My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 052621
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2021
>
PC 052621
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2021 11:18:37 AM
Creation date
7/19/2021 11:18:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/12/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Commission. Mr. Tassano confirmed that any modifications would be to the mall side, not the <br /> 10x Genomics side, which staff had accounted for. <br /> Commissioner Allen asked if the $1 million contribution would be adjusted for inflation. Ms. <br /> Clark stated there was no proposal to include an inflation factor. Commissioner Allen <br /> requested that be considered in the future. She then inquired about impact fees for affordable <br /> housing and traffic. Ms. Clark responded that the applicant would be required to pay <br /> development impact fees and that some were offset by credit associated with previous retail <br /> uses on the site. She stated that impact fees would inflate in the future. Commissioner Allen <br /> asked if the cost difference for affordable housing fees, which would have been paid previously <br /> and were likely minimal versus current requirements, would be accounted for. Ms. Clark stated <br /> both credits and fees (for Phase 1) would be paid at current rates, which was standard for all <br /> projects. Commissioner Allen discussed the exterior insulation finishing system (EIFS), which <br /> was cladding material around the building, and inquired if it was an industry standard material <br /> and the reputation for the durability for the proposed type of commercial building. Ms. Clark <br /> responded that EIFS was a material used widely throughout the Bay Area for both residential <br /> and commercial applications. She explained it was an engineered material, with a good <br /> reputation for durability, and that she had had the opportunity to visit a project using EIFS and <br /> research potential issues and was satisfied by that research that the durability would be <br /> adequate. Commissioner Allen questioned how the Commission could approve the design <br /> details for one building without seeing the entire project (future phases). She expressed <br /> concern with the gray, "massive" design. Mr. Luchini stated the applicant could provide <br /> information on the phasing and aesthetics. Ms. Clark explained that the Commission was <br /> today reviewing the aesthetics of Building 1 only and would consider the design for future <br /> phases further in the process. <br /> Chair Brown referenced the three-dimensional view of the architecture and stated the building <br /> aesthetics appeared to have a lot of chrome. He asked if that was an accurate representation <br /> and expressed concern with the amount of glare that could result. Mr. Luchini deferred to the <br /> architect regarding the accuracy of the depiction of the materials. Planning and Permit Center <br /> Manager Melinda Denis stated the images were placeholders for Buildings 2 and 3 and the <br /> design and materials would be finalized during future phases. Chair Brown questioned the <br /> materials presented in the architecture image. <br /> THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED <br /> Applicant Ben Hindson, 10x Genomics, provided a brief introduction of the company and <br /> background on the lab setting. He expressed appreciation for the City's support and expanding <br /> the company's headquarters in Pleasanton. <br /> Architect Brian Jencek, HOK, provided a presentation regarding the existing site, location and <br /> the ability to create an enhanced campus for 10x Genomics. He referenced the Building 1 plan <br /> layout and the full layout of the site, highlighting the number of trees to remain and the new <br /> trees to be planted to create a lush landscape. He discussed the future parking structure off <br /> Stoneridge Mall Road and the benefits of the location. He referenced the queuing details and <br /> site circulation plan. He discussed efforts to remain compatible with the surrounding <br /> neighborhood. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 8 May 26, 2021 <br />