HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-16 City Council (31)of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POLICE
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 16, 1996 CMR:392:96
Assessment of Interest Level for Residential Parking Permit Program
REQUEST
This report provides information regarding the interest level on the part of residents, who live
on streets adjacent to thedowntown area, for a residential parking permit program. The purpose
of the information is to serve as a foundation for Council discussion. If the Council determines
that it wishes staff to pursue the development of a program, staff requests that Council provide
direction as to the area, format, and financial constraints.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff is not making any recommendations at this time, but is providing information to assist
Council in the decision-making process. If Council concludes that a residential parking
program should be implemented, staff recommends that Council provide staff with specific
parameters for the development of the program.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Changes to City policy would occur only if the Council were to request that a residential
parking permit program be established.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 4, 1996, Council approved the staff recommendation to continue the color zone
parking program in the downtown area. At that time, discussion about the impact that color
zones were having on the adjacent neighborhoods occurred. Based upon the determination that
there was some negative impact, Council directed staff to identify the level of interest in
developing a residential parking permit program and to return to Council in six months with a
status report.
CMR:392:96 Page 1 of 10
Since receiving the assignment, staff has surveyed the residents to the north and south of the
downtown area and has held two neighborhood meetings to share the results of the survey and
to obtain additional feedback, ideas, and concerns. Staff has also gathered some information
from other cities who have instituted similar programs.
Updated Neighborhood Parking Occupancy Survey Information
Before providing ormation obtained from the surveys and public meetings, staff believes it
would be helpful to share the neighborhood parking occupancy survey information. City staff
has conducted surveys of on-street parking in an area bounded by Palo Alto Avenue, Alma
Street, Middlefield Road, and Lincoln Avenue to establish some quantifiable indicators of
changes in the amount of non-residential parking since the implementation of Parking Color
Zones. While the surveys were done at different times (prior to 6 a.m., 8 a.m., 10 a.m., & 12
noon), a review of the data indicates that the highest number of parked cars as well as cars
belonging to non-resident groups, were observed at 12 noon. Thus, all comparisons are made
using the 12 noon data. The following table shows the numbers of cars parked north and south
of University Avenue belonging to resident or non-resident groups, at 12 noon.
Total On-Street Resident Non-Resident
Parldn~Group Group
N. of S. of N. of S. of N. of S. of
Univ.Univ.Total Univ.Univ.Total Univ.Univ.Total
March 95 Survey 835 875 1710 235 249 484 600 626 1226
May 95 Survey 909 953 1862 270 235 505 639 718 1357
August 95 Survey 952 1001 1953 268 251 519 684 750 1434
October 95 Survey 888 987 1875 265 281 546 623 706 1329
February 96 Survey 841 1015 1856 251 279 530 590 736 1326
April 96 Survey 911 990 1901 263 291 554 648 699 1347
July 96 Survey 948 942 1890 280 272 552 668 670 1338
The survey results indicate that non-residential parking in the neighborhood has increased
slightly since the implementation of color zone programs in the downtown area (the large
increase in August 1995 is attributed to construction in the downtown area at that time). The
CMR:392:96 Page 2 of 10
non-resident group does not necessarily indicat~ only downtown employees parking in the
neighborhoods, but also includes shoppers; residential-related parkers such as visitors, repair
and delivery persons; residents who were absent (night shift work, etc.) prior to 6:00 a.m.
and returned during the survey period; and residents who may have left after 6:00 a.m. and
returned again during the survey period. Therefore, the survey numbers for the non-resident
parkers are somewhat overstated, and serve as a conservative indicator of non-residential
parking intrasion in the area studied.
Prior to the color zone implementation, there were over 300 sleepers in the downtown area.
The concern was if all the sleepers shifted to the neighborhood, that would be a substantial
impact. However, the survey data indicate that all the sleepers did not shift to the
neighborhoods because the non-residential parking in the neighborhood has increased by
approximately 100 to 130 vehicles, some of which could be attributed to some sleepers
shifting to the neighborhoods. Of the remaining approximately 200 sleepers, staff believes
that some are still sleeping within the downtown; some have purchased parking permits,
which is evident from the surge in the waiting list and increased sale of permits; and some
may have found alternative modes of transportation.
Survey Results
With assistance from representatives of the University South Neighborhood Group (USNG),
Transportation Division and Police Department staff developed a simple survey (Attachment
A) that was sent to over 3,500 residents who live adjacent to the downtown area. Surveys
were sent to residences between the northern City limits south to Embarcadero Road and
from Alma Street east to Middlefield Road.
The surveys were distributed based upon the premise that the impact on neighborhoods
decreases as proximity to the downtown area decreases. As a result, staff believed that it was
important to distinguish the survey responses according to impact levels. Therefore, the
survey responses were reviewed in total and in four separate areas. Area One responses
represent residents north of Everett Street to the northern City limits; Area Two from Lytton
to Everett; Area Three from Lincoln to Hamilton; and Area Four from Embarcadero to
Lincoln..(Attachment B depicts the areas in a map format.)
Additionally, because the areas that have been impacted are not uniformly marked by north
and south, designated core areas within Areas Two and Three were analyzed separately.
(See Attachment D.) Core Area Two includes residences between Alma and Waverley and
CMR:392:96 Page 3 of 10
Everett and Lytton. Core Area Three includes residences between Alma and Waverley and
Forest and Lincoln.
It should be noted that Core Area Three, which encompasses the area commonly referred to
as SOFA (south of Forest area), includes some commercial businesses such as Whole Foods
Market and a number of auto repair establishments. This area is outside of the color zone
boundaries and the parking assessment district, and as a result presents some additional
problems. As an example, the auto repair businesses often use a significant number of
parking spaces for vehicle "storage." Additionally, because these businesses are outside of
the parking assessment district, per City regulations, employers and employees of these
businesses are not able to purchase City parking permits.
In evaluating the survey results, it is important to highlight a few important points. Because
the significant time and costs associated with the design of a precise analytical survey
instrument were not expended, the results obtained from the brief survey should be viewed
as trend indicators, only and absolute conclusions should not be made based on the data.
Also, because the actual numbers of responses differ from area to area, it is important to keep
the raw numbers in mind as percentages alone are somewhat misleading.
Surveys were sent only to residents adjacent to the downtown area; surveys were not sent to
businesses, employers, employees and people who live/work in the area bordered by Lytton
to Hamilton and Alma to Middlefield.
The level of response presents the first indicator of the level of interest on this issue. A total
of 1,036 responses, or approximately 30 percent of those distributed, were received and used
¯ for analysis. This is an unusually high response percentage for surveys of this nature. It
should be noted that about 5 percent of surveys were returned as not deliverable by the Post
Office. An additional 1 percent was either returned without an’address or block identification
or past the cut-off date and as a result were not used in the analysis. Another indicator of the
level of interest on the topic is the number of people who took the time to include written
comments. A summary of the most frequent comments is included in attachment E.
Attachment C represents the breakdown to individual questions for Area One, Area Two,
Area Three, Area Four, and the total survey responses.
A review of the data reveals the following:
CMR:392:96 Page 4 of 10
For the entire area, a majority of people indicated that parking was not a problem in their
neighborhoods. Area Two responses indicated that.there was a significant parking problem
however. At first review, the responses from Area Three would seem to demonstrate that
parking was not a problem to the south of downtown. The information from the core area
of Area Three reflects, however, that more people believe parking in that specific area is a
problem compared to the entire Area Three.
With the exception of Area Four, each area’s responses reported a decrease in the availability
of parking in the last few years. A presumption that those people who are experiencing the
highest level of impact would indicate a stronger interest level in such a program was not
confirmed. While the greatest number of people who responded from the entire Area Two
and Core Area Two indicated parking in their neighborhoods was a problem, that there was
a decrease in availability of parking, and that they were interested or would be open to a
residential parking program, that was not the case in the neighborhood immediately south of
downtown. Of the 434 people from Area Three who responded, 58 percent believed that
parking was not a problem and 32 percent were not interested in a permit program.
However, it is again important to look at the core area responses from Area Three as some
differences are observed. The information shows that of the 136 respondents from Core
Area Three, 45 percent of those in the core area believe that parking is not a problem and
about 24 percent are not interested in a permit program.
It is important to note that, based upon the comments received, it is obvious that some
respondents who reported that they did not have a parking problem gave that response only
because they did not like the solution of a residential parking program. It appears they did
not want to lend their support to such a program. Also, again based upon the comments, it
is safe to assume that a number of people who did not provide an answer to questions three
and four were indicating their disfavor for a permit program. Also, from comments received
at the neighborhood meetings, while some people indicated there was no change in the
availability of parking, their responses should not be interpreted to indicate there is not any
parking problem; instead, the lack of available parking has been a problem for the last five
years.
Ifa permit program was implemented, the majority of responses from each area was that a
Monday through Friday schedule would be the most readily accepted. This most likely
coincides with the responses that most people have visitors on weekend days and evenings,
With the exception of Area Four responses, more people indicated that 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
would be the most appropriate times of day for enforcement of a program. There was an
CMR:392:96 Page 5 of 10
overwhelming response that people would be unwilling to personally pay for any sort of
permit should a program be put in place.
Feedback from Public Meetings
Staff hosted two public meetings for the purpose of discussing the survey results and
obtaining additional feedback. Postcards announcing the meetings were sent to the same
addresses that the surveys were sent to. Information about the meetings was published in the
Palo Alto Weekly, San Francisco Chronicle, Palo Alto Daily News, San Jose Mercury_ News,
and the Stanford Daily.
Thirty-two people attended the first meeting. The majority of the attendees were from the
area north of the downtown. The consensus of those in attendance was that they favored a
permit program as residents had "suffered" long enough. As one resident explained, she felt
like a "prisoner" in her own home, especially on weekends, due to the parking problem.
Residents expressed concern about safety issues that are created due to the parking situation
in the neighborhoods. About 35 people attended the second meeting. Again, the majority
of residents favored a permit program. Additional concerns about safety were raised.
Similar to the first meeting, considerable dissatisfaction was expressed about the City’s
parking requirements for downtown development.
Information from Other Cities
Staff contacted a number of cities in an effort to obtain information about residential permit
parking programs that they had implemented. Information was received from ten cities. As
indicated on Attachment G, the cities vary in population, the number of years they have had
similar programs in place, and the areas which their programs cover. With the exception of
Oakland, all of the cities have had their programs in place for at least 8 years, with the oldest
programs having been in place for 20 years. The costs to staff and manage the programs also
varies from city to city, depending upon the size of the area that is enforced and the number
of parking enforcement officers used for enforcement purposes. The range of fees for
permits ranges from no charge to $21 a year. Some of the cities require signed petitions from
a certain percentage of property owners on each street/block prior to implementing the
program. The level of success in dealing with the parking problem also differs from city to
city. Some have reported very successful programs, while at least one has reported that the
parking problem was not resolved.
C1VIR:392:96 Page 6 of I0
Potential Program Formats
Residential parking permit programs have been implemented in other cities using various
formats. As the Council considers whether to pursue such a program, staff offers a few
possible formats that other cities have implemented:
Resident Only Parking - One format is to issue permits to residents which would
allow them to park on the street without restrictions. Times of day and days of week
options vary depending upon need. Visitors are handled in different ways. As an
example, some cities provide one guest permit per residence.
Time Parking/Residential Permits - Another format used by cities is to implement
timed parking, (e.g. two hours) in peak periods, during which time anyone can park
in the area together with permit parking for residents only. The timed parking
provision usually meets the needs of visitors, but is more labor intensive due to
increased enforcement requirements.
Non-Resident Permits - Some cities have actually sold permits to non-residents and
allowed them to park in residential areas. The theory behind this format is that a
limited number of non-residents would be interested in purchasing permits, and thus
a control of parking intrusions is put in place.
Prior Residential Parking Permit Program Experience
In March 1983, a three-month trial restricted parking program was instituted in the
Evergreen/Southgate area of the City, adjacent to the Grecian Health Spa that was formerly
located at the comer of El Camino Real and Park Boulevard. In July 1983, the Council
adopted Chapter 10.46 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code that established a permanent
residential permit parking program in a that area. Under that program, permits were issued
to residents for $25 per vehicle with a provision of up to four guest permits per residence.
The parking restrictions prevented parking in the specifically signed area without a permit
Monday through Friday between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. A total of 27 permits were issued
to 17 residents.
At the time, the Police Department added a half-time Parking Enforcement Officer position
for enforcement purposes.
CMR:392:96 Page 7 of 10
Four months after the ordinance became effective, the Grecian Health Spa closed and never
reopened. In July 1985, on staff’s recommendation, the Council suspended enforcement of
the ordinance because the parking problem no longer existed. While the ordinance is still
included in the Municipal Code, permits have not been issued and enforcement has not been
conducted for over 11 years.
Staff recalls that the biggest area of concern regarding this program was the problem
associated with unplanned guests of residents in the area who would not have a permit and
would receive citations.
The information about the Southgate/Evergreen permit program is especially important to
consider in light of somewhat similar circumstances in the downtown area. Work is being
completed to determine the potential locations for additional parking structures in the
downtown area. Depending upon Council’s decisions regarding the number and size of the
structures, up to an additional 730parking spaces would be added to the downtown area
within the next two to three years. Additionally, with the departure of the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation and a possible change in land use of that area, another factor that adds to the
parking deficit downtown and in the neighborhoods would be eliminated.
