PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to provide information for the City Council�s consideration about the potential effects of prohibiting compact parking spaces for general office and industrial uses.

BACKGROUND:

In 2004, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) that eliminated provisions for compact parking in multiple family residential zones.  Previously, the Code allowed 45 percent of the required parking spaces beyond the first five spaces in a multifamily project to be compact.  At that time, the Council requested that staff return with a report on the feasibility of eliminating compact parking provisions for general office and industrial uses.

Current Code Requirements

BMC Section 31-1401 currently provides for two basic parking space sizes (Exhibit A).  Standard (full-size) parking spaces must be at least 18 feet long.  The minimum required width depends upon the use for which the parking is provided.  Spaces for retail, commercial services, and similar uses that have high parking turnover rates must be at least nine feet wide.  Parking spaces for uses with lower parking turnover such as residential, general office, and industrial uses must be at least eight feet, six inches wide.  The Code allows up to 45 percent of all required parking spaces for general office and industrial uses to be compact spaces.  Compact parking is not permitted for any other uses.  Compact parking spaces must be at least 15 feet long and seven feet, six inches wide.

The current limitations on compact parking were adopted in 1988.  Prior to that time, compact parking had been allowed at various percentages that were changed over time, from a low of 20 percent to a high of 50 percent.  The City Council considered eliminating provisions for compact parking entirely in 1999 when the Planning Board requested that staff prepare an ordinance to eliminate compact parking provisions for all uses.  The Council considered the ordinance in December 2000 but voted not to adopt it.

ANALYSIS:

Problems with Compact Parking Spaces in Practice

It is generally recognized that compact parking does not work well for uses with high rates of parking turnover such as retail stores, service uses, banks, and medical offices.  Burbank, like most cities, does not allow compact parking for such uses.[1]  Very few cities allow compact parking for retail uses, and those that do usually allow only a very low percentage of the total required parking to be compact spaces.  Pasadena allows 15 percent of retail customer parking to be compact, and Sunnyvale allows 10 percent of parking for certain retail uses to be compact.  However, there are many reasons besides high turnover why compact parking often does not work well.

The most common reason given by cities for reducing or eliminating compact parking is the rise in the proportion of larger vehicles, particularly large sport utility vehicles (SUVs), vans, and light trucks, being sold.  In 1987, almost half of all new vehicles sold were small cars.  By 1998 this share had fallen to less than 25 percent and by 2004, to less than 20 percent of all vehicles sold.  The average size of passenger cars has increased only modestly, but the average size of SUVs, vans, and light trucks has grown substantially.

Drivers of intermediate and even large vehicles are often tempted to park their cars in compact spaces if the spaces are located in a prime location or if there are few other spaces available.  Drivers may also park with their vehicle overhanging the adjoining space, creating a domino effect down the row and eventually rendering a space unusable.  Because of these situations, the only condition under which the National Parking Association endorses the use of compact parking is in situations where space and layout constraints make full-size spaces impossible.  For example, a compact space might be placed at the end of a row in order to provide an adequate turning radius for the access aisle.

Compact Parking Regulations in Other Cities

Different jurisdictions have taken a variety of approaches to compact parking.  In May 2000 Walker Parking Consultants compiled a survey of parking regulations in 240 California jurisdictions (Exhibit B).  The survey revealed that 54 (about 23 percent) of the surveyed cities either explicitly prohibit or make no provisions for compact parking.  A few cities allow compact parking spaces only for some or all of the spaces that are in excess of the minimum otherwise required for the use; all of the required spaces must be standard size.  Fifteen (about six percent) of the surveyed cities allow compact parking only through a discretionary approval process.

There is some evidence of movement among California cities toward eliminating or reducing allowances for compact parking.  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 the 130 cities surveyed (about 19 percent) either prohibited compact parking or allowed compact spaces only for parking in excess of required spaces.  In the 2000 study, 60 of the 240 cities surveyed (25 percent) did not allow compact spaces or allowed them only for excess spaces.  Staff notes that the City of Glendale eliminated all allowances for compact parking in 1994.

Parking Mix

Given the changes in the proportion of small to large vehicles on the road, one of the most important variables in considering compact parking is the proportion of compact to full-size spaces.  As noted above, Burbank allows up to 45 percent of required spaces to be compact for office and industrial uses.  This is a fairly high ratio compared to most other cities.  In the Walker survey, compact space ratios range from five percent to 50 percent.  Of the 171 cities in the survey that limit the proportion of compact spaces, only 18 allow a higher proportion than Burbank.  The most common proportions are 25 percent (23 cities) and 30 percent (25 cities).  An alternative to eliminating compact parking altogether would be to reduce the proportion of compact spaces allowed.  This strategy was suggested for all types of uses by the Public Works Department in a 2004 memo prepared to comment on the proposal to eliminate compact parking in residential zones (Exhibit C).

