I think it's a mistake to think that parking utilization is a strong indicator of parking need. (I'm also rather doubtful that parking gets anywhere close to 100% utilized, but that's a different topic)

The question really is, if we removed 25% of parking spaces in Assembly, what would happen? Would 25% of current drivers disappear entirely, or would some of that crowd just switch to buses, trains, or walking? Do they drive because they have to or because they want to? Would the decrease in cars encourage more foot and bike traffic in the area?

Maybe the bottleneck isn't the capacity of the parking lots, but the capacity of the businesses. After all, restaurants can only seat so many people, bowling alleys only have so many lanes, etc. In that case, fewer drivers just means a more attractive area for people to take the train to. Remember that lots of the parking in the area is for residents. They don't need cars to go to Assembly, they live there.

It's important to remember that cars aren't people. Just because we make an area less appealing to cars doesn't mean we've made the area less appealing.

And then there's the whole concept of what we would replace that parking with. If we're talking about the parking structures, that could be more ground floor retail creating demand and more upper floor housing giving the area plenty more people to frequent the shops and restaurants. Cars are big, like, really big. A typical parking space is around 130-150 sq ft., (plus garages have to have the lanes to drive in and out). So three or four parking spaces is the same size of a studio apartment