Staff Report - April 2, 2002 - Agenda Item

PURPOSE

On January 20, 2004, the City Council directed the staff to prepare an Ordinance to amend Chapter 31 (Zoning) of the Burbank Municipal Code to eliminate provisions allowing for small (compact) car parking spaces in multi-family residential developments (Exhibit B). The first part of the following report discusses this code amendment.

The staff is also taking this opportunity to propose certain related changes to the Zoning Code relating to parking space dimensions which will: (1) make the code section establishing minimum dimensions for parking spaces easier to use; and, (2) establish minimum required dimensions for garages and carports for single-family (R-1, R-1E and R-1H) and two-family (R-2) residential developments, and clarify the goal of retaining as much off-street parking as practical in these zones.

BACKGROUND

The Zoning Code currently allows that for multi-family developments in the R-3, R-4, and R-5, zones, (and by extension, the MDR-3, MDR-4 and MDR-5 zones), �Forty-five (45) percent of the required number of such off-street parking spaces over the first five (5) required spaces may be compact spaces� (Exhibit A, pgs. 3, 7 & 11). Current regulations do not allow for compact parking in the R-2 zone, or in single-family residential zones. Generally, full size spaces for residential developments must be minimum 18� long, and minimum 8�6� wide depending on the angle of the parking, and the width of the access aisle. Compact spaces must be minimum 15� long by 7�6� wide (Exhibit A, pgs. 13 -16).

The City Council has previously considered eliminating provisions for compact parking. In 1999 at the request of the Planning Board, the staff prepared a proposed ordinance that would have eliminated all provisions for compact parking in all zones. The Council considered this proposed ordinance at their December 12, 2000 meeting but voted not to adopt it. Following that the Council requested consideration of eliminating compact parking in multi-family residential zones only.

ANALYSIS

Problems with Compact Parking Spaces in Practice

First, it should be pointed out that most of the reasons compact parking does not work well in multi-family residential developments actually apply to compact parking in all situations. It is widely recognized that compact parking does not work well in high parking turnover situations such as retail uses, banks, medical offices, etc. and Burbank, like most Cities, does not allow compact spaces in such situations. However, there are many reasons, besides turnover, that compact parking often does not work well in other situations either.

The most common reason given for eliminating compact parking provisions is the rise in the proportion of larger vehicles, particularly so called �sport utility vehicles� (SUVs) and light trucks being sold. This rise is clearly documented by several articles appearing in the technical and professional press. In a May 1999 article (Exhibit C-1) in the National Parking Association�s Parking magazine, Mary S. Smith documents the rising size of vehicles. Actually, as she points out, the average size of passenger cars (narrowly understood) has increased modestly, but the average size of so called �LTVUs� (stands for Light Trucks, Vans and Utility vehicles) has soared.

Another article (Exhibit C-2) by Mary Smith in the November 1999 issue of Shopping Center Business and a technical analysis (Exhibit C-3) by Saul Kane, and Mathew Ridgeway also demonstrate the rise in the average size of LTVUs being sold. These last two articles are actually arguments for increasing the size of all (including full-size)[1] parking stalls rather than about compact spaces specifically, but both articles clearly demonstrate the rising size of vehicles being sold.

Another reason for reducing or eliminating compact parking is given by Christian Luz and Mary Smith in The Dimensions of Parking, Ch. 8 �Parking Geometrics� (Exhibit D-1, pg 48) published by the Urban Land Institute and the National Parking Association. At the time the concept of small-car only parking was first widely implemented in the 1970s, most autos sold in the US were essentially either large cars, or small cars. Until then, most domestically manufactured autos were large cars by today�s standards. With the rise in oil prices in the 1970s, sales of small (often foreign-built) cars, previously only a minor part of the market, soared. Eventually, of course, US manufacturers followed suit with their own small cars, but more to the point, they also down-sized a lot of their larger models which then became �mid-size� or �intermediate size� cars. More recently, we have seen many import manufacturers (e.g. Nissan, Toyota) who previously concentrated on small cars, offer larger �midsize� etc. models. Now, rather than the previous dichotomy of large car or small car, the market offers a virtually continuous unbroken spectrum of sizes from the Mini-Cooper (11�11� ft. overall length by 5�6� wide) to the Ford Excursion SUV (18�11� long by 6�8� wide). This has lead to a great deal of confusion and differences of opinion over what is or isn�t a small car.

