Phoenix residents debate proposal that would reduce parking requirements at new apartments
Tempers are flaring in Phoenix as neighborhood leaders across town push back against the city's proposal to reduce parking requirements at new residential developments.
The proposed city law would change the city's formula that calculates how many parking spaces an apartment complex needs. Most 100-unit developments would go from 150 required spaces to 125 spaces, plus there would be lower requirements for unreserved parking.
Affordable apartments and developments near light rail would see steeper reductions, but the steepest cuts of all would be for affordable apartments near the light rail, which in most cases would require zero parking spaces.
The proposal is intended to improve rental affordability and the environment by reducing costs associated with building parking spaces and steering residents toward public transit. Reducing building costs should result in lower priced apartments, plus more of them, the argument goes. The benefits of reduced car dependence is twofold: fewer cars to contribute to emissions and less asphalt to contribute to the urban heat island effect.
But so far, the proposal has only sparked controversy and fiery debates from members of the city's 15 Village Planning Committees. Seven of the 10 committees that have heard the idea rejected it. Three voted yes and the rest have yet to vote.
Keeping the streets cool: Avondale pilots cool pavement project, hopes for environmental benefit
Committee members, advocates and residents sent testy emails reacting to the policy in early and mid-July.
"It's disappointing — but not surprising — that some of our VPCs are putting their heads in the asphalt," one Phoenix resident wrote in an email.
Another replied the city needs a solution that doesn't turn Phoenix "into New York City, Los Angeles or Chicago."
Some believe the city's public transit system isn't robust enough yet, and that fewer parking spaces won't work. They also question the logic underpinning the policy that low-income renters need less or no parking. Some even worry it could do economic harm to low-income renters.
But supporters of the proposal say it's an opportunity to lead Phoenix into the future, improve housing supply and affordability and reduce emissions and the urban heat island effect by using less asphalt.
At the heart of the debate is a skepticism about free market policies and a concern that quality of life and residents' needs will take a backseat to developer's preferences and profits.
"Follow the money," said JoAnne Jensen, a south Phoenix resident. "Money is not a bad thing. Development is not a bad thing. But my concern is that over and over again those who live in affordable housing are not given the same consideration and amenities as those who live in market values."
The debate also puts into focus questions about the city's order of operations: should it wait to enact policy that aims to reduce car dependence until the public transportation system is fully built out, or should it enact policy that puts public transit in higher demand, which would validate the need for its expansion?
Village planning committees are city-sanctioned groups that review and vote on proposed developments and land use regulations that affect their neighborhoods. Their perspectives are provided to the City Council so that the elected leaders may take them into consideration when voting, but the votes bear no extra weight.
Village committee votes are typically not a strong barometer of council outcome, but the emotional response from village members to the proposed policy change ricocheted through City Hall in mid-July.
Councilmember Kevin Robinson of District 6 in the Biltmore, Sunnyslope and Ahwatukee areas said July 17 he took multiple meetings to discuss the policy. Derrik Rochwalik, chief of staff to Councilwoman Ann O'Brien, who represents District 1 in northwest Phoenix, also heard about the response.
'We have way more parking than we need': Phoenix considers allowing fewer parking spaces for apartments in push for public transit
Mayor Kate Gallego, who has advocated for a Phoenix that builds up and not out, told The Arizona Republic in a statement, "we must weigh all options to create a denser and more dynamic Phoenix, including reducing parking minimum requirements."
She said she looks forward to hearing community input as the city strives for "a more innovative community design that will support transit-oriented development and affordability."
The council is slated to vote on the proposal in early September. So far, only Councilmember O'Brien has expressed concern, through her chief of staff, although a few council members did not indicate how they leaned.
Seven of the 10 village committees that have heard the policy proposal so far have voted no. The three that voted yes — Central City, Encanto and Camelback East — are located in or near downtown where the most significant requirement cuts would occur. Camelback East is located in Robinson's district. Multiple committees in or near O'Brien's district had opposed the policy.
The village members deliberated the merits of the proposal in testy email exchanges in early and mid-July. The email chains appeared to violate Open Meeting Law and were curtailed after employees from Phoenix's planning department sent warnings.
Policy support focuses on walkability, heat, affordability, cutting red tape
Advocates for fewer parking requirements began emailing village committees in early July. Their comments focused on how cutting red tape would allow more building to flourish, reducing costs for developers and renters alike.
Nicole Rodriguez, an Encanto Village Planning Committee member who urged other committees to vote yes, said the policy change would allow small-scale developers to enter the market. She emphasized how the cost to build parking falls on renters.
Dan Klocke, former director of Downtown Phoenix Partnership, said it would open the door to build apartments on smaller parcels of land. More apartments would mean more property tax revenue to the city, he wrote.
Ryan Boyd, from Urban Phoenix Project, a group that advocates for "non-auto mobility," emphasized that the change would set a minimum, but not prohibit developers from building apartments with more parking. He added that parking minimums force individuals who can barely afford housing to subsidize parking for others.
Boyd also focused on walkability aspects, saying parking ratios were designed for suburban lifestyles and "kill any semblance of walkability." He pointed to Disneyland, saying no one wants to walk around the parking lots in the heat but they'll happily stroll Main Street stores.
Others focused on the policy as an opportunity to advance the city.
"Serving on these committees is an opportunity for us to lead Phoenix into the future—not to fight for the status quo simply because the proposed changes aren't perfect," said Shane Gore of the Shaw Butte Neighborhood Alliance.
Policy opposition puts spotlight on 'substandard' public transit
Committee member Louis Lagrave from the north Phoenix Desert Ridge area said his group voted no primarily because:
The city's public transit system isn't developed enough.
"Faulty logic in assuming that affordable housing doesn't need as much parking."
Concerns about walking in the heat.
"Poorly crafted plans for residents to park on streets."
Lagrave said there were potential negative consequences by relying on the city's "substandard public transportation" and urged supporters of the proposal to "look for a workable solution ... without turning Phoenix into New York City, Los Angeles or Chicago."
Jensen, from the Laveen committee, said she lives in an area surrounded by farms with owners interested in selling. One of the proposals includes a 1,700-unit residential complex. In her mind, she figures each unit could bring two cars to the area — a prospect she said the streets simply aren't equipped to handle.
Urban heat islands: In low-income Phoenix neighborhoods, the lack of shade trees is a question of equity
She'd approve the policy only if it applied exclusively to downtown and light rail corridor apartments and without creating a separate, steeper reduction for affordable units. No complex should ever see zero parking required, in her view.
"Mass transit may not get the person to his or her work conveniently or in good time. They may already have a vehicle. What do they do with it? I think it's unrealistic they would sell it," Jensen said. "It's not going to decrease the number of cars, it's just going to displace parking."
Tamala Daniels, a South Mountain committee member, also voted no. Daniels has worked in real estate for three decades, and she spent eight years as a regional apartment manager. It's that background, she said, that informs her view.
The way Daniels sees it, the conversation requires confronting the reality that most people in Arizona have cars and most don't live where they work.
Without adequate parking, Daniels said, apartments will charge exorbitant amounts for the spaces. Some already do, she added. This puts a lower-income person in a situation where they park outside their apartment complex because they can't afford to park inside.
Depending on where they park, Daniels said, their car risks getting towed, vandalized or broken into. That's a cost, not a benefit, she argued. If they get home from work late, parking outside their complex endangers them as they walk home in the dark.
If pro-urbanization and walkability advocates want less car dependence, Daniels said, then they need to install the public transit infrastructure first.
"At this point, people don't have options. And now, you're going to force people to give up a car, which means you can't get to a doctor's appointment (for example)," Daniels said.
"I'm a big proponent of different housing types, but I think this is an overreach," she added.
Some question the premise that affordable renters need less parking
A group of residents from the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix wrote a lengthy response to the policy, saying that any sweeping approaches to parking reductions were ripe for problems and that the policy was being rushed through the approval process without careful consideration.
Parking requirements should only be based on proximity to public transit and never on whether an apartment in considered luxury, low-income or subsidized, the coalition said.
"It is discriminatory to believe that people who live in lower-priced housing do not have or do not want personal vehicles," the group members wrote.
Public transportation in metro Phoenix: Mayors blast Legislature, vow to go to voters with transportation tax
David King, a professor of urban planning at Arizona State University, acknowledged, "It is incorrect to think just because you're low-income you don't have a car. And honestly, there are a lot of people who are lower-income who would be better off if they had access to a car. Access to an automobile is a huge predictor of success in the economy."
But, King said, lower-income people are less likely to have multiple cars, "so having one parking space per unit may be enough."
The nuance to consider, he added, is that this policy change would be for new construction and therefore wouldn't replace all existing units and parking spaces. Plus, the proximity to public transportation matters.
If an individual who is low-income needs a more affordable place to live, and they're someone who already takes the bus, this policy would create housing ideal for that tenant.
Audra Koester Thomas, a transportation planning manager at Maricopa Association of Governments, told The Arizona Republic that historically "67% of (the Valley's) transit users don't have any other option. They don't own their own car to be able to get to school or to work."
According to Valley Metro, the regional transportation agency serving Maricopa County, there were 65 million public transit boardings in fiscal year 2019. That figure was 32 million in fiscal year 2022. The majority were in Phoenix, at 66% for 2022.
The greater Phoenix neighborhood coalition also expressed concerns about:
How calculations don't take into account that more people are choosing to have roommates.
Parking minimum reductions are less accepted outside the downtown core.
More density could lead to less visibility at intersections, causing safety issues.
Parking for individuals with disabilities "should always be required and maintained."
Lower-income individuals shouldn't be expected to never have guest visitors with personal vehicles.
The coalition said it understands the need to make changes to parking rules but that neighborhood input beyond just village committees should be sought.
They pointed to a meeting the city's planning commission held with leaders from the housing industry. The commission called it a stakeholder meeting, but it included no neighborhood groups, which were obviously affected and involved, they said.
The coalition's letter ended, "Does the City of Phoenix think that simply vetting these proposals—changes that can have a vast impact on the existing population—should only be presented to VPCs?"
What City Council is saying
Vice Mayor Yassamin Ansari, who has long pushed for parking requirement reductions and eliminations, already said she would vote yes.
Councilwoman Debra Stark, of District 3 in the Moon Valley area, also said she's leaning in favor of the proposal.
Councilmember Betty Guardado, of District 5 in the Maryvale area, called the changes "important steps to address the rising cost of housing" and that it was vital to provide working families places to live near the transit system.
Councilmember Laura Pastor, who represents the midtown area, did not reveal which way she leaned, saying only that she appreciates the public input process and is preparing to make her decision. Pastor has in the recent past advocated for increased walkability.
Rochwalik, O'Brien's chief of staff, said O'Brien is concerned the policy sends a message to non-downtown residents that they are not welcome downtown, and that the policy perhaps inappropriately ropes in suburban areas.
Councilmember Robinson said he hadn't determined his position yet.
Councilmembers Jim Waring and Kesha Hodge Washington, of District 2 in northeast Phoenix and District 8 in south Phoenix and parts of downtown, could not be reached.
Reporter Taylor Seely covers Phoenix City Hall for The Arizona Republic. Reach her at tseely@arizonarepublic.com or by phone at 480-476-6116.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Phoenix proposal to reduce parking requirements sparks debate
