orient housing towards those in need, it could sometimes do so based on residency and employment criteria. Chair Brown inquired about school constraints and if that would fall within the housing constraints analysis. Ms. Clark discussed staff's efforts to work with the School District on housing sites and future housing demand based on school development. Chair Brown discussed consideration of housing at Stoneridge Mall and school needs. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jocelyn Combs provided public comment regarding the jobs/housing balance issue and the need to provide housing to those employed within the City which would help the City attain its Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 10 September 22, 2021