2 ATTACHMENT 5-7 - Laserfiche WebLink

Breakout Rooms Four virtual breakout rooms were facilitated, which allowed approximately 15 attendees in each room, along with City and LWC facilitators and notetakers. Miro, an online collaborative visualization software, was used to encourage discussion, pose the same question across all breakout rooms, and conduct notetaking that was visible to breakout room participants. One question was asked to prompt conversation: Which sites do you prefer or don't prefer for housing and why? Each breakout room had several Miro boards containing maps of preliminary sites for review, organized by geographic subarea. City and LWC notetakers posted comments via sticky notes to each Miro board. A summary of this discussion is below (Miro boards are attached as Exhibit B). Which sites do you prefer or don't you prefer for housing and why? The following is a summary of input prompted by the breakout room question: A. Opposition to development of Site 1 (Lester). Not every hillside should be developed. B. Concerns with loss of business on account of additional housing in its place. C. Concerns regarding additional traffic congestion and water use impacts resulting from additional housing. D. Concerns about additional housing development impacts on school classroom sizes. E. Site 2 (Stoneridge Mall) is a good candidate for redevelopment, as it is close to BART, Interstate 580, and is relatively walkable. F. Pleasanton should allow increased density. G. Opposition to development of Sites 17 and 18. Want to protect Mission and Valley Plazas, or at least have mixed-use there. H. Some support for redevelopment of Site 28 (Steelwave), although concerns with traffic and water impacts, proximity to industrial uses and contamination, as site is on former landfill. I. Site 28 (Steelwave) should be a solar array. J. Try to preserve walkability as a planning goal. K. Favorably support Site 7 (Hacienda Terrace) L. City should ensure sites are reserved for low-income persons, potentially at St. Elizabeth or Rheem Drive (Sites 14 and 15). M. Opposed to high rises at Mission Plaza. N. Could the Donlon site provide housing for teachers? O. City should consider looking at the Merritt site (Site 22). P. There have been political commitments to keep Site 27 public open space and fields. Q. School district (Site 25 and 27) should partner with nonprofit developers to develop sites at an increased density. R. Support for housing at Site 23 (Sunol Boulevard). Report Out and Closing After the completion of breakout room discussions, all meeting participates reconvened. The facilitator or a volunteer from each breakout room summarized the key points from the breakout room discussion to the whole group. The City identified that all input will be used to inform the Housing Element Update analysis and outreach going forward. 983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1 (805) 595 1345 1 lisawiseconsulting com 13