Delivered Before the William G. Barr D. C. ZONING LAWS IGNORE PARKING demand as the central business district severol short-sighted builders and developers PARKING IS REQUIRED IN OTHER ZONES Keep in mind that C-3 Zoned Areas, ZONING LAW CHANGES CAN ASSURE We respectfully suggest that these I is entirely possible that some will In conclusion, may I quote from a portion "The provision for parking in the non- The elimination of the "No Parking The parking industry regards it as a THE SUNDAY STAR Downtown Parking Requires C-4 Zoning Changes Delivered before the William G. Barr Executive Director Since 1960 the expressed attitude of many NO PARKING SHORTAGE, SAYS D. C.'s On behalf of the parking industry I would One reason behind the skepticism of many D. C. ZONING LAWS IGNORE PARKING spaces as of January 5, 1962, this figure will C-4 ZONING IGNORES PARKING NEEDS DEVELOPERS OPPOSED PARKING IN Current zoning laws in the District of Co- This reasoning has proved to be fallacious. certain C-4 Zoned Areas, and advocate that Keep in mind that C-3 Zoned Areas, which PARKING A MUST FOR C-4 ZONE We are now reduced to basing concern ment. The parking industry in Washington is con- The Edwards & Kelcey report points out that sufficient parking space as demand increases. It is entirely possible that some will oppose In conclusion, may I quote from a portion "The provision for parking in the non-gov The elimination of the "No Parking Re- The parking industry regards it as a respon- 38-THE WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1063 Downtown Parking Requires C-4 Zoning Changes D. C. ZONING LAWS IGNORE PARKING Delivered Before the Rotary Club of Washington, Wednesday, January 30, 1963, by William G. Barr, Executive Director, National Parking Association T HE parking industry here in the Nation's Capital eamed the praise of many government agencies, private organizations and individuals between 1950 and 1960 for its excellent performance in adding parking spaces in the central business district of Washingten rapidly enough to keep abreast of the growing demand. The Motor Vehicles Parking Agency, the gov emmental body charged with the responsibility for studying the parking situation in the central business District of Washington, on numerous occasions publicly stated that the private enterprise parking industry in Washington was keeping pace with the demand. Many private or ganizations and civic groups made similar statements These com endations were in fact well-found ed more than 17,000 parking spaces were created in the central business district by the parking industry during the ten-year period. Since 1960 the expressed attitude el many members of these same organizations appears 10 have changed, and we believe the charge to be without basis in fact Concern it now expressed lest the accelerated rate of commercial and government construction in the downtown area makes it impossible for private enterprise to continue keeping up with demands for additional parking spaces. Actual figures fail to substantiate this fear. NO PARKING SHORTAGE, SAY D. C.'s PARKING CONSULTANTS On behalf of the parking industry. I would like to demonstrate that no parking shortage exists in the central business district at the present time, a statement that is substanstiated by the report entitled "Parking Program Report-Volume II." prepared by the firm of Edwards and Kelcey engineers and consultants hom Newark, New Jersey, at the request of the Motor Vehicle Parking Agency This report, dated January 5, 1962. stated that at the pres ent time there are some 48,000 parking spaces in the central busi ness district and in their estimate, unly 1.400 additional parking spaces were needed, based on a made as recently as 1961 It is clearly established that more than 1.400 additional net parking spaces have been created by private investment ence 1961, so it is justifiable to conclude that based on the record, private enterprise is keeping up with ⚫ the demand for additional parking spaces study One reason behind the skepticism of many organizations regarding the continued ability of private enterprises to keep up with demand as the central business district expands Oy be the predictions in the Edwards & Kelcey report that, while there were 48.000 parking spaces as of January 5, 1962, this figure will be reduced to some 27,000 spaces by 197) due to new construction on property now used for parking hence they conclude that some 21 additional parking garages should be built in the central business district of Washington by that time. CA ZONING IGNORES It is appropriate now to analyze the reasons behind this prediction that the number of parking spaces will substantially decrease during the next 10 years. Land areas in the central business district of Washington that may be used for the highest density of commercial use are known as C-4 Zoned Areas. There are numerous other classifications of roned areas in the central business district of Washington that permit commercial construction of a lower density as well as various densities of residential construction. All of these classifications require that additional parking spaces be included in, or available to, any buildings that are built However, C-4 Zoned Areas have no parking requirements A developer or builder may construct a building of the highest density in a C-4 Area and is not required to include any parking in, or available to, the building This fact, coupled with the former policy of the Federal Government of failing to provide adequate parking spaces for employees in its new buildings, is the primary reason for the prediction by the firm of Edwards & Kelcey that the number of parking spaces in downtown Washington will shrink from 48,000 to 27.000 by 1971. DEVELOPERS OPPOSED PARKING Current zoning laws in the District of Columbia are based on the find. ings of the Lewis Zoning Study This study and subsequent report was authorized at considerable expense by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia several years ago. In the initial report, prior to public bearings, it was recommended that C-4 areas include parking requirements However, at the public hearings, there was considerable opposition to this requirement in C-4 areas Builders and developers publicly stated that, if parking were required in such buildings, it would not be financially feasible to construct new buildings for commercial use. The practical result would be to hinder substantially further expansion in the highest type of commercial areas This reasoning has proved to be lallacious. Numerous buildings which voluntarily include parking have been built since that time in C-4 areas by private builders and developers, even though parking is required True, several shortsighted builders and developers adhered to the "no parking requirement in C-4 areas and built numerDUS buildings without parking. Many of these some builders and developers now state that there is a parking shortage in certain C-4 Zoned Areas, and advocate that the District of Columbia and/or the Federal Government enter into a major parking program at the taxpayers expense. PARKING IS REQUIRED Keep in mind that C-3 Zoned Areas, which are commercial areas with a somewhat lesser density use. have minimum parking requirements Similar parking requirements exist in R-5 Areas, which permit the construction of high-rise apartment buildings. R-5 Areas frequently are immediately adjacent to C-4 and C-3 Zoned Areas No one maintains that a parking shortage exists in either C-3 or R-5 Zoned Areas partly because the minimum parking requirements have helped keep pace with demand. The Federal Government recently finally adopted a firm position that newly-constructed Federal Government buildings will include parking, thus eliminating fear that there will be a parking shortage for employees of the Federal Gov. ernment. PARKING A MUST FOR We are now reduced to basing concern about future parking short. ages in C-4 Zoned Areas only. The private enterprise parking industry in Washington, therefore, in an ef fort to eliminate this concern, recommends that the zoning laws involv ing C-4 areas be amended to include minimum parking requirements as formulated for C-3 areas. We regard it as essential that the formula, as prescribed in C-3 Zoned Areas, be a minimum requirement for parking, but developers and builders should be encouraged to include in their structures more parking than the expressed minimum requirement. The parking industry in Washington is confident that by applying the existing minimum requirements for parking in C-3 areas to the C-4 areas it will eliminate any anxieties of possible future parking shortages The Edwards & Kelcey report points out that the various zones in the central business district of Washington are interwoven. Fre quently the driver of an automobile parks his car in an R-5 area and does business in a C-4 or C-3 area, which frequently is adjacent to the R.5 area. Therefore, the Washington parking industry further mends that the zoning laws affecting R-5 areas be amended to permit as a matter of right the construction of commercial parking garages which would be flexible in operation to permit use by owners of automobiles who reside in R-5 areas as well as by people who do business in C-4 or C-3 areas. recom ZONING LAW CHANGES CAN ASSURE FUTURE PARKING NEEDS We respectfully suggest that these amendments to the zoning laws, in c: eases sofar as parking is concerned in C-4 and R-5 areas, would assure sufficient parking space as demand inMost importantly, it would be created by private investment rather than through municipal parking programs at the taxpayers expense. It is entirely possible that some will oppose these suggestions on the grounds that such parking requirements, particularly in C-4 areas. will discourage new construction This concern is not justified, as reflected by the fact that many new buildings in C-4 areas include park. ing over and above the minimum parking requirements as defined in C-3 areas Such buildings have en joyed high occupancy and resulting financial success The primary purpose of laws enacted by the Fed. eral or District Government insofar as types of problems similar to park. ing are concerned is to help. not hinder, private enterprise. If our suggestions were included in the exist ing zoning laws, the fear of future parking shortages could be eliminated. In conclusion, may I quote from portion of the Edwards & Kelcey report The provision for parking in the non-governmental portion of the city by private operators has been and can continue to be stimulated by the Motor Vehicle Parking Agency and other District bodies. Factual investigation, such as this parking study. can be of good assistance to private enterprise in helping them to spot the areas where additional off street facilities are needed and to estimate financial feasibility. Private enterprise will generally sup. ply parking on the basis of existing definitive demand, but cannot plan on the fulfillment of long-range future demands on an area wide basis. Therefore, government must assume the task of developing and guiding a program to meet the predictable parking needs of Woshington's central business district The elimination of the No Parking Requirement that now exists in C-4 areas and an amendment to current zoning laws affecting R-5 areas affording greater flexibility for parking uses, would assure proper planning for the fulfillment of long-range future demands on an area-wide basis The parking industry regards it as a responsibility and a privilege to seek to enlist the support of gov emmental bodies, businesses and the individual citizens in making these constructive recommendations a reality. Published Public Service by the Washington Parking Ameciation 1523 L Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. Mr. LYON. These pages include half-page advertisements in the Star and the Post and a full page in the News, making public a recommendation by the Washington Parking Association that the District of Columbia Commissioners revise the city's zoning code and require parking in all new buildings in the C-4 zone. We felt it was necessary to purchase these ads to assure a fair presentation of our recommendation to the public. Senator TYDINGS. Let me ask you this. What made you change your position from the position that you took originally when the Lewis plan first came up and included the requirement for parking in all new buildings in the C-4 zone? Mr. LYON. We did not take a position on the original Lewis plan. Senator TYDINGS. Is it your testimony to this committee that the private parking operators did not oppose the requirement of a parking facility in the C-4 office buildings when the Lewis plan originally came up? Is that what you are telling us? Mr. LYON. I am testifying here as the president of the Washington Parking Association, Mr. Chairman, and I tell you that our association did not take a stand on this issue. Senator TYDINGS. What about your individual members, your big operators? Didn't they in fact privately oppose it? Mr. LYON. I would suggest that you poll them separately. Senator TYDINGS. I know, but as president of it, you know the position they took, and we are trying to develop the facts. Now, are you completely candid with us in saying that to your knowledge. none of your private parking operators opposed the Lewis plan as it originally came up and worked to remove that provision requiring parking spaces in C-4 buildings? Can you say that to us? Mr. LYON. I have not made that statement, nor have I by any window inferred it. My position is that the parking industry is no different than any other field. There is not at all times complete unanimity of feeling, opinion, or concern. Senator TYDINGS. Now isn't it a fact, isn't that a fact that at the time the Lewis plan was originally offered, and before that requirement about the parking places was stricken out, a number of your leading private parking operators opposed the requirement for private parking in these office buildings? Mr. LYON. I would doubt that, Mr. Chairman. Senator TYDINGS. Would you say that any of them did? Which ones? Mr. LYON. That I do not know, and I do not care to speak for individual opinions of people who are not represented here. Senator TYDINGS. Why do you think it was removed, then? Mr. LYON. Well, I would submit that probably, the hearings as I attended the hearings at the time, I recall pitches being made to the extent that this would be uneconomic for the downtown builder to incorporate parking in his structure. Senator TYDINGS. Did you ever talk to any of your private parking operators at that time about the position they were going to take in this matter? Mr. LYON. Certainly. We were concerned with anything that totally affected a zoning change in the entire city. Senator TYDINGS. And what did the individual private parkers tell you they were going to do? Mr. LYON. There was mixed reaction. Zoning is a very complex thing. We are not experts in zoning. Senator TYDINGS. All right, approximately how many of them said that they were going to oppose the Lewis plan, that part of it which required Mr. LYON. I can't answer that question, Mr. Chairman, because I did not approach it from that standpoint. Senator TYDINGS. Now you just were telling us that you were president of the parking group. Mr. LYON. Not at that time, I wasn't. In 1958, I don't believe I was, sir. Senator TYDINGS. Well, you just finished telling us that you discussed it with them at length. This was important to you, wasn't it, this Lewis plan? Mr. LYON. Gentlemen, the zoning plan is extremely important. Senator TYDINGS. And you do know that your private parking operators did take positions privately on it, don't you? Mr. LYON. I am certain that anything that affects this city that we as parking people or businessmen have an opinion on it, and as I also pointed out, we do not, just as any other organization, always pose a front of unanimity. Senator TYDINGS. Now isn't it a fact that a number of them privately opposed the Lewis plan provision requiring private parking in office buildings in C-4 districts? Mr. LYON. When you say "a number," I have no idea what you are speaking of. I know there was conflict of opinion. Senator TYDINGS. What about PMI? Mr. LYON. PMI did not take a position at that time. Mr. LYON. No, sir. Senator KENNEDY. Did you ever talk to any of the people who were considering this provision of the legislation? Any Government officials? Mr. LYON. I attended all the hearings in the zoning plan, Lewis zoning proposal; I do not recall personally having talked to any Government official, making any recommendation or such, only of an inquiry nature. Senator KENNEDY. You never talked to them otherwise? Mr. LYON. No, sir. Senator KENNEDY. Did anybody who was in your organization talk to any of them? Mr. LYON. Not to my knowledge, Senator. Senator TYDINGS. You attended all the hearings and then decided not to take a position? Mr. LYON. That is correct. Senator TYDINGS. All right, now why? What between the time that the Lewis plan was adopted and 1963 suddenly made you change your position, literally, to take a position requiring the requirement of private parking spaces in C-4 office buildings? Mr. LYON. Well, the Lewis plan was submitted for our consideration as a community in 1957. The ultimate plan that we now function under was adopted in May 1958. We have a time spread here of 5 to 6 years. Senator TYDINGS. Right. |