title
CC - ACTION ITEM: (1) Review and Discussion of Update, Informational Materials and Survey Regarding Comprehensive Revisions to Zoning Code Requirements and Standards Relating to Required Off-Street Parking Citywide; and (2) Direction Related to Discussion Items.
body
Meeting Date: June 27, 2022
Contact Person/Dept: Gabriela Silva, Associate Planner
Andrea Fleck, Planning Technician
Phone Number: (310) 253-5736 / (310) 253-5737
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Attachments: Yes [X] No []
Commission Action Required: Yes [X] No []
Commission Name: Planning Commission Date: May 25, 2022
Public Notification: (Email) Meetings and Agendas - City Council (06/22/2022)
Department Approval: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director (06/07/2022)
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council (1) receive and discuss the Comprehensive Parking Code Update strategies; and (2) provide direction relative to the discussion items for preparation of a proposed Zoning Code Amendment
BACKGROUND
The City is advancing several mobility and transportation strategies related to off-street parking. City parking policies have evolved toward requiring less parking, concentrating parking at key public areas, sharing parking among uses and in general downsizing the parking footprint in new development in favor of encouraging use of alternative modes of transit.1
Planning Commission and City Council directed staff to prepare a Comprehensive Parking Code Amendment at the May 2020 Joint Study Session regarding Parking and Mobility. Subsequently, in May 2021 the City Council submitted a letter of support for Assembly Bill (AB) 1401, prohibiting cities from implementing minimum parking requirements for any land use within a ½ mile of certain transit infrastructure (Attachment No. 1). Though the bill was never approved by the State, the issuance of the letter of support for the bill was an indication of the City’s position on the matter. Large areas within the City are eligible to provide zero parking under this concept. In line with the concept presented in AB 1401, the City made changes to the Zoning Code to allow for requests to reduce or waive required parking for mixed-use development within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) district, and later for all development citywide with consideration of mobility features incorporated into the development as well as proximity to transit infrastructure.
Staff has researched various parking reduction strategies and mobility trends, including municipal codes from other jurisdictions, articles, existing best practices, studies, surveys, and other sources (see summary of research in Attachment No. 2). Staff also assessed past projects presented to the Planning Commission, as well as to City Council, to aid in establishing a baseline for required mobility features.
The proposed Zoning Code Amendment ultimately presented to the Planning Commission and subsequently to the City Council will be based on the research conducted and the goals and objectives identified for the City’s future development as it relates to off-street parking, mobility, and promotion of alternative transit modes. The mobility measures included in the draft amendment will be reviewed by the Community Development Department, Transportation Department, and Public Works Department and will be consistent with the direction of the ongoing General Plan Update.
Planning Commission Discussions and Recommendations
Staff presented the Planning Commission with summaries of the research conducted and proposed concepts of the parking code amendments for consideration. Over multiple Planning Commission discussions, held on August 11, 2021, October 13, 2021, and May 25, 2022, the Planning Commission provided feedback to staff. In general, the Planning Commission responded favorably to the concepts, though some Commissioners expressed a desire for a more incremental approach regarding some of the concepts. The table below provides a summary of their feedback regarding the concepts presented in the Analysis/Discussion section below. At the final discussion meeting held on May 25, 2022, only three of the five Commissioners were present.
Please reference the three Planning Commission Discussion Meeting staff reports and minutes for further information (Attachment Nos. 3 and 4).
DISCUSSION
The key objectives of the proposed Zoning Code Amendment consist of the following:
• Reducing parking supply and parking footprints,
• Encouraging use of alternative modes of transportation,
• Increasing transit/mobility options,
• Promoting housing development,
• Promoting parking alternatives, and
• Promoting livability and sustainability.
Accordingly, the proposed Zoning Code Amendment will include changes to the following:
Summary of Proposed Parking Code Changes
• Minimum Required Parking Ratios: General reduction of required off-street parking, based on survey of other jurisdictions and consultation of ITE Parking Generation Manual. Depending on the recommendations of the City Council, this may also include complete elimination of minimum required off-street parking citywide or for projects within a specific distance to public transportation infrastructure meeting specific criteria, consistent with the letter of support issued by the City Council for AB 1401. Preliminary mapping indicates most of the properties in the City are within the specified distance from public transportation and would not have a minimum parking requirement. AB 1401 has not moved forward.
