Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-02 City CouncilTO: ATTENTION: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION 1 FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:POLICE PLANNING DATE:DECEMBER 2, 1999 CMR:403:99 SUBJECT:RECOMMENDATION TO CONCEPTUALLY APPROVE A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM FRAMEWORK WITH A DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION PENDING THE COMPLETION OF A LONG RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURES REPORT IN BRIEF In December 1996, Council directed staff to study the feasibility of implementing a residential parking permit program (RPP) in neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown area. Council gave staff three parameters to follow including: 1) provide permits at no cost to residents; 2) charge an annual fee for all-day nonresidents that would enable them to park in the neighborhoods; and 3) provide for free short-term parking for up to two hours for nonresidents. Since that time, staff has worked with the Downtown North Neighborhood Association (DNNA) and the University South Neighborhood Group (USNG), hosted numerous meetings with residents, conducted two resident surveys, and gathered information from other cities that have similar programs. As a result, staff has developed recommendations that provide a framework for a residential parking permit ordinance. Staffhas also estimated costs and revenues associated with the implementation of a program. Due to the significant costs related to the program, staff is concerned about the funding that would be needed to implement the program. Additionally, due to the current parking space deficit in the downtown area, staff does not feel it would be prudent to implement the program until the downtown parking structures are built. Therefore, while this report provides the conceptual outline of a program and the preliminary cost/revenue estimates needed for implementation, staff is recommending that a RPP program not be implemented until a financial plan to help prioritize new programs against available resources can be prepared and until the Downtown parking structures are built. Due to the scope and nature of a residential program and the associated relationships to traffic issues, the CMR:403:99 Page 1 of 13 recommendations are being referred to the Planning Commission for initial review and discussion. ~COMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Council approve in concept the elements of an ordinance regulating parking in residential areas in the neighborhoods to include the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) s) 9) lo) 11) 12) 13) Provide two vehicle-specific permits to each single-family residence or multi-family complex residence up to four units that would be renewable every three years; Provide one vehicle-spegific permit to each multi-family unit residence that is in a complex of five or more units that would be renewable every three years; Provide two free transferable guest permits to each residence and charge a fee for lost or misplaced permits; Allow residents to purchase up to two additional vehicle-specific permits renewable on an annual basis for a fee or per permit, per year; Allow residents to submit requests to purchase additional (more than four) vehicle- specific permits. These permits, if issued, would be renewable on an annual basis after an in-depth review is completed by City staff to determine the parking situation in the immediate area; Allow residents to purchase one-day, special event permits for one dollar per permit; Allow users/visitors to nonprofit organizations (churches, Women’s Club, etc.) in the area to purchase one-day permits for one dollar per permit; Allow automotive repair shops in the South of Forest area to purchase one-day special permits to use for parking of customer vehicles that are being repaired; Assuming approval of the construction of two parking structures, provide nonresidents the opportunity to purchase annual nonresident permits that would allow them to park in specifically designated residential zones, using a two-tiered annual fee schedule, depending upon the specific zone; Divide the area to be included in the program into 15 specific permit zones and charge higher fees for nonresident permits for the zones closer to the downtown area; Provide for enforcement of residential parking Mondays through Fridays from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; Allow anyone to park in specific residential zones without any permit for two hours with no reparking prior to 10:00 p.m. Develop options for cost-recovery of program costs. Staff also recommends that a RPP program not be implemented until a long term financial plan is prepared and discussion of available resources, potential new funding sources and the potential new programs has been completed and until the downtown parking structures are built. CMR:403:99 Page 2 of 13 BACKGROUND On December 2, 1996, the City Council directed staff to study the feasibility of a residential parking permit program (RPP) in the neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown area. Council directed that three parameters be used in the study including: 1) permits be provided at no cost to residents; 2) nonresidents be permitted to purchase annual permits that would allow them to park in residential areas; and 3) free short-term parking for up to two hours for nonresidents be provided. Since that time, as described in CMR: 181:99, staff has been working with the Downtown North Neighborhood Association (DNNA) and the University South Neighborhood Group (USNG) on the feasibility and development of a program. Based upon the input from the neighborhood groups and information received from cities that have implemented similar programs, staff has developed recommendations that wouldform the framework for a residential parking ordinance, as well as preparing preliminary cost and revenue estimates. Before explaining each component of the framework, it is important to update the Council on recently conducted neighborhood parking occupancy surveys. On April 27, 1999, Police staff conducted a survey of vehicles parked on the streets in the neighborhoods to the north and south of the downtown area. The purpose of the survey was to determine how many of the cars parked on the street belonged to residents compared to nonresidents. Vehicle license plates were recorded and checked to determine ownership. The results do not account for resident visitors, out -of- state plates for vehicles owned by students and others who are living in the neighborhood, or inaccurate registration information. The survey was conducted at 10:00 a.m. The results (Attachment A) indicate that in the area north of downtown, approximately 20 percent of the vehicles parked on the streets at that time belonged to neighborhood residents, nine percent belonged to Palo Alto residents who live in other parts of the City, and about 71 percent belonged to nonresidents. For the area south of the Downtown, about 19 percent of the vehicles belonged to residents of the neighborhood, 11 percent belonged to residents who live in other parts of the City, and about 69 percent belonged to nonresidents. In order to assess parking infiltration into the neighborhoods during evening hours, another similar survey was conducted on August 12, 1999 between 7:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Because the area assessed for this survey was smaller compared to the daytime survey, the actual number of vehicles parked on the street was significantly less. That survey (Attachment B) showed, in the north neighborhood, about the same ratio of resident vehicles (20 percent), Palo Alto residents who live in other parts of the City (9 percent) and vehicles owned by nonresidents (70 percent) being parked during evening hours as they are during the day. However, for the south neighborhood, the number of vehicles belonging to residents of the neighborhood decreased to 10 percent, the number of vehicles belonging to Palo Alto residents who live in CMR:403:99 Page 3 of 13 othe_r parts of the City increased to 14 percent, and the number of vehicles belonging to nonresidents increased to 76 percent. The results of these surveys compared to previous surveys (Attachment C) show that, while the total number of cars parked on neighborhood streets has increased, over the last four years the number of cars belonging to Palo Alto residents has also increased (31 percent from 26 percent in October 1996) and the number of vehicles belonging to nonresidents has decreased (69 percent from 74 percent in October 1996). It is still quite apparent however that nonresident parking continues to be a significant issue for the neighborhoods. Staff also went into the neighborhoods and counted the number of spaces on the streets that are available for vehicles to park. Using an average of 20 feet per parking space, and taking into account space needed for red zones and for space adjacent to driveways and intersections, staff determined that there are about 4,025 on-street parking spaces in the areas included in the proposed designated zones. Attachment D provides a detailed listing by zone and Attachment E provides a listing by street of the number of on-street parking spaces. Based upon the recent vehicle parking surveys, the number of nonresidents currently on the ~ait list for downtown parking facility permits, and Transportation staff’s estimates, there are approximately 1,600 nonresidents parking in the adjacent neighborhoods. These figures include downtown employees, Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) employees and employees who work in businesses in the south of Forest area. Once PAMF moves, a reduction of about 100 employee vehicles is anticipated. Transportation staff estimates that even with a very aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, it will take several years before an estimated additional reduction of 375 employee parkers in the neighborhood would be observed. This figure is based upon studies that indicate that cities can expect a 20 to 25 percent reduction in vehicles through the use of an aggressive TDM program. As currently designed, the proposed two downtown parking structures would provide 873 spaces. While a final decision has not yet been made, staff assumes that the two garages would be operated similar to the Civic Center and Webster-Cowper garages. Specifically, the first floor of each garage plus a portion of the basement level at the Lot S and L site would be devoted to free customer parking and the remaining 700 or so permit spaces would be for employees. Using the standard procedure of overselling permits by about 20 percent, there would still be about a 230 parking space deficit (See Attachment F). CMR:403:99 Page 4 of 13 DISCUSSION A number of factors must be considered in the development of a residential parking permit program, including: the average number of vehicles per household in the area, the number of on-street parking spaces available, density of housing in the area, availability of parking in other areas for nonresidents, availability of off-street parking for special facilities like churches, and inclusion of timed-parking within the area. The implementation of a residential permit parking system is quite ’complex especially when such a significant parking deficit exists, when area employees live considerable distances from the city, and when public transportation is not convenient and accessible. The following provides the rationale for the elements included in the recommendations. Resident Permits - The issue of the number, type, and cost of permits that would be issued to residents was a topic of considerable discussion with the DNNA and USNG groups. Staff based its recommendations upon the meetings with the neighbors and the results of the surveys completed by the residents. One of the City Council’s parameters was to provide permits to residents at no cost. It quickly became apparent that this expectation was unrealistic due to the lack of alternative nonresident parking spaces in downtown facilities, the limited number of on-street parking spaces, the average number of households per block, and an estimated average number of vehicles per residence. The 1990 Palo Alto census estimated an average of 1.81 vehicles per occupied housing unit in the City (2.09 per owner occupied unit and 1.44 per renter occupied unit). It can safely be assumed that this average is more than two vehicles per household nine years later. Using a rough figure of 3,500 housing units