20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Gaidos questioned the importance of following the same criteria. Ms. Clark responded that the more competitive the project with respect to funding, particularly affordable projects, the better, however, it was important to consider other planning principles such as location to amenities. Commissioner Gaidos asked how many sites from previous cycles would be included in the current cycle. Ms. Clark anticipated all but the AC by Marriott (previously Sheraton) hotel site would be included. Commissioner Allen asked if the criteria were primarily focused on high density sites. Ms. Clark suggested a future policy discussion as to densities assumed for market and below market rate units on each site will be forthcoming. She stated the majority of the sites would likely be infill and higher density sites. Commissioner Allen inquired about transportation and suggested emphasizing proximity to transportation hubs, mentioning correspondence received in public comment and HCD requirements. She questioned why Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), or freeway or bus stops were treated equally. Ms. Clark explained the simplistic point system and criteria for BART and bus, with no weighted system. Commissioner Allen discussed limited use of bus stops and asked for data on ridership. She asked if the Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone (JDEDZ) area would be considered as infill. Ms. Clark stated it would likely be considered infill because it was existing developed land. Commissioner Allen asked about Criteria 6a related to neighborhood compatibility and increased building stories. Ms. Clark confirmed the assumption in the criteria that high density would be three stories. Commissioner Nibert thanked staff for its efforts throughout the process and for the presentation. He discussed the scoring criteria and its intent to present a simplistic framework to be used for site selection and asked its effectiveness. Ms. Clark reiterated the scoring was a starting point, to be later complemented with considerations including public input, site capacity, and characteristics. Commissioner Nibert inquired about potential sites that might be attractive but not captured with scoring criteria and if more could be captured with enhanced criteria. Ms. Clark discussed the Housing Commission's mention of additional criteria but cautioned the Commission to consider limiting criteria to reduce complexity of reviewing multiple sites. Commissioner Nibert suggested enhancing factors be noted for discussion purpose. Ms. Clark anticipated the scores to be reported back with more analysis. Commissioner Nibert asked about criteria excluded compared to the previous cycle, particularly economic interest. Ms. Clark explained the criteria added by the Housing Element Task Force for consideration of the potential fiscal impacts due to converting commercial sites with freeway proximity. Commissioner Nibert asked about major criteria inconsistent with General Plan themes which was not included in the current cycle. Ms. Clark explained that the criteria as drafted reflected the guiding principles which reflect themes of the General Plan, such as sustainability and character. She suggested additional considerations, including General Plan policies for topics like aesthetics were details to be considered in the next round. Commissioner Morgan asked if all sites of a specific size would be assessed whether or not the owner was interested in selling the property. Ms. Clark explained that staff planned to start with sites where there was known owner interest in housing. She stated GIS -based analysis and underutilized commercial properties would be considered if needed. She stated many of Excerpt: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, August 25, 2021 Page 2 of 7