HomeMy WebLinkAbout0190.094March 17, 1994
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, california
Attention: Finance Committee
.,
)
payptoyp hrJdpq X"ue. -eivie Cente' Garag. Sub,teSy. rar1dpq
'~rpctur" 'n 4 atten4ant Lot le.,
aeport; fA Brief
Council has recently referred three items related to the Downtown
Parking Plan to the Finance committee for :further discussion~
These items include the civic Center garage subsidy, issues related
to the feasibility of buildinq an additional parkinq structure and
the concept of attendant parking4 This report proviQe~ additional
information to serve as a found.ation for the discussion and
includes recommendations for the attend~nt lot fee structure and
Civic Center subsidy issues. specifically, staff recommends that
Council prDvide direction to: pursue the concept of a change in
po1icy regarding paying for employee par-king permits as part of
compensation to the District for the use of District-funded spaces;
pursue alternatives that vill lead towarQ more equitAble treatment
between City and non-city employees" parking-opportunities and
toward reducing the number of City-used space. in the Civic center
qarage; pursue alt.ernative parkinq options for City temporary
employees and contract personnel; increase parking permit feesj
proceed with the Request for Proposal (RFP) process for vendor for
attendant loti and return to Council with attendant lot fees in the
1994-95 bLldget.
civiq Capter Garag. PArking
When the civic Center qaraqe. was built in 1970,. the Citr paid for
a portion of the parking spaces in the garage for City employee
parkin9~ This was done to prevent the intrusion of City vehicles
and employee parking into downtown or adjacent residential areas.
After the qarage waf; completed, the city began the process of
prcvidinq tree permits for City employees that enable t~em to use
the spaces in the qarage which had been paid for by the City. As
the City bas grown, the use of spaces by City employees in the
Civic Center qaraqe has also qrown~ City usage of the civic center
qarage parking spaces now exceeds the n~r of spaces originally
funded by tlle City.
CKR:190: 94
\
,'.
Total S caB in Civic Center Garage 709
Aseessment District-Funded S aces 570
city-Funded Spa~a. 139
Actual S aces Used by City 269
Cit of Assessment District-Funded Spaces 130
Tbe City also began issuing free permits to City employees .and
contract peraonnel.~ It is now necessary for the city to: 1) review
the current Civic center parklnq permit process; and 2) reevaluate
the coapenaation provided. to the University Avenue Assessment
District (Di8tri~t) ~or City U6e of District-funded spaces.
11 J'o.rlti:oq l' ..... i t Pr .......
After reviewing the parkill9 permit process, staff recommends
elbinatian of the issuance of free parking P'lrlIIit& for temporary
uployees. and contract personnel. Staff is currently investiqatinq
'Whether alternative parking options are avallable for these people.
Por re:qu:lar City employees, staff recommends that the Council
direct staff to pursue the concept of a policy o~ payinq for city
eaploye. parking peralts to compensate the District for the use ot
Distrlct-owne4 apeces. One way this could be accomplished is by
introducinq a "COlDJDute Incentive Program" to all City e.ployees who
ua:e the civic center qaraqe. The program. could possibly be.
str-.1ctLlred. IlC that the City would pay for an employee. parkinq
permit or., in lieu of a permit, provide an eq'.livalent amount of
compensation. This approach would also provide 3n incentive tor
employees to pursue alternative forms of transport&tion.. In
addition, the expectation is that it would free up spaces in the
Civic Center qarage.. Staff is current-Iy in the process of
reviewing the feasibility and costs aesociated with this plan. It
should be noted that, based upon some initial ~ork on this concept,
several obstacles, includinq some inc..'Ome tax implic5'tlons, have
been encountered. Staff will continue exploring this plan and will
return to Council at a later date with more info~ation.
staff also recommends pursuing alternatives that will lead toward
more equitable treatment between city and non-City ~loyees'
parJcinq opportunities and toward reducing the !'UJxwer of Cit~·-used
parking-spaces in the Civic Center qara9'e~ Alternatives MY
CMR:190:94 'ag 2
include phasing o~t the practice of providing parking permits tor
the Civic Center to n'!w City employees immediately upon hirinq
witho~t h~vinq to be placed on a waiting Ii&t, providing commute
incant-tv •• to City employees as mentioned above .. etc. The practice
of provid.ing free parking permits to' City employees was first
iapl8R8nted in 1913, in the first Memorandum of Aqreement (MOAJ
between SEIU Lee.l 715 and the city. since then .. similar lanquagB
has appeared in each MoA and has also been an agreed upon benefit
for .ezbera of the Palo Alto PeAce Officers' Association and the
International Association of Fire Fighters. In addition to the
commute incentive plan, there are several other possible
alternatives. One ~ould be to implement a procedure whereby any
new City employee would be isaued a permit for a parking facility
that does not b&ve II waiting list .. e.ndl be placed on the waiting
list tor the Civic Center qa.raqe~ as is the procedure for other
people who work in the downtown are~.
Because the free parking provision is II previously neqotiated
benefit, any chang-e.s 'Would require d,iscussion through the meet anti
confer process.
2, ccapenaatlcll tor City Use o~ Di.trlct-:run4e4 Spa(', ••
A review of the. costs incurred by the City to :maintain and
administer the Oistrict (all downtown public parkinq qaraqes and
lots) reaffirms that the cost the City incurs is in excess of the
amo~~t ·owed" to the District for use of District-funded spaces.
An earlier analysis, detailed in CKR:126:9~, showed a net General
Fund! Subsidy (of District parkinq operations) ot approximately
$l.20, 000. staft recently refined the analysis to reflect the
assumption that the City .. auld pay for City employee parking
permits for District-owned parking spaces, as well as to update
expenditure projections.. In the earlier analysis .. the District wa.s
allocated 80 percent of total expenditures .. based on the District's
share of the spaces in the Civic Center garage. This was not
accurate, and the new analysis reflects the Oistrict's share of the
total otf-street parking spaces, not just the spaces in the Civic
Center qar3ge~ Since the City funded 139 of the 2 .. 260 off-street
parking spaces in the Oistrice, the District's share of the total
expenditures is 94 percent. While the previous analysis showed no
debt servi~e requirement for the District for the Civic Center
seismic retrofit .. in a~tuality, the District should pay a portion
of the annual debt service~ In the ne~ analysis, the District's
share is calculated based upon the. portion of space the qaraqe
occupies in the Civic centpr building multiplied by the average
annual debt service over the next 18 years for the seismic
retrofit. OVerall, the revised analysis shows that the General
Fund. is anticipated to subsidize the Distr-ict by approximately
$110,000 annually.
CXR:190:94 page I
c
UNIVERSITV AVENUE PARKING DISTRICT
PROJECTED ANN\1AL GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY
parking District Annual Revenues:
Non-City Employaea
City EmplQ1eeS (Less 139 city-ovned Spaces)
City ~rary Employes., and COntract
Personnel
City Vehicle"
70tal D1.triot aev.aue.
Parking District Annual ExpenditureSi
Parking Di&trict Administration
Maintenanca and Operations
capital Improvements ,Estimated)
Civic Center Garage seismic Retrofit Debt
Service (Pro-Rated]
~otal axpen41tur ••
Di8triot Share of ~otal EZpen4iture. 194%1
~tal 'rojeated .arkinq District Deficit
$243,000
59,8QO
8,000
10,000
320,800
55,000
266, '10
25,000
110;000
451,'10
42 •• el5
U08.ltS
To recover part or all of this onqoinq General Fund subsidy, st·sft
recommends Council consider raisinq parking permit f-ees~ The last
permit fee increase occurred ten years ago, when quarterly rates
were raised from $45 to $65, and annual rates were raised from $150
to $200. If the entire estim6ted annual deficit were eliminated,
quarterly parkinq permits would need to be increased from $65 to
$85 per quarter; and annual permits from $200 to $275 per year.
staff recom2ends that parkinq permit fee levels be reexamined on a
requ.lar basis.
OnQ of the elements of the current Downtown Parking Plan is
consideration of a new parking str~cture. The 1986 Downtown Study
also identified this need. While there appears to be a consensus
of opinion that a new parkinq structure should be built, the issues
related to loca.tion, siza, design, and financial support need
additional discussion an~ resolution.
Ci!R:190:94 rag. •
!
In order to move towards a to~al deciaion-making point regarding
the a~dition of another parkinq structura~ a parkinq feasibility
study i& requirad. The purpose of such a study 'Would be. to
lnvestiqate the overall teasibtlity (location, size, cost, impacts,
d •• iqn, alternatives, etc.) for the development of a structure en
one or more sites in the dcwntown area. The study would include
"the following:
a.. Analysis of parkinq d.emand and supply;
b. Evaluation of alternative sites and conceptual desiqns t
including the possibility of incorporating .ixed uses;
c. EvallJation of related impacts;
d. Estiaate of coats to design, construct and fir.ance the
project;; Uld
e. Estimate of the 8SSe&Sments required to fund the project.
The scope of the study 'Would include consideration of tt·e provision
of public parking facilities: tal on exist.ing City property
(Webster-Cowper Gar.:aqe modell, (b) inclusions ot other uses (Q
Garaqa .odel), and (cl integration within private development
projects (Ramona Plaza/Garage B model).
The study process, Which would involve an advisory committee with
repre~entation from property owners, business owners, and
eatp1oyees" as well as norm.al City review procedures, would serve a.s
the information base and framework for establishinq the consensus
needed to make a decision to proceed with a specific project. A
siBilar study, which was completed in 1991 for the Calitorni.a
AV&nue District, served to guide the decision-making process that
res~lted in the council's deci~ion last year to constr~ct a parking
deck on Lot 3( Keystone Lot) on Cambridqe Avenue.
