CCMIN 12212021 - Laserfiche WebLink

would require an annual renewal. She reported the Planning Commission was supportive of the proposed process. Ms. Campbell advised the program will include both one-time and annual fees. The annual fee suggested by staff would be $1,000 per parking space to be waived for the first year of operation to help the business invest in the structure and evaluate its success. Staff would like direction on whether or not to pursue a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for the ability to connect power to City streetlights, if the proposed $1,000 annual fee should be changed, along with the approval of the draft parklet program. In response to Councilmember Balch, Traffic Engineer Michael Tassano confirmed the parking spaces on the street are eight feet in width. In response to Councilmember Balch, Ms. Campbell clarified staff observed traffic at existing parklets and noted traffic was getting too close to parklets built out to eight feet and slightly beyond. Seven feet is a standardized width in other communities, allowing for more space between the traffic lane and the parklets. In response to Councilmember Balch, Mr. Tassano clarified the length of a parking spot varies between 18 and 24 feet depending on the block, but the most typical length is 23 feet. He confirmed they are carving out three feet on average on each end of the parklet for a curb stop. He clarified shorter 20-foot parking stalls will have a four-foot space. He noted downtown corners have 18-foot stalls. He confirmed the curb stops are for safety and advised there can be an adjustment where there are four-foot buffer spaces which is why the City will review applications individually. He explained the goal is not to minimize the amount of available parklet space but rather to provide the same level of safety regardless of the space of the parking stalls occupied by a parklet. In response to Councilmember Balch, Ms. Campbell confirmed the design standard of the elevated parklets being flush with the curb as opposed to stepping down into a parklet is an ADA issue and the proposal defines being flush with the curb for this reason. Ramps could be an option, but the parklets will have to devote more space for it, and the slope of the parklet is also an ADA issue where the street is not level. In response to Councilmember Balch, Ms. Campbell reported there are sign regulations in the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC). The expanded dining area could not come with additional signage and advertising because it is not equitable for businesses without a parklet and is also a matter of aesthetics for downtown. In response to Councilmember Balch, Ms. Campbell advised staff's recommendation is to not have solid walls for the entirety of the perimeter to allow for some form of visibility for other storefronts and to look less like a structure. Staff did not consider a different annual use fee amount on side streets as opposed to Main Street. Staff is suggesting not having roofs, driven largely by fire concerns. Ms. Campbell advised parklets can be built modularly allowing for easy street maintenance beneath. She advised having them elevated also allows for access by leaf blowers and power washers. In response to Councilmember Narum, staff's recommendation is to have new applicants use a pre- approved design. If the City Council would like to include a design review option, more creative parklets could be considered. She reported the pre-approved designs would have some customizable options but noted they could not cover every option. She explained the approach is to have some consistency on the streets, noting these parklets will be in the City's right-of-way. In response to Councilmember Narum, Interim City Manager Dolan advised staff would evaluate the prospects for the length of the restriction and the City Council could consider a window to reallow the City Council Minutes Page 11 of 18 December 21, 2021