Wait ‘Til Next Year: Parking Reform Bill Pulled from Assembly Committee

The Globe Mills Transit Oriented Development in Sacramento won national and international awards for design and livability. Sacramento has a minimum parking requirement of one space per unit, the same standard A.B. 904 wishes to create for every city in California. Photo:##http://www.miyamotointernational.com/our-work/commercial/globemills/##Miyamoto International##

With the clock ticking, a state bill that would have banned parking minimums near transit nodes in certain circumstances was pulled from the July 3 California Senate Governance and Finance Committee agenda, shooting down major statewide parking reform efforts for at least another year. A.B. 904, a bill which waspraised by parking policy guru and UCLA professor Donald Shoup, appears to be dead in the water, but opponents vow to re-introduce a similar proposal next year.

Leading the charge for A.B. 904 was Mott Smith, a developer based in Los Angeles who sits on the California Infill Builder’s Association Board of Directors. “I’ve heard from countless cities that they want to fix their 60-year-old parking requirements, but they don’t have the money, the staff or the political will to take this on by themselves,” said Smith. “Next year’s version of AB 904 will give them tools to grow much more sustainably and affordably, without creating an onerous State mandate.” Berkeley Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, who introduced A.B. 904, is likely to sponsor a new proposal.

The legislation would stop municipalities from imposing parking minimums on new development of more than one space per unit or 1,000 square feet of retail within a half-mile of a transit node without meeting one of four exemptions.  The legislation wouldn’t impact parking meter rates, require the removal of any parking space, or even limit the amount of spaces that could be developed.

However, opponents claimed those were all possibilities in their mis-information campaign against the A.B. 904, led by the League of California Cities. The campaign’s tactics were at times laughable: Smith remembers a flyer distributed against A.B. 710, a similar bill a similar bill proposed last year, showing a clown car and bemoaning the lack of car parking for the planned Farmer’s Field Stadium.  Of course, because the bill doesn’t limit the developer with parking maximums, the image had about as much to do with A.B. 710 as a picture of aliens destroying a parking garage.  Still, the campaign was effective.

At a roundtable discussion hosted by the American Institute of Architects Los Angeles Chapter last week, one developer opposed to the legislation waxed poetic about mammoth parking structures needed at many of the areas premier housing projects.  Again, because A.B. 904 doesn’t create parking maximums, he would have been free to build as many of these garages as his heart desired.  Later, a City Councilman explained why Culver City opposed the legislation noting that the city imposed higher parking minimums on a Transit Oriented Development planned for its Expo Line Station.  “We don’t want to lose our development,” he pleaded.  Of course, one of the exemptions from A.B. 904 allowed for areas that included parking as part of a larger T.O.D. plan. Even if A.B. 904 became law, Culver City was safe.

However, what got A.B. 904, which passed the Assembly unanimously in January, was hampered by process.  The legislation was on a fast track in the Senate, making it a target for accusations of special treatment by the League of California Cities.  The charge seems to have stuck.  Advocates are readying for a year-long fight next year.

The sagaof A.B. 904 shows just how difficult achieving even modest parking reform can be.  Ever since UCLA Urban Planning Professor and Parking Rock Star Donald Shoup first demonstrated how a glut of parking, both on and off street, chokes communities; advocates have battled for sensible parking policies.  But despite decades of progress on other issues, getting rid of parking minimums remains a dicey proposal.

AB 904 supporters included affordable housing advocates: the California Housing Consortium, the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, the San Diego Housing Federation and other, cities: Berkeley, Davis and San Bernardino, transit groups: TransForm and Move L.A., and environmental organizations: the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the U.S. Green Building Council.  Joining the League of California Cities in opposition was the American Planning Association.

  • too bad. This is one of the most important changes for better transportation and better urbanism. for some, reducing parking requirements is scary because their vision of the city is as a suburb with the single family home as the building block ‘protected’ by zoning that seperates uses and mandates parking everywhere.  Hopefully it will pass next year!

  • Nathan Landau

    Fellow APA members, what can we do to ensure that this travesty isn’t repeated the next time this bill comes up?

  • ywhynot

    Man the political planning process literally makes me want to cry! Why is it so hard to pose and pass modest, well thought out legislation, that makes 8 things better for every 1 thing it makes a bit more inconvenient? The pace of change in this country really infuriates me sometimes. Hopeful for next year. 

  • Juan Matute

    Cal APA had their elections in March.  I suppose the next elections will be next March.  Bylaws are here: 
    http://www.calapa.org/en/cms/?68

    Apparently the Cal APA’s legislative review committee is opt-in, so you can email David Snow to participate in future discussions.

  • lindan164

     tinyurl.com/cyk9xz2

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/cyk9xz2

  • Matt K.

    There are just too many stupid people in this country.  Perhaps, we should make cars less safe so that they all crash into each other and thin the herd.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

STREETSBLOG CALIFORNIA

California Legislative Update

|
In Sacramento, bills are beginning to move more quickly through the committee process as this week’s policy committee deadline approaches. Below are highlights on some of the bills pertaining to sustainable streets issues. Cap-and-Trade Funds for Transit: After Streetsblog wrote about its focus on large projects, author Jim Beall (D-Santa Clara) amended S.B. 9 to allow […]

As Leg. Season Closes for Now, a Review of the Season

|
While most California cyclists are thrilled that the Senate and Assembly agree that car drivers should give cyclists a three foot berth when speeding past them, the legislative session in Sacramento was mostly positive, but still somewhat mixed.  As the Senate and Assembly prepare to go into recess, here’s where many important pieces of legislation […]

Finally, a 710 Worthy of Support: State Considers Restricting Parking in Transit Oriented Districts (Updated Below)

|
A.B. 710, the Infill Development and Sustainable Community Act of 2011 introduced by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) would mandate that automobile parking minimums in Transit Oriented Developments would be capped to one car per residential unit or per 1,000 square feet of retail space.  The Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee is scheduled to hear […]
STREETSBLOG USA

California APA Pooh Poohs Statewide Parking Reform Efforts

|
Parking reform is always difficult. Decades of market-distorting parking minimums have made people feel more than a little bit entitled to subsidized off-street car storage. (See this reaction from a Seattle resident: “We need parking to survive.”) But parking reform makes housing more affordable and reduces artificial incentives to drive. So it’s disappointing to see an […]