HomeMy WebLinkAbout0421.093Auqust 5., 1993
Th~ HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
6
tl9yAtOVP hrking 'e;9DeDdations -R.terral to Policy and s,rvic ••
and lin-Do. CplMitt •• ,
Members of the Council:
Report ift Dr ie'
In July 1992, the City council directed staff to prepare a report
regar~inq the feasibility of changinq the one-hour on-street
parkinq limit to two hours in the ~~nt~wn area durinq lunch time
hours. With the realization that changes to parking time limits
have other subsequent consequences and that several factors impact
the downtown parkinq issue ... the Transportation Division and Police
Department staff have worked durinq the last year in the
development of so~e comprehensive recommendations to address the
downtown parlcinq issues. Siqnificant assistance in this ef.!ort has
been provided l:ly the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown
Marketinq Committee~
This report provides a summary of 'Work that bas been oompleted
durinq the last three months, various on-street and off-street
parking options and the associated pros and cons for each option.
Due to the complexity of the issues, staff believes referral to
appropriate Council subcommitte9s is needed .for in-depth discussion
and additional community involvement. Staif therefore recommends
that Council refer the following issues to the Finance and Policy
and Se.rvices COlOlJDittees! l} continued t'Wo-hour parking with 30
minute spaces and a sleeper parking ordinance; 2) conversion of
current public parking spaces to permit spaces; 3) the possibility
of short-term leases ot private property; 4) the potential for
converting one or .ore city lots into paid, attendant lots; and 5)
the feasibility of addinq another parkinq structure to the. downtown
area~
Background
Downtown parking issues have been the source of discussion and
Council action t"or many years. Most recently, as indicated in
CMR:211:9J, ~.abers ot the public and business co~unity expressed
concerns that the c;)e-hour parking limit in the downtown area did
CMR:421:93
, ~-,. ,
Pag_ Two
not provide enough time during lunch time to eat and shnp; that
there are not enough short-term customer parkin9 spaces available
for easy access to shops and restaurants; and that sleeper parking
violators monopolize many of the convenient space-s... thus
restri~ing their availability for shoppers, reste~rant customers.
ana other visitors.
A year Ago, Council directed staff to determine the feasibility of
~ndinq the parking l~its by an additional hour during the lunch
time hours. As staff began workinq on the assignment and after
h~rinq from members ot the Chamber of Commerce, oovntown Marketing
committee, individual visitors, and business owners ... the importance
of addressinq the dOlrr"lltown parking issues more comprehensively
became readily apparent. other developments associated with
changes to parking time limits, including decisions related to the
parking citation pr~ess, iMplementation of Assembly Bill 408 (AS
408), the cost/revenue an~lysis, and realiz4tion that there were
numerous dfvarqent opinions as to resolutions, have added to the
complexity of the situation.
In March 1993, council approved a resolution extending the two-hour
time limit that had been i.plePlented in November 1992 for the
holiday season for an additional 120 days, in order to qive staff
additional time to work with the business community on the issues
and to analyze the cost/revenue impact.
, Tn Of wort COapletM puring ~h. La.t Threw Bgpth,
Since March, statf has continUed. 'Workinq with the parking Committee
af the Chanber of Comaerce in the analysis of the situation. The
Committee bas been actively involvea and they have hosted several
meetinqs to discuss issues with members of the business community
and residents of the adjacp.nt neighborhoods. As a result of their
'Worle, they developed. their own .l2-point parking proposal that
includes some of staff's recommendations.
During the last three months, staff has conducted several oarkinq
surveys to determine the exact number of on-and off-street parkinq
spaces, the current level oE sleeper parking and the current extent
of neighborhood intrusion. The r2sul ts of the surveys are as
follows:
Sleepor Parking Survey
Durinq April and May a parking survey was conducted in an atteapt
to determine the number of sleeper parkers vho monopolize two-and
three-hour on-and ott-street parkinq spaces. The area surveyed
CMR:421:93
<.
Pllqe Th.re~
included Lytton to Forest and Alma to We!;)ster~ (Exhibits ,'\-1 and
A-2 provide more detailed inform&tion about the area.) Data for
the survey was collected by Parking Enforcement Officers (PEOS),
who recorded the licens9 numbers of vehicles parked in on-anQ off
street parking spaces beginning at 8:30 a.m. and approximately
every two hours durinq the remainder of the day. Analysis of the
data. revealed the follola-"inq;
There are 2,123 time-limi~ed parkinq spaces within the su.-vey
area, 1,021 on-street and 1,102 off-street.
Of the 1,102 off-street spaces, 759 have tWo-hour limits and
343 have th,ree-hour Ii.its.
During the survey, 375 vehicles were ~ound to have parked tor
lIIore than two hours and fewer than :four hours, and 331
vehicles were found to have pa~ked more than four hours.
While not all of these vehicles should be considered sleepers,
stafL estimates that sleeper parkers use between 15 and 20 ~cent
of available spaces.
Neighborhood Intrusioa Survey
Also in May, staff conducted a survey of on-s~=eet parking in areas
adjacent to the downtown area for the purpose of determining the
level of neiqhborbood intrusio-n by downtQwn users/visitors/ea
ployees. (Refer to ixhibit B for maps depictinq th& area surveyed
and neiqhborhood actuals.)
The procedure used by the PEOs was to place a cha lk mark on the
tire of each vehicle parked on adjacent neighborhood streets and to
record the total number of vehicles parked along each block face
beginning at 6:00 a~m. Every two hours thereafter, the number of
vehicles with and without chalk marks was recorded. This
information was then compared to results of a sil!llilar study
conducted in 1990. Exhibit C depicte thg two survey areas.
Analysis of the information indicates that intrusion into the
neighborh.oods north of University Avenue has decreased about 9
percent co_pared to 1990 end about 17 percent in neighborhoods
south of University. However, based upon actual numbers, the level
of neighborhood intrusion is still significant.
stat ... nt o( the Probl ..
An understanding ot the extent of the parking problem in the
downtown area is necessary before options can be considered.
CMJl:: 421: 93
Paqe Four
The Downtown Land Use and Transportation Study adoptecl by the
Council on July 14~ 1986 estimated a total of 6,229 parkinq spaces
available for public use in~ and close to, the downtown area as
shown in Exhibit D~ Since then, 836 spaces have been added to the
supply~ Of the total 7.065 spa~es, 1,144 are off-5t~eet permit
spaces located in various City parking lots; and 3,155 are private
spaces. EXhibit F indicates the number of permit spaces by parkin9
lot.. Of the 7,065 spaces, approximately 5,143 are public and
private spaces within the downtown core. It is estimated that
th"3.re are about 10,000 employees who work in and around the
downtown area. There.tore, the current parking deficiency, as
defined in the annual DoWntown Honitorinq Program, is estimated to
be 1,500 total parking spaces.
rt is important to also recognize that the neeas for parking in the
downtown area are vari6CI~ For businesses, needs depend upon the
type at business~ type of retail establishm4:'mt, number of shift
workers, and availability of private par'king spaces associated with
the business. For users/visitors, parkinq needs depend upon the
type of business and/or pleasure that brings them downtown and the
lenqth of time they need to park.
QD-str .. t Parliug opt12Da
As a result of the analysis of the survey results and information
obtained froa the business community and from visitors and
employees, a nuaber of options for on-street parkinq were studied
and are presented for council reviev~ Pros and cons for each
option are provided on the following chart (Page 6-1) ~
1. One Hour On-Street Parking -No Sleeper Parking Qrdinance
This option would return parklnq time limits to tne previous
on-street parking time zones at one hour.
2. Qne-Hour On-street Parking -with Sleeper Parking OrdinAD&@
This option would return on street parking time limits to one
hour~ but includes the a~dition or a sleeper parkinq
ordinance.
3. TwO-Hour On-Street Parking Only PuriM Lunch Time Hours
(12;00-2:QO pem~) -No Sleeper Parking Ordinance
This option would provide for one-hour on-street parkinq,
except between the hours of 12:00 and 2:00 p.m. during which
time vehicles would be iil'.llolll'ed to park for two hours.
... TWO-Hour On-St.reet Parking Only PUring Lunch Time Hpurs -with
~leeper Parking Ordinance
CIIR:4n:9J
Page Five
5.
6.
This option is the same as the one above but includes a
sleeper parkinq ordinance.
TYQ-Bpux On-Street Parking All pay
ordinans;;e
No $1 eeper Parle: ina
This option would maintain on-street parkinq time limits at
two hours for the entire day.
No-Hour On-Street Parking All pay
9rdin2lDce
with Sleeper PaTking
This alternative is tile £l:ame as 15 but includes a sleeper
parking ordinance.
7. n.·Q-Hour on-Street ParJcing All Pay -with Sleeper parking
Qrdinance and 30-Minute Time Zopes on Ea~h Block Face
This option is the same as 16 'With the addi tion of shorter
time zones on each block face.
84 Two-Hgur on-Street Parting on North/south streets. One Hour
on-street parking on East/West streets -~ith Sleeper Parking
ordinance
This option would provide for tWO-hour on-street time li.its
on north and south streets and one-hour on-st~eet time limits
on east and west streets.
0ff-str •• t ParkiDq Option-
While the above options address on-street parking, as part of the
COJIPrehensive approach i.n dealinq with the downtown situation,
staff also studied options associated 'With off-street public
parking lots4 Again. pros and cons for each option are listed on
the ~ollowing chart (Page 6-2).
1. Maintain the statui Qug -Combined Two-and Thue-Hour free
Plrking and farmit Parking Combination
This option would maintain the current number of free two-and
three-hour and permit parking spaces in City lots.
2. Maintain the Status Qug -COmbined TWo-and Three-Hour free
Parking ana Permit parking Combination yith Sleeper parking
ordinance
a!R:421:93
Paqe six
This alternative would be identical to the one above but
includes a sleeper parking ordinance.
3. Require Pe=mits for All Spaces in ~
This alternative would eliminate all free parking in City lots
and permits would be required.
... In:;""" the Number of CUrrent Pi!rm;i t space., at sOlIe Lots but
Still Provide some TwO-and Three-HOUr Fre@ Spaces
This alternative would increase the number of current permit
spaces to allow more downtown employees to pa~k in lots while
still providing some two-and three-hour free spaces.
5. Iwplement Attendant/Tandem Parking at:. Certain Longer Term Lots
With this option I one or more city lots ~ould be converted
into attendant parking for people who .ish to park for longer
periods o~ time. A fee WQuld be charged to help defray costa
of the attendant(s).
6~ Implement a Tiered parking Permit Fee System for Lots
Agpording to Their Proximity to central Downtown
Onder this option, permit fees would be less expensive farther
from the center of downtown than permit fees for lots closer
to the center.
Additional op'tions as reflected in Exhi~it D includittq parking
.etecs , parkulators, parlcinq vouchers, parkinq piats and others
were briefly reviewed by staff, but not seriously considered due to
their impracticality~
pl:eqS.ioQ 9f Reaqppep4atious
After reviewing the options summarized above and the analysis of
the. survey data and based upon discussions 'With mf>..mbers of the
downtown business community, numerous individual employars,
eaployees, visitors and residents in the adjacent neighborhood,
staff has developed some reco=mendations that include a combinatiQD
of 60_e ot the options noted above, in addition to several other
eleJIenbl.. The recommendations deal with concepts that merit
consideration, but wb~~e impacts, potential costs and complexities
require considerable discussion by the council and further input by
the ca..unity prior to decision-Making. Therefore, staff
recommends that these issues, and others the Council may wish to
CMR:421:9J
Page 6-1
ON-STREET PARKING OPTIONS
OPTIONS PROS
, CONS
1. One-Hour Oil-Street ProvidEt' more .lI ... ellable parking apace, due Doekl't pco'flde .nough 1\me ftJr peop" to •• t .nd .hop.
htking -Nt. Sl .. per to 1l1ct.ased turn(Jver. 0 Encou,su .. Ileeper pafi(ing .... en thOugh .mp"""" woukf be
Ordin.nce 0 "'Inimal CO&t.8 (Of lmpl(lmen1alion, tOfcad 10 move their c .... rnore oft'fl.
Increased reWtflue for til. City.
2, One-Hour On-Stroet Prowidea additiooal parking 'l;)e(;88, Ooe~n't provide MOl)gh time f(tt yllhorl to •• t and .shop,
p."king -with Sleeper Freea up on·,treet parking monopolized by Somo incrlll.I.d' COlt. 'Sladatad With n"!''N aigneoe
P.rking Ordin.nce Ileepe, paf~er5 requirement •.
Incruse. reyenue 'ilf (he City Mav Increa,e perkinG In adjlctnt Mighbo,koodl_
3, Two-Hour On-StrH' -Provides more time fa, Pillopte tu eat and EnGouragelli Ileep.r p,rke" to monopolize p,emlom 'pace, 'or
P.rldnu Only Durinu shop. Ionyel parlodl of time (up to thr .. houc"."
lunchtime Hours ",tlolN(> fOf mnra a\lailable J)ilrklnu I'Ipace!J Reductls turnover of IJllc •• duriog th. lunchtime.
112,00 . 2,00 pm,1 -during the other time, of ttw day OUft to Some 3ddition.' coltS due to , change in ,Ion •.
No Sl,eper Parki(1g increased nnnover_ Ooesn't holp ptto~le who com. to down\o'Wt\ e&fMlf Of .ater In
Ordinance ,h~ ~ilV,
OiHftrent p"kfl'lg tima. 8t diUerent limes 01 tha day may be
confusing (0 viSItor'.
I Reduction in City feVenue.
Parkino $ptces mav actuallv bit tied up for o'Ver tkiM hou(l.
4, Two-HoUf On-Street Saffle as ,~, Sarno 88 '3 witt-exception of til. f,ra, Item,
Parking Onlv During M.v incr •• 58 parking In adjacan( neighborhoods.
llillchlime Hours -with
Sleeper Parking
Ordinance --
5, Two-Hour On-SU8ut PfO'lide5 100\;18' periodS of lime lor parking Encoutages s!dape, parking to I graat,r degrae,
Parking All Dav -No all dav. Oit(Joursg8s Ihort-term parking and adversely aUeCt.
Sle.Pftf Parking No COlitS raQuj,ed to Implement on " businfl5ses whOle r;lie'Uele don't Mud two houT. to P'T~.
Ordi08.f\C~ permanerl't ballis, heduc •• parking IUfnovsr Nld may locre.lo tralii(; congestion
Easily understood bv the public. due '0 more pflopl. loo"-ino for .paces.
AeductjQI,\ in ctt~ '.\It(Wa, . '
6, Two-Hour On-Streat Same la 15, Same 3. '5 with e)(~ePtlon 01' 'Iflt item_
Parking All Day -with Dilcourages sleepor PJlrking. POlsiblo incrAt'6e In neighborhood IntrUlion parlt;lnQ.
Sleope, Parking AdditIonal COlts ilssO(:lftted with aign'Ult,
L_. Ordl.!"~~e --------------------
•
, ..
-7. Two-Hour On-Str.et . Same ,.16, s.tme a. 16.
Parking Aft oav -with Addf.aan the n8ltds of amaller bualn .....
s.eeper Pflrkjng whose clHtntele need ,horter periods of time
Ordifllnci and 30-\() pattt.
Minute Time Zone. on
Each Blioc)t FJlCa
8, T WO-HOUf On-Street Provide. Gever.' parking tim .. tlrnita fo M.V be confu,lng to the PlIb'~.
Parking Ofl NorthtSouth addresl need, of different type$. Qf Would not provide enough longef term nfl-atreet parking.
Stree", One-Hour On-bllsineaan, C0518 as"ooilled with aignaoa chano ...
Str •• , Po\'rkinU on Oi~our",oet. "leaper parking,
Eas:tiWast SUeolS •
·with Sleepe( Parking
Ordinance
Page 6-2
OFF· STREET PARKING OPTIONS
OPTIONS PROS CONS
1. MaIntain the Status 0 AII(JW8 sleeper Pt"klm 10 ute perking Iot8, 0 is co(\(uaiOlJ to l.OR\_ ...tt\torI,
Ouo -Combined Two· Provide, .ome longer term free parking, OilWOurago. employe •• from purchasing pwmlt. or findtn"
and Three-Hour freo othec mode, o. tr.vet
Parking and Permit
Parking Com"'nation
2, Maint.ln the S.8tul Oi,courages Ile.per parking, 0 Same Q ."
Ouo . Combined Two-Fr.el \Jp rnor. Ipace, and o.lcourag81 . COIlS fot SIgn ••
.nd Throe-Hour Free turllOV8t' May incroate p8fkN'lU in "'o;Ij;l(.8nt ",.ighborhooda,
Parking and PermIt
ParklnQ Comlwl.tion
with Siaopet Parking
Ordinance
J. Require Permits for All PH}I(ldas. mo(. $l"'fmit topac •• 1m downtown Would roduce the number of fr •• parking apac,. aveilable to
Spaces in Lots em~('IV6el!o. dUwlltown ulent/vili.tof',
May freo up mot. Oll-Itreet S~)ltCUS for C081S lor signs.
visitor •. May illi,;tfij68 fI!lrkinQ in adjecent neiOhbothood.,
i ,
4, lncreil88 thu Numbur at May tre6 vp lOme on·.uecU SpaCQS for Would reduce the numb., of 'ree p8rl(Ing .pace' in 101 •.
Current Permit Spaces lJifOitQrt..
at Somfl lots, but Still Porn'llt (tvailabilitv would increase,
Provide Some Two-
,,00 Thr.e-Hout Free
S4'IC8S
5, Implem~t May inCtU8se the numb.r of public parkin" R.quin,s member. 0' the public to par to p.-rl( 'OJ klngsr 'erml.
AnendantfTandeJn sp.cea. Costs 8!lHQClatll'd with ,ddltional staff "e.ded ... attend,nU,,"
ParkUlg. at Ceftaln f'fovid •• 'or lO(lgor term spaces.
Longer Term LOtis
6, Implement I T"r .. d Encoureges more people to obtain pcJrmitl Mav b. jni~lIy confu6~e to people mt&rQled \n obtaining
Parking Permit Fee at l(1we( cost. permita,
System 'Of lota lo(s that are cUfrently not I.used to capacity Mav add lome meon\l8nhmee to some people in ttlal they
Accotding to Their will become mote liuraoti"e to parmit wou!dn't park so cloae to their place of bustl'l.",
Proximiw 10 C6ntral holders.
Downtown Value of apeC8t may be '1!1t by demand,
,
Paqe Seven
add that are ~ssociated with downtown parking, be referred to the
Finance an~/or Policy and Services Committees. Staff believes the
following issues S-hould be referred to the Policy and services
Committee:
L staff recomJllends the on-street p:u·kinq liznits in the downtown
llr4Sa be maintained at two hours Monday through Friday from
8~ 00 a.m. to $:00 p.m. staff belie.ves that all-day limits, as
opposed to two different sets of limits and/or extended lunch
time hours, provide the additional time many visitors need,
while at the same ti~e are easily understood and regulated.
In order to accommodate. the needs of retail businesses whose
customers require shorter parking periods, two 30-minute time
zones would be installed on eAch standard downtown block face.
2~ :In oOrder toO address the problem of sleeper p3r1cers~ staff
believes tha~ a sleeper parxing ordinance is necessary. The
majority of sleeper parkers ~re ful1-or part-ti~e employees
and bUsiness O'Wnlf;rs, who prefer to park their vehicl-es. as
close as possible to their places or employment and who Day
rationalize that paying for parking citations ia less of an
expenss l per year~ than buying parkinq permits.
Staff envisions a sleeper parking ordinance, which would
involve creating four downtown zones designated by color or
letter r to include both on-street and off-street parkinq
spaces.. Parking in a zone would be limited to the. two-hour
limit or lO-minute limit, once a day. Vehicles within zones
would be tracked by license plate numbers. entered into the
P!Os' Autocite computers.
pendinq the committee's conceptual approval of a sleeper
parking ordinance, staff would return to council ~ith a draft
ordinance within several months.
3. With the addition of sleeper-parking restrictions, it would be
iaperative to provide as ~any permit spaces as possible for
people wbo work in the downtown area so that neighborhood
intrusion does not increase... Thereforoe.,. staff 'Would intend. on
chenqing Lot T to all permit spaces and all or a portion ot
Webster/Cowper garage basement to permit spaces.. This 'Would
provide up t'..o an aciditional 1.15 permit spa~es.
Also, staff is exploring the possibility of restripin9 the
reaa.ining: lots, 'Wbich would provide up to <7 additional
spaces~
Z~ Council adop~s a sleeper parking ordinan~e, staff~ in
CIIR,421,93
t
•
P&'Je Ei'Jht
cooperation with the cha~r of Co~erce and Downtown
Marketing committee, woul~ ~ork to further educate employers
and employees 1n the downtown area &Dout available per1Dit
parking opportunities and alternative modes of travel other
than sinqle O':.c:upant vehicles. Staff believes. this additional
info:netion disse!IIination will assist in reducing the number
of sleeper parkinq vehicles, incraasQ the number of perwits
purchased by employ~es and employers and use of perxit lots,
and f:ee up additional on-street and off-street tille zone
parkinq spaces for customers and visitors.
Additionally, staft anticipates continuing to distribute maps
to visitors, directing them to parking facilities.
4. In the downtown area, there are a number of private spaces
that could possibly be leased and converte.d to parkinq lots.
Included in these spaces are the Aatrak lot adjacent to the
Holid~y tnn (previously known as Lot U), the Peninsula Times
Tribune lot, and others. Prior to initiatinq discussions
with any property owners on the feasibility ot this concept,
or determininq the number of additional sp~ces that may
result, and the associated costs, staff believes additional
discussion is warranted.
5. In the interest of providi,~ more lonq-term parking spaces in
the downtown area in the near future, another potential option
deals with the conversian of one or more lots into paid
attendant parkinq. Lots controlled by parking attendants
usually result in more vehicles beinq park.e.d in the same
amount of space. While a Charge would b5! required to park in
these luts to cover the costs of the e.ttend.a.nts, staff
belisves that many downtown visitors would utilize such a lot~
Additional study is needed to determine which, if any lots,
would be appropriate for this conversion and the associated
costs.
Staff believes the following-issue should be referre(! to the
Finance Committee:
6. The concept of an additional parking structure in the downtown
area is one that could possibly have the most impact on the
downtown parkinq situation. Considerable work dealing with
pct~ntial locations, a feasibility study, cost prcjection&,
etc. would be required before an in.formed decision is
possible. Staff has not dene any work on this concept and
seeks direction.
CMR:421:9J
Paqe Nine
parking revenue for 1992-93 totalled $1,054,500. This amount was
substantially higher than .averC!llge due to the change in citation
processing' vendors and the procesainq tlf a larqe backlog of
citations. Sta.ff estimates that a.bout 10.001) fewer-citations would
be issued over a year's time with two-hour parkinq. This estimate
is based upon the comparison of Oecember 1991 -June 1992 and the
same time period last year. Costs associated 'With the entire
parking program based upon tvo-hour parking in the downtown area
including enforcement~ citation processing and the AD 408 program
are projected to be about $604 ,300 ~ With i.plementation of the
parkinq EXiUI!;:.er program (AS 408) I Council adopted some new fees
and increased several pe~alties. Based upon this, parking citation
revenue is estimated to be about $605,800 for Fiscal Year 1993-94.
CIt should be noted. that this estimate does not include any z:'evenue
that would be associated with 30-minute zone and/or sleeper parking
violations.) Therefore, staff anticipates that costs fo['" the
parkinq program (excluding an expenditure for signs) would break
even with revenues~
convertinq some additional space$ into permit spaces as described
above is projected to be $3,800.
If Council approved the maint~nance of the two-hour parkinql there
would be no initial additional costs tor Bigns~ However, there
would toe costs associated with the insta.llation of siqns and
markings for 30-minute zones and costs related to a sleeper parking
ordinance. Siqns and :aarlcings for 30-minute zones are esti.ated to
cost between $10.000 and $30,000 based on the location and number
of siqns. It council desires to adopt B sleeper parkinq ordinance,
staft would propose to install simple, low-cost signs such as -Two
Hour Parking in Zone -Reparkinq Prohibited after Two-Hour M~ximum~
during s year's trial period. These signs are estimated to cost
about $40,000.
