Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] Hey. Hey. Hey. Roll.

Commissioner Gooding I. Commissioner Patel here. Commissioner Sison here. The record show Commissioner Funka and Laauo are absent. Okay. May I have a motion to adopt the agenda? So moved. Second. All in favor? I I. Okay. Next is the consent calendar. If there is any member of the public who would like to remove an item from the consent calendar, please state so now. Staff, can you set a 30 second timer? Would any commissioner like to remove an item?

No, thank you. Okay, thank you. May I have a motion to adopt the consent calendar? So moved. Second. All in favor? I I

Okay, next is oral communications. If anyone wishes to address the commission concerning an item not on tonight's agenda, please do so now. Um staff, uh please display, uh the information and a one minute timer. And while we're waiting, I'll note that we have no written communications for tonight.

I know it's displaying on the Okay, 60 seconds has passed. Thank you.

Okay, moving next to old and new business. We have none. And uh we'll now turn to our workshop for tonight. And it's a workshop concerning review of off- streetet parking standards. Staff, may we have the presentation?

Yes. Thank you. And good evening, planning commission. Tonight's workshop is to kick off a focused amendment of the off-street parking ordinance to get the planning commission's feedback on a few items. I know the commission has already met our planning intern, Daniel. So, I won't do a full introduction tonight. I will say we've been very fortunate to uh to have him on staff through the summer. He's been helping out in in various efforts for us and much appreciated. And one of those, of course, is doing research for tonight's item and doing the really the lion share of the um preparing the materials and the staff report. And so he'll present tonight. And with that, I'll turn it over to Daniel.

All right. Thank you, Ken. And good evening, commissioners. The purpose of tonight's workshop is to receive preliminary planning commission direction on amendments to the city's parking ordinance as outlined in Brisbane Municipal Code section 17.34. Yeah, it should be uh yeah, wait uh let's make sure. Hold on. Just to make sure that um through the chair, can you confirm if you see the slides on your monitors? No. Okay. Apologies.

One moment. Just one more minute.

Apologies. Okay. Through the chair again, are you now seeing the slides on your screens? Thank you.

All right. Apologies. Yeah. So to begin again, uh the purpose of tonight's workshop is to receive preliminary planning commission direction on amendments to the city's parking ordinance as outlined in Brisbane Municipal Code section 17.34. These changes are prompted by recent changes to state law as well as the municipal code, emerging land uses without specified parking standards, and programs outlined in the city's housing element. So the workshop will begin with a brief refresher on the city's transportation demand management or TDM strategy followed by an overview of administrative office as well as research and development standards which city council directed to be changed as part of approval of the TDM ordinance. A brief discussion of data center parking will also be included. There will then be time for the commission to provide preliminary thoughts and provide further direction to staff with regards to these standards. The remainder of the agenda is mostly informational uh with overview of two newly passed state laws regarding parking which require updates to the city's ordinance. Staff will return with a proposed ordinance at a future meeting. And finally, the workshop will conclude with a brief discussion of residential parking standards as required by the housing element. Let me begin tonight by providing context on TDM since it drives so much of tonight's discussion. TDM encompasses policies, procedures, and strategies designed to shift vehicle trips from single occupancy vehicles to alternative modes like transit, walking, biking, and car pooling. The city is required to apply county level TDM policy set by CKAG or adopt its own local ordinance, which is at least as strict as the county guidance. Brisbane chose to adopt our own TDM ordinance passed in 2023, which was granted CKG exemption early this year. The city's ordinance is significantly more aggressive than the county's targets. Uh the county targets 67 to 72% while Brisbane's ordinance targets 52%. This means we're aiming to limit single occupancy vehicle trips to just over half of all employee commutes. Um these policies set requirements on large development projects including

those uh costing over $500,000 to construct um as well as non-residential projects developing uh generating over a hundred daily trips. And this is all to encourage modal shift. Larger projects are required to take more aggressive steps as part of the tiered system. And in addition to the tiered system, the TDM strategy prepared by city consultants fair and peers suggests supplemental changes to the municipal code to further reduce uh vehicle miles traveled or VMT. And an excerpt from uh the TDM strategy as prepared by the consultants is provided in tonight's staff report. Uh one of these supplemental changes recommended by the strategy is aligning parking requirements with the TDM performance target of 52%. Although this change is not specifically mentioned in the TDM ordinance which is contained in uh the code section 10.52, the city council directed staff to propose the adoption of parking maximums for office and life science uses specifically along with passing the ordinance. Currently, parking standards require the provision of space for every employee to drive alone and park on site. While in contrast, aligning standards with the TDM performance targets would mean providing parking for about 55 to 60% of employees to park on site, which includes extra space for car pools and guest parking beyond the 52% target. To achieve this alignment, it's key to understand parking minimum and maximum requirements. Currently, the city only sets parking minimums uh or the requirement for a provision of at least a certain number of parking spaces per square foot of development. Uh on the other hand, a parking maximum sets an upper limit. So at most certain number of parking spaces per square foot can be can be provided. This encourages modal shift uh to meet the performance targets. Staff recommends providing both parking maximums and adjusting the existing parking minimums to create a permissible range of parking. Uh and this approach would ensure sufficient off- streetet parking remains available um while aligning spec aligning parking standards with the performance targets. It also generally provides flexibility for

