Laserfiche WebLink
aware of any evidence indicating that unbundled parking $�A. - Page 21 <br /> significant environmental effects. <br /> Staff has completed research regarding the practice of unbundling parking, and there <br /> are a variety of resources that suggest that unbundling parking leads to reduced parking <br /> demand, reduced GHG emissions and other general benefits that are consistent with <br /> the overall goals and policies of the DTPP in creating "walkable" neighborhoods and <br /> decreasing reliance on the car. Those resources in summary are: <br /> a. The MTC Parking Toolbo�Policy Handbook (June 2007) <br /> (Attachment 12) — This handbook discusses the potential policies <br /> for parking management and recognizes that "pricing has long been <br /> recognized as the most powerful parking management tool". The <br /> unbundled parking approach is one of many strategies described <br /> and states that the "potential effectiveness" of this approach is <br /> "typically a 10°k-15°k" reduction in parking demand (page 17). <br /> b. Comment letter submitted to the Office of Planning and Research <br /> (OPR) Re: CEQA Guidelines Update (February 24, 2012) <br /> (Attachment 13) - This letter discusses the potential benefits of <br /> unbundled parking, including parking demand reductions of 10°k- <br /> 15°k and reductions in both GHG emissions and Vehicle Miles <br /> Traveled (VMT), (page 2 of letter). <br /> c. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) — <br /> Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, (excerpts) <br /> (Attachment 14) — This report discusses the effects of unbundling <br /> parking on GHG emissions (page 210). In general, this report <br /> states a "range of effectiveness" if parking costs are unbundled <br /> from property costs, and estimates a 2.6°k-13°k VMT reduction and <br /> therefore a 2.6°k-13°k reduction in VMT-related GHG emissions. <br /> VI. The City did not provide any "waivers" for "substantial changes" brought <br /> on by the Project. <br /> A. The Appeal Should Not Be Granted on the Grounds that the City provided <br /> "waivers" for "substantial chanqes" brouqht on bv the Proiect. <br /> AppellanYs Position: The Planning Commission provided "waivers" for three substantial <br /> "adverse changes" that may have caused impact to neighboring historic buildings. <br /> (Appeal, Items IIIA -IIID). <br /> Citv's Response: <br /> 1 . The Planninq Commission as a qoverninq body does not qrant <br /> "waivers" and there were no "substantial chanqes" brouqht on bv the <br /> Proiect. <br /> The Appellant refers to "adverse changes" or "substantial changes" (Appeal, Items III.A- <br /> III.D) that do not comply with the various concepts discussed within the DTPP. As <br /> discussed in this staff report, the Project is in compliance with the DTPP and the DTPP <br /> Page 21 <br />