HomeMy WebLinkAbout0211.093,
-
~~.
. , . " , . , .; . .
March 18. 1993
THE HONORABLE CITY CO'L"NCIL
Palo Alto, California
11
Recommendation to Extend Downto~_~~-Hour Parking for liD Days
Pending rurth.r study of Sle_~per Parking Ordinance 4!t"~Q_st/Rev'nu.
analyst. of f.rkinq Progr~
Members of the Council:
Report ip~.t
On July 13~ 1992. the City Council directed staff to prepare a
report regarding the feasibiU.t~· of changing the one hour on-street
par)r;:inq limit to a t'..,;o hour parking li:mit in the Dow-nto· ... -n area
during luncntime hours. In addressing cou~cil'5 assignment, staff
became convinced that the issue of Downtown parking 'Was !!'lore
complicated. As a resultr Transportation Division and Police
Department staff have assessed numerous factors associated with
parking signage, revenue iMpact, control of sleeper parking, and
neighborhood intrusion. Staff ha.s also met with the DOllmtown
Marketing conunittee and the Palo A.lto Chamber of Commerce par-Idnq
subco!lUllittee and has surveyed Do-wmtown business owners for their
input and ideas.
The Palo Alto Municipal Code authorizes the city Manager to
designate parking time limits for a period not to exceed 120 days.
Under-t..""1is provision, the time 1 imi ts il'1. the Downtown area were
converted to tw'o hours over the recent holiday period. While staff
has been dilige~tly working on this assignment and had anti~ipated
z:-eturning to Council with specific recon!r1endations that address the
Downto .... "1l parking issues much soonl;r, additional time is still
ne.edea before final recommendations can be made. This report
provides a brief history of the Do~nt~wn parking situation;
provides a summary of parking enforcement activity costs and the
revenue in:pact of extending Downtown parking to t~lO hours i and
recommends that Council adopt a resolution authorizing an
additional 120 day extension for tiiO hour parking. During that
time, staff ..... ill continue to ..... ork on t,he cost/revenue analysis as
well as ~ork vith the Downtown business community in the
development of a sleeper parking ordinance. The possible revenue
loss associated · .. ith this extension is estimated to be between
$46,000 and $53,60D.
CMR:211:9J
Page Two
Background:
In 1978 { a comprehensive Do'..;nto'..-n parki.ng f-easit'ility study 'Was
conducted by a coC".sul tant, Alen M. Voorhees Iii Associate.';. At that.
time, tr..e studi' estirr.ated a deficiency of appr-oxl.1'T1ately 1,700 long
te!"m empl~yee parking spaces 2r .. j 600 short-term (visitor) parking
spaces, The result.s of the study led to the i!nple:mentatior. of oS.
Downtown Parking Management Plan that proposed short-and long
range plans to reduce the parking shor-t.fail (CMR 554:1). Se .... eral
short-term actions were implemented r inclu.ding the pro1!lotion of
carpools, lQt restriping to allo~ for compact cars and installation
of bike lockers, proposed l~ng-range actions included establishing
a parking permit systel'!'"1 for surrounding resid-=ntial are:as and
building of additional parxing structures. Federal fun·jing was
sought and rnad,o; available for a tlor.·o-year demonstration parking
program (parking permits) a~d altern~tive mode programs (Park and
Ride lots and shuttles to Downto,",n) j h01e'ever, this was never
pursued due to lack of public support. since then, new parking
structures have been built at Lot J (418 spaces) I Lot B (132
spaces) and one level of public parking at: the 250 University
Ave~ue underground parking garage (62 spaces) ~
In 1981, a petition signed by numerous citizens requested that one
hour on-street time 1imits be extended. Council decided to keep
the parking limits at one hour based upon 1) a recommendation in
the parkinq study that one hour 1imi ts be shortened to half an
hour, 2) the Comprehensive Plan policy that emphasized the need to
provide mo~e convenient customer parking, and 3) the problem of
employees and long-term parkers monopoli~ing the more convenient
parking spaces.
