SR-85-A< ~.,;a
LUTM:PB:DKW:DB/ccpark.pcward.plan
Council Mtg: April 13~ 1993
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
w ~
Santa Monica, California~~ ~~
SUBJECT: Text A~endment 92-010, Comprehensive Revision ta Fart
9.04.10.08 (~ff-Street Parking Requirements) of the
Zoning Ordinance
INTRdDUCT20N
This report recommands that the City Council ~dopt Text
Amendment 92-Ola for a camprehensive rsvision of th~ ~ff-street
parking requirements contained kn the Zoning Drdinance. This
Text Amsnd~nent is intended to clarify existing requirements
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, ta add new requirements, and
to modify existing standards. On January 6, 1993, the Pl.anning
Commission reca~nmended that the City Council adopt the proposed
Text Amendment an a vote of 5 to 0.
BACKGROUND
Objectives of Revisions
This Text Amendment is intended as a"clean-up" of Part
9.04.3.0.08 of the Zoning ordinance, which governs most aspects of
off-street parking requirements in the City. The proposed chang-
es have several abj~ctives, as follows:
1} Ta clarify requi.rements. Since the current Code was adapted
in August of 19$8, staff Yias found that var'lous Sections lack
clarity and may be interpreted dzfferently by different parties.
- 1 - ~~
~~ - _ _„, ~
- ~ . . ~;~
~ ~~
Through the proposed amendments, the meaning af the Code w~ll be
more clear to City staff and members of the public.
2) To add new req~irements. The paxking standards for several
permi~ted uses are nat specified in the existing Zoning Or-
dinance. Staf€ proposes that standards be adogted for these
uses.
3) To modify existing requirements. Four years of experience
with the existing Zoning Ordinance, plus a survey of other cit-
ies, demonstrates that same current parking standards shauZd be
modified to more accurately reflect the demand generated by
various uses.
SECTrON-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Brief descriptions of the ratianale of the prvposed changes are
pravided below. A11 references are to Attachment C, which shows
the existing code Wfth prapased deletiane in etrike-cut and pra-
posed additions in bold. Attachment C and this staff report uti-
lize the new numbering system recently adapted for the Muniaipal
Code.
Applicability
9.04.10.08.20 Applicability. This Section is intended to state
the actions which trigger the necessity for conformanc~ with Part
9.04.1.0.~8, "4ff-Street Parking Requirements." It has been
clarified to state that any new structure, substantial remodel,
or change af use wi11 be required to conform to this Part.
Depending on the requirements af this Part, the new structure,
- 2 -
substantial remadel ar change of use may ar may not require addi-
tianal parking of~-streat parking spaces.
General Pravisions
9.~4.10.08.030 General Provisions. Additions and ciarification~
are praposed ~or this Section.
In (b), words have been removed which obfuscate its intended
meaning. As revised, this subsectian requiras that the number of
spaces which were provided when the building was constructed ba
maintained ~r, atherwise, that current standards be met.
In (c), the word "Subchapter" is replaced with "Part," as the new
numb~ring system specifies Parts instead of subchapters.
In (d), the subsection is clarified to show that additional park-
ing spaces are on].y requfred for new floor area f€ tha~ new floor
area results in an additional parking requirement. In some
cases, such as an addition af floor area to an existing single
family dwelling with a two-car garaqe, no additional parking is
required.
In (e), the text is substantially clarified and expanded to ad-
dress three distinct situations: change of use from an existing
nan-residential building, change oP use from an existing residen-
tiaZ use to a non-residential use, and change af use from an ex-
isting residential use to another residential use. The propos~d
changas clarify the principle af "grandparenting'~ existing com-
mercial uses for nonCOnfarming parking provided that the new com-
mercial use would nat require more parking than the existing usE.
- 3 -
For existing residential uses, the praposed changes require cur-
rent cade parkinq for a change to a non-residential uses, and
allow "grandparenting" for a change to another residential use.
Text added to subsection (e){1) codifies a long-standing inter-
pretatian by the Zoning Administrator which a~lows non-
residential buildings left vacant for six months to revert to any
permitted use which has a parking req~zirement no more intense
than 1 space per 300 square fe~t (the basic coxainercial standard).
This allows empty buildings with non-conforming parking to be
utilized for uses such as retail or general office, but does not
al~ow such bui~dings to be utiZized for uses such as restaurants
or p~aces of assexnb~y which have intensive parking requirements.
Without this additional text, it is possible to make an alterna-
tive interpretation which would prevent any new use af a commer-
cial building for which there has been no leqal use for over six
months.
Text added ta subsec~ion (e)(3) speci€ies that a rasidential
building with nonconforming parking which has not had a legal use
for ~ver six months may be uaed for any permitted use so Zong as
the new use daes not require more parking than the last permitted
use. This prevents an alternate interpretatian from being made
which would pass~bly result in a reduotion af the number of
residential un~ts permitted on the parcel,
In (g}, the text is c~arified to require that guest parking be
accessible to guests.
- 4 -
I~ (j), the text is amended to a~low in each unit only one pri-
vate roam of less than lOQ square feet as a"non-bedraam." Any
additional such room would count as a bedroom for purposes of
parking. Additi.anal gropased text further clarifies what aan-
stitutes a private room.
In (k) (3) , the words ~~above grade" are removed because it would
be redundant to require any parking for flaor area devated to
parking, regardless of the level on which said parking is
located.
In (~), the Zoning Administratar is added as the staff person
who~ in con~unction with the City Parking and Traffic Engineer,
requires parking in the amaunt specified in a parking damand
anaZysis if ane is deemed necessary.
Subsection (m) is added to clarify that Section 9.~4.10.08.040
daes not apply if a property is located within the City's Parking
Assessment District.
Sulasection (n) is added to claxify that the parking requirement
for each use in a new building is to be calculated separately,
unZess otherwise sp~cified.
Numb2r of 5paces Required
Section 9.04.10.08.440 Number of Parking Spaaes Required.
Several new uses are proposed for this Section, and some parking
standards are proposed to be changed. Within each category, uses
are prapased ta be alphabetized. The Plann~ng Cammission re-
quested that staff look inta the possibil~.ty of increasing the
- 5 -
propartion of spaces which may be compact in size, which is 40~
for most co~mercial uses and some residentia~ uses. The City
Parking and Traffic Engineer does not believe that this changa is
warranted given the proportian af full-size vehicZes still in
use.
Residential Parking Requirements
The fallowing changes are proposed far the Residential category:
- Artist Studio is added as a type of use with its own require-
m~nt. This is intended to eliminate confusion caused by this use
because it generally mixes residentia~, retail and manufacturing
uses in a space with no walls.
- The standard far boarding homes is based on the number of beds
rather than bedrooms, the phrase "roaming house" has been elimi-
nated and the location of the standard has been a~phabetized in
the text.
- The standard for detach~d single fam~ly units has been
alphabetiz~d.
- The atandard for condominiums is revised to require 1.5
cavered spaces per ane-bedroam unit rather than 2 spaces. Staff
believes this is an equitable and pro-housinq madification, given
that 1-bedroom units accommodate fewer residents than 2-bedroom
units and therefore, on average, must generate less parking de-
mand. A review of 115 California cities conducted ~n 1991 found
that 55 of those cztxes have a standard at or less intense than
1.5 spaces per 1-bedroom unit,
- 6 -
In addition, the maximum number of compact spaces is revised to
40~, which is consistent with the maximum for commercial uses.
- Congregate Housing has been added to bring conformance with
Ordinance 1635, which modified zoning and development standards
to facilitate affordal~le hausing.
- A new standard has been established for detached dwelling
units on lots of 30' ar less in width because, with setback re-
quirements, it is difficult to accommodata a 20'-wide garage on
such substandard lots.
- An added standard for single family homes on PaciFic Coast
Highway narth of the Santa Monica Pier is praposed to bring con--
formity with the Lacal Coastal Plan.
- Domestic violence shelter is an added usa to bring conformance
with Ordinance 1635.
- The standard for hameless shelters is revised to match Or-
dinance 1635. In addition, this standard is moved from tha cat-
egory "miscellaneous."
-- The standard for 1-bedroom multifamily units has been revised
as in the same manner as condominiu~ns above.
- A 5tandard for deed-restricted low and moderate incame multi--
fami~.y housing ~s added, consistent with Ordinance 1635.
- Senior group housa.ng is revised to be consistent with Or-
dinanca 1635.
- '7 -
- Single room occupancy and transitional housing are add~d to
bring consistency with Ordinance 1635.
-"Chi1d Day Care~~ is revised and added to Educational rathEr
than Residential category.
-"HateZs, Motels" is removed ~rom the Residential cat~gory and
added to the Commercial category.
Commercial Parking Requirements
The following changes are proposed for the Commercial categary:
- The standard for automobile service station is clarified.
- The standard for automobi~e sales is modi~ied to eliminate a
specia~ standard for the repair portion of an automabile dealer-
ship and establish the same standard required for a free-standing
auto repair use.
- The standard for self-service auto washing facilities is
modified ta clarify that the washing stall do~s nat count as a
parking space.
- A standard af ane space per 225 square feet is propos~d for
convenience markets/liqt~ar stor~s. Staff has found that the
standard for general retail (1 space per 300 square feet) ~s in-
adequate for convenience--type retai~ stores. The proposed stan-
dard is comparable ta requirements in Bakersfield, Burbank, Cul-
ver City, Newport Beach, Palo Alto and Redondo Beach.
- 8 -
- The standard for hotels and raotels is moved from the Residen-
tial category without alteration.
- The standard for lumber yards and plant nurseries is alphabet-
ized w~thout alteration.
- A standard of one space per 250 square feet is es~ablished for
markets with a floor area greater ~han 5,000 square feet. Staff
has faund that the standard for general retail (1 space per 300
square feet) is inadequate for supermarket-type retail stares.
Staff was unable to locate other cities with a separate standard
for large markets, although Culver City has a parking requ~rement
which intensifies for retail and other commercial uses over
30,000 square feet.
Note that the standard for restaurants was pre~iously modified
pursuant to Ordinance 1b45 (the Main Street Ordinanee).
- Service retail is added to general retail to clarify that both
types of retail have the same standa~d. The requirement of a
loading zone is omitted because it cantradicts and overlaps the
pravisians of Part 9.04.10.10, Off Street Loading Requirements.
The words "merchandising which is not located in a shapping cen-
ter" are omitted because there is na separate standard far retail
uses located in a shopping center.
- The standard for furniture and appliance st~res is clarified
to apply only to large appliance facilities, as small appliance
- 9 -
stores da nat require a great amount of space for display pur-
poses and therefore generate a parking demand comparab~e to
genera3 retai2 uses.
Educational and Cultural Parking Requirements ~Including Child
Care)
The following changes are proposed for the "Educational"
categary;
- The ward "cultural" is added ta educational in the category
heading in order to more accurately raflect the contents.
- The standard for libraries is alphabetized without alteration.
- The standard for day care uses is clariFied ta reflect the
thre~ categories of day care permitted by the Zoning ordinance
and State Law, as fallows:
1) A small family day care h~me is defined by the California
Sta~~ Health and Safety CQde as "a home which provides family
day care to six ar fewer children, including children under the
age af 10 who reside at the home." State code further stipulates
that such use sha11 not be subject to any zaning restrictions
other than those which apply to the underlying residential use.
As proposed, the etandard for small family day care reflects
State law.
2) A large family day care home is defined by the Califarnia
State Health and Safety Code as ~~a home which provides family day
care to 7 to 12 children, inclusive, including ahildren under the
- 10 -
age of i0 who reside in the home." State code further stipulates
the parameters within which local zoning standards may be applied
to large family day care facilities, which inc~udes "reasanable"
parking requirements. The proposed addition to the parking sec-
tion simply reiterates the existing Zoning Ordinance Performance
Standards Permit requirement for parking at large famiZy day care
facilities [ref. SMMC Section 9.04.12.030(dJ].
