MTC Smart Growth Technical Assistance: Reform Campaign Survey of Bay Area Cities Requirements: Summary Report Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia April 11, 2012
MTC Smart Growth Technical Assistance: Reform Campaign Survey of Bay Area Cities Requirements: Summary Report This summary report provides an overview of city parking requirements in the Bay Area based on a survey of 52 cities throughout the Bay Area (just over half of the region s 101 cities). It provides baseline information on the existing context for parking policies in the Bay Area, in order to better understand how codes may be revised to better support smart growth development patterns. This report is part of the documentation being prepared for MTC for a series of workshops on parking that will be convened under the auspices of MTC s Smart Growth Program, which seeks to support local jurisdictions in implementing local parking policy reform to support smart growth. The report looks at variations in parking policy by place type regional centers, urban areas, core suburbs, and outer suburbs. It also identifies special treatments for downtowns or transit station areas. About 30 percent of the cities surveyed include special downtown or transit area requirements. It is noted that downtown or transit area policies are only addressed in this report if they have been incorporated in the existing zoning code some cities may have specific plans that provide additional reductions that have not yet been incorporated into the zoning code (the implications of which are addressed in the conclusion section of this report). The standards surveyed are included in Appendix A. Some transportation and parking experts have advocated that cities should eliminate or sharply reduce parking requirements, especially in urban centers and transit hubs. They note that eliminating parking requirements is not the same thing as prohibiting parking. Rather, it allows both home builders and businesses to consider their parking needs based on market demand, rather than city code requirements. Noting that each parking space adds as much as $30,000 to the cost of a development, they add that by eliminating the requirement for a minimum number of parking spaces, housing is made more affordable and accessible to broader diversity of households. For an example of a legislative proposal in this area, AB 710 was proposed in California in 2011 to limit the ability of cities to require parking in excess of one per residential unit for transit intensive locations. This memo also uses this survey to broadly compare current cities requirements with such proposals. The study reviewed existing zoning code sections establishing parking standards in Alameda County, 1 Contra Costa County, 2 Marin County, 3 Napa County, 4 San Mateo County, 5 San Francisco, Santa Clara 1 Alameda County cities surveyed: Alameda, Dublin, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Pleasanton, and San Leandro. 2 Contra Costa County cities surveyed: Antioch, Concord, El Cerrito, Hercules, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, and Moraga. 3 Marin County cities surveyed: San Rafael and Novato. 1
County, 6 Solano County, 7 and Sonoma County. 8 In particular, the survey evaluated regulations and standards in zoning codes for residential and non-residential parking minimums (and in some cases maximums), various parking provisions (including exemptions), and provisions that support alternative modes of transportation and transportation demand management. City Requirements for Residential Units All of the cities surveyed currently include parking minimums in their zoning codes for at least some of their districts, tied to the number of residential units. Requirements varied based on several factors, including the unit use type (i.e. multifamily versus single family), the structure type (i.e. apartment or townhouse), location of the use (by zoning or special district), the number of bedrooms, and in some cases, the square footage of units. Overall, as shown in Chart 1, 90 percent of cities establishing minimum requirements for residential parking use the number of bedrooms in a unit, 69 percent of cities use the unit use type, 33 percent of cities use the type of structure, 29 percent factor in the specific location, and 10 percent of cities use square footage. In practice, the use type and structure type are closely linked, and several cities use a combination; only six of the surveyed cities do not use either of these measures. 4 Napa County cities surveyed Napa City. 5 San Mateo County cities surveyed: Brisbane, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, and San Mateo. 6 Santa Clara County cities surveyed: Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, and Sunnyvale. 7 Solano County cities surveyed: Benicia, Fairfield, Suisun City, Vacaville, and Vallejo. 8 Sonoma County cities surveyed: Cloverdale, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, and Sebastopol. 2
Residential Requirements Of the cities surveyed, minimums ranged from no required spaces in certain neighborhoods (San Francisco) up to four unit. The average for the lowest number of required unit was 1.2 unit (ranging from zero to two). The average for the highest number of spaces required per unit was 2.5 unit (ranging from one to four). In addition, most cities have requirements for guest parking, which range from zero unit to 1.125 unit. Most cities also have requirements for covered parking, usually ranging from one to two of the required spaces, depending on the base parking requirements. The lowest and highest parking standards for each city are shown in Chart 2. 3
4
Cities included in the study were categorized by place type: regional centers, urban areas, core suburbs, and outer suburbs. The study found that while the lowest average standards were located in the regional centers (San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose), the outer suburbs had the next lowest average minimums, with urban areas and core suburbs requiring slightly more parking on average, as shown in Chart 3. In general, place type does not relate directly to parking minimums, which are in some cases quite low in suburban areas, and high in some more typically urban areas. Only three cities have maximums for their citywide residential parking standards (San Francisco 1.5, Oakland four, Novato three, and Gilroy 1.1 to 2.2). Special District Reductions Seventeen special districts that include reduced requirements for downtowns, central business districts, commercial corridors, or transit oriented areas are included in the zoning ordinances of 16 of the cities surveyed (including two separate districts in Walnut Creek). Of those areas, 71 percent include reduced parking requirements for residential uses. s in these districts range from no spaces required (Oakland) to a high of 2.4 unit. The average ranged from one to 1.5. Additional area specific maximum requirements were also found in two cities (Alameda and Redwood City). 5
City Requirements for Non Residential Uses requirements for retail and office uses show less variation than those for residential uses; all of the cities surveyed include parking standards for these uses. Standards are typically determined based on the square feet of a development, typically expressed in terms of the number of 1,000 square feet of gross floor areas in a development. Average non residential minimums by place type were lowest in the regional centers (3.3 for retail and 2.3 for office), and averaged around four spaces per 1,000 square feet for all other place types (from 3.8 for office to 4.2 for retail), as shown in Chart 4. Most of the special districts identified were located in downtowns or key commercial districts. Overall, 94 percent of the special districts identified include reduced parking minimums for non residential uses. Retail s for retail range from 1.0 to 6.25 1,000 square feet of floor area, with the average requirement around 4.0 1,000 square feet of floor space. Only two cities, San Francisco and Gilroy, include maximums for retail parking citywide. Special District Reductions Oakland and San Jose have no minimum requirement for retail in their Central Business District and Downtown zoning areas. The average requirement in special districts for retail is 3.1 per 1,000 square feet, nearly 1 space per 1,000 square feet less than the citywide standards. Maximums San Francisco includes a parking maximum by identifying a limited number of allowable spaces in addition to the base requirement. Required and allowable spaces vary by use and district. Several cities include maximums only for Specific Districts, such as Downtowns or Transit Areas. 6
Office s for office range from 0.7 to 6.66 1,000 square feet of floor area, with the average requirement around 3.8 1,000 square feet of floor space. Only three cities include maximums for office parking (San Francisco, which varies; Gilroy at 3.6 1,000 square feet; and Pleasant Hill at 4.0 1,000 square feet). Special District Reductions Oakland has no minimum requirement for office in its Central Business District. The average requirement in special districts for office is 3.1 per 1,000 square feet, only slightly less than the average for citywide requirements. Provisions and Reductions Zoning regulations often have a number of similar parking code provisions, including exemptions, reductions, or other parking management policies. While the provisions included here represent a wide range of typical parking provisions, nearly half of the cities surveyed include other exemptions in their code. Exemptions or Reductions Most cities include provisions for shared parking (77 percent of cities surveyed), shown in Chart 5. Shared allows parking spaces to be shared by more than one user, thereby reducing the space required for parking (and the related costs) and increasing the efficiency of parking facilities since most spaces are only used part time by a particular use. All of the regional centers, about 80 percent of urban areas and outer suburbs, and 63 percent of core suburbs include provisions for shared parking. Shared Redwood City allows for a shared parking bonus for commercial uses, where all shared parking spaces count as two parking spaces toward the fulfillment of the minimum requirement. San Carlos allows the total number of required parking spaces to be reduced up to 40 percent with Planning Commission approval where a shared parking facility will serve more than one use. 37 percent of cities include provisions for common area parking, and 15 percent of cities surveyed include provisions allowing exemptions for small stores. While several cities have separate minimum requirements for senior housing, only 27 percent provide an exemption. 7
Different Standards for Transit Proximity and Downtown Areas Nearly 70 percent of all the cities surveyed have different (reduced) parking standards for projects that are within walking distance of transit ( transit proximity ) and/or located downtown, with 25 percent of cities including both, as shown in Chart 6. While some of these are special districts that include a separate set of parking minimums, in many cases they simply allow reductions in the parking requirement or have other special provisions, such as allowing a fee to be paid in lieu of providing parking on site, typically where there is a public parking district to which owners contribute (an in lieu fee). It should be noted that in this section, and in zoning ordinances generally, exemption is used to describe an exception to the standard requirements, and not necessarily to imply that developments are exempt from providing any parking at all. Overall, 50 percent of cities include a transit proximity exemption and 44 percent of cities include a downtown area exemption. As shown in Chart 5, transit proximity exemptions are most closely related to place type: 100 percent of the regional centers, 58 percent of urban areas, 50 percent of core suburbs, and only 38 percent of outer suburbs provide transit proximity exemptions. 8
Alternative Modes and Transportation Demand Management As shown in Chart 7, the most common provision for alternative modes was for bicycle parking, with 79 percent of cities including provisions for bicycles. Of these, some required bicycle parking generally, while others include requirements for bike parking tied to the number of car spaces, in many cases replacing required car spaces (i.e. 1 parking space may be omitted for each 8 bicycle spaces provided). Only 31 percent have similar standards for motorcycles. 27 percent of cities provide standards with locational preference for car share vehicles, and 13 percent include locational preference for alternative fuel vehicles. Bicycle Milpitas requires bicycle parking at the rate of five percent of the car parking. In addition, one parking space may be omitted for each eight bicycle spaces provided. Sebastopol requires that multifamily and non residential projects provide bicycle spaces equal to a minimum of 15 percent of the required vehicle spaces, unless garage space is provided. 9
Other Policies regulations also address special needs and dimensional/design requirements. provisions for the disabled, meeting requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) were the most common (81 percent of cities surveyed). In contrast, only 29 percent of cities have provisions for unbundling of parking spaces from units (shown in Chart 8 by place type). Unbundling allows or requires development to rent or sell parking separately, rather than automatically including it with the unit or rental cost. This makes the parking cost more transparent and allows consumers to choose how much parking they wish to pay for. Regional centers most commonly included unbundling policies. 67 percent of cities include provisions requiring a certain percent of spaces to be designed for compact cars, thus reducing the total space allocated to parking and the costs of providing parking. Unbundling San Francisco requires that all offstreet parking spaces accessory to residential uses in new structures of 10 dwelling units or more shall be leased or sold separately from the rental or purchase fees such that potential renters or buyers have the option of renting or buying a residential unit at a price lower than would be the case if there were a single price for both the residential unit and the parking space. Overall, 46 percent of cities surveyed include provisions that recognize public parking districts, which were most common in the core suburbs and urban areas, as shown in Chart 8. 37 percent of cities allow for in lieu fees, which was most common in the regional centers, as shown in Chart 8. As noted above, in lieu fees allow a developer to pay a fee into a City fund rather than build the parking spaces on site. In several cases, in lieu fees were an option only within special districts, while in others, the fee can only be paid if a public parking district has been created. 10