in the neighborhoods involved, staff estimates that there are at least 7,000 resident vehicles in the area. This figure exceeds the number of on-street parking spaces by about 2,800. Although many residents park their cars in their driveways/garages, based upon Palo Alto’s experience in the 1980s with the Evergreen residential permit program and from what staff has learned from cities who have implemented similar programs, many residents feel more of a sense of entitlement once they receive their parking permits. Additionally, cities that allow permit-only parking report that it is not unusual for residents to park on the street to keep their driveways available for guest parking. This commonly results in more residents parking on the street as opposed to in their driveways/garages. Therefore, some mechanism must be in place to help curtail the number of resident vehicles parked on the street. Ideally, staff would propose charging a nominal fee for each permit issued to residents. However, Council originally directed staff to provide permits to residents at no cost, and because many households have more than two cars, staff has included in the CMR:403:99 Page 5 of 13 recommendations a provision that would allow residents to purchase a third or fourth permit for an annual fee in the range of $50 to $100. These permits would be valid for three .years. Additionally, residents who are in need of even more permits would be allowed to submit requests to purchase permits in excess of four for an annual fee. Prior to issuing permits in excess of four to a residence, staff would closely review the parking situation at that particular location to determine whether or not additional residential permits should be granted. This extra review would be necessary in order to prevent one household’s vehicles from occupying an entire block face. Staff proposes requiring proof of residency prior to issuance of permits. During discussions with the neighborhood associations, there was considerable time devoted to the issue of the number of residential permits that would be provided to occupants of multi- family units as opposed to single-family homes. There is a strong feeling on the part of single- family homeowners (62 percent of people who responded to the survey in the DNNA area and 61 percent of the people who responded to the survey in the USNG area) that, because most of the multi-family units have some off-street parking available to them, only one permit should be issued to residents of homes in complexes that have more than four units. While an argument can be made that the majority of single-family homes have off-street parking available in the form of driveways/garages, a number of single-family homes in this area do not have these amenities. Staff proposes that all permits, with the exception of guest and special event permits, be vehicle- specific. This means that the license number of the vehicle would be included on the actua! permit that residents would be required to place on the rear bumper of their car. Staff believes that this requirement is necessary to prevent abuse of the system. For example, staff is aware that currently some residents in the area rent their driveways to downtown employees. It is conceivable that if permits were not vehicle-specific, some residents would sell their permits to nonresidents. Vehicles with residential permits could be parked for any length of time (as long as they are not in violation of the City’s 72-hours parking ordinance). Guest permits - In most residential parking permit programs, the issue of providing parking spaces for guests of the residents is of significant concern. This issue has also been one that has received considerable attention during meetings with residents. Staff is recommending that two guest permits be issued to each household at a nominal cost. These would be transferable hanger-type permits that would enable residents to reuse the permits for their guests. Cities who use a similar system report that one drawback to this type of guest permit is that residents frequently lose or misplace them. In order to prevent abuses, the cities require replacement fees for lost permits. Staff therefore recommends a replacement fee for lost guest permits. CMR:403:99 Page 6 of 13 Nonresident permits - Residential permit parking would reduce on-street parking availability for employees. Without a correspo.nding increase in the parking spaces downtown or a reduction in the demand for parking through employee use of alternative transportation modes, however, a parking problem still exists. Assuming that the parking structures are built and the City will have an aggressive TDM program, staff is recommending that up to 300 permits be available for purchase by nonresidents. If the parking structures are not built or do not provide a significant number of spaces, the number of permits available for purchase by nonresidents would need to increase to between 1,000 and 1,600. Within a few years, as the demand for parking decreases as a result of downtown emp!oyees using alternative means of transportation, the goal would be to reduce the number of permits issued to nonresidents to zero. In order to prevent nonresident permit holders from parking in the areas closest to downtown and overburdening small pockets of those neighborhoods, staff is proposing that both the north and south neighborhoods be divided into zones and that nonresident permit holders be permitted to park only in a specific zone. The number of permits sold per zone would be dependent upon the number of on-street parking spaces in that zone. Staff would ensure an equitable distribution of permits throughout the zones to ensure that zones closest to the downtown area were not overused by nonresidents. Attachment G provides detailed information on the proposed zones. Staff is also proposing that a two-tiered fee structure be used for nonresident permits. It is important that the nonresident permit fees be higher than permit fees for the downtown parking facilities in order to discourage nonresidents from parking in the neighborhoods. Currently, annual permit fees for downtown lots and garages are $250 a year. As a result, staff estimates that fees for nonresident permits in zones closest to downtown would be in the range of $400 to $450 per