During 1982, CQ'.Jncil requested that staff revie",-the problem of
sleeper parking. Sleeper parke:rs are those people -who park for
e>ltended periods of time in one or two hour spaces and avoid
enforcement by reparking their vepicle in another space or removing
the chalk mark left by a parking enforcement officer. Council
agreed 'With staff I s recommendation at that time not to adopt a
sleeper parking ordinance, due to excessive and non-recov~rable
costs associated with enforcement of such an ordinance.
Downtown parking issues have continued to be addressed since 1982.
In 1987, efforts ~ere focused on increasing the number of on-street
parking space.s. This was accomplished primarily through a
combination of restriping, removal of obsolete no-parking zones and
adding spaces around the Civic Cer:t,er. Changes 'Were also made to
separate permit and public lots, ~ith the public lots being closer
to retail areas and permit spaces in lots closer to the Do~ntown
periphery.
CMR:211:93
p , •
Paqe Three
There are currently about 3. )00 publ ic parking spaces in the
downtown area (2,300 city-owned permit and two or three hour spaces
and 1, 000 one hour on-street spaces) ~ For the purposes of this
report, the .Downtown area is defined as all north/south streets
between Alma Str-eet and Webster Street and all east/west streets
between Lytton Avenue and Forest Avenue. Th~ current parkil'1g
deficiency, as :defined in the annua 1 Do .... 'ntown Moni tor ing Program,
is estimated to be 1,500 total parking spaces, down fro~ 1,600 in
1986, when the Downtown Monitoring Program began.
Recently, members of the public end business community have
expressed ccnc~rns that the one hour limit does not provide enough
time d.uring lunchtime to edt and shop; Ulat there are not enough
short-term, customer parking spaces av?i lable in the Co~'nto'.m area
for easy access to shops and restaurants; and that sleeper parking
violators monopolize many of the convenient spaces, thus
restricting their availability for shoppers, restaurant customers,
and other visitors.
Staff had originally intended to return to council at the beginning
of the year with recommendations regarding Downtown parking time
limits. However, recent developments required staff to reassess
the recommendations. The first development concerned the need to
assess the cost-benefit of the entire parking enforcement program
given: 1) the c!1going problems vith citations processing
contractors and the decision to bring customer service and cash
handling functions in-house; 2} i:nplementation of recent
leqislation (AB 408) whiCh decriminalizes the parking citation
process; and 3) the potential loss of significant revenue that
'Would result from ch.:.n9ing Do .... nto ..... n parking to two hours on a
permanent basis.
The second de ..... elopme.nt was fee.dba,ci{ received from smaller business
owners who expressed opposition to a change frot!! one hour time
limits.
AssaSlment of the Issues
Police, Transportation, and Finance staff have been assessing
several factors associated ~ith parking including signage, sleeper
parking, neighborhood intrus ion, and traff ic flow icongestion. A
brief discussion of these issues is necessary, because changes in
time limits for free on-street parking have consequences beyond
just providing additional parking time.
CMR:211:93
...." -i~.:: .~~;
"'>,-,.. •
I
I
-"
o
Page Four
1. Sl'.per Parking
Sle.eper parking has the effect of rnonopoliz.ing some of the most
convenient parking spaces and therebjo' preventing their use for
short ter!ll customer p<arJcing. A survey condur;ted in 1;'9~ indicated
that sleeper parking in t.he Do-.. '!"Ito·",'n a:cea affects up to 15 percent
of the available on-street. one hO'..lr pa.rking spaces.