This particular study is important for current purposes because it is published by the National Parking Association and the Urban Land Institute. The National Parking Association is an organization of parking operators and contractors, and the ULI is an organization primarily of land developers and is widely respected in the development community. This indicates that the problems with using compact parking are serious enough that even those who presumably stand to gain the most from squeezing in extra spaces, recognize their drawbacks.

Apart from the �what is a compact car� question, drivers of intermediate, even large vehicles are often strongly tempted to park in �compact� spaces that happen to be in a prime location (close to the entrance), they may also park with their vehicles overhanging the adjoining space creating a domino effect down the row eventually rendering a space unusable. Essentially, the only conditions under which The Dimensions of Parking endorses use of compact parking is in situations where space and layout constraints make full size spaces impossible; for example, a compact stall might be placed at the end of a row in order to provide turning radius for the access aisle.

In 2000, the Southern California Association of Governments Westside Cities Subregion commissioned Meyer Mohaddes Associates to produce a section on parking for their Livable Communities report. One chapter deals with parking space size and design (Exhibit D-2), and includes the following table offering pros and cons of compact parking.

Pros	Cons
Maximize land use by consolidating more parking spaces on single or fewer sites.	Not customer or visitor friendly.
Reduce costs of building parking (lowers costs per stall).	Does not work well in high turnover areas.
Regular parker is more familiar with the parking design.	Lack of maneuverability and restricted turning radius.
	Difficult to enforce.
	Increase in use of larger vehicles that may exceed the space and park in more than one space.
	Increase in damage to vehicles.
	Drivers may take prime spaces regardless of the size.
	Determining the appropriate mix of standard and compact spaces.

There also seems to be some evidence of movement among local jurisdictions in California toward eliminating or reducing compact parking provisions. Walker Parking Consultants performed two surveys of parking standards in California Cities, one in 1995 and one in 2000. In the 1995 survey, 25 out of 130 (19%) of the municipalities surveyed either prohibited compact parking for any uses or allowed in only for parking in excess of required minimums. In the 2000 study 57 (24%) of 240 cities surveyed did not allow compact parking. There is also some anecdotal evidence of cities moving in this direction. Exhibits F-1 to F-5 are articles from popular and professional press discussing large vehicles and compact parking. Staff notes that our neighboring city of Glendale eliminated all code allowances for compact parking in their City in 1994.

Among cities that do make provisions for compact parking, Burbank appears to have one of the more generous allowances. Of the 240 cities surveyed by Walker Parking Consultants in 2000, only 14 allow a higher proportion (45% or higher) of compact parking for multi-family residential uses than Burbank does. Eleven of these are in the Bay area or beach resort areas where land values are extremely high and alternative transportation is encouraged and widely available. An alternative to eliminating compact parking altogether might be to reduce the proportion allowed (although staff is not recommending this). More typical allowances are in the range of 20% to 33% of required spaces.

It is difficult to come up with numerical estimates of the effect of eliminating provisions for compact parking in multi-family residential developments. It is probable that requiring larger parking spaces will, in some situations, mean that a developer may not be able to provide as many spaces in a given proposed development as he/she could otherwise, and this may in turn limit the number of dwelling units allowed. But there are so many possible arrangements for parking (e.g. on grade, subterranean, semi-subterranean, angled or 90�), alternative designs for the dwelling units, not to mention the different shapes and sizes of lots, that to try to come up with a numerical estimate of the overall impact of eliminating compact parking allowances is even more difficult.

As an example, for a typical single lot, R-4 zone, multi-family development, parking is usually arranged in a single row as in Exhibit F. Occasionally such parking is angled, but most often it is at 90� to the access aisle, since on a 50 ft. wide lot a 24 ft. wide access aisle (the minimum required for 90� parking) is possible, and this is the most efficient arrangement[2]. If the developer were building seven units on this property (the most possible under existing density standards) 15 parking spaces would be required if all proposed units were two-bedroom units. Under existing standards, no more than four of these could be compact spaces (45% after the first five). It is at least theoretically possible to get 15 full-size spaces in the 135 ft. remaining after subtracting the required front (15 ft.) and rear (5 ft.) setbacks (15 spaces at 8.5 ft. each = 127.5 ft.).

In practice, however, some of the spaces will have to be wider than 8�6� because of adjacent walls and support posts[3]. Using compact spaces would gain the architect four feet (four 7�6� vs. 8�6� spaces). However, there are creative ways to make up for the lost space. For example, if there is an alley adjacent to the rear, it is possible to extend an uncovered parking structure an extra five feet right to the edge of the alley. In larger developments with more parking stalls more space will be lost, however, multi-lot developments also offer a lot more flexibility with respect to parking and unit layout, including the ability to use the internal side setback areas[4]

It is even more difficult to try to estimate how many fewer residential units might possibly end up being built as a result of the proposed changes. In the above seven unit example, if some of the two-bedroom units were replaced with one-bedroom, or studio units the parking requirement would be reduced. If this space were transferred to other units making them three bedroom units, which under our code require no more parking spaces than a two-bedroom unit (see BMC �31-638(g)(2); Exhibit A, pg. 2), it might be possible to reduce the parking required without any loss of either units or leaseable square-footage.

Staff also observes that since 2003, the City is required to give concessions - which may include parking bonuses - for developers willing to provide units affordable to moderate and/or low income households. This could also result in a lower parking requirement with no net loss of units. Overall, eliminating compact parking in multi-family residential developments probably will result in a certain limited number of cases where one or two fewer parking spaces can be built on the site than would otherwise be the case. In certain developments this could result in one or two fewer dwelling units being built, given current densities and development standards.

There will also at least arguably be some increase in construction costs associated with requiring larger parking spaces. As above, it is difficult or impossible to make exact predictions because of the large number of variables involved. Estimates of construction costs vary widely by source and are �ballpark� figures at best. But, for the sake of example, the City of Burbank Building Division valuates �Parking Structures� (including semi-subterranean structures) at $52.00 per square-foot (Exhibit H). Using this figure, and assuming the proposed parking structure in Exhibit F would have to be 4 feet longer gives an estimated extra construction cost of $9360 (4� x 45� wide x $52/sq. ft.). In practice the $52 estimate includes fixed and overhead costs and expanding a parking structure like this usually does not result in a linear increase in cost. On the other hand, if the example option of extending the structure to the alley is used, there would likely be requirements for extra shoring which would increase the cost.

As was pointed out above, there are many unpredictable variables, and this kind of estimate can be no more than the most �ballpark� of guesses. Of course, if the developer opts to (or must) reduce the number of units in the development, costs may actually be lower. But in this case the unit rents or sales prices may wind up being higher, because recovery of development costs is spread over a smaller number of units. As noted above, there is always the possibility under State Law of gaining increased density and/or lower parking requirements if some of the units are designated for limited income households. Overall, staff finds the proposed parking requirement will probably have a marginal effect on housing costs in a limited number of cases.

Staff is proposing to delete the current provisions in the multi-family residential standards allowing for compact spaces and insert new language to require that all parking spaces in multi-family residential zones must meet the requirements of BMC �31-1401 for �Standard Cars� (full-size). �Small car� spaces may not be used to meet the minimum parking requirements in these zones (see Exhibit A, pgs. 3, 7 & 11)

Staff also proposes to change the language of BMC 31-1404(6)(d) in reference to tandem parking in multi-family developments to clarify that tandem spaces required in these zones must also meet the requirements of BMC �31-1401 (see Exhibit A, pg. 18). In fact the code already requires that all tandem spaces in residential developments must be full-size spaces, but the proposed language makes it clearer what is being referred to. Staff notes that the proposed language will not eliminate the possibility for parking spaces (if any) provided in excess of the code required minimums to be compact spaces.

Although the City Council directed staff to eliminate compact parking provisions in multi-family developments, staff would also like to take the opportunity to recommend two related Code changes:

BMC �31-1401 specifies minimum required dimensions for standard and compact parking spaces. Staff is proposing certain minor changes to the language and layout of this section intended to make the tables easier for the general public to understand and to standardize their language. It can be mathematically determined from the tables that the minimum length of a standard (full-size) parking space must be 18 ft, and this is also diagrammed in the Public Works Department�s �Parking Standards� document (see Exhibit G, sheet 9 of 12). The proposed text change is simply to explicitly state this on the face of the table (Exhibit A pgs. 13-16). The changes do not alter any of the actual numerical standards in any way.

