When Palo Alto's elected leaders rail against new housing laws, they usually focus on legislation that increases residential density, streamlines approval and curbs their power to influence the designs of new projects.
But it's a less discussed law, Assembly Bill 2097, that is now threatening to upend local zoning policies and potentially redirect development trends in the city's two most prominent commercial areas, University Avenue and California Avenue.
The law, which was authored by Assembly member Laura Friedman, D-Glendale and took effect on Jan. 1, eliminates parking requirements within half a mile of transit stops. Because each of the city's two downtowns has a Caltrain station, the bill effectively allows developers in these two areas to not provide any parking for commercial and residential projects.
Housing advocates and business groups, including California YIMBY and Bay Area Council, have praised the bill, which they say is a critical tool for overcoming a major hurdle to residential developments: the high cost of parking.
When Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law in September, Friedman noted in a statement that in San Diego more than four times the number of affordable housing units were built in its transit areas after the city eliminated its parking minimum.
"Mandatory parking requirements worsen California's severe housing shortage by raising the cost of housing production," Friedman said in a statement, noting that an average garage space costs between $24,000 and $34,000 while an underground parking space costs between $50,000 and $65,000. "These costs get passed onto individuals and families, even if they don't own or cannot drive a car."
But in Palo Alto, AB 2097 may do more than spur new housing projects. City officials believe the law may accelerate commercial growth, which has been anemic in recent years thanks to local policies that cap non-residential development.
Around California Avenue, the law may trigger some retail establishments to become restaurants, a transformation that was difficult previously because restaurants require more parking.
The law may also influence the city's economic development strategy, which is now being developed. And it will likely doom the city's in-lieu parking program, which collects money from developers who do not build enough on-site parking and instead pay into a fund that pays for future parking facilities.
These are among the impacts of AB 2097 outlined in a new memo from the city's Department of Planning and Development Services. According to staff analysis, the two Caltrain stations and the University Avenue transit hub (which is next to the downtown Caltrain station) are the only two areas that meet the criteria for AB 2097 eligibility. While the law also applies to major bus routes, the city's other bus stops don't meet the frequency requirement for bus service.
AB 2097 still allows cities to impose parking requirements if they can make written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that not doing so would hinder its ability to meet its housing targets for residents with low and very low incomes, or it would make it difficult to accommodate housing for seniors and individuals with disabilities, or it would have a negative impact on existing residential or commercial parking within half mile of the proposed housing development.
A test of AB 2097
The city got an early taste of what the new law will bring on June 1, when the Architectural Review Board considered a new four-story, mixed-use development at 640 Waverley St. Board Chair Peter Baltay noted that the plans for the project don't provide parking for its commercial portion but acknowledged that there's little the city can do to change that.
"Regardless of what the code of the law says, it's responsible of you to park the people who live there, otherwise they're just going to park on the street and that's not fair," Baltay said. "We're not going to be able to force you to do anything it seems like, but with the force of persuasion, consider doing something more because it's not enough right now."
The project team did not appear to be open to persuasion. Architect Ken Hayes said the team had been considering ways to develop the site since 2012 but was only able to propose its current plan after AB 2097 became law.
"What really made the project feasible this time is the fact that we don't need to provide commercial parking," Hayes said. "AB 2097 gave us the window to be able to do this."
While the law is new and, as such, has not seen much usage so far, planning staff expect that to change. The planning memo notes that numerous developers have expressed interest in relying on AB 2097 and that staff expect to see more applications looking to take advantage of its provisions.
On California Avenue, the law could both accelerate development and change land uses, which have been relatively static in recent years. City staff notes that there has been little new construction in the area (recently public projects on Sherman Avenue -- a garage and police headquarters -- are conspicuous exceptions). Staff attributes this dearth of new private development to local requirements for retail preservations, small parcel sizes and on-site parking requirements. Now, the lattermost barrier is removed.
"Accordingly, staff anticipates California Avenue may experience increased development pressure for new building construction," the memo states. "At a minimum, staff expects an increase in requests to change retail to restaurant use, or other more intensive land uses both on California Avenue and nearby commercial streets."
Staff also believes that California Avenue's proximity to the Caltrain station may encourage new housing or mixed-use developments with no parking. Small lot sizes have historically made housing projects cost-prohibitive, the memo notes, which is one of the reasons that the city's adopted Housing Element does not envision a significant amount of new housing in this area.
"However, with AB 2097, new mixed-use housing with ground floor commercial and multi-family units at upper levels may be seen as more feasible by some property owners or developers," the memo states.
In downtown, the city will have to rethink its in-lieu parking fee program, which staff expect will no longer receive any funding.
The program's remaining money will be used to help pay for a new development that combines a parking garage and housing and that would occupy a downtown parking lot. The city last year released a request for proposals, and it plans to share responses with the City Council later in the summer, according to the memo.
It's not just University and California avenues that will be affected by the law. The city is about to adopt the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, a vision document for a centrally located neighborhood just south of California Avenue. About half of the Ventura planning area is within half a mile of the Caltrain stop and one of the questions that staff is considering now is whether to waive parking requirements for cars in the entire area. (That question will come up when the plan moves on to the council for final approval.)
The bill would also allow residents in single-family districts close to the Caltrain stations to convert their garages to habitable spaces, eliminating on-site parking. Unlike in the past, they will no longer be required to create another parking space. Thanks to other recently adopted laws, property owners can already do that when developing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). AB 2097 broadens this to also capture garage conversions that do not entail plumbing and cooking facilities, which are required for ADUs and JADUs.
Even though the law allows jurisdictions to impose parking requirements under limited circumstances, this rule would not apply if the proposed development contains fewer than 20 dwellings, if at least 20% of its housing units are designated as affordable housing, or if it qualifies for parking reductions under other laws. Furthermore, cities have only 30 days from when an application is filed to conduct the analysis and meet the "preponderance of evidence" standard laid out in AB 2097, a timeline that the memo suggests would be difficult to meet.
"Based on the foregoing restrictions and the limited time to conduct the analysis (30 days from the filing of a complete application), staff does not envision being able to make required findings that would compel a project to meet minimum on-site parking requirements," the memo states. "Such analysis would need to occur in advance of the city receiving a qualifying application and then be applied to the project.
"Unless the City Council provides this direction at a noticed public hearing, this advanced analysis is not envisioned being conducted and use of this provision is not expected to be applied to qualifying projects in Palo Alto."
Comments
Registered user
another community
on Jun 14, 2023 at 10:42 pm
Registered user
on Jun 14, 2023 at 10:42 pm
When I last worked in Palo Alto I knew of only one co-worker who took public transportation. She couldn't make it to work on time on weekends because the weekend train schedules ran differently. Even during the week they would report late. Another person biked to work only until they could purchase a car. You really had to have a car because our employer would sometimes request we shift to another work location depending on workload needs. Occasionally we were on-call for jury duty, or had to travel to work required classes or meetings. The co-worker I mentioned was eventually let go, you need the flexibility of a car to hold many service jobs. Employers use to provide employees work vehicles in the past, but that has largely fallen by the way side.
How will many service workers realistically hold onto jobs without cars? When I was young I remember riding my bicycle home after my shift on El Camino Real (near Stanford Shopping Center) and some man ran after my bike and tried to catch me. I quit the job after that.
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jun 15, 2023 at 9:21 am
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 9:21 am
I live downtown, have taken Caltrain to work almost my entire life, and bike or walk everywhere (I live car-free). I also spend 80% of my disposable dollars within a 5 to 10 minute bike ride radius and have no need for Amazon because I can just walk 5 minutes to buy groceries, shampoo, or tools I need from the hardware store.
This city needs 5,000 more of me and my spending, my community volunteer hours, and the daily assistance I give to my neighbors. We need housing in our downtowns - lots of it -- for you, your kids, and your aging parents, all of whom want to live where they don't have to drive to complete simple daily tasks! We wouldn't need this legislation if the city would make the environmental choice to put housing density in downtown areas.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 15, 2023 at 9:57 am
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 9:57 am
Great. Let's remove parking so developers can profit more from higher density while discouraging people from going downtown to shop and/or dine or taking public transit because there's no place to park.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Registered user
Los Altos
on Jun 15, 2023 at 10:06 am
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 10:06 am
Right on, Amie!
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 15, 2023 at 10:09 am
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 10:09 am
Have you ever tried bringing home a new born baby from hospital on a bicycle? Have you ever done Costco shopping on a bus? Have you ever been to the theater in San Francisco and tried to use Caltrain to get home? Have you ever arrived at SFO after a 10 hour flight and attempted to use public transport to get home while jetlagged and with a family and week's worth of luggage? Have you ever taken enough soccer balls for one for each member of the team by walking with them? Have you ever been to the beach without a car?
Have you ever tried to live without your own car? It isn't commuting that's the problem, it is the rest of life.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 15, 2023 at 10:59 am
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 10:59 am
Lack of parking pushes people to park in residential locations. We already have that with people who have assigned themselves specific parking spaces on the residential streets. We now have an increasing crime rate which makes unknown people on the streets a problem. The cities keep making decisions which are counterproductive to a safe everyday life.
Registered user
Mountain View
on Jun 15, 2023 at 11:04 am
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 11:04 am
Until we have better public transportation available that allows people to get where they need to go in a timely way, we are going to need to use cars. I applaud what Amie is able to do and encourage others to follow suit. But not everyone can ride a bike to and from work or the other things that Bystander cited. If the Bay Area would prioritize well-planned regional transit, we wouldn't need to use our. I grew up in Chicago and my family did not have, nor need, a car. I lived in SF without a car. I can't do that living on the Peninsula.
Registered user
Community Center
on Jun 15, 2023 at 11:36 am
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 11:36 am
Being within half a mile of CalTrans eliminates the need for a car? Lol, what a flimsy excuse. The only multi family housing that should get this break is below market. However, that would not reward market rate developers for their campaign contributions.
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jun 15, 2023 at 11:46 am
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 11:46 am
[Portion removed.]
This is a dumb law. Encouraging office developers by waiving their parking responsibility is shooting ourselves in the foot. More office = more need for housing.
As non-profit affordable housing developer Alta Housing taught, a new office space for a tech worker brings 5 more support jobs with it.
Adequate parking is responsible, wanted and needed.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 15, 2023 at 11:57 am
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 11:57 am
A flimsy excuse indeed.
" If the Bay Area would prioritize well-planned regional transit, we wouldn't need to use our. I grew up in Chicago and my family did not have, nor need, a car. I lived in SF without a car. I can't do that living on the Peninsula."
That's because Chicago and San Francisco are cities whereas the Peninsula is clearly a collection of suburbs of various separate municipalities spanning 2 counties. Think of your regular routine and ask yourselves if public transit could get you to your accountant in Santa Clara, your dentist in El Rancho in Los Altos, your hair person in Ladera/Portola Valley, your friends in Menlo Park and Los Altos and other neighborhoods of Palo Alto...
The answer is clearly NO, not without spending a huge amount of money and destroying innumerable neighborhoods.
And I love the argument that adding toll lanes will reduce congestion WHILE we're forced to add almost 1,000,000 new housing units WHILE trying to cut the public transit budget because ridership is down and its running a huge budget deficit so schedules are reduced WHILE selling off public transit parking lots for MORE housing.
Joseph Heller and Kafka would be proud.
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Jun 15, 2023 at 1:35 pm
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 1:35 pm
Saying that Cal Ave has been static is simply incorrect. In addition to the city's two large projects (the parking garage and public safety building) there has been nearly continuous development near California Avenue - on Sherman, Cambridge and Park - the streets are often closed because of these large construction projects. Park has a very large office building proposed right in front of Palo Alto Central - office windows 10 feet from peoples balconies. This is right next to another new large commercial office building that has remained empty since it was built.
Cal Ave train service is not high frequency and is a pain to use - University avenue service is much better.
At least the city has office development caps which should kick in with all the projects talked about. Council should look at strengtening those office limits to encourage residential in the downtown cores vs more office space
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 15, 2023 at 4:30 pm
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 4:30 pm
State of California heavy hand in social engineering.
Meanwhile, Newsom is driven in a luxury SUV, of course.
Registered user
another community
on Jun 15, 2023 at 7:38 pm
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 7:38 pm
It worked for Manhattan, it can work for PA.
The thing I like best about Manhattan is that it's all the way across the country and I don't have to live there.
Registered user
Midtown
on Jun 15, 2023 at 8:33 pm
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 8:33 pm
Let's take a moment to thank the state for saving our downtowns and allowing them to grow into the neighborhood serving walkable neighborhoods they deserve to be. Thank you for saving our town from its own city regulations. Cheers!
Regarding Costco, I've never taken the bus, but I have done a grocery haul with a bike trailer. It's surprisingly convenient compared to parking a car.
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Jun 15, 2023 at 9:45 pm
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 9:45 pm
When parking becomes scarce, only the wealthy will have parking - even though lower income workers need it the most. Property owners will sell parking spaces separately and make even more money. Crazy system we have. We could do better. Relying on private, profit-driven developers for building livable communities is a joke and a very bad one
Registered user
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jun 15, 2023 at 10:23 pm
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 10:23 pm
This is not New York City with a subway system in place for 120 years. This is California with little mass transit, no commuter railroad going south or north just Caltrain, no way to get to the east bay or Sierras to see friends without a car and so on.
I ride my bike to the Baylands but we need better politicians at the local, state, federal level that can make decisions based on the realistic need and not to facilitate a narrative. There should be parking for each facility built to contemplate the future requirements and limit the cars parked on residential streets. It should be pretty simple but out politicians don't get it and keep passing these ineffective SBxx laws.
Registered user
College Terrace
on Jun 16, 2023 at 4:08 pm
Registered user
on Jun 16, 2023 at 4:08 pm
City staff should prepare a factual statement in advance of applications with legal findings that can be used to exempt areas from this destructive law so that the 30 day timeline doesn’t become an impossible rule to meet.
We need to provide safe and convenient housing options for all residents; young old, disabled etc with on site parking. that does not relegate them to bike hauls in bike trailers to have options.
This does not preclude people from being car free but acknowledges the basic safety and convenience of parking on site for all residents with different physical capabilities. Let’s not discriminate against the elderly ,
women with young children, and persons with disabilities among others!
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 16, 2023 at 5:01 pm
Registered user
on Jun 16, 2023 at 5:01 pm
The Dems should be dramatically increasing transportation funding for alternative transportation as they pass bills that force infill and eliminate auto parking.
Sadly, the opposite is happening. Cuts to transit funding are under serious consideration in Sacramento. As a Dem, this worries me. Multi-modal transportation funding MUST be tied to housing growth. AM Berman and Senator Becker and Gov. Newsome, the devil is in the details--and you are screwing things up on a massive scale by not paying attention to the details.
Balanced, comprehensive transportation, public schools, public works and land use planning planning is needed here--and Sacramento is too far away to do context sensitive planning for our communities. They are getting it wrong, but they don't see it.
Please make sure funding comes through for transit SOON. If you had budgeted more conservatively to begin with, we wouldn't have a budget shortfall and a completely predictable transit funding crisis right now.
Registered user
another community
on Jun 17, 2023 at 9:11 pm
Registered user
on Jun 17, 2023 at 9:11 pm
Manhattan is converting parking garages into housing. Just think of it, we could do that here too. For every striped line, build a concret wall. Put a door in the middle and hang a "for rent" sign over the "parking garage" sign. Have one communal bathroom on every floor. This will reduce the construction time by about 90%. Since we don't need parking any more it doesn't make sense to build out more housing, let's just put a little bit of ingenuity into it. Japan does it, China does it, New York does it, why aren't we doing it too?
PS Anon ... City employees should have to do two carless weeks in a row so they can understand the issue. But they won't do it.
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Jun 19, 2023 at 11:57 am
Registered user
on Jun 19, 2023 at 11:57 am
Someone said. If we go to zero parking for poor folk, how about use the extra space provided there is no parking for such climate uses as outdoor clothes drying lines for multi family housing, or plenty good safe covered bike lock ups with enough room for a bike repair / air station ev charging for cargo bikes. How about an outdoor play area for little ones near the laundry 'facility' so single moms can supervise thier kids while hanging out thier laundry, or how about garden boxes so us low-income can grow some tomatos and basil? Or use the extra money and space to build a better accessible community staffed, resource and activity room/ctr for tenants??? However with this said, many low-income working people's work in service industries like pool cleaners, gardeners, pick up nursery school kids or house cleaners who rely on thier vehicles to use for thier jobs and to store thier equipment. How does this work with zero parking and climate change and supporting our service working, poor people??
Registered user
Charleston Meadows
on Jun 19, 2023 at 1:24 pm
Registered user
on Jun 19, 2023 at 1:24 pm
More of us should bike and, if you have a couple of hours to spare, take the bus. But the truth is that cars give us freedom and convenience (and with EVs, less pollution). I worked for years in South San José and could not have earned a living without my car. So this is a fan letter to the automobile — and adequate parking everywhere.