Considerations
As Council reviews the information presented in this report and the feedback from citizens,
there are several points staff’believes are important to note in order to facilitate the decision-
making process. These points include the following:
Balloon Effect - Currently, the downtown area has a shortage of about 1500 parking
spaces. As the available parking in the downtown decreased, according to the most
recent parking surveys conducted in the neighborhoods, it appears that 100 to 130
vehicles have moved into these areas. The displacement of the vehicles from one
location to another would most likely occur until the number of available spaces in
the downtown area increases. While a residential permit program in any number of
forms may relieve some of the neighborhood parking availability, the immediate
consequences could be to either push the parking further into the neighborhoods or
serve as a deterrent for people coming to the downtown area.
Staffing/Financial Considerations - Depending upon the format that would be used
for a residential parking permit program, it is quite likely that additional staff would
be required in the Police Department for administrative and enforcement purposes,
CMR:392:96 Page 8 of 10
and in the Administrative Services Department for issuance of permits and collections
of fees and fines. Additionally, costs associated with the required signage would have
to be calculated into the estimates.
Precedent Setting Potential - It is possible that certain other neighborhoods within the
City that experience on-street parking problems, may request consideration for
residential parking permit programs, should Council decide to pursue a program
adjacent to the downtown area.
Permits Do Not Guarantee Parking - One problem some cities have encountered with
residential parking permit programs .is that residents believe that permits guarantee
them a parking space. Depending upon the number of permits each residence is
allowed, together with the number of vehicles per household, residents fmd that they
still do not always have on-street parking available in front of their homes. For
instance, if there is not a limit to the number of permits each resident may obtain and
¯ certain residents get permits for each of their three or four vehicles, the availability
of on-street parking spaces still is an issue.
Siguage - Almost any type of residential parking permit program would require
installation of signs. A minimum of three signs per block face would be needed if any
level of enforcement was to occur. A portion of some of the neighborhoods identified
for potential implementation of a program has been designated as historic areas, and
the addition of signage could have a significant negative impact on the esthetics of the
neighborhoods.
o Time Needed to Implement a Program - Depending upon the scope and size of a
residential parking permit program, staff estimates that a minimum of a year would
be needed to complete all the work associated with implementation. Should Council
decide to direct staff to pursue development of a residential parking permit program,
staff requests specific parameters in areas including cost recovery levels, fee
structures, geographical boundaries, and enforcement levels.
FISCAL IMPACT
At this time, any fiscal impact associated with a residential parking permit program cannot
be determined. Should Council direct staff to pursue such a program, staff would return to
Council with detailed fiscal impacts based upon the parameters of the program.
CMR:392:96 Page 9 of 10
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Any environmental assessment would be determined if Cotmcil provides direction to pursue
a permit program.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Copy of Survey
Attachment B - Map of Area Surveyed
Attachment C - Survey Responses by Area and Total
Attachment D - Survey Responses from Core Areas
Attachment E - Summary of Most Frequent Comments Included on Surveys
Attachment F - Comments/Questions from Public Meetings
Attachment G - Summary of Programs Implemented by other Cities
PREPARED BY:Lynne Johnson, Assistant Police Chief
Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer ~
Ken, Schreiber, D~f Planning an?o/Ti~nity Environment
C"lqRIS DURKIN, Police Chief
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
cc University South Neighborhood Association
Susan Frank, Chamber of Commerce
Barbara Gross, Downtown Marketing
CMR:392:96 Page 10 of 10
ATTAINT A
Directions:
1.
Block or Address:
Mark one space only.
Is parking in the neighborhood a problem for you?
~ Yes ~ No
If yes, how big of a problem?
~ Small Problem __ Large Problem
Have you perceived a change in the availability of parking in your neighborhood
in the last few years?
~ Increase __. Decrease ~ No Change
What days of the week do you think a residential parking permit system should
be in effect?
~ Monday - Friday ~ Saturday and Sunday ~ Seven Days a Week
~ Monday - Saturday
What times of day/night do you think a system should be enforced?.
~6a.m. to 6p.m. ~8a.m. to5 p.m. ~6a.m. to 12a.m.
__ 24 hours a day .__ Other:
How many of the cars associated with this address are/do you regularly park
on the street?
~0 ~1 ~2 ~3 ~4-5 ~6+ or More
On an average, how often do you have service providers (gardeners,
housekeepers, day care, etc.) visit your household?
