City of Lafayette Staff Report

Transcription

1 City of Lafayette Staff Report For: Parking Ordinance Update Subcommittee By: Sarah Allen, Niroop K. Srivatsa Meeting Date: April 16, 2015 Subject: Parking Strategy Recommendations POC Response to Staff Recommendations At the last meeting, staff provided a comprehensive summary of the work the Committee has done to date along with specific recommendations to address the parking issues that have been identified. At that meeting, it was determined the POC members needed some time to digest the recommendations and provide feedback. A summary of comments received from POC members is provided in the attached table. There appear to be some areas of disagreement which should be discussed further at the meeting. Occupancy Survey The POC also established that occupancy data was needed in order to better formulate recommendations for the overall Parking Strategy. Staff has prepared a limited scope off-street parking occupancy survey encompassing an area along Lafayette Circle and Moraga Rd. Staff will conduct surveys on two weekdays and one weekend, with parking counts taken every hour between 8am and 7pm. Recommendation 1. Review draft solutions and provide direction to staff. 2. Schedule a meeting with the City Council to present the preliminary Strategy recommendations. 3. Authorize staff to begin updating the parking ordinance. 4. Review the occupancy survey map. Attachments 1. on Strategy Recommendations 2. Public Comment from Dawn Eames received April 13, Occupancy Survey Map

2 Downtown Lafayette (all districts) I. Challenge: Employees of businesses do not have the benefit of dedicated, long term parking nor are they routinely offered incentives to use alternative modes of transport. Employees generally park in the same lot as their place of business which takes away parking from customers; in timed spaces on commercial streets which requires them to move their vehicles periodically; or on residential streets which impacts area residents. s Investigate the possibility of constructing a parking structure for employees on the Cityowned 949 Moraga Road parcel. Identify and assign underutilized on-street parking as employee parking. A good test case would be Dolores Drive near Hwy 24 where the 15+ on-street spaces are not timed and are currently used by all-day parkers. Establish a daily and monthly permit fee for employees. Publicize information about rideshare and carpool opportunities, BART discounts and other incentives to reduce the use of single occupant automobiles. Pursue opportunities to acquire land for additional employee parking with a focus on the following areas: This could be a good location if we get to the point of needing to build a parking structure. I would hope we could avoid the City having to do this. I m ok with this so long as the city staff doesn t get drained and they are compensated for the time via the cost of the permits. Permits must cover the time. I assume A LOT of admin issues to come of this. I also suggest the test be at least a year. Golden Gate Way/East Mt. Diablo Blvd. Happy Valley Road and Mt. Diablo Blvd. Caltrans or EBMUD rights of way Work with owners of underutilized parking lots to allow the employees to park in those lots. 1

3 Utilize technology to identify available parking. Permit employees to park on residential streets for a fee and utilize the funds to improve the neighborhoods. Only in the private lots with work with the city. Doesn t make sense if it s only the streets. II. Challenge: There is a shortage of off-street parking available to the public. Additional parking can be gained by (1) constructing public parking lots, and (2) encouraging public-private partnerships wherein private development builds more parking than required and/or allows the public use of the parking during non-peak hours. s Pursue opportunities to acquire land for public parking with a focus on the following areas: Plaza Way/Golden Gate Way Happy Valley Road and Mt. Diablo Blvd. Require new developments to opt into the Strategy and make parking available to the public during non-peak hours. Require new, larger developments to provide the parking underground. These could be good locations if we get to the point of needing to acquire land to build parking facilities. I would hope we could avoid the City having to do this. With $$$ assistance from the city or in exchange for developer incentives. Not fair to burn beyond either parking requirement. Not sure this is necessary. With the assistance of the city. Not fair to burn beyond either parking requirement. What is large in the eye of the city? This is a very ambiguous statement that has been discussed per my poor memory. 2

4 Continue to reserve parking fund money for acquisition. Consider the creation of a Parking Business Improvement District (PBID). To see an example, check out Burlingame s BID I would want to discuss this in more detail. Who will be in charge and what power do they hold? III. Challenge: The City s parking regulations are outdated. The parking ratios (number of spaces required for different land uses) were last updated in 1989 over twenty five years ago. The high parking in-lieu fee may be a disincentive to development and the City may not be able to collect sufficient funds to acquire public parking lots. And, the ordinance perpetuates parking shortages by allowing a grace period of 120 days in which a new business can occupy an under parked tenant space without providing the required parking. s Simplify parking ratios by reducing combining land use categories, switching to gross versus net square footage ratios and ensuring that the ratios are consistent with cities of a similar size. Eliminate the 120-day rule; develop tiered payment program. Revise the in-lieu fees. Require adjacent properties to connect parking lots and eliminate curb cuts. Add bicycle and car share/electric car parking standards. Include multifamily parking standards. Include incentives for shared parking, bicycle parking, and businesses offering employees alternative modes of travel. This is also ambiguous and needs to be discussed. Seem like the buzz forward from the latest ULI report. 3