The Public Works Department, Traffic Division (Exhibit I) has also requested correction of an old typographical error (see Exhibit A, pg. 16, Table 5, third column). Examination of the table will reveal that for all other cases, the required bay width increases as the parking angle increases (because a sharper turn is required). In Table 5, the width required for a 32.5� angle is less than the width required at 30�. This is an obvious typographical error that has apparently been there since the time this Code section was first adopted.

Garage and Parking Standards in Single-family and Two-family Residential Developments

Unlike the multi-family zones, where open (uncovered) parking is permitted, the Zoning Code requires that single-family (R-1, R-1E and R-1H) zone and two-family (R-2) zone developments must provide a certain minimum number of parking stalls - usually two, but more for very large houses - in a garage or carport. Also unlike the multi-family zones, the BMC currently requires that all parking in these zones must be �full-size�.

The Community Development Department uses the same minimum size standard for parking spaces in single-family and two-family residential zones as for full size spaces in all other residential zones. This however is the required minimum dimensions of the parking space itself. Required parking in all single family zones and in the two-family zone must be in a garage or carport, but the code does not specify what the dimensions of the garage or carport must be.

Note, that under the Public Works Department�s �Parking Standards� (Exhibit G, sheet 1) a full-size space must be 10� wide if there is a post, wall or obstruction in the areas indicated in the small drawing. This is because with an in-line parking stall, a car door can be opened partly onto the adjacent stall (as long as both cars do not try to open their doors simultaneously). This is not possible if there is a wall adjacent on one side of the stall, so such spaces are required to be wider.

Exhibit G does not contain any references specifically to single-family residential parking, but the Planning Division has long required interior dimensions for new construction garages in single-family and two-family residential developments to provide for six inches clearance around the outside perimeter of all parking spaces. Given an 8� x 18 ft. standard size space, plus six inches clearance, the interior dimensions of a two-car garage will be minimum 19 ft. x 19 ft. Adding six inches for the thickness of walls, a standard two-car garage will thus have exterior dimensions of 20� x 20�[5]. As shown in Exhibit J, this provides an extra one-foot clearance next to the wall, and 6� clearance at the front and rear ends of the stalls. Unlike parking lots or apartment building garages, single-family garages are typically equipped with a door which cannot be closed if the vehicle overhangs the designated space. There is no reason to imagine that vehicles driven by occupants of single-family or two-family homes are any smaller on average than those driven by the population at large.

As shown in Exhibit J, the proposed dimensions are adequate to provide space for a �Design�[6] SUV with 24� clearance between cars and between the car and the side walls and about 1 ft. at the front and rear of the vehicle. Even 19� x 19� is marginal for the largest �light� vehicles on the market. A Ford Excursion at 18�10.6� long would have only 1.4� inches to spare front and back, and an Excursion or Lincoln Navigator at 6�8� wide would leave an inter-vehicle distance (room to open the door) of a minimal 21�[7].

Staff is requesting that this standard be regularized and codified in order to provide developers and property owners with fair notice, and to avoid confusion and misunderstandings. Staff is proposing new Section 31-1402.5 (a) be added to Article 14 �General Off-street Parking Standards� of the Zoning Code to require that all garages and carports should have a minimum of six inches clearance on all sides of the perimeter of the required parking space(s). It also specifies that all required spaces must be full-size spaces (see Exhibit A, pg. 17). The requirement is phrased as a required clearance rather than simply requiring minmum19� x 19� inside dimensions to provide for instances when a three (or more) car garage is required (e.g. for a house greater than 3600 sf. in floor area) or desired.

Maintaining Existing Off-street Parking in the Single-family and Two-family Zones

Until 1963, only one covered (garage or carport) space was required for single-family homes in Burbank, although most homes, even then, were built with �two car� garages. There has been some change over time in what constitutes a full-size, two car garage. As noted above, the City now considers that a two-car garage should have minimum interior dimensions of 19� x 19�, but this has not always been the case. Many existing �two-car� garages particularly those built prior to 1963 (and the bulk of single-family homes in Burbank were built before then) are actually around 16� x 18� or 17� x 17� or similar such dimensions. This was considered an acceptable size for a two-car garage then. Most of these residences were, and still are, marketed as having a two-car garage.

