I can't believe I'd ever agree with Jane Kim on anything but she deserves credit for being out front on this one:
Quote:
SF might vote to nix minimum parking requirements this week
By Adam Brinklow
Dec 3, 2018, 8:52am PST
On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors are set to vote on a change to the city’s planning code that would do away with decades-old requirements that new developments include a certain amount of new parking.
The legislation, introduced months ago by Supervisor Jane Kim, would, if passed, “eliminate minimum off-street parking requirements citywide.”
The city’s Land Use and Transportation Committee—of which Kim is a member—forwarded the matter to the full board with an unanimous vote last Monday.
According to the version of the rules change going before lawmakers this week:
In the 1950s, the Planning Code established minimum parking requirements for new buildings. Beginning in 1973, the City has reduced or streamlined minimum parking requirements in various San Francisco zoning districts as a strategy to reduce traffic ·congestion, encourage the use of sustainable transportation modes (walking, cycling, and transit), and reduce housing and building costs.
Eliminating minimum parking requirements in all zoning districts City-wide will further these goals . . . .
|
https://sf.curbed.com/2018/12/3/18123435...irement-development-ban-sf-jane-kim-vote
I am simply opposed to government specifying how much off-street parking is allowed in new developments. Let the market decide. I think there's a market for both: Less costly units without parking and more costly ones with. My suspicion is the total number of units would be about what it is if the requirements went away completely but distributed differently with some buildings providing at least one space per residential unit and some having none at all.
Threaded Mode