PURPOSE:

This report recommends that the City Council approve a zone text amendment that would eliminate compact parking provisions for commercial and industrial uses and require all parking spaces to be standard full-size spaces. 

BACKGROUND:

The City Council has considered eliminating provisions for compact parking on two prior occasions.  In 1999, at the request of the Planning Board, staff prepared an ordinance that would have eliminated all provisions for compact parking for all uses.  The Council considered the proposed ordinance at their December 12, 2000 meeting but voted not to adopt it.  The City Council instead directed staff to prepare a report considering the elimination of compact parking for multiple family residential uses.  At that time, Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) allowed 45 percent of required parking, after the first five spaces, to be compact for multi-family uses.

On April 26, 2004, the City Council adopted an amendment to the BMC, eliminating provisions for compact parking for multi-family residential uses.  At the Council�s request, staff returned on June 14, 2005 with a report detailing the potential effects of prohibiting compact parking spaces for remaining commercial and industrial uses.  This report responds to the direction provided by the City Council at that time. 

Current Code Requirements:

BMC Section 31-1401 allows for one (1) compact and two (2) standard parking space sizes (Exhibit A).  Standard parking spaces must be 18 feet long.  The minimum width required depends upon the use for which the parking is intended.  Spaces for retail, commercial, and similar uses with high parking turnover rates (e.g. medical offices, banks, savings and loan institutions, and restaurants) must be at least nine (9) feet wide.  Spaces for residential, general office, and industrial uses with low turnover rates must be at least eight (8) feet, six (6) inches wide.  Burbank Municipal Code allows 45 percent of parking for general office and industrial uses to be compact.  Compact parking stalls must be at least seven (7) feet, six (6) inches wide by 15 feet long.  Compact parking is not permitted for any uses other than general office and industrial.  Compact spaces are allowed for use by patrons and employees alike.  They are not limited for employee-use only. 

ANALYSIS:

Problems with Compact Parking Spaces in Practice:

Vehicle Trends

It is generally recognized that compact parking does not work well for uses with high parking turnover such as retail stores, banks, and medical offices.  Burbank, like many other communities, does not allow compact parking for these high-intensity uses.[1]  However, there are other problems associated with the use of compact parking. 

The reason most frequently cited by cities for eliminating compact parking is the increased presence of large vehicles on the road.  In 1980, 80 percent of vehicles sold nationally were passenger cars.  The rest were sport utility vehicles, sport wagons (a combination of the passenger wagon and sport utility vehicle), vans, and light and heavy trucks.  These are together termed �LTUV�s�.  In 2003, only 46 percent of vehicles sold nationwide were passenger cars (Exhibit B).

Recently, fuel prices and their perceived impact on large vehicle sales have concerned consumers and the media alike.  However, according to a study by Walker Parking Consultants, higher fuel prices over the past few years have not substantially impacted the size of vehicles sold nationwide.  Between 2003 and 2004 sales of the Ford Expedition and Suburban decreased 12 percent, Ford Excursion sales decreased 24 percent and Hummer H1 sales decreased 39 percent.  However, the declines contrast with substantially increased sales of the GMC Yukon XL (up 85 percent) and the Cadillac Escalade (up 21 percent).  The largest two classes of LTUV�s had sales gains of almost 38 percent between 2003 and 2004. 

In 2005, fuel costs increased substantially nationwide after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita crippled oil refineries throughout the Gulf of Mexico.  However, price changes in California were not as dramatic.  California consumes approximately 16 billion gallons of gasoline annually, 90 percent of which is processed in the state because of the formulas needed to meet stricter federal air quality standards.  National trends in auto sales are therefore not necessarily reflected in California, where gas prices have been more stable than in other parts of the country.  Despite national fluctuations in gas prices, vehicle sales figures for 2005 (through July when statistics were available) echoed earlier trends toward larger vehicles.  Although sales of sport utility vehicles decreased in the first half of 2005, sales of crossover sports wagon vehicles increased.

