17 - Laserfiche WebLink

P21-0636 and P21-0637, Active Ground Floor Use Overlay Consider amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapters 18.08 and 18.81 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code regarding the Active Ground Floor Use Overlay (AGFUO). Senior Planner Shweta Bonn presented thespecifics of the item in the Agenda Report. Commissioner Allen referenced the staff memo received by the Commission inquiring whether staff solicited input from the public prior to the meeting. Director of Community Development Ellen Clark stated standard outreach had been conducted. Commissioner Allen asked the need for multiple use tenant spaces; she stated she was not aware of any other than Iron Horse Real Estate. Ms. Clark responded the requirement was new and staff had not been reviewing applications with that particular criteria, but staff could not think of any specific examples. Commissioner Allen stated the other benchmark cities did not deal with active and non-active uses in a single tenant space. Ms. Clark confirmed that staff was not aware of examples in other jurisdictions with that specific provision. Commissioner Allen discussed the current nine vacancies in spaces subject to the AGFUO, indicating they would not be subject to the active use requirement due to the length of vacancies. Ms. Clark stated there were various reasons for the vacancies. She noted there were a few vacancies that had existed for several years and were not a result of the COVID-19 pandemic but instead a result of the tenant space size or configuration, although the pandemic may have influenced a couple of the spaces ability to be leased. Commissioner Allen discussed the relatively simple business license process, and that it did not guarantee a use would be active. Ms. Clark confirmed the current process to obtain a business license, with limited exceptions such as for massage establishments which required additional information. Commissioner Allen questioned the required retail hours. Ms. Clark stated the City Attorney's Office determined that the City could regulate required hours of operation in an ordinance such as this. Commissioner Gaidos followed up to Commissioner Allen's question regarding the City's ability to regulate or dictate the hours of business operations, to be consistent with active use. He mentioned he reached out to Assistant City Attorney Julie Harryman and received a timely 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. Excerpt: Approved Planning Commission Minutes, July 28, 2021 Page 1 of 6