HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7814
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7814)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/6/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Permanent Downtown RPP Program
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Amending Resolutions 9473 and 9577 to
Continue the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program With
Minor Modifications and Finding the Action Exempt From the California
Environmental Quality Act (Continued From February 13, 2017)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and take the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution amending Resolutions 9473 and 9577 to make permanent the
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program (Attachment A) and direct
staff to make corresponding changes to the Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)
Administrative Guidelines; and
2. Find the program exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Executive Summary
In early 2014, the City began significant efforts to address the parking and traffic challenges,
particularly in the Downtown core, through a strategic multi-pronged approach of parking
management, parking supply and transportation demand management programs. The strategy
includes implementation of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program,
which went into effect in September 2015. The introduction of this program has required the
development and launch of a new online permit sales website and sales support, installation of
signage in the permit area, negotiation and oversight of an enforcement contract, extensive
community outreach and data collection.
Phase 1 of the program regulated non-resident parking around the Downtown commercial core
by introducing Resident and Employee Parking Permits and restricting non-permit holders to
two-hour parking between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
Resident Parking Permits are for residents who live within the Downtown RPP program area
while the Employee Parking Permits are for any individuals who are employed within and
City of Palo Alto Page 2
commuting to the Downtown area. Phase 2 of the program, which went into effect on April 1,
2016, capped the number of Employee Parking Permits and established ten Employee Parking
Zones in an effort to better distribute non-resident parkers. Eligibility Areas, which can petition
to join the program administrative, were also created as part of Phase 2 of the program.
The minor program modifications in the attached Resolution to make the Downtown
Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program permanent include:
Reduction of the Employee Parking Permit term from one year to six months;
Elimination of the five-day employee scratcher hangtag permits;
Expansion of the hours of enforcement from 8:00am to 6:00pm (currently enforcement
is from 8:00am to 5:00pm);
Reduction of the number of employee permits by 10% per year until they are zeroed-
out; and
Insertion of a reference to the program goals of reducing impacts of overflow parking
from the commercial district on the neighborhood and maintaining an on-street parking
occupancy of 85% or less.
Implementation of the recommended program changes, if approved by the City Council, will
occur when Phase 2 permits expire on March 31, 2017.
Background and Discussion
The Citywide Residential Preferential Parking Ordinance originally, adopted in December 2014
and amended in February 2016, includes parameters for all residential preferential parking
programs citywide, and is included as Attachments B and C. Resolutions 9473 and 9577 provide
specific direction on the details of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)
Program and are included as Attachments D and E. The Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)
Administrative Guidelines outline the administrative rules and guidelines for the program, and
can be amended by the Planning and Community Environment Director. These are included as
Attachment F.
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 parking permits were made
available through an online permit sales website in March 2016, and were required for parking
on-street in the district as of April 1, 2016. Permit holders were notified of the required new
permits via mailed notices, email, social media, and the City’s website. Staff supported the sale
of permits by responding to email and phone inquiries, hosting an employer workshop at City
Hall, conducting on-site help sessions at the Avenidas Senior Center, and through customer
service contract staff on-site at City Hall for one month before and one month after permits
were required.
All residents and individuals who are living or are employed and working within the geographic
area of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program are eligible to purchase
permits. A map of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program is included as
Attachment G. The following types of permits have been available to residents and employees
City of Palo Alto Page 3
during Phase 2:
Resident Annual Sticker: one free of charge and up to three additional at $50/year
Resident Annual Hangtag: up to two per residence at $50/year
Resident One-day Scratcher Hangtag: $5/each; limit of 50 per year
Employee Full-price Sticker: $466/year
Employee Reduced Sticker: $100/year; available to those who qualify based on income
Employer Annual Hangtag: $466/year
Employee One-day Scratcher Hangtag: $5/each
Employee Five-day Scratcher Hangtag: $15/each
Attachment H shows the number of Phase 2 Resident Parking Permits and Employee Parking
Permits sold as of December 22, 2016—a total number of 7,014, 5,679 of which were Resident
Parking Permits and 1,335 of which were Employee Parking Permits.
In Phase 2, employee permits are zone-specific, meaning that employees and employers
purchase a permit for a specific Employee Parking Zone. A total of 2,000 Employee Parking
Permits are authorized for Phase 2, however a portion of these permits are being held in
reserve until additional streets within Employee Parking Zones 9 and 10 elect to join the
program through the Eligibility Area administrative annexation process. Half of the available
permits in each Employee Parking Zone were reserved for low-income workers and the majority
have sold out, requiring the release of additional low-income reduced Employee Parking
Permits.
The City Council received a status report on Phase 2 on September 6, 2016 and the staff report
and correspondence from that hearing are available at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53641. At that meeting, the
Council directed staff to return to Council by January 15, 2017 with proposals for changes to
implement at the end of Phase 2, that include:
Freeze sale of Employee Parking Permits in Employee Parking Zones 9 and 10 and allow
future streets in these zones to be added for resident-only parking, reducing the total
number of available employee permits in all zones by this amount;
Eliminate five-day scratcher hangtag permits;
Propose quantitative objectives;
Give priority to low-income workers (already included in the program);
Require employer registration in the Business Registry (already included in the program);
and
Require employer participation in the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association
(TMA) or a staff-approved transportation demand management program (TDM), if
legally permissible.
Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 included priority for low-income employees and required registration
City of Palo Alto Page 4
in the Business Registry for employers wishing to purchase Employee Parking Permits. The
proposed resolution would continue these aspects of the program, eliminate five-day scratcher
hangtag permits, and articulate program objectives. The recommended Resolution does not
require participation in the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA), but this
requirement should be considered in the future as the TMA expands, retains additional staff,
and identifies a regular stream of funding. This requirement, if implemented today, would add
additional administrative burdens to the fledgling organization, as its cooperation would be
required to verify initial and continuing membership for businesses.
The recommended Resolution would continue the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking
(RPP) Program with a number of minor modifications identified by City Council, Staff and
stakeholders. To support the recommendation, the parking occupancy survey data from Phase
2 is included as Attachment I. The Phase 2 parking citation data is included as Attachment J The
recommended Resolution amends Resolutions 9473 and 9577 to make permanent the
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program, by making the following minor
modifications:
Reduce the Employee Parking Permit term from one year to six months in order to
ensure that Employee Parking Permits are not sitting unused due to employee
departures and turnover. The most recent daytime parking occupancy survey counted
only 436 Employee Parking Permits on-street at one point in time. With a total of 1,335
total Employee Parking Permits issued for Phase 2, this represents a show-rate of only
32%. Staff believes that this is the result of many Employee Parking Permits being
withheld from circulation due to the one-year term and relatively high turnover in the
retail and services industries. Reducing the term of the Employee Parking Permits to six
months will allow unused permits to reenter circulation more quickly and also reduce
the upfront costs of an Employee Parking Permit. Staff recommends that six-month
Employee Parking Permits be priced at $233 and low-income reduced-price permits be
sold for $25. Both of these rates reflect 50% of the current annual permit or the current
six month cost if prorated.
Eliminate the five-day employee scratcher hangtag permits due to their unpopularity.
During Phase 2 only one five-day employee scratcher hangtag has been sold. The added
administrative burden of offering an additional permit type is not justified with such low
sales.
Expand the hours of enforcement to 8:00am to 6:00pm from the current hours of
8:00am to 5:00pm in order to better mitigate the impacts of employee parking on
residential streets and ensure consistency with the recommendations to be included
within the Downtown Parking Management Study, scheduled for Council consideration
in March 2017. This study will make a strong recommendation to extend the
enforcement of the downtown commercial area parking regulations to 6:00pm, and in
order to prevent the displacement of vehicles to the Downtown Residential Preferential
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Parking (RPP) Program, staff believes that the enforcement hours should be consistent.
Reduce the number of Employee Parking Permits by 10% per year, as directed by City
Council in February 2016. This reduction in permits is in support of the City Council’s
goal to reduce the downtown employee drive-alone rate by 30% by 2030 through the
efforts of the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA). In lieu of a
reduction in permits in the outermost Employee Parking Zones initially, as originally
proposed, Staff is instead recommending a reduction across the board in all ten
Employee Parking Zones, but a larger reduction in the zones closest to the downtown
commercial area which have a higher concentration of two-hour parkers. The table
below outlines the staff recommendation for permit reduction in year one of the
program. Staff will continue to conduct occupancy counts and monitor permit sales by
Employee Parking Zone. The Employee Parking Permit allocation per Employee Parking
Zone is subject to change annually with approval from the Planning and Community
Environment Director.
Table 1: Recommended Reduction in Employee Parking Permits by Zone
Permit Type Total
Issued
Current
Max
Authorized
Max
Recommended
Max
Recommended
Rate of
Reduction
Employee Annual Zone 1 75 75 75 60 20%
Employee Annual Zone 2 117 120 120 96 20%
Employee Annual Zone 3 282 225 225 202 10%
Employee Annual Zone 4 182 190 190 152 20%
Employee Annual Zone 5 177 175 175 140 20%
Employee Annual Zone 6 101 100 100 90 10%
Employee Annual Zone 7 135 135 135 128 5%
Employee Annual Zone 8 270 365 365 348 5%
Employee Annual Zone 9 1 25* 245 233 5%
Employee Annual Zone 10 35 105* 370 351 5%
Total Employee Annual 1,335 1,515 2,000 1,800 10%
*Permits in Employee Parking Zones 9 and 10 are being held in reserve until additional streets are annexed.
Source: Department of Planning and Community Environment, December 2016
Insert a reference the program goals of reducing impacts of overflow parking from the
commercial district on the neighborhood and maintaining an on-street parking
occupancy of 85% or less in order to provide the Planning and Community Environment
Director a framework to measure the performance of the program and justify
modifications to the Administrative Guidelines and/or the Employee Parking Permit
allocation per Employee Parking Zone. (85% has been the metric used to determine
streets where parking is saturated since data collection for the downtown RPP program
began in 2014.)
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Petitions from Eligible Streets
The Citywide Residential Preferential Parking Ordinance, as amended in February 2016, enables
the designation of Eligibility Areas adjacent to existing residential preferential parking program
areas. An Eligibility Area was created for the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)
Program through Resolution 9577, whereby streets within the area are pre-approved by City
Council to join the program through an administrative annexation process. This process
requires residents to self-organize and submit a petition including signatures from at least 50%
of households on the block requesting annexation into the program. Staff then mails a survey to
all households on the block regarding the program, and at least 70% of households must reply
with a positive response. If the required positive response is received, the block is approved for
inclusion into the program, signage is installed, permit information is shared with residents, and
a pro-rated number of Employee Parking Permits are released from reserve.
During Phase 2, the following blocks within the Eligibility Area have been administratively
annexed into the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program:
500 Chaucer Street
500 Hale Street
600 Hale Street
800 Palo Alto Avenue
1000 Hamilton Avenue
1100 Hamilton Avenue
Public Input
Phase 1 and Phase 2 were the result of over 12 months of work by a dedicated group of
resident and business stakeholders. The City Council thanked the group for its service upon
initiation of Phase 2, but many of the stakeholders have remained engaged.
Staff met with these stakeholders and other interested members of the public on January 4,
2017 to discuss the data provided in this staff report and potential changes to the program that
should be considered at the end of Phase 2. The notes from this meeting and subsequent
communications from the stakeholders are included as Attachments K and L.
Timeline
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 permits expire on March 31,
2017. Assuming the City Council adopts a resolution making desired program adjustments on
February 13, 2017 as requested, Staff expects to make signage modifications and outreach to
permit holders in the next month or so, such that enforcement can continue after March 31,
2017.
Resource Impact
The amended resolution and RPP Administrative Guidelines will have a small impact on the
adopted budget for Downtown RPP Program. The current FY 2017 Adopted Operating Budget
City of Palo Alto Page 7
assumed revenues of $461,000 inclusive of a $230,000 transfer from the General Fund and
expenses of $850,000 to administer the Downtown RPP Program. These current operating
funds as well as funding from the Capital Improvement Project Residential Preferential Parking
(PL-15003) approved at $330,045 in the FY 2017 Adopted Capital Budget are sufficient to
continue the Downtown RPP Program beyond the March 2017 expiration in the current fiscal
year.
Permit generation and customer service costs are estimated at $86,000 while updates to
signage are estimated at $36,410 for a total cost of $122,410. No ongoing implications to
budgeted levels are anticipated as a result of the recommendations in this report. Related
contract amendments (for this program and the Evergreen Park/Mayfield program) will be
placed on the Council’s consent agenda for approval later this month or next month.
Policy Implications
The implementation of Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program is consistent
with the three-pronged approach staff has presented to optimize parking within the Downtown
core. It is also consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals:
1. Goal T-8, Program T-49: Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and
demand management strategies for Downtown Palo Alto
2. Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business
districts
Environmental Review
Adoption of a resolution regarding an Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)
Program is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this
document may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this
proposed document will have a minor impact on existing facilities.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Resolution for Downtown RPP
Attachment B - Citywide RPP Ordinance 5294
Attachment C - Citywide RPP Ordinance 5380
Attachment D - Downtown RPP Phase 1 Resolution 9473
Attachment E - Downtown RPP Phase 2 Resolution 9577
Attachment F - RPP Administrative Guidelines Approved
Attachment G - Downtown RPP Program Area Map
Attachment H - Downtown RPP Phase 2 Permits Sold 03-01-2016 to 12-22-2016
Attachment I - Downtown RPP Phase 2 Parking Occupancy Surveys
Attachment J - Downtown RPP Phase 2 Citation Data
Attachment K - Downtown RPP Phase 2 Stakeholder Meeting Agenda & Notes 2017-01-
04
Attachment L - Downtown RPP Phase 2 Stakeholder Data & Input
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Attachment M Letters from the Public
****NOT YET APPROVED****
1
Resolution No. _______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolutions
9473 and 9577 to Continue the Downtown Residential Preferential
Parking District (RPP) Program with Minor Modifications
R E C I T A L S
A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by city
council action, of permit parking programs in residential neighborhoods for residents
and other categories of parkers.
B. A stakeholders’ group comprised of Downtown residents and business
interests was convened to discuss the implementation of Residential Preferential
Parking Districts (RPP Districts).
C. On December 15, 2015 the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5294, adding
Chapter 10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Municipal Code. This Chapter
establishes the city-wide procedures for RPP Districts in the city.
D. On December 1, 2014, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9473
implementing the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Pilot Program. The
implementation anticipated a two-phased pilot program. Parking permits issued for
Phase 1 of this pilot program expired on March 31, 2016.
E. On February 23, 2016 the Council adopted Resolution No. 9577 to update the
process for implementing Phase 2 of the Downtown Neighborhood preferential parking
pilot program. Permits issued for Phase 2 of this pilot program will expire on March 31,
2017.
F. It is the goal of the City to reduce the impacts of non-resident overflow
parking from the Downtown Commercial District on the surrounding neighborhoods,
and to maintain an on-street parking occupancy in those neighborhoods of 85% or less.
G. The Council desires to amend Resolution Nos. 9473 and 9577 to conclude the
pilot program and implement the permanent Downtown Residential Preferential
Parking Program. These modifications shall apply to all Downtown Residential Employee
Parking Zones.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The criteria set forth in Section 10.50.030 for the
designation of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District described in 3.A
of this Resolution have been met as follows:
****NOT YET APPROVED****
2
(1) That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of
on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents, in that based on
observation there are few available parking spaces available midday, while
the streets are relatively unoccupied at midnight thus demonstrating the
parking intrusion is largely by non-residents.
(2) That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and
frequent intervals, either daily or weekly, in that the parking intrusion is
contained to the daytime hours during the regular workweek.
(3) That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district
create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of
parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood
life, in that based on information from residents and other city departments
the vehicle congestion is interfering with regular activities.
(4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical in that the
City has implemented a series of alternative parking strategies in the past
and concurrently and there is still a shortage of parking available
SECTION 2. Duration and Issuance of Permits. The following provisions shall
apply to the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program District:
A. Resident Parking Permits: Resident Parking Permits will be distributed
pursuant to the criteria listed under Section 5.C of this Resolution. Resident
Parking Permits shall be valid for one-year increments, commencing on
April 1, 2017. Resident Parking Permits will be valid anywhere within the
boundaries of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program
District.
B. Employee Parking Permits: The City shall also issue permits to Downtown
Employees pursuant to the criteria listed under Section 5.C of this
Resolution. Employee Parking Permits shall be in effect for six months. The
first round of permits shall become effective on April 1, 2017 and expire on
September 30, 2017. New Employee Parking Permits will be available for
purchase every six months thereafter.
C. Temporary Work Parking Permits: The City shall also issue Temporary Work
Parking Permits for contractors or construction workers completing work
for households located within the Downtown Residential Preferential
Parking Program District. Prices and duration of the Temporary Work
Parking Permits will be determined by the Development Services Director
at the time of application.
D. Duration: These regulations shall commence on April 1, 2017. The City will
make permits available for Residents, Employees, and Contractors prior to
April 1, 2017.
****NOT YET APPROVED****
3
E. Permanent Regulations: The Downtown Residential Preferential Parking
Program shall remain in force until the City Council takes action to extend,
modify, or rescind.
SECTION 3. Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program District
Boundaries.
A. Annexed Zones. The areas shown on Exhibit A are included in the
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program District.
B. Eligibility Areas. The areas shown on Exhibit A as Eligibility Areas are
eligible for administrative annexation, as provided in Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 10.50.085.
SECTION 4. Hours and Days of Enforcement.
A. Hours. The Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program parking
regulations shall be in effect Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00
PM, except holidays as defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.08.100.
Outside of these enforcement hours, any motor vehicle may park in the
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program District, subject to other
applicable parking regulations.
B. Re-parking Prohibited. During the regulated days and hours of enforcement,
no person shall park in the same Employee Parking Zone within the
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program District for more than
two continuous hours without a valid permit.
C. Exemptions. A vehicle lawfully displaying a valid Resident Parking Permit or
Employee Parking Permit in the proper fashion shall be exempt from the
two-hour time limit. Electric vehicles parked at and using an electric charging
station within the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program
District shall be exempt from the two-hour limit. Other vehicles exempt from
the parking regulations are identified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
10.50.070.
SECTION 5. Residential and Employee Parking Permits.
A. Duration. Resident Parking Permits shall be available on an annual basis.
One-day Resident Parking Permits shall also be available. Employee Parking
Permits shall be available on a six-month basis. One-day Employee Parking
Permits shall also be available.
B. Purchase of Permits. Requirements and eligibility for purchase of both
Resident Parking Permits and Employee Parking Permits shall be listed in
****NOT YET APPROVED****
4
the Residential Preferential Parking Administrative Guidelines, as approved
by the Planning and Community Environment Director.
C. Parking Permit Sales.
1. Resident Parking Permits.
a. Annual Resident Parking Permit Stickers. Each residential
address may obtain up to four (4) annual Resident Parking
Permit Stickers at the costs listed in Section 6.A.
b. Annual Resident Parking Permit Hangtags: Each
residential address may purchase up to two (2) annual
Residents Parking Permit Hangtags, which are
transferable within a household. The permit shall clearly
indicate the date through which it is valid.
c. Daily Resident Parking Permits. Each residential address
may purchase up to 50 Daily Resident Parking Permits
annually. These permits may be in the form of scratcher
hangtags, an on-line issuance system, or such other form
as the City may decide. The permit shall clearly indicate
the date through which it is valid.