year and for other zones they would be between $325- $375 per year. Special Event/Circumstance Permits - There are three types of special permits that would be needed for the proposed RPP program. One is a special event permit that residents could obtain for one day special events attended by numerous people. As an example, if a resident hosts a party with 25 attendees during the enforcement hours, he/she would be required to obtain one day permits for each vehicle one week in advance of the event, and then give attendees permits to hang on the rearview mirrors. Staff proposes using "scratcher" permits that are used by a number of jurisdictions for one day events. In order to cover the cost of the permits, staff is recommending that one day permits be sold for one dollar per permit. This nominal fee would also prevent residents who need more than the allocated free permits from using them unnecessarily. Because the proposed enforcement periods do not include weekends, staff believes that there will be minimal need for such permits. Residents would have the option of using one of their free guest permits or a CMR:403:99 Page 7 of 13 special event permit for weekday domestic workers such as house cleaners, gardeners, etc. who would need to park longer than two hours in the area. Other circumstances that have to be addressed with special permits are those presented by churches, schools, nonprofit facilities, and automot~ile repair shops that are located within a residential parking area. In the USNG area, staff has identified three churches, one school, the Palo Alto Women’s Club, and the Heritage Museum (Attachment H). The majority of these institutions do not have any off-street parking available and all their users/visitors must use on- street parking. The dilemma presented by these locations has been difficult to resolve. Staff hosted a meeting for representatives of these organizations in August in an attempt to brainstorm potential solutions. Each organization has its own unique issues. As an example, the First Lutheran Church does not have any off-street parking spaces. The Urban Ministry has some offices at the Church and an average of 20 to 30 volunteers/visitors use the Church’s facilities each weekday. Per Council direction, staff has included the provision of short-term two hour free parking in these areas. However, there will be no guarantee that permit holders would not occupy all the available spaces. Staff has contacted other cities who have similar permit parking programs. No other city that staff has contacted makes any special provisions for these type of organizations and requires them to pay full fees for regular nonresident permits. It is important to note however, that most churches, schools, and nonprofit facilities in other cities are required to have adequate off-street parking. Staff has reviewed several options including increasing short-term parking around these locations to three hours, allowing only free short-term parking on the block faces around the facilities, and providing specially designated stickers for consistent users of the facilities. Each option, however, had significant drawbacks. For instance, the First Lutheran Church has different volunteers/visitors each day so the option of providing specially designated stickers for consistent users would not be practical or resolve its problem. After reviewing all the options, staff is recommending that these institutions use the one-day "scratcher" permits. The organizations would be able to purchase a large supply of the permits and provide them to their users/visitors when they arrive. In order to make it easier for the issuance of these permits, staff also recommends that several loading zone spaces be provided in front of each facility that would enable visitors to easily park for the short time they need to retrieve the permits and return to place them in their vehicles. Representatives of these institutions have concerns about this recommendation and believe that it might discourage volunteers, visitors, and users from using their facilities. CMR:403:99 Page 8 of 13 Staff has also met with representatives of several of the automobile repair-s.hops that are located in the South of Forest area. Implementation of an RPP program would only affect those that are adjacent to residential areas, and which require some on-street space for their customers’ vehicles during the day. Staff also proposes allowing these business to purchase one-day scratcher permits to be used only for their customers’ vehicles, not for their employees. Short-term Parking- Council directed that staff include a provision for free short-term, two-hour parking in the neighborhoods. Short-term parking provisions assist residents by allowing domestic workers such as gardeners, house cleaners, plumbers, electricians, etc. to park in the neighborhoods without a permit. However, the short-term parking provision results in a more labor-intensive program that costs significantly more to enforce. With short term parking, Parking Enforcement Officers (PEOs) would need to monitor the areas at least once every two hours, record the license plate numbers of non-permitted cars and return two hours later to record the license information again to determine if there are any violators. A simpler, easier to enforce type of program would not provide for any short-term parking and would prohibit any vehicles without permits (resident, guest, and/or nonresident) from parking on the street. However, the lack of short-term parking exacerbates the problem for churches, schools, etc. that was identified previously. Sig~nage and Enforcement- In order for any residential parking permit program to be enforceable, clear signage would be required. Staff. anticipates that three signs would be needed per block face to obtain adequate notice and visibility that would allow for enforcement. Staff would propose conducting enforcement of the RPP similarly to the Downtown Color Zone program. PEOs would be assigned to the designated zones and would monitor their zones for vehicles that do not have residential, non-residential, guest, or daily special event/circumstance permits. Due to the provision for short-term parking noted above, the PEOs would also enter all license plate numbers of vehicles without permits