Laserfiche WebLink
ATTACHMENT 4 <br />Continued from December 8, 2021 - P20-1053. Hanna Naguib LLC, 218 Ray Street <br />Application for Design Review to construct a new 1,069 square -foot two-story residential unit <br />behind an existing commercial building located at 218 Ray Street. Zoning is C -C (Central - <br />Commercial) District <br />Associate Planner Megan Campbell presented the specifics of the item in the Agenda Report. <br />Commissioner Gaidos asked about the parking in -lieu fee. Ms. Campbell explained that the <br />current lot had 10 spaces but was being reconfigured to have 11 spaces, plus an upper lift <br />space. She stated the in -lieu fee was to cover the 12th space because the lift could not be <br />counted. <br />Commissioner Morgan asked the proposed number of bedrooms and if there were limitations <br />on the number of resident cars. Ms. Campbell stated there were two bedrooms in the unit and <br />there were no limitations on the number of cars but, because it was Downtown, in theory they <br />would have fewer cars and walk or use transit. She stated parking on site was not currently <br />limited for the residents but a condition could be added. <br />Commissioner Nibert asked staff's thoughts on exacerbating the current parking situation. Ms. <br />Campbell referenced the memorandum provided to the Commission highlighting the parking <br />study conducted a few years ago. She stated the area was 57% parked during the lunch hour <br />and 85% parked during dinner along with most of the downtown. She stated Staff found the <br />project was appropriate for the location and that the proposed parking, with the in -lieu, was <br />sufficient. <br />Commissioner Nibert asked for clarification on the Code parking requirement. Ms. Campbell <br />explained why the lift could not be counted towards the required parking and that deficient <br />parking could be mitigated through an in -lieu fee. Ms. Clark explained the nine spaces <br />dedicated to the office which could be used for residential tenants. She also stated the project <br />was a rental unit and the landlord could control the tenants parking. Commissioner Nibert <br />asked the history of in -lieu fees for parking deficiency. Ms. Clark discussed the use of in -lieu <br />fees for other projects. Ms. Campbell provided examples of in -lieu fees or variances to reduce <br />parking. Commissioner Nibert asked how the in -lieu fee related to adding parking. Ms. Clark <br />explained that the fees were set aside in a special account to be applied to constructing <br />additional parking in Downtown. Commissioner Nibert expressed his discomfort with <br />considering the financial viability of the project. Ms. Harryman explained that the project was <br />not in violation of the Pleasanton Municipal Code. Commissioner Nibert asked how much of <br />the O„,anGeial financial viability should be considered. Ms. Clark stated the developer's financial <br />return was not a consideration although the type of development such as a studio was <br />considered. <br />Commissioner Allen also expressed concern about parking in Downtown and opening the door <br />for in -lieu fees being used on new residential projects in the core Downtown. She asked if <br />there were specific examples of allowing in -lieu fees on residential projects. Ms. Campbell <br />clarified that the 273 Spring Street in -lieu fee was for the commercial piece of the project, but <br />that is an example of a project with both commercial and residential on the site. Commissioner <br />Allen stated the Commission had previously not allowed tandem parking nor in -lieu fees. Ms. <br />Campbell discussed the examples provided and stated the proposed in -lieu fee could be <br />Excerpt: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, January 12, 2022 <br />Page 1 of 4 <br />