San Jose may ease requirements for on-site car parking
City’s demands for spaces exceed those of other major cities in state
In their continuing effort to transition San Jose into a climate-friendly metropolis, city officials are proposing to shed decades-old zoning rules that fueled suburban sprawl.
One such relic is a requirement that sprung from the California mindset that cars are king: Developers and businesses must provide ample on-site parking spaces.
Take away those precious spaces, today’s city officials say, and you give people a greater incentive to ditch their cars and hop into a bus or train, ride a bicycle or even walk to get around.
And while it’s not alone with “mandatory parking minimums,” San Jose has required developers and business owners to provide on-site parking more than any other major city in the Bay Area and the state, according to a survey by this news organization of
policy rules in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland and Berkeley.
But in proposing change, city officials could run into some stiff opposition from both affluent residents worried that their streets could get invaded by parking space hunters and from low-income residents in multigenerational housing who are already battling for parking spots.
San Francisco and San Diego eliminated parking minimums altogether in recent years, and both Berkeley and Sacramento made plans in January to do the same. In 2016, Oakland removed parking requirements in areas closest to major transit hubs and instead set a cap on the maximum amount of parking allowed in those areas. And although Los Angeles has yet to go that far, it requires fewer spaces per development than San Jose.
How do changes in such regulations translate? A 100-unit apartment complex in downtown San Jose must provide at least 100 parking spaces unless developers agree to certain transportation improvements or public transit incentives. In downtown Oakland, an apartment of that size has no minimum parking requirements and is actually prohibited from providing more than 1.25 spaces per unit.
Or, whereas in San Jose a 200-square-foot cafe in most areas outside of downtown must provide at least five on-site parking spaces, such an eatery of that size in Los Angeles would be required to provide just two spaces, according to city zoning codes.
But unlike some of those cities, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo points out, San Jose doesn’t have nearly the same level of transit infrastructure.
“You have to appreciate the context of what our city looks like and how it differs from other cities,” Liccardo said. “We’ll get there. Our downtown is evolving, we’re investing a lot in transit infrastructure, but it doesn’t happen overnight, and in the meantime, people will need to be able to get home and get to work.”
Parking is why the San Jose Sharks say Google’s new megacampus could force them out of town; it’s why San Pedro Street in downtown might not be able to go car-free for good; and it’s why many San Jose residents show up at community and city meetings to object to new developments in their area.
“This is a city that is all about single-family homes, and parking is in your bill of rights,” said Michael Brilliot, deputy director of planning for San Jose. “The issue of parking is very personal and very emotional for a lot of people.”
Nevertheless, with new funding and resources from Bloomberg Philanthropies’ American Cities Climate Challenge, San Jose officials are studying a slew of new parking reforms — from reducing or eliminating minimum parking requirements to setting maximum parking limits to creating a policy that would require developers to provide tenants with certain incentives aimed at reducing singleoccupancy vehicle trips. Such incentives could include an on-site bike- or car-share program or free bus and light rail passes.
Next month, the San Jose planning department, which is partnering with Bay Area nonprofits SPUR and Greenbelt Alliance, will begin community outreach on the proposed parking reforms. The City Council is then expected to make a decision sometime this fall.
At the same time, a new state bill, Assembly Bill 1401, could ban cities across the state from imposing minimum parking requirements on new apartments and shops within a halfmile of train stations and bus routes.
Proponents of eliminating the requirements argue that it will reduce reliance on cars, increase housing production by reducing costs, make it safer for walkers and bikers and lessen the impact on the environment.
A report produced last year by the organization Urban Land Institute found that San Jose’s current parking policies contradict the city’s climate goals.
Under Climate Smart San Jose, the city’s sweeping climate plan passed in early 2018, city leaders not only aim to make San Jose one of the first cities in the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the levels outlined in the Paris Agreement but also ensure that by 2040, no more than 25% of commute trips are made by residents driving alone.
Meanwhile, other residents are raising concerns about exacerbating parking shortages that already exist in their neighborhoods.
Ernesto Barajas, 69, a community leader in East San Jose’s Cassell neighborhood, said the city must expand its Residential Parking Permit Program, which requires residents to obtain permits for on-street parking, if it decides to go through with eliminating parking minimums. Residents from a nearby apartment complex and trucks for contractors and construction workers who live in the area already flood the street, according to Barajas.
“We have had a big, big problem with parking for a long time,” he said. “For my daughter and my neighbors who have to work early or until late, walking a block or two in the dark — it’s not safe.”
Erik Schoennauer, a prominent land-use consultant in San Jose, called eliminating parking minimums a “common-sense policy that should have been done years ago.” However, he cautioned the city against instituting parking maximums or transportation demand management requirements that would make development “erroneous and expensive.”
“That approach could discourage new projects and investment in San Jose,” he said, ” because it could put itself at a competitive disadvantage with nearby cities.”