San Francisco’s current Planning Code Section 166 requires new developments, or existing buildings that are being converted to residential uses, with over 50 units and parking for its residents to provide parking spaces for a car-share program.
For buildings with 50-200 units, one (1) car-share space must be provided. For buildings with over 200 units, two (2) car-share spaces plus another one (1) for every additional 200 units are required. The required car-share spaces do not count against the maximum number of total parking spaces allowed by San Francisco’s Planning Code or conditional use authorization.
Sponsored by Supervisors Chiu and Wiener, a proposed amendment to San Francisco’s Planning Code would allow developers of buildings under 50 units to provide up to five (5) parking spaces for car-share programs, up to eight (8) additional parking spaces for buildings with over 50 units. The additional car-share spaces would not count against the maximum number of parking spaces permitted by Code.
Keep in mind that access to car-share spaces and vehicles “shall not be limited to residents of the building.” And if any additional car-share spaces are built but unutilized by a certified car-share organization, “the owner of the project may not sell, rent, or otherwise earn fees on the space but may use it for (i) bicycle parking, or (ii) permitted storage and other permitted uses but not for parking of any motorized vehicle” but must be returned to car-share service upon a providers request.
∙ Proposed Planning Code Amendment: Car Share Parking Spaces [sfbos.org]
This seems like a reasonable change but does the city have the perpetual budget for enforcement?
This is great! This is a smart balance between the need to reduce cars in the city, while still giving folks the ability to use cars as needed.
Keep in mind that access to car-share spaces and vehicles “shall not be limited to residents of the building.”
Most existing car-share spaces located within a condo complex are in a secured garage (at least from what I’ve seen). So new developments with more than 50 units must allow non-residents access, so they can retrieve/return the car-share car?
Interesting to see how they work this out. Unless they build a separate access for car-share only (unlikely).
^Second entries definitely will not be allowed – the city is trying to minimize curb cuts for pedestrian and street-parking reasons.
The way that it works (I live in a building with car share cars) is that the garage is built with two gates/doors. When a resident pushes the button or types in their code, both doors open, when a car share person types it in, only the external door opens. The car share cars are between the two doors. Pretty simple really. Probably adds a grand to the total cost of the building.
It would be great to revqiure electrical charging stations for projects over a certain size.
Also- while careshare is one approach to lowering the number of parked cars, urban planning is important as well.
There are a number of “mixed use” developments that are a good distance from transit and amenities. The shop space becomes mandated and non-profit space that, while commenndable, goes under utilized and does not connect to the units above. An alternative is to provied the commercial amenities that would keep the people in the units from getting in their car and traveling. While dry cleaners, quality corner stores, and dare I say coffee shops/bistros might be labled gentrification… they are what the residents of the units get in their car and drive to. I see this opportunity, for example, with the complexes near Cellspace in the East Mission.
anon: It also restricts the layout of the garage significantly, which may cost a lot more if it results in wasted space.
Really, though, this is pointless. Car share cars belong on the street, where they can easily be accessed. Instead, we have a system where public space is used for private vehicle storage, while public vehicles have to find private space (which is both inconvenient and expensive). Makes no sense.
Interesting observation Alai. Though if you move carshare into on-street parking then you run the risk of having carshare hogging on-street parking and not providing the turnover needed to keep local business thriving. A well balanced carshare program shouldn’t have the problem of their assets sitting around unused though.
And the meter maid needs some way to tell the difference between a carshare car parked and waiting for its next driver vs. a carshare simply being parked on-street during an errand. Nothing that technology can’t solve though.
———————–
Dan – Spot on about proximity to daily conveniences being a big factor in how often a resident will use their car. No-one should have to drive just for a cup of coffee but that’s a scene that is repeated a million times every day in the bay area.
Dan: I’m not so concerned about that, because the uses can and will change over time. Dry cleaners will move in once there’s a demand for them, and transit lines can be added. It’s much harder to change the physical building itself.
I’m a proponent of car share but not if one has to their private garage to strangers. Security and auto thefts are a MAJOR issue with multi-familly housing. Once strangers have access to the building, they can roam the corridors and common areas.
The way that it works (I live in a building with car share cars) is that the garage is built with two gates/doors. When a resident pushes the button or types in their code, both doors open, when a car share person types it in, only the external door opens. The car share cars are between the two doors. Pretty simple really. Probably adds a grand to the total cost of the building.
I’m pretty sure all buildings currently housing car share aren’t built that way. I can’t think of any specific examples, but I’m sure I’ve seen it. A colleague of mine tells me Arterra has a car share in the general garage with no additional gates/doors.