It doesn't take long for a visitor to California Avenue to confront the biggest problem facing Palo Alto's "second downtown."
By the time noon comes around, the business district's two garages are full, and lunch-seekers find themselves in a tedious contest with local workers and residents for the area's scarcest commodity: parking spots.
The City Council will tackle the problem on Monday night, when it considers the city's next steps for building a new garage in the eclectic area. The new garage would occupy what is now a city-owned parking lot at 350 Sherman Ave., near Birch Street. Across from the new garage, on another city-owned lot, the city plans to construct a three-story public-safety building.
Both projects have overwhelming council support and each is included in the city's 2014 "infrastructure plan," which is being funded from proceeds from the city's hotel tax. Yet as the council moves ahead with the design process for the new garage, one question is weighing heavily on the minds of area merchants and city officials alike: Will it be enough?
The council is set to choose one of four design options, each with its own set of pros and cons. The first option is the smallest of the bunch: a three-story garage with two basement levels, retail space on the ground floor and a total of 471 parking spaces. Because the retail space would require 20 dedicated parking spaces, this option would result in a net gain of 129 spaces (the existing lot has 322 spaces).
The second option would be similar to the first but with an additional above-ground level. It would have 552 parking spaces, for a net gain of 210 spaces.
The other two options would scrap the retail component and dedicate the entire building to parking. Option 3, which Public Works staff is recommending, calls for one basement level and four above-ground levels for a total of 522 spaces and a net increase of 200 spaces (without retail, the 20 dedicated spaces are no longer needed). The fourth option, favored by many area merchants, would have two basement levels and four above-ground levels for a total of 636 spaces and a net increase of 314 spaces.
Under every alternative, the entrance to the garage would be located along Sherman, west of Birch Street. Every option includes a "pedestrian arcade" along Jacaranda Lane, behind Antonio's Nut House, and features a wide sidewalk along Ash Street that would be "partially underneath the second level of the structure, improving the pedestrian experience and potentially providing a public art opportunity," according to a new Public Works report.
In past discussions, council members have expressed support for the idea of including retail and pedestrian-friendly elements in the new garage. But for the dozens of business owners who attended a March 8 meeting on the project, the main objective was simple: get as many parking spots as possible. When one speaker proposed getting rid of pedestrian areas and eliminating retail, he was greeted with a standing ovation.
Yet the fourth option, which provides the most parking spots, is also the most expensive -- a key consideration at a time when the city's construction costs for just about every project are going through the roof (the public-safety building, for example, was budgeted at $57 million in the 2014 plan; today it is expected to cost $75.3 million). The city estimates that the garage with two basements and four above-ground levels would cost $34.8 million. Options 1, 2 and 3 would cost $29 million. $32.2 million and $26.2 million, respectively.
The comparatively lower cost is one of the reasons staff is leaning toward Option 3. The staff recommendation also calls for developing pedestrian enhancements to the garage's Birch Street frontage.
But from the urban design standpoint, the chief drawbacks of this option is its lack of retail space, said Michael Ross, an architect with RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture who is working with the city to design both the garage and the public-safety building.
"Arguably, having a street that you look down on that has storefronts on it is a positive thing -- maybe it's a restaurant or a cafe -- as opposed to looking down and seeing a building like this, a parking garage that comes down to the street," Ross said at the meeting.
But for most of the merchants at the meeting, the need for parking trumped urban design considerations. When asked to vote on a proposed option, the majority went for the fourth option (which wasn't even an option until it was proposed earlier in the meeting).
Even after staff noted that going deeper underground would incur significant costs, business owners still favored having two below-ground levels rather than one. Jack Morton, president of the California Avenue Business Association, acknowledged the high cost of construction but noted that the city's most valuable asset is land and urged officials to dig deeper.
"Yes, construction is expensive. But to have one story below ground is pennywise and pound foolish," Morton said. "Definitely go down two stories. And if you use cutoff walls and other techniques, you can go down even further."
Comments
Midtown
on Mar 30, 2017 at 9:29 am
on Mar 30, 2017 at 9:29 am
I support this idea and believe that it is necessary. Unfortunately, I worry for the businesses that are located along California Avenue right now. Where will they park during the construction?
Businesses took a major hit during the "revitalization" period. I suspect that this could be yet another major blow during construction of the new garage (and consequential loss of parking).
Southgate
on Mar 30, 2017 at 9:36 am
on Mar 30, 2017 at 9:36 am
Who is paying for the garage?
Residents, you need to ask this question. Are you footing the bill for the office workers?
Council has approved so many office/R&D project that were not required to have their building sufficiently parked for their employees, this responsibility is again pushed off on the residents. Time to push back.
Green Acres
on Mar 30, 2017 at 10:27 am
on Mar 30, 2017 at 10:27 am
What an ironic followup to "Auto Burlary Spree Hits Palo Alto" article yesterday about all the auto burglaries hitting garages.
I echo Jane's question about who's paying for this. Probably not the new under-parked offices the council keeps approving but doesn't want to burden with tax consequences?
Remember that during the long $7,000,0000 Cal Ave "revitalization" the council finally offered the struggling Cal Ave retailers a mere pittance -- a few hundred dollars?
That was ONLY after TV news reports about the construction delays, lousy project management, cost over-runs and flawed shiny glass sidewalk. Undeterred, the city awarded the guy responsible a multi-million dollar city contract after he left his city job.
WAY past time to push back.
South of Midtown
on Mar 30, 2017 at 10:33 am
on Mar 30, 2017 at 10:33 am
The problem is caused by employers in the area encouraging their employees to park in nearby residential neighborhoods, leaving no parking spaces left for retail customers. I hope the big office buildings are paying for the parking garage, because they are causing the problem.
Palo Alto Orchards
on Mar 30, 2017 at 10:34 am
on Mar 30, 2017 at 10:34 am
Jane- Great question. In my opinion, the question is. .. why are we building garages to support the property owners of California Street properties?
The answer is yes if this project goes through. We're secretly subsidizing property owners and increasing their bottom lines at the costs of the community.
First, by building public parking, the property owners are direct beneficiaries. Their tenants who will be charged greater rents (because parking is so great and better than University).
And the property taxes County? Sorry- Prop 13 applies.
But wait. . what about the sales tax that the supporters argue?
Palo Alto gets very little in return. Especially if those properties are 80-90% office space. There's going to be less and less sales tax revenue (yoga studios/gyms). Yes, coffee sales go up, but keep in mind Palo Alto has to share that sales tax revenue with the county and state. Remember, PA is 'trying'to save local merchants and services. In today's time, try to find a record store, photo shop, music store. Personal service stores are nice, but they don't generate real sales tax revenue.
Last I heard, the county and state aren't going to kick in for this garage.
And then there's the argument that the parking will reduce pressure on neighborhood parking. Balderdash - there's that rule that all capacity will be filled. Look in the larger car or home that you bought because you needed the space. How long before that got filled?
Similarly, by building this garage, we'll make California Street more precious for commercial office space parking (because that's more profitable than storefronts) and in a few years, we'll need another 'bigger garage' to offset the increase in office workers for the area.
And you can hear the laughter of the commercial property owners along California Street. . . .
The real answer is that the commercial district needs to pay for it by a special assessment zone. When I say pay for it, I mean, the initial construction and depreciation. In 20 years, we'll all see the news article that it has to be rebuilt to the latest standards.
Downtown North
on Mar 30, 2017 at 10:52 am
on Mar 30, 2017 at 10:52 am
Due to violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are only visible to registered users who are logged in. Use the links at the top of the page to Register or Login.
University South
on Mar 30, 2017 at 11:01 am
on Mar 30, 2017 at 11:01 am
The article says that the garage is being funded by the hotel tax.
The city should be charging workers for parking in the garage. Of course, many workers will still want to park on the street rather paying to park.
College Terrace
on Mar 30, 2017 at 11:07 am
on Mar 30, 2017 at 11:07 am
Any serious thought to spending $$$$ and time in innovative ideas for expanding the underground pedestrian/bicycle passes to Alma/Cal Ave? Or how about re-opening the pedestrian underpass at El Camino Real between Page Mill and Cal., Ave? This could easily and efficiently alleviate some of the HUGE parking pressure while encouraging commutes between Cal Train, VTA bus, walking, biking to and from home/work and back again.
I also support the revolutionary idea of placing affordable housing above city owned public parking spaces. House families, workers, and residents first is a Palo Alto top priority - maximizing retail/living mobility and minimizing automobile trips, not sheltering parked cars!
College Terrace
on Mar 30, 2017 at 11:14 am
on Mar 30, 2017 at 11:14 am
Although I think that a new Cal Ave parking garage is much needed to accommodate shoppers and diners I am concerned that such a garage would discourage the many Cal Ave office workers to continue to drive solo to work and, potentially, also serve as a magnet for Caltrain commuters. I think the CC needs to be very thoughtful about setting up this garage (i.e. having the majority of parking meters set for 30-min increments for a maximum of 2 hours/day).
Midtown
on Mar 30, 2017 at 11:14 am
on Mar 30, 2017 at 11:14 am
Thank you Grumpy Old Guy!! California Avenue Commercial District needs to pay for it by a special assessment zone. Also, stop under-parking buildings and then expecting Palo Alto residents to pick up the tab. Maybe think about lowering our taxes, due to our decreased quality of life........rapidly declining I should say.
Almost every person I speak to in the 60 year old age bracket is thinking about getting out of this congested, over-developed town/city, which was once an idyllic, peaceful, great place to raise a family and live out ones life.
College Terrace
on Mar 30, 2017 at 11:15 am
on Mar 30, 2017 at 11:15 am
Meant to say "I am concerned that such a garage would ENcourage the many Cal Ave office workers to continue to drive solo to work"
College Terrace
on Mar 30, 2017 at 11:40 am
on Mar 30, 2017 at 11:40 am
A new garage is a good step but will fill up in no time. Suggest to introduce metered parking and support investments to build greater public transport capacity.
1. electric trains on a 15 minute schedule into and out of Palo Alto and make Cal Ave Station a bullet train stop
2. integrate (VTA-) light rail capacity for short distance travel on the Caltrain tracks. Once the system is electrified it should be possible.
3. smart phone enabled bus and shuttle systems. Know in real time where to catch a bus or train, like an Uber layer for public transport.
4. pay for short term parking
Lack of parking space is a problem but increased free parking capacity alone is not the solution. Without viable alternatives it only kicks the can down the proverbial road. Transportation infrastructure improvements should precede new housing development.
Mayfield
on Mar 30, 2017 at 11:41 am
on Mar 30, 2017 at 11:41 am
Why can't we just leave California Ave the way it is, or even better, the way it WAS about 5 years ago. It was quiet and crowded. Palo Alto has already ruined California Ave. The two best stores (the Art store and the Photography store) have closed because of an influx of newer businesses that nobody wants. We do not need more office space on California Ave or in Palo Alto. There is plenty of space in San Jose or elsewhere for office space.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 30, 2017 at 12:02 pm
on Mar 30, 2017 at 12:02 pm
The real-estate developers and their friends on council are working to a formula. A very lucrative formula. It is the same formula that built University Avenue commercial district and "solved" the parking problems downtown.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 30, 2017 at 12:26 pm
on Mar 30, 2017 at 12:26 pm
I implore the CC to go ahead with this in a sensible manner. I hope they will put in 30 minute free parking outside retail and charge for anything longer. I hope they will put in technology and signs and apps to enable those looking for parking to find the elusive spot. I hope they will make the payment for parking much simpler with lots of pay per hour machines as well as payment apps. I hope they will get rid of all the confusing "zones" that nobody visiting the area can work out. I hope they will also consider parking lots at freeway ramps with dedicated shuttles that should encourage workers to park remotely.
I implore the CC to do this properly and give us an efficient parking policy not an anti-parking policy.
