16 ATTACHMENT 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

oc~ne~ie~c~ ProPerties~ January 12, 2008 City of Pleasanton Planning Department: ,r'~~! ~ ~ ~00~ C~ PLANNING DEPT~N It has come to my attention, that an application is in the works for a permit allowing a martial arts training facility to operate in a space directly adjacent to my office building. I do not object to the intent of the potential tenant to provide a venue for kids to learn the skills of martial arts. I am quite certain, however, that the parking and traffic problems created by this use will cause me to have considerable "heartburn". My objection, and I do object, is solely related to the parking issues. I believe that customers of this tenant will aggravate an already troublesome problem by taking the path of least resistance and they will park in my parking lot because it is immediately adjacent. Some of my tenants work late and need their parking past the normal working day, so even if the martial arts organization meets only after normal working hours, I still have a problem. I own the office building located at 1020 Serpentine Lane, in Pleasanton. And for some time, my tenants and I have been experiencing already existing parking problems with respect to this building. I have been informed that it is the "policy" of the City to not allow owners and managers of property in the Valley Business Park to manage their parking and control parking "abusers" by means of marking or designating the parking stalls. If I were permitted to designate parking, administrate and control the parking, and warn abusers (with legal teeth), about parking abuse, my objection to the use permit applied for would be significantly mitigated, if not eliminated. This City Policy is a benefit only to the parking abusers. The office building at 1020 has sufficient parking for its tenants and customers of its tenants. This is not the case with many of the other buildings in the business park, including the building next door, which is the subject of this letter. The tenants who use their "fair share" of the parking stand only to benefit from control of the parking stalls which they are paying for and which parking stalls they are entitled to, but in many cases are excluded from using because of the parking abusers. On several occasions whereby there was no parking for me or my staff, I was able to determine that some of the cars parked on my property were not those of my tenants nor were they the cars of the customers or invitees of my tenants. Apparently, these persons park in our lot and walk to other buildings in the neighborhood. How fair is this? As it stands, because of City Policy, I can do nothing legally about this abuse, except place meaningless notes on the windshields. In addition, one of my tenants sometimes chooses to park at the back of the building where they should not park instead of the front of the Commercial Real Estate Development and Management 1020 Serpentine Lane, Suite 111 • Pleasanton, CA 94566.925.485.0900 Fax: 925.485.0909 • www.hoddyprop.com