PC 071002 - Laserfiche WebLink

,-.. He stated that of the additional square footage, only 500 square feet would be occupied by office space. Robert Byrd, 403 St. Mary Street, expressed concern that parking was not provided for the additional square footage. He noted that he lived one block away from this project, and did not agree with the statement that there were no parking problems in that area. He talked to a number of people in Main Street regarding parking, and they all told him there was a parking problem in the downtown area. He stated that the in-lieu parking fees would be used to build new parking facilities, and inquired where that would be built. He did not believe there was any land available in that area for parking facilities. Mr. Byrd believed that a planner should talk to people in the downtown retail and service businesses about parking. He noted that the employees of the new office buildings parked in the public parking spaces all day, which took parking spaces away from the retailers and restaurants. He inquired what the City did with the in-lieu monies, as well as how much had been collected. He believed that the parking issue should be addressed before more projects were approved. He asked the Planning Commission to consider whether downtown Pleasanton should be an automobile-based environment or a pedestrian-based environment. He stated that the last 80,000 square feet of new buildings approved downtown were for auto-based businesses. ,.-. Charles Huff, 30 W. Neal Street, project architect, noted that he appreciated Mr. Byrd's comments. He noted that staff did their best with the corridor situation. He believed that if downtown development was being encouraged, the City was approaching a Walnut Creek model, where shoppers would park in a parking facility and walk to their destination. Mr. Huff invited questions about the subject offices, and noted that they had worked closely with staff in terms of shaping the building. He stated that part of the increase in square footage was due to the addition of the elevator, which would make the building more handicapped friendly and more versatile. He applauded his client for the addition of that feature. He noted that his client would still have to pay for the three additional spaces, and emphasized that an additional 900 square feet of occupied space would not be added. Mr. Huff noted that they had worked to make the building more retail-friendly. He had spoken with a member of the PDA who had opposed the front fayade, who noted that if they were to vote again, they would favor the new elevation. In response to Commissioner Arkin's question regarding the conversion of office space to retail, Mr. Huffbriefly explained the process. He added that the applicants would be the users of the space, and that the building would not be a retail use while they occupied it. Commissioner Sullivan inquired how a possible conversion of the upstairs space to a residential use would be accomplished. Mr. Huff replied that the building had two ,_ staircases, which conformed with the Fire Code, and that the building was designed with PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 10,2002 Page 5