HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6698
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6698)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/15/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Downtown RPP Phase 2 Update
Title: Acceptance of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)
Program Phase 2 Status Update and Adoption of a Resolution Amending the
Eligibility Area for the Program as Directed by the City Council
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
Accept this status report on the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)
Program; and
Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A), expanding the boundary of the
Downtown RPP Program Phase 2 eligibility area originally established by Resolution
9577 to incorporate streets in the Crescent Park neighborhood identified for inclusion
by the City Council in response to a neighborhood petition.
Executive Summary
Since early 2015, Staff have been acting on the Council’s direction implementing the Downtown
Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program, including development and launch of a new
online permit sales website and sales support, installation of signage in the permit area and
community outreach about the program.
Phase 1 of the Downtown RPP Program began on September 15, 2015, and Phase 2 was
implemented on April 1, 2016. As requested by Council, staff is providing a program update
four months into the Phase 2 pilot period and has prepared a resolution to expand the eligibility
area to include streets that have petitioned for inclusion in an RPP district.
This staff report provides an update on the parking occupancy patterns of the neighborhoods,
permit sales, and enforcement, and the attached resolution would accomplish the annexation
of several streets in Crescent Park per Council direction in February 2016.
Following the City Council’s action, staff will make corresponding changes to the RPP
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Administrative Guidelines. Staff will also schedule a public hearing for another update and for
consideration of a resolution making the program permanent prior to the end of Phase 2 in
March 2017.
Background and Discussion
The attached Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program amends Resolution
9577 to include the following streets in the Downtown RPP district:
500 block of Chaucer Street
1000 and 1100 blocks of Hamilton Avenue
Residents of these three streets submitted a petition to be annexed to the Downtown RPP
Program after the November 2015 deadline for consideration. The petition was reviewed with
all other RPP petitions received as of March 31, 2016 (Attachment B). Following review and
discussion, City Council directed staff to return with a resolution expanding the approved
Eligibility Area for the Downtown RPP Program to include these three street segments for
future inclusion in the program.
The attached Downtown RPP Program Resolution also amends Resolution 9577 to provide for
City Council to consider whether to make the program permanent and any associated
modifications by March 31, 2017, rather than December 31, 2016, because March 31st is the
date that permits issued in Phase 2 of the program will expire.
Resident and Employee Permit Sales
Downtown RPP Program Phase 2 permits were made available through an online permit sales
website as of March 2016, and were required for parking on-street in the Downtown RPP
Program 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
permit 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 employees and residents living and working within the geographic area of the Downtown
RPP Program district (see Attachment C) are eligible to purchase permits.
The following types of permits are available to residents and employees during Phase 2:
Resident Decal: one free of charge and up to three additional at $50/year
Resident Visitor Hangtag: up to two per residence at $50/year
Resident One-day: unlimited at $5 each
Employee Decal: $466/year
Employee Reduced Decal: available to those who qualify based on income at $100/year
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Employee One-day: $5/each
Employee Five-day: $15/each
Employer Transferable Hangtag: $466/year
Figure 1 shows the number of employee and resident permits sold as of the writing of this
report—a total number of 6,185 permits, 4,817 of which were resident permits and 1,368 of
which were employee permits.
Figure 1. Number of RPP Phase 2 Permits Sold (as of July 6, 2016)
Source: Planning Department, Transportation Division, July 2016.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
In Phase 2, employee permits are zone-specific, meaning that employees and employers
purchase a permit for a specific parking zone. The permit limits their parking to that identified
region. The total available employee permits were limited to 2,000 during Phase 2 of the
Downtown RPP program, and were distributed among zones based on total available on-street
parking in each zone, as seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Employee Permits by Zone
Zone Permit Allocation
1 75
2 120
3 225
4 190
5 175
6 100
7 135
8 365
9 25 (245)*
10 55 (370)*
*A portion of permits in this zone will be held in reserve and released as additional streets opt into the Downtown
RPP district.
Source: Planning Department, Transportation Division, February 2016.
Half of the available permits in each zone were prioritized for low-wage workers.
Data on Parking Occupancy and Distribution
Staff has been collecting parking occupancy data within the Downtown neighborhoods and
within the parking assessment district facilities since 2011. Following implementation of the
Downtown RPP Program, staff has conducted on- and off-street parking occupancy counts and
RPP permit-specific distribution counts (parking distribution by employee and resident permits).
Phase 1 of the Downtown RPP Program successfully reduced the overall number of vehicles
parked in the Downtown RPP Program district by approximately 300 to 400 vehicles, a number
determined by calculating the number of vehicles parked at midnight subtracted from the
average number of vehicles parked at noon. While overall parking occupancies decreased,
employees were still parking primarily on the streets nearest to the Downtown core and SOFA.
Phase 2 introduced employee parking zones (Attachment D), which were designed to distribute
employee parking throughout the Downtown RPP Program district more equitably. The total
number of permits available to employees and employers was capped at 2,000, and those
permits were assigned to the individual zones based on the total number of available on-street
parking spaces in each zone.
Attachment E shows parking occupancy data collected in the neighborhoods before and after
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Phase 2 implementation, collected on March 24, May 19, and June 30 respectively. The parking
occupancy data collected in May is roughly one month after enforcement of the new Phase 2
program began, and the June data is approximately two and a half months into enforcement.
Improvements in the streets immediately adjacent to the Downtown core and SOFA areas are
apparent, indicating that the parking in the neighborhoods has settled into the Phase 2
program and vehicles are not clustering on the streets nearest to the Downtown core and SOFA
with as much frequency. Most block faces are at or below 85% occupancy, meaning that there
are one or two parking spaces available on most blocks during most times.
Parking permit data was collected during the midday peak at each of the data collection
sessions. In June 2016, the permit data indicates that of a total vehicle count of over 3,000 in
the Downtown RPP Program district, approximately 13% of vehicles parked displayed a long-
term employee parking permit. Parking distribution for vehicles displaying resident permits,
employee permits, and no permits are contained in Attachment F.
Data collection in the Downtown commercial core, including on-street and off-street
occupancies, was conducted during the same time period. High occupancies were noted
throughout, and additional information will be provided in early 2017 as part of the Downtown
Parking Management Study, which is currently underway. Garage permit sales have continued
to be high through Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP program, and most Downtown garages have
waitlists for permits at present.
Petitions from Eligible Streets
As updated in December 2015, the City-wide RPP Ordinance enables the creation of eligibility
areas adjacent to existing RPP districts. As such, an eligibility area was created through
Resolution 9577, whereby streets within the area are pre-approved by City Council to opt into
the Downtown RPP Program district through an administrative process. This process requires
residents to self-organize and submit a petition including signatures from at least 50% of
households on the block requesting addition to the Downtown RPP Program district. The City
will then mail a survey to all households on the block regarding the program, and at least 70%
of households must reply with a positive response to the mail survey. If the required response
is received, the block will be approved for inclusion into the Downtown RPP Program district,
and signage installation will be scheduled and permit information will be shared with residents.
To date, the following streets have participated in the opt-in process for the Downtown RPP
district:
Table 2. Status of RPP Eligibility Area Opt-In Requests (as of July 2016)
Street Status
500 block of Hale Street Approved; pending signage installation
600 block of Hale Street Not approved; less than 70% approval on mail
survey
800 block of Palo Alto Avenue Approved; pending signage installation
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Source: Planning Department, Transportation Division, July 2016.
Timeline
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 permits expire on March 31,
2017. Staff expects to return to City Council in early 2017 with program information to support
making the program permanent, and will include any recommended modifications required to
support a permanent program.
Resource Impact
The operations of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 are
fully-funded in the FY2017 Operating Budget. Staff will include a discussion of projected on-
going revenues and expenditures under a permanent program in the Action Item to be
scheduled for early 2017.
Policy Implications
The implementation of Phase 2 of the 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: Draft Resolution Amending Downtown RPP Districts Phase 2 (PDF)
Attachment B: Staff Report 6788 New RPP District Implementation (PDF)
Attachment C: Downtown RPP District Map (PDF)
Attachment D: Downtown RPP Employee Parking Zones (PDF)
Attachment E: Parking Occupancy Counts (PDF)
Attachment F: Permit Parking Distributions (PDF)
NOT YET APPROVED
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution
No. 9577 to Expand Eligibility Area of 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 stakeholders’ group 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, 2014 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 2, 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 expired on March 31, 2016.
E. On February 23, 2016, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9577 amending
Resolution No. 9473 to implement Phase 2 of the pilot program. Permits issued for
Phase 2 will expire on March 31, 2017.
F. The Council desires to expand the eligibility area for Phase 2 of the
Downtown Neighborhood preferential parking program pilot established by Resolution
9577. These modifications shall only apply to Phase 2 of the pilot.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES to AMEND
Resolution No. 9577, as follows:
SECTION 1. Duration and Trial Period. The following provisions shall apply to
Phase 2 of the Trial Period for the Downtown RPP District:
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, 2016on or before March 31,
2017.”
1
160722 jb 0131540 Rev. July 25, 2016
NOT YET APPROVED
Eligibility Areas. The areas shown on Exhibit A are eligible for
administrative annexation as provided in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
10.50.085.
SECTION 2. 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 3. 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 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50 and the California Vehicle
Code, when signage is posted.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
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
2
160722 jb 0131540 Rev. July 25, 2016
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
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
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
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
500 block of Chaucer Street
1000 and 1100 blocks of Hamilton 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.
Exhibit A
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6788)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/9/2016
Summary Title: New RPP District Implementation
Title: Direction to Staff Regarding Implementation Priority for the following
New Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Districts: a portion of Crescent
Park, the Edgewood Plaza area, the Southgate and Evergreen Park
Neighborhoods
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council determine implementation priority for new proposed RPP
programs and direct staff to move forward with the outreach and stakeholder process for the
priority program(s).
Executive Summary
Beginning in early 2014, the City has been actively addressing parking and transportation
challenges throughout the City using a strategic, multi-faceted approach focused on parking
management, parking supply, and transportation demand management programs. Parking
management strategies have included the development of a city-wide Residential Preferential
Parking (RPP) ordinance, which was adopted in December 2014, as well as establishment of a
new RPP district in residential areas surrounding Downtown.
The city-wide RPP ordinance includes parameters for neighborhoods to petition and request a
new RPP district, or to request annexation to an existing RPP district. Petitions for new RPP
districts are accepted until March 31st of each year and the City received four petitions this year
from the Southgate neighborhood, the Evergreen Park neighborhood, from several streets
within the Crescent Park neighborhood, and for a street adjacent to Edgewood Plaza. This staff
report discusses the resident-organized petitions for new RPP districts, and requests Council
prioritization. Pursuant to the city-wide RPP ordinance, the Planning and Transportation
Commission is being asked for a recommendation on prioritization on April 27 and minutes of
their meeting will be forwarded when available.
Background and Discussion
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, residents may self-organize and request the formation of an
RPP district in their neighborhood. The process, as outlined in the Ordinance, is as follows:
1. Residents must request a petition from the Planning and Community Environment
Department. The petition includes a narrative portion and a signature form to
demonstrate resident support.
2. The Director of Planning and Community Environment will review all petitions received
by March 31 of that year.
3. Following receipt of the petitions, staff will review and bring the complete petitions to
the Planning and Transportation Commission for prioritization. The Planning and
Transportation Commission will provide feedback and prioritization on April 27, 2016
(Attachment A when available).
4. After prioritization, Staff will initiate work on the priority RPP district(s), and the
assumption has been that limited resources will likely preclude the simultaneous
processing of all requests (hence the need for prioritization). Staff’s work will include
gathering additional information, community outreach, and stakeholder engagement.
This process includes parking occupancy counts and a stakeholder process to develop a
program that meets the needs of all parties as best as possible. At the end of the
stakeholder engagement process, the City Attorney will prepare a draft resolution
containing the parameters of the proposed district(s).
5. Staff will bring the proposed RPP District to the Planning and Transportation
Commission by the end of September of the same calendar year. The PTC will review the
draft resolution and make a recommendation to City Council regarding the RPP district.
6. Following these steps, the City Council will hold a public hearing to review the proposed
resolution, and to adopt, modify, or reject the proposal.
As of March 31, 2016, staff has received petitions for the following neighborhoods:
Crescent Park (Attachment B)
Date submitted: January 2016
Boundary: 1000 and 1100 blocks of Hamilton Avenue, 500 block of Chaucer Street
Background: A petition to add the 500 and 600 blocks of Hale Street, the 1000 and 1100
blocks of Hamilton Avenue, and the 500 block of Chaucer Street to the Downtown RPP
district was received by staff in early January. The blocks of Hamilton Avenue and
Chaucer Street are outside the approved Eligibility Area for the Downtown RPP district,
and the neighborhood was advised that the petitions received would be evaluated as a
request for a new RPP district.
Resident-Requested Program Parameters: Residents have indicated interest in resident
permits only, although the petitions were initially submitted to annex into the existing
Downtown district which does offer employee permit parking. Streets could either
annex into the existing Downtown RPP district, or a small, new district could be formed.
Parking Occupancy Levels: None Submitted
Potential Implications: The formation of a new, resident only RPP district on these few
City of Palo Alto Page 2
streets would result in employee vehicles moving to other adjacent streets such as
those within the existing Crescent Park NOP areas. Outreach would be necessary
beyond the streets initially identified in the petitions. The Downtown RPP district
boundary has been finalized, and would require Council direction and an updated
resolution to modify.
Edgewood Plaza (Attachment C)
Date submitted: October 2015
Boundary: Greer Road/Edgewood Drive to Channing Avenue/West Bayshore Road to St.
Francis Drive/Channing Avenue.
Background: Petition notes parking intrusion from East Palo Alto and from Edgewood
Plaza. Parking congestion is noted daily and on weekends, as well as overnight parking
on the weekdays. Signatures were collected from 13 residents on Edgewood Drive.
Resident-Requested Program Parameters: No specific program was requested. Petition
notes daytime and overnight parking intrusion, and makes a reference to deterring non-
resident parking.
Parking Occupancy Levels: None Submitted
Potential Implications: This is a very small area to consider implementing a permit
program, and would likely need to be looked at as part of an existing program or a larger
area for a focused program. Additional inquiries have been made in this area regarding
overnight parking restrictions.
Southgate (Attachment D)
Date submitted: February 2016
Boundary: Southgate neighborhood, including Churchill Avenue between El Camino Real
and Alma Street, Mariposa Avenue, Manzanita Avenue, Madrono Avenue, Escobita
Avenue, Portola Avenue, and Miramonte Avenue.
Background: Residents submitting the petition note parking overflow primarily on
weekdays from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and during school hours when Palo Alto High School is
in session. The petition notes primary generators of the parking impact are Palo Alto
High School students, employee parking from nearby medical offices, PAUSD offices,
and Stanford employees and students. The designated bike boulevard on Castilleja has
resulted in a high volume of cyclists in the neighborhood that are impacted by the
narrow streets and saturated parking. Residents submitted a petition signed by 169
residents.
Parking Occupancy Levels: Residents submitted occupancy counts to City staff in March
2016 (Attachment E), collating data collected over a time period of November 2015
through March 2016. The occupancy studies indicate high levels of parking on streets in
the northern portion of Southgate, including several streets reportedly in excess of 90%
occupancy at 10 a.m. South of Manzanita, streets are less occupied, ranging from 14 to
83% of total capacity at 10 a.m. The reported occupancies reduce to a maximum of 56%
occupied at 4 p.m., with most streets less than 40% occupied.
Resident-Requested Program Parameters: Specific program parameters were not noted
City of Palo Alto Page 3
in the petition, and would be addressed and proposed based on the community
outreach and stakeholder process. Residents note a daytime parking intrusion.
Potential Implications: Establishment of a resident-only permit parking program in
Southgate would not address the root causes of the parking overspill. An in-depth
community outreach and stakeholder process would be necessary to address the causes
of the parking issue and to establish other options for those who are parking in the
neighborhood. Engineering and enforcement solutions for the neighborhood, including
red curb, passing areas, and timed parking restrictions may be an option to pursue in
lieu of or in addition to a permit program, and should be considered prior to or in
tandem with the implementation of an RPP District
Evergreen Park (Attachment F)
Date submitted: March 2016
Boundary: El Camino Real, Cambridge Avenue, and Park Boulevard
Background: The petition and attached letter requests annexation of the non-
commercial core of Evergreen Park into the existing College Terrace RPP program.
Residents note parking overflow on weekdays, and attribute the parking impacts to
employees of neighboring businesses, employees from nearby office buildings, Caltrain
commuters, and Stanford University affiliates including faculty, staff, students, and
visitors. Residents have also noted safety concerns related to bike routes in the
neighborhood.
ouncilmembers Duois, Filseth, Holman, and Schmid have submitted a olleagues’
Memo recommending that ouncil direct Staff to return with either a “ollege Terrace-
like” RPP with resident-only parking established by amending the College Terrace RPP,
or a new RPP district under the city-wide RPP ordinance, but on an accelerated timeline
with either zero non-resident permits or a small number (for example, ten percent) of
the permits available to merchants and personal services in the California Avenue
Ground Floor Retail District. The colleagues’ memo also requests that staff investigate
allowing merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail
District to share existing and new parking permits among their own employees.
Resident-Requested Program Parameters: Evergreen Park residents have requested to
be annexed into the existing College Terrace resident-only parking permit program.
Parking Occupancy Levels: Residents submitted occupancy counts to City Staff dated
October 2015. The counts indicate parking saturation in excess of 90% of capacity, and
on several blocks more than 100% occupancy, particularly on College Avenue and
Oxford Avenue and adjacent blocks, and along El Camino Real and the adjacent blocks.
Potential Implications: While annexation into an existing program would be a simplified
approach from the planning perspective, a stakeholder process and community
outreach process is recommended to develop a program that provides for residents and
employees and could include permits for on-street parking, as well as parking
management strategies at California Avenue lots and garages to increase supply, or
evaluation of public-private parking partnerships.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Given the nature of the petitions received and the limitations in terms of staff resources to
accomplish more than one new RPP district in this fiscal year, Staff requests Council to review
the petitions and PTC prioritization list, and provide direction regarding which RPP district to
move forward into implementation.
Policy Implications
The implementation of Residential Preferential Parking districts is consistent with
Comprehensive Plan Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby
business districts.
Evaluation and implementation of each program would be conducted as follows:
Crescent Park: Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, staff would conduct a community outreach
and stakeholder process to design a program for the area. If the neighborhood wishes to be
annexed to the adjacent Downtown RPP program rather than establish a new program, further
City Council action would be necessary.
Edgewood Plaza: Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, staff would conduct a community outreach
and stakeholder process to design a program for the area. If the neighborhood wishes to be
annexed to the Downtown RPP program or Crescent Park No Overnight Parking programs
rather than establish a new program, further City Council action would be necessary.
Southgate: Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, staff would conduct a community outreach and
stakeholder process to design a program for the area, ideally starting with a community forum
to solicit feedback and identify stakeholders to participate in the process. At the conclusion of
the stakeholder process, which would include residents as well as the source(s) of parking
intrustions, the City Attorney will draft a resolution for evaluation by City Council to adopt,
modify, or reject the proposed RPP district.
Evergreen Park: If directed by Council to annex Evergreen Park to the existing College Terrace
RPP district outside of the process set forth in the City-wide RPP ordinance, staff would work
with the ity !ttorney’s office to develop a draft resolution proposing a program boundary.
Following adoption of the resolution by City Council, staff would begin field work for signage
and order additional permits for the newly annexed streets. Staff would need to evaluate staff
impacts of handling permit fufillment and enforcement internally as is currently done for the
College Terrace program instead of using contractors (similar to the Downtown RPP district).
Resource Impact
The Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed Capital Improvement Budget includes funding of $300,000 for
the creation of future RPP programs. There is no approved budget at this time for the
operations of any new RPP program. Operating impacts are expected to include equipment
and staff time to manage the program, customer service, office supplies, parking enforcement,
and bank card charges.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
** Assume services provided by COPA and PAPD staff as in College
Terrace RPP
Source: Planning Department, April 2016
Based on the associated costs with implementation of a new RPP district, including signage,
enforcement, permit sales, customer service, and staff time, staff estimates that the requested
Fiscal Year 2017 Capital Improvement Fund budget of $300,000 is sufficient for the start-up of
one new RPP district in the next fiscal year. Pricing of parking permits will be based on the City
ouncil’s direction on the cost recovery level to be applied to these programs.
Timeline
Staff anticipates beginning a community outreach and stakeholder process for the priority RPP
program immediately upon direction by City Council.
Environmental Review
The City Council decision this evening is expected to provide conceptual direction for a new RPP
district in Palo Alto. Specific parameters for the new RPP district would be subject to approval
of a formal resolution at a later date. That resolution would address compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Planning and Transportation Prioritization At Places Document (DOCX)
Attachment B: Crescent Park RPP Petition (PDF)
Attachment C: Edgewood Drive Petition (PDF)
Attachment D: Southgate RPP Petition (PDF)
Attachment E: Resident-Submitted Southgate Parking Study_2015-2016 (PDF)
Attachment F: Evergreen Park RPP Petition (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 7
ATTACHMENT A
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PRIORITIZATION
This document will be presented as an At Places item on May 9, 2016
Staff will be drafting the document based on the April 27th P&TC Meeting
Attachment B -
Attachment C -
Attachment D -
Neighborhood Petition Form
City of Palo Alto
Residential Parking Permit Program Request FormThe purpose of this form is to enable neighborhoods to request the initiation of a ResidentialPreferential Parking Program in accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s adopted Residential ParkingPermit Program Policy and Procedures. This form must be filled out in its entirety and submitted with any request to:
The City of Palo AltoTransportation Department 250 Hamilton Avenue 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: Christine Shambora (main contact) Jim McFall,
Keith Ferrell, Nancy Shepherd
Address: 1565 Castilleja Avenue, 94306
Phone Number: 650 868-7523
Email(optional):christineshambora@gmail.com
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?
Castilleja Ave, Mariposa Avenue, Manzanita Avenue, Madrono Avenue, Escobita Avenue, Portola Avenue and Miramonte Avenue and Churchill between El Camino and Alma.
2. How often does the overflow occur?
Primarily on weekdays from 8am to 4pm; during school hours when Palo Alto High School is in session.
Although not the focus of this application, there are also significant parking impacts in our neighborhood during Palo Alto High School and Stanford University football games whichunderscores the non-residential parking burden the Southgate neighborhood bears and the unusual nature of our situation.
3. Does the impact vary from month to month, or season to season?
The greatest impact is when Palo Alto High School is in session, however we are
beginning to experience Stanford employee and student parking, as well as employees
from nearby medical offices, which occurs at all times during the year.
Southgate RPP Page 1 of 42
SOUTHGATE RPP APPLICATION Page 1
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:
-The primary impact is from Palo Alto High School students using Southgate neighborhood streets for school parking.
-Secondary impact is employee parking from nearby medical offices, as well as from the
PAUSD office, and Stanford employees and students.
-A recent trend that has been observed is commuters parking in the neighborhood and
walking or biking to other transportation links, e.g., CalTrain, SC Valley Transit (on El
Camino).
-These generators and related neighborhood parking problems are exacerbated by the unusually narrow public streets in Southgate. When cars are parked on both sides of the street it reduces travel to a single narrow lane. In such cases, the narrow, single lane
cannot accommodate larger emergency vehicles or even delivery trucks that are now
common to normal residential uses (e.g., UPS, FedEx, etc.) Further, normal
neighborhood construction and service vehicles access, including garbage trucks, is difficult and in many cases impossible. We are losing our ability to make normal
residential use of our neighborhood streets.
4. Please describe how a Residential Parking Permit Program will be able to eliminate or
reduce overflow parking impacting the neighborhood:
An RPP will eliminate the use of Southgate streets for overflow parking of Palo Alto High
School students, employees of local medical offices, PAUSD District employees and Stanford employees and students, as well as the recent trend for commuter parking.
5. Is there neighborhood support for submittal of this Residential Parking Permit
Program application? Have you contacted your HOA/Neighborhood Association?
A neighborhood meeting was held on December 3, 2015, a weekday morning with a strong turnout of 38 neighbors with City Transportation staff in attendance. Notice of the meeting was provided through the neighborhood email list (Southgate Watch) and a meeting notice was posted on Next Door Southgate. Leaflets were also distributed to each residence. In January ten residents on various streets in the Southgate neighborhood carried petitions to solicit signatures for the application. That effort was successfully completed resulting in contact with most residents in Southgate. In a few cases signatures were not obtained due to homes being for sale, under construction or residents away for an extended period. The results: 95% of residents who were contacted signed the petitionand support proceeding with the RPP process. (See attached map, Exhibit 1.)