Evergreen Park
on Mar 30, 2017 at 12:27 pm
on Mar 30, 2017 at 12:27 pm
I'm still waiting to hear of Greg Tanaka's plan for the 16 key issues facing Palo Alto. During his campaign, Tanaka said he had a plan; protecting retail, traffic & parking, underground Caltrain, Environment & Sustainability, Jobs/Housing Imbalance, Office space growth, Airplane noise, Neighborhood Quality of Life, Growth & Cumulative Impacts, RPPPs, City Parks & Open Space, Dewatering, Single Family Neighborhood Protection, Affordability, Fiscal Strength, Pensions).
And also let's not forget, Tanaka's "increase City revenue by 50% without new tax increases".
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 30, 2017 at 12:45 pm
on Mar 30, 2017 at 12:45 pm
Much as I hate to admit it, I think Palo Alto is totally doomed to become an increasingly dense office park while our quality of life continues to tank as long as the current council and Palo Alto Forward control our destinies.
With the council membership being reduced, PAF with its stealth agenda and deep pockets will dominate the council. Plus a lock on membership of boards, commissions, and committee members. An agenda of unlimited office development and unrestricted height limits.
PAF is on a roll whipping lots of youthful energy for their "righteous" cause, with a focused message about the evils of those who would deny people (themselves) housing.
If you don't believe me, check out PAF's latest mailing and web site pitch re TAX-EXEMPT fundraising to fund its events and "education" -- ie lobbying.
Web Link
Evergreen Park
on Mar 30, 2017 at 1:47 pm
on Mar 30, 2017 at 1:47 pm
If you built it....they will come...lots and lots and lots more. More traffic. Do we really need to make room for EVERYONE! Yes the Cal Ave residents are severely suffering. And we're mad about our convenient local business leaving. We don't need more gyms (it's nice weather outside) or restaurants (there are a million) I want our Village Stationaires back. That was so convenient and frequented by us. Boo to this. Stop building there's already a traffic jam on Park Blvd beginning at 4pm (3:30) on Fridays getting onto the Oregon Exprwy loop-d-doop and it endangers many of the bikers. There is going to be a big cycling accident soon and you bet I won't let city council forget about it
another community
on Mar 30, 2017 at 2:07 pm
on Mar 30, 2017 at 2:07 pm
I don't follow, why would the construction of a garage be paid for by anyone other than those using it for parking?
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 30, 2017 at 3:56 pm
on Mar 30, 2017 at 3:56 pm
Reminder that businesses operating on Cal Ave pay significant business taxes, property taxes and sales taxes that benefit the local community greatly. These businesses are part of this community and deserve an infrastructure that is supportive.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 30, 2017 at 6:55 pm
on Mar 30, 2017 at 6:55 pm
Surprised there has been no coverage here of the
announcement yesterday that the Santa Clara County
Registrar of Voters is going to be audited by the State. The charges include "erroneous ballots" and
"counting mishaps", errors in processing of the paperwork or programming in the field. This gives
more credence to some who have questioned the surprising results of the last critical Council election in Palo Alto in some Downtown precincts in particular as reported by the Weekly which resulted in a new Council majority.
Evergreen Park
on Mar 31, 2017 at 8:54 am
on Mar 31, 2017 at 8:54 am
Filomenia wrote:
"I'm still waiting to hear of Greg Tanaka's plan for the 16 key issues facing Palo Alto. During his campaign, Tanaka said he had a plan; protecting retail, traffic & parking, underground Caltrain, Environment & Sustainability, Jobs/Housing Imbalance, Office space growth, Airplane noise, Neighborhood Quality of Life, Growth & Cumulative Impacts, RPPPs, City Parks & Open Space, Dewatering, Single Family Neighborhood Protection, Affordability, Fiscal Strength, Pensions).
And also let's not forget, Tanaka's "increase City revenue by 50% without new tax increases".
Its not just Tanaka. Kniss and Fine campaigned on most of the same promises (minus the revenue claims) and have let everyone who voted for them down.
The after the election developer dollars poured in to replenish their personal bank accounts. They are beholden to the interests that will profit massively from endless development which will destroy our neighbors schools and parks and will pollute our air and snarl our roadways.
Only WE can stop them! get involved , go to city hall on Monday nights speak and write to the city council, our elected officials, who should be representing US!
South of Midtown
on Mar 31, 2017 at 1:32 pm
on Mar 31, 2017 at 1:32 pm
As this article points out, the City of Palo Alto plans to relocate the Palo Alto Police Building to Sherman Ave, resulting in the loss of a current parking lot with 160 spaces. A new Parking Structure to replace current street level parking is being considered by the Council. We urge the Palo Alto City Council to approve maximizing parking spaces in the new parking garage.
Now is the time to have your voice heard!
1. The topic will be discussed at the City Council Meeting this Monday, April 3 at 7pm (City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301), please attend the meeting and express your concerns during the comments section
2. If you can't attend please email/contact each council member with concerns, Web Link here is their email address:
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
3. Fill out this online Petition to show your support (it will just take a minute!):
Web Link
Thank you!
Palo Verde
on Mar 31, 2017 at 4:57 pm
on Mar 31, 2017 at 4:57 pm
Speaking of raising revenues besides increasing taxes, Council on April 11 will support bumping the Dumbarton Bridge toll from $5 to $8. City thinks we can get a cut from the State to electrify Caltrain, though BART will take the lion's share.
Crescent Park
on Mar 31, 2017 at 7:55 pm
on Mar 31, 2017 at 7:55 pm
Due to violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are only visible to registered users who are logged in. Use the links at the top of the page to Register or Login.
College Terrace
on Apr 1, 2017 at 5:00 pm
on Apr 1, 2017 at 5:00 pm
My take is that the merchants should have first dibs on parking spots in these new structures for their employees who serve us in the stores and wait on us at tables, make our coffee, do the dishwashing, cook the meals, etc. These establishments perform services that are open to everyone. Merchants should be allowed to buy sufficient parking spots for their shift employees at a very discounted price since these are low income workers.
Over the last two decades, with council's policy of encouraging ever more office developments in the California Avenue area, parking for existing employees has become an ever increasing problem as these existing types of employees are squeezed out.
These types of jobs do not allow employees to duck out in the middle of their shifts to move a car. Because they work such random shifts, which can vary from week to week, and they live all over the bay area, ride sharing is impractical.
Few can now afford to live anywhere close enough to walk or bike although some may live close enough to public transport to make that practical, though expensive on their wages if they already own car.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 1, 2017 at 8:18 pm
on Apr 1, 2017 at 8:18 pm
> I don't follow, why would the construction of a garage
> be paid for by anyone other than those using it for parking?
While this may be obvious to some, it’s not necessarily how infrastructure like parking garages is paid for. The downtown garages had been paid for by the downtown merchants and businesses through a parking assessment district. This funding mechanism sees the district members agreeing to pay for the bonds that are issued in order to raise the capital to build structures. Of course, whatever charges levied on the merchants are ultimately paid for by the clients and customers of the members of the assessment district.
What is not exactly clear is who was responsible for paying the bonds if for some reason members of the assessment district cannot, or do not. Presumably, the city is a guarantor of the bonds, although it stands to reason that the city would have the foresight to demand that bond default insurance covers any defaults on the part of the merchants.
In some cases, parking structures charge for parking by the hour—either by meters or a gate attendant who collects the fees from the motorists as they leave. Palo alto has not seen fit to charge an hourly fee from users of the parking garages in the past, although they have charged longtime users fees and for permits. Again, it’s not clear why the city gets the money from these permits but does not seem to use that money to maintain the structures and pay off the bonds.
The parking structure in the California business district probably also was funded by a parking assessment district. It’s doubtful that the city will use any other funding mechanism for additional parking structures in the future. Presumably, the city’s approach to this funding scheme is to make the business districts “friendly” to the customers of the merchants and clients of the nonretail businesses, rather than putting parking meters all over town—requiring even more parking enforcement than currently is in place now.
College Terrace
on Apr 1, 2017 at 8:41 pm
on Apr 1, 2017 at 8:41 pm
But who has to foot the bill for parking enforcement? Whose budget does that come out of?
Crescent Park
on Apr 2, 2017 at 8:58 am
on Apr 2, 2017 at 8:58 am
It it fair that the city uses hotel taxes to provide parking for businesses that failed to build adequate parking for their own employees?
Hotel taxes are an undemocratic way to raise taxes in the first place, as the hotel guests who pay them never get to vote on them. I doubt there's any relationship between the hotel tax and the actual cost our city incurs for a hotel guest. If a room costs $200 a night, the guest pays an extra $28 in occupancy taxes to the city. That's $10,200 a year. Do the rest of us pay that much a year to the city for living here? I sure don't. And don't forget that hotels already pay property, utility, and income taxes and hotel guests pay sales tax on their meals and other purchases, just like the rest of us. So there's really no reason to tax hotel guests themselves at all. Frankly, the occupancy tax is the proverbial stumbling block before the blind – we impose it simply because we can get away with it.
And why then should that hotel tax, which belongs to the entire city and thus to all of us, go to subsidize high-tech companies near California Avenue that opted to provide too little parking? One company on Ash has around 80 workers in a building with no parking and it paid the city for just 22 garage spaces. So we're effectively building it 58 more spaces, a gift worth around $3 million based on the $50,000 plus per space cited in the staff report. That's OUR money – going to subsidize the bad behavior of that company. Don't bother to cite the annual parking permit fees the commuters will pay – those cover just maintenance and other costs, not garage construction.
The hotel guests probably don't even have anything to do with these type of high-tech companies – they include folks visiting friends in Palo Alto or going to Stanford events. So the entire scheme is unfair: it taxes people who don't deserve to be taxed and it gifts millions of dollars to wealthy companies who circumvented parking rules. It's pure kleptocracy – Palo Alto-style.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 2, 2017 at 12:01 pm
on Apr 2, 2017 at 12:01 pm
> But who has to foot the bill for parking enforcement?
> Whose budget does that come out of?
Parking enforcement comes out of the Police Department budget. Fines collected via enforcement efforts go into the General Fund.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 2, 2017 at 12:16 pm
on Apr 2, 2017 at 12:16 pm
Reminder that businesses operating on Cal Ave pay significant
business taxes, property taxes and sales taxes that benefit the
local community greatly. These businesses are part of this community
and deserve an infrastructure that is supportive.
To a great extent, this is true. However, the suggestion that businesses “deserve an infrastructure that is supportive” becomes a point worthy of debate.
Infrastructure (streets, sewers, storm drains, street lighting, street cleaning, police presence, fire suppression and emergency support personnel, street maintenance, parking, and utilities here in Palo Alto) are very expensive, and not generally paid for by the taxes paid by businesses alone. Sadly, there is very little transparency in the realm of tax collection, so we don’t really know how much the business community is contributing to the running of municipal Palo Alto, other than in fragments and broad brush strokes.
One might argue that all of the services in the list above are by their very nature, not only “supportive”, but necessary. Given human nature, it’s not hard to believe that no matter what services or infrastructure is provided to a group of merchants—they will always find themselves wanting, or demanding, more.
Relative to this issue of parking, would it not be reasonable to expect the city to require that businesses provide adequate parking to their ability to generate traffic and employees? If the answer is yes, then it stands to reason that the businesses in an area where a parking structure is built would be responsible for the bulk of the funding. It might make sense to come to an agreement for a public-private funding ratio—but the public should not generally be expected to provide parking for private enterprises.
Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 2, 2017 at 6:45 pm
on Apr 2, 2017 at 6:45 pm
Definitely go with an option w/o retail. There are enough restaurants, salons and coffee shops in the area. Also consider additional multi-level parking where the surface lot next to Antonio's Nut House is located.
Downtown North
on Apr 4, 2017 at 10:00 pm
on Apr 4, 2017 at 10:00 pm
I hope the city does a good bit of subsurface due diligence here. Silicon Valley is the proud owner of an assortment of EPA Superfund sites, mostly the wonder solvent TCE left over from the early days of chip manufacturing here. Palo Alto host several TCE plumes, and the proposed underground garage isn't that far from where some are believed to be now. After digging a multi-floor deep hole, it is likely that a lot of pumping to remove a tremendous volume of shallow ground water will be required. As it's removed, it will draw what ever other fluids, including TCE, towards the hole. Lovely carcinogen that TCE.