SOUNDING OFF:’Place’ employees in parking lot

After reading Morris Skenderian’s Sounding Off [“New ‘Place’ enhances neighborhood,” Coastline Pilot, March 9], I decided that it is not worthy of a point-by-point reply. His approach is expected and not surprising.

I will, however, state information that has been forwarded to the City Council, as to the provisions of the conditional use permit granted by the council and which included provisions regarding the obligation of the developer for employee parking.

At the Jan. 18, 2005 City Council meeting, the conditional-use permit was reviewed and approved. My memory of that meeting reveals that Councilwoman Cheryl Kinsman stated that the parking would be approved on the basis of availability to employees and patrons on a “first-come, first-served basis.”

This does not appear, however, in any of the City Hall documents.

Reference to agenda item No. 20 of the Jan. 18, 2005 meeting indicates that “the parking lot was free to customers and employees alike.”

The minutes of that meeting state on page 3 a portion of Kinsman’s remarks. Item No. 8 of the conditional-use permit was questioned by members of the Village Flatlanders Neighborhood Assn., which stated that “spaces would be provided on-site at no charge for tenants and patrons of the shopping center, including the proposed restaurant, retail shops and offices.”

We questioned the reference to patrons and no mention of employees. The question of the reference to “tenants” was pursued by the city manager.

City Attorney Phil Kohn replied on March 11, 2005 at 11:18 a.m. that “it is my opinion that the term ‘Tenants’ as used in the Condition No. 8 can be construed to encompass employees of the businesses operating at the Pottery Shack center.” He stated further: “The city could have limited the parking provision to only the actual owner(s) of each business — as an aside, such person(s) may or may not ever work at the business — but obviously (the city) did not do so. I think ‘Tenants’ can reasonably be interpreted to mean all necessary persons on site operating the business at any given time. In addition, I believe this view is consistent with the intent behind the condition of getting cars off the neighborhood streets.”

Neighborhood enforcement is the only relief to the employee parking situation because the city contends they do not have the personnel for enforcement of violations.

I spoke with a young lady who was driving one of three employee cars parking on Brooks Street at 6:55 a.m. and asked why she did not park in the lot? At that early hour, spaces would have been available. Her reply was that she did not have a space in the lot.

Could it be that the employees have been told to park on the public streets and not in the parking lot of the center as made available by the conditional-use permit? If so, this is certainly a violation of the provisions of the conditional-use permit.

The neighborhood is not complaining about the buildings erected by the developer, however, but it does question the parking of employees in the neighborhood.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK

Should employees in Laguna be prohibited from parking in neighborhoods? Write us at P.O. Box 248, Laguna Beach, CA, 92652, e-mail us at coastlinepilot@latimes.com or fax us at 494-8979. Please give your name and tell us your home address and phone number for verification purposes only.