121 West 27th Street, Suite 705

New York, NY 10001

(212) 242-2490 FAX: (212) 242-2549

Zoning Best Practices Review

I. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum presents a summary of best practices that have emerged out of
recent efforts to re-evaluate traditional minimum zoning requirements for on-site
parking. These practices fall roughly into two categories:
• Broad strategies that represent major policy shifts and regulatory changes; and
• Specific strategies that affect finer changes within existing regulatory
frameworks.

Following this are two sets of implementation examples, beginning with “leading cities”
that have made aggressive changes to their zoning codes, followed by a longer series
of cities that have implemented key strategies worth noting.

A. Context
Many cities have recently undertaken to review and update their zoning regulations
related to minimum parking requirements for new development. Most of the regulations
had changed little since first being adopted in the middle of the last century – the height
of enthusiasm for the future of personal automobile travel. The most common reasons
for revisiting these regulations are:
• Concerns over their contribution to congestion and traffic volumes;
• Desires to create a Shared Parking/Park Once environment in which the bulk of
parking activity is captured within a centralized, shared public inventory;
• Desires to improve pedestrian and bicycle networks by reducing the number of
curb-cuts in densely populated districts;
• The regulation’s impact on historic downtown districts, as well as efforts to
revitalize these districts; and
• Interest in encouraging “smart growth” development patterns.

1
 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

More recently, innovations in on-street management have called into question the need
for requiring on-site parking at all. Particularly, the great deal of promise attributed to
demand-responsive pricing of curb spaces and ever-improving residential permit
parking practices may have profound implications for the future of zoning requirements.
Many planners are beginning to ask the existential question – if new management
practices can ensure availability, even on busy commercial blocks and in near-
downtown residential neighborhoods, are minimum off-street requirements necessary?

Answering that question should be preceded by a look at the origins and original
intentions of minimum parking requirements.

B. Background - When did Parking Requirements First Appear, and Why?

In 1923, Columbus, Ohio adopted the first off-street parking requirement, requiring one
parking space for each apartment in new apartment buildings. In 1939, Fresno, CA,
became the first city to adopt minimum parking requirements for any use besides
housing, adopting them for hotels and hospitals. Why were they adopted? The City of
Pasadena's zoning code declares that the purpose of minimum parking requirements is
to "alleviate or prevent traffic congestion and shortages of curbside parking spaces." 1

Why was it believed that setting minimum parking requirements would alleviate traffic
congestion? By the 1920s, the new problem of "spill-over parking" had arrived in many
downtowns. Automobiles filled up all of the curb parking in front of shops and
apartments, and any nearby private parking, and then sometimes spilled over into
nearby neighborhoods, crowding the streets there.

In search of free parking near their destination, motorists often took to circling about,
waiting for a space to open up. Instead of searching for parking, many motorists simply
double-parked, clogging traffic lanes and greatly increasing congestion. The essential
concept of minimum parking requirements was that if each destination provided ample
parking, with enough spaces available so that even when parking was free there would
be plenty of room, then there would be plenty of spaces at the curb. Motorists would no
longer need to circle the block looking for a space, and so traffic congestion would be
lessened.

Most cities did not explicitly require free parking, but did set minimum parking
requirements that were simply high enough that it made sense for most destinations to
offer the parking for free. This practice has become normalized to the extent that today
parking is free for 99% of trips made within the United States. 2

1
City of Pasadena Zoning Code, Chapter 17.46.010.
2
Shoup, Donald “The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements”, Transportation Research, 1999.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 2

 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

Figure 1: History of Off-Street Parking Requirements

1900
1906: Henry Ford starts up first
assembly-line
1910

1920
1923: Columbus, OH adopts first off-street parking requirement

1930
1935: Parking meter invented by Carl C. Magee
1940

1946: Only 17% of cities have parking

1950 requirements. In 1951, 71% of these cities have
parking requirements or are adopting them.

