Loading...
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