HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3291
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3291)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 11/19/2012
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Parking Moratorium Extension and Exceptions
Title: Public Hearing: Consider Extending through December 29, 2013 a
Moratorium on the Use of Certain Parking Exemptions contained in Section
18.52.060(c) of of the Zoning Ordinance Related to the Downtown and
California Avenue Parking Assessment Areas; and Considerations for Making
Exceptions from the Moratorium for Proposed Projects at 135 Hamilton
Avenue and 636 Waverley Street
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt the extension of the Interim Urgency Ordinance (Interim Ordinance) establishing
a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption set forth in
Section 18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any permit,
entitlement or development project, pending further study of Downtown and California
Avenue parking issues (Attachment A), for a period of thirty (30) days through
December 29, 2012; and
2. Direct staff to return prior to further extension of the ordinance with proposed language
related to potential exceptions for properties at 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636
Waverley Street.
Background
On October 15, 2012, the Council adopted an interim “urgency” ordinance that provides for a
moratorium on the use of a parking exemption for Exempt Floor Area (up to a 1.0 FAR) on a
site. As further detailed in the October 15 staff report, this zoning provision has been used very
City of Palo Alto Page 2
infrequently in the past and its rationale no longer applies. Further, its application to properties
that have not paid into the assessment district is of some question. In accordance with State
law, the moratorium was adopted on an “urgency” basis by Council with a 4/5 vote, 8-0
(Councilmember Schmid was absent). Council also directed that staff return with
recommendations for criteria to identify appropriate exceptions for projects in the
development review “pipeline.” The ordinance became effective immediately. State law
requires that staff report back within 45 days on a procedure for review of the ordinance, at
which time a public hearing would be held and the moratorium may be extended for an
additional 10 months and 15 days. State law permits a second extension of the ordinance for a
maximum duration of two years.
The October 15 Council staff report is included as Attachment B, and provides substantially
more detailed background about the code and the basis for the moratorium.
Discussion
Attachment A provides for a further extension of the ordinance for another 30 days, rather
than the 10 months, 15 days allowed by State law. A noticed public hearing is required, and
approval by a 4/5 vote of the Council (8 members) is needed. Staff has not prepared an
“exception” proposal for “pipeline” projects for this meeting, since we are aware that a full
Council would not be in attendance. By coming back within 30 days (December 10 is proposed),
staff will then propose an exception provision that Council may consider and extension for an
additional one year period.
The proposed Interim Ordinance (Attachment A) would continue to suspend use of the “Exempt
Floor Area Exemption” pending further study and changes to existing parking and zoning
requirements, including re-evaluation of the Downtown development cap. Floor area will
remain exempt from parking to the extent parking assessments have been paid for a site.
Interim Ordinance Process and Evaluation
State law allows for a city to extend the interim ordinance on an “urgency” basis, subject to an
interim report that outlines steps that have been and are expected to be taken to alleviate the
parking problems associated with the continued use of the Exempt Floor Area Exemption. Staff
has attached the Parking Study Report presented to Council on November 13 (Attachment C) as
the background report detailing the proposed evaluation process. The outcome of the Parking
Study, particularly related to the Downtown Development Cap, will include recommendation of
zoning changes, following public hearing and recommendation by the Planning and
Transportation Commission, to either revise the ordinance as necessary or consider permanent
elimination of the exemption, prior to the expiration of the moratorium.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Applicability to Pending Projects
As outlined in the October 15 report, cities may revise zoning requirements at any time and
new development must comply with those updated requirements. The major exception to this
rule is where a property owner has acquired a “vested right” to build a particular structure by
obtaining a permit and performing substantial work in reliance on that permit. A vested right is
not created by the existence of particular zoning, or by preparatory work performed in advance
of obtaining a permit. Staff does not believe there are any pending projects that have acquired
a vested right to develop under the old requirements. That being said, Council has discretion to
exempt projects form complying with new zoning requirements if there is a rational and
equitable basis for the exemption.
Staff noted that there are two development projects currently under review:
a) 135 Hamilton Avenue, which has been under discussion and review for more than a year
and has been reviewed once by the Architectural Review Board; and
b) 636 Waverley, which was submitted as a Preliminary Architectural Review application
on September 10, 2012.
Staff has engaged to some extent in discussions with the property owners for these projects,
and will continue to meet and then will return on December 10 with a proposal related to
exceptions for these “pipeline” projects, in conjunction with the second ordinance extension.
Given the need for 8 votes for any exception, staff believes it is important to have a full Council
present to discuss the scope of the exception.
Policy Implications
Staff believes that the interim ordinance extension is necessary to assure parking availability for
businesses and to protect nearby neighborhoods from further parking intrusion. The ordinance
is also consistent with Council’s recent direction to study parking improvements and
requirements for Downtown.
Environmental Review
Environmental review is not required for the urgency ordinance, as it simply maintains the
status quo, and is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations,
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequent ordinance changes
will, however, require further environmental review prior to consideration by the Planning and
Transportation Commission and Council.
Attachments:
A: Ordinance Extending Interim Urgency Ordinance (PDF)
B: October 15, 2012 City Council Staff Report re: Interim Urgency Ordinance (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
C: November 13, 2012 Council Staff Report re: Update of Parking Program (continued
from 11/5/12) (PDF)
Not Yet Approved
1
121113 jb 0131016
Ordinance No. ______
Ordinance Extending Ordinance No. 5167 of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Adopting a Temporary Moratorium on the Use of the “Exempt
Floor Area” Parking Exemption as Contained in Section 18.52.060 (c)
[Parking Assessment Districts and Areas ‐ General] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code for New Development in Assessment Districts
R E C I T A L S
A. The City of Palo Alto downtown area has seen an increase in
development and has experienced increases in parking demand, as documented in downtown
monitoring reports produced in the past 5 years; and
B. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has
resulted in complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the lack of parking for
their employees; and
C. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has also
resulted in complaints from residents in downtown areas about congested parking in their
neighborhoods; and
D. Program L‐8 of the Comprehensive Plan limits new nonresidential
development in the Downtown Area to 350,000 square feet (10 percent above the amount of
development existing or approved in 1986), and requires that this limit be re‐evaluated when
nonresidential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area; and
E. Section 18.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a development
moratorium on downtown nonresidential development upon an increase of 350,000 square
feet of net new nonresidential development (since 1986); and
F. The 235,000 square foot study limit will be reached upon approval of
projects now pending before the Architectural Review Board; and
G. On July 23, 2012, the City Council directed staff to initiate the preparation
of the re‐evaluation of the downtown development cap; and
H. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial
Districts) and Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) provide for a variety of
exemptions and reductions to parking requirements within the Downtown area and specifically
within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area that result in less parking being provided than
the calculated demand for parking for new projects; and
Not Yet Approved
2
121113 jb 0131016
I. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 18.52.060 (c) allows for floor area up
to a floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0 to be “exempt” from parking requirements within the
Downtown Parking Assessment Area and floor are up to 0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the
California Downtown Parkin Assessment Area (“Exempt Floor Area”); and
J. The Exempt Floor Area parking exemption was enacted in the mid 1980’s
and appears to have been intended to stimulate downtown development and provide equity to
parking assessment district members; and
K. The Exempt Floor Area parking exception no longer appears necessary to
achieve such purposes, given the vitality of downtown and the need for additional parking; and
L. Continued application of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption will
further exacerbate downtown and California Avenue parking deficiencies; and
M. The City Council desires on an interim basis to temporarily suspend use of
the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City as such use may be in conflict with a
contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning
commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a
reasonable time; and
N. The City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5167 on October 15,
2012, by a four‐fifths vote after a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65858
and Ordinance 5167 will expire on November 29, 2012.
O. On November 13, 2012, the Council reviewed, filed and heard comment
on a Report pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 regarding the current status of
parking issues in the Downtown area.
P. The Council desires to extend Interim Ordinance 5167 in accordance with
the requirements of Government Code Section 65858 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
2.04.270 and is based on the need to protect the public safety, health and welfare as set forth
in the above findings and a 4/5 vote is required for passage; and
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The findings listed above are hereby incorporated.
SECTION 2. Written Report. The Report referenced in Recital O is hereby
deemed by the City Council to be the written report describing the measures taken to alleviate
the condition which led to the adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5167.
SECTION 3. Moratorium. The City Council hereby extends Interim Urgency
Ordinance No. 5167 establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking
Not Yet Approved
3
121113 jb 0131016
exemption as set forth in Section 18.52.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with
any development or issuance of any permit or other land use entitlement for any project
located in the Downtown or California Avenue Assessment Districts.
SECTION 4. Study. The City Council directs the Planning Department to consider
and study possible amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan or Zoning ordinance to
eliminate use of the Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemption contained in Section 18.52.060 (c) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 5. Written Report. At least ten (10) days before this Urgency
Ordinance or any extension expires, the City Council shall issue a written report describing the
measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of this Interim Urgency
Ordinance.
SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 7. Effective Period. This extension ordinance shall take full force and
effect immediately upon expiration of Interim Ordinance No. 5167. In accordance with
Government Code Section 65856, this ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of
thirty (30) days following expiration of Interim Ordinance No. 5167. Thus the moratorium shall
expire on December 29, 2012, unless this period is extended by the City Council as provided in
Government Code Section 65858.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Not Yet Approved
4
121113 jb 0131016
SECTION 8. CEQA. The City Council finds that this ordinance falls under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of
Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is designed to preserve the status quo.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
______________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney ____________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3174)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 10/15/2012
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Downtown Parking Exemption
Title: Adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinance to Place Temporary
Moratorium on use of "Exempt Floor Area Ratio" Parking Exemption
Contained in Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance in the Downtown
and California Avenue Assessment Districts
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt the Interim Urgency Ordinance (Interim Ordinance)
establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption set forth in
Section 18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any permit,
entitlement or development project, pending further study of Downtown and California Avenue
parking issues (Attachment A).
Executive Summary
On July 16, 2012, the City Council considered the status of ongoing parking efforts for
Downtown and directed staff to look at a variety of approaches to address concerns of
businesses and neighbors. Some of the issues to be addressed, particularly in light of the
downtown development cap, will include evaluation of zoning measures that might more
accurately depict realistic parking ratios and assess the desirability and viability of parking
exemptions. Staff has identified, however, that one particular parking exemption, applicable to
both the Downtown and the California Avenue areas, is likely to immediately exacerbate
parking problems without seeming to provide for any public purpose. This provision (Section
18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance) appears to allow exemption from parking for any
property within the relevant assessment district, up to a 1:1 floor area ratio (FAR) in the
Downtown area and up to 0.5:1 in the California Avenue area (see Attachment B.) This clause
was included in language adopted in the 1980s to encourage downtown development and as a
compromise for then-recently enacted downzoning and establishment of parking assessments.
While the basis for those amendments is now outdated and downtown development is thriving,
City of Palo Alto Page 2
the provision remains in place and applicants are now invoking it to further exempt parking.
This is generally in addition to exemptions due to transfer of development rights (TDR) or other
allowances pursuant to the code.
Staff recommends that the “Exempt Floor Area exemption” be suspended, at least for the
duration of staff’s study of downtown parking, to enable a more complete analysis of its effect
in combination with other parking measures. An interim “urgency” ordinance is attached that
would allow for such a moratorium on the use of this exemption. According to State law, the
moratorium may be adopted on an “urgency” basis by Council with a 4/5 vote, meaning at least
eight (8) Council members would need to agree to impose the change for a maximum of 45
days. The ordinance would become effectively immediately. State law requires that staff report
back within 45 days on a procedure for review of the ordinance, at which time a public hearing
would be held and the moratorium may be extended for an additional 10 months and 15 days.
State law permits a second extension of the ordinance for a maximum duration of two years.
Background
The City of Palo Alto has studied parking limitations, particularly in Downtown, multiple times
since the 1980s, when the original assessments for the Downtown and California Avenue areas
were established, and Downtown was rezoned (downzoned) to more restrictive building
standards. Downtown parking was re-evaluated in the 1990s, leading up to the construction of
two new parking garages. Zoning requirements that limit downtown commercial development
also mandated that the staff prepare an annual report to monitor downtown development, the
use of transferable development rights (TDRs) and parking changes (the most recent report is
included as Attachment C).
Over the past year, staff has developed considerable data and initiated programs to evaluate
the status of parking in Downtown and in the California Avenue area, as well as to assess the
impact of overflow parking on nearby residential neighborhoods. On July 16, 2012, the City
Council considered the status of ongoing parking efforts and directed staff to look at a variety
of approaches to address concerns of businesses and neighbors. Staff is initiating studies of the
potential for adding parking facilities Downtown and in the California Avenue area, means to
more efficiently use available parking garages and lots, technology to enhance customer service
and the customer experience, and evaluation of the downtown development cap and related
zoning provisions.
Some of the issues to be addressed, particularly in light of the downtown development cap, will
include evaluation of zoning measures that might more accurately depict realistic parking ratios
and assess the desirability and viability of parking exemptions. Staff has identified, however,
that one particular parking exemption, applicable to both Downtown and the California Avenue
area, is likely to immediately exacerbate parking problems without seeming to provide for any
City of Palo Alto Page 3
public purpose. This provision (Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance) appears to allow
exemption from off-street parking requirements for any property within the relevant
assessment district, associated with floor area up to a 1.0:1 floor area ratio (FAR) in Downtown
and up to 0.5:1-1.0:1 FAR in the California Avenue area. This clause appears to have been added
to the Zoning Code in the 1980s to encourage Downtown development and as a compromise
for then-recently enacted downzoning and the establishment of parking assessments. The
language is quite convoluted, resulting in varying interpretations by staff and applicants. The
City has not been able to locate complete documentation of the history of the exemption.
Property owners who never paid into the assessment district have argued that the Exempt
Floor Area exemption allows them to retroactively “buy into” the assessment district in order to
take advantage of the provision. The exemption has not, to staff’s knowledge, been requested
or implemented until recently, specifically:
In 2007, a one-story project at 135 Hamilton Avenue was exempted for approximately
7,700 square feet on a 10,000 square foot lot (approximately 31 parking spaces),
providing no parking spaces on a site that had not ever paid into the assessment district
(note: the project was approved, but was not built and the permit has expired). The
applicant, however, was required and had agreed to pay into the assessment district to
qualify for the exemption.
In 2011, a subsequent application for the same site was submitted for a four-story
building, with 10,000 square feet (40 parking spaces) to be exempted from providing on-
site parking spaces or paying in-lieu fees, and another 5,000 square feet (20 parking
spaces) exempted through the use of TDRs. This project has received review by the
Architectural Review Board and is now under redesign. The applicant is again offering to
pay into the assessment district to qualify for this exemption. (Note: the applicant has
also recently provided a letter stating his intent to revise the application to
accommodate the prior one-story proposal).
In 2011, the applicants for the four-story Lytton Gateway project at 335 Alma Street
requested the 1:1 FAR exemption for the portion of the floor area that was located
within the Downtown assessment district, approximately 14,400 square feet (58
spaces). The project was considered as a Planned Community rezoning, however, and
the Council did not accept the exemption as a given, instead requiring additional parking
and contributions to the City’s In-Lieu Parking Fund.
In September 2012, a Preliminary Architectural Review application was filed for a 4,903
square foot office development (with two residences above) at 636 Waverley Street,
requesting exemption for the 1:1 FAR equivalent, amounting to 14 spaces of the total 20
required for the office on-site, in addition to other exemptions allowing existing parking
deficiencies to be carried over to the new development.
Staff has spoken with owners of at least two other sites, for which the 1:1 FAR
exemption is being considered, but applications have not yet been submitted.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Given the current parking deficits in the City’s two assessment districts (downtown and
California Avenue) and the outdated rationale for applying this exemption, staff has been
discouraging recent applications since the 135 Hamilton Avenue and 335 Alma (Lytton
Gateway) projects from using this parking exemption. To staff’s knowledge, no project
applicant has requested use of the exemption for the California Avenue area.
Discussion
Staff believes that the basis for the “Exempt Floor Area Exemption”, i.e., encourage
development Downtown and compromise for the downzoning and parking assessment
requirements, is now outdated, as downtown does not require encouragement to develop, and
any equity issues have long been addressed. Nevertheless, the provision remains in place and
applicants are now invoking it to further exempt parking. There is also some ambiguity as to
whether applicants who have never paid into the assessment district can qualify for the
exemption by paying into the district retroactively, and if so, how to calculate the payment.
Further, applicants are sometimes coupling this exemption with other parking exemptions due
to transfer of development rights (TDR) or other allowances pursuant to the code. The result of
the continued use of this exemption would be to exacerbate parking deficiencies in the
Downtown and California Avenue assessment district areas.
Proposed Ordinance
The proposed Interim Ordinance (Attachment A) would suspend use of the “Exempt Floor Area
Exemption” pending further study and changes to existing parking and zoning requirements,
including re-evaluation of the Downtown development cap. Floor area will of course remain
exempt from parking to the extent assessments have been paid for the site. Staff believes it is
appropriate to apply the moratorium to both the Downtown and California Avenue areas, as it
will in both areas exacerbate parking deficiencies documented previously by staff. Staff
distinguishes this provision from others for review, particularly the transferable development
rights (TDRs) section, as in those cases other public purposes are readily identified (seismic and
historic rehabilitation), and significant investments (either rehabilitation or purchase of TDRs)
have been made pursuant to the zoning ordinance. Those provisions will, however, be
evaluated as part of the more comprehensive parking studies.
Interim Ordinance Process
State law allows for a city to enact an interim ordinance on an “urgency” basis, upon a vote of
4/5 of the members of the Council, to protect the health, safety or welfare of the community
(the draft ordinance includes the relevant findings). No public hearing and no input from the
Planning and Transportation Commission is required prior to the enactment of the urgency
ordinance. An ordinance adopted pursuant to this provision of State law takes effect
City of Palo Alto Page 5
immediately and does not require second reading. The next steps, pursuant to State law, would
be to:
1. Return to Council not later than 45 days later for a public hearing with an interim report
with steps taken to alleviate the parking problems associated with the continued use of
the Exempt Floor Area Exemption. At that time the Council will also be asked to extend
the Interim Ordinance for up to an additional 10 months and 15 days (as allowed under
Government Code Section 65858) to allow staff to propose zoning changes; and
2. Recommendation of zoning changes, following public hearing and recommendation by
the Planning and Transportation Commission, to either revise the ordinance as
necessary or consider permanent elimination of the exemption, prior to the expiration
of the 10-month, 15-day extension.
Applicability to Pending Projects
Cities may revise zoning requirements at any time, except where a property owner has
acquired a “vested right” to build a particular structure by obtaining a permit and performing
substantial work in reliance on that permit. A vested right is not created by the existence of
particular zoning, or by preparatory work performed in advance of obtaining a permit. While
the Interim Ordinance as written does not make exceptions for projects that have begun the
planning process but not completed it by securing final permits (“pipeline projects”), in the past
the City generally has excepted pipeline projects from new ordinance requirements. The City is
not legally required to make such exceptions, but the Council may make a policy decision to do
so. Two projects are currently under review:
a) 135 Hamilton Avenue, which has been under discussion and review for more than a year
and has been reviewed once by the Architectural Review Board; and
b) 636 Waverley, which was submitted as a Preliminary Architectural Review application
on September 10, 2012.
Staff has discussed the application of the Exempt Floor Area Exemption for a couple of other
projects, but owners have not yet submitted applications for those projects. Council may
choose to either include or exempt one or both of the “pipeline” projects from application of
the moratorium. If the Council chooses to exclude one or both projects from the moratorium,
staff suggests that exclusion be conditional upon: a) preparation of a robust transportation
demand management (TDM) program for the project, and b) payment of the equivalent
“assessment” amount or increment to the In-Lieu Parking Fund (rather than to pay down the
bonds) to contribute to construction of additional parking spaces in the future (note: the
amount of the “assessment” should be the present value of a stream of assessments as would
originally have been applied over the life of the parking bonds). Staff will be prepared to
suggest language to implement these requirements should Council desire.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Policy Implications
Staff believes that the interim ordinance is necessary to assure parking availability for
businesses and to protect nearby neighborhoods from further parking intrusion. The ordinance
is also consistent with Council’s recent direction to study parking improvements and
requirements for Downtown.
Environmental Review
Environmental review is not required for the urgency ordinance, as it simply maintains the
status quo, and is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations,
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequent ordinance changes
will, however, require further environmental review prior to consideration by the Planning and
Transportation Commission and Council.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Downtown Parking Exemption Urgency Ordinance (DOCX)
Attachment B: Section 18.52.060 of Zoning Ordinance (DOCX)
Attachment C: December, 2011 Downtown Monitoring Report to Council (PDF)
Not Yet Approved
1
121010 jb 0131000
Ordinance No. _______
Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a
Temporary Moratorium on the Use of the “Exempt Floor Area” Parking
Exemption as Contained in Section 18.52.060 (c) [Parking Assessment
Districts and Areas - General] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for New
Development in Assessment Districts
R E C I T A L S
A. The City of Palo Alto downtown area has seen an increase in
development and has experienced increases in parking demand, as documented in downtown
monitoring reports produced in the past 5 years; and
B. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has
resulted in complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the lack of parking for
their employees; and
C. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has also
resulted in complaints from residents in downtown areas about congested parking in their
neighborhoods; and
D. Program L-8 of the Comprehensive Plan limits new nonresidential
development in the Downtown Area to 350,000 square feet (10 percent above the amount of
development existing or approved in 1986), and requires that this limit be re-evaluated when
nonresidential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area; and
E. Section 18.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a development
moratorium on downtown nonresidential development upon an increase of 350,000 square
feet of net new nonresidential development (since 1986); and
F. The 235,000 square foot study limit will be reached upon approval of
projects now pending before the Architectural Review Board; and
G. On July 23, 2012, the City Council directed staff to initiate the preparation
of the re-evaluation of the downtown development cap; and
H. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial
Districts) and Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) provide for a variety of
exemptions and reductions to parking requirements within the Downtown area and specifically
within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area that result in less parking being provided than
the calculated demand for parking for new projects; and
I. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 18.52.060 (c) allows for floor area up
to a floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0 to be “exempt” from parking requirements within the
Attachment A
Not Yet Approved
2
121010 jb 0131000
Downtown Parking Assessment Area and floor area up to 0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the
California Downtown Parking Assessment Area (“Exempt Floor Area”); and
J. The Exempt Floor Area parking exemption was enacted in the mid 1980’s
and appears to have been intended to stimulate downtown development and provide equity to
parking assessment district members; and
K. The Exempt Floor Area parking exception no longer appears necessary to
achieve such purposes, given the vitality of downtown and the need for additional parking; and
L. Continued application of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption will
further exacerbate Downtown and California Avenue parking deficiencies; and
M. The City Council desires on an interim basis to temporarily suspend use of
the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City as such use may be in conflict with a
contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning
commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a
reasonable time; and
N. This interim ordinance is adopted in accordance with the requirements of
Government Code Section 65858 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.270 and is based
on the need to protect the public safety, health and welfare as set forth in the above findings
and a 4/5 vote is required for passage.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The findings listed above are hereby incorporated.
SECTION 2. Moratorium. The City Council hereby enacts this Interim Urgency
Ordinance establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption as
set forth in Section 18.52.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any
development or issuance of any permit or other land use entitlement for any project located in
the Downtown or California Avenue Assessment Districts.
SECTION 3. Study. The City Council directs the Planning Department to consider
and study possible amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan or Zoning ordinance to
eliminate use of the Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemption contained in Section 18.52.060 (c) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 4. Written Report. At least ten (10) days before this Urgency
Ordinance or any extension expires, the City Council shall issue a written report describing the
measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of this Interim Urgency
Ordinance.
Not Yet Approved
3
121010 jb 0131000
SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 6. Effective Period. This urgency ordinance shall take full force and
effect immediately upon adoption. In accordance with Government Code Section 65856, this
ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of forty-five (45) days from adoption.
Thus the moratorium shall expire on November 29, 2012, unless this period is extended by the
City Council as provided in Government Code Section 65858.
SECTION 7. CEQA. The City Council finds that this ordinance falls under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of
Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is designed to preserve the status quo.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
______________________________
Assistant City Attorney ____________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
ATTACHMENT B
18.52.060 Parking Assessment Districts and Areas - General
(a) Definitions
(1) "Parking Assessment Areas"
"Parking assessment areas" means either:
The "downtown parking assessment area," which is that certain area of the city delineated on the
map of the University Avenue parking assessment district entitled Proposed Boundaries of
University Avenue Off-Street Parking Project No. 75-63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto,
County of Santa Clara, State of California, dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city
clerk; or
The "California Avenue area parking assessment district," which is that certain area of the city
delineated on the map of the California Avenue area parking assessment district entitled
Proposed Boundaries, California Avenue Area Parking Maintenance District, dated December
16, 1976, and on file with the city clerk;
(2) "Exempt Floor Area"
Within the downtown parking assessment area, "exempt floor area" means all or a portion of that
floor area of a building which is located at or nearest grade and which does not exceed a floor
area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0;
Within the California Avenue area parking assessment district, "exempt floor area" means either:
(A) All or a portion of that floor area of a building which is located at or nearest grade and which
does not exceed a floor area ratio of 0.5 to 1.0 or
(B) The amount of floor area shown on the 1983-84 California Avenue area assessment district
rolls in the engineer's report for bonds issued pursuant to Title 13 of the municipal code,
whichever is greater.
(b) In-lieu fees
Except as provided in subsection (c) below, within any parking assessment district established by
the city for the purpose of providing off-street parking facilities, all or a portion of the off-street
parking requirement for a use may be satisfied by payment of assessments or fees levied by such
district on the basis of parking spaces required but not provided.
(c) Exempt Floor Area
(1) Unless a project for the construction of floor area has received design approval prior to
December 19, 1983, or has undergone preliminary review pursuant to Sections 18.76.020 and
18.77.070 on December 1st or 15th, 1983, the only portion of off-street parking required for
construction of floor area in a parking assessment area which may be satisfied by payment of
assessments or levies made within such area on the basis of parking spaces required but not
provided, is that portion of the parking requirements associated with the uses proposed to be
conducted in that area of the floor equal to the exempt floor area for the site. Where only a
portion of floor area constitutes exempt floor area, and uses with more than one parking standard
as required by this chapter are proposed for said floor, the use on that portion of the floor which
generates the highest parking requirement will be designated as the exempt floor area.
(2) All other required off-street parking that is not satisfied by such payment of assessments shall
be provided in accordance with this chapter.
(3) This subsection shall be interpreted to allow changes in the use of all exempt floor area and
nonexempt floor area existing as of February 16, 1984 without requiring additional parking;
provided, that the change in use does not consist of a change from residential to nonresidential,
or an increase in actual floor area which does not constitute exempt floor area.
(4) No project which has received design approval prior to December 19, 1983, or which has
undergone preliminary review on December 1st or 15th, 1983, shall increase the amount of floor
area approved or reviewed or decrease the area designed or intended for parking without meeting
the requirements of this chapter.
(Ord. 4964 § 3 (part), 2007)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2424)
City Council Informational Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 3/5/2012
March 05, 2012 Page 1 of 7
(ID # 2424)
Title: Downtown Monitoring Report 2010-2011
Subject: Commercial Downtown (CD) Monitoring Report for 2010-2011
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
This is an informational report and no Council action is required.
Executive Summary
The annual Commercial Downtown (CD) Monitoring Report tracks total non-residential growth
in the commercial downtown area (CD-C zones) and office and retail vacancy rates in CD-C and
CD-C (GF)(P) zones. Through mid-January of 2012, there was a 4.8 percent vacancy rate within
the Ground Floor Overlay District and a 2.0 percent overall vacancy rate in the Commercial
Downtown (CD) zoning district. In this monitoring cycle, approximately 13,500 square feet of
space was approved or added to the total downtown non-residential square footage. An
additional 61,650 square feet of new non-residential development can be accommodated
before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet growth limit is reached.
Background
Annual monitoring of available space in Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning area was
established in 1998 by Comprehensive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9. These programs require
reporting of non-residential development activity and trends within the CD zone district.
Staff regularly tracks vacancy rates, changes in floor area and parking in the CD district resulting
from approved development to comply with Comprehensive Plan programs and to determine
the ground floor vacancy rate in the CD zone district. The zoning code, until 2009, included an
exception process to allow office development on the first floor if the ground floor vacancy rate
exceeds 5%.
In 2009, the City Council adopted zoning ordinance amendments to enhance protection of retail
uses in downtown commercial districts to ensure that retail uses are retained and viability
enhanced during the economic downturn and beyond. A map of the districts subject to the
amendments was included in the 2009 City Council report (CMR 20:09), available on the City’s
website. The ordinance amendment eliminated the provision for an exception process if the GF
vacancy rate is found to be greater than 5% during the annual monitoring period.
March 05, 2012 Page 2 of 7
(ID # 2424)
Staff completed field visits for this 2010/2011 monitoring period in early January 2012.
Telephone interviews and email exchanges with local real estate leasing agents were also
compiled at the same time to determine current vacancy rates and prevailing rents. This report
also includes cumulative data on developments in the Commercial Downtown (CD)zone from
January 1987 through August 31, 2011 and specific data on vacancy information and rental
rates through January 2012.
Discussion
Economic conditions in Palo Alto downtown area are improving gradually. There is currently a
4.8 percent vacancy rate within the Ground Floor Overlay District and a 2.0 percent overall
vacancy rate in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district. This is a noticeable drop of 2.1
percent vacancy in the Ground Floor Overlay District from last year. This number is close to the
2007-2008 period vacancy rate, just before the start of the economic downturn. In the 2010-
2011 monitoring period, the rental rates for retail varied from $2.75 to $4.00 per square foot
based on the location, and the average office rental rate was between $4.50 and $7.00 per
square foot. Office rental rates have increased in the last year and a half and retail rental rates
have remained steady throughout the 2010-2011 monitoring period. The following table shows
the approximate total vacant area and percentage of vacancy, beginning in the 2006-2007
monitoring period.
TABLE 1: Total Vacancy in CD-C & CD-C (GF) (P) Zones in Downtown Palo Alto
Year
Total CD-C
Vacant
(SQFT)
% of CD-C
Vacancy
Total CD-C (GF)
(P) Vacant
(SQFT)
% of CD-C (GF)
(P) Vacancy
2006-2007 88,368 2.63 18,330 2.94
2007-2008 120,004 3.60 26,294 4.21
2008-2009 212,189 6.39 56,109 8.99
2009-2010 85,271 2.56 37,888 6.91
2010-2011 66,226 2.0 26, 290 4.8
Non-Residential Development Activity
The Downtown Study, approved in 1986, incorporated a growth limit of 350,000 square feet of
additional floor area above the total floor area existing in 1986, and provided for a re-
evaluation of the CD regulations when net new development reaches 235,000 square feet.
Since 1986, a total of 173,356 square feet of non-residential uses has been added (or approved)
in the Downtown CD-C zoned area. In the past two monitoring cycles from 2008-2010,
March 05, 2012 Page 3 of 7
(ID # 2424)
approximately 46,500 square feet of net new commercial floor area was added with a few
major contributing projects such as: 317-323 University Avenue, 325 Lytton Avenue, 564
University Avenue, 310 University Avenue, 278 University Avenue, and 265 Lytton Avenue. In
this current cycle (2010-2011) approximately 13,499 square feet of net new commercial floor
area has been added. Though significant construction activities continue in the downtown CD-C
zone area, most of the construction includes redevelopment of existing sites since the existing
downtown is close to being built-out. In the current cycle there were approximately five sites
that were redeveloped but only one project, at 524 Hamilton Avenue, added significant square
footage.
Based on this recent monitoring, an additional 61,650 square feet of new non-residential
development remains available for development before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000
square feet growth limit is reached.
Demonstrating Special Public Benefits
The Downtown Study reserved 100,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot growth limit to
be used for projects demonstrating special public benefits. Since 1986, ten projects in the
Downtown area have been developed under the Planned Community zoning that requires a
finding of public benefit. Five of the projects exceeded the non-residential floor area that would
otherwise be allowed under zoning by a total of 34,378 square feet. The total changes in square
footage of these projects are shown in the fourth column of Attachment E. The remaining five
projects were mixed-use projects that did not exceed allowable non-residential floor areas. All
of the projects either provided parking or paid a fee in lieu of providing parking.
Projects Qualifying for Seismic, Historic or Minor Expansion Exemptions
The Downtown Study designated 75,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot cap for projects
that qualify for seismic, historic or minor expansion exemptions in order to encourage these
upgrades. Since 1986, 93,931 square feet have been added in this category. Two projects, 524
Hamilton Avenue and 668 Ramona Street, have used close to 5,000 square feet of Transfer
Development Rights (TDR) square footage in this evaluation period. These projects are shown
in the fifth column of Attachment E.
Parking Inventory
At the time of the Downtown Study, performance measures were established that specify that
new development in the Downtown should not increase the total parking deficit beyond that
expected from development that was existing or approved through May 1986, or 1,601 spaces.
In 2003, the City opened two new parking structures: one located on 528 High Street and the
other at 445 Bryant Street, adding a total of 899 parking spaces. These parking structure
projects, in addition to other projects that provide a parking component, decreased the original
1986 deficit to approximately 628 spaces. At the end of the 2003 monitoring period, the City
determined that a re-evaluation of the parking exemption regulations would be undertaken
when the unmet parking demand resulting from exemptions (transfer of development rights
and FAR bonuses) reaches a cumulative 450 spaces. Currently, the unmet parking demand
resulting from exemptions is 323 parking spaces. Through various projects, the total cumulative
parking deficit has been significantly reduced from 1,601 in 1986 to 722 in 2011. The main
March 05, 2012 Page 4 of 7
(ID # 2424)
reasons for the reduction are: 1) the two-floor addition to the Cowper/Webster Garage; 2)
significant restriping of on-street parking spaces by the City’s Transportation Division, resulting
in 96 additional spaces; and 3) the construction of the two previously mentioned parking
structures located on 528 High Street and 445 Bryant Street. Attachment F is a chart of the CD
(Commercial Downtown) parking deficit. Staff notes, however, that the effects of the parking
deficit, particularly on adjacent neighborhoods, appear to have been exacerbated by the
increased employee density of office uses in the downtown.
Vacancy Rate for Ground Floor (GF) Combining District
The Ground Floor Combining District (GF) was created to encourage active pedestrian uses in
the Downtown area such as retail, eating and drinking and personal services. In October 2011,
there was approximately 548,675 square feet of total Ground Floor area in the CD-C(GF)(P)
zoning district following the adoption of the amended ordinance in December 2009 to enhance
protection of retail uses in the heart (University Avenue and side streets) of the downtown
commercial district. Attachment C provides the list of parcels affected by adoption of the
ordinance. A map showing the location of these parcels is provided as Attachment D. The result
was an approximate net 75,660 square feet reduction in the total square footage of GF district.
During the staff survey of Downtown vacancies in first week of January 2012, there were seven
properties, totaling 26,290 square feet, which met the requirements for vacant and available
ground floor area.
TABLE 2: Vacant Property Listings for Only Ground Floor (GF) Spaces in
CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District.
(As of January 4, 2012)
Address Vacant Square Feet
541 Bryant 2,556
248 Hamilton 3,000
174 University 2,300*
180 University 12,459
435 University 1,450
429-447 University 1,800
522 Waverley 2,725
Total (GF) Vacancy 26,290
March 05, 2012 Page 5 of 7
(ID # 2424)
*Vacant since last year
This results in a GF vacancy rate of approximately 4.8 percent, a reduction of 2.1 percent from
the vacancy rate of last year.
Vacancy Rate for Entire CD District
The entire Downtown Commercial (CD) area includes approximately 3,850,000 gross square
feet of floor area, including approximately 330,000 square feet within the SOFA CAP Phase 2
area. About 525,000 square feet is used for religious or residential purposes or is vacant and
not available for occupancy. Thus, the net square footage of available commercial space is
approximately 3,325,000 square feet.
Staff conducted a field survey in early January 2012 and communicated with local real estate
agents during same time to assess overall vacancies in the downtown area. In this monitoring
cycle there was a total vacancy of 66,226 square feet. This vacancy equals a rate of 2.0 percent,
somewhat less than the 2.6 percent vacancy noted in last year’s monitoring report. The overall
CD-C vacancy rate has reduced considerably since the 2008-2009 period, close to a drop of 4
percent.
Table 3 was compiled based on staff conducted fieldwork, research of real estate websites and
responses received from local downtown real estate agents.
TABLE 3: Vacant Property Listings for Remainder of Commercial Downtown (CD)
(As of January 4, 2012)
Includes Upper Floor Office Space in CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District and all floors of CD-C (P)
District
Address Zoning District Vacant Square Feet
635 Bryant CD-C (P)545
644 Emerson CD-C (P)2,238
418 Florence CD-C (P)2,515
155 Forest CD-S (P); CD-C (P)550
120-122 Hamilton CD-C (P)2,260
209 Hamilton CD-C (GF)(P)9,000
261 Hamilton CD-C (GF)(P)783
400 Hamilton CD-C (P)3,320
245 Lytton CD-C (P)13,433
March 05, 2012 Page 6 of 7
(ID # 2424)
550 Lytton CD-C (P)2,892
552 Waverley CD-C (GF)(P)2,400
Total Rest of CD Vacancy 39,936
CD –Commercial Downtown, (C) –Commercial, (S) –Service,
GF –Ground Floor Combining District, P -Pedestrian Overlay
Trends in Use Composition
The primary observation of change in the use composition of Downtown was, in this cycle, a
reduction of approximately 12,860 square feet of religious/institutional use that was converted
to office use at the 661 Bryant Street project. Since the enactment of new CD zoning
regulations in 1986, the total floor area devoted to higher-intensity commercial uses such as
office, retail, eating/drinking and housing has increased, while the total floor area in lower-
intensity commercial uses like manufacturing and warehousing has decreased (see Attachment
G).
Retail Rents
Retail rental rates have marginally increased since last year’s monitoring report. According to
the data gathered from the January 2011 staff survey of commercial real estate agents offering
properties for lease in Downtown, rents for retail space generally range from $2.75 to $4.00 per
square foot triple net (i.e. rent plus tenant assumption of insurance, janitorial services and
taxes). The lower end of this range is generally for spaces in older buildings and away from
University Avenue. Retail rental rates in the core downtown University Avenue sometimes
increase to highs of $5.00 to $6.00 per square foot. For some vacant properties outside the
downtown core, rental rates have been listed as negotiable.
Office Rents
Based on the information gathered from the commercial real estate agents listing properties for
lease in Downtown, rents for Class A Downtown office space (i.e. newer and/or larger buildings
on University Avenue and Lytton Avenues) and Class B office space (i.e. older and/or smaller
buildings further from University Avenue) range from $4.50 to $7.00 per square foot triple net,
compared to $3.50 to $5.50 per square foot triple net in last year’s monitoring report.
Timeline
This is an annual report.
Resource Impact
This report has no impact on resources, though the implications of reduced vacancy rates have
positive impacts on the City’s potential source of property and sales taxes.
Policy Implications
This report on the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning area is mandated by Comprehensive
March 05, 2012 Page 7 of 7
(ID # 2424)
Plan Programs L-8 and L-9 and by the Downtown Study approved by the City Council on July 14,
1986.
Environmental Review
This is an informational report only and is exempted from CEQA review.
Courtesy Copies
Planning and Transportation Commission
Architectural Review Board
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Downtown Palo Alto
Palo Alto Board of Realtors
Downtown North Neighborhood Association
Professorville Neighborhood
University Park Neighborhood Association
Attachments:
·Attachment A: 1986 Downtown Study Results Summary (PDF)
·Attachment B: Commercial Downtown (CD) Zone District Map (PDF)
·Attachment C: List of Parcels Added and Removed From CD-C(GF) P District (PDF)
·Attachment D: Downtown Map Showing the Zone Changes (PDF)
·Attachment E: CD Non-Residential Change in SQFT 09/01/86 to 08/31/11 (PDF)
·Attachment F: CD Parking Deficit(PDF)
·Attachment G: CommercialDowntown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category
(PDF)
Prepared By:Chitra Moitra, Planner
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
ATTACHMENT A
DOWNTOWN STUDY RESULTS SUMMARY (July 1986)
The following are the primary measures adopted as a result of the study:
1. A new Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district, including three sub districts (CD-C, CD-S and CD-N), was created and
applied to most of the Downtown area previously zoned Community Commercial (CC) or Service Commercial (CS). The
basic provisions of the CD district include floor area ratios (FARs) that are more restrictive than in the previous CC and CS
zones, limits to project size and to the overall amount of future development, and special development regulations for sites
adjacent to residential zones.
2. Growth limits were applied to the CD district restricting future development to a total of 350,000 square feet beyond what was
existing or approved in May 1986 and providing for a re-evaluation of the CD regulations when new development reaches
235,000 square feet. In addition, 100,000 square feet of the total new floor area was reserved for projects demonstrating
special public benefits and 75,000 square feet for projects which qualify for seismic, historic or minor expansion exemptions.
3. Exemptions to the floor area ratio restrictions of the CD zone were established for certain building expansions involving
historic structures, seismic rehabilitation, provision of required handicapped access, or one-time additions of 200 square feet or
less.
4. New parking regulations were established for the University Avenue Parking Assessment District that requires new non-
residential development to provide parking at a rate of one space per 250 square feet of floor area. Exemptions to this
requirement are provided for certain increases in floor area related to provision of handicapped access, seismic or historic
rehabilitation, one-time minor additions (200 square feet or less) and development of vacant land previously assessed for
parking. The regulations also permit, in certain instances, off-site parking and parking fees in lieu of on-site parking.
5. Performance measures were established that specify that new development in the Downtown should not increase the total
parking deficit beyond that expected from development that was existing or approved through May, 1986 (1600 spaces) and
that call for re-evaluation of the parking exemption regulations when the unmet parking demand, resulting from exemptions,
reaches one half (225 parking spaces) of the minimum 450 parking spaces deemed necessary for construction of a new public
parking structure. Staff was directed to monitor the parking deficit.
6. A new Ground Floor (GF) Combining District was created and applied to the area along University Avenue and portions of the
major side streets between Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, in order to restrict the amount of ground floor area devoted to uses
other than retail, eating and drinking or personal service.
7. Staff was directed to monitor the Downtown area in terms of development activity, vacancy rates, sales tax revenues, and
commercial lease rates to facilitate evaluation of the effectiveness of the new regulations.
8. Staff was directed to undertake a site and feasibility study to evaluate an additional public parking structure elsewhere in the
Downtown, to consider development of a parking facility on public lots S, L and F, and to explore the possibility of leasing or
purchasing privately-owned vacant lots suitable as parking structure sites.
9. Policies and regulations were adopted which encourage Planned Community (PC) zoning for parking structures and limit
underground parking to two levels below grade, unless there is proof that regular pumping of subsurface water will not be
necessary.
10. A Twelve-Point Parking Program was adopted to increase the efficiency of existing parking.
11. Traffic policies were adopted which prohibit new traffic signals on portions of Alma Street and Middlefield Road, and prohibit
a direct connection from Sand Hill Road to Palo Alto/Alma Street. In addition, new signs were approved directing through
traffic off of University Avenue and onto Hamilton and Lytton Avenues.
12. Staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) were directed to consider the possibility of an Urban Design Plan for
Downtown and to develop design guidelines for commercial structures in neighborhood transition areas and for driveways
which cross pedestrian walkways.
13. A temporary Design and Amenities Committee was created and charged with developing an incentive program (including FAR
increases of up to 1.5) to encourage private development to provide a variety of public amenities in the Downtown area.
14. Staff was directed to study possible restrictions on the splitting and merging of parcels as well as the establishment of
minimum lot sizes in the new CD district.
COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN (CD) ZONE DISTRICT MAP ATTACHMENT B
o
•
,
ATTACHMENT C
LIST OF PARCELS ADDED AND REMOVED FROM CD-C (GF) P DISTRICT
The following properties were added to the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District:
200-228 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-27-008
230-238 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-27-009
240-248 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-27-010
412 Emerson Street---APN 120-26-106
420 Emerson Street---APN 120-26-025
430 Emerson Street---APN 120-26-026
The following properties were removed from the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District:
115-119 University Avenue---APN 120-26-108
102-116 University Avenue---APN 120-26-039
124 University Avenue---APN 120-26-043
125 University Avenue---APN 120-26-138
525 Alma Street---APN 120-26-093
529 Alma Street---APN 120-26-110
535-539 Alma Street, 115 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-26-091
135 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-26-111
440 Cowper Street---APN 120-15-014
437 Kipling Street---APN 120-15-020
443 Kipling Street---APN 120-15-019
DOWNTOWN MAP SHOWING THE ZONE CHANGES ATTACHMENT D
o
:~
o
.~
,
1
ATTACHMENT E
CD NON-RESIDENTIAL CHANGE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE 09/01/86 TO 08/31/11
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in non-
Residential Floor
Area
520 Ramona Street A
CDCGFP
11/20/84
-
400
+400
220 University Avenue
CDCGFP
2/5/87
-
65
+65
151 Homer Avenue
CDSP
3/17/88
-
-
-9,750
314 Lytton Avenue
CDCP
5/5/88
-
-
-713
247-275 Alma Street
CDNP
8/4/88
-
-
+1,150
700 Emerson Street
CDSP
9/15/88
-
-
+4,000
431 Florence Street
CDCP
9/15/88
-
2,500
+2,500
156 University Avenue
CDCGFP
12/15/88
-
4,958
+4,958
401 Florence Street
CDCP
3/2/89
-
2,407
+2,407
619 Cowper Street
CDCP
5/6/89
-
-
+2,208
250 University Avenue
PC-3872
5/15/89
11,000B
300
+20,300
2
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in non-
Residential Floor
Area
550 University Avenue
CDCP
6/1/89
-
-
-371
529 Bryant Street
PC-3974
5/3/90
2,491C
2,491
+2,491
305 Lytton Avenue
CDCP
9/28/90
-
200
+200
550 Lytton AvenueDE
CDCP
10/22/90
-
-
+4,845
531 Cowper Street
PC-4052
5/21/91
9,000
475
+9,475
540 Bryant Street
CDCGFP
3/24/92
-
404
+404
530/534 Bryant Street
CDCGFP
4/15/93
-
432
+432
555 Waverley Street/425
Hamilton AvenueE
CDCP
9/21/93
-
-
+2,064
3
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in
non/Residential
Floor Area
201 University Avenue
CDCGFP
11/18/93
-
2,450
+2,450
518 Bryant Street
CDCGFP
3/3/94
-
180
+180
245 Lytton Avenue
CDCP
7/21/94
-
-
-21,320
400 Emerson StreetEF
PC-4238
9/19/94 -
200
+4,715
443 Emerson Street
CDCGFP
1/5/95
-
26
+26
420 Emerson Street
CDCP
3/16/95
-
125
+125
340 University Avenue
CDCGFP
4/6/95 - -
-402
281 University Avenue
CDCGFP
4/20/95 - -
-2,500
456 University Avenue
CDCGFP
5/18/95
-
7,486
+7,486
536 Ramona Street
CDCGFP
7/11/95
-
134
+134
725/753 Alma Street
PC-4283
7/17/95
- -
-1,038
4
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in
non/Residential
Floor Area
552 Emerson Street
CDCGFP
7/18/95
-
177
+177
483 University Avenue G
PC-4296
10/2/95
3,467C
2,789
+7,289
424 University Avenue
CDCGFP
9/21/95
-
2,803
+2,803
901/909 Alma Street E,F
PC-4389
8/1/96
-
-
+4,425
171 University Avenue
CD-C(GF)(P)
9/19/96
-
1,853
+1,853
401 High Street
CD-C(P)
10/3/96
-
350
+350
430 Kipling Street D,H
CD-C(P)
10/22/96
-
200
+1,412
460-476 University
Avenue
CD-C(GF)(P)
3/20/97
-
1,775
+1,775
400 Emerson Street D
PC-4238
3/21/97
-
-
+2,227
275 Alma Street
CD-N(P)
7/8/97
-
200
+3,207
390 Lytton Avenue
PC-4436
7/14/97
8,420C
689
+17,815
411 High Street H
CDCP
12/18/97
-
2,771 +2,771
5
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in Non
Residential Floor
Area
530 Ramona CDCGFP 05/20/99 - 2852 +2852
705 Alma St CDSP 09/21/99 - 2814 +2814
200 Hamilton Ave CDCP 10/21/99 - 10913 +10913
550 Lytton Ave CDCP 08/11/00 - - +93
437 Kipling St CDCGFP 02/01/01 - - +945
701 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +434
723 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +400
880 - 884 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +312
539 Alma St CDCGFP 10/23/01 - 2,500 +2,500
270 University Ave CDCGFP 11/01/01 - 2,642 +2,642
901 High St. E, F CDSP 12/12/02 - - +12,063
800 High St. I PC-4779 02/03/03 - - -15,700
6
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in Non
Residential Floor
Area
164 Hamilton Ave CDCP 01/13/05 - - -2,799
335 University Ave CDCGFP 08/10/05 - 4,500J +5,249
382 University Ave CDCGFP 07/27/06 - 194 +194
102 University Ave CDCGFP 10/10/2006 - - +8
325 Lytton Ave CDCP 5/2006 - - +17,515
310 University Ave CDCGFP 07/31/2008 - 7,481 +7,481
317-323 University Ave CDCGFP 01/2008 - 2,500 +3,290
564 University Ave CDCP 7/2008 - 2,500 +4,475
278 University CDCGFP 11/2008 - - +137
265 Lytton CDCP 7/2010 - 3,712 +21,151
340 University CDCP 12/2010 - - -1,360
524 Hamilton CDCP 2/2011 - 5,200 +9,345
7
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in Non
Residential Floor
Area
630 Ramona CDCP 6/2011 - 437 +437
668 Ramona CDCP 7/2011 - 4,940 +4,940
661 Bryant CDCP 2/2011 - 1,906 0
Totals 1986-2011 34,378 93,931 173,356
A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86), but was not included in the Downtown EIR’s “pipeline projects.” As a result, the project is counted among
the CD District’s nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Policies in 1986
B: Through Assessment District project provided additional 64 public parking spaces as part of public benefit instead of required 44 private spaces
C: Project exceeded square footage otherwise allowed by zoning
D: Project converted residential space to non-residential space. Net non-residential space counts toward the 350,000 square foot limit
E: Project included covered parking that counts as floor area but not counted 350,000 square foot limit
F: Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections 18.83.120 or 18.83.130 which allow for a reduction in the number required parking spaces for shared parking facilities, joint
use parking facilities, or substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space.
G. In addition, project paid in-lieu fee for loss of 2 on-site parking spaces
H: In addition, projects paid in-lieu fee for loss of 4 on-site spaces
I: Part of the SOFA 2 CAP
J: Transfer of Development Right (TDR) agreement with 230 and 232 Homer Avenue. 5000 total sq ft of TDR but only 4,500 sq. ft used for Non Residential Floor Area.
Page 1
ATTACHMENT F
CD PARKING DEFICIT 9/1/86 to 8/31/2011
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
1986 deficit
1,601
520 Ramona
StreetA
CDCGFP
+400
2
0
0
+2
1,603
220 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+65
0
0
0
0
1,603
151 Homer
Avenue
CDSP
-9,750
0
11
0
-50
1,553
314 Lytton
Avenue
CDCP
-713
0
0
0
-3
1,550
247-275 Alma
Street
CDNP
+1,150
5
5
0
0
1,550
700 Emerson
Street
CDSP
+4,000
16
16
0
0
1,550
431 Florence St
CDCP
+2,500
10
0
10
+10
1,560
Page 2
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
156 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+4,958
20
0
20
+20
1,580
401 Florence
Street
CDCP
+2,407
10
0
10
+10
1,590
619 Cowper
Street
CDCP
+2,208
9
9
0
0
1,590
250 University
Avenue
PC-3872
+20,300
103
131B
0
-28
1,562
550 University
Avenue
CDCP -371
0
0
0
-1
1,561
529 Bryant
Street
PC-3974
+2,491
10
0
10
+10
1,571
520 Webster
StreetC
PC-3499
0
0
163
0
-163
1,408
305 Lytton Ave
CDCP
+200
1
0
1
+1
1,409
550 Lytton
Avenue
CDCP
+4,845
19
19
0
0
1,409
Page 3
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
Downtown Extensive restriping by Transportation Division of on and off/street parking -96 1,313
531 Cowper
Street
PC-4052
+9,475
38
0
2
+38
1,351
540 Bryant
Street
CDCGFP
+404
2
0
2
+2
1,353
530/534 Bryant
Street
CDCGFP
+432
2
0
2
+2
1,355
555 Waverley
Street/425
Hamilton
AvenueD
CDCP
+2,064
8
0
0
+8
1,363
201 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+2,450
10
0
10
+10
1,373
518 Bryant
Street
CDCGFP
+180
1
0
1
+1
1,374
245 Lytton Ave
CDCP
-21,320
90
149
0
-59
1,315
400 Emerson
Street
PC-4238
+4,715
18
5
1
+14
1,329
Page 4
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
443 Emerson
Street
CDCGFP +26 0 0 0 0 1,329
420 Emerson
Street
CDCP
+125
1
0
1
+1
1,336
340 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
-402
0
0
0
-2
1,334
281 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
-2,500
0
0
0
-10
1,324
456 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+7,486
30
0
30
+30
1,354
536 Ramona
Street CDCGFP
+134
1
0
1
+1
1,355
725-753 Alma
Street
PC-4283
-1,038
7
7
0
-11
1,344
552 Emerson
Street
CDCGFP
+177
1
0
1
+1
1,345
483 University
Avenue
PC-4296
+7,289
29
-2E
11
+31
1,376
Page 5
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
424 University
Avenue
CDCGFP +2,803 11 0 11 +11 1,387
901/909 Alma
StreetD
PC-4389
+4,425
18
18
0
0
1,387
171 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+1,853
7
0
7
+7
1,394
401 High Street
CDCP
+350
1
0
1
+1
1,395
430 Kipling
Street
CDCP
+1,412
5
-4E
1
+10
1,405
460/476
University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+1,775
7
0
7
+7
1,412
400 Emerson
Street
PC-4238
+2,227
9
0
0
+9
1,421
275 Alma
StreetF
CDNP
+3,207
0
0
1
+1
1,422
390 Lytton
Avenue
PC-4436
+17,815
74
50
3
+27
1,449
Page 6
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
411 High Street
CDCP
+2,771
0
-4E
11
+15
1,464
530 Ramona CDCGFP 2852 11 0 11 +11 1475
705 Alma St CDSP 2814 11 0 11 +11 1486
200 Hamilton
Ave CDCP 10,913 44 3E 35 +41 1527
550 Lytton Ave CDCP 93 0 0 0 0 1527
528 High St PF 0 0 211 G 0 -211 1316
445 Bryant PF 0 0 688G 0 -688 628
437 Kipling St CDCGFP 945 4 0E 2 +4 632
701 Emerson St CDSP 434 2 1 1 +1 633
723 Emerson St CDSP 400 2 2 0 0 633
Page 7
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
880 / 884
Emerson St CDSP 312 2 5 0 -3 630
539 Alma St CDCGFP 2,500 10 0 10 +10 640
270 University
Ave CDCGFP 2,642 11 0E 11 +11 651
SUBTOTAL
86-02 106,930 672 1483 236 -578 651
901 High St. CDSP 12,063 59D 60 0 -1 650
800 High St. H PC-4779 -15,700 0 63 0 -63 587
164 Hamilton
Ave CDCP -2499 0 0 0 0 587
335 University
AveI CDCGFP 5,249 0 0 0 0 587
Page 8
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
382 University
Ave CDCGFP 194 0 0 1 +1 588
102 University
Ave CDCGFP 8 0 0 0 0 588
310 University
Ave CDCGFP 7,481 30 0 30 +30 618
317-323
University Ave CDCGFP 3,290 0 0 0 0 618
564 University
Ave CDCP 4,475 10 0 10 +10 628
325 Lytton Ave CDCP 17,515 110 6 0 -6 622
265 Lytton CDCP 21,151 106 52 0 +54 676
278 University CDCGFP +137 1 0 1 +1 677
340 University CDCP -1,360 0 0 0 0 677
524 Hamilton CDCP +9,345 31 8 23 +23 700
Page 9
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
630 Ramona CDCP +437 2 0 2 +2 702
668 Ramona CDCP +4,940 20 0 20 +20 722
661 Bryant CDCP 0 0 0 0 0 722
TOTAL 173,356 911 1672 323 649 722
A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86, but was not included in the Downtown EIR’s “pipeline projects.”) As a result, the project
is counted among the CD District’s nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Policies in 1986
B: Through Assessment District project provided additional 64 public parking spaces as part of public benefit
C: Addition of 2 levels of parking to Cowper/Webster garage
D: Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections 18.83.120 or 18.83.130 which allow for a reduction in the number required parking spaces for shared
parking facilities, joint use parking facilities, or substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space.
E. Project removed existing on-site spaces or met required parking by paying in-lieu fee
F: Site had existing parking sufficient to allow expansion
G: Construction of 2 city parking lots. 528 High completed on Aug. 2003 and 445 Bryant completed on Nov. 2003
H: Part of the SOFA 2 CAP
I: As per PAMC 18.87.055, the TDR area transferred to the site does not increase the number of automobile parking spaces required for the additional floor area.
Page 10
ATTACHMENT G
Commercial Downtown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category
(Rounded to the nearest 25,000 square feet)
* The above table is rounded to the nearest 25,000 square feet and was based on
a table originally prepared in 1986. Over the years, because of the rounding to 25,000
square foot increments, the table has had a greater margin of error. Staff attempted to
update the table from the beginning in 1998; therefore the numbers may not compare
directly to tables prepared prior to the 1998 report.
Use Category Area
(October
1986)
Area
(October
2011)
Area Change,
percentage
1. Offices 1,100,000 1,350,000 23%
2. Retail 500,000 625,000 25.00%
3. Eating & Drinking 150,000 275,000 83.33%
4. Financial Services 200,000 200,000 0.00%
5. Business Services 150,000 175,000 16.67%
6. Basement Storage 175,000 100,000 -42.86%
7. Hotels 100,000 150,000 50.00%
8. Personal Services 75,000 125,000 66.67%
9. Utility Facility 150,000 100,000 -33.33%
10. Public Facilities 50,000 75,000 50.00%
11. Automotive Services 150,000 50,000 -66.67%
12. Recreation/Private Club 25,000 50,000 100.00%
13. Theaters 50,000 25,000 -50.00%
14. Warehousing &
Distribution 50,000 25,000 -50.00%
15. Manufacturing 50,000 0 -100.00%
16. Religious Institutions 50,000 25,000 -50.00%
17. Multi-Family Residential 250,000 400,000 50.00%
18. Single Family
Residential 50,000 25,000 -50.00%
19. Vacant & Under
Construction 150,000 50,000 -66.66%
20. Vacant & For Sale 0 0
21. Vacant & Available 150,000 100,000 -33.33%
Total 3,625,000 3,875,000 5.52%
ADJUSTED TOTAL: (Deduct
residential uses, religious institutions,
vacant & for sale and vacant & under
construction.)
3,125,000 3,350,000
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3242)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 11/5/2012
Summary Title: Parking Program Update
Title: Update of Parking Program and Review and Direction on Parking Policy
Strategies
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council review this Parking Program Update and provide direction to
staff on the Parking Policy Strategies outlined, focused on parking supply options, technology
and residential improvements.
Executive Summary
In the spring of 2011, the City began extensively monitoring downtown parking utilization in
response to resident concerns that downtown parking structures were underutilized and on-
street parking was intruding into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Extensive parking data
collection efforts began immediately in both the Downtown and California Avenue Business
Districts so that parking utilization baselines and strategies could be developed for Council
consideration along with input from business and residential interests.
On July 16, 2012, the City Council discussed a range of proposed work efforts by staff, but
focused on potential residential permit parking program (RPPP) for the Professorville
neighborhood. The Council directed staff to not proceed with the RPPP at this time and instead
to focus on several other parking and zoning efforts. The Council asked for more specifics and
an update of the efforts prior to the end of the year.
This update provides a summary of parking strategies implemented-to-date within the
Background section and outlines policy strategies for enhanced parking supply, technology
solutions, and residential improvements in the Discussion section for consideration of the
Council. Staff will be making substantive progress on these items over the coming 3-6 months
subsequent to Council direction.
Background
The Council directed at the July 16, 2012 meeting that staff would not move forward with the
trial Residential Permit Parking program for Professorville at this time, but would 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. Zoning studies and revisions, including study of the downtown cap on nonresidential
space, the use of bonuses and transfer rights, variable parking ratios for office uses, and
how to treat non-conforming parking sites; and
e. Evaluation of paid parking options.
Amendments to the main motion further directed that staff should evaluate:
a. Parking exemptions;
b. A Transportation Demand Management Program for downtown;
c. Underutilized private parking garages;
d. Funding options for new public parking garage sites;
e. Zoning disincentives to having two car garages;
f. Selective parking for those homes without a driveway or garage; and
g. The use of the $250,000 from the Lytton Gateway Project earmarked for neighborhood
parking preservation.
Council asked that Staff to return to Council in three months with check in and return with an
update before the end of the year. The Council’s July 16 Action Minutes are included as
Attachment D and the full minutes are included as Attachment E.
The remainder of this Background section recounts efforts to date and the Discussion section
outlines the programmatic effort to address parking in the next 3-6 months.
Parking Assessment Districts
Both the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts include parking assessment
districts that provide parking for the respective areas. The parking assessment districts include
fees paid by property owners/merchants to help repay city bonds issued to cover the cost of
parking garage construction and permit fees that are used to cover the operations and
maintenance costs of the parking programs including staff costs for the distribution of permits
and parking enforcement. In the downtown, fees from parking permits also help to pay for
police enforcement. Table 1 provides the current fee structure program for the Downtown and
California Avenue Business Districts – Parking Assessment Programs. The table also provides a
brief comparison of parking permit fees to those from Redwood City, San Jose, and San
Francisco for Council reference.
Table 1
Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts
Parking Assessment Fee Program
Parking Fee
Palo Alto Local Agency Comparisons
Downtown
District
California Ave
District Redwood City San Jose San Francisco
Assessment
Fee $1.11/SQ FT * - - -
Permit
(Monthly) $45.00 $14.33 $30 to $60 $100 $215 to $395
Permit
(Annual) $420.00 $123.00 $330 to $660 $1,200 $2,580 to
$4,740
Day Permit $16.00 $7.00 None None None
* Cal Av Assessment Fee varies by Parcel.
Local employees working within the Districts are allowed to purchase parking permits to park in
garages or on surface lots pending permit availability. Employees working outside of the
assessment districts, however, are not allowed to purchase parking permits, but can purchase
Day Passes to park within the facilities.
When the two assessment districts were formed, the assessment districts allowed the City to
issue bonds for the construction of parking structures and provided a guaranteed revenue
mechanism through the assessment fee to pay the bonds back. Assessment districts are not
common for jurisdictions, as many more typically opt to fund parking garage construction on
their own and then recover the cost of construction strictly through monthly permit sales.
Parking Permits
In 2011 the City began evaluating changes in the parking permit distribution process in order to
better allocate permits to employees within the districts, to fill up underutilized parking garage
space, and to reduce parking intrusion to adjacent residential neighborhoods. The following
parking permit program changes were implemented:
Establish Monthly Parking Permits Distribution Thresholds
Permits were previously distributed on a quarterly basis based on parking occupancy
counts counted by the City’s parking enforcement unit. The amount of permits available
at each lot varied per quarter depending on the results of the parking occupancy counts.
Using historical data, the City established a maximum number of permits that should be
released at any given time and the City continues to monitor parking occupancy to
determine whether the threshold should be increased or decreased. The maximum
number of permits released at any given time and the percentage of permits over
supply by parking facility is provided in Table 2. Permit sales in the Downtown were up
9% in 2011 compared to 2010 and up 13% in 2012-to-date compared to 2010. In the
California Avenue Business District permit sales have remained consistent with prior
years.
Permit Wait List Management
Previously, anyone wishing to obtain a permit within a district could sign up for as many
sites as they wanted in efforts to obtain a permit as quickly as possible. This resulted in
unusually high wait list numbers at each facility or district in the case of the California
Avenue Business District where a parking permit allows a permit holder to park at any
parking garage or surface lot. The City now only allows a person getting on the wait list
for a parking permit to do so once, and for only one site. In addition, the City charges a
$10.00 fee to get onto a wait list, which is credited towards the ultimate first purchase
of a parking permit. The number of persons waiting for a parking permit within the two
assessment districts is provided in Table 3; the changes in permit wait list management
are beginning to have a positive impact with shorter wait lists now than in previous
years.
California Avenue District – Permit Distribution
Previously, because there was no limit on the number of permits or types of permits
that a person could obtain within a district, it was not uncommon for someone in the
California Avenue District to be on the wait list multiple times. Signing up on the wait
list multiple times was a common practice of start-up owners trying to get permits for
future employees.
With the policy change to only distribute one permit per person, people who are on the
wait list multiple times are contacted for permit availability, but only allowed for one
permit to be registered to them. For the additional permits that the person may have
been waiting for, the permits are allowed to be distributed to members of the same
company but the permits are registered to the other individuals directly. This practice
does allow for “hopping” of the wait list but there were only a few individuals who were
on the wait list multiple times and staff anticipates that this condition will be phased out
over the next six months.
Unlike Downtown, previously distributed permits in the California Avenue Business
District did not require permit holder validation at the time of renewal. People leaving
the district simply passed their permits to other people, thereby delaying permit
availability for people legitimately on the wait list. This resulted in unusually long permit
wait times, sometimes in excess of one year. The City now requires a person renewing a
parking permit to prove that they are a valid permit holder to whom the permit was
originally distributed. If the person cannot show proof that they are the original permit
holder, they are only being allowed a one-time renewal warning and then are required
to get on the wait list as the permit will be cancelled at the end of the permit term.
Online Permit Management System
In the spring of 2012 the City awarded a contract to Progressive Solutions to develop
and implement an online permit management system for the City. Using the maximum
permit thresholds established by the City, the City can now release permits weekly
(instead of quarterly) as they become available. The system also allows for monthly
permit renewal versus the traditionally available quarterly or annual renewal options;
the monthly permits costs shown in Table 1 reflect the current quarterly fee divided by
three. Implementation of the system was delayed through the fall while the online wait
list form was being developed. The City also just finalized hosting details for the system
server. The wait list module is scheduled to be completed in October and the system
should be launched in November. Persons are still required to return to City Hall to
obtain their first permit and to validate proof of employment within their business
district; the requirement to return to Revenue Collections may eventually be phased out
and permits distributed by mail as additional technology enhancements are made.
Table 2
Parking Permit Distribution Thresholds
Lot Name # Hourly
Spaces
# Permit
Spaces
Total #
Spaces
Max #
Permits
% Permits
to Supply
Downtown - Parking Garages
Q Alma/High (North) - 134 134 205 153%
R Alma/High (South) 77 134 211 200 149%
S/L Bryant St 381 307 688 575 187%
WC Cowper/Webster 201 388 589 630 162%
CC City Hall 187 519 706 820 158%
B Ramona/University 63 - 63 - -
800 High Street 10 53 63 85 160%
Downtown – Surface Parking Lots
O Emerson/High 78 - 78 - -
A Emerson/Lytton 68 - 68 - -
C Ramona/Lytton 50 - 50 - -
F Florence/Lytton 46 - 46 - -
H Cowper/Waverly 90 - 90 - -
D Hamilton/Waverly 86 - 86 -
E/G Gilman St - 87 87 130 149%
P High/Hamilton 51 - 51 - -
KT Lytton/Kipling-Waverly 40 67 107 96 143%
N Emerson/Ramona 48 - 48 - -
X Sheridan Hotel - 36 36 55 153%
California Avenue Business District
California Avenue* 915 30 945 710 75%
* Parking permits valid for any garage or lot.
Table 3
Parking Permit Wait List as of October 18, 2012
Lot Wait List Lot Wait List
CC 99 R 93
CW 152** S 70
EG 41 X 11
KT 4
Q 27 CAL AVE 333
** Permit distribution temporarily suspended due to active construction at lot.
Day Permits
The Bryant Street (Lot S/L) and Cowper/Webster (Lot C/W) garages have permit machines that
allow drivers to purchase daylong parking permits. Use of the machines has been extremely
successful with each unit averaging $8,000 in sales per month each. Each of the downtown
parking garages offer three (3) hours of free hourly parking, but requires rigorous enforcement
to identify and cite violators.
Day Permits may also be purchased at Revenue Collections in City Hall at a cost of $16.00 per
day for Downtown and $7.00 per day for California Avenue. The City has also switched to
“scratcher” day permits in 2012 in both districts to curb violators who were photocopying the
previous paper permit formats.
Parking Way-Finding Signage
The City deployed 49 parking banners throughout the Downtown in January 2012 to help better
guide motorists to surface parking lots and garages. The banners were reviewed and approved
by the Architectural Review Board prior to implementation. The City also fabricated signs that
matched the banners. However, the signs were ineffective due to the architectural color tones
used and sign implementation stopped. There are 125 existing guide signs to parking facilities
throughout the Downtown and 40 around the California Avenue Business District.
The same parking banners used in Downtown will be presented later this fall to the California
Avenue merchants as part of the California Avenue – Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Project
for input so that deployment in that district can occur before next Spring; the City estimates 40
up to 20 banners can be deployed around the existing California Avenue area parking structures
and surface lots. The City is continuing its research on effective parking guide signs as discussed
further in this report.
Neighborhood Parking Preservation
Staff spent the first half of the year trying to develop draft policies and pilot projects for a
Professorville Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program. The general community consensus on
a Professorville RPP pilot program showed that such a program was not supported by the
broader neighborhood and Council directed that staff should focus on identifying a range of
parking solutions within the Downtown core area and to identify appropriate technologies and
strategies to advance as part of a comprehensive parking program for the City.
The remainder of this report focuses on proposed parking strategies and policies for Council
consideration to help improve the efficiency of parking operations and conditions in residential
neighborhoods as a comprehensive parking program is further developed and implemented.
The recommendations in the Discussion section are priotized in a time line provided in
Attachment A.
Discussion
The modifications to the City’s permit management program are showing a positive change in
the City’s ability to more quickly distribute permits. The impact has been more profound in the
Downtown Business District where permits are managed by lot, rather than the California
Avenue Business District, where permits can be used at any surface lot or garage and where
changes in permit distribution will have a gradual effect over the next year. Permit
management has also been the focus of the City’s efforts to get vehicle users to obtain and use
permits. Permit management will be ongoing for efficiency purposes but new strategies beyond
permit management are now required to enhance the parking program in both districts. It
should be noted that in the Downtown District, the Cowper-Webster Garage (Lot C/W) is
currently undergoing facade improvements that have resulted in the temporary loss of permit
parking through the construction period. Persons with permits for the Cowper-Webster Garage
are being temporarily allowed to park at the Bryant Street Garage (Lot S), further slowing down
permit distribution at that garage as well. Construction at the Cowper-Webster Garage should
be complete before the start of the Holiday shopping season.
Several other key efforts are underway to enhance parking supply, more efficiently use
available supply, reduce parking demand, and address the impacts of new development.
Downtown Parking Garage and Attendant Parking Study
The City completed a Request for Proposals (RFP) solicitation in October and will be awarding a
contract this fall to complete a feasibility study for an additional parking structure(s) in the
Downtown. The study will focus on five surface parking lot sites including:
Lot D Hamilton Avenue & Waverley Street
Lot EG Gilman Street
Lot P High Street between University Avenue & Hamilton Avenue
Lot O High Street between University Avenue & Lytton Avenue
Caltrain Lot Urban Lane between University Avenue and PAMF
For each of the sites the feasibility study will identify potential Parking Garage Footprints,
Parking Space Counts, 3D Modeling of Parking Structure Massing, Constructability Factors, and
Engineer’s Estimates. Staff will also evaluate potential funding options in its report-out to
Council.
The Constructability Factors will include elements to determine which sites provide the best
value for parking versus construction constraints, such as: parking space count; private property
impacts (during and post-construction); construction staging impacts; number of
driveway/pedestrian access points for convenience measure; cost; adjacent land uses to
determine whether a preferred long-term land use opportunity would be lost if garage
construction were pursued; and utility relocation impacts.
The study will also include an Attendant Parking Study to determine whether the deployment
of a parking attendant program may be a viable option to temporarily or permanently
supplement the City’s parking permit program needs. The Attendant Parking Study will
determine the number of additional parking spaces that can be gained at each of the existing
parking garages in Downtown and provide program outlines to implement them on a trial basis
including key-return stations. Two options for attendant programs are typically used: a) where
a motorists parks the vehicle themselves, guided by an attendant, and the keys are then
handed over to the attendant in case the vehicles needs to be moved; or b) a motorists leaves
the vehicle with the attendant who then parks the vehicle. In other cases, a motorist may be
issued a valet card to confirm car release later and the vehicles are typically parked behind
other parked cars. The study will also focus on likely hours of operation to maximize benefit
and minimize cost.
The Palo Alto Downtown (PAD) Business and Professional Association – Parking Committee,
which is responsible for helping the City provide oversight on the Downtown Parking
Assessment District, has indicated a preference towards immediately implementing an
attendant pilot project, focused on permit parking. Staff believes such a trial for permit spaces
should proceed, however, only after the work on the Cowper-Webster garage is complete and
all spaces are then available, and probably after the Holiday season, to avoid any confusion for
shoppers. Funding for the trial would come from the Downtown Permit Fee program.
The study will take up to 6 months to complete and the results presented to the City Council in
the spring. The study is funded substantially by a community benefit contribution from the
Lytton Gateway Project, which provided $60,000 to complete the study. The study will cost
$100,000 and the gap is being funded by the City through the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP), PL-12000 (Transportation & Parking Improvements).
The results of the study will be used to determine whether the City should pursue construction
of a new parking structure using its own local funding, enterprise funding to build a parking
structure in conjunction with additional office facilities, or to pursue a private partnership with
land developers to help build a parking facility. The City currently has approximately $2.6
million in the Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee program (once the building permit is issued for
Lytton Gateway, expected prior to the end of the year).
During the July 2012 discussion on parking the Council expressed interest in also pursuing
opportunities to make available private structure parking for public parking. Staff surveyed the
existing private lots around downtown and found them either fully parked or inaccessible due
to security procedures.
Recommendation No. 1: Direct staff to implement a trial Parking Attendant Valet Parking
Program for permit parking in at least one garage, beginning
shortly after the first of the year in 2013. The study should
monitor operations, estimate costs, and identify
benefits/challenges with implementation.
Downtown Cap Study
Staff is currently developing a Request for Proposals to study the land use types, densities, and
recent and projected development around the Downtown to determine future land use and
parking needs/strategies to support land use changes. The study is a requirement of the City’s
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan, which establishes a Downtown Cap of 350,000 square foot net
increase since the adoption of the 1986 Downtown Plan. The Zoning Ordinance requires a re-
evaluation of the cap when a 235,000 square foot “study threshold” is met. That threshold is
nearly met with the approval of the Lytton Gateway project approved earlier this year and will
be exceeded if the 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley projects are approved. While the 27
University project is not within the bounds of the Downtown zone prescribed in the 1986 study,
staff will be reviewing ways to appropriately consider it in the Downtown study and specific
impacts would be considered in that project’s Environmental Impact Report .
Staff expects that the Downtown Cap Study will cost approximately $100,000-$150,000 and will
take approximately 6 months to complete. The budget does not currently include funding for
the study, but staff proposes that at least some of the funding come from the Lytton Gateway
“Neighborhood Parking Preservation” benefit (of a total $250,000) and perhaps be
supplemented by other development project contributions.
Recommendation No. 2: Direct staff to pursue the RFP for the Downtown Cap study, and
report back to Council in six months regarding results and
recommendations.
Zoning/Parking Revisions and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
Staff will, simultaneous with the Downtown Cap study, review a variety of zoning provisions
related to parking, particularly in Downtown. Staff has recently proposed and Council has
enacted a moratorium on one such zoning provision that exempted up to 1.0 floor-area ratio
from parking requirements for certain properties. Staff expects to also evaluate:
a. Other exemptions from parking requirements, including but not limited to transfer of
development rights (TDR);
b. Parking reductions for transit proximity, mixed use, transportation demand
management (TDM) measures, and for affordable and senior housing;
c. Appropriate ratios of parking, particularly for office development, more reflective of
recent employee densities, and possible parking incentives for retail over office uses;
d. How conversions of existing uses to more intense office uses are treated/managed in
the zoning requirements; and
e. The relationship between required/covered parking and floor area, particularly for
homes (e.g., to avoid discouraging garages, though respective of historic issues where
applicable)
Planning and Transportation staff also will work with on-call transportation consultants to
initiate a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for the City and its employees
to demonstrate exemplary means of reducing work and non-work trips. This effort will be a
precursor to facilitating a downtown-wide TDM program, coordinated with the Palo Alto
Downtown and area businesses to take advantage of programs that can benefit the Downtown
as a whole.
Recommendation No. 3: Direct staff to develop zoning ordinance revisions to address
parking impacts from development, including: a) parking ratios, b)
parking exemptions, c) requirements for both TDM programs for
new development; and to work with the Downtown businesses to
develop a coordinated downtown area TDM effort.
Technology Enhancement: Garage Parking Access and Revenue Control Equipment
The City’s new Permit Management System will allow the City to more easily distribute permits
but when used in combination with garage parking access controls (gates) the City will also be
able to track parking permit usage to further manage the permit program. For example, the City
currently does not have any data that shows how regularly people use their parking permits.
Later this fiscal year, the City will release its first ever transportation survey that aims to
measure transportation mode use by region of the City. The high percentage of permits sold
over supply (Table 2) shows that within the Downtown, people are likely regularly using
another form of transportation to get to work such as Caltrain or are choosing to park
elsewhere when it’s more convenient, even though they have a permit.
Garage Parking Access control is another step the City can take in the long-term management
of its parking infrastructure by helping to reduce operations costs for enforcement. The access
controls regulate entry and exit from a garage and allow visitors to continue to enjoy the
current three hours of free parking to support downtown business activities, but include
Revenue Control equipment that allow visitors to stay parked beyond the free 3-hour period at
a fee up to the $16.00 day permit fee.
Staff has a prepared a Draft Request for Proposals (RFP) so that cost estimates can be
determined and to “bring the best of the technology” to the city for review with participation
from the Downtown Parking Committee. The Draft RFP proposes conversion of the Bryant
Street Garage (Lot S/L) to gate control with revenue collection elements but identifies the Alma
Street/High Street Garage (Lot R) as an alternative site for inclusion depending on bid results.
The City estimates the cost of installing Garage Parking Access and Revenue Control Equipment
at each garage at approximately $250,000. The RFP proposes unique technology development
through the use of QR Codes in combination with apps for processing of payments as a
convenience alternative to motorists. The same technology would allow businesses to establish
convenient validation alternatives for visitors, patron and employee parking needs. The RFP
was shared with the Palo Alto Downtown (PAD) Parking Committee during its September and
October 2012 meetings. Concerns have been expressed about the controls being the first step
to imposing “paid” parking on downtown, but staff believes that this technology actually
provides flexibility for a wider range of parking options, with no increase in parking costs for
those visitors staying less than 3 hours. Revenue realized from the metering beyond the free 3-
hour period could be partially dedicated towards the Parking In-Lieu Fee program to help fund
construction of future parking facilities, consistent with the setup of typical assessment district
programs. Funding for a trial garage parking access and revenue control equipment project is
available within the existing CIP but, if interested, funding through the current Parking
Assessment or Parking In-Lieu fee program are viable alternatives.
Recommendation No. 4: Direct staff to release an RFP for Garage Parking Access and
Revenue Control Equipment for near-term deployment, and to
involve the Downtown Parking Committee in the operations and
design process.
Technology Enhancement: Parking Occupancy Tracking and Dynamic Way-Finding
Directing motorists immediately to available parking helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
enhances the customer experience in the downtown, improves the economic vitality of the
downtown, and improves safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. The City currently does not have
any mechanism in place to monitor parking occupancy “real-time,” so deployment of dynamic
way-finding with accurate information is not feasible, nor is pushing parking availability
information online feasible either.
The City has outreached to three vendors over the past year to help develop new technology to
monitor parking occupancy and tabulate information that can be made available to the public
online, through apps, and to Parking Guidance Systems that offer dynamic way-finding
technology. Unfortunately, no viable option has yet been identified. The City was approached
by Streetline Networks in partnership with Cisco Systems over the summer to deploy their
technology to monitor and push parking occupancy information online but that was not
desirable due to the high on-going annual operations cost. The Streetline Networks/Cisco
System solution included one free year of service and included maintenance of field equipment,
but the solution though would cost the City over $350,000 per year. Solutions such as that of
Streetline Networks only make sense at locations where metering is utilized to offset the cost of
the technology, as is the case in the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles. Staff is not
recommending metering on-street parking spaces at this time, but does want to identify
parking monitoring solutions that can be City-owned solutions versus leased to reduce long-
term operations costs. Effective monitoring of parking occupancy also introduces the ability to
consider congestion-pricing parking on-street if the Council wants to consider that type of
technology in the future. Being immediately adjacent to the second largest Caltrain Station
along the Peninsula supports that type of activity by making alternative modes of
transportation more attractive to people over driving.
The City will continue to try and outreach to technology firms to develop new market solutions
for the City. The Gate Parking Access and Revenue Control Equipment would allow for dynamic
way-finding to be deployed, highlighting parking availability at parking structures. Alternative
solutions may include establishing detection technology only now, that may be used later by
future Garage Parking Access technology, to estimate garage occupancy.
In the meantime, the City will continue its seasonal parking occupancy data collection of the
Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts, that includes counting each vehicle parking
space on-street and within each parking facility by time-of-day to track changes in parking
patterns. The City collected parking occupancy data in the Spring/Fall/Winter 2011 and is
scheduled to collect data gain in early November. Data collection includes monitoring parking
occupancy between 12AM-2AM, 8AM-10AM, 12PM-2PM, and 7PM to 9PM on a weekday and
12PM-2PM on a Saturday.
Recommendation No. 5: Direct staff to continue research of technology-based parking
solutions to monitor parking occupancy.
Electric Vehicle Parking
The City currently has 7 electric vehicle charging stations available in the Downtown at the Civic
Center Parking Garage (Lot CC – Level A, 3 chargers), Bryant Street Garage (Lot S/L – Level 2, 3
chargers), and the Alma/High North (Lot R – Level 2, 1 charger). The charging stations are
extremely popular and realize regular occupancy usage throughout a typical week.
There are no charging stations available in the California Avenue Business District. The City has
considered the development of a Request for Proposals for the development of a privately-
owned network of electric vehicle charging stations network. The Stanford Shopping Center
currently has 3 charging stations including Northern California’s only Rapid Charging (Level 3)
Charger. The Stanford Shopping Center chargers are privately owned and require a fee-per-use
to charge. Development of a private network of chargers in Palo Alto would operate under the
same model and convert the existing charging stations into the private network to avoid
competition with the private network given the high cost to install the network.
To meet the immediate demand for electric vehicle charging in the City, staff recommends
conversion of at least five (5) parking spaces in the California Avenue Business District to
electric vehicle charging spaces and an additional six (6) parking spaces in the Downtown. Staff
recommends additional Level 2 Chargers similar to those currently deployed that can charge a
vehicle in as fast as 2 hours. The Downtown Library, which was renovated last year, includes
infrastructure for providing electric vehicle charging stations in its parking lot; this could be a
location for some of the additional Downtown spaces.
The City has 6 electric charging stations included as part of development conditions of approval
for the 101 Lytton Gateway Project (4 chargers) and the Edgewood Plaza (2 Chargers) shopping
center. These stations will not be available until next year when construction at each site is
complete.
Recommendation No. 6: Direct staff to pursue the installation of 6 additional electric
vehicle charging stations in Downtown and up to 5 electric vehicle
charging stations around California Avenue.
Bicycle Parking and Bicycle Share Programs
The City has approximately 150 bicycle racks (250 bicycle capacity) in the Downtown. This
includes 6 recently deployed bicycle corrals deployed around Downtown which offer up to ten
bicycle parking spaces in lieu of one on-street parking space. Downtown has an additional
three bicycle corrals planned for installation this calendar year as part of the New Apple Store
construction at University Avenue & Florence Street (2 bicycle corrals) and one at Lyfe Kitchen,
which requested installation by the City this fall. The City offers free installation of bicycle
corrals upon submittal of an application (Attachment B) and investigation by the City, including
outreach to adjacent businesses to validate support for installation of the facility.
In the California Avenue Business District, the City has 24 existing bicycle racks (77 bicycle
capacity). The City has a dozen additional bicycle parking facilities identified for the California
Avenue Business District for a future bicycle parking capacity of up to 130 bicycles as part of the
active California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape project including 6 bicycle corrals.
Business owners may request free installation of bicycle racks within the public right-of-way
following an engineering investigation by staff. Where installation of bicycle racks within the
public right-of-way is not feasible for convenient, the City offers free bicycle racks to business
and property owners for their installation on their private property; persons interested in free
bicycle racks may simply contact the city via email at transportation@cityofpaloalto.org.
The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle Share Program will be providing 100 bicycle
share bicycles to Palo Alto as part of its partnership program with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) to deploy a program along the Peninsula. The program was
delayed due to technology development but should return to the City with a deployment
schedule by the end of the year. The sites reviewed by the Architectural Review Board include:
University Avenue & Emerson Street (adjacent to Lytton Plaza in an on-street Parklet), King
Plaza at City Hall, University Avenue & Cowper Street, the University Avenue Caltrain Station,
and the California Avenue/Park Boulevard Park Plaza. Additional facilities will be provided
around the Stanford Campus as part of the program. As part of the bicycle share investigation,
staff identified dozens of additional potential bicycle share sites including the Stanford
Research Park, libraries and community centers, senior facilities, and Midtown but during this
initial deployment both MTC and the VTA request to keep the deployment focused along the
Caltrian stations. As bicycle share deployment continues, staff will outreach to existing
business parks to solicit and encourage participation in the program.
Recommendation No. 7: Direct staff to pursue additional bicycle parking stations around
both the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts.
Residential Parking Policies
During the discussion of the Professorville trial Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program in July,
the Council requested that staff consider options to allow designated on-street parking spaces
for historic homes within the Professorville neighborhood that do not have on-site parking
(driveways and/or garages), since consideration for RPP programs is being deferred until a
broader parking program is put in place. In response to the Council request, staff has developed
two policy approaches focused more collectively to the entire neighborhood concerns:
1) On-Street “Disabled Accessible” Parking Spaces
The City does not currently have a policy to allow for the installation of on-street
parking spaces for the disabled within residential neighborhoods. Staff recommends
Council consider a policy allowing for residents to apply the consideration of on-street
accessible parking spaces in front of their homes for convenience and quality of life
benefits.
If the Council is supportive of this concept, staff will return with a draft policy and
application for the Council’s review to define the criteria and investigation that staff
would be required to complete to ensure consistent distribution of accessible parking
spaces. The policy would address factors including costs of installation and maintenance
of the accessible parking, proof of “accessibility” need, and compliance and
misuse/removal procedures if abused. The accessible spaces would not be designated
spaces for the applicant but by providing the space immediately in front of one’s
residence increases the likelihood of having the space available for use by the resident.
As an accessible space, however, the parking could be used by any motorist displaying a
valid accessible placard issued by the State of California.
2) Neighborhood Short-Term and Commercial Loading Zones
One of the frequent concerns from residents adjacent to business districts includes the
lack of parking for service vehicles such as landscapers, plumbers, etc., who are trying to
provide basic services to residents but cannot do so at times depending on parking
availability. Professorville residents who do not have any on-site parking facilities feel an
even greater impact.
Staff recommends consideration of the deployment of Neighborhood Short-Term and
Commercial Loading Zone spaces around the Professorville and Downtown North
neighborhoods, at least one per block and spaced a maximum of 500-FT apart to allow
for parking availability to accommodate basic service vehicles and short-term parking
needs. The spaces can be either a short-term parking restriction (30-minutes) or
commercial/service vehicle use (2-hours) to support residents. This solution provides an
equitable solution for all residents regardless of whether the homes are historic or not.
If the Council is supportive of this concept, staff will provide outreach to neighborhood
groups to identify the appropriate on-street parking spaces to support these activities
and then will return to the Council following input from the Planning & Transportation
Commission for implementation of a demonstration project in the Spring.
3) On-Street Parking Spaces in the Professorville Area
During the July 2012 parking discussion, the Council requested that staff consider
options to help alleviate parking impacts to homes around the Professorville area
without garages, driveways, or other on-site parking. Staff has identified eleven homes
around that Professorville area without on-site parking (see Attachment C), additional
sites may exist.
The proposed Neighborhood Short-Term/Commercial Loading Zone spaces would offer
solutions equitably to the community, but may not be enough for residents of these
particular homes. If the Council is supportive of such a solution staff will initiate
outreach with affected residents and return with a policy for adoption. Staff expects
that any related implementation would be on a trial basis.
Recommendation No. 8: Direct staff to return to the City Council for consideration of an
On-Street Accessible Parking Space Policy.
Recommendation No. 9: Direct staff to initiate outreach to residents in Professorville and
Downtown North to develop short-term parking space strategies.
Recommendation No. 10: Discuss and provide direction for On-Street Parking Permits for
homes in the Professorville area without parking or driveways.
Parking Permit Management
Regular parking permit management and recent enhancements have proven effective to date
to more quickly get permits to vehicle users and should be continued. Permit management has
benefited the Downtown Business District more quickly than the California Avenue Business
District due to the permits being designated to individual facilities. The California Avenue
Business District has two parking garages, each of which realize high occupancy during peak
noon periods on top floors, but much lesser use at other times. The availability of new parking
permits in the California Avenue Business District that can be used only at top floors of each
garage may be helpful in more quickly distributing permits to motorists and help to fill
underutilized portions of the garages and allow for premium first floor parking to be retained
for visitors until after the noon peak hour.
Recommendation No. 11: Direct staff to begin discussions with California Avenue merchants
focused around the development of new parking permit
strategies.
Timeline
This report recommends several project and policy considerations for the Council focused
around further developing parking strategies to develop a comprehensive Parking Program for
the City. Staff will return to the Council within three months with a more defined schedule for
the implementation of solutions the Council identifies as appropriate for further consideration
or immediate implementation.
Resource Impact
Two new contracts are being pursued as part of the Parking Program, including a $100,000
contract for a Downtown Parking Garage and Attedant Valet Study and $100,000-$150,000 for
the Downtown Cap/TDM Study. Each contract will be submitted separately to Council for
approval, along with any necessary Budget Amendment Ordinances. This staff report includes
recommendations for helping to develop a Parking Program Master Plan. After Council
provides feedback on which recommendations to pursue, staff will return to the Council within
3 months with a more refined cost program.
Environmental Review
This report requests direction from Council on parking strategies that it would like staff to
pursue, but at this time no specific projects affecting the environment ar being approved. Each
project within the Parking Program may require additional environmental review for
compliance with CEQA requirements and will be evaluated prior to implementation.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Summary of Parking Work Program (PDF)
Attachment B: Bicycle Corral Application (PDF)
Attachment C: Professorville Homes w/No Driveways - Oct 2012 (PDF)
Attachment D: City Council Action Minutes of July 16, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment E: City Council Full Minutes of July 16, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment F: Public Comments (PDF)
Prepared By: Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
1
Nov ‘11 Dec Jan ‘12 Feb Mar Apr May Jun FY2014
Tasks
Permit Management
Garage Study
- Garage Analysis
- Valet Analysis
Pilot Valet Study
Downtown Cap Study
Neighborhood
Programs
- ADA On-Street
- Short Term
Alternatives/Homes
with No Off-Site
Parking
Technology Solutions
Cal Ave Parking Program
Parking Program Task Timeline
Pending Council Input
On‐Street Bicycle Corral
Application
Bicycle Corrals are enhanced bicycle parking facilities installed on‐street within a traditional vehicle
parking space or appropriate on‐street location. The bicycle corral includes a green textured pavement
treatment to help designate the space from adjacent vehicle parking spaces with a 10‐bike, bicycle rack.
Yellow parking blocks are installed on each end of the bicycle corral to prevent vehicle parking intrusion.
The City of Palo Alto installs bicycle corrals to help promote bicycling activity and to help provide visible
and secured bicycle parking in high‐use bicycle areas. The bicycle corral installations are a partnership
between the City of Palo Alto and the adjacent property owners/businesses through a maintenance
agreement (attached). The City provides installation of the bicycle corrals while the property
owners/businesses take on maintenance around the bicycle corrals.
For a bicycle corral to be considered in front of your business or property, please complete the
application below and return to the City of Palo Alto – Transportation Division.
Business Owner Property Owner – (Optional)
Company Name:
Contact Person:
Address:
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Day Phone:
Email:
Signature/Date:
1. Preferred Bicycle Corral
Location
2. Estimated amount of
bicycle activity on weekday
and weekends
Note: After submission of the application, Transportation staff will contact the applicant to
discuss location feasibility and determine if bicycle parking demand exists.
Submit to: City of Palo Alto – Transportation Division Staff Review:
250 Hamilton Avenue Date:
Palo Alto, CA 94301
O: (650) 329‐2441 F: (650) 329‐2154 Recommend Install: Yes
transportation@cityofpaloalto.org No
Director Approval:
Professorville Historic Neighborhood
Homes without accessible Off-Street Parking
October 23, 2012
EXCERPT FROM CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2012
ATTACHMENT D
Water, Gas, Wastewater, Storm Drain and Public Works Construction
Inspection Services.
10. Resolution 9274 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Plao
Alto Placing an Initiative Measure on November 2012 Ballot to Permit
Three Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to Operate in Palo Alto.
11. Approval of Contract for Goods (Purchase Order) for the Acquisition of
Toshiba Laptops.
12. Approval of Fiscal Year 2012 Re-appropriation Requests to be Carried
Forward into Fiscal Year 2013.
MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Burt, Klein, Scharff Schmid absent
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
MOTION: Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to not
hear Agenda Item No. 15.
-±-5-;-CONFERENCE V/ITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City DeSignated Representatives: City ~4anager and his designees
pursuant to ~4erit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Kathryn Shen,
Sandra Blanch, ~4arcie Scott, Darrell ~4urray)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA)
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent
ACTION ITEMS
13. Direction on Downtown Parking Strategies and Approval of Trial
Residential Permit Parking Program In and Around the Professorville
Neighborhood.
MOTION: Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to not
move f6rward with the trial Residential Permit Parking Program, however to:
1. 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
EXCERPT FROM CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2012
ATTACHMENT D
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. Zoning studies and revisions, including study of the downtown cap
on nonresidential space, the use of bonuses and transfer rights,
variable parking ratios for office uses, and how to treat non
conforming parking sites; and
e. Evaluate paid parking options.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER TO INCLUDE: 1) parking exemptions, 2) TDM
Program, and 3) to direct Staff to look at underutilized private parking
garages.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER TO INCLUDE to direct Staff to return to Council
in 3 months with check in and return with an update before the end of the
year
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER. AND SECONDER to direct Staff to: 1) return with funding options
for new public parking garage sites, and 2) include that the zoning studies
would evaluate disincentives to having two car garages.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to evaluate the use of $250k currently budgeted
in the Lytton Gateway Project.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to include "Professorville at this time" after
"Residential Permit Parking Program" in the first part of the Motion.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to evaluate selective parking for
those homes without a driveway or garage.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to
call the question.
MOTION PASSED: 5-3 Espinosa, Price, Shepherd no, Schmid absent
MOTION PASSED: 6-2 Espinosa, Price no, Schmid absent
EXCERPT FROM CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2012
MINUTES
ATTACHMENT E
ACTION ITEMS
13. Direction on Downtown Parking Strategies and Approval of Trial
Residential Permit Parking Program In and Around the Professorville
Neighborhood.
Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment, said one
of the main pOints he wanted to make was that while they would probably
spend most of the time that evening discussing the trial permit program in
the Professorville area that it was a small but important part of a more
comprehensive look at the downtown parking situation. There were a
number of efforts related to parking management, supply, and demand that
the City had worked on. There was an active permit management system
they re~ently put into place to distribute permits. Staff was beginning a
parking garage study to look at the supply issue as well as more efficient
ways to use the garages and parking lots. They were looking at a number of
technologies and parking enhancements to more efficiently use the spaces
and publicize and provide mobile technology for information purposes. They
were before Council to discuss the trial program for a portion of
Professorville but would then go into a larger look at areas of downtown
including Downtown North. They also had a bicycle share program parking
efforts that they were undertaking to study bike parking as well as vehicular
parking. In terms of the parking garage study the Staff was looking at using
some of the funding provided by the Lytton Gateway project to complete a
feasibility study of three or four parking lot sites in the downtown area. The
study would determine the feasibility of construction of additional garages at
those locations and the capacity and construction costs. Staff was also
looking at a trial of attendant parking in some of the garages to see if there
was away to provide more spaces and increase the use of the garage space
the City had more efficiently. He said they would continue to evaluate the
balance of permit and hourly spaces in those garages. They had already
converted some hourly spaces to permit spaces which had helped create
more parking supply for permits. On the technology side they looked at
parking guidance systems which let people know how many spaces were
available. They also looked at evaluating gate controls to allow for metered
parking and longer stays downtown. Specifically related to the proposed
residential parking permit trial program in Professorville, Staff visited with
the Council in fall 2011 regarding the broad parking program efforts. Many
people attended the meeting who were concerned about the parking impacts
from downtown on the Professorville area. He said they convened a Staff
generated group to discuss those issues further and included a handful of
active residents and representatives from downtown businesses. There were
also Staff members and one Council Member and one Planning and
Transportation Commissioner in the group. They met monthly for
Page 6 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
approximately the past six months with the aim of looking at trial parking
programs and how the City monitored the effects of the other parking
strategies on the neighborhood. He said they also tried to evaluate why
people parked on the street as opposed to in garages and parking lots.
From there they outlined potential opportunities for residential permit
parking programs. Some of the concerns they heard were how parking
impacted the quality of life in residential neighborhoods and the parking
availability for residents. He stressed the need to balance those concerns
with the needs of employee parking in the downtown area because the
streets were also public resources. He recognized that they worked with a
group they invited to meet with them and not the broader neighborhood of
Professorville or the entire downtown residential community. He said that
they were looking at a fairly small area, but it was Staff's feeling that it was
extremely important to put together something that could be looked at to
ascertain the balance of how much residential protection was necessary
versus how much employee parking could be allowed without creating an
extreme impact one way or the other. They thought a localized program
allowed them to beta test the approach. Staff recognized there would be a
broader effort following the three to six month trial period.
Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Officer, said it was important to look
at the effort Staff made over the last year with the parking issues. He
showed a slide of available parking spaces within the downtown corridor.
Staff used that data to educate itself about the supply and to try to find
ways to maximize on-street spaces. As an example, through analysis, Staff
added 32 on-street spaces, reduced red zones, and converted inefficient
parking allocations. Staff also measured the occupancy of on-street
throughout the greater downtown area from Palo Alto Avenue down to
Embarcadero to Alma to Middlefield because they needed it for the permit
parking process. on-street Staff used data in conjunction with research from
the residents to determine the correct corridor to look at a potential
residential permit parking (RPP) study project. The downtown core of
Lytton, University, and Hamilton had about 1,100 parking spaces on-street.
He said that Staff took the data and guided the discussions held by the
working group. They recommended a framework of four specific items to
the working group as they developed the RPP program. One was to provide
a buffer of at least one block between commercial uses and residential use
to allow for transition and change in use. When they considered RPP streets
they focused on the streets that were local and not arterial. For example,
Alma or Middlefield were not appropriate streets for a RPP. At the same
time, residential arterials such as Homer and Channing also moved traffic in
and out of the downtown so those were streets that were not appropriate for
consideration of RPP. Staff suggested that RPP's should focus on-streets
that were more single family home based versus multifamily unit based.
Page 7 of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
When the land uses were majority multifamily use it automatically generated
a high demand for parking. Streets with those uses did not lend themselves
to programs such as the RPP. Staff also wanted to make sure that whatever
program was recommended in an RPP form was cost neutral and sustained
itself without impacting or drawing from existing City resources. Thinking
more globally, Staff tried to pool all of the RPP districts into one fund to help
maintain costs for RPP permits around the City, rather than try to manage
several RPP funds. Different tiers of RPP only created inequity in the
community. He showed the proposed boundary for the proposed RPP district
that the working group reached consensus on. It was south of Channing,
Addison, Lincoln, Ramona, and Emerson and represented approximately 190
on-street parking spaces. The working group discussed details on how the
RPP would work and they came to consensus on several factors. One was
that offering one permit to residents was a way to demonstrate what the
long term benefit of RPP was because if the program were implemented long
term those residents would want to purchase the permits long term. They
also wanted to ensure that there were permits available to residents beyond
the one free permit. They recommended a cost of $50.00 for each
additional specific vehicle or every additional permit that could be hung from
a rear view mirror for guests. They recommended random enforcement to
help measure the type of compliance they received through changes in
regulatory signage as well as citation revenue for future long term operation
and sustainability. One of the unique elements of the program was that
they wanted to make sure there was a balance between the resident uses
and the existing next door commercial uses. One of the items the working
group reached consensus on was making a small portion of on-street spaces
available for neighboring uses through the sale of non-resident permits at
the same cost of $50.00 throughout the trial period. Multi-guest or day
passes were also available at the cost of $1.00 per permit. They also
discussed the length of the program and decided the trial program should be
a minimum of three months and should last up to six months. Because they
had collected strong baseline data for the program, it was simple for Staff to
measure any impact from people moving from one street onto a street that
was outside the RPP area. Once the working group built a consensus on the
boundaries and elements of the RPP program it surveyed the people that
lived within the area. They sent out approximately 103 surveys and
received back about 68 responses. Of the 68 responses, 82 percent
supported the implementation of a trial project. He showed the survey that
the residents were asked to respond to and noted that a follow up survey
was sent, which helped them get to the 68 responses they received. There
was much conversation about how to measure the success of a trial. The
first and foremost way to measure the success was the parking occupancy
on the street. They had the baseline data and they needed a measure to
determine if the program provided a benefit or caused an impact to the
Page 8 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
adjacent streets. They recommended trying to achieve a goal of a maximum
of 80 percent occupancy by implementing the RPP trial. He explained that
would create more yellow zones within the area. Yellow zones meant that a
motorist should be able to find a parking space on the street they wanted to
park on. Staff would study what happened to the adjacent streets and see if
there were adverse effects. Staff also wanted to measure demand for
permit sales not just for the residents but also for the non-residents. They
talked about making 51 permits available, but they needed to know if there
was demand by the neighboring community for those permits. With respect
to measuring parking compliance he said that many times simple regulatory
signage went a long way in implementing behavioral change. However, if
that was not followed up by enforcement the City would not realize a long
term benefit in permanent change. He said that measuring parking
compliance helped them measure whether or not they saw cars adhering to
the proposed two hour parking restriction which was available for anyone to
park in the area, and whether or not they were forced to issue citations as a
community to those who did not adhere to the rules. He said that many
residents discussed quality of life. The only way to measure that was quality
versus quantity based. Staff wanted to survey residents and invite them to
participate in community outreach meetings as they contemplated the longer
term vision of the RPP. The last thing the working group looked at was the
operations cost. There were several factors related to parking compliance
which fed into the measure, but the largest piece was the permit sales. If
the City had an RPP area but was not selling permits it was not going to be a
successful area. The objective was not to simply push people out. The RPP
program's purpose was to provide parking to residents. He said that the
community received a $250,000 contribution from the Lytton Gateway
project for downtown parking preservation projects. Staff discussed
dedicating $125,000 of the contribution for projects for the area south of
Forest Avenue. Professorville was one option. Another option was to
dedicate $125,000 towards projects in Downtown North. He said a pilot
Professorville RPP program could cost up to $50,000. That covered the cost
of signage, of Revenue Collection Staff to purchase and administer the
distribution of permits, of random enforcement by the parking compliance
Staff, and allowed the City to measure the long term cost of a RPP in the
community.
Mr. Williams said the Council was very aware that the parking zoning issues
meshed with the recent permit activity, the development downtown and the
discussions that went on over some of the projects. Some of the issues
relative to those projects were exemptions laid out in the ordinance and
parking reductions that were allowed as well as transfer development rights
which were used in several projects over the past few years. He thought
that had been a successful program in getting historic rehabilitation and
Page 9 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
seismic upgrades in the downtown area. However, they were 2,500 or
5,000 square feet buildings that did not require the parking that went along
with the square footage. He said that as Staff reported with the Lytton
Gateway project there was a development cap in the zoning code downtown
of 350,000 square feet of nonresidential space which was established in
1985 as part of the downtown study. That study also indicated that when
the City reached a total of 235,000 square feet that it should study the
appropriate total nonresidential square footage and the associated parking
issues. Staff reported during the Lytton Gateway project that the City was
at about 220,000 square feet and Staff knew there were one to two other
projects that would soon put the City beyond the 235,000 study threshold.
Staff wanted to start that analysis immediately regarding the potential and
how to better match the parking with the amount of development and the
exemptions that were allowed. He said that the zoning regulations in
general had parking ratios for office use that deserved to be reevaluated.
The City saw office occupancies that were considerably more than one
person per 250 square feet. The old model had not held up and it was
appropriate to reevaluate those ratios and how the City treated
nonconforming parking uses. Finally, Staff thought it was appropriate to look
at a downtown transportation demand management program. The City had
several downtown employers that did a good job and were on the cutting
edge. He thought Lytton Gateway was a building like that, but noted that
there were many others including smaller businesses that could not put
together their own programs. He thought it was incumbent on the City to
help coordinate that effort and provide opportunities for everyone to
participate in programs that would enhance transit use, bicycling, walking,
and bike shares. That was part of the program Staff intended to flesh out
over the next six months along with the parking garage study. Staff's
recommendation to Council was to authorize Staff to proceed with the trial
program for three to six months. They wanted to run the program for three
months and then meet with the working group and report to the Council as
to how things were going and see if another three months would be
worthwhile or if there was a reason to immediately shift gears. Staff also
wanted input and direction related to the studies. If Council was ok with
Staff looking at the zoning issues then they wanted approval for that in
order to get started on that work.
Ray Dempsey spoke on behalf of residents that participated in the study
group. He said that the RPP was not the solution but a test case for a
broader solution. There were four issues that were brought up by the
residents with respect to the RPP: 1) private parking on a public street; 2)
size and length of time of the RPP; 3) forcing parking into adjacent areas;
and 4) cost and accessibility of permits. With regard to the private parking
on a public street the United States Supreme Court ruled in Arlington vs.
Page 10 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Richards that the character and safety of neighborhoods trumped intrusive
parking. There was a right there and numerous lower courts upheld that
ruling. He said that as far as the size and length of the time of the RPP it
was determined by the City and not by the business people or residents. It
was based on available assets, including financial assets. The City would
monitor results and could modify the pilot program. He said that forcing
parkers into other areas was another major problem. As mentioned the pilot
was not a solution, it was a test for a solution. Many residents noted that
there were packed streets and wondered where the relocated cars would
park. He said it would obviously move the parked cars out somewhat, but it
was temporary and the six months was better than the six years the
residents had experienced with the problem. After the RPP, the next step
was to apply what was learned to the larger region. The cost and
accessibility of permits after the first free permit, the $50.00 charge per
permit, was a charge only to users. He said that if a person did not need the
permit, they did not have to pay for it. Many people had driveways and
garages, some did not. He said that at least the cost was borne by the users
and not by all residents of the City as would be the case if the City absorbed
the cost. The nonresident permits were negotiated to help bridge long term
solutions. He said that if residents wanted an RPP program it would not
happen without the pilot program as it was presented.
Barbara Gross said that she and Chop Keenan were representing the Palo
Alto Downtown Business Association. Chop Keenan, Russ Cohen, and herself
were seated on the City sponsored Parking Committee that discussed the
public/private parking interests of the downtown commercial district and the
neighborhood of Professorville. She said parking was a complicated issue
that had a direct influence on the success of the business district and had
overflow impacts on surrounding residential areas. She said that there was
always a parking deficit in the downtown and there was always a mixed use
of space which spilled over into the residential area. There was also always
a parking deficit in Professorville as garages were converted to other uses,
driveways were eliminated to expand gardens, and garages in the back
alleys were too small for modern vehicles or had been converted to other
uses. She said that office space changed over the past years to
accommodate more Staff. She said that families had increased the number
of cars per household and most could no longer self-park on their own
property. Representatives of the Professorville neighborhood communicated
multiple messages. They said the streets were filled with nonresidential
parked cars that remained there throughout the business day. That created
a crowding· on the streets which did not allow residents the ability to park
near their homes or re-park their cars during the day. She said that created
a safety issue with drivers behaving poorly while looking for parking spaces
and parking too close together causing vehicle damage and blocking
Page 11 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
driveways. Equally as important it had changed the feeling of the
neighborhood, making it look and feel less residential and negatively
impacting housing values. Representatives of the business community
began conversation with the fact that three public parking garages had been
built to accommodate more customers and downtown employees in the last
10 years. Parking permits for emj)loyees were oversold by a minimum of 25
percent for all garages at a cost of $420.00 annually. Employee spillover to
the surrounding neighborhoods had always been a reality and there were
ongoing parking improvements in the downtown district. She said that the
City was investigating electronic signage to direct cars to available spaces.
The parking assessment district suggested stacking cars in select areas of
the garages to further increase the number of permit spaces in each garage.
That required the use of a valet attendant. She Said that all day parking
ticket machines were being added to all garages to offer more options. She
said that there was not a way to make things perfect for everyone and there
was not going to be one single solution. Professorville was nota walled
community situated in a rural setting; it was and always had been adjacent
to the downtown. She said they were talking about public streets and who
had the rights to access them. The business community could not force
everyone working in the downtown to purchase a permit if that was their
means of transportation. The negative impacts to the viability of the
business district could change the attractive nature of the downtown as a
place to do business which could have financial ramifications. It was said
that if everyone walked away from a mediation not getting everything they
asked for the settlement was successful. She said that everyone was
moderately happy with the proposed RPP. The RPP addressed offering
residents a guarantee that not all parking spaces would be filled with parked
cars and therefore opened the congested feeling of the streets. The
proposed RPP also guaranteed that not all parking spaces would be filled
with nonresidential cars and offered the opportunity for traffic control.
Opening· the RPP door in one community was a gateway for other
communities to expect the same program and that became a vast and
complicated problem.
Chop Keenan said he wanted to fill in data pOints regarding the self-help of
the downtown parking district. The downtown parking district met once a
month for the last twelve years. It was a 90 minute meeting with a packed
agenda and did not work on autopilot. They successfully built two parking
structures with 900 spaces over that 12 year period. There were two costs
associated with the structures. One was the cost to build them, which was
financed by the property owners in the assessment district. That was $0.18
per foot per month, so a 2,000 square foot store paid $360.00 per month for
the capital cost of servicing the bond. He said those funds did not guarantee
the store a parking space. Spaces were on a first come first served basis
Page 12 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
and downtown employees paid an incremental $420.00 per year for the
operation and maintenance of the district. That was for things such as
sweeping and security and totaled $1.2 million per year. He said that it took
approximately 90 to 270 days to clear a waiting list. All the garages had
waiting lists except for Cowper/Webster. He stated that with stacked
parking they might add 300 to 400 more spaces, which was more effective
than the $65,000 per space cost of building another structure. He said that
parking equaled prosperity and that it was a fragile parking ecosystem that
could not take radical disruption. They supported the Staff report. It was a
long process and they did not know how it was going to turn out but they
anticipated knowing more in six months. He said they would probably return
to Council to discuss course correction at that time.
Ethan Atwood spoke against the RPP. He said he lived in Palo Alto for 20
years, mostly in Barron Park, but had moved to Downtown North three years
ago so he could take the train to work. He loved the vibrant downtown, but
paid for that with drunken students and a fair amount of noise and difficulty
parking. He said that was part of the deal when he moved to the area and
thought that everyone who lived in Professorville near the downtown also
understood that was part of the deal. He was annoyed and unhappy about
people who tried to keep others from parking in their neighborhood. When
he lived in Barron Park he drove to Professorville, parked, and walked
downtown. What the RPP did was take away a right from other Palo Alto
residents who lived in other neighborhoods and wanted to get downtown and
park. The permits went to people of wealth, people who were professionals
that lived downtown, and the people who were nurses at Lytton Gardens,
Webster House, and Channing House, but the stock men and women at
Whole Foods would not get permits and would be hurt by the RPP. He said
those people would simply walk four more blocks. He said that RPP hurt the
little people and to the rest of Palo Alto. He urged the Council to vote
against the RPP.
Richard Brand recommended that the Council take a serious look at how the
plan would be implemented as it dealt with longer term issues. He
supported residential parking permits but did not believe the RPP was ready.
One of the issues was that if one did the math they would see that 103
residences ended up with 101 spaces available for one permit. He asked
where he would go to purchase an additional permit. People had asked Staff
how they measured the success of the program. He did not understand that
either and believed it needed to be well delineated in writing so that
everyone understood how the RPP was judged. He supported the idea in
principle, but thought the program needed further review.
Page 13 of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Beth Bunnenberg said she was speaking as an individual. She said that
there was a time when the Stanford Shopping Center had opened and the
big stores moved out there and only the banks and a few stalwarts remained
downtown. She said that there were boarded up store fronts and empty lots
that stayed that way for some time. After David Packard restored the
Stanford Theatre people went downtown to the movies and parked close to .
the theatre because deserted streets were creepy. Little by little Palo Alto
put together a mix of old and new structures and created a unique
downtown. The City's transfer of development rights was probably the·
strongest support for the historic restorations that had occurred. The
architects came in and said that transfer of development rights made it
financially possible to redo the buildings and that was how Palo Alto got its
historical buildings renovated. She said that it was a balancing act and
asked that they understand that in terms of the historic downtown buildings
transfer of development rights was very important and Professorville was a
very important district. .
Rob Steinberg said he was an Urban Designer and Architect who lived on
Bryant Street. He concurred with everyone that there was a parking
problem in Professorville that needed to be addressed and appreciated the
City's willingness to take the issue on. He was concerned that the displaced
parked cars from the RPP program would gravitate to adjacent blocks and
neighborhoods that were not part of the RPP program. He asked what
assurances the City could offer the neighbors that were not part of the RPP
program that their streets would not be the recipient of the displaced cars.
He hoped there was consensus among the Council that simply moving the
problem was not a satisfactory solution.
Dena Massar said she had heard that Palo Alto used to be a peaceful place to
live but had changed and parking permits would not stop inevitable change.
She also heard that some people wanted to park in front of their homes, but
permits would not provide that certainty. She heard that Palo Alto High
School students were a problem, but parking permits were not a substitute
for a conversation with the School District about their parking policies. She
heard that the biggest parking problem that neighbors faced was that
nonresidents carelessly blocked driveways. She suggested signage and
enforcement to solve that problem. She heard that the proposed trial area
was not large enough, but there were no stated criteria that helped her
decide where the boundaries should be. She heard that it was technology
employees or Sirius employees or developers, the City's own policies, or
even the neighbors themselves who had caused the problem. She said that
issuing parking permits did not get to the root causes. She heard that
residents should have free parking permits, Staff said that the cost of
permits in a permanent system would be based on cost recovery, but there
Page 14 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
was no information about those costs and therefore no consensus about the
worth of the parking permit. Professorville was not the only neighborhood
that wanted permits. She asked if it was the appropriate time to ask if Palo
Alto wanted to be a parking permitted community and if so then the
community dialogue should come first to establish appropriate policies and
set the-rules for implementation. She asked how they got to the place
where the area south of Forest Avenue was converted to a test tube. Staff
had asked Council to approve a program that had no specified goals, no
problem statement, no established criteria that defined success, and would
negatively affect residents that lived outside of the trial boundaries. She
said the trial had negative consequences for service employees who worked
for local retailers, restaurants, coffee shops, and markets. Those services
enhanced the livability of Professorville. She said that if the Council decided
that· parking permits were necessary she asked that they make sure to
establish a process that would ensure an open public dialogue that
represented the community's broad interests.
Mark Alguard said he opposed the proposal. He lived on Waverley Street 50
feet from Addison. He anticipated that all of the cars displaced from the
Addison and Scott blocks would find his house to be the best place to park.
He was not being provided a residential parking permit so that he could park.
around the corner on Addison, which would probably be the only parking
that was available. He suffered the consequences and did not get any of the
benefits of the trial and that had been expressed by other people as well.
He was also concerned about the survey that was done because he was not
surveyed. The only people that were surveyed were in the proposed area.
He acknowledged there were parking problems but stated that they bought
that when they bought their houses. He did not have much sympathy for
people who converted their garages or turned their driveways into gardens.
He felt that the City should not reward those people; it should have
programs that encouraged homeowners to restore their garages and
driveways and move toward off street parking. He said that Menlo Park did
not allow overnight on-street parking and asked what would happen if Palo
Alto had a program like that.
Don Barr spoke against the proposal, not because he was against permits
but because he was disappointed in the process. He said that· he spent
significant time working on Palo Alto issues. The RPP program process was
neither open nor representative. He said that he lived in a house on the
historic registry across the street from the district and the first he heard of
the RPP was a letter posted July 3, 2012, which he received on July 5, 2012.
The letter indicated the program was a done deal and that it was being
discussed at Council. He asked why there were not announced, publicized,
noticed, open meetings. He asked why it was not a representative process.
Page lSof47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
He said that the self-appointed representatives on the study group were not
representative of the community. Professorville was 15 square blocks; the
proposed area was two and a half square blocks, not all of which was in
Professorville. He said that most of the homes in the residential parking
district had garages and many of them had been converted. Parking in the
-City streets was a social good that belonged to all the people of Palo Alto,
residents and employees alike. In his opinion residents had no more right to
a parking space than a worker. He said that there also needed to be a
conversation about the difference between a $12.00 an hour worker and
someone who made $120,000 per year.
David Epstein said he lived on the one block of Emerson just beyond the
proposed trial area toward Embarcadero. One of his problems was not just
the downtown area, but the high school students that parked there during
the school year. Many high school students did not want to pay for parking
so they parked on his block. He said that the trial was a severe burden on
his block because residents could not park a street over due to the trial and
the displaced cars would park on his block. He said that it pushed both the
downtown workers and the high school students to his block. He found it
interesting that the RPP provided no solution. He asked where the cars
would go. The RPP pushing them out of one area and all that happened was
they were moving to another area. He was also disturbed by the process
and did not hear about it until several people showed him the. completed
survey which did not take into account those that were negatively affected
by the trial. He found it unfortunately caviler to say that it was simply a trial
and not to worry about it. It was dealing with people's lives over the next
six months. He suggested they use computer simulations rather than
experimenting on real people. He wanted a more global solution and urged
Council not to pass the proposal.
Steven Cohen lived on Addison and was between the pilot area and the
downtown. He would not receive any benefits from the pilot program or any
permanent program. He was against permit parking and was happy living in
a vibrant and diverse area where people from downtown could park. After
he found out by accident about the implementation of the program he did a
casual survey with his neighbors, which looked at the available spaces for
the residents. When he walked around at 1 :00 p.m. on several occasions he
noticed that out of the 66 driveways with 125 spaces there were about 37
cars parked. He said that many of the garages were repurposed and that in
that area there were only about 4 homes that had no garage or driveway.
From his perspective the City was subsidizing the bad behavior of those with
underutilized driveways and garages at the expense of the public.
Page 16 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Ben Cintz said· he lived on Kipling Street with his family. Before that for
about 15 years he lived on Alma Street in the affected area. He owned
residential property in that area as well as some commercial property What
. made Palo Alto and the downtown vibrant was that it was a changing area
with many uses for that area. There were many changes over the years. He
wasn't sure a· parking permit program in the absence-of additional parking
was going to create a solution that could be addressed in six months. He
said that 66 percent of the people surveyed responded and of that 80
percent approved. For part of the time he lived on Alma he commuted to
San Francisco and took his bike to the train station, and then rode to San
Francisco and back. He saw people doing that in the reverse direction now
and was concerned that unless the City had solutions the pilot program was
not going to give them many answers.
Alan Petersen lived in on High Street where there were 12 cars parked on
the street at 9:00 a.m. on Sunday morning and 27 parked on .the street at
9:00 a.m. Monday morning, which was basically total capacity. On his block
the lifetime of an empty parking space was best measured in seconds. He
said that he was sure many people were familiar with that problem. He
found it surprising that his block was specifically excluded from not only the
pilot program but the entire test region. It was perhaps because there were
several duplexes on the block and therefore they were second class citizens
in a single family discussion. Nevertheless, parking was clearly a persistent
and difficult problem. He was personally ambivalent about parking permits.
He enjoyed the vibrant downtown and realized he did not own the City
streets. However, he endured aggravation daily. What bothered him most
about the RPP program was expressed very well by previous speakers and
that was the lack of transparency, fairness, and measurable objectives in the
process. He urged the Council to defer the implementation of the RPP until
there was a better plan.
Justin Birnbaum said that it was striking to him that so many people were
present so late in the game expressing concerns about the RPP. It was
painfully apparent to him that the process was flawed. People were there to
speak to Council because they had not been part of the discussion. The
group surveyed was not representative of the broader spectrum of views in
Professorville. He was not surprised that the people surveyed lived in the
pilot area. He said that the folks who were the loudest about the problem,
placed cones in front of their homes, and did not use their garages for
parking got what they wanted in part because of some bad behavior. He
looked at the data with Mr. Rodriguez and at the very worst time of day
people. only had to park a block and a half from their home. He did not feel
that was so bad.
Page 17of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Michelle Arden lived on Lincoln Avenue in Professorville. Unusually her home
was newly built. She said that many people who chose to live in the area
did so because of the proximity to downtown and downtown services. It was
because of the urban amenities, which were a huge benefit to the
neighborhoods that surrounded the core of Palo Alto. The benefit had
consequences, which were that the streets were more urban because they
needed to support the workers that provided those urban services. She
thought that the City could reward people for using their garages and their
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) space to build two car garages, as she had. She
suggested Planning could think about that while also considering some of the
other initiatives that offered a great deal of promise.
Michael Havern lived about six blocks down the street on Ramona and had
for 26 years. He had a garage that was not converted with a driveway and
used both every day because he could not use the spaces in front of his
.' house. He did not suffer as much as the people in his neighborhood that did
not have those things. The historic character of the neighborhood that he
bought into 26 years earlier was substantially marred and that only alluded
to the visual pollution, not to the day to day hassles of the out of control
parking situation. He did not think there was a pilot required for the permit
program; he thought it was something that should be instituted
immediately. He said the City was trying to encourage heavier development
near transit hubs, but continued to provide free all day parking. He thought
that they should go to no all-day parking anywhere close to the areas where
they were trying to encourage transit heavy development and do away with
the pilot, which causing several problems by itself.
Paul Goldstein lived on Emerson Street in the trial area. He said that the
plan before Council was developed by a few self-appointed residents and had
not been discussed with the community. He had seen more public outreach
around moving a stop sign then there was on the RPP. He was not aware of
a single community meeting about the RPP. The Staff report stated there
was a downtown community issue in March, but he did not remember
receiving a mailing and he looked back at the archives on the Palo Alto
Weekly and did not see notification there either. Most of his neighbors had
no knowledge of the meeting. In June 2012 letters announcing the trial
were sent to the trial residents only. Adjacent residents were notified first
through the July 2, 2012 mailing. Some details of the plan were first
disclosed in the Staff report. Additionally, he thought the summer was a
poor time to survey the neighborhood as many community members were
away. He understood that the City was in a difficult position because some
vocal residents demanded immediate relief and there was pressure to do
something fast, however the only solution to the problem was a
comprehensive program developed through an open and inclusive public
Page 18of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
process. Given sufficient time and community meetings the impacted
groups including businesses and employees could likely come up with a
workable solution. He recognized that would take time and City resources,
but the people of the neighborhood had lived with the issues for years and
they had the time. He urged the Council to reject the trial and if they
wished to proceed with it to they create a legitimate, inclusive process
moving forward.
Irvin Dawid said a residential parking permit was an effective tool used to
manage parking, reduce driving and car ownership, promote affordable
housing, and to reduce a city's carbon footprint. His apartment building was
a great example. They had 107 units and the parking ratio was.5, so there
were approximately 53 parking spaces for 107 people. He did not know
much about what happened when his building went in in 1993, but the
neighbors could have complained and asked what was to prevent the
residents from parking in the adjacent neighborhood. That became a reason
why one used an RPP. A previous speaker asked where the cars would go.
The way he saw it the RPP was not being presented as an effective tool to
manage parking. Another speaker used the term parking deficit, which was
a term that made no sense anymore. There was no parking deficit; the City
had mismanaged parking and parking in garages that went unused as well
as a segregated system of permitted parking and free parking. The City
needed to use the parking it had effectively, which meant pricing it. They
needed to eliminate the permit and have long and short term parking using
meters like other cities. The City had people currently buying parking
permits and not using them so the spaces went empty. He asked that they
use permit parking as a tool and not as a solution.
Sandra Martignetti said she lived on Cowper Street and everyone had
garages and driveways. Most people used those spaces to park. She said
that in the last nine months they were invaded by people who parked and
walked downtown. Her neighborhood was different. She said that if they
were wondering if cars would be displaced to adjacent streets, it had already
happened. She was ambivalent about parking permits. It was a strange
concept to her that she would have to pay to park her extra car. What she
wanted to have the City do was move forward with innovative ideas such as
the ones discussed by Mr. Keenan. She would rather see· money spent on
stacked parking, additional garages, and innovation downtown.
Adia Levin said she worked in downtown Palo Alto for six years and utilized
the permits and was painfully familiar with the permit parking garage
system that induced employees to park on the street. She currently lived in
Menlo Park and visited Palo Alto often, almost always on her bicycle. She
was glad that the Professorville residents raised the parking issue but did not
Page 19 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
believe that the proposed RPP would solve the problem. She was happy that
Staff was working on a set of comprehensive solutions for optimizing
downtown parking including allowing businesses to purchase and subsidize
permits, using permits for multiple workers, enabling online and kiosk
purchases of permits, day passes, digital signs, open data, but she thought
there was still a parking management problem. Several people said that the
reason they did not pay for parking was that on-street parking was free.
She suggested they set the prices so that there was an incentive for people
that wanted to park to park at a garage and a disincentive to park on the
street.
Doria Summa said she lived on Yale Street in College Terrace. She thanked
the Council for approving their permit parking program which had been a
huge success. She served on the committee that worked with Staff to
design that program and continued to serve on another group that worked
with Staff to keep the program running smoothly. She supported a similar
residential parking program for Downtown North and South. The program
allowed anyone to park for two hours during business days. What she did
not support about what the City proposed was a program that discriminated
against residents that lived in multiunit dwellings and their neighbors. For
example Attachment H of the Staff report had the program guidelines for the
general RPP going forward. She said that if the City attempted to apply that
in College Terrace it would literally exempt all of the parts of College Terrace
that had been formerly the most impacted by parking problems from being
in any RPP. Additionally, the experience in College Terrace showed that a
comprehensive RPP supported the needs of both businesses and residents.
Living on Yale Street at the edge of the mixed use zone she could tell the
Council that in addition to employee parking businesses needed short term
parking. When employees parked everything up, businesses did not have
the short term parking either. Residents needed parking spots sufficiently
close for themselves and their visitors to their houses. She thought that a
RPP in Downtown North and South would support the long term
transportation goals of the City, which were to get people to come to the
City through alternate modes of transportation.
Herb Borock said the main reason there was a parking problem was that the
Council kept supporting more intensified development for proposals that
exceeded the zoning. The second problem was the intensification of existing
development. He stated that for those who were concerned about how to
get residents to use their driveways and garages the way to do it was to
prohibit parking in residential zones between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. He
said that was how the system used to work and that back then you could get
a hardship permit, but someone would have come out to check to see how
long your driveway was and what it accommodated. He stated that the
Page 20 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
particular proposal was not Professorville; it included the 1000 block of
Emerson Street, and the other side of Addison which were not in
Professorville. He said that Ken Alsman was the main advocate of intensive
development. For example when 800 High Street was on the ballot Mr.
Alsman said it would provide enough parking to eliminate business and
customers from four or five blocks. Mr. Alsman had also supported 355
Alma. He said that Mr. Alsman thought he was going to get a permit for a
spot in front of his house. The Staff report did not say if the permit was for
individual spaces or for the whole neighborhood. He hoped they were for
the whole neighborhood. The program should not be done for the reasons
mentioned by quite a few speakers.
John Woodfill said he was a resident of Downtown North where they had a
parking issue as well. He was not as worried about the parking issue as he
was about the frantic drivers going around looking for spaces in the
neighborhood. He felt that the Professorville trial was treating a symptom,
not the overall problem. He agreed with those who proposed trying to
simultaneously control parking outside of downtown and manage the parking
structures that existed better. He understood that the Bryant Street garage
was often half full during the day, so if the garages were managed better
there would be more reason for people to park elsewhere and if they had a
RPP or meters in the outside neighborhoods then the parking might move
inward and reduce the traffic.
Martin Bernstein said he was the Chair of the Palo Alto Historic Resources
Board (HRB). He said that Ms. Gross mentioned a parking deficit in
downtown Palo Alto. They had one in 1924 and that was why the
underground parking underneath University was built when the Cardinal
Hotel was constructed. Mr. Williams mentioned historic preservation and a
very successful program of transfer development rights. He suggested that
program remain intact and unchanged as it had been very successful. The
HRB had seen many applications that benefited from that program. In
addition to historic preservation itself as a benefit, two other direct benefits
of that program were the seismic retrofitting which aided public safety, and
contributing to the economic vitality of downtown Palo Alto. The most
specific example was the historic Ramona district where there had been
several successful projects and the economics of downtown Palo Alto and
Ramona Street in particular had been very important for the vitality of the
City.
Vice Mayor Scharff thanked the people who served on the committee. He
said it was important to note that it was a very contentious committee and
there was a lot of tension and difficulty at times between the two groups and
certain members of the groups. It was one of those processes where the
Page 21 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
groups wanted to come together and finally agreed on what they wanted.
He thought the agreement was driven significantly by what each group
wanted. Downtown parking interests wanted to have parking spaces and
permits, whereas the residential group wanted not to have cars in front of
their houses. That was something for Council to keep in mind as it reviewed
the proposal. Staff had a different proposal at the time, which was to make
one side of the street RPP and the other side of the street 4 hour parking.
There were concerns amongst the residential group that the 4 hour parking
would be in front of their house. He thought that was why Staff's proposal
was defeated. He was not sure that was what should drive the discussion.
He thought the Council needed a more comprehensive view so he thought it
was important for his colleagues to get a sense of what the meetings were
like.
Council Member Burt said they were calling it a trial, but it was not clear to
him if it was· being tried whether or not they would have a permitted
program, the form of a permitted program if they were to have one, or the
area covered by a permitted program if they were to have one.
Mr. Williams said they were looking at a broader area than the trial but from
a management standpoint the pilot area was manageable and did not have
many cost issues. They were trying to determine what the balance was
between the residential component of the use of the streets and the
nonresidential component. In other words, assuming there was a restriction
on the nonresidential component, they needed to determine if residential
component was such that it would take up most of the parking spaces on the
street by itself, or would there be empty streets that could accommodate a
better balance of resident and nonresident type of parking. That was the
number one thing tested. Secondly they were testing if there was an impact
on the neighboring areas and to what dfrection it went and again, keeping
the area fairly focused they thought would minimize the impacts rather than
doing it on a larger scale. After the trial was completed Staff would return
with a program that better addressed the overall impacts.
Council Member Burt said that it sounded like the intention had some
elements of a trial and some of a pilot. The pilot being a reduced scale of
something that was anticipated would most likely ultimately be a larger
geographic area than what was piloted. The trial was both about the
formula that was used and also of spillover impacts, which intersected with
the pilot. He thought that laid out for Council what they were talking about
even if it did not provide solutions. He saw that Staff recommendation
number one in the third line said that within six months Staff would return to
Council with the recommendations for a permanent program. He asked if
Page 22 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
that was really the intention of what Council would be directing that evening
based on Staff recommendations.
Mr. Williams thought that was a better way to word it because Staff might
return with a completely different direction.
Council Member Burt said Vice Mayor Scharff mentioned that initially Staff
had a different concept of where one side of the street was permitted and
the other was not and then there was an agreement between the
neighborhood representative subgroup and the downtown business interest
to go to the formula proposed. He was interested in what would happen if
the City's trial included both forms. He thought there were enough blocks to
try separate formulas and asked if there was any reason why they could not
do a hybrid trial.
Mr. Williams said there was nothing prohibiting a hybrid trial but it might not
be advisable because the pilot was a pretty small area and they would only
get one or two streets one way and one or two the other which could be
confusing for people. What he thought would work better was for the pilot
area to take one approach and a second small area take another approach
so that they were physically distinctive from each other.
Council Member Burt said he saw the downside to having two options tried
at once and that those were tradeoffs that needed to be considered. He said
there were a number of comments about the representation of the group.
He knew the neighborhood well, and when they had the initial South of
Forrest Avenue project they had very extensive public participation and it
was very open. There were committees and subcommittees and meetings
that were neighborhood based meetings, some of which were City sponsored
and others were neighborhood sponsored in a very open, inclusive process.
He said that for a variety of reasons that did not happen in this scenario. He
asked what the thought process was for having the representation solely by
those who were in the trial area and advocating a RPP rather than a mixture
of options. It seemed from the survey that most people in the trial area
favored the trial. He noted that the people outside the trial area who would
potentially be in the spillover group were not surveyed. Those people
maybe had a moderate parking problem which could become an acute
problem as a result of the trial. He explained that those people may not
favor a permit program at all because the status quo was better for them
than the cure.
Mr. Williams said Staff had started with a much larger study area and
focused it down. He did not know that he realized as they focused it down
that everyone in the group still was within the focused area, but it did go
Page 23 of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
there and Staff relied on them to get the word out to the much larger group.
There were discussions along the way about getting broader input and even
including Downtown North. However they focused it down and Staff should
have been more forceful about having broader community knowledge of
what was going on even if there was not more participation on the
committee.
Council Member Burt asked for a rough estimate of the cost of the future
program. He saw the cost for the temporary program and asked if the
future program would be comparable.
Mr~ Williams said the cost of the future program depended on how many
participants there were and how many bought permits, what the level of
enforcement was, and other factors. Assuming they did not have the
funding from the Lytton Gateway project they were estimating permit costs
of $200 to $300 per year per household.
Council Member Burt said that begged another question because they could
get one response level to the program based on pricing. One could imagine
the higher pricing, but it could skew responses. If people paid $50 or $100
per year they may favor the program while if they had to pay $200 or $300
they may not. He said that it favored the neighborhood if there were fewer
business permits bought because they were more expensive than in the
trial. Since Staff was trying to dial the parking to 80 percent occupancy that
could be skewed as well if they changed the economic forces.
Mr. Williams said they were aware of that and the major goal was to get a
sense of how the residential/nonresidential balance was and then assuming
they could better equate that then take the next step of what the price
sensitivity was.
Council Member Burt said he remained concerned that they were adopting a
broader policy on a de facto basis. He said it was not a certainty; they had a
Downtown North street closure that was repealed after a year and a half or
two years. Things were not necessarily permanent, but that was significant
wasted time and effort and he did not want to see a repeat of that. He was
not saying that he was convinced that the City should not consider a RPP but
he was worried about making a broader policy decision and convincing
themselves that they were just making a trial decision.
Council Member Klein asked if Staff believed the City had a problem, and if
so how if was defined.
Page 24of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Mr. Williams said they had defined a problem based on occupancy maps.
There were substantial areas with close to 100 percent parking occupancy
during at a good portion of the day.
Council Member Klein reframed his question and asked if the residents had a
problem. Council heard testimony both ways. Some residents said that
they did not have a problem and that they lived in the area and only had to
park a block and a half away. Others described it as intolerable. He asked if
there was a standard that defined a problem if he had to park more than a
certain number of blocks away and it took more than a certain amount of
time to find a space.
Mr. Rodriguez said that they did not use that type of a measure when they
went through the process. What Staff typically used when they looked at
transit oriented development type of standards was that a half a mile was a
comfortable radius for people to walk.
Council Member Klein asked how many blocks a half mile was.
Mr. Williams said they did not have that kind of criteria. He thought it was a
perception issue and Staff felt there was a strong perception among a
number of the residents that there was an issue. It was ultimately
subjective as to whether it was a problem. There was no traffic problem or
traffic hazard in the City. It was a personal convenience issue.
Council Member Klein said that he was torn because he heard conflicting
testimony as some people said there was a problem.
James Keene, City Manager, agreed with Mr. Williams that they did not have
any existing quantifiable standard that said if it was the distance, density, or
experience that defined it was a problem. People had different reactions.
Staff had performed counts and there were locations that were more
impacted than others and it was not just a perception issue based on
imagined changes. There certainly appeared to be more parking and more
impact in the neighborhood. Two blocks was a real problem if someone
needed to unload groceries. He said that the way the process unfolded was
that a group of neighbors came together and said they had a real problem
that they wanted to bring to the City's attention. The City responded to a
particular complaint and had a different perspective from the business
community so the Staff put those groups together. As difficult as that was
he did not know how they would have expanded it to a much larger
conversation which possibly involved people that had not expressed any
concerns. He thought it made sense for the Staff to try to keep meeting and
resolve the issue. Given the testimony that evening this was not just a
Page 25 of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
neighbor to the City issue, this was a neighbor to neighbor issue, and a
neighbor to the business community issue.
Council Member Klein said that was why it was a difficult issue. He did not
understand the reference to 500 feet. He assumed that the usual block was
a tenth of a mile and therefore he was talking about a five block radius.
Mr. Rodriguez said he used 500 feet as an example.
Council Member Klein heard that neighbors had placed their own orange
cones out to indicate that people should not take a parking space in front of
their house. He asked if that was true.
Mr. Rodriguez said that happened.
Council Member Klein said that was a vigilante act and that the Police ought
to prevent people from doing that. He asked if they had any instructions to
that effect.
Mr. Williams said that he was not aware that they had reports, but they
certainly would send the Police out if they had.
Council Member Klein said that he did not want to encourage people taking
the law into their own hands. He said that there were various comments
about how everyone had equal access to the streets and he agreed with
that, but did not think that the question was one of Constitutional law. He
accepted the idea that the US Supreme Court told cities they could restrict
parking in one area of town compared to others. He said there needed to be
a compelling reason for different rules form one neighborhood to another.
That was why he asked the questions about if there was really a problem.
He asked why residents were not charged under the pilot project.
Mr. Williams said that they were charging for more than one vehicle, but
were not charging for the first vehicle. Staff wanted to see if residents had
unlimited access to the streets what kind of load that meant for the street.
Staff kept hearing comments about the nonresidential vehicles occupying all
the streets and residents not having places to park their cars. Making it
easy for the residents for at least the first vehicle in the trial was something
that allowed Staff to better visualize the potential balance between the
residential and nonresidential use of the street.
Council Member Klein said he read that, but he still did not understand. It
seemed that it would be a better test if they charged for the first car
because presumably that was what would happen if they adopted a
Page 26of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
permanent project. For example he could see someone who had a driveway
and a garage taking advantage of the permit if it was free, but if they had to
pay for it they would not. He was not persuaded by the free first vehicle at
all. He had not heard any mention of the experience of other communities
and he knew there were many residential permit programs around the
country. He asked if Staff looked at and learned from any of those
programs.
Mr. Rodriguez thought that the specific elements they recommended within
the program took advantage of the lessons learned from other communities.
That was one of the reasons they did the first two elements of the program.
They wanted to define a buffer zone to allow the transition from land use
that generated parking to a residential community. The buffer transition
was their method of ensuring that they were following a best practice
determined by other communities as well as making sure they were
protecting arterial streets which served multiple uses. One of the other
major successful elements of a RPP program within many communities was
that they pulled funds together to help reduce the long term cost of permits
for the whole city. Those were the limits or restrictions. The rest were
things that they needed to consider and discuss such as single family homes
versus multiuse homes. Those were things that they needed to look at
when they worked with the community. The attachment that was in the
Staff report that talked about the framework really was geared toward trying
to define the process that the community needed to follow but was limited to
a couple of factors to help define the pattern of a RPP.
Council Member Klein thought it was useful to see programs from several
other cities that seemed as similar as possible to the Professorville area.
Mr. Williams said he did not think they needed to look at if any other cities
had done that kind of residential and nonresidential permit combinations.
He said it was pretty standard to focus on the residential and then have two
hour parking for everyone else. They started with a discussion of that in the
group and that was a major impact on the employers so they backed off.
Mr. Keene said that Staff would conduct more research. He said that he was
previously the City Manager of Berkeley and had lived in Rockridge for quite
some time and he did not recall any neighborhood moving to secede from
RPP because it was a problem. In general people felt RPP's were essential to
living in their neighborhood. He thought Berkeley brought in about $7
million in metered parking revenue and probably about $7 million in parking
fines at the same time. So it was a fairly comprehensive program.
Page 27 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Council Member Shepherd knew there was good work on the RPP, but was
very hesitant to move forward on the pilot. She asked if Council moved
forward on the second half of the Staff recommendation would that get Staff
closer to answering Council Member Klein's question about if there was a
problem. She asked if Staff needed the information from the outcome of the
pilot.
Mr. Williams said the programs would get them closer to the answers, but
they also would take quite a bit of time to get implementation that gave a
sense of how much relief was provided. The question was if Staff should try
to do something immediately to provide relief in the residential areas or
should they hold off and wait to see how some of the things came along.
Staff already captured 50 new spaces in downtown, changed parking garage
levels from hourly to permit, and did new signage to get people to the
garage. Some of those things helped to some extent, but there was still
concern in the neighborhood.
Council Member Shepherd confirmed the pilot took them out of anecdotal
information and into real information. She asked if Staff planned to return
to Council after three months to see if there needed to be any course
correction in the pilot.
Mr. Williams said they planned to report back to the Council in three months.
Staff told the working study group that it would meet again and check in at
that pOint. If there did not seem to be major problems, they might just let
Council know that but otherwise they would report problems and suggest
changes or whether to abandon the program~
Council Member Shepherd said she knew there were apartment complexes
between the pilot area and downtown that were probably not fully parked.
She asked what happened to those cars.
Mr. Williams said right now those streets were not part of the program.
Apartment complexes were more complicated with respect to a RPP because
there was a concentration that could be from under parking or that people
used the streets because it was more convenient.
Council Member Shepherd said that either the apartment dwellers would
park in the unpiloted area or would have to park on the other side of the
piloted area. She said Staff had not checked to see if the apartments had
garages, so that could be a parking option.
Mr. Rodriguez said it could be a combination of all the things Council
Member Shepherd mentioned, but Staff did not know.
Page 28 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Council Member Shepherd was concerned about some of the comments from
the public. Her concern focused on the comments relating to circumventing
the permit area and parking somewhere else. She saw both sides of the
argument. She asked how impacted Downtown North was because the pilot
would shift employees over there. They were already fully parked and
impacted so it was the other areas that were in question. She confirmed
that was what Staff was trying to look at.
Mr. Williams said yes. He said Downtown North was already heavily
impacted. Secondly he thought the distance from the trial area to
Downtown North was such that people would find spaces closer than
Downtown North to park.
Council Member Shepherd stated people who work in downtown have to
park one way or the other. If they had to walk further they would.
Mr. Williams said the trial area was just a small part of the area south of
downtown. There were other blocks and that was what the neighbors were
talking about that people would park in some place that did not have the
RPP restriction rather than going up to the Downtown North.
Council Member Shepherd said that was already impacted, so it looked like
the only thing Staff would be able to find out was if people went one more
block closer to Embarcadero Road. If they did that and the City released the
parking permits to the residents and 20 percent of businesses, she asked if
the trial area would still be parked up with the two hour parking in front of
people's homes in addition to impacting the blocks further out. She
questioned if the information was really useful. Dividing the neighborhood
concerned her.
Mr. Keene thought Staff acknowledged from the beginning preference for the
other model, but both groups preferred the current model so Staff went with
it. Staff understood that it was imperfect. At the same time, there was a
core group of citizens that said parking was a real problem that needed
alternatives. Staff found very often in other areas that there was a
challenge getting behavior change. There was the challenge of behavior
change for businesses and their employees as to how they would have more
uptake on Transportation Demand Management (TDM) or how they would
maximize use of garages. Staff would have to deal with issues of if RPP
programs in a more expanded version if it was something that people
wanted. He said that Council Member Klein's points were valid. If they did
not price the pilot properly then they might not collect the data they needed.
From the beginning Staff understood that it was going to displace parking
Page 29 of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
further down the road and require neighbors to come forward and ask for
something specific in their neighborhoods as well. He guessed that the
situation would probably improve for the six blocks in the pilot. He said that
the problem ultimately was the fact that they did not want to ruin the
vibrant downtown. The timeframe to plan for new parking or TDM programs
were long term issues. They had a dilemma and there-were always
consequences in a dilemma that were unsatisfactory. He said the Council
meeting was transparent and part of the process. Things were often
elevated and people paid more attention at the Council level than the
outreach that Staff could do. The Council was free to send Staff back, to put
qualifications on the program, or whatever they needed to do. It was not a
done deal just because Staff presented an option to the Council.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the program went away when the trial
ended or if Staff intended that it become an entitlement for that particular
configuration of Professorville. She did not mind gathering data for a time
period but she thought it was important for it to revert to see if trends went
back to the way they were before. She felt that would be informative.
Mr. Williams agreed. He said Staff was comfortable saying that the trial
ended in six months and it was incumbent on Staff to return to Council with
a recommendation to extend set parameters for how to move forward with
the community on a broader program. If that did not happen then the
program ended at that pOint.
Council Member Shepherd asked if they would put up temporary signs.
Mr. Williams said they were temporary and the sign would be removed
pending a determination of what the ultimate program was if there was one.
Vice Mayor Scharff said he wanted to follow up on what Council Member
Klein and Council Member Burt said about pricing. One of the things that
Staff continually reiterated during the meetings was that if there was a full
RPP it had to be cost neutral. He had the sense that the committee did not
listen to that part. He thought they could do a disservice to the
neighborhood because they were surveyed based on the notion of a free
permit for one car and then only $50 for a second permit. The reality of the
situation was more in the $200-300 range for a permit. He thought they
should survey people with a realistic version of the cost. If they said $250
and they received feedback from 40 percent saying they were interested
with 60 percent saying no, that was different information. People would be
angry if the cost difference was so great. He thought they should return and
complete surveys with realistic numbers. He knew there was a push to get
an RPP done as soon as possible and that Staff was under significant
Page 30 of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
pressure, but people needed a sense of what would really happen or the
whole notion of a trial did not make sense. He also agreed with Council
Member Shepherd that if it was a trial then it should have a specific end
date. He thought it was better if they said that it ended no matter what and
that the City would use the information to design a broader program. He
said Staff did a good comprehensive job on the recommendation involving
additional studies and actions related to parking in downtown. He wanted
Staff to return with funding options for the public parking garage sites. One
of the things he realized when sitting on the committee was that there was
agreement that some workers should be able to park in the neighborhoods.
That was one of the worthwhile things that came from the meetings. He
thought people were saying that employees should be allowed to park in the
neighborhoods but at a level that did not make life uncomfortable. That was
what the City should strive to achieve, making life not uncomfortable.
People bought homes in that neighborhood and area knowing that there
were many impacts with downtown. They just did not want to feel that the
impacts were extreme and he believed some people felt it had gotten
extreme. That went back to Council Member Klein's question. He thought
that was what people wanted to know; how many cars could be removed
from the neighborhoods and how could the City get that done.
Mr. Keene heard a difference between Council Member Klein's point of
having a no cost first car parking permit and if the price should be closer to
what the expected the ultimate was. His understanding was that this was a
pilot that would not have the full level of enforcement. If they charged the
$200-300 fee than the City risked having residents demand the same level
of enforcement that was concomitant with that pricing. The issue of paying
for at least every car so there was truly a litmus test was different. Staff
wanted to price it in some way that people felt the trial was working into
what it would be like based upon the price if it was a permanent program.
He thought the sense was the City was not offering a program that mirrored
what it would be if it were a permanent program.
Vice Mayor Scharff said he thought they should get the trial as close as
possible to what it would be like for people and survey them. He thought
people were more price sensitive than enforcement sensitive and that Staff
would receive push back at the $200-300 mark. If the City was not going to
charge $200-300 because it was not going to have that level of enforcement
then they should price the program according to the appropriate level. If
they did not use the right information they would not receive the right data
and they would leave the wrong impression with the community.
Mr. Williams said the $200-300 figure assumed a full level of enforcement.
It also included all the upfront costs which the City had the potential to
Page 31 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
cover with the Lytton Gateway project. The figures also depended on the
level of participation. He thought that if they did a survey they ought to lay
out the options and not assume the highest case. They discussed some of
those issues in the group. He also pOinted out that if it was a three month
program, $50 equaled $200 per year. Again, they were not charging for the
first permit so that sounded like an appropriate way to go.
Council Member Holman said she used to live in the neighborhood and she
could support those who said the situation had gotten worse and the
neighborhood was more impacted. She said that it was a quality of life
issue, a neighborhood character issue, and a business vitality issue. Part of
the quality of life in the neighborhood was that it was near the business
district. That said there were property value impacts and basic disruption.
It was not as clean; the streets were not swept as well. There were all kinds
of negative impacts on the streets the way there were now. She said that
the 900 block of Ramona and the 1100 block of Emerson were full during the
midday peak period yet were not included in the study area and asked why
that was.
Mr. Rodriguez said that when they started they looked at a larger area but
worked it down to a symmetrical shape. It was a boundary that was put
together with both Staff and resident input. They looked at parking
occupancy of the street. If they were at 85 percent there was still open
parking on that street so that was another factor.
Council Member Holman said that she understood that if there was some
space on the street that meant there was available parking but it was tight
with 85 to 100 percent occupancy. She said that the pilot used $50,000 of
the $100,000 allocated from the Lytton project. She asked if the City was
better off using some of the money on the objectives for the
recommendation to proceed with additional studies. She was not 100
percent clear on what they were doing. Attachment H, page 301 said
"parking program guidelines." The word guidelines threw her because
guidelines were not really defining a program they were parameters that
could be implemented. There was also not a good description of what the
program would be in the document that was the draft proposed RPP. She
was not sure that everyone knew what was being proposed.
Mr. Rodriguez said the survey focused on the one issue of a potential RPP
pilot program. There were many good comments about additional
information that could have been included in the survey including the costs
of an ongoing long term program. He said that they were in the infancy of
developing the RPP and there was significant positive change on the permit
sales side and the distribution of permits. It would take more time to try
Page 32 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
things. Mr. Keene and Mr. Williams both asked if it was the right time to try
a RPP and if it should be done under the process Staff defined or in some
other form, or if they should accelerate the other programs first and revisit
the RPP another day.
-Mr. Williams thought Council Member Holman's questions went to the
specifics of the RPP. He agreed that the information was dispersed. The
question she had about the use of the money going toward the other
programs concerned him because he thought there was a commitment at
the time of the approval of the Lytton Gateway project that the money was
segregated and used specifically for residential protection or parking
intrusion. He was not sure it was appropriate to move the money to another
type of parking program.
Council Member Holman said it seemed to her that without answers to some
of these questions they would not have good enough information to deploy.
She shared the concerns that this was not an open process. Council could
not make changes that evening based on information it just learned. The
process could have been improved. There were some things that were
added more appropriately or more clearly described in the presentation than
were listed in the Staff report. Someone told her that Palo Alto High School
was charging for parking which was causing more parking in the
neighborhood. She asked if that was correct. She said that Council Member
Shepherd just told her that they had always charged for parking .. She said
that they might want to work with the School District and Stanford on that.
She listed off modes of transportation that were added and asked how those
items would be funded or if they could be funded.
Mr. Rodriguez thought the concept was a Staff developed toolkit of
downtown transportation management tools to be taken advantage of by
existing or future development. One of the elements they thought of was a
future expansion program participation into a shuttle program which would
allow the City to provide new service to the area and help connect it with
other residences within the community. He said that participating in a
shuttle program could be a way to provide more connections through transit
use that did not currently exist through the Santa Clara Valley Transit
Authority (VTA) or other resources.
Mr. Williams said Staff was not ready to tell Council how it planned to fund
anything listed under that option.
Council Member Holman said she would add opportunities with underutilized
and over parked buildings in the downtown area. She said that other
communities managed liability issues and that seemed to never get
Page 33 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
addressed in Palo Alto. She wanted Staff to look at that as part of the
solution. She asked why the overnight parking restriction was no longer in
effect. When she moved to the City in 1975 you could not park on the street
overnight. She wondered if it was imposed again if it would force people to
use their driveways.
Mr. Williams said he did not know the background, but he knew as far as the
RPP that was not a problem.
Council Member Holman said she understood, but it was a little piece
because people said that others had converted their driveways as well as
their garages to other uses. That was a way to perhaps make people use
their driveways again for the intended purpose. She did not have any
evidence that there was outreach to the business community to see what
the workers behavior was as a response to a RPP if the City moved forward.
That was important. She asked if Staff could return in six months with a
new and improved pilot that was better informed.
Mr. Williams said that if that was Council's -request Staff would
accommodate. He felt the recommendation would be more informed in six
months' time.
Council Member Holman was interested in moving forward with something
but what the Council had before them currently was ill defined and did not
contain broad enough input. She thought six months was a good time frame
to ask Staff to return with a plan.
Mr. Keene said that Council's directive needed to be clear about wh'at
additional information Council wanted so that Staff was able to respond.
Council Member Price was inclined to go ahead with the trial on the RPP
because she thought they needed additional information regarding the
parameters that were laid out. She thought if they said after all the months
of work that further study was needed she was not sure that would move
the City forward in addressing the stated problem. She appreciated Staff's
comments and the discourse on the additional studies and hoped that when
those came back that there was some sense of the cost and the relative
priority. She was not asking for an answerimmediately but based on what
other communities had done she wanted to know which elements could yield
information that could be used in concert with a potential RPP. She
appreciated the comments regarding best practices and asked if the draft in
Attachment H which had preliminary guidelines was based on an extension
of what was in the Staff report, or if Staff looked at guidelines or equivalents
that were used successfully in other communities.
Page 34of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Mr. Rodriguez said it was the latter.
Council Member Price was inclined to go along with the comments about how
if they proceeded with the pilot program that it should have some fee
structure associated with it. Issuing free permits was a false or inaccurate
litmus test. She said that people who did not need the permit might use it
simply because it was free. It made sense to charge some reasonable fee
for the parking permits. She said that the price could be scaled or less than
what the potential long term would be, but it needed to be recognized in
further communication with residents in the trial area about what the likely
range of costs were if the program was implemented. With the discussion of
under zoning and planning there was a reference to TDM and other options.
Within that language it said other options would be examined and she
wanted to clarify if Staff was thinking about auto restricted zones or on
street metered parking.
Mr. Williams had not thought about auto restricted zones but they would at
least look at pricing issues to see if that was something the community and
Council wanted to look at. He said that it could be brought forward as part
of the menu.
Council Member Price said there were many hybrid programs used in
different places and every community was different. She encouraged
everyone to read the book "The High Cost of Free Parking" by Donald Shoup.
Mr. Shoup made the case that free parking inflated parking demand and
played into issues related to parking requirements and the zoning code. She
clarified that on the College Terrace program there was an opt-out scenario.
Mr. Williams clarified that there were two ways. One was not buying a
permit, and the second was that whole blocks could opt out if more than 50
percent wanted to opt out. If that happened they would not have the
signage on the street.
Mr. Rodriguez said that when the College Terrace program was initiated the
blocks voted to opt in or out. Afterward they had the opportunity to vote
per block and opt out again.
Council Member Price said she concurred with all the comments made about
the noticing of the public. She thought the City needed to be very mindful of
that at every stage. If there was a trial or a post-trial or any discussion of
the strategies the public should be noticed. She knew the Staff observed
that as well but she thought it was extremely important.
Page 35 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Mayor Yeh knew that there were many considerations and iterations of the
RPP. Ultimately he did not support the pilot program or really even the
development of a RPP because he thought conducting additional studies was
the smartest approach. He asked Staff to define what they meant by long
term. He discussed the amount of Staff who would have to work on the
various options.
Mr. Rodriguez said that over the next six months there were many things
Staff could move forward on. Some of the initial things were studying the
existing surface laws to determine where they could build more garages and
if attendant parking made sense in the existing garages. There were many
factors including if the structures would support the weight of additional
cars. Staff could advance those studies because of a separate contribution
from the Lytton Gateway project. Staff also committed to advancing within
the next six months the development of some sort of RFP to help them
collect data about what they could do with technology deployment within the
garages. They also wanted to share more information with the Parking
Committee. There was a strong interest within the business community and
they had formed the assessment district to help advance many of the
solutions that were already in place and the City needed to respect that
process and solicit that input before they came back and made a strong
recommendation to Council.
Mr. Williams thought that some of the things that could be implemented in
the next six months were attendant parking, or at least a trial of that
somewhere, and some technology efforts. He said that building a parking
garage took longer, but in six months Staff would have good study
information on that. Mr. Keene had also discussed a public/private garage
that would be a faster track than the City building a structure on its own.
Mayor Yeh appreciated the thought that went into the pilot, but his greatest
concern was that it moved the problem and did not really address or create
a systemic solution. He said he favored a systemic solution.
MOTION: Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to not
move forward with the trial Residential Permit Parking Program, however to:
1. 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;
Page 36 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
c. Technology enhancements, such as gate controls, parking space
identification systems, and parking permit processing
improvements, etc.;
d. Zoning studies and revisions, including study of the downtown cap
on nonresidential space, the use of bonuses and transfer rights,
variable parking ratios for office uses, and how to treat non
conforming parking sites; and
e. Evaluate paid parking options.
Mayor Yeh said he met with residents that .were the strongest proponents of
the RPP program and shared with them that he could not support an RPP
program in isolation. He felt it was moving a problem around and his
greatest concern was that the neighbors not in the trial zone would be
negatively impacted for the duration of the pilot. He thought the energy
could be more positively channeled to maintain the urgency that was
identified in the problem and focus ona systemic and comprehensive
solution and to move forward as quickly as possible. He acknowledged that
there was a problem and he lived in the Evergreen neighborhood where they
looked to College Terrace for having created a problem across EI Camino
Real in Evergreen. That was the kind of issue that he did not like. He
wanted to focus more on a great set of solutions and evaluations.
Council Member Holman said that she was supportive of finding relief for the
neighborhood but was not comfortable with what was brought to Council.
She said that Staff's time was not a wasted effort, but the RPP was not
ready for trial.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER TO INCLUDE: 1) parking exemptions, 2) a
Tran~portation Demand Management Program, and 3) to direct Staff to look
at underutilized private parking garages.
Council Member Holman said that there were parking garages in the
downtown area that were underutilized during both the daytime and in the
evening. She suggested Staff speak to the property owners to see how the
garages could be better utilized.
Mayor Yeh agreed with Council Member Holman's additions.
Council Member Holman believed that the intention was for Staff to report
back in six months. She did not want the business community or residents
to feel that this was something that would continue for an unlimited amount
of time. She wanted a report in six months.
Page 37 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Mr. Rodriguez thought that six months was feasible. Staff started many
things and wanted to involve the downtown merchants and allow the
community to participate in what the content of the RFP would be so that
when Staff solicited cost information for projects or programs they knew
they were inquiring about things that were of interest to the community. He
thought that within six months Staff could develop the RFP's. Six months
gave Staff the opportunity to meet Council's expectations.
Mr. Keene agreed with the six month timeframe with the understanding that
Staff would return before then with more of a detailed scope of what it was
they were asked to do. He said that even though Mr. Rodriguez responded
to some of the initial requests he did not believe it gave them a good
measure of what the outcomes or percentage of the perceived problem it
addressed in whatever period of time. It could be a multiyear effort that
Staff would make progress on, but that progress would still be unseen. He
suggested returning in the fall with· a more detailed report on what Staff
thought the timeframe was on the different components and what they
thought the yield was in relation to the problem. If they had to build
multiple parking structures that was a different issue than installing some
technology to update the existing capacity. He requested that they add
something to return to Council in three months. He wanted it to say
something about an assessment report. That was very different than having
implemented everything. Then Staff would return in six months.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER TO INCLUDE to direct Staff to return to Council
in three months with check in and return with an update before the end of
the year
Council Member Holman said that she hoped that within six months Staff
would return with a progress update and identified a better program for a
RPP.
Mayor Yeh said that his Motion was to remove the consideration of an RPP.
Council Member Holman confirmed that Mayor Yeh meant that none of the
exercises were intended to lead to a RPP.
Mayor Yeh said yes, that the Motion did not include the Staff
Recommendation to evaluate an RPP.
Council Member Holman said that related to Downtown North.
Page 38 of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Mayor Yeh said his Motion was to not move forward with the Professorville
RPP. Everything in the remaining Motion could reset the baseline for what
downtown parking would look like.
Council Member Holman said her hope and understanding was that gOing
through this process would lead the City toward what it should do with an
RPP.
Mayor Yeh was not open to that and asked if she did not want to second the
Motion.
Mr. Keene said that there was always the possibility that the report would
have an impact on how the Council looked at an RPP. The Motion began
with not wanting Staff to work on an RPP and supporting any RPP process,
partly because it could be in conflict with the effort invested in the
alternatives.
Council Member Holman asked Mr. Williams if the information Staff provided
in three to six months would include what advancements had been made
and what Staff anticipated to see in terms of relief for Professorville so at
that pOint in time Council could look at if they wanted to move forward with
an RPP.
Mr. Williams said Staff would provide Council with an assessment of which
components of the work they were doing that would provide or had provided
relief to Professorville. At that point Council could revisit whether to try the
RPP. He thought Staff would have a real concern trying to retool a whole
new RPP program while they were looking at the other ~hings.
Council Member Holman said she would maintain her second to the Motion
but with the intention that RPP was still on the horizon.
Mayor Yeh confirmed he was not open to that.
Vice Mayor Scharff said he would support the Motion and suggested
language additions to the Motion. He said they change the verbiage to
reflect zoning studies and revisions as a concern from the public. He
wanted the City to evaluate that issue.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to: 1) return with funding options
for new public parking garage sites, and 2) include that the zoning studies
would evaluate disincentives to having two car garages.
Page 39 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Council Member Holman was hesitant because the neighborhood was built
up and much of it was Professorville she did not believe it would have much
of an impact.
Vice Mayor Scharff said they were looking at more than Professorville. The
Council was basically doing a comprehensive for Downtown North and South.
He thought they were looking at it on a comprehensive basis and was not
suggesting that there should be an outcome, just that it be evaluated as one
of the concerns.
Council Member Holman said she was comfortable as the seconder of Motion
now that it included the Incorporation.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to evaluate the use of $250k currently budgeted
in the Lytton Gateway Project.
Vice Mayor Scharff said that the other comment that Council Member
Holman made was related to the $250,000. He was not suggesting they use
it immediately, but the Council never agreed to do an RPP so they could not
have placed the funds aside for that. He thought the question was should
that money be used and could it be used to get relief. If Staff had that
money to use, he asked if they would make faster and better progress. He
stressed that he simply wanted to evaluate how to use the money. He
thought the Council was taking a good approach and trying to solve the
problem on a comprehensive basis. Staff's efforts needed to be focused on
the comprehensive basis because they did not have time to do both. It was
not saying no to an RPP permanently, it was focusing on the comprehensive
basis for six months.
Mr. Keene said the intent of the Motion was that unless the Council
redirected Staff in the six month time frame that they were taking work on
and assessments of RPP as a part of the solution off the table and shifting
the attention to see if Staff could identify solutions that may not require an
RPP program. Staff would look at ways to solve the problem though TDM,
additional parking, and other means knowing that at the end of the six
month period Staff would have enough information presented to Council that
Council would know what it would take to move forward on that front or if it
wanted to bring back up RPP.
Council Member Holman clarified the language by addihg the phrase "at this
time." She felt that made Council's intentions more clearly stated.
Page 40of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to include "Professorville at this time" after
"Residential Permit Parking Program" in the first part of the Motion.
Council Member Burt agreed with the Motion and thought that if Council
-looked at an RPP in the future that it should be more comprehensive. As
they looked at what prompted the problem he thought the most legitimate
one was that there were 11 homes in the broader study area that had no
driveways or garages. He stated that as the spillover grew the problem
became more acute. He asked if the City ever looked at simply giving relief
to those 11 homes through curb striping.
Mr. Williams said that was not evaluated.
Council Member Burt asked if Mr. Williams saw any problems if the City went
in the direction of a spot program that provided relief to homes without a
driveway. He said that those spots could be either the resident's permit or
two hour parking.
Mr. Williams said Staff had to discuss that and see if it was feasible. He
thought one of the issues was that he did not know if those were the people
that were complaining about not having spaces.
Council Member Burt offered the language to be incorporated into the
Motion. He thqught that would not be disruptive to the downtown parking
district and would address the most acute problem. He thought that was the
most legitimate complaint.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to evaluate selective parking for
those homes without a driveway or garage.
Council Member Price said she would not support the Motion although she
appreciated the modifications because clearly a more aggressive
comprehensive plan was important. She thought they needed to have the
RPP trial as one element of a comprehensive approach. The other
approaches were important, but based on comments from both sides
residential parking was a concern to a sufficient number of people. She felt
that if a pilot program were done that charging a fee for it made more
sense. She said that if the Council really wanted to be comprehensive it
would retain the RPP as part of the ambitious list. She said that the RPP was
not a panacea, none of the options discussed were a panacea, but the
question was if the City was looking at the whole picture comprehensively.
Page 41 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Council Member Holman' said that they were doing this because there were
concerns from the neighborhood about spill over parking. Council indicated
that perhaps addressing some of the issues might alleviate the parking in
the neighborhoods but there were many comments that evening about the
lack of transparency. She asked about the process moving forward and if it
was going to be an open process with public input.
Mr. Williams said it depended on the item, but he thought most of them
would be put together and a community meeting would be noticed before
Staff returned to Council. That would probably not happen before Staff
returned with the programmatic information, but it would before the end of
the year session.
Council Member Holman confirmed that the community meeting would
include more than the pilot area.
Mr. Keene said that they did not know the parameters of it at that point, but _
the emergent neighborhood complaints alerted Staff that there was a large
challenge. Whatever was mitigated ten years ago when PAMF moved had
reemerged and Council was asking Staff to look at the parking challenge
accommodation of the 2010-2020 decade. There were many issues that
would touch many stakeholders. That required engagement and outreach.
Council Member Holman suggested more than one community meeting. The
reason she suggested not just the area that was included in the pilot was
because some of the people in that area were the most invested in the
dialogue. She wanted to make sure that it was not a self-selected group
again.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to
call the question.
MOTION PASSED: 5-3 Espinosa, Price, Shepherd no, Schmid absent
MOTION PASSED: 6-2 Espinosa, Price no, Schmid absent
Council Member Shepherd asked a question about the downtown cap and
the boundaries of the downtown cap. She said that the Arrillaga project
could be coming forward and she wanted to know how that was going to be
handled. She knew it was outside the boundary of the downtown cap and
asked if Staff would bring that analysis when they returned with the item.
Page 42 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Mr. Williams said they probably would, but that he thought Council would
see some of the Arrillaga project before that came back. He said they would
see the extent to which it was parked.
Council Member Shepherd said she was concerned about traffic and parking.
She said it was tangential and important for Council to review at the same
time.
Mr. Williams said they indicated in the Staff report that they would be
embodying that but whether it was actually part of the number on the cap
was to be determined.
14. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that Council Approve a
Definition of Carbon Neutrality in Anticipation of Achieving a Carbon
Neutral Electric Supply Portfolio by 2015.
James Keene, City Manager, said the Staff was ready to answer questions
and that the Chair of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) was present.
James Cook, Chair UAC said the item was about the definition. They were
not debating the pros and cons or items about carbon neutrality, but the
definition. Staff confirmed that this was the industry standard definition, so
for the UAC it was a short item and they felt the definition was good. The
definition did not preclude a later discussion about how to achieve carbon
neutrality or when to do it. This was the framework to start with and the
UAC passed it unanimously. He urged the Council to pass the definition.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to
approve the following definition as the basis for the City's pursuit of a carbon
neutral supply portfolio: A carbon neutral electric supply portfolio will
demonstrate annual net zero greenhouse gas (GHB) emissions, measured at
the citygate, in accordance with The Climate Registry's Electric Power Sector
protocol for GHG emissions measurement and reporting.
Vice Mayor Scharff said that Staff represented that the definition was
achievable, credible, transparent and measurable as well as consistent with
current industry standards for GHB accounting and reporting protocols and
taking that representation to be true he thought it was the right definition.
Council Member Klein asked where the citygate was.
Monica Padilla, Senior Resource Planner, said citygate was where they
interconnected with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).
Page 43 of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
rademps < rademps@aol.com>
Saturday, October 27, 2012 3:47 PM
Council, City
Message from the City Council Home Page
Dear Members of the City Council:
21
t;fl; y OUffh\ '5 "rtFl '"
12 OCT 29 AM fO: 42
I know that you are all fully aware of the parking problems plaguing residential areas north
and south of University Avenue as well as the downtown area itself, and that the Council
has instructed Staff to address the issue on a broad scale. In the meantime, I want to
suggest something that would quickly alleviate the parking problem for some of the
residents, particularly those in and near Professorville. That area has many older homes,
homes that were designed before the great automobile era, homes that have no garage
and no driveway.
There isra feeling among some in government and among some residents that it is wrong
for residents to ask for what amounts to private parking on a public street; however, those
homes that have a driveway do have the equivalent of a private parking spot on a public
street since no one can park in front of their driveway. The result is, those of us with no
driveway suffer from de facto discrimination since the city does not provide us with a
parking spot in front of our homes.
I'm sure there are a dozen reasons that will come to mind why the City cannot do it, but I
am equally sure that with a simple change of polic y the city could make it legal to have a
'virtual driveway" in front of every home that has no real driveway.
In our case, we do have access to parking via an alley in back of our home; however'it is '
less safe and less convenient to use than parking a few blocks away. It is very narrow
and difficult to enter the carport, more difficult to back out without damaging our back
neighbor's fence. The alley is not lit at night. Because workme~ often use it to park it is
not always accessible, unlike a street space, and is sometimes littered with construction
materials such as nails and screws. Further, our sliding gate is exceptionally heavy (my
wife cannot open it) and the two motorized openers we have had installed over the years
have burned out at great cost to us. I would ask the Council members to do some
creative thinking about a policy that would allow us to drive away and have the same
access to return to our homes that residents with driveway do.
Regards,
Ray Dempsey
1 036 Bryant Street
Palo Alto
10