Tuesday, June 26, 2012

LA River Iconathon - Invitation & Blog

AN INVITATION TO THE LOS ANGELES RIVER ICONATHON = Saturday, July 21

*********************************

As proud Angelenos, The Noun Project is excited to partner with amazing organizations throughout Los Angeles to host an Iconathon for the L.A. River on Saturday, July 21st.  The Iconathon will focus on developing a set of universally recognized signage for the L.A. River and the surrounding areas.  And since the symbols will be placed in the public domain, municipalities around the world will be able to use the River symbols created.

The Los Angeles River is something of a hidden gem in our city.  Although it runs right through the heart of L.A., not too many people know about it.  This is because early in Los Angeles’ history the River was confined and routed through a series of concrete channels to prevent the kind of catastrophic flooding that occurred in 1938.  Confining 80% of the River to these concrete channels resulted in essentially the world’s largest storm drain, causing many citizens to forget there was even a River in the first place.  This contributed to rapid deterioration and pollution of the River.

In the past several years there has been a growing grass-roots movement to restore and revitalize the L.A. River and surrounding areas.  We are thrilled that Omar Brownson, Executive Director of LA River Revitalization, will be speaking at the event to help us learn more about the significance of the River.

The event will be held at the LALA Gallery, which supports great street artists like JRRoa, and Shepard Fairey.  LALA is tucked into a spacious corner of an old meat packing facility built in 1949, boasting high ceilings and a raw space that is a natural fit for street artists to bring their work inside.  The Iconathon will coincide with Bloomfest LA, a fun festival celebrating the Arts District.  We’re looking forward to winding down the day with some indie music on the KCRW Stage, great brews and good food!

This event is free and open to the public, anyone is welcome to participate – no design skills required.  Space is limited, so please RSVP.

Event Details

Date: Saturday, July 21st

Time: 11am to 4pm

Location: LALA Gallery at 1335 Willow Street, 2nd Floor in Los Angeles, CA 90013

Topic: L.A. River

Speaker on “LA River”: Omar Brownson, Executive Director of LA River Revitalization

Speaker on “Symbol Design & User Comprehension”: Edward Boatman, co-founder and Creative Director of The Noun Project

RSVPEventbrite


We’re grateful to the following Partners & Supporters for making this Iconathon possible:


LA River Iconathon - Press Release.pdf Download this file

From Move LA: Something easy and fun to show support for Measure R Extension


Here’s something fun to do and share with friends, courtesy of CityWatch LA.   

Vote on this poll located at the upper right corner of the webpage with the following question, (click on the question to follow the link); “Do you support the Mayor's plan to extend the Measure R 1/2 cent sales tax?” (link)  Below are 17 excellent reasons to support extending Measure R with no sunset.

Let’s fill up the CityWatch’s ballot box.

Have fun and thanks for your continued support.

Image001
Great Reasons
To Ask Voters to Extend Measure R with No Sunset this November


Why Accelerate Measure R Projects?
1.      To accelerate project completion:  Longer revenue stream will enable Metro to accelerate 12 major transit and 16 highway projects – reducing the 30-year build-out schedule to 10 years.
2.      Accelerate creation of several hundred  thousands of jobs – over the next ten years jobs we desperately need now!
3.      Reduce project construction costs because we can avoid twenty years of inflation.
4.      Accelerate LA County’s improved economic competitiveness for long term prosperity.
5.      Accelerate enhanced connectivity within the transit system for better service, more riders to more destinations.
6.      Accelerate congestion relief throughout the county.
7.      Accelerate improved air quality throughout the region.
8.      Accelerate greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Why is “No Sunset” Better?
9.      To enable completion of Measure R projects that need more funding and to enable planning for future projects.
10.  Reliable revenue means better planning. Future generations will have predictable resources to meet the needs of an increased population. 
11.  Ensure continuity of operating funds. Removing the sunset will ensure operating revenue is continuous, like Prop A & C, avoiding any future operating crisis.  

Why Do This Now?
12.  Because We Need it Now!!
·         Unemployment in LA County is 11.6 %. 
·         Local unemployment in construction trades is near 40%.
·         Accelerated infrastructure is the best way to jump start our economy in the near term and sustain it in the long term.
·         Congestion is now very severe and growth will make it worse.
13.  Because We Can Win Now!!
·         Broad coalition is in place!
·         Polling is excellent – voters are ready!
·         Presidential election turnout always helps!
·         We have Momentum!! 

