HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-30 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.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. 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: May 30, 2018
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
2. Council Housing Work Plan Referral: Discussion of Potential Revisions to Parking
Requirements in the 2018 Housing Ordinance Implementing the Comprehensive Plan
and Housing Work Plan
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
3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2515-2585 El Camino Real [17PLN-00448]:
Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to
Merge two Lots and Subdivide the Combined 39,953 Square Foot lot Into 13
Residential Condominiums and up to 13 Retail Commercial Units. The Subdivision
map Would Facilitate Construction of the Previously Approved 39,858 Square Foot
Mixed-use Development Project (15PLN-00170). Environmental Assessment: Reuse
of a Previously Adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for the
Associated Development Application (15PLN-000170). Zoning District: Neighborhood
Commercial (CN) and Community Commercial (CC) (2) Zoning District. For More
_______________________
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.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Information Contact the Project Planner Margaret Netto at
margaret.netto@cityofpaloalto.org
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3
4. Approval of April 25, 2018 Draft Minutes
Committee Items
Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Agenda Items
Adjournment
_______________________
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.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. 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 Ed Lauing
Vice Chair Susan Monk
Commissioner Michael Alcheck
Commissioner Przemek Gardias
Commissioner William Riggs
Commissioner Doria Summa
Commissioner Asher Waldfogel
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 # 9217)
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/30/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Multifamily Residential Parking Requirements
Title: Council Housing Work Plan Referral: Discussion of Potential
Revisions to Parking Requirements in the 2018 Housing
Ordinance Implementing the Comprehensive Plan and Housing
Work Plan
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC):
1. Review key issues related to residential parking requirements to be addressed in the
zoning code to encourage production of a diversity of housing types in appropriate
locations, as specified by the Council referral of 2018 Housing Work Plan items.
2. Provide input to staff regarding possible housing-related parking standard changes.
Report Summary
This report focuses on parking requirements for multifamily residential projects. The
Background section reviews parking’s relationship to the Housing Work Plan and describes
existing parking regulations. The Analysis section examines five key issues related to the effects
of parking on housing production and affordability:
1. Changing Trends in Car Ownership and Commuting to Work: U.S. Census data reveals
declining rates of Palo Alto residents driving alone to work and much higher rates of
alternative transportation modes (e.g., transit, bikes) among Downtown residents in
particular.
2. Parking Demand in Multifamily Apartments Lower than Supply: An empirical analysis of
parking occupancy demonstrates that parking supply exceeds demand in all nine Palo
Alto apartment developments surveyed (see Attachment A).
3. State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) Parking Requirements: Developers pursuing projects
under SDBL are eligible for much lower parking requirements than City standards
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
require. This is notable since projects providing inclusionary units on site may elect to
use State standards instead of following the City’s higher standards.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
4. Form Follows Parking: Based on discussions with developers and architects, and review
of recently approved projects, parking has emerged as the key driver of site planning—
as opposed to architectural design, open space, pedestrian-orientation, or other design
factors.
5. Parking for Ground-Floor Retail: Based on discussions with developers and architects,
and review of recently approved projects, the parking requirements for required
ground-floor retail may likewise constrain site planning and potentially the viability of a
project.
At the end of the Analysis section, the report identifies strategies to alleviate parking as a
constraint based on better alignment between parking supply and demand.
Background
Housing Work Plan. On February 12, 2018, the City Council approved a Housing Work Plan,
which outlines steps to implement the City’s vision and adopted policies and programs for
housing production, affordability, and preservation. The Work Plan synthesizes policies and
programs from the adopted Comprehensive Plan, adopted Housing Element, and a City Council
colleagues’ memo.
The Work Plan describes the City’s progress towards the housing production goals at various
income levels (i.e. RHNA) in its Housing Element, and the City’s progress towards the housing
projections developed during preparation of the updated Comprehensive Plan. In both cases,
the City is behind where it should be to meet its goals. The approved Housing Work Plan
indicates that action is needed to spur the production of housing.
For more detailed information about the Work Plan, see the materials below:
February 5, 2018 City Council Staff Report and Draft Housing Work Plan:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63054
February 12, 2018 City Council Action Minutes:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63659
Council Referral to PTC. The Council referred specific Work Plan items to the PTC related to a
2018 zoning amendment ordinance. At its April 25th meeting, the PTC discussed key issues in
the zoning ordinance as they related to the Council referral, including issues regarding
development standards and the entitlement process. Parking topics were set aside until
tonight’s meeting to allow time for a focused discussion. The Council referral included the
following specific parking items, which will be the subject of tonight’s meeting:
2.4 Provide incentives and remove constraints for multifamily housing in the Downtown
(CD-C), Cal Ave. (CC(2)/PTOD) and El Camino Real (CN and CS) districts
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
o 2.4.5 Allow parking reductions based on TDM plans and on payment of parking
in-lieu fees for housing (Downtown and Cal Ave.). Review and update as
necessary the TDM Ordinance to include additional metrics, goals, and
enforcement
2.6. Provide incentives and remove constraints in all zoning districts:
o 2.6.1. Adjust parking requirements to reduce costs (based on parking study);
identify the appropriate amount of parking for various housing types and
locations, taking into account parking mitigations
For a detailed discussion of the PTC’s role and the full Council referral, see the materials below:
April 25, 2018 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64680
Short History of Parking Requirements. In 2003, the City updated its Zoning Code to implement
the goals established by the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. The update established parking
standards for new land use classifications and evaluated standards for all types of development,
including the number of spaces required, the size of spaces and the design of parking lots. The
update also consolidated parking requirements located in different sections of the code into
one subsection (Chapter 18.52). Currently, off-street parking, loading, and bicycle parking are
required for any new building constructed, use established, addition, or increase in occupancy.
How the Current Zoning Code Addresses Parking Requirements. Current development standards
for market-rate multi-family residential developments in the City are as follows:
1.25 spaces per studio unit
1.5 spaces per 1-bedroom unit
2 spaces per 2-bedroom or larger unit
1 guest parking spaces per project plus 10% of total number of units.
Additionally, specific project types are eligible for reductions:
Senior Housing: up to 50% reduction, subject to approval of a parking analysis
Affordable Housing: 20 to 40% reduction depending on level of affordability and
proximity to transit, support services and traffic demand management (TDM) measures
Housing Near Transit: up to 20% reduction with approval of a TDM program
Mixed Use Projects: up to 20% reduction with approval of shared parking
These reductions may be combined as long as in total no more than a 30% reduction of
the total parking demand otherwise required occurs, or no less than a 40% reduction for
affordable housing projects, or no less than 50% reduction for senior housing projects.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans. TDM plans are required to reduce and
manage single-occupant vehicle trips of an applicant in the following circumstances:
Projects that generate 50+ net new weekday or weekend peak hour trips;
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
Projects claiming a reduction in net new trips due to proximity to public transit or the
implementation of a TDM plan; and
Projects requesting a parking reduction, including for affordable housing and housing
near transit.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
Findings from Stakeholder Interviews
Consultants conducted 16 meetings with 22 individuals (primarily architects and developers who
regularly use the City’s Zoning Ordinance) in April and May 2018. The list of stakeholder
organizations is provided below:
1. Architarian Design
2. Bentall Kennedy
3. Eden Housing
4. Explore Real Estate (Golden Gate Homes)
5. FGY (Fergus, Garber, Young) Architecture
6. Hayes Group
7. Lighthouse Public Affairs
8. Mid Pen Housing
9. Palo Alto Housing
10. Resident
11. Sand Hill
12. Sobrato Organization
13. SV@Home
14. Thoits Brothers
15. TOPOS Architecture
16. Windy Hill
Key comments related to parking were as follows:
Required parking ratios do not reflect demand
Parking requirements are high compared to nearby communities and tend to drive site
planning, commercial floor area, and unit yield
Parking ratios should account for proximity to Caltrain stations and reductions for bike
parking and shared parking
Parking requirements should be more flexible in Downtown and Cal Ave. where there is
less demand and higher costs; stakeholder ideas include: shared parking, tandem
configurations, off-site locations, allowing projects to pay into the assessment districts
and encouraging use of parking lifts
In addition to the number of stalls required, drive aisle requirements, back-up distances,
stall sizes that can make site planning challenging
Parking becomes a major expense when it’s required to go underground
Many people living in multifamily housing use alternate travel modes—Caltrain, Uber,
Marguerite shuttle, etc.; they don’t need parking spaces
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
The TDM plan is reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and must include the
following standards and processes:
Performance targets for parking and/or trip reduction, including the basis for such
estimates
Identification of a single entity to implement the proposed measures
Monitoring reports must be submitted to the Director annually, evaluating
implementation outcomes against performance targets and implementing
modifications, as necessary
The Director may require program modifications where performance measures are not
being met and may impose administrative penalties if identified deficiencies are not
addressed within 6 months
Transportation Division staff are currently updating guidelines for administering, monitoring
and enforcing TDM programs in line with the Council referral.
Analysis
This section includes a discussion of key issues related to the direct and indirect effects of
parking on housing production and affordability. Parking is an important issue for community
members and business owners, to support the convenience of getting to destinations, to
facilitate shopping activities, and to prevent concerns over potential spillover into residential
neighborhoods. However, it is typically not leasable area and takes up space that could be used
for other purposes. To align incentives for residential development this section concludes with
strategies to better match supply with estimated demand.
KEY ISSUES
1. Trends in Car Ownership and Commuting to Work
The City as a whole is trending toward more diverse methods of getting around town—from
bikes and walking, to transit and likely transportation network companies. Chart 1
demonstrates a trend toward the use of alternative modes of travel to work over the last 15
years, citywide, according to U.S. Census data. Rates of people driving alone dropped by 10
percentage points during this period.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
For residents living Downtown, rates of driving alone are even lower. Chart 2 compares how
Downtown residents are getting to work versus Palo Alto residents as a whole. Downtown
residents report higher rates of walking, biking, and transit use, and lower rates of driving alone
compared to citywide figures (52% vs. 65%).
Compared to the city as a whole, the Downtown area enjoys better transit access, pedestrian
and bike facilities, and more retail and community amenities. Downtown also may be attracting
residents who prefer not to drive and
therefore choose to live Downtown.
Transportation planners refer to this as
“self selection.”
As shown in Charts 2 and 3, many
residents of Palo Alto, particularly in the
City’s established low-density
communities, own cars, drive to work
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
and other destinations, and will continue to do so in the future. However, nationally, rates of
driver’s license issuance is down, as young people are choosing not to obtain driver’s licenses,
as evidenced by research by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.1,2 A
change in costs, preferences and availability of alternative transportation options (e.g.,
transportation network companies) have reduced the necessity of car ownership for some
populations. Boomers retiring from both their jobs and their current driving habits and higher
vehicle operating costs could also reduce vehicle ownership rates. Transportation planners
expect these trends to continue with the introduction of autonomous vehicles over the next
few years, the increase in residents working remotely, and other innovations. (See Attachment
B, which describes trends in vehicle use).
If new multifamily housing gets built near transit in Palo Alto, it may attract people who “self
select” to live in more walkable, transit-accessible locations. As shown in Chart 3, similar to the
findings for commuting to work, Downtown residents behave differently than residents
citywide in terms of their vehicle ownership. While 38% of households Downtown have access
to 0 or 1 vehicle, citywide only 23% of households
report these low vehicle rates. While existing and
future Downtown residents may still own cars, the
trend suggests they are likely to own fewer cars. The
local implications of this national trend are reflected
in the parking demand section below.
1 Michael Sivak & Brandon Schoettle (2016) “Recent Decreases in the Proportion of Persons with a Driver’s License
across All Age Groups.” The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Report No. UMTRI-2016-4.
http://www.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2016-4.pdf. About 87% of 19-year-olds in 1983 had their licenses,
but more than 30 years later, that percentage had dropped to 69%. Drivers in their 20s, 30s and 40s also saw their
ranks fall as a percentage of their age group population since 1983—down about 13 percentage points for those in
their 20s, more than 8 percentage points for people in their 30s and nearly 3 percentage points for those in their
40s. For 45- through 69-year-olds, there was an increase in the percentage of persons with a driver’s license from
1983 to 2008, followed by a continuous decrease from 2008 to 2014.
2 National trends may not reveal local variations and the PCE Department does not have driver’s license data
specific to Palo Alto or the surrounding region.
801 Alma, located 0.3 miles from the Downtown
Caltrain station. The project provides 1.2 parking
spaces per unit, but has peak demand of 1.0
spaces per unit, suggesting that the project has
20% more parking supply than demand.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
2. An Empirical Analysis: Parking Demand in Multifamily Apartments in Palo Alto
The City engaged Fehr & Peers, a transportation consulting firm, to conduct a study of parking
demand in multi-family developments in Palo Alto. These developments included market rate,
affordable, and senior housing projects at sites located at varying distances to transit. The
report is included as Attachment A.
The study observes the following trends (see pages 13 - 18 for details):
The lowest parking demand rates were observed at the Senior Housing complexes and
the highest at a Market Rate complex.
The parking demand rates seem to be correlated with proximity to transit for both
Affordable and Market Rate apartments. (Results are inconclusive for Senior Housing.)
Parking requirements exceed actual parking demand in the developments surveyed.
Table 1 compares the City’s existing parking requirements with observed parking demand in the
occupancy studies. The third column (Surveyed Parking Demand Rate) identifies an average
observed parking demand rate for the housing type, while the fourth column suggests a further
reduction for projects within proximity to transit (generally within ½ mile of a Caltrain station).
Table 1: Palo Alto Parking Requirements vs. Actual Parking Demand Rates
Multi-Family
Housing Type Current Requirement
Surveyed Parking
Demand Rate
Reduction for
Proximity to
Transit (1)
Market Rate 1.25 spaces per studio,
1.5 spaces per 1-bedroom unit
2 spaces per 2+ bedroom unit
0.75 spaces per
bedroom
25%
Affordable
Housing
See market-rate, plus 20-40%
reduction depending on affordability
0.55 spaces per
bedroom
25%
Senior housing See market-rate, plus up to 50%
reduction
0.34 to 0.69 spaces
per bedroom
none
Note: (1) The study classified sites close to transit as within ½ mile of a Caltrain station.
For example, for market rate units, the current parking requirements range from 1.25 spaces
per studio unit to 2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit. The surveyed parking demand rate suggests
that 0.75 spaces per studio and 1.5 spaces per 2-bedroom unit would be appropriate to meet
demand. However, if such a project were located within ½-mile of a Caltrain station, the parking
supply needs could be reduced by up to 25%--to 0.6 spaces per studio and 1.1 spaces per 2-
bedroom unit.
Housing developments that have more parking than is needed add unnecessary construction
costs and therefore contribute to the cost of housing. Efforts to better align parking to housing
type, proximity to transit and geography, could reduce these costs and increase housing
opportunities without impacting surrounding neighborhoods from spillover parking.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11
3. State Density Bonus Law Parking Requirements
State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) (Government Code Section 65915 – 65918) represents an
opportunity for developers and property owners to obtain additional residential
density/dwelling units in exchange for providing on-site below-market rate units. Additionally,
developers are eligible for waivers from development standards and incentives or concessions
to make the provision of below-market rate units feasible.
Specifically, State law includes specific parking standards, which an applicant can request—and
which the City cannot refuse—for an eligible density bonus project. These standards are shown
in Table 2, along with how they compare to the City’s requirements.
Notably, the State parking standards apply to the entire project—both the affordable and
market rate units—while the City’s parking reductions for affordable units only apply to the
BMR units. In other words, regardless of what the City sets as its standard, an applicant for a
project that is eligible as a State Density Bonus Law project can choose to utilize a lower parking
requirement for a project. Moreover, compliance with the City’s below market rate housing
program when the affordable housing units are provided onsite, automatically qualify a
developer under the SDBL to take advantage of the reduced parking standards.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12
Table 2: State Density Bonus Law Parking Standards Compared to City Standards for
Multifamily Housing
Basic Requirement
(spaces/unit type)
Near Transit
(spaces/unit type)
Unit Type
State Density
Bonus Law
City of Palo
Alto
State Density
Bonus Law (1)
City of Palo
Alto (2)
Studio 1 1.25 .5 1
1-Bedroom 1 1.5 .5 1.2
2-Bedroom 2 2 1 1.6
3-Bedroom 2 2 1.5 1.6
4-Bedroom 2.5 2 2 1.6
Rental Projects (per unit) See Table 1 See Table 1 0.5 See Table 1
Senior Rental Projects (per unit) See Table 1 See Table 1 0.5 See Table 1
Example SDBL Project (Maximum Total Spaces Required)
50-units with 6 Very-Low Income
(11%) and 44 Market Rate:
10 studios
20 1-bedrooms
15 2-bedrooms
5 3-bedrooms 70 83 38 66
Notes: (1) Defined as within ½-mile of transit; (2) Assumes maximum 20% reduction
The last row of Table 2 includes a hypothetical 50-unit project with 11% Very-Low Income units
that would qualify as an eligible project under State Density Bonus Law. If such a project were
developed within ½ mile of transit, it need only provide 38 parking spaces vs. the City
requirements which would otherwise require at least 66 spaces. This issue is notable since
projects providing their 15% inclusionary units on site may elect to use State standards instead
of following the City’s higher standards. Based on feedback from the stakeholder interviews,
developers tend to want to propose projects that are completely consistent with the City’s
Zoning Ordinance in an effort to navigate the entitlement process more easily. As a result, they
are currently not taking advantage of either the bonus density allowances or the relief from
parking requirements.
4. Form Follows Parking
Like in many communities in the Bay Area, much of the site planning and massing decisions on a
project site in Palo Alto are driven by parking and access requirement. This issue was cited
again and again by developers and architects during stakeholder meetings. Specifically, the
requirements for driveway widths, backup distances, and the number of parking stalls can
inhibit the ability to build out a sufficient number of units on a site to make a project viable.
Moreover, in Downtown and Cal Ave. in particular—unlike with office developers—residential
developers do not have the option to pay a fee in lieu of providing parking on-site. This is
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13
another example of the code biasing office over residential development, as was discussed in
the April 25th report.
The example below in Chart 4 shows a recent example of a housing project in Palo Alto on a lot
that measures 50 feet by 200 feet (10,000 square foot total). The project just meets the
development standard requirements for FAR, lot coverage, open space, building height and
setbacks. With 3 units proposed, the resulting density is 13 units/acre.
Chart 4: Example 10,000-Square Foot Lot Buildout
In terms of parking, each unit requires 2 spaces (1 covered and 1 uncovered), for 6 total spaces.
The orange dotted lines show the required backup areas and highlight one key exception
necessary to make the project physically feasible: reducing the driveway width from 16 to 10
feet. The resulting project represents three 1,700-square foot condos that may sell for $3
million per condo.
There are two key levers that could be modified to create a more affordable project: residential
density and parking. As described in the April 25th report, maximum residential density may be
constraining the number of units that can be achieved on a site, resulting in larger units that
rent or sell at higher rates. An architect and developer have two basic massing choices when
approaching the site plan for the lot shown in Chart 4: detached single-family homes or a small
apartment complex. These two prototypes have very different price points; the latter may be
affordable for moderate income earners, while the former will not be.
If a fourth unit were added to this site, assuming another 2+ bedroom unit, another 2 parking
spaces to serve the unit would be required. Additionally, this fourth unit would trigger the
requirement for guest parking, which would necessitate another 2 parking spaces, bringing the
site total to 10 spaces for 4 units. These spaces and their requisite drive aisle requirements
cannot fit in a surface parking configuration so the parking would need to be in a ground-floor
podium, accommodated in lifts, or placed underground. Based on conversations with
developers and architects, none of these scenarios would be financially feasible for such a small
project.
5. Parking for Ground-Floor Retail
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14
The stakeholder interviews revealed key insights regarding the provision of parking for the
commercial portion of mixed use residential buildings. As discussed in the April 25th staff report,
most residential uses are required to be a part of mixed use developments in the CD-C, CC(2),
CS, and CN districts. Typically, this commercial component is retail given the Retail Protection
Ordinance and retail requirements of the GF Overlay.
The parking requirements for ground-floor retail are as follows for citywide locations and
Downtown/Cal Ave., respectively:
Retail (Intensive): 1/200 sq. ft.
Retail (Extensive): 1/350 sq. ft.
Eating and Drinking Services (with drive-in or take-out facilities): 3 per 100 sq. ft. of
gross floor area
Eating and Drinking Services: 1 space for each 60 gross sq. ft. of public service area, plus
1 space for each 200 gross sq. ft. for all other areas.
California Avenue Assessment District: 1/240 to 1/350 spaces/sq. ft. for retail and 3/100
to 1/155 spaces/sq. ft. for Eating and Drinking Services
Downtown Assessment District only: blended rate of 1/250 sq. ft. for all non-residential
uses
Assuming a typical moderately-sized 2,000-square foot tenant space, these parking
requirements would necessitate 6 to 10 spaces for a retail tenant and 28 spaces for a sit-down
restaurant tenant (assuming ¾ of the tenant space is used for public service). Given parking
dimension requirements in Section 18.54.070 of the City’s code, a 2,000 tenant space could
necessitate an additional 1,000 to 7,000 square feet of area to accommodate these parking
needs depending on the use and parking configuration—potentially more than three times the
size of the tenant space itself. Moreover, a parking lot needs to add in space for drive aisles and
backing out of spaces, resulting in an even larger area consumed by parking.
As the city balances its interests in preserving and promoting retail and encouraging housing,
there may be areas of the city along the commercial streets where allowing housing without
ground floor commercial may be appropriate. Additionally, the PTC could explore exempting
parking for smaller retail spaces.
STRATEGIES
Based on the information above and consistent with the Council referral, staff recommends
that the Commission consider the following strategies to regulate parking more efficiently to
better align parking supply with actual demand:
1. Explore possible adjustments to reduce the base parking requirement for the following
housing types (without the need for a parking analysis and/or implementation of TDM
measures):
o multi-family housing near transit
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15
o affordable housing
o senior housing
2. Maintain parking requirements for single- and two-family residential uses
3. Consider exempting a portion of ground-floor retail from parking requirements to
relieve physical and financial constraints
4. For the Downtown Parking Assessment districts consider allowing housing development
to participate in the in-lieu parking program and explore the possibility of establishing a
program for California Avenue3.
Environmental Review
The City Council certified a Final EIR on November 13, 2017 to analyze potential impacts
associated with the updated Comprehensive Plan. The 2018 Ordinance will be evaluated
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) once a draft ordinance is prepared.
It is anticipated that the Ordinance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its Final
EIR. At this time, no substantially greater or more severe impacts are anticipated and no
development is proposed, beyond what is allowed by the Comprehensive Plan.
Next Steps
Staff will consolidate feedback received from April 25th and tonight’s meeting to inform the
ordinance framework. An anticipated timeline for development of the ordinance is provided in
the table below.
