Planners Talk Smart Parking in Quest for New Solutions

First there was “smart growth.” Then there was “smart driving.” Now it’s “smart parking.” While parking may be the latest planning issue to gain the “smart” moniker, it’s a new name for an old challenge that has vexed planners, policymakers and developers for decades: What should be the role of the public sector in parking policies? To help answer this question MTC and the Northern California Chapter of the American Planning Association (APA) co-sponsored a workshop this past November at MTC’s Oakland headquarters called “Smart Parking for Smart Growth.” The event revealed both agreements and disagreements that underscore the difficulties in reaching consensus on this difficult issue.

Prof. Elizabeth Deakin of the UC Berkeley City and Regional Planning Department moderated the panel representing an array of parking stakeholders. Before introducing the panelists, she noted that most California cities have required a certain level of parking for new developments since the 1950s. She also explained that Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) introduced Assembly Bill 904 last June in an attempt to set a statewide maximum requirement of one space per residential unit and two spaces per 1,000 square feet for commercial development for areas within one-half mile of high quality transit. The legislation did not create parking maximums; it only lowered the minimum number of spaces required close to quality transit, allowing developers to build more if they like, and it contained provisions allowing cities to opt out. Nonetheless, the bill was withdrawn over disagreement and will likely be reintroduced in some form next year.

In an attempt to provide input to further progress in next year’s legislative session, Deakin asked the panelists and participants to address a variety of questions. Should cities require developers to provide parking when they build new projects, and if so should the required levels be related to the quality of transit for the location?  Or should the private sector be allowed to determine how much parking to provide for specific developments? And how should neighborhood interests be balanced with broader regional and state interests of housing affordability, economic efficiency, equity and environmental concerns?

The panelists were David Snow of the California Chapter of the American Planning Association, Eric Figueroa of the League of California Cities, Rebecca Long of MTC (standing in for Valerie Knepper), Mott Smith of Civic Enterprise Associates LLC and the California Infill Builders Federation, Justin Meek of San Jose State University’s Urban and Regional Planning Department, and Tom Pace of the City of Sacramento. The audience was invited to participate in small group discussions after the panel.

“The genesis of this conversation is that a number of jurisdictions have antiquated parking policies still on the books,” said David Snow. While stating that the APA supports parking reform, he said a major concern is whether parking policies should be addressed at the state or local level. The APA surveyed its members and found that the majority of APA planners thought parking should be a local issue, not the subject of statewide legislation, according to Snow. He said, “Planners should be able to do their work without having their hands tied by statewide legislation.”

Eric Figueroa offered the League of Cities’ perspective. “The League of Cities did oppose the bill that we’re using as a framework,” he said. “Parking is a matter of statewide importance, but the state budget and revenue for schools are bigger issues.” He added, “There doesn’t need to be a statewide mandate, but it can be a framework. We’re looking for an incentive-based approach; we’re not looking for a one-size-fits-all approach.”

MTC’s Rebecca Long said the agency considers parking policies to be an important piece of the puzzle because they affect land use and transportation and have other regional impacts. “Excessive parking requirements . . . lead to increased housing costs, and that’s something we don’t need in the Bay Area,” said Long.

Current parking policies are a “massive, massive failure,” said Mott Smith of the California Infill Builders Federation. “If anybody wonders why we have 7-11s and Taco Bells all over the place, the reason is because our parking requirements demand it.” He said the parking minimums don’t work because they increasing housing costs, they are exclusionary, they destroy neighborhood commercial districts and encourage displacement, and they don’t mitigate demand for parking. Finally, “Developers build as much as they think the market requires, even when zoning requires none,” said Smith.

Smith also praised the city of Sacramento’s recent new parking code, which was explained in greater detail by Tom Pace, the city’s principal planner. Sacramento’s “previous policy was to gobble up farmland, build highways and strip housing,” said Pace. The city set out to update its 50-year-old zoning code, including parking, with the goal of promoting economic development in infill areas. The city’s new parking requirements are context sensitive, depending on the type of neighborhood. A key outcome was the city’s decision to exempt nonresidential areas from minimum parking requirements, to permit more shared parking and to allow developers alternatives, such as providing extra parking for bicycles. The new parking requirements take effect at the end of December.

Following the panel, there was a brief question and answer period before the participants divided up for lively small group discussions. The small groups then reported out their findings. The main finding was that there was a higher level of support for statewide parking legislation among small group participants than there was among the panelists. Some participants said legislation was needed to provide cities the necessary political cover to make policy changes that might be unpopular.

There also was consensus among the small groups that while A.B. 904 had addressed the need for parking policies near transit rich districts, it was flawed because it didn’t define “transit rich.” Some also suggested that new legislation could also apply to density-rich areas, even if they aren’t close to transit. Finally, all agreed that any major overhaul in parking policies – whether at the state or local level – would need to be accompanied by better public education and public relations efforts to make the subject less confusing and to generate public support.

The workshop results will be forwarded to Assemblymember Skinner, the California APA Policy Committee and others to help decision makers craft smart parking solutions that everyone can support.