~lTimeaWeek ~2TimesaWeek ~3TimesaWeek
~4TimesaWeek ~5Timesor MoreaWeek
Which days do you normally have visitors? (Check all that apply.)
~ Weekdays ~ Weekend Days ~ Weekend Evenings
o
10.
What is the most you would be willing to pay for a residential parking permit?
(per vehicle)
I would not be willing to pay any fee for a permit.
~ $10-$15 year __$15-$20 year ~ $25-$30 year
__$35 + year
Would you like to. see the City implement a residential parking permit system
in your neighborhood?
~ Yes ~ Open to the Idea __ Have Concerns about the Idea ~ No
Please provide any comments, suggestions, possible problems or objects you
may have regarding your interest in a residential parking permit system.
JULY1996 PARKING SURVEY PAGE 1
NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
QUESTION RESPONSE
1 YES
SMALL
LARGE
NO
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
2 INCREASE
DECREASE
NO CHANGE
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
3 M-F
S&S
7 DAYS
M-S
never
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
4
AREA 1
TALLY %
405 39%
AREA 2 AREA 3 AREA 4
TALLY %TALLY %TALLY %
111 11%434 42%86 8%
201 50%67 60%182 42%10 12%
100 50%24 36%89 49%7 70%
101 50%43 64%93 51%3 30%
202 50%
2 O%
4O5
43 39%250 58%
1 1%2 0%
111 434
72 84%
4 5%
86
99 24%31 28%91 21%8 9%
178 44%40 36%157 36%13 15%
87 21%28 25%156 36%56 65%
41 10%12 11%30 7%9 10%
405 111 434 86
45 41%158 36%
1 1%20 5%
33 30%70 16%
7 6%42 10%
7 6%22 5%
18 16%122 28%
111 434
181 45%
9 2%
71 18%
38 9%
30 7%
76 19%
405
0600 - 1800 63 16%18 16%57 13%
0800- 1700 133 33%33 30%133 31%
0600 - 0000 22 5%10 9%25 6%
24HRS.48 12%17 15%59 14%
never 24 6%8 7%13 3%
NOANSWER 87 21%11 10%116 27%
OTHER 28 7%14 13%31 7%
TOTAL 405 111 434
5 0
1
2
3
4-5
6+
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
38 34%167 38%
45 41%171 39%
16 14%64 15%
6 5%13 3%
3 3%9 2%
1 1%4 1%
2 2%6 1%
111 434
154 38%
161 40%
60 15%
1 0 2%
9 2%
2 O%
9 2%
405
14 16%
5 6%
11 13%
3 3%
0 O%
5 3 62%
86
2 2%
16 19%
0 O%
9 10%
0 O%
5 7 66%
2 2%
86
31 36%
2 6 30%
16 19%
4 5%
7 8%
0 O%
2 2%
86
ALL AREAS
TALLY %
1036
460 44%
22O 48%
240 52%
567 55%
9 1%
1036
229 22%
388 37%
327 32%
92 9%
1036
398 38%
35 3%
185 18%
90 9%
59 6%
269 26%
1036
140 14%
315 30%
57 6%
133 13%
45 4%
271 26%
75 7%
1036
390 38%
403 39%
156 15%
33 3%
28 3%
7 1%
1 9 2%
1036
JULY 1996 PARKING SURVEY PAGE 2
QUESTION RESP(3NSE ’
AREA 1
TALLY %
AREA 2 AREA 3 AREA 4
TALLY %TALLY %TALLY %
ALL AREAS
TALLY %
6 0
1
2
3
4
5+
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
7
36
200
49
21
4
15
8O
4O5
9%12 11%11 3%
49%54 49%220 51%
12%15 14%89 21%
5%7 6%19 4%
1%1 1%14 3%
4%5 5%13 3%
20%17 15%68 16%
111 434
0 O%
2 9 34%
23 27%
7 8%
4 5%
4 5%
1 9 22%
86
59 6%
503 49%
176 17%
54 5%
23 2%
37 4%
184 18%
1036
WEEKDAYS 212 52%49 44%236 54%54 63%551 53%
WKENDDAYS 293 72%69 62%302 70%56 65%720 69%
WKENDEVES.293 72%77 69%319 74%59 69%748 72%
8 WOULD NOT
$10-$15
$15-$2o
$25-$30
$35+
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
243 60%56 50%276 64%59
55 14%16 14%49 11%6
30 7%8 7%40 9%4
31 8%14 13%27 6%3
1 9 5%6 5%14 3%1
27 7%11 10%28 6%13
405 111 434 86
100 25%40 36%93 21%3
127 31%28 25%11727%16
64 16%8 7%63 15%11
98 24%26 23%139 32%53
¯ 16 4%9 8%22 5%3
405 111 434 86
9 YES
OPEN
NO
NO ANSWER
79%73 66%243 56%51
TOTAL
69%
7%
5%
3%
1%
15%
3%
19%
13%
62%
3%
59%,RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS
(ONLY THOSE TALLIED)