Table 3: Anticipated Timeline
Meeting Type Topic Date
PTC Study Session Review objectives for housing work plan and city
council direction
March 14
(completed)
PTC Study Session
Overview of issues, including key findings from an
analysis of residential capacity in Downtown
April 25
(completed)
PTC Study Session
Parking, including key findings from an analysis of
residential parking demand
May 30
(Tonight’s Meeting)
Community Meeting
Present and receive feedback on ordinance
framework
Week of June 25th
PTC Study Session Framework for ordinance July
PTC Hearing Review Draft Ordinance August 8
PTC Hearing
(continued, if needed)
Recommendation on Draft Ordinance (as revised) August 29
Report Author & Contact Information PTC4 Liaison & Contact Information
Jean Eisberg, Consultant Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director
3 This consideration is intended to stimulate discussion and may not be actionable as part of the 2018 Housing
Ordinance; additional staff research and public comment is needed.
4 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 16
(415) 841-3539 (650) 329-2679
jean@lexingtonplanning.com jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Fehr & Peers Multi-Family Parking Study - Palo Alto and Statewide (PDF)
Attachment B: Factors Affecting Parking Demand of Multi-Family Residential
Developments (PDF)
Source: Google Earth
City of Palo Alto
Multi-Family Parking Demand Rates
Prepared for
Prepared by
April 2018
City of Palo Alto
Multi-Family Parking Demand Rates
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto
April 2018
SJ16-1668
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3
2. Available Reports and Studies ........................................................................................................... 4
3. Parking Surveys .................................................................................................................................. 9
Previous Parking Surveys ..................................................................................................................................... 9
New Parking Surveys .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Selected Survey Sites .................................................................................................................................. 13
Methodology & Results ............................................................................................................................... 13
Trends .......................................................................................................................................................... 15
4. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................18
Appendices
Appendix A: Summary Tables from Previous Parking Studies
Appendix B: New Parking Survey Results
List of Figures
Figure 1: Previous Parking Survey Locations ........................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2: New Parking Survey Locations .................................................................................................................. 17
List of Tables
Table 1: Available Multi-Family Residential Parking Survey Results ...................................................................... 10
Table 2: Selected Multi-Family Complexes .............................................................................................................. 13
Table 3: Parking Inventories at Survey Sites............................................................................................................ 14
Table 4: New Multi-Family Residential Parking Survey Results .............................................................................. 16
Palo Alto Multi-Family Parking Demand Rate Study
April 2018
i
This page is intentionally left blank.
2
Executive Summary
Fehr & Peers conducted this study to provide the City of Palo Alto with parking demand rate data for multi-
family developments including market rate, affordable, and senior housing projects at sites located at
varying distances to fixed rail transit stations and major bus routes. The following parking rate trends were
observed from the results of the parking surveys conducted at nine sites in Palo Alto:
· The Affordable complexes have a higher proportion of two and three-bedroom units, the Market
Rate complexes have more one-bedroom then two+ bedroom units, and the Senior Housing
complexes are comprise primarily one-bedroom units. These unit mix differences are not taken into
consideration in the parking demand per unit results, but are in the rate per bedroom results.
· The lowest parking demand rates were observed at the Senior Housing complexes and the highest
at a Market Rate complex.
· The parking demand rates seem to be correlated to proximity to transit for both Affordable and
Market Rate apartments. (Results are inconclusive for Senior Housing.)
Using the survey results, and the results of other parking studies and available surveys, Fehr & Peers reached
several conclusions. For Affordable Housing, the surveyed parking demand rate is approximately 0.55
spaces per bedroom. For Market Rate units, the surveyed parking demand rate is approximately 0.75 spaces
per bedroom. Proximity to transit can reduce the parking demand by approximately 25 percent for both
Affordable Housing and Market Rate units. Senior Housing has the lowest rates which ranged from 0.34 to
0.69 spaces per bedroom. Other available surveys had rates ranging from 0.39 to 0.49 spaces per bedroom.
The variation in parking demand rates may indicate some self-selection occurring and residents with
vehicles choosing complexes with higher supplies.
Palo Alto Multi-Family Parking Demand Rate Study
April 2018
3
1. Introduction
This study was conducted to provide the City of Palo Alto with parking demand rate data for multi-family
developments including market rate, affordable, and senior housing projects at sites located at varying
distances to fixed rail transit stations and major bus routes. This study includes information from available
reports, documents, studies, and the results of surveys conducted as part of this study. Fehr & Peers was
also able to obtain the results of previous surveys conducted at various apartment complexes in the South
Bay, and included them in this report.
4
2. Available Reports and Studies
Fehr & Peers reviewed several reports and studies that included parking demand rates for multi-family
market rate, affordable, and senior residential developments in the Bay Area near rail stations (Caltrain, Bay
Area Rapid Transit (BART), and light rail transit (LRT)). Industry standard parking generation sources and
studies from Los Angeles and San Diego that include parking data for affordable housing were also
reviewed. These reports and studies are:
· Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA’s) A Parking Utilization Survey of Transit-
Oriented Development Residential Properties in Santa Clara County
· Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s) Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart
Growth
· Transform’s GreenTRIP Parking Database
· Robert Cervero, et al, University of California Transportation Center, UCTC Research Paper No. 882
Are TODs Over-Parked?
· Los Angeles Department of City Planning’s Local Trip Generation Study
· City of San Diego’s San Diego Affordable Housing Parking Study
· Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation, 4th edition
These reports and the general results that are applicable to parking demand rates for the City of Palo Alto
are summarized in the following sections.
A Parking Utilization Survey of Transit-Oriented Development
Residential Properties in Santa Clara County
This research project was completed by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and San Jose
State University in 2010. Twelve TOD residential properties near light rail and Caltrain stations in Santa Clara
County were surveyed as part of the study. (A table from this report summarizing the results included in
Appendix A.) The study does not specify whether the surveyed properties are market rate, affordable, or
senior housing; it is likely that they are market rate properties. The parking supply rates ranged from 1.31
to 2.31 spaces per unit with an average of 1.68 spaces per unit, whereas the peak parking demand rates
ranged from 0.84 to 1.54 spaces per unit with an average of 1.31 spaces per unit. The study found that the
parking supply exceeded the parking demand at every site surveyed indicating that the code requirements
for the city they are located in may be too high. This research project shows overall that parking demand at
residences near a transit station is less than current zoning code requirements.
Palo Alto Multi-Family Parking Demand Rate Study
April 2018
5
Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) developed this handbook to help city officials,
politicians, and planners with the planning and implementation of parking policies and programs that will
support transit–oriented development (TOD). The document is intended to allow users to explore potential
parking strategies that have been shown to work in different types of communities, identify best practices
about policies and programs, and establish implementation guidelines to best gain the support of the
public. It includes representative parking requirements for four types of land uses in five different location
types. The rates for residential units in suburban centers/town centers range from 1.00 to 1.50 spaces per
unit. Although the report does not differentiate among market rate, affordable, or senior housing, it is likely
that these rates are for market rate properties.
TransForm’s GreenTRIP Parking Database
TransForm’s GreenTRIP Parking Database (http://database.greentrip.org/) is a compilation of data gathered
at approximately 80 multi-family residential sites in the San Francisco Bay Area. It includes the building
location, place type (e.g. transit town center or city center), type of residence (family, senior, diverse abilities,
condominium), percent of units below market rate, number of units, number of parking spaces, parking
utilization, parking supply rate, parking demand rate, and traffic reduction strategies in place. The database
can provide insight into why parking use fluctuates based on location, transit access, and TDM strategies.
The GreenTRIP Parking Database allows data filtering for the study site parameters listed above. For the all-
residential, senior housing study sites in Santa Clara County, parking demand rates range from 0.27 to 0.71
spaces per unit. For the all-residential, non-senior housing study sites that are 50 to 100% below market
rate (affordable housing) in Santa Clara County, parking demand rates range from 0.96 to 1.34 spaces per
unit.
Some other relevant example results are:
· 801 Alma in Palo Alto (0.3 miles from a Caltrain station) with 50 units, 60 parking spaces (1.20 spaces
per unit), and a peak parking demand of 1.02 spaces per unit,
· Madera Apartments in Mountain View (0.1 miles from a Caltrain station) with 203 units, 279 parking
spaces (1.37 spaces per unit), and a peak parking demand of 0.88 spaces per unit, and
· Arbor Terrace Apartments in Sunnyvale (0.2 miles froma VTA Rapid 522 stop) with 175 units, 359
parking spaces (2.05 spaces per unit), and a peak parking demand of 1.37 spaces per unit
6
Are TODs Over-Parked
Robert Cervero at the University of California Transportation Center (UCTC) led this study with the University
of California, Berkeley. The study finds that parking demand rates for residential units at transit-oriented
developments (TODs) in the San Francisco Bay Area ranged from 0.74 to 1.69 spaces per unit, averaging
1.20 spaces per unit. For all surveyed sites, the average parking supply was 1.59 spaces per dwelling unit. (A
table from this report summarizing the results is included in Appendix A.) The study does not specify
whether the surveyed properties are market rate, affordable, or senior housing; based on a review of the
survey locations, most, if not all, are market rate properties. Varying development contexts explains the
range in peak parking demand rates. Well-established sites with complementary land uses (such as office,
restaurant, health club, hotel, and retail uses) had lower parking demand rates, while less dense and less
diverse sites had higher parking demand rates.
Los Angeles Trip Generation Study
In 2015 Fehr & Peers conducted a parking study in conjunction with a trip generation study for the Los
Angeles Department of City Planning. The study surveyed 42 affordable housing sites inside and outside
Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) in Los Angeles (20 inside a TPA, 22 outside a TPA). The study compared the
observed parking demand rates to the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) parking requirements. All
observed parking demand rates were lower than LAMC requirements. (A table from this report summarizing
the results is attached.) Some relevant parking rates and results are:
· Affordable family housing within a TPA (8 surveyed) have a parking supply rate of 1.15 spaces per
unit and a peak parking demand rate of 0.85 spaces per unit
· Affordable family housing outside a TPA (6 surveyed) have a parking supply rate of 1.17 spaces per
unit and a peak parking demand rate of 0.82 spaces per unit
· Affordable senior housing within a TPA (5 surveyed) have a parking supply rate of 0.60 spaces per
unit and a peak parking demand rate of 0.44 spaces per unit
· Affordable senior housing outside a TPA (8 surveyed) have a parking supply rate of 0.70 spaces per
unit and a peak parking demand rate of 0.48 spaces per unit
San Diego Affordable Housing Parking Study
In 2011 the City of San Diego conducted a parking study for affordable housing in various contexts
throughout the city. The study documented parking rates for 21 housing developments to develop a
citywide parking demand model. Variables considered includes walkability, access to transit, and housing
type (e.g. single-family, senior, etc.). The parking study concluded that parking demand for affordable
projects is about one half of typical rental units in San Diego, with almost half of all units surveyed having
Palo Alto Multi-Family Parking Demand Rate Study
April 2018
7
no vehicle. Parking demand was generally associated with larger unit size and higher income for affordable
housing developments. (A table from this report summarizing the results is attached.) In all projects
surveyed, the amount of peak parking used was less than the amount supplied. Some relevant parking rates
are:
· Villa Harvey Mandel Affordable Rentals located 1,500 feet from the 12th & Imperial Transit Center
in San Diego with 90 units, 26 parking spaces (0.29 spaces per unit), and a peak parking demand of
0.28 spaces per unit
· Windwood Village Apartments in San Diego (not located near major transit service) with 92 units,
195 parking spaces (2.10 spaces per unit), and a peak parking demand of 1.56 spaces per unit
· Renaissance Senior Apartments in San Diego with 96 units, 103 parking spaces (1.07 spaces per
unit), and a peak parking demand of 0.39 spaces per unit
Parking Generation, 4th Edition
The Institute of Transportation Engineers published Parking Generation, 4th edition in 2004 to provide
parking demand rates for various land uses based on survey data collected in primarily suburban, low-
density areas. While the report does not provide authoritative findings, recommendations, or standards on
parking demand, it is often referenced by planners and designers in making parking supply estimations and
decisions. Some relevant results are:
· Low/Mid-Rise Apartment (Land Use 221) has an average weekday peak parking demand of 1.23
spaces per dwelling unit in suburban context and 0.42 spaces per dwelling unit in urban context
· Residential Condominium/Townhouse (Land Use 230) has an average peak parking demand of 1.38
spaces per dwelling unit in suburban context
· Senior Adult Housing – Attached (Land Use 252) has an average peak period parking demand of
0.59 spaces per dwelling unit
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code
The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.52 Parking and Loading Requirements outlines the current
parking supply requirements for multi-family residential units. Based on Table 1 in Section 18.52.040 Off-
Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements, market-rate multi-family residential complexes
should have:
· 1.25 parking spaces per studio unit,
· 1.5 parking spaces per 1-bedroom unit,
· 2 parking spaces per 2-bedroom or larger unit, and
· 1 guest parking spaces per project plus 10% of total number of units.
8
Additionally, the following parking supply reductions may be taken:
· Housing for seniors may be reduced by up to 50% of the total spaces required for the site, subject
to submittal and approval of a parking analysis justifying the reduction.
· Affordable housing may be reduced by up to 20% for low income units, up to 30% for very low
income units, and 40% for extremely low income and single room occupancy units. The reduction
shall consider proximity to transit and support services and traffic demand management measures
may be required.
· Up to 20% reduction for housing near transit facilities and approval of a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program.
Palo Alto Multi-Family Parking Demand Rate Study
April 2018
9
3. Parking Surveys
Fehr & Peers gathered the results of previous parking surveys for multi-family residential developments
within and near Palo Alto and conducted new parking surveys. This section presents the survey
methodology and results.
Previous Parking Surveys
The results of previous parking surveys conducted for market rate multi-family developments in the South
Bay from other Fehr & Peers studies, TransForm, and studies conducted by other consultants were compiled.
Available information about each site, such as the number of units, walking distance to the nearest rail
station, type of rail service, peak parking demand, parking supply and demand rates, is presented in Table
1. Figure 1 shows the locations of each development. All developments are market-rate, except for Madera
Apartments in Mountain View which has seven affordable-housing units and 196 market-rate units. Some
of the developments may not be directly applicable to Palo Alto but the information can be used for
comparison purposes. The parking supply rates ranged from 1.20 to 1.97 spaces per unit and the parking
demand rates ranged from 0.88 to 1.41 spaces per unit, which indicates that the developments generally
had enough parking to meet demand. The highest parking demand rate is from a complex that is not near
a rail station or major bus route, suggesting that complexes far from transit require more parking than those
close to transit.
10
Table 1: Available Multi-Family Residential Parking Survey Results
Name of
Complex Address
Distance
to Rail
Station
Type of
Rail
Number of Units
No. of
Occupied
Units
Supply Demand
Over-
supply1 1
BR
2
BR
3+
BR
Total Units
(Bedrooms)
No. of
Spaces
Rate
Per
Unit
Rate Per
Bedroom
Peak
Parking
Demand
Rate
Per
Unit
Rate Per
Occupied
Unit
Rate Per
Bedroom
801 Alma
801 Alma
St., Palo
Alto
0.3 miles Caltrain
(PA) 10 24 16 50
(106) 50 60 1.20 0.57 51 1.02 1.02 0.48 18%
Park Place
Apartments
851
Church
St.,
Mountain
View
0.7 miles Caltrain/
LRT (MV) 181 186 6 373
(571) n/a 511 1.37 0.89 339 0.91 n/a 0.59 51%
Avalon
Mountain
View
1600 Villa
St.,
Mountain
View
0.8 miles Caltrain/
LRT (MV) 117 75 56 248
(435) n/a 426 1.72 0.98 301 1.21 n/a 0.69 42%
AvalonBay
Creekside
151
Calderon
Ave.,
Mountain
View
0.4 miles Caltrain/
LRT (MV) n/a n/a n/a 294
(n/a) 288 436 1.48 n/a 365 1.24 1.27 n/a 19%
Avalon
Towers (on
the
Peninsula,
ATOP)
2400
West El
Camino
Real,
Mountain
View
0.8 miles Caltrain/
LRT (MV) 90 115 6 211
(338) 203 262 1.24 0.78 258 1.22 1.27 0.76 2%
Madera
Apartments
455 W.
Evelyn
Ave,
Mountain
View
0.2 miles Caltrain/
LRT (MV) n/a n/a n/a 2032
(n/a) n/a 279 1.37 n/a 179 0.88 n/a n/a 56%
Palo Alto Multi-Family Parking Demand Rate Study
March 2018
11
Table 1: Available Multi-Family Residential Parking Survey Results
Name of
Complex Address
Distance
to Rail
Station
Type of
Rail
Number of Units
No. of
Occupied
Units
Supply Demand
Over-
supply1 1
BR
2
BR
3+
BR
Total Units
(Bedrooms)
No. of
Spaces
Rate
Per
Unit
Rate Per
Bedroom
Peak
Parking
Demand
Rate
Per
Unit
Rate Per
Occupied
Unit
Rate Per
Bedroom
Central
Park
Apartments
100 N.
Whisman
Rd.,
Mountain
View
0.3 miles LRT
(Whisman) 68 204 82 354
(722) n/a 696 1.97 0.96 490 1.38 n/a 0.68 42%
Kensington
Apartments
1220 N.
Fair Oaks
Ave.,
Sunnyvale
0.2 miles LRT (Fair
Oaks) n/a n/a n/a 186
(n/a) 182 317 1.70 n/a 262 1.41 1.44 n/a 21%
Source: Fehr & Peers, TransForm, and Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
1. Oversupply = (Supply – Demand) / Demand
2. Madera Apartments has seven affordable-housing units and 196 market-rate units.
Palo Alto Station
California Ave. Station
San Antonio Station
Mountain View Transit Center
Whisman Light Rail Station
Fair Oaks Light Rail Station
A
l
p
i
n
e
R
d
El Camino Real
SanAntonioAve
Scott Blvd
Gr
e
a
t
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
P
k
w
y
Mathilda Ave Tasman Dr
Lawrence Expy
San Antonio Rd
OregonExpy
Junipero
SerraBlvd
FoothillExpy
PageMillRd
Alm
a
S
t
Central Expy
|}82
|}237
|}85
|}237
|}82
|}82
£¤101
£¤101
£¤101
!"#280
MaderaApartments
AvalonBayCreekside
Park PlaceApartments
801 Alma
AvalonMountain View
Avalon Towers
Central ParkApartments
KensingtonApartments
LosAltosHills
Palo Alto
San Jose
EastPalo Alto
Menlo Park
Sunnyvale
Mountain View
Los Altos
Santa Clara
N:\Projects\_SJ16_Projects\SJ16_1668_Palo_Alto_On_Call\Phase 12 - TO11, Multifamily Parking Demand\Graphics\GIS\MXD\SJ16_1668_Fig0x_Parking Study Locations.mxd
Previous Parking Survey LocationsFigure 1
Surveyed Sites LRT Station
Light Rail Train (902)
Caltrain Station
Caltrain Route
Palo Alto Multi-Family Parking Demand Rate Study
April 2018
13
New Parking Surveys
During November and December, 2017, surveys were conducted at nine apartment complexes in Palo Alto
to measure their parking demand during various days of the week and times of day.
Selected Survey Sites
The nine multi-family complexes were selected in concert with City staff based on development type (i.e.
Market Rate, Affordable Housing, or Senior Community) and distance from transit, where transit is defined
as fixed rail stations (primarily Caltrain stations) and/or major bus routes (primarily El Camino Real) so that
the effects of transit proximity can be discerned. Table 2 lists the locations of the properties along with
their types and distance-to-transit categories. Figure 2 shows their locations in relation to nearby Caltrain
stations (Palo Alto, California, and San Antonio).
Table 2: Selected Multi-Family Complexes
Type Near Transit
(<0.5 miles)
Mid-Distance to Transit
(0.75 to 1.25 miles)
Far from Transit
(>1.5 miles)
Affordable Housing California Park Apartments
(2301 Park Boulevard)
Oak Court Apartments
(845 Ramona Street)
Colorado Park Apartments
(1141 Colorado Avenue)
Market Rate Housing The Marc
(501 Forest Avenue)
Midtown Court Apartments
(2721 Midtown Court)
Tan Plaza Apartments
(580 Arastradero Road)
Senior Housing Sheridan Apartments1
(360 Sheridan Avenue)
Lytton Gardens
(330 Everett Avenue)
Stevenson House
(455 E. Charleston Road)
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.
1. Sheridan Apartments is an affordable housing complex for senior & disabled residents. For the purposes of this analysis,
Sheridan Apartments was considered as a Senior Housing complex.
All observed sites have dedicated parking facilities for residents, visitors, and staff where the number of
parked vehicles could be counted (no private one and two-car garages). No observed sites offer unbundled
parking. The number of units by bedroom count, number of parking spaces, and parking supply rates per
unit and per bedroom are presented in Table 4. The properties also have at least 45 units, with unit
occupancy at or above 95%.
Methodology & Results
A parking inventory was conducted at each selected survey site to verify the parking supply. The inventory
included counts of the numbers of spaces and how they were identified, e.g., reserved, visitor, staff, office,
14
Americans with disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant, etc. Spaces that had no identification were designated as
“general”. The parking inventories are presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Parking Inventories at Survey Sites
Name of
Complex
Number of Parking Stalls
General Reserved ADA-
Compliant Visitor
Office/
Staff/
Vendor
Future
Neighbor EV Total
Affordable Housing
California
Park
Apartments
67 - 3 - - - - 70
Oak Court
Apartments - 85 2 20 - - - 107
Colorado
Park
Apartments
- 86 2 - 2 - - 90
Market Rate Housing
The Marc - 153 2 - - - 2 157
Midtown
Court
Apartments
58 10 - - 1 - - 69
Tan Plaza
Apartments 65 10 2 - 2 5 - 84
Senior Housing
Sheridan
Apartments - 20 1 - - - - 21
Lytton
Gardens 3 38 5 5 - - - 51
Stevenson
House 35 2 3 6 4 - - 50
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018.
Parking occupancy surveys were conducted to count the numbers of parked vehicles by space type on a
weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) at three time periods (midday, evening, and late night - after
midnight) and on a weekend day at two time periods (midday and late night).
The summarized results of the parking surveys showing the numbers of parked vehicles, space occupancy
(percent of spaces occupied by a parked vehicle), and parking demand rates per unit, per occupied unit,
and per bedroom are summarized in Table 4. (More detailed survey results are included in Appendix B.)
Palo Alto Multi-Family Parking Demand Rate Study
April 2018
15
Most of the complexes achieved their peak parking demand on weekdays during the late night period. Two
had identical peak parking demands during the late night period on weekdays and on weekends (California
Park Apartments and Tan Plaza). One of the senior housing complexes reached its peak parking demand
during the late night weekend period (Stevenson House).
Only three of the complexes, Oak Court Apartments, Lytton Courtyard, and Stevenson House, have
designated visitor spaces. Oak Court Apartment has 20 visitor spaces and the number of vehicles parked in
those spaces remained at 6 or 7 throughout the survey period. Lytton Courtyard has 5 visitor spaces with
1 or 2 parked vehicles. The number of vehicle in the six visitor spaces at Stevenson House ranged from 2 to
5.
Trends
The following trends from the surveys are noted:
· The Affordable complexes have a higher proportion of two and three-bedroom units, the Market
Rate complexes have more one-bedroom then two+ bedroom units, and the Senior Housing
complexes are comprised of primarily one-bedroom units. These unit mix differences are not taken
into consideration in the parking demand per unit results, but are in the rate per bedroom results.
· The lowest parking demand rates were observed at the Senior Housing complexes and the highest
at a Market Rate complex.
· The parking demand rates seem to be correlated to proximity to transit for both Affordable and
Market Rate apartments. (Results are inconclusive for Senior Housing.)
16
Table 4: New Multi-Family Residential Parking Survey Results
Name of
Complex
Distance
to Rail
Station
Type of
Rail
Number of Units
No. of
Occupied
Units
Supply Demand
Over-
Supply2 1
BR
2
BR
3+
BR
Total Units
(Total
Bedrooms)
No. of
Spaces
Supply
Rate
per
Unit
Supply
Rate per
Bedroom
Peak
Parking
Demand
(Time1)
Rate
Per
Unit
Rate Per
Occupied
Unit
Rate Per
Bedroom
Affordable Housing
California
Park Apts. 0.1 miles Caltrain
(CA) 1 31 13 45 (102) 45 70 1.56 0.69 41
(WD,L) 0.91 0.91 0.40 71%
Oak Court
Apts. 0.8 miles Caltrain
(PA) 9 18 26 53 (123) 53 107 2.02 0.87 66
(WD,L) 1.25 1.25 0.54 62%
Colorado
Park Apts. 2.4 miles Caltrain
(CA) 8 24 28 60 (140) 60 90 1.50 0.64 78
(WD,L) 1.30 1.30 0.56 15%
Market Rate Housing
The Marc 0.5 miles Caltrain
(PA) 70 44 4 118 (170) 114 157 1.33 0.92 90
(WD,L) 0.79 0.79 0.53 74%
Midtown
Court Apts. 1.2 miles Caltrain
(CA) 31 15 0 46 (61) 44 69 1.50 1.13 46
(WD,L) 1.00 1.05 0.75 50%
Tan Plaza
Apts. 1.6 miles Caltrain
(SA) 6 50 5 61 (121) 60 84 1.38 0.69 70
(WD,L) 1.15 1.17 0.58 20%
Senior Housing
Sheridan
Apts. 0.3 miles Caltrain
(CA) 57 0 0 57 (57) 57 21 0.37 0.37 20
(WD,L) 0.35 0.35 0.35 5%
Lytton
Gardens 0.8 miles Caltrain
(PA) 51 0 0 51 (51) 51 51 1.00 1.00 35
(WE,L) 0.69 0.69 0.69 46%
Stevenson
House 1.9 miles Caltrain
(SA) 120 0 0 120 (120) 120 50 0.42 0.42 41
(WD,L) 0.34 0.34 0.34 22%
Notes: Complexes are color coded by distance to transit, with darker colors indicating higher distance to transit.
1. WD,L=Weekday, Late Night; WE,L=Weekend, Late Night
2. Oversupply = (Supply – Demand) / Demand
Sources: City of Palo Alto, Fehr & Peers.
Palo Alto Station
California Ave. Station
San Antonio Station
A
l
p
i
n
e
R
d
Oreg
o
n
A
v
e
SanAntonioRd
Sand H i l l Rd
SanAntonio
Ave
WElCaminoReal
FoothillExpy Centra
l
E
x
p
y
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
PageMillRd
JuniperoSerraBlv
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Alma St|}82
|}85
|}82
£¤101
£¤101
!"#280
California ParkApartments
Oak CourtApartments
The Marc
SheridanApartments
Tan PlazaApartments
Colorado ParkApartments
Midtown CourtApartments
StevensonHouse
LyttonGardens
Los Altos Hills
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
EastPalo Alto
Menlo Park
Sunnyvale
Mountain View
Los Altos
N:\Projects\_SJ16_Projects\SJ16_1668_Palo_Alto_On_Call\Phase 12 - TO11, Multifamily Parking Demand\Graphics\GIS\MXD\SJ16_1668_Fig0x_Parking Study Locations.mxd
New Parking Survey LocationsFigure 2
New Parking Survey Locations Caltrain Station
Caltrain RouteAffordable Housing
Market Rate Housing
Senior Housing
18
4. Conclusions
Conclusions were drawn from the survey results and other reports regarding the parking demand rates for
multi-family residential developments and the effect of proximity to transit:
· For Affordable Housing, the surveyed parking demand rate is approximately 0.55 spaces per
bedroom. Proximity to transit can reduce the rate by approximately 25 percent.
· For Market Rate units, the surveyed parking demand rate is approximately 0.75 spaces per
bedroom. Proximity to transit can reduce the rate by approximately 25 percent.
o These rates are supported by other studies conducted for sites near South Bay Caltrain
stations.
· Senior housing has the lowest rates which ranged from 0.34 to 0.69 spaces per bedroom. Other
available surveys had rates ranging from 0.39 to 0.49 spaces per bedroom.
o Many of these complexes also had low parking supply rates. The variation in parking
demand rates may indicate some self-selection occurring and residents with vehicles
choosing complexes with higher supplies.
· Surveys conducted at additional locations would provide more information to refine results. They
could be focused on the weekday late night period when the majority of the peak demands
occurred.
Palo Alto Multi-Family Parking Demand Rate Study
March 2018
Appendix A:
Summary Tables from Previous Parking
Studies
Summary Table from
“A Parking Utilization Survey of Transit-Oriented
Development Residential Properties in Santa Clara
County”
Summary Table from
“Are TODs Over-Parked?”
