Agenda Item - 2023-12-05 - Number 9.1 - Presentation - Citywide Parking Reform (PP 22-0001) � Community
Off, � QJ, Development
1 ,, � i
RE O�
� G
Citywide Parking Reform ( PP 22-0001)
Climate-Friendly & Equitable Communities (CFEC)
City Council Study Session
December 5, 2023
Overview ,.', iiii‘, 1
1 . Background / Review
2 . Pros and Cons of
i.. 1111111111MIN".111..
Different CFEC Options et __-(Amt-
3 . Recent Updates to CFEC A. :11
'
Rules � - � ,, � A�
4. Revised Schedule and �'
Public Engagement Plan .. - ; .� : '
Background / Review
„--,1__.,_•
,t . ,
f;.
CFEC Rules : Overview
(----7----,- 0' �'N . ._..
Alitti111fi� � �� 7'- 1�a 1 -
Parking - Phase A _ � -�. _ , 4.�
— By December 31, 2022 •- L `'• ',...,..-•
`E-• _1 f
itirgt wit:*• --.. • J
Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging - • .,. .
.� r + 1
— By March 31, 2023 •,Y - 1V,aiwilliiVi-Vgkar�--Z., }- �= -
•
• Housingin Climate Friendly ,- . � -
Areas - yo '-:_
4_
• Transportation Systems Plan _ �'°N "”'r`. '1
Update I• 1%a. iti-:_ .:,,,,...„0,..
girt,
:
p •••• 1_
• ai :°'ii RI r �►L ,,
— By November 2024 " ,."m.`
. 7 i _ii'._Ail:.‘1,. -11.4.01.,.._ititi• ,*....t.:..iptit....tt%::5:.;:•,...,.:-
• Parking - Phase 6glo,..,,, 1,
,.
15‘ if ^ �.r - 1j4 -
llil Q� - By December 31, 2024 ;' 4`
tiLJ --- J
., „"."011 re:S.) I_.1 , .
° 'EG° 11=
Purpose oparking requirements
Most minimum parking requirements were established by:
• Surveying nearby cities, or
• Consulting Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) handbooks.
Figure 1 Selected Land Uses With Minimum Parking Requirements
Asylum Indoor Soccer Facility Rifle Range
Bingo Parlor Junkyard Slaughterhouse
Convent Kennel Taxi Stand
Diet Clinic Landfill Ultra-Light Flight Park
Exterminator Massage Parlor Veterinarian
Fraternity Night Club Wastewater Treatment
Gunsmith Oil Change Shop Zoo
Horse Stable Pet Cemetery
Source:Selected from the minimum parking requirements for 179 land uses in Planning Advisory Service (1991, 3)
No explicit rationale could be found for the parking requirements adopted in
1961 in the City's legislative history.
City Attorney called to the attention of the Council and the Planning Commission
gyp, the off-street parking requirements stating that it is impossible to comply with,
fad -�- and that he has no solution to offer,
I� T
[� Source: 11/02/1961 City Council Special Meeting Minutes
U 0
CFEC Benefits for Oregon Businesses
Reduced parking mandates have reduced barriers for new businesses
f
illik
• g_ I •
Allarrir‘•
. . ba
WIA IIII 0Is' � r ';-id • S
L.
D._ r
1964 building in Central Point with a Jordan Elting at his business, Reset Button
non-conforming parking lot, which Arcade, in Tigard. He spent months waiting
served as a barrier for the re-use of for permission to serve beer at his strip-mall
the site. Parking reforms eliminated location, despite a permit to do so, because
, 1� E Q this barrier and allowed for a new it triggered higher parking requirements.
4 business to be located in the building. New state parking rules resolved the issue.
� n
oREGov-
Examples from lake 1of c 3)
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 $4,467 in addition to
the cost of hiring a traffic engineer to do the parking study — thousands of
dollars in total
11-11411
114
w a, .: �• P �- ��: 111 �_
2►�
" gra idir— - 1
_ ago, 04041.11,11 c Ira
16. i
4
Elephants Deli at 3970 Mercantile Drive Ironlight Building at 525 3rd Street
n
0
Examples from lake 2of3c )
More often, the numerical parking standards prevent new businesses from
locating in LO
There are several developments in the city where parking requirements are
often an issue and tenant spaces can be difficult to fill, particularly for
restaurant uses
Car Wash
, ,R _ .
firt,
•
Kruse Village Shopping Center Retail building at 16120 Boones Ferry Road
(S,P, Ej)
,� n
Examples from lake of(33)
7 .
.
e.
.. -'4' _,,.:,..,, - Alli ,if
4� -1_ ft�1 .. 5
-. -• =-} _ ____- � . —
a�� .- f
Ang-
Oswego Village Shopping Center Lake Place Shopping Center
V 0 ��~ 6140 Boones Ferry 7-10 Centerpointe _ � . z
wowL
Pros and Cons of
Different CFEC Options
Parking — Phase B (3of3)
Due by December 31, 2024
Option 1 Options 2 and 3
660-012-042 660-012-0425 through 0450
Reduce parking burdens—reduced mandates based on shared parking, solar panels,
EV charging, car sharing, parking space accessibility, on-street parking, garage
parking. Must unbundle parking for multifamily units near frequent transit. May not
City require garages/carports.
must Climate-friendly area parking— remove mandates in and near climate-friendly areas or
adopt parking management policies; unbundle parking for multifamily units
select Repeal Cities pop. 100,000+ adopt on-street parking prices for 5%of on-street parking
parking spaces by September 30, 2023 and 10% of spaces by September 30, 2025
one of Option 2 Option 3
three mandates enact at leastotpleoet of five policies all of the below
t1011$ 1. Unbundle parking for No mandates for a variety of specific uses, small
options residential units sites, vacant buildings, studios/one bedrooms,
2. Unbundle leased commercial historic buildings, LEED or Oregon Reach Code
parking developments, etc.
