17 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 3 From: Peter MacDonald Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:31 PM To: Maria Hoey Cc: Scott Raty; Laura Olson; Kathy Narum; Peter MacDonald Subject: Item 6 a Bank Regulation - Oppose Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I mildly oppose the proposed ordinance that will require banks on Main Street to obtain a conditional use permit. This ordinance includes an outright prohibition on banks on corners, or on the same block as another bank. I am writing only for myself. I have never seen the City develop an ordinance so fast, and congratulate the City for its streamlined process, which hopefully will be used for future processes. In moving to regulate specific uses, the City is adopting the state of the art from 25 years ago, typified primarily by cities with redevelopment agencies. The world view of redevelopment was that the downtown is a big shopping center, and "We" (the government, as owners of the shopping center) need to place the right users in the right locations vis a vis each other to maximize our return on investment (sales tax). That approach to downtown planning is giving way to the new urbanist philosophy, which welcomes mixing of uses, eschews micro-management of uses, and focuses on providing the habitat in which a lively street life can thrive (e.g. wide sidewalks, civic centers like theatres, and rules encouraging evening activities). It is interesting that while in the 1980's, Pleasanton mandated banks to locate downtown, Livermore (in its redevelopment phase) was prohibiting banks downtown with its mandatory first floor retail ordinance. Now, Pleasanton is restricting banks, while Livermore (in its new urbanist phase) has made banks and business services permitted uses in its core area. Somehow, Livermore is not experiencing a rush of banks to downtown, but then, neither is Pleasanton. The immediate impact of restrictive regulations is zoning blight. In this case, the bank prohibition will probably cause the Past Time Pool building to remain unrehabilitated — a typical example of the perfect driving out the good. Higher vacancy rates are a frequent outcome of mandatory first floor retail ordinances. But, the government never helps to make mortgage payments on those forced vacancy buildings. Lastly, anytime a potential business is subject to a conditional use permit requirement it is bad news for the business. It adds an automatic 6 months to the time required to get open. Under discretionary authority, the details of daily operation become the subject of conditions of approval, and the City regularly requires more substantial building rehabilitation than required by the Building Code. In general, we can best promote downtown vitality by expanding the area within which vital businesses like restaurants can locate and lightening the burden of regulation, preferably in the form of generally applicable ordinances as opposed to case by case discretionary use permits. Take care, Pete Peter MacDonald Law Office of Peter MacDonald