City Of Lancaster Eliminates Parking Minimums For Commercial Zones

Lancaster's commerical zones (in red) no longer require city-mandated minimum parking
Lancaster's commerical zones (in red) no longer require city-mandated minimum parking

Last night, the city of Lancaster gave final approval to an ordinance deleting parking requirements for commercial zones. The staff report [PDF] cites eliminating parking requirements as one step “to reverse low-density, sprawling development patterns, and the resulting fiscal liabilities.” Further, “by removing this regulatory barrier, developers would have the ability to maximize land use potential and value generation, with resulting long-term benefits to the City.”

Parking expert Don Shoup has long criticized municipal off-street parking minimum requirements as a “pseudoscience.” In many cases, one-size-fits-all parking standards are set based on very limited suburban examples, then applied throughout all kinds of neighborhoods.

Excessive parking drives up the costs of doing business.  In the words of the Lancaster staff report, “excessive, little-used parking spaces carry a definite cost, both in terms of the land needed to build them and the costs to maintain them.” These costs are paid by all customers, whether one drives or not. Right-sizing parking makes economic sense.

Lancaster’s Planning Director Brian Ludicke stated that the new law makes off-street parking “a business decision.” The “parking decision is in the hands of people who will benefit, or who will suffer” from that decision. Ludicke cited the example of the Trader Joe’s in nearby Palmdale. Trader Joe’s has reputation for somewhat difficult parking, but this reduces their overhead, contributing to lower prices. Businesses like Trader Joe’s will locate in areas with appropriate parking for their business model, and shoppers may adjust the ways and the times they patronize businesses, based on parking and other factors. 

Ludicke anticipates the ordinance will create more options for older, smaller commercial buildings, especially those that are not part of a larger shopping center. Parking requirements inhibit re-use of these older buildings, including those along the city’s main drag, Lancaster Boulevard. Again, from the city staff report, “Providing flexibility on off-street parking opens more options for development and utilization of under-used parking, particularly along the street frontages of commercial centers. In the long-term, more efficient utilization of land is also good for the City, providing a greater amount of tax base and employment opportunities.”

One additional benefit Ludicke cited was saving city planning staff time spent on calculating, determining, and verifying compliance.

The ordinance has a safeguard clause to prevent extreme abuse. Developers are required to “determine the number of parking spaces sufficient for the proposed use” and “provide justification acceptable to the Director of Development Services and/or the Planning Commission to support the determination.” According to Ludicke, the city is likely to accept “any reasonable number.”

Parking minimums remain in place for residential zones. Disability parking requirements remain in effect. The ordinance takes effect in 30 days.

  • Stvr

    Isn’t it interesting that the more culturally and politically conservative city has the more liberal, progressive, environmentally friendly design policies? Wise up, Santa Monica.

  • Nice, hoping to get other regions to realize these benefits and emulate this ordinance.

  • Good change, but it makes me wonder why they still have a commercial zone. Having commercial zoning and residential zoning is missing the boat of mixed use.

  • Joe Linton

    I don’t know the full full story, but, reading through their documents and talking with the planning head, the commercial zones do, at least in some places, include some mixed-use. Lancaster mixed-use projects no longer require parking minimums.

  • That’s usually the case, yeah. In LA for example, you can build housing in pretty much any C-zoned (commercially-zoned) area. You can’t in M-zones though (manufacturing/industrial).

  • Bliss

    “Commercial zoning” is mixed use. Residential is allowed – https://www.municode.com/library/ca/lancaster/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO_CH17.12COZO

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Donald Shoup Destroys “Libertarian” on the Cost of Parking

|
We’re reprinting this reply [PDF] from UCLA professor Donald Shoup, author of the High Cost of Free Parking, to Randal O’Toole, the libertarian Cato Institute senior fellow who refuses to acknowledge the role of massive government intervention in the market for parking, and the effect this has had on America’s car dependence. It’s an excellent […]

Planning Department Considering Stronger Bike Parking Ordinance

|
At this week’s meeting of the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Planning Department’s Rye Baerg outlined some proposed changes to the city’s bike parking ordinance for new developments that should go public this Spring. Currently, the City only requires bicycle parking for commercial and industrial buildings over 10,000 square foot at a rate.  For most […]

Long Beach’s State Senator Lowenthal Takes on Parking Requirements

|
Last week, State Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) introduced legislation that takes aim at how California’s municipalities think about parking and parking requirements.  What S.B. 518 is missing in co-sponsors it makes up for in chutzpah.  If enacted, the legislation would require that every municipality in the state earn at least "20 points" in parking […]