My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 072821
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2021
>
PC 072821
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2021 11:51:29 AM
Creation date
8/26/2021 11:51:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/28/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
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
discussed the gyms, existing salons, and other personal services, stating the recommendation <br /> prohibited new businesses of that type. <br /> Chair Brown inquired about Page 4 of the agenda report regarding "vacancy" being replaced <br /> with "abandonment" and expressed concern that it went against the intent of the DSP update. <br /> Ms. Clark explained the purpose of alignment and consistency with the Non-conforming <br /> chapter of the Code and that the recommendation was based on practical experience related <br /> to the existing vacancies around the Downtown. Chair Brown inquired whether abandonment <br /> was at the time the lease expired or was forfeited, or if the property owner was still receiving <br /> revenue. Ms. Clark discussed the practices of landlords to allow flexibility of tenants vacating <br /> the premises. Chair Brown stated he was trying to understand the intent of the policy and <br /> whether it was based on not creating an undue hardship of property owners in order to meet <br /> the City's active ground floor use requirement. <br /> THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN <br /> Erica Jasso, owner of Sculptsations, provided public comment regarding her business as a <br /> mixed use with part service and part retail. She stated she originally mapped out 15-percent of <br /> her business, but she had remodeled to be compliant to the 25-percent requirement and <br /> questioned why her permits and business license were denied. She discussed the previous <br /> children's retail boutique which was vacant for seven months. She requested the Commission <br /> reconsider the regulations to allow creation of a distinctive, vital downtown. <br /> Pleasanton Downtown Association Executive Director Zac Grant provided public comment <br /> suggesting Iron Horse Real Estate and Sculptsations be treated equally. He stated the change <br /> would affect very few businesses and those would appear as active use from the street. He <br /> suggested a separate business license for each business to ensure the front business was <br /> legitimately active use. <br /> THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br /> Commissioner Pace mentioned the arbitrariness of the number/percentage and goal to ensure <br /> active use within the locations, while avoiding impacting the current tenants. He suggested <br /> ensuring vibrancy as opposed to settling on a particular percentage. <br /> Commissioner Nibert expressed concern that there was division between downtown members. <br /> He referenced the public comment provided by Ms. Jasso and stated increasing the <br /> percentage to more than half the square footage would squeeze out people/businesses such <br /> as hers. He discussed limited enforcement and suggested a partnership between the City and <br /> businesses. <br /> Chair Brown mentioned his empathy for businesses such as Ms. Jasso's where she increased <br /> her active use from 15-percent to 25-percent. <br /> Commissioner Gaidos reminded the Commission that the policy was for the ground floor of <br /> Main Street in the downtown and stated active use meant 'open for business.' He stated the <br /> intent was to avoid businesses that were advertisements such as real estate and rather have <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 July 28, 2021 <br />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 />