634
126
82
75
4O
79
1036
236
288
146
3,16
5O
1036
61%
12%
8%
7%
4%
8%
23%
28%
14%
31%
5%
61%
ATTACHMENT D
JULY1996 PARKING SURVEY AREA 2 PAGE 1
NUMBEROFRESPONDENTS
QUESTION
1 ~
SMALL
LARGE
NO
NO ANSVMER
TOTAL
2 INCREASE
DECREASE
NO CHANGE
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
3 M-F
S&S
7 DAYS
M-S
never
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
4 0600 - 1800
0800 - 1700
0600 - 0000
24 HRS.
never
NO ANSWER
OTHER
TOTAL
5 0
1
2
3
4-5
6+
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
CORE
TALLY
30
24
2
22
6
0
8
16
2
4
30
11
1
14
4
0
0
30
7
4
4
9
0
.1
5
30
8
13
7
1
1
0
0
30
BLOCKS
%
27%
8O%
8%
92%
20%
O%
27%
53%
7%
13%
37%
3%
47%
13%
O%
O%
23%
13%
13%
3O%
O%
3%
17%
27%
43%
23%
3%
3%
O%
O%
NON CORE
TALLY
81
43
22
21
0
37
1
81
23
24
26
8
81
34
0
19
3
7
18
81
11
29
6
8
8
10
9
81
30
32
9
5
2
1
2
81
BLOCKS TOTAL FOR AREA 2
%TALLY %
73%1 1 1
53%
51%
49%
46%
1%
28%
3O%
32%
10%
42%
O%
23%
4%
9%
22%
14%
36%
7%
10%
10%
12%
11%
37%
40%
11%
6%
2%
1%
2%
6 7 60%
24 36%
43 64%
43 39%
1 1%
111
31 28%
4O 36%
28 25%
12 11%
111
45 41%
1 1%
33 30%
7 6%
7 6%
18 16%
111
1 8 16%
33 30%
1 0 9%
1 7 15%
8 7%
1 1 10%
14 13%
111
38 34%
45 41%
1 6 14%
6 5%
3 3%
1 1%
2 2%
111
JULY1996 PARKING SURVEY AREA 2 PAGE 2
QUESTION RESPONSE
CORE BLOCKS
TALLY %
NON CORE BLOCKS
TALLY %
TOTAL FOR AREA 2
TALLY %
6 0
1
2
3
4
5+
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
7 WEEKDAYS
WKEND DAYS
WKEND EVES.
8 WOULD NOT
$10-$15
$15-$2o
$25-$30
$35+
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
9 YES
OPE~
NO
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS
(ONLY THOSE TALLIED)
2 7%
15 50%
6 20%
3 10%
1 3%
1 3%
2 7%
3O
11
17
24
8
6
3
7
3
3
3O
19
6
0
3
2
30
18
37%
57%
80%
27%
2O%
10%
23%
10%
10%
63%
20%
0%
10%
7%
6O%
1 0 12%
39 48%
9 11%
4 5%
0 O%
4 5%
15 19%
81
38
52
53
48
10
5
7
3.
