Tag Archives: parking requirements
Statewide Parking Reform Wins, But Could Locals Undermine It?

California made history this year when Governor Newsom signed a long-sought reform to deregulate local parking requirements on infill projects (as I blogged about back in September). But could one provision of the new law undermine its effect on the ground?

The issue is a provision in AB 2097 (Subdivision 65863.2(f), for anyone following along at home) that ostensibly exempts from this law any local requirements for electric vehicle charging installations in multifamily dwellings or commercial properties or to allow accessibility to persons with disabilities. In other words, if a local government required not just parking (which would now be illegal under the new state law) but also parking specifically for EVs and those with disabilities, what happens to that second part of the requirement?

The implications are significant. A city with such an EV or disability-access requirement on the books could potentially argue that developers will still need to provide some minimum parking that has these features. In fact, they could use the requirements as a backdoor parking mandate where none otherwise now exists. While most people support EV charging and disabilities access requirements for parking spots, doing so in the context of this legislation would clearly contradict the intent and plain language of the law.

When AB 2097 passed, it specifically deregulated parking mandates that typically come from local zoning codes, which have traditionally required developers to build a certain number of parking spaces for each housing unit and/or each 1,000 square feet of building area. EV and ADA parking requirements, however, usually come from a different section of local requirements, namely the building codes. Often these require that a certain percentage of any parking spots meet the additional standards of offering electric vehicle charging and/or accessibility. Crucially, building codes do not usually require that developers build any amount of parking—just that when they do, the parking meets certain standards.

In response, AB 2097 specifically preserved these building-code percentage standards in order to ensure that any parking provided at least advances sustainability and accessibility goals. But the provision was not meant to provide an easy out for local governments to circumvent the law’s fundamental goal of ending parking mandates near transit. Otherwise, cities could simply mandate a minimum number of parking spaces that must include electric vehicle charging (a percentage of which would by law also be handicap-accessible), and then AB 2097 would cease to have any effect at all.

So take a city that requires 30% of all required parking to have an EV charger. In that instance, they might argue that AB 2097 in fact only bans 70% of the parking mandate. Following that logic, if the city mandated 100% of spaces must include EV charging, then AB 2097 would effectively ban zero percent of parking mandates. That outcome would completely negate the purpose and impact of the new law.

The effect could be detrimental to infill projects. Imagine a small-lot developer who wouldn’t otherwise build any parking spots on a site under AB 2097. If cities now insisted that the developer provide EV charging and disabilities access, the developer would have to build parking where none was contemplated. That means providing two discrete accessible paths of travel from the street: one from the sidewalk and one from a parking facility that wouldn’t otherwise be there. This outcome would likely lead to developers continuing to orient buildings around parking spots rather than pedestrian, bicycle and transit access.

Instead, the only defensible read of the provision is that if a city requires a certain percentage of parking spots to have EV charging and be accessible to those with disabilities, those percentages should still apply: but only if the developer decides to build any parking at all. If the developer opts out of on-site parking, then a percent of zero is zero. If the developer wants to provide only half the parking that would have been locally required under the old regime, then the number of EV and disabilities-accessible spots should be halved.

Ultimately, the point of AB 2097 was to reduce dependence on automobiles, enhance access to buildings by non-vehicle modes, and lower the cost of building all types of housing near transit. If there’s parking, then open it to EVs, those with disabilities, and other local requirements. But if none exists, local governments shouldn’t force requirements that run afoul of the law.

We’ll see if cities with these requirements try to exploit this provision. If so, it may take some state agency guidance to make this point, or worst case clean-up legislation to clarify. Otherwise, one of California’s most important climate and land use bills could face some unfortunate headwinds on implementation.

A Small But Important Step For Reducing Infill Parking Requirements

Excessive local parking requirements are the poster child for bad local policies that discourage infill development.  It’s been well-documented that most local governments have a mindless ratio of required parking spots on the books for almost any type of project, and the result is less infill and higher prices.

parking_sign_315 750Governor Brown took a small step to remedy the situation by signing AB 744 (Chau) last week.  As I described after it passed the legislature, the new law will allow developers to request reduced minimum parking requirements for affordable housing projects near transit.  It updates California’s density bonus law to allow developments to build less parking if they maintain a portion of their units as affordable to low income residents and are near good quality transit.  AB 744 also amends the parking ratio for affordable housing and senior housing to require no more than 0.5 parking spaces per unit, and it amends the ratio for special needs housing to require no more than 0.3 parking spaces per unit.

This was a long-sought victory for infill advocates after a brutal defeat of a grander parking reform measure in 2011.  Hopefully it will be a building block to expand parking reform to all types of housing, and eventually to all pedestrian- and transit-oriented development projects.

California Poised To Enact Sensible Parking Reform For Affordable TOD

Mindless parking requirements badly hurt infill projects.  Even though these projects are often located near transit, city codes typically require boilerplate parking requirements.  With underground spots sometimes costing $30,000 each to build, limiting the height and the size of the building as a result, these requirements are a major impediment to growing in our urban areas instead of sprawling outward.

California may finally be chipping away at them with AB 744, on the governor’s desk now, which would reduce parking requirements for affordable housing near transit.  TransForm has the skinny:

  • AB 744 would modify outdated parking policies that currently force developers of affordable, senior, and special needs housing to build more parking than their residents need (especially in places where there is great transit!)

  • In doing so, AB 744 would empower planners and developers to on supply as much parking as a new development actually needs, saving them money on construction and in turn, bringing rent costs down for future residents.

  • AB 744 would also make it possible for developers to build more affordable homes (including near transit stops). Building more affordable homes near public transportation is not only a way to solve our state’s housing crisis, it’s an incredibly effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

For a detailed description of the bill, go here.

If AB 744 becomes law, we could see more successes like Garden Village, a student housing development in Berkeley that cut over $1 million in project costs by re-thinking parking needs. By working with our GreenTRIP program, the developer shifted from an initial proposal that included a $2.3 million underground parking garage to a traffic reduction strategy that nearly halved that cost and allowed the developer to provide additional affordable homes.

Let’s hope the governor signs this bill promptly, and also that the bill is just the first step in deregulating parking requirements for all infill projects across the state.

Parking Requirements Constrict Housing And Drive Up Prices Unnecessarily

Michael Manville has an excellent study in the latest issue of ACCESS magazine, documenting how the removal of parking requirements from developments boosts housing production and investment in otherwise-neglected areas. It also allows developers to provide parking that is actually in demand in creative, less expensive ways. He studied Downtown LA and the adaptive reuse ordinance that allowed developers to retrofit existing, vacant buildings for housing without having to provide new parking. Key conclusion:

I surveyed 56 ARO developments and gathered information about how they provided parking. I also examined over 1,500 downtown housing units using real estate transaction records, and interviewed planners, developers, and architects involved in converting ARO buildings into housing. What I found suggests that when cities remove parking requirements, developers build more housing with less parking, often in buildings and neighborhoods they had long ignored.

And the economic benefits for home-seekers are significant:

My results also suggest that units without parking are less expensive than units with parking. Controlling for many other differences, bundled parking was associated with about $200 a month in additional rent for apartments, and over $40,000 in additional selling prices for condos. Unregulated developers supplied a different, less expensive product than regulated developers.

Bottom line: state governments should ban locals from requiring parking minimums of developers. Let the market decide and allow developers to adapt to actual consumer demand.