No additional 3. Flexible commute benefit for No additional parking for changes in use,
action needed businesses with more than 50 redevelopments, expansions of over 30%.
employees Adopt parking maximums.
4. Tax on parking lot revenue No mandates within %2 mile walking distance
/0� ��`-r 5. No more than 1/2 parking of Climate-Friendly Areas.
'_~ -re) space/unit mandated for
0 Designate district to manage on-street residential
V 0 multifamily development parking.
Source: CFEC Parking Reform Overview, DLCD, November 16, 2022.
OREGOt •
�
M
Options for CFEC Compliance
Option 1: No Mandates Option 2: Fair Policies Option 3: Reduced
Repeal minimum parking Implement two (of five) Red Tape
requirements citywide options: Eliminate minimum parking
Nothing further required 3. Flexible commute requirements for:
benefits required for • Studios/one-bedroom
employers of 50+ ppl apartments
4. Establish a tax on • Group quarters
commercial parking lots
• Transit-oriented and
ALSO, pick one of these two : mixed-use development
2a a. Remove parking mandates • New uses/expansions
within and % mile from Historic districts
Town Centers; OR
• LEED/ Reach Code
2b b. Adopt parking
management in Town • Buildings vacant 2+years
Centers— including: • Small businesses
• Paid on-street • Schools
parking
• Bars
• 1A space per unit
F required for • Development within and
6 � s residential use %-mile from Town Centers
,.., rrs No mandates for
0 commercial use
OOR��D
Option 1
TABLE 50.06.002-3:MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS
REPEAL ALL PARKING MANDATES Parking Space Required
See Editor's note following fable regarding CDC
• N o further action required Type of Use Rules reducing minimum off-street parkin. .ices
requirements based on types of use or .farce
from transit.
(E)COMER
1.Office,includin. tress and management 3.33 spaces per 1.000 sq.ft.G.. .
services except me. or dental
Oregon cities that chose Option 1: 2.Medical and dental o' or clinics including 3.9 spaces per 1.000 sq. - .F.4.
accessory laboratories for •icine,dentistry,
• Portland • Tigard veterinarian practice or other. ices of the healing
arts
3.Bank 2.5 spaces p- :100 sq.ft.G.FA.
• Salem • Central Point 4.Supermarket 2.9space• •r1:000 sq.ft.G.FA.
5.Convenience food store 2.2 s. per 1,000 sq.It G.FA.
• Corvallis • Alba ny 6.Specialty food stores,such as coffee.Nagel 'ce 6.. ,aces per 1,000 sq.ft.G.F.A.
bars(take-out foodldrink primarily)
• Bend • Beaverton 7.Eating or drinking establishment 12j '3.3 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.G.F.A
8.Eating or drinking establishment with drive-up •. 'aces per 1,000 sq.ft.G.F.A.
window_2]
9.Barber shop,beauty salon,personal c services. 4 spac •r 1,000 sq.ft.G.F.A.plus 0.5 space per
such as nail,tanning,and therapeutic- -sage station
salons
10.Retail sales and rentals,ex as otherwise 3.3 spaces per '0 sq.ft.G.F.A.
specified herein L3]
11.Heavy equipment re such as yard and tool 1 space per 1,000 sq. .F.A.plus 0.5 per employee
equipment
12.Service or rep.' op,such as electronic and 1.6 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. .
home appliance .air,upholstery
13.Automo' epair garage and service station 1.6 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.G.F.A. 0.5 per
employee
7�" E Q 14.M' ,ary 1 space per 5 seats based on maximum. •'torium
Ar
capacity plus 1.5 space per employee Cr-
• trs,' 15.Martial arts;music,dance,gymnastics,yoga 1 space per 100 sq.ft-G.F.A.of lesson activity .r
f•••4 ') studios area,plus 0.5 space per employee
\DR,_GO
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 Results in the most flexible regulations for -
Businesses new businesses citywide by eliminating
parking requirements
Level of Flexibility for Results in the most flexible regulations for -
Development all development types citywide by
eliminating parking requirements
Impact on Development Likely to reduce the cost of development— -
Costs including housing development—citywide
Impact on Parking Consistent elimination of requirements -
Regulations would apply evenly citywide
Eliminates regulatory barriers
Impact on Existing Mostly applies to new development or -
Developments changes of use
Other Parking provided in response to market Could result in neighborhood parking
demand overflow in some circumstances. Over
the long-term,the City may need to
implement additional parking
management policies to mitigate this
V �� On potential outcome.
O tions 2 and 3p (1 of 2)
Requirements for both OPTIONS 2 and 3
Garages and carports may not be required for residential developments.
0 Garage parking spaces shall count towards off-street parking mandates.
Shared parking shall be allowed to meet parking mandates.
