HomeMy WebLinkAboutOFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS*NEW FILE*
OFF-STREET PARKING
REQUIREMENTS
Parking Requirements
for Shopping Centers:
Summary Recommendations
A Study Conducted Under the Direction of ULI-the
Urban Land Institute by Wilbur Smith and Associates,
Inc., and Sponsored by the International Council of
Shopping Centers
ULI Staff for Parking
Requirements for Shopping
Centers
Senior Director, Publications
Frank H. Spink, Jr.
Editor
Nancy H. Stewart
Staff Vice President, Operations
Robert L. Helms
Production Assistant
Regina P. Agricola
Art Director
Jeffrey Hughes
Art Assistant
Betsy VanBuskirk
Recommended bibliographic listing: Urban Land Institute, Parking
Requirements for Shopping Centers: Summary Recommendations.
Washington: Urban Land Institute, 1981.
ULI Catalog Number P32
Second Printing (Revised) 1982
^s 1981 by ULI—the Urban Land Institute
1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
This report, Summary Recommendations, is also published by the Ur-
ban Land Institute as a part of Parking Requirements for Shopping
Centers: Summary Recommendations and Research Study Report, ULI
Catalog Number P33.
International Standard Book Number 0-87420.604-9
Printed in the United States of America
About ULI the Urban Land
Institute
ULI—the Urban Land Institute is an independent, nonprofit
research and educational organization incorporated in 1936 to
improve the quality and standards of land use and develop-
ment.
The Institute is committed to conducting practical research
in the various fields of real estate knowledge; identifying and
interpreting land use trends in relation to the changing eco-
nomic, social, and civic needs of the people; and disseminat-
ing pertinent information leading to the orderly and more
efficient use and development of land.
ULI receives its financial support from membership dues,
sale of publications, and contributions for research and panel
services.
Ronald R. Rumbaugh
Executive Vice President
About the International Council
of Shopping Centers
The International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) is the
trade association of the shopping center industry. It is dedi-
cated to advancing professional standards of performance in
the development, construction, financing, leasing, manage-
ment, marketing, and operating of shopping centers through-
out the world. It also represents the industry on legislative and
regulatory issues.
ICSC offers a broad range of business and professional aids
to persons in the shopping center industry. These include ed-
ucational courses, professional certification programs, meet-
ings and conferences, research, information exchange, and
publications. ICSC is a nonprofit membership association.
Albert Sussman
Executive Vice President
01
Study Organization
Study Director
Frank H. Spink, Jr.
Senior Director, Publications
ULhthe Urban Land Institute
ICSC Coordinator
Howard 1. Kalkstein
Research Director
International Council of Shopping Centers
Study Consultants
Wilbur Smith and Associates, Inc.
E. M. Whitlock, P.E.
Senior Executive Vice President
Peter B. Mandle
Project Director
Victor J. Maslanka
Project Analyst
Grant A. Bacchus, Ltd.
Consultant for Canada
IV
Advisory Committee
Roy P. Drachman
Committee Chairman
Partner
Roy P. Drachman Realty Company
Tucson, Arizona
Richard C. Biagi
Corporate Vice President,
Real Estate
Lucky Stores, Inc.
Dublin, California
Richard D. Bronson
Partner
The Bronson Hutensky
Companies
Bloomfield, Connecticut
James W.Burton
President
Columbia Commonwealth
Developments
Toronto, Ontario
Frank J. Comber
Director, Development
Services
Homart Development
Company
Chicago, Illinois
Paul Copaken
Partner
Copaken, White & Blitt
Leawood, Kansas
Morris K. Englander
Vice President, Real Estate
GCC Theatres, Inc.
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
Ronald E. Hahn, CSM
President
Ernest W. Hahn, Inc.
El Segundo, California
Harold R. Imus
President
Development Control
Corporation
Northfield, Illinois
James E. Kelley
President
J. E. Kelley Company, Ltd.
Toronto, Ontario
Michael F. Kelly
President
The Center Companies
Minneapolis, Minnesota
George Lawtey
Vice President, Shopping
Centers Group
The Cadillac Fairview
Corporation Limited
Willowdale, Ontario
Ken Leonard
Vice President
Federated Stores Realty, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Jerome F. Lipp
President of Properties
Carter Hawley Hale Stores,
Inc.
Los Angeles, California
Jerome S. McDermott
Senior Vice President
Director, Operating Properties
Division
The Rouse Company
Columbia, Maryland
Harry Newman, Jr.
Chairman of the Board
Newman Brettin Properties
Long Beach, California
Jack H. Pearlstone, Jr.
Chairman
Delta Properties, Inc.
Baltimore, Maryland
John D. Smith, CSM
President
John D. Smith Developments,
Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia
E. D. Wulfe, CSM
Executive Vice President
Henry S. Miller Company
Realtors
Houston, Texas
James O. York
President
R. H. Macy Properties
Division of R. H. Macy & Co.,
Inc.
New York, New York
N
Acknowledgments
In a comprehensive study of this scope, the key element re-
quired is the willing participation of shopping centers. The
study had to be conducted during the busiest retail season —
from Thanksgiving to Christmas —in order to obtain meaning-
ful data. During this period, shopping centers have many
other issues far more pressing than assisting in a study. Shop-
lifting, security, lost children, snow removal in some areas,
housekeeping, and special events are all problems demanding
attention. A special expression of gratitude for their coopera-
tion is due the managements of the centers who found the
time to fill out questionnaires, to acquire or reallocate and
train personnel to collect parking accumulation data, and, in
the case of 15 of the centers, who allowed their centers to be
the focus of in-depth case studies involving on -site visits of
the study's consultants. Without these contributory efforts,
this study could not have been done.
A
Contents
Summary
Recommendations
Foreword
Key Recommendations
Overall Parking Indices
individual Tenant
Requirements
Method of Travel
Employee Parking
Requirements
Automobile Size
Impact of Standards
Objectives of the Study
Study Methodology
User Characteristics
Center Characteristics
Variables Related to
Parking Demand
Variables Unrelated to
Parking Demand
Existing Parking Supply
Design Hour
Determination
Highway Design
Annual Parking Demand
Implications of Selected
Design Hour
Recommended
Study Analysis Process
Parking Indices
14
Independent Variables
Unrelated or Discrete Variables
Uses Given Special
Related or Continuous variables
Consideration
16
Factors Not Included in Model
1
Offices
16
Linear Versus Curvilinear
2
Cinemas
17
Regression Functions
2
Food Services
17
Case Studies
Areas of Special
Colony Shopping Center
2
Evaluation
19
Wilde Lake Village Green
4
Raintree Shopping Centre
Method of Travel to Center
19
Brookvale Shopping Center
4
Adjustments for Employee
University Plaza
4
Parking
19
Shopping Center
4
Implications of the
Amherst Centre
Compact Car
20
Midlothian Mail
5
Glossary
23
Cromwell Square
6
Santa Maria Town Center
6
Research
Charles Towne Square
6
StudRe Ort
Y p
University Towne Centre
Long Ridge Mail
7
Study Context
theGaileria
Scope of Study
Fairview Mali
9
Study Methodology
Yorkdale Shopping Centre
9
Data Collection and
Appendices
10
Findings
A. Previous Studies
Data Collection Process
Annotated Bibliography
10
Centers Used for
B. Survey Forms
12
In -Depth Studies
Parking Accumulation
12
Surveys and Questionnaires
Distribution of Centers
Findings
vii
Participating Shopping Centers
L
Hawaii
®000
® Conducted 3-Day Parking Survey and
Completed Parking Questionnaire
■ In -Depth Case Study Centers
0 Completed Parking Questionnaire
viii
Foreword
A basic component of a shopping center is available and adequate off-street parking to serve the patrons, visitors, and employees
of the center. Recognizing the importance of this element has led the shopping center industry to seek out appropriate
information on parking demand which could be used to establish industrywide standards for parking requirements. This study,
undertaken in support of this goal, must be of sufficient depth and credibility so that all those involved —shopping center owners,
developers, and tenants; financial institutions; traffic, parking, and planning professionals; and public officials —can accept the
findings and recommendations without qualification. The recommended standards must be rationally conceived, easily
understood, and capable of simple application to all types of shopping centers.
To this end, the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) funded in 1980 a major new study, Parking Requirements for
Shopping Centers, under the auspices of ULI—the Urban Land Institute. The research for this study was conducted by Wilbur
Smith and Associates, Inc., under the guidance of an advisory committee composed of experts from the shopping center
industry, drawn from the memberships of ICSC and ULI.
The study drew on questionnaire responses from 506 shopping centers; detailed parking accumulation counts from 135 centers;
annual daily counts from 22 centers; and 15 in-depth case studies of typical centers. As such, it is the most comprehensive study
ever conducted on shopping center parking and provides the reliability and depth of data collection and analyses upon which to
base recommended standards.
This study could not have been accomplished without the full cooperation of the shopping center industry. By providing valuable
standards which will assure an adequate supply of parking at centers, Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers will have as
its ultimate beneficiary the general public, which patronizes shopping centers.
It is hoped that communities will adopt these standards to the benefit of their citizenry, thus furthering the principal objective of
ULI—to foster better land use and development practices.
Roy P. Drachman
Chairman
Advisory Committee
Summary
Recommendations
Key Recommendations
Overall Parking Indices
To provide adequate parking for a typical shopping center to-
day, the number of spaces required is:
• 4.0 spaces per 1.000 square feet of gross leasable area
(GLA) for centers having a GLA of 25.000 to 400.000
square feet;
• from 4.0 to 5.0 spaces in a linear progression, with an av-
erage of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GLA, for cen-
ters having from 400,000 to 600,000 square feet; and
• 5.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GLA for centers having
a GLA of over 600,000 square feet.
The provision of parking based on these standards, as shown
in Figure 1, will serve patrons and employee needs at the 20th
busiest hour of the year, and allow a surplus during all but 19
hours of the remainder of the more than 3,000 hours during
which a typical center is open annually. During 19 hours of
each year, which are distributed over 10 peak shopping days,
some patrons will not be able to find vacant spaces when they
first enter the center.
2
Individual Tenant Requirements
Within the full range of tenants found in shopping centers, of-
fices, cinemas, and food services require additional considera-
tion.
Offices. Office space amounting up to 10 percent of the total
GLA can be accommodated without providing parking in addi-
tion to that imposed by the application of the overall parking
indices. Office space in excess of 10 percent of the center's
GLA requires additional parking, although less than a free-
standing office because of the availability of parking for dual
purposes. Mixed -use developments where the primary use in
building area is other than retail selling were not addressed in
this study and therefore the standards set forth here may not
be applied.
Cinemas. At centers with 100,000 to 200,000 square feet of
GLA having cinemas with up to 450 seats, and at centers with
over 200,000 square feet of GLA having cinemas with up to
750 seats, patrons can be accommodated without the provi-
sion of parking spaces in addition to the overall recom-
mended standard. Cinemas having more than this number of
seats, or cinemas located at smaller centers, however, require
a nominal three additional spaces per 100 seats, as described
in the body of this report.
Food Services. The amount of center GLA devoted to food
service tenants influences the number of required parking
spaces. The number of spaces to be added (or subtracted)
from the amount of parking otherwise required can be calcu-
lated using procedures presented in this report for centers in
which up to 5 percent of center GLA is devoted to food ser-
vice.
Figure 1
Recommended Shopping Center
Parking Indices
EWE
d
7,000
d
d s,000
U
A
a
CO)
V) 5,000
C
Y
IL 4,000
`o
a 3.000
E
z
2000,
1,000
0
0
,
I i
! i
it
{
I
y-
I
I
{
i
I
I I
`
i
moo
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1.000 1.100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
Gross Leasable Area (1,000 square feet)
1. The amount of data above this point Is limited. but suggests a decreasing index.
3
Method of Travel
Centers with less than 75 percent of their customers arriving
by private vehicles require proportionately less space.
Employee Parking Requirements
Centers in which all employees park off -site during peak days
of the year require up to 15 percent less parking than would
otherwise be needed.
Automobile Size
The advent of compact cars will give existing centers the op-
portunity to use their parking areas more efficiently. New cen-
ters should plan the design of their parking areas recognizing
that by 1990 most automobiles in use nationwide will be com-
pacts (60 to 95 percent).
Impact of Standards
Most centers designed with previously published standards
have a surplus of parking during even the busiest hours of the
year. Consequently, these centers can support additional retail
or nonretail areas, or the areas devoted to parking can be re-
duced, if the standards recommended in the present study are
applied.
4
Objectives of the
Study
In 1965, the Urban Land Institute pub-
lished Technical Bulletin 53, Parking
Requirements for Shopping Centers,
which became the recognized standard
for projecting parking space needs at
shopping centers. In the nearly 20 years
since data used to prepare the 1965
study were collected and evaluated,
there have been many changes in shop-
ping center development patterns and
users' travel behavior affecting parking
demands. Changes have occurred and
are continuing to take place in such
areas as energy cost and availability,
center tenant mix, degree of competi-
tion, vehicle sizes, and availability of
transit service. Consequently, the Inter-
national Council of Shopping Centers
asked the Urban Land Institute to initi-
ate a new study to determine the stan-
dards for parking requirements.
The primary goal of this study was to
establish parking standards for shop-
ping centers in the United States and
Canada, based upon observations of
transportation activity at existing cen-
ters. These recommended standards for
parking would then be applied to the
planning of new centers and expansion
of existing centers. To achieve this ob-
jective, the study collected and evalu-
ated data on a wide range of factors
influencing travel behavior and parking
demand at centers. The findings were
prepared in a format usable for all
those interested in shopping center
parking.
As defined in this study, a shopping
center is:
A group of architecturally unified commer-
cial establishments built on a site which is
planned, developed, owned, and managed
as an operating unit related in its location,
size, and type of shops to the trade area
that the unit serves. The unit provides on -
site parking in definite relationship to the
types and total size of the stores.'
The major use in a shopping center is
retail selling: typically, over 80 percent
of a center's GLA is devoted to this use.
At mixed -use developments which in-
corporate several land uses in a single
project, retail areas may compose less
than half of the total project area. The
results of this study may not be applica-
ble to projects in which retailing is not
the major function, that is, centers in
which less than 80 percent of the GLA
is devoted to retailing.
1. Urban Land Institute. Shopping Center
Development Handbook (Washington: Urban
Land Institute, 1977), p. 1.
Study Methodology
Data describing travel behavior and
parking demand at shopping centers
throughout the United States and Can-
ada were collected on Friday after
Thanksgiving (November 28,1980) and
the Saturdays before Christmas (De-
cember 6, 13, and 20, 1980)—histori-
cally, the time when peak parking
demands at centers are generated.
The study analyzed not only the abso-
lute numbers of peak period vehicles
parked, but also evaluated the sensitiv-
ity of parking demands to variations in
both user and center characteristics.
These included:
User Characteristics
• Number of persons attracted to a
center (person trip rate}.
• Method of travel (private vehicle,
public transit, walking, or others).
• Persons per vehicle (vehicle occu-
pancy).
• Travel time and frequency of trips.
*-Length of stay at center (parking
durations).
• Number of stores visited.
• Seasonal, daily, and hourly varia-
tions in demand (peaking patterns).
Center Characteristics
• Size (gross leasable area).
• Tenant mix (type and amount of re-
tail and nonretail space).
• Location (suburban or downtown,
large city or small city, regional dif-
ferences, and so forth.
• Employment (number of employees
by shift and day).
• Availability of parking.
To document these demands and the
underlying causal relationships generat-
ing the demands, surveys were con-
ducted to collect data on parked
vehicle accumulations, vehicular and
pedestrian traffic entering and exiting
shopping centers, continuous counts of
daily vehicular traffic activity at centers
for 1 year, and frequency of trips, meth-
ods of travel, purpose of trips, parking
durations of shoppers and employees,
and experiences of center management
with regard to the effective use of exist-
ing parking space.
To measure the influence of these vari-
ables on shopping center parking de-
mand, statistical analyses (including
multiple regression tests) were con-
ducted. Study findings were tested for
reasonableness and logic, ensuring that
the recommendations would be useful
to community planners, center tenants
and developers, and others interested
in shopping center parking demands.
Variables Related to
Parking Demand
The study found the following varia-
bles to be the most significant with
respect to parking demand:
• Center Size. Gross leasable area
(GLA) is the major determinant of
parking demand. Note that gross
leasable area is defined as the total
floor area designed for tenant occu-
pancy and exclusive use and in-
cludes both owned and leased
areas. GLA should not be confused
with total building area, which is all
the building area that is physically
part of a shopping center and in-
cludes common areas not designed
for rental to tenants.
Analysis indicates that the rate of
demand differs among center sizes,
with major breaks, or demand rate
changes, occurring at 400,000
square feet and 600,000 square feet
of GLA. The variation in parking de-
mand rate reflects the different mar-
ketplace functions, tenant
characteristics, and mix of centers
within these size ranges.
Participating centers are stratified
by center size. Using the conven-
tional sizes for neighborhood (up to
100,000), community (100,000 to
300,000), and regional (300,000 and
up), centers with less than 100,000
square feet represent 30 percent of
those participating and 21 percent
of those conducting accumulation
surveys. Centers with 100,000 to
300,000 square feet represent an-
other 32 percent of those participat-
ing and 23 percent of those
conducting accumulation surveys.
Those with over 300,000 square
feet, which include regional and
super regional centers, represent 38
percent of the centers participating
and 56 percent of those conducting
accumulation surveys.
However, the division of the sample
by size as it relates to the recom-
mended indices shows that centers
with less than 400,000 square feet
represent 65 percent of those partici-
pating and 46 percent of those con-
ducting accumulation surveys.
Centers having 400,000 to 600,000
square feet represent 10 percent of
those participating and 15 percent
of those conducting accumulation
surveys. Centers with more than
600,000 square feet of GLA account
for 25 percent of the sample and 39
percent of the accumulation sur-
veys. Participating centers range in
size from 7,000 square feet to 2 mil-
lion square feet (see Figure 2).
• Retail Uses. Key retail uses were
analyzed for their significance to
parking demand. Food service ten-
ants (including restaurants, fast
food and specialty food stores, and
food clusters) were found to influence
demand.
• Nonretail Uses. The presence of
nonretail uses was also examined
as a variable. Office space and cine-
mas were found to have a measur-
able influence on demand.
• Method of Travel. The proportionate
number of patrons and employees
arriving in private vehicles or by
other means (often referred to as
mode choice) was examined. This
variable was found to have signifi-
cance when less than 75 percent of
all persons arrived by private vehi-
cle.
Figure 2
Center Size Distribution by Center Type
and in Relationship to Recommended Parking Indices
Participants by
Center Type
Participants by
Recommended
Index Breakpoints aO
ML1 < n
8
Accumulation Sur%
Center Type
Accumulation Sur
Recommended
Index Breakpoints
Variables Unrelated to
Parking Demand
Many other factors pertaining to shop-
ping centers were evaluated but were
not found to contribute significantly to
variances in parking demand. Among
these variables were:
• United States versus Canada. Tests
indicated parking demand during
peak periods at comparably sized
centers located in each nation dif-
fered less than 1 percent. Thus,
centers in both nations can be
treated the same with respect to
parking demand.
• Regional Location. No significant
difference was found among peak
period parking demands at centers
of comparable size located in differ-
ent regions of the United States,
such as the West or the Southeast.
Tests indicated parking demands
can be projected on the same basis
in all regions.
• Large City versus Small City Loca-
tion. The population size of the
community did not significantly in-
fluence the peak period parking de-
mand of comparably sized centers.
The variance found was less than 1
percent; therefore, demand at cen-
ters can be projected in the same
manner regardless of city size or
the size of the metropolitan area.
• Suburban versus Downtown Loca-
tion. Comparisons of center loca-
tions did not indicate statistically
significant differences in peak pe-
riod demand between centers in
suburban areas and those located
in the established retail areas of
communities, generally referred to
as the central business districts,
(CBDs). (Note: This comparison is
not relevant to centers located in
the CBDs of major cities, which are
typically served by transit and at-
tract a large volume of walk-in
trade.)
Existing Parking Supply
To determine whether parking demand
was at all constricted by the availability
of parking at a shopping center, tests
were conducted comparing centers
providing different parking indices (ra-
tio of total parking spaces to GLA).
These tests indicated that peak period
parking demand is not related to the
amount of available parking. When
other factors remained constant, no
discernible difference was observed in
the number of spaces used during peak
periods by centers with varying parking
indices, nor did centers with higher
than average indices attract more vehi-
cles.
Design Hour
Determination
Closely related to parking demand fore-
casts is the selection of the specific
hourly period which should be used for
design purposes. When hourly traffic
volumes for a full year are arranged in
descending order of magnitude {Fgure
3), it can be seen that 50 percent of the
hours serve less than half the demand
which occurs during the peak hour. A
shopping center parking facility de-
signed to serve the demand during an
average hour would be unacceptable
and less than adequate on many occa-
sions when higher demand exists. Con-
versely, a facility designed to serve the
busiest hour of the year would result in
substantial excess capacity during all
but 1 hour of the year, which would be
an unrealistic design standard for the
community, the consumer, and the
shopping center developerlowner. The
community, for example, should avoid
the environmental consequences from
an unnecessarily large pavement area;
the consumer should not be burdened
by higher indirect costs from an exces-
sive number of parking spaces; and the
10
developer/owner should provide a level
of service of maximum benefit to both
patrons and the community, which is
consistent with sound economics. In
other words, the appropriate design
hour should be selected with a proper
balance among several objectives re-
flecting community, consumer, and
business needs.
Highway Design
Transportation planners have long rec-
ognized that the selection of an appro-
priate design hour should be based on
a balance between service and cost.
The design of major highway facilities
is most often based on the volume oc-
curring during the 30th highest hour of
the year. The size of the facility is deter-
mined by the proportion of annual
traffic occurring during this 30th hour.
The ratio between the 30th highest
hour and the average annual daily
traffic volume was once thought to re-
main constant from year to year for a
given roadway. Studies, however, have
shown that as the volume of traffic on a
highway increases, the proportion of
annual traffic volume decreases during
the design hour, especially if a facility
is better used in off-peak periods?
As the shopping center industry has
matured, shoppers have become aware
of peak shopping times, seek to avoid
the busiest peak times, and distribute
their shopping trips over a greater num-
ber of off-peak days and hours —all of
which suggests that the 10th highest
hour, which was previously used as the
design hour, is no longer appropriate?
Indeed, design of shopping center ac-
cess roads is now typically based upon
average weekday and weekend traffic
volumes, and therefore, a design hour
for parking standards should be se-
lected which is consistent with access
design standards.
2- %Iartln drfd ."nU 6Tr4n V 11-Tlin Tr',Q,..
>stEm rr^l,. S frr Er•7;ne1,r_ zr,.l PEE
3 to :[ t•Vt=_ Gt Tr nzor t;non Er,a:rr re Tr n
fr,-
3Ututeof7r<rr;
Figure 3
Yearly Variation in Hourly Traffic Volume
(In Descending Order of Magnitude)
too L — . Peak Hour Volume
LN
m
E
0
60
0
x
Y
l0
W
d
�r.
O
« 40
C
d
v
m
a
20
0.� 500 1.000 1,500 2,000 2.500 3.000 3.500
Number of Hours with Hourly Volume Greater Than Volume Shown
11
Annual Parking Demand
Data providing daily counts for an en-
tire year were obtained from over 22
centers, covering a total of 32 years of
observations. When these data are ag-
gregated by center size and ranked
successively (Figure 4), the pattern of
hourly demand is established for var-
ious center sizes. The distribution of
observed demands indicates the 20th
highest hour as the appropriate design
hour, thus, the change from the 10th
highest hour which had been selected
as the basis for design in the 1965 ULI
study.
12
As more data measuring daily traffic
volumes over the course of a year have
become available, traffic planners have
been able to examine design hour rela-
tionships at shopping centers. The
"knee -of -the -curve," generally regarded
as the appropriate design point, ap-
pears to have shifted. The 20th highest
hour represents about 20 percent less de-
mand than at the peak hour of the year
for centers with a GLA larger than
400,000 square feet, 11 percent less
than the peak hour for centers with
GLA between 60,000 and 400,000
square feet, and 5 percent less for cen-
ters with less than 60,000 square feet of
GLA. As found by this study and others,
the Christmas season surge is more in-
tense at regional centers. Although
smaller centers (under 60,000 square
feet of GLA) experience peaks during
the pre -Christmas season, they are less
pronounced.
Implications of Selected
Design Hour
Thus, this study has selected the 20th
highest hour of the year as the demand
hour upon which the design of shop-
ping center parking facilities should be
based. Use of this hour as the design
period will result in adequate parking
for all patrons and employees during the
more than 3,000 hours per year a center
is open. In fact, based on this design
period, it is estimated that during 40
percent of the hours of the year, over
half the available spaces will be empty.
However, during 19 hours each year,
distributed over 10 days, some patrons
will be unable to find parking spaces im-
mediately upon entering a center.
Use of the 20th highest hour as the
shopping center design standard will
also result in a more balanced on -site
and off -site transportation system since
the design capacities of the access
highway system and the center's park-
ing lot will better correspond.
Figure 4
Peak Hour Traffic Demands
at Shopping Centers
Peak Hour
100 14NZAIIIIIIIN,eiiw
c
gp
E
I \`
m
0
m
u
0 60
(n
rn
c
Y
r
a 70
0
0
x
Y
to
W 60
IL
0
c
m
V 50
N
a
01
M
10 20
Legend
Actual: Based upon centers measuring
daily traffic volumes continuously.
M Interpolation: Based upon monthly retail
sales data and peak period traffic vol-
u mes.
aft '� aft w,th 2 0
5'Ooto so
Centers with BO'0` . s r eel 01-4
Centers far I 0 s9uare t 4 _i
ger than 400 eet kq4
aft aft
000 s4uare feet G�q
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Rank of Hours
Number of Hours in Year Having Parking Space Demand Greater Than That Shown
100
13
Recommended
Parking Indices
Shopping center parking demand is
best described as a function of GLA.
The parking index varies with center
size, over selected ranges (Figure 1)
and is summarized in the following re-
quirements.
14
• Design hour parking demands at
smaller centers with GLA between
25,000 and 400,000 square feet,
which exhibit less peaking during
the Thanksgiving and pre -Christmas
shopping seasons and where park-
ing durations are shorter, require
4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of
GLA.
• At centers with 400,000 to 600,000
square feet of GLA, the parking de-
mand index increases from 4.0 to
5.0 spaces in a linear progression
as size increases, with an average
index of 4.5 spaces per 1,000
square feet of GLA.
• Centers larger than 600,000 square
feet require 5.0 spaces per 1,000
square feet of GLA. At centers hav-
ing over 1.2 million square feet of
GLA, the number of required
spaces declines from 5.0 spaces per
1,000 square feet of GLA. The num-
ber of centers with over 1.2 million
square feet of GLA participating in
the study was insufficient to quan-
tify this reduction in demand; thus,
it is suggested that the demand for
these centers be addressed on a
case by case basis.
These values were developed through
analysis of design hour parking de-
mands at over 135 centers, as shown in
Figure 5.and are adequate to serve the
needs of all patrons, visitors, and em-
ployees during the 20th busiest hour of
the year except where modifications are
required for offices, cinemas, and food
services which need special considera-
tion.
Figure 5
Observed Design Hour
Parking Demand
M
of 6,000
x
L
M
N 5,000
Vi
d
V
4,000
2000,
1,000
us
■—Observed Center Parking Demand
fNote that larger squares depict multiple observations)
Total Occupied GLA (1,000 square feet)
5 23 12 4 5 5 4 2 8 3 5 4 6 5 10 2 8 3 4 6 4 1 2 1 1 0 2
Number of Observations
15
Uses Given Special
Consideration
Certain land uses at shopping centers
contribute to and affect design hour
parking demand. Through the use of
regression analyses, these uses and
their impacts upon design hour de-
mands were identified and quantified.
No uses typically found in shopping
centers, other than offices, cinemas,
and food services, were found to re-
quire adjustments in parking based on
their presence in varying quantity.
16
Offices
Analyses show office space comprising
up to 10 percent of the total GLA can
be accommodated without increasing
the parking supply required to serve the
center. This percent of net rentable
area, including space either freestand-
ing or incorporated within the center
and excluding retail store office space,
was not found to increase parking de-
mands during the busiest hours of the
year. The suggested amount of office
space is less than that described by
earlier studies because, based on the
recommended indices, the available
surplus parking during nonpeak peri-
ods (for example, weekdays) will be
less than previously available 5
Office space exceeding 10 percent of
the center GLA will require additional
parking, but less than an isolated office
development would require, due to the
availability of shared parking. Available
data do not permit a recommendation
concerning the amount of required ad-
ditional parking where office use ex-
ceeds 10 percent of center GLA.
5, See Urban Land Institute, Parking Regoirc-
meats for Shopping Centers (Washington:
ULI—the Urban Land Institute, 1965). This
study, which used the 10th highest hoar as
the design hour, permitted upto20 percent
office use without modification of the 5.5
spaces per 1,000 square feet of GLA set by
trial study.
Cinemas
Peak parking demands at freestanding
or attached cinemas incorporated
within shopping centers do not coin-
cide either seasonally, or by time of day
with overall design hour shopping cen-
ter demands. Cinema patrons at shop-
ping centers can make dual use of
parking spaces provided primarily to
serve retail patrons, but available dur-
ing nonpeak hour retail periods. In ad-
dition, one vehicle may serve 3.0 to 4.0
cinema patrons, while, typically, the
same vehicle would only serve 1.5 to
2.5 shoppers. Thus, the parking de-
mand associated with movie trips is re-
duced proportionately:
• A center with less than 100,000
square feet of GLA requires a nomi-
nal three additional parking spaces
for every 100 cinema seats for cine-
mas occupying up to 10 percent of
the total center GLA.
• Centers having 100,000 to 200,000
square feet of GLA can accommo-
date up to 450 cinema seats without
providing additional parking. For
every 100 seats above the initial 450
seats, a nominal 3.0 additional
spaces per 100 seats are required.
• A shopping center with over
200,000 square feet of GLA can ac-
commodate up to 750 seats without
providing additional parking
spaces. For every 100 seats above
the initial 750 seats, a nominal three
additional spaces are required.
These standards for additional spaces
for cinemas are only applicable when
applied in conjunction with the basic
indices recommended by this study.
Food Services
Food service tenants include both full
service and fast food restaurants with
or without liquor service, as well as
specialty stores such as doughnut
shops or ice cream parlors. These ten-
ants attract patrons whose parking de-
mands coincide with peak center
parking demands. Shoppers whose
trips to the center include a stop at a
restaurant have been observed to have
parking durations longer than shoppers
who do not visit food service tenants.
The contribution that this retail function
makes to parking demand was found to
vary with center size. At smaller centers
with a total GLA of 200,000 square feet
or less, many of the peak period vehicle
trips generated by restaurants and fast
food outlets, for example, are in addi-
tion to and independent of the trips
17
generated by the retail areas. In con-
trast, at larger centers, peak period
food service patrons are at the centers
primarily to shop, and trips to the res-
taurant are usually secondary; that is,
these patrons would have visited and
parked at the center during the design
hour regardless of whether food ser-
vices were available. Consequently,
centers over 200,000 square feet re-
quire less parking for food service cus-
tomers during the design hour than if
the same GLA were used for other retail
purposes.
For food services occupying up to 10
percent of the total GLA at centers with
100,000 square feet or less, or up to
5 percent of the total GLA of centers
larger than 100,000 square feet, the dif-
ferential parking demand is the follow-
ing:
18
• A center with more than 25,000 and
less than 100,000 square feet of to-
tal GLA requires an additional 10
spaces per 1,000 square feet of
food service tenant area.
•A center having 100,000 but less
than 200,000 square feet of total
GLA requires an additional 6.0
spaces per 1,000 square feet of
food service tenant area.
• A center having 200,000 but less
than 600,000 square feet of total
GLA requires no additional spaces
for food services.
• A center with 600,000 square feet or
more of GLA can reduce the re-
quired parking (as calculated by us-
ing the recommended index of 5.0
spaces per 1,000 square feet of
GLA) by 4.0 spaces per 1,000
square feet of GLA devoted to food
services.
To illustrate: 5,000 square feet of food
service tenant area located in a center
with 99,000 square feet of GLA would
require 50 additional parking spaces
(+10 spaces x 5,000/1,000 square
feet). However, food service stores of
the same area in a 700,000-square-foot
center would allow the center to have
20 fewer spaces than if the same area
were occupied by other retail uses (-4
spaces x 5,000/1,000 square feet).
The data available in this study do not
permit a recommendation concerning
the required adjustments to the parking
standard when the food service tenant
area exceeds 10 percent of the GLA of
a center with 100,000 square feet or
less and 5 percent of the GLA of a cen-
ter with more than 100,000 square feet.
Further, these adjustments are only ap-
plicable when used in conjunction with
the basic indices recommended by this
study.
Areas of Special
Evaluation
Other subject areas were also consid-
ered in this study, which are expected
to influence the planning and design of
centers and the efficient use of their
site areas. An overview of these sub-
jects is presented below.
Method of Travel to
Center
The parking standards in this study
were developed for centers in which
approximately 85 to 95 percent of the
shoppers, visitors, and employees arrive
by private vehicle. The recommended
indices and their modification apply
to centers where such circumstances
exist. However, when more than
25 percent of all persons arrive by
modes other than private vehicles, the
number of required parking spaces
should be less than the recommended
standard for a center of comparable
size. The appropriate adjustment can
be made by using the following equa-
tion derived from an analysis of study
data.
Required Spaces = P x M_+ 15;
90
where:
P = number of spaces calculated for
a typical center of comparable
size using the standards estab-
lished by this study; and,
M = percent of peak period visitors
and employees arriving in pri-
vate vehicles.
To illustrate: at a center where 60 per-
cent of the peak period visitors and em-
ployees arrive in private vehicles, the
required number of parking spaces
would be approximately 83 percent
(60 + 15) of that normally expected.
90
This is a derived formula which projects
a linear decline in the number of re-
quired parking spaces as nonprivate ve-
hicle travel to the center increases.
Adjustments for
Employee Parking
Characteristics of employee trips and
parking demands were compared with
overall center parking requirements.
Between 15 and 20 percent of all center
peak period parking is attributed to
center employees. Analyses of center
employment data during the busiest
shift, on a peak Saturday before Christ-
mas, indicate that during this period
there are about 1.6 employees on -site
per 1,000 square feet of GLA.
At centers where employee parking fa-
cilities are provided at a separate off -
site location, the total amount of park-
ing required at the center may be re-
duced by as much as 15 percent if all
employees use the off -site parking area.
A reduction of this magnitude requires
prohibiting all employees from using
the remaining available on -site spaces
(reserved for patrons) and enforcing
this regulation during peak periods. Of
course, if not all employees park off -
site, the allowable reduction in spaces
required would be proportionately less
based on the previous formula.
19
Figure 6
Size Distribution of Parked Cars
at Selected Shopping Centers
Percent of
Center State/Province Full -Size
Cromwell Square Connecticut
Long Ridge Mall New York 55
Wilde Lake Maryland
Village Green
Midlothian Mall Virginia 78
Amherst Centre
Ohio
Raintree
Ohio
Shopping Centre
University Plaza
Kentucky
�7
Shopping Center
��_7
Colony
Shopping Center
North Carolina
�y
Charles
Towne Square
South Carolina
54
theGalleria
Texas
d5
Brookvale
Shopping Center
Santa Maria
Town Center
University
Towne Centre
Yorkdale
Shopping Centre
Fairview Mall
20
California
California
California
Ontario
Ontario
63
z:
to
44
Percent of
Compact
26
as
56
22
1k
2'
ip
et
46
35
60
51
66
3-1
40
Implications of the
Compact Car
As the proportion of compact cars in
use increases, the design of parking fa-
cilities to accommodate these vehicles
at shopping centers through a more ef-
ficient use of space becomes increas-
ingly important. To gain further insight
into this issue, the study classified vehi-
cles parked at 15 centers on the peak
days of the year according to their di-
mensions, and the proportion of com-
pact cars was determined. A compact
car was defined to include any automo-
bile or truck whose length is 16 feet or
less and width less than 6 feet. As
shown in Figure 6, the proportion of
compact cars ranged from 15 to 65 per-
cent. Although this is a small survey, it
confirms patterns observed elsewhere
in the nation, as well as trends in auto-
mobile sales. When compact cars be-
come predominant, a parking lot can
be restriped to achieve a 15 to 30 per-
cent increase in spaces for a given
area. Thus, existing centers designed
with full-size spaces can increase the
number of vehicles accommodated in
the same physical area or, where ap-
propriate, can reduce the total area de-
voted to parking.
Recent studies by the United States De-
partment of Transportation indicate
that, by 1990, depending on fuel avail-
ability and prices, the percent of all au-
tomobiles in the United States that are
compact could reach a high of 95 per-
cent, with the most likely proportion
being somewhere between 70 and 80
percents When more than one out of
three vehicles parked at a center are
compacts, it is appropriate to consider
special accommodation of these vehi-
cles. At present, the proportion of com-
pacts appears to vary from center to
center depending on regional location
and demographics. Over time, as the
total percent of compact cars rises, it is
obvious that these variances will de-
cline. Centers can accommodate com-
pacts in several ways:
• By providing separate parking bays
designed for small vehicles. Many
centers currently allocate 20 per-
cent or fewer spaces for small vehi-
cles. This proportion is likely to
increase in the future. For compact
cars, parking bay widths of 54 feet
are suggested. These widths will ac-
commodate compacts parked at 90
degrees on both sides of the aisles,
with stalls 15 to 17 feet in length
and 7.5 to 8 feet in width. This sys-
tem can always be used in new cen-
ters, and, depending on conditions,
might also be adapted to existing
centers. Using this bay width in the
design of a center will allow the
present accommodation of full-size
cars angle parked and therefore a
gradual transition to compact car
space over time without parking lot
redesign.
• By cross -aisle separation of full-size
and compact cars to facilitate com-
pacts parked perpendicularly on
one side and full-size vehicles
parked at an angle on the other
side, using the Drachman System of
parking or comparable methods.
The 54-foot bay width is also used
in this system. (See Figure 7.)
• In existing centers, by generally re-
ducing stall widths to 8.5 feet, rec-
ognizing that with the growing
proportion of small vehicles, it is in-
creasingly less likely that two large
vehicles will park adjacent to one
another; thus, space for opening
doors (which governs the required
distance between adjacently parked
vehicles) and stall width can be re-
duced.
Rearranging a surface parking area to
accommodate compact vehicles can
dramatically improve capacity, resulting
in additional spaces in the same area or
the same number of spaces in less area
to serve the same demand. Surface
parking facilities, used by most shop-
ping centers, are easier to redesign in
order to serve compact vehicles than
are parking structures in which physical
conditions such as columns and ramps
may restrain the conversion.
o. ' The U.S. Automobile Industry, 1980. ' Re-
port to the President from the Secretary of
Transportation. Office of the Assistant Sec-
retary for Policy and International Affairs,
January 1981.
21
Figure 7
Drachman System of Parking
(Small and large cars in one bay)
14 Compact
Cars
9 Standard
Cars
L
Basic Concept Comparison of Drachman System to Standard System
The Drachman System uses 90-degree angle spaces for small Drachman System
cars in the same bay in which 45- or 60-degree angle spaces are Standard Spaces 9
provided for large cars. This self -enforcing plan uses standard Compact Spaces 14
space stalls 8.5 or 9.0 feet by 18 feet, while compact spaces are Total 23
7.5 feet wide by 15 feet long within a bay width of 54 feet. Standard System
Total Standard Spaces 18
Increase in Spaces Drachman over Standard 5
22 Percentage Increase 28%
Glossary
Anchor tenant. The major retail tenant of a shopping center
(typically a department store of 100,000 square feet or more or
a supermarket at a smaller shopping center). These retail ten-
ants are the primary attractions at a center.
Central business district (CBD). That portion of a municipality
in which the dominant land use is intense business activity
(primarily office and retail).
Compact car. For purposes of this study, any vehicle with an
overall length of 16 feet or less and an overall width of less
than 6 feet.
Design hour. The hour of a day or year, selected as being
among the most active periods in a shopping center, which
forms a suitable basis for future design.
Food service tenants. Includes both full service and fast food
restaurants with or without liquor service, as well as specialty
stores such as doughnut shops or ice cream parlors.
Gross leasable area (GLA). The total floor area designed for
both tenant occupancy and exclusive use. This includes both
owned and leased areas.
Mode choice. The method of transportation selected by center
patrons and employees.
Parking indices. The number of spaces per 1,000 square feet
of GLA.
Public transit. Transportation services available to all custom-
ers (for example, buses, taxis, subways), as opposed to private
transportation (private automobiles).
Regression analysis. A statistical method showing the func-
tional dependent relationship between one variable (i.e., park-
ing demand) and one or more other variables (i.e., GLA size
category, selected tenant mix, available public mass transit).
Shopping center. A group of architecturally unified commer-
cial establishments built on a site which is planned, devel-
oped, owned, and managed as an operating unit related in its
location, size, and type of shops to the trade area that the unit
serves. The unit provides on -site parking in definite relation-
ship to the types and total size of the stores.
Tenant mix. The composition of tenants occupying a center.
The mix of land uses influences the center environment, eco-
nomic viability, and patronage.
Travel behavior. The characteristics of travel resulting from
the broad range of choices people make in moving from
points of origin to points of destination, based on such con-
siderations as the availability of alternative means of transpor-
tation, costs, purpose and frequency of trips, and time.
23
Metric Conversion Table
Meters =
Kilometers =
Square Meters =
Square Kilometers =
Cubic Meters =
Cubic Meters =
Hectares =
(a hectare is 10,000
square meters)
feet x 0.305
Miles x 1,609
square feet x 0.093
square miles x 2.590
cubic feet x 0.028
cubic yards x 0.765
acres x 0.405
I
Parking Demand Study
for Attached Dwellings Units With
Unenclosed Parking
s.,.. t-fw■&v ni [kanae. EMA vM
Table of Contents
Section
Page No.
1
1.
Findings ...........................................
2.
County Parking Code ................................
2
3.
Parking Study Methodology ..........................
3
4.
Parking Demand ......................................
4
5.
Parking Overage ....................................
9
6.
Assigned Versus Unassigned Parking
Spaces ..........11
7.
Recommended Parking Formula ................
.....11
8.
Comparison of County Parking Code
to
Recommended Formula .......................
......14
1
List of Tables -
Table No.
Title Page
No.
1
Parking
Requirements .......................
2
2
Parking
Demand Study Survey Sites ..........
5
3
Characteristics of Developments Sampled ....
6
4
Total Parking Demand by Development ........
7
5
Parking
Space Occupancy Rates ..............
8
6
Parking
Demand by Development ..............12
7
Parking
Demand Analysis ....................13
C
PARKING DEMAND STUDY
This report contains a parking demand analysis for attached
dwellings with unenclosed garages in the County of Orange.
Fourteen existing projects were surveyed. The purpose of
this analysis is to determine how much parking is needed to
satisfy the anticipated demand.
Findings
a. Fourteen attached housing sites with unenclosed
garages were surveyed to identify parking demand.
b. The most consistent indicator of parking demand for
the housing sites is square footage of floor area.
The number of bedrooms is the second best indicator
of parking demand, and the number of dwellings is
third best.
C. Parking space supply should equal 1.15 times the maxi-
mum parking space demand for unassigned spaces to
assure that the last driver in does not have to search
the entire parking facility to find the last space.
d. Each unassigned parking space is equivalent to 1.17
assigned parking spaces because assigned space are
usable only by the person to whom the space is assigned
while unassigned spaces are usable by everyone. Thus,
total parking space supply can be reduced if spaces
are unassigned.
e. For attached housing with unenclosed garages, the re-
commended parking supply can be calculated with any one
of the following three formulas:
PS = 1.55 x DU + 0.17 x AS, or
PS = 1.76 x TSF + 0.17 x AS, or
PS = 0.95 x BR + 0.17 x AS,
where,
PS = Parking Supply (total)
TSF = Thousand Square Feet of Residential
Floor Area (total)
DU = Dwelling Units (total)
BR = Bedrooms (total)
AS = Assigned Spaces
f. The formulas listed above have a 95 confidence level that
there will never be less than 15 percent vacant spaces
during maximum parking usage periods.
County Parking Code
The County of Orange Parking Code makes the amount of parking
required a function of dwellings and number of bedrooms within
each dwelling. The accompanying table summarizes the parking
requirements for attached dwellings.
Table 1
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Bedrooms
Parking
Required (Spaces)
Coverea
uncovered ITotal
1
1.0
0.7--
1.7
2
1.0
1.2
2.2
3
2.0
0.7
2.7
other pertinent features of the Code are as follows:
1.
Up to 25 percent of the uncovered spaces may be
compact
car spaces.
2.
Covered spaces (outside of a garage)
must be 10
feet by
20 feet.
3.
Uncovered spaces must be 9-1/2 feet
by 19 feet,
except
those designated for use by compact
cars.
4.
Uncovered spaces designated for use
by compact
cars must
be 7-1/2 feet by 15 feet.
5.
Parking spaces are to be within 200
feet of the
dwelling
unit to which they are to serve.
a
I
I_1
1
J
C
1
1
t
II
II
II
Parking Study Methodology
To determine parking demand, the following methodology was used:
1. The County of Orange Environmental Management Agency de-
termined occupied housing projects within Orange County
which could be sampled. Projects were selected which con-
tained attached dwellings with unenclosed garages, and
which had been fully occupied for some time. The County of
Orange collected information on number of dwellings, number
of bedrooms, and size in square feet of the units. Square
footage is defined as the living area, including space within
walls, but excluding balconies, atriums, porches, and patios.
For units with "dens", the dens were counted as bedrooms.
For units classified as "efficiency" or "bachelor" units,
they were counted as one bedroom units.
2. Data was assembled by the consultant concerning the number
of assigned and unassigned parking spaces, size of spaces
and so forth for the projects. Parking survey sites are
identified in Table 2 and characteristics of the develop-
ments sampled are summarized in Table 3.
3. Parking data was collected at the selected projects as
follows:
a. Data was collected late at night (2 to 4 AM) on week-
nights when parking demand is a maximum. Data was also
collected at several points of time on the weekend at
the Presley Orangetree project to establish when the
weekend maximum parking demand occurred (it occurred
around 11 PM Saturday). After establishing when the
peak weekend demand was, data was collected at that
point in time for the other projects.
b. Data was collected by classifying all parked vehicles
as parked in an assigned covered stall, unassigned on -
site stall, on -street stall, or illegally parked.
4. Both on -street and off-street parking data were collected.
In determining parking space supply, the number of on -
street parking spaces were estimated. It was assumed that
parking spaces on the same side of the street as the pro-
perty and along the property's frontage were part of the
property's unassigned parking space supply. As for on -
street parking demand, any vehicle parked in the above de-
fined spaces was assumed to be part of the property's
parking demand.
5. Data were collected both during the winter and summer months.
For Sample Numbers 1 to 8 data were collected in July, 1981;
for Sample Numbers 9, 13, 14, and 15 data were collected in
March,1981; and for Sample Numbers 10, 11, and 12 data were
collected in November, 1980. Although about half of the
data Were collected during the summer when residents would
tend more to be away on vacation, the bias in the data is
estimated to be less than two percent.
6. Of the sample of 15, 12 projects were oriented toward
younger people with families and three projects (Sample
Numbers 8, 9, and 15) appeared to be inhabited to some degree
by retirement age people. For 81 9, and 15 it is estimated
that perhaps one-third of the residents were retirement aqe.
7. Of the sites selected, none had separate recreational
vehicle storage areas.
S. Of the sites selected, Sample Number 6 had a small number of
garages and may not have been completely sold and occupied.
This Sample Number was rejected and not used in calculating
parking demand ratios.
9. All other sites were fully occupied and the only vacancy
was due to typical move-in/move-out patterns. It is esti-
mated that about five percent of all homes in an established
residential area are vacant at any one time due to move -ins/
move -outs. The sites were all equal (excepting Sample
Number 6) in that the only vacancy would have been due to
move-ins/move-outs and would have been constant between them.
Data for each individual site surveyed are included in Appendix A.
Parking Demand
Table 4 displays the results of the parking survey for total ve-
hicles. Total parking demand by development per dwelling unit,
per thousand square feet of floor area, and per bedroom are also
shown. It should be noted that Table 4 entries are for parking
demand, and that the parking supply must exceed the parking
demand.
4
M
M
M M
M
M M
M M M M M
Ln
Table 2
PARKING DEMAND SURVEY SITES
Num-
Owner-
ber of
SiteH
Sample
ship
Dwell-
Area
Number
Project Name
City
Location
Status
ings
(Acres
1
Aliso Creek Villas
El Toro
E1 Toro & Muirlands
Condo
392
20.2
2
Villa Warner
Huntington Beach
Warner & Edwards
Condo
256
10.8
3
South Coast Villas
Santa Ana
Bristol & MacArthur
Condo
304
11.8
4
Bristol Place
Santa Ana
Warner & Bristol
Condo
80
3.0
5
Regency Villas
Santa Ana
17th Street & King
Condo
124
7.36
Park Orleans
Orange
Glassel & Garden Grove Frwy
Condo
7
Woodlake Village
La Habra
Lambert & Idaho
Condo
181
7.9
8
Village Homes
Tustin
Newport Ave. & Irvine Blvd.
Condo
124
5.5
22.7
9
San Souci
Tustin
Newport Ave. & Mitchell
Condo
30
-
NA
10
Presley Orangetree
Irvine
Orangetree & Orangeblossom
Condo
421
20.6
20.4
11
The Springs
Irvine
Park Place & Yale
Condo
356
13.9
25.6
12
Village Green lE & 1F
Irvine
Woodbridge
Condo
106
5.3
20.1
13
Woodside Village
Santa Ana
Sunflower & Greenville
Condo
399
18.2
21.9
14
Villa Vallerto
Tustin
Newport Ave. & Mitchell
Condo
118
7.9
14.9
15
North Sherry
Santa Ana
17th Street & North Sherry
Condo
120
9.9
12.1
Average
215
10.9
21.0
Low
30
3.0
12.1
High
421
20.6
26.7
* Sample rejected because of inconsistencies.
0
Table 3
CHARACTERISTICS OF DEVELOPMENTS SAMPLED
Number of Dwellings
Square Feet of Dwellings
Dwellings
One
Two
Average
Sample
Number
Bach-
elor
Bed-
room
Bed-
room
Total
Number of
Bedrooms
Smallest
Largest
Average
per
Acre
a of Unit
1
0
100
232
392
1.90
692
1163
914
19.4
Flat on Flat
2
0
192
64
256
1.25
755
1112
847
23.7
Flat on Flat
3
0
68
180
304
1.96
710
1160
928
25.8
Flat on Flat
4
0
64
16
80
1.20
672
896
717
26.7
Flat on Flat
5
0
32
92
124
1.74
80o
1024
966
16.9
Single Story
6
7
0
128
53
181
1.29
656
1114
820
23.0
Flat on Flat
8
0
72
52
124
1.42
730
940
818
22.7
Flat on Flat
9
NA*
NA
NA
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Single Story
10
110
182
129
421
1.31
512
994
775
20.4
Flat on Flat
11
88
164
104
356
1.29
471
935
684
25.6
Flat on Flat
12
0
0
40
106
2.62
955
1126
1061
20.1
Flat on Flat
13
0
39
227
399
2.24
782
1190
970
21.9
Flat on Flat
14
0
0
94
118
1.69
900
1454
1102
14.9
Flat on Flat/Townhouse
15
NA*
NA
NA
120
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.1
Townhouse
Average
1.66
884
21.0
Bachelor (Efficiency) Units counted as one bedroom in calculating bedrooms.
* Sample rejected because of inconsistencies.
** Data Not Available.
M
== M= r M = = s= M M= M = = M= M
Table 4
TOTAL PARKING DEMAND BY DEVELOPMENT
Total
Total
Ibtal Vehicles Parked
Vehicles Parked Per**
Number
Square
Dwell-
Thousand
Sample
Number of
of
Feet of
Mid -Week
Weekend
inq
Square
Number
Dwellings
Bedrooms
Floor
Late Night
Evening
Unit
Bedroom
Feet
1
392
744
358,448
549
425
1.40
0.74
1.53
2
256
320
216,800
288
179
1.13
0.90
1.33
3
304
596
282,104
398
320
1.31
0.67
1.41
4
80
96
57,344
99
75
1.24
1.03
1.76
5
6
124
216
119,808
145
128
1.17
0.67
1.21
7
181
234
148,349
186
161
1.03
0.79
1.25
8
124
176
101,440
121
93
0.98
0.69
1.19
9
30
-
-
36
41
1.37
-
-
10
421
550
326,289
503
496
1.19
0.91
1.54
11
356
460
243,596
366
368
1.03
0.80
1.57
12
106
278
112,516
171
167
1.61
0.62
1.52
13
399
892
386,925
610
533
1.53
0.68
1.58
14
118
200
129,982
179
169
1.52
0.76
1.51
15
120
-
-
141
128
1.18
-
-
Average
1.26
0.77
1.45
Low
0.98
0.62
1.19
High
1.61
1.03
1.76
* Sample rejected because of inconsistencies.
