The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About14) 9A_Ord_12962_Reduce_Size_of_Parking_SpacesCity Council September 18, 2012 Page3 PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS: 1. Reduce Parking Size Standards The City's current parking size requirement for a non-residential off street parking space is a minimum nine feet in width and twenty feet in length. The Los Angeles County Code allows parking spaces to be a minimum of eight feet six inches in width and eighteen feet in length. The City received some complaints about the time restriction changes made to other public parking lots in the downtown, but not for Public Parking Lot 3, located at the south east corner of Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard, behind the existing buildings. Since the request to change the time restrictions for Public Parking Lot 3 was denied, the City looked at other options to satisfy business and customer parking needs. The City used the Los Angeles County Code parking standards to redesign the parking lot and was able to gain an additional 11 parking spaces, increasing the capacity from 56 spaces to 67 spaces. This is an example of how the size reduction presents an opportunity to provide more spaces and address the current parking shortage in the City's downtown. Staff requested that RBF Consulting provide staff with a recommended size (Attachment "E") for a new non-residential parking space. Staff researched additional jurisdictions to provide a more comprehensive list illustrating what parking size standards are being used by other nearby cities. Staff's survey results (Attachment "F") illustrate that a majority of the nearby cities have either a minimum parking size requirement of nine feet wide and 20 feet in length or eight feet six inches wide and 18 feet in length. Staff recommends that the City's non-residential off street parking space be reduced to eight feet six inches wide and 18 feet in length, to be consistent with the Los Angeles County and other nearby jurisdictions. Reducing the minimum size requirement would help address the City's parking shortage for commercial properties throughout the City. 2. Allow Compact Parking The City's current Code does not allow compact parking spaces for required off street parking spaces. Staff feels that permitting compact parking spaces in off street lots would also provide additional needed parking throughout the City. The Los Angeles County Code requires that a compact parking space be a minimum eight feet in width and 15 feet in length. Additionally, the Los Angeles County Code allows up to 40% of a parking lot to be compact City Council September 18, 2012 Page4 spaces, which need to be evenly distributed throughout the parking lot. Since the recommended 40% drew some concern from some of the Planning Commissioners, staff also requested that RBF, Consulting provide recommendations (Attachment "E") relating to the size of compact parking and what percentage of compact parking should be allowed. The survey illustrates that the most commonly used standard for compact parking is eight feet in width and 15 feet in length, and most cities allow up to 40% of a parking lot to be compact parking stalls. It should be noted that RBF Consulting provided a limited survey of jurisdictions in Los Angeles and Orange County. Therefore, staff conducted an additional survey (Attachment "F") of nearby cities to determine a commonly used standard in the San Gabriel Valley. Staff's survey illustrates that most cities allow a compact stall to be a minimum of eight feet in width and 15 feet in length in the San Gabriel Valley. Additionally, the common standard is to allow up to 25% of a parking lot to consist of compact parking. Compact parking could be an additional benefit for the City, as it could provide an opportunity to provide more parking spaces, which could lead to interest from national tenants. This is particularly important, as some national tenants have a minimum number of parking spaces before they take a site into consideration. Gas prices have nearly doubled over the past five years. The increase in gas prices has created a demand of consumers seeking more fuel efficient vehicles, as opposed to inefficient sport utility vehicles. The rising demand has influenced auto manufacturers to release new hybrid electric/gas and electric models that fall under the compact or sub-compact vehicle category. The increased demand for smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles on the road, is another reason to permit compact parking. Staff recommends that compact stalls be permitted with a size of eight feet in width and 15 feet in length and up to a maximum of 25% of a parking lot to be compact spaces, based on the most commonly used compact parking standard in the San Gabriel Valley. 3. Bicycle Parking Standards and Requirements Several recent commercial projects approved by the City have been required to install bicycle racks to help compliment the City's recently adopted Bicycle Master Plan. The Gateway project was conditioned to provide bicycle parking for both short and long term storage. The Gateway project consists of 75,000 City Council September 18, 2012 Page 5 \ square feet and was required to provide bicycle parking meeting the Green Building Code Standards, which is 5% of parking capacity (14 required, 18 provided) for short-term bicycle parking and 5% of parking capacity (14 required and 14 provided) for long-term bicycle parking. Some of the Planning Commissioners expressed interest in establishing bicycle and motorcycle parking standards. Staff surveyed nearby jurisdictions (Attachment "F"), but was unable to find a commonly used standard for required bicycle parking. However, there is a common size for bicycle parking, which is two feet in width, six feet in length and five feet of aisle for maneuvering. There are two municipalities that have bicycle parking standards that is based on a tiered system, determined by the gross floor area of a development. Another two municipalities have bicycle parking standards that are based on a percentage of the number of required parking spaces. Staff recommends adding a minimum bicycle parking size requirement of two feet in width, six feet in length and five feet of aisle for maneuvering. Staff also recommends that a bicycle parking standard be added similar to the Green Building Code Standards that requires new non-residential developments to provide short-term bicycle parking of at least 5% of the required off-street parking, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack. Additionally, new non-residential developments with 1 0 or more units shall provide long-term bicycle parking of at least 5% of the required off-street parking. Long-term bicycle parking shall be covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks or lockable rooms with permanently anchored racks. 4. Motorcycle Parking Standards and Requirements Staff was unable to find a minimum parking size standard or requirement for motorcycle parking in the survey of nearby jurisdictions. The RBF Consulting Memo (Attachment "E") states that only two jurisdictions (Laguna Beach and Irvine) have motorcycle parking standards. The City of Laguna Beach has a minimum size requirement of four feet in width and eight feet in length. Laguna Beach also allows up to eight bicycle spaces or two motorcycle spaces to count for one standard parking space, not to exceed 10% of the required parking. The City of Irvine states that uses with more than 25 parking spaces may provide one designated area for use by motorcycle and uses with more than 1 00 parking spaces may provide motorcycle parking areas at the rate of one motorcycle parking area for every 1 00 automobile parking spaces provided. City Council September 18,2012 Page6 Staff recommends that a standard be added that allows one standard vehicle parking space to be utilized by up to two motorcycle spaces or eight bicycle spaces, not to exceed 10% of the required off street parking. Furthermore, staff recommends that the minimum motorcycle parking space be four feet in width and eight feet in length. 5. Remove Parking Requirement for Outdoor Dining Staff is recommending that the current requirement that additional parking spaces for outdoor dining areas for restaurants and other food establishments be removed from the City's Zoning Code. The current requirement discourages restaurants and other food establishments from creating outdoor pedestrian oriented environments. Many restaurants and food establishments are not able to fully comply with required parking based on interior and outdoor service area, so they would either not be allowed or would require a zone variance approval. Such variances are required because they do not have the number of parking spaces as may be strictly required by the code; for example restaurants require one parking space for every 1 00 square feet of floor area and general retail require one parking space for every 250 square feet of floor area. Requiring such use of the zoning code conflicts with both the City's vision of creating pedestrian oriented environments in the commercial areas and sound planning practices. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the requirement of parking for outdoor dining be removed from Section 9291 of the Zoning Code. Although staff is recommending that the requirement be removed, staff will still have the ability to review and approve outdoor dining areas through its normal site plan review, occupancy and building permit procedures to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties and address potential impacts, if any. CONCLUSION: The proposed modifications to reduce the size of non-residential off street parking, allow compact parking, establish standards for motorcycle and bicycle parking, and remove the parking requirement for outdoor dining would provide additional opportunities for the City to address parking shortages, attract national tenants, and create more pedestrian friendly environments. Therefore, the City Council is requested to adopt the Negative Declaration and introduce Ordinance No. 12-962 for first reading by title only. City Council September 18,2012 Page 7 FISCAL IMPACT: This item does not have an impact on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012-13 City Budget. ATTACHMENTS: A. PC Staff Report dated August 28, 2012, and attachments thereto B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-2354 PC C. Draft Ordinance No. 12-962 D. Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated August 28, 2012 E. RBF Consulting Memo dated July 31, 2012 F. Survey of Parking Standards for nearby jurisdictions I. -. ·--···· ••... \il?~--M ·E-M~O R A-N~~n=u--=~irehmentA-c: · I I TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: Staff Report PLANNING COMMISSION STEVEN M. MASURA f JV7 DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADAM L. GULICK .A~ ASSOCIATE PLANNER DATE: August28, 2012 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY SECTION 9296 TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF NON- RESIDENTIAL PARKING, ALLOW COMPACT PARKING AND ADD STANDARDS FOR BICYCLE AND MOTORCYCLE PARKING; AND MODIFY SECTION 9291 RELATING TO OUTDOOR DINING PARKING REQUIREMENTS. BACKGROUND: Over the past year, the City Council, Planning Commission and Public Safety Commission have expressed interest in the need to review and update the City's parking codes and standards. This is partly due to on-going issues with the shortage of parking in the City's downtown, as well as parking challenges in other commercial centers in the City. In October 2011, the City obtained the services of RBF Consulting to conduct a downtown parking study and strategic plan, and a city-wide traffic calming study and master plan, both of which are currently in progress. On July 12, 2012, a Public Hearing notice regarding the proposed Code Amendments relating to Sections to 9291 and 9296 was published in the Temple City Tribune. On July 24, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed Code Amendments, but continued the item to the August 28, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting. On August 14, 2012, RBF Consulting presented their findings and recommendations to the City Council, Planning Commission and Public Safety Commission relating to the Downtown Parking Study. ----~--~-----·-----·--------------·--------~------------~---··--·-----------··-------------..-·-.... ___________ -··--·---------------·-··--------------------·--·-----·----·- Planning Commission: August28,-2012~----~~-·--·· --·· ·· · ·-·-· ·· 2 Continued: Parking Standard, Compact Parking and Outdoor Dining Area Code Amendments DISCUSSION: At the July 24, 2012 meeting, some of the Planning Commissioners requested to hear the results of the Downtown Parking Study before making a decision on the proposed Code Amendments and they also requested staff to consult with the City's Downtown Parking Study Consultant, RBF Consulting, regarding the proposed code amendments. REDUCE PARKING SIZE STANDARDS The current parking size requirement for an off street parking space is a minimum nine feet in width and twenty feet in length. The Los Angeles County Code allows parking spaces to be a minimum of eight feet six inches in width and eighteen feet in length. The City has received numerous complaints about the changes to time restricted parking spaces in Public Parking Lot 3, located at the south east corner of Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard, behind the existing buildings. The City used the Los Angeles County Code parking design standards to redesign the parking lot and was able to gain an additional 11 parking spaces, increasing the capacity from 56 spaces to 67 spaces. This is an example of how the size reduction presents an opportunity to provide more spaces and address the current parking shortage in the City's downtown. Staff requested that RBF Consulting provide staff with a recommended size (Attachment 1) for a new non-residential parking space. Staff decided to research additional jurisdictions to provide a more comprehensive list illustrating what parking size standards are being used by other nearby cities. Staff's survey results (Attachment 2) illustrate that a majority of the nearby cities have either a minimum parking size requirement of nine feet wide and 20 feet in length or eight feet six inches wide and 18 feet in length. Staff still recommends that the minimum non-residential parking space be reduced to eight feet six inches wide and 18 feet in length, to be consistent with the Los Angeles County and other nearby jurisdictions. Staff feels that reducing the minimum size requirement would help address the City's parking shortage for commercial properties throughout the City. ALLOW COMPACT PARKING The City Code currently does not allow compact parking spaces for required off street parking spaces. Staff feels that permitting compact parking spaces in off street lots would also provide additional needed parking throughout the City. The Los Angeles County Code requires that a compact parking space be a minimum eight feet in width and 15 feet in length. The Los Angeles County Code allows up to 40% of a parking lot to be compact spaces, which need to be evenly distributed throughout the parking lot. Since the recommended 40% drew some concern from some of the Planning Commissioners, staff also requested that RBF Consulting provide recommendations --~------------~--~~------------------------~·-·------------------------------~---~-----. -... -------·;-: ·--·---------~------------------------~-----~ --------------~ ------------- Planning Commission: Augusf28, 2012 -----~ -~3 --- Continued: Parking Standard, Compact Parking and Outdoor Dining Area Code Amendments (Attachment 1) relating to the size of compact parking and what percentage of compact parking should be allowed. The survey illustrates that the most commonly used standard for compact parking is eight feet in width and.15 feet in length, and most cities allow up to 40% of a parking lot to consist of compact parking stalls. It should be noted that RBF Consulting provided a survey of jurisdictions throughout Los Angeles and Orange County. Therefore, staff conducted an additional. survey (Attachment 1) of nearby jurisdictions to see the commonly used standard in the San Gabriel Valley. Staff's survey illustrates that most cities allow a compact stall to be a minimum of eight feet in width and 15 feet in length in the San Gabriel Valley. Additionally, the common standard is to allow up to 25% of a parking lot to consist of compact parking. , As an additional benefit to the City, compact parking spaces could lead to more interest from national tenants, as some national tenants have a minimum number of off street parking spaces required before they will consider a site. Staff also mentioned in the previous staff report (Attachment 3) that recent gas prices have increased the number of smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles on the road. Based on the most commonly used compact parking standard in the San Gabriel Valley, staff is recommending that compact stalls be permitted with a size of eight feet in width and 15 feet in length and a maximum of 25%. MODIFY REQUIREMENT FOR OUTDOOR DINING As stated in the staff's previous report, the requirement to provide additional parking for outdoor dining areas discourages restaurants and other food establishments from creating outdoor pedestrian oriented environments, which is a goal for the City. Many restaurants and food establishments are not able to fully comply with required parking based on interior and outdoor service area, so they would either not be allowed or would require approval of a zone variance from the Planning Commission. Although staff is recommending that the requirement be removed, staff will still have the ability to review and approve outdoor dining areas through its normal site plan review, and occupancy and building permit procedures to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties and address potential impacts, if any. BICYCLE PARKING STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS The staff survey of nearby jurisdictions did not show a commonly used standard for required bicycle parking. However, there is a common size for bicycle parking, which is two feet in width, six feet in length and five feet of aisle for maneuvering. There are two municipalities that have bicycle parking standards based on a tiered system that is determined by the gross floor area of a development. Another two municipalities have bicycle parking standards that are based on the number of required parking spaces. ·-----·---·~---·--·-·--·-·-·--·------------__ __:__ __________ ._.::_ __ :..::: __ --_-_--_-·--_-_:::_.:.:_:::_____:_ __ =------_--·-:..=-=--:._.:_:___::_:: __ _:::_.::__-_-__-::--:..:.--:.__:__--_ _________ ---~~-:....:__--__ --_--.....:___ ~:------·----------~---------------------------------------- Resolution No. 12-2354 PC Parking Space Design, Compact Parking and Outdoor Dining Area Code Amendments Page 6 of 6 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 24th of July, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner- NOES: Commissioner- ABSTAIN: Commissioner- ABSENT: Commissioner- Secretary I~----::::__:.·-=-~-=-~-=~::..:::-_::~~-==:::--::::-~--_--_::==-:::: ----:: :==--::--:.:.:=~-~=--===== =::_::.=::::::_=._-_:::::_:::::::.:::::_::.::::=.--:::::::::-'-:_=.:-=:::::·:-_ -=--=-==-=-::::·::..::...: ___ ::::__.::c _ _:·..:_·::.....::-:-_:::::~~: .: ~::::=:::::::~-.::=:=-:-:::::=---· ------·. -----~ -.. __ ---· City of 'Temple City ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM PROJECT TITLE Consideration of a Zoning Code Text Amendment to reduce the size of off street parking spaces, permit compact parking spaces and reduce the required parking spaces required for outdoor dining. This Hearing will involve the possible modification of Title 9, Chapter i, Article J, Section 929"1 and Title 9, Chapter i, Article J, Section 9296. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Temple City 970"1 Las Tunas Drive Temple City, California 9"1780 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Adam L. Gulick, Associate Planner (626} 285-2"17"1 PROJECT LOCATION Citywide PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS City of Temple City 970"1 Las Tunas Drive Temple City, California 9"1780 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Citywide ZONING Citywide DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary). Consideration of a Zoning Code Text Amendment to reduce the size of off street parking spaces, permit compact parking spaces and reduce 1he required parking spaces required for outdoor dining. This Hearing will involve the possible modification of Title 9, Chapter i, Article J, Section 9291 and Title 9, Chapter 1, Article J, Section 9296. OTHER AGENCIES WHO'S APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED) None Applicable \ \Temple-filesrv\cdd\ WORD\FORM\Planning\CEQA \Code Amendments\ENV CHKLIST\ENV CKLIST, Parking Modifications 9291 and 929G.doc --=----=-..=:...1:..::-_:-:-:_~_-=~.:::...::::._ --==--:---=-==----=-==-:._-.:.__·~=-=-=-.....:.-=--==-- -~------------------~---·-· -~--·--····-----·----~--~---·--"-_______ , . .:__ ____ ~: _____ ------- -~·--------·-·-··· -----··-----·. ·---· ---· -··----------· -·--------···---------------·---·--·····--· --··----.. -···-----·--.. ---------~--- ENVIRONMENTAL liMP ACTS Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or D D D ·~ contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? D D D ~ c. Alter air movement, moisture, or D D D "~ temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. . Create objectionable odors? D D D ~/ 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the prop<;>sal result in: a. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? D D ~ D b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. D D D ~ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment) ? ri c. Inadequate emergency access or access to D D D nearby uses? d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-D D D ~ site? e. Hazards or barriers' for pedestrians or D D D ~ bicyclists? / f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting D D D -~ alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ~ . Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? D D ' D g. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or D D D their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage D trees)? D D jKD c. Locally designated natural communities D D D -~ (e.g. oak forest, costal habitat, etc.) ? d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and D D D l6l vernal pool) ? -----~-------~-·-~ -·-. ··--- ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS e. Other governmental services? Potentially Significant Impact D 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a. Power or natural gas? D b. Communications systems? D c. Local or regional water treatment or D distribution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? D e. Storm water drainage? D f. Solid waste disposal? D 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? D b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? D c. Create light or glare? D 14. CULTURAL RESOUCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? D b. Disturb archaeological resources? D c. Affect historical resources? D. d. Have the potential to cause a physical change D which would affect unique ethnic cultural .. values? e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within D the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or D regional parks or other recreational facilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? D Significant Unless Mitigated D 0 D D D D D D D D D D D D D 0 0 Potentially Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D No Impact m ~ ~-- " ~ ~-- ~ 16 ~· 00 15l[ Jm JZ[rt ~ ~ ~ Jlf I_----------------------~----------~ ----------------------------------------------------.. -------------------------------- ·----~--,~-----·-----;·----------------------------------------------~--------------------------------·-----... -------~-·------------~--~··"---~----~~ _, ______ . ___ _, ______________ _ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the rang of a rare or endangered plant or animalor eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-tenn, to the disadvantage oflong-term, environmental goals? c. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact D D D D Significant Unless Mitigated D D D D Potentially Less Than Significant Impact D D D D No Impact . ---·---:-----..-. ---------····------· ---------------------·----~------ DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Page 1 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 6D. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: The City is considering changing the size of the parking standards to be consistent with the County. The City would reduce the size of off street parking from nine feet (9') wide by twenty (20') feet deep to eight feet six inches (8'-6") wide by eighteen feet (18') deep, and to allow up to forty percent (40%) of compact parking spaces with a size of eight feet (8') by fifteen feet (15'). By reducing the size. of the parking spaces and permitted compact parking, new businesses and private developers would be able to provide more parking spaces on site to comply with the required number of spaces. The City is restriped a public parking lot using the Los Angeles County standards and· was able to create 11 additional parking spaces. In order to be more business friendly to restaurants and other food establishments, the City is considering removing the requirement of providing off street parking spaces for outdoor dining areas. The removal of the requirement would allow the City to be more business friendly and create pedestrian friendly environments, which is a goal for the City. It could be argued that this could potentially lead to an increase in traffic for popular food establishments. However, the City (Planning staff) will review each proposed outdoor dining area on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not the outdoor dining area will have an impact on adjacent properties. If it is deemed that a proposed outdoor dining area is out of scale or will have an impact, staff will recommend reducing the size of the outdoor dining area or other conditions to minimize the impacts to adjacent properties. _ P~e1~5 Sterling Codifiers, Iric. --· -----------------------------------------------.----~~-------------~-----------------------------------------·---------------------------------------~------------·-·---------------~-------------------------------------------~-~----------~ --- --------- 9296: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF PARKING AREAS: A. Size: Each off street parking space, other than a parallel parking space, shall be at least twenty feet (20') in length and at least nine feet (9') in width; eleven feet (11') in width when a parking space is abutted by a wall, structure or other permanent structure; ten feet (1 0') in width for spaces within ·enclosed garages. For required guest parking spaces for multiple-family · developments, any guest parking space, which is abutted by a wall or structure, shall be twelve feet (12') wide; any guest space, which is abutted on both sides by a wall or structure, shall be fourteen feet (14') wide. Guest parking spaces in residential projects shall be improved with grass crete or turf block materigJ so as to be permeable. Each off street parallel parking space shall be at least eight feet (8') in width and at least twenty four feet (24') in length. All off street . parking. spaces shall-be provided with-ad~quate .ingress and egress ... :-. -.. : .. --· -·--. . B. Access Driveways: Driveways serving parking areas for less than six (6) vehicles shall be a minimum of ten feet (1 0') wide. All driveways serving parking areas for six (6) or more vehicles shall be a minimum twelve feet (12') wide. Where both egress and ingress are provided on a single driveway, the minimum width shall be sixteen feet (16'). Parking areas for thirty (30) or more vehicles shall be provided with separate driveways for egress and ingress, each of which shall be not less than twelve feet (12') in width. · Any driveway which is over one hundred twenty five feet (125') in length shall be not less than fifteen feet (15') in width. Joint use driveways used in combination with abutting properties shall be allowed when proper easements or agreements, approved as to form by the city attorney, have been executed and filed with the city. All parking areas for five (5) or more vehicles shall be designed so as to allow forward motion only, of all vehicles entering a street, unless the access drive is a minimum of eighteen feet (18') in width. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, no driveway shall exceed a total distance of three hundred feet (300') from a street to the parking area served. All driveways shall be maintained with a vertical clearance of not less than thirteen feet (13') provided that an encroachment by eaves of not exceeding thirty inches (30") shall be permitted. Utility meters, trash receptacles, power poles, exterior plumbing and other similar facilities are expressly prohibited within driveway areas. S. Surfacing: All off street parking areas including driveways, aisles and access shall be paved with macadam or asphaltic pavement to a minimum depth of three inches (3") of concrete to a minimum depth of three and one-half (Si/2"). Such surfacing shall be designed, constructed and http://www.sterlingcodifiers.corn!codebook/printnow.php 7119/2012 ,~--__ ;-=--~~?~~ll}~-=-£~difier2~-~l}_c~-~=-:__ ___________ :._ ---=-~--_ =-=--=-:_:_:_-:::"_~=-=-~-=-=:-______ _;_, __ =::_--:::___:_.:_::==-_____________ f>'!-g~-~ orB_:__::..::::=~:: b. Said approach shall be a minimum of twelve feet (I 2') in width at street level; and c. There shall be a minimum of thirty feet (30') of full height curb between the two (2) driveway approaches measured at their nearest points. · - 6. For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: DRIVEWAY: The improved area which is clear of all structures or portions of structures and provides access connecting any vehicle parking structure, lot or area with any street, alley, thoroughfares, or other right of way, whether public or private. DRIVEWAY WIDTH: The net width of an individual driveway, exclusive of side slopes and returns, measured along the curb line of the highway. N. Design Of Parking Areas: Off street parking facilities utilizing angled parking spaces shall comply with the dimensions specified in the following chart and diagram. Dimensions for angles not listed shall be determined by interpolation. Dimen. Angle ~ A B c D E F 30° 19'0'1 "18'3'1 28'3'1 12'611 32'7n 1T411 45° 13'511 20'11n 35'011 l7l81l 20l11 11 14'2" 60° 1 0'11n 22'1 11 39'911 19'6" 12t91! 1 0'0'~ goo 9'011 I 20j 40j 25' 0' 0' http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php 7/19/2012 i --·-··--·-·--. ----~--.. - - ·--------·--·-·-· ~~--~-------------·-----. -----·-· ···-------·· -·· --··----· ·----·-------,.------··----· ·-· ---· ·--·--· ·-----· -------------------·-----------------· ----·----·---·--------·--·· ·----. ---~-----· ·--------------------------·----·--------------;--~--------·-----------------------------~~-·--·-·-------- RESOLUTION NO. 12-2354PC R A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY APPROVE CODE AMENDMENTS TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF NON- RESIDENTIAL OFF STREET PARKING SPACES; ALLOW COMPACT PARKING SPACES; AND ADD STANDARDS FOR BICYCLE AND MOTORCYCLE PARKING; AND REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT RESTAURANTS AND FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS NEED TO PROVIDE OFF STREET PARKING SPACES FOR OUTDOOR DINING AREAS. THE RECOMMENDED CODE AMENDMENTS WOULD OCCUR IN TITLE 9, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE J, SECTION 9291: PARKING SPACES REQUIRED; TITLE 9, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE J, SECTION 9296.A: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF PARKING AREAS. FT The Planning Commission of the City of Temple City does hereby resolve: SECTION 1. Based upon information presented in Staff Reports dated July 24, 2012 and August 28, 2012, and based upon a Public Hearing on July 24, 2012 and August 28, 2012 to consider an amendment to the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1. There are existing parking supply and demand shortages within the City that have created challenges in meeting the needs of residents, visitors to the city, employees and customers of businesses within the City, and to adequately accommodate business changes and development requests. The off street parking conditions are determined to be potentially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the residents and businesses of the City. 2. The City has attempted to improve the parking supply by acquiring property and developing several public parking lots in the downtown area; allowing for resident parking by permit on several streets; allowing loading zones for businesses; and encouraging modes of travel other than automobile. Despite all these efforts, .supply and demand challenges continue to result in the public safety and economic issues for residents and businesses and to adequately address new business and development requests. 3. It is necessary for the City to reduce the size of the non-residential off street parking spaces in order to allow the opportunity for existing properties and future developments to provide additional parking. Additionally, by allowing parking lots to have compact parking stalls would also provide an opportunity for businesses and developers to ··---· ---~-·~ -"-~--~~--~---------,------------~---~--· ------. ----------------------·- Resolution No. 12-2354 PC Parking Space Design, Compact Parking and Outdoor Dining Area Code Amendments Page 2 of 7 provide additional parking spaces. The City recently redesigned a public parking lot at the south east corner of Las Tunas Drive using the Los Angeles County parking space dimensions and was able to gain 11 additional parking spaces. Additionally, the requirement to provide off street parking spaces for outdoor dining areas for restaurants and other food establishments conflicts with the City's vision of creating pedestrian oriented environments in the City's commercial areas. Section 9291 of Title 9, Chapter 1, Article J of the Municipal Code is modified to accomplish the purpose of providing additional parking spaces throughout the City. Also, Section 9296 of Title 9, Chapter 1, Article J of the Municipal Code is modified to allow more opportunities for pedestrian oriented environments. SECTION 2. This project should result in no significant effects upon the environment, a Negative Declaration has been prepared, and the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt said Negative Declaration in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. The initial statement as prepared indicates that there is no potential for adverse impact to the environment as it relates to all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission recommends modifying Section 9291 of Article J of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Municipal Code, and Section 9296 of Article J of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Municipal Code to read as follows: A. TITLE 9 -Zoning Regulations CHAPTER 1-Zoning Code ARTICLE J -Off Street Parking Requirements 9291: PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: Use Fast food establishments with queued drive through service Number of Parking Spaces Required 1 parking space for each 150 square feet of gross floor area, but there shall be no less than 5 parking spaces provided. Outside dining areas shall also be included into the gross floor area. --~---·----------~-------'------------~~--~---------~--.. ----····-----·-------·--------. ----· ----------------~-~-------~-------· ---------- ... -------------~----~-___:.-----~-----··--·------------~-·------------~----....;-~ ------------------------------·----·---·--·----·--·-· --- ENVIRONMJEN1'AJL IMPACTS Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 4. WATER. Would the proposal result : a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage D D D patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b. Exposure of people or property to water 0 D D ~ related hazards such as flooding? c. Discharge into surface waters or other 0 D D lpl alterations of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in 0 D 0 ~ any water body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or 0 D D ~ direction of water movements? f. Changes in the quantity of ground either 0 D D ~ through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interceptions of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g. Altered direction or rate of flow of D D D ~ groundwater? h. Impacts to groundwater quality? D D D ~ 1. Stonn water system discharges from area 0 D D ~ for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage delivery or loading docks, or other outdoor work area? J. A significantly environmentally hannful D D D ~ increase in the flow rate or volume of stonn water runoff? k. A significantly environmentally hannful 0 D D !'Kl increase in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? 1. Stonn water discharges that would D D D significantly impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? m. Hann to the biological integrity of drainage D D D ~ systems and water bodies? ·-~ ~ ---------------- ··~ --------~----------------~-::: --=--_:; ~--------~---··----------------------------------------·-·---------~-.... --------------·-------··----· ----------------------------·----------------------------------~------- ENVIRONMENTAL liMlP'ACTS Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or D D D contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? D D D ~ c. Alter air movement, moisture, or D D D ~ temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. ~Create objectionable odors? D D D 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. fucreased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? D D 12St D b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. D D D ~ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment) ? in c. fuadequate emergency access or access to D D D nearby uses? d. fusufficient parking capacity on-site or off-D D D 1f1 site? e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or D D D ~ bicyclists? f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting D D D Jzj alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks) ? g. . Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? D D D 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or D D D their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage D D D 120 trees)? c. Locally designated natural communities D D D ~ (e.g. oak forest, costal habitat, etc.)? d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and D D D ~ vernal pool) ? ----·----·----... -· -· ~--·--·----··· --·--·~---·------~--·----------------.;.--·--.-··----· ------··~---·----------------------------------- ·--·· ------·----------·---··· ·------------------------------------·---------------------~----·--:------·------ ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS Potentially Potential! y Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e. Other governmental services? D D D 00 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a. Power or natural gas? D D D ~ b. Communications systems? D D D ~ c. Local or regional water treatment or D D D ~ distribution facilities? d. Se,wer or septic tanks? D D D ~ e. Storm water drainage? D D D ~ f. Solid waste disposal? D D D ~ 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? D D D ~ b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? D D D ~ c. Create light or glare? D D D l!l- 14. CULTURAL RESOUCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? D D D !L} b. Disturb archaeological resources? D D D fll c. Affect historical resources? D D D ~ d. Have the potential to cause a physical change D D D ~ which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within D D D the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or D D D ~ regional parks or other recreational facilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? D D D )9 -·-·----~----~-----------· ------~ ~--~=---::----~::_--:-:--==--=--==:=-=.:-::-P\tta-cnme:nr:s= ---= RESOLUTION NO. 12-2354PC A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY APPROVE CODE AMENDMENTS TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF NON- RESIDENTIAL OFF STREET PARKING SPACES; ALLOW COMPACT PARKING SPACES; AND ADD STANDARDS FOR BICYCLE AND MOTORCYCLE PARKING; AND REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT RESTAURANTS AND FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS NEED TO PROVIDE OFF STREET PARKING SPACES FOR OUTDOOR DINING AREAS. THE RECOMMENDED CODE AMENDMENTS WOULD OCCUR IN TITLE 9, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE J, SECTION 9291: PARKING SPACES REQUIRED; TITLE 9, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE J, SECTION 9296.A: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF PARKING AREAS. The Planning Commission of the City of Temple City does hereby resolve: SECTION 1. Based upon information presented in Staff Reports dated July 24, 2012 and August 28, 2012, and based upon a Public Hearing on July 24, 2012 and August 28, 2012 to consider an amendment to the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1. There are existing parking supply and demand shortages within the City that have created challenges in meeting the needs of residents, visitors to the city, employees and customers of businesses within the City, and to adequately accommodate business changes and development requests. The off street parking conditions are determined to be potentially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the residents and businesses of the City. 2. The City has attempted to improve the parking supply by acquiring property and developing several public· parking lots in the downtown area; allowing for resident parking by permit on several streets; allowing loading zones for businesses; and encouraging modes of travel other than automobile. Despite all these efforts, supply and demand challenges continue to result in the public safety and economic issues for residents and businesses and to adequately address new business and development requests. 3. It is necessary for the City to reduce the size of the non-residential off street parking spaces in order to allow the opportunity for existing properties and future developments to provide additional parking. Additionally, by allowing parking lots to have compact parking stalls would also provide an opportunity for businesses and developers to I:-_=-:·=-~:_ --=-= ---~--~~ .:=--:_: ::-_ :_ --~ --:_ ~---:-=--~--:---:.=-~ ----===-==--==----=--:_:-=-___ -::~-=-= =·-::__ ::·:::::::=::_:_::·:__:_-___ --= -_:-:-:-::-_-_-_: _:_ ~ ----==-_:_:_: ==:_:_:_--=--=·::====-=--- ~ Resolution No. 12-2354 PC Parking Space Design, Compact Parking and Outdoor Dining Area Code Amendments Page 2 of7 provide additional parking spaces. The City recently redesigned a public parking lot at the south east corner of Las Tunas Drive using the Los Angeles County parking space dimensions and was able to gain 11 additional parking spaces. Additionally, the requirement to provide off street parking spaces for outdoor dining areas for restaurants and other food establishments conflicts with the City's vision of creating pedestrian oriented environments in the City's commercial areas. Section 9291 of Title 9, Chapter 1, Article J of the Municipal Code is modified to accomplish the purpose of providing additional parking spaces throughout the City. Also, Section 9296 of Title 9, Chapter 1, Article J of the Municipal Code is modified to allow more opportunities for pedestrian oriented environments. SECTION 2. This project should result in no significant effects upon the environment, a Negative Declaration has been prepared, and the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt said Negative Declaration in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. The initial statement as prepared indicates that there is no potential for adverse impact to the environment as it relates to all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission recommends modifying Section 9291 of Article J of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Municipal Code, and Section 9296 of Article J of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Municipal Code to read as follows: A. TITLE 9-Zoning Regulations CHAPTER 1-Zoning Code ARTICLE J -Off Street Parking Requirements 9291: PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: Fast food establishments with queued drive through service Number of Parking Spaces Required 1 parking space for each 150 square feet of gross floor area, but there shall be no less than 5 parking spaces provided. Outside dining areas shall also be insluded into the gross floor area. ---·-----------·-------------;-·-----·--------···---·-· ---------·---~----------·------·--·-----·---· ··-------------·-----·-·· ---··-~--.----· --·-------------. ·--------·-----------·------·-------- Resolution No. 12-2354 PC Parking Space Design, Compact Parking and Outdoor Dining Area Code Amendments Page 3 of 7 B. Restaurants, bars, coffee shops,donutshops, and coffee and/or tea establishments, which provide customer seating 1 parking space for each 1 00 square feet of gross floor area, but there shall be no less than 10 parking spaces provided. Outside dining areas shall also be included into the gross floor area. TITLE 9 -Zoning Regulations CHAPTER 1-Zoning Code ARTICLE J -Off Street Parking Requirements 9296: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF PARKING AREAS: Size: Each off street parking space, other than a parallel parking space, shall be at least P.venty feet (20') in length and at least nine feet (9') in \Vidth; eleven feet (11') in 'l.'idth when a parking space is abutted by a wall, structure or other permanent structure; ten feet (1 0') in width fur spaces 'Nithin enclosed garages. For required guest parking spaces for multiple family developments, any guest parking space, which is abutted by a wall or structure, shall be twelve feet (12') '.Vide; any guest space, which is abutted on both sides by a wall or structure, shall be fourteen feet (14') '<~Vide. Guest parking spaces in residential projects shall be improved 'Nith grass crete or turf block material so as to be permeable. Each off street parallel parking space shall be at least eight feet (8') in width and at least P.venty four feet (24') in length. l\11 off street parking spaces shall be provided with adequate ingress and egress. A. Size 1. Residential parking spaces: a. Residential garage parking spaces shall be a minimum interior dimensions of ten feet (1 0') in width and twenty feet (20') in length. b. Required guest parking spaces for multi-family developments shall be a minimum of 14 feet (14') in width by eighteen feet (18') in length when abutted by walls or structures on both sides. Guest parking spaces that abut one wall or structure shall provide at least twelve feet (12') in width by eighteen feet (18') in length. Guest parking spaces shall be improved with grasscrete or turf block material so as to be permeable. c. Residential garage parking for Second Unit Housing may be provided in tandem parking spaces with minimum interior dimensions of ten feet (1 0') in width by forty (40') feet in length. -~~-~-------··--·-·-------~--------·------·----·-----· --··----·----------------------·-----___ , ---------------------~-~--~--·--· -------,----------·----·----------·--------------- - --· ----:---------·-·------·-------· ··-·------·--------------·-----~------------. .-------------·--·--~ -----~--~---------------------- Resolution No. 12-2354 PC Parking Space Design, Compact Parking and Outdoor Dining Area Code Amendments Page 4 of 7 d. Each off street parallel parking space shall be at least twelve feet (12') in width and at least twenty feet (20') in length. 2. Non-residential parking spaces: a. Standard parking spaces shall be a minimum of eight feet six inches (8'-6") in width by eighteen feet (18') in length. b. Compact spaces shall be a minimum of eight feet (8') in width by fifteen feet (15') in length. Not more than 25 percent of the required number of parking spaces, and any parking spaces in excess of the required number may be compact spaces. Compact spaces shall be distributed evenly throughout the parking area. c. When abutted by one wall or structure, parking spaces shall provide a one foot six inch (1 '-6") buffer on each side and a two feet six inch (2'- 6") buffer when abutted by walls on both sides. d. Each off street parallel parking space shall be at least eight feet six inches (8'-6") in width and at least twenty feet (20') in length. 3. Bicycle parking standards: a. Each bicycle parking space shall be at least two feet in width, six feet in length and a five foot aisle or buffer for maneuvering. b. New non-residential developments shall provide short-term bicycle parking of at least 5% of the required off-street parking, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack. c. New non-residential developments with 1 0 or more units shall also provide long-term bicycle parking of at least 5% of the required off- street parking. Long term bicycle parking shall be covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks or lockable rooms with permanently anchored racks. d. One required vehicle parking space can be utilized or substituted to provide up to eight bicycle spaces or two motorcycle spaces, not to exceed 10% of the required off street parking. 4. Motorcycle parking standards: a. Each motorcycle parking space shall be at least four feet in width and eight feet in length. b. One required vehicle parking space can be utilized or substituted to provide up to eight bicycle spaces or two motorcycle spaces, not to exceed 10% of the required off street parking. -----------------------------------------·----··· --------·-------------~-------.·--·--------·------·--·-----·-·--·---------· -----·----------··· -------------------- Resolution No. 12-2354 PC Parking Space Design, Compact Parking and Outdoor Dining Area Code Amendments Page 7 of7 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 28th of August, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner - Commissioner - Commissioner - Commissioner - Secretary ~ ---~~----. ·--·· ---··-·------·--· ·--------. -------------·-----------· --------------·--· ---------------------.. ----·---~------------------------· --·----·-. -----··----~-------"· --- --~----------.. ---------·--------------------------------------·----. ---------·· -----------------~:--.----------~~--------~ -~--------·~--~ -· ·--------------- SECTION 3. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that, should any provision, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance or any part thereof, be rendered or declared invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such decision or action shall not affect the validity of the remaining section or portions of the Ordinance or part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have independently adopted the remaining provisions, sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words of this Ordinance irrespective of the fact that any one or more provisions, sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and to its approval by the Mayor and shall cause the same to be published according to law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of October, 2012. MAYOR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney I, Peggy Kuo, City Clerk of the City of Temple City, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 12-962 was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temple City held on the 181 h day of September, 2012, and was duly passed, approved and adopted by said Council at the regular meeting held on 2nd day of October, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: City Clerk Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2012 Page 2 5072 SERENO AVENUE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE LIGHT MULTI-FAMILY (R-2) RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND IS DESIGNATED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN. RECOMMENDATION: 1) HEAR STAFF REPORT 2) HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST 3) RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FIND THIS ITEM CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (15315) 4) RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT Associate Planner Liu gave a PowerPoint presentation. Chairman Horton opened the public hearing. Michael Shou, project designer is willing to comply with the conditions of approval. Raymond Siewert, Temple City resident, expressed concern about the drainage of the proposed project and noise compliance. He asked several questions regarding the proposed project. City Attorney Vega, answered the questions of Mr. Siewert. Raymond Peterson, Temple City resident, spoke about the existing fence along the property line. Mary Coolman, Temple City resident expressed concern regarding exyessive noise during the course of the project. Michael Shou, project designer addressed the questions and concerns of the public. Chairman Horton closed the public hearing. Commissioner O'Leary moved to recommend that the City Council adopt the draft Resolution and find that this item is categorically exempt, seconded by Vice-Chairman Cordes and carried roll call vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner-Curran, Leung, O'Leary, Cordes, Horton Commissioner-None Commissioner-None B. PUBLIC HEARING-THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2012 Page 3 MODIFY SECTION 9296 RELATING TO REDUCING THE SIZE OF NON- RESIDENTIAL PARKING AND ALLOW COMPACT PARKING; AND MODIFY SECTION 9291 RELATING TO OUTDOOR DINING AREAS. RECOMMENDATION: 1) HEAR STAFF REPORT 2) HEAR THOSE FORAND AGAINST 3) RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4) RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS Associate Planner Gulick gave a PowerPoint presentation. Chairman Horton opened the public hearing. Chairman Horton closed the public hearing. Vice-Chairman Cordes asked Director of Community Development Masura if it would be feasible to replicate a block by block annual analysis. Director of Community Development Masura indicated that he will explicitly request an annual parking count. Vice-Chairman Cordes moved to recommend that the City Council adopt the draft Resolution and adopt the Negative Declaration, seconded by Commissioner O'Leary and unanimously carried. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner-Curran, Leung, O'Leary, Cordes, Horton Commissioner-None Commissioner-None 7. NEW BUSINESS A. PUBLIC HEARING -A REQUEST TO CONTINUE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR 9940 LA ROSA DRIVE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 9, 2012. RECOMMENDATION: 1) HEAR STAFF REPORT 2) HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST 3) RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUE THE ABOVE ITEM TO OCTOBER 9, 2012 Associate Planner Gulick explained briefly the reason to continue this item. Chairman Horton opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes August28,2012 Page 4 Chairman Horton closed the public hearing. Vice-Chairman Cordes moved to continue Conditional Use Permit 12-1812 and· Tentative Parcel Map 71505 to the Planning Commission Meeting of October 9 2012, seconded by Commissioner O'Leary and unanimously carried. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner-Curran, Leung, O'Leary, Cordes, Horton Commissioner-None Commissioner-None B. PUBLIC HEARING -A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT CONSISTING OF THREE DWELLING UNITS AT 4910 ENCINITA AVENUE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE LIGHT MULTI-FAMILY (R-2) RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND IS DESIGNATED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN. RECOMMENDATION: 1) HEAR STAFF REPORT 2) HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST 3) RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FIND THIS ITEM CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT 4) RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT Associate Planner Liu gave a PowerPoint presentation. Condition number eight shall be amended. Chairman Horton opened the public hearing. Chow Ma, project designer, explained the design and the purpose of the project. Chairman Horton closed the public hearing. Vice-Chairman Cordes moved to adopt the draft Resolution as amended and adopt the Negative Declaration, seconded by Commissioner O'Leary and unanimously carried. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner-Curran, Leung, O'Leary, Cordes, Horton Commissioner-None Commissioner-None 8. COMMUNICATIONS Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2012 Page 5 Director of Community Development Masura updated the Planning Commission regarding Rosemead Boulevard Enhancement and Beautification Project, an upcoming joint meetings and community meetings in the upcoming months. 9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS -None 10. COMMISSION ITEMS SEPARATE FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORS REGULAR AGENDA A. COMMISSIONER CURRAN -None B. COMMISSIONER LEUNG-None B. COMMISSIONER O'LEARY -Thanked staff for their hard work on the agenda. C. VICE-CHAIRMAN CORDES-None E. CHAIRMAN HORTON-None 11. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission Meeting was adjourned at 9:17p.m. to the Planning Commission Regular Meeting of September 25, 2012 at 7:30p.m. in the Council Chambers at 5938 Kauffman Avenue. Chairman Secretary Jurisdiction County of Los Angeles City of Los Angeles Santa Monica Pasadena Long Beach Laguna Beach West Hollywood Monrovia Arcadia San Marino Table 1 Compact Parking Review Compact Parking Allowed Dimension Yes 7.5'x15' Yes 8'x15' Yes 7.5'x15' No -- No (Allowed for --Residential) Yes 8'x15' Yes 8'x15' Yes (Only for Parking in Excess of Code 7.5'x15' Requirement) No -- Yes 8'x15' Temple City Parking Code Review July 31, 2012 Maximum Usage 40% 40% 40% -- -- 50% 40% -- -- 25% As shown in Table 1, where compact parking is allowed by a jurisdiction, the dimension of the compact parking stall is typically 8-feet long by 15-feet wide. Additionally, the maximum usage of compact parking within off-street parking lots is typically 40-percent. The dimension and maximum usage of compact parking stalls is a policy discussion for consideration given current trends towards smaller more efficient motor vehicles. MOTORCYCLE PARKING During review of the same Cities as shown in Table 1, minimal discussion of motorcycle parking is provided, with the exception of Laguna Beach which provides a dimension of 4-feet by 8-feet. Laguna Beach allows eight bicycle spaces or two motorcycle spaces to count for one standard size parking space, not to exceed ten percent of the required parking. The City of Irvine provides the following motorcycle parking requirement in the zoning ordinance: Motorcycle parking areas may be provided for all uses, except residential, at the following rate: A. Uses with more than 25 automobile parking spaces may provide one designated area for use by motorcycles. B. Uses with more than 100 automobile parking spaces may provide motorcycle parking areas at the rate of one motorcycle parking area for every 100 automobile parking spaces provided. C. Motorcycle parking areas suggested by this ordinance shall count toward fulfilling automobile parking requirements. 2 BICYCLE PARKING Temple City Parking Code Review July 31, 2012 We have reviewed the inclusion of bicycle parking within some zoning codes as summarized in Table 3 below. Table 2 Bicycle Parking Review Bicycle Parking Jurisdiction Required in Code? Minimum Ratio Santa Monica Yes 4 spaces or 5% of Auto Parking 4 spaces for structures less than 15,000 square feet or 5% Pasadena Yes of required vehicle parking {but not less than 4 spaces) for structures 15,000 square feet or more Long Beach Yes 4 spaces for first 50,000 square feet+ 1 space per each additional 50,000 square feet Laguna Beach No -- West Hollywood Yes 1 space for each 7,500 square feet of GFA and 1 space for each 1 0,000 square feet of GFA Monrovia Yes 4 spaces for first 50,000 square feet + 1 space per each additional 50,000 square feet Arcadia Yes 5% of Auto Parking San Marino Yes 4 spaces for first 50,000 square feet + 1 space per each additional 50,000 square feet The Cities of Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and Laguna Beach identify bicycle parking space needs of 2-feet by 6-feet. As mentioned above, the City of Laguna Beach allows eight bicycle spaces or two motorcycle spaces to count for one standard size parking space, not to exceed ten percent of the required parking. As shown in Table 2, bicycle parking rates vary notably by City. From the jurisdictional review provided above, the most frequent bicycle parking requirement is 4 spaces for the first 50,000 square feet with additional spaces for each 50,000 square feet of building floor area. · RECOMMENDATIONS Where compact parking is allowed by a jurisdiction, the dimension of the compact parking stall is typically 8-feet long by 15-feet wide. Additionally, the maximum usage of compact parking within off-street parking lots is typically 40-percent. The dimension and maximum usage of compact parking stalls is a policy discussion for consideration given current trends towards smaller more efficient motor vehicles. Motorcycle parking rates are more infrequent, with the City of Irvine allowing one motorcycle parking space to be replaced with one standard automobile parking for each 100 parking spaces. 3 Temple City Parking Code Review July 31, 2012 From the jurisdictional review provided above, the most frequent bicycle parking requirement is 4 spaces for the first 50,000 square feet with additional spaces for each 50,000 square feet of building floor area. Contact me with any questions at 949.855.7005-Paul. 4 Survey of San Gabriel Valley Municipalities: Parking Size, Compact Space, Bicycle Parking and Motorcycle Parking Regular Parking Space Compact Parking Space Bicycle and Motorcycle Standards City Space Space Aisle Width Compact parking Space Space Aisle Width Bicycle Parking notes Motorcycle Misc. notes Width Depth allowed? Width Depth Parking notes Yes. No more than Los Angeles 8'-6" 18'-0" 26'-0" 40% distributed 8'-0" 15'-0" 23'-0" N/A N/A N/A County throughout the parking area. Yes. 25% for 10 or more spaces. Up to 33% for Alhambra 9'-0" 20'-0" 25'-0" Industrial or office uses 7'-6" 15'-0" 25'-0" N/A N/A N/A can have up to 33% designated for employees. 9'-0" 20'-0" 25'-0" No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Commercial 8'-6" 20'-0" 25'-0" No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Arcadia Industrial 8'-9" Regional Shopping 18'-0" 25'-0" No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Center 5% of the number of required parking spaces. Space dimension of 2 feet by 6 feet with a min. 7 Diamond Bar 9'-0" 19'-0" 26'-0" No N/A N/A N/A foot overhead N/A N/A clearance. Aisle width at least 5 feet. Should be near main entrance, but more than 10 feet away. ~ - I ~ .-+ Sl) () ::::r 3 CD ::J .-+ , Survey of San Gabriel Valley Municipalities: Parking Size, Compact Space, Bicycle Parking and Motorcycle Parking Regular Parking Space Compact Parking Space Bicycle and Motorcycle Standards City Space Space Aisle Width Compact parking Space Space Aisle Width Bicycle Parking notes Motorcycle Misc. notes Width Depth allowed? Width Depth Parking notes Electric or other 5 spaces for first 25 alternative fuel vehicle spaces plus 1 vehicles-should space/10 additional be provided when vehicle spaces, there is more Duarte 9'-0" 18'-0" 26'-0" No N/A N/A N/A maximum of 20 spaces. N/A than 100 parking Dimensions 2 feet wide spaces, or when by 6 feet long per redesigning of an bicycle, plus a 5 foot existing parking maneuvering. lot with 250 or more spaces. 26'-0" El Monte 8'-6" 18'-0" (30'-0" for No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A arterials) Multi-family-1 space per 4 units LT, 1 per 20 units ST. Bicycle Parking Retail/Personal Services-1 space per Legend: SF= 12,000 SF LT, 1 per Square Feet. LT = 5,000SF ST. Long Term Glendale 8'-6" 18'-0" 24'-0" No N/A N/A N/A Supermarkets -1 space N/A (bicycle locker, secured room, per 12,000 SF LT, 1 per etc.). ST =Short 2,000 SF ST. Office Term (bicycle (excluding medical, rack, bicycle dental and consumer services)-1 per 10,000 stand, etc.) SF L T, 1 space per 20,000SF ST Irwindale 10'-0" 20'-0" 29'-0" No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Code did not Yes, 20% maximum with Code did not La Puente 9'-0" 20'-0" specify. a minimum of 10 parking 8'-6" 20'-0" specify. N/A N/A N/A spaces. L Survey of San Gabriel Valley Municipalities: Parking Size, Compact Space, Bicycle Parking and Motorcycle Parking Regular Parking Space Compact Parking Space Bicycle and Motorcycle Standards City Space Space Aisle Width Compact parking Space Space Aisle Width Bicycle Parking notes Motorcycle Misc. notes Width Depth allowed? Width Depth Parking notes Monrovia 8'-6" 18'-0" 25'-0" Only permitted in excess 7'-6" 15'-0" 25'-0" of required parking. Montebello 8'-6" 18'-0" 24'-0" No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Bicycle Parking Each space requires no cont. (only applies to new structures less than six feet long or additions to by 2 feet wide. any structure over Nonresidential less than 15,000 SF require 15,000 SF): 75% of Pasadena 8'-6" 18'-0" 24'-0" No N/A N/A N/A N/A the required 4 spaces, 15,000 SF or bicycle parking to more require 5% of the be in a locker or required vehicle secured room, parking, but not less and 25% required than 4 spaces. bicycle parking rack/stand. i Code did not Yes, up to 25% of the Code did not I Rosemead 9 1-0 11 20'-0" 8'-0" 16'-0" N/A N/A N/A specify. required parking. specify. San Gabriel 9'-0" 20'-0" 25'-0" Yes, up to 35% of the 8'-0" 15'-0" 25'-0" N/A N/A N/A required parking. Allow up to 25% of the Code did not required parking spaces, Code did not San Marino 8'-6" 20'-0" with parking lots 8'-0" 15'-0" N/A N/A N/A specify. containing more than 10 specify. stalls. Sierra Madre 9'-0" 20'-0" 25'-0" No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -------