What doesn't make sense is the difficulty to find a parking space at busy times and the difficulty in paying for a full day occasional parking in downtown.

There has been talk of high tech signage and other innovations, but as yet no action. Occasional parking for more than 2 hours is still difficult.

This town does nothing fast. This town can't plan a sensible solution to anything.

A related article said that staff invited private/public proposals.

You have these proposals show up and while I agree with the no, no, no thank you, it is disturbing that the City requested private/public partnership.

What is the City thinking asking for these proposals in the first place?!

"What is the City thinking asking for these proposals in the first place?!"

I'm gonna guess because ground level retail creates a much more appealing streetscape than a wasteland of parking garages. Not everything developers do is evil.

Also, if there's such a parking problem, why don't we start charging for parking instead of building taxpayer-subsidized garages?

How about forcing the employers to force their workers to use the under-utilized garag4s first? Employers in SF subsidize their workers parking and commuting expenses.

And just maybe stop approving new offices before all our retail vanishes and we become just another suburban office park?

A parking garage at Hamilton and Waverley would totally destroy the ambiance of that corner. Right now it's pretty pedestrian friendly. The post office, the All Saints' church campus, and the bank have a lot of foot traffic. Why not build the garage on the lot behind the old Borders and adjacent to the hotel?

Seriously, the "ambiance" of that corner? Is this "ambiance" created by the surface parking lot or the pay toilet? You can't want to get rid of the parking problem and not sacrifice space for a garage. It's a great location, very central. Now, if we could just get AT&T to move out of the ugly server/building next door!

> Now, if we could just get AT&T to move out of the ugly server/building next door!

And just where would they go? Sounds like you are suggesting that the City some invalidate AT&T’s right to do business in Palo Alto, and force them to move out. AT&T has been in this building since the 1930s, at least.

And even if AT&T were to leave—the building would still be there. [Portion removed.]

Retail in parking garages is a stylish mantra but poor practice. We lose parking spaces while we expand the need for parking spaces to accommodate the added workers and customers.

"A parking garage at Hamilton and Waverley would totally destroy the ambiance of that corner."

That area is being actively trashed anyway. A Hayes Box is going up a half-block away. Per this town's urban "planning" logic, existing abominations like that justify further atrocities.

> Retail in parking garages is a stylish mantra but poor practice.

Historically, this is true. But certainly given a large enough budget, and some creativity in the design of the garage, and the location of the retail areas--there might be a shift in the public's acceptance of these tightly co-located activities.

At the very least, use some 3-D rendering software to come up with some ideas to kick around in public.

Gail Price once again sides with developers, despite the fact that the tide in the city is clearly turning against developers. [Portion removed.]

I agreed with @who asked for this , @NIMBY
I concur with these comments wondering who in the City is asking for these private/public proposals for parking lots. Where is the transparency? It is pretty obvious we are taking a step back and reassessing development pressures for more and more development. Who in the City is responsible for these proposals? P.A.Weekly maybe you can get to the bottom of this and shed some light on how this process got started........How much staff time/money was put into these proposals and initial evaluation?

Takes awhile to figure it out, but the request is actually from private interests.

So the real question probably went like this

Hey City of Palo Alto, how can you help us private interests pay for the parking demand we are causing, that we need to keep growing?

Please City, how will you help us pay.

So the City re-frames the question. Please present some proposals to co-pay. Then Council says, no please let us pay for YOUR needs ourselves.

Can someone please start putting a CAP to the growth downtown? Those who cannot park their employees need incentives to go elsewhere.

Slowly, or maybe not so slowly, Palo Alto has developed into a city not run by elected officials but by developers. It has become a developer's dream. It is the place to own land because, for the past number of years, the City Council found an easy way to not do anything. Just say "yes" to the land owners/developers and they will do the work for you. And perhaps even support you when you run for reelection. Oops! The Measure D people got in your way.

The time has come for the good citizens of Palo Alto to take their city back. We are a residential city. I will vote for the four residential candidates because if I dont, I will not have the right to sit in traffic on Embarcadero and complain

For Christ's sake, it costs MONEY to build a parking structure. Why NOT ask private developers what they would be willing to do and what designs and suggestions they might come up with? Who gives a #^%$# who asked whom first? It is something worth taking a look at. Not all developers are evil. And some actually have good ideas. Although I am not in favor of stacked parking, it is at least something new to consider and people are talking about it.
As to a garage at Hamilton and Waverly - I'd rather the structures be on the periphery (where that is possible) to minimize further traffic into the city core.

Parking does not have to be on the Ground floor. Look at the (newish) Safeway at San Antonio Shopping center.

Toss around ideas. Use the suggested 3D models to help people visualize.

Always 'No' is just as bad as always 'Yes'

Steve U and others

The new Safeway in Los Altos has reversed the San Antonio model. In LA, the parking is on the street level and the Safeway store is above.

I suspect that this stuff was set in motion a while ago, with the council totally accustomed to kowtowing to developers, and with an election a few weeks ago have decided to do some posturing. But it's solely to make it appear that they're listening to residents. That'll be gone in a month.

Haven't the developers already paid into a City fund to build garages "somewhere... one day" every time they get permits to build or renovate without providing enough on-site parking?

What fun I had today voting by mail. Here's hoping for an overdue clean out at City Hall!

To allow more office density the City has embraced use of parking
lift systems in underparked projects to provide even the reduced number
of spaces. How will these systems work out in practical terms? Do we know? Is there noise associated with these systems close to residences or other
uses, will there be enough parking attendants so that cars waiting will not back up traffic on already congested streets like Hamilton? Will people use these garages?

> [Scharff] also cautioned that a similar need exists in the California Avenue area, where employees also park on the residential streets.

Hmmm. I wonder why there are parking problems on California Avenue.

Consider the humongous building going up at 260 California, across the street from Fed Ex/Kinkos:

- The city’s (outdated) standard of one parking space/250 sq ft means there should be 120 parking spaces for the new building. But, there will only be 42 spaces on the site.

- It's my understanding that the project was given a “credit” of 56 spaces in the parking assessment, e.g., the public lot next to the Cambridge Post Office and other lots. Why would that credit be given to one developer when all businesses in the area pay into the parking assessment?

- It’s almost impossible to find parking near California Avenue now, especially during lunch hours. There aren’t 56 available spots available in any of the lots.

- In December 2012, Jamie Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official, wrote in an email "the City does not allocate any parking spaces within any of the parking structures or surface parking lots to any business within the California Avenue Business District. Parking permits are sold on a first come-first served basis and permits are retained by individuals annually thereafter"

Hmmmmm.

Instead of asking each developer and each project to "donate" parking structure, why not let them donate capital into a Parking Construction Fund.

The required donation should be significant per project, at least equal to the cost of building such a structure at that time.

The City accumulates the fund for several years. It then can choose the right time and right place to build the right parking structures.

Capital formation is the key. Large capital formation can enable the optimization in scale, efficiency and cost.

Maybe Palo Alto can get enough funds to build a giant underground cave across multiple blocks under downtown streets. That will be very appealing.