2. Employee Parking Permits. The City may issue Employee Parking
Permits for use by employees working in the Downtown area as
specified in Exhibit A. Employee Parking Permits shall be subject
to the following regulations:
a. Commuting Only. Employee Parking Permits are for the
exclusive use by employees working for businesses within
the proposed Downtown Residential Preferential Parking
Program District boundaries while commuting to work.
b. Employee Parking Zones. No person shall park in the
same employee parking zone within the Downtown
Residential Preferential Parking Program District for more
than two continuous hours without a valid permit. Re-
parking on the same day in the same zone by any person
without a valid parking permit or otherwise exempt from
Chapter 10.50 shall be prohibited.
c. Employee Parking Permit Cost. Employees may purchase
permits at the costs listed in Section 6.D.
d. Six-month Employee Parking Permit Cap. The
City shall issue no more than 1,800 Employee
Permits during the first year of the permanent
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking
Program implementation. The Employee
****NOT YET APPROVED****
5
Parking Permits thereafter are to be allocated
among the existing, annexed, and eligible
Employee Parking Zones according to Table 1
of Exhibit B initially, and which shall be
updated annually by the Planning and
Community Environment Director. Only
streets participating in the Downtown
Residential Preferential Parking Program may
be allocated permits.
e. Six-month Employee Parking Permit
Reduction Strategy. Following the first year
allocation of 1,800 Six-month Employee
Parking Permits, the City will decrease the
total number of issued Employee Parking
Permits by 10% per year. The Planning and
Community Environment Director shall be
authorized to adopt Administrative Guidelines
to implement this reduction in a manner that
encourages the City Council’s goal of reducing
the drive-alone rate by 30% by 2030 through
the efforts of the Palo Alto Transportation
Management Association and the further goal
of minimizing parking impacts to residential
neighborhoods.
f. Six-month Employee Parking Permit Priority
for Low-income Employees. The Planning and
Community Environment Director shall
reserve approximately half of the annual
employee permits in each zone for purchase
by employees who qualify for reduced price
permits based on hourly or annual income.
The other half will be sold on a first come, first
serve basis to all employees.
g. Employee Parking Zones. Each Employee
Parking Permit shall be issued for only one of
the Employee Parking Zones as shown in
Exhibits A and subject to the Permit
Allocation totals in Exhibit B. The issued
Employee Parking Permit shall entitle the
permit holder to park only in that zone for
more than two hours.
****NOT YET APPROVED****
6
h. Daily Employee Parking Permits. Daily
Employee Parking Permits will be available to
employees only, and will not be available for
sale to employers. Employees will be limited
to purchase up to four (4) daily parking
permits per month, or roughly one per week.
1. Distribution of daily employee permits.
Daily employee permits will be zone-
specific and will be sold randomly. No
daily employee permits will be sold in
Zones 9 and 10. Employees will not
select a specific zone when purchasing
a daily permit, and will receive a zone
specific daily employee permit selected
at random at the time of mailing.
SECTION 6. Cost of Parking Permits. The cost of Parking Permits shall be as
follow and may be adjusted from time to time to maintain consistency with parking
permits issued for Downtown lots and garages:
A. Annual Resident Parking Permit Sticker: First permit $0/year; second
permit $50/year; third permit $50/year; fourth permit $50/year. No more
than four parking permits will be sold per residential address.
B. Annual Resident Parking Permit Hangtag: A residential address may
purchase up to two Annual Resident Parking Permit Hangtags at $50/year.
Additional permits may be approved by the Planning and Community
Environment Director upon a showing of good cause.
C. Daily Resident Parking Permit: A residential address may purchase up to 50
Daily Resident Parking Permits per year at $5/each.
D. Employee Parking Permits
1. Full-price Permit: $233/six months
2. Reduced-price Permit for Low-income Employees: $25/six months
3. Reduced-price Permit for Addison Elementary School employees:
$25/six months
E. Temporary Work Parking Permit: Issued by Palo Alto Development Center
with cost and duration determined at time of application by the
Development Services Director.
SECTION 7. CEQA. This resolution is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14
of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no
****NOT YET APPROVED****
7
possibility the adoption and implementation of this resolution may have a significant
effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a
minor impact on existing facilities.
SECTION 8. Supersede. To the extent any of the provisions of this resolution are
inconsistent with the regulations set forth in Resolution 9473 or Resolution 9577, this
resolution shall control.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately, except
that Section 3(B) shall not go into effect until the corresponding implementing
ordinance becomes effective. Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50
and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: February 13, 2017
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ __________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
_______________________ ____________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
_____________________
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Ever
e
t
t
A
v
e
Haw
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
e
Ruth
v
e
n
A
v
e
Poe
S
t
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
e
Ever
e
t
t
C
t
Hig
h
S
t
Al
m
a
S
t
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Em
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Bry
a
n
t
S
t
Wa
v
e
r
l
y
S
t
Kip
l
i
n
g
S
t
Co
w
p
e
r
S
t
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
Byr
o
n
S
t
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Ful
t
o
n
S
t
Gu
i
n
d
a
S
t
Bo
y
c
e
A
v
e
Forest Ave
Hamilton Ave
Fife Ave
Channing Ave
Parkinson Ave
Guinda St
Greenwood
Se
n
e
c
a
S
t
Ch
a
u
c
e
r
S
t
Hal
e
S
t
Ra
m
o
n
a
S
t
Hig
h
S
t
Em
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Bry
a
n
t
S
t
Sc
o
t
t
Wa
v
e
r
l
y
S
t
Kip
l
i
n
g
Co
w
p
e
r
S
t
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
Byr
o
n
S
t
Byr
o
n
S
t
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Ful
t
o
n
S
t
Ra
m
o
n
a
S
t
Flo
r
e
n
c
e
Gil
m
a
n
Tas
s
o
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Fore
s
t
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Cha
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
Linc
o
l
n
A
v
e
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
Kello
g
g
A
v
e
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
Downtown Residential
Preferential Parking Program
Li
n
c
o
l
n
A
v
e
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
3
4
5 6 7
8
9
10
2 1
Visit http://paloalto.parkingguide.com/parking-program/downtown-residential-preferential-parking-program/ for additional information
or contact 650-329-2520.
PaloAlto A v e
Downtown RPP District
Approved Eligibility Area
Non-RPP Parking in RPP District
Downtown Non-RPP
Downtown RPP Program Area
Approved Eligibility Area
Non-RPP Parking in RPP District (check signs)
RPP Employee Parking Zones
Exhibit A
Table 1. Downtown RPP Program Employee Parking Zones and Allocations
Employee
Parking
Zone
Boundaries Permit
Allocation
1 Lytton Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street
(where RPP restrictions are in place)
300 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street,
Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling
Street, Cowper Street
Everett Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street
60
2 200 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street,
Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling
Street, Cowper Street
Hawthorne Avenue between Alma Street and Webster
Street
96
3 100 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street,
Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling
Street, Cowper Street
Palo Alto Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street
Poe Street
Ruthven Avenue
Tasso Street
202
4 Palo Alto Avenue between Webster Street and Guinda
Street
600 block of Hawthorne Avenue
600 and 700 blocks of Everett Avenue, Lytton Avenue,
University Avenue
100-500 blocks of Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield
Road, Fulton Street
152
5 600 and 700 blocks of Hamilton Avenue
200-700 blocks of Forest Avenue and Homer Avenue
700 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley
Street, Cowper Street
600-700 blocks of Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield
Road, Fulton Street
1401
6 800 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley
Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street, Webster Street,
Middlefield Road
Channing Avenue between Ramona Street and Guinda
Street
90
7 900 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley
Street, Cowper Street, Webster Street, Middlefield Road
Addison Avenue between High Street and Guinda Street
128
8 1000 and 1100 blocks of High Street, Emerson Street,
Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Cowper
Street, Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield Road,
348
Exhibit B
Employee
Parking
Zone
Boundaries Permit
Allocation
Fulton Street
Lincoln Avenue and Kingsley Avenue between Alma
Street/Embarcadero Road and Guinda Street
Embarcadero Road from Alma Street to Kingsley Avenue
9 1200 block of Bryant Street
1200-1300 blocks of Waverley Street
1200-1400 blocks of Cowper Street, Webster Street, Byron
Street
1300-1400 blocks of Tasso Street
1200-1500 blocks of Middlefield Road
1200-1300 blocks of Fulton Street
Melville Avenue between Embarcadero Road and Guinda
Street
Kellogg Avenue between Cowper Street and Middlefield
Road
Embarcadero Road between Kingsley Avenue and
Middlefield Road
25 (233)*
10 Guinda Street between Palo Alto Avenue to Melville
Avenue
Palo Alto Avenue between Guinda Street and Hale Street
500 blocks of Chaucer Street and Hale Street
600 block of Hale Street
800 blocks of Lytton Avenue, Homer Avenue and Palo Alto
Avenue
800 and 900 blocks of University Avenue, Hamilton Avenue
800-1100 blocks of Forest Avenue
Boyce Avenue between Guinda Street and Hale Street
1000-1100 blocks of Fife Avenue
800-900 blocks of Channing Avenue and Addison Avenue
800-1000 blocks of Lincoln Avenue
800 block of Melville Avenue
1000-1100 blocks of Hamilton Avenue
105 (351)*
Total Six-month Employee Parking Permits 1,800
*A portion of Six-month Employee Parking Permits in this Employee Parking Zone are held in
reserve and only released as additional streets within that zone opt into the Downtown RPP
Program. The number in parenthesis is the total maximum number of permits if all streets within
the zone were to opt in.
Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment, January 2017
Ordinance No. 5294
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 10
(Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding
Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferential Parking Districts)
and Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor)
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does 0 RDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferred Parking Districts) is
hereby added to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
read as follows:
Sections:
RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICTS
Purpose
Definitions
RFP Designation Criteria
Initiation by City Council
Initiation by Neighborhood Petition
10.50.010
10.50.020
10.50.030
10.50.040
10.50.050
10.50.060
10.50.070
10.50.080
10.50.090
10.50.100
Establishment of Residential Preferential Parking Districts
Administration of Districts
Annexation of New Areas to Existing Districts
Modification or Termination of Districts
Violations and Penalties
10.50.010 Purpose.
Residential preferential parking districts are intended to restore and enhance the
quality of life in residential neighborhoods by reducing the impact of parking
associated with nearby businesses and institutional uses. The procedures and
standards in this chapter are intended to provide flexibility so that the city council
may adopt, after consultation with residents and neighboring businesses and
institutions, parking programs that appropriately protect each neighborhood's
unique characteristics. Residential preferential parking districts should be
designed to accommodate non-residential parking when this can be done while
meeting the parking availability standards determined by the city to be appropriate
for the district in question. Residential preferential parking programs may be
designed to reduce non-residential parking over time to give non-residential
parkers time to find other modes of transportation or parking locations.
10.50.020 Definitions.
The following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:
140826 jb 01312SOC 1 December 9, 2014
a) "Director" shall mean the director of planning and community environment.
b) "Dwelling unit" shall mean a self-contained house, apartment, stock
cooperative unit, or condominium unit occupied by a single household exclusively
for residential purposes. These residential purposes may include lawful home
occupations.
c) "Employee permit" shall mean a permit issued to an employee working at a
business located within an RPP District or as defined in an RPP district specific
resolution.
d) "Guest permit" shall mean a permit issued to a Resident on an annual basis
for use by a person visiting a residence in an RPP District or for workers providing
services such as caregiving, gardening, repair maintenance and construction, to the
Resident. The number of Guest permits issued to Residents shall be specified in
administrative regulations adopted by the Director.
e) "Non-resident vehicle" shall mean a vehicle operated by a person whose
destination is not to a residence within the Residential Preferential Parking District.
f) "Resident" shall mean a natural person living in a dwelling unit in an RPP
District.
g) "Residential Preferential Parking District" or "RPP District" shall mean a
geographical area in which the city council has established a preferential parking
permit system pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 22507.
h) "Visitor permit" shall mean a temporary 24-hour permit issued to a Resident
for use by a person visiting a residence in an RPP District.
10.50.030 RPP Designation Criteria
The council may designate an area as a Residential Preferential Parking District
based upon the following criteria:
(1) That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of
on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents;
(2) That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and
frequent intervals, either daily or weekly;
(3) That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district
create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking
spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life;
( 4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical.
10.50.040 Initiation by City Council
The city council may, by motion, initiate consideration of a RPP District by directing
staff to undertake the analysis and outreach process set forth in Section ·
10.50.0SO(d) and (e).
10.50.050 Initiation by Neighborhood Petition
Residents may request the formation of an RPP District in their neighborhood. The
request shall be made, and considered, in the following manner:
(a) Form of Application.
140826 jb 0131250C 2 December 9, 2014
(1) The director shall establish a standard form for the application for the
formation of a new RPP District, as well as a list of submittal requirements for use
by interested residents. These requirements shall include a narrative describing the
nature and perceived source of non-residential parking impact, as well as suggested
district boundaries. The director shall also approve a standard form for use in
demonstrating resident support for the application.
(2) Residents shall initiate a request for establishment of an RPP District by
neighborhood petition by completing the official application form.
(3) Residents are encouraged to consult with the employers and employees
thought to be the source of the parking impact as they develop their proposals.
(b) Timing and Review of Applications. Each calendar year, the Director of
Planning and Community Environment shall review all applications received prior
to March 31st of that year to determine whether the RPP District criteria established
in this Chapter are met.
( c) Prioritization of Applications. Applications determined by the Director to
meet the criteria in paragraph (b) above shall be presented to the Planning and
Transportation Commission. The commission shall review the requests and
recommend to the director which proposal or proposals should be given priority for
review and possible implementation in the current calendar year. In making its
recommendations, the commission shall consider the severity of non-residential
parking impact, the demonstrated level of neighborhood support, and the staff
resources needed to process requests.
( d) Staff Review of Applications and Community Outreach.
Once an application has been selected for council consideration during the current
calendar year, staff shall promptly review the application, gather additional
information and conduct a community outreach program. At a minimum the
review process shall include the following:
(1) The City shall complete parking occupancy studies to quantify the nature of
the problem identified in the petition. Data shall be collected when schools in the
Palo Alto Unified School District and Stanford University are in session, unless these
institutions are irrelevant to the problem to be addressed.
(2) Upon completion of the consultation and outreach process, the city attorney
shall prepare a draft resolution containing the proposed boundaries and hours of
enforcement. Staff shall undertake a survey of resident support within the RPP
District. The results of this survey shall be included in and reported to the planning
and transportation commission and the city council.
( e) Planning and Transportation Commission Review. Staff shall bring the
proposed RPP District to the planning & transportation commission no later than
September of the calendar year in which consideration began. The commission shall
review the draft resolution at a noticed public hearing and make a recommendation
to the city council regarding the RPP District. This recommendation may include
140826 jb 0131250C 3 December 9, 2014
proposed modifications of the boundaries. The commission's recommendation shall
be forwarded to the city council no later than September 30th.
10.50.060 Establishment of Residential Preferential Parking Districts
(a) Adoption of Resolution Establishing District. Following the completion of the
procedures described in Section 10.50.050, the City Council shall hold a public
hearing on a proposed resolution to establish the residential preferential parking
district. The resolution may specify a trial period of up to two years. Any such trial
period shall begin running after the signs have been posted and permits issued. The
council may adopt, modify, or reject the proposed resolution.
(b) Resolution. The resolution shall specify:
(1) The findings that the criteria set forth in Section 10. 50.030 have been met.
(2) The term of the trial period, if applicable.
(3) The boundaries and name of the residential preferential parking district. The
boundary map may also define areas which will become subject to the regulations of
the residential preferential parking district in the future if the council approves a
resident petition for annexation as provided in Section 10.50.080 below.
( 4) Hours and days of enforcement of parking regulations and other restrictions
that shall be in effect for non-permit holders, such as two-hour parking limits,
overnight parking limits, or "no re-parking" zones.
(5) The number of permits, if any, to be issued to merchants or other non-
residential users, which number may be scheduled to reduce over time.
(6) Resident permit rates which are set by City Council policy will be uniform
across each district.
(7) Such other matters as the Council may deem necessary and desirable,
including but not limited to fee rates and whether non-residential parking permits
are allowed to be issued and transferred.
( c) Permanent Adoption. Before the expiration of the trial period, if applicable,
the city council shall hold a noticed public hearing and determine whether the RPP
District should be made permanent as originally adopted, modified or terminated.
The council's action shall be in the form of a resolution.
10.50.070 Administration of Districts
(a) Issuance and Fees.
(1) No permit will be issued to any applicant until that applicant has paid all of
his or her outstanding parking citations, including all civil penalties and related fees.
(2) A residential parking permit may be issued for a motor vehicle if the
following requirements are met:
A. The applicant demonstrates that he or she is currently a resident
of the area for which the permit is to be issued.
140826 jb 0131250C 4 December 9, 2014
B. The applicant demonstrates that he or she has ownership or
continuing custody of the motor vehicle for which the permit is to be issued.
C. Any motor vehicle to be issued a permit must have a vehicle
registration indicating registration within the area for which the permit is to be
issued.
(3) Visitor or guest parking permits may be issued for those vehicles or to those
individuals or households that qualify for those permits under the resolution
establishing the RPP District.
( 4) Employee parking permits may be issued to those individuals and for those
vehicles that qualify for such permits under the resolution establishing the RPP
District.
(b) No Guarantee of Availability of Parking. A parking permit shall not guarantee
or reserve to the permit holder an on-street parking space within the designated
residential preferential parking zone.
( c) Restrictions and Conditions. Each permit issued pursuant to this Section shall
be subject to each and every condition and restriction set forth in this Chapter and
as provided for in the resolution establishing the specific RPP District, as may be
amended from time to time. The issuance of such permit shall not be construed to
waive compliance with any other applicable parking law, regulation or ordinance.
(d) Exemptions. The following vehicles are exempt from RPP District parking
restrictions in this Chapter: ·
(1) A vehicle owned or operated by a public or private utility, when used in the
course of business.
(2) A vehicle owned or operated by a governmental agency, when used in the
course of official government business.
(3) A vehicle for which an authorized emergency vehicle permit has been issued
by the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, when used in the course of
business.
( 4) A vehicle parked or standing while actively delivering materials or freight.
(5) A vehicle displaying an authorized exemption permit issued by the City of
Palo Alto.
(6) A vehicle displaying a State of California or military-issued disabled person
placard or license plates.
(7) A vehicle parked for the purpose of attending or participating in an event
taking place at a school within the Palo Alto Unified School District or another event
venue within the RPP District, provided that the vehicle is parked within two blocks
of the venue, the venue has requested and received approval from the City at least
fourteen days before the event date, and the venue distributes notices to all
addresses within a two -block radius of the venue. The RPP District Resolution
shall specify the covered venues and number of permitted events per year.
(8) All vehicles are exempt from parking restrictions pursuant to this Chapter on
the following holidays: January 1, July 4, Thanksgiving Day, and December 25.
140826 jb 0131250C 5 December 9, 2014
( e) Authority of Staff
a. The director is authorized to adopt administrative regulations that are
consistent with the purposes of this Chapter. Prior to adoption the director shall
conduct a noticed public meeting soliciting input on such guidelines.
b. The Police Department or private parking enforcement contractor as
approved by the Chief of Police shall have the authority to enforce the
administrative regulations established pursuant to this Chapter.
10.50.080 Annexation of New Areas to Existing Districts
Residents of any block may petition the director for annexation into a contiguous
RPP District. The petition shall be on forms provided by the department. If the
petition meets the criteria established in administrative regulations adopted by the
director, a resolution annexing it to the RPP District shall be prepared by the city
attorney and submitted to the city council, together with the director's
recommendation on the proposed annexation. The city council may approve, deny,
or modify the annexation.
10.50.090 Modification or Termination of Districts
(a) Opting out. After final adoption of an RPP District, Residents may file an
application with the director to opt out of the RPP District. The minimum number of
blocks and percentage of units supporting the opt-out shall be specified by the
director in the administrative guidelines. Applications for opting out shall be made
in the form and manner prescribed by the director and shall be acted up on by the
director. Any opt out application shall be filed within ninety (90) days after council
adoption of the resolution establishing the RPP District.
(b) Dissolution. The city council following a noticed public hearing may adopt a
resolution dissolving the RPP District:
(1) Upon receipt and verification of a petition signed by 50% or more of all the
households within an approved RPP District boundary, or
(2) Upon findings by the City Council that the criteria for designating the RPP
District are no longer satisfied.
10.50.100 Violations and Penalties
(a) No person shall park a vehicle adjacent to any curb in a residential
preferential parking zone in violation of any posted or noticed prohibition or
restriction, unless the person has a valid and current residential preferential
parking permit, visitor permit, guest permit or employee permit for that vehicle, or
is otherwise exempt. Violations of this sub-section shall be punishable by a civil
penalty under Chapter 10.60.010.
(b) No person shall sell, rent, or lease, or cause to be sold, rented, or leased for
any value or consideration any RPP District parking permit, visitor permit or guest
permit. Upon violation of this subsection, all permits issued to for the benefit of the
140826 jb 0131250C 6 December 9, 2014
dwelling unit or business establishment for which the sold, rented, or leased permit
was authorized shall be void. Violation of this sub-section (b) shall be punishable as
a n infraction.
( c) No person shall buy or otherwise acquire for value or use any RPP District
parking permit, guest permit or visitor permit except as provided for in this chapter.
Violation of this sub-section (c) shall be punishable as an infraction.
SECTION 2. Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor) of Title
10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as
.follows:
10.04.086 Parking Enforcement Contractor
"Parking Enforcement Contractor" means any duly qualified company that the City
has entered into a contract with and that has been approved by the Chief of Police to
provide enforcement of Chapter 10.50 relating to Palo Alto Municipal Code
infractions only in parking zones. Enforcement includes both the issuance and
processing of citations for RPP District parking violations.
SECTION 3. Section 10.08.015 (Authority of Parking Enforcement
Contractor) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
hereby added to read as follows:
10.08.015 Authority of Parking Enforcement Contractor
The City may enter into a contract with a duly qualified company, approved by the
Chief of Police, to provide enforcement of Chapter 10.50 relating to RPP District
parking violations (as permissible by the Palo Alto Municipal Code).
SECTION 4. Section 10.60.010 (Parking violations punishable as civil
penalties) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
10.60.010 Parking Violations Punishable as Civil Penalties
Except as otherwise provided, violations of any provision of Chapters 10.36, 10.40,
10.44, 10.46, aru:l 10.47. and 10.50 of this Title 10 (hereinafter referred to as a
"parking violation") shall be punishable by a civil penalty (hereinafter referred to as
a "parking penalty"). These parking penalties, together with any late payment
penalties, administrative fees, and other related charges shall be established by
ordinance or resolution of the city council.
SECTION 5. CEQA. T~is ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuantto Section 15061(b)(3) of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have
140826 jb 0131250C 7 December 9, 2014
a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed
ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities.
SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of
this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held
invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which
can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the
provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after
the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED: December 2, 2014
PASSED: December 15, 2014
AYES: BERMAN, BURT, HOLMAN, KLEIN, KNISS, PRICE, SCHARFF, SCHMID
SHEPHERD
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
~
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED:
140826 jb 01312SOC 8 December 9, 2014
019 Planning 1
Ordinance No. 5380
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Add Section
10.50.085 (Eligibility Areas) and to Amend Section 10.50.090
(Modification or Termination of Districts) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code Relating to Residential Parking Programs
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares
as follows:
A. In response to resident concerns about their ability to optout of their
evaluated the existing
procedures.
B. To provide greater opportunity and a fairer process for residents, the optout
procedures related to the Residential Preferential Parking program should be revised.
SECTION 2. Title 10, Section 10.50.085 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is added to read
as follows:
10.50.085 Eligibility Areas
When it is determined that particular areas may experience spillover from previously
designated RPP Districts, the Council may designate by resolution those areas as an Eligibility
Area.
Designated Eligibility Areas may petition the director for annexation into an existing RPP
District. The petition shall be on forms provided by the department. If the petition meets the
criteria established in the administrative guidelines adopted by the director, the director shall
approve the Eligibility Area for annexation.
SECTION 3. Title 10, Section 10.50.090 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to
read as follows:
10.50.090 Modification or termination of districts.
(a) Opting out. After final adoption of an RPP District, Residents may file an application with
the director to opt out of the RPP District. The minimum number of blocks and percentage of
units supporting the optout shall be specified by the director in the administrative guidelines.
Applications for opting out shall be made in the form and manner prescribed by the director
and shall be acted up on by the director. Any opt out application shall be filed within ninety
days after council adoption of the resolution establishing the RPP District.
(b) Timing and Review of Opt Out Applications. Each calendar year, the director of planning
and community environment shall review all opt out applications received prior to March 31st
DocuSign Envelope ID: 363324BA-55E5-41DA-ABAB-0377F4F4770F
019 Planning 2
of the year to determine whether the opt out criteria established in the administrative
guidelines are met.
(b)(c) Dissolution. The city council following a noticed public hearing may adopt a resolution
dissolving the RPP District:
(1) Upon receipt and verification of a petition signed by 50% or more of all the households
within an approved RPP District boundary; or
(2) Upon findings by the city council that the criteria for designating the RPP District are no
longer satisfied.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are
hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 5. CEQA. This ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Protection Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the
adoption and implementation of this ordinance may have significant effect on the environment
and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing
facilities.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
DocuSign Envelope ID: 363324BA-55E5-41DA-ABAB-0377F4F4770F
019 Planning 3
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirtyfirst date after
the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED: February 1, 2016
PASSED: February 23, 2016
AYES: DUBOIS, FILSETH, KNISS, SCHMID, WOLBACH
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS: BERMAN, BURT, HOLMAN, SCHARFF
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
City Manager
Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community
Environment
DocuSign Envelope ID: 363324BA-55E5-41DA-ABAB-0377F4F4770F
'IVXMJMGEXI3J'SQTPIXMSR
)RZIPSTI-H &%)(%%&%&*** 7XEXYW 'SQTPIXIH
7YFNIGX 4PIEWI(SGY7MKRXLMWHSGYQIRX 36( %QIRH6443VHMRERGIGIWTHJ
7SYVGI)RZIPSTI
(SGYQIRX4EKIW 7MKREXYVIW )RZIPSTI3VMKMREXSV
'IVXMJMGEXI4EKIW -RMXMEPW /MQ0YRX
%YXS2EZ )REFPIH
)RZIPSTI-H7XEQTMRK )REFPIH
8MQI>SRI 98'
4EGMJMG8MQI 97
'EREHE
,EQMPXSR%ZI
4EPS%PXS'%
OMQFIVP]PYRX$GMX]SJTEPSEPXSSVK
-4%HHVIWW
6IGSVH8VEGOMRK
7XEXYW 3VMKMREP
%1
,SPHIV /MQ0YRX
OMQFIVP]PYRX$GMX]SJTEPSEPXSSVK
0SGEXMSR (SGY7MKR
7MKRIV)ZIRXW 7MKREXYVI 8MQIWXEQT
'EVE7MPZIV
GEVEWMPZIV$GMX]SJTEPSEPXSSVK
7IRMSV%WWMWXERX'MX]%XXSVRI]
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX %1
:MI[IH %1
7MKRIH %1
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
%GGITXIH 41
-( IHHJJ GJ JIFE I
,MPPEV]+MXIPQER
,MPPEV]+MXIPQER$'MX]SJ4EPS%PXSSVK
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX %1
:MI[IH %1
7MKRIH %1
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
2SX3JJIVIHZME(SGY7MKR
-(
.EQIW/IIRI
NEQIWOIIRI$GMX]SJTEPSEPXSSVK
'MX]1EREKIV
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX %1
:MI[IH %1
7MKRIH %1
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
%GGITXIH 41
-( JIEE GFFH EG I
4EXVMGO&YVX
TEXVMGOFYVX$GMX]SJTEPSEPXSSVK
1E]SV
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX %1
:MI[IH 41
7MKRIH 41
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
2SX3JJIVIHZME(SGY7MKR
-(
7MKRIV)ZIRXW 7MKREXYVI 8MQIWXEQT
&IXL1MRSV
&IXL1MRSV$'MX]SJ4EPS%PXSSVK
'MX]'PIVO
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX 41
:MI[IH 41
7MKRIH 41
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
2SX3JJIVIHZME(SGY7MKR
-(
-R4IVWSR7MKRIV)ZIRXW 7MKREXYVI 8MQIWXEQT
)HMXSV(IPMZIV])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQT
%KIRX(IPMZIV])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQT
-RXIVQIHMEV](IPMZIV])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQT
.ERIX&MPPYTW
.ERIX&MPPYTW$'MX]SJ4EPS%PXSSVK
'PEMQW-RZIWXMKEXSVW
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX %1
'SQTPIXIH 41
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
%GGITXIH %1
-( HJI J JFFJ G
>EVMEL&IXXIR
>EVMEL&IXXIR$'MX]SJ4EPS%PXSSVK
%HQMRMWXVEXMZI%WWMWXERX
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX %1
'SQTPIXIH 41
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
%GGITXIH 41
-( H GEJFH EFGGE JG
.ERMGI7ZIRHWIR
.ERMGI7ZIRHWIR$'MX]SJ4EPS%PXSSVK
)\IGYXMZI%WWMWXERXXSXLI'MX]1EREKIV
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX %1
'SQTPIXIH 41
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
2SX3JJIVIHZME(SGY7MKR
-(
'IVXMJMIH(IPMZIV])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQT
'EVFSR'ST])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQT
2SXEV])ZIRXW 8MQIWXEQT
)RZIPSTI7YQQEV])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQTW
)RZIPSTI7IRX ,EWLIH)RGV]TXIH 41
'IVXMJMIH(IPMZIVIH 7IGYVMX]'LIGOIH 41
'SQTPIXIH 7IGYVMX]'LIGOIH 41
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
Resolution No. 9473
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing
the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District Under
Chapter 10.50 ofthe Municipal Code
RECITALS
A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by city
council action, of permit parking programs in residential neighborhoods for residents
and other categories of parkers.
B. A stakeholders' group comprised of Downtown residents and business interests
met 9 times and made its recommendations to the City on (1) the provisions of a master
ordinance establishing city-wide procedures for Residential Preferential Parking Districts
(RPP Districts) and (2) the particular program rules to be applied to the Downtown RPP
District.
C. On June 11, 2014, September 10, 2014 and November 12, 2014, the Planning
and Transportation Commission held public hearings to consider the proposed master
ordinance and the proposed Downtown Neighborhood preferential parking programs.
D. On December 15, 2015 the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5294, adding Chapter
10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) ofthe Palo Municipal Code. This Chapter
establishes the city-wide procedures for RPP Districts in the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The criteria set forth in Section 10.50.030 for designating a
Residential Preferential Permit Zone have been met as follows:
(1) That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the
use of on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents;
(2) That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and
frequent intervals, either daily or weekly;
(3) That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area ofthe proposed district
create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of
parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts
neighborhood life;
(4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical.
SECTION 2. Duration and Trial Period. The Trial Period for the Downtown RPP
District shall be divided into two phases.
1
141016 jb 0131252B Rev. November 17, 2014
1. Phase 1: The first phase shall start from the date that the both installation of
signage is complete and enforcement of the District has begun, and last for a
period of 6 months. Resident permits will be distributed pursuant to the
criteria listed under Section 5.C of this Resolution. During the first phase the
City shall also issue permits to Employees pursuant to the criteria listed
under Section 5.C of this Resolution. All permits shall expire at the end of the
trial period. The City will collect parking occupancy data on all blocks within
the Downtown RPP District to determine how many Employee Permits (both
low-wage and professional) should be sold during the subsequent phase of
the program. During Phase 1, both Employee and Resident permits will be
valid anywhere within the boundaries ofthe RPP District. During this phase
the City may issue a survey to elicit qualitative and quantitative feedback on
the program.
2. Phase 2: The second phase shall follow Phase 1 and last for at least 12
months. The City will make permits for Phase 2 available prior to the
initiation of Phase 2. During the second phase the City will regulate the
number of Employee Permits issued based on parking occupancy data
collected in the first phase. It is expected this distribution of permits will be
iterative and adjusted during the course of Phase two.
3. The RPP District shall remain in force until the City Council takes action to
extend, modify, or rescind. The City Council shall consider whether to make
the RPP District and its parking program permanent, modify the District
and/or their parking regulations, or terminate them no later than December
31, 2016.
SECTION 3. District Established. Pursuant to Chapter 10.50, the Downtown
Residential Preferred Parking District is hereby established. The boundaries of the
Downtown RPP District are shown on Exhibit A attached to this resolution and made a
part of it.
Blocks that are directly adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity ofthe Downtown RPP
District may become subject to the regulations of the Downtown RPP District in the
future if the council approves a resident petition for annexation as provided in Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 10.50.080.
SECTION 4. Hours and Days of Enforcement. In both Phase 1 and Phase 2, the
parking regulations shall be in effect Monday through Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
During the regulated days and hours of enforcement, no person shall park in the same
on-street parking space within the Downtown RPP for more than two continuous hours
without a valid permit. A vehicle lawfully displaying an Employee Parking Permit or a
Resident Parking Permit shall be exempt from the two-hour limit. Other vehicles
exempt from the parking regulations are contained in Chapter 10.50. Outside of these
2
141016 jb 0131252B Rev. November 17, 2014
enforcement hours, any motor vehicle may park in the Downtown RPP, subject to other
applicable parking regulations.
SECTION 5. Residential Parking Permits.
A. Duration. With the exception of the 6-month trial period, both Employee
and residential permits shall be made available on a monthly, quarterly and
annual basis and may be renewed if the applicant continues to be eligible to
receive a permit. One-day visitor permits for residents will also be available
during both Phases 1 and 2.
B. Purchase of Permits. Requirements and eligibility for purchase of permits for
both residents and Employees shall be listed in the Administrative
Regulations.
C. Permit Sales
a. Phase 1.
i. Each residential address within the Downtown RPP District may
receive up to two 6-month permits at no cost.
ii. Guest and Visitor permits may be sold at the costs listed in section
GB and GC.
iii. Permit costs will be pro-rated for the 6 month period (e.g. half of
the annual fee).
iv. All Employees may purchase permits pursuant to the costs listed
in Section GD, pro-rated for 6 months.
b. Phase 2.
141016 jb 01312528
i. Resident Permits.
1. Residential Permits. Each residential address may
purchase permits at the costs listed in Section GA.
2. Daily Visitor Permits. Each residential address may
purchase up to 50 Daily Visitor Parking Permits annually.
These permits may be in the form of "scratcher" hang tags,
an on-line issuance system, or such other form as the city
may decide. The permit shall clearly indicate the address
to which it was issued and the date for which it is valid.
3. Annual Guest Permits: Each residential address may
purchase up to two (2) annual guest permits, which are
transferable within a household. The permit shall clearly
indicate the address to which it was issued and the date
for which it is valid.
3
Rev. November 17, 2014
ii. Employee Permits. The City may issue Employee Parking Permits
for use by employees working in the area as specified in Exhibit A.
Employee Permits shall be subject to the following regulations:
1. Commuting Only. Employee Parking Permits are for the
exclusive use by employees working for businesses within
the proposed District boundaries while commuting to
work.
2. Limit of Sales. The Director will limit Employee permit sales
according to a threshold listed in the Administrative
Regulations, and give priority to low-wage workers.
Employees may purchase permits at the costs listed in
Section 6D.
3. Reduced Allocation. After Phase 1, the Director may
reduce the allocation of Employee Parking over time as
additional parking and transportation options become
available.
D. Signage and Allocation of Spaces. During Phase 2, the City shall regulate
which on-street parking spaces shall be dedicated to Employee Parking by
selecting one of the following methods:
1. Employee Parking Permit spaces shall be clearly signed and marked as
such by the City;
2. Employee Parking Permits shall be assigned by block/blocks; or
3. Other reasonable method designed to distribute Employee Parking
throughout the Downtown District and to avoid undue parking saturation in
one neighborhood at the expense of others.
E. Permit Priority. During Phase 1, the Director will recommend to the City
Council the maximum number of Employee permits to be issued during
Phase 2, such that the issuance of Employee Permits does not adversely
affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the District in
accordance with Section 22507 (b) of the Vehicle Code. The Director shall
give permit priority to lower wage earners.
SECTION 6. Cost of Residential and Residential Visitor Parking Permits. During
the Initial Trial Period the cost of Parking Permits shall be:
A. Resident Permit:
a. Phase 1: Residents shall receive up to two permits per residential address
at no cost.
b. For Phase 2, the prices are as follows: First permit $0/year; second permit
$50/year; third permit $50/year; fourth permit $50/year. No more than
four parking permits will be sold per residential address in either phase.
4
141016 jb 01312526 Rev. November 17, 2014
B. Annual Guest Permit-A residential address may purchase up to two Annual
Guest Permits at $50/year ($25 each for Phase 1).
C. Visitor Daily Permit--$5/each
D. Employee Permits
a. Standard Permit --$466/year ($233/6 months)
b. Reduced Rate for income qualifying employees--$100/year ($50/6
months)
SECTION 7. ~· This ordinance is exempt from the requirements ofthe
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14
of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant
effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a
minor impact on existing facilities.
SECTION 8. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect upon the effective
date of Ordinance No. 5294, amending Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferential Parking Districts) and
Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor). Enforcement shall commence,
pursuant to Chapter 10.50 and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: December 2, 2014
AYES: BERMAN, BURT, HOLMAN, KLEIN, KNISS, PRICE, SCHARFF, SCHMID, SHEPHERD
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
~
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED:
5
141016 jb 01312526 Rev.November17,2014
Exhibit A -Boundaries of Downtown RPP District
Fig. 1
PRELIMINARY DOWNTOWN RPP DISTRICT
>.:'i~: .. -.. {~'~( .-'('::~~<
::c 10' :r
m 3 <1l ii! 0 :l
~
·;;.
'T1 0 ~ :l n <1l
DOWNTOWN
COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT
SOFA
m 3 OJ <1l -< ii! 0 "' :l ::c :l ... 10' VI VI :r ... ...
VI ...
Ruthven Ave
Hawthorne Ave
A Everett Ave -g; ~ tE 0"
Lytton Ave ;;;! ., .,
0
University Ave
Hamilton Ave
Forest Ave ~ < !!l -< VI Homer Ave ... A -o·
:l Ul Channing Ave
~ !!l
Addison Ave n 0 :E "0
Kingsley Ave
Boundary includes
Melvi the 300 and 400
block of Lincoln,
· but not the 500,
600 or 700 block.
is appro~iT~~e •·. ··.· ..
s:: a: Q. iD ::!> <1l 0::
;;o
Q.
0 ~ •• 0 .,, '~ ·!;.
,;·,.-·'
Figure 1 illustrates the Downtown RPP District as currently proposed. Residents living within the bound-
ary would need to purchase Parking Permits to park on the streets for more than two hours during the
hours of the permit enforcement if the program is implemented.
*Downtown Business District and the SOFA Business District (shown on the map) are not included in the
RPP District Existing 2-hour parking will not be altered as part of the RPP District plan.
1
160211 jb 0131499 Rev. February 11, 2016
Resolution No. 9577
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution
9473 to Implement Phase 2 of the Downtown Residential Preferential
Parking District Pilot Program
R E C I T A L S
A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by city
council action, of permit parking programs in residential neighborhoods for residents
and other categories of parkers.
B. A comprised of Downtown residents and business
interests has been meeting to discuss the implementation of Residential Preferential
Parking Districts (RPP Districts).
C. On December 15, 2015 the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5294, adding
Chapter 10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Municipal Code. This Chapter
establishes the citywide procedures for RPP Districts in the city.
D. On December 1, 2014, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9473
implementing a Downtown Neighborhood preferential parking pilot program. The
implementation anticipated a two phased pilot program. Permits issued for Phase 1 of
this pilot program will expire on March 31, 2016.
E. The Council desires to amend Resolution 9473 to update the process for
implementing Phase 2 of the Downtown Neighborhood preferential parking program
pilot. These modifications shall only apply to Phase 2 of the pilot.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The criteria set forth in Section 10.50.030 for annexing the
additional areas described in 3(A) of this Resolution as part of the Downtown Residential
Preferential Permit Zone have been met as follows:
(1) That nonresident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use
of onstreet or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents, in that
based on observation there are few available parking spaces available
midday, while the streets are relatively unoccupied at midnight thus
demonstrating the parking intrusion is largely by nonresidents.
(2) That the interference by the nonresident vehicles occurs at regular and
frequent intervals, either daily or weekly, in that the parking intrusion is
contained to the daytime hours during the regular workweek.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BDB2611-4168-4F6F-90B0-F43B17F6E1C2
2
160211 jb 0131499 Rev. February 11, 2016
(3) That the nonresident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district
create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of
parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood
life, in that based on information from residents and other city
departments the vehicle congestion is interfering with regular activities.
(4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical in that the
City has implemented a series of alternative parking strategies in the past
and concurrently and there is still a shortage of parking available
SECTION 2. Duration and Trial Period. The following provisions shall apply to
Phase 2 of the Trial Period for the Downtown RPP District:
A. Resident Permits: Resident permits will be distributed pursuant to the
criteria listed under Section 5.C of this Resolution. Phase 2 permits shall be
in effect for one year commencing on April 1, 2016. Resident permits will
be valid anywhere within the boundaries of the Downtown RPP District.
B. Employee Permits: The City shall also issue permits to Employees pursuant
to the criteria listed under Section 5.C of this Resolution. The first round of
Phase 2 permits shall be in effect from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017.
Subsequent Phase 2 Employee permits shall be in effect for one year.
C. Duration: The second phase shall commence on April 1, 2016 and last for at
least 12 months. The City will make permits for Phase 2 available prior to
the initiation of Phase 2.
D. Permanent Regulations: The RPP District shall remain in force until the City
Council takes action to extend, modify, or rescind. The City Council shall
consider whether to make the RPP District and its parking program
permanent, modify the District and/or their parking regulations, or
terminate them no later than December 31, 2016.
SECTION 3. Phase 2 Downtown RPP Boundaries.
A. Annexed Zones. The areas shown on Exhibit A are hereby annexed into the
Downtown Residential Parking Zone.
B. Eligibility Areas. The areas shown on Exhibit A are eligible for
administrative annexation as provided in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
10.50.085.
C. Employee Parking Zones. No person shall park in the same employee
parking zone within the Downtown RPP for more than two continuous
hours without a valid permit. Reparking on the same day in the same zone
by any person without a valid permit or otherwise exempt from Chapter
10.50 shall be prohibited.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BDB2611-4168-4F6F-90B0-F43B17F6E1C2
3
160211 jb 0131499 Rev. February 11, 2016
SECTION 4. Hours and Days of Enforcement. In Phase 2, the parking regulations
shall be in effect Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, except holidays as
defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.08.100. During the regulated days and
hours of enforcement, no person shall park in the same onstreet parking space within
the Downtown RPP for more than two continuous hours without a valid permit. In
addition, no person shall park in the same employee parking zone within the Downtown
RPP for more than two continuous hours without a valid permit. A vehicle lawfully
displaying an Employee Parking Permit or a Resident Parking Permit shall be exempt
from the twohour limit. Other vehicles exempt from the parking regulations are
contained in Chapter 10.50. Outside of these enforcement hours, any motor vehicle
may park in the Downtown RPP, subject to other applicable parking regulations.
SECTION 5. Residential and Employee Parking Permits.
A. Duration. Phase 2 Residential Permits shall be available on an annual basis
only. Oneday visitor permits for residents will also be available during
Phase 2.
B. Purchase of Permits. Requirements and eligibility for purchase of permits
for both residents and Employees shall be listed in the Administrative
Regulations.
C. Permit Sales Phase 2.
1. Resident Permits.
a. Residential Permits. Each residential address may obtain
up to four Resident permits at the costs listed in Section
6A.
b. Daily Visitor Permits. Each residential address may
purchase up to 50 Daily Visitor Parking Permits annually.
tags, an online issuance system, or such other form as
the city may decide. The permit shall clearly indicate the
date through which it is valid.
c. Annual Guest Permits: Each residential address may
purchase up to two (2) annual guest permits, which are
transferable within a household. The permit shall clearly
indicate the date for which it is valid.
2. Annual Employee Permits. The City may issue Employee Parking
Permits for use by employees working in the area as specified in
Exhibit B. Employee Permits shall be subject to the following
regulations:
a. Commuting Only. Employee Parking Permits are for the
exclusive use by employees working for businesses within
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BDB2611-4168-4F6F-90B0-F43B17F6E1C2
4
160211 jb 0131499 Rev. February 11, 2016
the proposed District boundaries while commuting to
work.
b. Employee Permit Cost. Employees may purchase permits
at the costs listed in Section 6D.
c. First Year Permit Cap. The City shall issue
Employee permits on an iterative basis to
ensure that the issuance of Employee Permits
does not adversely affect parking conditions
for residents and merchants in the District in
accordance with Section 22507 (b) of the
Vehicle Code. Notwithstanding the above, the
City shall issue no more than 2,000 Employee
Permits during the first year of Phase 2, which
are to be allocated among the existing,
annexed, and eligible Employee Parking Zones
according to Council adopted administrative
guidelines. Only streets participating in the
RPP program may be allocated permits.
d. Employee Permit Reduction Strategy.
Following the first year of Phase 2, the City
will begin decreasing annual employee
permits by approximately 200 permits per
year, based on parking occupancy analysis and
mode split analysis. The reduction in permits
will occur in the outermost zones of the
Downtown RPP district initially, and affect
inner zones in subsequent years. The Director
shall be authorized to adopt administrative
guidelines to implement this reduction in a
goal of reducing the drivealone rate by 30%
by 2030 through the efforts of the Palo Alto
Transportation Management Association and
the further goal of minimizing parking impacts
to residential neighborhoods.
e. Permit Priority for lower wage earners. The
Director shall reserve approximately half of
the annual employee permits in each zone for
purchase by employees who qualify for
reduced price permits based on hourly or
annual income. The other half will be sold on
a first come, first serve basis to all employees.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BDB2611-4168-4F6F-90B0-F43B17F6E1C2
5
160211 jb 0131499 Rev. February 11, 2016
f. Employee Parking Zones. Employees may only
park in the zone authorized by the employee
permit. The zones are described and depicted
in Exhibit B and Exhibit C.
g. Daily and Five Daily
and five
available to employees only, and will not be
available for sale to employers. Employees
will be limited to purchase up to four (4) daily
parking permits per month, or roughly one
per week. Alternatively, employees may
purchase one (1) fiveday scratcher per
month, which allows them to park in the RPP
district up to five (5) times in one calendar
month.
1. Distribution of daily and scratcher
permits. Daily and fiveday employee
scratchers will be zonespecific and will
be sold randomly. No daily or fiveday
scratchers will be sold in Zones 9 and
10. Employees will not select a specific
zone when purchasing a daily or five
day permit, and will receive a zone
specific daily or viveday permit
selected at random at the time of
mailing.
SECTION 6. Cost of Parking Permits. During Phase 2 the cost of Parking Permits
shall be:
A. Resident Permit: First permit $0/year; second permit $50/year; third
permit $50/year; fourth permit $50/year. No more than four parking
permits will be sold per residential address.
B. Annual Guest Permit A residential address may purchase up to two
Annual Guest Permits at $50/year. Additional permits may be approved by
the Director upon a showing of good cause.
C. Visitor Daily Permit $5/each
D. Employee Permits
1. Standard Permit $466/year
2. Reduced Rate for income qualifying employees $100/year
3. Reduced Rate for Addison Elementary School employees $100/year
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BDB2611-4168-4F6F-90B0-F43B17F6E1C2
6
160211 jb 0131499 Rev. February 11, 2016
SECTION 7. CEQA. This resolution is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14
of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility the adoption and implementation of this resolution may have a significant
effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a
minor impact on existing facilities.
SECTION 8. Supersede. To the extent any of the provisions of this resolution are
inconsistent with the Phase 2 regulations set forth in Resolution 9473, this resolution
shall control.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately, except
that Section 3(B) shall not go into effect until the corresponding implementing
ordinance becomes effective. Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50
and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: February 23, 2016
AYES: DUBOIS, FILSETH, KNISS, SCHMID, WOLBACH
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS: BERMAN, BURT, HOLMAN, SCHARFF
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BDB2611-4168-4F6F-90B0-F43B17F6E1C2
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Everett Ave
Hawthorne Ave
Poe St
Forest Ave Forest Ave
Channing Ave
Addison Ave
Lincoln Ave
Kingsley Ave
Melville AveMelville Ave
Kellogg AveKellogg Ave
Churchill Ave
Coleridge Ave
Downtown RPP District
SOFA
DOWNTOWN
COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT
Downtown RPP District
Proposed Eligibility Areas
Proposed Annexed Streets
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( &(& ** &*&*)'
Downtown RPP Parking Zones
5
6
7
8
9
10
4 1
2
3
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( &(& ** &*&*)'
Zone Boundaries Permit Allocation
1
Lytton Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street (where RPP restrictions are in
place)
300 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street,
Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street
Everett Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street
75
2
200 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant
Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street
Hawthorne Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street
120
3
100 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant
Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street
Palo Alto Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street
Poe Street
Ruthven Avenue
Tasso Street
225
4
Palo Alto Avenue between Webster Street and Guinda Street
600 block of Hawthorne Avenue
600 and 700 blocks of Everett Avenue, Lytton Avenue, University Avenue
100 500 blocks of Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield Road, Fulton Street
190
5
600and700blocksofHamiltonAvenue
200 700 blocks of Forest Avenue and Homer Avenue
700 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Cowper Street
600 700 blocks of Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield Road, Fulton Street
175
6
800 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper
Street, Webster Street, Middlefield Road
Channing Avenue between Ramona Street and Guinda Street
100
7
900 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Cowper Street,
Webster Street, Middlefield Road
Addison Avenue between High Street and Guinda Street
135
8
1000 and 1100 blocks of High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street,
Waverley Street, Cowper Street, Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield Road,
Fulton Street
Lincoln Avenue and Kingsley Avenue between Alma Street/Embarcadero Road and
Guinda Street
Embarcadero Road from Alma Street to Kingsley Avenue
365
9
1200 block of Bryant Street
1200 1300 blocks of Waverley Street
1200 1400 blocks of Cowper Street, Webster Street, Byron Street
1300 1400 blocks of Tasso Street
1200 1500 blocks of Middlefield Road
1200 1300 blocks of Fulton Street
Melville Avenue between Embarcadero Road and Guinda Street
Kellogg Avenue between Cowper Street and Middlefield Road
Embarcadero Road between Kingsley Avenue and Middlefield Road
25 (245)*
10
Guinda Street between Palo Alto Avenue to Melville Avenue
Palo Alto Avenue between Guinda Street and Hale Street
800 blocks of Lytton Avenue and Homer Avenue
800and900blocksofUniversityAvenue,HamiltonAvenue
800 1100 blocks of Forest Avenue
Boyce Avenue between Guinda Street and Hale Street
1000 1100 blocks of Fife Avenue
800 900 blocks of Channing Avenue and Addison Avenue
800 1000 blocks of Lincoln Avenue
800 block of Melville Avenue
55 (370)*
Total Permits 2000
*A portion of permits in this zone will be held in reserve and released as additional streets opt into the Downtown RPP district.
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( &(& ** &*&*)'
'IVXMJMGEXI3J'SQTPIXMSR
)RZIPSTI-H &(& ** &*&*)' 7XEXYW 'SQTPIXIH
7YFNIGX 4PIEWI(SGY7MKRXLIWIHSGYQIRXW 6)73 JSV(S[RXS[R644(MWXVMGXW4LEWITHJ6)73 )\LM
7SYVGI)RZIPSTI
(SGYQIRX4EKIW 7MKREXYVIW )RZIPSTI3VMKMREXSV
'IVXMJMGEXI4EKIW -RMXMEPW /MQ0YRX
%YXS2EZ )REFPIH
)RZIPSTI-H7XEQTMRK )REFPIH
8MQI>SRI 98'
4EGMJMG8MQI 97
'EREHE
,EQMPXSR%ZI
4EPS%PXS'%
OMQFIVP]PYRX$GMX]SJTEPSEPXSSVK
-4%HHVIWW
6IGSVH8VEGOMRK
7XEXYW 3VMKMREP
41
,SPHIV /MQ0YRX
OMQFIVP]PYRX$GMX]SJTEPSEPXSSVK
0SGEXMSR (SGY7MKR
7MKRIV)ZIRXW 7MKREXYVI 8MQIWXEQT
'EVE7MPZIV
GEVEWMPZIV$GMX]SJTEPSEPXSSVK
7IRMSV%WWMWXERX'MX]%XXSVRI]
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7MKRIHYWMRKQSFMPI
7IRX %1
:MI[IH %1
7MKRIH %1
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
%GGITXIH 41
-( IHHJJ GJ JIFE I
,MPPEV]+MXIPQER
,MPPEV]+MXIPQER$'MX]SJ4EPS%PXSSVK
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX %1
:MI[IH %1
7MKRIH %1
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
2SX3JJIVIHZME(SGY7MKR
-(
.EQIW/IIRI
NEQIWOIIRI$GMX]SJTEPSEPXSSVK
'MX]1EREKIV
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX %1
:MI[IH %1
7MKRIH %1
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
%GGITXIH 41
-( JIEE GFFH EG I
4EXVMGO&YVX
TEXVMGOFYVX$GMX]SJTEPSEPXSSVK
1E]SV
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX %1
:MI[IH 41
7MKRIH 41
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
2SX3JJIVIHZME(SGY7MKR
-(
7MKRIV)ZIRXW 7MKREXYVI 8MQIWXEQT
&IXL1MRSV
&IXL1MRSV$'MX]SJ4EPS%PXSSVK
'MX]'PIVO
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX 41
:MI[IH 41
7MKRIH 41
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
2SX3JJIVIHZME(SGY7MKR
-(
-R4IVWSR7MKRIV)ZIRXW 7MKREXYVI 8MQIWXEQT
)HMXSV(IPMZIV])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQT
%KIRX(IPMZIV])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQT
-RXIVQIHMEV](IPMZIV])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQT
.ERIX&MPPYTW
.ERIX&MPPYTW$'MX]SJ4EPS%PXSSVK
'PEMQW-RZIWXMKEXSVW
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX %1
'SQTPIXIH 41
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
%GGITXIH %1
-( HJI J JFFJ G
>EVMEL&IXXIR
>EVMEL&IXXIR$'MX]SJ4EPS%PXSSVK
%HQMRMWXVEXMZI%WWMWXERX
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX %1
'SQTPIXIH 41
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
%GGITXIH 41
-( H GEJFH EFGGE JG
.ERMGI7ZIRHWIR
.ERMGI7ZIRHWIR$'MX]SJ4EPS%PXSSVK
)\IGYXMZI%WWMWXERXXSXLI'MX]1EREKIV
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX %1
'SQTPIXIH 41
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
2SX3JJIVIHZME(SGY7MKR
-(
'IVXMJMIH(IPMZIV])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQT
'EVFSR'ST])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQT
2SXEV])ZIRXW 8MQIWXEQT
)RZIPSTI7YQQEV])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQTW
)RZIPSTI7IRX ,EWLIH)RGV]TXIH 41
'IVXMJMIH(IPMZIVIH 7IGYVMX]'LIGOIH 41
'SQTPIXIH 7IGYVMX]'LIGOIH 41
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Administrative Guidelines
Updated October 31, 2016
Version 2.0
City of Palo Alto
Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Administrative Guidelines
Updated October 31, 2016
PURPOSE
The City of Palo Alto is committed to preserving the quality of life of its residential neighborhoods. On
December 2, 2014, City Council adopted a City‐wide RPP Ordinance which allows any neighborhood
within the City to petition to become a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District, where
neighborhood parking is regulated for non‐permit holders. Three documents govern the creation of an
RPP District in Palo Alto:
1.Chapter 10.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which outlines the criteria which must be met
and the process which must be taken for a residential neighborhood to become an RPP District;
2.A neighborhood‐specific resolution, which must be adopted by the City Council and outlines the
specific characteristics of the RPP program;
3.The document within, “RPP Administrative Guidelines”, which provides additional detail on RPP
program implementation. The Guidelines may be modified at a City staff level, and provide
detail on policies and procedures related to RPP Districts.
All three documents work in concert to govern the development and operation of the City’s RPP
Districts, and all should be reviewed prior to an RPP District’s initiation.
PARKING PERMIT POLICIES
Resident Permit Eligibility
The requirements to obtain a parking permit as a resident are:
A completed application form (online) in the residents’ name and address.
A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle the applicant is requesting a parking permit.
Proof of residency/ownership in the resident’s/owner’s name reflecting the permit address in
the permit area. Acceptable proof of residency shall be a driver’s license, the vehicle
registration, a utility bill, car insurance policy, lease agreement or a preprinted personal check
with the resident’s name and address.
1.The residential permit can be purchased on an annual duration online at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking. Parking permits are issued for uses within the RPP District
area. Standard long‐term residential parking permits are not transferable between vehicles.
Annual permit cost may be pro‐rated for purchase midway through the annual timeframe.
2.Guests of Residents: A resident is also eligible to purchase up to two (2) transferable hang‐tag
permits for guests, which are annual permits that may be used for a nanny, baby‐sitter,
caregiver, household employee, or other regular visitor to the household. Annual hangtag
permits must be purchased by the resident of the household and may be transferred between
vehicles. Only two (2) annual hangtag permits are allowed per household.
3.Visitors of Residents: Any resident within the RPP District area is eligible to purchase daily
permits annually for events which may take place at a household. Daily permits must be
purchased by a resident of the household and are only valid for a single day use. Each household
can receive a maximum of 50 daily permits each calendar year.
Version 2.0
Employee Permit Eligibility (applicable to downtown RPP and others as designated by resolution):
Annual, quarterly, five‐day and daily Employee permits are available.
The requirements to obtain a parking permit as an employee are:
A completed application form (online) with the employees’ name and address.
A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle for which the applicant is requesting a
parking permit.
Proof of employment at a business in the employee’s name, which includes an address within
the RPP District. Acceptable proof of employment shall be a W‐2 wage statement or letter from
employer.
All employees who work at a registered, code‐compliant business within an RPP District are eligible to
purchase permits, unless otherwise restricted by the City for parking capacity reasons. Parking permit
stickers or hangtags are issued to employees within the RPP District.
Where applicable, the City may decide to issue permits which are transferrable between employees of
the same business. These permits will be in the form of a hangtag, which must be placed on the
rearview mirror of the employee vehicle. Possession of an employee permit which is assigned to a
specific block or zone does not entitle the employer to renew a permit in the same block or zone.
Annual permit cost may be pro‐rated for purchase midway through the annual timeframe.
If an employee with an annual permit leaves the company, the employer may transfer the remaining
balance of the unused permit to another employee by returning the original permit and transferring the
balance of time to a new one. The new permit will expire at the same date of the original permit
expiration. The City may, at its discretion, issue Employee Guest permits to eligible employers within an
RPP district, for use by their guests or visitors.
The City may immediately revoke all permits issued to businesses and employees at businesses that are
unregistered and/or operating in violation of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and/or state and federal
regulations.
Reduced Price Permits: Certain employees may be eligible for a reduced‐price permit if they meet either
of the income requirements listed below. Proof of income must be provided at the time of purchase,
and information may be audited at any time by the City.
INCOME VERIFICATION OPTIONS
a. Option A: Employees who earn an annual income which is exactly or less than $50,000.
The City will evaluate this limit annually and adjust for inflation.
b. Option B: Employees who make a pre‐tax hourly wage which is exactly or less than 2x
the governing city or state minimum wage (whichever is greater) are eligible for a
reduced price permit.
Submittal requirements provided for proof of income include: tax return and two consecutive wage
statements.
Version 2.0
Other Policies
1. Any attempt to alter the permit shall immediately render the permit invalid.
2. Permit holder assumes full responsibility of any loaning of their vehicle.
3. Possession of an RPP permit does not guarantee a parking spot. It is understood that a greater
amount of parking permits may be issued than there are available on‐street parking spaces. This
may create an environment of natural competition for on‐street parking between neighborhood
residents and other permit holders.
