Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-15 City Council (11)TO: CRy HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL City of Palo Alto Manager’s Report FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POLICE DATE: SUBJECT: MARCH 15, 1999 CMR: 181:99 STATUS REPORT ON RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROJECT This is an information report and no Council action is required at this time. BACKGROUND In March 1996, Council directed staff to identify the level of interest in the neighborhoods north and south of the downtown area developing a residential parking permit program. Staff conducted an initial survey of residents who live in neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown area and reported back to the Council in September 1996 (CMR:392:96). In December 1996, the Council directed staff to study the feasibility of a parking permit program in those adjacent neighborhoods to include the following elements: 1) charge an annual fee for all day non-residents to park in the residential areas; 2) provide for free short-term parking for up to two hours for non-residents; and 3) provide permits at no cost to residents. Since that time, staffhas been working with the Downtown North Neighborhood Association and the University South Neighborhood Group on the feasibility and development of a program. This report provides an update on the work that has been done. DISCUSSION During Summer 1997, staff met a number of times with the parking committees of the neighborhood associations in attempts to develop a framework for a possible permit program. Due to the potential size of the area a program might be implemented in, the number of CMR:181:99 Page 1 of 3 multi-family units in the area and a host of other factors, a lot of discussion occurred. The complexities of such a program created numerous differences in opinions and in some cases, lack of a consensus on issi~es. In September and November 1997, two larger meetings with the general memberships of each neighborhood group was held for the purpose of sharing two conceptual permit programs that had been generated with assistance from the parking committees and to receive input from the residents. It was evident that, at least at the meeting with the University South Neighborhood Group, there was considerable opposition to the conceptual programs. As a result, staff and the neighborhood associations’ parking committees spent some additional time on the feasibility of other conceptual programs. During the first four months of 1998, a second survey instrument was designed. The survey was distributed in July to more than 2,500 homes in the area, including some residents who live east of Middlefield Road. T.he analysis of the second survey responses has just been completed. Results of Second Survey The second survey (Attachment A) specifically requested responses regarding the preferred hours and days of enforcement, the number of hours preferred for timed parking, the locations that would be available for non-resident permit holders to park, and a statement regarding the responder’s opposition or support for such a program. More than 37 percent of the surveys were returned. Attachment B provides the detailed breakdown of the responses. Based upon the surveys, most of the respondents favored enforcement during the weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. The majority of respondents also preferred two-hour timed parking and were not concerned about where the non-resident permit holders were allowed to park. Sixty-six percent of the respondents either favored or strongly favored a program while 26 percent were opposed or strongly opposed to a permit program. A larger number (32 percent) of respondents from the University South area were opposed or strongly opposed. Because the surveys were distributed so that responses could be tracked by blocks of streets, staff completed some additional analysis and determined that most of the people who responded were opposed or strongly opposed to a permit program live farther away from the downtown. As an example, in the Downtown North neighborhood, most of the people who oppose the program live north of Hawthorne Avenue and in the University South neighborhood, most people live south of Addison Avenue and east of Waverley Street. These responses were somewhat predictable in that the streets farther away from Downtown have less of a parking problem. CMR:181:99 Page 2 of 3 A large neighborhood meeting will be held on March 17, 1999, to discuss the results of the survey with the residents. Additional Work to be Completed There are still a number of issues that need to be addressed prior to staff returning to the Council with recommendations. Staff has begun the preliminary cost/revenue analysis associated with a permit program and should have that work done within the next few weeks. Staffis also working on strategies to handle special circumstances within the residential areas that would be impacted by a permit program including churches, schools, and facilities like the Heritage Museum and the Women’s Club. RESOURCE IMPACTS Staff is in the process of developing cost and revenue estimates associated with a residential parking permit program. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Copy of Second Survey Attachment B - Results of Second Survey PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: Lynne Johnson, Assistant Police Chief Patrick Dwyer, Ch’fef Sf P~ice APPROVED BY:E~ily~Ha~ one, OA~sis@M an ag er CMR:181:99 Page 3 of 3 City of Palo Alto Police Department July 13, 1998 ATTA~A Dear Resident: The City Council has directed staff to work with residents who live adjacent to the downtown area regarding the feasibility of implementing a residential parking permit program. The Council has recognized that the color-zone parking program has assisted in providing more parking .for visitors and customers to the downtown, but it has increased non-resident parking in adjacent neighborhoods. The Council directed that the feasibility study include three parameters: 1) free permits would be provided to residents; 2) some permits would be available for sale to non-residents; and 3) free parking for cars without permits would be allowed for limited amounts of time. During the last year, City staff has worked closely with the Transportation Committee of the University South Group Association and the Parking Committee of the Downtown North Neighborhood Association. Discussions about the complex pros and cons of a permit program and the numerous possible variations have occurred. A number of important issues have been identified such as the aesthetics of the street signs that would be required for enforcement purposes, the "openness" of the area to visitors, and the ballooning effect of possibly .pushing the parking problem farther out into the neighborhoods. These issues have to be weighed against the impact of downtown employees and visitors parking in the neighborhoods. As a result of the discussions on all these issues, a draft model program has been developed. The enclosed survey is an attempt to get input from as many residents as possible. It is important that we receive your opinion on the desirability of the model program and your preferences on certain aspects of it. Please keep in mind that no single model will meet everyone’s needs or concerns. The goals are to establish a program that would: provide a reasonable’ level of available parking for residents and their guests by initially removing about 50 percent of non-resident vehicles and distributing the density throughout the neighborhoods; eventually reduce the level of habitually parked non-resident vehicles to zero after parking structures are constructed to help ensure that the downtov~n~parking capacity is effectively utilized; help protect neighborhoods from future growth in the downtown area by ensuring that non-resident parking in the neighborhoods would not increase. 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650.329.2406 650.329.2565 fax 650.617.3120 Administration fax Page Two Any program would include penalties for improper use of permits or illegal parking. Residents would be required.to show proof of residency to obtain their permits. The cost to purchase additional permits and the amount of the penalties would be dependent upon costs to operate a program. The general program would include the following: Two resident permits and two reusable guest permits would be provided per single household at no cost. Abuse o~f permits would result in penalties for the resident. Two resident permits and two reusable guest permits provided per each multi- family or apartment unit up to four units per lot. Any lots with five, or more units would be provided one resident permit and one reusable guest permit for each unit at no cost. Abuse of permits would result in penalties for the resident. Additional resident permits would be available for purchase by residents. Resident permits would.be renewed on an annual basis. One day special event (large party) permits would be provided at no cost to residents with a one-week advance notice to the City. A set number of permits would be available for sale to non-residents. These permits would allow parking in only identified (coded) zones to evenly distribute the density of nonresident vehicles. After we have analyzed the survey responses, several neighborhood meetings will be held to share the results. Following those meetings, the results of the feasibility study will be presented to the City Council. The Council would then determine what course of action should be taken. Thank you for your interest and response. If you have any questions or would like to discuss your ideas and/or concerns, please contact either Lieutenant Jon Hernandez at 329-2142 or myself.at 329-2115. We can be reached by phone or.e-mail. Please return the completed survey in the enclosed envelope by Monday, August 10, 19~9~~. L’~ynhe Johnson Assistant Police Chief Enclosures Block / Street Residential Parking Permit Model Program Survey Options There are several issues that we need your input on. Please take a few minutes and complete the survey and return it in the enclosed envelope by Monday, August 10, 1998. I prefer the hours of enforcement of a residential parking permit program to be: Choose one option. (Note: Depending upon the evening time selected, people who park after 7 or 8 p.m. would be able to park anywhere the rest of the night.) [] 9 a.m. - 10 p.m.[].8 a.m. - 9 p.m. []~a.m.-9p.m.[]Other - please describe 2. I prefer the days of enforcement to be: []Monday - Friday []Monday - Saturday []Other - (please describe) On the issue of timed parking allowing any person to park without a permit for a limited length of time, I prefer: (Choose one option) (Note: The Council has directed that some free short-term parking be available for visitors without permits.) [] [] [] [] Three hour parking for all Two hours free parking for all One hour free parking for all No free parking for anyone without a permit The downtown neighborhood.s have been seeing an increase ir~ high-density developments within single family .home areas. Some residents have raised some questions and concerns about these developments’ inability to provide sufficient off- street parking for residents without negatively impacting the availability of street parking for current residents. Do you believe that this is a problem? [] Yes [] No [] No Opinion If yes, what suggestions would you have to deal with the issue? I prefer that non-resident permit parking: (Note: Residents would be able to park on either side of the street.) Be limited to designated zones on blocks on either side of the street, Be allowed only on one side of the street (residents/guests would be able to park on both sides of the street and non-residents on only one side of the street). Be allowed to park anywhere. Regarding the concept of a Residential Parking Permit Program in my part of the neighborhood, I: (Note: Please keep in mind that it would be possible to implement such a program in one neighborhood and not another, but the most probable outcome would be an increase of vehicles in the neighborhood that chose not to implement it.) ["]Strongly Favor []Favor []No opinion []Oppose []Strongly Oppose If you do not support the concept, please describe what factors would cause you to change your mind? If you suppbrt the concept, please describe what factors might cause you to withdraw your support? .O.otional: Name Address Phone Comments: QUESTION1 9a.m.-10p.m. 8a.m.- 9p.m. 8a.m.-10p.m. Other Oppose TOTAL FOR QUESTION 1 ORANGE AREA (N. of’~tton) 7O 14% 179 35% 114 22% 116 23% 35 7% 514 100% QUESTION 2 Monday - Friday Monday - Saturday Other Oppose TOTAL FOR QUESTION 2 292 57% 168 33% 24 5% 31 6% 515 100% QUESTION 3 3 hours free parking 2 hours free parking 1 hour free parking No free parking Other TOTAL FOR QUESTION 3 135 27% 219 44% 66 13% 63 13% 12 2% 495 100% QUESTION 4 Yes NO No opinion TOTAL FOR QUESTION 4 Suggestions (incl. below) Off street parking for high density developments 317 62% 100 20% 91 18% 508 100% 207 146 71% QUESTION 5 A (eithe~ side) B (one side only) C (anywhere) Other TOTAL FOR QUESTION 5 154 32% 109 23% 216 45% 2 O% 481 100% QUESTION 6 Strongly favor Favor No opinion Oppose Strongly oppose 196 38% 171 34% 36 7% 49 10% 58 11% GREEN AREA (s. of Forest) COUNT % 62 14% 140 32% 61 14% 113 26% 57 13% 433 100% 246 55% 118 27% 23 5% 57 13% 444 100% 139 34% 177 43% 50 12% 47 11% 0 O% 413 100% 256 61% 85 20% 76 18% 413 100% 175 117 67% 113 28% 64 16% 224 56% 1 O% 4O2 100% 126 29% 131 3O% 40 9% 60 14% 77 18% ATTAChmENT B SUMOF BOTH AREAS COUNT % 132 14% 319 34% 175 18% 229 24% 92 10% 947 100% 538 56% 286 30% 47 5% 88 9% 959 100% 274 30% 396 44% 116 13% 110 12% 12 1% 908 100% 573 62% 185 20% 167 18% 925 100% 382 263 69% 267 3O% 173 2O% 440 50% 3 O% 883 100% 322 34% 302 32% 76 8% 109 12% 135 14% TOTAL FOR QUESTION 6 510 100%434 100%944 100%