Administrative
Report
N.4., File # 22-4428 Meeting Date: 7/12/2022
To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
From: GREG KAPOVICH, WATERFRONT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
TITLE
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING MODIFICATIONS TO PARKING
REGULATIONS IN THE ARTESIA AND AVIATION CORRIDORS AREA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2020 Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan (AACAP) is a vision-driven document that provides analysis, strategies, and implementable actions aimed at revitalizing the Corridors. The overall goal is to encourage redevelopment, create a sense of place, and increase connectivity within North Redondo Beach. The AACAP is a starting point for the City to establish general policy direction along the Corridors. Recommended actions within the AACAP require zoning code and general plan land use element updates, preparation of additional analyses, and additional outreach with businesses and neighbors.
The AACAP included a parking study to better understand the current parking capacity of the area.
Analysis revealed that both on- and off-street parking spaces are generally underutilized, suggesting that the current supply can accommodate a higher demand and growth along Artesia. Despite the excess of parking spaces, the functional supply is restricted by small, segregated and privatelyowned parking lots that, in many instances, don’t provide enough parking to fulfill their own parking requirements as currently required in the City’s Municipal Code. In addition, the area lacks public or shared parking lots intended to serve customers of multiple businesses other than the recently developed parking area in the Southern California Edison ROW. Due to these constraints, coupled with conservative municipal code parking requirements for preferred land uses such as restaurants and business/medical offices, the AACAP included recommended actions to further explore reduced parking requirements, evaluate more flexible parking solutions to increase efficiency of the existing parking supply, and assess the potential impact of constructing a City-owned parking structure.
The City has selected Rincon Consultants Incorporated, an environmental consulting firm, as well as Fehr & Peers, a transportation consulting firm to further explore and analyze potential solutions to increase the efficiency of the parking supply along the Corridors and reduce business impediments resulting from the City’s conservative municipal code parking requirements. With the consultants, staff have performed public outreach, analyzed existing parking conditions along the corridors, compared best parking practices, and are now seeking general direction from the City Council on the preferred parking solutions. Based on the feedback provided, staff will prepare the necessary municipal code amendments and return with an item for consideration of Council approval.
N.4., File # 22-4428 Meeting Date: 7/12/2022
BACKGROUND
While developing the AACAP in 2019, a parking study found that off-street and on-street parking in the Corridors Area was underutilized. Municipal best practices indicate that an efficiently parked area would utilize approximately 85% of the parking supply with 15% remaining as a vacancy buffer.
Pursuant to the 2019 parking study, only 68% of the on-street parking in the Corridors Area was utilized, with off-street parking utilization even lower at only 50%.
A more recent follow up parking study to the initial 2019 parking utilization study, evaluated the potential need for an increased parking supply based on anticipated land use changes envisioned in the AACAP including:
· Redevelopment preferred around “activity nodes”
· Proposed floor area ratio (FAR) increase from 0.5 to 0.6 within the AACAP · Office (50%) and dining (50%) as preferred land uses for redevelopment Our consultant evaluated the future AACAP land use vision with the assumptions noted above under three potential parking models designed to analyze future parking needs within the Corridors. Under all three models it was determined that no additional area parking is needed to accommodate the above assumptions if the existing on-street parking is preserved and more directly aligned with commercial uses. In the evet that the on-street parking is repurposed, the first model anticipates the highest demand for future parking as it assumes no future mobility options would be implemented.
This first model would result in the need for a large public investment towards creating additional parking in the form of a public parking structure (requires +500 additional parking spaces if 100% of the existing on-street parking were to be eliminated as part of street right-of-way modifications). The second model anticipates a future with some adoption of mobility options and some additional public parking infrastructure (requires +290 additional parking spaces if 100% of the existing on-street parking were to be eliminated as part of street right-of-way modifications). The third model anticipates a lower demand for future physical parking spaces in favor of an anticipated increase in consumer behavior regarding mobility options such as ride-sharing, autonomous vehicles, public transportation, etc. (requires 0 additional parking spaces if 100% of the existing on-street parking were to be eliminated as part of street right-of-way modifications).