Conclusions There is a wide range of parking policies in the cities of the Bay Area. Almost all, with the notable exceptions of downtown San Jose, downtown Oakland, and certain areas of San Francisco, have required parking minimums for residential units regardless of the availability of parking in the area, commercial parking facilities, or other transport options; all cities have parking minimums for nonresidential uses, typically determined based on the square feet of a development. Most cities surveyed do not currently meet the standards proposed in AB 710 to limit city parking requirements for transit intensive locations to one per residential unit. In fact, more than a third of the cities surveyed have minimums greater than 1 at the lowest end (usually for studio apartments), and only San Francisco had a minimum of 1 at the high end all other cities surveyed include rates of more than one space per unit at the high end. To the extent that these minimum requirements are causing more parking to be built than the buyers and renters in the housing market would demand, these policies are causing excessive development costs in the form of parking amenities. Changes in these minimums, to allow more market driven provision of parking for urban and infill developments, are a key component of parking reform. Bay Area cities have implemented a range of other parking policies and strategies that can potentially reduce the demand for parking spaces, particularly in downtowns and close to quality transit (i.e. discounted transit passes for residential developments, commuter benefit ordinances, bicycle parking, shared parking, unbundling, etc.) or reduce the costs of providing parking by allow for more efficient use of space. Policy examples for a wide range of parking strategies can be found in all place types regional centers, urban areas, core suburbs, and outer suburbs throughout the Bay Area. Use of these policy approaches could be more widespread to better support smart growth goals, and some policy options, such as public parking districts, exemptions for small spaces, or further accommodation of alternative modes of transportation could be better utilized in most cities. In addition, cities need to make greater efforts to improve the clarity of their parking requirements in the zoning code. In many cases, cities that have adopted different standards for certain areas (transit stations, downtowns, other specific plans) have not integrated these changes into their zoning code. Thus, project applicants looking only at the published code online, for example, may not realize that their site is part of a planning area with different often reduced requirements. Similarly, variation in parking requirements throughout a city, including zoning and special districts, may make it more difficult for developers to have a clear understanding of their options. Efforts to improve the clarity and usability of codes should be encouraged. For example, some cities are moving towards interactive map based ordinances where the zoning database is linked to a GIS map, with which an applicant or staffer may click on a parcel on a web based interface and see all of the requirements and exemptions that apply. This approach, and others like it, can help reduce confusion. The next step in this project is to look in greater depth at a series of case studies, in the Bay Area and beyond, to provide a series of model policies and regulations for local jurisdictions to use as a starting point if they chose to refine local parking strategies, minimum parking requirements and parking management practices. This survey and the follow on case studies then will be discussed in a series of 11
workshops with local agency planners and others to improve understanding of best practices for parking and how these might be implemented. 12
Appendix A 1
Bay Area Standard Survey: Citywide March 3, 2012 Alameda County Alameda Dublin City Place Type (lowest parking unit) (highest parking unit) covered (not in addition to minimum) Maximum unit) Residential Standards Guest (per unit) Guest Detail Rules for Determining Required Area 2 3 - - Projects - with A, U +/ - 3,000 SF 10+ dwelling 1 2 1-2 - 0.5 units A, B, S, U +/ - 4,000 SF Notes Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Pleasanton 1.5 3 1-3 - 0.5 MF B, L, T, U - 1.5 2 1-2 - 10% guest parking for MF residential B, L, T, U - 1 2 - - 0.25 MF B, U Mobile home parks calc by type Plus 20% of the 1 2 1-2 - 1 MF units B, L, T, U - Center 1 2 1-2 4 - - A, L, T, U 2 2 - - 0.14 - B, S, U - San Leandro 1 3 1-2 - 0.25 MF A, B, L, T,U - Contra Costa County Antioch 1.5 3 1-0.2 MF B, L, T, U - Concord Area 1.5 2 1-0.33 - B, S, U - El Cerrito Area 1 2 1-2 - - - B, L, T, U - Hercules 1.5 3 1-2 - 0.5 MF B, T, U - Moraga 2 2 2-0.5-1 MF L, U - Orinda 1 4 1-2 - 0.25 MF B, T, U - Pinole 1 3 1-2 - 0.3 MF B, T, U - Pittsburg 1 2 1 - - - T, U - Pleasant Hill 1 2 1-0.5 MF B, T, U - Richmond Area 1 2 1 0.2 MF B, S, T, U - San Ramon 1 4 1-4 - 0.25 MF B, T, U - Walnut Creek Area 1.25 2 1-2 - - - B, L, T, U - Marin County Novato 1.2 2.2 1 3 0.33 - B, T, U - San Rafael Area 1 4 1-2 - 0.2 MF B, T, U - Napa County Napa City Area 1.25 2 1-1 SF B, S, U -