• Parking Maximums: Establish a cap on how much parking or “surplus” parking is provided, with any excess parking subject to payment of a fee as a penalty, with possible exceptions for some small-scale residential projects.
There are several methodologies for parking minimums and maximums implemented throughout the country, including as listed below.
o Adopting a parking code regulations table that lists the maximum parking allowed for all uses (as a ratio or as a set number), with no minimum required (a project/site could potentially provide zero parking)
o Implementing a cap that allows a surplus above the (minimum) required as percentage or as a fixed number. Some cities use a maximum surplus of spaces or a percentage ranging from 5% to 50%, whichever is greater, above the required minimums
o Variations of the above include setting such maximums, but only for certain zones/districts or only for certain uses; or allowing a surplus through a discretionary process, such as a use permit
• Parking Reductions: Establish automatic reductions to required parking when a project implements alternative parking solutions or mobility improvements/ measures (specified by the Zoning Code), with a combined maximum parking reduction of 40 percent2, including a reduction for implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan when applicable.
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Codify and create a TDM Plan requirement with a robust set of measures, and with an associated parking reduction (ranging from 10-15%, counted toward 40% maximum allowable parking reduction for all combined measures). A TDM Plan is required for projects meeting certain tiered thresholds, with larger projects required to incorporate more TDM measures than smaller projects.
• Bicycle Parking: Revise current bicycle parking requirements to increase minimum bicycle parking with additional requirements pertaining to size, placement, design layout and allow a tradeoff of bicycle parking and facilities for vehicle parking.
As seen in the research provided, parking reductions for bicycle parking is implemented in different ways. Most of the sources found indicated vehicle parking reductions in exchange for bicycle parking are typically allowed when bicycle parking is provided above the minimum requirements.
• Automated and Stacked Parking: Establish a citywide threshold for administrative review of automated and stacked (vertical) parking (e.g., smaller scale parking), to streamline the process for allowing this type of parking3. Other requirements (e.g., technical studies, operations plan, etc.) would still be required to consider sensitive receptors (e.g., residential zones).
• Parking Credits/Reductions for Change of Use: Establish a parking allowance or credit to streamline the approval for change of use (e.g., office or retail to fitness studio or restaurant) without requiring the full complement of net new parking (or any additional parking) such as in cases of an existing non-conforming site with no capacity for additional parking.
Parking Reductions for Mobility Features without Shared Parking Analysis. Item 3 of the list above allows reductions to required parking through implementation of the mobility features noted below.
• In-Lieu Fees: Allow a parking reduction by payment of a fee in-lieu (for a portion of required parking) to support new mobility features that serve the project. Fees could be paid on a price per stall basis and apply toward provision of mobility features within the associated project area to improve area mobility.
• Car-Share: Allow a parking reduction for certain uses (e.g., mixed-use developments, hotels, and motels) with provision of on-site car-share
• Carpool/Vanpool: Allow a parking reduction for certain uses with the provision of preferential parking for rideshare vehicles and rideshare matching
• Bikeshare: Allow a parking reduction for certain developments that incorporate on-site bikeshare or are within a certain distance from City-sponsored bikeshare facility
• Proximity to Transit: Allow a parking reduction for certain uses within 0.25 and 0.5 miles of a major transit stop.
• Travel Subsidies and Financial Incentives: Allow a parking reduction for certain uses, for the implementation of specific subsidies for alternative transit modes including the following:
o Metro Pass Subsidy
o Bike-Share Subsidy
o Parking Space Cash-Out Program
o Commuter Incentives for Non-drive-alone Modes
o Subsidized Rideshare Vehicles
o Pre-tax Transportation Benefits
• Unbundled Parking: Allow a parking reduction (15%) for certain developments/uses (e.g., non-residential, mixed-use) within the TOD or certain distance from eligible transit, when all development parking is unbundled
• Ride-Hail: Allow a parking reduction for commercial uses that incorporate on-site ride-hail parking
• Bicycle Parking: Allow a parking reduction for non-residential and mixed-use developments that provide bicycle parking more than minimum bicycle requirements
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan: Establish a requirement for a TDM Plan that incorporates a minimum combination of mobility measures, with varying associated point values. The requirement for a TDM Plan is based on project size, with minimum required number of points (and mobility measures) tiered such that larger projects have a higher point value requirement. The mobility measures with an assigned reduction have a lower/zero-point value since those measures already have an associated parking reduction.