3) A preschoal is any facility which provides day care for young
children but does not fall within the parameters af a small or
large day care home. Staff believes that the current requirement
for preschools (1 spane per five children plus one space per
staff ine~ber) is excessive, particu~arly given the recagnized
need for day care centers/presahools in the City and the adverse
impact o~ af heavy parking standards on the viability of such
uses. Planning Advisory 5ervice Repart No. 422, published by
the American Planning Association in December, 1989, recommends a
standard of one space per 10 children plus one space p~r staff
member. (Attachment F.) Based on this standard, staff original-
3.y recoYnmended to the Planning Cammission a standard nf 1 space
per 10 children plus .75 spaces per staf€ member.
At the Planning Commission pubJ.ic hearing far TA 92-010, Commis-
sion m~mbers asked staff to evaluate recent preschoal prajects ta
determine if the parking standard could be based on square
faotage rather than the number of children and staff. A letter
from the Santa Monica Child Care Task Farce suggested a standard
of one space per 300 square feet for preschaols and one space per
500 square feet for infant care programs. {Attachment ~.)
-iz-
(Under the existing code, an infant care program is considered a
preschool iE it does not fall within the parameters of a Sma11 ar
Largs Family Day Care program.) since the time of the original
letter, the Task Farce has verbally indicated a preference far a
standard af z space per 500 square feet for a~l preschaoZs. The
Task Force has noted that the City af 5an Diego has a parking
standard of one space per 500 square feet for preschoo~s.
The City of San Diego's preschool parking standard was adopted in
the Summer of 1992 and has not yet been utilized. A staff inember
of the City of San Diego stated that the ~:500 parking ratio is
based on a study of La Petite Academy preschoaZs, a national
chain, and is intended ta allow industrial buildings to be con-
verted ta preschaol use withaut a change in parking requirements.
In Santa Monica, the demand for preschools has historically been
in residential and cammercial districts, not in industrial areas.
However, the 1:500 requiremen~ would allow a retail or general
office use with nonconfor~ning parking to convert to preschool use
in Santa Monica, as it is less restrictive than the 1:300 parking
ratio required for general office and retail uses,
The two most recent preschaols app~oved in Santa Monica are The
First Schoo~ at 731 Pine Street and Tenth Street Preschoo~ at
1444 lOth Street. These schools were each granted a Conditional
Use Permit for preschool use and a Variance far parking. Tha
following chart illustrates the number of spaces which would be
required utilizing various standards, as well as the minimum num-
ber af parking spaces granted through the Variance procedure:
- 12 -
SCHODL 1 SPACE PER 10 1:300 SF 1:504 SF VARIANCE
CHILDREN, .75 STANDARD STANDARD GRANTED
PER STAF~' MEMBER
lOth St.
Preschaol;
45 chi].dren~
5 staff,
2,770 s.f.
First School;
45 children,
4 staff,
2,588 s.f.
Minimum of 8
on-site
spaces re-
quired
Minimum af 8
on-site
spaces re-
quired
Minimum of
9 on-site
spaces re-
quired
Minimum af
9 on-site
spaces re-
quired
Minim~m of
~ on-site
spaces re-
quired
Minimum of
5 an-site
spaces re-
quired
Minimum
of 4
spaces,
inclu-
ding 1
tandera
Minimum
of 5
spaces,
inclu-
ding 1
tandem
The abov~ calculations were based an all building area used for
preschoa~ purposes at The First Schaal and Tenth Street Pre-
school, including areas utilized for storage and offices; ex-
terior areas were not caunted.
The square foot requirement would be beneficiaZ ~rom a staff per-
spective because it is difficult ta enforce ar verify a maximum
number of children or staff at a given preschool. It is also
beneficial fram an aperational perspective because it allows pre-
schools the flexibility to add staff or children without amending
existing permits. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt
the one space per 500 square Foot requirement because it is a
practical standard which will address parking concerns without
discauraging the establishment of new praschools.
- The standard tor museums and galleries is alphabetized without
alteration.
- 13 -
- The Planning Commission asked staff to evaluate ~h~ parking
standard far elementary, junior and high schools utilized by lo-
ca2 school distriats. Pubiic schooZs are not governed by ~oca~
ordinances, but must conform to State standards. The Santa Mani-
ca-Ma~ibu Unified School District and Los Angeles Unified School
District utilize the State standard af ane space per classroom
plus ten apaces per schaal far elementary schoals~ one spaae per
c~assroom plus 30 spaces per school for junior high schools, and
four spaces per classr~om plus 50 spaces per school for high
schaols. The City currently requires one space per classroom
plus 10 spaces per schaol for elementary and ~unior high schoo~s,
and 5 spaces per classroom plus one 20 spaces per school for high
schaois. Staff recommends that these standards be amended ta
reflect State standards for public schaols.
- The standard far private colleges is a~ended tfl include pro-
~essional business and trade schaols, and the minimum amount of
park~ng has been amended to match the requirem~nt for places of
assembly, Staff does not believe tha~ the parking demand gener-
ated by a private col.lege is any da.fferent than the parking de-
mand generated by professional, business or trade schoals.
Health Serva.ces Requiremen~s
The fol~owing changes are praposed for the HeaZth Services
categary:
- The standard for canvalescent homes is lowered from one space
per 2 beds to one space per 5 beds . This is based an the sup-
position that residents of convale~cent homes do not generally
- 14 -
create parking demand other than that of emp~oyees or visitors.
In addition, this standard is applied to residential care facili-
ties of seven or more occupants in order to establish a standard
for this use, which is comparable to a convaiescent use.
Residential care facilities with Iess than 7 occupants are dis-
cussed later in this category.
- The standard for hospitais is amended ta reqtxire one space per
2 beds and one space per 250 square feet of floor area for outpa-
tient use. The 1:25o standard is consistent with the standard
for medical offic~s in effect since 1988. The standard af one
space per 2 beds is based on the International Parking Design,
Incorporated study of 115 California cities which shows that the
current Santa Monica standard of one gpace per 3 beds plus ane
space per 150 square feet of outpatient floar area is less
restrictive than most ather cities in the state. The revfsion
also brings the requiram~nt for a~tpatient use~ on par with the
requirement for medical office uses at 1 space per 250 square
feet .
- A standard for massage uses is established. This is the same
standard as that required for general office and mast retail
uses.
- The types of uses included under "medical and dental offices"
are ciarified. In addition, a standard of one space per 300
square feet, which is identical to the requirement for general
office and retail~ is established for medical uses in buildings
where the total square footage davoted to medical uses da not
- 15 -
exceed 1,000 squa~e feet. Staff believ~s that relatively small
areas devoted ta medical uses do nat significantly impact the
demand far parking at a particular site. The prapos~d require-
ment is similar to a etandard adopted by the Caunty of Sacramento
which allows a general retail parking standard for medical uses
in buildings whara the f1Qar area devoted to medical uses does
not exce~d 10$ of the flaar area of the tatal building.
- A standard of ane space per 300 square feet is established far
mental health professionals in order to distinguish these uses
from medical office uses.
- A standard for residential care facilities is established pur-
suant to the Ca~ifornia Health and Safety Code, wh~ch does not
allow any aoning restrictions on residential care facilities
beyond that required for the underlying residential use.
- The standard far emergency medical centers ~s eliminated be-
cause these outpatient €acilities would be considered the same as
medica~ affices.
Industrial Requirements
The follawing changes are pr4posed for the Industrial Uses
category:
~ Film praduction studio is added as a use with a light manufac-
turing standard (one space per 400 square feet} for the produc-
tion portion of the proposal, and a genera3. a~fice standard (one
space per 300 square feet) for the editi.ng and administrative
office area.
- 16 -
- The light manufacturing standard is amended from a minimum
requirement of ane space per 3d0 square feet to a minimum of one
space per 400 square feet. Staff believes that the current re-
quirement of one space per 300 square feet, which is identical to
that requir~d for general office uses, is excessive. in addition
to the general observation that manufacturing facilities general-
~y require significant amounts of storage and equipment space,
the International Farking Design, Incorporated, study of 115 CaZ-
ifornia cities shows that 94 cities have parking requirements at
or less intensive than 1 space per 400 squara feet.
The proposed modificatian would also prevant manufacturing
facilities with nonconforming parking from converting to office
use unless the subjeat building was out of use for o~er six
months. Under the existing code, a manufacturing use in the C5
(Special O€fice) District with nonconforming parking may be re-
placed with an affice use, thereby intensifying the problem of
insufficient parking.
In addition, tha standard far administrative affice in an in-
dustrial building is revised to conform to the standard for
general office use. Staff sees no reason why administrative
offices in an industrial building would generate a higher parking
demand than general office uses.
- The standard for Mini- Wareho~sing is alphabetiaed and revised
to require associated offices uses at a minimum of 1 space per
300 square feet, cansistent with the requirement for genera~ of-
fice uses.
- Z7 -
- Language cansidered superfluous is removed from the standard
for warehauses.
Commercial Entertainment and Recreatian Requirements
The following changes are prQpos~d far the Commercial Entertain-
ment and Recreation category:
- The standard far health clubs is alphabetized and madified.
Dance studios are included with health alubs rather than being
assigned a separate standard. A standard of ane space per 300
square feet of lacker roam/sauna/shawer area is established, and
the standard af ane space per S~ square feet is clarified to ap-
ply to exercises area only.
- The standard for athletic court facilities is clarified.
MisceZlaneous Requirements
The following ahanges are praposed for the Misaell~neous
category:
- The standard for places of worship is clarified.
- The standard for home~ess shelters is removed and ~eplaced in
the residential category.
- The standard for hospices with six persons or less is removed
and replaced with residential care facilities (which include
haspices) in the health services category.
- 18 -
Bicyc~e{ Carpool and Vanpool Requirements
Section 9.04.~0.08.050 Reductian of Requirements. This 5ectian
is entirely amitted because it is duplicated in Section
9.04.20.26.030, "Applic~bility," within Part 9.44.20.26.010, "Re-
duced Parking Permits." This modificatian results in a 14-day
appeal period rather than the i0-day period specified in subsec-
tion (d) of Section 9.04.10.08.a~a. No other changes result from
this deletion.
In place of "Reduction of Requirements,'~ Section 9,04.1Q.08.050
is proposed tv ca~tain ~~I~*~m~er of 8icya].e, Carpoc]., and VanpocZ
Parking Spaces Required."
These bicyc~e, carpooZ, and vanpoa~ parking requirements for new
develop~nent are included in this ordinance to fulfill require-
ments for regianal plans. The Las Angeles County Transportation
Commission has adopted th~ Congestion Management PJ.an (CMP) which
requires localities to implem~nt minimum bicycZe and carpool
parking requirements for new cominercial development. The South
Caast Air Quality Management District, through the Air Quality
Management P~an (AQMP), also requires that cities adopt bicycle
and carpool parking requiraments in new development.
City staff surveyed ather cities to c~mpare their parking re-
quirements for bicycles. The results show that the City of Los
Angeles requires bicycle parking at 2$ of automobile require-
ments, Portland, West Ha~lywood, and San Francisco require 5~
- 19 -
bicycle parking, while Santa Barbara, Seattle and Herkeley re-
quire 14$, 15$ and 25$ respectively.
City staff feels 5~ is a reasonable bicycle parking requirement,
when compared to other cities. By adopting the proposed bzcycle
parking standards, the Cfty wi1l also satisfy the CMP and AQMP
bicycle parking requirements.
The carpool/vanpaol requirements are taken direatly fram the Los
Angeles County Transportation Commission's CMP, which requires
lacal adoption of these standards by April 1, 1993.
Parking Area Design and Aacess
Saction 9.04.10.08.060 Deaiqn Standards. This Sectian is amen-
ded ta allaw the City Parking and Traffic Engineer the flex3bili-
ty to require additional or different standards if deemed neces-
sary. Subsection (c) contains a minor amendment suggested by the
City Farking and Traffic Engineer.
Section 9.04.~0.08.090 Parking Access in the R1 and Multi-Family
Residential Districts. Rl has been omittad from this Section
based on staff observation that a mix of alley and street access
generally has a pasitive effect on Sing~e Family Residential Dis-
tricts, in that street automobile aCCess maintains the frant of
the residence as the primary entrance of the house. Although
alley access prevents the front of single family houses from be-
coming dominated by driveways and garag~s, it also discourages
the use of the front entrance, with the effect of isalating the
residents from the neighborhood. By allowing naw curb cuts for
-zo-
single family hous~s, staff does no~ believe that all new single
family development will be designed with front access, as many
rasidents prefer aZZey access. Rather, staff beZieves that a
mixture of rear and front access will be maintained in single
family neighborhoods as a result of this amendment.
In (a), "new" is amitted because it is redundant.
In (a)(2), the Zoning Administratar and City Traf€ic Engineer are
established as the City staff who determine that the topography
or canfiguration of the Bub~ect parcel precludes reasonable alley
access.
In (a)(3), a standard is established for the mxnimum change in
elevation between the front and rear of the parcel which would
preclude alley access. This standard is based on staff observa-
tion since the adoption of the current code in 1988. A change in
elevatian between the front and rear of the parcel may preclude
alley access because af constraints resultinq ~rom the maximum
perm~tted ang~e for a ramp ta a subterranean garage.
In (aj(4j, the Zvning Ad~inistrat~r and the City Parking and
TrafFic Engineer are given the authority to allow curb cuts due
to traffic, circulation or safety concerns.
In (b), the change is far clarification only,
In {c), a clause which applied only to Rl Districts is omitted
and replaced with a clause requiring that existing curb cuts be
replaced with full height curbs for new buildings and substantial
remadels which require alley access.
- 21 -
Section 9.04.10.08.090 Parking Access in Non-Residential Dis-
tricts. The changes proposed for this Section are similar to the
modifications proposed far the above Section.
In (a), "small" is Qmitted because it is redundant.
The change in (a)(2) is identica~ to the change propased in
(a)(2) for Section 9.04.10.08.080, abave.
The change in (a)(3) is identical to the change proposed in
{a)(3) for Sec~ion 9.04.14.08.fl80, above.
The change in {a)(5) is similar in intent to the change proposed
in (a)(4) for Section 9.04.~o.OS.osv, above.
The change in (c) is identical to the change proposed in (c) for
Section 9.04.10.08.080, above.
Section 9.04.10.08.100 DrivsWays. Minar amendments have been
euggested ~or this Section by th~ City Parking and Traffic
Engineer.
3n (a)(2), text is omitted because staff fee~s it is unclear and
unnecessary.
In (c), a list af different ~nultifamily districts is omitted in
favor of the more inclusive statement "mu~tifamily residential
districts." The ma.nimum width o£ a single driveway in multifami-
ly districts is changed from 10' to 12', and the minimum width of
a dnuble driveway is changed from 20~ to 24~. This change is
sugges~ed by the City Parking and Traffic Engineer in order ~o
better accommodate vehicular circulation an residential parcels.
- 22 -
In (dj, the minimum width ~or a double driveway in conimercial and
industrial districts is changed to 24'.
In (ej, a clarification has been made regarding parking structure
ramps.
In (f), the text is a~ended to qive the Zoning Administrator and
City Parking and Traffic Engine~r added flexibility to amend the
minimum driveway widths in special circumstances, provided that
circulation, tra~fic and safety concerns are adequate~y
addressed.
Section 9.04.10.08.120 Markinq af Parkinq Spa~es. The proposed
amendments in this Sectian eliminate the requi~ement far the
marking of parking spaces in R1 D~stricts and establish that, in
other districts, guest, carpool and vanpool spaces be clearly
mark~d.
Section 9.04.10.~8.13D Sumper Guards. The word "bumper guard"
is replaced with "wheel stop" at the suggestion o€ the City Park-
ing and Traffic Engineer.
Section 9.04.10.08.170 slope. Subsectian (b} contains minor
clarifications.
Saction 9.04.14.Q8.190 Lacation of Required Parking Spaces.
Subsection (a)(1) contains a min~r clarification regarding the
permissible lacation of off-street parking space.
- 23 -
~~~/'G ~ ~ / ~
~~~'~~~3
PRINT
ASSESSMENT-NO
NAME
NAME-2
MAIL-STRE~T
MAIL-CITY-STATE
SITE-STREET
PARCEL-NO
STR-RESURFACED
GUTTER-INSTALLED
TOTAL-ASSESSMENT
IMPROVEMENT-NOl
IMPROVEMENT-N02
oo~
FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CA TR
P O BOX 99~0 A87 3
CALABASAS, CA 91302
lOb2 WILSHIRE BL
4282-007-026
150 L.F. (SIDE}
150 L.F. (SIDE}
$2,152.50
STREET RESURFACED
GUTTER CONSTRUCTED
PRINT
ASSESSMENT-NO 002
NAME BERNARD APPELBAUM CD TR
NAME-2 HENRY AND REGINA G. YARMARK
MAIL-STREET 18056 COASTLINE DRIVE
MAIL-CITY-STATE NlALIBU, CA 9~265
SITE-STREET 920 WILSHIRE BL
PARCEL-NO 4282-008-024
STR-RESURFACED 100 L.F. (SIDE)
GUTTER-INSTALLED 10Q L.F. (SIDE)
T4TAL-ASSESSMENT $1,435
IMPROVEMENT-N01 STREET RESURFACED
IMPROVEMENT-N02 GUTTER CONSTRUCTED
PRINT
ASSESSMENT-NO
NAME
NAME-2
MAIL-STREET
MAIL-CITY-STATE
SITE-STREET
PARCEL-N~
STR-RESURFACED
GUTTER-INSTALLED
TOTAL-ASSESSMENT
IMPROVEMENT-N01
IMPROVEMENT-N02
003
ANGEL~S GIRL SCaUT COUNCIL
5057 ADAMS BL
LOS ANGELES, CA 90016
3318 - 10TH STREET
4282-Oll-OOS
50 L.F.
50 L F.
$1,435
STREET RESURFACED
GUTTER CONSTRUCT~D
CONCLUSION
The proposed Text Amendment is an impravement of the Zoning Or-
dinance and is consistent with the abjectives of the General Plan
and therefore warrants adaption.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Because this proposal is not site-specific, na radius map, prop-
erty posting ar mailing not~fication is required. A legal natice
was published in the Outlook (Attachme~t D) and staff has
nQtified the Neighbarhood Support Center of the proposed Text
Amendment. The Chamber of Commerae has also been made aware of
the proposed Text Amendment.
BUDGET/F~NANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this repart daes not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
REC~MMENDATION
It is respect~ully recommended that the City Council adopt the
proposed Text Amendment set forth in Attachment C based on the
following ~indings:
TTI.TTTI.T/~P~
1. The prapo~ed Text Amendment is consistent in princip].e
with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses and pro-
grams specifisd in the adopted General Plan, in that it is
cansistent with Land Use ar~d Circulation Element Dbjective
4.7, to accommodate project-generated parking consistent
with encouraging alternative transportation management
pragrams~ because the amendments would clarify existing
parking requirements and establish more precise standards,
including minimum standards for the provision of on-si~e
carpool, vanpoal and bicycle parking.
- 25 -
2. The public health~ safety, and general welfare requires
adoption of the proposed a~endment, in that the amendment
represents an improvement o~er existing regulations, by
claxifying existing provisions and refining existing min~-
mum standards.
Prepared by: D, Kenyon Webster, P~anning Manager
Drummond Buckley, Associate Planner
Planning Di~isian
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
Attachments:
A. Plann~ng Commission Staff Repart
B. P~anning Commission Statement of Official Action
C. Prapased Text Amendment (With Line-Out) and Ordinance
Adopting TA 92~010 (New Text Without Line-Out)
D. Public Notice
E. Correspondence
F. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 422, '~Zoning for Child
Care"
DB
PC/ccpark
oZ~i8~93
- 26 -
14~'~'A~.HMEN'I~ A
., ~ ,~ ~ r