12 ATTACHMENTS 1-2 - Laserfiche WebLink

• Concern about loss of neighborhood serving retail, and a suggestion that mixed -uses (commercial combined with residential) be required for sites that involve loss of existing retail space (i.e., not allow stand-alone residential on these sites). ® Similar to the Planning Commission, the Housing Commission had general consensus on the density identified for the sites in the inventory and was supportive of greater density (e.g., up to 75 du/ac) on select sites that, for example, had access to transit or could provide adequate parking. • Give priority to the Stoneridge Mall site, despite the fact that it did not score the highest points based on the scoring criteria. December 1, 2021, Community Meetino On December 1, 2021, staff held a community meeting via Zoom to introduce the initial draft sites inventory to the community, and to gather direct input and feedback on initial sites list and density assumptions from the community. Approximately 65 individuals participated. Following a presentation, participants moved into four breakout rooms to and were invited to provide direct feedback in a facilitated discussion covering a series of five "subareas". A complete meeting summary can be found in Exhibit C. Although comments varied widely, some common themes that emerged with respect to the sites inventory more generally included: • Concerns about the displacement of existing uses and loss of small businesses, particularly commercial and industrial uses at existing sites such as Mission Plaza, Valley Plaza, and Rheem Drive. • Concerns about overall infrastructure capacity, specifically increased traffic, water supply and quality, and schools' capacity in conjunction with new housing and population growth. • Support of sites that were near BART or transportation such as the Stoneridge Shopping Center and sites within Hacienda. In addition to these general comments, some of the more common site-specific themes that emerged were: Site 17: Mission Plaza and Site 18: Vallev Plaza: Concerns were raised with the potential loss of neighborhood commercial uses within the centers. In addition, attendees were opposed to high density housing on these sites, where height and density could be incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods and low-density residential development in the area. Site 28: SteelWave: Both concern and support were shown for this site among different participants. Support was shown for this site based on the site being vacant, and that it would not directly impact existing neighborhoods in the way that infill sites could. Concerns about this site focused on increased traffic, implications of building of EI Charro Road, and that development in this area would not be as carbon -neutral as compared to development of an infill site. Housing Element Update Planning Commission 3of14