20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pace suggested placing a premium on the larger sites due to the volume of development needed. Commissioner Allen accepted the criteria as proposed. Commissioner Gaidos stated he did not have a problem with the criteria. He suggested targeting larger sites like aging business parks or malls. Chair Brown inquired about potential sites in East Pleasanton. Ms. Clark stated East Pleasanton would require more steps to be viable for development and a plan of action to be provided to make the case for its inclusion in the inventory. Chair Brown stated East Pleasanton would score low because it needs infrastructure improvements, was not infill and not near BART and asked if it could be treated as a special case. Ms. Clark discussed it as potential unique area, since it could take care of a large housing need if it was determined to be an appropriate location. Chair Brown discussed the need to plan for infrastructure and transportation. Commissioner Gaidos mentioned the upcoming Gubernatorial Recall Election and potential for differing political priorities. Commissioner Nibert stated he was happy with the criteria as stated. Commissioner Morgan stated starting with the criteria and reviewing sites was a good start to uncover all possibilities and determine the existing inventory. He suggested a second round of screening for sites that might be more suitable for higher density and affordable housing. He further suggested strategic considerations to building projects near a BART station or around the Stoneridge Mall area. He stated, if Council or others decided on East Pleasanton as a site, it would be a strategic decision to put housing near schools. He agreed with efforts to meet the 6t" cycle RHNA numbers, then adding larger projects. Chair Brown mentioned the vacant and underutilized sites, indicating the purpose from the State was to produce housing at all four levels - below market and above market housing. He stated vacant or underutilized sites would increase the likelihood of development. He discussed collective written comments received from East Bay for Everyone, Greenbelt Alliance, Genesis, and Tri Valley Anti -Poverty Collaborative, and the public comments received from Becky Dennis and Jocelyn Combs, and suggested Item E to call out properties currently vacant or underutilized, such as a parking lot, because they were more likely to receive development. Commissioner Allen agreed with Chair Brown's philosophy but preferred to wait until the end. She suggested 7a be bundled with underutilized or vacant properties. Chair Brown stated vacant and underutilized properties and those where the property owner expressed interest deserved an additional point. In response to Commissioner Pace, Chair Brown proposed adding to Item 1 to provide an additional point for vacant or underutilized property and for a property owner expressing interest. Commissioner Morgan suggested a separate category for development feasibility. Chair Brown reiterated the idea of a site attractiveness category. Commissioner Nibert agreed that this would be a appropriate additional criterion in Category 1. Excerpt: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, August 25, 2021 Page 4 of 7