CCMIN040202 - Laserfiche WebLink

Item 6d (1) Clarification of an approved In-Lieu Parking Agreement for 216 Spring Street (SR 02:084) (2) (2) In-Lieu Parking Agreement for 240 Spring Street (Carrie Wevill) (SR 02:071) Brian Swirl presented the two staff reports. Councilmember Ayala asked if all of the buildings convert to commercial and there would be 50% less parking, what would then happen? Mr. Swift said the in-lieu fees from these conversions would be used to create parking in the area. The businesses would encourage employees to use off-site parking and allow customers to utilize the on-site parking. Councilmember Dennis asked about the reciprocal agreements between the property owners. Are they free to draft agreements that are acceptable to both parties, or does the City have some idea of what the reciprocal parking agreement should say? Mr. Swift said that if it were private parking, the owners would have the management ability to manage their own parking lots. It would, however, defeat the purpose if it were allocated and assigned parking. There is no City oversight on how people want to manage their own parking lots. Stoneridge Regional Mall is an example of a shared private parking lot. Mayor Pico declared the public hearing was opened. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, Suite 210, legal counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Winters, said staff recommendation is to mandate that Steve and Judy Winter and four adjacent property owners grant each other reciprocal parking easement with no compensation. For at least five reasons, they oppose reciprocal parking easements at that location unless they occur voluntarily. First, the staff recommendation is contrary to the direction of the City Council on this matter on September 18, 2001. On that date Council decided that if the Winters could obtain voluntarly agreement from the adjacent property owners to a shared parking arrangement, the City would return their paymem for three in- lieu fees. It is difficult to distinguish a shared private parking space from a public parking space. From the property owners' perspective, that distinction is vague. Once a parking space is open to an owner, tenant, employee, customer and guests of three or four adjacent properties, you have no effective way of keeping out the general public. The second idea is to require the parking easement in perpetuity, but to limit the rebate of the in lieu fees to only three years. For this to be a voluntary transaction, either the rebate needs to be in perpetuity or the parking easement needs to expire in three years. The document that is now being presented has no requirement that parking be public private spaces; shared private spaces are enough to get the $24,000 rebate under the document currently presented for signature. This was not the case last September. Secondly, the Pleasanton City Council 9 04/02/02 Minutes