1960

1970
1977: Residential Parking Permit Districts upheld
1980 by Supreme Court

1990

C. Background – The Results

What were the consequences? Minimum parking requirements have become standard
practices across the country, implemented by large cities and small towns. And while
localized congestion results are mixed, regional congestion has grown steadily into a
national epidemic. “In recent years, millions of U.S. metropolitan area residents have
come to regard traffic congestion as their most serious local and even regional problem
– with good reason”, states Anthony Downs in his book “Still Stuck in Traffic.” 3

Among 75 metropolitan areas studied by the Texas Transportation Institute:

3
Brookings Institution Press, 2004

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 3

 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

• The average percentage of daily traffic subjected to congestion nearly doubled

between 1982 and 1999, rising from 17 percent to 33;
• The average length of congested periods increased from 2-3 hours to 5-6 hours
over the same period; and
• Congestion “wasted” an estimated 67.5 billion dollars during 2000, based on lost
time and fuel consumption. 4

While minimum parking requirements can effectively eliminate parking spillover by

mandating ample supply along with the best price (free) for the best location (on-site),
these spaces clearly do not eliminate traffic and congestion. Hawley Simpson, who
conducted the first research on cruising for parking (and who later became president of
the Institute of Traffic Engineers), predicted the problems that later arose from free off-
street parking. "Rather than assisting in solving the street traffic problem" he said, "it
may very probably have the opposite effect by inducing a large amount of unnecessary
vehicle usage." 5

Minimum parking requirements worsen traffic congestion through a three step process:
1. Minimum parking requirements are set - frequently high enough to provide more
than enough parking even when parking is free, even at isolated suburban
locations with little or no transit.
2. Parking is then provided for free at most destinations, and its costs hidden.
3. Bundling the cost of parking into higher prices for everything else skews travel
choices toward cars and away from public transit, cycling, and walking.

It may seem like a neat trick to induce a steady stream of local traffic to quickly and
easily disappear into off-street lots and garages. However the congestion that is
avoided locally has simply shifted to the regional road system. By increasing
exponentially the quantity of parked cars that can be absorbed in each district, minimum
parking requirements have swelled the volume of vehicles accessing regional
roadways.

Today, very few regions can, or are willing to, expand roadway capacity. Where they
have, new capacity has tended to be absorbed rather quickly with improved travel
conditions inducing extra trips.

So back to the existential question – if minimum parking requirements have contributed

to worsening regional congestion, while producing spotty local traffic improvements, and
on-street management can effectively prevent spillover, are minimum parking
requirement still necessary?

Some of the most promising responses to this question are summarized below.

4
Downs, 2004.
5
Shoup,. Page 280.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 4

 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

II. ZONING REFORM BEST PRACTICES

A. Broad Strategies

1. Reducing/“Tailoring” Minimum Requirements

Most minimum parking requirements levied by local jurisdictions take into account only
two variables: land use and the size of development. They are typically expressed in
terms of the number of spaces required per 1,000 square feet of a particular land use,
or per residential unit.

In reality, however, parking demand is affected by many more variables, such as:
• The geographic context of a development – encompassing factors such as the
quality of the local pedestrian environment, the number of other land uses within
walking distance, and the availability and quality of transit;
• The demographic characteristics of residents; and
• Demand management programs such as parking pricing and car-sharing.

Furthermore, vehicle ownership levels (and thus residential parking demand) typically
vary considerably between different parts of a city. Local jurisdictions can “tailor” their
zoning codes to take these variations into account, based on the following factors:
• Unit Size – Smaller households tend to own fewer vehicles;
• Affordable Housing – There is a strong link between vehicle ownership and
income, with less parking demand generated by housing targeted to low-income
households;
• Senior Housing – Senior citizens tend to own fewer vehicles than younger adults,
meaning that parking requirements can be reduced for senior housing facilities,
including independent living as well as assisted living and convalescent care
facilities;
• Rental Units – Households that rent their homes typically own fewer vehicles, on
average, than owner-occupiers; and
• Transit Corridors/Downtown – Parking demand is lower in areas that are well
served by transit, and in mixed-use downtown zoness that offer employment and
services within walking distance.

a. Examples
• Milwaukee, WI has no minimum parking requirements for any downtown land use
except high-density housing, where the ratio is only two spaces per three units.
• Seattle, WA allows reductions in minimum parking requirements based on
several factors, including:
o Affordable housing – Reduction to 0.5-1.0 spaces per unit, depending on
income, location and size of unit;
o Senior housing and housing for people with disabilities;
o Dedicated on-site car-sharing parking in multi-family developments;
o Location – No parking minimums in downtown, reductions in mixed-use,
dense neighborhoods; and
o Transportation Demand Management practices.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 5

 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

• Pasadena, CA has reduced its minimum parking requirements for new

development in Transit Oriented Developments and within its Central District.

