Addressing the failings of parking policy is a mainstay topic of the movement for financially resilient cities. But so far these discussions have centered on reducing or eliminating parking minimums. But let’s back up for a moment and talk about the minimum size of those spaces (also called stalls) and how those seemingly innocuous strips of paint may contribute to economically fragile, less livable cities.

Lodi, California is a city of over 65,000 people just north of Stockton in the California Central Valley. As a result of its location, groundwater and heat are two *ahem* hot topics in planning here. Shade trees and green infrastructure in parking lots in general are important practices to incorporate — not only because of the many benefits of urban trees, but because these practices help reduce the pressure on expensive municipal stormwater management systems and help recharge the depleted water table in this semiarid region where agriculture drives the local economy.

Lodi encourages best practices for parking lot design in its Development Code guidelines. The guidelines recommend planting enough shade trees in the parking lot to shade fifty percent of the asphalt area within five years from the time of their installation. The guidelines also recommend visually breaking up large paved areas with landscaping and reducing the amount of stormwater run-off resulting from the lot.

But the Development Code’s mandatory parking design standards, just four subsections earlier in the ordinance, require continuous curbing between all parking and landscaping areas. The design standards also do not contain any requirement or incentive for stormwater reduction, nor any requirement or incentive for actually planting shade trees.

The result of these discrepancies? Cities get what they require and potentially lose what they desire when design requirements do not provide a carrot or a stick to accompany best practices.