The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Item - 2023-11-27 - Number 06.1.1 - Staff Presentation (PP 22-0001)11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 1 Citywide Parking Reform (PP 22-0001) Climate-Friendly & Equitable Communities (CFEC) Planning Commission Work Session November 27, 2023 Community Development Overview 1. Background / Review 2. Pros and Cons of Different CFEC Options 3. Revised Schedule and Public Engagement Plan 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 2 3 Background / Review CFEC Rules: Overview •Parking - Phase A –By December 31, 2022 •Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging –By March 31, 2023 •Housing in Climate Friendly Areas •Transportation Systems Plan Update –By November 2024 4 •Parking - Phase B -By December 31, 2024 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 3 Why Reduce Parking Mandates? Market-based approach to parking that would be driven by supply and demand –No mandated parking does not mean that no parking will be provided 5 13th and Olive in Eugene built twonew 700 stall parking garages even though none were required. Source: DLCD. Edge Corvallisstudent housing provided 2.7 spaces/unit (2.56 mandated). Source: DLCD. (1 of 4) Parking uses a lot of land 6 Most cities have a parking management problem, not a parking supply shortage Source: Sightline Institute Source: DLCD Why Reduce Parking Mandates?(2 of 4) 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 4 Parking is a significant expense and displaces housing 7 Source: DLCD Source: DLCD Source: DLCD Why Reduce Parking Mandates?(3 of 4) Many parking spots are underused 8 King County:40%avg.unused Albany,OR:30%avg.unused BayArea:28%avg.unused Hillsboro:25%avg.unused Source: DLCD Why Reduce Parking Mandates?(4 of 4) 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 5 Purpose of parking requirements Most minimum parking requirements were established by: •Surveying nearby cities, or •Consulting Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) handbooks. 9 No explicit rationale could be found for the parking requirements adopted in 1961 in the City’s legislative history. Source: 11/02/1961 City Council Special Meeting Minutes CFEC Benefits for Oregon Businesses Reduced parking mandates have reduced barriers for new businesses 10 1964 building in Central Point with a non-conforming parking lot, which served as a barrier for the re-use of the site. Parking reforms eliminated this barrier and allowed for a new business to be located in the building. Jordan Elting at his business, Reset Button Arcade, in Tigard. He spent months waiting for permission to serve beer at his strip-mall location, despite a permit to do so, because it triggered higher parking requirements. New state parking rules resolved the issue. 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 6 Examples from Lake Oswego Many multi-tenant buildings have been required to do parking studies in order to fill vacant tenant spaces, per the City’s numerical parking standards •This is expensive – it requires an application fee of $4,467 in addition to the cost of hiring a traffic engineer to do the parking study – thousands of dollars in total 11 Elephants Deli at 3970 Mercantile Drive Ironlight Building at 525 3rd Street (1 of 3) Examples from Lake Oswego More often, the numerical parking standards prevent new businesses from locating in LO There are several developments in the city where parking requirements are often an issue and tenant spaces can be difficult to fill, particularly for restaurant uses 12 Kruse Village Shopping Center Retail building at 16120 Boones Ferry Road (2 of 3) 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 7 Examples from Lake Oswego 13 (3 of 3) Oswego Village Shopping Center Lake Place Shopping Center 16140 Boones Ferry 7-10 Centerpointe 14 Pros and Cons of Different CFEC Options 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 8 Parking – Phase B 15 Due by December 31, 2024 Source: CFEC Parking Reform Overview, DLCD, November 16, 2022. City must select one of three options (3 of 3) two Options for CFEC Compliance 16 Option 1: No Mandates Repeal minimum parking requirements citywide Nothing further required Option 2: Fair Policies Implement two (of five) options: 3. Flexible commute benefits required for employers of 50+ ppl 4. Establish a tax on commercial parking lots ALSO,pick one of these two : a. Remove parking mandates within and ¼ mile from Town Centers; OR b. Adopt parking management in Town Centers – including: •Paid on-street parking •½ space per unit required for residential use •No mandates for commercial use Option 3:Reduced Red Tape Eliminate minimum parking requirements for: •Studios / one-bedroom apartments •Group quarters •Transit-oriented and mixed-use development •New uses / expansions Historic districts •LEED / Reach Code •Buildings vacant 2+ years •Small businesses •Schools •Bars •Development within and ½-mile from Town Centers 2a 2b 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 