_Minutes_November 18, 2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Allen stated she agreed with the other two Commissioners but did not feel comfortable answering the question until there was an economic analysis, whether by the Planning Commission or City Council. She also stated the City of Pleasanton had a lot less retail than neighboring cities Dublin and Livermore and that the COVID-19 pandemic was an opportunity to invest in retail opportunities that looked different than that traditionally imagined. She stated she was not sure if there was a better project for the space but that an economic analysis would still be the responsible thing to do. Commissioner O'Connor stated he was not opposed to the rezone or land use change, nor the economic analysis. He mentioned retail was suffering and trying to add more retail into areas that already had a lot might hurt the City, but the project was well outside high retail areas and the mall was outstanding. Chair Ritter echoed the other Commissioners and requested consideration of the cost of 10x Genomics leaving Pleasanton. He stated he believed it was the perfect land area for the project and it fit well with the proposed redevelopment at Stoneridge Mall. Discussion Point#2: 2. What amenities and mitigations should the applicant consider providing to support the proposed FAR? Commissioner Allen suggested the Planning Commission determine the commensurate appropriate value for doubling density and applying it where the City needed it, similar to Workday and Irby Ranch. She expressed her hope that the City would get value and that it would need to be big for the strategic site. Commissioner Brown discussed the proposed phasing and suggested the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) be tied to Buildings 2 and 3. Commissioner O'Connor agreed with Commissioner Brown that if the buildings were phased then the amenity requests should also be phased. He also mentioned that he was not always comfortable deciding what the amenity should be if it is not directly on site. He suggested the City Council prioritize its needs. Commissioner Brown inquired whether there were any traffic improvements in the area or other project priorities that might be appropriate to consider. Mr. Tassano mentioned the cycle track ring around the outside of Stoneridge Mall and a trail that connected the campus to the mall. Chair Ritter concurred with the concept and discussed the possibility of a fund for the cycle track. Discussion Point #3: 3. Is the overall massing, scale and setbacks of the proposed buildings acceptable, and should the heights of buildings 2/3, in particular, be modified? Commissioner Pace stated he liked the orientation of Building 1 overlooking the mall and Buildings 2 and 3 looking at the apartments. He discussed the need for the appropriate traffic Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 8 November 18, 2020 ember 18, 2020 confirmed that to be the case and that the company was interested in growing together with the City. Commissioner Allen asked if the company was planning on keeping all three locations in the City or if they would consolidate after the opening of the proposed campus. Mr. Jencek stated the idea was new net growth. Commissioner Pace asked for guidance on how to consider the economic impact to the City when the usage of land was changed and whether staff considered that in its analysis. He stated he wanted to ensure the best use for the land was selected because, even though it Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8 November 18, 2020