My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
_Minutes_July 28, 2021
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2021
>
08-25
>
_Minutes_July 28, 2021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2021 12:15:13 PM
Creation date
8/18/2021 12:15:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
8/25/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
for businesses was previously answered by Ms. Clark's response to Commissioner Allen's <br /> inquiry. <br /> Commissioner Nibert stated the provision applied to spaces with both active and non-active <br /> use, which Ms. Clark affirmed. Commissioner Nibert discussed the email regarding whether a <br /> gym or yoga studio was an active use. Ms. Clark stated personal services such as yoga, <br /> fitness, beauty and barber shops were excluded from the definition of active use. <br /> Commissioner Nibert then referenced the Pleasanton Downtown Association (PDA) and <br /> Chamber of Commerce's opinion that the percentage of multi-tenant space with active use was <br /> less important than confirmation of bona fide active uses. Ms. Clark discussed City code <br /> enforcement, indicating it was complaint based and that staff did not actively monitor business <br /> operations unless it was in response to a compliant. Commissioner Nibert asked if an increase <br /> of the percentage of active use in a single tenant space would apply to Iron Horse Real Estate <br /> or other active and non-active uses in single use tenant spaces. Ms. Clark responded they <br /> could continue operating under the previously approved percentage because they were <br /> approved under the rules in place at the time of approval. Commissioner Nibert discussed the <br /> requirement for the non-active use at the rear of the tenant space. Ms. Clark discussed the <br /> language, which was intended to allow some flexibility as to how space was configured. <br /> Commissioner Nibert asked if the City would require copies of the lease agreements, and <br /> discussed the provision in the draft materials, indicating the "Director may request a dimension <br /> or floor plan along with a copy of lease agreement." Ms. Bonn explained the City Council <br /> discussion regarding lease agreements in order to verify leasable square footage. She <br /> suggested the financial terms or other private matters in the lease agreement could be <br /> redacted. <br /> Commissioner Pace thanked staff for its presentation and the community for its feedback. He <br /> inquired how staff reached the 60-percent mark rather than a smaller percentage. Ms. Clark <br /> explained the City Council wanted a substantial portion of the tenant space dedicated to the <br /> active use and staff felt 60/40 was appropriate to retain a useful inactive portion. <br /> Commissioner Pace discussed other cities' efforts and the goal to continue to support and <br /> encourage a vibrant downtown with opportunities for those who would visit and use downtown. <br /> He inquired about the effort to determine the economic impact of increased square footage or <br /> the impact seen by other cities with similar requirements. Ms. Clark stated other cities had <br /> successfully implemented similar policies, some had rolled back requirements due to impacts <br /> of the COVID-19 pandemic, and there were more opportunities with more downtown demand. <br /> She stated there was no specific metric, rather staff had researched what other cities had done <br /> to establish the recommendation. <br /> Commissioner Morgan referenced the appeal heard at the February 10. 2021 , Planning <br /> Commission meeting and the underlying tone of determining whether a business was <br /> legitimate. He requested information on whether there was discussion on the pros and cons of <br /> broadening the overlay and excluding personal services from active use. Ms. Clark stated it <br /> was not discussed at the most recent City Council or Planning Commission meetings but was <br /> discussed when the item was considered by the Chamber of Commerce and PDA. She stated <br /> other cities had allowed and some had excluded personal services. She summarized the <br /> discussion regarding massage businesses that arose during the Downtown Specific Plan <br /> (DSP) update, and concerns then about an overabundance of personal services. She <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 July 28, 2021 <br />