Based upon a preliminary assessment of the imbalance between
parkinq supply and demand, locational convenience, suitably sized
sites and available public parkinq lots, a new parkinq structure on
Lota Sand L (including the site of the tormer Board of Realtor&
building) appears to be the most favored~ The site is large enouqh
to be efficient in layout, and the central, convenient location all
but ensures the usaqe of whatever parking supply could be provided.
Ironically, Lots Sand L, for all the same reasons, are also highly
suitable Lor other uses (retail, office, residential) that may also
be 1aporta.nt to the 'Vit9lity of the d.owntown ar-ea. Therefor-e, the
use ot Lots Sand L involves consideration ot more. than just
parking. Lots P and R are other suitable locations on the westerly
edqe of the downtown area tor a new parkinq structure. Finally,
the inteqration of pUblic parking into private developments, while
dependent upon the ti~ing and interest of the 4eveloper, otters tha
benefit of disperslnq additional parking throughout various sectors
of the downtown area.
If a neW' public parltinq facility is eventually built in the
downtown area, it will pro~ably be funded through the f~rmation of
CKR,190,94
. ~
~, ..... '
:\
a parking assessment district, similar to &11 previo\ls parkinli
projeo:ta in both the. downtown area. and the Calitornia Avenue
business di.t.rict~ At the present time, thel-e are two existing'
parkinI)' improvement projects (Attachment A) for which downtown
pro~y owners are baing assessed:
a. Prp1egt 75-5J
• Two surface p~k1nq lots (Lots L , T)
• $966,000 in bonds, of which $510,000 remains outstandinq
as of If&rch 1994
• Bonds will be paid ot~ in 2002
• Annual bond payment is $al,Se. (Flscal Year 1993-94), or
$ O.OJSl2/aquare foot for aBBe,BBed square toct&qil
b. Project Lot 31250 Uniyersity
• webster-Cowper Garaqe (Lot J) refinan~e (1990)e.nd Ga1-aqe
B (Ramona Plaza) acquisition
• $6,420,000 in bonds, of which $5,535,000 is out&tanding
as ¢f March 1994
• Bonda will be paid off in 2006
• Annual bond. pa}'1lLe:nt is $600,203 (Fiscal Year 19513-94), or
$ O.2725l/aquare foot for assessed square ~oota9.
As a point of reference, assessment ~ateB for a soo car parking
facility are shown below, based upon three levels of cost to build
the project. 'l"he figures are predicated on the a.ssumptions gf no
land cost, 7.5 percent interest rate and a 25-year period for bond
is.u.~
A 1I ~
Jfu.aber of spaces 500 500 500
Cost per space $10,000 $l5.,OeO $20,000
Total cost $5,000,000 $7,500,000 $10,000,000
Annual $ a.25/s! $ 0.38/sf $ O.SO/sf
assess.ent
An $80,000 Patkinq Feasibility Study as described aboV9 has been
included as a proposed project tor the 1994-95 Capital Improvement
Proqraa that will be recommended to CO\lncil for review and approval
dur 109 the. upcoming bUdcJet process.
AtttDdant Lot Pee strug>ure
Since the Council meetinq of January 24, 1994, staff has completed
some additional work and review regar4inq the proposed attendant
lot tee structure. Consideration in the dcvelopDer,t of the fees.
was given to operating costs, includin9 a comparison bet~een using
a private vendor and using City employees-; current City parking
perait fess; and attempts to keep the fees at an affordable level.
CIIR:190:94 pag. I
'.
/
Vendor Versus City-Operated Lot Cost Comparison
staff baa met with several vendors in efforts to actereine the
issues and accurate costs involved with operatin9 an Attendant lot4
.I_sues includ.e cash handlinq procedure.s, stafting levels, complaint
resolution, etc. Based upon these discus5ions, staff bas
determined that, regardleas or a vendor or City-operated lot, a
a1naum. ot two 'full-time e.:r.ployees would be nee.ded t.o provide
acceptable service levels and adequate eover4ge at the lot. In
checkinq with the vendors, the range o~ operatinq costs if the. City
vere to contract tor their 91lrVices 'Would be between "bout $100,000
to $~06,000 per year. These amounts would provide for ~ turnkey
operation with very ~nimal up front costs.
If the city were to operate the lot through the use of it. own
employees, staff e6timates the direct costs to be approximately
$84,000. This figure represents salary and benefita tor two
employees, equip.ent, 5upplies and uniforms. This tiqure does not
reflect costs Lor supervision, clerical support $ etc. While the
.. timates for these additior.al costs have not yet been determined,
staff believes they will result in a figure much closer to vendor
costs.
