HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-16 City Council (5)City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POLICE
DATE:OCTOBER 16, 2000 CMR:386:00
SUBJECT:STATUS REPORT ON RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING
PROGRAM
This is an informational report and no Council action is required at this time.
BACKGROUND
In December 1999, staff presented a conceptual residential permit parking (RPP) program
framework to the Planning and Transportation Committee (CMR:403:99) for initial review and
discussion. At that time, staff also recommended that a RPP program not be implemented until
a long-term financial plan was provided to the City Council and until the downtown parking
structures had been built. The financial plan has been presented to the Council and the process
required for the construction of the parking structures is proceeding forward. Consequently,
staff believes that it is important to give the Council a status report on the issue.
DISCUSSION
As described in CMR:403:99, staffpresented a conceptual framework consisting of 13 elements
associated with an RPP program. Since December 1999, staff has been working on two major
issues associated with an RPP program: the cost/revenue analysis and special circumstance
permits. The following is a summary of the status of each of these issues.
Cost/Revenue Analysis
Due to the substa~ntial costs associated with an RPP program, staff has been working on
strategies that would result in a program that was close to being cost recovery. There are a
number of uncertainties associated with the revenue projections because the number of citations
that would be issued, and the permits that would be sold are very difficult to predict. While
additional work needs to be completed on the cost/revenue analysis, staff does believe that it
CMR:386:00 Page 1 of 2
would not be financially feasible to implement a program that would provide residents with free
permits.
Special Circumstance Permits
As indicated previously, staffhas been struggling with the issue of how to deal with the special
circumstances presented by churches, nonprofit facilities and schools that are located within the
residential area. Several options have been reviewed and each had significant drawbacks. The
option that staff believes to have the fewest drawbacks involves providing one-day "scratcher"
permits to the organizations. Feedback received from representatives of these institutions
clearly indicates that they are not in favor of this option.
Staff will continue to work on these two issues and anticipates returning to the Council in
November with further specific recommendations.
Staff continues to believe that implementation of an RPP program should coincide with the
completion of at least one parking structure (Fall 2002). Pending Council approval of a
program and the initial funding mechanism, staff estimates that at least an 18-month period
would be needed to prepare for the implementation of an RPP program.
ATTACHMENTS
CMR:403:99
PREPARED BY:Lynne Johnson, Assistant Police Chief
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Patti, Dwyer, Chief of Police
Emily Harris’,n, ~sistan-"t’Ci..ty Manager
CMR:386:00 Page 2 of 2
TO:
ATTENTION:
City
City of Palo Alto
Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:POLICE
PLANNING
DATE:DECEMBER 2, 1999 .- CMR:403:99
SUBJECT:RECOMMENDATION TO CONCEPTUALLY APPROVE A
RESIDENTIALPERMIT 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) inneighborhoods 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 pfiofitize 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
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)Provide two vehicle-specific permits to each singl~-family residence or multi-family
complex residence up to four units that would be renewable every three years;
2)Provide one vehicle-specific permit to ea~h"r~lti-famiiyi~filt"regid~nce that is in a
complex of five or more units that would be renewable 6very three years;
3)Provide two free transferable guest permits tb each residence and charge a fee for lost
or misplaced permits;
4)°’" Ailow ~esidents to purchase up to two additional vehic.l_e-spec~c’permits renewable on
an annual b’a’sis for a fee or per igermit, per 3)dar; -"
5)Allow residents to ~ubmit requests to purchase addifi~;iaal.(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 ;taft to determine" ti:i~ ~5~rking situation iii
immediate area;
6)Allow residents to purchase one-day, special event permi.ts fo¢ one dollar per permit;
7)Allow users/visitors to nonprofit organizations (churches, Wdmen’s Club, etc.) in the
area to purchase one-day permits for one dollar per permit;
8)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;
9)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;
10)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;
1 i)Provide for enforcement of residential parking Mondays through Fridays from 8:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m.;
12)Allow anyone to park in specific residential zones without any permit for two hours with
no reparking prior to 10:00 p.m.
13)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 s~dy 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, staffhas been workin~ witl-ithe Downtown North
Neighborhood Association (DNNA) and the University South Neighborhood Group (USNG)
on the feasibility and development of a program. Based upon the iiapu.t from the neighborhood
groups and information received from cities that have implemented similar programs, .staff has
developed recommendations that would’form the framework for a r~sidential parking ordinance,
as well as preparing preliminary cost and revenue e~stimates’. : ..:r:.~ .- -~ .:....~,,
Before explaining each e0mponent of the framework, it is imp~rtant t6 ~p.date the Council on
recently conducted neighborhood phrking occuphncy surveys. O~~pfi~27, 1999, Police staff
conducted a survey of vehicles parked on the streets in. the neilghborhoods to the north and south
of the downtown ar..ea. The purpose of the survey was"~, determine how many of the cars
parked on the street belonged to residents compared to n0nresid.eiats."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, 1 ! 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, i999 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
other 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 sur~eys (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 n~ighborhoods.
Staff also went into the neighborhoods and counted the numbef°t~f.spa~.ce.s 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 deta!t.~d.!!.sting by.~one and Attachment
E provides a listing by street of the number of ori-street parl~ing ~pace.s.
Based upon the recent vehicle parking surveys;"tile number ofn£riresiden[s currently on.the ;¢¢ait
list for downtown par~king facility permits, and Transportatioia ’staff’s estimates, there are
approximately 1,600 nonresidents parking i1~ 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 staffestimates 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, stifff 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 s(andard 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 developmer~t 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 ptibliC 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 group.s. Staffb~tse~l its reco .mmendations
upon the meetings Wlth the neighbors and the results_ of tire surre3igedrriigleted by the residents.
One of the City Council’s parameterswas tO p~ovide p’ermitls to residents.at no cost. It quickly
became apparent that this expectation was unrealistic due to..the., lack. ~f.. alt~mative nonresident
parking spaces in downtown facilities, "the limited ’m~ber of on-;tr’eet .parking spaces, the
average number of households per block, and an estimated av~i~age.m~rfil~er of vehicles per
residence.
The 1990 Palo Alto census estimated an average of 1.81 vehicles per occupied housing unit in
th~ 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 0n-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 issiiing permits in
excess of four to a residence, staffwould closely review the parking situation at that particular
location to determine whether or not additiona! 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. Staffproposes requiring proof of residency prior to issuance of permits.
During discussions with the neighborhood associations, there was considezable 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-st~t parking available to t}t’~m, .otil~ one pe.rmit should
be issued to residents of homes in complexes that"hav.e roo.r.~ th~n fofir units. While an
argument can be made that the majority of single-family ho..m..es have’off-street parking available
in the form of driveways/garages, a number Of single-family homes.~.this area do not have
these amenities.
Staff proposes that all permits, with the exception of g~est and_ spg7!al event permits, be
vehicle- specific. This means that the license number of the vehicle would be included on the
actual 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
permit~ 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 av.ailability for employees. Without
a corresponding 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 .structu~res.are not built or do not provide a significant number of
spaces, the number of permits a;cailable for purchase by nonresidents would need to increase
t.o between 1,000 and 1,600. Within a few years, as the demand for parking decreases as a
result of downtown employees 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 tb downtown
and overburdening small pockets of those neighborhood.s, staff is proposing that both the north
and south neighborhoods be divided into Zones and that nonres~d~’iit permii holders be permitted
to park only in a specific zone. The number ofpermit.s sold.pefzon, e ~Oiald 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 gOnes.clos’~s.~:’~o the downtown area
were not overused by nonresidents. Attachment G provides, detail’ed, information on the
proposed zones. . -
~:,~ ~" i "’°
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 automobile repair shops that are located within a
residential parking area. In the USNG area, staffhas 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 locatiohs has been difficult to resolve. Staff
hosted a meeting for representatives of these organizations in At/gust in an attempt to
brainstorm potential solutions .... : "
Each organization has its own unique issues. As an examl~i~, the First Lutfieran Churchdoesnot have any off-street parking spaces. The Urban M!nistr~.,..has some, offices at the Church and
an average of 20 to 30 volunteers/visitors use-the Church’s.facilitje.s .each weekday. Per
Council direction, staffhas included the provision~Of sh~rt-tema ~.b.l~Su~ f~ee parking in these
areas. However, there will be no guarantee that pe~ni~.hold~:s~w.guld not occupy all the
available spaces.
