PC 121416 - Laserfiche WebLink

pedestrian activity and interest, supports and complements other downtown businesses, and draws people into the downtown." So I would expect to be seeing the purpose A be something like that; it's important —it's the center of our small town commercial downtown activity. Point B can be something related to, "and it also is residential and historic and multi -use is promoted." But I just felt like this whole emphasis on commercial got lost here in both the name change of this district and the way this is worded. Shweta, you and I talked about a mixed use. The term "mixed use" is being added here and I am 100% supportive of the way it's used on page 20. On the last paragraph of page 20, there is Point B, which says, "Multi- family dwellings and mixed use development shall be permitted in the C -C district." And Gerry and Shweta, this is what you and I talked about a couple of days ago. I'm fully supportive of that. What I worry about a little bit is that if you put it up front and center to this whole thing, it could imply that our goal is to take all of our commercial space that's commercial which is limited really and turn it into mixed use which could be predominantly residential. So, I just think the Downtown Specific Plan Task Force needs to define what they want the downtown to be and we shouldn't start saying everything should be mixed use now. I would propose we revise Section A of the purpose to be stronger on commercial and commercial retail. Beaudin: I think the reason we added mixed use is because we're trying to get that compatibility between the policy documents and the implementation documents. So our General Plan and our existing DSP reference this. I think if we took A and re -wrote it to, "To maintain compactness and pedestrian scale and to encourage commercial mixed use and more intensive development in Pleasanton's Downtown Revitalization District." Does that work by adding the word, "commercial" after "encourage "? Commissioner Allen: Possibly, but I'm also not sure about "intense development." That makes an assumption that again I think the DSP Task Force needs to determine what is "intense" and I don't think we should be putting that in as a goal because I don't think it's been publicly discussed and that team needs to define what that looks like. There are also implications about growth management and everything else. I don't know the community would agree with that. Beaudin: The only words we added here and it was really to try and give that downtown character that you were referencing earlier where really the pedestrian scale. We added "mixed use" because it shows up in the policy documents and in some of the other land use planning tools we have for downtown. The "intensive development" was there already and we call it the Downtown Revitalization District to again be consistent across those other documents. I hear the point and as someone who is setting up the agenda for that first task force meeting, I'm really interested in hearing from the community. These purpose statements are guiding but they're not really regulations in terms of the code itself. So, I want to be responsive to the comment and I want to make sure the Commission gives me and Shweta the clarity we need to move forward. But just know that they set a regulatory tone, but really it's the very specific regulations that execute. So whether it says PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2016 Page 23 of 49