SR - ORD-06-17 - FIRST READING - CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 24 20171. 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.
13. RECOMMENDATION I
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.
14. 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.
1 6. GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION I
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.
17. DISCUSSION and BACKGROUND I
Background
A full background is provided in the October 24, 2017, City Council Staff Report (Attachment 3)
At the October 24, 2017, City Council meeting the Council expressed its opinion that the proposed
modifications to parking requirements underestimated typical household sizes and living
arrangements and instructed staff to re- evaluate proposed parking ratios to increase them further.
The Council generally supported tandem and mechanical lift parking and also instructed staff to
further refine the City's bedroom definition to minimize the potential for the unintended use of a
room as a bedroom.
Staff modified the Draft Ordinance to incorporate direction received from the Council and is
recommending Council approve the revised Ordinance, with any modifications the Council deems
appropriate. The Ordinance (including a track changes version) is provided as Attachment 2 to
this report.
Support Data for Staff - Recommended Parking Standards
Staff has not proposed changes to draft tandem or mechanical lift parking standards that were
provided to the Council on October 24, 2017. However, staff has made adjustments to the
proposed multi- family parking ratios based upon Census and American Community Survey data
(Attachment 11) pertaining to household size and vehicle ownership specific to Orange. A
summary of data consulted to refine staff- proposed parking ratios is as follows:
Household Size
A review of Census data demonstrates that two person households account for the highest percent
of occupied units (26% renters, 34% owners) in the City of Orange. Single person renter occupied
units account for the next highest percent (23 %) followed by 3 and 4 person occupied units (14-
16% renters, 18% owners).
Because Census data does not correlate unit size or bedroom counts to the number of occupants,
staff has considered Census household size data and concluded that units with fewer bedrooms
typically house fewer occupants, and arrived at general assumptions for the number of persons
ITEM 12/12/17
iv
occupying residences in bedroom count categories. Staff based its revised recommended parking
ratios on occupancy per bedroom projections.
Household Size by Vehicles Available
2016 Census data demonstrates that citywide, most households have two vehicles (41 %), followed
by households with one vehicle (27%). The data shows a correlation that a higher number of
occupants results in a higher number of vehicles.
Census data for household size by vehicles available does not have data correlating to the number
of occupants per a unit of specified size or bedroom count. However, identifying the number of
vehicles possessed for varying household sizes is significant because it can be combined with
Census data for percentages of household size. The combined data allows inferences to project a
percentage for the number of vehicles that a unit of any given size or bedroom count may need to
accommodate for parking. Staff based several of the recommended parking ratios on projections
resulting from the combined data.
Revised Staff - Recommended Parking Ratios
Staff has revised the proposed parking ratios as shown on next page in Table A. The adjustments
result in the following:
• An increase in staff recommended parking ratios beyond those proposed at the October 24,
2017 City Council Meeting with the following exceptions:
o The staff recommended one bedroom rates would remain unchanged except for a
parking increase of 0.1 space per unit (1.9 total) for projects with shared parking
consisting of 50 or fewer units
o The staff recommended two bedroom rate would remain unchanged at 2 spaces per
unit for two bedroom units in developments exceeding 50 units when parking is
shared.
o The staff recommended three bedroom rate would be 0.2 spaces per unit less (2.6
total) for developments of any size when enclosed parking is provided.
o The staff recommended three bedroom rate would remain unchanged at 2.4 spaces
per unit in developments greater than 50 units when shared parking is provided.
o The staff recommended four or more bedroom rates would remain unchanged
except for a parking increase of 0. l space per bedroom above 3 with shared parking
consisting of 50 or fewer units.
ITEM
12/12/17
3
Table A - Comparison Table- Existing vs. Staff Proposed Parking Ratios
N. M .
12 -12 -17 Staff Alternative
Existing Development Size – 3 units to 50 Development Size 51+ Units
Code units
If shared
If shared/
unenclosed
unenclosed
resident parking
if dedicated/
resident parking
If dedicated/
is provided
enclosed resident
is provided
enclosed resident
(parking
parking is
(parking
parking is
structure, surface
provided:
structure(s),
provided:
parking lot(s),
surface parking
carports):
lot(s), carports):
1.2
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.9
Two 2
Be room
2.3
2.3
2
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.6
Each additional
Each additional
Each additional
Each additional
Four or
bedroom above
bedroom above
bedroom above
bedroom above
more 2.4
three -0.5
three -0.5
three -0.3
three -0.5
Bedrooms
spaces /bedroom/
spaces /bedroom/
spaces /bedroom/
spaces /bedroom/
unit
unit
unit
unit
0.2 per
A minimum of 0.2 spaces per unit shall (with a minimum of two guest
unit
spaces in a multi - family development) be provided as easily accessible and
distinguishable guest parking in addition to the required parking for each
unit.
For multifamily residential units without driveways that are at least 18 feet in
length, a minimum of 0.3 spaces per unit shall (with a minimum of two guest
spaces in a multifamily residential development) be provided as easily
P Guest
arking
accessible and distinguishable guest parking in addition to the required
parking for each unit.
If a space that would otherwise meet the definition of a room or bedroom
omits one of four encompassing walls, that room shall not be counted as a
bedroom for purposes of calculating required number of parking spaces.
Note: Bold Italic text denotes an increased required parking ratio compared to the existing Code
ITEM 12/12/17
0
Details on the data -based considerations used to complete the staff proposed multi - family parking
ratios presented in Table A are contained in Attachment 12.
A comparison table showing the existing Code requirements, the consultant recommendation and
prior and current staff alternative parking ratios is provided as Attachment 1.
Guest parking will continue to require 0.2 spaces per unit as is currently required. Revisions remain
as previously proposed in the draft ordinance to require a minimum of two guest spaces in multi-
family developments to capture parking needs of smaller complexes. Additionally, as previously
proposed, multifamily residential units without driveways at least 18 feet in length would require
0.3 guest spaces per unit.
Parking Ratio Comparison to Surrounding Cities
The proposed parking ratios are equal to or greater than averages of surrounding cities. Some
cities have very low ratios and higher guest parking requirements causing the proposed parking
ratio to appear higher. However, when proposed parking is compared to the median of surrounding
cities, the proposed parking ratios are at or very near the median across all categories, except for
units with more than 3 bedrooms. The proposed parking rate is higher than the median for these
larger units because some comparison cities with higher overall rates use lower guest parking rates
as a balance.
ITEM
12/12/17
s
Table B — Median Comparison
Parking Scenarios
Two proportionately -sized development scenarios utilizing staff recommended Table A is
provided as follows:
Table C - Parking Scenarios
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Development Size — 25 units: Development Size — 75 Units:
1- bedroom = 5 units 1- bedroom = 15 units
2- bedroom = 15 units 2- bedroom = 45 units
3- bedroom = 5 units 3- bedroom = 15 units
If shared If shared/
unenclosed If dedicated/ unenclosed
resident parking is resident parking is If dedicated/
enclosed resident (parking enclosed resident
provided (parking parking is p rovided (p g
structure, surface provided: structure(s), parking is provided:
parking lot(s), surface parking
1.9x5 =9.5
1.9x5 =9.5
1.7x 15 =25.5
1.9x 15 =28.5
2.3x 15 =34.5
2.3x 15 =34.5
2x45 =90
2.3x45=
103.5
2.6x5 =13
2.6x5 =13
2.4x15
=36
2.6x15
=39
0.2x25
=5
0.2x25
=5
0.2x75
=15
0.2x75
=15
62
62
167
186
1 bedroom (1.7 x 5) + 2 bedroom (2 x 1 bedroom 0.7 x 15) + 2 bedroom (2 x
15) + 3 bedroom (2.4 x 5) + guest (0.2 x 45) + 3 bedroom (2.4 x 15) + guest (0.2 x
25) = 56 75) = 167
As reflected in the above scenario, there is no difference among developments of 50 units or less
providing assigned or unassigned parking. The Staff recommended parking rates of Table C do
not consider developments of 50 units or less to be able to offset parking by shared availability.
The above scenario does reflect a difference in parking ratios for developments with 51 units or
greater between unenclosed unassigned parking and assigned parking. A shared availability
discount of approximately 10 percent is obtained for 51 + unit projects with shared unenclosed
parking.
ITEM
12/12/17
6
Staff - Recommended Bedroom Definition
At the October 24, 2017, Council meeting, the Staff recommended ordinance contained criteria
stating that a room is not considered a bedroom if it has an unobstructed opening of at least 7 feet
wide. Council instructed staff to provide revised criteria for a wider opening. Staff is now
recommending language in the ordinance requiring an entire wall of a room to be removed in order
for it not to be considered a bedroom for purpose of calculating parking spaces.
Administrative Adjustments for Multi- Family Residential Parking
The Orange Municipal Code contains provisions allowing applicants to seek up to a 10%
adjustment to required parking spaces per unit, required guest parking, and parking space
dimensions, alone or in combination. The required findings for Administrative Adjustments are
less stringent than those for Variances that rely on special circumstances, and can be granted by
the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission. Staff will be reviewing the provisions for
Administrative Adjustments related to parking and bringing revisions, if any, for the Planning
Commission and City Council's consideration in 2018 as part of a draft comprehensive parking
code update. Staff will explore the following options for the code update:
• Adding Administrative Adjustment findings specific to parking that cause a set of justified
circumstances to be met in order to grant an adjustment.
• Eliminating the ability for applicants to apply for an Administrative Adjustment for
parking.
• Reducing the percentage reduction that an Administrative Adjustment may receive for
parking.
• Specifying criteria for specific multi - family residential projects to be eligible to apply for
Administrative Adjustments to parking.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On September 18, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of a Draft
Ordinance. A full description of the Planning Commission recommendation is contained in the
October 24, 2017, City Council staff report (Attachment 3). The Planning Commission
Resolution, meeting minutes, staff report and a staff memo to the Commission are included as
Attachments 6 through 9 to this report.
Public Notice
A Council Hearing Notice was published in the local newspaper on December 1, 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.
ITEM 12/12/17
18. ATTACHMENTS I
1. Comparison table showing the existing Code requirements, the Consultant Recommendation
and prior and current Staff Alternative parking ratios
2. Ordinance No. 06 -17
a) Draft Ordinance Amendment (clean)
b) Draft Ordinance Amendment (redline)
3. October 24, 2017, City Council Staff Report (with prior clean and redline /strikeout ordinance)
4. October 24, 2017, City Council Hotfile Memo
5. October 24, 2017, City Council Meeting Minutes
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 25 -17
7. September 18, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
8. September 18, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Report (no attachments)
9. September 18, 2017 Staff Memo to the Planning Commission
10. Parking Study for the City of Orange Multi- Family Residential Parking Standards Update,
prepared by Walker Parking Inc., dated April 13, 2017.
11. Census and American Community Survey Data and Summary Tables
12. Table A Methodology
N: \CDD \PLNG \Ordinance Amendments \Parking Code Update MultiFamily Residential (2017) \CC \CC_Rpt_12- 12- 17.docx
ITEM
12/12/17
ORDINANCE NO. 06 -17
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
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
24, 2017, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or in
opposition to the subject Ordinance; and ATTACHMENT NO. 2A
CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 06-17
(CLEAN)
DECEMBER 12, 2017 CC MEETING