California’s AB 2097 prohibits cities, counties, and other public agencies from requiring a minimum number of parking spaces for most new developments located within half a mile of a major transit stop. The law is codified at Government Code Section 65863.2 and applies to any residential, commercial, or mixed-use development application submitted on or after January 1, 2023.1California Legislative Information. California Government Code 65863.2 It does not cap parking. A developer can still build as much as a project needs; the city just cannot force a minimum.
Which Sites Qualify as Near Transit
The parking prohibition reaches any parcel within one-half mile of a “major transit stop” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3. A stop qualifies in one of three ways:
- An existing rail transit station, including subway, light rail, and commuter rail stops.
- A ferry terminal served by bus or rail transit.
- The intersection of two or more major bus routes with service intervals of 15 minutes or less during both morning and afternoon peak commute hours.
Not every bus stop counts. Before relying on AB 2097, confirm that the nearest qualifying stop actually meets the frequency and connection rules, and that the parcel sits inside the half-mile radius measured to that stop.
Projects Covered and Projects Carved Out
The law applies broadly to residential, commercial, and mixed-use development, including new construction, changes of use, and expansions. Three categories sit outside the prohibition.
Transient lodging. Hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast inns can still be required to provide parking. A residential hotel under Health and Safety Code Section 50519, where occupants live as primary residents rather than transient guests, stays covered by the prohibition and benefits from it.2California Legislative Information. California Code Health and Safety Code HSC 50519
Event-center worker parking. Event centers must still provide parking for employees and other workers as required by local ordinance. The carve-out is narrow: it covers worker parking only, not attendee parking or other commercial uses on the same site.
Pre-2023 commercial parking contracts. If a public agency executed a commercial parking agreement before January 1, 2023, and the required parking is shared with the public, that obligation survives. Later amendments to the contract are allowed but cannot increase the required amount. A developer can voluntarily build more, and the extra parking does not need to be publicly shared.
If a Developer Builds Parking Voluntarily
Choosing to include parking brings some local regulatory authority back into play. A public agency may require that a share of voluntary spaces be reserved for car-share vehicles, that parking be shared with the public, or that the owner charge for the spaces. One thing the agency cannot do is require that spaces be offered to residents for free.1California Legislative Information. California Government Code 65863.2 For project pro formas, that means voluntary parking can be modeled as revenue-generating rather than a sunk cost.
EV Charging and Accessible Parking Still Attach
Eliminating a minimum does not eliminate the rules that govern whatever parking a project does build. The statute preserves obligations for electric vehicle supply equipment and disability-accessible parking that otherwise apply to multifamily residential and nonresidential developments near transit. Both sets of rules key off the number of spaces actually provided.
Build zero parking, and neither federal ADA standards nor California’s EV infrastructure rules require you to add any. The U.S. Access Board has confirmed that accessible parking is required only where parking is provided.3U.S. Access Board. Chapter 5: Parking Spaces Build any parking, and the full regulatory framework applies, including CALGreen EV infrastructure requirements for multifamily projects.
When a City Can Still Require Parking
Local agencies retain a narrow override, but the bar is deliberately high. Within 30 days of receiving a completed development application, the agency must adopt written findings showing, by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that eliminating parking minimums would cause a substantially negative impact on one of three specific things:
- The jurisdiction’s ability to meet its share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment for low- and very-low-income households.
- The jurisdiction’s ability to meet identified housing needs for the elderly or persons with disabilities.
- Existing residential or commercial parking within one-half mile of the proposed housing development.
The 30-day window is short, and “preponderance of the evidence” means documented proof, not a council member’s concern about street parking. In practice this override functions as a safety valve rather than a routine tool.
Projects the Override Cannot Reach
Even when a local agency clears that evidentiary bar, it still cannot impose parking minimums on a housing development that meets any of the following:
- At least 20 percent of units are dedicated to very-low-, low-, or moderate-income households, students, the elderly, or persons with disabilities.
- The development contains fewer than 20 housing units.
- The development already qualifies for parking reductions under any other applicable law.
The third category is easy to overlook. A project using a density bonus parking concession under Government Code Section 65915, or any other state parking reduction, falls into this protected group automatically. Affordable projects, small projects, and density-bonus projects near transit are effectively parking-minimum-proof.
Effective Date
AB 2097 was signed in 2022 and took effect statewide on January 1, 2023. It applies to residential, commercial, and mixed-use development applications submitted on or after that date; projects already pending or approved before January 1, 2023, are not affected. The statute instructs agencies and courts to resolve ambiguities in favor of the parking prohibition, which gives applicants real leverage when a city tries to argue a project falls outside the law’s reach.