|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
An effort by residents in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood to institute new parking restrictions on their blocks is expected to advance Wednesday night, when the Planning and Transportation Commission considers the proposal.
If approved by the commission and, ultimately, the City Council, Palo Alto’s newest Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program would apply to an area near Bowden Park, which is roughly bounded by Washington Avenue, Alma Street, Oregon Avenue and Ramona Street. Residents in the area have long complained about Caltrain commuters using their streets for free parking.
The neighborhood is the latest to request such a program. Since 2014, Palo Alto has instituted similar programs on residential streets in downtown, as well as Evergreen Park, Mayfield and Southgate. College Terrace has had a residential parking program since 2009, though unlike the others, this program was funded largely by Stanford University and did not offer any permits for employees.
The Old Palo Alto program would similarly offer permits only to area households, which will be able to purchase up to five annual permits for $50 each. Residents in the program area will also be able to buy up to 50 transferable one-day permits hangtags for $5 each, according to a new report from Planning Director Jonathan Lait.
While the program has yet to win final approval, supporters have plenty of reasons to feel optimistic. In March, the commission generally endorsed the idea of instituting the program in Old Palo Alto and voted to prioritize the RPP in this area for further evaluation. Commissioner Ed Lauing said the parking situation in Old Palo Alto has been demonstrated as being “a serious problem, justifying the study to do the RPP.”
Chris Robell, who spoke on behalf of his neighbors at the March meeting, told the commission that the parking situation is creating safety risks for students and pedestrians, with Caltrain commuters occasionally racing to get a spot near Bowden Park. It is also creating quality-of-life problems for neighbors, many of whom have narrow driveways and limited options for parking on the streets near their homes.
“I realize that streets are not the property of owners and we share them, but it would be nice to be able to park in close proximity to one’s home,” Robell told the commission.
Since that meeting, staff mailed surveys to all households in the area. It received responses from 55 of the 93 surveys that had been mailed out, according to Lait’s report. Of those, 49 signaled approval for the program, a rate of 89%.
City planners also surveyed the blocks in the permit area and confirmed that the blocks closest to the California Avenue underpass have occupancy rates greater than 75%.
“The high occupancy begins in the morning and continues through mid-day, only decreasing in the evening,” the new report states. “Overall, the mid-day period appears to have the most demand for parking, as the majority of the adjacent streets within the surveyed area are at or above 50% occupancy at this time.”
If approved as proposed, the program would be in effect from Monday to Friday between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Staff also is proposing to create “eligibility areas” around the new Old Palo Alto district — blocks just outside the RPP area that would be allowed to easily join the new district if parking problems spill outside the established boundary.
The Planning and Transportation Commission will meet on Wednesday, Aug. 28, at 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall.
Stop doing this! I live in OPA, and I don’t want my taxes to pay to have even more streets and neighborhoods policed for 2+ hour parking. These are public streets, for Heaven’s sake.
Oh for heaven’s sake, Palo Alto already has the moadt complicated, chaotic parking restrictions anywhere.
Makes sense. There seems to be no other way to control commuter parking and prioritize residents, and their visitors, parking. I would like to see the entire city covered. You can’t tell me that they can’t own a car or commute in their car. About the only thing you can control is parking– just part of participating in that grand urban vibrancy.
We have lived in Old Palo Alto for over 16 years and have seen the situation get progressively worse. This plan is way over due! Bowden Park parking has become free parking for Caltrain commuters and many other non-Old Palo Alto residence turning what you used be a safe, family-friendly community into a loud nerve-racking and congested neighborhood. We can’t wait for the RPP to be implemented!
I support Old Palo Alto residents on this issue as I find my neighborhood inundated also.
I do wonder though where commuters are supposed to park. Aren’t we supposed to be supporting getting people onto public transportation?
Makes sense to establish an RPP given it is so congested as a result of Caltrain commuters and the fact there is spillover from the RPP on the other side of Alma. I wouldn’t want Caltrain commuters parking in my neighborhood (shouldn’t they use the Caltrain lot or better yet bike to the station?)
It’s about time the city did something about this situation! My neighbors and I are tired of having to park blocks away from our our home. There is a Caltrain parking lost that costs money, and people think that they have a right to park for free in a residential area. What’s ironic, I see at least 3 cars with Downtown RPP tags hanging in their cars parking on my street everyday. They must know first hand what’s it’s like to have no place to park.
Chris also mentioned the safety issue… the city chose to ignore this issue, as they are not including Bowden Park in the RPP. High St is used by bicyclists to get the the CA Ave underpass. There are commuters rushing to find parking and to catch the train. There is a dead end, which most cars have to turn around when they don’t find a spot. Bicycles have to avoid them, as the drivers are too distracted to notice them. It’s an accident waiting to happen. The city continues to ignore the safety issues raised by residents. There are numerous safety issues that the city is aware of in the vincity of the park that they continue to ignore. It will obviously take a serious injury to have them take action.
I’m convinced this problem will never be solved to the satisfaction of everyone. I think some progress is being made but it seems like the plan has to be continually expanded to include other neighborhoods. What is the goal? We have very few parking problems in our Midtown area and further south in my neighorhood, the Charleston Center area. Come and shop here in SPA where milk cows used to graze…in my back yard. lol
The significant safety and parking congestion concerns are a result of Caltrain users parking in our neighborhood since they (a) don’t want to pay $5/day to use the Caltrain parking lot, and (b) cannot park on the other side of Alma since they have an RPP (so OPA gets the spillover).
The RPP should incent Caltrain commuters to hopefully bike or walk to the station or, if driving, use the intended Caltrain parking lot.