Southgate RPP Page 2 of 42
SOUTHGATE RPP APPLICATION Page 2
Additional Information:
BACKGROUND Southgate is a neighborhood along Churchill Avenue between Alma and El Camino.In the early 80’s the street linking Southgate to the Evergreen Neighborhood was closed in an effort to reduce cut-through traffic. This reduced the Southgateneighborhood entry roadways to three streets off Churchill and one off El Camino.The three Southgate entryway streets from Churchill (Madrono, Castilleja and Mariposa) are narrow 24 feet wide streets, making it difficult and dangerous for traffic, including the Castilleja public bike boulevard use, when significant numbers of cars are parked on the streets.
BIKE BOULEVARD Castilleja Avenue has also been designated by the city as a public Bike Boulevard that has resulted in a very high volume of cyclists. Due to the saturated parking onCastilleja Avenue, visibility is impaired and that, along with the narrow street width,makes bike and auto movement very hazardous and has created an extreme safetyconcern, particularly for Paly student bikers and pedestrians.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE In the event of an emergency, fire trucks and ambulances have reduced access to neighborhood residences when a large volume of cars are parked on both sides ofthe streets; currently a common occurrence on weekdays.
CITY SERVICES Recently, street sweepers have had difficulty cleaning streets due to the large number of cars parked on the streets. In addition, garbage and recycling trucks have experienced difficulty getting through streets due to the reduced clear traffic lanewidth with the increased parking activity.
COMMERCIAL SERVICES Delivery trucks, again due to the narrow streets, have experienced challenges inaccessing Southgate when high volume parking has occurred. A recent delivery problem, and potential safety hazard, occurred when a FedEx truck could not navigate down Castilleja Avenue, with cars parked opposite each other, and was forced to back up onto Churchill Avenue. A Southgate neighbor, who was behind theFedEx truck, was also forced to back up onto Churchill. There have also been debris box delivery and pickup problems because of the many cars which arrive on weekdays and park curbside.
PROXIMITY TO PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL AND PAUSD DISTRICT OFFICES Due to ongoing construction at the High School and increasing enrollment (projectedto grow to 2400 students from 1950 students (currently) by 2020) the school has lostparking and will continue to be unable, under the current parking configuration, to meet the demand for student parking or student parking for the adult school . The neighborhood has reached out to the High School Administration repeatedly for helpin addressing theses overflow parking issues that impact our neighborhood withoutany response to work toward possible solutions.
The PAUSD District Office parking generally appears to be at or near capacity mostdays of the week. If community wide meetings are held at their offices the need for parking often exceeds supply and Southgate becomes the de facto overflow parkinglot.
Southgate RPP Page 3 of 42
SOUTHGATE RPP APPLICATION Page 3
GROWING PARKING INTRUSION FROM STANFORD Southgate residents have begun to observe a number of people parking in the neighborhood and heading to Stanford. In many cases these people, after parking, remove a bicycle from the trunk of their car and then ride onto the Stanford Campus. El Camino Real is now parked solidly from Stanford Avenue to Palm Drive all day, Monday through Friday, thus creating a spillover of parking into the Southgate neighborhood.
ATTACHED EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1- Southgate map with petition results EXHIBIT 2- Southgate and Comprehensive Plan Policies EXHIBIT 3- Ongoing Parking and Traffic Issues: Resident’s comments EXHIBIT 4- Vlasic letter EXHIBIT 5- Southgate Parking/Safety Impacts-Photos
Southgate RPP Page 4 of 42
SOUTHGATE RPP APPLICATION Page 4
Mariposa
Southgate RPP Page 21 of 42
EXHIBIT 2
Southgate Residential Parking Permit Petition Consistent with and Supports
Implementation of Existing and Draft Proposed Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Goals and Policies
Existing and proposed Comprehensive Plan goals and policies call for protecting,
preserving and enhancing the residential character and qualities of the City’s Single Family Residential Neighborhoods. As this petition demonstrates, heavy daily parking
from non-residential uses, including particularly Paly High students, employees and
visitors and also employees of adjacent non-residential activities, has dramatically
reduced and not “protected, preserved or enhanced” the residential character and
qualities of the Southgate single family neighborhood. Granting this petition will go a long way towards returning our neighborhood to it’s former residential character and implementing the comprehensive plan objectives as set forth, particularly, in the draft
plan. We focus on these plan visions and policies as they are more reflective of the
current challenges facing the city and the more current view of the City decision makers
as to how these should be addressed. (Emphasis added with italics.)
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
Proposed Vision: Palo Alto’s land use decisions shall balance our future growth
needs with the preservation of our neighborhoods, address climate protection priorities and focus on sustainable development near neighborhood services, and enhance the quality of life in our community.
Southgate comment: The current parking situation is not residential neighborhood in
character. As detailed elsewhere in this petition, Southgate has become a Paly parking lot. Our very narrow streets cannot support our own neighborhood use and a public
parking lot use. We have lost part of our property rights pertaining to safety, emergency
access and our own use of our street frontages for street sweeping and garbage
collection that are rights enjoyed in other city neighborhoods not impacted like
Southgate. We pay taxes for things like street sweeping and safe emergency and other access to our property and we are not receiving value equal to our costs.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Proposed Vision: Maintain and promote a sustainable network of safe, accessible and
efficient transportation and parking solutions for all users and modes, while protecting
and enhancing the quality of life in Palo Alto neighborhoods including
alternative and innovative transportation practices and supporting regional transit
facilities and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Southgate comment: The same comment as above, but with emphasis on safety and accessibility.
Southgate RPP Page 26 of 42
Transportation Vision Element Statement (excerpt). Palo Alto . . . Streets will be safe
and attractive, and designed to enhance the quality and aesthetics of Palo Alto
neighborhoods. Emphasis will be placed on alternatives to the automobile, including
walking, bicycling, public transit, and car and van pooling. The adverse impacts of
automobile traffic on the environment in general, and residential streets in particular, will
be reduced. Solutions that reduce the growth in the number of automobiles on City streets, calm or slow traffic, and save energy will be supported.
PROGRAM T-7: Encourage the Palo Alto Unified School District to use parking fees,
regulations, and education to discourage students from driving to school.
POLICY T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment
districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations.
POLICY T-39: To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority of
citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety
over vehicle level-of-service at intersections.
POLICY T-40: Continue to prioritize the safety and comfort of school children in street
modification projects that affect school travel routes. The safety of children traveling to and from school has always been a high priority. Because more parents now regularly drive their children to school, safety concerns from school traffic congestion have
increased.
POLICY T-53: Discourage parking facilities that would intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods
Southgate comment: It is clear that the current Southgate non-residential parking
situation is fully inconsistent with the intent of these transportation objectives/policies. Safety for use of the City designated Castilleja bike boulevard is at high risk. Pedestrian safety is compromised throughout the neighborhood and residents have difficulty safely
exiting their properties in their own vehicles, including bikes. There are many small
children in the neighborhood and their safety is significantly compromised due to the
limited sight distance with cars park continuously along curbs up to and crossing residential driveways. No matter what, the school district must be involved in the
discussions to ensure that they appreciate the concerns and city objectives, as set forth
above, and in the existing bike plan for the city.
Moving ahead with this parking petition will be essential in helping the city work toward achieving the community land use and transportation objectives that have existed for some time in the comprehensive plan and that are currently being articulated more
carefully as we look ahead to the protecting the future character of the community.
Southgate RPP Page 27 of 42
EXHIBIT 3
ONGOING PARKING AND TRAFFIC ISSUES-SOUTHGATE NEIGHBOR’S COMMENTS
Southgate neighbors share some of the current difficulties with the increasing congestion
and traffic:
GENERAL SAFETY
“…Garbage service and emergency access is being impacted and more importantly
general traffic flow is awful with safety to pedestrians, drivers and vehicles all at high risk.
Cars have been scraped and rear view mirrors are now routinely hit. The streets are all
way too narrow to accommodate the current scope of non Residential parking…”
“…having so many non-residential cars in the neighborhood makes for heavier traffic
and decreased safety for kids on bikes and scooters or just playing in their front yards.
“I am concerned about access for first responders. I recently spoke with a Palo Alto Fire
Captain who recalled an emergency medical call several years ago when, arriving in
Southgate, his team could not get to the site of the emergency. They had to stop, due
to congestion on the street, and walk a block to the site on Castilleja.”
Note: drawings are
drawn to scale.
“Two instances in the past 90 days of cars parking too close to a fire hydrant. In once
instance, the hydrant was blocked completely. These incidents occurred on the
southwest corner of Manzanita and Escobita.”
“I worry that public safety vehicles may need to come during the day on a moment's
notice AND could easily find the streets connecting to Churchill unpassable or difficult to
navigate.”
“Students speeding in neighborhood as they try to find parking and opening their car
doors without looking. Students also park on corners which blocks all visibility.”
“Every single day, whether I am walking or driving during the morning and mid afternoon
hours I either experience this myself or see cars having to back up to let others come
into Mariposa or Castilleja. Many times this involves a car having to back up onto
Southgate RPP Page 28 of 42
Churchill to let a car coming out of one of these two streets navigate on to
Churchill. Cars are lined up along the curbs on the first part of each of these streets so
there is no way for cars coming out of the street to pull over making it necessary for cars
coming in to stop traffic on Churchill as they back out. On these two streets there are
also cars that shoot down the street at higher than safe speeds trying to make it to the
end of the street before another car turns onto the street so they don’t have to pull
over. It’s a crazy mess for sure and a dangerous situation to say the least.”
BICYCLE SAFETY
“The car congestion on Castilleja raises similar concerns that it becomes a less-safe bike
boulevard. It is hard to see bikes because so many cars are along the street, you can't
see down the street (Castilleja) until you have almost pulled into it from Manzanita.”
“I had a situation where I tried to turn on Castilleja to be confronted by a oncoming
truck who had no where to go as there were cars on each side. So I reversed back on
Churchill Avenue and into the path of a cyclist.”
“I dread going through the intersection of Miramonte and Castilleja. Twice I have been
startled by racing bicyclists heading towards Churchill and Paly. There is no way to see
them easily as they are blocked by the parked cars on both sides of Castilleja. I have
inched out and inched out and am almost in the center of the intersection before I can
actually see them.”
“In the mornings after 9am Castilleja and Mariposa are now filled bumper to bumper
with cars and there is no where for a car to move out of the way for either a cyclist or an
oncoming car from the opposite direction.”
“I also encounter bikers using the Castilleja Bike Boulevard swerving around cars going
up or down the street. It’s almost impossible for bikes and cars to use the street at the
same time when each side of the street is filled with parked cars. “
Southgate RPP Page 29 of 42
RESTRICTED DRIVEWAY ACCESS
“It is extremely difficult to back out of our driveway with cars parked on either side of
driveway and directly opposite the driveway. Very frustrating as we make an effort to
keep our cars off the street by parking in driveway/garage.”
“Reduced maneuverability backing out of the driveway because cars park across from
driveways on narrow streets.”
“Cars parking so closely behind other cars that residents are virtually pinned into their
parking spots. “
CAR ATTEMPTING TO BACK
OUT OF A DRIVEWAY
STREET CONGESTION
“Streets are already narrow so when cars are parked on either side the streets do not
permit two-way traffic flow which often leads to somewhat dangerous procedures
where one party has to either reverse, find a driveway, etc. so that the other party can
proceed.”
“While trying to exit the neighborhood (from Castilleja & Madrono) onto Churchill, we
have had to reverse back to the Miramonte intersection when encountering cars
entering the neighborhood as there isn't enough room for 2 cars to pass each other and
there is nowhere to pull over. Also have to stop if bicyclist is coming opposite direction
as unsafe to pass while moving.”
“I have seen the Street Sweepers skip our street due to the non-resident parking.”
“We also have staff from Stanford and the Medical offices park on the 1600 Portola
block and use the Paseo pathway to either go to Stanford University or the Bay Area
fertility or Dentist offices on El Camino. “
Southgate RPP Page 30 of 42
_____________________________________________________________________
EXHIBIT 4
Tom & Linda Vlasic
1540 Mariposa Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94306
November 22, 2015 To: City of Palo Alto Transportation Staff,
City Manager and City Council Membersc/o Christine Shambora From: Tom & Linda Vlasic Subject: Comments on Southgate Parking Issues and Problemsfor December 3, 2015 Neighborhood Meeting
Unfortunately we will be out of town at the time of the subject December 3rd meeting. We do, however, want to share the following comments and information for consideration at the meeting and also ask that it be considered by city staff and officials in follow-up to the meeting.
The attached photo exhibits underscore our concerns over vehicle, driver, pedestrian and
bicycle safety in the neighborhood, particularly in the blocks immediately east of Churchill
Avenue. Paly students, staff, general commuter and other non-residential parking is destroying the residential character and, more importantly safety, of our neighborhood. During weekdays the intensity of non-neighborhood parking along the very narrow streets is so great that all street users are at risk and Castellija is no longer a safe bicycle boulevard; many bikers use Mariposa instead. Garbage pick up is jeopardized and emergency vehicle access is impossible. Getting in and out of driveways is extremely hazardous, and parking in front of one’s own property is either not possible or places your car and you at risk of being hit by vehicles. UPS and other deliveries to residents is also seriously impacted. Parking on both sides of the street, now typical during most of the weekday, renders the narrow streets to only one travel lane. Simply put, it is a parking and access mess and certainly an accident waiting to happen.
Last week I called the fire department administrative offices to express concern over emergency access and bicycle boulevard safety. I was promised a check and call back, and the return call never occurred.
For too long, the school district and City have ignored the situation and the neighbors have tolerated it. We cannot now just wait until an accident of some kind occurs. Someone in the
public sector must take responsibility for these narrow public streets that are being used more and more for non-residential purposes, purposes they were clearly not designed or designated for. We ask you to seriously consider the photos herewith, investigate the neighborhood and take actions to remedy the situation. This is a public problem and the City and School District must work together to solve it. The neighborhood is being asked to shoulder the burden for inadequate planning on the part of both the City and School District.
We would be pleased to meet with city staff and officials to further outline our concerns.
Sincerely, Tom and Linda Vlasic (650) 269-15553cc. Superintendent and Board of Trustees, Palo Alto School District
Southgate RPP Page 32 of 42
Conditions Around the Intersection of Castilleja and Manzanita
Normal Weekend Conditions, November 2015
Southgate RPP Page 33 of 42
Conditions Around the Intersection of Castilleja and Manzanita
Normal Weekday Conditions, November 2015
Southgate RPP Page 34 of 42
Conditions Around the Intersection of Castilleja and Manzanita
Normal Weekday Conditions, November 2015
Southgate RPP Page 35 of 42
Conditions Along the 1500 Block of Mariposa Avenue
Normal Weekend Conditions, November 2015
Southgate RPP Page 36 of 42
Conditions Along the 1500 Block of Mariposa Avenue
Normal Weekday Conditions, November 2015
Southgate RPP Page 37 of 42
EXHIBIT 5
SOUTHGATE-PARKING/SAFETY ISSUES PHOTOS
Parked Illegally
October 22, 2015: Escobita Ave October 5, 2015: Manzanita Ave
May 13, 2013: Castilleja Ave May 9, 2013: Escobita Ave
Southgate RPP Page 38 of 42
Page 1 of 5
Parked in wrong direction: both a parking and moving violation as they drive on the wrong side of the
road both when parking and exiting.
Bike Safety
(Nowhere for bikes or cars to go. This is before streets are completely full of cars)
November 4, 2015: Castilleja Ave November 4, 2015: Castilleja Ave
November 4, 2015: Castilleja Ave
Inadequate room for bikes and cars to pass.
Southgate RPP Page 39 of 42
Page 2 of 5
Public Services Interruptions
May 9, 2013: Escobita Ave Feb 8, 2016: Escobita Ave
Garbage trucks cannot access streets Street sweeper cannot clean curbs
October 30, 2014: Escobita Ave
Southgate RPP Page 40 of 42
Page 3 of 5
Parking Impacts
Nov 3, 2015. Castilleja (north) 4:15pm Escobita Driveway
Dec 3, 2015: Escobita (north) 11:30am Dec 3 2015: Escobita (north) 3:15pm
Dec 4, 2015: Manzanita (east)12:40pm Dec 3, 2015: Manzanita (east) 4:10pm
Southgate RPP Page 41 of 42
Page 4 of 5
Dec 4, 2015: Madrono (north) 12:40pm Dec 3, 2015: Madrono (north) 4:10pm
Nov 17, 2015: Escobita (north) 12:15pm Nov 17, 2015: Escobita (north) 3:45pm
Corner of Castilleja and Manzanita Paly parking lot: Oct 2 2015 8:40 am
Numerous spaces available
Southgate RPP Page 42 of 42
Page 5 of 5
Attachment E -
Southgate Parking Occupancy Study
2015-2016
Methodology: Between the months of November 2015 and March 2016, volunteers performed counts of the cars
parked in Southgate. Counts were done at three different times of day to provide a view as
to the cause of the parking congestion in the neighborhood. Counts were done at 10am, 4pm and
7pm on different days of the week, in order to provide a random sample. Counts were then
averaged and compared to the number of spaces available.
In order to calculate the number of available spaces, city staff advised us to use a 20' space
as the basis for calculating the number of spaces on each block.
The following worksheets provide both summary and detailed information on these counts.
The neighborhood occupancy maps show the percentage of spaces occupied at different times
of the day. The summary sheets provide the information in table format.
Observations The area north of Miramonte sees an increase of over 86 cars, on average, at 10 am compared to
4pm, and an increase of over 95 cars when compared to 7pm. The increase is due to
non-residential parking occurring during the day.
There are nearly three times as many cars parked north of Miramonte at 10am (129.6 cars)
as there are at 4pm (43.3), a 199.4% increase.
There are nearly four times as many cars parked north of Miramonte at 10am(129.6 cars)
as there are at 7pm (34.4), a 281% increase.
Of the blocks north of Miramonte (closest to Churchill), all but two have over 68% of their parking
full at 10 am. 9 of those blocks have over 75% of their parking full at 10am.
At 7pm, only one of the blocks north of Miramonte is over 60% occupied, 200 block of Manzanita.
This is due to a large number of multi-dwelling units on that block.
Summary of Southgate Parking Occupancy
# of Spaces
10:00 AM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM Available 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM
12.0 2.0 3.0 13 92% 15% 23%
7.3 0.8 0.5 6 121% 13% 8%
200 Manzanita 6.8 5.5 6.3 10 68% 55% 63%
0-29 Churchill 12.8 4.8 1.3 14 91% 34% 9%
30-59 Churchill 7.3 3.3 3.5 6 121% 54% 58%
60--95 Churchill 4.5 2.0 2.0 5 90% 40% 40%
8.0 2.0 2 7 114% 29% 25%
23.3 5.0 3.3 28 83% 18% 12%
1500 Escobita 20.8 2.3 3.5 26 80% 9% 13%
1500 Mariposa 28.8 11.0 6.5 42 68% 26% 15%
1500 Portola 5.3 4.0 5.5 17 31% 24% 32%
1500 El Camino 10.7 5.3 1.3 9 119% 58% 14%
10.5 5.3 4.0 14 75% 38% 29%
7.0 5.5 3.8 21 33% 26% 18%
Average number of cars @ Percent Occupied
Block
North of Miramonte
Manzanita (Mad. to Esco)
Manzanita (Esco to Cast.)
1500 - 1521 Castilleja
1527 - 1599 Castilleja
1500 - 1515 Madrono
1520 - 1599 Madrono
Miramonte and South
1600 Castilleja 8.8 6.3 8.8 40 22% 16% 22%
1600 Escobita 13.8 8.8 5.5 24 57% 36% 23%
1600 Mariposa 7.5 5.8 4.8 44 17% 13% 11%
1600 Portola 8.5 8.3 8.0 18 47% 46% 44%
1600 Madrono 5.0 5.8 3.5 21 24% 27% 17%
1600 El Camino 6.0 2.3 0.5 10 60% 23% 5%
200 Sequoia 3.8 5.0 5.5 13 29% 38% 42%
300 Sequoia 1.5 3.5 3.0 11 14% 32% 27%
400 Sequoia 2.5 2.5 2.5 14 18% 18% 18%
100 Miramonte 3.3 2.8 3.3 10 33% 28% 33%
200 Miramonte 3.3 3.5 1.0 12 27% 29% 8%
300 Miramonte 4.3 5.0 5.3 9 47% 56% 58%
400 Miramonte 5.3 3.8 3.0 13 40% 29% 23%
500 Miramonte 4.8 4.3 3.0 13 37% 33% 23%
Notes:
1) Counts were done on 4 different occassions at each time period.
2) Spaces available based on 20' spaces per advice of city staff.
Daily Parking Counts
Day Friday Friday Wednesday Thursday Friday Wednesday Thursday Tuesday Tuesday Monday Thurs Mon
Date 11/20/2015 12/11/2015 2/17/2016 2/18/2016 12/11/2015 2/17/2016 2/18/2016 3/7/2016 3/1/2016 3/6/2016 2/18/2016 2/29/2016
Time 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM
North of Miramonte
Mariposa 29 27 28 31 10 13 10 11 7 7 6 6
Castilleja 37 28 31 29 11 7 6 4 4 4 6 6
Escobita 21 22 22 18 2 3 1 3 4 4 3 3
Madrono 18 12 20 20 7 11 12 13 3 3 5 4
Portola 6 8 2 5 3 2 7 4 5 5 6 6
Manzanita 25 23 28 28 5 9 11 8 10 10 9 10
Total 136 120 131 131 38 45 47 43 33 33 35 35
Miramonte and South
Miramonte 14 18 26 25 13 25 21 18 15 15 15 17
Mariposa 10 6 6 8 5 7 7 4 5 5 4 5
Castilleja 10 7 6 12 7 9 6 3 9 9 8 9
Escobita 11 16 14 14 13 7 8 7 6 6 5 5
Madrono 6 3 6 5 9 4 4 6 3 3 4 4
Portola 6 6 10 12 7 9 10 7 9 9 7 7
Sequoia 2 12 9 8 9 10 13 12 11 11 10 12
Total 59 68 77 84 63 71 69 57 58 58 53 59
Exterior Block
Churchill 20 22 28 28 8 12 14 6 7 7 6 7
El Camino Real 15 15 20 0 12 9 1 8 1 1 1 4
Total 35 37 48 28 20 21 15 14 8 8 7 11
Grand Total 230 225 256 243 121 137 131 114 99 99 95 105
Note: 2/18 10am count of El Camino Real not factored in to average. No Parking on Thursdays due to garbage pick up.
Parking Comparison by Time of Day
Avg # of Cars by Time Increase/(Decrease) in # of cars Percent increase/(decrease) in avg. # of cars % of spaces full
10 00 AM 4 00 PM 7 00 PM 10am vs 4pm 10am vs 7 pm 4pm vs 7 pm 10am vs 4pm 10am vs 7 pm 4pm vs 7 pm # of 20' spaces 10 00 AM 4 00 PM 7 00 PM
# of counts 4 4 4
North of Miramonte
Mariposa 28 8 11 0 6.5 17.8 22.3 4.5 161.36% 342.31% 69.23% 42 68 5% 26 2% 15 5%
Castilleja 31 3 7 0 5 0 24.3 26.3 2.0 346.43% 525.00% 40.00% 35 89 3% 20 0% 14 3%
Escobita 20 8 2 3 3 5 18.5 17.3 (1.3) 822.22% 492.86% -35.71% 26 79 8% 8.7% 13 5%
Madrono 17 5 10 8 3 8 6.8 13.8 7.0 62.79% 366.67% 186.67% 35 50 0% 30.7% 10.7%
Portola 5 3 4 0 5 5 1.3 (0.3) (1.5) 31.25% -4.55% -27.27% 17 30 9% 23 5% 32.4%
Manzanita 26 0 8 3 9 8 17.8 16.3 (1.5) 215.15% 166.67% -15.38% 29 89.7% 28.4% 33 6%
Total 129.5 43.3 34.0 Total 86.3 95.5 9.3 Total 199.42% 280.88% 27.21% 184 70.4% 23.5% 18.5%
Miramonte and South
Miramonte 20 8 19 3 15 5 1.5 5.3 3.8 7.79% 33.87% 24.19% 57 36.4% 33 8% 27 2%
Mariposa 7 5 5 8 4 8 1.8 2.8 1.0 30.43% 57.89% 21.05% 39 19 2% 14.7% 12 2%
Castilleja 8 8 6 3 8 8 2.5 0.0 (2.5) 40.00% 0.00% -28.57% 40 21 9% 15 6% 21 9%
Escobita 13 8 8 8 5.5 5.0 8.3 3.3 57.14% 150.00% 59.09% 24 57 3% 36 5% 22 9%
Madrono 5 0 5 8 3 5 (0.8) 1.5 2.3 -13.04% 42.86% 64.29% 21 23 8% 27.4% 16.7%
Portola 8 5 8 3 8 0 0.3 0.5 0.3 3.03% 6.25% 3.13% 18 47 2% 45 8% 44.4%
Sequoia 7 8 11 0 11 0 (3.3) (3.3) 0.0 -29.55% -29.55% 0.00% 43 18 0% 25 6% 25 6%
Total 72.0 65.0 57.0 Total 7.0 15.0 8.0 Total 10.77% 26.32% 14.04% 242 29.8% 26.9% 23.6%
Exterior Blocks
Churchill 24 5 10 0 6.8 14.5 17.8 3.3 145.00% 262.96% 48.15% 25 98 0% 40 0% 27 0%
El Camino Real 16.7 7 5 1 8 9.2 14.9 5.8 122.22% 852.38% 328.57% 19 87.7% 39 5% 9 2%
Total 41.2 17.5 8.5 Total 23.7 32.7 9.0 Total 135.24% 384.31% 105.88% 44 93.6% 39.8% 19.3%
Grand Total 242.7 125.8 99.5 Grand Total 116.9 143.2 26.3 Grand Total 92.98% 143.89% 26.38% 470 51.6% 26.8% 21.2%
March 7, 2016
Page 2
Members’ conclusion in the Memo that the City Council should take the “quickest, most
efficient way to achieve success” in alleviating the parking problems in the Evergreen
Park non-commercial core. The best way to do this is to annex Evergreen Park’s
residential streets into the College Terrace RPP district.
Evergreen Park meets all the criteria for being designated a RPP district.
The Municipal Code allows the City to designate a RPP district if non-resident vehicles
substantially interfere with the use of street parking by residents; if that interference is
regular; if the interference creates traffic, noise, parking shortages, or other disruptions; and if other parking strategies are not feasible or practical. Municipal Code § 10.50.030. As documented in the EPPP Committee’s parking occupancy surveys and neighbors’ photographs attached to the Neighborhood Petition Form, by mid-morning every
weekday, Evergreen Park’s streets are packed bumper-to-bumper with cars, nearly all of
which are from outside of the neighborhood. This high parking saturation leaves
neighborhood residents unable to park near their homes, prevents them from putting out
their trash and recycling bins, impedes street sweeping, and creates traffic and safety
problems. No other parking options exist for neighborhood residents. Parking conditions
have been like this for years, and neighbors have documented that the situation continues
to worsen, especially as more and more office space is developed in the area.
The fastest, simplest, most efficient, and most cost-effective way to remedy
these adverse impacts of non-resident parking in the Evergreen Park non-commercial
core is for the City to annex the Evergreen Park residential streets, as described in the
Neighborhood Petition Form, into the College Terrace RPP district. The Municipal Code
expressly provides that a street’s residents “may petition the [planning] director for
annexation into a contiguous RPP district.” Municipal Code § 10.50.080. This provision
allows small areas to be joined to existing RPP districts, thereby saving the City from
creating whole new programs for areas adjacent to established RPP districts. Evergreen
Park is a perfect example of where annexation to an existing district makes the most sense.
Annexing Evergreen Park’s residential streets into the College Terrace RPP
district is far more reasonable than going through the extensive procedures for
designating a new RPP, as outlined in Municipal Code section 10.50.050. The Evergreen
Park non-commercial core is small—just three blocks by five blocks—and it would be a
waste of the City’s resources to devote dozens of hours of staff time over a year or more
to study and develop a separate RPP program just for this small neighborhood, when
another viable option exists. Parking occupancy studies have already established that
there are severe parking shortages in the neighborhood. And the parking-related
problems in Evergreen Park are nearly identical to those suffered by College Terrace
March 7, 2016
Page 3
before its RPP went into effect. Indeed, the City recognized the likelihood that Evergreen
Park would suffer similar parking issues as College Terrace in the 2000 Stanford
University General Use Permit, which recommended that parking in Evergreen Park be
studied. See Excerpt from Stanford University General Use Permit, at p. 19-20 (attached
as Exhibit 2). Because the City has already developed and implemented the College
Terrace RPP program—and knows that the program works—it should not reinvent the
wheel for Evergreen Park. Instead, the City should expand the successful College
Terrace RPP district to include Evergreen Park and provide these near neighbors with the
same kind of parking relief.
Annexing the Evergreen Park non-commercial core into the College
Terrace RPP district is—as was recognized in the Colleagues’ Memo—“the simplest, least costly, and most expeditious solution” to Evergreen Park’s burgeoning parking
problem. The parking situation in residential Evergreen Park is critical, and this is the
best option to quickly alleviate the problem. However, regardless of the path the City
takes forward, the EPPP Committee emphasizes that it is essential that any RPP instituted
in residential Evergreen Park allows permits only for residents, lest the program risk
conflicting with state law’s requirement that residents’ parking needs take precedence
over businesses’ parking demands in RPPs. See Veh. Code § 22507. Residents-only is
the system that has worked so well in adjacent College Terrace, and that is the system
that will work for Evergreen Park.
On behalf of the EPPP Committee, thank you for your attention to this
matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would like to
discuss further.
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Laura D. Beaton
761293 2
EXHIBIT
1
City of Palo Alto
COLLEAGUES MEMO
DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2016
SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES MEMO FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS DUBOIS, FILSETH
HOLMAN, AND SCHMID REGARDING CREATION OF AN EVERGREEN PARK
RESIDENTAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM
Goal:
Provide immediate parking relief to the non-commercial area of Evergreen Park.
Background and Discussion:
Serious parking problems have been acknowledged in Evergreen Park for 16 years. In the 2000
Stanford General Use Permit, Stanford committed $100,000 for parking impacts starting with
College Terrace but also considering impacts on Evergreen Park and Southgate. At that time, it
was acknowledged that Evergreen Park may need to be annexed into the Parking Permit
program for the same reason that the College Terrace program was started – impacts from
Stanford University and California Avenue. In July 2007 a Colleagues memo directed staff to use
the $100,000 to initiate an assessment of a permit program in College Terrace. In December
2009, the College Terrace Permit Parking ordinance was approved and started in January 2010.
The program has significantly reduced parking problems.
The City has no system to measure commercial parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods
so residential leaders have conducted a series of parking surveys over more than 2 years
documenting the problem and have provided data to City council and staff. Survey data for 2015
shows that the parking saturation rate on Evergreen Park residential streets is consistently over
70% on weekdays.
Major new construction projects such as 2865 Park Blvd, 2650 Birch Street, 2100 El Camino, 1501
California Ave, and 385 Sherman will be coming on line soon and potentially will add increased
demand and exacerbate the already existing parking problem. In the summer of 2015 concerned
residents gathered over 225 signatures (from 300 units surveyed) in Evergreen Park requesting
an RPP for Evergreen Park identical to the College Terrace program, selling permits only to
residents.
Evergreen Park non-commercial residential area is small, just 5 blocks by 3 blocks. Evergreen Park
is contiguous to College Terrace and has a community of interest with College Terrace because
commuter parking comes from many of the same sources. Yet unlike College Terrace, Evergreen
Park has not been granted relief from commuter parking, which now floods the neighborhood.
January 31, 2016 Page 2 of 3
Annexing Evergreen Park to the existing College Terrace RPP is the simplest, least costly, and
most expeditious solution since the College Terrace RPP has been in place for over 5 years and
efficient procedures and policies have already been established that could easily expand to
Evergreen Park.
This Council has also taken steps to support and strengthen the position of the California Avenue
merchants, and we do not want to jeopardize their ability to survive and thrive in that protective
environment. Currently, a merchant cannot share permits among its employees, thus putting
more strain on limited parking supply and adding cost to merchants who must otherwise
purchase additional permits.
Given the small area of consideration and the proximity to CalTrain and El Camino Real bus lines,
this also seems an appropriate area to test the efficacy of Palo !lto’s TDM program, and
assumptions of potential results before incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan. A number of
projects have been approved in the area with TDM programs but coincident with those buildings
being occupied the parking situation in Evergreen Park has been exacerbated.
This proposal intends to find the quickest, most efficient way to achieve success by addressing
ways to remove a large majority of commuter cars from the neighborhood.
Recommendation:
We recommend that Council direct Staff to return to Council after community outreach and not
later than the end of May with a proposal for providing the most expeditious relief to Evergreen
Park through a resident parking program which restores and enhances the quality of life in
residential neighborhoods by drastically reducing the impact of parking associated with nearby
businesses and institutional uses. Two potential actions could be:
1. Create a College Terrace-like RPP with resident only parking, either under the new RPP
ordinance or by amending the College Terrace RPP to annex the non-commercial core of Evergreen
Park, bounded by El Camino Real, Park Blvd and College Avenue.
Concurrent with adoption of the RPPP, allow merchants and personal services in the California
Avenue Ground Floor Retail District to share existing and new parking permits valid within the
commercial district among their own employees. Staff should recommend what type of parking
can be modified most easily in the commercial district to enable permit sharing by these users –
parking lots, garages, street parking or some combination.
2. Create an RPP initiated by Council under Section 10.50.040 on an accelerated timeline for
the same non-commercial core area of Evergreen Park. The RPP should provide either zero non-
resident permits or a small number (for example, ten percent) available to merchants and personal
services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District. Employees of these businesses
should be enabled to share such parking permits among their own employees, tracked by
January 31, 2016 Page 3 of 3
employer. (This is as opposed to the proposed unlimited daily permits in the Downtown RPPP
area). Non-resident permits in this area should decrease over time, potentially replaced by retail
employee permits in the California Ave commercial area (South of College Ave). Concurrent with
adoption of the RPPP, allow merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground
Floor Retail District to share existing and new parking permits valid within the commercial
district among their own employees.
Furthermore, the City should ensure that:
1. Signage Poles required for the implementation of the program be installed
expeditiously.
2. Merchants and offices in the California Avenue Business District and along El Camino
Real are notified of pending changes.
3. Ideally, if annexed into the College Terrace RPP complete the creation of the RPP in
time to allow Evergreen Park residents to enroll during the next scheduled yearly
College Terrace renewal period which occurs 8/1/16 TO 8/31/16. In any case, treat
this issue with urgency to implement a solution for the neighborhood.
Acknowledging the critical timeliness of this proposal, we request that the City Manager's
Comments include short updates on this project.
Staff Impact:
The City Manager and Director of Planning have reviewed this Memorandum and have the
following comments:
EXHIBIT
2
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 !lto’s adopted Residential Parking Permit Program Policy and Procedures. This form
must be filled out in its entirety and submitted with any request to:
The City of Palo Alto
Transportation Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
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: Paul L. Machado for the Evergreen Park Parking Permit Committee
Address: 363 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Phone Number: 650-323-8554
Email: plmachado@gmail.com
!s explained in our attorneys’ letter, submitted with this form, we request that the Evergreen Park Non-
Commercial Core be annexed to the existing successful College Terrace Residential Parking Permit
(“RPP”) district. The Evergreen Park Non-Commercial Core is adjacent to the College Terrace RPP
district: it is directly across El Camino Real. Palo Alto Municipal Code section 10.50.080 provides that
areas may be annexed to contiguous RPP districts, and this is the most expeditious, efficient, and cost-
effective way to reduce the parking problems in our neighborhood.
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?
1) The residential Evergreen Park neighborhood experiences overflow parking on the streets
generally bounded by El Camino Real, Park Boulevard, and Cambridge Avenue (the
“Evergreen Park Non-Commercial Core”). The streets affected by overflow parking are:
a) Park Boulevard from El Camino Real to Cambridge Avenue
b) Birch Street from Park Boulevard to College Avenue
c) The north half of Birch Street between College Avenue and Cambridge Avenue
d) Ash Street from Park Avenue to College Avenue
e) Park Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard, including the two parking spaces in
front of 120 Park Avenue
f) Leland Avenue from the barrier east of El Camino Real to Park Boulevard
g) Stanford Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard
h) Oxford Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard
i) College Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard
2) The parking overflow occurs every weekday, which has been documented by Parking
Saturation Surveys conducted periodically since 2014. The saturation rate in the Evergreen
Park Non-Commercial Core has continually increased since then, and our residential area
has been more than 70% parked by midday on weekdays, as noted in the February 10, 2016,
City of Palo Alto Colleagues Memo on this topic. The results of the Parking Saturation
Surveys are included in the Evergreen Park Residential Parking Permit Proposal Presentation
(Nov. 4, 2015), attached hereto as Exhibit A. Photographs of the neighborhood streets early
and the morning and during the day are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
3) The parking saturation on weekdays is consistent year-round.