Is it fair to future generations? Yes!
14.  Measure R transit projects will serve multiple generations.  A Measure R extension will allow future residents to share the cost as well as the benefits of measure R projects.
15.  Future generations will avoid operating cost crisis because Measure R operating funds will not sunset.
16.  Future leaders will have the resource as well as the flexibility to meet new future needs. The proposed Measure R extension does not commit all its funds to projects.
17.  The rail transit system is less costly to operate than the bus transit system on a per passenger mile basis.  Thus, enhancing the rail system will create less upward pressure on transit fares than comparable enhancements to the bus system.

SB 226 CEQA Guidelines Update - OPR Transmits to Natural Resources Agency

The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is pleased to announce that it has transmitted its final proposal for updates to the CEQA Guidelines addressing streamlining for infill development pursuant to SB 226 (Simitian, 2011). Input submitted during OPR's outreach process contributed significantly to OPR's final Guidelines proposal. A copy of OPR Director Ken Alex's transmittal letter to John Laird, California Secretary for Natural Resources, as well as materials associated with the final proposal, are available on OPR's website: http://opr.ca.gov/s_sb226.php. The Natural Resources Agency will soon commence the formal rulemaking process to adopt the proposed additions. Those who wish to be involved in the Agency's process should sign up for the SB 226 listserv at: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines-sb226. Those who are currently signed up on the listserv will continue to receive notices via e-mail. If you prefer to be mailed written notice of the Natural Resources Agency's rulemaking activities, please e-mail your request to CEQA.Guidelines@ceres.ca.gov or mail your request to Heather Baugh, Assistant General Counsel, Natural Resources Agency, 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Roundtable Discussion on AB 904 = Tuesday, June 26 (4pm)

FYI, comments from West LA community leader Barbara Brodie.  -WrW

From: Barbara Broide 

Subject: RE: Roundtable Discussion on AB 904 = Tuesday, June 26 (4pm)

Date: June 25, 2012 12:36:34 PM PDT

To: Will Wright 

Will,

I haven't replied to your invitation because I did not know whether or not I would be in LA on Tuesday afternoon.  As it happens, I will be leaving around 10:30 am and won't be back until Wednesday morning. 

That said, while I do not know the specific points of views of all those listed who have been invited to speak, it does strike me that the "other" point of view, the point of view of those that are not quite ready to throw open the codes and allow reduced parking across the city based upon proximity to a bus line, transit line, etc. knowing that our transit system is still in its infancy, knowing that even IF people commute by rail they STILL have a car (or even two) in the family, etc. 

Reducing parking within 1/4 mile of a rail station may be acceptable, but surely a blanket reduction for the entire City is not viable. Even within a 1/4 mile, residents and customers who cannot park on-site will be competing for street parking with commuters using the rail line. If commuters use up parking early in the morning, customers won't have parking. Or if residents use up street parking, commuters won't have parking and will be discouraged from using rail service.  (Keep in mind that little to no parking is being built along many transit line stations.)

The pattern of development throughout the metro area is arterial streets lined with commercial and high-density residential with lower density residential within the neighborhoods. (True there is single-family residential along some arteries, but that is not the general pattern.) If the developments along the arteries have parking deficiencies, the parking spills into the neighborhoods causing problems. For example, the formerly hip area of Melrose. People do not choose shopping or medical or business or residential locations based on the parking supplies. They make their choices and then adjust to the parking availability by finding other parking locations.

Lisa Sarkin of the Studio City NC recently mentioned to me that she read a very good article documenting a San Francisco study that showed that even in SF, with a mature and far-reaching multi-modal transit system, that only 22% of the residents in the transit oriented project actually USED the transit for their daily commutes. 

In LA, where is the data that actually shows the traffic counts in and out of the properties that have already been built as TOD?  What about the surveys to see what kinds of car ownership exists in some of the new buildings?  What has happened in North Hollywood where the large transit oriented development near the station has gone belly up (bankrupt)? 

