Marking a new era in parking policies, Palo Alto on Tuesday night approved a long-debated permit program that officials hope will finally provide downtown residents some relief from chronic congestion.
In a separate vote, the City Council also approved a broader framework that will allow other parts of the city to request similar permit programs, provided they meet certain thresholds for neighborhood support and parking occupancy.
Both unanimous votes followed years of complaints from downtown residents; nine months of negotiations between a stakeholders group; and more than two hours of line editing by council members.
In downtown, it will require everyone who parks a car on residential streets for more than two hours to obtain a permit. In the first phase, which will last six months, the permits would be free for downtown residents. Downtown employees would have to pay either $50 or $233, depending on their income level. Other parties that use downtown streets for free all-day parking -- including Caltrain commuters and Stanford University students and faculty -- would not be able to obtain permits at all.
The council's actions marked a critical milestone in the city's effort to address parking shortages in Palo Alto's primary commercial areas -- a subject that has attracted more attention than any other over the past two years.
The city is also in the process of forming a Transportation Management Association (a nonprofit that would manage traffic-reducing programs); expanding its shuttle program; and exploring new garage technologies with the hope of steering commuters into the chronically underused parking structures; and planning to build new garages.
No program, however, has encapsulated the hopes and frustrations of downtown residents and council members like the Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP). More than a year in the making, the new proposal is far broader and more ambitious than the parking-permit program that the council rejected in 2012 in a section of Professorville.
The council approved the basic framework for a permit program in January and left it up to a committee of downtown stakeholders to hash out the details, a process that took more than eight months and that hit its biggest milestone Tuesday night.
Jessica Sullivan, the city's parking manager, summarized for the council the city's array of parking programs and said the message is that "we've made great strides this year in a lot of of different parking components of this program."
"RPPP is a keystone program that helps us start to manage all these things much more effectively," Sullivan said.
Councilman Marc Berman was one of several council members who made a similar point. He called the end result a "good and necessary step" in setting up all the other parking-related programs that the city will be unveiling in the coming months.
"The RPPP is the backbone for so many of the other efforts, including TDM (transportation demand management) and others," Berman said. "So I think this is a really really important night for starting to address the concerns that residents have been expressing to the council for years about decreasing quality of life in their neighborhoods."
The approval of the permit program is a victory for residents of Professorville and Downtown North who have long complained about the deteriorating parking conditions on their neighborhood streets, which currently have no parking restrictions. Many have been urging the council for years to adopt a permit program.
Surveys by residents and city planners show that most of the blocks around downtown's commercial core have occupancy levels of 85 percent or more (in some cases, more than 100 percent) during business hours on the weekdays.
Neilson Buchanan, a Downtown North resident who has been at the forefront of documenting and solving what many refer to as the "parking crisis," was one of several residents to acknowledge Tuesday that the program, while imperfect, is a great start. Buchanan urged the council just before the vote to "give this a chance."
Michael Hodos, who lives in Professorville, emphasized that the proposed two-phase program is a delicate "compromise" between business and residential stakeholders. He urged the council not to tinker with the details too much.
"This resolution is like an arch," Hodos said of the downtown program. "You take away any one component and you risk having the entire structure fall apart. Please don't let this happen."
The council heeded his advice and made only minor tweaks before endorsing the stakeholders group's recommendation.
The Tuesday discussion, which concluded shortly after midnight Wednesday, was far less acrimonious than the one that occurred in 2012, when the council rejected the Professorville proposal.
On Monday night, the council heard from several speakers about the proposed permit program but deferred its own discussion until a specially scheduled meeting on Tuesday night because of the late hour.
One of the speakers on Monday night was Judy Kleinberg, CEO of the Chamber of Commerce. She told the council that the Chamber generally supports having a permit program but believes that the first phase should be a true "pilot" program. The Chamber, she said, is concerned that the second phase in the program is too detailed. She also urged the council to keep employees' needs in mind.
"We want to emphasize that any program has to meet the needs of all employees who make downtown a vital, robust center that we all enjoy," Kleinberg said. "That means really protecting the system in terms of downtown retail employees, service workers, restaurants and hospitality businesses."
Under the staff proposal, the second phase would last a year and would set a cap on permits and give them out on a block basis (an employee permit would specify which block or two-block area the permit applies to). Employees would be allotted about 20 percent of the permits, with service employees getting access priority. Residents would get one free permit and have the option of buying up to four more for an annual cost of $50 each.
Most of the residents who spoke on Monday and Tuesday meetings advocated for the program's passage. Gabrielle Layton, a downtown resident who served on the stakeholders group, said on Monday it's time to act to curtail an increasingly worsening situation.
"Every other month, another street-face is being devoured by the parking monster," Layton said.
Ruth Lowy said Monday she was "delighted" by the proposed first step and "glad to hear there is intended cooperation from various aspects of our community."
The program received a similarly positive public reception on Tuesday night, with most urging adoption. In the first part of the meeting, the council spent several hours editing and ultimately approving the citywide "framework" for permit programs -- one that would allow any neighborhood to start such a program.
Vice Mayor Liz Kniss said during this portion of the discussion that the ordinance, despite some flaws, should be given a chance and then tweaked as necessary.
"I think, if anything, what we ought to do at this point is give RPPP a chance," Kniss said. "Let it work. There will be problems with it. We won't make it absolutely perfect tonight. I think this is really one of the nights where we let the perfect get in the way of the good."
By the time council members got to discuss the specific downtown program, it was 11:30 p.m. and only about a dozen spectators remained in the Council Chambers. Only five council members participated in the latter discussion, with the other four recusing themselves because they have financial interests in the downtown area. All five -- Kniss, Klein and council members Pat Burt, Gail Price and Greg Schmid -- agreed that it's time to go ahead with the downtown program.
Klein, who made the motion to go ahead with the downtown permit program, praised the city's process for getting to the compromise proposal. Just about every council member and stakeholder who spoke at the two meetings also praised Sullivan for facilitating the discussions and shepherding the various stakeholders to compromise.
"This has been an extraordinary procedure and one I commend," Klein said. "I'll take the unusual position of supporting the position of the group even though I might not agree with each and every position they have taken. Because it's a compromise. I think, if anything, what we ought to do at this point is give RPPP a chance."
His colleagues agreed that after years of talking about it, it's time to move ahead with the program. Burt praised the stakeholders group's process for getting the community to agree on a program that was once extremely controversial.
Schmid agreed, saying "it is clearly for the city our biggest and longest-lasting issue on the parking side."
He added that the program could serve as a "good model" for other local initiatives.
Related content:
• Palo Alto brings new strategy to downtown's parking problem
• The journey to the starting line: Permit programs bridges gap between downtown stakeholders
• Is Crescent Park's parking 'creep' a sign of things to come?
Comments
University South
on Dec 3, 2014 at 6:32 am
on Dec 3, 2014 at 6:32 am
Thank You Council. Thank You for giving this a program the go-ahead.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 3, 2014 at 8:11 am
on Dec 3, 2014 at 8:11 am
So how and where will an all day visitor or occasional all day parker park? How will anybody understand the most convoluted system with no pay per hour machines in the majority of garages and lots? How will the few places that a visitor can park be discovered by someone who doesn't know Palo Alto?
Pathetic public relations.
Downtown North
on Dec 3, 2014 at 9:47 am
on Dec 3, 2014 at 9:47 am
So happy to hear that this is finally happening. Thank you City Council.
Charleston Gardens
on Dec 3, 2014 at 10:30 am
on Dec 3, 2014 at 10:30 am
which garages are chronically underused?
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Dec 3, 2014 at 10:31 am
on Dec 3, 2014 at 10:31 am
With, admittedly, little information to go on - this sounds like the city will now be benefitting financially from the parking but the cars will still be parking in the residential neighborhood. Would the residents need to purchase a permit to park in front of their house?
confusing
Downtown North
on Dec 3, 2014 at 10:48 am
on Dec 3, 2014 at 10:48 am
Build more and larger parking garages! Requiring permits isn't going to reduce the number of cars that NEED to park, it only reduces the number of cars that CAN AFFORD to park.
Downtown North
on Dec 3, 2014 at 10:52 am
on Dec 3, 2014 at 10:52 am
[Post removed.]
University South
on Dec 3, 2014 at 10:56 am
on Dec 3, 2014 at 10:56 am
As someone who both lives and works in downtown Palo Alto, this program makes little sense to me. The solution is to increase the amount of available parking, not to make finding spots even more difficult for everyone by implementing a block-by-block permit system. And please, please, tell me which parking garages are chronically underused--I would love to know!
University South
on Dec 3, 2014 at 10:56 am
on Dec 3, 2014 at 10:56 am
As someone who both lives and works in downtown Palo Alto, this program makes little sense to me. The solution is to increase the amount of available parking, not to make finding spots even more difficult for everyone by implementing a block-by-block permit system. And please, please, tell me which parking garages are chronically underused--I would love to know!
Barron Park
on Dec 3, 2014 at 11:10 am
on Dec 3, 2014 at 11:10 am
The downtown business owners who profit from customers business and employees who service the customers, should either provide their employees the benefit of paying for the parking permits for said employees. A long term option: the business & property owners from Alma Street to Middlefield, and from Lytton to Channing should be assessed a percentage of their income for the construction of several garages for the use of 'employees only' in convenient locations. Mountain View in the past year has allocated several parking lots for employee use only.
Evergreen Park
on Dec 3, 2014 at 11:22 am
on Dec 3, 2014 at 11:22 am
Hope this permit program works out and become a good example for our neighborhood. After the constructions in California Ave are completed, parkings in Evergreen Park will be as bad as down down very soon.
Charleston Gardens
on Dec 3, 2014 at 11:45 am
on Dec 3, 2014 at 11:45 am
$50 for six months/$100 for a year? What a bargain! What employer would not pay an employee another $100 a year, or even $466, to buy them a permit? Answer - they all will and we'll be back where we started and the city will have the cash it needs to implement and run the PPP! Hillarious!
Barron Park
on Dec 3, 2014 at 11:48 am
on Dec 3, 2014 at 11:48 am
For the last 2 1/2 years, once a week, I visit Litton Garden Care Facility with my two senior dogs (about 14 yrs old) to visit patients who love to pet and talk to my dogs. These visits last from 2 to 3 hours depending on who is awake and in need of company. I usually park within 3 blocks of the Care facility as there is almost never any parking in the underground parking lot. I wonder if I will get a ticket for parking too long in the North East neighborhood while providing this free service for the many folks who go through this facility. They so enjoy my doggie visits. There doesn't seem to be any permit for the occasional parking person.
Crescent Park
on Dec 3, 2014 at 11:51 am
on Dec 3, 2014 at 11:51 am
Jane,
Yes, will have to pay. It's called a parking ticket.
Midtown
on Dec 3, 2014 at 11:58 am
on Dec 3, 2014 at 11:58 am
To those asking about "chronically underused garages" I share this with you:
I work in the highrise at 525 University, which sits directly across and overlooks the Cowper St. Parking garage between Cowper and Webster (across from the Garden Court Hotel.) As I type this comment, I am looking at the top level of this garage which looks like it holds approximately 90-95 spaces. It looks much like it does every weekday that I am in my office...there is ONE car parked up there. The most activity seen on this top level is generally a mobile car detailing service or kids on skateboards. I can also see into the floor below, with multiple available spaces. Clearly the daily permit or even monthly permit parking program needs to be improved to get people using these spaces. Maybe some outreach on this information as well.
To the person talking about paying high rents so they shouldn't have to pay for parking and calling Palo Alto folks whiners, I say to you that the homeowners in these neighborhoods pay high property taxes which pay for the maintenance of the city facilities and services, that you very well likely enjoy. In addition, we pay high prices for our homes. It should be up to employers and employees figuring out the best solution to cover their parking needs, including encouraging using public transportation. As a downtown PA employee, my employer pays for my parking in my building (a garage that is ALSO woefully underused, and available for hourly or daily parking), and I know of others in the building whose employers provide credits, for not requiring a parking permit. These are programs that too should be encouraged down the road.
Downtown North
on Dec 3, 2014 at 12:22 pm
on Dec 3, 2014 at 12:22 pm
What employer would not pay an employee another $100 a year, or even $466, to buy them a permit? Answer - none. They'll all move to Milpitas and we'll be left with a bunch of empty office buildings to turn into housing for those employees who will then be commuting to their jobs in Milpitas and parking all over Palo Alto streets at night.
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 3, 2014 at 12:25 pm
on Dec 3, 2014 at 12:25 pm
So if the City Manager hired one of his friends and created yet another senior mangement position such as "city parking manager", how would you fund that position? Guess you would immediately create parking districts and charge residents and workers a fee to park on city streets. Residents might think they are getting a good deal now with "free parking", however, as the news article clearly states this is only valid for the 1st phase and ends in 6 months. Notice how all the local "leaders" and politicians jumped onboard with their support. So where does the money go and how is the problem corrected by giving money to city hall?
Meadow Park
on Dec 3, 2014 at 1:22 pm
on Dec 3, 2014 at 1:22 pm
I have monthly hair appts and grp lunches and movie outings. I found that 2 hrs is not enough even if you're lucky to find spaces near University. For a few years now, to avoid the stress of looking for parking spaces, I always park far away towards Embarcaderi Rd then walk. I do support downtown business by my shopping there. I appreciate the residents that let me park along the street in front. I wonder if this rule will change my parking routine. I am willing to pay the parking fee if only I can find one that allows more than 2 hours.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 3, 2014 at 1:27 pm
on Dec 3, 2014 at 1:27 pm
But the city's so concerned about retail. Hah. It never dawned on them that people might have hair appointments, multiple errands, etc. downtown.
In a few months expect to see more pronouncements about how much they care about retail. University Art anyone?
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 3, 2014 at 1:30 pm
on Dec 3, 2014 at 1:30 pm
I have to say that in general, we're relatively lucky here in PA with our downtown parking situation with respect to shopping and dining. I had to spend a couple hours in Burlingame yesterday. I didn't realize that many of the downtown parking spots are metered, and many meters only take coins. I ended up having to make change and come back 3 times to feed the meter! With that kind of hassle, I cut my shopping trip short. At least in PA, I can readily find free parking, which makes it a lot easier to head over on a whim and frequent the businesses there.
Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 3, 2014 at 1:45 pm
on Dec 3, 2014 at 1:45 pm
Curmudgeon, reread what you wrote. 'would not pay'...answer...'none. That sounds to me like they would all be willing to pay the extra money for employee parking.
KK, thanks for that observation. My main downtown parking needs are for going to movies, an occasional restaurant outing, and my weekly Life Stories class at Avenidas. I often can't find a space in the Avenidas lot so I use the Bryant Street parking garage. I am generally able to find a spot in the first or second level w/o having to go to the top. It's a two hour class, but if I wanted to combine it with a movie and dinner, I guess I'd be stuck with having to move my car.
This whole issue has sparked my curiosity. I'm sure others have already done this, but some day I will drive downtown and spend an hour or so just driving to the parking garages and going all the way to their tops. Might have some good views from there. Maybe someone can answer this question...are there any lots or garages that offer 'free' or 'for pay' all day parking?
I think it boils down to this. There are people (employees of all stripes...service workers to executives) in need of all day parking and those of us who only need a few hours of parking. Could those two different needs be handled under one roof so to speak. In the same parking lot/garage. C'mon all us smart people in this great 'snob' city, this parking issue is still in its embryonic stage, but is solvable. The gestation period was the longest I've ever known and took too long, but a child has been born. There are many more ways to be explored to help solve the problem. There will be big time kickback from the CalTrain commuters and Stanford folks I'm sure, so just be prepared.
Thank you council for getting the ball rolling. Now the task will be to keep it rolling in the right direction. And thanks to the group that worked so hard to come to a good compromise first step to the solution.
And as Columbo would say...'Just one more ting'. What's happening with all the 'in lieu ofs' bait money? Let's get it spent for more parking garages.
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 3, 2014 at 1:48 pm
on Dec 3, 2014 at 1:48 pm
bad idea in general, sorry Downtown folks, I walk your streets everyday for the past 8 years & don't see what your problem is
the article doesn't say on what date the program starts
yes, & what the occasional day, 1/2 visitors who bring a lot of revenue to PA businesses to do?
and don't tell me about high property taxes, people, most of you pay very little tax, & live off the backs more recent home owners/PA business & their customers to pay for PA infrastructure
University South
on Dec 3, 2014 at 1:54 pm
on Dec 3, 2014 at 1:54 pm
Madam President,
This program does not change the 2-3 hour parking spots downtown.
It prevents all day parking in the neighboring areas without a permit.
Get yourself informed before making non-sensical comments.
University South
on Dec 3, 2014 at 1:59 pm
on Dec 3, 2014 at 1:59 pm
The garages have 3 hour parking.
Why don't you try them before showing your ignorance by posting here?
This program has been debated forever and everybody's concerns have been considered.
This program is the compromise that has resulted.
Your concerns pale in comparison to the residents, workers, and, companies.
Crescent Park
on Dec 3, 2014 at 4:56 pm
on Dec 3, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Sorry to rain on that happy parade but I cannot figure out how a program supported by Klein, Kniss, Berman, Price, and Kleinberg (Chamber of Commerce) can turn out well for residents.
These are the very people who have for years approved, underparked buildings. Kleinberg's CofC office is in the new underparked Lytton building. The Chamber is composed mostly of developers and bankers, mortgage lenders, and Stanford developers.
Something is going on that doesn't show on the surface.
Mountain View
on Dec 3, 2014 at 5:18 pm
on Dec 3, 2014 at 5:18 pm
@Katie
Clearly there is underused parking (both from city studies and from anecdotes from posters on this thread. As far as increasing supply, there's no free lunch. Parking spaces are not at all free to build and maintain (at least $15,000 per spot, but probably more like $30,000-$50,000 for garages, plus operational/maintenance fees). And more parking spaces will make driving more convenient, therefore causing even more traffic in downtown. Perhaps you could try walking or biking to your destination if you live so close? It is probably faster than driving around and finding a spot right near your destination.
University South
on Dec 3, 2014 at 6:00 pm
on Dec 3, 2014 at 6:00 pm
For all of you who wonder where you'll find parking for a movie and dinner fear not. The parking restrictions are M-F 8-5. A movie and a dinner is generally after 5.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 3, 2014 at 8:16 pm
on Dec 3, 2014 at 8:16 pm
To all the posters who feel entitled to dismiss the hard work of the people involved in this compromise proposal by asserting that parking problems are solved only by building masses of parking garages: Get informed before you spout off!
And, since Gennady apparently has an aversion to including links for people who can't attend meetings and want to know more about the decisions being made, here are a couple links may could help fill readers in on the RPPP discussions:
Web Link
and
Web Link (includes visuals and PowerPoints for those not into reading reports).
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 3, 2014 at 8:34 pm
on Dec 3, 2014 at 8:34 pm
I have no idea whether the garages are under utilized or not. Point is, there is no way of finding out if there is space in a garage before you enter.
We need to get some high tech signs telling the public if there is space or where to go to find space.
We need to get a better method of payment for all day parking for lunch and a matinee (not dinner and an evening performance), or for other visitors who want to park for longer than 3 hours on an occasional basis, than going to City Hall to buy a permit.
We need pay per hour machines in all garages and lots.
Unfortunately, meters in residential neighborhoods would have been a better option than this complicated system voted on. Once again, there has been no out of the box thinking and no innovation from the City in this supposedly innovative heart of Silicon Valley.
University South
on Dec 3, 2014 at 11:25 pm
on Dec 3, 2014 at 11:25 pm
If you read the detailed studies, you will find that the issues you raise regarding finding parking spots and paying for short term parking will be addressed in coming phases.
The parking permit program is a 6-month pilot. It needs to get up and running while the other solutions are worked on so the final parking permit program come together with the other programs later in 2015.
The residential parking permits are not expected to solve all of the problems. They are designed to make parking in the neighborhoods available to residents, their guests, and vendors.
Crescent Park
on Dec 3, 2014 at 11:38 pm
on Dec 3, 2014 at 11:38 pm
The plans talk about building more garages later. Even though it is the under-parked buildings that are causing the problem. But you need to understand one thing:
No garage will be built unless Chop Keenan makes a million $$$ or more off of it.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 4, 2014 at 7:35 am
on Dec 4, 2014 at 7:35 am
Chris, exactly.
And this is why it is being done backwards. The parking situation should have been dealt with before the residential parking. The intervening months are the crucial time. And of course we all know that the City actually runs to its initial time schedule - there will be delays and parking will be atrocious for years this way.
Barron Park
on Dec 4, 2014 at 8:34 am
on Dec 4, 2014 at 8:34 am
I am a resident of Palo Alto. However, I live too far from downtown to walk there and at my age balancing on a bicycle is challenging at best and suicide on most streets. The new parking regulations in downtown neighborhoods will discourage me from shopping in the University Ave area. They will eliminate the possibility of heading downtown with friends for lunch and a movie.
These parking regulations mean that shopping on University Ave is no longer something I will do. I will go somewhere where I can park, shop, look into shop windows, etc as long as I choose. If I happen to engage in conversation with someone in a shop I will not need to worry about the time is over. If I choose to have lunch with a friend and then go to a movie I will have to go elsewhere.
In short the new permit parking for the neighborhoods around downtown will further encourage me to spend elsewhere.
To add insult to injury our developer friendly City Council has chosen to not add an hour to all parking time limits for the Holiday season. I found the Christmas time limit extension easy to understand. Why does the City Council think that our highly educated population cannot figure it out? Perhaps it is our current City Council members who have difficulty understanding it.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 4, 2014 at 11:22 am
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2014 at 11:22 am
I avoid downtown PA like the plague, and if it's even possible, I'll avoid it even more from now on.
Professorville
on Dec 4, 2014 at 11:53 am
on Dec 4, 2014 at 11:53 am
I am appalled that our city council approved this. IMHO, this is an elitist solution to a non-problem. I've lived 3.5 blocks away from downtown for 8 years and have never had to park more than a block from my house regardless of the time of day. I consider this a small price for the privilege of living near such a vibrant and energizing downtown.
Survey results imply that 16% of residents supported this move. (Survey had a 32% response rate. Only half of which were in favor. One can debate how representative the respondents were of the non-respondents. But an understanding of human nature leads one to believe that the non-respondents were probably apathetic about the whole idea... )
As far as I can tell, a small very vocal minority with lots of time on their hands have lobbied for this relentlessly for the past several years and shouted down or ignored most of the concerns brought up by residents and other stakeholders.
This is a real loss for those of us who love living in a vibrant downtown. Here's hoping this gets reversed before imparting serious damage to our neighborhood and downtown.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 4, 2014 at 3:08 pm
on Dec 4, 2014 at 3:08 pm
So when the CalTrain parking lot is full, where do we park if we want to take CalTrain? This is the only reason I park on residential streets.
University South
on Dec 4, 2014 at 3:24 pm
on Dec 4, 2014 at 3:24 pm
CalTrain,
When do you see the CalTrain lots full?
In the last year or two, I have always seen open spots in the lot next to the Sheraton.
Professorville
on Dec 4, 2014 at 4:42 pm
on Dec 4, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Actually, I have seen two fights break out in the downtown CalTrain parking lot over the lack of parking at 7:00 in the morning!
Midtown
on Dec 4, 2014 at 6:26 pm
on Dec 4, 2014 at 6:26 pm
Is there a way to increase the free parking in the garages to four hours? If you're going to eat and watch a movie in downtown Palo Alto, you really need more than three hours to accomplish this. Moreover, my husband has had meetings that lasted longer than three hours.
I am okay with any residential parking plan -- but parking that helps businesses or is associated with industry should be reasonable.
another community
on Dec 4, 2014 at 7:31 pm
on Dec 4, 2014 at 7:31 pm
Sunshine, you wrote, "To add insult to injury our developer friendly City Council has chosen to not add an hour to all parking time limits for the Holiday season."
Actually, it was the City Manager who chose to not add an hour to all parking time limits for the Holiday season. He then informed the City Council about what he had done.
University South
on Dec 4, 2014 at 8:07 pm
on Dec 4, 2014 at 8:07 pm
CalTrain Commuter visit 511.org Web Link to find out how to take the bus to the train station and leave your car and your worries parked in front of your house.
University South
on Dec 4, 2014 at 8:11 pm
on Dec 4, 2014 at 8:11 pm
annam, Two fights in how many years or decades of parking at the Palo Alto Caltrain station? If you live long enough to see another, please film it and post to You Tube. You'd be the FIRST to do so.
Downtown North
on Dec 4, 2014 at 8:18 pm
on Dec 4, 2014 at 8:18 pm
Neighborhood Resident: I couldn't have said it any better. Very similar to the DTN roadblock debacle a decade ago.
University South
on Dec 5, 2014 at 9:19 am
on Dec 5, 2014 at 9:19 am
I can't wait until the RPPP goes into effect. I am taking my life into my own hands every time I cross Bryant when driving on Lincoln. As a resident of University South, I've been watching this problem build for over a decade. Since then, a few cars parked here and there on residential streets have become an overwhelming invasion of the community. While, yes, it is enjoyable to live NEAR a "vibrant downtown" (although this point, too is debatable, since nearly all neighborhood serving retail has been replaced by expensive restaurants, bars and luxury goods retailers), we don't live IN downtown. An issue that was manageable when Palo Alto was a less popular destination has become a crisis, and RPPP is a long-overdue response to that crisis.
Midtown
on Dec 5, 2014 at 11:29 am
on Dec 5, 2014 at 11:29 am
Question: What happens when Palo Alto residents want to visit friends and family members who live downtown? What if we are going to help them move something? Where would be park? Do we have to get a permit to occasionally park near our friends?
Crescent Park
on Dec 6, 2014 at 9:13 am
on Dec 6, 2014 at 9:13 am
@Nayeli - residents can buy extra permits, I assume your friends would give you a permit to put in your car when visiting. You would only need a permit if you are visiting for more than 2 hours between 8 and 5 on weekdays.
@Lucinda - I agree with you that Bryant between Embarcadero and University is a scary street to drive down and I can't imagine biking down it although it a "bike boulevard". There are so many cars parked so close to the corners it is impossible to see cross traffic.
Midtown
on Dec 6, 2014 at 4:30 pm
on Dec 6, 2014 at 4:30 pm
What an abomination. I am truly disgusted by every one of our city's council members.
Lets not pretend this isn't entirely about ways for the parasites to take the blood, sweat and tears of hardworking citizens.
Lets not pretend that this isn't entirely, 100 percent about MONEY.
They admit the program is flawed, and yet they still want to "give it a chance", oblivious to all the innocent citizens who will now get robbed by silly parking tickets and silly permit costs.
Employees shouldn't have to buy an "affordable" parking permit. They should not have to buy a permit at all! This is yet another completely fabricated tax.
I have seen the result of "preferential parking" in Santa Monica: stretches of broad, empty curbs. Blocks and blocks of endless, unused parking spots.
And if someone dares to park there... they are hit with an exorbitant ticket. Wonderful! Negative reinforcement, baby!
Utterly irrational!
What a misled and destructive solution they have devised. Big government at its best folks!
Registered user
Barron Park
on Aug 4, 2015 at 11:40 am
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2015 at 11:40 am
If it was possible to include a map of the area; that would be nice!
University South
on Aug 4, 2015 at 4:04 pm
on Aug 4, 2015 at 4:04 pm
@Joel Here's your map: Web Link
Professorville
on Aug 4, 2015 at 4:36 pm
on Aug 4, 2015 at 4:36 pm
Fifty dollars per person is asking for TOO MUCH money. Fifteen to twenty-five is more in line per resident.
Fifty dollars per person is more in line with a non-resident fee.
Registered user
Community Center
on Aug 4, 2015 at 9:50 pm
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2015 at 9:50 pm
@Johnny
1: it was driven by the community, not the city council, so not money driven.
2: "I have seen the result of preferential parking in Santa Monica: stretches of broad, empty curbs. Blocks and blocks of endless, unused parking spots." -- that sounds great to me.
University South
on Aug 5, 2015 at 5:49 am
on Aug 5, 2015 at 5:49 am
@HOW Much? - Resident permits are free.