Coraplaints are .frequently heard from visitors th,at Palo A.1to ....
standard -parkinq-signs with an "arrow (qrt!en on white) are
ineffective in providing directions, as they are not easily
identified in their surroundings. Therefore, at the end of the
trial period and depending upon the results of the evaluation. more
aesthetically pleasing and effective siqnaqe, directinq downtown
visitors to parJcinq facilities and indicating sleeper parking
restrictions, may be warranted. Oependinq upon the design, costs
tor these signs could be substantially higher.
CMR:421:93
Page Ten
R.cp=Wations
Due to the nature of the issue.s related to dovntovn parkin9 and the
recognized need to deal with them comprehensively, statt recommends
that the Counc.il:
1. Refer to thf! Policy and S-2rvices committee the .!1;,~ueB of
continued two-hour parkinq with a sleeper ordinance; the
conversion of current public parking spaces to permit spaces;
the potential for short-term 1e2l$e& of available private
property; and! the possible conversion of one or more city
parking lots into paid~ attendant ~ots(s)~
2. Refer to the Finance committee the item regarding the addition
of another parkin~ structure in the downtown area.
Respectfully submitte~,
LIl!rANT~D«=~
Traf Coordinator
LYNlI!! JOHNSON
Assistant Po~ice Chief
Related CMR:
Attachaents:
c:KR:211:93 -Recommendation to extend Downtown Two
Hour parking for 120 Days Pending Further Study of
Sleeper Parklng ordinance and cost/Revenue Analysis
of Parkinq Program
Exhibits A-~, A-2, 5, C, 0, E, F
cc Susan Frank, Chambe'[' of Commerce.
Nicki Schneider I Downtown Ma~ketinq committee
CMR: ~21:93
,
EXHIBIT A·1
--==-~-=-~'~=.......,.."
Vehicles Pnr~ed No./peu::entBge 0'
SECTION No, ()I 2-hmlf !\In, hi 2 or 3·hour Totol NUlllhnr of Dvm 2 I-Iollrsl Vehlctos Parked
On-street Splices Otf-strm)t Spaces SPHCl)$ Under 4 HOllIS Over 4 Hours -,
Section $I 1: AT"~ bounded
by Emerson\Alma\Lytton. 278 153 431 71 80
and Forest (including Lots 0 (18,6%)
811£1 R, -----~-----.. ----.------.~----------~--------------
Section 112: Area houndad
by Bryonl\EmofSon\Lytton 281 JaG 677 138 106
and ~ore5t (including Lots A. (15.13%)
8, C, CC. and NI --------------------------.-
Section 113: A(ea bounded
by Wavedev\Sr¥i'nt, lust 56 north of Lvtton, and Forest 20~ VI 475 74 11 1.8%1. I (including Lois K. F, S, L.
Bnd Dl . _----------._-_.-- -. - ------. -------. . _---------------------.. -----------
Seclion #4; Area bOlJoded
hy Wel!slor\Wavorl0V\ oa lytton, ~nd Fnrost lincludinn 2 ~)fl 202 ~l'lO 92 116,5%1 Lots. T 1!J H itlld W/C
G8fag~} ----------------------------... -~----------
TOTAL 1021 1102 2123 375 331
115,6%1
~
-I
I
I
I
I
i I
L-. __ _
,. I
L.~
---:i:::: ====
Free D01':'ntown ~ I
Palo Alto
Public
Parking ·Lot:
~:~i~;lIt.~ [@%r&
1:1: lUlU' u.n)
;:~,!;.i1.~ _
il b""r Umit)
JL
i--
I i
IL
I r-
I ! ===IL
U ;."'~ ===, ;::'i
r~!
i ' I
j I
~3'2==5!
--i r
I
,
i
L
j I I;:-!====~
t
•
• EXHIBIT B
The c..'1anges in on-s'treet parldng i1!1ncutabic: to me resident and non-resident groups a[
various times is shov.m in the tabie below. Parking overall increased from 1208 [0 lj64
(29%) from the 6;00 a.m. period to the 12 nOiln pericxi with compQsitio~ (hanging from a!J.
resident parking (1208) to i l5l non-reside" paricing and 413 resident parking.
Total On-Sir'" I Resident I Non-Resident II
Parking Group , Group 'I
Prior to 6:c{) a.m. I 1208 I 1208 I 0 -i
8;00 a.m. period 1301 I 751 I 550 I 10:00 a.m. period I 1464 I ~81 I 98~ , I
12 N oor. period I 1564 I .!13 I 1151
The same data is separated into [\VC parts (north side area and somh. side area) in ~he ubies
below. For the north side area, oveI'3ll parking in-;:reased 2S% from 6o!(l at 6:00 a.m. to 819
at 12 Noon. The <:;omposition changl:d fr~m all 540 resiJent pa...-1cing [0 575 nan-resident
parlring and 244 resident parking. For the south side area, parking inc:eased 31 % from 568
ax: 6~ a.m. to 745 at 12 Noon. The composition changed from ill 568 reside::!! par.cing to
576 non-resident parkliig and 169 reside:n parking.
NORTH SIDE AREA (North ofL'nivemry Avenue) I .-
I I
i T oal On-Street Resident Non-Residem
Par.iring Group Group i
I
Prior 1,,-6:00 •. m. 640 I 640 I 0
8:00 •. m. period I 643 I 429 I 214
10:00 a.m. period 733 251 I 482 !
12 Noon period 819 244 I 575 J
..... _-
SotITH SIDE AREA (South of University Avenue)
Total On-Street
I
Reside:n[ l': on-Residen [
Parking Group Group , I Pri"r to 6;00 a.m. 568 I 568 C
8:00 a.m. perJJd 658 I 321 j 336 I
10;00 '.m. period 7"' J _ I 230 I 501
12 Noon period ji!.5 I 169 I 576
Findings for Area A (compariS<ln of the ,990 and 1993 parking surveys)
CO~A.RISON OF 19~ A~D 1993 P.·t.~ .. Ki:-":G SUR .... 'EyS (12 :-.icon ?~.!k:) ~
Total OD-S""" I R.sid"", ~oo·R<siC." I
P3tking-Group Grou~
I ! ~. of 1 I i , i _'i. of I S. of I S. of X of I S. ai I
Gttiv. Urn .... Toui Clliv. ToW I Univ. I TJniv. i T,~ta1 I I Gni .... I I I ,
1990 Survey 899 I 943 !S4~ 166 I ~~i <,-I -5~3 ~9: 13:5 ~ l. I ,
1993 SUrve:' 819 745 1""";":' 244 ! 169 -4-L3 5":": 5,6 l!51
1. On-street parlc:ing during the C !'Ioon (peak) period has decrelSeO by approxirnareiy
l5%. from 1842 in 1990 to i564 in :993. The decrease is due pr.marJy to fe·.v~:
non-resident parl..--ers ar.d seconciariiy to res;d~.'1t parkers.
2. OveraIlparlcing north oiUniversicy during the l:! Noon (pe:lk) period has decrea:ied
9% from 899 in 1990 to 819 in 1993. Non-resident parking has deore3.Sed from 6"
to 575 (9%).
3. Overall parlcing south of University during the i2 Noon (pezk) period has decre=d
21 % mm 943 in 1990 to 745 in 1993. Non-restderj[ parking has decre.ased from
692 to 576 (17~).
EXHleJT B
.~ I
il
---------_ ........ ,;.;.." ... --.~:-.=-~ ..
For the additional LOU covered by 1993 parking surveys, the changes in on-street parking
nann and south afUnivcrsity Avenue, as well as the total parking chang~s. are shew in me
tables below:
ADDmONAL AREA (AREA B) COVERED BY 1993 SURVEY , I Total On-S=, I Resident Non-Resident
Parking I Grolip I Group ,
I 356 1 366 I 1 Prior to 6:00 '.m. I -•
%:00 a.m. pe.;0<! I 365 I 241 I liS
• i I
10:00 a. m." period i 361 I 147 ! 214-
I
I 12 Noon ~"",riod 335 I 105 230 ,I
ADDmONAL AREA SOUTH OF U'NlVERSm' -
, ,
1 Total On-Smoe: I Resident i Non-Resident I I
Porking Group I Grou:;J 1 I !
I 235 I 235 ! 0 I
Prior to 6:00 a.m. , "I
8:00 a.m. period I 246 I 1&1 1 82 I I I
I
, I !
10:00 3.m.period 241 1 97 I I+! j
1
I I
12 Noon period Zii I 7G i 1 ,~-I . ...-;
,
ADDmONAL AREA NORTH OF UNNERSITY ~
Total On-Sin.:.
I
Resident I Non-Resident
;1
Parlcing Group Group ,
Prior to 6:00 a.m. 131 I 131 I 0 i
8:00 a.m. period I l!9 I 83 I 36 ,
10:00 '.m. period 120 50 I iO
12 Noon period 1lS 35 1 83
, , -,.-
__ .~ __ ~ __ -...-"-..... ,,. -~:",,,#'z': .. ','--~-'
Findino::; fpc the addjriOT!aJ area identified as Area B:
1. Overall parking dec.-eased 8% from·;66" 6;00 a.m. '0335 at 12 Noon.
2. The composition c!langed from all resident park£ng (366) a[ 6:00 a.m., to 230 non
resid.<nt parking and 105 residen' parking du..>ing the 12 Noon (peak) period.
J. Of t.'le 230 nOTI#resident parking, 147 occurred sout.'1 of University Avenue and. 83
. nonh of University A venue.
4. Of the 230 Don-~sident parking, 103 occurred eas' of Middlefield Road.
f
EXHIBIT S ,
-.-~-.. --, ....
EXHIB'T C
•
~ 0 ~t '" ., N
'5 ~
'" N .... N MI as
"-;; -~I ;;; 5~ ;;; ., "'.
'" -N' ~
0' .. ~
.,
" • '" 0" ~ ~ "< '" "'I -
• .1 ;;;
.~. . ~.'
"" , .... ~
"'-...:.~ ~ ..... """" ~".~ ,
'.
