The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAB 894 (Friedman) TVC - Oppose Unless Amended (As Amended 4.20.2023) FNTri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON June 13, 2023 The Honorable Laura Friedman California State Assembly 1021 O Street, Suite 5740 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: AB 894 (Friedman) Parking requirements: shared parking Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Letter of Opposition Unless Amended (As Amended 4.20.2023) Dear Assembly Member Friedman: On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, which includes the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, we write to express our respectful opposition to your bill, AB 894, unless amended to address our concerns as listed below. This bill would require public agencies, including cities, to allow proposed and existing developments to count underutilized and shared parking spaces toward a parking requirement imposed by the agency. Our concerns and suggested amendments are as follows: 1. Lack of Clarity around the definition of “underutilized parking spaces”. The idea of shared parking agreements is not something that we are inherently against. In fact, many of our cities authorize shared parking agreements where it makes sense. However, if the parties involved have similar peak hours of operation, it may be difficult to share the parking spaces effectively, and parking demands can shift or fluctuate over time (e.g. with change of occupancy or use of commercial properties that may have more or less intensive parking demands). In particular, we have some concern about section 1 paragraph (a) subsection (3) of the bill, which defines “underutilized parking” as: “parking where 20 percent or more of a development’s parking spaces are available during the period that the parking is needed by another user, group, development, or the public.” While we appreciate the inclusion of a requirement for a professionally-prepared parking study, the legislation would benefit from additional clarity on how the 20 percent available parking spaces is measured particularly with respect to determination of “available” spaces and “needed” parking. Further, in order to avoid the lack of parking spaces due to fluctuations in parking use or to accommodate potential changes in use and demand over time, we would recommend that for every two (2) spaces of “underutilized parking” identified in a shared parking agreement, only one (1) space may be counted toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, as defined in section 1 paragraph (c) of the bill. Or, in the least, a sufficient number of spaces should be provided to meet the greatest parking demands of the participating use types and to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency. If there is no conflict or parking deficiency, then it could count toward meeting the parking requirement. The Honorable Laura Friedman California State Assembly June 13, 2023 Page 2 Alternatively, “underutilized parking” could instead be defined as: a specific quantity of excess parking stalls within a development, as identified in a parking demand study using peer-reviewed methodologies such as surveying during peak hours, multiple survey times, etc. This would simplify the definition, account for local variations across the state, reduce the analysis burden on city staff, account for fluctuations in demand over time, and ensure the standard is backed by quantified analysis. 2. Parking needs vary by community. Section 1 paragraph (g) of the bill states: “A public agency shall not deny a shared parking agreement between entities solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the number of parking spaces available at the entity sharing underutilized parking.” While we fully understand and appreciate your desire to reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles and to bolster the use of public transit, not all communities’ public transit options are created equal, nor are all communities’ critical amenities – such as grocery stores – proximate to residences. Therefore, the reduction or elimination of parking spaces available for residents required to drive to access services is a real concern. 3. Additional concerns and suggestions. We have further concerns about certain details of the legislation including the following: a. We have considerable concerns about how shared parking arrangements would be practically secured and enforced: i. The legislation should stipulate that shared parking agreements shall be entered into voluntarily by entities (since local agencies cannot compel such agreements) ii. The approving agency shall be allowed to request reasonable verification that shared parking agreements have been or will be secured, prior to approval of a development proposing to use shared parking. iii. Agreements shall secure the long-term provision of shared spaces. iv. Section 65863.1(b) states that “A public agency shall allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, public agencies, or other entities.” However, it is not clear if agencies can still impose a MUP/UP process. We would appreciate clarity on that. v. The legislation should require that shared parking agreements be recorded against both the subject parcel and the excess parking parcel. This would make it easier for city staff to ensure the agreement has been secured and ensure future users and city staff are more aware of such agreements. b. Section 65863.1(c)(2) of the legislation allowing for shared spaces on sites more than 2,000 feet apart should be eliminated, since shuttles and other transportation Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON The Honorable Laura Friedman California State Assembly June 13, 2023 Page 3 cannot be guaranteed to be available over the long term. Further, a “plan” for shuttles does not ensure that such transportation ever will be available. c. Section 65863.1(i) should be revised to indicate that shared parking shall not reduce or eliminate the number of Electric Vehicle parking spaces that would have otherwise applied, in addition to parking accessible to persons with disabilities. d. Section 65863.1(h) should provide a more precise definition of a “designated historic resource” and limit the shared parking provision to such resources listed on a Federal, state, or local historic register. Further, this clause should stipulate that the provision only applies where the conversion or adaption would increase the minimum amount of parking required to an amount in excess of the existing spaces available on-site, with such excess parking only permitted to be provided through shared parking, and with no exception for required parking for disabled persons. While in some instances it may make sense to authorize shared parking agreements, a relatively general set of criteria for requiring sharing parking agreements – as proposed in the current iteration of this bill – could have significant negative impacts on communities such as ours. We hope to work with your office to find consensus and get the bill to a point where we may remove our opposition. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, CC: Senator Scott Wiener, Chair – Senate Housing Committee Senator Steve Glazer Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan __________________ ____________________ ____________________ Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore Mayor Robert Storer Mayor Melissa Hernandez Mayor John Marchand __________________________ __________________________ City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon Mayor Karla Brown Vice-Mayor Mark Armstrong