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
o� o�, All eight provisions must be implemented
�. for both Option 2 and Option 3
of 2 2 Options 2 and 3 ( )
Requirements for both OPTIONS 2 and 3 .- cp. -:L- .���iCC-
A. Remove all parking mandates within Climate- Ins Friendly -
Areas and within one-quarter mile distance .x Tin1i . = ,�
q � � ���■� ruerel IL' r�
■,. ,rllllllll �I it
of those areas; OR =IIIIMlll
• . 1111111111 V r i
B. Manage parking by: ' _' �I g iv.
— Adopting a parking benefit district with paid � .ra,.■■.�
m marp m ��gli■ �)
pug
on-street parking and some revenues ':�•. , !� .� P - - _ram s�
i ''��I'lll •�� f fir; -1 � `-_
dedicated to public improvements in the area; al■ �. 1 —
■ f
— Adopting land use amendments to require no 'MM jl���i__ :.. �'.
more than one-half off-street parking space • , V per dwelling unit in the area; and r LakPGrmr.TnwnGenter PNNA
— Adopting land use regulations without parking , � , "''
•.fir _ ■.
mandates for commercial developments. i► la~ �'�°
One of these two provisions must be . ��,'.."'.;► s.-• :. ,� -s
j41 r #'T
�� Y' _ps implemented for both Option 2 and Option 3 � " �4 1' `11`''�,�� N ea.- —�►
/ ?'
.r<
Downtown Town Center }
I�1 1
(� O � IIli £V ! fii o eoo too'' 1V
QIu Vnw3imrIm ■-1 F
rn 11 •: r 1 r vii n
ORFGota
•
Applicability in lake Grove
In order to comply with CFEC, ' ,Q..' c?! -f,' .-, F-3-
.4
commercial parking requirements must _�-:`- K3�
*.ax ICR& ,' J
be removed in the Lake Grove Village - ,{ .11b
Center Overlay. f� iMillitom.in / —
ng4g
• There is no alternative. it, ap ■mlliJm '""�f'
• ti till
• This is true regardless of which option yhii JllJ !i. 3
g p L _il E
is selected for Phase B of the parking --. 2. �7 = riz
requirements. i `- 011 Sri
.-- . 1 illni:"7 F 7
: � ,I_ •1 , -
Residential parkingrequirements can N 1� ■ : - 1
q l Chill i
either be removed (Options 1, 2a & 3) or � '
";.-i----1 --s 4 ovitittli 1 11 1'tee 1
IN ENNIO P 410 4$1, ailot I, liqk N
reduced to % space per unit (Option 2b) I
i1
/ itI:N IA ll4ki1l-_i3O.p-.,oi/0l1.i111i-,080t,t0Wr1l1,li 0kC%0i. i,0•i1_
Lakr GrnWp Tnwn Con tar
7.!0•67L l
1k Q�, .
d i00 Ra 1 2'C''.aews
F'-,,,,..„7—:I 011 111-1,p1,,-
c40
Option 2 RESIDENTFAIR PARKING APPROACH
1. Require that parking spaces be "unbundled" for PARKING
residential developments of 5+ units.
2. Require that parking spaces be "unbundled" for
commercial development.
3. Require employers of 50+ employees to provide a ONLY
flexible commute benefit if they provide free or
subsidized parking to their employees at the workplace. I VIOLATORS
4. Enact a tax on the revenue from commercial parking WILL BE TOWED
lots, with revenues dedicated toward improving
transportation alternatives to drive-alone travel.
5. Reduce parking mandates for new multifamily • 1
residential development to no more than one-half
space per unit, including visitor parking. EMPLOYEE
Two of these five provisions must PARKING
o� �' be implemented for Option 2 ONLY
n
0
/ S 4
OR Gott ..
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 Some flexibility for new businesses -
Businesses
Level of Flexibility for Some flexibility for development in Lake -
Development Grove
Impact on Development Likely to reduce the cost of development— -
Costs including housing development—within
Lake Grove
Impact on Parkin: Parking only required in locations that are Regulations depend on use and
Regulations further from transit or less walkable location / proximity
Reduces regulatory barriers Differing impacts in different parts of
the City
Impact on Existing - Unbundling and flexible commuter
Developments benefit program would apply to
existing development
0� '1� � Other Parking reductions for providing Could result in parking overflow near
sustainable infrastructure or accessible Lake Grove, in some instances
dwelling units
On E G o°.
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 - Continuation of regulatory barriers for new businesses
Businesses
Flexible commute program would create new impacts on
existing businesses citywide
Level of Flexibility for - No additional flexibility for development
Development
Impact on Development - No likely reduction in development costs
Costs
Impact on Parking - Paid parking for at least 10%of street parking in Lake Grove
Regulations
No reduction or elimination of regulatory barriers—would
result in the highest possible parking requirements
Impact on Existing - Paid on-street parking, unbundling and flexible commuter
Developments benefit program would impact existing development in Lake
Q Grove
Other Parking reductions for Based on outdated parking requirements that do not reflect
re' providing sustainable current market demand or conditions
V �� infrastructure or accessible
dwelling units
Option 3 lof 2)
REDUCED REGULATION PARKING MANAGEMENT APPROACH
No parking required for:
1. Climate friendly areas (CFAs) and areas G/ Changes of use or redevelopment that
within %2 mile pedestrian travel of CFAs; may otherwise require additional parking;
2. Mixed-use development; 7. Expansion of existing businesses (by less
3. Group quarters — such as dormitories, than 30% of a building footprint);
religious group quarters, adult care 8. Buildings with a historic designation;
facilities, retirement homes, and other 9. Small commercial properties (< 10
congregate housing; employees or < 3,000 sq. ft.);
4. Studio apartments, one-bedroom 10. Developments built under the Oregon
apartments and condominiums; Residential Reach Code;
5. Changes of use or redevelopment of 11. Buildings seeking LEED certification;
vacant buildings; 12. Schools; and
13. Bars and taverns.
1-4, All of the above provisions must be implemented for Option 3
V �� o
Option 3 lof 2)
REDUCED REGULATION PARKING MANAGEMENT APPROACH
No parking required for:
1. Climate friendly areas (CFAs) and areas G/ Changes of use or redevelopment that
within %2 mile pedestrian travel of CFAs; may otherwise require additional parking;
2. Mixed-use development; 7. Expansion of existing businesses (by less
3. Group quarters — such as dormitories, than 30% of a building footprint);
religious group quarters, adult care 8. Buildings with a historic designation;
facilities, retirement homes, and other 9. Small commercial properties (< 10
congregate housing; employees or < 3,000 sq. ft.);
4. Studio apartments, one-bedroom 10. Developments built under the Oregon
apartments and condominiums; Residential Reach Code;
5. Changes of use or redevelopment of 11. Buildings seeking LEED certification;
vacant buildings; 12. Schools; and
13. Bars and taverns.
1-4, All of the above provisions must be implemented for Option 3
o
°REDO
O tion 3 : Reduced Red Tapep
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 Some flexibility for new businesses -
Businesses
Level of Flexibility for Some flexibility for development in Lake -
Development Grove
Impact on Development Likely to reduce the cost of development— -
Costs including housing development—within
Town Centers
Impact on Parking Parking only required in locations that are Regulations depend on use and
Regulations further from transit or less walkable location / proximity
Reduces regulatory barriers Differing impacts in different parts of
the city
Impact on Existing Unbundling and paid on-street parking
Developments would impact existing development
Atz Q� Oth- Parking reductions for providing Could result in parking overflow near
d sustainable infrastructure or accessible Lake Grove, in some circumstances
dwelling units
o
\DREGov-
Option 1 Option 2a Option 2b Option 3
Ease of Simple, easy to explain and More difficult to explain and Challenging to implement The most difficult option to
understand understand explain and understand
Implementation Adds complexity
Reduces staff workload Increases staff workload Increases staff workload
Cost of Minimal to no additional cost Increased complexity and cost Requires new regulations and The most complex option
to implement compliance monitoring
Implementation Requires new regulations and
Requires new regulations and Paid parking would have compliance monitoring
compliance monitoring budget impacts and require
additional staff resources
Level of Flexibility Results in the most flexible Some flexibility for new Continues regulatory barriers Some flexibility for new
for Businesses regulations for new businesses Flexible commute program businesses
businesses citywide
would impact businesses
Level of Flexibility Results in the most flexible Some flexibility for Minimal additional flexibility Some flexibility for development
for Development regulations for all development in Lake Grove for development in Lake Grove
development types citywide
Impact on Likely to reduce the cost of Likely to reduce the cost of No likely reduction in Likely to reduce the cost of
development—including development—including development costs development—including housing
Development Costs
housing development— housing development—within development—within Town
citywide Lake Grove Centers
Impact on Parking Consistent elimination of Reduces regulatory barriers Paid on-street parking Reduces regulatory barriers
requirements would apply
Regulations evenly citywide Regulations depend on use No reduction or elimination of Regulations depend on use and
and location/proximity location/proximity
regulatory barriers—would
Eliminates regulatory barriers Differing impacts in different result in the highest possible Differing impacts in different
parts of the City parking requirements parts of the City
Impact on Existing Mostly applies to new Flexible commuter benefit Paid on-street parking and Unbundling and paid on-street
Developments development or changes of program would apply to commuter benefit program parking would impact existing
use existing development would apply to existing development
development
Other Responsive to market Incentives for sustainable Incentives for sustainable Incentives for sustainable
Could result in overflow to infrastructure or accessible infrastructure or accessible infrastructure or accessible
neighborhoods; may dwelling units dwelling units dwelling units
necessitate parking Could result in parking Based on outdated regulations, Could result in parking overflow
management overflow near Lake Grove not demand near Lake Grove
Recent Updates to CFEC Rules
Recent Updates to Rules
BICYCLE PARKING
Revised requirement: 1 bicycle parking space per every 2 multifamily units
• CFEC rules originally required 1 space per multifamily unit
• Current code requirement is 1 space per every 4 multifamily units (LOC
50.06.002.b)
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULES
No substantive changes
• Formalizes "temporary" rules from April 2023
• Mostly updates for clarity / consistency, limited relevance to Lake Oswego
"Apt,
c.),,,7E07)
Revised Schedule and
Public Engagement Plan
Citywide Parking Reform — Revised Schedule
Rulemaking Updates & Extension Request Council Study Session #1 Jun 21, 2022
[Jun 2022- Jul 2023] PC Update #1 Jun 27, 2022
PC Update #2 Jan 9, 2023
PC Work Session #1 Jul 24, 2023
Project Background and Alternatives CC Study Session #2 Sep 5, 2023
[Aug — Sep 2023] PC Work Session #2 Sep 25, 2023
Work Plan / Public Engagement Plan Targeted Outreach Oct — Dec 2023
[Oct — Dec 2023] PC Work Session #3 Nov 27, 2023
CC Study Session #3 Dec 5, 2023
Initial Concepts & Recommendations Targeted Outreach Jan — Mar 2024
[Jan —Apr 2024] Community Meeting Mar 7, 2024
CC-PC Joint Meeting Apr 16, 2024
Draft Code Amendments Drafting, Internal Review Apr—Jun `24
[Apr—Jun 2024] PC Work Session #5 Jun 24, 2024
CFEC Parking Code Amendments PC Hearing Oct 14, 2024
[Jul — Nov 2024] CC Hearing Nov 19, 2024
Final Adoption Dec 3, 2024
VA FQ
(g: \V:
o
\DREG00.
