HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/06/20 - Agenda Packet 070 0 UUNE 20, 1.9 9 1 P. . AGE DA �
t
i 4..� _-
i �
r � �
f {.
� �.. 4
'S � C..
'y
(D
.. N
.'.,
�� Sty �±
�.,
c.. < �.
�ti
��
>. _ .�..
O:
rr
.. i-'.-_
\_T
cV _
�... ..
- -
t t'�i`..
1..:;. -_
- ..$
- �.
'f
;�{
-_::
.. :,; � � ,` c � ,,
r�/
� {
3a.. _.
' � �
c� ,J _ �,'T.�.
oG�tCrt)ygNC -,
v� t CITY OF
p RANCHO CC CP,MONGA
XG COMMISSION
O - a A
t j'1 jR�TT E1rD
t: Z AGr
k U
1977
T,HMWAY. DUNE 20, 1991 -7:00 P.M.
coxp Cir CaaR Pmram spACEs woRmHOI?
RANCHO CUCILMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAC NS ,ROOK
10500 CIVIC CEFNTER DRIVE
RANCAO CUCAMOUGk, CALIFORNIA
L. Roll Call �{
Comm ssianer e:hitiea commissi4ta•er Tolstay
Commis-i--?+ar McNiel _ Commissic tcer' Vailette
commissioner Mhl.cher i
II Introduction
III. PRESENTATION OF ENCINEER7NG 1lIVISIONfS'FISOAL YEAR 91192
CAPITAL II3PROVEMENT HUDGET
IV. EIJVIRbNM N'1'Az_.P,.=SESSMtM -.FDDMMMPMI NT CORE. AMENDMENT
91-01 CITY 06 AAHCHO CUCANONGA.-- A. request to amend
Title 17,' Chapter 17.12 of the Ranrho Cucamonga Muni.cipal
Code •,o eliminate compact parking' spaces. Staff
recommends issuanc:�` of -a Negative Declaration.
(Continued from JUM 12, 1991.)
V. EA'ry'IRONMENTAL A$SESSHENT AND INDUSTRIkL SPECIFIC . PLAN
AMENDMENT 91-6i. CITY OF RANCHO CUCIWONGA -'A request to
amend ,Part IT_I 'of the Industrial Area Specific Plan to
eliminate. compact parking spaces. Staff. recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continue,? from June
12, '1991.) c
VI. Adjou;Pment
of f�
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT .
Y
DATE; June 20, 1991
TO: Chairman and Members of the:..Planning Commission
FROM: -Brad Huller, City Planner
BY: Bruce Buckingham: Planning Technician
' SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON COMPACT PARKING
A. ABSTRACT: The purpose of'toniaht's workshop is to revievt the data
and alternativves regarding camp%act parking-
B. BACKGROUND: I On April 10, 1991, the Plaining Commission heard
public testimony regarding the City's proposed Development Code and
Industrial specific Plan Amendments to' eLLrina, a cuapact parkins
spaces., At the request of several deveYop��s and the Rancho
Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, the Planning Commission gave the
parties the opportunity to submit possible alternatives on or
before May 15, 1991, The Planning Commission then agreed to hold a
subsequent workshop to discuss these alternatives further.
C. SUMMARY OF%;,SUBMITTED DATA: Lewis Homes Management Corporation,
Hughes Inve'itment and the Economic Development Committee of the
Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce have,jointly submitted severed
studies an1` 'articles regarding parking, 'which were previously
distributes;.- Based on t133s��.nformation they have conclude"cY'the
following: ',
o Approximately 80 percent of all cars currently in use are 5'
9" wide x 15' 7" long or less. These are defined as small to
mid-size cars
o Approximately 20 percent of all cars are "large cars." Most
of which (85 Percent of t a.s category) are no larger.than 6'
I" wide x 17' 2" long.
o Parking space widths are generally, determined by adding 21"
for long term parking and 28" for high' turn-over parking
areas. The moat commonly:used is 24".
o Parking space lengths are generally determined by adding 6" to
9" to the length. The most commdnly used is 9"-
I
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
WORKSHOP ON COMPACT PARKING
Uune 20, 1991
Page 2
Therefore, they conclude that approximately 97 percent '(i.e.,
80 percent + (20 percent by 85,perce�ntr) of ,all vehicles on the
road today could fit into a parking space 8' 5" wide (6' 1" plus
28") x 17' 11" long (i7' 2" pl'1s 9"). Thus, they propose a "one'
size fits all" parking space of 8' 6" wide by 18' long. (The above
conclusions are based on Exhibits "A"='D" and Attachments 3, 4, 5,
and 8.)
ii
To further support the parking space alternative: of 8' 6"
wide x 12' long, a survey was conducted to determine vehicle size
in multi-family residential ,r_rojects within six apartment complexes
within Terra vista.- The information,' wrs based on lease/rental
applications of existing tenants.
' I
TABLE 1
CONFIRMED POSSIBLY*
611" wide x 171211`long _ Ovee ize
or smaller
Evergreen Aptrs. 96% 48
Mountainview hPts. 94% fib
Parkview Place',,Apts.- 97% 3$
Sycamore Terrace Apts.' 90$ 13�
Montecito Apts.` 94% 68
Del Mar Apts. . 93% 78
* Due to the lack of specific vehicle descriptions for trucks and
vans (i.e., "ford truck") the possibly over-sized percentage
represents ail vehicles over 6' 1" wide x 17' 2" long and all
vehicles in which the size could not be determined.
Lewis Homes concluded that residents who park for the entire day
and/or night are more likely to take the time to park in the
appropriate parking space since they are familiar with the parking,
arrangements: Therefore, they feel that the proposed alternative
parking space of 8' 6" x 18' long in a coumt4iaaJ.1sett3ng applies'
"even on ;tpF residential projects. i
A second survey was performed by Krmzman Associates to determine
the percentage of the smalllmedium (a' 9" x' 15' 7" or less), large.
(6' 1" x 17 1l2" or less) and oversized vehicles in commercial
centers within the City. The survey was conducted at the fo>cowing
times: Thursday, May 23, 1991, 12 noon to 3:00 p.m. (all sites),
Thursday, May 23, 1991, 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (sites 1 and 3), and
Saturday, May 25, '1991, 12 noon to 3:00 p.m. (all sites). The
following table provides a summary of vehicle: sizes at the four
centers:
IV V _ Z
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
WORKSHOP ON COMPACT PARKING
June 20, 1991
Page 3
TABLE II
Vehicles
Small]
Sites Medium Large Oversize Motorcycle Totals
Lucky Center 518 80 8` 3 609
_ Sunrise Center_ 284 81 -15 1 381' .
Terra Vista 1,017 194 5` 8 12224
Village
Terra Vista 997 216 5 1, 1,219
Town Center
TOTALS 2,816 571 33- 13 3,433
They concluded only 1 percent of vehicles vjrre larger than 5' 111
wide x 17' 2" long._ .Therefore, based on. this,;survey, Rancho Cxicamonga
does not appear'to';have a greater number of oversized vehicles than the
national average.AM .
D. ANALYSIS:
1. One size fits all. The beriefits' of a "one size fits all"
parking space are as follows:
o Site planning is simplified. Dilemmas such as where to
locate compact parking spaces are eliminated;
o Conflicts .are r4nimized. Over 90 percent of cars/trucks
will be accommodated..
o Availability w3U be equal for all vehicles. There will
be no segregation based on vehicle size.
The disadvantages are that there will. be less room to maneuver
vehicles -into/out of stalls, less room to Open car doors, and less
room for shopping carts. This will also exacerbate the problem of
over-size vehicles protruding into circulation aisles.