Now, the City recognizes that it is not always financially feasible, or even physically possible during, for instance, a home remodel project to bring garages up to current standards. Thus, the possibility of a waiver is provided:

�For single family dwellings erected in the single-family residential zone under a permit issued before November 11, 1963, the parking required at the time of construction shall be maintained if in the opinion of the Building Director it is not feasible to add the additional parking required by this chapter.� (BMC �31-1410(a))

The Planning Staff has always interpreted this provision to mean that any new additional parking may be waived. However, a number of developers, focusing on the word �required� have interpreted this to mean that parking may be reduced to the absolute minimum that was required in 1963. Pointing out that their 16� x 18� (or so) garage does not meet the current minimum standards for a two-car garage, they argue that it is in fact a one-car garage, and since one car was all that was required prior to 1963, that they can therefore convert any garage space in excess of the code minimum (8�� x 18�) for one car to other purposes.

The Planning Staff finds this to be a misreading of the purpose of the code, and also antithetical to the goal of retaining as much off-street parking as possible in residential areas. Staff finds that it is desirable to try to retain as many �two-car� garages as practical in the single-family and two-family residential zones even if such garages do not quite meet the dimensions now considered ideal for parking two cars.

In order to prevent confusion among homeowners, and builders, and to aid neighborhoods in achieving the goal of preserving as much off-street parking as practical in residential zones, while still recognizing that bringing parking up to current standards is not always feasible, the staff proposes to reword BMC �31-1410(a) as follows:

�For single family dwellings, additional parking required by this Chapter may be waived if in the opinion of the Community Development Director it is not feasible to add such parking.� (Exhibit A, pg. 24)

Additionally, staff proposes to add Subsection (b) to proposed Section 31-1402.5 (above) to read:

For existing dwellings, the parking area provided at the time of construction shall be maintained, and shall not be reduced or encroached upon, even if such parking area is substandard under the current requirements of this Chapter. (Exhibit A, pg.17)

When the Planning Division prepared its report for ZTA 99-6 proposing to eliminate compact parking in all zones, Staff contacted the Burbank Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce responded with the letter in Exhibit K-2. The Staff again contacted the Chamber of Commerce pointing out that the current proposal applied only to residential zones (Exhibit K-2), but to date has received no response. It is understandable that the Chamber may not be as concerned with residential parking, as they are with parking for commercial uses. The Staff sent a similar letter to the Burbank Board of Realtors, (Exhibit K-1) but also received no response.

Finally, the staff also contacted the Building Industry Association of California. There is not really a �Burbank� chapter of this organization, rather a chapter that covers the entire West Los Angeles County and Ventura County area. Ron Pearl of the West LA-Ventura BIA sent an e-mail to their membership and a number of their members responded expressing interest in attending meetings or hearings. These members were individually informed of the date and place of this hearing. One recipient, Tarek Shaer of Greystone Homes, responded with an e-mail providing their view on compact parking in multi-family developments (Exhibit K-3). Most of their product is �for sale� (i.e. condominiums) where larger spaces are seen as a sales asset, but they would like to see compact spaces available for one bedroom units requiring 1.5 or 2 parking spaces. Subsequent to the Planning Board hearing, staff also had an over-the-counter conversation with a local developer, who suggested considering allowing compact spaces for multi-family residential projects consisting of one lot, noting that single lot developments were the hardest to provide adequate parking for (see discussion above, pg. 4). Staff is not recommending this option, as all the issues discussed in this report apply as much to single-lot developments as they do to larger projects.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was completed to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project would have no significant environmental impacts. A Negative Declaration has accordingly been prepared and released for public review (Exhibit L). The review period commenced on May 5, 2004 and ends on May 25, 2004.

