PC 072821 - Laserfiche WebLink

response, but his question as to whether staff had the ability to recommend hours of operation for businesses was previously answered by Ms. Clark's response to Commissioner Allen's inquiry. Commissioner Nibert stated the provision applied to spaces with both active and non-active use, which Ms. Clark affirmed. Commissioner Nibert discussed the email regarding whether a gym or yoga studio was an active use. Ms. Clark stated personal services such as yoga, fitness, beauty and barber shops were excluded from the definition of active use. Commissioner Nibert then referenced the Pleasanton Downtown Association (PDA) and Chamber of Commerce's opinion that the percentage of multi-tenant space with active use was less important than confirmation of bona fide active uses. Ms. Clark discussed City code enforcement, indicating it was complaint based and that staff did not actively monitor business operations unless it was in response to a compliant. Commissioner Nibert asked if an increase of the percentage of active use in a single tenant space would apply to Iron Horse Real Estate or other active and non-active uses in single use tenant spaces. Ms. Clark responded they could continue operating under the previously approved percentage because they were approved under the rules in place at the time of approval. Commissioner Nibert discussed the requirement for the non-active use at the rear of the tenant space. Ms. Clark discussed the language, which was intended to allow some flexibility as to how space was configured. Commissioner Nibert asked if the City would require copies of the lease agreements, and discussed the provision in the draft materials, indicating the "Director may request a dimension or floor plan along with a copy of lease agreement." Ms. Bonn explained the City Council discussion regarding lease agreements in order to verify leasable square footage. She suggested the financial terms or other private matters in the lease agreement could be redacted. Commissioner Pace thanked staff for its presentation and the community for its feedback. He inquired how staff reached the 60-percent mark rather than a smaller percentage. Ms. Clark explained the City Council wanted a substantial portion of the tenant space dedicated to the active use and staff felt 60/40 was appropriate to retain a useful inactive portion. Commissioner Pace discussed other cities' efforts and the goal to continue to support and encourage a vibrant downtown with opportunities for those who would visit and use downtown. He inquired about the effort to determine the economic impact of increased square footage or the impact seen by other cities with similar requirements. Ms. Clark stated other cities had successfully implemented similar policies, some had rolled back requirements due to impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and there were more opportunities with more downtown demand. She stated there was no specific metric, rather staff had researched what other cities had done to establish the recommendation. Commissioner Morgan referenced the appeal heard at the February 10, 2021, Planning Commission meeting and the underlying tone of determining whether a business was legitimate. He requested information on whether there was discussion on the pros and cons of broadening the overlay and excluding personal services from active use. Ms. Clark stated it was not discussed at the most recent City Council or Planning Commission meetings but was discussed when the item was considered by the Chamber of Commerce and PDA. She stated other cities had allowed and some had excluded personal services. She summarized the discussion regarding massage businesses that arose during the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) update, and concerns then about an overabundance of personal services. She Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 July 28, 2021