CCMIN040202 - Laserfiche WebLink

staff recommendations ignore the wishes of all the affected property owners. All four property owners want to keep the parking spaces on their own private property. Thirdly, staff recommendations ignore the newly adopted Downtown Specific Plan. Spring Street properties are not designated on the interim parking lot plan. The Specific Plan had not been adopted on September 18, 2001. The word "encourage" does not mean mandate. His clients propose that the plans and the policies of the Specific Plan be applied with respect and consideration for the people who build the buildings and run the businesses in Downtown Pleasanton. Fourth, the Spring Street location is a bad location for mandatory reciprocal parking easements. The September 18, 2001 staff report explained why the spaces behind the four former single-family homes would not be good public private spaces. Fifth, over regulation will actually discourage investment in Downtown Pleasanton. Easements permanently impair the future uses of property. In the Winters' case, Steve and Judy have always planned to use 216 Spring Street as their retirement home when their children move out. A reciprocal parking easement will reduce the property value of each of the Spring Street properties. That makes those easements counter-productive because the driving force for remodeling and revitalization of Downtown Pleasanton is the increased value of the improved properties. When these people become the target of government and regulations that hurt their property values, they stop investing. This is zoning blight and it can happen here. Rather than the micro- management of the Spring Street parking, the City needs to look at the bigger picture. They need to focus on keeping parking supply in line with parking demand. The Winters want any dedication of parking easements to be voluntary as originally directed by the City Council. Councilmember Ayala asked if she understood the Winters would pay their in lieu fee and keep the parking spaces that they have. Mr. MacDonald said that is correct. Councilmember Michelotti said she understood that if they were able to get all of the parking in this area accessible for the public, then they would be returned their in lieu fees. Mr. MacDonald said that was not clear in any discussion of the shared private and shared public parking spaces definitions. Councilmembers Dennis asked if the in lieu parking agreement was the same for both the Winters and Wevil properties. Is reciprocity in both agreements? Mr. Swift said the draft agreement from September is in the staff report. There have been other interim drafts that have contained versions of this provision. The Winters have not signed any agreement. It is the City intention to have both agreements be the same. Mr. MacDonald said that as this moves forward there are various versions of the agreements that are modified by all parties. The February version said "the property shall Pleasanton City Council 10 04/02/02 Minutes