An increase in the time lipj t from C'n~ hour to two hours for or.
street parking, by itself I ,,:ould have the effect of facilitating
and further encouraginq sleeper parkL19, by reducing the frequency
in which sleeper parkers need to repark their vehicle~. Therefore,
if the time limj t is increased, it is important that an enforcement
!1'Iechanism be established to address the potential for an increase
in sleeper parking beyond the present tolerable, albeit
undesjrable, level~
As roentioned earlier, staff had previously recommended against
adoption of a sleeper parking ordinance due to associated
enforcement costs. In order for a prohibition of sleeper parking
to be effective, parking Enforcement Officers (PEDs) must record
the license numbers of vehicles each time they make their rounds.
Prior to January 1991, this task required manual tracking, thus
making it too labor-intensive and costly. However, since then, the
Police Department has purchased handheld Autocite units. With the
use of these de .... ices, PEDs easily record 1 icense numbers of
vehicles and thus track precise times and locations of parked
vehicles. While this license recording process requires somewhat
more time than :mere chalking of vehicles, the enforcement of
sleeper parking restrictions has bccoil',e much more convenient and
con6ide~ahly less costly.
One of the issues relative to sleeper parking is the establishment
of a regulation that is easily understood by citizens. Sleeper
parkil"'.g ordinances basically prohibit people from returning to a
certain area to park within a certain time limit. As an example,
another city'S ordinance prohibits a person, after initially
pa~kin9 in a t~o hour zone, ~o park ~ithin 1,000 yards during a
five hour period.. In recent discussions with the Chamber of
Commerce Parking Subcommittee, some innovative ideas have been
presented regarding this issue. Additional time is needed to
fUrther develop these ideas. Staff plans ~o co~tinue working with
this group in these efforts and return to Council ~ith a proposed
ordinance.
It is important to note that a critical element in -t.:.he
implementation of a sleeper o:-di;!ance is an educationClil/public
outreach program prior to any enforcement. staff intends to
CMR:211:93
~-.
Page Five
develop such a program to be implemented after Cc-uncil approval of
the ordinance~
2, Tratt io ~.!f~d ~onq.lf"t ion
It is not clear what, if any, i~pact an increase in the time limit
for on-street parking 'Will have or. traffic flow in the Downtown
area. The increased time li~it will tend to reduce the turnover
r.ate. for the on-street spaces and make them less available for neW'
art""ivals~ ·It is not certain whether the result of increased
vehicle circulation in search of le~s availa~le spaces is greater
or lEl-ss than the disrupticn to traffic flo ....... caused by vehicles
enterinq and leaving or.-street parking spac~s more frequently ~ith
one 'hour time limits. It is possible trtat ~my change will go
unnoticed.
3. signag.
The issues regarding parking signs see-m to include concerns about
the inadequacy and insufficient number of signs directing people to
public parking facilities. Palo Alto has historically used a
standard traditional "Parkir.g't sign 'Iolith an arrow (green on white).
The size, number and location of these signs are often influenced
by aasthetic considerations and not necesEarily the effectiveness
of the message. people arriving in the Dovnto~n area are generally
left to find their ~ay to parking lots and garages with a moderate
level of directional assistance.
Some cities have developed more ccmprehensive and coor-dil1ated
visual information signing programs, that provide a highe:r level of
directional assistance an·j normall J' include some type of unique
and/or special signage desig~. These signage programs tend to be
considerably more costly~
W'nile exis-cing signa.ge could. be modif ied to improve user
information and awareness (supplement existing signs or total
replacement "tII'ith alternative design). they may raise aesthetic
concerns; and the changes may not actually improve the chances of
finding an available parxing space.
t. N.ighborboo~ Intrusion
One of the fac:tor-s related to a possible change in the tim-=: lll'!'.i ts
for on-street parking in the DQ~r.town area is the impact it miqnt
have on on-street parking in the adjacent neighborhood areas. A
survey conducted in 1990 indicated that the amount of on-street
C1'ffi:211:93
. : ,
-
·~_,c<.~ .IJJ J.'U~
Page six
parking in the adjacent neighborhoods had decreased some\.'hat since
1984 ~ due in part to the ccmpletion of ,H:!W public parking
facili ties, added ::'n-stree': spaces, and the general requirement
that al"ly new development must provide pa.rking accoD\..'I'r'\odations.
~Ilile it is not certain that a change in the on-street time limit
from one hour to two hours wou Id have any noticeable impact on
parking in the adjacent neighborhoods, it is possible that changes
related tc sleeper parking may have some effect. Based upon the
responses from the recent survey of Do .... 'nto·,.;n businesses I it appears
that many employees are currently parking in adjacent
neighborhoods.. Generally. increasing the time limit without
sleeper parking prohibitions makes it :c;ore convenient for sleeper
parking to occur; sO:r.!e people .... ·ho pal:: k in the neighborhoods may be
encour3ged to become sleeper parkers. However, enforcement efforts
to discourage sleeper parking ma:r" result in some increase in
parking in the adjacent neighborhood areas.
Jnput ~rom OQ~tovu ~u9ine$ses
staff met with the Palo Jo.lto CbClmber of Commerce Parking
Subcommittee and the Downtown Marketing Committee several months
ago to hear their concerns and obtain their ideas. During these
me.e.tings, merchants alld restaurant o .... ners reiterated their concern
that one hour was not enou.gh time for people to eat lunch and shop.
The concern of sleeper parking was shared by many people. ·rhere
was a general consensus that ma.ny of the Do"'nto· .. n em9loyers and
their employees "Were not aware of parking lot and parking' peI1:lit
opportunities. Additionally, ttere ~as aqree~ent that the signage
direc~in9 Downtown visitors to parking lots should be enhanced to
provide better visibility.
After information regarding the proposal to change parking tirr,e
limits .as publicized, staft began receiving calls ar.d letters from
owners of smalle.r business indicating that they ",ere adamantly
opposed to t'Wo hOllr 1 imits. Many of the customers of these
businesses require on-street parking for 30 minutes or less. The
change to two hour limits reduced the parking turnover, and tt.us
made it more difficult for these customers to find convenient
parking.
As a re~ult of the divergent opinions~ staff sent out short. surveys
to ever 250 Downtown business o~ners. A testament to the interest
level on this issue is the over 55 percent return rate of
responses. Seventy-five percent of responses indicated a desire
for two hour parking compared to 14 percent ~ho favored one hour
limits. Many business owners provided wTitten ccrr~ents as ~ell.
CJo!R:21l:93
I
t
-
Page Seven
parking Program Costa/Revenue Al'l..!ll vs_;i. __ !!
The Police D~partment cur~ently issues over 50,000 parking
citations annually. Associated revenue for FY 1992-93 ~as budgeted
at $798,000. Costs associated ~ith the current parking enforcement
program, includ5.nq the cost of issuing citations, processing and
revenue collections, total approxi:r.lately $602,667. The anticipated
net revenue to the city for parking enforcement activity -was
expected to equal about $195,)33.
Projected through the end of the fiscal year, citation revenue is
expected to total about $835, 000. This is despite the fact that
there were 4,100 less citations issued throughout the City between
November 25, 1992 a!'ld February 2:8] 1993 than for the same time
period the previous year. Staff estimates that the assoc iated
revenue loss ranges from about $45 1 920 to $53,464. projected over
an entire year, estimated loss of revenue may be expected to range
between $183,680 to $~lJ,855. The reason for the increase of
actual over budgeted revenue is the backlog of citations that have
finally been paid since citation processing was taken in-house.
Using the projected FY 1992-93 revenues, total net revenue for the
year will be approximately $228 /500.
With the potential loss of reve~lle on an on-going basis, staff
fEels that it is important to present a complete picture of the
total costs associated with parking enforcement prior to making a
decision on extending Downtown parking. Included in this ~eek's
Council packet is an informational report, which pr~vides the
council with costs for irnplementa~ion of Assembly Bill 408 and for
maintaining the current parxing citation processing operation on a
permanent basis. These costs total $223 1 661. These are in
addition to the annual costs for actllc!l parking entorce:ment, which
total $.375,580. This results in total costs of ~604,241 for the
parking program, and AppendiX A reflects the specific breakdo~n.
