2_Exhibits A-C - Laserfiche WebLink

Alternatively, the City Council may consider alternative approaches, including an outright prohibition on ground-floor residential in some or all of the commercial and mixed-use districts, or within other defined areas, such as properties within the active ground-floor overlay. Regardless of the City Council's direction, staff strongly recommends that clarification be included in the Specific Plan that "ground-floor residential uses' does not preclude required on-site parking for otherwise permitted residential units (e.g., the garage for upper-floor residential). Street-Fronting Residential Entries Staff recommends following the Task Force's direction to allow street-fronting residential entries, subject to the provision of the revised Policy LD-P.18 that such entries be of minimal width and designed and integrated in a way that maintains a predominantly commercial building frontage on the subject property. Right-to-do-Business Ordinance Finally, staff notes the Task Force's direction to require the City to adopt a "right-to-do business" ordinance, following the approach taken by the City of Livermore for their downtown. Having reviewed Livermore's ordinance, which has relatively complex and onerous requirements, staff suggests the updated DSP allow for additional flexibility in how the City could address the concern about conflicts between residential and commercial uses. One possible approach is to include a condition of approval for residential projects, requiring a disclosure statement or covenant regarding potential noise and activity impacts associated with downtown locations. The City has included such requirements in at least six recent downtown projects, including residential/mixed use projects at 273 Spring Street, 225 Angela Street, 4791 Augustine Street, and 520 St. John Street, among others. 4. Land Use Discrepancies/Property Owner-Initiated Land Use Changes Background Land Use Discrepancies There are a number of properties within the downtown (more than 170 parcels) with existing inconsistencies or discrepancies between their General Plan designation. Specific Plan designation, and zoning. By law, all three of these documents are required to be consistent and aligned. As such, the Specific Plan update process framed how the discrepancies should be addressed. with a two-pronged approach: • For properties where the changes are relatively straightforward (e.g., not resulting in major changes to use, allowable density, or development standards), the amendments are proposed to be adopted at the same time as DSP update is adopted. These properties are included on a "Map A" of the draft DSP. • For properties where changes are more complex or would have more substantial effects on allowable development, there will be a process of further study and property owner/neighborhood outreach to those affected before any amendments are made. These properties are included on a "Map B" of the draft DSP. Page 8 of 15 lding height in PUD's to be 30-feet which may need to be removed if the goal is to allow additional flexibility in PUDs. Public Comments and Questions The Task Force opened up the meeting to the public. Three members from the public provided comments. One comment noted we should maximize value and volume of use we can get on the land of this downtown (MU-D) area. Construction today tends to have higher plate heights and limited this area to 40-feet will only yield two-stories and really restrict any additional height/floors. However, given the right location and design, the Council may want to allow three-stories in some instances. Another comment agrees with the Task Force recommendation in terms of allowing additional heights so the projects can be reviewed on an individual basis. The final comment requested the note about limiting PUDs to 30-feet be stricken from the DSP to allow additional flexibility especially given modern construction. Summary of February 26, 2019 Downtown Specific Plan Update Task Force Meeting Page 6 of 7 c Plan Update Task Force Meeting Page 5 of 7