J
,j
-~
e:=-. -1
\
i
I ,/
.1
" I • I
/
'L
•
•
EXHIBIT E
The table below provides 21 summary of the number of permit spaces. the Current
l1umner of names on the wait "sts, and the number of permits to be sold this
Quarter.
tOt or Garage Permit Spaces Wait list Permits to Be
Sold This Ouarter
Civic Center 505 76 30
E and G 90 67 15
We bster ICowper 260 0 40
K and T 72 15 13
0 132 16 32
p 55 30 10
Holiday Inn 30 0 20
TOTAL 1,144 204 160
-
EXHIBIT F
1. Parking Meters - A number of olties utilltB parking mete,s to help r.,gulate parking with v8r~ng levels of B\iCcesa. Matal:!! provide the
advantage of allowing drive"l to know exactly how long they have to park in a particular location. As a result. thale are few, if any,
disputes on the Issuance of citations. However, metars elirninate free parking and encourage sleeper parking, Instead of moving their
ear every hour. parker. aimply foed the meters, Parking met"Ts .r6 unsightlv and very expensive to install, ma\ntain and rapl.ce. The
City of San francisco is currentlv experiencing 21 tremendous increase. of theft 8nd 'Yandalism to their Rioters. Additional staff need.d
to f;;ollect the monies from t"'e meters elso increases the cost of this alternative,
2, ParkyJotOl· The ParkullJtQf is 8 system that eliowA tho pubiic to purchase it p6rmi( 'rom machines placed in convenient locatiGr\s. The
p",mit includos the year, month. date. delf. hQur, aM amount of time the vohicle can perk. Thi~ system is somewhat similar to what
Stanford University uses ,or it~ one-dey p8tking perl'nits. The advantsge 0' this system is that t"'e public is. Rble \0 ptJfchase up to
200 hOUl! of parking at on8 time. Ftee pinking is eliminated. however. and lhe system encourages sleeper parking. The f-arkuletor is
a digital device which can frequentlv melfunction. The Cit V 01 San Diego discontiouod the. \IS8 of the Pa,ku)8Itor because of thiS
problem. together 'WIth the tQndency of the permit to drop oil the windshield In the heat and thus not be visible to the PEOs, Son
Diego also received additional cornplaint8 from Parkulatot permit useUI who lost their Perku\3to, permits snd wefa not Oiven either time
or mOrnJV refunds, The anforcome"1 of this systom Is very 18bO~ intensive. in that the PEOs ml.lSt chac" each vehicle'S permit on tOol
instead of driving th6 Cushmans and just chAjking tires,
3. fi.B1 -The Pial is similsr to 8 device used in Europa, The JlubliC obtains (at no cosH clndbo<llrd devices from various machinBs locotftd
." strategic places that hove 8 clock tHee on one sid&, Drivers set thai, clock 8t the time that they initially park, This SY8ttlm roquira5 '
people to park their vehicl1'. welk to the machine. obtain 8 device. re.turn to their Cllr, place the device in the windShield and then go '
"bout their businass. Enforcement consists of th& PEDs checkina the time indicated 01"1 the c/l1ck and i55uinQ 8 citation if tha vehicla !
\'"
e)(ceeded itl9 timo, This system is the equivalent of 59lt-imposed chalkino of III v6hicle, ObviouslV. thi$. altttfllfltive 8ncou'age~ sleeper I
parking and provides many opportunities ~ circumv.!"1 the aystell) by f~ing the riOles on the clock.
• 4. Iwg.:t:l.QW Vouchers p[~rL1»:.,~~{jI.I.!!AIl~M§!'QU~nu . Tho two-hour voucher system conSists of dowc\1own businas:!
owners obtaining vOlJchers from the City that they. 'n tum. provide to their customors, The voucht'Jrs allow a person to park tor two
"'ours. It IS sim'rl9( to Ihe Piet systern and irldlldfJ5 the S8rne C'lisoovantaOfJs 01 drivers having to return to thell vehicle to place Ihe
voucher on the dashboard and sleeper P0fk8lS numopoilling convenient 8nd 8vailtlble J)arking apae';!5. Dependiflg upon the cost of the
vouchers. this system could croate Some conflicts with the Citv·s. t:UHQnt permit parking procedure.
5, fark Yourself System (Ticket MGtioo -This systom is used bv a number of cittes for on-strasl piuking or in unattended surface 10t.5
end structures, 1IC"81 machines are placed either in lots Or on sueet r;ornors for easy access. Ori\lers are required to purchase 8
ticket and place it on their dashboard, The major disadvanta.ge to tN'S system 1.5 tho inHiat expense of the ticket machines. Each
mect~inb, which includes the ability to use it credit oard, costS about .17,000, It al!lo requires 8 person to return to "isitler vfJhide
atter having purchased a ticket, Free (larking is ehmiMted. Additional bxpens8s associated with 8taff nseded to collect monies and to
1-. stock each machine on a routine basis. togfJther with the maintenanco and upkeep on the machinos. result in considefab\a costs,
,'-,.~'
>
j-'
,J. ..,
:.'
, ~:"
)~.,
,.\ .-
"
•