ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Parking Survey Results
Summary of Survey Results
Staff prepared the survey that was distributed, which is intended to provide a general understanding of the range of opinions of stakeholders in the community. Some stakeholders were critical of the survey as representing a specific point of view. Staff’s intent was to simply provide an overview of the parking issues the Planning Commission and City Council are discussing to obtain a broader cross section of public opinion than is obtained through public meetings that generally draw the same stakeh olders.
There were 447 questionnaires completed. Given that the nighttime population of Culver City is approximately 40,779 and the daytime population is approximately 71,863, it is understood the number of surveys submitted is just a small sample size and is not necessarily representative of the average stakeholder.
Based on the results (below), respondents were primarily Culver City residents (392), with 270 being residents only and the remaining 122 indicate d they were also a business owner, architect, design professional, developer, or other of the available categories. Only 55 of the respondents were not Culver City residents. Nearly all (92.4%) respondents utilize a single-occupancy vehicle(s) as a primary mode of transportation, although only 125 of the respondents use this mode exclusively. The next most utilized mode of transportation reported was walking, followed by bicycling.
Of the respondents that indicated they are Culver City business owners, most indicated they were an office use (21 of 53; 39.6%), followed by ‘general services’ and by ‘media production and creative office’.
Most business owners responding had a small number of employees, with the majority (28 of 53; 52.8%) ranging between 1 and 5 employees. A majority indicated they have parking for everyone employed and guests/customers (35 of 53; 66%). At the same time, business owners were evenly split between those indicating there is insufficient parking (43.6%) and those indicating adequate parking (43.6%) around their place of business or employment. Further, most (35 of 55 , 63.6%) indicated no incentives are provided for use of alternative transportation.
A majority of architects and design professionals (18 of 24; 75%) work on projects in Culver City. Of the development professionals, nearly all worked on just a few proj ects (between 1 and 5) in Culver City.
Most work on commercial and mixed -use projects, with just a few working on residential or industrial.
The scale of projects varied but were primarily large -scale commercial (100,001+ sq. ft.), with the next most being medium-scale (30,001-60,000 sq. ft.) commercial. The two respondents that indicated they represented a school or institution did not respond to the corresponding questions (15 through 18) relating to their scale and parking conditions.
Residents responding to the questionnaire live throughout the various neighborhoods in the City, but a majority (18.4%) live in the Park East neighborhood, which includes Carlson Park, followed by the Park West neighborhood (9.9%). Respondents were nearly evenly split b etween those who feel there is insufficient parking and adequate parking on residential properties; only a few considered that there is too much parking on residential properties. Most residents felt they live in a transit-friendly area and an even higher percentage felt that they live in a neighborhood with adequate mobility. Based on a list of choices given and a ranking methodology, when asked which mobility features residents would like to see in their neighborhood the highest -ranking measure was shuttle bus service, followed by bikeshare, carshare, more frequent transit service, micro -mobility, closer transit stop(s), unbundled parking, and other. (Methodology: points were assigned to each response based on how the respondent ranked each item. Those points were then summed and averaged across all responses and then the choices ranked based on the final average of points).
Most respondents (61%) indicated there is insufficient parking in larger commercial centers, with very few indicating there is to o much parking in such centers. Among residents, 62.8% indicated this response, while among non-residents 49% responded the same. For larger commercial centers, most respondents (50.7%) indicated there is an adequate supply of parking; 56.5% of residents and non- residents responded in this manner. However, most non -residents (38%) indicated such centers have too much parking, while only 9.7% of residents agreed with that statement.
Regarding parking reductions, though most respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed (314 to 317 of 447) with reducing parking requirements in general; most (317 of 447) strongly disagreed or disagreed with general parking reductions for residential development. Conversely, only 22 to 23 percent (approximately 100 of 447) respondents agree, somewhat agree, or strongly agree with general parking reductions. A slight, but noticeable, shift is seen when asked about parking reductions for development near transit. Fewer respondents strongly disagree or disagree (222 to 233 of 447), while more somewhat agree, agree, and strongly agree with parking reductions for development near transit, than compared to the original prompt. Still, residential development was the least supported for parking reductions even when near transit. Si milarly, respondents most (290 of 447, of which 270 are residents) strongly disagreed or disagreed with parking reductions for mobility measures most when associated with residential development. Further, of the respondents agreeing in some way with reductions for mobility measures, most agreed with this in the case of mixed-use development (170 to 195 of 447 respondents, of which 142 to 165 are residents), similar in trend to responses for general reductions and reductions near transit.
Responses to the statements regarding requiring TDM measures for different developments indicate a wider range of sentiment. Although most respondents strongly disagree or disagree with requiring TDM for any of the development types, it is significantly less so than for t he parking reduction prompts. In addition, more of the respondents somewhat agree, agree, or strongly agree with requiring TDM measures than those that agree with parking reductions, particularly for large -scale commercial development. Specifically, 222 of 447 respondents disagreed (to some degree) with requiring TDM for large-scale residential development, 198 for large -scale commercial development, and 200 for large - scale mixed-use development; of these respondents 206, 179, and 184 (respectively) are r esidents.
Respondents that agreed in some form with requiring TDM for the 3 development types were 170, 195, and 188 of 447, while 142, 165 and 158, respectively, were residents.
Similarly, responses to the statements regarding implementing parking maxim ums for different developments indicate a wider range of sentiment, like the prompt regarding TDM. Although most respondents strongly disagree, it is significantly less so than for the parking reductions posed in the prior prompts. In addition, like the previous prompt, the large-scale residential development category received the most responses of strongly opposed. In summary, 140 of the 447 respondents agree (in some form) with implementing parking maximums for large -scale residential development, 142 for large -scale commercial development, and 147 for large-scale mixed-use development, of which 115, 117, and 121 (respectively) are residents. On the other hand, 239 of 447 respondents disagree (in some form) with implementing parking maximums for large-scale residential development, 232 for large-scale commercial development as well as for large-scale mixed-use development, of which 215, 208, and 209 (respectively) are residents.
One trend of note is that for these questions, responses from non-residents were more evenly spread; however, a higher percentage of these respondents favor parking reductions than residents. On the other hand, favorable responses decreased for requiring TDM measures and implementing parking maximums.
Lastly, respondents were asked to rank a preset list about what mobility measure(s) respondents would most like to see in new developments. The highest -ranking measure was bikeshare, followed by carshare, carpool/vanpool, shuttle bus service, ride -hail loading zone, T AP cards, end -of-trip facilities, micro-mobility, unbundled parking, and other. This was based on assigning points to each response
based on how the respondent ranked each item; those points were then averaged across all responses and then the choices ranked based on the final average of points.
Survey Results/Responses
Section 1 – General Questions
Question 1 – Please provide your name and email (optional) Only 197 people provided this information
Question 2 – Please check all that apply to you below.
o I am a Culver City resident (392)
o I am a developer (14)
o I am an architect or design professional (24)
o I am a Culver City business owner (53)
o I am an owner/landlord of commercial property within Culver City (30) o I am a landlord of residential property within Culver City (54) o I am an employee at a business located within Culver City (47) o I represent a school or an institution (2)
o Other (30)
Question 3 – Which option best represents your gender identity? o Woman (205)
o Man (219)
o Non-binary (3)
o Other (6)
o No response (14)
Question 4 – What is your age range?
o Under 18 (0)
o 18-24 (7)
o 25-34 (29)
o 35-44 (64)
o 45-54 (99)
o 55-64 (103)
o 65+ (145)
Question 5 – What modes of transportation do you regularly use to get around? (check all that apply) "Regularly" means at least 3 times per week.
Single-Occupancy Vehicle means any type of vehicle whose only occupant is the driver (please note this refers to a status and usage, not the vehicle type)
o Single-Occupancy Vehicle (excluding carshare) – (413) o Carpool/Vanpool (rideshare) – (26)
o Ridehail services (Uber/Lyft) – (50)
o Shared mobility services (carshare, bikeshare, scooter-share) – (19)
o Bus/Rail – (77)
o Bike – (140)
o Walking – (286)
o Personal micro-mobility (e-bike, e-scooter, skateboard) – (21) o Other – (15)
Section 2 – Business Owners ( If you selected business owner in Question 2 above, please respond to questions 6 through 10 below (otherwise check Not Applicable to Question 6 and go to the next section).
Question 6 – What type of business do you have?
o Automobile sales, auto repair – (0)
o Beauty salon, barber shop, nail salon, spa, etc. – (1) o Daycare (child, adult) – (0)
o Education – (1)
o Fitness and studios (e.g. art, ballet, yoga, martial arts, etc.) – (0) o Hotel, motel – (0)
o Manufacturing – (1)
o Media Production and creative office – (5)
o Medical – (1)
o Office (accounting, architect, attorney, etc.) – (21) o Restaurant and food service (coffee shops, donut shops, juice shops, etc.) – (2) o Retail (except vehicle sales) – (1)
o Other service (banks, check cashing, dry cleaners, pet daycare, tailor, etc.) – (6) o Other – (14)
Question 7 – How many people do you employ?
o None – (13)
o 1-5 – (28)
o 6-10 – (7)
o 11-24 – (4)
o 25-49 – (1)
o 50-100 – (0)
o More than 100 – (0)
Question 8 – Do you have parking for everyone employed and guests/customers? o Yes (35)
o No (17)
o No response (1)
Question 9 – What is your opinion of the current parking supply around your Culver City business or place of employment?
o There is insufficient parking around my business or place of employment – (23) o There is an adequate supply of parking around my business or place of employment – (23) o There is too much parking around my business or place of employment – (6) o No response (1)
Question 10 – Are employees provided with incentives for use of alternative transportation? o No – (35)
o Yes, I provide transit subsidies (e.g. Tap cards, etc.) – (5) o Yes, I provide a parking space cash-out program – (1) o Yes, I provide priority carpool/vanpool parking – (0) o Yes, I provide other incentives – (6)
o No response (6)
Section 3 – Architects, Design Professionals, and Developers ( If you selected architect, design professional, or developer, in Question 2 above, please respond to questions 11 through 14 below (otherwise check Not Applicable and go to the next section).)
Question 11 – If you are an architect or other design professional, do you work on projects in Culver City? o Yes – (18)
o No – (6)
Question 12 – If you are a developer, how many projects have you developed in Culver City? o None – (2)
o 1-5 – (12)
o 6-10 – (1)
o 11-20 – (0)
o 21-35 – (0)
o More than 35 – (0)
Question 13 – What types of projects have you developed? (check all that apply) o Residential – (3)
o Commercial – (11)
o Industrial (manufacturing, warehouse, distribution, etc.) – (1) o Mixed-Use (residential with commercial) – (7)
Question 14 – How large are the projects you've developed? (select all that apply) o Residential: 0-3 dwelling units – (2)
o Residential: 4-9 dwelling units – (0)
o Residential: 10+ dwelling units – (4)
o Commercial: up to 5,000 sq. ft. – (0)
o Commercial: 5,001 – 15,000 sq. ft. – (3)
o Commercial: 15,001 – 30,000 sq. ft. – (1)
o Commercial: 30,001 – 60,000 sq. ft. – (5)
o Commercial: 60,001 – 100,000 sq. ft. – (2)
o Commercial: 100,001+ – (9)
o Mixed-Use: containing up to 10 dwelling units – (0)
o Mixed-Use: containing 11 to 35 dwelling units – (1)
o Mixed-use: containing 36 to 65 dwelling units – (1)
o Mixed-use: containing 65 to 100 dwelling units – (0) o Mixed-use: containing 101+ dwelling units – (4)
Section 4 – Schools and Institutions (If you represent a school or an institution, in Question 2 above, please respond to questions 15 through 18 below (otherwise check Not Applicable to Question 15 and go to the next section).)
Question 15 – How many people are employed?
o 0-10
o 11-24
o 25-49
o 50-100
o More than 100
Question 16 – Are employees provided with parking?
o Yes, parking is provided free of charge
o Yes, parking is provided for a fee
o No
Question 17 – Are students provided with parking?
o Yes, parking is provided free of charge
o Yes, parking is provided for a fee
o No
Question 18 – Do you have a robust bus/van/shuttle program? o Yes
o No
The two respondents indicating they represented a school or institution did not respond to questions 15 through 18 in the corresponding section above.
Section 5 – Culver City Residents (If you selected 'Culver City resident' in Question 2 above, please respond to questions 19 through 23 below (otherwise check Not Applicable to Question 19 and go to the next section).) Question 19 – What Culver City neighborhood do you live in? o Blair Hills – (7)
o Blanco/Culver Crest – (29)
o Clarkdale – (26)
o Culver West – (18)
o Downtown – (19)
o Expo/TOD District – (5)
o Fox Hills – (13)
o Lucerne/Higuera – (23)
o McLaughlin – (12)
o McManus – (17)
o Park East (including Carlson Park) – (72)
o Park West – (39)
o Studio Village – (29)
o Sunkist Park – (32)
o Washington Culver (incl Studio Estates) – (15)
o Other – (34)
Question 20 – What is your opinion of the current parking supply in your Culver City residential neighborhood?
o There is insufficient parking on residential properties – (185) o There is an adequate supply of parking on residential properties – (177) o There is too much parking on residential properties – (27) o No response – (3)
Question 21 – Do you feel you live in a transit -friendly area? (An area that is comfortable, safe, and convenient for transit riders)
o Yes – (226)
o No – (157)
o No response – (9)
Question 22 – Do you live in a neighborhood with adequate mobility (such as bike lanes, etc.)? o Yes – (227)
o No – (106)
o No response – (9)
Question 23 – If you could have more transportation infrastructure and/or mobility measure(s) near or at your place of residence, which would you most like to see? Please rank the following options (1=higher priority and 10=lower priority):
1. Bikeshare
2. Carshare
3. Micro-mobility (electric bikes/scooters, skateboard parking, etc.)
4. Shuttle bus service
5. Unbundled parking (parking spaces leased separately from the residential unit)
6. Closer transit stop(s)
7. More frequent transit service
8. Other
The above shows the final rankings after participants responded to this prompt.
Section 6 – Parking and Mobility
Question 24 – What is your opinion of the current parking supply for buildings along commercial corridors? ( Examples of commercial corridors include but are not limited to Washington Blvd., Sepulveda Blvd., Culver Blvd., and Jefferson Blvd.)
o There is insufficient parking on properties along the City's commercial corridors – (273; 246 are residents)
o There is an adequate supply of parking along the City's commercial corridors – (133; 119 are residents)
o There is too much parking along the City's commercial corridors – (41; 27 are residents)
Question 25 – What is your opinion of the current parking supply for buildings in larger comm ercial centers? ( Examples of commercial centers include the Westfield Mall, Culver Center, and Studio Village Shopping Center.)
o There is insufficient parking in larger commercial centers – (161) o There is an adequate supply of parking in larger commercial centers – (227) o There is too much parking in larger commercial centers – (59)
Question 26 – Please rate the following statements. I support reducing parking requirements for:
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Unsure Somewhat
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
All new residential
development
Resident 262 31 24 20 17 38
Non-res 18 6 3 1 8 17
All new commercial
development
Resident 247 43 30 16 19 37
Non-res 19 5 3 2 7 19
All new mixed-use
(commercial with
residential) development
Resident 252 39 26 16 21 38
Non-res 17 7 3 2 6 20
o Item 1: 62.6%, 8.3%, 6.3%, 4.9%, 5.6%, 12.3% - Most strongly disagree o Item 2: 59.5%, 10.7%, 7.4%, 4%, 5.8%, 12.5% - Most strongly disagree o Item 3: 60.2%, 10.3%, 6.5%, 4%, 6%, 13% - Most strongly disagree
Question 27 – Please rate the following statements. I support reducing parking requirements for:
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Unsure Somewhat
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
All new residential
development if within
close proximity to transit
Resident 218 54 24 29 20 47
Non-res 15 5 3 3 6 23
All new commercial
development if within
close proximity to transit
Resident 208 51 27 34 23 49
Non-res 14 6 4 2 6 23
All new mixed-use
(commercial with
residential) development
if within close proximity to
transit
Resident 211 50 24 38 22 47
Non-res 14 6 4 4 3 24
o Item 1: 52.1%, 13.2%, 6%, 7.2%, 5.8%, 15.7% - Most strongly disagree o Item 2: 49.7%, 12.8%, 6.9%, 8.1%, 6.5%, 16.1% - Most strongly disagree, but not the majority o Item 3: 50.3%, 12.5%, 6.3%, 9.4%, 5.6%, 15.9% - Most strongly disagree
Question 28 – Please rate the following statements. I support reducing parking requirements for:
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Unsure Somewhat
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
All new residential
development if the project
incorporates mobility
measures
Resident 215 56 24 24 30 43
Non-res 15 4 3 7 7 19
All new commercial
development if the project
incorporates mobility
measures
Resident 201 54 35 32 24 46
Non-res 15 4 3 9 6 18
All new mixed-use
(commercial with
residential) development
if the project incorporates
mobility measures
Resident 210 46 28 35 27 46
Non-res 15 4 4 9 5 18
o Item 1: 51.5%, 13.4%, 6%, 6.9%, 8.3%, 13.9% - Most strongly disagree o Item 2: 48.3%, 13%, 8.5%, 8.5%, 7.4%, 14.3% - Most strongly disagree, but not the majority o Item 3: 50.3%, 11.2%, 7.2%, 8.9%, 8.1%, 14.3% - Most strongly disagree
Question 29 – Please rate the following statements. I support requiring Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures for:
(TDM is the alteration of travel behavior through programs of incentives, services, and policies. TDM addresses alternatives to single occupancy vehicles such as carpooling and vanpooling, and changes i n work schedules that move trips out of the peak period or eliminate them altogether.
Examples of "large-scale" development include, but are not limited to, the following:
Residential: Multi-unit residential (10 or more dwelling units) Commercial: Platform, 8777 Washington Blvd
Mixed-use: Ivy Station, Access Culver City, the Haven, the Oliver, the Lucky)
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Unsure Somewhat
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
New large-scale
residential development
Resident 163 38 49 40 42 60
Non-res 16 5 6 6 10 12
New large-scale
commercial development
Resident 147 32 48 39 58 68
Non-res 14 2 9 7 8 15
New large-scale mixed-
use (commercial with
residential) development
Resident 151 33 50 35 56 67
Non-res 14 2 9 9 6 15
o Item 1: 40%, 9.9%, 12.3%, 10.3%, 11.6%, 16.1% - Most strongly disagree, but not the majority o Item 2: 36%, 7.6%, 12.8%, 10.3%, 14.8%, 18.6% - Most strongly disagree, but not the majority o Item 3: 36.9%, 7.8%, 13.2%, 9.8%, 13.9%, 18.3% - Most strongly disagree, but not the majority
Question 30 – Please rate the following statements. Please rate the following statement. I support parking maximums for:
(Parking maximums are caps on parking, whether setting a maximum rate by use or a maximum on surplus parking.)
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Unsure Somewhat
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
New large-scale
residential development
Resident 174 41 62 29 31 55
Non-res 17 7 6 5 7 13
New large-scale
commercial development
Resident 166 42 67 26 35 56
Non-res 17 7 6 3 8 14
New large-scale mixed-
use (commercial with
residential) development
Resident 169 40 62 29 35 57
Non-res 17 6 6 4 9 13
o Item 1: 42.7%, 10.7%, 15.2%, 7.6%, 8.5%, 15.2% - Most strongly disagree, but not the majority o Item 2: 40.9%, 11%, 16.3%, 6.5%, 9.6%, 15.7% - Most strongly disagree, but not the majority o Item 3: 41.6%, 10.3%, 15.2%, 7.4%, 9.8%, 15.7% - Most strongly disagree
Question 31 – What mobility measure(s) would you most like to see in new developments? Please rank the following options (1=higher priority and 10=lower priority):
1. Bikeshare
2. Carshare
3. Carpool/vanpool
4. End-of-trip facilities and other amenities (e.g., showers, changing rooms, clothes lockers, pet relief areas, bicycle repair, ATMs)
5. Ride-hail loading zone
6. Micro-mobility (electric bikes/scooters, skateboard parking, etc.)
7. Shuttle bus service
8. TAP cards for residents and/or employees
9. Unbundled parking (parking spaces leased separately from residential unit or commercial tenant space)
10. Other
The above shows the final rankings after participants responded to this prompt.