Introduction

For decades, mandated parking requirements have dictated urban development, often at the expense of housing affordability and walkable neighborhoods. Recognizing these drawbacks, San Francisco, Portland, Minneapolis, and others have opted to abolish parking minimums in their jurisdictions. This change has largely caught on in major cities, where robust parking management and well-developed transit networks are already in place. However, AB 2907, which prohibits agencies from imposing parking minimums within a half mile of major transit stops, has brought the movement to suburban doorsteps across California. Facing dense developments with limited or no parking for the first time, these neighborhoods may have to adapt their parking management strategy. Planners are likely to rely on a policy already widespread in such areas: residential permit parking (RPP) programs. Is this approach up to the task? What are the legal, ethical, and practical considerations? Some answers can be found in the earliest days of RPP.

RPP History & Context

In 1974, Arlington County, Virginia, became one of the first municipalities to adopt an RPP program. Three years later, the county faced a lawsuit claiming that the program violated the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment. The most vehement opposition to the program came from those who lived just outside the permit area, including the lead plaintiff, Rudolph Richards. He argued that the ordinance was unconstitutional, as it provided residents of the permit area with a parking monopoly over public streets. The Virginia Supreme Court agreed, but the decision was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Following this final decision, RPP programs proliferated throughout the country. However, Richards’ contention with privileging certain residents’ access to the public realm remains.

The idea appears again nearly 40 years later in a 2016 opinion by California Attorney General Kamala Harris. The opinion states that “in issuing long-term residential parking permits, local authorities may not distinguish among residents based on the type of dwelling in which they live.” This means that municipalities cannot directly exclude dense, parking-light developments from obtaining permits within the RPP zones in which they are located. While this prevents more egregious attempts to segregate the curb, policies with such an effect are still common. As Henry Grabar, author of Paved Paradise, describes: “in many cities, permit zones have balkanized curb parking supply between low-occupancy curbs in single-family neighborhoods and congested curbs on neighboring blocks with apartment buildings.” In other words, by carefully placing the boundary of RPP zones to fence off new apartments, cities can effectively distinguish between dwelling types without explicitly doing so. This comes at great cost to the neighborhood.

Indeed, there are few ways to more concretely convey that apartment-dwellers are unwelcome than to exclude them from the neighborhood’s vital public space. Unfortunately, existing residents are highly incentivized to do so. In fact, one study found that introducing RPP zones near a key destination raised property values by $31,000 on average compared to similar properties outside of the RPP area (Maas & Watson 2018). This property value boost is the cherry on top of the obvious benefit of more convenient parking. Still, parking management should not aim to enrich a select few at the expense of their neighbors. Using RPP policies in such an exclusionary way contradicts the core values that are integral to the planning field.

Managing Without Minimums

If excluding new multifamily, parking-light developments from RPP programs is legally and ethically questionable, then what can planners do to ensure on-street parking for all residents? While the answers vary case-by-case, there is often significant room for existing residents to adapt to their new neighbors. For instance, residents can often make better use of the off-street space available to them. A neighborhood survey in San Francisco found that 49% of home garages were used not for vehicle storage but for other purposes (Brown 2007).  Similarly, a pair of 2018 surveys found that “most users of on-street parking have sufficient off-street parking.” Furthermore, contrary to the popular belief that multifamily apartments were dominating on-street parking, the surveys also found that “77–83% of on-street residential parking use is by residents of detached housing” (Taylor 2018). These findings suggest that, given the right incentives, residents can be encouraged to rely less on on-street parking.

How can planners set such incentives? One tried and true method is paid parking. However, many residential neighborhoods may not want to take such measures. Instead, adjusting the price and allocation of residential permits can achieve much the same result. Most commonly, cities can limit the number of permits available per address and charge an escalating fee for a household’s second and third permits. Cities can also cap the number of permits available to the entire permit zone and offer them on a first-come, first-served basis every year. Regardless of how cities choose to manage new parking demand, they must ensure that the policy serves the community’s best interest. This may require balancing the needs of existing residents with those of newcomers. With sensible policy and governance, this balance can be struck without dividing the neighborhood and banishing new residents from the curb.

References

Brown, M. (2007). Shifting Landscapes of Mobility: The Spatial Reconfiguration of the Mission District to Accommodate Automobility (Unpublished master's thesis). San Francisco State University.

Grabar, H. (2024). Paved Paradise: How Parking Explains the World. Penguin Books.

Maas, A., & Watson, P. (2018). “Enthusiasm Curbed: Home Value Implications of Curbside Parking.” Land Use Policy, 77, 705-711.

Taylor, E. J. (2018). “Who's Been Parking on My Street? The Politics and Uneven Use of Residential Parking Space.” Land Use Policy.