THe whole notion of what is REAL TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT needs to be raised and was well articulated in the debates in Santa Monica over the Heinz project....  but in LA we haven't really had that discussion.  Instead, it is developers who seek the benefits of TOD's that seem to be defining where and when they are built.  And, of course, the City's one size fits all mentality without looking at infrastructure, existing density, traffic patterns, etc. just makes matters worse.  It would seem to me that we would want to use these planning tools and designations to stimulate development where most needed as opposed to where the most money can be made by a developer. 

In the current economy we tend to have planning guided not by planning principles, but by those developers and labor unions seeking jobs.  Anything to "stimulate" building almost anywhere gets the blessings of the powers that be.  The notion of providing "affordable housing" (even if a project removes 12 affordable units and replaces them with only 4) also drives the debate without critical analysis as to how to get the most bang from the buck and actually provide MORE affordable housing than is /has been demolished.   And in recent hearing testimony it has been stated time and time again that even low income (affordable housing) occupants own cars.... even if public transit is used during the work week.

I wonder who is keeping track of the parking inventory in downtown as it relates to current residents in new residential developments, pending numbers of units and those planned.....and all related/associated uses....

It is clear that LA is now embarking upon a culture shift away from the auto as the primary transportation mode.  However, as in all culture shifts, these things are best done in an evolutionary manner, as opposed to a revolutionary one....  We are not yet Seattle, Portland or other west coast cities that have long been cultivating a more urban/mixed use design.  And, complicating matters is the sheer SIZE and SPRAWL of LA County.  (I had to take a deep breath upon hearing one of the recent MObility 21 speakers (from Australia?) as he talked about the City from the Baldwin Hills to the HOllywood Hills and how the subway and transit are now becoming part of the urban fabric.  He said nothing of what lies BEYOND the HOllywood Hills and the fact that so many people must commute long distances to work and that our transit system does not meeting their needs and realistically will not meet their needs for many, many years to come.    LA is also not NY or Chicago with their wonderful rail networks connecting the suburbs/buroughs with the central city.  Yes, we need to encourage ridership; we need to do everything we can to make transit use more accessible (which may mean that we do NOT want to build mega projects directly adjacent to key transit stations).  Our HOA just submitted comments on a proposed Casden project at the Sepulveda stop of the EXPO line that wishes to locate a large TARGET store there along with a supermarket, retailing and over 540 apartment units.  Given all that everyone knows about the congestion in the area, the location adjacent to the 405, etc. it seems key to the success of the line that people who cannot get there via transit (hill dwellers, folks to the north where transit does not go), should be able to drive and park there.  However, if the city allows development that will completely choke the area, that will not be possible and the investment made in transit will not realize its full potential. 

At any rate, I need not go over some of the points I would have made had I been able to attend the meeting... However, I do believe it is very important that someone on your panel bring up these types of issues.  Have you been able to find others who can address these thoughts?  If not, let me know and I will send out an email to some community types who could be asked if they would consider participating.

Thanks for the invite!  Sorry I can't be there,
Barbara


Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Comprehensive Zoning Code Revision - City Council Approved Funding

Greetings All:

The City Council has approved funding from the Construction Services Trust Fund (CSTF) for the first year of a five-year work program to revise the City’s Zoning Code.  This historic action marks the beginning of one of the City's most significant planning initiatives to date.  The project now has enough funding to proceed to the next step.

Our Department will prepare and release a Request for Proposals to select the consultant team, and begin taking steps to initiate the creation of a brand new Zoning Code.  We expect to be ready to embark on this effort by December 2012.

Funding from the CSTF will be granted on an annual basis as part of the Department's annual budgetary process.  We have committed to providing quarterly status reports on the Zoning Code Revision project to the Planning & Land Use Management Committee, which will also be available to the public.

The remainder of the funding will come from an Ordinance to increase the General Plan Maintenance Surcharge from 3% to 5% for a period of five years with a sunset clause, which will follow shortly and be prepared in cooperation with the City Attorney's Office.

BACKGROUND

The last time the City of Los Angeles did a comprehensive revision was when the current Zoning Code was first adopted in 1946.  It has since grown from an 84-page pamphlet to a 600+ page book does not reflect our 21st Century needs or vision.

