05 - Laserfiche WebLink

. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Provided to the Planning Commission Maria Hoey After Distribution of Packet Wrom: Peter MacDonald <pmacdonald @macdonaldla >DlSt�lt3utbd: + / ent: Wednesday,January,Janua 08, 2014 2:49 PM To: Maria Hoey Cc: Brian Dolan; Natalie Amos;Scott Raty; Laura Olson; pmacdonald @macdonaldlaw.net Subject: Planning Commission: Item 6 a. Amendments to In Lieu Parking Ordinance. Jan.8, 2014 Attachments: 140107 121205 Email re Parking Ordinance.pdf Good afternoon Members of the Planning Commission, I can't be at the Planning Commission this evening, so am sharing some thoughts in writing on Item 6a, the amendments to the In Lieu Parking Ordinance. I am writing as an individual, and not on behalf of any client, or organization. The Parking Ordinance modification at Item 6 (a) of your Agenda raises some troubling issues, which are the same issues I raised with an email to the City Council in December 2012. When the possible corner plaza at 511 Main Street was presented to City Council in December 2012 as a proposed Parking In Lieu Agreement, I submitted comments, including the following: "The potential for high quality private re-development at the corner of Main Street and Rose Avenue is worthy of using your authority with creativity to bring needed private investment into the heart of •owntown. The concept plan is attractive. That said, the real issue is on what terms the in lieu parking agreement comes back to City Council. Several thoughts to consider are: 1. If creation of a plaza with $415,000 is the basis for waiving the requirement for 23 parking spaces, then how will the increased demand for 23 parking spaces be addressed? One possibility would be deposit of$401,695 from the Park Fund into the In Lieu Parking Fund. Unless funds are accumulated as parking demand is increased, the demand will be left unmet. 2. The Parking Ordinance provides rules for in lieu parking agreements (attached). That ordinance will need amendment to permit this planned in lieu parking agreement. I support making the amendment, but care should be taken to assure that the rules adopted will have general applicability, and perhaps encourage more revitalization." The Problems: Unfortunately the proposed Ordinance amendment does not meet either standard suggested above. I still would very much like to see the proposed plaza project happen as planned. The community would very much appreciate a second lively plaza like the one at Tullys Corner. On the general applicability standard, rather than having the suggested general applicability, the 11/p exception" allows a complete waiver of parking requirements, and parking in lieu requirements, on a case by case "discretionary" basis. This literally forces a deal making saga on every potential property improver in downtown. No generally applicable rule would be available to guide the City's