Staff finds that the recommended changes to the Multi-family parking standards are in conformance with, and will help to further the policies and goals of the City of Burbank General Plan: Land Use Element Section III.A.1.b �Multiple Family Residential�

Parking lots/garages and their access driveways/ramps shall be designed to minimize the potential for accidents or awkward vehicular maneuvers and eliminate disincentives for tenants to use the on-site parking including difficultly in entering or exiting the required spaces. (Exhibit M, pg. 19-20)

It is well established in the professional literature that larger parking spaces are easier to maneuver into and out of, and providing more clearance between cars will lessen the probability of dings and scrapes, thus encouraging more tenants to use the parking provided on-site.

Staff finds that the requested changes to the parking dimensions tables in BMC Section 1401 do not in any way change the actual requirements of this section. They will make the Section and standards therein easier for the general public to read and understand.

Finally, staff is recommending that BMC Section 31-1402.5 be added, and Section 31-1410(a) be amended in order to clarify standards for garages and carports in those zones where such are required, and to prevent future misunderstandings regarding the meaning of these sections. There is no specific General Plan goal in the Single Family section of the General Plan that corresponds exactly to the above noted multi-family policy, however, staff notes that it is a general Land Use Element policy that:

�All new development will provide adequate off-street parking; parking requirements shall be reviewed periodically and amended when necessary to meet identified needs of the community.� Burbank General Plan; Land Use Element Section II.B.15 (pg. 10).

Adoption of the proposed Zone Text Amendment will have no direct fiscal impact. If the amendments to the multi-family zone parking standards are adopted, and result in lower density development in some cases, there could be some impact to property valuation and thus indirectly to property tax receipts. Such impacts are expected to be minimal. The proposed amendments to the parking space dimension regulations and to the regulations for garages and carports represent only clarification of the meaning of the code, and codification of a long-standing Planning Division policy, therefore will not likely have any fiscal impact.

The City of Burbank Planning Board conducted a public hearing on proposed Zone Text Amendments 2004-30 at their regular meeting on April 26, 2004. Minutes of the Planning Board meeting are attached as Exhibit O-1. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Board unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2927 (Exhibit O-2) recommending the City Council adopt Zone Text Amendment No. 2004-30. The Planning Board recommended one change to the staff�s original proposed text regarding the title of proposed BMC Section 31-1402.5(a) which recommended change has been incorporated into the proposed Ordinance.

Staff recommends the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance entitled �AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING SECTION 31 OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING SPACES.� as described in this report and attached thereto.

[1] As the article points out, the largest �light� vehicle now sold is the Ford Excursion with an 18�10.6� overall length. This would over hang even a (Burbank standard) �full size� space by 10.6�. This is why some cities have increased the minimum required length for full-size stalls to 19 or even 20 feet.

[2] This essentially assumes semi-subterranean parking in the �downtown� or �Lake Street� special districts (Code Section 31-1113(p)) where a semi-subterranean structure may encroach on a side setback on one side of the lot. It is also possible with fully subterranean parking (rare due to expense) and with on-grade parking (often not used because of height restrictions).

[3] Code Section 31-1401 has a specific provision authorizing the Public Works Director to set different minimum standards for parking spaces adjacent to walls, columns, etc. These are contained in the Public Works Department�s �Parking Standards� document (see Exhibit G, Sheet 1 of 12). These standards are based on technical studies by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE).

[4] Normally a 5 ft side setback is required on each side of the lot, but if a single project occupies two adjacent lots, the side setbacks on the common lot line are not required, giving the project area useable space. It is a Burbank General Plan policy to encourage such grouping of lots for multiple family projects (Exhibit M. Page 20).

[5] This is actually less than would be dictated by strict application of the PWD �parking dimensions� (Exhibit G) standards to single family situations. Requiring all spaces next to a wall to be 10 ft. wide would result in a minimum interior garage width of 20 ft.

[6] A �design� vehicle is a hypothetical vehicle that is as large as 85% of vehicles sold. The 85% standard is widely used in transportation engineering design (e.g., in determining speed limits). The derivation of the �design SUV� is provided in Kane and Ridgeway (Exhibit C-3).

[7] ITE recommends minimum 20� clearance between vehicles (see Exhibit C-3, Page 4) in low parking turnover situations and up to 27� minimum clearance in high turnover situations.

Council Agenda - City of Burbank

Tuesday, June 1, 2004