PC 012319 - Laserfiche WebLink

VMWP worked with staff to evaluate and discuss the current development review process, identifying the successes, challenges, and expected outcomes. VMWP reviewed approximately 12 different projects including some small and medium infill projects, some commercial and retail sites, as well as housing sites. Mr. Williams acknowledged that Pleasanton is recognized as a city that has a lot of character that residents are proud of. The character in the downtown area emanates from the scale of development as well as the pedestrian-friendly nature of downtown, the amenity spaces, and the attention to detail in the buildings in the downtown area. One focus of this training has been to determine a way to bring those key elements that people think of as the character of Pleasanton to developments throughout the city. Mr. Williams described four character- defining features that are important in this effort: site planning, place-making, architectural details (porches, stoops, windows, doors, etc.), and density. Pleasanton is a very desirable place to live and to develop, and the City can ask for higher quality projects from developers. Chair Allen asked Mr. Williams for guidance on how the City can push the envelope with developers who say they cannot accommodate all the City asks of them due to profitability. Mr. Williams suggested that the City establish density and zoning that will be a good fit within the city, in exchange for asking for a quality development. He suggested that the City focus less on the numbers, but rather on character, quality and design, as the number of units impacts the developer's feasibility more than quality and character do. He suggested that the City encourage the applicant/developer to communicate with Planning staff early on before they invest a lot of time and money into something that will not be acceptable to the City. He also suggested that leadership and staff maintain strong communication and work together to ensure that everyone is on the same page as far as City policies are concerned. He stated that in order to raise the bar, the vision of community, character, and design should be clearly articulated in all policy documents (general plan, design guidelines, etc.). Mr. Beaudin commented that the City has opportunities (i.e. Downtown Specific Plan, East Pleasanton, Housing Element, etc.) in the near future to put this suggested action into practice. Commissioner Brown discussed different types of parking with Mr. Williams who stated that the current trend is for developers to build as little parking as necessary due to financial implications so that the expenditures can go towards quality building. Mr. Beaudin commented that many residential developments are now required to create a transportation demand management program, which often means subsidizing transit going to the project or creating their own connections to transit from the project site. Pleasanton has relied more on the single occupant vehicle model, but for the next housing cycle, will be looking at not just architecture, design, and site planning, but also the more policy-impacting aspects of the developments. Mr. Williams asked the Commissioners to describe what parts of the review process have worked well. Commissioner Balch stated that staff has done a great job asking applicants to bring their project to the Planning Commission as a workshop before they invest heavily in a design. He Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 January 23, 2019