|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In a bold move to encourage more housing, Mountain View is taking steps to eliminate parking requirements for residential developments in certain parts of the city.
The Environmental Planning Commission approved a recommendation last week, in a 4-0-1 vote, to remove minimum parking standards for residential and mixed-use projects in areas of the city planned for growth.
Commissioners Hank Dempsey, Bill Cranston, Paul Donahue and Alex Nuñez supported the motion while Commissioner Joyce Yin abstained. Commissioners Chris Clark and José Gutiérrez recused themselves from the vote on Sept. 18.
To comply with state law, AB 2097, Mountain View has already removed parking requirements for affordable housing developments, as well as most sites located within one-half mile of a major transit stop. Now it is going a step further to allow residential developers to bypass parking standards in areas that fall within the Downtown, San Antonio, East Whisman and El Camino Real precise plans.
“The proposed amendments will eliminate minimum parking requirements for residential developments only, which aims to allow for greater flexibility and land use and site design, enabling the creation of diverse housing and mixed-use projects,” said Associate Planner Hang Zhou, who presented the recommendation to the commission on Sept. 18.
While the commissioners approved the recommendation, several of them also expressed discomfort about its potential implications.
Under the proposed changes, developers would not need to include parking for electric vehicles, or for those with disabilities. This requirement would only apply if developers voluntarily choose to include general parking in their plans, according to Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinksi.
“When you remove minimum parking standards, then there’s no basis to calculate those EV or ADA parking spaces … If someone provided no parking under the modifications we’re making, to be in keeping with the housing element, they would truly be required to provide no parking,” Blizinski said.
The proposed changes to the city’s parking standards are stipulated in its housing element, with a deadline to do it by Dec. 31.
For Commissioner Yin, the lack of ADA parking was especially problematic. “When the state comes in, it’s like using a sledgehammer, when at some point you need some tools that are a little bit more refined,” she said. “I don’t believe the intention of this sledgehammer policy was that disabled people may not be able to live here or work here. They won’t be able to get here.”
Yin urged the city to ask the state for a stay on the parking changes, until further clarification about some of the accessibility issues could be worked out, she said.
Commissioner Cranston also expressed dismay about an underlying expectation of AB 2097. It assumes that people will use public transit, but since the pandemic, people have not been getting back on transit, he said.
Advocating for more data, Commissioner Dempsey encouraged the city to conduct a study about parking impacts to make it easier for people to see what works and what doesn’t work. “So, if there (are) places really getting crunched and people are suffering, we’ll know why. We’ll know how big it is, and then we can talk about what to do with it and maybe share some of that data with the folks in Sacramento,” Dempsey said.
Ultimately, a majority of the commissioners approved the recommendation on the basis that it was mandated in the housing element, with Commissioner Nuñez stating that he was in support of it because it would increase housing supply, as well as reduce reliance on vehicles and decrease carbon emissions.
The commission’s recommendation is expected to be brought to the City Council at its Nov. 12 meeting.
Voters deserve to understand that this bill was approved by State politicians in response to lobbying efforts by CA YIMBY.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240429001143/https://cayimby.org/legislation/ab-2097/
AB 2097 Housing for people, not cars
“AB 2097 will reduce the cost of housing while slashing the pollution that causes climate change by eliminating expensive parking mandates for homes and commercial buildings near transit, or in neighborhoods with low rates of car use.
Parking mandates, which require parking for cars to be included in new housing, are common in cities throughout California and can add $40,000 or more to the cost of construction per parking spot, while also increasing climate pollution.
Eliminating these costly parking mandates will give Californians more choices about whether they want to pay for parking, or have lower-cost housing in walkable, transit-accessible neighborhoods.”
More choices? If you are a high wage earner, you can call an Uber whenever you want. If not, you are doomed to take the bus, regardless of how inconvenient and time-consuming that might be. It’s a clever way to encourage lower-income people to voluntarily NOT live in MV.
“For Commissioner Yin, the lack of ADA parking was especially problematic. “When the state comes in, it’s like using a sledgehammer, when at some point you need some tools that are a little bit more refined,” she said. “I don’t believe the intention of this sledgehammer policy was that disabled people may not be able to live here or work here. They won’t be able to get here.””
If you are disabled, Mountain View doesn’t want you to live here. Lovely.
Yes. No parking on El Camino, and no parking when building housing. No one will ever need a car…because that works well….exactly where in the Bay Area? You can barely survive in SF without a car.
For San Antonio, that makes great sense. But if you live at El Camino and Shoreline….how exactly are you getting groceries?
Poor residents who live near El Camino.
@Ramirez. SF residents with no car ownership/parking? I have now 2 sons who grew up here and learned to live elsewhere without car ownership.
That are making out fine in SF! Now, if they had 3 kids each, and chose to live far from schools and markets //// problematic. But some of these areas for residential building will be Just Fine. As it is, many poorer residents that live in apartments all along California Ave. do not have Enough Money for both Food and Rent and also car payments /maintenance & car insurance. They make do with shared rides and bikes – AND WALKING!
Since 2014 Family Biking Day / started by Great Streets Mountain View. etc. etc. etc.
“As it is, many poorer residents that live in apartments all along California Ave. do not have Enough Money for both Food and Rent and also car payments /maintenance & car insurance. They make do with shared rides and bikes – AND WALKING!”
I’d like to see evidence for this theory. It is nothing but a myth that poorer residents don’t own cars. Even RV dwellers own cars because they NEED cars.
“As Mountain View plans to expand safe parking, advocates say more space is needed for commuter vehicles” – https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/06/26/as-mountain-view-plans-to-expand-safe-parking-advocates-say-more-space-is-needed-for-commuter-vehicles/
“As the city of Mountain View prepares to increase the number of spots at the Shoreline safe parking lot by more than 50%, program participants still need a place to park their commuter vehicles – the cars they use to get around during the day, but not to sleep in.”
“The situation is part of a larger challenge the city faces in meeting the constant demand for more space devoted to people living in their vehicles, while also accommodating the secondary vehicles that many of those residents rely on to get around on a daily basis, city staff say.”
“From the perspective of local advocates for the unhoused, adding commuter parking at the Shoreline lot is “a small ask for a big gain,” as Hope’s Corner board member Marilyn Winkleby put it.”
The article states: “In a bold move to encourage more housing, Mountain View is taking steps to eliminate parking requirements for residential developments in certain parts of the city.”
No, it’s actually a bold move to maximize the profits of for-profit developers, and a bold move to create parking shortages in Mountain View.
What a joke! This will encourage people to stop using their cars and take the train?! Look at our residential streets now in downtown, lined with cars, and the folks are getting out of their cars and walking to the train station! Why have we allowed these clueless folks to make decisions like these regarding the neighborhoods that we live in?! Come on over and walk around and note all of the cars that are already parked on every inch of the streets NOW.
Disabled people and low income people don’t drive, of course. And mass transit in the San Antonio neighborhood and Santa Clara county is so accessible and runs all the time. Right. Of course. I remember going to many city Council meetings that didn’t even get to the topic until 9 PM after the last bus left downtown. So even the city council meetings are inaccessible by bus. Oh sure, you can do this by Zoom at home. It is not the same experience at all and everyone on the city council knows that. I was finally able to afford a used car in 2020 after six years of going around Santa Clara county on mass transit saving my pennies so it wouldn’t take me an hour and two buses to get to the El Camino YMCA when it is a 15 minute drive . It is not straightforward, although it is inexpensive. From the housing that is being built in San Antonio neighborhood it is still a long walk or a wheelchair ride to the Caltrain station with a walker or a cane. And of course it depends on which way you are taking the 21 bus where the bus stop will be. Or if you are going to the northbound tracks at the Caltrain station you have to go all the way under the tunnel at Pacchetti Way, then up the ramp on the other side. My cane and I had the door slam in my face at the San Antonio Caltrain station when they were preparing for the electric trains. The trains at San Antonio station were running once an hour at the time. I can’t believe that the city would go for something like this. Where are they going to put all those cars? Even the building where I live does not have parking spaces for everyone. And there is no overnight parking. Imagine if everyone In Mountain View got rid of their cars not just the poor and disabled? This is a very bad idea and is supported by people who are not poor or disabled. I would be delighted to see someone in those circumstances support this plan.
“This is a very bad idea and is supported by people who are not poor or disabled. I would be delighted to see someone in those circumstances support this plan.”
Thank you so very much, Sheryl, for inserting a dose of reality into the conversation.
““The proposed amendments will eliminate minimum parking requirements for residential developments only,….”
Yet previously the article states:
The Environmental Planning Commission approved a recommendation last week, in a 4-0-1 vote, to remove minimum parking standards for residential and mixed-use projects in areas of the city planned for growth.”
So which is it?
And what kind of “mixed use” are you targeting to move into these places with no parking and no street parking (like El Camino Real)?
Contrary to the belief of certain commmenters, the decision covered in this article is not due to AB 2097.
Impetus for that change was that the City committed to it when in its Housing Element (approved by all council members). So if there is blame to assign, it’s not just at State level.
I’m curious about how it’ll apply to existing buildings (does it mean a 2 car garage could be converted into an ADU w/o replacing parking?)
Also wondering what this will mean for the Downtown Business District (since funding is based on the minimum parking requirements that are being eliminated).
Truly curious about how the city plans to get around ADA laws. This is shocking, targeting the disabled (differently abled?) people like my partner, who often need special accommodations! More pie-in-the-sky meddling, with the erroneous assumption that people don’t drive.
“Truly curious about how the city plans to get around ADA laws.”
Great comment, FrancesG. I’ve been wondering the same thing myself. I agree, it is shocking, and it seems to grossly discriminate against the differently abled population.
Ah yes, because all the streets are in such stable condition and the buses accommodate for absolutely everyone. This is such a slap in the face to those of us that have been having to take public transport for years and no improvement. The issue isn’t just the housing, nor is it just public transport, it is your lack of knowledge for how that would turn out. Low income, ADA compliance, etc. once again will have to be put to the side because of your false image of accomodation.
These people are not living in the real world, but subscribe to some idealistic fantasy that will never happen.
Just because parking becomes optional doesn’t mean projects can’t or won’t still have parking. They’ll just start charging for it separately or maybe they will leave things as they are. It’s a big gamble for any particular project to have no parking available for any tenant.
So apartments will cost less if they don’t include a parking space? I bet lots of folks would jump at those lower-cost apartments and then just park their cars on the already crowded streets. The developer will be long gone at that point and couldn’t care less. What a mess!
The apartments costing less is not what the landlord is looking for. They want to build apartments that bring in as much rent as possible.
“Contrary to the belief of certain commmenters, the decision covered in this article is not due to AB 2097.”
Sigh. Alert readers who actually READ the article will find these words:
“To comply with state law, AB 2097, Mountain View has already removed parking requirements for affordable housing developments, as well as most sites located within one-half mile of a major transit stop. Now it is going a step further to allow residential developers to bypass parking standards in areas that fall within the Downtown, San Antonio, East Whisman and El Camino Real precise plans.”
Voters deserve to understand the TRUTH: this bill was approved by State politicians in response to lobbying efforts by CA YIMBY. CA YIMBY needs to be held accountable for it’s role in creating parking shortages in Mountain View.
The disabled parking piece does bother me, but I would like to point out that residents had plenty of time to comment on it when the Housing Element was being written.
It’s also important to note that the policy is “no minimum parking”, not “no parking at all.”
The consensus among commenters appears to be that developers will (a) build apartments that no one will want to live in because there’s no parking and (b) make a lot of money doing so. Remember, developers make money by renting apartments, not by building them per se.
With slower population growth the city has to grasp at things that look good for increasing housing growth. This won’t increase building of housing or lower the rental prices. The landlords compete with buildings that have parking so offering a building with less parking is a marketing problem. Luckily the max parking is only needed part of the time. Some people may well opt for this new building without as much parking even if many won’t. It’s kind of the same situation as roommates looking for a unit to share and they have 3 cars and not enough parking available for all 3 cars.
@ivg
You are correct: Residents had time to comment on parking when the Housing Element was being written. But, as a long-time observer of local politics, I know that most people are not as involved as you and I. It is to be expected that most people—with busy work and family obligations—do not tune in until the last moment—or until their ox is gored. That is entirely normal across the many Bay Area cities I am familiar with. Voices need to be heard, whether early or late in the game.
Sorry, you are mistaken once again, @ivg.
News stories up until now about AB 2097 have been quite minimal. The only people who really knew about AB 2097 before it was SIGNED INTO LAW (in 2022, BEFORE the Housing Element was created) were those in the CA YIMBY movement. Isn’t that crazy? A bill that will dramatically create parking shortages in MV was signed into law in 2022 and most of the public had absolutely no clue when it was happening.
The Mercury News has NEVER reported on it, as far as I can see. The MV Voice ran a story in late 2022 that briefly mentioned it, but only after it had already been signed into law and implying that it was somehow related to office development: – https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2022/11/08/planning-commission-recommends-temporary-office-development-cap-downtown-but-with-some-conditions/
The public never had any possible chance to object to it.
What other conclusion can be made other than the mandates to create parking shortages were unfairly passed down by state politicians who truly have no regard for the harm that will be inflicted on ordinary residents?
What is happening now is completely and 100% outrageous. Democracy is a sham.
I desperately hope that those in the community who have previously been indifferent to politics really take time to consider what has happened here.