PC 021308 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Hodnefield noted that he and his staff took frequent car trips during the day and were frequently left with no place to park. He did not believe it was equitable or convenient that they would have to park on the street when parking should be available in their lot. He did not believe those who abused the parking spaces should be able to use his spaces at no cost because of City policy. He noted that they had a parking problem because they were prevented from managing their parking area. He added that tenants parked wherever they pleased, whether or not it imposed on other neighbors. He added that tenants and employees from other buildings that had insufficient parking also parked in his lot and then walked to another property a situation over which he had no control. He noted that he was prevented from allocating the parking in an equitable fashion for his tenants. He believed the City's parking policy was well intentioned though flawed and that it needed more consideration. He expressed concern that this policy had the effect of penalizing those who followed the rules and rewarding those who did not. Mr. Hodnefield noted that the people who did not abuse the parking did not obj ect to allocation of the parking that they have paid for. He had observed that the people who abused the parking objected to the allocation because they would have to find other parking spaces. He respectfully asked that the City take a serious look at the policy, what it did, and what it did not do. He believed the policy was flawed and unnecessary and that it created a management headache for him. He believed that the policy only benefited those who did not respect the rights of the tenants who paid for parking through their monthly rent. He requested that an exception be made for his building. He believed the enforcement of this policy was arbitrary and was enforced on a limited basis. He did not believe it was right for a tenant to paint their name on a parking space without consequence. He noted that the parking shelter was a side issue and that if it was not approved, he could live with that. He believed the real issue was the genesis of this policy, what it was intended to do, and what it accomplished. He believed that as a property owner and manager, he needed the right to administer and manage his parking so that his tenants had sufficient parking. He noted that if his neighbors abused the parking availability, he needed some way to resolve that issue. He noted that his tenants were paying for parking that they could not use. Commissioner O'Connor inquired whether Mr. Hodnefield could post his property, and whether he could have an improperly parked car towed if there was no reciprocal parking agreement. Mr. Roush replied that under the Vehicle Code, he could not post the parking. Ms. Mendez noted that staff would work with the appellant as well as with the legal staff. She noted that the Code did not allow for reserving certain spaces for certain tenants in a multi-tenant situation, regardless of the number of buildings. Commissioner O'Connor inquired whether the appellant was able to resolve this issue through a different mechanism. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 39 of 42