2. Eliminating Minimum Requirements

The most obvious advantage of eliminating, versus reducing or tailoring, minimum
parking requirements is that it provides the opportunity for regulators to avoid the
“guessing game” of demand projections. While tailoring requirements based on
contextual qualifiers can be effective in reducing the risk of over-estimating parking
demand, it does not preclude over-estimating, and it can make zoning regulations even
more labyrinthine than they have already become.

This new form of tailoring has been preceded by efforts to capture the variety of unique
trip-generating qualities among the innumerable uses found in most cities. Cataloguing
the innumerable has lead to some comically detailed use-requirement regulations.
Figure 2 provides a few examples.

Figure 2: Unique Parking Requirements

Land Use Parking Requirement
Adult Entertainment 1 space per patron, plus 1 space per employee on the largest work shift
Barber shop 2 spaces per barber
Beauty shop 3 spaces per beautician
Bicycle repair 3 spaces per 1,000 SF
3.33 spaces per 1,000 SF of sales and office area, plus 2 spaces per 3
employees on the maximum shift, plus 1 space for every vehicle customarily
Heating Supply used in operation of the use or stored on the premises.
Mausoleum 10 spaces per maximum number of internments in a one-hour period
Nunnery 1 space per 10 nuns
Rectory 3 spaces per 4 clergymen
Swimming Pool 1 space per 2,500 gallons of water
Sources: Planning Advisory Service (1964, 1971, and 1991); Witheford and Kanaan (1973)

Many cities are deciding that these requirements are simply no longer needed. Many
have concluded that developers do a better job anticipating the parking market at their
developments than zoning codes ever could. Developer projections are made on a site-
and context-specific basis for each project, representing a much finer estimating
instrument than setting zoning formulae.

The developer has a vested interest in getting this right. Over-anticipating demand,
especially in areas with high land values, would add significant unnecessary cost to a
project. Under-parking a project, however, can reduce its marketability.

Furthermore, many cities are increasingly confident that curb pricing and effective
residential permit program regulations can prevent spillover were developers to under-
park their projects. Effective employment of these techniques can render existing
minimum parking requirements unnecessary, offering minimal rewards at the risk of
deterring development in areas where land is expensive, or at sites where parking
provision is impractical (oddly configured dimensions) or impossible (historic re-use).

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 6

 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

a. Examples
Several cities across the United States, including the ones provided below, have
completely removed minimum parking requirements in downtown or Central Business
District areas.

• For commercial development: Boston, MA; Columbus, OH; Coral Gables, FL;
Eugene, OR; Fort Myers, FL; Fort Pierce, FL; Los Angeles, CA; Milwaukee, WI;
Olympia, WA; Philadelphia, PA; Portland, OR; San Diego, CA; Seattle, WA;
Spokane, WA; Stuart, FL.
• For multi-family residential (1-2 bedroom): Eugene, OR; Fort Myers, FL; Fort
Pierce, FL; Los Angeles, CA; Milwaukee, WI; Olympia, WA; Portland, OR; San
Diego, CA; San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; Spokane, WA; Stuart, FL.

3. Establishing Maximum Thresholds

In contrast to minimum parking requirements, parking maximums restrict the total
number of spaces that can be constructed. For this reason, this approach can be used
to actively promote alternatives to driving. Reasons for setting maximum requirements
typically include a desire to:
• Restrict vehicular traffic generated by new development;
• Promote alternatives to the private automobile;
• Maximize land area for other uses; and
• Preserve open space and/or limit storm water runoff.

Parking maximums can be introduced anywhere where there are or could be measures
in place to combat overspill. While the policy is most likely to be appropriate in transit
corridors, downtown and areas with high levels of traffic congestion, it can be useful in
any district that wants to limit vehicular traffic or the amount of land devoted to parking.

Maximum parking requirements generally alleviate traffic congestion and reduce auto
use through a three step process:
1. Maximum parking requirements are set low enough to so that if parking at a
location is given away for free, there will be a shortage.
2. Parking at these locations is then provided to the people who use it for a price
that covers at least part of its costs, so that parking’s cost is revealed.
Alternately, employers and other parking providers need to provide strong
subsidies for alternative transportation (such as free transit passes or a parking
cash out program), to avoid a shortage.
3. Removing parking subsidies (or providing equally strong subsidies for other
modes) then brings travel choices back into balance, toward public transit,
cycling and walking.

As Professor Donald Shoup, parking economics expert and planning professor at

University of California, Los Angeles, describes the situation:

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 7

 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

If we want to reduce traffic congestion, energy consumption, and air pollution, the
simplest and most productive single reform of American zoning would be to declare
that all the existing off-street parking requirements are maximums rather than
minimums, without changing any of the numbers, just as the London Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea did in 1995. 6

a. Examples
• Portland, OR, has adopted parking maximums. In large parts of the city, the
minimums have been wholly converted to maximums. In other parts, minimums
remain but are accompanied by maximums to limit the amount of parking a
developer can provide.
• Parking maximums are in force in all or a portion of many other cities across the
United States, including: San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; Cambridge, MA;
Gresham, OR; Helena, MT; Jefferson County (Louisvillle), KY; Pittsburgh, PA;
Redmond, WA; and San Antonio, TX.

B. Specific Strategies
Other strategies, which represent a finer-level of regulation, have also been
implemented with many positive results in many cities.

1. Establishing In-Lieu Fees

Providing a fee alternative to meeting on-site requirements is gaining favor in many
cities as a means of:
• reducing the overall number of parking spaces;
• reducing the number of parking sites and pedestrian/vehicle conflict points;
and
• supporting the development of a public, shared parking supply in urban
districts.

a. Common Characteristics of In-lieu Fee Programs

The following are the common characteristics of existing programs:
• A separate fund is established that is reserved for the future provision of
publicly accessible parking spaces or the funding of alternative transportation
improvements.
• The program is available within a specified area only, such as a defined
downtown zoning district.
• Payment is typically due prior to issuance of a building permit, or a certificate
of occupancy if a building permit is not required.
• The amount of the in-lieu fee is based on the cost of providing structured, or
below-grade, parking – with the fee remaining attractively lower than the
alternative cost of providing parking.
• Strict standards for location of parking facilities are not defined (such as
"spaces must be provided within 500 feet of each individual development
parcel for which in-lieu fees are paid"), nor are specific locations established

6
https://planning.org/zoningpractice/askauthor/06/askauthor0206.htm

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 8

 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

when the program is implemented. Instead, parking location decisions are

made over time, reflecting the changes in need for parking and opportunities
to provide parking. In other words, developers (or their lenders) are not
guaranteed that a specific number of spaces will be provided within a specific
walk distance.

b. Examples
• Arlington County, VA – The County can accept onetime payments for each
space of required shared parking that is not built. The County Manager is to
establish the amount of payment annually based on the relative cost of
building structured parking.
• Palo Alto, CA – The City offers developers in downtown the option of
contributing $51,000 per space to the City’s in-lieu fee fund, as an alternative
to providing on-site parking.
• Boulder, CO – Boulder treats its in-lieu fees as general transportation funds.
These monies have been used for downtown transit improvements, as well as
parking.

2. Encouraging Shared Parking

Arlington County’s Columbia Pike District Parking Strategy encourages sharing spaces
by setting a limit on the number of reserved parking spaces allowed, while placing no
limit on the amount of shared parking allowed on-site. Sites over 20,000 square feet in
land area have the following requirements:
• A maximum of two spaces per residential unit may be made available as
reserved parking.
• There are no maximum limits on shared parking.
• Up to 100 percent of all required parking may be provided off-site if the said
parking spaces are located within a ¼-mile radius of the subject site and a legally
binding parking agreement meeting zoning code standards is provided to the
Zoning Administrator.

3. Requiring Shared Parking

Arlington County’s Columbia Pike Parking Strategy also explicitly requires sharing
spaces. Sites over 20,000 square feet in land area have the following requirements:
• A minimum of 1 and 1/8 parking spaces per residential unit, of which a minimum
of 1/8 parking space per residential unit shall be provided as Shared Parking.
• New on-street parking spaces created in conjunction with the development may
be counted toward the minimum requirement for shared parking.

4. Requiring Bike Parking

Parking accommodations for bicycles can be required in the same manner that
minimum parking requirements regulated on-site provisions for automobiles. Many cities
have adopted ratios of bike accommodation tied to square footage of uses or residential
units. These requirements help support bicycle mobility and boost bike mode shares for
local trips. They can also reduce parking demand by expanding the range of non-
motorized accessibility within urban districts. Expanding this range can be very effective

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 9

 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

in filling in transit service gaps, and reducing parking demand tied to short- and medium
range- trips.

a. Examples
• Chicago, IL completely re-wrote its zoning code in 2004. The new code requires
one bike space for every two required vehicle spaces. Whenever bicycle parking
is required, at least 2 bicycle spaces must be provided. No use is required to
provide more than 50 bicycle parking spaces. The zoning also stipulates a
number of design requirements for required bike parking including covering,
lighting, dimensions, security, and location.
• San Francisco, CA requires one space of bike parking for every built automobile
space for all new housing over 4 units in the city.

5. Unbundling
Most housing arrangements provide tenant parking as part the lease or purchase cost.
Unbundling this relationship by requiring that parking be purchased or leased separately
reduces housing costs for households that own fewer cars than average, and makes
clearer the cost of owning and storing a car. This strategy is also effective in providing
developers with added financial incentive not to build parking for which there is not a
paying market. Unbundling residential parking can also significantly reduce household
vehicle ownership by revealing some of its hidden costs.

Some communities use zoning to require that parking be sold or leased independently
from housing units or office space. Other communities require that parking be a
separate line-item in lease contracts, even if spaces are automatically included. Once
renters become aware of what they pay for parking they may decide to negotiate
changes, perhaps renting fewer spaces or trading parking spaces with other residents.

Another approach is to reduce minimum parking requirements, or allow parking beyond

maximum thresholds, for developments that un-bundled parking. This recognizes that,
given a choice, many residents will reduce their parking demand.

a. Examples
• San Francisco, CA, in two recent major amendments to the Planning Code, has
required that the cost of parking be unbundled from the cost of housing for both
renters and homebuyers in most areas of the city. The City also has very low
maximum parking restrictions in its Downtown. To exceed them, parking costs
must be unbundled.
• Bellevue, WA, a rapidly growing city in King County (Seattle), requires downtown
office buildings of more than 50,000 square feet to identify the cost of parking as
a separate line item in all leases, with the minimum monthly rate per space not
less than twice the price of a bus pass. For example, since the price of a monthly
bus pass was $72 in 2003, the minimum price of a leased parking space was
$144 a month.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 10

 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

Bellevue is perhaps unique in routinely requiring the unbundling of parking costs

from office leases. This innovative policy has several advantages. It makes it
easy for employers to "cash-out" parking for employees (that is, to offer
employees the value of their parking space as a cash subsidy if they do not drive
to work), since employers can save money by leasing fewer spaces when fewer
employees drive. It also makes it easier for shared parking arrangements to
occur, since building owners can more easily lease surplus parking spaces to
other users.

6. Car-Share Parking
Zoning can be used to facilitate car-sharing by requiring that developments with
dedicated, on-site parking offer one or more spaces to established car-sharing
organizations. This is typically required to be only a “right of first refusal” form of offer –
if the organization decides to pass on the space/s, they do not have to be offered again.

a. Example
• San Francisco, CA requires car share spaces citywide at the ratio of 1 dedicated
space for car sharing vehicles for each 200 dwelling units. Studies have shown
that car-sharing services in the Bay Area reduce the number of vehicles people
own and the number of car trips taken. 7

III. LEADING CITIES

The following section describes examples of cities that have implemented a number of
innovative zoning changes.

A. San Francisco

1. Parking Requirements Downtown

San Francisco was one of the earliest cities to introduce maximum parking
requirements for office uses in its downtown core. Under the “Transit First” policy,
parking may take up only up to 7% of a building’s gross floor area. This is equivalent to
allowing a maximum of .233 parking spaces per thousand square feet of development.
New buildings must have an approved parking plan prior to receiving an occupancy
permit. In some cases, only short-term parking is allowed; in others, a mix of long-term,
short-term and carpool parking is approved. The City also levies a Transit Impact
Development Fee for downtown office development – a policy recently extended to all
non-residential uses, and to all parts of the City.

These parking restrictions have been challenged in recent years. Nevertheless, recent
major projects have been designed with little or no parking. The Sony Metreon, a four
story, 350,000 square foot entertainment center, opened in June 1999 amid predictions
that it would create a parking crisis and gridlock. The project was built with no parking.
The majority of users arrive by foot and transit, and the remainder can park in the
existing 2,600-space 5th & Mission Garage across the street. As of March 2000, peak

7
http://repositories.cdlib.org/iurd/wps/WP-2003-05/

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 11

 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

utilization of the garage has averaged 78%, with not a single parking shortage period in
the evening when visitation to Metreon peaks.

The City’s downtown ballpark, SBC Park, faced dire predictions that it would create
gridlock and parking shortages because everyone would drive there. Instead, the park’s
5,000 space lots do not regularly fill. According to Bond Yee of the Department of
Parking and Traffic, 60% of ballpark fans are taking transit even to the relatively remote
Ballpark location, exceeding planners’ initial goals. 8

The City is currently considering extending maximum parking requirements – or at least

abolishing parking minimums – in other transit-rich parts of San Francisco.

2. Zoning
In the summer of 2006, San Francisco enacted a new zoning ordinance affecting
downtown commercial zones (C-3) in an effort to reduce traffic congestion, increase
housing affordability, and create a safer and more livable street environment for
walking, bicycling, and public transit. The most important sections of the ordinance
establish maximum parking requirements for residential units, eliminate the remaining
vestiges of minimum parking requirements, require that car-sharing services be offered
spaces where on-site parking is provided, and require the unbundling of parking costs
from housing costs in developments contain more than ten units.

The main portions of the ordinance include:

1. Elimination of the previous minimum off-street parking requirement of one space per
four dwelling units.
2. Establishment of a new maximum parking requirement of 0.75 spaces per dwelling
unit for one bedroom units and one space per dwelling unit for two bedrooms units.
3. Requirement of car-share parking spaces in all newly constructed residential
buildings (if parking is made available).
4. All residential parking costs in new structures over ten dwelling units must be
unbundled.

3. Unbundled Parking
San Francisco now requires the unbundling of parking costs from housing costs in both
downtown commercial and residential zones (DTR and C-3 Districts) in all residential
structures over ten dwelling units. The Planning Code, quoted below, is a good example
of ordinance language for establishing this requirement:

Article 1.5: Off-Street Parking and Loading, Sec. 167:

“..(a) In DTR and C-3 Districts, all off-street parking spaces accessory to residential
uses in new structures of 10 dwelling units or more, or in new conversions of non-
residential buildings to residential use of 10 dwelling units or more, shall be leased or
sold separately from the rental or purchase fees for dwelling units for the life of the
dwelling units, such that potential renters or buyers have the option of renting or buying

8
Interview with Bond Yee, 2006.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 12

 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

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…"

The ordinance also requires inclusionary affordable units to have the same opportunity
to purchase or lease parking spaces as other units.

SOMA Studios and Apartments, San Francisco is one example of the results of San
Francisco's policy of encouraging the unbundling of parking costs from housing costs.
Unbundling parking costs in this development lowered parking demand, freeing up
space for a childcare center and 19,000 square feet of neighborhood serving retail,
including a market. The new five-story building combines 74 family apartments with 88
small studios, a parking garage and lobby spaces for the four floors of housing above.
There are a total of 66 parking spaces available (.38 spaces per unit).

B. Arlington, County, VA

1. Reduced Parking Minimums Close to Metro Rail Stations

In the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, the County’s Zoning Ordinance significantly reduces
minimum parking requirements for certain uses. For commercial development within ¼-
mile of a Metro Rail station, they are halved from 1 per 530 square feet to 1 per 1,000
square feet. For retail and service-commercial uses within 1,500 feet of a Metro station,
they are waived entirely for the first 5,000 square feet of development. Actual parking
ratios are often lower, following negotiations between the County and developer – in
some cases, no additional parking is required.

2. Parking Maximums
The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) sets parking maximums for all
federal government buildings in the region. In Arlington County, the maximum is one
space per three employees. While these are advisory only, outside the District of
Columbia, they are generally followed in suburban counties such as Arlington.

3. Parking & Transportation Demand Management Conditions

To increase the development potential of a site beyond that amounted permitted as-of-
right, the County requires developers to agree to a number of parking and transportation
demand management conditions, through the site plan approval process. While these
are negotiated on a case-by-case basis, the most common conditions include:
• Market-rate parking charges for single occupant vehicles;
• Unlimited discount-rate parking reserved for carpools and other rideshare
vehicles;
• Monitoring of parking demand and traffic generation;
• Provision of short-term public parking (metered) at garage entrances;
• Shared parking; and
• Car-sharing provision.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 13

 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

4. Special Zoning Districts – Columbia Pike District

The County’s Columbia Pike District Parking Strategy encourages sharing spaces by
setting a limit on the number of reserved parking spaces allowed, while placing no limit
on the amount of shared parking allowed on-site for new development. Below are some
of the detailed requirements.
• Sites under 20,000 square feet in land area have no minimum parking
requirements.
• Sites over 20,000 square feet in land area have the following requirements:
o A minimum of 1 and 1/8 parking spaces per residential unit, of which a
minimum of 1/8 parking space per residential unit shall be provided as
SHARED PARKING. There are no maximum limits on shared parking.
o New on-street parking spaces created in conjunction with the development
may be counted toward the minimum requirement for shared parking.
o A maximum of two spaces per residential unit may be made available as
reserved parking. Reserved parking above the maximum may be provided
upon payment to the County. The County Manager shall establish the
amount of payment annually based on the approximate cost to build
structured parking.
o Up to 100 percent of all required parking may be provided off-site if the
said parking spaces are located within a ¼-mile radius of the subject site
and a legally binding parking agreement meeting zoning code standards
(Section 33.C.3.b.) is provided to the Zoning Administrator.

C. London, UK
Until recently, most of Great Britain had parking policies that were quite similar to typical
policies in the United States, with high minimum parking requirements set for all land
uses. London, however, was a pioneering city in replacing minimum parking
requirements in many areas with maximum standards in the early 1970s. By the 1990s,
this shift accelerated. In 1995, for example, the London Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea reversed directions: the borough declared that all of its existing off-street
parking requirements would henceforth be maximums rather than minimums, without
changing any of the numbers.

In 1996, London revised its parking standards and adopted the following maximum
standards 9 :
• Central London - 1 space to 10,764 - 16,146 sq ft (1,000 -1,500 sq m);
• Inner London - 1 space to 6458 - 10,764 sq ft (600 - 1,000 sq m); and
• Outer London - 1 space to 3229 - 6458 sq ft (300 - 600 sq m).

In 2001, the shift from minimum to maximum parking standards in the UK, was codified
as national government planning policy guidance, which local authorities are statutorily
bound to follow. National transportation guidelines for local planning now specify that,
“plans should state maximum levels of parking for broad classes of

9 Transport for London (www.tfl.gov.uk)

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 14

 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

development…There should be no minimum standards for development, other than

parking for disabled people.” 10

The explicit reasoning set out by the government is to reduce congestion, act as a
demand management tool, and allow higher development densities. Local authorities
are warned to be cautious in prescribing different parking standards for town centers
and peripheral locations, to avoid creating "perverse incentives" for out of center
development through the attraction of additional parking.

The standards for England are set out in the table below 11 . The guidance suggests
these are baseline standards and calls for regional and local authorities to adopt more
rigorous standards where appropriate.

Figure 3: National Maximum Parking Standards for England

Threshold at which standard
Use National Maximum Parking Standard applies (gross floor space)
Residential 1.5 spaces per dwelling -

Food retail 1 per 151 sq ft (14 sq m) 10,764 sq ft (1,000 sq m)

Non-food retail 1 per 215 sq ft (20 sq m) 10,764 sq ft (1,000 sq m)

Cinemas, 1 per 5 seats 10,764 sq ft (1,000 sq m)

conference facilities
Other leisure 1 per 237 sq ft (22 sq m) 10,764 sq ft (1,000 sq m)

Offices 1 per 323 sq ft (30 sq m) 26,910 sq ft (2,500 sq m)

Colleges/universities 1 per 2 staff plus 1 per 15 students 26,910 sq ft (2,500 sq m)

Stadia 1 per 15 seats 1,500 seats

Source: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2001).

IV. OTHER EXAMPLES

A. Portland, OR – Maximum Parking

Portland, Oregon was one of the first cities in the U.S. to limit the parking supply as a
trip reduction strategy by setting a maximum parking space requirement that developers
may not exceed. Since 1975, the City of Portland has had a cap of roughly 40,000
parking spaces downtown, which includes existing and new facilities. The effect of this
cap was a decrease in the downtown parking ratio from 3.4 long-term parking spaces
per 1,000 square feet of office space in 1973 to 1.5 in 1990. The limit, however, did
increase to 44,000 in the 1980s and slightly more in the 1990s to adjust for economic
growth.

10 Shoup, Donald (2004) The High Cost of Free Parking, p.92

11 Separate standards are to be issued for Scotland and Wales.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 15

 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

Figure 4 presents the parking maximums for various uses and districts within Portland.
City officials credit these limits with helping to increase transit mode split from about
20% in the early 1970s to 48% in the mid-1990s.

Figure 4: Portland Parking Maximums

DD DD4 DD 1& 5, RD 5 RD 3 & 4, Transit Rest of
2&3 UD DD 6 Zone Region
Office 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.4 4.1
Retail 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 12.0 5.1 6.2
Medical 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 4.9 5.9
centers
Schools/ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.3* 0.3*
colleges
Industrial 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 None None
Community 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Varies Varies
services
Key:
• DD = downtown district; UD = university district; RD = river district; * = per students and staff.
• Per 1,000 square feet net building area, unless noted otherwise.
• Source: City of Portland, 2003.

The Portland policy specifies maximums of 0.7 to 1.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square
feet, based on type of development and proximity to transit. This compares with typical
office developments that provide about 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. In
addition, no new parking facilities can be built for existing development, except in the
case of major renovation.

An estimate of the emission reduction benefits of the Portland policy found that VMT
reduced due to the policy, in 1995, totaled between 50,960 and 92,000 miles per day.
This VMT reduction resulted in a drop in fuel consumption of between 2,610 to 4,730
gallons per day, and a greenhouse gas reduction of 2,400 to 4,400 metric tons of
carbon equivalent per year. Since the policy has been in effect, the downtown Portland
job base has grown significantly. 12

B. San Diego, CA – Reduced Requirements for Locational and Demographic

Factors
The San Diego Municipal Code permits reduced minimum parking requirements for
residential, office, retail, institutional, and industrial uses in designated transit areas and
for residential uses in designated very low income areas. With respect to residential
uses, the minimum parking requirements can be reduced in multiple dwelling unit
developments, depending on the number of bedrooms. For example, in a multiple
dwelling unit development with 2 bedroom units, the basic minimum parking
requirement is 2 spaces per dwelling unit; however, in both transit areas and very low
income areas this requirement is reduced to 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit. 13

12
http://yosemite.epa.gov
13
Driving Urban Environments: Smart Growth Best Practices. Governor’s Office of Smart Growth,
Maryland.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 16

 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

With respect to nonresidential uses, the reduction in minimum parking requirements for
developments in transit varies based on use. However, in general the minimum parking
requirement for nonresidential uses in transit areas is about 85% percent of the
standard minimum requirement.

C. Seattle, WA – Reduced Requirements for TDM Programs

The Seattle Municipal Code stipulates that for office or manufacturing uses that require
40 or more parking spaces, the minimum parking requirements may be reduced up to
40% by implementing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. 14 These
provisions include:
• For every certified carpool space, the total parking requirement may be reduced
by 1-9/10 spaces up to a maximum of 40% of the total parking requirement;
• For every certified vanpool purchased or leased by the applicant for employee
use, the total parking requirement may be reduced by 6 spaces up to a maximum
of 20% of the total parking requirement;
• If transit passes are provided to all employees and transit service is within 800
feet of the development, the total parking requirement may be reduced up to
10%; and
• For every 4 covered bicycle parking spaces provided, the total parking
requirement may be reduced by 1 space up to a maximum of 5% of the total
parking requirement.

D. Boulder, CO – No Minimum Requirements (Downtown)

The City of Boulder has no minimum parking requirements for non-residential uses
within a designated improvement district in its downtown. Developers are allowed to
build as much or as little parking as they choose, subject to design standards in the
zoning code, and to manage it as they see fit. If they choose to build little or no parking
on-site, they can purchase permits for public lots and garages for their employees. As
public garage permits cost $213 per quarter ($852 per year), and surface lot permits (for
which there is a waiting list) cost $134 per quarter ($536 per year) 15 , this is usually a
much less expensive strategy than building parking onsite.

Residential minimum parking requirements are also set low, at one space per unit,
although these have had little impact since developers have tended to provide two
spaces per unit given perceived market demands.

E. Milwaukee, WI – Reduced Minimums

In 1986, Milwaukee enacted zoning policies that greatly reduced minimum parking
requirements compared to the rest of the nation. Retail parking ratios were set at two
spaces per 1,000 square feet, compared to the Institute for Transportation Engineers
standard one space per 300 square feet. Businesses are allowed eight spaces for the
first 2,000 square feet and one space per each subsequent 1,000 square feet. In the
downtown area, high density housing is the only use with minimum parking
requirements, set at a fairly low two spaces per three units. The city encourages

14
Ibid.
15
City of Boulder, www.bouldercolorado.gov

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 17

 Task 4: Zoning Best Practices Review

structured as opposed to surface lots and requires that 50 percent of ground floor space
on structures gets used for retail. In 2002, the city further strengthened these policies
by awarding credits to developers building transit-oriented development, on-street
parking, and shared parking. For developments near transit, minimum requirements
may be reduced up to 15 percent. 16

16
“Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance Through Smart Growth Solutions”, U.S.
EPA, 2006.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 18