Laguna Beach City Council
September 22, 2026

City recommends that the following section be added to the end of the Guidelines for Use 3 Weekend Event means an event that occurs on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. 4 Week Event means an event that occurs on Monday through Thursday. 22222222666 of 22226664444
35 2. Special Rules for Portions of Premises
a. Irvine Bowl
i. There are 2,629 seats in the Irvine Bowl (832 loge, 1,080 main tier, 573 director’s tier, 136 upper tier, and 8 wheelchair section). Applicant must not sell more than 2,589 tickets to the event.
ii. Applicant shall not install seating in addition to the permanent seating available in the Irvine Bowl.
iii. No patron will be allowed to stand in the aisles to view the performance. iv. Festival will regulate all stage passes for performances at the Irvine Bowl. For safety reasons, Festival’s Technical Director will have final authority regarding the number of Applicant’s performers and guests allowed on the Irvine Bowl stage. v. Applicant shall deliver to Administrator 20 tickets in center of second row and 20 tickets in center of third row of main tier at no cost to the Festival (Rows B and C, seats 19, 17, 5, 13, 11, 9, 5, 3, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20.) vi. Applicant will be required to hire a professional security firm supplying a minimum of 15 guards. Guards will be positioned as follows: 6 in Irvine Bowl, 2 at the front gate, 2 backstage, 1 at the tennis court gate, 1 at the Laguna Playhouse gate, 1 at the Olive Street path, and 2 roaming.
vii. Applicant will be required to pay for 1 Festival Security Supervisor and 4 Festival Guards. viii. Applicant will be required to hire a minimum of 12 ushers. One usher will be stationed for each section of the Irvine Bowl and 3 will be stationed at the entrance to the Irvine Bowl.
ix. No food or drink is allowed in the Irvine Bowl.
x. The cover of the orchestra pit must remain in place during Irvine Bowl events. The event organizer is responsible for the cost of building a stage over the orchestra pit, if required for the event. Stages must be built over the orchestra pit, taking care not to damage the cover. Any damage will be covered by the event organizer’s security deposit or insurance.
xi. Applicant is authorized to use the following Festival facilities at and around the Irvine Bowl:

1. Stage

2. Backstage (excluding the first floor of the Stage house)

3. Orchestra pit

4. Stage-level dressing rooms7

5. Restrooms

6. Courtyard in front of workshops8
7 Use of this area may require Festival to reconfigure space at an additional fee. 8 Use of this area may require Festival to reconfigure space at an additional fee. 22222222777 of 22226664444
36 xii. Applicant is prohibited from using the following Festival facilities at and around the Irvine Bowl:

1. Ticket Office

2. Festival lighting and sound equipment

3. Pageant control booth at back of Irvine Bowl;

4. Restaurant facilities (unless rented separately)

5. Festival boardroom

6. Festival tables, chairs, stanchions, hoses, and extension cords. b. Forum Theatre
i. There are 236 seats in the Forum Theatre. Applicant must not sell more than 236 tickets to each performance.
ii. No patrons will be allowed to stand in the aisle to view the performance. iii. There is NO ADA access.
iv. No food or drink is allowed in the Forum Theatre
c. Stage & Green
i. Stage & Green can hold approximately 400 people (table seating) and 750 (theatrestyle) ii. Festival may request Fire Marshall approval of ground set up. iii. A minimum of 2 Festival Security Guards are required. iv. Hired security and janitorial staff may be required. d. Exhibit Pavilions
i. Festival may request Fire Marshall approval of ground set up. ii. A minimum of 2 Festival Security Guards are required. iii. Hired security and janitorial staff may be required. 22222222888 of 22226664444
37 22222222999 of 22226664444
38 22223333000 of 22226664444
39 222233331111 of 22226664444
40 222233332222 of 22226664444
41 222233333333 of 22226664444
42 222233334444 of 22226664444
43 22223333555 of 22226664444
44 22223333666 of 22226664444
45 Agenda Item 3 C
Request approval for updated “Application for Use of the Irvine Bowl” and updated pricing. (Item Request:

Festival of Arts.)
City Staff suggests the following modifications:
• Remove the Guidelines for Use that are part of the proposed application, as those are proposed to be separately updated. (See Agenda Item No. 3A.) The Guidelines for Use includes the Application as an Exhibit. 22223333777 of 22226664444
46 22223333888 of 22226664444
47 22223333999 of 22226664444
48 22224444000 of 22226664444
49 222244441111 of 22226664444
50 222244442222 of 22226664444
51 222244443333 of 22226664444
52 222244444444 of 22226664444
53 22224444555 of 22226664444
54 Agenda Item 3 D
September 19-20, 2026: Requests from Coast Film Fest, LBCAC, and KXFM to hold events in the Irvine Bowl this weekend. Each nonprofit will be prepared to present their proposals. (Item Request: Festival of Arts.)
22224444666 of 22226664444
55 PROPOSALS
COAST FILM: Submitted by Ben Warner
Coast Presents: Country Western Nights at the Irvine Bowl is a two-night, thoughtfully curated live music experience produced by the Coast Film Foundation as part of its year-round cultural programming in Laguna Beach.

Scheduled for September 18–19, 2026, the event will feature nationally recognized Country Western artists performing in an intimate, seated amphitheater setting from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, with gates opening at 5:00 PM. The evenings are designed as a complete cultural experience, including live music, food and beverage, and select themed vendors, all delivered within a carefully managed, community-oriented environment.

The program intentionally aligns with the character and legacy of the Irvine Bowl—prioritizing high-quality artists, respectful audiences, and strong operational controls, including a strict 10:00 PM curfew and coordinated neighborhood impact planning.

Building on Coast’s successful track record at the Irvine Bowl, including sold-out performances with positive community response, this event is designed to expand access to live music in a way that complements existing programming while contributing to the cultural vitality of Laguna Beach.

LAGUNA BEACH CULTURAL ARTS CENTER: Submitted by Rick Conkey We are proposing a two-day, large-scale arts experience that culminates each evening with a two-hour live program in the Irvine Bowl, integrating film, live music, and storytelling to celebrate Laguna Beach’s rich artistic and cultural legacy. The program is designed to bring Laguna’s history to life, from its early artist colony roots through its evolution as a vibrant creative community.

In addition to the evening performances, we envision activating the Festival of Arts grounds throughout the day with complementary programming, including exhibits, installations, and smaller performances that further explore and deepen the story of Laguna’s arts history. This daytime component would create a more immersive, festival-like environment leading into the evening experience.

At its core, the event is designed as both an example of artivism and a collaborative super fundraiser, bringing together arts, environmental, and community-based organizations. Through a shared participation model, partner organizations would have the opportunity to engage their audiences and benefit directly, creating a unified effort that supports the broader cultural ecosystem while also helping drive strong attendance.

We intend to actively pursue partnerships with organizations such as KXFM and the Coast Film Festival to ensure this is a truly collaborative effort. By aligning our efforts and working together, we can create something far more impactful than any one organization could achieve independently.

Our intention is to create a highly engaging, community-wide experience that not only celebrates Laguna Beach’s identity as an arts-driven town but clearly demonstrates the power of the arts to connect, inspire, and generate meaningful impact.

While this proposal is designed to deliver a meaningful and successful event for the September 2026 weekend, we also see it as a foundation for future expansion. This model could naturally evolve into a larger community-wide celebration aligned with Laguna Beach’s upcoming centennial, further amplifying its impact as a unifying and highly visible expression of the town’s artistic identity and cultural legacy. 22224444777 of 22226664444
56 KXFM RADIO PRESENTS: submitted by Billy Fried
Laguna Roots Music and Arts Festival: Two years in the making, the “Laguna Roots Music & Arts Festival” will be a weekend community celebration of Laguna’s unique culture and heritage, and its roots in reggae, surf, and classic rock and roll. We’ll give well-deserved voice to such local legacy acts as Honk, Beth and Steve Wood, Common Sense, Lee Rocker, Missiles of October, World Anthem, 133 Band, Great North Special, Jason Feddy, Matt Costa, and a couple of national headliners each year who are friends of Laguna, like Michael McDonald, Jackson Brown, Burning Spear and Pato Banton. The entire Festival grounds will be utilized for this annual community celebration of Laguna’s cultural, musical, and artistic roots. 22224444888 of 22226664444
57 Agenda Item 3E
FOA requests an update from the City on the “Festival of Arts Sound Control Plan.” (Item Request:

Festival of Arts.)
22224444999 of 22226664444
58 Agenda Item 3F
FOA requests an update from the City on the “Request for Proposal: Entertainment Booking and Coordination Services.” (Item Request: Festival of Arts.)
Festival of Arts Requested Inclusion of the Following Information. 2222555000 of 22226664444
59 22225551111 of 22226664444
RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A TICKET

ENTRANCE FEE FOR ACCESS TO FESTIVAL GROUNDS AT

AND AROUND THE IRVINE BOWL FOR NON-FESTIVAL OF

ARTS PROGRAMMED AND TICKETED EVENTS, AND

FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT UNDER CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTION 15306
WHEREAS, the City of Laguna Beach, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City and Festival of Arts of Laguna Beach (“Festival”) previously entered into a lease agreement for certain City-owned property, including the Irvine Bowl, known as the Festival grounds (the “Lease”); and
WHEREAS, under the Lease, the Irvine Bowl Policy Committee (“IBPC”), which is made up of two members of the City Council and two members of the Festival Board of Directors, is tasked with prescribing policies for use of the Irvine Bowl, including the current sound policy that was approved by the Committee on May 30, 2023 (the “Sound Policy”); and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2025, the IBPC met to discuss several items, including, as proposed by the City, the following: 1) the Sound Policy amendment; and (2) Policy Regarding Management and Custody of Structures and Buildings on Festival of Art Grounds (“Management Policy”). As it relates to the Sound Policy item, the IBPC reached a disagreement (2-2 tie) on the amendment. The Lease provides that the City Council will resolve the disagreement among the IBPC. (Lease, Paragraph 7(c).) Accordingly, the Sound Policy has been under review by the City Council since February 20, 2025. As it relates to the Management Policy, the IBPC considered the 22225552222 of 22226664444
-2- Reso. #
first draft of the Management Policy, including development of an entrance ticket fee, and continued the item to a future meeting; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2026, the IBPC met to discuss several items, including, as proposed by the Festival, the following: 1) approval of the Irvine Bowl Policy regarding Use of the Bowl (or the Management Policy) (which did not include development of a ticket entrance fee); and 2) approval of an updated Application for Use of the Irvine Bowl or “Application” and updated pricing. The IBPC considered the Management Policy and the Application together and reached a disagreement (2-2 tie). The lease between the Festival and the City provides that the City Council will resolve the disagreement among the IBPC. (Lease, Paragraph 7(c).) The City Council therefore now has jurisdiction over the Management Policy and Application form; and WHEREAS, the City Council may consider the ticket entrance fee policy as it was part of the Management Policy, which is under the jurisdiction of the City Council as a result of the April 16, 2026 disagreement of the IBPC; and
WHEREAS, under the law, a fee or charge may be imposed for the entrance or use of government property. (XIII C, section 1(e) of the California Constitution.) The fee or charge should be supported by evidence that the fee is related to the reasonable value of providing entrance to the facility; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a ticket entrance fee in the amount of $5 to be charged on tickets to the Festival grounds, as provided for herein.

WHEREAS, all other legal perquisites to the adoption of this Resolution have been satisfied.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH 22225553333 of 22226664444
-3- Reso. #
DOES RESOLVE:

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby establishes a ticket entrance fee in the amount of $5 for ticketed events on the Festival grounds that are not programmed by the Festival. Such funds must be remitted to the City Finance Department within five (5) calendar days of the event and must be kept in a separate account. The funds shall belong to the City of Laguna Beach as the reasonable value of providing entrance to the Festival grounds.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds that the establishment of a $5 fee for entrance to City property, known as the Festival grounds, is reasonable based on what other similar government facilities charge for entrance. For example, City of Irvine imposes a $4 entrance fee to the Great Park Amphitheater and $5 for the Daisy Chain Fields. The ticket fee established by the City Council through this Resolution will generate funds to reinvest into the Irvine Bowl and Festival grounds where ticketed access is provided.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds that the establishment of a $5 fee for entrance to City property, known as the Festival grounds, for ticketed events held on the Festival grounds that are not programmed by the Festival, as opposed to all ticketed events held on the Festival grounds, is reasonable because the Lease between the City and Festival already contemplates recovery of certain costs associated with the Festivals’ use of the Festival grounds for its programming.

SECTION 5. The City Council hereby finds that the California Environmental Quality Act exempts “basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation 22225554444 of 22226664444
-4- Reso. #
activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. These may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded.” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15306.) Here, the City Council hereby finds the project under CEQA consists of (1) temporarily suspending the Festival of Arts Sound Policy for three days on October 23 through 25, 2026 to allow the City’s acoustical consultant, Rincon, the opportunity to measure and analyze sound from a real-life concert with directional speakers to better inform whether any changes to an existing Sound Policy are necessary; (2) authorizing the scope of work proposed by the City’s acoustical consultant, Rincon, to study sound and biological resources at and around the Festival grounds: a) $27,002 for noise policy study and recommendations; b) $12,121 for concert monitoring during live concert; c) $5,920 for meeting and hearing attendance; and d) $11,280 for biological resources technical memorandum; and e) $12,386 for measuring sound based on changes to the direction of the speakers; (3) establish a ticket entrance fee in the amount of $5 for access to government property, known as the Festival grounds, to reinvest into the Irvine Bowl; and (4) the July 8, 2025 City Council action temporarily suspending the Sound Policy on November 7 through 9, 2025 to allow the City's acoustical consultant to monitor sound levels during a live concert and collect data under real-world operating conditions (collectively, the “Project”). The Project falls within a categorical exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 because it is for basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities; it involves measuring sound when speakers are positioned in two different manners and mapping the location of biological resources or resource evaluation. Additionally, the Project will not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. The draft Rincon report entitled Irvine Bowl 2222555555 of 22226664444
-5- Reso. #
Sound Policy Report dated February 2, 2026 (the “draft Rincon Report”) reflects that Rincon measured sound during the November 7 through 9, 2025 Jack Johnson concert from the following locations: 1) M1 (Eastern End of Olive Street); 2) M2 (Eastern End of Linden Street); 3) M3 (East of Poplar Street on the Hill Nearest the Irvine Bowl); 4) M4 (East of Poplar Street furth up the Hill near Lookout Drive); 5) M5 (Start of the Canyon to the North of Irvine Bowl); 6) M6 (West End of Olive Street); 7) M7 (Parking Lot of Laguna Playhouse); 8) M8 (Open Space Area to North of Irvine Bowl); and 9) M9 (Center of Irvine Bowl). The draft Rincon Report concludes that the “sound levels reached the highest around Linden Street and the existing sound policy boundary near Linden Street. The highest dBa Leq (15-minute) recorded was 78.8 dBa Leq at the M2 location. These areas have direct line-of-sight with the Irvine Bowl and are in the direction of the speakers. Sound levels from the main concert were clearly louder than the other activities. Sound levels did not exceed 70 dBA Leq (15-minute) at the open space area to the northeast of the venue.” (Draft Rincon Report, p. 24.) Further, the draft Rincon Report reflects that sound levels did not exceed 70 dBA Leq (15-minute) at M4 (East of Poplar Street furth up the Hill near Lookout Drive); M5 (Start of the Canyon to the North of Irvine Bowl); M6 (West End of Olive Street); M7 (Parking Lot of Laguna Playhouse); M8 (Open Space Area to North of Irvine Bowl). Accordingly, any biological resources in the open space area will not be impacted by suspending the Sound Policy for an event that will measure sound produced by speakers that are oriented in a manner that should further minimize sound outside of the Festival grounds. Accordingly, the Project will not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. Once this sound testing is complete, the City will finalize the draft Rincon Report to include the additional measurements and to include the biological resources technical memorandum. This will result in the final Rincon Report that 2222555666 of 22226664444
-6- Reso. #
will serve the basis for a future City Council decision on whether to repeal and replace or amend the existing Sound Policy.

None of the exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The Project is not located in a particularly sensitive environment. As discussed above, the Project location is the site of concerts, festivals, and art shows and is designed as an entertainment area. Although the Project site has open space area to the north, the draft Rincon Report demonstrates that any biological resources in the open space area will not be impacted by suspending the Sound Policy for an event that will measure sound produced by speakers that are oriented in a manner that should further minimize sound outside of the Festival grounds. (Draft Rincon Report.) The question that is being studied is how much the directional speakers will reduce sound impacts at and around the existing sound boundary in the Sound Policy.

The Project will not result in a cumulative impact from successive projects of the same type in the same location. Once this sound testing is complete, the City will finalize the draft Rincon Report to include the additional measurements and to include the biological resources technical memorandum. This will result in the final Rincon Report that will support a future decision on whether to repeal and replace or amend the existing Sound Policy. The Project will not result in a significant environmental effect due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual circumstances known at the Project site. The Project will not result in damage to scenic resources as it does not include any construction or changes to trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, and is not located within a highway official designated as a state scenic highway. The Project is not located on a hazardous waste site included on the Cortese List. The Project will not adversely affect any historical resources as it does not include any construction on a historic 2222555777 of 22226664444
-7- Reso. #
resource. City staff is directed to file, within five calendar days of this action, a Notice of Exemption with the Orange County Clerk and State Clearinghouse as required by CEQA.

SECTION 6. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at City Hall, 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651. The custodian of the record of proceedings is the Director of Community Development.

SECTION 7. If any provision of this Resolution is held invalid, the remainder of this Resolution shall not be affected by such invalidity, and the provisions of the Resolution are severable.

SECTION 8. This Resolution is effective upon adoption by the City Council.

ADOPTED this 22nd day of September, 2026.

Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 26.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on September 22, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
2222555888 of 22226664444

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

September 22, 2026

REGULAR

BUSINESS
25 SUBJECT: CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND

TEMPORARY OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Receive a presentation on the Citywide parking requirements update and the proposed transition plan to replace temporary outdoor dining uses with more permanent outdoor dining uses;

2. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending the City’s parking requirements, including parking for outdoor dining uses, and establishing design guidelines for outdoor dining uses;

3. Provide feedback on the draft Outdoor Dining Design Guidelines and direct staff to prepare a resolution establishing the Outdoor Dining Design Guidelines and seek preliminary input from the Planning Commission before returning to the Planning Commission and City Council in the formal adoption process;

4. Direct staff to continue working with business owners seeking to continue their temporary outdoor dining uses by informing business owners to obtain the necessary Temporary Use Permit (“TUP”) and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) by January 1, 2027, to allow for an 18-month transition period while the City completes the local adoption process for ordinance amending the City’s parking requirements, including establishment of parking requirements for outdoor dining uses, and establishing design guidelines for outdoor dining uses and the California Coastal Commission considers certification of the associated Local Coastal Plan Amendment (“LCPA”); and

5. Find that the recommended actions are exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15306 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the findings and facts in this staff report.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The City Council is considering updates to non-residential parking standards as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (“CZCU”). In July 2025, the City Council directed staff to prioritize this task under the CZCU, alongside the development of new objective design standards (“ODS”) for single- and twofamily development. The ODS were recently completed and adopted by the City Council on August 4, 2026. With that effort concluded, De Novo Planning Group (“De Novo”), with assistance from Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (“Kittelson”), has now concluded a comprehensive evaluation of existing parking regulations, parking supply and demand, and parking practices in comparable communities, and completed its preliminary findings and recommendations responsive to its scope of work on Task 1.1 (Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities), Task 1.2 (Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand), Task 1.3 (Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses), 1111 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

and Task 1.5 (Other Parking Code Recommendations) are provided as Attachments 1 through 4, respectively (collectively, “Kittleson Reports”). While the Kittleson Reports address a wide variety of 2222 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

parking issues throughout the City, they also address how to address parking requirements for restaurants that offer outdoor dining. Accordingly, City staff merged the update in response to the City Council’s direction on November 18, 2025 and June 23, 2026 on the City’s Outdoor Dining and Parklet Program with this report to better address solutions and options for the City’s outdoor dining program. City staff recommends that the City Council adopt recommended code amendments and design guidelines for outdoor dining to address the following forms of outdoor dining: (1) Outdoor Seating: located on private property, including areas formerly dedicated as onsite parking spaces, when the required location and design requirements are met; (2) Promenade: dedicated outdoor dining areas associated with restaurants fronting the new Promenade at Forest Avenue; and (3) Sidewalk Café: outdoor dining spaces located within the sidewalk area of the public right-of-way that are associated with adjacent food or drink establishments.

Kittleson’s Outdoor Dining Parking Recommendations and City staff’s draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines are provided as Attachments 5 and 6, respectively.

DISCUSSION
Overview of the Kittleson Reports
On October 8, 2024, the City Council awarded a contract to De Novo for preparation of the CZCU, a key initiative identified through the City’s 2022 Strategic Planning and Goal Setting Workshop and reaffirmed during the 2024 Annual Planning Workshop. On July 22, 2025, the City Council approved a contract amendment modifying the scope of work to prioritize preparation of updated parking standards. De Novo subcontracted with Kittelson to conduct the parking analysis and develop recommendations for updated parking standards.

Since initiation of the project, De Novo and Kittelson have undertaken a range of project activities including coordination meetings with City staff, background research, site visits, parking occupancy data collection and analysis, and coordination with the CZCU Ad Hoc Committee (the “Ad Hoc Committee”), consisting of Mayor Orgill and Councilmember Whalen.

Kittelson's scope of work focused on evaluating existing parking conditions and regulations within commercial areas outside the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan area and developing recommendations for updating non-residential parking standards and related parking code provisions. The analysis was intended to provide the City with a data-driven basis for determining whether existing parking requirements appropriately reflect current parking supply and demand within the study area.

Kittleson’s work included a review of existing City planning documents and parking regulations,1 an evaluation of parking standards and practices in comparable Southern California and coastal communities, 1 Including but not limited to the Parking and Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Report, Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.52 (Parking Requirements), and the Downtown Specific Plan. Several of the code amendments recommended in the technical report in response to Task 1.5 (Other Parking Code Recommendations) are based on recommendations contained in the TDM Report, which the City Council adopted on June 13, 2023. The TDM Report is available for download at the following link:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/17604/638411264939600000 3333 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

collection and analysis of existing parking supply and demand data, and development of recommended blended parking ratios for non-residential uses. The analysis considered seasonal, weekday, and weekend parking conditions and evaluated parking characteristics within distinct parking districts in the study area, which are depicted in Figure 1. In addition to the recommended non-residential parking ratios, Kittelson evaluated potential updates to other parking code and regulatory provisions, including fractional parking requirements, intensification of use provisions, bicycle parking standards, the methodology for calculating required parking, consideration of ride-hailing services, transportation demand management regulations, and related zoning provisions contained within LBMC Chapters 25.52 and 25.94. Based on this evaluation, Kittelson prepared recommended revisions and redlined code language for the City's consideration in the Kittleson Reports.

The parking districts represent commercially zoned properties along and adjacent to the Coast Highway corridor, including properties that front Glenneyre Street.

Kittleson’s work resulted in a series of technical memoranda and reports documenting the existing conditions, analysis, findings, and recommendations (i.e., the Kittleson Reports). Kittleson’s deliverables 4444 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

provide the technical analysis and recommendations necessary to inform the City's consideration of updating parking standards and related parking code amendments. The deliverables are summarized below:
• Task 1.1: Parking Regulations and Comparable Jurisdictions: Review of existing City planning documents, parking regulations, and practices in comparable communities (Attachment 1). • Task 1.2: Parking Supply and Demand: Evaluation of existing public and private parking supply and observed parking occupancy within the study area, including consideration of seasonal and weekday/weekend conditions and both on-street and off-street spaces (Attachment 2). • Task 1.3: Blended Non-Residential Parking Standards: Analysis of existing parking supply and observed demand to develop recommended blended parking ratios for non-residential uses within the study area. The resulting report, including supporting data and calculations(Attachment 3). • Task 1.5: Other Parking Code Recommendations: Evaluation of additional parking code and zoning provisions and preparation of recommended revisions and redlined code language (Attachment 4).

Recommended Code Change: Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses As reflected in the analysis under Task 1.3 (Attachment 3), Kittleson identified individual blended parking requirements for each of the six districts as follows:

Based upon this analysis, City staff recommends one of two approaches to establishing a blended parking requirement for non-residential uses.

The first approach would establish a single blended parking requirement for non-residential uses across Districts 1-6, rather than adopting a separate rate for each district. The blended rate would be calculated by averaging the parking ratios derived from the districts evaluated as part of the study. This would result in a uniform blended parking requirement of 2.75 spaces per 1,000 square feet across all six districts. 555 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

The second and alternative approach would establish a single blended parking requirement for Districts 1- 5, which are generally contiguous to one another and Downtown, and a single blended parking requirement for District 6 (South Laguna), which is more geographically separate. Under this approach, staff recommends applying the Downtown Specific Plan blended parking rate to Districts 1-5 and Kittelson’s recommended rate to District 6. This would result in a uniform blended parking requirement of 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet across District 1-5 and a uniform blended parking requirement of 2.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet in District 6.

The table below compares the existing parking requirements in Chapter 25.52 for the most common nonresidential uses (i.e., general retail, professional office, personal service, and food service), the existing parking requirements in the Downtown Specific Plan, and City staff’s two alternative approaches for a blended parking rate based on Kittleson’s analysis:

Comparison Table of Potential Parking Rates and Existing Requirements Source Use, District or Group Parking Requirement
General retail stores, office and other
business, technical service,
administrative or professional offices,
personal service establishments
1 space for each 250 square feet of
gross floor area (i.e., 4 spaces per
1,000 square feet)
LBMC Chapter 25.52
Parking Requirements
Food services including, but not limited
to restaurants, take-out, and full-service;
bakery, ice cream store, juice bar; and
delicatessen
1 space for each 100 square feet of
gross floor area, including outdoor
seating area(s), or 1 space per 3 seats,
whichever is greater (i.e., 10 spaces
per 1,000 square feet)
Downtown Specific Plan Non-residential uses such as office, retail, and food service uses
3 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area
Option 1. Non-residential uses such as
office, retail, personal services, and food
service uses
Combined study area (Districts 1-6) 2.75 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
Task 1.3 Memorandum
Calculation of Blended
Parking Requirement for
Non-Residential Uses
Option 2. Apply the DSP rate to one
geographic area of the City where
Districts 1-5 are clustered around the DSP
and set a differentiated rate for the
comparatively remote District 6.

Districts 1-5
District 6
3 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area

2.25 spaces for each 1,000 square feet
of gross floor area
666 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

Regardless of the approach, according to Kittelson, a blended parking requirement would have substantial benefits to the City. Compared to the current code-implied requirement3 of 4.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet, the recommended rates of 2.25 to 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet reduce the effective non-residential requirement by between 35 and 50 percent. In built-out commercial areas where most parcels cannot add on-site parking, that reduction is what allows an older building to change tenants, for a restaurant to replace a retail space, or for a modest reinvestment to proceed without triggering a parking obligation the site cannot meet. It reduces reliance on in-lieu fees and discretionary relief, replaces a use-by-use calculation with a single predictable number, and treats businesses outside of the Downtown Specific Plan on the same footing as those Downtown.

As stated in Kittelson’s analysis, the recommended rates are all set above the observed demand to provide “headroom” for seasonal peaking and future growth. If the recommended rates are applied to the existing square footage, there is not a parking deficiency. As such, the standard would right-size the requirement without creating a shortfall. Across the study area, the current code would require 4.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet given the actual mix of uses, while the parking actually built is 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet.

A shift to a blended parking rate is appropriate based on the consultant’s findings: the code-implied requirement overstates the parking actually built (i.e. the commercial districts should be operating at a significant shortfall with demand exceeding supply). However, Kittelson found that the demand sits well below what has been built.

Kittleson provides several options for how the blended rates may be established, which range from aggregating the parking requirement by setting one overall parking ratio for the entire study area, to various district groupings.4 Staff believes that a single blended rate provides the most straightforward, understandable, and equitable approach to regulating parking requirements. A uniform standard would provide greater predictability for property owners, tenants, and applicants and would avoid situations in which otherwise similar uses are subject to materially different parking requirements based solely on their location within the study area. Establishing different rates by district could create confusion and may result in frustration among property owners and tenants who could perceive that they are being treated inequitably when a comparable use is subject to a lower parking requirement in another district. A single blended rate would also simplify administration and implementation of the City's parking regulations while maintaining consistency with the overall objective of establishing parking requirements that are informed by observed parking supply and demand.

Staff therefore recommends that Kittleson’s findings under Task 1.3 be used to establish a simplified blended parking requirement, with further consideration given to whether District 6 should be subject to a distinct rate.
3 Code-Implied Requirement: The current Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) use-by-use ratios applied to each classified parcel, summed and divided by total non-residential GFA. This measures what the current standard would require given the actual mix of uses in the study area.
4 Refer to page 10 of the Task 1.3 memorandum, attached as Attachment 3. 777 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

Recommended Code Change: Fractional Parking Requirements, Intensification of Use Calculations, Square Footage/GFA Calculations, On-Site Bicycle Parking Standards, TDM Regulations, Ride Hailing and Passenger Loading, Zoning Constraints, Parking Code Purpose Statement, EV Charging and State Law Alignment, and Compact and Motorcycle Space Ratios The following proposed amendments would update the Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Chapter

25.52 (Parking Requirements) to create a more flexible, demand-responsive, and multimodal parking framework that reflects the City’s coastal setting, built-out commercial districts, and current transportation and parking policies. The amendments implement recommendations from Kittleson’s code review and the City’s TDM Report, while implementing the blended parking rates addressed in Task 1.3. The proposed amendments include the following:

1. Revise fractional parking calculations.

LBMC Section 25.52.012(D) currently requires fractional parking calculations to be rounded up, which can disproportionately affect Laguna Beach’s small commercial properties. Under the current standard, even a small fractional requirement (e.g., 0.1 space) results in a full additional parking space, creating challenges for minor expansions and changes of use on constrained sites. The Code also applies different rounding methods to individual properties and jointly managed commercial complexes.

The proposed amendment would establish a consistent round-at-0.50 standard, under which fractions below 0.50 are disregarded and fractions of 0.50 or greater are rounded up. This approach is consistent with practices in the coastal cities of Dana Point and Del Mar and with the recommendation in the City’s TDM Report. Applying the same standard to jointly managed properties would also eliminate the current inconsistency in rounding methodology.

2. Simplify parking requirements for changes and intensifications of use.

LBMC Section 25.52.004(E) currently requires additional parking when a property changes to a more parking-intensive use, adds floor area, or undergoes certain redevelopment, with the requirement calculated using a series of credits, including existing spaces, prior incentives, in-lieu parking certificates, and a 1958 baseline credit. This framework is complex to administer, particularly because the 1958 credit requires documentation of historical building conditions and parking requirements, and it can create uncertainty for older properties with limited or no on-site parking.

The proposed amendment would replace this credit-based system with a simpler incremental parking approach, requiring parking only for the net increase in parking demand between the prior and proposed use, based on the applicable parking standards. This approach would eliminate the existing credit calculations and provide a clearer path for changes of use and modest intensifications without requiring existing parking deficiencies to be corrected. The approach is consistent with Del Mar’s LCP-certified framework and the recommendation in the 2023 TDM Report.

3. Revise the parking calculation area for commercial uses.

LBMC Section 25.52.012(C) currently calculates parking for most floor-area-based commercial uses using gross floor area (“GFA”), which generally includes operational and non-customer-facing 888 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

areas such as kitchens, restrooms, storage, and back-of-house offices. For restaurants, outdoor dining areas are also included. This approach does not distinguish between areas that generate customer parking demand and areas that primarily support business operations, potentially increasing parking requirements for small, constrained commercial properties.

The proposed amendment would establish a net public area methodology for eating and drinking establishments, excluding kitchens, restrooms, back-of-house offices, and storage from the parking calculation while continuing to count outdoor dining areas. Common areas in multi-tenant buildings would also be excluded from the calculation. This approach is consistent with practices in the cities of Newport Beach and Del Mar and responds to the City’s TDM Report’s recommendation to evaluate exclusions for non-demand-generating areas.

4. Establish mandatory bicycle parking standards.

LBMC Chapter 25.52 currently provides no mandatory bicycle parking requirement for nonresidential development; bicycle facilities may be required at the City’s discretion, and bicycle spaces may substitute for a limited number of required automobile spaces. Existing standards also lack detailed requirements for facility type, security, weather protection, placement, and signage. In addition, the current 2-foot-by-6-foot space dimension may not adequately accommodate larger ebikes and cargo bikes.

The proposed amendment would establish minimum short-term and long-term bicycle parking standards for qualifying non-residential projects, with requirements for secure and covered facilities, appropriate dimensions, location, and signage. The standards would be coordinated with CALGreen 2025 requirements, which became effective January 1, 2026, while providing consistent local requirements for projects that may fall below state thresholds. The City would also evaluate dedicated e-bike parking standards, including space dimensions, rack capacity, and charging infrastructure. The amendment implements the TDM Report recommendation to establish long-term bicycle parking standards and is consistent with approaches used by the cities of Newport Beach and Del Mar.

5. Modernize Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) requirements.

LBMC Chapter 25.94 (Transportation Demand Management) was adopted in 1991 and was last substantially amended in 2002. Its current applicability threshold of 250 employees is relatively high and limits the ordinance’s application, where commercial uses within the city are predominantly small-scale. The existing requirements also focus primarily on commuting employees and do not reflect more recent approaches to vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) reduction, multimodal transportation, and other demand management strategies.

The proposed amendment would replace the employee headcount threshold with a trip-generationbased screening threshold, using average daily employee trips (“ADET”) as a model, and establish a flexible menu of TDM measures that can be tailored to project type and scale. The Code would also establish a formal pathway for parking reductions tied to verified TDM commitments, replacing reliance on the current discretionary incentives process. Implementation could be supported by administrative guidance that allows the City to keep TDM measures current without frequent Code 999 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

amendments. The existing requirement to provide monthly transit passes for employees who regularly commute by transit would be retained. These changes implement the TDM Report recommendations and are informed by more current TDM frameworks in cities such as Carlsbad, Newport Beach, and Del Mar.

6. Establish passenger loading standards for larger commercial projects.

LBMC Section 25.94.010(D) currently allows the City to require rideshare vehicle loading areas at its discretion but does not establish a mandatory standard or address the growing use of app-based ride-hailing services, such as Uber and Lyft. The TDM Report recognizes designated ride-hailing drop-off areas as an existing City strategy, while peer communities such as Dana Point have established mandatory loading requirements for larger projects.

The proposed amendment would convert the existing discretionary provision to a mandatory passenger loading standard for commercial projects above a defined size threshold, using Dana Point’s requirements7 as a reference. The amendment would address passenger loading activity associated with ride-hailing and other shared mobility services without attempting to regulate those services themselves, which are regulated at the state level. A parking credit for ride hailing proximity or provision of on-site passenger loading spaces is not recommended at this time, because available data does not provide a sufficiently reliable basis for quantifying a corresponding reduction in parking demand. The City could revisit such a credit as local and regional data on ride-hailing activity and parking demand become available.

7. Increase flexibility for constrained and nonconforming commercial properties.

Laguna Beach already provides multiple mechanisms to address parking constraints, including inlieu parking certificates, common and joint-use parking, shared parking, valet parking, off-site parking, and certain incentive-based reductions. However, several code provisions may limit the effectiveness of these tools for constrained commercial properties and adaptive reuse. The City should therefore evaluate targeted amendments to LBMC Sections 25.52.004(E)(2), 25.52.006(G), and 25.52.008 to expand the small-enlargement exemption for projects below major-remodel thresholds8, revise driveway-slope standards to better facilitate subterranean parking on constrained lots, and establish an accessory-use exemption modeled on peer-city approaches such as Del Mar’s.9 The latter could allow a qualifying subordinate use to occupy a defined portion of an existing building without triggering a new parking calculation, provided the use is in the same or lower 7 Dana Point’s TDM chapter requires rideshare loading areas at a rate of 5 stalls per 100 required parking spaces. 8 The small-enlargement carve-out under LBMC Section 25.52.004(E)(2) limits relief to additions of no more than 10 percent of floor area and not exceeding 500 square feet. 9 Del Mar expressly prohibits variances; all relief must come from tools within the parking chapter itself. Del Mar’s internal toolkit includes shared parking permits allowing up to 66 percent of required spaces to be shared, off-site parking permits within 500 feet, an in-lieu fee program in the Central Commercial Zone covering up to 75 percent of required spaces, alternative vehicle spaces up to 15 percent of required auto spaces, and an accessory use exemption for uses occupying 25 percent or less of the primary use floor area in the same or lower parking intensity category. 1111000 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

parking-intensity category. If a citywide blended parking framework is adopted for the same commercial areas, the need for a separate accessory-use exemption may not be warranted.

The City should also determine whether the expired innovative parking solutions provision should be reinstated through a Local Coastal Program Amendment (“LCPA”), removed, or replaced by the proposed TDM-based parking reduction framework. The “innovative parking solutions” provision in LBMC Section 25.52.006(G) expired in May 2026 following the five-year period established through the 2021 Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) certification. If qualifying projects were approved and supporting studies demonstrate effectiveness, the City should consider an LCPA to reinstate the provision; if not, it should be removed through the LCP amendment process. Alternatively, the provision could be replaced with the proposed TDM-based parking reduction framework. Staff recommends replacement with a new TDM framework. These targeted changes would complement the City's existing parking flexibility tools while addressing specific barriers to reinvestment on constrained commercial properties.

8. Update the parking chapter’s purpose statement.

LBMC Section 25.52.002 currently focuses narrowly on ensuring adequate off-street parking supply and does not reflect the City's evolving approach to parking in a built-out coastal community. The TDM Report recommended updating the provision to recognize current travel patterns, technologies, and policy objectives. Peer coastal cities provide broader examples: Newport Beach addresses coastal access, while Del Mar incorporates multimodal transportation, climate goals, and neighborhood compatibility; Dana Point emphasizes safety and circulation.

Consistent with the recommendations in Tasks 1.3 and 1.5, LBMC Section 25.52.002 should be revised to recognize parking demand management, multimodal access, safety, the City's coastal setting, and consistency with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. A broader purpose statement would provide policy direction for applying existing and proposed flexibility tools, including shared parking, in-lieu parking, and TDM-based reductions, and better communicate the City's parking objectives to applicants, staff, and the Coastal Commission.

9. Clarify treatment of electric vehicle parking.

LBMC Chapter 25.52 does not currently address EV-capable, EV-ready, or EV-installed parking spaces, even though evolving state requirements under CALGreen and related legislation already apply to new construction and certain alterations. While these requirements are implemented through state building regulations and should not be duplicated in the Zoning Code, the City's parking code does not clarify how EV spaces interact with required parking, compact spaces, or accessible parking requirements. This creates uncertainty for applicants and staff as state standards continue to evolve.

Among the peer cities, Del Mar provides the most applicable model, integrating state EV requirements into its parking regulations and allowing qualifying clean-air vehicle spaces to count toward required parking. Carlsbad addresses EV requirements primarily through its building code, 11111111 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

while Newport Beach and Dana Point do not incorporate comparable provisions into their parking chapters.

Kittleson recommends amending LBMC Sections 25.52.008 and 25.52.012 to clarify that EVcapable, EV-ready, and EV-installed spaces count toward required parking minimums and may satisfy compact and accessible parking requirements when otherwise compliant with applicable state and local standards. The amendments should cross-reference applicable state requirements rather than duplicate CALGreen provisions, providing clear local direction while preserving consistency with evolving state regulations.

10. Evaluate compact, motorcycle, bicycle, and alternative vehicle parking standards.

LBMC Chapter 25.52 currently permits up to 50 percent of parking spaces in parking areas or garages with six or more spaces to be compact spaces. Compact spaces must be 8 feet by 15 feet, compared with 8 feet 4 inches by 18 feet for standard nonresidential spaces and 8 feet 8 inches by 18 feet for residential covered spaces. The Code also permits required automobile parking to be substituted with bicycle and motorcycle spaces at ratios of eight bicycle spaces or two motorcycle spaces per one automobile space, with combined substitutions limited to 10 percent of required parking.

The 50 percent compact-space allowance set forth in LBMC Chapter 25.52 has not been reevaluated since the parking regulations were amended in 2011 despite significant growth in vehicle sizes and the prevalence of trucks and SUVs in the Southern California fleet. A study of the current vehicle fleet in Laguna Beach's commercial areas is therefore recommended to determine whether the allowance remains appropriate. Any potential adjustment should be addressed through a separate study and could also evaluate the addition of a clean-air vehicle space category, consistent with the City of Del Mar's framework, to complement the City's EV-related parking recommendations.

The City's 50 percent allowance is the most permissive among the peer jurisdictions reviewed. The City of Newport Beach prohibits new compact spaces, while the City of Carlsbad limits compact spaces to 25 percent for non-residential uses and 45 percent for residential visitor parking. Del Mar permits 8-foot-by-15-foot compact spaces within a broader alternative-vehicle framework, including micro-car spaces. The City of Dana Point does not specify a compact-space percentage in the provisions reviewed. Laguna Beach also does not currently include clean-air vehicle or microcar categories.

The bicycle substitution ratio of eight bicycle spaces per automobile space is more restrictive than the peer standard identified in Newport Beach (three bicycle spaces per one automobile space reduction). The City should evaluate whether to tighten the ratio or retain it with a cap consistent with CALGreen thresholds. The existing motorcycle substitution ratio of two motorcycle spaces per automobile space should be retained pending additional data, as no reviewed peer jurisdiction establishes a comparable standard.
11112222 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

As part of the bicycle parking update, the existing bicycle and motorcycle substitution provisions in LBMC Section 25.52.012(E) would be relocated to LBMC Section 25.52.006(F), with revised LBMC Section 25.52.012(E) consolidating alternative-vehicle substitution provisions, including any new clean-air vehicle category.

Finally, terminology throughout Chapter 25.52 should be standardized by replacing references to “parking space” and “parking stall,” when referring specifically to automobiles, with “auto parking space.” A corresponding definition should be added to LBMC Section 25.08 clarifying that an auto parking space accommodates cars, trucks, SUVs, and vans, but excludes motorcycles and bicycles.

This terminology change is intended as a code-wide clarification with no substantive policy change and can be incorporated into the same LCP amendment.

The table below summarizes all ten elements addressed in the Task 1.5 memorandum, the recommended action for each, and the LBMC sections affected.

Summary Table of Parking Code Recommendations
11113333 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

Recommended Code Change: Outdoor Dining Parking Recommendations Existing restaurants with temporary outdoor dining are limited in their ability to convert areas into permanent dining due to the City’s parking requirements. The City’s Municipal Code allows parking reductions for sidewalk cafes and projects that promote walking, bicycling, transit, ridesharing and similar transportation options. However, these parking incentives are limited, and opportunities to provide additional on-site parking, off-site parking at a nearby commercial property, or valet parking are scarce. For purposes of calculating onsite parking, outdoor dining is considered part of the gross floor area and is subject to the same parking ratio required for food services. Pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section

25.52.012(G), food services require one (1) parking space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area, including outdoor seating areas. In the Downtown, the Downtown Specific Plan requires a blended rate of 3 stalls per 1,000 square feet for outdoor dining area. 11114444 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

On October 9, 2025, the Governor signed AB 592 to supersede AB 1217 and make permanent several key provisions intended to preserve operational flexibility for food and alcoholic beverage businesses following the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill permanently removes the expiration date for the waiver of private parking provisions. Furthermore, the bill makes permanent the existing provision that allows local jurisdictions to reduce required parking spaces to accommodate expanded outdoor dining areas. To further evaluate local parking needs, staff requested that Kittleson provide an analysis and recommendations for outdoor dining parking requirements (Attachment 5).

Kittleson has identified various approaches from peer cities regarding outdoor dining parking requirements.

Specifically, parking recommendations for the City Council’s consideration include:
 Exemption from parking requirements for outdoor dining up to 16 seats (Dana Point)  Exemption from parking requirements when the outdoor dining area is equal to or less than the size of the indoor dining area (Del Mar and Carlsbad)
 Application of a lower parking rate to outdoor dining (reduced from 1 space/100 SF to 1/150 SF) (Newport Beach)
These coastal cities have adopted parking provisions that provide relief or flexibility for outdoor dining, which would require zoning text amendments to the City’s Municipal Code. It is recommended that the City Council consider new outdoor dining parking requirements which may be included in the CZCU since nearly all locations with TUPs and participating in the City’s Outdoor Dining Program are sites that are already constrained and unable to provide additional onsite parking, have exhausted all other options, or do not qualify for existing parking incentives.

Based on existing conditions and site limitations, the exemption from parking requirements when the outdoor dining area is equal to or less than the size of the indoor dining area is the recommended option that resolves constraints associated with transitioning existing temporary to permanent outdoor dining.

In addition, staff recommends establishing a maximum for the parking exemption and limit the intensification of use to an objective development standard that is equal to the sidewalk cafe parking incentive that is already codified in the City’s Municipal Code. It is recommended that the proposed outdoor dining parking exemption be limited to a maximum outdoor dining area of 500 square feet, which would be equivalent to the existing parking incentive for sidewalk cafes for up to a maximum of five parking spaces calculated at a rate of 1 stall per 100 square feet.13 For establishments with less than 500 square feet of indoor dining area, the more restrictive outdoor area equal to the indoor seating area shall apply. Any outdoor dining area in excess of 500 square feet shall be subject to the applicable parking standards for food services. In cases where a business proposes both outdoor dining on private property and a sidewalk café within public right-of-way, the total parking exemption may not exceed a maximum of five parking spaces. 13 Although staff acknowledges that this report also recommends adoption of a blended parking rate that would apply to food and beverage uses and other non-residential uses, staff does not recommend increasing the 500-square-foot cap for the parking requirement exemption to track with a future parking requirement. 1111555 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

Temporary Outdoor Dining Transition Plan
The local adoption of the amended parking regulations and the subsequent California Coastal Commission process to amend the City’s certified LCP are expected to take at least 18 months to complete. It is recommended that the City Council direct staff to work with business owners seeking to continue their temporary outdoor dining uses to process the necessary TUP and CDP applications by no later than January 1, 2027. Under the City’s Municipal Code, the remaining Temporary Use Permits issued under the Outdoor Dining and Parklet Program to individual businesses are set to expire in January 2027. City staff will continue working with the businesses with the goal of presenting the TUP and CDP applications to the Planning Commission for consideration before the end of the year. These approvals could initially be issued for an 18-month period while the City completes the local adoption process for the parking code updates and submits the associated LCPA for certification. If certification is not obtained before the interim approvals expire, new TUP and CDP applications will be required to consider an extended duration.

For outdoor dining areas proposed within the Forest Avenue Promenade, City staff is working with restaurant owners to enter into interim agreements beginning on October 1, 2026. It is anticipated that staff will return to the City Council with a long-term license program for the Promenade at a future meeting, with a target date of November 2026. The program will include specific requirements and best practices related to fees, operations, maintenance, and space allocation, as well as conditions for special events. Each restaurant will be required to submit a CUP application, which will be processed concurrently with the same goal of presenting the CUP applications for Planning Commission consideration before the end of the year.

Outdoor Dining Guidelines
City staff has developed permanent outdoor dining guidelines for transitioning temporary outdoor dining spaces, which were allowed to replace indoor capacity in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to permanent dining areas with established design standards.

The proposed Outdoor Dining Guidelines are intended to provide permanent options for outdoor dining that serve as attractive, durable, well-maintained, and well-integrated outdoor spaces that support the City’s businesses, pedestrians, public realm, and coastal character. The Outdoor Dining Guidelines are also intended to establish consistent operational standards that can be equitably applied citywide.

The Outdoor Dining Guidelines (Attachment 6) categorize authorized outdoor dining uses into three distinct types:
 Outdoor Seating: located on private property, including areas formerly dedicated as onsite parking spaces, when the required location and design requirements are met  Promenade: dedicated outdoor dining areas associated with restaurants fronting the new Promenade at Forest Avenue
 Sidewalk Café: outdoor dining spaces located within the sidewalk area of the public right-of-way that are associated with adjacent food or drink establishments Each option is defined by its required permit and approval processes, proposed location, design criteria, maintenance requirements, and operational standards. The Outdoor Dining Guidelines are intended to 1111666 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

provide a framework for permanent outdoor dining that supports the City’s design goals while continuing to allow for al fresco dining experiences that activate the City’s public and private outdoor spaces. If adopted, the Outdoor Dining Guidelines would be applied to the respective permits and agreements required by the City, depending on the scope and location of the outdoor dining proposal for each business. It is important to note that the permit and approval process may vary depending on the type of permanent outdoor dining option proposed and site’s location, which may require a Conditional Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, Encroachment Permit, License Agreement, and/or Building Permit.

To develop these Outdoor Dining Guidelines, City staff met onsite with various restaurant owners and conducted several site visits to evaluate existing conditions, challenges, and limitations associated with permanent outdoor dining. Staff also contacted the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to coordinate licensing and enforcement conditions contained within the Outdoor Dining Guidelines. Staff proposes that the Planning Commission work with City staff to further develop the draft Guidelines, which will include reference imagery, graphics, and a kit of parts that depict the City’s design expectations for permanent outdoor dining areas. Upon Planning Commission recommendation of the draft Guidelines, staff will return to the Council for consideration of the Outdoor Dining Guidelines at a later date. City staff expect that the ordinance with the parking code amendments will reference the City Council’s adoption of the Outdoor Dining Guidelines by City Council resolution.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.

ALIGNMENT WITH CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES
The evaluation and development of updated parking standards is consistent with the City Council’s strategic goals and priorities related to implementation of the CZCU, efficient use of existing resources, and maintaining the unique character of Laguna Beach. The parking standards effort supports the City Council’s direction to modernize the City’s development regulations while establishing clear, predictable, and equitable parking requirements that reflect current parking supply and demand. The effort also advances priorities related to improving government efficiency, simplifying development standards, and providing greater clarity and consistency for property owners, tenants, and applicants. The use of current parking data and consideration of comparable communities further supports the City Council’s commitment to informed decision-making and thoughtful long-range planning. The proposed Outdoor Dining Guidelines are in keeping with the 2026 City Council Key Priority 19, Outdoor Dining Program, which is intended to replace the interim outdoor dining program started in 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 (Class 6 – Information Collection) because it consists of basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. The City Council’s action is limited to receiving a status update, providing policy direction regarding the future processing of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment, and providing policy direction regarding the continued development of proposed outdoor dining guidelines which the City Council would adopt by 1111777 of 444444444444

CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING TRANSITION PLAN
September 22, 2026

resolution at a later date. The City Council will not approve or adopt any of these items at this meeting.

Each item will return for consideration and any required CEQA review as part of a subsequent public process

ATTACHMENTS

1. Task 1.1 – Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities.

2. Task 1.2 – Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand

3. Task 1.3 – Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses

4. Task 1.5 – Other Parking Code Recommendations

5. Outdoor Dining Parking Recommendations (Kittelson)

6. Draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Wendy Jung, Principal Planner
Belinda Deines, Principal Planner
Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney
1111888 of 444444444444
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
August 9, 2026 Project# 30640
To: Wendy Jung, Principal Planner
Anthony Viera, Planning Manager
City of Laguna Beach
From: David Laurens
CC: Ashley Brodkin (De Novo), Tim Erney (Kittelson)
RE: Laguna Beach Comprehensive Zoning Code Update –
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities 1 Purpose and Overview
The City of Laguna Beach is evaluating its non-residential parking requirements as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. Many of the existing standards reflect an earlier era of development and may not fully support today’s mix of local businesses, visitor activity, and built-out commercial areas.

Updating these requirements is an opportunity to ensure the parking framework aligns with the City’s current policy goals and the realities of operating in a constrained coastal environment.

This memo summarizes the City documents that guide parking policy, outlines the current non-residential parking requirements, and reviews how comparable coastal cities approach similar challenges. Together, these elements provide the context needed for the next steps in the study, including assessing parking conditions, exploring blended parking rates, and preparing recommendations for updated zoning code language.
2 Parking Policy Context
Laguna Beach’s commercial districts operate within a coastal, visitor-driven environment where residents, employees, and tourists all rely on limited on-street parking spaces and off-street parking facilities. In addition to year-round tourism, seasonal peaks create continual demand on available supply. In addition, most commercial parcels are small and already developed, leaving little room to add on-site parking.

The City has also invested in reducing reliance on private vehicles. Laguna Beach operates a robust public transit system, has actively promoted transportation demand management strategies, and has fostered more walkable commercial districts than is typical for Southern California of similar size and context.

These efforts shape parking demand and are part of the context for any change to parking standards.

Within this setting, zoning-based parking requirements strongly influence what types of businesses can operate, especially outside the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP). Effective parking standards must therefore 750 The City Drive, Suite 410
Orange, CA 92868
P 714.468.1997
20 1111999 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 2
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
reflect the city’s physical constraints, its visitor-heavy activity patterns, and its goal of maintaining a vibrant commercial environment and the quality of life for residents.

2.1 CURRENT PARKING POLICY FRAMEWORK
Laguna Beach’s approach to parking is shaped by several key documents, listed in Table 1 and detailed below. Together, they define current requirements, introduce more flexible practices, and provide the evidence base for evaluating possible updates.

Table 1 Key Policy Documents
Document Year Purpose Relevance to Study
Laguna Beach
Municipal Code
2024 Establishes minimum parking
requirements and how those
requirements may be satisfied
Controls standards outside DSP;
defines ratios and admin tools
Parking and
Transportation
Demand
Management
(TDM) Report
2023 Outlines opportunities for TDM
strategies, updates to parking
regulations, and potential locations
for new parking infrastructure, as
well as funding strategies
Indicates direction for future code
updates
Downtown
Specific Plan
(DSP)
2022 Modernizes parking within DSP Demonstrates blended rates and flexibility, in recognition of the
Downtown's diverse land use mix
and walkability
2017 Downtown
Parking Actual
Demand Study
2017 Provides observed parking demand
within the DSP area
Supports blended rates and shared
use
Source: City of Laguna Beach policy documents including the Laguna Beach Municipal Code (2024), Parking and Transportation Demand Management Report (2023), Downtown Specific Plan (2022), and Downtown Parking Actual Demand Study (2017).

2.1.1 Laguna Beach Municipal Code (2024)
The Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) establishes the baseline minimum parking ratios for nonresidential uses citywide. These standards are generally contained within Chapter 25.52 of the LBMC. Key components relevant to this study include:
 A use-by-use framework for calculating required parking (retail, restaurant, office, lodging, personal services, etc.).
 Operational modifiers that adjust parking based on employees, seats, or outdoor areas.  Administrative tools such as shared parking, off-site parking, valet, and in-lieu parking certificates (LBMC Section 25.52.006).
21 2222000 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 3
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
 Requirements that reflect a more traditional approach to parking planning.

The LBMC is the controlling standard for all non-residential parcels outside the DSP and forms the foundation for minimum parking requirements today.

2.1.2 Parking and TDM Report (2023)
The Parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Report provides a more recent policy roadmap for managing parking and travel behavior in Laguna Beach. Key contributions include:
 An emphasis on managing demand rather than expanding physical supply.  Strategies such as employee parking programs, valet and shuttle operations, pricing approaches, and monitoring technologies.
 Consideration of how to rebalance visitor and employee parking, particularly in constrained areas.  Recommendations that align with district-based approaches and support flexibility beyond traditional minimums.

The report signals the City’s policy direction, highlighting tools that could complement or replace some zoning-based requirements.

2.1.3 Downtown Specific Plan (2022)
The Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) represents Laguna Beach’s most modern parking framework, applying only within the downtown boundary. Key features include:
 A blended parking rate, replacing multiple use-specific ratios with a single, more flexible requirement.
 A regulatory structure informed by real-world parking demand, allowing the City to move away from generic parking ratios.
 A streamlined system that supports tenant changes, mixed-use activity, and adaptive reuse of older buildings.
 Integration of shared parking and operational flexibility as part of day-to-day implementation.

The DSP serves as an example of how Laguna Beach has already modernized its standards in one commercial area.

2.1.4 Downtown Parking Actual Demand Study (2017)
The 2017 Downtown Parking Actual Demand Study (DPADS) collected block-by-block, time-of-day parking occupancy data throughout the downtown commercial area. Its findings were a key input for the DSP’s blended parking rate. It should be noted that the City evaluated occupancy using the industrystandard accepted 85 percent utilization threshold1. Important findings relevant to this study include:
1At 85 percent occupancy, parking is considered “effectively full” because users experience difficulty finding convenient spaces. At or above this threshold, turnover slows, circulation increases, and user frustration rises. Below this threshold, the system typically functions without noticeable strain. 22 22221111 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 4
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
 Observed demand was consistently below the minimums required by the Municipal Code. This indicated that existing ratios overstated actual parking needs.  Most downtown locations demonstrated peak occupancies well below the 85 percent ideal threshold, even during high-activity periods.
 Variations in peak parking periods supported shared parking and consolidated rates, particularly for uses with different daily and seasonal patterns.

These findings provided a data-driven justification for blended rates and for reducing reliance on high traditional ratios.

2.1.5 Policy Evolution
The documents described represent individual components of Laguna Beach’s parking framework. Viewed together, they show how the City’s parking policies and planning efforts have developed over time, from understanding actual parking conditions, to modernizing standards downtown, to exploring broader policy tools. At the same time, the citywide parking regulations in LBMC Chapter 25.52 remain more traditional in structure than the more flexible, demand-informed direction reflected in the Downtown Specific Plan and the Parking and TDM Report.

Figure 1 outlines the major milestones in this history and illustrates how each effort informs the current policy context.
23 22222222 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 5
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 1 Parking Policy Milestones (2017–2024)
Source: Downtown Parking Actual Demand Study (2017); Downtown Specific Plan (2022); Parking and TDM Report (2023); Laguna Beach Municipal Code (2024).

2.1.6 Differences Between DSP and Outside DSP Standards Because the DSP uses a modernized and flexible framework and the rest of the city relies on traditional code ratios, the parking environment differs substantially across the City's commercial districts. This is illustrated in Table 2.
2017 – Downtown Parking Actual Demand
Study
•Identified lower real-world parking demand and established the 85% occupancy threshold as the functional capacity
benchmark.
2022 – Downtown Specific Plan
•Adopted blended parking rates and introduced a more
flexible, demand-informed regulatory model.
2023 – Parking and TDM Report
• Shifted policy emphasis toward demand management and
district-based parking strategies.
2024 – Laguna Beach Municipal Code (current
version)
• Retains a traditional minimum-parking framework, while incorporating limited administrative tools for constrained parcels.
24 22223333 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 6
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 2 DSP vs. Outside DSP Parking Framework
Topic DSP Outside DSP
Parking Rate Type Blended Use-by-use
Basis for Requirements Observed demand Traditional ratios Flexibility Integrated into the district
framework
Available through use-specific and
administrative mechanisms
Tools Blended rate, shared parking, and
operational flexibility
Shared parking, joint use, off-site
parking, in-lieu parking certificates in
eligible locations, valet, and
discretionary reductions
Policy Direction Support small parcels and tenant
changes
Maintain conventional minimums
Source: Downtown Specific Plan (2022) and Laguna Beach Municipal Code (2024).

2.2 HOW CURRENT POLICIES SHAPE PARKING
The combination of the Municipal Code, the DSP, and recent planning efforts creates a regulatory environment that functions differently across Laguna Beach.

Outside the DSP, traditional minimum parking ratios remain the primary approach. These ratios can be difficult to meet on older, small, or fully built-out parcels, making changes in tenancy, changes in use, and operational changes by existing businesses challenging. Operational modifiers (such as seating or employees) further increase required parking for certain uses, often beyond what these parcels can feasibly provide.

Within the DSP, standards are more flexible, drawing from the 2017 DPADS’s evidence that actual demand is well below traditional requirements. The blended rate reduces barriers to adaptive reuse and creates a consistent, predictable framework for commercial activity.

Citywide policy direction, reflected in the Parking and TDM Report, signals growing support for demand management, shared parking, and operational tools that improve efficiency without necessarily adding supply.

Together, these policies shape a parking environment where some flexibility exists, but meaningful constraints remain for commercial parcels outside the DSP. Understanding how these policies interact today provides the foundation for assessing where future updates may better support business activity and align with Laguna Beach’s built-out coastal context (Figure 2). 25 22224444 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 7
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 2 Key Takeaways from Laguna Beach’s Policy Framework Source: Downtown Parking Actual Demand Study (2017); Downtown Specific Plan (2022); Parking and TDM Report (2023); Laguna Beach Municipal Code (2024).

These patterns provide the policy backdrop for the more detailed review of minimum ratios, administrative tools, and peer city practices presented in Sections 3 and 4. 3 Current Parking Requirements in Laguna Beach

3.1 SUMMARY OF NON-RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM PARKING

REQUIREMENTS
Laguna Beach’s minimum non-residential parking requirements are established in the LBMC §25.52.012 and provide the primary use-specific framework for commercial properties outside the Downtown Specific Plan area. Table 3 summarizes the commercial categories most relevant to this study, together with selected conditions that affect how the requirements are calculated.

Observed
demand
supports more
flexible,
blended
standards
Traditional
minimums
remain the
basis outside
DSP
Constrained
parcels face
unique
compliance
challenges
Policy
direction
favors
demand
management
and shared
use
DSP
demonstrates
a viable
model for
modernized
requirements
26 2222555 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 8
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 3 Summary of Core Non-Residential Parking Requirements (LBMC §25.52.012) Category Use Types Included Minimum Parking
Requirement
Notes / Special Conditions
Retail &
Personal
Services
General retail, galleries,
convenience stores,
food stores, salons,
personal services
1/250 SF GFA (most
uses)
Convenience stores: 10
spaces + 1/250 SF
Outdoor display areas count
toward GFA unless exempted.

Some small personal service
uses default to 1/250 SF or perchair ratios.

Restaurants
& Food
Service
Full-service, fast-food,
take-out, bakery, ice
cream, juice bars,
bars/nightclubs
1/100 SF GFA or 1/3
seats, whichever is
greater
Minimum of 5 spaces for fullservice restaurants; 10-space minimum for drive-throughs;
additional parking may be
required based on operations.

Office General office,
administrative,
professional, financial,
utilities with office
space
1/250 SF GFA Medical/dental offices often
require 1/150 SF if classified
under “Health Uses.”
Lodging Hotel, motel 1 space per guest room
+ 1 per 15 rooms + 2
per residence
Integrated restaurant or
conference uses may receive up
to 20% reduction with approval
or further reduction with study.

Arts &
Culture
Art studios, recording
studios, museums,
libraries
Galleries/studios: 1/250
SF GFA
Libraries/museums:
1/300 SF GFA
Retail components follow retail
requirements.

Health &
Fitness
Gyms, aerobics studios,
health clubs
1/100 SF GFA Additional spaces may be
required for accessory uses (e.g.,
pools, courts).

Automotive
Uses
Service stations, repair,
sales, detailing,
carwash
Generally 1/250-300 SF
GFA + operational
spaces (e.g., lubrication
stalls)
Car washes require
reservoir/tandem queuing;
service stations require
additional spaces beyond retail.

Industrial /
Warehouse
Manufacturing, labs,
R&D, warehouse
Manufacturing: 1/500 SF
GFA
Office components may trigger
office ratios.
27 2222666 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 9
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Category Use Types Included Minimum Parking
Requirement
Notes / Special Conditions
Labs: 1/300 SF GFA
Warehouse: 2 spaces +
1/1000 SF GFA
Source: Laguna Beach Municipal Code §25.52.012, Required Number of Parking Spaces.

Notes:

1. “GFA” refers to gross floor area.

2. Parking ratios are expressed in the format “1/250 SF,” meaning one parking space is required for every 250 square feet of gross floor area.

3. Formulas such as “10 spaces + 1/250 SF” indicate a base requirement plus an additional area-based component.

4. Some uses rely on metrics other than floor area (such as seats, guest rooms, or residences) when these better represent parking demand for that use.

3.2 ADMINISTRATION AND APPLICATION OF EXISTING

REGULATIONS
Many commercial parcels outside the Downtown Specific Plan boundary are fully built out, with limited ability to add new parking. For these sites, compliance with the parking requirements often depends on in-lieu parking certificates, shared parking agreements, or operational solutions such as valet. While these mechanisms provide needed flexibility, they may also add cost or procedural complexity for applicants and may still prove insufficient to fully address the parking requirement. These conditions highlight the importance of evaluating whether current minimum requirements and available administrative tools appropriately reflect the constraints and needs of Laguna Beach’s commercial areas. Details on the key administrative tools and mechanisms are summarized below.

3.2.1 In-Lieu Fee Provisions
(Master Fee Schedule 2; LBMC §25.52.006(E) for alternatives to on-site parking) LBMC §25.52.006(E) allows in-lieu parking certificates as an alternative to providing parking on-site within City Council-designated hardship areas where special parking districts have been established. In practice, these areas currently include the Downtown Specific Plan area and the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan area, and, for residential uses only, the Commercial-Neighborhood (C-N), Local Business District (C-1), and South Laguna Village Commercial (SLV) zones.

Outside Downtown, the LBMC includes a limited exception for mixed-use projects in non-Downtown commercial districts, and only the residential component may use in-lieu parking certificates to satisfy parking requirements. An in-lieu parking certificate may satisfy up to 50 percent of a site's required 2 Source: City of Laguna Beach. Master Fee Schedule FY 2025–2026. Adopted by City Council; effective July 1, 2025.
28 2222777 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 10
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
parking, to a maximum of three certificates per site; requests beyond that require a parking demand study. The current fee is $23,000 per certificate (Master Fee Schedule FY 25–26).

3.2.2 Joint Use of Parking Spaces
(LBMC §25.52.006(B))
Joint use allows two or more uses with different hours of operation to satisfy their parking requirements using the same parking spaces, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. This tool is most applicable where operating hours do not conflict, such as weekday daytime uses paired with evening or weekend uses. The code requires a parking allocation plan and reciprocal parking easement to document the timing and continued availability of the spaces, consistent with LBMC Section 25.52.006(B).

3.2.3 Shared Parking Policies
(LBMC §25.52.006(C))
Shared parking may be approved for certain mixed-use developments when multiple uses demonstrate complementary peak demand or intensity patterns. This tool can reduce the total number of spaces needed when the combined peak parking demand is lower than the sum of the individual code requirements. It is most effective where uses with offsetting activity patterns coexist within the same development, such as daytime-serving and evening-serving uses, or where related uses generate linked trips. Applications require a conditional use permit and typically rely on a shared parking study and shared parking allocation plan consistent with LBMC Section 25.52.006(C)

3.2.4 Operational Factors Affecting Parking Requirements (LBMC §25.52.012; use-specific operational standards)
Some uses require additional parking based on how they operate, not just on square footage. Common operational factors include:
 Number of employees during the busiest shift
 Seating capacity or layout for food and beverage uses  Outdoor dining or service areas
 Other intensified operations that change demand patterns These factors can increase required parking beyond the base ratios and often affect the feasibility of tenant changes in older buildings.

3.2.5 Off-Site Parking, Valet, and Managed Parking Arrangements (LBMC §25.52.006(H) – off-site parking; §25.52.006(D) – valet/managed parking) Some uses may satisfy required parking through nearby off-site spaces, subject to distance limits and long-term access agreements. Valet or managed parking services may be approved when a use generates concentrated demand but lacks space for on-site parking. 29 2222888 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 11
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

3.2.6 Conditional Reductions and Parking Demand Management (PDM) Measures
(LBMC §25.52.006(G) – incentives for alternative transportation; Parking and TDM Report) The City may grant reductions to parking requirements through discretionary review when supported by a parking or PDM plan. Strategies identified in the 2023 Parking and TDM Report include employee parking management, transit incentives, and measures to shift visitor parking to less constrained areas. These tools allow more efficient use of existing parking resources and can help balance demand in busy commercial districts.

The innovative parking solutions provision under LBMC §25.52.006(G)(3), which allowed reductions for measures such as shuttle programs that promote alternative transportation, expired on May 25, 2026. The broader incentive authority under §25.52.006(G), which allows the City Council to reduce parking for uses that promote alternative modes such as transit, carpooling, bicycling, and walking, remains in effect. The City also uses other administrative tools that reduce parking requirements, including sidewalk café parking credits under LBMC §25.52.006(G)(2) and parking reductions through the historic preservation program under LBMC §25.45.008(A)(3).

3.3 KEY ISSUES AND GAPS IN PARKING REQUIREMENTS
While Laguna Beach’s Municipal Code and related policy documents provide several tools for compliance, the current framework can result in challenges for commercial areas outside the DSP. These issues can affect business flexibility, tenant turnover, and the City's ability to align parking standards with actual demand and built-out conditions.
 Traditional Parking Ratios Not Aligned With Mixed-Use or Visitor-Oriented Context – Many minimum parking ratios reflect conventional suburban standards rather than the City's compact, walkable environment.
– Use-specific requirements (e.g., different ratios for retail vs. restaurant vs. service commercial) do not reflect the mixed-use character of Laguna Beach’s commercial districts. – Observed demand in the DSP area downtown suggests some ratios may exceed what is needed for similar uses within the rest of the city.
 Barriers to Change of Use in Older Buildings
– Small or fully built-out parcels often cannot add parking, making it difficult for businesses to change tenants under strict use-based minimums.
– Operational modifiers (e.g., employees, seats, outdoor dining) can trigger additional parking needs that older buildings cannot meet.
– These conditions limit adaptability in commercial corridors where physical expansion is not feasible.
– Calculating the required parking for a proposed change of use that constitutes an intensification of use is technical and complex under LBMC §25.52.004(E), often requiring City staff assistance and adding uncertainty and delay to the change-of-use process.  Differences Between DSP and Non-DSP Standards
30 2222999 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 12
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
– The DSP uses a blended rate informed by observed demand, while areas outside the DSP rely on traditional ratios that may overstate required parking. – This creates two different regulatory environments, leading to potential inequities and inconsistencies in how similar uses are treated.
– Businesses outside the DSP lack the more predictable, flexible framework available to those downtown.
 Limited Flexibility for Constrained Parcels
– Although tools such as shared parking, off-site parking, and in-lieu parking certificates exist, they may not always be practical or affordable for small businesses. – Some parcels have limited access to shared parking opportunities due to distance requirements or the lack of nearby supply.
– Compliance often depends on administrative mechanisms that can take considerable time and comes at a cost, rather than a right-sized baseline requirement.  Gaps in Integration of Demand Management Concepts
– The 2023 Parking and TDM Report identifies several strategies (employee parking management, remote parking, pricing, monitoring) but these tools are not fully reflected in the parking requirements.
– Implementation of TDM concepts may warrant reductions in parking requirements. – Aligning zoning requirements with City policy direction could improve consistency and reduce reliance on exceptions or discretionary relief.
4 Comparison with Peer Coastal Cities
Four coastal peer cities were selected based on shared characteristics with Laguna Beach, including constrained commercial parcels, strong visitor activity, and limited opportunities to expand parking. These cities illustrate how similar communities manage parking demand in built-out coastal settings:
 Dana Point
– Coastal district with high visitor activity; offers commercial parking guidance and long-standing harbor parking management practices.
 Carlsbad (Village/Barrio)
– Walkable coastal neighborhoods with competing visitor, business, residential, and beach parking demand; uses district-specific parking standards and a parking management framework emphasizing shared use and curbside efficiency.
 Newport Beach
– Recently updated coastal-area parking requirements through its Local Coastal Program; relevant for understanding regional coastal policy expectations.  Del Mar
– Small coastal city with a compact visitor-oriented downtown; adopted parking reforms focusing on shared parking and operational strategies.
31 3333000 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 13
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

4.1 OVERVIEW OF PEER CITY CONDITIONS

4.1.1 Dana Point3
Dana Point’s coastal commercial areas, including the Lantern District and the Harbor (see Figure 3), operate in an environment shaped by strong visitor activity, seasonal peaks, and a built-out urban form.

These conditions create a parking landscape where flexibility and coordinated management are central.

Figure 3 Dana Point - Flexible Parking Areas
Source: Adapted from the City of Dana Point Commercial Parking Standards Guide and Dana Point Harbor Parking Management Plan. Dana Point Specific Plan (DPSP) and Dana Point Harbor Revitalization Plan boundaries interpreted from applicable plan figures. Boundaries shown are approximate and intended for planning-level comparison purposes only.
3 Commercial Parking Standards Guide (City of Dana Point, 2023) Dana Point Harbor Parking Management Plan (County of Orange, 2011/2013) Dana Point Harbor Revitalization LCP Amendment Materials (2011) Dana Point Harbor Revitalization Plan – District Regulations (2011) Dana Point Municipal Code, Chapter 9.35 (Parking)
Orange County Zoning Code (July 25, 2024)
32 33331111 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 14
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

GENERAL PARKING ENVIRONMENT
Dana Point experiences sustained visitor activity throughout the year, with sharp increases during summer and special events. Many commercial parcels are small or fully developed, which limits opportunities to add on-site parking and results in reliance on shared supply. The Harbor functions as a major regional destination, serving boaters, coastal access visitors, retail patrons, and event attendees. These overlapping uses create complex daily and seasonal demand patterns.

PARKING MANAGEMENT APPROACH
The City supplements traditional parking requirements with flexible tools that help businesses adapt within constrained sites. The Commercial Parking Standards Guide outlines shared parking options, jointuse arrangements, and operational plans that can satisfy requirements when physical expansion is not feasible.

Within the Harbor area, parking is intentionally managed as a coordinated district rather than on a parcelby-parcel basis. The Harbor regulations allow shared parking, joint-use parking, parking reductions, and district-wide Parking Management Plan evaluations across multiple uses and planning areas. This district model allows different uses to draw from shared facilities that respond to varying demand throughout the day and year.

IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE
Dana Point uses multiple parking frameworks to organize how parking expectations are applied in practice:
 The Commercial Parking Standards Guide provides a clear framework for evaluating shared parking studies, understanding operational adjustments, and applying flexible solutions for older or constrained parcels.
 Properties within the Dana Point Specific Plan (DPSP) area are subject to County of Orange off-street parking regulations, which provide alternatives to minimum parking requirements through shared parking, parking reductions, and other flexible compliance options (per the Orange County Zoning Code, Section 7-9-70).
 The Harbor Parking Management Plan identifies user groups, describes turnover needs, and outlines management strategies such as employee relocation, wayfinding improvements, and peak-season operations.

Dana Point's Municipal Code provides the base parking requirements for most of the city, while properties within the Dana Point Specific Plan (DPSP) area follow Orange County parking regulations and the Harbor area operates under a separate Harbor Revitalization/LCP parking framework. Unlike some peer cities that reduce parking requirements or modify change-of-use obligations, Dana Point's flexibility is primarily achieved through shared parking, joint-use parking, Parking Management Plans, parking requirement modifications, and other discretionary mechanisms that allow parking demand to be evaluated beyond the individual parcel level.
33 33332222 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 15
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Within the Harbor Revitalization Plan Area, parking is managed through a coordinated district framework that recognizes shared demand patterns among visitor-serving, recreational, and commercial uses. The flexibility tools summarized in
Table 4 allow parking demand associated with redevelopment, tenant changes, and commercial intensification to be addressed through shared facilities, district-wide parking management, operational strategies, and other alternative compliance approaches rather than relying solely on construction of new parking spaces.

Table 4 Dana Point - Key Parking Flexibility Tools
Parking Flexibility Tool What It Allows
Shared / Joint-Use
Parking
Allows parking demand generated by new or intensified uses to be accommodated using parking shared among multiple Harbor uses with different peak demand periods, reducing the need for each use to provide all required parking independently.

Parking Management
Plan (PMP)
Evaluates parking demand across the Harbor as a whole rather than solely by individual parcel. This allows redevelopment and tenant changes to be considered within the context of overall Harbor parking supply and utilization patterns.

Parking Demand
Alternatives
When a subsequent use generates greater parking demand than existing parking provides, applicants may provide additional parking or demonstrate alternative means of meeting that demand through the Coastal Development Permit and PMP process.

Parking Requirement
Modifications
The Harbor allows exceptions or modifications when standard parking requirements are considered excessive or deficient, creating flexibility for redevelopment and changing commercial uses.

Seasonal and
Operational Parking
Management
Parking resources may be managed according to seasonal demand, visitor activity, and operational needs, helping accommodate fluctuating commercial activity without relying solely on new parking construction.

Off-Site Parking and
Shuttle Strategies
During peak periods, off-site parking and shuttle operations may be used to expand effective parking capacity and support visitor-serving commercial uses.

Source: Adapted from the Dana Point Harbor Revitalization Plan – District Regulations (2011) and Dana Point Harbor Parking Management Plan (County of Orange, 2011/2013).

KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING THEIR APPROACH
Dana Point’s parking strategies are shaped by visitor intensity, limited site capacity, and the need to accommodate multiple overlapping user groups within a compact coastal setting. These conditions 34 33333333 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 16
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
support an emphasis on shared parking, parking-reduction mechanisms, Harbor-wide parking management, and operational tools that can scale with seasonal and event-related activity.

RELEVANCE TO LAGUNA BEACH
Dana Point illustrates how a built-out coastal community can expand parking flexibility without substantially changing its underlying parking ratios. Rather than reducing parking requirements, the Harbor framework relies on shared parking, parking-reduction mechanisms, Harbor-wide parking management, and discretionary review processes to address redevelopment, tenant changes, and parking demand on constrained sites. These approaches provide useful examples for Laguna Beach as it considers ways to accommodate tenant turnover and small-parcel constraints outside the DSP area.

4.1.2 Carlsbad4
Carlsbad’s Village & Barrio Master Plan Area (see Figure 4) forms one of the city’s most active coastal areas, with restaurants, small shops, residential neighborhoods, transit access, and beach visitors all competing for parking. Activity levels shift throughout the year, with the busiest conditions occurring in summer and on weekends. Limited off-street supply and small parcels make curb parking a central element of the parking system.

GENERAL PARKING ENVIRONMENT
The Village and Barrio experience consistent visitor activity influenced by beach access, walkability, and proximity to the rail station. Many parcels lack room for new parking, so curbside spaces accommodate a significant share of day-to-day demand. Seasonal variation is notable, and parking pressures intensify near the beach and along commercial corridors during peak months.

The Village & Barrio Master Plan establishes parking requirements tailored to the district’s compact, mixed-use, and walkable character. The district uses reduced parking ratios relative to the citywide parking code and incorporates alternative compliance options intended to support redevelopment and reuse of existing buildings.
4 Village & Barrio Master Plan (City of Carlsbad, 2025) Village/Barrio Parking Management Plan and Associated Studies Update (2024) Village/Barrio Beach Area Parking Management Plan (2017) Municipal Code Chapter 21.40 (Parking Requirements) and Chapter 21.35 (Village/Barrio) Coastal Commission LCPA Review for the Village/Barrio Master Plan (2019) 35 33334444 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 17
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 4 Carlsbad - Flexible Parking Areas
Source: Adapted from the City of Carlsbad Village & Barrio Master Plan (2025), Figure 2-1 (Village & Barrio District Map). Boundaries shown are approximate and intended for planning-level comparison purposes only.

PARKING MANAGEMENT APPROACH
Carlsbad uses a district-based strategy for the Village and Barrio neighborhoods, focusing on managing existing supply rather than expanding it. The Parking Management Plan outlines approaches such as time limits, employee parking strategies, loading regulations, shared use, and wayfinding improvements.

Minimum parking requirements remain in place, but the Village & Barrio Master Plan modifies both parking standards and compliance options. Parking requirements were calibrated specifically for the area’s mixed-use, walkable environment and are generally lower than citywide standards.

For example, the Village & Barrio Master Plan requires one parking space per 415 square feet for retail/commercial businesses and one space per 170 square feet for restaurants, compared to citywide 36 3333555 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 18
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
requirements of one space per 300 square feet for retail and one space per 100 square feet for restaurants under the Municipal Code.

The district also permits a range of alternative compliance mechanisms, including shared parking, common parking facilities, public on-street parking credits, valet parking, TDM measures, and participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program.

One of the most significant features of Carlsbad’s Village & Barrio Master Plan parking framework is its treatment of existing buildings undergoing changes to more parking-intensive uses. The Master Plan allows existing buildings to convert from one use to another without providing additional parking if the two uses have the same parking requirement. Where the proposed use has a higher parking requirement, only 50 percent of the additional parking associated with the increase must be provided. This incremental approach differs from conventional parking systems that require full compliance with the new use’s parking requirement and creates a clearer pathway for intensification and adaptive reuse of existing commercial buildings.

IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE
Carlsbad’s parking practices are guided by three key documents:
 The Village & Barrio Master Plan establishes the district’s access, mobility, curb use, and street design goals and provides the district’s parking framework, including customized parking requirements, change-of-use provisions, parking options, and the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program.  The Parking Management Plan provides the operational toolkit, including turnover management, curb regulations, employee parking strategies, and shared parking strategies.  The Village/Barrio Beach Area Parking Plan highlights the connection between commercial district parking and beach-related demand, providing early data on seasonal patterns and curbside pressures.

The Village & Barrio Master Plan Area incorporates a range of parking flexibility mechanisms that extend beyond conventional minimum parking requirements. In addition to district-specific parking ratios, the framework includes alternative compliance options, parking management tools, and provisions intended to facilitate commercial activity, redevelopment, and reuse of existing buildings. Table 5 summarizes the key mechanisms that distinguish the Village and Barrio parking framework from a conventional parcel-byparcel parking system. 37 3333666 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 19
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 5 Carlsbad - Key Parking Flexibility Tools
Parking Flexibility Tool What It Allows
Reduced Village & Barrio
Parking Ratios
Uses lower off-street parking requirements than the citywide code, reflecting the area's walkable, mixed-use character and reducing parking obligations for new commercial development and redevelopment. 50% Incremental
Change-of-Use
Requirement
Existing buildings converting to a more parking-intensive use are required to provide only 50% of the increase in parking demand rather than the full parking requirement associated with the new use, reducing barriers to tenant turnover, adaptive reuse, and business intensification.

Parking In-Lieu Fee
Program
Allows eligible non-residential uses to satisfy up to 100% of parking requirements through fee payment rather than constructing all required spaces on-site, providing flexibility on constrained parcels.

Shared Parking Allows multiple uses with different peak demand periods to share parking resources, reducing the need for each site to independently satisfy parking requirements.

Common Parking
Facilities
Permits multiple properties or uses to satisfy parking requirements through shared parking facilities, allowing parking demand to be addressed collectively rather than on a parcel-by-parcel basis.

Public On-Street Parking
Credits
Allows creation of new public on-street parking spaces to offset required private parking spaces under specified conditions, helping sites with limited redevelopment capacity.

Valet Parking Provides an alternative means of accommodating parking demand without requiring all parking spaces to be constructed in conventional on-site layouts.

Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)
Measures
Supports parking reductions through mobility strategies and alternative transportation options that reduce automobile parking demand within the district.

Leased / Off-Site Parking
Arrangements
Allows businesses to utilize parking resources located off-site within approved distances, helping accommodate parking demand where on-site expansion is impractical.

Source: Adapted from City of Carlsbad, Village & Barrio Master Plan (2025) and Village/Barrio Parking Management Plan and Associated Studies Update (2024).

KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING THEIR APPROACH
Seasonal tourism, limited off-street supply, and heavy dependence on curb sources shape Carlsbad’s emphasis on both operational strategies and regulatory flexibility. Rather than relying solely on parking 38 3333777 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 20
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
management techniques, the Village & Barrio Master Plan adjusts parking requirements and expands compliance options to better align parking obligations with the realities of a compact coastal commercial district. The walkable street grid improves the feasibility of district-level strategies, while Coastal Commission review reinforces the need to maintain public coastal access.

RELEVANCE TO LAGUNA BEACH
Carlsbad’s experience demonstrates both operational and regulatory strategies for addressing parking constraints in older coastal commercial districts. In addition to parking management tools such as shared parking, employee parking strategies, wayfinding improvements, and curbside management, the Village & Barrio Master Plan modifies how parking requirements are calculated and satisfied.

The district's reduced parking ratios, Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, and requirement that only 50 percent of the parking increase be provided when an existing building converts to a more parking-intensive use create a more flexible framework for reuse and intensification. These approaches are especially relevant to Laguna Beach because they directly address situations where older commercial properties have limited ability to add new on-site parking.

More broadly, Carlsbad demonstrates that parking flexibility can be achieved not only through parking management but also through modified parking requirements and alternative compliance options that reduce barriers to reinvestment and adaptive reuse while maintaining district-wide parking management objectives.

4.1.3 Newport Beach5
Newport Beach’s coastal commercial districts serve some of the region’s most active visitor destinations (see Figure 5), where beach access, waterfront dining, and harbor-oriented activities generate substantial parking demand, creating pressure on private lots and public coastal-access spaces.

GENERAL PARKING ENVIRONMENT
Newport Beach experiences sustained visitor activity throughout the year, with the highest demand during summer, weekends, and holidays. Many commercial parcels are older and built out, limiting opportunities to add on-site parking. Because the area sits within the Coastal Zone, the City must maintain adequate parking for visitors as part of its Local Coastal Program, which influences how commercial parking standards are updated and enforced.
5 Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LCP-5-NPB-23-0039-3 (Part A – Non-Residential Parking Standards), Coastal Commission Staff Report (2025)
Ordinance No. 2025-13 Amending Title 21 (LCP Implementation Plan) – Commercial Parking Requirements
Newport Beach Local Coastal Program – Implementation Plan (as amended through 2025-13) Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 21.40 (Off-Street Parking); Chapter 21.38 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures); Chapter 21.28 (Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts) Balboa Village Parking Management Overlay District (PM-1) Area Map and Parking Management Plan. 39 3333888 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 21
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

As a result, the City has supplemented conventional parking requirements with alternative compliance mechanisms and district-level parking management strategies intended to support commercial activity in constrained coastal areas.

Figure 5 Newport Beach - Flexible Parking Areas
Source: Adapted from City of Newport Beach Municipal Code §21.28.030(F)(1) and Balboa Village Parking Management Overlay District (PM-1) Area Map, LCP Amendment 1-19, Exhibit 2 (2020). Boundaries shown are approximate and intended for planning-level comparison purposes only.

PARKING MANAGEMENT APPROACH
The City recently modernized its non-residential parking standards through a comprehensive Local Coastal Program amendment. The update consolidated outdated use categories, reduced inconsistencies, and revised parking ratios to better reflect contemporary commercial operations. It also clarified when shared parking, off-site parking, and parking reductions may be used.

In addition to these citywide updates, Newport Beach relies on district-level parking management to accommodate redevelopment and commercial intensification in built-out coastal commercial areas. The Balboa Village Parking Management Overlay District (PM-1) allows most new and intensified non40 3333999 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 22
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
residential uses to occur without providing additional off-street parking, providing flexibility beyond conventional parcel-by-parcel parking requirements while maintaining coastal access objectives.

IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE
Newport Beach manages parking primarily through a combination of Local Coastal Program regulations, district-level parking management, and alternative compliance provisions. Key elements include:
 Balboa Village Parking Management Overlay District (PM-1), which allows most new or intensified non-residential uses to occur without providing additional off-street parking and relies on districtwide parking management, shared parking, and public parking resources.  Provisions for parking-nonconforming commercial properties that generally require only the incremental increase in parking demand associated with a change of use.  Consolidation of numerous older categories into clearer, broader commercial groups, simplifying how requirements are applied.
 Updated parking ratios calibrated to modern building sizes, service models, and visitor-serving uses in coastal areas.
 Codified shared-parking and off-site parking provisions that specify eligibility, documentation, and findings required for approval.

These revisions create a more predictable, easy-to-administer framework for new and existing businesses.

Balboa Village PM-1 was identified as Newport Beach's primary flexible parking area because it modifies conventional parking requirements and relies on district-wide parking management strategies to support commercial activity in a built-out coastal district. Table 6 summarizes the key mechanisms that facilitate redevelopment, change of use, and commercial intensification within the district. 41 4444000 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 23
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 6 Newport Beach - Key Parking Flexibility Tools
Parking Flexibility Tool What It Allows
No Additional Parking
Required for Most New
or Intensified Nonresidential Uses
Most new non-residential uses and intensifications of existing nonresidential uses may occur without providing additional off-street parking, reducing barriers to tenant turnover, redevelopment, and commercial intensification in a built-out district.

District-Wide Parking
Management Approach
Allows redevelopment and commercial tenant changes to rely on shared public parking resources and district parking management rather than requiring all parking demand to be accommodated on the project site.

Shared Parking Shared use of parking facilities is encouraged, allowing multiple businesses to utilize the same parking resources when peak demand periods do not significantly overlap.

Off-Site Parking When parking is required, businesses may satisfy requirements through leased parking spaces located within 1,250 feet, providing flexibility for sites that cannot accommodate parking on-site.

Employee Parking
Program
A voluntary employee parking permit program directs employee parking to designated areas, helping preserve more convenient parking for customers and visitors.

Alternative
Transportation and
Parking Demand
Management
Wayfinding, bicycle facilities, ferry access, trolley/shuttle accommodations, and ride-sharing facilities help reduce parking demand and support commercial activity without expanding parking supply.

Source: Adapted from the Newport Beach Balboa Village Parking Management Overlay District (PM-1), including the Parking Management Plan, Area Map, and implementing code provisions.

KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING THEIR APPROACH
High visitor demand, coastal-access requirements, and the prevalence of legacy commercial parcels shaped the City’s approach to balancing minimum parking requirements with parking management and flexibility mechanisms. The LCP amendment sought to remove outdated standards, improve clarity for applicants, and ensure that operational changes in restaurants, retail, or services did not unintentionally reduce access for coastal visitors.

The City also recognized that many older coastal commercial properties cannot physically expand parking supply, resulting in greater reliance on parking management, shared parking, public parking resources, and district-scale flexibility mechanisms in areas such as Balboa Village. 42 44441111 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 24
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

RELEVANCE TO LAGUNA BEACH
Newport Beach provides a useful reference for how a coastal city can modernize its commercial parking requirements while remaining consistent with Coastal Commission expectations. In addition to updating parking standards, the City demonstrates how district-level parking management can be used to support commercial change and intensification in constrained coastal areas.

The Balboa Village Parking Management Overlay District (PM-1) allows most new and intensified commercial uses to operate without additional off-street parking while relying on district-wide parking management and shared public parking resources. These approaches provide insight for Laguna Beach as it evaluates alternatives to conventional parcel-by-parcel parking compliance in older, parkingconstrained commercial districts.

4.1.4 Del Mar6
Del Mar’s downtown commercial district (see Figure 6) is characterized by small, built-out parcels, constrained redevelopment opportunities, and strong visitor demand associated with its beaches, restaurants, and regional attractions. In response, the City has developed a parking framework that emphasizes business retention and adaptive reuse through flexible compliance mechanisms rather than strict application of parcel-specific parking requirements.

Recent code amendments focus particularly on facilitating commercial tenant turnover within existing buildings while maintaining coastal access and parking availability, including provisions that allow qualifying commercial conversions to occur without providing additional parking otherwise required by the change in use.
6 Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 30.80 (Parking)
Ordinance No. 999 and associated LCP Amendment materials (2021–2023) Downtown Parking Management Plan (2013 & 2015)
Coastal Commission Staff Report: Major Amendment for Parking Adjustments (2023) Downtown Parking Conditions & Recommendations Report (2013) 43 44442222 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 25
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 6 Del Mar Parking - Flexible Parking Areas
Source: Adapted from the City of Del Mar Official Zoning Map (2022) and Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 30.80 (Parking). Boundaries shown are approximate and intended for planning-level comparison purposes only.

The Central Commercial (CC) Zone was identified as Del Mar's flexible parking area because it contains the City's most significant parking-relief mechanisms, including exemptions from additional parking requirements for qualifying retail, restaurant, and personal-service conversions within existing commercial buildings with nonconforming parking.

GENERAL PARKING ENVIRONMENT
Del Mar experiences significant fluctuations in parking demand tied to beach activity, downtown dining, and events at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Parcels in the downtown core are small, fully built out, and often occupied by older commercial buildings that have limited ability to add on-site parking. Walkability is strong, and most commercial destinations are concentrated within a short distance of public beachfront parking. Because coastal access is a priority, any modification to parking requirements must balance business vitality with the preservation of public access. These conditions have influenced the City's use of 44 44443333 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 26
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
parking management strategies and targeted flexibility measures that support the reuse and adaptation of existing commercial properties.

PARKING MANAGEMENT APPROACH
Del Mar combines operational parking management strategies with regulatory flexibility tools. Key mechanisms include shared parking, off-site parking arrangements, an in-lieu parking fee program within the Central Commercial Zone, and site-specific parking management plans for multi-tenant commercial properties.

More recently, the City adopted provisions that allow qualifying commercial tenant spaces within the Central Commercial Zone and existing buildings with nonconforming parking to convert to retail, restaurant, or personal-service uses without providing additional parking otherwise required by the change in use.

IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE
Del Mar’s parking system is guided primarily by three interconnected documents that frame how the City applies and manages parking requirements:
 Chapter 30.80 of the Del Mar Municipal Code, which establishes minimum parking requirements and provides alternative compliance mechanisms including shared parking permits, off-site parking permits, site-specific parking management plans, valet parking, and the Central Commercial Zone in-lieu parking program.
 Ordinance No. 999 and related LCP Amendment materials (2021–2023), which refined definitions, clarified administrative processes, and ensured alignment with Coastal Commission expectations.

Much of the update focused on making the code more usable and consistent while retaining safeguards for coastal access.
 Downtown Parking Management Plans (2013 and 2015), which provide a toolbox of operational strategies (time limits, loading refinements, employee parking programs, shared use) that continue to guide day-to-day management of the constrained downtown district.

The Central Commercial Zone contains Del Mar's primary parking flexibility mechanisms. The provisions in Table 7 reduce barriers to commercial tenant turnover, redevelopment, and intensification within existing buildings and constrained commercial parcels.
45 44444444 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 27
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 7 Del Mar - Key Parking Flexibility Tools
Parking Flexibility Tool What It Allows
Change-of-Use
Exemption
Qualifying retail, restaurant, and personal-service conversions within existing buildings with nonconforming parking may occur without providing the additional parking otherwise required by the new use.

In-Lieu Parking Program Up to 75% of required parking may be satisfied through payment of an inlieu fee rather than construction of on-site parking.

Shared Parking Parking may be shared between uses with different peak demand periods, reducing the number of dedicated spaces required.

Off-Site Parking Required parking may be provided at approved off-site locations within 500 feet of the use.

Site-Specific Parking
Management Plans
Multi-tenant properties may be evaluated based on aggregate site parking demand rather than by simply adding the separate requirements for each tenant. This is a site-specific management approach, not a uniform districtwide blended parking rate comparable to Laguna Beach’s DSP.

Valet Parking Allows parking demand to be accommodated more efficiently on constrained commercial sites through managed parking operations.

Source: Adapted from Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 30.80 (Parking) and Ordinance No. 999 (2023).

KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING THEIR APPROACH
Del Mar’s standards reflect several local conditions: small commercial parcels with little redevelopment capacity; strong demand peaks linked to the beach, fairgrounds, and restaurant activity; and obligations under the Coastal Act requiring the preservation of public access. These conditions have led Del Mar to rely on flexible compliance pathways that allow businesses to adapt and intensify within existing commercial districts without necessarily providing all additional parking that would otherwise be required under a traditional parcel-by-parcel parking code.

RELEVANCE TO LAGUNA BEACH
Del Mar provides a particularly relevant example for Laguna Beach because both cities contain compact coastal commercial districts characterized by visitor-serving uses, limited redevelopment capacity, and high seasonal parking demand. Unlike a conventional parking code that requires additional parking whenever a commercial use intensifies, Del Mar allows qualifying commercial tenant spaces within its Central Commercial Zone to change from one commercial use to another without providing additional parking in certain circumstances. This approach demonstrates how parking flexibility can support business turnover and economic vitality while maintaining overall parking management controls and coastal-access objectives.
46 4444555 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 28
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

4.2 SUMMARY OF PEER CITY PARKING STANDARDS
While the specific mechanisms differ, all four peer cities have established tools that allow parkingconstrained commercial properties to adapt to changing market conditions without relying solely on construction of new parking spaces. These tools include district-specific parking standards, shared parking, off-site parking, in-lieu parking programs, parking management plans, and change-of-use provisions that provide alternatives to conventional parcel-by-parcel parking compliance. The principal differences among the peer cities lie in how directly these tools reduce or eliminate additional parking obligations associated with redevelopment or changes of use.

The peer cities reviewed generally maintain parking requirements that are comparable to Laguna Beach's current standards. The primary distinction is not the parking ratio itself, but the district-specific mechanisms used to accommodate redevelopment, business turnover, and more intensive uses on parking-constrained properties. These mechanisms include reduced parking ratios, change-of-use exemptions, in-lieu parking programs, district-wide parking management frameworks, and alternative compliance options that reduce or eliminate additional parking obligations.

4.2.1 Non-Residential Parking Requirements
Across all four cities, restaurants have the highest parking ratios, while retail and office uses generally fall in the range of about 1/250 to 1/300 SF. These ratios are broadly comparable to Laguna Beach's current requirements, and are similar or higher in several categories.

Table 8 summarizes key parking rates across comparable non-residential categories. It is important to note that these base ratios, on their own, do not illustrate the differences in how each city accommodates changes of use or intensification. The more meaningful distinctions lie in the district-level tools and change-of-use provisions that determine how much parking must be provided.

Table 8 Summary of Core Non-Residential Parking Requirements in Peer Cities (Selected Uses 7) Use Category Dana Point Carlsbad Newport Beach Del Mar
Retail / Personal Services ~1/250-300 SF 1/300 SF 1/250 SF 1/300 SF Restaurant ~1/100 SF 1/100 SF 1/100 SF ~1/200 SF
Office ~1/250 SF 1/250 SF 1/250 SF 1/300 SF
Source: Peer-city parking codes and planning documents reviewed in Section

4.2.2 Flexible and Shared Parking Provisions Across Peer Cities All four peer cities supplement their base minimum ratios with tools that allow businesses to operate in older buildings or constrained site conditions, similar to many commercial parcels in Laguna Beach. 7 Representative citywide parking requirements shown for comparison purposes. Requirements may vary by use subtype, building size, overlay district, coastal zone, or other special provisions. 47 4444666 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 29
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 9 summarizes the principal flexibility mechanisms identified within each peer-city parking district.

The provisions most directly related to change of use and intensification are discussed further in Section

4.2.3. Table 9 Key Parking Flexibility Mechanisms Within Peer-City Parking Districts City / District Primary Flexibility Mechanisms
Dana Point / Harbor Shared/joint-use parking, Parking Management Plan evaluations, parking requirement modifications, parking demand alternatives, seasonal parking management, and off-site parking/shuttle strategies.

Carlsbad / Village & Barrio Reduced district parking ratios, 50% incremental change-of-use requirement, parking in-lieu fee program, public on-street parking credits, shared/common parking facilities, valet parking, TDM measures, and leased/off-site parking.

Newport Beach / PM-1 No additional parking requirement for most new or intensified nonresidential uses, district-wide parking management, shared parking, off-site parking, employee parking program, and transportation demand management measures.

Del Mar / CC Zone Change-of-use exemption, in-lieu parking program, shared parking, off-site parking, site-specific parking management plans, and valet parking.

Source: Peer-city parking codes and planning documents reviewed in Section 4.1

4.2.3 Accommodating Change of Use and Intensification
The parking ratios summarized in Table 8 are broadly comparable to Laguna Beach's current requirements. However, the peer cities differ significantly in how they apply parking requirements when a use changes or intensifies. In many cases, district-specific mechanisms reduce, waive, or otherwise accommodate the resulting parking increase.

One of the clearest ways to compare the peer-city approaches is to examine how each district addresses a change from a lower-parking-demand use to a higher-parking-demand use. Table 10 presents an illustrative example involving a hypothetical 1,500-square-foot retail tenant space with four (4) existing parking spaces that is proposed for conversion to a restaurant on a parking-constrained parcel. Because restaurants typically require more parking than retail uses, the conversion increases the calculated parking requirement in most jurisdictions. The table illustrates how each district's parking framework affects the resulting parking obligation.
48 4444777 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 30
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 10 Example of Parking Requirement Applications for Hypothetical Retail to Restaurant Conversion8 City / District Retail
Requirement
Restaurant
Requirement
Code
Required
Increase in
Parking
Final Parking Obligation After Application of Relevant Flexibility Mechanisms
Laguna Beach /
Outside DSP
6 spaces
(1/250 SF)
15 spaces
(1/100 SF)
+9 spaces 9 additional spaces would generally need to be provided or otherwise addressed through an available compliance method.

Laguna Beach / DSP 5 spaces
(3/1,000 SF
blended rate)
5 spaces
(same DSP
blended rate)
0 spaces Retail and restaurant uses are subject to the same DSP blended parking rate, and legally nonconforming parking conditions may be maintained when changing to a use with the same parking requirement. → 0 additional spaces
Dana Point / Harbor 8 spaces
(1/200 SF)
15 spaces
(1/100 SF)
+7 spaces Increase evaluated through Harbor PMP/shared-parking framework.

Additional parking spaces may be accommodated through district-level mechanisms rather than requiring 7 new on-site spaces.

Carlsbad / Village &
Barrio
4 spaces
(1/415 SF)
9 spaces
(1/170 SF)
+5 spaces Only 50% of the increase is generally required for a qualifying existing building → 3 additional spaces (rounded up to the nearest whole space).

Newport Beach /
Balboa Village PM-1
6 spaces
(1/250 SF)
15 spaces
(1/100 SF)
+9 spaces Generally 0 additional off-street spaces required for qualifying nonresidential intensifications within PM-1.

Del Mar / Central
Commercial Zone
5 spaces
(1/300 SF)
8 spaces
(1/200 SF)
+3 spaces Generally 0 additional spaces required for qualifying commercial conversions meeting the exemption criteria.

Source: Peer city parking codes and district plans reviewed 8 Table 10 presents an illustrative comparison of a 1,500-square-foot retail tenant space with four (4) existing parking spaces proposed for conversion to a restaurant on a parking-constrained parcel. Actual requirements may vary based on location, eligibility, use characteristics, and applicable approval requirements.
49 4444888 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 31
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 10, demonstrates that the key difference between Laguna Beach and the peer-city districts is not the parking ratio itself, but how each jurisdiction responds when a use change increases parking requirements.

In the illustrative example, converting a 1,500-square-foot retail space with four existing parking spaces to a restaurant would generally require Laguna Beach outside the DSP to provide an additional nine (9) spaces. Within the DSP, however, the same conversion would not generate any additional parking obligation because both uses are subject to the same blended parking rate.

The peer-city districts produce different outcomes. Newport Beach and Del Mar generally allow qualifying projects to proceed without additional parking. Carlsbad requires only a portion of the increase, while Dana Point evaluates the increase through a Harbor-wide parking management framework rather than relying solely on parcel-level compliance.

Notably, the DSP is among the most flexible frameworks reviewed. In this example, both the retail and restaurant uses are subject to the same blended parking rate, resulting in no increase in the parking requirement. The DSP also allows legally nonconforming parking conditions to continue when changing to a use with the same parking requirement. As a result, the conversion can occur without requiring the parcel to address the existing one-space deficiency. This outcome is comparable to Newport Beach and Del Mar and more flexible than the approaches used in Dana Point Harbor and Carlsbad Village & Barrio.

This comparison also illustrates a broader point – several peer cities have parking ratios that are similar to, or higher than, Laguna Beach's. The distinction is not the ratio itself, but the mechanism used to accommodate additional parking requirements when uses change or intensify.

Among Laguna Beach's current tools, the blended parking rate applies only within the DSP area. Outside the DSP, changes of use are generally addressed through the traditional parking framework, although shared parking, off-site parking, discretionary reductions, and in-lieu parking certificates in eligible areas remain available.

Overall, the peer-city review suggests that parking flexibility is driven less by parking ratios and more by the tools used to accommodate change on constrained sites.

4.2.4 In-Lieu Parking Programs in Peer Cities
The peer cities use in-lieu parking programs in different ways. Carlsbad and Del Mar maintain programs tied to defined commercial districts. Newport Beach authorizes an in-lieu parking program under its broader code, although uses within Balboa Village PM-1 are not eligible to participate. Dana Point does not maintain a standing in-lieu parking program in the areas reviewed, although an in-lieu approach may be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Current per-space fees are established by council resolution, and information regarding program participation, including the number of certificates purchased and the level of program utilization, is generally maintained by city staff and was not published in the documents reviewed. 50 4444999 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 32
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Carlsbad offers an in-lieu parking program within eligible Village and Barrio districts, where an applicant may satisfy up to 100 percent of a required parking obligation through payment of a fee. The collected fees are directed toward developing and maintaining shared public parking.

Del Mar offers an in-lieu parking program within its Central Commercial Zone, where up to 75 percent of a required parking obligation may be satisfied through a fee. Program revenues are restricted to the acquisition, development, or maintenance of public parking facilities and to public transportation programs. The current fee is established by council resolution and was not stated in the available documents.

Newport Beach authorizes an in-lieu parking program under its citywide code, but participation was discontinued within the Balboa Village Parking Management Overlay District, and uses in that area are not eligible to participate. The fee is set by council resolution and was not stated in the available documents.

Dana Point does not maintain a standing in-lieu parking program in the areas reviewed. In-lieu parking may be considered on a case-by-case basis under the general code, with any fee determined at the time of project review.

A 2017 comparison prepared for Carlsbad illustrates that adopted per-space fees differed among jurisdictions at that time. The comparison reported $11,240 per space for Carlsbad and $20,000 per space for Laguna Beach. These amounts reflect 2017 conditions and should not be interpreted as current fees; Laguna Beach’s current adopted fee is higher.

4.2.5 Employee Parking in Peer Cities
The peer cities generally address employee parking through management strategies rather than through fixed parking code requirements. The common objective is to direct employee parking away from the prime, high-turnover spaces most valuable to customers and visitors.

Newport Beach provides the most formalized rules. Specifically, within the Balboa Village Parking Management Overlay District, the City established a voluntary employee permit program that designates specific employee parking locations, offers reduced parking fees, and encourages the use of transit and other alternative modes.

Carlsbad addresses employee parking primarily through enforcement and turnover management in the Village and Barrio, supplemented by shared and leased parking arrangements. Its parking management approach identifies employee parking as a source of pressure on prime on-street spaces and relies on proactive enforcement and shared supply rather than a dedicated permit program.

Del Mar manages employee parking through its downtown Parking Management Program and through shared and off-site parking arrangements, including employee relocation strategies intended to preserve convenient parking for visitors and customers.

Dana Point addresses employee parking within the Harbor through the transportation demand management measures required in its Parking Management Plan, which include transit subsidies, 51 555000 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 33
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
rideshare and vanpool programs, and preferential parking, rather than through a standalone employee parking program.

Across the four cities, employee parking is treated as an operational and management issue addressed through district-level programs and demand management, rather than as a fixed ratio in the parking code.

The peer-city review demonstrates that the principal distinction between Laguna Beach and the comparison jurisdictions is not the underlying parking ratio, but the availability of district-specific mechanisms that modify how parking requirements are applied when uses intensify or change. Newport Beach, Del Mar, Carlsbad, and Dana Point each employ different approaches to accommodate redevelopment and business turnover on constrained sites, while Laguna Beach currently applies a comparable district-scale approach primarily within the Downtown Specific Plan area.

4.3 KEY INSIGHTS RELEVANT TO LAGUNA BEACH
This review of peer coastal cities shows several recurring themes that can inform Laguna Beach’s evaluation of its non-residential parking requirements. While each community manages its system differently, their experiences highlight strategies that may help Laguna Beach address long-standing challenges in built-out commercial areas.

APPROACHES THAT ALIGN WITH LAGUNA BEACH’S COASTAL, VISITOR-ORIENTED

CONTEXT
 District-specific change-of-use mechanisms can reduce, waive, or otherwise accommodate additional parking obligations when businesses intensify or convert to more parking-intensive uses.  Simplified parking categories and consolidated use classifications can reduce ambiguity, improve consistency, and make parking requirements easier to administer for tenant changes and evolving business types.
 None of the four peer cities applies a blended parking rate comparable to those established in Laguna Beach's DSP.
 Peer cities instead achieve flexibility through parking overlay districts, consolidated use categories, and expanded shared and off-site provisions.
 Shared parking as a standard tool, not only as an exception, helps cities make better use of limited supply, especially where demand varies throughout the day and season.  Operational strategies (employee parking relocation, curb turnover management, wayfinding) are commonly used to relieve pressure in high-activity coastal districts without requiring new supply.  District-level management models show how coastal cities can support multiple user groups (residents, employees, and visitors) with coordinated policies rather than parcel-by-parcel requirements.

PRACTICES THAT ADDRESS CONSTRAINED PARCELS OR OLDER BUILDINGS  Clear pathways for off-site parking or joint-use agreements provide feasible compliance options when on-site expansion is not possible.
52 5551111 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 34
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
 Evidence-based reductions allow cities to right-size parking requirements when actual demand is lower than traditional ratios assume.
 Alternative compliance guides (similar to Dana Point’s) help applicants navigate options, reducing uncertainty and administrative delays.
 Use of in-lieu parking programs provides a practical mechanism for meeting requirements without forcing physical construction on small parcels.

IMPLICATIONS FOR LAGUNA BEACH
Across the peer cities, five major themes stand out as particularly relevant for Laguna Beach’s upcoming code update:
 The peer-city review suggests that facilitating business turnover and intensification depends less on reducing parking ratios and more on providing clear district-level mechanisms that determine how additional parking demand is accommodated when uses change.  District-based approaches, whether formal or operational, can help manage visitor parking demand and support business turnover without adding physical parking supply.  Expanding shared parking, off-site options, and in-lieu parking pathways can provide realistic compliance mechanisms for older, built-out parcels.
 Shifting from multiple detailed use categories toward simpler, consolidated groupings can reduce ambiguity and improve consistency.
 Updating parking ratios for certain uses, especially restaurants and personal services, may help align requirements with modern business models and observed demand. However, the peer-city review suggests that flexibility mechanisms often play a larger role than parking-ratio changes in facilitating tenant turnover, redevelopment, and intensification.
5 Implications for Updating Laguna Beach’s Parking
Requirements
The review of Laguna Beach’s existing parking framework, together with lessons from comparable coastal cities, identifies several potential directions for modernizing the City’s non-residential parking standards.

These directions respond to existing policy objectives, documented challenges on constrained parcels, and approaches used in similar built-out coastal communities. Collectively, they provide a framework for evaluating future parking-rate alternatives, administrative mechanisms, and potential code language revisions.

5.1 POTENTIAL DIRECTIONS FOR MODIFICATION

MODERNIZING AND SIMPLIFYING PARKING CATEGORIES AND RATIOS While Laguna Beach’s current use-by-use system has provided structure for many years, it now functions in a setting where business types evolve quickly and many commercial parcels have little or no practical ability to add on-site parking. A more streamlined parking ratio system could offer clearer expectations, 53 5552222 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 35
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
reduce administrative complexity, and ease tenant turnover, particularly for small businesses operating on constrained parcels. Key trends suggest this is an appropriate direction:
 Multiple peer cities have consolidated their commercial categories, reducing reliance on narrowly defined uses.
 Laguna’s own DSP demonstrates the benefits of a blended rate, informed by observed demand rather than generic national ratios.
 Simpler groupings may reduce the frequency of change-of-use triggers, easing transitions in older buildings.

Simplifying some of the more detailed use categories would make the code easier to apply and more reflective of how businesses operate today, especially in mixed-use corridors where distinctions between uses are often minimal in practice.

ALIGNING REQUIREMENTS WITH A BUILT-OUT COASTAL ENVIRONMENT Laguna Beach’s commercial corridors share a key constraint: very limited ability to create new physical parking. This reality shapes everything from tenant turnover to reinvestment decisions. Requirements that assume the ability to build additional on-site spaces can unintentionally restrict activity in areas already operating at their physical limits. As a result, opportunities for improvement include the following:
 Ensuring that minimums reflect what parcels can realistically support.  Reconsidering operational modifiers (employees, seats, outdoor dining) that may overstate actual parking impacts in walkable, mixed-use environments.
 Relying more consistently on shared or district-level parking strategies in lieu of parcel-specific expansion.

Bringing the requirements closer to the realities of built-out parcels would reduce the need for repeated exceptions and create a more predictable path for reinvestment in aging commercial buildings.

IMPROVING FLEXIBILITY FOR TENANT CHANGES AND ADAPTIVE REUSE Many of Laguna Beach’s commercial buildings predate modern parking standards. As a result, even modest tenant changes can trigger new requirements that can be difficult to meet on-site. Although the City offers some tools (shared parking, off-site parking, valet, in-lieu parking certificates), they often function as exceptions rather than integral parts of the system. Several potential refinements could help address these conditions:
 Peer cities generally rely less on parking-ratio reductions and more on district-specific mechanisms that determine how parking demand is accommodated when uses change or intensify.  Clearer and more predictable pathways for alternative compliance, so applicants understand how to meet requirements without adding supply.
 Right-sized baseline minimums, reducing reliance on discretionary relief.  Strategic use of in-lieu parking mechanisms, such as broadening the geographic areas where certificates are available and setting fees that reflect the actual cost of providing parking, allowing reinvestment while avoiding unnecessary construction pressure on constrained parcels. 54 5553333 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 36
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Experiences in other coastal cities show that meaningful flexibility can be incorporated into zoning while still protecting public access and providing clear expectations for applicants.

EXPANDING DISTRICT-BASED AND SHARED-PARKING STRATEGIES
Parking in coastal communities functions at a district scale: visitors park once, walk through multiple destinations, and generate overlapping patterns of demand. Peer cities have embraced this by planning for shared supply, coordinated curb management, and employee parking strategies that extend beyond parcel boundaries.

Laguna Beach already applies some of these concepts downtown; similar approaches may have value in other corridors (adapted to their scale and context). In these areas, opportunities may include:
 Strengthening criteria for shared-parking arrangements, so that mixed uses with offsetting peak demand can share supply rather than each providing separate parking.  Exploring district-based employee parking or turnover strategies, such as directing employees to shared or peripheral supply and tying parking reductions to verified TDM participation.  Using off-site parking more systematically in commercial areas that lack on-site capacity, with clearer standards for distance, access, and long-term availability.

Minimum requirements will still play an important role, but a more adaptable framework can help the city make better use of the parking supply that already exists.

Collectively, these observations suggest that future code updates should focus not only on parking ratios themselves, but also on the mechanisms used to accommodate parking demand when businesses evolve, intensify, or occupy constrained sites.

TOWARD A MORE CONSISTENT CITYWIDE FRAMEWORK
Laguna Beach currently relies on two primary parking approaches: a demand-informed blended framework within the Downtown Specific Plan and a more traditional use-specific framework in most areas outside it. Each framework was developed for its specific context, but the contrast can create inconsistencies and different levels of predictability for similar uses. Moving toward greater alignment, where appropriate, could:
 Improve fairness and transparency for businesses in similar situations.  Reduce procedural complexity across commercial districts.  Reinforce a citywide framework grounded in observed activity, operational tools, and shared-use principles.

The intention is not to extend the DSP model citywide but to draw from the elements that have proven effective downtown and apply them where conditions are comparable. In particular, several commercial areas outside the DSP share many of the Downtown's defining characteristics: compact, older, and largely built-out parcels, a mixed-use commercial character where retail, office, service, and restaurant uses are adjacent, and limited ability to add on-site parking as those uses change or intensify. 55 5554444 of 444444444444
August 9, 2026 Page 37
Task 1.1 Review of Existing Parking-Related Policies, Codes, and Comparable Cities TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

The DSP framework was calibrated to these same conditions, so its relevance to the rest of the city depends on how closely those conditions are matched outside the downtown. The peer-city review suggests that the applicability of DSP-style approaches should be determined by physical and operational characteristics rather than geography alone.

Where commercial districts share the Downtown's combination of small lots, mixed uses, constrained parking supply, and limited redevelopment capacity, similar parking management principles may merit consideration; where those conditions are absent, the traditional approach may remain more appropriate.

5.2 THEMES TO GUIDE THE NEXT PHASE OF THE UPDATE
The insights above point to several themes that can help shape future evaluation of parking rate alternatives and potential code language:
 Reduce barriers for tenant changes and adaptive reuse.  Strengthen shared and district-based parking strategies.  Improve consistency between DSP and non-DSP areas when supported by conditions.  Modernize and simplify parking ratios where feasible.  Align requirements with the built-out coastal setting.

These observations provide a starting point for shaping an updated set of parking standards that better match the city’s built-out setting and the needs of local businesses. 56 555555 of 444444444444
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
January 9, 2026 Project# 30640
To: Wendy Jung, Principal Planner
Anthony Viera, Planning Manager
City of Laguna Beach
From: David Laurens
CC: Ashley Brodkin (De Novo), Tim Erney (Kittelson),
RE: Laguna Beach Comprehensive Zoning Code Update –
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand 1 Purpose and Overview
The City of Laguna Beach is evaluating its non-residential parking requirements as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. Many of the existing standards reflect an earlier era of development and may not fully support today’s mix of local businesses, visitor activity, and built-out commercial areas.

Updating these requirements is an opportunity to ensure the parking framework aligns with the City’s current policy goals and the realities of operating in a constrained coastal environment.

This memorandum documents existing parking conditions within key commercial areas within the City of Laguna Beach outside the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) boundary. The analysis provides a comprehensive view of how parking functions across different parts of Laguna Beach and establishes a factual basis for evaluating the City’s current off-street parking standards.

The study focuses on six representative districts that together capture the city’s range of commercial and visitor-serving environments, including coastal corridors, neighborhood-serving centers, and mixed-use clusters. These locations were selected in coordination with the City to reflect typical parking dynamics outside the downtown core, where land use patterns, access characteristics, and turnover rates differ from those within the DSP area.

Findings from this analysis describe how parking supply and demand vary by district, season, and facility type. This information will guide the next phase of work, which will assess how existing standards relate to observed conditions and support the development of a blended parking requirement for non-residential uses citywide.
750 The City Drive, Suite 410
Orange, CA 92868
P 714.468.1997
57 555666 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 2
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
2 Study Area and Parking Districts

2.1 STUDY AREA AND ANALYTICAL DISTRICTS
Parking conditions were evaluated across Laguna Beach’s commercial corridors located outside the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) boundary. These areas encompass the City’s most active neighborhood and visitor-serving destinations along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH or Coast Highway), where parking demand is concentrated and directly supports local businesses, restaurants, and services.

To organize field data collection and summarize results consistently, the study area was divided into six parking districts. Each district represents a continuous segment of Coast Highway frontage and adjacent side streets that share similar land-use and access characteristics. The district framework provides a consistent geography for evaluating parking supply and demand trends across comparable commercial contexts.

The six districts were selected to represent the City’s principal commercial corridors outside the DSP, rather than to capture every non-residential parcel citywide. As such, the findings apply most directly to these representative areas, but also illustrate broader patterns likely shared across other smaller commercial neighborhoods in Laguna Beach. Together, the six parking districts capture the range of commercial environments found outside the Downtown Specific Plan area, from compact, walkable clusters of restaurants and retail to larger sites with off-street facilities that serve both neighborhood and visitor activity. This framework establishes the geographic basis for evaluating parking supply and demand across distinct but comparable commercial settings in Laguna Beach.

Figure 1 illustrates the six parking districts in relation to the City limits and the DSP boundary, and the following sections provide additional details on the districts and their land-uses. 58 555777 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 3
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 1 Study Area and Parking Districts
Source: Kittelson, 2025
59 555888 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 4
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

DISTRICT 1 – VIEJO STREET TO BOAT CANYON DRIVE
Parcels fronting PCH are predominantly retail and commercial service uses, with some retail strip development and a single lodging parcel. Immediately behind the PCH frontage, on both the inland and ocean-side blocks, land uses transition to primarily residential development. Toward the eastern end of the district, approximately two blocks west of the Boat Canyon Shopping Center (anchored by the Pavilions supermarket), several residential parcels front directly onto PCH.

DISTRICT 2 – BOAT CANYON DRIVE TO ASTER STREET
District 2 includes the Boat Canyon Shopping Center, a major retail and parking generator along the Coast Highway corridor. At the western end of the district, immediately east of Boat Canyon Shopping Center, approximately two blocks of parcels fronting PCH is predominantly residential, continuing the residential frontage that begins at the eastern end of District 1. From Myrtle Street, retail and commercial service uses resume along PCH and remain the dominant frontage pattern through the remainder of the district.

As in District 1, land uses behind the PCH frontage are primarily residential, limiting the depth of nonresidential development and concentrating parking demand along the corridor itself.

DISTRICT 3 – LEGION STREET TO THALIA STREET
This district has a higher intensity of commercial and visitor-serving uses, particularly between PCH and Glenneyre Street. Lodging uses are more prevalent than in Districts 1 and 2, including multiple hotel or motel parcels directly fronting PCH. Residential uses remain present but are less dominant along the frontage of Coast Highway, contributing to higher non-residential parking demand relative to northern districts.

DISTRICT 4 – THALIA STREET TO CALLIOPE STREET
Retail and visitor-serving commercial uses line much of the PCH frontage. Residential uses dominate on the ocean-side blocks, while additional commercial and mixed-use parcels are located inland, particularly between PCH and Glenneyre Street. This district contains the highest concentration of hotel and motel parcels, especially along PCH between Mountain Road and Calliope Street.

DISTRICT 5 – AGATE STREET TO MOSS STREET
Land use patterns are similar to District 1, with retail and service uses fronting PCH and predominantly residential uses immediately behind. Commercial activity is present but more neighborhood-serving in nature, with moderate non-residential parking demand relative to Districts 3 and 4.

DISTRICT 6 – TABLE ROCK DRIVE TO 7TH AVENUE
District 6 forms the southernmost segment of the study area. Non-residential uses are present but less intense, consisting mainly of retail stores and commercial services (including small retail centers and limited retail strip development), as well as mixed residential-commercial parcels. The Providence Mission Hospital Laguna Beach is located within the district limits. The district also includes a higher proportion of residential land uses along and immediately adjacent to PCH compared to the preceding districts. 60 555999 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 5
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 1 summarizes the location and general land-use character of each district. Detailed land-use patterns for each district are illustrated in Figure 2 through Figure 7, which include parcel-level land use classifications and block configurations used to support the parking supply and demand analysis.

Table 1 Summary of Parking Districts
District Northbound /
Eastbound
Border
Southbound /
Westbound
Border
Dominant Land Uses and Character
1 Viejo Street Boat Canyon
Drive
Predominantly retail and commercial services fronting
Coast Highway; residential uses immediately inland
and on the ocean side. Residential frontage appears
along the eastern edge, transitioning toward District 2. 2 Boat Canyon
Drive
Aster Street Contains the Pavilions shopping center and other retail and service businesses near Coast Highway.

Residential parcels behind PCH; overall a mix of
neighborhood-serving retail and housing.
3 Legion Street Thalia Street Higher-intensity commercial and visitor-serving area between Coast Highway and Glenneyre Street,
including several hotels and motels. Residential uses
are less dominant along the highway frontage.
4 Thalia Street Calliope Street Concentrated retail, dining, and lodging corridor with the highest number of hotel and motel parcels,
especially between Mountain Road and Calliope
Street. Residential uses predominate behind the
frontage, with additional mixed-use parcels inland.
5 Agate Street Moss Street Retail and service uses along Coast Highway with predominantly residential blocks behind. Commercial
activity is largely neighborhood-serving and smaller in scale relative to Districts 3 and 4.
6 Table Rock Drive 7th Avenue Southernmost district, with less intense retail and mixed residential-commercial parcels. Includes
Providence Mission Hospital Laguna Beach within its
limits. Includes more presence of residential frontage
along the Coast Highway.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
61 666000 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 6
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 2 Land Use - District 1
Source: Kittelson, 2025. Land use data from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 62 6661111 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 7
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 3 Land Use - District 2
Source: Kittelson, 2025. Land use data from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 63 6662222 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 8
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 4 Land Use - District 3
Source: Kittelson, 2025. Land use data from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 64 6663333 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 9
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 5 Land Use - District 4
Source: Kittelson, 2025. Land use data from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 65 6664444 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 10
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 6 Land Use - District 5
Source: Kittelson, 2025. Land use data from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 66 666555 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 11
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 7 Land Use - District 6
Source: Kittelson, 2025. Land use data from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 67 666666 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 12
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

2.2 CITYWIDE PARKING MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
While this study focuses on the six analytical districts developed for evaluating parking supply and demand, the City of Laguna Beach manages its public parking operations citywide through a paid-parking system administered via the Laguna Beach Parking App (powered by FrogParking). This system supports the payment, management, and monitoring of occupancy for all metered on-street spaces and Cityoperated surface lots and structures throughout the city.

The City’s paid-parking areas are organized into operational zones (A1 through H) that define applicable rates, time limits, and enforcement hours. These zones encompass metered spaces along Coast Highway, Glenneyre Street, Cliff Drive, Laguna Canyon Road, and other major corridors, extending beyond the Downtown area to include both North Laguna and South Laguna.

The operational zones are illustrated in Appendix A, which presents maps from the California Coastal Commission Exhibit W13a-7-2020. These maps depict the City’s official paid-parking management areas where payment is required during posted enforcement periods. Table 2 summarizes the metered onstreet parking supply by operational zone, and their overlap with the analytical parking districts defined in the previous section.

Table 2 Metered On-Street Parking Supply by Operational Zone Zone
ID
Parking Zone Name Metered
Spaces
Primary Study District
Overlap*
A1 Cliff Drive / Heisler Park 135 Outside study districts A2 Lower Cliff Drive 209 Outside study districts
B Downtown North 226 Outside study districts
C Downtown South 255 Outside study districts
D South Coast Hwy & Side Streets (South Laguna) 426 Districts 3, 4, 5 DP Laguna Canyon Rd (Dog Park) 30 Outside study districts E Laguna Canyon Rd & Frontage 282 Outside study districts F North Coast Hwy & Side Streets (North Laguna) 238 Districts 1, 2 G Glenneyre Street 136 Outside study districts
H Coast Hwy – Montage Area 99 Outside study districts
Total 2,036
*District 6 lies outside a metered section of Coast Highway.

Source: City of Laguna Beach; Coastal Commission Exhibit W13a-7-2020; Laguna Beach Parking App (FrogParking).

Parking meters and pay stations display the applicable hourly rate and maximum time limit. Most metered spaces have a maximum time limit of approximately three hours, depending on location. Metered parking is generally enforced 8:00 a.m.–9:00 p.m. downtown and 8:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m. outside downtown. Payment 68 666777 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 13
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
may be made at the meter or directly through the Laguna Beach Parking App, which also allows users to extend time remotely where permitted.
3 Parking Supply within the Study Districts
Parking across the six study districts represents a mix of public and private resources that support the visitor-serving and commercial activity characteristic of Laguna Beach outside the downtown area. Each district combines off-street spaces located on private parcels with on-street spaces along Coast Highway and adjacent cross streets. Together, these facilities form the baseline for understanding how parking is used during different seasons and times of day. Appendix B provides six maps illustrating the on-street and off-street parking supply counted within each study district, along with a corresponding table listing the identified off-street parking lots by district.

Figure 8 presents the relative composition of parking supply by district. Each bar represents 100% of the available parking within that district, divided among private off-street, on-street along Coast Highway, and on-street on cross streets. Points plotted on the secondary axis show the total number of spaces in each district.

District 6, located near Providence Mission Hospital, includes approximately 240 parking spaces yearround, expanding to about 350 spaces during the summer season. Under a shared-use agreement between the City and the hospital, 50 spaces are available throughout the year, with an additional 25 spaces provided during summer months and 85 temporary summer-only spaces located along 7th Avenue, on the driveway leading to the Hospital’s parking structure. This seasonal expansion increases parking availability in South Laguna to accommodate higher visitor activity during peak periods.

Figure 8 Parking Supply and Composition by District
*District 6 includes additional spaces available only during the summer under the City’s shared-use agreement with Providence Mission Hospital.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
69 666888 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 14
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Private off-street lots are intended primarily to serve on-site commercial tenants and customer parking, supplementing the public supply available along the corridor. It should be noted that no City-operated off-street parking facilities are located within the six districts; public parking is provided exclusively through on-street spaces along Coast Highway and adjacent cross streets.

Across the six study districts, private off-street parking generally accounts for between 45% and 55% of the total parking supply, indicating a relatively consistent balance between public and private parking spaces along the Coast Highway corridor. District 2 and District 6 (summer) have larger off-street shares, reflecting the presence of sizable commercial sites and, in the case of District 6, seasonal spaces provided through the City’s shared-use arrangement at Providence Mission Hospital.

Districts with higher on-street shares correspond to areas characterized by smaller parcels and a continuous commercial frontage, typical of the older, fine-grained development pattern along Coast Highway. In these settings, public parking operates as shared access for multiple destinations within short walking distances. Conversely, districts with greater off-street proportions tend to offer more consolidated parking within individual sites, resulting in a system that blends site-specific supply with corridor-wide public access.

Overall, the distribution of supply across the districts reveals a corridor that relies on both public and private parking resources functioning together to serve neighborhood and visitor-oriented activity. 4 Observed Demand and Peak Conditions
Parking utilization across the six study districts was observed during both summer and fall periods to represent peak-season and shoulder-season conditions, respectively. The results describe how public and private parking resources were used throughout the day, providing a basis for identifying when and where parking operates near capacity. Occupancy, expressed as the percentage of parking spaces occupied relative to total supply, serves as the primary indicator of demand. This section summarizes observed patterns by time of day, day of the week, and season, highlighting locations that regularly exceed the 85% practical capacity threshold.

4.1 DATA COLLECTION AND MEASURES
Parking occupancy data were collected across the six study districts on four representative dates:

Saturday, August 23, 2025 (summer weekend), Wednesday, August 27, 2025 (summer weekday), Saturday, September 27, 2025 (fall weekend), and Wednesday, October 1, 2025 (fall weekday). Counts were conducted between 12:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. to capture midday and evening activity periods.

The occupancy of the on-street and off-street parking spaces were recorded at hourly intervals during the study period. Observed occupancy was then calculated as the percentage of parking spaces occupied relative to the total supply. The analysis focuses on three key indicators:
◼ Peak occupancy: The highest occupancy observed during the day. ◼ Average occupancy: The mean occupancy across all observed hours. 70 666999 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 15
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ Duration above 85%: The number of hours during which occupancy exceeded the practical capacity threshold, indicating constrained availability.

4.2 OCCUPANCY PATTERNS
Table 3 and Table 4 summarize peak-hour conditions across the six study districts, including peak hour, maximum occupancy, average occupancy, and the number of hours at or above the 85% practical capacity threshold. Hourly occupancy profiles for each district are provided in Appendix C. for the four study periods summarized below.
◼ Summer weekend
On-street parking operated at or near capacity in most districts for extended periods, indicating strong weekend visitor demand concentrated at the curb. Districts 2, 3, and 4 recorded the most sustained constraints, with public on-street maximum occupancies of 98% (District 2), 98% (District 3), and 97% (District 4) and 9 hours at or above 85% in each district.

District 3 also showed the highest overall intensity, averaging 96% on-street occupancy across the day. District 5 reached 98% (average 88%) with 7 hours at or above 85%, and District 6 reached 93% (average 87%) with 7 hours at or above 85%. Private off-street facilities generally remained below capacity (peak occupancies typically 48% to 58%), with the notable exception of District 3, where private off-street peaked at 96% (average 80%) and recorded 3 hours at or above 85%. ◼ Summer weekday
On-street occupancies were generally moderate and stable, with most districts operating below practical capacity throughout the count window. The highest weekday constraint occurred in District 3, where public on-street reached a 90% maximum (average 82%) with 4 hours at or above 85%, and the district total reached a maximum of 86% (2 hours at or above 85%).

Other districts remained below 85% for public on-street parking (maximums ranging from 48% to 86%, with only District 4 reaching 86% for 1 hour). Private off-street peak occupancies were typically moderate (generally 41% to 63%), except District 3, which peaked at 82%. ◼ Fall weekend
Weekend activity remained higher than weekdays in several districts, but overall on-street occupancy levels were generally lower than summer weekend conditions. Curb constraints persisted primarily in the central districts, including District 3 (public on-street maximum 98%, average 92%, 9 hours at or above 85%), District 4 (maximum 94%, average 86%, 6 hours at or above 85%), and District 2 (maximum 90%, average 80%, 4 hours at or above 85%).

Districts 1, 5, and 6 did not reach practical capacity on-street during the fall weekend period (public on-street maximums of 35%, 75%, and 66%, respectively). Private off-street parking remained below capacity in all districts (maximums ranging from 32% to 72%) with zero hours at or above 85%. 71 777000 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 16
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ Fall weekday
Weekday conditions remained balanced across districts, with fewer peak-period constraints than observed on weekends. Public on-street maximum occupancies ranged from 46% to 86%, with District 3 again representing the highest weekday use (maximum 86%, average 73%, with 1 hour at or above 85%).

Other districts remained below 85% for public on-street parking throughout the day. Private offstreet peak occupancies were moderate across districts (generally 45% to 63%), with District 3 peaking higher at 73%.

Across all four study periods, public on-street parking consistently operated closer to capacity than private off-street facilities, particularly during weekend conditions. Lot-level results for private off-street facilities are provided in Appendix D, which shows that while a small number of lots approach capacity during peak summer periods, most private facilities maintain available capacity across the day. 72 7771111 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 17
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 3 Weekend Parking Operation
District Type
Summer Fall
Peak
Hour
Max.

Occup. %
Average
Occup. %
Hours
above 85%
Peak
Hour
Max.

Occup. %
Average
Occup. %
Hours
above 85%
District 1 Private Off-Street 12:00 PM 54% 44% 0 1:00 PM 42% 32% 0 Public On-Street 2:00 PM 98% 75% 4 3:00 PM 35% 27% 0
District 1 Total 2:00 PM 75% 61% 0 1:00 PM 36% 29% 0
District 2 Private Off-Street 12:00 PM 49% 43% 0 12:00 PM 45% 38% 0 Public On-Street 7:00 PM 98% 94% 9 3:00 PM 90% 80% 4
District 2 Total 12:00 PM 62% 59% 0 4:00 PM 58% 51% 0
District 3 Private Off-Street 7:00 PM 96% 80% 3 2:00 PM 72% 65% 0 Public On-Street 4:00 PM 98% 96% 9 2:00 PM 98% 92% 9
District 3 Total 7:00 PM 96% 89% 8 2:00 PM 85% 79% 1
District 4 Private Off-Street 2:00 PM 51% 45% 0 1:00 PM 50% 44% 0 Public On-Street 7:00 PM 97% 92% 9 1:00 PM 94% 86% 6
District 4 Total 1:00 PM 72% 68% 0 1:00 PM 71% 64% 0
District 5 Private Off-Street 8:00 PM 48% 38% 0 7:00 PM 43% 34% 0 Public On-Street 2:00 PM 98% 88% 7 6:00 PM 75% 67% 0
District 5 Total 5:00 PM 68% 64% 0 6:00 PM 57% 51% 0
District 6 Private Off-Street 4:00 PM 58% 46% 0 2:00 PM 32% 25% 0 Public On-Street 4:00 PM 93% 87% 7 2:00 PM 66% 57% 0
District 6 Total 4:00 PM 66% 56% 0 2:00 PM 44% 36% 0
Source: Kittelson, 2025
73 7772222 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 18
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 4 Weekday Parking Operation
District Type
Summer Fall
Peak
Hour
Max.

Occup. %
Average
Occup. %
Hours
above 85%
Peak
Hour
Max.

Occup. %
Average
Occup. %
Hours
above 85%
District 1 Private Off-Street 1:00 PM 56% 43% 0 12:00 PM 52% 38% 0 Public On-Street 1:00 PM 48% 37% 0 1:00 PM 46% 30% 0
District 1 Total 1:00 PM 51% 39% 0 12:00 PM 48% 34% 0
District 2 Private Off-Street 12:00 PM 54% 38% 0 12:00 PM 54% 38% 0 Public On-Street 12:00 PM 58% 54% 0 7:00 PM 59% 50% 0
District 2 Total 12:00 PM 55% 43% 0 12:00 PM 51% 42% 0
District 3 Private Off-Street 12:00 PM 82% 69% 0 2:00 PM 73% 62% 0 Public On-Street 1:00 PM 90% 82% 4 6:00 PM 86% 73% 1
District 3 Total 1:00 PM 86% 75% 2 5:00 PM 73% 67% 0
District 4 Private Off-Street 12:00 PM 63% 47% 0 1:00 PM 63% 46% 0 Public On-Street 1:00 PM 86% 71% 1 1:00 PM 68% 58% 0
District 4 Total 1:00 PM 73% 58% 0 1:00 PM 66% 52% 0
District 5 Private Off-Street 8:00 PM 41% 37% 0 5:00 PM 45% 37% 0 Public On-Street 3:00 PM 78% 72% 0 1:00 PM 68% 64% 0
District 5 Total 5:00 PM 59% 56% 0 5:00 PM 57% 51% 0
District 6 Private Off-Street 2:00 PM 51% 33% 0 1:00 PM 45% 37% 0 Public On-Street 2:00 PM 79% 67% 0 6:00 PM 57% 46% 0
District 6 Total 2:00 PM 58% 41% 0 1:00 PM 46% 40% 0
Source: Kittelson, 2025
74 7773333 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 19
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

4.3 SEASONAL AND DAY OF THE WEEK DIFFERENCES
Parking patterns varied by both season and day of the week, with Coast Highway consistently serving as the most constrained corridor. The “Weekend Max Occupancy” and “Weekday Max Occupancy” tables (Table 5 and Table 6) provide a detailed comparison between parking along Coast Highway, on adjacent crossing streets, and within private off-street lots.

During the summer weekend, on-street parking spaces along Coast Highway operated at or near full capacity in almost every district, with several locations exceeding 95% occupancy. Crossing streets also experienced high use, generally similar to Coast Highway, suggesting that both types of curb parking function as a unified supply during peak visitor periods. In contrast, private off-street parking remained well below capacity in most districts, generally between 45% and 70%, even when nearby on-street parking spaces were full.

Fall conditions demonstrated a pronounced seasonal drop along Coast Highway, where occupancies declined by 20% to 70% in several districts compared to summer conditions. Crossing streets showed smaller reductions, indicating steadier, locally driven activity. Off-street lots continued to operate below 70% occupancy.

On weekdays, parking demand was more evenly distributed and rarely reached capacity. District 3 continued to have the highest utilization, with both Coast Highway and crossing streets exceeding 85% occupancy in summer, while most other districts operated between 50% and 70%.

These results confirm that Coast Highway parking serves as the primary access point for short-term visitor trips, while crossing streets and private off-street lots provide secondary capacity. 75 7774444 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 20
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 5 Weekend Maximum Observed Occupancies
District
Summer Fall
Peak Hour
Private OffStreet
Public OnStreet
(Along PCH)
Public OnStreet
(Crossing St)
Peak Hour
Private OffStreet
Public OnStreet
(Along PCH)
Public OnStreet
(Crossing St)
District 1 2:00 PM 46% 97% 100% 1:00 PM 42% 24% 54%
District 2 12:00 PM 49% 96% 80% 4:00 PM 44% 89% 86%
District 3 7:00 PM 96% 96% 97% 2:00 PM 72% 96% 100%
District 4 1:00 PM 51% 98% 92% 1:00 PM 50% 96% 90%
District 5 5:00 PM 40% 91% 94% 6:00 PM 38% 73% 77%
District 6 4:00 PM 58% 93% 2:00 PM 32% 66%
Source: Kittelson, 2025
Table 6 Weekday Maximum Observed Occupancies
District
Summer Fall
Peak Hour Private OffStreet
Public OnStreet
(Along PCH)
Peak Hour Private OffStreet
Private OffStreet
Public OnStreet
(Along PCH)
Public OnStreet
(Crossing St)
District 1 1:00 PM 56% 40% 71% 12:00 PM 52% 36% 71%
District 2 12:00 PM 54% 62% 53% 12:00 PM 54% 52% 39%
District 3 1:00 PM 81% 91% 89% 5:00 PM 68% 80% 76%
District 4 1:00 PM 60% 85% 88% 1:00 PM 63% 61% 76%
District 5 5:00 PM 37% 73% 85% 5:00 PM 45% 66% 69%
District 6 2:00 PM 51% 79% 1:00 PM 45% 49%
Source: Kittelson, 2025
76 777555 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 21
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

4.4 SEASONAL AND DAY OF THE WEEK VARIATION1

PATTERNS
Table 7 and Table 8 summarize percent variation in maximum occupancy across the four observed conditions (summer weekday, summer weekend, fall weekday, fall weekend). Day-of-week variation compares weekend to weekday within the same season (Table 7); seasonality variation compares summer to fall for the same day type (Table 8). Together, these comparisons illustrate how peak-period parking conditions shift by time of year and day type across public on-street (PCH and crossing streets) and private off-street facilities.

DAY-OF-WEEK VARIATION (WEEKEND VS WEEKDAY)
◼ Summer:
– Weekend-to-weekday differences in summer are concentrated on public on-street parking, especially along PCH (ranging from +4% to +58%, with the highest percentage in District 1 at +58% and District 2 at +35%). Crossing streets also increase, but typically at a lower level (up to +29%).
– Private off-street shows a weekend decrease in several districts (District 1 at –10%, District 2 at – 5%, District 4 at –9%), suggesting that peak summer weekend demand shifts toward the curb rather than uniformly increasing across all facility types. ◼ Fall
– Fall weekend-to-weekday variation remains present but becomes more mixed by district and facility type. District 1 is the notable exception, showing lower weekend peak occupancy across all facility types (private off-street –10%, PCH on-street –12%, crossing streets –18%). – In several districts, crossing-street on-street variation equals or exceeds PCH variation (for example, District 2: crossing +47% vs PCH +37%; District 3: crossing +24% vs PCH +15%), indicating localized weekend sensitivity on side streets outside the summer peak season.

SEASONALITY VARIATION (SUMMER VS FALL)
◼ Weekend:
– Seasonal differences are highest on public on-street along PCH, indicating that summer weekends generate higher peak curb demand than fall weekends in most districts. The largest increase occurs in District 1 (+73%), followed by District 6 (+27%) and District 5 (+18%). – Cross-street on-street changes are generally smaller, but remain notable in District 1 (+46%) and District 5 (+17%). Two districts show negative cross-street variation on weekends (District 2 at – 6% and District 3 at –3%), indicating higher fall weekend peak use on crossing streets in those locations.
– Private off-street variation is generally positive but modest on weekends (about +1% to +27%), indicating limited seasonal swing relative to the curb. 1 Percent variation reflects the difference in maximum occupancy between paired periods. 77 777666 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 22
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ Weekday
– Weekday seasonal variation is generally more moderate than weekends. Along PCH, districts range from +4% to +30% (highest in District 6 at +30% and District 4 at +24%). – Private off-street weekday variation is small and mixed, with negative values in District 4 (–4%) and District 5 (–9%), indicating slightly higher fall weekday peak use in those locations.

These findings underscore that observed peak demand is not uniform across periods, and that future parking standards should consider both seasonality and day-of-week effects when relating measured maximum occupancy to practical capacity thresholds.
78 777777 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 23
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 7 Day of Week Variation in Maximum Occupancy (Summer and Fall) District
Summer – Weekend vs Weekday Variation Fall – Weekend vs Weekday Variation Private OffStreet
Public OnStreet
(Along PCH)
Public OnStreet
(Crossing St)
Private OffStreet
Public OnStreet
(Along PCH)
Public OnStreet
(Crossing St)
District 1 -10% 58% 29% -10% -12% -18%
District 2 -5% 35% 27% -10% 37% 47%
District 3 15% 4% 8% 4% 15% 24%
District 4 -9% 12% 4% -13% 35% 14%
District 5 3% 18% 9% -8% 8% 8%
District 6 7% 13% 6% 30%
Source: Kittelson, 2025
Table 8 Seasonality Variation in Maximum Occupancy (Weekend and Weekday) District
Weekend – Summer vs Fall Variation Weekday – Summer vs Fall Variation Private OffStreet
Public OnStreet
(Along PCH)
Public OnStreet
(Crossing St)
Private OffStreet
Public OnStreet
(Along PCH)
Public OnStreet
(Crossing St)
District 1 4% 73% 46% 4% 4% 0%
District 2 5% 7% -6% 0% 10% 14%
District 3 24% 0% -3% 14% 11% 13%
District 4 1% 1% 1% -4% 24% 11%
District 5 2% 18% 17% -9% 8% 15%
District 6 27% 27% 6% 30%
Source: Kittelson, 2025
79 777888 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 24
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

4.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Observed parking patterns across the Coast Highway corridor are shaped by a mix of visitor-oriented demand along the highway and locally driven use within adjacent neighborhoods. Across all six districts, occupancy results highlight how parking functions collectively rather than as separate facilities, with onstreet, cross-street, and private off-street spaces responding differently to seasonal, day of the week, and hourly activity cycles. Key findings from the analysis are summarized below. ◼ Coast Highway as the most utilized parking area
On-street spaces along Coast Highway and the adjacent crossing streets reach similarly high occupancies during the summer, often operating near or at capacity during weekend afternoons.

Both serve as the main curb parking supply for visitor and customer activity within the corridor.

The key difference is seasonal variability. Coast Highway shows the largest swings in occupancy between summer and fall, reflecting its sensitivity to visitor activity and the concentration of commercial frontages along the corridor. Crossing streets, while heavily used during the summer, maintain steadier conditions through the rest of the year. ◼ Crossing streets as secondary but connected supply:

Parking on crossing streets mirrors the behavior of Coast Highway, often approaching capacity in the same districts during summer weekends. These streets act as complementary supply when Coast Highway parking spaces are full, particularly in Districts 2, 3, and 4. In other districts, the cross streets maintain moderate use consistent with smaller commercial areas and lower visitor intensity. Their more consistent occupancy through the year suggests a stronger base of local and recurring demand.
◼ Private off-street lots as stable, underused capacity:

Off-street facilities maintain steady occupancy levels, typically below 70%, regardless of season or day of the week. This consistency indicates use by regular employees or tenants rather than shortterm visitors. The data show that parking constraints within the corridor arise from how spaces are distributed and accessed, not from a lack of total supply. ◼ Seasonal concentration of demand:

Summer weekends produce the most constrained conditions, with several districts recording multiple hours above the 85% practical capacity threshold. Fall and weekday conditions are more balanced, illustrating how seasonal visitor activity drives the intensity of demand along the corridor. ◼ Sequential demand pattern along the corridor:

As visitor activity increases, parking demand first fills Coast Highway, then extends into crossing streets, while off-street facilities retain available capacity. This progression reflects how user preferences and visibility influence where drivers choose to park.

Overall supply is sufficient, yet use remains uneven across space and time. The observed demand patterns establish a clear baseline for understanding how and when parking operates near capacity and form the foundation for evaluating future management strategies. 80 777999 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 25
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
5 Key Observations Relevant to Parking Standards
This section builds on the results to identify the key observations most relevant to the City’s parking standards. This interpretation connects observed conditions to how current requirements perform in practice and establishes the analytical basis for subsequent phases of the study.

5.1 CONSISTENCY ACROSS COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
Observed parking patterns across the six study districts show a high degree of similarity in how on-street and off-street resources function, but with notable differences in intensity that reflect each district’s land use mix and visitor orientation. In general, the corridor operates as a unified parking system rather than as isolated areas with distinct behaviors.

Districts 2, 3, and 4, those with the greatest concentration of visitor-serving and commercial activity, consistently record the highest occupancies and the longest durations above 85%, particularly during summer weekends. Districts 1, 5, and 6 experience shorter or less pronounced peaks, consistent with smaller commercial clusters and more localized demand. Despite these variations in scale, the timing and sequence of demand are relatively consistent across districts. Occupancy generally builds through the early afternoon, reaches its highest levels between 1:00 PM and 3:00 PM, and then declines into the late afternoon and evening as activity tapers off.

Private off-street lots in all districts exhibit similar usage patterns, remaining below practical capacity even when nearby curb spaces are full. This uniformity suggests that while overall demand levels differ, the relationship between public and private parking is consistent along the corridor.

5.2 CONCENTRATION OF PEAK DEMAND
Parking constraints along the Coast Highway corridor are not uniform but occur in locations and periods tied to visitor activity. The most constrained conditions are concentrated within Districts 2, 3, and 4, where a continuous mix of retail, dining, and recreational destinations generates sustained curb parking pressure. During summer weekends, these districts routinely reach or exceed the 85% practical capacity threshold for several consecutive hours, particularly along Coast Highway and nearby crossing streets.

In contrast, outer districts experience more moderate peaks that are shorter in duration. In particular, Districts 1 and 6 show limited periods of high occupancy associated with specific destinations, while District 5 maintains consistent availability throughout the day. These patterns indicate that corridor-wide congestion is not systemic but localized to high-intensity activity centers.

Temporal differences also shape the extent of constraint. Summer weekends produce the broadest spread of high occupancy across multiple districts, while weekday and fall conditions remain more balanced. Even under peak summer demand, off-street facilities retain available capacity, confirming that observed constraints reflect distribution and user preference rather than an absolute shortage of supply. 81 888000 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 26
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

5.3 ROLE OF PRIVATE OFF-STREET PARKING
Private off-street parking facilities are slightly over half of the total parking supply along the Coast Highway corridor, representing about 56% of available spaces during non-summer periods and nearly 59% when seasonal spaces in District 6 are included. This proportion underscores the significant capacity provided by privately controlled lots across the six districts. However, observed use of these facilities is consistently below the practical capacity threshold, even during the highest-demand periods.

Across all districts, private off-street occupancies typically range between 40 and 70% at peak, with most locations averaging closer to 50% throughout the day. These differences align with observed patterns showing that private lots maintain steady use across all observation periods, while curb spaces fluctuate strongly with visitor activity. This stability indicates that most private facilities serve regular employees, tenants, or on-site customers, while on-street spaces accommodate higher-turnover, short-term demand from visitors, or visitors that are visiting multiple uses.

The contrast is especially visible in Districts 2, 3, and 4, where Coast Highway and crossing streets frequently operate at or near capacity while adjacent private lots remain partially vacant. This imbalance suggests that the corridor’s peak-period conditions are more a matter of accessibility and user preference than of overall supply shortage. Visibility, convenience, and cost all favor curbside parking, while private facilities often appear less accessible to casual visitors due to signage, physical barriers, or perceived restrictions.

From a system-wide perspective, private off-street facilities act as a substantial but underused reserve of capacity. Their consistent occupancy across both seasons and days of the week also indicates a stable base of recurring, non-seasonal demand. This stability supports the interpretation that most private lots operate as site-specific resources serving predictable users, rather than as shared assets that flex with visitor peaks. As a result, the total parking system functions below its effective capacity, with excess supply located in spaces that are not easily available to the public.

5.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR STANDARDS REVIEW
The parking conditions documented in this assessment will form the technical basis for the next phase of work, which will calculate a blended parking requirement for non-residential uses. The data collected across the six districts show how parking supply and demand interact during different seasons and days of the week, providing the empirical foundation for determining how much of the existing parking supply is actively used.

Overall, the observed results indicate that total parking supply is sufficient but not evenly used. On-street spaces along Coast Highway and nearby cross streets operate near or above capacity during summer weekends, while private off-street facilities maintain available spaces throughout most observation periods.

Building on these results, the next phase of the study (Task 1.3: Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses) will integrate the observed occupancy data with parcel-level landuse information to calculate built and actual parking ratios for each district. Comparing these ratios will 82 8881111 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 27
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
clarify how provided parking aligns with actual demand and will guide the development of a blended parking rate that represents typical non-residential demand outside the Downtown Specific Plan area.

Establishing this quantitative link between observed performance and built supply will ensure that future standards are grounded in actual parking behavior rather than theoretical estimates. 83 8882222 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 28
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Paid-Parking Management Areas Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Paid-Parking Management Areas
Appendix A
84 8883333 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 29
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Paid-Parking Management Areas Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: California Coastal Commission, CDP No. A-5-LGB-20-0001 – Exhibits 85 8884444 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 30
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Paid-Parking Management Areas Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: California Coastal Commission, CDP No. A-5-LGB-20-0001 – Exhibits 86 888555 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 31
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Paid-Parking Management Areas Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: California Coastal Commission, CDP No. A-5-LGB-20-0001 – Exhibits 87 888666 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 32
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply by Study District Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

On-Street and Off-Street Parking
Supply by Study District
Appendix B
88 888777 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 33
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply by Study District Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
89 888888 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 34
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply by Study District Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
90 888999 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 35
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply by Study District Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
91 999000 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 36
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply by Study District Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
92 9991111 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 37
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply by Study District Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
93 9992222 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 38
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply by Study District Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
94 9993333 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 39
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply by Study District Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Private Off-Street Parking Lot in Parking Districts
District ID Business Name
1 1.1 Mandaring King - First floor of the building with entrance on Chiquita street
1 1.2 Catch Surf
1 1.3 Commercial Area (Boat Canyon Barbershop)
1 1.4 Coast Pet Supplies
1 1.5 Husky Boy Burgers
1 1.6 Commercial Area (Blk Dot Coffee, UPS)
1 1.7 Stop-N-Go
2 2.1 Boat Canyon Shopping Center (Pavilions)
2 2.2 Commercial Area (WillBo, Cox, …)
3 3.1 CA Surf N Paddle & The Taco Stand
3 3.2 Ralphs
4 4.1 Adolfo's Mexican Food
4 4.2 Active Culture
4 4.3 The Art of Fitness
4 4.4 Twig
4 4.5 Village Faire Shoppes
4 4.6 Jack In the Box
4 4.7 Commercial Area (Vogue Salon, Old Pottery place, …) 4 4.8 Jersey’s Mike
4 4.9 Commercial Area (Bear Coast Coffee)
4 4.10 Commercial Area (The Colonnade)
4 4.11 The Hobbit Center
4 4.12 SPF Addict
5 5.1 Commercial Area (Thai Body Works)
5 5.2 Saigon Beach
5 5.3 Commercial Area (Mozambique)
5 5.4 Commercial Area (DaRocha Fitness Gym)
5 5.5 Browne's Florist & Flower Delivery
5 5.6 Commercial Area (Wine Gallery, Serandi Saon, Spa Josephine…) 95 9994444 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 40
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply by Study District Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

District ID Business Name
6 6.1 Neapolitan Pizzeria + Birreria
6 6.2 Ron Pickett Coldwell Banker REALTOR
6 6.3 Coyote Grill
6 6.4 Commercial area (Papa's Tacos)
6 6.5 Commercial Area (Aroma Head Spa & Massage)
6 6.6 The English Garden
6 6.7 Lower lot entrance to the hospital
6 6.8 7th Avenue Along Driveway to Parking Structure
Source: Kittelson, 2025
96 999555 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 41
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Hourly Parking Occupancy by District,
Season, and Day of the Week
Appendix C
97 999666 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 42
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 1
Season:

Summer
Day:

Saturday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 78 74% 94% 97% 92% 87% 69% 51% 47% 24%
Crossing St. 28 100% 100% 100% 93% 100% 82% 75% 71% 36% Total On-Street 106 81% 95% 98% 92% 91% 73% 58% 54% 27% Off-Street 81 54% 41% 46% 42% 49% 51% 48% 38% 28%
Total Parking 187 70% 72% 75% 71% 73% 63% 53% 47% 28%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 98 999777 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 43
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 1
Season:

Summer
Day:

Wednesday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 78 40% 40% 41% 36% 33% 29% 23% 15% 6%
Crossing St. 28 57% 71% 68% 64% 54% 50% 43% 50% 32%
Total On-Street 106 44% 48% 48% 43% 39% 35% 28% 25% 13% Off-Street 81 41% 56% 49% 51% 47% 43% 43% 32% 25%
Total Parking 187 43% 51% 49% 47% 42% 39% 35% 28% 18%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 99 999888 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 44
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 1
Season:

Fall
Day:

Saturday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 78 27% 24% 28% 32% 27% 17% 15% 10% 8%
Crossing St. 28 36% 54% 50% 43% 50% 43% 46% 39% 36%
Total On-Street 106 29% 32% 34% 35% 33% 24% 24% 18% 15% Off-Street 81 36% 42% 35% 32% 27% 36% 27% 25% 20%
Total Parking 187 32% 36% 34% 34% 30% 29% 25% 21% 17%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 100
999999 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 45
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 1
Season:

Fall
Day:

Wednesday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 78 36% 36% 31% 26% 22% 23% 21% 10% 9%
Crossing St. 28 71% 75% 57% 57% 43% 39% 46% 21% 18%
Total On-Street 106 45% 46% 38% 34% 27% 27% 27% 13% 11% Off-Street 81 52% 38% 44% 48% 40% 37% 36% 23% 20%
Total Parking 187 48% 43% 41% 40% 33% 32% 31% 18% 15%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 101
1111000000 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 46
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 2
Season:

Summer
Day:

Saturday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 81 96% 96% 96% 96% 95% 95% 100% 100% 100%
Crossing St. 51 80% 88% 90% 88% 90% 88% 90% 94% 86%
Total On-Street 132 90% 93% 94% 93% 93% 92% 96% 98% 95% Off-Street 280 49% 44% 45% 44% 44% 39% 43% 37% 35%
Total Parking 412 62% 60% 61% 59% 59% 56% 60% 57% 54%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 102
11110001111 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 47
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 2
Season:

Summer
Day:

Wednesday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 81 62% 58% 58% 53% 42% 44% 51% 48% 54%
Crossing St. 51 53% 49% 59% 59% 57% 53% 53% 67% 57%
Total On-Street 132 58% 55% 58% 55% 48% 48% 52% 55% 55% Off-Street 280 54% 50% 39% 41% 35% 37% 32% 24% 25%
Total Parking 412 55% 51% 45% 46% 39% 40% 38% 34% 35%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 103
11110002222 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 48
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 2
Season:

Fall
Day:

Saturday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 81 67% 81% 93% 95% 89% 90% 90% 74% 46%
Crossing St. 51 69% 80% 78% 82% 86% 73% 80% 75% 67%
Total On-Street 132 67% 81% 87% 90% 88% 83% 86% 74% 54% Off-Street 280 45% 40% 40% 38% 44% 41% 35% 31% 21%
Total Parking 412 52% 53% 55% 54% 58% 55% 51% 45% 31%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 104
11110003333 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 49
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 2
Season:

Fall
Day:

Wednesday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 81 52% 49% 57% 44% 32% 47% 49% 53% 38%
Crossing St. 51 39% 55% 45% 57% 57% 61% 63% 69% 47%
Total On-Street 132 47% 52% 52% 49% 42% 52% 55% 59% 42% Off-Street 280 54% 48% 40% 36% 37% 36% 41% 28% 21%
Total Parking 412 51% 49% 44% 40% 39% 42% 45% 38% 28%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 105
11110004444 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 50
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 3
Season:

Summer
Day:

Saturday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 46 98% 93% 96% 98% 98% 100% 98% 96% 96%
Crossing St. 38 89% 97% 97% 95% 97% 95% 97% 97% 95%
Total On-Street 84 94% 95% 96% 96% 98% 98% 98% 96% 95%
Off-Street 74 74% 86% 92% 76% 70% 70% 78% 96% 70%
Total Parking 158 85% 91% 94% 87% 85% 85% 89% 96% 84%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 106
1111000555 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 51
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 3
Season:

Summer
Day:

Wednesday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 46 91% 91% 87% 74% 70% 65% 67% 80% 89%
Crossing St. 38 82% 89% 89% 82% 79% 71% 84% 87% 84%
Total On-Street 84 87% 90% 88% 77% 74% 68% 75% 83% 87%
Off-Street 74 82% 81% 74% 59% 61% 62% 65% 64% 61%
Total Parking 158 85% 86% 82% 69% 68% 65% 70% 74% 75%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 107
1111000666 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 52
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 3
Season:

Fall
Day:

Saturday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 46 89% 96% 96% 91% 91% 91% 91% 96% 91%
Crossing St. 38 79% 92% 100% 100% 95% 87% 89% 82% 89%
Total On-Street 84 85% 94% 98% 95% 93% 89% 90% 89% 90%
Off-Street 74 64% 70% 72% 65% 70% 66% 58% 58% 51%
Total Parking 158 75% 83% 85% 81% 82% 78% 75% 75% 72%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 108
1111000777 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 53
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 3
Season:

Fall
Day:

Wednesday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 46 63% 74% 78% 72% 67% 80% 93% 80% 59%
Crossing St. 38 74% 66% 58% 63% 63% 76% 76% 66% 74%
Total On-Street 84 68% 70% 69% 68% 65% 79% 86% 74% 65%
Off-Street 74 72% 59% 73% 70% 66% 68% 53% 41% 47%
Total Parking 158 70% 65% 71% 69% 66% 73% 70% 58% 57%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 109
1111000888 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 54
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 4
Season:

Summer
Day:

Saturday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 82 89% 98% 91% 96% 94% 89% 98% 98% 87%
Crossing St. 72 90% 92% 92% 94% 93% 85% 90% 96% 85%
Total On-Street 154 90% 95% 92% 95% 94% 87% 94% 97% 86% Off-Street 167 35% 51% 51% 47% 46% 46% 45% 43% 37%
Total Parking 321 61% 72% 71% 70% 69% 66% 69% 69% 60%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 110
1111000999 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 55
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 4
Season:

Summer
Day:

Wednesday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 82 74% 85% 76% 71% 60% 65% 50% 57% 55%
Crossing St. 72 82% 88% 65% 82% 75% 75% 74% 68% 78%
Total On-Street 154 78% 86% 71% 76% 67% 69% 61% 62% 66% Off-Street 167 63% 60% 60% 52% 44% 37% 39% 38% 28%
Total Parking 321 70% 73% 65% 64% 55% 52% 50% 50% 46%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 111
11111111000 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 56
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 4
Season:

Fall
Day:

Saturday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 82 95% 96% 89% 90% 84% 83% 89% 80% 73%
Crossing St. 72 90% 90% 92% 92% 88% 83% 85% 74% 64%
Total On-Street 154 93% 94% 90% 91% 86% 83% 87% 77% 69% Off-Street 167 48% 50% 48% 44% 36% 45% 47% 40% 33%
Total Parking 321 69% 71% 68% 66% 60% 63% 66% 58% 50%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 112
111111111111 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 57
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 4
Season:

Fall
Day:

Wednesday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 82 62% 61% 52% 35% 37% 46% 52% 63% 41%
Crossing St. 72 69% 76% 71% 63% 67% 60% 64% 71% 61%
Total On-Street 154 66% 68% 61% 48% 51% 53% 58% 67% 51% Off-Street 167 58% 63% 57% 47% 49% 44% 39% 30% 25%
Total Parking 321 62% 66% 59% 47% 50% 48% 48% 48% 37%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 113
111111112222 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 58
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 5
Season:

Summer
Day:

Saturday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 79 65% 90% 100% 97% 96% 91% 90% 87% 66%
Crossing St. 65 86% 94% 95% 95% 88% 94% 91% 91% 71%
Total On-Street 144 74% 92% 98% 97% 92% 92% 90% 89% 68% Off-Street 128 26% 31% 31% 33% 37% 40% 42% 44% 48%
Total Parking 272 51% 63% 67% 67% 66% 68% 68% 68% 59%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 114
111111113333 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 59
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 5
Season:

Summer
Day:

Wednesday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 79 59% 72% 76% 78% 70% 73% 70% 75% 59%
Crossing St. 65 69% 71% 77% 78% 74% 85% 71% 75% 58%
Total On-Street 144 64% 72% 76% 78% 72% 78% 70% 75% 59% Off-Street 128 30% 36% 36% 34% 36% 37% 40% 40% 41%
Total Parking 272 48% 55% 57% 58% 55% 59% 56% 58% 51%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 115
111111114444 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 60
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 5
Season:

Fall
Day:

Saturday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 79 57% 57% 65% 61% 63% 65% 73% 66% 61%
Crossing St. 65 74% 75% 75% 68% 77% 77% 77% 66% 62%
Total On-Street 144 65% 65% 69% 64% 69% 70% 75% 66% 61% Off-Street 128 28% 27% 29% 28% 31% 34% 38% 43% 38%
Total Parking 272 47% 47% 50% 47% 51% 53% 57% 55% 50%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 116
11111111555 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 61
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 5
Season:

Fall
Day:

Wednesday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 79 44% 57% 56% 63% 61% 66% 52% 58% 61%
Crossing St. 65 71% 82% 78% 66% 72% 69% 77% 68% 57%
Total On-Street 144 56% 68% 66% 65% 66% 67% 63% 63% 59% Off-Street 128 35% 27% 31% 32% 39% 45% 45% 40% 35%
Total Parking 272 46% 49% 50% 49% 53% 57% 54% 52% 48%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Crossing St. Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 117
11111111666 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 62
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 6
Season:

Summer
Day:

Saturday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 82 87% 87% 89% 90% 93% 87% 85% 79% 76%
Total On-Street 82 87% 87% 89% 90% 93% 87% 85% 79% 76%
Off-Street 267 37% 44% 53% 53% 58% 56% 45% 40% 29%
Total Parking 349 49% 54% 62% 62% 66% 63% 55% 49% 40%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 118
11111111777 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 63
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 6
Season:

Summer
Day:

Wednesday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 82 70% 74% 79% 63% 67% 66% 62% 65% 57%
Total On-Street 82 70% 74% 79% 63% 67% 66% 62% 65% 57%
Off-Street 267 39% 41% 51% 44% 36% 27% 21% 19% 16%
Total Parking 349 46% 49% 58% 49% 43% 36% 30% 30% 26%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 119
11111111888 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 64
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 6
Season:

Fall
Day:

Saturday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 82 56% 55% 66% 59% 54% 54% 61% 62% 48%
Total On-Street 82 56% 55% 66% 59% 54% 54% 61% 62% 48%
Off-Street 157 27% 22% 32% 25% 24% 24% 27% 25% 20%
Total Parking 239 37% 33% 44% 37% 34% 34% 39% 38% 29%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 120
11111111999 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 65
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Hourly Parking Occupancy by District, Season, and Day of the Week Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: Kittelson, 2025
District 6
Season:

Fall
Day:

Wednesday
Inventory 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Along PCH 82 51% 49% 48% 34% 37% 41% 57% 51% 48%
Total On-Street 82 51% 49% 48% 34% 37% 41% 57% 51% 48%
Off-Street 157 43% 45% 39% 41% 42% 34% 28% 29% 26%
Total Parking 239 46% 46% 42% 39% 40% 37% 38% 36% 33%
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Occupancy
Along PCH Off-Street Total Parking 85% (Practical capacity) 121
11112222000 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 66
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Seasonal Occupancy by Private Off-Street Lot Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Seasonal Occupancy by Private OffStreet Lot
Appendix D
122
111122221111 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 67
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Seasonal Occupancy by Private Off-Street Lot Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Private Off-Street Parking Lot Occupancy Summary
Private
Off-Street
Parking
Lot
Summer Fall
Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekday
Max
Occup. %
Avg.

Occup. %
Max
Occup. %
Avg.

Occup. %
Max
Occup. %
Avg.

Occup. %
Max
Occup. %
Avg.

Occup. %
Lot 1.1 91% 75% 91% 63% 73% 56% 73% 58%
Lot 1.2 40% 14% 20% 9% 20% 10% 30% 14%
Lot 1.3 20% 13% 90% 59% 10% 4% 90% 50%
Lot 1.4 46% 25% 38% 14% 31% 12% 23% 9%
Lot 1.5 94% 59% 69% 47% 69% 31% 56% 30%
Lot 1.6 100% 71% 86% 62% 93% 62% 86% 67%
Lot 1.7 71% 32% 100% 44% 57% 33% 86% 32%
Lot 2.1 51% 37% 56% 38% 49% 36% 55% 39%
Lot 2.2 100% 81% 44% 31% 75% 45% 44% 32%
Lot 3.1 100% 87% 100% 80% 95% 79% 79% 64%
Lot 3.2 95% 77% 85% 63% 76% 59% 75% 60%
Lot 4.1 91% 63% 100% 35% 82% 47% 82% 38%
Lot 4.10 57% 37% 57% 37% 86% 60% 71% 44%
123
111122222222 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 68
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Seasonal Occupancy by Private Off-Street Lot Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Private
Off-Street
Parking
Lot
Summer Fall
Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekday
Max
Occup. %
Avg.

Occup. %
Max
Occup. %
Avg.

Occup. %
Max
Occup. %
Avg.

Occup. %
Max
Occup. %
Avg.

Occup. %
Lot 4.11 55% 37% 82% 46% 73% 28% 91% 59%
Lot 4.12 22% 14% 78% 32% 67% 53% 44% 27%
Lot 4.2 100% 67% 80% 36% 80% 40% 100% 29%
Lot 4.3 63% 34% 94% 49% 88% 31% 81% 47%
Lot 4.4 43% 22% 43% 37% 14% 13% 43% 17%
Lot 4.5 100% 68% 93% 75% 100% 84% 86% 63%
Lot 4.6 74% 50% 68% 40% 53% 45% 63% 39%
Lot 4.7 42% 30% 89% 52% 42% 28% 61% 46%
Lot 4.8 93% 80% 79% 61% 86% 60% 79% 61%
Lot 4.9 89% 54% 78% 28% 78% 38% 78% 54%
Lot 5.1 37% 28% 47% 38% 42% 32% 53% 42%
Lot 5.2 76% 51% 48% 29% 45% 38% 48% 37%
Lot 5.3 82% 43% 68% 37% 87% 46% 63% 40%
Lot 5.4 38% 29% 57% 44% 33% 22% 52% 35%
124
111122223333 of 444444444444
January 9, 2026 Page 69
Task 1.2 Estimation of Current Parking Supply and Demand Seasonal Occupancy by Private Off-Street Lot Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Private
Off-Street
Parking
Lot
Summer Fall
Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekday
Max
Occup. %
Avg.

Occup. %
Max
Occup. %
Avg.

Occup. %
Max
Occup. %
Avg.

Occup. %
Max
Occup. %
Avg.

Occup. %
Lot 5.5 47% 28% 80% 40% 27% 17% 40% 30%
Lot 5.6 17% 9% 67% 35% 33% 9% 33% 17%
Lot 6.1 61% 37% 50% 30% 67% 35% 50% 29%
Lot 6.2 50% 39% 50% 37% 34% 32% 44% 33%
Lot 6.3 73% 53% 35% 23% 38% 26% 50% 30%
Lot 6.4 67% 46% 33% 23% 44% 33% 56% 33%
Lot 6.5 70% 56% 30% 13% 40% 14% 40% 10%
Lot 6.6 50% 31% 50% 37% 67% 37% 50% 39%
Lot 6.7 73% 47% 79% 43% 13% 10% 55% 33%
Lot 6.8 65% 49% 46% 28%
Source: Kittelson, 2025
125
111122224444 of 444444444444
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
August 26, 2026 Project# 30640
To: Wendy Jung, Principal Planner
Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community Development City of Laguna Beach
From: David Laurens
CC: Ashley Brodkin (De Novo), Tim Erney (Kittelson)
RE: Laguna Beach Comprehensive Zoning Code Update –
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses 1 Purpose and Overview
This memorandum recommends blended, location differentiated off-street parking requirements for nonresidential uses in the commercial areas of Laguna Beach outside the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) boundary, which were disaggregated into six districts. The recommendation is that the City adopt a blended non-residential parking standard for the study area, differentiated by location, replacing the current use-by-use minimums for general commercial uses. Districts 2 and 3, which function as an extension of the Downtown Specific Plan, would carry the same 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area adopted for the DSP. The remainder of the study area would be set at 2.75, with District 6 optionally separated at 2.25 to reflect its lower observed demand.

The recommendation was based on three measured ratios for the study area: the parking that is actually used during peak periods, the parking that is actually built, and the parking that the current Laguna Beach Municipal Code would require for the uses on the ground. Observed peak demand is 2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet, the parking actually built is 3.6 per 1,000 square feet, and the current Code would require an aggregate code-implied rate of 4.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet based on the actual mix of land uses in the study area and their corresponding parking requirements. Overall, the City's existing minimum parking requirements call for more than twice the parking that non-residential uses in the study area use.

Consistent with the methodology the City used to modernize parking downtown, this analysis derives the recommended rate from local conditions rather than from standard ratios. The observed demand is the primary basis for the recommendation; the built ratio and the code-implied requirement frame the gap between what the current standards assume and what the non-residential uses actually need.

Blended rates ranging from 2.25 to 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet align with the standard adopted for the Downtown Specific Plan and sit below the retail and office standards used by comparable coastal cities. For Laguna Beach, this approach will result in a simpler, more predictable requirement that reduces barriers to tenant change and reinvestment in older, built-out buildings, while still requiring more parking than the study area uses at its summer peak. This memorandum should be read together with the Task 1.5 recommendations for other parking code elements and the Task 1.6 recommendations for the in-lieu 750 The City Drive, Suite 410
Orange, CA 92868
P 714.468.1997
126
11112222555 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 2
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
parking certificate program, as a coordinated package. Several Task 1.5 elements, including the fractionalrounding, intensification-of-use, and floor-area provisions, bear directly on how the recommended rate would be applied.
2 Methodology and Data Sources

2.1 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
The analysis follows the right-sized parking approach the City used in the 2017 Downtown Parking Actual Demand Study to develop the Downtown Specific Plan. In general, this approach compared the amount of parking built against the number of parking spaces that are typically used and set a single blended requirement that was less than the traditional use-by-use parking minimums. The analysis was based on three ratios, each expressed as parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of non-residential gross floor area (GFA):
◼ Observed Demand Ratio: The peak parking occupancy divided by the occupied non-residential GFA. This measures how much parking is actually used at peak periods and is the primary basis for the recommendation.
◼ Built Parking Ratio: The total parking supply divided by the total non-residential GFA. This measures how much parking exists relative to the built commercial floor area. ◼ Code-Implied Requirement: The current Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) use-by-use ratios applied to each classified parcel, summed and divided by total non-residential GFA. This measures what the current standard would require given the actual mix of uses in the study area.

Since a parking standard should rest on demonstrated use rather than on what happens to be built or on what the current code assumes, the observed demand ratio carries the recommendation. The built ratio and the code-implied requirement establish the surrounding context and provide study-area-wide evidence that does not depend on the more limited demand sample. Where observed demand sits below both the built ratio and the code-implied requirement, the current minimums overstate real need and a lower rate is justified.

All ratios are computed at the district-aggregate and study-area level, consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and the 2017 Downtown Parking Actual Demand Study. Demand and floor area are summed within geographics areas and then divided, rather than matched on a parcel-by-parcel basis. This aggregation absorbs individual parcel data gaps and produces more stable ratios than parcel-level pairing would.

2.2 DATA SOURCES AND COVERAGE
The analysis draws on two datasets that cover different portions of the study area. The observed demand data comes from parking occupancy counts collected in Task 1.2 at 35 off-street parking lots1 attributable 1 Of the 37 off-street lots inventoried in Task 1.2, 35 are carried into this analysis. The two excluded lots (6.7 and 6.8) are hospital shared-use lots that serve general public parking under the City-hospital agreement rather than the parking demand of a specific non-residential use.
127
11112222666 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 3
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
to specific non-residential parcels, distributed across the six study districts. The broader parcel inventory, assembled from the City's parcel database, supplies the built parking ratio and the code-implied requirement across the confirmed non-residential inventory where floor area is available.

The parcel database was compiled at the tenant and building level. Many records represent residential parcels or the residential portion of mixed-use buildings, which are not included in the non-residential parking analysis, and a single parcel is often represented by several rows, one per tenant or building component. As such, the database was restricted to the non-residential uses only: residential parcels and the residential floor area of mixed-use parcels were removed so that only non-residential floor area was used for the ratio denominators, and multi-row parcels were consolidated so that shared parking and building floor area are counted once rather than duplicated. The resulting inventory of confirmed nonresidential parcels was the basis for the built and code-implied ratios. Note that this parcel-level treatment is a refinement over the district-aggregate estimation used in the 2017 study as it resolves use and occupied floor area at the individual tenant level across the inventory.

Appendix A documents the classification logic and the processing rules applied where the source data was ambiguous or inconsistent.

2.3 STUDY AREA
The study area comprises the six parking districts established in Task 1.2, spanning the primarily commercial segments of the Coast Highway corridor to the north and south of the Downtown Specific Plan boundary. The districts and their boundaries are carried forward unchanged from the Task 1.2 analysis. Each district represents a continuous segment of Coast Highway frontage and adjacent side streets that share similar land-use and access characteristics. Figure 1 shows the six districts in relation to the City limits and the Downtown Specific Plan boundary. 128
11112222777 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 4
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 1 Study Area and Parking Districts
Source: Kittelson, 2025
129
11112222888 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 5
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
3 Non-Residential Land Use and Supply Inventory
Table 1 summarizes the non-residential land use and parking inventory by district.

The first set of data, from the parcel database, is the classified non-residential inventory: parcels assigned to a Municipal Code use with usable Gross Floor Area (GFA) and parking data. Parcels lacking a clear Municipal Code use assignment or usable floor area and parking data were excluded, so the inventory reflects the parcels with complete, reliable records rather than the full non-residential stock in each district. This keeps the ratios grounded in verified data.

The second set of data is the off-street parking lots where field inventory and four-day parking counts were conducted. Parking occupancy data were collected across the six study districts on four representative dates:
◼ Summer Weekend: Saturday, August 23, 2025
◼ Summer Weekday: Wednesday, August 27, 2025
◼ Fall Weekend: Saturday, September 27, 2025
◼ Fall Weekday: Wednesday, October 1, 2025
Counts were conducted between 12:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. to capture both midday and evening activity periods. The initial Parking Supply and Demand study captured as many of these spaces as could be observed in the field. The table ties each parking lot to its non-residential uses and reveals additional associated parking that was not visible during the field inventory. The result is a more complete accounting of supply than field observation alone.

Table 1 Non-Residential Inventory by District
District
Parcel Database Off-Street Parking
Total NonResidential

GFA (SF)
Parking Supply
(spaces)
NonResidential

GFA (SF)
# Off-Street
Parking Lots
Parking
Supply
(spaces)
District 1 58,400 173 25,000 7 104
District 2 112,700 470 70,700 2 285
District 3 42,100 153 18,500 2 83
District 4 113,900 296 92,200 12 218
District 5 72,100 265 42,200 6 197
District 6 74,600 227 29,000 6 107
Total Study
Area
473,900 1,584 277,600 35 994
Source: Kittelson, 2026
Note: GFA = Gross Floor Area; SF = square feet
Two additional off-street lots in District 6, the lower hospital lot entrance and the 7th Avenue spaces along the driveway to the hospital parking structure, were inventoried in the initial Parking Supply and Demand study but are not carried into the ratio calculations. These lots form part of a shared-use agreement between the City and Providence Mission Hospital that makes hospital parking available to the general public, in part year-round and in part seasonally. Because they serve general public and hospital 130
11112222999 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 6
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
demand rather than the parking demand of a specific non-residential use, and cannot be attributed to a defined quantity of non-residential floor area, they are treated in the same manner as public on-street parking and excluded from the parcel-based ratios. However, they represent a meaningful seasonal addition to public parking supply in District 6.
4 Built Parking Ratio and Code-Implied
Requirement
The built parking ratio and the code-implied parking requirement are computed on the confirmed nonresidential inventory, and therefore have wider coverage than the observed demand ratio. However, since both are on the same set of parcels, the difference between what is built and what the code requires is directly comparable.

The built ratio is the total non-residential parking supply in each district divided by the district's nonresidential GFA. The code-implied requirement applies the current LBMC use-by-use ratios to each classified parcel (for example, one space per 250 square feet for general retail and office uses, equivalent to 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet, and one space per 100 square feet for restaurants, equivalent to 10.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet), and blends the result according to the actual mix of uses in each district.

This data is presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Built Ratio and Code-Implied Requirement by District District Non-Residential

GFA (SF)
Built Ratio
(spaces/1,000 SF)
Code-Implied Requirement
(spaces/1,000 SF)
District 1 58,400 3.0 4.1
District 2 112,700 4.2 5.1
District 3 42,100 3.6 4.4
District 4 113,900 2.6 4.5
District 5 72,100 3.7 5.6
District 6 74,600 3.0 4.6
Total Study Area 473,900 3.3 4.8
Source: Kittelson, 2026
Note: SF = square feet
Across the study area, the current code would require 4.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet given the actual mix of uses, while the parking actually built is 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet. In general, about 30 percent less parking than required by the Code has been provided; this is most likely due to various exceptions and variances, changes to the requirements over time, or other factors. The pattern holds in every district, with the code-implied requirement exceeding the built ratio by about 20 percent to 40 percent throughout.
131
11113333000 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 7
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

The same two ratios were reported in the Downtown Specific Plan, which provides a useful benchmark for the study area. The DSP found a code-implied requirement of 4.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet against a built ratio of 3.6, shown in Table 3, which is about 25 percent less parking that required. This is the same pattern seen here: the Code requires substantially more parking than the downtown uses have actually built, in the same direction and of similar magnitude to the gap in the study area.

Table 3 DSP Built and Code-Implied Ratios
Measure Calculated Parking Ratio
(spaces/1,000 SF)
Code-implied requirement 4.7
Built ratio 3.6
Source: Laguna Beach, Downtown Specific Plan Area, Parking Actual Demand Study, 2017 5 Observed Demand and Data Collected

5.1 CALCULATED OBSERVED DEMAND
The observed demand ratio is the primary basis for the recommended parking rate. It applies the peak parking occupancy for the 35 surveyed lots to the occupied non-residential floor area within each district.

Occupancy was recorded on four survey days spanning the summer and non-summer seasons in 2025, and the parking conditions accounted for reserved and otherwise restricted spaces as occupied at the peak. Consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan approach, the demand ratio is reported for the analyzed periods.

As shown in Table 4, for the study area, the peak demand is the summer weekday at 2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet, followed by the summer weekend at 2.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Non-summer demand was 2.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet and 1.9 space per 1,000 square feet on weekdays and weekends respectively. Overall, the summer weekday data is most conservative and would allow for sufficient capacity for the rest of the year. The highest parking ratios were in District 3 and the lowest in Districts 2, 4, and 6.
132
111133331111 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 8
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 4 Observed Demand Ratio by District
District
Built Ratio
(spaces/1,000
SF)
Summer
Weekend Ratio
(spaces/1,000
SF)
Summer
Weekday Ratio
(spaces/1,000
SF)
Fall Weekend
Ratio
(spaces/1,000
SF)
Fall Weekday
Ratio
(spaces/1,000
SF)
District 1 4.2 2.4 2.7 2.1 2.6
District 2 4.0 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.2
District 3 4.5 4.2 3.8 3.1 3.4
District 4 2.4 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.6
District 5 4.7 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.7
District 6 3.7 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.5
Total Study
Area

3.6 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.1
Source: Kittelson, 2026
Note: SF = square feet
As presented previously in Table 1, of the 35 surveyed lots, the majority (34 percent) are located in District 4, with about 20 percent in each of Districts 1, 5, and 6. Both Districts 2 and 3 have only two surveyed parking lots (about 5 percent of the total). Due to the small number of parking facilities within District 2 and District 3, the data may not be adequately robust to calculate separate parking rates. This finding further supports the use of a single blended parking rate based on the combined study area dataset.

The observed demand results are consistent with the central finding of Task 1.2: on-street parking in the study area operates near its practical capacity during summer peaks, while private off-street facilities generally retain available capacity throughout the day. Consistent with the Task 1.2 analysis, occupancy is evaluated against an 85 percent practical-capacity threshold, the point at which parking is effectively full and users begin to experience difficulty finding a space. Off-street lots remain well below this threshold even when the curb is full, indicating substantial unused capacity in the non-residential off-street parking supply, consistent with the demand ratio sitting below the built ratio for the study area as a whole.

5.2 SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVENESS
Because the demand ratio is based on a sample of 35 lots, it is necessary to confirm that the sample represents the broader study area before generalizing the result into a code standard. This was done by reviewing the built ratio in two different ways: on the 35 surveyed lots alone, and on the full confirmed inventory. If the two are close, it can be concluded that the surveyed sample reflects the same parking conditions as the study area as a whole, and the demand measured on the sample can be applied studyarea-wide with high level of confidence.

Based on a calculation of the land use and parking databases, the two built ratios are 3.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet on the surveyed sample and 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet on the full inventory. Their closeness indicates that the surveyed lots are a representative subset; they carry a similar relationship between parking and floor area to the non-residential uses at large. 133
111133332222 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 9
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

The coverage assessment also establishes the appropriate level of analysis. With only two surveyed lots in each of Districts 2 and 3, and a modest number in several others, the sample sizes are small and thus may not be representative of overall parking characteristics. As such, combinations of parking ratios for different districts may be appropriate.
6 Blended Rate Calculations
As shown in Table 4, the peak observed parking occupancy occurred during the summer weekday period, at a total parking demand of 2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet. To test whether parking rates should vary across the study area, the built and observed demand ratios were compared for individual districts and for several district groupings. Table 5 presents these scenarios alongside the study-area totals.

Table 5 Built and Observed Demand Ratios by District Grouping Scenario District or Group Built Ratio
(spaces/1,000 SF)
Peak Observed Demand Ratio
(spaces/1,000 SF)
Scenario 1: One Rate for All Districts
Districts 1+2+3+4+5+6 3.6 2.2
Scenario 2: Rates for North and South of DSP
Districts 1+2 4.1 2.2
Districts 3+4+5+6 3.3 2.1
Scenario 3: Separate District 6 due to Distance from Other Districts Districts 1+2+3+4+5 3.6 2.2
District 6 3.7 1.8
Scenario 4: Add District 3 to DSP; Have One Rate for All Other Districts District 3 4.5 3.8
Districts 1+2+4+5+6 3.5 2.0
Scenario 5: Separate Districts 2 and 3 due to Proximity to DSP Districts 2+3 4.1 2.4
Districts 1+4+5+6 3.3 2.0
Scenario 6: Separate Districts 2 and 3 due to Proximity to DSP Districts 2+3 4.1 2.4
Districts 1+4+5 3.3 2.1
District 6 3.7 1.8
Source: Kittelson, 2026
Note: SF = square feet
134
111133333333 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 10
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ Scenario 1: The overall parking ratio would be 2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet across the entire study area.
◼ Scenario 2: Looking at the conditions to the north and south of the DSP separately, the resulting parking ratios would be 2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet and 2.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet, respectively.
◼ Scenario 3: Considering the gap between District 6 and the rest of the study area, the total ratio for Districts 1 – 5 was compared to District 6: these would be 2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet and 1.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet, respectively.
◼ Scenario 4: Given that District 3 could be considered an extension of the DSP, this scenario separated the parking ratio for District 3 from the rest of the study area. District 3 would have a parking ratio of 3.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet, compared to 2.0 for the remainder of the study area. However, it should be noted that District 3 had only two off-street parking lots counted (including one for the Ralph’s market), and thus has a small sample size that may influence the results.
◼ Scenario 5: As both District 2 and District 3 are adjacent to the DSP, the parking ratios for those two districts were calculated separately from the rest of the study area. Districts 2 and 3 would have a parking ratio of 2.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet, compared to 2.0 the remainder of the study area. ◼ Scenario 6: This scenario grouped the districts adjacent to the DSP (Districts 2 and 3) separately from the adjacent districts 1, 4, and 5, and District 6, which sits apart from the rest of the study area.

The resulting parking ratios would be 2.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet for Districts 2 and 3, 2.1 for Districts 1, 4, and 5, and 1.8 for District 6.

Overall, the parking ratios with each of these scenarios are fairly similar, with only minor differences between the built ratios and demand ratios. The only exception is with Scenario 4, where District 3’s parking ratio is substantially higher than the rest of the study area. 7 Comparisons with Other Locations
The results of this study were also compared to the LBMC parking requirements and parking ratios developed for the DSP, plus parking ratios for similar peer cities. This comparison highlights any substantial differences in parking ratios between the rest of the Laguna Beach commercial areas and other coastal cities with similar land use and activity characteristics.

7.1 COMPARISON WITH THE DSP
The 2017 Downtown Parking Actual Demand Study documented observed demand across the same four seasonal periods, summarized in Table 6. Downtown demand peaked on the summer weekend at 2.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet and stayed below the built ratio of 3.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet in every period, confirming that even at its seasonal peak, built supply exceeded observed use. Overall, the City adopted a blended rate of 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet. This value is slightly above the observed demand but below the study area's built ratio.
135
111133334444 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 11
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 6 DSP Built and Observed Demand Ratios by Period
Measure Calculated Parking Ratio
(spaces/1,000 SF)
Built ratio 3.6
Summer weekday demand 2.8
Summer weekend demand 2.9
Non-summer weekday demand 2.2
Non-summer weekend demand 2.1
Overall Blended Parking Rate 3.0
Source: Laguna Beach, Downtown Specific Plan Area, Parking Actual Demand Study, 2017

7.2 COMPARISON WITH PEER CITIES
Table 7 presents the parking ratios for the DSP and representatives peer cities. Among the four peer cities reviewed in Task 1.1, general retail and office standards cluster at 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet (one space per 300 square feet) in Carlsbad, Newport Beach, and Del Mar, and at 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet in Dana Point. These values are all slightly higher than those in use in the DSP area.

Table 7 Benchmark Non-Residential Parking Standards
Source Standard
(spaces/1,000 SF)
Basis
Downtown Specific Plan – Laguna Beach 3.0 Adopted blended rate Del Mar / Newport Beach / Carlsbad 3.3 Retail / office minimum Dana Point 4.0 Retail / office minimum
Source: Kittelson, 2026
Note: SF = square feet
8 RECOMMENDED BLENDED RATE
It is recommended that the City adopt blended non-residential parking requirements for the commercial areas outside the Downtown Specific Plan, differentiated by location to reflect the demand and builtparking patterns observed across the study area. In each case the recommended rate is set above observed demand, to provide headroom for seasonal peaking and future growth, and below the parking the area has actually built, so the standard right-sizes the requirement without creating a shortfall.

A reasonable question is why a parking standard derived for the Downtown Specific Plan should apply to the commercial areas outside its boundary. Two lines of evidence support the transfer.

First, the study area exhibits the same parking structure documented downtown. In both areas the codeimplied requirement overstates the parking actually built, the built supply exceeds observed demand, and demand sits well below what has been built. The magnitudes are close as well: the study area has a built 136
11113333555 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 12
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
ratio of 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet against the DSP's 3.6, and both areas show a code-implied requirement near 4.7 to 4.8. Where the two differ, the difference is explainable by land use rather than by any break in the underlying relationship: downtown demand peaks on the summer weekend, driven by evening and visitor activity, while the study area peaks on the summer weekday, reflecting its more daytime-commercial character. The relationship between parking and floor area is the same; only the timing of the peak shifts.

Second, the commercial areas outside the DSP share the downtown's shared-use character. They consist of continuous commercial frontage along Coast Highway with a comparable mix of retail, office, personalservice, and restaurant uses drawing on common off-street parking, the same conditions that make a single blended rate appropriate downtown. Because the areas behave alike and are built alike, the rightsizing approach the City applied downtown carries over, calibrated here to the demand this study measured locally rather than transferred as a fixed number.

Based on a review of the six scenarios and the corresponding parking ratios, Scenario 6 is recommended.

Overall, this scenario best accounts for the geographic and land use characteristics of the study area, with Districts 2 and 3 adjacent to the DSP and function as an extension of the downtown area, and District 6 over 2.0 miles south of District 5.

For the blended parking rates:
◼ Districts 2 and 3: As this would be considered an extension of the DSP, they would have the same parking ratio of 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Although this would be lower than the observed demand for District 3 (3.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet), its actual sample size for this data is low and thus the overall number may not be representative.
◼ Districts 1, 4, and 5: The average observed parking rate for these districts is 2.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet, with a peak of 2.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet in District 1 and 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet in District 5. To ensure that the parking ratio could accommodate the peak demand, and to provide a little buffer for variability, a parking ratio of 2.75 spaces per 1,000 square feet is recommended.
◼ District 6: This district has a peak observed parking demand of 1.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet.

However, since this demand is substantially lower than the built parking ratio of 3.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet, it is recommended that the parking ratio be established between these two values. As such, a parking ratio of 2.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet would be appropriate. Note that it would be possible to combine District 6 with Districts 1, 4, and 5 if few parking requirements are preferred
Table 8 summarizes the recommendations for each of the six districts. 137
11113333666 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 13
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 8 Recommended Blended Parking Rates by Location
Tier Peak demand
(spaces/1,000 SF)
Built ratio
(spaces/1,000 SF)
Recommended
(spaces/1,000 SF)
District 1 2.7 4.2 2.75
District 2 2.0 4.0 3.0
District 3 3.8 4.5 3.0
District 4 1.6 2.4 2.75
District 5 2.7 4.7 2.75
District 6* 1.8 3.7 2.25
Source: Kittelson, 2026
Note: SF = square feet; * To simplify the parking requirements, District 6 could be adjusted to have the same rates as Districts 1, 4, and 5.

Overall, this approach will have substantial benefits to the City. Compared to the current code-implied requirement of 4.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet, the recommended rates of 2.25 to 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet reduce the effective non-residential requirement by between 35 and 50 percent. In built-out commercial areas where most parcels cannot add on-site parking, that reduction is what allows an older building to change tenants, a restaurant to replace a retail space, or a modest reinvestment to proceed without triggering a parking obligation the site cannot meet. It reduces reliance on in-lieu fees and discretionary relief, replaces a use-by-use calculation with a single predictable number, and treats businesses outside the DSP on the same footing as those downtown. At the same time, because the values are higher than the peak demand (with the exception of District 3), this change right-sizes the requirement without creating a parking shortfall.

It is recommended that the blended rate apply to the general non-residential uses that are predominately found in the study area, including retail, personal services, office, and general commercial uses. Consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan, higher-demand uses, namely places of assembly, recreational and cultural uses, and lodging, should be retained on their existing use-specific standards rather than folded into the blended rate. For these uses, floor area is not an accurate predictor of parking demand. For example, the parking demand for hotels and lodging are more accurately estimated using guest rooms rather than building area; retaining lodging on the per-room standard in LBMC Section 25.52.012 keeps the requirement matched to the actual driver of demand. This treatment also matches the DSP, which excluded lodging from its blended rate. A use-based exception of this kind is more defensible than a geographic one and applies regardless of how the rate is set. It is worth noting that the surveyed lodging parcels would compute below the blended rate on a floor-area basis, so the effect of the carve-out is to price these uses on the more appropriate metric, not to require more of them than the blend would.

The blended rate is intended to work alongside the City's existing flexibility tools, including shared parking, joint-use parking, off-site parking, and in-lieu certificates, rather than to replace them. Its interaction with those tools, and with the fractional-parking, intensification-of-use, and floor-area provisions addressed in Task 1.5, should be coordinated so the recommendations form a single coherent framework together with the Task 1.6 recommendations for the in-lieu certificate program.

Because Chapter 25.52 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code is a certified component of the City's Local Coastal Program, a change to the non-residential parking standard will likely require certification by the 138
11113333777 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 14
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

California Coastal Commission through a Local Coastal Program amendment. It is recommended that the City confirm the required approval path with legal counsel early in the adoption process. 9 CONCLUSION
The parking actually built in the commercial areas outside the Downtown Specific Plan, the parking the current code would require, and the parking observed in use during peak periods together indicate that the City's existing use-by-use minimums overstate the parking that non-residential uses in the study area actually need. The current code requires 4.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet, the study area has built 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet, and has an average demand of 2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet during the summer peak. This finding is consistent with the conclusions reached downtown through the 2017 Downtown Parking Actual Demand Study and the Downtown Specific Plan, and with the conditions documented across the six districts in Task 1.2.

A blended non-residential parking requirement of 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet in Districts 2 and 3,

2.75 spaces per 1,000 square feet in Districts 1, 4, and 5, and 2.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet in District

6. At these values, the standard right-sizes the requirement to the City's built-out coastal setting and the demand the study area actually generates, while remaining above what these areas use and below what they have built. The recommendation should advance in coordination with the Task 1.5 and Task 1.6 recommendations and through the Local Coastal Program amendment process. 139
11113333888 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 15
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Appendix A
140
11113333999 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 16
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses Parcel Database Methodology and Classification Logic
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Parcel Database Methodology and
Classification Logic
This appendix documents how the parcel database was processed and how each row was classified to a Municipal Code use line. The purpose is to make the classification reproducible and to record the rules applied where the source data was ambiguous or inconsistent. 1 DATABASE STRUCTURE
The parcel database was compiled at the tenant and building level, so a single parcel may be represented by more than one row. Single-row parcels carry all of their information on one line, while multi-row parcels use one row per tenant, building, or component. Two fields govern this structure: a field recording how many rows share the same parcel, and a sequence field recording the position of each row within its parcel group. The first row of a multi-row parcel generally carries building-level information such as total building floor area and the overall parking count, while subsequent rows carry tenant-level detail. A definitive parcel identifier, populated on every row, is used as the join and grouping key throughout the analysis.
2 REDUCTION TO THE IN-SCOPE NONRESIDENTIAL UNIVERSE
The database includes both non-residential and residential records, and the residential records do not belong in a non-residential parking analysis. Two filters were applied. First, parcels in residential zoning contexts, and the residential floor area within mixed-use parcels, were removed so that only nonresidential floor area enters the ratio denominators. Second, multi-row parcels were consolidated so that shared parking supply and building floor area are counted once: where several tenant rows share a single parking facility, that facility is counted a single time in the built ratio, and building-level floor area is not summed against individual tenant floor area. The result is a set of confirmed non-residential parcels that supports the built and code-implied ratios.
3 TWO-STEP CLASSIFICATION
Each in-scope row was assigned to an LBMC use line through a two-step process that reads the zoning context first and the specific use second. The first step uses the zoning designation to confirm a nonresidential context. The second step normalizes the specific-use signal recorded in the land-use category, notes, and summary fields, and maps it to the applicable LBMC use line, resolving the inconsistent category labels present in the source data.

For the code-implied requirement, each classified parcel was assigned the LBMC ratio for its use line: one space per 250 square feet for general retail, office, personal service, gallery, food-store, and financial uses 141
11114444000 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 17
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses Parcel Database Methodology and Classification Logic
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
(4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet); one space per 100 square feet for restaurants, bars, and fitness uses (10.0 per 1,000); one space per 150 square feet for medical and dental uses (6.7 per 1,000); one space per 300 square feet for automobile-repair and library uses (3.3 per 1,000); and one space per 500 square feet for manufacturing and bulky-goods uses (2.0 per 1,000). For restaurants, both the area basis and the perseat basis were evaluated and the greater requirement applied, consistent with the Code. Lodging was assigned the per-room formula in the Code and excluded from the blended-rate calculation. 4 USE-TO-LBMC MAPPING
Table 9 sets out the mapping from the normalized use groups to the applicable LBMC Section 25.52.012 use line and its parking ratio. Consistent with the 2017 Downtown Parking Actual Demand Study, the code-implied requirement was computed by applying these LBMC ratios to the non-residential floor area in each use group and aggregating the result, rather than through parcel-by-parcel permit calculations.

The mapping is provided for confirmation; the assignments should be verified against the City's intended interpretation before the code-implied requirement is finalized.

Table 9 Use Group to LBMC Use Line Mapping
Normalized Use Group LBMC Use Line Parking Ratio
Retail, office, and
personal services
General retail; general and professional
office; personal service establishments;
galleries; food stores; financial institutions
1 / 250 sq ft (4.0 / 1,000)
Restaurant, bar, and
entertainment
Food services (restaurant, take-out, bakery);
entertainment, bar, cocktail lounge,
nightclub
1 / 100 sq ft (10.0 / 1,000)
Health and fitness Health clubs, exercise areas, aerobics studios
1 / 100 sq ft (10.0 / 1,000)
Medical and dental Clinics; dentist; medical office (Health Uses) 1 / 150 sq ft (6.7 / 1,000) Automobile repair and
service
Automobile/motor vehicle repair; service
station
1 / 300 sq ft (3.3 / 1,000)
Manufacturing and bulky
goods
Manufacturing; furniture, appliance, and
bulky-merchandise establishments
1 / 500 sq ft (2.0 / 1,000)
Lodging Hotel / motel 1 / room + 1 / 15 rooms
(retained on use-specific
standard)
Source: Kittelson, 2026
Restaurant floor area is calculated on the gross-floor-area basis (1 space per 100 square feet), consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan methodology. Lodging is retained on its use-specific per-room standard and excluded from the blended rate.
142
111144441111 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 Page 18
Task 1.3 Calculation of Blended Parking Requirement for Non-Residential Uses Parcel Database Methodology and Classification Logic
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
5 KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA NOTES
Occupied (active) floor area is used as the denominator for the demand ratio because it reflects the floor area actually in use; total building floor area is used only as fallback when active floor area is not available.

Parking spaces recorded with mixed or narrative entries were parsed to the confirmed space count and cross-checked against the Task 1.2 field-counted inventory where lots were surveyed. Parking spaces identified as reserved or otherwise restricted are treated as unavailable to the visiting public and assumed occupied at peak, consistent with the treatment of private off-street facilities in Task 1.2. All ratios are computed at the district-aggregate and study-area level rather than by matching individual parcels, which absorbs individual-parcel data gaps and produces more stable results. 143
111144442222 of 444444444444
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
August 27, 2026 Project# 30640
To: Wendy Jung, Principal Planner
Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community Development City of Laguna Beach
From: David Laurens
CC: Ashley Brodkin (De Novo), Tim Erney (Kittelson)
RE: Laguna Beach Comprehensive Zoning Code Update –
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations
1 Purpose and Overview
The City of Laguna Beach is evaluating several parking-related provisions of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. This memo addresses those elements, which are separate from the non-residential parking ratios and in-lieu parking certificate program covered in Tasks 1.3 and 1.6 of this study.

The seven Code elements covered by this evaluation are:

1. Fractional parking requirements (LBMC §25.52.012(D))

2. Intensification of use calculations (LBMC §25.52.004(E))

3. Square footage used to calculate parking requirements (LBMC §25.52.012(C))

4. On-site bicycle parking standards (LBMC §§25.52.006(F), 25.52.012(E), and Chapter 25.94)

5. Ride hailing and passenger loading (LBMC §25.94.010(D))

6. Transportation demand management (TDM) regulations (LBMC Chapter 25.94)

7. Zoning constraints affecting parking compliance (LBMC §§25.52.004(E), 25.52.006, 25.52.008, and Chapter 25.56)
Three additional elements identified through the Code review are also included: a revision to the parking chapter’s purpose statement (LBMC §25.52.002), alignment with current state electric vehicle (EV) requirements, and a review of compact and motorcycle space allowances (LBMC §§25.52.008(A)(3)–(4) and

25.52.012(E)).

The analysis draws from the Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC), the City’s 2023 Parking and Transportation Demand Management Report (TDM Report), the 2022 Downtown Specific Plan (DSP), and findings from the prior tasks in this study. No new data collection was conducted. The peer city review from Task 1.1 is extended in each section to address the specific topics covered here. Most recommendations in this memo implement priorities the City already identified in the 2023 TDM Report; the relevant report item is noted in each section.
750 The City Drive, Suite 410
Orange, CA 92868
P 714.468.1997
144
111144443333 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 2
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

This memo should be read alongside Tasks 1.3 and 1.5 as a coordinated package. Together, the three deliverables represent a comprehensive update to Laguna Beach’s non-residential parking framework. 2 Background and Policy Context
Laguna Beach’s commercial districts operate in a coastal, visitor-driven environment where most parcels are small, fully built out, and have limited ability to add on-site parking. Zoning-based parking requirements strongly influence what types of businesses can operate, particularly outside the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) boundary. As noted in the 2023 TDM Report, the City has more walkable commercial districts, a stronger public transportation network, and a deeper commitment to demand management than is typical for Southern California cities of comparable size. These conditions are relevant context for every recommendation in this memo.

The prior tasks in this study confirmed two patterns that frame the review of parking policies throughout the city. First, observed off-street parking demand in commercial areas is consistently lower than what current minimum ratios require, as documented in Task 1.2. Second, the regulatory environment differs substantially between the DSP and the rest of the city: the DSP uses a modernized, demand-informed blended parking requirement, while areas outside it rely on traditional use-by-use parking minimums that can create barriers to tenant changes and modest reinvestment in older buildings.

The City has been addressing these challenges progressively. The DSP blended rate, the flexibility tools in LBMC Chapter 25.52, the TDM ordinance in LBMC Chapter 25.94, and the 2023 TDM Report each represent a step toward a more demand-responsive parking framework. The recommendations in this memo continue that work, focusing on specific code provisions that have not yet been updated to reflect the City’s current policy direction.

It should be noted that LBMC Chapter 25.52 is Local Coastal Program (LCP)-certified. As such, any changes to its provisions may require California Coastal Commission certification before taking effect. City staff should confirm with legal counsel which recommendations in this memo require an LCP amendment as part of the implementation process.
3 Code Review and Recommendations by Element
The assessment of each element of the parking code follows the same format: current code provisions, identified issues, peer city practices, and recommendations. Where a recommendation aligns with a specific item in the 2023 TDM Report, that reference is noted. Each subsection also identifies the LBMC sections affected.
145
111144444444 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 3
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

3.1 FRACTIONAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
LBMC §25.52.012(D) requires that any fractional result in a parking calculation be rounded up to the next whole number. One exception exists: in buildings or complexes of two or more commercial establishments that are planned, developed, owned, and managed as a unit, with an approved parking allocation plan, fractional results from individual use calculations may be carried through the aggregate sum and only the final total is rounded, to the nearest whole number rather than always up.

In general, the always-round-up rule creates a disproportionate burden on small commercial expansions.

Laguna Beach's commercial areas are generally characterized by buildings of relatively small size, where floor areas are often measured in hundreds rather than thousands of square feet. In these conditions, a calculation result of 0.1 carries the same obligation as a result of 0.9, and a minor intensification that generates a fractional parking requirement can trigger a full additional space requirement that the site may not be able to meet.

In addition, there is an inconsistency between the single site calculations and the exceptions for complexes, as single sites require the number of parking spaces to be rounded up whereas jointlymanaged complexes allow for the number of parking spaces to be rounded to the nearest whole number.

Among the four peer cities:
◼ Dana Point and Del Mar both use a round-at-0.5 standard for all uses, rounding up only when the fraction is 0.5 or greater and disregarding fractions below that threshold. ◼ Carlsbad and Newport Beach always round up, consistent with Laguna Beach’s general rule. ◼ The peer cities do not have an exception for joint-managed properties.

The 2023 TDM Report recommended revising the parking requirements to round up only when the fraction is 0.5 or greater.

Recommendation: Modify LBMC §25.52.012(D) to replace the existing rounding requirement with a roundat-0.50 standard for commercial parking calculations. To maintain consistency, the same rounding methodology should apply to jointly-managed complexes where a common or joint parking allocation plan has been approved.

The round-at-0.50 standard applies regardless of whether the total requirement is above or below one space. For example, a result of 0.49 or less produces a zero requirement, while a result of 0.50 or greater rounds up to one space. This is consistent with how both Dana Point and Del Mar apply the standard, neither of which includes a minimum floor of one space for any positive parking requirement.

3.2 INTENSIFICATION OF USE CALCULATIONS
Under LBMC §25.52.004(E), additional parking is required when a property is newly constructed, substantially remodeled, changes to a use with a greater parking requirement, or adds floor area. The parking obligation is the full current Code requirement for the new or enlarged use, but with the application of four credits:
◼ Actual on-site spaces provided
146
11114444555 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 4
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ Previously granted parking credits under the incentives provision ◼ Previously purchased in-lieu certificates
◼ The 1958 baseline credit: the number of spaces that would have been required under the parking regulations in effect in 1958 for the currently existing use, if the building was built prior to 1958, minus actual on-site spaces
Two secondary rules also apply: additions of no more than 10 percent of floor area and not exceeding 500 square feet require parking only for the enlarged area, and interior subdivisions creating more than three new tenant spaces require a conditional use permit (CUP) and coastal development permit (CDP).

The credit structure is complex, and the 1958 baseline credit can be difficult to document because it requires verifying whether a building was constructed prior to 1958 and determining what parking requirement would have applied to the current use under the parking regulations in effect at that time.

The current framework also does not offer a clear pathway for a typical scenario in which an older building with little or no on-site parking seeks to accommodate a more intensive use. The applicable historical parking requirements are contained in Ordinance No. 435.

Among the peer cities:
◼ Dana Point has the most restrictive approach, requiring full parking compliance for the entire existing building plus any addition.
◼ Carlsbad and Newport Beach require full compliance for the changed or enlarged portion only. ◼ Del Mar requires parking only for the net demand generated by the enlargement, with no obligation to address any pre-existing deficiency. Del Mar’s approach is LCP-certified. ◼ Newport Beach’s Balboa Village Parking Management Overlay District eliminates the intensification trigger entirely within a defined area for most nonresidential uses. Outside the Balboa Village overlay, Newport Beach requires full parking compliance for any change or intensification of use, with no incremental approach and no baseline credit system. ◼ None of the peer cities have a baseline credit calculation.

The 2023 TDM Report recommended replacing the current credit structure with a simpler incremental demand calculation. Under this approach, only the net increase in required parking spaces generated by the change in use is required, calculated as the difference between the parking requirement for the proposed use and the parking requirement for the prior use under current code.

Based on this review, one potential approach has been developed:
◼ Simplify the credit methodology to an incremental approach consistent with Del Mar's model, requiring parking only for the net demand increase between the prior and proposed use. This would allow for the four credits to be eliminated.

Recommendation: From a technical standpoint, it is recommended that the City simplify the current credit methodology by adopting an incremental demand approach consistent with Del Mar's model. Under this approach, parking would be required only for the net increase in parking demand associated with a change of use or enlargement, eliminating the need for the current credit structure. This approach addresses the complexity and documentation challenges associated with the existing framework while 147
11114444666 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 5
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
remaining consistent with an LCP-certified approach already in use in a comparable coastal city. This change affects LBMC §§25.52.004(E).

3.3 SQUARE FOOTAGE USED TO CALCULATE PARKING

REQUIREMENTS
This section applies to non-residential commercial uses for which parking requirements are calculated on a floor area basis. Uses such as residential, hotels, and motels, which calculate parking based on units or rooms rather than floor area, are outside the scope of this section. The net public area recommendation applies specifically to eating and drinking establishments.

Parking requirements in Laguna Beach are calculated on gross floor area (GFA) as defined in LBMC §25.08.012. In general, GFA excludes garage areas, elevator shafts, and basement, cellar, or attic areas devoted exclusively to accessory uses, but applies uniformly across all other building program areas. There are no deductions for kitchens, restrooms, storage, or other non-customer-facing spaces. For restaurants specifically, the calculation base explicitly includes outdoor seating areas.

Outdoor display areas follow a separate methodology: the required parking is calculated using the general retail rate of 1 space per 250 square feet applied to the combined footprint of displayed objects plus a minimum 2.5-foot pedestrian viewing area, with areas of 100 square feet or less exempt from the requirement.

The current GFA-based calculation does not distinguish between areas that generate parking demand and those that do not. Kitchens, restrooms, back-of-house storage, and offices are included in the calculation base even though they are not accessible to customers and do not independently generate parking demand. For restaurants specifically, this means that a significant portion of the building footprint that serves operational rather than customer-facing functions is counted at the same rate as dining area. In a coastal city where many commercial buildings are small and the difference between a 0.4 and a 0.9 fractional space can determine whether a project is feasible, the absence of any demand-calibrated calculation base creates unnecessary barriers to investment.

Among the peer cities:
◼ Newport Beach applies a net public area definition to eating and drinking establishments, excluding kitchens, restrooms, back-of-house offices, and storage from the calculation base. For general office uses, Newport Beach applies tiered net floor area rates across three size bands: 1 parking space per 250 square feet for the first 50,000 square feet, 1 parking space per 300 square feet for the next 75,000 square feet, and 1 parking space per 350 square feet above 125,000 square feet. ◼ Del Mar excludes common areas in multi-tenant buildings, including entryways, hallways, restrooms, stairwells, and elevators, from the GFA calculation base. ◼ Dana Point enumerates inclusions and exclusions explicitly but includes restrooms, closets, storage, and mechanical rooms in GFA.
◼ Carlsbad applies straight GFA with no carve-outs, consistent with Laguna Beach’s current approach. 148
11114444777 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 6
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

The 2023 TDM Report recommended evaluating which building program areas should be excluded from the parking demand calculation base, specifically identifying showers, lockers, restrooms, and storage as candidates for exclusion.

Recommendation: It is recommended that within LBMC §§25.52.012(C)(2) and the applicable definition sections of Chapter 25.08, a net public area definition be introduced for eating and drinking establishments, consistent with Newport Beach's approach, that excludes kitchens, restrooms, back-ofhouse offices, and storage from the calculation base. It is also recommended that Del Mar's common-area exclusion be applied to multi-tenant buildings in Laguna Beach. Outdoor seating areas for eating and drinking establishments should continue to be included in the parking calculation consistent with existing code. If the City elects to pursue a future blended parking requirement for non-residential uses on a citywide basis, the applicability of a restaurant-specific net public area methodology should be reevaluated as part of that effort. No stepped approach is recommended.

3.4 ON-SITE BICYCLE PARKING STANDARDS
LBMC Chapter 25.52 does not establish a mandatory bicycle parking requirement for nonresidential development. The current framework is discretionary and substitution-based:
◼ The approval authority may require bicycle racks or facilities in any project submitted for development review, but this is explicitly discretionary (LBMC §25.52.006(F)) ◼ Bicycle and motorcycle spaces count toward required auto parking at substitution ratios: 8 bicycle spaces equal 1 auto space, 2 motorcycle spaces equal 1 auto space, combined not to exceed 10% of required parking (LBMC §25.52.012(E))
◼ Dimensions are codified at 2 feet by 6 feet, with a provision to secure the bicycle, clearly marked, and concentrated in one area where possible (LBMC §§25.52.008(A)(5) and 25.52.008(H)(3)) LBMC Chapter 25.94 requires 5 bicycle racks per 100 employees plus 2 shower facilities, but only for projects reaching the 250-employee threshold.

The code does not include design standards for rack type, placement relative to building entrances, weather protection, or security. LBMC Chapter 10.16, adopted in 2025, recognizes e-bikes as a separate operational category, but the parking code has not been updated to reflect this. The codified bicycle space dimension of 2 feet by 6 feet may not accommodate the longer frames of e-bikes and cargo bikes.

Among the peer cities:
◼ Newport Beach requires bicycle parking for all new nonresidential development with GFA of 10,000 square feet or more, at 5 percent of required auto spaces, with design standards for short-term and long-term facilities. This standard is LCP-certified.
◼ Del Mar requires a minimum of 2 spaces or 5 percent of required auto spaces for short-term visitor parking, and lockers or secured indoor areas for long-term parking in larger projects. This standard is LCP-certified.
◼ Dana Point has only a substitution ceiling, with no mandatory requirement. ◼ Carlsbad addresses bicycle parking through its TDM Handbook rather than the parking chapter, with no standalone zoning requirement.
149
11114444888 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 7
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

It should be noted that California’s CALGreen 2025 standard, effective January 1, 2026, imposes mandatory bicycle parking on qualifying new nonresidential construction independent of local zoning codes.

CALGreen 2025 is more demanding than the current LBMC in three respects:
◼ Requires secure and covered long-term facilities
◼ Distinguishes between short-term visitor parking and long-term employee parking ◼ Sets quantities as a percentage of vehicular spaces rather than a substitution ratio CALGreen applies automatically as state law and does not need to be incorporated directly into the LBMC.

However, the recommended standalone bicycle parking section should meet or exceed CALGreen minimums so that the local code provides consistent standards for all nonresidential projects, including smaller projects that fall below the CALGreen thresholds of 10 or more vehicular parking spaces for shortterm facilities and 10 or more tenant-occupants for long-term facilities.

The 2023 TDM Report recommended developing long-term bicycle parking standards for commercial projects, including lockers and secure facilities, and evaluating their use as a credit against vehicle parking requirements.

Recommendation: Standalone bicycle parking sections should be established within LBMC §§25.52.006(F),

25.52.008, and Chapter 25.94 that establishes minimum required spaces by use category, distinguishing short-term (visitor) facilities and long-term (employee) facilities, with design standards for rack type, dimensions, placement, weather protection, and signage. Applicability triggers should be defined for new construction, expansions above a defined floor area threshold, and change of use, similar to those for vehicle parking. Newport Beach and Del Mar provide the most directly applicable drafting references, as both standards are LCP-certified1.

Given the rapid growth of e-bike use in coastal communities and the City's recognition of e-bikes as a distinct operational category in LBMC Chapter 10.16, the City should also study the feasibility of establishing dedicated e-bike parking standards. The study should address three elements: stall dimensions adequate for longer and heavier e-bike frames, secure rack structural capacity to support the additional weight of e-bikes, and electrical infrastructure for charging. No peer city among those reviewed has established formal e-bike parking standards in their zoning code, so the study can draw from best practices and similar sources, such as Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) guidelines and manufacturer specifications as primary references.

3.5 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT

REGULATIONS
LBMC Chapter 25.94 is a standalone TDM ordinance adopted in 1991 and amended in 2002; the 2002 amendment raised the applicability threshold from 100 to 250 employees. The ordinance applies to new 1 See Newport Beach Municipal Code §21.40.045 (Bicycle Parking for Nonresidential Developments) and Del Mar Municipal Code §30.80.030 (Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces) for example LCPcertified bicycle parking requirements, applicability thresholds, and design standards. 150
11114444999 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 8
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
development, additions, and changes of use where the total employment generation meets or exceeds that threshold. Covered projects must comply with the following mandatory facility standards:
◼ 15 percent of employee parking spaces designated for carpools ◼ Bicycle racks at 5 per 100 employees, plus a minimum of 2 shower facilities ◼ A commuter information area with transit maps and rideshare information ◼ Bus stop improvements on high-traffic streets
◼ Rideshare vehicle loading areas, at the discretion of the design review board Additionally, LBMC §25.94.010(E)(2) requires covered applicants to purchase monthly bus passes for all employees who regularly commute by transit. The chapter has not been amended to reference climate action goals, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction targets, or app-based ride hailing services.

The 250-employee threshold is the highest among the five cities reviewed. In general, commercial uses in Laguna Beach's coastal commercial areas are predominantly small-scale retail, restaurant, and service tenants. Large employers meeting this threshold are likely limited in number. The current TDM requirements are also focused on employee commuting and does not reflect the broader demand management strategies identified in the 2023 TDM Report. There is no formal mechanism in either Chapter 25.94 or LBMC Chapter 25.52 to reduce parking requirements in exchange for verified TDM program participation outside of the discretionary incentives process in LBMC §25.52.006(G).

Among the peer cities:
◼ Carlsbad has the most current TDM framework. Its standalone TDM ordinance is linked to the City’s Climate Action Plan and is triggered by a trip-generation threshold of 110 average daily employee trips (ADET) rather than an employment headcount. It uses a living TDM Handbook that the City Engineer can update without a full code amendment, so measure standards stay current without requiring Council action each time.
◼ Dana Point’s TDM ordinance is structurally similar to Laguna Beach’s Chapter 25.94 and was last amended in 2002. It does not reference VMT targets or app-based ride hailing services. ◼ Newport Beach has no standalone TDM ordinance but includes a TDM reference in its LCP coastal parking chapter, linking TDM compliance to parking reductions in the coastal zone. ◼ Del Mar’s parking chapter mandates a Parking Management Program that must incorporate TDM strategies, LCP-certified in June 2023, with a required review cycle of every 10 years. ◼ None of the peer cities has the obligation for monthly bus pass purchase.

The 2023 TDM Report recommended updating Chapter 25.94 to reflect current policy goals and creating formal parking reduction pathways tied to verified TDM commitments. Staff currently utilize Conditions of Approval (COA) to require TDM measures for applicable projects.

Recommendation: Three updates to Chapter 25.94 (LBMC §25.94.008, §25.94.010, and §25.52.006) are recommended:
• First, replace the 250-employee headcount threshold with a trip-generation-based threshold, using Carlsbad’s average daily employee trip (ADET) approach as a model. Applicability should be 151
1111555000 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 9
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
determined using a standardized administrative screening process based on land use and project size rather than requiring a traffic study for every project.2 • Second, expand the TDM menu to reflect the strategies in the 2023 TDM Report and allow applicants to select measures appropriate to their business type and scale, rather than requiring a fixed list.
• Third, add a formal mechanism in LBMC Chapter 25.52 that allows parking reductions in exchange for verified TDM program participation, as an alternative to the current conditional use permit (CUP)-based incentives process. The City should also evaluate whether administrative guidance, similar to Carlsbad's TDM Handbook, is appropriate for program implementation and administration. Any parking reduction standards or eligibility criteria should remain consistent with the adopted Municipal Code and applicable Coastal Commission requirements.

The existing requirement under LBMC §25.94.010(E)(2) to purchase monthly bus passes for employees who regularly commute by transit should be retained as a mandatory requirement independent of the TDM Handbook menu.

3.6 RIDE HAILING AND PASSENGER LOADING
LBMC Chapter 25.52 and Chapter 25.94 do not include explicit provisions for app-based ride hailing services such as Uber and Lyft. These services are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), not by local code. Three existing provisions are relevant but limited:
◼ LBMC Title 5 §5.36 governs traditional taxicab operations but does not address app-based ride hailing services
◼ LBMC §25.94.010(D) includes rideshare vehicle loading areas, but these are discretionary. The design review board may require them; there is no mandatory standard or defined rate ◼ LBMC §25.52.006(G) lists ride-sharing as a qualifying alternative mode that can support a CUP-based parking reduction, but this is a relief mechanism, not a loading area standard The 2023 TDM Report identifies designated ride hailing drop-off areas as an existing City strategy, but there is no code basis for treating ride hailing proximity as a parking demand offset or for requiring developers to plan for passenger loading activity.

Among the peer cities:
◼ Newport Beach offers a shared mobility parking reduction of up to 10 percent of required nonresidential auto spaces when either one designated signed off-street shared-mobility space or 20 linear contiguous feet of dedicated on-site curb space is provided on private property. The coastal chapter version is LCP-certified.
◼ Dana Point’s TDM chapter requires rideshare loading areas at a rate of 5 stalls per 100 required parking spaces.
2 The City could establish a methodology for determining this data, such as using standard trip generation rates, such as from the latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, and TDM reductions using the latest version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual and the CAPCOA “Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Case Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity.” 152
11115551111 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 10
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ Carlsbad and Del Mar do not have codified ride hailing provisions.

At the state level, AB 2557 (2018) and the California Coastal Commission’s guidance on parking reform both address ride hailing considerations in coastal zone parking planning. The California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) General Plan Guidelines also identify ride hailing services as a travel demand factor.

The 2023 TDM Report recommended studying a parking credit for businesses within 600 feet of a public passenger loading space, tied to observed ride hailing demand reduction.

Recommendation:: This memo recommends converting the discretionary rideshare loading area provision in LBMC §25.94.010(D) to a mandatory standard for commercial projects above a defined size threshold, using Dana Point’s rate as a reference point.

However, it is recommended that a parking credit tied to ride hailing proximity or on-site loading space provision not be included. While Newport Beach has adopted such a credit, the technical basis for quantifying demand reduction attributable to ride hailing is not yet well-established in the coastal Southern California context. Unlike proximity to a fixed transit stop, where ridership data can support a defensible demand offset, ride hailing activity is diffuse and difficult to attribute to specific sites. The City should monitor emerging practice and data before pursuing this direction.

3.7 ZONING CONSTRAINTS AND NONCONFORMING

PARKING
Laguna Beach has broad programs with respect to meeting parking code requirements. The main tools available under LBMC Chapter 25.52 are:
◼ In-lieu parking certificates (§25.52.006(E)): available in designated hardship and special parking district areas, up to 50 percent of required spaces. The first three certificates are approved by the approval authority; four or more require a parking demand study. A coastal development permit (CDP) is required for every issuance
◼ Provision of common parking areas (§25.52.006(A)): shared facilities serving multiple tenants under an approved allocation plan
◼ Provision of joint use (§25.52.006(B)): two or more uses sharing spaces, requires a CUP ◼ Shared parking for mixed-use developments (§25.52.006(C)): requires a CUP and a licensed traffic engineer’s study
◼ Valet parking (§25.52.006(D)): requires a CUP
◼ Incentives (§25.52.006(G)): CUP and CDP-based parking reductions for uses promoting alternative transportation modes. Includes a time-limited “innovative parking solutions” category that expired on May, 2026, five years from the May 2021 LCP certification. The provision may be reinstated through a new Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) if the required parking studies demonstrate effectiveness, or removed from the code if no qualifying projects were approved during the five-year period.
◼ Off-site parking (§25.52.006(H)): within 600 feet, requires a CUP and CDP ◼ Variances: may be available for parking count reductions, subject to standard nonconformities findings under LBMC Chapter 25.56
153
11115552222 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 11
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

However, several provisions in the code may limit the effectiveness of the City's parking flexibility tools or create barriers to redevelopment:
◼ The small-enlargement carve-out under LBMC §25.52.004(E)(2) limits relief to additions of no more than 10 percent of floor area and not exceeding 500 square feet ◼ The driveway slope limit in LBMC §25.52.008 limits the feasibility of subterranean parking on small commercial lots
◼ The innovative parking solutions provision clock has expired ◼ The 1958 baseline credit, discussed in Section 3.2, is difficult to document Among the peer cities:
◼ Dana Point requires a Variance for any reduction in required parking count, the most restrictive approach of the five cities.
◼ Carlsbad allows City Planner-level waivers, joint use up to 50 percent of required spaces within 150 feet, and a 15 percent reduction for common parking facilities. ◼ Newport Beach uses a two-tier structure in its non-coastal chapter: administrative reductions of up to 20 percent using demand evidence, bicycle facilities credits, or shared mobility credits, and a CUP for larger reductions. Its LCP coastal chapter has no stated percentage cap but prohibits any reduction that impacts parking available for coastal access. ◼ Del Mar expressly prohibits variances; all relief must come from tools within the parking chapter itself. Del Mar’s internal toolkit includes shared parking permits allowing up to 66 percent of required spaces to be shared, off-site parking permits within 500 feet, an in-lieu fee program in the Central Commercial Zone covering up to 75 percent of required spaces, alternative vehicle spaces up to 15 percent of required auto spaces, and an accessory use exemption for uses occupying 25 percent or less of the primary use floor area in the same or lower parking intensity category.

This last tool provides a direct pathway for a more intensive use, such as a restaurant, to occupy a portion of a building previously used for a less intensive use, such as retail, without triggering a new parking calculation.

The 2023 TDM Report recommended evaluating commercial development standards for barriers to concealed parking, specifically identifying the driveway slope limit in LBMC §25.52.008 as a friction point.

This provision sets a maximum slope of 10 percent within the first 20 feet of street frontage. On constrained parcels with narrow street frontages, this limit can prevent the grade transition needed to access subterranean parking, even when the lot has sufficient depth to accommodate it.

Recommendation: Modifications to four specific elements of LBMC §§25.52.004(E)(2), 25.52.006(G), and

25.52.008 are recommended:
◼ First, evaluate whether the 10 percent/500 square foot carve-out threshold in LBMC §25.52.004(E)(2) should be expanded for projects that remain below applicable major remodel thresholds. 3 ◼ Second, assess whether the driveway slope limit in LBMC §25.52.008 should be revised for small commercial lots.
3 Refer to LBMC §25.56 for projects that are considered a major remodel. 154
11115553333 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 12
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ Third, add an accessory use exemption modeled on Del Mar’s approach, so that uses occupying a defined percentage of a building in the same or lower parking intensity category do not trigger a new parking calculation. If a citywide blended parking framework is applied to the same commercial areas, the need for a separate accessory use exemption should be re-evaluated. ◼ Fourth, the innovative parking solutions provision in LBMC §25.52.006(G) expired on May, 2026. The City should determine whether any qualifying projects were approved under this provision during the five-year period. If demonstration studies were completed and show effectiveness, the City should pursue an LCPA to reinstate the provision. If no qualifying projects were approved, the City should remove the expired provision from the code through the same LCP amendment process. The City may also consider replacing the expired provision with the TDM-based parking reduction framework described in Section 3.5.
4 Additional Elements Identified Through Code
Review
The following three elements were not included in the original scope but were identified through the code review as provisions that warrant attention as part of this update.

4.1 PARKING CODE PURPOSE STATEMENT
The current purpose statement in LBMC §25.52.002 reads: “The provisions of this chapter have been established to ensure that adequate off-street parking is provided to meet the parking needs of uses located within the city.” It is focused exclusively on providing parking supply and does not reference safety, access, alternative transportation modes, demand management, coastal character, or the City’s broader policy goals.

The current purpose statement is narrowly focused on parking supply and does not reflect how the City's approach to parking has evolved since 1994. The recommendations in Tasks 1.3, 1.5, and this memo collectively represent a shift toward demand management, multimodal access, and context-sensitive standards appropriate to a built-out coastal community. A purpose statement that references only adequate off-street parking supply provides no policy guidance for interpreting the flexibility tools already in the code, such as shared parking, in-lieu certificates, and TDM-based reductions, and does not signal the City's broader goals to applicants, staff, or the Coastal Commission.

Among the peer cities:
◼ Newport Beach has the most detailed purpose statement, with six stated purposes including an explicit coastal access clause.
◼ Del Mar’s purpose statement is the most expansive, referencing multi-modal transit alternatives, the City’s Climate Action Plan, and the protection of adjacent residential neighborhoods. ◼ Dana Point’s purpose statement focuses on safety and circulation. ◼ Carlsbad has no purpose statement in its parking chapter. 155
11115554444 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 13
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

The 2023 TDM Report recommended updating LBMC §25.52.002 to reflect current technologies, travel patterns, and the City’s policy goals.

Recommendation: LBMC §25.52.002 should be revised to add references to demand management, multimodal access, the City’s coastal setting, and consistency with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. Del Mar’s and Newport Beach’s purpose statements provide the most relevant drafting references given their coastal context and policy scope.

4.2 EV CHARGING AND STATE LAW ALIGNMENT
LBMC Chapter 25.52 does not include provisions for electric vehicle (EV) charging or EV-ready infrastructure. The parking design standards in LBMC §25.52.008 address space dimensions and paving requirements but do not address EV infrastructure. Several state laws now apply to Laguna Beach regardless of local code:
◼ CALGreen 2022 (California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11), effective January 1, 2023, requires EV-ready conduit and EV-capable spaces for new nonresidential construction above defined thresholds.
◼ CALGreen 2025, effective January 1, 2026, expands these requirements across additional occupancy types (building use classifications under the California Building Code, such as assembly, business, and mercantile).
◼ AB 1738 (2022) directed the development of EV charging standards for certain additions, alterations, and retrofits to existing multifamily, hotel, motel, and nonresidential for parking facilities. ◼ AB 2097 (2022), effective January 1, 2023, prohibits cities from imposing minimum parking. requirements on projects within half a mile of a qualifying major transit stop.

These requirements are implemented through CALGreen and other state regulations. The recommendations in this section are intended to clarify how those requirements interact with local parking standards rather than duplicate Building Code requirements within the Zoning Code. It should be noted that based on current conditions, Laguna Beach does not contain qualifying major transit stops subject to AB 2097.

LBMC Chapter 25.52 does not cross-reference these state requirements or clarify how they interact with local parking standards. Questions such as whether EV-capable, EV-ready, and EV-installed spaces count toward required parking minimums and how those spaces interact with compact and accessible space counts are not addressed in the code.

The absence of local code direction regarding EV-capable, EV-ready, and EV-installed spaces creates a practical challenge for applicants and City staff. Questions regarding how these spaces interact with required parking counts, compact space allowances, and accessible space requirements under Chapter

25.52 are not currently addressed in the code. As state EV requirements continue to evolve, the absence of local clarification increases the potential for confusion for both applicants and staff.

Among the peer cities
156
1111555555 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 14
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ Del Mar is the only one that has integrated state EV requirements into its local parking code. Del Mar requires Clean Air Vehicle spaces on a sliding scale based on total project parking, mandates EV-ready conduit per CALGreen on all new Clean Air Vehicle spaces, and allows Clean Air Vehicle spaces to substitute for standard auto spaces at a one-to-one ratio up to 15 percent of required parking in commercial zones.
◼ Carlsbad goes furthest among the remaining three through local CALGreen amendments that exceed state minimums for nonresidential EV-capable spaces, but addresses this through its building code rather than its parking code.
◼ Newport Beach has a separate expedited EV permitting chapter with no parking code provisions. ◼ Dana Point adopts CALGreen without local amendments.

Del Mar's approach provides the most directly applicable drafting reference for integrating these provisions into the existing parking chapter structure.

Recommendation: The City should add clarifying provisions to LBMC Chapter 25.52 (§§25.52.008 and

25.52.012) with respect to EV charging:
◼ Clarify that EV-capable and EV-ready spaces and EV-installed spaces count toward required parking minimums.
◼ Clarify how EV-capable, EV-ready, and EV-installed spaces may satisfy compact and accessible parking requirements where otherwise compliant with applicable state and local standards..

Del Mar’s approach provides the most directly applicable drafting reference for integrating these provisions into the existing parking chapter structure.

4.3 COMPACT AND MOTORCYCLE SPACE RATIOS
LBMC §25.52.012(E) allows up to 50 percent of stalls in any parking area or garage with six or more stalls to be designed as compact spaces. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces are 8 feet by 15 feet, whereas full size spaces are 8 feet 4 inches by 18 feet for standard nonresidential spaces and 8 feet 8 inches by 18 feet for residential covered spaces, as established in LBMC §25.52.008(A)(3). Motorcycle spaces are defined at 4 feet by 8 feet in LBMC §25.52.008(A)(4). Bicycle and motorcycle spaces count toward required parking at the following substitution ratios, combined not to exceed 10 percent of required parking supply:
◼ 8 bicycle spaces equal 1 required auto space
◼ 2 motorcycle spaces equal 1 required auto space
The 50 percent compact allowance has not been evaluated against current vehicle fleet conditions since the parking chapter was last substantially amended. Vehicle sizes in Southern California have trended larger over the past two decades, with trucks and SUVs now representing a majority of new vehicle sales.

If the actual fleet mix in Laguna Beach's commercial areas no longer supports a 50 percent compact allowance, the current standard may be producing parking facilities that do not function as designed. A parallel issue exists with terminology: the parking chapter uses "parking space" and "parking stall" interchangeably throughout, without distinguishing automobile spaces from bicycle and motorcycle spaces, which creates ambiguity in how substitution ratios and compact allowances are calculated and applied.
157
1111555666 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 15
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

The 50 percent compact allowance is the most permissive among the five cities reviewed. Among the peer cities:
◼ Newport Beach prohibits compact spaces entirely. Where compact spaces existed at the time of adoption of the current Zoning Code, they may remain and are not considered nonconforming, but no new compact spaces may be created.
◼ Carlsbad caps compact spaces at 25 percent for nonresidential uses and 45 percent for residential visitor parking, with design requirements including separate aisles and clear marking. ◼ Del Mar allows compact spaces at 8 feet by 15 feet within a broader alternative vehicle space framework that also includes a micro-car category at 6 feet by 9 feet. ◼ Dana Point’s code does not enumerate a compact space percentage allowance in the sections reviewed.

LBMC Chapter 25.52 does not include a clean air vehicle space category or a micro-car space category.

Both are codified in Del Mar’s parking chapter.

Recommendation: The City should study the current vehicle fleet mix in Laguna Beach's commercial areas to determine whether the 50 percent compact allowance remains appropriate . Any evaluation of potential changes to the compact parking allowance should be conducted as part of a separate study effort. This additional study should also evaluate whether adding a clean air vehicle space category with a defined conversion ratio, consistent with Del Mar's framework, would complement the EV alignment recommendations in Section 4.2. If changes are made, these would affect LBMC §§25.52.008(A)(3)-(4),

25.52.012(E) and §25.08.

For bicycle substitution ratios, the current allowance of 8 bicycle spaces per 1 auto space is more generous than Newport Beach's ratio of 1 auto space reduction per 3 bicycle spaces. It is recommended that the City evaluate tightening this ratio to align more closely with peer city standards, or retaining the current ratio with a cap consistent with CALGreen thresholds. For motorcycle substitution ratios, no peer city addresses this specifically, including Del Mar which has the most detailed alternative vehicle framework. The current ratio of 2 motorcycle spaces per 1 auto space should be retained pending further data.

The bicycle and motorcycle substitution credit currently in §25.52.012(E) is relocated to §25.52.006(F) as part of the bicycle parking update, and the revised §25.52.012(E) consolidates all alternative vehicle substitution provisions, including the new clean air vehicle category, in a single subsection.

It is also recommended that terminology throughout LBMC Chapter 25.52 should be standardized by replacing 'parking space' and 'parking stall' with 'auto parking space' when referring specifically to automobile parking, consistent with the terminology already used for bicycle parking spaces and motorcycle parking spaces. A new definition of 'auto parking space' should be added to LBMC §25.08 to clarify that it includes cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles, and vans, excluding motorcycles and bicycles.

Among the peer cities, Del Mar comes closest to this approach, using 'automobile parking space' in its alternative vehicle substitution framework. This is a code-wide find and replace with no substantive policy change and can be bundled into the same LCP amendment as the other recommended changes in this memo.
158
1111555777 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 16
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
5 Summary Table
Table 1 summarizes all ten elements addressed in this memo, the recommended action for each, the LBMC sections affected. References to the corresponding 2023 TDM Report recommendations are provided in the individual section discussions where applicable.

Table 1 Summary of Parking Code Recommendations
Section
in this
Doc.

Element Recommended Action LBMC Sections Affected

3.1 Fractional Parking
Requirements
Revise: apply round-at-0.50 standard to
commercial uses and jointly-managed
complexes.
§25.52.012(D)

3.2 Intensification of
Use Calculations
Revise: replace the existing credit
structure with an incremental demand
approach.
§25.52.004(E)

3.3 Square Footage /
GFA Calculation
Revise: introduce net public area for
restaurants; evaluate common-area
exclusion
§§25.52.012(C)(2),

25.08.012

3.4 On-Site Bicycle
Parking Standards
New language: standalone mandatory
bicycle parking section with design
standards
§§25.52.006(F), 25.52.008,
Ch. 25.94

3.5 TDM Regulations Revise: lower threshold, expand measure menu, add parking reduction mechanism
§§25.94.008, 25.94.010,

25.52.006

3.6 Ride Hailing and
Passenger Loading
Revise and new language for mandatory
loading standard
§25.94.010(D)

3.7 Zoning Constraints Revise: expand carve-out threshold; assess driveway slope; add accessory use
exemption; address innovative parking
solutions expiration
§§25.52.004(E)(2),

25.52.006(G), 25.52.008

4.1 Parking Code
Purpose Statement
Revise: add demand management,
multimodal access, and coastal context
§25.52.002

4.2 EV Charging and
State Law Alignment
New language: clarify EV space counting
and AB 2097 exemption
§§25.52.008, 25.52.012

4.3 Compact and
Motorcycle Space
Ratios
Further study: evaluate whether 50%
compact allowance should be reduced;
evaluate clean air vehicle space category
§§25.52.008(A)(3)-(4),

25.52.012(E)
Source: Kittelson, 2026
159
1111555888 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 17
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

The recommendations in this memo are intended to function as a comprehensive package. Several sections address related aspects of the City's parking framework and may benefit from being drafted together to ensure consistency across the Zoning Code. For example:
◼ Sections 3.2 and 3.7 both address barriers to change of use in constrained commercial areas; ◼ Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6 all affect LBMC Chapter 25.94; and, ◼ and Sections 4.2 and 4.3 address related parking design and vehicle accommodation considerations.

If the City elects to proceed, consideration should be given to incorporating the amendments into a single comprehensive zoning ordinance to provide a unified policy framework. 6 Redline Code Language
This section presents draft redline language for each element addressed in this memo. Redlines show proposed deletions in red strikethrough and proposed additions in green underline. All language in this section is draft only, prepared for discussion purposes. All proposed changes are subject to review and approval by City staff and legal counsel before adoption. Any changes to LCP-certified provisions may require California Coastal Commission certification before taking effect.

EXHIBIT 3.1 FRACTIONAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
LBMC Section 25.52.012(D) currently requires that all fractional parking results be rounded up. The proposed revision extends the round-at-0.5 standard to all commercial uses and applies the same methodology to jointly-managed complexes to maintain consistency within LBMC §25.52.012(D).

6.1.1 LBMC §25.52.012(D) — Fractional Parking Space
Whenever the computation of the number of parking spaces required by this section results in a fractional parking space, the fractional number shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. rounded up to the next whole number when the fraction is 0.50 or greater, and disregarded when the fraction is less than 0.50. Exception: In buildings or complexes (group of two or more commercial establishments, planned, developed, owned and managed as a unit) where the common or joint use of parking areas is proposed and an approved parking allocation plan has been accepted, calculations may result in fractional numbers. When the sum total results in a fractional number, the fractional number shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. up to the next whole number when the fraction is 0.50 or greater and disregarded when the fraction is less than 0.50.

EXHIBIT 3.2 INTENSIFICATION OF USE CALCULATIONS
This exhibit presents a proposed revision to LBMC §25.52.004(E) that replaces the current credit system with a simpler incremental demand calculation consistent with Del Mar's model. Under this approach, parking is required only for the net increase in parking demand associated with a change of use or enlargement. The proposed revision addresses the complexity and documentation challenges associated 160
1111555999 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 18
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
with the existing credit structure. City staff should confirm with legal counsel the appropriate implementation process before redline language is finalized.

6.1.2 Incremental Demand Approach — LBMC §25.52.004(E)(1) When a new building is constructed or when a major remodel is proposed, or a use is changed to a use which has a greater parking requirement, or when the floor area of an existing building is enlarged, then the property owner or applicant shall provide parking or purchase in-lieu parking certificates equivalent to the number of parking spaces required by current parking regulations for the proposed use or enlarged building, less credit for: (a) actual on-site spaces provided; (b) previously granted parking credits; (c) previously purchased in-lieu certificates; and (d) the 1958 baseline credit. the net increase in parking demand generated by the proposed use or enlargement above the demand generated by the prior use or existing floor area, calculated using the parking requirements of this chapter. No credit shall be required for pre-existing parking deficiencies. The net increase shall be calculated as: (a) the parking requirement for the proposed use under current code, minus (b) the parking requirement for the prior use under current code. If the result is zero or negative, no additional parking is required.

EXHIBIT 3.3 SQUARE FOOTAGE USED TO CALCULATE

PARKING REQUIREMENTS
This exhibit proposes revisions to LBMC Section 25.52.012(C)(2) to introduce a net public area basis for eating and drinking establishments. If a broader blended parking framework for non-residential uses beyond the study area, the applicability of a restaurant-specific net public area methodology should be re-evaluated. A new definition of 'net public area' will also be required in Chapter 25.08 and should be prepared by legal counsel.

6.1.3 LBMC §25.52.012(C)(2) — Gross Floor Area
Gross floor area shall be as defined in Section 25.08.012. Gross floor area shall be as defined in Section 25.08.012, except that for eating and drinking establishments, parking shall be calculated on the basis of net public area. Net public area means the total area accessible to the public within an eating and/or drinking establishment, excluding kitchens, offices pertaining to the use, and storage areas.

EXHIBIT 3.4 ON-SITE BICYCLE PARKING STANDARDS
This exhibit proposes a replacement of the current discretionary bicycle parking provision in LBMC Section

25.52.006(F) with a mandatory standalone section. The old bicycle space dimension standard in §25.52.008(A)(5) is deleted to avoid conflict with the design standards now established in the new §25.52.006(F). The substitution credit language is consolidated in Exhibit 4.3 alongside all other revisions to §25.52.012(E). Additional coordination with Chapter 25.94 will be required. 161
1111666000 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 19
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

6.1.4 LBMC §25.52.006(F) — Spaces for Bicycles [Proposed Replacement] The approval authority may require the provision of bicycle racks or bicycle parking facilities in any development submitted for development review. If such bicycle parking facilities are required, the location and design of such facilities shall be shown on the site plans and shall be subject to approval.

Bicycle Parking Standards.
(1) Applicability. Bicycle parking shall be required for: (a) all new non-residential development with a gross floor area of 10,000 square feet or more; (b) additions that increase gross floor area of an existing non-residential building by 10,000 square feet or more; and (c) changes of use that increase the parking requirement by five or more spaces. (2) Quantity. Minimum bicycle parking shall be five percent of required auto spaces, with a minimum of two spaces total.
(3) Short-Term Facilities. At least half the required spaces shall be short-term, provided by anchored racks within 100 feet of the main building entrance, visible from the public right-of-way, and sized to accommodate bicycles with wheelbases up to 72 inches including e-bikes. Bicycle parking spaces shall be a minimum of two feet in width and six feet in length and shall be provided with adequate clearance to allow bicycles to be parked and removed without moving adjacent bicycles.
(4) Long-Term Facilities. At least half the required spaces shall be long-term, provided by lockers, a secured bicycle room, or a secured covered cage. Long-term facilities shall be illuminated, weather-protected, and accessible only to authorized users. (5) Substitution Credit. Eight bicycle spaces or two motorcycle spaces count for one required auto parking space, combined not to exceed ten percent of required parking. This credit is in addition to the minimum bicycle parking required under subsections (1) through (4).

6.1.5 §25.52.008(A)(5) — Bicycle Parking Space Dimensions [Proposed Deletion]
The current dimension standard in §25.52.008(A)(5) is deleted because bicycle parking design standards, including dimensions, are now established in §25.52.006(F)(3). Retaining both provisions would create a conflict.
(5) Bicycle parking space: two feet by six feet each space. Provision to secure bicycles must be included with each space;
162
11116661111 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 20
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

EXHIBIT 3.5 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT

REGULATIONS
This exhibit proposes revisions to LBMC Chapter 25.94 to replace the 250-employee threshold with a tripgeneration basis, introduce a menu-based compliance approach, and add a parking reduction pathway in Chapter 25.52. The monthly bus pass requirement in §25.94.010(E)(2) is retained as a mandatory measure independent of the TDM Handbook menu. Full revision will require coordination with legal counsel.

6.1.6 LBMC §25.94.008 — Applicability [Proposed Revision] This chapter shall apply to all new development projects, including additions to existing development and change of use to existing buildings, that are estimated to employ a total of two hundred fifty or more persons (or as specified by the rules and regulations of the Southern California air quality management district) as determined by the following methodology: [land use table] generate average daily employee trips (ADET) above the threshold established by the City, as determined by the screening methodology established in the TDM Handbook adopted pursuant to this chapter. For mixed or multiple use projects, ADET shall be calculated based on the methodology established in the TDM Handbook.

6.1.7 LBMC §25.94.010 — Facility Standards [Proposed Revision] The current fixed measure list in Section 25.94.010 (carpool spaces, bicycle racks, commuter information area, rideshare loading areas, and transit improvements) is proposed to be replaced with a menu-based approach as follows:

All applicable development shall be subject to the facility standards as specified herein; the site plan approved for such development shall provide for each of the improvements identified below:
[fixed list in subsections (A) through (E)] All applicable development shall submit a TDM Plan demonstrating compliance with the minimum point threshold established in the TDM Handbook adopted pursuant to this chapter. The applicant shall select measures from the menu established in the TDM Handbook appropriate to the project type and scale. The TDM Handbook shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council and may be updated administratively to address implementation procedures, TDM measure descriptions, and program administration. Any parking reduction standards or eligibility criteria shall remain established through the Municipal Code and applicable Coastal Commission processes.

The following subsection is retained as a mandatory requirement independent of the point threshold:
(E)(2) [Retained] Applicant shall seek to reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicle work trips by purchasing monthly bus passes from the Laguna Beach transit lines and/or the Orange County Transit District for all employees who regularly use such transit as a means of getting to work.

Applicant must provide detailed information pertaining to the implementation of this program for approval by the design review board or applicable review body. 163
11116662222 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 21
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

6.1.8 New LBMC §25.52.006(J) — TDM Parking Reduction [Proposed Addition]
(J) TDM Parking Reduction. A reduction of up to ten percent of the required number of parking spaces may be approved by the Director of Community Development for nonresidential uses demonstrating verified participation in a TDM program consistent with Chapter 25.94. The reduction shall be subject to annual review and may be revoked if TDM program participation is not maintained.

EXHIBIT 3.6 RIDE HAILING AND PASSENGER LOADING
This exhibit converts the discretionary rideshare loading area provision in LBMC Section 25.94.010(D)(1) to a mandatory standard for nonresidential development and changes of use subject to Chapter 25.94.

6.1.9 LBMC §25.94.010(D)(1) — Rideshare Vehicle Loading Areas [Proposed Revision]
Loading areas to embark and disembark passengers from rideshare vehicles may be required by the design review board. shall be required for all new non-residential development and changes of use subject to this chapter, at a rate of one loading space per 20 required auto parking spaces, with a minimum of one loading space. Loading spaces shall be designated and signed for ride hailing and passenger pick-up and drop-off and may be provided as a designated passenger loading area consisting of not less than 20 linear contiguous feet on private property accessible from a public street or alley.

EXHIBIT 3.7 ZONING CONSTRAINTS AND

NONCONFORMING PARKING
This exhibit addresses four friction points identified in Section 3.7. Items (1) and (2) show the current language proposed for revision but do not specify replacement thresholds; those values require further analysis and City staff direction before final language can be prepared. Item (3) is a new provision ready for review. Item (4) presents two alternatives for the innovative parking solutions provision.

6.1.10 (1) LBMC §25.52.004(E)(2) — Small Enlargement Carve-Out The current thresholds of 10% and 500 square feet are proposed for revision. Replacement thresholds should be determined based on an analysis of Laguna Beach's commercial building stock and comparison with peer city practices before final language is prepared. The structure of the provision is retained.

When an enlargement results in the creation of no more than ten percent additional square footage of floor area and does not exceed five hundred square feet, [revised percentage and square footage threshold to be determined], additional parking shall be required for the enlarged area only.
164
11116663333 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 22
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

6.1.11 (2) LBMC §25.52.008(I)(3)(a) — Driveway and Ramp Slopes The 2023 TDM Report identified the current 10% maximum gradient within the first 20 feet as a barrier to subterranean parking on small commercial lots. A revised gradient standard should be determined. The provision below shows the current text proposed for revision; the replacement value requires further study.

Driveways and vehicle accessways shall not exceed an average gradient of ten percent within the first twenty feet off a street or alley right-of-way, [revised gradient standard to be determined] within the first twenty feet off a street or alley right-of-way, fourteen percent for the next one hundred thirty feet, and twelve percent for the remaining length of the driveway.

6.1.12 (3) New LBMC §25.52.004(F) — Accessory Use Exemption Accessory Use Exemption. When a use occupies 25 percent or less of the gross floor area of a building and the use is in the same or a lower parking intensity category as the primary use, the accessory use shall not be subject to the intensification of use calculation in subsection (E).

Incidental displays, merchandise areas, or similar activities that do not constitute a separately identifiable use area shall be considered part of the primary use and shall not be treated as a separate accessory use for purposes of this subsection.

Parking intensity categories shall be as established in the parking requirements table in Section

25.52.012(G). This exemption does not apply to uses requiring a conditional use permit for reasons other than parking.

6.1.13 (4) LBMC §25.52.006(G)(3) — Innovative Parking Solutions Expiration Alternative A reinstates the expired provision contingent on Coastal Commission certification of an LCPA, subject to demonstration studies showing effectiveness. Alternative B removes the sunset clause and establishes a permanent discretionary pathway. As an alternative to either approach, the City could consider replacing the expired innovative parking solutions provision with a TDM-based parking reduction framework tied to implementation of an approved TDM plan or technical memorandum. This approach would consolidate parking reduction mechanisms into a single program, provide clearer performance standards and review criteria, and align with the TDM parking reduction recommendation discussed in Section 3.5.

Alternative A:

This Subsection 25.52.006(G)(3) shall expire five years from the date of effective certification of LCP-5-LGB-19-0139-1. This Subsection 25.52.006(G)(3) may be reinstated upon certification by the California Coastal Commission of a Local Coastal Program Amendment, provided that the parking studies required under this subsection have been submitted and demonstrate the effectiveness of approved innovative parking solutions.

Alternative B:
165
11116664444 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 23
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
[Existing subsection (G)(3) text including sunset clause] (3) The proposed use incorporates innovative parking solutions that reduce vehicle trips to or from the site. Any proposed innovative parking solution shall provide parking mitigation at an equivalent ratio to the parking spaces required for the proposed intensification, as demonstrated in a detailed program submitted with the application. A parking study shall be required at one year and five years from the date of approval. This subsection shall not be subject to automatic expiration.

EXHIBIT 4.1 PARKING CODE PURPOSE STATEMENT
This exhibit proposes a revised purpose statement for LBMC Section 25.52.002. The proposed language adds references to demand management, multimodal access, coastal setting, and consistency with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, consistent with the 2023 TDM Report. Newport Beach Section

21.40.010 and Del Mar Section 30.80.010 were used as drafting references.

6.1.14 LBMC §25.52.002 — Intent and Purpose [Proposed Revision] The provisions of this chapter have been established to ensure that adequate off-street parking is provided to meet the parking needs of uses located within the city. The provisions of this chapter establish off-street parking and loading standards to: (A) Provide for the general welfare and convenience of persons within the City by ensuring that parking facilities are available to meet the needs generated by specific uses, to the extent feasible given the City’s built-out coastal environment; (B) Encourage the efficient use of existing parking supply through shared parking, demand management, and operational strategies that reduce reliance on new parking construction; (C) Support multimodal access by recognizing the role of transit, cycling, walking, and ride hailing services in reducing parking demand; (D) Protect and maintain public access to the coast, consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program and the California Coastal Act; and (E) Ensure consistency with the City’s General Plan, Parking and Transportation Demand Management Report, and other adopted policy documents.

EXHIBIT 4.2 EV CHARGING AND STATE LAW ALIGNMENT
This exhibit proposes a new subsection in LBMC Section 25.52.012 to clarify how state EV requirements interact with local parking standards and to acknowledge the AB 2097 transit proximity exemption. The proposed language is clarifying in nature and does not alter the underlying parking requirements.

6.1.15 New LBMC §25.52.012(H) — State Law Requirements [Proposed Addition]
(1) Electric Vehicle Infrastructure. New non-residential development shall comply with the electric vehicle charging and EV-ready infrastructure requirements of CALGreen (Title 24, Part 11) as amended from time to time. EV-capable, EV-ready, and EV-installed spaces provided in compliance with CALGreen shall count toward the required number of parking spaces under this chapter. EV spaces may be standard, compact, or accessible as applicable. 166
1111666555 of 444444444444
August 27, 2026 Page 24
Task 1.5 Other Parking Code Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

EXHIBIT 4.3 COMPACT AND MOTORCYCLE SPACE RATIOS
This exhibit proposes adding explicit full-size auto parking space dimensions to LBMC §25.52.008(A) and consolidating all revisions to LBMC §25.52.012(E), including the relocation of the bicycle and motorcycle substitution credit from §25.52.006(F) (addressed in Exhibit 3.4), the addition of a clean air vehicle space, and a terminology update replacing “standard size parking space” with “auto parking space” throughout the subsection. The compact space allowance is not proposed for revision at this time pending a study of the current vehicle fleet mix in Laguna Beach. A new definition of ‘auto parking space’ will also be required in LBMC §25.08 to clarify that it includes cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles, and passenger vans, and excludes motorcycles and bicycles; this definition should be prepared by legal counsel and is a prerequisite to the code-wide terminology update throughout Chapter 25.52.

6.1.16 LBMC §25.52.008(A) — Size of Spaces and Parking Bay Dimensions [Proposed Revision]
(7) All others Auto parking space (nonresidential): eight feet four inches by eighteen feet each space;
(7a) Auto parking space (residential covered): eight feet eight inches by eighteen feet each space;

6.1.17 LBMC §25.52.012(E) — Compact, Motorcycle, Bicycle, and Clean Air Vehicle Stalls [Proposed Revision]
(E) Compact, Motorcycle and Bicycle Stalls Compact, Motorcycle, Bicycle, and Clean Air Vehicle Stalls. In every parking area and garage containing six or more stalls, fifty percent of the stalls provided may be designed as compact spaces. Bicycle and motorcycle parking spaces are encouraged and will count towards required parking. To count toward required parking, eight bicycle spaces or two motorcycle spaces count for one standard size parking space auto parking space, not to exceed ten percent of the required parking. Bicycle and motorcycle spaces count toward required parking as provided in §25.52.006(F)(5). Clean air vehicle spaces, including EVcapable and EV-ready spaces installed in compliance with CALGreen (Title 24, Part 11), shall be treated as regular auto parking spaces and shall count toward required parking requirements. 167
1111666666 of 444444444444
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE UPDATE
Task 1.5 – Outdoor Dinning
Project #30640 | Prepared by Kittelson & Associates
Q1 - Among peer cities, do any exempt outdoor dining from the calculation or provide alternatives to encourage outdoor dining/sidewalk café uses, i.e. pedestrian oriented environment, bicycle stalls, etc.? City / Area Restaurant Parking
Requirement
Specific Outdoor Dining
Parking Requirement
Exemption / Reduced Rate Other Tools
Laguna Beach
(Outside DSP)
1 space per 100 SF GFA or 1
space per 3 seats, whichever
is greater. Outdoor
dining/service areas are
considered in parking
calculations.

Outdoor dining is included in
the parking calculation.

Sidewalk cafés may receive a
parking reduction of up to 5
spaces.

Parking reductions may be
approved for projects that
promote walking, bicycling,
transit, ridesharing, vanpools,
or similar transportation
options.

Laguna Beach
(DSP)
DSP blended parking
framework applies.

No outdoor dining-specific
provision identified.

None identified. None identified.

Dana Point
(Outside Harbor)
Restaurants: 1 space per 100
SF GFA. Fast Food: 1 space
per 50 SF GFA. Take-Out: 1
space per 250 SF GFA.

Outdoor dining areas with 16
seats or fewer require no
additional parking. Outdoor
dining areas with more than
16 seats require 1 space per
Yes. Outdoor dining ≤16
seats is exempt from
additional parking.

None identified.
750 The City Drive, Suite 410
Orange, CA 92868
P 714.468.1997
175
1111666777 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 City of Laguna Beach Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Task 1.1 – Comment-Response Matrix
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page: 2 of 7
City / Area Restaurant Parking
Requirement
Specific Outdoor Dining
Parking Requirement
Exemption / Reduced Rate Other Tools
150 SF of the entire outdoor
dining area.

Dana Point
(Harbor)
Restaurants: 1 space per 100
SF up to 4,000 SF and 1
space per 80 SF above 4,000
SF.

Outdoor dining is included in
restaurant square footage
and parking demand
calculations.

None identified. Shared parking and parking
management strategies.

Carlsbad
(Outside Village
& Barrio)
Restaurants <4,000 SF: 1
space per 100 SF.

Restaurants ≥4,000 SF: 40
spaces + 1 space per 50 SF
above 4,000 SF.

No outdoor-dining-specific
parking provision identified.

None identified. Shared parking, parking
modifications, and parking
districts.

Carlsbad
(Village & Barrio)
Village & Barrio parking
standards apply. Outdoor
Dining on Private Property is
a defined use category.

No additional parking
required when the outdoor
dining area is equal to or less
than the indoor dining area.

Outdoor area exceeding the
indoor dining area requires 1
space per 170 SF.

Yes. Partial outdoor dining
exemption.

Curb cafés are permitted and
regulated. The City maintains
curb café and sidewalk café
programs. Parking reductions
may also be considered
through TDM measures,
shuttle programs, and
rideshare programs.
176
1111666888 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 City of Laguna Beach Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Task 1.1 – Comment-Response Matrix
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page: 3 of 7
City / Area Restaurant Parking
Requirement
Specific Outdoor Dining
Parking Requirement
Exemption / Reduced Rate Other Tools
Newport Beach
(Outside PM-1)
Food Service: 1 space per
100 SF. Fast Food: 1 space
per 50 SF. Fast-Casual (≤20
seats): 1 space per 250 SF,
including outdoor dining
areas.

Outdoor dining area: 1 space
per 150 SF. Fast Food
outdoor dining area: 1 space
per 100 SF.

Yes. Outdoor dining is
parked at a lower rate than
indoor dining.

Up to 5% parking reduction
through bicycle parking and
up to 10% reduction through
shared-mobility facilities.

Newport Beach
(PM-1)
Most new or intensified nonresidential uses do not
require additional off-street
parking.

No outdoor dining-specific
provision identified.

No outdoor dining-specific
exemption identified;
however, most commercial
intensification does not
trigger additional parking.

Shared parking, public use of
private parking, bicycle
facilities, ferry access,
trolley/shuttle service, and
rideshare accommodations.

The overlay was established
to support a pedestrianoriented environment.

Del Mar
(Outside Beach
Commercial)
1 space per 200 SF up to
5,000 SF and 1 space per 90
SF above 5,000 SF.

No additional parking
required when the outdoor
seating area is equal to or
less than the indoor seating
area. Excess outdoor area
requires 1 space per 200 SF.

Yes. Partial outdoor dining
exemption.

Shared parking permits, offsite parking permits, in-lieu fees, parking management
plans, bicycle parking, and
alternative transportation
substitutions.
177
1111666999 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 City of Laguna Beach Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Task 1.1 – Comment-Response Matrix
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page: 4 of 7
City / Area Restaurant Parking
Requirement
Specific Outdoor Dining
Parking Requirement
Exemption / Reduced Rate Other Tools
Del Mar
(Beach
Commercial)
1 space per 90 SF up to 4,000
SF and 1 space per 45 SF
above 4,000 SF, including all
outdoor dining area.

All outdoor dining area is
included in the restaurant
parking calculation.

None identified. Shared parking permits, offsite parking permits, in-lieu fees, parking management
plans, bicycle parking, and
alternative transportation
substitutions.
178
1111777000 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 City of Laguna Beach Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Task 1.1 – Comment-Response Matrix
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page: 5 of 7
Q2 - Any code recommendations in light of AB 1217/AB 592 – to adopt an ordinance that provides relief from parking restrictions for expanded outdoor dining areas to reduce the number of required parking spaces for existing uses by the number of spaces that the local jurisdiction determines are needed to accommodate an expanded outdoor dining area AB 1217 and AB 592 provided parking relief for outdoor dining expansions that were created in response to COVID-19 restrictions on indoor dining.

The legislation allows flexibility when outdoor dining areas affect required parking. However, the legislation does not establish parking requirements for all future outdoor dining areas and does not require cities to exempt outdoor dining from parking requirements.

Approach Example
Exempt outdoor dining up to a certain
threshold
Dana Point exempts outdoor dining areas with 16 seats or fewer from additional parking requirements.

Outdoor dining areas with more than 16 seats require 1 space per 150 SF of outdoor dining area.

Exempt outdoor dining up to the size of
the indoor dining area
Del Mar (outside the Beach Commercial Zone) and Carlsbad Village & Barrio do not require additional parking when the outdoor dining area is equal to or less than the indoor dining area.

Apply a lower parking rate to outdoor
dining
Newport Beach requires 1 space per 150 SF for outdoor dining compared to 1 space per 100 SF for indoor food service.

Provide parking reductions through
alternative transportation measures
Newport Beach allows parking reductions through bicycle parking and shared mobility facilities. Del Mar allows alternative transportation and bicycle parking substitutions as part of its parking framework.

It should be noted that Laguna Beach allows parking reductions for sidewalk cafés and projects that promote walking, bicycling, transit, ridesharing, and similar transportation options
As identified through this peer city review, several coastal cities have adopted some form of parking flexibility for outdoor dining. The examples reviewed generally do not eliminate parking requirements entirely. Instead, they either one or more of the following:
◼ Exempt a portion of outdoor dining from additional parking requirements; 179
11117771111 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 City of Laguna Beach Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Task 1.1 – Comment-Response Matrix
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page: 6 of 7
◼ Apply a lower parking rate to outdoor dining than indoor dining; or, ◼ Provide flexibility through bicycle parking, shared mobility, transportation demand management measures, or sidewalk café programs.

If Laguna Beach wishes to consider changes consistent with the intent of AB 1217 and AB 592, peer city examples suggest that a limited exemption, a reduced outdoor dining parking rate, or parking reductions tied to bicycle parking and other transportation measures may be potential options. Any future code changes should also consider coastal access and the City's broader parking management objectives. 180
11117772222 of 444444444444
August 26, 2026 City of Laguna Beach Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Task 1.1 – Comment-Response Matrix
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page: 7 of 7
Q3 - Are there any coastal cities that have adopted outdoor dining ordinances with revised parking incentives? Yes. Several coastal cities reviewed as part of this study have adopted parking provisions that provide some form of relief or flexibility for outdoor dining.

City Outdoor Dining Incentive
Del Mar Outside the Beach Commercial Zone, no additional parking is required when the outdoor dining area is equal to or less than the indoor dining area. Only the outdoor area exceeding the indoor dining area must provide parking at a rate of 1 space per 200 SF.

Carlsbad
(Village &
Barrio)
No additional parking is required when the outdoor dining area is equal to or less than the indoor dining area. Only the outdoor area exceeding the indoor dining area must provide parking at a rate of 1 space per 170 SF.

Dana Point Outdoor dining areas with 16 seats or fewer do not require additional parking. Outdoor dining areas with more than 16 seats require 1 parking space per 150 SF of outdoor dining area.

Newport
Beach
Outdoor dining areas are parked at a lower rate than indoor dining areas. Food service uses require 1 space per 100 SF, while outdoor dining areas require 1 space per 150 SF. Newport Beach also adopted bicycle parking and shared mobility parking reductions.
181
11117773333 of 444444444444
DRAFT – Outdoor Dining Guidelines | September 2026 Page 1 Outdoor Dining Guidelines
Purpose: The purpose of these guidelines is to provide criteria for the establishment of new permanent outdoor dining areas and to facilitate the transition of temporary patios to permanent outdoor dining that supports Laguna Beach’s public realm, businesses, pedestrians, and coastal character. These Outdoor Dining Guidelines provide a framework for businesses to obtain approvals for permanent outdoor dining areas at food service establishments, on private property or within the public right-of-way. This effort is focused not only on increasing opportunities to expand dining operations outdoors but also on creating enhanced active transportation consistent with Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.52.006(G).
• Elevate design quality by replacing improvised temporary installations with durable, coordinated design intended for long-term use.
• Maintain accessibility by keeping sidewalks, the Promenade, access routes, drainage, and emergency access clear.
• Create outdoor spaces that feel distinctly Laguna Beach without imitating a single architectural style.
• Support local restaurants with flexible, attractive outdoor environments that encourage activity and community in commercial districts.

Types of Outdoor Dining
• Outdoor Seating Area
“Outdoor Seating Area” means a separately identifiable outdoor area on private property and located directly adjacent to or near a restaurant, used for the outdoor seating, service, and/or consumption of meals and beverages in conjunction with the restaurant. Typical improvements include a defined perimeter with landscape planters, decorative barriers, or fencing; concrete or pavers that separate the dining area floor from the ground or asphalt paving of a parking lot area; and outdoor furnishings such as shade structures, tables, and chairs. Outdoor seating areas may be proposed in areas formerly used for parking.

Required approvals may include:
- Conditional Use Permit
- Coastal Development Permit
- Building Permit
• Promenade
“Promenade” means dedicated outdoor dining areas associated with restaurants located within the new Promenade at Forest Avenue. A Coastal Development Permit for the construction of the Promenade limited the location of tables and chairs and the areas that could be licensed to food service operators.

Attachment 6
11117774444 of 444444444444
DRAFT – Outdoor Dining Guidelines | September 2026 Page 2 Required approvals may include:
- Conditional Use Permit
- License Agreement
• Sidewalk Café
“Sidewalk Café” means outdoor seating available to restaurant customers, when the outdoor seating is located on public property or right-of-way, and to the general public as well. A sidewalk café requires approval of a license agreement with the City.

Required approvals may include:
- Conditional Use Permit
- Encroachment Permit
- License Agreement
A. General Guidelines

1. Permanent Approval and Required Upgrades. Approval for permanent or ongoing outdoor dining or seating is not an authorization to perpetuate temporary conditions. As a condition of approval, temporary, makeshift, deteriorated, or visually incompatible features shall be removed or replaced with improvements that comply with these guidelines and an approved design plan. Required upgrades shall be completed before the outdoor area begins permanent operation, unless the applicable approval expressly authorizes a phased improvement schedule with enforceable completion dates.

2. Design Plan. Applications shall include a coordinated design plan identifying the proposed layout; paving or decking; colors and materials; tables, chairs, umbrellas, barriers, planters, lighting, heaters, signs, service equipment, and storage; accessibility features; and the routing or concealment of utilities. The plan shall also identify temporary improvements to be removed or replaced. Photographs of existing conditions and representative product or material information shall be provided as needed to demonstrate compliance.

3. Ongoing Design Compliance. The approved design plan shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval. Furniture, fixtures, finishes, barriers, and other visible elements shall be maintained consistent with the approved plan. Material changes or substitutions require City approval. Worn, damaged, faded, or incompatible elements shall be promptly repaired or replaced.

4. Accessible by Design. Outdoor dining areas shall be accessible by design and provide continuous accessible routes that are level, firm, and slip-resistant surfaces. Accessible seating shall be integrated into the layout.

5. Clear & Safe. Maintain required pedestrian, emergency, fire, utility, and building egress clearances, and do not block ramps, doors, hydrants, or sightlines. Furnishings may not obstruct entrances, exits, fire lanes, hydrants, drive aisles, or pedestrian or handicap access, nor conflict with other requirements of the Building and Fire codes. 1111777555 of 444444444444
DRAFT – Outdoor Dining Guidelines | September 2026 Page 3

6. Durable & Repairable. Use commercial-grade outdoor furniture, paving, and decking that is suitable for sustained outdoor use. Materials shall be durable, fade-resistant, and repairable with corrosion-resistant hardware and replaceable components.

7. Coastal-Ready. Select materials and finishes appropriate for exposure to sun, salt air, wind, rain, and long-term maintenance.

8. Low Visual Clutter. Coordinate furniture, planters, barriers, lighting, umbrellas, signs, and service equipment as one cohesive composition and design that complements the building architecture, storefront, and site.

9. Green & Comfortable. Use shade, planting, and trees where feasible, and comfortable seating to support year-round outdoor use. Plant selection shall be appropriate for the location and maintained in healthy condition.

10. Signage. Signage is limited to freestanding menu boards or A-frame signs not to exceed a maximum sign area of 3 square feet and a maximum quantity of two, except where a more specific standard below applies. Avoid excessive branding, which shall remain secondary to the quality and character of the outdoor space.

11. Shade Structures. Shade structures and umbrellas shall complement the adjoining building and the other elements of the outdoor area. No logos are permitted on shade structures or umbrellas unless otherwise permitted by the City’s Municipal Code (i.e. canopy awnings).

12. Furniture. Furnishings should complement the overall aesthetics and façade treatments of the primary business. Coordinate chair and table heights, profiles, and finishes across the entire area. Residential-grade plastic furniture is prohibited.

13. Barriers & Planters. Permanent barriers should be of durable, weather-resistant, high-quality material and complement the outdoor dining experience. Barriers should match the same or complementary color as the other elements of the business front design, such as awnings or window frames, or selecting complementary materials and finish materials. Barrier design should preserve visibility and avoid creating a tunnel effect. Temporary plastic fencing, traffic barricades, and similar makeshift barriers are prohibited. Planters should be substantial to resist wind and remain stable. Integrate irrigation and maintenance access into the landscape design.

14. Lighting. Lighting fixtures may not create excessive glare or spill onto neighboring tenant spaces. Electrical equipment and cabling shall be concealed to the greatest extent feasible and integrated into the site design. On private property, electrical service shall comply with applicable codes and shall be routed through permanent, protected, and visually unobtrusive installations; extension cords may not serve as permanent wiring. Additional restrictions for installations within the public right-of-way are provided below.

15. Heating. No portable heaters shall be permitted, and permanent heating must be built-in fixtures mounted and installed directly to gas lines or hardwired electrical systems.

16. Maintenance. Outdoor dining areas must be always kept in clean conditions free from litter and debris by the business owner. Owner is responsible for prompt repair of damaged furniture, fixtures, planters, barriers, surfaces, and lighting.

17. Responsibility. The owner of the primary business is responsible for proper operation of the outdoor dining area. Outdoor dining shall be continuously supervised by management or employees. Food establishments serving alcoholic beverages shall have a supervisor, at least 21 years of age, on-site at all times of operation. Any behavior that disturbs customers 1111777666 of 444444444444
DRAFT – Outdoor Dining Guidelines | September 2026 Page 4 or passersby on the sidewalk will constitute grounds for revocation of any permit(s) to operate an outdoor dining area.

18. Hours of Operation. The outdoor dining hours of operation shall be limited to the hours of operation of the associated food or drink establishment, and may be reduced as necessary to ensure activities remain compatible with surrounding land uses. The business hours shall be limited to X:XX to X:XX, Monday through Sunday.

19. Alcohol Service. Any service of alcoholic beverages in outdoor dining areas will be subject to approval by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and shall adhere to all requirements and standards implemented by said state agency.

20. Noise. The operations and use shall comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, which establishes the maximum allowable exterior noise levels (e.g., 70 dBA in most downtown zones, and 65 dBA for commercial uses located in other zoning districts). Noise complaints may lead to unannounced inspections and noise readings by City staff. Noise concerns shall be addressed in a timely manner pursuant to Chapter 7.25 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. A contact phone number shall be posted at the establishment’s entrance and outdoor dining area so any noise concerns can be reported to the business operator. Outdoor dining areas shall be subject to review by authorized City officials to ensure that noise complaints and/or potential noise ordinance violations are addressed. If necessary, modifications of the operating characteristics of outdoor dining areas may be required. If any noise complaints and/or noise ordinance violations are not adequately addressed, approvals for outdoor dining areas may be revoked at the discretion of the appropriate review authority.

21. No Solicitation. Employees shall not engage in sidewalk solicitation. Sidewalk solicitation may include any of the following: (1) the distribution of product samples outside of an enclosed building; (2) interactions that may occur between employees and pedestrians outside of an enclosed building with the intent to solicit business; or (3) any employee positioned with the intent to attract the patronage of a pedestrian located beyond the physical boundary of the establishment.

B. Outdoor Seating

1. Permanent outdoor dining areas must be an architecturally integrated extension of the primary structure with complementary finishes, colors, and materials.

2. Furnishings may not obstruct onsite entrances, exits, fire lanes, hydrants, drive aisles, or pedestrian handicap access, nor conflict with other requirements of the Building and Fire codes.

3. Permanent physical barriers, including landscape, railings, and boundary elements, must be located on private property and adjacent to the primary business. Use planting, low walls, railings or a combination to create a clear dining edge without creating visual mass.

4. Dining areas converted from parking spaces or other asphalt-paved areas shall replace the asphalt within the approved dining footprint with standard concrete, decorative concrete, unit pavers, tile, or another durable decorative paving material approved by the City. Paving shall distinguish the dining area from vehicular areas and shall be compatible with the building.

5. Patio flooring surfaces should integrate with the building, landscape, and grade, while maintaining separation from parking lots and sidewalks. Use durable, slip-resistant surfaces. 1111777777 of 444444444444
DRAFT – Outdoor Dining Guidelines | September 2026 Page 5 Resolve grade changes with compliant accessible routes and remove temporary, makeshift ramps.

6. Provide comfortable shade through trees, built-in umbrellas, retractable systems, or architecturally compatible shade structures.

7. Remove excessive signage, exposed equipment, electrical cords, plastic tarps, temporary or plastic fencing, or visually dominant branding.

8. Design drainage, lighting, wind protection, materials, and maintenance into the permanent, all-weather installation.

9. Locate seating to complement storefronts, plazas, courtyards, or landscaped areas.

10. Use moveable furniture such as tables, chairs, benches, and shade elements suited for outdoor exposure. When not in use, furniture must be stored indoors and out of public view.

11. Landscaped edges and barriers are encouraged to soften the space and reinforce the City’s coastal setting.

12. Trash and recycling receptacles should be conveniently located and visually integrated, and regularly maintained.

C. Promenade

1. License Agreement Required. Restaurants along the Forest Avenue Promenade may enter into a license agreement with the City for use of the designated patio area and city-owned fixtures only, including shade structure, tables, chairs, and heaters.

2. No Reservations. Licensee shall not reserve, hold, mark as reserved, or otherwise represent as unavailable any Public Furnishings, whether for specific customers, parties, or events.

Licensee acknowledges that Public Furnishings may be relocated, reconfigured, or removed by City at any time, including for community events such as large-scale community meals, and may therefore be unavailable without notice.

3. Community Events. City reserves the right to temporarily suspend the License, in whole or in part, during City-sponsored or City-permitted events on the Promenade. No abatement of the License Fee shall apply to routine or short-term event closures; extended closures may be addressed by mutual written agreement.

4. No Fixed Improvements. No barriers, additional furniture, restaurant service station, food preparation, amplified sound, or other improvements are permitted within the Promenade area unless otherwise approved by the City.

5. No Alterations. Licensee shall not affix signage to, modify, remove, or relocate any Public Furnishings without prior written approval of City, except for the incidental repositioning of chairs in the ordinary course of service.

6. No storage. Licensee shall not store or otherwise leave items (service carts, service equipment, and any restaurant-related product) in the Promenade for any duration over 15 minutes, or as long as is needed to provide service, busing, and cleaning to the Public Furnishings.

7. Pedestrian Traffic. All servers and restaurant patrons shall yield to the flow of pedestrian traffic on Promenade walkways between the business frontage and the designated patio areas.
1111777888 of 444444444444
DRAFT – Outdoor Dining Guidelines | September 2026 Page 6

8. Cooperation. Licensee shall cooperate in good faith with City staff, other licensed restaurants, and members of the public in the shared use of the Promenade, and shall direct its employees to conduct themselves courteously and professionally at all times.

9. Maintenance and Cleaning. Licensee shall be responsible for maintenance and cleaning of the outdoor dining area and Promenade walkways between the business frontage and the designated patio. Where Licensee has provided food or beverage service at any Public Furnishing, Licensee shall promptly bus the table, remove all serviceware, trash, and debris associated with that service, and wipe down the table surface, leaving it in a clean condition for the next user.

10. Trash and Disposal. Utilize designated trash enclosures and provide separate containers for solid waste, recycling, and organics in coordination with the City’s franchised solid waste hauler. All trash and recyclables shall be disposed in appropriate containers and stored in an orderly manner. The Licensee shall be responsible to monitor the Promenade area directly fronting the business location to collect and dispose of all litter.

11. Hours of Operation. City-owned tables and chairs shall be open to the public when the restaurant is closed for business.

12. Alcoholic Beverage Service.
a. If Licensee serves alcoholic beverages within the Promenade Service Area, Licensee shall comply at all times with all rules, regulations, license conditions, and requirements of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) and City, including obtaining and maintaining any required license expansion, catering authorization, or premises modification applicable to the Service Area.
b. As required under ABC law, each beverage container served by Licensee shall be branded or otherwise marked with an identifier showing the establishment from which the beverage was sold. This is a mandatory requirement of this Agreement, not a recommendation.
c. Licensee is solely responsible for monitoring its customers’ consumption of alcoholic beverages, preventing service to minors and obviously intoxicated persons, and ensuring alcoholic beverages remain within any area authorized by Licensee’s ABC license. Any suspension or revocation of Licensee’s ABC license shall automatically suspend Licensee’s right to serve alcoholic beverages under this Agreement.

13. Signage. Signage is limited to no more than two (2) portable menu boards and a total allowable sign area of three (3) square feet. Signs shall not be affixed to any hydrant, light pole, fixture, or other permanent structure within the Promenade. No signage or barriers shall be installed to restrict seating areas reserved for customers only.

14. Customer Identification. Licensee is encouraged to use custom stanchion cards or similar table markers so that its food service staff can locate its customers, who may be interspersed among non-customers at the Public Furnishings.

15. Number of License Agreements Issued. The City Council may limit the number of license agreements to be issued within the Promenade.
1111777999 of 444444444444
DRAFT – Outdoor Dining Guidelines | September 2026 Page 7 D. Sidewalk Café

1. Pedestrian & Vertical Clearances. Any outdoor dining areas in the public right-of-way shall maintain a minimum 4-foot wide unobstructed ADA clearance on the sidewalk and a minimum 7-foot height clearance measured from the walking surface to any vertical obstruction, such as signage, umbrellas, or awnings, to ensure pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Where feasible, use a baseless shade element, such as awnings attached to a façade or umbrellas mounted on barriers, to minimize encroachments into the public sidewalk.

2. Water Quality & Maintenance. Require strict measures to address water quality concerns, prohibiting any wash water, debris, or pollutants from entering the municipal storm drain system. Mandate daily removal and clean-up during non-business hours, requiring all portable furnishings and equipment be securely stored off the public right-of-way.

3. Indemnification & Risk Management. Require businesses operating the public right-of-way to indemnify the City for any risk, liability, or claims arising from their private use of public property.

4. Encroachment Permits & Compliance Checks: Require an annual right-of-way encroachment permit combined with periodic compliance inspections by City staff.

5. City Reservation & 48-Hour Removal Notice: The City reserves the right to require immediate removal or relocation of any encroachments for special events, utility work, or municipal functions, and business owners agree to completely clear the right-of-way within a 48-hour notice upon request by the City.

6. Seating Layout. Seating is limited to a maximum of one row of tables and chairs located within 10 feet of the building façade. The interior of the sidewalk café shall consist solely of moveable furnishings. A minimum distance of 8 feet shall be maintained from entrances to adjacent ground floor commercial spaces, unless the property owners and first floor tenants of the affected lease provide a notarized letter of permission.

7. Corner Visibility. All improvements must be located at least 15 feet from any adjacent intersection or street corners.

8. Barriers. If alcohol service is proposed, a physical barrier shall be required to delineate service area. Landscaping may be placed in moveable planters or planted in the ground inside a delineated sidewalk café area adjacent to the barrier. If located adjacent to on-street parking, provide a barrier that is at least 3 feet tall and does not obstruct access to any existing parking meters.

9. Lighting. Lighting shall be portable, self-contained, and powered by batteries or solar energy.

Electrical cords or cables may not cross any portion of the sidewalk or pedestrian path, whether placed on or beneath a temporary surface, covered by a cord protector, or suspended overhead. Extension cords from the adjoining business to a Sidewalk Café are prohibited. Lighting fixtures shall not encroach into the required pedestrian passageway or create glare.

10. Sidewalk Surface. The existing sidewalk should remain the finished walking surface wherever feasible. No raised platform may be permitted unless specifically approved and accessible.

11. Encroachment Permit Required. Any proposed improvements within the public right-of-way, including new sidewalks, curbs, landscaping or barriers, shall require approval of an Encroachment Permit. Note that properties fronting Coast Highway or Laguna Canyon Road are fronting Caltrans right-of-way.
1111888000 of 444444444444

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

September 22, 2026
APPEAL
A
SUBJECT: 31552 EAGLE ROCK WAY: PUBLIC HEARING FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 2026-0922 FOR ADDITIONS (424 SQUARE FEET) INCLUDING 172 SQUARE FEET AT THE UPPER LEVEL AND 252 SQUARE FEET AT THE LOWER LEVEL,

LANDSCAPING, TO CREATE NEW ON-SITE VEHICULAR ACCESS, AND TO EXCEED (1) THE ALLOWABLE BUILDING SITE COVERAGE AND (2) FLOOR AREA, AND VARIANCE 2026-0923 FOR FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK

ENCROACHMENTS AND TO NOT PROVIDE THE SECOND REQUIRED
COVERED PARKING SPACE AT 31552 EAGLE ROCK WAY IN THE VILLAGE

COMMUNITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 AND 15305 (CLASS 1 AND 5)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 2026-0922 and Variance 2026-0923 and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15301 and 15305 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AND TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 2026-0922 FOR ADDITIONS (424 SQUARE FEET) INCLUDING 172 SQUARE FEET AT THE UPPER LEVEL AND 252 SQUARE FEET AT THE LOWER LEVEL, LANDSCAPING,

NEW WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS, TO CREATE NEW ON-SITE VEHICULAR ACCESS, AND TO EXCEED (1) THE ALLOWABLE BUILDING SITE COVERAGE AND (2) FLOOR AREA, AND VARIANCE 2026-0923 FOR FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK

ENCROACHMENTS AND TO NOT PROVIDE THE SECOND REQUIRED COVERED PARKING SPACE AT 31552 EAGLE ROCK WAY IN THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY ZONE,

AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15301 AND 15305 (CLASS 1 AND 5), ” conditionally approving Design Review 2026-0922 and Variance 2026-0923, and finding the Project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
Horst Noppenberger, Architect on behalf of Adam McNicol, property owner (“Applicant”), for 31552 Eagle Rock Way (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 2026- 0922 to construct additions (424 square feet) including 172 square feet at the upper level and 252 square feet at the lower level, landscaping, new on-site vehicular access, and to exceed the allowable (1) building site coverage and (2) floor area (see Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(c), (B)(1)(k), Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d) and 25.43.070(H)), and Variance (“VAR”) 2026-0923 for a new 1111 of 11114444666
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0922 AND VAR 2026-0923 AT 31552 EAGLE ROCK WAY
September 22, 2026