The non-profit grassroots group "Transportation and Parking Solutions" (TAPS) says on its Facebook page that the City-funded parking study "is still missing data and solutions," omissions so significant that TAPS' attorney has asked for a postponement in the Oct. 23 City Council item on grounds the City failed to provide TAPS with sufficient notice to comply with the terms of the settlement.

City management could agree to a postponement, or Councilmembers could request a postponement, or the Council could direct city management to take actions in response to the offered study, or direct management to have the consultant collect further information (that TAPS says wasn't collected or studied), or vote (as city staff recommends) to "receive and file" (take no immediate action) and let staff implement some currently implementable measures (restriping/diagonal parking) leaving other measures for a future Council meeting.)

On its Facebook page, TAPS says the most frequently heard question is: "Will the parking study help make parking easier for us?" to which the answer is 'probably not.' We've always known that the City could just toss this study aside and choose not to do anything. This is worse than that," TAPS says.

[Scroll down for further.]

TAPS originally began by trying to get the City to put enough parking in newly allowed downtown buildings. The parking study basically concludes that overall utilization of downtown off-street parking is low but Alamitos Beach parking is considerably more constrained as occupancy rates for onstreet parking measured in excess of capacity during evenings and weekends, due to the predominance of residential land uses. Very limited off-street parking exists in the area although that limited supply is under-utilized.

Sponsor

Sponsor

TAPS responded to the parking study's agendized text on its Facebook page:

[TAPS Facebook page text] We were very impressed and appreciative of the good work from KOA [firm provides traffic engineering, transportation planning and construction management services] and City reps, especially at first. They had thorough, creative, open and honest discussions on multiple fronts. At some point something changed, especially on the subject of the Downtown parking regulations. When Draft 2 came out, it looked like big holes had been punched in the study.

This is not just our opinion but also that of our parking consultant Mike Kodama:

The conclusions and recommendations in this study are simple but they should be much more complex. There are a lot of little things that can be done but were not recommended. There is a parking problem despite what staff told City Council in their report. It is complicated and they need help. There is a need to work with Planning Commission and City Council...

What we know tells us that the plan in this study will only be marginally and temporarily successful.

Sponsor

This study relies entirely on parking management to solve parking issues without 4 key needs to accomplish that:

• Parking Management -- The study does not specifically recommend a parking manager. The study finally added some information describing how parking management is currently spread over multiple departments and telling the City how to go about hiring management should they decide to do so. The City has refused to consider doing that when we've asked multiple times. The City needs to hire a parking consultant to organize and implement programs plus a full time professionally-trained parking manager to continuously manage the parking issues.

• 2. Parking Plan -- No Plan was recommended. The existing Downtown Plan considers visitor parking, not parking for residents and employees. The area needs a comprehensive Parking Plan that is balanced to include the needs of businesses, residents, and employees.

  The Plan should include residential permits. Draft 2 left it entirely up to residential groups to do the work to qualify for permits and fund the implementation efforts. Or they could start an assessment district and hire management themselves. The final draft said the city will assist residents in this effort but it didn't mention that there are other ways for cities to implement permits without residential efforts.

• Parking for new developments - The photo [below] is clear evidence that The Current was not built with enough parking.

  
  

  Its residents fill this lot and park in the neighborhood. This lot is about to close as another new building begins construction.

  The staff report for this study tells City Council that, "KOA found no evidence that new development in Downtown has triggered any parking shortage, or that there is need to reconsider parking requirements for new development." KOA found no evidence because they didn't look. They didn't collect data or look at the Census or determine how many new residents will need those parking structures or look at what's happening in the new buildings.

  There has never been an evaluation as to how much is needed for Downtown, not before they lowered the parking requirements in 2012 and not in this study despite the fact that the work scope requires it. The City has 2 options to make sure the new buildings have enough parking for its residents, employees, and businesses. It can base parking requirements on data that shows how much parking will be needed. Alternately, if the city does not want to require developers to provide parking, then the City must have a plan to park those people, monitoring and managing that parking.

• 4. Funding - While this study mentions revenue streams, the study did not evaluate new revenue streams from parking (including residential permits) and did not recommend the creation of a funding plan to add parking. Options besides big parking structures are available like automated parking, loan programs, and partnering with developers.

  What did they conclude? See our page "Draft 2 of the parking study. ".

  The Downtown Area section that's there is the same in this Final Draft.

  The Alamitos Beach section had the same results in the Final Draft except they added that the city will help residents do the job themselves rather than listing options that wouldn't require residents to do it.

  Again, see "Draft 2 of the parking study" for more info.

