Section 29-35-301 - Legislative declaration(1) The general assembly finds, determines, and declares that: (a) There is an extraterritorial impact when local governments enact land use decisions that require a minimum amount of parking spaces;(b) Residential developments frequently have more parking than is utilized, which adds to housing costs and encourages additional vehicle ownership and vehicle miles traveled. According to the regional transportation district study titled "Residential Parking in Station Areas: A Study of Metro Denver", unsubsidized housing developments near regional transportation district stations provide forty percent more parking than residents utilize at peak times, and income-restricted housing developments provide fifty percent more parking than is used.(c) The 2021 study "Parking & Affordable Housing" of parking utilization at affordable housing developments along the front range found that half of parking spaces built on average go unused, and that requirements can be up to five times the need especially for buildings serving lower area median incomes;(d) Local government land use decisions that require a minimum amount of parking spaces beyond what is necessary to meet market demand increase vehicle miles traveled and associated greenhouse gas emissions. According to a University of California Institute of Transportation Studies article titled "What Do Residential Lotteries Show Us About Transportation Choices?", higher amounts of free parking provided in residential developments cause higher rates of vehicle ownership, higher rates of vehicle miles traveled, and less frequent transit use.(e) According to the study "Effects of Parking Provision on Automobile Use in U.S. Cities: Inferring Causality" in the journal Transportation Research Record, an increase in parking provisions from one-tenth to one-half parking space per person is associated with an increase in automobile mode share of roughly thirty percent;(f) According to the article "Households with Constrained Off-Street Parking Drive Fewer Miles" in the journal Transportation, vehicle ownership rates are fourteen percent higher for households with more than one available parking space per unit compared to those with one or fewer, and for every additional vehicle per household, the household travels on average seventeen more miles of total vehicle miles traveled per day;(g) Coloradans drive more miles per person than they used to, which puts stress on transportation infrastructure and increasing household costs. Since 1981, per capita vehicle miles traveled in Colorado have risen by over twenty percent according to data from the federal highway administration.(h) Increased vehicle ownership and the resulting vehicle miles traveled impact neighboring jurisdictions by increasing congestion, roadway infrastructure maintenance costs, air pollution, noise, and greenhouse gas emissions;(i) Given the close proximity and interconnected nature of jurisdictions within Colorado's metropolitan regions, many residents travel frequently between jurisdictions for work, shopping, recreation, and other trips;(j) In Colorado's major cities, a significant share of employees commute to jobs in the city but live elsewhere, including seventy percent of employees in Denver, forty-five percent in Colorado Springs, sixty percent in Fort Collins, fifty percent in Pueblo, and sixty-five percent in Grand Junction, according to 2021 data from the federal census;(k) Excessive parking requirements limit compact, walkable development by mandating additional space between uses, which then necessitates driving to reach most destinations;(l) Lower density development has lowered revenue and increased capital and maintenance costs compared to more compact development. National studies, such as the article "Relationships between Density and per Capita Municipal Spending in the United States", published in Urban Science, have found that lower density communities have higher government capital and maintenance costs for water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure and lower property and sales tax revenue. These increased costs are often borne by both state and local governments.(m) Vehicle traffic, which increases when land use patterns are more dispersed, contributes twenty percent of nitrogen oxide emissions, a key ozone precursor, according to the executive summary of the Moderate Area Ozone state implementation plan for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards by the Regional Air Quality Council;(n) The United States environmental protection agency has classified the Denver metro area and the north front range area as being in severe nonattainment for ozone and ground level ozone, which has serious impacts on human health, particularly for vulnerable populations;(o) According to the greenhouse gas pollution reduction roadmap, published by the Colorado energy office and dated January 14, 2021, the transportation sector is the single largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in Colorado;(p) Nearly sixty percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector come from light-duty vehicles, the majority of cars and trucks that Coloradans drive every day;(q) Section 43-1-128 (3) directs the department of transportation to establish greenhouse gas reduction targets, guidelines, and procedures for state and regional transportation plans, and the resulting greenhouse gas planning rule and associated mitigation policy directives include a list of greenhouse gas mitigation measures to achieve those targets, including the elimination of minimum parking requirements and other parking management strategies;(r) Local government land use decisions that require a minimum amount of parking spaces increase the cost of new residential projects, which increases housing costs. According to the regional transportation district study titled "Residential Parking in Station Areas: A Study of Metro Denver", structured parking spaces in the Denver metropolitan area cost twenty-five thousand dollars each to build in 2020 and use space that would otherwise be used for revenue generating residential units, decreasing the profitability of residential development. As a result, parking requirements that necessitate the construction of structured parking spaces may discourage developers from building new residential projects, or, if they do move forward with projects, force them to recoup the costs of building excessive parking by increasing housing prices.(s) Off-street surface parking costs up to ten thousand dollars per space, and each space requires up to two and one-half times its square footage to accommodate. As a result, off-street surface parking requirements also may discourage developers from building new residential projects, or, if they do move forward with projects, force them to build fewer units than they otherwise could and recoup the excessive cost by increasing home prices and rents. An analysis conducted by the Parking Reform Network found that an off-street parking space can add between two hundred and five hundred dollars per month in rent. Whether these costs are necessary varies from one building project to the next, and those variables are not accounted for in mandated parking minimums.(t) Minimum parking requirements put small businesses at a disadvantage relative to large corporations. Large corporations have more capital at their disposal to fulfill costly parking requirements and are less reliant on foot traffic, human-scale visibility, and a sense of place to attract customers.(u) Impervious surfaces such as those built for vehicle parking create an urban heat island effect, contributing to rising temperatures, increasing energy costs for air conditioning, and worsening ground level air quality. Excessive land coverage of this kind makes stormwater management difficult and expensive, and contributes to flash flooding and erosion, causing interjurisdictional conflicts and legal disputes.(2) Therefore, the general assembly declares that the required minimum amount of parking spaces for a real property is a matter of mixed statewide and local concern.Added by 2024 Ch. 159,§ 1, eff. 8/7/2024.2024 Ch. 159, was passed without a safety clause. See Colo. Const. art. V, § 1(3).