Laserfiche WebLink
about a little bit is that if you put it up front and center to this whole thing, it could imply <br /> that our goal is to take all of our commercial space that's commercial which is limited <br /> really and turn it into mixed use which could be predominantly residential So, I just think <br /> the Downtown Specific Plan Task Force needs to define what they want the downtown <br /> to be and we shouldn't start saying everything should be mixed use now I would <br /> propose we revise Section A of the purpose to be stronger on commercial and <br /> commercial retail <br /> Beaudin I think the reason we added mixed use is because we're trying to get that <br /> compatibility between the policy documents and the implementation documents So our <br /> General Plan and our existing DSP reference this I think if we took A and re-wrote it to, <br /> "To maintain compactness and pedestrian scale and to encourage commercial mixed <br /> use and more intensive development in Pleasanton's Downtown Revitalization District " <br /> Does that work by adding the word, "commercial" after "encourage" <br /> Commissioner Allen Possibly, but I'm also not sure about "intense development " That <br /> makes an assumption that again I think the DSP Task Force needs to determine what is <br /> "intense" and I don't think we should be putting that in as a goal because I don't think it's <br /> been publicly discussed and that team needs to define what that looks like There's also <br /> implications about growth management and everything else I don't know the <br /> community would agree with that <br /> Beaudin The only words we added here, and it was really to try and give that <br /> downtown character that you were referencing earlier where really the pedestrian scale <br /> We added "mixed use" because it shows up in the policy documents and in some of the <br /> other land use planning tools we have for downtown The "intensive development" was <br /> there already and we call it the Downtown Revitalization District to again be consistent <br /> across those other documents <br /> I hear the point and as someone who is setting up the agenda for that first task force <br /> meeting, I'm really interested in hearing from the community These purpose statements <br /> are guiding but they're not really regulations in terms of the code itself So, I want to be <br /> responsive to the comment and I want to make sure the Commission gives me and <br /> Shweta the clarity we need to move forward But just know that they set a regulatory <br /> tone, but really it's the very specific regulations that execute So whether it says <br /> commercial or not, if commercial is a permitted use in downtown then it's going to <br /> happen or not through that <br /> Commissioner Allen We all know that we look at these documents too We look and <br /> we pick words that are written here as what the purpose of something is and that's why <br /> think it's important we treat it as an important statement So anyway, let me ask my <br /> peers My alternative proposal would be to have Section A focus on what is in the DSP <br /> specifically about retail use being highly desirable because it promotes pedestrian <br /> activities, supports and complements other downtown businesses and draws people <br /> The purpose of our commercial district is predominantly retail and that's because of <br /> that, and I would propose that that be Section A, and Section B be related to residential <br /> The other purpose is to have a vibrant residential community that can be multi-use as <br /> well and something along that line <br /> EXCERPT DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2016 Page 20 of 30 <br />