Assigned or Restricted Parking

Compact parking works best in situations where the drivers are regular users of the parking lot and familiar with the parking area.  For this reason many cities, including Burbank, allow compact parking only for office and industrial uses where many of the drivers using the parking area are employees rather than infrequent or one-time users.  A few cities limit compact spaces to parking areas designated for employees only.  For example, Fullerton limits compact parking to situations where a separate lot or section of a lot is set aside for employees, and El Cajon requires employee parking to be designated by signs, pavement markings, or colored striping.  The City of Vista allows a higher percentage of compact spaces (60 percent) in areas designated for employee only parking than in undesignated or uncontrolled parking areas (20 percent).  Pasadena allows 40 percent of spaces to be compact for employee parking, but allows only 15 percent for customer parking.

Different Ratios for Different Uses

Most of the surveyed cities, like Burbank, have a single compact parking ratio for all uses, but some have different ratios for different uses.  Below are several examples:

• Alhambra allows 25 percent compact spaces for office uses and 33 percent for industrial uses.

• Salinas allows 10 percent for commercial uses, 20 percent for public parking lots, and 40 percent for industrial uses.

• Sunnyvale allows 10 percent for retail uses, 33 percent for hotels and restaurants, and 50 percent for office commercial and industrial uses.

• Moorpark allows 10 percent for commercial and industrial uses and 15 percent for theaters.

When contacted, none of these cities could explain how their particular ratios were arrived at.  Staff is not aware of any parking industry publications (such as the ITE�s Parking Generation) that break down parking demand by vehicle size for particular uses or use categories.

Enforcing Compact Parking

The use of compact parking has historically been regarded as self-enforcing.  Due to the difficulty of maneuvering a large car into a small space and the risk of dings and dents, it is assumed that drivers of large cars will voluntarily avoid compact spaces.  But as observed above, where small spaces are more conveniently located or where available parking is limited, drivers of large cars may park in a compact space.  Staff from the Burbank Police Department�s parking enforcement division stated that they do not cite large vehicles parked in compact spaces because there is nothing in the BMC that specifically prohibits the practice.

Only a few cities are known to actively enforce compact parking restrictions.  Palo Alto is one such city.  Palo Alto amended its code in 1999 to specifically prohibit parking any vehicle over six feet wide or fifteen feet long in a compact space.  The city started off with a trial period during which vehicles in violation received a warning rather than a citation.  According to the Palo Alto Police Department, the enforcement effort was generally well received, but did encounter some problems.  There is not a widely accepted or recognized standard of what qualifies as a compact car.  The classification of �compact� can vary by model year, body style, and even trim or option package.  Many drivers consider their mid- or intermediate-sized cars to be small.  Most enforcement ordinances require compact spaces to be clearly marked for small vehicles only, and some jurisdictions require the posting of signs stating the maximum allowed vehicle dimensions.  However, few drivers actually know the length or width of their vehicle.  One city equipped its enforcement officers with tape measures to confirm exact dimensions before ticketing violators.  However, even such enforcement efforts do nothing to address the underlying problem that the allowed ratios of compact spaces in many cities, including Burbank, are not consistent with the vehicle mix on the road today.

Effects of Eliminating Compact Parking

Eliminating or reducing the allowance for compact parking would have financial consequences for builders.  The elimination of compact spaces would require more overall space for parking, either ground space in the case of surface parking, or floor space in the case of structure parking.  A compact parking space occupies 112.5 square feet.  A full-size parking space for general office and industrial uses occupies 36 percent more area at 153 square feet.  However, the dimensions of the parking space itself are only part of the equation.  Access aisles, entrance aprons, and landscaping typically occupy one half or more of the actual square footage of a parking lot.  Developers often estimate space requirements of 270 square feet of parking lot area per compact space and 330 square feet of parking lot area per standard space, depending upon the required dimensions for a full-size standard space.  This means that a full-size space needs approximately 22 percent more lot area or parking structure floor area on average than a compact space.  If compact parking were no longer permitted in Burbank, 45 percent of the required parking spaces in an office or industrial project would have to be increased from compact to standard spaces.  The total land or parking structure floor area required would increase by about 10 percent (45 percent of 22 percent).

The cost of providing surface parking depends primarily on two factors: the cost of the land on which the lot is built and the cost of constructing the parking.  The cost of land depends on many factors and varies greatly, so the numbers presented in this report are only estimates.  Recent transactions of undeveloped property in Burbank suitable for low-rise office development have been in the range of $38 to $58 per square foot.  The cost of land would therefore be between $12,540 and $19,140 per standard space and between $10,260 and $15,660 per compact space. 

Public Works Department staff estimates the cost of constructing surface parking at about $4 per square foot.  The per space construction cost would therefore be between $13,860 and $20,460 for a standard space and between $11,340 and $16,740 for a compact space.  This makes for a difference of $2,520 per space at the low end and $3,720 at the high end.  Distributing the extra cost over all spaces gives an increased total cost of between $1,134 and $1,674 per parking space.  Since general office space must be parked at a rate of three spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area, the cost of providing all full-size spaces in lieu of 45 percent compact spaces is estimated at $3,402 to $5,022 per 1,000 square feet of floor area.  Staff was not able to procure comparable information on the cost of industrial land so a direct comparison is not available.  In general, the cost difference would be lower given that industrial uses typically require only two parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area.

For structured parking, the cost of construction is considerably higher.  The International Code Council valuates parking structures at $78 per square foot for 2005.  The cost of structured parking is therefore $21,060 per compact space and $25,740 per standard space, resulting in a distributed cost difference of about $2,106 per parking space.  For general office space parked at three spaces per 1,000 square feet, the cost of building structured parking would increase by about $6,318 per 1,000 square feet of office space.  Land cost is less of a factor for structured parking due to the much higher relative construction cost.  Rather than buying more land, a developer may add another level to a parking structure, within zoning height restrictions.  In some circumstances, land value does not support the cost of structured parking.  For example, structured parking is rarely utilized for industrial uses.

Aside from increased land and construction costs, there are other reasons that compact parking may be preferred in some situations.  Urban design professionals sometimes recommend compact parking as one way to help urban settings such as downtown shopping districts become more compact and pedestrian friendly.  However, the retail and service uses that make these areas attractive and lively tend to have high parking turnover rates and do not lend themselves to compact parking.  A few cities allow compact parking for retail uses but most, including Burbank, do not.  In areas of mixed retail and office use, such as downtown Burbank, it may make sense to allow some compact spaces for long-term parking, but such parking would need to be segregated and/or enforced since experience has shown that if compact parking is openly available, larger vehicles will use it.

CONCLUSION:

There are various approaches to dealing with compact parking.  Due to the number of large vehicles on the road today and drivers abusing the intent of compact spaces, many cities have opted to prohibit compact spaces altogether.  Other cities, like Burbank, have elected to allow compact spaces only for those land uses that have a low parking turnover rate and/or have parking areas that are utilized largely by employees.  When allowing compact parking, the ratio of compact spaces permitted may be varied based upon business type, user, or location.  Burbank�s current allowance for up to 45 percent compact spaces for general office and industrial uses is higher than ratios used by most other cities.  The benefits and disadvantages of compact parking spaces can be generally summarized as follows:[2]

Benefits

• Maximize land use by consolidating more parking spaces on a single or fewer sites

• Reduce costs of building parking

• Regular parking lot user is familiar with the parking design

Disadvantages

• Not friendly for retail or service customers or visitors

• Do not work well for uses with high turnover rates

• Provide lack of maneuverability and restricted turning radius

• Difficult to enforce

• Used by larger vehicles that do not fit in the space or park in more than one space

• Higher potential for damage to vehicles

• Difficult to determine the appropriate mix of standard and compact spaces

As demonstrated by the above lists, the disadvantages of compact parking outnumber the benefits.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council consider the elimination of compact parking in the City of Burbank.  Staff believes that compact parking spaces are not compatible with the current mix of vehicles on the road.  Compact spaces are not intended to accommodate the pickup trucks and SUVs that are common on the road today and frequently parked in compact spaces.  Although some cities have utilized enforcement strategies as a way to ensure that compact parking is used as intended, staff believes that enforcement would be difficult, would require additional commitment of Police Department resources, and may not deter some drivers from abusing compact spaces.

Similarly, staff believes that signing compact spaces for employees only would be difficult to enforce and require additional staff resources.  Further, the percentage of a business�s employees driving larger vehicles is likely to be the same as the percentage of all drivers.  As such, setting aside compact spaces for employees without reducing the ratio of compact spaces would not solve the underlying problem and would only intensify the problem for the employees.

If the Council wishes to retain compact parking, staff recommends that the permitted ratio of compact spaces be substantially reduced.  As noted above, by 2004 less than 20 percent of all vehicles sold were small cars.  The current allowance of 45 percent compact spaces is inconsistent with the current mix of vehicles on the road and is higher than that allowed in most other cities.  To be generally consistent with the current vehicle mix, staff recommends that the percentage of allowed compact spaces be reduced to no more than 20 percent of all spaces.

Staff recommends against creating different ratios for different uses or different ratios for employee areas and customer areas, as such regulations would be complicated to administer and could hinder the reuse of some buildings if a change of use involved a change in the compact parking ratio.  Further, there is no information readily available that provides a rationale for using different ratios for different uses.  Staff also recommends against segregating compact parking in development projects that are entirely general office or industrial in nature, since the majority of drivers using the lot would be employees.  However, staff recommends that compact parking spaces be required to be segregated from standard parking spaces and signed for use by employees in office projects that also include retail or other such uses that are not allowed to provide compact parking.

If the City Council wishes to proceed with staff�s recommendation to eliminate compact parking or reduce the allowed ratio of compact parking, the Council should direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A          Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-1401

Exhibit B          Table of compact parking regulations in California cities compiled by

Walker Parking Consultants, May 2000

Exhibit C          Public Works Department memo dated April 14, 2004

go to the top