Public EngagementPlan
Targeted Outreach to key Focus Group Discussion with
stakeholders• representatives from:
• Mayor's Roundtable • Housing Production Strategy Task
• Lake Oswego Sustainability Force
Network (LOSN) • Sustainability Advisory Board
• Chamber of Commerce / Lake • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Grove Business Committee Advisory Board
(LGBC) • LOSN
• Neighborhood Chairs Committee • Chamber of Commerce / LGBC
• Transportation Advisory Board • TAB
(TAB)
Project Website + Updates Open House / Community Meeting
Articles in Hello LO Planning Commission meetings
o 4 Project Email List City Council meetings
0
oRE..Go�
Dir i n
Councilect o
CFEC OPTIONS Public Engagement Plan
• What aspects should be • Input / guidance?
prioritized ? — Stakeholders?
— Flexibility for — Outreach methods?
businesses?
— Reducing complexity?
— Avoiding parking
overflow?
— Implementation cost?
o' E-q114
"c
oRo�EG
Questions ?
APPENDIX
WhyReduce ParkingMandates ? (1of 4)
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 _
NI .le 1 . OM=IMEM.a 'Thd -I //../ 1/ / r . i '7; \,,...
' ' /.li:.4::"..„.) 4,45/'--'-..-;,---,4:1 1, 3;44.->. 4—, /i
? Orney At'La. ,. .
1 jai
imot , .
. .
. ..,
, -
. -„
,,..
,... . .. ,
} 1 /
4a �'� 1 v' r ,SJ. 'Jell. .„�1-...._._�..* b -
v:trii a.s .. 'I • J 1 3ii
c A. ``vv ' r ] 4j;4 i,
I or 1
' L. - , _... _
_.:, .
. I ,, , 1: Y' i
1:: ! _ tt,, ,. 71 __,..,,:::[
ji',141:.,qifi,,,RE-Cl_r 7
�; T !v '/1L
+•y cam'• -. -'-'--- - ' .... 'r, '''Slei Sr: %
55'a it 24::tq t R.:r_
GS. *'`'�'!} 9lAvey {1. +V 3 �f' ./°/ `�'/•
F 4s 13th and Olive in Eugene built two new 700 i
stall parking garages even though none were Edge Corvallis student housing provided 2.7
(5 Iliv "
0 required. Source: DLCD. spaces/unit (2.56 mandated). Source: DLCD.
mow i
\,,REGov .
Why Reduce Parking Mandates ? (2 of4)
Parking uses a lot of land Most cities have a parking management
problem, not a parking supply shortage
------2 c'..
I .q•:.. , 4: I ' . •..YFl awJ :_I F ear _ !.
i
11- _ it— -4. 6 i
QIt q -
- I 4 ---1 3 An ' sag IA it e. ' I ' , �.
1 �A !iii I a- .� I r , ® ISM Fl ai M' ,,. 1 IV
1I �` I n I ilk 1 •.8 I 1 Oil 0 a'
- �- 1 41 , - ,� ua!T j' m - win l i 1 Amy$ main k
1 ,...:
—Ii 1`� _
flIk 'L V.44,
2 BEDROOM APARTMENT 1.5 PARKING SPACES f i'. I I'
900 FT' INCLUDING AISLES = L am', — = — ,� — ! +
4E8 FTC J iii II'I r P i �' — s L cti ,
Source: Sightline Institute I- 1 , i
1 a.: 14
- .l 6 µ - o Imo€
.. i',...: :%:::;:
:,. - __16_ _ 1
_ _ __ r.-
94v. " iiiil
.
rrA Source: DI3CD
WhyReduce ParkingMandates ? (3of4)
Parking is a significant expense and displaces housing
Building a Parking Space Affordable Housing Development
(not including land cost and opportunity cost) (King County WA)
Eugene: $42,000/space parking garage (2018) one space/unit leasing costs +12.5%
Corvallis:$11,000/space surface (including land)
$62,000/space garage (including land,debt) two spaces/unit leasing costs +25%
Surface off-street: $1,500 - $12,000 Parking means cities build
Residential garage: $15,000 - $50,000 fewer affordable housing units
Source: DLCD Source: DLCD
Parking's Share
of Housing Costs
Litman (2019):
4� Q 10-20% of Total Housing Cost
L
n Gabbe and Pierce (2016):
C 17% of Rent
Source: DLCD
WhyReduce Parkin Mandates? (4of4)
g
Demand Versus Supply
Briar Creek
Many parking spots are 15 - Supply:1.50 _
Family Sites Demand 1.27
E 1.2 -
u n d e r u s e dVilla Capri Am6erwood
�' Supply:1.30 Sierra West Supply:1.95
m - Demand:0.95 pi•■ Supply:1.54 Demand:1.45
co 0.9 Tarkinpton Square Demand 1.29
c Supply:0.54 Sunset Gardens
King County: 40% avg. unused 2 06 - Demand.0.44 Supply:1.75
as
Albany, OR: 30% avg. unused Y
- p•- ppn:0. \ Demand:1.30
■�-s� ply: 61
m 0.3 Demand:0.37 Trendllne•y 0.79x-0.03
z
Bay Area: 28% avg. unused a Senior/ADASites R=0.97
1 1 1
Hillsboro: 25% avg. unused 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Supply(Stalls/Unit)
ffi Built Parking Ratio Market Adjusted Demand -True Parking demand Ratio
2.25 2.25
1.99
2.00 1.87 1.85 2.00
1.75 1.71 1.67 J../5
1.75 1.61 1,gg 1.75
]-45
1.50 1.36 0 91 0,83 1.50
immil
1.25 r. 7. 31.07
f 1,25
1.00 ' • 'I``�..•
1.00
1C2
0.75 F •
0 75
S D.50 f nlc, 0.50
�+�' 6� ❑.ZS I 111
i 0.25
1111
1111 w a .n a CC a o ry ,.1 .1
0as h h 3t . •k
ICI N V1 N N N N VI N
VO Y tf toMIw W re W x w to W LaccK IL m w
elliglir
Source: DLC
c3REGot�
MI
OPTION 1 : Repeal All ParkingMandates
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
\-;IN .-4.i WSleilli Figure
r.
Es. yaw& • c__ ,.--Nx,r_ r _, _.„. _,_ ___
, ,
V '4.44. .
.:., _ 4. .
f.-i,
... _....
, . ., ,_ ___,_.rt
,,,
/ 7 ]. r x I I Ar ) �I n M1
III Dili Nili
r I --0 .
1.
1 1 - rl
5 4 RC ' � �.7 .1
g L. '1.1.:- - .:
VW_ ,,,,,,,716.L\ .1;)--:=-.- . I . ' .,E -
4
, ...,,i1 •
S' I ' ' ti+Lr�4 ��,�pL� -
�,t�rl _' i gyp ' T
+S" -1 ,-..".. f�4 '� 40 r..-..."-----.4 _ L /J I i I k
L MIME
,„,,e%-
..
lle
# • r-
1 1-7werr _. L— dr- ,. 0 ._ • Ade 4.....,,,e: Ns\
, 5 A 4 '-+L• E 7 ' , M1
410
Y . — or - 'ant % S u°g`.1
1i1/4
i.
Jf
1 � • I t
laii
42ffiliii,"--k ill dk.
0 _ 1 rA'. ,.. _ . -,: ._.._4..±› .
_73 1: I '�; 3 — , • City of Lake Oswego- CFEC Parking Reformnf - L - - � ! }1 ' * I Res.identia+O�pfien 4:Repeal Parking l4far:dafes C�Tywide `
f rYV ) -\
!i - I ' ' 'L- i---I City Residential Use s
JJJ IP TM ---ILmits Not Permitted 0 025 0.5
- Urbaii Services No Parking Required
r() ii_ms,_. , - -ti • {, Boundary fcc Residertal Use mew
oREGo�
OPTION 2 : Fair Parking Approach
RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
_ _ • • , ,J ' 1 .
.;1110 f r ilZWIP111.'.- ig Lire 4 144 2a
[i . ,... ..,r \ x • „mop r' .r .p.,, ,,.
...tipfrair r • 4...,
, 1
3
.lig Jr' 41 ....,.., . ,11 .. .. F 1 " .!: _, • --1D-..._ ..ii
mi.„..., :: • . ,
._...- : AP ill
-.\ -i. -\• .... pit r
vkir7.!': - i ."--Tift: ', ..nill - '-. k. ir liti.:1 ' •'. kil.
- .
SUBOPTION A: -',' \ - V it..,:: •r, .. ' . .
lep.;i::L1.1.F Taw .6.1.1 A - _ OR
-^4., ' ..,,,- 1 LI if till*. .- v/illt
,d -'' K.:, .1, -' --' •2 - .4 '4
Remove all ,P '. -- 1 '
,..0 — _ , . . „.. ___. -----i- 1" • ,,.%.• 1
.Cif -...\ i CM 1 V
,4
ift
._ --. ;--..._,, y• - . . ..,. __, ir ,..,...„,...7 . .., , ....ir -...mif RI I
of ,...... .11
parking i,• im...". 111P , • i
,,.
_,,...,..