The proposal will result in a new Zoning Code that:
  • Establishes clear & predictable language
  • More effectively implements the Goals & Objectives of the General Plan and Community Plans
  • Offers a wider variety of zoning options that protect and/or enhance our communities
  • Reflects the diversity of Los Angeles and allows each neighborhood to maintain a distinct sense of place
  • Accommodates the City’s current and future needs
  • Improves the built environment, economic vitality, & quality of life
  • Is an economic development tool that will help shore up the City’s tax base
The five-year work program includes three major deliverables:
  • Dynamic Web-Based Zoning Code - Clear & Predictable Code that allows for customized/interactive on-line experience
  • Layperson’s Guide to Zoning - Easy-to-Read Guides that help people navigate regulations & procedures
  • Unified Downtown Development Code - New Zoning Tools for revitalization of Downtown within first 24-30 months of the program; ensuring it is poised to lead the charge for Los Angeles’s economic recovery
The work program includes an enhanced public participation strategy that will include many opportunities for public involvement and feedback.  Our Department is committed to an open and transparent process that ensures that all stakeholders are given the opportunity to participate and contribute to the new land use and development standards.

The project will not: 1) override any existing Specific Plans or Overlays; or 2) result in the wholesale "up-zoning" of the City.  Although changes will eventually be pursued in order to implement the new Zoning Code, the proposed work program does not include any amendments to the current Zoning designations.  Any future changes will include notifications and public hearings.

OTHER INFORMATION

Below is a link to the Council File for the proposal.  It includes copies of the Department's funding request which outlines the proposed work program and budget plan, as well as other reports and comments submitted to date.

Council File No. 12-0460

http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=12-0460

Help us spread the word by forwarding this information to anyone you feel might be interested.

If you received this email via forwarded message from someone other than myself, and you want to obtain updates directly from the Department, please email erick.lopez@lacity.org and ask to be added to the interest list.  Please type "Add Me To Zoning Code Notification List" in the subject line.

If you are on  Facebook , please visit our Los Angeles City Planning - Code Studies page at http://www.facebook.com/LACityCodeStudies.  Click on the "like" button and you will receive updates in your news feed regarding this project and other proposed Zoning Ordinances as they become available.

As always, if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact myself or David Olivo at david.olivo@lacity.org; email is preferred.

Reminder: LACBC Grad Research Night - Wednesday, June 20th - 6:30pm

Friends, 

I hope to see many of you tomorrow evening at 6:30pm for LACBC's first ever bicycle research event! Please spread the word.

Supporting A Bike-able Los Angeles With Research

LACBC believes in the power of student research to help inform our organization's campaigns & local policy makers to create a more bike-able Los Angeles County. Join the LACBC Board Planning Committee & hear the latest bicycle related research findings from recent UCLA Urban Planning Graduate Students.

After the student presentations we invite everyone to brainstorm about projects or campaigns in some way inspired by the research. Stickers will be provided to mark ideas you like, and hopefully at the end of the meeting we'll coalesce around one or two ideas that the LACBC Board Planning Committee can work on.  LACBC members and supporters are invited to get involved with the Planning Committee and LACBC campaigns.  

Projects Presentations:
York Boulevard; The Economic Impacts of a Road Diet - Cullen McCormick (2012)
Redefining Impact; How California Cities Have Leveraged CEQA to Support Complete Streets - Jen Karmels (2012)
Bicycle Parking Ordinances; Examples From the United States - Rye Baerg (2011)

When: Wednesday, June 20th, 2012, 6:30-8:30pm

Where: MALDEF Building, Edison Room
634 South Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90014

Free for members, $5 for non-members. Register for membership at the event and entry is free!!

Light Hors D’Oeuvres and Beverages Will Be Served

Alexis Lantz
--------------------------
Planning & Policy Director
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition
t: 213.629.2142  /  f: 213.629.2259

www.la-bike.org

Help build a better, bike-able L.A. County:
Become an LACBC member today!


Roundtable Discussion on AB 904 = Tuesday, June 26 (4pm)

Are you available on Tuesday, June 26 (4pm) to join us in a roundtable discussion about AB 904 and parking policy reform?  We'd love to hear your perspective!  Please let me know if you're available and I will add you to the list of participants.

Are you available on Tuesday, June 26 (4pm) to join us in a lively roundtable discussion about AB 904 and parking policy reform? We'd love to hear your perspective!

