Moving Forward on Los Altos Parking Issues Jean Mordo, with R. Bodner, K. Cranston, M. Rogge, D. Rock January 24, 2017
Preface What is the City-wide parking problem? City code needs to be simple, reasonable, and relate to Los Altos parking demands. What is the Downtown parking problem? Deficient about 100 to 150 parking spaces during the peak period from 10 am to 2 pm. Can these be resolved? Yes, by following the Committee s recommendations
Considering the Consultant s Report 1.Keep parking recommendations focus citywide. While the consultant s focus appears to be downtown, the Committee s focus was citywide. 2.Let s move forward relying upon all documents the Committee provided to the City. Consultant confirmed Committee s analysis was practical and forward thinking and sound addressing the issues. The ideas presented in the main report and the subcommittee reports reflect current approaches to parking issues Los Altos faces. (Consultant s scope seems to have been too limited to allow review of all of the documents that the Committee provided to the City.) 3.There is no need to wait. The Committee studied the issues for 1.5 Years. The consultant studied the studies for another 6 mos. Two years later, we are confident we can move forward balancing Consultant s modest concerns with Committee s recommendations.
Subject: General Comment Consultant Statement: Overall we found the Committee s analysis to be practical and forward thinking. The ideas presented in the main report and the subcommittee reports reflect current approaches to the parking issues Los Altos faces. Consultant Concern: the report may not sufficiently encompass all elements needed to address the problems of the parking system as a whole. Response: The consultant must not have read the entire reports and presentations, which address these concerns and provide greater detail.
Subject: Parking Supply Consultant Statement: The recommendations presented by the committee, if executed properly, may be adequate to address some issues Consultant Concern: Still, they don t directly address the fundamental issue of a shortage of supply. An examples is the lack of specific mention of on-street parking. Response: Reconfiguring the parking plazas with normal parking geometry, adds sufficient parking to the downtown. The report addresses on-street parking in detail, in many sections.
Opportunities to Increase Public Parking Supply/Reduce Parking Demand Immediate opportunities: Better way finding increases utilization of parking stalls Restriping and better layouts of the Plazas: 230 stalls Ban commercial deliveries in on-street loading zones 11AM-2PM: 5-10 stalls Maximize use of curb space: 15-20 stalls TOTAL: 250-260 stalls Intermediate opportunities: Lease private EPD spaces and/or seasonal valet (estimate): 200 stalls Parking stalls outside EPD for shuttle and seasonal valet (estimate): 200 stalls TOTAL: 400 stalls Long-term opportunity: Build a parking garage on one of the Plazas: 276 stalls* *276 net new stalls in a three level parking structure with 396 total stalls, based on the parking dimensions used in the 2013 CDM Smith Downtown Parking Management Plan.
Subject: Parking Ratios Consultant Statement: While right-sizing (which tends to favor reducing) minimum parking requirements is a forward thinking planning practice, Consultant Concern: it seems counterintuitive to lower requirements given the consensus that the supply of parking is insufficient in the downtown area. Response: Current parking ratios are not reasonable and were based upon faulty data. To comply with current ratios would require an additional 1,300 parking spaces downtown. The recommended ratios would require about 100 additional parking spaces. Reasonable ratios are based on actual demand in Los Altos, rather than on faulty data.
Are the ratios Reasonable? Realistic? Parking Ratios of Nearby Cities for Restaurants Parking spaces/1,000 sf 12.40 14.37 14.33 4.00 4.00 5.00 6.45 6.67 8.25 9.00
Subject: Recommended Minimum Parking Requirements Consultant Statement: As per the actual ratio recommendations the approach to right-sizing minimum parking requirement is sound Consultant Concern: One question we raise regarding the methodology is whether the Committee has collected enough data points at peak hours to feel comfortable making recommendations for adjusting the minimum parking requirements for all the uses that have proposed changes. Response: The Committee feels comfortable with the City Council approving any parking ratio that is within the range of reasonable options outlined in the committee s reports and presentations.
Recommended Parking Ranges Shared Parking Reasonable Stand 10% 20% # Type of Use Range Alone NCC Dwntn 1.a) Retail Extensive 2.00-4.00 3.00 N/A N/A 1.b) Retail Intensive 3.50-4.00 3.75 3.38 3.00 2) Service 3.00-5.00 4.00 3.60 3.20 3) Restaurant 8.00-10.00 9.00 8.10 7.20 4) Office 2.00-3.00 2.50 2.25 2.00 5) Grocery 3.00-4.00 3.50 3.15 N/A 6) Med. Clinic/Dental Off. 4.00-6.00 5.00 4.50 4.00 7) Hotel (by area) 1.00-3.00 2.00 1.70 1.60 or Hotel by Room 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.80 plus Hotel Conference & Public Restaurant per Restaurant ratios above Reference Table 2
Subject: Expanded Parking District Consultant Statement: While the idea to both expand the parking district and create and in-lieu fee program is positive as it addresses the issue of the parking supply shortage and revenue shortage, Consultant Concern: challenges regarding possible outcomes should be considered. For instance, the PILP aims to ensure that the City maintains its village appeal while raising revenue for parking improvements. It is likely that funding adequate to provide meaningful additions to the parking supply will take a long time. Response: Actual demand suggests that the downtown only needs from 100 to 150 new spaces. Most of these can be gained by applying the recommended safe and sane parking lot geometry.
Subject: Parking In-Lieu Program (PILP) Consultant Statement: Generally, the PILP presents a positive effort to raise revenue for parking improvements." Consultant Concern: Still the PILP s success is highly contingent upon several factors including: proper fee amount, participation, buy-in, and consistent revenue to pay for maintenance and operation. Response: The PILP s goal s are not just to provide revenue. It requires participants to follow rules of shared parking, while putting a value on parking spaces rather than simply waiving the requirements. The value is periodically adjusted to reflect the cost to provide new spaces or alternate parking solutions. Only those wishing to participate need to buy in.
Subject: Parking Lot Standard Layout and Striping Consultant Statement: It is possible that more efficient parking layouts may result in an increase in parking supply. Opportunities to increase the parking supply through more efficient striping should be taken. Consultant Concern: Walker typically does not recommend installing too many compact spaces. Response: The Committee did not recommend using any compact spaces. Failed attempts at compact spaces may be why there are many sub-standard parking spaces downtown. The Committee prepared diagrams of lots showing an increase overall of over 100 spaces.
Example of Alternative Configuration for Plaza 8
Recommendations Direct City Staff to prepare revisions to the City code that implement the following: 1. Define the area that may join a Downtown Shared Parking Area as the entire Downtown triangle. 2. Draft a resolution defining rights and obligations for new members of the Downtown Shared Parking Area. 3. Draft a resolution that creates a Parking In-Lieu Program for any City-recognized shared parking area. 4. Form a standing Parking Committee to address and review parking issues.
Recommendations (cont.) 5.Draft revisions to the parking code for parking ratios within the reasonable range in the Committee report, and include the associated rules for application of the parking ratios. 6.Draft revisions to the parking code to revise the parking stall and parking lot layout requirements to the standards recommended in the Committee report. Provide an option for the required width of the parking stall from 8.5 feet to 9.0 feet wide.
Conclusion The City of Los Altos has studied parking enough. Taking action now allows the City to move forward without eliminating any future options. The review by an independent civil engineering company confirms that the committee recommendations are sound. Taking these actions have no downside. If the Council has concerns after being presented with draft ordinance revisions and or resolution, they can be addressed prior to final adoption. Studying the issue further only delays what needs to be done.