PC 082521 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 6th 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. Sites Criteria (Categories 2) — Proximity to Modes of Transportation Commissioner Allen suggested an overweight of three to five points for BART due to CAP input, implications that have come up, neighbor feedback, keeping traffic on the outskirts, and the benefit to new residents moving in. Commissioner Pace agreed to focusing on overweighting BART. He discussed the differences between Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) train and BART and questioned whether it should be included. Ms. Clark stated ACE was not included due to its infrequent service. She stated the focus was on more frequent service such as bus or BART. Commissioner Pace asked if ACE would be designated differently by the State. Ms. Clark discussed the State's criteria regarding transit and reduced parking requirements, which would include ACE. Commissioner Pace stated he did not want to exclude ACE and then the State determine it should be included. Ms. Clark stated she did not foresee that happening and discussed other rounds of screening and sensitivity around historic resources, parking and building height, and other Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 10 August 25, 2021 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