AIA|LA & The Planning Report present...
Who Needs Parking? Who Wants Parking?
A Roundtable Debate About AB 904 & Parking Policy Reform
Tuesday, June 26 (4:00 - 5:30pm)
AIA Los Angeles
3780 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90010

RSVP to will[@]aialosangeles.org

To be moderated by David Abel - Publisher, The Planning Report

A state proposal to lower parking requirements around transit, AB 904, is generating a lively debate among the environmental, development and affordable housing community. Should Sacramento intervene to help cities end what Donald Shoup has called a "great planning disaster?". Or should local governments take on the task of revising decades-old parking as our region invests more in transit infrastructure? Join the AIA-LA and The Planning Report in a roundtable discussion with planners, developers, architects addressing this complex and divisive issue.

Invited Participants:
Mayor Richard Bloom - City of Santa Monica
John Given - CIM Group
Mercedes Márquez - Los Angeles Housing Department
Carl Muhlstein - Cushman & Wakefield
Stephanie Reich - City of Glendale
Don Shoup - UCLA
Mott Smith - Civic Enterprise
Denny Zane - MOVE LA
Paul Zimmerman - SCANPH

And more.......

As I receive your RSVP, I will add your name to this list.

For more information, please contact:

Will Wright, Hon. AIA|LA
Director, Government & Public Affairs
AIA Los Angeles
Tel: (213) 639-0764
Email: will[@]aialosangeles.org


Additional Resources:

Resurrected Parking Bill Draws Fire from APA

Ever since the 2005 publication of UCLA professor Don Shoup’s book, The High Cost of Free Parking, the relaxation of parking minimums has been seen by many planners as the next best thing to manufacturing new land. Yet, the introduction of a bill that would enact a modest page from the Shoup playbook has roused opposition from a surprising source: the American Planning Association. 

The League of Cities and Cal APA are NOT Accurately Representing AB 904

AB 904 Fact CHECK _.pdf Download this file

An interesting post on MARKET URBANISM:

CAL APA's MEMO entitled:  "URGENT: Restrictive Parking Bill Reintroduced"

The following is a link to AB 904, sponsored by the Infill Builder Association and authored again by Assembly Member Skinner.  
The bill is a gut and amend that is now similar to AB 710 (Skinner).  This bill requires restrictive parking standards similar to those included in AB 710, which you'll recall died on the Senate floor at the end of last year.  AB 904, in a different form, already passed the Assembly, and is now awaiting hearing in the Senate.
APA California is not opposed to the concept of lower parking requirements near transit when a community decides it is right for them -- the issue is that a one-sized-fits-all statewide standard is not appropriate.
AB 904, on and after January 1, 2014, would prohibit a city or county (including charter cities) from requiring minimum parking requirements in transit-intensive areas greater than the following:
   One parking space per 1000 square feet for nonresidential projects (including commercial, industrial, institutional, or any other nonresidential projects regardless of type of use).
   One parking space per unit for non-income-restricted residential projects.
   75/100ths parking spaces per unit for projects that include both income restricted and non-income restricted units.
   5/10ths parking spaces per unit for units that are deed restricted at least 55 years to rents or prices affordable to persons and families making less than 60% of area median income.
The definition of "transit-intensive area" means an area that is within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop or within 1/4 mile of the center line of a high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan, including a major transit stop such as a High Speed Rail transit stop) included in a regional transportation plan but not completed.
There are a few exceptions.  Units with floor ratios below 0.75, deed-restricted rent control/rental replacement units, and units where the owner withdrew the units from rental are all exempt from the parking restrictions. 
Local agencies can impose higher parking standards than are included in the bill if they make written findings, based on substantial evidence and "objective criteria" that all of the following apply to the specific transit-intensive area:
1. There isn't sufficient walkability.
2. There isn't sufficient level of transit service or bike access to provide viable alternatives to the car.
3. The lower standards undermine "existing parking standards that create effective incentives for transit-oriented development or affordable housing production, or both". 
4. The standards conflict with a station area plan in effect as of 1/1/2013 that provides reduced off-street parking compared to standard zoning required outside the transit-intensive area.
The local agency would be required to adopt an ordinance implementing any parking standards above those included in the bill.  But, if the agency does not adopt such an ordinance by January 1, 2014, projects deemed complete after January 1, 2014, but before adoption of the ordinance, would be required to meet the reduced parking requirements in this bill.
The sponsors believe that builders and the market should decide how much parking to provide, and that these reduced parking standards significantly reduce the cost of development and increase the number of transit-accessible and affordable housing units, increase density and development and use of public transit, and reduce green house gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled by removing an incentive to drive.
APA California is interested in receiving your comments on this measure, and are also interested in how you believe the bill would specifically impact your jurisdiction or community. Please send your comments to Sande George, contact info below, within the next two weeks.  
In addition, if you believe that this bill would create problems for you community, we urge you to write a letter to the author, with a copy to Sande, expressing opposition.
Her contact information is below:
Sande George
Lobbyist, APA California
Stefan/George Associates
925 L Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814

Thank you everyone,
Dave Snow, APA California Vice President of Policy and Legislation
Sande George, APA California Executive Director and Lobbyist
Lauren Silva, APA California Lobbyist

AB 904 (SKINNER)

AB 904 Language from Leg Counsel.pdf Download this file

From: Nancy Cisneros [mailto:ncisneros@cacities.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 3:19 PM
Subject: ACTION ALERT - AB 904
Importance: High

Inland Empire & Desert Mountain Division City Managers
Please act on AB 904 immediately, this parking bill is back with just enough  revision to make it look tolerable, but the author exempted her district from it, it hits at local control, the opt out process is so involved and is made to have cities hesitate to do so….  The bill is expected to go to the Governor’s desk unless we can stop it with many letters of opposition….Let’s not let the state now become involved in zoning.

ACTION ALERT!!

AB 904 (Skinner). Threatens Affordable Housing and
Business Friendly Community Development
preprepreprepre

Monday, June 18, 2012

AB 904 :: An excellent opportunity for a smart debate

Hi Will,

I agree, a SMART debate is useful.  Here’s a response from the planning division/local government perspective:

I can understand how there would be disappointment that the CA APA does not always advocate for more progressive policies.  The City of Glendale has already adopted reduced parking standards for our downtown area.  However, I don’t believe they go as far as AB 904 which DOES represent a dramatic reduction, particularly for residential projects.

That having been said, as an urban designer and architect working in a planning department, I absolutely understand the trepidation of “one size fits all” mandates from the state.  Often while state mandates are well-intentioned, they are often poorly written and are difficult to apply to every jurisdiction.  I noticed the “fact sheet” you sent states that local jurisdictions can exempt themselves by adopting one of four findings.  While that may be true (and the bill would have to be corrected to make that a true statement) cities are not in the habit of rejecting state standards.

More importantly, please also understand the practical and political context of local government and policy-making in California, particularly Southern California.  Planners are caught between best practice, which is usually progressive and sustainable policies, and the expectations and demands from the public.  As you know, the most “progressive” communities can often be the most regressive from a planning perspective.  (I both  on the west side where additional density and reduced parking standards are especially opposed by the vast majority of the public.  Even Berkeley has become NIMBY of late, opposing rapid bus lines, etc.)

Additionally, it’s probably also clear that every city and most planning departments are experiencing deep cuts and substantial layoffs.  That doesn’t mean the community will ask for less time and attention.  New regulation always takes time and effort.  And reducing parking requirements is a hot-button political issue.  Yes, it may be helpful by making it less expensive for developers.  But will there be fewer cars?  Probably not.  In the end, will it push the demand and responsibility for shared parking to municipal government, already starved of resources?  Probably.

Again, I’m all for reduced parking requirements.  But these are the kinds of changes that need to be done thoughtfully, with sensitivity to the local social, political and economic environment.

 

Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP

Senior Urban Designer

Community Development Department

City of Glendale 

633 E. Broadway, Room 103

Glendale, CA 91206

818.548.2140

818.240.0392 f


From: Will Wright [mailto:will@aialosangeles.org]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 4:15 PM
To: DesignAdvocate Posterous
Cc: Will Wright
Subject: AB 904 :: An excellent opportunity for a smart debate

I'm interested in curating a public/ virtual debate about how statewide parking policy reform can most effectively help to revitalize the urban core of our cities. Below, is a candydish of input including a rebuttal response to APA California.

Please contact me with your direct input if you're interested in contributing to the discussion.   I will post your remarks to the DESIGN ADVOCATE blog. 

All best,

Will Wright

Director, Government 7 Public Affairs

AIA Los Angeles

The League of Cities and Cal APA are NOT Accurately Representing AB 904

Friday, June 15, 2012

AB 904 :: An excellent opportunity for a smart debate

I'm interested in curating a public/ virtual debate about how statewide parking policy reform can most effectively help to revitalize the urban core of our cities. Below, is a candydish of input including a rebuttal response to APA California.

Please contact me with your direct input if you're interested in contributing to the discussion.   I will post your remarks to the DESIGN ADVOCATE blog. 

All best,

Will Wright
Director, Government 7 Public Affairs
AIA Los Angeles

The League of Cities and Cal APA are NOT Accurately Representing AB 904

AB 904 Fact CHECK _.pdf Download this file

An interesting post on MARKET URBANISM:

CAL APA's MEMO entitled:  "URGENT: Restrictive Parking Bill Reintroduced"

The following is a link to AB 904, sponsored by the Infill Builder Association and authored again by Assembly Member Skinner.  
The bill is a gut and amend that is now similar to AB 710 (Skinner).  This bill requires restrictive parking standards similar to those included in AB 710, which you'll recall died on the Senate floor at the end of last year.  AB 904, in a different form, already passed the Assembly, and is now awaiting hearing in the Senate.
APA California is not opposed to the concept of lower parking requirements near transit when a community decides it is right for them -- the issue is that a one-sized-fits-all statewide standard is not appropriate.
AB 904, on and after January 1, 2014, would prohibit a city or county (including charter cities) from requiring minimum parking requirements in transit-intensive areas greater than the following:
   One parking space per 1000 square feet for nonresidential projects (including commercial, industrial, institutional, or any other nonresidential projects regardless of type of use).
   One parking space per unit for non-income-restricted residential projects.
   75/100ths parking spaces per unit for projects that include both income restricted and non-income restricted units.
   5/10ths parking spaces per unit for units that are deed restricted at least 55 years to rents or prices affordable to persons and families making less than 60% of area median income.
The definition of "transit-intensive area" means an area that is within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop or within 1/4 mile of the center line of a high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan, including a major transit stop such as a High Speed Rail transit stop) included in a regional transportation plan but not completed.
There are a few exceptions.  Units with floor ratios below 0.75, deed-restricted rent control/rental replacement units, and units where the owner withdrew the units from rental are all exempt from the parking restrictions. 
Local agencies can impose higher parking standards than are included in the bill if they make written findings, based on substantial evidence and "objective criteria" that all of the following apply to the specific transit-intensive area:
1. There isn't sufficient walkability.
2. There isn't sufficient level of transit service or bike access to provide viable alternatives to the car.
3. The lower standards undermine "existing parking standards that create effective incentives for transit-oriented development or affordable housing production, or both". 
4. The standards conflict with a station area plan in effect as of 1/1/2013 that provides reduced off-street parking compared to standard zoning required outside the transit-intensive area.
The local agency would be required to adopt an ordinance implementing any parking standards above those included in the bill.  But, if the agency does not adopt such an ordinance by January 1, 2014, projects deemed complete after January 1, 2014, but before adoption of the ordinance, would be required to meet the reduced parking requirements in this bill.
The sponsors believe that builders and the market should decide how much parking to provide, and that these reduced parking standards significantly reduce the cost of development and increase the number of transit-accessible and affordable housing units, increase density and development and use of public transit, and reduce green house gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled by removing an incentive to drive.
APA California is interested in receiving your comments on this measure, and are also interested in how you believe the bill would specifically impact your jurisdiction or community. Please send your comments to Sande George, contact info below, within the next two weeks.  
In addition, if you believe that this bill would create problems for you community, we urge you to write a letter to the author, with a copy to Sande, expressing opposition.
Her contact information is below:
Sande George
Lobbyist, APA California
Stefan/George Associates
925 L Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814

Thank you everyone,
Dave Snow, APA California Vice President of Policy and Legislation
Sande George, APA California Executive Director and Lobbyist
Lauren Silva, APA California Lobbyist

AB 904 (SKINNER)

AB 904 Language from Leg Counsel.pdf Download this file