2_Exhibits A-C - Laserfiche WebLink

to the massage ordinance that are forthcoming. Task Force Direction, Comments, and Questions A few Task Force members noted they appreciate staffs recommendation as this is a city- wide problem rather than a Downtown problem. One Task Force member concurred with staffs recommendation, particularly, not adding massage uses to the "active ground floor" definition. They asked if there is any approach or way to deal with 1056 Division Street as it seems to be an outlier. In response, staff noted this one property could be reviewed further with the Land Use Discrepancy discussion, however, at this time, 1056 Division is on Map B- which will be discussed in the future. A likely outcome is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that defines a specific set of uses that will be allowed. Public Comments and Questions The Task Force opened up the meeting to the public. One member of the public, a massage therapist in Pleasanton, spoke expressing appreciation of the approach recommended by staff and the discussion by the Task Force. Task Force Recommendation The Task Force moved and voted to support staff recommendation-that is to strengthen the massage ordinance in the Municipal Code rather than add policies to the Downtown Specific Plan and to not include massage uses in the definition of active ground floor (Unanimous support). Active Ground-Floor Overlay Staff summarized the definition of Active Ground Floor Uses, outlined the discussion to date on the Active Ground-Floor Overlay, and requested Task Force direction on the extent of the overlay, inclusion of personal services in the active use definition, exemption process, and bank buildings. Staff also highlighted the recent public comment received in regards to existing banks that were built to accommodate a City regulation (i.e., requiring bank buildings to be built downtown) and may not easily accommodate other types of use without a reasonable amount of tenant improvements. Task Force Direction, Comments, and Questions One Task Force member expressed appreciation for the staff recommendations that seem to incorporate the feedback from the various interest groups. There was concern in regards to the exception process and only allowing one "non-active" use per block. Finds that this should only apply to Main Street, not include personal services in the definition of"active", and finds some sort of relief to banks seems reasonable. One Task Force member noted concern that banks essentially get a "freebie" and would be treated differently than other businesses. In retrospect the policy, to locate banks downtown may not have been well- advised. One Task Force member questioned if we can broaden relief to all non-active uses instead of being specific for banks. For example, banks do not count toward the "one non-active" use per block. Another comment clarified that the Community Development director and Zoning Administrator are used interchangeably and that the decision would be appealed to the Planning Commission if appealed. One Task Force member also commented that the PDA requests be considered; as well as a planner or two dedicated to downtown to provide consistency in rules and regulations for downtown projects. Public Comments and Questions The Task Force opened up the meeting to the public. Two members of the public commented. One comment noted that the PDA understands the intent of the Ground Floor Summary of February 26, 2019 Downtown Specific Plan Update Task Force Meeting Page 3 of 7 Downtown Specific Plan Planning Commission 14 of 15