developers to meet their specific parking needs based on uh their specific uh policies for you know in office um and their employee density. And the formula at the bottom uh of the slide shows the calculation which we use in the following charts. Um the parking provided on site divided by the employee density um equals the percentage of employees that are able to drive alone. And so that number is very important because it's what we're targeting um with the TDM performance target. Um and the employee density figures are generally derived from the TDM strategy report. So uh starting with administrative office uh which is a common use permitted in many of Brisbane zoning districts. Um this slide provides an overview of parking standards for administrative office use. Uh at the top is the city's existing minimum which is followed by the TDM strategies recommended maximum to meet performance targets. Subsequently, there's a potential parking range which again would comply with TDM targets while ensuring sufficient off- streetet parking. And at the bottom, uh a comparison with peer cities is provided. Uh this table is a simplified version of that you may have seen in the staff report. Um I'm going to take a pause now. Um, after all the information, um, the commission can look through the table and provide any thoughts on the potential standards or anything in the previous slides they'd like expanded on.

Um, any questions from any of the commissioners? I don't have any questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, commissioners. So, now moving on to research and development. Um although this use is permitted in certain zoning districts in the city, there's currently no parking standard defined in the municipal code. Um generally, uh the most similar standard would be applied. Um which would generally be the administrative office standard of one space per 300 square ft. Uh however, uh R&D often requires less parking compared to office since more floor area is dedicated to things like complex equipment and storage rather than solely to employee workspace as in an office context. Uh the use of this standard generally means that a substantial overupp of parking would be provided uh for R&D uses. In the past decade, two use permits have been approved for R&D projects which requested a reduced parking requirement. Um these were UP118 at 3,000 to 3500 Marina Boulevard or Genesis Marina and UP 218 at 7,000 Marina or Sangamo Therapeutics. Uh more details about these projects were included in the staff report and staff is happy to answer any questions from the commission. I have one question about about data. We've I think approved or or seen approved several um R&D buildings over the past few years. Um, from the experience of those folks, do we have any data that kind of supports or or confirms that that parking is at least adequate, if not over supplied. other staff could correct me if I'm wrong, but I I don't think we have actual data counts on parking on those uh particular projects. I anecdotally what I've seen out there especially well

the the shore is one that that actually wasn't mentioned in the report. We did do a a very minor I I would call it adjustment to their parking as well and they seem very overparked. It's it's usually quite empty when I've gone by there. I'm not sure Julie if you have anything on Genesis Marina. I think well for one I think leasing has been a little slower than the developers may have wanted at both sites. Um they're not fully leased as I understand it. I know definitely for Genesis Marina. Um and you know as part of their the requirements for Genesis Marina and their TDM plan they do need to monitor um annually as with any other development that comes through the actual mode share of of tenants.

So we will have what um how how employees are getting to work. It's part of their surveying requirements. So we will have data. they only have been occupied um less than a year at this point. So um we we could provide data in the future, but again they're not fully leased at this point. So I think it remains to be seen once they do get to full occupancy.

So thank you very much and I I appreciate that that response. Um because it seem it seems to me that if we're trying to you know prognosticate and I noted in the materials the sort of different metric between number of employees and floor space which seems to be kind of a two different ways of figuring out what the right number is parking spaces. Um, so it seems to me that to to help refine which of those is the better metric, it'd be nice to have some some experiential data from the folks that are the R&Ds that are there. And I I take your point, which is that they are only very recently there. So maybe it's not yet ripe for that measurement, but I think that's the best way to figure out how to go in the future is to figure out if the stuff we've got is working or not. Well, we do have um obviously our neighbors in Oyster Point, which have had biotech campuses occupied for many many years. Um and one of the peer cities that Daniel provided a sample of um is from South City.

So, yeah. Uh and I guess another thing to note on the um sort of employee density versus square foot argument. I think the opinion of staff and uh they can uh provide additional context on this but um obviously you know employee density can fluctuate significantly between tenants uh between uh periods of time with uh you know the pandemic and now return to office. And so, uh, parking based on square footage of, you know, employee workspace generally tends to be a more stable, uh, way to determine what's sufficient.

Um, I have a follow-up question. So um so I I I would tend to agree with the recommendations um made by staff in in this report, but the question um becomes like what if what if you know u more people return to work and then the initial estimate of you know parking needs change. What do we do as a city if we're driving around and we see lots full? Like what do we do at that point? So I I think this goes to what uh Julia was just talking about was the the mode shift and essentially the TDM plan for the individual businesses and making sure that they are actually targeting what works for their individual employees to to get the mode shift to to actually happen. And I I neglected to mention the shore actually is is doing the same kind of reporting on compliance with their TDM plan. So there there is data out there. I was thinking in terms of part actual parking counts, but they do surveys essentially of the employees and and what they're doing each year. And so um so I think that's one way to address it is within the company to make those mode shifts. And also there are requirements for TDM. There are measures like um obviously shuttle access. There's transit passes. There's a lot of things that a business, you know, can do to sort of help promote uh alternative modes uh of transit. And so it wouldn't be necessarily just the city's responsibility. the companies, the the projects would need to step up as well and maybe provide more incentives to their uh employees to uh you know reduce the the ride alone trips

because that's that's really the goal here. We're not here to perpetuate you know that that's the goal of the whole thing is to reduce those single occupancy vehicle trips, not not enable them or perpetuate them at the pace they've occurred over time. All right. So, uh, one complex, uh, part of many R&D projects is they include both office floor area as well as space for laboratory. Um, and some include auxiliary space for things like storage, warehousing or light fabrication, such as to create prototypes. Um, currently the code does specify that requirements can be calculated separately for different uses on the same site. uh for example an R&D project under the existing code could do so for a storage or fabrication area as the city has a separate standard in the code for these uses. On the other hand, this could not be done for laboratory area as this use does not have a specific parking standard defined in the code. Uh this leads to peer cities having two distinct approaches for parking R&D uses. Um, on one hand, some specify different standards for each distinct use of floor area, such as laboratory, warehousing, and manufacturing, while others apply a blanket standard for an entire R&D project. And so, um, at the top, that's why the square foot per space is listed as 440 as opposed to 300, uh, for office uses since, um, this would be using a sample project of 45% office area and so on. Um, yes. So this slide provides an overview of parking standards for R&D similar to the previous one for administrative office. And then you can see the UP18 approval ratio for Genesis Marina was also included. Um and that's at 1 to 550. So under the current uh under the potential standards that would not have required a use permit. Um so yeah and then yeah again um this also

assumes an employee density of one per 400 square f feet um which is again drawing on the TDM strategy report um but it even that notes that uh that density can vary significantly for R&D between uh you know one to 300 or so to 1 to 550. So again, what are the does the commission have any uh preliminary thoughts or questions about this potential parking range? All right. Thank you, commissioners. So next, um data centers represent another emerging use uh which are permitted in some zoning districts but currently lack a specifics parking standard in the code. um without a specific standard adopted, the planning director would need to determine an appropriate standard based on similarity to uses uh with standards that are defined in the code. Uh at this time, the most similar use would likely be warehousing, which is set at a minimum of one space per thousand square feet. So, a discussion of warehouse parking standards is not included in this presentation, but it's it is uh discussed as anformational item in the staff report. Um the cities listed in the table here all have a very specific data center standards in their municipal code. Um though the requirements vary significantly among cities. Um it is to be noted that it's a very small portion of cities nationwide which actually have specific standards for data centers. Uh most of the cities listed are either in data center hotspots or just tech hotspots more generally or have significant trade commercial uh zoning districts. Yeah, I'll take another pause here. Uh does the commission have any questions, comments or direction based on the data centers information? Commissioner Gooding, you're looking like you're thinking

not now. No questions. Thank you.