4. Permit validity: RPP permits are not valid in any City parking garage or lot, and City‐issued
garage or lot permits are not valid in RPP Districts. RPP permits are only valid for the RPP District
for which they are issued.
5. The City of Palo Alto is not responsible for the loss of or damage to any vehicle or its contents.
6. Abandoned Vehicles: Parking a vehicle unmoved longer than 72 consecutive hours on a City
street is in violation of PAMC 10.60.07(d). Parking permits shall not exempt vehicles from this
requirement.
7. For new vehicles or license plates, the permit holder must surrender the current valid permit to
the Revenue Collections office. If the permit does not come off intact, pieces will be accepted.
8. Temporary Permits: Temporary permits can be printed online once a valid permit holder has
submitted payment for a permit. The temporary permit must be displayed on the front
dashboard.
9. Replacement Fees: There is a permit replacement fee of $10.00 for regular permits reissued for
any reason, prior to the normal renewal period.
10. Refunds: Refunds are issued on annual permits only, and a refund will only be given through the
third quarter and prorated at the quarterly rate. The permit holder must remove the current
permit and return it to the Revenue Collections office.
11. Permit Placement: The permit must be affixed on the outside of the rear windshield driver’s
side lower left corner, or left side of the bumper. Do not place your permit in any other location.
Placing your permit in another location or behind tinted windows may invalidate your parking
exemption.
12. Vehicle Eligibility: Parking permits may be issued only for passenger non‐commercial and
passenger commercial (i.e., SUV’s, small pick‐up trucks, etc.) vehicles registered to residents
residing within the residential parking permit area. Vehicles defined as oversized by the City’s
Oversized Vehicle Parking ordinance, such as commercial trucks, boat trailers, RV’s (camping
trailers, motor homes, etc.), trailers and work‐type commercial vehicles, including taxis and
limousines, are not eligible for residential parking permit program permits.
Eligible Exceptions for a Parking Permit Sticker
Company Cars – A residential parking permit sticker may be issued for residents who have company cars
as their primary transportation vehicle. To obtain a permit, the person must be a legal resident within
the residential permit parking area who has a motor vehicle for his/her exclusive use and under his/her
control where said motor vehicle is registered to his/her employer and he/she presents a valid
employee identification card or other proof of employment that is acceptable to the City.
Leased Cars – A residential parking permit sticker may be issued for a resident who has a leased car. To
obtain a permit, the person must be a legal resident within the residential permit parking area who has
a motor vehicle registered to a vehicle‐leasing company and/or leased to the resident’s employer,
providing said vehicle is for the resident’s exclusive use and provides proof or the lease agreement
which is acceptable to the City.
Version 2.0
The requirements to obtain a parking permit sticker for a company or leased car are:
A completed application form in the residents’ name and address.
A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle the applicant is requesting a parking permit.
Proof of residency/ownership in the resident’s/owner’s name reflecting the permit address in
the permit area. Acceptable proof of residency shall be a driver’s license, the vehicle
registration, a utility bill, car insurance policy, lease agreement or a preprinted personal check
with the resident’s name and address.
Caregivers – Caregivers may be issued a parking permit sticker for a permit parking area provided the
address of the resident receiving the care is within said parking area.
The requirements to obtain a parking permit sticker for a caregiver are:
A completed application form in both the residents’ and caregivers name and address.
A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle for which the applicant is requesting a
parking permit.
Proof of residency/ownership in the resident’s/owner’s name reflecting the permit address in
the permit area. Acceptable proof of residency shall be a utility bill, car insurance policy, lease
agreement or a preprinted personal check with the resident’s name and address.
A letter from the resident identifying the permit applicant as the caregiver.
Fine Amount
The fine for violation of the Residential Parking Permit Program regulations is set within the City’s
Comprehensive Fee Schedule.
Misuse of Parking Permits
Any person selling, fraudulently using, reproducing or mutilating a parking permit issued in conjunction
with the residential parking permit program shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be subject to a
citation for each offense and the forfeiture of all permits in conflict, or such other fine or penalty as the
City Council may set by ordinance.
Neighborhood Support for RPP District Implementation
As outlined in the ordinance, the City may choose to conduct a survey of a proposed neighborhood to
determine whether support exists for RPP District implementation. The survey may be conducted either
prior to the recommendation of RPP District implementation to Council, or during a trial period of the
program, but before final implementation. The survey shall be conducted electronically or via U.S. mail.
Each household using a separate U.S.P.S. address will be allowed one (1) vote either in favor or against
the implementation of an RPP program. The current threshold for RPP District implementation is a vote
of 70% of the returned surveys in favor of implementation.
Eligibility Areas
As outlined in the ordinance, the City Council may adopt a resolution identifying particular areas as RPP
Eligibility Areas. Following the adoption of the RPP Eligibility Areas, residents within these areas may
petition the Director of Planning and Community Environment to be annexed into an existing RPP
District. The petition must include the following:
• A completed application form (online) including the residents’ names and addresses.
Version 2.0
• A current DMV vehicle registration of each vehicle for which any RPP District parking permit had
previously been approved in the applicants’ names.
Upon the receipt of a petition that includes the above information for a simple majority, or 50%+1 of the
identified segment’s neighbors, the City may choose to conduct a survey of the proposed neighborhood
to determine whether additional support exists for annexation into the existing RPP District. The survey
shall be conducted electronically or via U.S. mail. Each household using a separate U.S.P.S. address will
be allowed one (1) vote either in favor or against annexation into the existing RPP District. The current
threshold for RPP District implementation is a vote of 70% of the returned surveys in favor of
implementation.
Approval of annexation for RPP Eligibility Areas will take effect without Council adoption.
Opt Out Procedures
Current residents of an existing RPP District that no longer wish to participate in the RPP program may
petition to opt out of their RPP District between January 1st and March 31st of the year. The petition
must be submitted to and will be approved at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community
Environment.
Residents of the same existing RPP District shall initiate a request to opt out of their RPP District by
neighborhood petition. The petition will be available as a standard form online, and must include the
following:
• A completed application form (online) including the residents’ names and addresses.
• A current DMV vehicle registration of each vehicle for which any RPP District parking permit had
previously been approved in the applicants’ names.
Upon the receipt of a petition that includes the above information for a simple majority, or 50%+1 of the
identified segment’s neighbors, the City may choose to conduct a survey of the proposed neighborhood
to determine whether additional support exists for opting out of the RPP District. The survey shall be
conducted electronically or via U.S. mail. Each household using a separate U.S.P.S. address will be
allowed one (1) vote either in favor or against opting out of the existing RPP District. The current
threshold for RPP District implementation is a vote of 70% of the returned surveys in favor of opting out.
Petitions that do not include a simple majority of the identified segment’s neighbors will not be
considered for opt out.
Effective upon approval of their opt‐out petition, residents will no longer be entitled to RPP District
resident parking permits.
Approval of an opt‐out petition may not be construed to waive compliance of the RPP District parking
restrictions that remain in place.
Upon the approval of an application, the City shall provide written notice electronically or via U.S. mail
to all residents impacted by the opt‐out, including the effective date of the opt‐out, the expiration date
of any remaining valid parking permits, and contact information for further inquiries or concerns.
Occupancy Study Requirements
Version 2.0
During the course of RPP District initiation, the City will conduct parking occupancy studies for the
neighborhood in question. Studies will be conducted at various hours and be compared to an inventory
calculation to show percentages of occupancy by block face. Weekday studies will not be conducted on
Mondays, Fridays or holidays.
Version 2.0
Neighborhood Petition Form
City of Palo Alto Residential Parking Permit Program Request Form
The purpose of this form is to enable neighborhoods to request to be annexed to an existing Residential
Preferential Parking area or the initiation of a Residential Preferential Parking Program in accordance
with the City of Palo Alto’s adopted Residential Parking Permit Program Policy and Procedures. This form
must be filled out in its entirety and submitted with any request to:
City of Palo Alto
Transportation Division
250 Hamilton Avenue, Floor 5
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Feel free to attach additional sheets containing pictures, occupancy maps, additional testimony or
additional text if the space provided is insufficient.
1. Requesting Individual’s Contact Information
Name: ____________________________________________
Address: ____________________________________________
Phone Number: _______________________________________
Email: _______________________________________
2. Please describe the nature of the overflow parking problem in your neighborhood.
1. What streets in your neighborhood do you feel are affected by overflow parking?
2. How often does the overflow occur?
3. Does the impact vary from month to month, or season to season?
3. Can you identify a parking impact generator that is the cause of overflow parking in the
neighborhood? Are there any facilities (churches, schools, shopping centers, etc.) near this location
that generate a high concentration of vehicle and pedestrian traffic? Please list your understanding of
the causes:
Version 2.0
4. Please describe how a Residential Parking Permit Program will be able to eliminate or reduce
overflow parking impacting the neighborhood. Please include your suggestion for the boundary of the
program:
5. Is there neighborhood support for submittal of this Residential Parking Permit Program application?
Have you contacted your HOA/Neighborhood Association?
Version 2.0
Neighborhood Petition Form (Street by Street Basis)
THE UNDERSIGNED BELOW AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING:
1. All persons signing this petition do hereby certify that they reside on the following street, which is
being considered for residential preferential parking: ______________________________________
2. All persons signing this petition do hereby agree that the following contact person(s) represent the
neighborhood as facilitator(s) between the neighborhood residents and City of Palo Alto staff in matters
pertaining to this request:
Name: _________________________ Address: ___________________ Phone #: __________________
Name: _________________________ Address: ___________________ Phone #: __________________
Name: _________________________ Address: ___________________ Phone #: __________________
ONLY ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD
Name (Please Print) Address Phone Number Signature
1.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
2.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
3.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
4.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
5.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
6.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
7.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
8.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
9.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
10._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
11._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
12._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
13._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
14._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
15._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
16._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
17._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
18._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
19._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
20._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
21._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
22._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
23._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
24._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
25._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
26._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
27._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
28._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
29._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
30._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
Version 2.0
31._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
32._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
33._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
34._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
35._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
36._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
37._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
38._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
39._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
40._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Ever
e
t
t
A
v
e
Haw
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
e
Ruth
v
e
n
A
v
e
Poe
S
t
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
e
Ever
e
t
t
C
t
Hig
h
S
t
Al
m
a
S
t
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Em
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Bry
a
n
t
S
t
Wa
v
e
r
l
y
S
t
Kip
l
i
n
g
S
t
Co
w
p
e
r
S
t
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
Byr
o
n
S
t
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Ful
t
o
n
S
t
Gu
i
n
d
a
S
t
Bo
y
c
e
A
v
e
Forest Ave
Hamilton Ave
Fife Ave
Channing Ave
Parkinson Ave
Guinda St
Greenwood
Se
n
e
c
a
S
t
Ch
a
u
c
e
r
S
t
Hal
e
S
t
Ra
m
o
n
a
S
t
Hig
h
S
t
Em
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Bry
a
n
t
S
t
Sc
o
t
t
Wa
v
e
r
l
y
S
t
Kip
l
i
n
g
Co
w
p
e
r
S
t
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
Byr
o
n
S
t
Byr
o
n
S
t
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Ful
t
o
n
S
t
Ra
m
o
n
a
S
t
Flo
r
e
n
c
e
Gil
m
a
n
Tas
s
o
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Fore
s
t
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Cha
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
Linc
o
l
n
A
v
e
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
Kello
g
g
A
v
e
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
Downtown Residential
Preferential Parking Program
Li
n
c
o
l
n
A
v
e
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
3
4
5 6 7
8
9
10
2 1
Visit http://paloalto.parkingguide.com/parking-program/downtown-residential-preferential-parking-program/ for additional information
or contact 650-329-2520.
PaloAlto A v e
Downtown RPP District
Approved Eligibility Area
Non-RPP Parking in RPP District
Downtown Non-RPP
Downtown RPP Program Area
Approved Eligibility Area
Non-RPP Parking in RPP District (check signs)
RPP Employee Parking Zones
Permit Type Full-price
Hangtag
Reduced
Hangtag
Full-price
Sticker
Reduced
Sticker
Free Sticker Total Issued Current
Maximum
Authorized
Maximum
Resident Annual 1,221 2,681 952 4,854 N/A N/A
Resident One-day Scratcher 825 825 N/A N/A
Total Resident Permits 2,046 2,681 952 5,679
Employee One-day Scratcher 163 163 N/A N/A
Employee Five-day Scratcher 1 1 N/A N/A
Total Employee Scratcher 164 164
Employee Annual Zone 1 23 14 38 75 75 75
Employee Annual Zone 2 40 16 61 117 120 120
Employee Annual Zone 3 143 25 114 282 225 225
Employee Annual Zone 4 49 37 96 182 190 190
Employee Annual Zone 5 46 41 90 177 175 175
Employee Annual Zone 6 27 24 50 101 100 100
Employee Annual Zone 7 33 35 67 135 135 135
Employee Annual Zone 8 104 40 34 92 270 365 365
Employee Annual Zone 9 1 0 0 1 25 245
Employee Annual Zone 10 18 8 9 35 105 370
Total Employee Annual 484 234 617 1,335 1,515 2,000
Notes
1. A total of 40 Employee Annual Zone 8 Reduced Hangtags were purchsed by PAUSD for Addison Elementary School staff.
2. A handful of individuals purchased the bulk of the hangtags in Employee Parking Zones 3 and 8. Additional research is warranted. A cap on hangtags may be considered.
3. Employee Parking Zones 3, 5 and 6 have been slightly oversold. Contractor states that this may be due to errors in issuing replacement permits. This needs to be addressed.
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Permit Program Permits Sold (March 1 to December 22, 2016)
27%
63
%
0%
0%0%
33
%
63
%
10
0
%
38
%
20
%
25
%0%
33
%
63
%
0% - 49% Parking Occupancy
80%54%31%20%69%82%81%33%75%30%50% - 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% - 100%+ Parking Occupancy75%70%25%38%100%125%
89
%
86
%
14%Legend
38
%
38
%
75
%
43
%
38
%
30
%
63
%0%
70
%
25
%
25
%
40
%
63
%
67
%
10
0
%
0%
10
0
%
38
%
63
%
60
%
44
%
10
%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
73%
40
%
69%54%23%57%69%50%71%33%19%33%23%
Lin
c
o
l
n
40%
56
%
50
%
11
%
43
%
38
%0%
0%
Ramona St Ramona25%56%25%83%35%93%73%58%
0%37%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%
28
%
33
%
60
%
38
%0%83
%
86
%
45
%
75
%
56
%
43
%
20
%
60
%
17%77%21%69%60%57%33%
38%0%44%7%0%
Bryant St Bryant64%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
43%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
40%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
45%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
63%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
25%
Fo
r
e
s
t
A
v
80%
Ho
m
e
r
A
v
53%
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
0%
25
%Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
0%
Po
e
S
t
31
%
13
%
11
%
0%64%
75%
56
%9%33
%
78
%
56
%
20%85%100%38%55%80%85%
59
%
77
%
63
%
33
%
39
%
24
%
35
%
#D
I
V
/
0
!
67
%
6%67%
Waverley St Waverley Waverley0%
8%
59%100%44%36%67%35%10%120%20%58%75%12%21%17%
29
%
42
%
72
%
0%
56%85%123%40%138%69%62%64%13%19%
90
%
33
%
10
0
%
89
%
75
%
39
%
44
%
29
%0%
50%
4%
Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper
Ru
t
h
v
e
n
A
v
14%63%64%57%33%45%54%76%64%79%24%0%0%0%
25
%
60
%
0%
17
%0%
13
%
33
%
73
%0%0%
22
%
0%0%0%0%
0%
##
#
#
#
22
%
0%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
50%50%
18%
Tasso St Tasso
0%23%200%0%17%
0%30%75%77%50%75%59%59%40%0%0%0%
21%
39
%
41
%
12
0
%
13
6
%
79
%
62
%
56
%
83
%
76
%
18
%
0%44%77%
50%
25%69%22%75%
57
%0%11
%0%
17
%
61
%
44
%
56
%
12
%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
0%40%69%0%
0%0%
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
0%86%
21%
Webster St Webster Webster Webster
29%53%53%80%27%71%43%88%75%
50%
15
7
%
0%11
%
14
%0%0%11
%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
44
%
23%36%40%0%0%0%0%52%
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
38%
15
%
35
%
33
%0%19
%
47
%
40
%
0%0%0%0%0%38
%
0%
Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield
60
%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Ho
m
e
r
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
64%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
8%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
Byron St Byron
64
%
6%40%15%0%0%
50
%0%0%0%
0%60%40%0%
0%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
10
0
%
80
%
25%0%
8%0%
Fulton
13%70%58%91%0%
Fulton St
25%
0%
0%
33
%
33
%
33
%
0%14
%
0%57
%
22
%
38
%
50
%
87
%
12
0
%
61
%
54
%
36
%
29
%
0%0%0%
15
0
%
25
%
0%
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
6/30/2016
8 AM - 10 AMTotal Occupancy
0%114%17%62%33%8%36%25%30%13%0%
Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda
4%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
0%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
10%
38%46%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
47%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
46%36%0%32%
44%63%23%0%
25
%4%
14
3
%
33
%
0%
12
%
0%33%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
58%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
47%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
50
%
14
%
29
%
29
%
11
%
11
%
0%
38
%
43
%
0%0%
54%
0%0%
33%58%30%
Kipling
21%
45
%
57
%
33
%
0%
47%
Kipling St
24%45%46%
11
%
33
%
33
%
33
%0%
30
%
25
%
25%73%
68
%
53
%
67
%
33
%
12
9
%
50
%
29
%
83
%
14
%0%
18
6
%
89
%
53
%
42
%
70
%
32
%
25
%
71
%
14
%
84
%
50
%
17
%
25
%
10
0
%
93
%
62
%
100%93%
36
%
89
%
25
%
78
%
4%
29
%
91%
0%
75
%
50
%
50
%
10
0
%
0%
Emerson St Emerson
86
%
12
9
%
10
0
%
60
%
63
%
86
%
11
3
%
45
%
75
%
85%33%47%
80%30%
48
%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
69%75%46%33%100%93%65%
63
%
0%
31%7%0%29%75%100%64%0%0%
0%0%
33
%
63
%
10
0
%
38
%
20
%
25
%0%
33
%
38
%
38
%
0%
75
%
50
%
50
%
10
0
%
0%
Alma St
Alma4%
48
%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
18%
10
0
%
33%
0%0%
67
%
63
%
10
0
%
88
%
40
%
88
%
10
0
%
67
%
50
%
0% - 49% Parking Occupancy
80%77%100%80%100%94%81%133%100%0%50% - 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% - 100%+ Parking Occupancy92%100%63%92%100%100%
10
0
%
10
0
%
14%Legend
25
%
62
%
75
%
11
4
%
63
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
40
%
11
0
%
63
%
25
%
40
%
50
%
83
%
10
0
%
17
%
75
%
50
%
25
%
12
0
%
44
%
40
%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
67%
40
%
106%92%92%57%106%93%100%92%31%67%0%
Lin
c
o
l
n
40%
67
%
67
%
78
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
38%
Ramona St Ramona42%75%75%100%82%93%93%100%
0%26%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
25%
22
%
33
%
80
%
38
%
80
%
83
%
86
%
82
%
50
%
56
%
43
%
40
%
40
%
28%100%86%106%60%100%50%
75%0%44%0%25%
Bryant St Bryant18%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
50%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
100%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
45%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
63%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
75%
Fo
r
e
s
t
A
v
87%
Ho
m
e
r
A
v
80%
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
0%
25
%Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
0%
Po
e
S
t
31
%0%
79
%
100%82%
75%
33
%
10
0
%
56
%
89
%
67
%
20%0%75%75%100%60%100%
76
%
10
0
%
63
%
52
%
56
%
33
%
25
%
#D
I
V
/
0
!
0%
18%0%
Waverley St Waverley Waverley0%
8%
59%125%89%100%100%106%30%110%47%67%69%35%5%17%
53
%
32
%
50
%
0%
78%100%131%60%162%69%54%50%47%31%
14
0
%
87
%
50
%
33
%
25
%
33
%
94
%
12
%0%
50%
4%
Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper
Ru
t
h
v
e
n
A
v
21%100%36%71%67%91%92%29%57%43%35%0%0%0%
19
%
60
%
29
%
17
%0%
13
%
83
%
10
0
%
0%0%
22
%
0%0%0%0%
0%
##
#
#
#
22
%
85%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
83%50%
18%
Tasso St Tasso
0%0%0%0%17%
14%30%75%100%60%83%82%47%47%0%0%0%
21%
83
%
41
%
90
%
82
%
71
%
92
%
69
%
83
%
59
%
12
%
107%69%62%
6%
69%69%22%75%
0%14
%
11
%
25
%
22
%
67
%
67
%
78
%
82
%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
0%30%77%0%
0%0%
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
0%100%
21%
Webster St Webster Webster Webster
57%60%93%80%27%100%29%88%75%
50%
29
%
11
%
11
%0%57
%
75
%
78
%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
44
%
31%57%67%100%0%0%0%52%
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
38%
75
%
47
%
47
%
67
%
10
6
%
21
%
40
%
0%0%0%0%0%38
%
0%
Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield
60
%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Ho
m
e
r
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
43%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
8%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
Byron St Byron
18
%
6%40%69%92%0%
50
%0%0%0%
0%50%27%0%
5%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
10
0
%
20
%
33%0%
33%0%
Fulton
25%60%50%100%0%
Fulton St
58%
0%
0%
17
%
50
%
17
%
0%57
%
0%43
%
11
%
25
%
39
%
27
%
80
%
56
%
77
%
57
%
29
%
0%0%0%
12
5
%
0%
0%
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
6/30/2016
12 PM - 2 PMTotal Occupancy
0%57%33%8%33%0%14%8%20%13%0%
Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda
8%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
0%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
70%
54%54%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
53%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
46%36%18%26%
33%63%23%50%
63
%
22
%
43
%
22
%
0%
0%
20%44%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
67%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
80%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
67
%0%29
%
43
%
11
%
56
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
57
%
0%0%
38%
0%0%
92%92%50%
Kipling
29%
10
0
%
57
%
50
%
0%
60%
Kipling St
71%100%100%
56
%
67
%
50
%
67
%
15
0
%
52
%
25
%
38%91%
42
%
60
%
10
0
%
56
%
12
9
%
25
%
57
%
83
%
71
%
86
%
10
0
%
95
%
89
%
63
%
70
%
47
%
10
0
%
43
%
86
%
84
%
50
%
0%75
%
10
0
%
93
%
90
%
117%100%
73
%
78
%
63
%
56
%
8%
53
%
82%
0%
75
%
50
%
10
0
%
75
%
86
%
Emerson St Emerson
10
0
%
12
9
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
75
%
10
0
%
11
3
%
82
%
50
%
77%33%47%
80%90%
64
%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
81%75%100%78%100%100%88%
10
0
%
33%
69%57%89%71%81%100%64%62%25%
0%0%
67
%
63
%
10
0
%
88
%
40
%
88
%
10
0
%
67
%
25
%
62
%
0%
75
%
50
%
10
0
%
75
%
86
%
Alma St
Alma13%
64
%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
36%
38
%
0%
10
0
%
0%
10
0
%
75
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
40
%
50
%
38
%
56
%
38
%
0% - 49% Parking Occupancy
80%54%115%110%100%94%106%56%100%40%50% - 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% - 100%+ Parking Occupancy58%90%63%100%100%108%
89
%
12
9
%
0%Legend
44
%
38
%
38
%
10
0
%
38
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
50
%
11
0
%
50
%
50
%
10
0
%
75
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
50
%
10
0
%
63
%
25
%
30
%
67
%
40
%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
67%
10
0
%
69%77%108%107%106%71%107%108%13%17%8%
Lin
c
o
l
n
27%
67
%
50
%
67
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
0%
Ramona St Ramona58%88%69%142%94%107%87%25%
0%16%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
50%
39
%
17
%
80
%
25
%
90
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
10
9
%
10
0
%
78
%
43
%
20
%
70
%
39%115%93%106%320%43%22%
81%0%44%13%33%
Bryant St Bryant50%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
29%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
50%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
73%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
88%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
25%
Fo
r
e
s
t
A
v
80%
Ho
m
e
r
A
v
67%
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
0%
19
%Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
0%
Po
e
S
t
46
%
33
%
26
%
71%64%
75%
78
%
10
0
%
78
%
10
0
%
44
%
20%65%50%50%73%120%100%
65
%
69
%
38
%
29
%6%10
%
15
%
#D
I
V
/
0
!
0%
6%83%
Waverley St Waverley Waverley0%
8%
35%125%67%73%100%112%10%100%13%42%44%29%32%0%
35
%
32
%
50
%
0%
72%69%123%87%154%62%62%71%20%6%
15
0
%
60
%
50
%
11
1
%
25
%
39
%
67
%
12
%0%
50%
0%
Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper
Ru
t
h
v
e
n
A
v
29%50%45%64%100%73%85%41%7%64%29%0%0%0%
13
%
27
%
14
%
17
%0%
38
%0%
73
%0%0%
22
%
0%0%0%0%
0%
##
#
#
#
22
%
54%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
67%50%
18%
Tasso St Tasso
0%15%0%0%17%
21%10%58%92%50%50%47%53%53%0%0%0%
21%
50
%
35
%
11
0
%
10
0
%
71
%
46
%
63
%
58
%
82
%
6%
0%31%69%
56%
19%69%22%75%
0%0%0%0%
6%44
%
17
%
56
%
29
%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
0%40%46%0%
0%0%
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
0%71%
21%
Webster St Webster Webster Webster
57%27%47%50%27%7%36%38%75%
50%
0%0%0%14
%
43
%0%33
%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
44
%
31%43%47%69%0%0%0%52%
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
38%
30
%
53
%
27
%
53
%
38
%
26
%
40
%
0%0%0%0%0%38
%
0%
Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield
60
%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Ho
m
e
r
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
50%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
15%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
Byron St Byron
27
%
24%27%38%23%0%
50
%0%0%0%
0%70%27%0%
5%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
10
0
%
0%
17%0%
17%0%
Fulton
8%70%58%36%0%
Fulton St
67%
0%
0%
33
%
50
%
33
%
17
%
14
%
0%43
%
78
%
38
%
33
%
80
%0%39
%
54
%
50
%
29
%
0%0%0%
10
0
%
63
%
0%
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
6/30/2016
5 PM - 7 PMTotal Occupancy
0%114%17%15%33%17%50%17%40%13%0%
Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda
12%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
14%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
60%
77%46%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
47%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
23%27%0%11%
17%50%38%58%
0%22
%
57
%
22
%
0%
0%
0%56%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
50%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
60%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
50
%
14
%
43
%
71
%
11
%
67
%
50
%
13
%
10
0
%
0%0%
38%
0%0%
75%92%70%
Kipling
36%
64
%
57
%
50
%
0%
60%
Kipling St
65%64%92%
22
%
44
%
17
%
83
%
12
5
%
30
%
35
%
38%73%
74
%
53
%
83
%
44
%
15
7
%
25
%
14
%
50
%
71
%
10
0
%
71
%
63
%
42
%
26
%
90
%
21
%
38
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
84
%
11
0
%
50
%
75
%
11
7
%
20
%
67
%
111%79%
73
%
78
%0%89
%
17
%
35
%
100%
10
0
%
88
%
75
%
10
0
%
12
5
%
0%
Emerson St Emerson
12
9
%
15
7
%
11
3
%
80
%
75
%
11
4
%
13
8
%
10
9
%
10
0
%
100%33%29%
107%30%
36
%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
50%42%85%61%94%129%100%
38
%
0%
50%50%78%100%69%100%64%0%0%
10
0
%
0%
10
0
%
75
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
40
%
50
%
38
%
56
%
44
%
38
%
10
0
%
88
%
75
%
10
0
%
12
5
%
0%
Alma St
Alma9%
36
%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
77%25%0%
80%80%
Alma St
Alma9%
20
%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
0%17%54%78%94%100%88%
27
%
56
%0%22
%
4%
35
%
18%
0%
38
%
38
%
10
0
%
75
%
71
%
Emerson St Emerson
10
0
%
12
9
%
10
0
%
60
%
13
%0%38
%
73
%
50
%
70
%
32
%
10
0
%
43
%
86
%
74
%
50
%
##
#
#
#
63
%
17
%
47
%
24
%
117%36%
25
%
25%27%
16
%
40
%
10
0
%
56
%
12
9
%
13
%
29
%
17
%
71
%
86
%
10
0
%
84
%
74
%
58
%
15%
0%0%
42%92%20%
Kipling
14%
82
%
14
%
33
%
0%
27%
Kipling St
53%36%100%
56
%
44
%
33
%
67
%
15
0
%
30
%
25
%9%29
%0%
0%
0%
20%0%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
17%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
20%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
33
%0%0%0%0%
56
%
0%
63
%
21
%
0%0%
10%13%0%
Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda
4%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
0%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
20%
23%23%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
0%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
23%9%9%11%
0%13%0%25%
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
6/30/2016
12 PM - 2 PMNo Permits
0%0%33%0%7%0%0%8%
0%
0%
17
%
0%17
%
0%57
%
0%14
%
0%0%
11
%
20
%
60
%
33
%
31
%
21
%
29
%
0%0%0%
10
0
%
0%
0%
50
%0%0%0%
0%20%20%0%
0%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
10
0
%
20
%
25%0%
33%0%
Fulton
4%20%8%27%0%
Fulton St
17%
0%
Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield
60
%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Ho
m
e
r
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
29%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
8%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
Byron St Byron
0%
0%7%31%31%0%
44
%
23%7%33%31%0%0%0%52%
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
38%
10
%
18
%
27
%
20
%
44
%
21
%
40
%
0%0%0%0%0%38
%
50%
14
%0%0%0%43
%
50
%
56
%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
21%
Webster St Webster Webster Webster
7%27%13%70%27%71%14%44%25%
0%
19%69%22%75%
0%0%11
%
13
%
0%17
%
33
%
78
%
76
%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
0%0%77%0%
0%0%
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
0%86%21%
83
%
41
%
40
%
64
%
36
%
62
%
31
%
25
%
47
%
12
%
53%25%23%46%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
33%36%
18%
Tasso St Tasso
0%0%0%0%17%
7%20%25%38%60%75%76%12%20%0%0%0%
29
%0%0%0%
83
%
91
%0%0%
22
%
0%0%0%0%
0%
##
#
#
#
22
%
50%
4%
Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper
Ru
t
h
v
e
n
A
v
0%88%0%29%58%73%92%6%14%29%12%0%0%0%
6%33
%0%
22%54%115%60%162%8%8%43%27%19%
60
%
27
%
13
%
22
%
25
%
11
%
44
%6%0%
6%0%
Waverley St Waverley Waverley0%
4%
0%75%22%55%93%106%30%10%33%33%0%24%5%0%
35
%
21
%
22
%
41
%
54
%
13
%
24
%
11
%
10
%5%
#V
A
L
U
E
!
0%25
%Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
0%
Po
e
S
t
23
%0%
21
%
100%82%
75%
33
%
10
0
%
56
%
11
%
11
%
20%0%25%63%64%60%100%38%#VALUE!44%0%8%
Bryant St Bryant5%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
43%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
50%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
45%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
63%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
75%
Fo
r
e
s
t
A
v
53%
Ho
m
e
r
A
v
33%
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
#VALUE!#VALUE!0%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%
17
%
17
%
60
%
25
%
80
%
83
%
86
%
73
%
50
%
11
%0%0%
20
%
22%31%86%106%40%14%11%13%
Ramona St Ramona33%13%75%100%82%47%67%8%
33
%
20
%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
33%
40
%
25%54%31%57%106%93%93%92%31%28%0%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
33
%
33
%
56
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
89
%
10
0
%
7%Legend
13
%
54
%
38
%
71
%
63
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
40
%
10
0
%
63
%
25
%
40
%
50
%
83
%
10
0
%
17
%
75
%0%0%
50
%0%
67%38%100%70%100%94%75%133%17%0%
High St High
0% - 25%
25% - 50%
50%+25%30%63%92%93%100%
18%
25
%
11%
19%57%78%71%81%100%64%62%0%
0%0%
67
%
50
%
88
%
88
%
40
%
88
%
10
0
%
33
%
0%8%18%
0%0%
12
%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
69%8%31%0%0%0%0%
27
%0%13
%
11
%
4%
12
%
18%
0%0%
13
%0%0%
14
%
Emerson St Emerson
0%0%0%20
%
13
%
43
%
38
%9%0%
0%
5%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
33
%7%38
%
0%36%
0%
13%36%
0%0%
0%0%0%
0%0%0%0%0%0%
5%0%0%
0%
0%0%
8%0%0%
Kipling
0%
0%14
%0%
0%
7%
Kipling St
18%18%0%
0%11
%0%0%0%
17
%
0%0%14
%0%
0%
0%
0%0%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
0%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
40%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
0%0%0%0%0%
0%
10
0
%
25
%
14
%
0%0%
0%0%0%
Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda
0%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
0%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
40%
0%0%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
7%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
8%0%0%0%
0%25%0%0%
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
6/30/2016
12 PM - 2 PMEmployee Permits
0%0%0%0%7%0%0%0%
0%
0%
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
6%0%10
%
17
%
38
%0%
29
%
0%0%0%
0%0%
0%
50
%0%0%0%
0%30%0%0%
0%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
10
0
%
0%
0%0%
0%0%
Fulton
0%0%17%27%0%
Fulton St
17%
0%
Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield
60
%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Ho
m
e
r
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
14%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
0%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
Byron St Byron
0%
0%0%0%62%0%
44
%
0%0%20%69%0%0%0%52%
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
38%
25
%6%7%33
%
50
%0%40
%
0%0%0%0%0%38
%
50%
0%0%0%0%14
%
25
%
22
%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
21%
Webster St Webster Webster Webster
0%0%60%10%27%14%0%31%19%
0%
25%69%22%75%
0%0%0%13
%
0%6%11
%
0%
0%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
0%0%0%0%
0%0%
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
0%0%21%
0%0%10
%
18
%
7%15
%
6%8%0%0%
13%44%23%15%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
8%0%
18%
Tasso St Tasso
0%0%0%0%17%
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%24%7%0%0%0%
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
22
%
0%0%0%0%
0%
##
#
#
#
22
%
50%
0%
Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper
Ru
t
h
v
e
n
A
v
0%13%9%0%0%0%0%12%7%0%0%0%0%0%
0%0%0%
33%15%8%0%0%38%0%7%7%0%
10
%7%13
%
0%0%
6%17
%0%0%
0%0%
Waverley St Waverley Waverley0%
0%
41%0%22%9%0%0%0%40%7%25%50%0%0%0%
12
%0%0%24
%
31
%
13
%
0%6%5%0%
#D
I
V
/
0
!
0%0%Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
0%
Po
e
S
t
0%0%
32
%
0%0%
0%
0%0%0%11
%0%
20%0%0%0%18%0%0%25%0%44%0%0%
Bryant St Bryant5%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
7%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
20%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
0%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
0%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
0%
Fo
r
e
s
t
A
v
20%
Ho
m
e
r
A
v
20%
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
0%0%0%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%
0%
0%0%0%0%0%0%9%0%0%0%0%
0%0%15%0%0%0%36%6%6%
Ramona St Ramona0%25%0%0%0%40%7%58%
0%10
%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
0%
0%
75%15%23%0%0%0%7%0%0%28%0%
Lin
c
o
l
n
7%
0%0%11
%0%0%0%0%0%
0%Legend
0%0%
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
25
%
13
%
50
%0%
7%15%0%0%0%0%0%0%42%0%
High St High
0% - 25%
25% - 50%
50%+42%10%0%0%0%0%
0%
25
%
11%
0%0%0%0%
13
%0%0%0%0%0%
Alma St
Alma4%
12
%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
0%0%
13
%0%0%
14
%
0%0%
25
%
11%
44%0%11%0%0%100%64%0%17%
0%0%0%0%
13
%0%0%0%0%0%
0%0%29%
0%10%
24
%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
13%50%8%0%6%0%0%
18
%
22
%
50
%
22
%
0%
6%
45%
0%
25
%0%0%0%0%
Emerson St Emerson
0%0%0%20
%
50
%
57
%
38
%0%0%
0%
11
%0%
0%0%
5%0%
0%13
%
50
%
40
%
29
%
0%29%
0%
0%27%
26
%
20
%
0%0%0%
13
%
29
%
67
%0%0%0%
5%16
%5%
23%
0%0%
25%0%30%
Kipling
14%
18
%
29
%
17
%
0%
27%
Kipling St
0%27%0%
0%11
%
17
%0%0%
4%
38
%
13
%0%22
%
0%
0%
0%44%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
42%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
13%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
33
%0%29
%
43
%
11
%
0%
0%
13
%
21
%
0%0%
10%0%0%
Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda
4%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
0%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
10%
31%31%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
47%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
15%27%9%16%
33%25%23%25%
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
6/30/2016
12 PM - 2 PMResident Permits
0%57%0%8%20%0%14%0%
0%
0%
0%50
%
0%0%0%0%29
%
11
%
25
%
22
%7%10
%0%8%36
%
29
%
0%0%0%
25
%0%
0%
50
%0%0%0%
0%0%7%0%
5%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
10
0
%
0%
8%0%
0%0%
Fulton
21%40%25%45%0%
Fulton St
25%
0%
Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield
60
%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Ho
m
e
r
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
0%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
0%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
Byron St Byron
18
%
6%27%31%0%0%
44
%
8%50%13%0%0%0%0%52%
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
38%
40
%
24
%
13
%7%13
%0%40
%
0%0%0%0%0%38
%
50%
14
%
11
%
11
%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
21%
Webster St Webster Webster Webster
43%33%20%0%27%0%14%13%31%
6%
25%69%22%75%
0%14
%0%0%
22
%
28
%
22
%
0%
6%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
0%30%0%0%
0%0%
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
0%0%21%
0%0%40
%
0%29
%
0%31
%
50
%
12
%
0%
40%0%15%23%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
42%14%
18%
Tasso St Tasso
0%0%0%0%17%
7%10%33%31%0%8%6%12%20%0%0%0%
0%
17
%0%
13
%0%0%0%0%
22
%
0%0%0%0%
0%
##
#
#
#
22
%
50%
0%
Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper
Ru
t
h
v
e
n
A
v
21%0%27%43%8%18%0%12%36%14%24%0%0%0%
13
%
27
%0%
22%15%8%0%0%23%46%0%13%13%
70
%
53
%
25
%
11
%0%
17
%
33
%6%0%
12%0%
Waverley St Waverley Waverley0%
4%
18%50%44%9%7%0%0%60%7%8%13%12%0%17%
6%11
%
28
%
12
%
15
%
38
%
29
%
39
%
19
%
20
%
#D
I
V
/
0
!
0%0%Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
0%
Po
e
S
t
8%0%
21
%
0%0%
0%
0%0%0%67
%
56
%
20%0%50%13%9%0%0%13%0%44%0%17%
Bryant St Bryant9%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
0%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
20%
Ly
t
t
o
n
A
v
0%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
0%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
0%
Fo
r
e
s
t
A
v
13%
Ho
m
e
r
A
v
27%
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
0%0%26%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
25%
6%
17
%
20
%
13
%0%0%0%0%0%44
%
43
%
40
%
20
%
6%38%0%0%20%50%33%19%
Ramona St Ramona8%19%0%0%0%7%20%33%
11
%
10
%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
33%
0%
6%23%15%0%0%0%0%0%0%11%0%
Lin
c
o
l
n
33%
33
%
33
%
11
%0%0%0%0%0%
7%Legend
13
%8%
38
%
43
%0%0%0%0%
10
%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
25
%
13
%
20
%
50
%
7%15%0%0%0%0%6%0%42%0%
High St High
0% - 25%
25% - 50%
50%+17%50%0%0%7%0%
0%
50
%
11%
0%0%0%
13
%0%0%0%0%0%
33
%
Alma St
Alma0%
24
%
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
0%
25
%0%0%0%0%
13
%8%
50
%
11%
6%0%0%0%0%100%64%0%8%
0%0%0%
13
%0%0%0%0%0%
33
%
0%
27%
50
%
0%0%
43
%
75
%
64%
83%50%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy42%90%
63
%
88
%
80
%
29%Legend
44
%
31
%
13
%
71
%
50
%
10
%
62%33%71%
50
%
0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy
67%38%
28
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
44%67%77%
67
%
38
%
50
%
60
%
88%38%69%
14
0
%
63
%
29
%
0%44%8%
50
%
33
%
40
%
13%
Ramona St Ramona
33%44%87%100%47%
Li
n
c
o
l
n
60%
44
%
50
%
33
%
43
%
Emerson St Emerson
27
%
22
%
63
%
78
%
13
%
24
%
44
%
17
%
20
%
63
%
30
%
80%
Ho
m
e
r
Av
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
22%62%
12
9
%
47%8%
Bryant St Bryant
63%56%44%
53%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
50%67%
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
Av
36%56%
44
%
61%
50%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
22
%
29
%
80
%
30
%43%
70
%
32%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
86%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
60%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
93%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Av
86
%
6%14
%
75
%
10
0
%
78
%
37
%
50
%
33
%
56
%
18%5%33%
24
%
37
%
37
%
27
%
33
%
53
%
25
%
120%33%50%38%
35
%
75
%
0%
19
%
87
%
62
%
59
%
23
%
0%
59%125%56%64%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
0%
Po
e
St
20%45%200%50%55%
38
%
27
%
0%
Waverley St Waverley Waverley0%
108%46%36%20%19%
50
%
25%91%39%77%18%
0%0%
40%67%80%
Kipling St Kipling
24%73%
44
%
22
%
18
%
0%0%0%
13
0
%
80
%
44
%
33
%
50
%
50%
10
0
%
57%
14
%
50
%0%57
%
71%
50
%
20
%
13
%
40
%
50
%
57
%
33
%
56
%
50%
27
%
Cowper St Cowper Cowper
Ru
t
h
v
e
n
Av
43%0%
67%69%50%0%0%0%
57%47%0%0%0%45%0%
0%
50
%
39
%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
85%
18%
Tasso St Tasso
0%0%0%17%
0%0%
0%
##
#
#
#
22
%
0%0%0%
0%0%22
%
56
%
42
%
59
%
18
%
0%
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
0%21%
14
%0%0%
88
%
39
%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
42%64%85%67%44%
70
%
45
%
71
%
77
%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
40%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
86%
0%
0%
80%44%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
42%
75%69%56%69%
0%
0%0%38
%
14%10%No Parking Zone 0%59%
0%
36%60%73%70%136%50%36%21%
Webster St Webster Webster Webster
22%75%
0%50%
29
%0%11
%
43
%
43
%
88
%0%0%0%0%0%
52%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
Byron St Byron
18
%
6%33%23%92%0%
44
%
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
38%
17
%
43
%0%29
%
44
%
44
%
10
0
%
88
%
31%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
38
%
44
%
38%50%27%92%0%0%0%21
%
40
%
0%0%0%0%
0%
0%0%0%
86
%
65
%
35
%
33
%
73
%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%0%
0%
0%
Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield
60
%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Ho
m
e
r
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
50%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
0%60%27%0%
0%
30
%
43
%
33
%
10
0
%
80
%
10
0
%
50
%
13
%
50
%
0%
Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
A
0%
0%
Fulton St Fulton
8%70%25%27%62%46%0%
0%0%0%
6%33%50%13%38%33%0%
0%0%61
%
92
%
57
%
29
%
0%0%0%
19%43%0%0%
17
%
33
%
67
%
17
%
71
%0%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
13%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
21%36%27%
0%
22
%
13
%
28
%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
12%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
e
17%
17%38%58%25%8%0%
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
12/1/2016
8 AM ‐ 10 AM
Total Occupancy
0%157%14%31%36%
17%
Alma St
Alma13%
0%50
%
0%
38%0%0%
0%
43
%
75
%
44
%
31
%
28
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
67
%
38
%
50
%
22
%
27%
25
%
11%
13
%
43
%
10
0
%
91%
100%60%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy100%110%
75
%
75
%
10
0
%
0%Legend
44
%
85
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
90
%
85%92%118%
38
%
0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy
80%85%
32
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
88%83%108%
10
0
%
75
%
18
8
%
20
%
88%77%92%
71
%
56%8%
38
%
33
%
20
%
44%
Ramona St Ramona
50%88%100%87%73%
Li
n
c
o
l
n
60%
56
%
67
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
Emerson St Emerson
73
%
10
0
%
38
%
44
%
13
%
24
%
33
%
17
%
80
%
88
%
10
0
%
80%
Ho
m
e
r
Av
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
33%77%
12
9
%
53%8%
Bryant St Bryant
69%94%44%
16%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
25%73%
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
Av
79%63%
33
%
61%
92%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
0%0%60
%
50
%79%
80
%
64%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
86%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
100%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
93%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Av
10
0
%
0%0%
75
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
37
%
75
%
38
%
44
%
12%5%17%
18
%
32
%
32
%
27
%
50
%
58
%
94
%
130%27%50%44%
35
%
13
0
%
0%
19
%
80
%
62
%
47
%
54
%
0%
88%125%133%82%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
0%
Po
e
St
20%65%100%138%118%
38
%
27
%
0%
Waverley St Waverley Waverley0%
108%69%43%33%25%
33
%
38%100%89%85%0%
0%0%
73%83%80%
Kipling St Kipling
47%91%
33
%
10
0
%
12
%
0%0%0%
15
0
%
17
3
%
56
%
22
%
25
%
50%
10
0
%
36%
86
%
67
%
67
%
57
%
71%
19
%
20
%
4%35
%
50
%
86
%
44
%
11
1
%
50%
31
%
Cowper St Cowper Cowper
Ru
t
h
v
e
n
Av
29%13%
67%46%31%0%0%0%
36%47%0%0%0%0%0%
0%
39
%
39
%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
77%
18%
Tasso St Tasso
0%0%0%17%
0%0%
0%
##
#
#
#
22
%
0%0%0%
0%0%22
%
56
%
58
%
94
%
12
%
0%
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
0%21%
14
%0%0%
63
%
17
%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
92%71%77%60%38%
60
%
55
%
43
%
69
%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
113%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
100%
0%
0%
80%78%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
42%
69%56%50%69%
0%
0%0%63
%
50%0%0%23%59%
0%
29%60%73%80%136%71%79%21%
Webster St Webster Webster Webster
22%75%
0%50%
14
%0%0%29
%
71
%
11
3
%
10
0
%
0%0%0%0%
52%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
Byron St Byron
9%
0%33%23%100%0%
25
%
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
38%
0%29
%
14
%
43
%
78
%
89
%
10
0
%
75
%
38%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
38
%
44
%
23%43%20%100%0%0%0%37
%
40
%
0%0%0%0%
0%
0%0%0%
64
%
50
%
18
%
20
%
53
%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%0%
0%
0%
Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield
60
%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Ho
m
e
r
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
29%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
0%50%13%0%
0%
17
%
29
%
56
%
10
0
%
40
%
75
%
50
%
25
%
50
%
10
%
Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
A
0%
0%
Fulton St Fulton
13%60%58%73%62%54%0%
0%0%0%
28%33%50%50%54%42%0%
0%0%56
%
85
%
50
%
29
%
0%0%0%
31%57%0%0%
17
%
33
%
50
%
83
%
86
%0%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
53%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
14%50%55%
0%
22
%
13
%
39
%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
0%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
e
33%
33%38%75%25%46%0%
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
12/1/2016
12 PM ‐ 2PM
Total Occupancy
2%114%0%38%36%
25%
Alma St
Alma22%
22
%25
%
11%
69%36%33%
13
%
43
%
10
0
%
44
%
85
%
32
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av 10
0
%
75
%
18
8
%
0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy
Legend
85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy
50% ‐ 84% Parking Occupancy
11
%
18%
38
%
0%
13
%
57
%0%
82%
58%60%
High St
67%80%
63
%
75
%
14
0
%
14%
44
%
54
%
75
%
86
%
38
%
70
%
77%42%53%
50
%
67%77%
32
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
50%58%92%
67
%
50
%
75
%
20
%
56%77%92%
10
0
%
12
9
%
11
3
%
14
0
%
50
%
14
%
93%83%56%78%8%
50
%
33
%
10
%
6%
Ramona St Ramona
67%44%40%93%53%
Li
n
c
o
l
n
53%
33
%
17
%
22
%
86
%
Emerson St Emerson
82
%
89
%
50
%
67
%
8%
24
%
33
%
17
%
60
%
50
%
60
%
67%
Ho
m
e
r
Av
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
44%115%
12
9
%
45%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
64%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
33%8%
Bryant St Bryant
69%63%44%
42%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
17%80%
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
Av
64%19%
11
%
61%
67%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
0%0%80
%
40
%64%
90
%
80%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
71%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Av
11
4
%
18%5%33%100%47%67%38%
35
%
50
0
%
0%
13
%
73
%
43
%
53
%
31
%0%5%
53
%
50
%
33
%
44
%
31
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
78
%
0%
29%100%33%73%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
0%
Po
e
St
20%65%75%100%73%
31
%
27
%
24
%
32
%
37
%
33
%
33
%
26
%
0%
Waverley St Waverley Waverley0%
69%62%43%0%19%
8%
35%0%0%0%9%
17
%
38%36%28%77%24%
0%0%
73%58%80%
Kipling St Kipling
53%82%
33
%
39
%
0%0%0%0%
15
0
%
80
%
38
%
22
%
50
%
29%
10
0
%
36%
71
%
83
%
33
%
43
%
53%0%
6%7%9%20
%
25
%
71
%
78
%
56
%
50%
Cowper St Cowper Cowper
Ru
t
h
v
e
n
Av
50%0%
40%92%31%0%0%0%
57%
0%
33
%
22
%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
62%
18%
Tasso St Tasso
0%15%0%17%
0%0%
0%
##
#
#
#
22
%
0%10%0%
0%0%22
%
50
%
50
%
76
%
24
%
0%
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
0%21%
0%
14
%
22
%
13
%
56
%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
33%86%69%53%38%
60
%
36
%
64
%
54
%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
60%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
86%
14
%
6%
100%67%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
42%
50%69%0%69%
0%
0%0%38
%
71%0%0%0%47%
0%
71%67%60%60%136%64%64%21%
Webster St Webster Webster Webster
22%75%
0%50%
29
%
11
%
22
%
43
%
29
%
75
%
56
%0%0%0%0%
52%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
Byron St Byron
0%
6%47%15%46%0%
50
%
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
38%
50
%
43
%
71
%
57
%
22
%
22
%
50
%
50
%
0%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
38
%
44
%
38%50%27%77%0%0%0%21
%
40
%
0%0%0%0%
0%
0%0%0%
93
%
60
%
47
%
20
%
27
%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%0%
0%
0%
Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield
60
%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Ho
m
e
r
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
36%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
0%60%20%0%
0%
26
%
29
%
22
%
10
0
%
80
%
75
%
75
%
63
%
50
%0%0%
5%
Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
A
0%
0%
Fulton St Fulton
29%50%75%45%54%23%0%
0%0%0%
44%17%17%88%54%33%0%
7%10
%
39
%
77
%
71
%
29
%
0%
25%7%0%0%
0%
17
%
50
%0%
43
%0%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
93%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
21%43%36%
43
%
11
%0%
44
%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
35%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
e
58%
42%15%42%25%23%0%
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
12/1/2016
5PM ‐ 7PM
Total Occupancy
2%171%14%54%43%
17%
Alma St
Alma13%
11
%38
%
0%
44%43%0%
13
%
57
%0%
44
%
54
%
32
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
67
%
50
%
75
%
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
12PM‐2PM
Employee Permits
0%
0%
0%
0%
43
%
0%
36%
42% 20%50% ‐ 84%High St 85% ‐ 100%+17%20%
50
%
38
%
30
%
0%Legend
6%8%
25
%
57
%0%0%
0%41%
0%0% ‐ 49%
7%8%
4%
Pa
l
o
Al
t
o
Av
44%8%23%
33
%
0%
10
0
%
0%
44%31%8%
0%0%0%0%
29
%
0%17%0%
0%
11
%
10
%
0%
Ramona St Ramona
17% 6%0% 40% 33%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
0%0%
22
%0%
Emerson St
0%
22
%0%0%
4%
24
%0%
0%0%
25
%0%
7%
Ho
m
e
r
Av
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
11%15%
0%
0%0%
Bryant St Bryant
0%38%44%
0%
Ki
n
g
s
l
e
y
0%0%
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
Av
36%38%
0%
17%
42%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
0%0%0%
0%29%
0%
41%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
29%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
20%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
21%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Av
0%
0%0%
13
%
0%
11
%
0%
13
%
0%
0%
0%0%0%
0%0%0%0%0%5%0%
20%0%8%6%
10
%
10
0
%
0%0%
7%0%0%15
%
0%
41%50%67%27%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
0%
Po
e
St
20%30%0%100%27%
0%0%
0%
Waverley St Waverley Waverley0%
31% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
13%64%22%0%0%
0%0%
20%17%0%
Kipling St Kipling
6%0%
0%0%0%0%0%0%20
%
27
%
6%
0%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%0%0%
29%
0%0%0%0%
13
%
14
%
0%
11
%
50%
0%
Cowper St Cowper Cowper
Ru
t
h
v
e
n
Av
0%0%
0%0%0%0%0%0%
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
0%0%11
%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
46%
18%
Tasso St Tasso
0% 0%0% 17%
0%0%
0%
##
#
#
#
22
%
0%0%0%
0%0%
22
%
38
%0%0%0%
0%
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
0%21%
0%0%0%0%
0%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
17%29%31%0%6%
10
%
27
%0%31
%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
33%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
0%
0%
0%
0%0%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
0%
25% 19% 31% 69%
0%
0%0%0%
0%0%0%0%6%
0%
0%0%40%0%0%0%0%21%
Webster St Webster Webster Webster
22%75%
0%50%
0%0%0%0%0%0%67
%
0%0%0%0%
52%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
Byron St Byron
0%
0%0%0%92%0%
0%
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
38%
0%0%0%0%0%
0%
0%
38
%
31%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
38
%
44
%
0%0%0%77%0% 0% 0%16
%
40
%
0%0%0%0%
0%
0%0%0%
14
%
20
%0%0%27
%
Ki
n
g
s
l
e
y
0%0%
0%
0%
Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield
60
%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Ho
m
e
r
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
29%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
0%30% 0% 0%
0%
0%0%0%
10
0
%
20
%0%0%0%50
%
0%
Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
A
0%
0%
Fulton St Fulton
0%0%17%18%0%0%0%
0%0%0%
0%0%17%6%0%0%0%
0%0%0%15
%0%
29
%
0%0%0%
0%0%0%0%
0%0%
17
%
33
%
14
%0%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
7%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
0%0%0%
0%0%0%
11
%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
0%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
e
0%
8% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0%
12/1/2016
0%0%0%0%0%
0%
Alma St
Alma17%
0%0%
0%
13%0%0%
43
%
0%
6%8%4%
Pa
l
o
Al
t
o
Av 33
%
0%
10
0
%
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District Pilot Program
Serco Enforcement Citations Given
January 18, 2017
Citations in 2015
Citations in 2016
Downtown RPP Meeting
Wednesday January 4th Meeting Notes
A. Concerns/Comments
• Zone 8 enforcement could be more robust, as Zone 6/7 employee tags are seen in the
area.
• 10 permit cap for employees are hard for employers, accommodations could possibly
be made for larger employers.
• Occupancy data should begin red threshold at 80%, not 85%. (Against industry
standard).
• What is 2,000 maximum authorized permit based on? More data should justify this,
not a conservative guess.
• Data that uses an “urban standard” should be possibly switched to a “residential
standard”, if it exists.
• Some of the occupancy data is hard to understand or looks incomplete (references to
Zone 10 data).
• Who parks in occupancy data maps? Employees or residents?
• RPP program seems too aggressive in some areas, noticing empty streets in RPP.
• Outreach of RPP needs to be more robust, especially for retailers and their
employees.
• 12-2 employee occupancy is not red at all.
• Southern boundaries of zones 5-7 are totally solid all day long.
• Zone system seems outdated, especially for residents close to Downtown core (feel as
though it isn’t working well).
• Enforcement robustness is working well.
• Deeper analysis for retailers would be great so they can identify employee/resident
parking in their area.
Suggestions/Recommendations
• Align contractor permits available at the MSC with scratchers as they are perceived to
be expensive (~$72/week).
• Scratchers should be expanded. Especially employees.
• It would be great to see citation numbers.
• Maybe a 0$ low-income permit for employees, or a quarterly rate.
• A different tiered employee system for 1st floor retailers (mixed use areas find it hard
to purchase permits).
• We feel there is a supply issue-tweak permits numbers allowed.
• Experiment with making subzones in really high-use areas.
• Please break down who is parking where (alluding to making T2 reporting more
comprehensive)
• The 10% phase down of permits will really hurt employers, even with the TDM, more
lots/garages, etc.
• Investigate sliding enforcement hours later in the day, or add more hours in the
afternoon (early morning employees not really a problem).
• 2 hour parking limit could be shifted (perhaps longer?)
• High use areas (bordering Downtown core) can stand to use the 10% phase down, but
not in the outer extents like 9 and 10.
B. Ancillary Resident/Employer notes:
1) The parking for a school in an RPP district is a unique issue. Addison School covers
one block, but one block face is on Middlefield which is not suitable for
parking. Perhaps permits should be sold for Addison through the principle's
office. They could sell them only to school employees and they would only be valid
for use on one of the school's 3 face blocks. These permit parking signs and stickers
must have a unique color. I would suggest parking stickers that go on the inside
lower left corner of the rear car widow. These type of stickers could be moved from
one vehicle to another but it not as convenient as a hang tag to move. The stickers
could be coded to a particular vehicle but that could be changed in the computer at the
schools request if an employee moves or is transferred.
I have mentioned before that buying a parking permit should not authorize anyone to
park in front of a school all day who does not belong there. Also having a parking
sticker on your car should not prevent police from having "probable cause" to
approach a vehicle and inquire the nature of their business if parked in front of a
school all day.
Just my thoughts, thanks for your consideration, Paul
2) I remain very pleased that you are making the time to engage stakeholders in an
update of the Downtown RPP.
And I wish to thank you and Josh for taking our questions into consideration.
Since these open meetings have significant time constraints, I would like to ask that
in the future city staff share any new data and analysis AHEAD OF TIME so that
participants can have the opportunity to become familiar with it before we meet. I
believe this will make our time together more productive.
3) The clustering issue to which Neilson referred in his message and which we wish to
discuss at our meeting on January 4 is especially prevalent on the West side of the
Downtown RPP district in the areas immediately adjacent to the commercial core.
In DTS the area bounded by Bryant Street, High Street, Forest Avenue and
Embarcadero Road is consistently fully parked. In fact, 13 of the 17 blocks in that
area are fully parked or overly parked on a daily basis during working hours. It is this
specific area for which we believe we have a low cost, easy to implement solution . . .
and that is to turn this specific area into an unique zone the permits for which can be
more granularly managed.
Please see the attached files for details of the data we collected at the beginning of
December.
Thanks!
Michael
mehodos@mac.com
4) We are prepared to elaborate on these concerns on Jan 4 and look forward hearing
your responses. Call John Guislin or Neilson Buchanan if you have any questions.
