_Minutes_January 12, 2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Morgan asked the proposed number of bedrooms and if there were limitations on the number of resident cars. Ms. Campbell stated there were two bedrooms in the unit and there were no limitations on the number of cars but, because it was Downtown, in theory they would have fewer cars and walk or use transit. She stated parking on site was not currently limited for the residents but a condition could be added. Commissioner Nibert asked staff's thoughts on exacerbating the current parking situation. Ms. Campbell referenced the memorandum provided to the Commission highlighting the parking study conducted a few years ago. She stated the area was 57% parked during the lunch hour and 85% parked during dinner along with most of the downtown. She stated Staff found the project was appropriate for the location and that the proposed parking, with the in-lieu, was sufficient. Commissioner Nibert asked for clarification on the Code parking requirement. Ms. Campbell explained why the lift could not be counted towards the required parking and that deficient parking could be mitigated through an in-lieu fee. Ms. Clark explained the nine spaces dedicated to the office which could be used for residential tenants. She also stated the project was a rental unit and the landlord could control the tenants parking. Commissioner Nibert asked the history of in-lieu fees for parking deficiency. Ms. Clark discussed the use of in-lieu fees for other projects. Ms. Campbell provided examples of in-lieu fees or variances to reduce parking. Commissioner Nibert asked how the in-lieu fee related to adding parking. Ms. Clark explained that the fees were set aside in a special account to be applied to constructing additional parking in Downtown. Commissioner Nibert expressed his discomfort with considering the financial viability of the project. Ms. Harryman explained that the project was not in violation of the Pleasanton Municipal Code. Commissioner Nibert asked how much of the inanceial financial viability should be considered. Ms. Clark stated the developer's financial return was not a consideration although the type of development such as a studio was considered. Commissioner Allen also expressed concern about parking in Downtown and opening the door for in-lieu fees being used on new residential projects in the core Downtown. She asked if there were specific examples of allowing in-lieu fees on residential projects. Ms. Campbell clarified that the 273 Spring Street in-lieu fee was for the commercial piece of the project, but that is an example of a project with both commercial and residential on the site. Commissioner Allen stated the Commission had previously not allowed tandem parking nor in-lieu fees. Ms. Campbell discussed the examples provided and stated the proposed in-lieu fee could be conditioned to be just for the commercial aspect of the project. In response to Commissioner Allen, Ms. Clark stated in-lieu fees required City Council approval. Ms. Harryman clarified that in-lieu fees could be approved over the counter but the project before the Commission did not qualify. Commissioner Brown clarified the hours of the dental office. Ms. Campbell confirmed that the dental office was open two days a week. Commissioner Brown asked why the project was proposing the lift. Ms. Clark explained that the lift spot was better than no space. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 January 12, 2022