Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

The Merc is highlighting a 23-story apartment building with less than one parking space for every three units. Guess what? It’s a problem

The Fay apartment tower in downtown San Jose was built to draw residents back to the city, a sleek high-rise with rooftop views and luxury amenities. But two years later, the building is 60% vacant, and city officials say one key reason stands out: not enough parking. Two years after it opened with fewer than one parking spot for every three apartments, The Fay has plunged into foreclosure.

The Fay’s parking problems provide an early test of a 2022 statewide law that erased parking requirements on housing developments within a half mile of a major public transit stop. But those policies are colliding with California’s deep-rooted car culture — and in pockets around the Bay Area, the signs of pushback are starting to show.

I love it when they talk about our “car culture” like it’s some Happy Days muscle car cruise night memory or a low-rider meet up. Or drag racing up at Ocean Beach before they closed the formerly Great Highway. But cars are intrinsic to everyday life if you need things like groceries, trips to the vet, Home Depot, etc etc etc.

Across the Bay Area, tenants living in housing projects with limited parking are finding themselves running up parking fines and doing battle with neighbors over street parking. At some affordable housing projects, where parking requirements were eased as early as 2015, the frustration is mounting. “I have 20 parking violations,” said Candy Sandoval, a custodian and single mother of four who lives at Quetzal Gardens low-income housing in East San Jose, “plus my car was vandalized because of parking on the street.”

Her fellow tenants are so exasperated without enough parking — there are 42 spots to accommodate 70 apartments — some of them park in silent protest directly in front of the building, smack in the middle of a designated bus stop.

I’ll bet you would stump Google and ChatGPT is you asked, “how does a single mother of four manage without a car?” This little charade is creeping into B’game as well. The latest example is a proposal at 2 Park Rd. where Crosby N Gray is located. While not nearly as bad as The Fay or Quetzal Gardens, it’s proposed to have 140 spaces for 144 “units”. One really needs to consider the number of bedrooms and the number of units to understand real parking needs. Will we have to rename it No Park Rd.?

Posted in , , , , ,

9 responses to “Parking Ah-ha: It’s a necessity”

  1. AJ

    I’m going to respectfully disagree with tagging this with “Sacramento stupidity”. They got rid of a rule that requires businesses to build parking in certain cases. That leaves it up to the business to decide if it necessary or not. Isn’t this a case of “The business went with a cheaper option (not building more parking), which they thought would work. It did not”?

    I’m a longtime reader, first time commenter. I often disagree with this site, but I really appreciate the local coverage. Hope you don’t mind dissenting opinions!

  2. AJ

    Ok I’ve found the rebuttal to my own comment. I looked up the law (AB 2097) and it *prohibits* a public agency from imposing parking requirements in those cases. That was unclear to me. So I retract my specific argument 🙂

    I’ll save you my next argument for another time haha

  3. AJ

    Wait sorry, I was confused. I read that as “Sac says you cannot build parking in housing near transit”. That’s incorrect. I re-enter my first argument
    Feel free to delete these last two comments of mine to clean it up. Sorry for the triple post

  4. Joe

    Thanks first-timer.
    It takes a lot to have a comment deleted and yours don’t cross the line (delivered respectfully or not 🙂
    You are not wrong to be confused about the shifting rules on development or parking requirements
    You are wrong when you write:

    That leaves it up to the business to decide if it necessary or not. Isn’t this a case of “The business went with a cheaper option (not building more parking), which they thought would work. It did not”?

    The reason you are wrong is because the effects are felt by the neighborhood. If a restaurant or clothing store goes out of business nobody is damaged (except perhaps the nearby retail merchants who have an empty storefront next to them for a while. Side note: Joe and the Juice is Open!)

    If massive amounts of overflow cars flood a neighborhood the residents endure the damage and the police expend energy writing this lady 20 tickets. The YIMBYs don’t care though. They don’t even think you should have a car……………

  5. Some years ago, as plans for a nearby apartment building were on the drawing board, they offered one on-site parking place for each unit. These were studio, one, two and three bedroom apartments. I asked a planning commisioner if it would be wise to count bedrooms and not solely front-doors. The response was “Good idea, but that’s not how we do it.”

  6. The Shadow Nose

    Some investigative journalist should dig into these Yimby group’s finances. They have loads of lawyers and people who are probably paid to show up at county and city meetings to appear bigger than they really are. It’s follow the money time because there is a lot of it sloshing around even if a couple building go bankrupt.

  7. AJ

    > cars flood a neighborhood the residents endure the damage
    The street parking shouldn’t be free then. Charge a cheap daily rate, and watch spots open up. That would curb the usage and fund any local improvements/repairs. It doesn’t make sense that cars get to sleep for free in the middle of one of the most expensive cities to live in the country.

    Politically unviable in SJ? Probably. But free street parking gets paid for by somebody. I think it should be the people who are using it.

    Thanks for the reply, Joe! Once again, I seriously appreciate you keeping us informed of local news.

  8. JP

    I love how people who spend half their day whining about affordability have no problem adding expenses to other peoples’ budgets. Street parking isn’t free now. It is paid for by our property taxes just like the street sweeping and trees and whatever else they provide. And you can bet the affordable housing people aren’t paying their fair share of property taxes either. Why should they when there are handouts galore.

  9. Handle Bard

    They speak of “affordability” from every stage and screen,
    While adding fees and mandates where none had ever been.
    Each promise comes with paperwork, each slogan with a cost,
    And somehow in the helping hand, another dollar’s lost.

    They mourn the burden on the crowd, the struggle and the strain,
    Then raise the price of homes and goods and call it progress gained.
    The speeches praise relief for all in tones both grand and wise,
    Yet wallets tell a different tale beneath the lofty cries.

Leave a Reply


The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community.  Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California.  Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board.  Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.


All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026

Discover more from The Burlingame Voice

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading