HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-19 City Council (9)TO:
City .of Palo Alto
City Manager!s Report
................. HONORABI:E-CITY-COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:POLICE
DATE:MARCH 19, 2001 CMR:159:01
SUBJECT:CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF A RESIDENTIAL
PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM FRAMEWORK FOR
IMPLEMENTATION TO COINCIDE WITH THE
OPENING OF NEW DOWNTOWN . PARKING
STRUCTURES .~
REPORT IN BRIEF
In 1996, Council directed staff to study the feasibility of implementing a residential
parking permit program (RPP) in neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown area.
Council directed staff to develop a program using three parameters: 1) provide
permits at no cost to residents; 2) charge an annual fee for all-day non-resident
permits for those people who wished to purchase them; and 3) provide free short-term
parking for up to two hours for non-residents. Staff has conducted surveys, worked
with representatives of the Downtown North Neighborhood.Association (DNNA) and
the University South Neighborhood Group (USNG), and has conducted research into
what other cities provide in similar programs. , ,
In December 1999, staffpresented the Planning and Transportation Commission with
. the. conceptual framework for an RPP ordi_nance that included 13 elements. As part
of the proposal, staff recommended that an RPP program not be implerhented until a
long-term financial plan was prepared and until the downtown parking structures were
built. The Commission agreed with the framework of the program, but made several
suggestions. The suggestions included that implementation of the program occur
prior to the time the garages are built; consideration be given to extending the two-
hour timed parking to three hours, at least in areas further away from the core
downtown area; and different enforcement times in the University South
Neighborhood area be reviewed.
The long-term financial plan has been presented to Council and planning for the
parking structures is well underway. Staff has spent time refining the cost/revenue
CMR:159:01 Page I of 12
analysis to provide to Council. Based upon that work, staff has revised some of the
elements that were presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission. This
report provides a revised list of program elements and recommends that Council
approve in concept the elements that would be included in an ordinance regulating
parking in residential neighborhoods. Pending Council’s approval, staff would
include initial program start-up costs as part of the 2001-03 proposed budget.
CMR:159:01 Page 2 of 12
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that Council approve in concept the elements of an ordinance
regulating parking in residential areas in neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown
area, including the following:
1)Allow residents in the neighborhoods to purchase at a minimal cost two
vehicle-specific permits that would be renewable every year for each single-
family residence or multi-family complex residence up to four units;
2)Allow residents in the area to purchase at a minimal cost one vehicle-specific
permit for each multi-family unit residence that is in a complex of five or more
units per permit on an annual basis;
3)Allow residents to purchase up to two additional vehicle-specific permits
renewable on an annual basis for an increased fee;
4)Allow residents to submit requests to purchase additional (more than four)
vehicle-specific permits on an annual basis. These permits would be issued
only. after an in-depth review is completed by City staff to determine the
parking situation in the immediate area;
5)Allow residents in the area to purchase at a minimal cost two transferable guest
permits per residence on an annual basis and charge.a replacement fee for all
lost/misplaced permits;
6)Allow residents to purchase one-day, special event permits for one dollar per
permit;
7)Provide a certain number of one-day permits up to a maximum number per
year to non-profit organizations (churches, Women’s Club, etc.) at no cost for
use by their visitors/users and allow them to purchase permits exceeding their
maximum for one dollar per permit;
8)Allow automotive repair shops in the South of Forest area to purchase one-day
special permits to use for parking of customer vehicles that are being repaired;
9)Provide nonresidents the opportunity to purchase annual nonresident permits
that would allow them to park in specifically designated residential zones,
CMR:159:01 Page 3 of 12
using a two-tiered fee schedule, depending upon the proximity to the
downtown area;
10)Divide the area to be included in the program into 15 specific permit zones and
charge higher fees for nonresident permits for zones closer to the downtown
area;
1!)Provide for enforcement of residential parking Mondays through Fridays from
8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; and
12)Allow anyone to park in specific residential zones without any permit for two
hours with no reparking prior to 10:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays.
Staff also recommends that .the RPP program not be implemented until the parking
structures are built.
BACKGROUND
Since December 1999 when CMR:403:99 (attached) was presented that included
detailed information on the proposed elements of an RPP program, the Palo Alto
Medical Foundation (PAMF) has moved its facilities. Staff conducted another survey
late December 1999 in the South of Forest Avenue area after PAMF moved. The
survey(Attachment A) revealed that, compared to April 1.999, the total number of
vehicles parked on the street decreased by about 82, the number of area residents
parked on the streets decreased by about 160 vehicles, and nonresident parkers
increased by 79. However, the percentage of those groups stayed about the same as
the April 1999 survey.
With the work being done on the parking structures, staff has developed an updated
estimate of the parking deficit that will still remain after the parking structures are
built. According to the most recent projections, the new downtown parking structures
will provide about 474 additional permit-parking spaces. Staff is currently in
negotiations with the leaseholder of the top. floors of the Cowper-Webster garage
regarding an early reversion to public ownership. While the exact numbers of parking
spaces that could be made available is based in part upon rental negotiations with the
adjacent building tenant, staff estimates that an additional 100 spaces could be
acquired and potentially used for permit parking. Including the normal 25 percent
oversell of permits, staff estimates that there will still be about a 700 parking space
deficit in the downtown area (see Attachment B).
CMR:159:01 Page 4 of 12
In December 1999, staff projected that about 375 spaces could be subtracted in
anticipation of the results of an aggressive Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program. Based upon recent information, the Transportation Division
believes that currently 20 to 25 percent of people who travel to Palo Alto use modes
of transportation other than single occupant vehicles. Most TDM studies indicate that
realistically in areas like Palo Alto an aggressive TDM program at most will result in
only 35 percent participation. This coincides with the active commuter program the
City runs for its employees, which has a 22 percent participation rate at any given
time. Based upon this information, staff has reduced the TDM factor to 160 spaces.
In order to assist the parking deficit downtown, staff has been reviewing the
possibility of providing attendant.parking for customers at the Civic Center and
Webster-Cowper garages. Staff will also work with the Chamber of Commerce
Parking Committee on evaluating the possibility of providing valet parking at the new
parking structures for permit holders. The addition of attendant parking at Webster-
Cowper and the Civic Center has the potential of adding between 100 to 200 customer
spaces. Staff will also be analyzing the possibility of selling some transferable
permits that could be utilized by more than one person.
DISCUSSION
The factors that must be considered in the development of a residential parking permit
program include: the average number of vehicles per household, the number of
available on-street parking spaces, density of housing, availability of parking in other
areas for nonresidents, availability of off-street parking for special facilities like
churches and non-profit organizations and the inclusion of timed parking in the
designated area. Much of the detailed rationale for each of the proposed elements is
included in CMR:403:99. Over the lastyear, staff has done some additional research
regarding similar programs in other cities. The following is the rationale staff used for
the revised elements.
Resident Permits
Council originally directed that residents be provided with free permits and staff
initially recommended that residents be provided with two vehicle-specific permits
per household at no cost. However, after considerable analysis of the costs associated
with the program, and in consideration of the need to ensure adequate funding is
available for the City’s critical infrastructure needs, staff now recommends a cost-
CMR:159:01 Page 5 of 12
recovery program in which residents pay a fee for every permit.. Staff would propose
setting a nominal fee of about $10 for the first two vehicle-specific permits per
household. Additional permits up to four could be purchased at a fee of about $30 per
permit and after a review of the parking situation in a particular area, additional
permits could be purchased for $75 to $100. The higher fees for the fifth or more
permits per household would be set to discourage residents from parking so many
vehicles on the street. -~
In a report on RPP programs prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) in 1996, out of 54 cities that were surveyed, only 19 did not charge annual fees
for residents. The remaining cities charge fees ranging from $2 to $30 per year. The
average annual permit fee for most cities was $10. However, over half of the cities
that were surveyed did not generate enough revenue to cover the costs of their
programs and all 19 cities that did not charge residents for permits subsidized their
programs.
Guest Permits
Staff originally proposed providing two free transferable guest permits. Staff now is
recommending that residents purchase two transferable guest permits for a minimal
cost of about $10 per permit on an annual basis. The guest permits would be the
"hanger" type permit that could be reused by residents for their different guests. A
vehicle that displayed a guest permit would be allowed to park on the street. In order
to prevent abuses of guest permits, staff recommends a replacement fee in an amount
yet to be determined for lost guest permits.
Nonresident Permits - While the goal of the RPP program would be to significantly
reduce, if not eliminate nonresident parkers and, because as noted above, even with
the construction of two new parking garages, there will still be a parking space deficit
in the downtown area, some nonresident permits would need to be available for sale.
In order to accommodate those employees working downtown who will be unable to
purchase permits for downtown parking facilities, staff recommends that about 300
nonresident permits be available for sale. As noted in CMR:403:99, in order to
prevent nonresident permit holders from overloading those streets closest to
downtown, staff is proposing that both the north and south neighborhoods be divided
into zones, and that nonresident permit holders be permitted to park only in specific
zones. Attachment C is a map of the proposed zones~
At the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, considerable discussion
occurred on the subject of the cost for nonresident permits. The current permit fee for
CMR:159:01 Page 6 of 12
¯ the parking district lots.and structures of $280 per year was established in 1997 and
was projected to cover maintenance costs through 2002. These fees will need to be
revised in 2003 to include maintenance costs for the two new downtown garages and
are anticipated to be in the range of $400 to $500. Based upon the anticipated
increase of the cost of permits for the downtown parking facilities, staff feels strongly
that nonresident fees must be set at a higher rate. Generally, people will park in those
places that are the most convenient and the .least expensive. If nonresident permits
for neighborhoods cost less-than those in parking facilities, many people will choose
to continue to park in the neighborhoods due to the lower permit cost. Staff is
recommending that a two-tiered fee structure be used for nonresident permits, with
fees for permits in zones closest to downtown in the range of $550 to $600 a year and
for zones further away in the range of $500 to $550 a year.
A number of people have suggested that the fees for nonresident permits be set
extremely high to deter nonresidents from parking in the neighborhoods.. Based upon
discussions with the Chamber Parking Committee and Downtown Marketing
representatives, the higher the permit fees, the fewer number of permits can be
anticipated to be sold. Business owners already have a difficult time attracting
employees to work in the area due to parking deficits. Exorbitant permit fees will
adversely impact employers from hiring needed staff and ultimately could result in the
loss of businesses.
Special Event/Circumstance Permits
CMR:403:99 outlines the three types of special permits that would be needed for the
RPP program. The special circumstance issue that staff has struggled with the most
deals with the churches and non-profit organizations (Women’s Club, Heritage
Museum) that are within the proposed boundaries. Most of these organizations have
little, if any, off-street parking. The majority have numerous users of their facilities
during weekdays. A review of the ITE survey and staff’s discussions with other Bay
Area cities indicates that most cities do not allow sp, ecia! provisions for these types
of organizations and that they are treated similarly to residents. However, it is
important to note the majority of those cities require those organizations to have off-
street parking spaces.
While staff initially proposed allowing these organizations to purchase the one-day
scratcher permits, due to the very strong concern about the negative impact this might
have on volunteers, visitors, and users, staff has revised the recommendation. Staff
is now recommending that a maximum number of"no-cost" scratchers be provided
to these organizations per year. The number would be determined upon usage
CMR:159:01 Page 7 of 12
patterns at each individual location. Additional scratcher permits exceeding the
maximum number would be available to the organizations for $1 per permit.
Staff has discussed the revised recommendations with these organizations and they
generally are agreeable to this alternati~,e.
Short-term Parking
There are pros and cons associated with providing short-term or timed parking in RPP
zones. The need for additional enforcement and associated costs increases with timed
parking. However, short-term parking provides flexibility for residents who have
domestic workers, gardeners, house cleaners, plumbers, etc. who park for short
periods of time. It also assists the organizations mentioned above that have many
different users, but few off-street parking spaces.
Staff has considered the suggestion of the Planning and Transportation Commission
regarding the extension of two-hour areas to three-hour areas on streets farther away
from downtown. However, staff believes this combination would add to the
complexity of enforcement as well as increasing confusion about parking restrictions.
Staff also considered increasing all timed parking to three hours instead of two, but
discounted the idea in the belief that on those streets closest to the downtown, it
would be quite probable that some downtown employees would park in three-hour
spots and move their vehicles once or twice a day to avoid citations.
Enforcement
The majority of the costs associated with an RPP program are reflected in staff needed
for enforcement. About 75 percent of the cities surveyed in the ITE report conduct
enforcement on a daily basis. While suggestions have been made that a "spot"
enforcement strategy be used in order to reduce program costs, based upon
information from other cities, together with the fact that there will still be a parking
deficit downtown, staff recommends stringent enforcement, at least during the first
year or so of the program. Employees and frequent visitors quickly determine
enforcement patterns/times and make adjustments accordingly. Staff believes this
would be the case with an RPP program as well. Minimal enforcement would result
in minimal compliance.
Staff is also recommending that enforcement hours extend into the evening. This
recommendation is based on the parking survey that was. done during evening hours
and on the comments from residents who observe that parking in their neighborhoods
CMR:159:01 Page 8 of 12
does not improve after 5:00 p.m. The total hours of per-day enforcement from 8:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m. would require two shifts of parking enforcement staff however, and
as a result add to the costs of the program, ,
Staff has also discussed the other suggestion made by the Planning and Transportation
Commission regarding different enforcement periods for the SOFA area. Staff
believes that it would be important, at least initially, to keep the enforcement times
the same for both neighborhoods.
Other Considerations
No Guaranteed Parking- The fact that an RPP program does not guarantee residents
the ability to park in front of their home must again be clearly reiterated. Most cities
that have implemented RPP programs report that residents frequently have to park
further away from their homes: While the use of parking spaces by nonresidents
would decrease, the use by residents can be expected to increase.
It is also important to point out that a residential parking permit program does not
obviate the compliance with the City’s ordinance relating to vehicles parked on the
street for more than 72 hours.
Street Sweeping - Residential permit parking programs frequently affect street
sweeping efforts in that more residents park on the streets making it more difficult to
clean the streets. A number of cities with RPP programs also prohibit all parking on
certain days and times in order to facilitate easier street cleaning. Staff has not
included a recommendation to this effect at this time. However, supplementalsigns
could be added at aminimal cost at a later time
Other Neighborhoods - As reported in previous reports, staff has received requests
from three other neighborhoods in the City about the potential for implementation of
an.RPP program in their areas. While an RPP ordinance could certainly be drafted to
allow for the eventual inclusion of other neighborhoods, the costs, resources, and time
frames needed for implementation that are reflected in this report do not include
provisions for other neighborhoods.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
There are several alternatives to staff’s recommendations that Council may want to
consider. They include the following:
CMR:159:01 Page 9 Of 12
1)
2)
3)
Prohibit Short-Term Parking - As discussed earlier, the inclusion of short-term
timed parking in RPP zones adds to the costs of the program. Enforcement is
much easier when only permitted vehicles are allowed to park in the designated
area. The need to chalk cars or enter the license plate numbers into hand-held
computers is eliminated. Parking Enforcement Officers (PEO’s) conduct
enforcement only by the visibility of a permit.
Decrease the Numberof Enforceable Hours - Longer enforceable hours require
additional staff and result in higher costs. Staff has recommended the longer
hours due to the vibrancy of the downtown in the evening hours and the associated
neighborhood intrusion of nonresidents into the neighborhoods. However, it
would be feasible to provide enforcement only during normal daytime hours.
Spot-Enforcement - Some cities with RPP programs conduct enforcementon a
spot check basis. The majority of these cities, however, issue less than 1,000
annual permits. Based upon the overall parking situation in the area and the
experience with color zone parking, staff does not support this minimal level of
enforcement at this time.
RESOURCE IMPACT
As noted in CMR:403:99, RPP programs are expensive to operate due to the staff needed to
issue the permits and to enforce the ordinance. With the recommendation of enforcement
occurring 14 hours a day, two shifts of Parking Enforcement Officers (PEO) would
be required. The inclusion of short-term parking also adds to the need for extra PEOs.
Because staff believes that it may be possible to reduce the level of enforcement after
the initial year or so of the program, staff would propose hiring temporary employees
for atleast the first year of the program.
Because of the significant workload associated with the issuance, renewal, and
tracking of permits, additional staff would be .also be required in the Revenue
Collections Division of the Administrative Services Department. Attachment D
reflects the staffingand cost projections for the implementation and Attachment E
reflects the staffing and cost projections for a continuing program.
Staff estimates that the start up costs for an RPP program that includes short-term
parking would be about $1.08 million. This includes temporary salary dollars,
equipment, supplies, cost of permits, computer equipment, parking citation processing
CMR:159:01 Page 10 of 12
(contract, and the cost to install signs. Staff estimates that annual ongoing costs for the
program that includes short-term parking would be about $893,000.
Additional funding may be required on an ongoing basis since the above cost
estimates do not include possible expenditures that would be needed for rental of
additional space that may be needed with the additional staff.
Revenue projections for the proposed RPP program are shown in Attachment F. For
purposes of this report, revenue estimates are based on resident and guest permit fees
of $10 for the first two vehicles, $30 for the third and fourth resident permit, $75 for
five or more resident permits, and $500 and $600 for nonresident permits. Revenue
projections for such a program are, however, very difficult to project due. to the
number of questions that will not be accurately answered until a program actually is
implemented. These unanswered variables include: 1) the number of resident, guest,
and special event permits that would actually be purchased; 2) the number of
nonresident permits that would actually be purchased; and 3) the number of citations
that would be issued. Keeping these issues in mind, staff has estimated that revenue
associated with the program that includes short-term parking to be about $1,095,000.
Revenues generated by the program are projected to fully recover the ongoing costs.
Cost-recovery will not start until the second year of the program when the City would
begin selling permits.
If Council approves the conceptual framework for a downtown neighborhood RPP
program, staff will include start-up costs in the proposed FY 2001-03 budget request..
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Curren~ Council priorities have established that existing infrastructure projects have
priority over new projects. Approval of this projectin the 2001-03 budget would be
a change in current Council policy since up to approximately $1 million will be
diverted from implementation of the Infrastructure Management Plan (IMP).
TIMELINE
Staff estimates that the time needed to implement an RPP program in the downtown
neighborhood area would be 18 to 24 months. The next step in the process would be
for staff to work with the City Attorney’s office to draft an ordinance for Council
approval. An environmental assessment would be completed during that time.
CMR:159:01 Page 11 of 12
Preliminary work involving the design and purchase of permits and signs, hiring of
some staff, and the purchase of some equipment would take place during FY 2001-02.
. The issuance of permits and hiring of the remaining staff would take place during FY
2002-03 to allow for implementation at the time the new parking garages are
completed.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An environmental assessment would be completed prior to the time an ordinance was
presented to. Council.
ATTACHMENTS
CMR:403:99
Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes from 12/8/99 Meeting
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Comparison of Parking Surveys
Projected Parking Deficit
Map of Proposed RPP Zones
Program Start-up Cost Estimates
Program Continuing Cost Estimates
Program Revenue Estimates
PREPARED BY:
Assistant Police Chief
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ICK DWYER
Chief of Police
EMILY-~RI~-ON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:159:01 Page 12 of 12
TO:
City of Palo Alto
CityManager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ATTENTION:
FROM:
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY MANAGER.DEPARTMENT: POLICE
-PLANNING
DATE:DECEMBER. 2, 1999 CMR:403:99
SUBJECT:RECOMMENDATION TO CONCEPTUALLY- APPROVE A
RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM FRAMEWORK
WITH A DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION PENDING THE
COMPLETION OF A LONG RANGE FINANCIAL PLANAND
THE CONSTRUCTION OF DOWNTOWN PARKING
STRUCTURES
REPORT IN BRIEF
In December 1996, Council directed staff to study the feasibility of implementing a residential
parking permit program (RPP) in neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown area. Council gave
staffthree parameters to follow including: 1) provide permits at no cost to residents; 2) charge
an annual fee for all-day nonresidents that would enable them to park in the neighborhoods; and
3) provide for free short-term parking for up to two hours for nonresidents. Since that time,
staff has worked with the Downtown-North Neighborhood Association (DNNA) and the
University South Neighborhood Group (USNG), hosted numerous meetings with resid.ents,
conducted two resident surveys, and gathered information from other cities that have Similar
programs. As a result, staff has developed recommendations that provide a framework for a
residential parking permit ordinance..Staffhas also estimated costs and .revenues associated with
the implementation of a program. Due to the significant costs related to the program, staff is
concerned about the funding that would be needed to implement the program. Additionally, due
to the current parking space deficit in the downtown area, staff does not feel it would be prudent
to implement the program until the downtown parking structures are built. -Therefore, while
this report provides the conceptual outllne of a program and the preliminary cost/revenue
estimates needed for implementation, staff is recommending that a RPP program not be
implemented until a financial plan to help prioritize new programs against available resources
can be prepared and until the Downtown parking structures are built. Due to the scope and
nature of a residential program and the associated relationships to traffic issues, the
CMR:403:99 Page 1 of 13
recommendations are being
discussion.
referred to the Planning andCommission for initial review
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staffreeommends that the Council approve in concept the elements of an ordinance regulating
parking in residential areas inthe neighborhoods to include the following: ..
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
Provide two vehicle-specific permits to each single-family residence or multi-family
complex residence up to four units that would be renewable every.three years;
Provide one vehicle-specific permit to each multi-family unit residence that is ina
complex of five or more units that-would be renewable every three years;
Provide two free transferable guest permits to each residence and charge a fee for lost
or.misplaced permits; ’
Allow residents to purchase up to two additional vehicle-specific permits renewable on
an annual basis for a fee or per permit, per year;
Allow residents to ~ubmit requests to purchase additional (more than four) vehicle-
specific perrfiits. These permits, if issued, would be renewable on an annual basis after
an in-depth review is completed by City staff to determine theparking situation in the
immediate area;
Allow residents to purchase one-day, special event permits for one dollar per permit;
Allow users/visitors to nonprofit, organizations .(churches, Women’s Club, etc.) in the
area to purchase one-day permits for one dollar per permit;
Allow automotive repair shops in the South of Forest area to purcliase one-day special
permits to use for parking of customer vehicles that are being repaired;
Assuming approval of the construction of two parking structures, provide nonresidents
the opportunity.to purchase annual no~esident permits that would allow them to park
in specifically designated residential zones, using a two-tiered annual fee schedule~
depending upon the specific zone;
Divide the area to be included in the program into 15 specific permit zones and charge
higher fees for nonresident permits for the zones closer to the downtown area;
Provide for enforcement of residential parking Mondays through Fridays from 8:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m.;
Allow anyone to park in specific residential zones without anypermit for two hourswith
no reparking prior to 10:00 p.m.
Develop options for cost-recovery of program costs.
Staff also recommends that a RPP .program not be implemented until a long term financial plan
is prepared and discussion of available resources, potential new funding sources and the
potential new programs has been completed and until the downtown parking structures are built.
~ CMR:403:99 Page 2 of 13
BACKGROUND
On December 2, 1996, the City Council directed staff to s~dy the feasibili.ty of a residential
parking permit program (RPP) in the neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown area. Council
directed that three parameters be used in the study including: 1) permits be provided at no cost
to residents; 2) nonresidents be permitted to purchase annual permits that would allow them to
park in residential areas; and 3) free ~hort-term parking for up to two hours for nonresidents
be provided. "
Since that time, as described in CMR:181:99, staffhas been working with the Downtown North
Neighborhood Association (DNNA) and the University South Neighborhood Group (USNG)
on the feasibility and development of a.program. Basedupgn the .input from the neighborhood
groups and information reeeived from cities that have implemented similar programs, staff has
developed recommendations that would’form the framework for a residential, parking ordinance,
as well as preparing preliminary cost and revenue estimates.
Before explaining each component of the framework, it is importanttoupdate the Council on
recently conducted neighborhood parking occupancy surveys. On April 27, 1999, Police staff
conducted a survey of vehicles parked on the streets in the neighborhoods to the north and south
of the downtown area. ¯ The purpose of the survey was to determine how many of the cars
parked on the street belonged to residents compared to nonresidents. Vehicle license plates
were recorded and checked to determine ownership. The results do not account for resident
visitors, out-of- state, plates for vehicles own.ed bystudents and others who are living in the
neighborhood, or inaccurate registration information. The survey was conducted at l 0:00 a.m.
The results (Attachment A) indicate that in the .area north of downtown, approximately 20
percent of the vehicles parked on the streets at that time belonged to neighborhood residents,
nine percent belonged to Palo. Alto residents who livein other parts of the City, and about 71
percent belonged to nonresidents. For the area south of the Downtown, about 19 percent of the
vehicles belonged to residents of the neighborhood, 11 percent belonged to residents who live
inother parts of the City, andabout 69 percent belonged to nonresidents.
In order to assess parking infiltration into the neighborhoods during evening hours, another
similar survey was conducted on August 12, i999 between 7:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Because
the area assessed for this survey was smaller compared to the daytime survey, the actual
number of vehicles parked on the street was significantly less. That survey (Attachment B)
showed, in the north neighborhood, about the same ratio of resident vehicles (20 percent), Palo
Alto residents who live in other parts oftheCity (9 percent) and vehicles owned by nonresidents
.(70 percent) being parked during evening hours as they are during the day. However, for the
south neighborhood, the number, of vehicles belonging to residents of the neighborhood
decreased to 10 percent, the number of vehicles belonging to Palo Alto residents who live in
CMR:403:99 Page 3 of 13
other parts of the City increased to 14 percent, and the number of vehicles belonging to
nonresidents increased to 76 percent.
The results of these surveys Compared to previous surveys (Attachment C) show that, while the
total number of ears parked.on neighborhoQd streets has increased, over the last four years the
number of ears belonging to Palo Alto residents has also increased (31 percent from 26 percent
in October 1996) and.the number of vehicles belonging to nonresidents has decreased (69
percent from 74 percent in October 1996). It is still quite apparent however that nonresident
parking continues to be a significant issue for the neighborhoods.
Staff also went into the neighborhoods and counted the number of spaces on the streets that are
available for vehicles to park. Using an average of 20 feet per parking space, and taking into
account space needed for red zones and for space adjacent to driveways and intersections, staff
determined that there are .about 4,025 on-street parking spaces in the areas included in .the
proposed designated zones. Attachment D provides a detailed listing by zone and Attachment
E provides a listing by street of the number of on-street parking space~.
Based upon the recent vehicleparking surveys, the number of nonresidents eurre .nfly on the ~vait
list for downtown parking facility permits, and Transportation staff’s estimates, there are
approximately 1,600 nonresidents parking in the adjacent neighborhoods. Thesefigures include
downtown employees, Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) employees and employees who
work in businesses in the south of Forest area. Once PAMF moves, a reduction of about 100
employee vehicles is anticipated. Transportation staff estimates that even with a very aggressive
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, it will take several years before.an
estimated additional reduction of 375 employee parkers in the neighborhood would be observed.
This figure is based upon studies that indicate thatcities can expect a 20 to 25 percent reduction
in vehicles, through the use of an aggressive TDM program.
As currently designed, the proposed .two downtown parking structures would provide 873
spaces. While a final decision has not yet been made, sthff assumes that the two garages would
be operated similar to the Civic Center and Webster-Cowper garages. Specifically, .the first
floor of each garage plus a portion of the basement level at the Lot S and L site would be
devoted to free customer parking and the remaining 700 or so permit spaces would be for
employees. Using the s(andard procedure of overselling permits by about 20 percent, there
would still be about a 230 parking space deficit (See Attachment F). .
CMR:403:99 Page 4 of 13
DISCUSSION
A number of factors must be considered in the devdopme~t of a residential parking permit
program, including: the average number of vehicles per household in the area, the numbOr of
on-street parking spaces available, density of housing in the a~ea, availability of parking in other
areas for nonresidents, availability of off-street parking for special facilities like churches, and
inclusion of timed-parking within the area. The impl.ementation ofaresidenfial permit parking.
system is quite complex especially when such a significant parking deficit exists, when area
employees live considerable distances from the city, and when public transportation is not
convenient and accessible. The following provides the rationale for the elements included in the
recommendations.
Resident Permits -
The issue 6fthe number, type, and cost of permits that would be issued to residents was a topic
of considerable discussion with the DNNA and USNG groups. Staffbased its recommendations
upon the meetings with the neighbors and the results of the surveys eomplet.ed by the residents.
One of the City Council’s parameters Was to provide permits to residents at no cost. It quickly
became apparent that this expectation was unrealistic due to the lack of alternative nonresident
parking spaces in downtown facilities, the limited number of on-street parking spaces, the
average number of households per block, and an estimated average number of vehicles per
residence.
The 1990 Palo Alto census estimated an average of 1.81 vehicles per occupied housing unit in
the City (2.09 per owner occupied unit and 1.44 per renteroccupied unit). It can safely be
assumed that. this average is more than two vehicles per household nine years later. Using a
rough figure of 3,500 housing units in the neighborhoods involved, staff estimates that there are
at least 7,000 resident vehicles in the ’area. This figure exceeds the number of 0n-street parking
spa~es by about 2,800. Although many residents park their cars.in their driveways/garages,
based upon Palo Alto’s experience in the 1980S with the Evergreen residential permit program
and from what staff has learned from cities who have implemented similar programs, many
residents feel more of a sense of entitlement once they receive their parking permits.
Additionally, cities that allow permit-only parking report that it is not unusual for residents to
park on the street to keep their driveways available for guest parking. This commonly results
in more residents parking on the street as opposed to in their driveways/garages. "
Therefore, some mechanism mudt be in place to help curtail the number of resident vehicles
parked on the street. Ideally, staff would propose charging a nominal fee for each permit issued
to residents. However, Council originally directed staff to provide permits to residents at no
cost, and because many households have more than two cars, staff has included in the
CMR:403:99 Page 5 of 13
recommendations a ptovision that would allow residents to purchase a third or fo .u~da permit for
an annual fee in the range of $50 to $100. These. permi~ would be valid for three years.
Additionally, residents who are in need of even more permits would be allowed to submit
requests to purchase permits in excess of four for an annual fee. Prior to.issuing permits in
excess of four to a residence, staff would closely review the parking situation at that particular
location to determine whether or not additional residential permits should be granted. This extra
review would be necessary in order to prevent one household’s vehicles from occupying an
entire block face. Staff proposes requiring proof of residency prior to issuance of permits. ¯
During discussions with the neighborhood associations, there was considerable time devoted
to the issue of the number of residential permits that w.ould be provided to occupants of multi-
family units as opposed to single-family homes. There is a strong feeling on the part of single-
family homeowners (62 percent of people who responded to the survey in the DNNA area and
61 percent of the people who responded to the survey in theUSNG area) that, because most of
the multi-family units have some off-street parking available to them, only one permit should
.be issued to residents of homes in complexes that have more than four units. While an
.~gument can be made that the majority of Single-family homes have off-street parking available
’ in the form of driveways/garages, a number of single-family homes in this area do not have
these amenities. ¯
Staff proposes that all permits, with the exception of guest and special event permits, be
vehicle- specific. This means that the license number of the vehicle would be included on the
actual permit that residents would be required to place on the rear bumper of their ear. Staff
believes that this requirement is necessary t.o prevent abuse of the system. For example, staff
is aware that currently some residents in the area rent their driveways to downtown employees.
It is conceivable that if permits were not vehicle-specific, some residents would sell their
permits to nonresidents.
Vehicles with residential permits, could be parked for any length of time (as long as they are not
in violation of the City’s 72-hours parkingordinance).
Guest permits -
In most residential parking permit programs, the issue of providing parking spaces for guests
of the residents is of significant concern. This issue has also been one that has received
considerable attention during meetings with residents. Staff is recommending that two guest
permits be issued to each household at a nominal cost. These would be t~ansferable hanger-type
permits that would enable residents to reuse the permits for their guests. Cities who use a
similar system report that one drawback to this type of guest permit is that residents frequently
lose or misplace them. In order to prevent abuses, the cities require replacement fees for lost
permits. Staff therefore recommends a replacement fee for lost guest permits.
CMR:403:99 Page 6 of 13
Nonresident permits -
Residential permit parking would reduce on-street parking av.ailability for employees. Without
a corresponding increase inthe parking spaces downtowa or a reduction in the demand for
parking through employeeuse of hltemative transportation modes, however, a parking problem
still exists. Assuming that the parking structures are built andthe City will have an aggressive
TDM program, staff is recommending that up to 300 permits be available for purchase by
nonresidents. If the parking structures at~ not built ordo not provide a significant number of
spaces, the number of permits available for purchase by nonresidents would need to increase
to between 1,000 and 1,600: Within a few years, as the demand for parking decreases as a
result Of downtown employees using alternative means of transportation, the goal would be to
reduce the number of permits issued to nonresidents to zero.
in order to prevent nonresident permit holders from parking in the areas closest to downtown
and overburdening small pockets of those neighborhoods, staffis proposing that both the north
and south neighborhoods be divided into zones and that nonresident permit holders be permitted
to park only in a specific zone. The number of permits sold per zone.would be dependent upon
.the number of on-street parking, spaces in that zone.. Staff would ensure an equitable
distribution of permits throughout the zones to ensure that zones, closest to the downtown area
were not overused by nonresidents. Attaehment.G provides detailed information on the
proposed zones.
Staff is also proposing that a two-tiered fee structure be used for nonresident permits. It is
important that the nonresident permit fees be higher than permit fees for the downtown parking
facilities in order t’o discourage nonresidents from parking in the neighborhoods. Currently,
annual permit fees for downtown lots and garages are $250 a year. As a result, staff estimates
that fees for nonresident permits in zones closest to downtown would be in the range of $400
to $450 per year and for other zones they would be between $325- $375 per year.
Special EventJCireumstance Permits -
There are three types of special permits that would be needed for .the proposed RPP program.
One is a special event permit that residents could obtain for one day special events attended by
numerous people. As an example, if a resident hosts a party with 25 attendees during the
enforcement hours, he/she would be required to obtain one day permits for each vehicle one
week in advance of the event, and then give.attendees perrn!.’ts to hang on the rearview mirrors.
Staffproposes using "scratcher" permits that are used by a number of jurisdictions for one .day
events. In order to cover the cost of the permits, staffis recommending that one day permits be
sold for one dollar per permit. This nominal fee would also prevent residents who need more
than the allocated free permits from using them unnecessarily. Because the proposed
enforcement periods do not include weekends, staff believes that there will be minimal need for
such permits. Residents would have the option of using one of their free guest permits or a
CMR:403:99 Page 7 of 13
special event permitfor weekday domestic workers such as house cleaners, gardeners, etc. who
would need to park longer than two hours in the area.
Other circumstances that have to be addressed with special permits are those presented by
churches, schools, nonprofit facilities, and automobile repair shops that are located within a
residential parking area. In the USNG area, staffhas identified three churches, one school, the
Palo Alto Women’s Club, and the Heritage Museum (Attachment H). The majority of these
institutions do not have any off-street parking available and all their users/visitors must use on-
street parking. The dilemma presented by these locations has been difficult to resolve. Staff
hosted a meeting for representatives of these organizations in August in an attempt to
brainstorm potential solutions...
Each organization has its own unique issues. As an example, the First Lutheran Churchdoes
not have any off-street parking spaces. The Urban Ministry has some offices at the Church and
an average of 20 to 30 volunteers/visitois use the Church’s facilities each weekday. Per
Council direction, staff has included the provision of short-term two hou~ free parking in these
areas. However, there will be no guarantee that permit holders would not occupy all the
available spaces.
Staff has contacted other cities who have similar permit par.king programs. No other city that
staff has contacted makes any special provisions for these type of organizations and requires
them topay full fees for regular nonresidentpermits. It is important to note however, that most
churches, schools, and nonprofit facilities in other cities are required to have adequate off-street
parking..
Staff has reviewed several options including increasing short-term .parking around these
locations to .three hours, allowing only free short-term parking on the block faces around the
facilities, and providing specially designated stickers for consistent users of the facilities. Each
option, however, had significant drawbacks. For instance, the First Lutheran Church has
different volunteers/visitors each day so the option of providing specially designated stickers
for consistent users would not be practical or resolve its problem. After reviewing all the
options, staff is recommending that these institutions use the one-day "scratcher" permits. The
organizations would be able to purchase a large supply of the permits and provide them to their
users/visitors when they arrive. In order to make it easier for the issuance of these permits, staff
also recommends that several loading zone spaces be provided in front of each facility that
would enable visitors to easily park for the short time they need to retrieve the permits and
return to place them in their vehicles.
Representatives of these institutionshave concerns about this recommendation and believe that
it might discourage volunteers, visitors, and users from using their facilities.
CMR:403:99 Page 8 of 13
Staffhas also met with representatives of several of the automobilercpair.s.hops that are located
in the South of Forest area. Implementation of an RPP program would only affect those that
are adjacent to residential areas, and which require some on-street space for their customers’
vehicles during the day. Staff also proposes allowing these business to purchase one-day
scratcher permits to be used only for their customers’ vehicles, not for their employees.
Short-term Parking-
Council directed that staff include a provision for free short-term, tw.o-hour:parking in the
neighborhoods. Short-term parking provisions assist residents by allowing domestic workers
such as gardeners,.house cleaners, plumbers, electricians, etc. to park in the neighborhoods
without a permit. However, the short-term parking provision results in a more labor-intensive
program th.at costs significantly more to enforce. With short term parking, Parking Enforcement
Officers (PEOs) would need to monitor .the areas at least once every two hours, record the
license plate numbers of non-permitted cars and return two hours later to record the license
information again to determine if there are any violators. A simpler, easier to enforce type of
¯ program would not provide for any short-term parking and would prohibit any vehicles without
permits (resident, guest, and/or nonresident) from parking on the street. Howev.er, the lack of
short-term parking exacerbates the problem for churches, schools, etc. that was identified
previously.
Si_maage and Enforcement-
In order for any residential, parl~ing permit program to be enforceable, clear s.ignage would be
required. Staff anticipates that three signs .would be needed per block face to obtain adequate
notice and visibility that would allow for enforcement.
Staff would propose conducting enforcement of the RPP similarly to the Downtown Color Zone
program. PEOs would be assigned to the designated zones and would monitor their zones for
vehicles that do not have residential, non-residential, guest, or daily special eventJcireumstance
permits. Due to the provision for short-term parking noted above, the PEOs would also enter
all license plate numbers of vehicles without permits into their hand-held computers. After the
two-hour period expires, non-permitted vehicles would be required to move to another zone or
they .would receive a parking citation. Non-permitted vehicles would be prohibited from
reparking in the same zone until after 10:00 p.m. each day:
Parking Enforcement Officers would not chalk tires of non-permitted cars. This method is
ineffective and does not deter scofflaws. Currently problems continue in the California Avenue
District and the downtown areas where PEOs still chalk tires. In order tO avoid citations, people
will erase or remove the chalk marks.
CMR:403:99 Page 9 of 13
Considerations
As the de~ision making process regarding residential permita, in neighborhoods adjacent to the
¯ downtown area continues, it is vital to reiterate some fundamental considerations.
"Balloon" Effect - As described previously, there is currently a significant parking deficit
in the downtown area. Depending upon the number of nonresident permits that are sold,
a RPP program may result in no change in the intrusion into the neighborhood, may push
the parking problem further into the neighborhoods or serve as a deterrent for employees
to work downtown. While a strong TDM program, would result in some reduction in
the number of downtown employee ears, it is unrealistic to think that it would eliminate,
by .itself, the parking deficit due .to the fact that many employees who work inthe
downtown area live a considerable distance away. Unless there is convenient public
transportation, many employees will continue to dri,de their ears to work. Staff does not
believe that a City shuttle system would be .used by .large numbers of downtown
employees unless they live in the City and/or they already use public transportation.
Substantial increases in rail and bus services to/from Palo Alto would be needed toalter
these dynamics. These increases would require a shift in regional and State
transportation policies and resource allocations.
Because of the balloon effect, without providing, additional parking facilities, aparking
deficit, while lower than the current level, will remain. Once parking structures are built,
it will be imperative to have a RPP program in plat.e, together with an effective TDM
program. Many downtown employees would most likely continue to park in the
neighborhoods for free rather than. purchase a permit. If the fees for nonresident permits
were higher than the fees for permits in downtown facilities as staff proposes, staff
believes that mo, st people would pay the lower fee to park in the structures.
Permits Will Not Guarantee Parking - The implementation of a RPP program will not
provide any guarantee that a resident can park in front or even adjacent to his/her home.
As mentioned earlier, it is not unusual for residents who have permits to have an
unrealistic sense of entitlement that there will be on-street parking space in front of their
home. While an RPP program would reduce the number of nonresident vehicles in
actuality it is unlikely that much of a total reduction in cars parked on the street would
be achieved.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Residential parking permit programs are expensive programs to operate due to the staff needed
to issue the permits and to enforce the ordinance. Initial costs of sign installation are
significant. As conceptually outlined, the proposed RPP program is not guaranteed to be cost
CMR:403:99 Page 10 of 13
recovery and significant City subsidies might be needed to" operate a program. Staff has
developed preliminary cost arid revenue estimates for the in~plementafion of the program in the
neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown area. Based upon feedback from other cities,
.consistent enforcement of such. ordinances is needed to prevent abuses and to ensure
compliance~: As noted above, the inclusion of short-term two hour parking in the affected areas
increhses the costs for enforcement as staff is needed for more frequent checks.
Staff has estimated costs for programs with and without the short-term parking provision.
Similar to other new Programs, staff would propose, initially hiring temporaryemployees for
a period of time to gain actual experience. Eventually, regular positions would be required to"
maintain a consistent program. Start-up funds would be needed for temporary personnel in the
Administrative Services and Police Departments to handle the issuance of signs and the
enforcement. Additional initial costs would cover the purchase of the permits, educational
brochures, the purchase and installation of signs, the purchase of vehicles, computers, hand-held
citation units, uniforms, radios, and other equipment. While staff is still in the process of
determining projected start-up costs, staff believes that for a RPP program that includes free
short-term parking, expenditures are estimated to be approximately $976,000.
Cost estimates do not include potential expenditures that probably would be needed for some
additional office space for additional Police personnel. There is not any available space in the
Police Department and leased space would be needed to house the additional personnel.
Ongoing annual costs are estimated to be $874,000. While therewould be a reduction in initial
i’mplementat.ion costs for equipment, vehicles, etc. the addition of ~egu. lar staff positions to
replace initial temporary staff would be needed. .’
Based upon the projected costs and a very rough estimate of revenues, as mentioned earlier, this
program as proposed would not be cost recovery. Staff believes that it would be possible to
develop a proposal for a viable RPP with nominal costs to residents and an acceptable level of
cost-recovery to avoid significantly impacting limited.General ~und resources.
Due to the significant costs aSsociated with the program, staff does not recommend that
additional discussion occur until next February or March afte~ a long range financial plan will
be presented to Council. The long range financial plan. is intended to be a tool for Council to
utilize to prioritize service needs. Preliminary projections indicate a small surplus each year for
the next eight to ten years, without the addition of ark~ new programs. Given the extensive list
of potential new needs such as a public safety building; _library master plan; traffic calming; and,
needs related to the PAMF/SOFA area, there will need to be prioritization of new programs and
needs against potential fundin.g sources including: general obligation bonds; certificates of
participation; new revenues such as taxes or fees; and, the projected nominal General Fund
CMR:403:99 Page.ll of 13
operating surplus. As such, discussion of funding for this program is recommended to wait
pending discussion of overall General Fund needs and available resources..
The time needed for Police, Administrative Services and Transportation staff to implement the
proposed program would be substantial. While at this time, it would be difficult to determine
what other workload items would need to be put on hold, it is a safe assumption that other work
assignments would need to be postpohed.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The implementation of a RPP progratn represents a
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan (T-47).
change in City policy, however, it is
Staff has already been approached by residents who live in threeother parts .of the City about
the possibility of implementing a RPP program in the.it neighborhood. Staff’s respons.e has been
that Council direction is needed regarding a Downtown RPP program before any work or
consideration could be given to other neighborhoods. Should Council direct staff to draft an
ordinance on residential parking, it would be important that an ordinance be applicable for
other neighborhoods as well. ,_
TIMELINE
After adetermination is made regarding the funding of a RPP, due to the.scope and size of the
area that is being considered, staff estimates that the time needed to implement a RPP program
in the downtown neighborhood area wouldbe 18-24 months. An ordinance would need to be
drafted and appro-;,ed by Council, an environmental assessment would need to be completed,
Police and Administrative Services staff would need to be hired, permits would need to be
issued, and signs, would need to be installed..
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental assessment would be completed prior to the time an ordinance could be
presented to the Council.
ATTACHMENTS
CMR: 181:99
Attachment A Parking Occupancy Survey Results April 27, 1999
Attachment B - Parking Occupancy Survey Results August 12,. 1999
Attachment C - Parking Occupancy Survey Results from Previous Years
CMR:403:99 Page 12 of 13
Attachment D ~ Number of On-street Spaces by Zone ..
Attachment E ’ Number of On-street Spaces by Street
Attachment F - Projected Parking Deficiencies
Attachment G - Proposed Defined Zones
Attaehrrient H- List .of Churches, Special Circumstance Facilities in the Proposed Coverage
Area
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
Lynne Johnson, Assistant.Police Chief
Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer
Patrick
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Ed Gawf,ommunity Environment
Director "
co:University South Neighborhood Association.
Downtown North Neighborhood Association
Chamber of Commerce " "
CMR:403:99 Page 13 of 13
Zone
Definition
Location
Number
Area -~>
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Subtotal
AT~AC~II~IENT A
¯ Parking Survey Taken On Tuesday April 27,1999
North to South:
West to East:¯
Location
Street
Palo Alto Ave. to Kingsley Ave. (excluding Lytton, University and parts of Hamilton and Forest)
Alma St: to Byron St
Zone % In PA Residents %Non PA % Non Location % of % of
Residents Zone (non zone)Res,Residents . Res. Sub Total Area ZONE
North of University
Paio Alto Ave,
Poe St,
Ruthven Ave,
Hawthorne Ave,
Everett Ave,
Alma At.
High St.
Emerson St.
Ramona ’St,
Bryant St.
Waverley St.
Kipling St.
Cowper St.
Tasso St
Webster St.
Byron St.
North of University
16
~4
14
21.
33
6
.6
15
5
19-
6
11
16
8.
10
5
195
34%
36%
61%
16%
20%
11%
12%
16%
8%"22%.
9%
22%
27%
73%
26% ¯
31%
20%
2
0
2
18
14
5
9
11
1
3
6
.4
5
0
3
1
84
¯ 4%
0%
9%
9%
9%
18%
12%.
2%
3%
9%
.8%
8%
0%
8%
6%
9%
29 62%
7 64%
7 30%
89 70%
115 71%
-44 .80%
35 ¯70%
67 72%¯58 91%
65 75%
54 82%
36 71%
38 64%
3 27%
25 66%
¯ 10 63%
682 71%
47 5%
11 1%
23 2%
128,13% ’
162 17%
55 6%
5O 5%
93 10%
54 7%
87 9% ¯
66 7% ¯
51 5%
59 ¯6%
11 1%.
38 4%
¯ 16 2%
961 100%
2%
0%
1%
6%
7%
2%
2%
4%
3%
4%
3o/~
2oA
3%
2%
1%
44~
Area -->
i7
18(15)
19(3)
20 (12)
21 (11)
22 (10)
23 (9)
24 (8)
25 (7)
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Subtotal
SoUth of University
Byron St. South.
Webster St. South
Cowper St.South
Kipling St. South
Waverley St. South
Bryant St. South
Ramona St. South
Emerson St. South
High St. South
Hamilton Ave.
Forest Ave.
Homer Ave.
Channing Ave.
Addison Ave.
Lincoln Ave.
Kingsley Ave.
Scott St.
South of University
10
34
13
8
15
26
12
16
2
0
5
11
26
15
13
18
2
226
25%
24%
16%
31%
20%
23%
13%
28%
5%
0%
¯ 5%
13%
19%
13%
.16%
67%
13%
10%
15%
6%
8%
17%
4%
9%
14%
19%
18%
26%
12%
12%
18%
13%
19%
6%
4
21
5
2
13
4
8
8
8
"3
26
10
17
.22
10
5
1
16718%13%
26
87
61
i6
48
82
70
33
32
14
68
61
94
82
57
¯4
13
848
6s%4o .
61%142 11%
77%79 6%
62%26 2%
63%76 6%
73%112 9% ¯
78%90 7% "
58%.57 5%
76%42 3%
82%17 1%
69%99 8%
74%82 7%
69%137 11%
69%119 10%
71%80 6%
15%27 2%
81%16 ’ 1%
68%1241 100%
2o,
6o,
4o,
.3~.
5(
4
3
2’
1’
4
4
6
5
4
1
1
5E
TOTAL ZONE 421 .19% 251 11% 1530 69%2202 10(
ATTACHMENT B
Zone
Definition
Location
Number
Area -->
1
2
3
.4
5
6
7.
8
9
10
11
12
Subtotal
Area -->
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Parking Survey Taken On Thursday August .12,1999 between 19:20 and 21:10
North to South:100 .- 499 on Everett Ave. and Homer Ave.
West to East:The 300 and 700 blocks of Alma through Cowper Streets
Any registered ovvr~er with an address within one block of the "zone" is considered a resident of th~ "zone.".
Location Zone % In PA Residents %Non PA % Non Location % of % of
Street Residents Zone (non zone)Res.Residents Res. Sub Total Area ZONE
North of Lytton
100 Block Everett
200 Block Everett
300 Block Everett
400 Block Everett
300 Block Alma
300 Block High
300Block Emerson
300 Block Ramona
300 Block Bryant
300 .Block Waverly
300 Block Kipling
300 Block Cowper
North of Lytton
South of Forest
100 Block Homer
200 Block Homer
300 Block.Homer
400 Block Homer
700 Block Alma
700 Block High ..
700 Block Emerson
700 Block Ramona
700 Block Bryant
700 Block Waverly
700 Block Cowper
5
5
12
7
3
8
3
3
1
5
4
9
65
15%
18%
38%
47%
23%
25%.
11%
9%
6%
13%
17%
32%
20%
4
1
2
1
2
6
4
2
3 ¯
1.
1
3.
12%
4%
6%
7%
15%
19%
14%
6%
19%
3%
4%
11%
24 73%
22 79%
18 56%
7 47%
8 62%
18 56%
21.75%
28 85%
12 75%
32 84%
19 79%
16 57%
9% 225 70%
33 10%
28 9%
32 10%
15 5%
13 "4%
32 10%
28 9%
33 -. 10%
16 :5%
38 12%
24 8%
28 9%
320 100%
Subtotal South of Forest
0
0
O
4
1
0
0
3
1
9
3
21
O%
0%
0%
10%
10%
0%
0%
20%
4%
41%
17%
10%
2
0
2’
3-
2
2
6
0
2
31
13%
13%
O%
.28%
20%
8%
7%
13%
24%
O%
11%
14%
7 88%
13 87%
3 100%
24 62%
7 70%
33 92%
27 93%
10 67%
18 72%
13 59%
13 72%
168 76%
6%
5%
6%
3%
2%
6%
’5%
6%
3%
7%
4%
5%
59%
8 4%1%
15 7%36/o
3 ’1%1%
¯ 39 18%7%
10 5%2%
36.16%7%
29 13%5%
15 7%3%
25 11%
22 1.0%4°A
18 8%3°,~
220 100%41=/,
TOTAL ZONE 86 16%11%393 73%540 100o/,
¯ ATTACHMENT.C
Total on-street
Parkin~
N. ot $. of
Univ.Univ. Total
Resident
Group
N.S. of
of Univ~
Univ ¯.
Total
Non-Resident
Group
N. of S. of
Univ. Univ. Total
March 95 Survey 835
May 95 Survey 909
August 95.Surv,ey 952
October 95. Survey 888.
February 96 Survey 841
April 96 Survey 911
July 96 Survey 948
October 96 Survey 904
875 ¯ 1710
953 1862
1001 1953
987 1875
1015 1856
99O 1901
942 1890
966 1870
235 249 .484 600 626’1226
270 235 505 639 ’ 718 1357
.268 251 519 684 750 1434
265 281 546 623 706 1329
251 279 530 590 736 1326
¯ 263 291 554 648 ¯ 699 1347
280 272 552 668 670 1338
¯ 2.16 265 481 688 701 1389
¯ATTACH14ENT D
Parking Space Assessment for the Residential P~-eferential Parking Permit Plan
Residential Permit Zones
Residential Zone 1
Residential Zone 2
Residential Zone 3
Residential Zone 4
Residential Zone 5
Residential Zone 6
Residential Zone 7
Residential Zone 8
Residential Zone 9.
Residential Zone 10
Parking Spaces in each Zone
194 ¯
280 (Includes’l 9 T*)
314
251 (Includes 12 T* and 8 C,)
265
261 (Includes 18 T* and 7 C*)
249
279
272
.369 (Includes 7 C*)
Residential Zone 11 241
Residential Zorie 12 283 (Includes 37 T*)
Residential Zone 13 224
Residential Zone 14 272 (Includes 223 T*)
Residential Zone 15 298 (Includes 48 T*)
Total Parking Spaces 4,052 (Includes 357 T* & 22 C*)
T*: Time limited 2-hour parking spaces nqt part of the Color Zones
C*: Color zone spac.es outside of the Color Zone boundaries
ATTACHMENT E
Residential Permit Zone 1
Street
Alma
Emerson
Hawthorne
Palo Alto
Biock(~
100
100
100-200
100-200
Total~paces
Parking Spaces
30
i.24
59.
81
194’
Residential Permit Zone 2
Street Parking Spaces
Alma 55 (Includes 19 T*)
High 54
Emerson 52
Ramona 63
Everett 56
280 (Includes 19 T*)
Block(s)
200-300
200-300
200-300
200-300
100-200
Total Spaces.
Residential Permit Zone 3
Street Block(s)Parking Spaces
Poe 300 21
Ruthven 400 35
BrYant t 00 48
Waverley t00 38
Hawthome 300-400 67
Palo Alto 300-400 105
Total Spaces 314
Residential Permit Zone 4 " "
Street
Bryant
Bryant Court
Waverley
Kipling
Everett
Residential Permit Zone 5
Block(s)
200-300
300
200-300
200-300
300-400
TotalSpaces
Parking Spaces
60
12 T*
66 (Includes 8 C*)
59
54
251 (Includes 12 T,, 8 C*)
Street
Ruthven
Tasso
Hawthorne
Palo Alto
Byron
Webster
Cowper
Residential Permit Zone 6
Block(s)
500
I00
500-600
500-600
I00
I00
100
Total Spaces
Parking Spaces
26
30
58
35
27
36
53
265
Street .
Cowper
Webster
Byron
Everett
University
Block(s)
200-300
200-400
200-300
500-600
6O0
Total Spaces 261 (Includes 18 T*, 7 C*)
Parking Spaces.
54
80 (Includes 7 C*)
56
53
18 T*
Residential Permit Zone 7
Street.
Palo Alto
Fulton
Everett
Lytton
Guinda
Residential Permit Zone 8
Block(s)
700-800
100-300
700
700-800
300
Total Spaces
Parking Spaces
77"-
69.
27
58
18
249
.Street
University
Hamilton
Fulton
Guinda
Seneca
Residential Permit Zone 9
Block(s)
700-800
.7o0-8oo
400-500
400-500
400-500
T0talSpaces
Pa~’king Spaces
26
74
59
59
61
279
Street
Fulton
Guinda
Seneca
Forest
Homer
Block(s)
600
600-700
600-700
700-800
700-800
Total Spaces
Parking Spaces
29
57
61
71
54
272
Residential Permit Zone 10
Street
Webster
Cowper
Byron
Hamilton
Forest
Homer
Channing
Block(s)
500-800
700-800
500
600
500-600
500-600
500-600
TotalSpaees
Parking Spaces
104 (Include 7 C*)
57
26
19
56
50
57
369 (Includes 7 C*)
Residential Permit Zone 1.1
Street
Middlefield
Webster
Cowper
Lincoln
Addison
Block(s)
900-1000
900-1000.
900-1000 :
50o-6oo
500-600
Total Spaces
Parking Spaces
51
48
zt3
64
35
241 "
Residential Permit Zone 12
Street Block(s)..Parking Spaces
Forest 300-400 (south side)35
Homer 300-400 62 (Includes 33 T*)
Channing ’300-400 57
Kipling 800 26
Waverley 700-800 46
Bryant 700-800 57 (Includes 4 T*)
Total Spaces 283 (Includes 37 T*)
Residential Permit Zone 13
Street
Lincoln
Addison
Scott
Waverley
Bryant
Block(s)
300-400
300-400
900
900-1000
900-1000
Total Spaces
Parking Spaces
54.
" 51
13
51
55
224
Residential Permit Zone 14
Street
Alma
High
Emerson
Ramona
Forest
Homer
Channing
Block(s)
700-800
700-800
700-800
700-800
lO0-200(southside)
100-200
100-200"
Total Spaces
Parking Spaces
24 T*
57 T*
53 T*
23
20 T*
48 T*
47 (Includes. 21 T*)
272 (Includes 223 T*) ¯
Residential Permit Zone 15
Street
A!ma
High
Emerson
Ramona
Lincoln
Addison
Block(s)
900-1000
900-1000
900-1000
900-1000
100-200
100-200
Total Spaces
Parking. Spaces
27 (Includes 13 T*)
50 (Includes 24 T*)
50
59
49
53 (includes 11 T*)
298 (Includes 48 T*)
Attachment F
PROJECTED PARKING DEFICIENCIES
1,600
- 100
1,125
- 530
- 186
409
230
Current parking space deficit (based upon vehicle survey done in neighborhoods and the
wait list for those waiting to get permitsfor current structures/lots).
Estimated number of PAMF employees that will.move
Estimated projections for initial few years of aggressive TDM program (25% reduction).
Permit spaces in currently designed parking structure for Lots S/L (646 total spaces)
Permit spaces in currently designed parking structure for Lot R (227 tota.1 spaces)..
Normal 25% oversell of permits
Projected parking deficit after garages
Attachment G
Residential Parking
Permit Zones
Permit Zone 1
Permit Zone 2
Permit Zone 3
Permit Zone 4
Penv.it Zone 5
Permit Zone 6
Location
All streets included in the area from the 100-200
blocks of Hawthorne Avenue to the 100-200 blocks
of Palo Alto Avenue from the 100 block of Alma
Street to th~ west side of 100 block of Bryant Street
but not including Bryant Street.
All streets included in the area north of the 100-200 "
blocks of Lytton Avenue to the south side of the .100-
200 blocks of Hawthorne Avenue but not including
Hawthorne Avenue from the 200-300 blocks of Alma
Street to the west side of 200-300 blocks of Bryant
Street but not including Bryant Street.
All streets included in the area fr0mthe 300-400
blocks of Hawthome Avenue to the 300-400 blocks
of Palo Alto Avenue from the 100 block of Bryant’
Street to the west side of.the 100 block of Cowper
Street but not ineludlng Cowper Street.
All streets, included in the area north of the 300-400
blocks of Lytton Avenue to the south side of the
300-400 blocks of Hawthorne Avenue but not ¯
including Hawthorne Avenue from the 200-300
blocks of Bryant Street to the west side of the 200-
300 blocks of Cowper Street but not including
Cowper Street.
All streetsincluded in the area from the 500-600
blocks of HawthomeAvenue to the 500-600 blocks
of Paio Alto Avenue from the 100 block of Cowper
Street to the 100 block of Middlefield Road
All streets included in the area from the 600 block of
University Avenue to the south side of the 500-600
blocks of Hawthorne Avenue but not including
Hawthorne Avenue fi’om the 200-300 blocks of
Cowper Street, the north side of the.500 block of
Lytton Avenue not including Lytton.Avenue, the 400
block 0fWebster Street to the 200-400 blocks of
Middlefield Road.
Nonresident
Permit Fee
$325-$375
$400-$450
$325-$375
$400-$450
$325-$375
$400-$450
Permit Zone 7
Permit Zone 8
Permit Zone 9
Permit Zone 10
Permit Zone 11
Permit Zone 12
All streets included in the area from the 700-800
blocks of Lytton Avenue to the 700-800 blocks of
Palo Alto Avenue from east of the 100-300 blocks of
MiddlefieldRoad to Seneca Street but not including
Seneca Street.
All streets included in the area from the 700-800
blocks of Hamilton Avenue to the south side of the
700-800 blocks of Lytton Avenue but not including
Lytton Avenue from east of the 400-500 blocks of
Vliddlefield Road to the 400-500 blocks of Seneca
Street.
All.streets included in the area from the 700-800
blocks of Homer Avenue to the south side of the 700-
800 blocks of Harnilton Avenue but not including
Hamilton Avenue from east of the 600-700 blocks of
Middlefield Road to the 600-700 blocks of Seneca
Street.
All streets included in the area from the 500-600
blocks of Channing Avenue to the south side of the
600 block of University Avenue but not including
University Avenue from the 500,600 blocks of
Webster Street,the 500 block of Forest Avenue and
the 700-800 blocks of Cowper Street to -the 500-800
blocks of Middlefield Road.
All streets included in the area from the 500-600
blocks of Lincoln Avenue to the south side of the
500-600 blocks of Channing Avenue but not
including Chauning Avenue from 900-1000 blocks of
Cowper Street to the 900-1000 blocks of Middlefield
Road.
All streets included in the area from the 300-400
blocks of Channing Avenue to the 300-400 blocks of
the south side of Forest Avenue from the 700-800
blocks of Bryant Street to the west side of the 700-
800 blocks of Cowper Street but not including
Cowper Street.
$325-$375
$325-$375
$325-$375
$400-$450
$325-$375
.$400-$500
Permit Zone 13
Permit Zone 14
Permit. Zone 15
All streets included in the area from the 300-400
blocks of Lincoln Avenue to the south side of the
300-400 blocks of Channing Avenue but not
including Channing Avenue fromthe 900-1000
blocks of Bryant Street to the west sid~ of the 900-
1000 blocks of Cowper Street but not including
Cowper Street. :
All streets included in the area from 100-200 blocks
of Channing Avenue to the south ~ide of the 100-200
blocks of Forest Avenue from the 700-800 blocks of
Alma Street to the west side of the 700-800 blocks of
Bryant Street but not including Bryant Street.
All streets included, in the area from the 100-200
blocks of Lincoln Aven~e to the south side of the
100-200 blocks of Channing Avenue but not
including Charming Avenue from the 900-1000
blocks of Alma Street to the west side-of the, 900-
1000 blocks of Bryant Street but not including Bryant.
Street.
$325-$375
$400-$450
$325-$375
TO:
Cityof.Palo Alto
city Manager’s Report
.HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:POLICEDEPARTMENT:CITY MANAGER
MARCH 15, 1999DATE:CMR:181:99
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROJECT
This is an information report and no Council action is required at.this time. ’
BACKGROUND ¯ ..
In March 1996, Council directed staff to identify thelevel of interest in the neighborhoods
north and South of the.downtown area developing a residential parking permit program.. Staff
conducted an initial survey of residents who livein neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown
area and repo~ted back tothe Council in September 1996 (CMR:392:96). In December 1996,..
the Council directed staff to study the feasibility of a parking permit program inthose
adjacent neighborhoods to include the following elements:: 1) chhrge an annual fee for all day
non-residents to park in the residential areas; 2) provide for free short-term parking for up
to two hours for non-residents; and 3) provide permits at no cost to residentS.
Since that time, staffhas been working with .the Downtown North Neighborhood Association
and the Univers.ity South Neighborhood Group on the feasibility and development of a
¯ program. This report provides an update on the work that has been done.
DISCUSSION
During Summer 1997, staff met a number of times with the parking committees of the
neighborhood associations in attempts to develop a framework for apossible permit program.
Due to the potential size of the area a program might be implemented in, the number of
CMR:181:99 Page 1 of 3
multi-familyunits in the area and a host of other factors, a lot of discussion occurred. The
complexif!.es of such a program created numerous differences in opinions and in some cases,
lack of a consensus on isshes.
In. September and November 1997, two larger meetings with .the. general memberships of
each neighborhood<group was held for the purpose of sharing two conceptual permit
programs that had be.en generated with assistance from the parking committees and to receive
input from the resiiients. It was. evident that, at least at the meeting with the University South .
Neighborhood Group, there was considerable opposition to the conceptual programs.
As a result, .staff ahd the neighborl~ood associations’ parking .commi~ees spent some"
additional time on th~ feasibility of other conceptual programs. Duringthe first four months
of 1998~ a second survey instrument was designed. The survey was distributed in July to
more than 2,500 homes in the area, in.eluding, some residenfs who live east of Middlefield
Road. The analysis oF the second survey responses has just been completed.~
Results of Second Survey
The second sui’vey (Attachment A) specifically requested responses regarding the preferred
hours and days of enforcement, the number of hours prefvn’ed for timed parking, the
locations that would be available for non-resident permit holders to park, and a statement
regarding the responder’s opposition or support for such a program.
More than 37 percent Of the surveys were returned. A.ttachmen~ B provides the detailed
breakdown of the responses. Based upon the surveys, most of the respondents favored
enforcement ~during the weekdays between 8:00 a.m. aud 9:00 p.m.. The majority of
respondents also preferred two-hour timed parking and Were not concerned .about where the
non-resident pert’nit holders were allowed to park.. Sixty-six percent of the respondents either
favored or strongly favored a pro~.~ while 26 percent were opposed or strongly opposed
to. a permirprogram. Alarger number (32 percent) of respondents from the University’South
area were opposed or strongly opposed. ..
Because the surveys were distributed so that responses could be tracked by blocks of streets,
Staff completed some additional analysis and.det~ermined that most of the people who
responded wer~ opposed or.strongly opposed to a permit program live farther away from the
downtown. As an example, in the Downtown North neighborhood, most of the people who
oppose the program live north of Hawthorne Avenue and in the University South
¯ neighborhood, most people live south of Addison Avenue and east of Waverley Street.
These responses were somewhat predictable in that the streets farther away from Downtown
have less of a parking problem.
CMR:181:99 Page 2 of 3
A large neighborhood meeting will be held on March 17, 1999, to discuss the results of the
survey with the residents.
,4,dditional Work to be Completed
There are still a number of issues that need to be addressed prior to staff returning to.the
Council with recommendations. Staff hasbegun the preliminary cost/revenue analysis
associated with a permit program and should.have that Work done within the next few weeks.
Staffis also worldng on strategies to han~lle special circumstanceS within the residential areas
¯ that would be impacted by a permit program including churches, schools, and facilities like
the Heritage Museum and the Womei~’s Club.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
¯Staff is in the p~ocess of developing cost and revenue estimates associated with a residential
parking permit program.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Copy of Second Survey
Attachment B - Results of Second Survey
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Lynne Johnso~i, Assistant Police Chief
Patrick Dwyer, Chief ~f t~ice
CMR:181:99 Page 3 of 3
City of Palo Alto.
Police Department ..
July 13, 1998
Dear Resident:
The City Council has directed staff to work with residents who live adjacent to the
downtown area regarding the feasi.bility of implementing a residential parking permit
program, The Council has recognized that the color-zone parking program has assisted
in providing more parkin, g for visitors and customers to the downtov~n, but it has
increased non-resident parking in adjacent neighborhoods. The Council directe.d that the
feasibility study include three parameters: 1) free permits would be provided to residents;
2) .some permits would be available for sale to non-residents;, and 3) free parking for cars
without permits would be allowed for limited amounts of time..
Du.ring the last year, city staff has worked closely with the Transportation Committee.of
the University South Group Association and the Parking Committee of the .Downtown
North Neighborhood Association: Discussions about tl~e complex pros and cons.of a
permit program and the numerous possible variations have occurred. A number of
important issues have been identified such as the aesthetics of the street signs that would
be. required for enforcement purposes, the "openness" of the area to visitors, and the
ballooning effect of possibly .pushing the parking problem farther ..out into the
~neighborhoods.. These issues have to be. weighed against the impact of downtown
employees and visitors parking in the neighborhoods. ~ "
As a resuit Of the discussions on al! t’hese issues, a draft model program has been
developed. The enclosed, survey .is an attempt to get input fromas many residents .as
possible. It is important that we receive your opinion on the desirability of the model
program and your preferences on certain aspects of it. Please keep in mind that no sin.gle
model will meet everyone’s needs or concerns. , ..
The goals are to.establish a program that would:
provide a reasonable level of available parking for residents and their guests bY
initially removing about .50 percent of-non-resident vehicles.and distributing the
density throughout the neighborhoods;
eventually reduce the level of habituaily pa~’ked non-resident vehicles to zero. after
parking structuresare constructed to help ensure that the downtov~nt"parl~ing
capacity is effectively utilized;
help protect neighborhoods from future growth in the downtown area by ensuring
that non-resident parking in the neighborhoods would not increase.
275 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650.329.2406
650.329.2565 fax "
650.617.3120 Admiriistration fax
Page "Two
Any program would include penalties for improper.use of permits or illegal parking.¯
Residents would be required to show proof of residency to obtain their permits. The
Cost to purchase additional permits and the amount of the penalties would be dependent.
upon costs to operate a program. ¯
The ’general program would, include the following: °
Two resident permits and two ’reusable guest permits would be provided per single ¯
household at no cost, Abuse of permits would result in penalties forthe resident.
Two resident permits and two reusable guest permits provided per each multi-
.family or apartment unit up to four units per lot. Any lots with five or more units
would be provided one resident per.mit and one reusable guest permit for each unit
at no cost. Abuse of permits would, result in penalties for the resident.
Additional resident permits would be available for purchase by residents.
Resident permits would.be renewed on an annual basis,
One day special event (large party) permits would be provided at no cost to
residents with a one-weekadvance notice to the City.
A set number of permitswould be available for sale to non-residents. These
permits would allow parking in only identified (coded) zones to evenly,distribute the
density of nonresident vehicles,
After we have analyzed th~ survey responses, several, neighborhood meetings will be held
to share the results. Following those meetings, the results of the feasibility study will be
presented to the City Council..The .Council would then determine what course of action
should be taken.
Thank you for your interest and response. If you have any questions or would like to
discuss your ideas and/or concerns, please contact either Lieutenant Jon Hernandez at
-329-2142 or.myself.at 329-2115. We can be reached by phone or e-mail. Please. return
the completed.survey in the enclosed envelope by Mond.ay, August 10, l g98.
Assistant Police Chief
Enclosures
Block / Street
Re.s.idential Parking Permit Model Program Survey Options
There are several issues that we need your input, on. Please take a few minutes and
complete the survey and return it in the enclosed envelope by Monday, August 10., 1998.
I prefer the hoursof enforcement of a residential parking per .mit program to be:
Choose one option. (Note:
park after 7 or 8 p.m. would be able to park anywhere the rest of the night.)
Depehding. upon the.evening time selected, peoplewho.
[] 9a.m.-10p.m..[]. 8a.m.-9p.m.
¯ [] Other - please describe[]’~a.m.-9p.m.
I prefer th~ days of enforcement to’be:
[] Monda~ - Friday rl Monday - SatuPday
[]Other - (please describe)
On the issue of’.timed parking allowing any person to park without a permit.for a
limited length of time, I prefer: (Choose one option) (N.ote~ The Council has directed
that some free short-term parking be.available for visitors without permits.) .
[]
[]
[]
[]
Three hour parking for all
Two hours free parking for. all
One hour free parking for all ’ "
No free parking for anyone without a permit
e ¯The’ downtown neighborhood,s I~ave been seeing an increase.ir~ high-density
developments Within single fami’ly.home areas. Some residents have r.aised some
questions and concerns about these developments’ !nability to provide sufficient off-
street parking for residents without negatively impacting the availability of street
parking for current residents. Do you believe thatthis is a problem?
[] Yes [] No [] No Opinion .-
If yes, what suggestions would you have to deal with the issue?
¯1 prefer that non-resident permit parking: (Nqte: Residents-would be able to park on
either side of the street,)
[]
[]
Be limited to des.|gn~ted zones on blocks on either side of the street.
Be allowed only on one side of.the street (residents/guests wo.uld be able to park on
both sides of the street and non-residents on only one side of the. street),
Be a|low~d to park anywhere,
Regarding the concept of a Residential Parking Permit Program in my.part of the
neighborho.od, h ~
¯ (Note: Please keep in mind that it would be.possibleto, imPlement such a progr.am
in one neighborhood and not another, but.the most probable outcome would .be an
increase of vehicles in the neighborhood that chose not to implement it.)
[] . Strongly Favor []Favor .[]No opinion
[] Oppose []Strongly Oppose.
If you do not support the concept~ pleas~ describe what factors would cause you to
change your mind?
If you suppbrt
your support?
the concept, please describe what factorsmight cause you to withdraw
Name
Phone _
Comments:
Address
QUESTION 1
9 a.m. - 10 p.m.
8 a.m. - 9p.m.
8 a.m. - 10 p.m~.
Other
Oppose
TOTALFOR QUESTION 1
(N. of’~on)
COUNT %
7O 14%
179 35%
114 22%
116 23%
35 7%
~14 100%
GRBS~ ARF.A
¯ .(S. of Forest)
COUNT %
62 14%
140 32%
61 14%
113 26%
57 15%
433 100%
SUMOF BOTH AREAS
COUNT %
132
319
175
229
92 ¯
947
14%
’34%
18%
24%.
10%
100%
QUESTION 2
Monday - Friday
Monday - Saturday
Other
Oppose
TOTAL FOR QUESTION 2
292
168
24
31
57%
33% "
5%
6%
5.15 100%.
,246 55%
118 27%
23 5%
57 13%
538 ’
286
47
88
959
56%
30%
’5%
9%
100%
QUESTION 3
3 hours free parking
2 hours free parking
1 hour free parking
No free parking
Other
TOTAL FOR QUESTION 3
13.5 27%
219 44%
66 13%
63 13%
12 2%
495 100%
139 34%
177 43%
¯ 50 !2%
.47 11%
0 0%
413 100%.
274
396
.116
110
12
908
30%
44%
13%
12%
1%
100%
QUESTION 4 .
Yes
NO
,No Opinion
TOTAL FOR QUESTION 4
Suggestions (incl. below)
Off street parking for high
density developments
317 62%
100 20%
91 18%
508 100%
207
146 71%
256 61%
85 20%
¯ 76 18%
417 100%
175
117 67%
573
185
167
925
382
263
20%
18%
lOO%
69%
QUESTION 5
A (eithe.r side)
B (one side only)
C (anywhere)
Other
TOTAL FOR QUESTION 5
QUESTION 6.
Strongly favor
Favor
No opinion
Oppose
Strongly oppose
154 32%
109 ,23%
216 .45%
2 0%
481 100%
196 38%
171 34%
36 7%
49 10%
58 11%
113 28%
64 16%
224 , 56%1,0%
402 100%
126 29%
131 30%
40 9%
60 14%
77 18%
267
173
440
3
883
322
302
76
109
135
30%
2O%
50%
0%
100%
34%
"32%
8%
12%
14%
TOTAL FOR QUESTION 6.510 100%434 100%944 100%
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
2
:MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16:
December 8, 1999
REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM
City Council Chambers Room
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL."
Meeting called to order at 7.’10 P.M.
Commissioners:
Kathy Schmidt, Chairman
Annette Bialson, Vice-Chair
Owen Byrd - absent/conflict
Jon Schink- absent
Patrick Burt
Bern Beecham - absent/conflict
Phyllis Cassel
Staff:
Ed Gawf, Director of Planning
Lisa Grote, Act. Chief Planning Official
Ariel Calonne, City Attorney
Lynne Johnson, Deputy Police Chief
Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Manager
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Luke Connolly, Senior Planner
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
Chairman Schmidt: I would like to call the meeting to order for the December 8th
Planning and Transportation Committee meeting. Would the Secretary please call the
roll.
I’ll choose this time to say a couple of things. One, Commissioner Byrd is not here this
evening because he cannot participate in the main item on our agenda, the residential
parking permit program. Commissioner Schink is out of town this evening. In a moment
we will lose our newly elected City Council Member, Bern Beecham because he can’t
participate in the residential parking permit program item either. Speaking for myself but
I know speaking for the rest of the Commission we will thoroughly miss Bern but we
know he will do a fabulous job on the City Council. Bern has been on the Planning
Commission for ten years. He has been Chair three times and part of that was leading us
through the long process of the Stanford/Sand Hill project. He does an outstanding job of
analyzing, with anything that comes before us he does a very even-handed job of looking
at everything and often comes up with a really nice consensus or a solution that combines
things that many people of disparate groups are trying to put together. So he has been a
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
great consensus builder here too. I know I personally wish him lots of luck and lots of
fun on Monday nights and hope they don’t go to late every night. We will miss you a lot.
I think we need to arrange to take Bern to lunch or something sometime to celebrate his
moving on to a different role.
Commissioner Beecham: I won’t take time away from the coming meeting but I just
would like to say that the thing I valued most on being with this group is that even though
we’ve had many arguments and differences of opinion we’ve always respected each other
and kept any differences at a very professional level. That has enabled us to continually
work on any issues and I think found the best issue for the community as we all kept
working together. I really do appreciate that.
Chairman Schmidt: As we move on to Oral Communications I also want to let Phyllis
mention something that she is dying to. mention.
Commissioner Cassel: I want to do an announcement early because doing it late doesn’t
help. The shuttle bus will be starting on this Saturday with the circulator route that runs
around the town. It will run every half-hour. I have put the schedules up on the walls
and have put some extras out on.the table in the entryway. The blue/teal color is the
schedule for the cross town route and the yellow is for the Embarcadero Road. There is a
website that you can use to find the schedule. It is going to be important for those of you
who don’t have a schedule yet. This runs every half-hour you’ll want to know what the
schedule is. The website is www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/shuttle. That should give you a
schedule if you don’t have one. Schedules are being distributed to the library. There will
be a grand kick-off on Wednesday, December 15th from 9:00-10:00 a.m. at City Hall at
Civic Center Plaza. The Embarcadero Road shuttle starts on Monday. That is a shift.
Now there is a shuttle that runs to the Bayshore west road to the industries along that area
that runs to California Avenue that will shift and run from the Downtown Cal Train
Station. People should pick it up down there and not on California Avenue.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you Phyllis. Phyllis has participated in the shuttle committee
and I think we are all enthusiastic to have it start. I want to thank Joe Kott very much for
getting this going. The next item on the agenda is Oral Communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on
the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak
must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission.
The Planning Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to
15 minutes.
Chairman Schmidt: I do not have any cards from anyone who wishes to speak at this
time so we will move on to the next item.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have
additional items added to it up to 72 hours prior to meeting time.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chairman Schmidt: I do not believe we have any of those this evening. The next item is
Unfinished Business and we have none.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:None.
Other Items:None.
Chairman Schmidt: The next item is New Business, Public Hearings.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings.
Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facili ,ty (98-SD-07; 99-V-10; 99-EIA-17): Site
and Design, Variance, and Environmental Impact Assessment .applications for a
visitor information center (Gateway Facility), including office and meeting space,
storage areas, public restrooms, and associated site improvements on City owned
property within the Arastradero Preserve open space area. The Variance will
allow a reduced setback from the provisions of Section 20.08.020 of the Palo Alto
Municipal code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.
Chairman Schmidt: The first of those, the Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility which
was scheduled to be heard tonight has been postponed to the meeting of January 12,
2000. The postponement is due to Staff and the project designer needing more time to
finalize materials for the Planning Commission hearing. This item will be advertised
again and Public Hearing notices will be mailed out to property owners as well as
residents within a 300 foot radius of the site.
The next item is the Residential Parking Permit Program (Referral from City Council).
Residential Parking Permit Program (Referral from City Council): Initial
discussion and review of recommendations on the feasibility of implementing a
residential parking program in neighborhoods adjacent to the Downtown area.
Referred by Council on December 6, 1999.
Commissioner Beecham: Kathy, as you mentioned I and Owen are in conflict of interest
since we live in the subject area. I will make my final deParture tonight. Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay. Good Bern. Thank you. If there is anyone who wishes to
speak on this item please submit a card. I have two so far. We will begin with Staff
report and comments.
Lisa Grote, Acting Chief Planning Official: Thank you. I’d like to introduce Lynne
Johnson, Assistant Police Chief. She will be giving the Staffreport tonight and also
Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer will also be making comments tonight.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Lvnne Johnson, Assistant Police Chiefi Thank you Lisa. While you are not officially the
Planning and Transportation Committee we decided to get you rolling ahead of time
tonight with what I understand is your first major transportation issue. Tonight does
represent the first formal discussion that will occur regarding the conceptual framework
for a residential parking permit ordinance in the neighborhoods adjacent to the
Downtown area. Staff. felt it was important to bring it to the Planning and Transportation
Committee because of its complexities and also the potential ramification for potential.
future programs in other parts of the City. We felt it was important to start the formal
discussion with the Commission.
As the report indicates, we’ve been working with the two neighborhoods on this project
for about three years. As we explained in the Staff report the issue of residential parking
permits is very complex and there are lots of issues and factors that have had to have
been considered. As we put together all the information and analyzed all the data there
are two things that really came to the forefront. The first one is how we are going to fund
the program. It is a ~¢ery costly program and as proposed is not cost recovery. While we
know that the financing aspect of the program isn’t one that you’ll specifically deal with I
think it is important that you know that we do anticipate that a long-range financial plan
will go to the City Council the first part of February. Then shortly after that in late
February or early March together with your comments and suggestions we will go to the
Council with these recommendations as well.
The second major issue has to do with the timing of the implementation of the program.
We’ve recommended that the actual implementation does not occur until the parking
structures are built. This recommendation is one I know that many residents in the
neighborhood disagree with and understandably so because they have been
extraordinarily patient with the parking situation in the neighborhoods. We understand
that. I think it is important for me to clarify that even if the City Council were to give us
the go ahead in March and say go forward, proceed, do all the work you need to do to
implement the program, realistically with all the things that need to be done to implement
it, and we’ve been real honest with the neighbors about this, it would take 18-24 months
to implement. That includes drafting the ordinance, hiring the personnel, installing the
signs, and issuing the permits. All this is a very labor intensive program. It couldn’t be
implemented overnight by any stretch of the imagination. So realistically, regardless of
what happens with the garages, we’re talking the implementation at the earliest would
occur pending the financial plan in the summer of 2001. And most likely we are talking
about March of 2002. My point is that I’m trying to underscore the fact that our intention
would not be, pending Council approval on the financial plan and to go ahead with the
framework, to begin that work until the garages are built but to have all that work done so
it would coincide with the opening of at least the first garage. Because the decisions
about the garages have not been finalized it is hard to say exactly what that time frame
will be. Although in meetings we’ve had if things were to go very smoothly from here on
out it is very possible that the garage on Lot R could be opened in the Spring of 2002
which is about the same time that the implementation of a residential program could
occur. That’s probably the latest time it could occur, it could start earlier.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
With that I think it makes the most sense to open it up to your questions in addition to a
[ship]. We do have Joe Kott, the City Chief Transportation Official as well as Dave
Dudley our Parking Supervisor in the audience to help answer your questions.
Chairman Schmidt: Are there questions for Lynne from the Commission at this time?
Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Can we ask the questions after we hear from the public?
Chairman Schmidt: We can do that, or if you have any questions at this moment. Then I
would like everyone who wishes to speak to fill out a card. I’ve got two so far and I see
some more coming. Each person has a time limit of five minutes. The first speaker is
Roger Craig to be followed by Sally Ann Rudd.
Mr. Roger Craig, 101 Waverley Street, Palo Alto: As mentioned I’m Roger Craig and I
live at 101 Waverley Street up against the creek. This is really quite a kettle of worms,
smelly ones. I know the Staff has worked very hard to try to come to some solutions that
would be the least repugnant to all parties. A little of my background, I’m a graduate of
Palo Alto High School, like Mike Cobb. I’m the Chairperson of the Human Relations
Committee of the Downtown Neighborhood North Association. I’m not here in either of
those capacities I just mentioned that to put you in awe of my credibility.
We’ve been involved in this for quite a long time. The whole idea of the City stealing
our parking spaces is very repugnant. It’s very distasteful but I do recognize the need for
it. What bothers me tonight is the surprise that the number of places that want to be sold
is dependant upon whether or not the structures are built. Now this is clearly at odds with
what I understood the program to be to begin with, namely you’d sell permits until the
structures were built and then we’d reduce the number of non-resident permits to zero.
Now of course the parking problem in our are is largely a result of the activities of you
folks and the City Council allowing contractors to build oversized buildings with in-lieu
parking, not supplying enough parking, and granting them so many places on our street to
park. What to we get in lieu? Some public art, which I have not seen any that I would
feel was a fair exchange for that privilege. But we do have a terrible parking problem.
And it is made worse by encouraging all these developments.
Now you want to sell these parking permits. The idea of the City making profit, making
money, off our parking is hard to fathom. Since you have decided to that and have a
different range of prices and 1,000 to 1,600 permits at $300-$500 each is quite a chunk of
dough. I would really recommend that you folks consider auctioning them off every
couple of years. I think you could bring in a whole lot more money than you are talking
about with the numbers that are here. I don’t know what you can do about any of this but
I wanted to relate to you the things that I find discomforting about this. I thought that we
are going to have a lot more of them sold if the City finds it to their advantage not to
build these parking lots. It clearly would be somewhat to their advantage. Thank you
very much.
City of Palo .41to Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
i1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Sally Ann Rudd to be followed by Mark Nanevich.
Ms. Sally Ann Rudd, 204 Cowper Street, Palo Alto: I’ve been working with the Police
Department.for the last three years on this residential parking permit plan. I think that in
general this is an excellent Staff report that presents the RPP as agreed by City Staff and
the North and South Neighborhood groups. I think the report also has a lot of other
information in it, which is very relevant and can be used in making good decisions. I
want to thank Lynne Johnson for her patience with the project over a very long time
frame. We are very fortunate to have her.
There are just a few points that I’d like to take issue with. First of all, on the question of
timing, the idea that the parking permits wouldn’t be implemented at all until the
completion of the parking structures is something that is quite new. It didn’t really get
discussed in the working group until within the last year or so. The original plan was that
there would be maybe as many as 1,000 non-resident parking permits sold for the
neighborhood which would be scaled to zero within a year or so of the parking garages
being built. The Staff report as it currently is, is .quite a radical departure fi’om that
concept.
The other issue on the timing of not implementing parking permits by neighborhood until
after the parking structures are built relates to the disruption which our neighborhood will
suffer during the construction period. Specifically, the construction of the building on
Lots S/L. There are currently about 100 to 120 spaces on Lots S/L. It seems fairly
obvious to me that rather than those people voluntarily deciding to pay their permit fees
and park somewhere else, they will just cross the street and park in our neighborhood.
The Staff report shows that the average block has about 40 parking spaces. So an extra
120 cars coming into ourneighborhood everyday for all day parking is about three blocks
worth. That will make a very bad situation untenably worse for the people who live there
now. So I would urge you to think seriously about this timing issue and the opening of
the parking garages should be the very latest point at which the permits are implemented
not the earliest point.
The other issue o~a timing is that I believe the City is getting around to appointing a
Parking Coordinator. I’m sure that one of the first things that that Coordinator will want
to do is to have an aggressive TDM program in place. I see residential parking permits as
being a very crucial aspect of that TDM program because I don’t see that program really
working unless you can choke off the supply of free or extremely low cost parking in the
residential neighborhoods.
The other issue I wanted to bring up was about the cost. It seems, looking at the Staff
report, that the biggest single enforcement cost relates to two-hour parking. Because the
police will have to have a lot of extra people to keep coming around and looking at
people’s license plates and enforcing that. That was something that was kind of thrown
in at the last meeting, the Council meeting in December of 1996 by the Honorable Dick
Rosenbaum. He was the only person who mentioned it. It was never something that the
neighborhood actively sought. Although I think there is no doubt from the responses to
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
the survey that it would be something which the neighborhood would like. I would like
to suggest that we shouldn’t let the cost of enforcement scuttle the whole plan. If the two
hour parking element is the major piece in there that the neighborhood would much rather
have some kind of a permit program in place rather than have no program because we
have to have two hour parking. That is something that the City Council suggested but
I’m not sure if it was really a serious suggestion.. Certainly, I don’t think it was intended
to scuttle the whole plan.
The other thing I wanted to bring up about the costs in the report is that there is no
mention of revenue sources. These could come from sales of permits and the revenues
could also come from violations. If you sold 1,200 permits at $400 a piece that would
give you $480,000 which should be enough to get the program started maybe without the
two hour parking piece. That would certainly give the City a substantial source of
revenue that they could play with in getting this thing started.
Finally, I just want to say.that I support the rest of the Staff report. I support the outline
of the program. And I’d ask the Planning Commission to approve the RPP framework.
Also to require the plan to proceed without any more delays. It has already been three
years and I’d reallynot like to be standing here in another three years saying the same
things to you. Thank you very much.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Sally Ann I have a question for you. You indicate that
you are very much in support of the outlined plan. It seems like it has a lot of parts and a
lot of complexity. As a resident of that area does that bother you at all? That guests that
come to visit you have to use a permit and if you have a party during the week you’ve got
to get permits for your guests and so forth.
Ms Rudd: I think most people who live around where I live feel that we are already
extremely inconvenienced because we can’t park our cars. The minor inconvenience of
having to handle getting a permit and giving people guest permits is nothing compared to
the inconvenience we already have. Because we can’t get near our houses when we have
to have deliveries or even if you two big heavy bags of groceries and a dog and kids and
you have to park a block away from your house. We already have a great deal of
inconvenience so yes, we are prepared to have that.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. The next speaker is Mark Nanevich to be followed by
Hannah Claybom.
Mr. Mark Nanevich, 228 Waverley Street, Palo Alto: I’ve been part of the parking
project since its beginning. I was the Chairperson for the Neighborhood Association on
the parking project. I just wanted to pick up where Sally Ann left off on your question of
the inconvenience of guests coming by. Right now it is pretty clear that most of us really
don’t have a problem at all with it because basically guests can’t get to our houses right
now. It can’t get any worse. So if we had to hand our guests a hanger permit or one of
the scratch-off permits that are being recommended that will be far better than what we
have now which is they park blocks away.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
i3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
I definitely support everything that is in the plan. I’ve been involved with it from the
beginning and I understand it pretty well. The only thing that I would want to reiterate is
what Sally Ann just said about the timing of it. I think most of the neighborhood thought
it was pretty clear at the beginning that this was to be a separate project from the
Downtown parking structures in every way. And that if the structures were approved and
eventually were built that the number of non-resident cars that were parked in the
neighborhood would be amortized down to zero once the structures were completed.
That’s what most of the residents thought was going, to happen.
As far as financing goes, I still think that the numbers we are talking about and the cost of
permits is far too low. I think the price for a non-resident permit in our neighborhood
should be a lot more than $300-$400. You’re talking about a $1.20 a day for all day
parking which is about a cup of coffee. You go to somewhere like San Francisco which
has an equivalent land lease pricing, it is probably ten times higher. I know to park in
San Francisco you pay $25.00 all day and for an all day permit it is quite a bit more than
$350 or $400 per year. If we were to raise these prices to a reasonable amount I believe
the cost of this whole plan would basically pay for itself without asking for any money
fi:om the City, at least over a period of time.
As far as the argument of employees not being able to afford these permits one has to
consider the prices that these businesses are paying to rent the buildings in Downtown
Palo Alto. And how much property developers and property owners are currently making
- huge amounts of money and huge amounts of profit right no~v. If they were to be
compensating their lessors with funds to provide parking instead .of considering that the
employees are paying for the parking I think that it will work out eventually. I know of
some people who own property in Downtown Palo Alto and their incomes on rent are
astronomical. They don’t have any parking for these facilities. If they are asked to
pocket some of the expense for the parking which went to the lessors which then in turn
went to the employees who are parking all day, that issue pretty much resolves itself.
I don’t want to repeat everything else. I agree with everything that Sally Ann said and I
hope that we don’t get delayed anymore. That we can go forward with this and I’d like to
see this implemented without having to take into consideration the parking structures.
Thank you. ~
Chairman Schmidt: Phyllis has a question for you Mark..
Commissioner Cassel: I have a question Mark. What I think I hear you saying is that
after the parking structures go into place there would be no way anyone could come into
the neighborhood and park legally in the neighborhood. They would have to have a
permit or they would have to go a neighbor who has a permit but no one could come into
the neighborhood and park.
Mr. Nanevich: The original plans that we discussed with the neighborhood was that we
would have a limited number, we tossed around the numbers from 600 to 1,000 sold
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
. 43
44
45
46
permits for non-residents, and gradually amortize the number down until structures were
completed and public transportation was improved. To the point where, yes, we would
have zero non-residents parking in the neighborhoods during business hours. That was
the original idea and that is what the neighborhood understood was going to be happening
especially if parking structures were to be built. A lot of the neighborhood residents are
against the parking structures and the only reason some of us are supporting them is
because we want to get the cars off the streets and into the structures. Otherwise you
would probably have both neighborhoods strongly standing against any new structures
being built right now. But as far has having a zero number of non-resident cars on the
streets at some point in time, that’s everyone’s ultimate goal. Whether we get there or
not is another issue. The number one objective of this project when we first started was
to put a cap on the number of cars that were being dumped into our neighborhood. If we
at least got that and were able to say that’s it only 1,000 non-residents cars, sure we’re
stuck with a bunch of non-resident cars but we know it can’t get any worse than it already
is. Right now we have nothing. We are thoroughly unprotected and month by month,
year by year, we are getting dumped on.
Commissioner Cassel: I guess I’m seeing a situation in which I couldn’t drive to your
neighborhood and go to the park because I couldn’t park. I’m talking about the absolute
extreme when no one can park in all of Downtown North anyplace. There would be no
two-hour parking spaces.
Mr. Nanevich: If the plan went through as proposed right now that includes two-hour
parking, yes you would be able to drive to the park. One other issue that a lot of the
residents have brought up is that parking at the park has been a concern. That means
people coming into the neighborhood who are.not visiting a resident but are strictly using
the facilities of the neighborhood such as the park. That Johnson Park was specifically
designed as a neighborhood park and it is to be used by the neighborhood.
Commissioner Cassel: Neighbors come and use my neighborhood park.
Mr. Nanevich: Right. It was not designed as a destination park. A lot of neighbors
appreciate the fact that yes, that might be good that people can’t drive into the
neighborhood to use our park so that we can use the park.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Hannah Claybom to be followed by Michael Griffin.
Ms. Harmah Clayborn, Executive Director, Museum of American Heritage, 351 Homer
Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. I would not presume to understand this entire
parking plan. Unfortunately I was out of town during the last meeting. We are very
concerned at the Museum of American Heritage about the impact of parking permits. For
those of you who don’t know about us, we are a museum dedicated to presenting and
preserving the evolution of American invention. We have a museum in a beautiful old
house that we have committed both our hearts and our resources to. We have raised over
$700,000 to refurbish an historic structure. We stay open to the public free of charge.
We’re free of charge to the public because our founder wanted it so and almost all of the
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
people who work at our museum are volunteers. Now, our goal upon arriving at the site
was to draw perhaps a 150 people per weekend. We have more recently been successful
enough to draw about 350 people per weekend to our museum. Because we deal in the
history of technology we are performing a function that no other museum in the Silicon
Valley is currently performing and we feel that we are a cultural asset. Because most of
our volunteers, and we are mostly staffed by volunteers, are not being paid and even .
those that are paid are not paid very high salaries, we feel that we don’t fit into the
framework of most of the businesses and so forth that may be being envisioned for this
parking permit program. Now I’ve noticed in reading this report that there are provision,
and of course I would need to get more information about how we could make use of
those, such as free two-hour parking. I would mention that we have most recently been
using the parking lot of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation which when _they leave that
parking lot we hope will become a park. If we build out that area to the densities that are
proposed by the SOFA plan, a place like ours that depends on volunteers coming and
visitors being able to have easy access parking up to the limit and we hope more maybe
350 weekend, we really hope that you’ll think carefully about any impact such a program
¯ might have on us. We certainly are dedicating and donating our time and the money.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Schmidt: Hannah, Phyllis has a question for you.
Commissioner Cassel: You say 300 visitors per weekend but over a period of an hour
how many people would be on site?
Ms..Clayborn: That is difficult to say but we Could have up to easily and we have had
especially at certain events on certain weekends 50-60 people on site at the same time.
Chairman Schmidt: The next speaker is Michael Griffin to be followed by Dan Lorimer.
Mr. Michael Griffin, 344 Poe Street, Palo Alto: Good evening. First of all I’d like to say
that Staff did a terrific job on that report. Ashok and Lynne, your efforts are nicely
shown here. I’d like to quickly address a question (hat Phyllis posed here a moment ago
about the park. Johnson Park, as Mark said, was really never designed to be a regional
destination and yet it turns out it is probably one of the very most popular parks in the
entire City. Unfortunately when it was set up it was never thought that that was going to
happen that it would have those kinds of impacts. Consequently there were no particular
measures taken to provide for parking all the cars that are attracted. Steve Jobs for
example thought it was so great he wanted to replicate the park in his neighborhood-as I
recall. In any event let me say that I like the report a lot Lynne. i think there are a Couple
of problems that need to addressed ifRPP is ever to see the light of day. The most
important of which is the surprisingly high cost at least according to the report. Much of
what drives ~he cost upward is the inclusion of this two-hour free parking component. I
think it is important enough to say that it appears to be a deal killer. Now, I doubt that
that was the intent of Council when they originally asked Staff to include this in the
project. But this in any event winds up being one of the effects. While two-hour free
parking may sound like a nice sort of thing to have, if you want to go to the park or
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
whatnot. In fact if you want to go to San Francisco and you want to park on Nob Hill or
Telegraph Hill or any of those high density areas, if you’re not carrying a sticker on your
bumper, you don’t get in there whether you’re a tourist or a resident of the City of San
Francisco or whatever. So it’s nice to have but in the meantime it is in no way worth in
my opinion the time, effort, manpower and cost that Lynne and Ashok tell us that is
going to incur. Having this free two-hour parking component jeopardize the entire RPP
is nuts to me. Saying that, I’m also aware that the~neighborhood questionnaire carried a
seemingly benign item asking residents how much free parking they wanted. Seeing how
Council wanted this included in the program and the two-hours free got the most votes.
But clearly there was no indication to the respondents of the questionnaire of the
consequences of their answer. If any of us had fully understood the cost implications at
that time of the two-hour free we probably would have approached this question
differently:
Another big item. Holding the RPP hostage as it were to completion of the parking
structures is certainly an understandable way to approach the implementation of the RPP.
But to me it certainly doesn’t do a thing for protecting the Downtown North area from
parking impacts in the future let alone granting the neighborhoods on the north or the
south side of University any relief from the existing parking pressures. I can see delaying
implementation of the plan as being in the interest of the Downtown merchants.
Unfortunately this issue has a little bit of a feel of perhaps pitting the interests of the
residents against the interests of the merchants. However, I’d like to point out that the
residents are pretty fed up with having their streets used as a parking lot for the
merchant’s employees. So maybe in fact it is time for the resident’s interests to prevail.
So in some way I’m saying to remove the free parking component because of an adverse
cost/benefit relationship. Secondly, let’s get the show on the road and implement the
RPP now. It is time to put the neighbor’s interests first and very importantly it will
oblige parkers to start using our new and expensive shuttle program as well as forcing the
drivers of the world to start facing the realities of transportation demand management,
TDM. We have start it somewhere and sometime and I’m saying start TDM right here
and right now by approving these changes that I’ve suggested to the RPP. Thanks.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Dan Lorimer to be followed by Hal Lufl. Hal is the last
card that I have.
Mr. Dan Lorimer, 465 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto: At the time we originally started
this whole process I was President of the Downtown North Neighborhood Association-
and was present at many of the initial meetings with the Ashok and Lynne Johnson. I’d
say that the proposal that is here before us is very much reflective of the meetings that we
had. I think that the process has worked well in many respects. However, there is one
significant thing that is wrong and you’ve heard this a number of times now. The big
thing that is wrong with this plan is that the understanding that we have had from the
beginning was that the permits would not be coupled with the parking garages. That it
was a completely separate issue. At. that time it was much less clear, if you’ll remember,
that the parking garages were going to be constructed at all. So the discussion that we
City of Palo Alto Page ! 1
1 had at that time was always in terms of how many permits do we have to have initially in
2 order to make sure that there is not a major disruption in the parking patterns in the
3 commerce of the Downtown. And how long would these be amortized over. The
4 numbers that were usually used where somewhere between 1,000 and 1,200 and the
5 amortization period was five years. Now we are seeing that due to the so-called parking
6 deficit the recommendation is for coupling these things and making the parking garage
7 happen first. We feel that this is backwards and that the neighborhood has already
8 carried way too much burden for the parking of the commercial district. It is high time
9 that the problem is addressed by putting in our parking permits.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The other thing that we see is that there is a recommendation to delay the implementation
of this based on it being too expensive. Our discussions initially at least told us that the
cost of this was going to be zero to the City. It was probably going to be a revenue
generator because of both the cost of the permits and the cost to people who got tickets.
The accumulated revenue apparently was going to exceed the cost of enforcement and the
additional officers required. Now we are finding that the cost of enforcement particularly
associated with the two-hour parking is very high. Iknow that Lylme from the beginning
was telling us that the two-hour parking or any parking that was hourly was going to be
problematic in terms of causing the necessity for actually checking when cars came in
and left rather than simply seeing whether there were permits on the cars. So what I have
heard is that the cost would roughly be cut in half if we were to simply have parking
permits and no two-hour parking. That puts the cost somewhere around $500,000 and I
think Sally Ann has already done the math. If you’ve got $400 permits and you have
about 1,200 of them that is about $500,000 and that totally overlooks the revenues
generated by any tickets that are certainly going to happen after the permits are in place.
I, as everybody who has participated in this on the Parking Committee, advocate that the
conceptual approval should happen now and trading off the two-hour parking for having
the permits at all is crazy. It makes no sense at all.
One last item vis-a-vie the American Heritage Museum. These permits are for weekdays
only so that the discussion we had about 350 people coming on the weekend has nothing
to do with this. The permits do not apply to Saturday.
As a final point on that, I don’t think it is really appropriate for any intensive use to
impose its parking loads on neighborhoods. That includes public uses as well as
commercial uses. That’s what I have to say.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. The next speaker is Hal Luft to be followed by
Katherine Pering.
Mr. Hal Luft, 1020 Ramona, Palo Alto: Good evening. I’d like to thank Staff for the
excellent work they have been doing. I’ve certainly been involved to some extent in
some of the discussions. I’m real pleased that this is coming before the Planning
Commission because I see this as not just a residential parking permit problem. It has
very substantial planning issues attached to it. We’re talking about right now, Monday
and Tuesday, major new redevelopment on the clinic site, Roxy Rapp’s proposal, other
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
development in the SOFA area particularly. The presence or lack thereof for residential
parking permits will I’m sure effect the design that developers consider in those
structures. How they are going to use their required parking~ whether they are going to
provide incentives for internally developing transportation demand management will
effect how they build those structures. So I think it is crucial that a decision be made to
implement residential parking as possible because we will be living with those decisions
that are going to be made in the next few years for a long long time.
Let me move on to a few questions because I think they roll back into this and it is all tied
together. There are as we know parking spaces in buildings here Downtown that are not
used that could be resold. If the price of alternative parking was high enough people
would resell them and use them. We are not using the spaces we have efficiently. So let
me ask a couple of questions. I know there is a long queue of people waiting for permits
in the existing structures. I’m health economist, when people have looked at the queues
in Britain and Canada for surgery they found that ot~en the very long queues have nobody
on them. People apply for something when they know they have to wait for it and then
they move away, etc. when they finally come to their time in the queue I’d be interested
in knowing how many real permits would be sold if we suddenly had an additional 1,000
spots,
I think that we need to ask ourselves what is the problem that we are trying to fix here
with the residential parking. The problem from my perspective is long-term all day
parkers. I see them come at around 8:30 and I see them leave at 5:30. To get rid of that
problem you don’t need to check every two hours like you do in the color zones
Downtown. Color zones Downtown are aimed at shoppers and more importantly the
people who are working Downtown who can very easily walk out and move their car
every two-hours. I think the color zones have done a very good job of moving them out
of the neighborhoods. Those people, I doubt, will have a long enough coffee break to
walk the four or five blocks to get out of the parking zone, to get from Downtown to the
residential area and move their car every couple of hours. If that is thecase, we should
think about three hour parking which would roughly cut by 50% the number of times that
the parking enforcement people would need to go around. It doesn’t have to be done as
pr.ecisely every day. I understand. It is nice to have rigid compliance but if the goal is to
keep people who are working on a routine basis from using parking in the neighborhoods
you only need to get them two or three times a month. You can have random
enforcement. You can reduce the number of parking enforcement people and get
probably, I would guess, 70-80% of the net impact with much much lower cost. The
issue of three hour versus two hour may be different as one moves in closer to Downtown
and you get more people who are coming in for restaurant parking and not just long-term
daytime workers. I would suggest that it would be considered for perhaps two hours very
close to Downtown around Hamilton and Lytton, etc. and as you move further away and
you’re out to Addison and Kingsly, probably every three to four hours would work just
fine. Those are not people coming in for a quick meal.
Finally, I think that we need to think about the pricing issues. The price could probably
and should probably be substantially higher. There is the issue of whether the residential
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
parking permit program should be evaluated independently or should be considered as
part of the parking assessment district. In fact, all of this stuff needs to be considered as a
whole and then consider the implications of the budgetary issues.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. You have question?
Commissioner Burt: Yes. Hal, you had talked about what’s the problem we’re trying to
solve and referred to the primary problem being the all day parkers. I’m glad that the
problem definition issue has arisen. Is the objective to get back to having no non-resident
parkers or is the objective to get back to the level that approximately existed prior to the
implementation of the color zones which was when this issue reallycame about for
permit parking?
Mr. Luft: From where I live it is hard to tell because the clinic and various other
overflows were there. The color zones moved the edge of the tide basically from
Addison to Lincoln. So it moved it about a block further out. I think that even before the
color zones I would literally see car-poolers from University to Lincoln. A ear would
pull up, one or two people would get out, get into their cars that they had parked there
and then the three of them would drive away separately. Extensive carpooling. So they
are the day long workers from Downtown who are basically the problem as I see it.
Now, a question was raised earlier related to this. Do I want nobody not living in the
neighborhood parking on my street? No. Go to Old Palo Alto, you see some cars there
of people who aren’t living there. The people who live there have nice garages and
driveways, etc. There are some cars in thestreet. That’s not a problem. It’s the all day
parking that fills up the street so that if I’m working at home and I leave to do an errand
and I come back and there is no place to park. So it is really an extreme issue. If you get
rid of the eight-hour parkers there would be no problem.
Commissioner Burr: One other point you raised or suggestion you had was that the two-
hour zone could be flexible depending.on the area in which it existed. Were you
referring to changing the allowed time from two-hours to beyond that or having
flexibility in the enforcement, a less aggressive enforcement necessary as you were
further out?
Mr. Luft: I was actually suggesting the two but combined in a slightly different way.
What you might do is you’ve got the color zones which are two hours. You might go the
next layer out, because they are broken into nice little segments, also being two hours.
Then the layer beyond that might be three hours. You need to have some signs saying
this is two hours and this is three hours so you know what you are liable for. Then the
enforcement could be each morning somebody comes in pulls three blocks out of the
bingo machine and says okay these are the ones we are going to hit today. You don’t
have to hit all 15 everyday in terms of the enforcement. Again, the regular parkers are
the ones that you are focusing on. So if you happen to miss somebody who happens to be
here for a lbng time on a random day, I don’t care.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. The next speaker is Katherine Pering to be followed by
GeoffBall.
Ms. Katherine Pering, 388 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. I too am very
impressed with Lynne’s work and the patience she has had with meetings on the parking
issue in our community. I noticed recently that on Everett the limousines are getting
longer. They are growing in size and it struck me that as time goes. on, we’re speaking of
a couple of years here, the cars are changing. ~And we have to think ahead and think
about we could have Everett lined up with limousines for Zibbibbo which has just
expanded. So it is a serious problem.
My main point that I wanted to talk about was in Attachment E. I was struck by the fact,
if I’m reading this right, Downtown North I believe goes through six residential permit
zones and then the rest is the other part of Downtown South neighborhood. It struck me
that Downtown North is a very unique human habitat. You have about 1,000 people in a
very small square of land basically bounded by San [Fransiquito] Creek, Alma and the
railroad track, and then Middlefield. It is very tightly boxed in. As of now there is no
humongous building activity going on except for the proposed parking garages. It is a
fairly stable neighborhood right now. I was wondering, I could not see anything in the
report that stated when the sequence of the parking permit plan would start. I wanted to
say that I think it should start in Downtown North. That could be done while they are
doing the new building for the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. If you start in Downtown North
it is very well defined. We would all be very cooperative because we want it. You’d see
what works and what didn’t work and it would be a smaller percentage of the total budget
that you’re asking for for the whole permit program.. Obviously University South also
needs to be protected but rather than wait until there is money for the whole thing why
not look at it as a two part program and begin in Downtown North. It is highly impacted.
We need help now not five years from now. For that reason I came up to speak. Thank
you.
ChairmanSchmidt: Thank you GeoffBall to be followed by Katherine Aln Ramira.
Mr. GeoffBall, 315 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: I just wanted to briefly and support the
notion of residential parking permits. I’ve lived there for about 25 years. I really have
seen the increase over that period of time and feel like if we don’t stop it now one of the
things that’s happening is that continues to spread further out into the neighborhood. One
of the other things you see is that is almost impossible for my music teacher even at 7:30
or 8:00 at night to find a place to park in front of my house or even anywhere near it.
One of the things that we find also is that Spago patrons tend to come and park right there
because I’m right around the comer from Spago’s. If we had a negative incentive they
might then use the valet parking which is available but not used by all of the patrons~ So
that would be a help to us as well.
One of tlae other notions that was mentioned early on was the notion of a lottery so that
you don’t get a permit for any place in the neighborhood but rather a permit tied to a
particular area within the neighborhood. This would tend to spread the load of the sold
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
permitsthroughout the neighborhood rather than simply having a permit in as close as
one can possibly get. So I get there early so I can use my purchased permit in the area
closest. Of course where I’m living I would see that impact and probably see no change
in the daytime at least because most of the bought permits would tend to be in that area.
It seemed like that was a worthwhile idea to throw in the mix, this notion of spreading
things out. Again, I urge you to support this. Thank you for the opportunity.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. The next speaker is Katherine Aln Ramira to be
followed by Brad Stone.
Ms. Katherine Alan Ramira, 525 Hawthome, Palo Alto: I’ve lived here with my family
since 1978. I also would like to thank the Staff and the residents who have put in time to
complete this plan. I urge you to support it. I also support the statements, of the other
residents particularly in regard to waiting until the garages are finished before you put it
into effect. There must be something I’m missing because I just don’t see the reasoning
for that. It doesn’t make sense to me to wait for that.
The other thing is that since I’ve been here since 1978 the quality of life has really
deteriorated. Many of us who came during.that time or since that time, when you buy a
house you move into a place and hope that you can live there. But there are people
making tremendous amounts of money in the City of Palo Alto and I think that the
residents are disadvantaged because of what’s happening with the traffic and the parking.
So I would just think that the parking is the first step that would help us to feel like we
live in a neighborhood rather than a parking lot. Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Brad Stone to be followed by LaNell Mimmack.
Mr. Brad Stone, 418 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto: I just want to say that I’m very
concerned about parking because I don’t have a garage big enough for my car and I don’t
have a driveway. So it is very important that I understand how we are going to resolve
the parking. I did read the report and I thought it was very well done. It addresses a lot
of the concerns I have. I think you’ve heard a number of people comment on the timeline
and I would reiterate that I think it is really important that we address this sooner rather
than later. The only other comment that I have is that I think we should make sure that
we try to address the cost of the permits in the context of making sure that there is enough
motivation to try to use Cal Train and public transportation for those people that do have
it available to them. I realize that there are a number of people that can’t benefit from
Cal Train to get to Downtown Palo Alto but there are a number of people that can. I’m
just concerned that being a Cal Train user myself, I take Cal Train from here to
Lawrence. It seems that the cost is more for me to .go monthly from here to Lawrence but
it seems like for someone coming from Lawrence to PaloAlto it would actually be
cheaper and of course more convenient to just hop in my car and drive to Downtown Palo
Alto. So I think it is really important. Lawrence seems like a reasonable benchmark to
make sure that we have at least a reasonable cost incentive to use public transportation
for the people that can benefit from it when determining the cost of the permit. Thank
you very much.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Chairman Schmidt: I think there is a question for you.
Commissioner Cassel: Could you tell me the cost of a monthly pass?
Mr. Stone: I’m not sure exactly what my pass is. I believe it is about $50 so that would
equate to $600 per year, give or take a few bucks. I think it is $45 to $55.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. The next speaker is LaNell Mimmack. Do we have any
additional cards? . ,
Ms. LaNell Mimmack, 422 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Alto: I’d like to read something from
13 Jim Newton who couldn’t be here tonight. Jim says: The one important area where I
14 disagree with the Staff is the recommendation of a delay in implementation pending
15 construction of Downtown parking structures. The current situation basically designates
16 the neighborhoods as the employee parking lots for Downtown businesses. The
17 businesses have chosen to reserve Downtown parking spaces for customers by two-hour
18 limits. They have not provided for those needing longer time limits, namely their
19 employees. This forces these employees to park in the residential areas. The City is
20 viewing the residential permit program as an end result of other solutions to the parking
21 problem. They say it can only happen when alternatives have been provided. Instead the
22 permit program should be a forcing function to make the other solutions happen. The
23 position should be that the neighborhoods no longer agree to be parking lots. Install the
24 program and force the City and employers to provide for their employees. There are
25 many arguments and multiple point programs about how to solve the parking deficit. The
26 permit program can help drive implementation of, firstly, the parking structures
27 Downtown. The current proposal is too large and is still opposed by the Downtown
28 North Neighborhood Association. Secondly, the shuttle. Eliminating neighborhood
29 parking will provide significant motivation for use of the shuttles from remote parking
30 areas. This will be an important element in making the shuttle successful. Thirdly, better
31 use of existing Downtown spaces. The Cowper lot is already being considered as a
32 supplement during construction of the new lots. It would also be possible to convert
33 some two-hour parking spaces to unlimited. Finally, increase use of alternative
34 transportation. Denying neighborhood parking will encourage employees to use other
35 ways of getting to Downtown Palo Alto. Move on the residential permit parking program
36 now and the implementation of the other favored solutions will be much easier.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
On a personal note, as far as policing people who are parking more than their time limit
in our neighborhood. We might help the police along with that. We can call them when
people are spending more than their allotted time in front of our homes.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. The next speaker is Marty Mallonee.
Ms. Martv.Mallonee, 235 Ramona Street, Palo Alto: I’ll be very brief. I just wanted to
say thank you to the Staff and to my many neighbors that have been involved in all this’
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
for so long and worked so hard on all this. I support everything that was said tonight,
pretty much. Thanks a lot.
Chairman Schmidt: I have a second card from Hannah Claybom. We don’t allow people
to speak a second time but I will ask you a question. Are your parking needs are just for
the weekend or during the week?
Ms. Clavborn: I as an employee and the employees and many of the working volunteer
staff of the museum work on the weekdays. Our large crowds currently are on the
weekends but our goal is to stay open Wednesday through Sunday. I did want to make a
slight redirect to the gentleman who mentioned that the Museum of American Heritage
should not impose its parking needs on the neighborhood. I did with all respect want to
point out that we are one of the neighbors in the neighborhood. And that I understand the
pressures of residential neighborhoods but as [Dwayne] and other planning gurus have
taught us to value multi-use areas like Downtown. I notice that one of the selling points
for Downtown is "walk to Downtown." That means basically walk to stores, walk to
cultural attractions, and ~,hat else is down there. If these parking permits, and I say if
because I am not well educated enough to say they will, chase away employees or make
it impossible for operations like ours to be viable in that district I think that’s a loss. I
think we are an important part of a diverse and mixed-use neighborhood.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you.
Commissioner Bialson: I have a question for Hannah. For what length of time do your
volunteers work at the American Heritage Museum?
Ms. Clavbom: We have probably 75 volunteers that work in different groups of jobs.
The volunteers who work greeting the public probably only work a two and one-half hour
shift. However, other people like myself and other employees who are working on
projects will work up to eight hours a day. It is a very common problem as it is now for
our volunteers to have to be going out every two-hours to move their car because there is
nowhere to park. So it is a problem for us now and I’m afraid that if we require our
volunteers to buy these permits which if you work it out on a day by day basis, but when
we’re asking a volunteer who’s getting no money to buy something that costs $400 a year
it might make it evbn more difficult for us to get volunteers.
Chairman Schmidt: One more question.
Commissioner Cassel: I know you have a few parking spaces on site. How are those
handled?
Ms, Claybom: There are actually only three non-handicapped parking spaces. To
explain this, we stepped in and restored the structure which I think is a good thing. I’m
speaking about a history that I was not present at so I may not be totally accurate. As I
understand it, in order to preserve the historic gardens surrounding our museum they
decided not to turn that into a parking lot. So in other words we have one of the most
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
rare things in Palo Alto, an unaltered 1920’s/1930’s garden. Instead of paving it over for
a parking lot we saved that for the people to enjoy. I’m sure people in the neighborhood
enjoy too.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Do you want to speak?
Ms. Sarah Donrack, 205 Emerson Street, Palo Alto: Are you talking about the parking
thing? Because I support what you’re doing.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. That’s the last card that we have. Seeing no one else
who wants to speak I will close the public hearing and bring this back to the Commission
for questions of Staff. Who would like to start? Pat? Phyllis?
Commissioner Cassel: In the report you mentioned difficulty with the evergreen
program. Could you explain what the evergreen program was?
Ms. Johnson: Yes. A residential parking permit program was instituted in the Evergreen
neighborhood in I believe the 1980’s when there was a health spa right there on the
comer of Park and E1 Camino. What was happening is that people who were using the
health spa were actually parking in the street preventing residents from parking in the
street. So at that time Council directed Staff to initiate a parking permit program which
we did. Actually the ordinance is still on the books however shortly after the ordinance
was approved the spa went out of business. So it sort of died a natural death you might
say. But at that time we did implement a residential parking permit program around that
area.
Commissioner Cassel: Did it work?
Ms. Johnson: There were lots of problems with it. We got a lot of complaints from
residents. They assumed they would have a guarantee of being able .to park in front to
their house, that still didn’t occur. They would complain about having to get guest
permits and dealing with service people, gardeners, cleaners, and things like that. So to
answer your question, it did keep the spa people from parking on the streets in that
particular neighborhood but if you would ask the residents there was it worth it, I think
you’d probably get a mixed reaction.
Chairman Schmidt: I assume it was discontinued after a certain period of time.
Ms. Johnson: Actually there was no need for it because the spa went out of business and
the problem actually went away.
Chairman Schmidt: So the plan was just implemented for a short time?
Ms. Johnson: I can’t remember exactly how long. I want to say definitely no longer than
a year.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
¯ 36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chairman Schmidt: Okay, thank you. Next question from Pat.
Commissioner Burr: I have a number of them but I’d be glad to rotate around. First,
Lyrme what are the boundaries that you are advocating for the zone?
Ms. Johnson: To the north we are talking about the area from Lytton all the way to the
northern City limits, Northern Palo Alto Avenue. Then over going east it’s not a straight
demarcation but there are lines over around Seneca and Guindaas far east as that. Then
for the south neighborhood it would be from the south side of Forest all the way to
Lincoln.
Commissioner Burr: The area east of Middlefield and north of University that is now
included there, when did that become part of the boundaries for the program? I don’t
recall it being there two to three years ago.
Ms. Johnson: Actually you’re right. When we first started this process we weren’t
considering that area. Probably in the last year and one-half or so, we have received a
number of complaints and actually have gone out and observed that parking from the
Downtown area be it employees, be it even in the evening hours people going to
restaurants are parking in the street even in that particular part of the neighborhood. So
we thought if we’re going to start we might as well start with areas that we know that
there is a problem. That is a much more recent problem than Downtown North but they
have started to experience the same problem.
Commissioner Burt: Another issue that was discussed in the early stages of this program
was that the natural boundaries of the current parking problem especially in the area
south of Forest are concentrated more between Waverley and Alma approximately than
are they from Waverley toward Middlefield. I have two questions related to that. One is,
if the boundary is created at Lincoln is there an anticipation that.there will be a significant
spill’over south of Lincoln due to the implementation of the permit program north of
Lincoln? Especially in that area between Waverley and Alma.
Ms: Johnson: That’s quite probable and it’s possible that if we implement it that it would
probably have to go all the way to Embarcadero eventually some day. I think in talking
with other cities who have instituted similar programs they find that the creeping effect
that you set an initial boundary and people will start parking outside of that. So the area
in which the permit program covers keeps expanding. I think certainly there has be a
maximum distance. I don’t see people crossing Embarcadero as an example if they are
coming to Downtown. I can’t see too many people doing that. I think you’re statement
is accurate.
Commissioner Burr: Related to that, there has been a great deal of excellent public
participation that you and Ashok have spearheaded in this program over the last three
years. But the participation has been principally by those people who are presently
impacted by the parking problems. Those people who may have a new problem as a
result of the residential permit plan, have those people had any kind of outreach to them
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
and are they participants in this process and have you had feedback from them on their
concerns or opinions on it?
Ms. Johnson: Certainly it hasn’t been as much as those people who. are in the core areas
who have lived with this problem for a number of years and in a concentrated
perspective. We’ve certainly included all the homes in this wide area as far as both our
surveys. We’ve gotten comments back. Just the survey results themselves show that the
number of people who responded to the surveys, the farther away from Downtown the
fewer people responded. But we have gotten some feedback. There is a concern that if
we start a program with an initial boundary that it would, especially in the north
neighborhood where I think that’s probably a pretty valid concern, that if you don’t go all
the way to Palo Alto Avenue as an example that most likely they would get the brunt of it
and a lot of people would be parking there.
Chairman Schmidt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Just a couple of questions. With regard to the charges for
permits, how did you come to the charges that are reflected in the report?
Ms. Johnson: First of all these are just conceptual figures that we’re dealing with. The
important thing would be initially to keep, and if you really want to keep non-residents
out of the neighborhoods, to charge more than what you’d charge for a permit in the
Downtown facilities. Currently there is a typo in the report. Currently annual permits to
park in actual parking garages andlots is $280 a year. So you want to charge more to
park in the neighborhoods the theory being that the less you pay the more apt you’ll be to
buy that permit. So we would want to encourage people to park in the Downtown
facilities as opposed to the residential areas. So that’s why there is a higher.cost. In
talking to other cities, you get to a point of diminishing returns. If you set the permit fees
too high many people won’t be able to afford to purchase them.. Then a number of things
happen. People find jobs elsewhere. They ask for their employer to compensate them.
There are all sorts of issues that come up with. a much, much higher permit fee. But the
numbers we came up with so we were sort of the...it was higher than the fee for the
Downtown facilities but not so high as to dissuade people from buying them.
Commissioner Bialson: Would you see a problem in having a higher figure so they were
dissuaded to the extent that they were shall we incentivized to use other means of
transport or come up with some other solution to getting employees to businesses
Downtown?
Ms. Johnson: It is a difficult situation because you are dealing with, as one of the
speakers mentioned tonight, you’re dealing with actually three different parties. You’re
dealing with land owners, business owners. You’re dealing with the people who lease the
property. And then you’re dealing with the employees. And we tried to talk to all levels
during this process. One of the things that I think we’ve come out with is that there are
many lower income employees, people who travel a long distance who work in the
restaurants for example, who get just over-minimum wage. Even $400 a year to park
City of Palo Alto Page 21
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
’32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
1 would be, when they travel an hour or hour and one-half to get to work, and they are
2 coming from areas with schedules that as it stands now public transportation isn’t
3 convenient for them, that presents a real problem for them. Now certainly there are many
4 employees in the Downtown area who currently park in the neighborhoods who make
probably more than all of us here and I don’t think that would be a problem for them.
But we’re trying to look at the whole picture here and that was one of the things that we
heard from some of those folks.
Commissioner Bialson: So you think that we could have higher rates but we have to
somehow ameliorate the impact of that on the lower income employees. Is that what I’m
heating?
Ms. Johnson: That’s an accurate statement, yes.
Commissioner Bialson: One other question. I have many but I want to give the rest of
the Commission an opportunity. In speaking to other communities that had these sort of
programs, did you speak to any communities that began these programs and then dropped
them? If so, why did they drop them? In speaking with some other communities that
continued them what did they see as the positive effects? I’d like to get some benefit of
the experience of other communities.
Ms. Johnson: Actually, I’m going to have Dave Dudley answer that. He’s had most of
the contacts with the other agencies especially ones that have dropped programs. I’m
going t° let Dave answer that., ’ ’
Mr. Dave Dudley: I did survey several cities that currently have the residential permit
parking programs from Carmel, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Monterey, Oakland, Pacific
Grove, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, San Marco, San Jose, and Sacramento. Those
particular cities still have their residential programs. Some of these programs go back as
far as 22 years ago. None of the cities that I surveyed have dropped their programs.
They are continuing today.
There was mixed reviews from them regarding their programs. Most of the cities said
that the programs are very difficult to implement and that it wasn’t exactly what the
residents thought it would be because of the complications of the residents getting
parking citations. That was one of the main issues. Some of the issues making it a
difficult time for some people to come and park if they have to go in and get a guest
permit and things like that. For example, Santa Monica says residents still complain they
can’t park in front of their house. That was one of the issues I notice from many of these
cities. The residents thought that they would be able to park in front of their homes but
found that just didn’t happen.
Commissioner Bialson: Did the contact inform you whether or not they were effective in
having the programs lessen parking in the areas that have the RPPs?
City of Palo, Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Dave Dudley: Yes it does. That was one of the issues where it did address the
problem of non-residents parking in the area. It almost eliminated that problem or was
able to get an upper hand and causing people to look at other modes of transportation
other than driving into the residential neighborhoods and parking.
Commissioner Bialson: Did you get any figures as to the cost of implementing these
programs? Were they used in coming up with the budget or the figures that we have
here?
Mr. Dave Dudley: Many of these other cities currently use a mixed amount of
enforcement of their current staff to enforce these areas. Since they’ve been implemented
for many years, some as many as 15 to 20 years, is that once you have a program in place
that long the enforcement of it is a lot easier so the costs go down. So if they would have
to implement a program today at the cost their cost would be v~ry similar to ours. Like
Sacramento they use 12 parking enforcement officers who currently are employed and
they also do their business and the residential parking. Their enforcement is $500,000 to
pay for that enforcement.
Commissioner Bialson: Do those areas have two or three hour free parking?
Mr. Dave Dudley: Sacramento has one and two hour time limits. Most of the areas in
Sacramento, San Jose haveno time limits it’s permit parking only. Most agencies that I
talked to suggested that permit parking is the cleanest way to do it as opposed to short
term parking. It is cost effective and it will eliminate people from parking at all in the
residential neighborhood because they would need a permit to park anywhere within the
residential area.
Commissioner Burr: I have a question also.
Chairman Schmidt: I think Phyllis had the next question.
Commissioner Cassel: Do any of these areas have parking meters for their two-hour
parking?
Mr. Dave Dudley: Parking meters?
Commissioner Cassel: Right. So you don’t have free parking for two-hours but you
could pay a fee for it.
Mr. Dave Dudley: Not in the residential neighborhoods.
Chairman Schmidt: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Among those other cities that have programs that put them in in
fairly recent times, what was the implementation timeline? How long did it take them to
implement the program from when they determined that that’s what they wanted to do?
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Dave Dudley: Menlo Park is the most recent city that I surveyed and it’s been there
for four years. Most of these other cities have had it for quite some time and most of the
Staff were unaware or did not know of the length of time that it would take to implement
that. Now Menlo Park only has just a small area over by the Flood Park area where
people go to Flood Park and I guess most of the problem is on the weekend. So for an
area like that where it is very limited the implementation time is very short. In these
other cities where it is extensive like 500 blocks; the implementation most said it would
take a year or more just to get it up and running. "
Chairman Schmidt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: In the report it indicated that an aggressive TDM program would
bring the number of people parking.in an area down by 20-25%. Would that also not be
true Downtown so that we would have 20-25% fewer people parking technically
Downtown, in other words, it would cover the whole City down by 20-25% unless some
people would find spaces and move towards the center?
Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer: That’s true. In fact, in our data it said we would
take that into consideration. When we have an aggressive TDM program there will be a
reduction of about 20-25% in the parking.
Commissioner Cassel: In the numbers that you gave us you’re estimating how many
people would be out of the neighborhood with an aggressive program and a parking
garage and so forth. You only counted the number of people who were actually parking
in that neighborhood. You didn’t account for the fact that the overall parking Downtown
would be less.
Mr. Aggarwal: That’s correct.
Commissioner Burt: A follow on question to what Phyllis was asking. If you project that
an aggressive TDM program would reduce by 25% the 1,500 current parking space
deficit that exists beyond the clinic employees, how many current Downtown parking
requirements would be also theoretically eliminated by an aggressive TDM program?
How many spaces Downtown are there and if you were to use that 25% figure then what
might the reduction be in demand?
Mr. Aggarwal: The 25% number is the overall estimate. What may actually happen is a
guess also. Generally TDM programs don’t result in that high a number of reductions.
They are closer to 10-15%. We believe when we have a shuttle program which we have
just started and between the shuttle and what we keep saying, thinking, at .least hoping,
that we’ll have a much more aggressive TDM program and the most we can do is 25%.
In terms of the reduction for Downtown spaces?
Commissioner Burt: Reduction in the demand. You’re saying that there would be a
reduction in demand for spaces in the neighborhood, these 1,500 spaces that are the
City of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
shortfall right now. I agree that the 25% reduction sounds like a very aggressive one and
an optimistic one. But it certainly seems to follow like Phyllis was suggesting that if
you’re going to get whatever percentage, is it 10%, is it 20%, is it 25%, if you’re going to
get that percentage off the 1,500 spaces you’re going to get it Downtown. So how many
spaces are there Downtown and then use that same percentage reduction in theory that
would apply there.
Mr. Aggarwal: Right now we have about 1,000 permit spaces in the public lots. And for
them we sell about 1,200 permits. So if we were to get that kind of a reduction in those
permit spaces we are talking about reducing about 250 spaces. Does that respond to your
question?
Commissioner Burr: Yes it does. Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I wouldn’t expect you to lose too many people who had permit
spaces already Dow~ntown to a TDM program. It would be nice but I bet that wouldn’t
happen. I would expect it would be people who didn’t get a permit who were parking on
the streets Downtown. We might get some people who already have permits to
participate in a TDM program but they’ve got themselves a space. Do you see what I’m
saying? So that might take people off the street and allow people to move from the
neighborhoods in. I don’t know how you put a number to that. I think there probably is
some number of people who want to be Downtown who aren’t coming down. I don’t
know how to calculate that and I’m sure you don’t either.’ I would think that would
lessen that number that would be in the outer neighborhoods by some small percentage.
Mr. Aggarwal: I don’t understand the question. Do you mind repeating it?
Commissioner Cassel: That was half a comment and half a question. I was trying to see
if we could follow that line of thinking. On the other hand I’m not sure we have an
answer at this point. Maybe it just needs to go into the thinking in the future planning.
Commissioner Burr: I think I might understand the question. In addition to people who
park Downtown in public permitted spaces there are other people who are parking
Downtown not in permit spaces, essentially the remaining sleepers as we call them, who
may be attracted to a TDM program. That is an additional group. I’m not sure that I
agree that we wouldn’t get some folks who currently are permitted to participate in a
TDM program. But there is another group ofparkers Downtown, there still are sleepers,
I hear the anecdotes. I hear it from shop owners who refer to their employees in that way.
Then you’ll hear the denial but I think it exists. So I think there would be two groups of
additional candidates for reduced demand Downtown as a result of the TDM program.
Those who currently have permits and those who do not.
Ms. Johnson: I would just add too that the cost for the permits for.the parking facilities
will also be going up. We don’t know what it is going to go up to but that will go up
City of Palo Alto Page 25
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
depending upon what happens to the parking garages. Every year the City’s
Administrative Services Department takes a look at the cost for the parking assessment
district and that is what determines the cost of the permits for the lots and facilities
Downtown. So those I think we can expect to increase as well And in an ideal situation
hopefully there will be some of those people who choose or can use alternative modes.
But I agree with Commissioner Cassel we’ll probably get those who are still sleeping.
Although they are sleeping at a very expensive rate because they are getting $25 per day
citations.
Chairman Schmidt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Follow up question to the $25 citations. In your estimation of
the costs were you assuming with a two,hour free parking allowance that you would be
enforcing every block every two-hours? Or were you looking at the spot enforcement or
so-called lottery enforcement? ¯
Ms. Johnson: We believe, again this is based upon our experience with Evergreen, based
upon talking with other cities, that at least for the first couple of years you have to do
continual enforcement.. Especially with timed parking because the people who work
Downtown and visit Downtown are very crafty. You would be surprised at some .of the
stories that our parking enforcement officers could share with you. Some people are
taking longer than 15 minute coffee breaks because they are, even now with no permit
parking program in place, they are moving their cars from color zone to color zone. That
can be a considerable distance away. They become very crafty. So unless you have
continual enforcement at least for the first couple of years there seems to be a lot of abuse
and a lot of violators that get away with it. I can tell you there are people who work
Downtown who can probably gauge their clock by sbme of the times the parking
enforcement officers come out. They are that cognizant of the enforcement actions.
Even without the two-hour parking one of the things we experienced in the Evergreen
situation, and I believe at least a couple of the other cities mentioned this, that you would
need as much enforcement and that’s true they wouldn’t definitely have to go every two-
hours. But because residents would call in so frequently about people who were parking
without any permits it ended up that you couldn’t pull people away from other tasks to
actually be able to cite them. So it happened that you’d actually have to staff it almost as
frequently because people would be calling in all the violators. It just worked out that it
made sense just to put somebody out there almost full-time.
Commissioner Bialson: What is your belief about the viability of this sort of program
with the two-hours free versus with no limited time period availability of that area? Just
making it permit alone.
Ms. Johnson: I think that it is certainly easier and less costly to enforce without the time
zone. There is absolutely no argument with that. I think that probably about 70% of the
surveys of the cities that we talked to have resident or permit parking only and no time
parking. The dilemma that we face here unlike in the other cities that we talked to
however deals with those Special circumstances, like the churches, like the Heritage
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
46
Museum, like the Women’s Club. Again, we are thinking about, as we mentioned in the
report and as I mentioned in my opening statement, we’ve already been approached by at
least three other neighborhoods in the City who are interested in a residential parking
. permit enforcement program. Then you get into the whole area of schools and how you
deal with those special circumstances. Most of the other cities have in their planning
required their facilities, churches, to have off-street parking so they don’t run into the
same problem that we’re faced with. They are not as old as the City of Palo Alto is in
many circumstances. Especially in areas where .they’ve implemented residential parking
permit programs. So that’s the downside to not having the free parking.
Commissioner Bialson: As a follow up. Could you designate areas around those sort of
uses such as the churches, etc., for some hourly concession to the permit parking and not
have it throughout the areas that we’re talking about? In other words, not allow two,hour
parking throughout say Downtown North but only around those churches, etc.?
Ms. Johnson: That’s one thing that we’ve spent a lot of time talking about. That is a
possibility however even that wouldn’t guarantee the visitors to the churches a place to
park. It would help but it wouldn’t totally resolve the problem. We struggled with that
and then again thinking more globally where do cut or how do define that? Is it just a
non-profit? There are some neighborhoods where there are actual businesses in. That
particular problem is probably one of the most difficult that we’ve struggled with.
Chairman Schmidt: Several of the speakers tonight mentioned the timing of the reality of
having this program and the idea of it being tied with the parking garage completion
especially since the parking garages have not yet been approved. Could you address
those things? Can the timing happen faster? Can part of it happen? Can this be
separated from the parking garages?
Ms. Johnson: It canbe separated from the parking garage. Again, regardless of what
happens with the parking garages, as I mentioned earlier, if Council gave us the direction,
the funds and everything else in reality it would take 18 to 24 months to.implement.
What we’d probably see is that because we would recommend that the number of permits
to non-residents be sold to distribute the load in the neighborhoods, as one of the speakers
mentioned. We already thought of that because realistically if we didn’t do that people
would buy permits and if we allowed them to park anywhere with their non-residential
permits the majority of the people would park as close to Downtown as possible. So
what our plan would be is to use a percentage based upon the number of actual parking
spaces available in each of the zones and thensell only a certain number of permits there.
So what that would do, asan example, if we sold 1,000 permits what that would do then
is automatically as Commissioner Burr mentioned earlier would extend the impact farther
into the other neighborhoods or farther, away from the core areas that are having the
problem. So in that respect it would help those people who currently live in the areas
where they are seeing the significant problem. Other than that, I’m not sure initially there
would be limited benefit because it would depend upon how many permits we would sell.
If we sell 1,600 then there would really be no change in the parking situation. If you sold
1,000 permits as we’ve discussed with the neighborhoods then the question becomes can
City of Palo Alto page 27
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
we realistically think that 600 people are going to find altemative means of transportation
or find other places to park. That is a question that we think, in all our discussions, is
probably pretty unrealistic. A certain portion of those people absolutely. But that many?
That is a more difficult question to answer.
Mr. Aggarwal: IfI may just add something. We really struggled and we discussed a lot
about implementation and just to re-emphasize and maybe add a few other things to what
Lynne said. ~Number one, like Lynne mentioned, it is going to take 18 to 24 months
which somewhat coincides with what we believe is the opening of the garage. We also
struggled in terms of how many people are parking fight now in the neighborhood. The
parking really affects both residents as well as businesses. If right now we go out and
issue 1,000 permits while 1,600 people are parking in the neighborhood then the big
dilemma for us is what do you do with the extra 600 people. So in terms of timing it is
not just building a parking garage but also the TDM program. By doing what we are
doing right now either we issue a certain number of permits or we face what will we do
with the remaining people to whom we can’t issue a permit. So I think those are some of
the factors that went into our discussion. It made more and more logical sense to wait up
until at least we have one of the garages open.
Chairman Schmidt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Let me pick up on another suggestion made by someone else.
That was that you start with Downtown North first before you go to Downtown South.
At first that seems very appealing and then I wonder if it just pushes the problem some
place else or does Downtown North have a more acute problem. Up front it has a certain
amount of appeal. What do you think about that?
Mr. Aggarwal: Well it sounds really good on the surface but you know what will happen.
If we implement the program in the north then people who are parking free on the north
will simply shift to south.
Chairman Schmidt: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: A couple of times it has been discussed about the relationship of the
new garages Downtown to the need for this. I found Ashok’s explanation just now more
accurate about the relationship between these two things. On page 10 of the Staff report
under Considerations, the second paragraph under Balloon Affect it says in the second
sentence, "Once parking structures are built it will be imperative to have an RPP program
in place." I found that real confusing because it seems that the construction of the
structures would diminish the need for the RPP program not create the imperative. It
maybe accurate to say that there would be some potential for a crisis in parking
availability if the RPP program preceded the structures. That I’d find to be an accurate
argument. Can you explain this argument that the construction of the structures creates
the imperative for the program?
City of Palo Alto Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Johnson: Sure, because if you have to pay for a permit to park in the new garages
and you still are allowed to park free in neighborhoods, I would be willing to bet that
most people wouldcontinue to park free in the neighborhoods. So if you build the
garages and add the additional parking permit spaces but you don’t have.a residential
parking permit program in place I think the parking in the neighborhoods would get even
worse than it is now.
Commissioner Burr: If you create a new 600 permit.spaces in the garage structures I
would grant that you would have a certain percentage of folks who otherwise might have
an incentive to buy those permits would not have the incentive if they could continue to
park for free in the neighborhoods. I would find it accurate that you would thereby
diminish the demand for those permits. But I don’t understand how you would create an
increased demand by having created 600 new available permit spots when you already
have a backlog on permits that are being requested for the existing 1,000 permit spots
Downtown. That doesn’t add up for me. Right now you have a backlog of how many
unfulfilled requests for permits Downtown, Ashok?
Mr. Aggarwal: About 1,500.
Commissioner Burt: Unfulfilled requests?
Mr. Aggarwal: That’s right.
Commissioner Burt: So these are people who have said they want to buy a permit and
they aren’t available. So the Staff report says that if suddenly we made 600 spots
available to those 1,500 people who want to buy them that we would create a worse
problem in the neighborhoods by doing that. I just can’t follow that logic.
Ms. Johnson: I see what you’re saying. To a certain degree what you’re saying has some
validity. Again keep in mind, as I mentioned the price of the permits is going to be going
up and depending upon how much they go up that could be a factor. I think there is some
validity in what you are saying.
Mr. Aggarwal: A couple of comments. Our wait list actually seems to have gone up
within the last six months to a year quite substantially. It is really difficult to say why it
has gone up. It went up one time aider the color zone parking and we knew why. It was
because we were forcing sleepers to do something different. I can only assume that
during the last year or so there have been a couple of newspaper articles maybe people
have found out Downtown that we are working on some sort of a program. Maybe they
went on the wait list just in case. They know there is a long wait list and it takes a year or
two to get a permit. Again, I have no basis to say one way or the other but just as an
assumption on my part because there is a certain surge on the wait list. So what I’m
saying is that you are correct. That once the parking structures are built, there are people
on the wait list naturally they should buy the permits. But knowing there is free parking
available in the neighborhood not everybody will buy it.
City of Palo Alto Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
¯ 30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The other thing that went into our thinking when we wrote that is also the desire on the
part of residents that when the parking structures are built we should be selling zero
permits to the employees for the neighborhoods. So the idea was to try and force almost
every single employee who is parking in the neighborhood back to the parking lots.
Commissioner Burt:. That was a request of some of the residents. I’m not sure that was
the only consideration throughout these discussions over the last three years. My
recollection of this going back five years is that the impetus for the permit parking
program began immediately following the implementation of the color zones. The
original problem was how to redress the problem created by the creation of the color
zones. When we then began to address that problem we had a greater request made
which to completely eliminate all problems related to non-resident parking. It seems that
we shifted the emphasis to that. Is that your understanding of the history of the process?
Ms. Johnson: Somewhat. I think that the color zone probably brought into focus more
clearly the parking problem. I actually pulled out a report several weeks ago that I think
was written back in the 1950s that talked about the parking problem in the neighborhoods
associated with Downtown. Now certainly it wasn’t nearly as bad as it is now. I’m not
even suggesting that. But I think just the proximity to Downtown Palo Alto over the
years hasn’t changed much. Just like even traffic to a certain extent. I think what we’ve
seen, and that’s why we did the survey at night, while the color zone brought the parking
into more of a clearer focus in the neighborhoods we don’t enforce color zones on
weekends and in the evenings. The parking in the neighborhoods especially in
Downtown North as we’ve heard from some of the people tonight, in the evenings is just
as bad. We are getting 70% of the people parking in those neighborhoods in the late
evening hours are non-City residents. So I think that it wasn’t just the color zones.
You’re right we have had discussions about just bringing the level of parking down to
where it was prior to color zones. I think, in all fairness to the neighbors, because the
situation has only gotten worse during the time we’ve actually been working on this,
especially for Downtown North, I believe there are real strong feelings in Downtown
North to work towards as Ashok mentioned to zero non-resident permits in that
neighborhood at least.
Chairman Schmidt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Two related questions. Do you see the enforcement of these
regulations, especially if we have hourly allowed, at night being a problem? Quite often
you don’t have parking enforcement officers available in the evenings. I see that we are
looking at a 10:00 p.m. cut-off on this.
Ms. Johnson: That actually is one of the reasons why it would be so costly. Because we
would be enforcing these new zones we’d have to hire a significant number of staff.
Because our days Monday through Friday would be longer than eight hour or ten hour
days that means you can’t hire one person to cover a full shift. So you actually would
have to hire two people to cover both the day shift as well as the afternoon/evening shift
so you would get that coverage. That does add to the cost.
City of Palo Alto Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Bialson: It also seems that having things hanging off windshields or
rearview mirrors, etc., the type of permits they might pick up from a residence that they
were visiting would have to then be very visible or you would haveto have someone
walking along each car shining a flashlight in to check whether or not they had a permit.
Is that correct?
Ms. Johnson: That’s correct. That’s often what other cities do who have evening hours.
Commissioner Bialson! And a related question. What would the impact of changing the
two hours to three hours be? I believe one of the speakers mentioned that and it seemed
like an appealing idea.
Ms. Johnson: Probably right off the top of my head I’d say that,that would enable more
Downtown employees to park in the neighborhoods for longer. Rather than having to
move their car every two hours they’d have an extra hour. So in a course of an eight hour
work day they’d only have to move their car two times or three times max. That’s one
thing that I think that probably would happen.
Commissioner Bialson: One of the other suggestions I believe the same speaker made
was giving the three hour zone in the areas further from Downtown. Make it two hours
close to Downtown and three hours further away. Is that something that is doable?
Ms. Johnson: I think that is very doable.
Commissioner Bialson: I’d like to see that perhaps in the proposal that perhaps City
Council receives. That’s all, thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: I have a couple of questions. We’ve talked, about the waiting list for
permits Downtown. Do you have any idea what the rate of adoption of is from. this list?
Does every single person who is on the list take a permit or is it 50% of the people on the
list as their name comes up that take the permits? Do you have any idea what the
percentage is?
Mr. Aggarwal: I know one thing. Everybody who is waiting on the wait list does not
always buy a permit. Not only that, people who are waiting on the wait list some of them
are waiting on several wait lists. For example, we allow people to wait on the wait list
for Civic Center Garage as well as Cowper/Webster Garage.
Chairman Schmidt: You don’t have an idea of what the percentage is?
Mr. Aggarwal: No I don’t.
Chairman Schmidt: People can indeed wait for specific lots or be on multiple lists. So if
it 1,500 or 1,600 people on the lists they may be duplicated and certainly not all of those
people would actually take permits.
City of Palo Alto Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Aggarwal: Let me try to answer this question differently. Normally this question
comes up in relationship to what the deficit is because it has more of a bearing on the
deficit. I know the deficit is not 10,000 and it is not 100. It hangs around somewhere
close to 1,500. It is based on not just one factor but three or four different elements. One
is the surveys we have done in the neighborhoods consistently show the number waiting
between 1,300 and 1,600. Two, the wait list is always hanging around 1~500 to 1,700.
That is when we sell permits on a quarterly basis. Three, if I go back to the Downtown
land use and classification study that number at that time was also close to 1,500. So that
number is close to 1,500. You might say that it is 1,200 or 1,300 but it is close to
somewhere in that range.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay. When we were reviewing the project that Roxy Rapp
proposed the Planning Staff had proposed kind of sharing use of the parking garage that
was part of that project. At that time I believe it was suggested that it might be possible
to look at other private parking garages Downtown see if there is some way that the City
could use underutilized space in some of these garages. Has the Staff looked at that at
all? I don’t know if there are lots of them or one of them or what sort of quantity we are
talking about. Is that a possible way to get more public parking spaces Downtown?
Ms. Johnson: We have actually looked at that in relationship to a parking contingency,
plan that we’d have to put in.place if and when the garages are built. So we’ve checked
with a number of not just parking garages but vacant lots and things like that. Due to
several things we found very few private property owners who would be willing to do
that. One of the issues that came up are the requirements in the municipal code the City
has as far as the amenities around a parking lot. Many property owners were unwilling to
put cost in associated with that. That is something that we are continuing to .work on in
relationship to the parking contingency plan. But at first blush, with a couple of
exceptions there were a couple of property owners that I think were amenable to the idea
but very few, not any that would have a significant impact on the parking Downtown.
Mr. Aggarwal: It seems like the only time we have been successful in doing that is when
there is property which is going through some sort of a development process. I remember
a time when property that was going to be developed we were able to lease it at low cost
for about a year. Similarly with 250 University Avenue where the Ramona Plaza is we
were able to lease that. So there are two examples where we were able to do something
with private property owners. Since then Lyrme mentioned that we have worked with
several different property owners and it doesn’t seem to work.
Commissioner Burt: Just to follow up on that. Lynne that was informative to hear really
for the first time that there are some specific disincentives for the owners of private
parking lots and properties that might be used as lots to make those available to the
public. Is the Staff looking at any prospective changes to the municipal code to eliminate
the disincentive and!or create incentives to encourage that practi.ce?
City of Palo Alto Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Johnson: We’ve had very preliminary discussion about that especially in
relationship to the contingency parking plan. But we haven’t made any movement in that
direction. But there have been some very preliminary discussions.
Commissioner Burr: We’ve had a number of times where the desire to liberate those
private spaces has come up. I would certainly like to encourage Staff to pursue that in the
context of several of our parking and transportation issues as they relate to one another
and see if we might have those proposals at a future time.
Ms. Grote: IfI could also interject something. We have, as far as a contingency plan
during construction of the garages, if those are to be approved,looked at relief of some of
the landscaping requirements that would ordinarily be expected and required for a
permanent surface lot. So there is consideration of that. That hasn’t reached any kind of
a conclusion yet but we’ve certainly discussed it. As far as using underutilized spaces in
existing facilities we still are pursuing a couple of opportunities for that. Again, no
conclusion yet but we are pursuing it.
Chairman Schmidt: Do you have any more questions Pat?
Commissioner Burt: I’m afraid so. On the issue of various non-profits and public
facilities and their needs I haven’t heard any discussion of those sorts of entities
essentially being residents of the neighborhoods and having the rights of residents of the
neighborhoods to on-street parking, Has there been any discussion within Staff that the
same sorts 3fprograms? For instance the American Heritage Museum we heard that they
have a certain limited number of full-time employees who sound to me like they have a
need for a certain number of permits and perhaps a need for some of the same access to
short-term permits as other residents have. That was formerly a residence.. Why
shouldn’t they at least have that level of access to permits?
Ms. Johnson: I guess I’m a little confused. If I understood your question, you’re asking
why shouldn’t these special circumstances have the same ability to purchase permits as
residents. Did I understand that correctly?
Commissioner Burt: Not just to purchase permits but a certain number of free permits.
Why shouldn’t the pastor of a church have a free permit? Why shouldn’t the full-time
employees at Williams House have a free permit? Secondly, why shouldn’t those non-
profits and public facilities have similaraccess to be able to have short term parking say
for their volunteer employees or whatever?
Ms. Johnson: I think we actually would intend to provide whatever same number of
permits that a resident would get, let’s say it’s two permits, that we had intended to give
each of those special circumstances the same number of free permits. I don’t think that
was real clear in here but that was our intention. Then as faras the time parking is
concerned, again, that would depend upon whether or not we want to face the issue of
actually doing it. The example we talked about was the block faces around these
particular special circumstances to have it all-time parking. That actually is a possibility
City of Palo Alto Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
however then that does impact the residents who live around there especially on
weekdays. As I think we note in the report, many of these especially the churches, have
activities where they have 30 or 40 people attend on a daily basis on a weekday. So
theoretically if they all parked in the timed parking that would prevent any resident from
.parking on that block face and they’d be parking blocks away again. So it is a tough
problem to deal with.
Commissioner Burt: It was pointed out by several speakers that this aspect of having the
two-hour permit free parking is a key issue both in terms of the cost of the program and
also the acceptance of the program by many of the residents. We’ve heard that in many
jurisdictions the lack of having that guest parking has been one of the reasons that the
programs have failed. I was thinking more about the enforcement aspects and what Hal
Luft had said which I think alluded to perhaps we don’t need 100% enforcement. If the
objective is to have an appreciable reduction in the present problem, whatever that is
defined as being, 50% reduction of the problem or return to what it was before color
zones, whatever we define as the objective and I’m concerned that we haven’t really
defined the objective well enough here. But in any event, whatever that objective is I’m
not sure we have to go through the expense of a very rigid enforcement in order to
achieve that objective. We may be able to have a moderate level of enforcement that also
is essentially revenue neutral. That’s another thing that I’d like to comment on, not only
what level of enforcement might we have but where does the balance strike between the
income from enforcement and the expense of the enforcement? And related to that, how
is that balance struck within the color zones? We are being told that we can’t afford or
that there is an enormous cost associated with having permit free two-hour parking but
that is exactly what we did in the color zones. We created permit free two-hour parking,
we have enforcement there, there must be some income from the enforcement and some
expenses from the enforcement. How does that all balance out and why couldn’t we
extrapolate that experience over to the residential area?
Ms. Johnson: Let me see if I can tackle that one. Let me take the last part of your
question first. With the color zone there are obviously enforcement expenses. The
citation revenue is close, about break-even. It is not a big money producer when you add
in the cost of vehicles and all the equipment, the parking citation contract with the vendor
and all those thing. The revenue collection staff adds into it because they deal with the
people who buy permits. So all those costs add up it is not just strictly enforcement. So I
would say, Dave correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s about break-even. We are not making
a whole lot of money. If you take away the cost the revenue from citations last year was
about $800,000. Probably with all the cost we might be making a little bit of money but
we are not making hundreds of thousands of dollars by any means. How that would play
out in aresidential parking permit program is harder to answer. Most cities I will tell you
charge all their residents for a permit. In fact they sort of laugh at us when we tell them
we are considering issuing two free permits, they said you will never come even close to
cost recovery. Especially if you go into an all permit type situation where you don’t have
time parking that most people are in .compliance. So you’re not getting the citation
revenue that offsets the cost for enforcement. So in reality parking enforcement in and of
City of Palo Alto Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
itself is kind of a strange duck because you enforce for compliance but the more
compliant you get the less revenue comes in to help pay for the enl~orcement.
Commissioner Burr: These other cities that do not provide free permits for residents, I
presume they also do not sell permits to non-residents.
Ms. Johnson: I think there is a correlation there. I haven’t looked at that exactly but I
think just looking at the matrix real quickly I think there is a correlation there.
Commissioner Burt: I presume that at least throughout the period in which there would
be a significant number of permits sold to non-residents that in that case we would have a
pretty good recovery on the expense of providing free permits to residents. Perhaps even
a net revenue income from that.
Ms. Johnson: .I’m not ready to make that statement yet. The revenue side of it is still so
unknown. We can offer 1,000 permits for sale. We can’t sit here and tell you that we’ll
be able to sell 1,000 of those non-resident permits.
Commissioner Burr: So some amount of an offset would occur and it is uncertain what
the balance would be here.
Ms. Johnson: That’s accurate.
Chairman Schmidt: Why don’t we take a short break. If we have any more questions
then we can do that or continue our discussion. Let’s take a five to ten minute break.
I’d like to call the meeting back to order. Let’s see if we can get into our discussion here.
I have a couple of procedural questions. In the description of what we are doing it says
this is the initial discussion and review of recommendations of the feasibility of this.
That sounds like it will come back to us, is that correct?
Ms. Johnson: We can certainly come back to you. I think that originally we thought
there would be a discussion tonight andadd your comments and suggestions and then
move forward to the Council. But if you desire we certainly can come back to the
Commission before we do that.
Chairman Schmidt: What’s outlined here is the basic program proposal.
Ms. Johnson: That’s correct.
Chairman Schmidt: Then procedurally as for comments do we need a motion on this or
do we make comments and then make a motion sending our comments forward to City
Council like we have done on other subjects?
Sue Case, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Yes, I think the latter. Because the agenda
talks about discussion and review I think the most appropriate thing would be for
City of palo Alto Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
¯ 30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
¯ 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
everyone to give their comments and rather than taking a vote on adopting anything or
recommending anything.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Are there any other brief questions before we get into
some discussion here? Okay. Who would like to begin? Pat would you like to begin?
Commissioner Burr: It is clearly one of the more complicated issues that we have
encountered recently. I think that there are two key-elements that have been most
controversial. One is the allowance of two-hour parking without a permit and the other is
the implementation timeframe. On the latter point of the implementation fimeframe
we’ve been told that we would prospectively creating a crisis if this was implemented
before the garages were built Downtown. If we assume certain reduction in demand from
the TDM program, the Commute Coordinator and the shuttle and whatever other
elements of the program exist, the Staff proposal suggests 375 spaces reduced from the
demand that would be unfulfilled after the clinic is moved. Plus we approximate another
250 spaces Downtown from current permits. This results in 625 spaces that theoretically
would have a reduced demand for permit parking as a result of the TDM program. So
whatever number we assume whether it be 625 or 500 it seems that it would be plausible
to implement a program prior to the construction of the garages that would initially allow
selling of the permits to non-residents ina way that would not create the crisis. Initially
there would be 500 or 600 fewer permits allowed to be sold than the current deficit
creates. I’d be lnterested in what you folks think of that.
Chairman Schmidt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I have to think about that. My comments in general are that I
think a lot of thought has gone into this plan by both the residents and City Staff. I think
this is an excellent work product. My feeling is that we should try to get it in effect as
soon as possible and not have it wait for the garages. I think we can have the permits that
are allowed reduced as the garages come online and the reduction could be accomplished
by essentially whenever we have a turnover of a permit, not pulling someone from a wait
list, but rather retiring that permit. I would like to see a two-hour zone maybe extended
to a higher number of hours out of the core area. I would also like to see the plan
whereby we distribute the load of permits throughout the geographic area. I would also
like to treat businesses and non-profits as residents. Perhaps consider not strictly giving
them just two permits but looking at the type of use and the number of employees. In
that regard what we may want to do is just give them priority in getting permits in the
areas that they are located. I see the difficulty with enforcement. I do think we need the
type of strict enforcement that Lynne mentioned rather than the spot enforcement. I’ll get
back to Pat as soon as I ponder it some more.
Chairman Schmidt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: It is interesting that no one from the business community came.
Although the residential parking program effects the residents intensely there isn’t
anyone from the businesses responding back and saying that it effects us which is rather
City of Palo Alto Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
interesting. I was talking to a bank manager and we were talking about how complex this
problem is. She said that she is having a hard time finding employees. They can’t live in
town. They come from a wide range in the area. They come because they need a job, to
be trained, they have very low paying jobs. She gets them trained and then they move on
to a more local bank in their particular neighborhoods because they have a job skill that
they can handle. She is getting them because no one can live here so she is able to go out
of town and bring some people in that are unskilled. She deliberately gives them time to
move from color zone to color zone. It. is not just take a coffee break. It is in order to
have her employees here who are not on a bus line to get here somehow from wherever
they are coming from. She needs to make sure that they can park without getting tickets.
So she finds it inconvenient. It is costing her money. She can’t get them permits. So she
gives them time to move from one color zone to the next color zone in order that her
employees will stay with her long enough that she can get them trained and have them be
of use to her. So from the flip side of the coin you get a sense of how difficult this is. I
need the bank and it would be difficult if it’s not there. Although I don’t go into it as
often and we don’t need as many employees directly there. So that is the flip side of that
issue.
I think it would be really difficult on neighbors if we don’t have some two-hour spaces in
these neighborhoods. I know this is going to be hard to monitor. I don’t know whether
you put parking meters in them in order to give yourself some extra money or if that
gives .you extra money. Every neighborhood park in this City is used .by people from
outside that neighborhood. Every neighborhood has things that happen in them that are
not directly related to people who are residents in that neighborhood. So it’s going to be
extremely difficult. Yet we need to reduce all these cars in the neighborhoods. I think
the Downtown North area is severely impacted. Somehow or other some space needs to
be available for people to getin and get out and do something without having to walk up
to a resident’s door and ask for a permit.
Maybe those need to be around certain kinds of uses, and yes, you won’t necessarily get
all of the spaces in that neighborhood. I know people come to my neighborhood park
from all over the City for their kids to play Little League or whatever. Those neighbors
on that street are impacted by that use. I’d like to see some way in those areas for that to
happen.
Obviously the most urgent question is whether we should proceed without the parking
garages in place. It seems so logical to wait and yet I don’t know how long it is going to
take to get those garages in place or whether they will actually happen. And I think that’s
the concern. I’m not sure if we implement it whether it will feel any different. If we
implement it before the garages go in that we’ll be able to provide enough relief. Your
report is saying it is. It is also possible to try to implement and if it doesn’t work to back
off. I presume it is. Because we don’t know for sure that the garages are going to happen
and because we don’t know for sure the timing is going to happen, we should proceed.
We will know whether it comes closer to the time. If the garages aren’t going to happen
for four years then we can go ahead and proceed. If it is going to be a few months or six
months then we can wait. But then we will be ready to go ahead and proceed in case
City of Palo Alto Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
something happens and they collapse. I’m willing to do everything I can to help the
TDM program to work everything we can do in that. That’s it.
Chairman Schmidt: I’d like to say a few things before we go back around here. I agree
with a lot of the comments that have been made especially some of the added suggestions
that Annette made. I also agree with Pat’sinitial statement. This is a very complex issue
and obviously a lot of time has been spent on it. It seems to me that it is fairly rare to
have such fairly consistent support of the Staff report from the people who where here
tonight. It seems like no matter how much time has been spent on a Staff report typically
or on the work there are often many more things that people have to comment about.
Whereas here the basic thing is taking exception to the timing and tying it with the
parking garage. ~
I think indeed we do need to respect what theneighborhoods want and give this a try, and
try to do it as soon as we can and not link it specifically to the parking garages. Although
it obviously will take some time to implement I would hope that it could be implemented
more quickly. I think also that it is necessary to try to maintain some of the free two-hour
parking. That definitely makes it more complicated but I think we need to be realistic
and try to maintain some of that. I would also like to see the City actively pursue
additional parking spaces Downtown. As you said earlier this evening that there are
problems with using existing vacant lots or existing parking garages. I think that if we
don’t try to find additional spaces as well as actively pursuing TDM that any permit
parking we do will just move the problem elsewhere. I’m sure people will walk or do
their mini-carpools from further out and the balloon will just keep going elsewhere. So I
think some creative use of existing parking is an important factor. The other ideas of
trying to get additional good transportation Downtown, all of the kinds of things we
would like to see in a good transportation program are going to take awhile. So hopefully
we’ll get fewer people eventually using their cars but all of these things need to be
pursued.
I personally would be interested in actually trying some of that more loose enforcement.
I understand what you’re saying to make it effective you need to be very strict about the
enforcement. I think Pat noted if you get not perfect compliance but if you get more
compliance, if you’re getting some of the people or half the people to be afraid of getting
tickets, you are at least making a dent in the problem.
I want to make a couple of comments about information that I would include in the report
when it goes to Council. I think it would be useful to have a map in here showing where
the limits are, that it goes beyond Middle field. I think the information about what the "
programs in other cities have done. I think a brief summary of that would be useful to be
included. I’m sure that Council will ask additional questions about that and about costs
of implementing it in other cities.
As a final comment, include a note that the reports notes in final comments that this is not
going to guarantee that the people who live in these neighborhoods can park in front of
their houses. That in fact, there will still be almost as many cars parked in the
City of Palo Alto Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
neighborhoods it will just be a different composition, people with permits and a few ¯
people without.
Anyway, it is something that the neighborhoods are interested in trying and I think we
should go ahead and give it a try. Pat. ~
Commissioner Burr: Phyllis brought up the issue of low income employees Downtown
who could be severely impacted by this program. Although they haven’t been
participants extensively in the design of this program and they are not here tonight, they
are home in their towns were they live, I think that their concerns need to be addressed
here. We saw when this first was proposed three years ago we saw a rash of letters to the
editor in the papers from a lot of those employees. Two things that I think might help
address their problems, one is that Phyllis mentioned that many of them are not adjacent
to transit routes. We may see a change in the patterns in that the shuttle system will
create opportunities for satellite parking through out the City. That employees may end
up going to various residential areas around the shuttle stops and parking there.
Hopefully we won’t see that that’s going to be a significant problem but it may disburse
the problem somewhat. Second, I’m concerned with the proposal to charge significantly
more for the permits in the residential permit area than for the Downtown structures.
Three years ago when this was first discussed I thought the concept was to charge less in
the residential areas under the notion that they are less desirable spots. And that the
permits wouldn’t be bought unless they were at a lower fee to park five blocks away and
have to walk versus to have a permit to park in the middle of City Hall. So I certainly
would not support charging more for the permits in the neighborhoods and that $400 plus
per year for a low income employee is a very significant amount of their earnings. Also
Phyllis had mentioned the possibility of experimenting with it but because we have
almost a $1 million start up cost I think we’ve got to make a decision that we’re going to
be comfortable with sticking with. There might be some modifications that can be done
to the program but overall the decision of whether we’re going to have a permit program
and keep it needs to be one that we would be prepared to stick with.
I’m also concerned that the entire notion of having a long term goal of completely
eliminating non-residential parking in the neighborhood, or at least long term non-
residential parking in the neighborhood, is not the appropriate obj ective. It was not what
prompted the study of this proposal. I don’t think it is necessary. What people in the
neighborhoods need is a reasonable opportunity, to park within a short distance of their
homes. We should have that as the objective and whatever reduction in non-resident
parking is necessary to meet that objective is what we ought to be going for. If it’s 50%
reduction in non-resident parking or whatever it is that is what we ought to be aiming for
and devise a program around that objective. I live almost diagonal from the Children’s
Library.. We have the Lucile Stern Center in Rinconada Park and all kinds of public ¯
facilities in front of our house and my neighbors homes. We very frequently cannot have
parking. That was the case when we bought our homes there for the most part. If there
were a radical change for the worse in that pattern then we would have a more legitimate
basis to request the City to redress that problem. But to go toward an objective of
eliminating all inconvenient parking in our neighborhoods I don’t think is fair and I don’t
City of Palo Alto Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
,9
10
11
12
13
14
15
¯ 16
17
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
think it is what we ought to be aiming for. I don’t think the program ought to be designed
for that purpose. These people have a very legitimate concern that we should address but
we shouldn’t go from one extreme to another. I think in aiming too high we may doom
the program to failure. So I think a moderate program is the one that has the best chance
of long term success which is what these residents really need.
Finally, we might want to consider one difference between the Downtown North and the
University South programs. That is in the evenings the Downtown North has a much
more acute problem than University South. So we might set a different time limit on
when the permitting period ends. University South might be able to end at 8:00 p.m.
whereas Downtown North might need the 10:00 p.m. That would be my final
recommendation.
Chairman Schmidt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I think that Pat put what the objective of this program to be as
well as I could possibly hope. I think he stated the objective as being appropriate to
individuals living in a city and that’s what Palo Alto is, a city. We choose to enjoy
Downtown and if we live close to it we get some of the detriments as well. So I
absolutely subscribe to what Pat had to say about what this program should aim to do.
I also agree with regard to there being different treatment of University South from
Downtown North with regard to at least the evening hours,if not some other components
that need to be worked on. I think we’ve got to divide this area up.
I disagree with Pat in one area and that is the cost of the permits. We are not trying to
encourage people getting permits. That would be why we would charge a lower amount
than those people who are getting permits in the garages. Our aim here is to provide
somewhat of a safety valve for the overflow of those who cannot park Downtown. What
we are looking for then is getting people to compensate both the City and the residents
for the burden of their parking in the area. I would want to have that permit be as high as
it could be as an incentive to the individuals to seek some. other form of transport or
parking in the area. While this does impact low income employees I’d make the permits
Downtown less expensive and try to shift as mhch as one can do given all that we are
controlling as parking the burden of this to the employers rather than the employees. Just
as Phyllis mentioned with the bank manager giving longer breaks than 15 minutes to
allow her employees to move their cars around the color zones I think businesses will
figure out some way to ameliorate the impact on their low income employees with regard
to what we should charge for permits in the residential areas. I also agree with Pat when
it comes to hoping that the shuttle will give an opportunity for some satellite parking. I
have somewhat of a concern about the 18 months that we have a pilot program for the
shuttle perhaps coming to a close just when we start having a real impact in RPP. Maybe
it will coincide somewhat.
Chairman Schmidt: Phyllis do you have any additional comments?
City of Palo Alto Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Cassel: Yes. I’m a little apprehensive when people start talking about
people parking outside an area and shuttling in on the shuttle bus. I think what you were
saying was a little different than what most people usually say when they do that. But I
do know that people park at the Town & County and then take the Marguerite into
Stanford in order to avoid their fee. So there maybe some of that. I,want to be clear that
that’s what yourre saying and not that people are going to set up some shuttle systemin
the bay-lands for people to come Downtown and avoid that. That’s a whole different
issue and we’ve lost all our money moving people in town and around.
The other issue on the shuttle bus we are moving people in town and around that doesn’t
help us moving people out of town. I think a significant part of our problem in the
Downtown area is people coming from outside. I think the numbers that you gave us
were something like 20% of the people are from other parts of the City coming
Downtown.
I agree that the goal of having 100% non,residents parking in the neighborhoods is
probably unrealistic and will probably turn out to be very difficult to live with. It sounds
wonderful but probably really difficult to implement. We’ve talked a lot at other times
about charging people for parking. I don’t think we should be frightened about that part
of it and use that in as creative of ways that we can. If you’re going to use two-hour
parking zones then put in parking meters to help if you can get away with that.
I think in the report you mentioned treating different zones differently at the times that
come up at night and it is not necessarily Downtown North versus University South
because as you go west towards Alma there are more restaurants in that area. So both
north and south areas get impacted by that problem in some areas more than others and
we should look at those various zones and what impact that is on the neighbors. That
may make a big difference. Those are my additional comments.
Chairman Schmidt: I’ll just make a couple of additional comments about the cost of
parking. I agree with Annette’s response to Pat’s comment. I would definitely charge
more for parking in the neighborhoods rather than parking in a parking garage or parking
Downtown. I think we want there to be a disincentive to park in the neighborhoods.
Phyllis brought up the concept of paying for parking. Absolutely, we should be paying
for parking. That’s one of the problems that we’ve generated by making the cost of using
a vehicle relatively low. So everybody uses a vehicle and has free parking in most of the
communities around here. I don’t think that is realistic in this day and age. I think we
need to be charging for parking. This is a start and I would hope we would see other
opportunities to charge for parking too. It costs us all lots of money. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I’d just like to take one more crack at persuading mycolleagues to
think a little differently on this fee structure for the permits that are for sale. Kathy your
concern about creating a disincentive to park in the neighborhoods, that is addressed by
limiting the number of available permits for sale. That’s part of the program. So that by
not increasing the fee for the neighborhood permits beyond the Downtown fees we don’t
significantly alter the number of permits because we’ve placed a cap on them. It would
City of Palo Alto Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
be a cap that in theory would be reduced somewhat over time. Along that same lirie of
thinking is that.we’re talking about market based incentives for parking. That’s been a
concept that we’ve talked about. Well, within a market based incentive what you do is
you charge more for those things that are more desirable. If the most desirable spots are
Downtown under City Hall or Cowper garage or wherever those are the ones that ought
be charged the most for. If we have an additional objective which is to not create a
circumstance where low income employees are driven out of the ability to work
Downtown as a result of the permit structure then I think we ought to make the least
desirable permits, those where they have to walk the greatest distance, the least
expensive. We control the concern of the neighbors by capping the number of permits.
That is much more of a market based program that not only gets more revenue and we
ought to charge more for those that are under the key City lots, but it also addresses the
needs of the low income employees. So those are the reasons that I still think strongly
that we ought to rethink and perhaps reverse the financial structure of this permitting.
Chairm~tn Schmidt: Annette..
Commissioner Bialson: I’m going to make one last comment because I think we’ve done
¯what the Staff has asked us to. In looking at the cost of the permits I understand what and
understand the logic especially of what Pat is saying with regard to market based
incentives. But he is taking only the perspective of the consumer here. We’ve got to
look at the perspective of the residents as this being a very undesirable thing to
accomplish. That is having people park in their area. Again, if you look at that area as a
safety valve and you do allow parking there, strictly limited, you still would want that to
be an area that does not attract people. I share the concern about low income employees
but I do think that we want to make sure that if people are given a choice the choice is to
park Downtown not in the neighborhoods.
Chairman Schmidt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: We’re making a presumption that one gets a choice, ffyou are
not being given a choice as there is now, so that you have a choice to wait for a parking
space in the underground garage in the City but rather have to take the parking place that
they are given. Then all of this is rather mute. I can’t imagine that that will totally
happen but that should be factored into this. How much choice are people going to have?
Are they going to have a zone that they can wait for?
Commissioner Bialson: What I see is that is that people sign up for certain parking
garages or parking lots. You want them to always be on the wait list and taking those
positions in the lots not in the neighborhoods. The neighborhoods should not be a
substitute parking garage for Downtown.
Commissioner Cassel: I agree with you but if there is no choice and the City Staff is the
one who is going to say we’ve got a spot Downtown you can’t have one down in the
neighborhood, or you just don’t get any choices, then these arguments about pricing
become mute.
City of Palo Alto Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
~3
44
45
46
Commissioner Burr: I guess I can’t imagine which worker Downtown would choose to
park five blocks away versus parking one block away. So the disincentive to park in the
neighborhood exists based upon the distance.
Commissioner Cassel: If you have a choice. If you only have a zone that you can wait
for and the zone takes five blocks away if you’re going to get a space. That is a fact that
we haven’t considered. We just kind of threw that subject out tonight and we haven’t
looked at the long term factors of that.
Commissioner Bialson: I think what we are trying to do is have people consider
alternative means of transport and giving them space at a lower rate in the neighborhood
is not doing that.
Chairman Schmidt: For the record I will agree with Annette. I understand Pat’s market
rationale but I think there are other things working here. Also since this is a program that
is City-sponsored if they learn other things about the program they can change the
pricing. I would start with the higher pricing in the neighborhoods. I would get the TDM
Manager actively working on everything and trying to work with employers to get the
employers to pay for any and all employees or subsidize paring in someway or come up
with other creative methods to find adequate parking for employees who do not tiave high
incomes.
Does anyone have any more comments? Okay, then We need a motion to forward our
comments to Council.
MOTION: Commissioner Bialson: I would so move.
SECOND: Commissioner Cassel: I’ll second that.
MOTION PASSED: Chairman Schmidt: It has been moved by Annette and seconded
by Phyllis to forward these comments to City Council. All those in favor please say aye
(ayes). All those opposed say no. That passes unanimously. We mentioned the
possibility of the program coming back to us I don’t know if we have any comments to
follow up with that or if we are satisfiedwith this.
Commissioner Bialson: I think we should leave that to Council to determine whether it is
appropriate to send it back to us.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay. Does that sound appropriate? There are heads nodding that
that sounds appropriate. I want to thank everyone for coming tonight and thank the Staff
for obviously doing an outstanding job of working with the neighborhoods around here
and receiving a lot of praise from them for the work that has been done. Thank you.
Okay, the next item on the agenda is Reports From Committees and there are none. The
next item is Reports From Officials and I saw that Joe Kott had to leave, I was assuming
City of Palo Alto Page 43
Parking Survey Taken On February 21, 2001 Between The Hours Of 1000 And 1130
Definitions:
(1) Zone is Area North + Area South + Area East
(2) P.A. Residents live in Palo Alto but not in the Area (Area = four block radius)
Area Residents P.A. Residents2 Non P.A. Residents
Area North Number % Number % Number %
Street
Total
% of
Area
Palo Alto Ave.10 25%8 20%
Hawthorne 31 28%8 7%
Everett 24 16%17 11%
Ruthven 9 47%3 16%
Poe 4 57%0 0%
Tasso 4 50%2 25%
Alma 4 17%5 21%
High 5 11%8 17%
Emerson 12 15%4 5%
Ramona 8 13%1 2%
Bryant 18 24%4 5%
Waveriy 8 13%9 14%
Kipling 6 12%5 10%
Cowper 26 39%3 4%
Webster 12 18%10 15%
Byron 13 42%4 13%
Area North Total 194 21%91 10%
22
71
113
7
3
2
15
34
62
51
54
46
41
38
45
14-
618
55%
65%
73%
37%
43%
25%
63%
72%
79%
85%
71%
73%
79%
57%
67%
45%
68%
40
110
154
19
7
8
24
47
78
60
76
63
52
67
67
31
903
4%
12%
17%
2%
1%
1%
3%
5%
9%
7%
8%
7%
6%
7%
7%
3%
100%
% of
Zone1
2%
5%
7%
1%
0%
0%
1%
2%
4%
3%
-4%
3%
2%
3%
3%
1%
43%
Area South
Alma 0 0%0 0%
High 5 21%4 17%
Emerson 7 13%6 11%
Ramona 12 18%5 8%
Bryant 13 21%6 10%
W averly 11 24%7 15%
Kipling -9 69%0 0%
Cowper 21 29%11 40%
Webster 33 31%14 13%
Forest 28 28%4 4%
Homer 22 20%25 23%
Channing 24 24%7 7%
Addison 24 29%15 18%
Lincoln 16 33%6 13%
Hamilton 0 0%1 6%
Scott 6 60%0 0%
Area South Total 231 25%111 12%
15
42
48
42
28
4
4O
59
69
63
69
44
26
17
4
575
00%
63%
76%
74%
69%
61%
31%
56%
56%
68%
57%
69%
53%
54%
94%
40%
63% .
5
24
55
65
61
46
13
72
106
101
110
100
83
48
18
10
917
1%
3%
6%
7%
7%
5%
1%
8%
12%
11%
12%
11%
9%
5%
2%
1%
100%
O%
1%
3%
3%
3%
2%
1%
3%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
2%
1%
O%
43%
Page 1 of 2
Parking Survey Taken On February 21,200i Between The Hours Of 1000 And 1130
Definitions:
(1) Zone is Area North + Area South + Area East
(2) P.A. Residents live in Palo Alto but not in the Area (Area = four block radius)
Area Residents P.A. Residents2 Non P.A. Residents
Area East Number %Number %Number %
Street %of . %of
Total Area Zone1
Palo Alto Ave.11 61%1 6%6 33%18 6%1%
Everett 2 29%2 29%3 43%7 2%0%
Forest 14 47%1 3%15 50%30 10%1%
Homer 10 53%2 11%7 37%19 6%1%
Channing 3 18%3 18%11 65%17 6%1%
Hamilton 8 35%4 17%11 48%23 8%- 1%
Lytton 5 31%2 13%9 56%16 5%1%
University 1 14%1 40%5 71%7 2%,0%
Fulton 31 36%2 2%52 61%85 29%4%
Guinda 27 60%,1 2%17 38%45 15%2%
Seneca 13 62%2 10%6 29%21 7%1%
Boyce 6 60%0 0%4 40%10 3%0%
Area East Total 131 44%21 7%146 49%298 100%14%
ZoneI Total 556 26%223 11%1339 63%2118
Page 2 of 2
Residential Preferential Parking Zones Map
i