8
81,
21
22
8
23
7
81
55
47%
64%
65%
59%
12%
6%
9%
4%
10%
26%
27%
10%
28%
9%
68%
12 11%
54 49%
1 5 14%
7 6%
1 1%
5 5%
17 15%
111
49
69
77
56
16
8
14
6
11
111
4O
28
8
26
9
111
73
44%
62%
69%
5O%
14%
7%
13%
5%
10%
36%
25%
7%
23%
8%
66%
JULY 1996 PARKING SURVEY AREA 3 PAGE 1
NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
QUESTION RESF’ONSE
1 YES
SMALL
LARGE
NO
NO ANSVMER
TOTAL
2 INCREASE
DECREASE
NO CHANGE
NO ANSVMER
TOTAL
3 M-F
S&S
7 DAYS
M-S
never
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
4 0600 - 1800
0800 - 1700
0600 - ’0000
24 HRS.
never
NO ANSWER
OTHER
TOTAL
5 0
1
2
3
4-5
6+
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
CORE
TALLY
136
74
33
41
62
0
136
35
55
38
8
136
53
4
27
18
14
20
136
2O
46
3
23
12
25
7
136
48
52
27
5
4
0
0
136
BLOCKS
%
31%
247%
45%
55%
207%
O%
117%
183%
127%
27%
177%
13%
9O%
60%
47%
67%
67%
153%
10%
77%
40%
83%
23%
160%
173%
90%
17%
13%
O%
O%
NON CORE
TALLY
298
108
56
52
0
188
2
298
56
102
118
22
298
105
16
43
24
8
102
298
37
87
22
36
1
91
24
298
119
119
37
8
5
4
6
298
BLOCKS TOTAL FOR AREA 3
%TALLY %
69%434
133%
130%
121%
232%
2%
69%
126%
146%
27%
130%
20%
53%
3O%
10%
126%
46%
107%
27%
44%
1%
112%
30%
147%
147%
46%
10%
6%
5%
7%
1 82 164%
89 49%
93 51%
250 225%
2 2%
434
91 82%
157 141%
156 141%
30 27%
434
158 142%
20 18%
70 63%
42 38%
22 2O%
122 110%
.434
57 51%
133 120%
25 23%
59 53%
1 3 12%
116 105%
31 28%
434
167 150%
171 154%
64 58%
1 3 12%
9 8%
4 4%
6 5%
434
JULY1996 PARKING SURVEY AREA 3 PAGE 2
QUESTION RESPONSE
CORE BLOCKS
TALLY %
NON CORE BLOCKS
TALLY %
TOTAL FOR AREA 3
TALLY %
6 o
1
2
3
4
5+
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
7 WEEKDAYS
WKEND DAYS
WKEND EVES.
8 WOULD NOT
$10-$15
$15-$20
$25-$30
$35+
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
9 YES
OPEN
CO~3ERNS
NO
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS
(ONLY THOSE TALLIED)
9 3O%
73 243%
3 0 100%
7 23%
2 7%
5 17%
1 0 33%
136
72 240%
86 287%
100 333%
84 280%
2O 67%
7 23%
1 0 33%
6 2O%
9 30%
136
40
34
2O
33
9
136
84
133%
113%
67%
110%
3O%
62%
2 2%
147 181%
59 73%
12 15%
12 15%
8 10%
58 72%
298
164 202%
216 267%
219 270%
192 237%
29 36%
33 41%
17 21%
8 10%
1 9 23%
298
53 65%
83 102%
4 3 53%
106 131%
13 16%
298
159 53%
1 1 10%
220 198%
8 9 80%
19 17%
1 4 13%
13 12%
68 61%
434
236 213%
302 272%
31 9 287%
276 249%
49 44%
40 36%
27 24%
1 4 13%
28 25%
434
9 3 84%
117 105%
63 57%
139 125%
22 20%
434
243 56%
Attachment E
Summary of Comments from Surveys
The following are the comments that were received the most frequently:
-Parking permits would be an unnecessary hassle, especially for guests and visitors.
-Residential Parking Only restriction would just push cars to other locations.
-Find additional parking downtown and that should take care of the problems.
Don’t implement a program until additional parking structures are built downtown
and the Palo Alto Medical Clinic moves.
Business owners and downtown employers should pay, not the residents.
Developers of new projects in the downtown are not required to provided enough
parking and this is the cause of the problem.
o Stanford football game days are the only times parking is a problem.
Many residents don’t use their garages or driveways, but park on the street. That adds
to the problem.
Residents should not have to pay to park in front of their own home. We pay enough
taxes as it is. Residents should be given a priority.
-We don’t need another bureaucratic approach to the problem.
o The best answer is the shuttle.
Rental units often have three or more ears associated with them. Limit the number
of ears per address.
Parking in our neighborhood is not a problem. There is always space within a block
from our home.
I don’t need a permit, but my visitors do.
Non-residents and visitors who park in the neighborhoods should pay for permits.
Look at other cities with these types of programs. They are terrible and create even
more problems.
Vehicles blocking driveways is the biggest problem. Bring back marked parking
spaces.
It’s not just the businesses downtown that cause the problem. The Women’s Club,
Addison School, the Downtown Churches, the employees who work at the Channing
House, and the Palo Alto Medical Clinic create as big a problem.
Great idea, but I won’t pay for permits.
The program would be only as good as the level of enforcement.
Create two-hour parking in the neighborhoods close to downtown and then allow
residents to obtain permits for unlimited time parking.
Palo Alto residents should be grateful for what they have and stop whining.
Downtown needs to remain vibrant to keep the revenues coming in to pay for all the
City services. Don’t impose additional restrictions that would keep people away.
The City’s "72-hour" ordinance needs to be revised. It allows people to move their
car a short distance which does not solve the problem. Residents then leave their cars
on the street for long periods of time.
Weekend days and evening are the worst times.
Weekdays are the worst times.
We didn’t have a parking problem until Stars opened and their valet program started.
Bring back parking meters.
More needs to be done to encourage alternative means of transportation so people
won’t rely on their cars so much. That will not only help the parking problem, but
the traffic problem in general.
It’s hard enough to get the streets swept now. A permit system will make matters
worse.
Too many houses don’t have any garages or only one car garages. This forces people
to park on the streets.
This is just another idea for the City to increase revenue.
Every residence should get one free permit.
The color zone program has made parking in the neighborhoods worse.
The color zone program is great.
We’ve lived in cities with residential parking permit programs before and they create
more problems.
Approval of developments around the downtown area without strict requirements for
adequate parking are only exacerbating the parking problem.
A, parking permit program would require signs and they would ruin the
neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENT F
Comments/Questions from Public Meetings
Meeting on August 27, 1996:
-Get back to 1994 residential parking levels.
-Sell permits to non-residents to park on the street.
There is a problem with intoxicated pedestrians and drivers leaving establishments at
night and returning to their vehicles parked in residential areas.
-The problem is not from the "locals."
-Stop downtown development until parking problems solved.
-Permit parking is not a real solution - it is a "feel good" approach.
-Safety is a problem. Need more stop signs in residential areas north of downtown.
-Would pay for a permit if the money went to pay for a shuttle.
-Cheaper to pay people not to drive.
Residents need to let Planning Department and Council know about objections to new
projects without enough parking.
Parking benefit district (residents and non-residents should both pay for residential
parking).
-Permit parking would be an incentive to fix downtown parking.
-Accommodate homeless parking.
Need permit parking because "big money" talks and the Council will continue to
approve projects without adequate parking no matter how many people complain
about it.
The problem is the City makes it too convenient for people to park with the amount
of"free" parking. A solution would be to move towards a "market-pricing" approach.
Meeting on September 4, 1996:
How would a shuttle help deal with employee parking? Employees would not likely
use a shuttle.
-What about privafized parking structures that the City does not have to pay for?
-Don’t forget the residents. Fear of non-resident permit parking in the neighborhoods.
-Safety of children is a concern. Cars parked too close to the corner of intersections.
-Too many cars are parked on residential streets.
-Even with new lots, many employees would not pay for a permit.
-Cars from auto-related businesses contribute to the problem.
-New lots would not entirely shift cars from residential areas.
Commercial vehicles parked in residential area (Round Table delivery vehicles) are
a problem.
-On a waiting list now for a permit for company vehicles (Round Table).
-More lots would discourage alternative transportation.
Residents might increase the problem by parking cars on the street with a permit so
’that guests would be forced to park in the driveway of residents.
-Have a combination of permit and timed parking.
-Don’t like parking situation, but am opposed to permit parking.
Problem with residents with too many cars (two people said neighbors had six cars
that are moved up and down the stree0.
A suggestion was made for an escalating fee for each permit to discourage residents
from having too many vehicles on the street. Start with one free permit per address
and charge progressively higher fees for permits issued thereafter.
Address problem Monday-Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday a.m.
Post permanent signs for weekly street sweeping. Combine a permit parking plan
with a street sweeping plan.
Why does the City not require underground or additional parking for new or
renovated buildings?
Change the formula for required parking for downtown projects.
Who gained from color zone parking plan? It has made the parking worse.
The City should provide a shuttle service.
The City gets money from increased sales tax generated by the success of the
downtown area. This money could be used to alleviate the problem.
Coffee shops and certain other new businesses have a higher density of
employees/customers than previous businesses. This factor should be taken into
consideration when determining the amount of required parking spaces.
The City should establish a better balance of b~nefits for the residential areas versus
the business areas.
Systems approach. Provide suggested alternatives to the residents so people can get
a handle on the alternatives.
City does not enforce parking standards for parking requirements in the downtown
area. Desirability of business isn’t factored in (e.g., Gatehouse to Stars).
ATTAGI~ENT G