PC 022614 - Laserfiche WebLink

with regard to implementing Hacienda's own alternative parking requirements that have been in place since Hacienda's beginning. He stated that today, Hacienda requires five percent of its stalls to be dedicated to the carpool /vanpool off the top, and there are a large number of sites in Hacienda also installing electric vehicle charging stations. He added that the City's new car share program has required additional stalls to be set aside. He indicated that these are all things that bode well for easy implementation in Hacienda, but may be a little bit more challenging elsewhere without sort of a lot of good outreach and hand - holding. With regard to the first requirement, Mr. Paxson suggested adding language that for housing that gets located in places like Hacienda that have existing programs that would cover the requirements for any project coming in, there be some recognition of that to make sure the plain language of what is being proposed does not automatically require that a project provide the benefit if they are already in an area that will provide it on their behalf. He stated that recognizing that there are Transportation Management Associations (TMA) such as in Hacienda that provide these types of services is good because it acknowledges their existence, and it may help encourage the formation of others. He noted that there may be some opportunities, for instance, around the BART station, to develop additional TMA districts that would help leverage benefits for all the tenants within that area. Mr. Paxson stated that the only other comment he wanted to make is that he thinks it is really important that those locations where these alternative vehicle stalls are being put in are truly preferential locations for projects as opposed to being stuck out in the "back 40" of the lot, where they do not do any good. He noted that they really need to be incentive parking. He added that this becomes tricky because if there is a parking need for clients that has to be balanced against new stalls, there is a little decision - making that has to go on, and people need to be encouraged to really put these in preferential locations so that there are incentives for people to use them. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Pearce stated that she really liked a lot what Mr. Paxson was saying and inquired if staff is comfortable with incorporating his suggestions. Chair Olson agreed. Commissioners Allen and Ritter also agreed. Ms. Stern replied that staff could definitely add language that says something like "except where an organization provides the equivalent incentive" to eliminate any kind of double requirement. She noted that on page 3 of Exhibit A, near the top paragraph C, it does make clear that all the alternative parking spaces required shall be preferentially located as close to the employee entrance as practical without displacing accessible parking. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 26, 2014 Page 18 of 21