** The Vehicles Parked per Dwelling, Thousand Square Feet, and Bedroom are cal-
culated using the higher Total Vehicles Parked for midweek late evening or
weekend evening.
Table 5
PARKING SPACE OCCUPANCY RATES
Assiqned Spaces
Unassi ned SIP3aces
Total Spaces
Parking
Parking
Parking
Sample
Maximum
Occupancy
Maximum
Occupancy
Maximum
Occupancy
Number
Spaces
Occupied
Rate
Spaces
Occupied
Rate
Spaces
Occupied
Rate
1
481
363
0.75
332
186 0.56 813
549 0.68
2
380
263
0.69
27
25 0.93 407
288 0.71
3
317
220
0.69
203
178 0.88 520
398 0.77
4
85
64
0.75
46
35 0.76 131
99 0.76
5
124
88
0.71
82
57 0.70 206
145 0.70
6
7
190
129
0.68
73
57 0.78 2-63
186 0.71 `
8
124
93
0.75
124
38 10.31 248
121 0.49
9
60
34
0.57
30
7 0.23 90
41 10.46
10
422
336
0.80
205
205 1.00 1627
1542 0.86
11
356
225
0.63
( 161
1156 O.97 ! 517
381 0.74 f
12
106
93
0.88
1 123
78 0.63 1 229
171 F 0.75
13
399
322
0.81
330
1 301 0.91 729
623 0.85
14
160
132
0.83
104
47 ' 0.45 264
179 10.68
15
120
103
0.86
72
38 i 4.53 192
141 0.73
Average
0.74
0.69
0.71
Low
0.57
0.23
0.46
High
0.88
1.00
0.86
Standard Deviation
0.08
0.25
0.11
* Sample rejected because of inconsistencies.
� m M M M M m m a m m m m m m m m m m
J
7
Parking Overage
Parking overage can be defined as the percent of spaces provided
above the anticipated demand. Where spaces are assigned, a park-
ing overage is not needed. An overage of 10 to 20 percent is
necessary for unassigned parking to assure that the last driver
in does not have to search the entire parking facility to find
the last space, assuming that the number of spaces required
could be calculated exactly. Because the demand for parking
spaces cannot be precisely calculated, an overage is also neces-
sary to assure that there are enough spaces to meet the demand.
There are many reasons why overages are consistent with good de-
sign practices. Experience, as reported in the literature on
parking, has shown that the minimum recommended overage is 10
percent and the maximum is 20 percent. A complete survey of
parking literature revealed no source indicating what the over-
age should be for the various types of parking facilities. For
this reason, several factors to be considered in determining
parking overage are discussed below. For each factor, a recom-
mendation is made as to what the implied overage is for this type
project if only the one factor were being considered. After dis-
cussing the several factors, an overall overage will be recom-
mended.
Factor 1: Parking Demand Fluctuation Over Time. Parking
demand fluctuates by time of day, day of wee , and some-
times month of year. For this project we have determined
maximum demand by hour of day and day of week. Ile have
ignored fluctuation from one month to the other. If this
were a shopping center, obviously month of year (pre -
Christmas shopping) would be important.. But for this pro-
ject it is believed the parking demand will remain relatively
constant from one month to the next. RECOMMENDATION - 10
PERCENT OVERAGE FOR THIS FACTOR since daily fluctuations
are considered and monthly fluctuations are small.
Factor 2: Random Parking Demand Fluctuation. This .fluctu-
ation is different than Factor 1. This factor assumes the
average maximum demand is known but that the random fluctu-
ations are not accounted. For a doctor's office with an
average maximum demand of ten spaces, the overage should be
20 percent. This is because the probability of needing 20
percent extra spaces is much greater when the base number
is small. On the other hand, if you have 100 spaces of
average maximum demand, the probability of filling 120
spaces is remote. A parallel statistical analogy is that
the probability of flipping two heads in three tosses is
fairly high. But the probability of flipping 200 heads in
300 tosses is remote. This factor would also account for
random fluctuations in occupancy. RECOMMENDATION - 10 PER-
CENT OVERAGE FOR THIS FACTOR since the number of parking
spaces is relatively high for projects exceeding 100 units.
0
I
Factor 3: Intuiti
rec
ledge of P)ho
at a— n"�`�'a iop
know where the empty spaces are likel
from the door. But in a condominium
one obvious place to find an empty sp
RECOMMENDATION - 20 PERCENT OVERAGE F
vacant spaces are difficult to locate
the parking area is full.
Are.
ping center we aii
y to be, i.e, furthest
situation, there is no
ace when one needs one.
OR THIS FACTOR since
in a condominium when
Factor 4: Walking Distance. Because the demand for spaces
is somew at non:unx orm t roughout the grounds of a condo-
minium, with a smaller overage the maximum walking distance
will increase. For the developments in this survey, most
of the vacant uncovered spaces were concentrated in just
one area (a result of non -uniform demands) and the result
is a long maximum walking distance between parking space
and dwelling when the parking areas are relatively full.
RECOMMENDATION - 20 PERCENT OVERAGE FOR THIS FACTOR since
the parking supply will not be perfectly distributed in
concert with the demand.
Factor 5: Security. A longer walking distance increases
the exposure to street crime, particularly at night.
RECOMMENDATION - 20 PERCENT OVERAGE FOR THIS FACTOR since
walking distances can be excessive without sufficient
vacant spaces.
Factor 6: Economics. In this day of high home prices,
high inflation rates, and a shortage of affordable housing,
a cost savings in development costs is desirable when
feasible. RECOMMENDATION - 10 PERCENT OVERAGE FOR THIS
FACTOR since additional parking requires additional land
and higher home prices.
Composite Factor. Six factors have been discussed above.
Three factors have a recommendation of a 10 percent over-
age, and the other three have a recommendation of a 20
percent overage. A composite overage of 15 percent is
recommended.
Using a parking overage of 15 percent, then 1.15 parking spaces
of supply should be provided for each parking space of demand.
10
1
J
'I
Assigned Versus Unassigned Parking Spaces
The total parking spaces of supply which are required to accommo-
date the demand is 1.15 spaces of supply per space of demand,
which provides the 15 percent overage. This assumes that all
spaces are unassigned.
When spaces are assigned, the 15 percent overage is not needed;
however, any given space is usable only by the person to whom it
is assigned. If the person to whom it is assigned is not using the
space, it is unusable by anyone else. An assigned space is used
only 74 percent of the time during peak parking demand periods
of time. Table 5 displays the maximum proportion of assigned
spaces which are used at any point in time at the 14 survey sites.
It will be noted that for the sample of 14 developments, the mini-
mum occupancy of assigned spaces is 57 percent, the maximum occu-
pancy is 88 percent, and the average occupancy is 74 percent. What
the 74 percent occupancy really means is that to serve 74 cars,
during peak parking demand periods, 100 spaces are needed. Or,
1.35 spaces of supply are needed for each space of demand (100
spaces of supply divided by 74 vehicles parked).
If 1.35 spaces of supply are needed per space of demand for assigned
spaces, and only 1.15 spaces of supply are needed per space of
demand for unassigned space, then 1.17 unassigned spaces of supply
is equivalent to 1.00 assigned spaces of supply (1.35 divided by
1.15).
Recommended Parking Formula
In this analysis parking demand was correlated to number of dwell-
ings, total residential floor area, and total bedrooms. Table 6
displays the results.
To determine recommended parking formula based on dwellings, floor
area, and bedrooms, Table 7 was created. The first two row entries
are mean and standard deviation. The third entry is the maximum
expected mean parking demand, which can be expected with 95 per-
cent confidence. it is the third row entry which is used to de-
termine the parking formulas.
Remembering that the parking supply should exceed parking demand by
15 percent and remembering that 1.00 unassigned spaces is equiva-
lent to 1.19 assigned spaces, then total parking supply can be cal-
culated. The parking formula based on floor area is calculated as
follows:
11
Table 6
PARKING DEMAND BY DEVELOPMENT
Vehicles Parked Per:
Sample
Thousand
Number
Sq. Ft. of
Dwelling
Floor Area
Bedroom
1
1.40
1.53
0.74
2
1.13
1.33
0.90
3
1.31
1.41
0.67
4
1.24
1.76
1.03
5
1.17
1.21
0.67
6
7
1.03
1.25
0.79
8
0.98
1.19
0.69
9
1.37
-
-
10
1.19
1.54
0.91
11
1.03
1.57
0.80
12
1.61
1.52
0.62
13
1.53
1.58
0.68
14
1.52
1.51
0.76
15
1.18
-
-
Average
1.20
1.45
0.77
Low
0.98
1.19
0.62
High
1.61
1.76
1.03
Std. Deviation
0.20
0.17
0.12
* Sample rejected because of inconsistencies.
12
C
1
1
1
Table 7
PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS
Parking Spaces of Demand
Per
Per 1000
Per
Descriptor
Dwellings
Square Feet
Bedrooms
(Total)
(Total)
(Total)
Mean Parking Demand
1.26
1.45
0.77
Standard Deviation of Demand
0.20
0.17
0.12
Maximum Expected Mean Park-
ing Demand
(95 Percent Confidence)1
1.35
1.53
0.83
Standard Deviation Divided
by Average
0.160
0.117
0.156
Variability Ranking 2
3
1
2
1 The Maximum Expected Mean Parking Demand is determined with
95 percent confidence by adding 1.761 divided by the sauare
root of 14 standard deviations to the mean. The number 1.761
is the t-value which is the number of standard deviations
needed to be added to obtain 95 percent confidence that the
maximum demand will not be exceeded, assuming a samply of size
of 14.
2 The Variability Ranking is lowest and most desirable for the
variable (dwellings, thousand square feet, or bedrooms) which
has the lowest standard deviation divided by mean ratio.
13
PS = 1.53 x 1.15 x TSF + 0.17 x AS, or rewriting ,
PS = 1.76 x TSF + 0.17 x A5
The other two formula for dwellings and bedrooms are as follows: ,
1
P5 = 1.55 X DU + 0.17 X AS, or
PS = 0.95 X BR + 0.17 X AS, where
PS = Parking supply (Total) ,
TSF = Thousand square Feet of Residential Floor
Area (Total)
DU = Dwelling Units (Total) '
BR - Bedrooms (Total
AS = Assigned Spaces
indepen-
The last row of Table 7 shows the variability of the three
dent variables. The best parameter is floor area measured in thou-
sand square feet, the second best is bedrooms, and dwellings is
third best. it is recommended that the formula based on floor area
t
be used.
1
Comparison of County Parking Code to Recommended Formula
The average dwelling in the survey had 1.66 bedrooms and 884
square feet. If the recommended parking supply per dwelling
'
is calculated, assuming one space is assigned, the results are
as follows:
'
Based on County Code - 2.03
Based on Dwelling Unit Formula - 1.72
Based on Thousand Square Feet Formula - 1.73
'
Based on Bedroom Formula - 1.75
Comparison of the recommended parking supply per dwelling as ,
calculated above reveals that the County parking code is re-
quiring approximately 15 percent more parking spaces than is
necessary. ,
14
,
' APPENDIX A
PARKING SURVEY SITE SUMMARY SHEETS
PARKING SURVEY
SAMPLE NU14BER 1
PROJECT NAME Aliso•Creek Villas
LOCATION E1 Toro Road and Muirlands Road
rTTV E1 Toro _
SITE AREA (NET) 20.2 Acres
NUMBER OF DWELLINGS 392
DENSITY (NET) 19.4
TYPE Flat on Flat
OWNERSHIP STATUS Condominiums
I. UNIT 'SUMMARY
Plan Designation
Number
of Units
Bedrooms
Square Feet
Per
Dwelling
Total
Per
Dwelling
Total
A
100
1
100
692
60900
B
32
2
64
943
C
68
2
136
D
132
28568
E
60
3
116
Total
392
-
_
358448
Average
-
1.90
-
914.41
-
II. PARKING SUPPLY
A. Assigned Spaces 481
B. Unassigned Spaces 332
C. Total Spaces 813
D. Assigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.23
E. Unassigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.12
F. Total Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 2.07
SAMPLE NUMBER 1 (continued)
111. PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY Assigned Unassigned Total
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Vehicles Parked in Covered Spaces 363 -
Vehicles Parked in Uncovered Spaces 179
Vehicles Parked On -Street 2
Vehicles Illegally Parked 5
Total Parked Vehicles 363 186
B. Weekend Evening
Vehicles Parked in Covered Spaces
Vehicles Parked in Uncovered Spaces
Vehicles Parked On -Street
Vehicles Illegally Parked
Total Parked Vehicles
IV. PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling
Thousand Square Feet of Floor
Bedroom
B. Weekend Evening
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling
Thousand Square Feet of Floor
Bedroom
V. PARKING SUPPLY PARKING DEMAND
Midi -Week Ratio
Weekend Evening Ratio
255
255
0.93
1.01
0.49
168
0
2
170
0.47
0.52
0.25
363
179
2
5
549
255
168
0
2
425
1.40
1.53
0.74
0.65
0.43
1.08
0.71
0.48
1.19
0.34
0.23
0.57
1.33 1.78 1.48
1.89 1.95 1.91
VI.
VII.
SAMPLE NUMBER l(continued)
PARKING STALL SIZE
Covered Spaces
Uncovered SpaceF
Nearest Transit
Approximate Dist
VIII. COMMENTS
9'x 17'(+ front overhang); compa6t:8 1/2'x 18'
o�., iti�ta. noorhanal- rmmnact:8 1/2' x 12'
PARKING SURVEY
SAMPLE NU14BER' 2
PROJECT NAME Villa'Warner
LOCATION Warner and Edwards
CITY Huntington Beach
SITE'AREA (NET) 10.•8 Acres
NUMBER OF DWELLINGS 256
DENSITY (NET) 23.7
TYPE 3 Story
OWNERSHIP STATUS Condominiums
I. UNIT SUMMARY
plan Designation
Number
of Units
Bedrooms
Square Feet
per
Dwelling
Total
per
Dwelling
Total
A
96
1
96
755
72480
B
96
1
96
762
73152
C
64
2
128
1112
71168
Total
256
-
-
21680
Average
-
1.25
-
j 84688
II. PARKING SUPPLY
A. Assigned Spaces 380
B. Unassigned Spaces 27
C. Total Spaces 407
D. Assigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.48
E. Unassigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 0.10
F. Total Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.59
SAMPLE NUMBER 2 (continued)
III. PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Assigned Unassigned Total
Vehicles
Parked in Covered Spaces
212
212
Vehicles
Parked in Uncovered Spaces
51
-
51
Vehicles
Parked On -Street
-
25
25
Vehicles
illegally Parked
0
0
0
Total Parked Vehicles
263
25
288
B. Weekend
Evening
Vehicles
Parked in Covered Spaces
126
-
126
Vehicles
Parked in Uncovered Spaces
29
-
29
Vehicles
Parked On -Street
-
24
24
Vehicles
Illegally Parked
0
0
0
Total Parked Vehicles
155
24
179
IV, PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling 1.03 0.10 1.13
Thousand Square Peet of Floor 1.21 0.12 1.33
Bedroom 0.82 0.08 0.90
B, Weekend Evening
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling 0.61 0.09 0.70
Thousand Square Feet of Floor 0.72 0.11 0.83
Bedroom 0.48 0.08 0.56
V. PARKING SUP_P_TjY PARKING DEMAND
Mid -Week Ratio 1.44 1.08 1.41
Weekend Evening Ratio 2.45 1.13 2.27
VI.
SAMPLE NUMBER 2 (continued)
PARKING STALL SIZE
Covered Spaces 9 1/2'x 20'
Uncovered Spaces 9' x 20'
VII. Nearest Transit Stop Location
Approximate Distance
Warner and Edwards
500 Feet
VIII. COMMENTS I
The development has security gates. All on -site parking is
within the security gates and is assigned.
PARKING SURVEY
SAMPLE NUMBER 3
PROJECT NAME South Coast Villas
LOCATION Bristol and MacArthur
CITY Santa Ana
SITE AREA (NET) ll.8 Acres
NUMBER OF DWELLINGS 304
DENSITY (NET) 25.8
TYPE Flat on Flat
OWNERSHIP STATUS Condominiums
I. UNIT SUMMARY
plan Designation
Number
of Units
Bedrooms
Square Feet
per
Dwelling
Total
Per
Dwelling
Total
A
68
1
68
710
4828
B
76
2
152
900
68400
C
104
2
208
966
L00464
D
56
3'
168
1160
64960
Total
304
-
596
-
82104
Average
-
1.96
-
927.97
-
II. PARKING SUPPLY
A. Assigned Spaces 317
B. Unassigned Spaces 203
C. Total Spaces 520
D. Assigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.04
E. Unassigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 0.67
F. Total Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.71
SAMPLE NUMBER 3 (continued)
III. PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Vehicles Parked in Covered Spaces
Vehicles Parked in Uncovered Spaces
Vehicles Parked On -Street
Vehicles Illegally Parked
Total Parked Vehicles
B. Weekend Evening
Assigned Unassigned Total
220 -
220
- 138
138
- 40
40
- 0
0
220 178
398
Vehicles
Parked in Covered Spaces 162
-
162
Vehicles
Parked in Uncovered Spaces -
121
121
Vehicles
Parked On -Street -
35
35
Vehicles
Illegally Parked -
2
2
Total Parked Vehicles 162
158
320
IV. PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling 0.72 0159 1.31
Thousand Square Feet of Floor 0.78 0.63 1.41
Bedroom 0.37 0.30 0.67
B. Weekend Evening
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling 0.53 0.52 1.05
Thousand Square Feet of Floor 0.57 0.56 1.13
Bedroom 0.27 0.27 0.54
V. PARKING SUPPLY PARKING DEMAND
Mid -Week Ratio 1.44 1.14 1.31
Weekend Evening Ratio 1.96 1.28 1.63
VI
VII.
SAMPLE NUMBER 3 (continued)
PARKING STALL SIZE
Covered Spaces 9 1/2'x 20' (2 car), 9'x 20' (3 car)
Uncovered Spaces 9'x 19 1/21, Compact 8'x 19'
Nearest Transit Stop Location Mac•Arhtur and Br;s+a1
Approximate Distance 1,,100 Feet
VIII. COMMENTS
PARKING SURVEY
SAMPLE NUMBER' 4
PROJECT NAME Bristol Place
LOCATION Warnei and Bristol
CITY Santa Ana
SITE AREA (NET) 3 Acres
NUMBER OF DWELLINGS 80
DENSITY (NET) 26.7
TYPE Flat on Flat
OWNERSHIP STATUS Condominiums
I. UNIT SUMMARY
plan Designation
Number
of Units
Bedrooms
Square Feet
per
Dwelling
Total
per
Dwellinq
Total
A
64
1
64
672
43008
B
16
2
32
896
14335
Total
80
-
96
-
56344
Average
-
1.20
-
716.80
-
II. PARKING SUPPLY
A. Assigned Spaces 85
B. Unassigned Spaces 46
C. Total Spaces 131
D. Assigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.06
E. Unassigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 0.56
F. Total Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.64
SAMPLE NUMBER 4
III. PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
A. Mid -Week Late Night
(continued)
Assigned Unassigned Total
Vehicles
Parked in Covered Spaces 64
-
64
Vehicles
Parked in Uncovered Spaces
33
33
Vehicles
Parked On -Street
2
2
Vehicles
Illegally Parked '
0
0
Total Parked Vehicles 64
35
99
B. Weekend Evening
Vehicles
Parked in Covered Spaces 47
-
47
Vehicles
Parked in Uncovered Spaces -
24
24
Vehicles
Parked On -Street
4
4
Vehicles
illegally Parked '
0
0
Total Parked Vehicles 47
28
75
IV. PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling 0.80 0.44 1.24
Thousand Square Feet of Floor 1.14 0.62 1.76
Bedroom 0.67 0.36 1.03
B. Weekend Evening
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling 0.59 0.35 0.94
Thousand Square Feet of Floor 0.83 0.50 1.33
Bedroom 0.49 0.29 0.78
V. PARKING SUPPLY PARKING DEMAND
Mid -Week Ratio 1.33 1.31 1.32
Weekend Evening Ratio 1.81 1.64 1.75
VI.
VII
SAMPLE NUMBER 4 (continued)
PARKING STALL SIZE
Covered Spaces 9'x 20' (3' overhang)
Uncovered Spaces 9'x 20'
Nearest Transit Stop Location Bristol and Warner
Approximate Distance 200 Feet
VIII. COMMENTS
PARKING SURVEY
SAMPLE NUMBER' S
PROJECT NAME Regency Villas
LOCATION 17th Street and King
CITY Santa Ana
SITE AREA (NET) 7.34 Acres
NUMBER OF DWELLINGS 124
DENSITY (NET) 16.9
TYPE Single Story Flat
OWNERSHIP STATUS Condominiums
I. UNIT SUMMARY
Ian Designation
Number
of Units
Bedrooms
square Feet
Per
Dwelling
Total
Per
Dwellinq
Total
A
32
1
32
800
25600
g
92
2
184
1024
94208
Total
124
-
216
-
19808
Average
-
1.74
-
966 1
-
II. PARKING SUPPLY
A. Assigned Spaces 124
B. Unassigned Spaces 82
C. Total Spaces 206
D. Assigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.00
E. Unassigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 0.66
F. Total Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.66
SAMPLE NUMBER 5 (continued)
III. PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Vehicles Parked in Covered Spaces
Vehicles Parked in Uncovered Spaces
Vehicles Parked On -Street
Vehicles illegally Parked
Total Parked Vehicles
B. Weekend Evening
Vehicles Parked in Covered Spaces
Vehicles Parked in Uncovered Spaces
Vehicles Parked On -Street
Vehicles Illegally Parked
Total Parked Vehicles
IV. PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling
Thousand Square Feet of Floor
Bedroom
B. Weekend Evening
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling
Thousand Square Feet of Floor
Bedroom
Assigned Unassigned Total '
88 -
88
79
79
0.71
0.73
0.41
0.64
0.66
0.37
49
0
8
57
35
0
14
49
0.46
0.48
0.26
0.40
0.41
0.23
V. PARKING SUPPLY PARKING_ DEMAND
Mid -Week Ratio 1.41 1.44
Weekend Evening Ratio 1.57 1.67
T
49
0
8
145
35
0
14
128
1.03
1.07
0.59
1.42
1.61
SAMPLE NUMBER 5 (continued)
VI. PARKING STALL SIZE
Covered Spaces 10'x 19 1/2'
Uncovered Spaces 9'x 19'
VII. Nearest Transit Stop Location
Approximate Distance
VIII. COMMENTS
17th Street and King
700 Feet
PARKING SURVEY
SAMPLE NU14BER • 6
PROJECT NAME Park Orleans
LOCATION Glassel and Garden Grove Freeway
CITY Orange
SITE AREA (NET) 4.58 Acres
NUMBER OF DWELLINGS 112
DENSITY (NET) 24.4
TYPE Flat on Flat
OWNERSHIP STATUS Condominiums
I. UNIT SUMMARY
plan Designation
Number
of Units
Bedrooms
square Feet
Per
Dwelling
Total
Per
Dwelling
Total
A
8
Bachelor
8
430
3440
B
60
1
60
630
37800
C
44
2
88
940
41360
Total
112
-
156
-
82600
Average
-
1.39
-j
737.50
-
II. PARKING SUPPLY
A. Assigned Spaces 112*
67
B. Unassigned Spaces
C. Total Spaces 179
D. Assigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.00
E. Unassigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
0.60
F. Total Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
1.60
* Includes 14 single car enclosed garages.
1
SAMPLE NUMBER 6 (continued)
III. PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
Assigned
Unassigned
Total
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Vehicles Parked in Covered Spaces
51
-
51
Vehicles Parked in Uncovered Spaces
-
46
46
,
Vehicles Parked On -Street
-
I
1
Vehicles Illegally Parked
-
0
0
'
Total barked Vehicles
51
47
98
'
B. Weekend Evening
Vehicles Parked in Covered Spaces
42
42
Vehicles Parked in Uncovered Spaces
-
37
37
'
Vehicles Parked On -Street
-
1
1
'
1
0
0
Vehicles Illegally Parked
Total Parked Vehicles
42
38
80
IV. PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
A. Mid -Week Late Night
'
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling
0.552
0.48
1.00
Thousand Square Feet of Floor*
0.73
0.68
1.41
'
Bedroom "
0.40
0.37
0.77
,
B. Weekend Evening
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
,
Dwelling
0.43
0.39
0.82
Thousand Square Feet of Floor*
0.61
0.55
1.15
Bedroom *
0.33
0.30
0.63
,
V. PARKING SUPPLY PARKING DEMAND
'
Mid -Week Ratio
1.92
1.43
1.68 _
Weekend Evening Ratio
2.33
1.76
2.06
'
SAMPLE NUMBER 6 (continued)
VI. PARKING STALL SIZE
Covered Spaces
9'x
19
1/2'
Uncovered Spaces
9'x
19
1/2'
VII. Nearest Transit Stop Location Glassel and LaVeta
Approximate Distance 200 Feet
VIII. COMMENTS
* Units and square footage for 14 units with sinqle car enclosed
garages has been adjusted from the data base for calculations.
PARKING SURVEY
SAMPLE NUMBER 7
PROJECT NAME Woodlake Village
LOCATION• Lambert and Idaho
CITY La Habra
SITE AREA (NET) 7.87 Acres
NUMBER OF DWELLINGS 181
DENSITY (NET) 23.0
TYPE Flat on Flat
OWNERSHIP STATUS Condominiums
I. UNIT SUMMARY
Plan Designation
Number
of Units
Bedrooms
Square Feet
Per
Dwellinq
Total
per
Dwellinq
Total
A
40
1
40
656 - 70Q
27120
B
88
1
88
701 '- 834
67540
C
53
2
106
12 -1114
53689
Total
181
-
234
-
14834
Average
-
1.29
-
819.61
-
II. PARKING SUPPLY
A. Assigned Spaces 190
B. Unassigned Spaces 73
C. Total Spaces 263
D. Assigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.05
E. Unassigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 0.40
F. Total Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.45
SAMPLE NUMBER 7 (continued)
III. PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Vehicles Parked in Covered Spaces
Vehicles Parked in Uncovered Spaces
Vehicles Parked On -Street
Vehicles Illegally Parked
Total Parked Vehicles
B. Weekend Evenin
Assigned Unassigned Total '
129 -
�-- 45
10
2
129 57
Vehicles Parked in Covered Spaces 112
Vehicles Parked in Uncovered Spaces
Vehicles Parked On -Street
Vehicles Illegally Parked
Total Parked Vehicles 112
IV. PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling
Thousand Square Feet of Floor
Bedroom
B. Weekend Evening
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling
Thousand Square Feet of Floor
Bedroom
V, PARKING SUPPLY PARKING DEMAND
Mid -Week Ratio
Weekend Evening Ratio
0.71
0.87
0.55
0.62
0.75
0.48
1.47
1.70
39
8
2
49
0.31
0.38
0.24
0.27
0.33
0.21
1.28
1.49
129
45
,
10
2
'
186
112
39
8
2
161
1.03
1.25
0.79
0.89
1.09
0.69
1.41
1.63
SAMPLE NUMBER 7
(continued)
VI. PARKING STALL SIZE
'
Covered Spaces 10'x 20'
Uncovered Spaces 9'x 18' + sidewalk overhang
VII. Nearest Transit Stop Location
Lambert and Idaho
Approximate Distance
200 Feet
'
VIII. COP]MENTS
PARKING SURVEY
SAMPLE NUMBER 8
PROJECT NAME Village Homes
LOCATION Newport Avenue and Irvine Boulevard
CITY Tustin
SITE AREA (NET) 5.47 Acres
NUMBER OF DWELLINGS 124
DENSITY (NET) 22.67
TYPE Flat on Flat
OWNERSHIP STATUS Condominiums
I. UNIT SUMMARY
plan Designation
Number
of Units
Bedrooms
Square Feet
Per
Dwelling
Total
Per
Dwelling
Total
1
72
1
72
730
52560
2
52
2
104
940
48880
Total
124
-
176
-
10144
Average
-
1.42
-
818.06
-
II. PARKING SUPPLY
A. Assigned Spaces 124
124
B. Unassigned Spaces
248
C. Total Spaces
D. Assigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.00
E. Unassigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
1.00
F. Total Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
2.00
SAMPLE NUMBER 8 (continued)
III. PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY Assigned
Unassigned
Total
A. Mid -Week
Late Night
'
Vehicles
Parked in Covered Spaces 93
-
93
Vehicles
Parked in Uncovered Spaces -
36
36
Vehicles
Parked On -Street -
2
2
Vehicles
Illegally Parked -
0
0
'
Total Parked Vehicles 93
38
121
B. Weekend Evening
Vehicles Parked in Covered Spaces
69
-
69
Vehicles Parked in Uncovered Spaces
-
23
23
Vehicles Parked On -Street
-
1
1
Vehicles Illegally Parked
-
0
0
Total Parked Vehicles
69
24
93
IV. PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling
0.75
0.31
0.98
Thousand Square Feet of Floor
0.92
0.37
1.19
Bedroom
0.53
0.22
0.69
B. Weekend Evening
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling
0.56
0.19
0.75
Thousand Square Feet of Floor
0.68
0.24
0.92
Bedroom
0.39
0.14
0.53
V. PARKING SUPPLY PARKING DEMAND
Mid -Week Ratio
1.33
3.26
2.05
Weekend Evening Ratio
1.80
5.17
2.67
VI.
VII
SAMPLE NUMBER 8 (continued)
PARKING STALL SIZE
Covered Spaces 10'x 20'
Uncovered Spaces 9'x 17' Compact: 7 1/2'x 17'
Nearest Transit Stop Location
Approximate Distance
VIII. COMME
37 c
exc]
Newport Avenue and Holt Avenue
900 Feet
PARKING SURVEY
SAMPLE NUMBER' 9
PROJECT NAME San Souci
LOCATION Newport Avenue and Mitchel
CITY Tustin
SITE AREA (NET)
NUMBER OF DWELLINGS 30
DENSITY (NET)
TYPE Single Story
OWNERSHIP STATUS Condominiums
I. UNIT SUMMARY
Plan Designation
Number
of Units
Bedrooms
Square Feet
Per
Dwelling
Total
per
Dwelling
Total
Total
30
-
-
Average
-
-
-
II. PARKING SUPPLY
A. Assigned Spaces 60
B. Unassigned Spaces 30
C. Total Spaces 90
D. Assigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 2.00
E. Unassigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.00
F. Total Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 3.00
SAMPLE NUMBER 9 (continued)
III. PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
Assigned
Unassigned
Total
'
A. Mid -Week
Late Night
Vehicles
Parked in Covered Spaces
31
-
31
Vehicles
Parked in Uncovered Spaces
-
5
5
,
Vehicles
Parked On -Street
-
0
0
Vehicles
Illegally Parked
-
0
0
Total Parked Vehicles
31
5
36
B. Weekend Evening
Vehicles
Parked in Covered Spaces 34
-
34
Vehicles
Parked in Uncovered Spaces -
7
7
Vehicles
Parked On -Street
0
0
Vehicles
Illegally Parked
0
0
Total Parked Vehicles 34
7
41
IV. PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling 1.03 0.17 1.20
Thousand Square Feet of Floor NA NA NA
Bedroom NA NA NA
B. Weekend Evening
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling 1.13 0.23 1.37
Thousand Square Feet of Floor NA NA NA
Bedroom NA NA NA
V. PARKING SUPPLY PARKING DEMAND
Mid -Week Ratio 1.94 6.00 2.50
Weekend Evening Ratio 1.76 4.29 2.20
SAMPLE NUMBER 9 (continued)
VI. PARKING STALL SIZE
Covered Spaces 10'x 19 1/2'
Uncovered Spaces 9'x 18 1/2'
VII. Nearest Transit Stop Location
Approximate Distance
VIII. COMMENTS
Newport Avenue and Mitchell
700 feet
PARKING SURVEY
SAMPLE NUMBER' 10
PROJECT NAME Presley Orangetree
LOCATION Orangetree and Orangeblossom
CITY Irvine
SITE AREA (NET) 20.64 Acres
NUMBER OF DWELLINGS 421
DENSITY (NET) 20.4
TYPE Flat on Flat
OWNERSHIP STATUS Condominiums
I. UNIT SUMMARY
Plan Designation
Number
of Units
Bedrooms
Square Feet
per
Dwellinq
Totalling
Total
1
55
Eff
55
28160
2
55
Eff
55
34925
3
91
1
91
65247
4
91
1
91
833 -
75803
5
92
2
184
928
85376
6
37
2
74
994
36778
Total
421
-
-
32628
Average
-
1.31
-
775.03
-
II. PARKING SUPPLY
A. Assigned Spaces
B. Unassigned Spaces
C. Total Spaces
D. Assigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
E. Unassigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
F. Total Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
422
205
627
1.00
0.49
1.49
11
SAMPLE NUMBER 10 (continued)
III. PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
A. Mid -Week Late bight
Vehicles Parked in Covered Spaces
Vehicles Parked in Uncovered Spaces
Vehicles Parked On -Street
Vehicles Illegally Parked
Total Parked Vehicles
B. Weekend Evenin
Assigned Unassigned Total
336
146
12
9
336 167
11
11
336
'146
12
9
'
503
Vehicles
Parked in Covered Spaces 290
-
290
Vehicles
Parked in Uncovered Spaces -
151
151
Vehicles
Parked On -Street -
31
31
Vehicles
Illegally Parked -
24
24
Total Parked Vehicles 290
206
496
IV. PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
A. Mid --Week Late Night
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling
Thousand Square Feet of Floor
Bedroom
B. Weekend Evening
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling
Thousand Square Feet of Floor
Bedroom
0.80
1.03
0.61
0.69
0.89
0.53
0.40
0.51
0.30
0.49
0.63
0.37
1.18
1.52
0.90
V. PARKING SUPPLY PARKING DEMAND
Mid -Week Ratio 1.26 1.23 1.25
Weekend Evening Ratio 1.46 0.99 1.26
SAMPLE NUMBER 10 (continued)
VI. PARKING STALL SIZE
Covered Spaces 9'x 19'
Uncovered Spaces 10'x 19' Compact: 8 1/2'x 15'
VII. Nearest Transit Stop Location Orangetree and Irvine Center Drive
Approximate Distance 700 feet
VIII. COMMENTS .
PARKING SURVEY
SAMPLE NUMBER 11
PROJECT NAME The Springs
LOCATION Park Place and Yale
nTrPV Irvine
SITE AREA (NET) 13.91 Acres
NUMBER OF DWELLINGS 356
DENSITY (NET) 25.6
MVDF. Flat on Flat
OWNERSHIP STATUS Condominiums
I. UNIT SUMMARY
lan Designation
Number
of Units
Bedrooms
Square Feet
Per
Dwelling
Total
Per
Dwellinq
Total
1
44
Eff
44
471
2 72
2
44
Eff
44
457
2 108
3
8
1
82
674
55268
4
82
1
82
660
5412
5
28
2
56
867
24276
6
28
2
56
853
23884
7
24
2
48
949
22776
8
24
2
48
935
2
Total
356
-
460
-
Ej-
Average
-
1.29
-
684.26
II. PARKING SUPPLY
A. Assigned Spaces 356
B. Unassigned Spaces 161
C. Total Spaces 517
D. Assigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.00
E. Unassigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 0.45
F. Total Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.45
SAMPLE NUMBER 11 (continued)
III. PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Assigned Unassigned Total
Vehicles
Parked in covered Spaces
225
-
225
Vehicles
Parked in Uncovered Spaces
-
102
102
Vehicles
Parked On -Street
-
31
31
Vehicles
Illegally Parked
-
8
8
Total Parked Vehicles
225
141
366
B. Weekend Evening
Vehicles
Parked in Covered Spaces
212
-
212
Vehicles
Parked in Uncovered Spaces
-
108
108
Vehicles
Parked On -Street
-
38
38
Vehicles
Illegally Parked
-
10
10
Total Parked Vehicles
212
156
368
IV. PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling 0.63 0.40 1.03
Thousand Square Feet of Floor 0.96 0.60 1.56
Bedroom 0.49 0.31 0680
B. Weekend Evening
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling 0.60 0.44 1.03
Thousand Square Feet of Floor 0.90 0.66 1.57
Bedroom 0.46 0.34 0.00
V. PARKING SUPPT.,Y PARKING DEMAND
Mid -Week Ratio 1.58 1.14 1.41
Weekend Evening Ratio 1.688 J. 1.40
VI.
SAMPLE NUMBER 11 (continued)
PARKING STALL SIZE
Covered Spaces 9'x 18'
Uncovered Spaces 9'x 18'
VII. Nearest Transit Stop Location
Approximate Distance
VIII. COMMENTS
Irvine Boulevard and Culver
4,800 feet
PARKING SURVEY
SAMPLE NUMBER' 12
PROJECT NAME Village Green lE and 1F
LOCATION Woodbridge
CITY Irvine
SITE AREA (NET) 5.27 Acres
NUMBER OF DWELLINGS 106
DENSITY (NET) 20.1
TYPE Flat on Flat
OWNERSHIP STATUS Condominiums
I. UNIT SUMMARY
plan Designation
Number
of Units
Bedrooms
Square Feet
per .
Dwellinq
Total
per
Dwellinq
Total
1
40
2
80
955
38200
2
66
3
198
1126
74316
Total
inr
-
278
-
ll251
Average
-
2.62
-
1061.47
-
II. PARKING SUPPLY
A. Assigned Spaces
B. Unassigned Spaces
C. Total Spaces
D. Assigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
E. Unassigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
F. Total Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
123
229
1.00
1.16
2.16
SAMPLE NUMBER 12 (continued)
III. PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
Assigned
Unassigned
Total
'
A. Mid -Week
Late Night
Vehicles
Parked in Covered Spaces
93
-
93
Vehicles
Parked in Uncovered Spaces
-
45
45
,
Vehicles
Parked On -Street
-
31
31
Vehicles
Illegally Parked
-
2
2
'
Total Parked Vehicles
93
78
171
'
B. Weekend
Evening
Vehicles
Parked in Covered Spaces
90
-
90
Vehicles
Parked in Uncovered Spaces
-
46
46
'
vehicles
Parked On -Street
-
30
1
30
1
r
Vehicles
illegally Parked
-
Total Parked Vehicles
90
77
167
IV. PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling
Thousand Square Feet of Floor
Bedroom
B. Weekend Evening
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling
Thousand Square Feet of Floor
Bedroom
V. PARKING SUPPT�Y PARKING DEMAND
Mid -Week Ratio
Weekend Evening Ratio
0.88
0.74
1.61
0.83
0.69
1.52
'
0.33
0.28
0.62
0.85
0.73
1.58
0.80
0.68
1.48
'
0.60
0.28
0.32
_
1.14
1.58
1.34
1.18
1.60
1.37
'
SAMPLE NUMBER
12 (continued)
VI. PARKING STALL SIZE
'
Covered Spaces
9'x 17' (+ 2' front overhang)
Uncovered Spaces
91x 18'
VII. Nearest Transit Stop
Location Woodspring and Yale
Approximate Distance
400 feet
Alderwood and Yale (1,600 feet)
'
VIII. COMMENTS
PARKING SURVEY
SAMPLE NU14BER 13
PROJECT NAME Woodside Village
LOCATION Sunflower and Greenville
CITY Santa Ana
SITE AREA (NET) 18.22 Acres
NUMBER OF DWELLINGS 399
DENSITY (NET) 21.9
TYPE Flat on Flat
OWNERSHIP STATUS Condominiums
I. UNIT SUMMARY
plan Designation
Number
of Units
Bedrooms
Square Feet
per
Dwellinq
Total
per
Dwelling
Total
1
39
1
39
782
30498
2
227
2
454
901
0452
3
91
3
273
1120
101920
4
42
3
126
1190
49980
Total
399
-
892
386925
Average
-
2.24
-
969.74
-
II. PARKING SUPPLY
A. Assigned Spaces 399
B. Unassigned Spaces 330
C. Total Spaces 729
D. Assigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.00
E. Unassigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 0.83
F. Total Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.83
SAMPLE NUMBER 13 (continued)
III. PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Vehicles Parked in Covered Spaces
Vehicles Parked in Uncovered Spaces
Vehicles Parked On -Street
Vehicles Illegally Parked
Total Parked Vehicles
B. Weekend Evening
Assigned Unassigned Total
322 -
322
- 254
254
_ 0
0
- 34
34
322 288
610
Vehicles
Parked in Covered Spaces 232
232
Vehicles
Parked in Uncovered Spaces -
254
254
Vehicles
Parked On -Street -
47
47
Vehicles
Illegally Parked -
0
0
Total Parked Vehicles 232
301
533
IV. PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling 0.81 0.72 1.53
Thousand Square Feet of Floor 0.83 0.74 1.58
Bedroom 0.36 0.32 0.68
B. Weekend Evening
Total Vehicles Parked Per;
Dwelling 0.58 0.75 1.34
Thousand Square Feet of Floor 0.60 0.78 1.38
Bedroom 0.26 0.34 0.60
V. PARKING SUPPLY PARKING DEMAND
Mid -Week Ratio 1-24 1.15 1.20
Weekend Evening Ratio 1.72 1.10 1.37
VI.
VII.
SAMPLE NUMBER 13(continued)
PARKING STALL SIZE
Covered Spaces 9'x 20'
Uncovered Spaces 9'x 18' (plus overhang); 10'x 20'
Nearest Transit Stop Location Sunflower and Smalley
Approximate Distance 200 Feet
VIII. COMMENTS
PARKING SURVEY
SAMPLE NU14BER 14
PROJECT NAME Villa Vallerto
LOCATION Newport Avenue and Mitchell
CITY Tustin
SITE AREA (NET) 7.92 Acres
NUMBER OF DWELLINGS 118
DENSITY (NET) 14.9
TYPE Flat on Flat and Townhouse
OWNERSHIP STATUS Condominiums
I. UNIT SUMMARY
plan Designation
Number
of Units
Bedrooms
Square Feet
Per
Dwellinq
Total
Per
Dwellinq
Total
1
19
2
38
900
17100
2
12
2
24
950
11400
3
21
2
43
1014
21294
4
12
2-
24
1041
12492
5
18
2
36
1172
21096
6
24
3
72
1454
34896
Total
118
-
-
11827
Average
-
2.01
-
1002.36
-
II. PARKING SUPPLY
A. Assigned Spaces 160
104
B. Unassigned Spaces
264
C. Total Spaces
D. Assigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
1.36
E. Unassigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
0.88
2.24
F. Total Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
SAMPLE NUMBER 14 (continued)
III. PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
A. Midi -Week Late Night
Vehicles Parked in Covered Spaces
Vehicles Parked in Uncovered Spaces
Vehicles Parked On -Street
Vehicles Illegally Parked
Total Parked Vehicles
B. Weekend Evening
Assigned_ Unassigned Total
132 - 132
d5 AS
0 0
2 2
132 47 179
Vehicles
Parked in Covered Spaces 114
-
114
Vehicles
Parked in Uncovered Spaces -
53
53
Vehicles
Parked On -Street -
0
0
Vehicles
Illegally Parked -
2�
2
Total Parked Vehicles 114
55
169
IV. PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
A. Mid -Week Late Niqht
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling 1.12 0.40 1.52
Thousand Square Peet of Floor 1.12 0.40 1.51
Bedroom 0.56 0.20 0.76
B. Weekend Evening
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling 0.97 0.47 1.43
Thousand Square Feet of Floor 0.96 .46 1.43
Bedroom 0.48 0.23 0.71
V. PARKING SUPPLY PARKING DEMAND
Mid -Week Ratio 1.21 2.21 1.47
Weekend Evening Ratio 1.40 1.89 1.56
VI.
SAMPLE NUMBER 14 (continued)
PARKING STALL SIZE
Covered Spaces 10'x 20'
Uncovered Spaces 9'x 20'
VII. Nearest Transit Stop Location
VII
Newport Avenue and Mitchell
PARKING SURVEY
SAMPLE NU14BER 15
PROJECT NAME North Sherry
LOCATION 17th Street and North Sherry
CITY Santa Ana
SITE AREA (NET) 9.92 Acres
NUMBER OF DWELLINGS 120
DENSITY (NET) 12.1
TYPE Single Story
OWNERSHIP STATUS Condominiums
I. UNIT SUMMARY
Plan Designation
Number
of Units
Bedrooms
Square Feet
Per
Dwelling
Total
Per
Dwelling
Total
Total
120
-
-
Average
II. PARKING SUPPLY
A. Assigned Spaces 120
B. Unassigned Spaces 72
C. Total Spaces .192
D. Assigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.00
E. Unassigned Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 0.60
F. Total Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 1.60
SAMPLE NUMBER 15 (continued)
III. PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
Assiqned
Unassigned
_
Total
A. Mid -Week Late Night
Vehicles Parked in Covered Spaces
103
-
103
Vehicles Parked in Uncovered spaces
-
34
34
,
Vehicles Parked On -Street
-
4
4
Vehicles Illegally Parked
-
_
'
Total Parked Vehicles
103
38
141
B. Weekend Eveninq
Vehicles Parked in Covered Spaces
97
-
97
Vehicles Parked in Uncovered Spaces
__ _
`31
31
'
Vehicles Parked On -Street
-
Vehicles Illegally Parked
_
Total Parked Vehicles
97
31
128
— —
IV. PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
A. Mid -Week Late Night
'
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling
0.86
0.32
1.18
Thousand Square Feet of Floor
-
'
Bedroom
�T
'
B. Weekend Evening
Total Vehicles Parked Per:
Dwelling
0.81
_ 0.26
1.07
Thousand Square Feet of Floor
Bedroom
-
-
V. PARKING SUPPLY PARKING DEMAND
'
Mid -Week Ratio
1,17
1.89
1.36
Weekend Evening Ratio
_
1.24
2.32
1.50 _
I
1
11
VI.
SAMPLE NUMBER 15 (continued)
PARKING STALL SIZE
Covered Spaces 91x 19'
Uncovered Spaces 9'x 20'
VII. Nearest Transit Stop Location
Approximate Distance
VIII. COMMENTS
17th Street and Maybury
1,500 feet
MUNICIPAL PARKING STANDARDS
for
EIGHTY-ONE SELECTED CALIFORNIA CITIES
y iV
11
n A International Parking Design, Inc. SUITE 200, 14652 VENTURA BOULEVARD. SHERMAN OAKS, CALIFORNIA 91403 • (213) Z72-1461 • (2131 9864494
ON FARI:ISG STANDARDS
The foZZowing municipal parking standards for
the nwrber of parking --paces required, and the
corresponding design georatrics, =,,.piled in
late M2 and early 198v, represent inforration
available at that time. In anticipation of
possible changes occurring during and since
the survey period, it is reco'.ended tvzt all
inform,xtion be verified prior to reuse.
This data represent-, legal mi.r = space require-
mants for the Zicted cities. The requirmentc
are generally applied as blanket coverage over an
entire city, however, in :cme cares the rcTAire-
rents are modified for a redveZep-ent area or
central business district. Ear, Francisco and
Oakland do not rcqu^:re that any parking spaces be
provided in the downtown areas. Los Angeles
employs a reduced parking space deT.ard factor in
the dewntczwn business, district for cor.merciaZ
development. Soma cities aZtoa a reduction of
required parking spaces based on the "shared
parking concept" if supported by a cemprahencive
daTzmd ctudy that outlimc space usage by hour
of day and day of week.
Considerable variance of staZZ/aisle geometric
requirements continues to exist between codes
,. .c despite the fact that the automobiles across the
state are the came eise with only the s,aZZ rar/
large car ratio varying with locale. The need
for a national parking standard has never been
grsator:
o o PARKING SPACES REQUIRED - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CITIES
�m
of k0. m o` a a 2 o y o
C y F
1 ALHAMBRA
1/250 to
1/400
1/Unit
1/500
1/500
1/250
1/3 Beds
1/4 Seats
1/6 Seats
2 Covered
I-Clovered1
2500
or 1/60
or 1/45
1-Uncovered
1/400 Above
2 ANAHEIM
1/250
1/250 to
1/Unit
1/500 or
1/1000
1/167 or
1/1000
1/125
1/35
2 Enclosed
11 I}
1}
2y
2000 S.F.
1/2 Employe
3/Office
1/200 to
20,000 S.F.
3 BAKERSFIELD
1/200
1/300 5
1/Unit
1/500
1/1000
1/100
I/Bed
1/100
1/5 Seats
2/Unit
11+ 11+
2+
2+
Space Min.
1/300 for
1/300 for
1/300 For
or 1/35
1/3 1/3
1/3
1/3
Office Area
Office Area
Office Area
Guest Guest
Guest
Guest
4 BALDWIN PARK
2+1/200
2+1/200
2+1/Unit
1/500
1/1000
2+1/150
2/Bed
2+1/100
1/3 Seat
2 Enclosed
2+1 2+}
2+1
2+1
to 5000
Kitchen +
or 1/35
Guest Guest
Guest
Guest
1/300
1/35 Eating
Over 5000
5 BELLFLOWER
1/300
1/300
1}/Iln it
1/500
1/500
1/300
1/Bed +
1/300
1/71 Seats
2 Enclosed
2 Enclosed
1/Max
no Alcohol
} Open
Employ.
1/45
6 BELL GARDENS
1/300
1/400
1/Unit
1/500
1/500
1/200
1}/Bed
1/3 Seats
1/3 Seats
2
2 2
2
2
2/Unit
I -Enclosed
w/Kitchen
7 BEVERLY HILLS
1/350
1/350
I/Unit(100)
1/500
1/1500
1/350
1/500
1/45 to
1/4 Seats
2/Unit
2 2
2}
3
3/4/Unit
9000
-
(100-200)
1/65 9000+
}/Unit(200+)
8 BUENA PARK
4/1000
5/1000
14/Unit to
1/2500 or
1/2500 or
8/1000
1/1000 or
10/1000
1/5 Seats
2 Enclosed
1 3/4/Unit
2/Unit
40 Units
1/Employee
1/Employee
1/Bed
then 1/Unit
9 BURBANK
1/500 to
1/500 to
1/Unit
1/500
1/1000
1/500 to
1/Bed
1/150
1/10 Seats
50,000
3,000 then
50.00Othen
and 1/60
Then 3/1000
1/300
3/1000
10 CLAREMONT
1/250
1/350
1/Unit
1/400
1/1000
1/250
1 3/4/Bed
1/3
1/3 Seats
2 Covered
1 1/3 1 1/3
11+}
11+1
Occupants
2 Uncovered
International Parking Design, Inc.
Parking Consultants
Fag
it -COMMERCE
12
COMPTON
13
COSTA MESA
14
CULVER CITY
15
DOWNEY
%
EL MONTE
17 FULLERTON
18 GLENDALE
19 HAWTHORNE
20 HERMOSA BEACH
21 HUNTINGTON
BEACH
22 HUNTINGTON
PARK
23 INGLEWOOD
2 International
wm
PARKING
SPACES REQUIRED - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CITIES
Co' 1�
y
Jy
ecay
Same as
Manufac.
4/1000
1/250
1/350
1/250
4/1000
1/333
I NDO
1/300
1/300
1/400
1/300
Parking De
1/400 1/Unit I
Same as
Manufac.
4/1000
1/250
1/225
1/250
4/1000
+ Man.
1/Unit
1/2 Units
+ 10/1000
1/2 Units
1 1/5/Unit
1/Unit +
2
1/Unit +
1/10 Units
for R.V.s
1/250 I1/Unit
2/800 to i/Bed
800 then
1/800
1/300
I/Unit +
2 for
Manager
1/200
1/Unit +
1/Employee
1/400
1/Unit
1/275
2 Spaces
+ 1/Unit
sign, Inc.
. Pon
WOOD 1/2000 1=/300
1-S.F. Area Parking for
1-S.F. Ground Floor Area plus
1/3 S.F. Above Ground
3/1000
3/1000
6/1000
6 Min.
1/50D
1/250
1/50D
1/1000
1/250
1/250
1/250
1/250
Sliding Scale
above
3,000
1/800
1/2000
51/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/200
1/1000 or
WOOD or
1/400
1/2 Employ.
1/2 Employ.
1/500
1/500
1/300
1/500
I/IODO
1/120
1/800 or
1/800 or
1/100
1/2 Employ.
1/2 Employ.
1/500
1/1500
1/200
ing consuBants
Reviewed 1/4 Seats
For Expected
Load
1/2 Beds Same as
1}/Bed
1/3 Beds
I/1000
I/Bed
1/3
2/Bed
1/Bed
10/1000 to
3000 then
20/1000
1/5 Seats
1/75
1/3 Seats
1/250
10/1000
1/100
1/100 to
4000 then
1150
1/Bed 1/5 Seats
or 1/35
1}/Bed I/100
I/Bed
11/150 12 Garage 1 14 11 1 21 1 21
1/3 Seats 2 Enclosed
or 1/40
1/3 Seats
1/35
1/5 Seats 2 Covered
1/35
1/3 Seats 2 Enclosed
1/10 Seats 2 Garage
1/3 Seats
or 1/35
1/10 Seats
1/4 Seats 2
to 800
then 1/10
Seats
1/75 2
1/35
1/10 Seats 1 1/3
or I/1DO
1/35 2
2
24
2
#
1/311 1/3
2 2
0 0 o PARKING SPACES REQUIRED - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CITIES
Vie' �� a
z Q Qy A i H C N
>a
24 LAGUNA BEACH
1/300
1/300
1/Unit +
1/500
1/500
1/300
I/Bed
1/4 Seats
1/5 Seats
2
11
lk
2
2
l/Each 15
or 1/60
1/35
Units
25 LAKEWOOD
1/250
1/25G
1/2 Units
1/500 or
1/1500
1/250
1#/Bed
1/3 Seats
1/3 Seats
2 Enclosed
2}
21
21
2}
1/2 Employ.
1/50
26 LONG BEACH
4/1000 to
5/1000
I/Unit
5/1000
1.2/Room
10/1000
1/3.3 Seats
2
1
I�
1}
2
20,000
No Small
+ 5/1000 for+
25/1000
then 2/1000
Cars
Offices
waiting
27 LOS ANGELES
1/500
1/500
1/500
1/500
1/500
1/Z00
2/0ej
1/500
2 Enclosed
1
1
1
1}
28 LYNWOOD
1/300
1/100
I/Unit
I/500
1/500
5/Doctor
I/Bed
1/3 Seats
1/5 Seats
2 Enclosed
2
2
2
2
or
or
1/300
1/50
29 MANHATTAN
1/300
1/200 to
I/Unit to
1/400
1/800
1/200
2/Bed
1/100 to
1/5 Seats
2 Enclosed
2
2
2
2
BEACH
5000 then
6 then
4000 then
to 800 then
1/300
1/2 Units
40+ 1/50
1/8 Seats
30 MONTCLAIR
1/250
1/70
1/Unit
1/500 to
30,000 then
1/160
1/2 Beds
1/6 Seats
1/6 Seats
2 Covered
14
14
14
2
1/650 to
50,000 then
or 1/100
1/750 above
50,000
31 MONTEREY PARK
1/250
1/250
1/Unit
1/400
1/2500
1/200
2/Bed
1/100 to
1/3 Seats b
2 Enclosed
2 1/5
2 1/5
2 1/5
2 V5
4000 then
1/21 where
1/50
no Seats
32 NEWPORT BEACH
1/250
1/250
1/2 Units
1/2000
1/1000 to
1/250
1/Bed +
1/40
1/5 Seats
2
1#
I}
1}
11
20,000 then
1/Employee
I Enclosed
1/2000
33 NORWALK
1/250
1/250
1/Unit
1/500
5/Doctor
1/2 Beds
I/100
1/5 Seats
2 Covered
2
2
2
2
or 6/1000
or 1/50
34 ORANGE
1/250
5/1000 to
1 + I/Unit
1/2 Employ.
1/800
1/200
1}/Bed
WOO to
1/5 Seats
2 Enclosed
40,000 then
4000 then
6/1000
1/50
35 OXNARD
1/250
1/250
I/Unit +
1/500
1/1000
1/250
1/Bed
1/50 to
1/5 Seats
2 Enclosed
1
2
2
2
1/2 Employ.
2000 then
or 1/35
1/200
International Parking Design, Inc. Parking ConsuBanrs 3
a
PARKING
SPACES REQUIRED
- SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
P
a,�L yN
4
L,OO Cc
J U
0L 0L �i
36 PARAMOUNT
1/400
1/300
1/Unit
1/500
1/1000 to
1/300
2/Bed
1/5 Seats
1/5 Seats
2-1 Must
2L
2:
2,
24'
8000 then
or 1/35
or 1/35
Be Covered
1/750
37 PASADENA
1/400
1/250
I/Unit
1/500 or
1/2500
1/250
II/Bed
1/4 Seats
1/5 Seats
2 Covered
2
2
2
2
1/2 Employ.
or 1150
or I/35
38 Pico RIVERA
1/250
1/250
I/Unit
1/600
--
1/250
--
--
1/3 Seats
2 Covered
14
11
li
li
39 POMONA
1/200
C-1
I.I/Unit
I/500
1/2000
1/60
2 Enclosed
14
11
1 3/4
2
2 S.F.-
O.S.P./
I GFA
40 REDONDO BEACH
1/300
1/250
1/Unit
1/500 or
1/1000
1/150
I/Bed
1/4 Seats
1/5 Seats
11
11
11
11
1/2 Employ.
or 1/50
or 1/40
41 SAN FERNANDO
1/250
1/Unit
1/500
1/500
1/7 Seats
2 Covered
11
11
11
I}
42 SANTA ANA
1/300
1/150
1/5 Units
1/2 Employ.
1/1000
1/200
IL/Bed
1/2 Employ.
1/5 Seats
2
1
11
I}
1}
to 5 then
or 1/500
+ 1/35
1/2 Units
43 SANTA FE
1/300
1/250
I/Unit +
1/500
1/500
5/Doctor
1 3/4/Bed
1/35 +
1/3 Seats
2
2
2
2
2
SPRINGS
4/2 Employ.
+ 1/Employ.
1/2 Employ.
or I/35
44 SANTA MONICA
1/300
I/Unit to
I/350
I/1000
1/2 Beds
1/5 Seats
1/4 Seats
2 Covered
I-2
Based
on
40 then
or 1/75
or 1/80
Square
footage
1/3 Unit
45 SOUTH GATE
1/200
1/200 to
1/Unit
1/300 or
1/1000
1/150
2/Bed
1/100 to
1/3 Seats
2
500D then
1/3 Employ.
4000 then
to 800 then
1/150
1/50
1/5 Seats
46 SOUTH
1/250
1/400
1/Unit
1/2 Employ.
1/1000
1/250
2/Bed
1/100 to
1/6 Seats
2 Covered
2
2
2
2
PASADENA
or 1/400
4000 then
or 1/50
+ 1
1/50
47 TORRANCE
1/300
1/200
1/400
I/1500 +
1/200
1/Bed
1/100
2
1/250 of
Ofe. Area
48 TUSTIN
1/300
1/250
I/Unit
2/3 Employ.
2/3 Employ.
6/1000
--
1/3 Seats
1/3 Seats
2 Garage
2
2
2
2
+ I -Manager
+ 1/300
Kit. L Etc.
4 Intemational Parking Design, Inc. • Parking consuRards
&19
a�
ci
49 WEST COVINA
50 WESTMINSTER
51 WHITTIER
PARKING SPACES REQUIRED - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CITIES
ZU `� 0 QIh jh 0
h mh � ti M
1/300
1/250
1/Unit
1/2 Employ.
2/3 Employ.
1/150
]I/Bed
1/31 Seats
1/4 Seats
or 1/500
not less
or 1/40
than 1/1000
1/200
1/200
2 + 1/Unit
1/400
1/1000
1/200
1/Bed
10 + 1/100
1/4 Seats
2 Garage
1/400 to
1/300 to
1/Unit to
1/500
1/1500
1/200
Conditional
1/100 to
1/5 Seats
2
5200 then
5000 then
6 then
Use Permit
4000 then
1/250
1/200
1/3 units
1/50
2
2
2#
2
International Parking Design, Inc. • Parking ConsuBants 5
o o
PARKING
SPACES REQUIRED -
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
cu'
1
u rn
� C
ti
u yG a
.ZC
`� �9E 4G
y��
i+~
40 0 r
ZO i�C 3�0 rG0
`7Oy �
4C Cyy y CG O
_
52 BERKELEY
1/40o
As determ-
1/3 Guests
As deter."
As determ-
1/300
1/4 Beds +
1/30D
As determ-
1/Unit
1/1000
1/1000
or 1/2
ined by
+ 1/3 Empl
ined by
ined by
1/3 Employ.
ined by
persons
the rity
or 1/Room
the City
the City
the City
53 BURL19GAME
1/300
1/400
1/200
1/800
111000
1/250
111.5 Beds
11200
116 Seats
1/Unit
1.5
1.5
2
2.5
or 1/60
Covered
54 CONCORD
1/250
1/200
1/1.2 Room
1/2 Empl.
1/2 Empl.
1/200
Based on #
1/45
1/3 Seats
2/Unit
1.5
2
2
2
1/1000
1/800
of beds,
1/400
or 1/3
1 covered
patients G
persons
empl. - in
allowed by
dividual
Fire Dept.
cases
Code
55 DALY CITY
Up to
Up to
i/Room +
1/1500 GFA
1/1500
1/400
The City
1/125
1/6 Fixed
2/Unit
1
1.5
2
2
21,000
21,000
1/300 GFA
Planner to
seats
1/300 over
1/300 over
for office
designate
1/200
21,000
21,000
1/200
1/200
56 FOSTER CITY
1/200
1/200
1/Room +
213 Empl.
1/1000
1/4 Beds +
1/3 Beds +
1/2 Seats
1/3 Seats
2/Unit
1.5
1.5
2.25
3 + 1
2 for
1/1000
1/2 Empl.
1/Doctor +
or 1/25
or 1/15
Covered
+ 1
Guest
manager
112 Empl.
Guest
on largest
shift
57 FREMONT
0-20,000
0-3000
5 + l/Room
1/200 office
1/200
1/200
1/1.5 Beds
1/3.5 Seats
1/5 Fixed
2/Unit
2} +
2$ +
21 +
2} +
1/300 +
1/500 over
area E 1/800
office
seats or
covered +
.5
-5
.5
.5
1/500 over
3000 - 5000
indoor
area E
1/50
.5 un-
Guest
Guest
Guest
Guest
20,000
10 + 1/250
storage
1/800
covered
indoor
stor.:ye
58 FRESNO
i sf of
611000
1/Room
11800
1/Boo
4/Doctor
1/2 Beds or
0-4000
115 Fixed
1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
parking for
1/1000 +
1/100 over-
seats or
1 sf of
1/3 empl.
40 + 1/50
1/40
office area
6 international Parking Design, Inc. . Parfdng Consu!lanfs
o o
PARKING
SPACES
REQUIRED -
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA CITIES
1 C
4y
Q
U D
a,
tr
j�
+.. C
2
t D j
Q
O 0
p1,
C
ci
Go o ¢Q1
�o Fa
3a v�
Z C
J
4 Q? 5¢ o
i l
59 HAYWARD I1/200
1/150
1/Room +
1-49 Empl.
.8 spaces/
5/Doctor 1
Bed + 1/2
1/3 Seats
1/4
Seats
2/Unit
2
2
2
2.7
60
MODESTO
61
MONTEREY
62
MOUNTAIN VIEW
63 OAKLAND
64 PALO ALTO
E 65 REDWOOD CITY
1/175 over
1/2 empl.
employee industrial
bldg
or 1/150 empl.
on
1/100
or 1/60
10,000
1/1000
largest
shift
1/500
1/500
1/Room
1/4 Empl.
1/4 Empl.
1/200
1.5/Bed
1/4 Seats
1/5 Seats
2/Unit
2
2
2
2
or 1/60
1/300
1/500
l/Room +
1/1.5 Empl.
1/1.5 Empl.
1/3 Beds
1.5/Bed
1/2.5 Seats
1/5 Fixed
1 covered
1+1/5
1
11
1+1
2/50 Rooms
seats or
+ 1/5 unit
Guest
1/50
for guests
1/300
1/180
1/Room +
1/250
1/500 1/Co.
1/150
1/Bed
1/2.5 Seats
1/3.5 Seats
1/Unit
1.5
1.5
2
2
1/2 empl.
vehicle on
1/100
or 1/50
site
As determ-
1/400
l/Room
1/1000
1/3 Empl.
3/Doctor +
1/Doctor
1/200
1/8 Seats
2/Unit
1/5
1/5
1.5
1.5
ined by
1/2 empl.
or 1/80
+ 5
+ 5
the City
1/300 (LM)
1/350
1/Room
1/300 (LM)
1/300 (LM)
1/250
1/1.5 Beds
1/4 Seats
1/4 persons
4/Unit
1.25
1.5
2
2
1/250
1/500
1/1000
(0-Sdist)
1/300 1 1/200
0 66 RICHMOND 1 1/500 1 1/500
67 SACRAMENTO
1 1/400
Old City:
1/400
Outside
Old: 1/25C
4/5 Rooms
1/500
1/2 Rooms
1/2000
1/2000 1/2
empl.
1 Space + I 1 Space +
2/3 empl. 2/3 empl.
I I/loco
1/1000
5/Doctor E 1/Patient
1/850 over
add 1/
space
0-5000 sf 1/800
: 5+1 l/
1000 :7500
-10,000 sf
10+1/750;
etc
1 1/200 1 1/Bed
1/3 Seats 1/100
1/500 As determ-
ined by
the City
1 1/3 Seats
1 1/6 Seats
unit
covered
Unit
I 1/Unit
12/Unit
2/Unit up to 36 units
1.75/unit up to 36-72
units 1.5/unit over
72 units 10% shall be
reserved for guests
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
AS DETERMINED BY THE
CITY.I
International Parking Design, Inc. • Parking Consultants 7
FIE
PARKING SPACES REQUIRED - NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CITIES
iC�` G O ,JC lG O '� yQ y d h COz y
40 o C Z 3'a /
1 ^f
68 SAL INAS
1/300
1/300
1/Room
1/2 Empl. 1/1000 or
5/Doctor
2/Bed
1/50 or
1h O0
2/Unit
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
or 1/700 + 1/2 empl.
1/2.5 Fixed
1 covered
1/300 for on Max.
seats
office shift
69 SAN CARLOS
1/250
1/250
1/Room
Under 4000 sf: 1 open
1/250
Decided by
1 Open +
1 Open/4
2/Unit
1
2
2
2.5
/200 2 spaces minimum
Planning
1/4 occup-
occupants
over 4000 sf: 1 open/
or Zoning
ant + I/30
1000 1 add./200 sf
Administra-
tion
70 SAN FRANCISC
71 SAN JOSE
1/250
1/200
1/Room +
1/.5 Empl. 5000-25000
5/Doctor
1/2.5 Beds
1/2 Seats
1/4 Seats
2/Unit 1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
i/empl.
+ 1/Co. sf:5 Spaces
or 1/40
or 1/7
covered
vehicle over 25000
Linear ft
sf : 10
or 1/36
spaces
72 SAN LEANDRO
1/300
1/200;Bulk
1/3 Rooms
1/100 + 1/600 2/3
1/200 2/3
1/Doctor
1/3 Seats
1/200
2/Unit
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1/600 2/3
1/100 sf Employee
Employee
1/4 empl.
or 1/1000
employee
open space
1/1000
73 SAN LUIS
1/300
1/300
i/Room +
1/500 + 1/1000 +
1/200
i/Bed
1/4 Fixed
1/4 Seats
2/Unit
1+1/5
1.5 +
2 + 1
2.5
OBISPO
1/manager
1/1500 for 1/300 for
seats or
or 1/40
nest
1/5
Guest
+ 1/5
outdoor + office area
1/60 + 1/30
Guest
Guest
1/300 office
of enter-
tainment
74 SAN NATEO
1/250 sf
1/300
1/Room
1/2 Empl. 1/2 Empl. +
3/Empl.
1/2 Beds +
1/45
1/5 Seats
2/Unit
1.4
1.5
1.7
2.3
for 90% of
l/Co.
1/2 Empl.
20Z in cap-
covered
gross
vehicle
1/Staff
acity of
Doctor
persons
75 SANTA CLARA
1/300
1/200
1/Room
1/1500 or 1/3 Empi or
5/Doctor
1/2 Beds +
1/3 Seats
1/4 Seats
2/Unit
2
2
2
2
1/3 empl. 1/2000
No less
1/2 Empl. +
or 1/200
or 1/32
than 1/30
1/Doctor
8 intemational Parking Design, Inc. • Parlong consultants
n o o PARKING SPACES REQUIRED — NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CITIES
is
y
ay
��
c
,� 1
0J
°Jy
0 a
J9
v �
y b
a
ti
c74 v°��o� e°'a F
Fe
Fm
J0
¢¢
h
3a
m� S
D r
Q
ti m�
N
h
76 SANTA ROSA
0-5000 sf:
1/250
1.25/Room
1/700
1/5000 +
1/300 for
1.25/Bed
1/3 Seats
1/5 Seats
2/Unit
1.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
1/265
100% of the
over 1200
or 1/50
1 covered
Guest
Guest
Guest
Guest
5000-15,000
requirement
sf
: 1/300
set forth
-77 SOUTH SAN
1/300
1/200
1/Room
1/1500 or
1/2000 over
1/300
1.5/Bed
1/50
1/5 Seats
2w/ 1 cov.
2
2
2
2
FRAI'CISCO
1/2 empl.
10,000 sf:
or 1/35
3w/ 2 cov.
1/5000 sf
for 5 or
more Bdr.
_78 STOCKTON
80 Spaces +
10 + 1/250
1/2 Rooms
1/2 Empl.
1/2 Empl. +
1/200
1/2 Beds
1/250
1/50
1.5/Unit
1
1
1
1
1/500 in
in excess
1/Co.
1/Co.
excess of
of 5000 sf
vehicle
vehicle
20,000 sf
79 SUNNYVALE
1/225
1/225
1/Room +
1/180
1/1.2 Empl.
6/Doctor
1/Bed
1/3 Seats +
1/3 Seats +
2/Unit
1.5
1.5
1.75
2
1/Empl.
or 1/400
1/50 +
1/21 +
1/400
1/400
80 VALLEJO
Ground
Ground
1/Room
4/First
4/First
'S/Doctor
1/4 Beds
1/3 Seats
1/16 Seats
2/Unit
1.5
1.5
2
2
Floor: 1/
Floor: 1/
5000 sf; +
5000 sf; +
or 1/40
+ 1/160 for
200;other
200;other
1/ea. add.
1/ea. add.
indoor
floors: 1/
floors: 1/
2000 sf; or
2000 sf; or
seating
500 + 1/300
500 + 1/300
1/1.5 empl.
1/1.5 empl.
covered
covered
81 WALNUT CREEK
1/250
1/250
0.9/Room
1/400 +
1/2000 sf
1/250
C-0 Zone:
1/5 Seats
1/4 Seats
1/Unit
1
1 Covered
+
1/4
1/2000 open
Bulk 1/400
1/Bed; 0-C
or 1/75
or 1/75
units
or 1/2
space
sf
Zone: 1#/
units
or 2/3
Bed
units
International' Parking Design, Inc. • Porking Consultants 9
Da ° STALL / AISLE DESIGN
STANDARDS —SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CITIES
o
0 0
ti� ^v Q•/o,
,,a0 ca \'' _> o yF c ya
a a 3 > >
Large Cars
Small Cars
1 ALHAMBRA
9'-01.
0'-0"
65'-0"
62'-2"
56'-0"
Revising Ordinance to Accomodate
Small Cars (182)
2 AIIAHEIM
8'-6"
19'-0"
631-0"
60'-0"
52'-411
Revising Ordinance to Accomodate
Small Cars ('82)
3 BAKERSFIELD
8'-611
0'-0"
65'-0"
59'-6"
51'-1"
20% Required
7'-6" 16'-0"
57'-0"
51'-6"
43'-I"
Over 10
Spaces
4 BALDWIN PARK
9'-0"
0'-0"
65'-0"
57'-9"
49'-2"
20% Required
8'-O" 161-0"
571-0"
49'-9"
411-2"
Over 10
Spaces
5 BELLFLOWER
9'-0"
20'-0"
64'-0"
61'-8"
53'-0"
None
6 BELL GARDENS
91-0"
20'-0"
66'-011
61'-8"
551-0"
None Permitted Over
and Above Required Amount
of Stalls
7 BEVERLY HILL
9'-0"
l91-0"
None Permitted Over
and Above Required Amount
of Stalls
1
8 BUENA PARK
9'-6"
194-011
Aisle
Aisle
Aisle
25%
T -8" 15'-0"
Aisle
Aisle
Aisle
251-0"
20--0"
15'-O"
25'-0"
204-0"
15'-0"
9 BURBANK
8'-6"
20'-0"
63'-41'
551-111'
494-1011
30%
7'-61' 15'-a'
55'-4"
49'-41'
44' -4'1
9,_D.,
61'-4"
54'-6"
48'-7"
10 CLAREMONT
9'-O"
20'-0"
64'-0"
61'-8"
551-0"
None
11 COMMERCE
9'-O"
18'-0"
62'-0"
601-4"
52'-0"
25%
7'-6" 15'-O"
50'-0"
12 COMPTON
9'-0"
0'-0"
65'-O"
58'-0"
52'-0"
None
13 COSTA MESA
9'-0"
19'-0"
64'-0"
59'-6"
52'-0"
Conditonal
7'-G" 151-0"
52'-0"
47'-O"
44'-0"
Use Permit
14 CULVER CITY
Redevelopment
Area (L.A.
Standards)
10%
8'-0" 16'-D"
30% (Redevelopment)
Redev.)
40% (Ofc. inlof
15 DOWNEY
9'-0"
20'-0"
66'-0"
67'-8"
48'-10"
25% Required
115%
8'-0" 15'-0"
16 EL MONTE
9'-0"
20'-0"
65'-D"
62'-5"
53'-6"
Total
7'-6" 16'-0"
10 International Parking Design, Inc. - Porktng Consultants
STALL / AISLE DESIGN
a v° 0
q
Ci y�D y \3
3
STANDARDS-
SOUTHERN
o
r
0 0
oi� a.,
CALIFORNIA CITIES
ho bo �h
v
m 3 3 3
h 3 3\ 3\
Large Cars
Small Cars
17 FULLERTON
9'-0"
19'-0"
30%
of Req'd.
8'-0"
16--0"
18 GLENDALE
8'-8"
18'-0"
63'-8"
60'-0"
54'-3"
40% s 20%
7'-6"
15'-0"
54'-0"
51'-10"
47'-4"
See Ord.
19 HAWTHORNE
9'-0"
18'-6"
63'-0"
60'-0"
55'-0"
None
20 HERMOSA
8'-6"
20--0"
None
BEACH
21 HUNTINGTON
8'-6"
19'-0"
63--0"
61'-6"
53'-10"
20 Spaces
8'-0"
15'-0"
63'-0"
61'-6"
53'-1Or'
BEACH
or More
40%
22 HUNTINGTON
9,-0"
20--0"
Aisle
Aisle
Aisle
30%
or Req'd.
8'-0"
161-0"
PARK
24,
16'
12'
23 INGLEWOOD
8'-6"
20'-0"
65'-0"
59'-9"
53'-9"
None
24 LAGUNA
8'-4"
18'-0"
64'-0"
56'-5"
50'-3"
20%
of Total
7'-6"
15'-0"
58'-0"
50'-5"
44'-3"
BEACH
25 LAKEWOOD
9'-0"
20'-0"
64'-0"
61'-8"
53'-0"
20%
of Total
7'-6"
15'-0"
26 LONG BEACH
9'-0"
19'-0"
62'-0"
60'-0"
52'-6"
30%
of Req'd.
8'-0"
75'-0"
59'-0"
57'-0"
49'-6"
27 LOS ANGELES
8'-4"
18'-0"
64'-0"
56'-5"
50'-3"
40%
of Req'd.
7'-6"
15'-0"
55'-4"
49'-4"
44'-4"
28 LYNWOOD
9'-0"
18'-0"
61'-0"
59'-0"
52,-0"
30%
of Total
7'-6"
15'-0"
29 MANHATTAN
9'-0"
19'-O"
63'-0"
53'-6"
49'-0"
30% Office
7'-6"
15'-0"
BEACH
(1)Tenant
40%
30 MONTCLAIR
9'-0"
20--0"
67'-0"
Aisle
Aisle
None (Allowed
if More Than
Required)
16'-O"
12'-0"
31 MONTEREY
9''0"
20'-0"
49'-0"
61'-6"
55'-0"
None
PARK
32 NEWPORT
9'-O"
18'-0"
60'-0"
57'-0"
49'-2"
None
Special
7'-6"
.151-0"
50--0"
47'-5"
43'-0"
BEACH
8'-6"
1a-4,
62'-0"
57'-7"
48'-5"
Approval
33 NORWALK
9'-0"
18'-0"
62'-0"
58'-V
52'-0"
None
International Parking Design, Inc. • Parking consultants
Opo STALL /AISLE DESIGN STANDARDS -SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA CITIES
O
i" t�
r y c o o
Gi y y i a 3� A QG O ~o y h 3 2 3\
Large Lars
Small Cars
34 ORANGE
94-0"
201-0"'
654-0"
63'-0"
57'-0"
401
of Total
S.-O.,
16'-0"
Aisle
21'-0"
35 OXNARD
98-0"
201-0"
65'-0"
62'-0"
54'-o"
None
36 PARAMOUNT
91-0"
20'-0"
64'-0"
611-S'"
53'-0"
35%
of Req'd.
8'-O"
15"-0"
37 PASADENA
9'-0"
19'-0"
Aisle
Aisle
Aisle
None
24`-0"'
18'-0"
13'_D"
38 PICO RIVERA
9''0"
20'-0"
661-0"
63'-8"
53'-0"
None
39 POMONA
8'-6"
18'-0"
61'-0"
54'-8"
491-5"
10n
of Total
T-6"
16'-01"
9'-6"
18'-0"
61'-0"
55'-6"
50'-10"
4D REDDN00
9'-0"
19'-0"
631-0"
60'-0"
53'-8"
None
BEACH
41 SAN FERNANDO
9'-0"
19'-0"
63'-0"
5911"
53'-8"
42 SANTA ANA
9"-0"
20'-0"
Aisle
Aisle
Aisle
25% Retail
23"-0"
18'-O"
15'-D"
40% Office
43 SANTA FE
8'-6"
191-0"
62'-0"
591-5"
50'-11"
None
Permitted Over
and Above
Required Amount
of Stalls
SPRINGS
9'-0"
20'-0"
64'-0"
61' ^"
53'-0"
44 SANTA MONK
8'-6"
191-0"
Aisle
10%
8'-0"
16"-o"
24'-0"
3051 in
CM Dist.
45 SOUTH GATE
9'-D"
20'-0"
66'-0"
61'-8"
55'-0"
20,
7'-6"
15'-0"
(Employees
Only)
46 SOUTH
9'-0"
20'-0"
Aisle
35%
of Req'd.
8'-0"
17'-0"
PASADENA
24'-0"
47 TORRANCE
8'-6"
19'-O"
631-0"
58'-0"
56'-01'
109'
7'-6"
15'-0"
48 TUSTIN
9'-0"
20"-0"
67'-0"
65'-0"
63'-0"
20%
of Total
7'-6"
19"-0"
49 WEST COVINA
9'-0"
20'-0"
65'-0"
58'-10"
50'-9"
5%
of Total
8'-6"
17'-0"
50 WESTMINSTER
9'-01"
19'-0"
63'-0"
60'-0"
56'-0"
None
51 WHITTIER
91-0"
201-0"
64'-0"
611-8"
55'-0"
None
I International Parking Design, Inc. . Parkng Consultants
0 0 o STALL / AISLE DESIGN
r �
J� C� O
Ci ya ya 3\3
STANDARDS -
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
ay
o
O \ ti
A
Large Cars
Small Cars
52 BERKELEY
8.0'
18.0'
62.0'
57.16'
57.16'
0
53 BURLINGAME
9.0'
20.0'
64.0'
62.0'
53.0'
20%
Of Reqd.
8.0'
17.0'
58.0'
55.80'
47.36'
54 CONCORD
9.0'
19.0'
62.0'
57•0'
51.0'
35%
Of Total
8.0'
16.0'
56.o'
50.80'
45.34'
55 DALY CITY
8.5'
19.0'
62.0'
56.0'
52.0'
20%
Of Total
8.5'
16.0'
56.0'
50.80'
47.76'
56 FOSTER CITY
8.5'
20.0'
67.0'
58.0'
52.0'
20%
Of Reqd.
8.5'
17.0'
56.0'
48.o'
45.0'
57 FREMONT
9.0'
19.0'
62.0'
56.91'
51.60'
35%
Of Total
8.0'
16.0'
58.0'
50.71'
45.94'
58 FRESNO
8.5'
20.0'
68.0'
59.0'
52.0'
0
59 HAYWARD
9.0'
19.0'
66.0'
57.0'
49.o'
25%
Of Total
7.5'
15.0'
50.0'
47.48'
43.82'
60 MODESTO
9.0'
19.0'
62.99'
60.17'
57.98'
30%
Of Total
7.5'
15.0'
57.0'
53.48'
51.62'
61 MONTEREY
9.0'
20.0'
64.0'
61.69'
56:0'
50%
Of Reqd.
8.5'
16.0'
56.0'
54.0'
49.0'
62 MOUNTAIN VIEW
8.5'
20.0'
68.0'
60.0'
52.0'
30%
Of Reqd.
7.5'
15.5'
52.0'
51.21'
47.75'
63 OAKLAND
8.5'
18.0'
60.0'
51.67'
49.47'
30%
Of Reqd.
7.5'
16.0'
56.0'
52.0'
45.23'
64 PALO ALTO
8.5'
18.0'
64.0'
57.68'
50.48'
50%
Of Reqd.
7.5'
16.0'
52.0'
49.48'
45.0'
65 REDWOOD CITY
9.0'
19.0'
63.0'
57.0'
54.0'
33%
Of Reqd.
7.5'
16.0'
57.0'
51.0'
48.0'
66 RICHMOND
9.0'
20.0'
65•0'
53.0'
46.0'
0
67 SACRAMENTO
8.0'
18.0'
62.0'
60.0'
52.0'
30%
Of Total
7.5'
16.0'
57.0'
55.0'
47.0'
68 SALINAS
8.5'
19.0'
62.0'
60.0'
52.7'
0
69 SAN CARLOS
9.0'
19.0'
62.0'
58.0'
51.83'
0
70 SAN FRANCISCO
8.0'
18.0'
PER CITY
TEMPLATE
50%
Of Reqd.
7.5'
15.0'
PER CITY
TEMPLATE
International Parking Design, Inc.
Parking ConsuRants
13
13
O ° ° STALL / AISLE
DESIGN STANDARDS - NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CITIESI
c"
R
Va
o
,!
o-`
yr q
3\a ba
4 y >3 33 3\
M
O ha
y y 3
yvC
Q�
3�a
Large Cars
Small Cars
71 SAN JOSE
9.01
18.0'
62.0'
55.61
52.4'
30%
Of Reqd.
8.01
16.0'
58.0'
51.2'
48.4'
72 SAN LEANDRO
9.0'
20.0'
68.0'
55.0'
52.0'
30%
Of Reqd.
8.0'
18.01
60.0'
53.161
48.76'
73 SAN LUIS O815PO
8.5'
18.0'
59-75
56.33'
Of Total
9.0.
18.0'
63.33'
40%
8.0'
16.0'
55.4'
54.161
52.11
74 SAN MATEO
8.5'
20.0'
67.0'
5& 0'
52.0'
25%
of Reqd.
8.01
17.0'
56.0'
48.0'
45.0'
75 SANTA CLARA
9.0.
20.0'
65.0'
60.0'
55.0'
15%
Of Total
8.0'
16.0'
52.0'
52.0'
48.0'
76 SANTA ROSA
3.5'
19.01
65.0'
57.5'
51.0'
of Total
9.0'
19.01
64.0'
57.0'
51.5'
50%
8.01
16.01
55.0'
40.01
34.0'
77 SO. SAN FRANCISCO
9.0'
20.0'
65.0'
61.64'
55.0'
10%
of Reqd.
7.5'
16.0'
57.0'
53.21'
47.23'
73 STOCKTON
8.5'
19.0'
63.0'
56.5'
51.5'
2595
Of Total
7.5'
15.0'
55.0'
52.01
45.234
79 SUNrrvVALE
8.v
18.0'
42.01
55.61
50.9'
0
80 VALLEJO
9.0'
19.0'
64.0'
61.91'
55.60'
0
81 WALNUT CREEK
8.5'
19.0'
Of Reqd.
9.04
19.0'
65.01
58.01
51.61
50%
7.5'
15.0'
57.0'
49.61
43.81
14
-Internaflonal Parking Design, Inc.
Parking Consultants
APRI61982' i
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Background
July 27, 1981
City Council Meeting JuRe-22;-4984-
Study Session Agenda Item No. 4(-G}b 9(c)1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council
Planning Department
Parking Requirements for Residential
Condominium Projects
This is the third report to the City Council in as many Study Sessions
on•the subject of parking requirements for residential condominium
projects. Staff reports for the May 26th and June 8th Study Sessions
are attached.
At the June 8th Study Session, a question was asked regarding the
parking requirements imposed by the Cities of Huntington Beach and
Laguna Beach, the dividing line between the requirement for 1, 1;0
2 or 3 spaces, and how they defined the term "bedroom."
HUNTINGTON BEACH
1 bedroom, single or bachelor = 1 space
2 bedroom = 1.5 spaces
3 or more bedrooms = 2 spaces
In addition to the spaces noted above, the City of Huntington
Beach also requires one-half on -site guest parking space per
dwelling unit. However they do not permit condominiums on
lots smaller than 10,000 sq.ft.
In determining the number of bedrooms in any particular
dwelling unit, just the number of rooms which are actually
designated as bedrooms are counted in determining the
parking requirement.
LAGUNA BEACH
1 bedroom or studio = 1.5 spaces
2 to 3 bedrooms = 2 spaces
4 or more bedrooms = 3 spaces
In addition, the City of Laguna Beach requires one guest
space for each four units above four units on a site.
TO: City Council - 2.
If, in addition to having a closet, a room meets the
minimum requirements for a habitable space; that is,
it is at least seven feet in width, contains at least
70 sq.ft., meets the outdoor escape requirements and
has no opening to the garage, that space i•s counted as
a bedroom for parking requirement purposes regardless
of how it may be designated on the plans.
Parking Requirements Based on Number of'Bedrooms
A parking requirement based on the number of bedrooms in a dwelling
unit is not a new idea to the Planning Commission or Staff. It is
an idea which has been suggested, •discussed and then rejected on
several occasions because of the enforcement problems which would
occur and the arguments which would arise when a room was designated
as a den, study, library, studio, sewing room, utility room, storage
room, music room, T.V. room, or for some other purpose and then con-
verted to a bedroom or sleeping room at a later date.
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JDH/kk
Attachments: Staff Reports dated May 26 and June 8, 1981
City Council Meeting May 26, 1981
Study Session Agenda Item No.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Parking and Garage Requirements for Condominiums
Background
At the City Council Study Session of April 27, 1981, Councilman
Hummel raised a question regarding the parking requirement for resi-
dential condominium units and whether a two -unit condominium project
would meet the City s parking standard if only three parking spaces
are provided. The answer to the question is "yes" - only three
spaces are required for a two-family or duplex at a ratio of one
and one-half parking spaces for each dwelling unit. As noted in
the attached excerpts from the Municipal Code,'the City's residential
parking requirement is based on the number of dwelling units in a
project as opposed to the method of ownership, i.e., renter vs owner.
In addition, the question has been raised from time to time as to
how the Assessor treats.a condominium project both from a mapping
and a billing standpoint. Attached for the information of the Council
is a copy of Page 18 from Book 46 of the Assessor's Maps. Parcel 46-
184-14 (Lot 465, Tract 907) was approved by the City a-s a two unit
condominium conversion on April'21, 1977 (Resubdivision No. 546)
It should be noted that the land has not been divided and is still
mapped as a single parcel. However, for tax. -billing purposes; each
owner has been assigned a Billing Number for which he is assessed for
an undivided one-half interest in the lot (Common Area), individual
interests in the garage, patio, laundry and storage areas (Restricted
Common Areas),and individual interest in each unit.
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
e9-1
.Eg Director
JDH/kk
Attachments
5
Page 36
GENERAL CONTROLS
RESIDENTIAL
Chapter 20.10
pa tern. In all such cases, the required setback from the
stre t shall be a minimum of 5 feet and the normal front yard
requi ments shall apply to the portion of such lots adjacent
to any terway, beach or bluff, except that such front yards
may exce%the
maximum of 35feet permitted'in residential
district49 Code § 9105.4(h) added by Ord. 635; December
12, 1950nded by Ord. 1034; April 8, 1963).
20.10.035 SWIMMING POOLS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT -
YARDS. Any swimmi g pool, fish pond, or other body of water
which contains Ovate eighteen inches or more in depth for use
in connection with an residential use shall be permitted in
any required yard space provided that the enclosing fence
required in Chapter 15..0 of this Code is permitted under the
provisions of Section 20.0 070 and 20.10.025\doesno
F of this Chapter.
Any pump, filter or heater ied to serve. such body of, water•
within ten feet of a side oproperty line (unless said
property line is adjacent toet or alley) shall be sound
attenuated in such a manner a ieve a maximum sound level
of 55 dBA at said property ln such pump, filter or
heater shall not be consideracce ory building so long
as any required housing thers not xceed six feet in
height. Pumps may be operatbetwee the hours of 8 a.m.
and 8 p.m. (1949 Code § 910ded by 0 924; July 11, 1960;
and as amended by Ord. 1876 81)•.
20.10.040 UNDERGROUND STORAGE OF FLAMM LE LIQUIDS.
The underground storage of 'flammable liquids shall a pro-
hibited in any residential district in the City. (0 1834
§ 1, 1980).
20.10.045• AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT - YARDS. y•
air-conditioning equipment installed within ten feet of a s'de"
or rear property line (unless said property line is adjacent
to a street or an alley) shall be sound attenuated''in such a
manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at said
property line. Any such equipment shall not be considered an
accessory building so long as any required housing thereof
does not exceed six feet in height. (Added by Ord. 1876 § 2,
1981).
20.10.050 PARKING.
A. Storage or parking space for the parking of automobiles
off the street shall be provided in any residential district
as follows:
1. Not less than one and one-half parking spaces
for each dwelling unit.
J
Page 208
DEFINITIONS
Chapter 20.87
20. 140 DWELLING UNIT. The term 'dwelling unit'
shall mean single unit providing complete independent living
facilities f`ov, one or more persons, including provisions for liv-
'ing, sleeping, nd sanitation, and having at least one entrance
opening to the o tside or to a common hallway or entryway shared
by other dwelling nits or facilities.
Dwelling units constr ted after August 24, 1972, must contain a
minimum of 600 square et of superficial floor area.
Every dwelling unit shall ve at least one room which shall have
not less than 150 square fee of floor area. Other habitable rooms,
except kitchens, shall have an rea of not less than 70 square feet.
An efficiency type unit shall hav a living room of not less than
220 square feet of superficial floo area. An additional 1.00 square
feet of superficial floor area shall a provided for each occupant
of each unit in excess of two persons. The kitchen facilities shall
be provided with a clear working space o not less than 30" in front.
The unit shall be provided with a separate athroom containing a wa-.
ter closet, lavatory and bathtub or shower. 11 areas must meet
the Housing Code regulations for ceiling heig light, and venti-
lation_.
Existing.•units not meeting the above outlined crite is shall not
be occupied by more than two persons. The provision of Chapter
20.83 entitled Nonconforming Structures and Uses' not 'thstanding
the following regulation shall apply to buildings on lot which
contain a greater number of -dwelling units than permitted.
Buildings on lots which contain a greater number of dwelling its
than permitted by Chapter 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Co
must be altered to conform to the requirements of the Code withi
60 years from date of original construction, unless specifically
exem1950: 1d by the 949 949 Code City
107 22 Council. Ord. 18047§ Ord. 635
1830 (part),
§ 1, 1979). (Part).
20.87.150 DWELLING, SINGLE-FAMILY. The. term "single-
family dwelling" shall mean a detached building containing one
dwelling unit. (Ord. 1579 § 2,.1974; Ord. 635 (part), 1950:
1949 Code § 9107.23).
20.87.160 DWELLING, TWO-FAMILY OR DUPLEX. The term "two-
family dwelling" or "duplex dwelling" shall mean a building
containing two dwelling units. (Ord. 1579 § 3., 1974: Ord. 845
(part), 1958: Ord. 635 (part), 1950: 1949 Code § 9107.24).
3
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Background
City Council Meeting June 8, 1981
Study Session Agenda Item No. 8(c)2
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council
Planning Department
Parking Requirements for Residential
Condominium Projects
At the City Council Study Session of May 26, 1981, the Staff was re-
quested to place the City's- Condominium Ordinance on the next Study
Session Agenda and to survey several cities which might have similar
lot sizes to determine their parking requirements for condominiums.
Newport Beach Requirements
The parking requirements for residential uses, including condominium
projects, are found under Section 20.10.050 of the Municipal Code
(see attached). In addition, Chapter 20.73, Residential Condominium
Projects, requires that all projects comply with the requirements for
new buildings applicable at the time of project approval (also at-
tached). The City's current requirement of not less than one and one-
half parking spaces per dwelling unit was adopted by the'City Council
on August 11, 1980, on a six to one vote. This action followed
fifteen months of study, review and hearings by the Planning Commis-
sion and City Council, and the input from several community associa-
tions including those from Balboa Island, Lido Island and Corona del
Mar.
Other Cities' Requirements
In order to determine parking requirements in other jurisdictions which
might have similar problems because of small lots, four coastal cities
were contacted. The results o'f this limited survey indicate that
standards vary widely depending on the size of the unit, number of
bedrooms, and the size of the lot.
HUNTINGTON BEACH
1, 12 or 2 spaces/DU -depending on number of bedrooms.
In addition, one-half guest space/DU on site for condominiums.
No condominiums permitted on lots less than 10,000 sq.ft. in size.
LAGUNA BEACH
12 to 2 spaces/DU depending on number of bedrooms.
In addition, one guest space for each four units above four
units on a site.
TO: City Council - 2.
SAN CLEMENTE
2 spaces/DU
In addition, one guest space for each five units begin-
ning with the fifth unit on sites containing 3,600 sq.ft.
or more.
SEAL BEACH
2 spaces/DU
In addition, one guest space for each seven units begin-
ning with the eighth unit.
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
lan)ping Director
JDH/kk
Attachments: Excerpts from Municipal Code
Z
Page 36
GENERAL CONTROLS
RESIDENTIAL
Chapter 20.10
attern. In all such cases, the required setback from the
$
eet shall be a minimum of 5 feet and the normal front yard
req irements shall apply to the portion of such lots adjacent
to a waterway, beach or bluff, except that such front yard's
may ex ed the maximum of 35 feet permitted' in residential
district (1949 Code § 9105.4(h) added by Ord. 635; December
121 1950 a amended by Ord. 1034; April 8, 1963).
20.10.03 SWIMMING POOLS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT -
YARDS. Any swi ing pool; fish pond, -or other body of water
which contains wa\1..
een inches or more in-depth for use
in connection witidential use shall be permitted in
any required yardrovided that the enclosing fence
required in Chaptof this Code is permitted under the
provisions of. Sec2.070 and 20.10.025, F of this Chapter.
Any pump, filter or.heater stalled to serve• such body of.water
within ten feet of a side or ar property line (unles's said
property line is adjacent to a treet or all.ey) sha•ll.be sound
attenuated in.such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level
of 55 dBA at said property line. such pump, filter or
heater shall not be considered an•ac s•sory building so long
as any required housing thereof does n t exceed six feet in
height. Pumps may be operated only bet en the hours of 8 a.m.
and 8 p.m. (1949 Code § 9105.4'1 added by rd. 924; July 11, 7960;
and as amended by Ord. 1876 § 1, 1981).
20.10.040 UNDERGROUND STORAGE OF FLA BLE LIQUIDS.
The underground storage of flammable liquids sha be pro-
hibited in any residential district in the City. %rd. 1834
§ 1, 1980).
20.10.045 AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT - YARDS: ny
air-conditioning equipment installed within ten feet of a ide
or rear property line'(unless said property line..is adsacen
to a street or an alley) shall be sound attenuated 'in such a
manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at said
property line. Any such equipment shall not be considered an
accessory building so long as any required housing thereof
does not exceed six feet in height. (Added by Ord. 1876 § 2,
1981).
20.10.050 PARKING.
A. Storage or parking space for the parking of automobiles
off the street shall be provided in any residential district
as follows:
1. Not less than one and one-half parking spaces
for each dwelling unit.
Page 37
GENERAL CONTROLS
RESIDENTIAL
Chapter 20.10
2. Not less than three parking spaces for any
structure containing 2,000 sq. ft. or more,
exclusive of areas devoted to parking and open
space, unless the structure is a single-family
dwelling.
3. Not less than one covered, independently
accessible parking space for.each two guest rooms
in any rooming house.*
4. Not less than one.independently accessible
parking space for each two guest rooms in any hotel.•
5. Not less than one independently accessible
parking space for each guest unit in any motel.:
Parking spaces required for other uses allowed in any're.sidential
district not set forth above shall be determined by the•Planning
Commission.
�. Parking of automobiles.on the roof of a building -in any
residential district is no-t allowed.
C. In addition to the above noted parking standards, the
following parking controls shall also apply: •
1. For each dwelling unit there 'shall be at least .
one covered parking space.
2. For each dwelling unit, there shall be at least
one independently accessible parking space.
3. Tandem parking up to a maximum of two cars in
depth shall be permitted.
4. Parking in side yards shall be permitted; provided,
however, that structural encroachments shall not be per-
mitted, except as noted in this section. When three
parking spaces are provided across the rear of a lot
less than 30 feet 10 inches wide; one g:irjge.wall may
encroach into the required side yard setback. Its
distance from the property line shall be not less than
26 inches plus the amount ('if any) that the width of
the lot exceeds 30 feet. The substandard side yard
created thereby shall have a clear passageway 26 inches
wide, unobstructed by fences, utility meters, hose bibs,
or any other appurtenances which could interfere with
use of the passageway by•emergency personnel or equipment.
5
Page 38
GENERAL CONTROLS
RESIDENTIAL
Chapter 20.10
5. Parking in front yards shall be permitted on drive-
ways in front of garages that set back at least nineteen
feet from the front property line; provided, however,
that structural encroachments shall not be permitted.
D. The one covered parking space that is required for each'
dwelling unit shall be included in 'the gross floo•r•area. However,
the following areas need not be ihcluded in the gross floor area:
1. Other parking spaces which are open on at least
two sides', or open on'one side an'one end; and
2. twenty-five square -feet of storage area adjacent
to or a part of a parking space on a lot less tha.q
thirty-two feet wide; provided that no plumbing is
located in said area, and provided that three parking
spaces are provided side by side across one end.of
the lot.
E. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.83, structures which
were in existence or under construction on the effective date of
this Ordinance, and which do not provide the required number of
parking spaces, may be expanded or altered without providing
additional required parking spaces -as follows:- '
1. Minor alterations such as.the remodeling of
existing buildings where no additional living space
is proposed; and
2. Minor additions to existing buildings', such as
the construction of bathrooms, closets and hallways,
or the expansion of existing rooms. (Ord. 1856.5 1,
1980; and as amended by Ord.'1876 § 3, 1981).
Page 173
RESIDENTIAL CONDO-
MINIUM PROJECTS
Chapter 20.73
CHAPTER 20.73
R E S I•D• E N T I A L C 0 N D 0 M I N I U M P R 0 J E C T S
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sections:
20.73.005
Intent and Purpose.•
20.73.010
Definitions.
20.73.015
Use Permit Required.
20.7.3.020.
Fees
20.73.025
Standards - All Condominium Projects.
20.73.030
Modification or Waiver of Development
Standards.
20.73.035
Condominium Conversion Regulations.,
Vacancy Rate.
20.73.040
Existing Structures and Uses, Approved
Plans.
20.73.045
Separability.
20.73.005 INTENT AND PURPOSE. The City Council finds and
determines that residential condominium projects differ in many
aspects from other types of construction and form of ownership and
development. Therefore, these regulations are adopted to guide the
development of new residential condominium projects and conversions
of existing dwelling units to,condominium projects. It is the in-
tent of these regulations to provide a balanced mix between owner-
ship and rental housing in order to assure the development of a variety
of housing types to serve the needs of the community.
20.73.010 DEFINITIONS. The following terms used herein
shall have the meanings indicated:
A. CONDOMINIUM. The term "condominium" shall mean and include the
following: A condominium project, as defined in Section 1350 of the
Civil Code, containing two or more condominiums, as defined in Sec-
tion 783 of the Civil Code; a community apartment project, as de-
fined in Section 11004 of the Business and Professions Code, con-
taining two or more rights of exclusive occupancy; a stock coopera-
tive, as defined in Section 11002.2 of the Business and Professions
Code, containing two or more separately owned lots, parcels or
areas; or any other such project as defined by state law. In ad-
dition, for the purpose of this Chapter, development which offers
own -your -own or fee ownership units, whereby the individual owns
land directly below the "footprint" of said unit, and all other
land within the project is owned in common, shall be defined as a
condominium.
/O
Page 174
RESIDENTIAL CONDO-
MINIUM PROJECTS
Chapter 20.73
B. ORGANIZATIONAL DOCUMENTS. The term "organizational documents"
shall mean the declaration of restrictions, articles of incorpora-
tion, bylaws and any contracts for the maintenance, management or
operation of all or any part of a project.
C. PROJECT. The term "project" shall mean the entire parcel of
real property proposed to be used or divided, as land or airspace,
into two or more units as a condominium.
D. UNIT. The term "unit" shall mean the particular area of land
or airspace that is designed* intended or used for exclusive pos-
session or control of individual owners or occupier.
E. VACANCY RATE. The term "vacancy rate" shall mean the number of
vacant multiple dwellings being offered for rent or lease i'n the
City of Newport Beach shown as a percentage of the total number of
multiple dwellings offered for or under rental or lease agreement
in the City. Said vacancy -rate shall be as established once each
year, in April, by survey of 15% of the City's rental units.
20.73.015 USE PERMIT REQUIRED. Condominium projects may
be permitted in any district in which residential uses are per-
mitted, including Planned Communities, subject to securing' a use
permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.83 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code. In Planned Community Districts, re-
sidential developments, all or part of which have been specifically
designated as condominium projects on the approved Planned Com-
munity Development Plan, shall be permitted subject to the require-
ment of a specific Planning Commission finding that the Commission
has considered the criteria and requirements of this Chapter in
approving the Planned Community and accompanying regulatory text.
In addition, the approval of a tentative and final tract map or
parcel map shall be required for all condominium projects in ac-
cordance,with Title 19, Newport Beach Municipal Code. No persons
shall construct a new condominium development, or convert an exist-
ing residential use to a condominium, within the City of Newport
Beach without first complying with the provisions of this Chapter.
Tentative or parcel maps shall not be required until after a use
permit has been approved, but such maps and permit may be processed
for approval concurrently.
20.73.020 FEES. In addition to use permit and parcel map
fees, condominium applications shall be accompanied by fees estab-
lished by resolution of the City Council for review of (a) organi-
zational documents of the project submitted as part of a tentative
tract or parcel map application; and (b) a special inspection fee,
in the case of condominium conversion applications.
Page 175
RESIDENTIAL CONDO-
MINIUM PROJECTS
Chapter 20.73
20.73.025 STANDARDS -ALL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS. Condomi-
nium projects, whether new projects or conversions, shall conform
to the following, and the Planning Commission or the City Council,
on appeal or review shall make specific findings as to such con-
formance in any action approving a use permit application.
AThe project
plans andspecifications, ladopted City and Statecbuildingncodes,
and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the dis-
trict in -which the proposed project is located at the time of ap-
proval.. Whenever regulations or restrictions imposed by this
Section are either more or less restrictive than regulations or
restrictions imposed by any other law, the regulations, restric-
tions or laws which are most restrictive, or which impose higher
standards, shall govern.
B. The project lot size shall conform to the Zoning Code
area requirements in effect at the time of approval, but in no
case shall a condominium conversion be approved on a lot of less
than 5,000 square feet, regardless of when such lot was legally
established.
C. The project shall be consistent with the adopted goals
and policies of the General Plan, particularly with regard to the
balance and dispersion of housing types within the City.
D. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or
building applied for shall not, under the circumstances of the
particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, com-
fort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious
to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the City.
20.73.030 MODIFICATION OR WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STAN-
DARDS. The Planning Commission, by a 4/5 vote of those present
and voting, shall have the right to modif,yy or waive any of the
standards required by Section 20.73.025(A), if such modification
or waiver will in no way be detrimental to adjacent properties
or improvements than will the strict compliance with these stan-
dards.
20.73.035 CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION REGULATIONS.
A. All applications for conversion of existing rental dwell-
ing units shall conform to the following; and the Planning Com-
mission, or City Council on appeal or review, shall make specific
findings as to such conformance in any action approving a use
permit for a condominium conversion.
/
Page 176
RESIDENTIAL CONDO-
MINIUM PROJECTS
Chapter 20.73
I. The application shall propose special considerations
for fixed income elderly tenants and handicapped persons in
the way of extended notice of conversion intent, relocation
assistance, or other means.
2. Existing tenants whose income is below 120% of the
County's median income shall be permitted to remain as rent-
ers for a period of one year.
3. A minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the existing
tenants shall have expressed written interest in exercising
their oprtion to purchate a converted unit within the project
at the price offered.
B. Vacancy Rate Regulation. Where it is proposed to convert
an existing residential development to condominium units, the
Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal or review,
shall disapprove, without prejudice, any use permit application
if:
1. The rental dwelling unit vacancy rate in the City
at the time of the public hearing is equal'to or less than
five percent (5q).
2. Overriding Considerations. Notwithstanding the
above, the Planning Commission may approve a condominium
conversion use permit and, if approved, shall make corres-
ponding findings, if any of the following overriding con-
siderations exist:
(a) The project will ize th
fect on
dwelling unit vacancy rate, mand motherwisefsubstantially
comply with the intent of this Chapter; or
(b) Evidence has been submitted that two-thirds
(2/3) of the existing tenants have voted to recommend
approval of the conversion.
20.73.040 EXISTING STRUCTURES AND USE; APPROVED PLANS.
Any residential condominium development, whether originally es-
tablished as such or converted from multi -family units, which
lawfully exists on the effective date of this ordinance, or for
which building permits have been issued, or for which an approved
Planned Community Development Plan specifically provides that
proposed residential developments shall be condominiums, shall be
permitted to continue such use as approved. Any addition, expan-
sion or substantial alteration of the development plans shall be
subject to all provisions of this Chapter.
13
Page A 77
RESIDENTIAL CONDO-
MINIUM PROJECTS
Chapter 20.73
20.73.045 SEPARABILITY. If any provisions or require-
mehts of'this Chapter shall be found invalid or unconstitutional in
application or in interpretation by a court of competent juris-
diction, such decision -shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Chapter. (Ord. 1817 § 1, 1979)
\I
4262 Campus Drive, Suite B-1
BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC.
January 14, 1981
ENGrXEEMNG AND PLAJ NrNG
Transportation, Traffic, Municipal, Transit
Newport Beach, California 92660
Subject: Parking Survey for Residential Condominiums
and Townhomes
Thank you!
(714) 549-9940
Your help in the completion of this survey is greatly
appreciated. Enclosed please find the Summary of
Parking Requirements for Condominium and Townhouse
Developments in Qrange County (Table 1) and an applica-
tion of these rates to a project in the City of Irvine
(see Table 2).
If we may be of any assistance in the future, please
call.
sincerely,
BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC.
-Z'� x::f P
Ken Lindmark
KL:hh
Enclosure
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS
FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AND TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS
IN ORANGE COUNTY
Agency
Anaheim
Parking Spaces
Required per
Dwelling Unit
3.5
Guest Parking
Spaces per
Dwelling Unit
Total Required
Spaces per
Dwelling Unit
3.5
Other
Requirements
2 must be garage
1.5 may be off -
site but within
100' of dwelling
Brea 1.75/1 bedroom 0.2 (for 5 unit 1.95-2.7 1 must be covered
2.0 /2 bedroom or larger (1 & 2 bedroom)
2.5 /3 bedroom development) 2 must be covered
(for 3 bedroom)
Buena Park 2.0 0.33 _ 2.33 2,must be garage
480 ft. minimum
Guest parking may
be on private sts.
Fountain valley
2.0
0.25
2.25
2 must be garage
Fullerton
1.5/1
bedroom
0.5
2.0-2.75
1.0 must be garage
2.0/2
bedroom
for 1 bedroom
2.25/3 bedroom
1.5 must be garage
for 2 bedroom
1.75 must be garage
for 3 bedroom
Irvine
3.0
-
3.0
Huntington Beach
1.5/1
bedroom
0.5
2.0-2.5
1 must be covered
2.0/2
bedroom 09
more
La Palma
2.0
-
2.0
1h must be garage
Los Alamitos
2.0
0.$
2.5
2 must be covered
Newport Beach
1.5 -
2.5
-
1.5 - 2.5k
1 must be covered
Orange For Developments 1 must be garage
larger than 10 b.U. Guest Parking may
1.5 0.5 2.0 be on adjacent
public streets
Placentia 2.0/1 bedroom - 2.0-3,0 1 must be covered
3.0/2 or more (1 bedroom)
bedroom � must be covered
(2 bedroom)
0.1 RV parking
space per D.U.
San Clemente
2.0
0.2
2.2
1 must
be
covered
San Juan Capistrano
2.0
0.8
2.8
1 must
be
garage
Santa Ana
1.5/1
bedroom
0.5/1-10 D.U.
varies
i must
be
covered
1.8/2
bedroom
0.2/11-100 Q.U.
2 0/3
bedroom
p 1/101-up D.U.
Seal Beach
1 space for every
7 D.U.
2.0
0.14
2.14
2 must
be
covered
Tustin
2.0
-
2.0
1 must
be
covered
Westminster
2.0
0.5
2.5
2 must
be
garages
Yorba Linda
to be established
All must
be coverer:
by C.U.P. but not
less than
2.0
1.0
3.0
County of Orange
1.5/1
bedroom
1 must
be
covered
2.0/2
bedroom
for 1
& 2
bedroom
2.5/3
bedroom
0.2
1.7-2.7
2 must
be
covered
for 3
bedroom
* May vary according to Planned Community Standards as approved by Planning Commission.
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF PARKING REQUIREMENT
FOR NORTH COVE DEVELOPMENT OF 202 UNITS
CONSISTING OF
22-1BEDROOM, 119 2-BEDROOM AND 61 3-BEDROOM
Dwelling Unit Guest Total Spaces
Agency Spaces Spaces Required
Anaheim 707 - 707 (1)1(2)1(3)
Brea 430 40 470
Buena Park 404 67 511(2)
Cypress 404 101 503
Fountain Valley 404 51 ASS
Fullerton 409 101 510(2)
Irvine
606
-
606.
N.A.
Huntington Beach
393
101
494
La Palma
404
-
404
Los Alamitos
404
101
5.0.3
Newport Beach
1.5 to 2.5
-
3.0.3
to 505
Orange
303
101
4.04
Placentia
584
-
584
(2),(3)
San Clemente
404
40
444
San Juan Capistrano
404%
16.2
-566
(2),(3)
Santa Ana
369
33
4.02
Seal Beach
404
29
433
Tustin
404
-
404
Westminster
404
101
505
(2)
Yorba Linda
404
202
.606.
(•1) , (.3)
County of Orange
424
40
46A
(1) Total Parking Requirement equals or exceeds existing City of Irvine
Parking Requirement.
(2) Total Parking Requirement exceeds the proposed 503 on -site parking
spaces provided within the North Cove Project.
(3) Total Parking Requirement exceeds the 548 on -site and on -street
parking spaces provided for the North Cove Project.
I
COUNCILMEN
Vol
P p4.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
OLL CALL 9�'m� 9�o*ZZ
September 27, 1976 INDEX
3. The following communications were referred to the City
Clerk for filing and inclusion in the records:
ti
(a) A letter from the Costa Mesa County Water Dis-
trict expressing their sorrow at the news of
Mayor Roger's death. (Copies mailed to Council)
A letter from Winston R. Updegraff expressing
Wis appreciation for the resolution from Newport
Beach,,on his retirement from the Orange County
Division -,of the League of California Cities.
(Copies mail�ouncil)
(c) A letter from Jean a Blandi in support of the
Newport Beach Police�h icopters. (Copies
mailed to Council)
(d) A letter to all members of Sant a River Flood
Protection Agency from the Mayors o Costa Mesa,
Huntington Beach, Newport Beach and Fo tain
Valley, and the Chief Engineer of the Oran
County Sanitation Districts requesting suppor
in convincing the Board of Supervisors to take
action on an interim flood protection plan for
the area southerly of Garfield to the mouth of
the Santa Ana River. (Copies mailed to Council)
(e) A letter from the Chief Clerk of the Assembly
calling attention to Assembly Concurrent Reso-
lution No. 417, relative to parking facilities
for disabled persons, which has been adopted by
the California Legislature. (Copies mailed to
Council)
(f) A resolution from the City of Huntington Beach
urging the California State Legislature to
review the State property tax structure in order
to provide tax relief to homeowners.
(g) Resolutions from the City of La Habra est ish-
ing and amending the compensation plan or their
City employees. (Copies mailed to uncil)
(h) Removed from the Consent Ca dar.
(i) A letter from the Dep went of Transportation
attaching a memora dum outlining procedures and
allocations fo he Federal -Aid Urban program
covered by a 1976 Federal Highway Act. (Memo-
randum o file in the City Clerk's Office)
(j) A otice of Application before the Public
tilities Commission for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity to construct and
operate a gas storage facility to be located in
Kern County, and to recover the costs of this
'
project in its rates.
'
(k) A notice of public hearing on September 28, 1976
from the California Housing Finance Agency on
Volume 30 - Page 235
State Capitol
Sacramento. California 95814
To:
From:
Re:
xTelep ne: 445-3614
IAMES D. DRISCOLL
CFEEF CLERK
September 3, 1976
Each city, county, and city and county in the
State of California
Chief Clerk of the Assembly
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 167
I have been directed to invite your attention to Assembly
Concurrent Resolution No. 167, relative to parking facilities
for disabled persons, which has been adopted by the California
Legislature.
Accordingly, I am enclosing a copy of this resolution for
your information.
Enclosure
COMB SENT To,
taayor
A;totney
P t'/ O.rc.:tor.
CmaDcv Ducclir r
`l Other
r�
Councilmen I
JAMES D. DRISCOLL
Chief Clerk of the Assembly
SEP '?
arl e�
14YIF17'T $E,4Cflr
Cr W.
w
F77
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 167
Adopted in Assembly April 26, 1976
Chief Clerk of the Assembly
Adopted in Senate August 20, 1976
Secretary of the Senate
This resolution was received by the Secretary of
State this day'of , 1976,
at o'clock - M.
Deputy Secretary of State
4 167 5 92 I .
ACR 167 —2—
—3—
ACR 167
RESOLUTION CHAPTER_
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 167—Relative to
parking facilities for disabled persons.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
ACR 167, Mori. Disabled persons: parking spaces.
Existing law authorizes a local authority and a person
in possession of an off-street parking facility to designate
stalls or spaces for the exclusive use of disabled persons
with distinguishing license plates or disabled veterans.
This measure would urge and encourage local authori-
ties to enact, and vigorously enforce; appropriate regula-
tions to designate parking spaces for disabled persons in
accordance with the Vehicle Code.
WHEREAS, Section 22511.8 of the Vehicle Code
authorizes a local authority, by ordinance or resolution,
and a person in possession of an off-street parking facility,
to designate stalls or spaces for the exclusive use of
physically handicapped persons with distinguishing
license plates issued to disabled persons; and
WHEREAS, Under Section 22511.7 of the Vehicle
Code, local authorities -may, by ordinance or resolution,
designate parking spaces for the exclusive use of
physically handicapped persons with distinguishing
license plates or disabled veterans; and
WHEREAS, Enactment of local regulations in
accordance wits the Vehicle Code on parking spaces
affecting disabled persons and vigorous enforcement is
necessary to provide sufficient parking facilities for
disabled persons; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Assembly ofthe State of CaYforniq, the
Senate thereof" concurring, That Iocal authorities be
urged and encouraged to enact appropriate regulations
to designate parking spaces for disabled persons in
accordance with Vehicle Code provisions and that such
newly enacted regulations be vigorously enforced; and be
it further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk ' of the Assembly
transmit copies of this resolution to each city, county, and
city and county in this state.
At f
City Council Meeting October 12, 1971
Council Agenda Number
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
October 7, 1971
TO: City Council
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 281
Proposed amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, amending off-street_o_arking, require-
ments and standards for residential uses.
INITIATED
BY: The,City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
Recommendation
This matter was considered by the Planning Commission on March 4,
March 18, April 1, April 15, June 3 and June 17, 1971, when action
was taken to unanimously recommend approval of Amendment No. 281
to the City Council.
Discussion
This amendment, Exhibit A attached, is the culmination of over ten
months of research and study by the Department of Community Develop-
ment Staff and the product of six hearings before the Planning
Commission which solicited and received testimony from over forty
community associations, Chambers of Commerce, realty boards and
individual 'citizens. This amendment was initiated by the Planning
Commission in recognition of the fact that existing off-street
parking requirements for residential development are grossly inade-
quate, particularly in light of the trend toward large multi -
bedroom duplex construction.
Features of the amendment include:
1. New or revised definitions for the terms "bedroom,
carport and garage."
2. An increase in the parking requirement for single-
family dwellings from one to two garage spaces per
unit.
0
TO
City Council - 2.
3. An increase in the parking requirement for mul'tiple-
family dwelling units based on the ability of each
unit to generate its own demand for on -site parking
spaces as follow:
Efficiency and 1 bedroom units = 1 space
2 bedrooms = 1.5 spaces
3 bedrooms
= 2 spaces
4. An increase in the parking requirement for rooming
houses and hotels from one-half to one space for
each guest room.
5. Exceptions for lots having a width, exclusive of
required side yards, of twenty feet or less.
6. Provisions for the continued use of existing non-
conforming uses and structures although remodeled,
enlarged or restored.
7. Encroachments into one side yard only for the
purpose of accommodating required garage spaces.
Respectfully submit ed,
A ES D. HEWICKER,
ting Director
Attachments: (Council Members Only)
* Proposed Amendment dated June 17, 1971.
* Sketches of typical lots.
JDH/kk
* Planning Commission minutes dated June 17, June 3, April 15,
April 1,,March 18 and March 4, 1971.
* Statistical Data:
Irvine Company report dated March 16, 1971.
Beach City Survey dated January 1971.
Summary of Santa Monica Survey dated February 1966.
* Staff Reports':
Report from Traffic Engineer dated April 26, 1971.
Report from City Attorney dated April 22, 1971.
TO: City Council - 3.
Attachments (Continued):
* Correspondence from Organizations:
Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Board of Realtors dated
September 29, 1971, with reports from Francis Horvath
dated September 28 and April 1, 1971. Additional
correspondence dated June 14 and March 15, 1971.
West Newport Beach Improvement Association dated
August 4 and March 4, 1971.
Harbor Island Association dated June 7, 1971.
Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce dated May 4, 1971..
Cliff Haven Community Association dated March 26, 1971.
Balboa Island Improvement Association dated March 16, 1971.
* Correspondence from Individuals:
Mrs. Carl Hillgren
Elynor L. Garriott, et al
Jane H. Hunter
Eileen Andjulis
Dr. Howard A. Drum
Hazel N. Spivey
C. B. and Frances M. Knickerbocker
Mrs. Ernest Ballif
Mrs. Dora Trester
Mrs. L'. S. Sunderland
Donald S'. Redington
- July 31, 1971
- July 30, 1971
- July 30, 1971
- April 27, 1971
- April 18, 1971
- April 15, 1971
- April 8, 1971
- April 7, 1971
- April 7, 1971
- March 22, 1971
- March 4, 1971
a�
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS
Add Section 20.02.037 to read:
20.02.037 Bedroom. The term "bedroom" shall mean any habitable room
capable of beinq used for sleeping purposes in accordance
with other applicable codes.
Add Section 20.02.115 to read:
20.02.115 Carport. The term "carport" shall mean a roofed structure,
or a portion of a building, open on two or more sides and
covering an accessible and usable area not less than nine
(9) feet in width per automobile and twenty (20) feet in
length, for the parking of automobiles off the street;
vided that on a buildino site having a width of th
(30) feet or less, the space required for three (3) auto-
mobiles may be reduced to not less than 26 feet in width
by:�20 feet in depth - each dimension to be clear and un-
obstructed. Said structure shall'be located on the lot
so as to meet the requirements of this Title for any
accessory building; provided that said structure shall
not be located'on the front one—half of the lot or building
site without the approval of the Planning Commission as
to elevation and method of screeninq.
- 2 -
Amend Section 20.02.190 to read:
20.02.190 Garage. The term "garage" shall mean a building, or
a portion of a building enclosing an accessible and us-
able space of not less than 9 feet clear width, inside
measurement, per automobile by 20 feet, clear length,
inside measurement, for the parking of automobiles off
the street; provided that on a building site having a
width of 30 feet or less the space required for a three -
car garage may be reduced to not less than 26 feet in
width by 20 feet in depth - each dimension to be clear
and unobstructed Said building shall be totally en-
closed by side walls, roof and an operating door for
access of automobiles; and, shall be located on the lot
or building site so as to meet the requirements of this
Title for any accessory building.
Amend Section 20.08.190 to read:
20.08.190 Automobile Storage or Parking 'Space.
A. Required Parking. Accessible storage or parking
space for the parking of,automobiles off the street
shall be provided as follows:
1. Single -Family Dwellings. Not less than two
independently accessible and usable garage
spaces shall be provided for each single-
family dwelling.
�4a 2. .Group Dwellings. independently accessible and
!� 1..�
usable covered parking spaces for each family
unit in any dwelling group of two -or more
0d
- 3 -
9
family units shall be provided as follows:
Efficiency and 1 bedroom units = 1 space
2 bedrooms = 1.5 spaces
drooms or more
= 2 spaces
Uncovered parking may be permitted to the
extent that there shall be no more than one
open space and no less than one covered space
per family unit.
In all dwelling units containing one or more
bedrooms, one room meeting the definition of
the term "bedroom" shall be excluded from the
calculation of total bedrooms for parking pur-
poses. When a fractional figure is found as
a remainder in computations made to determine
the number of required off-street parking spaces,
said fraction shall be rounded up to the next
whole number.
3. Rooming Houses. Not less than one independ-
ently accessible and usable covered space for
each guest room in any rooming house.
4. Hotels and Motels. Not less than one independ-
ently accessible and usable parking space.for
each guest'room in any hotel or motel.
C
w
- 4 -
5. Planned Residential Development. The off-
street parking requirements for each such
development shall be as follow:
(a) Two covered parking spaces for each
family dwelling unit in the development.
(b) There shall also be required for the use
of visitors and guests at least two ad-
ditional parking spaces for each family
dwelling unit in the development. Such
parking spaces may be uncovered and shall
be so located as to be accessible to such
visitors and guests. This requirement
for additional parking for visitors and
guests shall be waived to the extent that
the Planning Commission determines that
there is an equivalent number of parking
spaces available to serve the project when
on -street parking spaces and parking spaces
in private driveways are taken into con-
sideration.
(c) The •required parking spaces or any portion
thereof may be grouped when it is found
and determined that such grouping o•f park-
ing spaces and the location thereof will
be accessible and useful in connection with
the proposed dwelling units in the develop-
ment.
- 5 -
a%
t
6. B District. Not less than two garage spaces
per family unit in any residential B District.
Parking space required for other uses allowed
in any R District and not set forth above shall
be determined by the Planning Commission and
set forth as a condition to the granting of
the use permit for such use.
B. Exceptions. Any increase in off-street parking,
required by Subsection A above, shall'.not be imposed
on any building site• recorded as of the date of
this ordinance which has a width exclusive of re-
quired side yards of 20 feet or less.
C. Nonconforming Uses. The provisions of Chapter 20.44
entitled "NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES" shall
not be applicable to structures and uses which are
nonconforming only because they do not comDly with
; the parking requirements set forth in Subsection
above, but instead the following regulations shall
be controllin
1. Existing Uses and Structures. : The lawful use
of land or buildings or both which do not meet
the parking requirements set forth in Subsection
A above, which use was in existence on the ef-
fective date of this section, may be continued
or changed to a use requiring the same o'r less
on -site parking without compliance with said
requirements.
- 6 -
au
Remodeling, Repairs or Alterations. Any
nonconforming building may be repaired,
altered or remodeled without complying with
the parking requirements set forth in Subsection
A of this section, provided that said repair,
alteration or remodel will not increase
the parking requirements.
Enlargement. Whenever a nonconforming build-
ing or use is enlarged by more than ten percent
(10%) of its original gross area in any one-
year period, the property on which it is located
shall be made to comply with the parking re-
quirements of Subsection A of this section un-
less a waiver or reduction of said requirement
is authorized by a use permit.
4. Restoration of Damaged or Destroyed Building.
A nonconforming building wholly or partially
damaged or destroyed by fire, explosion, earth-
quake, Act of G-od, or other act beyond the
control of the owner'or person in possession,
may be restored without the necessity of com-
plying with the requirements of Section 20.08.190'
provided that all of the following conditions
are met-
�
R3
- 7
(a) The restoration work is commenced within
twelve months after the damage or destruc-
tion occurs;
(b) The building after restoration does not
exceed its original gross floor area as
it existed prior to the damage or des-
truction; and
(c) The use of the building is not changed to
a use which requires more parking than the
original use as it existed prior to the
damage or destruction.
D. Encroachments. A parking space may encroach into
a required side yard in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 Dis-
tricts subject to the following limitations:
1 Said side yard does not abut a street or alley.
2 An encroachment required for an enclosed garage
space shall not exceed one story in height and
may extend to the property line on one side
only. No encroachment shall be allowed in the
opposite side yard.
Amend Section 20-38.030 to read:
20.38.030 (g) Hotels: One parking space for each guest room.
Amend Section•20.40.030 to read:
20.40.030 (f) Hotels: One parking space for each guest room.
0
C`
November 1, 1966
TO: Planning Commission and Parks, Beaches and
Recreation Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Parking Lot Beautification
Approximately two to three years ago the Planning Commission
and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission developed Some
general criteria which were intended to,guide the development of
parking lot improvements.
They dealt with signing, landscaping, paving and a number of
other improvement guiddines and specifically set forth ,planting
requirements.
The proposed ordinance governing these requirements was subse-
quently approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
and sent on to the Planning Commission where it has not to date
been acted upon.
The lack of action by the Planning Commission is explained by the
fact that they are in the process of studying parking lot require-
ments for all commercial districts. It has been the thinking of
the Commission that the parking requirements shoul-d be placed in
the ordinance (for example 1 space for each 200 sq.ft. of area)
but that the design standards should in large be adopted by resolu-
tion thereby gaining a flexibility to modification necessary to
achieve the best possible development.
•
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING
SECTIONS 9105.51, 9105.52, 9105.53, and 9107.311
TO, AND AMENDING SECTION 9107.32 OF, THE NEWPORT
BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE STANDARDS
FOR OFF-STREET PARKING LOTS AND DEFINITIONS
The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 9105.51 is added to the Newport Beach
Munitipal.Code to read:
"SECTION 9105.51
Parking Lots.
Design Standards for Off -Street
All off-street parking lots and parking areas shall
conform to the design standards set forth herein and shall
also comply with supplemental standards adopted by the City
Council. Such supplemental standards shall be adopted by
resolution and shall show typical lot layouts, minimum
space dimensions of stalls and lanes, minimum turn radii,
and minimum maneuvering areas. Three copies of such sup-
plemental standards shall be kept on file in the office of
the City Clerk upon adoption and additional co,pies shall
Ve made available to the public in the Planning Department
and Building and Safety 'Department. The design standards
are as follows:
(1) The parking area shall be paved with asphalt,
concrete, or other recognized street surfacing material.
(2) The parking area shall be graded to dispose of
all surface water into the street or other public drainage
course.
(3) Any lighting shall be arranged so as to reflect
the light away from adjoining premises.
(4) In parking lots, curbs or dividers shall be pao•—
vided to protect landscaping, traffic lanes, and adjacent
cars.
(5) In parking lots, entrance and exit lanes, interior
lanes, and the location and width of parking spaces shall be
designed so that cars may enter and leave the lot safely.
(6) The size of all parking spaces and access thereto
shall be designed so that cars may be parked safely.
(7) In parking lots, bumper guards, entrance and exit
signs, and directional signs shall be maintained to control
the movement of vehicles.
(B) Each entrance and exit to a parking lot shall be
constructed and maintained so that any vehicle entering or
leaving shall be clearly visible at a distance of not less
than ten (10) feet to'a person approaching such entrance or
exit on any pedestrian walk or footpath.
(9) Minimal exterior landscaping shall be required on
all off-street parking lots of not less than five spaces.
SECTION 2. Section 9105.52 is added to the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to read:
"SECTION 9105.52. Landscape Standards for Off -Street
Parking.
Where back in off-street parking spaces are provided,
the off-street parking lot or parking areas shall comply with
the landscape standards set forth herein, and shall also
comply with supplemental standards adopted by the City
Council. Such supplemental standards shall be adopted by
resolution and shall show typical parking area landscaping,
screen planting, interior and exterior buffer strips,
watering systems, and shall contain a list of approved trees,
shrubs, and ground cover for landscaping. Three copies of
such supplemental standards shall be kept on file in the
office of the City Clerk upon adoption and additional copies
shall be made available to the public in the Planning
Department. The landscape standards are as follows:
(1) Landscaped Buffer Strips.
a. Exterior Buffer Strips. Landscaped buffer
strips shall surround the perimeter of all parking lots
and parking areas. The buffer strips separating the
parking area from streets, alleys and adjoining
property shall be not less than three (3) feet wide.
b. Interior Buffer Strips. Where a parking lot
contains twenty 20 or more parking spaces, at least
two per cent (2%) of the interior lot shall contain
landscaped buffer strips.
(2) Separation from Street and Adjacent Property.
a. Along the sides of the parking area next to
streets and alleys, a masonry wall not less than three
(3) feet high shall be constructed or a divider con-
sisting of screen planting shall be planted. The
height of the wall or divider and its distance from
any alley shall be subject to the provisions of this
Article.
b. Along the sides of the parking area next to
adjoining property, a masonry wall six (6) feet high
shall be constructed or a divider consisting of screen
planting shall be planted. The height of the wall or
divider of shrubs that will grow to six (6) feet and
its distance from any alley shall be subject to the
provisions of this Article. However, the wall or
landscaped divider shall be three (3) feet in height
from the front of the property to a depth equal to the
required front yard setback established for adjoining
residential property.
c. The screen planting divider shall consist
of shrubs and trees planted close enough together to
provide adequate screen protection in order to protect
the public and adjacent property from noise, gas fumes
car lights, and other sources of disturbance to the
neighborhood."
2.
SECTION 3. Section 9105.53 is added to the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to read:
"SECTION 9105.53. Plot Plan Required.
Where five (5) or more off-street parking spaces are
provided, a plot plan of the proposed design of the parking
lot or parking areas shall be submitted to the Planning
Director for approval by him. The plot plan shalt show
the layout of car stalls, traffic lanes, buffer strips,
walls, landscaping, and other design sepcifications as re-
quired by the standards set forth in Sections 9105.51 and
9105.52. The Planning Director shall approve or disapprove
the plot plan in accordance with the design standards
thereby established. All structures and grounds shall be
developed and maintained�in accordance with the plot plan
as approved. Standard requirements may be altered or
waived by the Planning ,commission due to the nature and
design of the parking site."
SECTION 4. Section 9107.311 is added to the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to read:
"SECTION 9107.311. 'PARKING LOT'. An off-street park-
ing area containing five (5) or more parking spaces."
SECTION 5. Section 9107.32 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code is amended to read:
"SECTION 9107.32. 'PARKING SPACE'. An accessible and
usable space located off the street for automobile parking.
The size of each parking space shall conform to standards
adopted by resolution of the City Council."
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be published once in the
official newspaper of the City, and the same shall be effective 30
days after the date of its adoption.
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hold on the
day of , 1962, and was adopted on the day of
1962, by the fol.lowing vote, to -wit:
AYES, COUNCILMEN:
NOES, COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT COUNCILMEN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
3.
ayor
.1
n
OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
CITY ATTORNEYS' DEPARTMENT,
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
1960 ANNUAL CONFERENCE'
LOS ANGELES-; CALIFORNIA.
OCTOBER 24, 1960
WALTER W. CHARAMZA
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
WWC.mec
10/20/60
Walter W. Charamza
City Attorney, Newport Beach
City Attorneys' Department
League of California Cities`
Los Angeles
October 24, 1960
OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The title of the paper is "Off -Street Parking Requirements".'
However; this could well be expanded to state "Off -Street Parking
Requirements Imposed by City Zoning Regulations".
INTRODUCTION
As a preliminary matter, it is well to state that there
would be no purpose for this paper if we did not have -with us in
almost every city in the State of California a problem of congestion
as a result of automobile traffic. The substance of this paper is
addressed to one method of reducing congestion from this source. You
may ask, of what importance is the congestion and why should we be
concerned with it? It is important because it affects businessmen,
it affects the motorist, it affects the city government, and it
affects the costs of government. We are concerned with it because
it reduces the capacity of streets to carry traffic.
Because of it the motorist cannot proceed to his destina-
tion without undue delay. The businessman's customers cannot get
to and from his place of business. Investment in business property
is jeopardized because the property becomes less desirable and less
productive. A substantial part of the manpower in the traffic divi-
sion of our police departments is devoted to coping with all of the
problems arising from congestion of automobile traffic.
0
Ample off-street parking is one way to reduce the traffic
congestion on the public streets. There are a number of ways for
the city, through the exercise of its governmental powers, to pro-
vide off-street parking in the city where it is especially needed.
One way to do it is for the city to acquire, maintain, and operate
publicly -owned parking lots. Cities that do this treat the problem
of off-street parking as a major matter of public concern and con-
sider it to be a proper function of local government to provide for
off-street parking. Another way cities may accomplish the result is
by actively promoting parking districts in areas of the city where
the need is great and the owners of property in the district -are
willing to bear all or a' -substantial portion of the cost of off-
street parking space. In some cities, city-wide parking.authorities
have been established through which off-street parking is provided
by public ownership.
Those are methods of exercising governmental power to pro-
vide off-street parking which I am not going to discuss. My concern
specifically is with zoning regulations which require property owners
to provide off-street parking. These regulations require that off-
street parking space be provided as a condition of permitting the
development of property. An increasing number of cities are using
this method. Although I do not have the figures available, from the
municipal codes and ordinances I have reviewed, I believe a majority
of the cities, at least in Southern California, now require off-street
parking as a condition of developing property.
These requirements have good points. The benefit of such
regulations is that the city, through the use of its police power,
2
may require those who produce or contribute to traffic congestion
to supply off-street parking space for all or a substantial portion
of the traffic which they generate. In this way the regulations
help to reduce congestion and thereby maintain business property
values and provide the motorist a place to end his journey off of
the public street.
The regulations also have their weaknesses: There is no
immediate relief for built-up areas of a city by virtue of requiring
off-street parking in the zoning regulations. The regulations are
not retroactive and it is generally conceded that a city may not
impose off-street parking requirements and require property that is
already built upon to comply immediately with the new requirements.
But it does apply in new development and may be made to apply when
substantial reconstruction or significant expansion takes place.
Those cities who have used this method for some time recognize that
it will not solve all of the problems even over a long period of
time.. It is an important aid, however, in providing additional off-
street parking that otherwise would never be available.
There are a number of cities and agencies that have pio-
neered in this field. The City of Los Angeles began at least as
early as 1934 and has made several extensions and refinements since
that time. The National Institute of Municipal Law officers has
devoted a great deal of time and effort to analyzing traffic and
parking problems and in doing so has given considerable attention
to off-street parking requirements imposed by zoning regulations.
The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission also has devoted
a great deal of time to the problem in its work on uniform zoning
ordinances for metropolitan areas.
3.
AUTHORITY FOR REGULATION
There is no doubt that cities have the power to impose.
regulations in zoning, and late cases support the proposition that
regulations requiring off-street parking are valid. The basis of
California cities' power in this field arises from Article XI,
Section 11, of our constitution which readso
"Any county, city, town, or township may make and
enforce within its limits all such local, police, sanitary
and other regulations as are not in conflict with general
laws."
California cases clearly supporting the city's power in
this field have been decided in both the Supreme Court and the
District Court of Appeals. In Clemons v. City of Los Angeles (1950),
36 Cal. 2d 95, 222 Pac. 2d 439, the Supreme Court upheld a zoning
provision which required a minimum lot size.
In Brougher v. Board of Public Works of the City and
Countv of San Francisco (1930), 107 Cal. App. 15, 290 Pac. 140, the
court upheld the power of the city and county to enact regulations
which limited the height of buildings in certain districts of the
city.
In Miller v. Board of Public Works of the City of Los
Angeles (1925)., 195 Cal. 477, 234 Pac. 381, the Supreme Court upheld
an ordinance of the City of Los Angeles which prohibited any bgild-
ing designed or intended to be used for the housing of more than two
families in a designated area of the city. Principles announced in
that case which are pertinent today are illustrated by this.,quota-
tions
4.
"It may be safely said, we think, that it is the con -
census of opinion that the regulation of the development of
'a city, under a comprehensive and carefully considered zoning
plan, does tend to promote the general welfare of a community,
and there is no doubt, it seems to us, that the adoption and
enforcement of such a plan, when fairly conceived and equably
applied, is well within the scope of the police power. ...
As the congestion of our cities increases, likewise do the
problems of traffic control and police, fire, and health pro-
tection. Comprehensive and,systematic zoning aids is the
successful solution of these problems and obviously tends
thereby to affirmatively promote the public welfare.""
These cases are cited not because they determine every issue
in this field but because they are analytical and review the princi-
ples involved in imposing zoning restrictions. They also demonstrate
the extent to which a city may go in affirmatively promoting the
general welfare by the enactment and impartial application of zoning
regulations.
METHODS
A review of a substantial number of provisions on this
subject suggests three methods by which cities impose requirements
for off-street parking. Each overlaps the other to some extent.
The first we might describe as "requirement according to use". This
type of regulation is used in a number of cities. NIMLO Model Ordi-
nance Service suggests this form.. With various refinements it is
used in Los Angeles, Pasadena, La Habra, Anaheim, and elsewhere. A
second method might be called "requirement according to district".
5.
Along with the regulations agplying to a district and the uses per-
mitted,"the parking requirements are set out. An example of its
use is in the Ordinance of the City of Palm Springs. The third
method is actually a combination of the two. It might be called
the "combination system". Sometimes off-street parking is required
according to use and sometimes according to zone. Sometimes a use
in one zone will require off-street parking and in another zone the
same use will not. Some uses require off-street parking in any
zone. Newport Beach has this system.
EXAMPLES
The following examples are taken from various municipal
codes or zoning ordinances. To the extent they have been copied'or
followed so that the source would be of value, footnotes will be
placed in the text and at the end of the paper to indicate the source.
"A garage or an off-street automobile parking area
shall be provided in connection with and at•the time of the
erection of each of the buildings or structures hereinafter
specified, or at the time such buildings or structures are
altered or increased in capacity. The parking space capacity
required shall be determined by the amount of dwelling units,
guest rooms, floor area or seats, and said garage or parking
area shall be maintained thereafter in connection with such
buildings or structures.
(a) For Dwelling Units. In all zones, there shall be
at least one automobile parking space on the same lot with
each dwelling unit. Wherever there are more than six dwell-
ing units on any lot, the ratio of parking spaces required
for all such dwelling units shall be at least one and
6.
one -quarter parking space for each dwelling unit. Where the
lot is located,in an R1 or R2 Zone, the parking spaces shall
be provided within a private garage.
(b) For Guest Rooms. Automobile parking spaces.shall
be provided in -the following ratios for,the guest rooms
included within any building;
(1) One.parking space for each two individual
guest rooms or suites of rooms.
(c) For Commercial,and-Industrial Building. Where thei
combined gross floor -area contained within all'the business,
commercial, .manufacturing, or industrial buildings,` on any
lot, is 5,000 square feet or more, there shall,be at least
one automobile parking space for each 50U square feet'of such
floor area.
(d) For Institutions. There shall be at least one
automobile parking space for each 500 square feet of floor
area contained.within any hospital, philanthropic institution,
governmental office building, or similar use. ^
(e) For Auditoriums.- There shall be at least one auto-
mobile parking space for each five seats contained within any
theatre, church,.auditorium, stadium or other similar,place
of assembly. Where there are no fixed seats in the auditorium
or place ofassembly, there shall be one parking space for
each 35 square feet of floor area.
(f) For Elementary Schools'. There shall be one automo-
bile parking space on the same lot with each classroom con-,
tained in any elementa:ry'school.
7.
(g) Location of Parking Area. The automobile parking
spaces required by paragraphs (b), (c),, (d), and ('e) hereof,
shalI be provided either on the same lot as the use for
which they are intended,to serve or not more than 750 feet'
distant therefrom.
(h), Combination of Uses. Where there is a combination
of uses on a lot,':the number of automobile parking spaces,,
required shall be'the sum of the requirements of the various
uses.
(i) Fractional Space.- When the application of these
regulations rgsults in the requiredxent of a fractional auto-
mobile parking space, any fraction up to and including one-
half may be disregarded and any fraction over one-half shall
be construed as requiring one automobile parking space." (1)
Another example of a section that states the basic require-
ment and is followed by particular requirements according to use is
this.
"Sec. 23.43. Automobile parking requirements,generalty.
For each dwelling, multiple dwelling, business or indus-
trial establishment or'other structure hereafter erected,
there shall be provided and maintained off-street parking
facilities to accommodate -the motor vehicles used by the
i
occupants, customers, clientele and employees of.such dwell-
ing;"multiple dwelling, business or industrial establishment
or structure. The aggregate amount of parking space for each
type of use -shall be not less than that stated in this art$-
cle." (2)
a
The particular requirements for parking are then set out
according to the various uses which are,'listed section by section.
Another way of stating the requirements is this:
"Sec. 4.30. Parking Requirements
(A) PUBLIC POLICY
It is found and declared that there exists in many por-
tions of the City inadequate parking facilities, which condi-
tion constitutes alserious defect in the proper growth and
productive utilization of the land in said portions. It is
the intention of this Ordinance to provide adequate parking
facilities and it shall.be unlawful for any person, firm or
corporation'•owning, leasing or controlling a3building or
f y
structure to fail; neglect or refuse to provide and maintain
adequate parking facilities as hereinaftbr provided.
(B) BUILDING PERMIT
No building permit shall be issued until the applicant
-has presented satisfactory evidencetothe-Superintendent of
Buildings, which shall include, but not be 1imtfed to, de-
V
tailed plans and specifications of the proposed parking lot.
Said plans and specifications shall have been approved by the
Street Department in accordance with sound parking practice.
Plans of premises used or intended to be used for parking
adjacent to residential property shall comply with all re-
quirements hereinafter set forth.
(C) AUTOMOBILE PARKING SPACE
At the time of the erection of any building or structure
hereinafter listed .or at the time any such building or struc-
ture is enlarged or increased in capacity by adding dwelling
9.
I
units, guest rooms, floor area or seats, there shall be pro-.
vided for such new construction, enlargement, or increased
.capacity only, the following minimum off-street parking space
with adequate provisions for safe ingress and egress and said
parking space shall thereafter be maintained in connection
with such building or structured
(1) For One -Family Dwellings, Two -Family Dwellings
and Multiple Family Dwellings, at least one (1) garage or
carport for each dwelling unit. Each such garage or carport
shall be on the same lot with the main building and shall con-
tain not less than one hundred eighty (180) square feet.
(2) For Hotels, Residential Hotels, Clubs and
Fraternal Organizations, Charitable and Welfare Institutions
used for'dwelling purposes and other similar structures, at
least one (1) parking space for every three (3) guest rooms,
dwelling units or,suiteso
(3) For Hospitals, Sanitariums and Rest Homes at
least one (1) parking space for every three (3) beds.
(4) For Motels at least one (1) parking space for
each unit." (3)
In some zoning ordinances, regulations are set out under
each district indicating the parking required for the uses permitted
in that district. For example, a typical section might bed
"Commercial Uses. For commercial buildings, at least
one parking space shall be provided for each 1000 square
feet of gross floor area in excess of 4.000 square feet. The
fraction of one-half in the computing figure shall constitute
10.
one.additional parking space. All parking areas shall
be surfaced with. concrete; brick or asphaltic surfading
to prevent the emanation.of dust.
Parking for residential uses shall be'the same as
in the applicable regulation pertaining to the particu-
lar residential use."
A similar provision would be provided for any subclassi-
fication of commercial district or for a manufacturing district.
The number of parking spaces might depend upon the square feet of
floor area or the.number of employees.
The third method of requiring off -strut parking is the
combination system. In some instances it depends upon use. In
others, it depends upon the zone in which the particular use occurs.
For example, this might be a typical section:,
"Section 9105.5. Automobile Storage or Parkin Sg pace:
Accessible storage or parking space for the parking of
automobiles off the street shall be provided in all districts,
as follows:
(a) Not less than one (1) garage space for each single
'family dwelling.
'(b) Not less than one (1) garage space for each family
unit in any duplex, triplex or dwelling group of four (4) or
less family units.
(c) Not less than one (1) garage space for each two
(2) guest rooms in any rooming'>house.
(d) Not less than -one (1) parking space for -each two
(2) guest,rooms in any hotel.
(e) Not less than one (1) garage space for each of the
first four (4) family units, and two (2) off-street parking
spaces, one (1) of which must be a garage space, for each
additional family unit, in any'dwelling'group of more than
four (4) family units.
(f) Not less than two (2) garage spaces per family
unit in any residential 'D' District.
Parking space required for other uses allowed in any
'R' District and not set forth above,shall.bL defermii►ed by
the Planning Commission .... " (4)
An example -of a regulation which requires parking depend-
ing upon district is as follows:
'tSection 9104.2. Combining or ''-10 District.
The following regulations shall applyrin all 'C' and
'M' Districts with which are combined '-H' Districts, in ad-
dition to the regulations hereinbefore specified therefor .....
Section 9104.21. Uses Permitted:.
1 .,
All uses permitted in the respective districts with which
the '-H' District is combined,••dubject to^providing off-street
parking as -follows:
(a) Off-street parking on the building site shall be
required in all districts with which the "-H' District is
coo ined according to the following formula:
(1) Retail Stores -- 1 parking space for each 250
'sq. ft. of store floor area.
(2) Office Buildings -- 1 parking space for each
250 sq. ft. of floor area.
12.
(3) Wholesale and Industry --'1 parking space for
each 2000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, but in no event less
than'10 parking spaces for each such establishment.
(4) 'Restaurants -m-1 parking space for each-3
seats.
(7) Hotels -- 1 parking space for each 2 guest
rooms.
(8) Hospitals -- 1 parking space for each bed,
and in addition 1 parking space for each resident doctor and
1 for each employee.
(10)o•Motel4---.1 parking space for each guest unit." (5)
You will note that this parking requirement applies only
when there is a "C" District or an "M" District which is combined with
the "-H" District. In certain areas under a zoning provision of'this
kind there might be a "C" District or an "M" District in which'no off-
street parking is. required at all. However, if, because of additional
development in the area, the city determines that it is necessary to
imppse off-street parking requirements, a portion of a commercial or
manufacturing district might have the "-H" factor applied to it.
Thereafter, any construction or development in•that combined district
would be subject to the requirement for off-street parking depending
upon the type of use to which the property was being put.
In addition to the requirement for off-street parking, it A
is important to consider the necessity to require loading zones,
particularly in commercial, manufacturing, and industrial zones.
13.
This may prove useful even though off-street parking is not required.
An example of this requirement might read as follows:
"on the same premises with every building or structure
used or occupied for manufacturing, storage, wholesale.or
retail market, hotel, restaurant, laundry, or other uses
similarly involving the parking of.vehicles for loading or
unloading materials or merchandise, there shall.be provided
end maintained on the lot adequate space for standing, load-
ing and unloading services in order to avoid undue interfer-
ence with the public use of the streets k alleys." (6>
This provision may be refined to require a specific number
of loading spaces or a particular requirement as to area devoted to
loading and unloading.
Where commercial, manufacturing or industrial zones are
adjacent to or near residential districts, the.problem will often.
arise as to whether the required parking may be provided on land
that lies within the residential district.. Some cities prohibit
it entirely and others allow it if a permit is first obtained from
the Planning Commission or Zoning Board. An example of this language
would be as follows:
"Parking lots to provide the parking required by this
ordinance may be permitted in any residential district
adjacent to any '•C', 'M' or 'I' District, subject to first
securing a Use Permit in each case." (7)
In many cases, because of the small parcels' available for
development, intermittent construction, separate ownerships, and
other reasons, it is extremely difficult for a developer to obtain
14.
a large enough parcel to construct a commercial or manufacturing
establishment of practical size and have adequate land left to pro-
vide the.parking required by the zoning regulations. In such cases,
some cities have `found it necessary and practicable to permit the
parking to be provided•at a location other than the -location of the
building. Examples of language which permits this are as follows-
1. "The automobile parking spaces Srequired hereunder
shall be provided either on the same lot as the use for
which they are intended to serve or not more than 750 feet
distant therefrom." (8)
2. "When the required off-street parking space is pro-
vided ona separate 1pt from.the main building; there'stiall
be recorded in the office of the county.recorder a covenant
by the owner of the lot for the benefit of the city to the
effect that such owner will continue to maintain such parking
space so'long as the building is maintained." (9)
3. "(a) Off-street parking on the building site, or
on a separate lot from the building site with City Council
approval on recommendation of the Planning Commission, shall
be required in all districts .....
(b) The Planning Commission shall not recommend
and the City Council -shall not approve off-street parking on
a separate lot from the building site unless-
(1) Such lot is so located as to be useful
in connection with the proposed use on the building site;
(2) Parking on such lot will not create an _
undue traffic hazard.
15.
(3) Such lot and the building site are in
the same ownership or there is common ownership of the lot
and building site and the owner or owners of the building
site are entitled to the immediate possession and use of the
lot.
(4) The owner or owners of the lot and the
City upon the approval of the City Council execute a written
instrument approved as to form and content by the City At-
torney providing for the maintenance of the required off-
street parking on such lot for the duration of the proposed
use or uses on the building site. Such instrument shall be
recorded in the office of the County Recorder and copies
thereof filed with the Building Department and Planning De-
partment:" (10)
Attached to this paper.as an exhibit is a draft that might
be followed in the property owner's contracting to continue using an
off -site lot for parking purposes.
It has been suggested that ire -areas where parking space is
.very hard to come by provision should be made for .joint use of park-
ing areas. I do not know of any city where this has actually bddn
done. However, the following language has been offered as one way
of allowing joint use:
"Up to 50% of the parking facilities required by this
ordinance for a use considered to be primarily a daytime use
may be provided on parking facilities of a use considered to
be primarily a nighttime use; up to 50% of the parking
facilities required by this ordinance for a use considered
16.
to be primarily a nighttime'use may be provided o* the park-
ing facilities of a use considered•to be primarily a daytime
use; provided such reciprocal parking permission -shall be
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Neither building -or use is located farther than 150
feet from the parking facility.
(2) The applicant shall show that there is no substan-
tial conflict in the principal operating hours of the build-
ings or uses for which the joint use of the off-street parking
facilities is proposed.
(3) The owners of the land proposed for the joint use of
the off-street parking shall execute an'agreement, in which
the city is a party, for such joint use, approved by the City
Attorney as to form and content. Such instrument shall be
r
recorded in the office of the County Recorder and copies there-
of filed with the Building Department and the Planning Depart-
ment."
I don't know how effective the recordipg device is. How-
ever, a purchaser of the parking lot would be in no position to say
he didn't know about the contract if it were recorded.
Ordinances generally provide for conditions- uhAer which
off-street parking requirements may be waived. An example of waiver
is this:
"All or a portion of the off-street automobile park-
ing spaces required by this ordinance may be waived when
the lot involved is located within the boundaries of an
assessment district for the acquisition of publicly -owned
17.
automobile parking lots or is located within 200 feet of
land used,or being acquired for the purpose of a municipal
parking lot." (11)
Another example ise
"The city may.on petition of the property owner author-
ize a waiver of or reduction in off-street parking required
by the terms of this ordinance under the following 'condition s
(1) When a parking district or municipal parking lot is
so located as to be useful in connection with the proposed
use; or
(2) When the building site is subject to two or more
uses and the maximum parking requirements for such uses do
not occur simultaneously," (12)
In developing regulatidns requiring off-street parking, it
is important to establish standards which will provide a minimum
length and width for each parking space, accessibility ar determined
by turning radius, driveways, and distance between parking lanes.
It is also advisable to establish a minimum inside width and length
where garages -are required.
Although we are getting off this subject when we discuss
variances and use -permits and requirements which may be imposed as
a condition of granting a variance or use permit, it is well to
consider this as another means of requiring off-street parking ade-
quate -to -serve a particular business or use that is being developed.
An example of language that may,accomplish this purpose is as fol11
-
lowei
18.
10
"The Board may,desigriatd such conditions in connection
with the variance or use permit as it deems necessary to.
secure the purposes of this ordinance. Such conditions may
include provision for off-street parking to serve the pro-
posed building of use, the amount of which shall be deter=
mined by the Board in each case in accordance with the
standards'set forth herein." (13)
COURT DECISIONS
Although I have found no California case where the question
was in, issue and directly decided, I believe that the appellate
courts in California?would uphold a zoning requirement for off-
street parking if the ordinance and its application met the re-
quirements for the exercide of pplice power as set down in the cases
1 ,
cited earlier in this paper. In the recent case of Redwood City
Company of Jehovah's Witnesses v. City -,of Menlo Park (1959), 167'
Cal. App. 2d 686, 335 Pac. 2d 195, the parties assumed the ordinance
requirement for off-street parking was valid. The applicant sought
a use permit to build a church and was providing the minimum off-
street parking required by the ordinance. The city, nevertheless,
denied the permit. The court reversed this decision indicating
that, since the church had met the only definite standard set by
the ordinance and since there was no specific evidence from which
reasonable people could conclude'that the other general standards
were not met, it was an abuse of discretion to deny the use permit.
This subject is discussed'in Yokely, Zoning Law and Prac-
tice. In the 1960 Supplement, in Section 212 at page 55, the author
19.
I
indicates that the courts are ready and willing to sustain reason-
able provisions for off-street parking in zoning ordinances. In
this supplement at page 49, however, he makes this cautionary remark:
!'It is clear that the courts will not sustain off-
street parking provisions in zoning ordinances where they
are not reasonably applied."
Both of these thoughts expressed in the text just cited
are also expressed in an Ohio case decided in 1958. This case is
State ex rel. Associated.Land'and_Investment Corporation v. City of
✓4
Lmdhurst (1958j, 160'Ohio State 289, 154 N.E.'2d 435. This court
held that the provisions of the ordinance were inadequate as stand -
ands to guide the administration of the ordinance and it was, there-
fore, unconstitutional. The court states,, however, that the determi-
nation by a legislative body that conditions warrant the inclusion
of provisions requiring off-street parking in a comprehensive zoning
ordinance constitutes a proper exercise of municipal authority.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey upheld a requirement for
off-street parking where the issue was directly presented. This case
is Allendale Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Grosman (1959),
30 N. J. 2733 152 Atl. 2d 569. The ordinance required one -off-street
parking space for each three seats for a church or for other places
of public assembly. In upholding the validity of the ordinance the
court stated at page 571:
"The off-street parking requirements ..... are well
designed to promote the public safety and general welfare
by lessening 'congestion in the streets' ..... On the
record before us ..... the requirements ..... appear to come
20.
}
well within the principles expressed in cases which have -
heretofore held that property used for church purposes,
along with property used for other purposes, may be law-
_
fully subjected to reasonable zoning restrictions."
The attitude of the courts, however., is not universal.
An ordinance provision which is a reasonable exercise of the police
power in Ohio and New Jersey is an unconstitutional attempt to take
property without compensation and a denial of due process of law in
the state of Colorado. In City and County of Denver v. Denver -Buick
Company (1959), 347 Paco 2d 919', the Supreme Court of Colorado held
the provisions of a zoning ordinance, which required off-street
parking as a condition to be fulfilled before an owner was permitted
to make use of his property for business purposes authorized in the
district in which the land was located, were unconstitutional. The
court based its decision on the ground that the requirement was a
denial of due process under both the state and t#�e federal constitu-
tions and'that it constituted a taking of private property without
just compensation. The taking was based upon a conclusion by the
court that these provisions were an unreasonable restriction on,the
use of the property.
CONC_ LLUSION
In'conclusion -- zoning regulations requiring off-street
parking are useful to reduce traffic congestion on streets and
depending upon one`sxoutlook to promote the general welfare. They
will not solve all the problems. If the requirements are reason-
able under the circumstances and impartially administered, the
courts will uphold them.
21.
ie
FOOTNOTES9
(1) Los Angeles Municipal Code, Chapter 1, Article 2, Sec. 1i.21.
(2) La Habra City Code, Sec. 23.43.
(3) City of Pasadena Ordinance No. 4322, Sec. 4.30.
(4) Newport Beach Municipal Code, Sec. 9105.5.
(5) Newport Beach Municipal Code, Secs. 9104.2 and 9104.21.
(6) La Habra City Code, Sec. 23.51.
(7) Newp'ort Beach Municipal Code, Sec. 9105.1 (e).
(8) Los Angeles Municipal Code, Sec. 12.21 A 4 (g).
(9) La Habra City Code, Sec. 23.52.
(10) Newport Beach Municipal Code,'Sec. 9104.21.
(11) Los Angeles Municipal Code, Sec. 12.21 A 4 (o).
(12) Newport Beach Municipal•Code, Sec. 9104.31 (c).
(13) Newport Beach Municipal Code, Sec. 9106.23.
I
AGREEMENT REGARDING USE OF REAL PROPERTY
a California
corporation, being the owner of record and the only entity having
any interest in the real property located at
hereinafter more particularly described, in
consideration of the approval by the Planning, Commission of Permit
No. , which reduces .the vehicle parking required by the
Municipal Code by spaces, or ap-
proximately square feet, to serve a proposed building on
(legal description of property on which building is to be built),
does hereby covenant and agree with the City that said real prop-
erty at described as (legal description of property
constituting off -site lot) will be used and forever maintained to
piovide not less than square feet of parking area divided
into not less than parking spaces for use in connection with
said proposed building on said -(repeat sufficient description for
identification of the building site) so long as said building remains
-in , existenc e
This agreement shall run with the land and bind aU suc-
cessors of the present owner, and shall be recorded in the County
Recorder's Office.
Executed
By
By
CITY OF
By
By
(Acknowledgment)
EXHIBIT