Further, staff notes that as hybrid and alternative fuel technologies continue to improve, any correlation between fuel consumption and vehicle size may become increasingly weak.  Large and small vehicles alike are currently using, or are anticipated to use, a number of technologies including hybrid cell technology, changes in fuel efficiencies, methane and hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles, and electric power.  Given that the onset of these technologies is difficult to predict, staff believes that decisions should be made with the best information available about the vehicles on our roads today.  There is a heightened presence of large vehicles on the road, and those vehicles continue to be purchased, despite increased fuel costs.

What is Compact

One of the biggest problems with compact cars is that the average driver does not know if their car qualifies as compact. For example, the Toyota Motor Corporation produces six (6) passenger cars, two (2) trucks and six (6) sport utility models, but only four models (the Corolla, Matrix, Prius, and Rav-4) would fit in a Burbank compact parking space.  The definition of compact can vary by year, model, body style, or option package.  Some communities, including Burbank, require compact spaces to be clearly marked for small vehicles only.  Some communities go so far as posting signs stating the maximum allowed vehicle dimensions.  However, even with posted signs, few people actually know, or go to the extent of learning, the width and length of their own vehicle so they may park in a compact space. 

Use and Abuse of Compact Spaces

Whether or not their vehicle is compact, many drivers are tempted to park their car in a compact space, especially when the space is in a prime location or if a full-sized space is unavailable.  When a non-compact car parks in a compact space, the result is often that the vehicle overhangs the adjoining space; creating a domino effect down the row that eventually render space(s) unusable. 

The more important issue for drivers are the dings, dents, and damage that often appear when vehicles abut in compact spaces.  The four Toyota models mentioned above fit within a compact space, but only prior to opening a door or the exiting of a passenger.  Exhibits C-1 through C-3 illustrate the growing frustration of both drivers and cities when compact parking and vehicles interface.  For all of the reasons detailed above, Walker Parking Consultants continues to recommend that cities should allow for no more than 15 percent of their parking capacity to be compact, and they recommend the parking stall size be seven (7) feet, nine (9) inches by 16 feet given vehicle dimensions and parking lot geometrics.

Compact Parking Regulations in Other Cities:

Communities employ an array of methods in their allowance of compact parking.  In May 2000, Walker Parking Consultants compiled a survey of parking regulations in 238 California communities (Exhibit D).  The survey revealed that approximately 23 percent of communities either explicitly prohibit or make no provisions for compact parking.  Approximately 65 percent of communities allow varying proportions of compact parking. Percentages can vary depending upon the use or require discretionary approval by a Planning body or city staff.  The remaining 12 percent allow compact parking for employee use only, in excess of code, through a discretionary permit process, or on a case-by-case basis. 

Elimination Trend

There is evidence of a growing movement amongst California communities to eliminate or decrease allowances for compact parking.  Walker Parking Consultants performed two surveys of compact parking requirements in California cities; one in 1995 and the other in 2000.  In the 1995 survey, 19 percent of communities either prohibited compact parking or allowed compact stalls only for excess of the minimum required for the use.  In the 2000 survey, this number climbed to 23 percent.  Since 2000, several nearby communities have continued the trend.  The City of Pasadena eliminated their compact parking provisions in February, Culver City in November (Exhibit E), and Whittier is in the process of eliminating their allowances.

Parking Mix

Burbank allows up to 45 percent of required parking stalls to be compact for general office and industrial uses.  This ratio is high when compared to other California communities.  According to the 2000 Walker survey, compact stall ratios range from five (5) to 50 percent.  Of the communities limiting the proportion of compact spaces, only 15 allow proportions higher than Burbank�s.  The most common proportions are 25 percent and 30 percent.  An alternative to eliminating compact parking provisions entirely would be to reduce the ratio of compact parking stalls allowed for general office and industrial uses.  This strategy was suggested for all uses by the Public Works Department in a 2004 memo as an alternative to completely eliminating provisions for compact parking (Exhibit F).

