I hope people don't take from this that no parking at all is necessary, since that's not what they found.
They simply found that you have have a bit less parking than what the code required if you implement it in a way where you need an exception - presumably to show that in this case you don't need it.
The code is a bit of a blunt instrument and giving some flexibility to it seems logical. Getting rid entirely of parking minimums does not.
Also nowhere in this do I see a survey of residents to see how they like living in these lower-parking homes. People might be very very annoyed, but just deal with it because they have no other good option.
They simply found that you have have a bit less parking than what the code required if you implement it in a way where you need an exception - presumably to show that in this case you don't need it.
The code is a bit of a blunt instrument and giving some flexibility to it seems logical. Getting rid entirely of parking minimums does not.
Also nowhere in this do I see a survey of residents to see how they like living in these lower-parking homes. People might be very very annoyed, but just deal with it because they have no other good option.