5 Include incentives for new developments that allow public use of parking. Allow tandem parking, car lifts and other alternatives to a surface parking space. I support this concept, but we should be careful about assuming the capacity in the parking ratio calculations. Define the % of tandem. It s a mistake to allow tandem for100% of a project. Consider reductions to parking requirements based on proximity to transit. I support this concept, but only if it is absolutely clear that being close to transit will reduce the parking demand. That often is not the case. I don t agree (don t tell other developers). The heart of Lafayette has the transit and it also has the parking problem. Prohibit delivery vehicles during peak hours. Bottom load the discretionary process. I don t like to see policies that restrict the times for deliveries. I don t think I understand this one. IV. Challenge: There is currently no way to keep track of the number and types of businesses and the number of employees in the Downtown. This information is useful for many reasons: 1. Emergency contact information for Fire and Police 2. Determination of parking adequacy 3. Publicizing carpool, vanpool, rideshare and other Transportation Demand Management incentives 4. Identification of businesses that are lacking in the Downtown (Economic Development) 5. Outreach to businesses, employers and employees for various City activities (surveys, studies, informational campaigns, etc.) 4

6 Establish a business license program to track incoming businesses, number of employees and changes in tenancy. Downtown Core (Downtown Retail and Plaza Districts) I. Challenge: The problem is not how much parking there is; it s where the parking is located, how accessible it is and how it is regulated or restricted. There are off-street private parking lots that are hardly used in blocks where there is a shortage of parking. s Require new developments to consolidate driveways. Work with owners of adjacent properties to connect their parking lots and consolidate driveways where feasible. Work with banks and similar uses to allow the public to use the lots after business hours. Encourage businesses and nearby residential developments to enter into agreements that would allow parking to be shared. I would want to discuss. Require is a strong word what if neighbor doesn t wish to play? Can the city offer any marketing in exchange for this? IE., the weekly round up praises these banks? 5

7 II. Challenge: While it s great to have BART in the downtown, BART patrons take up parking spaces that can be used by downtown patrons, residents and employees. s Restrict on-street parking in the Downtown Core to four hours or less. This excludes spaces assigned to permit parking for employees and residents. Ensure enforcement of timed spaces. Work with BART to install sensors in the spaces farthest from the station. Work with Caltrans to alert Hwy 24 drivers when the Lafayette lots are full. For a test period of three months, reserve the on-street spaces on Happy Valley Road near the BART station to Lafayette residents and employees. If the spaces are fully occupied during that period, consider making the arrangement permanent. I don t think this is all that valuable because the lots tend to fill up at about the same time each day. Needs to be longer than 3 months. The city staff will invest a lot of time to set this up. III. Challenge: Parking inventory, occupancy and usage data must be current. The 2010 Parking Survey revealed that on-street parking is not used heavily, even in the high-impact blocks. The survey also revealed that there are several on-street spaces in the Downtown that are not timed. For the Strategy to be effective in the long run, data regarding parking supply, demand, occupancy and use patterns needs to be current. s Update parking inventory and occupancy data every two years. Establish time limits for spaces that are not timed in commercial areas Second Street, Golden Gate Way, and west side of Dewing Avenue immediately south of Mt. Diablo Blvd. Utilize market based parking pricing for metered parking. 6

8 East End District I. Challenge: Large users of parking take up most of the available on-street spaces. s Encourage these users to lease spaces from nearby businesses during non-peak hours. Pursue opportunities to acquire land for public parking. (Note that in 2016, a 16-space public lot will be constructed east of Ace Hardware.) So long as the city is aware of this and these leases are not used to meet parking requires for nonconforming uses. I would hope we could avoid the City having to do this. II. Challenge: People feel compelled to drive their cars and find parking in the East End because existing roadway conditions are unfriendly to pedestrians and bicyclists. The wide traffic lanes, high speeds of travel, narrow or non-existing sidewalks and high number of business driveways make for an unfriendly bike/pedestrian environment. Also, the parking that serves many businesses is located on partly within the public ROW making it difficult to extend sidewalks and bicycle lanes. s Per the DSP, prepare on-street parking prototypes or templates. Require each development proposal to meet the following requirements: Provide sidewalks for pedestrians 7