This is a new venture and tew$ if any, other cities operate their
own attendant lots. As a result, issues such as availability of
staff experiencect in parking' cars, accident potential, claiJa
frequency and resolution~ etc. would need to be addressed prior to
the operation of such a lot. While the costs for a City-operated
lot may be less$ due to issues discussed above, staff reco .. ends
that during an initial period of one year, the operation of the lot
be contracted out to a vendor ~ If, aft.er a. year of actual
experiende, a decision is ~aQe to continue attendant parking, an
evalUation of the continuation of vendor-operation would be
conducted. If Council approves this directicn{ staff will prepare
a Request for Proposal that 'Would include specific requirements for
any agreement ~d return to Council for the approval of such an
agreement.
Pee Structure
As indicated at the council meeting' of January 24, 1994, the
estimated revenue that ~ould be associated with the attendant lot
is 4epen4ent upon the usage level. At this time, staff can make
usaqe projections based only upon the experience of vendo::-s wbo
have been in the busines6 fer some time and from infor:aation
received from some of the privately-owned paid lots in Palo Alto~
The private lot at 440 Cowper has 32 spaces and reports a normal 80
percent u5aqe level durinq the veek. While the first half-hour is
tree with validation trom t'Wo local businesses, they ch.3rge $ .60
per halt hour with a maximum of $5 a day. Their monthly rat. is
$45. The National Parkinq Corporation that operates the private
CMR:190: 94 lag. 7
\,
lot at 525 Univer$ity, with 475 sp4ces, reports a 90 percent ~.ag.
rllta. They charge $1. 50 par hour with a maximWl ot $12 • day ..
Their monthly parmit rate. range from $50 to $62. Another lot on
Higb stroet haa 41 apace.. Normally, spaces on this lot ar.
provided a. part of their lease _'1reements. Whtlln there are
vacancies, other people may park there tor $75 a month.
Baaed upon informat.ion received, st-aff expects tha.t the us.sqe level
of the lot will be near capacity the !O.ajority of the taB. The
intende4 ... e of this paid lot will be for those vieitor. to the
d.owntown area who need to park for lonqer than two hour. and who do
nat Yant to purchase the ona-day $10 parking permit. Currently,
aaploy... vorkinq in the downt.own area are. able to purchase an
annusl parking permit tor $200. In order to diaccuraqe employees
fro. parkinq in the attendant lot in lieu of obtaininq a regular
parkinq perait, .taft does not believe the maxiJau. tee ot one
dollar. day for attendant let parking, as outlined in CMR:126:94,
i. a viable fee option.
with the updated information trom the venders, the t\lO .tea
atructursB originally provided to Council ~or consideration have
been raviaed as follows:
0-2 hours
2-3 hours
3-4 hours
4-5 hours
Daily !!.axillU>!
EIotiaated Annual
Revenue
EIotiaated Annual
Operating-Costs
(Vendor Operated)
Estimated Net Cost
(Vendor)
EIotiaated Annual
Cost (City
Operated)
EIotiDated Net Cost
(City operated)
CI!R:190:94
1
Free
$1
$2
$3
$3
$60, (80
$105,900
($45,320)
$84,000
($23,520)
1
Free
$2
$4
$8
$8
$100,800
$105,800
($5,000)
$84,000
$16,600
bAA'
--... ...•
•
Based on this infcrmation$ staff recommends that council approve
the Number 2 fee structure.
Tr&Dsferoblg Permita
At the January 24 council meeting, the issue ot transferable
per1Iits ... aa raised; and a request was made for some additional
information regarding their is~uance.
currently, parking permits (sing!e vehi~la permits) are issued on
a first-come, first-served. basis. A waiting list is maintained for
individuala Who wish to buy a parking permit for a ~articula~ lot,
where there ia not any current space available. Reqular permit
holders .ay re.quest a limited -temporary-permit trom Revenue
Collections. '!'his process is convenient for infrequent needs
(e.q., ear in for repairs, etc.), but is perc~ived as unreasonable
and inconvenient by those who frequently switch vehicles. Those
drivers would welcome • transferable permit 'Which allows the
flexibility to use any vehicle~
Generally, there Is not a 'Waitinq list for the we:bster/Cowper
garage; sc, in addition to reqular permits, tran5fe~able permits
are currently available fo= the Webster/Cowper qarage~
Transferable permits are es'~entially window display perzllits 'Without
a vehicle identification~ The permit may be placed on any vahiele
ar..d is valid only in permit areas of that garage. T~ansferable
pe.rmits were introduce.d in 1.986 on a trial basis to try to fill tl'o.,e
qarage; and the process has been continued since then, due to the
continued parking permit availability in Webster/Cowper.
While the USe of transferable permits CQuld be extende.d to all
downtown permit parking lots, these permits create. a potential
loopbole in the systam. As staff found in 1980, and again in 1985,
some permit holders used a transferable permit as a way around the
waiting list process~ As a result, staff eliminated the is&~ance
of these permits (refer to attached CMR:391:5). Subsequently, as
indicated above, staff reintroduced the U58 of transferable permitlil
only for the Webster/Cowper qarage. In addition, permits that are
iluproperly displayed (so'Metimes because t.hey have fallen down)
result in citations. and aS50ciated complaints. There also has been
a certain amount of misuse associated with duplicating permits.
stricter administrative controls, such as checking the permi~te.'a
driver's license and vehicle registration each time a permit is
renewed, would minimize those situations where peopl~ atte~pt to
circumvent the waiting list process. However, this would require
additional staf~ in R&vanue Collections. ~~en a regular p~rkin9
permit is issued, staff checks the driver.:r s licanse and vehicle
re9istration~ At the time of renewal, this information usually is
not rechecked, because the perilit is issued for one specific
CHa: 1.90: 94 Page •
-----------
o
vehicle with an associated license number. Because transferable
permits are. a card s.tock windo .... disp!ay 'type of permit without an
associated vehicle license number, they can easily be passed fro.
one pGrson to anot.her (e .. 9 .. , a person wbo is not on a ...-ai tinq
liat). 'the person to whom it was passed could then renelL" it fairly
easily.
Recol!Ul!endatiC:DS
Staff recommends that council Qirect staff to:
1) Pursue the e.limination of the issuance of free parking per=its
for the civic Center garage for temporary employees and
contract per50nneli
2) PUrsue the con::ept of payment for City employee park.ing
permits to compensate the District for use of District-o~ed
spaces;
3) Pursue alternatives that will free up mo~e City-used parking
spaces in the civic Center qarage;
4) Return to Council with increas~d parking permit fees as part
ot the 1994-95 budget process;
5) Proceed ...... i.th an RFP process. to select SI vendor for th.e purpose
of operating an attendant lot for a year's trial period; ana
6J fees with a daily maximum
process.
Ashok Aqqar\rlal
Chief city Traffic Engineer
Melissa Cavallo
Assistant Finance Director
Attachll1ents:
Attachment A -parking Assessment Districts
CMR:381:5 -University Avenue Parking District
Vehicle/Carpool Parking Permits
cc Susan Frank, Chamber of Commerco
Barbara GroGs, Downtown Marketing committee
CMR:1SO:94
Multiple
P&g~ 1.0
HONOP~BlE CITY COU~CIl
?ale Alta. california
UNIVeRSITY AVENUE PARKING DISTRICT -MULTIPLE VEftIClE/CA,~POO' PARKING PERMITS
Members ~f the Ccunc~l:
This informational staff report advises Council of certai., changes beina insti
tuted regarding parting permits in the University A ... .enu! ParLing Distrfct. No
Council action is required Or requeste~.
BAC~GROUND
At tf1e preser.t t;me~ twa main types. of par~ing permits are iss.ued for ths Uni
versity Avenue Parking Oistrict off-street parlcing facilities. A single vehfcle
type is issued to indi"idua1 eligible applicants for a speciffc vehicle. The
.only provisions for transferrin3 a sil"1g1e vehicle permit to another vehicie re:
lates to te~ora.ry needs (I.e. vehicle repairs) or replacement of tl'le v.eh;c1e~
The secOnd type of permit, is a multiple vehicle/carp'Jol p2'rm i t. The~e ar.e
issued On card stock on WhlCh are displayed the rr.ultiple license ,i)Tate: n ... mber-s
for whir.h the permit is valid. The permit can be us~d on severa.l different ve
hicles .. but on1y 01'1 one at a time4 Multlple vehic1e/carpool permits are issuea
as.a means to enc:ourage permftholders to fori] carpools and to all!:' ... tt'lp use of
an a1ternate vehicle.
A total of 877 permits art currelltJy issued for the University A\lenue facili
ties , of which 785 are of the single vehicle type and 92 are of the multiple
vehicle/carpool type. ~<lth types are issued on a first-come. first-served. basis
at a COSt of $65 per quarter or $200 per fear.
Currently. over 700 applicants are an a wait list for a parking permit. ~hi1e
the lot Q !nd lot J structures will increase the parking supply~ the$e projects
will pr!Jvide enly 294 new SPdces~ Tl1r..;s. permi ts \l!til 1 continue to be in short
supply. Apart from add!tiOI!S to the pdrk:ing supply~ thf Qnly means new appli
cants have-for securfng a permit is through vacdncies cre.ated "'hen an eil:.isting
permitho1der fails to rene ....