Bay Area Standard Survey: Citywide March 3, 2012 Residential Standards City Place Type San Francisco County (lowest parking unit) (highest parking unit) covered (not in addition to minimum) Maximum unit) Guest (per unit) Guest Detail Rules for Determining Required Notes Maximum in addition to the base San Francsico Center 0 1 0 1.5 0 - L, U minimum, not exceeding 1 assessory space/unit. San Mateo County Brisbane 1 4 1-2 - - - B, S,T, U - Daly City East Palo Alto Menlo Park Millbrae Area 1 2 - - - - B, S,T, U - Area 1 2 - - 0.2 MF B, S, U - 1 2 1-0.33 MF B, L, U - 1 2 1-2 - - - B, L, S, T, U Apartments specified by CUP Redwood City San Bruno 2 2 1-2 0.25 MF B, L, S, U Downtown Zone: 0.75-1.5 min and 1.5-3 max 1 2 1-2 - 0.1 MF A, B, T, U +/- 1,825 SF San Carlos San Mateo Number of covered spaces should 0.75 2 See Notes - 0.25 SF B, T, U equal or exceed the number of units 1.5 3 - - 0.2 - B, U -
Bay Area Standard Survey: Citywide March 3, 2012 Residential Standards City Place Type Santa Clara County (lowest parking unit) (highest parking unit) covered (not in addition to minimum) Maximum unit) Guest (per unit) Guest Detail Rules for Determining Required Notes Campbell Gilroy 1.5 3.5 1-0.2 MF B, S, U - 1 2 1 2.2 0.25 MF B, T, U - Milpitas Morgan Hill 1 3 1-2 - 0.15.20 MF B, T, U 1.5 2.5 1-0.25 SF, 0.33 MF B, T, U Plus (1) space for every bedroom over 4 bedrooms Guest parking not required in the Downtown Area Residential Density Control System Boundary Mountain View Area 1.5 2 1-0.225 MF B, T, U 15% of required spaces Palo Alto for 3+ Area 1.25 4 1-1.125 Bedrooms B, L, T, U Underground residential parking prohibited except pursuant to permits & approvals San Jose Center 1.25 2 2 - - - B, T, U - Sunnyvale 1 4 1-2 - 0.25 MF; 0.4 SF B, S, U - Solano County Benicia 1.2 2 0-1 - - - B, T, U - Fairfield 1 2 1-2 - rental units: 0.14. owner 0.14 units: 0.25 B, T, U - Suisun City 1.5 2 1-0.25 MF B, S, U - Vacaville 1.5 2 1-2 - 0.2 MF B, L, T, U No MF shall provide less than 1.75 Unit Vallejo 1 2 - - 0.2 Or at least (1) B, S, U - Sonoma County Cloverdale Petaluma Rohnert Park 1 2 - - 0.5-2 - B, S,T, U - Plus (1) space for every bedroom 1 3 1-3 - - - B, T, U over 4 bedrooms Plus (1) space for every bedroom 1 2.5 - - 0.25 - B, T, U over 4 bedrooms Santa Rosa Sebastopol Area 1 4 1-0.5-1.5 MF B, S,T, U - 1 3 - - - - B, S,T, U -
Bay Area Standard Survey: Citywide March 3, 2012 Alameda County Alameda Dublin City Place Type Area Lowest Highest Retail Standards Office Standards Mixed Use Standards Maximum Special Rules for Determining Required Lowest Highest Maximum Rules for Determining Required 5 5 - - 4 4 - - 1 Rules for Determining Required Floor area beyond the 1st 1,000 sf. Sum of requried uses. 3.333 5 - Per CUP 2.85 4 - Based on primary use type Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Pleasanton Center 3.33 4 - - rict Reserved - - 2-4 5.71 - - 4 5 - - - 4 4-3.33 3.33 - Sum of requirements of various uses 4 5 - - 5 5 - - - - Requirements based on sum 1.11 2.5 - - 0.7 1.66 - - of activities 2 3.33-3.33 6.66 - - - - San Leandro Contra Costa County Antioch Concord Area El Cerrito Area Hercules Moraga Orinda Pinole Pittsburg Pleasant Hill Richmond Area San Ramon Walnut Creek Area Marin County 2 2 - - 3 3.33 - - 2 per unit (1) must be covered 5 5 - - 4 5-4 5 - - 2.5 3.33 - - sq. ft. of gross floor area - - 3.33 3.33 - - 3.33 3.33 - - 1-1.5 Above or below ft. 4 5 - - 2.5 5 - - - - 4 4-4 4 - GFA 4 4 - - 4 4 - - - - 2 3.3 - - 4 4 - - - - 2.86 4 - - 4 4 - - - - 4 4 - - 3.33 3.33 4 - - - 4 4 - - 3 3 - - - - 4 4.44 - - 4 4 - - 2 per unit - 4 4 - Rentable Floor Area (RFA) 3.51 4 - RFA - - Novato 3.33 5 - plus one space per company vehicle and one space for every 1,000 sf outdoor display 3.63 3.63 - - - Determined by type of use San Rafael Area Napa County Napa City Area 2.5 4 - - 4 5 - - - - 4 4 - Yes, see notes. 4 4 - - - Based on parking study provided by applicant
Bay Area Standard Survey: Citywide March 3, 2012 City Place Type San Francisco County San Francsico Center San Mateo County Brisbane Daly City Area East Palo Alto Area Menlo Park Millbrae Redwood City San Bruno San Carlos San Mateo Lowest Highest Retail Standards Office Standards Mixed Use Standards Maximum 1.0 5.0 varies Special Rules for Determining Required Lowest Highest Maximum Rules for Determining Required Rules for Determining Required required minimum plus maximum required minimum plus maximum assessory spaces 1.0 3.3 assessory varies spaces 0.5 Live work; 0.5 maximum 3.3 3.3 - - 3.3 4 - - - - 3.3 5 - - 3.3 5 - GFA 3.3 up to 21,000, 5 after 21,000-6.25 6.25 - - 5 5 - - - - 6 6 - GFA 4 5 - - - Divided by: 5k or less, 5k- 5 5 10k,10k-25k, 25k+ 3.3 3.3 - GFA - - 5 5 - - 3.3 4 - Peak Period Trips 1-1.5 Based on variance; never reduce the overall off street parking by more than 20% Plus a minimum of 75% of the normally required commercial parking 4 5 - - 3.3 4 - - - - 3.3 3.3 - - 2.85 3.33 - - Residential:1-1.5 plus 1 guest parking for every 4 units; non residential: 2.2-5 1000 sf 3.5 4.4 Except restaurants over 3,500 - square feet. 2.98 3.17 - - - -
Bay Area Standard Survey: Citywide March 3, 2012 City Place Type Santa Clara County Campbell Gilroy Lowest Highest Retail Standards Office Standards Mixed Use Standards Maximum 4 5 - Special Rules for Determining Required Lowest Highest Maximum Rules for Determining Required Plus one space per 1,000 sf outdoor display area. Lower rate for take-out food. Sitdown calc based on seats. 4.44 5 - GFA - - Rules for Determining Required 4 4 4.4-3.3 3.3 3.6 - - Sum of the requirements Milpitas 5 5 - - 4.16 5.5 - - See notes 1-3 plus one for every extra bedroom over 4 Morgan Hill 2.85 2.85 - - 4 4 - - - Can be uncovered Mountain View Area 4 5.6 - - 3.33 3.33 - - - - Palo Alto Area 2 5 - Separated by Separated by short term and long term parking 3.33 4 short term and - long term - - San Jose Center 5 5 - - 3.33 4 - - - Combined residential and commercial uses Sunnyvale Solano County Benicia Fairfield Suisun City Vacaville Vallejo Sonoma County Cloverdale Petaluma Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Sebastopol Area 5.55 5.55 - - 4.44 5.55 - - - 4 5 - - 3.33 4 - - I per unit - 4.5 5 - - 4 5 - - 4 4 - - 4 4 - - - - 3.3 4 - Yes 3.3 4 - Yes - - 4 5 - Yes 4 4 - Yes - - 4 4 - - 4 4 - - 1 per unit 3.3 3.3 - GFA 3.3 3.3 - GFA 3.3 3.3 - - 4 4 - - - - 4 4 - Gross leasable area 4 4 - - See notes 1.3 plus.5 per 3.3 3.3 - - 2.5 2.5 - - bedroom Based on accepted guidelines such as ITE or ULI 2 (multi-use/ flex w/ up to 30% office area) Provided residential is not > 2x the area of first floor commercial & commercial use provides all required parking. Res/retail: 50 % reduction of whichever use that is smaller; live/work: 2 per unit. Sum of required uses
Bay Area Standard Survey: Citywide March 3, 2012 Provisions (Yes/No): Alameda County Alameda Dublin City Place Type Area Shared/ Joint Commo n Area ADA Transit Proximity Exemptions Downtown Exemptions Small Stores Exemption s Senior Housing Exemption s Other Exemption s Compact car percentage Unbundlin g In-Lieu Fees Districts Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Pleasanton Center Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes San Leandro Contra Costa County Antioch Concord Area El Cerrito Area Hercules Moraga Orinda Pinole Pittsburg Pleasant Hill Richmond Area San Ramon Walnut Creek Area Marin County Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes No No No No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Novato Yes No Yes No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes San Rafael Area Napa County Napa City Area Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes
Bay Area Standard Survey: Citywide March 3, 2012 Provisions (Yes/No): City Place Type San Francisco County Shared/ Joint Commo n Area ADA Transit Proximity Exemptions Downtown Exemptions Small Stores Exemption s Senior Housing Exemption s Other Exemption s Compact car percentage Unbundlin g In-Lieu Fees Districts San Francsico Center San Mateo County Brisbane Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Daly City East Palo Alto Menlo Park Millbrae Area Area No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Redwood City San Bruno Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes San Carlos San Mateo Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Bay Area Standard Survey: Citywide March 3, 2012 Provisions (Yes/No): City Place Type Santa Clara County Shared/ Joint Commo n Area ADA Transit Proximity Exemptions Downtown Exemptions Small Stores Exemption s Senior Housing Exemption s Other Exemption s Compact car percentage Unbundlin g In-Lieu Fees Districts Campbell Gilroy Milpitas Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Morgan Hill No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Mountain View Area Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No Palo Alto San Jose Area Center Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sunnyvale Solano County Benicia Fairfield Suisun City Vacaville Vallejo Sonoma County Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Cloverdale Petaluma Rohnert Park No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No Santa Rosa Sebastopol Area Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No
Bay Area Standard Survey: Citywide March 3, 2012 Alternative Modes and TDM (short description of standard/provision) Alameda County Alameda Dublin City Place Type Area Bicycles (spaces required, e.g. per car spaces) Locational Preference for Car- Share Vehicles (Y/N) Motorcycles (spaces required, e.g. per car spaces) Bike racks/storage required in non res zoning districts No Ordinance 30-7.16 No 1 Bike space: 40 Car spaces No Motorcycle space substitution No Alternative Fuel Vehicles (Y/N) (Locational Preference or Sp. Provision) Notes Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Pleasanton Center One parking space may be omitted for each eight bicycle spaces provided. In commercial and industrial zones No 1 space may be omitted per 2 motorcycle spaces provided in commercial/industrial zones One parking space credit for every 4 bicycle spaces. Commercial: 1-4 stalls or 10%- 20% of auto, Residential: 1 per 4 auto spaces, Industrial: 10% of auto Carpool/vanpool subsidies, matching, preferential parking No One parking space credit for every 2 motorcycle spaces. No No No 1 No No No No Yes Chapter 17.117 No No No No No No No No San Leandro Contra Costa County Antioch Concord Area El Cerrito Area Hercules Moraga Orinda Pinole Pittsburg Pleasant Hill Richmond Area San Ramon Walnut Creek Area Marin