_Minutes_June 26, 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

the zoning requirements is adding an undue burden. And, he does not want to necessarily throw everything out or say everything needs to be separated out. Commissioner Ritter said he also noted there are only three Planning Commissioners present tonight and the General Plan Amendment could encompass the entire meeting alone. He asked if all three Commissioners could participate. Mr. Beaudin said of the three Planning Commissioners not participating, two Commissioners have conflicts of interest and one is absent. Chair Allen said she feels it is a lot of content but also cited a sense of responsibility to move forward. She suggested starting with the simpler items and getting them out of the way or starting with the more difficult, starting with the ground floor residential issue. Conversely, she expressed Planning Commissioners could start with the existing topic list and move on from there. Outdoor Dining in MU-T: Chair Allen asked if Planning Commissioners wanted approval of outdoor dining to go to the Planning Commission or through the normal process other discretionary projects might go through with the ZA. Commissioner Brown stated the purpose of the MU-T was to feather between commercial and residential and to provide a buffer. The concern was around liquor licenses, noise, etc. When considering noise and outdoor dining, that would require extra oversight. He did not want to overburden Planning Commissioners with regulating it when it could be addressed through the ZA. Commissioner Ritter concurred, but with the caveat that there is a right to do business ordinance in place. Chair Allen expressed that the ZA should be able to make these decisions. She asked Commissioner Ritter to comment more about why the City would have to have a right to do business ordinance. Commissioner Ritter explained the concept is that people need to acknowledge that if they move to the downtown they will be living in a zone where there will be noise, outside dining, and other factors. Chair Allen referred to the discussion of the Task Force because this was brought up as a recommendation, and staff said there were problems with a right to do business ordinance like Livermore has. The Task Force agreed to back away from it, so she wanted to understand the downsides of it. Mr. Beaudin responded that during the Downtown Hospitality Guideline discussion the idea of a right to do business ordinance was brought forward. At the time, it was deemed to be too onerous. In the meantime, staff is using the Hospitality Guidelines and conditions of approval on new residential projects that require disclosures. If moving to the downtown, there is noise Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 27 June 26, 2019 e Planning Commission could break down the topics at hand and he did not see it quite as dire, stating there are many things they are not debating tonight such as the renderings on what they eventually would like Main Street to look like. He did not disagree, as an example, that making PUDs mandatory for all residential projects that fill all of Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 27 June 26, 2019 Laura Olson, Executive Director of PDA, and member of the Downtown Specific Plan Task Force, voiced disappointment with what was being presented, stating the PDA Vitality Committee began meeting and red-lining the 2002 DSP in 2013. They provided it to staff in 2014 and have been awaiting this process. She said although there have been wins, there Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 27 June 26, 2019