Laserfiche WebLink
DRAFT <br /> businesses because business-generated funds go to the parks. He noted that taxes from <br /> housing do not necessarily go for the parks; therefore, creating a vibrant Downtown would <br /> generate more business, and the money these businesses generate actually helps fund <br /> parks. He added that keeping business rolling also funds parks. <br /> Commissioner Allen stated that she would like to bring up a concern that she has talked to <br /> staff about and that she would appreciate some discussion on. She indicated that she <br /> believes the amendments, as written, need a little tidying with some additional criteria as <br /> there might be some unintended consequences. She stated that she can see developers <br /> submitting a lot of ideas to the City, and it could be on side streets, or it could be a <br /> 150-square-foot area that might come close to meeting the criteria with a table or two and a <br /> little landscaping, and she is not sure the City wants those. She added that she thinks what <br /> the City wants strategically are a handful of plaza areas on Main Street. <br /> Commissioner Allen stated that she thinks the City may end up creating expectations <br /> because the criteria are not quite tight enough: people will submit proposals that will create <br /> work for staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council to review them; it may create <br /> hard feelings because the criteria are vague and people will ask why one proposal was <br /> approved and the other was not. She proposed that staff think about and add tighter <br /> criteria before this goes to the City Council, for example, (1) the plaza should be on Main <br /> Street; and (2) the plaza should be a certain size minimum, maybe about 350 square feet <br /> or 30 percent or 40 percent of the size of the Tully's plaza, rather than an area where there <br /> would be a couple of tables and a bench, maybe have a tree or two and a fountain where <br /> people can really sit, have coffee, chat, and then leave. She stated that the City should not <br /> want to fund tiny areas with a tree and a bench which are already built by developer. <br /> Commissioner Allen stated that another point she would also add, for internal and City <br /> Council discussion, is how much money worth of funding might be expected or budgeted <br /> for this amenity in a year: if it is half a million dollars for one, is the City looking at half a <br /> million dollars of fee waivers? She noted that judging from some of the letters, it appears <br /> that developers and business people are getting pretty excited about this, and she wants to <br /> make sure that the City does not get them overly excited and create more work and missed <br /> expectations. <br /> Chair Olson noted that there is a pretty tightly-defined area that this amendment applies to. <br /> He added that a developer who comes forward with a proposal would first sit with staff for <br /> review, staff has to be warm about it, and it ultimately has to go to and be approved by the <br /> City Council. He indicated that it appears to him that the checkpoint along the way, plus <br /> the tightly-defined areas that this is applied to, would be sufficient, rather than nailing it <br /> down any further. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that he would like to address the frequency and the dollar amount. He <br /> indicated that he has been in the City of Pleasanton almost six years now, and this is the <br /> first expansion of a building Downtown that he has seen. He pointed out that the City had <br /> one expansion proposed and approved at a public hearing that he attended while he was <br /> applying for this job. He added that it was quite controversial and very entertaining, but that <br /> DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 1/8/2014 Page 8 of 11 <br />