County Commercial areas: 5% of auto requirement excluding exempt classifications. No No No Yes section 9-5.1707 No No No Bicycle and Motorcycle parking Bicycle and Motorcycle parking facilities No facilities No 2 Require bicycle parking Yes No Yes No No No No 3 No No No No Bicycle parking No No No Varies by use reduction No No Bicycle parking and storage facilities No No No Bicycle and Motorcycle parking No Bicycle and Motorcycle parking No No No No No Bicycle and Motorcycle Bicycle and Motorcycle Requirements No Requirements No 10% of required automobile No No No Novato Requires bike spaces and showers. Trip and travel demand reduction measures One space for every 50 automobile spaces. Trip and travel demand reduction measures San Rafael Area Napa County Napa City Area Varies by use and short and long term parking Chart of required spaces No Yes. 14.18.045 chart of required spaces 2 plus one per excess of 10 auto spaces No No No 4
Bay Area Standard Survey: Citywide March 3, 2012 Alternative Modes and TDM (short description of standard/provision) City Place Type San Francisco County Bicycles (spaces required, e.g. per car spaces) Locational Preference for Car- Share Vehicles (Y/N) Motorcycles (spaces required, e.g. per car spaces) Alternative Fuel Vehicles (Y/N) (Locational Preference or Sp. Provision) Notes San Francsico Center San Mateo County Brisbane Commercial based on SF, Residential 1/2 per unit if less than 50 units; 25 + 0.25/unit over 50. Yes No No 5 Varies by use and short long term parking Table of required spaces No Table of required spaces Daly City East Palo Alto Menlo Park Millbrae Area Area No No No No No No No No No No No No 10% of auto parking No Yes 2 stall minimum in all cases No 6 Redwood City San Bruno San Carlos San Mateo Varies by district Yes Yes 5% for lots with 100+ spaces Yes No No No No Short term: 10% of auto parking, min 4 per establishment; Long term residential: 1 space per 5 units; Long term other: 1 space per 20 auto spaces Yes. At least 10% of spaces in office and industrial areas. Substitute up to 5% auto parking No 7 Varies by use No No No
Bay Area Standard Survey: Citywide March 3, 2012 Alternative Modes and TDM (short description of standard/provision) City Place Type Santa Clara County Bicycles (spaces required, e.g. per car spaces) Locational Preference for Car- Share Vehicles (Y/N) Motorcycles (spaces required, e.g. per car spaces) Alternative Fuel Vehicles (Y/N) (Locational Preference or Sp. Provision) Notes Campbell Gilroy Milpitas Needed on lots with 20 or more spaces. 21.28.050 Yes Needed on lots with 20 or more spaces. No No No No 8 Maximum 5% of total required. One auto space can be omitted for every 8 bike spaces. No Maximum 5% of total required. No 9 No Morgan Hill No No No No Mountain View Area MF 1/unit + 1/10 units guest parking. 5% of vehicle for most non-residential. None for SF. A 36.37.100 Varies by Class I,II, and III facilities No No No Palo Alto San Jose Area Center Yes (unclear on quantitative values) Yes. Transportation Demand Management Program Long term: 60% Short term: 40% Yes Varies by use No Transportation Demand Management Program Includes design standards for clean air vehicles Sunnyvale Solano County Benicia Fairfield Suisun City Vacaville Vallejo Sonoma County Up to 5% of auto parking. Yes 19.46.030. minimum of 10% of auto parking reserved for carpool spaces for industrial and service uses. No No 10 5% of total auto parking with a few exceptions No No No Varies by use Yes.25.34.5 (B) office project reduction No No 11 Locking facilities required No 1 space per 25+ spaces No 5 bike spaces No No No 12 Should be provided in all residential uses. No No No 13 Cloverdale Petaluma Rohnert Park Required for > 5,000 SF No Requires a minimum usable area of 56 square feet. No 10% or 25% for commercial and community facilities. No No No Varies by use No No No Santa Rosa Sebastopol Area Varies by use No No No Required for multifamily and non residential uses No No No
Bay Area Standard Survey: Special Districts March 3, 2012 Special District Residential Standards Minimu m (lowest (highest covered Maximum Lowest Highest parking parking (not in Special Rules for Type of spaces addition to Guest Determining Required City Specific Regs per unit) unit) minimum) unit) Oakland (CBD) DZD 0 0 0 0 0 Special District Retail Standards Maximum Concord downtown business district DZD - - - - - - 4 4 - - San Rafael Downtown DZD 1 1.5 0-0 - - - - - Special Rules for Determining Required Plus 1 space per 300 sf for centers less than Novato Downtown Overlay/ specific plan DZD 1 2 - - 0.25-3.3 3.3 30,000 sf and 1 space per - 1,000 sf outdoor display Napa City Downtown District DZD 1 1.75 3 4 Redwood City downtown parking zone DZD 0.75 1.5-1.5-3 - - 6 6 6 - San Mateo downtown central parking and improvement district (CPID) DZD 1.2 2 - - 0.2 See notes 1.9 per emloyee 1.9 per emloyee - See notes Campbell Central Business Zoning District DZD 2 2 - - - - 2.9 2.9 - - Palo Alto (downtown parking assessment area) DZD - - - - - - 2 2 4.16 - San Jose Downtown Zoning Districts DZD 1 1 - - - 0 0 - - Sebastopol Downtown core district and northeast specific plan area DZD 0.8 2.4 - - - - 2.5 2.5 - - Alameda - community commerical district OZD 1 1-2 - - 2.5 2.9 5 - of 1 in Specific Plan, provided Hayward downtown core and central parking district OZD 1 1.5 1 - aggregate parking supply for residential - units at buildout is 1.5 3.17 3.17 - Except for theaters Antioch Rivertown District OZD - - - - - - 4 4 4 Walnut Creek Community Commercial Zoning District OZD - - - - - Based on CUP 4 5 - RFA Walnut Creek Pedestrian Retail Zoning District OZD - - - - - Based on CUP 3.3 3.3 - RFA Redwood City Mixed Provision for guest Use Zoning District OZD 1.5 2 - - 0.25 parking reductions 5 5 5 -
