HomeMy Public PortalAbout11) 8A Ord 12-962 Non-Residential ParkingCity Council
October 2, 2012
Page2
4. 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.
5. On August 28, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing
and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve code amendments to
Section 9291 and 9296 relating to Off Street Parking Requirements and adopt the
Negative Declaration (refer to September 18, 2012 City Council Staff Report
Attachment 'V'?.
6. On September 6, 2012, a City Council Public Hearing notice regarding the
proposed code amendments relating to Sections 9291 and 9296 was published in
the Temple City Tribune.
7. On September 18, 2012, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider
adoption of Ordinance No . 12 -962 and to introduce it for first reading (Attachment
"8"). No public comments were received.
ANALYSIS:
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, due in part 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.
This item was originally heard by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2012, however,
some of the Commissioners requested to hear the results of the Downtown Parking
Study before making a decision on the proposed code amendments and they requested
staff to consult with the City's Downtown Parking Study Consultant, RBF Consulting,
regarding the proposed code amendments.
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
City Council
October 2, 2012
Page3
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
(refer to September 18, 2012 City Council Staff Report 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 (refer to
September 18, 2012 City Council Staff Report Attachment liP? 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
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 (refer to September 18, 2012 City Council Staff Report
Attachment 11E'? 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
City Council
October 2, 2012
Page4
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 (refer to September 18, 2012 City Council Staff Report
Attachment "P? 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
square feet and was required to provide bicycle parking meeting the Green
Building Code Standards, which is 5% of parking capacity (e.g., 14 required,
18 provided) for short-term bicycle parking and 5% of parking capacity (e.g.,
14 required and 14 provided) for long-term bicycle parking.
Some of the Planning Commissioners expressed interest in establishing
City Council
October 2, 2012
PageS
bicycle and motorcycle parking standards. Staff surveyed nearby jurisdictions
(refer to September 18, 2012 City Council Staff Report Attachment uP?, 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 capac ity rack.
Additionally, new non -residential developments with 10 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 (refer to September 18, 2012 City Council Staff Report Attachment uEn)
states that only two jurisdictions (i.e ., 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 100 automobile parking spaces provided.
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 .
City Council
October 2, 2012
Page 6
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 100 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 make a motion adopting Ordinance No. 12-962 for second reading by title only. If
approved by the City Council, the code amendments will go into effect Thursday,
November 1, 2012.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This item does not have an impact on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012-13 City Budget.
City Council
October 2 , 2012
Page 7
ATTACHMENTS:
A . Ordinance No. 12-962
B. City Council Staff Report dated September 18, 2012 and attachments thereto
ORDINANCE N0.12·962
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE TEMPLE CITY MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATIVE TO TITLE 9, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE J : SECTION
9291: PARKING SPACES REQUIRED; AND TITLE 9, CHAPTER 1,
ARTICLE J: SECTION 9296.A: GENERAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF PARKING AREAS
Attachment A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council determines and finds as follows:
A . Based on testimony received from residents and business owners over the course of several years ,
and the commission of parking studies, the Council determines there to be a shortage of off street parking
within the City sufficient to meeting the reasonable needs of residents, visitors to the City, and employees and
customers of businesses within the City. The Council finds the off street parking shortage to be detrimental to
the health, safety and welfare of the residents and business of the City.
B. In an attempt to alleviate the off street parking shortage, the City has acquired and developed
several public parking lots in the downtown area, has allowed for resident parking by permit on several
streets, has allowed loading zones for businesses, and has encouraged modes of travel other than by
automobile. Despite these efforts, a shortage of available off street parking remains within the City.
C. It is therefore 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 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. Establishing parking standards for bicycle and
motorcycle requirements would also help reduce the demand for parking and address the City's parking
shortage. 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. Section 9291 and 9296 of Title 9 of the Municipal Code. Title 9, Chapter 1, Article J : Section
9291 and 9296 of the municipal code and are hearby amended to read as follows:
A.
TITLE 9 -Zoning Regulations
CHAPTER 1-Zoning Code
ARTICLE J -Off Street Parking Requirements
9291: PARKING SPACES REQUIRED:
Number of Parking Spaces Required
1 parking space for each 150 square feet of gross floor
Fast food establishments with area, but there shall be no less than 5 parking spaces
queued drive through service provided . O~o~tside dining areas shall alse be in&luded
inte the gress fleer area.
Restaurants, bars, coffee shops, 1 parking space for each 1 00 square feet of gross floor
donut shops, and coffee and/or area, but there shall be no less than 10 parking spaces
tea establishments, which provide provided. 0Ytside dining areas shall alse be inGIYded
customer seating inte the gross fleer area.
B.
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: eash off street parkin§ spase, other than a parallel parking spase, shall be at least l>Nenty
feet (20') in length ant;! at least nine feet (Q') in wit;lth; eleven feet (11') in wit;lth when a parking
spase is ae~:~Uee by a wall, str~:~stlolre or other permanent strusture; ten feet (1 0 ') in wiett:l fer
spases within ensloset;l garages. For reEjuiree g1:1est parking spases fer m~:~ltiple family
developments, any guest parking spase, wt:lish is ab1:1Ued by a wall or strust~:~re, shall be twelve
feet (12') wide; any glolest spase, whish is abutted on bott:l sides by a wall or strlolst~:~re, shall be
fo~;~rteen feet (14') •.viee . Guest parking spases in residential projests st:lall be imprevee with gFass
crete or t~;~rf blosk material so as to be permeable. each off street parallel parking spase shall be
at least eight feet (8') in wieth ami at least t'.\lenty feyr feet (24') in length. All off street parking
spaees shall be provieml with adeEjlolate ingress ane 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 quest 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 qrasscrete 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 (10') in width by forty
(40') feet in length .
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-residentia l parking spaces :
a . Standard parki ng spaces shall be a minimum of eight feet six inches (6'-6") in width
by eighteen feet {16') 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 (6'-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.
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 .
(NOTE: existing charts and graphics to be replaced with new charts and graphics)
Angle of Ovetalf Psrktng Length {ft) CUrb Length (ff) Depth (ft) AJSJe .(ft) Wld(h (ft) (degreesJ .
Standard Parking Spaces
30 18' 17' 16' 12' 44'
45 18' 12' 19' 14' 52'
60 18' 9'-10" 20' 20' 60'
90 18' 6'-6" 18' 26' 62'
Parallel 20' 20' 8 '-6 " 10' 27'
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 181h
day of September, 2012, and was duly passed, approved and adopted by said Council at the regular meeting
held on 2 nd day of October, 2012 by the following vote:
AYES;
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN :
City Clerk
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
City Council
September 18, 2012
Page2
BACKGROUND:
1. 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.
2. On July 12, 2012, a Planning Commission Public Hearing notice regarding the
proposed Code Amendments relating to Sections to 9291 and 9296 was published
in the Temple City Tribune.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. On August 28, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing
and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve code amendments to
Section 9291 and 9296 relating to Off Street Parking Requirements and adopt the
Negative Declaration. See Attachment "D" for the August 28, 2012 Draft Planning
Commission Minutes.
6. On September 6, 2012, a City Council Public Hearing notice regarding the
proposed Code Amendments relating to Sections to 9291 and 9296 was published
in the Temple City Tribune.
ANALYSIS:
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, due in part 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.
This item was originally heard by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2012, however,
some of the Commissioners requested to hear the results of the Downtown Parking
Study before making a decision on the proposed Code Amendments and they
requested staff to consult with the City's Downtown Parking Study Consultant, RBF
Consulting, regarding the proposed code amendments.
City 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 comer 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 uE") 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 proper:ties 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 perm itting 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 "En) 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 "P') of nearby cities to determine a
commonly used standard in the San Gabriel Valley. Staffs 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
PageS
' 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 uP'), 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 100 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 staffs 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
Page7
FISCAL IMPACT:
This item does not have an impact on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012-13 City Budget.
ATIACHMENTS:
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 ' .
·--·-·---·----·· -~----··--·--·--------··--------·------···-·---------------· ·---A-tt· -·nm· nt~-·--·---------~e·-·-· e-· --
r·
l
.---~~~ME M:-0-RA·N--IfUM.. . ..
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
Staff Report
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August28, 2012
STEVEN M. M~SURA f /111
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ADAM L. GULICK .A/..61
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
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 1he 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.
1-·-----·-·
I
-i
I
I
I
Planning Commission: August"28,-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 · · · · · ··--··---· ·a
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 and15 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. Staffs 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 benefrt 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 staffs 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 C0mmission.
Although staff is recommending that the requirement be removed, staff will still
have the ability to review and approve outdoor dining areas through its nonnal
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 ln 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.
--~---• -•••---· • . • • -T •• • •• --· -••• ••·•--•-•• •-• •·--·---•••• --·---r--·• -------•-·-• --• --·-·-• -• •••··-·-
PlifnnlngCommission:August28,2012 · ·--·-· .-----···· ·-···' · ··-··-· ··---··· · · · -· · ·-4· --·-···-· ··
Cont in ued: Parking Standard, Compact Parking and Outdoor Dining Area Code Amendments
As you may recall , several recent commercial public hearing items have had conditions
requiring the business or property owner 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 square feet and was required to provide bicycle parking meeting the
Green Building Code Standards, which is 5% for parking capacity (14 required, 18
provided) for short-term bicycle parki ng and 5% for parking capacity (14 required and
provided) for long-term bicycle parking .
Therefore, staff recommends adding the common size for bicycle parking of two
feet in width, six feet in length and five feet of aisle for maneuvering. Staff
recommends that a bicycle parking standard be added similar to the Green
Building Code Standards that require 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 10 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.
MOTORCYCLE PARKING STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS
Staff did not see a minimum parking size standard or requirement for motorcycle
parking in the survey of nearby jurisdictions. The RBF Consulting Memo states only two
jurisdictions (Laguna Beach and Irvine) have motorcycle parking standards . The City of
Laguna Beach states that the minimum size requirement is four feet in width and eight
feet in length. Laguna Beach allows up to eight bicycle spaces or two motorcycle
spaces to count for one standard parking space, not to exceed 10% of the required
parki ng. 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 100
parking spaces may provide motorcycle parking areas at the rate of one motorcycle
parking area for every 1 00 automobile parking spaces provided.
Staff recommends that a similar standard as Laguna Beach be added, which
allows one standard vehicle parking space to be utilized by up to eight bicycle
spaces or two motorcycle 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 .
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt th~ Draft Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Negative
Declaration and amend the Zon ing Code as outlined in the Draft Resolution.
~~-= -·· .. ·--··-_::_=-.:..:. .. ==-....:..........:....-_-_:_--=.·__:__::._:=.-=-~-=----~~.:...:..::..:_: . .:......:......-::_. -.::::: •. =-.=:..:.:::....-..:._~.;··-·· --·~.:.:.....: ______ __ . -.-.. -
Planning Commission: August 2e ; 2012 · ·· · · · · ····--· · · --· · · ··-· -· . ·s ...
Continued: Pa rking Standard , Compact Parking and Outdoor Dining Area Code Amendments
ATIACHMENTS:
1. RBF Consulting Memo dated July 31 , 2012
2. Staff Survey of Off-Street Parking Dimensions, Compact Parking, Motorcycle
Parking and Bicycle Parking
3 . Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 24, 2012 and attachments thereto
4 . Staff Draft Resolution No. 12-2354 PC
5. Draft Negative Declaration
6. Environmental Checklist
----~---· -· -------------~ ~-~-~-~~-~-~-~-~~--~---~--~-~-~-~-~--~-~--~··.~· ~~~~~~~--~· -~--~--~-~-~-~---~~~~~~~~~~~=
Jurisdiction
County of Los Angeles
City of Los Angeles
Santa Monica
Pasadena
Long Beach
Lagun a Beach
West Hollywood
Monrovia
Arcadia
San Marino
Table 1
Compact Parking Review
Compact Parking
Allowed Dimension
Yes 7.5'x15'
Yes B'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'
T em pie City Parking Code Review
Juty 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 req~ired 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
.· .
T em pie City Par1dng 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 Parlting
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 10,000 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
addHJonal50,000 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 6-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 hvlne allowing one motorcycle
parking space to be replaced with one standard automobile parking for each 100 parking
spaces.
3
-· ·---:....:-·;__::__· _-_ •. _ . ....:··c...·--.. ---···-·----···-_;_·...:..:··-----'---... ·---~-----· ----... ·---·-
Temple City Part<lng 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
-=-·-~~ .. ..:_..:.. :...:...:.....:_....:::... =-·~....:.: •. :__::..:~...::..:.~-~....:....:=...:=--..::~·._·_· -·--: ... :.;:.:..:.:......:.;.: .. ::~ _____ .. _._._-_-_-._-_._. ______ , ___________ _
'•
J .. -·------------··------· -·-----··l r-·
j;
Survey of San Gabriel Valley Municipalities: Parking srze, Compact Space, Bicycle Parking and Motorcycle Parking
Ctty
Rosemead
San Gabriel
Spate
Width
9'-0"
9'-()"
20'-()"
zo•-o•
Cdde d,~:h~~~~~·u;~1}~~~:~~·;;.:: .::l?~~??;~t _~,:~X}~~;Y-0-~~~~:~i~~~~m~ ,:·?~{1!;~;{ti.~:~-:~:~r l : :::-.~::.~~~.tt!i~fl ::~-.-~~~;:~:~~>:x~~:~ ~fl~cJtv;,:;~~;~ .. ~ctiili;i:<J.'J)a*J"8:::::'; .. J;,'t;·.' ~~~1~~~~i ~!;,e;·):~~k~ s,P.et\fY.~1·,1;~;; ~1,{\~-t~~~~~~,;~i~::~~~: ~/,~/ft.'''t·~·:~t-~~~-~~:y;;.:y {.}:;_. -~ ... -. ~. :• ~ ~ ....... .. .... ~.,. .. =·· .;.~ ..... :. ~~~·.:· ~~:-:?",.~ ..••• ,, .. ~~':"·':!:.; .~:~; .. • ~ .. ~~!'·~·· ..... ~ ~~~~ ....... ;.~..t~:~.· .; ... ~:\~·"', ~-,·· : •. \'~"t· .• '~ ...... .,;~ ·:--:~ .. : .... ~~· ',., .~,. ·.: ~ . ·~; ',l·:~ ... ; • : f. '.t "': .
.• ·• • ,,. .. (_ ... a....-...:.'L. •• ..,...._:....: -~ ... ;.;..':1<~""' .. .:~..._~ •• '!.. ... -:. .. : ~.sl.•.t•,·, ~1l::J•~z.-.~~;,. ... ..:. .. .a..•~~"'""~--.: ... ...z. -L .:.'"' )~.:..:-.:.-:-.l1 .. ,.:..... .• r.::"-•11 ... ..., ; ....... ,. ~-· ... ~--~· •• ·~....;...•~• ~·· .... 4~~ --~·•·. ., • .-.1 ·•· • ... : ... 1 ""~"'"•" ,,
zs•-o•
'
Yes, up to 35" of the
re.aulrf!d...DillklnR, s·-o· 15'-()" 25'-()" N/A N/A N/A
'I • • ;-~ c;;-Aff•·.-·..-..·'-f'-'r.V: ~f·~·~l., , r:. >" ~·!t• • ' J.'• »· :.• ''•'"~ .. _,,, o'!o! ... ,:· • "'~·. •' ''•'' '\'' ••• . ", : ". ·-· ... '' '• ~. • • • ,.. • ' .• •• , •. • ".· • · .. .: . ·:· . .'=::,.... ow, -... p to ~"l'!i o .... g ~·!-· , .. ,.r".~~~~~~w..:;.;.: ~~,··· ~~· ... ~,..t~'t'-: &-r?.l~"t.!.',,,~,!,_-· ;.;·~-:.._•·~~t..·1k:..-'·· \ '•'~~~~ .. ~; ·. ~:i'.l,·~-;;~J ·;-.,.!o~_ ~:-; ··,~~~~·~-.~·. · .;.·.··.'t" :/ · 1 -..' -.') • \o ''J'•"' • ·, -..•c '1~'~:tf_Ri"" ~\t'-'-'L..;"ft' ,,. rl •¥,""41'""' .. -a:-1:V 'J'1'. • ·~ ... ,;~ ..... --.~· • (~~-~ • ·-~·-~t·~-.a. \t ·:a,~·-:~· "r"r •;..' •t il\! ••
,.,..:..e· d·1.;'-,.,.;t.: f~ij~lrecl p~i'i<lnii ipac~s, ~~''·-'~N:;·h~ , , ·,, ;-,•.i~~":&i.: ·c~ .:.~8-!11d·n··.-0' t. :, •. ~.A'f.l~.,.~J.:'J J~·: ~~-~· 7 ~~-::~ '3j,~"J·,~.,···•.y ···;·_.;;_;~; ~-~·-~?·: <: . ··t-.uu u .,v .• .···'1' • • •' ;!R~-·'t'•"<'\of '<P.I"~· -...;,>~/,:' uu .., of!' 4 ....,.,< )j-.~~ ~-"" ~t• ·' .. -::\<•"•·.o-···••. '•y • ~ , ... ;·>~· ·' 5:ec·1;., ·; ;, WltJi P.ark!nifli:itS :.:;~;~.:-~-~~~..-..-.. ·i~,.,..~,· -9.~~·t~!~; ~s·'·'e·c·:u;,·,·:~:..:;::f.·: •,•t~/~~ .. -.,.·"j'N.J.,-,};. ro/~:~~;i~~~-•. ~-~~i!·.' Nf/!-/ ::t,·l', ~,~~ .... /'~;:. !Y•~"·'l ) ·, ~·· .-·......... ·~ '•••~~ .... , .•JJ, .~· >~ ····~~:" ·.,·1-.."··l· ~· -~~· ... ·,~" · ....... t ·"' ~. _ ....... ,~ · :.: .::i~~~~~~:~ ~~~i~~!~~ill1~:~~%~ ~~~8~ .lff.i1&~:· :fl:t~~1~~: {;~·~54!~}I.i!ff~t 1~~b.~~~Sf~i::~:;_ ~-~1~-~~:·2\1:-t·::~.-
25'..()" No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
I
I
!
' !
I
I
l i
l o II
!1
(l
I
r I
11
'
·----·---····-....... -··· ··-·--·--·-···-.... ... . .... . . ._ -. ............ ·-·---............... -· ···-·-·-· -· ------· ---·
. --.. .. .... .
~~MEMORANDUM
Staff Report
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STEVEN M. MASURA
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BY: ADAM L. GULICK ..kU
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE : July 24, 2012
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING : ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY
SECTION 9296 TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF NON-RESIDENTIAL ·
PARKING AND ALLOW COMPACT 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. Additionally, staff has reviewed the
City's parking standards and recommends that the City reduce the minimum dimensions
of non-residential parking spaces and allow compact parking spaces to be consistent
with the Los Angeles County Code. Furthermore, staff is recommending that the
outdoor dining areas be exempt from requiring parking spaces.
DISCUSSION
The current parking size requirement for an off street parking space is a minimum nine
feet (9') wide and twenty feet (20 ') in length. The Los Angeles County Code allows
parking spaces to be a minimum of eight feet six inches (8'-6•) in width and eighteen
feet (18') 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
L.::__. ~-:.:·:...:..::------=---:_:_::_~~~-~---~--.. ·: :-.~-..-.--·~~·.~--------
1 ••
----·---~ ·-_______ ... _. -·4· --····--------~-~ ------·-····-------
Planning Commission: July 24, 2012 2
Parking Standard, Compact Parking and Outdoor Dining Area Code Amendments
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.
The City Code currently does not allow compact parking spaces for required off street
parking spaces. The Los Angeles County Code requires that a compact parking space
be a minimum eight feet (8') in width and fifteen (15') in length. The Los Angeles County
Code allows up to forty percent (40%) of a parking· lot to be compact spaces, which
need to be spread throughout the parking lot. Staff feels that allowing compact parking
spaces in off street lots would also provide additional needed parking spaces
throughout the City, in particular in the downtown. As an additional benefit to the City
arising out of allowing compact parking spaces in off street lots, our discussions with
national tenants has shown that some national tenants have a minimum number of off
street parking spaces required b~fore they will consider a site.
Gas prices over the past seven years have nearly doubled in the Los Angeles region,
going from $2.15 a gallon in May 2005 and climbing up to $4.20 a gallon in May 2012.
The increase in gas prices has created a demand of consumers seeking more fuel
efficient vehicles, as opposed to inefficient sport utility vehicles. The rising demand has
influenced auto manufacturers to release new hybrid electric I ga$ and electric models
that fall under the compact or sub-compact vehicle category. The increased number of
smaller vehicles on the road is an additional reason why compact spaces and new
parking standards could provide additional parking.
Staff is recommending that the current requirement that additional parking spaces need
to be provided 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 1 parking space for every 100 square feet of floor area and
general retail require one parking space for every 250 square feet of floor area.
Requiring consistent use of the zoning process conflicts with both the City's vision of
creating pedestrian oriented environments in the commercial areas and sound planning
practices. Therefore, it is recommended that the requirement 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 and occupancy and building permit procedures to
ensure compatibility with surrounding properties and that there will be minimal impacts.
In conclusion, staff feels that the proposed Code Amendments would help address
parking shortages throughout the City, particularly along Las Tunas Drive and
Rosemead Boulevard. The reduced size of non-residential parking spaces and the
permitting of compact parking spaces would increase the number of parking spaces for
:...·:.:..:..:;...._· -· -=..:..~--~-·----·.........:..:..·..:.:...:..:....~:-. -·-·. -· ..... ····-····--··· --.... --"('-------.. --·-----· -· -·---· --~ ·--·· .. --
Planning Commission: July 24, 2012 3
Parking Standard, Compact Parking and Outdoor Dining Area Code Amendments
current properties and for future commercial developments . Staff also feels that the
parking space requirement for outdoor dining areas conflicts with the City's vision of
creating pedestrian oriented environments and recommends that it be removed from the
Zoning Code. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a
resolution recommending that the City Council amend the City's Zoning Code reducing
the size of non-residential parking spaces, allow compact parking spaces and remove
the requirement for outdoor dining areas.
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. If
approved, the item will be heard before the City Council at their regular meeting on
August 7, 2012.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Negative
Declaration and amend the Zoning Code as outlined in the Draft Resolution .
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Draft Resolution No . 12-2354 PC
2. Draft Negative Declaration
3. Environmental Checklist
4 . Temple City Zoning Code, Section 9291 : Parking Spaces Required
5 . Temple City Zoning Code, Section 9296: General Requirements for the
Improvement and Maintenance of Parking Areas
6. Los Angeles County Parking Standard Code
:...:.....:.:.....:....~:...=.....:.:....::=:.:.......· . .:..~· .. -=:..·.::.: .... :..::..::;:_:.: ... :....:.:...:_::__..::.:.....:.~.-:...:..:..:.·~~-~-.':.:.:...: .. ..:..... .. __ . --:__:_.:._ ····~-· -· .... ~-.. -----· ····---·--··----···-·-· ·--··-··· .. ·--
DRAFT
I
!
RESOLUTION N0.12M2354PC
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY RECOMMENDING
AMENDMENTS TO THE TEMPLE CITY ZONING CODE TO
REDUCE THE SIZE OF NON-RESIDENTIAL OFF STREET
PARKING SPACES, ALLOW COMPACT PARKING
SPACES 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 based upon a Public Hearing on July 24, 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
provide additional parking spaces. The City recently redesigned a
·--~
I
l
·----·-·. ···-~---·-··· -· -· -·-·-·-·--··--·-·-· .... -----····---·----.-_ .... --···· ----------·--·..---· =-~:...::-:=..:-=-.-...:.:=.:...·.:..::..-----·.
Resolution No. 12~2354 PC
Parking Space Design, Compact Parking and Outdoor Dining Area Code Amendments
Page 2 of6
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 1ndicates 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 ainiRg areas
sl=lall also ee insh,Jsed into tl=le gross floor
aFea.
.. -...... -·--=·· =======.:....:.· -.:.:..;·· -:;:_:--:;:..:-=.:....=.:.._~==·:....::-..:::..-.::..:-·=·-...:..;· ·::.:-·-..:·=·--:.::..-.:..:.:··-=-=·-·::.:..:·· =-.:.._· .:.::...·-=-·-=-·=--=···=·--:.:..:· ===-·
Resolution No. 12-2354 PC
Parking Space Design, Compact Parking and Outdoor D ining Area Code Amendments
Page 3 of6
B.
Restaurants, bars, coffee
shops, donut shops, 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 diAiFig
areas shall alse be iAsludea inte ttle 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:
Siz:e: ~ash off street parking spaoe, et1=-1er than a parallel parking spaee, shall be
at least twenty feet (20') in length and at least nine feet (Q') in wiath; eleven feet
(11') in widtl=l when a parking spaoe is ab1:1tled by a wall, str1:1ot1:1Fe or otl=ler
permanent struot1:1re; ton foot (1 0') in VJidtl=l for spases within enolosed garages.
For req1:1ired guest parking spaoes for Rmltiple family de'lelopments, any §!:last
parking spaoe, wl=liol=l is ab1:1tted by a waller struot1:1re, sl=lall be twelve ~eot (12')
wiele; any g1:1est spaoe, wl=lioh is ab1::1tted on betA sides by a wall or struoture, shall
be fo1::1rteen feet (14') wide. G1:1est parking spases in residential projeots shall be
improved witl=l ~rass orate or turf blosk material so as kJ 9e permeable . eaol=l off
street parallel parking spaoo shall be at least oi§ht foot (8') in wiath and at least
twenty fo1:1r feet (24') in len~th . All off street parking spases sl=lall be previdoel with
adequate in§ress anel 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.
. ~. ·---~ ·.:.:. -_;.:;=.:;.-_:.-• .:...:_: . :._-.;.·~--_.:. . ...:..::_ .. ··::. ::-.:..._ . -----==-=:. .:_::::!:. :....::~= .. 'Z"" ~=·:·
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACfS
4. WATER. Would the proposal result:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff?
b. Exposme of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding?
c . Discharge into surface w:aters or other
alterations of surface water quality (e .g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in
any water body?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements?
f. Changes in the quantity of ground either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interceptions of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
g. . Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater?
h. Impacts to groundw~ter quality?
1. StoliD water system discharges from area
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 harmful
increase in the flow rate or volume of storm
water runoff?
k. A significantly environmentally harmful
increase in erosion of the project site or
surrounding areas?
1. Storm water discharges that would ·
significantly impair the beneficial uses of
receiving waters or areas that provide water
quality benefits (e.g., riparian coni.dors ,
wetlands, etc.)?
m. Harm to the biological integrity of drainage
systems and water bodies?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
D
D
0
D
D
0
0
D
D
0
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
D
D
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
Potentially
LessThm
Significant
Impact
0
D
0
0
D
0
D
0
0
0
D
0
D
No
Impact
~=-~=-.a.:..:·:.:.···-· -· ·----·-===--:::=·---·-~..:..---...:....=. ·=-: :.::-.;.-;:,=:.7:-.. :.:~ .-:=.~ ~: .. ::...:::-...::..::: .. -:::.. -:-:..:::...:...~· ._::.:-:·.~ .. -~-:..:::.-:-:""": .---:_· .. -.: 7.~.=~:.·: : __ :.::.·.:::: .. -::-: _· _ _:-:,:··; . .. -. . ...... -..
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
5. A1R QUALITY. Would the proposal :
a. Violate any air quality standard or D 0 0
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 D 0 ~
c. Alter air movement, moisture, or D 0 0 ·~
temperat\lre, or cause any .change in
climate?
d . ·. Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the prowsa1
result in:
a. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? D 0 tKl 0
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. 0 0 0 • sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. fatm equipment) ?
® c. Inadequate emergency access or access to D 0 D
nearby uses?
d . Insufficient parking capacity on~site or off-0 0 0 ~ site?
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 rgl
bicyclists?
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 ·~
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks) ? Ji g. . Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? D o · D
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in
impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or 0 0 0
their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
b . Locally designated species (e.g. heritage 0 D D ,00)
trees) 7
c. Locally designated natural communities D D D ~
(e.g. oSk forest, costal habitat, etc.)?
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 ~ vernal pool) ?
I ... -
i ··---·-.......... --·--··-·:.-;...·.-·. ~ :.:.. ___ ----.-· ·.-.·.···-+ :_·:: .. -.. ..:.~·-::.:~-·-=· .. :::::~-_:._.:· .. -=-=-=.-::-:--=.::.: .. ..::.:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
' 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
9.
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservational
plans?
b. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful
and inefficient manner?
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard?
d. Exposure of people to existing somces of
potential health hazards?
e. Increased fire hazard areas in areas with
flammable brush, grass, or trees?
10 . NOISE. Would the-proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
D
D
D
D
D
0
0
D
D
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,
orresult in a need for new or altered government services in any
of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? 0
b . Police protection? 0
c .. Schools? D
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including D
roads?
Significant
Unles~
Mitiga~ed
D
0
D
0
0
D
0
0
0
D
0
0
D
D
Potentially
Less Than
Significant
lmpacl
0
0
·D ·
0
D
0
0
0
!)a
D
0
0
D
0
No
Impact
·§a
~
1i1
~
~
D
~
IZl .m
K1
~
1 ......... ---·--·-·----~------·----··--····----· ---· _, _______ .. ---------·-----·-·-·· ... -.... ·---.. ·--------· :-----·.-· ...... ,,_ :-·-·--· .. -· -....... -....... --·-----·--~ --•·--··---· --·--·--·· ........... r---··-:-------___ .. ____ ... __ _. ............. _.._., __ _
I • • • • • • ' ·-•• •: • • ... • ' • •• .... •••
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACfS
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. D0es the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantialJy
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 animal .or eliminate
important examples of major periods of
California h istory or prehistory?
b . Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-teiiD. to the disadvantage oflong-tenn,
environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considemble? ccccumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
o~er current projects, and the effects of
probable fu~ projects).
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
Si~ificant
Unless
Mitigated
D
0
0
0
Potentially
Less Than
Significan t
Impact
D
0
0
D .
No
Impact
·~
l .~:.-::: .. .:.-~----_:-.. ; ... ·. _ _._ .... ::-: .. :;.-·.: ... : ...:. -=-·--. ..: .~-:----··-. ·--~--:._:-;-_ -=--· ·::..:....:....: ... -. ·--: ___ · . ..:.-·. : ::::..q : .. -: : ::...: :-:..:.::-----=---;__ ~ _-::..:..-. .:.::....:. . :::·.: -~::.....:..:........:. __ :._:::-=.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Page 1
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
60. 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 proviae
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 i 1 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 mor~ 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 tor popular
food establishments. However, the City (Planning staff) will review each proposed
outdoor dining area on a case-by-case basis to detemiine 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.
·--~-t~r~g_<;~~~::.s.! ~~~:-. Pa~e4 o!~. ____ _ ---·------~·----·---·------·---~-.,;~-=...:.:..=...=-_._:...:==:.:.~ _______ ·:.;..;.::.-=.=-:.:...=....=-..::....:.:·.:=~=--==-=..::.:.:.._.: .. ::=--.....:.~..:...-· ------· ---
I Trailer parks 10 1 parking space for each trailer space , plus 1 for each 4
_ spaces in the trailer park.
·~==================~~~
Warehouses and storage 1 parking space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor
facilities area or 1 space for each 2 employees, whichever is
greater and 1·parking space for each vehicle operated or
kept in connection with the use. Whenever all or any
portion of a warehouse area , facility or building is
proposed to be converted, remodeled or changed to a
nonwarehouse use, the number of parking spaces
required by this section for the intended use shall be
secured and provided prior to conversion of use or
remodeling of the warehouse facility or building.
(H~60 Code; amd.-Ord.-78-467; Ord; 88-631; Ord. 89-654; Ord. 90-663;·0rd.:91-'6B8; Ord. 93q54; · ·
Ord . 06-907)
http://www .sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow .php 7/19/2012
'·------~~~!.~~~~-<;;~~_!ier~~~nc. ···------······ _______ -----------·-·---··--·-···-~. · . .: ____ · ____ -·-·--· __ .. ___ !~g_r~}-~~----·
lr •------· --·----· ---------~---------~--~--------·------·-••
I "' •• • • • • ·----. • ·• •••-••-
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 (i 1 ') in width when a parking
space is abutted by a wall, structure or other permanent structure; ten feet (1 0') -i!l width for
spaces wit~in ·enclosed garages. For required guest parking spaces for multiple-family ·
developments, any guest parking space, which is ~butted 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 materi~l so as to be permeable. Each off street parallel p arking space
shall be at least eight feet (8') in width and at least twenty four feet (24') in length. All off street
. par1<ing.spaces shall.be.provided .wlth.adequate.ingress and egress ~ __ : ... · .. : .... : .-: ... : ...... -.
. B. Access Driveways: Driveways serving parking areas for less than six (6) vehicles shall be a
minimum of ten feet (10') wide.
'
All driveways serving parking areas for six (6) or more vehicles shaH 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 &hall 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 ·e ntering 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 (i 3')
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 wit hin 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 (31 /z"). Such surfacing shall be designed, constructed and
http://www .sterlingcodifiers.com/codebooklpri ntnow .php 7/19/201 2
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. . ·-·· _ -~~~~ ~. ~t~ ·--·-·-,_--.... ~------· --... ·--.. -··------· .. ..,. -· -·-..---...... --=-------..:::::=.--.
----··-----maintained ··as--to"di~pose of_:alls-urtace wateir~in -n~case sha11 such drainage be allowed across
public sidewalks . · · · ·
D. Location: All off street parking facilities shall be located on the same lot or complex of lots as the
use which the same are to serve, except as provided in section 9294 of this article.
E. Setbacks: All parking areas shall be subject to the same setback restrictions governing
accessory buildings as defined in the zone in which said parking area is located, provided that
no off street parking area shall be located closer than twenty feet (20') from the street right of
way line of an R zoned lot. . ·
F. Border Barricades: Every parking area which is not separated by a fence from any street or alley
properw line upon which it abuts, shall be provided with a suitable concrete curb 0r timber
barrier not less than six inches (6") in height, located not less than three feet (3') distant from
such street, alley or property lines. Such curb or barrier shall be securely installed and
maintained; provided no such curb or barrier shall be required across any driveway or entrance
to such parking area. ·
G. Screening: Every parking area for five (5) or more vehicles which is located upon property
abutting other property located in one of the R zones shall be separated from such property by
a solid view obscuring fence or wall, six feet (6') in height, measured from the grade of the
finished surface of such parking lot closest to the contiguous R zone property, provided that
along the required front yard the fence or wall shall not exceed thirty inches (30 11
) in height. No
such wall, fence or hedge need be provided where the elevation of th~t portion of the .parking
area immediately adjacent to an R zoned property is six feet (6') or more below the elevation of
such R zoned property along the common property line ..
H. Lights: Suitable lights shall be provided so as to property illuminate any parking area having
spaces for five (5) or more vehicles or new or used car sales areas, permitted by this chapter;
such lighting shall be arranged so as to reflect the light away from adjacent premises.
I. Entrances And Exits: The location and design of all entrances and exits to a street or alley shall
be subject to the approval of the city.
'
J . Striping: All parking spaces shall be striped iri a manner cl.early showing the layout of the
intended parking stalls. Such striping, not less thari three inches (3") in width, shall be .
maintained in a clear, visible and orderly manner.
http://www .sterlingcodifiers.com/codebooklprintnow .php 7/19/2012
1
L. Maintenance And Irrigation: All parking areas shall be kept clean and free of dust, mud or trash.
Parking areas shall be used only for the purpose of parking vehicles. Where landscaping is
provided within or along parking areas, adequate irrigation and maintenance thereof shall be
provide~.
M. Driveway Design: All driveways shall comply with the following design requirements:
1 . Except as otherwise provided herein, all driveways shall provide unobstr.ucted access directly
to a legal parking area or garage. · · ·
2. No driveway shall be wider than the parking area or structure it serves, provided, however,
that no driveway located within any front or side yard area shall exceed twenty feet (20') in
width except for that portion 1hereof located within twenty five feet (25') of the entrance to the
parking structure it serves. In the R-1 zone, a driveway shall not be locf!ted at any point
near-er any side property line than the parking area or garage U serves.
This section shall not apply to any driveway serving a parking structure or garage the
entrance of which is substantially perpendicular to the front property line.
3. No vehicle or any component thereof, shall be parked in any. front yard area for any purpose
on any R zoned lot, except in driveway areas which lead directly to a legal parking area or
garage. · ·
4. A circular type driveway may be constructed provided:
a. Said driveway has, or connects with a drivew~y, which has direct access to a legal parking
area or structure as defined in section 9290 of this article; and
b. The entire width of said driveway, at some point thereon, is located entirely behind the
required setback area for such zone; and
c. Said driveway shall be a minimum of ten feet (1 0') in width; and
. .
d. Notwithstanding subsection M4b of this sectionl no circular driveway shall exceed twelve
feet (12'} in width; and
e. Each driveway approach shall be a minimum of twelve feet (12') at street level; and
f. There shall be a minimum of thirty feet (30'} of full height curb between the two (2) driveway
approaches, including slopes, measured at their nearest points; and
g. No circular driveway shall be permitted on a lot less than seventy feet (70') in width.
5. A curb cut for a secondary driveway approach may be constructed on any lot provided:
a. Said approach provides access to any driveway or parking area which complies with the
provisions of this article; and
http://www .sterlingcodifiers .com/codebook/printnow .php 7/19/2012
. .. . . .
. __ S~~~~ng_G~~er~.IJ?c : .... ··-···· __ . . ................... _. _ . ..., .. ···--· ··-·--·---·--.-·-··-··-~~g~_4..Qf?. .... _ ,. ---·-----·----------·--····-··--·--· _____ ... _______ . __ ........ _.---;-_·----~· ~--···-·-·--··--
b. Said approach shall be a minimum of twelve feet (12') in width at street level; and
c. There shall be a m inimum 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 aRd
provides access connecting any vehicle parking structure, lot or area with any street, alley,
thoroughfares, or other right of way, whether puqlic 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° 19'011 18'311 28'3" 12'61 32'7" 17~4ft
45° 13'5" 20'11" 35'011 17'81 20'11 11 14'2·
60° 10'111\ g2'111 39'-9 11 19'6 •. 1~91! 10'0~
900 9'0n 20i 40i .25. o· 0'
http://www .sterlingcodifiers.com/ codebooklprintnow .php 7/19/2012
L ...... -"·-•-.... ,... • -· -·· •• - -·---··-·-. --·--·-----·--------------·----·--· -· -·· --;;--·-......... -·--.. ~ .. ---···---·-·-_____ ,_---.----·----·---·---------· ··-·------· ·--·-· ·--·--_,. .... -------.....,. ---------------·-------·----------·--
RESOLUTION NO. 12·2354PC DRAFT
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 . 1-·-_-; :-.... ..:......--=---::::.=.·...:... :::..·:.:_· :·=.:..:···: .:.;:-_;:._ ·.:;·_ .... -:-: -. .....:..:·.::: --=-:......·~--·:..-.: .. : . .::.:...:. --==-·...:..: ... -:-::..=:_-~==--==-: .. :-...==:-=::: .. -~~=-=--:.=...:...::~::..:... .. =
I Resolution No. 12-2354 PC ·
I 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. O~::~tsiEie dining
areas st:.all alse 8e insl~::~ded into tl:te grass
fleer 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: Eaoh off street parking spaoe, ether than a parallel parking spaoe, shall be
at least tM•enty feet (2Q') in length and at least nino feet (Q') in width; olo)/en feet
(11') in width wl:len a parking spaoo is abutted by a wall, str1:::1eture or other
permanent stR:Joturo; ton feet (10') in width fer spaoes within enolosod garages.
ror required !1JUest parking spaoes fer m~:::~ltiplo family do'Jelopments, any guest
parking spaoo, whish is abutted by a wall or structure, shall be twelve foot (12')
)Nide; any g1:::1est spaoe, whish is abutted on both siees by a wall or stR:Joture, shall
be fourteen feet (14') wide. Guest parking spases in residential projeots shall be
improved with grass oroto or t1:1rf block material so as to be permeable. Eaoh o#
street parallel parking spaoe shall be at least eight feet (8 ') in width and at least
tlnenty four feet (24') in length. All off street parking spases shall be provieed with
aeequate 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 .
I .
[
·-:: .::~-:--::..: .• : -.· -·-.. ·--· .:;:::::.:..:.=.:....:..:..:.:.=-.:.·~--.:..:..:.·:::.:..:.·==-:::.=..·.:-:.::: .. -~--·· -:-:-.... ·. ---=1' ____ -..:._::== .. ..:.;..-~:-.:-:-~=-=---~.:..-..:.·-= . .:...::.::.:..:.:...~:-=·~.:: •. :.:._-:.:
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
I . . 1::.:._ __ ._.:;:._-..::..:....::.___. ___ -;__ __ -_.:.:..: :.~=-· ~:.....::~ ::·__:_:-_-;:--:-.~--:::. ::.......:..:..:::::...:=.=..:..:.-.:::.=:-__ -:-_::·= :::..-::: ----· .::.:..··.:.:::~-:--:.: =-=-·-== 7: .:.:·. ;.;: :-.-.-. .=-_-:.: =--. .:.:
. .
I
' '
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Applicant:
Type of Permit:
File No:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
DISCRETIONARY
A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND OFF-STREET
PARKING FACILITY DESIGN, PERMIT COMPACT SPACES, AND
REDUCE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED BY OUTDOOR DINING
Description of the project:
A Zoning Code Amendment to amend off-street parking facility design, pennit compact
spaces, and reduce parking spaces required by outdoor dining .
The Zoning Code currently requires that any off-street parking space have a minimum of
20 feet in length and 9 feet in width; does not permit the use of compact spaces; and
requires that food establishments provide off-street parking for outdoor dining areas. The
proposed code amendment to Section 9291 will remove the requirement that food
establishments need to provide off street parking for outdoor dining areas; and amend
Section 9296 to reduce the size of off street parking facilities and to allow for compact
parking spaces.
DATED: July 10,2012
~ t ~u \....CJ'f--
~~f~
~ COMMU D OPMENT DIRECTOR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Any person may file a protest to the Negative Declaration with the City Clerk prior. to the
issuance of the penn it or approval of the project. The protest must be in writing and must
state the environmental factors on which the protest is based. The protest shall be
reviewed by the City Manager or: his agent. If he finds that the protest is based on one or
more significant environmental factors not previously considered, and which may have a
substantial adverse effect on the environment, the pennit shall be suspended and an EIR
shall be processed. The decision of the reviewer shall be final. Copies of the Initial Study
may be obtained for $1.00 for the first page and $.25 for each additional page.
~,~-· ~=--:co·=~-=-~--~·=-==:=.o~ ~~~~----.-.·.:--=~:.::..::..:.-=..:__:_:_-~=..:-::::..:;..=.-_ :.: -_ ::-_:__·..:.:::..=-~~--.:;;;__--::::;;_;_ .:. -:-=. ~-=-=~·
i ENVERO~NTALIMPACTS I
Potentia11 y
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
4. WATER. Would the proposal result :
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 D D ~ patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff?
b. Exposure of people or property to water 0 D 0 f,lJ
related hazards such as flooding?
c . Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 D ~ alterations of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
d . Changes in the amount of surface water in D D 0 ~ any water body?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or 0 D 0 ~ direction of water movements?
f . Changes in the quantity of ground either 0 D 0 ~ through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interceptions of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
g. . Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 D 0 }i?l
groundwater?
h . hnpacts to groundwater quality? D D 0 ta
1. Storm water system discharges from area 0 0 D r& 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 harmful 0 0 0 ~ increase in the flow rate or volume of storm
water runoff?
k. A significantly environmentally harmful 0 0 0 ~ increase in erosion of the project site or
surrounding areas?
I. Storm water discharges that would 0 0 0
significantly impair the beneficial uses of
receiving waters or areas that provide water
quality benefits (e.g .• riparian corridors,
wetlands, etc.)?
m. Harm to the biological integrity of drainage 0 D 0 ~ systems and water bodies?
I
.. -·'C'··-. . . ----··--. --·---... ·-------··---···----. -··----::-···-···-·-..... ---·--·-··-·--------·-. --------·-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACfS
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal :
a. Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
b . Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c. Alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or cause any change in
climate?
d . . Create objectionable odors?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in:
a. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b . Hazards to safety from design features (e.g .
sbmp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment) ?
c . Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
d . Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-
site?
e . Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists?
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks) ?
g. . Rail, waterborne o r air traffic impacts?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in
impacts to :
a . Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
b . Locally designated species (e.g . heritage
trees)?
c . Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, costal habitat, etc.)?
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool) ?
0
0
0
0
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
0
0
0
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
0
0
0
0
0
Potenti ally
Less The.n
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
I -. . -
.:: ~.:. :.:.:_-:_:-:·-: ·=.:...: -:...: . -..: •. __ -::_·_..:: ______ .... :...:.:_ __ _:_ ... ...;,:.. _.: .• ___ :.. . .:.~-:=..:.-:·=·-... --~-·--~:.:·· .. ·--------------·-·----·---------------
ENVTRONMENTALDdPACTS
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact ~
e. Other governmental services? D D 0 00
12 . UTaiTIES 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? 0 0 D ~
b . Communications systems? D 0 D ~
c. Local or regional water treatment or o · 0 D ~ distribution facilities?
d . Se.wer or septic tanks? 0 0 D ~
e. Storm water drainage? D 0 D Tpl.
f . Solid waste disposal? D D D ~
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 0 D D ~
b . Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 ~
c . Create light or glare? 0 0 0 It).
14 . CULTURAL RESOUCES. Would the proposal :
a . Disturb paleontological resources? 0 D 0 Q9.
b . Disturb archaeological resources? 0 0 0 ~
c . Affect historical resources? D 0 D ~
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change D 0 0 ~ which would affect unique etlmic cultural
values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within D 0 0
the potential impact area?
15 . RECREATION. Would the proposal :
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or D 0 0 ~ regional parks or other Jecreational facilities?
b . Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 y;J
-·······---·-------·-------·-·---~-··~----~---·------·-------·--·--·--------·----···-·---------·--··------·---..--·------·-----------· ·----
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potc:ntially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
16 . MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. DGes the project have the potential to degrade D D D
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 animal or eliminate
important examples of rnaj or periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 D 0 ~ short-term, to the disadvantage oflong-tenn,
environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts that are 0 D D
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? C'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
o~er current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects).
d. Does the project have environmental effects D D 0
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
-----·----·· ... ---···-· .... -·-·--···---·--·· -·--·-·. ---······--·· -·---.... ---···-v--·--·------·· --··--·----------·-·----------------·· ... -~.-··---·-------------... ----...... ··-··--· ... ~--·-·· ---------··-----·-·--·-·---. --
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Page1
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
60. 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 twenty-five percent (25%) 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 has 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.
Bicycle and motorcycle requirements help encourage non-vehicle ·modes of
transportation which reduces the demand of vehicle parking. Staff is
recommending that bicycle parking requirements, short-and long-term bicycle
storage, be required for new· non-residential developments. Additionally, staff is
recommending that one required parking space can be utilized by up to eight
bicycles or two motorcycles, up to a maximum of 10% of the required off street
parking.
1:· .. :-::: --~ . .-.-:::-::·::-:-.::: :· .· .. ··:-· : . ---·-·-
1 Resolution No. 12-2354 PC
_-: ::· ....... .:: .~: .. _:.:.:: ·::_.::. ::_. ~----~:.:· ·::.: .:::::::= :_::; -:_· .-. .:~ --;::-:_:: :.::=_-_-;--::.-::.:=:-::-.:: -=..:.:-
Parking Space Design, Compact Parking and Outdoor Dining Area Code Amendments
Page 3 of7
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 Jess than
10 parking spaces provided . Outsiae dil~ing
ar-eas s~all also he ineludeEI into *e gr-e66
floor aFea.
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 twenty feet (20') in lengtl:l and at least nine feet (9') in wiatl:l; ele•Jen feet
(11 ') in wielth when a parking space is abutteel by a lftall, struobJFO or ether
permanent struGt1::1re; ten feet (1 01 in wielth for spaces within enoloseel garages .
For requires guest parking spaces for mYitiple family ele•;elo~meRt6, any guest
parking s~ace, whish is abt:~tted by a wall or strt:~Gtt:~re, shall be t-uel¥e feet (12')
wide; ar:~y guest spaoe, wt:lich is abY4teel on botl:l sieles by a wall or struoture, shall
be fourteen feet (14 ') wide. Guest parking spaces in residential projects shall be
improveel 'Nith grass crote or buf blook material so as to be f30rmea91e. Eaoh off
street parallel 13arkiAg Sf3aoe shall be at least eight feet (8') in wiath ana at least
twenty foi:Jr feet (24') in length . All off street parking spaoes shall be J3FO'Iidea •.uith
aelequate ir:~gress and ogress.
A. Size
1. Residential parking spaces:
a. Residential garage parking spaces shall be a minimum interior
dimensions of ten feet (1 O'l 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 lenath
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 lenath .
~.::-=-=-=7-=Res~i~ti~~;-1~35~-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 On::linance 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 Cieri< 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 Jaw.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this i'~~ day of October, 2012 .
MAYOR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
I, Peggy Kuo, City Cieri< 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 18th
day of September, 2012, and was duly passed, approved and adopted by said Council at the regular meeting
held on 2"d day of October, 2012 by the following vote:
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN :
City Clerk
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page2
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.
Marv Coolman, Temple City resident expressed concern regarding ex99ssive
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 anQ 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 FOR AND 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 Councir 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 9:17 p.m. to the Planning
Commission Regular Meeting of September 25, 2012 at 7:30p.m. in the Council
Chambers at 5938 Kauffman Avenue. ll
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'x 15'
Yes B'x15'
Yes 7 .5'x15'
No -
No (Allowed fo r -Residential)
Yes B'x15'
Yes B'x15'
Yes {Only for Parking
in Excess of Code 7 .5 'x15'
Requ irement)
No -
Yes 8'x15'
T em pie City Par1dng 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
i s 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 pari<ing .
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 Parl<ing 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 sauare feet of GFA
Monrovia Yes 4 spaces for first 50,000 square feet + 1 space per each
additional 50,000 sauare feet
Arcadia Yes 5% of Auto Parking
San Marino Yes 4 spaces for first 50,000 square feet + 1 space per each
addltlonal50,000 S<IUare 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 effici ent 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
T em pie 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 Motorc;yde Misc. notes Width Depth illlawed? Width Depth Parking notes
Yes. No more than
Los Angeles 8'-6" 1.8'-0" 26'-0" 40& dfstrlbuted 8'-0" 15'-0" 23'-0" N/A N/A N/A County throughout the
PQrkfng orea.
Yes. 25" for 10 or more
spaces. Up to 33" fur
Alhambra 9'-o" 20'-o" 25'-{)" Industrial or office uses 7'o{;" 15'-0" 25'-o• N/A N/A N/A can have up to 33%
designated for
emp!_oyees .
9'-o"
I
20'-o" 25'-o" No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
8'-6"
Arcadia . .~. ···~'
20'-{)" 25'-{)" No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
8'-9" Regional
Shopping 18'-{)" 25'-{)" No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Center
5" of the number of
req ulred 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. ~
Q)
(")
::J"'
3
CD
::J .-
'T1
--... ------·-------·----
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 pi us 1 vehicles -should
space/tO 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
Dimenslons 2 feet wide spaces, or when
by 6 feet long per redesign! ng of an
bicycle, plus a 5 foot existing pa rl<ing
maneuverin11. lot with 250 or
more sp;~ces.
26'..Q"
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 ~
S,OOOSFST. Long Term
Glendale 8'-6" 18'..0" 24'-o" No N/A N/A N/A Supennarl<ets-1 space N/A (bicycle locker,
per 12,000 SF L T, 1 per secured room,
2,000 SF ST. Office etc.). ST = Short
(eKCiudlng medl<:.al, Term (bicycle
dental and consumer rack, bicycle
services)-1 per 10,000 stand, etc.)
SF LT, 1 space per
20,000SFST
hwlndale 10'..0" 20'-0" 29'..0" No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Code did not Yes, 20% maKimum with Code did not La Puente 9'-0" 20'..0" a minimum of 10 parking 8'-6" 20'-o" N/A N/A N/A spedfy. spaces. specify.
--
·-· .•. 1 ----------
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'-o" 25'.{)" Only permitted In excess 7'-6" 15'.{)" 25'.{)"
of req ulred 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 requi res no cont. (only applies
tD new structures less than six feet long or additions to by 2 feet wide. any structure over Nonresidential Jess
than 15,000 SF require 15,000 SF): 75% of
Pasadena 8'-6" 18'-0" 24'.{)" No N/A N/A N/A N/A the required 4 spaces, 15,000 SF or bicycle par king 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.
Rosemead g•..o•• 20'-o" Code did not Yes, up to 25% of the 8'~" 16'-o" Code did not 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'.<)" 15'.{)" 25'-()" N/A N/A N/A required parking.
AMow up to 25% of the
Code did not required parking spaces, Code did not San Marino 8'-6" 20'-0" specify. with parking lots 8'-0" 15'.{)"
specify. N/A N/A N/A
containing more than 10
staMs.
Sierra Madre 9'..()" ·20'-0" 25'-o" No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
~ ---'--