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:
Parking impacts in the Evergreen Park Non-Commercial Core come from the following sources. Many of
the drivers park in the neighborhood to avoid paying for parking elsewhere.
1) Employees of customer-serving businesses near the neighborhood, which do not have
adequate parking for both employees and customers. The employers instruct employees to
park in the residential neighborhood to leave business parking lot spaces open for
customers.
2) Employees from office buildings near the neighborhood. The area surrounding the
neighborhood is experiencing an increased number of office workers, including
development of new office buildings with inadequate parking and use of spaces for offices
that were previously not used for offices.
3) CalTrain commuters, who park in the neighborhood instead of paying to park in the CalTrain
station lot.
4) Individuals going to airport, who leave their cars for extended periods instead of paying to
park at the airport.
5) Stanford University faculty, staff, students, and visitors, who park in the neighborhood to
avoid paying for Stanford’s on-campus parking.
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:
Including Evergreen Park in the College Terrace RPP district would limit non-resident parking to two
hours. This would virtually eliminate the parking impact from CalTrain commuters, airport travelers,
Stanford University, and nearby business and office employees. Removing these all-day—and
sometimes multi-day—parkers from the neighborhood’s limited parking would allow for neighborhood
residents to park in their own neighborhood, near their homes. This will increase our safety, security,
and freedom of movement (especially for the disabled and seniors), and improve our quality of life. It
would also enhance bike safety as we have multiple bike boulevards through the neighborhood.
The boundaries of the Evergreen Park zone of the College Terrace RPPP district should be El Camino
Real, Cambridge Avenue, and Park Boulevard.
5. Is there neighborhood support for submittal of this Residential Parking Permit Program application?
Have you contacted your HOA/Neighborhood Association?
Neighborhood representatives have been working to be annexed to the existing College Terrace RPP
Program for many months. We have the support of the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association and
strong support among neighborhood residents. In 2015, over 225 residents of Evergreen Park signed a
petition requesting that a Residential Parking Permit Program be established. The signed petition is
attached hereto as Exhibit C. Our proposal, as well as the petition, for the Evergreen Park RPP was
submitted to the City Council on Feb 1, 2016.
761279.2
EXHIBIT
A
EXHIBIT
B
EXHIBIT
C
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Everett Ave
Fu
l
t
o
n
S
t
Gu
i
n
d
a
S
t
Gu
i
n
d
a
S
t
Se
n
e
c
a
S
t
Ha
l
e
S
t
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
By
r
o
n
S
t
By
r
o
n
S
t
Wa
v
e
r
l
e
y
S
t
Wa
v
e
r
l
y
S
t
Ta
s
s
o
S
t
Ta
s
s
o
St
Fl
o
r
e
n
c
e
By
r
o
n
S
t
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
Co
w
p
e
r
S
t
Co
w
p
e
r
S
t
Br
y
a
n
t
S
t
Ra
m
o
n
a
S
t
Em
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Hi
g
h
S
t
Fu
l
t
o
n
S
t
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
Br
y
a
n
t
S
t
Br
y
a
n
t
S
t
Ra
m
o
n
a
S
t
Em
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Hi
g
h
S
t
Ki
p
l
i
n
g
Ki
p
l
i
n
g
Hawthorne Ave
Ruthven Ave
Poe St
Hamilton Ave
Forest Ave Forest Ave
Homer Ave
Channing Ave
Addison Ave
Lincoln Ave
Kingsley Ave
Melville AveMelville Ave
Kellogg AveKellogg Ave
Churchill Ave
Coleridge Ave
B o y c e A v e
A d dis o n A v e
Lin c oln A v e
Fife A
v
e
F
ore
st A
v
e
C
h
a
n
nin
g A
v
e
P
arkin
s
o
n A
v
e
H
o
p
kin
s
A
v
e
M elville A v e
H arriet St
P a l o A l t o A v e
Alma St
Alma St
Embarcadero Rd
El Camino Real
Downtown RPP District
N
SOFA
DOWNTOWN
COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT
Downtown RPP District
Approved Eligibility Area
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Everett Ave
Fu
l
t
o
n
S
t
Gu
i
n
d
a
S
t
Gu
i
n
d
a
S
t
Se
n
e
c
a
S
t
Ha
l
e
S
t
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
By
r
o
n
S
t
By
r
o
n
S
t
Wa
v
e
r
l
e
y
S
t
Wa
v
e
r
l
y
S
t
Ta
s
s
o
S
t
Ta
s
s
o
St
Fl
o
r
e
n
c
e
By
r
o
n
S
t
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
Co
w
p
e
r
S
t
Co
w
p
e
r
S
t
Br
y
a
n
t
S
t
Ra
m
o
n
a
S
t
Em
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Hi
g
h
S
t
Fu
l
t
o
n
S
t
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
Br
y
a
n
t
S
t
Br
y
a
n
t
S
t
Ra
m
o
n
a
S
t
Em
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Hi
g
h
S
t
Ki
p
l
i
n
g
Ki
p
l
i
n
g
Hawthorne Ave
Ruthven Ave
Poe St
Hamilton Ave
Forest Ave Forest Ave
Homer Ave
Channing Ave
Addison Ave
Lincoln Ave
Kingsley Ave
Melville AveMelville Ave
Kellogg AveKellogg Ave
Churchill Ave
Coleridge Ave
B o y c e A v e
A d dis o n A v e
Lin c oln A v e
Fife A
v
e
F
ore
st A
v
e
C
h
a
n
nin
g A
v
e
P
arkin
s
o
n A
v
e
H
o
p
kin
s
A
v
e
M elville A v e
H arriet St
P a l o A l t o A v e
Alma St
Alma St
Embarcadero Rd
El Camino Real
Downtown RPP District
N
SOFA
DOWNTOWN
COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT
Downtown RPP District
Approved Eligibility Area
9
10
8
7
6
5
41
2
3
Downtown RPP Parking Occupancy
Collection Date: March 24, 2016
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
8 AM ‐ 10 AM
85% 67% 76%
80% 30%
24
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
25% 67% 85% 28% 83% 93% 94%
82
%
89
%
63
%
22
%
4%
29
%
64%
67
%
75
%
75
%
50
%
25
%
29
%
Emerson St Emerson
71
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
12
0
%
10
0
%
29
%
63
%
64
%
75
%
70
%
53
%
44
%
14
%
86
%
84
%
90
%
33
%
63
%
92
%
10
7
%
95
%
83% 100%
15
%
25% 36%
63
%
60
%
83
%
44
%
10
0
%
50
%
57
%
83
%0%29
%
86
%
84
%
53
%
42
%
69%
0%0%
75% 50%70%
Kipling
36%
73
%
10
0
%
50
%
0%
53%
Kipling St
6% 82% 85%
33
%
44
%
67
%
17
%
25
%
52
%
38
%
22
%0%0%
0%
0%
60% 56%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
25%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
33%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
33
%
14
%0%14
%
33
%
67
%
10
0
%
88
%
64
%
0% 0%
20% 19% 0%
Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda
4%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
50%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
e
70%
62%38%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
53%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
15% 36% 55% 21%
11%63% 38%0%
3/24/2016
0% 71% 0% 31% 40% 8% 29% 33%
0%
0%
0%0%0%0%
43
%0%
57
%
67
%
50
%
44
%
80
%
90
%
72
%
92
%
50
%
29
%0%0%0%
10
0
%
75
%
0%
50
%0%0%0%
0%40% 13% 0%
5%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
A
10
0
%
60
%
67% 0%
17% 0%
Fulton
38% 0% 50% 45%0%
Fulton St
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
31%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
Byron St Byron
18
%
12% 27% 69% 100%0%
44
%
46% 14% 47% 108%0% 0% 0% 52%
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
38%
45
%
65
%
10
0
%
80
%
69
%
63
%
40
%
0%0%0%0%0%38
%
50%
14
%
22
%0%14
%
43
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
21%
Webster St Webster Webster Webster
21% 47% 60% 80%#REF!79% 64% 69% 69%
19%
31% 69% 22% 75%
0%29
%
0%25
%
22
%
61
%
50
%
78
%
35
%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
0% 50%54%0%
0% 0%
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
0%100%21%
39
%
53
%
90
%
55
%
50
%
77
%
75
%
11
7
%
82
%
29
%
33% 6%100%62%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
58% 50%
18%
Tasso St Tasso
0% 31%100%0% 17%
64% 20% 83% 77% 50% 42% 35% 76% 60%0% 0% 0%
0%33
%
29
%
38
%
67
%
91
%0%0%22
%
0%0%0%0%
0%
##
#
#
#
22
%
50%
8%
Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper
Ru
t
h
v
e
n
Av
29% 25% 36% 86% 83% 64% 46% 82% 64% 79% 41% 0% 0% 0%
25
%
67
%0%
33% 38% 115% 80% 115% 77% 62% 43% 33% 31%
12
0
%
93
%
63
%
67
%
75
%
33
%
50
%
24
%0%
18% 0%
Waverley St Waverley Waverley0%
12
%
41% 25% 56% 109% 40% 76% 50% 140% 60% 25% 19% 53% 0% 33%
29
%
53
%
56
%
88
%
77
%
25
%
33
%
33
%
14
%
50
%
85
%
0%6%Pa
l
o
Al
t
o
Av
0%
Po
e
St
54
%
13
%
58
%
43% 45%
13%
56
%
55
%
89
%
78
%
22
%
20% 55% 50% 38% 100% 60% 90%81% 69% 44% 0% 58%
Bryant St Bryant
41%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
50%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
90%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
73%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
75%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
125%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Av
73%
Ho
m
e
r
Av
87%
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
Av
71% 63% 0%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
25%
22
%
50
%
60
%
75
%
20
%
33
%
29
%
64
%
75
%
33
%
43
%
60
%
60
%
33% 92% 14% 88% 80%79% 50% 0%
Ramona St Ramona50% 81% 6% 100% 53% 93% 73% 92%
89
%
50
%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
47%
80
%
44% 62% 92% 29% 88% 86% 86% 100% 6% 89% 31%
Lin
c
o
l
n
73%
89
%
50
%
22
%
29
%
25
%
27
%
44
%
86
%
36%Legend
31
%
62
%
75
%
43
%
38
%
60
%
75
%
0%40
%
50
%
63
%
90
%
10
0
%
83
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
75
%
13
%
25
%
16
0
%
63
%
0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy
87% 77% 8% 60% 92% 100% 88% 78% 75% 60%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy83% 100% 25% 23% 79% 108%
55%
38
%
0%0%0%50
%
25
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
20
%
75
%
13
%
44
%
Alma St
Alma13%
24
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av 67
%
75
%
75
%
50
%
25
%
29
%
31
%
62
%
38
%
0%
25% 21% 11% 0% 63% 100% 64% 0% 8%
0%0%50
%
25
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
20
%
75
%
13
%
44
%
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
12p ‐ 2p
92% 100% 94%
80% 80%
28
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
50% 108% 77% 94% 50% 114% 88%
73
%
78
%
63
%
56
%
13
%
12
%
109%
67
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
50
%
75
%
0%
Emerson St Emerson
86
%
14
3
%
88
%
12
0
%
10
0
%
57
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
90
%
95
%
81
%
14
3
%
86
%
95
%
10
0
%
30
0
%
11
3
%
10
8
%
87
%
95
%
111% 107%
30
%
13% 64%
53
%
73
%
50
%
78
%
14
3
%
38
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
86
%
10
0
%
15
7
%
89
%
95
%
42
%
54%
0%0%
92% 83%60%
Kipling
43%
11
8
%
43
%
33
%
0%
80%
Kipling St
88% 91% 115%
89
%
11
1
%
10
0
%
67
%
10
0
%
30
%
50
%
39
%
57
%
12
2
%
0%
12
%
40% 33%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
25%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
53%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
33
%
14
%
14
%0%33
%
44
%
10
0
%
75
%
57
%
0% 0%
50% 0% 0%
Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda
8%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
14%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
e
100%
46%62%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
60%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
23% 27% 36% 42%
89%75% 46%100%
3/24/2016
0% 243% 50% 46% 40% 17% 29% 25%
0%
0%
33
%0%
67
%
33
%
57
%0%
29
%
56
%
50
%
44
%
53
%
80
%
72
%
0%36
%
29
%0%0%0%
10
0
%
25
%
0%
50
%0%0%0%
0%0% 13% 0%
5%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
A
10
0
%
80
%
67% 0%
17% 0%
Fulton
46% 110% 42% 45%0%
Fulton St
58%
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
23%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
Byron St Byron
27
%
35% 27% 62% 85%0%
44
%
100% 57% 47% 77%0% 0% 0% 52%
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
38%
40
%
76
%
80
%
67
%
63
%
68
%
40
%
0%0%0%0%0%38
%
50%
14
%0%11
%
14
%
43
%
88
%
10
0
%
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
21%
Webster St Webster Webster Webster
107% 47% 87% 80%#REF!93% 93% 94% 50%
13%
31% 69% 22% 75%
0%29
%
0%88
%
33
%
83
%
72
%
44
%
71
%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
20% 60%92%0%
0% 0%
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
0%100%21%
78
%
76
%
40
%
73
%
86
%
85
%
88
%
75
%
47
%
29
%
47% 38%100%69%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
100% 50%
18%
Tasso St Tasso
0% 15%200%0% 17%
71% 50% 100% 100% 80% 67% 71% 88% 53%0% 0% 0%
14
%
33
%
14
%
13
%
83
%
91
%0%0%22
%
0%0%0%0%
0%
##
#
#
#
22
%
50%
4%
Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper
Ru
t
h
v
e
n
Av
14% 50% 64% 93% 100% 91% 77% 35% 64% 71% 47% 0% 0% 0%
31
%
40
%0%
72% 100% 54% 80% 154% 77% 69% 43% 0% 100%
17
0
%
93
%
44
%
56
%
50
%
28
%
61
%6%0%
35% 17%
Waverley St Waverley Waverley0%
12
%
35% 125% 78% 100% 53% 100% 50% 130% 53% 50% 13% 94% 11% 33%
12
%
63
%
83
%
10
0
%
10
8
%
38
%
38
%
39
%
33
%
55
%
21
4
%
0%
13
%Pa
l
o
Al
t
o
Av
0%
Po
e
St
54
%
13
%
68
%
157% 100%
125%
78
%
55
%
13
3
%
89
%
44
%
20% 60% 50% 100% 109% 220% 100%94% 94% 44% 27% 17%
Bryant St Bryant
59%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
71%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
120%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
182%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
81%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
125%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Av
67%
Ho
m
e
r
Av
93%
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
Av
93% 63% 37%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
17%
89
%
50
%
10
0
%
15
0
%
70
%
10
0
%
86
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
33
%
57
%
60
%
50
%
44% 92% 79% 88% 80%57% 44% 100%
Ramona St Ramona67% 106% 94% 100% 65% 87% 73% 92%
56
%
50
%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
60%
60
%
100% 62% 100% 71% 88% 93% 107% 100% 69% 89% 8%
Lin
c
o
l
n
60%
15
6
%
50
%
78
%
86
%
10
0
%
55
%
44
%
11
4
%
36%Legend
50
%
69
%
88
%
86
%
63
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
40
%
11
0
%
63
%
75
%
10
0
%
88
%
67
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
0%0%
16
0
%
50
%
0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy
100% 92% 92% 50% 77% 94% 88% 100% 108% 40%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy100% 120% 88% 92% 86% 108%
55%
50
%
0%0%0%
11
7
%
88
%
88
%
88
%
60
%
75
%
0%
15
6
%
Alma St
Alma43%
28
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av 67
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
50
%
75
%
0%
50
%
69
%
50
%
0%
50% 86% 89% 114% 19% 100% 64% 31% 0%
0%0%
11
7
%
88
%
88
%
88
%
60
%
75
%
0%
15
6
%
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
5p ‐ 7p
115% 100% 59%
93% 0%
24
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
81% 58% 100% 100% 89% 100% 100%
91
%
89
%0%0%
8%
29
%
82%
16
7
%
75
%
88
%
12
5
%
75
%
43
%
Emerson St Emerson
10
0
%
14
3
%
11
3
%
12
0
%
63
%
43
%
63
%
91
%
10
0
%
90
%
68
%
10
6
%
12
9
%
10
0
%
95
%
11
0
%
67
%
11
3
%
10
8
%
93
%
57
%
117% 86%
15
%
38% 64%
63
%
60
%
11
7
%
56
%
14
3
%
38
%
86
%
83
%
86
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
62%
0%0%
92% 117%40%
Kipling
14%
10
9
%
43
%
33
%
0%
60%
Kipling St
24% 100% 100%
11
%
67
%
67
%
67
%
10
0
%
57
%
13
%
22
%
43
%0%
0%
0%
20% 44%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
17%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
47%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
33
%
57
%
57
%
29
%
33
%
33
%
35
0
%
0%36
%
0% 0%
30% 19% 0%
Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda
0%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
43%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
e
30%
46%31%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
60%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
8% 27% 27% 32%
50%81% 54%50%
3/24/2016
0% 114% 50% 31% 47% 33% 21% 25%
0%
0%
33
%0%
67
%
13
3
%
86
%9%0%
44
%
25
%
39
%
40
%
70
%
39
%
46
%
50
%
29
%0%0%0%
25
%
50
%
0%
50
%0%0%0%
0%30% 20% 0%
25
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
A
10
0
%
60
%
33% 0%
17% 0%
Fulton
17% 70% 50% 100%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
7%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
0%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
Byron St Byron
9%
29% 27% 38% 77%0%
44
%
38% 29% 40% 8%0% 0% 0% 52%
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
38%
65
%
41
%
67
%
60
%
25
%
37
%
40
%
0%0%0%0%0%38
%
50%
0%11
%0%14
%
14
%
88
%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
21%
Webster St Webster Webster Webster
29% 40% 60% 80%#REF!71% 21% 63% 63%
25%
81% 69% 22% 75%
0%0%0%13
%
17
%
67
%
61
%
89
%
94
%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
0% 50%100%0%
0% 0%
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
0%100%21%
33
%
53
%
90
%
91
%
43
%
38
%
56
%
75
%
94
%
47
%
80% 88%54%92%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
117% 29%
18%
Tasso St Tasso
0% 8%0%0% 17%
29% 40% 92% 100% 90% 117% 106% 35% 67%0% 0% 0%
0%17
%0%13
%
10
0
%
10
9
%
0%0%22
%
0%0%0%0%
0%
##
#
#
#
22
%
50%
12
%
Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper
Ru
t
h
v
e
n
Av
36% 50% 55% 71% 108% 164% 100% 41% 71% 50% 76% 0% 0% 0%
25
%
67
%0%
67% 100% 138% 100% 162% 92% 62% 50% 27% 13%
17
0
%
93
%
19
%
44
%
50
%
39
%
56
%0%0%
12% 17%
Waverley St Waverley Waverley0%
12
%
41% 100% 56% 100% 93% 112% 20% 90% 33% 42% 38% 24% 21% 67%
29
%
53
%
61
%
65
%
85
%
13
%
0%22
%
10
%
10
%
#D
I
V
/
0
!
0%
19
%Pa
l
o
Al
t
o
Av
0%
Po
e
St
62
%
47
%
0%114% 64%
125%
89
%
10
0
%
12
2
%
89
%
33
%
20% 45% 50% 50% 73% 120% 105%75% 56% 44% 27% 42%
Bryant St Bryant
50%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
43%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
100%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
100%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
94%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
50%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Av
67%
Ho
m
e
r
Av
93%
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
Av
50% 63% 32%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%
39
%
83
%
80
%
75
%
11
0
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
91
%
10
0
%
33
%
29
%
60
%
50
%
44% 92% 107% 106% 100%50% 39% 0%
Ramona St Ramona67% 81% 94% 142% 82% 120% 93% 67%
11
%
10
%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
40%
40
%
44% 46% 108% 86% 106% 93% 93% 117% 63% 61% 8%
Lin
c
o
l
n
20%
10
0
%
50
%
33
%
10
0
%
11
3
%
10
0
%
67
%
12
9
%
21%Legend
44
%
69
%
63
%
43
%
38
%
10
0
%
11
3
%
40
%
12
0
%
63
%
63
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
25
%
50
%
11
0
%
38
%
0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy
73% 85% 115% 100% 85% 100% 81% 78% 25% 30%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy67% 70% 100% 108% 100% 117%
45%
38
%
0%0%0%
11
7
%
11
3
%
10
0
%
88
%
80
%
50
%
25
%
0%
Alma St
Alma26%
24
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av 16
7
%
75
%
88
%
12
5
%
75
%
43
%
44
%
69
%
38
%
0%
75% 29% 11% 86% 100% 100% 64% 0% 0%
0%0%
11
7
%
11
3
%
10
0
%
88
%
80
%
50
%
25
%
0%
Downtown RPP Parking Occupancy
Collection Date: May 19, 2016
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
8 AM ‐ 10 AM
55%
38
%
78%
12
5
%
10
0
%
17
%
25
%
12
5
%
10
0
%
20
%
75
%
12
5
%
0%
12
5
%
0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy
53% 54% 0% 10% 38% 6% 38% 78% 50% 50%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy67% 50% 0% 15% 29% 67%
10
0
%
57
%
36%Legend
31
%
77
%
75
%
43
%0%20
%
25
%
20
%
90
%0%0%
11
0
%
63
%0%67
%0%25
%
12
5
%
15
0
%
20
%
13
3
%
10
0
%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
47%
80
%
63% 69% 69% 14% 0% 36% 0% 100% 75% 11% 23%
Lin
c
o
l
n
13%
33
%
17
%
22
%
71
%0%55
%
0%
Ramona St Ramona
75% 50% 25% 0% 0% 20% 20% 33%
63% 37%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
25%
56
%
83
%0%
50
%
20
%
83
%
12
9
%
82
%0%
10
0
%
43
%
20
0
%
90
%
50% 54% 71% 0% 100% 43% 61%
38% 63% 44% 33% 192%
Bryant St Bryant
82%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
71%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
60%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
55%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
0%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
150%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Av
60%
Ho
m
e
r
Av
87%
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
Av
21%
38
%Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
0%
Po
e
St
38
%
33
%
79
%
114% 64%
63%
67
%
10
9
%
0%67
%
11
1
%
20% 15% 50% 38% 55% 0% 80%
0%8%
75
%
19
%0%57
%
25
%
85
%
14
4
%
0% 0%
Waverley St Waverley Waverley0%
4%
65% 100% 33% 55% 73% 53% 60% 60% 0% 0% 63% 0% 0% 150%
29
%
58
%
39
%
0%
6% 92% 31% 73% 46% 62% 23% 64% 33% 75%
80
%
12
0
%
38
%
67
%
17
5
%
56
%
67
%
53
%0%
50%
4%
Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper
Ru
t
h
v
e
n
Av
29% 100% 45% 79% 42% 18% 0% 35% 29% 100% 18% 0% 0% 0%
6%
20
%
0%33
%
29
%
38
%
50
%
73
%
0%0%22
%
0%0%0%0%
0%
##
#
#
#
22
%
62%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
67% 43%
18%
Tasso St Tasso
0% 31%900%0% 17%
64% 80% 42% 77% 90% 50% 35% 12% 33% 0% 0% 0%
21%
39
%
71
%0%0%71
%
38
%
13
%
83
%
12
%6%
33% 19%69%
19%
13% 69% 22% 75%
0%29
%0%25
%
22
%
33
%
56
%
78
%
12
%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
0% 50%46%0%
0% 0%
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
0%57%
21%
Webster St Webster Webster Webster
21% 47% 93% 80%27%0% 7% 0% 0%
50%
14
%
22
%0%14
%
43
%
25
%
10
0
%
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
44
%
46% 14% 47% 23%0% 0% 0% 52%
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
38%
0%0%0%13
%
50
%0%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
8%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
Byron St Byron
18
%
12% 27% 69% 62%0%
50
%
0%0%0%
200%60% 27% 0%
25
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
A
10
0
%
14
0
%
58% 0%
17% 0%
Fulton
38% 0% 50% 100%0%
Fulton St 100%
0%
0%
67
%
0%
11
7
%
18
3
%
0%
11
8
%
43
%
33
%
50
%
28
%
80
%
90
%
28
%
31
%0%
29
%
0%0%0%
25
0
%
13
%
0%
5/19/2016
2% 29% 217% 0% 7% 25% 29% 0% 0% 13% 0%Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda
4%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
36%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
e
0%
8%31%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
27%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
23% 36% 55% 0%
11%19% 23%0%
0%13
%
0%0%
0%
0%
60% 56%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
25%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
73%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
33
%
14
%
0%0%33
%
89
%
20
0
%
0%0%
0% 0%
69%
0%0%
42% 25%20%
Kipling
14%
10
0
%
0%
11
7
%
0%
47%
Kipling St
12% 45% 62%
33
%
56
%
67
%
33
%
25
%
22
%
35
%
138% 73%
5%33
%
83
%
78
%
10
0
%
63
%
57
%
83
%
29
%
29
%
71
%
42
%0%
26
%
0%
58
%
44
%
0%
86
%
74
%
60
%
0%
25
%
42
%
73
%
33
%
33% 71%
36
%
11
%
88
%
14
4
%
4%
29
%
64%
20
0
%
10
0
%
0%
10
0
%
75
%
29
%
Emerson St Emerson
57
%
10
0
%
38
%0%13
%
15
7
%
0%82
%0%
69% 67% 76%
27% 70%
32
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
63% 83% 38% 22% 50% 21% 94%
38
%
78%
75% 7% 56% 100% 44% 100% 64% 92% 0%
12
5
%
10
0
%
17
%
25
%
12
5
%
10
0
%
20
%
75
%
12
5
%
0%
31
%
77
%
20
0
%
10
0
%
0%
10
0
%
75
%
29
%
Alma St
Alma39%
32
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
12 PM ‐ 2 PM
91%
10
0
%
0%0%0%0%0%0%
10
0
%
20
%
50
%0%
67
%
75
%0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy
200% 154% 0% 0% 0% 12% 25% 78% 217% 80%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy183% 220% 25% 0% 0% 0%
0%0%
36%Legend
75
%
46
%
17
5
%
17
1
%
12
5
%
0%0%0%20
%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
28
0
%
44
%
20
%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
47%
40
%
138% 92% 169% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 156% 0%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
28
9
%
10
0
%
15
6
%
0%25
%0%
0%
Ramona St Ramona
50% 188% 0% 0% 12% 133% 120% 150%
63% 42%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
25%
89
%
67
%
16
0
%
30
0
%
0%0%0%
18
%0%
67
%
43
%
80
%
0%33% 138% 0% 0% 0% 114% 78%
150% 163% 44% 40% 17%
Bryant St Bryant
45%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
100%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
200%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
0%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
0%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
0%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Av
107%
Ho
m
e
r
Av
87%
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
Av
129%
0%Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
0%
Po
e
St
77
%
27
%
95
%
0% 36%
0%
0%0%0%
15
6
%
89
%
20% 70% 50% 125% 164% 0% 0%
15
3
%
18
5
%
50
%
48
%
11
%
38
%0%85
%
0%
12% 33%
Waverley St Waverley Waverley0%
15
%
71% 150% 133% 73% 0% 0% 0% 200% 80% 67% 0% 35% 0% 0%
24
%
10
5
%
12
2
%
0%
111% 185% 0% 0% 0% 123% 108% 57% 33% 13%
14
0
%
16
0
%
63
%
67
%
10
0
%
44
%
10
0
%
12
%0%
50%
8%
Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper
Ru
t
h
v
e
n
Av
29% 75% 73% 143% 17% 0% 0% 24% 114% 71% 71% 0% 0% 0%
50
%
53
%
0%33
%
29
%
38
%
0%0%0%0%22
%
0%0%0%0%
0%
##
#
#
#
22
%
123%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
117% 43%
18%
Tasso St Tasso
0% 31%0%0% 17%
64% 100% 200% 169% 0% 0% 35% 141% 67% 0% 0% 0%
21%
39
%0%40
%
91
%
12
9
%
15
4
%
13
8
%
13
3
%
71
%0%
33% 63%154%
19%
38% 69% 22% 75%
0%29
%0%25
%
22
%
12
2
%
12
2
%
67
%
24
%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
0% 50%15%0%
0% 0%
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
0%57%
21%
Webster St Webster Webster Webster
21% 47% 133% 0%27%114% 129% 175% 50%
50%
14
%
22
%0%14
%
43
%
12
5
%
20
0
%
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
44
%
46% 14% 47% 123%0% 0% 0% 52%
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
38%
60
%
11
8
%
10
7
%
12
0
%
10
0
%
10
5
%
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
46%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
Byron St Byron
18
%
12% 27% 69% 138%0%
50
%
0%0%0%
0%0% 27% 0%
0%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
A
10
0
%
12
0
%
83% 0%
17% 0%
Fulton
38% 200% 83% 55%0%
Fulton St 100%
0%
0%
67
%
0%
10
0
%
33
%
0%0%57
%
67
%
50
%
67
%
80
%
90
%
12
2
%
0%0%
29
%
0%0%0%
15
0
%
25
%
0%
5/19/2016
0% 457% 100% 77% 67% 0% 29% 50% 60% 0% 0%Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda
4%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
29%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
e
200%
77%77%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
93%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
31% 36% 55% 84%
133%88% 62%200%
75
%
70
%
11
4
%
22
2
%
0%
0%
60% 56%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
25%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
53%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
33
%
14
%
0%0%33
%
0%
20
0
%
12
5
%
57
%
0% 0%
69%
0%0%
183% 0%80%
Kipling
71%
0%86
%
67
%
0%
147%
Kipling St
106% 164% 31%
11
1
%
20
0
%
16
7
%
0%0%
17
%
20
%
25% 109%
95
%
12
0
%
83
%0%
10
0
%
50
%
57
%
83
%0%0%0%
21
%0%0%
20
%
16
8
%
13
%
0%
86
%
0%0%
0%0%
15
0
%
93
%
10
5
%
0% 143%
12
7
%
11
1
%
12
5
%
44
%
8%
24
%
64%
67
%
20
0
%
20
0
%
0%0%
29
%
Emerson St Emerson
0%
10
0
%
0%40
%
17
5
%
11
4
%
17
5
%
18
%0%
0% 67% 76%
0% 40%
40
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
88% 167% 123% 0% 0% 0% 94%
10
0
%
0%
88% 14% 22% 0% 0% 100% 64% 0% 0%
0%0%0%0%0%
10
0
%
20
%
50
%0%
67
%
75
%
46
%
67
%
20
0
%
20
0
%
0%0%
29
%
Alma St
Alma61%
40
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
5 PM ‐ 7 PM
45%
0%
56%
22
5
%
50
%
17
%
25
%
38
%
10
0
%
20
%
50
%
63
%0%
75
%0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy
60% 85% 0% 0% 46% 0% 56% 78% 50% 60%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy42% 110% 0% 8% 29% 58%
17
8
%
43
%
36%Legend
50
%
15
%
50
%
57
%
63
%
80
%
10
0
%
60
%
10
0
%
0%38
%
90
%
88
%0%0%83
%
25
%
11
3
%
11
3
%
10
%
12
2
%
30
%
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
47%
80
%
44% 38% 115% 29% 0% 71% 0% 100% 63% 6% 23%
Lin
c
o
l
n
20%
44
%
67
%
78
%
57
%
10
0
%
55
%
0%
Ramona St Ramona
75% 94% 38% 0% 0% 13% 20% 33%
63% 42%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
25%
61
%
33
%
80
%
50
%
70
%
10
0
%
17
1
%
55
%0%
12
2
%
43
%
14
0
%
70
%
50% 100% 7% 0% 20% 64% 61%
38% 56% 44% 60% 183%
Bryant St Bryant
64%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
79%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
90%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
73%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
0%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
75%
Fo
r
e
s
t
Av
87%
Ho
m
e
r
Av
87%
Ch
a
n
n
i
n
g
Av
14%
50
%Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
0%
Po
e
St
54
%
47
%
68
%
171% 18%
88%
78
%
12
7
%
0%44
%
89
%
20% 55% 75% 75% 82% 0% 85%
0%31
%
63
%
14
%
39
%
48
%
25
%
85
%
14
4
%
0% 283%
Waverley St Waverley Waverley0%
0%
47% 75% 44% 45% 33% 82% 30% 30% 0% 0% 31% 0% 0% 0%
29
%
53
%
61
%
0%
61% 85% 23% 93% 38% 38% 15% 43% 33% 44%
70
%
53
%
50
%
67
%
27
5
%
61
%
17
%
12
%0%
50%
0%
Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper
Ru
t
h
v
e
n
Av
29% 75% 55% 71% 117% 64% 0% 35% 29% 57% 35% 0% 0% 0%
25
%
33
%
0%33
%
29
%
38
%
67
%
73
%
0%0%22
%
0%0%0%0%
0%
##
#
#
#
22
%
108%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
42% 29%
18%
Tasso St Tasso
0% 31%1000%0% 17%
64% 50% 25% 92% 90% 92% 35% 6% 47% 0% 0% 0%
21%
39
%
82
%0%0%36
%
15
%
31
%
17
%0%0%
33% 13%54%
19%
25% 69% 22% 75%
0%29
%0%25
%
22
%
50
%
50
%
67
%
41
%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
0% 50%62%0%
0% 0%
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
0%100%
21%
Webster St Webster Webster Webster
21% 47% 53% 90%27%14% 14% 13% 0%
50%
14
%
22
%0%14
%
43
%
25
%
12
2
%
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
44
%
46% 14% 47% 8%0% 0% 0% 52%
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
38%
0%0%0%27
%
25
%0%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
0%
Lin
c
o
l
n
0%
Kin
g
s
l
e
y
0%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
Byron St Byron
18
%
12% 27% 69% 31%0%
50
%
0%0%0%
225%70% 0% 0%
30
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
A
10
0
%
12
0
%
0% 0%
0% 0%
Fulton
38% 0% 67% 91%0%
Fulton St 92%
0%
0%
67
%
0%67
%
16
7
%
43
%
27
%
14
%
67
%
50
%
17
%
80
%
90
%6%23
%0%
29
%
0%0%0%
20
0
%
0%
0%
5/19/2016
13% 29% 200% 0% 13% 8% 29% 0% 0% 0% 0%Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda
4%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
21%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
e
20%
0%15%
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
47%
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
Av
23% 36% 55% 0%
11%19% 38%8%
38
%
17
%
0%11
%
0%
0%
60% 56%
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Av
25%
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
Av
47%
Ly
t
t
o
n
Av
33
%
14
%
0%29
%
33
%
12
2
%
50
0
%
0%0%
0% 0%
69%
0%0%
108% 58%10%
Kipling
14%
11
8
%
0%
10
0
%
0%
60%
Kipling St
53% 100% 69%
11
%
56
%
50
%
67
%
25
%
17
%
25
%
25% 64%
42
%
47
%
83
%
44
%
10
0
%
38
%
57
%
83
%
71
%
10
0
%
86
%
47
%0%
42
%
0%
47
%
88
%
57
%
86
%
74
%
60
%
0%
38
%
33
%
60
%
19
%
28% 57%
55
%
33
%
50
%
10
0
%
0%
29
%
64%
33
%
75
%
75
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
29
%
Emerson St Emerson
71
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
60
%
38
%
12
9
%
0%55
%0%
115% 67% 76%
27% 90%
48
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
63% 67% 100% 28% 72% 36% 94%
0%
56%
56% 50% 89% 129% 31% 100% 64% 77% 0%
22
5
%
50
%
17
%
25
%
38
%
10
0
%
20
%
50
%
63
%0%
50
%
15
%
33
%
75
%
75
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
29
%
Alma St
Alma4%
48
%
Pa
l
o
Alt
o
Av
Downtown RPP Parking Occupancy
Collection Date: June 30, 2016
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
8 AM - 10 AM
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%
6/30/2016
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
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
12 PM - 2 PM
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%
6/30/2016
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
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
5 PM - 7 PM
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%
6/30/2016
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
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
12 PM - 2 PM
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%
6/30/2016
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
%
0% - 25% Parking Occupancy
7%15%0%0%0%0%6%0%42%0%25% - 50% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 50%+ Parking Occupancy17%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
%
Resident Permits
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
12 PM - 2 PM
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%
6/30/2016
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%0% - 25% Parking Occupancy
7%15%0%0%0%0%0%0%42%0%25% - 50% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 50%+ Parking Occupancy42%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%
Employee Permits
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
12 PM - 2 PM
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%
6/30/2016
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%0% - 25% Parking Occupancy
67%38%100%70%100%94%75%133%17%0%25% - 50% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 50%+ Parking Occupancy25%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
%
No Permits