DATE: 03/20/2010 TIME: 8:00 AM O PLACE: Council Chambers




C PUBLIC HEARING I REQUIRED T SUMMARY: A proposed ordinance that amends Sections 12.21, 12.24, and 12.22 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) to require bicycle parking spaces for new multi-family residential developments. Y
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Adopt theLstaff report as City Planning Commission's report on the subject. 2. Adopt theA findings included in Attachment 1. 3. Approve the proposed ordinance (Appendix A) and recommend its adoption by the City Council. N




SUMMARY Currently, the City of Los Angeles’ zoning and building codes require bicycle parking for commercial (C) and manufacturing (M) zones but not multi-family zones. This inconsistency discourages residents living in such zones from making bicycle trips due to the lack of secure parking. In addition, there tends to be a shortage of affordable housing in the City. By allowing developers to supplant vehicle parking with bicycle parking, more resources are available, as is the incentive, to build more affordable housing units. To maintain consistency with current City policy and typical industry practice, as well as to resolve the problem of deficiencies in bicycle parking overall and to address the needs of a growing bicycling population, the attached draft ordinance (Appendix A) amends existing zoning and building codes. The amendment requires developers of multi-family residential buildings to provide bicycle parking, with incentives of lower construction costs and higher densities. STAFF REPORT Background In recent years, the Mayor, the City Council, and City Planning staff have grappled with the intractable problems of roadway congestion, increased costs of housing, and discovering a way to accommodate the increasing densification of Los Angeles. It is an established fact that the City is becoming denser every year. In fact, the Los Angeles Metro Area is now the densest metro region in all of the United States. Adding density can be a boon to the City, as it brings in more workers, more taxpayers, and more consumers. Implemented properly, increased density can also help to revitalize underperforming neighborhoods and create livable, walkable streets if growth is managed through innovative strategies such as bicycle parking requirements. However, adding density without implementing an equally balanced transit strategy will create roadway congestion problems, as a greater number of people living in the City will inevitably bring in a greater number of cars. Productivity is lost while people spend time in traffic. Accidents, injuries, and fatalities from vehicle collisions become more likely; and the carbon emissions from idling vehicles reduce air quality and contribute to global warming. Developing housing with parking to accommodate the increase in population presents a potentially vicious cycle in which increased densities can improve and revitalize the neighborhoods of Los Angeles, but at the same time bring in more cars than the system can handle, thus degrading the conditions of Los Angeles neighborhoods through congestion, pollution, and unfriendly streets. In staff’s opinion, encouraging and nurturing the use of bicycles as a primary mode of transit, as directed by the General Plan, is one way to implement the plan’s guidelines and goals to facilitate the City’s growth. By adding bicycle requirements to new developments, ridership will increase and result in less vehicle miles traveled in the City.


Staff has identified three development-related recommendations that best encourage bicycling and accommodate bicycle riders. First, we recommend amending LAMC Section 12.21, which ties bicycle parking requirements to the number of standard parking spaces, to cover not only C and M zones, but to also cover zoning for multi-family residential units throughout the city. Staff's second recommendation is to amend Section 12.21 to allow for parking reductions on all developments within 2500 ft of all metro/transit stations. This allowance of reduced parking would be contingent upon the installation of bicycle parking, helping to satisfy several other state and local initiatives (SB1818, Los Angeles General Plan, etc.). Staff's final recommendation is that low-income multi-family housing be required to accommodate bicycle parking to serve a segment of the population that uses bicycles at a much higher rate, by amending Section 12.22. It is estimated that by requiring the installation of 2 bike racks for every parking space removed, a developer with an underground parking lot will save approximately $24,000 per parking space removed. This savings will incentivize the installation of bicycle parking in all new multi-family residential developments. Further, the removal of parking will encourage the developer to unbundle parking from units, making units more affordable for those who chose not to own a car.

Landlords customarily bundle the prices for housing and parking in a single transaction. The bundled parking is not really free, of course. It just comes at no extra cost, so that residents think it is free and make their choices accordingly. Renting apartments and parking spaces separately will make the housing cheaper for those who think a second parking space (or even a first one) isn't worth the extra cost. If developers provide fewer parking spaces and pass the cost savings to the residents, the housing itself will be cheaper.
Donald Shoup - The High Cost of Free Parking

Justification The City of Los Angeles has experienced a meteoric rise in the popularity of bicycling over the last decade. Data from the American Community Survey (ACS) shows that between 2003 and 2008 there was a 60 percent increase in the number of Angelenos who use a bicycle to commute to work. The figure given in 2008 equates to roughly over 19,000 residents, but likely fails to cover those who bike for non-commute trips and those who ride their bike to work intermittently. Additionally, many lowerincome communities, which may be underrepresented in the ACS, have a higher level of bicycling than the rest of the population. Since the ACS only tracks trends in mode-splits for commuting to and from work, more information is needed to capture overall bicyclist behavior. Recently the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), along with the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) conducted a more detailed survey regarding cycling behavior in Los Angeles to help address the needs of bicyclists. The study found that many cyclists, including the underserved and undercounted, would ride more often if not for various reasons. Among other requests like more bicycle infrastructure in the form of bike lanes, a key barrier to encouraging more riders is adequate bicycle parking. A total of 55 percent of respondents listed a lack of bicycle parking at their destination as a deterrent to cycling. 3

The blossoming of bicycle culture is illustrated in the organized rides of advocacy organizations like Critical Mass and Midnight Ridazz. While there are currently no official counts for these rides, the L.A. Times has estimated the rides as regularly hosting 400-500 riders per event, with a high-water mark close to 1,400 riders. The rise of bicycle shops and advocacy organizations like the LACBC, C.I.C.L.E., Bike Oven, the Bicycle Kitchen, Bikerowave, and the East Side Bike Club also speak to the growing demand for bicycle services and infrastructure. A more negative confirmation of the popularity of bicycling in Los Angeles has been the increased rate of bicycle theft. In 2009, a year in which almost all other forms of crime went down, reports of bicycle theft increased by 29%. As such there is a growing need for secure, covered bicycle parking. Alternative Criterion Part of City Council Motion 09-2896 calls for an analysis of whether the bicycle parking requirements should be tied to building square footage or tied to car parking. Current Los Angeles bicycle parking requirements are based on car parking requirements, indirectly linking them to building square footage as car parking requirements are tied to building square footage. Though it would be easier to adapt requirements for multi-family residential buildings along those lines, this method fails to take into account the intensity of the building's usage Alternate criteria, including building use, number of employees, and number of residents, should be used to establish a more tailored approach to bicycle parking. These alternatives may be used to form a more effective, quantifiable strategy for deciding how to implement bicycle parking requirements in multi-family housing developments The proposed ordinance will be more effective if bicycle parking requirements were broken down by different building uses, with commercial uses broken down by type, while still being tied to square footage. By breaking down usage by type, the intensity of bicycle parking need in the development could be taken into account. External Precedent Bicycle parking requirements in other U.S. cities vary widely with regard to number of spaces required and what the requirement is tied to. Three cities will be discussed here: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Seattle, Washington; and San Francisco, California. In both Pittsburgh and San Francisco, bicycle parking requirements in commercial parking lots and parking structures are tied to car parking and building square footage, whereas multi-family housing parking is tied to number of units. In Pittsburgh, lowoccupancy commercial use (e.g., hotels, motels) bicycle requirements are tied to number of employees, as are bicycle requirements for city buildings in San Francisco. Seattle has taken an even more finegrained approach to bicycle parking, tying requirements among most commercial buildings to square footage and car parking, but among primary and secondary schools to number of classrooms; among universities to number of students and employees; among movie theatres to number of available seats; and as in Seattle and San Francisco, among multi-family housing to number of units. In San Francisco and Seattle, the requirements are further specified for short-term and long-term parking. These varied approaches are tailored to use and better accommodate the community. They also lead to a more efficient mix of short-term and long-term parking. 4

By examining the multi-family housing requirements in these cities in greater detail, we find that in Pittsburgh, among multi-unit residential housing with more than 11 units, one bicycle parking space is required for every three dwelling units. In Seattle, one space is required for every four units of multi-unit residential use. In San Francisco, multi-family housing developments with less than 50 dwelling units require one bicycle parking space per every two dwelling units; developments with more than 50 units are required to provide 25 bicycle space plus one space for every four dwelling units. Housing for seniors and physically disabled persons are not subject to bicycle parking requirements. One criticism of the approaches described above is that the methodology used to select the number of bicycle parking spaces is not well explained or justified in great detail. However, parking requirements are difficult to justify and tend to be determined arbitrarily, then fine-tuned incrementally as necessary. Furthermore, the cities mentioned above have successful bike plans and are well known for them. Los Angeles could benefit from a more tailored approach to bicycle parking that considers type and intensity of use, adjusted from baseline figures of the aforementioned plans. Proposed Ordinance The proposed ordinance applies the existing bicycle requirement for buildings situated in C and M zones to (RD1.5, RD2, RD3, RD4, RD5, RD6) R3/RAS3, R4/RAS4, and R5 zones. The proposed ordinance addresses the requirement for bicycle parking as an incentive to be provided for multi-family developments in R3-R5 zones located within 2,500 ft. of metro/transit stations by reducing required parking by 20 percent, provided the developer installs 2 bicycle racks for every space removed. Finally, the proposed ordinance addresses the requirement for bicycle parking as an incentive to be provided for affordable housing developers. The provisions are a reduction to existing car parking requirements such that each reduced space is replaced with a space for one parked bicycle, as follows: Parking Option 1: (i) 0.8 (ii) 1.6 (iii) 2.0, Parking Option 2: (i) 0.8 Implementation The proposed new regulations are not retroactive and thus will not apply to existing residential units entitled and built under the current standard. These units have “non-conforming” rights and thus may continue to maintain the existing parking requirements. This ordinance will apply to future multi-family housing developments within the prescribed zones. Conclusion The proposed ordinance (Appendix A) amends existing parking requirements such that bicycle parking is included in multi-family residential developments in existing residential zones, transit-oriented developments, and affordable residential developments. The amendments align with current City policy for growth management and densification while maintaining livability of neighborhoods. The proposals better address the changing preferences of residents and the needs of a growing bicycle culture in the City of Los Angeles while promoting increased ridership. 5


The Department of City Planning recommends that the City Planning Commission find: 1. In accordance with Charter Section 556, that the proposed ordinance (Appendix A) is in substantial conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the General Plan. Specifically, the proposed ordinance implements Housing Goals to “Implement innovative parking strategies.” The proposed ordinance promotes innovative parking strategies by changing a regulation that impedes the development of market-rate and affordable multi-family housing due to the costliness of vehicle parking requirements. By specifically encouraging bicycle parking and ridership in place of vehicle parking, the ordinance helps implement State Bill 1818 and the City’s Affordable Housing Incentives Ordinance to “allow developers to reduce parking for affordable units because the residents qualifying for the affordable residences own fewer cars.” The proposed ordinance is also in substantial conformance with Land Use section 5.8.1 to promote the “Inclusion of bicycle parking areas and facilities to reduce the need for vehicular use” in those residencies that fall in the boundaries of pedestrian-oriented districts. Bicycle Parking Requirements, in lieu of some of the required vehicle parking, reduces vehicle miles traveled, increases usage of public transportation, which in turn reduces noxious vehicle emissions which degrade regional air quality. 2. In accordance with Charter Section 558 (b) (2), that the proposed ordinance (Appendix A) is directly related to the General Plan. Specifically, the proposed ordinance substantially conforms with and furthers the purposes, intent, and provisions of the General Plan, as set forth above. In addition, the proposed ordinance does not modify any provisions of the General Plan; and TRANSPORTATION FINDINGS The Department of City Planning recommends that the City Planning Commission find: 1. In accordance with Charter Section 556, that the proposed ordinance (Appendix A) is in substantial conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the General Plan. Specifically, the proposed ordinance implements Transportation goals 2.2.3 and 2.2.11 to “Increase bicycle access and parking facilities to mitigate the impacts to traffic” and for “New developments to include bicycle storage and parking facilities.” BICYCLE PLAN FINDINGS The Department of City Planning recommends that the City Planning Commission find: 1. In accordance with Charter Section 556, that the proposed ordinance (Appendix A) is in substantial

conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the General Plan. Specifically, the proposed ordinance implements Bicycle Plan goals 3.4.2 to implement “Transportation control measures to reduce 6

VMT by providing bicycle storage and is in line with amending “LAMC Section 12.21A16 to augment the City’s standard bicycle parking requirements and to include bicycle lockers and amenities in commercial, industrial and multi-family residential projects.” ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS The proposed ordinance (Appendix A) is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City guidelines for the implementation thereof pursuant to Article II, Section 2, Subsection (m) of the City of Los Angeles CEQA Guidelines, the adoption of proposals and, thereafter, ordinances which have no impact on the physical environment.



A proposed ordinance that amends Sections 12.21, 12.24, and 12.22 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) to require bicycle parking spaces for new multi-family residential development.

Section 1. The following definition in Section 12.21 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read: Sec 12.21 A 16. Bicycle Parking and Shower Facilities. (Added by Ord. No. 167,409, Eff. 12/19/91.) Offstreet parking spaces for bicycles and facilities for employee showers and lockers shall be provided as follows: (a) In the C and M zones C, M, (RD1.5, RD2, RD3, RD4, RD5, RD6) R3/RAS3, R4/RAS4, and R5 zones for any building, portion thereof or addition thereto used for non-residential purposes which contains a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet, bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at the rate of two five percent of the number of automobile parking spaces required by this section for such non-residential uses may reduce parking to no less than ninety five percent of the number of parking spaces otherwise required; provided, however, that at least one two bicycle parking spaces shall be provided for any such building having a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet of non-residential use each car parking space removed. If the calculation of the number of required spaces under this paragraph results in a number including a fraction, the next highest whole number shall be the number of spaces required. (b) The bicycle parking space requirements in Paragraph (a) shall also apply to any building, regardless of zone, owned by the City of Los Angeles and used by the City for government purposes which contains a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet. (c) Multi-family residential uses in the R3-R5 Zones located on a lot not more than 2,500 feet distant from the portal of a fixed rail transit station, or bus rapid transit station, or other similar transit facility, may reduce parking to no less than eighty percent of the number of parking spaces otherwise required, provided that for each car parking space removed, two bicycle parking spaces are provided. (d) All bicycle parking spaces required by this Subdivision shall include a stationary parking device which adequately supports the bicycle. In addition, at least half of the bicycle parking spaces shall include a stationary parking device which securely locks the bicycle without the use of a user-supplied cable or chain. Devices which hold the bicycle upright by wheel contact must hold at least 180 degrees of wheel arc. (e) Each bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of two feet in width and six feet in length and shall have a minimum of six feet of overhead clearance. (f) Bicycle parking spaces shall be located no farther than the distance from a main entrance of the building to the nearest off-street automobile parking space. (g) Bicycle parking spaces shall be separated from automobile parking spaces or aisles by a wall, fence, or curb or by at least five feet of open space marked to prohibit parking. (h) Aisles providing access to bicycle parking spaces shall be at least five feet in width. 8

(i) Signage which is clearly legible upon approach to every automobile entrance to the parking facility shall be displayed indicating the availability and location of bicycle parking. (j) Showers and lockers shall be provided in C and M zones as required by Section 91.6307 of this Code. (Amended by Ord. No. 177,103, Eff. 12/18/05.)

Sec. 2. A new Subsection 9 of Subsection (f) of Section 12.22 A25: (9) Bicycle Parking. Existing car parking requirements in Section 12.22A 25 (d), can be reduced as follows: Parking Option 1: (i) 0.8 (ii) 1.6 (iii) 2.0, Parking Option 2: (i) 0.8


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful