HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2957
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2957)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/16/2012
July 16, 2012 Page 1 of 17
(ID # 2957)
Summary Title: Downtown Parking and Residential Permit Parking
Title: Direction on Downtown Parking Strategies and Approval of Trial
Residential Permit Parking Program In and Around the Professorville
Neighborhood
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Authorize the implementation of a trial residential permit parking program
(RPP) in the Professorville area, and direct staff to return to Council within
6 months with recommendations for a permanent RPP program, including
costs and fees that result in no net cost to the City; and
2. Direct staff to proceed with additional studies and actions related to
parking in downtown, including but not limited to:
a. Study of potential new public parking garage sites, capacities and
costs;
b. Methods to increase capacity in existing garages, such as attendant
parking and adjustments to the permit/public distribution of spaces;
c. Technology enhancements, such as gate controls, parking space
identification systems, and parking permit processing improvements,
etc.
d. Evaluation of additional opportunities for residential permit parking
(RPP), particularly in the downtown North area, pursuant to the
policy framework outlined by staff; and
e. Zoning studies and revisions, including study of the downtown cap on
nonresidential space, the use of bonuses and transfer rights, variable
July 16, 2012 Page 2 of 17
(ID # 2957)
parking ratios for office uses, and how to treat nonconforming
parking sites.
Executive Summary
This staff report provides an update to the City Council on parking strategies
developed during the first half of 2012, including recommendations for a trial
residential parking permit program (RPP) in the Professorville area south of
downtown. In the Spring of 2011, the City began an update of the City’s Parking
Program, focused initially on monitoring and modifying the distribution process
for parking permits in both the University Avenue and California Avenue Business
Districts. This effort included the establishment of an online parking permit
management program and expansion of the number of parking spaces available
within the districts. Ongoing efforts have also included initiating a study of (a)
potential new garage(s) downtown and exploring other means of attaining more
efficient use of existing parking spaces, including the use of “attendant” parking
and a variety of technology enhancements to better identify available spaces for
customers and employees of downtown.
Following a City Council Study Session in September of 2011, staff initiated the
formation of a Downtown Parking Study Group comprised of self-appointed
representatives from Professorville, the Palo Alto Downtown (PAD) Business &
Professional Association Parking Committee, and staff to focus on the
development of a pilot RPP program in Professorville in response to resident
requests. This staff report focuses on the findings and recommendations of the
Study Group and provides a recommendation for the implementation of a pilot
RPP program in Professorville. A policy outline for future RPP programs has been
presented as well, and will be used to coordinate such efforts with neighborhoods
such as Downtown North.
Additional information on parking strategies being developed by the City are
outlined at the end of the report discussion and in an information memo provided
to the City Council on December 19, 2011 (Attachment A). A brief discussion is
also included on parking issues relevant to the City’s zoning ordinance, and the
need for further study and revisions to address those concerns.
Background
Upon implementation of an effort to update the City’s Parking Program, an
July 16, 2012 Page 3 of 17
(ID # 2957)
extensive parking data collection process was developed to establish baseline
data to help monitor the progress and effectiveness of strategies. Initial efforts
focused on parking occupancy data that measures the number of vehicles parked
on the street and within public parking lots and garages. In the Downtown,
parking data was collected from Palo Alto Avenue to the North, Embarcadero
Road to the South, Alma Street to the West, and Middlefield Road to the East. In
the California Avenue Business District, data was collected from Stanford Avenue
to the North, Page Mill Road to the South, El Camino Real to the West, and Park
Boulevard to the East.
Baseline data collected in the Spring of 2011 validated concerns expressed by
residents in Professorville that parking structures in downtown were not being
efficiently utilized and that intrusion onto adjacent residential streets may be
occurring due to increase in on-street parking occupancy during the noon peak
period. The City staff reported the findings to the community, the Palo Alto
Downtown (PAD) Parking Committee, the Planning & Transportation Commission,
and the City Council. Staff then implemented modifications to the permit
distribution practices of the City, including the establishment of maximum permit
sales per parking facility versus quarterly evaluations for consideration of permit
distribution. The City also modified the permit parking supply at Lot S/L (Bryant
Street Parking Garage) by converting the 4th floor of the garage from hourly
spaces to permit spaces providing an additional 102 permit parking spaces for use
by members of the University Avenue parking assessment district. Parking
occupancy both on-street and at off-street parking facilities was measured again
in the Fall of 2011 to help determine whether modifications being implemented
were having a helpful effect. Table 1 highlights the noon peak-hour comparisons
of occupancy data following the initial modifications to the City’s permit
distribution methodology and supply changes at the four largest downtown
parking structures.
Table 1 shows that the permit distribution practices implemented by the City
were effective in increasing the noon peak period occupancy of the parking
structures with an average 20% increase in parking permit usage. A complete
summary of occupancy findings is provided in Attachments B, C, and D for the
Baseline Spring 2011, Fall 2011 and Winter 2011-12 seasons for all surface parking
lots and garages by time-of-day.
July 16, 2012 Page 4 of 17
(ID # 2957)
Table 1
Downtown Garages – Peak Hour
Letter/Name
Parking Space Summary Max #
Permits
Sold
Wait
List1
Spring 2011 Fall 2011 Winter 2011-12
#
Hourly
Spaces
#
Permit
Spaces
Total
Space
s
Permit
Volume
Occ-
upancy
Permit
Volume
Occ-
upancy
Permit
Volume
Occ-
upancy
Lot R
Alma/High
South
77 134 211 200 180 103 77% 107 80% 127 95%
Lot S
Bryant Street 381 307 688 575 122 209 53% 280 95% 222 76%
Lot WC
Cowper-
Webster
201 388 589 630 65 256 66% 292 75% 316 81%
Lot CC
City Hall 187 519 706 820 148 483 93% 477 92% 485 95%
1 – Wait List as of May 29, 2012
In addition to permit distribution practice modifications, staff has also focused on
increasing the on-street parking supply through simple roadway marking
modifications, conversion of underutilized 30-minute parking spaces, and
reduction in oversized red curb restriction zones, helping to provide an additional
32 parking spaces, six bicycle corrals with 60 on-street bicycle parking spaces; and
15 bicycle arc/standard bike rack facilities. Two of the 32 new parking spaces
were used to accommodate the installation of the six new bicycle corral facilities
providing a net 30 new on-street parking spaces (valued at $1,800,000 compared
to new construction). Additional improvements include the installation of parking
banners to highlight parking facilities throughout the downtown.
Residents in both Professorville and Downtown North continued to express
concerns, however, regarding parking intrusion and some City Council members
noted an interest during a September 12, 2011 study session on parking strategies
in establishing a Downtown Parking Study Group to focus on a potential pilot RPP
program in Professorville. Staff formed the working group in December 2011, and
met regularly with the group through June 2012. Key proponents from
Professorville and the Palo Alto Downtown (PAD) Parking Committee were each
asked to identify up to five members to represent the interests of the
neighborhood and downtown business interests, along with staff representatives
and a liaison from the Planning & Transportation Commission (Commissioner
Tanaka) and the City Council (Councilmember Scharff). The group met regularly
July 16, 2012 Page 5 of 17
(ID # 2957)
starting on December 21, 2011, holding eight meetings through June 7, 2012.
Discussion
The Downtown Parking Study Group focused on four goals during its six month
process:
1) Monitor the effects of parking strategies developed and implemented by
the City;
2) Evaluate the reasons that people are not using existing parking;
3) Outline options to pursue, including pilot RPP approaches; and
4) Develop an RPP Policy that outlines participation requirements, fee
structure and process, and how to treat various land use types other than
single-family residential (multi-family, commercial, institutional).
Monitoring of Parking Strategies
Staff was responsible for reporting regularly on parking strategies being
implemented by the City. During this period staff focused on the following
strategies:
Adjustments to the maximum permit sales threshold for each parking
facility, including modifications to the current caps identified in
Attachments B, C, and D.
Implementation of bicycle parking facilities around downtown to encourage
reductions in single-occupant trips. Five additional bicycle corral facilities
were implemented in the Spring 2012 at locations requested by downtown
merchants and property owners bringing the total number of bicycle corral
facilities to six.
Implementation of a new Parking Permit Management System to allow
permit holders and interested parties to renew and apply for permits
online. The implementation of this project is on-going with the launch of
an online wait list planned in August 2012.
Participate in the establishment of a new Regional Bicycle Share program
funded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) with
management assistance by the Santa Clara County – Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) providing 100 bike share bicycles within Palo Alto during
the Fall 2012 with stations at the University Avenue Caltrain Station,
downtown locations, Stanford University, and along California Avenue at
the Park Boulevard Park Plaza.
July 16, 2012 Page 6 of 17
(ID # 2957)
Establishment of Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
requirements for active development projects to encourage public transit
use and reduce single-occupant vehicle use. The City helped establish
Caltrain Go-Pass and VTA EcoPass participation for the recently approved
Lytton Gateway project at the intersection of Alma Street & Lytton Avenue
along with similar project conditions for other active planned projects.
Evaluate the Reasons that People are Not Using Existing Parking
The Downtown Parking Study Group helped in the development of a windshield
survey that included the placement of survey cards on vehicles parked on-street
through the Greater Downtown to help determine who was parking in and
around downtown and why. The City had not previously attempted to collect this
type of information with prior parking data collection efforts always focused on
parking occupancy.
The survey included the distribution of labeled survey cards within the three
distinct zones of the downtown:
Group A – Downtown North, North of Lytton Avenue
Group B – Downtown Core
Group C – South of Forest Avenue
The study group felt it was important to be able to identify survey responses by
region of the downtown so that survey findings could be measured by region and
to help provide baseline data for future parking strategies in downtown north.
Staff distributed 2,000 survey cards in January 2012 during periods leading to and
immediately following the noon peak period, and received over 750 responses,
providing a 38% response rate, a highly successful response for this type of
survey. A copy of the survey is provided in Attachment E with the survey results
provided in Attachment F.
The survey findings show that, of the respondents in the downtown north group,
that more downtown employees were parked on the street than residents (114
vs. 95) while in the South of Forest Avenue group that more residents were
parked on the street than downtown employees (181 vs. 162). A majority of
respondents admitted to being familiar with the City’s downtown parking permit
program but did not purchase one because they believed the permit cost to be
July 16, 2012 Page 7 of 17
(ID # 2957)
too high (particularly compared to the “free” cost of parking in neighborhoods).
The cost of a downtown parking permit is $135 per quarter or discounted if
purchased annually at $420. Within the Downtown Core Group B, respondents
who identified themselves as visitors or employees were almost equal at 58 vs. 54
respectively but visitors responded with notes that parking availability for them
was generally not a challenge and that no changes to the on-street parking
strategies should be considered. Only 5 respondents identified themselves as
Caltrain commuters and 2 respondents identified themselves as Palo Alto Medical
Foundation employees or visitors.
In response to comments that the cost of the downtown parking permits are too
costly, the City will be implementing a more flexible monthly purchase rate of $45
(currently permits are only available on an annual ($420) and quarterly ($135)
basis) to help make it more convenient to both obtain and maintain a parking
permit. Reductions in the rate of the parking permit are not being considered at
this time as the permit rates are considered highly discounted compared to other
Bay Area cities and because revenues from permit sales are used to operate and
maintain parking facilities within the University Avenue Assessment District.
The Downtown Parking Study Group also focused on the high number of resident
vehicles parked on-street within the South of Forest Avenue area, with staff
conducting a walking survey of each residence within a target area in and around
Professorville to determine the number of parcels with no on-site parking garage
or driveway. The housing inventory findings (Attachment G) show that a majority
of the households in the area do have either a driveway or on-site garage with
only 11 parcels identified that have neither a driveway or garage.
Outline Options to Pursue including Pilot Residential Permit Parking Approaches
Following the collection and analysis of the windshield survey data, housing
inventory data, and review of previously collected parking occupancy data, the
Study Group considered several options for next steps to respond to resident
concerns regarding parking intrusion:
Do nothing
Parking strategies for the SOFA district bound by Forest Avenue, Alma
Street, Ramona Street, and Addison Avenue
Pursue additional downtown parking strategies
July 16, 2012 Page 8 of 17
(ID # 2957)
Focused pilot RPP project in and near Professorville
The group agreed that the Do Nothing option would not be acceptable to the
community. Strategies in SOFA were discussed but found not to be feasible
because the SOFA District has not organized to establish an assessment district
similar to that of the University Avenue and California Avenue Business Districts,
in which properties are assessed on a per square-foot basis to help establish a
fund for the development and implementation of parking strategies. The Study
Group believed that additional downtown parking strategies should continue to
be pursued and that recent modifications and projects were beginning to have
marginal benefits, but that a pilot RPP project in and near Professorville would be
necessary to respond to resident concerns. The downtown business interest
members of the study group indicated that the pilot should be focused to
measure any residential impact to both the downtown and adjacent residents and
to avoid any potential significant impact to the vibrancy of downtown, and that
the cost of a program should be consistent with permit fees paid by downtown
employees, and at a minimum should be cost “neutral” to avoid any impact to
existing parking programs. The Professorville resident members consented to
focus the study area to the core Professorville area, but emphasized the need for
most permits to be allocated to residents and for a low-cost permit and
enforcement system, at least as part of the pilot.
RPP Policy and Pilot Professorville RPP Project
Staff recommended four key program areas for use in the development of a
Residential Permit Parking Framework and ultimate policy to help establish
consistency in the establishment of future RPP districts around downtown and
other areas in the city where residents may request similar solutions, including:
1) A minimum one-block buffer from commercial or revenue-generating
uses must be established from potential RPP districts to avoid impacts to
existing businesses;
2) RPP Programs should be focused on local streets only; arterial and
residential arterial streets should not be considered for RPP strategies;
3) RPP Programs should be focused on residential streets with majority
single-family home uses; streets with majority multi-family uses should
not be considered for RPP strategies; and
4) Existing and future RPP Districts revenues should be collected in one city-
July 16, 2012 Page 9 of 17
(ID # 2957)
managed fund to ensure cost-recovery operations and to help maintain
reduced RPP permit fees for participating districts.
The complete staff-recommended framework for RPP Policy is provided in
Attachment H and includes a recommended process by which a neighborhood
may solicit a program and the requirements for survey responses.
Proposed Professorville Trial RPP Program
Based on the program areas above, the study group focused on the development
of a pilot Professorville RPP program area using parking occupancy data and a
field survey during the noon peak period. The study group identified and
approved a survey of residents and property owner interest of the properties
identified in the study area, as delineated in Figure 1.
The area bounded as shown in Figure 1 includes 190 on-street parking spaces,
including one handicap-accessible parking space located on Lincoln Avenue west
of Ramona Street, and 87 dwelling units with 16 separate trustee (landlord)
interests. Trustees represent parcels where a separate mailing address is provided
for the property owner within the proposed pilot area.
The study group discussed in detail a few options for the type of parking
management and limitations within the pilot RPP area, including:
Resident only parking during program hours;
One block face per street as resident only parking during program hours
with the opposing block face as 4-Hour time-limit parking; and/or
Short-term hourly parking (2-hours) with RPP permits for residents and
non-residents.
The use of resident only parking during normal program hours of 8:00AM –
5:00PM was identified to be restrictive and found to privatize public space,
resulting in an impact to both adjacent resident and commercial uses. The hybrid
concept of using only one block face per street for RPP operations with the
opposite side of the street having a higher on-street parking limit of 4-hours
yielded a lot of discussion and consideration by the study group, but failed to gain
a consensus because determining which side of the street would have which of
the two operations was found to be difficult. There were also concerns that
July 16, 2012 Page 10 of 17
(ID # 2957)
residents would not purchase permits, choosing instead to take advantage of the
4-hour parking and jeopardizing the cost-recoverable requirement of the
program.
The study group formed a consensus around a parking management strategy that
provides a 2-hour parking limit for all vehicles without a valid RPP permit. The
number of spaces available for permit parking would be divided between
residents (two-thirds) and non-residents (one-third), and only 80% of available
spaces would be permitted to provide some buffer for the program and to better
ensure protection of the neighborhood character. The study group agreed to a
staff recommendation that each residence within the project area would receive
one vehicle-specific permit for use during the trial period, using fees from
previously collected developer funding (Lytton Gateway) to recover the cost of
the trial.
Figure 1
Pilot Professorville RPP Study Area
To determine the number of non-resident permits for allowance within the trial
area, staff would make available 80% of the on-street parking supply (152 spaces)
and would provide two-thirds (101) of these for residents and one-third (51) for
nonresident use. Enforcement would be random throughout the trial period.
July 16, 2012 Page 11 of 17
(ID # 2957)
Staff recommends a rate of $50 per permit for additional resident permits (after
the initial no-charge permit) and all non-resident permits during a trial period of
up to 6 months. The trial period will allow staff and the community to measure
the response to permit sales, the impact on neighborhoods outside the RPP
boundaries, and citation revenue to help estimate the long-term RPP permit
costs. Staff expects to report in with the Study Group after 3 months to assess
whether any mid-course corrections are needed.
Pilot Professorville RPP Survey Results
The City delivered 103 silent mailer surveys to the individual dwelling units and
trustee interests on June 12, 2012 and sent out Second Notice surveys on June 25,
2012 to residents who did not immediately respond to the initial survey request.
The survey suggested that a minimum 60% support response from returned
surveys would be needed in order for a positive recommendation for the
consideration of a pilot RPP survey to be considered by Council.
The City has received 59 responses out of the 103 surveys distributed to the study
area, a 57% response rate. Eighty-three percent (83%) of the respondents (49)
support the implementation of the pilot Professorville RPP project, well in excess
of the 60% suggested for implementation (staff notes, however, that this
represents only a confirmed 48% support of the project area total, since 44
surveys were not returned). Seventeen percent (17%) of the respondents (10) did
not support the implementation of the project. Some who supported
implementation did not favor sale of permits to non-residents, but nevertheless
preferred the trial. Most of the respondents supporting the implementation of
the project, however, did not express a concern with the sale of non-resident
permits within the pilot area.
Residents living adjacent to the pilot area have expressed concerns with the
boundaries of the pilot project either because of concerns from parking intrusion
being potentially displaced onto the streets that they live on or because they
support RPP but prefer for their street to be included within the pilot.
Staff recommends the implementation of the pilot Professorville RPP project
within the boundaries and conditions developed with the Downtown Parking
Study Group. Staff believes that the trial will help to:
July 16, 2012 Page 12 of 17
(ID # 2957)
a) better allow residents access to their homes during the day;
b) maintain a more residential character to the area;
c) assess the appropriate balance of parking on public streets between
residents and downtown employees;
d) allow staff to assess the “spillover” effects to other areas of downtown
to better define a permanent program;
e) provide better administration and enforcement information to
determine ultimate permit parking fees; and
f) contribute to a better understanding of issues identified (or not) to
apply here on a permanent basis or in downtown north or other
neighborhoods.
Other Parking Program Efforts
The discussion above briefly touched on some of the other related potential
parking solutions under review or implementation by staff. These and others
include:
New parking structure(s)
The City negotiated a public benefit improvement on the recently improved
Lytton Gateway project to provide $60,000 towards the study of future
parking structures in the Downtown. This fall, staff will study up to four
existing surface lots to determine which locations may be appropriate for
consideration of a new parking structure to further increase the availability
of parking permits spaces for downtown employees and visitors. The study
will identify massing of structures, number of potential parking spaces that
can be provided at each site, and consider both benefits and impacts such
as accessibility and construction staging, respectively.
Attendant parking
The study this fall to determine the feasibility of new parking structures will
include an element to measure the effectiveness of attendant parking at
existing garages to help increase the parking permit supply. Attendant
parking includes a motorist leaving their vehicle with an attendant who
then double-parks the vehicle behind existing parked vehicles while
maintaining a drive aisle for circulation. Attendant parking can increase
parking supply by up to 30%. Tiered pricing for permit parking that arrives
late in the day can also be considered as it may be considered less
convenient for users.
July 16, 2012 Page 13 of 17
(ID # 2957)
Permit vs. Hourly Parking Space Distribution
Staff will work with the Parking Assessment District to determine where
permit parking supply can be increased by consolidating permit versus
hourly parking spaces in individual surface lots or garages.
Technology enhancements
This fall, staff will release a Request for Proposals (RFP) to identify gate-
control technologies that can easily integrate with the City’s new permit
management system to allow the extension of hourly parking at existing
garages. Staff will review this option with the Parking Assessment District
and return to the Council in the fall with the results of the RFP and include a
recommendation for tiered hourly parking rates above the existing free 3-
hour parking. Staff is also investigating the option to distribute parking
availability information online at surface lots, garages, and on street
signage.
Information/permit processing
The City’s new online permit management system is currently being
deployed. Existing permit holders have been successfully integrated into
the new system. Deployment of the online wait list and renewal is
scheduled for completion this summer.
Zoning and Planning Approaches to Parking Solutions
The Council and staff are aware that recent downtown projects (Lytton Gateway,
278 University Avenue, Casa Olga, etc.) as well as recent conversions of uses to
more intensive office space have highlighted concerns about increasing parking
deficits downtown. Many of the downtown developments during the past decade
have taken advantage of the Zoning Code’s (very successful) incentives for historic
preservation and seismic upgrades to use bonus or transferable space to increase
development intensity, space that is not subject to parking requirements.
Additionally, staff reported to Council during the Lytton Gateway discussions that
the Zoning Code provides a nonresidential “cap” of 350,000 square feet (since
1985) downtown, and that, with the approval of that project and one upcoming
proposal, the 235,000 square foot “study threshold” will have been reached.
Staff proposes, given the downtown parking concerns and the provisions of the
Zoning Code, that staff initiate the “downtown cap” study and look at several
other zoning-related parking issues over the next 6-12 months. This would
July 16, 2012 Page 14 of 17
(ID # 2957)
include, at a minimum, the following:
Review and report on the “downtown cap,” including an assessment of
the current parking deficit downtown, potential for increased parking
capacity, and likely potential for increases in intensity downtown (note:
the 27 University site is not located within the Downtown Commercial
zoning district, but will be recognized in the study);
Potential zoning considerations related to floor area bonuses and
transferable development rights and their potential on future parking
demands;
Parking ratios for downtown development, with recognition of the
changing nature of the office environment and its implications for
parking;
How to treat nonconforming parking sites as they are redeveloped; and
Opportunities for a downtown-wide transportation demand management
(TDM) program to more comprehensively compel transit passes, shuttles,
car-sharing and bike-sharing programs, and other efforts to reduce
vehicle use to the downtown area.
Staff has already begun taking a closer look at land use conversions and
discretionary permits for downtown to assess parking impacts and TDM options,
particularly outside of the parking assessment district.
The most recent Downtown Monitoring report, describing development pursuant
to the downtown “cap,” is available on the City’s website at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=30421.
Timeline
Staff recommends implementing the pilot Professorville RPP project over the
month of August 2012, including sign fabrication and installation and permit
procurement and distribution. The pilot project can be ready for enforcement by
early September but staff recommends beginning enforcement activities in mid-
September to allow for a two-week period for education and outreach through
windshield notices. During the first half of September, non-resident permit sales
would also be available on a first-come, first-served basis through the City’s online
permit management system.
The pilot Professorville RPP project would be monitored by staff through on-
July 16, 2012 Page 15 of 17
(ID # 2957)
street parking occupancy data collection for which seasonal data over the past
year is already available for comparison. Staff also recommends holding at least
two community meetings during the pilot to allow an opportunity for residents
and downtown business interests to provide feedback on the program. During
this period, staff will also monitor citation revenues and permit sales to help
determine on-going RPP permit costs in combination with the existing RPP district
in College Terrace.
In the Spring of 2013 staff can present the results of the survey and introduce a
final policy for the council to consider for the implementation of future RPP
districts.
The other projects outlined, including zoning-related analysis, will be completed
over the next 6-12 month period.
Resource Impact
Funds for the implementation of the pilot Professorville RPP project are available
within the Capital Improvement Program – PL-1200 (Parking & Transportation
Projects). Expenses incurred during the pilot will include sign
fabrication/installation, RPP permit procurement and adminstration, and
enforcement equipment and operations expenses. Any costs not covered by the
permit fees will be reimbursed from the funding from the Lytton Gateway project.
The on-going costs of the program if found to be successful and supported for
implementation by the community and Council will be identified through the trial
project process, including setting permit fees at an appropriate level to recover
administration and enforcement costs. Staff is assuming that Council direction is
that all City costs be recovered through permit fees and fines, and budgeting and
fees will be developed to accomplish that goal.
Additionally, the approval of the Lytton Gateway (335/355 Alma) project included
requirements for $250,000 to be provided for neighborhood parking protection
efforts, and $60,000 for a feasibility study of potential new parking facilities
(garage) sites. These fees will be paid at the time of building permit issuance,
expected within the next 2-3 months. The neighborhood parking funding will be
dedicated entirely to implementation of efforts in the Professorville (and nearby
south of downtown neighborhoods) and downtown north areas for development
and initial implementation phase costs. Staff will retain a parking consultant with
the use of the $60,000 parking study funding, to examine the potential capacity
July 16, 2012 Page 16 of 17
(ID # 2957)
and costs of new garage construction on 3 or 4 sites in downtown.
Staff also notes that a downtown property owner, Chop Keenan, has also brought
forward to staff a concept for a shared public/private garage at the current Lot P
parking lot located on High Street between University Avenue and Hamilton
Avenue. While details are not yet available for review, this option would also be
examined by staff and brought forward to Council if there appears to be a
financial benefit to the City while substantively addressing the parking issues of
concern.
Planning and zoning studies and ordinance revisions will be undertaken within
existing staff and contract planning constraints. If additional funding is necessary
for further contractual services, staff will return to Council with the appropriate
budget amendments.
Policy Implications
The City’s Comprehensive Plan does not specifically identify Residential Permit
Parking as a strategy for use within the downtown but the Comprehensive Plan
supports the implementation of innovative parking strategies through the
following policy:
Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby
business districts.
The development of new parking strategies in and around Downtown is also
generally consistent with the goals of the 13-Point University Avenue/Downtown
Parking Program in the Comprehensive Plan.
Environmental Review
The proposed pilot program and further studies and recommended work plan is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15301 and
15262 of the CEQA Guidelines. At such time as specific measures are taken for
physical changes or impacts, such as zoning changes or proposed new parking
facilities, appropriate environmental review will be conducted pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
July 16, 2012 Page 17 of 17
(ID # 2957)
Attachments:
Attachment A: Dec. 19, 2011 Informational Report to Council on Downtown Parking
Program Activities (PDF)
Attachment B: Spring 2011 Downtown Parking Occupancy Data (PDF)
Attachment C: Fall 2011 Downtown Parking Occupancy Data (PDF)
Attachment D: Holiday 2011 Downtown Parking Occupancy Data (PDF)
Attachment E: Downtown On-Street Parking Survey Card (PDF)
Attachment F: Downtown On-Street Parking Survey Results (PDF)
Attachment G: Professorville Housing Inventory Summary (PDF)
Attachment H: Draft Residential Permit Parking Policy Framework (PDF)
Attachment I: Public Correspondence (PDF)
Prepared By: Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2354)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 12/19/2011
December 19, 2011 Page 1 of 9
(ID # 2354)
Summary Title: Downtown Parking Program Activities
Title: Update on Downtown Parking Program Activities
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
This is an informational report and no Council action is required.
Executive Summary
This staff report provides an update to the City Council on the status of the Parking Program
elements underway and planned for 2012 including a schedule of key milestones. The City
began an analysis of the City’s Parking Program in Spring 2011 to identify strategies to help
more efficiently manage the City’s parking infrastructure in the City’s Downtown and California
Avenue parking assessment districts. Current efforts to date have been focused in the
Downtown, including assessing the use of surface lots, parking garages, and on-street parking.
Program elements in Downtown and outreach to the California Avenue Business District will
continue into next year as outlined in this report with Council consideration of the Residential
Permit Parking Program no later than July 2012. A Downtown Parking Community Group of
business representatives and Professorville and other nearby residents will work collaboratively
and in parallel with staff to access the impacts of parking on in downtown residential areas and
to develop recommendations for the Residential Permit Parking Program.
Background
The City has two parking assessment districts, one in the Downtown (University Avenue) and
one in the California Avenue area. Each district has developed unique strategies to manage its
parking supply and demand, including the use of permit parking for employees within each
district, designated parking spaces for permit holders, and hourly parking enforcement. The
City is responsible for the oversight and development of parking management strategies.
In addition, the Palo Alto Downtown (PAD) Business and Professional Association -Parking
Committee (Downtown Parking Committee) and the California Avenue Business District (BACA)
help guide the development of parking strategies with staff. Attachment A provides additional
information on the City’s current parking management system, and roles of the PAD Downtown
December 19, 2011 Page 2 of 9
(ID # 2354)
Parking Committee and the California Avenue Business District in developing the City’s parking
management program.
Many residents of the Downtown District, Professorville neighborhood and nearby streets are
affected by non-residential neighborhood traffic and parking and have voiced strong concerns
to the City about parking overload in the neighborhoods. Visitor parking along the streets
prevent residents from parking in proximity to their homes affecting neighborhood livability.
Staff’s parking analysis supports the contention that these streets are heavily parked during
weekday working hours, and believe that most of the overflow is coming from downtown or
SOFA employees. The business community has also voiced strong concerns about the
availability of on-street parking and maximizing the efficiency of parking resources to support
the vitality of the downtown business district.
An analysis of the City's parking management strategies began in April as part of the
Transportation Work Plan for 2011. Staff held a study session with the Planning and
Transportation Commission in August 2011, a Study Session with Council in September 2011,
and a series of meetings with the community to solicit input on parking strategies. Staff
identified and began work on a number of enhancements, primarily focused on elements in the
Downtown District, to make the City’s Parking Program more efficient, allow for improved
enforcement, provide more accessibility to employees who rely on parking availability, preserve
valuable on-street parking for patrons of each district, and to preserve the quality of life of
adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Discussion
Since the City Council Study Session on September 12, 2011, staff has continued to advance a
number of elements of the City’s Parking Program. An update on the development of the
Residential Permit Parking Program, California Avenue Parking Program, current and planned
parking management enhancements, and the schedule for developing the ongoing elements
planned for 2012 are discussed below.
Residential Permit Parking (RPP) Program
During the City Council Study Session on the parking management strategies held in September
2011 several Council members expressed interest in the formation of a Downtown Parking
Community Group to help provide direct feedback to staff on proposed parking management
strategies and to allow residents an opportunity to share their insight regarding the potential
parking intrusion impacts to their quality of life directly to merchants. Staff initiated the
formation of a Downtown Parking Community Group and has outreached to select residents to
participate on a new group. The PAD Parking Committee has also expressed interest in
participating in the new group and has identified representatives. The first meeting of the new
Downtown Parking Community Group is scheduled for December 22, 2011. The timing of the
new Downtown Parking Community Group aligns with the parking management work plan for
the new year outlined in this report.
December 19, 2011 Page 3 of 9
(ID # 2354)
The Downtown Parking Community Group’s schedule of work will proceed in parallel to other
parking management objectives and the purpose of the group is to:
·Monitor the effects of parking strategies developed and implemented by the City;
·Evaluate the reasons that people are not using existing parking;
·Outline options to pursue, including pilot RPP approaches; and
·Developing an RPP Policy that outlines participation requirements, fee structure,
process, and how to treat various land use types other than single-family residential
(multi-family, commercial, institutional).
The Downtown Parking Community Group will be comprised of up to five members from the
Downtown residential neighborhoods (self-appointed) and up to five members from the
Parking Committee or other downtown businesses (appointed by Palo Alto Downtown and the
Chamber of Commerce). Staff members from the Department of Planning and Community
Environment, the Police Department, Administrative Services, and the Manager’s Office would
participate as needed. Staff also expects that any program, if implemented, would be revenue-
neutral to the City, as directed previously by Council. Staff will also seek input from other
neighborhoods, particularly Downtown North, but the focus of this effort will be Professorville,
since there is a strong core interest among residents there.
At the initial meeting of the Downtown Parking Community Group a schedule for future
meetings will be discussed. Staff expects that the group to meet three to four times and then
staff will report to the Planning and Transportation Commission and present recommendations
to the City Council no later than July 2012. Staff believes that the Downtown Parking
Community Group can provide valuable insight to help build consensus within the community
on projects before they are considered for policy implementation.
California Avenue Parking Program
The California Avenue Business District does not currently have a business committee similar to
the Downtown Parking Committee, through which parking strategy and policy can be easily
discussed. Staff believes that the newly formed Business Association of California Avenue
(BACA) will be a valuable partner in helping to provide a forum for merchants to meet regularly
on projects of interest and for staff to solicit insight and merchant perspective on proposed
projects. Staff is working with the new BACA representatives to schedule regular meetings at
which Parking Management Strategies can be discussed. Staff anticipates developing
recommendations for California Avenue parking strategies in October 2012.
Prior to the formation of BACA, staff conducted outreach to California Avenue area merchants
in July to discuss potential parking management strategies for their consideration including
wayfinding signage and permit distribution solutions. The input from merchants was extremely
valuable and there was a strong interest in collecting more data to help make better informed
December 19, 2011 Page 4 of 9
(ID # 2354)
decisions. Since that initial meeting staff has collected additional parking occupancy and permit
use data that will be shared upon the first BACA meeting in the year.
Parking Program elements to be discussed with the California Avenue community will include:
·Parking Permit Management System, which will also cover California Avenue permits
·Parking Wayfinding Banners and Signs, similar to that proposed for Downtown
·Enhancing the number of spaces available off-street and in garages
·Limited day permit use distribution to minimize abuse and misuse with the current
system
·Improved distinction between permit and visitor parking spaces to make most efficient
and equitable use of each
Parking Permit Management System Replacement
The City completed a Request for Proposals process in November 2011 and selected
Progressive Solutions to develop and implement its Parking Permit Management System for
Palo Alto. Existing permit holders from Downtown will, in the first quarter of 2012, be asked to
update their contact and Downtown employer information. Possession of a parking permit in
Downtown is a benefit to the businesses located within the Parking Assessment District. The
City has never validated the Downtown employment status of permit holders. Having accurate
parking permit holder data as part of the new system implementation is absolutely critical in
making the distribution of permits more efficient and ensures that additional parking strategies
can be considered for discussion with stakeholders such as the PAD Parking Committee. The
updated system is also just a necessary improvement independent of parking permit space
usage to demonstrate effective parking management. Permit holders who cannot validate their
downtown employer status will not be renewed at their renewal date.
The City anticipates the new permit management system to be completed and implemented by
Spring 2012. The new system will offer permit holders an online renewal option and potential
permit holders will be able to register online. Currently, existing permit holders and potential
permit holders may register for a Wait List for any two parking facilities. After the system
implementation, Wait List registration will be limited to one facility only to help ensure more
efficient distribution of permits. The new system will automatically notify persons on the Wait
List of their permit availability.
The new system will provide the City’s two Parking Assessment Districts to explore
opportunities for new parking permit fee structures previously not feasible due to technology
limitations. The PAD Parking Committee will be asked to consider several new parking permit
distribution strategies in the spring 2012 so that new policy recommendations can then be
considered by the City Council as part of the new Fee Schedule Program for 2012-13:
·Top Floor Only Permits:These permits can be offered at a discount to persons
whom are not able to pay for a normal permit but restrict
their parking to the top floor of a parking garage.
December 19, 2011 Page 5 of 9
(ID # 2354)
·Employer Bank of Permits:These permits introduce an opportunity for permits to be
registered to a business rather than an employee so that
as the company grows its staff, new employees can
immediately begin parking at permit facilities rather than
having to wait for distribution off a Wait List. Larger
employers in Downtown have already expressed an
interested in this type of permit to accommodate growth
and visitor needs. As gate control systems are introduced
into parking facilities, Employer Bank of Permits also offer
flexibility for multiple permits to be distributed but with
limited access to accommodate business employee shift
requirements.
·Fleet Vehicle Permits:Provide for employers with vehicle fleets that require
overnight storage within a parking structure.
·Non District Permits:Proposed for distribution on a trial basis with the support
of the Parking Assessment Districts, can provide access to
selected parking structures to benefit employees in the
South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) district which has seen
increased office use over the past several years.
Employees in SOFA currently cannot obtain parking
permits.
·Tiered Hourly Parking:Tiered pricing allows visitors to park in facilities beyond
the 3-hour Free parking limit for a fee up to the maximum
$16.00 per day fee. The rate structure for parking
beginning in the 4th hour will require merchant and
parking assessment district input.
·Tiered Permit Fee Cost:Permits are currently offered on a quarter or annual basis.
Pricing for monthly permits will be introduced and
considerations for the continuation of annual discounts
discussed to ensure maximum distribution flexibility to
new employees of the Parking Assessment Districts.
December 19, 2011 Page 6 of 9
(ID # 2354)
Way-Finding Signage to Parking Facilities
On November 3, 2011, the Architectural Review Board reviewed and
approved the design of new banners designed to highlight the
location of Free Public Parking facilities at surface lots and parking
garages, see Figure 3 –Downtown Parking Banner Sample.
The Phase I deployment of the new parking banners will be installed
in December 2011 and be placed on streetlights within the surface
lots and adjacent to streetlights at parking garages. Staff estimates
that approximately 50 banners will be installed as part of Phase 1
deployment. Phase 2 will include the installation of banner poles at
locations where existing streetlights were not available or feasible for
use as part of Phase I. Phase 2 will benefit facilities such as
Ramona/University (Lot B) and the 801 High Street garages located
beneath retail or residential structures.
In the Spring of 2012, staff will return to the Architectural Review Board
for their input on wayfinding signage to replace the existing industry
standards “White P on Green Background” signs. The new signs will
match the color and modern architecture of the new banners, laying
the foundation for the development of new marketing materials to
highlight parking facilities.
For the California Avenue Business District, the use of similar banners and wayfinding signage
will be proposed to merchants and members of the new Business Association of California
Avenue (BACA) in January 2012.
Daily Parking Permit Distribution
Beginning in January 2012 the City will be replacing its existing paper Daily Permit forms sold to
businesses or persons seeking daylong parking at on-or off-street facilities. During discussions
with Community Service Officers (CSOs) who conduct parking enforcement in the City, the use
of illegally fabricated paper Daily Permits was identified as a frequent occurrence. The new
Coded Scratcher Daily Permits will allow for only one day use and easier validation by CSOs.
This modification is being implemented immediately to help ensure that the City’s parking
management program is managed efficiently. The new Coded Scratcher Daily Permits will be
used for both the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts.
Within Downtown, two parking garages currently have Day Permit distribution machines that
allow visitors to purchase a Day Permit on-site at a fee of $16 per day. The machines are
currently located in the Bryant St Garage (Lots S/L) and the Cowper/Webster Garage (Lot CW).
The distribution of additional Day Permit distribution machines has been discussed with the
Figure 3
Downtown ParkingBanner Sample
December 19, 2011 Page 7 of 9
(ID # 2354)
Parking Committee. Staff is recommending the deferral of additional machines until Pilot Gate
Control and Hourly Parking Fee Structures are considered by the PAD Parking Committee
because if gate control systems would provide the same function as the Day Permit distribution
machines. As technology is researched it will be presented to the PAD Parking Committee for
input prior to the distribution of Requests for Proposals from vendors.
Pilot Gate Control and Hourly Parking Fee Structure
The existing Downtown Palo Alto Color Zone Parking Management System provides for three-
hour parking within Visitor parking spaces in garages. Staff will work with the Parking
Community Group and the PAD Parking Committee to consider the installation of gate access
controls to at least one parking garage next year, the Bryant Street Garage (Lot S/L). The gate
controls will allow visitors to park beyond the existing three hour parking limit for a fee,
beginning with the fourth hour and up to the daily parking rate of $16/day, allowing for longer
stays within the downtown for shopping activities. The tiered hourly fee structure will also be
included in the discussions with the Parking Committee and the PAD Parking Committee.
Permit holders within garages with gate controls would gain entry through either a manual scan
card or automatic card reader,depending upon a selected system vendor. Color-coded permit
stickers affixed to vehicles will still be required initially to easily identify normal permit holders,
new Top Floor Only permit holders, and to discourage permit holder use of Visitor parking
spaces. A policy restricting permit holder parking in Visitor parking spaces will be required.
Access gate controls also offer the benefit of estimating parking garage capacity to help develop
and implement Parking Guidance System (PGS) Signage technology discussed below.
Depending upon the final resolution of the various proposed parking fee structures with the
Parking Committee in the Spring, proposals for the pilot access gate control projects will be
solicited in the Summer for implementation of a pilot project in the Fall. A two-year pilot may
be necessary to monitor and measure effects of the system.
Parking Guidance System (PGS) Technology Development
Staff is currently researching technology that will allow the City to monitor the time-use of both
on-street and off-street parking spaces. Parking data collected by staff to-date has been
focused on “occupancy” to determine the number of vehicles parked on the street or in off-
street facilities during various times of the day. The City has no data or cost-effective method
to determine how long vehicles are parked.
Existing technology from companies such as Streetline networks (www.streetline.com) allow for
the monitoring and distribution of parking space availability information to users of the system
through smartphone applications. The City has investigated the use of such a system for Palo
Alto, but the system requires a monthly fee for parking spaces monitored. Palo Alto does not
currently charge a fee for on-street parking and allows time-limit free parking at off-street
December 19, 2011 Page 8 of 9
(ID # 2354)
facilities, making the use of such a system infeasible due to cost with no offsetting revenues.
Staff is researching the development of its own monitoring infrastructure that is built on the
National Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol (NTCIP), allowing for potential
integration with separate traffic signal management system projects scheduled for the calendar
year 2012.
Parking Occupancy Monitoring
Staff has completed the collection of parking occupancy data for both the Downtown and
California Avenue Business Districts for the spring 2011 and fall 2011 seasons. Additional
parking occupancy data for off-street parking facility in Downtown for the Holiday shopping
season is being collected in December.
Data collection on parking trends and driver behavior is critical as decisions on future parking
strategies are developed. The City is committed to providing accurate data to the PAD Parking
Committee, future BACA members, and City Council so that we can work in partnership with
each other to manage our resources.
Timeline
A timeline for implementing the Parking Program update reflecting the various tasks above is
provided in Table 1. below and included as Attachment B.
Table 1. Parking Program Activities
Schedule & Key Milestones
ACTIVITY SCHEDULE
City Council Study Session September 2011
Permit Management System September 2011 -February 2012
Fall Occupancy Data Collection #2 October 2011
Parking Banners October 2011 -January 2012
Winter Occupancy Data Collection #3 December 2011
Residential Permit Parking (Working Group)December 2011 -July 2012
Way Finding Signage January 2012 -April 2012
California Avenue Parking Strategies January 2012 -October 2012
Permit Fee Development February 2012 -September 2012
Downtown Community Meeting March 2012
Garage Access Controls Pilot April 2012 -October 2012
Parking Monitoring June 2012 -April 2013
City Council Considers Residential Permit Parking Program July 2012
Install Bike Parking and Corrals Ongoing
Parking Technology Research & Development On-going
December 19, 2011 Page 9 of 9
(ID # 2354)
Resource Impacts
The Parking Program Update 2012 effort is primarily funded through the City’s Capital
Improvements Program (CIP PL-12000, Parking & Transportation Improvements) and
Downtown Parking Assessment District funds. Moving forward into 2012, the same fund
sources will be used to further advance new parking management strategies. As program
enhancements are identified and approved for implementation within the California Avenue
Business District, the California Avenue Assessment District may also be used to help fund
improvements.
Environmental Review
The Parking Program Update 2012 outlined in this report does not at this point require review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As individual parking program
projects are approved for implementation, they will be evaluated for compliance with CEQA as
necessary.
Attachments:
·Attachment A (PDF)
·Attachment B: Parking Program Timeline 2012 (PDF)
Prepared By:Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Attachment A
Page 1
The following provides additional information on the City’s current parking management
system, and roles of the PAD Downtown Parking Committee and the California Avenue Business
District in developing the City’s parking management program.
Palo Alto Downtown (PAD) Business and Professional Association –Parking Committee
In the Downtown, the PAD Parking Committee guides the development of parking strategies
with staff and helps to provide perspective regarding the performance and trends of the
Downtown economic engine so that it can be taken into consideration during the development
of policy. This collaboration with the PAD Parking Committee is on-going through monthly
meetings to discuss varying types of concerns including on-street and off-street parking, public
safety, etc.
The Downtown Parking Committee was instrumental in the development of the existing Color
Zone Parking Management System which was designed to prevent employee parking in the
downtown area and to increase the supply o f convenient customer parking Employee parking
is provided in the seven parking garages in and around Downtown and the twelve surface lot
facilities at a fee of $135 per quarter or on an annual discount basis of $420 per year. Figure 1
and Table 1highlight the Downtown Palo Alto Color Zone Parking Management System
boundaries and Number of Parking Spaces in Off-Street Parking Facilities, respectively.
Business Association of California Avenue (BACA)
The California Avenue Business District has recently reconstituted its business association,
which will hopefully provide input on parking strategies in the coming year.Staff will be
organizing monthly meeting with BACA starting next year to build a partnership similar to the
PAD Parking Committee to allow an open communication forum for parking and other issues of
interest to merchants on and along California Avenue.
Figure 1
Downtown Palo Alto Color Zone Management System
Attachment A
Page 2
Table 1
Number of Parking Spaces in Downtown Off-Street Parking Facilities
Garages Surface Lots
Letter Name Hourly Permit Total Letter Name Hourly Permit Total
Q Alma/High (North)-134 134 O Emerson/High 78 -78
R Alma/High (South)77 134 211 A Emerson/Lytton 68 -68
S/L Bryant St 381 307 688 C Ramona/Lytton 18 32 50
WC Cowper/Webster 201 388 589 F Florence/Lytton 46 -46
CC City Hall 187 519 706 T Lytton/Kipling 25 25 50
B Ramona/University 63 -63 H Cowper/Hamilton 90 -90
800 High Street 10 53 63 D Hamilton/Waverly 86 -86
Totals:919 1,535 2,454 E Gilman/Bryant -34 34
G Gilman/Waverly -53 53
P High/Hamilton 51 -51
K Lytton/Waverly 15 42 57
N Emerson/Ramona 48 -48
525 186 711
Within the California Avenue Business District, the Permit Management program does not
include restrictions on where vehicles are permitted to park, with the exception of the Sherman
Avenue & Ash Street surface parking lot,where 30 designated parking spaces exist. Vehicles
with designated placards may park at all other sites within any parking space. The permit cost
in the California Avenue Business District is $43 per quarter or may be purchased on an annual
discount basis of $123 per year. Figure 2 and Table 2 highlight the California Avenue Business
District Parking Facilities and Number of Parking Spaces in Off-Street Parking Facilities
respectively.
Figure 2
California Avenue Off-Street Parking Facility Locations
Attachment A
Page 3
Table 2
Number of Parking Spaces in California Avenue Off-Street Parking Facilities
Garages Surface Lots
LOT Name Hourly Permit Total LOT Name Hourly Permit Total
3 Cambridge West 183 183 1 Cambridge/Park 27 -27
5 Cambridge East 157 157 2 Cambridge/Birch 27 -27
Totals:340 340 4 Cambridge/Birch 89 89
6 Sherman/Park 154 -154
7 Sherman/Birch 161 161
8 Sherman/Ash 89 30 119
9 Birch/Cambridge 28 -28
575 30 605
Sep-11 Apr-13
Oct-11 Jan-12 Apr-12 Jul-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 Apr-13
2012 Parking Program Activities
Permit Management System
Residential Permit Parking (Working Group)
Permit Fee Development
Way Finding Signage Parking Monitoring
Garage Access Controls Pilot
Install Bike Parking and Corrals
Sep-11
City Council
Study Session
Oct-11
Fall Occupancy
Data Collection #2 Dec-11
Winter Occupancy
Data Collection #3
Mar-12
Downtown
Community Meeting
Jun-12
City Council Considers
Residential Permit
Parking Program
Parking Banners
California Avenue Parking Strategies
Parking Technology Research & Development
Downtown Parking
Committee meets
Monthly with Staff
Attachment - B
R 77 134 211 21 10%
St
H 90 90 4 4%
E
K 15 42 57
N Emerson/Ramona 48 48
Total 524 189 713 54
•• No Data Collected
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Off-Street Parking Facilities
Occupancy Analysis
10 13% 26 19%
77 86%
148 80
75 97%
78 87%
395
Spring 2011
103 77% 182 86% 52 25%
91 101% 91 101%
110 497 430
Attachment - C
Total 932 1522 2454
K 15 42 57
Total 527 186 713
278
11 19%
82
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Off-Street Parking Facilities
Occupancy Analysis
206 22% 718
23 55%
181 107
Fall 2011
689 74% 1292 928 38%
12 21% 32 76% 25 44% 14 25%
452 141 586 579
Attachment - D
cc Hall 187 519
B 63
800 800 i St 10 53
Total 932 1522
c 18 32
F 46
T 27 25
G 53
p 51
K 15 42
Total 527 186
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Off-Street Parking Facilities
Occupancy Analysis
706 88 47% 348
63 18 29%
63 2 20% 42
2454 239 26% 724
50 5 28% 7
46 2 4%
52 8 30% 2
53 23
51 2%
57 24
713 141 82
Holiday 2011
67% 186 99% 485 93%
57 90%
67% 10 16% 51 96%
48% 715 77% 1300 85%
22% 18 100% 27 84%
48 104%
8% 27 100% 22 88%
46% 42 79%
48 94%
57% 15 100% 30 71%
512 153
Attachment E
The City of Palo A~o is seeking your assistance in the completion of this short survey to help plan for future parking projects. The
survey is a pre-paid postal card that can be returned to any postal mailbox. Thankyou.
1) Are you parking in this location because you are a:
o Resident 0 Caltrain Commuter
o Downtow n Visitor 0 PAMF Employee/Visitor
o Downtown Employee 0 other:
2) If you are an Employee/Local Business Owner, in which
Downtown Zone do you work? (See map)
o A-North ofLytton Avenue
o B -Lytton Avenue to Forest Avenue (Downtown Core)
o C -South of Forest Avenue
3) If you work in t he Downtown Core (Zone B), are you familiar
with the City's Permit Parking Program?
Yes 0 No 0
4) Do you current ly own a Permit to park in one of t he
Downtown garages or surface lots?
Yes 0 No 0
5) If you do not own a Parking Permit, why not?
o Didn't know about the Permit Program o My business is located outside of Zone B, I cannot get a permit
o Too costly 0 Not interested
Comments/
Suggestions:
Downtown Palo Alto Zone Map
1/18/2012
Card Zone A B C
Zone Response 215 133 404 TOTAL 752
Question #1 Answer
A B C
Resident 95 19 181
Downtown Visitor 24 58 32
Downtown Employee 114 54 162
Caltrain Commuter 5 - -
PAMF Employee/Visitor 2 - -
Other 20 - -
Question #2 Zone A Zone B Zone C
Which Zone do you work? 43 209 86
Question #3 Yes No
Work in Zone B, Permits 172 119
Question #4 Yes No
Own a Permit 15 418
Question #5 Answer
Don't know Permit Program 66
Outside of Zone B 73
Too Costly 172
Not Inaterested 79
Other 25
Questions:
RESPONSE
University/Neighborhood Parking Survey
#1 - Are you parking in this location because you are a:
#2 - If you are an Employee/Local Business Owner, in which Downtown Zone do you work?y ( ) y y g
Program
#4 - Do you currently own a Permit to park in one of the Downtown garages or surface lots?
#5 - If ;you don not won a Parking Permit, why not?
Attachment G
Housing Inventory Summary
Total # of parcels 179
Parcels with no driveways or parking pads 11
Parcels with one garage 26
Parcels with one garage plus driveway - 2 car length or more 47
Parcels with two car garages 14
Parcels with two car garages plus driveway - 2 car length or more 27
Parcels with driveway only 39
Parcels with 3 car garages plus driveway or no driveway 8
Parcels with parking pads only 6
Residential Driveway/Garage
Study Area
No. of On-Street Parking Spaces in Study Area: 670
1
DRAFT ‐ PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM
GUIDELINES (4/27/12)
The City of Palo Alto establishes Residential Permit Parking (RPP) districts to protect neighborhood
quality of life against intrusion from adjacent land uses. RPP Districts are only considered on residential
neighborhoods that are a minimum of one block away from existing commercial business districts and
on streets that do not have any multi‐dwelling unit uses such as apartment and condominium
complexes. RPP Districts on Neighborhood Collector Streets are not permitted. RPP program expenses
and revenues must be cost neutral to the City. The RPP District establishment process is outlined below.
1. RPP District Petition Process
The first step in establishing an RPP District is for residents to submit a Petition of Interest for review
and consideration by the City. The Petition should be signed by at least 50% of the residents (or
property owners) of the neighbor’s proposed RPP District. Only one signature per household is
required. RPP District proponents may contact the City to help them in establishing a Petition of
Interest signature list.
2. Neighborhood Interest Community Meeting
The City will organize a community meeting within 90 days of receipt and validation of the Petition
of Interest so that parking data may be collected. The City at its discretion will also invite residents
and business owners of adjacent streets. A preliminary estimate of fees for the RPP District will be
presented at this time along with signage requirements.
3. Pilot RPP District Projects
Upon agreement of a preferred RPP District and support from the City Council the City may choose
to implement a Pilot RPP Project to evaluate the benefits and unforeseen impacts of a project.
Residents within the proposed Pilot RPP District will be surveyed to determine the overall
community support for a project using a “Silent Vote” post card process. A minimum 60% support
from responses is required to establish neighborhood support for consideration of a trial project.
An evaluation period of up to one (1) year may be required before permanent retention of an RPP
District is finalized. Monitoring will be conducted by the City. A RPP vehicle permit fee may be
administered by the City during the pilot project..
4. RPP District Implementation or Retention
Following the completion of monitoring, the City will hold a minimum of one additional community
meeting with the RPP District and adjacent neighbors (for a boundary to be identified by the City). A
second Silent Vote post card process (using the same support requirements of the Pilot Project) will
be administered by the City with appropriate RPP Permit Fees identified. The results of the survey
will be presented at a separate community meeting. If community support is not identified, pilot
projects will be removed.
5. No Net Cost to City
A RPP program must be cost neutral to the City, in other words, there is no net cost to the City.
\
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 14 Minor, Beth
From: Donald A. Barr <barr@stanford.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:32 AM 12 JUL I 0 PM 4= 41
To: Council, City; Transportation
Subject: Proposed Residential Parking Permit District
To: Members ofthe Palo Alto City Council
I would like to share with you my deep concern about the seriously flawed process with which City staff, working with a
relatively small number of my neighbors, have developed the proposed Residential Parking Permit District for a small
section of Professorville. While I personally support the overall concept of parking permits, I believe the proposal that
will come before you on Monday, July 16, should not be approved. Rather, staff should be asked to develop a more
open and representative process to explore this issue:
It is clear that street parking during business hours has become a scarce commodity in many neighborhoods of Palo Alto,
including ours. Parking on city streets is a common good, shared by residents and workers alike. I believe it is your job
to develop a process that allocates that scarce good fairly and equitably. The current proposal does not do this.
Many of you will remember the process by which the SOFA Area Plan was developed, starting in 1997. Through a series
of open, fully noticed meetings, residents of our neighborhood discussed with City staff, business representatives, and
each other how development in our neighborhood should proceed. That process proved highly successful. I urge you to
ask staff to replicate such an open process that includes all affected, and does not pit neighbor against neighbor.
I ask that you refer the issue of a potential Residential Parking Permit District back to staff, and instruct them be more
inclusive in their process. Thank you.
Don Barr
948 Ramona Street
1
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
July 10, 2012
Dena Mossar <dmossar@yahoo.com>
Monday, July 09, 2012 11:29 AM
Council, City 12 JUL -9 PM t.: 05
July 16, 2012, Agenda Item: Professorville Neighborhood Permit Parking
To: Palo Alto City Council Members
From: Dena Mossar, Former Mayor and City Council Member
Subject: Agenda Item: Professorville Neighborhood Permit Parking
During the ten years that I served on the Palo Alto City Council, successful proposals
always required full discussion with all affected parties. The proposal for a permit
parking trial in Professorville does not meet this criterion for success.
The process used to create the proposed permit parking trial is flawed. Neighborhood
participants in the planning process were self-appointed. The proposal supports a
privileged attitude and is not representative of the neighborhood as a whole. Meetings
were not noticed or open to the public and a complete set of minutes is unavailable for
review.
I have lived in this neighborhood for over thirty years. I choose to live here because I
like living in the downtown area. I enjoy the diverse mix of employees and residents. I
often walk and bicycle. When I drive, I park my car in my driveway if I need a parking
space that is close to home.
The proposed trial pits neighbor against neighbor. My home is included within the
proposed trial boundaries. It would be downright un-neighborly for me to support the
proposal, since permit parking in such a limited area will certainly negatively impact
those neighbors who live outside of the proposed boundaries.
This proposal is also unfair to those service employees who work for the local retailers,
restaurants, coffee shops and markets-services that enhance the livability of my
neighborhood.
Lastly, there are no agreed upon criteria that might define the success of this proposed
trial. At the end of the trial period, we won't be able to agree on how to proceed.
In short, this is a proposal that does not deserve to move forward.
Dena Mossar
1
Gonsalves, Ronna
CITY CLEKK'S f ~It
From: Debra Satz <dsatz@stanford.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 07,20121:22 PM t 2 JUL -9 PM 4: 05
To: Council, City
Cc: Transportation
Subject: proposal for a pilot residential permit parking program in the Professorville area
To the members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed residential permit parking program
which will be discussed at your July 16 meeting. Unfortunately I will be out of town and cannot
attend the meeting. But I want to make my opposition to this proposal known to you.
I have a diversity of objections to the proposal.
1. The process used to create the proposed permit parking trial was flawed. Participants in the
planning process were self-appointed and did not represent the neighborhood at large. The
meetings were not noticed or open to the public.
2. Parking is a scarce pUblic good. The decision to allocate this good must be made on the basis
of efficiency and equity. Neither ground supports the permit proposal.
It is not efficient. In the proposed trial area, there are only 4 houses without off street
parking. All the other houses have approximately 2.3 spaces per household. [There are 80
homes in the area with approximately 180 off-street parking spaces.] At the same time, there
are thousands of downtown workers who need access to parking. It is not an efficient use of
space to redistribute more parking to the residents. Rather, it is catering to an expensive
taste: the taste of some residents to use their off street parking for other purposes.
Nor is it equitable. I am especially concerned that low wage workers who have to commute here
from a long distance away will be further burdened by losing access to a public space. If the
proposal is implemented, this is a concern that will need to be addressed.
3. It is unclear how the boundaries of this proposal were determined.
The parking permit proposal appears to apply to a gerrymandered area.
4. There is no indication of what data will be collected by the City
staff during the trial period or how the proposal will be monitored.
What will count as success? What type of enforcement will there be?
[Who, for example, has enforced against those residents who now illegally put cones in the
street to "occupy" public parking?]
6
There are, of course, times when the privatization or semi-privatization of a public good is
justified. This is not one of them.
Sincerely yours,
Debra Satz
Debra Satz
Marta Sutton Weeks Professor of Ethics in Society, Professor of Philosophy and, by courtesy,
Political Science Director, Bowen H. McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society Senior
Associate Dean for the Humanities and Arts
School of Humanities and Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-2070
Tel: 650-736-2133
Fax: 650-723-3255
dsatz@?stanford.edu
7
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
Paul Goldstein <marmot@stanford;edu> UL -9 PM 4: Oi
Sunday, July 08,20128:36 PM ,2. J
To: Council, City
Subject: Professorville Residential Parking Permit Trial -Agenda Item July 16, 2012
To: Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council
Re: Professorville Residential Parking Permit Trial-Agenda Item July 16, 2012
As a resident in the proposed trial area, I urge you to reject the trial Professorville residential parking program.
Here are the reasons I object to this proposal:
1. The proposed program and trial area have not been subject to public discussion or scrutiny. This proposal was developed by a small
group and does not represent the diversity of opinion in the neighborhood, and certainly not the opinions of the many people who do not
live in the neighborhood but who would be affected.
2. The street is a public asset. On-street parking is not, and should not be, an exclusive privilege for neighborhood residents. Most of
the residents in the proposed trial area have at least one designated parking place on their property (the building code requires two
parking places on the property.) Many residents have converted garages to other purposes, but this is their choice. This is no reason for
the city to provide them with privileged parking.
3. The proposed trial area is poorly conceived. Designating a small area for the permit program will only make the problem worse in the
surrounding blocks.
I have been a resident of this neighborhood for 40 years. I choose to live at this location because it is close to downtown and I enjoy the
advantages that that offers. I generally walk or bicycle for my short trips. During the day, when I do need to use my car, I often cannot
find a parking place in front of my house, but I have never had to park more than a block and a half away. This is a small
inconvenience for the many advantages I have in living downtown.
If the city wants to solve the problems associated with the parking deficit in the downtown area, a more comprehensive program needs
to be developed using an open and inclusive public process.
Sincerely.
Paul Goldstein
1024 Emerson St
1
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Karen Smestad <ksmestad@yahoo.com>
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:33 AM
Council, City
1,1 8,.,)y· )'i,l "', :',' ',', ',,' ',\ U in L ,i tfl tI." S OFFICE
f 2 JUl 'f AM IO~ r.. 0
Subject: Professorville Residential Parking Permit Trial -Agenda Item July 16, 2012
To: Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council
Re: Professorville Residential Parking Permit Trial-Agenda Item July 16, 2012
As residents in the proposed trail area, we urge you to reject the trial Professorville residential parking program for a
number of reasons.
1, The process used to create the proposed permit parking trial was flawed. Participants in the planning process were
self-appointed and do not represent the neighborhood at large. Planning meetings were not noticed or open to the public.
2. On-street parking is for both residents and area workers, Residents do not own the parking space in front of their
home. Street parking is a shared commodity and those of us who live in the downtown area both appreciate and benefit
from those businesses who share in it's use.
3. The parking permit proposal represents a privileged attitude and is not representative of the neighborhood as a
whole. Many residents in the proposed trial area have converted their garage and/or designated off street parking area to
other purposes. We do not feel Professorville residents should subsidize this practice with the proposed trial of permit
parking.
Our family has lived in the Professorville neighborhood for nearly 30 years. We utilize 3 off-street parking spaces and find
that the parking situation is only occasionally problematic. We recognize that street parking during peak business hours is
an increasing problem and concern to our neighbors, but encourage the council to reject the current proposed trial and
refer the issue of deficit parking back to staff for a more open and inclusive public process.
Sincerely,
Tom and Karen Smestad
1023 Emerson Street
1
Betten, Zariah
Subject: FW: pilot Residential Permit Parking program
From: Robert Heilmayr [mailto:rheilmayr@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 10:20 AM
To: Transportation
Subject: Re: pilot Residential Permit Parking program
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am a resident of Palo Alto, living at 160 Lincoln Avenue. I wanted to express my concern about a proposed
pilot program for residential permits. Although the permit program is not intended to include my block, it does
include many of the nearby streets that I often use for parking when parking on my block is filled. I am
concerned that the proposed pilot program will restrict my parking options, while simultaneously pushing .
additional parking demand onto my street. I am still not convinced that permit parking is necessary for this part
of Palo Alto -only very rarely have I had to park more than 1 block away from my house due to high demand.
However, the proposed pilot program threatens to make life more difficult.
Thanks for considering my views,
Robert Heilmayr
1
Betten. Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
epernas.giz@gmail.com on behalf of The Battles Family
<mattlena@matthewbattles.com> .
Monday/ June 25/ 2012 9:53 AM
Rodriguez/ Jaime
Professorville RPP
Dear Mr. Rodriquez,
We are Professorville residents writing in support of the Residentfal Permit Parking program. It has come to our attention
that a pilot has been proposed for this program; we also support that pilot. In addition, we request that all Professorville
residents be kept informed of the RPP development, pilot, and results. Currently, only pilot participants are being kept
informed. As Professorville residents, we should also be included these information/decisions that directly 'impact our
neighborhood.
Thank you,
Elena & Matt Battles
1010 Waverley Street, Palo Alto
mattlena@matthewbattles.com
1
Betten, Zariah
Subject: FW: pilot Residential Permit Parking program
From: Karina Kloos [mailto:karinakloos@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 6:24 PI"1
To: Transportation
Subject: Re: pilot Residential Permit Parking program
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am a Palo Alto resident, residing at 160 Lincoln Ave, at the comer of Lincoln and High. I understand and
appreciate the logic behind RPP as I often face the problem of finding parking when I return home in the middle
of the day. I am concerned about both the pilot as well as any eventual permanent arrangement, because the
area indicated for RPP does not include my address. This of course means that displaced would-be parkers will
park even more disproportionatly in front of my home, creating an even worse parking problem for n1e.
We ask that you please consider extending the boundary of your pilot program (and any subsequent programs)
to include my address, to avoid worsening my already tight parking situation.
Sincerely,
Karina Kloos
160 Lincoln Ave Palo Alto
1
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Rob Steinberg <rsteinberg@steinberg.us.com>
MondaYt June 18t 2012 10:12 AM
Rodriguez, Jaime
Burt, Patrick; Espinosa, Sid (internal); Holmant Karen (internal); Klein, Larry; Price, Gail
(internal); Scharft Gregory (internal); Schmidt Greg; Shepherd, Nancy (internal); Yeht
Yiaway; City Mgr
Pilot Professorville Parking Permit
Scan_Doc0134.pdf
Jaime-I am in support of the pilot program, however I fear that the problem being experienced by the pilot blocks will .
be transferred to the adjacent residential blocks not being included in the pilot test. I would like to better understand
the thinking regarding ~he area to be included should the pilot ~e successful and a long term implementation plan be
considered by the City.
Rob
Robert T. Steinberg, FAIA
President
Steinberg
98 Battery Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94111
415.683.2633 I Mobile 415.987.0699
*Please note my new mobile phone number*
This message is intended only for the recipient(s) identified above MId may contain confidential information. If you arc not an intended recipient, do not
read, use, or this material. This 5112111 not be construed as an official project instruction or direction of Steinberg
in the project contract If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately
,·tVO"C::1:;;.:J"t'1· • .), return this transmission, and delete or destroy any copies (digital or paper).
1
Betten. Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Jaime,
Takeshi "TK" Mori <tkmori@zenshincapital.com>
Saturday, June 30, 2012 9:00 PM
Rodriguez, Jaime
Takeshi Mori
Residential parking permit in professorville
My name is TK l\(Iori. I live at 1116 Bryant Street.
The parking situation is really bad on Bryant (my section is between Lincoln and Kingsley),
and is getting worse recently.
Most of the weekday daytime, we cannot find a single spot on Bryant.
I recently heard that you are going to try a pilot RPP program, and my block is to adjacent
to the trial area.
I really think RPP is a good idea, and thank you for considering it.
I hope you will implement RPP as soon as possible and it covers much wider area.
I am' concerned that since your trial program is only covering a small area, the cars parked
there would be pushed out to my block.
I would appreciate your close attention to the matter.
TK Mori
tkmori@gmail.com
1
Betten, Zariah
From: Rodriguez, Jaime
Sent:
To:
SundaYI June 17, 2012 10:26 PM
Michael Vinson
Subject: RE: Pilot Professorville Residential Permit Parking
Hello Mr. Vinson,
Thank you for your email. The pilot Professorville RPP project is currently in the stage where we are querying residents
within the proposed area for their interest in implementing the trial. The results of the survey will be presented at the
city council meeting of July 16th. Residents living adjacent to the proposed pilot area will be notified by postal mail of
the council meeting at the end of June. We will definetely take in your written email now and not any concerns received
before the meeting, during the meeting.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (650) 329-2136.
Jaime Rodriguez
From: Michael Vinson [vinsonl022@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 3:01 PM
To: Rodriguez, Jaime'
Subject: Re: Pilot Professorville Residential Permit Parking
On Jun 17, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Michael Vinson wrote:
>1 have recently become aware of this pilot program. I am writing to register my objections.
>
> I live at 1022 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, between Lincoln and Addison, just outside the proposed zone. It is already
impossible to find parking in front of my house during the week. I have even gone out to find cars blocking my driveway.
I am often forced to park more than a block away.
>
> If you implement the proposed plan, it will just result in more people trying to park in front of my house since it will be
first block outside the zone. It will likely mean I will have to look 2 or more blocks from home to find street parking.
>
> I think residential parking is a good idea. But, your zone is too small and does not consider the impact of a small zone
on the surrounding neighbors. You are doubling the problem and moving it a few blocks, and while that may help the
people in the zone, it hurts those outside the zone.
>
> The only thing that makes sense is a zone which include the entire area south to Embarcadero and probably east to
Webster.
>
> Michael Vinson
, 1
Betten, Zariah
Subject: FW: Pilot Residential Permit Parking Program
From: Matt Mealiffe [mailto:matt@mealiffe.org]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 3:36 PM
To: Transportation
Subject: Pilot Residential Permit Parking Program
Dear Transportation Division City Staff,
I am writing after a friend in our neighborhood handed me a copy of your June 12, 2012 letter announcing the pilot
Residential Permit Parking program (RPP) in the vicinity of the Professorville area.
We live at 203 Addison (between Ramona and Emerson) on a block that -when boundaries of residential areas and
streets with businesses are considered -seems remarkably and strangely absent from the proposed RPP boundary. We
did not receive the pilot RPP letter, presumably because it was only sent to houses within the proposed pilot RPP
boundary.
My fiancee and I were and are both very strong supporters 'of a residential parking permit program on our street. The
parking crush from living in a neighborhood adjacent to downtown Palo Alto is - without question -the most negative
, factor of our daily existence in Palo Alto. It is also -admittedly -the only thing that drives us to anything resembling local
political activism.
Some time ago, at the invitation of neighbors, we got involved in the process with our politically active neighbors -
attending a neighborhood meeting organizing advocacy and attending a city council meeting to show our support for the
RPP. Strangely, our neighbors, after aggressively encouraging us to show support with a sign and attend various
meetings (which one or both of us often did), suddenly stopped inviting us to participate. Since we are both busy
professionals, we did not investigate as thoroughly as we should have why we were hearing nothing but crickets in the
neighborhood.
Looking through the "retrospectoscope", I regret not sensing that something was up now that I've been handed a copy of
the pilot RPP announcement that strangely does not include our block.
I'm on a mission to reconstruct what happened and learn more about how the RPP map came to look like a
gerrymandered Texas congressional district. I'd appreciate an opportunity to meet with you -perhaps early next week -
so that you help me learn about the logic behind the pilot RPP boundaries.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Matt Mealiffe
1