Laserfiche WebLink
serve as a common parking lot for such properties" and the version the Wevills received <br />said "this combined parking lot open to the public." The first time it had wording that <br />said "shared public" and "public private" and the version received in February made it <br />clear that it was "shared private" and that qualified for the $24,000 rebate and in the <br />Wevills version it has to be "public private" in order for them to qualify for the $24,000 <br />rebate. The reality is that no one wants the rebate; they just want their own private <br />spaces. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said Council cannot tonight change the parking ordinance; Council can <br />direct staff to look at it. The ordinance allows a rebate or Council can waive on a case by <br />case basis any parking obligation if it is open to the public. There is nothing in the code <br />that mandates on a case by case basis we require a reciprocal private easement. Staff <br />made that recommendation to Council with the agreement from September and staff is <br />recommending that now with respect to both issues. But Council is free to decide if the <br />City requires that or not. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Michelotti asked if the fee amount required was consistent on <br />both applications. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swirl said it was. The total number of parking spaces are the same and it <br />turns out to be three spaces in both cases. The Specific Plan encourages existing parking <br />lots be shared to the extent possible and to utilize the diagram in the Specific Plan to <br />show how certain blocks can have their lots linked together. <br /> <br /> Judy Winter, 82 Castlewood Drive, said in actual use they do not see much <br />difference in a shared private parking lot and a public parking lot. You don't know who <br />is parking behind your building. They have no objection to paying the fees agreed upon <br />and would like to see the money spent on a downtown parking lot. Their concern is the <br />parking spaces behind their building and they would like to see them for use by only the <br />property owners. It is privately owned property and they want to keep it that way. An <br />option that they have kept open with their building is to move into it when the children <br />are out of the house and have a live/work situation. The downstairs looks like an office <br />and could easily function as an office with their home located upstairs. A shared parking <br />lot would cause her to feel unsafe to go outside at night because it is her backyard and she <br />wants to keep it that way. <br /> <br /> Mrs. Winters read a letter from William Miller, 252 Spring Street. "Please <br />extend my letter along with my apologies for not being able to attend the City Council <br />meeting to the Councilmembers. I purchased the property at 252 Spring Street with the <br />intention of using the location as my primary place of business. I was aware of the <br />extensive renovations that were going to be necessary and was also aware of the stringent <br />parking restrictions that are imposed upon the downtown Pleasanton businesses. <br />However, I was quite shocked when after speaking with several different City employees <br />I was told that the City is trying to 'encourage' the owners and occupants of Spring Street <br />to form a shared yet private parking lot. We chose this particular building primarily for <br />its downtown location. As a bonus it has seemingly ample parking accommodations <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 11 04/02/02 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />