Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission studies parking and TDM reforms, seeks balance of parking caps, shared parking and equity protections
Summary
On April 7 the commission held a study session on proposed citywide parking reform and a rewrite of the transportation demand management (TDM) ordinance. Staff and consultants proposed parking maximums near transit, decoupled bicycle parking requirements, shared‑parking rules, unbundled parking pricing, and calibrated trip‑reduction targets tied to size, location and land use; commissioners requested equity safeguards and more local occupancy data.
The Planning and Transportation Commission received a staff‑led study session April 7 on citywide parking reforms and a comprehensive rewrite of the city’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance.
Randall Buso, senior planner, described the effort as a proactive response to new state and regional rules—most notably Assembly Bill 2097 (which removes minimum parking requirements near transit) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transit‑Oriented Communities (TOC) policy—which together encourage local governments to manage parking and demand rather than rely on minimums. The project team proposed dividing San Carlos into a transit district (within a half‑mile of El Camino Real and other transit hubs) and a suburban district, and applying different rules to each.
Consultants recommended two tiers of parking maximums in the transit district, with a higher cap available if a developer provides a public benefit (for example, shared public parking or contributions to multimodal programs). They also proposed decoupling bicycle parking requirements from automobile stalls, strengthening long‑ and short‑term bike parking and providing requirements for cargo/e‑bikes, showers and lockers at larger developments. Other proposals included unbundling parking (charging for parking separately from rent or purchase), shared‑parking provisions that can make private spaces available to the public during off‑hours, a new framework to allow parking pricing in specific high‑occupancy blocks, and more flexible on‑street management authority for staff so adjustments do not require repeated City Council code amendments.
On TDM, the consultants proposed replacing the current flat 20% trip‑reduction target with calibrated targets that vary by location (transit zone vs. suburban), project size and land use, and recommended exempting 100% affordable housing from some administrative burdens. They outlined a menu approach: a standard checklist and a point‑based menu of TDM strategies (parking management, incentives/programs, marketing/education, site enhancements) with mandatory baseline measures plus optional menu items. Monitoring, reporting and enforcement would be standardized and strengthened; the team recommended tools to collect consistent data and suggested that non‑compliant projects could face penalties if they fail to meet agreed targets.
Commissioners and public commenters pressed for equity safeguards (low‑income resident exemptions or reduced fees for residential permits), local parking occupancy data to inform caps, care around impacts on adjacent jurisdictions and neighborhoods (GESC was cited as an example), clarity on enforcement (city community service officers or third‑party vendors versus current sheriff enforcement), and coordination around shuttle services and a future Transportation Management Association. Staff said a draft rewrite of Chapter 18.25 (the TDM ordinance) and administrative standards will return this summer for more detailed review.