Staffhas contacted other cities who have similar pei~itpa&in~pr~g~ams. No other city that
staff has contacted makes any special provisions for th~’se typ. of orga.~i.~tions 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 pen~ts 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 concems about this recommendation and believe that
it might discourage volunteers, visitors, and users from using their facilities.
CiVIR: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 i~ 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 rgtum two h~urs tater to record the license
information again to determine if there are any violat0r~: . A’sirfipl"~r, e~sier to enforce type of
program would not provide for.any short-term parkfiag ~nd would prohibit any vehicles without
permits (resident, guest, and/or nonresident) from parkingon t~e’street." ~0wever, .the"lack of
short-term parking exacerbates the problem for ch.urche.s~,, sd.hools, .etc. fliat was identified
previously .... . ..
Signage 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 forshort-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 neigh.b.orhood, 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 ears, it is unrealistic to think that it.would eliminate,
by itself, the parking deficit diae to the fact that mg.n.y employ~~s who work in the
downtown area live a considerable distan6e a~cay. Unless there is convenient public
transportation, many employees will continue to dri,~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 Ci~ _ancl/.. or they already use public transportation.
Substantial increases in rail and bus ~ervices to/fr6m P.a.i,0 .ARo would be needed (o alter
these dynamics. These increases would reqiaii:e a.].shift "in~ .re.gional and State
transportation policies and resource allodati~ns’. " --
Because of the balloon effect, without provid!ng addit.iorm! p~r..’king facilities, a parking
deficit, while lower than ~he current level, wi!l remain. On~..parking structures are built,
it will be imperati~ce 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 program in 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 sh~rt-term parking provision.
Similar to other new programs, staff,;vould 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 vehic.les, computers, hand-held
citation units, uniforms, radios, and other eq.ui.pment. 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 approx!..m~ely $9.76,000.
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 ay.a.ilable 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
implementat!on 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 Ma~ch 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 postpoiaed.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The implementation of a RPP program represents a change in CitYiSolicy, however, it is
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan (T-47)..
Staffhas 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 respons.e has been
that Council direction is needed regarding a Dow.ntowh RPP program before any work or
consideration cguld be given to other neighborhoods. Should Council direct staff to draft an
ordinance on residential parking, it would-be important’that an 0r~iir~ance be apl~licable 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 appro’~ed 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 Pr(vious 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 6f Churches; Special Circumstance Facilities in the Proposed Coverage
Area
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: .. -
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Lynne Johnson, A~sistant Police Chief
Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic’Engineer
. atrick Dwy, er, Pp.lid~. Chic f
Ed Gawf, Planning &~ommunity E~viro~rnent
Director
CO: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
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Subtotal
Area -->
17
18(15)
19(3)
20 (12)
21 (11)
22 (1,0)
23 (9)
24 (8)
25 (7)
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32.
33
Subtotal
ATTACEMENT A
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.
Poe St.
Ruthven Ave.
Hawthorne Ave.
Everett Ave.
Alma At.
High St.
E~erson..St.
Ramona St.
Bryant St.
Waverley St.
Kipling St.
Cowper St.
Tasso St
Webster St.
Byron St.
North of University
16 34%
4 36%
14 61%
21 16%
33 20%
6 11%
6 12%
15 16%
5 8%
19 ~2%
6 9%
11 22%
16 27%
8 73%
10 26%
5 31%
2
0
2
18
14
5
9
11
1
3
6
4
5
0
3
1
84
4%
0%
9%
:14%
9%
9%
18%
12%
2%
3%
9%
.8%
8%
0%
8%’..
6%
9%
29 62%47 5%2%
7 64%11 1%O%
7 30%23 2%1%
89 70%128 13%6°A
115 71%162 17%7°/~
44 80%55 6%2°A
35 70%50 5%2~
67 7.2%93 10%4o/c
58 91%64 7%3°tc
65’75%87 9%4°/,
54 ",82%"66 7%3°I
36 71%-51 5%2~
38 64%59 6%3~
¯ 3.27%11 1%
¯ 2.5/66%38 4%
’I0 63%16 2%
682 ~’:"~ ~’1"%961 .t00%44°,
South of University
Byron St. SoiJ~h
Webster St. South
Cowper St.South
Kipling St. South
Waverley St. South
Bryant St. South
Ramona St. South
Emerson St, South
High St. South
Hamilton Ave.
Forest Ave.
Homer Ave.
Channing Ave.
Addison Ave.
Lincoln Ave.
Kingsley Ave.
Scott St.
South of University
t,0 25%
34 24%
13 16%
8 31%
15 20%
26 23%
12 13%
16 28%
’2 5%
0 O%
5 5%
11 13%
26 19%
15 13%
13 16%
18 67%
2 13%
226 18%
4 10%
21 15%
5 6%
2 8%
13 17%
4 4%
8 9%
8 14%
8 19%
"3 18%
26 26%
10 12%
17 12%
22 18%
10 13%
5 19%
1 6%
167 13%
26 -’ "6~%40 3%2~,
87 61%142 11%6~
61 77%79 6%4~
16 62%26 2%1
48 63%76 6%
82 73%112 9%5’
70 78%90 7%4
33 58%57 5%3
32 76%42 3%2
14 82%17 1%1
68 69%99 8%4
61 74%82 7%4
94 69%137 11%
82 69%119 10%
57 71%80 6%,4,
4 15%27 2%
13 81%16 1%
848 68%1241 100%5(
TOTAL ZONE 421 19%251 11%1530 69%2202 ~0
AT~AC_HMENT B
Zone
Definition
Location
Number
Area -->
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
Subtotal
Area -->
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
Subtotal
Parking Survey Taken On Thursday August 12,1999 between 19:20 and 21:10
North to South:100 - 499 on Everett Ave. and Homer Ave.
West to East:The 300 and 700 blocks of Alma through Cowper Streets
Any registered owr~er 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
200 Block Everett 5 18%1
300 Block Everett 12 38%2
400 Block Everett 7 47%1
300 Block Alma 3 ¯23°/.o 2
300 Block High 8 25%- 6
300 Block Emerson 3 11%4
300 Block Ramona 3 9%2
300 Block Bryant 1 6%3
300 Block Waverl~5 13%’1
300 Block Kipling 4 17% "1 . "
300 Block Cowper 9 32%3
North of Lytton 65 20%30
12%
4%
6%
7%
.15%
1~)%
14%
6%
19%
~3%
4%
11%
9%
South of Forest
100 Block Homer 0 0%1 13%
200 Block Homer 0 0%2 13%
300 Block Homer 0 0%0 0%
400 Block Homer 4 10%11 28%
700 Block Alma 1,10%2 20%
700 Block High 0 0%3 8%
700 Block Emerson 0 0%2 7%
700 Block Ramona 3 20%2 13%
700 Block Bryant 1 4%6 ’24%
700 Block Waverly 9 41%0 0%
700 Block Cowper 3 17%2 11%
South of Forest 21 10%31 14%
24 73%33 10%6%
¯~.22 .79%28 9%5%
18 56%32 10%6%
7 47%15 5%3%
:.-. 8 ~32%.13 4%2%
18 .,56%32 10%6%
21 75%28 9%~5%
""128,85%33 10%6~
"12".75%16 5%3°A
32., :84%38 12.%7°/~
" " 19 ....7"J:~9%24 8%4°/~
16 ’ 57%28 9%5°/~
225 J0%320 100%59°/
7 88%8 4%1°/
13 -87%15 7%
3 100%3 1%
24 62%39 18%
7 70%10 5%2o,
33 92%36 16%
27 93%29 13%
10 67%15 7%39
18 72%25 11%
13 59%22 10%4°‘
13 72%18 8%
168 76%220 100%41~,
TOTAL ZONE 86 16% 61 11%393 73% 540 lOOc
ATT_.ACHMENT C
Total On-Street
Pa~kin~ ’ ,
N. of S. of
Univ.Univ. Total
No
of
Univ
Resident Non-Resident
Group .....Group .......
S. of N. of S. of
Univ,TotaJ ~.Univ, Univ, Total
March 95 Survey
May 95 Survey
August 95 Survey
October 95 Survey
February 96 Survey
835 875 1710
909 953 1862
952 1001 1953,
888 987 1875
841 1015 1856
235
270
¯ 2~8’~
265
251
249 484 600 626
23~505 639. . 718
.251.5-19 "68~.-,- 750
"28i’.’,.54i5 "’ 706
279 . 530..,590 .I,,736
April 96 Survey
July 96 Survey
October 96 Survey
911 990 1901 263
948 942 1890 280
904 966 1870 216
29b " 554" "’648-
272 552 668
265 481 688
699
67O
701 ¯
1226
1357
1434
1329
1326
1347
1338
1389
: ATTACHMENT D
Assessment for the Residential Preferential Parking Permit PlanParkingSpace
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.
?.esidential Zone 10
Residential Zone 1 I
R.esidential Zone 12
Residential Zone 13
Residential Zone 14"
Residential Zone 15
Total Parking Spaces (Includes 357 T* & 22 C*)
Parking Spaces in each Zone
194
280 (Includes’l 9 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
2~3~I~cl;ades.37 T*.)- "-~ "- ".
224
272 (Inclddes 2.2~3T*) -
298 (Includes 48 T*)
4,052
¯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 1
Street
Alma
Emerson
Hawthorne
Palo Alto
ATTACHMENT E
Residential Permit Zone 2
Street
Alma
High
Emerson
Ram. ona
Everett
Block(s)
100
100
100-200
100-200
Total Spaces
Block(s)
200-300
200-300
20Q-300
200-300
!00-200
TotaiSpaces
Parking Spaces
3O
24
59
81
194
Pa~king Spaces:
55 (Includes 19 T*)
54
63 "
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
30O
200-300
200-300
300-400
TotalSpaces
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
Block(s)
5O0
100
500-600
500-600
100
100
100
Total Spaces
Parking spaces
26
30
27..
36.
53
265
Residential Permit Zone 6
Street Block(s)Parking Spaces
Cgwper 200-300 54
Webster 200-400 80 (Includes 7 C*)
Byron 200-300 56
Everett 500-600 53
University 600 18 T*
Total Spaces 261 (Includes 18 T*, 7 C*)
Residential Permit Zone 7
Street
Palo Alto
Fulton
Everett
Lytton
Guinda
Block(~~
700-800
100-300
700
700-800
300
Total Spaces
Parking Spaces
77
69.
27
58
I8
249"
Residential Permit Zone 8
Street
University
Hamilton
Fulton
Guinda
Seneca
Block(s).
700-800
’700-800
400-500
400-500
400-500
Parking Spices
26
74
,59’
279Total Spaces
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
600
500-600
500-600
5OO-60O
Total Spaces
Parking Spaces
104 (Include 7 C*)
57
26
19
56
5O
57
369 (Ihchides. 7 C*)
Residential Permit Zone 11
Street
Middlefield
Webster
Cowper
Lincoln
Addison
Block(s)
900-1000
900-1000"
900-1000
500-600
5OO-600
Total Spaces
Par.king Spaces
64
35
241
Residential Permit Zone 12
Street Block(s)Parking Spaces
Forest 300-400 (south side)35
Homer 300-400 62 (Includes 33 T*)
Channing 300-400 57
Kipling 800 26
Waverley 700-800 46
Bryant 700-800 57 (Includes 4 T*)
Total Spaces 283 (Includes 37 T*)
Residential PermitZone 13
Street
Lincoln
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
Alma
Emerson
Ramona
Forest
Homer
Channing
Block(s)
700-800
700=800 ""
700-800
700-800
100-200(south ~ide)
100-200
Parking Spaces
24 T*
.57 T* "
20 T-~* ....
48 T*-"
100-200
Total Spaces
47 (Includes 21 T*)
272 (Includes 223 T*)
Residential Permit zone 15
Street
Alma
High
Emerson
Ramona
Lincoln
Addison
Block(s)
900-1000
900-1000
900-1000
900-1000
100-200
100-200
TotalSpaces
Parking Spaces
27 (Includes 13 T*)
50 (Includes 24 T*)
60
59
49
53 (Includes 11 T*)
298 (Includes 48 T*)
Attachment F
PROJECTED PARKING DEFICIENCIES
1,600
- I00
- 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 structures/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 SiL (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 sti’eets 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
blocksof Lytton Avefitie to the south side of the 100-
200 blocks of Hawthoriae Avenue but notincluding
Hawthorne Avenue from the 200-300 blocks of Alma
Street to’the west side of 200-300 blocks of Bry~ii~t :
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 df.the 100 blo.ckof Cowper.
Street but not.including Cowper Str~e.et.
All streets included in the area nox~h of .tho.e. 300-400
blocks of Lytton Avenue to the ~outhside of the"
300-400 blocks of Hawthorne Avenue"b~t got" ""
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
Permit 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.
$325-$375
$325-$375
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 soiath 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.
$400-$450
$325-$375
$400-$500
All streets included in the ~trea from t_,.h.e 500-600- -
blocks of Channing Avenue to thd south sidle of the
600 block of University ~venue but not including
University Avenue from the 500-600 blocks of
Webster Street, the 500 block o.fForest Avenu~ an~l
the 700-800 blocks of Cowpe~ Street. to the
blocks of Middlefield Road.
All streets included in the area from the 7.00-800_-$325-$375
blocks of Homer Avef~ue to the south side of the 7"00-
800 blocks of Hamilton !~ven£~e ]~t~t not including
Hamilton Avenue from east of the 600-700 blocks
Middlefield Road to the 600-700 blocks of Seneca
Street.
Permit Zone 13
Permit Zone 14
Permit Zone 15
All streets included in the area from the 300-400
blocks of Lin(oln 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 7.0.0-800 blocks of
Bryant Street but not including Bryant Street. "¯
All streets included in the area flz.o.rn the 100-200
blocks of Lincoln Avenue to the sc~uth 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 l~locks of Bryant Street.but not ificluding Bryant
Street. . -....-~. ,-_ ¯ ..
-5
$325-$375
$400-$450
$325-$375
o:
City of.Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COLI~CIL ,
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 staff to identify., the 10~.el ..ofJn~tere.st...in the neighborhoods
north and south ofthedowntown area developing a residen.ti.’alp~kingta~aait program. Staff
conducted an initial survey of residents who live in neighborho0ds.a.dj~cent to the downtown
area and reported back to the Council in September 1996 (CMP,:392:96.).r~In December 1996,
the Council directed staff to study the feasibility..of a pa.r.king.p_e...r~_.t program in those
adjacent neighborhoods to include the following elements: i) charge an annual fee for all day
non-residents to park in the residential areas; 2) provide for free short-terra 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 ahd the neighborhood associations’ parking commi’t-(ees spent some
additional time on the feasibility of other conceptual programs. Duringth.e "first four months
of 1998, a second survey instrument was designed.- The survey was distrib.u.ted in July to
more than 2,500, homes in the area, including some residents who li~,e ~asi of Middlefield
Road. The analysis o~" the second survey responses has just been completed.
Results of Second Survey
The second suive.y (,At’tachment A) specifically req~Jested resp0n.ses regarding the preferre, dhours and days of enforeerrien(~ the numberof hours preferred for :tithed par. ki.’ng,~ the
locations that would be available for non-resident permi~t holders to park, and a statement
regarding the responder’s opposition or support f0f~hch a p..r_o~a..m. .~
More than 37 percent of the surveys were returned. A.t-tachrne~ 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 par~k. Sixty-six percent of the respondents either
favored or strongly favored a program while 26 percent were opposed or strongly opposed
to a permitprogram. 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 couldbe 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.
C1VIR: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.
Staff is also worl6ng on strategies to handle special circumstances within the residential areas
that would be impacted by a permit program including ch.u.rches, schools, and facilities like
the Heritage Museum and the Womefi’s Club.
RESOURCE IMPACTS -- " " ’" ~"
Staff is in the process Of developing cost and re;¢enue es~r~at~s 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 Johnsofi, Assistant Police Chief
Patrick Dwyer, Cl’fi’ef bf
APPROVED BY:~Manager
CMR:181:99 Page 3 of 3
Dear Resident:
Cityof Palo Alto
Police Department
Ju v 13, .998
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 work.e# closelywith the Transpo’rta.{ion "Committee .of
th~ University South Gr6up 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 aesth~etics of the street ~igns 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
neig.hbpr_hoods. 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, ~i dra..ft.: m~odel=.program has been
developed. The enclosed survey is an attempt to get i.nput f[i~m: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 sin.gle
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 downtown "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
PaIo 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 per.mit and qne reu.s.abl._e guest permit for each unit
at no cost. Abuse of permits would, result in penaltiesf0r 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 Pa.rtY) permits~vould I~"pro~i~led at no cost to
residents with a one-week advance notice to the City.
A s.et. numl~er_4;I,f permits would be availal~le for sa.l~.. t~ n.gn-..~d~ler~t~. Thesepermits 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, 1~98.
Assistant Police Chief
Enclosures
Block / Street
Residential Parking Permit Model Program Survey Options
Ther~ 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 se!pcted, people who
park after 7 or 8 p.m. would be able to park anywher~ "the rest of the night.)
[]9 a.m. - 10 p.m.[] ¯8 a.m..-’ 9.p.m.
r=l. -8 a.m. - 9 p.m." [] Other - please desc.ribe
preferth~ days of enforcement t0be:
[]MondaY Friday
[]Other - (please describe)
On the issL~e 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 I~ave been seeing an increase.ir~ high-density
developments within single family.home areas. Some residents have r.aised some
questions and concerns about these developments’ !nability to provide sufficient off-
street parking for residents without negatively impacting the availability of street
parking for current residents. Do yeu believe that this is a problem?
r-i Yes [] No [] No Opinion
If yes, what suggestions would you have to deal with the issue?
I prefer that non-resident permit parking: (N~.te: 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 lresideht’S/g~StS would be able to park on
both sides of the street and non-residents on o.nly on~ side ql the street).
Be allowed to park anywhere.
Regarding the concept of a Residential Parking Permit Program in rny 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 ~actors 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
ORANGE .ARE .
(N. of"
(X)UNI" %
70 14%-
179 35%
114 22%
116 23%
35 7%
~14 100%
292 57%
168 33%
24 . 5%
31 6%
515 100%
135 ¯27%
219 44%
’66 13%
63 13%
12 2%
495 100%
317 62%
100 20%
91 18%
508 100%
207
146 71%
154 32%
1 O9 23%
216 .45%
2 0%
481 100%
196 38%
171 34%
36 7%
49 10%
58 11%
~ ARF.A
(S. of Forest)
COUNT %
SUM OF BOTH AREAS
COUNI:.%
62 14%
14O 32%
61 14%
113 26%
57 13%
132 14%
319 34%
175 18%
229 24%
92 10%
433 100%947 100%
246 55%538
118 27%286
":23 5%- -47
57 - 13% -88
444.100%-’.., .- ......959
56%
30%
’5%
9%
100%
139 34%274
177 43%~.:,.396
¯ 50 12%116
.47 11.% .o 110
"0 -0%",- ......1 2
30%
44%
13%
12%
1%
100% "
236 61%573 62%
85 20%1 85 20%¯76 18%167 18%
417 100%925
175 382
117 67%263
100%
69%
113 28%267 30%
64 16%173 20%
224 56%440 50%
1.0%3 0%
402 100%"883 1.00%
126 29%322 34%
131 30%302 ’ 32%
40 9%76 8%
60 14%109 12%
77 18%135 14%
TOTAL FOR QUESTION 6 510 100%434 100%944 100%