
|
Los Angeles City Guides
|
Article History SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - San Francisco could see a couple changes to parking regulations that would make condos slightly cheaper for the buyer and remove parking requirements for certain housing projects.
Parking has long been one of the most divisive political issues in The City, with the battle lines generally drawn between business advocacy groups and transit-first advocates.
While one group feels there is a need for additional parking, the other group views parking as a threat to transit-first policies and efforts to protect the environment.
Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin has introduced legislation that would tweak parking requirements, but, in this case, he said there will likely be support on both sides of the aisle.
The legislation would eliminate required spaces for certain developments in The City’s denser neighborhoods and prohibit the cost of a parking space to be included in the cost of a condominium unit in large developments.
Tom Radulovich, executive director of Livable City, a group that advocates transit-first and worked with Peskin on the legislation, said the changes “catch The City up with best practices.”
The ordinance would remove the minimum requirement of one parking space for every four units in certain housing projects.
Those developments are housing for seniors and physically handicapped people, below-market-rate housing, group housing projects, residential-care facilities and single-room occupancy units.
Radulovich said removal of the minimum requirement creates more “flexibility” and removes a financial hurdle of creating parking when it’s unnecessary.
He said an on-site parking space is priced at $50,000 to $80,000.
The legislation would also force the “unbundling” of parking spaces in housing developments of 10 or more units, prohibiting the cost of a parking space from being included in the cost of the condo unit.
Doing so would make housing less expensive for those who decide they don’t want a car and have no need for a parking space, Radulovich said.
The legislation also encourages developers to employ more “space-efficient parking” by lifting the requirement of independently accessible parking, where each parking space has its own stall accessible by the driver of the car, to allow for such things as mechanical car parking or valet parking.
The legislation will next go before a Board of Supervisors committee for a public hearing and requires a vote by the full board for approval.
# 2,387 of 7,056 |
EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
|
People who read this also read:
|
ARTICLE HISTORY |
Sports
Business |
Real Estate Family Movies and Books Venues, Sports and Music Concerts, Artists and Tickets Be Inspired - Quotes and Stories |
Comments from Examiner Readers
2:32 PM MST on Mon., Feb. 4, 2008 re: "More solar-powered parking meters coming to Baltimore"
Report as inappropriate
1:20 PM MST on Fri., Jan. 25, 2008
re: "Supervisor’s measure could please opposing sides on parking issues"
Report as inappropriate
11:15 AM MST on Wed., Jan. 23, 2008
re: "Supervisor’s measure could please opposing sides on parking issues"
Report as inappropriate
10:01 AM MST on Wed., Jan. 23, 2008
re: "Supervisor’s measure could please opposing sides on parking issues"
Report as inappropriate
12:01 PM MST on Thu., May. 10, 2007
re: "Illegally parked? New system photographs it"
Report as inappropriate
9:33 AM MST on Thu., May. 10, 2007
re: "Illegally parked? New system photographs it"
Report as inappropriate
7:57 AM MST on Thu., May. 10, 2007
re: "Illegally parked? New system photographs it"
Report as inappropriate
4:45 AM MST on Thu., May. 10, 2007
re: "New ticket device puts illegal parkers on camera"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
On two separate occassions the meters did not work. The first time it took my money and did not deliver a receipt. The second time it took some of my money, spit out some and did not register some, but kept it. On the first occassion the authority said they would refund my money, but it has been over a month and I have received nothing. I'm waiting for a response to the second incident but not holding my breath
249 agree | 211 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"This is classic SF Progressive oppression of the poor. By not requiring below market rate units to provide parking, it makes life harder for the poor living there to have the same convenience regarding their cars as everyone else expects." WRONG--this measure will reduce the cost of apartments by $50,000-$80,000. That's a big chunk of change, especially for the poor, and above all for those who can't afford cars in the first place. Why should the government FORCE you to buy a parking space when you don't want one? All this rule is give you FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
180 agree | 194 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Right on Tom, poor people don't drive so why not take away their parking. You progressives give me the creeps. The minimum is ONE parking space for every FOUR units of housing and you want to take that away. Tom, you and Peskin need to Get A LIFE! I bet that Mr. Peskin has at least 2 parking spaces in his million dollar condo in Nothe Beach. Leave us alone!!!
194 agree | 200 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is classic SF Progressive oppression of the poor. By not requiring below market rate units to provide parking, it makes life harder for the poor living there to have the same convenience regarding their cars as everyone else expects. It makes a hard life still harder. Sad.
185 agree | 215 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I have been in Baltimore for the last 5 years. I have a disability, because of which my lower limbs are paralyzed. Recently, I have found a spurt in disability tags for parking in the last couple of years. I surveyed 7 vehicles on Redwood street, and found five had disabled tag!!! I have found that some young people in early 20s park their vehicle and walk 5 blocks without any trouble, and I on a wheelchair is unable to get a parking place. Sometimes it has been frustrating. The cops cannot do anything, as long as these disability tags certified indiscriminately by family physicians. Unfortunately, carrying a "illegal" disabled tags no longer is a social stigma. It has become as acceptable as illegal license. I hope, this letter brings some sense of morality and social responsibility to those people using disabled tags. They should understand the hardship they are causing to the disabled community. Regards, Jeremy
341 agree | 361 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
kilteddude said:
Does this mean they will stop ticketing legally parked cars? I've got 2 tickets in the last year while parked legally.
348 agree | 330 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
DAMN IT!
358 agree | 345 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Ticket Amnesty said:
Ticket fines in Baltimore are absurd....so, don't pay them. Request and officer when you go to court for your ticket+fines and if he/she doesn't show (they rarely, if ever will) you only have to pay the fine + court costs....goodbye $800 fine on $21 ticket.
640 agree | 368 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree