HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0_Study Session for Nonresidential Parking Code Update_PA2021-104CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
October 20, 2022
Agenda Item No. 4
SUBJECT: Study Session for Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
▪Zoning Code Amendment
▪Local Coastal Program Amendment
SITE LOCATION: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach
PLANNER: Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Principal Planner
949-644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
The City Council has directed staff to examine parking requirements with the goal to
refresh nonresidential parking standards to bring them in line with current best practices.
This report includes an overview of the effort to develop several potential code
amendments.
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss and provide input and direction to staff.
DISCUSSION
Background
On January 26, 2021, the City Council conducted a study session regarding City parking
regulations and outdoor dining. At the conclusion of the session, the City Council asked
staff to study potential amendments that could update the City’s parking regulations to
modernize them, to address emerging trends such as rideshare and delivery services and
identify other changes to support the retention of expanded outdoor dining due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
City staff retained a parking consultant, Nelson\Nygaard, to help study best practices and
returned to a City Council study session on November 30, 2021, to share some of the
initial findings. During the regular session that day, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 2021-121 initiating amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local
Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC related to parking to ensure
requirements are in line with current national standards and meet the needs of the City’s
residents and visitors.
1
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2
Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Planning Commission, October 20, 2022
Page 2
As shared during the City Council meeting, City staff noted the parking code updates
could occur in phases. The identified work program is noted in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Parking Code Update Work Program
Phase One Phase Two
Bicycle-Based Reductions
Shared-Mobility-Based Reductions and Carpooling
Revised Nonresidential Parking Ratios
• Offices
• Eating and Drinking Establishments
Administrative Parking Waiver by Director
In-Lieu Parking Fee Program
Curbside Management
Parking Management Districts
This report and study session focuses on the Phase One effort.
Bicycle-Based Reductions
Bicycles have long been an alternative mode of transportation to the automobile;
however, the prevalence of bicycle-riding to get from point “a” to point “b” largely depends
on the infrastructure available to encourage safe ridership. In Newport Beach, the City
adopted a robust Bicycle Master Plan in 2014. Many of the suggested improvements in
the Master Plan have been made and serve to create a safer bicycling network. As such,
there is a clear opportunity to link the provision of bicycle accommodations with a
reduction in the codified parking requirement. California cities including Folsom, Laguna
Beach, and Los Angeles, as well as others out of state, including Salt Lake City, UT,
Bend, OR, Savannah, GA, Bozeman, MT, and Dallas, TX, each have provided bicycle-
based reductions of parking requirements. These reductions are listed in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Bicycle-Based Reductions, Best Practices
Location Summary of Reduction
Folsom, CA One vehicle space for every three additional bicycle spaces provided up
to a maximum of 2% of the required parking. The provision of
shower/locker facilities for developments with at least 100 employees
reduces required spaces by an additional 2% or five spaces, whichever is
greater.
Los Angeles, CA For every four bicycle parking spaces proposed, the vehicular parking
requirement may be reduced by one standard or compact parking space,
up to 20% of the parking required.
Salt Lake City, UT Permanently installed “pedestrian friendly amenities,” such as bike racks,
stroller parking areas, benches, or other amenities within 100 feet of
business entrances qualify the development to exclude the first 2,500
square feet from parking requirements.
Bend, OR Up to 5% of the required parking for industrial, commercial, or office uses
providing showers and lockers for employees who commute by bike.
Providing twice as many covered and secured bike racks as required can
result in additional reductions.
3
Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Planning Commission, October 20, 2022
Page 3
Table 2: Bicycle-Based Reductions, Best Practices
Location Summary of Reduction
Savannah, GA Up to one space for every three additional bicycle spaces provided up to
a maximum of 5% of the required parking.
Bozeman, MT Up to 10% of the required parking in the downtown area if at least two
covered bicycle parking spaces are provided for each vehicular space and
a nonresidential shower, changing area, and clothing lockers are
provided.
Dallas, TX One space for every six Class I bicycle parking spaces (e.g., racks for
short-term use); however, a minimum of 20 off-street parking spaces must
be provided. One space for every four Class II bicycle parking spaces
(e.g., secure lockers for long-term use). Up to 5% of the required parking
with an option of an additional 5% when showers, lockers, and changing
facilities are provided. As a note, this is not permitted for retail or personal
service land uses.
Nelson\Nygaard Recommendation No. 1:
A. Allow a reduction in the required amount of parking by one space for every
three bicycle parking spaces that are provided above any minimum
requirement for bicycle parking. The maximum reduction allowable for this
provision would be up to five percent of the required parking; and
B. Consider allowing an additional five percent reduction in the required parking
when enhanced bicycle “end-of-trip” facilities are provided. These include
showers and locker facilities. If not provided on-site, these facilities could be
provided in the form of free or employer-paid access at off-site facilities located
within 1/8th mile of the property.
Staff is generally supportive of this recommendation; however, one concern is that it may
not be translatable citywide due to a lack of bicycling as a mode of transportation. For
example, there may be far more bicycle riders on the Balboa Peninsula and in Corona
del Mar than there are in the Airport Area or in Newport Coast. It is also envisioned that
the bicycle parking must be located on and properly sited within the development they
intend to serve. In other words, a private business would not take advantage of a City-
installed bicycle rack located nearby.
Shared-Mobility-Based Reductions and Carpooling
The concept of “shared-mobility” in this case references newer technology applications
(or “apps”) for ridesharing, such as Uber and Lyft, as well as those for food and meal
delivery service, such as Uber Eats, Grubhub, and DoorDash.
Ridesharing apps were first introduced in 2009 and have continually gained popularity
making traditional taxi services close to obsolete. In turn, the convenience of hailing a
ride from virtually anywhere through mobile phone apps has increased the use of shared-
4
Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Planning Commission, October 20, 2022
Page 4
mobility alternatives to the traditional single-user vehicle. This increased use is important
when factoring parking demand, as rideshare services are typically only dropping off
and/or picking up passengers. Simply put, rideshare services are transient parking lot
users and are not taking up parking spaces for extended periods of time.
Similarly, food and meal delivery services have also become prominent, especially during
the COVID-19 pandemic. Since these services focus on the rapid pick-up and delivery of
food and goods from restaurants and stores, they are also considered transient parking
lot users with short stays and quick turnover.
Together these shared-mobility options have driven up the demand for dedicated pick-up
and drop-off space in parking lots while reducing the demand for longer stays. In heavily
used parking lots, these services can create obstructions and unnecessary congestion
when they are not properly accounted for. As such, many cities are incentivizing the
creation of dedicated spaces.
Another mode of shared mobility is traditional carpooling and vanpooling. In some larger
projects, carpool spaces are required. Including an incentive for developers to add
carpool spaces to smaller projects could serve as a benefit that ultimately lessens the
vehicles on the road in alignment with regionwide climate goals. The studied incentives
in three different “best practice” locations are identified in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Shared-Mobility-Based Reductions and Carpooling, Best Practices
Location Summary of Reduction
Chandler, AZ 10% reduction of parking requirement for every passenger loading
zone, up to a maximum of 40%; however, one loading zone space
may be counted per 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial.
Milwaukee, WI 25% reduction of parking requirement if developers submit
documentation of established and maintained carpool program in
proximity to the primary use of the development.
Montgomery County, MD Reduction of up to three parking spaces if a bicycle-sharing facility
is provided with at least 10 bicycles. In addition, the County may
reduce three vehicular parking spaces for each changing facility,
including lockers and showers, for those using bicycles. Also, the
County allows one car-share parking space or a dedicated carpool
parking space to count as three vehicular parking spaces.
Nelson\Nygaard Recommendation No. 2:
A. For office uses, one designated priority carpooling space reserved for
registered carpool and vanpool vehicles until 10 a.m., Monday through Friday,
could equal three parking spaces up to a maximum reduction of 5 percent of
the required parking spaces; and
5
Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Planning Commission, October 20, 2022
Page 5
B. A 10-percent reduction in required vehicle parking spaces for either of the
following that are reserved for passenger loading/unloading activity:
i. At least 20 feet of curb-space abutting the development; or
ii. An off-street parking space designated and signed for the use of
shared-mobility vehicles.
Staff is generally supportive of this recommendation to incentivize alternative modes of
transportation. Much like bicycle-based reductions, it is also envisioned that the dedicated
parking space must be properly sited on-site within the private property of the
development it serves. In other words, a private business would not be able to take
advantage of a space within a municipal lot or on the adjacent public right-of-way.
Revised Nonresidential Parking Ratios
The City’s parking ratios are codified in Sections 20.40.030 and 21.40.030 (Requirements
for Off-Street Parking) of the NBMC and were last updated with the comprehensive
Zoning Code update in 2010. Nelson\Nygaard evaluated these parking ratios and
compared them to several peer cities. Although there are recommendations to consider
several changes to ratios for alignment with other cities, City staff is currently focusing on
updates to two land use types: “Offices” and “Eating and Drinking Establishments.”