Summary Table from
“Los Angeles Trip Generation Study”
Summary Table from
“San Diego Affordable Housing Study”
Appendix B:
New Parking Survey Results
Stalls
Occupied
Parking
Occupancy
Demand
Rate
Stalls
Occupied
Parking
Occupancy
Demand
Rate
Stalls
Occupied
Parking
Occupancy
Demand
Rate
Stalls
Occupied
Parking
Occupancy
Demand
Rate
Stalls
Occupied
Parking
Occupancy
Demand
Rate
California Park 45 45 70 1.56 0.91 19 0.27 0.42 28 0.40 0.62 41 0.59 0.91 27 0.39 0.60 41 0.59 0.91
Oak Court 53 53 107 2.02 1.25 36 0.34 0.68 43 0.40 0.81 66 0.62 1.25 46 0.43 0.87 59 0.55 1.11
Colorado Park 60 60 90 1.50 1.30 36 0.40 0.60 56 0.62 0.93 78 0.87 1.30 44 0.49 0.73 70 0.78 1.17
1.69 1.15 -- 0.34 0.57 -- 0.47 0.79 -- 0.69 1.15 -- 0.43 0.73 -- 0.64 1.06
The Marc 118 114 157 1.33 0.79 59 0.38 0.52 64 0.41 0.56 90 0.57 0.79 59 0.38 0.52 79 0.50 0.69
Midtown Court 46 44 69 1.50 1.05 22 0.32 0.50 27 0.39 0.61 46 0.67 1.05 28 0.41 0.64 42 0.61 0.95
Tan Plaza 61 60 84 1.38 1.17 38 0.45 0.63 39 0.46 0.65 70 0.83 1.17 49 0.58 0.82 70 0.83 1.17
1.40 1.00 -- 0.38 0.55 -- 0.42 0.61 -- 0.69 1.00 -- 0.45 0.66 -- 0.65 0.94
Sheridan 57 57 21 0.37 0.35 17 0.81 0.30 19 0.90 0.33 20 0.95 0.35 16 0.76 0.28 18 0.86 0.32
Lytton 51 51 51 1.00 0.69 31 0.61 0.61 26 0.51 0.51 25 0.49 0.49 23 0.45 0.45 35 0.69 0.69
Stevenson 120 120 50 0.42 0.34 33 0.66 0.28 39 0.78 0.33 41 0.82 0.34 35 0.70 0.29 36 0.72 0.30
0.60 0.46 -- 0.69 0.39 -- 0.73 0.39 -- 0.75 0.39 -- 0.64 0.34 -- 0.75 0.43
Stalls
Occupied
Parking
Occupancy
Demand
Rate
Stalls
Occupied
Parking
Occupancy
Demand
Rate
Stalls
Occupied
Parking
Occupancy
Demand
Rate
Stalls
Occupied
Parking
Occupancy
Demand
Rate
Stalls
Occupied
Parking
Occupancy
Demand
Rate
California Park 45 45 70 1.56 0.91 19 0.27 0.42 28 0.40 0.62 41 0.59 0.91 27 0.39 0.60 41 0.59 0.91
The Marc 118 114 157 1.33 0.79 59 0.38 0.52 64 0.41 0.56 90 0.57 0.79 59 0.38 0.52 79 0.50 0.69
Sheridan 57 57 21 0.37 0.35 17 0.81 0.30 19 0.90 0.33 20 0.95 0.35 16 0.76 0.28 18 0.86 0.32
1.08 0.68 -- 0.49 0.41 -- 0.57 0.51 -- 0.70 0.68 -- 0.51 0.47 -- 0.65 0.64
Oak Court 53 53 107 2.02 1.25 36 0.34 0.68 43 0.40 0.81 66 0.62 1.25 46 0.43 0.87 59 0.55 1.11
Midtown Court 46 44 69 1.50 1.05 22 0.32 0.50 27 0.39 0.61 46 0.67 1.05 28 0.41 0.64 42 0.61 0.95
Lytton 51 51 51 1.00 0.69 31 0.61 0.61 26 0.51 0.51 25 0.49 0.49 23 0.45 0.45 35 0.69 0.69
1.51 0.99 -- 0.42 0.60 -- 0.43 0.64 -- 0.59 0.93 -- 0.43 0.65 -- 0.62 0.92
Colorado Park 60 60 90 1.50 1.30 36 0.40 0.60 56 0.62 0.93 78 0.87 1.30 44 0.49 0.73 70 0.78 1.17
Tan Plaza 61 60 84 1.38 1.17 38 0.45 0.63 39 0.46 0.65 70 0.83 1.17 49 0.58 0.82 70 0.83 1.17
Stevenson 120 120 50 0.42 0.34 33 0.66 0.28 39 0.78 0.33 41 0.82 0.34 35 0.70 0.29 36 0.72 0.30
1.10 0.94 -- 0.50 0.50 -- 0.62 0.64 -- 0.84 0.94 -- 0.59 0.61 -- 0.78 0.88
Near to Transit Average:
Medium to Transit Average:
Far from Transit Average:
Late
Palo Alto Parking Survey Results (By Location Type)
Site Total units
Occupied
units
Capacity
(Spaces)
Supply
Rate
Maximum
Demand
Weekday Weekend
Midday Evening Late Midday Late
Maximum
Demand
Occupied
units
Market Rate Average:
Senior Average:
Affordable Average:
Palo Alto Parking Survey Results (By Housing Type)
Midday Late
WeekendWeekday
Supply
RateSite
Capacity
(Spaces)Total units
Midday Evening
160 W. Santa Clara Street | Suite 675 | San José, CA 95113 | (408) 278-1700 | Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 11, 2018
To: Jean Eisberg, Lexington Planning
From: Jane Bierstedt and Ryan Caldera, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Factors Affecting Parking Demand of Multi-Family Residential Developments
SJ16-1668.12
There are several factors that affect the parking demand of multi-family residential developments.
However, there is limited data on many of the factors, especially regarding emerging technologies
and societal changes. This memorandum presents historic data regarding two of the factors: transit
ridership and vehicle ownership. It also describes other factors that may reduce the parking demand
in the future.
Transit Ridership and Vehicle Ownership
Estimates from the American Community Survey were used to assess how transit ridership and
vehicle ownership in Palo Alto have changed over time. The estimates are presented as 5-year
rolling estimates: the 2016 estimate includes data from 2012-2016, 2015 is 2011-2015, etc. Despite
the overlap of years they tend to provide better information because the sample size is more robust
than 1-year or 3-year estimates. The results are presented in Table 1.
Jean Eisberg
May 11, 2018
Page 2 of 3
Table 1: Data on Transit Ridership and Vehicle Ownership Trends in Palo Alto
ACS Year Years
Covered
Percent Transit
Commuters
Percent of Households
with Zero Vehicles
Percent of Households with
One Vehicle and 2+ persons
2009 2005-2009 4.1% n/a n/a
2010 2006-2010 4.6% 6.3% 12%
2011 2007-2011 5.3% 6.0% 13%
2012 2008-2012 5.4% 6.7% 13%
2013 2009-2013 5.3% 6.5% 14%
2014 2010-2014 5.6% 6.1% 15%
2015 2011-2015 5.8% 6.9% 15%
2016 2012-2016 5.3% 6.9% 15%
Source: American Community Survey
The general trend is towards slightly higher transit usage and slightly lower rates of vehicle
ownership, but all of the trends are small. Higher transit ridership and lower ownership would tend
to reduce parking demand.
Other Factors
There are other factors that may reduce residential parking demand and corresponding parking
supply in the future. Many would lead to reduced vehicle ownership rates. Since many of these are
new and/or still emerging, there is little empirical data to illustrate their effect. Therefore they are
provided for informational purposes only.
Reduced Vehicle Ownership Rates
Vehicle ownership rates could reduce for a variety of reasons. Millennials may focus on urban living
and forego car ownership in lieu of other modes of transportation including car sharing,
Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), and biking. Millennials are putting off receiving their
driver’s license and stricter teen licensure laws could further reduce the number of new drivers and
their need to have access to a vehicle. Boomers retiring from both their jobs and their current
driving habits and higher vehicle operating costs could also reduce vehicle ownership rates.
Jean Eisberg
May 11, 2018
Page 3 of 3
First/Last Mile Strategies
Improvements to pedestrian and bicycle connections, transit passenger amenities, and access to
trip-end mobility services would increase the geographic reach of transit travel, and increase trips
made by transit, walking, and biking making car-free life an easier option for more people.
Shared Mobility Services
Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft provide on-demand services and use
smartphone apps to connect drivers with passengers. They meet the demand for faster point-to-
point travel than transit and avoid inconveniences of driving and parking. TNCs enable a car-free
or car-light lifestyle.
Telecommuting and Social Networking
Working remotely would reduce the need to have a vehicle available every day. Virtual forums for
social encounters and entertainment can also reduce in-person encounters that depend on driving
and vehicle ownership.
Automated Vehicles
Next-generation vehicles that operate with or without a driver aboard will be available in the next
few years. They will likely be provided as a subscription service and would not need a residential
parking space.
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 9307)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/30/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 2515-2585 El Camino Real Vesting Tentative Map
Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2515-2585 El Camino Real
[17PLN-00448]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for
Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to Merge two Lots and
Subdivide the Combined 39,953 Square Foot lot Into 13
Residential Condominiums and up to 13 Retail Commercial
Units. The Subdivision map Would Facilitate Construction of
the Previously Approved 39,858 Square Foot Mixed-use
Development Project (15PLN-00170). Environmental
Assessment: Reuse of a Previously Adopted Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for the
Associated Development Application (15PLN-000170). Zoning
District: Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Community
Commercial (CC) (2) Zoning District. For More Information
Contact the Project Planner Margaret Netto at
margaret.netto@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends this item be continued to June 13, 2018 Planning Transportation Commission
meeting.
Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information
Jodie Gerhardt Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director
(650) 329-2575 (650) 329-2679
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 2
jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org