This estim'3ted net revenue subsidy for t .. o hour parking would be
about $20,097.
R~commendations
Because of the potential of the parking program requi~ing a net
subsidy from the General Fu~d if the extension of Downtown parking
limits to two t-.ours is approved by the Council, staff feels it is
important to sp.end additional time analyzing revenue impact
estimates. staff also believes that additional tine is needed to
Vlork with the D01Jnto1Jn business community in the development of a
CMR: 211: 93
•
----------------------------
..
Paq8 Eight
:sleeper parking ordinance. Therefore, staff
council approve the attached resoluticn extending
r~corrw'1lends that
two hour parking
day p~riod. in the Downtown a!:'e~ for a 120
Respectfully submitted,
;
'-:~
: 'I ',''''':'
LYNNE JOHNSON
Assistant Police Chief
y Manager
Attachments:
EXHIBIT iliA":
RESOLUTION
CMR: 211:93
#a~~ 1,-t:<,.-c./ .......
ASOi< AG~AL ./L
City Traffic Engineer
EMILY HARRISON
Finance Director
COST/REVENUE COMPA~ISON
\
, ,
Appendix A
Cost I Revenue co;r;par i son
Projected Revenue (2 hour parking).
Parking program Costs
Enforcement
citation Processing
AB 408
Total Costs
Net Revenue Subsidy
$584,144
$375,580
$164,487
$ 64,174
$f04,241
$ 20,097
RESOL:;;TrON NO.
RBSOL ... .rrlON OF THE COUNCIL OF THB cr-ojTY OF PALO ALTO
APPROVING A.."W ADI)PTISG CHMmES TN THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO'S RESTRICTED PA.,.-q.KING ZONES
WHEREAS, Pale Alto Mu!licipal CodE Section 1().44 .010 enabJes
the City Council by ordinance or resol'..lt ion to establish parking
restrictions or prohibitions as may be necessary; and ..
WHEREAS, Council desires to enlarge from one hour to two
hours the on-street parking restriction within the University
Avenue downtown area for a te!Tlporary period of one hundred t\lo'enty
days in arder to fur~her assess the desirability af rrdking ~his
enlarge.me::J.t permanent together witn other parking controls
necessary to better serve the parking needs of dovntown;
NOW. THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo ~to does
P~SOLVE as follows:
~crl.QN 1. Resolution No. 6016 and the updated parking
zone map for the Downtown district of Palo Alto adopted thereby are
hereby amended to enlarge all one hour on· street parking
restrictions to two hour oarkincr restrictions within the Downtown
district of Palo Al to. --
SECTION~. The amendrnents adopt-ed by this resolution shall
be effective for a per]od of one hundred twenty (120) days only.
after which period the one hour r,m-street parking restrictions
enacted by Resolution No. 6D~6 and the updated parking zone map for
the Downtown district of Palo Alto shall revert and continue in
full force and effe~t until otherwise amended or repealed.
SECTION 3. The Council of the city of Palo ~to finds that
this prcject qualified for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption under
CEQA guidelines (Section 1530~--Existing Facilities) and pro::edures
adopted by the City of Palo Alto, and therefore no further
enviro~~ntal assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED k~ PASSED,
AYES,
NOES,
ABSENT
ABSTENTIONS,
APPROVED;
City Clerk
1
9303l1.,'11 007 j ZSS
.~
.'
/
•
o
APPROVED AS TO FORM,
~-~----------City Mar...ager
Se~ior Asst. City Attorn€y
Police Chief
Chief Tr-WlSportation -OElicial
2
13m171)'tI 0011255