9 with a minimum width of six feet. Improve aesthetics by providing landscaping that reaches the street Provide safe ingress and egress from the property Require new developments to consolidate driveways. Work with owners of adjacent properties to connect their parking lots and consolidate driveways where feasible. I would want to discuss. Require is a strong word what if neighbor doesn t wish to play? West End District I. Challenge: Large users of parking take up most of the available on-street spaces. s Encourage these users to lease spaces from nearby businesses during non-peak hours. Pursue opportunities to acquire land for public parking. (Note that in 2015, a 20+ space public lot will be constructed west of Risa Road.) I would hope we could avoid the City having to do this. Residential Neighborhoods I. Challenge: Downtown employees and BART users park on residential streets. 8

10 s Issue residential parking permits. Ensure enforcement of timed spaces. 9

11 Parking Ordinance Meeting 4/15/ 2015 Re: City of Lafayette Staff Report 1. How will there be accountability for fees collected from a specific district through parking meters or in-lieu fees, to ensure that monies collected will be invested in the corresponding district? 2. How will reasonable in-lieu fees be determined, and if differently for the East and West End districts than the Downtown Core, what formula will be used? 3. If a Business License fee is proposed, how will rate amounts be determined, rate structure be used and how will they be implemented and accounted for, fairly across the Districts? 4. If a Business Improvement District is formed, how will the tax be determined and accounted for according to zones of benefit? East End District Challenge I: Large users of parking take up most of the available on-street spaces. Large users are El Charro, the Hotel and ACE Hardware. El Charro customers use most of the available on-street spaces on that block only after all of the other businesses are closed. The Hotel could provide a shuttle for their employees to park at a remote site or to negotiate with a private property to provide parking. (Minuteman Press) Also the Hotel might provide a shuttle for their customers to the Downtown Core. Hotel employees as well as visitors have always used the parking in front of the 3-4 private property businesses adjacent to the Hotel for no charge, when those businesses are closed. Challenge II: People feel compelled to drive their cars and find parking in the East End because existing roadway conditions are unfriendly to pedestrians and bicyclists. Challenge II needs to be parsed and is a false premise. It is intellectually dishonest, or thoughtless, to claim that people drive to the EED because they feel compelled to drive, to the EED and because of the existing roadway conditions. No one feels compelled to drive to the EED any more than they feel compelled to drive to any other part of town, because the roadway condition is too bad to walk or bike. If they had a problem with the sidewalk they would say so, if asked. Those who choose to drive are those who;

12 a. are having their car serviced, b. want the convenience to be close to the business and for time efficiency c. live too far to walk to their destination, d. don t want to or can t walk/bike e. plan to go somewhere else after visiting an EED business, or f. have to carry large purchases to their cars (hardware, potted plants or takeout food) For those who live within walking distance and choose to walk, the existing walkway from El Charro to the Hotel, is in a very bad state of repair, making walking uncomfortable, if not dangerous. The people who walk on these two blocks are usually people who live in the area, are Hotel guests, or exercise walkers. During the day, with the wide, open, unobstructed Boulevard, that has fewer pedestrians and bicyclists, the speed limit is 35mph. At one time, the speed limit was actually considered to be increased according to the Chamber of Commerce President. Currently, pedestrians in the East End use the informal, although not delineated, in grade walkways and the few bicyclists use the existing, quite adequate bike lane. In the evening, especially, the Hotel is a destination and the Downtown Core is another, on the other end of the mile+ between them. Most of the businesses, except for El Charro (that has its own parking lot) and the gas stations are closed after 6pm. People tend to stay where the restaurants and action are, and do not walk or bike at night on the Boulevard. There is more of a chance of getting hit in the Downtown Core where traffic is slower due to congestion, distractions, lack of lighting and pedestrians. (Annual Police Report) On-street parking prototypes/templates and raised sidewalk configurations were attempted before in the Harris and Associates Report provided to the City in1988. The Report was abandoned because it reduced the parking availability and viability of the businesses. This is contrary to the POC s goals of preserving the existing building and fabric of the town, a sustainable smalltown, protecting the neighborhood, improving utilization of existing parking and maintaining a strong commercial and retail district. An acceptable solution for this area is an in-grade, colored pedestrian walkway and bike path repainted.

13 The EED has been paying into the Assessment District for decades and has not benefitted proportionately in the maintenance, landscaping or lighting of this area. The District is all for beautification, but not at the cost of loss of parking. I hope this provides additional information to make decisions for this area which are feasible, viable, aesthetically pleasing, safe and innovative. Sincerely, Dawn Eames 3295 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Lafayette, CA 94549

14 Parking Occupancy Survey Area 1 inch = 250 feet 2012 Digital Map Products. All rights reserved. 1