PC 082521 - Laserfiche WebLink

asked whether staff wanted the Commission to weigh in on those comments. Ms. Clark stated it could be useful to go over the Housing Commission comments. Chair Brown asked for clarification on the reference to properties that existed from cycle to cycle and means of passing on rights association with the properties. Ms. Clark explained the State law requiring development by right without discretionary review for sites that were included in more than one housing cycle. She stated the zoning would remain and the property would be subject to development standards. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jocelyn Combs provided public comment reminding the Commission that the criteria used in the past was focused on low, very low housing and the importance of government property; suggested potential underutilized sites and predicting the unpredictable, land slots, Caltrans deals; and melding the Housing Element and Climate Action Plan (CAP). Becky Dennis provided public comment regarding the importance of climate action; need for public private partnerships to meet climate action goals. She questioned whether above moderate-income housing at higher density, by right zoning the City loses the control of having higher than 20-percent affordable housing available, and control over the affordable income categories. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Sites Criteria (Categories 1) — Site Size and Infill Criteria Commissioner Pace confirmed the size criteria related to how much housing could be put on each site; infill versus new was potential impact to neighbors; and infrastructure requirement pertaining to putting in new infrastructure. Chair Brown suggested beginning with weighting properties between one acre and ten. 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. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 10 August 25, 2021 w for either commercial or residential. Commissioner Morgan asked if a property could be zoned for 100-percent affordable housing rather than a mix of affordable and market housing. Ms. Clark stated her opinion that it was unlikely that the State would consider a required 100-percent affordable housing as feasible zoning, since it may be seen as too restrictive or economically unfeasible. Chair Brown confirmed there were 600 replies to the housing survey and inquired if any related to selection criteria. Ms. Clark stated the survey questions offered the opportunity to comment on preferred and specific locations. Chair Brown suggested the survey results be provided prior to final decisions. Ms. Clark suggested the criteria be determined based on guiding principles and the survey results would be available well before the matter comes back before the Planning Commission. Chair Brown mentioned the Housing Commission's comments and Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 10 August 25, 2021