o Multi-modal Infrastructure (e.g., carshare, bike facilities, etc.)
o Travel Subsidies and Financial Incentives
o Automobile Trip Consolidation (e.g., Shuttle Service, Ride-Share Matching Program, Guaranteed Ride Home Program, etc.)
o Scheduling (e.g., Compressed Work Week, Remote Work, Staggered Shifts/Flexible Work Hours, etc.)
o Promotion (e.g., On-site Services and Amenities (e.g., showers, lockers, etc.), Site-wide TDM Program Coordinator, Marketing/Targeted Outreach, etc.)
o Other (Optional) - (e.g., Parking Pricing (including for use by general public), Mobility Fee)
A sample scenario based on the office development at 8777 Washington Boulevard is provided below to illustrate how these concepts would be implemented. The 8777 Washington development is comprised of a multi-story 132,500 sq. ft. office building, which required 379 parking spaces and provided 392 (a surplus of 13 spaces).
COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND SURVEY RESULTS
Staff conducted outreach to a variety of community stakeholders, including residents, business owners, architects, developers, and other local below addresses. Outreach included two stakeholder meetings and a survey questionnaire. The meeting invitations and survey were distributed by email to 410 stakeholders, using a compilation of email lists from various community outreach sources. In addition, the survey link was distributed by email through the City’s GovDelivery on April 7, 2022, and the survey was closed at the end of the day on Sunday, April 24, 2022.
The first meeting was held on Wednesday, April 6, 2022, for business, developer, and other non-resident stakeholders, with 22 people in attendance. The second meeting was on Thursday, April 7, 2022, for residents, with 28 people in attendance. During the meetings staff gave a brief presentation outlining the purpose of the meeting, the intent to pursue a Zoning Code Amendment related to parking, the general background and objectives of the parking code, and major areas of study for the parking code. Staff’s presentation also included a review of the parking survey.
During the first meeting, comments from the public centered around wanting change that is balanced and transitional, recognizing the capacity of existing transportation and mobility options. Changes that are not drastic, that developments and their users/occupants are not able to adequately adapt and transition to in an appropriate manner. During the second meeting, comments varied widely, with some commenters supporting elimination of parking minimums and implementation of parking maximums while others expressed a desire to maintain some minimums.
Staff prepared the distributed survey, intended to provide a general understanding of the range of opinions of stakeholders in the community. Some stakeholders were critical of the survey as representing a point of view. Staff’s intent was to simply provide an overview of the parking issues the Planning Commission and City Council are discussing to obtain a broader cross section of public opinion than is obtained through public meetings that generally draw the same stakeholders. There were 447 questionnaires completed. Given that the nighttime population of Culver City is approximately 40,779 and the daytime population is approximately 71,863, it is understood the number of surveys submitted is just a small sample size and is not necessarily representative of the average stakeholder. See Attachment No. 5 for a summary and for the full results of the questionnaire responses.
CONCLUSION
City Council direction is requested in the seven areas identified above to enable the preparation of a proposed Zoning Code Amendment. The seven topic areas are:
1. Minimum Required Parking Ratios
2. Parking Maximums
3. Parking Reductions
4. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
5. Bicycle Parking
6. Automated and Stacked Parking
7. Parking Credits/Reductions for Change of Use
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the discussion of this item.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Staff Report and Support Letter pertaining to AB 1401 (May 24, 2021)
2. Compilation of Parking Research
3. Planning Commission Discussion Meeting Staff Reports (without attachments)
4. Planning Commission Discussion Meeting Minutes
5. Parking Survey Results
MOTION
That the City Council:
1. Receive and discuss the Comprehensive Parking Code Update strategies; and
2. Provide direction relative to the 7 discussion items identified for preparation of a draft Zoning Code Amendment.
NOTES
1. The City has focused development around transit nodes such as the Transit Oriented Development District adjacent to the Expo Light Rail line, reduced parking requirements by Council resolution when in proximity to transit, required mobility options in Conditions of Approval in new developments, permitted automated parking administratively in parking deficient area and is currently implementing a pilot circulator project between the Arts District and the downtown.
2. 40% is the maximum parking reduction derived by staff based upon the data found regarding this topic, but may be adjusted at the direction of Planning Commission and/or City Council
3. The Hayden Tract and Smiley Blackwelder areas are parking impacted areas per Section 17.320.025.C where automated parking may be administratively approved.