2. Parking space width and length. The space between cars for
high turn over areas of 28" in width and 9"' in.length appears
to be commonly used among several parking experts. However,
no scientific data was submitted to substantiate these
numbers. In addition, none ofthe information submitted is
based on driver preference for ease of parking.,
3. Area used for parking. The issue of parking area has been
discussed in the past. The following table provides a
breakdown of the total- square footage for 100 parking 3,,ices
as! -tning landscaping and aisle size are fixed:
IV
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
WORKSHOP ON COMPACT PARKING
June 20, 1991
Page 4
TABLE III
Stall Size Total Square Footage
8..5' x 18' 15300
9' x 18' 16,200
9' x 19, 17,100
8' x 16' (20%) + 91 x 19' (80%) 16,240
8' x 161 (35%) + 9' x 19' (65$) 15,,595
Simpi-�' eliminating compact par',ing altogether would increase
the size of parking lots (assuming:building area 'remained the
same). Whereas, the proposed 8.5' x 18' parking space would
decrease the size of parking 'lots.
It does not appear based on Table III that a larger parking
area would be necessary when compared to the current standards
using a 'mix of 65 percent.standard and 35 percent compact-,;.`_
spaces,
cl
4. Are cars getting smaller/larger? based on data s.tmitted
(Exhibits- t1A" and :`C"), the percentage of s-tll cars
Ccaasses 5-7) sold in e&ah class has remained stable from 1980 Am
to 1988 while the percentage of larga cars (classes 8-11) sold
in each class has shifted. Vehicles in classes 8 and 9 have
increased, subsequently shrinking sales from classes 10 and 11
(over-sized vehicles) 'These vehicles (classes 10 and 11)
accounted for less 'then 7 percent of auto sales in 1988.;._;
Though it sr9ms these over-sized vehicles will always have a ..
small segment-;.f the market, the general 'trend is that
vehicles are bA, doll^ sized.
5. Parking Space Sizes--sa oth's,r Cities: The following cities
have adopted the 8.51 wide x IZ11 long parking stall: Anaheim,
Oceanside, Santa Ana, Long Beach, Escondido and Los Angeles.
Exhibit "E1-2"' also lists several local cities and their
current standards. Based on this information, there appears
to be no consensus as towhat parking size works best.
E. OPTIONS: The Planning Commission may wish to consider the
following a2:,ernatives to a cc.plete elimination of compact parking
spaces City wide:
I. Reduce the maximum percentage of allowable compact spaces.
2. Allow compact 'spaces only for larger- employers in the
industrial area which require over 100 spaces. The allowable
percentage could remain up to 35 percent or reduced to a AML
smaller percentage.,. This could be considered since employees
coming to work ,every day are more familiar with the parking
: arrangement; whereas, customers :frequenting a commercial
4 V
f _.
n
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
WORKSHOP ON COMPACT PARKING
June 20, 1991 ,
Page 5
center are unfamiliar with the locations of the. appropriate .
parking, stalls.. Further, employees who park for the entire
day are more likely` to take the time to park in the
appropriate size parking space.
3. Do not allow compact parking spaces to satisfy minimum parking
requirements for the' use, in other words, compact spaces'
could only be provided in addition to those spaces required by
Code.
4. sown-sixP parking spaces to a universal size or' 8.51 ti id. x
Is, long.
5. Down-size park3.,ng spaces to a universal size of 9!,wide x 18'
'long.
y
i
ly s fitted,
ResFec
Aft
Fsr
City"Planner �
9B:BB.mlg
A.ttachmeritsa Exhibit "A" - Classification of Voli.�cle Signs,'
Exhibit °B" - Annual A a;utomotive Sas -
Exhibit "C" - Annual Automotive`Sales by Class
Exhibit "D" - Design Vehicles Annual Sales
Exhibit "E" - Parking Stall Siz,�Survey
link
9V � 157
fL The foundation upon which thlsa dtsussion of
paMng geometries is based isthe c!dnition of 9smaAcar
In comparison to the standard or large car.
For purposes at L�is napert,. and to establish a
unbrm and readRy adaptable tenainology®al autarr:o-
btlps and right tnacM will be grouped into two cIassaS-
small and large. 'this bait nomelclawre,is intended to
stupefy the proven of vehicle situation and subw
que'd parking fadk designs.
Ext`6slve consideration hu been ghMn to the
cifiaaYiontrfautomcbiies�drQhttrudaa � � ., �-�
their ®otpd rt•the ground a and byv �:Ad9
baseefonlonotimeswidth&Vress interm�aotsqu
feet(SF)or t3quw Meters(SM.,,The., rrr Mais t®
a�ssigame ®futtl4'is8tocnec7$s p n
the Vehicle ova in rneterL Boomme ft modest am
.� �ereranaa'estt�foa9rabs#�t5matet�►.ttta ''
SMALLCM
5.t�eewfsa,thoeadv a�ofe► 11.
5- &00 to 5.95 SM 5&82 to 64.57 SF
$- 6.00ta GASM IKSSto MU SF
CIMS 7. 7�! 99 Sid tb SLIQ SF
CWa 5 8yyq.0o atoms 5.5 SM l I On SM, to to yp g.�"SF
Cun 10-10.00,MOM GM 107Mto 11849 SF
CIM 11 -`13,Oo tb19."SIM 11L40 to 199.06 t
I
,Ja�ti�i`fps
I v
MZM8e p. g $Gso�s a
�u , 989, llatn�t
•�.�f.t� Ae�wrd.st..ef .,
Cana soums has ttat go camsMa car'saiaa
In eaofi Calendar year enco t97n.bid on a boundary
ofW-1 lot xv-V betweensmai►an4lUgecw;.0 ismaii
ear sales trounced ar and to a Min bat en 14% and
25%matt 1973 to'1 M,as shown in Altura E A stoaq
rise in small carsafea spurred through 1981, ilizing
then.with an avor go of Sta sma3 cm,sold each year
from 1993 thru 1988. Using&ft fmm R.L l bs&Com-
pany on vehicle registrations,this same retorenC9 eSd-
mate3 that"'Ve of the vehtdSs an the road, as of
Janraary i,1989 are um im x Sr or smelfer. Presum-
" Ing t"the pe=nMgs of smaif cars sold each year
mmains9®nerattystaoie.thopemntagoofsmalis an
the mad will continue to in=ase at an estimated rate Of
about 2%per year,
,AlIrlual Autoi-mblie Sala
- o � o 00000000tt
Y
•hhlai�ehesea '^di°�°OptC9:', , %
Figure E
=s�at®dw
t 3elines for,,
4 V V t rac trice•
Ast:a 1989p Sational
Pang Association/Parkin
E3SI8Fjr ; Coa�itant:s Council
QP 83�.fiSGf14 Ca?i'- flYae{. 8s. reported by
Automotive;Nowg since 1980 hm been tabulated by
fire classes pretitau defn8dd8►a F7• Claw10 and
Claw 11 vehicles,which Are 09111e110y ever 1 r U In
length and 0,.r jawkM,have defined kinibs nqubh as �,-
j 14�oofannueisalo��8�"-��dttiaenlarkstln1998.
ANWJAL AUTO SALES BY CLASS
BMOC
Yaw ' ® T 906104Q i10 '_ 1<
GAS , eta :M74 tM �c�t►. 11.11ffi naoa aT.sac ..•�-
1989 s 174 a,eals�d' alnsaat an 018, r.1ssl,e I./1A1991 »W 17.110.
p 1G 9A ate. t31tS 1 t tS6 11 tau
I= Aga t 4smW 136Z401 i,!lQ IO IM3W 1 1A = 1tla,Y�1 TMa tYO
frig!, laa4i6 1Sa�A a9 a1c tT x1, ISM 68 M:
In* V.= 1�.tSt I,$IT.W 9.a�t= 1,$OQ�YT `-1 41"Ast
212l5 2a lPfi Alf.'9i, :r :173% +ILMS 11k1D9b f1% «RtV&
19fE1 fiiffiil ti19.i90 Aaa�. Rt17,ffia t./fta,2Sl ':!A'a7.a39 f IL1IN:
181HSr MIM tiAM IMA 91M, 1fa3!A GAS am
t�S IXUW a.}JTa RAM1= 1.TAW 2ADW QOAM! ----- 1t :'.
19Ati a 1f1af6 1f9Tb no% 4.Stfi aa4i6
ini8 Rom 113fl l�ris
tip.9. "UM /1,A®i iUsE 9ti6 11 iA�. L1 t2i6 lfT_ :9E4t89 4.1at9im
I
. w:4 19.n9S ��7fr �tii s �Ltlt 4'8S'Jlt. tom. 4sA4t. a7 s'..'
UK 18T.75di tau= 4AWM Yf9td?I1' �191,198
t�l6 &A16 GLOB 3LIS 4ai14 ?376 #1!S llirlt4 . :.+
s
FIGURE
=t:
8 hu AW b -t#19 f1d A ~'
. msnutt�rs 1st
tort
re W still be Im Om f x 1T,which VMM Pk=OM In
CIML
(mete ha now the ff"tricrom in,
Mick.vim,W uOy ae WW the kWMWO
Un vt t1 . to`smyday pi,1^tanW
W"Wbfti 9dlhVtbPas-
Aft
fturp
- - -�r�gt�CerStudyr �.
<�
tea frokas
csMal ag For
Ffsrking ca m=jce. AuVmc'
-- E'1' C f. ba«• !°.aees�.ltnae■�CauQeil. -
C C
in a stud+fv+i annual vehicle saias.fhe 85th pst�A�t-
tiie vehicle among Clad:'es 5 to7 has been stsbio since
y 1980at141-8axV-8�similar#oa1985FoMTsmpo.whiie
the Stith percentile vehicle among Classes 8 to 11 1 has
- dedned from 18!-r x 6%5"10�7-rx6'1 (Figure 1 3.
lhaild this data does not'Inctude pra-19S0 model ve=
hr,as,it is res onai fy consistent with previc' stud►es.
ThS previously referenced st�;�t m which used vehicle
registrations nationodde as ofJ�U'a'Y 1,,198,,found th'o,
85th percentile vehicles to be 14!-8°x5-r for small cars,
and 18W x 6'-7'for large cats.
The design v®iticies'forthe national mix of auto-
mobiles on the road as of January 1,1989,have been
Conservatively estimated to be as follows:
Small Cars 14W a V-8"
Large Cars t 8!-T x W-8'
It is interesting to note that, during this period
(1983-1988),the design vehicle for small cars has re-
mained quite stable,but that the design vehicle for large
cars has-declined,especially in length.
�f
DESIGN VEHICLES By CALQIQAR YEAR SALES
sm.ac (cr sas.7y WWOWW"s4-11y
Year Lt1t YMM Na Lam W&40 Am
45rD0 14.7 57 eEd 173 45 �J
tQt1 4.7 6.7 all i7.7 AlS 114 3
IM 14.7. r 5.7 5A® 42: SC 115.11
Ion 14.6 115.8
/f IQU 14.7 V Sul 117 43 111.1
1985 16.1 SS m9
17.2 62 1G1Q.r
ON 14.7 0 83A 17.2 92 1=
tat 14.3 &T UY 10 W-9
IM :14.8 S7 84.2 17.1 M 144.7 4\
LWgM ad WM at p M L.,NpG amx In sqWIm ftGL
FIGURE H
V V — 9 Excerpted from:
"Recommended Guidelinesifor
Parking Gee aetric ?, August,
EYHIBIT D 1989; National Packing Ass
oc[
Parking Consultants Cauncsl
�N�I�IIu�Nll��lu
�IIIIINIY�IIIIAIII�IIIHNRIII�I
II �Illllll� lll��llldlllll�Il
U111111111HIE1111ilmlillgIN�f111113111 lillulill
IInN� 11
IUIN 1EHIR11