My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2005-06-06
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2005
>
AgdaPkt 2005-06-06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2012 4:59:18 PM
Creation date
6/2/2005 3:59:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
6/6/2005
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
249
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
!J � " � <br /> precisely because they contain so many activities in such a sma11 area. The conventional <br /> approach to parking spreads things out to the point where a real downtown just isn't possible. <br /> Our favorite downtowns—whether they be the big Downtown Chicago, the medium-sized <br /> Savannah, Georgia, or the sma11 Downtown Cannel—would not be possible to build under <br /> conventional codes. But would we be better off without Carmel, Savannah, or Chicago (or <br /> Redwood City, for that matter)? No! These are great places and we must retain them and expand <br /> them. <br /> However, even if we didn't care about creating nice places and we wanted to apply the <br /> conventional parking approach to Downtown, we probably couldn't. Property values are <br /> incredibly high in Downtown and they're getting higher. This makes surface parking lots an <br /> unattractive proposition. Anyone who pays top dollar for land wants to have as much of it <br /> generating revenue as possible, and surface parking doesn't do that. Above-ground parking <br /> structures aze much more efficient with land, but they are very, very expensive. In fact, they tend <br /> to cost $20,000 to $25,000 or more per space. Underground garages are the most land-efficient, <br /> but they are also the most expensive. The new municipal garage under the retaiUcinema project <br /> is costing the City about $30,000 per space. New garages in Palo Alto cost their local <br /> government nearly $51,000 per net new space. <br /> Put simply, we cannot just build our way out of this situation. <br /> Do we need to have enough parking? Absolutely. But we must be sure to have "just enough" and <br /> not "more than enough." And with that just enough amount we must be very shrewd and <br /> efficient, in order to make it work as well as possible. <br /> The Current Downtown Parking Situation <br /> The Downtown Parking Management Plan will look at the area shown in FiEure 1 Page 33 , <br /> which is generally bounded by the Caltrain tracks, Brewster, Veterans, and Maple. In this area <br /> there is a parking supply of 6,135 spaces. 1,229 of these are City-operated on-street spaces. The <br /> City operates another 1,627 spaces in off street-facilities (including the new Jefferson Garage). <br /> In addition there are 1,674 spaces operated by other governmental agencies and at least 1,605 <br /> operated by private entities. <br /> Cit -Controlled Downtown Parkin <br /> On-Street S aces � �229 <br /> Jefferson Gara e under the cinema 5� <br /> Middlefield Lot 2 � <br /> Marshall Gare e round floor ��2 <br /> Marshall Gara e u er floors 2� <br /> Main Street Lot 15 � <br /> Librar Lot 51 <br /> Winslow Lot 53 <br /> Per Street Lot 52 <br /> Ci Hall Lot 139 <br /> TOTAL 2�856 <br /> pas�e 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.