Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAnonymous 2 - Item 11 (e-comment)From: noreplly(a aranicusideas.com To: Yasuda. Erica; Woodward. Carrie; E-Comments Subject: New eComment for Regular Meeting of the City Council/Closed Session-4:30 pm/Regular Meeting-6:00 pm Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 5:30:44 PM City of Tustin. CA New eComment for Regular Meeting of the City Council/Closed Session-4:30 pm/Regular Meeting-6:00 pm Guest User submitted a new eComment. Meeting: Regular Meeting of the City Council/Closed Session-4:30 pm/Regular Meeting-6:00 pm Item: 11. CODE AMENDMENT 2024-0006, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS 2024-0005 AND 2024-0006 - MODIFICATIONS TO THE MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARKING & PRIVATE STORAGE STANDARDS CITYWIDE, AND IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL CORE & RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLANS On October 22, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt amendments to the multi -family residential parking and private storage requirements in the Tustin City Code, Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan and Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. The subject amendments implement policy actions addressing potential barriers to housing production identified in an assessment of the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan and Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, which were presented to the City Council in December 2023. The proposed amendments would: 1. Implement a scalable parking requirement for multi -family residential development based on the number of bedrooms per unit, subject to the development standards within the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan, Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan and Tustin City Code. 2. Allow tandem parking for resident parking spaces citywide. Tandem parking would continue to be prohibited for guest parking. 3. Remove the requirement for private storage areas within the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan and Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, and remove the citywide requirement for private storage cabinets within carports. eComment: I am in favor of this moving forward tonight, but I want to say I think we could be much more aggressive toward our stated goals of revitalizing old town and red hill and paving the way for housing affordability. The agenda report shows that these changes would bring our parking minimum requirements in line with surrounding cities, but that is not the full picture. it would bring just these two districts in line with our surrounding cities. But downtown orange has lower parking minimums at typically 1.56 spots per unit in a typical building, and if we look a little further away to Pasadena and San Luis Obisbo they have even lower in their downtowns. And frankly, private parking supply should be a business decision by the developer. There is a market for higher parking supply than what we mandate, which is why it gets built, like the new Irvine Co complex in the Legacy is proposing, where the parking exceeds both the minimum required and what their study calculates to be the peak demand. But there is also a market for less than the minimum we require, and we are not allowing that market of developments to pencil out as feasible. On average, 33.2% of households have only one car. And another 8.3% have none at all. But those folks are still paying higher housing costs for the 500+ square feet of parking space we require apartments to build for them if they want to live in a one -bedroom. Do I think every new apartment building should be built with zero parking spots? No. Just like I don't think that every new housing unit should be a studio apartment. But I think it's good that studio apartments are allowed to be built, because there's a market for it, and so too it would be good for low - parking units allowed to be built, because there is likely a market for it. A market that we are quashing with the parking equivalent of banning studio or 1-bedroom apartments. Developers are incentivized by the market to build an appropriate amount on a lot -by -lot basis. And parking minimums unilaterally say there is no lot in the whole neighborhood where low or no private parking is appropriate. Which de facto means that we do not believe in providing as affordable housing as we can for the 5%-40% of people who have less a demand for parking than we require all hosuong to supply. Every person with a disability that keeps them from driving, every couple with a child and a single car, every elderly person who doesn't drive but still wishes to live on their own - they all would do better with OPTIONS that don't bake in mandatory private parking spots, and parking minimums just make those options illegal to build. ECOnorthwest and MapCraft recently released their research indicating that parking flexibility alone is more impactful to housing supply development than ADU permitting or transit -oriented development zones. I know parking can be a pain point for a lot of people and places, but there are much better solutions the city can use to manage parking supply than just by mandating minimum amounts of single -use private parking across every single property. This is a step in the right direction, which is why I support it moving forward tonight. I really hope that we can return to this in the future and follow the American Planning Association's guidance on the benefits of deregulating parking, but I'll take what we can get today. A small amount of progress is better than none at all. View and Analyze eComments This email was sent fron httos://tustin.granicusideas.com Unsubscribe from future mailing: