PC 052516 - Laserfiche WebLink

get to something closer to that second building; the residence on Old Bernal being office /retail because that will create more office /retail parking. Then I'm willing to give up some of this as a trade -off to that benefit. I'm willing to give up some of the residential studio parking, so to me it's a little bit of a give and take that makes me feel better about that decision. Commissioner O'Connor: So I always like to see the parking met on site as opposed to in -lieu. If we're getting something different I could see a variation if we're actually getting something extra. I'd rather it be met on site. That of course brings up what's required and say this whole Office designation is changing some of what would otherwise be required for studio. Chair Ritter: I tend to agree with Commissioner Allen and O'Connor that I'm not in favor of in -lieu fees but I'm in favor of working the site to make it make sense for the parking requirements. Commissioner Balch: Same here; on -site is definitely better and the number's obviously the driver, but I'd prefer it better than in -lieu. Commissioner Nagler: I completely agree with that because I don't think in -lieu fees give us much bang for the dollar. As far as the actual number, I'm not sure why we wouldn't use the apartment requirement number of one and maximize the number of parking spaces we can get for the mixed use /retail portion, and if it turns out to be six and six, I don't know that that's the wrong number. But I would start with the application of the apartment requirement. Commissioner Brown: So I think it's unlikely that Pleasanton's going to adopt the New York style of stacking cars on top of each other. Given that, I agree with the other comments in terms where I think an apartment ratio is fine. Chair Ritter: Great. Commissioner Balch: Can I just mention something? I do want to acknowledge that I personally foresee that we've created a balancing act between this second building, Residence 1, what is it going to be, if it is going to change or not, the parking need for it plus the fact that what we have done is, it's not like we're getting a seventh spot on the lot right now. So if we have two in- garage parking spots for Residence 1 in their garage right now and if we refigure that in some manner and now we have an office that has a 3:1 or some other ratio and we need three more spots, we're not getting three more spots. The only way you get out of an in -lieu fee then —and I'm not proposing it —but the only way is to say the residence is a mixed use building which only requires 1:1 and therefore there's enough on site. Therefore, you're virtually back to this same question of possibly three or possibly more in -lieu being asked. So I want to acknowledge it. I don't think we have the answer. Commissioner O'Connor: Well, certainly if we do a second mixed use building where the requirements change and now you have a problem with parking. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 25, 2016 Page 21 of 28