From: John Shenk
To: Council, City
Cc: Clerk, City; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed
Subject: Request to Support Staff’s Original Recommendation on AB 2097 Parking Requirements Date: Monday, February 3, 2025 10:39:01 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members,
Amendments to Palo Alto Municipal Code Titles 18 and 21 are Item 8 on your agenda tonight.
Many have raised concerns over the new parking requirements in response to AB 2097, and we strongly echo them. Instead of proceeding with the current council-directed language, we urge you to pause and adopt Staff’s original recommendation, which provides a more balanced and reasoned approach.
There was much debate between Council and the City Attorney and the Director of Community Development it is hard for many to understand why Council is pushing the State Law and inviting legal action to settle what most communities have accepted. We encourage you to follow the legal advice provided by the City Attorney.
This meeting’s Staff Report correctly frames the status (emphasis added):
"On November 12, 2024, the City Council directed staff to require accessible and
electric vehicle parking based on the amount of parking that would have been required had AB 2097 not been enacted. Prior to this direction, staff only applied accessible and electric vehicle parking based on the amount of parking actually provided on-site as part of a development."
My main focus is the University Downtown (CD-C) area so my comments are focused on specific anticipated impacts and realities of this area.
The 11/12/24 Staff Report (pages 10&11 of the mini-packet) recommended an approach consistent with the PTC recommendations and with neighboring cities’ interpretation and with State law that includes:
• “...requiring ADA & EVCS parking may create other challenges related to project costs and urban design principles. In addition, requiring ADA and EVCS parking when parking is not otherwise provided could invite legal challenges given the ambiguity in the law.”
• "Alternatively, as conceptually supported by the PTC, the City could look at developing a policy to distribute ADA parking spaces on streets or other public property within the AB 2097 radius. While this policy may limit direct on-site access to a specific property, distributing ADA spaces throughout the district could expand universal access to a greater number of individuals visiting these areas and would not just serve an AB 2097 qualifying project’s tenants or visitors.”
• “...staff recommends that if of interest, the City Council provide this direction for staff to report back with options on implementation, costs, and any resource constraints.
Staff from the Office of Transportation are currently working on a municipal code parking update scheduled to go to the PTC later this year and this effort could potentially be included in that policy discussion. This approach also coincides with efforts underway in the City’s public works department, which already has an operational system in place for installing EVCS spaces in the public right of way and it is also creating a new electric mobility strategic plan through the City’s S/CAP efforts." • "Based on the practical challenges and legal risks described above, the attached ordinance has been drafted to not require on-site ADA or EVCS parking spaces for qualifying AB 2097 projects. If Council wishes to provide alternative direction, staff can return with a separate ordinance to implement that direction in early 2025. If Council is inclined to require ADA and EVCS parking, staff offers the following secondary recommendation: The on-site parking requirement should be paired with an in-lieu fee option. This in-lieu fee could be based on the cost to convert existing spaces in the right- of-way and in public lots to ADA and EVCS spaces. This would mitigate the problem of needing to accumulate significant funds before the fees can be expended.” Importantly, Staff explicitly advised against requiring ADA/EV spaces when none are voluntarily included in a proposed project. This aligns with AB 2097’s intent and with how our neighboring cities interpret the State law to facilitate development near transit, not obstruct it. The City Attorney confirmed that state and federal law do not require additional mandates for ADA and EVCS stalls.
Requiring parking, even in small amounts, would force projects in the University Avenue’s downtown to build extremely costly underground garages, rendering projects economically infeasible and also stuck since many sites are literally precluded by City Ordinance from having a curb cut for on-site parking. As Ken Hayes (a highly respected local architect) and Staff have outlined, this approach will discourage or even make impossible housing production rather than promote it.
Moreover, downtown sites in the Parking Assessment District have already constructed and are still paying for parking, including ADA and EVCS stalls throughout the downtown.
Imposing additional requirements contradicts this system and creates unnecessary practical and financial burdens. The sites within the Assessment District that have paid for the parking already should be given credit for those stalls to enable them to be redeveloped without new added constraints since they already provide parking.
Staff’s recommendation and Staff’s previous presentation and answers to Council questions allows for further study to ensure that new policies neither create unintended consequences that would stifle the development AB 2097 encourages, nor trigger challenges from the HCD, nor create internal inconsistencies with other City codes further confusing prospective project sponsors.
I urge you to adopt Staff’s original recommendation consistent with our neighbors or simply allow time for proper study rather than enacting policies that will hinder the practical and economic feasibility of projects that AB 2097 specifically enables in the University Avenue downtown area.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
John Shenk
C.E.O. | C.F.O.
Thoits Bros., Inc.
From: Amie Ashton
To: Council, City
Cc: Charlie Weidanz; Richard Hackmann
Subject: Agenda Item #8 - AB 2097 Implementation
Date: Sunday, February 2, 2025 3:58:56 PM
Attachments: Agenda Item #8 AB 2097 (02.02.25).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
We urge you to reconsider amendments related to Electric Vehicle (EV) charging and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking spaces as part of Zoning Ordinance amendments to implement AB 2097 for the reasons outlined in the attached letter.
Thank you,
Amie Ashton
Executive Director
Palo Alto Forward
February 2, 2025
SUBJECT: Item #8 - AB 2097 Ordinance Amendments
Dear Mayor Lauing and Council Members,
We urge you to reconsider amendments related to Electric Vehicle (EV) charging and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking spaces as part of Zoning Ordinance amendments to implement AB 2097.
The proposed additional EV/ADA parking requirements will hinder housing development.
We need to remove barriers to housing, not put up new ones - as also stated in the letter received from Ken Hayes on December 12, 2024. These new parking requirements should be further analyzed by the City consistent with Housing Element Program 3.2 B, which calls for an assessment detailing the impacts of new regulations on housing production and recommended solutions to address those impacts.
Additional parking requirements will also create barriers to filling commercial vacancies and implementing tenant improvements on California and University Avenues. Under AB 2097, allowed commercial uses are interchangeable without costly in-lieu parking fees or additional parking analysis. Further, these additional EV/ADA parking requirements are inconsistent with Council’s current efforts to improve and revitalize our downtown areas.
AB 2097 was approved by the state to reduce the cost of housing and reduce slashing pollution, while facilitating walkable, transit-accessible neighborhoods. Diverse groups such as the Sierra Club of California, American Association of Retired Persons, Habitat for Humanity California, League of Women Voters of California, and Midpen Housing supported AB 2097. There are better and more thoughtful ways to ensure EV charging stations and additional ADA parking spaces are provided within 0.5-mile of transit if that is a Council priority.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Amie Ashton
Executive Director, and on behalf of the Board of Palo Alto Forward
From: [email protected]
To: Council, City
Cc: Lait, Jonathan
Subject: Item 8 on 2/3 agenda
Date: Sunday, February 2, 2025 10:56:11 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing and council members,
I am writing to urge you NOT to approve item 8 with regard to ADA/EVCS parking requirements.
I have read Ken Hayes letter attached to the staff report. The letter raises what are to me serious concerns about the impact of this item on project costs and technical feasiblity.
Council and staff have made significant progress in eliminating constraints/barriers to developments that meet city goals.
Item 8 appears to reverse course and potentially add costs that can convert projects that are financially feasible into the not-feasible zone.
In m review of the new staff report, I did not see any analysis of the impact on project feasibility of approving item 8.
I encourage the council to revisit their original request and disapprove item 8.
BUT at a minimum if council wishes to proceed, an independent feasibility analysis should be conducted and some consideration of how imposing new costs will appear to HCD.
Stephen Levy