Long Beach legislator proposes parking reform menu

California State Senator Lowenthal (D - Long Beach and vicinity) last week introduced a bill (PDF) that would require all California cities and counties to reform parking laws. The bill includes a menu of reforms with “points” for each, similar to the LEED ratings for buildings. It would require localities to enact reforms totaling 20 “points” by 2012.

Reforms on the menu include:

• Reducing required parking minimums (20 points max for complete elimination, 2 to 10 for partial elimination)
• Implementing maximum allowable parking (5-20 points depending on the limit)
• Requiring parking to be underground or be “wrapped” in retail or active uses (2 points)
• Increasing density limits or floor area ratios to promote infill on existing parking lots (10 points)
• Allowing tandem parking and/or mechanized lifts in parking garages (2 points each)
• Requiring residential and commercial buildings to unbundle parking, with a minimum monthly price equal to the cost of a monthly transit pass (5 points)
• Performance parking, which sets meter rates at market demand to a target of 85% occupancy (12 points total)
• Parking benefit districts, which devote parking revenue from one area to improving the district itself (5 points)
• Parking sales taxes or parking impact fees devoted to encouraging alternatives (5 points each)

Under the proposal, localities can pick any 20 points off the menu, but must have the changes in place by January 1, 2012. Localities are also allowed to propose reforms that are not on the menu, and would get points proportional to the reduction in vehicle trips compared to items on the menu. The bill includes a carrot for localities to go beyond the minimum requirement: if they pass 50 points, localities get a bonus for competitive loan and grant programs.

The bill also prohibits using state funds to subsidize construction or operation of parking facilities, especially at community colleges, with some exceptions. The bill defines the full cost of a parking space to be the land cost, construction costs including environmental review, operations and maintenance. One of the exceptions is when the cost of charging for the space is more than 75% of the revenue collected.

The bill is aimed at helping California’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels within the next 10 years. According to the bill, cars and light trucks make up 30 percent of California’s emissions, and even with new vehicle and fuel technologies, trip and per capita vehicle mile reductions are needed to meet the overall emissions reduction goal.

This menu makes a lot of sense for urban and suburban localities in California such as San Francisco, Berkeley, San Jose, Los Angeles and Long Beach. What about rural Siskiyou County, CA (largest city Yreka, population 7,300), for example? Where are they going to find 20 points from this menu that make sense for such an area?

These low-density localities could cut minimums in half, to 2 spaces per 1000 square feet of building. Developers can always build more than the minimum. That gets 5 points. Then, they could require employers to offer transit passes to employees on a pre-tax basis, which costs employers nothing (2 points); establish a parking benefit district to devote parking revenue back to improvements (5 points); install meters where parking was crowded, probably not many places except downtowns (2 points); remove restrictions on mechanical parking and tandem parking, because people are unlikely to build those anyway (2 points each); and establish a “shared parking ordinance” for the last two points. This minimum amount of reform might reduce vehicle trips in rural areas, but it’s not likely to make a huge difference like implementing 50 points would in San Franciso or Oakland, or their suburbs where zoning laws often still mandate auto-dependent development patterns. The “one size fits all” approach might be fairest politically, but in this case, might not make the most sense. In any case, this bill is probably unlikely to pass, but it would be an interesting change if it did.