Bay Area Standard Survey: Special Districts March 3, 2012 City Oakland (CBD) Concord downtown business district Type of Specific Regs DZD DZD Special District Office Standards Lowest Highest Maximum Rules for Determining Required 0 0-0 Special District Mixed Use Maximu Standards m spaces Rules for per Determinin g Required Shared - - - - - - - Yes Additional Provisions (compared to Citywide code) Alternative Transit Proximit y Senior Housing Other Fuel Vehicles (Y/N) (Locational Exempti ons Exempti ons Exempti ons Unbun dling Preference or Sp. Provision) Notes San Rafael Downtown DZD 3.3 3.3 - - - - - Novato Downtown Overlay/ specific plan Napa City Downtown District DZD DZD 3.3 4-3 4 ground floor vs upper floor - - - Off hour Yes Redwood City downtown parking zone DZD 6 6 6 - - - - Yes San Mateo downtown central parking and improvement district (CPID) DZD 2.1-3.3 per employee Spaces equal the sum of the 2.1-3.3 per employee - See notes - requireme - nts Yes Separated by employee/ resident and visitor/ customer Campbell Central Business Zoning District DZD 2.35 2.35 - - - - - Yes Palo Alto (downtown parking assessment area) San Jose Downtown Zoning Districts Sebastopol Downtown core district and northeast specific plan area Alameda - community commerical district DZD DZD DZD OZD 3.22 3.22 4 - - - - 2.5 2.5 - Exception for travel agencies and real estate angencies live-work: 1.5 per unit - Reductions up to 50% 2.5 2.5 - - 2.5 - - 2.5 2.5 4 - - - - Hayward downtown core and central parking district OZD Antioch Rivertown District OZD Walnut Creek Community Commercial Zoning District OZD Walnut Creek Pedestrian Retail Zoning District OZD Redwood City Mixed Use Zoning District OZD 3.17 3.17 - Except for theaters - - - Yes 3 3 3 - - - - 4 5 - RFA - - - 3.33 3.33 - RFA - - - 3.3 3.3 4-1-1.5 - - Yes, table of requried spaces
Bay Area Standard Survey: Key March 3, 2012 Key MF= multi-family SF= single-family Rules for Determining Requirements: A=Square Feet B=Bedroom S= Structure (apartment, townhouse etc.) T=Use Type (single-family, multi-family) U= Units DZD: Special requirements for downtown zoning districts OZD: Special requirements for other zoning districts Notes 1 2 3 4.04.050 Provisions for part time parking. Concord (minimum res parking): Exception: Because it is in the city's interest to encourage continued owner-occupancy and investment in small, relatively old single-family dwellings, the approving body may grant an exception to the above requirement, in a case where an existing garage or carport is proposed to be converted to dwelling space, provided the exceptions are based on specific findings. Hercules (shared parking): For a use which operates on 2 or more shifts and the number of required off-street parking spaces is determined by the number of employees, the required off-street parking spaces shall be based upon the number of employees on the largest shift. 4 Napa City(retail special rules): If more than 25% of the gross square footage of a shopping center is occupied by a use or uses that require a higher parking standard (e.g., restaurants, bars, etc.) the parking for the individual uses shall be required unless a parking study and agreement are provided demonstrating how the shared parking demand will be met. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 San Francisco requires that for projects with 50 dwelling units or more, all residential accessory parking in excess of 0.5 unit shall be stored and accessed by mechanical stackers or lifts, valet, or other space-efficient means that reduces space used for parking and maneuvering, and maximizes other uses. Millbrae (other exemptions): All retail businesses located on the ground floor of existing buildings shall be exempt from a use permit for any off-street parking or parking in-lieu fees. San Carlos (shared parking): Total number of parking spaces may be reduced up to forty percent. This is the highest maximum. Some areas have a maximum of 1.1. Milpitas (guest parking) 15% for projects with parking structures, 20% for projects with parking garages. Incentives for underground parking 19.46.040 Provisions for company-owned vehicles each 300 square feet of gross floor area for the first floor; then one space for each 350 square feet of gross floor area for 12 each floor above the first floor; etc. 13 Provision for company vehicles.
D Y E T T & B H ATIA and Regional Planners 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 94111 415 956 4300 415 956 7315