The safety issue, to be clear, arises when there are lots of Caltrain commuters all looking for spots in our neighborhood at the same time as Jordan/Green Middle and Paly students are biking to work and going through the tunnel.
This is NOT a major cost to taxpayers….impacted residents who overwhelmingly want this are willing to pay for the permits to help cover the enforcement cost.
Is there a good argument why Palo Alto has a patchwork of residential parking pass programs, instead of a uniform one? Wouldn’t it be simpler administratively to have just one program?
I would love to have the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council tell me what makes Old Palo Alto and College Terrace so privileged that they do not have to accept ANY employee parking permits. When worked for over 3 years to get an RPP for Evergreen Park — and area that was originally supposed to be included in the College Terrace plan — we asked for no employee permits and were told we could not have that. Instead, we had to accept over 100 employee parking permits. Despite the fact that the parking problems in Evergreen Park were caused by the decisions of these two governing bodies to consistently approve large office building projects without adequate parking for the employees. There were supposed to the Transportation Management Agreements, but that was a joke. After requesting a copy of even one of these TMA for over 6 months, we finally saw a copy of one. The top TMA transportation idea was the proximity of California Ave. to Hwy 101. Why does the Planning Commission and the City Council favor some neighborhoods over others?
The City needs to make office space developers pay the costs of their own activities. The residents shouldn’t have to pay for their profits.
Caltrain parking here seems to indicate people commuting from Palo Alto to jobs elsewhere. I thought there were more than enough jobs in this city for everyone.
These RPPs only move the parking problems, not solve them. Many people commute with a bike/skateboard in the trunk to get them to where they work. Instead of making it difficult to park, something must be done to aid those who need to park all day but not every day. How about lots at highway ramps with dedicated shuttles?
As for Caltrain parking, why can’t Caltrain lots be free after 3.00 pm? This would encourage more use of Caltrain for evenings, Sharks Games, Giants Games, Warriors Games, etc.
I fully support RPPs. Non residents that take all parking spots in front of a house force resident teens that have a car to park far from home and that is a safety issue for the kids. Kids safety should be a high priority. In my experience, non-residents also don’t know about or honor street-sweeping days and we’ve had very thick piles of rotting leaves that are another safety issue. That we hear the Cal Train lot is generally 20-30% occupied says that cal trainers simply want free parking at other’s expense. Cal Ave corporate employees can buy a city permit for the new structure.
I walk to the Cal Ave station. I have never seen a car “racing” to get a spot. As for the complaints about having to park further, people need to get more exercise anyway. This is Old Palo Alto for chrissakes – if we are really worried about having to walk in our neighborhood, maybe we shouldn’t be bothering the police about leaf blowers so much.
BTW, you don’t “own” the spot in front of your house, unless you’re willing to take on the cost of maintaining the pavement on your street personally so no public money (ahem “our money”) is used.
I am just amused that my neighbors voted to tax themselves an additional $50/car/year.
How about we get some parking enforcement in South Palo Alto – the Land of the Rolled Curbs. Lets get parking enforcement to get people OFF THE SIDEWALKS and OUT OF THE BICYCLE LANES. There are parking issues all over the city, and not just in favored north palo alto.
freaking nimbys don’t want the riff raff parking in their neighborhoods…it’s ok if they work in town but gawd forbid they actually park here! it is indeed shallow alto.
So this RPP will actually be resident only?! That’s great but what about the other neighborhoods that have had their RPP include business parking? Let’s get consistent and make residential parking for residents including Evergreen Palo, Professorville, and elsewhere.
I used to park in this area as it was the only way I could drop off my kids and make it to the city via train. If the city votes to block parking there they are voting to:
1) increase traffic on the Oregon expressway underpass which is already extremely backed up in the morning.
2) increase Cal train parking, because that is where most people are going.
I am a little sick of the city’s lack of support for public transportation. I try to bike everywhere now, but some people still need to drive part way, and I don’t think there is going to be a better solution for crossing the tracks than walking under the tunnel any time soon.
If you’re using Caltrain, please use the parking lot provided at the Caltrain station. Why do people think that they are entitled to park in a residential neighborhood for free instead of parking for a fee provided by Caltrain? That’s part of commuting expense… parking. Just leave earlier if the traffic backs up onto Oregon Expressway. You can always ride your bike and avoid the entire mess.
I think a couple of commenters have mentioned that getting to the Caltrain lot by car is horrendous and parking to use the pedestrian tunnel makes a lot more sense.
If we have a serious aim to reduce traffic and increase public transport usage, then providing parking for Caltrain as well as for those who work in the Cal Ave area East of the tracks makes sense.
We are continually talking about restrictions on our grade crossings. If Churchill is closed, if we have more trains with grade crossings being closed longer, then it is going to make the Oregon/Embarcadero busier. Getting cars to park East of the tracks makes a great deal of sense. There are lots both sides of the tracks at University, and the same should be done for Cal Ave.
It is now time to put serious thought on how these Caltrain riders can access the station without using Oregon tunnel.
“If we have a serious aim to reduce traffic and increase public transport usage,”
If we really wanted that, we would have more transit-oriented development around these stations. The fact that you have to drive your car to Caltrain already shows that our density doesn’t support public transport usage.
“then providing parking for Caltrain as well as for those who work in the Cal Ave area East of the tracks makes sense.”
From where are these commuters going to Cal Ave station? That would be an interesting study. In any case Palo Alto Station has a much better schedule and if the driving distance is close enough, drivers would be better off going there anyway.
As for providing parking east (technically “northeast”) of the tracks, the only place potentially available is to pave over a public park. I’m sure that would go over well.
But the bottom line is that if you have to drive to a Caltrain station, then maybe we aren’t doing it right.