As the d~mand for-p-ermfts increases ana the wait list lengther.s, peop1e find
creative .. ays to take 5dva~tage of the existing issuance procedur"es to obtain a
permit more promptl.Y~ Ourlng the Pdst seilera1 ITKlnths. there has been a marked
incr-ease in the number of complaints cancer-fling the mlsuse of multiple vehicle/
carpool permits. Jt B evider.t th'!t the 1ruJ7t'fple vehjcie/car~aal permit has
been used to effect a "c:fe facto· tram fer from the 'Original permitholder to
SOl1e.iJne else listed en the lr.ultip1e vehicle permit, thus bypassing tne wait
lizt. This cannot be allowed jf a first-come~ first-served system cf permit
allocation is to be ma1ntdined~
CHANGES TO PAAKI~G PERM!1 PROCEOURES
In order to prevent ani further rde facto" transfers from original permitholders
to someone else listed: on the permit, the fol1cwing actions ha"w'e been tak:en:
CIIIl :381:S
:., .. -
I
J~ The DJltiple vehicle/carpool Prl'lIIEge nas t:een d'iscontinued. Eljgiole per
mfthc',ders ca!"! apply for. or rene~. a sin!:j1e "'ehicle permit for.! vehicle
regis\:ered tOt or leased in. their rlame.
2. Exfstfng 1nU1tiple ~ehicle permitholders wno tlse tl1e pErmit for carpooling
PiJrposas .,i11 be i.dvised a.,d encouraged to ~se Ule City's e-.dsting carpoo1
pro~rdm. Any cal~poo1 Of "tI'iO or more penons may obtain. free cf charge. a
da.ily parking pp.rmit from an attendent located at the corner of Hamilton and
Ramor.6. between 7:00 A .. ~ .. and 10:00 A • .,t.
3. The va11dfty of tile free daily carpool pJ.rU~9 permits js being upanded
from lots K. 0 and the Civic Center garage to i..,clude all downt.alOo·n pe!'mit
Tots .. includir.g the garages being built on the sites of lots G and .:. when
c°tllllet,ed.
4. Provisions will continue for issuing temporary per-mits to allow use of a
substitute vehicle for a limited period. and for transferring a permit to a
replacement vehicle.
5. A. one time -assignment of permit r-ig:r:t-fs t:efng ell tended to eacr. ori;incl
permitholder of a .... aTtd. flHJTtiple venicle/carpool permit. The originCll per
mitholder loI'ill be given the opportunity to deslgnate one name frOJn the ~-ames
on the multiple vehicle/carpool penit for an assignment of the permit
r1ghts. This one-time exc!!::pti<ln is neel1ed fOT "de facto· tr!;;sfers. s~~ce
it was not explicftly prohibited by the permit instructlo .. s last published.
1 n 1984.
NOTIFICATION TO PER1',ITHCLDERS
The attached notice has been sent to 2:11 :Jermftho1ders !(hisfng them of ttJes.a
steps being taken to e-nSiJre that tr.e first·coffif. first-served allocation prin·
ciple is p!"'eserved. These ne~ procedl.Ores st;ould prevent Imautnorized transfers.
provide a positive ;nducejj.ent to carpooling and he1'p reduce the time appl i;:;ants
are on t~ 'Wait list for parking permits.
Respectfully submitted.
Dx,J~'
DAVID FAIRCHIlD £-
Tran~p~rtation Planner
~~!fuN-~
A,ufstant Ci ty Manager
Attachment
cc: PaTo Alto Chamber of Commerc~
Do~ntown Coordinating Committee
Downtown F'!erci'lar,t's Associaticn
Downtown Palo Alto Property Ownerls Group
Downtown Stuay Committee
Downtown Promotions Co~itte~
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Corrmunity (nviranmen t
CMR:361:5 6/13/85
2
", --------_._--
J:. ,-.:
','-; ,
Cit~ of Yolo )lIto
TRANSPORTAT!ON D!VISION
(415) 329-2520
, c &e1 lC.:!:tl
f'':'' 0 ,I,~lC, C~ ~J~I).l
IMPORTANT NOTICE
PLEASE CIRCULATE AND POST FOR OTHER
PARKING PERMIT HOLDERS IN YOUR WORK PLACE
June 4~ 1985
TO: All Park.ing Permit Holders.
University Avenue Parking District
SUBJECT: Ch~nges to Permit Procedures
__ ***.***,*':1+* __ **,************.*'*** ••••
.Effecthe for parxing permrts valid be;t1nning July l~ 1985, the City of
Palo Alto 1S returning to bumper~type parkfng stlckers~hes~ new
stickers will be fdent;fied with the license number of a single
vehicle. To appiy for a renewa 1 of your permf t~ plea.se mai T a copy of
the valid vehicle registration or lease agreement in your nal'Je~ plus a
copy of your valid driveris licenH. If applying il'1 person, pleHe
bring these documents ~ith yo~. Permits wi1l not be renewed e~cept for
a 'r'eh;cle owned by. or 1ea:;ed to. tlle permHhol.jer of record. As
before. r-arking permits are is.sued to individuaTs~ and are not
transferable.
£ffecthe immedjatelY. ·carpool" and nseconc! vehiCle" procedures have
be~n changed. These thanges are necessary ol.:.e to the inadvertent
potential for misuse of these multiple vehtcle permHs for the purpose
of transferring permits, thus bypaSSing the wait Tlst. Permits are not
and never have been transferable by the original permitholder. They arS'
isslJed on a first.-cnme. flrst-sen'e oasis to indi\l;duals wno aHlled on
a waitL.,g list. For those who need carpool and second vehicle permits,
the fall owing options HIC allaiiabl e:
car~oOl permi ts. '* Carpool partidpdnts may obta In, free of charge. a
dal y permit Trom an attendant locatec at the corn~r of Ha.milton and
Raroolla~ between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. every weekday (Molidays
ex.ceptec!). The validity of these free permits r.as been expanded to
inclUde any reserve.:1 permj t ~pacf> ;n any Ci ty-olltned lot or 9.a~age in the
DO'JIlntown area~
Temporary pef1r.itS.""" Temporary permits will be issued free of Charge to
Perl:1itllolder5 for a limited t1me each Quarter. "'pply in person at
Revenue Collect;ons between 8:CQ a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
If you ',ave QlJestions regardi.'1g these procedures. or would 1 ike us to
send yOu ar! information sheet regarding the City's carpool program.
please call Revenue Collections (329-2317) or tne Transportation
Divisiol'1 (329-2520) between the hours of S;3CJ a.m. and 4;00 p.m.
week<lays.
·Carpool is defined as a vehicle with tw<! or more occupant.!..
~or Timi tea p-eriods.
" "
'--
\-----,/l,tl:achment A---'~----'----------,
City of1'alo Alto Page 1 PARKING ASSESSMENT
Public Works. Engin~ring I
l.OC!'l4U\iJ:.,-l ... A·I~l1"~, P.~I,' Aim (",I, 9~NI • DISTRICTS
I'tIr_O<', ~lSr:;~9-:!!51 ,"',10,)(' ~Lj,'J29.n99 I
$IJPfHlU YO" .:u~ (h~ ,)"Vller of r:I succ~.sijui bUJIII~,s 1.'1 a
bu. ... )' COWN,;I1V., laCQ.liOIl .. Your shop is sUrrolJr..:ied by ollie"
sllccu:/ul bu.rinuse.~. The Sireets a.re cr(}",yJ~ ..... ith
customers who travel from Otroli.ghow (ne ~reu '0 buy whar
you and the ot~er o/4,S;nesu:s haw: to utL
BUJ in mis SIJ~f:; lies a problem. 1'ou, r::uswmo-s
compiai.'I cDold MW h.ard jJ i.f to find a nearby parking
spa(:~. In rinu Y»/J. SIU! ies.J a/rhese cus{omers ~ tiny begin.
sMpping ill arl':lU with more cOJ')~efliefU p~rking. Talkiflg
'0 o/her busi.ftas c-..>ne~ iJ. hecOn1e.f GPparem fha: fhrry "'e'
having r.;"'~ same expmcnce. The>"e simply is nor eJlough
parking.
What CIl.'l b.! done? Toge.ther Y!Ju decide 10 create mOle
par!c'ng by l!ithe .. o.cquiring Ilew lots or d~'e;'opillg aislllI,g
lotS to hold. ,"nore can. Yot.! a~l ogor!!:!! ra snare the WJ"t
since yo/:. will aU reedvr: a direa bene/it, l'.''IlCII dre .':m)jeu
is finisheo: your cu.rrcmm a"l! happy bl!(;(Jllu fhe')' naw! a
place to park their ea.r; und YO:J are nappy ~1",TWe I/ley
ro,,!i."Ute 10 shop Q y<JW pUlee of blJ.Silleu. This scenario
is rypir.:al of hew a parl<J:ng (J.S$t!.'fsmen{ dis/ria come.; imo
beit<g.
CURR£""T PP.OJECTS
Two parlciug AS.~_~meJJI d i.slnct;; b"ve beon fOlIDoed in Palo
"A,lto fcr the pUrpDse of making parking i..w.t'roverl'lt:nl..s.
On~ is in the Un..i.·~m,,.. Avecue area, wb.iTe: the oliJer is
located in the California Avenue busin~s di~iri::1. Vc ....
deal', le1;<U boundaries have been e~tabl.!Sbed 10 determW'e
the limitS of we districts: (see reverse page).
The City of p;alo Alto acts as the administrator of pMkiDg
imp;rove!DC!ll projects w;th.i.n th= distncts. It o ... er5~~ tho'
foml:a.iOIl of the districts. the sale of bonds. constru.:lioo of
improvements, and [be .spreacfiog and C'oHect:oo of
.assessCl~-Dt;;.
Comw.;;n:iaJ rrora:rty o .... "oers wjlhin th~-se distri,,-> ale
olSSessed I') pay for P;Hking lmpro"emtnts ~ince the)' will
receive .. direct benefil from them. Th:! :u:sl!ss:m~r..t is based
on the square foolage of commercial builJi.n,g.~ and me
amount of parkiDg provid~ by the O""'T.",rs. If $ufliClt:rl:
parking is pro"ided Oil si t!' b.v ;a business. ~o as5oa!.5:meaf i.s
levied. For less than sufficient parking the as:;.t::S~mec~ is
adjusted .in proportion t(\ the parking requirement. In the
CaJi(mui3 Av~cue Distnc:t the: type ofbusine.ss, parcel size
and ~ Dumber of yeu-s a busmes.'i bas been aM<:.S~eJ for
?Ub.cg i!; also f.aclore.d iJ::lo the assessment.
There are cu~ll)' St!ve .... .1 D,,::-king illlpfO'.;emeul. rrojet-ls
in each of these district!;. ror ..... h..ch pro~rty o .... "oers :Il e
bemg a.s.ses.sed. They ;ire,
Project 75-6)
1Qjs project consists of two S\.!:rface parklllg lots. LM L i~
lccaled in tbe 400 b!oc,.. of Bryant St:.ox:1 ::uJjacenl to the
former Crocker Bank btllldlDg. Lot T is IL tbe 400 block
of KiplIng Street. $966,000 tn bond~ were sold to finance
these tots in 1977 and ""ill be paid off in .he year 2000.
LCl t J Reli n~nci:lg ar.;l
25:1 trni~'ersity A,·enue Aeqtlisilion
Lot 1 (Ca"per·Web!.ter G,u':lge): This facili!y i.s a fi>,~·
le'ld parking S[ru::-tu:~ Io.::.;;.[ed berwec:a L-aiversi.y and
H;amilt03 ,4.ver.ues off Cowp.:r Slr~1. Thu Pr:lJe:::t WOIoS
CrJ.ustructe4 in 1984 and refrnanced i:l 1990 10 uke
advallLage of !Ilor~ f&>'orlb!e e.;ouomic ItlrttlS.
:250 University AH~IlU{,: .~ p~ of lb.~ Lot J rer:nA:l<:lI1~,
hoods were scld for :'~'lUISll~OIl of ODe Je'\'d of'llldergroui"'H.l
?ari;:ir1g al?SO tini'.'ers.ilY A' .. e~ul! ill 1991.
A tctal (If $.6.420,000 in bonds. ... -er~ H.,le for these two
rrojecls wbich. win be paid otT In the year 2006. Since
the5e rwo Ploj~ts ,fue comb~ced, they dppear a ... olle
l&SSt!SSl1I:!ct on tht! tax mLls.
Co.lij'c)rniiJ A. "em.le DUtrict
Projet.::t 71--63
Tnis pwjeo.::~ l,:oIls.i~t:s of t';1.IO surfac~ parkmg \015 (Lot. C-1
af\d C·9) 10.;3t ..... .1 oft .Ehn:b St:'!et. $420.000 m bonds were
sold for trus rroje.:1 i.e 1975. rbe:-will b;:: ?2.id off in t.'te
)'c.:n :WOO
This proj &:t mvoj\'ed ,be Kqu:sition of tbe :rurface parkiog
101 adj3cenl to th~ Kq.stoce Tbeater and localed on
Dr.cbndge Avenue b<:"veen Bircb StroXt ,u,d PArk Blvd (lot
C-3). S 1. '325 ,GOO in bocds were sold for me" purcba..-=e lind
{roprovem~nt cftfus lot in 1987, The_I' ",ill b;:: p;;id off in
the year 2(10: .
FTTURE PROJECT
I\..f\ .. J.dltiona[ project is curr~o.tly being consLd-ered in
Ca.ufomia A,:er;ue Dist.-ict. The pr~e-..::t is a tI,I,:c·..J.:ve!
parking stnJctt;re to be cc~:>tructe.::l (In. tlte: exi<:tlC.I'!
Cambridge Aver.ue Lot C·3 (Key~tolle Lf.'t\ The public
be;.rwg pTO~SS for the proj«.t will ()Ccllr ill Fall (99) wilh
coo'Slruction proposed !o begin in 1994. The ul:ima1e
decision a$ to 'NiletbEr this forojed is ... nder'..1keo v.'IIl be
lIl3dc by ;he: rrapert)' o""'-tlers wbo .... ·m ba .... e 10 pay for
the.m.
For further infmmation eLl this Sl.:.bje.::l con:"':, the-City of
Palo AJ(o Publ,c Works Engineering Di~'ision:al 329-2151.
Attachment A
Page 2