LA City Planning Commission Parking Workshop
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

LA City Planning Commission Parking Workshop

on

  • 943 views

On May 12, 2011, the Los Angeles City Planning Commission, prompted by citywide discussion of the propsed Modified Parking Requirement (MPR) District ordinance, hosted a Workshop on Los Angeles' ...

On May 12, 2011, the Los Angeles City Planning Commission, prompted by citywide discussion of the propsed Modified Parking Requirement (MPR) District ordinance, hosted a Workshop on Los Angeles' Parking History, Context, and Examples.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
943
Views on SlideShare
943
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    LA City Planning Commission Parking Workshop LA City Planning Commission Parking Workshop Presentation Transcript

    • setting the stage: parking policy as Los Angeles matures andthe regional transit system is builtRegional Context Regional Context Robin Blair (METRO) Robin Blair is something that is essential to the FTA funding Jay Kim (LADOT) Jay Kim is the security, liability, and insurance issues, there a Planning Director at Metro and the process and to the criteria we are using. So Acting Assistant General Manager could be maximum flexibility in dealing with Parking Policy Modal Lead for the far, the city of Los Angeles and the surround- for the newly re-organized Office of parking.” 2011 Call for Projects. Parking Management, Planning and ing cities have adopted fairly aggressive land Regulations with the Department of use policies which favor transit use.” Transportation. He has over 20 years of transportation planning and engi- neering experience from both private• “Currently the renaissance of rail raises and public sectors. “ “ the issue of land use, which is the most The five criteria of FTA’s In the U.S. we have built considered factor for the Federal Trans- • “Because we impose parking require- portation Agency (FTA) in evaluating any ments on a project-by-project basis and new funding. In this context, the discus- sion of parking around transit becomes evaluation for fund- parking spaces are not designed to be three spaces per each publically shared, we over-provide park- important.” ing are the existing land ing. Parking spaces should be shared.” car. In downtown in par-• “Places like MacArthur Park have well survived and people gravitated to these use, the containment of • Regarding shared parking, “every build- ing will probably need to have some por- ticular, we have dedi- areas where they could get around the city without using automobiles. On the sprawl, transit supporting tion of the parking dedicated for their use; cated 81% of the land for corridor policies which parking that translates but there is huge opportunity still for part other hand, however, parking require- of that building to have that pool be avail- are directly tied to park- into 170 parking lots with ments have actually hindered the revital- able for public use.” ization or utilization of these old areas.” • “Parking problems should be approached• “Transit agencies regard the encourage- ing and parking form, the as a district problem. The ‘just perfect’ only a few parks.” supporting zones near ment of transit as the right policy. It would parking supply cannot be obtained based probably be better that the land uses near on the notion of supplying the average transit do not demand too much parking.” transit including parking parking rate. However, if we can create the framework under which the assets• “The biggest encouragement to reduce parking is to create an environment requirements and form, of the private sector could be made into and the track records of where there is alternative parking. This is the public pool, and if we can address01 I setting the stage performance.” setting the stage I 02
    • Regional Context Site Context Hasan Ikhrata (SCAG) Hasan Ikh- • “The urban form we will have in the future Stefanos Polyzoides (Moule and Illustration: Del Mar Station Transit Village rata is the Executive Director of the Polyzoides Architects) Stefanos Pasadena, California will be based not only on people’s preference Southern California Association of for housing, but also factors such as energy Polyzoides is a principal of Architec- Governments (SCAG). Prior to joining ture firm Moule & Polyzoides. His costs. The future—though not everywhere— SCAG, Mr. Ikhrata worked for the Los professional experience spans insti- Angeles County Metropolitan Trans- will be multi-family, small lots, near transit, tutional and civic buildings, historic portation Authority (MTA) where he and walkable communities.” rehabilitation, commercial projects, developed a comprehensive Trans- housing, campus planning, and urban portation Demand Management pro- design. gram for the MTA. “ • TOD parking recommendations: “• “The nation has experienced a great In Southern Califor- The actual space re- “Neighborhood and District-wide parking change since the 1960s. In 1960, al- nia, the demands for measures (1/4-mile radius); station park- most half the households were house- holds with children. Today that number is ing (street and structure) managed as a quirements for parking single-family homes on Park-Once system; high-quality public are so extreme and the around 28% and is expected to fall down. space throughout, particularly connect- Single-person households grew from large lots is going to de- ing parking and station; project parking 13% to 34%. The housing, transporta- ratio maxima, low to begin with and mon- access requirements for tion, and health care needs in the future cline significantly by parking are so extreme itored over time for use on a shared park- are probably not going to be similar to what we had in the past.” about 1 million units; the ing basis; area-wide reduction of parking ratios over time based on development that they end up domi-• “Recent national surveys consistently demand for multi-fam- thresholds and triggers; in lieu support revealed the preference of a significant of shuttles to adjacent neighborhoods nating the architectural portion of people for attached (38%- ily, small lots will go up, projects, as they emerge and districts; free parking for businesses 39%) and small lot housing with ameni- about 0.65 million units.” under 2,000 sf; obligatory decoupling of from the various zoning ties including easy access to transit. But, units and parking for sales and rentals; people’s actual preference may be very bicycle stations located adjacent to each different. This makes it very hard for the region to plan for the future.” station, and; reduction in street and ga- rage parking dimensions.” requirements for various municipalities.”03 I setting the stage setting the stage I 04
    • Illustration: MDA Johnson Favaro Architecture & Urban Design academic perspectives on minimum parking: congestion Typical Commerical Lot 7,500 sq. ft. and the cost of housing, goods, & servicesSite Context The True Cost of Parking Gwynne Pugh (Gwynne Pugh Donald Shoup, Ph.D. (UCLA) Pro- land use ‘needs’ simply by measuring such Urban Studio) Gwynne Pugh is a fessor Donald Shoup has served as variables as the number of fuel nozzles at a member of the City of Santa Monica Director of the Institute of Transporta- gas station, nuns in a convent, or reposing “By-Right” Retail Building Planning Commission, an urban de- 3,125 sq. ft. (improvements) tion Studies and Chair of the Depart- rooms in a funeral parlor.” signer, and a consultant. He has over 12 stalls (4 per 1,000 sq. ft.) ment of Urban Planning at UCLA. 20 years of architectural and design Donald Shoup has extensively stud- experience. ied parking as a key link between transportation and land use. “• “Each parking stall is about 350 square feet, if it’s reasonably and efficiently parked, incorporating the drive way, cir- • “Los Angeles is following the rest of the world in reforming its parking require- For a concert hall in culation and particularly ramps. A two- ments, it’s not leading. The minimum downtown, L.A. re- parking requirements are the real barrier quires, at a minimum, 15 bedroom unit in an affordable workforce housing project would be 850 square feet. “By-Right” Restaurant Building to density in this city. It isn’t the FAR; it 1,665 sq. ft. (improvements) However, its parking requirement would be 2-2.5 parking stalls, which equals to 16 stalls (10 per 1,000 sq. ft.) isn’t the dwelling units per acre; it is the minimum parking requirements.” times more parking than 850 square feet. We are not building • “Off-street parking requirements resem- San Francisco allows as housing; we are building parking.” the maximum. We built ble the pseudoscience of phrenology.• “The not-shared parking, which cannot Phrenologists believed that separate be leased out and it cannot have other uses, contributes to part of the parking parts of the brain were responsible for such characteristics as benevolence, the Disney Hall garage friendship, integrity, neatness, and self- seven years before we “ problems.” ishness, and the external features of the Parking drives what skull predicted these behaviours. This had the money to build you can actually do on sounds alarmingly similar to the notion that, without knowing anything about the Disney Hall. San Fran- lots, rather than what the the cost of parking spaces or the price charged for using them, planners can cisco built Louise David activity we really want to predict how many parking spaces every Hall without any parking have happen.” at all.”05 I setting the stage academic perspectives I 06
    • “ The residential parking requirement is go- ing to reduce the overall quality of hous- ing and the variety of housing available. Re-Impact of Residential Parking moving the minimum parking requirements in turn will give you both more housing and Mike Manville (UCLA) Mike Manville is a postdoctoral scholar at the Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies and the Institute of Transportation Studies at UCLA. He has conducted research into transportation more variety of housing.” policy and local public finance with a focus on how parking requirements influence both travel behavior and urban form. “ We fight the problem of• With residential minimum parking require- spent on parking. For people who do two parking spaces for each unit, rather than ments, housing has to be accompanied drive, this minimum parking requirement more affordable units. The parking require- by a specific amount of parking spaces. congestion by making functions as a subsidy. For people who ment changes the amount of housing and the Usually these parking spaces have to be don’t drive, this minimum parking require- type of housing.” on the same site. “When local govern- it hard to build housing— ment is a penalty. This situation results in • “The provision of off-site parking could be ment requires the developer to provide parking on-site with every unit, two things by forcing every hous- less housing and more expensive hous- ing for consumers.” one solution to the parking problem: existing buildings and existing parking may be used happen: the cost of housing goes up, and the cost of driving goes down. Cities end ing unit to make room for • The number of required parking spaces more efficiently, and unbundling parking from cars. This is both counter- may lead developers to build fewer hous- rents would be easier. Unbundling is impor- up with more expensive housing and less ing units than originally intended or per- tant because it lowers the price of housing.” productive and circular. expensive driving, resulting in less hous- mitted. “The zoning code just says one ing, more driving, and more congestion.” has to provide X amount housing, no• “Most cities prefer to have more hous- It doesn’t solve the con- matter the cost. Parking can be extraor- ing, more affordable housing, less driv- dinarily pricy. The marginal cost of an ing, and less congestion. Residential gestion problem and it additional parking space can be two or minimum parking requirements actively undermine that goal. Off-street parking makes housing prices three times the original price. Confronted with the cost of that one space, develop- requirements take the cost that should be paid by drivers, which is the cost of park- boom.” ers may prefer not to build those housing units. Cumulatively, the city loses a lot of ing, and it adds it to the cost of property housing, and the price goes up. Also, the development. The money people spend composition of housing supply changes. on housing is converted into the money Developers tend to build bigger units with07 I academic perspectives academic perspectives I 08
    • local examples & expertise: critical analysis Affordable Housing Affordable Housing Helmi Hisserich (LAHD) Helmi His- Shashi Hanuman (Public Counsel Law Lisa Payne (SCANPH) Lisa Payne • “Since January 2010 in a really down market, serich is the Assistant General Man- Center) Shashi Hanuman is the Directing is the Policy Director for the Southern we had 180 affordable units built in market ager at the Los Angeles Housing De- Attorney of Public Counsel’s Community California Association of Nonprofit rate developments, using the density bonus partment. Prior to joining LAHD, Ms. Development Project (CDP), which is ded- Housing. SCANPH creates afford- parking incentive. If reducing parking further, Hisserich has served as the Deputy icated to building strong foundations for able housing opportunities for low- Mayor of Housing and Economic De- healthy, vibrant communities in Los Ange- income people by expanding the we should keep some affordable require- velopment Policy for the City of Los les. Shashi’s work in CDP includes provid- knowledge, capacity, and influence of ments, and even ask for more.” Angeles and as a Regional Adminis- ing counsel to nonprofit community-based the nonprofit development sector. trator with the CRA/LA. organizations that advocate for strategies to preserve and produce affordable hous- • “According to the RHNA numbers, during • “Around the TOD areas, within the TOD ing. the last Housing Element period (1998 areas and within 0.5 mile each of these -2005), the city of Los Angeles was sup- “ transit stops, there are approximately • “Between 2001 and 2007, 20,000 affordable posed to build 17,990 homes affordable 112,000 RSO units that are about 18% homes were built, while 13,000 RSO units were lost, and 13,000 is actually an under- to very low-income households, about Transit planners fre- of our entire housing stock. It’s ready for quently speak of the $40,000 dollars per household. The City the taking. 55% to 70% of renters in the estimation. This cycle we have the same built only about 4,043 homes, or 21%; trends. The need is about 40,000 affordable TOD areas right now are already rent burdened.” homes. The last housing annual report from and 218% of housing for above-moder- ate income households in terms of mar- need for transit-oriented • “Reducing parking could decrease the 2009 says that so far we have only built about 500 affordable units, and 180 units were built ket rate.” development to support ridership, but what transit cost of development. However, it under- • “In 2007, nearly 50% of workers in Los with density bonus.” mines the current density bonus incen- Angeles made under $25,000 dollars a stations need is transit- tives for the provision of affordable hous- • “RSO units have lower parking requirements. year; over 75% made under $50,000 dol- ing—we are going to create tremendous Current condo parking requirements are lars a year. What’s being planned around amount of gentrification pressure.” higher. Reduction of parking permits addi- transit stops right now are mainly apart- oriented neighbors who“ tional units to be built, which makes feasible will regularly use this sta- ments for single people and couples In the 10 years after the conversions and demolitions. It is not a bad making over $80,000 dollars per year. policy, but which can have unintended conse- opening of the Red Line quences. Reduce parking but do it by ensur- This is a gap that will not be filled just by reducing parking or just by building more tion. I would say theyin Hollywood, land values ing that people of low income can live near transit.” density.” need both.”went up 562% and rents local examples & expertise I 10quadrupled.”
    • “ The ARO is the only, single, piece of legislation in this country to create 14,000 units of housing from 1999 to 2007.”Adaptive Reuse Process Issues & Parking Credits Hamid Behdad (Central City De- Bruce Silberman (Allied Parking) Bruce Mott Smith (Civic Enterprises) 12,003 multifamily units built in L.A. in 595 velopment Group) Hamid Behdad Silberman is the President and CEO of Al- Mott Smith is a Principle for Civic En- projects. 92% were in projects of 50 units or is the Co-President of the Central lied Parking. He has served as the prima- terprises. His work has focused ex- less. These projects are relatively marginal City Development Group. During his ry consultant for construction and develop- panding the application of joint-ven- profit wise. 69% were in projects of 10 units 18 years of civil service, Mr. Behdad ment for numerous clients over his 40 plus tures, mixed-use, and public-private served three consecutive Mayoral years in the parking business. real estate development models. or less. Our current parking codes make this Administrations for the City of Los kind of small-scale, workforce development Angeles. Mr. Behdad brings an ex- impossible.” • “Historically, Los Angeles has had citywide • “Overwhelmingly it is ‘moms-and-pops’ ceptional breadth of knowledge and centralized parking. Back in the 1950s, the that own the properties in L.A.’s com- • “This current dysfunctional system benefits expertise of real estate development, construction, land use, entitlements, parking commission was formed, which pur- mercial districts. Mostly, they are working land assemblers and speculators, communi- real estate law, civil and structural chased parking lots in various areas to have families with one or two small parcels. An ty benefits advocates, lobbyists and lawyers, engineering. centralized parking for future development. ordinance passed in 1990 by imposing city council members and extortionists; while In the 1980s, the off-street parking provisions different requirements on different uses ‘mom-and-pop’ landowners, small business-• “Whatever parking exists in any perspec- changed and the parking facility stopped get- created the problem for change of use es, working families, small workforce and re- tive of adaptive reuse project, let’s main- ting built. The off-street parking is what al- and made entire neighborhoods non- tail developers and community stakeholders tain that; do not reduce it, but do not ask lowed for the parking garages which could conforming. Discretionary actions have get hurt.” for additional because these buildings serve as the transitioning. Centralized park- become the norm for changes of use in simply cannot provide. But for the devel- ing does work.” these areas. They can cost businesses opers, if they feel the need for the market, $50,000-100,000 dollars and more than they will do it. Let’s trust the free market, • “There are properties that are available for a year just for these paper approvals. A “ let it decide rather than regulating it.” centralized parking, and there is adequate lot of small business and non-profits that Because our rules don’t parking. The City has some 1,500 covenants• Because of parking provisions of the within the garages that we own in downtown tried to operate in L.A.’s commercial dis- work for normal parcels adaptive reuse ordinance, “we created L.A. that are useable for adaptive reuse and tricts failed because there is no good way 14,000 housing units. It is the financing for housing.” to comply with our parking rules at this structures and certain specific plans that made 7.5%-10% of those units afford- scale in L.A.” -- assembly, exceptions and ‘creatures of the code’ • “Most infill developers in Los Angeles are able.” not professional developers—they are ‘moms-and-pops’. In 2006, there were have become the norm.”11 I local examples & expertise local examples & expertise I 12
    • Process Issues & Parking Credits Michael Tharp (Eagle Rock Neigh- parcels large enough to build the surface borhood Council) Michael Tharp parking that is necessary by code.” moved to Eagle Rock in 1988. He was president of The Eagle Rock • “The proposed parking program wasn’t to Association known as TERA, a rent out parking spaces; it was to rent out dues paying residents’ association parking credit for those spaces and consider with over 600 members, from 2005 them all as one area, to allow business to tap through 2007. He currently sits on into that pool based on their use and pay for the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Coun- the use of the credit for the spaces, rather cil Planning and Land Use Commit- tee and on the Colorado Boulevard than go through the variance procedure. We Specific Plan Design Review Board. started to get the small businesses the type He was President of TERA when the we wanted.” “ Eagle Rock Pilot Parking Program If you can’t park in was implemented.• “Back in 1988, when I moved to Eagle Rock, Colorado Boulevard was a fading front of the business, boulevard. We tried to come up with a parking program that would incentivize that’s okay because you the boulevard. At that time, a lot of busi- can park somewhere nearby. And if you walk nesses complained that the variance pro- cedures were too expensive and there was no guarantee of success. Resident groups were saying that we were de- two or three blocks, that stroying our historical buildings in order creates a more viable to build parking lots for commercial uses; we weren’t allowing small business en- street life. Other busi- Image: http://blog.andrewsable.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/banksy-parking1.jpg By Banksy, at 9th & Broadway, Los Angeles trepreneurs coming in but instead en- couraging only national chains to come nesses benefit from that in because they could afford to assemble as well.”13 I local examples & expertise