9 REPEAL ALL PARKING MANDATES •No further action required Oregon cities that chose Option 1: •Portland •Salem •Corvallis •Bend 17 •Tigard •Central Point •Albany •Beaverton Option 1 18 Option 1: No Mandates PROS CONS Ease of Implementation Simple, easy to explain / understand Reduces staff workload - Cost of Implementation Minimal to no additional cost - Level of Flexibility for Businesses Results in the most flexible regulations for new businesses citywide by eliminating parking requirements - Level of Flexibility for Development Results in the most flexible regulations for all development types citywide by eliminating parking requirements - Impact on Development Costs Likely to reduce the cost of development – including housing development – citywide - Impact on Parking Regulations Consistent elimination of requirements would apply evenly citywide Eliminates regulatory barriers - Impact on Existing Developments Mostly applies to new development or changes of use - Other Parking provided in response to market demand Could result in neighborhood parking overflow in some circumstances. Over the long-term, the City may need to implement additional parking management policies to mitigate this potential outcome. 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 10 Requirements for both OPTIONS 2 and 3 1. Garages and carports may not be required for residential developments. 2. Garage parking spaces shall count towards off-street parking mandates. 3. Shared parking shall be allowed to meet parking mandates. 4. Required parking spaces may be provided off-site, within 2,000 ft. pedestrian travel. 5. Parking mandates shall be reduced by one off-street parking space for each three kilowatts of capacity in solar panels or wind power provided. 6. Parking mandates shall be reduced by one off-street parking space for each dedicated car- sharing parking space in a development. 7. Parking mandates shall be reduced by two off-street parking spaces for every electric vehicle charging station provided in a development. 8. Parking mandates shall be reduced by one space for every two units in a development that are fully accessible to people with mobility disabilities 19 All eight provisions must be implemented for both Option 2 and Option 3 Options 2 and 3 (1 of 2) Requirements for both OPTIONS 2 and 3 1. Remove all parking mandates within Climate- Friendly Areas and within one-quarter mile distance of those areas; OR 2. Manage parking by: –Adopting a parking benefit district with paid on-street parking and some revenues dedicated to public improvements in the area; –Adopting land use amendments to require no more than one-half off-street parking space per dwelling unit in the area; and –Adopting land use regulations without parking mandates for commercial developments. 20 One of these two provisions must be implemented for both Option 2 and Option 3 Options 2 and 3 (2 of 2) 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 11 Applicability in Lake Grove In order to comply with CFEC, commercial parking requirements must be removed in the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay. •There is no alternative. •This is true regardless of which option is selected for Phase B of the parking requirements. Residential parking requirements can either be removed (Options 1, 2a & 3) or reduced to ½ space per unit (Option 2b) 21 Option 2 FAIR PARKING APPROACH 1. Require that parking spaces be “unbundled” for residential developments of 5+ units. 2. Require that parking spaces be “unbundled” for commercial development. 3. Require employers of 50+ employees to provide a flexible commute benefit if they provide free or subsidized parking to their employees at the workplace. 4. Enact a tax on the revenue from commercial parking lots, with revenues dedicated toward improving transportation alternatives to drive-alone travel. 5. Reduce parking mandates for new multifamily residential development to no more than one-half space per unit, including visitor parking. 22 Two of these five provisions must be implemented for Option 2 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 12 23 Option 2a: Fair Parking + Reduced Mandates PROS CONS Ease of Implementation - More difficult to explain and understand Increases staff workload Cost of Implementation - Increased complexity and cost to implement Requires new regulations and compliance monitoring Level of Flexibility for Businesses Some flexibility for new businesses - Level of Flexibility for Development Some flexibility for development in Lake Grove - Impact on Development Costs Likely to reduce the cost of development – including housing development – within Lake Grove - Impact on Parking Regulations Parking only required in locations that are further from transit or less walkable Reduces regulatory barriers Regulations depend on use and location / proximity Differing impacts in different parts of the City Impact on Existing Developments -Unbundling and flexible commuter benefit