In preparation for this discussion, a Community Workshop was conducted that included a real time survey. Additionally, an online survey was launched. In total, 216 community members provided feedback at the workshop and via the online survey. The three models summarized above were also shared with the community as part of the workshop and survey and 77% of the community responded in support of greater investment in mobility options as depicted in the second and third models above.
In addition to the presentation of the three parking models, a number of polling topics were presented that included parking-related measures proposed by the AACAP, along with parking management best practices from other jurisdictions. Topic areas fell into four general categories. Below are the four categories with results/feedback from the workshop and survey summarized below each category:
1. On- & Off-Street Supply (garages & converting on-street parking) a. The most popular measure was investment in public parking garages if on street
N.4., File # 22-4428 Meeting Date: 7/12/2022
parking is converted to other uses
b. There was also support for converting on-street parking for other mobility investments, particularly for bike and mobility device parking
2. Parking Benefit Districts (meters & local reinvestment) a. Results varied with the most support for parking meters if their funds were reinvested in the corridors
b. There was also support for an in-lieu parking fee (option to pay into a municipal parking fund instead of building parking)
3. Dynamic Monitoring (data collection)
a. Dynamic monitoring received majority support
4. Parking Flexibility (adjusting requirements & providing innovative options) a. Adjustments for parking flexibility was the most supported category with flexibility in parking requirements using shared parking and/or reduced parking requirements also getting support
While a majority of workshop attendees and survey takers generally anticipate a future that favors an increase in mobility options, more specific feedback included a wide range of preferred parking solutions. Each solution is further analyzed in the discussion section below. Identified solutions included;
· Investment in public parking garages
· Conversion of on-street parking for other mobility options (bicycles, rideshare pick-up / dropoff, scooter parking, transit curb extensions, etc.) · Conversion of on-street parking to qualify as required off-street parking · Creation of a parking benefit district (PBID)
· Option to pay into a parking fund instead of constructing new parking to assist with building a public parking garage (in-lieu parking fee)
· Provide additional flexibility with how minimum parking requirements can be achieved by implementing shared parking, valet parking, tandem parking, mechanical parking, etc. · Reduced parking requirements
· Implement dynamic monitoring (data collection) to understand parking conditions on a continuous basis and guard against future unintended parking impacts on surrounding neighborhoods
DISCUSSION
The three (3) models the consultant ran to project future parking needs were all based on some redevelopment of existing land uses to include equal amounts of office (professional and medical) and restaurants (AACAP preferred uses). Additionally, the three (3) models projected future redevelopment with 20% growth in square footage to account for the change in FAR from 0.5 to 0.6.
The future scenarios depicted by the three (3) models were developed by calculating a range in future mobility options like autonomous vehicles, work from home, and transportation network companies (TNCs). Other factors included: online shopping trends, transit recovery, and electric vehicle adoption (e-scooters and e-bikes). Each of the models were classified as: higher (Model 1), mid (Model 2) and lower (Model 3) future demand models.
In their review of the three (3) models it is the consultant’s professional opinion that some changes in future mobility options are likely to result in a long-term reduction of future parking need along the corridors. Coupled with the results of the 2019 parking study that documented only 68% of the onPage 3 of 6 N.4., File # 22-4428 Meeting Date: 7/12/2022
corridors. Coupled with the results of the 2019 parking study that documented only 68% of the onstreet parking within the Corridors was utilized, with off-street parking utilization even lower at 50% and the significant costs associated with a future parking garage (see discussion below) it is the opinion of staff and the consultant that models 2 or 3 more accurately depict long term parking demand within the AACAP. Additionally, from the survey, the community clearly supports the increased mobility options, with 77% responding as such.
Parking Garage - Although there was general support from the community (55% in favor, 30% opposed) for the development of a future parking garage (or garages) to make curb space available for other uses, there was also support for greater investments in future mobility options, and dynamic monitoring and adjustments for parking flexibility (53% in favor, 19% opposed).
Additionally, per any of the future parking analysis models, with the retention of existing on-street parking there is no need for additional parking spaces within the corridors. Assuming the more likely future parking models (2 or 3) that project some level of reduced demand coupled with the significant financial resources required from the City, there is even less incentive for pursing a future parking structure. Rough estimates for the structure itself can range between $30,000 to $50,000 per parking garage space. For these reasons, staff does not recommend investing in a future parking structure.
In Lieu Fees - Developers pay a fee (cost per stall) instead of actually building parking code required parking spaces. This could help offset the cost to the City for a future parking lot or structure but would likely take years (25+) to accumulate enough money to actually acquire the property and build the future parking structure. Again, needs for parking are likely to shift over time and a garage is not needed based on our recommended model. For these reasons, staff does not recommend establishing an in-lieu parking fee in the AACAP.
Establishing a Parking Benefit Improvement District (PBID) - A parking benefit improvement district can fund public improvements in the places where revenue is generated. They can be tailored to match community needs and fund corridor-specific improvements. On May 10, 2022, the City Council directed staff to gauge the interest level of businesses along Artesia in the formation of a BID or PBID, note the specific blocks/segments that receive a positive response, and if an appropriate level of interest is shown, return to City Council at a future date with a proposed management plan concept for additional review. The management plan would include possible geographic boundaries, number of participating businesses, a general assessment calculation, and an outline of the intended benefits.
If the concept is amenable to Council, staff would then seek funding for a consulting services agreement to perform the feasibility study needed to create the PBID structure and coordinate the majority protest ballot process for the affected property owners. Staff would return to City Council at subsequent Public Hearings to discuss the results of the feasibility study and later to consider formation of the PBID depending on the outcome of the majority protest ballot response. There is no fiscal impact associated with staff’s initial outreach to gauge the interest level regarding the formation of a PBID. The consulting services agreement needed to perform the subsequent feasibility study and conduct the Prop 218 majority protest balloting process is estimated to cost between $40,000 and $60,000. Staff continues to work on the initial outreach efforts and will return to City Council at a future date for discussion on next steps.
Dynamic Monitoring - A dynamic monitoring program is a data collection tool that staff can utilize to monitor the effects of any action taken to improve the parking efficiency along the Corridors. The
N.4., File # 22-4428 Meeting Date: 7/12/2022
monitor the effects of any action taken to improve the parking efficiency along the Corridors. The program can provide data for allocation of curb space, adjustments of parking standards, and observations of conditions along neighboring residential streets to understand impacts. For these reasons, staff recommends implementing a dynamic monitoring program. Staff anticipates such a program to cost between $10,000 and $20,000 per year.
Parking Flexibility - On-site flexibility options include valet parking, mechanical lifts, tandem parking, shared parking, and adjusting parking requirements to require less parking per use. Off-site flexibility options include on-street parking credits (counting on-street parking to satisfy off-street parking requirements). Staff recommends City Council direct staff to perform the necessary municipal code amendments to implement these measures. Zero cost is anticipated to make the necessary code changes to establish more flexible parking requirements.
CONCLUSION
Staff and our consultants recommend implementing the “Parking Flexibility” items categorized above, which only require zoning code amendments to implement. Staff also recommends implementing the dynamic monitoring program to understand the effects of parking adjustment’s over-time, monitor conditions, and ensure there are no unintended consequences to the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Additionally, parking flexibility, coupled with a future dynamic monitoring program, was largely supported by the community per the workshop and survey results, 53% in favor with only 19% opposed.
Given that our transportation consultant has concluded that the existing parking supply can accommodate additional commercial growth envisioned by the AACAP, and that a high cost public parking structure that provides additional parking stalls is not needed to meet immediate future demand, staff does not recommend pursuing a future parking structure or in lieu parking fee programs at this time.
NEXT STEPS
Following City Council direction, staff will work with the consultants to prepare the directed amendments to the parking regulations within the City’s zoning ordinance and present the modifications to the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings this fall.
COORDINATION
This effort has involved the coordination of the Community Development with Waterfront and Economic Development.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the preparation of the recommended Code amendments is available in the annual budgets for the Waterfront Economic Development and the Community Development Departments.
Additionally, the support of the consultants necessary to craft future parking ordinance amendments is accommodated in their current contract.
A dynamic parking monitoring program is expected to cost between $10,000 and $20,000 per year and would require a future budget modification.
N.4., File # 22-4428 Meeting Date: 7/12/2022
APPROVED BY:
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Presentation - AACAP Parking Presentation