into their hand-held computers. After the two-hour period expires, non-permitted vehicles would be required to move to another zone or they would receive a parking citation. Non-permitted vehicles would be prohibited from reparking in the same zone until after 10:00 p.m. each day. Parking Enforcement Officers would not chalk tires of non-permitted cars. This method is ineffective and does not deter scofflaws. Currently problems continue in the California Avenue District and the downtown areas where PEOs still chalk tires. In order to avoid citations, people will erase or remove the chalk marks. CMR:403:99 Page 9 of 13 Considerations As the decision making process regarding residential permits in neighborhoods adjacent_to the downtown area continues, it is vital to reiterate some fundamental considerations. "Balloon" Effect - As described previously, there is currently a significant parking deficit in the downtown area. Depending upon the number of nonresident permits that are sold, a RPP program may result in no change in the intrusion into the neighborhood, may push the parking problem further into the neighborhoods or serve as a deterrent for employees to work downtown. While a strong TDM program would result in some reduction in the number of downtown employee cars, it is unrealistic to think that it would eliminate, by itself, the parking deficit due to the fact that many employees who work in the downtown area live a considerable distance away. Unless there is convenient public transportation, many employees will continue to drix~e their cars to work. Staff does not believe that a City shuttle system would be used by large numbers of downtown employees unless they live in the City and/or they already use public transportation. Substantial increases in rail and bus services to/from Palo Alto would be needed to alter these dynamics. These increases would require a shift in regional and State transportation policies and resource allocations. Because of the balloon effect, without providing additional parking facilities, a parking deficit, while lower than the current level, will remain. Once parking structures are built, it will be imperative to have a RPP program in place, together with an effective TDM program. Many downtown employees would most likely continue to park in the neighborhoods for free rather than purchase a permit. If the fees for nonresident permits were higher than the fees for permits in downtown facilities as staff proposes, staff believes that most people would pay the lower fee to park in the structures. Permits Will Not Guarantee Parking - The implementation of a RPP program will not provide any guarantee that a resident can park in front or even adjacent to his/her home. As mentioned earlier, it is not unusual for residents who have permits to have an unrealistic sense of entitlement that there will be on-street parking space in front of their home. While an RPP program would reduce the number of nonresident vehicles in actuality it is unlikely that much of a total reduction in cars parked on the street would be achieved. RESOURCE IMPACTS Residential parking permit programs are expensive programs to operate due to the staff needed to issue the permits and to enforce the ordinance. Initial costs of sign installation are significant. As conceptually outlined, the proposed RPP program is not guaranteed to be cost CMR:403:99 Page 10 of 13 recovery and significant City subsidies might be needed to operate a program. Staff has developed preliminary cost and revenue estimates for the implementation of the programin the neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown area. Based upon feedback from other cities, consistent enforcement of such ordinances is needed to prevent abuses and to ensure compliance. As noted above, the inclusion of short-term two hour parking in the affected areas increases the costs for enforcement as staff is needed for more frequent checks. Staff has estimated costs for programs with and without the short-term parking provision. Similar to other new programs, staff would propose initially hiring temporary employees for a period of time to gain actual experience. Eventually, regular positions would be required to maintain a consistent program. Start-up funds would be needed for temporary personnel in the Administrative Services and Police Departments to handle the issuance of signs and the enforcement. Additional initial costs would cover the purchase of the permits, educational brochures, the purchase and installation of signs, the purchase of vehicles, computers, hand-held citation units, uniforms, radios, and other equipment. While staff is still in the process of determining projected start-up costs, staff believes that for a RPP program that includes free short-term parking, expenditures are estimated to be approximately $976,000. Cost estimates do not include potential expenditures that probably would be needed for some additional office space for additional Police personnel. There is not any available space in the Police Department and leased space would be needed to house the additional personnel. Ongoing annual costs are estimated to be $874,000. While there would be a reduction in initial implementation costs for equipment, vehicles, etc. the addition of regular staff positions to replace initial temporary staff would be needed. Based upon the projected costs and a very rough estimate of revenues, as mentioned earlier, this program as proposed would not be cost recovery. Staff believes that it would be possible to develop a proposal for a viable RPP with nominal costs to residents and an acceptable level of cost-recovery to avoid significantly impacting limited General Fund resources. Due to the significant costs associated with the program, staff does not recommend that additional discussion occur until next February or March after a long range financial plan will be presented to Council. The long range financial plan is intended to be a tool for Council to utilize to prioritize service needs. Preliminary projections indicate a small surplus each year for the next eight to ten years, without the addition of any new programs. Given the extensive list of potential new needs such as a public safety building; library master plan; traffic calming; and, needs related to the PAMF/SOFA area, there will need to be prioritization of new programs and needs against potential funding sources including: general obligation bonds; certificates of participation; new revenues such as taxes or fees; and, the projected nominal General Fund CMR:403:99 Page 11 of 13 operating surplus. As such, discussion of funding for this program is recommended to wait pending discussion of overall General Fund needs and available resources. The time needed for Police, Administrative Services and Transportation staff to implement the proposed program would be substantial. While at this time, it would be difficult to determine what other workload items would need to be put on hold, it is a safe assumption that other work assignments would need to be postponed. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The implementation of a RPP program represents a change in City policy, however, it is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan (T-47). Staff has already been approached by residents who live in three other parts of the City about the possibility of implementing a RPP program in their neighborhood. Staff’s response has been that Council direction is needed regarding a Downtown RPP program before any work or consideration could be given to other neighborhoods. Should Council direct staff to draft an ordinance on residential parking, it would be important that an ordinance be applicable for other neighborhoods as well. TIMELINE After a determination is made regarding the funding of a RPP, due to the scope and size of the area that is being considered, staff estimates that the time needed to implement a RPP program in the downtown neighborhood area would be 18-24 months. An ordinance would need to be drafted and approged by Council, an environmental assessment would need to be completed, Police and Administrative Services staff would need to be hired, permits would need to be issued, and signs would need to be installed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental assessment would be completed prior to the time an ordinance could be presented to the Council. ATTACHMENTS CMR: 181:99 Attachment A - Parking Occupancy Survey Results April 27, 1999 Attachment B - Parking Occupancy Survey Results August 12, 1999 Attachment C - Parking Occupancy Survey Results from Previous Years CMR:403:99 Page 12 of 13 Attachment D - Number of On-street Spaces by Zone Attachment E - Number of On-street Spaces by Street Attachment F - Projected Parking Deficiencies Attachment G - Proposed Defined Zones Attachment H- List of Churches, Special Circumstance Facilities in the Proposed Coverage Area PREPARED BY:Lyrme Johnson, Assistant Police Chief Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Patrick Dwyer, Poli~ CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Ed Gawf, Planning &~ommunity Environment Director University South Neighborhood Association Downtown North Neighborhood Association Chamber of Commerce CMR:403:99 Page 13 of 13 Zone Definition Location Number Area --> 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ,Subtotal Parking Survey Taken On Tuesday April 27,1999 North to South: West to East: Palo Alto Ave. to Kingsley Ave. (excluding Lytton, University and parts of Hamilton.and Forest) Alma St. to Byron St Location Zone % In PA Residents %Non PA % Non Location % of % of Street Residents Zone (non zone)Res.Residents Res. Sub Total Area ZONE North of University Palo Alto Ave.16 34%2 4%29 62%47 5%2% Poe St.4 36%0 0%7 64%11 1%0% Ruthven Ave.14 61%2 9%7 30%23 2%1% Hawthorne Ave.21 16%18 14%89 70%128 13%6% Everett Ave.33 20%14 9%115 71%162 17%7% Alma At.6 11%5 9%44 80%55 6%2% High St.6 12%9 18%35 70%50 5%2% Emerson St.1.5 16%11 12%67 72%93 10%4% Ramona St.5 8%1 2%58 91%64 7%3% Bryant St.19 22%3 3%65 75%87 9%4% Waverley St.6 9%6 9%54 82%66 7%3% Kipling St.11 22%4 8%36 71%51 5%2% Cowper St.16 27%5 8%38 64%59 6%3% Tasso St 8 73%0 0%3 27%11 1%0% Webster St.10 28%3 8%25 66%38 4%2% Byron St.5 31%1 6%10 63%16 2%1% North of University 195 20%84 9%682 71%961 100%44% Area --> 17 18(15) 19(3) 20 (12) 21 (11) 22 (10) 23 (9) 24 (8) 25 (7) 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Subtotal South of University Byron St. South 10 25%4 10%26 65%40 3%2% Webster St. South 34 24%21 15%87 61%142 11%6% Cowper StoSouth 13 16%5 6%61 77%79 6%4% Kipling St. South 8 31%2 8%16 62%26 2%1% Waverley St. South 15 20%13 17%48 63%76 6%3% Bryant St. South 26 23%4 4%82 73%112 9%5% Ramona St. South 12 13%8 9%70 78%90 7%4% Emerson St. South 16 28%8 14%33 58%57 5%3% High St. South 2 5%8 19%32 76%42 3%2% Hamilton Ave.0 0%3 18%14 82%17 1%1% Forest Ave.5 5%26 26%68 69%99 8%4% Homer Ave.11 13%10 12%61 74%82 7%4% Channing Ave.26 19%17 12%94 69%137 11%6% Addison Ave.15 13%22 18%82 69%119 10% Lincoln Ave.13 16%10 13%57 71%80 6%4°~ Kingsley Ave.18 67%5 19%4 15%27 .2%1 °,4 Scott St.2 13%1 6%13 81%16 1%1°,4 South of University 226 18%167 13%848 68%1241 100%56°/, TOTAL ZONE 421 19% 251 11% 1530 69% 2202 lOO°/ ATTACHMENT B Zone Definition Location Number Area --> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Subtotal Parking Survey Taken On Thursday August 12,1999 between 19:20 and 21:10 North to South: West to East: 100 - 499 on Everett Ave. and Homer Ave. The 300 and 700 blocks of Alma through Cowper Streets Any registered owner with an address within one block of the "zone" is considered a resident of the "zone." Location Zone % In PA Residents %Non PA % Non Location % of % of Street Residents Zone (non zone)Res.Residents Res. Sub Total Area ZONE North of Lytton 100 Block Everett 5 15%4 12%24 73%33 10%6% 200 Block Everett 5 18%1 4%22 79%28 9%5% 300 Block Everett 12 38%2 6%18 56%32 10%6% 400 Block Everett 7 47%1 7%7 47%15 5%3% 300 Block Alma 3 23%2 15%8 62%13 4%2% 300 Block High 8 25%6 19%18 56%32 10%6% 300 Block Emerson 3 11%4 14%21 75%28 9%5% 300 Block Ramona 3 9%2 6%28 85%33 10%6% 300 Block Bryant 1 6%3 19%12 75%16 5%3% 300 Block Waverly 5 13%1 3%32 84%38 12%7% 300 Block Kipling 4 17%1 4%19 79%24 8%4% 300 Block Cowper 9 32%3 11%16 57%28 9%5% North of Lytton 65 20%30 9%225 70%320 100%59% Area --> 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 Subtotal ,South of Forest 100 Block Homer 0 0%1 13%7 88%8 4%1% 200 Block Homer 0 0%2 13%13 87%15 7%3% 300 Block Homer 0 0%0 0%3 100%3 1%1% 400 Block Homer 4 10%11 28%24 62%39 18%7% 700 Block Alma 1 10%2 20%7 70%10 5%2% 700 Block High 0 0%3 8%33 92%36 16%7% 700 Block Emerson 0 0%2 7%27 93%29 13%5% 700 Block Ramona 3 20%2 13%10 67%15 7%3% 700 Block Bryant 1 4%6 24%18 72%25 11%5% 700 Block Waverly 9 41%0 0%13 59%22 10%4% 700 Block Cowper 3 17%2 11%13 72%18 8%3% South of Forest 21 10%31 14%168 76%220 100%41% TOTAL ZONE 86 16%61 11% 393 73% 540 lOO% ATTACH~iENT C Total On-Street Parkin~ Resident Group Non-Resident Group N. of Univ. S. of Univ.Total N. S. of of Univ. Univ N. of S. of 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 October 96 Survey 904 966 1870 216 265 481 688 701 1389 - ATTACHMENT D Parking Space Assessment for the Residential Preferential Parking Permit Plan Residential Permit Zones Residential Zone 1 Residential Zone 2 Residential Zone 3 Residential Zone 4 Residential Zone 5 Residential Zone 6 Residential Zone 7 Residential Zone 8 Residential Zone 9 Residential Zone 10 Residential Zone 11 Residential Zone 12 Residential Zone 13 Residential Zone 14 Residential Zone 15 Total Parking Spaces Parking Spaces in each Zone 194 280 (Includes 19 T*) 314 251 (Includes 12 T* and 8 C*) 265 261 (Includes 18 T* and 7 C*) 249 279 272 369 (Includes 7 C*) 241 283 (Includes 37 T*) 224 272 (Includes 223 T*) 298 (Includes 48 T*) 4,052 (Includes 357 T* & 22 C*) T*: Time limited 2-hour parking spaces not part of the Color Zones C*: Color zone spaces outside of the Color Zone boundaries Residential Permit Zone I Street Alma Emerson Hawthorne Palo Alto ATTACHMENT E Block(s) 100 100 100-200 100-200 Total Spaces Parking Spaces 30 24 59 81 194 Residential Permit Zone 2 Street Block(s)Parking Spaces Alma 200-300 55 (Includes 19 T*) High 200-300 54 Emerson 200-300 52 Ramona 200-300 63 Everett 100-200 56 Total Spaces 280 (Includes 19 T*) Residential Permit Zone 3 Street Block(s)Parking Spaces Poe 300 21 Ruthven 400 35 Bryant 100 48 Waverley 100 38 Hawthorne 300-400 67 Palo Alto 300-400 105 Total Spaces 314 Residential Permit Zone 4 Street Bryant Bryant Court Waverley Kipling Everett Block(s) 200-300 300 200-300 200-300 300-400 Total Spaces Parking Spaces 60 12 T* 66 (Includes 8 C*) 59 54 251 (Includes 12 T*, 8 C*) Residential Permit Zone 5 Street Ruthven Tasso Hawthorne Palo Alto Byron Webster Cowper Residential Permit Zone 6 Block(s) 500 100 500-600 500-600 100 100 100 TotalSpaces Parking Spaces 26 30 58 35 27 36 53 265 Street Cowper Webster Byron Everett University Block(s) 200-300 200-400 200-300 500-600 600 Total Spaces Parking Spaces 54 80 (Includes 7 C*) 56 53 18 T* 261 (Includes 18 T*, 7 C*) Residential Permit Zone 7 Street Block(s)Parking Spaces Palo Alto 700-800 77 Fulton 100-300 69 Everett 700 27 Lytton 700-800 58 Guinda 300 18 Total Spaces 249 Residential Permit Zone 8 Street Block(s)Parking Spaces University 700-800 26 Hamilton 700-800 74 Fulton 400-500 59 Guinda 400-500 59 Seneca 400-500 61 Total Spaces 279 Residential Permit Zone 9 Street Block(s)Parking Spaces Fulton 600 29 Guinda 600-700 57 Seneca 600-700 61 Forest 700-800 71 Homer 700-800 54 Total Spaces 272 Residential Permit Zone 10 Street Webster Cowper Byron Hamilton Forest Homer Channing Block(s) 500-800 700-800 500 6O0 500-600 5O0-60O 500-600 Total Spaces Parking Spaces 104 (Include 7 C*) 57 26 19 56 50 57 369 (Includes 7 C*) Residential Permit Zone 11 Street Middlefield Webster Cowper Lincoln Addison Residential Permit Zone 12 Block(s) 900-1000 900-1000 900-1000 500-600 500-600 Total Spaces Parking Spaces 51 48 43 64 35 241 Street Forest Homer Channing Kipling Waverley Bryant Block(s) 300-400 (south side) 300-400 300-400 800 700-800 7O0-800 Total Spaces Parking Spaces 35 62 (Includes 33 T*) 57 26 46 57 (Includes 4 T*) 283 (Includes 37 T*) Residential Permit Zone 13 Stree~ Linco.~,~ Addison Scott Waverley Bryant Block(s) 300-400 300-400 900 900-1000 900-1000 Total Spaces Parking Spaces 54 51 13 51 55 224 Residential Permit Zone 14 Street Block(s)Parking Spaces Alma 700-800 24 T* High 700-800 57 T* Emerson 700-800 53 T* Ramona 700-800 23 Forest 100-200 (south side)20 T* Homer 100-200 48 T* Channing 100-200 47 (Includes 21 T*) Total Spaces 272 (Includes 223 T*) Residential Permit Zone 15 Street Block(s)Parking Spaces Alma 900-1000 27 (Includes 13 T*) High 900-1000 50 (Includes 24 T*) Emerson 900-1000 60 [Ramona 900-1000 59 Lincoln 100-200 49 Addison 100-200 53 (Includes 11 T*) Total Spaces 298 (Includes 48 T*) Attachment F PROJECTED PARKING DEFICIENCIES 1,600 - 100 - 375 1,125 - 530 - 186 409 - 179 230 Current parking space deficit (based upon vehicle survey done in neighborhoods and the wait list for those waiting to get permits for current struc.tures/lots). Estimated number of PAMF employees that will move Estimated projections for initial few years of aggressive TDM program (25% reduction). Permit spaces in currently designed parking structure for Lots S/L (646 total spaces) Permit spaces in currently designed parking structure for Lot R (227 total spaces). Normal 25% oversell of permits Projected parking deficit after garages Attachment G Residential Parking Permit Zones Permit Zone 1 Permit Zone 2 Permit Zone 3 Permit Zone 4 Permit Zone 5 Permit Zone 6 Location All streets included in the area from the 100-200 blocks of Hawthorne Avenue to the 100-200 blocks of Palo Alto Avenue from the 100 block of Alma Street to the west side of 100 block of Bryant Street but not including Bryant Street. All streets included in the area north of the 100-200 blocks of Lytton Avenue to the south side of the 100- ~200 blocks of Hawthorne Avenue but not including Hawthorne Avenue from the 200-300 blocks of Alma Street to the west side of 200-300 blocks of Bryant Street but not including Bryant Street. All streets included in the area from the 300-400 blocks of Hawthorne Avenue to the 300-400 blocks of Palo Alto Avenue from the 100 block of Bryant Street to the west side of the 100 block of Cowper Street but not including Cowper Street. All streets included in the area north of the 300-400 blocks of Lytton Avenue to the south side of the 300-400 blocks of Hawthorne Avenue but not including Hawthorne Avenue from the 200-300 blocks of Bryant Street to the west side of the 200- 300 blocks of Cowper Street but not including Cowper Street. All streets included in the area from the 500-600 blocks of Hawthorne Avenue to the 500-600 blocks of Palo Alto Avenue from the 100 block of Cowper Street to the 100 block of Middlefield Road All streets included in the area from the 600 block of University Avenue to the south side of the 500-600 blocks of Hawthorne Avenue but not including Hawthorne Avenue from the 200-300 blocks of Cowper Street, the north side of the 500 block of Lytton Avenue not including Lytton Avenue, the 400 block of Webster Street to the 200-400 blocks of Middlefield Road. Nonresident Permit Fee $325-$375 $400-$450 $325-$375 $400-$450 $325-$375 $400-$450 Permit Zone 7 Permit Zone 8 Perrrrit Zone 9 Permit Zone 10 Permit Zone 11 Permit Zone 12 All streets included in the area from the 700-800 blocks of Lytton Avenue to the 700-800 blocks of Palo Alto Avenue from east of the 100-300 blocks of Middlefield Road to Seneca Street but not including Seneca Street. All streets included in the area from the 700-800 blocks of Hamilton Avenue to the south side of the 700-800 blocks of Lytton Avenue but not including Lytton Avenue from east of the 400-500 blocks of Middlefield Road to the 400-500 blocks of Seneca Street. -All streets included in the area from the 700-800 blocks of Homer Avenue to the south side of the 700- 800 blocks of Hamilton Avenue but not including Hamilton Avenue from east of the 600-700 blocks of Middlefield Road to the 600-700 blocks of Seneca Street. All streets included in the area from the 500-600 blocks of Channing Avenue to the south side of the 600 block of University Avenue but not including University Avenue from the 500-600 blocks of Webster Street, the 500 block of Forest Avenue and the 700-800 blocks of Cowper Street to the 500-800 blocks of Middlefield Road. All streets included in the area from the 500-600 blocks of Lincoln Avenue to the south side of the 500-600 blocks of Channing Avenue but not including Channing Avenue from 900-1000 blocks of Cowper Street to the 900-1000 blocks of Middlefield Road. All streets included in the area from the 300-400 blocks of Channing Avenue to the 300-400 blocks of the south side of Forest Avenue from the 700-800 blocks of Bryant Street to the west side of the 700- 800 blocks of Cowper Street but not including Cowper Street. $325-$375 $325-$375 $325-$375 $400-$450 $325-$375 $400-$500 Permit Zone 13 Permit Zone 14 Permit Zone 15 All streets included in the area from the 300-400 blocks of Lincoln Avenue to the south side of the 300-400 blocks of Channing Avenue but not including Channing Avenue from the 900-1000 blocks of Bryant Street to the west side of the 900- 1000 blocks of Cowper Street but not including Cowper Street. All streets included in the area from 100-200 blocks of Channing Avenue to the south side of the 100-200 blocks of Forest Avenue from the 700-800 blocks of Alma Street to the west side of the 700-800 blocks of Bryant Street but not including Bryant Street. All streets included in the area from the 100-200 blocks of Lincoln Avenue to the south side of the 100-200 blocks of Channing Avenue but not including Channing Avenue from the 900-1000 blocks of Alma Street to the west side of the 900- 1000 blocks of Bryant Street but not including Bryant Street. $325-$375 $400-$450 $325-$375 ~~oE o City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POLICE DATE:MARCH 15, 1999 CMR:181:99 SUBJECT: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 staffto 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 issiaes. 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-aiad 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. The 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. A.ttachment 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 wer6 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 wiih a permit program and should have that work done within the next few weeks. Staff is 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 Womefi’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: Lyrme Johnson, Assistant Police Chief Patrick Dwyer,"C ’h~!ef bf lS~fice APPROVED BY: Emily ~arrison, Assistant City Manager CMR:181:99 Page 3 of 3 City of Palo Alto Police Department July 13, 1998 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 th~ 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 downtovOn:’pari~ing 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 tworeusable guest permits would be provided per single household at no cost. Abuse of 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 f.easibility 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 myselfat 329-2115. We can be reached by phone or e-mail. Please return the completed.survey in the enclosed envelope by Monday, August 10, 1 L~nhe 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.r’].8 a.m. - 9 p.m. []~a.m.-9p.m.[]Other - please describe 2.I prefer th~ days of enforcement to be: []Monday - Friday Monday - Saturday []Other - (please describe) o 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 neighborhoods have been seeing an increase i~ high-density developments Within single family.home areas. Some residents have r.aised 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? Name Address Phone Comments: QUESTION 1 9 a.m. - 10 p.m. 8 a.m. - 9p.m. 8 a.m. - 10 p.m. Other Oppose TOTAL FOR QUESTION 1 QUESTION 2 Monday - Friday Monday - Saturday Other Oppose TOTAL FOR QUESTION 2 QUESTION 3 3 hours free parking 2 hours free parking 1 hour free parking No free parking Other TOTAL FOR QUESTION 3 QUESTION 4 Yes NO No opinion TOTAL FOR QUESTION 4 Suggestions (incl. below) Off street parking for high density developments QUESTION 5 A (either side) B (one side only) C (anywhere) Other TOTAL FOR QUESTION 5 QUESTION 6 Strongly favor Favor No opinion Oppose Strongly oppose (N. of’~tton) COUNT % 7O 14% 179 35% 114 22% 116 23% 35 7% 514 100% 292 57% 168 33% 24 5% 31 6% 515 100% 135 27% 219 44% 66 13% 63 13% 1 2 2% 495 100% 317 62% 100 20% 91 18% 508 100% 207 146 71% 154 32% 109 23% 216 45% 2 0% 481 100% 196 38% 171 34% 36 7% 49 10% 58 11% ~ 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% 417 100% 175 117 67% 113 28% 64 16% 224 56% 1 0% 402 100% 126 29% 131 30% 40 9% 60 14% 77 18% SUM OF BOTH AREAS COUNT % 132 14% 31 9 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% 1 85 20% 167 18% 925 100% 382 263 69% 267 30% 173 20% 440 50% 3 0% 883 100% 322 34% 302 32% 76 8% 109 12% 135 14% TOTAL FOR QUESTION 6 510 100%434 100%944 100%