Okay. So, now are two brief updates on new state state laws and requirements. So, the first state law of note is Assembly Bill 1308, which affects additions to single family residences. It prohibits agencies from requiring the provision of additional parking spaces for any proposed or some proposed additions to single family residences. Um however this only applies when the following two conditions are met. So first um the residents uh must currently comply with the existing parking requirements and second the proposed addition must not exceed any other applicable zoning standards like height, lot coverage or floor area ratio. Um the provision does not apply to homes which are currently non-conforming with parking. Um, however, Brisbane's existing uh ordinance allows up to 400 square feet of additions without parking compliance requirements, and this provision is unaffected by the state law. Uh, staff will provide a proposed ordinance update, which does conform to this law at a later commission meeting. Uh second is Assembly Bill 894 uh which requires cities to provide ministerial approval for shared parking agreements between commercial properties when specific criteria are met without requiring a variance. Uh the parking shared must first be demonstrated as underutilized meaning at least 20% of spaces are unoccupied during the period where the parking is proposed to be shared between the two entities. and the city may require a technical parking study which uses peer-reviewed methodologies. Um, in addition, the properties must either a uh be on the same or adjacent parcels or b be within 2,000 ft of walking distance or about a 5-minute walk or c provide a shuttle service uh probably if their distances are greater than 2,000 ft. Uh, and cities may also require that the agreement be recorded against the parcels to en ensure long-term stability, obviously depending on the circumstances.

And finally, um, a brief discussion of the housing element, which is a statemandated component of our general plan, outlining how Brisbane will accommodate its regional housing allocation and remove barriers to housing production. Um, of course, parking requirements directly impact housing costs and feasibility, requiring multiple spaces per unit can serve as a barrier to production. Um, the current housing element does include a policy directive for the city to study potential updates to our parking requirements by December of 2026. And the element suggests the city considers specifically reducing parking requirements for developments that either provide or encourage alternative transportation modes or those that are located near highquality transit corridors. Um, there are currently no high-quality transit corridors in Brisbane. Um, the SAMR route 292 only runs about every 20 minutes. Um though this will change with the Baylands development and it's important to note that our parking standards have already been updated in previous planning cycles to encourage smaller more affordable housing units. Something that is noted by the element. Um the element also acknowledges the practical challenge of further reducing parking requirements given the existing parking constraints that exist especially in central Brisbane. Uh, one option, uh, may be a potential amendment allowing for administrative parking reduction on a case-byase basis, um, for projects which require a specific TDM plan.

Okay. Commissioner Gooding has a question. Yeah. And I'm not sure even how to ask this question. Um, this is where the rubber hits the road because this is parking in Brisbane that people are very, very, very sensitive to. It's a big issue. So, I want to at least voice a concern about an issue. I'm I'm not sure how to what shared parking really means. Can Can you any of you give me a real world example of how it works in a development or in a in a block or in a unit or what shared parking mean? Uh Ken, do you want to go ahead? Sure.

Yeah. So this would be for instance two adjacent commercial properties that um one might have a surplus and one might need some parking essentially. And and so they go into an agreement to to share the property to share the parking across the two sites. And so is this is this exclusively a commercial issue? Exclusively commercial. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay. That helps. So if if some store has a parking lot, if if Midtown has extra spaces, they can share it with Julie's. But this is correct. Yes. Assuming at least one is underutilized. Yeah. So you that helps. Thank you.

Yeah. I think downtown Brisbane commercial is virtually excluded because you really don't have parking lots. It's mostly street parking. Right. Exception is Midtown and then across the street from Gotcha. that helps.

So, um unless there are further questions or comments, um the next steps um for this issue will be to um a further planning commission workshops um and then later a public hearing and city council hearing and adoption. But I'll turn it back over to Ken to wrap things up.

Right. So, so we staff envisions that we'd come back with some more detail as um as a second workshop hopefully later later this year or early in 2026. Um there's a lot on the plate right now, but um and then get adoption later in 2026 with city council.

Okay. Thank you. Any further questions for staff? When you guys do the second workshop, I was wondering is it possible to do a hypothetical? For example, like if the quarry was developed into a big data center, how many parking spots would that be? Or how what kind of transit would be required if we increased it to 5,000 square feet or one's parking spot for five? You know, I mean, like how would that be impacted? I think I don't know. That's what's on the horizon. And I think people would want to know maybe

yeah we'll we'll try to work some hypotheticals. Obviously the project will go through its own environmental and the TDM will be sort of unique but I think we can give you some examples of what TDM programs that again promote or help facilitate reducing single occupancy trips or includes. You have a idea of the menu of options that have come up in other projects. We can do that. Thank you.

Okay. Um maybe we open it up for if there's any questions for the p from the public like a minute. Should we um set a timer for a minute? Yes, one minute. Okay, I put up a slide with the call number and

um anyone who wants to join the Zoom may also raise their hand and sorry, say again how how long you wanted to open it up. I said a minute. A minute. Okay. waiting. Shall I go ahead? Just wanted to do a quick check in on one item was um on the housing element program. Essentially, this is something that the the the program was to study. It didn't commit the city to anything, but but parking reductions that might be possible. One suggestion um was that the commission might consider uh essentially allowing for administrative approval on multifamily developments that demonstrated through a TDM program that that they they could that they could work essentially with a a reduced parking under the the normal standards And so just wanted to touch on that and see if if uh the commission had any reactions at this time or if that's something you'd like to revisit another time in a different way or

could you possibly give us an example like if there was a multi-unit building going in is that what we're talking about like a multi multi-unit residential building? Yes.

Being built on Visitation Avenue. How would that like what what does that look like for us? And that that might be something to come back with as an example. But um multi-family is tied to a number of bedrooms and typically as I recall it's one space for uh one bedrooms and I believe actually two as well but it and then you get into more bedrooms and you have more spaces required and so it might be that certain developments might um be so located and provide provide incentives for their residents and might be able to demonstrate through a TDM plan that that they could um

like they would function well with with a reduced parking standard for their development like they would have a shuttle bus that went downtown or something routinely or shuttle and they would prepare a you know consultants would provide a document outlining how that would happen and monitoring requirements similar to the commercial developments that Julia discussed. Is that what you're Yeah. Yeah. So, if if the commission has interest in that, we can try to flesh that out a little bit more. If it's something you prefer to just hold off on. Um, we're open to your suggestions.

I mean, I'm open to bringing that back with the rest. I mean, right, you're coming back to us with the other stuff, so why not? So,

okay. I you know let me not sure exactly how to articulate this but because this is now that topic of parking in residential Brisbane is a very political issue quite frankly. Um, and I um I have a gut feeling that the general populace would be more comfortable with having those issues addressed by the fellow citizens than as a bureaucratic issue. And I I'm using the word bureaucratic almost pjoratively on purpose to to make the point as opposed to aso fellow citizens as opposed to um some bureaucratic method of resolving it. Um, I think that would I suspect that would play better um when we're making decisions about about um things that are really quality of life issues.

So, are are you suggesting a a program like this might be better as a zoning administrator publicly noticed item per se or planning commission versus Yeah. Right. administrator. That's my my initial feeling. I'm open to discussing it. I just my that's my first first blush take on it

is that this is this kind of stuff because we get much more push back on much more public comment on things like parking than we do on general plan issues. I mean those are very amorphous. Parking is really close to home. It's the guy in front of your driveway. It's I can't park my second vehicle. It's really personal. Um, and then I I my gut take is that's a I'm disincclined to relegate that to administrative review. In general, in the last several years, a lot of stuff is moving toward administrative review. In many cases, for good reasons. Um, because it's just there's state guidance that we can't go outside of. So, I get it. Why why have us, you know, mle over things that we don't don't have any control over? But if we do have control over it, um I don't I think it's I think abdicating it to administrative review is is maybe not our job.

That's helpful. Thank you. And yeah, I would and end of speech. And I would tend to agree with Commissioner Gooding. Um but I'm not completely foreclosed. So that's why I invited staff. you know, you're going to come back to us with other stuff. If you think there could be a compelling argument to do it this way, why not bring it forth? And maybe, you know, there's people um, you know, members of the public who might have thoughts on that as well. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Uh, any calls, Julia? No. Okay. Okay. Well, I guess moving next. Commissioner Patel, anything else? Okay.

I think it'd be interesting to see the model though. I don't know, just to see like start the conversation. Okay. Thank you. Um, so next is items initiated by staff. Staff, is there anything to report? Uh, just one thing. We did have a workshop last Saturday on the BFA redevelopment. Um, and so Julia was well several of us were there. Daniel and Julia and I were there and Julia give a quick update of what happened there.

So the purpose of the open house was to get folks on the site. It's the first time we had an event there on the property and we wanted to not only give a summary of outreach to date which has pro um you know three basic options have risen to the top of the public outreach but we also um had like a self-guided tour that folks could take going to different important spots on the site um think about how the site relates to different vistas and uh you know adjacent development different um the roadways etc. So, yeah, we thought it went well. Um, we had pretty good turnout, pretty good engagement and conversations with folks. So, um, at this point, next steps are, um, continuing to evaluate feasibility of the alternatives that have kind of risen to the top and there will be future meetings um, at city council in the fall to discuss.

Okay. Thank you. Next is items initiated by the commission. anything? Okay. None. Okay. Well, then um before I adjourn, I want to thank Daniel again for an excellent presentation. Thank you. Um thank you very much. So, we'll journ to the next regular meeting of September 25, 2025. Thank you everyone.

Thank you. [Music] [Music]