I ..: _. __14,,7.. 1 rj1/2. fill..111
mandates ' J--, ,'' '' '' ,•• .....0% 'IV ' PP"
, -• - .:, II
within CFAs ; . pfr + Unbundled
,
coN.11'1" ... --- .----. , --
''• ,,, ' , .•1%,---411111.' Parking
.,
4 ‘ilf. p00011114W- .', 1----- .,.. . - .-.
and within 1/4- 11. 1118L . gaal,iiip .,_... •.-
-
.- ------. .: m
jliiiWA .,:wie ill/ .,.2 li . '. 40" -- ift (< mi • %- 411110
11111111rOP"+ / or
mile of CFAs • ..hr71,1% ir ..-- . / - LL...A.L., ..,..
'" ' .)04
Ale' ,—)--• 4m.
..,.,11.1.N
I i%
.....- ---i ' '4" • ''
,.-..._ kr,
i-L-H-' .11:1'.•
tin ,...,. ..
I7 IIP /-
Vik r
7 k E / - r
.
- , --. -
...:;\4.:\
.,-.....,.],,..z.., City of Lake Oswego-CFEC Parking Reform
.:.:41 RE-s,:crergid Optim 20):Fair Parking Leith Reduced Mr-dates in ..',3,,z
-..-,, . . • ' ir
f-, ,,/ arrnate-Friendy 14reas ,
(13 8) ELIma.. D_L___ _ _Thi-'-'I ° IP Mili '''17:\ . .013u3liccie I----lay
L___I Limits No Parking Required
Fa.Resideniial Use Residential Use
Nri Permitted
01.111111r
/ ^ sr. u, Irlifsl_GVC
I-I 0 0.25 0-5
Mne
`, OR E 00./ •
•
OPTION 2 : Fair ParkingApproach
RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
_[E-I ,lI01 2d..'.: .,,-,,i.iii.. r Figure 5 ''
14 i 1 Iµ.AT. yy i .v.
irl,.,
\..1(''L E1eA rrti S-iI P.r.,oa.-.1'a.r1kiv..471l;W).i m,.,.,mi,l lipfiia.m1—evNp7_ra.=g_t r
irll.1 i-,p..,..r.a„•,,
'.M1
• 1
Y.. .}-r-t ' /
P r/iv . 2;
{ i-r.kl ' - fi�I.nar- `ice, : _4—
b1
L _ J _ I L �• 11
7,
_4.• . JO
SUBOPTION B: t� + — ■.. a i rir ,-�_' I ° -i '+ Paid On-
�,diltir v f ,Street Parking
space _.��a ;.` - � - _.-. .7
re uired per f. i 446223. L...._
Eir,,,. .= �, L< . + Unbundled
a -
_ . 1 r *¢
dwelling unit - , ,r,t _ Parking
1 0
within CFAs I `� ;. .. + / or
IFdr
4. 1. - - ,-, More
410
44::" :•7 4'4 (71 ''''''''' -..--\I F.
Atio, •-.. it 4
}' '' p .M
id
•
! � Cityof Lake Oswego-CFEC Parking Reform
rJ+'. j ' r r; _r P,i . ' Residerria+ ecrr 2(b):Fair Parking with Additional Padwrg Management ''
[" /1 { ' rr7us Route ---I City No Parking Required One Requred Parkng :
r0 +� I I �l3i L---I Lirrrls far Residential Use Space per Drreirg Uri
y 0 I ,IP = URDEI I LGVC 112 Requred Parking . Residential Use Hd Permitted
r ^”*•o ( s Overlays n U55 Space per Dwelling Una a 025 D.s
Pile
OPTION 3 : Reduced Regulation Parking Management
RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS•-•liteldpr :- ;,i .1 '.iiir r mom • 1114 '.,k
1r7 �� *vip ■I
mio IWORPOrr . - 7;198!... .-Yr8E:14- 4- , 1 ' ,
4 'S #�
ll ,_,, ,---,,, .--..1-. .
..----- .!-Iiiiri/ P
.„.. , ,,,.-.i _., lie•__ -..7_ 1--- 1 :1114riel .
_ ill :.:.4;1!..: iduzLL IT.• NI : Ai il . . , __: _,_
;r--". , • i r •il '' ih. • .L'' .. , . , , 1.r.tir' 14111
• -"' r 1 . LLO-. ill
' _ - #' j- a
f 1----�' 1 n o � �1
. % ' _,_f�F "'" I.`�� � ■ ■
,; ' • --r _ - ::i. +'Parking
- � ° I - Management
411,
I
Fii' '61111Ma L ..,ii.,,,ork
4 -w-t--� ,vs.„„,,, �����„�� �r -� � ,� {- -� + More
I mi, "0 .... , ..41#
_ f L .
4r:4f-1[7- 'y
.14,•' -. r , i:‘,:.', L.
)0
driii.....1.1Mairtik-fr -..:.--::._ ;...4 is,,Irtil-',--. iiii
7
/ r _im. 1i �.
�' I , City of Lake Oswego-CFEC Parking Reform
r . i =� Resrdertrai Option 3(a).Reduced RegLdatron Parking Management
MK
reel ' +"- y ' with Rediced Mandates in Chmaie,Frrera5V Areas
(10
�r f1jBus Route ---- Ci[yNo Packing Reed Residents I Use
___I Limits for Residential Use Mk Nat Permitted
O sw DRdt7 J LGVC One Required P=-rking 0 0-25 0-5
rr Overlays n LI B Space per Dwelling Unit Mile
OPTION 1 : Repeal All ParkingMandates
COMMERCIAL PARKING
-)'' _. t 4!