  After 5 long years of working on this, we are still trying. Please say tuned and tell your friends.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The parking study resulted from litigation following the City Council's 2012 approval (supported by then-Councilmembers Robert Garcia and Suja Lowenthal) of a developer-friendly Downtown (land use) Plan now inviting the highest high rises ever allowed in Long Beach, combined with a "Programmatic" EIR that sharply reduces the scope of public appeals of developers' individual EIR impacts. TAPS' lawsuit resulted in a settlement in which the City agreed to conduct the parking study.

TAPS leader Debora Dobias tells LBREPORT.com that the parking study's scope of work required the City-hired parking consultant to review all existing city policies, but this wasn't done. "That means that if they close out this contract [with the hired consultant], the City will have thrown away a chance to get that evaluation done within the cost of the study," she said.

Parking was already a chronic issue in Alamitos Beach and surrounding areas as a result of 1980's City Hall/City Council actions that allowed developers to build "crackerbox" (inexpensive) multi-unit apartments in what had been stable single family neighborhoods. (Neighborhood residents opposed the action, warning the increased density would destabilize single family neighborhoods and strain city services, but developers, supported by city staff and then-Councilmembers, said the new units would address a housing shortage and bring prosperity. Today, the City's actions allowing "crackerbox" density in a number of downtown-adjacent areas is viewed by many as among the worst self-inflicted wounds in LB history. It remains a sore point over 30 years later, as opposition to a new round of "crackerbox" density was frequently heard earlier this year in bruising public meetings on a city-staff proposed new Land Use Element.

During the LUE meetings, city staff didn't defend the prior City actions but argued that the City's response to "crackerboxes" -- downzoning of neighborhoods to prevent further density increases -- paradoxically now contributes to chronic parking problem by preventing new developments that would be subject to newer parking requirements.

On the issue of new parking requirements, the parking study states in part:

Over the last few years, several cities in California have begun to implement more sustainable land use and transportation policies to accommodate for multi-modal transportation, particularly in central business districts (Downtowns) or areas around transit routes and stops. While most cities still require developers to satisfy minimum parking standards, cities across the U.S. and globally have begun to remove parking minimums and instead, have been establishing parking maximums within their municipal code. The comparative analysis of Long Beach to similar Southern California cities includes Santa Monica, whose parking requirement shown in Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4 are the City's maximum parking standards.

All other parking requirements shown are minimum parking requirements by each respective city. Within Southern California, downtown or transit-oriented development areas in Los Angeles, Santa Monica and Long Beach have similar parking requirements for new developments, as shown in Figure 3.3. Long Beach’s City-wide parking requirement, which applies to the Alamitos Beach study area, is also similar to other cities, as shown in Figure 3.4. [Parking study, p. 19]

The study's recommendations (short, medium and long term) focus on "high demand for on-street parking, under-utilization of off-street parking, and overall parking supply constraints" in Alamitos Beach.

Examples of short-term measures include restriping and other measures to increase the supply of on-street parking, such efforts are already underway on Broadway and other strategic locations. Wayfinding and vigorous parking enforcement are other short-term measures. Medium term measures include, for example, advanced parking meter technology and dynamic metered-parking pricing. Some longer-term measures include the use of parking lifts and robotic parking structures, benefit or special assessment districts to fund parking improvements, and improved transit or shuttle service that would allow those who own a car, but routinely travel by other means, to park remotely in a less constrained location.

City staff (Departments of Development Services and Public Works) recommend "improving wayfinding and adding on-street parking through restriping, are already underway. Those items that can be accomplished within existing funding and work programs will continue without the need for further City Council approval."

Other recommendations require further analysis and may have fiscal implications beyond what is available in the PSIF. These items will return to the City Council for the appropriate authorization, funding and policy consideration. Many of the mid- and long-term recommendations for Alamitos Beach may require Coastal Permits and may be constrained by the City's Local Coastal Program and the California Coastal Act. As the Study serves as a starting point and not a final plan or list of measures, Development Services and Public Works, will also continue to pursue new measures to address community parking concerns whether or not those measures appear in the Study. Staff will provide the City Council with updates regarding these improvements at appropriate regular intervals.

Former 2nd dist. Council candidate Eric Gray recommends that the Council direct implementation of some of the study’s suggestions as immediately as they can, including

[Gray immediate measures]

1. Creating a Parking Manager position to consolidate all policy of parking under one division. The role could include creating parking districts, creating a transit/trolley route to and from remote parking lots in the Alamitos Beach neighborhood, and taking a block by block sweat equity approach to creating more parking spaces city wide.

2. Work to implement zoning policy which includes off street parking city wide. Two examples could include taking empty lots and turning them into residential parking in parking impacted neighborhoods and planning and building mixed use development/parking structures in places like Uptown Long Beach that create economic development.

3. Increase wayfinding signage in the Downtown area to promote where parking is located.

Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to incumbent Long Beach officials, development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.