Employee, Assigned or Restricted Parking

Compact parking works best in situations where the drivers are regular users of the facility and are familiar with the parking area and design.  For this reason many cities, including Burbank, allow compact parking only for office and industrial uses, where many of the drivers are employees rather than infrequent or one-time users.  A small number of communities specifically allow compact parking for employee-use only. The City of Fullerton limits compact parking to situations where a separate lot or section of a lot is reserved for employee-use only.  The compact stall size is eight (8) feet, six (6) inches by 16 feet.  For industrial uses, the City of Vista allows 25% of required parking to be compact, and reserved for employee use only.  The compact stall size is eight (8) feet, six (6) inches by 16 feet, six (6) inches.  It should be noted that all of the aforementioned communities use a compact parking stall size that exceeds that used by the City of Burbank, both in regards to width and length.   

Parking in Excess of Code

A small number of communities allow for compact parking, but only so long as all required parking is first provided using a non-compact stall size.  The City of Oceanside allows for compact parking in excess of code with two compact stall sizes: eight (8) feet, six (6) inches by 18 feet (if occurring at an angle), and seven (7) feet, six (6) inches by 15 feet (if perpendicular).  In the City of Palm Desert, all parking spaces up to the minimum required must be nine (9) feet by 18 feet, six (6) inches.  For those parking lots having more than 100 spaces, those in excess of code requirements must have a minimum width of nine (9) feet.  Stall length is flexible depending upon geometric circumstances.  It should be noted that the City of Palm Desert endorses this provision only for businesses having a very large number of employees.  The City of Whittier had allowed for compact parking in excess of code, but is in the process of deleting those provisions. 

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 was assumed that drivers of large cars would voluntarily avoid compact spaces.  But as detailed above, where small spaces are more conveniently located or where available parking is limited, drivers of large cars frequently 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 Burbank Municipal Code explicitly prohibiting this practice.

Only a few cities are known to actively enforce compact parking restrictions.  Palo Alto is one such city. (Exhibit G)  Palo Alto amended its code in 1999 to specifically prohibit parking any vehicle over six (6) feet by 15 feet long in a compact space.  Vehicles in violation of this code receive a $30 citation.  The city started off with a two (2) month 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.   The City of Berkeley has two lots managed by Ampco Parking Company, where tickets have been issued and cars towed, but only towed when people purposely take two spaces to parking one car, thus avoiding damage to their vehicle. 

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 for surface parking, or floor space for 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; estimates for industrial properties are similar at $35 to $60 per square foot.  Using the office figures, 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. In general, the cost difference would be lower for industrial uses 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.

The commercial and industrial uses that would be affected by this zone text amendment occur in a fully-developed, urban locale.  If this zone text amendment were to be approved and compact parking were to be eliminated, some property owners could elect to purchase additional property in their future development effort so as to provide all required parking spaces.  However, it could be equally anticipated that a developer would elect to not purchase additional property and construct a smaller building, thus decreasing the quantity of required parking necessitated. 

Community Outreach:

Staff contacted the Burbank Chamber of Commerce, the Burbank Association of Realtors, the Building Industry Association of Southern California, the Greater Los Angeles/Ventura Chapter of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, the Los Angeles County East Chapter of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, and a number of local developers to seek input on the proposed amendment.  Staff additionally provided these individuals and groups with notice of both the Planning Board and City Council public hearings.  Prior to the Planning Board hearing, staff received a response letter from one (1) local developer stating that compact parking spaces could be potentially utilized to promote efficient parking design and land utilization, particularly for parking structures (Exhibit H).  As of the publication of this report, staff had not received any additional correspondence or input.

CEQA Determination:

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 review (Exhibits I-1 and I-2).  The review period commenced on January 11, 2006 and ended on January 31, 2006.

PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERATION:

The Planning Board considered the proposed zone text amendment at a public hearing on January 23, 2006 (Exhibit J-1).  There was one (1) public speaker at the hearing who spoke in support of the proposed zone text amendment.  Chair Thomas and Ms. Gabel-Luddy noted that there may be times when it would be appropriate to allow compact parking through the planned development process, but agreed it should be eliminated from general development standards and not permitted by right.  All Planning Board members expressed their support for the action as proposed by staff and voted 4-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the zone text amendment (Exhibit J-2). 

FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed zone text amendment would make minor changes to the existing parking development standards.  The changes would not change the overall scope or complexity of the standards and as such would not require any additional staff time or resources to administer.  There would be no fiscal impact to the City resulting from administration or enforcement of the proposed ordinance.   To the extent that any future City office projects would have utilized compact parking spaces, there would be additional cost to the City to develop such a project with full-size spaces, as discussed earlier in this report.  The costs would vary depending upon the size of the project and the nature of the parking.

CONCLUSION:

Communities have taken a variety of approaches in their use of compact parking.  The increased presence of larger vehicles and driver abuse of compact spaces have led many communities to prohibit compact spaces altogether.  Other communities, like Burbank, have elected to allow a prescribed amount of compact parking stalls for those uses with low parking turnover.  The benefits and disadvantages of compact parking spaces are summarized below: 

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

• No enforcement provisions for the use of compact parking on private property

• Do not work well for high-intensity uses

• Restricts maneuverability and turning radius of driver

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

• Higher potential for damage, dings, and dents to vehicles

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

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

As reflected in the proposed ordinance, it is staff�s recommendation that compact parking be prohibited for general office and industrial uses in the City of Burbank.  Staff believes that compact spaces are not intended to accommodate the design of vehicles prevalent on the road today.  Although some communities have utilized enforcement strategies to ensure that compact parking is used as intended, staff believes that enforcement would be difficult and require additional commitment of Police Department resources.  The best method of enforcing compact parking, and deterring automobile damage, is to prohibit compact parking.

If the City Council wishes to retain compact parking, it is the assessment of staff that the permitted ratio of compact spaces should be substantially reduced to no more than 20 percent of required spaces.  Walker Parking Consultants roughly estimates that 20-25 percent of vehicles on the road are compact vehicles.  Staff would further recommend that the required size for compact parking spaces be increased consistent with the Walker recommendations or larger sizes utilized by other cities, to no less than eight feet wide and 16 feet long.  The Council may further require that compact parking stalls be utilized by business employees only. However it is again noted that it can be extremely difficult to enforce employee only compact parking and this approach would require substantial commitment on the part of both the employee and employer.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance to approve Project No. 2005-128, a Zone Text Amendment that would eliminate provisions for compact parking for general office and industrial uses.

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Project No. 2005-128 (Zone Text Amendment)

Exhibit A          Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-1401

Exhibit B          Table of passenger car versus truck/ sport utility vehicles sales, 1980-2003. 

                        http://www.automotivedigest.com.

Exhibit C-1       Charisee Jones, �Parking spaces stretch to fit fat rides.�, USA Today, January 3, 2005.

Exhibit C-2       Troy Anderson & Joseph Giordino, �Feeling Squeezed?�, Los Angeles Daily

                          News, March 28, 2001

Exhibit C-3       Marcy Valenzuela, �Could Compact Parking Spaces Become A Thing of the

                          Past?� KOVR 13 (Sacramento) Sports & News, May 21, 2002.

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

                          Walker Parking Consultants, May 2000

Exhibit E           Table of compact parking regulations in adjacent California communities

Exhibit F           Public Works Department memo dated April 14, 2004

Exhibit G          Carolune Zinko, �Squeeze Is On King-Size Cars that Hog Tiny Parking Spots:

                          Palo Alto to ticket compact space violators�, SFGate.com., August, 2, 1999.

Exhibit H          Letter of Public Comment from Gangi Development

Exhibit I-1        Proposed Negative Declaration for Zone Text Amendment 2005-128

Exhibit I-2        Public Notice of Environmental Decision for Zone Text Amendment 2005-128

Exhibit J-1        Planning Board Minutes from January 23, 2006 meeting

Exhibit J-2        Planning Board Resolution No. 3017 dated January 23, 2006

go to the top