The current requirement for Offices--Corporate, General, Governmental is one parking
space for every 250 square feet of net floor area. This is inconsistent with the requirement
for Offices--Medical/Dental, which requires a minimum of one parking space for every 200
feet of gross floor area.
Nelson\Nygaard Recommendation No. 3:
Change the Offices—Medical/Dental parking ratio to be in line with that of the other
offices. This recommendation is based on best practices and the most recent
guidebook from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
Staff is generally supportive of this recommendation as a best practice.
With respect to Eating and Drinking Establishments, Nelson\Nygaard prepared an
expansive memorandum outlining a study of “fast-casual” type land uses and how the
City could modify its current ordinance to be in line with best practices. This memorandum
is attached to this report as Attachment No. PC 1. Nelson\Nygaard also reviewed the
current restaurant parking requirements for comparability to other cities’ regulations.
Nelson\Nygaard Recommendation No. 4:
Change most restaurant parking requirements from a varying range of one parking
space for each 30 to 50 square feet of net public area to a simple one parking
space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area.
6
Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Planning Commission, October 20, 2022
Page 6
Staff is generally supportive of this recommendation. The current requirements for
restaurant parking are subjective. The identified rate within the range of between 30 and
50 square feet of net public area is required to be selected based on the operational
parameters of the restaurant. In most cases, the identified rate is set at one parking space
for every 40 square feet of net public area. Changing the requirement to exclude the net
public area as a function simplifies the parking requirement, removes the subjectivity,
provides for an easier transition between restaurant operators, and allows the property
owner additional economic opportunity. Lastly, the proposed rate is consistent with ITE
guidelines as best practice and is also consistent with peer cities including Laguna Beach
and Encinitas.
Nelson\Nygaard Recommendation No. 5:
Modify the current “Takeout Service, limited” land use category to be more in line
with a fast-casual land use by increasing the seat limitation from up to six seats to
up to 20 seats. The one parking space for every 250 square feet requirement
should be maintained. Further consideration should be given to base the
requirement on dining area (or “net public area”) only and not the entire tenant
space and back-of-house area. If dining area is the parameter used to assign the
parking requirement, then Nelson\Nygaard also recommends adjusting the rest of
the restaurant requirements to be based on dining area for consistency.
This recommendation takes a best practice approach of less parking spaces to serve
more cars. In general, this restaurant type would be distinguished by a higher customer
turnover than that of a sit-down, full-service restaurant. The land uses that were identified
as being closest to “fast casual” within peer cities are identified in the Figure 2 on the
subsequent page.
Staff supports the recommendation of increasing the seat count from up to six seats to
up to 20 seats and retaining the current parking requirement of one space for every 250
square feet of gross floor area.
However, staff does not support the additional consideration of using only the dining area
when assigning the parking requirement. Currently, most “Takeout Service, Limited”
establishments take over tenant spaces formerly occupied by a retail sales or personal
service tenant. These uses have equivalent parking requirements in the NBMC. If the
parking for this modified takeout service land use were to be based on only the dining
area, the resulting requirement would then be less than that of the former retail sales or
personal service land use. For example, with the full Nelson\Nygaard recommendation
employed, a new fast-casual type restaurant with 300 square feet of dining area and 20
seats that occupies a 1,250-square-foot tenant space formerly occupied by an apparel
store would only require two parking spaces when the former apparel store required five
spaces.
7
Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Planning Commission, October 20, 2022
Page 7
(Figure 2 continues onto the next page)
8
Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Planning Commission, October 20, 2022
Page 8
Administrative Parking Waiver by Director
Section 20.40.110 (Adjustments to Off-Street Parking Requirements) of the NBMC
currently requires a conditional use permit for all reductions in required parking. The only
exception allowing administrative approval of a reduction in parking is when the reduction
is deemed necessary to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements
with tenant improvements to account for disabled access stalls.
9
Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Planning Commission, October 20, 2022
Page 9
Nelson\Nygaard Recommendation No. 6:
Nelson\Nygaard identified enhanced administrative parking waivers as a current
best practice among evaluated peer cities and nationwide and, as such, the
recommendation for the City to consider the following:
Allow the Community Development Director to administratively waive up to 20
percent of required nonresidential parking when evidenced by a professionally
prepared parking-demand and supply analysis.
Staff generally supports this recommendation as an economic development tool as it will
streamline and shorten the approval process for many uses. Much like the current parking
waiver process requiring Planning Commission consideration and approval, this analysis
would be evaluated by the City Traffic Engineer for adequacy and must be accepted as
valid for the Director to waive parking. It is notable that any waiver beyond 20 percent
would still require the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission.
Combining Reductions and Waivers
Nelson\Nygaard Recommendation No. 7:
Nelson\Nygaard recommends applying a maximum cap of up to 20 percent for
implementation of any combination of the above reduction measures.
Staff agrees with this recommendation as larger reductions could result in unintended
parking conflicts that would be better studied through a full conditional use permit process.
Next Steps
City staff will take input and direction from the Planning Commission on the identified
Phase One efforts and will prepare draft language to amend Titles 20 and 21 of the
NBMC. It is expected that the Ordinance for changes to Title 20 will be ready for
consideration and adoption within the first quarter of 2023, with Title 21 changes
submitted to the California Coastal Commission thereafter.
Environmental Review
This matter is a study session that is not subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in
Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter
3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly
or indirectly.
10
Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Planning Commission, October 20, 2022
Page 10
Public Notice
The agenda item has been noticed in accordance with the Brown Act (72 hours in
advance of the meeting) and it was posted at City Hall and on the City website, consistent
with the provisions of the NBMC.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
______________________
Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP
Principal Planner
ATTACHMENT
PC 1 Memorandum on Fast-Casual Dining Prepared by Nelson\Nygaard
01/12/18
11
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE12
Attachment No. PC 1
Memorandum on Fast-Casual Dining
Prepared by Nelson-Nygaard
13
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE14
706 SOUTH HILL STREET, SUITE 1200 LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 213-785-5500 FAX 503-228-2320
nelsonnygaard.com
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Newport Beach
From: Nelson\Nygaard
Date: October 10, 2022
Subject: Considerations for Fast Casual Restaurant Use in Newport Beach Parking
Requirements (Revised)
Purpose
This memorandum provides considerations should the City decide to incorporate a new “Fast
Casual Restaurant” land use category into the proposed revisions to parking requirements for
food/commercial uses as originally proposed in 2021.
To support these recommendations, this memo includes the following:
Summary of the context behind this topic
Understanding of how the City, peers, and national standards define Fast Casual
Restaurant uses and their respective parking requirements (if applicable)
List of the pros and cons of pursuing the following options as it considers a future
code revision:
− Keeping the standard consistent with proposal for “Food Service” land uses (1
space per 100 sq. ft. GFA or Gross Floor Area)
− Keeping the standard consistent with proposals for “Takeout-Limited” land use (1
space per 250 sq. ft. GFA)
− Changing “gross floor area” to “customer/dining space floor area” as a standard
− Changing “gross floor area” to “seats” as a standard
− Requiring 20 or fewer seats for dining for the standard to apply
− Specific combinations of the above options
Context
In 2021, the City’s Planning Department proposed the following changes to the parking
requirements for eating and drinking establishments per the Newport Beach municipal code:
15
Considerations for Fast Casual Restaurant Use in Newport Beach Parking Requirements
City of Newport Beach
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 2
Figure 1
Land Use
Current Newport Beach
Municipal Code Proposed Aligns closely with…
Parking Spaces Required Parking Spaces
Required
National
Standards Peer Codes
Accessory (open to
public)
1 per each 3 seats or 1 per
each 75 sq. ft of net public
area, whichever is greater
1 per 100 sq. ft. GFA,
including outdoor seating
areas
ITE
Food Service
with/without
alcohol,
with/without late
hours
1 per 30—50 sq. ft. of net
public area, including
outdoor dining areas
exceeding 25% of the
interior net public area or
1,000 sq. ft., whichever is
less. See Section
20.40.060
Laguna Beach
Food Service - Fast
Food
1 per 50 sq. ft. GFA, and 1
per 100 sq. ft. GFA for
outdoor dining areas
Encinitas
Wine Tasting
Room
1 per each 4 persons based
on allowed occupancy load
or as required by
conditional use permit
Take-Out Service -
Limited 1 per 250 sq. ft. GFA 1 per 250 sq. ft. GFA Fountain Valley
Reductions to required parking for establishments incorporating facilities for bicycles and
shared mobility into their designs were also proposed.
Following a presentation of these proposed changes in November 2021, City Council
inquired about how “fast casual” restaurant uses were being considered from a parking
standpoint. At this time, Newport Beach does not have a Fast Casual Restaurant land
use identified in its code. Instead, the existing uses as listed above are applicable to such
establishments.
Understanding of the Fast Casual Restaurant Land Use
Fast casual restaurants fall into a grey area between “fast food” and conventional restaurants.
They are typically considered to have the following attributes:
Payment and ordering at a counter (as opposed to full sit-down table waiting service)
Serving of food and beverage options may be self-serve, provided at a counter, or
served directly to a table with an order reference number
16
Considerations for Fast Casual Restaurant Use in Newport Beach Parking Requirements
City of Newport Beach
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 3
Tables for eating (indoors and/or outdoors)
Food options priced affordably but made to order
Customers asked to bus their own tables
Drive-through service typically not available
Some examples of these uses range from national chains and franchises (e.g., Chipotle and
Starbucks), regional chains (e.g., Mendocino Farms), and local establishments (Alta Coffee).
Examples of “Fast Casual” or similar from Peer Cities and
National Standards
A survey of Orange County municipal codes resulted in no references of the exact land use
“Fast Casual” in minimum parking requirements. The table below references Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) and Urban Land Institute (ULI) for the industry standard
definitions of “Fast Casual” and examines the closest land use designation in various peer
Orange County or with boundaries inside the Coastal Zone.
Figure 2
City Name and Definition of Applicable
Use
Minimum Parking
Requirement (Citywide) or
Industry Standard
Link to
Reference
Code
ITE Fast Casual A fast casual restaurant is a
sit-down restaurant with no wait staff or
table service
9.93 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. N/A
ULI Not defined within Shared Parking 3rd
Edition, but is referenced in tandem with
“Fast Food”
For example, Chipotle is referenced in
many ULI publications as Fast Casual
14.7 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. N/A
Encinitas No Similar Category N/A Sec.
30.54.030 –
A
Fountain
Valley
No Similar Category N/A Sec.
21.22.040
Huntington
Beach
Eating and Drinking Establishments
With 12 seats or less
1 per 200 sq. ft. Sec. 231.04
Laguna
Beach
Take-out 1 space per 100 sq. ft. or 1
space per 3 seats – whichever is
greater
Sec.
25.52.012
San
Clemente
No Similar Category N/A Section
17.64.050
17
Considerations for Fast Casual Restaurant Use in Newport Beach Parking Requirements
City of Newport Beach
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 4
Dana Point Take-out shall mean a restaurant where
foods and/or beverages are sold directly
to the customer in a ready to consume
state for consumption off-site. A take-out
restaurant provides no more than four (4)
tables and sixteen (16) seats, either
inside or outside, for on-site
consumption.
1 stall per 250 sq. ft. Sec.
9.35.080
Laguna
Niguel
Retail Food an establishment where
food and/or beverages are offered and
primarily intended for off-premises
consumption, with ten or fewer seats,
and with no alcohol sales. Examples
include ice cream shops, delicatessens,
baked good establishments, and other
uses deemed to be similar by the
community development director.
5 spaces per 1,000 square feet
of gross floor area including
indoor/outdoor seating areas
Sec. 9-1-65
& 9-1-66
Orange Restaurant—20 seats or fewer, or
primary method is takeout
5 spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA. Sec.
17.34.060
Tustin Restaurants, take out including
delicatessens, donut shops, coffee
shops, or similar establishments at which
the consumption of food and beverages
occurs primarily away from the premises
1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of
gross floor area, plus a minimum
7-car stacking space for drive-
through, except no additional
parking spaces shall be required
when a restaurant use replaces
a retail, service, or office use on
a property located within the
Downtown Commercial Core
Specific Plan
Article 9, Ch.
2, Part 6 -
9263
Westminster Take-out, restaurants and cafés, offering
no seats or tables or offering 12 or fewer
seats, inclusive of all indoor and outdoor
seating
Parking requirement covered
under the general requirements
for shopping centers or 1
parking space for every 250
square feet or major fraction
thereof of gross floor area if
stand alone
Sec.
17.320.020
Options for Consideration
1. Keeping the standard consistent with proposal for “Food
Service” land uses (1 space per 100 sq. ft. GFA)
Rather than creating a new land use designation, we would propose including the
uses that otherwise would be ITE defined “Fast Casual” into the updated “Food
Service” parking requirement of 1 space per 100 sq. ft. GFA. Characteristics of land-
uses that might fall into the “Fast-Casual” land use designation are different. Table
18
Considerations for Fast Casual Restaurant Use in Newport Beach Parking Requirements
City of Newport Beach
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 5
turnover at full-service dining establishments is much slower. This means that cars
use parking spaces for much longer periods of time, and likely all patrons will be
eating on-site compared to “Fast-Casual” or “Take-Out” which sees a larger share of
patrons order on-site and eat elsewhere.
Pros Spares the burden of having to create a distinct, new “fast casual restaurant” land
use to the municipal code
Cons This would likely result in restaurant land uses with higher turnover, like “fast
casual”-type restaurants under the ITE definition, being overparked
Using GFA of restaurants to estimate demand likely overestimates the demand,
given that GFA includes areas of the building that do not generate demand (e.g.,
storage, walk-in refrigerators, bathrooms, and staircases/ramps/elevator shafts)
2. Keeping the standard consistent with proposals for “Takeout-
Limited” land use (1 space per 250 sq. ft. GFA)
Rather than creating a new land use designation, we would propose including the
uses that otherwise would be ITE defined “Fast Casual” into the updated “Take-Out
Limited” parking requirement of 1 space per 250 sq. ft. GFA. Customer turnover at
fast-casual restaurants is typically much higher than that of a sit-down, full-service
restaurant. This means that less parking spaces will serve more cars in the parking lot
of a fast-casual restaurant, similar to that of a take-out restaurant.
Pros Spares the burden of having to create a distinct new “fast casual restaurant” land
use to the municipal code
This would likely result in right-sized parking for what could be considered “fast
casual”-type restaurants under the ITE definition
Cons Using GFA of restaurants to estimate demand may overestimate the demand,
given that GFA includes areas of the building that do not generate demand (e.g.,
storage, walk-in refrigerators, bathrooms, and staircases/ramps/elevator shafts)
3. Changing “gross floor area” to “customer/dining space floor
area” as a standard
Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code explains Gross Floor Area (Floor Area,
Gross) or “GFA” to include storage areas, balconies, areas where ceiling height is
above 6ft, and other areas that are unlikely to drive demand for parking. The
intention of parking requirements is to accurately measure the area from which
parking demand is created. Shifting from “GFA” to “Customer/Dining Space Floor
Area” as the determining factor of demand generation would help to right-size
parking for restaurant uses.
19
Considerations for Fast Casual Restaurant Use in Newport Beach Parking Requirements
City of Newport Beach
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 6
Pros More accurate to true demand than GFA (dining area is the primary demand
generator for restaurants)
Size of dining area also correlates to number of staff needed to serve the area
Retail and service industry staff are statistically more likely to arrive at work by
mode other than single occupancy vehicle1
Would likely result in more right-sized parking for what could be considered “fast
casual”-type restaurants under the ITE definition than using GFA would
Cons Should update all restaurant requirements to use “customer/dining space floor
area” to remain consistent
4. [Combination of 1 & 3] Keeping the standard consistent with
proposals for “Takeout-Limited” land use (1 space per 100 sq. ft.
customer/dining space floor area)
See Options 1 & 3
Pros More accurate to true demand than GFA (dining area is the primary demand
generator for restaurants)
Size of dining area also correlates to number of staff needed to serve the area
Retail and service industry staff are statistically more likely to arrive at work by
mode other than single occupancy vehicle
Cons Using sit-down restaurant ratios would likely result in restaurant land uses with
higher turnover, like “fast casual”-type restaurants under the ITE definition, being
overparked
Should update all restaurant requirements to use “customer/dining space floor
area” to remain consistent
5. [Combination of 2 & 3] Keeping the standard consistent with
proposals for “Takeout-Limited” land use (1 space per 250 sq. ft.
customer/dining space floor area) and requires 20 or fewer seats
for dining.
See Options 2 & 3, Cities of Orange, Dana Point, Westminster, and Huntington Beach
Municipal Code
1 Average share of peak parking demand consumed by retail employees 20%
(Urban Land Institute Shared Parking, 2nd Edition, Table 2-2, pg. 11) & (The True Cost of Free Parking. Shoup,
Donald. Pg. 86)
20
Considerations for Fast Casual Restaurant Use in Newport Beach Parking Requirements
City of Newport Beach
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 7
Pros More accurate to true demand than GFA (dining area is the primary demand
generator for restaurants)
Size of dining area also correlates to number of staff needed to serve the area
Retail and service industry staff are statistically more likely to arrive at work by
mode other than single occupancy vehicle
Seat limit ensures that restaurant’s primary function is for take-out and fast
casual/high-turnover style operations
Cons Should update all restaurant requirements to use “customer/dining space floor
area” to remain consistent
6. [Combination of 2 & 3] Keeping the standard consistent with
proposals for “Takeout-Limited” land use (1 space per 250 sq. ft.
customer/dining space floor area)
See Options 2 & 3
Pros More accurate to true demand than GFA (dining area is the primary demand
generator for restaurants)
Size of dining area also correlates to number of staff needed to serve the area
Retail and service industry staff are statistically more likely to arrive at work by
mode other than single occupancy vehicle
Cons Should update all restaurant requirements to use “customer/dining space floor
area” to remain consistent
7. Changing “gross floor area” to “seats” as a standard
Changing from “GFA” to “Seats” as the determining factor of demand generation
would be less stable than using customer/dining space floor area because of the
flexibility of restaurant front-of-house design.
Pros Could perhaps provide a more accurate approximation of parking needs than sq.
ft.
Specific unit to restaurants, can also use “tables” as proxy
Cons Presents a challenge for the City to identify effective ratio based on restaurant
type. Depending on demographic of clientele, true parking demand can vary
widely—e.g., Family restaurants (lower demand due to higher likelihood to
carpool) vs young professionals (higher demand due to higher likelihood to drive
alone)
Limits the ability of restaurants to be flexible and change layout of dining rooms or
host special events and etcetera
Should update all restaurant requirements to use “seats” to remain consistent
21
Considerations for Fast Casual Restaurant Use in Newport Beach Parking Requirements
City of Newport Beach
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 8
Recommendation
The first priority for identifying a recommended option for Fast Casual Restaurants is that it
provides a reduction from the current requirement for “Food Service” (1 space per 30 to 50
square feet). The current requirement is higher than multiple peer cities and presents a
challenging barrier for establishments operating under the spatial constraints in Newport
Beach’s waterfront and beachfront districts and/or interested in offering outdoor dining –
which continues to be a popular outcome of the emergency legislation enabling such
operations since the COVID-19 pandemic began – a permanent fixture.
Among the multiple options outlined above, we recommend Option 5. This is a combination
of options 2 & 3 and incorporates a dining seat limit—an element used by peer Orange
County cities—which keeps the standard consistent with our recommendations for the
“Takeout-Limited” land use (1 space per 250 sq. ft. customer/dining space floor area).
Takeout-Limited is comparable to the definition ITE prescribes to “Fast Casual Restaurant”.
Option 5 also updates the ratio to specifically calculate demand based on the demand-
generating space (the dining area) of the restaurant land use, reducing the risk of over-
requiring parking. Option 5 also caps seating capacity at 20 to ensure that the primary
function of the restaurant is providing takeout service, with the shorter parking stays and
reduced demand “accumulation” that such uses generate.
The City can act on this recommendation by creating a new "Fast Casual Restaurant" land use
category or amending the definition of "Takeout-Limited" to include fast casual restaurants
up to 20 seats.
22
Updating Commercial Parking Requirements
Planning Commission Study Session
October 20, 2022
Benjamin Zdeba, AICP, Principal Planner
Planning Commission - October 20, 2022 Item No. 4a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Study Session for Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Background
2Community Development Department
January 26, 2021 November 30, 2021
City Council Study Session
•Study restaurant parking
•Review commercial parking
•Explore incentives for
rideshare and bicycle
City Council Study Session
Code Amendment Initiation
•Generally supportive
•Two-phased approach
September 7, 2022
Community Workshop
•Shared recommendations
•Discussed questions and
received feedback
Planning Commission - October 20, 2022 Item No. 4a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Study Session for Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Nelson\Nygaard Recommendation No. 1
3Community Development Department
Bicycle-Based Reductions
•Reduce one space for every three bicycle parking
spaces provided above any minimum requirement.
Maximum reduction of 5% of the required spaces.
•Allow an additional 5% reduction with on-site or
proximate end-of-trip facilities like lockers and
showers.
Planning Commission - October 20, 2022 Item No. 4a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Study Session for Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Nelson\Nygaard Recommendation No. 2
4Community Development Department
Shared-Mobility-Based Reductions
•For office uses, one designated carpool space could
equal three parking spaces. Maximum reduction of
5% of the required spaces.
•Allow a 10% reduction in required parking with at
least 20-feet of dedicated private curb-space or one
off-street parking space designated and signed for
services (e.g., Uber, Lyft, etc.).
Planning Commission - October 20, 2022 Item No. 4a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Study Session for Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Nelson\Nygaard Recommendation No. 3
5Community Development Department
Revised Office Parking Ratio
•Revise parking requirement for Offices—
Medical/Dental from one parking space for every
200 square feet of gross floor area to one parking
space for every 250 square feet of net floor area,
consistent with all other Office uses.
Planning Commission - October 20, 2022 Item No. 4a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Study Session for Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Nelson\Nygaard Recommendation No. 4
6Community Development Department
Revised Restaurant Parking Ratio
Land Use Current Parking
Spaces Required
Food Service
(with/without alcohol,
with/without late hours)
1 per 30-50 sq. ft. net public area,
including outdoor dining areas
exceeding 25% of interior net public
area or 1,000 sq. ft., whichever is less
Land Use Proposed Parking
Spaces Required
Food Service
(with/without alcohol,
with/without late hours)
1 per 100 sq. ft., including
outdoor dining areas
Planning Commission - October 20, 2022 Item No. 4a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Study Session for Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Nelson\Nygaard Recommendation No. 5
7Community Development Department
Modified Take-Out Service/“Fast Casual”
Current Land Use Parking Spaces Required
Take-out Service, Limited
(Maximum 6 Seats)1 per 250 sq. ft. gross floor area
Proposed Land Use Parking Spaces Required
Take-out Service, Limited
(Maximum 20 Seats)1 per 250 sq. ft. gross floor area
NOTE: “Take-out Service, Limited” does not allow alcohol sales and service.
Planning Commission - October 20, 2022 Item No. 4a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Study Session for Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Nelson\Nygaard Recommendation No. 6
8Community Development Department
Administrative Parking Waiver by Director
•Allow the CDD Director to administratively waive up
to 20%of the required nonresidential parking.
Waivers above 20% will still require a CUP.
•Any waiver is subject to City Traffic Engineer review
and approval of a professionally prepared parking-
demand/ supply analysis.
Planning Commission - October 20, 2022 Item No. 4a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Study Session for Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Nelson\Nygaard Recommendation No. 7
9Community Development Department
Combining Reductions and Waivers
•Up to 20% maximum reduction for any combination
of the administrative recommendations.
•After 20%, additional discretionary review may be
warranted.
Planning Commission - October 20, 2022 Item No. 4a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Study Session for Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Considerations
10Community Development Department
•Areas in Coastal Zone are subject to Title 21 (Local
Coastal Program Implementation Plan) and will take longer to implement due to CCC oversight.
•Areas in Planned Communities may require
separate consideration for changing parking ratios, but bicycle, rideshare/delivery, and parking reductions could apply immediately.
Planning Commission - October 20, 2022 Item No. 4a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Study Session for Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Next Steps
11Community Development Department
•Winter 2023, Public Hearings at Planning Commission and City Council
•Spring/Summer 2023, Phase Two
In-lieu parking fee study and program
Parking management districts (e.g., Balboa Village)
Curbside management
Planning Commission - October 20, 2022 Item No. 4a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Study Session for Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
Recap and Discussion
12Community Development Department
N\N
No.
Best Practice Area Recommendation(s)
1 Bicycle-Based •1 parking space for every 3 bicycle spaces (5% max)
•Additional 5% reduction for end-of-trip facilities
2 Rideshare-Based •Reduction of 3 parking spaces for every 1 carpool
space at an office development (5% max)
•10% reduction with either of the following:
(1) At least 20-feet curb-space; or (2) dedicated space
3 Parking Ratio-Office •Reduce Medical/Dental to be consistent w/ Offices
4 Parking Ratio-Restaurant •Revise to 1 space for every 100 sq. ft., including
patio
5 Parking Ratio-Fast Casual •Revise maximum seats to be up to 20*
6 Administrative Waiver •Allow up to 20% waiver by CDD Director
7 Combining Reductions •No more than 20% with any combination
Planning Commission - October 20, 2022 Item No. 4a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Study Session for Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)
13
Thank you!
Benjamin Zdeba, AICP, Principal Planner
949-644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
Planning Commission Study Session
October 20, 2022
Planning Commission - October 20, 2022 Item No. 4a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Study Session for Nonresidential Parking Code Update (PA2021-104)