The Environment Board on Thursday agreed to create a committee to study changing city zoning from requiring a minimum amount of parking to setting a maximum for how many parking spaces any new development can have.
The move came at the request of at least three council members, responding to a push from some residents and community organizations. The board was asked to look at how other cities have handled setting parking maximums, as well as what might work best for different parts of Evanston. The recommendations will be considered as part of the development of the Envision Evanston 2045 comprensive plan.
While some board members welcomed the shift on parking, others expressed concerns that the plan would disproportionately impact less transit-rich parts of Evanston, and some questioned whether the board was even qualified to make these kinds of recommendations in the first place.
The board ultimately agreed to set up a committee made up of board members who were enthusiastic about the idea and subject matter experts. Board members are expected to officially vote on creating the panel on May 9.
Change aims to encourage transit use
Parking requirements have long been a cornerstone of urban planning throughout United States. But in recent years there has been a push to change the paradigm. As noted in the presentation by the city’s planning and zoning staff, the argument is that reducing the parking requirement would encourage more people to use public transit, bike and walk, free up land for more housing and public green spaces and generate property tax revenue.
The presentation included a map compiled by Parking Reform Network, a nonprofit that advocates for doing away with parking minimums, which shows 30 U.S. cities with parking maximums. That list includes some large cities such as Minneapolis, but most of them are cities like Ann Arbor, Michigan, which are more compatible in scale to Evanston, and even smaller communities such as Calumet, Michigan.
But, as city staffers and board members acknowledged, transit access is uneven throughout Evanston. ‘L’ and Metra lines only serve the eastern parts of the city. While CTA and Pace buses serve several major corridors, there is no bus service along Main Street, most of Church Street and Emerson Street. And there are issues with the service that does exist. For example, Pace Route 213, which serves the section of Chicago Avenue south of Davis Street and the section of Green Bay Road north of Davis, doesn’t run on Sundays.
Pace is reviewing its route network to see where it can make adjustments to better suit post-pandemic ridership patterns, which could affect service in Evanston.
While city planning staffers prepared the presentation for the Environment Board, they weren’t available to give the presentation due to scheduling conflicts with Envision Evanston matters. This left Sustainability and Resilience Manager Cara Pratt and Sustainability and Resilience Specialist Kirsten Drehobl trying to do their best to give the presentation and answer questions.
Pratt said that planning staffers will do their best to attend the May 9 Environment Board meeting to answer any questions.
Pratt: ‘There’s already a perception … that staff has an agenda’
In the presentation, the planning staff members suggested that the parking maximum policy should take “local context,” infrastructure, needs and availability of public transit into account. They also suggested that the policy should be flexible enough to evolve as those factors change, and try to mitigate any “drawbacks” the policy creates. It specifically mentioned the possibility that drivers who can’t find a place to park might park illegally.
Board co-chair Matt Cotter joked that he hoped he “didn’t tip my hat too much” about his views on parking maximums by arriving at the meeting carrying a bike helmet.
“These parking spaces aren’t generating taxable revenue, [just] a nominal fee for parking,” Cotter said.
Board member Jim Cahan wondered aloud whether the topic is something the board should be taking on given its other priorities, and he questioned whether the board was qualified to make such policy recommendations.
“Are we capable of doing what they asked for? I’m not a transportation expert,” Cahan said. “It’s not a bad idea, but I’m not sure it’s in our wheelhouse.”
Pratt responded that “there’s already a perception in the community that staff has an agenda,” and elected officials are expected to have agendas. The Environment Board, she argued, could serve as more of a neutral party on the issue
Lack of parking is often contentious, board member warns
Board member Paula Scholl said that she was worried that what the city heard so far missed the bigger picture
“Right now, you may be hearing from folks who want it to happen, but at every development meeting I’ve ever gone to, the No. 1 thing the community gets in the uproar about [is that] there isn’t enough parking,” she said.
Scholl was especially worried about a repeat of the “leaf blower situation,” in which the city adopts a policy, and an economically disadvantaged group is disproportionately impacted.
Cotter responded that he was conscious of the transit disparities, but said he didn’t believe that should stop Evanston from pursuing parking maximums anyway. He said he agreed with the idea that the policy shouldn’t be the same across the entire city.
Board member Jexa Edinberg agreed, adding that the disparities aren’t set in stone. “Walking distance can change as public transit expands,” Edinberg said.
Evanston could go from mandating parking to limiting spaces at new developments is from Evanston RoundTable, Evanston's most trusted source for unbiased, in-depth journalism.