SR - ORD-06-17 - FIRST READING1. SUBJECT
An Ordinance amending Chapter 17.34 of the Orange Municipal Code to modify the City's Off -
Street Parking and Loading Requirements for Multi- Family Residential Uses.
2. SUMMARY
The subject Ordinance amends Chapter 17.34 of the Orange Municipal Code to modify parking
requirements for multifamily residential uses. The Ordinance also amends the Code to allow
tandem parking, mechanical lifts and other similar parking solutions subject to Minor Site Plan
Review and clarifies the definition of a "bedroom" for purposes of calculating parking
requirements for multifamily residential developments.
3. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Ordinance No. 06 -17, amending Chapter 17.34 of the Orange Municipal Code to modify
the City's Off - Street Parking and Loading Requirements for Multi - Family Residential Uses.
4. FISCAL IMPACT
None.
5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL(S)
3. Enhance and promote quality of life in the community
c. Support and enhance attractive, diverse living environments.
6. GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Land Use Element Goal 1.0 Meet the present and future needs of all residential and business
sectors with a diverse and balanced mix of land uses.
Policy 1.6: Minimize the effects of new development on the privacy and character of
surrounding neighborhoods.
7. DISCUSSION and BACKGROUND
Background
In late 2016, the Council approved a number of multi - family residential projects including the
MBK Homes project on Orange -Olive Road, the Olsen project on Washington Avenue, and the
Glassell Townhomes project. Although these projects met Code requirements for parking,
Council expressed concern that the number of parking spaces seemed too low and questioned
whether parking Code requirements were sufficient for that type of development. The fact that
these developments did not include driveways and were located on small infill sites within
established neighborhoods that did not have ample street parking nearby also contributed to
Council's concern.
At the November 9, 2016 City Council meeting, the Council requested that staff review the
multifamily residential parking standards and bring back a Code amendment to adjust the
standards as appropriate.
Parking Study
The City retained a parking Consultant (Walker Parking Inc.) to assist in studying multi - family
parking demand characteristics in Orange with the goal of "right sizing" our parking standards.
In summary, the Parking Study found that Orange's standards tended to be:
• lower than the average (but within the range of) standards applied by comparable Orange
County cities for studio, 1 -, 2 -, and 3 bedroom units; and
• higher than industry standards such as those developed by the Urban Land Institute,
Institute of Traffic Engineers, and National Parking Association.
In addition, based on field data, the parking study concluded that the City's minimum parking
requirements were on average adequate to accommodate demand, being neither too high nor too
low. Because the Consultant determined that the City's standards are overall adequate, they did
not recommend increasing the minimum parking requirements overall. They did, however,
suggest increasing the parking requirement for multi - family residential units with 3 and 3+
bedrooms. Further, the study suggested the City could provide greater flexibility in its Code by
adopting a sliding scale approach, applying parking standards based on development size,
bedroom count, and type of parking provided (i.e. enclosed versus unenclosed parking). They
also suggested the City allow for tandem parking and clarify the definition of a "bedroom ", so
ITEM 10/24/17
2
that dens or other similar rooms that are likely used as bedrooms are counted as such for parking
purposes.
The complete Parking Study is provided as Attachment 7 to this report and is described in detail
in the Planning Commission staff report, Attachment 4.
Recommended Parking Standards
Based on the Parking Study, the Consultant recommended parking standards that reflect a sliding
scale whereby existing parking requirements are:
• slightly reduced for larger developments (50 or more units), which tend to have lower
parking demand on a per unit basis than their smaller counterparts; and
• slightly reduced for small developments or large developments with unenclosed parking
areas (which tend to have lower parking demand than developments with private
enclosed garages).
In light of the fact that the parking study's findings did not show a gross mismatch between
observed parking demand and existing Code requirements, staff agrees with the incremental
changes proposed by the Consultant. However, considering the concerns expressed by Council
that existing parking requirements may be too low, staff also prepared a Staff Alternative.
The Staff Alternative maintains the Consultant's conservative approach to Code changes, but
does not reduce existing parking requirements in any development category. Rather, minimum
parking requirements stay the same, with increases to parking requirements proposed for smaller
developments, and small and large developments if enclosed parking is proposed.
C ompa ris on T able- Existing vs. Staff Prop P arking Ratios
ITEM
10/24/17
9
Staff Alternative
Existing Code Development Size —3 units to 50 units
Development Size — 51+ Units
If shared unenclosed
If shared /unenclosed
j resident parking is
If dedicated/
resident parking is
If dedicated/ enclosed
provided (parking
enclosed resident
provided (parking
resident parking is
structure, surface
parking is
structure(s), surface
I provided:
parking lot(s),
provided:
parking lot(s),
i carports):
carports):
Multifamily Studio -1.2
Studio -1.3
Studio -1.4
Studio -1.2 spaces /unit
i Studio -1.4
Residential spaces /unit
i spaces /unit
spacesfunit
spaces /unit
(3 units or
more) One
i One Bedroom -1.8
One Bedroom -
One Bedroom -1.7
One Bedroom -1.9
Bedroom -1.7
? spaces /unit
1.9 spaces /unit
spaces /unit
spaces /unit
spaces /unit
Two
Two Bedroom -2.1
Two Bedroom—
Two Bedroom -2.0
Two Bedroom 2.2
Bedroom -2.0
; spaces /unit
j 2.2 spaces /unit
spaces /unit
spaces /unit
spaces /unit
Three
Three Bedroom -2.5
Jhree Bedroom—
t Three Bedroom -2.4
; Three Bedroom -2.8
Bedroom -2.4
spaces /unit
2.8 spaces /unit
spaces /unit
spaces /unit
spaces /unit
ITEM
10/24/17
9
Four + j Each additional I Each additional Each additional Each additional
Bedroom -2.4 bedroom above( bedroom above bedroom above bedroom above
spaces /unit three -0.4 three -0.5 three -0.3 three -0.5
spaces/bedroom/ j spaces/bedroom/u l spaces/bedroom/unit spaces/bedroom/unit '
unit j nit
- - - -- _
A minimum of 0.2 spaces per unit shall (with a minimum of two guest spaces in a multi-
family development) be provided as easily accessible and distinguishable guest parking in
addition to the required parking for each unit.
Note: Bold Italic text denotes an increased required parking ratio compared to the existing Code.
A comparison table showing the existing Code requirements, Consultant Recommendation and
Staff Alternative parking ratios is provided as Attachment 6. Staff recommended the Staff
Alternative but presented both options to the Planning Commission at a public hearing.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 18, 2017. A Public Hearing
Notice was published in the local newspaper on September 7, 2017. There was no public
comment. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Draft Ordinance to City
Council noting that the Commission supported:
• the Staff Alternative parking ratios (which increase parking requirements over existing
requirements in certain scenarios);
• increasing guest parking requirements for multi - family residential units without
driveways; and
• allowing for tandem parking as well as installations like mechanical lifts.
The Planning Commission noted the importance of onsite parking management and enforcement
by HOA's and Apartment Managers to ensure residents park in their garages and appropriately
use guest parking. In addition, some Commissioners stated they would like the Ordinance to
specify a type of mechanical lift, as there were concerns about the range of potential options,
safety, and the ability of residents to maintain the equipment and understand how to use it.
In response, staff added language to the Ordinance stating that mechanical lifts should be "user -
friendly and maintained in good operating condition ". However, staff does not recommend
specifying a specific type of mechanical lift due to the range of potential options that a
homeowner or developer may wish to pursue in the future. Rather, because mechanical lifts
would be approved through a Minor Site Plan Review process under the proposed Ordinance
(which is a Community Development Director -level decision), some oversight could be
exercised through that process while avoiding adding overly prescriptive requirements in the
Code itself.
The Planning Commission Resolution, meeting minutes, staff report and a staff memo to the
Commission are included as Attachments 2 through 5 to this report.
ITEM 10/24/17
City Council Hearing
Staff modified the Draft Ordinance to incorporate the Planning Commission's direction and is
recommending Council approve the Ordinance, with any modifications the Council deems
justified and appropriate. The Ordinance (including a track changes version) is provided as
Attachment 1 to this report.
A Council Hearing Notice was published in the local newspaper on September 27, 2017. As of
the writing of this staff report, no public comments were received. Should the Council approve
the Ordinance, a second reading will be agendized and the Ordinance will become effective 30
days after the second reading.
8. ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 06 -17
a) Draft Ordinance Amendment (clean)
b) Draft Ordinance Amendment (redline)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 25 -17
3. September 18, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (draft)
4. September 18, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Report (no attachments)
5. September 18, 2017 Staff Memo to the Planning Commission
6. Comparison Table showing Existing Code vs. Consultant Recommended and Staff Proposed
Parking Ratios
7. Parking Study for the City of Orange Multi- Family Residential Parking Standards Update,
prepared by Walker Parking Inc., dated April 13, 2017.
ORDINANCE NO. 06-17
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.34 OF
THE ORANGE MUNCIPAL CODE TO MODIFY THE
CITY'S OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING
REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City's parking standards were last comprehensively updated in 1995; and
WHEREAS, in late 2016, the City Council reviewed and approved a number of multi-
family residential projects. During deliberations for those projects, the Council expressed a
concern that Code provisions related to required number of parking spaces for multi - family
residential uses may be insufficient and out -of -date; and
WHEREAS, at the November 9, 2016 Council meeting, the City Council requested that
staff review the multi - family residential parking standards and bring back a Code amendment to
modify the standards, if necessary; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to require sufficient off - street parking for its land uses in
order to minimize parking spillover and to avoid negative effects to the quality and character of
the neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the City also desires to ensure that parking requirements are not
unnecessarily stringent such that they function as a hindrance to the reasonable development of
property; and
WHEREAS, the subject Ordinance is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor
Alterations in Land Use Limitations) according to Section III of the findings herein; and
WHEREAS, the subject Ordinance revising provisions of the Code related to parking
standards for multi - family residential uses is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having conducted a duly advertised public hearing
held on September 18, 2017 including review of the staff report and receiving public testimony on
the item, has determined the subject Ordinance is reasonable, appropriate and justified and
recommends approval thereof, and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted one duly advertised public hearing on October
10, 2017, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or in
opposition to the subject Ordinance; and
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 2017
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
11.1 An Ordinance amending Chapter 17.34 of the Orange Municipal Code to modify the
City's Off - Street Parking and Loading Requirements for Multi - Family Residential
Uses. (A2500.0)
Time set for a public hearing to consider modifying the City's off - street parking and
loading requirements for multi - family residential uses.
Principal Planner Jennifer Le provided the staff report, and answered Council's questions.
The Ordinance, if approved, would apply to any new construction projects and would
become in effect 30 days after adoption.
Council discussed whether the proposed amendment adequately addressed the parking
issues and whether the item should be returned for further study.
Steffen Turoff, Walker Parking, Inc., answered questions regarding the parking study
performed by his consulting firm.
THE MAYOR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND THERE BEING NO
SPEAKERS, THE MAYOR CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ORDINANCE NO. 06-17 (First Reading)
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Chapter 17.34 of the
Orange Municipal Code to modify the City's Off - Street Parking and Loading
Requirements for Multi- Family Residential Development.
MOTION — Murphy
SECOND — Smith
AYES — Alvarez, Whitaker, Smith, Murphy, Nichols
Moved to continue this item to a date uncertain for further study and analysis, and to bring
back an amendment with more stringent parking requirements.
12. ADJOURNMENT — The City Council adjourned at 10:02 p.m.
The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 14, 2017, at
6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, with Closed Session beginning at 5:00 p.m., if
necessary.
4 AL A I
RO ?�� T W ORNADO TE' A E. SMITH
CH EF CITY CLERK MAYOR
PAGE 14