"fraction" -- you're right. Also, I should make it clear (and correct the letter that I wrote in case I got it wrong), that the CEQA appeal seeks to raise the conditional use (CU) maximum to 1.0 (one parking space to one unit). The Planning Commission, under pressure from all the usual suspects, voted to recommend that the CU be raised from .5 to .75. But in case I got that wrong, I'm CCing Tom Radulovich (can't find Christina Olague's e-mail ...). Sue -- John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 05:10:40AM +0000, susan_e_vaughan@juno.com wrote:
1) the CEQA appeal be denied; 2) that the # of required bike parking spaces be increased to one per unit minimum; and 3) that the number of parking spaces devoted to car share vehicles be increased
It's important to phrase that last goal as "fraction" of the parking spaces. Otherwise, they will just build more overall parking to accomodate the request for more car-share spaces. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo