HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-11 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet_______________________
1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
1.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
2.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Planning & Transportation Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda: October 11, 2017
Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
6:00 PM
Call to Order / Roll Call
Oral Communications
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
City Official Reports
1.Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
Study Session
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3
Action Items
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal.
All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3
2.Review the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study and Provide
Input to the City Council Regarding Implementation Alternatives
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3
3.September 13, 2017 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Committee Items
Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements
Adjournment
September 13, 2017
Draft Minutes
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
1. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
2. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission
Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are:
Chair Michael Alcheck
Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel
Commissioner Przemek Gardias
Commissioner Ed Lauing
Commissioner Susan Monk
Commissioner Eric Rosenblum
Commissioner Doria Summa
Get Informed and Be Engaged!
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26.
Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card
located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission
Secretary prior to discussion of the item.
Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be
delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding
the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through
2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais.
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the
agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above.
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a
manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an
appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs,
or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing
ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least
24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 7777)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 10/11/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: City Official Report
Title: Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and
comment as appropriate.
Background
This document includes the following items:
PTC Meeting Schedule
PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments)
Tentative Future Agenda
Commissioners are encouraged to contact Yolanda Cervantes
(Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if
possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum.
PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated
commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi-
judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council
agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their
respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are
available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards-
and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission.
The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items.
Attachments:
Attachment A: October 11, 2017 PTC Tentative Agenda (DOCX)
Planning & Transportation Commission
2017 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2017 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
1/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular CANCELLED
2/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Waldfogel
2/22/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
3/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Monk, Waldfogel
3/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
4/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
4/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
5/10/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum, Summa,
5/31/2017 6:00PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck
6/14/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Monk,Waldfogel
6/28/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck
7/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum, Waldfogel
7/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck, Lauing
8/09/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum
8/30/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
9/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
9/27/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
10/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
10/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
11/08/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Waldfogel
11/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
12/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
12/27/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers CANCELLED
2018 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup)
January February March April May June
Michael Alcheck Eric Rosenblum Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Przemek Gardias Eric Rosenblum
July August September October November December
Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Doria Summa Przemek Gardias Doria Summa Michael Alcheck
Subcommittees
Planning & Transportation Commission
2017 Tentative Future Agenda
September 11, 2017 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
Meeting Dates Topics
October 25 PF Zone Standards Amendment for City Garages
November 8
Title 18 Code Clean-up
PTC Elections (Chair/Vice-Chair)
Stanford GUP 2018: DEIR Comment Letter
November 29 PTC Annual Report to Council
December 13 Eichler Design Guidelines and Potential Zone Changes
Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Implementation Update
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 8293)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/11/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Downtown Parking Management Implementation #2
Title: Review the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management
Study and Provide Input to the City Council Regarding
Implementation Alternatives
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following
action(s):
1. Review the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study recommendations
2. Discuss the four alternative implementation scenarios staff has explored with City
departments and members of the community
3. Provide feedback on next steps
4. Recommend to the City Council that if the Council approves the full implementation of
the recommendations from the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study,
it utilize the following items, as discussed this evening:
a. A blend of single-space/multi-space meter technology
b. A mobile payment, pay-by-phone technology
c. License Plate Recognition (LPR) parking enforcement
d. Dynamic management of off-street spaces for short/long term parking
e. Ongoing and active monitoring of parking supply and demand
Report Summary
Over the last several years, the City Council has directed Staff to approach parking and traffic
congestion in Palo Alto from three different directions: 1) by implementing programs to reduce
reliance on the private automobile (i.e. transportation demand reduction), 2) by adding
supplemental parking supply where appropriate, and 3) by better managing existing parking
resources.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
To examine the management of parking in the Downtown core, Staff engaged an experienced
parking consultant to complete the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study.
This study examined all of the City’s current, planned, and potential parking management
strategies within the Downtown parking color-zone areas. The resulting Existing Conditions
Analysis is included as Attachment A. The Recommendations are included as Attachment B.
The City Council received the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study in April
2017 and directed staff to conduct public outreach and work with the Planning and
Transportation Commission and the Finance Committee to refine recommendations related to
the introduction of various parking management strategies in Downtown, and return with
various phasing, finance, and implementation plans for the City Council’s consideration in the
fall of 2017. The structure of this process is provided in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Downtown Parking Management Implementation Roles and Responsibilities:
S
ource: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, June 2017
Staff recognizes these are complex subjects of great interest to the community, and that the
recommendations—if ultimately adopted—would result in noticeable changes for residents,
employees, and visitors to downtown, as well as changes to the City’s internal processes and
organization. For this reason, the City’s parking consultant, Dixon Resources Unlimited (Dixon),
presented an overview of the two documents and provided an opportunity for questions and
discussion at the June 14, 2017 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting (Staff Report
#8132 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58206). Paid parking holds
great promise as a more up-to-date approach to parking management for a vibrant commercial
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
district than the current color zone time restriction system. It would provide a potential funding
source for transportation demand management solutions to address the root cause of parking
problems and traffic congestion, a large part of which stems from employee commute trips to
downtown by single-occupant vehicles (SOVs).
At this meeting, staff will re-cap recommendations of the study, summarize public input to
date, and describe a number of implementation scenarios or alternatives that staff has been
exploring with City departments and interested members of the community. The Commission’s
input on these scenarios – and next steps -- would be welcome, and staff would appreciate a
recommendation regarding equipment, mobile payment, LPR enforcement, and dynamic
management of the off-street parking supply for short/long term parkers.
Background
At a high level, results of the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study
assessment of existing conditions show something that many regular visitors to Downtown
have known for some time: parking is a problem. The report shows that parking occupancy
rates are extremely high, parking turnover is not in keeping with other, similar commercial
districts, and the color-zone system, which was instituted to force turnover, has probably
exceeded its useful life (see Attachment A for a full review of existing conditions).
With this as background, the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study provides
analysis and recommendations aimed at 1) strengthening downtown as a vibrant commercial
district where the available parking supply is better managed, such that 2) customers can have
improved access to retail and services, 3) employees are better able to long-term park in area
garages and lots if they need it, and 4) pricing better reflects the true cost of parking,
encouraging employees and other long-term parkers to use alternatives to the single-occupant
vehicles wherever possible.
A list of recommendations is included in Attachment B to address these four objectives and the
problems identified. The recommendations include replacement of the color-zone time
restriction system with paid parking on-street, using a combination of parking meters, pay
stations, and mobile parking payment options. As will be explained, the policy decisions that
ultimately have to be made to implement the recommendations include the threshold question
regarding whether to remove the color-zone time restriction system and replace it with paid
parking, as well as the following:
Desired parking pricing including the hours/days for enforcement
Types of revenue collection equipment (meters vs. pay station) and mobile parking
payment options
Needed enforcement changes, including potential use of license plate recognition (LPR)
technology and citation pricing and processing changes
Related changes to parking garage and lot permit types, costs, and hours for
enforcement
Implementation schedule
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
These decisions would affect the experience of residents, employers and their employees, and
visitors to Downtown, and could also mean changes within the City organization. At a
minimum, internal changes would include automation of the permitting process (i.e. the
addition of online permit sales) for Downtown parking garages, the potential use of new
technologies for enforcement, and the procurement and oversight of additional contracts for
service such as installation and maintenance of parking meters and pay stations. If LPR is
implemented as new enforcement technology, it also can allow for virtual permitting, which
switches from plastic hangtag and sticker permits to a license plate functioning as a permit.
According to the report, paid parking would generate net revenues (over and above costs)
within a couple of years. It is important to note that these projections do not factor in any
operating costs currently necessary to oversee the parking initiatives. Once the necessary
operating costs are factored into the analysis, any net excess revenues could be used to support
the nascent Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA). The PATMA has been
implementing pilot programs testing incentives that could encourage commuters to leave their
cars at home when they come to Downtown. A long-term, stable funding stream could allow
the PATMA to scale the successful pilot programs to reach more people. As a major kickstart to
this, at the June 27, 2017 meeting, the City Council approved an increase to the downtown
garage and lot parking permit fees to add revenue to the University Avenue Parking Fund and
support SOV commute trip reduction activities of the PATMA with dedicated funding to the
TMA of $480,000 for FY2018. With this funding, the PATMA has estimated that they could shift
up to 750 people to non-SOV modes, thereby achieving a 14% reduction in SOV commute trips
(below the baseline of 5,500 identified in the benchmark survey) by the end of calendar year
2018.
On April 11, 2017, the Palo Alto City Council received the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking
Management Study (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56789), and
directed staff to conduct public outreach and work with the Planning and Transportation
Commission and the Finance Committee to refine recommendations related to the introduction
of various parking management strategies in Downtown Palo Alto, and return with various
phasing, finance, and implementation plans for the City Council’s consideration in the fall of
2017; and, direct staff to coordinate paid parking in Downtown Palo Alto pricing with residential
preferential parking (RPP) programs, garage permit pricing, and lot permit pricing. Action
minutes from the April 11, 2017 City Council meeting can be found at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57557.
Staff facilitated a City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management focus group at the Chamber
of Commerce office on Tuesday, September 12, 2017. Seven participants provided feedback on
parking issues and some of the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study
recommendations. They also shared their experiences with past parking programs
implemented in Palo Alto. Participants included representatives of Downtown offices and retail
locations. A summary of this focus group discussion is included as Attachment C. Similar to the
focus group, staff is currently conducting a survey of downtown businesses to collect feedback
on parking issues and some of the study recommendations, and will return with the findings to
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
the City Council. Additionally, significant stakeholder and public input was taken for the existing
conditions report (Attachment A) and is described further below in the Public Notification,
Outreach & Comments section.
In addition to the recommendations that will be reviewed in this report, staff is already
analyzing, developing, or implementing the following recommendations:
Considering the introduction of low-income employee garage/lot permits per study
recommendation:
o Offer a reduced-price permit for low-income employees, similar to the RPP
program and offer more payment options, including monthly and quarterly
purchase.
Procuring a comprehensive parking management system per study recommendation:
o With the potential implementation of paid parking and re-structuring of the
City’s current permit program including employee permits, it is recommended
that the City solicit a comprehensive parking management system. This
management system shall allow for integration with other management and
payment platforms such as Clipper 2.0
o The comprehensive system should enable the City to monitor its permit program,
allowing customers to create user accounts, apply and renew current parking
permits.
o The comprehensive system should allow the City to monitor issued citations and
provide customers the opportunity to pay citations online, in real-time.
o As part of the comprehensive management system, the City should ensure that
the selected system allows for intuitive reporting features for both revenue and
performance measures.
Installing parking guidance and wayfinding per study recommendation:
o As part of the City’s approved capital wayfinding project for 2017, ensure that a
public parking brand is incorporated into wayfinding signage with an easily
identifiable logo and color palette. Signage should be easy to understand and
direct patrons where to park and how to pay.
o Display real-time off-street occupancy data on digital signage at the main
entrances to downtown to allow drivers the ability to determine their parking
destination.
o Real-time parking availability information should be accessible by a parking
website and/or a smartphone application.
Discussion
Paid Parking Options:
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
Paid parking can be implemented in Downtown through various approaches, and staff
recommends discussing four options:
(1) Paid parking in the lots and garages only:
This scenario assumes that parking meters and/or pay stations would be only installed in
lots and garages. It also would include the installation of parking access and revenue
controls (PARCs), which are gated or virtually gated (in combination with LPR) garages.
Paid parking in lots and garages would be easier to implement and manage than full
implementation but would produce less of an impact in congestion reduction and
parking availability. In conjunction with this scenario, the color zones in lots and garages
would be eliminated, and color zones and time limits for on-street parking would be
retained. Long-term parkers would be offered opportunities to park in lots and garages;
short-term parkers would use on-street spaces.
Table 1: Pros and cons of paid parking in the lots and garages only
Paid Parking in Lots and Garages Only
Pros Cons
Most easy to implement, as the
equipment is only required in garages and
lots. Not a significant change from current
situation
Does not improve congestion as parkers
circulate looking for on-street spaces
Lowest cost to implement – new
equipment only required in garages and
lots
Does not address high on-street parking
occupancy and encourage turn-over of
spaces as parking is free
Dynamically manage supply of permit and
daily parking spaces in the lots and garages
through pricing to keep occupancy at desired
levels
Does not eliminate “hopscotching” (when
long-term parkers move their cars every
two hours)
Retains free on-street parking for business
patrons
Lowest revenue generation to invest in
parking enhancements, additional SOV trip
reduction, congestion reduction, and
dedicated funding for business district
improvements
Potential for some greenhouse gas emissions
reduction if more long-term parkers are using
off-street parking rather than hopscotching
Minor mode shift, congestion benefit, and
greenhouse gas emissions reduction
benefit as “hopscotching” could reduce,
and some parking occupancy levels would
improve (which reduces time spent
looking for a parking space)
Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, September 2017
(2) Providing the first hour free:
This scenario assumes that the City would install parking meters and/or pay stations
throughout the downtown color zones (i.e. for on-street parking) and in off-street
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
garages and lots. Similar to the first scenario, it also would include the installation of
PARCs. The implementation of mobile parking payment options is a study
recommendation as well. Long-term parkers would be directed to lots and garages;
short-term parkers would use on-street spaces. The first hour free scenario at meters
would allow for one hour of free parking before collecting a payment. Providing the first
hour free would encourage customer turn-over, and allows the quick pick-up and drop-
off activities to occur. The parking management consultant has recommended against
this approach as a standard, due to difficulties enforcing, customer confusion, and loss
of revenue through circumvention and fees through parking duration. To reduce
revenue loss, it is recommended that this scenario is implemented in conjunction with
LPR and virtual permit so that the license plate and time a permit is purchased is
entered into the system.
Table 2: Pros and cons of providing the first hour free
Providing the First Hour Free
Pros Cons
Moderate mode shift and congestion
benefit, as parking occupancy levels would
improve and “hopscotching” would be
reduced through the elimination of the
color zones, since it’s not as practical to
move every hour
Most difficult to implement: requires extra
equipment to enforce, revenue loss is
more likely
Moderate revenue generation to invest in
parking enhancements, additional SOV trip
reduction, congestion reduction, and
dedicated funding for business district
improvement
Most difficult to operate and enforce,
extra rules and enforcement protocol are
necessary
Dynamic parking allows for parking
inventory management, and does not
require charging (can set free time
periods)
Highest cost to implement as it requires
more equipment than the other scenarios
Moderate greenhouse gas emissions
reduction as less time is spent searching
for parking and mode shift is encouraged
through pricing
Could create concern over discouraging
downtown visitors
Can further eliminate/reduce
hopscotching, if paired with license plate
recognition
Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, September 2017
(3) Escalating charges with no time limit:
Similar to the first hour free scenario, the escalating charges without time limit scenario
would install parking meters and/or pay stations throughout downtown color zones (i.e.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
for on-street parking) and in off-street garages and lots. It would also include PARCs,
implementation of mobile parking payment options. Long-term parkers would be
directed to lots and garages or they could pay higher rates to use on-street spaces;
short-term parkers would use on-street spaces. This scenario would have a fee for a
customer parked at a parking meter with increases in the rate based on how long a
customer is parked without a limit on how long they are parked at the meter. Escalating
fees allow the City to potentially recover more revenues through parking fees, but also
allows someone to effectively purchase a spot if money is not a concern, which could
lead to undesired occupancy levels.
Table 3: Pros and cons of escalating charges with no time limit
Escalating Charges with No Time Limits
Pros Cons
Likely to cause significant shift to other
modes, as those that cannot afford to
“buy” a metered space will time their trips
to affordability
Most difficult to implement as it requires:
installation of meters throughout
downtown with parking sensors, new
signage, new policies, system for
operation and maintenance of equipment
and widest range of enforcement
Highest revenue generation to invest in
parking enhancements, additional SOV trip
reduction, congestion reduction, and
dedicated funding for business district
improvement
Might not encourage turn-over, as some
might be immune to the higher price of
purchasing the spot closest to their
destination regardless of time
Dynamic parking allows for parking
inventory management, and does not
require charging (can set free time
periods)
High cost to implement, as it requires all
the equipment of full implementation and
also parking sensors.
Helps City to meet sustainability goal of
pricing parking at true cost, keeping
parking costs comparable to transit costs
Could create concern over discouraging
downtown visitors
Greatest greenhouse gas emissions
reduction as it should reduce the
“hopscotching” and congestion
Complicated for new users, as escalating
fees are more complex than a flat rate
system
Creates clear and consistent paid parking
program
Equity concerns, as the escalating parking
fees would have a larger impact on low-
income motorists
Can be modified to produce the desired
benefit
Could push those seeking free parking into
residential neighborhoods
Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, September 2017
(4) Full implementation of a dynamic paid parking system:
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
This was the primary City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study
Recommendation: Implement a dynamic paid parking program in Downtown and
replace the existing color zone system.
Similar to scenarios two and three, a recommended dynamic paid parking program in
Downtown Palo Alto would include parking meters and/or pay stations installed
throughout the downtown on streets currently included in the color zones (i.e. on-street
parking) and in off-street garages and lots. It would also include PARCs, implementation
of mobile parking payment options. Long-term parkers would be directed to lots and
garages; short-term parkers would use on-street spaces. The full implementation of paid
parking would discourage long-term parking on-street and would encourage customer
turn-over for retailers through pricing and time limits. Full implementation of paid
parking can also encourage the use of alternative modes if they are cost-effective and
convenient, further reducing congestion, pollution, and keeping parking occupancy at
desired levels. This type of dynamic system would allow for variable rates and does not
require that a fee is paid at all times. The dynamic nature of this system can charge
more in periods when demand is high, encouraging higher turnover, and it can also not
charge for parking at certain times. The rates can be set to change by actual parking
demand at the time or at scheduled periods. This allows the system to be an effective
tool in alleviating high occupancy rates, which can make the parking experience more
efficient and convenient.
In addition to being the recommended option in the study, the focus group conducted
on City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study (summary in Attachment C)
reacted favorably to the option of dynamic paid parking. The focus group also was in
favor of increasing the capacity and use of employee permit spaces in the garages and
lots, which currently provide a mix of long-term and short-term parking spaces. Paid
parking on the streets of Downtown provides a mechanism to encourage this if it
encourages turnover on-street and encourages employees who currently park on the
street and move their cars every few hours to park in the garages instead.
Table 4: Full Implementation of Dynamic Paid Parking Management System Pros and Cons:
Full Implementation of Dynamic Paid Parking Management System
Pros Cons
Likely to cause significant shift to other
modes, as long-term parkers will have
spaces off-street and customers will not
get free parking by hopscotching
Difficult to implement, as it requires
installation of equipment throughout
downtown with operation and
maintenance plans, development of new
signage, and development of new policies
Encourage turn-over of customers for
retailers
High cost to implement as it requires
installation of meters and pay stations
throughout downtown
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
High revenue generation to invest in
parking enhancements, additional SOV trip
reduction, congestion reduction, and
dedicated funding for business district
improvement
Could create concern over discouraging
downtown visitors
Dynamic parking allows for parking
inventory management, and does not
require charging (can set free time
periods)
Equity concerns, as the parking fees would
have a larger impact on low-income
motorists
Helps City to meet sustainability goal of
pricing parking at true cost, keeping
parking costs comparable to transit costs
Could push those seeking free parking into
residential neighborhoods, if enforcement
is not coordinated
Greatest greenhouse gas emissions
reduction as it should eliminate
“hopscotching” and reduce congestion
Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, September 2017
Equipment:
The convenience and ease of use of single-space meters are what makes them effective for
dense commercial areas. Along main streets such as University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue, it
is recommended that the City install single-space meters. Pay stations should be located on-street
in the peripheral areas of the downtown to avoid the infrastructure cost of installing single-space meters
for every parking space. Mobile parking payment technology, allowing pay-by-phone capabilities is also
a recommended component, as it provides ease of use. Pay-by-plate coupled with LPR (described
further below) allows virtual permitting. Virtual permitting means that a customer can use their phone,
app, pay station, or computer to purchase a permit that is assigned to a license plate. Virtual permits
reduce return trips to vehicles to pay-and-display. This would also allow for someone to switch their RPP
vehicle license plate when they have a rental car. Furthermore, virtual permits eliminate or reduce the
need for printing, mailing, and any other issues with stickers, paper permits, or hangtags.
Table 5: Efficiencies and limitations associated with pay station payment configurations:
Source: Dixon, City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study 2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11
Figure 2: Proposed Single-space Meter Locations (Shown in Blue):
Source: Dixon, City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study 2017
Figure 3: Proposed Single-space Meter Locations (Shown in Yellow):
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12
Source: Dixon, City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study 2017
Enforcement:
Vehicle mounted license plate recognition (LPR) software is anticipated to improve efficiency
for parking enforcement and customer convenience. Patrons are no longer required to return
to the vehicle to display their parking receipt. The vehicle license plate represents a valid
(virtual) parking permit when input at the pay station or via a mobile phone application offering
customer convenience and automation. The virtual permit also reduces the inconvenience of
having to physically visit City Hall or wait for a permit in the mail, and also allows for more
dynamic management of the permitted vehicle. LPR can be implemented for enforcement of
both on-street and off-street parking, and can also be used as virtual gates in garages.
LPR software is widely used by law and parking enforcement agencies, and although privacy
concerns over the use and storage of personally identifiable information (PII) is a common
concern LPR is used if you are driving across a bridge in the San Francisco Bay Area, parking on
the Stanford University Campus, or driving into many neighboring cities including Berkeley, Los
Altos, Mountain View, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Francisco, San Jose, and others. It is
estimated that over seventy-percent of law enforcement agencies in the United States use
some form of LPR technology. Additionally, the Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA)
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2721) protects any personally identifiable
information of private citizens connected to a license plate number. The Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) of each state maintains records of license plates linked to registered owners. In
order for anyone to learn the owner of a vehicle based on a license plate number, they must
obtain the information from the state DMV. The DPPA prevents any DMV from revealing this
information unless it’s required for the limited purposes outlined in the law. Police officers, for
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13
example, may access DMV data when conducting criminal investigations and even their access
is controlled and monitored to prevent abuse. A Privacy Impact Assessment Report for the
Utilization of License Plate Readers whitepaper
(http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/LPR_Privacy_Impact_Assessment.pdf) states that “…a
license plate number may be linked or otherwise associated with an identifiable person, this
potential can only be realized through a distinct, separate step (e.g., an inquiry to a Secretary of
State or Department of Motor Vehicles data system). Absent this extra step, the license plate
number and the time and location data attached to it are not personally identifying.” Further,
for the purposes of an LPR system for parking enforcement, the LPR system will not interface
with the DMV, thus it will not have direct access to PII. No personal data is collected or stored
by the LPR application. The only data collected is a plate number, time and geo-coding of
where the plate was captured and photo evidence showing the plate image and the context
image validating the vehicle location. The system does not know who owns the vehicle, who
drives the vehicle or where the vehicle owner lives. It only knows that the vehicle plate was
read at a specific location at a specific time. For parking enforcement specifically, LPR cameras
are programmed to capture only parked vehicles, however, when an enforcement vehicle is
driving through an intersection or turning a corner, there is a chance that an inadvertent plate
can be captured. However, no action is taken with these image captures, and the information
is not stored.
The intended use of data collected by the LPR system is for parking access control, parking
enforcement and law enforcement investigations. LPR data could be used to determine a
vehicle’s access permissions in a given parking area or controlled access area and support the
issuance of a parking citation if needed. Data collected by an LPR system that does not result in
a parking enforcement action and is not part of an ongoing law enforcement investigation is
purged and the software used to enforce using LPR does not store any personal information.
The data would be purged based on a schedule established by the City and to ensure
compliance with any local and state regulations. Per the consultant, best practices in LPR use
with paid parking is to purge data every one to three days, but the system can also be
configured to purge date after validating if a permit is valid.
If LPR systems are to be implemented, policies should be adopted to address concerns including
limiting the use of the systems to parking/law enforcement, limiting data storage on vehicles
not associated with law enforcement investigations, and public disclosures when/where the
LPR system is being used. A RAND whitepaper on License Plate Readers
(https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/247283.pdf) recommended that to address privacy
concerns “agencies just starting with LPR systems should work with departmental counsel to
develop clear storage and retention policies for system data and PII if those guidelines do not
already exist. They recommended that agencies also consult with local and state government
officials about their privacy views to forestall problems, secure support, and alleviate concerns.
Once agencies new to the technology develop use policies, they then should be prepared to
revise them after learning from experience. The policies, most importantly, must define who
has access and clarify that system data may be used only for law-enforcement purposes.”
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14
Active Monitoring:
The study has recommended conducting bi-annual downtown occupancy studies to determine
parking rates and time limits adjustments as follows:
Conduct bi-annual downtown occupancy studies to determine parking rates and time
limits adjustments, as needed.
Consider integrating parking space sensors with the meters for real-time occupancy,
enforcement data and the ability for meter time resets.
Monitor quarterly sales tax revenue to assess the overall impact of paid parking.
Further, as part of the technology implementation, parking space sensors could be installed,
which would provide the City with real-time occupancy information and allow for more
dynamic adjustments, tying into a dynamic paid parking system. Dynamic pricing controlled
through smart meters can be set to keep occupancy within a desired range. Information on
results from a similar program, SFpark, is described below. The City of Palo Alto Downtown
Parking Management focus group was favorable to the approach of managing the downtown
parking supply in a manner that would keep parking available for their customers. Through a
dynamic parking solution and technology, the parking supply can be monitored and managed
on an ongoing basis. Finally, the quarterly sales tax revenue of businesses in the district would
need to be monitored to ensure that the parking fee was not directly impacting sales.
A Case Study: The SFpark Dynamic Paid Parking System Pilot
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) conducted a SFpark Pilot Project
Evaluation (http://direct.sfpark.org/wp-
content/uploads/eval/SFpark_Pilot_Project_Evaluation.pdf), which collected an unprecedented
data set to evaluate program effectiveness. At the heart of the SFpark approach is demand-
responsive pricing, whereby the SFMTA gradually and periodically adjusted rates up or down at
meters and in garages. The goal was to achieve a minimum level of availability so that it was
easy to find a parking space most of the time on every block and that garages always have some
open spaces available. Furthermore, meeting target availability also means improving utilization
of parking so that spaces—on-street or off—would not sit unused.
The SFpark Project Evaluation compared pilot areas to control areas and the evaluation found
the following results of the pilot program:
Double parking decreased when parking availability improved
Greenhouse gas emissions decreased
Improved availability supports economic vitality
It is easier for drivers to find a parking space
Net parking revenue increased slightly
Peak period congestion decreased
Safer streets because of reduced vehicle miles traveled and less distracted
driving
Traffic speed improved
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15
Traffic volume decreased
Transit speed improved where double parking decreased
Vehicle miles traveled decreased
Analysis
Regulating parking is consistent with the City’s three-pronged approach to reduce traffic and
parking demand and to manage parking within the Downtown core. Transitioning to paid
parking downtown would also be consistent with the City’s sustainability goals and encourage
customer turn-over for retailers. It could also improve the City’s own customer service and
generate revenues to fund the PATMA (in lieu of a business tax or other funding source). In
addition, the project would address the following existing Comprehensive Plan policies, goals
and programs:
Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective
programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels
Policy T-2: Consider economic, environmental and social cost issues in local
transportation decisions
Goal T-8: Attractive, Convenient Public and Private Parking Facilities
Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and
California Avenue business districts to address long-range needs
Program T-49: Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand
management strategies for Downtown Palo Alto
Resource Impact
Implementing the staff recommendation would involve the use of current staff resources in FY
2018 for community engagement and development of a phasing and implementation plan. The
resulting implementation plan would lay out a comprehensive strategy associated with parking
initiatives in the Downtown core.
While the anticipated reorganization and scaling of parking activities necessary to implement
and maintain a paid parking program will require up-front investments, including possible
additional staffing, contractual services, and infrastructure, preliminary staff forecasts show
that net revenues will exceed expenses within a few years, and have the potential to generate a
long-term funding stream for the PATMA. Further analysis of required expenditures during the
first few years, along with cash flow financing of the required investments and anticipated
changes in operating expenses will need to be determined as the program is developed. The
City Manager anticipates conversations with the Finance Committee and the City Council on
these subjects as these issues are explored further.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16
Environmental Review
The Commission’s discussion and feedback will be provided to the Council to help develop the
parameters of a potential downtown parking management strategy in Palo Alto. If a specific
parking strategy is advanced through Council direction, the implementation will be done
through a competitive bid process and any associated contracts will need to be approved by
Council. Depending on the Council direction, the strategy may be implemented over several
phases. At that point, staff will review the implementation steps and apply the appropriate
analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, since any parking
management strategy is expected to have a positive environmental impact—through reduced
congestion, lower greenhouse gas emissions, fewer vehicle miles travelled, and noise
reductions—the associated projects will likely qualify for Categorical Exemptions.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
Intercept surveys and a series of key stakeholder meetings were conducted to obtain direct
input from the City, residents, visitors, business owners, property owners, and other key
members in Palo Alto. In-person surveys and paper surveys were distributed throughout
Downtown Palo Alto during each of DIXON’s three data collection efforts as well as distributed
online via a webpage link on the City’s website for the month of November.
To further expand the study’s data collection, the City and Dixon worked together to compose
an intercept survey that gathered information about the parking and transportation habits of
visitors, employees, employers, and members of the community. The Study’s intercept surveys
coincided with the study’s data collection, occurring on the Friday’s during Dixon’s data
collection visits to Palo Alto. Intercept surveys were collected in May, September, and October.
The efforts to capture residents in the outlying study area were met with difficulty. A lack of
residents on-street during typical work hours when they are often not home may have
contributed to this issue. Over the course of the three data collections, over 300 survey
responses were gathered.
Stakeholder meetings were held in April, July, October, November of 2016 and January 2017.
All stakeholder meetings were organized by Dixon and City staff and lead by Dixon. These
meetings included key city staff from parking, transportation, development, and finance. In
addition, community stakeholders attended, including business owners, developers, and
downtown organizations. Meetings also received contributions from Palo Alto residents and the
public. Each meeting was designed to discuss different elements of the project. Attendees were
invited to share their feedback, comments, and suggestions toward the short and long-term
parking strategies in Palo Alto. Complete meeting minutes from each stakeholder meeting can
be found in Attachment A.
In addition, as part of an effort to expand the survey population and variety of responses, an
online survey was developed that was aimed at gathering responses from individuals who may
reside in Palo Alto or have recently visited the Downtown. The online weblink created for the
survey was then posted to the City’s newly developed Downtown Parking Management Study
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 17
webpage as well as distributed to the study’s key stakeholder group. The online survey was
posted throughout the month of November and received nearly 100 responses in addition to
the 300 in-person surveys.
The staff held a City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management focus group at the Chamber
of Commerce on Tuesday, September 12, 2017. Seven participants provided feedback on
parking issues and some of the Downtown Parking Management Study recommendations. They
also shared their experiences with past parking programs implemented in the City. Participants
included representatives of Downtown offices and retail locations. A summary of this focus
group is included as Attachment C.
Similar to the focus group, staff is currently conducting a survey of downtown businesses to
collected feedback on parking issues and some of the study recommendations, and will return
with the findings to the City Council.
This Planning and Transportation Commission item was noticed to the public through the Palo
Alto Weekly newspaper on September 29, 2017 and the agenda item was published on the City
website in advance of this meeting.
Next Steps
Staff of multiple City departments will be working to assess some of the possible implications
for internal City departments in fall and winter of 2017. Staff will also meet with the Finance
Committee in October to discuss a finance plan and permit pricing and structure. The results of
these efforts would be brought back to the City Council for input and policy decisions in late
2017 or early 2018. If a decision is made to proceed with paid parking at that time, it could be
operational by the end of 2018 or at the beginning of 2019. Procurement and implementation
of a new software product for online parking permit sales and enforcement (citation)
management will be proceeding in parallel with discussions about paid parking and will offer
important improvements to customer service for existing parking programs.
Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information
Philip Kamhi, Transportation Programs
Manager
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director
(650) 329-2520 (650) 329-2679
philip.kamhi@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A - Study Downtown Parking Management Existing Conditions (PDF)
Attachment B - Study Downtown Parking Management Recommendations (PDF)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 18
Attachment C - Parking Management Focus Group Summary (DOCX)
City of Palo Alto Downtown
Parking Management Study:
Existing Conditions
Analysis
3639 Midway Drive, Suite B345
San Diego, CA 92110-5254
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 2
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5
A. Study Overview ................................................................................................................................. 5
1. Objectives...................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Project Methodology .................................................................................................................... 6
3. Prior Studies .................................................................................................................................. 7
a) Downtown Parking Occupancy Data ......................................................................................... 8
b) Downtown Parking Garage Study ............................................................................................. 8
4. Study Limitations and Considerations .......................................................................................... 8
B. Demand Management ...................................................................................................................... 9
1. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) .............................................................................. 9
2. Parking Supply ............................................................................................................................... 9
3. Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) .......................................................................................... 9
C. Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 10
II. Phase 1: Existing Conditions Analysis ................................................................................................. 12
A. Color Zone History .......................................................................................................................... 12
B. Color Zone Parking .......................................................................................................................... 13
C. Parking Inventory: City of Palo Alto Public Parking......................................................................... 13
1. Types of Parking Available .......................................................................................................... 13
2. Total Parking Supply by Zone ...................................................................................................... 14
3. Hourly On-Street Parking ............................................................................................................ 16
4. Hourly and Permit Off-Street Parking ......................................................................................... 19
D. Current Parking Policies & Regulations ........................................................................................... 20
1. Permits ........................................................................................................................................ 20
a) Employee and Employer Parking Permits - Downtown Color Zones ...................................... 20
b) Employer and Employee Parking Permits – Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program 20
c) Daily Parking Permits .............................................................................................................. 22
2. Residential Parking Program ....................................................................................................... 23
3. Valet Parking ............................................................................................................................... 23
E. City of Palo Alto: Enforcement of Color Zones ............................................................................... 23
F. Serco: RPP Zone Enforcement ........................................................................................................ 24
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 3
G. SP Plus ............................................................................................................................................. 24
III. Occupancy Summary ...................................................................................................................... 26
A. Thursday On-Street ......................................................................................................................... 26
1. Overall ......................................................................................................................................... 26
2. Blue Zone .................................................................................................................................... 29
3. Lime Zone .................................................................................................................................... 32
4. Coral Zone ................................................................................................................................... 34
5. Purple Zone ................................................................................................................................. 36
B. Thursday Off-Street......................................................................................................................... 39
1. Overall ......................................................................................................................................... 39
2. Hourly .......................................................................................................................................... 41
3. Permit .......................................................................................................................................... 43
C. Saturday On-Street ......................................................................................................................... 44
1. Overall ......................................................................................................................................... 44
2. Blue Zone .................................................................................................................................... 47
3. Lime Zone .................................................................................................................................... 49
4. Coral Zone ................................................................................................................................... 51
5. Purple Zone ................................................................................................................................. 53
D. Saturday Off-Street ......................................................................................................................... 56
1. Overall ......................................................................................................................................... 56
2. Hourly .......................................................................................................................................... 57
3. Permit .......................................................................................................................................... 60
E. Heat Maps ....................................................................................................................................... 60
F. Vehicle Overstay ............................................................................................................................. 64
G. Changing Colored Zones ................................................................................................................. 66
H. Permit Occupancy vs. Permit Sales ................................................................................................. 68
IV. Downtown Parking Intercept Survey & Stakeholder Involvement ................................................. 70
A. Parking Intercept Surveys ............................................................................................................... 70
Appendix A – Stakeholder Meeting Notes .................................................................................................. 72
A. Stakeholder Meetings ..................................................................................................................... 72
1. Stakeholder Meeting #1 .............................................................................................................. 72
2. Stakeholder Meeting #2 .............................................................................................................. 73
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 4
3. Stakeholder Meeting #3 .............................................................................................................. 74
4. Stakeholder Meeting #4 .............................................................................................................. 75
Appendix B - Survey .................................................................................................................................... 78
Appendix C -Comparable Cities Analysis ..................................................................................................... 90
5. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 90
6. Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 90
a) Paid Parking and Technology .................................................................................................. 90
b) Parking Permits ....................................................................................................................... 91
7. Cities ............................................................................................................................................ 92
a) Alameda, CA ............................................................................................................................ 92
b) Berkeley, CA ............................................................................................................................ 93
c) Monterey, CA .......................................................................................................................... 94
d) Mountain View, CA ................................................................................................................. 96
e) Pasadena, CA ........................................................................................................................... 98
f) Redwood City, CA .................................................................................................................... 99
g) San Jose, CA ........................................................................................................................... 100
h) San Mateo, CA ....................................................................................................................... 100
i) Santa Monica, CA .................................................................................................................. 102
j) San Rafael, CA ....................................................................................................................... 104
k) Sausalito, CA .......................................................................................................................... 105
l) Walnut Creek, CA .................................................................................................................. 106
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 5
I. Introduction
A. Study Overview
The City of Palo Alto retained Dixon Resources Unlimited (DIXON) through a formal Request for Proposals
(RFP) process to complete the City’s Downtown Parking Management Study. The professional services
included a comprehensive evaluation and plan for parking in Downtown Palo Alto, including the
development of an effective pricing and management strategy to maximize the utility of existing parking
and to better serve visitors, residents and employees. The Study incorporated two phases:
Phase 1: Existing Parking Conditions Analysis
Phase 2: Paid Parking Recommendations
The Study elements include the following major efforts:
• Detailed inventory of parking supply
• Review of existing parking conditions
• Comprehensive parking utilization data collection over a three-month period in May, September
and October 2016
• Analysis of existing parking demands
• Distribution of parking intercept surveys
• Series of meetings and collaboration efforts with key stakeholders
• Evaluation of current parking policies and regulations
• Analysis of current parking management
• Proposed parking management strategies for Downtown parking
Based on the above study elements, a series of parking issues were identified and several parking
improvement approaches were developed to address the existing and future parking demand of
Downtown Palo Alto.
1. Objectives
For the two phases, the City outlined three (3) key objectives for the completion and success of the Study.
These objectives were identified in the project kick-off meeting with the City and correlate with the goals
stated in the City’s RFP. The objectives are listed below:
1. To identify existing parking utilization and parking patterns including occupancy and turnover.
2. To recommend parking management strategies that maximize the supply and utilization of
Downtown parking spaces, including but not limited to zone and time restrictions.
3. To develop recommendations for a parking management strategy that may include paid parking
in Downtown Palo Alto for on- and off-street parking spaces.
It is not the intent of the Study to advocate for paid parking in Downtown Palo Alto or to determine the
exact number of spaces needed to handle peak demand periods. It is however to develop a series of viable
strategies to better equip the City in its effort to manage parking demand throughout Downtown Palo
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 6
Alto, recognizing that managing short and long-term parking effectively is good for businesses, residents,
and can help to shift long-term parkers to other modes of travel over time.
2. Project Methodology
The project methodology for this study was divided into several components. Initially, all relevant data
from the City was reviewed and summarized including current parking operations, permit figures
(residential and employee), citations and enforcement, the SP Plus valet program, current plans for a city
wayfinding and branding campaign, vendor contracts and overall City objectives for the short and long-
term. This information provided the baseline for the study’s existing conditions, data collection and
recommendations.
The Study’s core team consisted of the City’s Transportation Division staff and DIXON. This group was
focused on managing the day-to-day aspects of the project and was responsible for meeting on a bi-
weekly basis and coordinating the efforts of the stakeholder involvement. Other parties that were actively
involved included staff from the Police, Department of Administrative Services, and Finance Departments,
key stakeholders including local developers, small business owners, residents and the newly formed Palo
Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA).
A total of five (5) stakeholder meetings were held with an invited group during the Study. The Study’s first
meeting served as a project kick-off meeting to introduce the proposed Study including data collection
plans, meetings, project objectives and goals. The kick-off meeting also provided stakeholders the
opportunity to outline their concerns and issues related to parking in Palo Alto. The remaining three
stakeholder meetings consisted of a review of data collection and initial findings, stakeholder feedback
and input and an outline of proposed recommendations based on the results of the Study.
In-person and online parking intercept surveys were conducted to gather additional information and
input. The in-person surveys were conducted during each of the three data collection periods while the
online survey portion was posted on the City’s parking webpage. Survey respondents included area
employees, residents, local businesses, Palo Alto visitors and stakeholders. The surveys provided further
insight into individuals’ experiences and perceptions of parking in Palo Alto. Over 350 surveys were
collected between the online and in-person surveys.
The project methodology revolved heavily around the Study’s data collection. As mentioned previously, a
comprehensive parking utilization data collection effort was required over a three-month period. Initially
the data collection was to be over three consecutive months (i.e., May, June and July). However, based
upon the potential impacts of the summer months, the data collection schedule was adjusted with the
first collection occurring in May and the second and third collections in September and October.
The Study’s area of focus was Palo Alto’s downtown commercial core and the immediate side streets. All
immediate public on-street and off-street parking (public surface lots and garages) was included in the
Study’s data collection and analysis. It’s important to note that the immediate impacts of the commercial
core on the surrounding neighborhoods was taken into consideration. Though this Study acknowledges
that the findings and recommendations are to be considered in correlation with the RPP program in
surrounding the residential areas, the primary objective was the commercial core.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 7
Each data collection effort took place over a two-day period, one weekday, Thursday, and one weekend
day, Saturday. The days were divided into four collection time periods to capture parking occupancy and
turnover throughout the day. Data was collected between 9:00am and 8:00pm during the first data
collection effort in May and split into four periods as mentioned before, 9:00am (Morning), 12:00pm
(Afternoon), 3:00pm (Mid-afternoon) and 6:00pm (Evening). The periods lasted an estimated ninety-
minutes each. It was observed during May that the evening occupancy period was set too early, possibly
missing a later peak in occupancy that results from the downtown nightlife and dining. To account for this,
the September and October evening data collection periods were adjusted to begin one-hour later at
7:00pm and conclude between 8:30pm and 9:00pm. A brief table outlines the data collection below.
Start/End Time Data Collection Month
May September October
Morning 9:00am - ~11:00am 9:00am - ~11:00am 9:00am - ~11:00am
Afternoon 12:00pm - ~2:00pm 12:00pm - ~2:00pm 12:00pm - ~2:00pm
Mid-afternoon 3:00pm - ~5:00pm 3:00pm - ~5:00pm 3:00pm - ~5:00pm
Evening 6:00pm - ~8:00pm 7:00pm - ~9:00pm 7:00pm - ~9:00pm
Table 1: Data collection periods
As mentioned previously, September and October’s data collections were altered slightly from May’s
collection. During the May data collection, the team utilized temporary capture of license plate data for
all on and off-street hourly parking spaces to calculate both occupancy and turnover, both Thursday and
Saturday. Occupancy is the percentage of parking spaces that are full on a street or in a facility, which is
calculated by dividing the number of vehicles counted over the total number of spaces. Turnover requires
license plate captures for tracking individual cars to determine length of stay and movement between
spaces. During May, no data was collected for off-street permit spaces, neither in surface lots nor garages.
After reviewing the initial data from May and discussing the data collection methodology with the City,
the fall data collection efforts were expanded to include off-street permit spaces. Unlike the data
collection of hourly spaces, which captured turnover, only occupancy counts were completed for the
permit spaces. In addition, provided the City does not enforce on weekends, on and off-street time limits
were no longer considered. Thus, capturing turnover on the weekends was unnecessary for this Study
given that one may remain parked in a space for any amount of time. As a result, only car counts for
occupancy data were captured on Saturdays for on-street and off-street, for both hourly and permit
spaces. This data collection approach applied to both September and October.
Following each data collection effort, the data was analyzed and shared internally with City staff and
presented at subsequent stakeholder meetings. This method provided the City and stakeholder members
the opportunity to monitor the project’s status as it moved forward, and observe any trends or changes
experienced in occupancy data for Downtown.
3. Prior Studies
In speaking with the City, it was acknowledged that paid parking in the form of on-street meters did exist
in Palo Alto. In 1947, City officials installed parking meters in Downtown however, in the mid-1970s the
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 8
same meters were removed in an effort to make the shopping district around Downtown more
competitive with Stanford Shopping Center.
An inquiry into the City’s previous parking studies and evaluations was conducted to better contextualize
the history of parking in Palo Alto. Internally in 1986, the City conducted a study that examined parking,
traffic and land use conditions in the Downtown area. The results of the study altered Downtown zoning
restrictions, making the land use and zoning regulations more restrictive. Based on a review of the study’s
material, the information is not pertinent to the current study. Beyond the City’s internal study, no further
information related to past parking studies completed by any outside firms was received.
a) Downtown Parking Occupancy Data
Since 2011, the City has collected Downtown parking occupancy data annually during each spring and fall
to measure parking trends. Data collection has occurred for on-street spaces since 2011 while off-street
occupancy collection was measured from March 2014 through October 2014. The City’s occupancy results
are accessible through the City’s website.
b) Downtown Parking Garage Study
In 2012 the City awarded Sandis Engineers a contract for a Garage Feasibility and Attendant Parking Study.
The City identified five existing surface lot sites for the construction of new parking structures throughout
Downtown, including: 1) Lot D on the corner of Hamilton Avenue & Waverly Street, 2) Lots E/G on Gilman
Street between Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue, 3) Lot O on High Street between Lytton Avenue and
University Avenue, 4) Lot P on High Street between University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue, and 5) Urban
Lane between Palo Alto Medical Foundation and University Avenue Circle Mall. In addition to the five
locations identified, the project included the study of the City’s existing garage infrastructure for the
implementation of attendant parking (staffed attendant booths) to increase parking supply. As of January
2017, City Council has directed staff to move forward with the design for a new parking structure on Lot
D at the corner of Hamilton Ave & Waverly Street, currently a public surface parking lot for hourly parkers.
Phase 1 services which include an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as well as preliminary and schematic
designs is set to take place in early 2017.
In tandem with the City’s solicitation for a comprehensive parking study, the City also engaged the parking
technology consultant, Walker Parking, on projects to improve parking signage and branding utilizing Hunt
Design, as well as address the need for automatic parking guidance systems (APGS) equipment and PARCs
(Parking Access and Revenue Controls). The initial project completion date for this project is Summer
2018.
4. Study Limitations and Considerations
• Because the current make up of parking operations within the City is spread across multiple
departments, parking related material and documentation is also organized as such. Locating
information attaining to a certain parking operation (e.g., permit revenue) may require contacting
multiple departments and/or staff to retrieve accurate information about the subject.
• The disparity between weekday and weekend rules for off-street permitted spaces needed to be
taken into consideration in this study. During weekdays (Monday – Friday) the City’s designated
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 9
‘Permit Parking Only’ spaces are specific to permit holders from 8:00am – 5:00pm. After 5:00pm on
weekdays and on weekends, permit parking is available to the public.
As a result, the data collection methodology for the second and third data collection efforts was
adjusted for the Study. During the May data collection effort, data was only collected for hourly time
limit spaces and not for permitted spaces. However, for the second and third data collection rounds
the study included the permitted spaces in the form of occupancy counts. This enabled the study to
account for all occupancy and provide the study with more accurate data related to the number of
motorists parking Downtown during the weekend and evenings.
• For the purposes of the study it is important to note that there were numerous on-street construction
projects occurring throughout the downtown during the first data collection opportunity. The
construction sites were found primarily along the 200 and 300 blocks of Lytton Ave on the north study
area boundary; on the 400 block of Cowper Street; and along the 500 block of High Street.
Furthermore, private lots and garages were not considered in the study, which could become a
resource for the City in terms of evening or shared parking in the future.
B. Demand Management
Over the past two years the City has been engaged in reducing parking and traffic demand throughout
the downtown core and the surrounding neighborhoods. The effort has been channeled through three
different approaches, which include:
1. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
The TDM approach has included the formation of a Transportation Management Association,
maintenance of a free shuttle program, and the City’s further involvement with rideshare and public
transportation applications. The objective of the free shuttle program is to provide accessibility in hopes
of better supporting the surrounding communities and reducing parking demand downtown. One of the
Transportation Management Association’s objectives is to manage and market alternative modes of
transit in the Downtown areas to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, as well as collect data on modes
of travel.
2. Parking Supply
The City has also been working to address the existing issues related to parking supply for both on-street
and off-street parking throughout downtown Palo Alto. The City has identified three possible methods for
addressing this issue including garage technology, valet-assistance and satellite parking. The City’s plan
regarding garage technology is to explore ways to upgrade the capabilities of its existing garages with
revenue access controls and parking guidance systems. As part of the valet-assist pilot program, the City
entered a contract with SP+ to provide valet operations in Lot R (Alma/High garage) to maximize the
parking capacity of the garage. The program has since expanded to Lot S/L (Bryan/Lytton garage) and Lot
WC (Webster/Cowper garage).
3. Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)
The City is now more than a year into implementation of the Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)
program. The RPP program is intended to preserve parking in the residential neighborhoods for residents,
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 10
who have witnessed a significant increase in non-residential parking. The program is designed to provide
residents preferential on-street parking by implementing restrictions on non-residents. The RPP district
allows for two-hour parking only for those without permits and is enforced Monday through Friday,
8:00am – 5:00pm. Palo Alto’s program affords residents priority on-street parking within the modified
district boundaries through the sale of permits. In addition, the RPP program makes a select number of
permits available to Downtown and SOFA-area (small district located south of Forest Ave and north of
Addison Ave between Alma St and Ramona St) commuter employees to help balance the parking demand
from retail and commercial uses in each district while the City continues its efforts to create additional
parking supply and shift commuters to alternate modes.
C. Study Area
The study area is bounded by Lytton Ave to the north, Webster Ave to the east, Forest Ave to the south,
and Alma Street to the west. These boundary streets surround Palo Alto’s Downtown business district.
The retail, restaurant and other commercial land uses are found primarily along University Ave and
Hamilton Ave but are also spread among a number of the cross streets between Alma and Waverly. The
eastern-most segment of the study area is comprised of a mixture of commercial business and residential
land uses. With the implementation and initial success of the City’s Downtown Residential Preferential
Parking (RPP) Program, the Study did not expand into residential areas that border the immediate
downtown to the north, east and south. The study area is divided into four zones which are referred to
by colors: Blue Zone, Lime Zone, Coral Zone, and Purple Zone.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 11
Figure 1: City of Palo Alto Downtown parking map
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 12
II. Phase 1: Existing Conditions Analysis
A. Color Zone History
In 1997, after a two-year trial period the City Council approved the implementation of the Restrictive
Parking Zone program. This program established four color zones within the Downtown Business District
and prohibited re-parking within the same zone during the same business day. The program was
established to address repeat parkers, the practice of employees who park in on-street spaces and move
their vehicle from one parking space to another nearby when their allotted time is expired, consistently
taking up the most convenient parking in one area. Additional reasons for the program were to combat
long-term parking issues and to increase the number of available parking spaces for visitors traveling to
the downtown area.
When the color zones were initially implemented, the Coral Zone only extended to the north side of Forest
Avenue. However, the Library located on the south side of Forest Avenue was not covered by the zone.
Due to consistent abuse of the Library parking lot, in 2011 a request to extend the zone to include the lot
as well as the adjacent on-street parking spaces along Bryant Street in front of the Library was submitted.
This resolution was passed in July of 2011, and now extends the Coral Zone to include the Library lot and
adjacent on-street parking.
As part of the City’s effort to educate the community and visitors, City staff in collaboration with the Palo
Alto Chamber of Commerce formed the Parking Committee in 1994. An initial objective of the Committee
was producing an intuitive parking brochure that clearly illustrated the locations and color zones of
available parking in downtown. The brochure was also mailed to all the downtown merchants. In addition,
preceding the official color zone effective date, the City replaced all parking rule signs downtown with
signs that indicated the parking zone and associated rules. The Parking Committee also held special events
and training sessions that educated the community, employers and employees about the new parking
rules.
Over the course of the first month of the program, the City’s parking enforcement officers issued warnings
rather than citations in a customer-friendly effort to educate the public about the new restrictions. In
addition to a warning notice, officers included a copy of the parking brochure. In comparison with the
number of citations issued in the same area the previous year, the color zone implementation resulted in
2,889 fewer citations in 1995. The City confirmed a compliance rate of 97.3 percent within the first nine
months of the post warning-period.
The initial evaluation of the program and its success was dependent on multiple factors including spillover
into the surrounding neighborhoods, availability of parking spaces, availability and demand for parking
permits, as well as the general feedback from merchants, visitors and the community. Overall, the
program was deemed a success amongst most businesses and restaurant employers, citing that they felt
it had increased the number of available parking spaces.
However, in 2004, the City witnessed an increase in complaints of repeat parkers in the same zone
multiple times per day. As a response, the City implemented a series of 30-minute short-term parking
spaces identified with green curb paint. This would allow visitors to utilize these short-term spaces for
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 13
quick errands but also allow visitors to park in a 2-hour space in the same color zone later without
receiving a citation. In addition to this, the City also agreed to grant a one-time dismissal per person in the
event a complaint or appeal was received.
B. Color Zone Parking
As mentioned, the downtown business district of Palo Alto is divided into four color-coded parking zones:
Blue Zone, Lime Zone, Coral Zone, and Purple Zone. There are two- and three-hour time limits for on-
street and off-street parking within the zones. Once a motorist has parked in a zone and the time limit has
expired, the motorist must move their vehicle out of that zone. A motorist’s vehicle is not allowed to park
in the same color zone more than once within the same enforcement day. Outside of the downtown color
zones within the city’s RPP zones, vehicles can park for a maximum of two-hours. However, the thirty-
minute green parking zones, yellow commercial loading zones, white passenger loading zones and blue
disabled designated spaces are exempt from the color zone re-parking requirement. Lastly, colored zone
time limits and RPP areas are enforced between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm on weekdays, while no
parking restrictions are enforced on regular City holidays or on weekends.
C. Parking Inventory: City of Palo Alto Public Parking
1. Types of Parking Available
Downtown Palo Alto provides multiple parking choices including:
Types of Parking Available Time Limit
Time-Limit Non-Metered On-Street Parking 2-hours
Time-Limit Non-Metered Off-Street (Surface Lot) Parking 2-hours
Time-Limit Non-Metered Off-Street (Garage) Parking 3-hours
Employee Permit Parking Off-Street (Surface Lot / Garage) Daily
Daily Permit Parking Off-Street (Surface Lot / Garage) Daily
Private Off-Street Parking n/a
Table 2: Types of parking in Downtown Palo Alto
A field audit was completed to identify the number and types of parking spaces available in Downtown
for both on-street and off-street City operated parking spaces (hourly time limit and permitted). The
assessment determined that there are an estimated 1,237 on-street parking spaces, 1,372 off-street
hourly public parking spaces, 1,811 off-street permit parking spaces (surface lot and garage), for an
estimated total of 4,389 spaces within the downtown study area. The total number of spaces included
specialized spaces such as disabled spaces, motorcycle spaces, electric vehicle charging spaces, and
loading zones. Figure 2 shows the parking space percentage breakdown by space type while Figure 3
shows the total parking supply on and off-street.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 14
2. Total Parking Supply by Zone
Color Zone On-Street Off-Street – Garage Off-Street Surface Lot Total
Blue Zone 420 589 143 1152
Lime Zone 241 688 274 1203
Coral Zone 273 755 166 1194
Purple Zone 303 345 192 840
Table 3: Total parking supply on-street, off-street garage / surface lot) by color zone
Table 4 demonstrates the total number of parking spaces for each color zone within the study area. The
Blue Zone, because of the prevalent number of residential streets in the zone, has a greater number of
on-street parking spaces compared to the other three zones. The Purple Zone consists of the least amount
of overall parking when compared to the other zones. It should be noted that the 800 High Garage resides
outside the immediate study area, south of Forest Ave on High St., however is still considered part of the
Purple Zone.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 15
More than one-third (41%) of the parking supply in downtown Palo Alto is comprised of permit parking,
either in the surface lots or in the garages. The remaining 59% is a combination of on and off-street hourly
parking. An estimated 72% of parking Downtown is off-street parking, whether it be garage hourly and
permit parking or surface lot hourly and permit parking.
831
1546
541
265
1237
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Garage - Hourly Garage - Permit Surface Lot-
Hourly
Surface Lot -
Permit
On-street - Hourly
Total Parking Supply On and Off-Street
Figure 3: City of Palo Alto Downtown parking total parking supply on and off-street.
Figure 2: City of Palo Alto Downtown parking space percentage breakdown by space type
28%
31%
41%
Percentage of Spaces in Study Area
On-Street - Hourly Off-Street - Hourly Off-Street - Permit
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 16
3. Hourly On-Street Parking
Tables 1 through 4 list the inventory of on-street parking spaces by street, block face number and type of
parking. This is two-hour time limit parking and consists of all on-street spaces within the four-color zones.
As seen in Table 1 and Table 2, on-street parking comprises 28% of the public parking available in
Downtown Palo Alto.
Blue Zone
Street/Block Space
Count
Loading
Zone Motorcycle TOTAL
Cowper St.
400 23 2 25
500 23 23
600 30 30
Webster St.
400 15
500 23 1 24
600 26 26
Kipling St.
400 25 25
Tasso St.
400 14 14
Lytton Ave.
400 24 24
500 6 6
University Ave.
400 35 2 6 43
500 35 2 8 45
Hamilton Ave.
400 38 38
500 35 35
Forest Ave.
400 26 26
500 21 21
Table 4: Downtown on-street parking inventory, Blue Zone
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 17
Lime Zone
Street/Block Space
Count
Loading
Zone Motorcycle TOTAL
Waverley St.
400 30 30
500 31 1 32
600 23 23
Florence St.
400 13 2 15
Gilman St.
600 11 11
Lytton Ave.
300 32 32
University Ave.
300 37 7 44
Hamilton Ave.
300 25 25
Forest Ave.
300 29 29
Coral Zone
Street/Block Space
Count
Loading
Zone Motorcycle TOTAL
Bryant St.
400 14 2 16
500 34 2 1 37
600 22 1 23
Ramona St.
400 28 2 30
500 27 4 31
600 21 1 22
Lytton St.
200 24 24
University Ave.
200 34 2 5 41
Hamilton Ave.
200 24 2 26
Forest Ave.
200 23 23
Table 5: Downtown on-street inventory, Lime Zone
Table 6: Downtown on-street inventory, Coral Zone
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 18
Purple Zone
Street/Block
Space
Count
Loading
Zone Motorcycle TOTAL
Emerson St.
400 31 1 32
500 28 1 29
600 28 28
High St.
400 19 2 21
500 21 2 23
600 27
Alma St.
400 0 0
500 11 11
600 15 1 16
Lytton Ave.
100 25 1 26
University Ave.
100 22 2 3 24
Hamilton Av.
100 30 2 32
Forest Ave.
100 34 34
Table 7: Downtown on-street inventory, Purple Zone
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 19
4. Hourly and Permit Off-Street Parking
Hourly and Permit Off-Street Parking
Surface Lot/Garage Space Counts
Permit Hourly Total
Garages
Garage B (Private garage with city hourly use) 0 63 63
Garage CC (Civic Center) 509 183 692
Garage CW (Cowper Webster) 388 201 589
Garage Q (Private garage with city permit use) 134 0 134
Garage R (Alma/High) 134 77 211
Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 381 307 688
Surface Lots
Lot A 0 68 68
Lot C 27 25 52
Lot D 0 86 86
Lot E 34 0 34
Lot F 0 46 46
Lot G 53 0 53
Lot H 0 91 91
Lot K 43 12 55
Lot N 0 46 46
Lot O 0 78 78
Lot P 0 51 51
Lot T 24 28 52
Lot X 31 0 31
Total Spaces 1811 1372 3183
There are a total of four off-street locations, one surface lot and three garages that are permit only lots.
There are also eight locations that are hourly parking only, one garage and seven surface lots. It should be
noted that Garage B is a private garage that supplies city parking on an hourly basis. The remaining lots
and garages are a mixture of hourly and permit parking – these permit locations allow both daily and
employee permits.
Table 8: Downtown off-street parking, hourly and permit spaces
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 20
D. Current Parking Policies & Regulations
1. Permits
a) Employee and Employer Parking Permits - Downtown Color Zones
Palo Alto offers permit parking for employers and employees of businesses located in the Downtown Color
Zones. The Color Zones are bounded by Alma Street to the west, Webster Street to the east, Forest Avenue
to the South, and Lytton Avenue to the north. Permits may be purchased for all ten parking garages and
surface lots:
Garage CC (Civic Center) Lot E (Gilman / Bryant)
Garage R (High / Alma South) Lot G (Gilman / Waverly)
Garage Q (Private garage with city permit use) Lot K (Lytton / Waverly)
Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) Lot F (Lytton / Kipling Lot)
Garage CW (Cowper Webster) Lot X (Sheraton) (reduced rate)
Table 9: Eligible lots and garages with valid permit
As of October 2016, the Wait List figures for permits at Downtown permit lot locations were as follows:
Garage CC (Civic Center) 105 Lot E (Gilman / Bryant) 17 Garage R (High / Alma South) 50 Lot G (Gilman / Waverly)
Garage Q (Private garage with city permit
use) 27 Lot K (Lytton / Waverly) 14
Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 59 Lot F (Lytton / Kipling Lot) 14
Garage CW (Cowper Webster) 60 Lot X (Sheraton) (reduced rate) 8
Table 10: Permit Wait List as of October 2016
Employee and employer Downtown off-street parking permits may be purchased for $466.00 per year,
$146.50 per quarter, or for $17.50 per day.
b) Employer and Employee Parking Permits – Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program
Additional on-street parking permits are available for downtown employees and employers through the
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program within select RPP zones. Through the
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program, employers and employees are required to
obtain a permit to park on-street for over two hours between 8:00am and 5:00pm, Monday through
Friday. Employees may select a permit in any zone that is available. Employees are not limited to selecting
the zone nearest to their workplace. However, one must park in their selected zone. The permit is not
valid in any other zone. The RPP Program, as it pertains to residents, is discussed in more detail in the
Residential Parking Program section of this report. Phase 2 of the RPP program, which went into effect on
April 1, 2016, required the purchase of Phase 2 permits by Phase 1 permit holders. Employers and
employees who had Phase 1 permits were able to use their online account to purchase Phase 2 permits
as of April 1, 2016. Any new employers must create an account and provide proof of business and their
business registration number. Employees purchasing a permit for the first time need to upload a
photocopy of a photo ID and provide proof of their employment location. Permits are sold online only on
the City’s parking website, which is managed by SP+.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 21
Employees can purchase a Phase 2 parking permit decal for $466.00 per year that is assigned to one
vehicle only. Employees will purchase zone specific permits to park in certain parking zones. Employees
may select a permit in any zone that is available. Employees are not limited to selecting the zone nearest
to their workplace. There are ten different zones designated for on-street employee and employer parking
permits. Each permit is eligible for one zone, and employees or employers may select any available zone.
The zone boundaries are outlined below in Figure 5. Employees may park in the zone for which their
permit is valid. If a Zone 2 permit is purchased, the employee is limited to parking within the bounds of
Zone 2.
Employers have the option to purchase a transferable hangtag for $466.00 per year which can be shared
between shift workers and only applies to RPP Business Permits. Per Chapter 4.60 of the Palo Alto
Municipal code, all fixed-location business within the City of Palo Alto must be registered with the Business
Registry by March 31 each year. Registration requires a flat fee of $51.00. However, as of January 2016,
Chapter 4.60 was amended to exclude small businesses and non-profits without a full-time owner, as well
as religious organizations, from the Palo Alto Business Registry requirements.
If an employee has an annual income equal to or less than $50,000.00 or with a pre-tax hourly wage equal
to or less than twice the minimum wage, they qualify for a reduced-price permit of $100.00 per year.
These permits are valid within one of the ten designated RPP on-street zones mentioned earlier. RPP
employee permits are valid only on-street and are not recognized in the City’s garages or off-street surface
parking lots.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 22
c) Daily Parking Permits
One-day permits may be purchased for visitors who wish to park Downtown for more than the allotted
color zone time limits. Daily parking permits are valid in all off-street parking garages and surface lots in
all spaces. There are no daily visitor permits available for on-street parking spaces. To purchase a daily
permit, visitors may go to the first floor of the Bryant Street and Cowper/Webster parking garages and
make payment at the Digital Luke II pay station. It should be noted that for the extent of the study (through
October 2016), the pay stations at both parking garages have been inoperable. The pay stations both have
notices informing individuals to visit the Palo Alto City Hall to purchase a daily permit.
Figure 4: Downtown RPP Employee Parking Zones Program
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 23
2. Residential Parking Program
Palo Alto recently implemented a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program. The purpose of the
program is limit the number of long-term parkers in the neighborhoods close to downtown during
business hours. The RPP program requires residents within the RPP District (see Figure 4) to have a permit
to park for over two hours on-street. The permit is required between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm,
Monday through Friday. Parameters of the program are currently being reevaluated for possible
adjustments at the end of Phase 2 on March 31, 2017.
The RPP program has been introduced in two phases. During Phase 1 the City sold roughly 1,600 annual
permits to employees and businesses in addition to resident’s permits (total number of resident permits
not provided). Phase 2 of the RPP program expanded the boundaries to include additional streets who
petitioned to be included in the program, and to include optional eligibility areas for streets that may wish
to opt in in the future. As of December 22, 2016, a total of 4,854 Resident Annual permits and 825 Resident
One-day Scratcher permits had been sold while a total of 1,335 Employee Annual permits were sold. A
combined 164 One- and Five-day Employee Scratcher permits were sold through the same date in
December. The Phase 2 zone by zone map outlined above in Figure 4.
Downtown residents must apply online to receive their permit. No more than four permits in the form of
stickers (one free) and two transferable hangtag permits may be granted per residential unit. The first
permit is free, but each additional permit costs $50.00. Residents may have up to 50 daily visitors permits
per year, at a cost of $5.00 each. Residents creating new accounts are required to show proof of residency.
3. Valet Parking
The City of Palo Alto also offers valet parking to improve off-street parking utilization and efficiency. SP+
is contracted by the City to manage the valet parking operations. The Lot R valet program is staffed by
two valet attendant staffers, stationed at the third floor of the garage beginning at 9:00am on weekdays.
Valet services are provided to motorists with valid permits issued by the City in the form of a sticker on
the rear-bumper of the vehicle. Permits are controlled by the City and are restricted to specific locations.
When the permit spaces in the garage are close to full, the attendants direct permit parkers to park in the
drive aisles of the garage in a manner that still allows vehicles to enter and exit. The motorists provide
their key to the attendant, and the attendant may move the vehicle during the day to accommodate other
vehicles. The motorist receives their key back from the attendant when they return to the garage. Valet
parking is located on the third floor and begins at 9:00am until 7:00pm on weekdays.
E. City of Palo Alto: Enforcement of Color Zones
To enforce the color zones, several enforcement officers are required to manually enter each license plate
into a handheld citation device. Initially parking enforcement was housed within the Police Department
and consisted of seven Parking Enforcement Officers, a Parking Enforcement Lead, and a supervising
Police Sergeant. Around 2006 the City altered the classification of the officers to Community Service
Officers (CSOs). Seven full-time officers and one non-sworn full-time management position now compose
the parking enforcement division of the Police Department, which is funded by the General Fund. The
Police Department has been approved to hire an additional CSO in early 2017, making a total of eight full-
time officers. Typically, one officer is assigned to each color zone and on any given day officers may
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 24
manually enter between 750 to 1000 license plates. It should be noted that these figures are consistent
with DIXON’s data collection occupancy figures for each zone during the data collection periods.
F. Serco: RPP Zone Enforcement
The City of Palo Alto retained Serco in February of 2014 to provide enforcement services for the
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program. Serco was responsible for enforcing Phase 1
(6 months), and is currently enforcing Phase 2 (12-months) of the RPP Program. During Phase 1, Serco’s
enforcement officers issued approximately 1,768 citations in the RPP zones. Of these 1,768 citations, 506
citations were processed through first-level appeals, handled by the City Clerks office. In 2016, through
roughly nine-months of Phase 2, beginning in March, Serco’s enforcement officers had issued
approximately 4,153 citations in the RPP zones. Of the Phase 2 citations, 524 went through first-level
reviews.
As part of measuring program performance, Serco provides patrol routes and frequency schedules. The
City must approve any changes to schedules, routes, or operations. Parking Enforcement Officers are also
required to submit daily reports with any issues such as missing signs, accidents, or safety hazards.
G. SP Plus
In April 2015, the Palo Alto City Council approved a three-year contract with SP+ to host a new parking
website with an online permit sales portal for the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)
District. As part of the contract, T2 Systems was retained as a subcontractor for online permit sales and
fulfillment. SP Plus was responsible for the building the payment portal and training City staff how to use
the back-end interface. In addition, SP Plus has been contracted to provide ongoing services in the form
of a valet-assist program for specific facilities Downtown.
SP Plus utilizes T2’s FLEX system as the online parking permit management system, which was required to
track online permit sales for the RPP District. The FLEX system is functional for both residents and
employees to register, validate, pay, and renew permits. Permits are available on an annual, quarterly,
monthly, weekly, or daily basis. Users can create personalized accounts to manage their permits, and
corporate accounts allow businesses to pay for employee permits.
Through a link provided on the City of Palo Alto Parking website, residents, employers and employees can
create a user account. As part of this process, users need to provide proof of residence or work addresses
within the Downtown RPP program area. Depending on whether one is a resident or employee. Residents
may upload a photo ID with address or a utility bill or lease. Employers must upload documentation of
employer registration with the Palo Alto Business Registry while employees must upload a recent pay stub
verifying employment address (and income verification if applying for a reduced-price permit). Applicants
may also log back in to confirm whether their account has been approved for a permit.
Permits are mailed by SP Plus within 48 hours of purchase, and temporary permits can be printed out
through the system immediately. SP Plus is also responsible for replacement permits and for providing
telephone customer service support for the City between the hours of 5:00am and 5:00pm, Mondays
through Fridays, as well as after-hour and weekend support for emergencies.
The types of permits currently sold through the system are as follows:
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 25
• Resident Permits (currently there is not a waitlist for residents to attain a RPP permit)
• Resident Annual Guest Permits
• Resident Daily Visitor Permits
• RPP – Employer / Employee Permits
• RPP - Low-Income Employee Permits
The FLEX system also can link accounts in the case that a driver has multiple addresses or vehicles. A
complete audit trail of all accounts, transactions, and refunds is managed through the system, and the
contract requires that the system reports on all permit sales to the City. SP Plus is responsible for hosting
the website for the duration of the project. All revenue is collected by the City and is not accessible to SP
Plus.
The valet-assist program is currently operated at Garage R (High/Alma South), Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton)
and Garage WC (Webster/Cowper). Valet services are provided to motorists with valid permits issued by
the City in the form of a sticker on the rear-bumper of the vehicle. Permits are controlled by the City and
restricted to specific locations. SP Plus operates Monday through Friday from 9:00am to 7:00pm. Each lot
is staffed by two SP Plus employees. The operator has explained that the attendants will continue to park
vehicles (including double-parking or stacking of vehicles) in each lot until they reach a point that no
further cars will fit. Per SP Plus however this situation has not yet occurred and on average, attendants
park between 5 and 20 cars per day, depending on the lot. Lot R (Alma/High) consistently parks a greater
number of vehicles than Lot SL.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 26
III. Occupancy Summary
The Study’s three-month data collection effort results yielded significant occupancy figures for the
Downtown study area. The combined average occupancy in the four-Color Zones for May, September and
October is displayed below (Figure 5). The figure is split up by color zone, day of data collection, Thursday
or Saturday, and the type of parking, hourly or permit. On Thursday, Color Zones experienced average
hourly occupancy between approximately 70% to 80% while average permit occupancy varied from 55%
to 75%. On Saturdays, a larger range was observed for average hourly occupancy with figures ranging
from 61% to 91%. Permit occupancy figures on Saturday were far lower, ranging from 7% to 26% across
the Color Zones.
A. Thursday On-Street
1. Overall
Over a three-month data collection period in May, September and October of 2016, the average on-street
occupancy rates on Thursdays throughout the study area were consistent. As shown below in Figure 5,
the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods were generally the highest occupancy times, with
occupancy rates reaching over the industry standard of 80% maximum. It should be noted, once
Figure 5: Combined On- and Off-Street Occupancy Averages (May, September and October)
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 27
occupancy reaches 85% and above, vehicle turnover appears to be minimal and available spaces decrease.
As a result, vehicles searching for spaces and circling street blocks increases causing further congestion.
Though block faces with an occupancy under 80% are considered optimal, the Study has highlighted these
as points of concern.
Below, Figure 6 examines the Thursday on-street occupancy based on the four color zones for the month
of May. The Blue Zone hovered around 60-62% occupancy throughout the day, which was significantly
lower than the other three color zones. The Lime and Coral Zones were identical in occupancy throughout
the day, and the occupancy rates gradually increased until the evening where they peaked at 98%. While
the Lime and Coral Zones were at or above 80% occupancy during the Mid-Afternoon and Evening, the
Blue and Purple Zones on the periphery still had adequate levels of occupancy.
62%
71%73%
87%
56%
84%
71%
84%
74%
83%
75%
93%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Study Area Average On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day on
Thursday by Month
May September October
Figure 6: Study Area Average On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 28
Like May’s figures, the lowest occupancy rates observed in all four colored zones in September on
Thursday were during the Morning data collection period (Figure 7). Peak occupancy levels were observed
during the Afternoon and Evening, where many the zones were above the 80% threshold.
66%
81%77%
68%
55%
89%
68%
86%
55%
89%
68%
86%
49%
78%71%
94%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
September Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone
Comparison
Blue Lime Coral Purple
Figure 8: September Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison
60%62%60%62%
70%74%
80%
98%
70%74%
80%
98%
48%
75%71%
91%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
May Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day
Color Zone Comparison
Blue Lime Coral Purple
Figure 7: May On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 29
October’s on-street occupancy for Thursday, displayed above, had the highest occupancy rates during
each time of day in the Lime and Coral Zones. In the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon and Evening data collection
periods, these two-color zones were above the occupancy threshold and therefore considered to be full.
During the Evening, all four-color zones were above the 80% occupancy threshold.
The following occupancy tables show the observed percent occupancy broken down by block face during
each data collection period. The cells highlighted in red are those that are at or above 80% occupancy,
indicating that they are at capacity by parking industry standards—these are the areas of primary concern.
It is important to note that the few cells with missing occupancy percentages is due to a gap in data
collection, and therefore these were not calculated as part of the overall zone occupancy averages.
Additionally, blocks with an occupancy percentage over 100% were due to double-parking, most often
from construction vehicles or delivery trucks.
2. Blue Zone
Table 1 shows the on-street occupancy by block face within the Blue Zone on Thursday, May 19, 2016. At
the bottom, the average zone occupancy for each time period is calculated. During this round of data
collection, none of the averages were above 80% occupancy, indicating that there was a sufficient parking
available in the Blue Zone that Thursday throughout the day.
77%83%
71%
81%79%
87%83%
100%
79%
87%83%
100%
62%
75%
62%
90%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
October Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day
Color Zone Comparison
Blue Lime Coral Purple
Figure 9: October Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 30
Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/19/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
400 COWPER 25 40% 56% 40%
400 FOREST 26 31% 77% 73%
400 HAMILTON 38 47% 76% 42% 68%
400 KIPLING 25 88% 24% 80% 44%
400 LYTTON 24 50% 63% 4% 25%
400 TASSO 14 79% 71% 50% 50%
400 UNIVERSITY 37 59% 43% 78% 89%
400 WEBSTER 15 73% 47% 53% 80%
500 COWPER 23 48% 57% 39% 87%
500 FOREST 21 33% 33% 67%
500 HAMILTON 35 66% 69% 54% 54%
500 LYTTON 6 67% 83% 100% 50%
500 UNIVERSITY 37 97% 70% 38% 84%
500 WEBSTER 24 88% 88% 71% 79%
600 COWPER 30 23% 57% 60% 13%
600 WEBSTER 26 65% 77% 88% 104%
Average: 60% 62% 60% 62%
Table 11: Blue Zone on-street occupancy, May (Thursday)
During the data collection round on Thursday in September, the average Blue Zone occupancy during the
Afternoon was slightly above the occupancy threshold at 81%. The 500 block of University Avenue was
consistently considered at capacity throughout all four data collection times.
Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/8/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
400 COWPER 25 68% 76% 56% 76%
400 FOREST 26 38% 81% 96% 31%
400 HAMILTON 38 68% 68% 53% 82%
400 KIPLING 25 96% 84% 96% 100%
400 LYTTON 24 21% 33% 104% 42%
400 TASSO 14 114% 86% 79% 79%
400 UNIVERSITY 37 89% 89% 46% 95%
400 WEBSTER 15 100% 107% 80% 67%
500 COWPER 23 61% 65% 91%
500 FOREST 21 38% 81% 86% 38%
500 HAMILTON 35 37% 69% 63% 63%
500 LYTTON 6 100% 33%
500 UNIVERSITY 37 84% 89% 111% 111%
500 WEBSTER 24 71% 96% 67% 92%
600 COWPER 30 40% 57% 67% 43%
600 WEBSTER 26 65% 108% 81% 54%
Average: 66% 81% 77% 68%
Table 1: 2Blue Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday)
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 31
Table 12 displays the occupancy figures observed during the Thursday data collection round in October.
Like the other two months, the highest average occupancy rate occurred during the Afternoon. The
Evening collection period also averaged at above 80% occupancy in October. There is a dip in occupancy
observed before the Evening during the Mid-Afternoon, which is consistent with what was observed in
the other two months as well.
Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/6/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
400 COWPER 25 56% 68% 76% 76%
400 FOREST 26 85% 92% 85% 96%
400 HAMILTON 38 68% 76% 45% 95%
400 KIPLING 25 92% 92% 96% 100%
400 LYTTON 24 58% 83% 67% 79%
400 TASSO 14 79% 107% 43% 79%
400 UNIVERSITY 37 92% 89% 92% 84%
400 WEBSTER 15 100% 107% 107% 100%
500 COWPER 23 74% 87% 39% 104%
500 FOREST 21 62% 76% 86% 52%
500 HAMILTON 35 71% 71% 57% 46%
500 LYTTON 6 83% 100% 83% 67%
500 UNIVERSITY 37 68% 81% 62% 97%
500 WEBSTER 24 92% 92% 83% 88%
600 COWPER 30 57% 43% 50% 67%
600 WEBSTER 26 92% 65% 69% 62%
Average: 77% 83% 71% 81%
Table 13: Blue Zone, on-street occupancy, October (Thursday)
Below in Figure 9, the average on-street occupancy within the Blue Zone is compared by month. During
the Morning, Afternoon, and Evening data collection periods, the month of October had the highest
average occupancy rates in the Blue Zone. The occupancy rates in May were consistently lower than the
other two months throughout the day. In all three months, the highest occupancy rates were observed
during the Afternoon.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 32
3. Lime Zone
The Lime Zone is more centrally located in Downtown Palo Alto compared with the Blue Zone, which could
explain why more of the occupancy averages are above the 80% threshold. During the May data collection
round on Thursday, the Lime Zone averaged above the threshold during the Afternoon and Evening
periods. All blocks except the 300 block of Forest were at capacity during those times. Conversely, only
one or two blocks were highlighted as above the threshold during the Morning and Mid-Afternoon
collection periods in May.
Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/19/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
300 FOREST 29 38% 52% 41% 52%
300 HAMILTON 25 48% 88% 76% 88%
300 LYTTON 32 44% 94% 72% 106%
300 UNIVERSITY 37 95% 89% 100% 100%
400 FLORENCE 15 67% 87% 73% 93%
400 WAVERLEY 30 77% 100% 73% 107%
500 WAVERLEY 32 91% 84% 78% 97%
600 GILMAN 11 64% 91% 73% 82%
600 WAVERLEY 23 48% 96% 43% 83%
Average: 63% 87% 70% 90%
Table 14: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, May (Thursday)
60%62%60%62%66%
81%77%
68%
77%
83%
71%
81%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Average Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month on Thursday
May (5/19/2016)September (9/8/2016)October (10/6/2016)
Figure 10: Average Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month on Thursday
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 33
During the Thursday data collection in the month of September, the highest occupancy averages were
also during the Afternoon and Evening. The average Morning occupancy rate was only at 52% occupancy,
which was the lowest out of the four time periods.
Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/8/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
300 FOREST 29 79% 52% 100% 100%
300 HAMILTON 25 92% 68% 88%
300 LYTTON 32 19% 88% 38% 91%
300 UNIVERSITY 37 76% 97% 78% 108%
400 FLORENCE 15 27% 87% 73% 67%
400 WAVERLEY 30 50% 97% 90% 103%
500 WAVERLEY 32 53% 72% 78% 66%
600 GILMAN 11 73% 64% 73%
600 WAVERLEY 23 61% 91% 52% 91%
Average: 52% 83% 71% 87%
Table 15: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday)
Just as in May and September, the October on-street occupancy on Thursday was highest during the
Afternoon and Evening. The October data collection round had the highest average Morning occupancy
rates in the Lime Zone out of the three months.
Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/6/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
300 FOREST 29 79% 86% 76% 93%
300 HAMILTON 25 64% 72% 80% 92%
300 LYTTON 32 44% 72% 31% 109%
300 UNIVERSITY 37 86% 92% 89% 95%
400 FLORENCE 15 67% 73% 60% 60%
400 WAVERLEY 30 97% 107% 77% 110%
500 WAVERLEY 32 69% 88% 78% 94%
600 GILMAN 11 36% 73% 55% 82%
600 WAVERLEY 23 87% 87% 74% 83%
Average: 70% 83% 69% 91%
Table 16: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday)
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 34
On Average the Lime Zone had the highest occupancy during each month during the Evening data
collection period, and the lowest occupancy during the Morning. At least two of the occupancy levels
reach over the 80% threshold in the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening data collection periods.
4. Coral Zone
During the May data collection, the Coral Zone was just 2% away from full capacity during the Evening on
average, with multiple of the blocks at or above 100% occupancy. The Mid-Afternoon also experienced
high occupancy rates at an average of 80% occupancy. During the Morning data collection period, only
three blocks were above the threshold, one of them being the 200 block of University Avenue, which was
full throughout the day.
70%74%
80%
98%
55%
89%
68%
86%
79%
87%83%
100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Average Thursday Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month
May (5/19/2016)September (9/8/2016)October (10/6/2016)
Figure 11: Average Thursday Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 35
Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/19/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
200 FOREST 23 87% 78% 96% 87%
200 HAMILTON 26 85% 58% 81% 92%
200 LYTTON 24 58% 75% 100% 113%
200 UNIVERSITY 36 89% 97% 100% 114%
400 BRYANT 16 75% 69% 75% 88%
400 RAMONA 30 27% 67% 53% 93%
500 BRYANT 36 75% 81% 83% 100%
500 RAMONA 31 74% 90% 87% 113%
600 BRYANT 22 77% 100% 82% 95%
600 RAMONA 22 55% 23% 45% 82%
Average: 70% 74% 80% 98%
Table 17: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, May (Thursday)
In September, the two highest occupancy times in the Coral Zone were the Afternoon and Evening data
collection periods. Unlike in May, there was a significant dip in occupancy rates during the Mid-Afternoon
before picking up again in the Evening.
Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/8/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
200 FOREST 23 30% 61% 52% 48%
200 HAMILTON 26 58% 92% 42% 85%
200 LYTTON 24 21% 108% 75% 108%
200 UNIVERSITY 36 47% 86% 81% 89%
400 BRYANT 16 88% 94% 75% 94%
400 RAMONA 30 43% 100% 73% 100%
500 BRYANT 36 72% 81% 78% 92%
500 RAMONA 31 84% 97% 90% 94%
600 BRYANT 22 77% 95% 55% 68%
600 RAMONA 22 27% 77% 59% 86%
Average: 55% 89% 68% 86%
Table 18: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday)
The October data collection round in the Coral Zone revealed in the highest average occupancy rates out
of the three months. The Evening data collection period even had an overall average of 100% occupancy,
with five of the blocks observed as over 100% occupancy.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 36
Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/6/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
200 FOREST 23 83% 78% 70% 96%
200 HAMILTON 26 81% 69% 85% 104%
200 LYTTON 24 67% 108% 67% 117%
200 UNIVERSITY 36 72% 100% 100% 94%
400 BRYANT 16 100% 100% 88% 106%
400 RAMONA 30 57% 70% 67% 93%
500 BRYANT 36 83% 83% 83% 103%
500 RAMONA 31 84% 100% 100% 100%
600 BRYANT 22 100% 95% 109% 82%
600 RAMONA 22 64% 73% 64% 105%
Average: 79% 88% 83% 100%
Table 19: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, October (Thursday)
When looking at the three months’ data side by side in Figure 7, the Afternoon and Evening data collection
periods had the highest average occupancy rates. Like the other color zones, the Morning data collection
period had the lowest occupancy rates.
5. Purple Zone
With a more peripheral location in Downtown, the Purple Zone experienced lower average occupancy
rates throughout the day in comparison with the other color zones. During the May data collection round,
70%74%
80%
98%
55%
89%
68%
86%
79%
87%83%
100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Average Thursday Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month
May (5/19/2016)September (9/8/2016)October (10/6/2016)
Figure 12: Average Thursday Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 37
the highest average occupancy rate was in the Evening, with 91% occupancy. The only streets full
throughout the day were the Emerson and High Streets.
Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/19/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
100 FOREST 34 21% 100% 103% 103%
100 HAMILTON 32 63% 72% 78% 88%
100 LYTTON 26 15% 38% 50% 104%
100 UNIVERSITY 24 42% 63% 54% 63%
400 EMERSON 32 28% 59% 69% 69%
400 HIGH 21 29% 90% 67% 110%
500 ALMA 11 0% 55% 55% 73%
500 EMERSON 29 90% 93% 93% 103%
500 HIGH 23 30% 65% 43% 96%
600 ALMA 16 81% 88% 69% 94%
600 EMERSON 28 93% 89% 93% 96%
600 HIGH 27 81% 85% 81% 100%
Average: 48% 75% 71% 91%
Table 20: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, May (Thursday)
During the Evening data collection round in September, all the blocks were above the 80% occupancy
threshold. However, there were sufficient levels of available parking on many blocks during the other
three data collection periods earlier in the day.
Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/8/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
100 FOREST 34 47% 44% 47% 53%
100 HAMILTON 32 66% 56% 59% 84%
100 LYTTON 26 35% 88% 77% 104%
100 UNIVERSITY 24 46% 79% 83% 96%
400 EMERSON 32 41% 91% 81% 88%
400 HIGH 21 33% 57% 62% 105%
500 ALMA 11 36% 55% 36% 100%
500 EMERSON 29 100% 93% 90% 100%
500 HIGH 23 52% 113% 78% 109%
600 ALMA 16 38% 81% 94%
600 EMERSON 28 46% 100% 96% 104%
600 HIGH 27 52% 78% 74% 96%
Average: 49% 78% 71% 94%
Table 21: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday)
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 38
Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/6/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
100 FOREST 34 88% 88% 76% 94%
100 HAMILTON 32 50% 72% 44% 84%
100 LYTTON 26 69% 73% 50% 92%
100 UNIVERSITY 24 54% 58% 67% 67%
400 EMERSON 32 44% 91% 69% 81%
400 HIGH 21 33% 52% 62% 90%
500 ALMA 11 64% 100% 36% 91%
500 EMERSON 29 86% 83% 97% 103%
500 HIGH 23 35% 17% 17% 104%
600 ALMA 16 56% 81% 75% 81%
600 EMERSON 28 89% 104% 93% 111%
600 HIGH 27 70% 78% 63% 78%
Average: 62% 75% 62% 90%
Table 22: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, October (Thursday)
The occupancy averages were consistent throughout the three months in the Purple Zone, with the
occupancy rates peaking during the Evening data collection periods.
48%
75%71%
91%
49%
78%
71%
94%
62%
75%
62%
90%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Average Thursday Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month
May (5/19/2016)September (9/8/2016)October (10/6/2016)
Figure 13: Average Thursday Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 39
B. Thursday Off-Street
1. Overall
During May, September, and October, occupancy rates were recorded for the hourly spaces in the off-
street locations listed in the following tables. After a review of the May data collection round, it was
decided to collect occupancy rates for the off-street permit spaces during the September and October
data collection rounds for a more comprehensive understanding of parking occupancy in Downtown Palo
Alto.
The combined average occupancy (May, September and October) for off-street garages and surface lots
including hourly and permit spaces for Thursday’s data collection are displayed in Figure 13 below.
Average permit occupancy for the facility is identified by the letter ‘P’ while average hourly occupancy is
identified by the letter ‘H.’ The differentiation in color is based on the average occupancy percentage.
Locations displayed in green observed an average occupancy percentage of below 70% over the three-
month data collection period. Locations colored yellow had an average occupancy between 70% and 80%
while the locations in red had occupancy averages of 80% and above.
Figure 14: Combined average Thursday occupancy (May, September and October) for off-street garage and surface lot
locations
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 40
Figure 14 below shows the average Thursday off-street occupancy for the hourly spaces collected in each
of the three months. The occupancy averages were consistent between the three months, with the
highest occupancy rates occurring during the Afternoon and Evening collection times. Additionally, the
Mid-Afternoon was above the 80% occupancy threshold in September only.
Next in Figure 15, the average Thursday off-street occupancy is compared for the permitted spaces in
September and October. Unlike the high occupancy rates in the off-street hourly spaces, the permitted
spaces were only observed over the 80% occupancy threshold during the Afternoon in September. The
other dates and times were all averaging at below 80%.
54%
94%
74%
92%
46%
91%
83%
91%
52%
85%
73%
92%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Study Area Average Off-Street Hourly Occupancy by Time of Day on
Thursday by Month
May September October
Figure 15: Study Area Average Off-Street Hourly Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 41
2. Hourly
During the May data collection round, on Thursday the off-street hourly spaces in almost every garage
and surface lot were essentially full during the Afternoon and Evening. The hourly spaces in Garage R, Lot
C, and Lot N were above 80% occupancy throughout the day.
Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 5/19/2016
Location Hourly Inventory
Mornin
g
Afternoo
n
Mid-
Afternoon
Evenin
g
Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 60% 89% 74% 90%
Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 40% 101% 73% 91%
Garage R (High/Alma) 77 81% 99% 86% 103%
Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 26% 99% 65% 84%
Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 38% 95% 73% 65%
Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 38% 96% 90% 100%
Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 84% 96% 88% 96%
Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 37% 87% 65% 97%
Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 39% 96% 67% 100%
Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 53% 91% 42% 99%
Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 67% 100% 42% 75%
Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 91% 96% 93% 96%
Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 50% 96% 91% 100%
Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 45% 88% 90% 98%
Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 57% 89% 68% 93%
Average: 54% 94% 74% 92%
Table 23: Off-street hourly occupancy, May (Thursday)
68%
87%
67%
55%55%
75%
61%
52%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Study Area Average Off-Street Permit Occupancy by Time of Day on
Thursday by Month
September October
Figure 16: Study Area Average Off-Street Permit Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 42
In September, the average occupancy rates were above the threshold in the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon,
and Evening. There is significantly more red-highlighted location during this month in comparison to the
May data. Once again, the hourly spaces in Garage R and Lot N were full throughout the day. Lots D and
K were underutilized until the Evening data collection period.
Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 9/8/2016
Location Hourly
Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-
Afternoon Evening
Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 60% 90% 82% 84%
Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 47% 94% 79% 94%
Garage R (High/Alma) 77 84% 100% 92% 94%
Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 25% 95% 67% 94%
Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 41% 98% 70% 61%
Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 31% 88% 90% 94%
Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 60% 104% 112% 100%
Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 42% 73% 77% 93%
Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 9% 96% 104% 93%
Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 44% 95% 93% 95%
Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 58% 75% 17% 83%
Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 96% 93% 102% 104%
Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 37% 90% 90% 94%
Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 33% 94% 90% 94%
Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 25% 86% 86% 89%
Average: 46% 91% 83% 91%
Table 24: Off-street hourly occupancy, September (Thursday)
During the October round of data collection on a Thursday, the Afternoon and Evening times were the
busiest like in May. Garage WC was the only off-street location in October were the hourly spaces were
below the 80% occupancy threshold throughout the day.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 43
Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 10/6/2016
Location Hourly
Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-
Afternoon Evening
Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 61% 84% 97% 102%
Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 49% 88% 36% 98%
Garage R (High/Alma) 77 88% 92% 90% 101%
Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 32% 84% 55% 89%
Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 36% 78% 63% 28%
Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 34% 85% 75% 90%
Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 76% 92% 84% 108%
Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 44% 87% 67% 102%
Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 13% 96% 39% 89%
Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 37% 87% 63% 87%
Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 92% 58% 83% 75%
Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 98% 98% 109% 109%
Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 32% 90% 77% 108%
Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 47% 75% 88% 102%
Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 39% 89% 75% 89%
Average: 52% 85% 73% 92%
Table 25: Off-street hourly occupancy, October (Thursday)
3. Permit
During the Thursday September data collection round, the off-street permitted spaces were on average
below the occupancy threshold during the day except for in the Afternoon. Garage R was significantly
above the threshold starting in the Morning up until the Mid-Afternoon. Lot C and Lot T were the only off-
street locations were the permitted spaces were above the threshold during the Evening.
Off-Street (Permit) Occupancy 9/8/2016
Location Permit
Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-
Afternoon Evening
Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 71% 95% 78% 69%
Garage Q (High/Alma) 132 70% 70% 62% 48%
Garage R (High/Alma) 128 121% 127% 96% 62%
Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 79% 92% 82% 36%
Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 55% 85% 83% 14%
Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 74% 85% 19% 93%
Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) 35 43% 83% 80% 71%
Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 51% 64% 38% 53%
Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 86% 94% 60% 57%
Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 40% 96% 88% 92%
Lot X (Sheraton) 31 61% 65% 48% 13%
Average: 68% 87% 67% 55%
Table 26: Off-street permit occupancy, May (Thursday)
In October, there were no times during the day on Thursday that averaged above the 80% occupancy
threshold. The permitted spaces in Garage R had the highest occupancy rate out of the off-street locations
during the Afternoon.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 44
Off-Street (Permit) Occupancy 10/6/2016
Location Permit Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 47% 65% 49% 67%
Garage Q (High/Alma) 132 55% 73% 56% 24%
Garage R (High/Alma) 128 88% 93% 77% 74%
Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 52% 81% 70% 54%
Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 44% 77% 74% 13%
Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 85% 85% 37% 93%
Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) 35 43% 80% 80% 43%
Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 60% 72% 45% 36%
Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 51% 80% 60% 57%
Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 28% 68% 76% 96%
Lot X (Sheraton) 31 45% 55% 45% 19%
Average: 55% 75% 61% 52%
Table 27: Off-street permit occupancy, October (Thursday)
C. Saturday On-Street
1. Overall
Saturday occupancy data was also collected during May, September and October. During the three
months, the on-street occupancy averages on Saturday were the highest during the Afternoon and
Evening. The Mid-Afternoon data collection period also had average on-street occupancy rates above the
80% threshold in both May and October. Similarly, to the Thursday data collection, the Saturday on-street
occupancy rates were low in the Morning.
61%
80%81%80%
58%
83%
74%
85%
61%
86%84%
96%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Overall Average On-Street Saturday Occupancy by Time of Day by Month
May September October
Figure 17: Overall Average On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day by Month
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 45
When comparing the four-color zones during the month of May, the Lime and Coral Zones often had the
highest occupancy rates throughout the day. The only exception to this was in the Mid-Afternoon where
the Purple Zone had the highest average occupancy.
On the Saturday in September the Purple Zone had the highest occupancy rate in both the Mid-afternoon
and Evening. The Evening occupancy rate for the Purple Zone was at exactly 100%. Additionally, the Lime
and Coral Zones were above the occupancy threshold during the Afternoon and Evening.
46%
64%69%69%69%
88%84%
96%
69%
88%84%
96%
60%
79%
88%
60%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
May Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day
Color Zone Comparison
Blue Lime Coral Purple
Figure 18: May Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 46
During October, the Lime and Coral Zones were above the threshold during the Afternoon until through
the Evening, where they were above 100% occupancy. There were no zones with adequate parking
availability during the Evening data collection period, and the Blue Zone was the only zone below the
threshold in the Afternoon and Mid-Afternoon.
53%
74%72%68%64%
89%
68%
86%
64%
89%
68%
86%
53%
81%
87%
100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
September Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day
Color Zone Comparison
Blue Lime Coral Purple
Figure 19: September Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison
46%
74%78%82%
67%
91%86%
67%
91%86%
64%
88%87%94%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
October Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day
Color Zone Comparison
Blue Lime Coral Purple
Figure 20: October Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 47
2. Blue Zone
Taking a closer look at the Blue Zone Saturday on-street parking occupancy in May reveals that the 500
block of Lytton was the only block that was above the occupancy threshold consistently throughout the
day. This was also the only street that ever reached 100% occupancy at any point during the day. None
of the time periods averaged at above 80% occupancy, indicating that there were adequate on-street
occupancy levels in the Blue Zone on Saturday in May.
Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/21/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
400 COWPER 25 20% 40%
400 FOREST 26 58% 54% 81% 81%
400 HAMILTON 38 42% 42% 82%
400 KIPLING 25 36% 76% 68%
400 LYTTON 24 17% 88% 46% 67%
400 TASSO 14 57% 57% 64% 57%
400 UNIVERSITY 37 81% 54% 89% 78%
400 WEBSTER 15 67% 87% 80% 40%
500 COWPER 23 26% 57% 78%
500 FOREST 21 57% 48% 76% 86%
500 HAMILTON 35 17% 54% 40%
500 LYTTON 6 83% 100% 83% 83%
500 UNIVERSITY 37 38% 41% 73% 81%
500 WEBSTER 24 63% 75% 79% 75%
600 COWPER 30 23% 70% 77%
600 WEBSTER 26 50% 38% 62% 69%
Average: 46% 64% 69% 69%
Table 28: Blue Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday)
On Saturday in September the average occupancy levels in the Blue Zone were higher overall than
observed during the May data collection. However, there were still none of the overall averages exceeding
the 80% occupancy threshold.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 48
Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/10/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
400 COWPER 25 76% 76% 84% 84%
400 FOREST 26 35% 35% 35% 42%
400 HAMILTON 38 39% 82% 92% 61%
400 KIPLING 25 84% 100% 100% 96%
400 LYTTON 24 29% 92% 92% 79%
400 TASSO 14 71% 107% 79% 43%
400 UNIVERSITY 37 97% 97% 97% 97%
400 WEBSTER 15 93% 100% 100% 87%
500 COWPER 23 61% 96% 100%
500 FOREST 21 24% 33% 38% 24%
500 HAMILTON 35 20% 49% 40% 46%
500 LYTTON 6 83% 50%
500 UNIVERSITY 37 38% 81% 97% 108%
500 WEBSTER 24 42% 63% 54% 75%
600 COWPER 30 27% 50% 67% 37%
600 WEBSTER 26 58% 42% 38% 62%
Average: 53% 74% 72% 68%
Table 29: Blue Zone on-street occupancy, September (Saturday)
The October data has the highest amount of red highlighted cells in comparison with May and September.
The Evening data collection round on Saturday in October was the only instance that the average on-
street occupancy reached above the threshold out of the three months and four data collection time
periods.
Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/8/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
400 COWPER 25 44% 68% 80% 88%
400 FOREST 26 12% 88% 88% 81%
400 HAMILTON 38 26% 97% 84% 61%
400 KIPLING 25 76% 104% 96% 104%
400 LYTTON 24 25% 79% 83% 83%
400 TASSO 14 71% 86% 71% 86%
400 UNIVERSITY 37 81% 103% 95% 97%
400 WEBSTER 15 100% 93% 87% 93%
500 COWPER 23 57% 87% 96% 96%
500 FOREST 21 57% 71% 76% 62%
500 HAMILTON 35 17% 46% 49% 80%
500 LYTTON 6 17% 33% 67% 50%
500 UNIVERSITY 37 16% 84% 89% 103%
500 WEBSTER 24 67% 75% 83% 96%
600 COWPER 30 17% 30% 67% 53%
600 WEBSTER 26 54% 42% 38% 85%
Average: 46% 74% 78% 82%
Table 30: Blue Zone on-street occupancy, October (Saturday)
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 49
The three months are combined below in Figure 20. This chart reveals that there was in general an
increase in the on-street occupancy averages from May through October on Saturday. The highest overall
occupancy average was during the Evening in October, while the lowest was in the Morning in October
and May.
3. Lime Zone
On-Street occupancy in the Lime Zone on Saturday in May was extremely high throughout the day. All
four data collection periods averaged at or above the 80% occupancy threshold. This is in contrast with
the Blue Zone occupancies on the same day, which were significantly low. This is likely due to the
convenience of the Lime Zone on-street parking spaces to Downtown shops and restaurants.
Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/21/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
300 FOREST 29 83% 93% 83% 72%
300 HAMILTON 25 104% 96% 88% 104%
300 LYTTON 32 53% 97% 69% 106%
300 UNIVERSITY 37 59% 95% 97% 100%
400 FLORENCE 15 80% 93% 80% 100%
400 WAVERLEY 30 103% 103% 107% 100%
500 WAVERLEY 32 94% 103% 103% 103%
600 GILMAN 11 64% 45% 55% 100%
600 WAVERLEY 23 83% 83% 87% 65%
Average: 80% 90% 85% 95%
Table 31: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday)
46%
64%69%69%
53%
74%72%68%
46%
74%78%82%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Average Saturday Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month
May (5/21/2016)September (9/10/2016)October (10/8/2016)
Figure 21: Average Saturday Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 50
The Morning data collection time was the only time in September on Saturday that was below the
occupancy threshold, however it was just 1% away. Like in May, the occupancy rates were high in the
Lime Zone throughout the day.
Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/10/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
300 FOREST 29 59% 59% 45% 55%
300 HAMILTON 25 88% 92% 88% 80%
300 LYTTON 32 56% 103% 100% 103%
300 UNIVERSITY 37 95% 95% 97% 97%
400 FLORENCE 15 73% 73% 80% 100%
400 WAVERLEY 30 103% 110% 90% 107%
500 WAVERLEY 32 72% 91% 91% 100%
600 GILMAN 11 73% 91%
600 WAVERLEY 23 83% 83% 74% 61%
Average: 79% 88% 82% 88%
Table 32: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, September (Saturday)
The October round of data collection was like the September round in that the morning was at an average
of 79% occupancy. The other three times averaged above the threshold.
Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/8/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
300 FOREST 29 100% 100% 90% 103%
300 HAMILTON 25 80% 132% 88% 100%
300 LYTTON 32 47% 97% 56% 94%
300 UNIVERSITY 37 86% 95% 92% 97%
400 FLORENCE 15 40% 33% 60% 87%
400 WAVERLEY 30 113% 103% 110% 110%
500 WAVERLEY 32 72% 91% 88% 103%
600 GILMAN 11 73% 91%
600 WAVERLEY 23 91% 91% 78% 87%
Average: 79% 93% 82% 97%
Table 33: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, October (Saturday)
As shown in Figure 21, the average on-street occupancy rates on Saturday in the three months were well
above the 80% occupancy threshold in many instances. The Morning was the only time in the three
months that had average occupancies below the threshold except for in the Mid-Afternoon in September.
The Afternoon and Evening data collections times were the busiest for all three months.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 51
4. Coral Zone
The Coral Zone had consistently high occupancy rates throughout Saturday in May with the lowest
average occupancy at 69% in the Morning. 200 Forest, 500 Ramona, and 500 Bryant were each over the
occupancy threshold throughout the day. The 600 block of Bryant was the only street that did not reach
the threshold at any point during that day.
Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/21/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
200 FOREST 23 83% 87% 83% 91%
200 HAMILTON 26 81% 81% 77% 88%
200 LYTTON 24 33% 58% 83% 113%
200 UNIVERSITY 36 56% 103% 92% 100%
400 BRYANT 16 69% 100% 69% 100%
400 RAMONA 30 40% 97% 97% 100%
500 BRYANT 36 100% 100% 97% 108%
500 RAMONA 31 87% 100% 100% 106%
600 BRYANT 22 73% 73% 68% 73%
600 RAMONA 22 73% 77% 73% 82%
Average: 69% 88% 84% 96%
Table 34: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday)
In September, the on-street occupancy on Saturday was highest during the Afternoon and Evening time
periods. Unlike in May, there was a dip in occupancy during the Mid-Afternoon, where there were only
69%
88%84%
96%
64%
89%
68%
86%
67%
91%86%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Average Saturday Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month
May (5/21/2016)September (9/10/2016)October (10/8/2016)
Figure 22: Average Saturday Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 52
two blocks observed over 80% occupancy. There were no streets in September that did not reach the
occupancy threshold at some point during the day on Saturday.
Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/10/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
200 FOREST 23 61% 83% 52% 48%
200 HAMILTON 26 77% 100% 42% 85%
200 LYTTON 24 25% 63% 75% 108%
200 UNIVERSITY 36 67% 97% 81% 89%
400 BRYANT 16 63% 81% 75% 94%
400 RAMONA 30 40% 90% 73% 100%
500 BRYANT 36 67% 89% 78% 92%
500 RAMONA 31 90% 103% 90% 94%
600 BRYANT 22 95% 95% 55% 68%
600 RAMONA 22 55% 86% 59% 86%
Average: 64% 89% 68% 86%
Table 35: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, September (Saturday)
In October, the on-street occupancy on a Saturday was averaging at over 100% during the Evening, and
above the threshold during the Afternoon and Mid-Afternoon. Almost every block in the Coral Zone during
these times were full.
Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/8/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
200 FOREST 23 65% 61% 91% 100%
200 HAMILTON 26 62% 96% 88% 119%
200 LYTTON 24 29% 88% 67% 125%
200 UNIVERSITY 36 92% 100% 100% 100%
400 BRYANT 16 50% 81% 81% 100%
400 RAMONA 30 37% 93% 73% 87%
500 BRYANT 36 89% 97% 83% 106%
500 RAMONA 31 94% 100% 97% 103%
600 BRYANT 22 91% 109% 100% 105%
600 RAMONA 22 59% 82% 77% 100%
Average: 67% 91% 86% 104%
Table 36: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, October (Saturday
When comparing the Coral Zone averages side by side for each month, it shows that the Afternoon and
Evening times were the busiest consistently. One anomaly was that the September Mid-Afternoon
occupancy was over 15% lower than the other two months.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 53
5. Purple Zone
When data was collected on a Saturday in May in the Purple Zone, the time of day with the highest average
occupancy was the Mid-Afternoon. Typically for the other color zones the busiest times were during the
Afternoon and Evening instead. 100 Forest, 500 Emerson, and 600 High were the three blocks in the Purple
Zone that were consistently over the 80% occupancy threshold for the entire day.
Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/21/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
100 FOREST 34 91% 91% 97% 91%
100 HAMILTON 32 72% 75% 81% 72%
100 LYTTON 26 50% 73% 81% 50%
100 UNIVERSITY 24 58% 83% 83% 58%
400 EMERSON 32 9% 69% 84% 9%
400 HIGH 21 67% 62% 76% 67%
500 ALMA 11 9% 45% 64% 9%
500 EMERSON 29 93% 100% 103% 93%
500 HIGH 23 13% 61% 96% 13%
600 ALMA 16 69% 88% 94% 69%
600 EMERSON 28 93% 100% 93% 93%
600 HIGH 27 96% 100% 100% 96%
Average: 60% 79% 88% 60%
69%
88%84%
96%
64%
89%
68%
86%
67%
91%
86%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Average Saturday Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month
May (5/21/2016)September (9/10/2016)October (10/8/2016)
Figure 23: Average Saturday Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 54
Table 37: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday
Unlike in May, the September data shows that the Afternoon and Evening were above the occupancy
threshold on average in addition to the Mid-Afternoon. The Evening period had an average overall
occupancy of 100% for the Purple Zone on a Saturday. The rise in Evening occupancy from May is likely
due to the shift in data collection time to 7:00pm from 6:00pm for the Evening round.
Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/10/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
100 FOREST 34 88% 94% 94% 100%
100 HAMILTON 32 66% 81% 94% 94%
100 LYTTON 26 38% 62% 73% 92%
100 UNIVERSITY 24 42% 67% 75% 79%
400 EMERSON 32 13% 78% 91% 97%
400 HIGH 21 33% 38% 67% 110%
500 ALMA 11 0% 82% 82% 118%
500 EMERSON 29 86% 107% 100% 97%
500 HIGH 23 35% 78% 96% 109%
600 ALMA 16 44% 81% 106%
600 EMERSON 28 93% 104% 100% 107%
600 HIGH 27 100% 96% 89% 89%
Average: 53% 81% 87% 100%
Table 38: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday
In October, the on-street spaces in the Purple Zone on Saturday were on average above the occupancy
threshold during the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening. These averages are similar to those
observed in September. Once again, the Morning data collection period did not exceed the 80% threshold
on average.
Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/8/2016
Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
100 FOREST 34 76% 100% 100% 97%
100 HAMILTON 32 72% 84% 75% 91%
100 LYTTON 26 38% 73% 77% 58%
100 UNIVERSITY 24 63% 75% 88% 83%
400 EMERSON 32 34% 91% 88% 88%
400 HIGH 21 67% 76% 76% 105%
500 ALMA 11 36% 100% 82% 109%
500 EMERSON 29 97% 90% 90% 103%
500 HIGH 23 35% 78% 83% 91%
600 ALMA 16 63% 88% 88% 100%
600 EMERSON 28 96% 104% 107% 100%
600 HIGH 27 93% 96% 96% 100%
Average: 64% 88% 87% 94%
Table 39: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, October (Saturday)
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 55
The main variance that can be seen when viewing the data side by side is that in May the Evening average
occupancy was significantly lower than the occupancy in September and October. All three months were
within 1% of each other regarding the average occupancy during the Mid-Afternoon period. Additionally,
the Evening period was the busiest time for both the September and October data collection rounds on
Saturdays.
60%
79%
88%
60%
53%
81%
87%
100%
64%
88%87%
94%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Average Saturday Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month
May (5/21/2016)September (9/10/2016)October (10/8/2016)
Figure 24: Average Saturday Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 56
D. Saturday Off-Street
1. Overall
The combined average occupancy (May, September and October) for off-street garages and surface lots
including hourly and permit spaces for Saturday’s data collection are displayed in Figure 24 below.
Average permit occupancy for the facility is identified by the letter ‘P’ while average hourly occupancy is
identified by the letter ‘H.’ The differentiation in color is based on the average occupancy percentage.
Locations displayed in green observed an average occupancy percentage of below 70% over the three-
month data collection period. Locations colored yellow had an average occupancy between 70% and 80%
while the locations in red had occupancy averages of 80% and above.
Figure 25 compares the average off-street hourly occupancy between the three months for Saturday. The
hourly spaces were consistently full during the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening data collection
times, with the Evening being the most. The Morning occupancy averaged hovered around 50% on the
three Saturdays.
Figure 25: Combined average Saturday occupancy (May, September and October) for off-street garage and surface lot
locations
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 57
The average off-street permit occupancy was significantly lower than the hourly spaces on Saturday in
both months it was collected. The highest average occupancy observed was just 46%, which was during
the Evening in September. Because there are high occupancy rates in the hourly spaces while there are
low rates in the permitted spaces, this could indicate that many drivers do not realize that a permit is not
required to park in the permit spaces on the weekend.
2. Hourly
The off-street hourly spaces stayed at a consistent occupancy level between the Afternoon and Mid-
Afternoon data collection times in May. In almost every location that was above the threshold during the
43%
78%79%85%
52%
86%84%
94%
53%
90%85%90%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Study Area Average Off-Street Hourly Occupancy by Time of Day on
Saturday by Month
May September October
Figure 26: Study Area Average Off-Street Hourly Occupancy by Time of Day on Saturday by Month
21%
31%30%
46%
13%
32%27%
42%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Study Area Average Off-Street Permit Occupancy by Time of Day
on Saturday by Month
September October
Figure 27: Study Area Average Off-Street Permit Occupancy by Time of Day on Saturday by Month
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 58
Afternoon, it was also during the Mid-Afternoon and Evening. Lot H and Lot N were the two locations
were the hourly spaces were full throughout the day. Only Garage WC and Lot A did not have an occupancy
at or above 80% at any point during the day.
Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 5/21/2016
Location Hourly
Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 87% 79% 90% 92%
Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 24% 69% 54% 82%
Garage R (High/Alma) 77 23% 90% 83% 97%
Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 19% 65% 70% 87%
Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 12% 53% 52% 49%
Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 9% 63% 79% 72%
Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 64% 100% 100% 104%
Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 47% 86% 91% 81%
Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 26% 91% 85% 91%
Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 96% 89% 88% 84%
Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 8% 58% 42% 75%
Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 93% 87% 89% 91%
Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 41% 83% 86% 85%
Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 55% 86% 94% 100%
Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 39% 75% 79% 82%
Average: 43% 78% 79% 85%
Table 40: Off-street hourly occupancy, May (Saturday)
In September, the hourly off-street spaces were on average above the occupancy threshold during the
Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening data collection periods on Saturday. The only off-street location
in September that did not reach 80% occupancy was Garage WC. Every other location was above the
threshold during the Evening.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 59
Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 9/10/2016
Location Hourly
Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-
Afternoon Evening
Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 40% 92% 85% 97%
Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 19% 57% 55% 92%
Garage R (High/Alma) 77 31% 95% 99% 103%
Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 43% 76% 77% 92%
Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 24% 54% 61% 58%
Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 10% 88% 85% 96%
Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 80% 100% 100% 96%
Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 92% 95% 98% 103%
Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 85% 96% 72% 87%
Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 95% 98% 97% 97%
Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 42% 67% 58% 92%
Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 41% 98% 100% 100%
Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 49% 85% 90% 100%
Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 49% 96% 90% 104%
Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 86% 93% 93% 89%
Average: 52% 86% 84% 94%
Table 41: Off-street hourly occupancy, September (Saturday)
Like in September, the October off-street hourly occupancy averages were above the threshold in the
Afternoon through the Evening. Additionally, Garage WC did not reach the threshold at any point during
the day again. Both the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods averaged at 90% occupancy.
Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 10/8/2016
Location Hourly
Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-
Afternoon Evening
Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 65% 98% 90% 95%
Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 35% 90% 65% 96%
Garage R (High/Alma) 77 62% 99% 100% 61%
Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 28% 69% 76% 107%
Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 27% 42% 59% 57%
Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 22% 78% 84% 78%
Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 76% 100% 96% 92%
Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 74% 98% 92% 94%
Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 41% 100% 100% 100%
Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 86% 95% 96% 91%
Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 17% 100% 33% 83%
Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 100% 98% 100% 104%
Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 50% 96% 91% 95%
Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 73% 100% 94% 96%
Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 46% 93% 96% 96%
Average: 53% 90% 85% 90%
Table 42: Off-street hourly occupancy, October (Saturday)
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 60
3. Permit
On the other hand, the permit spaces in off-street locations had significantly lower average occupancies
on the Saturday in September. The only location where permit spaces filled up throughout the day was
Lot T, and Lot C also filled up during the Afternoon and Evening. Many locations did not reach 80%
occupancy at any point.
Off-Street (Permit) Occupancy 9/10/2016
Location Permit
Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 9% 16% 13% 45%
Garage Q (High/Alma) 132 18% 13% 15% 20%
Garage R (High/Alma) 128 4% 3% 20% 88%
Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 4% 14% 11% 26%
Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 2% 3% 3% 4%
Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 37% 89% 70% 100%
Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) * 35 20% 46%
Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 23% 15%
Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 23% 31% 49% 63%
Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 92% 104% 92% 92%
Lot X (Sheraton) 31 3% 6% 13% 13%
Average: 21% 31% 30% 46%
Table 43: Off-street permit occupancy, September (Saturday)
*Note: No available parking in Lot E or Lot G on Saturday Morning/Afternoon because of Farmer’s Market
Consistent with September, the October off-street permit occupancy rates remained very low throughout
the day. Once again, the only locations that experienced high occupancy rates throughout the day were
Lots C and T.
Off-Street (Permit) Occupancy 10/8/2016
Location Permit Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening
Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 14% 17% 18% 44%
Garage Q (High/Alma) 132 12% 15% 20% 16%
Garage R (High/Alma) 128 5% 27% 16% 49%
Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 6% 10% 15% 15%
Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 3% 5% 4% 4%
Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 41% 85% 78% 93%
Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) 35 6% 34%
Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 13% 36%
Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 17% 17% 23% 34%
Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 12% 96% 84% 96%
Lot X (Sheraton) 31 6% 19% 16% 35%
Average: 13% 32% 27% 42%
Table 44: Off-street permit occupancy, October (Saturday)
E. Heat Maps
The following heat maps show the overall occupancy averages for each block based on occupancy data
collected in May, September, and October combined. The average daily occupancy for each block is made
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 61
up of the Morning, Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening occupancies from May, September, and
October.
The blocks that are highlighted in red are those that had an overall daily occupancy average of 80% or
higher. The yellow blocks are those that had an overall average daily occupancy between 70% and 79%.
These are the areas that have not yet reached the occupancy threshold, but are areas of concern. Finally,
the green blocks are those that had an overall average daily occupancy below 70%, meaning that they had
sufficient levels of parking supply throughout the day on average.
Maps 1 and 4 show the overall daily occupancy average for each block face and the hourly off-street
spaces between the three months on Thursday and Saturday. Because the Afternoon and Evening data
collection periods tended to have the highest average occupancies, Maps 2, 3, 5, and 6 show the
Afternoon and Evening occupancy averages from the three months for Thursday and Saturday. The
purpose of these maps is to show the typical occupancy distributions as well as peak occupancy
distributions.
Figure 28: Thursday Three Month Daily Average
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 62
Figure 29: Thursday Afternoon Three Month Average
Figure 30: Thursday Evening Three Month Average
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 63
Figure 31: Saturday Three Month Average
Figure 32: Saturday Afternoon Three Month Average
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 64
Figure 33: Saturday Evening Three Month Average
The heat maps show that the blocks with the highest occupancy rates are in general clustered around the
center, with some high occupancy areas in the bottom left and top right corners. The Evening occupancy
maps in general show that many high occupancy blocks are towards the left, with some green highlighted
pockets in the right-side corners of the map.
F. Vehicle Overstay
The following charts show the observed vehicle frequency for each zone. This is the percentage of cars
that are observed within the same zone during different data collection periods—cars that are only
observed once in a zone are following the color zone rules, while those that are observed multiple times
are not following the required time limits. The purpose of this data is to get a rough understanding of how
many drivers are obeying the color zone rules.
On May 19, 2016, the majority of cars are following the color zone rules. 83 to 86% of cars were only
observed once in their respective zone. The Blue and Lime Zones only had 11% of cars observed in two
data collection periods, and the Coral and Purple Zones had 14% observed twice. Only 1% of cars in each
colored zone were observed during all four data collection times.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 65
The frequencies observed in September were very like those in May, with the cars only observed once
hovering between 83 and 87%. This round 0% of cars were observed four times in the Lime and Purple
Zones.
Finally, in October the data remained consistent with the observed frequencies in May and September.
The Coral Zone in October had the highest overall rate of cars observed once, at 88%, which means that
a significant number of drivers are following the color zone rules.
85%
11%
3%1%
86%
11%
2%1%
84%
14%
3%1%
83%
14%
3%1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four
Blue Zone Lime Zone Coral Zone Purple Zone
Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 5/19/2016
Figure 34: Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 5/19/2016
83%
12%4%1%
87%
11%
2%0%
85%
13%
2%1%
87%
11%
1%0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four
Blue Zone Lime Zone Coral Zone Purple Zone
Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 9/8/2016
Figure 35: Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 9/8/2016
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 66
Due to the fact, there is an estimated total of 2,638 hourly spaces Downtown, depending on the hourly
occupancy rates, having a rate of around 15% of cars breaking the rules could mean that approximately
100-300 cars are breaking the color zone rules per day.
G. Changing Colored Zones
The next series of charts displays the percentage of vehicles that were observed changing color zones
throughout the day. The purpose of this data is to understand how many cars are being moved from zone
to zone to stay Downtown longer than the individual color zone allotment.
In May, almost 92% of cars were only observed in one zone and just 7.2% were observed in two. 0% of
cars were parked the entire day Downtown by utilizing each zone.
86%
9%3%1%
87%
11%
2%0%
88%
9%2%0%
87%
11%
2%0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four
Blue Zone Lime Zone Coral Zone Purple Zone
Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 10/6/2016
Figure 36: Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 10/6/2016
91.8%
7.2%0.9%0.0%
Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 5/19/2016
Parked in one zone only
Parked in two zones
Parked in three zones
Parked in four zones
Figure 37: Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 5/19/2016
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 67
Almost the exact same frequencies were observed in September, indicating that there is a consistent base
of around 8% of drivers who move their cars around. All the other cars were parked in one zone only that
day.
Finally, in October there were slightly more cars observed in one zone than in the other two months,
however the data remains generally consistent. Only around 6% of drivers in this case were observed in
multiple colored zones.
91.9%
7.4%0.7%0.0%
Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 9/8/2016
Parked in one zone only
Parked in two zones
Parked in three zones
Parked in four zones
Figure 38: Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 9/8/2016
93.5%
5.9%0.5%0.0%
Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 10/6/2016
Parked in one zone only
Parked in two zones
Parked in three zones
Parked in four zones
Figure 39: Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 10/6/2016
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 68
When considering that there are approximately 2,638 hourly spaces Downtown, the 6 to 8% of vehicles
changing color zones could be a significant number of cars. Depending on the hourly occupancy rates, it
is estimated that between 80-200 cars are moving between the zones to stay parked downtown for longer
than 2-3 hours without a permit.
H. Permit Occupancy vs. Permit Sales
Thursday Average Permit Occupancy vs. Permit Sales
Permit
Location
Permit
Spaces
Avg.
Sept.
Occu
Avg.
Oct.
Occu
Avg.
Overall
Occu
Average
Spaces
Taken
Active
Permits
Permit
Cap
Usage
Rate
Current
Wait
List
Average
% of
permit
holders
parked
Garage CC (Civic
Center) 498 78% 57% 68% 336 862 875 39% 104
Garage Q
(High/Alma) 132 63% 52% 58% 76 242 245 31% 52
Garage R
(High/Alma) 128 101% 83% 92% 118 311 345 38% 82
Garage S/L
(Bryant/Lytton) 383 72% 64% 68% 261 723 750 36% 46
Garage WC
(Webster/Cowper) 371 59% 52% 56% 206 764 850 27% 96
Lot C
(Ramona/Lytton) 27 68% 75% 72% 19 no data no
data no data no data
Lot E
(Gilman/Bryant) 35 69% 61% 65% 23
138 140 37% 12 Lot G
(Gilman/Waverley) 53 51% 53% 52% 28
Lot K
(Lytton/Waverley) 35 74% 62% 68% 24
105 110 40% 23 Lot T
(Lytton/Kipling) 25 79% 67% 73% 18
Lot X (Sheraton) 31 47% 41% 44% 14 61 65 22% 12
Table 46, displayed above, outlines the average permit occupancy during the September and October data
collections compared to the total permit sales for each garage or surface lot. Based on information
provided by the City including active permits for each facility and permit caps for each facility combined
with the occupancy data collected, the Study determines that on average, between 25% and 40% of
permit holders are actively using their permits.
Table 46: Thursday Average Permit Occupancy (September & October) vs. Total Permit Sales
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 69
Thursday Peak Permit Occupancy vs. Permit Sales
Permit Location Permit
Spaces
Peak
Sept.
Occu
Peak
Oct.
Occu
Avg.
Peak
Occu
Average
Spaces
Taken
During
Peak
Occupancy
Active
Permits
Permit
Cap
Usage
Rate
Current
Wait
List
Average %
of permit
holders
parked
during
peak
occupancy
Garage CC (Civic
Center) 498 95% 67% 81% 403 862 875 47% 104
Garage Q
(High/Alma) 132 70% 73% 72% 94 242 245 39% 52
Garage R
(High/Alma) 128 127% 93% 110% 141 311 345 45% 82
Garage S/L
(Bryant/Lytton) 383 92% 81% 87% 331 723 750 46% 46
Garage WC
(Webster/Cowper) 371 85% 77% 81% 301 764 850 39% 96
Lot C
(Ramona/Lytton) 27 93% 93% 93% 25 no data no data no data no data
Lot E
(Gilman/Bryant) 35 83% 80% 82% 29
138 140 47% 12 Lot G
(Gilman/Waverley) 53 64% 72% 68% 36
Lot K
(Lytton/Waverley) 35 94% 80% 87% 30
105 110 51% 23 Lot T
(Lytton/Kipling) 25 96% 96% 96% 24
Lot X (Sheraton) 31 65% 55% 60% 19 61 65 30% 12
Whereas Table 46 outlines the overall average permit occupancy observed in September and October,
Table 47 above summarizes the average peak permit occupancy during the same time periods. The
purpose of presenting the peak occupancy is to observe the highest quantity of active permits parked at
one time and how that figure compares to the current number of active permits. From the data above,
one can infer that at peak occupancy periods, the average percentage of permit holders parking is
between 30% and 50%. In locations, such as Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) and Lot C (Ramona/Lytton), the peak
occupancy captured for those lots is near capacity, with only one or two available spaces vacant.
Table 47: Thursday Peak Permit Occupancy (September & October) vs. Total Permit Sales
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 70
IV. Downtown Parking Intercept Survey & Stakeholder Involvement
Intercept surveys and a series of key stakeholder meetings were conducted to obtain direct input from
the City, residents, visitors, business owners, property owners, and other key members in Palo Alto. In-
person surveys and paper surveys were distributed throughout Downtown Palo Alto during each of
DIXON’s three data collection efforts as well as distributed online via a webpage link on the City’s website
for the month of November. The study’s five stakeholder meetings were held in April, July, October,
November of 2016 and January of 2017. The involvement from these groups aimed to acquire opinions
related to parking in Palo Alto and potential solutions.
A. Parking Intercept Surveys
To further expand the study’s data collection, the City and DIXON worked together to compose an
intercept survey that gathered information about the parking and transportation habits of visitors,
employees, employers, and members of the community. The Study’s intercept surveys coincided with the
study’s data collection, occurring on the Friday’s during DIXON’s data collection visits to Palo Alto.
Intercept surveys were collected in May, September and October. The Efforts to capture residents in the
outlying study area were met with difficulty. Locating residents on-street during typical work hours when
residents are often not home may have attributed to this issue. Over the course of the three data
collections, over 300 survey responses were gathered.
In addition, as part of an effort to expand the survey population and variety of responses, an online survey
was developed that was aimed at gathering responses from individuals who may reside in Palo Alto or
have recently visited the Downtown. The online weblink created for the survey was then posted to the
City’s newly developed Downtown Parking Management Study webpage as well as distributed to the
study’s key stakeholder group. The online survey was posted throughout the month of November and
received nearly 100 responses in addition to the 300 in-person surveys.
Several important themes were gathered from the surveys having to do with individual’s feelings and
perspectives towards parking in Downtown Palo Alto.
Many of the common themes to evolve from the suggestions or thought to improve parking downtown
included:
• Additional parking needed (more garages and off-street parking)
• Increased employee parking and provide easier parking for employees
• Extend parking time limits in the garages
• Find a solution for the current permit wait-list (e.g., monthly permits; more permits for individuals
and reduce the number permits provided to “companies”; expand the permit zone perimeter)
• Do not implement paid parking
• Improved public transportation
• 80 % of respondents indicated that they had driven a vehicle Downtown that day
• More than half of the respondents indicated that they had parking in color zone while a combined
25% of responded that they had parking in residential or another area.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 71
• Approximately 30% of those surveyed specified that they parked on-street versus 51% who
answered they had parked off-street.
• 60% of respondents indicated they were in Palo Alto that day for work or something work related
• A combined 58% of respondents were able to find parking in 5 minutes or less
• More than 50% of respondents felt they parked as close as they had anticipated to their
destination
• Nearly 60% of considered it easy to find a space to park
• Over 60% parked for free while 11% paid to park and 7% had parking either validated or
subsidized.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 72
Appendix A – Stakeholder Meeting Notes
A. Stakeholder Meetings
Stakeholder meetings were held in April, July, October, November of 2016 and January 2017. All
stakeholder meetings were organized by DIXON and City staff and lead by DIXON. These meetings included
key city staff from parking, transportation, development and finance. In addition, community stakeholders
attended, including business owners, developers, downtown organizations. Meetings also received
contributions from Palo Alto residents and the public. Each meeting was designed to discuss different
elements of the project. Attendees were invited to share their feedback, comments and suggestions
toward the short and long-term parking strategies in Palo Alto. Complete meeting minutes from each
stakeholder meeting can be found in Appendix 1.
1. Stakeholder Meeting #1
The Study’s initial stakeholder meeting took place on April 26th, 2016 and was intended to be a project
kick-off for those not directly involved in the study. This meeting allowed for the introductions of DIXON,
the City of Palo Alto staff, as well as the stakeholder and community members. DIXON reviewed the
project’s scope of work and key objectives that the Study would work to address both short and long-term
parking management strategies for Palo Alto. Stakeholders were asked to provide brief comments and
thoughts regarding the existing conditions in Palo Alto. Participants were asked to suggest their best-case
solution for addressing those conditions.
Stakeholders clearly indicated that providing adequate parking supply in the form of space inventory is
vital to being able to comfortably find parking Downtown. Added comments by stakeholders highlight an
issue facing Palo Alto today as the overflow of parking demand into the neighborhoods surrounding
Downtown and felt it important for the City to mitigate this issue and ensure that customers and visitors
can find parking close to their destinations. This includes the consideration of constructing additional
parking upon further data collection and analysis. Key stakeholders have been working with the City in
identifying viable locations for the potential of building an additional parking structure in the Downtown.
There have been several locations identified including existing public surface lots. Today, many
stakeholders feel that people often tend to avoid Downtown at peak times because of the lack of
convenient parking.
The Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program was developed to help mitigate the issue of
parking overflow in the residential neighborhoods, however stakeholder’s feel that the City did not
consider the supply of permits in the development of the program. This has resulted in overselling, long
waitlists, and low turnover. These issues contribute to the ineffectiveness of the program. The City has
recently decided to issue 200 fewer permits per year moving forward to help reduce this issue and are
considering raising the permit cost. Similarly, City staff also agree that increasing permit costs and creating
designated parking spaces may be important for the employee permit system.
Paid on-street parking and wayfinding signage were aspects considered by the stakeholders to mitigate
parking space turnover concerns Downtown. They discussed how allowing visitors and customers to stay
longer should come at a premium, and that the majority of long-term parking should be pushed to off-
street locations. Part of ensuring the effectiveness of this system is adequate enforcement. Additionally,
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 73
patrons must be able to be directed to available parking Downtown using wayfinding. Many stakeholders
feel that the current signage is difficult to read and may be causing increased congestion.
The City staff expressed significant concern during the meeting that the color zone system used for parking
in Downtown Palo Alto is outdated and inefficient. This same feeling was also echoed by stakeholders.
This system may be a source of further congestion due to cars shifting to a new zone to find new parking
every two to three-hours.
During the meeting the City also discussed the administrative side of parking management and their
various political goals. Some of the ideas considered were implementing a comprehensive parking
management system, a City smartphone application for permits, and relying more on alternative modes
of transportation. The City wants to focus on incentive programs rather than penalties to promote public
transit use, biking, and walking.
In order to get a better understanding of parking uses and attitudes in Palo Alto, DIXON discussed
developing a parking survey to hand out throughout the City. Some issues that the City requested to be
covered in the survey were drivers’ thoughts on free parking versus paid parking, how often people visit
Downtown, and how long customers or employees park for at a time.
2. Stakeholder Meeting #2
The second stakeholder meeting, held on July 6, 2016, was an opportunity to review the May data
collection including initial observations, results of initial data analysis and intercept surveys responses.
Stakeholders were solicited for initial feedback and discussion of the findings. The ensuing discussion
among stakeholders, the City and DIXON provided valuable points for the second and third data collection
efforts. To conclude the meeting, DIXON and the City provided the stakeholders with a summer
assignment, to consider the downtown area and bring to the third stakeholder meeting, any options for
shared or alternative parking that may be applicable to the future parking availability in Palo Alto.
Furthermore, the group was challenged to consider other cities and parking programs they considered to
be representative examples for what Palo Alto should strive for. The goal of the third meeting being to
plot these potential locations on aerial maps of Palo Alto to bring further visibility to downtown’s parking
availability.
Despite the current functionality of the color zone system, stakeholders were concerned about the future
of the system. They continued to advocate for a change in parking management, especially with the
permit systems. One issue that came up related to this was the lack of data in permit areas, especially
after-hours when the permit regulations do not currently apply. It was suggested that data collection in
September and October be expanded to include permit occupancy.
Many stakeholders agreed that there is currently a lack of employee parking, and that the colored zones
pose a problem for employees trying to park longer-term. Stakeholders were quite surprised at the figure
of 80-200 vehicles moving between zones throughout the day, many of them likely to be employees of
downtown businesses who have not purchased a permit. Some methods to combat this issue were
discussed alternative transportation programs including carpool incentives and transit passes. Due to the
forced high turnover rate for employee parking, some stakeholders want to push employee parking to the
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 74
upper levels of parking garages. This parking would also potentially be free of charge. Stakeholders also
expressed that permit programs in Palo Alto could benefit from a more progressive rate scale.
As for on-street parking, introducing paid parking with meters is an option being considered. However,
one concern that the stakeholders shared is that residents will be dissuaded from traveling Downtown
once paid parking is introduced. This feeling stems from the City’s history of fairness when it comes to
parking throughout the community. Parking to this point has always been free and not something that
many in the community feel they should have to pay for. One concession mentioned by stakeholders to
minimize backlash may be to introduce paid parking with the first hour free.
Stakeholders’ critiques were considered when developing plans for the next stages of data collection.
Additionally, their main concerns were considered to develop relevant and suitable solutions for the City.
3. Stakeholder Meeting #3
The study’s third stakeholder meeting on October 5, 2016, reviewed the September data collection
results. Much like the previous two meetings, the results and analyses were presented followed by
comments and feedback from the City and stakeholders. The second data collection’s results and the
occupancy trends associated were highly consistent with the first data collection in back in May.
As part of the October’s stakeholder meeting DIXON
organized an interactive activity that included participation
from stakeholders and City staff. The interactive session was
a two-part activity that dealt with issues related to parking in
Palo Alto. First, DIXON created posters (Figure 39) that
outlined issues that had been identified through the previous
two meetings including paid parking, additional facilities,
permits, automation of parking garages, time restrictions,
and the colored zones. Stakeholders and staff were asked to
approach each issue as though they were assigned to making a change or improvement towards the issue
and then identify with a colored (green, yellow, red) sticker, the level of priority that the issue has in
relation to the other parking issues in Palo Alto. The second part of the activity utilized large maps of
Downtown Palo Alto and participants were asked to identify with stickers (Figure 40), locations or areas
on the map that would be ideal for additional parking supply and alternative parking locations. The activity
provided stakeholders an opportunity to be actively involved in the study and provide an added level of
participation beyond general commentary.
The activity was useful in opening further discussion and
justifications for changes that the stakeholders considered
necessary for Palo Alto. Outcomes of the first part of the activity,
changes or improvements to current Palo Alto parking issues,
included addressing the current employee permit costs, finding
methods to improve the RPP program, eliminating the colored
zone, and introducing paid parking. Through the second activity,
the group identified several potential parking structure and
Figure 40: Stakeholder Parking Issue Comment
Board
Figure 41: Stakeholder Plotting Map
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 75
locations that may be feasible in adding additional parking supply, including Lot D, which is currently an
hourly public parking lot on the corner of Hamilton and Waverly. Several stakeholders identified Lot D as
being a viable location and mentioned the City’s expressed interest in the lot as well. Other possible
locations included Garage Q (High/Alma North), Lot O (Emerson /High), Lot K (Lytton/Waverly), and Lot H
(Cowper/Hamilton).
DIXON has taken into consideration many of the comments and locations identified by participants in the
proposed recommendations for Palo Alto. The fourth meeting concluded with a brief synopsis of what
would be presented in Stakeholder Meeting #4 in which the full summary of data collection and outline
of proposed recommendations would be discussed.
4. Stakeholder Meeting #4
November 17, 2016 marked the study’s fourth stakeholder meeting, following DIXON’s final data
collection effort in early October. The fourth meeting focused on the summary and overall analysis of the
study’s overall data collection efforts and introduced the preliminary recommendations that DIXON
proposed for the City of Palo Alto. The recommendations were composed based upon the DIXON’s data
collection, observations, assessment of Palo Alto’s parking operations, and the previous three stakeholder
meetings.
Based on the early recommendations made by DIXON, the reaction from City staff and stakeholders was
generally positive. Several of DIXON’s early recommendations had been discussed at length in the
previous stakeholder meetings as overall issues of concern for Palo Alto. These issues included removing
the color program completely, paid parking in Downtown, the need for additional parking supply in the
future, and the restructuring of the City’s current permit program. The City and stakeholders were also in
agreement that the current employee permit program should be improved and reacted positively towards
the recommendation of allowing low-wage employees to purchase monthly permits rather than bi-
annually or annually. Furthermore, there was a level of support for tiered pricing structures for hourly
parking on-street as well as payment tiers between potential on-street meters and off-street rates. In
general, stakeholders were amenable to the prospect of time of day or demand-based pricing in the
future, proceeding a period in which the City has adequately introduced paid parking Downtown.
The recommendations spurred constructive discussion among the City, stakeholders and DIXON, and the
group conversed over certain issues that may result from the implementation of the recommendations.
For example, one recommendation was to extend paid parking hours into the early evening. It was
concluded though that because of the current structure of the Downtown RPP program, extended parking
hours in Downtown may push vehicles into the RPP zones and result in frustration from residents. The
group agreed that this recommendation is one that will be needed but that may be better fit as a more
long-term solution. In addition, drawing on the topic of pricing mentioned in the previous paragraph, the
group noted that the pricing introduced with potential paid parking would have to be implemented in a
way that permit-holders and other customers are enticed to park in garages and not to deter customers
with rates or an increased permit cost. A method to increase parking in garages and not deter based on
rates or increased costs was received clearly by DIXON and taken into consideration in the
recommendations.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 76
In summary, the fourth stakeholder meeting was able to reinforce that Palo Alto has parking issues related
to on- and off-street parking in Downtown based on the data collection results from May, September and
October. Based on the current state of Palo Alto’s parking, DIXON put forth several recommendations
including the introduction of paid parking. Overwhelmingly, the City and stakeholders agreed that paid
parking is necessary and that the other recommendations outlined are worth considering. A bulletized list
outlines the initial recommendations introduced by DIXON at the stakeholder meeting are outlined below.
Permits
• Recommend that the City increase its annual employee permit prices
o Set employee permit price as part of tiered pricing strategy that correlates with on-street
and off-street hourly parking rates
o Provide employees (incl. low-wage) the opportunity to pay for permits an on annual, bi-
annual and monthly basis
• Recommend the City eliminate its daily permit option and replace with daily hourly maximum as
part of paid parking implementation
o Automation of off-street garage facilities
• Continue to support current TMA efforts to provide alternative modes of transportation and
reduce SOV figures
Paid Parking
• Remove Color Zones
o Implement tiered zones related to pricing
• Recommend the City implement paid parking throughout Downtown
o Single-space/multi-space/mobile payments
• Implement a Time of Day pricing strategy to begin
o Paid parking and enforcement on Saturdays
Wayfinding
• Implement City’s design plans for wayfinding campaign which includes signage and branding
• Implement parking guidance system with transmission of real-time facility occupancy information
• Consider creation of paid parking signs to inform motorists where potential value and premium
parking is located
New Facilities and Alternative Strategies
• Recommend the City pursue its considerations to construct parking structure on Lot D at Hamilton
Ave and Waverly St.
• Encourage shared-parking opportunities with local business and establishments
• Trial Uber/Lyft discount programs
Enforcement
• The City recently upgraded enforcement handhelds to Android-based devices. DIXON supports
this decision by the City as many municipalities are switching to smartphone devices for
enforcement.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 77
• Recommend the City implement enforcement on the weekends, including Sunday (even if
enforcement is light)
• Suggest the City review its citation fee rates and consider higher penalties associated with parking
Administrative
• With implementation of paid parking, suggest the City create a parking specific department to
provide oversight on paid parking, permits (employee and residential), enforcement, revenue
collection, and meter maintenance
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 78
Appendix B - Survey
A complete list of multiple choice survey questions and results from May, September, and October is listed
below:
MAY SURVEYS
Did you drive here today?
Yes 80%
No 20%
What color zone did you park in?
Blue Zone 11%
Coral Zone 28%
Lime Zone 13%
Purple Zone 17%
Residential 8%
Other 23%
Did you park on-street or off-street?
On-Street 37%
Off-Street 63%
What is the primary purpose of your visit?
Shopping 10%
Dining 8%
Entertainment 1%
Work or work related 74%
I live here 1%
Pick-up passengers 2%
Pick-up/deliver goods/packages 0%
Personal care appointment 3%
Visiting family/friends 0%
Other 0%
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 79
How long did it take to find a space?
<1 minute 35%
1-5 minutes 30%
5-10 minutes 22%
>10 minutes 13%
How did you pay for parking today?
Parking was free 77%
I paid the cost to park 13%
Parking was subsidized/validated 9%
Do you consider the space you parked in close enough to your destination?
Yes 66%
No, I parked farther than anticipated 19%
I parked farther than anticipated, but I don't mind walking 15%
How easy was it to find a parking space today (1 - Very easy, 5 - Very hard)
Very easy 41%
2 18%
Neutral 23%
4 9%
Very hard 8%
How willing would you be to pay for parking if it meant you would be able to more quickly
find a spot closer to your destination? (1=Very Willing; 5=Very Unwilling)
Very willing 9%
2 21%
Neutral 16%
4 21%
Very unwilling 33%
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 80
What if the parking revenue was used to directly fund transportation improvements in the
area?
Very willing 23%
2 21%
Neutral 13%
4 17%
Very unwilling 26%
How many people were in your car including yourself?
1 70%
2 25%
3 4%
4 0%
5+ 2%
In which range does your age fall?
16-24 27%
25-34 38%
35-44 16%
45-54 11%
55-64 7%
65+ 0%
What is your gender?
Male 40%
Female 60%
In what range does your household income fall?
$15,000 - $24,999 20%
$25,000 - $49,999 27%
$50,000 - $74,999 15%
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 81
$75,000 - $99,999 13%
$100,000 - $149,000 16%
$150,000 - $200,000 5%
$200,000 + 4%
Which category most closely matches your profession?
Arts and Entertainment 2%
Construction/Maintenance 2%
Education, Social Service, Nonprofit 2%
Healthcare 5%
Personal Services (Food service, personal care, other services) 38%
Production/Manufacturing 2%
Professional Services (Legal, Financial, etc.) 14%
Retail 21%
Other 7%
IT 5%
Student 2%
SEPTEMBER SURVEYS
Did you drive here today?
Yes 74%
No 26%
If you did not drive, how did you get Downtown today?
Bus 12%
Caltrain 31%
Carpool 15%
Ride-Share 3%
Bike 15%
Walk 24%
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 82
Where did you park your car?
On-Street 38%
Off-Street - Garage 54%
Off-Street - Surface Lot 8%
What are the primary purposes of your visit today?
Shopping 3%
Dining 6%
Entertainment 3%
Work or work related 85%
I live here 1%
Pick-up passengers 0%
Pick-up/deliver goods/packages 0%
Personal care appointment 1%
Visiting family/friends 0%
Other 0%
How long did it take to find a space?
<1 minute 31%
1-5 minutes 35%
5-10 minutes 14%
>10 minutes 20%
How did you pay for parking today?
Parking was free 83%
I paid the cost to park 10%
Parking was subsidized/validated - Employer 2%
Parking was subsidized/validated - Client 5%
Parking was subsidized/validated - Merchant 0%
Do you consider the space your vehicle is parked in close enough to your destination?
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 83
Yes 51%
No, I parked farther than anticipated 32%
I parked farther than anticipated, but I don't mind walking 17%
How easy was it to find a parking space today? (1 - Very easy, 5 - Very hard)
1 - Very Easy 22%
2 12%
3 - Neutral 24%
4 22%
5 - Very Hard 20%
How willing would you be to pay for parking if it meant you would be able to more quickly
find a spot closer to your destination? (1=Very Willing; 5=Very Unwilling)
Very willing 3%
2 8%
Neutral 26%
4 13%
Very unwilling 51%
What if the parking revenue was used to directly fund transportation improvements in the
area?
Very willing 8%
2 13%
Neutral 45%
4 10%
Very unwilling 25%
Would you be willing to pay for an annual downtown parking sticker?
Yes 31%
No 69%
How often do you visit Downtown?
Everyday 67%
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 84
A couple times a week 30%
Once a week 0%
Once every couple weeks 2%
Once a month 0%
Less than once a month 0%
What is the most important factor in determining where you park?
Location 36%
Ease of finding a space 26%
Price 14%
Safety/security 14%
Other 10%
Have you heard of or do you know about the Employee Parking (permit) Program?
Yes 48%
No 52%
Do you think there is enough parking in Downtown Palo Alto?
Yes 16%
No 84%
If you drove, how many people were in your car?
1 90%
2 10%
3 0%
4 0%
5 0%
6 0%
In which range does your age fall?
16-24 37%
25-34 49%
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 85
35-44 5%
45-54 5%
55-64 2%
65+ 2%
What is your gender?
Male 31%
Female 69%
In what range does your household income fall?
$15,000 - $24,999 38%
$25,000 - $49,999 24%
$50,000 - $74,999 11%
$75,000 - $99,999 8%
$100,000 - $149,000 16%
$150,000 - $200,000 3%
$200,000 + 0%
Which category most closely matches your profession?
Arts and Entertainment 2%
Construction/Maintenance 2%
Education, Social Service, Nonprofit 0%
Healthcare 0%
Personal Services (Food service, personal care, other services) 63%
Production/Manufacturing 0%
Professional Services (Legal, Financial, etc.) 2%
Retail 29%
Other 0%
IT 0%
Student 0%
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 86
OCTOBER SURVEYS
Based upon your most recent visit to Downtown, did you drive a car?
Yes 66%
No 34%
Where did you park your car?
On-street 44%
Off-street - Garage 27%
Off-street - Surface Lot 19%
Off-street - Private lot/space 10%
If you did not drive, what form of transportation did you use to get Downtown?
Bus 0%
Caltrain 10%
Carpool 7%
Ride-share 8%
Bike 20%
Walk 55%
Do you consider the space you parked your vehicle close enough to your destination or
farther than you anticipated?
Close enough 62%
Farther than anticipated 26%
I parked farther than I anticipated but I don't mind walking 12%
How long did it take you to find a parking space?
< 1 minute 36%
1-5 minutes 33%
5-10 minutes 15%
>10 minutes 15%
Did you pay for parking?
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 87
Parking was free 91%
I paid the cost to park 9%
Parking was subsidized/validated 0%
How many people were in your car including yourself?
1 51%
2 33%
3 11%
4 6%
5+ 0%
What were the primary purposes of your visit Downtown? (select all that apply)
Shopping 28%
Dining 51%
Entertainment 7%
Work related meeting/event 16%
I work here 14%
Pick-up passengers 0%
Pick-up/Deliver goods 4%
Personal care appointments 11%
Visiting family/friends 10%
Other 14%
Have you heard of or do you know about the Employee Parking Program? (Permit)
Yes 70%
No 10%
Yes but the price of the permit is too expensive 20%
Would you be willing to pay for an annual downtown parking sticker?
Yes 23%
No 53%
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 88
Yes but the price has to be reasonable 24%
What is the most important factor in determining where you park? (Select all that apply)
Location 32%
Ease of finding a space 45%
Price 8%
Safety/Security 14%
Other 1%
Do you think there is enough parking in Downtown Palo Alto?
Yes 38%
No 62%
How often do you visit Downtown?
Everyday 34%
A couple of times per week 35%
Once a week 11%
Once every couple of weeks 10%
Once a month 5%
Less than once a month 5%
When driving Downtown, how willing would you be to pay for parking if it meant you would
be more likely to find a spot close to your destination? (1=very willing; 5=very unwilling)
Very willing 23%
2 23%
Neutral 12%
4 19%
Very unwilling 21%
I already paid for parking 1%
What if that parking revenue was used to directly fund transportation improvements in the
area? (1=very willing; 5=very unwilling)
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 89
Very willing 9%
2 29%
Neutral 24%
4 18%
Very unwilling 20%
What is your gender?
Male 38%
Female 58%
Prefer not to answer 4%
In what range does your household income fall?
$15,000 - $24,999 0%
$25,000 - $49,999 5%
$50,000 - $74,999 5%
$75,000 - $99,999 10%
$100,000 - $149,000 10%
$150,000 - $200,000 30%
$200,000 + 40%
What category most closely matches your profession?
Arts and Entertainment 3%
Construction/Maintenance 0%
Education, Social Service, Nonprofit 13%
Healthcare 6%
Personal Services (Food service, personal care, other services) 1%
Profession Services (legal, financial, etc.) 36%
Retail 0%
Other 41%
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 90
Appendix C -Comparable Cities Analysis
5. Introduction
Assessing the parking strategies utilized in various comparable cities to Palo Alto is important in
developing an effective parking program for the City. Similar cities can offer insight into whether strategies
will be feasible and successful in Palo Alto. The City provided a list of thirteen comparable cities options,
which were then narrowed down to eight, based on the available data and responses from the cities. Each
city was solicited for information about their paid parking, technology, and permit programs. The eight
California cities selected for analysis were Alameda, Berkeley, Monterey, Mountain View, Pasadena, San
Mateo, Santa Monica, and Sausalito. While these cities are not analogous to Palo Alto in every way, their
parking programs are considered in this study on a comparative basis because they offer insight into
potential parking solutions that may be applied to the City.
6. Overview
a) Paid Parking and Technology
While Palo Alto does not currently charge for on- or off-street hourly parking (off-street daily permits are
sold), valuable lessons can be learned from comparable cities about the potential benefits or drawbacks
of paid parking. Understanding the impact of paid parking can help the City of Palo Alto make informed
decisions about managing its parking program moving forward.
Like Palo Alto, the City of Mountain View currently offers free on- and off-street parking, regulated by
time limits, for downtown visitors. However, the Mountain View City Council recently agreed to explore
the possibility of paid parking to combat their high occupancy rates. Paid parking can generate a significant
amount of revenue for a city, and it can also be a tactic to regulate parking supply by promoting or
dissuading parking in certain locations. Alameda and San Mateo for example each offer on-street parking
for $1.00 per hour in their downtown cores, and a lower rate of $0.50 per hour for fringe locations. This
method helps make parking in the downtown core a premium. Out of the eight cities, Berkeley has the
most expensive on-street parking with a rate at $3.25 per hour. However, the City of Berkeley offers a
lower rate in its off-street parking facilities, which can be a method of promoting longer-term parking in
the garages to free up the more convenient parking on-street for customers and visitors.
In addition to the range of parking rates, the selected cities use a variety of single-space and multi-space
meter technologies. Should the City of Palo Alto considers implementing paid parking in the future,
looking at the use of different technologies in nearby cities can help city planners determine what could
best fit the City’s needs.
The below table shows a comparison of on- and off-street parking rates, as well as the types of single- and
multi-space meters used in the eight comparable cities. A more detailed explanation of parking rates and
technology is outlined in the individual city sections.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 91
City
Parking Rates Meters
On-Street Off-Street Single-Space Multi-Space
Palo Alto Free (2-hr.) Free (3-hr.) None None
Alameda $0.50-$1.00/hr. $0.75/hr. Yes Yes
Berkeley $3.25/hr. $2.00/hr.
$20.00 Daily Max. Yes Yes
Monterey $1.50/hr. $0.50-$1.00/hr. Yes Yes
Mountain View Free Free None None
Pasadena $1.00-$1.25/hr. $0.75-$2.00/hr. Yes Yes
San Mateo $0.50-$1.00/hr. $1.00/hr. Yes Yes
Santa Monica $1.00-$2.00/hr.
First 90 Minutes Free
$1.25: First Hour
$3.70/hr.
$17.50 Daily Max.
Yes Yes
Sausalito $1.00/hr. $3.00/hr.
$25.00 Daily Max. Yes Yes
Table 48: Parking Rates and Technology Comparison
b) Parking Permits
Comparing Palo Alto’s employee and residential permit programs to those in various comparable cities
can highlight potential program deficiencies or successes to be considered if the City makes changes to its
programs. This report summarizes price structures, permit regulations, and program features amongst
the cities to learn about the various forms a permit program can take on.
Throughout the Downtown Color Zones, an employee can park daily in any of the off-street parking lots
and garages. Employees who do not purchase a permit are required to move their vehicles per posted
time limits throughout the day. Unfortunately, the popularity of this program has resulted in a long waitlist
for the downtown garages, which can make it hard for employees to find sufficient parking downtown.
Considering a higher permit rate may potentially be beneficial to Palo Alto’s employee permit program
because a higher rate could dissuade more employees from driving downtown, and instead more people
may rely on alternative modes of transportation like public transit or biking. It is important to note that a
raise in in downtown employee permits would also result in raising the employee permits in the RPP
district as well. The City of Berkeley has an employee permit rate priced at $1,800.00 annually as well as
the City of Sausalito, which offers a SmartCard at $4.00 per day, amounting to approximately $1,044.00
annually. The City of Santa Monica charges even more than Berkeley and Sausalito, with an annual rate
of over $2,000.00.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 92
The table below shows a comparison between the annual cost for both employee and residential permits
in the different comparable cities. A more detailed description of the city permit programs is covered in
the individual city sections below.
City Downtown Employee Permit
Palo Alto $466.00
Alameda $360.00-$720.00
Berkeley $1,800
(public permit)
Monterey $258.00
Mountain View $326.00
Pasadena N/A
San Mateo $360.00-$960.00
(residents or employees)
Santa Monica $2,112
(public permit)
Sausalito $1,044.00
Table 49: Annual Permit Cost Comparison*
*Note: monthly and bi-annual permit costs were converted to into annual costs for comparison.
7. Cities
a) Alameda, CA
The City of Alameda is located across the bay from San Francisco, and is known for its vibrant business
district as well as its unique retail shops and restaurants downtown. The city is approximately 23 square
miles, with a population of 78,360 per the 2010 Census. In Alameda, the City manages parking, including
street parking, three surface lots, and one parking structure:
• Lot A
• Lot B
• West End Lot
• Civic Center Parking Structure
Both on-street and off-street parking is metered in Alameda. There is a total of 640 on-street and 523 off-
street metered spaces. The City uses single-space IPS meters as well as Cale and T2 multi-space pay
stations. On average, there are 750 transactions per day with the single-space meters compared to an
average of 200 per day with the multi-space pay stations. Currently there is no pay-by-phone option in
Alameda. On-street parking costs between $0.50 and $1.00 per hour, and the off-street parking in
Alameda costs $0.75 per hour. The City is not currently considering raising their parking rates.
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 93
There is an employee parking permit program offered for the top floor of the Civic Center Parking
Structure that can be obtained from the Human Resources
Department. These permit spaces are enforced between the
hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm on Monday – Thursday.
Alameda is currently in the process of implementing a residential
preferential permit parking program for the first time. Through
this program, short-term guest permits will be valid for one day
and longer-term guest permits will be valid for one to four weeks.
These permit zones will be effective between 4:00am and
6:00pm.
b) Berkeley, CA
Berkeley is located near San Francisco in Alameda County, California. Its
urban downtown has a mix of different art, culture, and food for
residents and visitors to enjoy. Per the 2010 census, there are
approximately 120,972 residents in the City, and Berkeley is made up of
17.7 square miles. The Transportation Division along with their parking
operator, LAZ Parking, manages on- and off-street parking. Specifically,
LAZ manages daily operations at the City’s garages and the Berkeley Way
Lot. Berkeley is easily accessible by alternative modes of transportation
such as the BART and the bus, which helps relieve some parking demands.
The City has both paid on- and off-street parking. There is a total of approximately 4,000 on-street parking
spaces downtown, many of which are metered. On-street meters apply between the hours of 9:00am and
6:00pm on weekdays, Saturdays, and even some holidays. Berkeley has introduced Rate Zones downtown
where prices differ depending on location and demand. Rate Zones are identified using color-coded signs
and display either Premium or Value with a corresponding rate and time limit. Premium spaces enforce a
two-hour maximum parking time while Value spaces allow for eight-hour maximum parking time.
Downtown on-street parking rates range from $2.00 per hour in Value zones to $3.25 per hour in Premium
zones.
There are two metered parking lots owned by the City, the Berkeley Way Lot and the Elmwood District
Lot. These lots are metered Monday through Saturday, starting at 7:00am and ending between 6:00pm
and 10:00pm. There are a total of 510 off-street spaces. Off-street parking costs $2.00 per hour with a
$20.00 daily maximum.
The IPS single-space meters and multi-space pay stations account for a combined total of 19,950
transactions on average per day. The City does not currently offer a mobile payment options.
Berkeley currently does not have an employee permit parking program, however there are monthly
permits available for purchase for $150.00 per month to be used in the garages and lots. These permit
locations are enforced between the hours of 7:00am and 6:00pm. The Residential Preferential Parking
program in Berkeley costs $55.00 per year per car. Additionally, residents may purchase up to twenty-
one-day visitor permits per year at a price of $2.75 each. Up to three fourteen-day visitor permits can be
Image 1: Alameda Civic Center Parking
Structure
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 94
purchased per year for $28.50 each. The zones eligible for a residential permit have been determined by
the City’s Traffic Engineer’s Office.
c) Monterey, CA
The City of Monterey is known for its coastal charm, and Monterey’s thriving old town has numerous
shops, restaurants, and a farmers’ market that attract residents and visitors downtown. Per the 2010
Census, there are approximately 27,810 residents in the 11.8 square mile city. Parking in Monterey can
get quite busy especially during the summer months, as many tourists are attracted to the City. Both on-
and off-street parking in managed by the City.
Public parking in in the City of Monterey is managed by the Parking Division, which is a standalone division
under the Community Services Department. None of the parking related tasks in Monterey are
outsourced. The Parking Division is an enterprise fund, in which the Division is responsible for its own
expenses. This allows the City to exhibit to the public the total service costs as well as how revenues and
fees are factored into the budget. Monterey’s Parking Division runs all aspects of parking including meter
maintenance, collections, enforcement and administration. They pay their Parks Division to provide
landscaping for their facilities, and they pay the Streets Division for street pavement and sign
maintenance. The Parking Division also pays $550,000.00 annually into the General Fund for City services
from Human Resources, the City Attorney, the Finance Department, etc. In the Parking Division, there are
twenty-five full-time and twenty-eight part-time employees.
Figure 42: City of Berkeley Residential Permit Map
C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 95
Street parking in downtown Monterey has time limits ranging from 20 minutes to two-hours, and many
of the off-street spaces are limited to two-hours as well. There are an estimated 3000 on-street spaces,
510 of which are metered. Out of the 3,940 off-street spaces, 2,258 of those are metered. The majority
of meters in Monterey are IPS single-space meters, but there are a small amount of POM meters scattered
throughout City. As for pay stations, the City uses both Ventek and MacKay.
The City does not currently provide a mobile payment functions. The rate for on-street parking is $1.50
per hour, and off-street parking costs between $0.50 and $1.50 per hour. Monterey was able to provide
average transactions per day data for the winter and summer. The average number of transactions per
day in January and July for both on- and off-street meters and pay stations are as follows:
January:
• 1,184 single-space meter transactions per day
• 975 multi-space pay station transactions per day
July:
• 2,156 single-space meter transactions per day
• 2,173 multi-space pay station transactions per day
Monthly permit parking is offered for the Downtown West Garage, Downtown East Garage, and the
Cannery Row Garage. The access card cost varies by garage and has an additional $5.00 deposit, however
there is a discount for quarterly and annual permits. There are also monthly surface lot permits available
for Lots B, 4, 6, 14, 18, 21, the Depot Lot, and the Waterfront Lot. These require a paper permit that is
displayed on the dash. These permits have a $10.00 deposit, and generally cost $42.50 per month with
some variation depending on the lot. See Figure 38 for a schedule of permit fees.
Figure 43: City of Monterey Permit Rates
There are employee parking permit and residential parking permit programs in Monterey. The employee
permits are offered on either a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis to be used between the hours of
9:00am and 8:00pm. These permits are available on a quarterly or monthly basis, and cost $21.50 per
month or $57.00 per quarter. The New Monterey Employee permit is outlined for the New Monterey
Business District and one must supply a pay stub, business card, or sign letter from employer on business
letterhead to qualify.
The residential permit program requires that a majority (50% + 1) of the households on that block(s) sign
a petition requesting the program. At which time, the designated block(s) must be approved by the
Parking Division through parking studies that determine if the blocks have at least 70% average occupancy.
This program also allows two guest permits per residence, free, and it is the responsibility of the resident
to see that the guest permit is returned to him/her for re-use.
The City Monterey’s Parking department is handled completely by the City. The department is structured
as an enterprise find. The department pays approximately $850,000 for services with other departments
(e.g., Finance, City Attorney, Public Work). The Parking Fund pays one-hundred percent of all its expenses
to include loans and capital projects. Monterey does not outsource any operations to private third-party
vendors. Parking pays for services from other City Departments. For example, Parking pays the Parks
Division for landscape services, building maintenance for janitorial services and minor repairs.
Furthermore, the Streets Division is paid by Parking to perform maintenance of on-street pavement
around metered spaces as well as sign services.
d) Mountain View, CA
The City of Mountain View is in Santa Clara County near Palo Alto and within the
Silicon Valley. Mountain View is known for its many major technology companies
as well as its downtown core around the Castro and Mercy Streets. The City is
made up of around 12.3 square miles, and has a population of approximately
80,435 people.
The City of Mountain View Community Development Department manages
parking within the downtown commercial area, while the Public Works
Department is responsible for parking outside of the downtown core. The Police Department provides
citywide enforcement and citation management, and citations are processed through a third party.
Currently, Mountain View does not have any members dedicated to parking full-time. Instead, the
responsibility is shared across the three departments with four staff members involved in some aspects
of parking.
Mountain View currently does not have paid on- or off-street parking downtown. Instead, there are
various time limit restrictions depending on the location. Where time limits are enforced, parking is
restricted to two-hours, with some 1-hour, 3-hour, and 5-hours. Additionally, there is no overnight parking
allowed in the parking garages between the hours of 2:00am and 6:00am. While parking is currently free,
the City currently faces extremely high occupancy rates downtown, making it difficult for drivers to find
parking during the peak lunch and evening hours. The Mountain View City Council recently agreed to
begin exploring the possibility of paid parking to potentially free up more parking spaces.
Mountain View offers downtown parking permits that may be purchased by downtown residents,
employers, or employees for long-term parking. Drivers can purchase these permits on a monthly or
annual basis, or as a booklet of 25 one-day permits. The annual purchase price is $240.00, and the
monthly and booklet prices are $40.00 each. The purpose of the booklets is for business owners to
purchase and distribute to their customers. Those with downtown permits may park for up to 72-hours in
select parking garages and lots.
As for a residential permit program, the City does offer parking permits for those who reside within the
parking permit program boundaries which has been created in response to game-day parking issues
spurned from the Levi’s football stadium. The structure of this permit program is unique because it is
modeled around the San Francisco 49ers schedule. Two permits per household are provided for free for
those residents within the program boundaries pictured below. The permits are only valid on game days
because of the influx of traffic to the area on those days. Permit holders are permitted to park without
restriction between 5:00pm and 10:00pm on weekday game days, and between 8:00am and 10:00pm on
weekend game days.
e) Pasadena, CA
Downtown Pasadena, known as Old Town Pasadena, is a business district with many
restaurants, shops, and events as well as a Sunday farmers’ market. There are
approximately 142,250 people residing in the City per the 2010 census report. The
City of Pasadena is made up of just over 23 square miles and it is located ten miles
northeast of Los Angeles.
The Parking Services Division in the City of Pasadena falls under the Department of
Transportation. This Division is responsible for aspects of the City’s parking program including
enforcement and permit and citation processing. The meter mechanics are part of the Department of
Transportation, and some facility maintenance is handled by the Public Works Department. Additionally,
some garage and surface lot management is contracted out. Garage operations including customer service
calls, custodial and maintenance is contracted out. Pasadena also relies partly on a private security
company that can issue citations on behalf of the City, on City ticket stock, as part of their enforcement.
There are a total of twenty-one City employees that deal with parking, and there are fifteen contracted
parking enforcement officers.
While most on-street spaces in Pasadena do not have daily time limits, there are 2,267 metered spaces
downtown. These meters are enforced every day of the week downtown, and either six or seven day per
Figure 44: Mountain View Residential Permit Program Boundaries
week by the Civic Center, Playhouse, and South Lake areas of the City. There is no street parking allowed
overnight between 2:00am and 6:00am. The City uses Duncan single-space meters throughout downtown.
On-street parking in Pasadena costs between $1.00 and $1.25 per hour depending on the location.
As for off-street parking, the City has a total number of 6,469 spaces, 904 of which are mall paid. There
are eleven different off-street parking locations throughout downtown that are convenient to restaurants
and shopping. Pasadena uses the Cale multi-space pay stations for off-street parking. There are on average
24 transactions per day on average at the pay stations, and the City does not offer a mobile payment
option. Off-street parking costs between $0.75 and $2.00.
While there is no employee permit program in Pasadena, there is an annual residential permit option for
on-street parking. Residents can register for an annual overnight on-street parking permit or an annual
daytime on-street permit. To qualify, residents must own more vehicles than they have space to park off-
street at their residence. Residents can only have a maximum of two permits at a time. These permits
have an application fee of $43.00 each, and they require a photocopy of the vehicle registration for every
vehicle they own. Annual permits currently expire on December 31 of each year and are prorated
quarterly. The fee for an overnight parking permit or a daytime parking permit is outlined below.
January 1, 2016 – March 31, 2016 $71.32 each
April 1, 2016 – June 30, 2016 $53.49 each
July 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016 $35.66 each
October 1, 2016 – December 31, 2016 $17.83 each
Table 50: City of Pasadena fee schedule for overnight and daytime parking permits
One of the main issues that Pasadena has run into with their residential permit parking program is the
lack of regulations with guest permits. Currently, the program does not have a restricted number of guest
permits allowed per year. Additionally, the City does all the permit fulfillment, which can be very time
consuming. Because of this, they are considering having a 3rd-party company handle this program in the
future.
f) Redwood City, CA
Redwood City, utilizes one engineer in the Engineering and Transportation Services Division that is
responsible for overseeing the entire parking program. The Engineering and Transportation Services
Division falls under the Community Development Department. Many of the parking tasks are split
between multiple departments. The Revenue Services Department handles cash collections and credit
card processing, the Public Works Department is responsible for maintenance, signs and curbs, and the
Police Department handles enforcement. Additionally, the City Manager Communications Division is
responsible for any parking advertising and outreach, and the Information Technology (IT) Department
provides meter and garage technology support services. Parking garage staffing and management is
outsourced to ABM. Coordination between the departments’ parking goals can be very difficult with the
tasks split among so many departments, which is why the oversight from the engineer is critical. In
addition to the engineer, there are three employees that deal with parking in the Public Works
Department, two in Community Development, three in Revenue Services, open in IT, and three in the
Police Department. A total of twelve staff in Redwood City total who deal with some aspect of parking.
g) San Jose, CA
The Parking Division in San Jose is within the Department of Transportation and manages most parking-
related tasks. SP+ is the City’s parking operator and provides garage security. Additionally, all citation
processing is done by Turbo Data. Within the Parking Division there is a Transportation and Parking
Operations Division manager and three Parking Managers. There is an Off-Street Parking Manager, an On-
Street Parking Manager, and a Program Manager. The Parking and Transportation Control Officers fall
under the management of the On-Street Manager. There are a total of sixty-seven full-time and eight part-
time Parking Division employees in the City of San Jose.
h) San Mateo, CA
San Mateo is located between San Francisco and Palo Alto, known for its award-
winning restaurants, startup companies, and unique arts. The City is dense and
walkable, with easy access to public transit. San Mateo is almost 16 square miles and
has a population of 103,356 people. The City, along with their parking operator, SP+,
manage the 3,000 parking spaces (on and off-street) downtown including the City’s
permit application system, like Palo Alto.
Public Parking in the City of San Mateo is managed by the Public Works Department through the City
Manager’s Office. The City Manager’s Office commissioned a Downtown Parking Management Plan
through CDM Smith in 2013, which recommended the creation of a dedicated Parking Manager position.
They recently hired their first Parking Manger to oversee the program. Public Works handles all customer
service and permit distribution in-house at City Hall. Enforcement is also completely managed by the City
through the Police Department. The City retains SP+ as an on-call consultant, primarily for parking
operations, meter maintenance and collections, as well as some technical consulting. Data collection is
also outsourced, like it is done in Palo Alto. In addition to the Parking Manager, there is one full-time
Parking Administrative Technician, a varying number of Parking Enforcement Officers, two Traffic
Sergeants who work on some parking programs, a Community Service Officer who oversees the
enforcement officers, and a Technician at the counter who works partially on permit distribution.
There are 1,200 on-street metered spaces in downtown San Mateo, which each cost $1.00 per hour in the
Central Area (highlighted by Orange Area in Figure 40 below). Time limits vary depending on, on-street or
off-street parking. For example, parking in the Central Garage enforces a 3-hour time limit on the street
level while all other levels are no time limit. The Perimeter Area parking (highlighted by Green Area in
Figure 40 below) is $0.50 per hour with varying time limits similar to the Central Area. Street level off-
street garage parking and surface lots enforce a 3-hour time limit while there is no time limit for the other
garage levels. On-street spaces have varying time limits. There areas highlighted on the below map in
orange are considered the core, and the green are those areas that are considered the perimeter. There
are some POM, IPS, and MacKay single-space meters throughout the downtown. Parking is enforced
between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm Monday through Saturday. Parking is free after 6:00pm
Monday through Saturday.
The striped areas on the above map indicate the off-street garage parking locations downtown. The street
level of the central garage (in orange) is $1.00 per hour with a three-hour time limit. The other floors cost
$0.50 per hour and do not have a time limit. This system helps increase turnover on the most convenient
floor and keeps the all-day parkers on the upper floors. The street level of the other garages as well as the
surface lots cost $0.50 per hour, also with a three-hour time limit. The other levels are the same price but
without a time limit. The City uses Amano and MacKay multi-space pay stations.
Figure 45: San Mateo Parking Zone Map
San Mateo offers a mobile payment option through PayByPhone. This is available at two of the off-street
parking lots currently, but the City will likely expand this program to all the off-street lot locations in the
upcoming months. PaybyPhone provides customers with an alternative way to pay for downtown parking
and if a customer is nearing the expiration of their parking time, one can add additional time, up to the
time limit for that space. Mobile payment is a convenient payment option for a City like San Mateo. There
are on average around 500 transactions per month through PayByPhone at each lot, equating to an
average of 8-10 transactions per day.
The City has a monthly permit that is available for residents or for employees. Permit sales are processed
online through the San Mateo Parking website. Each permit is linked to an individual license plate number
and is a physical hangtag that is printed by permit holder. Permits are purchased for specific zones. The
different zones have varied costs. The downtown core costs $80.00 per month, while the perimeter is
$50.00 and outside of downtown is $30.00 per month. This tiered rate structure makes parking in the core
of downtown a premium, and encourages drivers to park further away to save money and free up the
more valuable spaces.
There is also a residential parking permit program in San Mateo which is currently free. Parking permits
are issued as stickers and are affixed to the resident’s vehicle. Residential permits are valid for two
calendar years. These permits are available for neighborhoods that are impacted by heavy traffic from
nearby businesses for example. There is no fee for these permits, but residents must fill out an application.
The number of permits that may be issued to a single or multi-family residence is unlimited. Each
household is also eligible for a transferable visitor hangtag.
i) Santa Monica, CA
Santa Monica is located on the coast in western Los Angeles County. It is home to
many boutique shops, high-end restaurants, and landmark attractions. The City
is a tourist destination, and is home to an estimated 93,220 people per the 2010
census. The City is comprised of around just 8.4 square miles. On-street parking
is managed by the City, while their parking operation, SP Plus manages the off-
street parking facilities.
There are approximately 5,000 on-street metered spaces in Santa Monica. The
City uses IPS single-space meters, and the rate is between $1.00 and $2.00 per hour. These meters accept
credit card and coin, but there is no mobile payment option at this time. Most meters, such as those along
Ocean Avenue, 4th Street, and 2nd Street have a 3-hour time limit, which is enforced between 8:00am and
2:00am every day. The downtown meters along 5th Street and near the Civic Center also have a 3-hour
time limit, but these are enforced between 8:00am and 9:00pm.
The downtown parking structures in Santa Monica offer the first 90-minutes of parking free. The next
hour is $1.25, with each additional 30-minutes costing $1.85. There is a daily maximum of $17.50. There
are a total of twelve parking structures and four lots that make up parking for the downtown, Third Street
Promenade and the Civic Center.
There are multiple types of monthly permits that the public can choose to purchase for the off-street
parking structures. A regular monthly permit to be used anytime is $176.00. There are also two options
to either park on weekdays from 6:00am to 7:00pm or on weeknights from 4:00pm to 6:00am. These
time-limited permits cost $132.00 for the day and $82.50 for the night option.
The employee permit parking program in Santa Monica allows employees to park with keycard access to
an assigned parking structure with the purchase of their monthly permit. There are also exempt street-
parking permit available. These are only valid during the employment period, and applications are
reviewed by the City to ensure eligibility. There are also five options for monthly permits available for
employees that permit access into different parking structures:
Option1 Lots 1N, 3N-9N, 2S-5S $27.00 per month
Option 2 Civic Center $160.00 per month
Option 3 Civic Center between 3:30pm-6:00am $75.00 per month
Option 4 Main Library $82.50 per month
Option 5 Downtown structures 1-9 $176.00 per month
Table 51: City of Santa Monica permit schedule for Downtown, Third Street Promenade and Civic Center parking
Employee parking permits are issued only to employees of businesses and must provide proof of
employment, current California registration reflecting employees name and address, as well as proof of
California residency (driver’s license or ID card).
The residential Preferential Parking Permit program limits certain on-street zones to residents to make it
easier for residents to find parking in impacted areas. Residents’ permits are only valid within a two-block
radius of their address, and only residents that live on an approved block may purchase a visitor permit.
Applicants must show proof of residency, and pay a fee of $25.00 to apply. One permit per vehicle is
allowed, and up to two visitor permits are allowed per year. A maximum of 25 one-day permits can be
issued per year for events.
The red zones on the below map currently have residential preferential parking permit programs, and the
blue streets are pre-approved for eligibility.
One issue that Santa Monica is facing today is that, despite having a residential preferential permit
program, many residents still have trouble finding adequate parking due to the two-block radius rule. This
is also considered unfair in some situations where, because of the geography, residents don’t always have
a full two block radius to choose from. Additionally, the program allows residents to self-generate daily
temporary permits for free. This system is vulnerable to abuse, and not easily regulated by the police
department. The City is considering a way to make the system more regulated and less susceptible to
abuse.
j) San Rafael, CA
The parking program in the City of San Rafael is managed by the Parking Services Division, which reports
to the City Manager’s Office. The only aspects of the parking program that are outsourced are equipment
Figure 46: City of Santa Monica Preferential Parking Map
repair for garage maintenance and citation processing and noticing. There is a total of sixteen staff
members that deal with parking, including 6 parking enforcement officers.
k) Sausalito, CA
The City of Sausalito is made up of just 2.3 square miles in the San Francisco Bay Area, and it has a
population of approximately 7,156 people. It is known for its quaint and picturesque downtown area,
made up of around three blocks of shops and cafes. On- and off-street parking is managed by the City’s
Parking Authority.
Sausalito has 174 on-street metered spaces with single space IPS parking meters. There are approximately
150 transactions per day at these single space meters. The on-street parking meters in Sausalito operate
between the hours of 9:00am and 6:00pm daily. Additionally, there is often a three-hour time limit
restriction for the meters. The meters also allow drivers to prepay for time during the day if they park
before 9:00am. With this system, the payment would apply beginning at 9:00am. All parking meters have
a rate of $1.00 per hour in the City.
The City has 520 off-street metered spaces, which use the T2 Digital pay stations. The multi-space pay
stations have on average 900 total transactions per day. Sausalito also offers mobile payment through
Parkmobile for the off-street metered locations. Mobile payments account for approximately an
additional 60 transactions per day. There are five city public parking lots in Sausalito. These lots require
payment between 7:00am and 10:00pm, with some variation depending on the lot. Lots 1 and 2 each cost
$1.00 per 20 minutes, with a daily maximum of $25.00. Parking Lot 3 costs $1.00 per 30 minutes, but with
the same daily maximum. Additionally, Lot 4 costs $1.00 per hour with a $5.00 daily max. Three hours of
free parking are provided at Lot 5. Overnight parking is allowed in Lots 1-4, but Lot 5 requires an overnight
Area L permit.
For employees, there are a few options for longer term parking downtown. Sausalito offers a Commuter
Parking SmartCard, which allows employees to park in Lot 3 or 4 for a reduced flat rate of just $4.00 per
day. These permits are preloaded with a balance to cover parking. Around 56 SmartCards are used per
day downtown. Employees can also choose to use the Parkmobile mobile payment option to park in the
off-street locations for $4.35 per day. Around 43 vehicles utilize this option for daily parking. Finally, there
is a premium D Permit which costs $260.00 per quarter and allows unlimited parking in Lots 3 and 4. This
permit is currently used by around 21 vehicles per quarter. The off-street long term parking permits are
valid between 8:00am and 10:00pm.
There is also a residential permit-parking program in Sausalito for various neighborhoods labeled with
Area B, C, D, and H signage. Each area costs $35.00 per vehicle per year for a permit, except for Area D,
which costs $190.00 per vehicle per quarter. Around 500 of these residential permits are purchased per
year. These permits are not valid at parking meters, and they do not allow drivers to park for more than
72 hours in the same space. Two guest permits may be requested per address for no extra charge.
Additionally, residents can apply for a Resident Parking Passcard for a $10.00 application fee. The Passcard
allows residents to park in Lots 1-4 for up to three hours free per day between 7:00am and 6:00pm. This
time can be used incrementally if desired. Any additional time used gets billed to the cardholder. It also
allows permits free overnight parking in those locations between 6:00pm and 7:00am. This program is
managed by the Sausalito Parking Authority and its enforcement officers. Officers can recognize valid
resident Passcards via their handheld enforcement devices at which time the spaces will display as green,
meaning paid.
l) Walnut Creek, CA
Parking management in the City of Walnut Creek falls under the City Manager’s Office. The Parking
Manager is responsible for overseeing on- and off-street parking policy, the parking enterprise fund,
parking garage operations, private parking ordinances, etc., the Public Works Department handles on-
street meter maintenance and facility maintenance, and Transportation Engineering handles the
residential parking permits. The Police Department is responsible for parking enforcement. Parking garage
day-to-day operations is outsourced to LAZ Parking.
City of Palo Alto Downtown
Parking Management Study:
Draft Recommendations
3639 Midway Drive, Suite B345
San Diego, CA 92110-5254
Table of Contents
I. Paid Parking ........................................................................................................................................... 4
A. Occupancy and Turnover ................................................................................................................. 4
B. Parking Meters and Pay Stations ..................................................................................................... 5
1. Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Single-Space Meters .................................................................................................................... 6
3. Multi-Space Pay Stations ............................................................................................................. 8
C. Mobile Payment ............................................................................................................................. 10
D. Comprehensive Parking Management System .............................................................................. 11
E. Active Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 12
1. Occupancy Rates........................................................................................................................ 12
2. Sensors....................................................................................................................................... 13
F. Sales Tax ......................................................................................................................................... 14
G. On and Off-Street Rates and Time Limits ...................................................................................... 15
1. On-Street Rates and Time Limits ............................................................................................... 15
2. Off-Street Rates ......................................................................................................................... 21
H. Off Street Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 24
I. Special Events ................................................................................................................................ 25
J. Distribution Model ......................................................................................................................... 26
K. Community Outreach..................................................................................................................... 27
II. Permits ................................................................................................................................................ 28
III. Parking Guidance and Wayfinding ................................................................................................. 31
A. Wayfinding ..................................................................................................................................... 31
B. Automated Parking Guidance Systems .......................................................................................... 32
C. Current Wayfinding ........................................................................................................................ 33
D. Parking Guidance Systems ............................................................................................................. 34
E. Digital Wayfinding .......................................................................................................................... 36
IV. Enforcement .................................................................................................................................. 38
V. Centralization of Palo Alto Parking Related Operations ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
A. Proposed Organizational Structure................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
B. Outsourcing of Parking Operations .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
VI. Alternative Strategies .................................................................................................................... 47
A. Secure Existing Parking Supply ...................................................................................................... 47
B. Downtown Employee Mobility Program ....................................................................................... 48
I. Paid Parking
A. Occupancy and Turnover
Recommendation:
• Implement a dynamic paid parking program in Downtown and replace the existing color zone
system.
Parking occupancy rates have reached a point in Downtown Palo Alto that visitors cannot easily find
convenient parking, forcing drivers to circle slowly around the streets and parking facilities looking for a
space. This creates further congestion and can also deter customers from visiting the downtown. As an
industry standard, cities aim for a parking space vacancy rate of 10-15% (assuming ten spaces per block
face), which translates to one to two spaces on an average block face. It’s important to note that this 10-
15% ratio is relative to the number of spaces per block. However, the afternoon and evening data
collection periods revealed that many of the on- and off-street parking locations were over 80% occupied.
The recommendation of paid parking is being introduced to support the City’s occupancy and
sustainability goals. Reducing congestion with a paid parking solution will ultimately save drivers time and
reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, there is an unrealized value of parking in
Palo Alto—Paid parking has the potential to help fund the Palo Alto Transportation Management
Association (TMA) in their efforts to encourage alternative modes of transportation and reduce single-
occupant vehicle trips.
While the time limits set by the color zone rules facilitate
parking space turnover, the color zones are no longer effective
in helping Palo Alto reach an efficient occupancy rate. Data
analysis revealed that many drivers are in fact following the
color zones rules, with only a small number of drivers
overstaying their allotted time. Additionally, most downtown
time limit parking was only observed in one color zone during
the day, meaning that much of parking downtown lasted just
two to three hours. There was a small segment of drivers (6-
8%) that were observed jumping between multiple zones to extend their stay downtown. While the
number may not seem significant, there are still a few hundred vehicles hopping between color zones
throughout the day causing further congestion and impacting parking availability.
The color zones do create turnover, but because the same rule blankets the entire downtown, the zones
are ineffective at encouraging drivers to steer away from high occupancy areas. Drivers likely circle the
block looking for a convenient space, without an incentive to park a few blocks away where the occupancy
may be lower. This creates an issue with congestion and does not help free up spaces in the highest
occupancy areas downtown.
Provided there are various ways to adjust parking rates, paid parking can be an effective tool to help
alleviate high occupancy rates, making the parking experience downtown more efficient and convenient
for drivers. Some business owners have expressed their concern that paid parking may discourage people
from visiting downtown because there are other nearby shopping destinations with free parking. While
this may be true for some consumers, there is a segment of the population that may be more likely to go
downtown and pay for parking if it means that parking is easier and quicker to find. It is important to
recognize that parking is a limited and expensive resource, especially in a vibrant downtown like Palo Alto,
and paid parking can help maximize this resource through strategic rate structures and technology
enhancements.
B. Parking Meters and Pay Stations
Recommendations:
• Implement an on-street and off-street (surface lots only) paid parking solution.
• Evaluate parking technology equipment to address community needs and system capabilities.
• Distribute a parking technology solicitation by, including performance measures and
maintenance requirements.
• Select parking technology vendor(s) by 6-8 months prior to projected implementation.
1. Overview
The City should evaluate the variety of single-space meter and pay station options available and consider
piloting equipment to determine the needs of Palo Alto and the community’s preferences for the features
offered by the parking technology providers. This assessment should serve as the baseline for a citywide
solicitation that should be issued, and the vendor should be selected by six to eight months prior to when
the City intends on having paid parking implemented and live. Per the City’s CIP, this project is likely to
begin in late 2017 and proceed through 2018.
There are varied opinions in the parking industry on when to choose single-space meters or multi-space
meters (pay stations) but ultimately the choice is dependent on the unique needs and desires of the
community that they will serve. Below is a list of considerations to have when comparing the two types
of meters:
• Ease of use: Single-space meters are generally simpler and easier to use.
• Signage: Single-space meters do not require as much signage because drivers see the meter when
they park and know that they are required to pay. Pay stations require signage with arrows
directing drivers to the pay station.
• Fees: There are typically higher credit card transaction fees with single-space meters to afford the
technology required in every meter.
• Aesthetics: Pay stations reduce the amount of street furniture.
• Collections: Single-space meters have smaller coin vaults, meaning that they must be collected
more frequently.
• Revenue: Drivers can park at single-space meters with time left on it from a previous parker and
save money, while pay stations typically do not allow for this. This means that pay stations can
potentially increase revenue by around 10%. Meter reset sensors can be installed with single-
space meters that may increase revenue, but that is an added cost and it decreases hardware
battery life.
It is important to note that sensors are typically associated with single-space meters. Though
multi-space pay stations can be integrated with sensors, the process becomes more complex.
Whereas with single-space meters the ratio of meter to sensor is 1:1, the multi-space to sensor
ratio range may be much greater depending on the number of spaces a multi-space pay station is
configured to accept payment from.
• Enforcement: Paying by space or by license plate at pay stations can be more efficient and less
labor intensive to enforce because each meter does not need to be inspected.
In terms of payment security for the City and customers, most vendors today are annual certified from a
third-party Qualified Security Assessor (QSAs), recognized by the PCI Security Council for Level 1 Payment
Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) and Payment Application Data Security Standard (PA-DSS).
When considering a potential vendor however, the City should verify and ensure these certifications are
current.
When soliciting meter vendors, it is important to include performance measures and maintenance
requirements in the solicitation specifications. By binding financial penalties to hardware and software
support services and requirements, it will ensure that the City receives assistance in a timely manner. This
is critical because any downtime in the system is potential lost revenue for the City.
2. Single-Space Meters
The convenience and ease of use of single-space meters is what
makes them effective for dense commercial areas. Along main streets
such as University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue, it is recommended
that the City install single-space meters. Thus, visitors will be able to
quickly and easily pay the meter nearest their vehicle and proceed in
the direction they are going. Also, given these commercial areas
attract many visitors, single-space meters will avoid lines forming at
pay stations during peak hours.
Smart-meters, or single-space meters that accept credit card payments, will provide the City with a back-
office dashboard and real-time access to parking information and data related to its meters. This can allow
Palo Alto to monitor the meters and be notified of any maintenance issues. These meters must meet the
Payment Card Industry (PCI) security standards for credit card transactions. Additionally, all payment
information can be tracked and audited to ensure proper revenue reconciliation during collections. Most
single-space meter vendors offer back-office management systems that allow staff to edit the display
screen, manage rate structures, and run a variety of reports. Smart single-space meters are estimated in
Variations of single-space meters
price near $750 per meter (including pole and housing), with an additional $9 per meter per month
approximately for data management in addition to transaction fees.
Below is a map of proposed single-space meters. Given on the location of single-space meters in the core
of the Downtown and based on DIXON’s recommendation of three-tiered pricing zones, Tier 1 will be
comprised of majority single-space meters.
Figure 1: Recommended On-Street Single-Space Meter Coverage
3. Multi-Space Pay Stations
Multi-space meters or pay stations normally serve as the payment terminal for roughly 6-7 on-street
parking spaces or more when installed in off-street locations or angled parking. Like the smart single-
space meters, the pay stations offer back-office and real time access for meter information. Pay stations
can be configured to accept multiple forms of payment such as credit card, coin, and bills. Pay stations,
depending on their features, may cost between $6,000 and $10,000 per unit with monthly data
management fees between $45 and $75 per unit per month.
There are three main operational configurations pay stations: pay and
display, pay by space, and pay by plate
• Pay and Display: The driver parks, purchases parking session time
at the pay station, and then returns to their vehicle to display the
receipt on their dashboard.
• Pay by Space: The driver parks in a numbered space, and then pays
at the pay station using the parking space number. The driver does
not have to return to their vehicle because their payment is
electronically tied to their space number.
• Pay by Plate: The driver enters their license plate number at the pay
station to record their payment. This method does not require
drivers to return to their car as well.
Outlined below is table highlighting important efficiencies and limitations with each of the three payment
configurations on pay stations.
Pay and Display Pay by Space Pay by Plate
Display permit Spaces numbered Marking optional
Unable to assign rates to spaces Ability to assign rates to spaces Can assign rates to zones/area
Increased potential for revenue
leakage via pass-back
Less opportunity for revenue
leakage
No opportunity for revenue
leakage
Visual inspection enforcement Enforcement using wireless
handheld units Mobile-LPR enforcement
Least integrated with mobile
payment solutions
Easily integrates with mobile
payment solutions
Easily integrates with mobile
payment solutions
Least user-friendly (return to
vehicle) User-friendly User-friendly
Table 1: Efficiencies and limitations associated with pay station payment configurations
Many municipalities tend to favor pay by space and pay by plate over pay and display because they do
not require drivers to return to their car with a receipt after purchasing time. These methods are not only
more convenient and efficient for patrons, but they are also easier to enforce because they don’t require
enforcement officers to look at each individual dashboard for proof of payment.
Multi-space pay stations
One advantage for the driver of pay by space is that the driver is not expected to remember and enter in
their license plate number at the pay station. However, pay by plate payment is increasing in popularity
with the advancements in mobile LPR technology, the preferred enforcement method when utilizing pay
by plate technology. The negative connotation around pay by plate and customers not knowing or
remembering their license plate number is subsiding.
Additionally, as an added convenience, subject to City policy, pay by space and pay by plate systems allow
the driver to pay for and add additional parking time onto their existing parking session from any pay
station or from their cellphone if the time limit has not been reached.
To make the parking experience in Palo Alto as simple for visitors as possible, it is recommended that the
City implement pay stations with the pay by space configuration. These pay stations should be located on-
street in the peripheral areas of the downtown to avoid the infrastructure cost of installing single-space
meters for every parking space. Ideally there should be a pay station located on both ends of each block
face so drivers can park, walk in the direction of their destination, pay for parking as they pass the pay
station, and proceed on. It is recommended that the City install them facing parallel to the streets because
lines may form at the pay stations. This will prevent any lines from blocking the walkways. Regarding the
off-street surface lots, it is recommended that the City place at a minimum, one pay station in each surface
lot that provide any hourly-parking. Much like on-street spaces, off-street surface lots configured with
multi-space pay stations will be intended for motorists with relatively short-stay periods in hopes of re-
directing long-term parkers to the garage facilities. It is imperative with the implementation of paid hourly
parking that the pay stations are in working order. Also, with pay stations it is important to ensure that
there is adequate signage to direct patrons to the meters. Given Palo Alto does not get snowfall, space
numbers may be painted on the pavement or on the curb instead of using pole mounted signage.
The map below shows the recommended on-street blocks (highlighted in yellow) for the installation of
pay stations. Additionally, it is recommended that the City utilize pay stations in all surface lots and, like
single-space meter placement in Tier 1, pay stations should be the primary technology utilized off-street
in Tier Zone 2 and 3. Currently, off-street hourly surface lots are treated much like on-street spaces in
terms of time limits. For consistency and to minimize costs, the installation of pay stations in surface lots
in lieu of gate access should be sufficient. Furthermore, many motorists are accustomed to paying for
parking at a pay station in surface lots and a similar configuration in Palo Alto would not be confusing. If
the City determines that an access control or LPR-based garage solution is not viable, pay stations should
be installed within the garage locations to manage garage payments for hourly parking.
Additionally, it is suggested that when the City reaches the procurement and vendor selection phase of
paid parking technology it utilize the opportunity to run a pilot and trial period of multiple meters and pay
stations throughout the Downtown. Doing so will provide staff, community and visitors to test the
proposed equipment options and assist the City in determining the ideal paid parking technology solution
for Palo Alto. The City of Sausalito successfully implemented a similar pilot in spring 2015 with upwards
of 7 different pay station and meter vendors. The trial lasted roughly 60-days and invited the community
test the numerous technologies and provide feedback to City staff. The City subsequently chose a
combination of both single-space and multi-space pay stations for its Downtown.
C. Mobile Payment
Recommendation:
• Integrate a mobile payment application with any paid parking technology solution. It will be
important to consider the mobile payment providers currently integrated at Stanford University
and in other surrounding cities. Doing so provides with an ease of use based on consistency and
familiarity. Ultimately however, the City should choose the provider that best fits the needs of
Palo Alto.
Figure 2: Recommended On-Street Multi-Space Pay Station Coverage
Many cities choose to implement mobile payment or pay by web as an option to
improve customer service by giving drivers more payment options. Patrons can create
an account through a phone app or website to pay for parking, which also allows a
driver to pay for their parking time without accessing the parking hardware.
Depending upon city policy, drivers can be provided the option to extend their time
remotely. Mobile payment services require drivers to enter in their license plate
number (or space number), which serves as the payment identifier for enforcement
officers. In the case of a pay and display configuration as the hardware form of
payment, a mobile payment remains simple. The driver would open their mobile
application and make a payment in the same method as a pay by plate or pay by space
configuration. The mobile payment application would request the driver input their
license plate number as well. Provided the mobile payment system may be integrated
with enforcement handhelds, the enforcement officer would run a query through the
mobile application to verify payment has been made for any vehicle without a receipt displayed. Mobile
payment technology can to be utilized with both single-space meter and multi-space pay stations,
regardless of payment configuration on the meter.
Typically, the mobile payment vendor offers a turnkey solution for implementing their system, which
includes signage and promotions without an additional cost to the municipality. Some vendors also offer
a while label service, which allows cities to utilize their own branding for the service. This allows cities to
promote mobile payment through a city-owned website.
Utilization of mobile payment falls between 3% and 10% in most cities, and users pay a small transaction
fee, usually between $0.10 and $0.35. Mobile payment can be integrated with both single-space and pay
stations. While the current utilization figures may seem low, with the continued widespread use of smart
phone technology, it is recommended that Palo Alto implement a mobile payment system with all parking
meter technology solutions.
D. Comprehensive Parking Management System
Recommendations:
• With the potential implementation of paid parking and
re-structuring of the City’s current permit program
including employee permits, it is recommended that the
City solicit a comprehensive parking management
system. This management system shall allow for
integration with other management and payment
platforms such as Clipper 2.0
• The comprehensive system should enable the City to monitor its permit program, allowing
customers to create user accounts, apply and renew current parking permits.
• The comprehensive system should allow the City to monitor issued citations and provide
customers the opportunity to pay citations online, in real-time.
Mobile payment
display
• As part of the comprehensive management system, the City should ensure that the selected
system allows for intuitive reporting features for both revenue and performance measures.
Along with a centralized parking department, the City also should anticipate implementing a unified
citation and permit management system (CPMS). The CPMS would offer act as an integrated solution
allowing users to establish an online account with the City and manage all permit requests. This would
include all employee parking permits and residential parking permits. Customers would have the
opportunity to submit any required documentation via a web portal and the City or the designated
vendor could efficiently verify the application and permit fulfillment process. The CPMS would also
provide online renewal capabilities and perform customer payment processes. In addition, utilizing
the CPMS would automate the City’s current permit waitlist process providing the ability to manage
and adjust capacity thresholds utilizing CPMS management tools. Most importantly, all permit data,
including financial reconciliation details, would be immediately available via the CPMS in real-time.
The system can also be integrated to transmit data to the designated City administrative management
systems.
With a proposed permit management solution, the City should also plan to implement an integrated
citation management system, a necessary and efficient tool as the City considers the installation of
paid parking technology. A turnkey CPMS solution will provide updated handheld technology
hardware for the enforcement officers which if needed, can be incorporated to integrate with a
potential LPR system. In addition, the CPMS will be integrated with the paid parking infrastructure to
provide the parking enforcement officers with real-time paid parking status as well as valid permit
status. The CPMS will allow an enforcement officer to be more effective and efficient will working
their downtown beats. Like permits, the CPMS will provide the City will real-time access to parking
citation data, delinquent collection details and financial analysis tools.
The City should not only consider implementing the CPMS, they should also consider a turnkey CPMS
solution that includes a private contractor to provide the customer support service and delinquent
collection processes necessary to proactively manage a citation and permit management solution. The
CPMS will be an important tool for the City to effectively and efficiently manage their parking program.
E. Active Monitoring
Recommendations:
• Conduct bi-annual downtown occupancy studies to determine parking rates and time limits
adjustments, as needed.
• Consider integrating parking space sensors with the meters for real-time occupancy,
enforcement data and the ability for meter time resets.
• Monitor quarterly sales tax revenue to assess the overall impact of paid parking.
1. Occupancy Rates
Active monitoring can help ensure program efficiency by keeping the parking rate structure up to date
with current occupancy statistics. It is recommended that the City evaluate on- and off-street parking
occupancy on a Thursday and a Saturday on a bi-annual basis to understand how parking rates and time
limits are impacting occupancy rates. Ideally, occupancy rates by block face should be collected during the
morning (9:00am), afternoon (12:00pm), mid-afternoon (3:00pm), and evening (7:00pm). Based on the
City’s findings, appropriate adjustments can be made. Areas downtown with an average occupancy rate
over 80% should be priced the highest with the lowest time limits because the industry standard is that
80% occupancy and above is considered full.
Below is list of potential adjustments to make from bi-annual evaluation results based on average daily
occupancy rates:
• Clusters of blocks that increased from below 80% occupancy during the previous evaluation to at
or above 80% occupancy should have the price increased by $0.25 per hour or have the time limit
lowered by 30 minutes.
• Clusters of blocks that decreased from at or above 80% occupancy during the previous evaluation
to below 80% occupancy should have the price lowered by $0.25 per hour or the time limit
extended by 30 minutes.
• The off-street lots and garages that have the highest average occupancies during the most recent
evaluation should cost more per hour than the locations with lower average occupancies.
• Off-street parking should cost less and/or have longer time limits than on-street parking.
For the bi-annual evaluations, there are two main methods for monitoring occupancy. The first option is
that the City can choose to have data collectors manually count cars, and the second method is to install
meter sensors. Manually counting will likely provide the most accurate information because it does not
rely on the efficacy of sensor technology. This method also costs significantly less because it does not
require any additional hardware, software, installations, or upkeep. However, with manually counting it
is harder to provide a “snapshot” of the data—instead data is collected within certain time periods. With
sensors, data can be collected in real-time 24 hours per day, seven-days per week.
2. Sensors
Meters can be integrated with parking space sensor technology to monitor the spaces 24 hours per day.
This data can be integrated with parking guidance systems, websites, and mobile apps to provide real-
time information to visitors. There are currently several application providers that can post parking data
at no charge. Sensors are typically embedded in the pavement in the
center of each parking space and, most recently, vendors have
introduced pole mounted sensors. Sensor batteries often last around
three years. Parking space sensors can cost approximately $250 per
unit from leading parking technology vendors including installation in
addition to ongoing monthly monitoring fees that vary from $6 to $10
per installed space. There have been several new sensor-based
technology companies who have recently introduced themselves into
the marketplace at significantly lower costs however, many of these
technologies are not as proven across the industry. Example of an in-ground parking
sensor
Using meter sensors to monitor occupancy rates can be an efficient way for the City to access real-time
data. However, it is important to realize that sensors may not always be completely accurate. Some cities
choose to tie in performance standards when soliciting vendors to ensure that the data they are paying
for is usable. The City is currently managing a sensor pilot program with VIMOC Technologies. VIMOC has
installed including series of surface-level sensors throughout several on-street parking spaces throughout
Downtown. Many of VIMOC’s on-street sensors are installed in the downtown core where occupancy
figures from DIXON’s data collected were highest. The City may be able to utilize this infrastructure to
monitor ongoing occupancy rates.
Some of the parking meter vendors offer an integrated sensor that provides the opportunity to reset the
meter. A meter reset occurs when a vehicle pulls out of the space it was parked in, the sensor determines
there is no longer an object parked there and then automatically resets the meter to zero time. It is
estimated that this can increase revenue by up to 10%. The City of Santa Monica has implemented the
meter reset technology and increased their annual parking revenue by nearly $1 million as a result.
Sensors also assist with parking enforcement by identifying violators who don’t pay to park within a set
amount of time. Without a sensor, the meter will report that the time is expired, but there is no way of
knowing if a car is still parked in the space without an enforcement officer checking. The sensor can also
work with the meter to prevent people from going back and feeding the meters for more time in locations
with time limits. The sensor can report that the vehicle has parked for more than the allotted time, even
if the meter has been paid. Sensors also provide the opportunity to provide a designated grace period in
a parking space. The City can opt to provide a courtesy period to allow a driver to park prior to requiring
payment at the meter.
Sensor solutions can become an expensive resource. It is important to also consider advancements in
technologies beyond the parking industry. As the smart cities movement and the technologies associated
continue to gain momentum, there may be an opportunity to multi-purpose new street light and smart
city technology and integrate with parking as well. Thus, eliminating the need for standalone sensors. To
determine the best sensor solution for the Palo Alto, staff will need to define the overall objective
associated with any sensor installation. Whether a sensor system will be used to monitor occupancy for
forecasting purposes, to distribute real-time on street availability or to provide a meter reset capability,
these features will determine not only the overall investment required by the City but will also mandate
the type of equipment needed for a sensor installation in the City.
F. Sales Tax
As the City of Palo Alto considers the implementation of paid parking through smart-parking technology,
the primary goal of the paid parking program should be to improve the availability of parking for residents,
employees, visitors and the surrounding community through increased turnover. It is recommended that
the City monitor monthly sales tax revenues overtime to see the impact of paid parking. This was a similar
approach taken by the City and County of San Francisco and its creation of SFpark. Much like Palo Alto,
SFpark’s goal was to deliver transportation, social, and environmental benefits as well as to improve
parking availability and customer access to commercial districts. SFpark not only achieved these goals but
also increased the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) parking revenue by nearly $
million per year. Through the installation of smart-parking meters and the management of time limits in
pilot areas, SFpark management increased its net annual revenue from meters by approximately $3.3
million from FY2011 to FY2013.
Furthermore, SFpark also significantly improved the utilization of the city’s garages, helping them to
return them to their original purpose: making it easier to find parking for short-term parkers and
increasing the economic vitality of the city rather than just places for commuters to park. As part of San
Francisco’s effort, all publicly available parking facilities pay a 0.25% parking tax. This has been a process
instituted by the City Assessor to help evaluate changes in parking demand in private parking garages or
lots. To prevent identification of individual facilities the city has aggregated parking tax receipts. San
Francisco has been successful in its parking tax implementation thus far in public facilities. Annual parking
tax collected in pilot areas increased by $6.5 million, or 43%, during the same period, compared to a 3%
increase in the rest of the city, however it is unclear what portion of that is attributable to SFpark.
For the City and County of San Francisco, the upgrade of paid parking in the form of smart credit card-
enabled meters has aided the city and indirectly increased the economic viability. Parking has become
more readily available for short-term parkers who are visiting the city’s commercial districts. In addition,
rather than having spaces occupied by commuters that park all day, parking space availability has
increased short-term turnover. Given Palo Alto’s vibrant Downtown business district, paid on-street
parking should allow short-term parkers to visit Downtown and find increased availability with an increase
in parking space turnover and providing more efficient infrastructure to enforce parking policies.
G. On and Off-Street Rates and Time Limits
Recommendations:
• Implement a tiered zone parking rate with time limits for on-street parking.
• Implement a tiered zone parking rate without time limits for off-street parking.
Currently the City of Palo Alto offers both on- and off-street time limited parking for free with the color
zone parking system. On-street two-hour and off-street three-hour time limits are enforced between
8:00am and 5:00pm, Monday through Friday. There is no parking enforcement on weekends or holidays.
With parking meters is will be simple for the City to make changes to the parking program. Parking meter
backend software will allow the City of Palo Alto to customize and modify meter display screens and rate
structures. This provides the City with the flexibility to change meter rates overtime based on occupancy
rates and evaluations, without being locked in to a certain system.
1. On-Street Rates and Time Limits
Varied parking rates can be an effective tool for encouraging higher utilization of historically low-
occupancy areas. The goal is to free up parking in the highest occupancy areas to reach between a
maximum of 80% and 85% occupancy. Doing so, this will make parking a more convenient experience for
downtown visitors, and may also reduce congestion from drivers circling for a parking space. Additionally,
having lower rates in off-street locations can encourage longer-term parkers to park off-street, thus
freeing up the convenient parking spaces outside of store fronts for people making quick trips downtown.
There are two main types of rate structures that may be considered by the City. The first is a tiered rate
model, and the second is a pay-to-stay model. For the tiered rate model, hourly parking rates would vary
by location based on convenience and historical occupancy rates. For example, lower prices on the
periphery of downtown can encourage drivers to park further away and walk a few blocks to their
destination. On the other hand, the higher demand spaces would be priced at a premium. This model can
be coupled with time limits to ensure adequate turnover.
In contrast, a pay-to-stay model is based on the amount of time spent parking. Therefore, drivers may pay
a lower hourly rate to begin with, but as their length of stay increases, the hourly rate gradually increases
as well. The purpose of this model is to deter patrons from parking long-term on-street, but it still gives
them the option to if they are willing to pay premium pricing for convenience. While this method may
work for some cities, it is not recommended for on-street parking in the City of Palo Alto because of the
particularly high occupancy rates downtown. The implementation of a pay-to-stay model may be difficult
on-street because, without time limits, it is not expected that there will be enough turnover downtown.
Due to the affluence of the surrounding communities, there may be a significant portion of drivers who
are willing to pay to park in a convenient space for the entire day downtown with this premium pricing
model. This could potentially exacerbate the parking occupancy rates for the most convenient spaces
downtown instead of relieve them.
Based on the occupancy data collected in Palo Alto, it is recommended that the City implement a tiered
rate structure with time limits. Demand for parking varies across the downtown, so by implementing a
zonal rate structure, on-street and surface lot spaces will be more accurately priced based on their
demand.
This will in turn help to distribute demand more evenly throughout the downtown. The following map
outlines the proposed locations for three recommended tiers:
Tier 1 is applied to part of Hamilton Avenue, University Avenue, and side streets. Tier 2 is applied to two
separate areas of downtown—between Hamilton Avenue to Forest Avenue as well as Parts of Webster
Street, Cowper Street, and Tasso Street. Finally, Tier 3 is applied to the outer corners of the downtown
along with all of Lytton Avenue.
The placement of these zones is based on the Thursday and Saturday daily average occupancy rates for
each block face over the course of the three data collection months. The next two maps show the tiered
zones overlaid onto the heat map data to show how the zones relate to the average occupancy rates. Tier
1 was meant to encompass the highest occupancy areas, Tier 2 captures the mid-range occupancy rates,
and Tier 3 is for the lower occupancy areas for both Thursday and Saturday.
Figure 3: Recommended Tiered Rate Zones
Figure 4: Thursday Daily Average Occupancy
When determining appropriate hourly rates, it is important to consider nearby comparable cities to
understand the current market rate for parking. Of the comparable cities with paid parking, the lowest
downtown rates were $0.50-$1.00 per hour in Alameda, San Mateo, and Sausalito. On the other side of
the spectrum, Santa Monica has on-street rates reaching $2.00 per hour and Berkeley has the highest
rates at $3.25 per hour.
Because areas of downtown Palo Alto experience extremely high occupancy rates, it is recommended that
the Tier 1 zone should be priced on the higher end of the rate spectrum to effectively mitigate congestion.
Tiers 2 and 3 should be priced mid-spectrum to be on par with the rates in the comparable cities in the
area. The City will need to ensure that they have an enforceable policy in place that prevents vehicles
from parking on the space block for more than the designated time limit. Additionally, the proposed time
limits were applied to the tier zones to ensure sufficient turnover rates and encourage longer-term on-
street parking towards the periphery. The recommended rate structure and time limits for the three tiers
is outlined in the table below:
Figure 5: Saturday Daily Average Occupancy
Tier Hourly Rate Max Time
Limit
1 $2.50 2 hour
2 $1.50 2 hour
3 $1.50 3 hour
The City also sells a separate permit that allows for the purchase of a closed/rented on-street space
(permanent valet space or in the event of construction, the ability to pay for the use of a single parking
space). The current price of this permit is $79 per week. With the potential implementation of paid parking
and increase in employee permit costs, the City will need to ensure that the price of a closed/rented
weekly permit correlates to on-street paid parking rates. This is particularly important when considering
paid on-street parking as a single parking space is reliant on the consistent turnover of vehicles paying to
park. If this space is no longer available to the public, the City is in loss of parking inventory and any
associated revenue.
The Study examined similar per space permits in surrounding cities and determined that Palo Alto’s
current cost of $79 per week. The City also sells a separate permit that allows for the purchase of a
closed/rented on-street space (permanent valet space or in the event of construction, the ability to pay
for the use of a single parking space). The current price of this permit is $79 per week. With the potential
implementation of paid parking and increase in employee permit costs, the City will need to ensure that
the price of a closed/rented weekly permit correlates to on-street paid parking rates. This is particularly
important when considering paid on-street parking as a single parking space is reliant on the consistent
turnover of vehicles paying to park. If this space is no longer available to the public, the City will lose the
parking inventory and any associated revenue.
The Study examined similar per space permits in surrounding cities and determined that Palo Alto’s
current cost of $79 per week differs when compared to other cities. Some cities have a rate structures,
dependent on size of space or type of space, metered or non-metered, while others have administrative
fees associated with the permit. For example, the City of Berkeley charges $79 per week or $15.80 per
day per space plus the $15 per temporary No Parking sign.
The City of San Francisco charges a tiered rate structure that escalates in cost as approximate footage
increases and the quantity of temporary No Parking signs increases. Permit costs start at $239 week and
range up to roughly $800 per week. Metered locations incur a fee of $10 per space per day as well. The
City of Santa Monica permit fees are similar to San Francisco in terms of rate increases. The city charges
$79 per day for a meter space and $76 per non-metered space for a standard 20-foot parking space but
the cost increases as the size of the space increases. If one was to purchase a permit for a 100-foot, the
cost is roughly $154 for a metered space and approximately $100 for a non-metered space.
The City of San Jose’s permit structure is a bit different. The city uses a Tow Away Permit to authorize the
closure of a metered space for temporary work. The cost is $30 per permit, $0.53 for each tow-away sign
Table 2: On-street Tiered Rates and Time Limits
placed at each meter, and either $8 (for a smart meter) or $4 (coin meter) per day. An example would be
the closure of three meters for two days, totaling roughly $56.
For the City of Palo Alto, it is encouraged that the City review the current price of its closed/rented on-
street permit cost. Based on surrounding municipalities, Palo Alto’s current price per permit is lower in
comparison. It is apparent that other cities may charge a similar base cost for a permit but utilize other
factors effected by the permit to increase the total cost, such as parking space footage lost or the need
for temporary signage to be installed by City. It is recommended that the total cost for a weekly space
permit (in a metered space), including any administrative fees associated, be equal to or greater than the
potential total revenue per metered space during paid parking hours. Therefore, if a space is $1 per hour
and paid parking is enforced for ten hours, then the cost to rent that space is at least $10 per day prior to
any per space footage fees or administrative costs that may be associated with temporarily deactivating
that parking space. For a non-metered space, it is suggested the City maintain the current cost of $79
however the City should ensure that any additional costs related to the space closures are recovered.
2. Off-Street Rates
It is recommended that the City of Palo Alto implement the tiered rate model without time limits for off-
street hourly parking. Essentially, the off-street locations that generally have lower occupancy rates
should be more affordable than the higher demand locations. This can encourage drivers to park in
garages that are otherwise underutilized, thus freeing up space in the higher demand locations.
No matter what on- and off-street time limits are chosen, it is imperative that the City offers longer time
limits in the off-street locations in comparison to on-street parking. Therefore, we are recommending that
the City eliminate time limits in the garages and surface lots. The purpose of this is to encourage short
term on street parking with higher turnover rates and long term affordable pricing for off street locations.
After implementation, with further evaluation and the bi-annual occupancy studies, the City can assess
the need for time limits, however, it will be more efficient to control access to the garages and promote
turnover and vehicle transition through the use automation and the proposed hourly rate model rather
than manually monitor vehicle activity with parking enforcement officers.
The next two heat maps show the average daily occupancy of off-street hourly spaces for the Thursday
and Saturday data collection periods.
There are a variety of paid off-street parking rates offered by the comparable cities ranging from $0.50
per hour in Monterey to $3.70 per hour in Santa Monica. While Berkeley has the highest on-street rates
($3.25/hr.), the Berkeley off-street rate is $2.00 per hour. Berkeley, Monterey, Santa Monica, and
Sausalito all offer off-street parking at a reduced rate compared to on-street parking.
Figure 7: Saturday Daily Average: Off-street Hourly Spaces
Based on the initial on-street tiered map, the off-street locations are located in the following tiers:
Location Tier
B (Ramona/University) 1
C (Ramona/Lytton) 1
D (Hamilton/Waverley) 1
F (Florence/Lytton) 1
H (Cowper/Hamilton) 1
S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 1
T (Lytton/Kipling) 1
CC (Civic Center) 2
N (Emerson/Ramona) 2
WC (Webster/Cowper) 2
A (Emerson/Lytton) 3
K (Lytton/Waverley) 3
O (Emerson/High) 3
P (High/Hamilton) 3
R (High/Alma) 3
It is recommended that free parking should be eliminated from the garages and an hourly rate should be
implemented. Based upon the tier zone, the City can establish a lower hourly rate for the initial 1 to 4
hours, however, the rate should be escalated once the vehicle exceeds the initial time limit. This short-
term rate band should be established with a higher daily maximum to encourage alternative
transportation opportunities. The current cost for an All-Day Permit is $17.50 and this rate is not
consistent with the surrounding markets and the current demand for parking in Palo Alto. There should
be a twenty-four-hour maximum with a daily start time for the new day. The new off-street rate also
needs to be affordable compared to parking on street but also slightly higher in price when compared to
an employee parking permit (expanded on in Section 2). The cost of parking off-street for an employee or
someone frequenting downtown daily for an extended period should be more expensive than the cost of
an employee permit or an alternative mode of transportation such as public transit. Therefore, the
following off-street rates would be consistent with other similar downtown markets and coincide with the
proposed on-street rates:
Tier Hourly Rate Fee Escalation
Daily
Maximum
Escalation Time
to Daily Max
1 $1.25/hr.
(First 3 hrs.)
$2.00/each 15
min (after 3 hrs.) $24.00 5.5 hrs.
Table 3: Off-Street
Tiers
2 $1.00/hr.
(First 4 hrs.)
$2.00/each 15
min (after 4 hrs.) $24.00 6.5 hrs.
3 $1.00/hr.
(First 4 hrs.)
$2.00/each 15
min (after 4 hrs.) $24.00 6.5 hrs.
The escalation timeframe to achieve the daily maximum rate can vary by tier zone, however, this proposed
rate structure is meant to encourage vehicle turnover and discourage long term non-permit parking.
H. Off Street Infrastructure
Recommendations:
• Install access control systems (gate arms) at all city-owned parking garages. (Note: Off-street
surface lots will utilize multi-space pay stations)
• Eliminate off-street time limits and implement an off-street hourly rate that encourages vehicle
turnover after a designated time (3 or 4 hours), depending upon the facility location.
To more efficiently manage off-street parking,
it is recommended that the City install revenue
control equipment at the garage locations.
There are several equipment options that can
be considered by the City and a traditional gate
system would be the simplest solution to
implement. It’s important to highlight that a
traditional gate system supported by pay-on-
foot technology for hourly parking costs on
average $30,000 per lane not including any civil work that might be required. A gated system could allow
for automated access for permitted vehicle and provide many efficiencies to manage the proposed hourly
pay rates, minimize backups and traffic flow and, most importantly, eliminate the need for parking
enforcement officers to check each vehicle for proper permits and daily passes.
Some of the stakeholders expressed a concern about gating the garages and suggested an automated
system that would be managed by license plate recognition (LPR) technology. This advanced solution
costs approximately $17,500 per lane and allows for free flow access to the garage locations. The system
requires at least two fixed mounted cameras per dedicated lane. Speed inhibitors are typically installed
to slow vehicle access to ensure plate capture. One of the cameras utilizes infrared technology to
illuminate the license plate characters thus ensuring they can be read in any type of weather condition.
The second camera physically reads the license plate characters and the software validates the
information to the permit management database and business rule requirements for that specific garage
entrance. Like the traditional gated system, pay-on-foot technology is used for non-permitted vehicles
and drivers must input their license plate in order to pay for their parking time. The LPR solution provides
a fully integration parking management system that would incorporate the garage permit database and
Table 4: Proposed Off-street Rates
Parking access revenue control system
citations would be mailed to vehicles that exit the facility without paying for their parking time and fees
would be collected along with any associated penalties designated by the City (like parking citation
collections). This solution is fully automated, however, like parking citation collections, it is not full proof,
but it is an option that the City should consider.
Regardless of the type of access control technology implemented, the efficiencies and automation will
reduce the burden of enforcement and promote a more customer friendly, pro-active garage
management approach to parking. Combining the implementation of the proposed overhead sensors
along with paid parking and access control technology will promote a clear understanding of the Palo Alto
parking regulation and payment requirements. This should have a substantial impact on revenue to fund
ongoing facility maintenance needs along with funding the overall objectives of the TMA.
In addition, the access control technology and
proposed overhead sensors will have the ability to
integrate into the City’s comprehensive parking
management system and allow the City to oversee
permit status and real-time occupancy data. This
type of integration is important in the continual
monitoring of payments transaction data and
occupancy history enabling the City to make
informed, data-driven decisions as it relates to
pricing and availability.
I. Special Events
Recommendations:
• Establish a special event parking rate model and the criteria requirements for utilization.
• Coordinate and promote alternative transportation solutions for special events that impact
downtown
• Consider applying special event rates to all paid parking locations (on and off-street).
A tiered rate model can be easily modified using the meters for special events that impact downtown
parking. Special event rates may help motivate drivers to park farther away or seek alternative modes of
transportation. A special event flat-rate can be integrated and implemented for both on- and off-street
parking utilizing the recommended parking technology. Any flat rate should be commensurate with the
value of the existing rates for on- and off-street parking locations. Promoting alternative transportation
options should be encouraged throughout all levels of special event planning and promotions. For
example, there are several cross promotions occurring with services such as
Lyft and Uber that both promote a City event and their services to
encourage other transportation sources and reduce parking demand. Uber
has created UberEVENTS, which allows those planning an event to enter the
event through Uber’s website and request guest passes. Uber then sends
those passes to the event planner for distribution. Each pass has a code
attached which is entered into Uber app, for a discounted ride. Municipalities across the country are
coordinating directly with these resources to encourage alternative transportation. The City of Coral
Gables, Fla. has partnered with Uber as well, to help citizens bypass traffic through designated drop-off
and pick-up zones and provide promotional codes for rides. Coral Gables is also utilizing Uber’s
promotional codes for city events. Special event planning should incorporate an accessible location for
the drop-off and pick-up of passengers and a designated location for bus parking.
To apply a special event rate, the City will need to establish criteria for when the rate would apply, the
cost amount and the advanced notification requirements. Based upon these criteria, the City will have the
option to increase special event pricing for any downtown special events, depending upon need. The
proposed garage technology and on-street parking infrastructure can also support customizable event
rates. Approved special event pricing would override all other rate models, including the proposed
evening rate model for Thursday, Friday and Saturday. It is important to keep in mind that special event
rates will require increased hours of enforcement for any additional times and any policies relating to
evening or special event parking regulations will have likely have an impact on the residential parking
zones.
J. Distribution Model
Recommendations:
• Upon implementation of a paid parking solution, establish a revenue distribution model that
allocates monies to finance parking technology equipment and software, to support the existing
operation and for parking structure maintenance and potential future parking developments.
Based upon the suggested on and off-street rate models, the City should establish a distribution model
for the anticipated increase in revenue. It is recommended that revenues are initially allocated to the
capital costs of the paid parking technology (hardware), as well as both planned CIP projects, wayfinding
and APGS/PARCS systems. In addition, a portion of parking revenues should be allocated to the Palo Alto
Transportation Management Association (TMA) to support mode shift and single-occupancy vehicle trip
reductions, to a City-operated shuttle program, and to supporting the existing parking operation as whole.
This model could potentially absolve the current parking assessment district program that business
owners pay into.
A Financial Modeling Workbook has been developed for Palo Alto (included in Section 3) to help the City
with projections and financial modeling of the various parking and permit rate structures. The Workbook
also includes estimated hardware costs to implement an on street paid parking solution, including permit
rate adjustments, single-space meters, multi-space pay stations and PARCS infrastructure. There are a
variety of cost proposals offered to municipalities to acquire parking infrastructure and technology.
Vendors offer turnkey and a la carte options. Many cities consider a municipal lease program to acquire
parking infrastructure and technology as a method to expedite the process of installing new parking
equipment. Municipal lease programs often do not require a down payment, and they are not subject to
future balloon payments. These advantages can make leasing a more consistent and affordable option for
many cities, and by the end of the lease the municipality can negotiate the option to buy the
infrastructure. Alternatively, bond issue referendums can be a costly and lengthy process, and there is no
guarantee that the public will support it. Bonds are not commonly used to acquire parking infrastructure.
K. Community Outreach
Recommendation:
• Launch a proactive education campaign to promote changes to the downtown parking
program.
The City of Palo Alto should launch a proactive education campaign to educate the public about the new
zones, rates, time limits, hours of operation, and technologies. The education campaign should focus on
the unrealized value of parking and the effort to provide continues funding for the TMA, as well as the
environmental benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by reducing congestion and encouraging
alternative modes of transportation.
The City may engage the efforts of the TMA to coordinate community workshops and visits to local
businesses to assist in education the community about changes related to parking and transportation.
Recently, the City of Boise, ID undertook a similar parking education campaign last year, creating a parking
brand for the city, termed PARKBOI. PARKBOI is Boise’s integrated parking system that aims to deliver
more convenient was to help one find and pay for public parking in Downtown Boise. This includes better
use of on-street, short-term parking in core locations Downtown, long-term parking information in
garages and surface lots, and flexible payment choices and information related to parking rates around
Downtown. In addition, PARKBOI provides information about special event pricing, the ability for one to
pay a parking citation, and locate alternative modes of transportation offered through the City. The
campaign is customer-friendly and intuitive, educating those traveling to the downtown about how and
where to park.
II. Permits
Recommendations:
• Promote alternative modes of transportation by increasing the cost of the downtown employee
parking permit to be consistent with the cost of the subsidized transit pass.
• Ensure that annual parking permit costs are less expensive than on- and off-street hourly
parking and equal to or less than RPP employee permits
• Consider permit pricing in comparable cities when determining permit rates.
• Offer a reduced-price permit for low-income employees, similar to the RPP program and offer
more payment options, including monthly and quarterly purchase.
Permit revenues are derived from long -term parking subscriptions, most often purchased by drivers that
frequent the area for work or other daily commitments. Based on a review of the City’s current employee
permit cost and to assist in the City’s effort to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips to Downtown, it is
suggested that the City both increase the annual price of downtown parking permit and reduce the overall
number of permits sold, at the same time that more options (e.g., monthly and quarterly permits) are
available
When determining the actual permit rate increase value, the City should consider the following factors:
• Current Subsidized Transit Passes: Currently, employers can subsidize the total cost of a transit
pass for their employees through the GoPass and EcoPass programs, part of Caltrain and VTA. To
encourage employees, who are a large population of those traveling to Palo Alto each day, to
choose public transit, the price of an annual employee permit must be correspond more evenly
to the cost of a transit pass. It is recommended that the City implement an incremental increase
the Downtown annual garage and lot permits as well as the full-price RPP employee permit, to
$800 annually. The $800 figure parallels to the current price of an annual transit pass.
• Annual Permit Cost vs. On & Off-Street Hourly Parking: The City must ensure that the price of a
downtown parking permit is more affordable than commuting to the City and paying daily to park
either on-street or off, for the duration of the work day. As such, the permit price must be less
expensive than parking eight or nine hours per day, at the posted rate per hour, for an estimated
20 days per month. Based on the paid parking recommendations, on-street parking would cost
between $1.50 and $2.50 per hour and off-street would have a daily maximum rate of $24-25 per
day. The annual permit cost should calculate to a price below either of those combined totals (on
& off-street), on an overall basis. Furthermore, just as it is recommended that the downtown
employee parking permits are increased, the City should correlate changes to the RPP employee
permit as well, to ensure that there is not an immediate increase in demand throughout the RPP.
The City will need to make sure that motorists do not operate under the assumption that cheaper
permit parking is available in the RPP. Coordinate in concurrent increase in permits in both the
RPP and downtown areas will be important and will help avoid confusion.
• Comparable Cities Analysis: As part of this study, the comparable cities analysis included the cost
of an annual downtown parking permit. Results of the analysis showcased that the cost of Palo
Alto’s annual employee permit is far below neighboring cities within the region. In several cases,
the City’s current cost is less than half of other cities of similar size and structure. For example,
the City of Berkeley’s annual public permit is $1,800; the City of San Mateo’s annual employee
permit can cost up to $960 per year; and the City of Sausalito’s employee permit is priced at
$1,044 annually.
It is important to remember that parking is often recognized as a commodity. Much like other
commodities, the price of parking is derived from the function of the market. Therefore, the
pricing of parking is related closely to the supply and demand of available spaces. In many cities
parking on-street is not in significant demand. Parking in Palo Alto, on- and off-street is starkly the
opposite however. Demand for parking is constant in both arenas. Thus, to manage parking in
Palo Alto, including the cost of an employee permit, the price must not only consider the demand
for parking but surrounding pricing among other cities.
Currently, the cost for an annual employee parking permit in Palo Alto is enticing to many of those
who commute Downtown, even for those who travel short distances, provided the $466 annual
cost equates to roughly $39 per month, less than $2 a work day. The demand for employee
permits far outweighs the supply and therefore steps need to be taken to regulate the permit
market in Palo Alto and adjust the cost of permits to be equitable to other permit prices in the
region.
• Reduced-Price Permit: Currently, many downtown employees are circumventing the purchase of
an annual permit by continuously moving their vehicles around Downtown each day to avoid the
time-limits. In the RPP area, the City offers a reduced-price permit that is based on annual income.
Employees qualify if their salary is exactly or less than $50,000; or make a pre-tax hourly wage
exactly or less than twice the governing city or state minimum wage. However, even a reduced
permit price of $100 annually can be overwhelming to a worker living paycheck to paycheck.
Furthermore, low-income workers, often in service industry positions, may find it difficult to
afford the purchase price for the annual permit when there may be uncertainty in the security of
their job and, therefore, a permit is not worth the $100 cost.
It is suggested that the City offer the ability for employees to purchase reduced-price permits on
a monthly, quarterly and annual basis for garages and lots as well as RPP. This will provide the
employee greater opportunities to purchase a permit at an affordable rate and the approach may
increase the likelihood that an employee will elect to purchase a reduced-price permit rather than
jockey their car around Downtown each day, in spaces ideally meant for short-term parkers. A
less expensive month option is more likely to be bearable than one lump sum of $100. However,
it is recommended that they total annual cost of a reduced-price permit be increased
incrementally as the full-price permits are increase. The increase in price should not be raised
above $200 per year and is recommended that they month-to-month permit option remain in
effect as permit price increases. Ideally, promoting alternative modes of transportation and
encouraging TMA objectives is the goal, however, an affordable permit option must be available
to those in need and providing a monthly purchase opportunity rather than an annual
commitment would make the program more viable and practical.
The implementation of a comprehensive permit management system will provide the City with
better oversight on issued permits and make the issuance of quarterly and/or monthly permits
more manageable.
III. Parking Guidance and Wayfinding
Recommendations:
• As part of the City’s approved capital wayfinding project for 2017, ensure that a public parking
brand is incorporated into wayfinding signage with an easily identifiable logo and color palette.
Signage should be easy to understand and direct patrons where to park and how to pay.
• Display real-time off-street occupancy data on digital signage at the main entrances to
downtown to allow drivers the ability to determine their parking destination.
• Real-time parking availability information should be accessible by a parking website and/or a
smartphone application.
The growth of a city’s downtown and central business district is partially reliant on the ability of attracting
outside visitors. Whether they are first time visitors to a city or from nearby communities, it is important
to ensure they can properly navigate and locate parking when visiting downtown for shopping, dining, or
business. An important aspect of enabling drivers to park and arrive at their destination is the way that
they are informed about parking. The clear communication of facility locations, space availability, time
restrictions and parking rates can help ensure that a city is offering an efficient and understandable
parking system. Without properly educating visitors about parking, it can create the perception that a
downtown is challenging to navigate and an unfavorable place to visit. With a proposed tiered rate
structure, whether initially or in the near future, it will be especially important to upgrade the City’s
wayfinding to effectively communicate regulations, pricing, and availability.
A. Wayfinding
In 2015 the City retained Hunt Design for a downtown parking wayfinding study and design in tandem
with an Automated Parking Guidance System (APGS) project by Walker Parking Consultants. Hunt Design
reviewed existing parking signage and developed a new parking brand and plan for the City. The
collaboration between Hunt Design and Walker Parking Consultants helped produce a consistent and
integrated approach to wayfinding.
Hunt Design created mockup designs for the Architectural Review Board (ARB), stakeholders, and City
staff for feedback, and ultimately the ARB unanimously decided to proceed with the blue color scheme
detailed below for the best visibility. Designs included direction signs, lot and garage ID banners, pylons
and regulatory signage. The blue wayfinding signage designs are pictured in the mockup drawings below.
As part of the wayfinding study, Hunt Design also assessed the naming structure of the downtown parking
facilities and lots. They recommended an alphanumeric naming system with the lots named numerically
from east to west and the garages alphabetically from east to west. Hunt Design also recommended the
installation locations for each type of signage throughout the downtown to best guide visitors to available
parking
In December 2016, City Council approved the capital improvement project for wayfinding and is funded
to move forward in 2017 and projected completion in 2018.
B. Automated Parking Guidance Systems
In conjunction with the wayfinding study, Walker Parking Consultants assessed potential Automated
Parking Guidance Systems (APGS) for Downtown Palo Alto to provide real-time parking availability and
occupancy numbers for the off-street facilities. Three types of APGS were considered:
▪ Faculty Count APGS: provides the total count of vehicles in a facility or an ‘Open/Full’ status using
sensors at the entrances and exits.
▪ Level and Zone Count APGS: displays the count by garage level using additional sensors.
▪ Single Space Detection APGS: tracks the occupancy of each space using mounted sensors and LED
lights.
After evaluating the various options, Walker Parking Consultants recommended the Single Space
Detection APGS to Palo Alto for Garages CC, CW, R, and S. While this system has the highest overall cost,
it provides the most flexibility and accuracy. Various colors of mounted LED lights can indicate space types
such as available, occupied, handicapped, permit, public, valet, etc. The colors can be changed manually
or automatically when necessary to ensure that the parking facilities are being utilized to their maximum
potential. The management system can be locally or cloud-hosted, and signage would be connected to
the City’s downtown fiber network.
Figure 8: Hunt Design Wayfinding Signage
Real-time and highly accurate (up to 99%) occupancy data will be available from this system to display on
parking guidance wayfinding signage throughout downtown. The occupancy data can also be displayed
on the City’s websites and phone applications.
As the City moves forward with the recently approved and funded project, the City should ensure that the
APGS indicates the number of available spaces at the entrance of the facilities, and the overall solution
should be coupled with digital wayfinding signage throughout Downtown. Additionally, the APGS space
availability data should be integrated with the City’s website and/or a parking application.
C. Current Wayfinding
The following outlines the Study’s observations as it relates to the current wayfinding downtown. DIXON’s
observations are directly related to the City’s initiative with Hunt Design and Walker. The current
wayfinding includes signage at the entrances of lots and garages, banners in the parking lots, and green
direction signage at intersections. Additionally, the on-street signage conveys the color zone parking rules.
Currently there is no consistent City parking/mobility branding used throughout Downtown.
The signage at the garage/lot entrances indicates whether there are time limit spaces, permit spaces, or
both, however, there is not a significant signage distinction to identify a public versus private parking
garage/lots.
Images 1 thru 3: Palo Alto wayfinding signage for off-street surface lot locations.
Images 4 – 5: Palo Alto signage for off-street public garages; often difficult to determine public
vs. private parking or both
Another issue identified was the lack of clarity regarding the daily permit parking information. The signage
in the garages did not adequately direct patrons to the kiosks
and it did not clearly indicate whether daily permit holders
should park in the public parking or the designated permit
parking spaces.
Currently the City does not utilize occupancy sensors or
parking guidance systems. There are no digital counters or
displays indicating whether a facility is full. During high
occupancy periods, this can worsen congestion due to people
entering facilities and circling for a space when the facility
may already be near capacity or completely full. The
following sections describe the various automated
technology options that may be used to improve program
efficiency and the overall parking experience.
D. Parking Guidance Systems
Vehicle counting systems coupled with automated wayfinding systems are helping to revolutionize how
the masses park today. These systems, along with their integration to everyday phone and mapping
applications, have provided motorists with the ability to plan their parking before leaving their home. The
ability to do so can enable motorists to make more informed decisions about how to get to their
destination, evaluate alternative modes of transit, and, if they choose to drive, reduce traffic congestion
by letting drivers know where they will park. Automated Parking Guidance System (APGS) signs can
promote parking availability and mitigate congestion around and within parking facilities.
To improve the Palo Alto parking experience, the City must have an accurate tool to count vehicle entries
to provide accurate parking availability that can be integrated with an APGS sign and available parking
applications. The dynamic signage allows the City to redirect patrons toward alternative, underutilized
parking locations.
The APGS/wayfinding signage should indicate parking lot status (open/closed), space availability
(Full/Available or the number of spaces available), event parking details (as applicable), alternative parking
areas, and targeted messaging. This methodology would allow many patrons to prepare their direction of
travel upon approach thereby possibly reducing the traffic flow impact, discouraging backups, and
addressing maximum capacity concerns. DIXON often refers to the concept of “First mile, last mile,” the
security of one knowing before leaving their origin, where he or she will be parking at their destination
and when reaching the “last mile,” the ability to rely on wayfinding to guide him or her to their arrival
location.
Another benefit to the wayfinding signage and the real-time parking information is parking availability
and the ability to be linked to a variety of publicly available, free parking applications. This information
can be monitored both remotely and on site by parking operations personnel to anticipate traffic flow
impacts and capacity levels, especially for special event management. If the City adjusts pricing or
Images 6: S/L Bryant/Lytton garage entrance. The
facility is not conducive for how to pay to park
implements demand-based rates, this information can be promoted using these online tools and
equipment.
DIXON recommends that this information be distributed for public access via an application programming
interface (API) in addition to transmitting the data to additional APGS signs placed at the primary
entrances to the downtown, especially at major arterial roads. This recommendation is consistent with
the City’s current CIPs for an APGS system and downtown wayfinding campaign.
If the City prefers to develop a basic integrated independent mobile
application (provided by the APGS system provider). The overall cost
of the mobile application development does vary depending on the
type of information to be displayed, any specific branding / graphics
requirements, and additional features such as find my car,
directions, 511 traffic information, parking reservations, or 3rd party
integrations. While the City may potentially invest in an interactive
City-developed website or application, for which the cost can be
significant based upon your overall web design, there are several
existing, free parking availability/guidance applications, like ParkMe
and Parkopedia, that leverage available public parking information
using their interactive parking application.
A useful example of clear directional wayfinding that has been
successfully implemented is in the City of San Jose, displayed in
Image 7. Though the City put less emphasis on branding or a specific theme, it has unmistakably
highlighted parking, the direction in which this parking is located, and the available parking spaces at each
location. In addition, positioning of the signage is equally as important. Motorists entering the downtown
district off the major interstate highway are met with this sign immediately, providing motorists a
knowledge of where available parking opportunities are located before entering the downtown district.
A critical component of any technology installation, especially an APGS solution, is maintenance and
upkeep. If an APGS is installed, it is recommended that a responsible party (i.e., subcontractor) be
designated and held accountable for the system upkeep. If this support is to be a subcontracted service,
performance standards should be defined and incorporated into the vendor service agreement with
performance penalties for system support failures.
Wayfinding is an integral part of any parking operation. Patrons need to be informed of facility locations,
space availability, time restrictions, and parking rates. Navigation from place to place within a parking
facility is often overlooked and undervalued. Knowing where one is in a facility, where there are available
spaces and knowing how to navigate to those spaces is one of the most fundamental aspects of a
successful parking program. The addition of wayfinding signage may significantly improve the ability of a
patron to enter, leave and return to a facility.
Image 7: San Jose on-street district
wayfinding signage
E. Digital Wayfinding
Parking should be easy. As many trips begin and end with
parking, providing patrons with the direction and information on
best parking options is imperative in any successful parking
program. Providing accurate information on parking destination
and availability can significantly impact a patron’s experience
when visiting an event or Downtown area. Static wayfinding
offers an opportunity to lead patrons in the direction of available
parking while also being aesthetically pleasing to the Downtown
area. However, digital wayfinding has truly taken parking
guidance to a new level with the ability to display real-time
parking space occupancy data while directing patrons to available spots in the City’s parking garage.
The City has already approved the installation of overhead space indicators (sensors) for the garage
facilities. The space indicators will provide color notification to identify real-time parking space availability
(Image 8). The City has an opportunity to manage the business rules for parking spaces throughout the
day however, this will require on site oversight to maximize the opportunity to adjust parking space
regulations, i.e. increasing/decreasing the number of Permit Only spaces based upon demand will provide
a convenience that was not easily managed previously.
Space indicators provide in-depth data with the ability
to show parking occupancy by level and by row within
each level. The solution that will be implemented by the
City will allow for a true comprehensive guidance
system throughout the entire facility (Image 9 right).
This type of system will not only mitigate congestion at
the entrance of the garage but also throughout each
level and row.
The City should consider including a digital wayfinding option with the space
indicator implementation that provides patrons a breakdown, by level, of
parking availability (Image 10 left).
The occupancy count accuracy of this solution is typically about 95% based
on the speed of vehicles entering and exiting and the space between each
vehicle. This solution is best suited for garages that allow travel up and down
on the outside of the actual parking spaces as opposed to having to drive
through every spot on every level to travel up and down.
The simplest and most cost-efficient method to provide real-time
occupancy is to show one aggregate count for available spaces throughout
the entire garage (Image 11 top of next page).
Once the real-time occupancy data is collected, transmitting it to digital
wayfinding signage located throughout the garage, the surrounding City
Image 8: Overhead space indicators
Image 9: Wayfinding signage - Space Counts
Image 10: Level-by-level
space count
and/or a website/application is relatively simple. Most vendors that
provide the counting hardware described above will be able to provide
both additional digital signage and an API that will allow the data to be
used in websites and applications. In addition to basic signage that
comes with the pricing breakdowns above, supplementary signage can
typically be purchased. The pricing on this signage depends on the sign
and the application for it, hence the significant price range. For signage
placed in areas outside the garage, there are potential costs associated
with transmitting information to the digital display signs. In most cases,
wireless transmissions are possible for a small monthly data fee or signs
can be hardwired direct and the costs will vary significantly depending
on the distance of the fiber line to the sign.
It is important to note that DIXON’s paid parking section recommends
the City implement PARCS systems (gated access) in the Downtown garage facilities. PARCS systems will
help to improve counts at each facility and accurately distribute this information to the public.
Image 11: Wayfinding signage –
Digital Counts
IV. Enforcement
Recommendations:
• Implement vehicle mounted license plate recognition (LPR) units to improve efficiency.
• Expand parking enforcement staffing coverage to include evening and weekend coverage (if
feasible).
• Evaluate existing enforcement handhelds to ensure real-time integration capabilities with
selected parking meters and mobile payment vendor.
Whether the City proceeds with a paid parking solution or considers installing a parking access control
system at the garage entrances, these are decisions that will impact the enforcement of the downtown
parking policies.
The color zones are currently monitored by Police Department Community Service Officers (CSOs) utilizing
enforcement handhelds to manually track each vehicle license plates throughout their assigned color
zone. Typically, a CSO can input between 750 to 1,000 license plate per shift. This is a time-consuming
effort that requires a substantial time commitment to enforce the daily time limit requirements of the
existing color zone policies. In addition to the color zone time limits, the CSOS also monitor permit
compliance in the surface lots and parking garages.
If the City elects to maintain the current color zone time limit policies, vehicle mounted license plate
recognition (LPR) technology should be implemented to more efficiently maximize personnel resources
and to ensure consistent enforcement of the time limit and permit management policies. In addition, if
there are no changes to the existing color zone policies, with the implementation of at least two (2) LPR
vehicle mounted units, the CSOs will no longer be required to manually track license plates and the City
should consider redeploying the CSO schedule and extending enforcement coverage to include weekday
evening hours and weekend coverage to ensure compliance with general parking policies, including red
curb and double-parking violations. With the implementation of at least two (2) LPR units, there should
be an opportunity to redeploy rather than expand staff. This will require ongoing assessment to ensure
adequate and consistent coverage of the downtown parking policies.
LPR increases efficiency in several ways, including the automation of vehicle location and time occupied
monitoring to enforce the color zone time limits that are currently being tracked manually. Furthermore,
LPR technology provides an ability to validate parking permit status when permits are attached to license
plates. Again, if the City elects not to make any changes to the current color zone policies or to the
management of the off-street locations, the vehicle mounted LPR units can efficiently patrol the garage
and surface lot locations to verify that the permit registered license plate is valid. Rather than physically
verifying permit status using the enforcement handheld, the CSOs will be enabled to swiftly monitor the
permit parking areas. The LPR technology would be integrated with the City’s parking permit management
system and real-time updates can be received to ensure the most accurate and up-to-date database. The
LPR system also provides the opportunity for CSOs to more efficiently manage the City’s scofflaw records
and vehicles with five (5) or more unpaid delinquent parking citations.
LPR cameras can be mounted to a CSO vehicle or attached to a stationary structure such as a toll booth
or entry gate (described in more detail in the Garage Recommendations Section). In recent years,
however, LPR has grown into the parking industry to help cities with their enforcement, permit
management and scofflaw mitigation. Many cities have successfully supplemented their enforcement
resources with the implementation of LPR technology. As an enforcement device, LPR cameras are
attached to enforcement vehicles that patrol both streets and off street parking locations and can be used
to manage parking violations, occupancy limits, scofflaw capture and paid parking payment status.
LPR vendors provide specialized technology for parking
enforcement purposes and have developed the software to
integrate with the variety of citation, permit management
and technology hardware vendors which will provide the
City with a comprehensive program customized specifically
for Palo Alto. The LPR solution includes visual evidence of an
infraction when it occurs and further when a citation is
issued. This is invaluable for adjudication purposes. For
time limit management, many of the LPR vendors offer a
digital chalking feature that uses software technology to
track the location of a vehicle, how long the vehicle was
parked at a specific location or within a designated zone/area and simultaneously compares that to the
time limit posted in that area. Digital chalking has helped several cities provide a more accountable and
consistent approach to time limit management without having to invest in additional labor and provides
an additional level of visual evidence that tends to reduce adjudication efforts.
As automated license plate recognition (ALPR) systems become more prevalent across the country and in
the State of California, Agencies must take the proper steps in accordance with federal and state laws.
Existing law currently authorizes law enforcement agencies and departments to use LPR for the purpose
of locating vehicles or persons reasonably suspected of being involved in the commission of a public
offense. Senate Bill 34, Section 1978.90.51, effective January 1, 2016 imposes specific requirements on
an “ALPR operator” as defined to protect ALPR information and implementing a usage privacy policy with
respect to that information, as specified.
Among several requirements and propositions incorporated in Senate Bill 34, a specific requirement is
found in Section 1798.90.51/1798.90.53, and states that an APLR end-user shall do the following:
(b) (1) Implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the access, use, sharing,
and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy and
civil liberties. The usage and privacy policy shall be available to the public in writing, and, if the
ALPR end-user has an Internet Web site, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted
conspicuously on that Internet Web site.
Therefore, DIXON recommends the City of Palo Alto and with its potential implementation of LPR in the
future, refer to the City’s use of ALPR on the City’s web site. DIXON recommends that Palo Alto provide a
statement informing the public of the usage and privacy policy surrounding its use of the system.
Image 12: Example of mobile-LPR parking
enforcement
Per Senate Bill 34, the City’s posting of information to the public on the City’s web site must be completed
as follows:
(B) Conspicuous posting, for a minimum of 30 days, of the notice on the agency’s Internet Web
site page, if the agency maintains one. For purposes of this subparagraph, conspicuous posting
on the agency’s Internet Web site means providing a link to the notice on the home page or
first significant page after entering the Internet Web site that is in larger type than the
surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size,
or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call
attention to the link.
The approximate cost to support the installation of LPR equipment on an existing vehicle is approximately
$50,000-$60,000 including the training and infrastructure needed. This will include the installation of the
cameras on the outside of the vehicle, the processing unit in the trunk along with the in-vehicle PC and
navigator set up in the front seat. It is recommended that the City of Palo Alto implement a vehicle
mounted LPR solution regardless of the other recommendations considered. The technology will directly
benefit the downtown area and provide the CSOs with a resource tool to become more efficient and
consistent in the management of downtown parking policies.
If the City proceeds with a paid parking solution, the existing enforcement handhelds need to be evaluated
to ensure the integration capabilities with the implementation of the various parking technologies. If the
City opts to install parking meter technology, the decision to proceed with a Pay-by-Plate or Pay-by-Space
approach will be relevant to the enforcement handheld equipment (See Paid Parking Recommendations
Section for more detail). A real-time interface with the parking technology provider and the CSO
enforcement handheld will ensure that the CSO receive the
most current vehicle payment status. The same integration
requirement will be necessary for a mobile payment vendor,
especially if the City elected to proceed with a Pay & Display
solution. Real-time integration requirements must be clearly
defined in any vendor solicitation for citation, permit or paid
parking technology support to provide the CSO with the
accurate status of a parking space in Palo Alto. Integration
requirements and the cost of any software development should
be the burden of the parking technology vendors. Data
integration must be addressed during the solicitation and
contracting stage with each vendor and the City should have a
standard application programming interface (API) requirement
that is included with any parking solicitation. Integration with
the enforcement handheld is imperative to maximize the efficiency of the CSOs and minimize the burden
of equipment that they are required to carry.
Regardless of the downtown parking policy decisions and outcomes, the combination of vehicle mounted
LPR technology and integrated enforcement handhelds will provide the CSO staff the tools necessary to
Image 13: Example smartphone handheld
enforcement device
effectively manage and monitor the downtown parking policies without changes to the existing staffing
resources.
V. Centralization of Palo Alto Parking Related Operations
Recommendations:
• The City should create a Parking Department/Division to provide full-time management of the
parking operation including oversight of any outsourced services and vendor technology
agreements.
Through work with different with different municipalities and agencies, DIXON has found that parking
operations can become a convoluted task. Often overlooked, many fail to realize the number of duties
and responsibilities that are associated with parking, even if only loosely. These responsibilities are further
increased when an agency has paid parking operations. Often, a municipality’s departments that have
some form of a parking related role include transit, finance, police department, public works, planning,
and even community and economic development. Thus, there are several hands involved and the clarity
of those roles and responsibilities from one department to the next may become blurred or lost. It was
difficult to obtain documents and information from staff related to the current Palo Alto parking
operation. Through those requests and coordination with City staff, it has become apparent that there is
a lack of internal structure within the City when it comes to parking. Currently there are multiple
departments handling support services related to parking. Outlined below are the current parking tasks
and the department responsible within the City.
Parking Task Department Responsible
Citation Hearings Police
Construction (Garage/Lots) Public Works
Daily Permit Sales (Pay Stations) Planning & Community Development
Daily Permit Sales (City Hall) Administrative Services
Employee/Employer Permits (Garages/Lots) Administrative Services
Enforcement – RPP Planning & Community Environment/Downtown
Parking Assessment District/Administrative Services
Enforcement – (Garages, Lots, Color Zones) Police
Maintenance (Garages/Lots) Public Works
Planning Planning & Community Development
Residential Parking Permit Program (RPP) Planning & Community Development
Revenues Administrative Services
Revenues – Employee/Employer Permits (Downtown) Finance
Valet Permitting (Garage/Lots) Police
Valet Program (Garage/Lots) Planning & Community Environment (via sub-
contractor SP Plus)
Website Planning & Community Environment (SP+)
Based on current internal organization of tasks related to parking there are too many departments
involved without a reliable source of collaboration to ensure all roles and responsibilities are being fulfilled
to the best ability. Many of the recommendations set forth in this report will require significant
coordination by multiple city resources. Therefore, the City should create an internal parking department
that will act as the direct point of contact for all parking related issues. Many cities have a parking
department that provides turnkey support for much of the support services outlines in the table above.
In other cities, one primary contact may serve as the oversight of the various departments handling
parking related responsibilities and management of parking related issues.
The City should move the parking operation responsibilities under the umbrella of a centralized parking
department. These operations include enforcement and management of both Downtown Palo Alto as
well as the RPP district; the downtown parking assessment permits for employees; and RPP permits for
both residents and employees. In addition, with the potential of paid parking, the parking department
would manage all aspects of the parking technology required to support the operation, including, but not
limited to, parking hardware management, maintenance, as well as revenue collection and reconciliation.
The proposed department should be considered an extension of the City’s Parking and Transportation
Committee to assist in the facilitation of coordinated policy-making and implementation across the entire
parking and transportation system.
The following is the proposed organizational structure based on the current and potential services:
*Solid blue – line indicates direct and central report structure
A. Proposed
Figure 9 on the previous page outlines a proposed organizational structure for the City’s centralization of
parking roles and responsibilities as part of the newly created Central Parking Department. The outline of
the structure incorporates current departments and their responsibilities as well as created tasks that may
result from the implementation of paid parking technology and other parking technology infrastructure.
As it is proposed, the Parking Department would be headed by a Parking Manager. The Parking Manager
would oversee four Supervisors in parking related roles including On-Street, Off-Street, Enforcement and
Permit Management services. Current departments that are tasked with parking related roles today such
as Public Works, Police and Administrative Services would continue to operate indirectly with the Parking
Department via the Parking Manager or a Supervisor. In the case of Police and Administrative Services a
line of communication would be established with both the Parking Manager and an operations related
Supervisor.
A. Outsourcing of Parking Operations
Based on DIXON’s review of the City’s current parking related operations and feedback through working
with City staff, outsourcing of parking operations is a viable alternative in the event a centralized parking
department is unable to be organized. The outsourcing of parking operations is a support service that has
been implemented by several agencies throughout California. It is important to know that regardless of
the degree the parking operation is contracted to a private vendor, the municipality always maintains
oversight.
As previously mentioned, with the recommendation implementation of paid parking, the added services
that will required will further the current parking responsibilities of the City. These added services include
ongoing upkeep and preventative maintenance of parking equipment, weekly parking meter collections,
and the revenue reconciliation process. Many cities, like Palo Alto, contract private parking operators to
support their parking operations. Palo Alto is already engaging two of these vendors in the support of
permit management software, garage valet services and RPP supplement enforcement services. Parking
facility operations is commonly outsourced by municipalities; however, many cities have also allocated
parking maintenance services and revenue reconciliation to private operators. For example, Newport
Beach selected a private vendor to not only collect meter revenue, but also contracts the vendor to
provide maintenance support, including preventative maintenance services. San Francisco and Los
Angeles contract operators to support their parking meter revenue operations. Accounting for these
added daily operations and responsibilities is import for Palo Alto to understand as it makes these
changes.
There are many examples of cities with successful parking programs that have either chose to manage
parking internally or have had success outsourcing parking operations. The City of Sausalito has had
success with a hybrid approach, outsourcing revenue collection and maintenance while handling permits
and other daily administrative operations internally. However, for Palo Alto, the current state of parking
operations needs to be altered. Today, parking functions spread across several departments. Thus,
implementing parking related changes or improvements is less effective.
The common operations that are typically outsourced by municipalities include collections and Level 1
Maintenance of parking meters and pay stations, revenue reconciliation, and enforcement. Each of these
operations are fulfilled by the City’s current third-party vendors as well as additional vendors.
VI. Alternative Strategies
Recommendations:
• Identify remote parking supply and solicit shared parking agreements to reduce the parking
demand in the Downtown core.
• Implement a Downtown Employee Mobility Program to encourage mode shift and reduce SOV
trips in synch with the TMA’s objectives.
While the various parking program
recommendations throughout this report will help
improve program efficiency and overall parking
experience, ultimately the City should take a
sustainable approach to managing Downtown
parking and mobility. As the City evolves, Palo Alto
will continue to face increase pressure to utilize
space more efficiently, especially as available
development space becomes even more valuable
than today. The City’s parking resources should be managed to preserve the walkability of Downtown,
and alternative modes of transportation should be encouraged to reduce single-occupancy vehicle (SOV)
trips and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A. Secure Existing Parking Supply
Securing the existing parking supply can help reduce parking demand in the Downtown core, especially
during peak periods of the day. The City should utilize any additional remote parking supply during the
short-term. More remote parking coupled with the addition of paid parking Downtown can be an
opportunity to provide a cheaper alternative for those willing to park further outside of the core. This may
assist in reducing Downtown congestion and alleviate some parking demand.
There are three main areas the City may look to for existing parking supply opportunities: city-owned
parking locations outside of the downtown core, lots such as high-school parking lots, and private parking
facilities and lots for shared-parking agreements. Underutilized lots throughout Palo Alto can be
opportunities for acquiring additional existing parking supply for Downtown employees or visitors. This
tactic is useful for providing remote parking locations to improve public transit and bike access to
Downtown without having to invest in expanding parking supply.
Shared parking agreements with property owners are required when securing privately owned parking
locations for public use. Private parking lots, which are only used during certain hours of the day, can be
a parking opportunity for the downtown area. Shared parking negotiations are often the most successful
with cost/revenue sharing, insurance, enforcement and/or infrastructure improvement agreements. It is
important to consider the following when developing shared parking agreements:
• Term length: providing return on investment
• Facility Use: user base and flexibility; number of available spaces
Educating the community on alternative transit needs to
continue to be a priority for Palo Alto
• Operations & Maintenance: extending associated services
• Enforcement: citations, gate arms; booting/towing
B. Downtown Employee Mobility Program
In line with the TMA’s objectives, the City should expand the goal of reducing the number of SOV trips as
part of a downtown mobility plan, by improving travel options to Downtown. It is suggested that the initial
mobility program be targeted towards employees, and the, if deemed successful, the program can be
expanded to the public. While it is not realistic to assume every Downtown employee can use alternative
modes of transportation, the City may benefit considerably from even a target reduction of just 5-10% of
employees parking their vehicles. An employee mobility program would not only improve parking
availability, but it may provide employees improved travel options and cost savings opportunities.
There are various tactics that the City can use to incentivize employees to not drive Downtown:
• Online Portal: A web-based or smartphone-based portal could be a “one-stop-shop” for
employees to access travel information, register for programs, receive financial incentives, log trip
data, take surveys and more.
• Financial Incentives: The City may want to explore opportunities for direct financial incentives for
employees that don’t drive to work such as a nominal payment of $0.50-$1.00 per day or coupon
rewards.
• Park and Ride Shuttle: If the City secures additional remote parking, the City may want to revisit
the issue of expanded shuttle programs from those locations to Downtown especially during peak
service periods.
• Car Sharing: Offering subsidized trips or memberships to car sharing services for employees can
help make going to work without a personal car more realistic and reduce parking demands.
Currently Palo Alto offers Zipcar services at multiple locations in Downtown Palo Alto. Expanding
the program and increasing locations may assist in decreasing the amount of SOV trips to Palo
Alto each day.
Downtown Parking Management Study Business Focus Group
The City of Palo Alto held a Downtown Parking Management Study focus group at the Palo Alto
Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday, September 12, 2017. Seven participants provided feedback on
parking issues and some of the Downtown Parking Management Study recommendations. They also
shared their experiences with past parking programs implemented in the City. Participants included
representatives of Downtown offices and retail locations.
In addition to any other concerns, participants were asked to discuss employees’ existing modes of
transportation to work and their parking situation; barriers to taking alternative modes of transportation;
potential paid parking solutions in Downtown; and the use of revenue generated from paid parking
solutions.
Transportation to Work
Most employees drive to work alone while others bike. Focus group participants summarized that,
generally, service sector employees choose to drive out of cost while office employees drive to work for
convenience. Many employees are unable to use alternative modes of transportation due to some
examples of time, geographic, and financial constraints: public transit that does not operate during odd
shifts in the service sector; living in areas not well-served by public transit, such as Half Moon Bay; and
the high cost and low availability of parking along the Caltrain corridor.
Existing Parking Conditions
Some employers noted that they help purchase employee parking permits for staff who need to work all
day and cannot take a break every two hours in order to move their cars to a different parking zone. For
many employees, the remaining available permits are not near their place of employment. The permit-
purchasing process also has its own issues as many employees have trouble navigating the permit-
purchasing website. One participant suggested that the site should allow employers to control all their
employees’ permits rather than requiring a separate account for each employee/permit.
For employers, providing parking for customers has become a greater concern, especially in the
evenings. Employees are taking parking spots that could be used for customers. Focus group participants
suggested that private parking lots currently unutilized at night could become shared-use parking.
Future Parking Conditions
Paid parking options generally received positive feedback as paid parking could be good for businesses
to turnaround the parking supply. Whichever paid parking option is chosen, the City was asked to make
it simple and understandable. The participants reacted favorably to the concept of dynamic pricing and
presented different scenarios for use (ex. turning off blocks at certain times, charging more in certain
areas, etc.). Participants suggested valet parking for restaurants and hotels in the evening and a
reduction in parking permit prices for hotel guests. Participants also expressed support for increasing
the supply of free parking. One idea was to add more floors at the City’s new parking garages for free
employee parking. The group was in favor of expanding capacity for employee permits by providing
space in the garages and/or lots.
Generally, the group felt that multi-space pay stations are “less ugly” than single-space and could help
businesses located near the machines. However, multi-space pay stations might be too complicated for
people. Participants favored pay stations that would support a pay-by-phone option in addition to cash
payment options.
With the funds generated from paid parking, the Transportation Management Association (TMA) could
continue to and increase operations. Funds could also go to improvements near the parking location or
payment stations, taking Pasadena’s paid parking stations as an example.
Other Concerns
Aside from motor vehicle parking, participants would like to see more bicycle parking in the Downtown
area. If bike share is re-introduced in the city, bike share stations should not take up existing parking
spaces. Participants would like to have seen residents of Downtown at the focus group to share their
experiences and insight.