HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-2017 OC - B1 (Rowley)Agenda Item: B 1
OCT 25 2017
October 25, 2017
SUBJECT: Zoning Regulations Update -Table 6, Parking Requirements and Transitions Between Land Uses
Dear Planning Commissioners,
When reviewing parking needs it seems there are three things to consider. First, the city population doubles
during the day from individuals coming to work, some who use mass transit and some who drive, Second,
we are a tourist destination and although some tourists arrive by train, maybe bus, a significant number will
drive. Last, Cal Poly has a significant number of employees and students who commute to campus. Because
of a lack of on -campus parking spaces and/or the cost of a parking pass, many of these individuals will drive
part-way and walk or use a bicycle to travel the rest of the way to campus.
Discussion Item #1 - ITE Demand.
I am certainly not sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to discuss ITE Demand versus current city parking
requirements; however, I hope you will consider that the desired reduction of vehicle trips and a reduction of
parking demand are not the same. The fact that individuals walk, ride a bicycle or use mass transit around
town does not mean they don't own a vehicle and don't need a place to park it. This is important to consider
everywhere, but especially in multi -family developments and in mixed-use with a residential component.
Several neighborhoods currently experience "spill-over" from projects that have insufficient parking spaces
and from commuters who "park and ride." Additional parking reductions will make the situation in these
neighborhoods even worse than it is now. Maybe we could look into increasing parking requirements?
Discussion Item #2 - Simplify Parking Requirements.
I support simplifying parking requirements so that they reflect adequate parking needs.
Discussion Item #3 - Parking Reductions.
I support and recommend establishing maximum parking reductions, i.e., the most that parking requirements
can be reduced. I also recommend that the maximum reduction allowed for residential projects and projects
with a residential component be lower than the maximum reduction allowed for projects with no residential.
Examples: 1) The mixed-use (commercial and residential) ICON project on Taft and Kentucky received
parking reductions for being mixed-use and for having an affordable -by -design unit. Instead of shared
parking with the commercial uses, they are renting the "residential" parking spaces (first-come, first-served)
which leaves the rest of the renters looking for street parking. 2) The project at 22 Chorro received a 40%
reduction in parking. It remains to be seen what effect that will have on the adjacent neighborhood.
Discussion Item #5 - Bicycle Parking.
With the current formula, there is currently no lack of availability for bicycle parking. Quite the opposite.
Racks will be easy enough to install later when there is more demand.
On another topic, page 1-18 of the staff report includes a note under Table 1 that the High Occupancy
Residential Use classification may be eliminated as part of the Zoning Regulations update. In conversation
with the City Attorney she stated that she was hiring a consultant to do research on this topic separate from
the Zoning Regulations update. It may or may not be finished at the same time.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments.
Sandra Rowley
SLO Resident