18 ATTACHMENT 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

building where he should be logically pazking and I can do nothing to remedy this problem except to ask the tenant to police the spaces. Presently, he can choose to ignore me if he wishes because of City Policy. Please consider how you would feel if you had a considerable investment in an office building and on numerous occasions you have had to pazk on the street a considerable distance away (sometimes in the rain) from your office because you neighbors were choosing to pazk in your parking spaces, for which you had to pay and for which you have to pay to maintain. I am one of the founders of Devcon Construction Company and as such I have been instrumental in the development of over fifteen million squaze feet of user space in the Greater Bay Area. Together with my 4 partners, we have been owners of most of that property at one time or another, including four other major office projects. My office project in Pleasanton is located in an area of R and D buildings, commonly referred to as "flex buildings" and these buildings have different pazking requirements than do office projects. The flex buildings typically have about one half of the parking of an office building and when tenants of those buildings load the buildings with employees, clients, students, or customers, they exceed their pazking capacity. This is happening to us with our building. As a developer and owner of office buildings, I have always had the ability to manage the pazking and to prevent my tenants and tenants outside of my property from abusing the parking to which they aze not entitled. As a result of City Policy, I am prevented from properly managing my property and its pazking stalls. I have driven azound to other office projects in Pleasanton and do not have to look very faz to fmd that many buildings have "mazked pazking". Does this mean that the city simply looks the other way? I have tried to be a good citizen and abide by the rules and regulations (and City Policy) but I am having to do this in the face of some real management problems and abuses by other property owners/managers who seemingly are ignoring this City Policy. I can fmd no codification of this policy anywhere, nor am I able to understand the reasoning behind the policy. It seems to me to be subjective and azbitrazy without regazd to the problems it creates for building owners and managers. I have taken many photos of other "mazked" pazking situations in the Pleasanton area (clearly in violation of the stated policy) and can provide these to you if requested. I respectfully ask you to review the policy and perhaps make an exception for "office buildings" like mine so we can try to properly manage our tenants and our assets. This would solve an already existing problem and allow me to live with the approval of the subject use permit next door. Gerald E. Hodnefield ~•