. i ..."r _..:."FN. lit sii,...
`LL Figure 1\ N.00 r'-,kJ •-• _
'� ]��
I
. Alge le-. v . y 1:-.\NS7
. .' '''''ik. Ft
% 4 I, . V. iir i. I _ }-J_ Ik ` f
Ail
, _ . -I•
M1lel,4,
. , --
_,,:_ ;._. . .....„,
OF a .
__,..,___ ........,
,Ni N. 6.:-..,.._ ..,w 91. - ..1 iffilispvi- 1 iptidd
rinklvii • -,f
I- F 1 3---) f e� _
■ern ate'_- ihrI, Is. 11 ': ...-.7% r limr
_... ..twm
...„.....„
jill
t + 00 I � 41111.
I
40, Wm d ii* ., ...,_ WO
1 .,Ir
VV.Ippoi ,aim716110- .im0" ILE* - -
_I /:—- awe . m• ar.WAMI i . if
,UNI1WL;reArri ..._ .
1 i W ' Age• •,''4 ..
. 'r./ ddliii .." .- :
far go ". ; .'-')''' - :lift - ,....1.10 h-)i
A E t 8 1 Ir
.tomanwi '`; v. City of Lake OswegoFEC Parking Reform �,
I 'I w■ I - .-� Cur}r}}ercrd Option 9:Repeal Pa•k ng Mandates Crrywrde
V 0 MOM I- • rbei i-- CX7t No PantingF�qutt�J
L___I Limis For Commercial Use 4 025 ❑.5
MOM. ( r Urban Seruice5 Commemal Not Pem.tted
9.4 WI' = Boundary as Pnrn2ry Use a„ac3
0 LI
Go
OPTION 2 : Fair ParkingApproach
COMMERCIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS OR
Q a
.'P . ,, f.-.. .2 ' i,.
- Figure 3 •,
•,-
crIi
.il.- .
w-...N.-
,......
._•,
*r1' a _ t 2 Illi ,
.71PTI . .
Ib
:' - �L'
: , .
os . + Paid On-
-. -1/-i,-1 1* fit.. _IMPIr1„,1.
Street Parking
fili .; :5--1.. 'ilike iir bp .... IlkipVimit—Ap ..m.0-____...
aIraragr,,k •Iltir A inriP,--'
. 1� . it' 4. - + Unbundled
= "—; pg • Parking
. SE� 41r More
In 1WL Jr � '
1:. if... L_6' -wawa
F
. ! Pr 4 , -Y N '
. w if' brilV14 dim 2 .I
. Ili Flom
% , I' .--,_\.
J. 4� r _� ' lagreja Irdt . y � - 5'i
3 mil. 9
t.
Ayr „ire
..„.._ ,,.,. / ji.arii ': . i Iv. vif ..
. !I.
.„,,,, E,J6, , .
, .... ,
21
d S 2City of Lake Oswego CFEC Parking Reform
'
r r.WI W -1 ,+, 1-I r* Cornmerera+Option 2:Fair Pakrng :•
\ Sus Rout< --- Cty Na Parking Required Commercial Not Permitt,:d
0C3iIL—_—_—_—:
___i Limlls Far Commercial Use as Primary Use
xww, lirIII x 11 OROD1 LGVC m Full Co-mercial p ❑. p.y
� 1.� Overlays USf# ParkirgRequiremerAs Filiw a-arms
�RF�ON— _
OPTION 3 : Reduced Regulation Parking Management
COMMERCIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
. fit F ..' 2 . Ems. Figure
.i, ...r.•-'
Itia
0.
4 .4
. � II
U' _ _ .�
„Mr',• - --v.N.z. ,
1 itillpiiir je •,..W Ala, im---"ITIM . ,,, i
,, , ..2,-; _:„It.0. 1.„,.w. . ailtrill !
- will i-INTI pi AI II ht E --.-I -- mil j IPIP '' •- /14
..'I: 011.
-t:. -I -IN . 1.,.... :it., ' L.- ., , -.L-_„' ;---,, t . liv
6\. L"31:311&41 .r. emii --: - ','' '
W .41 Tr - , 474/1/171
Fi 'rF �.~ 1 nt irrAkki, . if. dejitilf.,--wilii...4;..0 ;L
musim
,_ NIA /4
Virgffl 7-- • ': �� +Parkin
li ii---- I,_- ; emP— .Mrill4 ` _Aik Management
.�Iw tea' 'N r
. A, 04,44 More
1:' if Nil L_;7 V$00:0- Bic 4 imor.A.wilititiAre -,p noftA !ILA "- ,,- \ 1111
. r L___ -: w .- priel 44bir I IR . fli, . 4\ 1 ,
.1.rof are 1. r , ,„ ,...,.it 41 , _ _T,,.
•
-'64.
d � 2City of Lake Oswego CFEC Parking Reform
mow
r
rr. � ,�, FVil' r* Cornmerera+OpRor7 2:FairPakrr�g :•
k. \ Sus Rout< ———� C ty Na Parkir,q Required Commercial Not Perm tt d
(111
0 I; ! MIS . f'C%it 435 ___ Limits Far Commercial Use as Primary Use
, x DROD1LGVC Full Co-mmereial p O. p.y
/
xww —
Overlays = USf# ParkirgFtequiremerAs �F aarf