How do we give us a h do we give us a hug What we found was that the requirements oftentimes were about maybe even 50% higher than what a private developer actually wished to provide, oftentimes in terms of actual parking.

And the really the impact of this is it negatively impacts viability and affordability of development.

For those of you who are not familiar about how much parking costs, it can start at about roughly about $10,000 for a surface space, roughly about $50,000 per space for a parking structure, and $70,000 and above for an underground space.

So parking quickly becomes a multi-million dollar investment.

And you can see how it drives the affordability of projects.

Not to say that parking isn't desired by developers.

Oftentimes developers will want to provide parking, but they don't want to oversupply parking, which is the issue that we currently face in a lot of empty parking spaces at certain areas.

Last thing is that we do find there's actually opportunities to better share parking, either between new uses or with uses that are existing to really make most use of empty lots where we can.

So what are we proposing here?

The biggest change that we are proposing that Laura just mentioned was changing minimum parking requirements throughout the city.

And we'd essentially be recommending that in two zones.

The first zone is within a half a mile of what we call your major transit stops.

Major transit stops are either your rail system or your the tempo line essentially, the BRT.

And you can see that here in the blue buffered areas.

It takes up, you know, a fair amount of the city.

I will note that in these areas currently, state legislation, AB 2097 has already eliminated most, almost all of your minimum parking requirements in these areas, anyways.

So our sole recommendation really for this part of the city is just to eliminate those remaining minimum parking requirements that exist, primarily for event centers and hotels, I think is really the two things.

Outside of those half mile areas, essentially all in the green area that you see here on the map, we're kind of we're offering two options.

One is either to reduce minimum parking requirements to better align with market demand.

So as I said, a lot of the requirements right now are maybe roughly 50% higher than the actual demand, or to eliminate minimum parking requirements altogether and simply let the market and private development decide how much parking they need to provide.

Oftentimes in circumstances like this, if you were to build you know a development in the more suburban part of the city, a developer will want to provide parking simply because their tenants or their residents will likely bring cars and they know that in order to sell or lease units, they will need to provide parking.

So these are the two options essentially we're providing you today.

We are there, I should note too, there is some zoning designation called the BTOD designation that currently exists within the city that has some maximum parking requirements associated with that.

We are not recommending changing those.

Those are actually set by state law.

So if you see that in your packets, that's that's why those are still in there.

So our recommendation as of right now of these two options is at the very least is to go with reducing minimum parking requirements.

And not only reducing them, but consolidating them from many, many, many different categories down to about half a dozen.

And there's good reason to do this, particularly, and the consolidation really happens on the non-residential side, is because this really helps businesses turn over at the end of the day.

I always like to liken it to saying I own a flower shop, it's successful, I do well, I go out of business.

My colleague Alex wants to come in with a restaurant.

He can't.

The restaurant requires significantly more parking than my flower shop does.

So the shop sits empty.

And this prevents businesses from turning over easily when they don't have similar parking requirements associated with them.

So the consolidation really helps.

Two is that we, as you can see from the middle column to the right column, the existing requirements, the proposed requirements, that they've all been lowered to a pretty significant degree in some cases.

For the multi-family or multi-unit residential, generally speaking, it's about half a space per unit lower.

And again, we use this is not just randomly plucked out thin air that we use industry data actually looking at peak parking demands for these various uses and also compare them to the supply that many developments here in the city currently provide.

Similarly, with office space and commercial uses, going to two spaces per thousand square feet and three spaces per thousand square feet.

Again, this actually aligns very closely with what peak demands are for those areas.

And of course, it ranges again from industrial, which is much lower, to institutional as well.

And when we talk to stakeholders about all of this, there was very strong support for either reducing or eliminating minimum parking requirements altogether, because uh there was a general sentiment among the various stakeholders that we talked with, that yes, while parking is is essential and people do like to have it to get around, that dictating higher requirements that result in empty spaces is not beneficial for the affordability of the community, or for other objectives of the community, like uh the climate action plan.

In addition to vehicles, um, we're also talking about bicycle parking requirements.

Um, and these bicycle parking requirements cover both short and long-term bicycle parking.

So, again, like a bike rack that you might just pull up to if you're you know up to a coffee shop, long-term, if it's like a locker, for example, for a variety of uses.

But we're also starting to include things in here that more up-to-date codes are including these days.

It's not just a bicycle.

Now you have a cargo bike, now you have an adaptive bike, and sometimes these bikes are different sizes.

Traditional bike is about two feet by six feet needed space, cargo spike adaptive bike is about three by ten.

So having standards align with that.

Similarly, having charging for e-bikes, e-bikes are becoming much more ubiquitous these days.

For larger uses like offices and industrial, having showers and lockers available for employees to use.

And these minimums here are, as you can see, kind of similarly set up on the left and the right, and you probably don't want to have to squint hard and read all those numbers.

Um, but the main thing that we're really driving at here is the code currently um calculates a lot of the bicycle parking, as you can see the short-term spaces in the existing requirements column as a percentage of the vehicle requirement.

So if you provide 20 car spaces, you provide one short-term bicycle space, um, regardless of whether or not you know, it's a strange calculation to make, I'll say.

To boot, the code also has no long-term bicycle parking requirements outside of the BTOD areas for most of the non-residential uses, I think any non-residential.

So across the board, I think we're generally recommending increases to both short-term and long-term spaces, as well as the associated requirements for adaptive cargo, etc.

In addition to this, there's two other areas I'll just like to touch on to wrap it up.

One has to do with unbundled parking.