program would apply to existing development Other Parking reductions for providing sustainable infrastructure or accessible dwelling units Could result in parking overflow near Lake Grove, in some instances 24 Option 2b: Fair Parking + Parking Management PROS CONS Ease of Implementation -Paid on-street parking, unbundling and flexible commuter benefit program would be challenging to implement and would add complexity to the City’s already complex parking regulations Cost of Implementation -Requires new regulations and compliance monitoring Paid parking would have budget impacts and require additional staff resources to implement Level of Flexibility for Businesses -Continuation of regulatory barriers for new businesses Flexible commute program would create new impacts on existing businesses citywide Level of Flexibility for Development -No additional flexibility for development Impact on Development Costs -No likely reduction in development costs Impact on Parking Regulations -Paid parking for at least 10% of street parking in Lake Grove No reduction or elimination of regulatory barriers – would result in the highest possible parking requirements Impact on Existing Developments -Paid on-street parking, unbundling and flexible commuter benefit program would impact existing development in Lake Grove Other Parking reductions for providing sustainable infrastructure or accessible dwelling units Based on outdated parking requirements that do not reflect current market demand or conditions 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 13 No parking required for: 1. Climate friendly areas (CFAs) and areas within ½ mile pedestrian travel of CFAs; 2. Mixed-use development; 3. Group quarters – such as dormitories, religious group quarters, adult care facilities, retirement homes, and other congregate housing; 4. Studio apartments, one-bedroom apartments and condominiums; 5. Changes of use or redevelopment of vacant buildings; 25 All of the above provisions must be implemented for Option 3 6. Changes of use or redevelopment that may otherwise require additional parking; 7. Expansion of existing businesses (by less than 30% of a building footprint); 8. Buildings with a historic designation; 9. Small commercial properties (< 10 employees or < 3,000 sq. ft.); 10. Developments built under the Oregon Residential Reach Code; 11. Buildings seeking LEED certification; 12. Schools; and 13. Bars and taverns. REDUCED REGULATION PARKING MANAGEMENT APPROACH Option 3 (1 of 2) Implement one pricing mechanism: 1. Designate at least one residential parking district or parking benefit district where on-street parking is managed through paid permits, meters, or other payments; OR 2. Require that parking for multi-family residential units be unbundled parking. 26 One of these two provisions must be implemented for Option 3 Source: City of Portland Source: City of Eugene Option 3 REDUCED REGULATION PARKING MANAGEMENT APPROACH (2 of 2) 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 14 27 Option 3: Reduced Red Tape PROS CONS Ease of Implementation - The most difficult option to explain and understand Increases staff workload Cost of Implementation - The most complex option Requires new regulations and compliance monitoring Level of Flexibility for Businesses Some flexibility for new businesses - Level of Flexibility for Development Some flexibility for development in Lake Grove - Impact on Development Costs Likely to reduce the cost of development – including housing development – within Town Centers - Impact on Parking Regulations Parking only required in locations that are further from transit or less walkable Reduces regulatory barriers Regulations depend on use and location / proximity Differing impacts in different parts of the city Impact on Existing Developments Unbundling and paid on-street parking would impact existing development Other Parking reductions for providing sustainable infrastructure or accessible dwelling units Could result in parking overflow near Lake Grove, in some circumstances 28 Option 1 Option 2a Option 2b Option 3 Ease of Implementation Simple, easy to explain and understand Reduces staff workload More difficult to explain and understand Increases staff workload Challenging to implement Adds complexity The most difficult option to explain and understand Increases staff workload Cost of Implementation Minimal to no additional cost Increased complexity and cost to implement Requires new regulations and compliance monitoring Requires new regulations and compliance monitoring Paid parking would have budget impacts and require additional staff resources The most complex option Requires new regulations and compliance monitoring Level of Flexibility for Businesses Results in the most flexible regulations for new businesses citywide Some flexibility for new businesses Continues regulatory barriers Flexible commute program would impact businesses Some flexibility for new businesses Level of Flexibility for Development Results in the most flexible regulations for all development types citywide Some flexibility for development in Lake Grove Minimal additional flexibility for development Some flexibility for development in Lake Grove Impact on Development Costs Likely to reduce the cost of development – including housing development – citywide Likely to reduce the cost of development – including housing development – within Lake Grove No likely reduction in development costs Likely to reduce the cost of development – including housing development – within Town Centers Impact on Parking Regulations Consistent elimination of requirements would apply evenly citywide Eliminates regulatory barriers Reduces regulatory barriers Regulations depend on use and location / proximity Differing impacts in different parts of the City Paid on-street parking No reduction or elimination of regulatory barriers – would result in the highest possible parking requirements Reduces regulatory barriers Regulations depend on use and location / proximity Differing impacts in different parts of the City Impact on Existing Developments Mostly applies to new development or changes of use Flexible commuter benefit program would apply to existing development Paid on-street parking and commuter benefit program would apply to existing development Unbundling and paid on-street parking would impact existing development Other Responsive to market Could result in overflow to neighborhoods; may necessitate parking management Incentives for sustainable infrastructure or accessible dwelling units Could result in parking overflow near Lake Grove Incentives for sustainable infrastructure or accessible dwelling units Based on outdated regulations, not demand Incentives for sustainable infrastructure or accessible dwelling units Could result in parking overflow near Lake Grove 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 15 29 Revised Schedule and Public Engagement Plan 30 Citywide Parking Reform – Revised Schedule Rulemaking Updates & Extension Request [Jun 2022- Jul 2023] Council Study Session #1 Jun 21, 2022 PC Update #1 Jun 27, 2022 PC Update #2 Jan 9, 2023 PC Work Session #1 Jul 24, 2023 Project Background and Alternatives [Aug – Sep 2023] CC Study Session #2 Sep 5, 2023 PC Work Session #2 Sep 25, 2023 Work Plan / Public Engagement Plan [Oct – Dec 2023] Targeted Outreach Oct – Dec 2023 PC Work Session #3 Nov 27, 2023 CC Study Session #3 Dec 5, 2023 Initial Concepts & Recommendations [Jan – Apr 2024] Targeted Outreach Jan – Mar 2024 Community Meeting Mar 7, 2024 CC-PC Joint Meeting Apr 16, 2024 Draft Code Amendments [Apr – Jun 2024] Drafting, Internal Review Apr – Jun ‘24 PC Work Session #5 Jun 24, 2024 CFEC Parking Code Amendments [Jul – Nov 2024] PC Hearing Oct 14, 2024 CC Hearing Nov 19, 2024 Final Adoption Dec 3, 2024 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 16 Public Engagement Plan Targeted Outreach to key stakeholders: •Mayor’s Roundtable •Lake Oswego Sustainability Network (LOSN) •Chamber of Commerce / Lake Grove Business Committee (LGBC) •Neighborhood Chairs Committee •Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) Project Website + Updates Articles in Hello LO Project Email List 31 Focus Group Discussion with representatives from: •Housing Production Strategy Task Force •Sustainability Advisory Board •Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisory Board •LOSN •Chamber of Commerce / LGBC •TAB Open House / Community Meeting Planning Commission meetings City Council meetings PC Direction CFEC OPTIONS •Where should staff focus? •What aspects should be prioritized? –Flexibility for businesses? –Reducing complexity? –Avoiding parking overflow? –Implementation cost? 32 Public Engagement Plan •Input / guidance? –Stakeholders? –Outreach methods? 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 17 33 Questions? 34 APPENDIX 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 18 OPTION 1:Repeal All Parking Mandates 35 1RESIDENTIAL PARKING OPTION 2:Fair Parking Approach 36 RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS SUBOPTION A: Remove all parking mandates within CFAs and within ¼- mile of CFAs 2a + Unbundled Parking + / or More 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 19 OPTION 2:Fair Parking Approach 37 RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS SUBOPTION B: ½ space required per dwelling unit within CFAs 2b + / or More + Unbundled Parking + Paid On- Street Parking OPTION 3:Reduced Regulation Parking Management 38 RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS 3 + More + Parking Management 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 20 OPTION 1:Repeal All Parking Mandates 39 1COMMERCIAL PARKING OPTION 2:Fair Parking Approach 40 COMMERCIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS 2b2aOR + / or More + Unbundled Parking + Paid On- Street Parking 11/27/2023 PP 22-0001 21 41 COMMERCIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS OPTION 3:Reduced Regulation Parking Management 3 + More + Parking Management