HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 Attch 4 Letters re. Propsed ZOA i
i
Marnie Delgado
From: Kevin Fryer<Kevin @missionvalleyhomes.com> f
Sent: Monday, July 30,2012 5:59 PM
To: Marnie Delgado
Cc: Mikep; Chris Foss
Subject: Response to Parking Ordinance
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Marnie,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the recently proposed Parking Standards. As a developer of properties in
East Dublin I am well aware of the history of concerns and problems at certain sites in Dublin. in fact, I believe that our
Jordan Ranch project and it's few remaining tandem garage units accelerated the urgency behind parts of this proposed
ordinance. While i applaud the effort to provide more certainty and clarity on actual parking standards in Dublin I feel
that the proposed standard is a dramatic overreaction to recent tumult. The proposed requirement of 2 covered plus
one guest per dwelling for every condo or townhome with 2 or more bedrooms is an unreasonable standard with
consequences that I fear have not been considered. Here are a few thoughts for consideration:
r
1) Not just an East Dublin Ordinance: Projects like Jordan Ranch have been able to provide significant guest C
parking(even meeting this proposed standard or exceeding it) because they are large parcel, master plan
i
communities. Much of the land that will allow for attached residential for-sale development in East Dublin is
gone. A few sites remain,but this ordinance will impact all of Dublin including the downtown. Dublin will soon
transition from a town that presses east for all new housing to one, like most core Bay Area cities,that looks to
convert old, underutilized sites into residential and mixed-use opportunities. A parking ordinance like this will
ensure that all housing provided in smaller parcels is rental housing as one fewer stall is required for similar
sized units. The reason for this is simple math,the percentage of a site that will be dedicated to parking alone
will limit the ability to deliver densities in the 15-17 du/ac range. A loss of units=a loss of land value
2) Density is not always bad. As the City looks to satisfy its required share of housing allocations over the years and
looks to add bodies to parts of town where their presence will help retail and office growth and stimulate tax
dollar generation for the City this parking ordinance will prove a significant deterrent to having property owner
residents. Making it more difficult to deliver for-sale density means that homes that are built will be larger, and
more expensive increasing the difficulty of first time home buyers finding an entry level home in Dublin.
3) Parking is an issue not the only issue. This ordinance will create a sea of guest parking on sites small and large
and the result is more pavement, more impervious surface, more heat reflective surface-less pedestrian
oriented,less landscape, less open space, more impact on the environment. A balance of these issues(including
concerns about providing adequate guest parking) needs to be reached-this is an imbalance. it is an
overreaction.
4) Consider what others are doing in the area. According to their website,the City of Livermore Municipal Code
Chapter 3-55 regarding Residential Townhouse Development: refers you to section 3-20-050(Minimum off-
street parking requirements)to provide their required guest parking (which they call"street parking") The
relevant Section reads:
"Townhouse/Condominium. Two stalls for each dwelling unit in the townhouse/condominium
development, one of each shall be covered. One additional guest parking stall shall be
provided for each four dwelling units. These stalls shall be located to provide reasonable
utilization for all of the dwelling units within the project. Tandem parking shall not be utilized to
1
ATTACHMENT 4
meet these requirements. Stalls shall not be located within any required project street frontage
yard." f.
That's 1 guest parking stall per 4 units. That is 1/4 the parking you are proposing. Not sure their number is
the right one, but it offers an interesting perspective about what other nearby towns,who have managed to
revitalize their downtowns, are doing. This is only one example and other jurisdictions no doubt have more
stringent requirements than Livermore but this is still informative and demonstrative that the proposed
requirement is extremely stringent.
5) The elimination of tandem parking is likely a foregone conclusion here in Dublin...and that too is an
unnecessary overreaction. A smaller,one bedroom condo or studio that has a tandem garage is a nice
alternative to offer first time homebuyers-more affordable,with a large flexible 1 car garage. If you allow the
2 car tandem to count for 1 stall you are ensuring it cannot serve as a garage for anything larger than a 1
bedroom unit. You are eliminating your flexibility as a City and your opportunity to provide varied housing
products in unique configurations in locations that will support them. Why do that? It is not necessary to
outlaw tandem parking to achieve your goals. Modify how it can be used and what it can serve and create
i
flexibility for in-fill locations and interesting,affordable by design for-sale housing products.
6) Be careful what you ask for: All of the above reasons/concerns explain why townhome/condo for-sale
product ranging from 15-17 du/ac(typically)will be more difficult to deliver. As the economics of attached
for-sale products fail on sites developers will look to rental product as an alternative. With apartment parking
standards less stringent that towns/condos,when the market supports it and where appropriate you will
likely see apartment densities (28 du/ac MINIMUM as high as 60 du/ac here in Dublin) instead. If reducing
density is a goal,or a reason for support by some folks, consider the likelihood that what will actually result
from this ordinance is increased density on certain sites.
I appreciate that there have been legitimate parking issues in certain projects In town and agree that clarity and
modification of the parking standard is appropriate. I have found that Council has often been careful to consider
"unintended consequences" and l believe that this ordinance has many that should be well considered and studied. I
am happy to participate and assist in any way possible in that process. Thank you for taking the time to consider
these thoughts.
�I
Sincerely,
Kevin Fryer
MVP Development
925-899-5065
2
PCJ Real Estate Advisors, LLC
Cell:408-8884224*Email: patcjr @comcast.net
R
DATE: August 3,2012 Delivered via Email
I
TO: Mamie Delgado
City of Dublin
FROM: Patrick Costanzo, Jr.
I
CC: Jeri Ram
Chris Foss
RE: Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Residential Tandem Parking
Thank you for your letter dated July 2e asking for input on your proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendments. I offer the following comments on the Residential Tandem Parking proposed changes:
I
By eliminating the opportunity to utilize tandem parking to satisfy required parking within multi-family
dwelling unit attached garages you are severely limiting creative design opportunities for the
developer/architect. If I am reading the proposed changes correctly, you could never have a unit less
than 21 feet wide because you always need a garage that is 2 cars wide and 20 foot clear. The
struggle is that this affects our density solutions.Without the availability of tandem parking,we
struggle to achieve densities above 16-18 du/ac.
Why would tandem not be allowed for the requirement for a Studio or 1 Bedroom Unit? If only one
space is required and 2 are provided in a tandem configuration why is this not acceptable? I suppose
the way the language is written you can enclose only the rear space and have the front space be
covered but not enclosed, however, I do not believe that is the intent of the language.
I would suggest that instead of eliminating the ability to use tandem parking you modify the language
to read that"if Tandem Parking configurations are used,only one of the two spaces will be permitted
to satisfy required parking."
Additionally,for 2 bedroom units I would suggest allowing 1 covered space and one reserved
uncovered space rather than requiring 2 covered or garaged spaces. The 2 covered or garaged
spaces can then be required for 3+bedrooms.
Below are comments from one of the architects that do business in town:
"Under SB375, the State is looking towards higher density near transit and other service hubs. This
effectively flies in the face of that as it will severely limit the developer's ability to meet what are at
times required densities in the urban area. As noted, we will top out for row town style of housing at
16-18du/ac.
The other issue is with condos...if you require 1 guest per unit, even studios and 1 bedrooms, at
higher densities or with very tight sites in an urban area,they still take a lot of space. 100 unit condo
project would require 100 guest spaces...at 270sf per stall, that could translate to an additional
27,000sf or.62 acres. Depending on the site,that's a lot. Where in an urban area do you have the
luxury of an extra half acre? This change is doubling the required parking...again,directly in conflict
with SB375."
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. If you have any questions I can be reached at the
number above.
i