My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
_Minutes_August 25, 2021
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2021
>
09-22
>
_Minutes_August 25, 2021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/15/2021 11:03:39 AM
Creation date
9/15/2021 11:03:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/22/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Gaidos mentioned the upcoming Gubernatorial Recall Election and potential for <br /> differing political priorities. <br /> Commissioner Nibert stated he was happy with the criteria as stated. <br /> Commissioner Morgan stated starting with the criteria and reviewing sites was a good start to <br /> uncover all possibilities and determine the existing inventory. He suggested a second round of <br /> screening for sites that might be more suitable for higher density and affordable housing. He <br /> further suggested strategic considerations to building projects near a BART station or around <br /> the Stoneridge Mall area. He stated, if Council or others decided on East Pleasanton as a site, <br /> it would be a strategic decision to put housing near schools. He agreed with efforts to meet the <br /> 6th cycle RHNA numbers, then adding larger projects. <br /> Chair Brown mentioned the vacant and underutilized sites, indicating the purpose from the <br /> State was to produce housing at all four levels - below market and above market housing. He <br /> stated vacant or underutilized sites would increase the likelihood of development. He <br /> discussed collective written comments received from East Bay for Everyone, Greenbelt <br /> Alliance, Genesis, and Tri Valley Anti-Poverty Collaborative, and the public comments received <br /> from Becky Dennis and Jocelyn Combs, and suggested Item E to call out properties currently <br /> vacant or underutilized, such as a parking lot, because they were more likely to receive <br /> development. <br /> Commissioner Allen agreed with Chair Brown's philosophy but preferred to wait until the end. <br /> She suggested 7a be bundled with underutilized or vacant properties. Chair Brown stated <br /> vacant and underutilized properties and those where the property owner expressed interest <br /> deserved an additional point. In response to Commissioner Pace, Chair Brown proposed <br /> adding to Item 1 to provide an additional point for vacant or underutilized property and for a <br /> property owner expressing interest. Commissioner Morgan suggested a separate category for <br /> development feasibility. Chair Brown reiterated the idea of a site attractiveness category. <br /> Commissioner Nibert agreed that this would be a appropriate additional criterion in Category 1. <br /> Sites Criteria (Categories 2) — Proximity to Modes of Transportation <br /> Commissioner Allen suggested an overweight of three to five points for BART due to CAP <br /> input, implications that have come up, neighbor feedback, keeping traffic on the outskirts, and <br /> the benefit to new residents moving in. <br /> Commissioner Pace agreed to focusing on overweighting BART. He discussed the differences <br /> between Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) train and BART and questioned whether it should <br /> be included. Ms. Clark stated ACE was not included due to its infrequent service. She stated <br /> the focus was on more frequent service such as bus or BART. Commissioner Pace asked if <br /> ACE would be designated differently by the State. Ms. Clark discussed the State's criteria <br /> regarding transit and reduced parking requirements, which would include ACE. Commissioner <br /> Pace stated he did not want to exclude ACE and then the State determine it should be <br /> included. Ms. Clark stated she did not foresee that happening and discussed other rounds of <br /> screening and sensitivity around historic resources, parking and building height, and other <br /> reasons high density around Downtown might not be as desirable. She stated the State <br /> recognized that the City should determine the most appropriate locations for housing. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 10 August 25, 2021 <br />irmed there were 600 replies to the housing survey and inquired if any related <br /> to selection criteria. Ms. Clark stated the survey questions offered the opportunity to comment <br /> on preferred and specific locations. Chair Brown suggested the survey results be provided <br /> prior to final decisions. Ms. Clark suggested the criteria be determined based on guiding <br /> principles and the survey results would be available well before the matter comes back before <br /> the Planning Commission. Chair Brown mentioned the Housing Commission's comments and <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 10 August 25, 2021 <br />