Our primary concerns are:
Council policy requires annual reduction in the number of non-resident vehicles
parked on residential streets. We dont have information to understand the numbers
and types permits issued during the last nine months of Phase 2. Therefore, we
submitted the attached request for public records covering Aug 1 thru Dec 31.
Severe clustering on some streets is evident and this too must be addressed by staff
and Council. Residents have compiled data and will continue through January 2017
and beyond. Michael Hodos will be submitting data demonstrating the clustering
problems. He also has a low-cost solution for you to consider.
Reduction of non-resident vehicles can be managed by reducing number of non-
resident vehicles permits and balancing among the 8 zones. This requires active
management and review by city staff quarterly.
We are hopeful that the January 4 meeting and staff report to Council will also
address the long-standing concerns below.
Cost of enforcement and technology. Consistent placement of permits on vehicles
can be improved. Some technology was introduced in 2016 but more technology is
warranted. We are confident that staff and residents are in agreement that permits
must be consistently placed on vehicles at designated locations to lower enforcement
costs. Lack of technology, especially garage guidance technology, restricts efficiency
of city garages and lots. This creates more parking pressure upon residential
neighborhoods.
Two-hour parking. Unlimited 2-hr will compromise integrity of the Council's
commitment to reduce non-resident vehicles. Certain zones obviously are vulnerable
to commercial parking spillover from the commercial core. The current study of
commercial core parking and pricing will highlight the scope of this problem as it
impacts RPP.
Inconsistent Quality Standards. Inconsistent quality standards for bumper/window
stickers compromises RPP. Attached are the photos of stickers in use within the
commercial core and neighborhoods. The highest quality sticker (for city garages and
lots) contains serial number, location, license plate and expiration. We noted that
many of the parking permits in use in the City Hall garage (CC) do not comply with
RRP or commercial core sticker standards. Also the orange "CC medalion" stickers
are not consistently on rear bumpers or windows to reduce enforcement costs.
Hangtag Design. Hangtags are subject to fraud and abuse. We will present to you
and Council examples of easily counterfeited hang tags. Only technology can
eliminate this abuse which will escalate over time as prices incentives are
created. We have not found technology which can read hang tag through a window
shield. Use of hangtags next year should be exception not the rule.
Temporary Permits. Phase 2 resulted in temporary paper permits without expiration
dates. Some of these dashboard paper permits are still in use by residents and non-
residents. It is possible that bumper stickers are in use on other vehicles. Next year
all temporary paper permits must have expiration dates to eliminate abuse and lower
enforcement costs.
Admin Guidelines. We are still unclear about the notification and approval process
for Administrative Guidelines for RPP. Please cover this issue on January 4 and in
your upcoming staff report to City Council.
Loss of Residential Parking Spaces. We understand that parking spaces may be
reduced soon only to improve bike safety on a limited number of intersections. We
ask that Administrative Guidelines prescribe a notification and comment period for
reduction of any parking capacity in the residential neighborhoods. The number of
permits to be issued must be reduced in proportion to the loss of parking capacity.
Expectations for January 4. We are hopeful that you can address most of these
issues during Wednesday's community meeting. If you are unable to address the
issues, then lets conclude the meeting with understanding of a follow-up timetable.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District
Pilot Program
Resident Compiled Data Report
1/4/2017
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District
Pilot Program
Residents Response to RPP Stakeholder Meeting
January 4, 2017
1/23/2017
Residents Response to RPP Stakeholder Meeting Jan 4, 2017
I.Starting April 1, 2017, the total number of employee permits authorized must be reduced to 1,135.
This reduction is based on Resolution 9577 passed Feb. 23, 2016, Council directions in Action Minutes
from the Special Meeting on Sept. 6, 2016, and data collected from actual permit sales. The reduction
calculation is detailed below:
!Resolution 9577 states: Following the first year of Phase 2, the City will begin decreasing
annual employee permits by approximately 200 permits per year…. The reduction in permits
will occur in the outermost zones of the Downtown RPP district initially, and affect inner zones
in subsequent years.
!Council’s Action Minutes from Sept 6, 2016 state:
o Direct Staff to return to Council by Jan 15, 2017 with proposals for changes to
implement at the end of Phase 2 that include:
o Elimination of 5 day passes
o Propose quantitative standards to reduce the impact on neighborhoods, to eliminate
spillover and to reduce parking congestion
o Give priority to lower wage employees
o Require registration in the Business Registry Certificate Program and, if legally
permissible, participation in the Downtown TMA
o Return with a draft of overriding RPP goals
o Implement a freeze on the sale of employee permits in Zones 9 and 10 and reduce the
number of available permits in all zones by this amount. Direct Staff to return with
options to allow additional streets to petition to be added as resident only parking in
zones 9 and 10.
!Employees permit sales in Phase 2 totaled 1,335
!The initial estimate of employee permits authorized was set at 2,000 with no real data to
support this number. Now that we have data, it is time to adjust the maximum employee
permit number to reflect actual demand and the mandated annual reduction.
Initial employee permit estimate 2,000
Actual employee permits sold 1,335
DELTA 665
Employee permits allocated for zones 9 & 10 615
Initial allocation – unsold permits – annual reduction = New Max Employee Permits
2,000 -665 -200 = 1135
NOTES:
1. Reducing the total employee permits available next year to 1,135 aligns with both the number
of employee permits sold in year one, the termination of selling employee permits in zones 9
and 10 and the annual reduction as directed by Council.
2. Commercial interests have long requested data on which to base decisions. After 9 months of
RPP, we have clear data on the demand for employee permits.
3. Reducing the number of employee parking permits also supports Council’s goal of reducing the
number of SOV trips to the downtown area.
II. Given the significant clustering problem in parts of zones 1-8, Residents recommend that:
On Feb 6 Council should direct staff to report back to Council not later than August 28, 2017 with a
plan to reduce non-resident permits and 2-hr parking in the zones which have severe street face
clustering (less than 20% vacant space midday) with that plan to be implemented no later than April 1,
2018.
III. Staff must follow through on all of Council’s ACTION MINUTES from the special Meeting on
Sept 6, 2016 as stated in the minutes below:
“Direct Staff to return to Council by Jan 15, 2017 with proposals for changes to implement at the
end of Phase 2 that include:
1. Elimination of 5 day passes
2. Propose quantitative standards to reduce the impact on neighborhoods, to
eliminate spillover and to reduce parking congestion
3. Give priority to lower wage employees
4. Require registration in the Business Registry Certificate Program and, if legally
permissible, participation in the Downtown TMA
5. Return with a draft of overriding RPP goals
6. Implement a freeze on the sale of employee permits in Zones 9 and 10 and reduce
the number of available permits in all zones by this amount. Direct Staff to return
with options to allow additional streets to petition to be added as resident only
parking in zones 9 and 10.”
IV. Residents recommend that Staff return to Council by August 1, 2017 with reports on the
following topics:
1. The impact of paid parking in the downtown core on Residential 2 hour parking
2. Pricing disparities among parking programs
3. Permit formats that allow effective enforcement (i.e. clearly marked dates of validity) and
that are tamper resistant
4. Program cost updates (to be reported to Council every 6 months)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/15/2017 11:42 AM
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Mika Kameda <mikakameda@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2017 12:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Employee parking
Hello,
I am an employee in down town Palo Alto & heard the news that you may be taking our street parking away!
I am here to protest this decision. We are the people who are running the businesses in your beautiful city. Please don't
take away our parking that we pay for!
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/15/2017 11:10 AM
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Mary Shapero <mary_shapero@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2017 6:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Opposed to expanding permits in zone 10
Hello,
I am unable to attend tonight’s city council meeting. I live on Hamilton Ave, in a completely residential area, which is now
part of RPP zone 10. Before the RPP, we had zero commercial parking in our neighborhood. Once the RPP began, my
block was only a few blocks outside the zone so we had commuters begin to park on our streets and bike or walk to work.
We saw an increase in litter and had our parked car hit 3 times in the past year.
We opted in to the RPP after being told that the number of commercial permits would be capped and would decrease over
time. I now understand that the council is considering increasing the number of commercial permits and not phasing them
out of zone 10. As a homeowner and resident, I STRONGLY OPPOSE this.
Thank you,
Mary Shapero
Homeowner and resident in Crescent Park
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/15/2017 11:14 AM
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Lisa Kerr <leasekerr@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2017 7:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking
Dear City Council,
Please do not extend the number of parking permits to non-residence in
the Crescent park area.
We already have to have a parking permit to park in front of our own
house, and when we
have company over they have to park down the block. We are paying
Palo Alto City Taxes,
and feel that we should be able to park in front of our house. When we
found our house
20 years ago we were several blocks away from downtown. A downtown
that had toy stores,
coffee shops, drug stores, restaurants. The city has approved way more
large buildings without
providing requiring enough for extra parking for all the big businesses that
have moved in.
The solution is not to push it out further and further.
Please try to solve the problem by building another parking lot, limiting
the amount of huge office buildings, condos, etc. that have the option to
park longer.
for non-residents.
Thank you kindly,
Lisa Kerr leasekerr@gmail.com
650-326-8112
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/15/2017 11:11 AM
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2017 6:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Reduce Employee Parking in Outlying Areas
Hello City Council Members,
We urge you to not approve issuing employee parking permits in the outlying residential areas. These neighborhoods in Zones 9 and 10 (Crescent Park and blocks near Embarcadero) were never meant to be
commercial parking lots.
What is now being proposed by city staff is in conflict with the City Council's direction last September to freeze
employee parking permits in Zones 9 and 10. Also, the lower level of demand for employee parking during the first two phases of the Downtown RPP shows that employee permits are not warranted.
Thank you,
Mary Dimit, 30-year Palo Alto resident
Guinda and University Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/15/2017 11:13 AM
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2017 6:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Residental Parking Permits
To the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to you again to emphasize the importance of tonight's
presentation by Neilson Buchanan for the City's Residential Parking
Permit regulations. I know you have seen the PDF written by the
lawyers. I am in full support of the reasoning and the documents.
More over other neighborhoods will have a unique need for permit
parking beyond Crescent Park, Downtown North, Downtown South
and Professorville. Such as College Terrace, Evergreen
Park/Mayfield and Newell Bridge. They will each have some
difference but also common issues. Please address each
neighborhood RFPP based on it's individual needs.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
650 493 1373
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:25 AM
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Simon Cintz <simoncintz@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 18, 2017 12:35 PM
To:Scharff, Gregory (internal); DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Wolbach, Cory; Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City
Cc:Mello, Joshuah; Gitelman, Hillary; City Mgr
Subject:Fwd: RPP: Staff Report fails to report ACTUAL number of employee permits available
April 1st
Attachments:RPP Employee Permit Calculations.xlsx
Mayor and City Council -
Mr. Josh Mello has confirmed to me that the ACTUAL number of Downtown RPP EMPLOYEE permits that are proposed to be available for the upcoming RPP sales period is 1,346. It is NOT the 1,800 permits as is prominently identified as "Recommended Max" in Table 1, page 5, of the Staff Report
at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55817
Please see my email below to Mr. Mello. It shows my calculations which determine the actual number to be 1,346. The number 1,800 is only a theoretical maximum which will NOT be available for purchase on April 1,
2017 and is unlikely to ever be available for employees to purchase.
What is especially concerning to me is that the actual number of proposed employee permits to be made available appears NOWHERE in the Staff Report. It can only be inferred by calculation from the other data given in the report. I have recommended that the Staff Report be revised to prominently state the ACTUAL
number of permits that the City proposes to make available to employees for the upcoming RPP period.
I have spoken to both business people and residents who mistakenly believe that the actual number of permits available to employees will be 1,800. This misconception (created by the misleading Staff Report) leads residents to claim that too many permits are being made available to employees because less than 1,800
were actually sold during Phase 2. It also leads businesses to believe that the 10%/year cuts won't be felt for a
number of years. BOTH residents and businesses people are wrong on these points because the actual number
of employee permits available for purchase is 1,346, not 1,800.
Additionally, the Staff Report understates the number of permits actually sold to date. Table 1, Page 5 of
the Staff Report shows "Total Issued" as 1,335. This is the total sold as of Dec 22, 2016 ... more than two
months before RPP permit sales end for the current RPP period.
To date (2/17/2017), approximately 1,450 employee permits have already been sold. This is about 100 permits GREATER than the maximum number of permits that the City proposes to make available for the upcoming RPP period. (See my note* below regarding information I received at the RPP Service window
in City Hall.)
I hope the City Council will reject the proposed 10%/year cuts, for the following reasons: 1. The number of employee permits available is only loosely related to the actual number of employee
cars parked on residential streets. The Staff Report cites a "show rate" of only 32%. (page 4). In other words,
removing 100 permits from purchase by employees will make it impossible for 100 employees/businesses to
obtain parking, but will only remove 32 vehicles from residential streets.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:25 AM
2
2. 20% of the RED overparked blockfaces have ZERO employee RPP permit parkers. In other words,
reducing the number of RPP permits available will have no affect on these overparked blockfaces. Another 20%
of the RED blockfaces have only between 1-25% parking by RPP employee permit holders meaning that these RED blockfaces are minimally impacted by RPP permit parkers.
3. Reducing the availability of employee permits, will only create more "two hour parkers" when
employees who can't get RPP permits start moving their vehicles every two hours causing more
overparking, traffic, and congestion in the Downtown and surrounding residential streets. The City Staff
at the Jan 4th RPP meeting identified "two hour parkers" as a major component of the RED overparked blocks, yet no solution to this major problem is presented in the Staff Report.
4. Lastly, and I hope of great concern to the Council, is the tremendous harm caused to employees and
businesses who cannot get permits because too few have been made available by the 10%/year cuts. When
demand exceeds supply, employees and businesses will suffer WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE. A business that
was able to obtain permits for employees at the beginning of a sales period, may not be able to obtain them later in that same sales period. The Staff Report provides no solution or "safety net" for these employees or business.
This is worse than poor planning, it is simply cruel.
RPP has already reduced the RED block overparking by over 50% in the residential neighborhoods. The
original Downtown RPP Resolution ... approved unanimously by Council, including Council members Holman and Kniss ... did NOT include automatic cuts, instead it stated "After Phase 1, the Director may reduce the
allocation of Employee Parking over time as additional parking and transportation options become available."
Permit reductions should be based on actual alternative resources becoming available, not on a preset 10%/year
formula. See Resolution #9473, page 4, Section 5.C.b.ii.3 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46362.
The same policy was unanimously approved by the Downtown RPP Stakeholder group. See RPP Stakeholder minutes, page 4, item 1d at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/42452
THE BOTTOM LINE: The proposed 10%/year cuts will do little to reduce parking, traffic, and
congestion on Downtown residential streets and will instead cause great harm and unnecessary pain to employees and businesses.
Please remove the automatic 10%/year cuts from the proposed Resolution.
*Note regarding current RPP permit sales count: According to information provided to me at the RPP Service
Window at City Hall ... as of Feb 17, 2017 ... employee permits in ALL 10 Downtown RPP zones are sold out
except for approximately 50 permits remaining available in Zone 9 (the south east segment bordering
Embarcadero). Even zone 10 (east of Guinda) is now sold out. Since the maximum number of permits made
available for sale is 1,515 and there are only about 50 permits left unpurchased, I calculate that there have
been approximately 1,450 permits sold to date. I was informed that there may be a few permits ... in the single
digits ... available in the "sold out" zones, but these few are of little consequence to the issue at hand.
Thank you for your consideration ...
Simon Cintz
Cintz Commercial Properties, LP
P.O. Box 1216
Palo Alto, CA 94302
831-247-2387
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Simon Cintz <simoncintz@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:50 PM
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:25 AM
3
Subject: RPP: Staff Report fails to report ACTUAL number of employee permits available April 1st
To: "Mello, Joshuah" <joshuah.mello@cityofpaloalto.org>
Josh -
I have talked with many Downtown business people who mistakenly believe that based on the RPP Staff
Report, there will 1,800 employee permits actually available for purchase for the 6 month period
beginning April 1, 2017. The staff report fails to mention that the ACTUAL number of employee permits which will be available
is only 1,346. This number does NOT appear anywhere in the Staff Report. The Staff Report only alludes to a
lower number being available in an asterisk footnote at the bottom of the Exhibit B table.
The Staff report should do more than present an extremely important number only by inference from the data presented. The number of of permits which will actually be available to employees needs to be stated
prominently in the report. I hope you will rectify this misleading presentation in a revised report prepared for
the upcoming Council meeting on Downtown RPP.
Below are my calculations based on information in Exhibit B of the report.
Please review this information and let me know if the actual number of permits available to employees is
different from the 1,346 which I have calculated below. If my calculation is incorrect, please provide me with the correct number and how that number is calculated.
Please be aware that the percentage decrease in permits actually available to employees will be 11.16%,
not the 10% stated in the Resolution. I understand the 10% cut is from the original 2000 cap to a new 1,800
cap, BUT ... what matters to employees is how many permits are actually made available to them for purchase.
I have also attached a copy of my Excel spreadsheet (same as the data below) so that you are able to review my
formulas/calculations, if you wish.
RPP Employee Permits ACTUALLY available April 1, 2017 per currently proposed Downtown Resolu
Zone Available 4/1/2017 Held in Reserve Total Max Allowed (theoretical)
1 60 0 60
2 96 0 96
3 202 0 202
4 152 0 152
5 140 0 140
6 90 0 90
7 128 0 128
8 348 0 348
9 25 208 233
10 105 246 351
Total 1346 454 1800
Note: Above figures per Exhibit B in Staff Report 2/13/2017
MAX Available During Phase Two per Resolution #9577 (Exhibit C):
Proposed MAX Available April 1, 2017
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:25 AM
4
Reduction in permits ACTUALLY available
Percent reduction in permits ACTUALLY available
Above calculations assume:
1. Proposed Downtown Resolution is approved as is.
2. No new changes prior to 4/1/2017 in the geography or blockface participation in Downtown RPP residential zones.
Simon Cintz
Cintz Commercial Properties, LP
P.O. Box 1216
Palo Alto, CA 94302
831-247-2387
RPP Employee Permits ACTUALLY available April 1, 2017 per currently proposed Downtown Resolution
Zone Available 4/1/2017 Held in Reserve Total Max Allowed (theoretical)
160 0 60
296 0 96
3 202 0 202
4 152 0 152
5 140 0 140
690 0 90
7 128 0 128
8 348 0 348
9 25 208 233
10 105 246 351
Total 1346 454 1800
Note: Above figures per Exhibit B in Staff Report 2/13/2017
MAX Available During Phase Two per Resolution #9577 (Exhibit C): 1515
Proposed MAX Available April 1, 2017 1346
Reduction in permits ACTUALLY available 169
Percent reduction in permits ACTUALLY available 11.16%
Above calculations assume:
1. Proposed Downtown Resolution is approved as is.
2. No new changes prior to 4/1/2017 in the geography or blockface participation in Downtown RPP residential zones.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:07 AM
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:David Lieberman <lieberman7@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, February 16, 2017 9:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:parking
Once again the city of Palo Alto has it all wrong.
On Monday it will vote to reduce the number of parking permits available to downtown workers by ten percent,
to be followed by yearly reductions of ten percent until no more permits are available. This is an act of municipal suicide.
The continued vitality of the city depends far more on the dishwashers, waiters, retail clerks and, yes, engineers
who work downtown than on the over-entitled residents who bought a house years ago and think that they own
a piece of the street.
A very large percentage of downtown residents are retired and have no need for even one car. Most residents have off-street parking (driveways and garages) that they are simply too lazy to use. Yet all of them get one free
parking permit and can buy up to four more for $50 each.
Here is a much more sensible approach to controlling parking and traffic:
Any household where all residents are over 70 years old will get no permits. (In case anyone is interested, that
would include mine.) In addition every effort should be made to convince them to surrender their drivers licenses for their own and others safety.
Any household with off street parking available will get no permits.
All others can buy one to four permits at the same price as permits sold to downtown workers, currently
$466. The maximum number of four permits will be reduced by one each year until it is zero.
David Lieberman
319 Kingsley Ave
650-281-6430