pages: PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 11 | Board Member Hom appreciated the staff's work on this and the public comments. He thought the direction they were going for with parking maximums, unbundling the parking, and emphasizing bike parking made a lot of sense and a positive direction. He echoed some of the concerns brought up by Board Member Curtis, he did however think that developers would push for more parking and thought the parking maximums were a good direction. He wanted to see data that supported the rationale for the proposed reduction in parking standards when this ordinance would come before them. With the concern about unbundling parking, he discussed ways that HOAs or property managers could encourage tenants not to park their cars in the streets excessively. For bicycle parking, he wanted to see definitions for long-term parking vs short-term parking. He felt that the staff report had done a good job of clarifying other questions that he had. Board Member Ruiz applauded the staff for putting forth this thorough draft. She asked if the intent for this was to be more stringent than the Building Code. Staff Member McGuire said the goal was for the Zoning Code to be more demanding than the California Green Building Code. The Zoning Code could be a little less technical than the building code has to be. Staff Member Ruiz said it would be good to mention how they would regulate or allow parking stackers since by nature they would not meet the space requirements mentioned so some provision would be helpful. She then asked about a paragraph on page 1 that defined how to count floor area, she had noticed this was in the old ordinance and did not think it was significant now and was confusing. She could not think of an example of how it would result in a significant impact on the count and questioned if it was even needed. Staff Member McGuire agreed it had been carried over from the existing ordinance. Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, discussed how if a developer needed to go above the maximum there was a process in place. Board Member Ruiz said it made sense if applied to a minimum standard but not for a maximum standard. She also addressed the concerns around parking turnover and suggested provisions around short-term parking as well in mixed-use developments. Staff Member McGuire clarified that she was talking about private property. Board Member Ruiz said yes she was talking about private property and gave the example of a mixed-use development that was coming in. Staff Member McGuire said one of the benefits of eliminating the minimums was whatever space they ended up within a project, that meets the TDM threshold, they could then put a condition on the project. The condition would allow them to manage the space more strategically to accommodate short term parking and loading needs. Board Member Rothenberg asked that they check carefully for inherent conflicts in the code, she gave the example of what was in Chapter 11. If you put in disabled spots then you have to have a commensurate number of EV-ready spots. She said defining EV ready was really important. She clarified that in her experience EV ready was different than Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 11 of 15 June 28, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |