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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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