Assembly Bill 2097, which eliminates city parking mandates within a half-mile of transit has elicited fear in the minds of some decision makers and residents in Palo Alto. Will our retail areas suffer due to lack of parking? Will our neighborhoods be crowded with parked cars?

These are legitimate concerns, but there’s a reason diverse groups such as the Sierra Club of California, AARP, Habitat for Humanity California, League of Women Voters of California, Midpen Housing (a local nonprofit affordable housing developer) supported AB 2097. Further, there’s a reason why the City of Mountain View voted to eliminate parking requirements for most housing projects. Let’s look at facts surrounding AB 2097 and also elimination of costly parking mandates more widely.

Instead of requiring developers to build a set number of parking spaces based on outdated codes, eliminating parking mandates allows developers to consider their project context and needs when planning for parking. Home builders, for example, won’t stop supplying parking, their project would never get financing. Rather, they will respond to demand for off-street parking based on the particular location and type of development, taking into account the requirements from lenders, as well as future renters and buyers.

As the godfather of parking, UCLA Professor Donald Shoup, has said, “free parking is a fertility drug for cars.” Studies show that excessive parking results in more driving. More driving means less transit ridership, which can drive down regularity of service, and in turn further drive down ridership. More drivers means more traffic and air pollution, which can further drive down biking – especially for less experienced or younger people who bike.

Parking mandates also come with significant, often hidden impacts to our community. They increase construction costs, raising prices for renters and buyers. They reduce the space available for more homes or other amenities (like local-serving retail, landscaping and open space). In addition to increasing traffic and harming our climate, excessive parking mandates also remove the incentive for developers and home builders to implement climate-friendly transportation demand management (TDM) measures, such as transit passes or bike/car sharing.

Research shows that most housing developments are vastly overparked. Data collected as part of TransForm’s GreenTRIP project in San Mateo County found that in the average residential building, 31% of all parking spaces are empty. For some buildings, 69% of spaces are empty. The cost of construction of unused parking spaces is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, an expense passed on to residents in higher rents and purchase prices – even for residents who don’t own cars.

All that excess parking also requires extra infrastructure to service all that parking (roads, utilities, carbon-intensive concrete, etc.) — but without the taxable value to recoup public investment. Ending parking mandates frees up land that can then be used more productively for taxable homes or businesses.

The City’s parking requirements for multi-family housing can hinder applicants’ ability to achieve the maximum allowable density called for in our Housing Element, due to onsite design requirements and associated costs. The City’s Housing Element recognizes the barrier excessive parking can be for housing. Policies have already been adopted to reduce parking mandates for the El Camino Real focus area and on industrially zoned housing inventory sites in the San Antonio Road area.

We should not be afraid of “right-sizing” parking near transit as required by AB 2097, or even eliminating parking minimums altogether for housing across the City. Currently, on University and California Avenues, there is an oversupply of parking – with garages on average being only Half-full and only 80% full at times of peak use. Palo Alto is actually losing money on our parking garages due to underuse, a trend that has taken a bite out of the city budget.

Using existing parking efficiently is an important part of future actions under AB 2097,
which would also reduce any neighborhood parking impacts. Better directional signage for parking garages, better management of short-term parking spaces, requiring effective TDM plans, utilizing the potential of the Palo Alto Transportation Management Agency, and coordinating regularly with local businesses to troubleshoot issues and solve parking problems are all part of lessening potential impacts and ensuring economic success of businesses and our city as a whole.

Developers have every incentive to provide “just enough” parking to meet market demand, instead of “too much” parking as arbitrarily demanded by local government agencies. For example, two current AB 2097 projects under review at the city (70 Encina Avenue and 156 California Avenue) are providing parking at 1.6 spaces/unit and 0.84 spaces/unit, respectively. While 156 California has a commercial component, the project takes advantage of efficiencies gained by two onsite uses with differing peak use hours. It is AB 2097 which provides that flexibility. As always, handicapped and EV parking spaces will still be provided as a percentage of total spaces, as required by state code.

Additionally, local retail benefits. Cal Ave’s high-end restaurant Pretoge almost didn’t happen because the change of use triggered the need for one parking spot. That is a tragedy when we have a half-empty public garage one block away. Redevelopment of the Antonio’s Nuthouse site (a huge hole in the continuity of Cal Ave’s active core) is now possible thanks to AB 2097.

The City of Mountain View gets this. They approved the elimination of parking mandates for residential and mixed-use projects in areas of the city planned for growth. They join cities across the Bay Area, United States, and the world that are putting people over parking. Palo Alto’s own Architectural Review Board has also discussed whether parking mandates disincentivize housing and desirable ground-floor retail uses at recent meetings.

AB 2097 and even elimination of parking mandates altogether (as San Jose, Sacramento and Mountain View have done) is not a terrifying city-destroyer. Rather, it is essential to supporting transit and bicycle ridership and enhancing our quality of life, as well as meeting our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan, vehicle miles traveled-reduction, and housing goals.

Amie Ashton is an urban planning professional and California Environmental Quality Act practitioner. She can be reached at amieashtonconsulting@gmail.com.