Mountain View City Council voted last week to eliminate minimum parking requirements in certain residential areas of Mountain View in an effort to encourage long-term residential growth.
The 4-2-1 decision (Councilmember Alison Hicks abstaining) will remove residential minimum parking requirements, or the requirement for new residential projects to have a minimum number of street parking spaces.
City staff brought the item to council in an attempt to make the construction of future housing developments easier as the city pushes the success of plans outlined in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The city council voted on similar amendments proposed in December 2023, eliminating minimum parking requirements for completely affordable housing developments and most sites located within half a mile of a major transit stop, as outlined in Assembly Bill 2097.
Since January 2023, AB 2097 has allowed most development projects within a half mile of transit stops to set their own minimum parking standards, ignoring city parking standards, except in cases related to electric vehicle and disabled persons parking.
Parking requirements will be amended for developments located in the El Camino Real, San Antonio, Downtown and East Whisman precise plans and the Moffett Boulevard General Plan Change Area, Mountain View principal planner Diana Pancholi noted during the Nov. 12 council meeting.
Specifically, a parking reduction option for multi-family residential developments will be removed for multi-family residential developments in the San Antonio and El Camino Real precise plans, and carshare vehicle requirements will also be removed for multi-family residential developments in the East Whisman Precise Plan. Emergency parking (along the red curbs) will not be changed.
For developments that voluntarily opt to include parking spaces, Pancholi noted they’ll still be subjected to city standards.
“If parking is not required but voluntarily provided, those spaces must still comply with the standards for access, size, design and other safety-related requirements in the parking ordinance,” Pancholi said. “This is to ensure parking is developed in a way that is usable, promotes good circulation on-site and will not create hazards for those using the spaces.”
Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak had concerns about removing the parking minimum because there’s a lack of mass transit across the area, which poses challenges to some.
“It makes it very challenging for people to use public transit and are still dependent on automobiles,” Matichak said during the meeting. “While I hope developers will still propose parking, I can’t support reducing or eliminating our minimum parking requirements.”
Councilmember Margaret Abe Koga noted that while she appreciated that it’s part of the housing element, she agreed with Matichak that the situation was challenging. Abe Koga, who serves on multiple transportation boards and committees, noted that the timing of the changes was going to be especially challenging as many transit agencies are going to be facing a fiscal cliff around this time in 2026.
“The state has bailed us out, somewhat, but not completely, and so we are having to look at a regional measure, figuring out how to do this ourselves,” she said during the meeting. “But none of that is for certain, and so that’s my question. In 2026, if we are not able to continue to fund transit at current levels – let alone doing more – this just isn’t going to work.”
Hicks noted there wasn’t anything staff provided related to electric vehicle charging at the residential units; she was also concerned about the future of transit and the repercussions decisions made now will have as time progresses.
“I have concerns about the way this is rolling out,” Hicks said. “I do think we could use less parking than we currently require but I’m not sure I want to go this far and I agree with Councilmember Abe Koga that transit is under threat right now. So saying we’re basing our transportation on that is questionable to me, so I may abstain from this.”
Mountain View resident Bruce England said the staff-presented material was confusing, and noted active transportation parking wasn’t talked about but is important.
“I just want to express that having adequate parking for bicycles is very important,” England said during public comment. “The formulas that we currently have at the city are based on the rules for vehicles. So if those need to be adjusted at all to accommodate the changes, I hope that will be considered.”
Because bike parking spaces are based on unit numbers, Pancholi said such spaces provided to residents will not change.
