Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-01-23 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. January 23, 2017 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 10 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session 5:00-5:45 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Plum Tree Apartments, 3020-3038 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA Agency Negotiators: James Keene, Lalo Perez, Hamid Ghaemmaghami, Hillary Gitelman Negotiating Parties: Palo Alto Housing and City of Palo Alto Under Negotiation: Option to Purchase – Price, Affordability Restrictions and Terms of Payment Study Session 5:45-7:00 PM 2. Presentation by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Regarding the Next Network Initiative and its Impacts on Bus Service in Palo Alto 2 January 23, 2017 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Special Orders of the Day 7:00-7:10 PM 3. Proclamation Expressing Appreciation to Annie Folger for Outstanding Public Service on her Retirement Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 7:10-7:20 PM Oral Communications 7:20-7:35 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 7:35-7:40 PM 4. Approval of Action Minutes for the January 3 and 9, 2017 Council Meetings Consent Calendar 7:40-7:45 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 5. Authorization to Establish a Supplemental Pension Trust With the Public Agency Retirement Service (PARS) and Approve Budget Amendments in the General Fund and the General Benefits Fund 6. Approval of a Contract With Altec Industries Inc., in the Amount of $335,213 for the Purchase of an Altec Hydraulic Telescoping Crane and Approval of a Budget Amendment in Various Funds 7. Approval of Amendment Number Two to Contract Number C14153485 With Canopy, for an Additional Amount of $81,552 for a Total Amount Not-to-exceed $481,182 to Administer a Crowdsourced Tree Data Platform to Advance Programmatic Initiatives in the Urban Forest Master Plan, and Continue Basic Contract Services Through a Three- month Extension to June 30, 2017 8. Approval of a Contract With Altec Industries Inc., in the Amount of $496,278 for the Purchase of Three 40 Foot Altec Aerial Trucks and Approval of Budget Appropriation Amendments in the Electric Utility Fund and the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund 9. Adoption of a Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Dennis Burns Upon His Retirement 10. Adoption of a Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Bob Beacom Upon His Retirement 3 January 23, 2017 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 11. 900 N. California Avenue [15PLN-00155]: Denial of the Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Architectural Review Approval of Three new Single-Family Homes, one With a Second Unit. Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), Zoning District: R-1 (Continued From January 9, 2017) Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:45-9:00 PM 12. Discussion and Direction to Staff to Implement a One-year Traffic Safety Pilot Project Along Middlefield Road Between the Menlo Park City Limits and Forest Avenue, Find the Project Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Approve a Budget Amendment in the General Fund 9:00-10:30 PM 13. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution for the Creation of a new Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program in the Evergreen Park and Mayfield Neighborhoods Bounded by Park Boulevard, Caltrain Rail Corridor, Oregon Expressway, Page Mill Road and El Camino Real and Finding of Exemption Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 4 January 23, 2017 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Being Different Together - Taking the Conversation Deeper - A Series of Community Forums Aimed at Building and Nurturing a Community That Models Respect for Differences Historic Resources Board, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Planning & Transportation Commission Recruitment Flyer Public Letters to Council Set 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7250) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 1/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: VTA Next Network Initiative Study Session Title: Presentation by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Regarding the Next Network Initiative and Its Impacts on Bus Service in Palo Alto From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council receive a presentation by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) regarding its Next Network Initiative and discuss potential impacts to bus service in the City of Palo Alto. Background: The VTA is currently analyzing the performance of its existing bus service and planning for significant changes to its bus network after the opening of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART extension to Berryessa in San José. The Next Network Initiative is one component of the Transit Ridership Improvement Program, which will also include modifications to the VTA light rail service. The Transit Ridership Improvement Program is an agency-wide effort to make public transit faster, more frequent and more useful for Santa Clara County travelers. The Next Network initiative goals, as stated by VTA include: Better connect VTA transit with the new Milpitas and Berryessa BART stations Improve overall system ridership Improve VTA's farebox recovery rate More information on the Next Network Initiative can be found here: http://www.vta.org/projects-and-programs/transit/next-network Discussion and Summary of Key Issues: As part of the Next Network Initiative and at the request of City Staff, VTA hosted a community meeting in Palo Alto on Wednesday, May 18 at the Rinconada Library. Before the meeting, VTA’s consultant reviewed existing routes and current land use patterns and developed three City of Palo Alto Page 2 network design concepts for public review and comment. Two of the concepts proposed would significantly reduce VTA bus service in Palo Alto, including one concept that would eliminate all routes except for the 22 and 522, which run along El Camino Real. This meeting provided an important opportunity for the community to review these concepts and provide necessary local feedback. On June 6, 2016, City Manager James Keene sent a letter to the VTA General Manager Nuria Fernandez expressing the City’s concerns regarding changes to routes 35, 88 and 89, which are relied on by students, commuters and seniors to travel to and from school, work and services. This letter also requested that the VTA work with the City to expand, not reduce, transit service in northern Santa Clara County. The letter is included as Attachment A. On June 14, 2016, General Manager Fernandez responded in a letter to the City Manager. The letter is included as Attachment B. On September 14, 2016, the Palo Alto Council of PTAs sent a letter to General Manager Fernandez. The letter is included as Attachment C. On September 16, 2016, the Henry M. Gunn High School Parents, Teachers & Students Association (PTSA) sent a letter to General Manager Fernandez. The letter is included as Attachment D. On October 20, 2016, the Stevenson House sent a letter to General Manager Fernandez. The letter is included as Attachment E. On November 7, 2016, Palo Alto Housing sent a letter to General Manager Fernandez. The letter is included as Attachment F. On December 30, 2016, VTA staff released the draft Next Network Transit Service Plan to the public. Within Palo Alto, the draft plan recommends eliminating routes 88 and 89, bolstering service along El Camino Real by increasing the frequency of service on routes 22 and 522, and maintaining service along the current route 35 with the introduction of a longer route 21 the would run between Palo Alto and Santa Clara. Route 88 would be replaced by a new route 288, which would only run during Gunn High School arrival and dismissal periods. The materials provided by VTA staff are included as Attachment G, and consist of the following: VTA Board memo to present and explain the plan, including a discussion of major themes in the plan Map of the proposed weekday transit network Map of the proposed light rail system Route-by-route matrix of changes proposed Diagram of the transit connections at the two new BART stations Diagram showing the plan’s proposed classes of bus and rail service City of Palo Alto Page 3 It is Staff’s understanding that a second round of outreach will be used to refine the draft plan prior to consideration by the VTA Board in April 2017. Changes to the transit network as part of Next Network Initiative would go into effect with the next two-year transit service plan in July 2017. It is unclear how the additional Measure B funding for transit operations will affect implementation of this initiative. Below is a list of the VTA-hosted community meetings planned throughout the months of January and February 2017. • January 11, 6 pm: Downtown San Jose (Chamber of Commerce) • January 12, 6 pm: Milpitas Public Library • January 18, 6 pm: Cupertino (Quinlin Center) • January 19, 6 pm: Palo Alto City Hall • January 23, 6 pm: Campbell (Campbell Library) • February 6, 6 pm: Mountain View • February 13, 6 pm: East San Jose (Mexican Heritage Plaza) • February 15, 6 pm: Gilroy Library • February 16, 6 pm: South San Jose (Southside Community Center) Policy Implications: The following Goals, Policies and Programs from the Comprehensive Plan are directly related to this discussion: • Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles • Policy T-2: Consider economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local transportation decisions. • Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. • Goal T-2: A Convenient, Efficient, Public Transit System that Provides a Viable Alternative to Driving • Policy T-4: Provide local transit in Palo Alto. • Policy T-5: Support continued development and improvement of the University Avenue and California Avenue Multi-modal Transit Stations, and the San Antonio Road Station as important transportation nodes for the City. • Policy T-6: Improve public transit access to regional destinations, including those within Palo Alto. • Policy T-7: Support plans for a quiet, fast rail system that encircles the Bay, and for intra- county and transbay transit systems that link Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara County and adjoining counties. • Policy T-9: Work towards integrating public school commuting into the local transit system. • Policy T-11: Support efforts to integrate train, bus, and shuttle schedules at multi-modal transit stations to make public transit use more time-efficient. • Policy T-43: Provide and/or promote demand-responsive paratransit service. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Resource Impact: If the VTA elects to move forward with a service plan that subtantially reduces fixed route and paratransit service in Palo Alto, the City may need to add additional City-funded shuttle routes to replace the former VTA routes. This would result in increased expenditures by the City, which are not currently budgeted. Environmental Review: This is a study session and no action will be taken, therefore no environmental review is required. Attachments: Attachment A - Letter from City Manager Keene to VTA General Manager Fernandez Attachment B - Letter from VTA General Manager Fernandez to City Manager Keene Attachment C - Letter from PTA Council to VTA General Manager Fernandez Attachment D - Letter from Gunn PTA to VTA General Manager Fernandez Attachment E - Letter from Stevenson House to General Manager Fernandez Attachment F - Letter from Palo Alto Housing to General Manager Fernandez Attachment G - VTA Draft Next Network Transit Service Plan Date: December 22, 2016 Current Meeting: January 5, 2017 Board Meeting: January 5, 2017 BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez FROM: Interim Director - Planning & Program Development, Carolyn M. Gonot SUBJECT: Next Network Draft Plan 3331 North First Street ∙ San Jose, CA 95134-1927 ∙ Administration 408.321.5555 ∙ Customer Service 408.321.2300 Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Draft Transit Service Plan for release to the public for review and comment. BACKGROUND: Under VTA’s Transit Ridership Improvement Program (TRIP) initiated in 2015, VTA began a two-year planning and outreach effort to develop a redesigned transit network. This project was known as Next Network, with implementation of a new transit service plan to occur concurrent with the opening of BART Phase 1 service at the Milpitas and Berryessa stations. The project aims to engage the community in developing a new bus and light rail transit network that reflects our transit needs and values, while increasing ridership, improving farebox recovery, and integrating BART service into the transit network. VTA engaged Jarrett Walker + Associates, an internationally-recognized leader in transit planning, to assist with the effort. The project's major milestones include: - Late 2015: Independent assessment of VTA’s service and market - April 2016: Transit Choices and Alternatives reports to VTA Board - Summer 2016: Community outreach phase 1 - November 2016: VTA Board decision on ridership-coverage allocation (85/15) - January 2017: Draft transit service plan released - January-February 2017: Community outreach phase 2 7.4 Page 2 of 10 - April 2017: Final transit service plan for VTA Board approval - Fall 2017: Service begins (concurrent with the opening of BART Phase 1) The Next Network project started with an independent assessment of VTA's transit service and market. This assessment, called the Transit Choices Report and accompanying Transit Alternatives Report (both available at http://nextnetwork.vta.org/library), illustrated the significant tradeoff decisions for consideration in developing a redesigned transit network. The reports identified the allocation of services between ridership-oriented service and coverage- oriented service as the most critical policy choice facing VTA. To this end, the project team sought to engage the community in a broad discussion of VTA's allocation of resources on the spectrum and whether the new transit service plan should represent a shift in resource allocation towards ridership and away from coverage. Over the summer of 2016, the project team utilized a series of three transit network concept maps to engage the community and solicit their input on tradeoff questions. This first of two project outreach phases included VTA-hosted community meetings, discussions at non-VTA community meetings, intensive community leader workshops, an online meeting, an interactive dedicated project website, numerous blog posts with accompanying discussion area, social media engagement, and tabling events. The project team received over 5,000 points of valuable feedback, including votes on the ridership-coverage balance. The volume of feedback was used to develop a draft transit service plan. Following the first phase of community outreach, the VTA Board of Directors held a November 2016 workshop to discuss the community’s input and give staff direction on the ridership- coverage balance for the draft transit service plan. At the conclusion of the meeting, the VTA Board voted to direct staff to develop a draft transit service plan that reflects an “85/15” split - that is, a network that allocates 85% of resources to ridership-oriented service and 15% of resources to coverage-oriented service. This direction to pursue a network designed to achieve higher ridership represents a shift from today’s network of 70% ridership-oriented service and 30% coverage-oriented service. This change would have the effect of increasing frequency in high ridership transit-supportive corridors and areas, decreasing service in areas with low transit demand, and a design philosophy that embraces a grid of frequent routes with more rapid routes and more midday and weekend service. DISCUSSION: VTA staff have developed a draft transit service plan that reflects the substantial community input received over the summer as well as the VTA Board’s guidance on the ridership-coverage balance given at the November 18 Board Workshop. Staff is requesting Board approval to take the draft transit service plan out to the community in a second phase of outreach. The draft plan’s network map is presented as Attachment A; a route-by-route matrix of proposed service changes is presented as Attachment B. The draft transit service plan includes the following major features: 7.4 Page 3 of 10 REALLOCATION OF RESOURCES FROM COVERAGE TO RIDERSHIP What we heard: The community understood the difficult ridership and coverage tradeoff and overall voted strongly in favor of VTA allocating more resources to ridership service and fewer resources to coverage service. VTA currently spends approximately 70% of its operating dollars on productive ridership- oriented service and the remaining 30% to unproductive coverage-oriented service, a “70/30” balance. The draft plan would achieve an 85/15 balance by reallocating resources from unproductive services and investing those resources in more productive services. This reallocation of coverage-oriented service to ridership-oriented service is how the plan can offer significant benefits while not increasing the total cost of service. The areas that would lose service under the draft plan are generally areas that lack the transit- supportive characteristics such as dense, walkable, pedestrian-oriented spaces that are necessary for transit to be productive. VTA is exploring alternative mobility strategies for these difficult-to- serve areas in a concurrent Core Connectivity project to potentially serve these “gaps” in the transit network. INCREASED LIGHT RAIL SERVICE What we heard: The community expressed a strong desire to invest in VTA’s light rail system. The VTA Light Rail to BART connection will be at the Montague Light Rail station, and VTA will modify the light rail service plan to better serve this connection as well as the ongoing needs of Santa Clara Valley residents and workers. In May 2016, staff brought, for review, three different operating plans with three different optional enhancements to the VTA Board of Directors. Staff returned in October 2016 with a staff recommendation that includes the following changes (see Attachment C for a map of the recommended light rail operating plan): ‒ A new line from Alum Rock to Mountain View operating every 15-minutes. This new line would double the Light Rail service frequency at the Milpitas BART Station and provide a direct trip from BART to major employment centers in North San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View. This line would also serve Levi’s Stadium, reducing the need for special event trains. Staff is also continuing to study the potential for an express service on part of this line. ‒ The existing Winchester to Mountain View line would be modified to a Winchester to Old Ironsides line. The frequency of this service would improve from the current 15- minute peak hour/30-minute midday frequencies to 15-minute frequencies all day. ‒ The Commuter Express, which currently operates three trips each peak period between Santa Teresa and Baypointe, would operate from Santa Teresa to St. James Station and be expanded to six trains each peak period, instead of the current three, using the same resources. ‒ No changes are proposed for the existing Santa Teresa to Alum Rock line and the 7.4 Page 4 of 10 existing Almaden Service. ‒ Signage and wayfinding improvements, including renaming the light rail lines to coincide with their colors (Orange, Blue, Green, Purple, Yellow) and renaming of two stations. Montague light rail station will become Milpitas light rail station, and I-880/Milpitas light rail station will become Alder light rail station. FREQUENT BART CONNECTIONS What we heard: The community reiterated the importance of BART service in the county and expressed a desire for convenient transit connections to BART service. The draft plan includes frequent connecting service at the Milpitas and Berryessa transit centers, ensuring that riders would have a range of transit options to connect with BART trains (see Attachment D for an illustration of transit connections at the two transit centers). The Milpitas and Berryessa transit centers would feature an array of connecting services: ‒ A new light rail line between Alum Rock and Mountain View, discussed above, that would provide a direct BART connection for Alum Rock, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View destinations (every 15-minutes all day). ‒ A redesigned and improved DASH service, renamed Route 500, would provide a direct service with more frequency, longer spans of service, and a larger service area that would include the Berryessa BART station. As an expanded route with new regional connections, Route 500 would be a standard fare route. Route 500 trips would be timed to meet BART trains at the Berryessa BART station and provide fast and direct service into downtown San Jose and Diridon Station (trips timed to meet every BART train). ‒ Today’s Airport Flyer Route 10 would be upgraded to become a new frequent Route 60 that would provide a direct connection between the Milpitas transit center’s BART trains and Mineta San Jose International Airport, Santa Clara Caltrain Station, Valley Fair/Santana Row, and the Winchester corridor (every 15-minutes all day). As a new countywide frequent route, Route 60 would be a standard fare route, with the exception of boardings at the airport, which would be fare-free. ‒ Rapid 523, a new Rapid service between Berryessa BART, downtown San Jose (via King Road and Alum Rock Avenue), San Carlos Street, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road, downtown Sunnyvale, and Lockheed Martin via Mathilda Avenue (every 15-minutes all day). ‒ A new Route 20 that would serve north San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View (every 15-minutes peak and 30-minutes midday). ‒ Additional bus routes from the Milpitas and/or Berryessa BART stations: o Route 47 would serve Milpitas (every 30-minutes all day). o Route 66 would serve Milpitas, Oakland Road, downtown San Jose, and Monterey Highway (every 15-minutes all day). o Route 77 would serve both Milpitas and Berryessa BART stations, plus Lundy 7.4 Page 5 of 10 Avenue, King Road, and the Eastridge Transit Center (every 15-minutes all day). o Route 70 would serve both Milpitas and Berryessa BART stations, plus southern Milpitas, Jackson Avenue, and the Eastridge Transit Center (operating every 15 or 30 minutes all day, depending on route segment). o Route 71 would serve Piedmont Road, White Road, and the Eastridge Transit Center (every 30-minutes all day). o Route 61 would serve Berryessa Road and West San Jose via Taylor Street, Naglee Avenue, and Bascom Avenue (every 15-minutes all day). o AC Transit’s Route 217 would serve Milpitas and Fremont BART via Mission Boulevard (every 30-minutes all day). SIMPLIFIED FAMILY OF SERVICES What we heard: The community expressed frustration in understanding and using VTA’s complex transit network. The draft plan features a simplified family of transit services that would make service easier to understand and use (see Attachment E). The new family of services would establish a strong hierarchy of transit service and a clear structure to complement VTA’s new brand: ‒ Light rail, featuring 7-day a week service every 15-minutes ‒ Rapid bus, featuring 7-day a week service every 15-minutes, with limited stops ‒ Frequent bus, featuring 7-day a week service every 15-minutes, with local stops ‒ Local bus, featuring weekday service every 30-minutes, with local stops ‒ Express bus, featuring peak-only commuter service on weekdays The draft plan also proposes discontinuing Community Bus as a distinct service class and fare. The Community Bus fare was established in 2007 because the Community Bus routes were serviced by light duty gasoline-fueled cutaway vehicles (which were significantly cheaper to acquire) and because the bus operators assigned to Community routes were paid less than operators assigned to regular routes. Neither of these cost differentials apply today; VTA operates our regular transit buses on all Community routes and all operators are paid the same wage regardless of the route they operate. Therefore, the draft plan incorporates routes previously classified as Community routes into the Local Bus class. REGIONAL CONNECTIONS What we heard: The community expressed a desire for better connections with other regional transit services to expand mobility beyond Santa Clara County. The draft plan would enhance regional mobility by improving connections with the Bay Area’s regional transit network. Better regional connections would be achieved by 1) improving the 7.4 Page 6 of 10 frequency of VTA routes that connect to the regional transit network, thereby reducing transfer wait times, and 2) introducing new VTA routes that connect to the regional transit network. Some of the improved regional connections include: ‒ Numerous Frequent routes that would serve the Milpitas and Berryessa BART stations. ‒ A new light rail Orange Line that would offer direct service between Alum Rock and Mountain View, serving Milpitas BART, Mountain View Caltrain, and ACE/Capitol Corridor at Great America Station. ‒ A new cross-county Frequent route that would offer a direct connection between Milpitas BART, San Jose International Airport, Santa Clara Caltrain, light rail, and Valley Fair/Santana Row (Route 60). ‒ Improved service frequencies at Diridon Station for routes connecting to Monterey- Salinas Transit Route 55 to Monterey and the Highway 17 Express to Santa Cruz. ‒ New Rapid 523 service that would connect Sunnyvale Caltrain to Lockheed Martin transit center, De Anza College, and the Stevens Creek/San Carlos/Santa Clara/Alum Rock corridors. ‒ A revised and more frequent downtown San Jose DASH shuttle that would offer frequent connections at Diridon Station and the Berryessa BART station (Route 500). ‒ New routes at Milpitas BART that would offer connections with AC Transit’s Route 217 (previously connecting at the Great Mall Transit Center). FOCUS SERVICE NEAR TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE DEVELOPMENT What we heard: Community members understood the land use and transportation connection and expressed a desire for transit to support dense, walkable, and sustainable development. Transit, land use, and the street grid form an interrelated trio of features that work together to produce sustainable communities where residents can adopt transit-oriented lifestyles. The draft plan focuses transit resources in areas with a street grid and land use pattern that support transit and where it would achieve the greatest ridership per dollar spent. These transit-supportive areas, often in dense cores, along corridors, and around station areas, would benefit from additional transit service as part of a robust frequent transit network. By establishing a frequent transit network where cities could focus dense, transit-oriented development, cities could accommodate future growth while minimizing new auto trips. In turn, additional growth along the frequent network would generate additional ridership on the transit network, continuing the mutually beneficial cycle of transit-supportive land use and transit productivity. MORE RESIDENTS AND JOBS ON THE FREQUENT TRANSIT NETWORK 7.4 Page 7 of 10 What we heard: Today’s transit network tries to go too many places and transit is spread too thin, service doesn’t come very often, and therefore transit trips take too long. The community expressed a desire for transit to focus on transit-supportive areas. As outlined in the project’s Transit Choices Report released in early 2016, a transit network maximizes ridership by maximizing the total number of residents and jobs on a frequent network of transit services (i.e. getting more people to more places in less time). The draft plan aims to maximize the number of residents and jobs on a network of frequent transit routes in the most transit-supportive areas of the county by taking more residents to more places in the same amount of time, which is a central theme of high ridership transit networks. PARATRANSIT SERVICE AVAILABILITY What we heard: High-quality paratransit service options are critical to valley residents. The draft plan features a redesigned fixed-route transit network which would impact VTA’s federal requirements regarding complementary paratransit service. Some network changes would increase VTA’s paratransit service obligations, such as new service in previously-unserved geographic areas or an expansion of the hours of service availability in evenings and on weekends. Conversely, some network changes would reduce VTA’s paratransit obligations, such as geographic areas that would lose fixed route service entirely. The net impact of the draft plan’s fixed route network on paratransit service has not been fully analyzed yet, and VTA staff will engage the VTA Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility (CTMA) in developing a recommended paratransit policy strategy for adoption with the final transit service plan. In advance of Board adoption of a paratransit policy, the draft plan includes a recommendation to minimize service impacts for all existing paratransit customers in the county so that paratransit users are not negatively impacted by the new transit service plan. IMPROVED SERVICE TO LOW INCOME AND MINORITY RESIDENTS What we heard: VTA should pay particular attention to the transit needs of low income and minority residents. The draft plan includes elements to increase transit service available to low income and minority residents. As outline in VTA’s Title VI program, staff paid particular attention to the location and travel needs of low income and minority residents during the planning process to develop the draft plan. In Santa Clara County, low income and minority residents tend to reside in areas that are already transit supportive (featuring dense, mixed land uses and a strong street grid). The draft plan’s emphasis on expanding service in transit-supportive areas work hand-in-hand with the goal of improving service for low income and minority residents. Staff also enlisted the expertise of an independent consultant to conduct a preliminary Title VI equity analysis. The preliminary Title VI analysis concluded that the draft plan does not impose a disparate impact on minority populations or a disproportionate burden on low income populations. Staff will continue to include Title VI equity considerations as part of the planning process to revise the draft plan into the final transit service plan. A full Title VI service equity analysis will be conducted on the final transit service plan and the results will be presented with the final plan. 7.4 Page 8 of 10 EXPANDED WEEKEND SERVICE What we heard: The community expressed frustration with VTA’s limited transit options on weekends, particularly those residents who work in the service and retail sectors. The draft plan aims to increase the amount of transit service provided on weekends, particularly on the core network of frequent routes. Compared to VTA’s current transit network, the draft plan provides 9% more service on Saturdays and 7% more service on Sundays. For example, VTA’s transit network today provides no service to Alviso on Saturdays or Sundays. Under the draft plan, Alviso would have 15 hours of service on Saturdays and 11 hours of service on Sundays. By providing a more useful 7-day transit network, more residents could adopt a transit-oriented lifestyle. BETTER NORTH-SOUTH CONNECTIONS IN WEST VALLEY What we heard: West Valley residents and workers expressed a desire for more frequent transit service, particularly north-south service. Effective transit networks utilize a grid of intersecting frequent routes to create the possibility of travel anywhere within the grid, as demonstrated by the success of East San Jose’s strong grid network of frequent routes. The draft plan introduces new north-south frequent service in West Valley’s strongest corridors. These new frequent corridors include: ‒ A Frequent 57 route on the Saratoga/Kiely/Bowers/Great America corridor, every 15- minutes on weekdays and 20-minutes on weekends. ‒ Improved service on Frequent route 60 along the Winchester corridor, every 15- minutes on weekdays and every 20-minutes on weekends. ‒ A new Rapid 523 route along the Mathilda/Sunnyvale-Saratoga/Hollenbeck corridor between De Anza College and the Lockheed Martin transit center, every 15-minutes every day (including weekends). SCHOOL SERVICE What we heard: Many communities rely on VTA service for youth school trips. Many schools are located near fixed-route service, and VTA plays a role in getting these students to and from school. VTA’s school service takes the form of additional vehicles added to routes near schools, timed to the school bell times, to ensure students are well-served. The draft plan continues VTA’s program to provide supplementary school trips at the same level as today, about 46,000 annual service hours (3% of VTA’s total annual bus service hours). The draft plan includes four cases where VTA would scale back an existing all-day fixed route to a schedule focused on school bell times. These four routes have low ridership today and would otherwise have been discontinued under the draft plan’s shift to a more ridership-oriented network. Instead, these four routes have been scaled back to operate at school bell times only: ‒ Route 88 in Palo Alto would be converted to special service (Route 288), for Gunn 7.4 Page 9 of 10 High School, Kehillah Jewish High School, Palo Verde Elementary School, Hoover Elementary School, and Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School. ‒ Route 82 in Willow Glen would be converted to special service (Route 282), for Willow Glen High School and Willow Glen Elementary School. ‒ Route 46 in Milpitas would be converted to special service (Route 246), for Milpitas High School. ‒ Route 16 in Morgan Hill would be converted to special service (Route 216), for Sobrato High School, Live Oak High School, and Lewis Britton Middle School. VTA EXPRESS SERVICE VTA’s twelve Express routes were not studied as part of this project. However, a dedicated Express service redesign project will be conducted following adoption of the final transit service plan in 2017. Therefore, the draft plan does not make recommendations for VTA’s Express routes, except for the routes that currently serve Fremont BART (Express routes 120, 140, 180, and 181). As the only VTA routes that provide service outside of Santa Clara County, the four Express routes that currently serve Fremont BART would all be replaced by the BART Phase 1 extension: ‒ Express 120 to Lockheed Martin/Moffett Park (6 AM and 6 PM trips) would be replaced by the new Orange light rail line (every 15-minutes all day) and the BART extension to Milpitas. ‒ Express 140 to Mission College and Montague Expressway (3 AM and 3 PM trips) would be replaced by a new Frequent route 20 (every 15-minutes peak and 30-minutes midday) and the BART extension to Milpitas. ‒ Express 180 to Milpitas (and Eastridge on select peak trips) (every 30-minutes) would be replaced by the BART extension to Milpitas (and Frequent route 77 every 15-minutes). ‒ Express 181 to downtown San Jose (every 15-minutes) would be replaced by Rapid route 500 (timed to meet every BART train at Berryessa Station), and the BART extension to Berryessa Station. ‒ Express 101, 102, 103, 104, 121, 122, 168, 182: no change; service remains as it is today. RELATIONSHIP TO FARE STUDY The draft plan utilizes a grid network of frequent routes to expand the range of trips possible on the transit network, however VTA’s current fare structure discourages the transfers that would 7.4 Page 10 of 10 unlock the ridership benefits of the grid. Concurrent with the project, VTA staff will separately engage the Board in discussions and development of revised fare policies that would complement the new transit service network. BUDGET Following VTA Board guidance, the draft plan represents an unchanged total amount of bus service, utilizing the same annual service hours as the most recent Board-approved service plan (the FY16-17 Transit Service Plan). The draft bus service plan is anticipated to be cost neutral, i.e., no increase in annual operating expenses directly related to the number of service hours. The light rail portion of the draft plan represents an increase in the total amount of service provided. The proposed light rail service plan is projected to increase operating costs by approximately $11 Million annually. Net costs after projected fares, would be approximately $8 Million annually. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatively, the Board could direct staff to defer release of the draft transit service plan or make modifications to the proposals contained within the draft service plan. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact related to approval of the draft transit service plan. However, subsequent adoption of the final transit service plan, currently scheduled for April 2017, could result in increased annual operating expenses of up to $11 Million ($8 Million net of projected fare revenues) depending on the level of light rail service ultimately approved. In addition, changes made to the draft bus service plan that result in a higher amount of overall service hours could result in increased annual operating expenses. Prepared by: Jason Tyree Memo No. 5840 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: System Map (PDF) Attachment B: Route by Route List of Major Changes (PDF) Attachment C: Light Rail System Map (PDF) Attachment D: BART Connections (PDF) Attachment E: Family of Services (PDF) 7.4 m o n t e r e y s e n t e r tully w h i t e curtner hillsdale sara t o g a sa r a t o g a - s u n n y v a l e gr a n t wo l f e homestead reed ho l l e n b e c k ma r y stevens creek m c l a u g h l i n mcke e alum r o c k hostetter la f a y e t t e qu i t o sa n a n t o n i o alm a evely n sp r i n g e r fremont mat h i l d a sara t o g a win c h e s t e r blossom hill aborn calaveras abel milpitas mccarthy lande s s mer idi an me r i d i a n campbell hamilton williams prospect allendale stelling parkmoor fruitdale will o w k e y e s ba s c o m al m ad en hillsdale capitol snell senter kiely cottle santa teresa monterey g u a d alu p e bascom el camino real university middlefield california hanover f o o t hill h ilview el monte fabian rengstorff miramonte shoreline m offett central maude java fair oaks duane arques t a sman great american bowers monroe el camino real lawrence a g n e w m o ntague 1 st scott 1st lick mill d e la c r u zaldo lafe yette mission san tomas ben t o n california bernardo remington de anza sunnyvale-saratoga tantau bollinger pollard hacienda santa cruz winchester main los gatos samaritan union leigh l o s g atos almaden c a m d e n camden crown harry santa teresa via del oro silver leaf branham winfield roeder y er b a buena c a pit ol quimby murillo delta san felipe the villages kin g storysanta cl ar ajulian o cala jacks o n kirk t o y o n pie d m o nt temple par k v ic t oria m o rrill c ro ple y o a kla n d lu n d y brokaw m ab ury na glee t a ylor coleman esc u ela berryessa h e d din g flickin ger homer the ala m e d a li n c oln charlesto n a r a str a d e ro 101101 101101 101101 280 280 680 880 880 280 237 237 85 85 85 288 288 288 282 282 246 246AC217 AC217 51 51 93 93 93 51 51 56 56 21 59 59 59 40 40 40 70 70 40 20 20 20 20 20 56 59 59 21 21 21 68 66 66 56 21 21 70 47 47 55 55 63 63 63 64 64 27 27 27 27 27 55 55 61 56 70 25 25 25 71 71 71 64 76 76 76 55 53 5353 53 53 26 26 26 26 52 52 52 61 61 76 21 27 55 22 22 61 60 61 61 23 60 60 68 68 73 73 72 72 72 77 23 23 22 23 22 22 22 25 25 25 61 22 22 61 26 26 60 60 57 57 57 57 57 57 77 77 77 77 68 64 64 66 66 66 66 66 66 68 66 23 66 522 522 522 522 523 522 523 522 522 522 523 523 523 523 500 500 ba ba EASTRIDGE ALUM ROCK SANTA TERESA WINCHESTER VALLEY FAIR LOCKHEED MARTIN SUNNYVALE MOUNTAIN VIEW MISSION COLLEGE VALLEY MEDICALCENTER DIRIDON BERRYESSABART PALO ALTO WEST VALLEYCOLLEGE SAN ANTONIO FOOTHILL COLLEGE DE ANZACOLLEGE EVERGREENCOLLEGE SAN JOSEAIRPORT SANTA CLARA KAISER MEDICALCENTER MILPITASBART SNELL COTTLE SANTA CLARA SAN ANTONIO CONVENTION CENTER REA M W O O D M IDD L E F I E L D FAIR O AK S OLD IRON S I D E S FRUITDALE RACE ST TAMIEN CURTNER BORR E G A S CROS S M A N CROP L E Y ALDE R CAPITOL ALMADEN OHLONE/CHYNOWETH HOS T E T T E R ST JAMES BAYP O I N T E METRO/AIRPORT ORCHARD CIVIC CENTER DOWNTOWN CAMPBELL BLOSSOM HILL San Jose Milpitas Palo Alto Sunnyvale Cupertino MountainViewLos Altos Campbell Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Alviso 0 1 2 3 4 mi outside Santa Clara County natural area Caltrain / ACE commuter rail Future BART ba Other Transit Services TC VTA Transit Center VTA light rail Every 60 minutes peak only Every 60 minutes Every 60 minutes plus 30 minute peak Every 30 minutes peak only Every 30 minutes Every 30 minutes plus 15 minute peak Every 15 minutes or better Rapid: every 15 minutes or better and limited stops VTA Route Frequencies Draft Plan (85% ridership goal, 15% coverage goal) School trippers Municipal shuttlesmainhale dunn e m o n t ere y 1st 6th 8th montere y welburn princevalle sant a tere sa thomas m a nnt elli s a n y sidro arr oyo 10th co chrane p eebles elm missio n vie w half burnett wren 3rd kern 101101 101101 216 216 96 96 68 68 68 97 97 MAIN & HALE GAVILANCOLLEGE mainhale dunn e m o n t ere y 1st 6th 8th montere y welbur n princevalle sant a tere sa thomas m a nn telli s a n y sidro arr oyo 1 0 th cochrane peebles elm missio n vie w half burnett wren 3rd kern 101101 101101 216 216 96 96 68 68 68 97 97 MAIN & HALE GAVILANCOLLEGE Morgan Hill Service Gilroy Service Services not shown include: - VTA Express - ACE shuttles - Hwy 17, MST 55, DB Express 12/29/2016 DR A F T DR A F T VTA Bus Lines Proposed Change RouƟ ng Change Frequency Change Weekday Saturday Sunday Span Peak Midday Span Frequency Span Frequency 10 Metro/Airport LRT StaƟ on - Santa Clara Transit Center Combine with new Route 60, which would connect Mineta San Jose Airport to Milpitas BART StaƟ on, Santa Clara Caltrain StaƟ on, Valley Fair, Santana Row and Downtown Campbell. 12 Eastridge Transit Center - San Jose Civic Center DisconƟ nue; current riders may use revised Route 61 or Route 77. 13 Ohlone/Chynoweth LRT StaƟ on - Almaden/McKean DisconƟ nue due to low ridership. 14 Gilroy Transit Center - St. Louise Hospital DisconƟ nue and replace with new Route 96, which serves Route 14 desƟ naƟ ons and other areas of Gilroy. 16 Morgan Hill Civic Center - BurneƩ Avenue Scale back to school-oriented service (to be called Route 216) for Sobrato High School, Live Oak High School and Lewis BriƩ on Middle School ●7-8am, 2-4pm 30 min — — — — — 17 Gilroy Transit Center - St. Louise Hospital DisconƟ nue and replace with new Route 96, which serves Route 17 desƟ naƟ ons and other areas of Gilroy. 18 Gilroy Transit Center - Gavilan College Renumber to Route 97; decrease frequency on weekdays, add service on weekends. 19 Gilroy Transit Center - Wren and Marshall DisconƟ nue; replace with new Route 96, which serves Route 19 desƟ naƟ ons and other areas of Gilroy. 20 Downtown Mountain View - Milpitas BART StaƟ on Create new Route 20 that would connect Milpitas BART StaƟ on, Mission College, Santa Clara Square, Downtown Sunnyvale and Downtown Mountain View. New Route 20 would provide service to areas currently served during commute periods by parts of Routes 58, 321 and 304. New 6am - 10pm 15 min 30 min — — — — 21 Palo Alto Transit Center - Santa Clara Caltrain StaƟ on Create new Route 21 that would connect Downtown Palo Alto with San Antonio Transit Center, Downtown Mountain View, Downtown Sunnyvale and Santa Clara Caltrain StaƟ on. New Route 21 would replace current Routes 32 and 35.New 6am - 10pm 30 min 30 min 8am - 8pm 45 min 9am-8pm 60 min 22 Palo Alto Transit Center - Eastridge Transit Center Decrease weekday frequency; increase frequency on Route 522 (to be implemented in April 2017).●24 hours 15 min 15 min 24 hours 15 min 24 hours 15 min 23 De Anza College - Alum Rock Transit Center Change rouƟ ng on east end to serve White Road in East San Jose. Decrease frequency from 12 to 15 minutes on Route 23 and ;increase frequency on Route 523.●●5am - 12am 15 min 15 min 6am - 12am 15 min 6am - 12pm 15 min 25 De Anza College - Alum Rock Transit Center Change rouƟ ng on east end to no longer serve White Road in East San Jose. Decrease weekday frequency and increase Sunday frequency. ●●6am - 12pm 12 min 12 min 6am - 12pm 15 min 6am - 12pm 15 min 26 Lockheed MarƟ n Transit Center - Eastridge Transit Center Split into two separate routes. Revised Route 26 would connect West Valley College and Eastridge Transit Center; frequency would increase on weekdays and weekends. New Route 56 would connect Lockheed MarƟ n and Winchester Transit Centers. ●●6am - 12pm 15 min 15 min 7am - 12pm 20 min 8am - 11pm 20 min 27 Good Samaritan Hospital - Kaiser San Jose Extend to Winchester Transit Center via Los Gatos Boulevard, Highway 9 and Winchester Boulevard; increase frequency on weekdays and Saturdays. ●●6am - 10pm 30 min 30 min 7am - 10pm 30 min 8am - 8pm 60 min 31 Evergreen Valley College - Eastridge Transit Center DisconƟ nue; replace with part of new Route 76 (formerly Route 42). 32 San Antonio Shopping Center - Santa Clara Transit Center DisconƟ nue; replace with new Route 21. 34 San Antonio Shopping Center - Downtown Mountain View DisconƟ nue due to low ridership. 35 Stanford Shopping Center - Downtown Mountain View DisconƟ nue; replace with new Route 21. 37 West Valley College - Capitol Light Rail StaƟ on DisconƟ nue due to low ridership; current riders may use new Route 26. 39 Eastridge Transit Center - The Villages Renumber to Route 93; decrease peak period frequency. 40 Foothill College - Downtown Mountain View Extend Route 40 along Shoreline Boulevard to connect with Mountain View Transit Center; increase Sunday frequency.●●7am - 10pm 30 min 30 min 7am - 7am 45 min 9am - 6pm 45 min 42 Kaiser San Jose - Evergreen Valley College Renumber to Route 76; change rouƟ ng between Capitol Expressway and Evergreen College to serve Eastridge Transit Center and current Route 31. Increase weekday frequency. DisconƟ nue segments with low ridership. 45 Penetencia Creek Transit Center - Alum Rock Transit Center DisconƟ nue due to low ridership. 46 Great Mall Transit Center - Milpitas High School Scale back to school-oriented service (to be called Route 246) between Milpitas High School and Landess/ Yellowstone. Current riders may use Route 47. 47 Milpitas BART StaƟ on - McCarthy Ranch Reroute Main Street segment to McCarthy Boulevard; route becomes a two-way loop. Increase Sunday frequency. ●●6am - 10pm 30 min 30 min 7am - 9pm 30 min 8am - 8pm 30 min 48 Downtown Los Gatos - Winchester LRT StaƟ on DisconƟ nue and replace with revised Route 27; increase frequency on Route 27. 49 Downtown Los Gatos - Winchester LRT StaƟ on DisconƟ nue and replace with revised Route 27; increase frequency on Route 27. 51 Moff eƩ Field - De Anza College New number for Moff eƩ Field to De Anza College porƟ on of current Route 81; decrease frequency in this secƟ on and disconƟ nue Saturday service. ●●7am - 6pm 30 min 60 min — — — — 52 Foothill College - Downtown Mountain View No Changes No changes 7am - 10pm 30 min 30 min — — — — 53 Downtown Sunnyvale - Santa Clara Caltrain StaƟ on Change rouƟ ng to serve Vallco Mall and Santa Clara Caltrain StaƟ on instead of West Valley College; this change replaces part of current Route 81. Increase frequency on weekdays. ●6am - 8pm 30 min 30 min 9am - 6pm 60 min — — 54 Lockheed MarƟ n Transit Center - De Anza College DisconƟ nue Route 54; add more frequent new Rapid 523 service on Mathilda Avenue/De Anza Boulevard corridor. 55 De Anza College - Old Ironsides LRT StaƟ on Change rouƟ ng between Downtown Sunnyvale and Remington Avenue from Fair Oaks Avenue to Sunnyvale Avenue; decrease weekday peak period frequency and increase Sunday frequency.●●6am - 10pm 30 min 30 min 8am - 9pm 30 min 8am - 8pm 30 min 56 Lockheed MarƟ n Transit Center - Winchester LRT StaƟ on Create new Route 56, which would connect Lockheed MarƟ n Transit Center to Downtown Sunnyvale, Vallco Mall, Downtown Campbell and Winchester Transit Center.New 6am - 10pm 30 min 30 min 7am - 10pm 30 min 8am - 9pm 30 min 57 West Valley College - Old Ironsides LRT StaƟ on Increase weekday and Saturday frequency.●6am - 11pm 15 min 15 min 7am - 11pm 20 min 8am - 10pm 20 min Route-By-Route List of Major Changes in DraŌ Plan AƩ achment B AƩ achment B VTA Bus Lines (ConƟ nued) Proposed Change RouƟ ng Change Frequency Change Weekday Saturday Sunday Span Peak Midday Span Frequency Span Frequency 58 West Valley College - Alviso DisconƟ nue; current riders may use Routes 57, 59, 20 and 26. 59 Baypointe Light Rail StaƟ on - Santa Clara Caltrain StaƟ on Create new Route 59, which would connect Santa Clara Caltrain StaƟ on, Mission College, Alviso and Baypointe Light Rail StaƟ on. New Route 59 would cover segments of disconƟ nued Route 58 and revised Route 60.New 6am - 10pm 30 min 30 min 7am - 10pm 30 min 8am - 6pm 60 min 60 Downtown Campbell - SJC Airport - Milpitas BART StaƟ on Combine with Route 10 to create new Route 60, which would connect Mineta San Jose Airport to Milpitas BART StaƟ on, Santa Clara Caltrain StaƟ on, Valley Fair, Santana Row and Downtown Campbell. Increase weekend frequency. ●5am - 11pm 15 min 15min 5am - 11pm 20 min 5am - 11pm 20 min 61 Good Samaritan Hospital - Berryessa BART - Sierra/Piedmont Change rouƟ ng from Mabury Road to Berryessa Road between Berryessa BART StaƟ on and Piedmont Road. Increase frequency on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays. ●6am - 11pm 15-30 min 15-30 min 7am - 11pm 20-40 min 8am - 10pm 20-40 min 62 Good Samaritan Hospital - Sierra/Piedmont DisconƟ nue; current riders may use Route 61. 63 Almaden Expressway/Camden - San Jose State University Change southern end from Almaden Expressway/Camden Avenue to Meridian Avenue/Blossom Hill Road.●6am - 10pm 30 min 30 min 8am - 7pm 60 min 9am - 6pm 60 min 64 Almaden LRT StaƟ on - McKee/White Change downtown rouƟ ng.●6am - 11pm 15-30 min 15-30 min 7am - 11pm 30 min 7am - 11pm 30 min 65 Kooser/Blossom Hill - 13th/Hedding DisconƟ nue due to low ridesrhip; current riders may use Route 61, 63 or 66. 66 Milpitas/Dixon - Kaiser San Jose Change rouƟ ng to serve Milpitas BART StaƟ on; increase weekday frequency.●●5am - 11pm 15 min 15-30 min 6am - 11pm 20 min 6am - 11pm 20 min 68 San Jose Diridon StaƟ on - Gilroy Transit Center Decrease midday frequency on Santa Teresa Light Rail StaƟ on to Gilroy Caltrain StaƟ on segment. ●5am - 11pm 15 min 15-30 min 5am-11pm 20 min 5am - 11pm 20 min 70 Capitol LRT StaƟ on - Berryessa BART - Milpitas BART Change northern end from Great Mall Transit Center to Milpitas BART StaƟ on, change rouƟ ng to connect to Berryessa BART StaƟ on. DisconƟ nue service between Eastridge Transit Center and Capitol Light Rail StaƟ on, some riders in that segment may use Routes 76, 72 or 26. ●6am - 11pm 15-30 min 15-30 min 7am - 11pm 20-40 min 7am - 10pm 20-40 min 71 Milpitas BART StaƟ on - Eastridge Transit Center Change northern end from Great Mall Transit Center to Milpitas BART StaƟ on; decrease weekday peak period service and increase Sunday service. ●●6am - 10pm 30 min 30 min 7am - 10pm 30 min 8am - 9pm 30 min 72 Downtown San Jose - Senter/Monterey Extend to Capitol Light Rail StaƟ on; increase frequency on Saturday and Sunday. ●●6am - 11pm 15 min 15 min 7am - 11pm 20 min 8am - 11pm 20 min 73 Downtown San Jose - Berryessa BART - Snell/Capitol Change southern end from Capitol Expressway/Snell to Monterey Road/Branham Road; increase weekend frequency. ●●6am - 11pm 15 min 15 min 7am - 11pm 20 min 8am - 11pm 20 min 76 Monterey/Branham - Evergreen College Create new Route 76 to replace Routes 42 and 31.●●6am - 10 pm 30 min 30 min 8am - 7pm 60 min 9am - 6pm 60 min 77 Milpitas BART StaƟ on - Eastridge Transit Center Change northern end from Great Mall Transit Center to Milpitas BART StaƟ on; change southern end of route to access Eastridge Transit Center via Tully Road rather than RigoleƩ o Drive. Change rouƟ ng to connect to Berryessa BART StaƟ on. Increase weekday, Saturday and Sunday frequencies. ●●6am - 11pm 15 min 15 min 7am - 11pm 20 min 7am - 10pm 20 min 81 Moff eƩ Field - Downtown San Jose DisconƟ nue; replace Moff eƩ Field to De Anza College segment with new Route 51. Replace De Anza College to Santa Clara Caltrain StaƟ on segment with revised Route 53. 82 Westgate - Downtown San Jose Scale back to school trips (to be called Route 282) serving Willow Glen High School. AlternaƟ ves include Routes 66, 68, 56. 88 Palo Alto VA Hospital - Middlefi eld/Colorado Scale back to school trips (to be called Route 288) serving Gunn High School, Kehillah Jewish High School, Palo Verde Elementary School, Hoover Elementary School, Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School.●7-8am, 2-4pm 30 min — — — — — 89 California Avenue Caltrain StaƟ on - Palo Alto VA Hospital DisconƟ nue due to low ridership. 93 Eastridge Transit Center - The Villages New number for Route 39; decrease weekday peak period frequency. New 7am - 6pm 60 min 60 min 9am - 6pm 60 min 9am - 6pm 60 min 96 Gilroy Caltrain StaƟ on - St. Louise Hospital - Gilroy Plaza New two-way loop route in Gilroy; replaces Routes 14, 17 and 19. New 7am - 6pm 60 min 60 min 9am - 6pm 60 min 9am - 6pm 60 min 97 Gilroy Caltrain StaƟ on - Gavilan College Renumbered from Route 18 ●7am - 10pm 30 min 30 min — — — — 101 Camden/Highway 85 - Palo Alto No changes proposed. No changes 2 trips each peak period — — — — 102 South San Jose - Palo Alto No changes proposed.No changes 7 trips each peak period — — — — 103 Eastridge Transit Center - Palo Alto No changes proposed.No changes 4 trips each peak period — — — — 104 Penetencia Creek Transit Center - Palo Alto Change eastern end to serve Milpitas BART StaƟ on rather than Great Mall Transit Center. No changes 2 trips each peak period — — — — 120 Fremont BART - Lockheed MarƟ n Transit Center/Shoreline DisconƟ nue due to extension of BART to Santa Clara County. 121 Gilroy Transit Center - San Jose Diridon StaƟ on No changes proposed.No changes 9 trips each peak period — — — — 122 South San Jose - Lockheed MarƟ n Transit Center No changes proposed.No changes 1 trip each peak period — — — — 140 Fremont BART StaƟ on - Mission College/Montague DisconƟ nue due to extension of BART to Santa Clara County. 168 Gilroy Transit Center - San Jose Diridon StaƟ on No changes proposed.No changes 6 trips each peak period — — — — 180 Fremont BART StaƟ on - Great Mall - Eastridge DisconƟ nue due to extension of BART to Santa Clara County. 181 Fremont BART - San Jose Diridon StaƟ on DisconƟ nue due to extension of BART to Santa Clara County. 182 Palo Alto - Baily Road/IBM No changes proposed.No changes 1 trip each peak period — — — — 185 Gilroy Caltrain StaƟ on - Shoreline - San Antonio Create new express route between Gilroy Transit Center and North Bayshore in Mountain View (to be implemented in January 2017).No changes 3 trips each peak period — — — — AƩ achment B VTA Bus Lines (ConƟ nued) Proposed Change RouƟ ng Change Frequency Change Weekday Saturday Sunday Span Peak Midday Span Frequency Span Frequency 216 Sobrato High School - Main/Hale School-oriented service ●7-8am, 2-4pm 30 min — — — — — 246 Milpitas High School - Yellowstone/Landess School-oriented service ●7-8am, 2-4pm 30 min — — — — — 282 Willow Glen High School - Tamien StaƟ on - Monterey/Alma School-oriented service ●7-8am, 2-4pm 30 min — — — — — 288 Gunn High School - North Palo Alto School-oriented service ●7-8am, 2-4pm 30 min — — — — — 304 South San Jose - Sunnyvale Transit Center DisconƟ nue due to low ridership; some current riders may use Routes 66, 68 or 20. 321 Great Mall - Lockheed MarƟ n Transit Center - Moff eƩ Park DisconƟ nue due to low ridership; current riders may use new Route 20. 323 De Anza College - Downtown San Jose Upgrade to Rapid 523 and extend western end to Lockheed MarƟ n Transit Center and eastern end to Berryessa BART StaƟ on; increase frequency on Rapid 523. 328 Almaden/Via Valiente - Lockheed MarƟ n Transit Center DisconƟ nue due to low ridership. 330 Almaden/Via Valiente - Lockheed MarƟ n Transit Center DisconƟ nue due to low ridership. 500 Diridon StaƟ on - Berryessa BART StaƟ on Replaces DASH shuƩ le; connects Diridon StaƟ on to San Jose State University and Berryessa BART StaƟ on; increase frequency on Rapid 500. New 4am - 12am 8 min 15 min 6am - 12am 15 min 8am - 12am 20 min 522 Palo Alto Transit Center - Eastridge Transit Center Increase weekday frequency (to be implemented in April 2017).●5am - 11pm 12 min 12 min 6am - 11pm 15 min 6am - 9pm 15 min 523 Lockheed MarƟ n Transit Center - Berryessa BART StaƟ on Create new Route 523 which would connect Lockheed MarƟ n Transit Center, Downtown Sunnyvale, De Anza College, Vallco, Valley Fair, Santana Row, Downtown San Jose, Mexican Heritage Plaza and Berryessa BART StaƟ on; increase frequency. New 5am - 10pm 15 min 15 min 6am - 10pm 15 min 7am - 9pm 15 min DASH Diridon StaƟ on - Downtown San Jose - San Jose State University DisconƟ nue; replace with Rapid 500. VTA Light Rail Lines RouƟ ng Change Frequency Change Weekday Saturday Sunday Span Peak Midday Span Frequency Span Frequency Green Old Ironsides LRT StaƟ on - Winchester LRT StaƟ on Change name to Green Line. Change northern end to Old Ironsides Light Rail StaƟ on; increase frequency to 15 minutes all day. ●●5am - 12am 15 min 15 min 6am - 12pm 15 min 6am - 12pm 15 min Blue Alum Rock Transit Center - Santa Teresa LRT StaƟ on Change name to Blue Line.No changes 5am - 1am 15 min 15 min 5am - 1am 15 min 5am - 1am 15 min Purple Almaden LRT StaƟ on - Ohlone/Chynoweth LRT StaƟ on Change name to Purple Line.No changes 6am - 10pm 15 min 15 min 8am - 10pm 15 min 8am - 10pm 15 min Orange Mountain View Transit Center - Alum Rock Transit Center Create new Orange Line to connect Downtown Mountain View with Alum Rock Transit Center; operate at 15-minute frequency all day. PotenƟ al express service under review.New 15 min 15 min 15 min 15 min Yellow Downtown San Jose - Santa Teresa LRT StaƟ on Change name to Yellow Line. Change northern end from Baypointe Light Rail StaƟ on to St. James Light Rail StaƟ on; increase peak period frequency. ●●6 trips each peak period — — — — VTA Bus and Light Rail Routes Campbell 26, 27, 37, 48, 49, 56, 60, 61, 62, 82, 101, 328, 330, Green CuperƟ no 23, 25, 26, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 81, 101, 182, 323, 523 Gilroy 14, 17, 18, 19, 68, 96, 97, 121, 168, 185 Los Altos 22, 40, 51, 52, 81, 522 Los Altos Hills Los Gatos 27, 48, 49 Milpitas 20, 46, 47, 60, 66, 70, 71, 77, 104, 140, 180, 181, 246, 321, 330, Blue Monte Sereno Morgan Hill 16, 68, 121, 168, 185, 216 Mountain View 20, 21, 22, 32, 34, 35, 40, 51, 52, 81, 120, 185, 522, Green, Orange Palo Alto 21, 22, 35, 88, 89, 102, 103, 104, 182, 288, 522 San Jose 10, 12, 13, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 37, 39, 42, 45, 49, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 81, 82, 93, 101, 102, 103, 104, 122, 140, 168, 180, 181, 182, 185, 282, 304, 321, 323, 328, 330, 500, 522, 523, Blue, DASH, Green, Orange, Purple, Yellow Santa Clara 10, 20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 81, 121, 140, 304, 321, 328, 330, 522, Green, Orange Saratoga 37, 53, 57, 58 Sunnyvale 20, 21, 22, 26, 32, 53, 54, 55, 56, 120, 121, 122, 304, 321, 328, 522, 523, Green, Orange Routes Listed by City/Town AƩ achment B N S EW N S EW 70 every30min 61 ever y30min 5 0 0 ev e r y 15 mi n 52 3 ever y15min 77 every15min 77 every15min 70 every 15 minDowntown San Jose East San Jose West Valley 66 every30min 47 every30min 47 every 30 min217 every 30 min LRT ever y 15min 20 every30min 6 0 ev e r y 15 mi n LR T ever y15min 66 every15min 70 every 30 min LRT every 7.5 min Downtown San Jose East San Jose West Valley 61 every15minWest Valley Berryessa 77 every15min MILPITAS TRANSIT CENTER BERRYESSA TRANSIT CENTER departing trains & buses per hour42 departing buses per hour28 71eve r y 30min Milpitas Fremont Milpitas Rapid Bus Frequent Bus Local Bus Light Rail Next Network Draft Plan BART Station Service (Attachment D) Rapid Bus Frequent Bus Local Bus Light Rail FR E Q U E N T N E T W O R K Fast, Frequent, Reliable Neighborhood Connections Frequent Trains All Day • Every 15 minutes • 7 days a week • Wide stop spacing • Every 15 minutes • 7 days a week • Wide stop spacing • Every 15 minutes • 7 days a week • Local stop spacing • Every 30-60 minutes • 5-7 days a week • Local stop spacing • Weekday mornings & evenings • Freeway & expressway based routes Show Up and Go Service Peak Period Commuter Service Light Rail Rapid Frequent Local Express VTA’s Service Hierarchy (Attachment E) City of Palo Alto (ID # 7636) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 1/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Proclamation Honoring Annie Folger Title: Proclamation Expressing Appreciation to Annie Folger for Outstanding Public Service on her Retirement From: City Manager Lead Department: City Clerk Attachments: Attachment A: Proclamation Expressing Appreciation to Annie Folger for Outstanding Public Service on her Retirement Proclamation Expressing Appreciation to Annie Folger for Outstanding Public Service on Her Retirement WHEREAS, Annie Folger has served as Founder, Board Member, Associate Director and Executive Director of the Midpeninsula Community Media Center since the mid-80’s – opening the doors for business in January 1990; and WHEREAS, during her 15+ years as Executive Director, she oversaw many initiatives that benefitted residents including televising and archiving Council and Commission meetings and producing voter resources; and WHEREAS, Annie Folger supervised the purchase and building of a state-of-the-art Community Media Center with a high-definition TV studio providing a venue for individual expression, local issues, cultural exchange, arts appreciation and civic engagement, where hundreds of community members have produced local TV shows; and WHEREAS, during her tenure as Executive Director, the Media Center made major strides in numerous areas including more than doubling its staff, budget, and the number of cable TV channels it programs, becoming a Santa Clara County Green Certified Building, and cultivating a thriving array of summer media camps for youth; and WHEREAS, under her guidance the Media Center developed many program initiatives including Youth Sports Broadcasting, the Made Into America immigration stories archive, the “Zoom In” collaborative for documentary producers, an annual “Greenlight” Environmental Youth Video Festival, an annual “Local Heroes” awards event, and garnering the 2012 Overall Excellence Award for Programming from the National Alliance for Community Media; and WHEREAS, Annie Folger defended and advocated for community access media in California and nationally as a Far West Region Board Member where she participated in state government legislation negotiations and provided testimony to a Congressional subcommittee. NOW, THEREFORE, I, H. Gregory Scharff, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council and the Cable Joint Powers Authority, do hereby commend Annie Folger for her years of dedication and outstanding public service. Presented: January 23, 2016 ______________________________ H. Gregory Scharff Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK January 23, 2017 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the January 3 and 9, 2017 Council Meetings Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 01-03-17 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Attachment B: 01-09-17 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 2 Special Meeting January 3, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:22 P.M. Present: Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Beth Minor, City Clerk swore in Council Members Adrian Fine, Liz Kniss, Lydia Kou, and Greg Tanaka. Special Orders of the Day 1. Election of the 2017 Mayor. NOMINATION: Council Member Filseth nominated Vice Mayor Scharff for Mayor for 2017. NOMINATION: Council Member Holman nominated Council Member Kniss for Mayor for 2017. Council Member Kniss declined the nomination for Mayor for 2017. NOMINATION PASSED: 9-0 2. Election of the 2017 Vice Mayor. NOMINATION: Council Member Wolbach nominated Council Member Kniss for Vice Mayor for 2017. NOMINATION PASSED: 9-0 At this time Council heard Agenda Item Numbers 3-5 concurrently. 5. Resolution 9654 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto of Expressing Appreciation to Marc Berman for his Outstanding Public Service as Council Member.” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 2 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 01/03/17 3. Resolution 9655 Entitled, “Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Patrick Burt for his Outstanding Public Service as Council Member and Mayor.” 4. Resolution 9656 Entitled, “Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Greg Schmid for his Outstanding Public Service as Council Member.” MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to adopt three Resolutions expressing appreciation for outstanding public service to Patrick Burt as Council Member and Mayor, Greg Schmid as Council Member, and Marc Berman as Council Member. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 P.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 7 Regular Meeting January 9, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:02 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss arrived at 6:07 P.M., Kou, Scharff, Tanaka arrived 6:07 P.M., Wolbach Absent: Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: Slezak v. City of Palo Alto United States District Court, Northern California, Case No. 16-CV-3224 LHK Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1). MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Kniss, Tanaka absent Council went into Closed Session at 6:02 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 6:25 P.M. Mayor Scharff announced no reportable action. Study Session 2. City Manager's 2016 Annual Year in Review. Special Orders of the Day 3. Proclamation of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Honoring the Volunteer Services of Sheri Furman. 4. This item will be heard on February 13, 2017. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/9/17 5. Presentation of Accreditation of the Urban Forestry Program by the Society of Municipal Arborists. Council took a break from 7:41 P.M. to 7:52 P.M. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to continue Agenda Item Number 9- 900 N. California Avenue [15PLN-00155]… to January 23, 2017. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Minutes Approval 6. Approval of Action Minutes for the December 5 and 12, 2016 Council Meetings. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to approve the Action Minutes for the December 5 and 12, 2016 Council Meetings. MOTION PASSED: 8-0-1 Fine not participating Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Tanaka, third by Council Member Fine to pull Agenda Item Number 11- Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Adopt the City's Legislative… to be heard as Agenda Item Number 18A. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach, third by Vice Mayor Kniss to pull Agenda Item Number 14- SECOND READING: Adoption of two Ordinances to Update the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR)… to be heard on a date uncertain. MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to approve Agenda Item Numbers 7-8, 10, 12-13, 15-18. 7. Approval of Contract Number C17166566 With O'Grady Paving, Inc. in the Amount of $686,290 for the Construction of the Quarry Road Improvements and Transit Center Access Project and Finding of Exemption From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/9/17 8. Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C15157160 With Traffic Data Services to Extend the Term Until June 30, 2019 for Provision of On-call Traffic Data Collection Services. 9. 900 N. California Avenue [15PLN-00155]: Denial of the Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Architectural Review Approval of Three new Single-Family Homes, one With a Second Unit. Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), Zoning District: R-1. 10. Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Team Sheeper LLC, for the Learn to Swim Program for Summer 2017 at an Amount Not-to-exceed $143,000. 11. Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Adopt the City's Legislative Program Manual and 2017 Legislative Priorities. 12. Ordinance 5404 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Update the Fiscal Year 2017 Municipal Fee Schedule to Adjust Development Services Department Fees (FIRST READING: December 12, 2016 PASSED 8-0).” 13. Ordinance 5405 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking and Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to ban Smoking in Units in Multi-unit Residences and Common Areas, and Make Other Minor Amendments to Smoking Restrictions (Remove Bingo Games as Places and Workplaces Exempt From the City’s Prohibition Against Smoking in Enclosed Places) (FIRST READING: December 5, 2016 PASSED: 8-0).” 14. SECOND READING: Adoption of two Ordinances to Update the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program as Recommended by the Finance Committee: (1) Repealing Municipal Code Section 16.47 (Non- residential Projects) and 18.14 (Residential Projects) and Adding a new Section 16.65 (Citywide Affordable Housing In-lieu Fees for Residential, Nonresidential, and Mixed Use Developments. The Proposed Ordinances are Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Sections 15378(b)(4), 15305 and 15601(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (FIRST READING: December 12, 2016 PASSED: 5-3 Kniss, Scharff and Wolbach no). 15. Resolution 9657 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Public Nuisance and Setting February 6, DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/9/17 2017 for a Public Hearing for Objections to Proposed Weed Abatement.” 16. Resolution 9658 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Issuance of the California Municipal Finance Authority 2017 Tax Exempt Loan (International School of the Peninsula) in an Aggregate Principal Amount Not-to-Exceed $7,500,000.” 17. Policy and Services Committee Recommends City Council Review the 2017 City Council Priority Suggestions in Preparation for the Annual Council Retreat and Direct the Mayor to Appoint Council Members to Work With the City Manager in Identifying a Facilitator for a Subsequent Retreat. 18. Resolution 9659 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Execute and File an Application on Behalf of the City of Palo Alto to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the Management of and Participation in a Grant Award to Enhance and Evaluate a Comprehensive Technology/Policy Solution Called Fair Value Commuting (FVC), Designed to Reduce Traffic Congestion.” MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items 18A. (Former Item No. 11) Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Adopt the City's Legislative Program Manual and 2017 Legislative Priorities. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to: A. Remove from Active Advocacy items, “at the State level, exempt tipped employees from minimum wage” and refer the topic to the Policy and Services Committee; and B. Add to Important Priorities, “oppose attempts to undermine rights of any group, whether by federal government; or by coercing states or local government; or by weakening existing laws and enforcement thereof against harassment, discrimination, and hate crimes;” and C. Adopt the update to the Legislative Program Manual and the 2017 Legislative Priorities. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/9/17 AMENDMENT: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “remove from Active Advocacy items, ‘on a pilot basis, authorize Palo Alto and potentially the surrounding area as a place for autonomous vehicle testing.’” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND MOTION SEPARATED FOR PURPOSE OF VOTING INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace Motion Part A with, “replace Active Advocacy Item A with, ‘at the State level, allow cities to pursue policies to deviate from minimum wage requirements in order to more equitably distribute tips among employees.’” AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to replace the Motion Part A with, “allow cities to deviate from minimum wage requirements when income including tips exceeds minimum wage.” AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-4 Filseth, Fine, Scharff, Wolbach no MOTION PARTS B AND C PASSED: 9-0 19. Appointment of Three Candidates to the Historic Resources Board and Four Candidates to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) for Terms Ending December 15, 2019; and Discussion and Potential Appointment of one Candidate to the PARC for an Unexpired Term Ending December 15, 2018. MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member XX to continue the appointments for the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) to a date uncertain and reopen recruitment for the PARC. MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to continue this Agenda Item to a date uncertain and reopen recruitment for both the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Historic Resources Board. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to appoint three candidates to the Historic Resources Board and four candidates to the Parks and Recreation Commission for terms ending December 15, 2019 and direct Staff to reopen DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/9/17 recruitment for the unscheduled vacant term on the Parks and Recreation Commission. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Fine, Kou, Tanaka yes INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “and retain current pool of applicants and permit current applicants to interview with Council again, if they so choose.” MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to continue this Agenda Item to a date uncertain and reopen recruitment for both the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Historic Resources Board and retain current pool of applicants and permit current applicants to interview with Council again, if they so choose. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-2 DuBois, Kou no 20. Discussion and Direction Regarding Unscheduled Vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission; and Potential Appointment of one Candidate to the Planning and Transportation Commission for an Unexpired Term Ending December 15, 2018. MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to recruit for the Planning and Transportation (PTC) and direct Staff to contact the most recent pool of applicants to see if they are still interested in serving on the PTC and if they would like to interview again with the Council. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 21. Resolution 9660 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling the City Council Summer Break and Winter Closure for 2017.” MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to adopt a Resolution scheduling the Council’s Summer Break from July 1, 2017 to August 13, 2017 and the Winter Closure from December 18, 2017 to January 7, 2018. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/9/17 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Vice Mayor Kniss requested Council Members interested in serving on various League of California Cities Committees contact her to advise her of their interest. These Committees include Employee Relations, Taxation and Revenue, Public Safety, and others. She reported Council Member Wolbach serves on the Public Safety Committee and she serves on the Taxation and Revenue Committee. She announced that Menlo Park Mayor Kirsten Keith will serve as Chairperson of the Taxation and Revenue Committee. She announced the League of California Cities, Peninsula Division meeting on February 2, 2017 at Don Giovanni’s in Mountain View. One topic on the Agenda will be social justice and inclusivity. Closed Session 22. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY—EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: Buena Vista MHP Residents Association v. City of Palo Alto Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 115-CV-284763 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1). MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Council went into Closed Session at 9:24 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 10:22 P.M. Mayor Scharff announced the Council voted 9-0 to authorize an appeal of the Superior Court’s decision in Buena Vista MHP Residents Association v. City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 115-CV-284763. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 7553) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Pension Trust Supplemental Funds Title: Authorization to Establish a Supplemental Pension Trust With the Public Agency Retirement Service (PARS) and Approve Budget Amendments in the General Fund and the General Benefits Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Adopt a “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Adoption of the PARS Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits Trust Administered By Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) (Attachment A) and approve an initial deposit of $2.1 million in General Fund proceeds into the General Fund subaccount of the City’s PARS Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits Trust 2) Authorize the City Manager or his/her designee as the City’s Plan Administrator for the Trust Program 3) Approve and authorize City Manager to execute an “Agreement for Administrative Services” between PARS and the City of Palo Alto to administer the Trust (Attachment B) 4) Amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for a. The General Fund i. Increase the Non-Departmental Transfers to the General Benefit Fund in the amount of $2,055,000; and ii. Decrease the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve in the amount of $2,055,000. b. The General Benefits Fund i. Increase the estimate for Transfers in from the General Fund in the amount of $2,055,000; and City of Palo Alto Page 2 ii. Establish an appropriation for PARS Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits in the amount of $2,055,000. Background The City of Palo Alto has two pension trusts with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS): one to fund public safety employees and one for miscellaneous employees. The trusts are funded by employer and employee contributions and by investment earnings on those contributions. In order to reach necessary funding levels to pay employee pensions, CalPERS establishes a set of actuarial assumptions to achieve those levels. One of the most critical assumptions in attaining full funding goals is the rate of return on investments in the trusts. CalPERS’ current annual rate of return (ROR) assumption is 7.5 percent. Assuming this rate of return is attained, then funding of the pension obligations would be derived 66 percent from investment gains and 34 percent from contributions. If the 7.5 percent rate of return is not realized, then contributions from employers and employees will have to increase. Unfortunately, this ROR has not been achieved by CalPERS in the past two years (2.4 percent in FY 2015 and 0.6 percent in FY 2016) and the outlook from the investment community and actuaries for a 7.5 percent annual rate of return is increasingly pessimistic. In fact, the average actual rates of CalPERS returns in the table below have fallen below expectations in several time periods. Time Period Rate of Return Three years 6.86 percent Five Years 6.77 percent Ten Years 5.08 percent Twenty Year 7.03 percent As a consequence of the above performance; a long, low interest rate environment; and movement toward a more “risk averse” portfolio; the CalPERS board has approved a plan to reduce the assumed ROR from 7.5 percent to 7.0 percent over a three year period. The ROR will decrease as follows: in July 2017 to 7.375 percent; in July 2018 to 7.25 percent; and in July 2019 to 7.0 percent. CalPERS’ gradual decrease in the ROR assumption will result in higher contribution rates for employers and employees. This will compound existing funding challenges since the two City trusts already are below the ideal level of 80 percent funded. The miscellaneous group stands at 68.5 percent and the public safety group stands at 68.6 percent. As the ROR decreases, these funding levels will drop placing the City further behind in meeting pension obligations. City of Palo Alto Page 3 As a consequence of the above factors, the City Council directed staff to develop options to address unfunded pension liabilities and specifically to examine directing General Funds to a tax-exempt Section 115 Trust for pension costs. Discussion During the past two fiscal years, $2.1 million in General Fund monies have been set aside for pension liabilities and staff recommends establishing a section 115 irrevocable trust with the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) in which to place these funds. This amount represents about 10 percent of the current annual contribution by the General Fund. By proactively establishing a 115 trust, the City will prefund pension costs and begin to address GASB 68 Net Pension Liabilities (NPL). See Attachment A, Resolution approving trust and Attachment B, Agreement for Administrative Services between the City and PARS. While these trust funds must be dedicated toward pension obligations, they serve multiple purposes such as: Act as a reserve fund to offset potential volatility in CalPERS annual contribution or rate requirements Allow more control and flexibility in investment allocations Realize higher investment returns than by maintaining monies within the City’s portfolio that is restricted by State regulations to fixed income instruments Diversifies investments in pension and retiree medical trusts Act as a set-aside and available for use in reducing the City’s pension obligations Solidifies the City’s triple A credit rating by demonstrating proactive action in meeting pension obligations Staff recommends implementing the trust for all City funds. As of June 30, 2015 (the latest actuarial valuation from CalPERS, which is in arrears), the unfunded pension liability totals $338.4 million for all funds. The General Fund’s share of the total is $222.0 million or 65.6 percent. The trust will then maintain a sub account for each City fund having a pension liability. This allows specific contributions by fund for its share of the unfunded liability. With Council authorization a deposit of $2.1 million will be made to the General Fund sub account. Staff would then return during the FY 2018 proposed budget process with recommendations for additional funding by other funds. In addition to surpluses from these funds, it may be necessary to increase enterprise fund rates or fees to increase their sub-accounts within the Trust. Establishing a pension trust is especially important for the General Fund (GF) which faces significant demands on its resources and is most sensitive to swings in its tax revenue sources. For example, if the annual GF pension contribution is $14 million in a fiscal year and a $2 million deficit surfaced in that year, the General Fund, with Council’s approval, could draw upon the PARS GF trust balance to send $2 million directly to CalPERS and reduce the GF payments to PERS by $2 million. This would balance the budget and provide time to make informed decisions on fixing a one-time or ongoing budget deficit. City of Palo Alto Page 4 In addition to instituting a trust, staff will return to Council with recommendations on how to grow the trust and to more aggressively address the ongoing growth in the City’s unfunded pension liability. One option for increasing Trust assets is to allocate any year-end excess revenues among infrastructure, unfunded pension and retiree medical liabilities. Discussions along these lines could occur at year end with allocations dependent upon needs at that time. Staff will return with other options to address pension liabilities as part of the FY 2018 proposed budget. For example, Council could consider negotiating an increase in employee contributions to the employer share of pension contributions. One scenario is having public safety employees pay an additional 1 percent per year over a three year period to total to an additional 3 percent contribution. Miscellaneous employees could increase their share toward the required contribution by 0.5 percent per year over a two year period to total 1 percent. Action during this period is critical in light of CalPERS’ newly adopted ROR dropping to 7.0 percent over the next three years and as CalPERS rates to the City increase. It is somewhat uncertain at this time as to whether GASB will treat the 115 Trust as a strict offset to the Net Pension Liability under GASB 68 in the City’s future financial statements. Nevertheless, it does appear appropriate at this time to mention in the financial statements that the Trust could be counted as an offset the City’s pension obligation. Hopefully, by the time the City’s FY 2017 financial statements are issued, GASB will have clarified its position on the application of trust assets to the Net Pension Liability. The Section 115 Trust offered by PARS has five portfolios (see Attachment A) from which to choose in making investments of City funds. Each portfolio has different risk profiles with different amounts invested in equities and other instruments. As the amount of equities in portfolios increases, volatility and risk increases. As the amount in equities decreases, volatility and risk decreases. The portfolios range from “Capital Appreciation” with 72 percent of funds invested in equities to “Conservative” with 15 percent invested in equities. Equities can include domestic and international stocks. Staff recommends selecting the “Moderately Conservative” portfolio which currently has 30 percent in equities as of September 30, 2016. Returns as of this date in this portfolio were as follows: 1-Year Returns = 7.28 percent 3-Year Returns = 4.48 percent 5-Year Returns = 6.67 percent Staff has learned that 85 percent of jurisdictions participating in PARS’s Section 115 Trust have selected the “Moderately Conservative” portfolio which is the second most conservative portfolio among the five offered. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Resource Impact Funds in the amount of $2.1 million will be withdrawn from the GF Budget Stabilization Reserve and transferred to a Section 115 Trust fund for the purpose of meeting employee pension obligations. Staff will provide further funding options for the other Funds as part of the FY18 Proposed Budget. This funding has been set aside in the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve during the FY 2015 year end and the FY 2017 Adopted Operating Budget. Therefore, no change to the previously reported current funding level of approximately 21 percent of the FY 2017 expense budget is necessary. Policy Implications Actions taken from this report are consistent with prior Council direction. Environmental Review Establishing a Section 115 Trust for pension obligations with PARS is not subject to CEQA review. Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution Adopting PARS Post Employment Benefits Trust Attachment B: Agreement for Administrative Services Between the City and PARS Attachment C: PARS Investment Rate of Returns (as of 9-30-2016) NOT YET APPROVED 161116 jb 0131564 1 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Adoption of the PARS Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits Trust Administered By Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) R E C I T A L S A. PARS has made available the PARS Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits Trust (the “Program”) for the purpose of pre-funding pension obligations and/or OPEB obligations. B. The City of Palo Alto (“City) is eligible to participate in the Program, a tax-exempt trust performing an essential governmental function within the meaning of Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and the Regulations issued there under, and is a tax- exempt trust under the relevant statutory provisions of the State of California. C. The City’s adoption and operation of the Program has no effect on any current or former employee’s entitlement to post-employment benefits. D. The terms and conditions of post-employment benefit entitlement, if any, are governed by contracts separate from and independent of the Program. E. The City’s funding of the Program does not, and is not intended to, create any new vested right to any benefit nor strengthen any existing vested right. F. The City reserves the right to make contributions, if any, to the Program. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the PARS Public Agencies Post- Employment Benefits Trust, effective ____________, 2016. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby appoints the City Manager, or his/her successor or his/her designee, as the City’s Plan Administrator for the Program. SECTION 3. The City’s Plan Administrator is hereby authorized to execute the PARS legal and administrative documents on behalf of the City and to take whatever additional NOT YET APPROVED 161116 jb 0131564 2 actions are necessary to maintain the City’s participation in the Program and to maintain compliance of any relevant regulation issued or as may be issued; therefore, authorizing him/her to take whatever additional actions are required to administer the City’s Program. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ ______________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ______________________________ Director of Administrative Services Page 1 AGREEMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES This agreement (“Agreement”) is made this 23 day of January, 2017, between Phase II Systems, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, doing business as Public Agency Retirement Services and PARS (hereinafter “PARS”) and the City of Palo Alto (“Agency”). WHEREAS, the Agency has adopted the PARS Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits Trust for the purpose of pre-funding pension obligations and/or OPEB obligations (“Plan”), and is desirous of retaining PARS as Trust Administrator to the Trust, to provide administrative services. NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree: 1. Services. PARS will provide the services pertaining to the Plan as described in the exhibit attached hereto as “Exhibit 1A” (“Services”) in a timely manner, subject to the further provisions of this Agreement. 2. Fees for Services. PARS will be compensated for performance of the Services as described in the exhibit attached hereto as “Exhibit 1B”. 3. Payment Terms. Payment for the Services will be remitted directly from Plan assets unless the Agency chooses to make payment directly to PARS. In the event that the Agency chooses to make payment directly to PARS, it shall be the responsibility of the Agency to remit payment directly to PARS based upon an invoice prepared by PARS and delivered to the Agency. If payment is not received by PARS within thirty (30) days of the invoice delivery date, the balance due shall bear interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. If payment is not received from the Agency within sixty (60) days of the invoice delivery date, payment plus accrued interest will be remitted directly from Plan assets, unless PARS has previously received written communication disputing the subject invoice that is signed by a duly authorized representative of the Agency. 4. Fees for Services Beyond Scope. Fees for services beyond those specified in this Agreement will be billed to the Agency at the rates indicated in the PARS’ standard fee schedule in effect at the time the services are provided and shall be payable as described in Section 3 of this Agreement. Before any such services are performed, PARS will provide the Agency with a detailed description of the services, terms, and applicable rates for such services. Such services, terms, and applicable rates shall be agreed upon in writing and executed by both parties. 5. Information Furnished to PARS. PARS will provide the Services contingent upon the Agency’s providing PARS the information specified in the exhibit attached hereto as “Exhibit 1C” (“Data”). It shall be the responsibility of the Agency to certify the accuracy, content and completeness of the Data so that PARS may rely on such information without further audit. It shall further be the responsibility of the Agency to deliver the Data to PARS in such a manner that allows for a reasonable amount of time for the Services to be performed. Unless specified in Exhibit 1A, PARS shall be under no duty to question Data received from the Agency, to compute contributions made to the Page 2 Plan, to determine or inquire whether contributions are adequate to meet and discharge liabilities under the Plan, or to determine or inquire whether contributions made to the Plan are in compliance with the Plan or applicable law. In addition, PARS shall not be liable for non performance of Services to the extent such non performance is caused by or results from erroneous and/or late delivery of Data from the Agency. In the event that the Agency fails to provide Data in a complete, accurate and timely manner and pursuant to the specifications in Exhibit 1C, PARS reserves the right, notwithstanding the further provisions of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement upon no less than ninety (90) days written notice to the Agency. 6. Records. Throughout the duration of this Agreement, and for a period of five (5) years after termination of this Agreement, PARS shall provide duly authorized representatives of Agency access to all records and material relating to calculation of PARS’ fees under this Agreement. Such access shall include the right to inspect, audit and reproduce such records and material and to verify reports furnished in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. All information so obtained shall be accorded confidential treatment as provided under applicable law. 7. Confidentiality. Without the Agency’s consent, PARS shall not disclose any information relating to the Plan except to duly authorized officials of the Agency, subject to applicable law, and to parties retained by PARS to perform specific services within this Agreement. The Agency shall not disclose any information relating to the Plan to individuals not employed by the Agency without the prior written consent of PARS, except as such disclosures may be required by applicable law. 8. Independent Contractor. PARS is and at all times hereunder shall be an independent contractor. As such, neither the Agency nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have the power to control the conduct of PARS, its officers, employees or agents, except as specifically set forth and provided for herein. PARS shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due its employees in connection with this Agreement and shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting them, such as social security, income tax withholding, unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation and similar matters. 9. Indemnification. PARS and Agency hereby indemnify each other and hold the other harmless, including their respective officers, directors, employees, agents and attorneys, from any claim, loss, demand, liability, or expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, incurred by the other as a consequence of, to the extent, PARS’ or Agency’s, as the case may be, negligent acts, errors or omissions with respect to the performance of their respective duties hereunder. 10. Compliance with Applicable Law. The Agency shall observe and comply with federal, state and local laws in effect when this Agreement is executed, or which may come into effect during the term of this Agreement, regarding the administration of the Plan. PARS shall observe and comply with federal, state and local laws in effect when this Agreement is executed, or which may come into effect during the term of this Agreement, regarding Plan administrative services provided under this Agreement. Page 3 11. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In the event any party institutes legal proceedings to enforce or interpret this Agreement, venue and jurisdiction shall be in any state court of competent jurisdiction. 12. Force Majeure. When a party’s nonperformance hereunder was beyond the control and not due to the fault of the party not performing, a party shall be excused from performing its obligations under this Agreement during the time and to the extent that it is prevented from performing by such cause, including but not limited to: any incidence of fire, flood, acts of God, acts of terrorism or war, commandeering of material, products, plants or facilities by the federal, state or local government, or a material act or omission by the other party. 13. Ownership of Reports and Documents. The originals of all letters, documents, reports, and data produced for the purposes of this Agreement shall be delivered to, and become the property of the Agency. Copies may be made for PARS but shall not be furnished to others without written authorization from Agency. 14. Designees. The Plan Administrator of the Agency, or their designee, shall have the authority to act for and exercise any of the rights of the Agency as set forth in this Agreement, subsequent to and in accordance with the written authority granted by the Governing Body of the Agency, a copy of which writing shall be delivered to PARS. Any officer of PARS, or his or her designees, shall have the authority to act for and exercise any of the rights of PARS as set forth in this Agreement. 15. Notices. All notices hereunder and communications regarding the interpretation of the terms of this Agreement, or changes thereto, shall be effected by delivery of the notices in person or by depositing the notices in the U.S. mail, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: (A) To PARS: PARS; 4350 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660; Attention: President (B) To Agency: City of Palo Alto; 250 Hamilton Avenue 4th Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301; Attention: Chief Financial Officer Notices shall be deemed given on the date received by the addressee. 16. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in effect for the period beginning January 23, 2017 and ending January 23, 2020 (“Term”). This Agreement may be terminated at any time by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other party of the intent to terminate. Absent a thirty (30) day written notice to the other party of the intent to terminate, this Agreement will continue unchanged for successive twelve month periods following the Term. 17. Amendment. This Agreement may not be amended orally, but only by a written instrument executed by the parties hereto. 18. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including exhibits, contains the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter set forth in this Agreement. Page 4 In the event a conflict arises between the parties with respect to any term, condition or provision of this Agreement, the remaining terms, conditions and provisions shall remain in full force and legal effect. No waiver of any term or condition of this Agreement by any party shall be construed by the other as a continuing waiver of such term or condition. 19. Attorneys Fees. In the event any action is taken by a party hereto to enforce the terms of this Agreement the prevailing party herein shall be entitled to receive its reasonable attorney’s fees. 20. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and in that event, each counterpart shall be deemed a complete original and be enforceable without reference to any other counterpart. 21. Headings. Headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be used to interpret or construe its provisions. 22. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective on the date first above written, and also shall be the date the Agreement is executed. AGENCY: BY: TITLE: City Manager DATE: PARS: BY: Tod Hammeras TITLE: Chief Financial Officer DATE: Page 5 EXHIBIT 1A SERVICES PARS will provide the following services for the City of Palo Alto Public Agencies Post- Employment Benefits Trust: 1. Plan Installation Services: (A) Meeting with appropriate Agency personnel to discuss plan provisions, implementation timelines, actuarial valuation process, funding strategies, benefit communication strategies, data reporting, and submission requirements for contributions/reimbursements/distributions; (B) Providing the necessary analysis and advisory services to finalize these elements of the Plan; (C) Providing the documentation needed to establish the Plan to be reviewed and approved by Agency legal counsel. Resulting final Plan documentation must be approved by the Agency prior to the commencement of PARS Plan Administration Services outlined in Exhibit 1A, paragraph 2 below. 2. Plan Administration Services: (A) Monitoring the receipt of Plan contributions made by the Agency to the trustee of the PARS Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits Trust (“Trustee”), based upon information received from the Agency and the Trustee; (B) Performing periodic accounting of Plan assets, reimbursements/distributions, and investment activity, based upon information received from the Agency and/or Trustee; (C) Coordinating the processing of distribution payments pursuant to authorized direction by the Agency, and the provisions of the Plan, and, to the extent possible, based upon Agency-provided Data; (D) Coordinating actions with the Trustee as directed by the Plan Administrator within the scope this Agreement; (E) Preparing and submitting a monthly report of Plan activity to the Agency, unless directed by the Agency otherwise; (F) Preparing and submitting an annual report of Plan activity to the Agency; (G) Facilitating actuarial valuation updates and funding modifications for compliance with GASB 45/75, if prefunding OPEB obligations; (H) Coordinating periodic audits of the Trust; (I) Monitoring Plan and Trust compliance with federal and state laws. 3. PARS is not licensed to provide and does not offer tax, accounting, legal, investment or actuarial advice. Page 6 EXHIBIT 1B FEES FOR SERVICES PARS will be compensated for performance of Services, as described in Exhibit 1A based upon the following schedule: An annual asset fee shall be paid from Plan Assets based on the following schedule: For Plan Assets from: Annual Rate: $0 to $10,000,000 0.25% $10,000,001 to $15,000,000 0.20% $15,000,001 to $50,000,000 0.15% $50,000,001 and above 0.10% Annual rates are prorated and paid monthly. The annual asset fee shall be calculated by the following formula [Annual Rate divided by 12 (months of the year) multiplied by the Plan asset balance at the end of the month]. Trustee and Investment Management Fees are not included. Page 7 EXHIBIT 1C DATA REQUIREMENTS PARS will provide the Services under this Agreement contingent upon receiving the following information: 1. Executed Legal Documents: (A) Certified Resolution (B) Adoption Agreement to the Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits Trust (C) Trustee Investment Forms 2. Contribution – completed Contribution Transmittal Form signed by the Plan Administrator (or authorized Designee) which contains the following information: (A) Agency name (B) Contribution amount (C) Contribution date (D) Contribution method (Check, ACH, Wire) 3. Distribution – completed Payment Reimbursement/Distribution Form signed by the Plan Administrator (or authorized Designee) which contains the following information: (A) Agency name (B) Payment reimbursement/distribution amount (C) Applicable statement date (D) Copy of applicable premium, claim, statement, warrant, and/or administrative expense evidencing payment (E) Signed certification of reimbursement/distribution from the Plan Administrator (or authorized Designee) 4. Other information pertinent to the Services as reasonably requested by PARS and Actuarial Provider. PARS/HighMark Capital Management ReturnsPARS/HighMark Capital Management Returns As of September 30, 2016 Portfolios % Equity 1‐Year Returns 3‐Year Returns 5‐Year Returns Capital Appreciation 72.00% 10.61% 6.36% 10.81% Balanced 58.00% 8.97% 5.40% 9.55% Moderate 49 00%8 60%5 17%8 51%Moderate 49.00%8.60%5.17%8.51% Moderately Conservative 30.00% 7.28% 4.48% 6.67% Conservative 15.00% 6.20% 3.88% 4.98% *Past performance does not guarantee future results. City of Palo Alto (ID # 7486) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contract for Purchase of an Altec Crane Title: Approval of a Contract With Altec Industries Inc., in the Amount of $335,213 for the Purchase of an Altec Hydraulic Telescoping Crane and Approval of a Budget Amendment in Various Funds From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1.Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase order with Altec Industries Inc.in the amount of $335,213 for the purchase of a Hydraulic Telescoping Crane, Model AC23-95B; and 2.Amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for a.the Waste Water Treatment Fund by: i.Increasing the transfer to the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund in the amount of $15,213; and ii.Decreasing the Ending Fund Balance in the amount of $15,213; and b.the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund by: i.Increasing the transfer from the Waste Water Treatment Fund by $15,213; and ii.Increasing the Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fiscal Year 2017 project VR-17000 in the amount of $15,213 Background The Vehicle and Equipment Use, Maintenance, and Replacement Policy section 4- 1 provides for the on-going replacement of City fleet vehicles and equipment. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Replacements are scheduled using guidelines based on age, mileage accumulation and obsolescence. The policy prescribes a replacement interval for trucks with aerial lifts of ten years or 100,000 miles. In accordance with the policy, the Fleet Review Committee reviews all vehicles proposed for replacement and authorized this replacement during the Fiscal Year 2017 budget process. Approval was based on: ·An examination of each vehicle’s current usage; ·An analysis of each vehicle’s operating and replacement costs; ·A comparison of the age, mileage, operating cost and performance of each vehicle with others in the class; and ·An analysis of alternatives to ownership, such as mileage reimbursement; pooling/sharing; the reassignment of another underutilized vehicle, or renting. Staff recommends replacing vehicle 4655, a 1986 GMC 7000 truck with a 23-ton rated flatbed crane used at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant due to the vehicle exceeding the replacement policy on age and operating costs. The vehicle is frequently out of service for repairs, disrupting operations and maintenance activities and causing the need to procure a contracted and insured crane operator at an approximate cost of $1,760 per day. Vehicle 4655 is well beyond its useful life and at over 30 years old,is no longer capable of its intended purpose. Discussion In addition to containing the newest safety features, the replacement aerial truck will allow Water Quality Control Plant staff to reach wastewater storage tanks not serviceable with the existing crane,be lowered into locations not accessible by ladder,add filter media (anthracite coal and sand) into the Dual Media Filter facility filters,help position parts and tools at the top of the fixed film reactors and assist contractors with time sensitive work, safely speeding up projects. Finally, the excessive delays caused by down-time and cost for contracted crane operators and equipment will be eliminated. Bid Process The City’s Municipal code, PAMC section 2.30.360 (j) identifies the process that allows the use of Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing agreements. Bids City of Palo Alto Page 3 for this purchase were obtained through the National Joint Purchasing Alliance (NJPA), which is an approved cooperative group. A Request for Quotation was sent to NJPA on November 29, 2016, and a quote was received from Altec on December 23, 2016 (Attachment A). Staff recommends that council approve this purchase order with Altec Industries Inc. for one Hydraulic Telescoping Crane, Model AC23-95B. Resource Impact The Vehicle Replacement Fund does not have sufficient funding to purchase this vehicle. Traditionally, vehicle procurements are pre-funded through annual charges to the department/fund that benefits from the vehicle. In this instance, $320,000 was allocated for the replacement of this vehicle in the Fiscal Year 2017 budget for VR-17000. Thus to support this purchase, an appropriation of $15,213 to the Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fiscal Year 2017 CIP project (VR-17000) in the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund, offset by a transfer of $15,213 from the Waste Water Treatment Fund is recommended. Policy Implications Authorization of the contract does not represent any change to the existing policy. Environmental Review This vehicle will meet the EPA 2017 Emissions standards. Attachments: ·Attachment A -NJPA Quote Opportunity Number:339404 Quotation Number:776392 NJPA Contract #: 031014-ALT Date:12/23/2016 REFERENCE ALTEC MODEL Hydraulic Telescopic Crane $197,150 Per NJPA Specifications plus Options below (A.) 2 AC23-95B-2JIB Two Piece 26'-44' - Telescopic Side Stow Jib $5,736 3 AC23-95B-OC Oil Cooler- 90,000 BTU $1,792 4 AC23-95B-UCR Continuous Rotation (Must Select Front Bumper Outrigger)$3,585 (A1.) 1 AC23-95B-RRWR 350' of 9/16" Spin Resistant Cable $573 2 AC23-95B-SHEAVE1 One (1) Sheave load block with holder $2,295 3 AC23-95B-OC Crane Hydraulic Oil Cooler $1,792 4 AC23-95B-PLAT Platform - Two person connected to main boom or jib $5,755 5 6 7 8 NJPA OPTIONS TOTAL:$237,966 (B.) 1 UNIT 2 UNIT & HYDRAULIC ACC Radio controls for all crane controls - nbb $14,500 3 BODY Custom Steel Flatbed in lieu of standard $5,050 4 BODY & CHASSIS ACC 5 ELECTRICAL 6 FINISHING 7 CHASSIS 2017 Kenworth T300 6x6 AWD in lieu of standard Peterbilt 348 6x4 $33,365 8 OTHER OPEN MARKET OPTIONS TOTAL:$52,915 SUB-TOTAL FOR UNIT/BODY/CHASSIS:$290,881 San Mateo County Sales Tax 8.75%:$25,452 Federal Excise Tax (12% X $112,083 chassis cost = FET):$13,450 Delivery to Customer:$5,430 TOTAL FOR UNIT/BODY/CHASSIS:$335,213 **Pricing valid for 45 days** NOTES PAINT COLOR: White to match chassis, unless otherwise specified BUILD LOCATION: Plant 94, Daleville, VA DELIVERY: No later than 30-45 days to City of Palo Alto (Pending stock unit availability) Custom build: 270 - 365 days TERMS: Net 30 days WARRANTY: Standard Altec Warranty - One (1) year parts warranty One (1) year labor warranty Ninety (90) days warranty for travel charges (Mobile Service), Five (5) year structural warranty. Chassis to include standard warranty, per the manufacturer. Altec Industries, Inc. NJPA OPTIONS ON CONTRACT (Unit) NJPA OPTIONS ON CONTRACT (General) OPEN MARKET ITEMS AC23-95B Quoted for: City of Palo Alto Customer Contact: Raul Juarez Phone: 650-496-6948 Quoted by: Jason Ryan Altec Crane Account Manager: Tom Williams (760) 250-2599 Riding Seat (AC23-95S)AC23-95B-RS1 $19,288 NJPA Quote 776392 - 23 Dec 2016.xlsx Attachment A City of Palo Alto (ID # 7391) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contract Amendment No. 2 with Canopy Title: Approval of Amendment Number Two to Contract Number C14153485 With Canopy, for an Additional Amount of $81,552 for a Total Amount Not- to-exceed $481,182 to Administer a Crowdsourced Tree Data Platform to Advance Programmatic Initiatives in the Urban Forest Master Plan, and Continue Basic Contract Services Through a Three-month Extension Term to June 30, 2017 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 2 (Attachment A) to add $81,552.50 to Contract C14153485 with Canopy for a total contract amount not to exceed $481,182.50, to administer a crowdsourced data platform to advance programmatic initiatives in the Urban Forest Master Plan, and continue basic contract services through a three-month extension to June 30, 2017. Background In May 2015 Council adopted the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP), a ten-year plan addressing the state of Palo Alto’s tree canopy and providing recommendations for more efficient and innovative management. Over fifty new programs were recommended to be completed over the first three years to improve or advance outreach, education, research, policy development, partnerships, and technological acquisitions. Canopy, the City’s nonprofit partner, has been a vital partner in development, completion and adoption of the UFMP plan and constituent group draft revisions. On March 7, 2014 City Council approved a three-year sole source contract with City of Palo Alto Page 2 Canopy (CMR #4468) to support Palo Alto’s urban forestry programs by serving as a comprehensive information source about trees. With implementation of UFMP Year One programs simultaneously underway during the second year of Canopy’s contract, Amendment No. 1 (CMR #6021) was executed on October 5, 2015, adding scope and $45,000 to complete two programs staff did not have the resources to complete: “Analysis of North-South Palo Alto Canopy Disparity” and “Recommendations for Reducing Tree and Sidewalk Conflicts”. Reports evaluating solutions and defining strategies for each were presented to Urban Forestry on May 31, 2016, satisfying completion of both programs. Discussion Year Two implementation of the UFMP requires Urban Forestry complete nine new programs, including Program 4.G.iii., “Develop open portals for data entry as a way of engaging the community as partners in stewardship and improving data currency and accuracy”. A collaborative data platform to crowdsource tree data will be obtained to engage the community to advance these initiatives, however delivering and administering this platform will require significant research, testing and marketing. Goals to be achieved through administering a collaborative platform to collect tree data include: ·Increasing the tree inventory database by collecting data on trees in designated open spaces and private property ·Encouraging the public to take an interest in trees through inventorying newly planted trees, and reviewing and auditing existing tree data to resolve inaccuracies ·Analyzing ecosystem services on additive trees and communicating these benefits to the public ·Improving stewardship through tracking tree health and care ·Informing policy creation and guiding development of incentive programs ·Influencing planting decisions and incentivizing property owners to plant trees that maximize environmental benefits ·Increasing trees planted in south Palo Alto ·Timely distribution of urban forestry information to the public (i.e., FAQ’s) Methodology will include identifying CPA Urban Forestry programs and initiatives where open-source mapping will enhance or advance them, outlining how to City of Palo Alto Page 3 inject and launch data collection via open data portals for each program or initiative and include milestones for each, piloting the system in south Palo Alto, and creating a plan for software deployment. Deliverables will include an open source data platform;integration of existing tree inventory data into the open source platform;a well-defined list of specifications for using open source data to advance individual programs (e.g. South Palo Alto planting program);outreach to residents, commercial and institution landowners in the form of social media;an educational workshop, seminar or equivalent to introduce the public to the platform;and recommendations for future platform customization. Staff recommends adding scope and funding to Canopy’s contract as Amendment No. 2 to complete Program 4.G.iii.,since Staff does not have the resources to complete this program. Canopy is deeply rooted with the residents of Palo Alto and has the unique expertise, proven experience, professional stature and key personnel to provide this service. Canopy’s contract will expire on March 30, 2017. Amendment No. 2 will also extend the contract term from March 30, 2017 to June 30, 2017, allowing more time to complete the expanded scope of work. Canopy will continue to provide basic services during this three month extension at current contract rates, including serving as a comprehensive information source on Palo Alto’s trees, educating residents to plant and steward trees, assisting urban forestry programs, conducting assessments of the health of street trees, and administering the Utility Department’s ‘Right Tree in the Right Place’. Canopy provided a quote of $52,000 to complete Program 4.G.iii,and $29,552.50 to continue basic contract services during the three-month term extension. Resource Impact $200,000 was appropriated for the second year of the UFMP as part of the Fiscal Year 2017 Adopted Operating Budget in order to fund the projects outlined in Amendment 2 of the contract. Policy Implications This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Environmental Review (If Applicable) The recommended action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(h) (maintenance of existing landscape). Attachments: ·C14153485CanopyAmendmentNo.2-Final-Revised121916-Clean Copy 1 Revision November 9, 2016 AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO CONTRACT NO. C14153485 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND CANOPY This Amendment No. Two to Contract No. C14153485 (“Contract”) is entered into January 9, 2017 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and CANOPY a California corporation, located at 3921 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone Number: 650-964-6110 (“CONTRACTOR”). R E C I T A L S A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of serving as a comprehensive information source about Palo Alto trees and educating, motivating, and assisting the residents and City to plant, care for, and celebrate trees. The Contract was amended in September 2015, by Amendment No. One, to increase the not-to-exceed amount to Three hundred ninety-nine thousand six hundred thirty Dollars ($399,630.00), and to modify the scope of services by adding additional services. B. The parties wish to amend the Contract again by increasing the compensation from Three hundred ninety-nine thousand six hundred thirty Dollars ($399,630.00) to a not-to-exceed total amount of Four hundred eighty-one thousand one hundred eighty-two dollars and fifty cents ($481,182.50) for services as specified in Exhibit “A-2”, “A-1”, and Exhibit “A”. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 1, SCOPE OF SERVICES is hereby amended to read as follows: “CONTRACTOR shall perform the Services described in the attached Exhibit “A-2” as an addition to the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A-1” of Amendment No. One and “Exhibit A” of the original Contract, and in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the Contract and this Amendment No. Two. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.” SECTION 2. Section 3, TERM is hereby amended to read as follows: “The term of this Agreement is from April 1, 2014 to June 30, 2017 inclusive, subject to the provisions of Sections Q and V of the General Terms and Conditions.” SECTION 3. Section 5, COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM is hereby amended to read as follows: “CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not-to-exceed compensation for the full performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any: DocuSign Envelope ID: 503E14E2-E22D-493E-95C2-B222844B3F14 Attachment A 2 Revision November 9, 2016 A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit C-2 as an addition to Exhibit C-1 (which replaced Exhibit “C” of the original contract), not-to-exceed a total maximum compensation amount of Four Hundred Eighty-One Thousand One Hundred Eighty- Two dollars and Fifty cents ($481,182.50) over the term of the Contract. CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not-to-exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for performance of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY.” SECTION 4. The following exhibits to the Contract are hereby added to read as set forth in the attachments to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “A-2” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES” b. Exhibit “B-2” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE” c. Exhibit “C-2” entitled “SCHEDULE OF FEES” SECTION 5. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ City Attorney or Designee Attachments: EXHIBIT "A-2" SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT“B-2” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C-2” SCHEDULE OF FEES CANOPY Officer 1 By: Name: Catherine Martineau Title: Canopy Executive Director Officer 2 (Required for Corp. or LLC) By: Name: Sally O’Neil Title: Chair of Canopy Board DocuSign Envelope ID: 503E14E2-E22D-493E-95C2-B222844B3F14 3 Revision November 9, 2016 EXHIBIT A-2 SCOPE OF SERVICES AMENDMENT NO. 2 CONTRACTOR shall provide services described below: Task 1: Urban Forest Master Plan Program 4.G.iii: Develop open portals for data entry as a way of engaging the community as partners in stewardship and improving data currency and accuracy PURPOSE and GOALS CONTRACTOR will administer a collaborative data platform to engage the community in crowdsourcing tree information that will be used to educate the public, analyze Palo Alto’s urban forest and calculate ecosystem services, and advance programmatic initiatives in the Urban Forest Master Plan. Goals to be achieved through administering a collaborative platform to collect and view tree data include: 1. Increasing the tree inventory database through collecting data on trees in designated open spaces and private property 2. Encouraging the public to take an interest in trees through inventorying newly planted trees, and reviewing and auditing existing tree data to resolve inaccuracies 3. Analyzing ecosystem services on additive trees and communicating these benefits to the public 4. Improving stewardship through tracking tree health and care 5. Informing policy creation and guiding development of incentive programs 6. Influencing planting decisions and incentivizing property owners to plant trees that maximize environmental benefits 7. An increase in trees planted in south Palo Alto 8. Timely distribution of urban forestry information to the public (e.g. FAQ’s) METHODOLOGY 1. Identify programs and initiatives where open-source mapping will enhance or advance the program. Outline how to inject and/or launch data collection via open data portals for each program or initiative and include milestones for each. Programs may include and are not limited to: ● Young Tree Care Survey ● Oakwell Survey ● Neighborhood Tree Walks ● South Palo Alto Planting Campaign ● Arbor Day ● Mayor’s Tree Planting ● Teen Forester Program Training DocuSign Envelope ID: 503E14E2-E22D-493E-95C2-B222844B3F14 4 Revision November 9, 2016 ● Private property trees and utility easements (incentive and assistance programs) ● Tree Identification ● Park Rangers/Open Space programs (school curriculums) 2. Create a Plan for Software Deployment: ● Research Open Source Data Platforms and vendors ● Coordinate demonstrations and webinars o Test/Demo software options ● Recommend selection of platform and vendor ● Determine Attributes ● Administer TreeKeeper data assimilation ● Collect and enter pilot quantity of data o Specify debugging and software modification ● Conduct field verification of data and perform quality control 3. Engage the Public and CPA Staff in open data: ● Provide outreach to residents (neighborhood associations, social media, etc.) ● Provide outreach to commercial and institutional landowners (businesses, school district, faith communities, among others) ● Market the platform via social media and Canopy newsletter ● Conduct an educational workshop or seminar to introduce open source mapping ● Pilot crowdsourcing data for south Palo Alto planting project and other identified initiatives (i.e., neighborhood tree walks, Arbor Day, etc.) DELIVERABLES ● An open source data platform* ● Integration of existing tree inventory data into the open source platform ● A well-defined list of specifications for using open source data to advance individual programs (e.g. South Palo Alto planting program) ● Outreach to residents, and commercial and institution landowners in the form of social media ● An educational workshop, seminar or equivalent to introduce the public to the platform ● Recommendations for future platform customization *software platform to be purchased by CPA Public Works Department, Urban Forestry Division Task 2: Continue to provide services as described in the Scope of Services (Exhibit A of the original contract) ● Serve as a comprehensive information source about Palo Alto’s trees ● Educate and motivate Palo Alto residents to plant, care for and celebrate trees DocuSign Envelope ID: 503E14E2-E22D-493E-95C2-B222844B3F14 5 Revision November 9, 2016 ● Maintain a credible, professional identity and high public visibility in support of the Palo Alto urban forest ● Assist the City of Palo Alto in its planning and performance of urban forestry programs on an ongoing basis ● Conduct assessments of the health of recently planted street trees ● Administer the Utility Department’s ‘Right Tree in the Right Place’ program DocuSign Envelope ID: 503E14E2-E22D-493E-95C2-B222844B3F14 6 Revision November 9, 2016 EXHIBIT B-2 SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE AMENDMENT NO.2 CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM THE Services so as to complete each task within the time period specified below. The time to complete each task may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONTRACTOR and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. Upon request CONTRACTOR shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below. Task Completion Date 1. Program 4.G.iii. Develop open portals June 30, 2017 for data entry as a way of engaging the community as partners in stewardship and improving data accuracy. 2. Continue to provide services as described in June 30, 2017 the Scope of Services, attached as Exhibit A of the original contract. DocuSign Envelope ID: 503E14E2-E22D-493E-95C2-B222844B3F14 7 Revision November 9, 2016 EXHIBIT C-2 SCHEDULE OF FEES AMENDMENT NO. 2 CONTRACTOR shall perform the tasks as described and budgeted below. CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for the Services including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed the amounts set forth in Sections 5 and 6 of the Agreement. Any services provided or hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to CITY. DESCRIPTION OF TASK NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION PER TASK INCLUDING REIMBURSABLES 1. Create a plan for software deployment and provide training, $52,000 education, public outreach, marketing materials and inspection associated with UFMP Program 4.G.iii: ‘Develop open portals for data entry as a way of engaging the community as partners in stewardship and to improve data currency and accuracy’ 2. Continue to provide services as described in the Scope of Services, $29,552.50 attached as Exhibit A of the original contract Total Compensation for Amendment No. 2: $81, 552.50 DocuSign Envelope ID: 503E14E2-E22D-493E-95C2-B222844B3F14 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7593) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contract for Purchase of Three Aerial Trucks Title: Approval of a Contract with Altec Industries Inc., in the Amount of $496,278 for the Purchase of Three 40' Altec Aerial Trucks and Approval of Budget Appropriation Amendments in the Electric Utility Fund and the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1.Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase order with Altec Industries Inc. for the purchase of three (3) 2017 Dodge 5500 chassis’ with Altec AT40-G Aerial Devices for an amount not to exceed $496,278; and 2.Amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for a.the Electric Fund by: i.Increasing the transfer to the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund in the amount of $51,278; and ii.Decreasing the Rate Stabilization Reserve in the amount of $51,278; and b.the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund by: i.Increasing the transfer from the Electric Fund by $51,278 and, ii.Increasing the Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fiscal Year 2015 project VR-15000 in the amount of $20,426, Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fiscal Year 2016 project VR-16000 in the amount of $15,426 and Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fiscal Year City of Palo Alto Page 2 2017 project VR-17000 in the amount of $15,426 Background The Vehicle and Equipment Use, Maintenance, and Replacement Policy section 4- 1 provides for the on-going replacement of City fleet vehicles and equipment. Replacements are scheduled using guidelines based on age, mileage accumulation and obsolescence. The policy prescribes a replacement interval for trucks with aerial lifts of ten years or 100,000 miles. Utilities Electric Operations Division currently has three gas-powered Ford F550’s with the Altec AT37-G Aerial Device (units 7424, 7731, and 7732; all single bucket trucks). Unit 7424 was purchased in 1999 and has over 52,000 miles, while the other two units were purchased in 2001 and have a combined mileage of over 189,000. The total cost to maintain and repair these vehicles has exceeded $416,000. Replacement of vehicle 7424 was approved in the Fiscal Year 2017 Adopted Budget, and vehicles 7731, and 7732 were scheduled for replacement in Fiscal Year 2015 and Fiscal Year 2016,respectively. The approval for replacement of these vehicles was based on: ·An examination of each vehicle’s current usage; ·An analysis of each vehicle’s operating and replacement costs; ·A comparison of the age, mileage, operating cost and performance of each vehicle with others in the class; and ·An analysis of alternatives to ownership, such as mileage reimbursement; pooling/sharing; the reassignment of another underutilized vehicle, or renting. Although the continuing effort to green the City’s fleet led staff to explore hybrid alternatives, interviewing neighbor agencies for their experiences and ultimately participating in a 60-day trial to gain first-hand knowledge, it was determined this was not an instance where alternate fuel would suffice. The aforementioned units for replacement are on-call and thus the trial units were taken home by on-call staff. As staff didn’t have adequate facilities to charge units through the night, undue stress on the batteries was experienced during the course of a normal workday. It was determined that without adequate charging the hybrids were not the optimal choice for such emergency response vehicles. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Discussion: Staff recommends replacing units 7424, 7731, and 7732 with new diesel vehicles as the mileage is not as important as the engine needing to power the hydraulic systems, allowing operators to complete assignments more efficiently and with today’s new diesel motors, reduce fuel and maintenance costs. The new units will be equipped with platform leveling systems and four wheel drive, assisting greatly in utility outage responses in the foothills where units becoming stuck are not uncommon. A shorter wheel base and utility bed will allow for a better turning radius and the addition of an arrow board provide added operator safety. Bid Process: Section 2.30.360 (j) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code identifies the process that allows the use of Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing agreements. Bids for this purchase were obtained through the National Joint Purchasing Alliance (NJPA), an approved cooperative group. A request for quotation was sent to NJPA on December 5, 2016, and a quote was received from Altec on December 6, 2016 (Attachment A). Staff recommends that Council approve this purchase order with Altec Industries Inc. for three custom built 2017 Dodge 5500 chassis’ with Altec AT40-G Aerial Devices. Resource Impact: The Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fiscal Year 2015 CIP (VR- 15000), 2016 CIP (VR-16000), and 2017 CIP (VR-17000) do not have sufficient funding to purchase the Altec AT37-G Aerial Devices. Traditionally, vehicle procurements are funded through annual charges to the department/fund that will benefit from the vehicle. In Fiscal Years 2015 VR-15000 $145,000 was appropriated and $150,000 was appropriated in both 2016 and 2017 for VR- 16000 and VR-17000 for the replacements. To support this purchase, an appropriation of $20,426 to the Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fiscal Year 2015 project VR-15000, $15,426 to the Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fiscal Year 2016 project VR-16000 and $15,426 to the Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fiscal Year 2017 project VR- 17000, offset by a transfer of $51,278 from the Electric Utility Fund,is recommended. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Policy Implications: Authorization of the purchase order does not represent any change to the existing policy. Attachments: ·Attachment A -Quote Opportunity Number:59664 Quotation Number:301685-12 NJPA Contract #: 031014-ALT Date:12/6/2016 REFERENCE ALTEC MODEL Articulating Telescopic Aerial Device (Insulated)$86,068 Per NJPA Specifications plus Options below (A.) 1 AT40-G-BASE 40' Boom Height (AT40-G) requires ISO option $1,933 2 3 (A1.) 1 CH Cone Holder, Fold Over Post Style $236 2 SPOT4 SIX (6) POINT STROBE SYSTEM (Recessed, LED)$664 3 4 5 6 7 8 NJPA OPTIONS TOTAL:$88,901 (B.) 1 UNIT Federal Signal Highlighter Installed Above Rotation on Custom Bracket $1,995 2 UNIT & HYDRAULIC ACC Tool Circuit with Quick Disconnnects Below Rotation, Spring Loaded Hose Reel with 50' Non- Conductive Hose Kit $2,501 3 BODY PG&E Style Custom Body with 29" Steel Tailshelf, and Custom Compartmentation, 2 Ladder Racks, Top Opening Boxes, Alarm/Sensor Door Jamb Switches $13,030 4 BODY & CHASSIS ACC Sauber Breakaway Step at Rear, Mud Flaps With Altec Logo, Water Cask Bracket, Center Console, 5 LB Fire Extinguisher, Locking Pedestal Laptop Stand, Appropriate counterweight added for stability, Tint Rear Chassis Window, Hogg Davis Wire Reel $8,798 5 ELECTRICAL Amber LED Strobe Light, Directional Light Bar, (2) Remote Spot Lights, Custom Alarm/Sensor, Altec Backup Camera System, PTO Hour Meter, Dodge Auxiliary Switches, 2400 Watt Pure-Sine Wave Inverter, (2) Auxiliary Batteries, One (1) Post Mounted Spot Light for Streetside, 15,000LB Electric Winch Kit for Dodge Ram 5500 $21,916 6 FINISHING Rear Chassis Window Tint $427 7 CHASSIS 2017 Dodge Ram 5500 4WD Reg Cab with Cloth Bucket Seats, Center Console, Navigation, CD Player and Backup Camera $10,210 8 OTHER Regional Build $4,093 OPEN MARKET OPTIONS TOTAL:$62,970 SUB-TOTAL FOR UNIT/BODY/CHASSIS:$151,870.59 Doc Fees: $65.00 SUB-TOTAL FOR UNIT/BODY/CHASSIS - Quantity Three (3):$455,611.77 Doc Fees - Quantity Three (3): $195.00 Estimated Sales Tax (8.75%)$39,883.09 Delivery to Customer - Quantity Three (3): $588.00 TOTAL FOR UNIT/BODY/CHASSIS - Three (3):$496,277.86 (C.) 1 2 3 4 **Pricing valid for 60 days** NOTES PAINT COLOR: White to match chassis, unless otherwise specified TRADE-IN: Equiptment trades must be received in operational condition (as initial inspection) and DOT compliant at the time of pick-up. Failure to comply with these requirements, may result in customer bill-back repairs. BUILD LOCATION: Dixon, CA CHASSIS: Per Altec Commercial Standard DELIVERY: No later than 300-330 days ARO, FOB Customer Location TERMS: Net 30 days BEST VALUE: Altec boasts the following "Best Value" features: Altec ISO Grip Controls for Extra Protection, Only Lifetime Warranty on Structural Components in Industry, Largest Service Network in Industry (Domestic and Overseas), Altec SENTRY Web/CD Based Training, Dedicated/Direct Gov't Sales Manager, In-Service Training with Every Order. WARRANTY: Standard Altec Warranty - One (1) year parts warranty One (1) year labor warranty Ninety (90) days warranty for travel charges (Mobile Service) Limited Lifetime Structural Warranty. Chassis to include standard warranty, per the manufacturer. (Parts only warranty on mounted equipment for overseas customers) TO ORDER: To order, please contact the Altec Inside Sales Representative listed above. Altec Industries, Inc. NJPA OPTIONS ON CONTRACT (Unit) NJPA OPTIONS ON CONTRACT (General) OPEN MARKET ITEMS (Customer Requested) ADDITIONAL ITEMS (items are not included in total above) AT37-G Quoted for: City of Palo Alto Customer Contact: Scott Williams Phone: (650) 496-6933 Email: scott.williams@cityofpaloalto.org Quoted by: Rhawnie Kraak Altec Account Manager: Don Hildebrandt Phone: (707) 693-2578 Email: rhawnie.kraak@altec.com 301685-12 - Palo Alto AT40G NJPA.xlsx Attachment A City of Palo Alto (ID # 7687) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Retirement Resolution for Dennis Burns Title: Adoption of a Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Dennis Burns Upon His Retirement From: City Manager Lead Department: Police Due to this resolution being formally presented to Dennis Burns on January 25, 2017 at the celebration of his retirement, it is placed on the Consent Calendar rather than under Special Orders. Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Dennis Burns 9 Resolution EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE TO DENNIS BURNS UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Police Chief Dennis Burns has conscientiously and professionally served the City of Palo Alto and the Community for 35 years. Chief Burns rose through the ranks of Agent, Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, Assistant Chief of Police and Police Chief. Throughout his career, Chief Burns has held various specialty assignments, such as Patrol Watch Commander, Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team Member, Investigations Sergeant, Personnel and Training Coordinator, and Field Training Officer (FTO) Sergeant. Chief Burns was also appointed Interim Fire Chief while continuing to lead the Police Department serving as Public Safety Director; and WHEREAS, Chief Burns has investigated and supervised several notable cases, such as the Liu, Galbraith, and Niebauer homicides, the Romel Reid serial rapist case, and participated in the search for the suspect in the homicide of East Palo Alto Police Officer Richard May; and WHEREAS, Chief Burns is an active member in various professional organizations, such as the FBI National Academy Alumnae, California Police Chiefs’ Association, California Peace Officers’ Association, and the Santa Clara County Police Chiefs’ Association. Chief Burns has participated in countless regional training exercises, which include Urban Shield and Active Shooter; and WHEREAS, Chief Burns has received nearly 100 commendations from citizens and other agencies for his professionalism in assisting with and responding to calls for service. Chief Burns has been the recipient of the Department’s Outstanding Public Service Award and, in 2014, was selected for the “Outstanding Professional/Business Person” Tall Tree Award; and WHEREAS, Chief Burns implemented the Department’s Community Advisory Group (CAG), which included Human Relations Commission representatives. Chief Burns developed and implemented the Police Department’s Employee Wellness Program and was instrumental in obtaining grant funding for the Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC) vehicle. Chief Burns has been a proponent of supporting mental health concerns in the community and county. Chief Burns has collaborated with other County law enforcement and fire departments in developing a multi-discipline active shooter incident protocol; and WHEREAS, Chief Burns was appointed Chief of Police in 2009 at a challenging point in time for the department and led the department exceptionally, with quiet strength and kindness, earning the trust and respect of our community and deepening the bonds between public safety and our community; and WHEREAS, Chief Burns will be greatly missed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto, hereby gratefully records and extends its sincere appreciation and acknowledges the community’s appreciation to Police Chief Dennis Burns for 35 years of faithful and excellent service rendered to the City. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: January 23, 2017 ATTEST: APPROVED: _______________ _________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________ _________________ City Manager City Attorney City of Palo Alto (ID # 7688) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Retirement Resolution for Bob Beacom Title: Adoption of a Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Bob Beacom Upon His Retirement From: City Manager Lead Department: Police Due to this resolution being formally presented to Bob Beacom on January 25, 2017 at the celebration of his retirement, it is placed on the Consent Calendar rather than under Special Orders. Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Bob Beacom 10 Resolution EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE TO BOB BEACOM UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Bob Beacom has conscientiously and professionally served the City of Palo Alto and served the Community for 27 years. Throughout his career he rose up through the ranks of Agent, Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain and served as Acting Assistant Chief of Police for several years; and WHEREAS, Assistant Chief Beacom spent his time at the City working in the Police Department in various positions and specialty assignments, such as Field Training Officer, Detective, Special Operations Sergeant, Specialized Traffic Accident Reconstruction (STAR) Team member, and SWAT Team Commander. Assistant Chief Beacom has also been responsible for the oversight of the Animal Services Division; and WHEREAS, Assistant Chief Beacom was instrumental in the SWAT Team’s participation in Urban Shield Regional Training Exercises and the regional coordination of Super Bowl 50. During his career, Assistant Chief Beacom coordinated or investigated major investigations such as the Hsiao, Schipse and Lacy homicides, the Blanks’ kidnap/sexual assault case, the arrest of serial rapist Romel Reid and also assisted with the suspect search in the East Palo Alto Officer Richard May homicide; and WHEREAS, Assistant Chief Beacom has coordinated several large scale events within the City, such as the Black and White Ball, Sleigh Rides and Snowmen, Tour of California, and various dignitary visits. Assistant Chief Beacom has received numerous commendations relating to these events, and a number of other commendations for his professionalism and investigative expertise; and WHEREAS, Assistant Chief Beacom worked with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto in the coordination of the Tri-City Gun Back Program. Assistant Chief Beacom has been a supporter and instrumental in the Police Department’s Wellness Program and gym upgrades, ensuring that employees have the most effective exercise equipment to maintain employee health. Assistant Chief Beacom attended the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia and is an active member of the California Peace Officers Association, California Police Chiefs’ Association, and the National Tactical Officers Association. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby records and extends its sincere appreciation and acknowledges the community’s appreciation to Assistant Police Chief Bob Beacom for 27 years of faithful and excellent service to the City. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: January 23, 2017 ATTEST: APPROVED: ___________________ _________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________ _________________ City Manager City Attorney City of Palo Alto (ID # 7655) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 900 N California Ave Appeal Title: 900 N. California Avenue [15PLN-00155]: Denial of the Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Architectural Review Approval of Three new Single-Family Homes, one With a Second Unit. Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), Zoning District: R-1 (Continued From January 9, 2017) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Director’s approval of an Architectural Review application, thereby denying the appeal. Executive Summary This report includes new attachments in response to Councilmember questions received on January 9, the date this item was initially considered on the consent calendar. The Council continued consideration of this item (on Consent) to January 23, 2017. The new attachments include: Attachment K – City Council minutes from November 14, 2016 when the Council considered the Parcel Map application. Attachment L – The Record of Land Use Action approving the Parcel Map application Attachment M – Responses to Councilmember questions. The responses explain that conditions within the Parcel Map Record of Land Use Action do not need to be repeated in the Architectural Review approval to be effective. All conditions will be applicable at the building permit phase. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The balance of this report contains the same information previously transmitted to the City Council for the January 9, 2017 meeting. The applicant received approval last year to subdivide a large R-1 zoned property into three lots. The applicant proposes to demolish three existing homes on that property, which would be replaced by three new homes; one of the new homes would have a second dwelling unit. Typically, new home development is reviewed by city staff. However, when an application to construct three or more new homes is filed, the Code requires additional review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), which forwards a recommendation to the Director. Following ARB review, the Director approved the proposed homes in November. This decision was appealed necessitating review before the City Council. The appellant’s reason for the appeal is provided in Attachment B and summarized as: The appellant states that not one of the neighbors within 600 feet of the project site received notice of the ARB Public Hearing. The appellant believes that residents have not had an opportunity to comment on issues related to: o Management of heavy commuter and school/bicycle traffic twice daily and construction worker parking. o The impact of dewatering three units simultaneously. o Ongoing monitoring and contact personnel for ad hoc communications from residents. o Remedy the current inadequate on site signage that needs to be expanded for notifying the general neighborhood of the construction on site. o Shared driveway between Site 2 and Site 3. The City Council may accept this report and adopt the staff recommendation on Consent, thereby denying the appeal and accepting the Director’s decision based on the information contained herein. Alternatively, if three or more City Councilmembers request, the matter can be pulled from the Consent calendar and scheduled for a future noticed public hearing (approximately 6-8 weeks from this Council date). Included with this report are all relevant records, including the Director’s determination letter (Attachment D) and an excerpt of the verbatim transcript of the ARB meeting (Attachment C). Background The proposed project is an Architectural Review of three single family homes. Typically, single family homes are reviewed by City staff for conformance with the Individual Review Guidelines (PAMC 18.12.110) and processed in accordance with the Low-Density Residential Review Process (PAMC 18.77.075). However, three or more single family homes proposed at one time City of Palo Alto Page 3 require review by the City’s Architectural Review Board (PAMC 18.76.020(b)(2)(c)) and an ultimate decision by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The Directors decision can be appealed to the City Council. The project site contains three existing homes on one lot with three different addresses. The project would demolish these homes and construct one new single family home on each parcel. The largest of the three parcels would be developed with a second dwelling unit. The proposed homes are all two-stories with basements. Each home contains below grade patios and light wells to allow light into the basements. Houses range in size from approximately 3,100 square feet to almost 4,000 square feet (sf). The homes are generally a traditional architectural style with contemporary Colonial Revival architectural elements. Louis Road provides access to Lot 1; Lots 2 and 3 are accessed from California Avenue. A detailed description of the proposed project is included in Attachment I. The City’s Architectural Review Board reviewed and recommended approval to the Director of Planning and Community Environment on September 15, 2016. Their motion included a condition to return to the ARB subcommittee with revisions as described below. The Director signed the determination letter on November 1, 2016. The Palo Alto Municipal Code provides 14 days to file an appeal, and a timely appeal was filed on November 15, 2016. A discussion of the September 15, 2016 hearing is provided below. Accompanying the request for Architectural Review was a parcel map to subdivide the property into three lots for each of the single family homes. This parcel map requested an exception to the PAMC for one of the lots to exceed the minimum lot size. This project was reviewed by the City’s Planning and Transportation Commission on October 26, 2016, which unanimously recommended conditional approval to the City Council. The City Council reviewed the proposed parcel map on November 14, 2016. The Council added conditions to the parcel map which required the accessory dwelling unit and garage to be setback eight-feet from all property lines and that the applicant submit a geotechnical report that considered the simultaneous dewatering of site for the proposed homes. With these conditions, the Council voted to approve the project at the November 14, 2016 hearing. ARB Review and Recommendation The ARB reviewed the project plans and oral testimony from the applicant at a public hearing on September 15, 2016. Members of the public did not attend the meeting to provide comments. The ARB discussed the aesthetic quality of the project, access width of the driveway on lot 3 and the location and architectural style of the homes, garage and accessory dwelling unit on lot 3. The ARB requested that the applicant return to a subcommittee of the ARB to review the driveway width on lot 3 and the style and positioning of the detached garage and accessory dwelling unit. The ARB transcript of the meeting is provided in Attachment C. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The applicant has recently modified the project plans in response to the Board’s direction and those plans are the ones included in this report. Specifically changes from the director approved plans and the plans included in this packet include the following: The home on lot 3 is setback 12 feet from the property line at 920 N. California Ave. This space affords a landscape buffer and 11 foot driveway. In response to the Council’s direction, the accessory dwelling unit and garage are setback eight feet from all property lines. The accessory dwelling unit has a window header height of six-foot nine-inches, which is less than the seven-foot tall fence along the property lines. The applicant also incorporated landscape screening between the fence and homes to enhance the level of privacy. The accessory dwelling unit and detached garage incorporated similar design elements as the main residence on lot 3. Discussion The appellants are Beatrix Cashmore, the property owner of 928 N. California Avenue and Nicholas Kaposhilin of 936 N. California Avenue. Below is a summary of key appeal statements and information about the issues raised in the appeal, followed by initial staff comments. If the appeal is granted and the Council elects to schedule this item for a noticed public hearing, the Council would conduct a “de novo” hearing, which means it may consider any of the issues raised by appellants or any other issue related to architectural review. Appeal Comment 1: The appellant suggests improper public noticing of the ARB hearing on September 15, 2016. Staff Response: The proposed project is subject to the City’s public noticing requirements. The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of a public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Mailed notice was sent on September 2, 2015, 13 days prior to the hearing. Notice of the hearing was published in the September 2, 2016 edition of the Palo Alto Weekly, 13 days in advance of the hearing. The hearing agenda was also available online on the city’s website and posted at the information kiosk at city hall. Attachments E and F contain an excerpt from the city’s mailing list and includes the appellant’s information. An affidavit attesting to proper noticing is also included in this attachment. Based on the foregoing, staff has concluded the project met and exceeded the standard noticing requirements. Staff is unable to attest as to whether the appellant actually received the notice, which is subject to other variables beyond the city’s control, including proper postal City of Palo Alto Page 5 delivery and what an individual or family member does with the notice and the amount of attention paid to the notice when received. Appeal Comment 2: The appellant suggests input from local residents is required regarding management of potentially disruptive or unsafe effects on the neighborhood and should be addressed in collaboration with project planners. Staff Response: This is an understandable comment since the appellant reports not being informed about the project. In most instances, local residents would become informed of the project through site posting and mailed notices, which provides an opportunity for interested persons to offer comments about the project and to express concerns about potential impacts. The city also uses an online service to sign up for email notification of planning projects in their neighborhood (https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning). While the appellant’s concerns were not expressed prior to the determination letter, the city routinely evaluates projects from a multi-disciplinary perspective receiving comments from the city’s planning, building, public works, utilities, fire, urban forestry, and legal departments. This particular project was approved based on a number of standard conditions intended to minimize the disruptive impacts of construction. Additionally, a few special conditions were added to this approval determination to address the unique nature of three sites being developed at one time. Some of these special and standard conditions are provided below that related to this issue: Condition #59: The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to the Public Works Department that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: o Pedestrian control o Traffic control o Truck routes o Material deliveries o Contractor’s parking o On-site staging and storage areas o Concrete pours o Crane lifts o Work hours o Noise control o Dust control o Storm water pollution prevention City of Palo Alto Page 6 o Contractor’s contact. This plan is required to be prepared and submitted for review by the City along the Rough Grading and Excavation Permit. Plot the construction fence, entrances, shoring, limits of over excavation, construction workers parking area, staging and storage areas within the private site for equipment and material. The plan is also required to include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map for construction traffic to and from the site, and how the bike lane will remain accessible during construction Condition # 64: Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right-of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right- of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” Condition # 66: Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite. Further, the parcel map approved by the City Council includes conditions to setback the accessory dwelling unit and perform geotechnical assessment of the simultaneous effects of dewatering. These conditions also include the logistics plan previously mentioned. Appeal Comment 3: Management of heavy commuter and school/bicycle traffic twice daily at the construction site plus parking for construction workers Staff Response: This is related to the above comment. This specific issue will be addressed by the construction logistics plan that will be reviewed by the public works and transportation departments. Transportation’s review in particular will address operational constraints related to safe routes to school, pedestrian and bicycle safety as well as use of flag persons, parking management and other requirements. The construction logistics plan will also be reviewed by City and School Traffic Safety Committee for their expertise in creating a plan that ensures safe school routes. Appeal Comment 4: City of Palo Alto Page 7 A new geotechnical study to assess the aggregate impact of dewatering three units simultaneously Staff Response: There has been increased community interest on the impacts of dewatering associated with the construction of basements in the city’s residential neighborhoods. In response, the city’s public works department has established certain reporting and analysis requirements for projects involving dewatering. The city’s Policy and Services Committee recently held a community meeting on this topic and some additional measures and requirements are being explored. As noted earlier, the public works department has reviewed the proposed project. The project includes a specific condition that requires a geotechnical report. Specifically, the condition requires the following: Condition of Approval 53 – Dewatering: o Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. o The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. o Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. o Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on the City’s website at. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp The following links are included to assist the applicant with dewatering requirements. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30978 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51366 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47388 It is anticipated that this review combined with standard practices and the department’s evolving policies on this topic will ensure that dewatering impacts will be minimized. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Appeal Comment 5: Remedying the inadequate onsite signage notifying residents of the proposed project Staff Response: As noted and as included in Attachment G, the project site contains onsite signage as required by the municipal code. In addition, the PAMC requires notice of the hearing to be given at least 10 days prior to the hearing by publication in a local newspaper, by posting in a public place, and by mailing to the applicant, the hearing requestor, if applicable, and all residents and owners of property within 600 feet of the project. The notice is required to include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed project, and the date and time of the hearing. While there could be an argument for evaluating the city’s noticing procedures, including on-site posting requirements, staff believes the project complied with the applicable noticing requirements. Appeal Comment 6: Discussion regarding shared driveway for lots 2 and 3 to increase the permeable surface. Staff Response: The proposed driveways for the project utilize the existing driveway locations already on the subject property. This proposal minimizes the amount of earthwork, grading and site alterations to City streets and sidewalks. The existing driveways consist of impermeable surfaces. The project proposes that the driveway on Lot 3 will be a permeable driveway. Therefore, the project increases the permeability of the existing driveways onsite. Further, sharing a driveway presents potential conflicts between neighbors and would require a reciprocal access agreement. In addition, our Code disfavors flag lots in residential areas in part to minimize future neighbor disputes. Ultimately, the proposal conforms to the Zoning Code requirement of 60% permeable surface in the front setback (18.12.040(h)) and improves the existing condition by increasing permeability on the site. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). The project includes a proposal to construct three new single family homes. The proposed homes are located in an urbanized area on a site used continuously for residential purposes by three existing single- family homes. The proposed exemption allows for the construction of up to three homes in an urbanized area. Therefore, the project is consistent with the subject exemption. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received beyond the appeal letter. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the City Council may: 1. Remove the project from consent and continue the hearing to March 13, 2017. Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Appeal Letter (PDF) Attachment C: ARB Minutes for September 15, 2016 (DOC) Attachment D: Signed Approval Letter and Conditions of Approval (PDF) Attachment E: Hearing Notice Cards (PDF) Attachment F: Notice of Director's Decision (PDF) Attachment G: On-site Signage (DOCX) Attachment I: Project Details (DOCX) Attachment H: Palo Alto Weekly Publication September 2, 2016 (PDF) Attachment J: Project Plans (DOCX) Attachment K 11-14-16 Excerpt 900 Cal Ave Action Minutes (DOCX) Attachment L: Record of Land Use 900 N. California (Parcel Map) (PDF) Attachment M: Council Questions & Responses (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Excerpt Minutes of September 15, 2016 1 Architectural Review Board 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 900 N California Ave [15PLN-00155]: Request by Kohler Associates Architects, on behalf of Greg Xiong, 10 for Architectural Review of three single-family homes to replace three existing homes. Environmental 11 Review: Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion 12 of Small Structures). Zoning District: Single Family Residential District (R-1). For more information 13 contact the planner, Adam Petersen, at APetersen@m-group.us. 14 15 Adam Petersen reviewed details of the proposed project. Staff found the project to be consistent with the 16 Comprehensive Plan, the Individual Review guidelines for single-family homes and the Zoning Code 17 Development Standards. Staff recommended the Architectural Review Board recommend the Director find the 18 project exempt from the California Evaluation Quality Act and recommend approval subject to the conditions 19 and findings of approval. 20 21 Roger Kohler, Kohler Associates Architects, noted the project had been subjected to the Individual Review 22 process. Jeff Kuo described the neighborhood context, the design concept, and details of the three houses. 23 24 Board Member Baltay requested staff provide the history of review of this project. Ms. Gerhardt clarified that 25 the City's IR architect had reviewed the project and provided comments. Board Member Baltay inquired 26 whether the Board could assume that the IR process would approve the project or if the Board should make 27 that determination. Ms. Gerhardt explained that the same guidelines applied to an Individual Review as an 28 Architectural Review. 29 30 Board Member Kim requested an explanation for Condition of Approval 3A. Ms. Gerhardt referred to an 31 interpretation of the allowed basement under the footprint of buildings. An applicant was allowed to complete 32 the square in two areas where those were under an entry porch or a back porch. In this floor plan, there 33 wasn't a sliding glass door or something to that extent to make it an entry. Board Member Kim reiterated that a 34 door was being required so that it was an entry. 35 36 Board Member Furth inquired regarding the minimum lot size. Ms. Gerhardt indicate the minimum lot size was 37 6,000 square feet and the maximum was 9,999 square feet. 38 39 Vice Chair Lew requested the logic for the placement of the garage and the guest house on Lot 3. Mr. Kohler 40 indicated that combining them resulted in a fairly large building. Two separate buildings allowed plantings and 41 trees, and the home had more of a backyard feel. Vice Chair Lew added that one building would be large and 42 low to meet daylight plane requirements. Mr. Kohler noted the maximum allowed height was 12 feet. Vice 43 Chair Lew inquired regarding a minimum separation between accessory buildings. Ms. Gerhardt advised of a 44 minimum separation for accessory structures of 3 feet. The minimum separation for a second dwelling unit was 45 12 feet from the main dwelling. 46 47 Board Member Kim asked if there was a reason the secondary dwelling unit was not built to 900 square feet. 48 Mr. Kohler indicated floor area limits prevented a larger building. Board Member Kim added that increasing the 49 size of the secondary dwelling unit would not exceed the total floor area. Mr. Kohler asked if Board Member 50 Kim was encouraging him to build to the maximum size. Board Member Kim was encouraging secondary 51 dwelling units that would serve a second family as best as possible. Mr. Kuo clarified that the allowable floor 52 area was 4,777 square feet. Board Member Kim was mistakenly looking at lot coverage only. 53 City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 Board Member Baltay inquired regarding the width of the driveway easement on Lot 3. Mr. Kuo responded 10 2 feet 10 inches. 3 4 Greg Xiong stated the existing structures were not a good use of those sites. He proposed living in one of the 5 homes and selling the other two. 6 7 Board Member Kim indicated the IR process addressed most issues. Some sheets for Lot 1 had the wrong 8 address. On Sheet A5, part of the roof plane was shown incorrectly. He felt the project would dramatically 9 change the intersection. He was interested in seeing 3D site perspectives showing the three homes in relation 10 to neighboring single-story homes. Considering the size of the homes, he did not like the garage placement on 11 Lot 2 with the side entry. The proposed homes were large; yet, Lots 1 and 2 had only single-car garages. The 12 garage and guest house on Lot 3 needed more thought. 13 14 Vice Chair Lew liked the design of project. The porches were very desirable and would make the neighborhood 15 look better. Blending the two-story mass with one-story hipped roofs helped tie the house into the 16 neighborhood. His only issue was the Lot 3 guest house. There was little privacy from the adjacent house as 17 the structure was located only 6 feet from the property line. He suggested adding a buffer or moving the 18 building back for landscaping or a taller fence. Ms. Gerhardt reported staff had not received any comments 19 from neighbors. 20 21 Board Member Furth agreed the project would be quite a transformation of the corner. She could not find 22 "guest house" in the City's glossary. Ms. Gerhardt indicated the proper term was second dwelling unit. Board 23 Member Furth suggested marking those as second dwelling units so the Board could understand which 24 standards to apply. The relationship between Lot 3 and 920 California Avenue was problematic. The proposed 25 structures would surround a small, low-key house on two sides. She could not make the finding that it 26 adequately addressed the neighboring issue. Lot 3 would require significant screening/landscaping on the north 27 side, which would require widening the driveway. The same applied to the accessory dwelling unit. She 28 inquired whether one of the covered spaces was required for the accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Petersen advised 29 that the Code required one parking space in the garage and one outside the garage. Board Member Furth felt a 30 garage shared by two separate uses should be a divided space. She would not want to approve the project 31 without a bifurcated garage. She expressed some concern that the design of the house made it look bigger 32 than the square footage needed to look. Replacement houses along California Avenue were set back and low 33 key. The three proposed homes were not differentiated, but appeared to be built as a set of three. 34 35 Board Member Baltay shared Vice Chair Lew's sentiment that the homes were handsome and fit into the fabric 36 of the community. He liked the wrap-around corner porch on Lot 2 as well as the plaster finish with curved 37 eave detailing. That provided a notable corner. He did not share the sentiment that the three homes were 38 sufficiently different. They were clearly individually designed for individual circumstances. He could support the 39 project overall. The driveway space on Lot 3 was too narrow and needed a minimum of 12 feet for landscaping 40 between the driveway and the neighboring home. The driveway needed more space to be usable. Perhaps the 41 applicant could narrow the house a bit. The guest house and garage were not thought out. He would prefer to 42 move the project forward subject to some small changes. 43 44 Vice Chair Lew inquired whether the Board could approve the project and have changes return on the consent 45 calendar or to the subcommittee for review. The Board discussed modifications to the design and whether 46 those modifications could be submitted to staff, the subcommittee or the Board on the consent calendar. 47 48 Chair Gooyer viewed a five-bedroom house with a one-car garage as an invitation for cars to park everywhere; 49 however, the Code allowed that. The proposed homes were large, but most newer homes in the area were 50 similar. 51 52 MOTION: 53 City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 Board Member Baltay moved, seconded by Vice Chair Lew, that the Architectural Review Board make the 2 findings in the Staff Report and approve the project with an additional finding that (1) the house on Lot 3 be 3 shifted so that there is a minimum of 12 feet between the property line and the house; (2) a landscape buffer 4 be installed on the left-hand side of the driveway; and (3) the design of the guest house and garage return to 5 the Architectural Review Board subcommittee for final review. 6 7 Board Member Furth offered an amendment that the garage have two separate spaces. Board Member Baltay 8 felt that had not been required previously. 9 10 MOTION PASSED: 3-2 11 ATTACHMENT G ONSITE SIGNAGE 900 North California Avenue / File No. 15PLN-00155 The sign was first posted onsite in April 2015, it was damaged and fell on the ground sometimes after the winter season. The applicant fixed the sign and updated the plans and put on the site again in early September this year. The photos below were taken on December 19, 2016: ATTACHMENT I PROJECT DETAILS 900 North California Avenue / File No. 15PLN-00155 Lot 1 - A two-story house with an attached one-car garage on an 8,033 sf lot. The proposed structure would have a total of 3,157 sf of floor area, excluding the basement but including the garage. Of this area, 1,148 sf of floor area (36%) is proposed on the second floor. One street tree has been added to the frontage per the City Arborist’s request. Five screening trees have been added along the side interior lot lines in the rear yard area. Lot 2 - A two-story house with an attached one-car garage on a 9,379 sf corner lot. The proposed structure would have a total of 3,563 sf of floor area, excluding the basement but including the garage. Of this area, 1,269 sf of floor (36%) is proposed on the second floor, including any second floor equivalency area. One street tree on the Louis Road the frontage would be replaced. The existing street tree on the North California Avenue frontage would remain. Most other landscape, including small trees would be removed except for some existing trees along the right side setback line at the rear yard, located on Lot 3. No other new trees are proposed. Lot 3 – The proposed lot is ‘L’ shaped with the base of the ‘L’ wrapping behind the adjacent lot to the left at 920 N. California Avenue. The project proposes a two-story house with a detached two-car garage and detached guesthouse on a 13,425 sf lot. The proposed structures would have a total of 4,775 sf of floor area, including the garage and guest house, but excluding the basement. The main house is 3,978 sf, and the second unit is 597 sf excluding the garage and guest house. The second floor of the main house is 1,424 sf of floor area (36%), including any second floor equivalency area. One existing street tree will remain along with two trees at the left side lot line in the front yard and a few trees along the rear lot line and distant left side lot line adjacent the proposed cottage. Several new screening trees have been added along both side interior lot lines and the rear lot line. Table 1 Project Summary Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Address 2205 Louis Road 900 N. California Ave 912 N. California Ave Lot Area 8,032.90 sf 9,378.70 sf 13,425 sf First Floor Area 1,789.60 sf 2,071.47 sf 2,313.44 sf Second Floor Area 1,148 sf 1,269 sf 1,423 sf Garage 219.54 sf 222.45 sf 441 sf 2nd Dwelling Unit -- -- 597.12 sf Total FAR 3,157.21 sf 3,563.02 sf 34,775.19 sf Basement (Non- FAR) 1,896.27 sf 2,274.73 sf 2,417 sf Attachment J Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to City Council Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “900 California Avenue” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “06.08.16_900N.California redux.pdf” CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL EXCERPT MINUTES Page 1 of 3 Special Meeting November 14, 2016 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:30 P.M. Present: Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman arrived at 5:33 P.M., Scharff, Schmid arrived at 5:33 P.M., Wolbach Absent: Berman, Kniss Action Items 16. PUBLIC HEARING: 900 N. California Ave. [14PLN-00233]: Recommendation for Approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, With Exceptions, to Subdivide an Existing 30,837 Square Foot Parcel Into Three Parcels. The Parcel Map Exception is to Allow one of the Parcels to Exceed the Maximum Lot Area. Environmental Assessment: Exemption Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). Zoning District: Single-Family Residential District (R-1) **QUASI JUDICIAL. Public Hearing opened at 8:24 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 8:38 P.M. MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Find the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3); and B. Approve the Record of Land Use Action for the proposed preliminary parcel map application. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “including the addition of a requirement that a second unit be built on Lot 3.” (New Part B.i.) INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “increase the setbacks to 8 ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 3 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 11/14/16 feet on all sides of the garage and accessory buildings on Lot 3.” (New Part B.ii.) AMENDENT: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to determine and certify that the aggregate de-watering of the three basements not be deleterious to the surrounding properties or vegetation.” AMENDMENT RESTATED: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to review the third party dewatering review statement to assure that the aggregate impact is evaluated and not simply the individual dewatering impact of each lot.” AMENDENT2: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “add the requirement that this development be subject to whatever new dewatering requirements the Council adopts before the next dewatering season.” AMENDENT2 RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add the requirement that this development be subject to whatever dewatering requirements are in effect before the next dewatering season.” (New Part C) AMENDMENT RESTATED: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to review the third party review statement to assure that any aggregate impact presented by the construction schedule is evaluated and not simply the individual dewatering impact of each lot.” AMENDMENT RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to review the third party geo-technical report to assure that any aggregate impact presented by the construction schedule is evaluated and not simply the individual dewatering impact of construction on each lot.” (New Part D) MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Find the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3); and B. Approve the Record of Land Use Action for the proposed preliminary parcel map application: ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 3 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 11/14/16 i. Including the addition of a requirement that a second unit be built on Lot 3; and ii. Increase the setbacks to 8 feet on all sides of the garage and accessory buildings on Lot 3; and C. Add the requirement that this development be subject to whatever dewatering requirements are in effect before the next dewatering season; and D. Direct Staff to review the third party geo-technical report to assure that any aggregate impact presented by the construction schedule is evaluated and not simply the individual dewatering impact of construction on each lot. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Berman, Kniss absent Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 P.M. 1 161202 jb 0131566 1 APPROVAL NO. 2016-05 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 900 N. CALIFORNIA AVENUE: PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP APPLICATION [14PLN-00233] On November 14, 2016, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto considered and approved the Preliminary Parcel Map for the development of a three lot subdivision project with exceptions, making the following findings, determinations and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On June 25, 2014, Kohler Associates Architects on behalf of Greg Xiong applied for a Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions for the development of a 0.70 acre parcel (“The Project”). B. The project site is comprised of one lot (APN No. 137-51-021) of approximately 0.70-acres. The site contains three residential structures. Single-family residential land uses are located adjacent to the lot to the north, south, east and west. C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval on October 20, 2016 subject to the conditions of approval below. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3). SECTION 3. Preliminary Parcel Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): 1.That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: The site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. 2.That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: The map is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785 2 161202 jb 0131566 2 a.Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. b.Policy L-10: Maintain a citywide structure of Residential Neighborhoods, Centers, and Employment Districts. Integrate these areas with the City’s and the region’s transit and street system. c.Policy L-12: Preserve the character residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. 3.That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: The site is well suited for the proposed three single family homes and one secondary dwelling unit. The proposed homes would replace three existing single-family homes, which complies with allowed uses of the R-1 zoning district. 4.That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The proposal for the site is consistent with all zoning regulations, with the proposed exceptions, including lot width, depth, and area. 5.That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: The minor subdivision will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat. The project site has been fully urbanized and developed and is centrally located within a developed residential area. There is no recognized sensitive wildlife or habitat in the project vicinity. 6.That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: The creation three parcels for three single-family residential units and one secondary dwelling unit will not cause serious public health problems, because the site is designated for single family development. 7.That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785 3 161202 jb 0131566 3 authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed preliminary parcel map will not conflict with easements of any type, in that the map would create three parcels on the property, and would not affect any of the existing or proposed easements on or adjacent to the project site. SECTION 4. Exception Findings. The project proposes exceptions to the zoning standards for lot size for the following and depicted on Preliminary Parcel Map: • Lot Size (greater than 9,999 square feet): Lot 3. 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property. The subject property is substantially larger in area than allowed by the zoning code. The site also includes three single family residences on one legal parcel, representing another noncompliant condition. The applicant’s request for a preliminary parcel map with exceptions results in a more compliant condition within the project boundary and new development that will be more consistent with and compatible to the surrounding properties. It is not possible to subdivide the parcel into three or four fully compliant lots. The exception allows one of the three lots to be slightly larger in area than allowed by the code. 2. The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. The property owner is eligible to subdivide the existing parcel. The existing one parcel with three housing units does not conform to the maximum lot area for the R1 District. With the subdivision exception, the owner is able to create individual legal parcels for three residences, however, one the lots would remain non-conforming as to lot area. It is not possible to adjust the lot area of the other parcels or create a fourth parcel in order to achieve complete conformance with the city’s property development standards. Subdividing the existing parcel into code compliant lots is not possible with the exception and approving the exception results in three lots that are more consistent and more compatible to properties in the general vicinity. 3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. For the reasons cited above, the exception actually results in a housing development design that is more consistent with the pattern of single family development in the area and renders an existing nonconforming parcel into two conforming lots and one lot that is slightly larger than the maximum lot area authorized in the district. The lot area maximum exists to ensure future subdivisions meet a desired scale and proportionality to other lots in the area. The existing 26,669 lot is inconsistent with that objective and the exceptions renders the parcel more compatible. Such action is neither detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to other DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785 4 161202 jb 0131566 4 property in the area. 4. The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law. The granting of the exception will further the requirements, goals, policies and spirit of the law by creating two legal parcels and a third, slightly nonconforming lot, from one lot that is significantly larger than required by the city’s zoning code. From a neighborhood compatibility perspective, and consistency with the spirit of the law, the requested exception represents an improvement to the existing conditions found at the site and further advances the objectives of the code. The provision of an Accessory Dwelling Unit on Lot 3 shall ensure compatible scale with the neighborhood and advance policies in the Housing Element. SECTION 5. Preliminary Parcel Map Approval Granted. Preliminary Tentative Map approval is granted by the City Council under PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of this Record. SECTION 6. Tentative Map Approval. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map prepared by WEC and Associates “Preliminary Parcel Map 900 N. California Avenue”, consisting of three lots, dated August 19, 2014, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 7. A copy of this plan is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division. Within two years of the approval date of the Preliminary Parcel Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Parcel Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]). SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division 1. The applicant shall confirm the location all existing features of the site, including protected and non-protected trees, wells, structures, utilities, and easements to the satisfaction of Public Works, the Planning Division, and any other agency that would have an interest in those features. 2. The owner or designee prior to issuance of any building permit shall pay the applicable Development Impact fees. 3. The owner or designee prior to building permit issuance shall submit for review and approval a construction traffic plan and construction phasing plan for development to the City. DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785 5 161202 jb 0131566 5 4. Development Impact Fees: The proposed project will replace three homes, create three new parcels and add a secondary dwelling unit, therefore the estimated impact fee is $50,793.08. 5. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. 6. The applicant is hereby notified, as required by Government Code § 66020, that the approved plans, these conditions of approval, and the adopted City fee schedule set forth in Program H3.1.2 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan constitute written notice of the description of the dedications, reservations, amount of fees and other exactions related to the project. As of the date of project approval, the 90 day period has begun in which the applicant may protest any dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions imposed by the City. Failure to file a protest in compliance with all of the requirements of Government Code § 66020 will result in a legal bar to challenging the dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions. 7. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion and at Applicant’s expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 8. Accessory Dwelling Unit: An accessory dwelling unit shall be built on Lot 3. 9. Lot 3 Setback: The project shall setback the proposed accessory dwelling unit and garage on Lot 3 eight-feet (8’) from all property lines. 10. Dewatering Requirements. The applicant shall comply with the City of Palo Alto Guidelines for Dewatering During Basement Or Below Ground Garage Construction dated February 2016. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning and Community Environment Director that the proposed dewatering plan is not deleterious to vegetation. The third party evaluation of the proposed dewatering shall take into account the aggregate and simultaneous dewatering of all three lots and the proposed development shall be subject to the City’s standards in effect at the time of the report. DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785 6 161202 jb 0131566 6 Building Division 11. The existing buildings within the project area shall be demolished prior to recording the map. A separate permit shall be required for the removal of the building. 12. New addresses will be assigned to each lot with the subdivision, following recordation of the map. The applicant shall file and “Address request Form” and pay the required fee, to the Palo Alto Development Center. Public Works Engineering Department PRIOR TO PARCEL MAP SUBMITTAL 13. Provide a current Preliminary Title Report, printed less than 3 month from Parcel Map submittal date. PRIOR TO PARCEL MAP RECORDATION 14. The City of Palo Alto does not currently have a City Surveyor we have retained the services of Siegfried Engineering to review and provide approval on behalf of the City. Siegfried will be reviewing, signing and stamping the Parcel Map associated with your project. In effort to employ the services of Siegfried Engineering, and as part of the City’s cost recovery measures, the applicant is required to provide payment to cover the cost of Siegfried Engineering’s review. Our intent is to forward your Parcel Map to Siegfriend for an initial preliminary review of the documents. Siegfriend will then provide a review cost amount based on the complexity of the project and the information shown on the document. We will share this information with you once we receive it and ask that you return a copy acknowledging the amount. You may then provide a check for this amount as payment for the review cost. The City must receive payment prior to beginning the final review process. 15. Once the Parcel Map is approved by the City, submit wet signed and stamped mylar copy of the Parcel Map to the Public Works for signature. Map shall be signed by Owner, Notary and Surveyor prior to formal submittal. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT 16. Parcel Map shall be recorded with County Recorder. 17. Off-site improvements such as curb and gutter, sidewalk replacement, street tree replacement and/or new street trees, utility upgrades or street resurfacing are typically required with subdivisions. As part of the proposed of subdivision, applicant(s) shall be aware that off-site DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785 7 161202 jb 0131566 7 improvements such as those listed above will be required. At a minimum, plans for the building permits shall show curb, gutter and sidewalk along the project frontages to be removed and replaced, full-street width resurfacing (mill and overlay) will be required. The curb ramps at the intersection may also need to be upgrade as part of this project to comply to accessibility standards. Plans shall include existing and proposed striping plan. Applicant shall meet with Urban Forestry to evaluate if a new street tree can be planted along the project frontages. 18.If the existing buildings are to be demolished, applicant shall contact Urban Forestry at (650)496-5953 prior to demolition to verify tree protection measures are in place. 19.LOGISTICS PLAN: The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to the Public Works Department that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, on-site staging and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact. The plan shall be prepared and submitted along the Rough Grading and Excavation Permit. Plot the construction fence, entrances, shoring, limits of over excavation, construction workers parking area, staging and storage areas within the private site for equipment and material. It shall include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map for construction traffic to and from the site. Plan shall also indicate if the bus stop will need to be relocated and show how the bike lane will remain accessible during construction. The logistics plan will provide controls that minimize the disruption to neighbors and provides parking and staging on-site to the extent feasible. Utilities Electrical Engineering 20.Applicant shall grant easement to all electric equipment including transformers, switches, electric pull boxes and vaults, electric conduit. 21.All equipment shall be pad mounted, NO underground equipment is allowed. 22.All the weather head shall follow CPAU standard (lower than 18') 23.Applicant shall install, owned and maintain the streetlight system on the private street. These street lights shall be fed through a meter pedestal. 24.Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. 25.The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed within the subdivision as required by the City. 26.The civil drawings must show all existing and proposed electric facilities (i.e. conduits, boxes, pads, services, and streetlights) as well as other utilities. DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785 8 161202 jb 0131566 8 27.The developer/owner is responsible for all substructure installations (conduits, boxes, pads, streetlights system, etc.) on the subdivision parcel map. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and all work must be inspected and approved by the Electrical Underground Inspector. 28.The developer/owner is responsible for all underground services (conduits and conductors) to single- family homes within the subdivision. All work requires inspection and approval from both the Building Department and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 29.The tentative parcel map shall show all required easements as requested by the City. Utilities Water Gas Wastewater Department 30.The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters to theexisting building including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected orremoved within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issuedby the Building Inspection Division after all utility services and/or meters have beendisconnected and removed. 31.The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas wastewater service connection application- load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands. 32.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing services as necessaryto handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all cost associated with design andconstruction for the installation/upgrade of the utility services. 33.Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown onthe plans. 34.All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas, & wastewater. / / / / / / / / / / / / DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785 9 161202 jb 0131566 9 SECTION 8. Term of Approval. 1. Preliminary Parcel Map. All conditions of approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map shall be fulfilledprior to map recordation (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]). Unless a Tentative Map is filed, and allconditions of approval are fulfilled within a two- year period from the date of PreliminaryTentative Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Preliminary Tentative Mapshall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by WEC and Associates titled “Preliminary Parcel Map”, consisting of five page, dated August 19, 2014. November 14, 2016 DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785 Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 82D14D40AE2548E78107632D5EFCD785 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: RLUA 900 California Ave.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 9 Signatures: 4 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 Janet Billups AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 janet.billups@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 12/13/2016 11:22:50 AM Holder: Janet Billups janet.billups@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Cara Silver cara.silver@cityofpaloalto.org Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 12/13/2016 11:36:41 AM Viewed: 12/13/2016 11:37:21 AM Signed: 12/13/2016 11:37:41 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 7/15/2015 5:07:16 PM ID: 11910ed1-61d1-4ff3-9cf9-f4eb5a0768e2 Hillary Gitelman hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 12/13/2016 11:37:43 AM Viewed: 12/13/2016 1:17:30 PM Signed: 12/13/2016 1:17:46 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Patrick Burt Patrick.Burt@cityofpaloalto.org Mayor City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Using IP Address: 70.213.11.19 Signed using mobile Sent: 12/13/2016 1:17:47 PM Viewed: 12/13/2016 11:47:30 PM Signed: 12/13/2016 11:48:00 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Beth Minor beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org City Clerk City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 12/13/2016 11:48:00 PM Viewed: 12/14/2016 9:05:13 AM Signed: 12/14/2016 9:06:02 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Alicia Spotwood Alicia.Spotwood@CityofPaloAlto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 12/14/2016 9:06:03 AM Viewed: 12/14/2016 9:08:02 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Kim Lunt Kim.Lunt@cityofpaloalto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 12/14/2016 9:06:03 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 12/14/2016 9:06:03 AM Certified Delivered Security Checked 12/14/2016 9:06:03 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 12/14/2016 9:06:03 AM Completed Security Checked 12/14/2016 9:06:03 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure CONSUMER DISCLOSURE From time to time, City of Palo Alto (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc. (DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of this document. Getting paper copies At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below. Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below. Consequences of changing your mind If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us. All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us. Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 10/1/2013 8:33:53 AM Parties agreed to: Cara Silver How to contact City of Palo Alto: You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows: To contact us by email send messages to: david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org To advise City of Palo Alto of your new e-mail address To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.. In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign. To request paper copies from City of Palo Alto To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any. To withdraw your consent with City of Palo Alto To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may: i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process.. Required hardware and software Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP? Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0, NetScape 7.2 (or above) Email: Access to a valid email account Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum Enabled Security Settings: •Allow per session cookies •Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy Server must enable HTTP 1.1 settings via proxy connection ** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will have the right to withdraw your consent. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below. By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that: • I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF ELECTRONIC CONSUMER DISCLOSURES document; and • I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can print it, for future reference and access; and • Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to me by City of Palo Alto during the course of my relationship with you. Attachment M On January 9, 2017, PCE staff received the following questions regarding the ARB appeal of three new homes at 900 California Avenue; responses follow: Councilmember Request: Request for a copy of the November 14, 2017 minutes related to the Parcel Map application reviewed by the City Council. Response: Now included in the report as Attachment K. The minutes state that the City Council directed the following action related to the parcel map application: A. Found the project exempt from CEQA. This was addressed in the Record of Land Use Action, Section 2 (Attachment L) B. Approved the Record of Land Use Action i. Affirmed that the proposed second unit would be provided on Lot 3 This was addressed in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment L), Condition #8. ii. Increased the setbacks for the garage and accessory buildings be set back eight (8) feet from all property lines. This was addressed in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment L), condition # 9 and addressed in revised plans previously transmitted to the City Council and available online at as detailed in Attachment J. C. Added a requirement that the development be subject to dewatering requirements in effect before the next dewatering season. This was addressed in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment L), Condition 10. D. Directed staff to review the third party geotechnical report to assure that any aggregate impact presented by the construction schedule is evaluated and not simply the individual dewater impact of construction on each lot. This was addressed in the Record of Land Use Action E. Attachment L), Condition 10. Note that current provisions stipulated by the city requires a geotechnical report, the cumulative impact analysis is the unique provision incorporated into the condition. Conditions included in the Record of Land Use Action for the parcel map will be reviewed and implemented as part of the building permit review process associated with the proposed homes and do not need to be repeated in the architectural review conditions of approval. Councilmember Question: Dewatering. The appellant's concerns seem to be about the cumulative effect / impact of dewatering. I do not see this addressed in the Condition #53 as the staff report seems to indicate. Response: The City Council reviewed the parcel map application to subdivide the subject property on November 14, 2016 pursuant to current application review procedures. During that public hearing, the City Council heard testimony from nearby residents expressing concern about dewatering. In response, the City Council required the project be subject to whatever dewatering requirements are in effect before the next dewatering season. Accordingly, staff incorporated the following condition of approval to the parcel map record of land use action (see Attachment L, Condition #10): Dewatering Requirements. The applicant shall comply with the City of Palo Alto Guidelines for Dewater During Basement Or Below Ground Garage Construction dated February 2016. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning and Community Environment Director that the proposed dewatering plan is not deleterious to vegetation. The third party evaluation of the proposed dewatering shall take into account the aggregate and simultaneous dewatering of all three lots and the proposed development shall be subject to the City’s standards in effect at the time of the report. (Emphasis Added) This condition is associated with the parcel map and would apply to the future construction of the three proposed homes and second dwelling unit; it would be implemented as part of the building permit review process. This condition is not incorporated into the Architectural Review conditions of approval because that action preceded the City Council’s review of the parcel map. The Council may recall that the appeal period for the Architectural Review approval ended the day after the Council acted on the parcel map. Condition #53 referenced above partially addresses the dewatering issue, but is also more focused on the requirement for a geotechnical study. Staff’s review of the conditions of approval applicable to this project, in consultation with the City Attorney’s office, concludes that the city has sufficient authority to require a geotechnical report and dewatering analysis during the building permit review process that addresses the cumulative impact of all three properties being constructed at one time and will evaluate the report based on the standards applicable in place at the time the report is prepared. Councilmember Question: Condition 39 states that the applicant shall file for a Minor Subdivision Application for creating four (4) lots. This was not addressed during the CC review of the subdivision and it appears that creation of a 4th lot would create a flag lot which is not allowed per City code. Can staff please explain why this is included in the Conditions? Response. There is an error in this condition, which has been corrected in the Director’s letter (Attachment D). The City Council approved a three lot subdivision; no flag lots were created. A corrected Director’s letter was prepared on January 10th and mailed to the applicant. Councilmember Question: Condition #59: will plans be proactively be provided to neighbors for comment prior to finalizing? Response. Condition #59 requires the preparation of a logistics plan. While this is a public document, it is one typically reviewed by professional staff. There is no current mechanism for noticing the public, but members of the public may request a copy of all submittal materials. City of Palo Alto (ID # 7066) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Middlefield Rd North Pilot Project and Transfer of Contingency Funds Title: Discussion and Direction to Staff to Implement a One-year Traffic Safety Pilot Project Along Middlefield Road Between the Menlo Park City Limits and Forest Avenue, F ind the Project Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Approve a Budget Amendment in the General Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Review Alternative Concept Plans 7A and 7B for Middlefield Road between the Menlo Park city limits and Forest Avenue and identify a preferred alternative concept plan to implement as a one-year pilot project; 2. Amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for a. the General Fund by: i. Increase the transfer to the Capital Fund in the amount of $200,000; and, ii. Decrease the Planning and Transportation Contingency in the amount of $200,000; b. the General Capital Improvement Fund by: i. Increase the transfer from the General Fund in the amount of $200,000; and ii. Increase the appropriation to Transportation and Parking Project (CIP PL-12000) by $200,000; and 3. Find the preferred Alternative Concept Plan exempt from environmental review as a minor change to existing roadways that would not result in significant environmental impacts. Executive Summary Beginning in early 2015, residents who live on or near the north end of Middlefield Road have corresponded with Staff regarding traffic conditions along Middlefield Road from Forest Avenue City of Palo Alto Page 2 to the Menlo Park city limits. The residents have cited a history of collisions, congestion during the peak hours, and speeding in the off-peak hours as recurring issues along the corridor. Of particular concern was the number of collisions occurring at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Everett Avenue and the amount of left-turning traffic at the intersection. As a result of these concerns, the Planning and Community Environment Department authorized a study of the intersection and adjacent Middlefield Road corridor. This study was completed in June 2015 and Alternative II identified in the report was implemented immediately as a one-year pilot. Alternative II includes time-of-day turn restrictions at both the Hawthorne Avenue and Everett Avenue intersections through added signage. Throughout late 2015 and early 2016, Staff continued to receive communications from residents voicing their concerns regarding the safety and operation of the corridor. Much of this feedback was related to an ongoing resurfacing project being completed by the Public Works Department along Middlefield Road. Many residents believed that this project offered the City a key opportunity to implement a lane reduction and other changes. In March 2016, City staff, including police and transportation staff (Councilmember Kniss was also in attendance), held a stakeholder’s meeting to listen to the concerns of the residents, discuss what Staff had done to-date and identify next steps. Several of the action items identified in this meeting were completed shortly afterwards, including: encouraging Menlo Park staff to remove the NO TURN ON RED restriction at Willow Road, replacing the turn- restriction signage to enhance clarity, utilizing traffic paint in lieu of thermoplastic to delineate lanes along Middlefield Road as part of the resurfacing project (traffic paint is much easier to remove that thermoplastic). At this stakeholder meeting, Staff also agreed to initiate a Traffic Safety Project in July 2016, upon the conclusion of the one-year turn-restriction pilot. In May 2016, City Council received a request for a lane reduction from the area residents in the form of a signed petition presented at a Council meeting. In July 2016, Staff initiated the Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project and began collecting and analyzing comprehensive traffic volume, speed and collision data. In August 2016, Staff convened a meeting with the local residents group behind the petition to identify and prioritize issues of concern along Middlefield Road. During this first meeting, residents cited traffic congestion, safety, high travel speeds, collisions, and noise as concerns and identified improved safety and quality of life as the primary goals of the project. Staff presented existing conditions and discussed the results of the previous study, which identified the potential for significant environmental impacts to the intersection of Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue with the implementation of a lane reduction. The primary issues that were discussed at the meeting are below: Safety – A relatively high number of unreported collisions occur on this stretch of Middlefield City of Palo Alto Page 3 Road. Some collisions have resulted in encroachment into adjacent residential properties and injuries. Heavy foliage and limited sight lines contribute to some of the safety concerns. Quality of Life – Residents along this Residential Arterial have concerns that Middlefield Road and traffic congestion has created nuisances, including: difficulty accessing their properties, and increased noise levels due to motorists honking, engine noise, and collisions. With no buffer between the adjacent travel lanes and the curb, the comfort of the adjacent sidewalks is negatively impacted. Traffic Congestion – Over the past couple of years, there has been a perceived increase in traffic congestion. Congestion may be related to various projects underway along US 101 or within Menlo Park and the Stanford Medical Center. However, residents have concerns that increased congestion has led to the previously-mentioned degradation of safety and quality of life. As part of the Planning and Community Environment Department’s Traffic Safety Program, Staff worked with the neighborhood group to identify potential options and ideas, and held a community workshop on October 6, 2016 at the Downtown Library. During the community workshop, Staff presented five (5) alternative concept plans with the option to mix and match various features from each alternative concept plan to address the identified concerns (Concept Alternative Plans 1 through 5). As a result of this community-driven process, Staff identified two alternative concept plans that would address the bulk of the community concerns (Concept Alternative Plans 6A and 6B). Slight modifications to the final two alternative concept plans to improve traffic operations and limit impact to motor vehicle level of service (LOS) and better address pedestrian safety resulted in the development of Alternative Concept Plans 7A and 7B. Both Alternative Concept Plans 7A and 7B include traffic safety countermeasures that address concerns related to turning traffic to and from Everett Avenue, Hawthorne Avenue, and residential driveways. In general, Alternative 7A includes changes that address safety but reduces the capacity of Middlefield Road for motor vehicle traffic, while Alternative 7B addresses the safety concerns, but maintains as much of the existing traffic capacity along Middlefield Road as possible. Staff recommends implementing one of these alternative concept plans as a one-year pilot with extensive ongoing monitoring of the corridor and immediate project area. With this monitoring, there is an opportunity to partner with Carnegie Mellon University to test a new low-cost internet enabled roadway monitoring device that could be utilized throughout the City if successful. Staff would return to Council one-year after the implementation of the pilot for direction on whether to make the improvements permanent or modify the alternative and complete additional monitoring. Background The Middlefield Road North corridor provides a major connection between Palo Alto and Menlo Park, as well as connections to US 101 north of Palo Alto and connections to the East Bay. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Vehicles access this section Middlefield Road from Palo Alto Avenue, Hawthorne Avenue, Everett Avenue, Lytton Avenue, University Avenue, Hamilton Avenue, and Forest Avenue. The intersections of Lytton Avenue, University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue are signalized. Currently the only public transit service that travels along Middlefield Road between University Avenue and the Menlo Park city limits is the Dumbarton Express bus, which provides service between the Palo Alto Transit Center and the East Bay via the Dumbarton Bridge. On weekdays, there are approximately three Dumbarton Express buses in each direction during the morning peak-hour, and two in each direction during the evening peak-hour. Hawthorne Avenue ends at Middlefield Road forcing vehicles to turn left or right, whereas Everett Avenue is a through street across Middlefield Road. Everett Avenue is designated as a future bicycle boulevard in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012), and provisions for bicyclists crossing Middlefield Road will need to be provided as part of this future unfunded project. Program T-39 in the Comprehensive Plan specifically discourages the installation of “traffic signals on[…] Middlefield Road north of Lytton Avenue and south of Channing Avenue to Embarcadero Road.” This segment of Middlefield Road carries about 18,000 motor vehicles during a typical weekday (approximately 10,000 southbound and 8,000 northbound). During both the morning and evening peak periods, there are approximately 1,400 vehicles travelling along this segment of Middlefield Road in both directions combined. The signalized intersection of Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue operates as the primary constraint in capacity, and it currently operates at a motor vehicle level of service D during both the morning and evening peak-hours. Middlefield Road is classified as a Residential Arterial and has four general purpose travel lanes, with no shoulders. Both sides of Middlefield Road have a tree-lined planter strip that separates the sidewalk from the travel lanes. Program T-41 in the Comprehensive Plan, includes recommendations for Residential Arterials, which include “landscaping, medians, and other visual improvements to distinguish them as residential streets, in order to reduce traffic speeds.” Due to the tree-lined planting strips that are immediately adjacent to the travel lanes along Middlefield Road, sight lines from the side-street approaches are greatly impaired. This is particularly acute at the eastbound Everett Avenue approach to Middlefield Road, where sight distance looking north is severely limited by a row of large trees, which begin only 50 feet north of Everett Avenue. At Hawthorne Avenue, the first tree is approximately 80 feet from Hawthorne Avenue, which provides better sight lines for motorists and bicyclists travelling on east on Hawthorne Avenue approaching Middlefield Road. In recent years, there have been a number of collisions, both reported and unreported. According to data assembled by the California Highway Patrol, using the SWITRS database, the segment of Middlefield Road between the Menlo Park city limits and Lytton Avenue had City of Palo Alto Page 5 approximately 33 reported collisions over a five-year period from January 2009 to December 2013. For this type of collision history analysis, the last five years of complete data is typically used. In reviewing the reported-collision history and primary collision factors, Staff determined that most collisions were caused by right-of-way violations and the prevailing crash type was angle or broadside, which can likely be attributed to vehicles turning left or going straight from the stop-controlled side street approaches or to vehicles turning left from Middlefield Road into these side streets. Several of the collisions have resulted in injuries and/or have encroached onto the sidewalk area or private properties, creating safety and quality of life concerns for the residents that live and travel along Middlefield Road. In 2015, Staff initiated a peak-hour left-turn restriction prohibiting motorists and bicyclists from turning left from Hawthorne Avenue and Everett Avenue onto Middlefield Road in an effort to reduce the number of collisions. Motorists and bicyclists on Everett Avenue are also prohibited from going straight and must turn right during the peak hours. Although limited police enforcement was included with implementation, Staff continues to see consistent violations of the left-turn restrictions. At Middlefield Road and Hawthorne Avenue, the number of eastbound left-turns during the evening peak-hour actually increased from 42 to 57 after they were prohibited by signage. Table 1: Peak-hour Turning Movement Counts Source: Traffic Data Services, July 2016 Although not directly reported in most of the collision reports, the 85th-percentile speeds observed along this segment of Middlefield Road are typically between 31 and 34 miles per hour. The current certified speed limit is 25 miles per hour. A separate complete street project in the section of Middlefield Road south of Forest Avenue is currently in the final design phase and will be constructed in summer 2017 as part of a Public Works Department resurfacing project. Discussion Intersection Direction of Travel Peak-hour Period Left-turns 2016 (2015) Through- movements 2016 (2015) Middlefield/Hawthorne Eastbound 8-9 AM 43 (58) N/A Middlefield/Hawthorne Eastbound 5-6 PM 57 (42) N/A Middlefield/Everett Eastbound 8-9 AM 5 (21) 3(6) Middlefield/Everett Westbound 8-9 AM 0 (1) 2 (11) Middlefield/Everett Eastbound 5-6 PM 10 (23) 10 (30) Middlefield/Everett Westbound 5-6 PM 0 (1) 2 (5) City of Palo Alto Page 6 This Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety project is intended to address concerns brought to Staff by local residents that live on or near Middlefield Road, north Forest Avenue. The areas of concerns and focus of this current project is targeted at four main goals: Reduce neighborhood impacts from through traffic and improve quality of life for local residents; Improve access and mobility of all modes of travel; Reduce vehicular collisions and improve corridor safety; and Rationalize traffic operations. Staff also sought to identify an alternative concept plan that could be implemented on a pilot basis and not reduce motor vehicle level of service to a point that would result in significant environmental impacts and require a detailed and time-consuming Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The preparation of an EIR could delay the implementation of a project along this corridor by 12 months or more. Neighborhood Concerns: Staff has held three meetings with the stakeholder group, as well as one community open house. A significant area of concern for the stakeholder group is the quality of life along Middlefield Road. Their primary concerns include: noise, inability to maneuver in and out of private properties, proximity of fast moving traffic to sidewalks, lack of comfortable bicycle accommodations and a lack of crosswalks across Middlefield Road. Rationalize Traffic Operations: Middlefield Road is relatively narrow for a Residential Arterial and is generally 40 feet wide with four 10-foot-wide travel lanes. Left-turning vehicles on Middlefield Road typically block the inside travel lane, resulting in unsafe weaving between travel lanes. A relatively abrupt northbound lane-drop before Hawthorne Avenue results in aggressive lane-changing and conflicts between motorists. The southbound lanes on the curve departing the San Francisquito Creek bridge are extremely narrow and lack an adequate buffer for large vehicles. A goal of this project is to rationalize the current traffic operations and to follow the City’s complete streets policies and strategy to improve bicycle and pedestrian accommodations as well as improve traffic flow and better manage turning movements in an effort to improve the overall operation and safety of the corridor. Proven Traffic Safety Countermeasures Considered: Beginning in August 2016, Staff coordinated with the local stakeholder group and evaluated the most current traffic data (traffic volumes, speeds, collision history, etc.). Focusing on the identified areas of concern, Staff and the stakeholders group discussed various proven traffic safety countermeasure and organized preliminary alternative concept plans, with options of mixing and matching various countermeasures. Some of the proven traffic safety countermeasures considered include: City of Palo Alto Page 7 Class II Bicycle Lanes: Class II Bicycle Lanes are a four- to six-foot-wide lanes on a roadway dedicated to use by on-road bicyclists traveling in the same direction as adjacent traffic. Class II Bicycle Lanes are typically located between the general purpose travel lanes and the edge of the roadway or on-street parking (if present) and installed in both directions of travel. Though the evidence is limited, a study by Rodegerdts et al. (2004) suggested adding a bicycle lane reduces bicycle-related crashes by 35%. A more recent study by Abdel-Aty et al. (2014) found that bicycle lanes in Florida reduced the frequencies of all crash types by 27-32% and bicycle-related collisions by 58-60%. Corridor Access Management: Corridor Access Management is a set of techniques used to control access to highways, major arterials, and other roadways. The benefits of corridor access management include improved movement of traffic, reduced crashes, and fewer vehicle conflicts. Corridor Access Management principles are applicable to roadways of all types, ranging from fully access-controlled facilities, such as freeways, to those with little or no access control, such as local streets. Successful Corridor Access Management, managed by change in access density, seeks to simultaneously enhance safety, preserve capacity, and provide for pedestrian and bicycle needs. According to the Federal Highway Administration, Corridor Access Management may reduce severe (injury/fatal) crashes along urban/suburban arterials by 25-31%. Corridor Access Management tools considered for Middlefield Road included restricted-movement designs for driveways (such as right-in/right-out only) and restricted-movement and alternative designs for intersections such as left-overs and median u-turns. Median: A Median is an area between opposing lanes of traffic, excluding turn lanes. Medians in urban and suburban areas can either be open (pavement markings only) or they can be channelized (raised medians or islands) to separate various road users. According to the Federal Highway Administration, medians may reduce pedestrian crashes by 46% and motor vehicle crashes by up to 39%. Paved Shoulder: A Paved Shoulder is a one- to 12-foot-wide area on a roadway that provides a buffer between the travel lanes and the edge of the roadway or on-street parking. Paved Shoulders provide an area for drivers to maneuver to avoid crashes. This is particularly important on high-speed, high-volume highways or at locations where there is limited stopping sight distance. According to the Federal Highway Administration, Paved Shoulder widths of approximately eight feet or greater are normally required for this function. Shoulders also improve bicycle accommodations. On most roadways, bicyclists are legally allowed to ride in the travel lanes. A Paved Shoulder offers cyclists an alternative to ride with some separation from motor vehicle traffic. This type of shoulder can also reduce risky passing maneuvers by motorists. Shoulders also improve stopping sight distance at horizontal curves by providing an offset to objects such as barrier and bridge piers. Data regarding the crash reduction factor for Paved Shoulders on urban and suburban arterials is unavailable. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Road Diet: A roadway reconfiguration known as a Road Diet offers several high-value improvements at a low cost when applied to traditional four-lane undivided roadways. In addition to low cost, the primary benefits of a Road Diet include enhanced safety, mobility and access for all road users and a complete streets environment to accommodate a variety of transportation modes. A classic Road Diet typically involves converting an existing four-lane, undivided roadway segment to a three-lane segment consisting of two through lanes and a center, two-way left-turn lane. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the resulting benefits include a crash reduction of 19- 47%, reduced vehicle speed differential, improved mobility and access by all road users, and integration of the roadway into surrounding uses that results in an enhanced quality of life. A key feature of a Road Diet is that it allows reclaimed space to be allocated for other uses, such as turn lanes, bus lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, bike lanes, sidewalks, bus shelters, parking or landscaping. New Traffic Signal: A New Traffic Signal is a traffic control device installed at a previously-uncontrolled or STOP-controlled intersection. A New Traffic Signal assigns right-of-way to intersections users and can be programmed to provide protected movements for different roadway users and motorists and bicyclists making left and right turns across opposing traffic. A New Traffic Signal also provides significant access and mobility improvements for pedestrians, particularly those crossing the main street. According to the Federal Highway Administration, installation of a New Traffic Signal on roadways with more than 5,000 vehicles per lane per day may reduce all-types of crashes by 20-43%, left-turn crashes by 38%, and angle crashes by 29%. However, rear- end collisions have been shown to increase by 48% in some studies. Additional countermeasures and treatments are described in more detail below in the descriptions of the alternative concept plans. Preliminary Alternative Concept Plans: Working with the stakeholder group, staff initially came up with approximately ten different alternative concepts for this corridor. After a very high-level feasibility analysis, the alternative concepts were reduced to five (5) preliminary alternative concept plans that could reasonably be implemented within the existing constraints. Each of the alternative concept plans evaluated in detail are included in Attachment A. The following five (5) preliminary alternative concept plans were developed and presented at a community workshop held at the Downtown Library on October 6. All of them conform to two constraints: 1) no trees would be removed, and 2) the existing roadway would not be widened. Alternative Concept Plan 1: Concept Plan 1 is a hybrid road diet which includes conversion of the inside northbound travel lane into a two-way left-turn lane. Two southbound travel lanes and one northbound travel lane would be maintained. As presented, the concept would allow left turns out of the side streets as an option. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Pros: Address safety concerns and provides left-turn access to most driveways and side streets from Middlefield Road without blocking a shared through-lane. This concept also improves vehicle access from side streets by providing ability to make left-turns in two stages. Cons: Does not address bulk of stakeholders’ quality of life concerns. Small/minimal improvement for pedestrian and bicycle access. This concept would reduce northbound traffic capacity, which may result in longer queues on Lytton Avenue. Alternative Concept Plan 2: Alternative Concept Plan 2 is a hybrid road diet which includes conversion of the inside northbound travel lane to a raised median with left-turn pockets at Hawthorne Avenue and Everett Avenue. Option to extend median through intersections or provide left overs to side streets only. Could provide protected refuge island in median to improve pedestrian and bicycle access. Pros: Addresses safety concerns and could provide left turn access to side streets from Middlefield Road. Maintains uncontrolled pedestrian and bicycle crossing but provides a refuge island to allow for crossing in two stages. This concept plan provides option to prohibit left turns out of side streets and opportunities for landscaped medians. Cons: Does not address bulk of stakeholders’ quality of life concerns. Removes left turn access to/from private driveways. Alternative Concept Plan 3: Concept Plan 3 is a traditional road diet that removes one travel lane in each direction and includes two bicycle lanes or paved shoulders (up to five feet wide) and a two-way left-turn lane. Pros: Addresses safety concerns and provides left-turn lane for access to side streets from Middlefield Road and a refuge for two-stage left-turns out of side streets. Moves travel lanes five feet away from curb and provides buffer for motor vehicles exiting private driveways (limited with bicycle lane option). Cons: Reduces traffic capacity in both directions, with potentially significant traffic impacts at the intersection of Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue unless a second southbound lane is added just before intersection. Continuous bicycle lane south of Everett Avenue may not be possible without substantial traffic capacity loss at signalized intersections (Lytton Avenue, University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue). Alternative Concept Plan 4: Concept Plan 4 is a traditional road diet that removes one travel lane in each direction and includes two bicycle lanes or paved shoulders (up to five feet wide), and a raised median with optional left-turn pockets at the intersections of Hawthorne Avenue and Everett Avenue. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Pros: Address safety concerns and provides left-turn lane for access to side streets from Middlefield Road and refuge for two-stage left turns out of side streets. Moves travel lanes five feet away from curb and provides buffer for motor vehicles exiting private driveways (limited with bicycle lane option). This concept provides a beautification opportunity with a landscaped median. Cons: Reduces traffic capacity in both directions, with potentially significant environmental impacts at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue unless second southbound lane is added just before intersection. Continuous bicycle lane south of Everett Avenue may not be possible without substantial traffic capacity loss at signalized intersections (Lytton Avenue, University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue). Median prevents residents from accessing turning left into their driveways. A raised median between intersections would result in increased U-turns by Middlefield Road residents at intersections where width limitations may restrict U-turn ability, or would require them to travel through adjacent streets and neighborhoods. Left-turn restrictions out of Hawthorne and Everett would require vehicles to divert through neighborhoods and travel to Lytton Avenue; however, speculation is that much of the current left turn traffic does not originate from the Downtown North neighborhood and restrictions may result in a decrease in neighborhood traffic. Alternative Concept Plan 5: Concept Plan 5 is a hybrid road diet which includes conversion of the outside travel lanes to full-time or part-time on-street parking. Left-turn pockets could be installed with the full-time parking option by eliminating the on-street parking in advance of intersections. Pros: Addresses safety concerns by reducing the number of travel lanes that turning vehicles need to cross and likely reducing travel speeds long Middlefield Road. Moves travel lanes seven to ten feet away from curb and provides buffer for motor vehicles exiting private driveways (limited with part-time parking option). Single travel lane in each direction is a safety improvement for pedestrians crossing Middlefield Road. Cons: Substantially reduces traffic capacity in both directions and likely results in potentially significant environmental impacts unless additional travel lanes are introduced before the signalized intersections. Existing Traffic Signal Analysis Using the recent traffic counts included as Attachment B, Staff evaluated the intersections of 1) Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue and 2) Middlefield Road at University Avenue as they would operate under the various preliminary alternative concept plans (see below for an explanation of the analysis with future traffic volumes). In 2015, Staff had contracted with the consultant firm Stantec, to analyze existing operating conditions and to evaluate turn restrictions at the intersections of Middlefield Road and City of Palo Alto Page 11 Hawthorne Avenue and Middlefield Road and Everett Avenue. This report (included as Attachment C) concluded that turn restrictions could be implemented for vehicles turning out of Everett Avenue and Hawthorne Avenue onto Middlefield Road without triggering potentially significant environmental impacts. The Stantec report did not evaluate lane reductions on Middlefield Road or lane changes to the intersection of Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue. Using the City’s adopted standards of significance for increased delays at signalized intersections and existing traffic volumes, staff evaluated the preliminary alternative concept plans described above and determined that a reduction from two to one general purpose travel lane on the southbound Middlefield Road approach to Lytton Avenue would trigger a potentially significant environmental impact at the intersection. Thus, any alternative concept plans with a southbound lane reduction would need to include the reintroduction of a second southbound lane between Everett Avenue and Lytton Avenue to avoid a potentially significant environmental impact. As part of this analysis, the northbound Middlefield Road approach to Lytton Avenue was also evaluated in conjunction with the eastbound approach of Lytton Avenue, where there are currently two lanes available to turn left onto Middlefield Road northbound. Northbound Middlefield Road through the intersection could be reduced to one through-lane and still operate at an acceptable level of service. This modification would require that the Lytton Avenue eastbound approach be reconfigured to include only one left-turn lane. With these changes, the intersection of Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue would continue to operate at Level of Service D. However, other issues, such as extended motor vehicle queues, may occur on Lytton Avenue and/or northbound Middlefield Road. Refined Alternative Concept Plans: During the public open house on October 6, the five (5) preliminary alternative concepts were presented with various, interchangeable features, such as turn restrictions at the intersections or directional lane reductions. The goal was to get an understanding of the community’s preferences, which included the following: Maintain left-turn access into private driveways; Left-turns out of side streets could be restricted (requires detour to the Lytton Avenue intersection), but maintain left-turns from Middlefield Road onto side streets; Calm Middlefield Road traffic; and Provide a buffer between moving motor vehicles and the sidewalk area. Following the public open house and existing traffic signal analysis, Staff reviewed the pros and cons of each alternative concept plan with respect to the goals of the project as well as neighborhood stakeholder feedback. Staff developed two (2) refined alternative concept plans (6A and 6B) to advance into additional operational and feasibility study. These revised alternative concept plans drew elements from many of the five (5) preliminary alternative concept plans. Due to the limited right-of-way width and other constraints, one ideal solution to solve all of the issues is not feasible. Therefore, Alternative Concept Plan 6A primarily City of Palo Alto Page 12 addresses the safety concerns and the neighborhood quality of life needs, while Alternative Concept Plan 6B primarily addresses the safety concerns while maintaining as much of the current traffic flow operations as possible. In addition, consideration was given to the potential for significant environmental impacts at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue. After additional analysis of operational conditions at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue, Alternative Concept Plans 6A and 6B were modified slightly to avoid potentially significant impacts; resulting in Final Alternative Concept Plans 7A and 7B. These concepts can be implemented as a pilot project with minimal investment and could be limited to revised striping, temporary curb materials, and minimal traffic signal changes. Table 2 summarizes the performance of each Alternative Concept Plan with respect to the project goals. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Table 2: Performance of Alternative Concept Plans against Project Goals Preliminary Concepts Revised Final Goals 1 2 3 4 5 6A 6B 7A 7B 1 Reduce collisions and improve corridor safety 2 Reduce neighborhood impacts from through traffic and improve quality of life for local residents 3 Improve access and mobility for all modes of travel 4 Rationalize traffic operations 5 Avoid potentially significant environmental impact Mostly addresses or accomplishes goal Partially addresses goal Does not accomplish or address goal Source: Planning and Community Environment Department, January 2017 Alternative Concept Plans 6A/7A: These alternative concept plans are most closely related to Alternative Concept Plan 3 and include a traditional road diet. At the intersections with Hawthorne Avenue and Everett Avenue, all cars approaching Middlefield Road would be required to make a right-turn, while left-turns and through movements would be restricted by raised medians and signage. These concept plans may include two five-foot-wide bicycle lanes or paved shoulders. Bicycle lanes between Palo Alto Avenue and Everett Avenue are feasible with this option, but because bicycle lanes do not currently exist north or south of the project area, a short two-block section would have little benefit as compared to a paved shoulder. Because Alternative Concept Plan 6A only includes one southbound travel lane approaching the Lytton Avenue intersection, the preliminary traffic analysis predicts an increase in intersection delay that would trigger a potentially significant environmental impact and require additional environmental analysis such as an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In general, traffic signals create the capacity bottleneck along most roadways. Currently, the traffic demand along Middlefield Road in both the northbound and southbound direction is close to the effective City of Palo Alto Page 14 capacity of the traffic signals at both Lytton Avenue and University Avenue. Evaluation of the traffic signals with only one northbound and/or one southbound travel lane on Middlefield Road led to increased vehicular delays that would exceed the City’s standards of significance. The motor vehicle level of service analysis is included as Attachment D. Lane reductions on Middlefield Road could trigger potentially significant environmental impacts at both Lytton Avenue and University Avenue. Therefore, staff modified the concept plans such that they would maintain two approach lanes for each direction of Middlefield Road through these intersections. Concept Plan 7A incorporates necessary modifications to 6A to address the potentially significant environmental impact at the Lytton Avenue intersection by adding a second southbound lane that would start in the block between Everett Avenue and Lytton Avenue. Based on a preliminary traffic analysis, these changes would keep the intersection operations at an acceptable motor vehicle level of service D. Because the northbound Middlefield Road departure is reduced to one travel lane, the northbound approach is modified to have one left- turn-only lane and one through-/right-turn lane. The change in the northbound direction would result in an average increase in delay of approximately seven seconds, but would remain at an acceptable level of service D.1 Eastbound Lytton Avenue would also be modified to only have one left-turn lane and one shared through-/right-turn lane. The modifications on Lytton Avenue would have a negligible effect on the intersection delay and level of service. With the lane reductions, traffic queues may temporarily extend back into Menlo Park along southbound Middlefield Road; however the merging operations are not anticipated to cause queues to back up to the Willow Road intersection, which is signalized. An additional drawback of Concept 7A is that there would be a new southbound merge and lane reduction just south of the Menlo Park city limits and a new lane would begin just north of Lytton Avenue. This could lead to driver confusion and/or aggressive driving in the merge and taper areas. For the pilot project, no changes are proposed for the segment between Lytton Avenue and Forest Avenue, with the exception of the modifications to the northbound Middlefield Road approach to Lytton Avenue as described above. Any lane configuration changes south of Lytton Avenue would either degrade the motor vehicle level of service or require substantial infrastructure and traffic signal modifications. This could be re-evaluated if the project is made permanent, but is not included in any of the Alternative Concept Plans for the one-year pilot. Alternative Concept Plans 6B/7B: These alternative concept plans are most closely related to Alternative Concept Plan 1, with the addition of turn restrictions at Hawthorne Avenue and Everett Avenue (right-turn only). While vehicles that currently turn left onto or across Middlefield Road from Everett Avenue or Hawthorne Avenue would need to travel to Lytton 1 Please note that some Councilmembers have expressed an interest in modifying the City’s threshold for significant impacts at signalized intersection such that degrading from level of service C to D would be considered a significant environmental impact. This change has not been approved by the City Council as a whole and has not been used in this analysis. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Avenue to turn left onto Middlefield Road, Concept 7B would generally maintain the existing roadway operations along Middlefield Road in the southbound direction. Alternative Concept Plan 6B primarily focuses on addressing the safety concerns related to collision history and maintaining current traffic capacity; however it has less emphasis on residents’ concerns related to quality of life. The neighborhood stakeholder group has expressed their opinion that Alternative Concept Plan 6B (and presumably 7B) is not acceptable from their standpoint. Alternative Concept Plan 7B is similar to 6B, with the exception that only one northbound lane proceeds straight at the intersection with Lytton Avenue and only one lane turns left from eastbound Lytton Avenue to northbound Middlefield Road. Alternative Concept Plan 7B extends the two-way left-turn lane to Lytton Avenue and maintains the current ability for residents to turn left into their private driveways from Middlefield Road. The lane configuration of Middlefield Road south of Lytton Avenue would remain four lanes (two in each direction) for both Alternative Concept Plan 6B and 7B, however the northbound approach to Lytton Avenue would be converted to one left-turn only lane and one shared through-/right-turn lane. For the pilot project, no changes are proposed for the segment between Lytton Avenue and Forest Avenue, with the exception of the modifications to the northbound Middlefield Road approach to Lytton Avenue as described above. Any lane configuration changes south of Lytton Avenue would either degrade the motor vehicle level of service or require substantial infrastructure and traffic signal modifications. This could be re-evaluated if the project is made permanent, but is not included in any of the Alternative Concept Plans for the one-year pilot. Trial Implementation and Monitoring Staff recommends implementing either Alternative Concept Plan 7A or 7B as a one-year pilot. With the implementation of the pilot, Staff will undertake extensive data collection before and during the pilot. Ongoing monitoring is anticipated to include the following data: Intersection turning movement counts and intersection level of service at the Lytton Avenue and University Avenue signalized intersections; Traffic volumes, vehicle classifications, and speeds on Middlefield Road, Palo Alto Avenue, Hawthorne Avenue, Everett Avenue, Lytton Avenue, University Avenue, Byron Street, Fulton Street, Webster Street, and Guinda Street; Travel times along Middlefield Road (perhaps using Bluetooth or GPS technology); Pedestrian and bicycle volumes at the Hawthorne Avenue and Everett Avenue intersections; Ambient noise/decibel levels at various times of day; Queuing lengths during the morning, mid-day, and evening peak-hours at the Lytton Avenue and University Avenue signalized intersections; and Collision history. City of Palo Alto Page 16 With this monitoring, there is an opportunity to partner with Carnegie Mellon University to test a new low-cost internet enabled roadway monitoring device that could be utilized throughout the City if successful. If feasible, this technology will supplement, not replace, proven data collection methods. Following a one-year pilot, Staff will bring a recommendation to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council for direction on a permanent solution or modifications to the pilot. Long Term Traffic Growth The Alternative Concept Plans were evaluated with respect to future growth projections and potentially significant environmental impacts are not anticipated. The traffic analyses estimate that the expected delay due to projected growth by the year 2035 would cause the intersection of Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue to decrease to Level of Service F; however the delay increases would be approximately the same with both the existing geometric configuration and the configurations included in the Alternative Concept Plans. Policy Implications Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs that support the implementation of a one- year pilot include: Policy T-2: Consider economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local transportation decisions. Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs the Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling. Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. Program T-22: Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of the southern end of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard to Mountain View. Policy T-24: Maintain a hierarchy of streets that includes freeways, expressways, arterials, residential arterials, collectors, and local streets. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Program T-34: Establish procedures for considering the effects of street modifications on emergency vehicle response time. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Policy T-28: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without compromising the need of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network. Program T-39: Maintain the current program of not adding traffic signals on Alma Street north of Lytton Avenue and south of Channing Avenue to Churchill Avenue and on Middlefield Road north of Lytton Avenue and south of Channing Avenue to Embarcadero Road. Goal T-5: A Transportation System with Minimal Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods Policy T-30: Reduce the impacts of through-traffic on residential areas by designating certain streets as residential arterials. Program T-41: The following roadways are designated as residential arterials. Treat these streets with landscaping, medians, and other visual improvements to distinguish them as residential streets, in order to reduce traffic speeds. • Middlefield Road (between San Francisquito Creek and San Antonio Road) Policy T-33: Keep all neighborhood streets open unless there is a demonstrated safety or overwhelming through-traffic problem and there are no acceptable alternatives, or unless a closure would increase the use of alternative transportation modes. Goal T-6: A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets. Policy T-39: To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over vehicle level-of-service at intersections. Resource Impact Staff requests City Council approval for the transfer of funds in the amount of $200,000 from the Fiscal Year 2017 General Fund Planning and Transportation Contingency to CIP project PL- 12000 to fund the estimated cost of the pilot project. This is based on planning-level cost estimates that include design, installation and monitoring before and after installation. Staff estimates that the cost to implement and monitor either alternative would be approximately the same. The cost for final design and implement the striping changes and temporary rubber medians is approximately $129,000. The anticipated monitoring and reporting cost is approximately $52,000. Staff has included approximately 10% for contingency expenses for a total of $200,000. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Timeline Upon direction from City Council on the preferred Alternative Concept Plan, Staff will work with on-call consultants to develop plans for installation of the pilot. Final designs are scheduled to be completed by spring 2017. Construction will begin shortly thereafter. Environmental Review Given the nature of the proposed improvements for either Alternative Concept Plan 7A or 7B, the project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption. The Class 1 exemption covers minor alterations to existing facilities so long as they involve no or negligible expansion of use. Although the pilot project could potentially include a lane reduction on Middlefield Road, the overall roadway capacity change would be negligible because two lanes would be maintained at the intersections with Lytton Avenue and University Avenue and the signalized intersections are anticipated to operate at approximately the same motor vehicle level of service as they do under existing conditions. Also, queueing conditions may change, but are not anticipated to interfere with traffic signal operations of adjacent intersections under normal conditions. Attachments: Attachment A - Alternative Concept Plans Attachment B - Existing Traffic Volumes Attachment C - Stantec Final Report Attachment D - Middlefield Rd and Lytton Ave LOS Analysis Attachment E - Middlefield Rd (Lytton Ave to Hawthorne Ave) Collision History Concept 1 - TWLTL a b b a c Two Southbound Lanes To accommodate existing higher traffi c volumes in this direction (ADT=approximately 10,000 vehicles) Northbound Lane Traffi c volumes are slightly lower for this direction. (ADT=approximately 8,500 vehicle) M IDDLEFIELD ROAD NORTH TRAFFIC SAFETY PROJECT NOTES: SEE SECTION A-A ABOVE TO MENLO PARK HA W T H O R N E A V E EV E R E T T A V E LY T T O N A V E MIDDLEFIELD RD Two southbound travel lanes, one northbound travel lane and a two-way turn lane Two Way Turn Lane A striped two-way left turn lane helps mainain access to all driveways. The lane also provides drivers with the ability to slow down in turn lane prior to entering a driveway. d Optional Traffi c Signal Install a new signal at Hawthorne Ave to improve safety and operation at the intersection. a bd c a b TO MENLO PARK HA W T H O R N E A V E EV E R E T T A V E LY T T O N A V E MIDDLEFIELD RD SEE SECTION A-A ABOVE Concept 2 - Median b a c Two Southbound Lanes To accommodate existing higher traffi c volumes in this direction (ADT=approximately 10,000 vehicles) One Northbound Lane Traffi c volumes are slightly lower for this direction. (ADT=approximately 8,500 vehicle) M IDDLEFIELD ROAD NORTH TRAFFIC SAFETY PROJECT NOTES: Two southbound travel lanes, one northbound travel lane and a continuous median Continuous Median Provides continuous landscaped median that restricts mid-block access to driveways, and left turns onto Everett Ave from Middlefi eld Rd. a b c b TO MENLO PARK HA W T H O R N E A V E EV E R E T T A V E LY T T O N A V E MIDDLEFIELD RD SEE SECTION A-A ABOVE Concept 3 - Bike Lanes/TWLTL b a Bicycle Lanes Add bicycle lanes in both directions to promote and encourage biking Striped Two-Way Turn Lane Maintains access to all driveways M IDDLEFIELD ROAD NORTH TRAFFIC SAFETY PROJECT NOTES: One southbound travel lane, one northbound travel lane, two-way turn lane and two bicycle lanes c Reduced Travel Lanes Remove one travel lane to help reduce roadway speed. A slower corridor would improve safety for all users-bikes, pedestrians and vehicles. a a b c b 10‘ 10‘ 10‘ 5‘ 5‘ TO MENLO PARK HA W T H O R N E A V E EV E R E T T A V E LY T T O N A V E MIDDLEFIELD RD SEE SECTION A-A ABOVE Concept 4 - Bike Lanes/Median b a c Reduced Travel Lanes Remove one travel lane to help decrease roadway speed. A slower corridor will improve safety for all users, bikes, pedestrians and vehicles Left –turns Restricted Out of Neighborhood At the intersection of Everett/Middlefi eld left turns are restricted to reduce impacts of traffi c in the neighborhood, reducing collisions and increasing safety. M IDDLEFIELD ROAD NORTH TRAFFIC SAFETY PROJECT NOTES: One southbound travel lane, one northbound travel lane, a continuous median and two bicycle lanes Bicycle Lanes Add bicycle lanes in both directions to promote and encourage ridership d Optional Traffi c Signal Install a new signal at Hawthorne Ave to improve safety and operation at the intersection ad b c c a b PARKING PARKING TO MENLO PARK HA W T H O R N E A V E EV E R E T T A V E LY T T O N A V E MIDDLEFIELD RD SEE SECTION A-A ABOVE Concept 5 - Parking b a On-Street Parking To help in reduced travel speeds, minimize collisions and maintain the residential character of this neighborhood without backing out of driveways. Optional 24-hour parking or parking available during off -peak hours only, allowing for 4-lane roadway during peak hours M IDDLEFIELD ROAD NORTH TRAFFIC SAFETY PROJECT NOTES: One southbound travel lane, one northbound travel lane, two on-street parking lanes a a c Reduced Travel Lanes Remove one travel lane to help decrease roadway speed. A slower corridor will improve safety for all users, bikes, pedestrian and vehicles TREET RNE AVENUE BY R O N S T R E E T FULTON STREET EVERETT AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D T AVENUE BYRON STREET FU L T O N S T R E E T LYTTON AVENUE GUINDA STREET LYTTON AVENUE FULTON STREE MIDDL N AVENUE GUINDA STREET LO ALTO AV E N U E P A L O A L T O A V E N38 44 633 621 401 649 437 656 44 50 60 333 34 28 36 626 320 634 318321 305 654 666 623 643 36 28 660 211 221 236 228 218 242 250 247 243 657 258 676 688 251 22 12 644 229 231 235 237 175 177 154 156 164 168 443 425 72 5 478 435 428 422 416 73 2 72 4 425 415 405 675 352 344 328 336343 434 352 360359 351 345 645 651 665 667 417 409 401 420 412 76 0 402 72 6 311 312 320 328 336 335 329 325 319 344 76 1 345 355 357 434 428 77 169 181 187 150 142 140 212 684 204 678 216 212 211 201 133 200 125 710 730 130 1 2 0 744 750 158 75 8 77 0 798 320 328 336 348 77 1 311 321 329 270 256 240245 235 234 225 228 222 754 766 772 121 115 776 780 211 213 782 784 215 225 241 786 788 790 247 792 76 1 75 1 253 631 625 627 633 635 637 639 641 360 483 409 419 630 664 629 64 7 64 9 245 166 390 720 740 1 (5) 118 (61) 10 (12) 58 (54) 31 6 ( 3 9 6 ) 86 ( 5 8 ) 4 ( 1 3 ) 10 ( 1 4 ) 48 2 ( 4 9 7 ) 22 (206) 204 (234) 35 5 ( 1 6 3 ) 38 ( 8 7 ) SB ADT: 9949 81 0 ( 6 4 9 ) 43 (57) 33 ( 1 4 1 ) 83 0 ( 7 9 0 ) 22 ( 8 ) 53 9 ( 6 6 2 ) 31 (32) 63 (33) NB ADT: 8474 5 (10) 25 (22) 2 (2) 0 (0) 8( 6 ) 50 6 ( 6 2 8 ) 16 ( 8 ) 17 ( 9 2 ) 3 (10) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0' 100' Middlefield North Traffic Safety XX (XX): AM (PM) Peak Hour Turning Movement CountsAM Peak Hour: 8-9 am: PM Peak hour: 5-6pmADT: Average Daily TrafficData collected July 2016 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altoraggarw, 2016-08-23 14:52:03Middlefield TSP-traffic data (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\raggarw.mdb) Final Report A Focus Traffic Operations Study of Middlefield Road near Everett Avenue June 30, 2015 In the City of Palo Alto A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE Final Report Prepared for: The City of Palo Alto Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services June 30, 2015 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE i CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 2 2.0 FOCUS OF PROJECT AND STUDY APPROACH ................................................................ 3 2.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 3 2.2 STUDY APPROACH ............................................................................................................... 3 3.0 SETTING ............................................................................................................................. 4 3.1 EXISTING STREET SYSTEM ...................................................................................................... 4 3.1.1 Traffic Data Collection................................................................................................ 4 3.2 ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION OPERATING CONDITIONS ........................................... 5 3.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ..................................................................................................... 5 3.3.1 Intersection Level of Service ...................................................................................... 6 4.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS ........................................... 8 4.1 ALTERNATIVE I: MOVE NORTHBOUND LANE DROP TO SOUTH OF EVERETT AVENUE ................................................................................................................................. 8 4.2 ALTERNATIVE II: RIGHT-IN AND RIGHT-OUT ONLY AT EVERETT AVENUE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 9 4.3 POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT MEASURES FOR CROSSING MIDDLEFIELD ROAD ........................................................................................................... 10 5.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Existing LOS of Study Intersections ................................................................................. 6 Table 2: Existing and Lane Drop Alternative LOS of Study Intersections ................................ 9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Intersection Turning Movement Volumes – Existing AM and PM Peak .................. 7 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A PROPOSED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ........................................................... A.1 APPENDIX B TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS ......................................................................... B.2 APPENDIX C INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS .................................................................... C.3 A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE 2 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study is to conduct a focus traffic study of Middlefield Road near Everett Avenue. The specific tasks include: • Evaluate potential impacts of moving the existing northbound lane drop on Middlefield Road from north of Everett Avenue to south of Everett Avenue. • Evaluate safety improvements at the intersection of Middlefield Road/Everett Avenue. Stantec obtained a.m. and p.m. peak hours intersection turning movement counts at three study intersections: • Middlefield Road/Hawthorne Avenue • Middlefield Road/Everett Avenue • Middlefield Road/Lytton Avenue The level of service (LOS) for the intersection of Middlefield Road/Lytton Avenue operate at acceptable LOS D or better while the LOS at the other two intersections operate at unacceptable LOS F. Alternative I: Move Northbound Lane Drop to South of Everett Avenue Under this alternative, the LOS at the interseciton of Middlefield Road/Hawthorne Avenue would deteriorate from LOS E to LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. And the LOS at the interseciton of Middlefield Road/Lytton Avenue would deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E during the a.m. peak hour. The City of Menlo Park has recently changed the signal timing at the intersection of Willow Road/Middlefield Road. It might take some time for the City of Menlo Park to monitor and make any appropriate adjustments to better serve the traffic demands. Due to all the factors above, it is recommended the City work with Menlo Park for any further adjustments to the signal timing at Willow/Middlefield and follow up to conduct additional study as appropriate before taking further action. Alternative II: Right-In and Right-Out Only At Everett Avenue Based on review of the collision data, field observations and discussions with city staff and residents, Stantec recommends restricting the movements on Hawthorne Avenue to right-turn only during the a.m. (7 – 9) and p.m. (4 – 6) peak hours on weekdays, Monday to Friday. Together with some enforcement, the implementation of the time limited right-turn only restriction on Everett Avenue at the intersection could be effective. A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE 3 2.0 FOCUS OF PROJECT AND STUDY APPROACH 2.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES DESCRIPTION One of the purpose of this focus traffic operation study is to evaluate the potential impacts of moving the existing northbound lane drop on Middlefield Road from north of Everett Avenue near Hawthorne Avenue to south of Everett Avenue. This is based on a draft plan line concept drawing provided by the City (see Appendix A). It is our understanding that the existing crash data indicated traffic on Everett Avenue making an eastbound left-turn to travel northbound on Middlefield Road towards Menlo Park being struck by northbound traffic. The study will also analyze if making Everett Avenue into Right-In and Right- Out only might significantly impact traffic on Lytton Avenue and Middlefield Road. Lastly, it is our understanding that there is an interest in the community to improve pedestrian connections across Middlefield Road. Stantec will discuss potential pedestrian improvement measures that could enhance pedestrians’ safety at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings by increasing driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts. 2.2 STUDY APPROACH Stantec collected the existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection turning movement counts for auto and pedestrians for the study intersections of Middlefield Road/Everett Avenue, Middlefield Road/Lytton Avenue and Middlefield Road/Hawthorne Avenue. The counts would be utilized in computing the base and future alternative level of service (LOS) analysis. Field observations were conducted for two days during the a.m. and p.m. peak period. Stantec created a Synchro traffic model to evaluate the potential impacts of moving the existing northbound lane drop on Middlefield Road from north of Everett Avenue near Hawthorne Avenue to south of Everett Avenue. Study Vicinity A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE 4 3.0 SETTING The following section describes the existing transportation conditions in the vicinity of the study area, including descriptions of the existing street system and intersection operating conditions. 3.1 EXISTING STREET SYSTEM Middlefield Avenue is generally a four lane north-south arterial roadway that connects downtown Palo Alto near University Avenue in the south to Menlo Park in the north near Willow Road. The existing average daily traffic (ADT) is approximately 14,000 vehicles per day (vpd). Lytton Avenue is generally a four lane east-west arterial roadway that connects Alma Street near the Caltrain Station in the west to Middlefield Road in the east. The existing ADT is approximately 9,000 vpd. Everett Avenue is a two lane local residential street that connects from Alma Street in the west to Middlefield Road in the east. The ADT volumes near Middlefield Road are approximately 2,400 vpd. Hawthorne Avenue is a two lane local residential street that connects from Alma Street in the west to Middlefield Road in the east. The ADT volumes near Middlefield Road are approximately 2,600 vpd. 3.1.1 Traffic Data Collection The a.m. and p.m. peak hours intersection turning movement counts for auto and pedestrians were obtained for three study intersections:1 • Middlefield Road/Hawthorne Avenue • Middlefield Road/Everett Avenue • Middlefield Road/Lytton Avenue The counts would be utilized in computing the base and future alternative level of service (LOS), queuing and travel time analysis. In addition, field observations were conducted for two days during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. 48-hours Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts were obtained at six roadway segments (two each on Byron Street and Webster Street; and one each on Everett Avenue and Hawthorne Avenue). 1 Traffic counts collected on March 17-18, 2015 A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE 5 3.2 ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION OPERATING CONDITIONS This section summarizes existing roadway and intersection operating conditions. The analysis is based on recent intersection turning movement counts data collected as described in Section 3.1.1 (Traffic Data Collection), intersection lane configurations, and signal timing data. Figure 1 shows the turning movement volumes at each study intersection. Intersection turning movement counts collected by Stantec are included in Appendix B. The heaviest movement for both peak hours is in the southbound direction. Field observations showed that frequently there is a queue on Middlefield Road in the southbound that starts at Lytton Avenue and could backup to slightly past Everett Avenue as shown in Exhibit I. In the northbound, it was observed that occasionally the queue that starts at the intersection of Willow Avenue/Middlefield Road could backup and overflow to slightly south of Hawthorne Avenue as shown in Exhibit II. Based on discussions with City staff, it was also noted that occasionally the northbound queuing could also overflow and extend to Lytton Avenue. 3.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The following is the City’s criteria of significance to determine the potential impacts associated with a proposed project or action: the operational impacts on intersections are considered significant when project-related traffic causes the intersection level of service to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or LOS F, or from LOS E to LOS F. Exhibit I: Middlefield Rd - Looking South near Everett Ave Exhibit II: Middlefield Road – Looking North Near Hawthorne Ave A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE 6 Traffic operating conditions are evaluated through the determination of Level of Service (LOS), a qualitative measure describing operational conditions. In Palo Alto, LOS A through D are considered acceptable, and LOS E and LOS F are considered unacceptable service levels. A description of the level of service grades and their associated ranges of average controlled delay for signalized intersections is included in Appendix C. 3.3.1 Intersection Level of Service The results of the LOS analysis for the study intersections are shown in Table 1. The LOS for the intersection of Middlefield Road/Lytton Avenue operate at acceptable LOS D or better while the LOS at the other two intersections operate at unacceptable LOS F. Table 1: Existing LOS of Study Intersections ID Intersection Existing Control A.M. P.M. Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Middlefield Road/Hawthorne Avenue One-Way Stop 126.9 F 44.8 E 2 Middlefield Road/Everett Avenue Two-Way Stop 32.7 D 57.9 F 3 Middlefield Road/Lytton Avenue Signal 51.0 D 48.0 D The turning movement counts collected for the three study intersections and ADT volumes are included in Appendix B. Detailed level of service worksheets are provided in Appendix B. The primary causes of the congestion (and associated long delays and low service levels) at the two LOS F intersections are: • Middlefield Road/Hawthorne Avenue – the outbound left-turn volumes from the side street operates at LOS F due to heavy traffic on Middlefield Road. Sight visibility to the north is limited. • Middlefield Road/Everett Avenue – the outbound left-turn volumes from the side street operates at LOS F due to heavy traffic on Middlefield Road. Sight visibility could be impaired due to the frequent queueing to the south of the intersection. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 1 Focus Traffic Operation Study of Middlefield Road near Everett Avenue Legend Average Daily Traffic (ADT) AM (PM) Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes Study Intersections 1 3 2 X XXXX 2,5 9 0 398 (42) 6 5 47 8 ( 6 2 6 ) (10 8 ) 1 3 (77 6 ) 8 1 9 19( 1 7 ) (22 ) 4 3 1(1) (23 ) 1 8 11(5 )51(2 6 ) (94 ) 1 5 (66 7 ) 8 2 8 (24 ) 3 4 (37 ) 1 9 2(3 ) 42 8 ( 5 9 4 ) 9(6 ) (30 ) 6 5(8) (22 5 ) 1 5 2 138 ( 8 4 ) 9(11 ) (18 4 ) 3 7 4 (49 7 ) 4 8 2 (83 ) 7 4 (11) 7 4(1 4 ) 27 8 ( 3 6 7 ) 13 2 ( 8 5 ) (18 3 ) 2 4 XX(XX) 2,3 7 4 256 465 882 A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE 8 4.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS This section presents the assessment of potential transportation impacts of alternatives in terms of traffic, pedestrians and bicycles access. As indicated previously, the study focusses on a few issues: • Evaluate the potential impacts of moving the existing northbound lane drop on Middlefield Road from north of Everett Avenue near Hawthorne Avenue to south of Everett Avenue. • Analyze pros and cons of making Everett Avenue approaches at Middlefield Road into Right-In and Right-Out Only. • Discuss potential pedestrian improvement measures for crossing Middlefield Road. 4.1 ALTERNATIVE I: MOVE NORTHBOUND LANE DROP TO SOUTH OF EVERETT AVENUE This scenario is based on a conceptual alternative provided by the City that moved the new lane drop to just south of Everett Avenue. Currently, the two northbond lanes on Middlefield is reduced or merged into a single lane at approximately 200 feet south of Hawthorne Avenue. Stantec created a Synchro traffic model to analyze the alternative. Under this alternative, it was assumed that a median would be constructed on Middlefield Road across Everett Avenue as shown in Exhibit III. Traffic approaching Hawthorne Avenue at Middlefield Road could only be making a right-turn in or right-turn out. Existing left-turn or through traffic in Everett Avenue would be diverted to use either Lytton Avenue or Hawthorne Avenue. It is assumed that most of these traffic would use Lytton Avenue since it is signalized. Based on the analysis, the results of LOS analysis is shown in Table 2. The LOS at the interseciton of Middlefield Road/Hawthorne Avenue would deteriorate from LOS E to LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. The LOS at the interseciton of Middlefield Road/Lytton Avenue would deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E during the a.m. peak hour. The LOS at the interseciton of Middlefield Road/Everett Avenue would improve from LOS F to LOS B. The travel speed of the segment would also improve since there would not be any left or through movement from side street traffic at Everett Avenue. However, as noted above the Exhibit III: Alternative - New Lane Drop To Just South Of Everett Avenue A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE 9 LOS at the other two study intersections would be negatively impacted. In addition, it is also anticipated that it would be more difficult for vehicles on the eastside of Middlefield Road to back out of their driveway when the existing two-lane northbound Middlefield Road is changed to one-lane in this scenario. The City of Menlo Park recently changed the signal timing at the intersection of Willow Road/Middlefield Road. It might take some time for the City of Menlo Park to monitor and make any appropriate adjustments to better serve the traffic demands. Due to these factors, it is recommended the City work with Menlo Park for any further adjustments to the signal timing at Willow/Middlefield and follow up to conduct additional study as appropriate before taking further action. Table 2: Existing and Lane Drop Alternative LOS of Study Intersections Existing Control Existing Condition Lane Drop Alternative ID Intersection A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Middlefield Rd/Hawthorne Ave One-Way Stop 126.9 F 44.8 E 123.5 F 59.9 F 2 Middlefield Rd/Everett Ave Two- Way Stop 32.7 D 57.9 F 12.6 B 14.9 B 3 Middlefield Rd/Lytton Ave Signal 51.0 D 48.0 D 57.7 E 52.9 D 4.2 ALTERNATIVE II: RIGHT-IN AND RIGHT-OUT ONLY AT EVERETT AVENUE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS As mentioned earlier, field observations showed that there is frequently a queue that developed on Middlefield Road in the southbound that starts at Lytton Avenue and could backup to slightly past Everett Avenue as shown in Exhibit I. When that happens, the queue on both southbound lanes could block the visibility of eastbound vehicles on Everett Avenue waiting to make a left or through movement. Since the northbound traffic on Middlefield Road during the peak hour could be quite heavy and traveling at high speed, it is generally difficult for the eastbound or westbound traffic on Hawthorne Avenue to execute the movement (either a left or through movement) during the peak hours. Based on a review of the collision data, our field observations and discussions with city staff and residents, Stantec recommends restricting the movements on Hawthorne Avenue to right- turn only during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours on weekdays (Monday to Friday) with a sign similar to that shown in Exhibit IV. Pedestrian safety might also be improved under this A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE 10 scenario since the potential conflicts between pedestrians crossing Middlefield Road and vehicles on Everett Avenue making eastbound left-turn or westbound right-turn would be eliminated. Together with some enforcement, the implementation of the time limited right-turn only restriction on Everett Avenue at the intersection could be effective. 4.3 POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT MEASURES FOR CROSSING MIDDLEFIELD ROAD Based on the peak hour counts, the maximum number of pedestrians that cross Middlefield Road (to the north of Everett Avenue) was 10 during the a.m. peak hour. An improved pedestrian crossing was assumed under Alternative I as discussed above. A five-foot pedestrian refuge was assumed for the median. In addition, a Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB) was proposed. RRFB can enhance safety by reducing crashes between vehicles and pedestrians at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings by increasing driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts. Exhibit IV: Example Right-Turn Only Sign at Alma Street/Ravenswood Avenue, Menlo Park, Ca RRFB A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE 11 Typically together with RRFB, a pedestrian refuge at the median is also recommended for crossing three or more lanes of roadway. The pedestrian refuge would provide some protection as pedestrians cross the street. Since Alternative I is not the recommended alternative in the short-term, it was the consensus of the group during the public meeting2 to not recommend installation of RRFB at the existing intersection. 5.0 CONCLUSION The purpose of this study is to conduct a focus traffic study of Middlefield Road near Everett Avenue. The specific tasks include: • Evaluate potential impacts of moving the existing northbound lane drop on Middlefield Road from north of Everett Avenue to south of Everett Avenue. • Evaluate safety improvements at the intersection of Middlefield Road/Everett Avenue. Stantec obtained a.m. and p.m. peak hours intersection turning movement counts at three study intersections: • Middlefield Road/Hawthorne Avenue • Middlefield Road/Everett Avenue • Middlefield Road/Lytton Avenue The level of service (LOS) for the intersection of Middlefield Road/Lytton Avenue operate at acceptable LOS D or better while the LOS at the other two intersections operate at unacceptable LOS F. Alternative I: Move Northbound Lane Drop to South of Everett Avenue Under this alternative, the LOS at the interseciton of Middlefield Road/Hawthorne Avenue would deteriorate from LOS E to LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. And the LOS at the interseciton of Middlefield Road/Lytton Avenue would deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E during the a.m. peak hour. The City of Menlo Park has recently changed the signal timing at the intersection of Willow Road/Middlefield Road. It might take some time for the City of Menlo Park to monitor and make any appropriate adjustments to better serve the traffic demands. Due to all the factors above, it is recommended the City work with Menlo Park for any further adjustments to the signal timing at Willow/Middlefield and follow up to conduct additional study as appropriate before taking further action. 2 April 16, 2015 meeting at City Hall A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE 12 Alternative II: Right-In and Right-Out Only At Everett Avenue Based on review of the collision data, field observations and discussions with city staff and residents, Stantec recommends restricting the movements on Hawthorne Avenue to right-turn only during the a.m. (7 – 9) and p.m. (4 – 6) peak hours on weekdays, Monday to Friday. Together with some enforcement, the implementation of the time limited right-turn only restriction on Everett Avenue at the intersection could be effective. A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE A.1 Appendix A Proposed Project Alternative A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE B.2 Appendix B Traffic Volume Counts File Name : Date : START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Uturn Total 07:00 0 138 8 0 146 0 0 0 0 0 4 69 0 0 73 2 0 4 0 6 225 0 07:15 0 145 4 0 149 0 0 0 0 0 1 75 0 0 76 12 0 4 0 16 241 0 07:30 0 177 0 0 177 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 88 14 0 5 0 19 284 0 07:45 0 226 5 0 231 0 0 0 0 0 4 117 0 0 121 19 0 13 0 32 384 0 Total 0 686 17 0 703 0 0 0 0 0 9 349 0 0 358 47 0 26 0 73 1134 0 08:00 0 180 4 0 184 0 0 0 0 0 4 104 0 0 108 14 0 13 0 27 319 0 08:15 0 214 1 0 215 0 0 0 0 0 5 138 0 0 143 20 0 10 0 30 388 0 08:30 0 190 3 0 193 0 0 0 0 0 6 118 0 0 124 12 0 7 0 19 336 0 08:45 0 224 6 0 230 0 0 0 0 0 5 125 0 0 130 12 0 5 0 17 377 0 Total 0 808 14 0 822 0 0 0 0 0 20 485 0 0 505 58 0 35 0 93 1420 0 16:00 0 152 6 0 158 0 0 0 0 0 3 169 0 0 172 22 0 6 0 28 358 0 16:15 0 162 13 0 175 0 0 0 0 0 3 157 0 0 160 16 0 4 0 20 355 0 16:30 0 180 15 0 195 0 0 0 0 0 2 177 0 0 179 10 0 8 0 18 392 0 16:45 0 174 23 0 197 0 0 0 0 0 2 153 0 0 155 10 0 5 0 15 367 0 Total 0 668 57 0 725 0 0 0 0 0 10 656 0 0 666 58 0 23 0 81 1472 0 17:00 0 177 24 0 201 0 0 0 0 0 5 158 0 0 163 9 0 9 0 18 382 0 17:15 0 192 22 0 214 0 0 0 0 0 5 148 0 0 153 13 0 3 0 16 383 0 17:30 0 220 26 0 246 0 0 0 0 0 2 167 0 0 169 8 0 6 0 14 429 0 17:45 0 187 36 0 223 0 0 0 0 0 5 155 0 0 160 12 0 4 0 16 399 0 Total 0 776 108 0 884 0 0 0 0 0 17 628 0 0 645 42 0 22 0 64 1593 0 Grand Total 0 2938 196 0 3134 0 0 0 0 0 56 2118 0 0 2174 205 0 106 0 311 5619 0 Apprch % 0.0% 93.7% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 97.4% 0.0% 0.0% 65.9% 0.0% 34.1% 0.0% Total % 0.0% 52.3% 3.5% 0.0% 55.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 37.7% 0.0% 0.0% 38.7% 3.6% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 5.5% 100.0% 15-7226-001 Middlefield Road-Hawthorne Avenue.ppd Unshifted Count = All Vehicles Nothing on Bank 2 3/17/2015 Middlefield Road Southbound Westbound Middlefield Road Northbound Hawthorne Avenue Eastbound ALL TRAFFIC DATA City of Palo Alto All Vehicles on Unshifted Peds & Bikes on Bank 1 ALL TRAFFIC DATA (916) 771-8700 orders@atdtraffic.com File Name : Date : 15-7226-001 Middlefield Road-Hawthorne Avenue.ppd Unshifted Count = All Vehicles Nothing on Bank 2 3/17/2015 ALL TRAFFIC DATA City of Palo Alto All Vehicles on Unshifted Peds & Bikes on Bank 1 ALL TRAFFIC DATA (916) 771-8700 orders@atdtraffic.com START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 to 08:45 Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 07:45 0 226 5 0 231 0 0 0 0 0 4 117 0 0 121 19 0 13 0 32 384 08:00 0 180 4 0 184 0 0 0 0 0 4 104 0 0 108 14 0 13 0 27 319 08:15 0 214 1 0 215 0 0 0 0 0 5 138 0 0 143 20 0 10 0 30 388 08:30 0 190 3 0 193 0 0 0 0 0 6 118 0 0 124 12 0 7 0 19 336 Total Volume 0 810 13 0 823 0 0 0 0 0 19 477 0 0 496 65 0 43 0 108 1427 % App Total 0.0% 98.4% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 96.2% 0.0% 0.0% 60.2% 0.0% 39.8% 0.0% PHF .000 .896 .650 .000 .891 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .792 .864 .000 .000 .867 .813 .000 .827 .000 .844 .919 START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 17:00 to 18:00 Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 17:00 17:00 0 177 24 0 201 0 0 0 0 0 5 158 0 0 163 9 0 9 0 18 382 17:15 0 192 22 0 214 0 0 0 0 0 5 148 0 0 153 13 0 3 0 16 383 17:30 0 220 26 0 246 0 0 0 0 0 2 167 0 0 169 8 0 6 0 14 429 17:45 0 187 36 0 223 0 0 0 0 0 5 155 0 0 160 12 0 4 0 16 399 Total Volume 0 776 108 0 884 0 0 0 0 0 17 628 0 0 645 42 0 22 0 64 1593 % App Total 0.0% 87.8% 12.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 97.4% 0.0% 0.0% 65.6% 0.0% 34.4% 0.0% PHF .000 .882 .750 .000 .898 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .850 .940 .000 .000 .954 .808 .000 .611 .000 .889 .928 Middlefield Road Southbound PM PEAK HOUR Middlefield Road Northbound AM PEAK HOUR Hawthorne Avenue Eastbound Middlefield Road Northbound Westbound Middlefield Road Southbound Hawthorne Avenue Eastbound Westbound File Name : Date : START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL Total Ped Total 07:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 07:15 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 07:30 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 5 1 07:45 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Total 0 3 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 2 5 3 11 5 08:00 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 08:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 08:30 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 08:45 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Total 0 4 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 8 0 16:00 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 16:15 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 16:30 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 4 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 8 2 17:00 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 17:30 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 17:45 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 Total 0 7 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 1 0 0 1 1 15 2 Grand Total 0 18 4 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 2 0 4 7 6 42 9 Apprch % 0.0% 81.8% 18.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 66.7% Total % 0.0% 42.9% 9.5% 52.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 4.8% 0.0% 9.5% 14.3% 100.0% Hawthorne Avenue Eastbound Nothing on Bank 2 Middlefield Road Southbound Westbound Middlefield Road Northbound Bank 1 Count = Peds & Bikes 3/17/2015 ALL TRAFFIC DATA City of Palo Alto (916) 771-8700 All Vehicles on Unshifted orders@atdtraffic.com 15-7226-001 Middlefield Road-Hawthorne Avenue.ppd Peds & Bikes on Bank 1 File Name : Date : Nothing on Bank 2 Bank 1 Count = Peds & Bikes 3/17/2015 ALL TRAFFIC DATA City of Palo Alto (916) 771-8700 All Vehicles on Unshifted orders@atdtraffic.com 15-7226-001 Middlefield Road-Hawthorne Avenue.ppd Peds & Bikes on Bank 1 START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 to 08:45 Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 07:45 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 08:00 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 08:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 08:30 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Total Volume 0500 5 0000 0 0200 2 0020 2 9 % App Total 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% PHF .000 .625 .000 .625 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .000 .000 .500 .500 .750 START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 17:00 to 18:00 Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 17:00 17:00 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 17:30 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 5 17:45 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 Total Volume 0701 7 0000 0 0700 7 1001 1 15 % App Total 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% PHF .000 .583 .000 .583 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .438 .000 .438 .250 .000 .000 .250 .625 PM PEAK HOUR Middlefield Road Southbound Westbound Middlefield Road Northbound Hawthorne Avenue Eastbound AM PEAK HOUR Middlefield Road Southbound Westbound Middlefield Road Northbound Hawthorne Avenue Eastbound File Name : Date : START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Uturn Total 07:00 2 137 3 0 142 0 5 4 0 9 0 59 0 0 59 9 0 5 0 14 224 0 07:15 1 150 2 0 153 0 5 7 0 12 3 61 0 0 64 6 0 1 0 7 236 0 07:30 4 171 4 0 179 1 3 9 0 13 2 82 0 0 84 0 0 5 0 5 281 0 07:45 5 230 5 0 240 0 4 12 0 16 3 102 0 0 105 4 1 6 0 11 372 0 Total 12 688 14 0 714 1 17 32 0 50 8 304 0 0 312 19 1 17 0 37 1113 0 08:00 7 187 2 0 196 0 3 12 0 15 3 97 0 0 100 3 2 16 0 21 332 0 08:15 5 217 2 0 224 0 2 10 0 12 2 124 2 0 128 6 0 5 0 11 375 0 08:30 2 194 6 0 202 1 2 17 0 20 1 105 0 0 106 5 3 7 0 15 343 0 08:45 3 218 3 0 224 0 4 9 0 13 3 114 1 0 118 7 1 7 0 15 370 0 Total 17 816 13 0 846 1 11 48 0 60 9 440 3 0 452 21 6 35 0 62 1420 0 16:00 8 131 19 0 158 1 0 5 0 6 0 152 3 0 155 14 14 4 0 32 351 0 16:15 3 140 23 0 166 0 3 4 0 7 3 136 1 0 140 15 10 3 0 28 341 0 16:30 4 167 16 0 187 1 1 2 0 4 1 176 1 0 178 6 14 1 0 21 390 0 16:45 10 159 12 0 181 0 4 6 0 10 3 148 2 0 153 6 9 2 0 17 361 0 Total 25 597 70 0 692 2 8 17 0 27 7 612 7 0 626 41 47 10 0 98 1443 0 17:00 5 157 24 0 186 0 2 8 0 10 1 144 0 0 145 6 11 4 0 21 362 0 17:15 9 168 19 0 196 0 1 6 0 7 1 144 1 0 146 8 10 8 0 26 375 0 17:30 15 181 27 0 223 1 1 4 0 6 2 173 1 0 176 7 2 5 0 14 419 0 17:45 8 161 24 0 193 0 1 8 0 9 2 133 1 0 136 2 7 7 0 16 354 0 Total 37 667 94 0 798 1 5 26 0 32 6 594 3 0 603 23 30 24 0 77 1510 0 % App Total 4.6% 83.6% 11.8% 0.0% 3.1% 15.6% 81.3% 0.0% 1.0% 98.5% 0.5% 0.0% 29.9% 39.0% 31.2% 0.0% PHF .617 .921 .870 .000 .895 .250 .625 .813 .000 .800 .750 .858 .750 .000 .857 .719 .682 .750 .000 .740 .901 Grand Total 91 2768 191 0 3050 5 41 123 0 169 30 1950 13 0 1993 104 84 86 0 274 5486 0 Apprch % 3.0% 90.8% 6.3% 0.0% 3.0% 24.3% 72.8% 0.0% 1.5% 97.8% 0.7% 0.0% 38.0% 30.7% 31.4% 0.0% Total % 1.7% 50.5% 3.5% 0.0% 55.6% 0.1% 0.7% 2.2% 0.0% 3.1% 0.5% 35.5% 0.2% 0.0% 36.3% 1.9% 1.5% 1.6% 0.0% 5.0% 100.0% 15-7226-002 Middlefield Road-Everett Avenue.ppd Unshifted Count = All Vehicles Nothing on Bank 2 3/17/2015 Middlefield Road Southbound Middlefield Road Northbound Everett Avenue Eastbound Everett Avenue Westbound ALL TRAFFIC DATA City of Palo Alto All Vehicles on Unshifted Peds & Bikes on Bank 1 ALL TRAFFIC DATA (916) 771-8700 orders@atdtraffic.com File Name : Date : 15-7226-002 Middlefield Road-Everett Avenue.ppd Unshifted Count = All Vehicles Nothing on Bank 2 3/17/2015 ALL TRAFFIC DATA City of Palo Alto All Vehicles on Unshifted Peds & Bikes on Bank 1 ALL TRAFFIC DATA (916) 771-8700 orders@atdtraffic.com START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 to 08:45 Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 07:45 5 230 5 0 240 0 4 12 0 16 3 102 0 0 105 4 1 6 0 11 372 08:00 7 187 2 0 196 0 3 12 0 15 3 97 0 0 100 3 2 16 0 21 332 08:15 5 217 2 0 224 0 2 10 0 12 2 124 2 0 128 6 0 5 0 11 375 08:30 2 194 6 0 202 1 2 17 0 20 1 105 0 0 106 5 3 7 0 15 343 Total Volume 19 828 15 0 862 1 11 51 0 63 9 428 2 0 439 18 6 34 0 58 1422 % App Total 2.2% 96.1% 1.7% 0.0% 1.6% 17.5% 81.0% 0.0% 2.1% 97.5% 0.5% 0.0% 31.0% 10.3% 58.6% 0.0% PHF .679 .900 .625 .000 .898 .250 .688 .750 .000 .788 .750 .863 .250 .000 .857 .750 .500 .531 .000 .690 .948 START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:45 to 17:45 Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 16:45 16:45 10 159 12 0 181 0 4 6 0 10 3 148 2 0 153 6 9 2 0 17 361 17:00 5 157 24 0 186 0 2 8 0 10 1 144 0 0 145 6 11 4 0 21 362 17:15 9 168 19 0 196 0 1 6 0 7 1 144 1 0 146 8 10 8 0 26 375 17:30 15 181 27 0 223 1 1 4 0 6 2 173 1 0 176 7 2 5 0 14 419 Total Volume 39 665 82 0 786 1 8 24 0 33 7 609 4 0 620 27 32 19 0 78 1517 % App Total 5.0% 84.6% 10.4% 0.0% 3.0% 24.2% 72.7% 0.0% 1.1% 98.2% 0.6% 0.0% 34.6% 41.0% 24.4% 0.0% PHF .650 .919 .759 .000 .881 .250 .500 .750 .000 .825 .583 .880 .500 .000 .881 .844 .727 .594 .000 .750 .905 AM PEAK HOUR Middlefield Road Southbound PM PEAK HOUR Everett Avenue Eastbound Middlefield Road Northbound Everett Avenue Westbound Middlefield Road Southbound Everett Avenue Eastbound Everett Avenue Westbound Middlefield Road Northbound File Name : Date : START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL Total Ped Total 07:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 3 07:15 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 4 07:30 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 2 07:45 0 2 0 0 2 0 6 1 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 Total 3 2 0 1 5 0 8 1 1 9 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 6 1 16 10 08:00 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 08:15 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 08:30 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 4 08:45 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 Total 0 6 0 0 6 0 4 0 11 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 12 13 16:00 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 16:15 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 7 2 16:30 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 3 1 1 5 0 1 1 0 2 1 3 0 1 4 0 0 1 1 1 12 3 17:00 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 17:15 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 17:30 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 7 2 17:45 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 7 0 Total 3 4 0 0 7 0 1 1 0 2 1 7 0 2 8 0 2 0 1 2 19 3 Grand Total 7 15 1 2 23 0 14 3 12 17 2 12 0 5 14 1 2 2 10 5 59 29 Apprch % 30.4% 65.2% 4.3% 0.0% 82.4% 17.6% 14.3% 85.7% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% Total % 11.9% 25.4% 1.7% 39.0% 0.0% 23.7% 5.1% 28.8% 3.4% 20.3% 0.0% 23.7% 1.7% 3.4% 3.4% 8.5% 100.0% Everett Avenue Eastbound Nothing on Bank 2 Middlefield Road Southbound Everett Avenue Westbound Middlefield Road Northbound Bank 1 Count = Peds & Bikes 3/17/2015 ALL TRAFFIC DATA City of Palo Alto (916) 771-8700 All Vehicles on Unshifted orders@atdtraffic.com 15-7226-002 Middlefield Road-Everett Avenue.ppd Peds & Bikes on Bank 1 File Name : Date : Nothing on Bank 2 Bank 1 Count = Peds & Bikes 3/17/2015 ALL TRAFFIC DATA City of Palo Alto (916) 771-8700 All Vehicles on Unshifted orders@atdtraffic.com 15-7226-002 Middlefield Road-Everett Avenue.ppd Peds & Bikes on Bank 1 START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 to 08:45 Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 07:45 0 2 0 0 2 0 6 1 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 08:00 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 08:15 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 08:30 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 Total Volume 0700 7 0911010 0100 1 0010 1 19 % App Total 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 90.0% 10.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% PHF .000 .583 .000 .583 .000 .375 .250 .357 .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .000 .250 .250 .528 START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:45 to 17:45 Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 16:45 16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 17:15 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 17:30 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 7 Total Volume 2300 5 0110 2 1302 4 0101 1 12 % App Total 40.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 25.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% PHF .500 .250 .000 .417 .000 .250 .250 .500 .250 .375 .000 .333 .000 .250 .000 .250 .429 PM PEAK HOUR Middlefield Road Southbound Everett Avenue Westbound Middlefield Road Northbound Everett Avenue Eastbound AM PEAK HOUR Middlefield Road Southbound Everett Avenue Westbound Middlefield Road Northbound Everett Avenue Eastbound File Name : Date : START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Uturn Total 07:00 2 55 86 0 143 1 19 3 0 23 23 40 0 0 63 18 2 9 0 29 258 0 07:15 0 58 88 0 146 0 18 2 0 20 13 45 1 0 59 16 2 13 0 31 256 0 07:30 1 89 81 0 171 1 18 0 0 19 21 68 2 0 91 20 3 13 0 36 317 0 07:45 2 135 115 0 252 4 38 1 0 43 27 65 1 0 93 36 3 18 0 57 445 0 Total 5 337 370 0 712 6 93 6 0 105 84 218 4 0 306 90 10 53 0 153 1276 0 08:00 1 131 70 0 202 1 37 2 0 40 33 56 0 0 89 40 2 19 0 61 392 0 08:15 2 128 90 0 220 0 31 3 0 34 28 85 2 0 115 40 10 18 0 68 437 0 08:30 2 103 99 0 204 0 32 3 0 35 44 67 1 0 112 36 9 19 0 64 415 0 08:45 2 127 89 0 218 2 34 1 0 37 31 79 3 0 113 37 5 15 0 57 425 0 Total 7 489 348 0 844 3 134 9 0 146 136 287 6 0 429 153 26 71 0 250 1669 0 16:00 5 93 49 0 147 1 12 4 0 17 21 77 1 0 99 78 49 21 0 148 411 0 16:15 1 110 34 0 145 3 11 3 0 17 20 78 4 0 102 63 30 26 0 119 383 0 16:30 2 110 50 0 162 1 13 8 0 22 16 100 4 0 120 66 48 17 0 131 435 0 16:45 4 103 40 0 147 2 16 5 0 23 22 99 3 0 124 56 50 21 0 127 421 0 Total 12 416 173 0 601 7 52 20 0 79 79 354 12 0 445 263 177 85 0 525 1650 0 17:00 4 125 42 0 171 4 22 1 0 27 17 82 5 0 104 55 53 24 0 132 434 0 17:15 1 116 49 0 166 0 12 6 0 18 22 94 5 0 121 60 47 14 0 121 426 0 17:30 3 153 45 0 201 2 16 2 0 20 19 93 2 0 114 62 36 17 0 115 450 0 17:45 3 121 48 0 172 0 14 2 0 16 27 93 2 0 122 48 47 28 0 123 433 0 Total 11 515 184 0 710 6 64 11 0 81 85 362 14 0 461 225 183 83 0 491 1743 0 Grand Total 35 1757 1075 0 2867 22 343 46 0 411 384 1221 36 0 1641 731 396 292 0 1419 6338 0 Apprch % 1.2% 61.3% 37.5% 0.0% 5.4% 83.5% 11.2% 0.0% 23.4% 74.4% 2.2% 0.0% 51.5% 27.9% 20.6% 0.0% Total % 0.6% 27.7% 17.0% 0.0% 45.2% 0.3% 5.4% 0.7% 0.0% 6.5% 6.1% 19.3% 0.6% 0.0% 25.9% 11.5% 6.2% 4.6% 0.0% 22.4% 100.0% 15-7226-003 Middlefield Road-Lytton Avenue.ppd Unshifted Count = All Vehicles Nothing on Bank 2 3/17/2015 Middlefield Road Southbound Lytton Avenue Westbound Middlefield Road Northbound Lytton Avenue Eastbound ALL TRAFFIC DATA City of Palo Alto All Vehicles on Unshifted Peds & Bikes on Bank 1 ALL TRAFFIC DATA (916) 771-8700 orders@atdtraffic.com File Name : Date : 15-7226-003 Middlefield Road-Lytton Avenue.ppd Unshifted Count = All Vehicles Nothing on Bank 2 3/17/2015 ALL TRAFFIC DATA City of Palo Alto All Vehicles on Unshifted Peds & Bikes on Bank 1 ALL TRAFFIC DATA (916) 771-8700 orders@atdtraffic.com START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 to 08:45 Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 07:45 2 135 115 0 252 4 38 1 0 43 27 65 1 0 93 36 3 18 0 57 445 08:00 1 131 70 0 202 1 37 2 0 40 33 56 0 0 89 40 2 19 0 61 392 08:15 2 128 90 0 220 0 31 3 0 34 28 85 2 0 115 40 10 18 0 68 437 08:30 2 103 99 0 204 0 32 3 0 35 44 67 1 0 112 36 9 19 0 64 415 Total Volume 7 497 374 0 878 5 138 9 0 152 132 273 4 0 409 152 24 74 0 250 1689 % App Total 0.8% 56.6% 42.6% 0.0% 3.3% 90.8% 5.9% 0.0% 32.3% 66.7% 1.0% 0.0% 60.8% 9.6% 29.6% 0.0% PHF .875 .920 .813 .000 .871 .313 .908 .750 .000 .884 .750 .803 .500 .000 .889 .950 .600 .974 .000 .919 .949 START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 17:00 to 18:00 Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 17:00 17:00 4 125 42 0 171 4 22 1 0 27 17 82 5 0 104 55 53 24 0 132 434 17:15 1 116 49 0 166 0 12 6 0 18 22 94 5 0 121 60 47 14 0 121 426 17:30 3 153 45 0 201 2 16 2 0 20 19 93 2 0 114 62 36 17 0 115 450 17:45 3 121 48 0 172 0 14 2 0 16 27 93 2 0 122 48 47 28 0 123 433 Total Volume 11 515 184 0 710 6 64 11 0 81 85 362 14 0 461 225 183 83 0 491 1743 % App Total 1.5% 72.5% 25.9% 0.0% 7.4% 79.0% 13.6% 0.0% 18.4% 78.5% 3.0% 0.0% 45.8% 37.3% 16.9% 0.0% PHF .688 .842 .939 .000 .883 .375 .727 .458 .000 .750 .787 .963 .700 .000 .945 .907 .863 .741 .000 .930 .968 Middlefield Road Southbound PM PEAK HOUR Middlefield Road Northbound AM PEAK HOUR Lytton Avenue Eastbound Middlefield Road Northbound Lytton Avenue Westbound Middlefield Road Southbound Lytton Avenue Eastbound Lytton Avenue Westbound File Name : Date : START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL Total Ped Total 07:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 07:15 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 1 4 10 07:30 1 0 0 1 1 1 5 0 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 8 3 07:45 0 1 1 0 2 0 5 0 1 5 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 2 10 4 Total 1 1 1 4 3 1 14 0 4 15 2 0 0 11 2 1 2 1 2 4 24 21 08:00 1 2 0 5 3 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 12 08:15 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 5 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 08:30 0 0 2 0 2 0 8 0 0 8 1 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 0 2 14 3 08:45 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 0 2 6 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 7 7 Total 1 3 2 6 6 2 19 0 3 21 2 1 0 18 3 0 1 2 1 3 33 28 16:00 0 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 5 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 1 0 3 6 14 16:15 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 2 7 2 16:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 3 0 0 3 4 5 16:45 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 10 Total 0 3 1 5 4 0 2 0 10 2 0 3 0 15 3 1 7 1 1 9 18 31 17:00 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 3 2 0 5 5 13 17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 3 4 2 17:30 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 7 17:45 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 4 1 1 6 11 7 Total 0 2 1 7 3 0 1 1 6 2 0 4 0 14 4 1 10 3 2 14 23 29 Grand Total 2 9 5 22 16 3 36 1 23 40 4 8 0 58 12 3 20 7 6 30 98 109 Apprch % 12.5% 56.3% 31.3% 7.5% 90.0% 2.5% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 10.0% 66.7% 23.3% Total % 2.0% 9.2% 5.1% 16.3% 3.1% 36.7% 1.0% 40.8% 4.1% 8.2% 0.0% 12.2% 3.1% 20.4% 7.1% 30.6% 100.0% Lytton Avenue Eastbound Nothing on Bank 2 Middlefield Road Southbound Lytton Avenue Westbound Middlefield Road Northbound Bank 1 Count = Peds & Bikes 3/17/2015 ALL TRAFFIC DATA City of Palo Alto (916) 771-8700 All Vehicles on Unshifted orders@atdtraffic.com 15-7226-003 Middlefield Road-Lytton Avenue.ppd Peds & Bikes on Bank 1 File Name : Date : Nothing on Bank 2 Bank 1 Count = Peds & Bikes 3/17/2015 ALL TRAFFIC DATA City of Palo Alto (916) 771-8700 All Vehicles on Unshifted orders@atdtraffic.com 15-7226-003 Middlefield Road-Lytton Avenue.ppd Peds & Bikes on Bank 1 START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 to 08:45 Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 07:45 0 1 1 0 2 0 5 0 1 5 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 2 10 08:00 1 2 0 5 3 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 08:15 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 5 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 08:30 0 0 2 0 2 0 8 0 0 8 1 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 0 2 14 Total Volume 1435 8 11902 20 31017 4 0221 4 36 % App Total 12.5% 50.0% 37.5% 5.0% 95.0% 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% PHF .250 .500 .375 .667 .250 .594 .000 .625 .750 .250 .000 .500 .000 .500 .500 .500 .643 START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT PEDS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 17:00 to 18:00 Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 17:00 17:00 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 3 2 0 5 5 17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 3 4 17:30 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 17:45 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 4 1 1 6 11 Total Volume 0217 3 0116 2 04014 4 11032 14 23 % App Total 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 7.1% 71.4% 21.4% PHF .000 .500 .250 .375 .000 .250 .250 .250 .000 .500 .000 .500 .250 .625 .375 .583 .523 PM PEAK HOUR Middlefield Road Southbound Lytton Avenue Westbound Middlefield Road Northbound Lytton Avenue Eastbound AM PEAK HOUR Middlefield Road Southbound Lytton Avenue Westbound Middlefield Road Northbound Lytton Avenue Eastbound A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE C.3 Appendix C Intersection LOS Analysis Appendix C1: Level of Service Definitions Table C1 – Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Service (LOS) Type of Intersection Control Stop Controlled Signalized Average Control Delay (sec/veh) Control Delay per Vehicle (sec/veh) A ≤10 ≤10 B > 10 – 15 > 10 – 20 C > 15 –25 > 20 –35 D > 25 –35 > 35 –55 E > 35 –50 > 55 –80 F > 50 > 80 Source: Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual, 4th ed. (2000 update). TRB. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000. A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE C.4 Appendix C2: Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Existing Palo Alto Middlefield Road Traffic Operation Study Existing AM Peak Hour 1: Middlefield Rd & Hawthorne Ave 4/6/2015 Synchro 9 Report Stantec Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 65 43 19 478 819 13 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.89 Hourly flow rate (vph) 77 51 22 549 920 15 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 918 1159 pX, platoon unblocked 0.86 vC, conflicting volume 1521 467 935 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1524 467 935 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 15 91 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 91 542 728 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 129 571 613 321 Volume Left 77 22 0 0 Volume Right 51 0 0 15 cSH 136 728 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.95 0.03 0.36 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 163 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 126.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F A Approach Delay (s) 126.9 0.8 0.0 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 10.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palo Alto Middlefield Road Traffic Operation Study Existing AM Peak Hour 2: Middlefield Rd & Everett Ave 4/6/2015 Synchro 9 Report Stantec Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 18 6 34 1 11 51 9 428 2 19 828 15 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 26 9 49 1 14 65 10 498 2 21 920 17 Pedestrians 10 9 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 Percent Blockage 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 455 pX, platoon unblocked 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 vC, conflicting volume 1321 1501 468 1086 1509 269 937 510 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1179 1375 468 924 1383 38 937 300 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 76 93 91 99 89 93 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 110 127 541 171 126 928 727 1149 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 84 80 259 251 481 477 Volume Left 26 1 10 0 21 0 Volume Right 49 65 0 2 0 17 cSH 212 425 727 1700 1149 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.40 0.19 0.01 0.15 0.02 0.28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 44 17 1010 Control Delay (s) 32.7 15.4 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 Lane LOS D C A A Approach Delay (s) 32.7 15.4 0.3 0.3 Approach LOS D C Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palo Alto Middlefield Road Traffic Operation Study Existing AM Peak Hour 3: Middlefield Rd & Lytton Ave 4/6/2015 Synchro 9 Report Stantec Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 152 24 74 5 138 9 132 278 4 7 482 374 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.7 4.7 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 *0.75 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 0.99 1.00 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1551 1839 3478 2580 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1681 1551 1839 3478 2580 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 26 80 6 157 10 148 312 4 8 554 430 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 47 00200100440 Lane Group Flow (vph) 140 84 0 0 171 0 0 463 0 0 948 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 17 17 5 1 2 2 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 19 1 4 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 4 4 2 2 1 1 3 3 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 15.0 14.6 20.0 40.8 Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 15.0 14.6 20.0 40.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.7 4.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 233 215 249 645 976 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.05 c0.09 c0.13 c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.60 0.39 0.69 0.72 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 43.6 42.2 44.4 41.3 32.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 1.2 7.7 3.8 22.1 Delay (s) 47.9 43.4 52.1 45.1 55.0 Level of Service D D D D E Approach Delay (s) 45.7 52.1 45.1 55.0 Approach LOS D D D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 51.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 107.8 Sum of lost time (s) 17.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Palo Alto Middlefield Road Traffic Operation Study Existing PM Peak Hour 1: Middlefield Rd & Hawthorne Ave 4/6/2015 Synchro 9 Report Stantec Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 42 22 17 626 776 108 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 47 25 18 659 862 120 Pedestrians 1 1 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 918 1159 pX, platoon unblocked 0.87 0.94 0.94 vC, conflicting volume 1619 492 983 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1379 332 855 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 59 96 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 115 623 733 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 72 677 575 407 Volume Left 47 18 0 0 Volume Right 25 0 0 120 cSH 160 733 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.45 0.02 0.34 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 52 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 44.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS E A Approach Delay (s) 44.8 0.7 0.0 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Palo Alto Middlefield Road Traffic Operation Study Existing PM Peak Hour 2: Middlefield Rd & Everett Ave 4/6/2015 Synchro 9 Report Stantec Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 23 30 24 1 5 26 6 594 3 37 667 94 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 31 41 32 1 6 32 7 691 3 41 741 104 Pedestrians 1 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 455 pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 vC, conflicting volume 1271 1585 426 1214 1635 347 847 694 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1065 1416 426 1000 1472 30 847 419 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 78 65 94 99 94 96 99 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 140 116 575 116 107 927 786 1016 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 104 40 352 349 412 475 Volume Left 31 1 7 0 41 0 Volume Right 32 32 0 3 0 104 cSH 165 383 786 1700 1016 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.63 0.10 0.01 0.21 0.04 0.28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 87 91030 Control Delay (s) 57.9 15.5 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 Lane LOS F C A A Approach Delay (s) 57.9 15.5 0.1 0.6 Approach LOS F C Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Palo Alto Middlefield Road Traffic Operation Study Existing PM Peak Hour 3: Middlefield Rd & Lytton Ave 4/6/2015 Synchro 9 Report Stantec Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 225 183 83 6 64 11 85 367 14 11 497 184 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.7 4.7 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 *0.75 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 0.98 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1665 1814 3479 2654 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1681 1665 1814 3479 2654 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 242 197 89 8 85 15 89 386 15 12 565 209 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 00400200170 Lane Group Flow (vph) 218 299 0 0 104 0 0 488 0 0 769 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 14 14 7 2 6 6 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 1 4 2 Bus Blockages (#/hr)000000010010 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 4 4 2 2 1 1 3 3 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 26.0 26.0 12.1 22.1 39.2 Effective Green, g (s) 26.0 26.0 12.1 22.1 39.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.10 0.19 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.7 4.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 374 370 187 658 890 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.18 c0.06 c0.14 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.58 0.81 0.55 0.74 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 40.6 43.0 49.8 44.7 36.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 12.2 3.5 4.5 8.8 Delay (s) 42.9 55.3 53.3 49.2 45.1 Level of Service D E D D D Approach Delay (s) 50.1 53.3 49.2 45.1 Approach LOS DDDD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 48.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 116.8 Sum of lost time (s) 17.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group A FOCUS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NEAR EVERETT AVENUE C.5 Appendix C3: Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Existing plus Project Palo Alto Middlefield Road Traffic Operation Study Lane Drop Alternative - AM Peak Hour 1: Middlefield Rd & Hawthorne Ave 4/6/2015 Synchro 9 Report Stantec Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 69 43 19 474 819 13 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.89 Hourly flow rate (vph) 82 51 22 545 920 15 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 406 1159 pX, platoon unblocked 0.91 vC, conflicting volume 1516 467 935 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1518 467 935 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 15 91 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 96 542 728 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 133 567 613 321 Volume Left 82 22 0 0 Volume Right 51 0 0 15 cSH 141 728 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.95 0.03 0.36 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 165 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 123.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F A Approach Delay (s) 123.5 0.8 0.0 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 10.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palo Alto Middlefield Road Traffic Operation Study Lane Drop Alternative - AM Peak Hour 2: Middlefield Rd & Everett Ave 4/6/2015 Synchro 9 Report Stantec Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 0 40 0 0 51 0 442 2 0 847 15 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 58 0 0 65 0 514 2 0 941 17 Pedestrians 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 455 57 pX, platoon unblocked 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.86 0.91 0.86 vC, conflicting volume 1529 1476 479 1054 1483 525 958 526 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1164 1105 233 640 1113 369 759 370 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 92 100 100 88 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 118 188 701 295 186 536 773 1011 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 58 65 516 627 330 Volume Left 00000 Volume Right 58 65 2 0 17 cSH 701 536 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.12 0.30 0.37 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 10 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 10.6 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B B Approach Delay (s) 10.6 12.6 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palo Alto Middlefield Road Traffic Operation Study Lane Drop Alternative - AM Peak Hour 3: Middlefield Rd & Lytton Ave 4/6/2015 Synchro 9 Report Stantec Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 166 24 74 6 149 9 141 269 4 32 481 374 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.7 4.7 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 *0.75 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 0.99 1.00 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1558 1841 3475 2582 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1681 1558 1841 3475 2582 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph) 180 26 80 7 169 10 158 302 4 37 553 430 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 41 00200100410 Lane Group Flow (vph) 148 97 0 0 184 0 0 463 0 0 979 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 17 17 5 1 2 2 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 19 1 4 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 4 4 2 2 1 1 3 3 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 15.5 15.3 20.1 40.8 Effective Green, g (s) 15.5 15.5 15.3 20.1 40.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.7 4.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 238 221 258 640 965 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.06 c0.10 c0.13 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.62 0.44 0.71 0.72 1.01 Uniform Delay, d1 44.0 42.8 44.8 41.9 34.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 1.4 9.0 4.1 32.7 Delay (s) 49.0 44.2 53.8 45.9 66.9 Level of Service D D D D E Approach Delay (s) 46.7 53.8 45.9 66.9 Approach LOS D D D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 57.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 109.1 Sum of lost time (s) 17.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Palo Alto Middlefield Road Traffic Operation Study New Lane Drop Alt - PM Peak Hour 1: Middlefield Rd & Hawthorne Ave 4/6/2015 Synchro 9 Report Stantec Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 49 22 17 619 776 108 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 55 25 18 652 862 120 Pedestrians 1 1 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 411 1159 pX, platoon unblocked 0.88 0.96 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 1612 492 983 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1449 383 895 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 47 96 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 105 589 721 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 80 669 575 407 Volume Left 55 18 0 0 Volume Right 25 0 0 120 cSH 140 721 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.57 0.02 0.34 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 72 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 59.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F A Approach Delay (s) 59.9 0.7 0.0 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Palo Alto Middlefield Road Traffic Operation Study New Lane Drop Alt - PM Peak Hour 2: Middlefield Rd & Everett Ave 4/6/2015 Synchro 9 Report Stantec Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 0 54 0 0 26 0 610 3 0 704 94 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 73 0 0 32 0 709 3 0 782 104 Pedestrians 1 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 Percent Blockage 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 455 52 pX, platoon unblocked 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.84 0.92 0.84 vC, conflicting volume 1579 1548 444 1175 1599 711 888 713 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1268 1233 236 808 1290 561 715 563 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 90 100 100 92 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 101 154 707 214 142 396 814 844 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 73 32 713 521 365 Volume Left 00000 Volume Right 73 32 3 0 104 cSH 707 396 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.08 0.42 0.31 0.21 Queue Length 95th (ft)97000 Control Delay (s) 10.7 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B B Approach Delay (s) 10.7 14.9 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palo Alto Middlefield Road Traffic Operation Study New Lane Drop Alt - PM Peak Hour 3: Middlefield Road/Middlefield Rd & Lytton Ave 4/6/2015 Synchro 9 Report Stantec Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 241 183 83 7 69 11 91 361 14 78 496 184 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.7 4.7 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 *0.75 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 0.98 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1665 1816 3477 2654 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm) 1681 1665 1816 3477 2654 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 259 197 89 9 92 15 96 380 15 89 564 209 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 00400200140 Lane Group Flow (vph) 233 301 0 0 112 0 0 489 0 0 848 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 14 14 7 2 6 6 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 1 4 2 Bus Blockages (#/hr)000000010010 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 4 4 2 2 1 1 3 3 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 26.2 26.2 12.5 22.3 41.0 Effective Green, g (s) 26.2 26.2 12.5 22.3 41.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.10 0.19 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.7 4.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 368 365 190 649 911 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.18 c0.06 c0.14 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.63 0.82 0.59 0.75 0.93 Uniform Delay, d1 42.2 44.4 51.0 46.0 37.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 14.0 4.9 5.0 15.7 Delay (s) 45.8 58.4 55.9 50.9 53.6 Level of Service D E E D D Approach Delay (s) 53.0 55.9 50.9 53.6 Approach LOS D E D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 52.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 119.4 Sum of lost time (s) 17.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Palo Alto Middlefield Road Traffic Operation Study New Lane Drop Alt - PM Peak Hour 6: Middlefield Rd & Ped Xing/Peds Xing 4/6/2015 Synchro 9 Report Stantec Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0000000636007980 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.7 4.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 3539 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 3539 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)0000000740008870 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph)0000000740008870 Turn Type NA NA Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 31.0 31.0 Effective Green, g (s) 31.0 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 Clearance Time (s) 4.7 4.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1443 2742 v/s Ratio Prot c0.40 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.51 0.32 Uniform Delay, d1 1.7 1.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 Delay (s)2.0 1.4 Level of Service A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.4 Approach LOS AAAA Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 1.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Lanes, Volumes, Timings 23: Lytton & Middlefield 11/16/2016 Middlefield & Lytton 5:00 pm 07/29/2015 Alt 6A - AM Exist Synchro 9 Report RFR Page 1 Lane Group SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 10 482 355 86 316 4 252 22 58 1 120 10 Future Volume (vph) 10 482 355 86 316 4 252 22 58 1 120 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.943 0.998 0.891 0.990 Flt Protected 0.999 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1755 0 1770 1859 0 1770 1660 0 0 1844 0 Flt Permitted 0.999 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1755 0 1770 1859 0 1770 1660 0 0 1844 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 32 63 3 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 30 Link Distance (ft) 466 467 565 576 Travel Time (s) 10.6 10.6 15.4 13.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 524 386 93 343 4 274 24 63 1 130 11 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 921 0 93 347 0 274 87 0 0 142 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft)0000 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft)6666 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 2 2 1 1 8 8 7 7 Permitted Phases Lanes, Volumes, Timings 23: Lytton & Middlefield 11/16/2016 Middlefield & Lytton 5:00 pm 07/29/2015 Alt 6A - AM Exist Synchro 9 Report RFR Page 2 Lane Group SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Detector Phase 2 2 1 1 8 8 7 7 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 26.0 26.0 25.0 25.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (s) 53.0 53.0 25.0 25.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (%) 40.8% 40.8% 19.2% 19.2% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% Maximum Green (s) 48.0 48.0 20.0 20.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 13.0 13.0 12.0 12.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 48.1 20.0 20.0 21.3 21.3 14.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.12 v/c Ratio 1.30 0.32 1.14 0.89 0.25 0.65 Control Delay 174.4 49.8 140.1 79.2 18.6 63.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 174.4 49.8 140.1 79.2 18.6 63.9 LOS F D F E B E Approach Delay 174.4 121.0 64.6 63.9 Approach LOS F F E E Queue Length 50th (ft) ~924 66 ~321 213 16 107 Queue Length 95th (ft) #1253 124 #541 #388 65 175 Internal Link Dist (ft) 386 387 485 496 Turn Bay Length (ft) 80 Base Capacity (vph) 711 290 305 319 351 335 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.30 0.32 1.14 0.86 0.25 0.42 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 121.9 Natural Cycle: 145 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.30 Intersection Signal Delay: 132.1 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 23: Lytton & Middlefield 11/16/2016 Middlefield & Lytton 5:00 pm 07/29/2015 Alt 6A - AM Exist Synchro 9 Report RFR Page 3 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 23: Lytton & Middlefield Lanes, Volumes, Timings 23: Lytton & Middlefield 11/16/2016 Middlefield & Lytton 5:00 pm 07/29/2015 Alt 6A - PM Exist Synchro 9 Report RFR Page 1 Lane Group SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 14 497 163 58 396 13 301 206 54 5 63 12 Future Volume (vph) 14 497 163 58 396 13 301 206 54 5 63 12 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.967 0.995 0.969 0.980 Flt Protected 0.999 0.950 0.950 0.997 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1799 0 1770 1853 0 1770 1805 0 0 1820 0 Flt Permitted 0.999 0.950 0.950 0.997 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1799 0 1770 1853 0 1770 1805 0 0 1820 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 13 1 9 6 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 466 467 565 576 Travel Time (s) 10.6 10.6 12.8 13.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 540 177 63 430 14 327 224 59 5 68 13 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 732 0 63 444 0 327 283 0 0 86 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft)0000 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft)6666 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 2 2 1 1 8 8 7 7 Permitted Phases Lanes, Volumes, Timings 23: Lytton & Middlefield 11/16/2016 Middlefield & Lytton 5:00 pm 07/29/2015 Alt 6A - PM Exist Synchro 9 Report RFR Page 2 Lane Group SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Detector Phase 2 2 1 1 8 8 7 7 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (s) 47.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (%) 36.2% 36.2% 23.8% 23.8% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% Maximum Green (s) 42.0 42.0 26.0 26.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 42.0 26.0 26.0 22.0 22.0 10.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.22 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.09 v/c Ratio 1.13 0.16 1.09 1.00 0.83 0.52 Control Delay 114.0 39.8 115.3 97.9 66.1 58.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 114.0 39.8 115.3 97.9 66.1 58.9 LOS F D F F E E Approach Delay 114.0 105.9 83.2 58.9 Approach LOS F F F E Queue Length 50th (ft) ~646 39 ~383 252 204 59 Queue Length 95th (ft) #932 82 #620 #464 #367 113 Internal Link Dist (ft) 386 387 485 496 Turn Bay Length (ft) 80 Base Capacity (vph) 646 388 407 328 342 342 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.13 0.16 1.09 1.00 0.83 0.25 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 118.6 Natural Cycle: 145 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.13 Intersection Signal Delay: 99.7 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 23: Lytton & Middlefield 11/16/2016 Middlefield & Lytton 5:00 pm 07/29/2015 Alt 6A - PM Exist Synchro 9 Report RFR Page 3 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 23: Lytton & Middlefield Lanes, Volumes, Timings 23: Lytton & Middlefield 11/16/2016 Middlefield & Lytton 5:00 pm 07/29/2015 Alt 6C - AM Exist Synchro 9 Report RFR Page 1 Lane Group SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 10 482 355 86 316 4 252 22 58 1 120 10 Future Volume (vph) 10 482 355 86 316 4 252 22 58 1 120 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.937 0.998 0.891 0.990 Flt Protected 0.999 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3313 0 1770 1859 0 1770 1660 0 0 1844 0 Flt Permitted 0.999 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3313 0 1770 1859 0 1770 1660 0 0 1844 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 143 63 3 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 30 Link Distance (ft) 466 467 565 576 Travel Time (s) 10.6 10.6 15.4 13.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 524 386 93 343 4 274 24 63 1 130 11 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 921 0 93 347 0 274 87 0 0 142 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft)0000 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft)6666 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 2 2 1 1 8 8 7 7 Permitted Phases Lanes, Volumes, Timings 23: Lytton & Middlefield 11/16/2016 Middlefield & Lytton 5:00 pm 07/29/2015 Alt 6C - AM Exist Synchro 9 Report RFR Page 2 Lane Group SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Detector Phase 2 2 1 1 8 8 7 7 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 26.0 26.0 25.0 25.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (s) 44.0 44.0 34.0 34.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (%) 33.8% 33.8% 26.2% 26.2% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% Maximum Green (s) 39.0 39.0 29.0 29.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 13.0 13.0 12.0 12.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 36.8 26.7 26.7 21.1 21.1 14.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.18 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.23 0.82 0.86 0.25 0.63 Control Delay 38.3 40.5 60.7 73.6 18.9 61.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 38.3 40.5 60.7 73.6 18.9 61.9 LOS D D E E B E Approach Delay 38.3 56.4 60.4 61.9 Approach LOS D E E E Queue Length 50th (ft) 301 60 259 213 16 107 Queue Length 95th (ft) 411 113 #429 #388 65 175 Internal Link Dist (ft) 386 387 485 496 Turn Bay Length (ft) 80 Base Capacity (vph) 1212 444 466 336 366 353 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.76 0.21 0.74 0.82 0.24 0.40 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 117.2 Natural Cycle: 105 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.86 Intersection Signal Delay: 48.7 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 23: Lytton & Middlefield 11/16/2016 Middlefield & Lytton 5:00 pm 07/29/2015 Alt 6C - AM Exist Synchro 9 Report RFR Page 3 Splits and Phases: 23: Lytton & Middlefield Lanes, Volumes, Timings 23: Lytton & Middlefield 11/16/2016 Middlefield & Lytton 5:00 pm 07/29/2015 Alt 6C - PM Exist Synchro 9 Report RFR Page 1 Lane Group SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 14 497 163 58 396 13 301 206 54 5 63 12 Future Volume (vph) 14 497 163 58 396 13 301 206 54 5 63 12 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.964 0.995 0.969 0.980 Flt Protected 0.999 0.950 0.950 0.997 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3408 0 1770 1853 0 1770 1805 0 0 1820 0 Flt Permitted 0.999 0.950 0.950 0.997 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3408 0 1770 1853 0 1770 1805 0 0 1820 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 30 1 9 6 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 466 467 565 576 Travel Time (s) 10.6 10.6 12.8 13.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 540 177 63 430 14 327 224 59 5 68 13 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 732 0 63 444 0 327 283 0 0 86 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft)0000 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft)6666 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 2 2 1 1 8 8 7 7 Permitted Phases Lanes, Volumes, Timings 23: Lytton & Middlefield 11/16/2016 Middlefield & Lytton 5:00 pm 07/29/2015 Alt 6C - PM Exist Synchro 9 Report RFR Page 2 Lane Group SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Detector Phase 2 2 1 1 8 8 7 7 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (s) 33.0 33.0 40.0 40.0 31.0 31.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (%) 25.4% 25.4% 30.8% 30.8% 23.8% 23.8% 20.0% 20.0% Maximum Green (s) 28.0 28.0 35.0 35.0 27.0 27.0 22.0 22.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 28.4 32.6 32.6 25.2 25.2 10.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.29 0.29 0.22 0.22 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.12 0.82 0.82 0.69 0.49 Control Delay 49.1 32.4 52.4 60.9 49.8 57.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.1 32.4 55.1 60.9 49.8 57.3 LOS D C E E D E Approach Delay 49.1 52.3 55.8 57.3 Approach LOS D D E E Queue Length 50th (ft) 275 35 313 238 193 59 Queue Length 95th (ft) #404 74 #504 #404 303 113 Internal Link Dist (ft) 386 387 485 496 Turn Bay Length (ft) 80 Base Capacity (vph) 887 561 588 433 448 367 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 66 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 0.11 0.85 0.76 0.63 0.23 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 112.3 Natural Cycle: 105 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.83 Intersection Signal Delay: 52.4 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 23: Lytton & Middlefield 11/16/2016 Middlefield & Lytton 5:00 pm 07/29/2015 Alt 6C - PM Exist Synchro 9 Report RFR Page 3 Splits and Phases: 23: Lytton & Middlefield Collision Summary Report City of Palo Alto Transportation Department 11/30/16 From 1/1/2009 to 12/31/2013 Total Collisions: 33 Injury Collisions: 16 Fatal Collisions: 1 MIDDLEFIELD RD from HAWTHORNE AVE to LYTTON AVE Page 1 of 7 4110951 2/10/2009 18:17 Tuesday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Auto R/W Violation 0' Direction: Not State Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1# Killed: 021802A Hit & Run: No Dark ‐ Street Light Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 80 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver North Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 29 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated 4086391 3/17/2009 16:33 Tuesday Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle LYTTON AVE & MIDDLEFIELD RD Unknown 0' Direction: Not State Property Damage Only # Inj: 0# Killed: 0Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault: Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HBD Not Under Influ Making Left Turn Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 64 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Making Left Turn Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 32 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated 4242690 5/17/2009 10:04 Sunday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & LYTTON AVE Traffic Signals and Signs 0' Direction: Not State Complaint of Pain # Inj: 2# Killed: 021453A Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver South Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 21 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver East Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 61 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated 4504797 12/13/2009 18:04 Sunday Broadside Motor Vehicle on Othe MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Auto R/W Violation 0' Direction: Not State Complaint of Pain # Inj: 2# Killed: 021802A Hit & Run: No Dark ‐ Street Light Cloudy Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 50 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver North Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 23 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated 4566850 2/23/2010 07:36 Tuesday Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & LYTTON AVE Improper Turning 3' Direction: North Property Damage Only # Inj: 0# Killed: 022100A Hit & Run: Misde Daylight Cloudy Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver West Veh Type: Truck Sobriety: HBD Impairment Un Making Right Turn Assoc Factor: Not Stated Not State Age: Not Stated Not Stated Party 2 Driver South Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Stopped in Road Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 43 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated MIDDLEFIELD RD from HAWTHORNE AVE to LYTTON AVE Page 2 of 7 4859592 8/30/2010 02:57 Monday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Unsafe Starting or Backing 50' Direction: South Property Damage Only # Inj: 0# Killed: 022106 Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Backing Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 46 Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Stated Party 2 Driver South Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Stopped in Road Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 33 Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Stated 5019961 12/17/2010 14:08 Friday Hit Object Fixed Object MIDDLEFIELD RD & HAWTHORNE AVE Unsafe Speed 13' Direction: East Property Damage Only # Inj: 0# Killed: 022350 Hit & Run: No Daylight Cloudy Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver North Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Making Left Turn Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 20 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated 4990468 12/18/2010 00:49 Saturday Hit Object Fixed Object MIDDLEFIELD RD & HAWTHORNE AVE Driving Under Influence 0' Direction: Not State Fatal # Inj: 0# Killed: 123152A Hit & Run: No Dark ‐ Street Light Raining Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver South Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HBD Under Influenc Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 25 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Parked Vehicle East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable Parked Assoc Factor: Not Stated Not State Age: Not Stated Not Stated 5057911 1/13/2011 20:40 Thursday Rear‐End Bicycle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Driving Under Influence 90' Direction: South Severe Injury # Inj: 1# Killed: 023152A Hit & Run: Felony Dark ‐ Street Light Raining Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver North Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HBD Under Influenc Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 47 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Bicyclist North Veh Type: Bicycle Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 28 Not Stated Not Stated 5068336 2/10/2011 18:20 Thursday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Traffic Signals and Signs 0' Direction: Not State Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1# Killed: 022450A Hit & Run: No Dark ‐ No Street Li Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Stopped in Road Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 23 Not Required Not Stated Party 2 Driver South Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 46 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated 5173713 4/3/2011 12:40 Sunday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Unsafe Speed 0' Direction: Not State Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1# Killed: 022350 Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 74 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver North Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 29 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated MIDDLEFIELD RD from HAWTHORNE AVE to LYTTON AVE Page 3 of 7 5341024 10/6/2011 10:11 Thursday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Auto R/W Violation 8' Direction: East Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1# Killed: 021802A Hit & Run: No Daylight Cloudy Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver West Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 16 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver South Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 45 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated 5357764 10/19/2011 09:10 Wednesday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Auto R/W Violation 0' Direction: Not State Property Damage Only # Inj: 0# Killed: 021801A Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Making Left Turn Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 49 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver South Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 59 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated 5368318 10/27/2011 16:33 Thursday Rear‐End Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & LYTTON AVE Unsafe Speed 60' Direction: North Property Damage Only # Inj: 0# Killed: 022350 Hit & Run: Misde Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver South Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 26 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver South Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Stopped in Road Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 45 Not Stated Not Stated 5466643 1/9/2012 08:52 Monday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Unsafe Speed 0' Direction: Not State Other Visible Injury # Inj: 1# Killed: 022350 Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 21 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver Not State Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 75 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated 5591125 4/13/2012 09:20 Friday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Auto R/W Violation 0' Direction: Not State Property Damage Only # Inj: 0# Killed: 021802A Hit & Run: No Daylight Cloudy Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Making Left Turn Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 24 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver South Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 38 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated 5632099 5/19/2012 14:37 Saturday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Unsafe Speed 0' Direction: Not State Complaint of Pain # Inj: 2# Killed: 022350 Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver South Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 55 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver East Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 32 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated MIDDLEFIELD RD from HAWTHORNE AVE to LYTTON AVE Page 4 of 7 5725974 7/5/2012 19:23 Thursday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Auto R/W Violation 0' Direction: Not State Property Damage Only # Inj: 0# Killed: 021802A Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Entering Traffic Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 24 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver South Veh Type: Pickup Truck Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 23 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated 5748569 7/26/2012 14:09 Thursday Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle LYTTON AVE & MIDDLEFIELD RD Improper Turning 0' Direction: Not State Property Damage Only # Inj: 0# Killed: 022107 Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Other Bus Sobriety: HNBD Making Left Turn Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 39 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Making Left Turn Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 27 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated 5763015 9/25/2012 07:41 Tuesday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle EVERETT AVE & MIDDLEFIELD RD Auto R/W Violation 0' Direction: Not State Other Visible Injury # Inj: 4# Killed: 021802A Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver West Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 18 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver South Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 32 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated Party 3 Driver East Veh Type: Truck Sobriety: HNBD Stopped in Road Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 51 Not Required Not Stated 5828704 9/27/2012 12:38 Thursday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Auto R/W Violation 0' Direction: Not State Property Damage Only # Inj: 0# Killed: 021802A Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 29 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver North Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 35 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated 5807482 10/3/2012 14:42 Wednesday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Auto R/W Violation 0' Direction: Not State Other Visible Injury # Inj: 1# Killed: 021800A Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver West Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 33 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver North Veh Type: Motorcycle Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 59 Not Required Not Stated Party 3 Driver North Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Stopped in Road Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 55 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated MIDDLEFIELD RD from HAWTHORNE AVE to LYTTON AVE Page 5 of 7 5855576 10/24/2012 08:30 Wednesday Rear‐End Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & LYTTON AVE Unsafe Speed 30' Direction: North Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1# Killed: 022350 Hit & Run: No Daylight Raining Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver South Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 59 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver South Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: HNBD Stopped in Road Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 29 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated 6059728 4/29/2013 19:26 Monday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Auto R/W Violation 0' Direction: Not State Property Damage Only # Inj: 0# Killed: 021802A Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Making Left Turn Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 42 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver South Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 28 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated 6109122 6/10/2013 17:58 Monday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle EVERETT AVE & MIDDLEFIELD RD Auto R/W Violation 0' Direction: Not State Property Damage Only # Inj: 0# Killed: 021802 Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Stopped in Road Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 54 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver North Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 45 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated 6182440 8/18/2013 17:36 Sunday Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Traffic Signals and Signs 0' Direction: Not State Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1# Killed: 022450A Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 22 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver North Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 46 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 3 Parked Vehicle Not State Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable Parked Assoc Factor: Not Stated Not State Age: Not Stated Not Stated 6182428 8/21/2013 15:39 Wednesday Broadside Bicycle LYTTON AVE & MIDDLEFIELD RD Other Hazardous Movement 0' Direction: Not State Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1# Killed: 021200A Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Bicyclist South Veh Type: Bicycle Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 14 Not Stated Not Stated Party 2 Driver West Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Making Left Turn Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 47 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated 6232729 10/4/2013 09:24 Friday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & HAWTHORNE AVE Auto R/W Violation 0' Direction: Not State Complaint of Pain # Inj: 2# Killed: 021802A Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Making Left Turn Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 78 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver South Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 34 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated MIDDLEFIELD RD from HAWTHORNE AVE to LYTTON AVE Page 6 of 7 6296809 11/5/2013 17:53 Tuesday Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Improper Turning 20' Direction: North Property Damage Only # Inj: 0# Killed: 022107 Hit & Run: Misde Dark ‐ Street Light Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver North Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Other Unsafe Turning Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 78 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver North Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Stopped in Road Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 29 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated 6296873 11/7/2013 16:32 Thursday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Auto R/W Violation 0' Direction: Not State Property Damage Only # Inj: 0# Killed: 021802A Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 25 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver North Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 45 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 3 Driver North Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 38 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated 6325030 12/1/2013 12:51 Sunday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & EVERETT AVE Auto R/W Violation 0' Direction: Not State Property Damage Only # Inj: 0# Killed: 021802A Hit & Run: No Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Female Age: 76 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver North Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 41 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated 6350982 12/9/2013 19:13 Monday Broadside Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & HAWTHORNE AVE Auto R/W Violation 0' Direction: Not State Property Damage Only # Inj: 0# Killed: 021802A Hit & Run: No Dark ‐ Street Light Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver East Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Making Right Turn Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 49 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver South Veh Type: Truck Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 35 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated 6331820 12/31/2013 21:08 Tuesday Rear‐End Other Motor Vehicle MIDDLEFIELD RD & LYTTON AVE Unsafe Speed 75' Direction: North Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1# Killed: 022350 Hit & Run: No Dark ‐ Street Light Clear Pty at Fault:1 Party 1 Driver South Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Proceeding Straight Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 20 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated Party 2 Driver South Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD Stopped in Road Assoc Factor: Not Stated Male Age: 17 Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated MIDDLEFIELD RD from HAWTHORNE AVE to LYTTON AVE Page 7 of 7 Segment Length: 0.17 miles (920') Settings for Query: Start Date: 1/1/2009, End Date: 12/31/2013 (on SWITRS Data) Street: MIDDLEFIELD RD between HAWTHORNE AVE and LYTTON AVE Include Intersection Related: True City Reported: Palo Alto City: Palo Alto Sorted By: Date and Time City of Palo Alto (ID # 7375) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Program Resolution Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution for the Creation of a New Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program in the Evergreen Park and Mayfield Neighborhoods Bounded by Park Boulevard, Caltrain Rail Corridor, Oregon Expressway, Page Mill Road and El Camino Real and Finding of Exemption Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and take the following actions: 1. Adopt a resolution to implement the Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program (Attachment A and Attachment B) as a one-year pilot and direct staff to make corresponding changes to the RPP Administrative Guidelines (Attachment C); and 2. Find the program exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended this action with some modifications on December 14, 2016, as described further below. Executive Summary Beginning in early 2014, the City has been actively addressing parking and transportation challenges throughout the City using a multi-faceted approach focused on parking management, parking supply, and transportation demand management programs. Parking management strategies have included the development of a city-wide Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) ordinance, which was adopted in December 2014, as well as establishment of a new RPP district in residential areas surrounding Downtown. The city-wide RPP ordinance (Attachment D) includes parameters for neighborhoods to petition and request a new RPP district, or to request annexation to an existing RPP district. City of Palo Alto Page 2 On May 9, 2016, City Council directed staff to move forward with the implementation of an RPP program in the Evergreen Park neighborhood north of the California Avenue business district. The staff report from this meeting is available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52162. The minutes from this meeting are available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52738. On July 14, 2016, Staff conducted a community workshop at the PAUSD administration building to introduce the concept of RPP to neighborhood residents, property owners and business owners. This workshop was followed up by a resident focus group on August 25 and business focus group on September 29. A second public workshop was held on October 11 to present a draft of the RPP program design, and a survey was sent to residences and property owners on October 31. Presentations and notes from the public meetings are available at http://paloalto.parkingguide.com/evergreen-park-rpp-program/ and a copy of the survey is included as Attachment E. (The notes from the business focus group meeting are unavailable, however a summary of the discussion is provided below.) As of November 28, Staff had received 330 returned surveys with 226 voting in favor of RPP implementation as described in the survey. Consistent with the survey, the attached draft resolution would establish an RPP district within the area bounded by Park Boulevard, the Caltrain rail corridor, Oregon Expressway, Page Mill Road, and El Camino Real. Within that area, two-hour parking would be allowed on-street during the hours between 8:00am and 6:00pm, and only vehicles displaying a valid permit could park for longer during those hours. Residents would be eligible to obtain up to five permits; the first one would be free, and the others would cost $50 each. Up to 125 non-resident (employee) permits would be available for purchase on either side of the California Avenue business district (i.e. 125 in the Evergreen Park zone and 125 in the Mayfield zone). Employees on the waiting list for California Avenue business district parking lots and garages and low- income workers would be given preference. Non-resident permits would cost $149, and there would be a discounted rate for low-income workers of $50. If the City Council approves the resolution as drafted, staff would order permits, arrange for installation of signs, and conduct outreach such that enforcement could begin around April 1, 2017. The program is envisioned as a one-year pilot, and adjustments could be made based on experiences during that year. Background Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, residents may self-organize and request the formation of an RPP district in their neighborhood. The process, as outlined in the Ordinance, is as follows: City of Palo Alto Page 3 1. Residents must request a petition from the Planning and Community Environment Department. The petition includes a narrative portion and a signature form to demonstrate resident support. 2. The Director of Planning and Community Environment reviews all petitions received by March 31 of each year. 3. Following receipt of the petitions, Staff reviews and brings forward the complete petitions to the Planning and Transportation Commission for prioritization. (For this past year, the Planning and Transportation Commission provided feedback on prioritization at its April 27 meeting.) 4. After prioritization, Staff initiates work on the priority RPP programs(s). The assumption has been that limited resources preclude the simultaneous processing of all requests (hence the need for prioritization). Staff’s work includes gathering additional information, community outreach, and stakeholder engagement. This process includes parking occupancy counts and a stakeholder process to develop a program that meets the needs of all parties as best as possible. 5. At the end of the community outreach and stakeholder engagement process, the City Attorney prepares a draft resolution(s) outlining the parameters of the new program(s). 6. Staff brings the proposed RPP program(s) to the Planning and Transportation Commission by the end of the same calendar year. The PTC reviews the draft resolution and makes recommendations to City Council regarding the new RPP program(s). 7. Following these steps, the City Council will hold a public hearing to review the proposed resolution, and to adopt, modify, or reject the proposed RPP program(s). As of the March 31 petition deadline, staff had received a petition from the Evergreen Park neighborhood to join the College Terrace resident-only parking program. The petition included the area bounded by Park Boulevard, Caltrain Rail Corridor, Cambridge Avenue, and El Camino Real. Residents noted parking overflow on weekdays, and attributed the parking impacts to employees of neighboring businesses, employees from nearby office buildings, Caltrain commuters, and Stanford University affiliates, including faculty, staff, students, and visitors. Residents also noted safety concerns related to bike routes in the neighborhood. Staff presented this petition, along with three others, to the Planning and Transportation Commission on April 27 for prioritization, as required in the city-wide RPP ordinance. The commission voted 5-0-2 for a motion that read: Council should find budget for all four [RPP programs], but to prioritize them that Evergreen [Park] and Southgate are top priority and that Crescent Park and Edgewood are secondary priorities. City Council Direction Staff presented the four RPP petitions and the recommendation of the Planning and City of Palo Alto Page 4 Transportation Commission to City Council on May 9. On an 8-0 vote, with Councilmember Kniss not participating, City Council passed the following motion and directed staff to move forward with the Evergreen Park RPP program: A. Direct the Finance Committee to identify a budget allocation for implementation of Residential Preferential Parking Programs (RPP) for the Southgate and Evergreen Park Neighborhoods and attempt to align deployment of both RPP programs; and B. Implement an RPP in the Southgate neighborhood through a stakeholder process including looking at engineering, enforcement, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) solutions with Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) where appropriate; and C. Implement an RPP in Evergreen Park through a stakeholder process including parking management options and determining how many permits to be sold for low income workers as well as retail and personal service workers from the adjacent California Avenue district; and D. Recommend that the Crescent Park neighborhood be added to the Downtown RPP eligibility area and if the neighborhood is not annexed, the residents can come back as the third priority for a separate RPP; and E. Edgewood Plaza would be fourth priority; and F. Direct Staff to explore options including sharing permits so that low income workers as well as retail and personal service employees can afford permits. Occupancy Surveys The City’s transportation engineering and planning consultant conducted three different parking occupancy surveys in May, October, and November. On Tuesday, May 24, the surveys were conducted during three time periods: 7:00-9:00am, 12:00-2:00pm, and 5:00-7:00pm. The survey area was bounded by Churchill Avenue, Bryant Street, North California Avenue, California Avenue, and El Camino Real. In the Evergreen Park neighborhood, the surveys documents occupancy rates over 85% on the following blocks: 1800 Ash Street (mid-day) 2100 Ash Street (morning and mid-day) 2000 and 2200 Birch Street (mid-day) 200, 300, and 400 College Avenue (morning and mid-day) 400 Leland Avenue (mid-day) 400 Oxford Avenue (morning and mid-day) 300 Oxford Avenue (mid-day) 100 Park Avenue (morning and mid-day) 2000 Park Boulevard (mid-day) 400 Stanford Avenue (morning, mid-day and evening) City of Palo Alto Page 5 The data clearly shows high occupancy on the blocks closest to the California Avenue business district and El Camino Real. This high occupancy begins in the morning and continues through mid-day, only decreasing in the evening. Overall, the mid-day period appears to have the most demand for parking, as the majority of the streets within the Evergreen Park neighborhood are at or above 50% occupancy at this time. On Tuesday, October 4, the surveys were conducted overnight in order to estimate the number of resident motor vehicles currently occupying on-street parking spaces in the Evergreen Park neighborhood. The survey area was bounded by Park Boulevard, Caltrain rail corridor, College Avenue, and El Camino Real. The counts were conducted at 11:30pm, a time of day when most employee and guest vehicles are not parked on the streets of the Evergreen Park neighborhood. However, there may still have been motor vehicles parked on-street by Stanford University students who may not be eligible to store a vehicle on campus and long distance travelers using Caltrain. A total of 362 motor vehicles were observed to be parked on-street at the time of the overnight survey. This represents 44.7% of the total on-street parking supply. A large number of these vehicles were observed on College Avenue and Oxford Avenue, streets abutting multi-family housing and the California Avenue business district. On Thursday, November 17, parking occupancy surveys were conducted in the Mayfield area during four time periods: 7:00-9:00am, 12:00-2:00pm, 5:00-7:00pm and 11:30pm. The survey area was bounded by North California Avenue, Caltrain rail corridor, Oregon Expressway, Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. In the Mayfield neighborhood, the survey documents occupancy rates over 85% on the following blocks: 2500 Ash Street (evening) 2500 Birch Street (evening) 300 Grant Avenue (morning and mid-day) 400 Grant Avenue (mid-day) 2500 Park Boulevard (evening) 200 and 400 Sheridan Avenue (mid-day) 300 Sheridan Avenue (morning and mid-day) The data clearly shows high occupancy on the blocks closest to El Camino Real. This high occupancy is mostly during the mid-day period. In the evening period, the blocks closest to the California Avenue business district become more occupied. The results of all parking occupancy surveys are included in Attachment F. Public Outreach In the evening of July 14, Staff convened a community workshop at the PAUSD administration building to introduce the concept of Evergreen Park RPP program to neighborhood residents, property owners and business owners. Staff presented information on the city-wide RPP City of Palo Alto Page 6 ordinance, parameters of the existing Downtown RPP program and gathered feedback from attendees at a break-out session following the presentation. Many attendees disagreed with the workshop format and requested that future meetings include a group question and answer period immediately following the presentation. Feedback varied, but some of the key topics included: Availability and number of employee parking permits Category of business eligible for employee parking permits Supply of parking within California Avenue business district Hours of enforcement Applicability of College Terrace resident-only parking program Requirements for transportation demand management Types and prices of resident parking permits This community workshop was followed by an evening resident focus group on August 25. The focus group meeting was held at the Wesley United Methodist Church. This meeting was organized as an informal conversation, where all attendees were encouraged to speak openly to the entire group. Feedback varied, but some of the key topics included: Program schedule Boundary of program Review of parking occupancy data Structure and parameters of program and resolution Phase-out of employee parking permits over time Supply of parking within California Avenue business district Needs of residents as compared to the needs of businesses Need for better management of Stanford football game impacts and street sweeping Types and prices of resident parking permits Plans for mail survey Availability and number of employee parking permits Pedestrian and bicycle safety Parking enforcement needs The residents in attendance also provide Staff with a draft resolution which was created by the original organizers of the Evergreen Park RPP petition. The resident-drafted resolution is included as Attachment G. On September 29, Staff convened a late-morning business focus group at the offices above Keeble & Shuchat Photography. This meeting was organized as an informal conversation, where all attendees were encouraged to speak openly to the entire group. Several residents opted to attend this meeting as observers. Feedback varied, but some of the key topics included: General deference to residents on parameters of program Hours of enforcement City of Palo Alto Page 7 Length of unpermitted parking period Type and duration of employee parking permits Supply of parking within California Avenue business district In the evening of October 11, Staff convened a second community workshop at the PAUSD administration building to introduce the initial Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP program concept to neighborhood residents, property owners and business owners. Staff presented information on the recommended boundaries, employee parking zones, enforcement hours, resident permit types and prices, and employee permit numbers, types and prices. Staff also outlined next steps, answered questions, and gathered feedback from attendees at a break-out session following the presentation. As a result of the previous requests, Staff incorporated a group question and answer period immediately following the presentation. Feedback varied, but some of the key topics included: Availability and number of employee parking permits Employee parking permit numbers by employee parking zone Ability of the two-hour limit to address parking capacity issues in areas closest to California Avenue business district Hours and methods of enforcement Desired parking occupancy rates Types, prices and quantities of resident parking permits Phase-out of employee parking permits over time Size and location of employee parking zones as related to the clustering of vehicles in areas closest to California Avenue business district Requirements for transportation demand management Survey of Residents and Property Owners On October 31, Staff mailed out 1,652 surveys to all residential properties and property owners within the proposed RPP district, which is bounded by Park Boulevard, Caltrain Rail Corridor, Oregon Expressway, Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. The surveys were due back to the City by the end of the day on November 23. As of November 28, Staff had received 330 returned surveys with 226 voting in favor of RPP implementation as described in the survey. The RPP program design elements included in the mail survey are listed below: • Permits would be required to park any vehicle on-street in excess of two (2) hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. • All area households would be eligible for one (1) annual permit sticker free of charge and could purchase up to three (3) additional annual permit stickers at a cost of $50 each. Residents could also purchase up to two (2) transferable annual permit hangtags for $50 each, and up to 50 transferable one-day permit City of Palo Alto Page 8 hangtags per year for $5 each. The transferable permit hangtags may be used on any vehicle, including household visitor vehicles. • Employees of businesses located within the area would be eligible to purchase transferable one-day permit hangtags for $5 and annual permits stickers for $149. All employee permits would be specific to one of the two employee parking zones (see included map for proposed area and employee parking zone boundaries). Discounted annual permit stickers would be available to low-income employees for $50. • A maximum of 125 annual employee permits would be available in each of the two proposed employee parking zones, for a total of 250. Preference would be given to low-income employees and those already on the waiting list for the City- owned garages and lots in the area. The results of the mail surveys can be found in Table 1. Table 1: Results of Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Program Mail Survey Area To t a l Ma i l e d Ou t To t a l Re t u r n e d YE S Re s p o n s e NO Re s p o n s e No t Re t u r n e d YE S Re s p o n s e Ra t e To t a l Re t u r n e d Ra t e California Avenue Business District (existing two-hour parking zone) 342 37 25 12 305 68% 11% Evergreen Park 646 206 149 57 440 72% 32% Mayfield 664 87 52 35 484 60% 13% Total 1652 330 226 104 1229 68% 20% Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, December 2016 Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation On December 14, 2016, Staff presented a draft Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP program resolution to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). The PTC voted to recommend that City Council take the following action(s): 1. Adopt a resolution to implement the Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program as a one-year pilot and direct staff to make corresponding changes to the RPP Administrative Guidelines; and 2. Find the program exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The PTC also included the following recommendations in their motion: A. Amend the resolution to designate the Mayfield neighborhood as an Eligibility Area and allow each block-face to opt in with a petition to the Director of Planning and Community Environment as outlined in the RPP Administrative Guidelines. Employee City of Palo Alto Page 9 Parking Permits would only be released within the Mayfield neighborhood as individual block-faces are admitted to the RPP program. B. Amend the resolution to divide Employee Parking Zone A into subzones in order to discourage bunching of employee vehicles on streets closest to the California Avenue business district. Staff has incorporated recommendation B into the revised resolution. A small typographical error identified by the PTC has also been corrected in the revised resolution in order to clarify the ability of households within the RPP district to receive one free annual resident parking permit sticker, and staff has incorporated a change to the hours of enforcement to be more in line with the residents’ request as explained further below. The verbatim minutes from the PTC meeting are included as Attachment H. Discussion During the month of October, Staff used the results of the initial data collection, first community workshop, focus group meeting, and secondary data collection effort to begin to draft the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP program structure. Important elements considered, included the following: What areas should be included in the RPP district? Which parts of the California Avenue business district should be included? Will inclusion of the entire business district place an unfair burden on the Evergreen Park neighborhood if employee parking permits are issued? During which hours should the RPP program be enforced? How should enforcement be accomplished? What types of resident parking permits should be issued, how much should they cost, and what quantity will each household be permitted to purchase? Should employee motor vehicles be permitted to park on neighborhood streets? If so, how many should be permitted at one time? What types of employee parking permits should be issued, how much should they cost, and what quantity will be available? What types of businesses should be permitted to purchase employee permits? How should employee permits be allocated? Should employee parking permits be phased out over time? Should the RPP program include eligibility areas to the south and east or should it be assumed that these neighborhoods would be part of future RPP programs? District Boundaries & Zone Structure Staff recommends that the boundaries of the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP be the northern edge of properties along the north side of Park Boulevard, centerline of the Caltrain rail corridor, centerline of Oregon Expressway, centerline of Page Mill Road and centerline of El City of Palo Alto Page 10 Camino Real. All streets within these boundaries should be part of the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP district and all households, employees and businesses within these boundaries should be eligible for resident parking permits or employee parking permits. Existing daytime two-hour parking restrictions within the California Avenue business district (shown in brown in Figure 1) should remain in place, as should existing parking restrictions along the east side of El Camino Real. All existing parking restrictions within the Mayfield area (shown in beige in Figure 1), with the exception of loading zones and areas where parking is prohibited for safety reasons, should be nullified and RPP restrictions put in place. While the petition submitted by residents in March only included the area bounded by Park Boulevard, Caltrain rail corridor, Cambridge Avenue, and El Camino Real, Staff believes that the inclusion of the Mayfield area is necessary to better distribute permitted employee parking and prevent the relocation of unpermitted employee and long term parking to the Mayfield area south of the California Avenue business district. This decision was reached after discussing various other scenarios with residents, employers and other stakeholders. Staff also believes it is necessary to include the businesses along El Camino Real within the boundaries of the district, since some of them currently rely on on-street parking. Including these businesses in the RPP program would mean this parking is no longer free, and would encourage them to use alternate modes/strategies, and the number of permits available could be reduced in future years, as additional off-street supply and transportation demand management strategies are developed in the area. (See the section on employee permit reductions below.) As noted earlier, the Planning and Transportation Commission questioned whether the Mayfield area should be included in the district from the start, or be considered an Eligibility Area instead, where residents would have to petition to be added to the program administratively. The PTC also suggested dividing the Evergreen Park employee parking zone into two employee parking zones to ensure employees don’t cluster in the blocks immediately adjacent to the California Avenue business district. The map below and the attached resolution reflect the PTC recommendation to create two employee parking zones in the Evergreen Park neighborhood, but do not reflect the recommendation to create an Eligibility Area. This is because of concerns that non-resident vehicles would overwhelm the streets on that side of the business district if it’s not included from the beginning. Figure 1: Proposed Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP District Boundaries City of Palo Alto Page 11 Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, October 2016 Enforcement Hours Staff initially recommended that enforcement hours for the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP program be consistent with the enforcement hours for the Downtown RPP program, which are Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm. After consideration of comments received at the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting and comments submitted by residents, staff is now recommending that signs in the area indicate enforcement between 8:00am and 6:00pm. This would mean that Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP parking permits would be required to park any motor vehicle on-street in excess of two (2) hours during these enforcement hours. At the resident focus group meeting, there was a discussion regarding even longer enforcement hours, with some residents suggesting expanding the enforcement hours to 6:00am in the morning and 7:00pm in the evening and/or conducting enforcement on the weekend to address parking issues related to Stanford University football games and the California Avenue farmers’ market. The resident-drafted resolution suggests extended enforcement hours during weekdays. City of Palo Alto Page 12 The staff recommendation for 8:00am to 6:00pm reflected in the revised resolution would add one more hour to the 8:00am to 5:00pm period used for the Downtown RPP program and could also be considered for the downtown area. Adding an additional hour to the posted hours of enforcement in the evening would not necessarily require additional work shifts for the enforcement officers, since they could still enforce the two-hour restriction between 8:00am and 5:00pm. The parking occupancy data shows very few streets within the Evergreen Park neighborhood approaching 85% occupancy during the 5:00-7:00pm weekday period. Several block faces in the Mayfield neighborhood exceed the 85% occupancy rate between 5:00pm and 7:00pm and enforcement later into the evening should be considered for this area after the one-year pilot. A handful of streets in Evergreen Park closest to California Avenue and El Camino Real, as well as Grant Avenue and Sheridan Avenue in Mayfield, exceed 85% occupancy during the 7:00- 9:00am weekday period. However, with enforcement beginning at 8:00am, early morning parkers would need to move their vehicles before 10:00am, unless they have an RPP parking permit. This will discourage long-term parkers from using these streets. Resident Parking Permits Staff recommends that all Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP district households should be eligible for five resident permits. One annual resident parking permit sticker would be free of charge and residents would be able to purchase up to two additional annual resident parking permit stickers at a cost of $50 each, as well as two transferable annual resident parking permit hangtags for $50 each. This is consistent with the downtown program, and similar to that program, households would also be able to purchase up to 50 transferable one-day resident parking permit hangtags per year for $5 each. The transferable resident parking permit hangtags may be used on any vehicle, including household visitor vehicles. These resident parking permit numbers, types and fees are consistent with the Downtown RPP program and have worked well to-date. The resident-drafted resolution includes very similar recommendations for resident parking permits. However, the residents have requested that additional resident parking permits be available for $40 each, which is $10 less than the Staff recommendation. The residents also recommended that households be eligible to purchase up to 80 transferable one-day resident parking permit hangtags per year: 30 more than recommended by Staff. Parking Occupancy and Supply The overnight parking occupancy surveys in the Evergreen Park neighborhood documented a total of 293 motor vehicles parked on-street at 11:30pm on a weeknight and a total supply of 655 on-street parking spaces. This represents 44.7% of the total on-street parking supply. Therefore, it can be assumed that 55.3% of the available on-street parking is not being used by City of Palo Alto Page 13 neighborhood residents to store their personal vehicles. This available space is more limited closer to the California Avenue business district and on blocks with multi-family housing. The overnight parking occupancy surveys in the Mayfield neighborhood documented a total of 132 motor vehicles parked on-street at 11:30pm on a weeknight and a total supply of 362 on- street parking spaces. This represents 36.5% of the total on-street parking supply. Therefore, it can be assumed that 63.5% of the available on-street parking is not being used by neighborhood residents to store their personal vehicles. This available space is much more limited on the 400-block of Grant Avenue, which exceeds 85% occupancy in the overnight period. A total of 592 on-street parking spaces were vacant overnight in both Evergreen Park and Mayfield. If the unknown quantity of Stanford University student vehicles and Caltrain passenger vehicles were to be factored in, the supply available for non-resident uses would increase, as this type of long term parking would not be permitted in an RPP district. Employee Parking Permits Staff recommends that employees of businesses located within the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP district should be eligible to purchase annual employee parking permit stickers for $149. The cost of an annual garage and lot permit within the California Avenue business district is currently $149. All employee permits would be specific to one of the three employee parking zones (as shown in Figure 1). Discounted annual permit stickers would be available to low- income employees for $50. This is consistent with the Downtown RPP program, and similar to downtown, staff is also recommending that employees be eligible to purchase one-day employee parking permit hangtags for $5 each. Staff recommends that a maximum of 250 annual employee permits should be available in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP district: 75 Employee Parking Permits in Employee Parking Zone A, 50 in Employee Parking Zone B and 125 in Employee Parking Zone C. A total of 425 motor vehicles were occupying on-street parking spaces overnight within the three proposed employee parking zones. If we assume that these vehicles represent the demand for neighborhood resident parking within the district, then there are a total of 592 on-street parking spaces available for other uses. Some of this space will be occupied by household guests, neighborhood visitors, contractors, and service providers. Based on the data from the Downtown RPP program, about 30-40% of annual permit holders are expected to park on street within the district at any given point in time. If 250 employee parking permits are issues, then we could expect that about 90 employees would be parked within the district on an average day. This represents about 15% of the available on-street parking, reserving 85% for other uses. It is expected that some clustering will occur and many employees will park on the blocks closest to their places of employment. Staff can monitor this City of Palo Alto Page 14 during the one-year pilot period and propose adjustments when needed. The resident-drafted resolution recommends that only 10% of the existing legal on-street parking spaces be made available for use by vehicles with employee parking permits. This represents only 102 permits and would result in as few as 30 employees parked within the district on an average day. A significant amount of curb space would likely remain vacant. The resident-drafted resolution also recommends that one-day employee parking permit hangtags not be available under the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP program. Staff recommends that preference should be given to low-income employees and those already on the waiting list for the City-owned garages and lots in the California Avenue business district. Low-income status should be defined using the same parameters as the Downtown RPP program. There are currently about 250 applicants on the garage and lot waiting list and, during the focus group meeting, many of the business owners stated that by the time their employees reach the top of the list, they no longer work in the area. Both City Council and the residents at the focus group meeting expressed an interest in limiting the employee parking permits to those employed in retail or personal service establishments. Establishing which employers are eligible and which are not could be a complex and time- consuming exercise, and some low-income employees work in office environments serving as custodians, administrative assistants, food service workers, and in other support roles. If employee parking permits were limited to only retail or personal service establishments, these individuals would be ineligible to purchase permits. Also, staff and consultants would find it difficult to administer a program based on use, rather than income, and the time and cost involved to explain/verify the preferred uses and resolve disputes would increase, taking resources away from other aspects of customer service. Employee Parking Permit Reduction Residents of Evergreen Park have requested that the number of employee permits be reduced each year, such that they are zero after five years. Staff does not recommend implementation of an employee parking permit reduction or phase out at this time, although that could be considered after the one-year pilot. Unlike the downtown area, there is no coordinated effort to encourage the use of alternative transportation, reduce SOV trips or enhance transit service within the California Avenue business district. The California Avenue Station also currently has much less robust train service than Palo Alto Station and a fewer number of high-frequency bus routes service the area. While requiring employees who currently park on the street for free to obtain a permit will itself incentivize those employees (and employers) to seek out alternatives, staff recommends also focusing on improving the transportation options for California Avenue business district employee before reducing the amount of available parking. It’s also notable that the City is working towards construction of a new parking garage, which should add to the off-street City of Palo Alto Page 15 parking supply in several years, and that the City and Stanford Research Park are both committed to advocating for enhanced Caltrain service at the California Avenue Station. Eligibility Areas Staff does not recommend the establishment of Eligibility Areas for the Evergreen Park- Mayfield RPP program. In the Downtown RPP area, Eligibility Areas are streets just outside of the designated RPP district that can administratively opt into the program when there blocks begin to experience increase parking occupancy. This allows the program to expand quickly to address spillover from the designated RPP district. As proposed, the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP district will be bordered by the existing College Terrace resident-only parking district to the west, the planned Southgate RPP district to the north, the Caltrain rail corridor to the east and Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road to the south. Staff believes that any spillover Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP district into the Old Palo Alto neighborhood to the east or Ventura neighborhood to the south should be addressed through additional RPP programs, not an expansion of the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP district. These neighborhoods are fairly separate from the California Avenue business district employee and would likely need a different type of program. Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Resolution The draft Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP resolution is included as Attachment A. It provides for implementation of the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP program as a one-year pilot by enacting the following measures: Establishes Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP District boundary (map is included as Attachment B) Establishes a cap of 250 annual employee parking permits for the first year of the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP program. Permits will be allocated by employee parking zone. Creates an employee parking zone structure to delineate where employees are eligible to park in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP District (map is included as Attachment B) Policy Implications: The following Comprehensive Plan goals, programs and policies are relevant to the implementation of the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP program: POLICY T-2: Consider economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local transportation decisions. POLICY T-45: City of Palo Alto Page 16 Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address long-range needs. PROGRAM T-50: Continue working with merchants, the Chamber of Commerce, neighbors, and a parking consultant to explore options for constructing new parking facilities or using existing parking more efficiently. PROGRAM T-51: Work with merchants to designate dedicated employee parking areas. POLICY T-46: Minimize the need for all-day employee parking facilities in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts and encourage short-term customer parking. POLICY T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts. PROGRAM T-52: Evaluate options to ensure maximum use of the City parking structures in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue areas. PROGRAM T-53: Discourage parking facilities that would intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Resource Impact Costs associated with establishment of a new RPP district will include those associated with installing signs, ordering/printing permit stickers and hangtags, providing permit fulfilment through a website, associated customer service, and increased parking enforcement. A total of $280,000 was budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2017 Adopted Operating Budget for the planning, maintenance, and operation of new RPPs for Evergreen Park and Southgate. Staff is working on an estimate of costs for the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP program, which will be brought to Council at a later date with any necessary budget and contract amendments for the City Council’s consideration. Timeline If the Council adopts the resolution on January 23, 2017, staff expects that the program could be in place and ready for enforcement on or about April 1, 2017. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Environmental Review This program is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this program may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed resolution will have a minor impact on existing facilities. Attachments: Attachment A - Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Resolution Draft Unapproved (PDF) Attachment B - Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Zone Map (PDF) Attachment C - RPP Administrative Guidelines Approved (PDF) Attachment D - Citywide RPP Ordinance (PDF) Attachment E - Evergreen Park-Mayfield Mail Survey (PDF) Attachment F - Parking Occupancy Survey Maps (PDF) Attachment G - Resident Focus Group Resident-drafted Resolution (PDF) Attachment H - PTC Verbatim Minutes 2016-12-14 (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 1 Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing the Evergreen Park‐ Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking District Under Chapter 10.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Rescinding Conflicting Parking Restrictions Within the RPP District R E C I T A L S A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by city council action, of permit parking programs in residential neighborhoods for residents and other categories of parkers. B. On December 15, 2014 the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5294, adding Chapter 10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Municipal Code. This Chapter establishes the city‐wide procedures for RPP Districts in the city. C. On May 9, 2016, the City Council directed city staff to implement a Residential Preferential Parking program in the Evergreen Park area. D. Beginning in July 2016, a stakeholders’ group comprised of Evergreen Park residents and business interests met two times and made its recommendations to the City on the particular rules to be applied to the Evergreen Park ‐ Mayfield RPP District. E. On December 14, 2016, the Planning and Transportation Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed Evergreen Park ‐ Mayfield residential preferential parking program. F. The Council desires to establish the area for the Evergreen Park – Mayfield residential preferential parking program pilot and to rescind existing parking restrictions that conflict with the restrictions established by this RPP district. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The criteria set forth in Section 10.50.030 for designating a Residential Preferential Permit Zone have been met as follows: 1) That non‐resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on‐street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents; 2) That the interference by the non‐resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly; 3) That the non‐resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life; NOT YET APPROVED 2 4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical. SECTION 2. Trial Period. The Trial Period for the Evergreen Park ‐ Mayfield RPP District shall be for one year, and reevaluated at that time. The RPP District shall remain in force until the City Council takes action to extend, modify, or rescind. The City Council shall consider whether to make the RPP Districts and their parking programs permanent, modify the Districts and/or their parking regulations, or terminate them no later than March 31, 2018. SECTION 3. Hours and Days of Enforcement. The parking regulations shall be in effect Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM. During the regulated days and hours of enforcement, no person shall park a motor vehicle in one of the designated Employee Parking Areas within the Evergreen Park – Mayfield RPP for more than two continuous hours, except for electric motor vehicles parked at an electric vehicle changing station, which shall be regulated by signage installed at the charging station. A vehicle lawfully displaying a Resident Parking Permit or an Employee Parking Permit shall be exempt from the two‐hour limit. Vehicles exempt from the parking regulations contained in Chapter 10.50 are exempt from this restriction. Outside of these enforcement hours, any motor vehicle may park in the Evergreen Park – Mayfield RPP, subject to other applicable parking regulations. SECTION 4. Parking Permits. A. Employee Parking Permits. The City may issue Employee Parking Permits for the use by employees working in the California Avenue business district area as specified in Exhibit A and Table 1. Employee Parking Permits shall be subject to the following regulations: a. Duration. Employee Parking Permits will be available in the form of transferable one‐day permit hangtags and annual permit stickers. b. Commuting Only. Employee Parking Permits are for the exclusive use by employees working for California Avenue business district businesses while commuting to work. c. Signage and Allocation of Spaces. All Employee Parking Permits will be specific to one of the two employee parking zones as specified in Exhibit A. d. Maximum Number of Permits Issued. A maximum of 250 annual Employee Parking Permits will be available: 75 in Employee Parking Zone A, 50 in Employee Parking Zone B and 125 in Employee Parking Zone C. Preference will be given to low‐income employees and those already on the waiting list for the City‐owned garages and lots in the area as of the effective date of this resolution. B. Resident Parking Permits. 1. Each resident living within the Evergreen Park ‐ Mayfield RPP may receive up to three annual permit stickers as well as up to two transferable annual permit hangtags. NOT YET APPROVED 3 2. Each resident living within the Evergreen Park ‐ Mayfield RPP may purchase up to 50 transferable one‐day permit hangtags per year, which may be used on any vehicle including household visitor vehicles. C. Applicability. 1. The restrictions of the RPP adopted by this resolution shall apply to the city blocks identified in Table 1, which are meant to specify those areas visually represented in Exhibit A. TABLE 1 STREET BLOCKS ENFORCED Park Blvd. 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2200‐ 2211, 2555‐2599, 2600 Park Ave. 100 Leland Ave. 200, 300, 400 Stanford Ave. 200, 300, 400 Oxford Ave. 200, 300, 400 College Ave. 200, 300, 400 Birch Ave. 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2200‐2288, 2518‐2575, 2600 Ash St. 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2502‐2599, 2600, 2700 Grant St. 100, 200, 300, 400 Sheridan Ave. 200, 300, 400 SECTION 5. Other Matters. A. Cost of Evergreen Park ‐ Mayfield RPP District Parking Permits. During the initial trial period of one year the cost of Parking Permits shall be: 1. Resident Permit – First annual permit sticker free; second and third annual permit sticker $50/each/year; transferable annual permit hangtags (up to two) $50/year. 2. Resident Visitor Daily Permit – Can purchase up to fifty at $5/each. 3. Employee Parking Permits 1. Standard Annual Permit ‐‐$149/year 2. Low‐income Annual Permit ‐‐ $50/year NOT YET APPROVED 4 3. Employee Visitor Daily Permit ‐ $5/each SECTION 6. Rescind and Repeal Existing Parking Restrictions. A. Section 2 of Resolution 4051 hereby repealed and replaced with the restrictions of this RPP district. B. 2 Hour Parking. The 2 hour parking restrictions as identified in Exhibit A shall remain in effect. C. Conflicting Restrictions. In the event City staff should, at a later time, discover additional parking restrictions within the areas specified by Exhibit A or within the city blocks identified in Table 1 that conflict with the restrictions of this resolution, but are not expressly rescinded, the RPP restrictions of this resolution shall control. SECTION 8. CEQA. This resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this resolution may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed resolution will have a minor impact on existing facilities. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50 and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ __________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: _______________________ ___________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment El C a m i n o R e a l El C a m i n o R e a l Par k B l Pag e M i l l R d Oliv e A v Pep p e r A v Cali f o r n i a A v Cam b r i d g e A v Coll e g e A v Oxfo r d A v She r m a n A v Gran t A v Ash S t Ash S t Birc h S t Birc h S t Yale S t She r i d a n A v Stan f o r d A v Lela n d A v Park A v Al m a S t Par k B l Park Bl Peers Park Jerrry Bowden Park Cal t r a i n Calt r a i n P a r k i n g OLD PALO ALTO COLLEGE TERRACE STANFORD UNIVERSITY SOUTHGATE VENTURA Cali f o r n i a A v Legend Employee Parking Zone B Employee Parking Zone C Evergreen Park Residential Preferential Parking Program Boundary Two-Hour Commercial Parking to Remain Employee Parking Zone A Proposed Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program Map and Employee Parking Zone Boundaries Version 2.0 City of Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Administrative Guidelines Updated October 31, 2016 PURPOSE The City of Palo Alto is committed to preserving the quality of life of its residential neighborhoods. On December 2, 2014, City Council adopted a City‐wide RPP Ordinance which allows any neighborhood within the City to petition to become a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District, where neighborhood parking is regulated for non‐permit holders. Three documents govern the creation of an RPP District in Palo Alto: 1. Chapter 10.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which outlines the criteria which must be met and the process which must be taken for a residential neighborhood to become an RPP District; 2. A neighborhood‐specific resolution, which must be adopted by the City Council and outlines the specific characteristics of the RPP program; 3. The document within, “RPP Administrative Guidelines”, which provides additional detail on RPP program implementation. The Guidelines may be modified at a City staff level, and provide detail on policies and procedures related to RPP Districts. All three documents work in concert to govern the development and operation of the City’s RPP Districts, and all should be reviewed prior to an RPP District’s initiation. PARKING PERMIT POLICIES Resident Permit Eligibility The requirements to obtain a parking permit as a resident are: A completed application form (online) in the residents’ name and address. A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle the applicant is requesting a parking permit. Proof of residency/ownership in the resident’s/owner’s name reflecting the permit address in the permit area. Acceptable proof of residency shall be a driver’s license, the vehicle registration, a utility bill, car insurance policy, lease agreement or a preprinted personal check with the resident’s name and address. 1. The residential permit can be purchased on an annual duration online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking. Parking permits are issued for uses within the RPP District area. Standard long‐term residential parking permits are not transferable between vehicles. Annual permit cost may be pro‐rated for purchase midway through the annual timeframe. 2. Guests of Residents: A resident is also eligible to purchase up to two (2) transferable hang‐tag permits for guests, which are annual permits that may be used for a nanny, baby‐sitter, caregiver, household employee, or other regular visitor to the household. Annual hangtag permits must be purchased by the resident of the household and may be transferred between vehicles. Only two (2) annual hangtag permits are allowed per household. 3. Visitors of Residents: Any resident within the RPP District area is eligible to purchase daily permits annually for events which may take place at a household. Daily permits must be purchased by a resident of the household and are only valid for a single day use. Each household can receive a maximum of 50 daily permits each calendar year. Version 2.0 Employee Permit Eligibility (applicable to downtown RPP and others as designated by resolution): Annual, quarterly, five‐day and daily Employee permits are available. The requirements to obtain a parking permit as an employee are: A completed application form (online) with the employees’ name and address. A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle for which the applicant is requesting a parking permit. Proof of employment at a business in the employee’s name, which includes an address within the RPP District. Acceptable proof of employment shall be a W‐2 wage statement or letter from employer. All employees who work at a registered, code‐compliant business within an RPP District are eligible to purchase permits, unless otherwise restricted by the City for parking capacity reasons. Parking permit stickers or hangtags are issued to employees within the RPP District. Where applicable, the City may decide to issue permits which are transferrable between employees of the same business. These permits will be in the form of a hangtag, which must be placed on the rearview mirror of the employee vehicle. Possession of an employee permit which is assigned to a specific block or zone does not entitle the employer to renew a permit in the same block or zone. Annual permit cost may be pro‐rated for purchase midway through the annual timeframe. If an employee with an annual permit leaves the company, the employer may transfer the remaining balance of the unused permit to another employee by returning the original permit and transferring the balance of time to a new one. The new permit will expire at the same date of the original permit expiration. The City may, at its discretion, issue Employee Guest permits to eligible employers within an RPP district, for use by their guests or visitors. The City may immediately revoke all permits issued to businesses and employees at businesses that are unregistered and/or operating in violation of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and/or state and federal regulations. Reduced Price Permits: Certain employees may be eligible for a reduced‐price permit if they meet either of the income requirements listed below. Proof of income must be provided at the time of purchase, and information may be audited at any time by the City. INCOME VERIFICATION OPTIONS a. Option A: Employees who earn an annual income which is exactly or less than $50,000. The City will evaluate this limit annually and adjust for inflation. b. Option B: Employees who make a pre‐tax hourly wage which is exactly or less than 2x the governing city or state minimum wage (whichever is greater) are eligible for a reduced price permit. Submittal requirements provided for proof of income include: tax return and two consecutive wage statements. Version 2.0 Other Policies 1. Any attempt to alter the permit shall immediately render the permit invalid. 2. Permit holder assumes full responsibility of any loaning of their vehicle. 3. Possession of an RPP permit does not guarantee a parking spot. It is understood that a greater amount of parking permits may be issued than there are available on‐street parking spaces. This may create an environment of natural competition for on‐street parking between neighborhood residents and other permit holders. 4. Permit validity: RPP permits are not valid in any City parking garage or lot, and City‐issued garage or lot permits are not valid in RPP Districts. RPP permits are only valid for the RPP District for which they are issued. 5. The City of Palo Alto is not responsible for the loss of or damage to any vehicle or its contents. 6. Abandoned Vehicles: Parking a vehicle unmoved longer than 72 consecutive hours on a City street is in violation of PAMC 10.60.07(d). Parking permits shall not exempt vehicles from this requirement. 7. For new vehicles or license plates, the permit holder must surrender the current valid permit to the Revenue Collections office. If the permit does not come off intact, pieces will be accepted. 8. Temporary Permits: Temporary permits can be printed online once a valid permit holder has submitted payment for a permit. The temporary permit must be displayed on the front dashboard. 9. Replacement Fees: There is a permit replacement fee of $10.00 for regular permits reissued for any reason, prior to the normal renewal period. 10. Refunds: Refunds are issued on annual permits only, and a refund will only be given through the third quarter and prorated at the quarterly rate. The permit holder must remove the current permit and return it to the Revenue Collections office. 11. Permit Placement: The permit must be affixed on the outside of the rear windshield driver’s side lower left corner, or left side of the bumper. Do not place your permit in any other location. Placing your permit in another location or behind tinted windows may invalidate your parking exemption. 12. Vehicle Eligibility: Parking permits may be issued only for passenger non‐commercial and passenger commercial (i.e., SUV’s, small pick‐up trucks, etc.) vehicles registered to residents residing within the residential parking permit area. Vehicles defined as oversized by the City’s Oversized Vehicle Parking ordinance, such as commercial trucks, boat trailers, RV’s (camping trailers, motor homes, etc.), trailers and work‐type commercial vehicles, including taxis and limousines, are not eligible for residential parking permit program permits. Eligible Exceptions for a Parking Permit Sticker Company Cars – A residential parking permit sticker may be issued for residents who have company cars as their primary transportation vehicle. To obtain a permit, the person must be a legal resident within the residential permit parking area who has a motor vehicle for his/her exclusive use and under his/her control where said motor vehicle is registered to his/her employer and he/she presents a valid employee identification card or other proof of employment that is acceptable to the City. Leased Cars – A residential parking permit sticker may be issued for a resident who has a leased car. To obtain a permit, the person must be a legal resident within the residential permit parking area who has a motor vehicle registered to a vehicle‐leasing company and/or leased to the resident’s employer, providing said vehicle is for the resident’s exclusive use and provides proof or the lease agreement which is acceptable to the City. Version 2.0 The requirements to obtain a parking permit sticker for a company or leased car are: A completed application form in the residents’ name and address. A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle the applicant is requesting a parking permit. Proof of residency/ownership in the resident’s/owner’s name reflecting the permit address in the permit area. Acceptable proof of residency shall be a driver’s license, the vehicle registration, a utility bill, car insurance policy, lease agreement or a preprinted personal check with the resident’s name and address. Caregivers – Caregivers may be issued a parking permit sticker for a permit parking area provided the address of the resident receiving the care is within said parking area. The requirements to obtain a parking permit sticker for a caregiver are: A completed application form in both the residents’ and caregivers name and address. A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle for which the applicant is requesting a parking permit. Proof of residency/ownership in the resident’s/owner’s name reflecting the permit address in the permit area. Acceptable proof of residency shall be a utility bill, car insurance policy, lease agreement or a preprinted personal check with the resident’s name and address. A letter from the resident identifying the permit applicant as the caregiver. Fine Amount The fine for violation of the Residential Parking Permit Program regulations is set within the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule. Misuse of Parking Permits Any person selling, fraudulently using, reproducing or mutilating a parking permit issued in conjunction with the residential parking permit program shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be subject to a citation for each offense and the forfeiture of all permits in conflict, or such other fine or penalty as the City Council may set by ordinance. Neighborhood Support for RPP District Implementation As outlined in the ordinance, the City may choose to conduct a survey of a proposed neighborhood to determine whether support exists for RPP District implementation. The survey may be conducted either prior to the recommendation of RPP District implementation to Council, or during a trial period of the program, but before final implementation. The survey shall be conducted electronically or via U.S. mail. Each household using a separate U.S.P.S. address will be allowed one (1) vote either in favor or against the implementation of an RPP program. The current threshold for RPP District implementation is a vote of 70% of the returned surveys in favor of implementation. Eligibility Areas As outlined in the ordinance, the City Council may adopt a resolution identifying particular areas as RPP Eligibility Areas. Following the adoption of the RPP Eligibility Areas, residents within these areas may petition the Director of Planning and Community Environment to be annexed into an existing RPP District. The petition must include the following: • A completed application form (online) including the residents’ names and addresses. Version 2.0 • A current DMV vehicle registration of each vehicle for which any RPP District parking permit had previously been approved in the applicants’ names. Upon the receipt of a petition that includes the above information for a simple majority, or 50%+1 of the identified segment’s neighbors, the City may choose to conduct a survey of the proposed neighborhood to determine whether additional support exists for annexation into the existing RPP District. The survey shall be conducted electronically or via U.S. mail. Each household using a separate U.S.P.S. address will be allowed one (1) vote either in favor or against annexation into the existing RPP District. The current threshold for RPP District implementation is a vote of 70% of the returned surveys in favor of implementation. Approval of annexation for RPP Eligibility Areas will take effect without Council adoption. Opt Out Procedures Current residents of an existing RPP District that no longer wish to participate in the RPP program may petition to opt out of their RPP District between January 1st and March 31st of the year. The petition must be submitted to and will be approved at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Residents of the same existing RPP District shall initiate a request to opt out of their RPP District by neighborhood petition. The petition will be available as a standard form online, and must include the following: • A completed application form (online) including the residents’ names and addresses. • A current DMV vehicle registration of each vehicle for which any RPP District parking permit had previously been approved in the applicants’ names. Upon the receipt of a petition that includes the above information for a simple majority, or 50%+1 of the identified segment’s neighbors, the City may choose to conduct a survey of the proposed neighborhood to determine whether additional support exists for opting out of the RPP District. The survey shall be conducted electronically or via U.S. mail. Each household using a separate U.S.P.S. address will be allowed one (1) vote either in favor or against opting out of the existing RPP District. The current threshold for RPP District implementation is a vote of 70% of the returned surveys in favor of opting out. Petitions that do not include a simple majority of the identified segment’s neighbors will not be considered for opt out. Effective upon approval of their opt‐out petition, residents will no longer be entitled to RPP District resident parking permits. Approval of an opt‐out petition may not be construed to waive compliance of the RPP District parking restrictions that remain in place. Upon the approval of an application, the City shall provide written notice electronically or via U.S. mail to all residents impacted by the opt‐out, including the effective date of the opt‐out, the expiration date of any remaining valid parking permits, and contact information for further inquiries or concerns. Occupancy Study Requirements Version 2.0 During the course of RPP District initiation, the City will conduct parking occupancy studies for the neighborhood in question. Studies will be conducted at various hours and be compared to an inventory calculation to show percentages of occupancy by block face. Weekday studies will not be conducted on Mondays, Fridays or holidays. Version 2.0 Neighborhood Petition Form City of Palo Alto Residential Parking Permit Program Request Form The purpose of this form is to enable neighborhoods to request to be annexed to an existing Residential Preferential Parking area or the initiation of a Residential Preferential Parking Program in accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s adopted Residential Parking Permit Program Policy and Procedures. This form must be filled out in its entirety and submitted with any request to: City of Palo Alto Transportation Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, Floor 5 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Feel free to attach additional sheets containing pictures, occupancy maps, additional testimony or additional text if the space provided is insufficient. 1. Requesting Individual’s Contact Information Name: ____________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________ Phone Number: _______________________________________ Email: _______________________________________ 2. Please describe the nature of the overflow parking problem in your neighborhood. 1. What streets in your neighborhood do you feel are affected by overflow parking? 2. How often does the overflow occur? 3. Does the impact vary from month to month, or season to season? 3. Can you identify a parking impact generator that is the cause of overflow parking in the neighborhood? Are there any facilities (churches, schools, shopping centers, etc.) near this location that generate a high concentration of vehicle and pedestrian traffic? Please list your understanding of the causes: Version 2.0 4. Please describe how a Residential Parking Permit Program will be able to eliminate or reduce overflow parking impacting the neighborhood. Please include your suggestion for the boundary of the program: 5. Is there neighborhood support for submittal of this Residential Parking Permit Program application? Have you contacted your HOA/Neighborhood Association? Version 2.0 Neighborhood Petition Form (Street by Street Basis) THE UNDERSIGNED BELOW AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. All persons signing this petition do hereby certify that they reside on the following street, which is being considered for residential preferential parking: ______________________________________ 2. All persons signing this petition do hereby agree that the following contact person(s) represent the neighborhood as facilitator(s) between the neighborhood residents and City of Palo Alto staff in matters pertaining to this request: Name: _________________________ Address: ___________________ Phone #: __________________ Name: _________________________ Address: ___________________ Phone #: __________________ Name: _________________________ Address: ___________________ Phone #: __________________ ONLY ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD Name (Please Print) Address Phone Number Signature 1.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 2.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 3.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 4.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 5.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 6.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 7.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 8.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 9.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 10._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 11._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 12._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 13._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 14._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 15._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 16._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 17._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 18._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 19._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 20._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 21._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 22._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 23._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 24._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 25._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 26._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 27._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 28._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 29._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 30._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ Version 2.0 31._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 32._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 33._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 34._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 35._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 36._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 37._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 38._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 39._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 40._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ Ordinance No. 5294 Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferential Parking Districts) and Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor) The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does 0 RDAIN as follows: Section 1. Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferred Parking Districts) is hereby added to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: Sections: RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICTS Purpose Definitions RFP Designation Criteria Initiation by City Council Initiation by Neighborhood Petition 10.50.010 10.50.020 10.50.030 10.50.040 10.50.050 10.50.060 10.50.070 10.50.080 10.50.090 10.50.100 Establishment of Residential Preferential Parking Districts Administration of Districts Annexation of New Areas to Existing Districts Modification or Termination of Districts Violations and Penalties 10.50.010 Purpose. Residential preferential parking districts are intended to restore and enhance the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by reducing the impact of parking associated with nearby businesses and institutional uses. The procedures and standards in this chapter are intended to provide flexibility so that the city council may adopt, after consultation with residents and neighboring businesses and institutions, parking programs that appropriately protect each neighborhood's unique characteristics. Residential preferential parking districts should be designed to accommodate non-residential parking when this can be done while meeting the parking availability standards determined by the city to be appropriate for the district in question. Residential preferential parking programs may be designed to reduce non-residential parking over time to give non-residential parkers time to find other modes of transportation or parking locations. 10.50.020 Definitions. The following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: 140826 jb 01312SOC 1 December 9, 2014 a) "Director" shall mean the director of planning and community environment. b) "Dwelling unit" shall mean a self-contained house, apartment, stock cooperative unit, or condominium unit occupied by a single household exclusively for residential purposes. These residential purposes may include lawful home occupations. c) "Employee permit" shall mean a permit issued to an employee working at a business located within an RPP District or as defined in an RPP district specific resolution. d) "Guest permit" shall mean a permit issued to a Resident on an annual basis for use by a person visiting a residence in an RPP District or for workers providing services such as caregiving, gardening, repair maintenance and construction, to the Resident. The number of Guest permits issued to Residents shall be specified in administrative regulations adopted by the Director. e) "Non-resident vehicle" shall mean a vehicle operated by a person whose destination is not to a residence within the Residential Preferential Parking District. f) "Resident" shall mean a natural person living in a dwelling unit in an RPP District. g) "Residential Preferential Parking District" or "RPP District" shall mean a geographical area in which the city council has established a preferential parking permit system pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 22507. h) "Visitor permit" shall mean a temporary 24-hour permit issued to a Resident for use by a person visiting a residence in an RPP District. 10.50.030 RPP Designation Criteria The council may designate an area as a Residential Preferential Parking District based upon the following criteria: (1) That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents; (2) That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly; (3) That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life; ( 4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical. 10.50.040 Initiation by City Council The city council may, by motion, initiate consideration of a RPP District by directing staff to undertake the analysis and outreach process set forth in Section · 10.50.0SO(d) and (e). 10.50.050 Initiation by Neighborhood Petition Residents may request the formation of an RPP District in their neighborhood. The request shall be made, and considered, in the following manner: (a) Form of Application. 140826 jb 0131250C 2 December 9, 2014 (1) The director shall establish a standard form for the application for the formation of a new RPP District, as well as a list of submittal requirements for use by interested residents. These requirements shall include a narrative describing the nature and perceived source of non-residential parking impact, as well as suggested district boundaries. The director shall also approve a standard form for use in demonstrating resident support for the application. (2) Residents shall initiate a request for establishment of an RPP District by neighborhood petition by completing the official application form. (3) Residents are encouraged to consult with the employers and employees thought to be the source of the parking impact as they develop their proposals. (b) Timing and Review of Applications. Each calendar year, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall review all applications received prior to March 31st of that year to determine whether the RPP District criteria established in this Chapter are met. ( c) Prioritization of Applications. Applications determined by the Director to meet the criteria in paragraph (b) above shall be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission. The commission shall review the requests and recommend to the director which proposal or proposals should be given priority for review and possible implementation in the current calendar year. In making its recommendations, the commission shall consider the severity of non-residential parking impact, the demonstrated level of neighborhood support, and the staff resources needed to process requests. ( d) Staff Review of Applications and Community Outreach. Once an application has been selected for council consideration during the current calendar year, staff shall promptly review the application, gather additional information and conduct a community outreach program. At a minimum the review process shall include the following: (1) The City shall complete parking occupancy studies to quantify the nature of the problem identified in the petition. Data shall be collected when schools in the Palo Alto Unified School District and Stanford University are in session, unless these institutions are irrelevant to the problem to be addressed. (2) Upon completion of the consultation and outreach process, the city attorney shall prepare a draft resolution containing the proposed boundaries and hours of enforcement. Staff shall undertake a survey of resident support within the RPP District. The results of this survey shall be included in and reported to the planning and transportation commission and the city council. ( e) Planning and Transportation Commission Review. Staff shall bring the proposed RPP District to the planning & transportation commission no later than September of the calendar year in which consideration began. The commission shall review the draft resolution at a noticed public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council regarding the RPP District. This recommendation may include 140826 jb 0131250C 3 December 9, 2014 proposed modifications of the boundaries. The commission's recommendation shall be forwarded to the city council no later than September 30th. 10.50.060 Establishment of Residential Preferential Parking Districts (a) Adoption of Resolution Establishing District. Following the completion of the procedures described in Section 10.50.050, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on a proposed resolution to establish the residential preferential parking district. The resolution may specify a trial period of up to two years. Any such trial period shall begin running after the signs have been posted and permits issued. The council may adopt, modify, or reject the proposed resolution. (b) Resolution. The resolution shall specify: (1) The findings that the criteria set forth in Section 10. 50.030 have been met. (2) The term of the trial period, if applicable. (3) The boundaries and name of the residential preferential parking district. The boundary map may also define areas which will become subject to the regulations of the residential preferential parking district in the future if the council approves a resident petition for annexation as provided in Section 10.50.080 below. ( 4) Hours and days of enforcement of parking regulations and other restrictions that shall be in effect for non-permit holders, such as two-hour parking limits, overnight parking limits, or "no re-parking" zones. (5) The number of permits, if any, to be issued to merchants or other non- residential users, which number may be scheduled to reduce over time. (6) Resident permit rates which are set by City Council policy will be uniform across each district. (7) Such other matters as the Council may deem necessary and desirable, including but not limited to fee rates and whether non-residential parking permits are allowed to be issued and transferred. ( c) Permanent Adoption. Before the expiration of the trial period, if applicable, the city council shall hold a noticed public hearing and determine whether the RPP District should be made permanent as originally adopted, modified or terminated. The council's action shall be in the form of a resolution. 10.50.070 Administration of Districts (a) Issuance and Fees. (1) No permit will be issued to any applicant until that applicant has paid all of his or her outstanding parking citations, including all civil penalties and related fees. (2) A residential parking permit may be issued for a motor vehicle if the following requirements are met: A. The applicant demonstrates that he or she is currently a resident of the area for which the permit is to be issued. 140826 jb 0131250C 4 December 9, 2014 B. The applicant demonstrates that he or she has ownership or continuing custody of the motor vehicle for which the permit is to be issued. C. Any motor vehicle to be issued a permit must have a vehicle registration indicating registration within the area for which the permit is to be issued. (3) Visitor or guest parking permits may be issued for those vehicles or to those individuals or households that qualify for those permits under the resolution establishing the RPP District. ( 4) Employee parking permits may be issued to those individuals and for those vehicles that qualify for such permits under the resolution establishing the RPP District. (b) No Guarantee of Availability of Parking. A parking permit shall not guarantee or reserve to the permit holder an on-street parking space within the designated residential preferential parking zone. ( c) Restrictions and Conditions. Each permit issued pursuant to this Section shall be subject to each and every condition and restriction set forth in this Chapter and as provided for in the resolution establishing the specific RPP District, as may be amended from time to time. The issuance of such permit shall not be construed to waive compliance with any other applicable parking law, regulation or ordinance. (d) Exemptions. The following vehicles are exempt from RPP District parking restrictions in this Chapter: · (1) A vehicle owned or operated by a public or private utility, when used in the course of business. (2) A vehicle owned or operated by a governmental agency, when used in the course of official government business. (3) A vehicle for which an authorized emergency vehicle permit has been issued by the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, when used in the course of business. ( 4) A vehicle parked or standing while actively delivering materials or freight. (5) A vehicle displaying an authorized exemption permit issued by the City of Palo Alto. (6) A vehicle displaying a State of California or military-issued disabled person placard or license plates. (7) A vehicle parked for the purpose of attending or participating in an event taking place at a school within the Palo Alto Unified School District or another event venue within the RPP District, provided that the vehicle is parked within two blocks of the venue, the venue has requested and received approval from the City at least fourteen days before the event date, and the venue distributes notices to all addresses within a two -block radius of the venue. The RPP District Resolution shall specify the covered venues and number of permitted events per year. (8) All vehicles are exempt from parking restrictions pursuant to this Chapter on the following holidays: January 1, July 4, Thanksgiving Day, and December 25. 140826 jb 0131250C 5 December 9, 2014 ( e) Authority of Staff a. The director is authorized to adopt administrative regulations that are consistent with the purposes of this Chapter. Prior to adoption the director shall conduct a noticed public meeting soliciting input on such guidelines. b. The Police Department or private parking enforcement contractor as approved by the Chief of Police shall have the authority to enforce the administrative regulations established pursuant to this Chapter. 10.50.080 Annexation of New Areas to Existing Districts Residents of any block may petition the director for annexation into a contiguous RPP District. The petition shall be on forms provided by the department. If the petition meets the criteria established in administrative regulations adopted by the director, a resolution annexing it to the RPP District shall be prepared by the city attorney and submitted to the city council, together with the director's recommendation on the proposed annexation. The city council may approve, deny, or modify the annexation. 10.50.090 Modification or Termination of Districts (a) Opting out. After final adoption of an RPP District, Residents may file an application with the director to opt out of the RPP District. The minimum number of blocks and percentage of units supporting the opt-out shall be specified by the director in the administrative guidelines. Applications for opting out shall be made in the form and manner prescribed by the director and shall be acted up on by the director. Any opt out application shall be filed within ninety (90) days after council adoption of the resolution establishing the RPP District. (b) Dissolution. The city council following a noticed public hearing may adopt a resolution dissolving the RPP District: (1) Upon receipt and verification of a petition signed by 50% or more of all the households within an approved RPP District boundary, or (2) Upon findings by the City Council that the criteria for designating the RPP District are no longer satisfied. 10.50.100 Violations and Penalties (a) No person shall park a vehicle adjacent to any curb in a residential preferential parking zone in violation of any posted or noticed prohibition or restriction, unless the person has a valid and current residential preferential parking permit, visitor permit, guest permit or employee permit for that vehicle, or is otherwise exempt. Violations of this sub-section shall be punishable by a civil penalty under Chapter 10.60.010. (b) No person shall sell, rent, or lease, or cause to be sold, rented, or leased for any value or consideration any RPP District parking permit, visitor permit or guest permit. Upon violation of this subsection, all permits issued to for the benefit of the 140826 jb 0131250C 6 December 9, 2014 dwelling unit or business establishment for which the sold, rented, or leased permit was authorized shall be void. Violation of this sub-section (b) shall be punishable as a n infraction. ( c) No person shall buy or otherwise acquire for value or use any RPP District parking permit, guest permit or visitor permit except as provided for in this chapter. Violation of this sub-section (c) shall be punishable as an infraction. SECTION 2. Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as .follows: 10.04.086 Parking Enforcement Contractor "Parking Enforcement Contractor" means any duly qualified company that the City has entered into a contract with and that has been approved by the Chief of Police to provide enforcement of Chapter 10.50 relating to Palo Alto Municipal Code infractions only in parking zones. Enforcement includes both the issuance and processing of citations for RPP District parking violations. SECTION 3. Section 10.08.015 (Authority of Parking Enforcement Contractor) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: 10.08.015 Authority of Parking Enforcement Contractor The City may enter into a contract with a duly qualified company, approved by the Chief of Police, to provide enforcement of Chapter 10.50 relating to RPP District parking violations (as permissible by the Palo Alto Municipal Code). SECTION 4. Section 10.60.010 (Parking violations punishable as civil penalties) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 10.60.010 Parking Violations Punishable as Civil Penalties Except as otherwise provided, violations of any provision of Chapters 10.36, 10.40, 10.44, 10.46, aru:l 10.47. and 10.50 of this Title 10 (hereinafter referred to as a "parking violation") shall be punishable by a civil penalty (hereinafter referred to as a "parking penalty"). These parking penalties, together with any late payment penalties, administrative fees, and other related charges shall be established by ordinance or resolution of the city council. SECTION 5. CEQA. T~is ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuantto Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have 140826 jb 0131250C 7 December 9, 2014 a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: December 2, 2014 PASSED: December 15, 2014 AYES: BERMAN, BURT, HOLMAN, KLEIN, KNISS, PRICE, SCHARFF, SCHMID SHEPHERD NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ~ Interim City Clerk APPROVED: 140826 jb 01312SOC 8 December 9, 2014 November 7, 2016 Dear Resident, Residents of Evergreen Park have requested the establishment of a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program in your area. The City of Palo Alto is conducting a survey (attached) to determine whether the proposed program is supported by a majority of residents. In order for the City to establish an RPP program and implement weekday parking restrictions, a 70% positive response rate from this survey is required. Please indicate whether you support the introduction of an RPP program in your area by completing and returning the enclosed survey in the stamped, pre-addressed envelope provided by Wednesday, November 23, 2016. As currently envisioned, the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Program would limit the number of non-resident vehicles that could be parked in the neighborhood, and would include the following parameters: Permits would be required to park any vehicle on-street in excess of two (2) hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. All area households would be eligible for one (1) annual permit sticker free of charge and could purchase up to three (3) additional annual permit stickers at a cost of $50 each. Residents could also purchase up to two (2) transferable annual permit hangtags for $50 each, and up to 50 transferable one-day permit hangtags per year for $5 each. The transferable permit hangtags may be used on any vehicle, including household visitor vehicles. Employees of businesses located within the area would be eligible to purchase transferable one-day permit hangtags for $5 and annual permits stickers for $149. All employee permits would be specific to one of the two employee parking zones (see included map for proposed area and employee parking zone boundaries). Discounted annual permit stickers would be available to low-income employees for $50. A maximum of 125 annual employee permits would be available in each of the two proposed employee parking zones, for a total of 250. Preference would be given to low-income employees and those already on the waiting list for the City-owned garages and lots in the area. This is proposed as a trial program, which would be reevaluated after one year. If extended, the City Council may elect to reduce the number of employee permits annually based on City transportation goals and increased parking supply. Please complete and return the enclosed survey by November 23, 2016. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact Transportation Division staff at 650-329-2520 or transportation@cityofpaloalto.org. Regards, JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP Chief Transportation Official Proposed Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program Resident Survey (One Response Per Household Please) Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________ Street Address: _______________________________________________________________________________ Unit Number: ________________________________________________________________________________ Phone Number: ______________________________________________________________________________ E-mail Address: ______________________________________________________________________________ Please select only one of the options below: □ We support the implementation of parking restrictions as outlined in the attached letter. If parking restrictions are enacted, we recognize that residents without valid permits will also be subject to citations. □ We do not support the implementation of parking restrictions as outlined in the attached letter. Comments: Please return survey by November 23, 2016 to: City of Palo Alto Transportation Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, Floor 5 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Or by email to: (transportation@cityofpaloalto.org) If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact the Transportation Division at 650-329-2520 or transportation@cityofpaloalto.org. Park Blvd El Camino Real Alma St Bryant St Emerson St El Camino Real Park Blvd Ash St Churchill Ave Birch St High St College Ave Gran t Ave Stanfo rd Av e Seale Ave Oxford Ave Cambridge Ave Castilleja Ave Lowell Ave Olmsted Rd Sherman Ave S California Ave Oregon Ave Kellogg Ave Leland A ve She ridan Ave Mariposa Ave Serra St Tennyson Ave Coleridge Ave N C alif ornia Ave Miramonte Ave Ramona St Madrono Ave Santa Rita Ave Rinconada Ave Escobita Ave Sequoia Ave Park A ve N els o n R d Portola Ave New Mayfi eld Ln Sam Mcdonald Rd Jacaranda Ln Nevada Ave Melville Ave Embarcadero Rd Park Blvd Emerson St Ash St Birch St Sheridan Ave Ramona St Oregon Expy High St W:\San Jose N Drive\Projects\_SJ16_Projects\SJ16_1668_Palo_Alto_On_Call\Graphics\GIS\MXD\AM_Occupancy.mxd City of Palo AltoSouthgate & Evergreen ParkAM Peak Parking Occupancy Rates AM (7-9 AM) Occupancy 0-49% Occupancy 50-84% Occupancy 85%+ Occupancy No Parking Anytime No Stopping Anytime Study Area NN.T.S. Data Collected May 24, 2016 Park Blvd El Camino Real Alma St Bryant St Emerson St El Camino Real Park Blvd Ash St Churchill Ave Birch St High St College Ave Gran t Ave Stanfo rd Av e Seale Ave Oxford Ave Cambridge Ave Castilleja Ave Lowell Ave Olmsted Rd Sherman Ave S California Ave Oregon Ave Kellogg Ave Leland A ve She ridan Ave Mariposa Ave Serra St Tennyson Ave Coleridge Ave N C alif ornia Ave Miramonte Ave Ramona St Madrono Ave Santa Rita Ave Rinconada Ave Escobita Ave Sequoia Ave Park A ve N els o n R d Portola Ave New Mayfi eld Ln Sam Mcdonald Rd Jacaranda Ln Nevada Ave Melville Ave Embarcadero Rd Park Blvd Emerson St Ash St Birch St Sheridan Ave Ramona St Oregon Expy High St W:\San Jose N Drive\Projects\_SJ16_Projects\SJ16_1668_Palo_Alto_On_Call\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Midday_Occupancy.mxd City of Palo AltoSouthgate & Evergreen ParkAM Peak Parking Occupancy Rates Midday (12-2 PM) Occupancy 0-49% Occupancy 50-84% Occupancy 85%+ Occupancy No Parking Anytime No Stopping Anytime Study Area NN.T.S. Data Collected May 24, 2016 Park Blvd El Camino Real Alma St Bryant St Emerson St El Camino Real Park Blvd Ash St Churchill Ave Birch St High St College Ave Gran t Ave Stanfo rd Av e Seale Ave Oxford Ave Cambridge Ave Castilleja Ave Lowell Ave Olmsted Rd Sherman Ave S California Ave Oregon Ave Kellogg Ave Leland A ve She ridan Ave Mariposa Ave Serra St Tennyson Ave Coleridge Ave N C alif ornia Ave Miramonte Ave Ramona St Madrono Ave Santa Rita Ave Rinconada Ave Escobita Ave Sequoia Ave Park A ve N els o n R d Portola Ave New Mayfi eld Ln Sam Mcdonald Rd Jacaranda Ln Nevada Ave Melville Ave Embarcadero Rd Park Blvd Emerson St Ash St Birch St Sheridan Ave Ramona St Oregon Expy High St N:\Projects\_SJ16_Projects\SJ16_1668_Palo_Alto_On_Call\Graphics\GIS\MXD\PM_Occupancy.mxd City of Palo AltoSouthgate & Evergreen ParkAM Peak Parking Occupancy Rates PM (5-7 PM) Occupancy 0-49% Occupancy 50-84% Occupancy 85%+ Occupancy No Parking Anytime No Stopping Anytime Study Area NN.T.S. Data Collected May 24, 2016 Park Blvd El Camino Real Alma St Bryant St Emerson St El Camino Real Park Blvd Ash St Churchill Ave Birch St High St College Ave Gran t Ave Stanfo rd Av e Seale Ave Oxford Ave Cambridge Ave Castilleja Ave Lowell Ave Olmsted Rd Sherman Ave S California Ave Oregon Ave Kellogg Ave Leland A ve She ridan Ave Mariposa Ave Serra St Tennyson Ave Coleridge Ave N C alif ornia Ave Miramonte Ave Ramona St Madrono Ave Santa Rita Ave Rinconada Ave Escobita Ave Sequoia Ave Park A ve N els o n R d Portola Ave New Mayfi eld Ln Sam Mcdonald Rd Jacaranda Ln Nevada Ave Melville Ave Embarcadero Rd Park Blvd Emerson St Ash St Birch St Sheridan Ave Ramona St Oregon Expy High St \\Fpsj03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\_SJ16_Projects\SJ16_1668_Palo_Alto_On_Call\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Overnight_Occupancy.mxd City of Palo AltoEvergreen ParkOvernight Parking Occupancy Rates Overnight (11:30 PM) Occupancy 0-49% Occupancy 50-84% Occupancy 85%+ Occupancy Study Area NN.T.S. Data Collected October 4, 2016 Oregon AveRamona StSanta Rita Ave Ramona St Colorado Ave O r e g o n A v e El Dorado Ave N California AveWashington Ave Rinconada Ave El Camino Real Sherman Ave Santa Rita Ave Palo Alto Sq S California Ave Acacia Ave Ol m s t e d R d Ca mbridge Ave Staunton Ct Pepper Ave J a c ar an da L n Page Mill Rd New Mayfield Ln Birch St Sheri d an Ave Olive Av e Oxfo rd Ave Gr a nt Ave Park Blvd Ash St Stan ford Ave College Av e Ore g o n Ex py Alma St W:\San Jose N Drive\Projects\_SJ16_Projects\SJ16_1668_Palo_Alto_On_Call\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Mayfield_AM_Occupancy.mxd City of Palo AltoMayfieldAM Peak Parking Occupancy Rates AM (7-9 AM) Occupancy 0-49% Occupancy 50-84% Occupancy 85%+ Occupancy No Parking Anytime No Parking 5 PM-8 AM Study Area NN.T.S. Data Collected November 17, 2016 Oregon AveRamona StSanta Rita Ave Ramona St Colorado Ave O r e g o n A v e El Dorado Ave N California AveWashington Ave Rinconada Ave El Camino Real Sherman Ave Santa Rita Ave Palo Alto Sq S California Ave Acacia Ave Ol m s t e d R d Ca mbridge Ave Staunton Ct Pepper Ave J a c ar an da L n Page Mill Rd New Mayfield Ln Birch St Sheri d an Ave Olive Av e Oxfo rd Ave Gr a nt Ave Park Blvd Ash St Stan ford Ave College Av e Ore g o n Ex py Alma St N:\Projects\_SJ16_Projects\SJ16_1668_Palo_Alto_On_Call\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Mayfield_Midday_Occupancy.mxd City of Palo AltoMayfieldMidday Peak Parking Occupancy Rates Midday (12-2 PM) Occupancy 0-49% Occupancy 50-84% Occupancy 85%+ Occupancy No Parking Anytime No Parking 5 PM-8 AM Study Area NN.T.S. Data Collected November 17, 2016 Oregon AveRamona StSanta Rita Ave Ramona St Colorado Ave O r e g o n A v e El Dorado Ave N California AveWashington Ave Rinconada Ave El Camino Real Sherman Ave Santa Rita Ave Palo Alto Sq S California Ave Acacia Ave Ol m s t e d R d Ca mbridge Ave Staunton Ct Pepper Ave J a c ar an da L n Page Mill Rd New Mayfield Ln Birch St Sheri d an Ave Olive Av e Oxfo rd Ave Gr a nt Ave Park Blvd Ash St Stan ford Ave College Av e Ore g o n Ex py Alma St N:\Projects\_SJ16_Projects\SJ16_1668_Palo_Alto_On_Call\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Mayfield_PM_Occupancy.mxd City of Palo AltoMayfieldPM Peak Parking Occupancy Rates PM (5-7 PM) Occupancy 0-49% Occupancy 50-84% Occupancy 85%+ Occupancy No Parking Anytime No Parking 5 PM-8 AM Study Area NN.T.S. Data Collected November 17, 2016 Oregon AveRamona StSanta Rita Ave Ramona St Colorado Ave O r e g o n A v e El Dorado Ave N California AveWashington Ave Rinconada Ave El Camino Real Sherman Ave Santa Rita Ave Palo Alto Sq S California Ave Acacia Ave Ol m s t e d R d Ca mbridge Ave Staunton Ct Pepper Ave J a c ar an da L n Page Mill Rd New Mayfield Ln Birch St Sheri d an Ave Olive Av e Oxfo rd Ave Gr a nt Ave Park Blvd Ash St Stan ford Ave College Av e Ore g o n Ex py Alma St N:\Projects\_SJ16_Projects\SJ16_1668_Palo_Alto_On_Call\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Mayfield_Overnight_Occupancy.mxd City of Palo AltoMayfieldOvernight Parking Occupancy Rates Overnight (11:30 PM) Occupancy 0-49% Occupancy 50-84% Occupancy 85%+ Occupancy No Parking Anytime No Parking 5 PM-8 AM Study Area NN.T.S. Data Collected November 17, 2016 EVERGREEN PARK RESIDENTIAL FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATION Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing the Evergreen Park Residential Parking District Under Chapter 10.50 of the Municipal Code 1 8/24/2016 A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by city council action, of permit parking programs in residential neighborhoods for residents and other categories of parkers. B. On December 15, 2015 the Council adopted Ordinance No 5294, adding Chapter 10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Chapter establishes the city-wide procedures for RPP Districts in the city. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The criteria set forth in Section 10.50.030 for designating a Residential Permit Zone have been met as follows: 1) That non-residential vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents; 2) That the interference by the non-residential vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly; 3) That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life; 4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical. EVERGREEN PARK RESIDENTIAL FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATION Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing the Evergreen Park Residential Parking District Under Chapter 10.50 of the Municipal Code 2 8/24/2016 SECTION 2. District Established. Pursuant to Chapter 10.50, the Evergreen Park Residential Parking District (EPRPD) is hereby established. The boundaries of the EPRP District are shown on Attachment A attached to this resolution and made a part of it. Blocks that are directly adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the EPRP District may become subject to the regulations of the EPRP District in the future if the Council approves a resident petition for annexation as provided in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.50.080. Individual Block Faces may opt out of the District if 51% of the residents in the block face petition the city to remove the block face from the District. A petition for re-inclusion into the District may not be made until at least one year after removal. SECTION 4. Hours and Days of Enforcement. The parking regulations shall be in effect Monday through Friday from 6:00 am to 7:00pm. During the regulated days and hours of enforcement, no person shall park in an on-street parking space within the EPRP District for more than two continuous hours without a valid permit, except a vehicle parked at an electrical recharging station shall be allowed four hours parking while recharging. No re-parking is allowed in the District after the initial two hours limit has expired without a permit. A vehicle lawfully displaying a Resident Parking Permit shall be exempt from the two-hour limit and may park in any legal parking space within the District. Other vehicles exempt from the parking regulations are contained in Chapter 10.50. Outside of these enforcement hours, any motor vehicle may park in EPRP District subject to other applicable parking regulations. SECTION 5. Residential Parking Permits A. Duration. Residential permits shall be made available on an annual basis and may be renewed if the applicant continues to be eligible to receive a permit. One-day visitor permits for residents will also be available. B. Purchase of Permits. Requirements and eligibility for purchase of permits for residents shall be listed in the Administrative Regulations. The occupant of a residential property in the EPRP District may purchase residential permits. All EVERGREEN PARK RESIDENTIAL FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATION Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing the Evergreen Park Residential Parking District Under Chapter 10.50 of the Municipal Code 3 8/24/2016 permits shall be in the form of hang tags and shall be interchangeable between vehicles. C. Permit Sales. 1. Residential Permits. Each residential address may purchase permits at the costs listed in Section 6. 2. Daily Visitor Permits. Each residential address may purchase up to 80 Daily Visitor Parking Permits annually. These permits shall be in the form of “scratcher” hang tags, using an on-line issuance system, or such other form as the City may decide. The permit shall clearly indicate the address to which it was issued and the date for which it is valid. 3. Annual Guest Permits. Each residential address may purchase up to two (2) annual guest permits which are transferable within a household. The permit shall clearly indicate the address to which it was issued and the time period for which it is valid. SECTION 6. Cost of Residential and Residential Visitor Parking Permits. A. Residential Standard Permits. a. Residents shall receive up to four (4) permits per residential address. First Permit Free $0 Second through Fourth Permit $40/year B. Annual Guest Permits. A residential address may purchase up to two (2) Annual Guest permits at $40/year C. Visitor Daily Permit. $5 each. SECTION 7. Merchant Parking Permits and Distribution of Parking Spaces. A. Ten percent of the existing legal on-street parking spaces in the EPRP District shall be made available for use by vehicles with Merchant Parking permits. Location of the use of these permits shall be equitably distributed throughout the District.* The number of these available spaces shall be reduced by 20% of the original number each year. The number of Merchant Permits sold shall not exceed the number of spaces designated for workers shown in 7.A. B. The annual cost of Merchant Permits shall be established in consultation with the Merchant stakeholders. C. No daily Merchant Permits will be available for purchase. EVERGREEN PARK RESIDENTIAL FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATION Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing the Evergreen Park Residential Parking District Under Chapter 10.50 of the Municipal Code 4 8/24/2016 SECTION 8. Exempt from CEQA. This ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed Ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. SECTION 9. Effective date. This resolution shall take effect upon the date of Ordinance No. 5294, amending Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferential Parking Districts) and Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor). Enforcement shall commence pursuant to Chapter 10.50 and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: 2016 *Merchant Parking distribution options: 1) Designate one parking space in each block face that has ten or more legal parking spaces, as a space that is available for use with a Merchant Permit 2) Designate a named street on each Merchant permit. Parking with that permit would be restricted to that street. 3) Other ?? EVERGREEN PARK RESIDENTIAL FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATION Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing the Evergreen Park Residential Parking District Under Chapter 10.50 of the Municipal Code 5 8/24/2016 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Action Agenda: December 14, 2016 2 Council Chambers 3 250 Hamilton Avenue 4 6:00 PM 5 6 Call to Order / Roll Call 6:07 pm 7 Commissioner Fine absent 8 9 [Note‐did not record] 10 11 Oral Communications 12 The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 13 14 Chair Alcheck: [Recording starts in progress] it’s an opportunity for Oral Communications, 15 members of the public who submit a card can speak for a few minutes on any topic. I don’t 16 believe we’ve received any cards; cards specific to Oral Communications or cards specific to an 17 agendized item? Yeah, ok. So let’s move on. 18 19 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 20 The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 21 22 Chair Alcheck: Are there any changes, additions or deletions that we need to let anyone know 23 about? Good. 24 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 City Official Reports 2 1. Assistant Director's Report 3 2. 2016 and 2017 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Schedule and 4 Assignments 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok, why don’t we start with the report from the Assistant Director then? 7 8 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Great, thank you. Just wanted to this is the last Planning and 9 Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting of the year. Just wanted to thank the Commission 10 for all of your work and support over the year and I’m looking forward to 2017 and to 11 Commissioner Tanaka, congratulations and good luck next year with your new duties and 12 responsibilities. I’d also like to thank Commissioner or Vice‐Chair Asher for attending the City 13 Council meeting on Monday for the Council’s discussion on the housing impact fee ordinance, 14 the two ordinances that went forward. The City Council did adopt the ordinances and included 15 the PTC recommendation to lower the fee for rental units to $20 a square foot. And that’s it, 16 that’s the end of the report. Thank you. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I'm going to just remind my fellow Commissioners to email our secretary 19 their availability, their basically three months they would like to be present for Council 20 meetings and let her know. I think before we jump in I'll just say that I'll acknowledge that this 21 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. is our last meeting together Mr. Tanaka, Commissioner Tanaka. And it's also our last meeting 1 with Commissioner Fine who couldn't be here tonight. But it's been really wonderful serving 2 with you, I'm sure I speak for everybody and it's not really goodbye because you're just moving 3 upstairs, if you will. So good luck to you and let us know if there’s anything we can do. 4 5 Study Session 6 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 7 Action Items 8 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 9 All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 10 3. Review and Recommendation to the City Council for the Creation of a New 11 Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program in the Evergreen Park and Mayfield 12 Neighborhoods Bounded by Park Boulevard, Caltrain Rail Corridor, Oregon 13 Expressway, Page Mill Road and El Camino Real 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Ok, alright so why don’t we get started with Item Number 3 to review the 16 Residential Preferential Parking (RPP). 17 18 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: If you could just give us one minute to get set up we'll be 19 ready. 20 21 Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official: Good evening Chair, Commissioners; my name is 22 Josh Mello. I’m the City's Chief Transportation Official and currently I represent the City's entire 23 Parking Department. So unfortunate I don’t have anybody else to bring with me, I'll be doing 24 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the presentation on the Evergreen Park Mayfield RPP program. This is the first step before you 1 bring the program to City Council on January 23rd. So I'm going to do a very brief presentation 2 and I think there's more that we can all benefit from in the question and answer (Q&A) session 3 and hopefully we can help mold this into something that we can then bring to City Council. 4 5 So a little bit of background on how we got here today; as you know there's a citywide RPP 6 ordinance that has a very specific set of steps that are required in order for a neighborhood to 7 implement an RPP program. Those steps are outlined in the ordinance which is linked in the 8 staff report I provided, but generally it has several findings that need to be made including 9 nonresident vehicles interfering with the use of a street by neighborhood residents, that this 10 interference occurs at frequent intervals, and also this congestion and nonresident vehicle 11 occupancy creates noise, traffic congestion or other disruption. It also urges staff to look at 12 other options before moving into an RPP program immediately and implement any parking 13 strategies that may be feasible. 14 15 So back in March of this year we received a resident petition from the stakeholders in the 16 Evergreen Park neighborhood who self‐organized and circulated a petition which is one of the 17 first steps in the RPP ordinance. In April if you remember we brought to you four separate 18 petitions that were submitted by residents and you made a recommendation to City Council 19 that we move forward with Evergreen Park and Southgate. We then went to City Council in 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. May and brought your recommendation forward and City Council concurred and directed us to 1 move forward with the Evergreen Park RPP. They also directed us to implement some 2 engineering and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) projects and programs in 3 Southgate before moving forward with a Southgate RPP program. 4 5 Immediately following the City Council meeting we began to collect data including daytime 6 parking occupancy counts for all of the entire Evergreen Park neighborhood as well as 7 surrounding neighborhoods. And these counts are taken at three points in time during a typical 8 weekday. We also began the stakeholder process planning, Council directed us to use a 9 stakeholder process to determine the program design and also determine the number of 10 permits that should be issued to employees of merchants and retail establishments in the Cal 11 Ave. Business District. Between July and November we undertook a fairly extensive 12 stakeholder process and we also conducted several supplemental data collection efforts as the 13 conversation evolved with the stakeholders in the community we noticed gaps in some of our 14 data and we were able to supplement that data collection through the months of July and 15 November. That concluded with a public meeting where we presented the draft program 16 design to the greater community in October and then we are bringing this to you this evening 17 for your consideration. And we look forward to moving on the City Council and then 18 implementation with a goal of beginning enforcement in April of 2017. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. The stakeholder process in this case kicked off with a community workshop at the Palo Alto 1 Unified School District (PAUSD) headquarters on July 14th. We had very good attendance at 2 that meeting. At that meeting we presented some of the parameters of the current Downtown 3 RPP Program with the recognition that that would not be a one size fits all program and we 4 could not just duplicate all of the Downtown parameters for the Evergreen Park program. 5 Residents in a breakout session following our presentation were able to provide some input as 6 to what some of the major issues are in their community around parking and parking 7 occupancy. They also provided us with a very important feedback on what they think would 8 and would not work from the Downtown RPP Program. 9 10 August 25th we held a resident focus group at a church in the neighborhood. This focus group 11 was oriented strictly towards the residents and what the residents may feel are the most 12 important issues around an RPP program. We gained some very important feedback. At that 13 meeting the residents submitted a draft resolution that was resident generated that is also 14 included in your packet. September 25th we convened a business focus group meeting in order 15 to ascertain what some of the issues and concerns of the business community may be. We 16 heard very good feedback at that meeting as well and came to understand some of the 17 challenges that the businesses have around parking in the Cal Ave. Business District. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. On July 14th we held or I'm sorry, that should be October 14th we held our community 1 workshop Number 2 at the PAUSD headquarters. At that workshop we presented the draft 2 program design which is before you this evening. We presented the all of the parameters of 3 the program including number of permits, permit prices, strategy for employee permit 4 distribution and sales, enforcement hours, and a whole host of other program parameters. And 5 we also received very good feedback from the residents at a breakout session following the 6 presentation at that meeting. 7 8 Finally, we mailed out a 1,652 surveys on October 31st and we gave the residents three weeks 9 to respond to that survey. The deadline was immediately before the Thanksgiving holiday. We 10 did have a couple hiccups with the survey and we were able to FedEx some additional surveys 11 to some multifamily buildings that due to mailing errors had not received the surveys. We've 12 received a fairly decent response from that. In the survey which is also including your packet 13 we outline what the proposed parameters of the program would be, the proposed boundaries, 14 and also asked folks whether they would support or not support the implementation of such a 15 program. 16 17 Going quickly through some of the data collection and I know you'll likely have some questions 18 about specifics around this data so I’ll go through quickly and then we can come back to it. We 19 collected daytime occupancy counts for the Evergreen Park neighborhood that was the first 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. data collection effort. We do three separate counts we do morning, midday, and evening. In 1 Evergreen Park we found that the midday is the busiest time of day for parking occupancy. 2 There are thirteen blocks that are over 85 percent occupancy at specific periods and 85 percent 3 occupancy is generally the rule of thumb used for parking management in higher density 4 downtown business districts. It’s by no means perfect measure for a residential area; however, 5 there is no other guidance out there around what you know as far as thresholds for parking 6 occupancy and residential neighborhoods that are more similar to Evergreen Park so that's the 7 rule of thumb we've been using to date. 85 percent occupancy or below generally means that 8 there is more than two spaces per block available so one space per side, generally when you 9 start to get over 85 percent that means people are not able to find a parking space on the block 10 of their destination. And not surprisingly we found that blocks near California Avenue and El 11 Camino Real have the highest occupancy. The further you get from those two corridors the 12 lower the occupancy is. 13 14 The next round of data collection was an Evergreen Park night time, an overnight data 15 collection. This was done at 11:30 p.m. when most residents would generally be home and the 16 reason we did this was to determine the estimated number of resident vehicles that are parked 17 in the neighborhood. Now granted there is probably some long term Caltrain parkers and some 18 Stanford students that may leave their vehicles overnight as well so we'd want to subtract some 19 of that as we begin to get into these numbers. With this count we found that 44.7 percent of 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the available curb space was occupied, so a little bit under half of the curb space is utilized by 1 residents of the neighborhood assuming that the overnight count is an effective measure of the 2 resident demand for the parking. Again not surprisingly College Avenue has the highest 3 nighttime occupancy. That street is mainly comprised of multifamily housing units so there 4 tends to be more of a parking demand from the residents there. So we found a higher 5 occupancy along College Avenue. 6 7 Throughout this process we struggled with how large the district should be and how we should 8 deal with the California Avenue Business District. Initially we discussed dividing the California 9 Avenue Business District in half and only allowing businesses North of Cal Ave. to purchase 10 Evergreen Park permits. If we were to include the entire California Avenue Business District we 11 did not think it was fair that Evergreen Park should bear the entire burden of spillover parking 12 from employees in the California Avenue Business District. So one of the decisions that we had 13 to make was how large the district should be and how the businesses within the California 14 Avenue Business District should be treated. So in the end we made the decision to expand the 15 area to include the Mayfield neighborhood which is south of the California Avenue Business 16 District and really has an odd assortment of parking regulations: time of day restrictions, 17 loading zones, and then a lot of unregulated or two hour parking. And there is actually a lot of 18 multifamily housing on the west side of this neighborhood so we included that area and 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. immediately upon making the decision that we would propose including this we did some 1 parking occupancy counts in Mayfield as well. 2 3 The daytime count in Mayfield again we found the midday was the busiest time of day. So this 4 is when most of the businesses are open and customers are visiting the businesses so that's not 5 surprising. We found eight blocks over the 85 percent occupancy at specific periods of the day. 6 And then this was interesting, the blocks near El Camino Real actually had the highest 7 occupancy. We didn't really see as much demand on the California Avenue side in Mayfield as 8 we did on El Camino. And I think the night time occupancy counts explains some of that; 9 there's a lot of multifamily housing along Grant closer to El Camino, so the overnight counts 10 showed a lot of occupancy closer to El Camino as well. We actually found lower occupancy 11 overnight in the Mayfield area, only 36.5 percent of the available space was occupied. The 12 block of 400 Grant Avenue exceeds 85 percent occupancy overnight which is fairly unusual and 13 again that's a lot of multifamily housing and we also would need to discount any long term 14 Caltrain parkers or Stanford students from these numbers as well. 15 16 The survey results are on this slide. As I mentioned earlier we mailed out 1652 surveys to 17 residential units. We did mail some out by mistake to business enterprises; those were not 18 included in the final tally. So there were actually 1,800 surveys mailed out. We re‐verified it 19 after the receipt of the surveys and discounted 200, so 1652 were from residential units. We 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. had a 20 percent return rate, 32 percent from Evergreen Park and 13 percent from Mayfield. 1 And of those 20 percent that were returned 72 percent support the program in Evergreen Park 2 and 60 percent support the program in Mayfield for an average vote of support of 68 percent 3 between the two neighborhoods. 4 5 So now I'm going to give you an overview of the recommended program design. This is a draft 6 program design for your review and comment. The boundaries are proposed to be the parcel 7 boundaries for the properties along the north side of Park Boulevard, the Caltrain rail corridor, 8 Oregon Expressway and Page Mill Road, and El Camino Real. We are proposing two employee 9 parking zones, a Zone A which is shown in blue and would essentially be the Evergreen Park 10 neighborhood and then an employee parking Zone B which is the green area also known as 11 Mayfield. We are recommending keeping the existing two hour commercial parking in the core 12 of the California Avenue Business District. That’s shown in brown. 13 14 The parameters of the program are very similar to the Downtown RPP. The proposed 15 parameters, excuse me. The enforcement hours would be Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 16 5:00 p.m. Resident parking permit stickers three would be available annually at $50 each; three 17 per household. Resident parking permit hang tags two annual hang tags would be available for 18 $50 each and then residents would also be able to purchase up to fifty daily permit hang tags at 19 $5 each per year. For employee permits there would be 250 total annual permits and they 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. would cost $149 each. This is the same price as the garage and lot permits for the California 1 Avenue Business District and we would recommend allocating 125 permits to each of the 2 employee parking zones so Zone A would have 125 permits and Zone B. would have 125 3 permits. 4 5 For employee parking permit priority we really struggled with the direction we got from Council 6 and also the wishes of a lot of the community members were to limit employee permits to so‐7 called merchants or retail establishments. That would require us to perform some kind of 8 verification using an employer classification code. We don't really have classification codes for 9 a lot of you know all of the businesses there’d likely be some that were straddling two different 10 classifications and it would be up to city staff or to use their judgment or we would have to 11 come back with some type of language in the resolution that actually got a little more clarity, 12 provided a little more clarity as to how we would identify retail and merchant establishments. 13 So what we're recommending instead is to give priority to low income employees. 14 15 Low income employees work in all types of businesses even offices have janitors and custodians 16 and cafeteria workers and others who would qualify as low income, but they might not 17 necessarily be considered as working for merchants or retail establishments. We would also 18 like to give priority to those on the wait list for the garages on the Cal Ave. Business District. 19 There's currently 249 folks on the wait list the last time I checked. And the low income permits 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. would be available for $50 per year which is the same price for the Downtown RPP low income 1 employee permits. And then finally there'd be unlimited daily permits available for employees 2 only to purchase at $5 each. And we recommend these because we want to provide employees 3 the opportunity to take different modes of transportation on Monday they may take Caltrain, 4 but on Wednesday they may want to park and we don't want to incentivize them driving every 5 day by making the annual permit the only available option for them. So this allows a little more 6 flexibility for employees’ schedules and different commuting patterns. 7 8 So this is where it gets a little bit complicated, we're recommending a cap of 250 employee 9 annual permits. Throughout the life of the Downtown RPP we've conducted occupancy studies 10 which determine how many employees are parked on the street at any given point in time. 11 And it's we usually do the midday when most of the employees are on parked on street that are 12 going to be there that day. We've shown that about, we've documented about 35 percent or 13 less of the employee permit holders show up on any given day and are on street at any point in 14 time. So if we were to sell 100 permits only about thirty‐five employees would show up at a 15 particular point in time. So in Evergreen Park the 250 number represents after you take into 16 that 35 percent figure we estimate that about 15 percent of the available overnight capacity 17 would be occupied so there's a little over half of the space that's vacant in Evergreen Park 18 overnight so that means about half the space is not being used by residents. So the 250 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. number represents fifteen percent of the available overnight capacity. It also is roughly equal 1 to the number of people that are on the wait list in the Cal Ave. Business District. 2 3 And during the business focus group we heard that the wait list is so long I think it's over a year 4 right now that typically a lot of the service workers are fairly short term. They don't stay 5 employed at one place for an extremely long time. A lot of their employees leave before they 6 reach the top of the wait list. So they're having a lot of them are really struggling with where to 7 direct their employees to park, so we think we'd like to make a concerted effort to clear that 8 wait list and help people find parking that's legal and within the regulations of the City of Palo 9 Alto and I think there's a lot of people that might be jumping around right now testing the 10 boundaries of enforcement and I think we need to clear that waiting list if possible. 11 12 We're not recommending an employee parking permit reduction at this time. If you remember 13 there was quite a bit of discussion around the Downtown RPP about ratcheting down the 14 number of employee permits over time. The number that's been discussed is 10 percent per 15 year. When we made that recommendation to Council we tied it directly to the 30 percent 16 single occupancy Vehicle (SOV) reduction goal of the Downtown Transportation Management 17 Association (TMA). We also tied it into the additional supply that will be created Downtown by 18 the garage on Lot D. We don't feel that we're at that point in the Cal Ave. Businesses District 19 where we can recommend a reduction in employee permits without ramping up our TDM 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. efforts and doing a thorough look at what that increased supply with the parking garages 1 associated with the Public Safety Building will do to the demand. I think we're recommending 2 this as a one year pilot program so I think it would make sense to look at a reduction in 3 employee permits in future years of the program as we get a better handle on the demand and 4 the supply in the Cal Ave. Businesses Direct. 5 6 We're also not recommending eligibility areas. So for the Downtown RPP we created areas just 7 outside the district that were called eligibility areas and these allowed individual streets to self‐8 organize and petition the Planning and Community Environment Department for admission into 9 the RPP and it did not require Council action. It allows them to administratively opt in and we 10 did that Downtown in an attempt to anticipate where spillover would occur and get out in front 11 of that and allow residents to quickly become part of the RPP program. For Evergreen Park and 12 Mayfield generally there are fixed boundaries and barriers around the entirety of the district. 13 To the east you have the Caltrain corridor, to the west you have El Camino and on the other 14 side of El Camino is the College Terrace RPP which is already in place so there is very little 15 opportunity for spillover. We do think that there may be potential spillover in Old Palo Alto and 16 Ventura, but we think it would be wise to let them organize their own RPP programs with 17 different parameters from Evergreen Park and Mayfield. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. There are some kind of unsettled concerns that are ongoing from the resident business 1 community. The expansion of the boundary to include the Mayfield area, as you know the 2 original petition was just Evergreen Park. So as we, I mentioned earlier as we started to think 3 about the details of the program and how it would work we felt that adding Mayfield was a 4 necessary component to this program. There's also been a little bit of debate about what 5 happens with the businesses along El Camino Real. Are they considered part of the Cal Ave. 6 Business District? Are they eligible for permits? We’re recommending it; they should be 7 eligible for permits, but the permit cap would ultimately limit the number of employees parking 8 in the neighborhood. Their employees have they already cannot park across El Camino in 9 College Terrace so if we were to exclude them from the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP they 10 would be, have very limited opportunities for parking, especially some of the older structures 11 that were built before some of our newer parking standards. 12 13 There's also a difference of opinion on hours of enforcement. We're currently recommending 14 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The residents have asked for a 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. We've done a lot 15 of thinking about this and we think we could stretch to 6:00 p.m. potentially and not require 16 additional staffing. One of the reasons 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. works is it only requires one shift 17 of enforcement officers. If we go beyond that eight hours we would need to have a separate 18 shift and it would basically double the cost because we can't have somebody come in and just 19 work a couple hours we'd have fairly extensive staffing costs. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 There's also a concern that employees will bunch towards the Cal Ave. Business District. We 2 think that may be an issue. We don't want to see a scenario where all of the employees park 3 on the blocks closest to Cal Ave., but during the Downtown RPP we had to first get a handle on 4 how many employees were parking where and we can't do that without permits to identify 5 who's an employee and who's a resident. During the Phase 1 of the Downtown RPP we were 6 able to identify bunching on the blocks closest to the Downtown core and if you remember 7 Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP program includes fairly small linear zones that radiate from the 8 Downtown core. Some of them are only a block wide and that was done to better distribute 9 employees so that's something we may need to advance in the future with Evergreen Park and 10 Mayfield once we get a handle on where the bunching is occurring. 11 12 There's also a little bit of difference of opinion on the number of employee parking permits 13 available in employee parking Zone B. The resident generated resolution recommended only 14 10 percent of curb space should be allocated to employee parking. And then I think you'll hear 15 tonight there's a couple of businesses that are unique and their situations are rather unique 16 and throughout the development of the Downtown RPP program some of the most difficult 17 types of businesses to accommodate were doctor's offices, dentist's, real estate offices, and 18 kind of nontraditional things that you don't typically find in a downtown and don't have some 19 of the same… they don't have a lot of the same demands that a downtown business would 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. have. So we're still trying to figure out the best way to deal with some of those and I think 1 you'll hear tonight from a couple of those businesses. 2 3 Next steps we’re hoping to bring a program forward to City Council on January 23rd and receive 4 direction to move forward. Immediately following that meeting we would begin fabricating 5 signs and selling permits and our goal is to begin enforcement on April 1, 2017. This is 6 concurrent with the Downtown RPP Program also starts in April. So we would hope to roll 7 them both out at the same time. And with that I will take any questions or comments. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok before we do that I just want to acknowledge that Commissioner Gardias 10 arrived shortly after the roll call. And… staff should we proceed with comments from the 11 community and then follow it up with opportunities for [unintelligible] for Commissioners to 12 ask questions? 13 14 Mr. Lait: Yeah, well unless there’s any questions on the presentation from the Commission this 15 would be a good time to open up to the public hearing. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Does anybody have any very specific questions or can we address questions 18 actually after comments? Ok, alright. Why don't we start with the comments, how many 19 speaker cards do we have? We have 12 speaker cards. Ok, let's set the time to three minutes 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. per speaker card and if you could call the first speaker and then the person right after so that 1 they know they're up. Ok? 2 3 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Sure, thank you. First speaker is Paul Machado followed by Karen. 4 5 Paul Machado: Good evening, Commissioners. A few months ago this Commission 6 recommended an RPP for Evergreen Park. The proposal before you was the response. It calls 7 for selling 125 commercial permits in both Evergreen and Mayfield neighborhoods for a total of 8 250 permits for a one year trial period. Residents and staff met several times during the RPP 9 process and residents requested the number of commercial permits in the RPP area be reduced 10 and phased out over a five year period. It was the residents’ belief that if a commercial permits 11 were not phased out over time the proposal before you was merely for a permanent 250 car 12 commercial neighborhood parking lot. 13 14 As you are aware the City is suffering from both parking problems and major traffic congestion. 15 Encouraging 250 people a day to commute to our city is counterproductive. Next Monday the 16 City Council will vote on a new parking garage for the California Avenue area. The parking 17 spaces created by this garage will not only replace the parking the lost with the construction of 18 the nearby Police Station. It will also add about 150 more additional parking spaces in what is 19 now in the, over what now exists in the area. It is further noted that a major developer in 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. California Avenue told residents at a community meeting that TDMs do not work without an 1 effective RPP in place. Without an effective RPP employees will continue to drive to work and 2 park in the neighborhoods. The developer said he was powerless to prevent this from 3 happening; therefore, with the construction of the new garage and the implementation of 4 effective TDMs the phasing out of commercial parking in Evergreen Park and Mayfield 5 neighborhoods over a five year period not only protects the neighborhoods, but reduces traffic 6 congestion. Accepting the RPP proposal with a five year phase out of commercial permits 7 appears to be appropriate and is recommended. 8 9 And tonight we found out when we went to the various meetings that we were eligible for one 10 free parking permit and three we could buy for $50 apiece. And tonight, dated today, that is 11 changed and they cancelled the one free resident parking permit and we can only buy three 12 annual permits at $50 apiece. So that's a concern which I wasn't aware of until tonight. Thank 13 you. 14 15 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Karen followed by Marla Marnoza. 16 17 Karen [no last name given]: Good evening, Commissioners. Thanks for your consideration of 18 the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP and we really appreciate the work of Josh and Hillary and Sue 19 Ellen on this proposal. And let me first say that I support this proposal as a minimal first step. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. We see this as a pilot program and we hope that in a year we'll be back to talk about this and 1 look at making a more significant program that will help the residents really achieve a little 2 more balance in terms of parking in our neighborhood. 3 4 I see there's four major concerns to this proposal. The first is as Paul said, today is the first time 5 we learned that the City has decided to eliminate the one free parking space for the residents. 6 This is a bait and switch tactic that I seriously object to. When the proposal was sent to the 7 neighborhood residents in that survey it said that they would get one free permit per 8 household. To take that away after they already voted for it I find very objectionable and a 9 significant problem. People would not have voted for this in many cases if they knew they'd 10 have to pay for every permit. And I find that really unacceptable behavior on the part of the 11 City. 12 13 The second thing that concerns me is giving 19 percent of our spaces in Evergreen Park to 14 nonresidents and probably more like 40 percent of the spaces in the Mayfield area to 15 nonresidents. We're making our neighborhood a commercial parking lot and I have serious 16 objections to that especially if it's not significantly reduced over the next 5 years down to zero. 17 We realize that the City has serious problems with parking, but five years is plenty of time to 18 address that problem and remedy it. The other thing of course is the clumping problem and 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. we’d really like to see that reduced over the after the first year because it seriously affects the 1 residents on California Avenue and College. Thank you for your help. 2 3 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Marla Marnoza followed by Terry [Holtsummer]. 4 5 Marla Marnoza: Hi. I’m the 30 year resident of Oxford Avenue and like many residents in our 6 community I've seen particularly in the last couple of years an incredible parking problem and 7 traffic congestion. I don't think that the Commission fully understands the despair the residents 8 are at this point experiencing. I have a number of concerns and I would like to start with the 9 concern that the previous speaker addressed as to the free residents’ parking permit that was 10 taken away from us. And the second concern I have of course is the employee parking which 11 would make our neighborhood a paid parking lot. 12 13 I think the California Avenue District and the University Avenue District are not the same. The 14 California Avenue District is much smaller, it's only four blocks, it borders or so it borders on 15 one side on El Camino Real which has public transportation on the other side the Caltrain 16 station is readily available. It’s not like University Avenue that people have to go under the 17 underpass and go to University and it's kind of really inconvenient. It's very convenient 18 actually. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. So how does this particular proposal encourage the employers to have their employees taken 1 public transportation? It seems to me that this particular proposal is not consistent with the 2 policy of the City of Palo Alto that been having for a number of years when issuing permits for 3 business structures they have reduced the parking because the employees are going to take 4 public transportation. This particular proposal doesn't encourage that at all. As a matter of fact 5 it encourages our neighborhood to become a paid parking lot and I don't think that's the 6 direction we would like to go as a citizen, as businesses, as the City of Palo Alto [members to 7 go]. So I’m asking you to strongly reconsider the number of the employee issued permits. I 8 don't think it's really reasonable to expect the 250 permits should be issued for business 9 employees. This is just way too much. 10 11 Secondly, the vacancy rate in the evening was counted at 11:30 p.m. How many people should 12 be waiting till 11:30 p.m. to park in front of their house? I don't think that's reasonable. So I 13 thank you for your attention and for listening to our concerns and I hope you take them into 14 consideration. 15 16 Mr. Lait: Excuse me, excuse Me Vice‐Chair? Chair, if it's possible there’s I think there's an 17 opportunity for us to perhaps clarify about the free annual parking pass. I suspect you'll get a 18 number of other speakers and there might be an opening for us to just clarify that issue if we 19 may? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Mello: Yeah, if I could permit there’s a the permit pricing is mentioned in two places in the 2 resolution. We're going to correct that. As proposed the residents would be eligible for one 3 free permit. The problem is the resolution addresses that in two different places so it's 4 confusing and the at places memo was addressing one of the sections of the resolution. So just 5 to clarify, the program as outlined in the survey where each household would be eligible for 6 one free permit is what is before you tonight. 7 8 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you for that clarification. I think we all had that question. Let's 9 see, we have Terry [Holtsummer] followed by David Schrum. 10 11 Terry [Holtsummer]: Ok, good evening, Commissioners. I just wanted to come tonight to voice 12 my support for the planned RPP for Evergreen Park and Mayfield. I actually live in the Mayfield 13 neighborhood and I have seen and felt daily the effects of commercial parking and traffic 14 congestion in my neighborhood. Often when I come home at night, I'm a schoolteacher in Palo 15 Alto, I park along Park Boulevard and in the Grant area and when I try to park in this area even 16 in 3:00 and 4:00 in the afternoon most of the parking spaces in my neighborhood are gone. 17 And most of them are gone until after 6:00 p.m. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. I would strongly urge the adoption of this RPP program with some reasonable adjustments. 1 One of the key adjustments must be this detailed plan to reduce commercial parking permits 2 every year. As other speakers have already said giving commercial people 250 parking spaces 3 every year is just asking them to… allowing them to park in our neighborhood on a really 4 permanent basis. We should be trying to encourage the businesses as much as possible in 5 reducing commercial employee parking either through other methods or some way of reducing 6 that and making sure that the parking spaces that are there especially in Mayfield are for the 7 residents that live in the area. 8 9 Another key adjustment I'd like to see made some people already mentioned it was the 10 enforcement hours. Someone said that the enforcement hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 right now, 11 but I'd like to see this extended to an earlier time 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at least because you 12 have to remember a lot of people are using those areas around the neighborhoods to avoid the 13 Caltrain parking fees. And parking in our neighborhoods, and parking in our areas, and taking 14 the train so they don't have to pay the fee for the parking lot and so they need to extend those 15 hours to make sure that the proper residents have access to those parking areas and that at 16 those times. 17 18 I won’t mention some of the area, other areas, but I strongly urge the adoption of this program 19 with some improvements that need to be made. And more input, very quickly more input from 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the community. I feel like some of our residents I live at Palo Alto Central which is the largest 1 condominium complex in the area. We weren’t properly notified of these programs and these 2 adjustments and we hope that in the future they will be notifying us more directly. Thank you. 3 4 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. David Schrum followed by Reza Riahi. 5 6 David Schrum: David Schrum, I live on Oxford Avenue, been in the neighborhood for 45 years, 7 watched this go from a quiet residential neighborhood where our streets were available to us 8 to it being a parking lot for the commercial district. The thing I really want to emphasize after 9 reading the report that you received is that the people in the neighborhood feel very strongly 10 that this is an issue of fairness and this is this is exactly what we count on our government to 11 assist us in securing for ourselves. One has a reasonable expectation that when one buys a 12 residential property in a place like Palo Alto or rents one that one is going to have access to 13 street parking for one's visitors, guests, and even one's own family. And the people in the 14 business district have a similar reasonable expectation that their streets will be primarily used 15 for them and there's… to allow the streets of the neighborhood to become an extension of the 16 business district is to corrode the setting for a human community in a way that makes it more 17 difficult for neighbors to be neighborly, people to come together with a spirit of community to 18 take care of the community because we feel that the thing outside our door is no longer an 19 extension of our homes, but it's rather a pathway for an invasion. And there's a vast literature 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. on this that the people in your Planning Department can tell you about and bring you examples 1 of if you want to read it. 2 3 What one hopes is that this program as it evolves will take greater cognizance of that kind of 4 damage and will give the neighbors, the residents, an opportunity to reconstruct that little 5 piece of the earth as our territory, our earth, our home, our place to take care of, our place to 6 meet and greet on the street rather than be dodging the vehicles of people who do not know us 7 and who don't share the same kind of concern for us that we share for each other. So please 8 understand it's an issue of fairness and while that wasn’t reported to you in in the staff report 9 it’s something that people in our neighborhood care about very much. So sure, take it as it is 10 now rather than reject it, but please fix it over time so that once again our neighborhood 11 becomes ours. Thank you. 12 13 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Reza Riahi followed by Stan [Belaits]. 14 15 Reza Riahi: Good evening, Commissioners; thank you for giving us the time to speak to you on 16 this topic. My name is Reza Riahi and I’m an endodontist in Palo Alto. I'm also the President of 17 the Mid‐peninsula Dental Society. Our Dental Society encompasses Mountain View, Los Altos, 18 Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Atherton. I’ve been approached by a lot of our members who are 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. very concerned about the way the RPP is being implemented, particularly in the Downtown and 1 now as it's expanding to other parts of the town. 2 3 I wanted to just provide some information about how it's affecting health care providers and in 4 particularly dentists. We have to about 280 active dentists who are involved in our Dental 5 Society which includes those cities that I mentioned. Dental offices in general are fairly static in 6 growth or grow very slowly. In fact when I had my executive director look up numbers of 7 dental practices over time the number of practices in Palo Alto, dental practices, have declined 8 over time because of the cost of probably having an office there, the leases and so forth. We 9 are, we rely greatly on our staff. We have highly trained staff that come in from long distances 10 to provide care. And if you look at we actually conducted a survey of our own we have 11 employees that come all the way from believe it or not Folsom, they come from Santa Cruz, 12 they come from all parts of East Bay where there is no real mass transit at this point to bring 13 them here. 14 15 Ninety some odd percent of our staff are female. That means they just by nature our 16 assistants, our staff are female, so late at night walking long distances to get to a train station is 17 not safe. We don't feel comfortable. I didn’t even have time to go change today because we 18 see emergency patients last minute so our staff have to stay with us so it's very difficult for 19 them to walk outside when it's dark in winter for long distances to get to their, to mass transit. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 So in general we're not here to speak against RPP. We understand the concern of the residents 2 that they do have to have parking. We just want to make sure that you understand that all 3 businesses aren't the same. Dental practices have been a part of the fabric of City of Palo Alto 4 for decades and they're not really growing to be causing or be active in causing the congestion 5 that you're seeing today. We just want to make sure if there's any possibility for the 6 Commissioners or for the Planning Department to consider a subset of permits that do not go 7 down to zero for health care providers or dentists because if we lose our staff we will have to 8 move. And so locally, the access to local health care or dental care would be lost that way. 9 Thank you. 10 11 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: [Unintelligible] followed by Tim [Malkay]. 12 13 Stan [Belaits]: Good evening all, I'm Stan and I want to preface this by the fact that we’re all 14 very fortunate to live and work here and that doesn't go unnoted that I’m a dentist here and 15 I'm here to offer a little bit of the perspective as the last point on the slide affected it. This is a 16 program any regulation can help any city going forward and I lived in many places in the United 17 States and over time I understand the implications of regulation. I just wanted to offer 18 residents and fellow councilman an opportunity to gain a little bit of an insight into our business 19 which is unique. It's an essential field and California Vehicle Code they refer to, when they refer 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. to RPP there are some subsections that refer to essential employees and the way this has been 1 addressed in other cities across the states was that when permits were in question in areas 2 similar to ours employees were guaranteed to be able to purchase these permits going forward. 3 And as Reza Riahi noted our businesses are quite a bit different. We're not growing in 4 numbers. We serve mostly Palo Alto residents. Most of our offices are not taking new patients 5 and for a lot of them it's months wait to come in. And we're also different in that a lot of us 6 offer parking. So we actually take congestion off the streets and that's what we provide for our 7 patients. We serve emergencies and after hours for our patients as well. We have highly 8 trained staff so it's not a transient community and those are some of the things that make us 9 different. So we will appreciate it going forward as this program evolves there is a provision 10 that we’ll always be eligible to buy these permits. As again our numbers haven't changed and 11 it's an essential service that we provide. Thank you. 12 13 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you. Tim [Malkay] and Patrick Sallery. 14 15 Tim [Malkay]: Hi, good evening and thank you very much for listening to our concerns. I'm also 16 a dentist. I have been practicing, I practiced in Stanford over in Lois Road and now I practice on, 17 in the, on the edge of the Evergreen neighborhood. When I built my office I was assured that I 18 would have eight parking spaces so that I had one for each one of my patients at the maximum 19 time. No or excuse me, 12 parking spaces so I could have one for one of my patients at any one 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. point in time coming and going. Now with this if RPP was taken down to zero where we would 1 have no parking at all. What that would require me to do as a provider to stay in business is to 2 have my staff park in the lot and move my patients to the neighborhood because they would be 3 less than two hours so they would be A‐Okay. That's not helping the situation at all. 4 5 And so I think that there's got to be some way we can work out a solution to protect the 6 environment of the community to keep a planning of having dentists in Palo Alto because if you 7 send dentists out of Palo Alto they cannot come back. There's just no way we can get staff in 8 this community to pay them the salaries to stay in this community and not travel long 9 distances. It's just way too much. So I'd like at least some consideration as my two colleagues 10 had said to somehow allow us some stability in terms of our parking issues going forward. 11 Thank you. 12 13 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Patrick Sallery and Tommy [Derrick]. 14 15 Patrick Sallery: My name is Patrick Sallery. I’ve lived in Evergreen Park since 1949 and I just 16 wanted to say that this RPP is not just a neighborhood issue. It's not just a Not in My Backyard 17 (NIMBY) kind of thing. The RPP can affect the overall amount of traffic coming into the area 18 because it will as it goes It’ll force the people over time if they realize that we’re having the 19 draw down in five years or whatever time it picks down and whether it goes to 0 or 10 percent 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. they have that time to prepare for what they're going to do and know that they're not going to 1 able to keep the neighborhood as a parking lot. I think it was in 1993 they built their one of the 2 parking lots. It's existing now on California Avenue and that was going to solve the traffic 3 problems and it obviously hasn't. And if we don't have something in this plan from right now 4 starting at the beginning when it comes time to draw things down nobody's going to have made 5 any plans for that. 6 7 I think it was about a year ago Stanford and some other large agencies came and addressed the 8 City Council and they talked about the carrot and the stick. And I think it sort of come to the 9 carrot on the stick. There were two different sticks involved at any rate. One holds a carrot 10 and the other whacks a horse when the horse is no longer interested in the carrot. And so you 11 can look at the RPP and the permits that the business can get as more or less a reward, it’s 12 something they can look forward to a place they can park, but if there's not a stick behind that 13 they're not it's not going to work. They need more motivation so that the draw down would 14 work as a carrot and the stick and so I think we need something along those lines, some sort of 15 draw down written into this instead of put off. And also it’d be good if something could, we 16 know what the distribution is roughly and it would be good if something could be used some 17 way that could be drawn down now otherwise we're going to keep the keep everything the way 18 it is where everything on College and Oxford are just over crowded and along El Camino. Thank 19 you. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Tommy [Derrick] followed by [Christian Peace]. 2 3 Tommy [Derrick]: My name is Tommy [Derrick] I live on Leland Avenue. I've been in Evergreen 4 Park for about 40 years. I've been before you more than once. It would be lovely to see this 5 come to a final round and so I strongly urge you to recommend to the Council a yes vote on 6 this. 7 8 Some people would like to pit this, categorize this as residents against merchants; absolutely 9 not the case. Many of the merchants on California Avenue are very desirous of this program 10 because it provides a new massive amount of two hour parking for their customers, same for 11 patients. We believe it’s the business responsibility to cover the parking situations for their 12 employees. We welcome their customers, their patients into our neighborhood on two hour 13 limit. I live very close to a restaurant that today had major difficulty with their customers 14 parking for a special event that was going on because my whole block more than Josh’s 15 numbers was 100 percent parked mostly by employees by eight o'clock in the morning. And so 16 the [noon of minutes Sundance] people circled and circled and circled the block trying to find a 17 space. If we had a lot of open spaces available and so on it would not have been an issue. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Set that aside there are two or three things that I think would improve this resolution. Section 1 3 talks about hours and days of enforcement. You heard them mention that we ask for a 6:00 2 to 7:00. The reason we asked for 6:00 to 7:00 is that's really what 8:00 to 5:00 enforcement is. 3 You got two hours so you can come at six o'clock and park there late no matter who you are or 4 what you are no permit necessary. You can park after 3:00 and stay right on through. So we 5 will be asking the Council and we urge that be included. Five year phase outs really important. 6 I could go through one for you. Yellow lights on, I'll call it quits. Make it happen guys. Thank 7 you. 8 9 [Christian Peace]: Good evening Commissioners, thanks for considering our RPP. This has been 10 quite a journey for everyone: the residents, the staff, the merchants. I guess making an RPP is a 11 little like making sausage. You don't really want to look under the covers too much. It's not 12 perfect, but I urge you to accept it as it's been presented by staff. There's a lot of concerns. I 13 think if we plan ahead after that year and are prepared with the City, the staff, and the 14 merchants for a crisp evaluation based on data after that year we can look at these issues in an 15 honest way and make a judgment how to proceed from there and adjust this program as 16 needed. Thank you very much. 17 18 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Andrew [Nepamuchino or musino], Doria Summa, and then 1 just a question; Wolfgang Dreger is it to speak on this agenda topic or something else? Ok, then 2 you'll be after Doria Summa. 3 4 Andrew [Nepamuchino]: Ok, I'm here today to comment on the terms of the Evergreen Park 5 proposed RPP program as currently written. As many Evergreen Park residents will agree we 6 expect this RPP program to be a substantial improvement over our current situation. If the 7 options are to take it as written or take nothing at all of course I’ll endorse it as written; 8 however, I do want to suggest that the program will be more fair if we issue 100 percent of the 9 permits to residents. People in the business district caused this problem in the first place by 10 failing to allocate enough space for parking and under this plan we the residents are paying for 11 their error. This is a classic example of externalities. If businesses and commercial real estate 12 owners want to internalize their costs they can provide their own space for parking and in the 13 meantime at least pay for parking procured from off site. To illustrate this point please 14 consider that if we neighborhood residents start parking cars in business district spots for our 15 use they'll be furious. I trust that everyone here can understand how any and all business 16 district parking in a neighborhood is a clear violation of the Golden Rule. 17 18 Lest anyone think that business district parking and Evergreen Park is without cost please 19 consider that as a bicyclist when streets are fully parked coming out of a driveway is far more 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. dangerous. As we know from psychological principles anonymity decreases cooperation. If 1 somebody in the neighborhood is driving with a heavy foot I can go and discuss it with her or 2 him. I have much less recourse if somebody outside the neighborhood is driving dangerously. 3 Furthermore people who commute in from elsewhere have less of a vested interest in the well‐4 being of the neighborhood. When I was just a small boy residents of Evergreen Park worked 5 with your predecessors to reduce through traffic in the neighborhood; thanks to their efforts I 6 enjoy a much safer and more pleasant home environment today. Nonresident parking in the 7 neighborhood erodes these gains. All of the hundreds of nonresident vehicles represent traffic 8 into and out of the neighborhood and this traffic is a substantial portion of all total 9 neighborhood traffic. Thanks for considering these views. 10 11 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you, Doria Summa followed by Wolfgang Dreger and then any 12 others? I… that’s the last one I have. Any others anyone would like to bring forward? 13 14 Doria Summa: Good evening, Chair and Commissioners, I’m Doria Summa. I live in College 15 Terrace so I just want to preface my comments by saying you should definitely do what you 16 think is right and what the people in these neighborhoods tell you they want, but I do live in 17 College Terrace very close to El Camino so I have a little bit of experience with this. So I had a 18 few concerns. I was concerned with the discrepancy between the colleague's memo and what 19 staff had presented and I appreciate that they included Mayfield to make it more fair to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Evergreen Park, but I did think it was clear in the colleague's memo that this was to be for 1 merchants only not for other commercial tenants on in the Cal Ave. Business District. 2 3 It was unclear to me from the staff report that the day passes for business for the commercial 4 people would be unlimited just for those who had purchased permits for those businesses that 5 had purchased permits or for everybody in the Cal Ave. Business District and I think either way 6 that could be overwhelming to the residential streets and might really result in the streets 7 being really fully parked all the time. And without having it distributed the close in streets to 8 Cal, closer into Cal Ave. would really be parked fully all the time and I worry that that would 9 also displace people from the retail establishments. Especially at lunchtime it's very hard for 10 people to find parking spots to go to all the restaurants on Cal Ave. 11 12 I also I appreciate the reason for including El Camino on the eastside for this, but I do think that 13 any of the businesses, the blocks that are in the parking district have already paid into the 14 parking district and should be fully parked so I'm not sure why they should be included. And 15 lastly I am concerned in staff report it said with regards to an annual reduction it was decided 16 that that wouldn't be appropriate here because it was different than Downtown because there 17 was not an in place TMA or TDM. This is very puzzling to me. I think we all know that the Cal 18 Ave. business area has been identified as place ripe for densification and the reason is because 19 it's close to fixed transit. This staff report and there's Pedestrian and Transit Oriented 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Development (PTOD), even the new ADU exemption area, also the rail corridor study, all of 1 these have wanted to pile density in that area so it was surprising to me that the staff report 2 would describe the train service there as not robust and it to be under served by express buses. 3 Thank you. And please do what the residents need. 4 5 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Wolfgang Dreger and then Christopher Joy. 6 7 Wolfgang Dreger: Good evening. I am Wolfgang Dreger and I live in the neighborhood of 8 Evergreen Park for about 15 years now. I urge the Commission to adopt this resolution for the 9 moment as is, but I would also encourage a few modifications. First, I hope the clarification 10 from tonight is correct that every resident actually does get one free parking permit because 11 this is what we when we as a group worked with the City to work out this resolution also 12 communicated to the rest of the neighborhood. So it's a little bit astonishing that tonight I 13 come in and saw this on the piece of paper that suddenly there's no more single residential 14 permit, but as you clarified and I hope that's true that's not the case. 15 16 I encourage also a phase out over five years simply because we are a residential neighborhood. 17 There's as the previous speakers have already indicated we are a residential neighborhood. We 18 do not invade into the commercial part and so we hope and expect the same to happen the 19 other way around. And there's a new garage going up right next to the planned police building 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. and with a net increase of 150 spots for an investment of a couple million dollars the City's 1 always talking about height limits and things like that. Why can't you please build a garage with 2 a few more net additional spots and this would make a huge impact especially for Mayfield the 3 smaller part of this RPP and of course also for Evergreen Park. So please make sure that when 4 you build a new parking garage in the area that it's really efficient and effective and serves a 5 purpose and it's not just there to say oh we built anyway a garage. 6 7 There's a lot of concern about the El Camino businesses. They do have their parking lots on 8 their premises. So they have already ample parking available for their staff and for their 9 employees and also for of course for the customers. In addition when you look from El Camino 10 towards Ash they are these cut off barriers, Oxford, Leland, and Park and half of that is [any 11 already] outside of the permit parking program boundaries. And that's anyway free parking in 12 addition for them so they're pretty well served in my opinion. 13 14 Another thing is the 8:00 to 5:00 limit. We definitely want to urge you to consider 6:00 to 7:00 15 p.m. because as people already did the math it's essentially 8:00 to 5:00 anyway. And when it's 16 just a single shift ok then please add one hour and do it from 9:00 to 7:00, but it's really against 17 these day parkers from startups. This is the main influx of people and we as a neighborhood we 18 never ever have anything against small businesses like well appreciated dentists, cobblers, 19 bakeries, etcetera. And they don't cause the problem. It's the startups and their employees 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. and you can see when people park there for a whole day or longer when they come back they 1 have all their laptops. These are not hard working dentists. Thank you, good night. 2 3 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Last card I have is Christopher Joy. 4 5 Christopher Joy: Thank you and I'd like to echo that man's comments that it's not the dentists 6 that are that caused this problem. I mean it’s like the number of us have been shrinking and 7 I've been in practice for 35years at 668 Homer Avenue and the people from the church up the 8 street used to park in my lot on Sundays and I didn't mind and people at night would use my lot 9 as well, but now as you raise the value of the parking we have it posted now you get towed if 10 you park in the lot and such. So I like my neighbors, I want to be a good neighbor, but I also 11 have a staff that can’t afford to live here and they commute from Hayward, San Jose, they're 12 women, they've been with me for 20 years. I've watched them raise their families and for them 13 it's just not possible to like walk long distances and things, take community and take public 14 transportation if you're going to get home and have any life with your family. So again it's not 15 an all or nothing as it relates to residents and businesses and I urge you to consider that when 16 you make your deliberations. Thanks. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Ok, what I would like to do tonight is ask my Commissioners to discuss the… 19 discuss this issue with one round of sort of comments. I'm going to start on this side and come 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. this way if that's alright. And what I would love to hear are specific areas... I, please take time 1 to ask staff questions if you have questions, but as you're making your comments it would be 2 very helpful if we had some specific areas identified where you think there are opportunities for 3 improvement or if not then be concise. Ok, Commissioner Rosenblum why don’t you kick us 4 off? 5 6 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, first thanks to staff for preparing this and thanks for so many 7 residents for coming out and voicing concerns and engaging in this process. The way I look at 8 this there's a structure that we're going through. We're looking at the boundaries, we're 9 looking at the cost, the time for enforcement, and whether or not certain businesses should be 10 included over others, and what should the costs for both residents and service workers or 11 employees be and the number of permits given out. Before going into the areas I'm 12 comfortable with or uncomfortable with I wanted to understand more about your learnings 13 from the Downtown RPP and particular the way I think about this is a balancing act. 14 15 Later this evening we're going to talking about retail preservation and specifically ground floor 16 protection. And it's supposedly so that we all love retail and we're trying to make this town 17 have vibrant retail, but we talk to any retailer and you say what is difficult about being a retailer 18 in Palo Alto the first thing that comes up is employees. It's hard to attract them. They come 19 from far away. We have to pay them a lot. They leave because it's very difficult to commute 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. this long distance for again probably not very high wages. And this is harder for employees 1 probably to park and so we're trying to find a balancing act between something that makes the 2 neighborhood special. I live Downtown and I live Downtown so I can live within walking 3 distance of these places, but I also recognize that it's probably harder for me to park than when 4 I lived much farther away. 5 6 So my question for staff is based on the learnings that you've had for the downtown RPP there 7 was already information there about the proportion of permits that were being used on daily 8 basis and I want to make sure I understand this correctly. There are people the residents that 9 came that said 250 permits given out for employees. We will have 250 people parking in our 10 neighborhood on a daily basis. It seemed from the Downtown experience that you get 30 to 40 11 percent on a daily basis that are parking in the neighborhood so if 230 or 250 permits are issued 12 you’d expect to get 30 percent of them on a daily basis in the neighborhood. Is that, is… am I 13 understanding that correctly? 14 15 Mr. Mello: So we've conducted regular occupancy counts throughout the life of the Downtown 16 RPP Phase 1 and Phase 2 programs. Before our recent count on December 1st we were finding 17 about 30 to 40 percent of annual employee permit holders would show up during the midday 18 on an average weekday. And the midday is the busiest period so you could say that's the peak. 19 We just did a count on December 1st and we actually found that only 20 percent of the 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. employee annual permit holders were actually parked on street, so 420 out of roughly 1,900 1 permits that have been sold. 2 3 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, so you’d expect about 80 to 90 of the 250 or so permits that [are 4 capped] to be on a daily basis (interrupted) 5 6 Mr. Mello: Yeah the number that we used in the staff report was we assume 35 percent which 7 is ninety permit holders. Now there would also be two hour parkers, visitors of households, 8 contractors, as well as a small number of daily employee daily permit parkers. 9 10 Commissioner Rosenblum: And what is the learnings been if anything from the Downtown 11 employers particularly those service businesses? So a gentleman just said for we don't want to 12 hurt the cobbler's, the dentists, I assume like small restaurants, etcetera. So those that were 13 truly concerned about their low income employees in particular have you had feedback from 14 those businesses Downtown if this has had any effect on employee retention, on their ability to 15 run a business? 16 17 Mr. Mello: I mean I've we've held several employer workshops when the permit sales were all 18 out we held one for Phase 2 and we get ongoing feedback. I mean some of the big takeaways 19 for me have been that a lot of the employers are actually stepping up and purchasing permits 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. for their employees. There's a couple of large businesses Downtown that have done that. I 1 think we struggle a little bit educating some of the small businesses about the RPP program and 2 the options for employee permits. Generally the employer workshop that we put on most 3 recently was fairly the positive the feedback it was more about questions. I didn't hear a lot of 4 negative feedback. 5 6 I think one of the things that employers have struggled with is the low income permits are only 7 available for employees. The employers cannot purchase low income permits, they have to 8 purchase the full price permits. So that it's a little bit difficult. A lot of the low income 9 employees English may be their second language or they may not be as computer savvy so they 10 have some of the employers have actually had to set up accounts for their employees and then 11 buy their permit through the website on site at the business. 12 13 Commissioner Rosenblum: So I'm just trying to just trying to summarize it had there has not 14 been any outcry. There's been more questions, confusion, some issues with implementation, 15 but not really an outcry from the business community around this makes it hard to retain 16 employees, etcetera? 17 18 Mr. Mello: So we reached the permit cap about a month and a half ago Downtown and we're 19 starting to hear some concerns from some employers Downtown, some new businesses that 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. assumed that permits would be available and we're at the permit cap right now. 1 2 Commissioner Rosenblum: I see. 3 4 Mr. Mello: So we have recently heard a little bit of a concern. 5 6 Commissioner Rosenblum: And one final question now that you're actually selling permits for 7 businesses Downtown what has the mix been? So we just heard from a gentleman these are 8 tech workers that are coming in. This, these are not the local restaurants, for example. Has 9 there been any learnings about the mix of types of businesses that are parking in the 10 neighborhood? 11 12 Mr. Mello: I don't have those numbers on hand. I do know that the low income permits were 13 fairly popular. They represented a fairly significant portion of the total employee permits sold. 14 15 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. 16 17 Mr. Mello: But I don't have a breakdown by business type. 18 19 Commissioner Rosenblum: Thank you. Those are my questions for now. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Tanaka: And thank you also putting this together and thank you everyone for 2 coming out. I think this is a very important program. So I want to ask staff some questions 3 around the survey. So how do these results compared to the results that we saw for 4 Downtown or College Terrace in terms of buy in? 5 6 Mr. Mello: So both of those programs were implemented before I joined the City. My 7 understanding with Downtown is that it was under the threshold initially of 50 percent and they 8 actually had to reduce the RPP district boundary, the area, and then resurvey in order to get 9 above that 50 percent threshold. So I think the Downtown one was not as decisive as this 10 survey was the first go around. 11 12 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. 13 14 Mr. Mello: College Terrace I'm not familiar with the results of the survey for that. 15 16 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Ok and [unintelligible] in terms of response rate. 17 18 Mr. Mello: I mean I would hazard to guess I… I'm not a statistician so I'm not sure what a typical 19 response rate is for a mail survey. I think if folks were very concerned about the program 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. they'd probably take the time to complete the survey and mail it in. I think non‐responses are 1 probably units that were vacant or people that were out of town or folks that were not 2 interested one way or the other how the program was implemented or not. So I don't 3 necessarily know that. We didn't get a lot back so we didn't have a lot of mail errors. We did 4 have a couple for some of the larger apartment buildings (interrupted) 5 6 Commissioner Tanaka: But do you know, do you know what the response (interrupted) 7 8 Mr. Mello: And we resent those. 9 10 Commissioner Tanaka: Do you know what the response rate was for this versus Downtown? 11 12 Mr. Mello: I don't. 13 14 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, and then is this program cost neutral? 15 16 Mr. Mello: No. 17 18 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. How about the other programs? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Mello: No, none of the parking programs are cost neutral. 1 2 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. How much is it going to cost the City. 3 4 Mr. Mello: I think we estimated about $250,000 to $300,000 per RPP per year. 5 6 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. 7 8 Mr. Mello: But we're going to bring numbers to Council. We have to decide on the boundaries, 9 hours of enforcement before we can put together a package of costs. 10 11 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so in terms of enforcement what is the current enforcement in let’s 12 say College Terrace versus Downtown versus what you’re proposing here. 13 14 Mr. Mello: I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? 15 16 Commissioner Tanaka: So what I'm trying to do is I’m trying to get a comparison between the 17 different RPPs. So what is enforcement in College Terrace in terms of number of days/hours 18 versus Downtown versus what you’re proposing here? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Mello: So I don't know what the enforcement hours are for College Terrace that's not 1 underneath the citywide RPP ordinance. That was actually created before so it didn't go 2 through the same type of stakeholder process that's outlined in the citywide ordinance. 3 Downtown is from 8:00 to 5:00 and that's based on (interrupted) 4 5 Commissioner Tanaka: [Unintelligible] seven days a week, five days a week, what is it? 6 7 Mr. Mello: It's Monday through Friday 8:00 to 5:00 and I did want to clarify one of the 8 comments that we heard about Caltrain commuters during the public comment. The 9 enforcement begins at eight o'clock. So if someone were to arrive at 6:00 a.m. and leave their 10 car there they would be ticketed at 10:00 a.m. after the two hours elapses after the 11 enforcement begins at eight. 12 13 Commissioner Tanaka: I guess the reason why I'm asking is because I actually live in College 14 Terrace and there [unintelligible] there is the hours that we are allowed to park there, right? 15 Without a permit for more than two hours and then there's the actual enforcement in terms of 16 when do the when does the police actually go around and ticket people. And in College Terrace 17 I don’t believe it’s five days a week. I think it’s maybe like two days a week. That’s why I'm 18 asking, is it really five days a week in Downtown or not? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Mello: So Crescent Park and College Terrace are enforced by the Police Department. 1 Downtown and we would propose Evergreen Park and Mayfield as well are enforced by a 2 private contractor and they are extremely strict. They are assigned to the RPP district all day 3 long, Monday through Friday from 8:00 to 5:00. And it’s specific staff members who are 4 charged with enforcing RPP. That's why the 8:00 to 5:00 allows for one shift of workers. If we 5 were to go past 5:00 or start earlier than 8:00 there's a potential we would need to have an 6 additional shift of enforcement officers. And they're not doing other things, they're only 7 enforcing RPP. 8 9 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok because I... this is not our first RPP in the City, right? This is what, 10 our fourth? 11 12 Mr. Mello: It would be the third. 13 14 Commissioner Tanaka: The third, ok. 15 16 Mr. Mello: Crescent Park is a no overnight parking program. It's a little bit different. 17 18 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Because I think what would be really interesting to see a 19 comparison between all the different programs, right? In terms of cost neutral, in terms of 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. how… how much in the hole is it digging the City, right? In terms of how much buy in you got 1 from the residents in terms of response rates, in terms of how many people said yes, I think in 2 terms of the types of enforcement, right? So I… because just look at this in the abstract. If this 3 was the very first program that's one thing, but this is not, right? We've done many of these 4 before and so we should learn from them and know what's effective and what's not effective. 5 And so I would expect to have that data readily available because to do that without… to make 6 these kind of decisions without having the data I think is not really learning from the past. And 7 then if you were to contrast the concerns of the businesses compared to what you saw in 8 Downtown how would you compare that? 9 10 Mr. Mello: So the Evergreen Park/Mayfield stakeholder process was much more accelerated 11 then the Downtown process. For the Downtown RPP there was actually a stakeholder group 12 there was convened and they met over a multi‐year period, I think a two year period. That 13 include business, included business representation. In the case of Evergreen Park the 14 stakeholder group was the residents who organized the petition. We had a business focus 15 group meeting and some business owners attended the two public workshops, but there was 16 not nearly as much interaction with the businesses in the Cal Ave Business District as there was 17 for the development of the Downtown RPP Program. And that's partly because we learned a 18 lot through this, the two years stakeholder process for the Downtown RPP meeting with the 19 different types of businesses, retail and office and services such as dentists and doctors’ offices. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. So I don't know if I could contrast the two, but I would say we learned a lot through the 1 Downtown stakeholder process and we were able to streamline the Evergreen Park process a 2 little bit in order to get something out there a little bit quicker. 3 4 Commissioner Tanaka: Would you characterize that you have done more outreach to the 5 businesses or you heard more from businesses in the Cal Ave. area then you did Downtown or 6 less? 7 8 Mr. Mello: Well I think [unintelligible] less just the design of the stakeholder process. It wasn't 9 intentional thing. The RPP Downtown was the first program so it was a very long and involved 10 stakeholder process with many, many more meetings than we had for the Evergreen 11 Park/Mayfield program. 12 13 Commissioner Tanaka: Because what I've heard from the attendees tonight is there's been 14 more than one person who said that the outreach wasn't very good. I heard it from maybe 15 three or four people who said the outreach wasn’t very good. And that's what I’m asking, and 16 that's [why I'm crazy] about these response rates because I'm trying to figure out is that really 17 true or not. And if you don't know what it was in other RPPs there are, their concerns may be 18 valid and maybe there wasn’t enough out reach. I don't know, but this is a it's a very important 19 program and I really think it’s important to make sure the constituents understand what’s going 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. on and truly making sure you have buy in. And because you don't, you can't give me 1 comparative data to other programs I'm concerned about whether what I heard tonight is true 2 or not. So I mean you don't have hard data, but what’s your feel in terms of is this 3 representative of the most of the people in the area or you think that that there are some holes 4 in our outreach? 5 6 Mr. Mello: I can tell you that the Evergreen Park neighborhood was highly involved and I'm sure 7 they will agree that they were involved throughout the process. And I think they actually 8 walked around and helped notify their neighbors of the survey, the mail survey. We did not 9 mail the survey to the business district. We did send it to residential units within the businesses 10 district, but businesses do not receive (interrupted) 11 12 Commissioner Tanaka: But why not though? Why not? I mean business would be directly 13 affected, why not get their feedback as well? 14 15 Mr. Mello: The ordinance does not specify… you know it specifically calls out mail surveys being 16 sent to residential units. They’re the ultimate survey participants according to (interrupted) 17 18 Commissioner Tanaka: Well I mean we can make decisions based on the residents, but it would 19 be good to know how because the businesses are going to be severely impacted as well, right? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. A lot of we heard several dentists here who said they’d be severely impacted because a lot of 1 their employees are female, not necessarily high paid, right? So wouldn’t it be important to 2 hear their voice as well? 3 4 Mr. Mello: Yeah we did not send mail surveys to any of the businesses and if we did we didn't 5 tally them in the final results. That's something we could look at in the future if… there may be 6 a separate mail survey for the businesses. I will say the Mayfield neighborhood was not part of 7 the original petition process. That was a decision that staff made to add that neighborhood in 8 order to prevent two things: to prevent Evergreen Park from bearing the entirety of the burden 9 of employee parking and also to anticipate spillover employee parking into the Mayfield 10 neighborhood which includes quite a few residential units. All of the residential units in the 11 entire our proposed RPP district received mail surveys or we attempted to mail employees, 12 sorry, mail surveys. There is a typical loss rate with any type of mass mailing like that, but we 13 did verify addresses. If we heard from anyone that surveys were not received we mailed those 14 back out. In one case we actually express mailed a bunch of surveys so the resident can walk 15 around to his neighbors and give them the surveys. 16 17 Commissioner Tanaka: So I know in College Terrace it was done block by block face, right? So 18 what's the thought about that in this kind of program? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Mello: So one option is to instead of rolling the program out for the entire district from the 1 beginning you could recommend that we create eligibility areas. So for Downtown RPP we 2 created eligibility areas that were at the fringe of the district and that allows people to 3 administratively opt in to the program without having to go to Council. So it makes it a lot 4 easier to implement when they start to see employees spill over into the neighborhood. 5 6 Commissioner Tanaka: But I think you recommended that we don't do this for this program, 7 correct? 8 9 Mr. Mello: Well so if you weren't confident that there was enough input from the Mayfield 10 neighborhood one option could be to make the Mayfield area an eligibility area and not put 11 them into the program from the beginning. But we're not recommending any eligibility areas 12 as presented tonight. 13 14 Commissioner Tanaka: Sure. Because it's it has a response rate about 2 to 3x less, right? And 15 its approval rate was 60 percent. So while it's majority it's hard to know whether that's truly 16 representing everyone’s opinion. And it looks like some of the people that are parking there 17 are actually people who live there. Ok, that’s all the questions I have. Thank you. 18 19 Chair Alcheck: Alright, thank you Mr. Mello for the presentation. Did I just before I get started 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. you said something earlier when you started and maybe I heard [unintelligible]. What did you 1 mean by you are the entirety of the… you represent the… what was that? 2 3 Mr. Mello: We currently have two vacancies and they both are in the Parking Division within 4 Transportation. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: So you are the entirety of the division? 7 8 Mr. Mello: Yes. Currently we're working quickly to get those positions filled. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I'm going to start with the survey. Can you identify the boundary of the 11 survey for me? 12 13 Mr. Mello: Every residential unit within let me just find the map here. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Actually I'll make it really simple, is this the boundary? 16 17 Mr. Mello: No. So that the dark black line that’d shown on the map on the slide up on the 18 screen. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: That's the boundary of the survey? 1 2 Mr. Mello: That's the boundary of the survey. Every residential unit within that boundary 3 received a survey. 4 5 Chair Alcheck: That’s what I thought. Would you mind putting this one up for me? 6 7 Mr. Mello: Sure. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so I'm doing this for all of us. Is there anybody in the audience from 10 Mariposa? Anybody live on Mariposa? How about Sequoia? I imagine not. I’m going to make 11 a quick point here. Oddly Park Boulevard seems to be very parked, right? It's the farthest 12 street on this map from Cal Ave. that's I mean I'm not including the edge of the map, but right 13 in the middle to the left if you can't see it Park Ave is parked and it struck me why would Park 14 Ave. be so heavily parked or excuse me, Park Boulevard, be so heavily parked and Park Ave. be 15 right next to it be green. Can you guys see that? If you look at Page 7 of the handout actually 16 it's a little easier to look at the page. It just struck me as odd that those two streets could co‐17 exist and be so different. It made me wonder if we apply a permitted parking program to 18 everything from Park Boulevard south. I hope that's the right direction, southeast? Southwest? 19 South. Would Sequoia Avenue essentially become a red parking area because clearly people 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. are parking on Park Boulevard and not on Park Avenue because it's more convenient. This 1 could have been just that day or not. 2 3 The point of trying to make is that there is no such thing as a program that doesn't have 4 impacts that we aren’t, that we will foresee. There are going to be some unintentional 5 consequences and one of those consequences I would argue because there's randomly people 6 parking on Park Boulevard and right next to El Camino Real and I imagine there are some 7 businesses there is that because of course the nighttime is [unintelligible] different. It’s all… 8 not to sort of make the point, but the next slide shows you the exact opposite, right? So if you 9 look to the next slide Park Avenue now is red and Park Boulevard is green. Now the question 10 isn't what's going to happen to Park Boulevard and Park Avenue when you start this program 11 because both of them are within it, the question is what happens to Sequoia. 12 13 I would argue Sequoia is very likely to be heavily impacted and why do I feel very strongly about 14 that? Because when we did a residential parking program I don't know if that's the right 15 terminology in Crescent Park what we saw is that they did it block by block and it moved 16 parkers from one block to the next block to the next block to the next block and every six weeks 17 we got another street that wanted to be a part of it. It grows. Everybody gets really annoyed. 18 When you move your parking problem to their street they want to be a part of the survey. Now 19 I'm not suggesting we widen the survey because it might not work out for the people who are 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. most impacted, but it's an issue. It's an issue. 1 2 Mr. Mello: If I could Sequoia and Mariposa are in the Southgate neighborhood and we will be 3 moving forward with an RPP in that neighborhood immediately following the implementation 4 of Evergreen Park. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: I imagine the response rate in that survey will be higher as soon as you 7 implement. Look, when I read the report I thought that the response rate was pretty low. 8 Twenty percent struck me as very low which is which initially I thought maybe the survey 9 expanded to this entire area because that would that could possibly be one of the reasons why 10 this response rate was so low. The fact that the survey area was even smaller makes it a 11 concern. It is a little bit of a concern. We want as much input as possible. I don't know what it 12 means and then not only was the response rate low, but the no’s were high. I don't want to for 13 any just so we're clear here I'm not suggesting there isn't a problem. There's a problem. We 14 need to figure out how to solve it. I just thought that 104 out of 330 respondents saying no was 15 also I wouldn't I would have expected ninety percent of respondents to be concerned. So there 16 is that was also… that surprised me. I mean let me just pick your brain for a minute. Did, is that 17 what you expected? 18 19 Mr. Mello: The response rate? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: No, that a third of respondents would oppose an RPP. 2 3 Mr. Mello: The Downtown one was very close initially. That survey had to be re‐administered 4 because there was a lack of support during the first survey and the boundaries were actually 5 shrunken order to remove the areas that had voted against. And we actually thought going into 6 this that Mayfield would have a lot less support than it actually showed in the survey and we 7 were considering how we were going to address that with the program design (interrupted) 8 9 Chair Alcheck: So then I guess I shouldn't be so surprised. You're suggesting that you actually 10 feel that the response was strong in favor of the RPP? 11 12 Mr. Mello: Yeah. I mean we are asking people to start paying for something that they now get 13 for free and I think generally across any discipline that is generally not a favored solution. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: That's a great point. Ok, so I’ll sort of opine on some of the comments and some 16 of the things that we're going to get to tonight. Hours of enforcement, there's a dramatic 17 difference between what happens at night and what happens during the day and I would I think 18 there's a question as to whether there is a dramatic difference between what happens at 9:00 19 a.m., noon, and 5:00 p.m. I imagine that anybody arguing for longer hours of enforcement 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. believes that the problem isn't acute at noon; it's acute from 7:00 to 9:00. That said there is a 1 part of this there's a lot of things here I think we could work on, but I'm sort of loath to 2 essentially increase the cost of the program so dramatically to address enforcement hours until 3 we think we've got it right. So that's where I stand on that. I have a question about Caltrain. Is 4 the Caltrain lot typically full? 5 6 Mr. Mello: It's I mean the times I've observed it it's half to three quarters full, but we could get 7 numbers from Caltrain on what their utilization is. There's a $5 fee for daily parking there and 8 then a $55 fee for an annual pass on Caltrain. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: So I think it's safe to assume that there are Palo Alto residents not necessary in 11 this community that are driving to this Cal station [note‐Caltrain] to take it and I assume, I think 12 it's safe to assume that maybe there are individuals who are avoiding the daily cost by parking 13 in the neighborhood. If you had told, if you had said that the Caltrain lot is full then what do we 14 do with that? Because their inability to park somewhere means another car on the 101 or on 15 the 280 or somewhere else on our roads and it's just another piece of this that I think we have 16 to keep in mind. 17 18 One of the issues I think that we're going to deal with tonight is the phase out of permits. So 19 with respect to that my take is that we haven't yet reviewed the RPP Downtown which is 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. unfortunate because one of the things, I think one of the reasons why we approached the 1 implementation of the RPP Downtown as a pilot project and a phased project is because there 2 is a lot of unknowns here. We don't quite know what who's going to suffer, how they're going 3 to suffer, and every and this isn't just as simple as giving residents what they want. The issue 4 here is figuring out how we can achieve sort of the desired goals without creating a whole 5 nother [note‐not a word] set of problems that could upset people who serve our community 6 and live in our community. So I know that the City Council is supposed to review the possibility 7 of phasing out employee permits Downtown in February. I wonder if is that something that's 8 going to come to us as well? It may not and it's not the answer to that question isn't really 9 relevant for tonight, but my point is it would be interesting to have discussed that process 10 before incorporating it into an ordinance that's part of a pilot program since the last time we 11 went through this we weren't really comfortable from the outset creating a phase out. So I'll 12 just say that. 13 14 Ok so the last sort of element of this that concerns me is so there's sort of two pieces of 15 information you've provided tonight which I assume we've surprised you in the process of the 16 Downtown RPP that of the total number of permits you sold in the Downtown a far greater, a 17 far fewer number of them are being utilized on a daily basis. That I assume or it sounded like 18 you were suggesting that was something you didn't anticipate when we went through the 19 Downtown RPP. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Mello: We anticipated it, but we didn't have an exact number. I mean we're all really 2 learning in this process and that's why we've been pretty focused on implementing pilots first 3 because I think there's a learning process for not only staff, but for the community, for the 4 businesses, the residents of the neighborhood we need to figure out where that balance is and 5 you can't really design a program from the beginning that's going to work perfectly from day 6 one. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Right. 9 10 Mr. Mello: So that's why we've learned a lot of lessons in the Downtown program that we've 11 been able to use for the development of the Evergreen Park, but we're still learning. 12 13 Chair Alcheck: So I'll give you an example of some of the information that I wish I understood 14 better from this report. For example, the number of parking permits you sold Downtown is 15 roughly… what was the number? Yeah. It wasn't clear to me if there was some formula like 16 you got to 1,900 Downtown because there are X number of what, commercial square feet or 17 whatnot? How did we get to 250 in Cal Ave.? Is how what is that relationship? One of… I’ll just 18 say before you answer, one of the questions for me going through this packet was what if that 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. number’s wrong? What if that number’s too high or what if that number is really low? So if 1 there is that information including it in the packet or sharing with us now would be valuable. 2 3 Mr. Mello: Sure. So it's we did a similar calculation for Downtown, but I'll explain how we 4 calculated the 250 for Evergreen Park and Mayfield. Let me get to my page here. So for 5 Evergreen Park and Mayfield (interrupted) 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Wait, will you just share what page you’re on? 8 9 Mr. Mello: I’m on packet Page 18. The parking occupancy and supply and the employee parking 10 permit sections, packet Page 17 and 18. So there's a total supply within both Evergreen Park 11 and Mayfield of 1,017 on street parking spaces. And we calculate that by taking the legal curb 12 space and dividing by 22 which is the length of a typical parking space. So smaller cars you can 13 actually fit more cars so we're kind of 22 is the longest typical vehicle that would park on street, 14 passenger vehicle. So that means that there's 590… so and then we did an overnight parking 15 survey where we determined how many of those spaces were being used by residents because 16 we wanted to assume that there was a demand from the residents and we didn't want to 17 infringe on that demand because then we would start to see residents unable to find parking. 18 So what's left over after you subtract out the number of vehicles that are parked overnight was 19 592 spaces. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 2 3 Mr. Mello: And 250 permits we would expect 90 people to show up on a given day that 4 represents fifteen percent of the available space after you subtract the employees, I mean the 5 residents that are using the space. So that means that 85 percent of the available space is then 6 left over for contractors, two hour parkers, household visitors, service employees, anybody else 7 who may be visiting the neighborhood. So we think, we actually think that it's a fairly low 8 number of employee [unintelligible] I think they'll be significant capacity left over even with 9 those 90 employees that are parking on those 1,700 spaces. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so if the number 250 has no relationship to the number of employees down 12 there is, but it is based on what you're seeing except that in theory the 592 overnighters may 13 leave during the day and the overwhelming amount of people that are parking there during the 14 day may be… let's say, I don't know, do we have a number of how many people are parking 15 there during the day? 16 17 Mr. Mello: We do. I don't have a grand total. It's in the raw data from the surveys. It would be 18 under 1,017. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: Right. Is it like, can you ballpark it? 1 2 Mr. Mello: It would be six… Well I mean there are some blocks that are 80 over 85 percent 3 approaching 100 percent occupancy. So there's some that are well, well below 35 percent. So 4 if I had to guess I'd say maybe 60 percent of the space so 600, 700 vehicles during the day. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: So this isn't… ok, so I just want to see sort of how. This is an example of sort of 7 trial and error. We're going to put 250 parking spaces out there and if they all go away in the 8 first three weeks then we know that number might be wrong. And to address some of the 9 concerns of the dental community which showed up in numbers tonight what happens then? 10 What happens if we implement a pilot and suddenly we have a problem with service staff in 11 this community being able to park? I mean I guess what they could do in theory is park on 12 Sequoia until the Southgate RPP occurred which is a walk, but what happens then? Are, is it 13 worth suggesting some process if the 250 mark is off? 14 15 Mr. Mello: I think you could recommend that we do some type of survey of the businesses after 16 the implementation and maybe try to ascertain whether this is creating a hardship for them. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Mello: And then we could when we move to a permanent program we could bring forward 1 some recommendations based on that survey. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Ok. Alright. The last thing I want to mention is that if you live on new Mayfield 4 or College Ave., well hold on, let me put up the map. Let’s put up the map of the three zones. 5 Ok, so in in practice you'll have 250 permits, 125 allocated to the khaki color and 125 allocated 6 to the blue. If I were an employee and I had a permit to park in the blue my first and I worked 7 in the brown area let’s just describe it as that, as the core, Cal, then I’d want to be on College 8 Ave. And I imagine that I mean the map showed that there were individuals who wanted to 9 park on Park Boulevard in great numbers, but you get my point. We're not really doing 10 anything to help the individuals who are closer in terms of spreading out the use. 11 12 One way we did that Downtown is through subzones, right? I think a more perfect RPP here 13 might accomplish that because 125 cars could park right on College Ave. or [unintelligible] yeah, 14 College Ave. could be completely parked. And none of the residents on College Ave. could 15 benefit from the RPP, but Leland Ave. might be really great. And I don't know that that's the 16 goal of the program. I think the goal of the program is to distribute 125 cars on College Ave, on 17 Oxford Ave, on Stanford Ave, on Leland Ave, and Park Ave. If each one of those five streets had 18 to take 20 cars and we have side streets as well then there it might be easier. So there's a way 19 to do that, right? You could zone it out. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 So that would be one of my suggestions tonight is that we incorporate a approach where it's 2 not just blue it's a rainbow of colors and 125 permits were actually divided into 25 per rainbow 3 color. It's going to a little harder to enforce I imagine, but it's I think immediately going to I 4 don't want to ask how many people here are from College Ave. or Oxford Ave., but I imagine 5 that the response rates as you approach closer to California Avenue were higher on the survey 6 and those individuals are not going to be benefiting if 125 cars park on their street. 7 8 Mr. Mello: Just a couple points related to that. Based on our typical show rate for employee 9 permit holders we’re really looking at only about 45 employees showing up. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Right. 12 13 Mr. Mello: For each of the two zones. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: That's if our number is right though. 16 17 Mr. Mello: Yes. And then my second point would be for the Downtown RPP we had to do 18 exactly that. We created a very thin employee parking zones that radiated out from Downtown 19 and they got a little bit bigger the further from the core because we during Phase 1 we 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. recognized that people were clustering along the first blocks. That creates a great deal of 1 complexity for employees who have to buy a permit that's specific to a zone and it also creates 2 some enforcement complexity. 3 4 Chair Alcheck: I’ll just sort of pose this to my fellow Commissioners. Is do we want to entertain 5 this notion or do we want to revisit that, do we want to have the pilot program be six months 6 long so that we can revisit this specific issue? Because if you know... So the last thing I want to 7 throw out there is I’d love to know whether Commissioners agree that when these permits get 8 allocated to the businesses if we were to do this rainbow program could somebody and let's say 9 the rainbow goes brown then blue then green then red and then orange, orange being the 10 farthest from Cal Ave. Is there a protection, is there a way for us to ensure that one employer 11 doesn't get stuck with orange, that there's some sort of lottery involved where you could you 12 might have one spot that's farther away, but some of your other spots… These are the things 13 that I think could drive some employers crazy is that they could suddenly get in this tertiary 14 area. So I don't, you don’t necessarily need to respond to that just now because I want to know 15 if we're even going to discuss the rainbow idea, but that's one idea that I’d love to get sort of 16 fellow Commissioner comments on. Alright, go ahead. 17 18 Mr. Mello: If I could jump in here we Commissioner Tanaka we did some research and we found 19 the response rate for the Downtown RPP survey; 4,500 households were surveyed and their 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. response rate was thirty‐two percent and it was split about 50‐50. So then the program was 1 adjusted to a point where only the blocks that had a majority were put into the first phase of 2 the program. 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. Alright, go ahead Commissioner Waldfogel [Note‐Vice‐Chair]. 5 6 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. I want to thank our entire Parking Department for showing 7 up today. It's a great showing. Also just want to call out to a couple of the public comments to 8 Mr. Riahi and the dentists appreciate you coming out and raising some issues that frankly I 9 wasn't aware of previously. So it's and I'll come back to that a minute and two comments Mr. 10 Schrum and Mr. [Nepamuchino] I mean the comments about corroding community and 11 anonymity decreases cooperation I think were also really telling. So they tell us something 12 about the neighborhood outlook. Also someone brought up an interesting point, could you just 13 comment about the businesses that are paid into the parking district? I'm actually not familiar 14 with what the parameters of that currently are in the Cal Ave. District. 15 16 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: So there is currently a parking assessment district in 17 the California Avenue area. The City issued a number of bonds years ago. Those bonds have 18 since been paid off and the bonds were used to build parking garages. The people who the 19 businesses in the area who paid into the assessment district received credit for parking spaces 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. that were satisfied through the parking garages that were built with the bonds. And so those 1 current, those properties that have been previously assessed are essentially grandparented in 2 for a certain number of parking spaces that had been done in connection with that original 3 formation of the assessment district and construction of the parking garages. 4 5 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. And are we proposing that those businesses be eligible for 6 permits or that they not be eligible for permits? 7 8 Ms. Silver: I believe that they everyone would be eligible. 9 10 Mr. Mello: Yeah there's also an assessment district Downtown and those businesses are eligible 11 for the Downtown RPP permits. We're proposing a similar structure. 12 13 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Ok so we've set a precedent. Whether it's good or bad we've set a 14 precedent. Ok, great. And then just one final semi‐numerical question, I doubt we'll have an 15 answer to this, but do we just know roughly how many healthcare… dentist’s businesses, I 16 mean so how many businesses have the problem that we heard about from Mr. Riahi and the 17 dentists and do we know just order of magnitude is it 100 employees that we need to deal or 18 10? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Mello: I couldn't hazard a guess. I will tell you that we heard the same concern from 1 dentists along Middlefield Road when we implemented Phase 2 of Downtown RPP so I think it's 2 a recurring problem with the RPP programs. 3 4 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Would it be possible to ask Mr. Riahi to say something about that or? 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Do you by any chance have any information about the total number of dentists 7 that are working in this area? Would you mind coming up to the stand? I should rephrase, not 8 just dentists, dentists and your staff. 9 10 Mr. Riahi: So we did conduct a survey for the Downtown area. We haven't had a chance to 11 address these two areas yet, but for the Downtown area we have give me one second, I have to 12 pull it up. So 27 dental offices were affected by the Downtown RPP, 292 employees total; out 13 of 292 employees 276 are female and that's the number I have. And [date] between the 27 14 practices we also pooled the number of Palo Alto residents that they see as patients based on 15 their ZIP codes, 43,000 Palo Alto residents are patients in those 27 practices. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: So just clarification there 292 total potential employees, do you… and that's 18 Downtown. I mean do you just so we can appreciate this do you believe that the Downtown 19 dental practice is larger or smaller than the California Avenue dental practice? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Riahi: I think Downtown is larger. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 4 5 Mr. Riahi: By what magnitude I don't know. I can come back to you with the actual numbers. 6 The problem is not us getting… we purchase, most of the dentists purchased permits for their 7 employees. That we have we've done it for the last year and a half. What scares us is a 8 reduction of this to zero as we lose parking for employees basically means we cannot stay here 9 to provide the care we need to provide. That's what scares us. Other than that we understand 10 the cost of doing business in Palo Alto and we're not against RPP. We understand the concerns 11 of the residents. That's all we, we just want to know if you guys can consider a subspecialty of 12 health care providers. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. 15 16 Mr. Riahi: Thank you. 17 18 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you very much. I really appreciate that. So here's my thought on 19 this. I mean I think we should need to find some way to accommodate I wonder if we can 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. accommodate dental offices or health care providers in the two hour districts in some fashion. 1 I mean we do have another degree of freedom here which is that we could accommodate, we 2 could create some kind of permit for essential health care workers to be in the business district 3 and to park in the business district. So I think we could solve both objectives concurrently. So 4 at least I would appreciate exploring that as a possibility. 5 6 I mean generally I support what's in front of us. I would very much like to see a five year phase 7 out. I think subzones are something that we whether we implement it today we need to be 8 pretty agile to respond if the if the fears turn out to be true. That's all I’ve got. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Commissioner Gardias would you like to share your thoughts? 11 12 Commissioner Gardias: Sure, thank you. Thank you very much again same comment for 13 showing up in force and thank you very much for reaching out to the neighborhood. Good job. 14 15 I think there is Achilles’ heel of this report and which is basically in the week numbers. You can 16 refer, I could refer you to the discussion that we had when we were implementing initial RPPs 17 when Jessica Sullivan was here with us and we had the conversation or I had the conversation 18 with her and [concerned] that there would be something like a balance sheet provided of the 19 parking spots and the claimants to those spots. And my expectation would be that if staff 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. comes back again with another either update or a new extension of the RPP there would be a 1 balance sheet with those numbers provided. So I wish that this was followed, but you want to? 2 3 Mr. Mello: Could you clarify what would be on that balance sheet? 4 5 Commissioner Gardias: Right, I mean you can refer to this discussion, but it's very simple, right? 6 So the balance sheets like a financial balance sheet has a left and right side debits and credits 7 which is pretty much the assets and claimants to those assets. Assets are organized or just are 8 sorted along the for liquidity and then they claimants are organized within the ownership 9 rights. So however you're going to organize it it's up to you, but I think that there should be a 10 solid count of the parking lots within either attractiveness or however you’re going to 11 categorize it and then the number of those that park currently on those available slots. That 12 will be the balance sheet before the parking program implementation. There should be 13 another one after the program is released. And then between those two there will be of course 14 number, there will be a difference between those that didn't that because of different reasons 15 are not parking there. 16 17 And so there should be a following question: what happened with those that are suddenly not 18 parking because we introduced restrictions? Where did those people go, right? So those 19 people were maybe going to the Southgate and might be going maybe there may be a spillover 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. effect to other neighborhoods, but pretty much the difference between those two will show 1 you the impact on some other areas. And there would have to be some scientific explanation 2 because there are people there maybe there are going to other neighborhoods, they may be 3 abandoning cars altogether and just using public transportation, there may be carpooling or 4 there may be taking different means of transportation and we would need to have explanation 5 for that. That would allow us to understand what’s the effect of the of the parking program. So 6 I would appreciate if for the next time if you could just, if you agree with this I think it's a 7 reasonable request, if you could just provide us the numbers in the pretty much balance sheet 8 format that would pretty much address variety of those questions like for example of the 250 9 number, where does that come from, right? So that's my main ask to you. 10 11 Mr. Mello: So that actually is a fairly complex request. We don't have a lot of those data points. 12 The closest thing we have to identifying users right now is the overnight parking survey that 13 demonstrates what the overnight demand is and we've had to infer that the overnight demand 14 represents the resident demand. We cannot tell who a vehicle belongs to when we do a 15 parking occupancy survey. We will be able to tell that once permits are issued because we'll 16 have resident permits, employee permits, and then unpermitted vehicles which are the two 17 hour parkers so we can certainly bring that kind of sheet back after the pilot is completed and 18 we have the data points and we could also put together something like after the Downtown 19 RPP. But ultimately I think we need a comprehensive parking management plan for the Cal 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ave. Business District. We don't have a lot of those data points at all and a parking 1 management plan would allow us to do, delve a little bit deeper and address some of the those 2 issues. We're doing one for Downtown right now and ultimately I'd like to do a similar 3 management plan for the Cal Ave. Businesses Direct. 4 5 Commissioner Gardias: Right. I understand that you may have some reservations, but I would 6 like to encourage you. Not, we will of course not to hold you accountable for the errors, but it 7 would [at least] show that the [pop] forward how we can approach this program in a scientific 8 way. And I think that my colleagues would appreciate the count. I'm sure that Eric would like it 9 very much. But, (interrupted) 10 11 Mr. Mello: Sorry, one more point and in regard to the number 250 that's explained on Page 17 12 and 18 of the packet (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Gardias: Right, yes, I understand. 15 16 Mr. Mello: How that calculation was derived. 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: But if we had it in front of us, right, comprehensive set of numbers it 19 would allow us just to juggle with those numbers in a variety of ways, right, create statistics for 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. our understanding. Of course there is a number of the issues that you may or obstacles that 1 you may face on the road toward creating one, how to identify the claimant's, right, but there is 2 a number of approaches that you can take. Statistical one, as long as you provide some 3 footnotes so we can understand where the numbers are coming from at least we would have 4 the comprehensive set of numbers. So that's my ask to you, right? 5 6 There is another thing that I would like now I have a couple of scattered comments if you still 7 have a moment. So number one is that I think that there is I don't know if you've ever thought 8 about this, but I think there is opportunity to tie the employer surveys to the parking 9 applications because I know that there was a problem with enforcing or with obtaining the 10 business data because of the employee server, but if you just give a carrot and stick and you say 11 that ok well if you apply for a parking spot then you would need to fill out the survey. If you are 12 not, if the survey is not on the file you are not eligible for the parking. This would immediately 13 increase, just give you a boost to the survey program so that then just provides with the better 14 data. 15 16 So that's another comment. Couple of other small items… those are rather asks that I would 17 like you to clarify for us. How do you verify current the low income employees? 18 19 Mr. Mello: Sorry. I believe it's through a pay stub and/or a letter from the employer stating 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. what the salary is. 1 2 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, so I'd like to just for your understanding clarify one aspect that 3 there is a difference of a parking spot although it may be negligible for employer versus 4 employee. Because for the first one it's a tax deductible expense and with the if it's a 5 corporation this is 32 percent plus 6 or 7.5 percent of California and that's pretty much tax 6 deductible. For an employee it's out of pocket, right? Unless they have a cafeteria plan that's a 7 totally different story. So I would recommend that, but that may be for our separate session 8 that this should be somehow thought through and probably also make it simpler. My 9 recommendation would be just to allow the employers to apply for the permits and then 10 distribute them within the among the office or their enterprise. It's of course not the discussion 11 for today, but it’s my recommendation. I think it would simplify the administration on your side 12 and then you would offset the burden of some administration that you currently like a 13 verification of the low income you would just pretty much impose the burden on the employers 14 as opposed to yourself, right? And that’s this comment. 15 16 And then a couple of other small items; I think that if you come to us next time it would be fair 17 and this I refer to the comments that I heard from the upcoming Council Member, 18 congratulations again Greg Tanaka, that ask about the cost neutrality. Would be nice to have 19 the set of the numbers that would just tell us what would be the cost of the parking spot if 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. those RPP programs would be cost neutral, right? Because otherwise what we're doing today 1 somebody else pays for somebody else’s parking program in this neighborhood. It may be 2 other neighborhoods or it may be coming from the State, from the City income, but 3 nevertheless right it's not somebody else pretty much pays for this neighborhood eligibility for 4 the parking. 5 6 Mr. Mello: So we could probably have those numbers for the Council meeting on January 23rd. 7 So if you wanted to make a recommendation that we provide a cost structure that's revenue 8 neutral when we present to Council we could certainly do that. 9 10 Commissioner Gardias: Of course. I think it would be interesting for Council, but I'm sure that 11 we would appreciate this if you're going to come back to us with a follow up session. Thank 12 you very much. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Ok, it's sort of always been my firm belief that perfect can be the enemy of good. 15 So what I would like to do right now is if there is support for it is I'd like to put a Motion that 16 suggests that we recommend to City Council the RPP as it's written. And what I would like to 17 do is very efficiently make suggestions on excuse me, make amendments to that 18 recommendation to improve it in the ways that this Commission sees fit. I think we can do 19 that. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Mello: If I could just recommend one change to the resolution based on the confusion 2 around the free permit for households. 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. 5 6 Mr. Mello: Before you make that Motion on packet Page 25 the first paragraph, Item Number 1, 7 it should read each resident living within the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP may receive up to 8 three annual permit stickers as well as up to two transferable annual permit hang tags and the 9 cost is covered in Section 8 down at the bottom and it clearly says the one, one permit is free. 10 The confusion is the word purchase and the Item Number 1 should be changed to receive. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so noted. Please make that note. And we’ll operate under that revised 13 ordinance language. I just want to set out from the beginning here this the goal here will be to 14 see if we can achieve an ordinance that we're all comfortable supporting. If through this 15 process of suggested amendments we don't get there we will still have the opportunity to vote 16 it down, but let's see if we can get it there. And what I would like to suggest is our 17 amendments can essentially follow a process where staff we ask staff to provide Council with 18 this version of a section of this and I don't know that we need to review it again. So is there 19 anybody willing to make a Motion? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 MOTION 2 3 Commissioner Rosenblum: I make a Motion to… I make a Motion to recommend to Council they 4 adopt the RPP program as written with the amendment, amended language around received 5 versus purchase of the problems. 6 7 SECOND 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I'll second that Motion and I'd like to open up the floor for any amendments. 10 11 Commissioner Rosenblum: Can I speak though to (interrupted) 12 13 Chair Alcheck: Yes you can speak to your Motion. Sorry. 14 15 Commissioner Rosenblum: So I think that I might be in the minority here. I think that actually 16 the presentation is pretty data rich. The one piece of data that I think is missing is on the 17 impact to employers in the area. We have a number of dentists here, but I don't necessarily 18 see dentists as different from restaurant owners, toys shop owners, cobblers. They have 19 people that come in for the day to work and they have customers that come in for shorter 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. periods. So I think that there's a lot of them that have concerns and it would be good to see 1 those addressed. 2 3 Now I like the Motion or I like the ordinance as written though. And just to speak to it, first I 4 think the methodology used to determine the number of permits that would be given for 5 businesses is fairly generous. So after getting down to getting out all the residents uses down 6 to 600 that are unused to still have 85 percent be free for other uses I think is actually quite 7 conservative. Second, the phase out at this stage doesn't make a lot of sense to me. This can 8 be revisited over time as we see what happens, but right now again the businesses should 9 continue to be there given the cap that you already put for what I would consider a low ceiling. 10 I don't see that being a necessary step. 11 12 The boundary looks logical and especially I agree with Commissioner Alcheck [Note‐Chair] that 13 this problem will just get shifted the next district which also has an RPP in the works. And the 14 enforcement hours look reasonable. The case that was given around Caltrain parkers, they'll be 15 ticketed within two hours. That to me does not seem like a major enforcement problem. 16 Similarly based on your usage maps at seven o'clock map most streets are down to yellow and 17 green with still a one street red abutting the night time business of Cal Ave., but for the most 18 part the pressure has been relieved. So the enforcement hours also look reasonable to me. So 19 I make the Motion that we adopt the resolution to Council as written. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: Thank you. I won’t, I don't have much to add. I just want to reiterate one 2 comment which is that I also am convinced I think I approach this with the notion that maybe 3 the response rate was low, but I found that the information presented tonight compelling. That 4 this is not something we typically get a high response rate when you ask individuals to pay for 5 something that's going to potentially create a higher number of opposition. So I don't feel that 6 the survey itself is problematic. That's all I’m going to add because I had said that that was 7 problematic earlier and I don't feel that way anymore. I would like to open it up now if there is 8 anyone including the maker of the Motion is… has this opportunity who would like to make 9 any… I'm, we’re going to treat them as unfriendly, Unfriendly Amendments to the Motion. 10 11 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: I realize that this may not need to be part of the ordinance language 12 because my understanding is the ordinance is just for the one year trial. That's all we're 13 authorizing. I would like to add some advisory language around this for the, to the Council 14 around three issues and maybe I’ll just take them one at a time. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Please. 17 18 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: The first one is to propose and I'll, I’m going to test the first five year 19 phase out, see if I get a second for a five year phase out recommendation. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: So can you clarify? 2 3 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 4 5 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: That we phase out employee parking over a five year period so because 6 there's no other district in town where we've permanently built nonresident parking into the 7 RPP structure. In the Downtown district we have a definitive… at least the neighborhood 8 believes we have a definitive plan with a date certain for phase out of employee use. In College 9 Terrace it's resident only. In Crescent Park it's resident overnight. So this would be unique if 10 we don't provide some direction for a phase out. So might I get a second on that? 11 12 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 FAILED 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Is there anybody wanting to second a five year phase out? Ok seeing none 15 [unintelligible]. 16 17 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 18 19 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Ok, well let me just try on a phase out that’s concurrent with the 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Downtown, with the Downtown RPP phase out. Any second for that? 1 2 Chair Alcheck: Ok, hold on. So that's a little complicated because there isn't a phase out 3 currently in Downtown and that meeting is going to take place after (interrupted) 4 5 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Right, but when that's adopted to recommend that this RPP, that this RPP 6 receive the same consideration that Downtown RPPs receives for its phase out. That these be 7 taken together. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so let me just ask staff a quick question. Do you anticipate that this item will 10 be in front of City Council before the phase out question on the Downtown RPP will be in front 11 of City Council? 12 13 Mr. Mello: Yes. The Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP is being considered by Council on January 14 23rd and we’re currently scheduled to present the Downtown RPP permanent program on 15 February 6th. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so the timing is problematic because they will have not actually reviewed the 18 Downtown parking phase out at before having reviewed this recommendation which is to align 19 the phase out with that one. I mean I can we can see if there's a second, but is there a way 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. maybe we can… is there some other idea they can make this work? 1 2 Commissioner Gardias: No. I just want to clarify about our rules. Have a clarification about our 3 rules because I thought that if there is a Motion on the floor the first is Friendly Amendment 4 and then, but it looks like you are seeking for a second from whom? Are you looking 5 (interrupted) 6 7 Chair Alcheck: I’m treating (interrupted) 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: [Unintelligible] additional Motion that would replace the initial one 10 (interrupted) 11 12 Chair Alcheck: No. 13 14 Commissioner Gardias: Because I just… [Unintelligible‐crosstalk] 15 16 Chair Alcheck: No, no. 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: Amendments to the Motion that was (interrupted) 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: And we’re treating them as unfriendly; all of them. 1 2 Commissioner Gardias: I'm sorry. I don't believe that we have this right to just change the 3 rules. 4 5 Ms. Silver: You can modify the sort of the practice on voting on amendments if the Chair elects 6 to conduct it that way. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: I can, here let me just clarify. As a seconder of the Motion in order for an 9 amendment to be treated as friendly both individuals who supported the initial Motion would 10 have to accept an amendment as friendly. I am unequivocally asserting that I wouldn't accept 11 any amendments as friendly in an effort to create a process by which we can vote on each item 12 individually as opposed to waiting till the end of this process. So this way we can figure out 13 whether there is support, we can go through the process of asking if the amendment would be 14 treated friendly by the individual maker and by the seconder, but I'm going around I’m making 15 the process more efficient by suggesting we treat each amendment as unfriendly. 16 17 Commissioner Gardias: Right, I understand, but there is a possibility of created of proposing 18 substantive Motion that would receive a second and in this case it would pretty much would go 19 against the Motion that's on the floor. So (interrupted) 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: Right, there's always (interrupted) 2 3 Commissioner Gardias: And that's pretty much that wasn't clear in this process. 4 5 Mr. Lait: So Chair if I may? 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, go ahead. 8 9 Mr. Lait: So to that point that would be a Substitute Motion and if there was a Substitute 10 Motion made and a second to that then that is the Motion that's on the floor and that's the one 11 that has the… takes precedence and would be voted on and if it failed you would go back to the 12 original Motion. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: So right now we have a Motion on the table and I'm asking if there are any 15 individuals that would like to propose amendments to it. At any time someone could propose a 16 Substitute Motion which would then take precedence, but what I'm hoping is that we can work 17 within the confines of the process. 18 19 Commissioner Gardias: Right, but this wasn’t clear. So if because I in this case, right, I would 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. like to restart the process because after this clarification we know that there could be a 1 substantive Motion on the floor which was not clear in the initial proposal. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Ok, we don't need to restart the process because any time you can make a 4 substantive Motion, a Substitute Motion, excuse me, but right now Commissioner Waldfogel 5 [Note‐Vice‐Chair] is proposing an amendment to the Motion that's currently on the floor. As 6 soon as he's done if you'd like to make a Substitute Motion you could or if you'd like to propose 7 an amendment to the Motion you can, but we're not really out of process yet. So what I'd like 8 to continue. So what I'm proposing to you is I can, we can ask for the second if you'd like on the 9 suggestion or if there's a way that you can rephrase the language so that maybe it works with 10 the timeline I'm giving you that chance. 11 12 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Ok, I'm just looking for a language that… I’m looking for language that 13 endorses phase out as part of this process because I otherwise this would stand unique as the 14 only RPP in the City that does not have some intent of phase out. So perhaps you have some 15 thought on this so? 16 17 Mr. Mello: So the Downtown RPP pilot did also not have a phase out, but by the time the 18 Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP comes up for a vote to make it permanent there may have been a 19 phase out established Downtown. So I think the timeline works, but we're talking a year from 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. April 2017 when Council would be considering a phase out in the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP 1 program. After the pilot has elapsed when they make the program permanent that would be 2 the time. So I think you could recommend that at the time that Council makes the Evergreen 3 Park/Mayfield RPP permanent they implement a consistent phase out. I guess a phase out 4 that's consistent with what was done in the Downtown RPP. 5 6 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 FAILED 7 8 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Yeah, that's too far in the future for me to worry about honestly. Ok, it 9 doesn't sound like we have a lot of enthusiasm for phase out at this point or phase out 10 direction. That's unfortunate, but I just wanted that to be clear. 11 12 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I'll suggest an amendment. It's difficult for me to ascertain whether the 250 15 is an accurate number or not. That's the one issue here I'm a little uncomfortable with. I want 16 to suggest based on the experience we've had Downtown so it sounds like in Downtown it's 17 been eight months, right? 18 19 Mr. Mello: It started in September of 2015. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so it's been over a year. 2 3 Mr. Mello: Yes. 4 5 Chair Alcheck: It took us over a year and when did we hit the cap? 6 7 Mr. Mello: The cap was only established as part of Phase 2. So there was no cap during Phase 1 8 and we hit the cap about a month and a half ago. So Phase 2 rolled out in April 1st of 2016. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so if the here's my suggestion, the cap wasn’t, was… if the cap if the equation 11 to determine the cap that was used Downtown was used here that same methodology and it 12 took a year to hit that cap or more to hit that number in Downtown. My question is or my 13 suggestion would be that we create a period of time where any employee application for a 14 permit would be granted without cap for let's say three months. So we would give employers 15 three months to submit applications for employee permits. Now my understanding is those 16 there are currently employee permits in the parking lots, right? 17 18 Mr. Mello: Yes. There's a separate permit that is available for purchase for the garages and 19 lots. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: And those are priced? 2 3 Mr. Mello: The Downtown garages and lots or the Cal Ave. (interrupted) 4 5 Chair Alcheck: No, the Cal Ave. 6 7 Mr. Mello: The Cal Ave. garages and lots an annual permit is $149. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: So they’re the same price? 10 11 Mr. Mello: Yes. 12 13 SECOND, VOTE 14 15 Chair Alcheck: So my suggestion would be that… Well, ok. So I have two suggestions. I do I 16 think there is and I'll get the second one later. There should be a some differentiated pricing to 17 encourage parking in the, it would be a problem if the parking in the garages went down and 18 the parking in the streets went up. But my point is that my concern is that there will be an 19 issue and it will take a year for us to address it with dental staff or any health care staff. That's 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. my big concern. And I know that we think only 90 people will be there, but if the real number 1 of employees is 600 then 200 will be there or 220 and that is, that's my concern. And so I'm 2 inclined to my proposal is that for the first three months the program there is no cap and we 3 determine whether or not we even hit it. If we're so convinced, I’ll make the case real quick, if 4 we're so convinced the number is right like it is Downtown then we should hit the cap. This 5 would basically be a failsafe. 6 7 So that's my proposal. I would need a second. Ok, we have a second. No he I’m assuming 8 they're unfriendly. It's an Unfriendly Amendment. So I need a second for this Unfriendly 9 Amendment. Ok, so I have one. I don't need to speak to it any more. Would you like to speak 10 to the… ok. Ok, so the way this works is that we're going to vote on this amendment right now 11 and see if their support for it. So if you don’t want to speak to the suggestion then we’ll do 12 that. 13 14 Ok, all in favor of this proposed amendment say aye. Two; and all opposed? Ok, so it fails. 15 16 Any other amendments on the table? Oh sorry, I'm sorry. The light situation is a little 17 problematic. Commissioner Tanaka. 18 19 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 FAILED (2‐3, Commissioner Fine absent) 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so largely I think this program is headed in the right direction. So I 2 do support it, but as someone that’s going to be gone to Council next year I and it’s something 3 I've told everyone here many times I actually think that we should empower the Planning and 4 Transportation Commission (PTC) more. I think that more decision making should happen here 5 so by the time it hits Council most of the loose ends are taken care of. And so my only 6 reluctance on this program is that there are some loose ends. Like we don't know the 7 financials, right? So that’s something which it means on Council we would have to [beat] the 8 financials. We don't know what the business community really thinks because we didn't look at 9 the survey. They really didn’t survey them. So that's also another loose end. 10 11 And so that's my only kind of caveat here is that I would actually like PTC especially going 12 forward to actually get a lot of these loose ends tied up so by the time it hits Council it's almost 13 like on a Consent Calendar. Now of course I’m just one of nine so there’s probably going to be 14 a lot of other opinions, but that's what I would like to see. Is like more, the stuff more fully 15 fleshed out because Councils going to be looking at a lot of other issues as well and it would be 16 good if PTC could take on this role. So that's my desire. 17 18 Now with that said I do have a few thoughts here. So first thought is and it's a really first a 19 question to staff. So we have these surveys, do we know where the surveys came from? Like 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. what street people are on, what block face? Or is it just anonymous? 1 2 Mr. Mello: We have addresses and we're currently geocoding all of those addresses by parcel. 3 4 Commissioner Tanaka: You don't have like a map that shows a percentage of yeses on block 5 faces. 6 7 Mr. Mello: We will, yes. We don't have that currently. It's taking time to geocode each survey. 8 9 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so here is something I would desire of staff going forward is I think 10 the PTC should have the information that Council has. So it shouldn’t be like ok we have to 11 make decisions with less information than what Council get. Because if you want the PTC to 12 actually make better decisions they need to know what's going on too, right? So that’s first my 13 desire is that we I would have liked to see the financials here and I would have liked to have 14 seen where the how the survey results are by block face by block face. 15 16 Because we don't have that we have to make some decisions kind of with missing data. I would 17 propose that Mayfield because it only has a 13 percent response rate which is about a third or 2 18 to 3x less then Evergreen Park or what we saw Downtown. And it also has a very low yes 19 response rate that that one becomes a block face by block face what was the term used? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Mello: An eligibility area. 2 3 Commissioner Tanaka: Eligibility area, yeah. Eligibility area. And (interrupted) 4 5 Chair Alcheck: Hold on. I like where are you going. Can we make it a specific amendment and 6 then parse out the… I think you're coming up with another suggestion. 7 8 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok let's do one at a time. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. 11 12 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #4 13 14 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so my amendment is that Mayfield is the eligibility area and it comes 15 in block face by block face. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Ok, does anybody need any clarification on what that means? 18 19 SECOND 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Rosenblum: I'll second that. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Ok, we have a second. Would anybody like to speak to it? 4 5 Commissioner Rosenblum: I think Commissioner Tanaka already expressed it, but it is a very 6 low set of data they received back, very low response rate, low set of data. I think it should be 7 eligible for the reasons stated which is that the problem will just get shifted into their 8 neighborhood. It's important, but they don't have data to actually define the boundary 9 properly. So I support having a block face by black face surveyed eligibility. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I’m… staff I’ll let you. 12 13 Mr. Mello: Yes, for the eligibility areas in the Downtown RPP we held those permits in reserve. 14 I would assume you'd expect us to do the same for so we would hold 125 permits in reserve 15 until specific streets in Mayfield opted in and then we would release those permits. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 18 19 Commissioner Tanaka: Sorry, wait so what are you saying? So I guess what I'm saying is I’d like 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. to see the College Terrace style opt in where people if over 50 percent people like buy in. 1 2 Mr. Mello: Yes and what I’m saying is (interrupted) 3 4 Commissioner Tanaka: I see some streets there that are red at night, red [unintelligible] during 5 the day and I bet you those are residents. And those reasons may not appreciate having to pay 6 for parking suddenly. 7 8 Mr. Mello: Yes so for eligibility areas in the Downtown RPP we assigned a permit number to 9 each street based on the supply and we held those permits in reserve until that particular street 10 opted into the program. So if we were to move forward with Mayfield as an eligibility area we 11 would only release 125 permits for Zone A. And then when Zone A, Zone B opted in we would 12 release 125 permits or we would release a prorated amount based on the street that opted in. 13 14 Commissioner Tanaka: So are you saying that block face by block face gets voted in or you 15 saying the whole thing all at once? 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Hold on. Hold on a second. This is your amendment. 18 19 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: So you can decide (interrupted) 2 3 Commissioner Tanaka: What my amendment is (interrupted) 4 5 Chair Alcheck: But what we would need to provide staff is clarity. 6 7 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Because right now they have 125 permits assigned to the blue area and 125 10 assigned to the khaki area. So if we're going to treat the khaki area as a block face then 125 11 permits aren't going to be issued and only 125 are going to issue the blue. And then if for 12 example Grant Avenue decided to initiate then a third of the 125 would be available and then if 13 Grant to (interrupted) 14 15 Commissioner Tanaka: Oh. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Does that make sense? 18 19 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, that’s fine. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: Ok, that’s what he’s suggesting. Ok, alright so are you comfortable voting at this 2 point? Ok great; all those in favor? 3 4 Commissioner Gardias: I just I need a clarification because I [unintelligible] if you don't mind 5 just restating this in a simple way so we can follow? Thank you. 6 7 Commissioner Tanaka: So basically what I'm proposing because of the very low response rate 8 we got from Mayfield that it's an eligibility area. And what that means is that each block face is 9 voted in with a 50 percent majority, a 50 percent higher majority or higher majority in order to 10 be in this program and that the employee permits get prorated in. The amount of employee 11 permits get prorated in according to the block face. 12 13 Chair Alcheck: Would staff provide I think we have a question on the dais. 14 15 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Yeah, I'm sorry. How would that get initiated? So what would Grant 16 Avenue need to do say to opt in? I mean directionally I'm kind of neutral on this, but I’d just 17 like understand how hard it would be for Grand Avenue to be included if they need to be or 18 wanted to be. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Mello: So the way the eligibility area process works for the Downtown RPP is a street is 1 designated as an eligibility area by Council and then a street can for, you know, assemble and 2 submit a petition to the Director of Planning and Community Environment and then if the 3 petition meets the threshold of 50 percent then we send a mail survey out. And typically we 4 want a 70 percent response rate in order to admit street into the RPP. And then that can be 5 done administratively by the Director without having to go to Council. So it's a much shorter 6 process and the signs can be installed and enforcement can begin through an administrative 7 action. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok. Are there any other questions about this? 10 11 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah because I just want to understand it, right? Because it just looks 12 more riskier than it sounds. That I think that I can imagine a scenario that pretty much all 13 blocks would opt out and then suddenly from the employer perspective there is no parking area 14 in the blue and khaki zone. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: What this is saying (interrupted) 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: That's right. Ok so, but so it would take a blue zone out of that 19 employer parking eligibility fully. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: No, no. There will be 125 permits available immediately upon implementation of 2 this RPP in the blue zone. In the khaki zone it will remain as it is today and primarily because 3 we feel, because the proposed, because the people who already spoke to the Motion feel that 4 there wasn’t enough of a response rate. If you agree with them then that amendment will take 5 place. If you don't then it won't. Essentially what will happen is Grant Avenue would have to 6 participate in a process by which they would apply to be included in the RPP if they wanted to. 7 Because the proposal of the amendment doesn't feel that there's enough information to 8 suggest that they even wanted to in the first place he wants them to go through a secondary 9 process to participate. 10 11 Commissioner Gardias: Are we talking about employer permits or just a full participation to 12 RPP? 13 14 Chair Alcheck: We're talking about the restrictions that would only allow people to park there if 15 they had a permit so essentially those streets would be unrestricted. Employees could park 16 there, anybody could (interrupted) 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: So the entire program, right? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: Entire program. Yeah, yeah. Ok, I’m going to put this to a vote. All those in 1 favor of the proposed amendment please say aye and raise your hand. Ok that's three. All 2 those opposed? Abstentions? Ok, we have three in favor, [two and zero] nays, and one and 3 two abstentions, excuse me. Can you proceed with… 4 5 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #4 PASSED (3‐0‐2‐1, Commissioner Fine absent) 6 7 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. So the second one is I think that and I'm trying to think of 8 this one as amendment or something totally different, but so maybe staff you tell me. But I 9 think the PTC should see or should discuss and make a recommendation on the Downtown 10 phase out. So I'm not quite sure where that fits in, but I think that's something that the PTC 11 should do before Council sees it. 12 13 Commissioner Gardias: If I don't know what's the procedure right now, but if that is the intent 14 which was originally intent by Commissioner Waldfogel [Note‐Vice‐Chair] I would second it if 15 that's a place for, room for seconding this amendment. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: So just so before (interrupted) 18 19 Ms. Silver: I'm sorry, did you say Downtown phase out or…? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Tanaka: Downtown phase out. Yeah, the Downtown (interrupted) 2 3 Ms. Silver: Ok. 4 5 Chair Alcheck: Hold on. Before we get clarification I think what the proposal is: is there, do we 6 have, can our recommendation include delaying this on Council's calendar (interrupted) 7 8 Commissioner Tanaka: I’m not saying delaying it. I'm just saying that I think the Downtown 9 phase out is something that the PTC should look at and (interrupted) 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Right. So that's calendared for February 6th or something. So you in theory 12 would like this to come up after that date? 13 14 Commissioner Tanaka: No, I don't care. My main point is I think the PTC should look at look and 15 make a recommendation on the phase out in Downtown before a Council sees it. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Yeah that… Ok. 18 19 Ms. Silver: So that is, that's not really agendized for this meeting. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, ok. So then we’ll... 2 3 Chair Alcheck: We don't currently have a phase out on the program. 4 5 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, that’s fine. Ok. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 8 9 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #5 10 11 Commissioner Tanaka: So the next one here is I like the idea, I forgot who made the 12 recommendation, but I like the idea of the permits, employee permits being distributed among 13 employers, to them rather than to the employees directly. So I forgot who made the 14 recommendation? But yeah, Commissioner Gardias, a great idea; so I'd like to propose it as an 15 amendment. 16 17 SECOND 18 19 Commissioner Gardias: Second. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: Can I just ask a point of clarification? What happens if an employer, if a small 2 business owner who doesn't appreciate the process or is uninformed doesn't get a permit and 3 their employee needs one… would, would it, are you suggesting that that employer, that 4 employee has to just deal with their boss. I mean I'm just curious. Could an employee 5 purchase a permit or? 6 7 Commissioner Tanaka: Actually I’d like to ask Commissioner Gardias. This was his idea. What 8 would you recommend? 9 10 Commissioner Gardias: Well, I would just shift the burden to the employers. That's the premise 11 and just offloaded from our duties. That's number one and that would their headache, not 12 ours. And I think that the same question you may ask what happens if the employee is not 13 informed, right, and doesn't apply for a parking permit. So I think that employers they have 14 more understanding of their business. There would have to be some sort of appropriate 15 proportional assignment of the parking slots to those employers that participate in the survey 16 and are eligible for this parking program and they would apply and they would receive them. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Ok. Any questions about this? Alright then lets (interrupted) 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Lait: Well I'm sorry, we’re… we didn’t hear the Motion or the amendment. 1 2 Chair Alcheck: The current amendment is that this program, correct me if I’m wrong, but I 3 believe the current amendment is that this that the purchasing of the employee the permits for 4 employees be made available only to employers as opposed to employees. That is that current, 5 would staff like to comment on this? 6 7 Mr. Mello: Yeah I have a couple comments on this. First during the development of the 8 Downtown RPP there was a concern that some of the larger businesses would purchase 9 employee permits wholesale and that the benefits of the permits would not be seen by some of 10 the service workers at restaurants and smaller businesses. So I think that's where in the 11 Downtown RPP that's why there are some restrictions around who can purchase employee 12 permits. Also the majority of the employee permits are stickers, decals that are affixed to a 13 vehicle for the entire annual, the entire year that the permit is valid. If employers were to 14 purchase these they would only be able to distribute them to one employee and then they 15 would have to cancel it when that employee left. 16 17 An alternative is the hang tags and during our business focus group meeting we actually had 18 quite a few business owners request the ability to purchase hang tags that they could give to 19 employees because some of their employees only work there for three months, six months, and 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. an annual permit doesn't make sense. So if they had a permit that they could give to their 1 employee when they arrive for work and then take back, but however Downtown there was a 2 lot of resistance to that because there were concerns about fraud between employees trading 3 them, employees trading permits or selling permits. There was also concerned that again that 4 the large businesses would dominate the employee permits and purchase the bulk of them and 5 also abuse the hang tags. So there is some tradeoffs. 6 7 Administering that would also be difficult because currently as written there is a preference for 8 garage waitlist. People on the garage wait list as well as low income employees and our intent 9 was to have a an early release of permits for low income employees and then follow that with a 10 release period for garage and lot wait list holders and then open up the permits to all 11 applicants. So if employers were only, the only ones eligible to purchase the employee permits 12 some of those elements would need to change. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so I'm just going to push it to you real quick, do you want to revise your? 15 16 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah actually I do. So this thing is more complicated than I thought. So I 17 think there's a couple things. So on one hand the problem with giving the permits to 18 employees especially employees that work in retail or some area where there is a lot of 19 turnover is you have these permits locked up by people who probably don't work there 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. anymore after three months or six months. So you have this turn problem. On the other hand 1 you have all this administrative stuff which I don't know about so that's actually a good point. 2 Do you have an idea of how to make this work so that it's employer driven? Because employers 3 [unintelligible] the three to six months turn that you get with retail employees, but what's a 4 way where we can handle this because I've heard this concern not just from Commissioner 5 Gardias, but I heard from other businesses of having this issue where the permits get eaten up 6 by transient employees who only work for three months. 7 8 Mr. Mello: Yeah. 9 10 Commissioner Tanaka: And so that is actually a real problem. So how do we handle that? So I 11 think I have a couple of ideas. One is to have a shorter permit period so maybe have a three 12 month permit or a six month permit and then they would be released quicker back into 13 circulation. Another is to allow employers to purchase a certain number of hang tags. So let's 14 assume the average small business has five employees. Maybe we allow a business to purchase 15 up to five transferable employee tags and they could be given to on Monday Employee X works, 16 on Tuesday Employee Y works. They could use, share a permit and then when that employee 17 leaves the employer would be able to take that permanent back and give it to a new employee. 18 19 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. I actually like both those ideas, but I maybe before we make a full 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Motion maybe it’s worth a discussion. 1 2 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. So let me ask a quick clarifying question. Is it safe for us to assume that 3 you are going to implement the all of the current processes for the Downtown RPP in this 4 program? So for example is there going to be a low income like the for example you specifically 5 said that low income permits were released a little earlier than permits to employers. Is that 6 same process going to be followed? 7 8 Mr. Mello: So Downtown has no priority. All the permits are released first come first serve. 9 There are low income permits available, but those are the same permits. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: So what were you saying? I just what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to figure out if 12 (interrupted) 13 14 Mr. Mello: The resolution that's before you this evening for the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP 15 includes a preference for low income employees as well as people that are already on the 16 garage and lot wait list. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Got it. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Mello: And the way we were going to do that was to have specific release periods for each 1 of those constituencies. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: So I sort of see there's two options here. You can make an amendment that 4 suggests… that the… it’s any amendment. You can make any amendment, but you seem I'm 5 hearing from you that you're interested in potentially different time periods. That's one thing 6 and also not exactly sure where we are with the proposal about who gets to buy them. So what 7 I would really like to do is have you restate an amendment and then if there is something you'd 8 like staff to prepare for Council or to provide more information we can do that. I don't know if 9 we want to open the discussion up at this time or how they implement the time period. I think 10 if there is support for that we can just move forward with that. 11 12 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, well it's actually not originally my idea. It's actually Commissioner 13 Gardias. So I’d like to get Commissioner Gardias’ (interrupted) 14 15 Chair Alcheck: How about this, how about you withdraw your amendment and if he wants to 16 make it he can make it. 17 18 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #5 WITHDRAWN 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, sure. 1 2 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so is there anybody that would like to make an amendment? 3 4 Commissioner Gardias: No. I just I think that it's not about the amendment it's just about the 5 future. I think that my understanding is that we're going to I mean first of all I appreciate a 6 Council Member just proposing this Motion [note‐Unfriendly Amendment], but I think that 7 we're going to come back to this discussion in the future. There's a number of the observations 8 and good ideas that we can have and from my perspective I'm not really hard on this just to 9 introduce it now because it's a little bit outside of the topic for this discussion, but I would 10 appreciate if review of the RPP would be put on our agenda in February or in March where we 11 would just review all this ideas comprehensively. 12 13 Chair Alcheck: Ok let’s make a clarification here. Is the RPP is do we need to include language 14 here that the RPP, we recommend that the RPP come back to us at its one year anniversary. 15 Because I'm asking this because I know that the phase out is going to City Council. We've talked 16 about that for the Downtown and it's not coming to us currently. So if that's something we 17 wanted would we need to recommend that? Right? 18 19 Mr. Mello: Yeah, we would pass it along the Council. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: Ok. So would you like to recommend, would you like to propose that our 2 recommendation include a recommendation that we get to review it in one year as well? 3 4 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #6 5 6 Commissioner Gardias: I think it's understood per se, isn't it? No? Then just I would just add it 7 as an amendment that (interrupted) 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok. Can get a second? 10 11 Commissioner Gardias: One year after implementation. 12 13 SECOND, VOTE 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Second? Ok. I don't think we need to, do you want to speak to it? Good. Alright 16 so all those in favor of recommend, amending the current Motion to include a recommendation 17 that we review this in one on the anniversary date of its implementation please say aye and 18 raise your hand. That's unanimous. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #6 PASSED (5‐0‐1, Commissioner Fine absent) 1 2 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #7 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Ok, are there any other amendments? I'll propose one. I propose that staff 5 present to City Council a what I'm going to call it the rainbow zone, a rainbow of zones. 6 Subzone, sorry. I would like to propose that we amend the ordinance so that the employee 7 parking Zone A be broken up into subzones and the permits be distributed so that we have a 8 better distribution of permits. So would anybody like to second that? 9 10 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: I would like to have a way to respond if it’s a problem, but I don’t know 11 that I want to dictate it that it has to happen now. 12 13 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #7 FAILED 14 15 Chair Alcheck: I see no seconds. How about this? Well, let me ask staff if it's a problem is there 16 a process? 17 18 Mr. Mello: We could come back with a resolution at any point in time that would supersede the 19 resolution that create created the RPP. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: How would that… there doesn't seem to be support for this idea. So I'm going to 2 leave it and if somebody else wants to make a suggestion they can. 3 4 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Well so what would that look like? I mean how would we determine if 5 let's say it turns out all it's all cuts all the parking is concentrated on College Ave. how long 6 would it take for us to turn around some kind of subzone proposal? 7 8 Mr. Mello: So the permits would be sold by zone. So somebody would have an A on their 9 permit. We would have to make that change when the permit expired. We couldn't change 10 midstream because somebody is expecting to be able to park in Zone A for a year or six months 11 or whatever the period is. So it would probably have to happen after the year when the 12 permits expire. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Ok. I want to do this, why don’t you, I’ve already pulled it. You want to put it 15 back in? 16 17 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #8 18 19 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Yeah so I’ll put it back in recommending the creation of subzones. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 SECOND 2 3 Chair Alcheck: I'll second that. I don't need to speak to it. 4 5 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Nah, we’ve said enough. 6 7 VOTE 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok. All those in favor of Council reviewing a subzone map please say aye and 10 raise your hand; we have three ayes. All those opposed? Two. Ok. Typically when a Motion 11 passes and there’s opposition would like to speak to your opposition? Go ahead. 12 13 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #8 PASSED (3‐2‐0‐1, Commissioner Fine absent) 14 15 Commissioner Rosenblum: When you create subs zones you hurt liquidity of the whole system. 16 I think it becomes incredibly complex and so I think you're creating a system that will be 17 complex, illiquid, difficult for residents and service workers and everyone. I just think it'll be 18 difficult to administer. So again, I live in Downtown North. I’m part of this district. I've seen it 19 in operation now for over a year. I just can't imagine having Downtown North A, B, C, D 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. through F and we all have to park in our individual little zone. So. 1 2 Chair Alcheck: Ok. I think Council will appreciate that information. Do you have, want to speak 3 to your opposition? 4 5 Commissioner Gardias: I had exactly the same thoughts and the system some sort of liquidity 6 and with creating subzone it just becomes rigid and it's hard to administer. Thank you. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Ok. Ok, are there any other amendments to the Motion, to the proposed 9 Motion? Going once? Ok, I see… oh, I see one. Go ahead. 10 11 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #9 12 13 Commissioner Gardias: So I'd like to propose a Motion to phase out the commercial parking for 14 within the five years starting with the time of the implement [unintelligible] implementation. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Ok just for clarification can I treat it as an amendment? 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: Well, I’m not sure what the rules are. I mean you can either treat it as 19 an amendment if you or if not it would become such tentative Motion. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I’m going to treat it as an Unfriendly Amendment to amend the current 2 Motion. 3 4 Commissioner Gardias: Five years of the commercial parking phase out starting with the time of 5 implementation, of the pilot implementation. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Can I get a second? 8 9 SECOND 10 11 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: I’ll second. 12 13 Chair Alcheck: Would you like to speak to your second? 14 15 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: I support this. I would like to find a way to accommodate some of the 16 special cases like the health care in this situation, but I think that it's important for the 17 neighborhood that we declare that the neighborhoods are not business district parking 18 districts. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: Does anybody need any clarity on what's being proposed? 1 2 Commissioner Tanaka: Didn’t we already just talk about this? I don't understand like… 3 4 VOTE 5 6 Chair Alcheck: It’s an amendment on the floor. I'm going to put it to a vote. All those in favor 7 of amending the current Motion to include a five year phase out beginning on the day of 8 implementation of the employee parking permits please say aye and raise your hand. That's 9 two. All those opposed? Ok, that's three. So that fails. I'm seeing no other amendments on 10 the table. So I'd like to put the current Motion as amended… 11 12 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #9 FAILED (2‐3‐0‐1, Commissioner Fine absent) 13 14 Mr. Lait: And just so we're, there’s perfect clarity (interrupted) 15 16 Chair Alcheck: I would like you to clarify. 17 18 Mr. Lait: Thank you. I’ll summarize a little bit, but it's a Motion to move the staff report, the 19 resolution contained in the staff report changing in Section 4b1 the word “purchase” to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. “receive” with the following amendments: that the Mayfield neighborhood be able to identify it 1 as an eligibility area and allow each block face to opt in with a petition to the Director, and 2 employee permits being issued on a prorated basis, and the only other amendment is that the 3 employee parking Zone A be divided into subzones. 4 5 Chair Alcheck: No. No, no subzones failed. No! Subzones passed. Commissioner Tanaka, 6 myself, and Waldfogel supported it. Quick point of clarification on the block face amendment 7 how soon could a block face participate in that process? Could they do it before 8 implementation begins? 9 10 Mr. Mello: If we created an eligibility area how soon could they petition to join the RPP? 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Yes. 13 14 Mr. Mello: They would have to wait till after the resolution was adopted by Council and took 15 effect. Are resolutions 30 days from adoption or immediate? So immediately after the 16 resolution was adopted by Council they could petition the Director of Planning and Community 17 Environment to join the RPP. 18 19 Chair Alcheck: Ok. That's all I just wanted to clarify that any case members of the community 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. wanted to understand that process. 1 2 Mr. Lait: There were there was one other amendment and that was for the PTC to request the 3 City Council that the PTC have a review in the in one year. 4 5 Chair Alcheck: The participate in the review of the pilot? 6 7 Mr. Lait: Yes 8 9 VOTE 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I'd like to put this Motion as amended to a vote. All those in favor of this 12 recommendation please say yes and raise your hand. Ok, great. It’s unanimous. I’m going to 13 stop asking for yes. I'd like to make just a quick recommendation when you take this to Council 14 with respect to these amendments for example, the block face amendment, I think it would be 15 very helpful if for the community to understand how that process would work as Council’s 16 reviewing it. And if there are other sort of idiosyncrasies about what we recommended just 17 walking the community through those in that staff report. Alright, I’d like to take a two minute 18 break. No, five minute break and then we'll start on Item Number 4. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. MOTION PASSED (5‐0‐0‐1, Commissioner Fine absent) 1 2 Commission Action: Recommend to Council adoption of the staff proposed Resolution 3 as written with the amended language to modify Section 4 B 1 replace "purchase" with 4 "receive". Motion made by Commissioner Rosenblum, seconded by Chair Alcheck. The 5 motion was APPROVED 5‐0. 6 7 Amended Motion: 8 A. Recommend to the City Council that the employee parking be phased out in 5 9 years, motion made by Vice‐chair Waldfogel; motion FAILED due to lack of 10 second. 11 B. Recommend to the City Council that the employee parking be phased out in a 12 manner consistent with the Downtown parking program. Motion made by Vice‐13 chair Waldfogel; motion FAILED due to lack of second. 14 C. Recommend amending the Resolution that for the first 3 months of the program 15 there be no cap. Motion made by Chair Alcheck, seconded by Commissioner 16 Tanaka; motion FAILED 2‐3 Commissioner Rosenblum, Gardias and Waldfogel 17 against. 18 D. Amend the Resolution to allow Mayfield as an eligibility area and allow each 19 block face to opt in with a petition to the Director of PCE ‐ Employee permits 20 would be issued on a prorated basis [Petition requires 50% of the owners 21 supporting inclusion, followed by a city‐initiated survey and 70% or better 22 response rate to allow incorporation]. Motion made by Commissioner Tanaka, 23 seconded by Commissioner Rosenblum, motion APRPOVED 3‐0‐2 ( Vice‐chair 24 Waldfogel and Commissioner Gardias abstained. 25 E. Amend the Resolution allow the employer purchase permits instead of the 26 employee. Motion made by Commissioner Tanaka, seconded by Commissioner 27 Gardias, MOTION WITHDRAWN. 28 F. Recommend to the City Council that the Planning and Transportation 29 Commission review the RPP in one year. Motion made by Commisioner Gardias, 30 seconded by Commissioner Rosenblum, motion APPROVED 5‐0. 31 G. Amend the Resolution to divide Employee Parking Zone A into subzones Motion 32 made by Chair Alcheck, motion FAILED due to a lack of a second. 33 H. Amend the Resolution to divide Employee Parking Zone A into subzones. Motion 34 made by Vice‐chair Waldfogel, seconded by Chair Alcheck, motion is APPROVED 35 3‐2 Commissioner Gardias and Rosenblum AGAINST) 36 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. I. Recommend to the City Council that the employee parking be phased out in 5 1 years starting with the time of Pilot Program implementation. Motion made by 2 Commissoner Garidas, seconded by Vice‐chair Waldfogel motion FAILS 3‐2 3 Commisioners Tanaka, Rosenblum and Chair Alcheck AGAINST. 4 5 The Commission took a break. 6 7 4. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code 8 (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 18.30(F) ((Automobile 9 Dealership (AD) Combining District Regulations)), 18.52 (Parking and Loading 10 Requirements), and 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards) Adding Sections 11 18.40.160 (Replacement Project Required), 18.40.170 (Deferral of Director’s Action), 12 and 18.42.140 (Housing Inventory Sites Small Lot Consolidation) and Repealing 13 Chapter 10.70 (Trip Reduction and Travel Demand). The Proposed Ordinance is 14 Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Sections 15 15061(b)(3). 16 17 [Note‐out of order, took Number 5 first (below)] 18 19 Chair Alcheck: It is 10:00. What I would like to do is see how much we can get through of this 20 item, Item Number 4. I’m wondering if are we comfortable setting a time limit of 10:30? Ok. 21 22 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Well what do we have to get done on this today? Is there anything we 23 have to get done today? 24 25 Chair Alcheck: I'm going to suggest that we just get let staff make their presentation and then 26 we can begin and we'll see how we're doing and if there's a concern we can sort of bifurcate. 27 Staff if you would? 28 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: So due to the time and the Commission's interest we're going 2 to be have a we’re going to breeze through this presentation because we'd rather hear your 3 comments. Ok. 4 5 Woman staffer: Ok. Good evening, Commissioners. So basically tonight I'm going to review the 6 proposals that were the proposed amendments that were brought forward to you last month 7 on the November 9th study session. We've got some objectives that we talked about before 8 addressing state law, Housing Element implementation, updating the code for text changes and 9 such, and so forth. And these changes are related to our Affordable Housing Code, our 10 entitlement review process, our off‐street loading requirements, and our Transportation 11 Demand Management (TDM) plan. And we're adding a new topic tonight and that is related to 12 the floor area calculations for auto dealerships located in the AD, Auto Dealership overly. 13 14 So I'm just going to jump right into it. So all of these amendments we had brought forward last 15 month to discuss it and basically I've made the notation for all of these if something's changed 16 we haven't changed anything unless noted on these slides. So we have proposed definition 17 updates for some housing related definitions and we're going to be correcting some loading 18 space or updating some loading space items. The first one is to correct the error in the loading 19 space requirement table. The second is to clarify the mixed use requirements for projects. And 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the last loading one is to allow Director’s adjustments for loading spaces. And the next ones we 1 have to allow the deferral of the Directors’ decision to Council for action, establish standards 2 for when a TDM plan is required for a project, and the next one is to update the Housing 3 Density Bonus regulations. So this one is going to be deferred to next year; staff didn't have 4 enough time to prepare the appropriate ordinance language. So that will come to you soon 5 early next year. 6 7 The next one is the to allow to require discretionary approvals to be completed before the 8 demolition permit is approved and no changes there. And the next one is to allow the use of 9 mechanical lifts in projects. So this one and the following one we did have extensive 10 conversation at the last meeting and staff has basically incorporated your comments and 11 feedback into the draft ordinance that's attached to the staff report. So allowing the kind of 12 lifts and the next one is to provide incentives to encourage consolidation of small housing 13 inventory sites. 14 15 And the very last one that we also discussed was to allow hotel conversions to affordable 16 housing units. So we're not planning to pursue this at this time. It was clear that there was 17 definitely more analysis needed. So that's going to be postponed to a future time. 18 19 Alright so the very last one here is the newly added item. So we have some changes being 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. proposed for floor area for auto dealership uses in the AD overlay. So the first one is to exempt 1 a floor area used for customer vehicle queuing for service drop off and the second one is to 2 exempt floor area used for parking requirements related to service areas. 3 4 So that was a quick wrap up that's all of them. So basically upon your recommendations were 5 we've got this tentatively scheduled for Council review on February 13th. Thank you. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Ok thank you, staff. We did review this very recently and if you reviewed the 8 minutes and you looked at the current staff report then you know that a majority of our 9 comments are included. I think that the actually the best I'm going to ask if anybody wants to 10 speak on anything that they believe is controversial, but if someone is inclined I will absolutely 11 accept a Motion to make this recommendation and give people an opportunity to make 12 adjustments in the same process that we've used now for two meetings which is by 13 amendment, by unfriendly amendment. So I see one light, Commissioner Tanaka is that you? I 14 see a… you… I see another light so do you want me to call on that person? Ok, alright. So 15 Commissioner Rosenblum I see a light. Go ahead. 16 17 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I this item I know that we reviewed for also something like 18 three hours the previous time and I was gratified to see all of our comments included and also 19 just the changes included. I'd be prepared whenever we want to make the Motion and go by 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. our previous process where if anyone wants to add an amendment, but I found it consistent 1 with our discussion. Everything was reflected. I think that we had a pretty deep discussion on 2 each of these items previously. So whenever it's time to make a Motion I'm happy to make it. 3 4 Chair Alcheck: I will accept Motions now. 5 6 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, I'd like… 7 8 Chair Alcheck: I have no other lights, so… 9 10 MOTION 11 12 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok then I'll make a Motion to accept staff recommendation as 13 written. 14 15 SECOND 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Do I have a second? I have a second. Would you like to speak as a second to 18 your Motion? Ok. Commissioner Tanaka. At this time if anybody would like to amend to 19 suggest an amendment this would be the time. Commissioner Tanaka. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 2 3 Commissioner Tanaka: So page, Packet Page 87. So I see that E. says mechanical car lifts shall 4 not be used for required guest parking residential developments and I don’t see a good reason 5 why not so I think we should strike that. Page, Packet Page 87 E. basically I think we should 6 allow… Yeah. I can’t see why, why would we not want it to use in residential unless staff has a 7 good reason, but I don’t I can’t see why not. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so the proposed amendment is to strike Item E. Do I have any seconds? 10 11 Commissioner Gardias: I’m sorry, which one? A? 12 13 Chair Alcheck: So this is Page 87. The proposal is to lift the restriction that mechanical car lifts 14 shall not be used for any required guest parking in a residential development or for accessible 15 parking spaces or loading spaces. Or is it actually just to remove it for guest parking? Let me 16 clarify. Are you suggesting that parking lifts could be used for accessible parking and how 17 (interrupted) 18 19 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, no. I was really talking about the guest parking (interrupted) 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so it's, sorry. 2 3 Commissioner Tanaka: Sorry. 4 5 RESTATED UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Proposed amendment is to modify E. and remove the words “required guest 8 parking in residential development.” So that would mean that mechanical boat [Note‐car] lifts 9 could be used for required guest parking in a residential development. Like an apartment 10 complex that had to have a certain number of guest spots those could be operated with 11 mechanical lift. 12 13 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, I agree with this. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: You second it? 16 17 SECOND 18 19 Commissioner Gardias: I second it. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: Ok, great. Would you like to speak your second? 2 3 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah I just I don't see justification for not applying the car, the 4 mechanical car, the car lifts for this purpose. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 7 8 Commissioner Tanaka: Oh, should I speak or no? 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Would you like to speak to it? 11 12 Commissioner Tanaka: Sure, real quick. So I mean land value is real expensive in Palo Alto. We 13 should maximize the use of our land. Having mechanical car lifts does that so I can't see why 14 we should not allow that. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Do you mind if I ask of staff a point of clarification? When we're talking about 17 just so I'm clear I used the example of an apartment complex and guests which I assume are 18 overnight guests or maybe even evening guests. Is there another subset of residential guest 19 parking different than what I'm thinking of in this scenario? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Woman staffer: No. So for residential projects there is a requirement that there's a certain 2 number of guest parking spaces. So it could be used for just a short term visit, something 3 overnight, but there are no other types of guest parking. 4 5 Chair Alcheck: Would like a prospective tenant, someone who wants to apply to live at a 6 residential apartment complex be considered a guest? 7 8 Woman staffer: Yeah, I would assume so because guests’ spaces are the ones that are not 9 dedicated to the units. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Got it. Ok. Thanks for that point of clarification. Does anybody else have a 12 question or clarification on this item? Ok, so let's put it to a vote. All those in favor of removing 13 the language that I’ve identified in Section E. please raise your hand. All those opposed? 14 Would the opposition like to speak to their opposition? That's three for and two opposed. 15 Please do. 16 17 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 PASSED (3‐2‐0‐1, Commissioner Fine absent) 18 19 Commissioner Rosenblum: The reason the language was inserted I believe was that there’s 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. skepticism that if you have mechanical lift people will actually use it. So if you're short term 1 guest and so that will lead to more on street parking. So part of the parking requirements for 2 residential is to assuage neighbors for example that you’re not going to create parking 3 problems in the neighborhood. So counting their parking requirements for short term being 4 mechanical left I think will be met with skepticism by neighbors and I think rightfully so. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Thank you. Would you like to speak your? 7 8 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: I concur with Mr. Rosenblum’s comments. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. I think Council will appreciate that information. Are there any 11 other amendments? Ok. 12 13 Commissioner Gardias: If you don't mind I just I'm trying to find I was on the phone back then 14 and so I'm trying to find out I proposed insertion of removal of the small lots that are subject of 15 the consolidation. I proposed removal of those small lots from the parking requirements and I 16 was going through the 18.42.140 on Page 81 trying to find where this found its place. 17 18 Woman staffer: So I can respond to that. We did not eliminate the parking requirements for 19 the small lots. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. 2 3 Woman Staffer: Because that [unintelligible] recommendations. 4 5 Commissioner Gardias: So it means that not all of the comments were inserted so then I have a 6 following questions, which items were not inserted or were changed from [unintelligible] 7 conversation? So I would like to get the list of those. That's Number 1 because it just puts into 8 doubt the this whole Motion. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Ok, hold on. Hold on. I need to clarify something here. We went through this 11 process last time and it was the onus was on staff to determine based on our process whether 12 there was support for certain changes. And that is a tough process to determine whether or 13 not there's enough support for a proposed change. The flipside of that is the onus is upon us 14 during our review of this project, this item to determine whether or not our proposed changes 15 were incorporated and if they weren't to re‐suggest them as amendments now and have an 16 opportunity to make a case to your fellow Commissioners. I don't think that there it would be 17 possible for staff to prepare a list of which of your comments last time were incorporated or 18 not. Do you have that list? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Woman staffer: So for the specific item it's actually I did call it out in the staff report. It's on 1 Page 9 of the or Page 9 of the staff or Page 72 of the packet on the top and then it includes our 2 staff response. So basically our staff response was that we felt that eliminating parking 3 requirements altogether for these types of projects could have a significant parking impact so 4 that's something that we didn't pursue at this time. So definitely if it's a recommendation 5 (interrupted) 6 7 Commissioner Gardias: Right. So on which page it is? 8 9 Woman staffer: It is on Page 72 of the packet and the bullet points up at the top it's the third 10 bullet down and it says, “Eliminate parking requirements altogether from projects.” 11 12 Chair Alcheck: What I really want to highlight real quick is this process that I’ve set us in for the 13 last few meetings is really designed for us to be very specific about our changes, make cases for 14 them, to really have an opportunity to address everybody's specific concerns. The onus though 15 is upon each of us to do the homework to know what has changed in a particular ordinance and 16 how staff has dealt with it and if they feel like the staff response still doesn't address your 17 concern to make your concern to your fellow Commissioners in the in this amendment process 18 so that we can deal specifically with an issue and determine whether or not there's consensus. 19 If there isn't consensus regardless of how anybody feels then that amendment is not going to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. happen. So what I suggest we do is if you feel strongly about this why don’t you make 1 (interrupted) 2 3 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 4 5 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, so I'm going to just it’s just responding to this, right? I mean just 6 took me by surprise because I heard different story as a neutral direction, right? I understood 7 that all of them were incorporated and now I understand that not all of them, right? So this 8 was one of them. 9 10 So let me just make a case why I proposed this because there is number of the small property 11 owners that would have ability or that to develop and care about their properties. If we 12 propose a policy that pretty much drives this specific the specific consolidation of the small lots 13 we pretty much select the winners and we select the losers. And the losers may be those that 14 because of some reason will not be will not have comparable power, economic power, to 15 develop their property as the guys that have ability to buy them out and then develop the 16 property. And then I think that from perspective of our City that has number of the small 17 business owners and the property owners it's not the right move. So for this reason I think that 18 we should support those small property owners as we would support others equally. For this 19 reason I propose that we should remove the burden on the parking requirements to set the 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. field straight. So I would like to propose Amendment to Paragraph 18.42.140 to remove 1 parking requirements on the for the small properties subject of the consolidation. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Ok before I ask for a second does anybody want to ask any clarifying questions or 4 need clarification on this? Commissioner Tanaka. 5 6 Commissioner Tanaka: So wait, so which there’s A through I. Which one did you want to 7 change? 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: This is 18, this is Page 81. 10 11 Commissioner Tanaka: Oh, I know. I’m on there. Wait, wait… 12 13 Commissioner Gardias: On Page 81 there is a Paragraph 18.42.140 Housing Inventory Sites 14 small lot consolidation. It is pretty much expression of the policy that we define in the Housing 15 Element in 2014 and that policy was to drive number of the affordable units by allowing parties 16 to consolidate small lots into larger lots (interrupted) 17 18 Commissioner Tanaka: No, I get that, but did you want to change on… like so I see sub‐bullets A 19 through I. Which bullet (interrupted) 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Gardias: I would like to add the sub‐bullet to this whole section that would allow 2 owners of the small lots subject of the consolidation to be exempt from the parking 3 requirements. 4 5 Mr. Lait: So I think that’s specified if I may Chair. That’s specified on Packet Page 82, letter J. 6 where we stay no parking is required for residential units less than 500 square feet regardless 7 of bedroom count. If I'm understanding the Commissioner's comment there's no parking 8 requirement for any units produced. 9 10 Commissioner Gardias: That's correct. 11 12 Mr. Lait: So it's an amendment to the Letter J. on Packet Page 82. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: So if you turn to Page 82, Number J., Letter J. on Page 82 you would amend no 15 parking is required for residential units less than 500 square feet regardless of bedroom count 16 you would amend that to no parking is required for residential units. 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: Right, but there would be (interrupted) 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: Am I understanding that right? Is that what your question was? Ok. 1 2 Commissioner Gardias: There would be distinction, right? Because I believe that if they are 3 they would be under this Paragraph 18.42.10 that they would have to contribute to the 4 affordable units. 5 6 Mr. Lait: Well so these are for 100 percent affordable this is for the production of 100 percent 7 affordable rental. So you're not paying into a fee also for that. 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: Right. So if you if we exempt them under this section then if they 10 contribute to the affordable rental or ownership units then they would be exempt fully from 11 the parking restrict… the parking requirements? 12 13 Mr. Lait: So just so I'm clear, this provision would only apply for these I don’t know, 20 some 14 odd properties where they were to join with another and build 100 percent affordable housing 15 units. 16 17 Commissioner Gardias: That's correct. 18 19 Mr. Lait: Ok. And so what I'm hearing you're saying is that if somebody were to do that you 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. don't want to have a parking requirement for the residential units that are produced. 1 2 Commissioner Gardias: On their own before without consolidation. 3 4 Mr. Lait: Oh, without consolidation. 5 6 Commissioner Gardias: Without consolidation. I understand that this is applicable for the 7 consolidation so if the room is somewhere else that you know (interrupted) 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Maybe this (interrupted) 10 11 Commissioner Gardias: [unintelligible] relevant for this. 12 13 Chair Alcheck: Maybe I'm hoping staff can help us figure this out. Maybe you can identify the 14 concern. What are you trying to prevent? 15 16 Mr. Lait: It’s the existing Housing Inventory Sites so it has nothing to do really with this because 17 this is seeking to consolidate. 18 19 Chair Alcheck: This is pre‐consolidation I think is what (interrupted) 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Lait: But you're saying for the existing parcels as they exist today you want to create 2 incentives (interrupted) 3 4 Commissioner Gardias: Exactly. 5 6 Mr. Lait: For those owners to build housing. Affordable housing? 7 8 Commissioner Gardias: Yes, exactly. 9 10 Mr. Lait: And not have parking be a part of the (interrupted) 11 12 Commissioner Gardias: Subject to the same condition as those that would be subject of the 13 consolidation conditions give them credit for parking. 14 15 Mr. Lait: So if you can give, so let can we just talk about that while you move onto the next, if 16 there is another? 17 18 Chair Alcheck: So just so I’m clear is staff understanding this as an entirely new section or do 19 they perceive this as an amendment to an existing section? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Lait: Yes, we do believe that it’s a new section. What we're trying to do and what the 2 objective here is is to implement the Housing Element which is seeking to encourage lot 3 consolidation so that you get more efficiency, probably more units, and so what I'm hearing is 4 to create an incentive to not keep them, to not consolidate them by means of having parking be 5 not provided, not required for the development. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Ok. What I would like to do if are you open to suggesting that as a second 8 Motion after we deal with this Motion? 9 10 Commissioner Gardias: Well I mean it could be considered in a number of ways. I mean I 11 understand that because of the policy that we have and we have to implement it under 12 Housing Element we are pursuing the lot consolidation, but we can either create a separate 13 section or we can just pretty much change the title of this section and then or just pretty much 14 create exemption under the same section. It would meet the requirements. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Ok. I'm trying to figure out how we can proceed with this so there’s sort of two 17 questions. Number 1 is we don't really have precise language to review on this item and so 18 without that I think what I would like to do is suggest that you propose and see if there's a 19 consensus for asking staff to create that language and bringing it to us to review. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: And I think what staff is struggling with here is that it 2 appears to us that your recommendation is to give some zoning incentives to a few properties 3 in town and that has not been agendized. 4 5 Commissioner Gardias: I totally understand, but I also have a concern that just by meeting this 6 without creating a level playing the level fields that we incentivize some over the others. And I 7 totally understand that this hasn't been agendized so for this reason I was proposing this as a 8 either exemption or change of the title of the section so we can still meet this proposal from my 9 perspective. I might be the only one. My colleagues may might disagree with this, right? But 10 from my perspective if this passes without the other it just pretty much it shifts the balance of 11 power toward certain property owners. 12 13 Chair Alcheck: Ok so I'm not really sure how to proceed. What I would like to do is suggest that 14 either we operate on the premise… yeah. We operate on the premise that this is an 15 amendment and I ask for a second or we treat it as a Motion to ask staff to come back to us and 16 see if there’s support for that. Either way we get to vote on whether or not there’s support for 17 this. 18 19 Mr. Lait: Ok. So I think our perspective on this is that this is not been properly agendized to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. establish that (interrupted) 1 2 Chair Alcheck: Ok. It would be fair though to have a Motion to see if we could revisit this at a 3 next meeting and see if there's consensus for that. 4 5 Mr. Lait: You could. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Ok. So what I'm going to do is suggest that we vote on the Motion on the table 8 as amended and then I'll allow Commissioner Gardias to make another Motion tonight asking 9 staff to bring this item back to us and see if there is a second for that Motion. So wanted… are 10 you comfortable with that? 11 12 Commissioner Gardias: Could you repeat it please how we? 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so the issue is that you would like to discuss a topic that hasn’t been 15 agendized. So the process for doing that would be to make a Motion tonight and see if it 16 carries requesting that staff bring us this item agendized for the purposes of reviewing a 17 Planning Code amendment that would (interrupted) 18 19 Commissioner Gardias: As a separate topic? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: As a separate topic because it hasn't been agendized. 2 3 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, but I can also just propose another Motion? I can propose a Motion 4 to remove this section entirely from tonight's consideration. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Yeah an amendment to remove this from the current Motion. You can propose 7 that. 8 9 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 10 11 Commissioner Gardias: Yes so I'm going to propose this Motion [note‐Unfriendly Amendment] 12 to remove this section because of that reason from the consideration tonight. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Ok, alright there is an amendment. I under (interrupted) 15 16 Commissioner Gardias: Section 18.42. (interrupted) 17 18 Chair Alcheck: The entire Section A. through J., Page 80. So if I'm stating correctly there is 19 currently an amendment to remove the Housing Inventory Site small lot consolidation section. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Do I have a second? Do I have a question about a second? 1 2 Commissioner Tanaka: I… ok. Can the maker talk about rationale why he wants to do that? 3 4 Commissioner Gardias: So rationale is pretty much this that it would elevate some property 5 owners over the others. That the consideration. That’s the concern, I'm sorry. So for this 6 reason I would like to just change the language of this, have the staff come back to us on a 7 separate time, and then revise it so similar rights of building out their properties would be 8 giving to those owners that want to build affordable housing, but doesn't want to consolidate. 9 10 SECOND 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Any more questions? Ok so we have a second of the amendment. 13 14 Mr. Lait: Chair? Just one comment; this section is the reason we're here. This is the reason why 15 we're moving this ordinance forward. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: I understand that. 18 19 Mr. Lait: Ok. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: I’m… I understand that. Ok, so I have a second for an amendment to the 2 proposed Motion. Do you want to speak your second? 3 4 Commissioner Tanaka: Sure. So the reason why I support it is although I’m a little bit confused 5 by it, but the reason why I support it is because I think he's trying to fix a problem and I think 6 the Commission should have time to fix the problem because I think if we’re trying to fix it on 7 Council we’re going to be even more confused. So that's why I’m entertaining it. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok. Does anybody else wish to address this issue before we vote? 10 Commissioner Rosenblum. 11 12 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah I want to address this issue. So this does gut the entire 13 purpose of this of a lot of our discussion. The City's policy is to state that in trying to create 14 affordable housing we need to have enough lot liquidity you need to have a large enough lot to 15 have the Below Market Rate (BMR) housing be offset by market rate housing. And when you 16 have small lots the reason that we're doing this is because empirically we found that small lots 17 don't result in affordable housing for that reason. And so the whole reason to have this there is 18 to force this incentive towards consolidation. So you're right it is providing incentives for 19 certain kinds of property owners specifically to achieve a policy goal. So yeah so this does 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. confuse me because this is the empirical result of observing that small lots don't provide the 1 opportunity to have either BMR be offset or just an efficient place for someone like Palo Alto 2 Housing Corp. to develop a property. That's just not the way to do it. 3 4 VOTE 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok. I literally couldn't agree with you more. At this time though I'm going to put 7 this proposed amendment to the current Motion to a vote; all of those in favor please raise 8 your hand. We have one in favor. All those opposed? We have three opposed. All abstaining? 9 We have one abstainer. So that fails. So we have a Motion on the table as amended. Would 10 staff like to clarify the current Motion as amended? 11 12 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 FAILED (1‐3‐1‐1, Commissioner Fine absent) 13 14 Mr. Lait: So I have move the staff report amending Section 9 to Item E. removing the required 15 parking, the lifts for guest parking to allow that. 16 17 VOTE 18 19 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so all those in favor of the Motion as amended please raise your hand. It’s 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. unanimous; unanimous support for the Motion. Ok. That concludes Item Number 4. 1 2 MOTION PASSED (5‐0‐0‐1, Commissioner Fine absent) 3 4 Commission Action: Recommend that the City Council Adopt the staff recommended 5 ordinance. Motion made by Commissioner Rosenblum, seconded by Commissioner 6 Tanaka motion is APPROVED 5‐0. 7 Amended Motion: 8 A. Amend Section 9 ‐ 9.18.54.020(b) Item E to remove required parking in guest 9 parking, motion made by Commissioner Tanaka, seconded by Commissioner 10 Gardias, APPROVED 3‐2 Commissioner Waldfogel and Rosenblum AGAINST. 11 B. Amend the ordinance to remove Section 5 18.42.140 from the ordinance. Motion 12 made by Commissioner Gardias, seconded by Commissioner Tanaka; motion FAILED 13 3‐1‐1; Vice‐chair Waldfogel and Chair Alcheck Against; Commissioner Rosenblum 14 Abstained. 15 5. Recommendation to the City Council for the Adoption of an Ordinance Making 16 Permanent Interim Urgency Ordinance 5330 (Limiting the Conversion of Ground 17 Floor Retail and Retail Like Uses), With Some Modifications; Extending the Ground 18 Floor Combining District to Certain Properties Located Downtown and in the South 19 of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan; Modifying the Definition of Retail; Adding 20 Regulations to Improve Pedestrian Oriented Design Standards; and Related Changes. 21 The Proposed Ordinance is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act 22 (CEQA) Per Section 15308 23 [Note‐out of order, took Number 5 first before Number 4 (above)] 24 25 Chair Alcheck: Alright, what I'd like to do right now is begin with Item Number 5 instead of 26 Number 4 and what we'll do is… that last item took a little longer was, as you could tell, 27 complicated, more complicated than I think we imagined. What I would like to do is begin 28 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. tonight with Item 4 as it, what I'm going to term as an abbreviated session. I’d like staff to 1 prepare, to present its report. I'd like to take comments from the public that we have here and 2 then what I would like to do is have one efficient, very efficient round of questions from the 3 Commission to staff so that when we bring this item back for a second session some of the 4 issues that you may have uncovered in your review for tonight are responded to. So with that 5 please begin your presentation. 6 7 Staff woman: Thank you, Chair. Tonight we're bringing to you the first public hearing on the 8 Retail Preservation Ordinance and I would like to introduce Jeannie Eisberg. She's the City 9 consultant who is the Project Manager for this project. 10 11 Jean Eisberg, Lexington Planning: Hi. Good evening, Chair Alcheck and Members of the 12 Commission; again, my name is Jean Eisberg and I'll just give a short presentation and then if 13 you have any questions I'm happy to provide more detail. 14 15 So based on the City Council's direction staff has prepared a draft ordinance for retail 16 protection citywide and in Downtown and South of Forest Avenue 2 (SOFA 2) and we're 17 requesting your review of a recommendation to the Council to protect City, excuse me, to 18 protect retail conversion citywide, add design standards in two of the combining districts in 19 Downtown and California Ave., and modify the GF Foundry Downtown. So just looking back at 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the interim urgency ordinance this prohibits ground floor or basement retail and retail like uses 1 citywide from converting into office or other nonretail uses. It was adopted during a period of 2 time in the City and particularly Downtown where we were seeing a lot of vacancies, vacant 3 retail spaces being replaced by office uses. This is the list of uses that the interim ordinance 4 protects and you'll see the same list of uses is carried forward in the draft ordinance. 5 6 The Council twice discussed priorities for permanent retail protections and these are the 7 outcomes that drove the draft ordinance before you tonight. I'm not going to go into them in 8 detail, but they are in the report. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) discussed some of the 9 potential design standards in their meeting in November and they expressed support for more 10 transparency, for recesses, articulation, but also supported the continued implementation of 11 the existing design guidelines in the City. 12 13 There are seven key points to the ordinance laid out in the staff report. First, modifying the 14 definition so this provision removes the extensive list of retail uses that's in the code and 15 focuses instead on the intent of retail uses to promote active pedestrian oriented uses during 16 public, excuse me, open to the public during typical business hours and the sale and services for 17 customers and clients. And this is intended to respond to the changing nature of retail both in 18 Palo Alto and across the country shifting towards restaurants, experiences, services as opposed 19 to retail sales. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 So Number 2 this provision continues the citywide moratorium on retail conversions. So these 2 protections would be codified in the use classification tables of zoning district. One notable 3 change is that the draft ordinance only protects uses that are permitted or conditionally 4 permitted in the underlying zoning district. 5 6 In terms of [waiters] first the ordinance proposes to maintain the existing economic hardship 7 threshold that requires demonstration of an unconstitutional taking. Additionally, except in the 8 Downtown GF the ordinance provides an opportunity to consider an alternative viable use if it 9 meets the intent of the zoning district. The current GF district proposes purposes are focused 10 on type of use and on the Downtown. The proposed revision here seeks to capture the 11 contribution of architectural form such as transparency and pedestrian orientation in this 12 purpose statement and also to clean up the Downtown focused language acknowledging that 13 the GF district is applied elsewhere in the City. 14 15 In terms of Downtown the draft ordinance continues the interim ordinance provision to restrict 16 the conversion of basements, but only in the GF districts Downtown. And then the next two 17 slides show modifications to the GF district regulations Downtown. So first fitness studios and 18 similar uses up to 15 customers would be permitted by right except on University Avenue 19 where the Council was concerned about window coverings and here students’ studios with 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. more than 15 students would be considered a commercial recreation use which are subject to 1 conditional use permits. The ordinance also proposes to remove the existing provision that 2 allows 25 percent of the ground floor area to be occupied by use in the underlying CD district 3 such as office and this is intended to strengthen the retail core. 4 5 In terms of design standards the ordinance proposes to require clear glass with only a minimal 6 amount of tinting, 70 percent of the sidewalk fronting frontage would be required to have 7 transparent doors and windows. Window coverings in non‐conforming spaces such as office 8 spaces in the GF that front onto a sidewalk would be prohibited during business hours. And 9 here there would be some exceptions for uses that require privacy and that these uses we 10 would encourage or require artwork displays of merchandise or other visual interest. 11 12 Lastly a map amendment is intended to expand the Downtown core area where ground floor 13 retail and the design standards I just mentioned would be required to create a more continuous 14 retail experience on the ground floor. So looking at the map the dark pink areas show the 15 existing GF boundary. In yellow the map identifies proposed locations near Alma, University, 16 and Hamilton where the GF foundry would be brought back, restored from its pre 2009 map 17 locations. Some of these properties shown in yellow are currently occupied by uses that are 18 not permitted in the GF overlay so such as office, financial services, real estate offices. As a 19 result these properties would become non‐conforming uses and they would be required to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. comply with the GF provisions if those uses vacated; however, some of these properties were 1 designed as offices and do not have architectural features that typically would support retail 2 development. So this may limit what property owners can do, can lease to. A note on the SOFA 3 2 plan, the SOFA 2 plan currently prevents new ground floor office in the Homer/Emerson 4 corridor. So this ordinance would extend protections to other retail and retail like uses in SOFA 5 2 namely in, along Addison Street and would also allow for the alternate viable use waiver 6 process that I mentioned. 7 8 In terms of outreach we conducted 17 informal interviews last month with community 9 members and other stakeholders that live and work in Palo Alto including developers, property 10 owners, small business owners, store managers, architects, residents. Their feedback is 11 summarized in the report. Generally it was mixed. There's mixed support for the existing 12 interim ordinance and for the proposed extension of it. 13 14 This lays out our work so far and the timing going forward. The ordinance the interim 15 ordinance expires in April and so we're looking to go to the Council in February for the first 16 reading of the permanent ordinance. And lastly the Commission and staff have received some 17 correspondence since the staff report was published expressing concern about the extension of 18 the GF foundry, concerns about where private educational facilities may be located, desire for 19 more flexibility and allowing different types of uses to replace retail, and concerns about traffic 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. and parking especially Downtown. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any 1 questions. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Ok. I would like to invite the individuals who filled out comment cards to come 4 speak. I will allot five minutes per speaker. 5 6 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: I’d like to start with Mike Powers followed by Simon Cintz. 7 8 Mike Powers: Good evening, Commissioners; my name is Mike Powers. I'm with McNellis 9 Partners in Palo Alto. We’re as you're probably aware we’re owners of a number of properties 10 in the Downtown corridor including the West Elm building. With [Roxy Wrap] years ago we put 11 Anthropologie in a building. Also Lululemon is a tenant and the infamous Alma Plaza. So we've 12 had over, we have 35 years’ experience. Probably 70 projects of which over 60 are retail. So I 13 think you have in your packages John McNellis’ transmittal indicating kind of the difficulties that 14 retail developers have. And in terms of trying to come up with ordinances that protect the 15 unique nature of Downtown Palo Alto while at the same time can have some serious negative 16 consequences in terms of future uses for building. 17 18 So I'm not going to take much of your time here. Just to point out a couple things I think kind of 19 our opinion that the expansion of the geographic areas to the SOFA really was going to, we 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. don't own property by the way so it doesn't have a negative impact on us per se, but I just think 1 there'd be a tremendous difficulty for those property owners in finding retailers that are 2 interested. All the hard and soft good retailers are going to Stanford which is a kind of a very 3 nice high class problem that the City has when you have one of the world's literally one of the 4 world's best shopping centers just walking distance away from a downtown. So you are 5 attracting some of the best retailers, but not necessarily per se in the Downtown corridor 6 unless they fit into a very specific parameters. 7 8 The other thing I think that the retail world has changed and so if you're looking at expanding 9 the definition of retail services the type of services we see in our 25 plus shopping centers, the 10 type of tenants that we're attracting, the soft goods retailers aren't there, the hard goods, 11 electronics, aren't there. It's more along the lines of medical offices, financial institutions, 12 fitness, some of what you're addressing here, some clearly aren't fitting into the retail 13 definition as being suggested, but I think we would urge you to keeping the right vitality of 14 ground floor properties as an expansive of a definition in terms of services, retail, quasi‐office 15 that are open to the public whether it be the State Farm Insurance agencies, title companies 16 that will go a long way in addition to restaurants to helping keep up the vitality and uniqueness 17 of Palo Alto. And I'm here to answer any other questions from retailer perspectives if you want, 18 but with that thank you for your time. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Simon Cintz followed by Ben Cintz. 1 2 Simon Cintz: Good evening, my name is Simon Cintz. My brother Ben is going to speak next 3 here. Our firm, our family has been in Palo Alto since the early 1950’s when fine dining on 4 University Avenue meant eating at the lunch counter at Woolworth's Five‐and‐Dime. We own 5 four small commercial properties in Palo Alto. 6 7 We're, I want to specifically speak about Section 5 of the proposed ordinance. This is the 8 blanket citywide prohibition against any and all ground floor retail conversion. This is a one size 9 fits all approach to retail preservation. It doesn't matter what type of retail. It doesn't matter 10 where the retail is located. It doesn't matter whether or not the retail is viable in this location. 11 It ignores most of the issues that should be considered in a carefully thought out process. Is the 12 way Palo Alto wants to do zoning and city planning? It's important to note that almost all of 13 Palo Alto’s existing retail is currently protected by current zoning and ordinances. Section 5 of 14 this proposed ordinance only serves to protect a very small portion of Palo Alto’s existing retail 15 including retail properties where retail is no longer viable. What is the real benefit of this 16 proposed citywide prohibition against ground floor retail conversions? That's an important 17 question. 18 19 Let's imagine what would happen if this ordinance was in place when our family applied to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. convert our 1960’s auto repair garage to what is now about a 3,400 square foot medical/dental 1 office building at 882 Emerson in the SOFA area. We now have two dentists and one doctor in 2 our building. More than half of their patients are Palo Alto residents. It cost us hundreds of 3 thousands of dollars to do the conversion which you could only do because of an increased rent 4 that we would get from medical office space. 5 6 If this ordinance had been in place prior to the conversion Palo Alto would still have an auto 7 garage at our location. The garage parking was surrounded with a chain link fence along the 8 sidewalk. The junk cars were parked nearest the fence because they weren't going to go 9 anywhere soon. It was just plain ugly. Palo Alto citizens have benefited more by having access 10 to medical/dental services now offered in our building instead of having an auto garage. The 11 citizens of Palo Alto have benefited by having many of the old auto garages in the SOFO area 12 converted to non‐retail uses. For example, this ordinance would have prevented the 13 conversion of the auto garage at 930 Emerson to what now occupies the space. It is a state of 14 the art private school. Many of the students are from are from Palo Alto families. Isn’t our 15 community benefited more by a school than an auto garage? 16 17 This citywide prohibition against ground floor retail will interfere with the process of making 18 adjustments in neighborhoods which will allow them to better adapt to change in an 19 appropriate way. One might argue that the ordinance provides an appeals process. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Unfortunately, it still sets the bar much too high to get a realistic exception to do a conversion. 1 The actual effect will be that no retail no matter how non‐viable or how inappropriate it is for a 2 neighborhood now or in the future will be able to convert to use that is more beneficial to the 3 citizens of Palo Alto. A suggestion in SOFA and possibly other areas of Palo Alto small 4 medical/dental uses should be allowed as a permitted retail conversion under restricted 5 circumstances. Small medical/dental offices benefit our community and can be successful in 6 areas that have limited pedestrian traffic. Doctors and dentists often get their referrals from 7 health plans and the like and can operate in areas that other retail is not or that other that 8 retail is not viable. 9 10 Finally this proposed ordinance that we are considering tonight fails to follow a careful process 11 that our City has followed in the past. When the 2009 retail ordinance was being developed a 12 stakeholder group was formed. We had a number of meetings. When SOFA 2 was being 13 developed there were many community meetings. In the case of this proposed ordinance 14 which affects all retail areas of our City only 17 people were interviewed by a consultant. Many 15 people, ourselves included, were not on given an opportunity to participate. This does not 16 legitimately qualify as community outreach for an ordinance that affects so much of our City. 17 Thank you. 18 19 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you very much. Ben Cintz please. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ben Cintz: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Benjamin Cintz. My brother, Simon, just 2 spoke. I live in Palo Alto, live in the Midtown area now. Used to live near Professorville prior to 3 that and grew up here and then moved away and moved back. It's a wonderful city. And I have 4 my law office on El Camino here in Palo Alto as well. 5 6 What I'd like to address tonight really is two things, one is that I think the stakeholder meetings 7 there needs to be more outreach. I wrote to Hillary Gitelman and on September 1st. On 8 September 2nd she got back to me and I had asked her about the stakeholder participation and 9 she said thanks for this message Ben, we are reaching out to you and other stakeholders as we 10 move forward. Stay tuned. I was not contacted. Now I don't need to be contacted, but the 11 point is that I think others do. And I think it should be a process similar to other stakeholder 12 processes which is where the stakeholders get together and have a discussion; my 13 understanding that this process was an interview process where people were interviewed. I 14 was part of the stakeholder process for Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) and I 15 think it was a very useful process and I think we could utilize that process again. This is an 16 important decision for the entire City because it affects all properties as my brother pointed 17 out. So I think it would be important to make a recommendation that further input be provided 18 because I think the future of properties in Palo Alto and the quality of life in Palo Alto are 19 affected. Thank you. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Ok. That concludes public comment. What I'd like to do now is essentially 4 bifurcate this review of this item, but I think to make our next opportunity more effective I 5 think it makes sense for us to go and have one round of comments or questions so that maybe 6 some of those comments and questions can be staff can prepare answers to those comments 7 or questions next time we meet. So you may have answers now. My preference is that you 8 don't answer and we pick this up with the staff having the opportunity to respond to our 9 questions. And the best way to do that is to sort of address them in the minutes or use the 10 minutes of this next piece for that. Ok, so why don't we start on this end with Commissioner 11 Gardias and go straight down and [unintelligible] you could spend a few minutes laying the 12 groundwork for our next meeting. 13 14 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. So I just want to understand the objective because it's 15 stated clearly that staff wants to recommend adoption to the City Council, but I understand 16 that you're proposing there is going to be a follow up meeting and it is we will not meet the 17 staff recommendation tonight. 18 19 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. I'm not going to call for a Motion on this item. We're going to postpone 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the review of this to the next meeting. 1 2 Commissioner Gardias: That's fine. So in terms of the comments and we tried to establish 3 procedure with Chair Fine back not that long ago that we would respond immediately to the 4 constituency that speaks to us. Would you mind just responding to this concerns about 5 possibility of broadening, listening to the merchants and those that are subject of this possibly 6 permanent regulation. Is there a possibility to broaden this, the reach out to the community 7 and the stakeholders before the follow up meeting? 8 9 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: So I’ll look to the Chair just to see if I got the impression you 10 didn’t want to have a question and answer (Q&A), but rather (interrupted) 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. That’s a unique question because he wants to know if you can do it before 13 the follow up. My real preference is we sort of identify the areas of concern/questions and we 14 allow staff to address them at the next meeting since we have to we really do have to get Item 15 Number 4 and we're running late. So I don't want this to turn into a dialogue. I really would 16 prefer we don't do that. So my preference would be that you present all their concerns and 17 questions and then staff will answer those the next time we meet, ok? 18 19 Commissioner Gardias: So that's the question that I ask that. My question is that I would 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. appreciate and I'm sure the community and stakeholders if there is a broader survey or reach 1 out to the community and the merchants for their input to this ordinance before the next 2 meeting. So that's my first comment. Then if I can go from the top and I'm going to go by the 3 pages because that's how I allocated my comments. So please bear with me, they may be 4 scattered. 5 6 So if I go through the, the first item is the definition and then it seems to me in general that we 7 are just getting very prescriptive in number of the ordinances which on the one hand which 8 maybe satisfies our number of the inputs that we're getting and number of the shake hands 9 that we have to make, but on the other hand just makes administrative burden upon ourselves 10 because to each one of these processes we need to have exception that's later on reviewed by 11 the Director as opposed to the pure law that just clearly states to the developers, merchants, 12 and everybody else how this should work. Definition of the retail in this and then specifying 13 different uses of retail use or retail like uses is an example of this. My comment is pretty much 14 just to simplify the definition, get rid of all these different categories or different types of the 15 retailer. Just stay with the retail. Everybody knows what it is. We know what retail services 16 are. We should have two categories; we should have one definition for each one. So that's my 17 first comment. 18 19 Number two is that I have a question that since we were not expecting answer I will just convey 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. this to you. It says on Page Number 229 about the pipeline projects and for the follow up 1 meeting I would like to pretty much know… I'm just going through the questions because that 2 was the ask. How many pipeline projects are we have for this that would be subject of this 3 ordinance? 4 5 Then on Page 236 there is a passage, there is a paragraph this is under subsequent ordinances 6 and studies and then it just talks about the future work which is Paragraph Number 2 and talks 7 about the Planned Community (PC) zone parcels. So I know that we have historical PC zone 8 parcels, but [unintelligible] we don't have any longer the PC zoning. I would like to have a 9 clarification about this paragraph, what it talks about. 10 11 I'm going to jump briefly to the Page 243, 243 that talks about design standards. In general 12 Paragraph 18.30a.085 it's just a piecemeal. We need to have a clear drive. Are we getting into 13 the design standards for retail or we don't. And I think that this will be the discussion that we 14 should have among ourselves and to in order to justify the position of this Commission, but 15 clearly the design standards that are here presented to us about the windows and the windows 16 covering this is just a small part of the comprehensive design standards there should be or 17 there should not be in this ordinance. Right now you're just proposing us just two of them, 18 exterior windows and coverings, but then and then also I think that height of the windows 19 some it’s somewhere else, but then as you may know it's much more than this, right? We can 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. talk about like the height of the clear ceiling for the retail. We can talk about the windows 1 space in terms of the active retail. We can talk about the distances between the buildings and 2 access points. We can talk about the limitation of the office lobby. We can talk about the 3 transparency of the glazing and how far the wall that would be from the facades how far there 4 will be any wall that's that would define the initial space. I'm just giving you a couple of 5 examples because the design standards it's much more than just two paragraphs or two points 6 that are in here. So I would like to just either have really deep draft on this so we can discuss 7 this or just drop it altogether from the list. 8 9 Another example is that if you talk about lobby sizes. It's the same story. You can… it should be 10 on also under the design standards. Example is that the building that's next to CVS on 11 University where you have a pretty much lobby that serves nobody I think that house it's 12 housed over there currently where pretty much [passerbyers] they see empty lobby. There is 13 no service. There is no retail. When it was designed it was designed with no public in mind 14 whatsoever. It's just an empty space. So that's an example, another example of this how we 15 should regulate this. When you think about the great cities like New York you know that that 16 majority of the facade is the selling space and then if you want to get to the second level then 17 pretty much there is only just a door and then you just behind this door there is a staircase 18 behind this or the entire front façade is taken with the retail space and you get to the building 19 from the back side. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: I want to just (interrupted) 2 3 Commissioner Gardias: There's (interrupted) 4 5 Chair Alcheck: Just a second. I want to take the opportunity to just encourage Commissioners 6 that if they can also, we should also use the opportunity to email staff in the next several weeks 7 specific questions that they can add to this list. Because what I really would like if everyone 8 takes ten minutes we're not, we’re going to be here another hour. So if as we go through this if 9 there's lots of questions consider writing an email to staff directly which I hope I will ask staff to 10 incorporate into this longer list of questions. 11 12 Yeah, why don't we do this? Why don’t we set the timer? I’m going to give you two more 13 minutes to get through your questions and then I’m going to give everybody five minutes to get 14 through theirs. Ok? 15 16 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, I will do my best. So if you go to Page 246 on at the bottom there is 17 a Paragraph 2b that talks about a 2,000 foot radius that is for the applicant to present the 18 burden for exemption, if I remember. What is 2,000 feet? It's 300, this is 300 meters. This is 19 unreasonable burden up on the merchants just to ask them to do the survey [unintelligible] 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. them up and submit to the City in their radius of 300 meters. It's a large distance. I'd 1 recommend just to remove it all together. 2 3 Also when you talk about the on the same page Paragraph C, waivers and adjustments, this 4 should be periodic. This should be the wavier and adjustments should be for a period of time. 5 If we allow for an exemption from this regulation this should be for a specific period of time 6 upon which this extension expires. So there should be aware period and there should be a 7 definition for how long this exemption would take place. And so my proposal is that pretty 8 much waiver would expire within three years. Thank you. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Commissioner Waldfogel [note‐Vice‐Chair]. 11 12 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: I'll try to be brief. I first of all thank you for very clear presentation. I like 13 the graphics. I really support the idea of Downtown district vibrancy. I agree with 14 Commissioner Gardias we shouldn't be too prescriptive. I mean I think our goal is to create an 15 interesting Downtown. I mean I would I think that the core needs to be needs to read urban. 16 It’d be great if there were some kind of unexpected urban experiences possible outside of core. 17 So I just think as long as we can define it along those terms I'm comfortable. 18 19 The medical office, dental office, health care, we need these in town. I've heard anecdotes in 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. San Francisco that things like urgent care storefronts or deactivating business districts I’d kind 1 of like to understand I mean maybe you guys can come back to us with just some comments 2 about what's the right way to weave those kind of offices into an urban fabric. I don’t have a 3 really strong point of view right now. I also think it would be great if you could when you come 4 back if you could show us some prototypes. Are we trying to look like Chestnut Street in San 5 Francisco? I mean I'm not prescribing, but just saying are we're trying? I don't think we're 6 trying to look like Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, but it's another prototype we all get or Melrose 7 Street in West Hollywood or these are all possible prototypes. And I just think if we could say 8 these are kind of the prototypes that we’re aiming for in the core and adjacent to the core that 9 would be helpful. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Alright, I’ll be brief as well. This is not in any particular order. I think my issues 12 with the report are that it lacks context, and important context. The majority of none of this 13 Commission was here in 2009 and more importantly a great deal number of our staff really 14 wasn't, right? Our Director, our Assistant Director, and one of the things that may be the result 15 of the lack of interviewing or actually I don't even really love the idea of the word interviewing, 16 but sort of the lack of outreach maybe sort of a fundamental lack of context. And so I'm 17 grappling with two sort of concerns. 18 19 Number one I believe that the pitchforks in town are being raised because of traffic related to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. office. And we’ve adopted an office cap last year and now and the interim retail ordinance as it 1 was and, but and now we're expanding on this interim retail ordinance in ways that in my mind 2 sort of ignore the context. And so what I'm hoping is is that we can understand the context 3 better with new information. What is that information? I think it's really important to 4 understand what happened in 2009. In 2009 and I'm going to shed light on this, but I'm hoping 5 that you will actually shed light on this when we meet or staff will shed light on this. We had 6 this situation where if there was more than 5 percent vacancy in retail you could convert it into 7 office and at that time we had 15 percent vacancy and the and the community came together, 8 the business owner, retailers owners came together and staff came together and they decided 9 to sort of remove that safety valve or what I would call a safety valve for retailers and in 10 exchange put forward the 2009 ordinance. Despite the fact that I would argue that retail is just 11 a use that has substantially suffered in the last 10 years we had the highest retail sales ever last 12 year. 13 14 So this notion that we're going to now expand what was pretty restrictive into a more 15 restrictive and more encompassing and farther reaching thing seems counterintuitive to me in 16 general. Why are we going here? Is it because we really don't want any more office and this is 17 another tool to just stop office? If that's the case ok, but are we actually helping retail? And 18 that context I think is really important. I think the reason why the report lacks it is probably 19 because the outreach to business owners was not sufficient enough. And I think when we meet 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. again I'm going to sort of discuss that same issue, that there may have not been enough and 1 sufficient outreach reach. 2 3 And the most important thing I want to suggest tonight which is that I think at the next meeting 4 I'm going to strongly encourage us to consider in a more expansive view of what is retail. It 5 may be that anything that where people come in to spend some money should be accepted as 6 retail: banks, you heard one individual talk about State Farm. Retail is not despite this great 7 year we had retail is not doing that well. And my biggest concern is that we're not setting them 8 up to succeed in the same way that we may have in 2009. 9 10 I also am concerned about the citywide proposal. We were talking really about a specific G area 11 and then this element of the ordinance is going to dramatically change it in a way that we didn't 12 discuss last year. And I think the last piece of context here is that… the without that without 13 incorporating more sort of business owners into this it sort of freaks me out because they were 14 a big part of the 2009 process that stakeholders group. Again, that goes back to context. So 15 that those are my comments; I'd love to see those addressed or to at least have a discussion 16 about those elements next time we meet. Commissioner Tanaka. 17 18 Commissioner Tanaka: So I’ll keep this really brief. So I think what this proposal does is it really 19 kind of uses the stick so to speak to try to force retail to be in Palo Alto which in general I 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. actually want to have very vibrant strong retail in Palo Alto. I think, I don’t think anyone here 1 doesn’t, but I think that the part that I think is really lacking is the carrot, right? Is to actually 2 make property owners want to have retail because retail will do well. And it's not that retail 3 can't do well in Palo Alto because we look at Town & Country. It’s done amazingly well since it's 4 been kind of renovated and Stanford Shopping Center’s also doing extremely well. And I think 5 what they've done is they've created a business environment that allows retail to thrive and it's 6 not, it wasn't, it didn't happen because of some sort of mandate, right? Some sort of forcing of 7 retail there, it happened because the creation of retail was good, the business environment was 8 good, they had a right mix of retail. 9 10 And I kind of want to echo what some of my fellow Commissioners said earlier which is I think 11 what we should do is because this is actually a really complex problem. It’s not something that 12 we’re going to solve in even one meeting. I think this is going to actually how we get strong 13 vibrant retail in Palo A is not a simple easy question. I think what we should do is and I think 14 one of the speakers mentioned this earlier, but I think we should form a stakeholder group with 15 retail professionals, right? Property owners, people who are in retail to really look at how do 16 you make vibrant retail in Palo Alto? What do we need to do to enable this business 17 environment that would that rather than trying to force the property owner to put retail in the 18 property owner will want to do it because the retail will make a ton of money, right? You [take 19 a] percentage rent. They could get all these other kind of… it's drawn in versus being forced in 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. because I think if we just try to force it what happens is you create vacancies, right? I mean 1 maybe we want retail here, but they couldn't, they can’t rent it out to a retailer, right? It and 2 that I think that's not good for anyone. 3 4 So I think maybe even on the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) maybe there 5 should be some sort of subcommittee to really look at this issue more closely, but I think it 6 needs to really involve folks in the business community that know a lot about retail and can 7 actually study some of the barriers that that doesn't enable strong retail here in Palo Alto. And 8 then we can start addressing some of those barriers and how to get rid of them. So because I 9 think this is very much the stick approach versus trying to also create the business environment 10 that allows retail to thrive. So that's my thoughts. 11 12 Commissioner Rosenblum: I’ll also try to be very brief because I think everyone has brought up 13 several of the points that are on my mind. So since this original urgency ordinance was adopted 14 I've always felt it's too one dimensional and it's a very surface level analysis of retail, meaning 15 we love retail therefore make it so that retail is protected on the ground floor. And not only 16 that, we don't particularly like nail salons so let's restrict those and we don't… the “we” are 17 people sitting up here and I find it frankly a little disturbing that a town that has this much 18 talent is doing things this one dimensionally. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. I think retail is a complicated issue especially given today's environment of what's changing in 1 consumption habits, but when I talk to retailers again they say Number 1 difficult for me to 2 retain employees, Number 2 you are simultaneously driving away my customers i.e. a lot of 3 these retailers Downtown especially rely on the people who are working Downtown as their 4 employer as their customers. So you're simultaneously making it difficult for my employees to 5 live here, for my customers to shop here and yet you say you love me and you want me to take 6 more space. So what I would propose doing is I do think that this is something we should take 7 time on and have a proper stakeholder group that has more representatives. I think there were 8 five retailers represented, I don't know how many the property owners are listed by their 9 names I believe so I don't know how many of them were property owners versus neighborhood 10 activists, etcetera. But I think that you should do a good job of bringing us a very 11 representative stakeholder group together and then this is an opportunity. 12 13 I think SOFA is an example of a pretty good I don't know if that was a specific plan or area plan 14 under the term of art of how plans come together, but I think it's time for a pretty specific plan 15 around the way retail, housing, and employment work together. And by that I may not just 16 where they're permitted, but how they work together. So for example, I work for Palantir, a 17 large Downtown concern. We've done experiments where employees are encouraged to go to 18 local businesses and we basically we’ve done pilot programs where we reimburse or that we 19 introduce to local restaurants and stuff, but it's it takes work for someone to figure this out; 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. how can local employees spend their dollars in our local environment without overwhelming 1 the capacity of any individual restaurant for example. But there's a tremendous opportunity 2 between housing employment and retail and I think by analyzing it at the surface level that 3 we're doing we're really doing a disservice to what could be a great area. 4 5 The only really specific comment I have is there are some buildings that simply were not built 6 for retail because they were built under a regime where they were not part of this retail district. 7 So for example, the buildings at the corner of University and Alma as an example and 8 somewhere in this ordinance or in the study we need to talk about what do we do about these 9 kinds of cases and why are we including them if we know that they can't comply? And so what 10 is the plan for that? But in general I agree that this should be put more towards a I hate to say 11 it, but a study session but it should be a fairly extensive group that gets together. This is a big 12 deal. It's not something that I think people on the dais without really talking to retailers should 13 just be making up. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. This, the make‐up of this Commission is going to change in 16 January and the make‐up of the City Council is going to change in January. I know that there is 17 a perceived deadline for this because of the sunset of the ordinance. I don't know how this is 18 going to play out. Judging by some of the comments it sounds like two meeting, having this at 19 the next meeting may not create a final result if some issues aren’t… So I don't know that that's 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the case because again this Commission will change its make‐up, but I don't know I mean we 1 will postpone this now to our next meeting or how will this, how will we deal with this calendar 2 issue? 3 4 Mr. Lait: Well so yeah we would recommend that the item get continued to January 11th where 5 we can have more input from the Commission. We kind of did a once pass and there wasn't the 6 ability to go back and forth. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Right. I think that that's wise and I'm going to call for that Motion. It's 9 hypothetical because the make‐ups are so confusing here, but if at that time the new 10 Commission desires to explore this even further that may require some sort of involvement in 11 determining how you want to proceed with the sunset situation if you don't have enough time 12 to get in front of Council. 13 14 Mr. Lait: Right. So I… 15 16 Chair Alcheck: I guess what I'm really trying to say is I don't know that moving forward to 17 Council without… let's do this next meeting and see what happens. I'm just suggesting to you 18 that it may be prudent to have a portion of the discussion next time revolve around how we 19 would deal with the timeliness of this if we couldn't get it done in January 11th. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Lait: Ok. And I don't think it has to be solved on January 11th, but it would probably need to 2 be solved by the next meeting in January to get this to Council or maybe a meeting in February, 3 maybe the first meeting February to get this to Council in March. The absolute latest that we 4 can get this to the Council I think is right around the 14th and I'm not sure if that's a Monday, 5 but like mid‐March is the idea because there’s got to be a first reading and then a second 6 reading and then the ordinance effective 30 days after. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: So what I guess our goal will be to if we determine that we want to pursue a 9 greater amount of research into this topic and create stakeholder groups then we'll make that 10 recommendation as quickly as we can in the processes that we have and then it will be up to 11 that new City Council to determine whether or not they want to do that or not. 12 13 Mr. Lait: Right. And I guess what I would say is and we can have more of an offline 14 conversation about it if you want, but I think that there's I don't think this Commission wants to 15 hold the advancing an ordinance so that the Council is not able to act on a policy direction that 16 they told us which was to implement (interrupted) 17 18 Chair Alcheck: No, I don't think we're going to do that. The question is is whether you will 19 proceed with a recommendation to pass the ordinance or recommendation to not. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Lait: Right. Ok. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: And I hope that we will be able to arrive at one of those choices in one meeting, 4 but I think it might be wise when you do your calendaring to at least save some space in case 5 we exceed that time. 6 7 Mr. Lait: Ok, yeah. That I think we can accommodate. Thank you. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok, alright so I'm going to ask for a Motion right now to what's the correct 10 terminology here? 11 12 Mr. Lait: Continue to January 11th. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Continue this agendized item to the January 11th meeting, our next meeting in 15 the 2017. Can I get a Motion? 16 17 MOTION 18 19 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: So moved. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: Second? 2 3 SECOND 4 5 Commissioner Gardias: Second. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Great. All those in favor please raise your hand. Ok that passes unanimously. 8 Thank you to the people who came out to speak tonight and thank you to staff for hanging 9 around. 10 11 MOTION PASSED (5‐0‐0‐1, Commissioner Fine absent) 12 13 [note—go back up to Item 4] 14 15 Commission Action: Continue to the public hearing to January 11, 2017 Motion made 16 by Chair Alcheck, seconded by Commissioner Gardias, motion APPROVED 5‐0. 17 Approval of Minutes 18 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 19 20 Chair Alcheck: I am going to ask that I have a Motion for approval of the minutes. 21 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 MOTION 2 3 Vice‐Chair Waldfogel: So moved. 4 5 SECOND 6 7 Commissioner Rosenblum: Second. 8 9 VOTE 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Thank you. All those in favor of approving the minutes from the last meeting 12 please raise your hand. Ok, that's unanimous. 13 14 MOTION PASSED (5‐0‐0‐1, Commissioner Fine absent) 15 16 Committee Items 17 Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 18 19 Chair Alcheck: Committee items and Commissioner questions, comments, or announcements. 20 So I just want to thank Commissioner Rosenblum and Commissioner Waldfogel [Note‐Vice‐21 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair], I want to thank both of you actually for all the effort you put into that subcommittee. 1 It's incredible. And I really, really appreciate… all of us really, really appreciate it and thanks for 2 and thank you Commissioner Waldfogel [Note‐Vice‐Chair] for participating on Monday night at 3 the City Council. And then the last comment I want to make is to acknowledge that this is our 4 last time sitting down with Commissioner Tanaka and if anybody wants to say anything you’re 5 welcome to, but it's been great. Are there any other things that I need to do? The next 6 meeting is January 11th. Is that right? Ok, this meeting is adjourned at 10:35. 7 8 Adjournment 10:35 pm 9 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: 3 4 Chair Michael Alcheck 5 Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel 6 Commissioner Adrian Fine 7 Commissioner Przemek Gardias 8 Commissioner Eric Rosenblum 9 Commissioner Greg Tanaka 10 11 Get Informed and Be Engaged! 12 View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city‐of‐palo‐alto or on Channel 26. 13 14 Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card 15 located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission 16 Secretary prior to discussion of the item. 17 18 Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be 19 delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 20 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM the Tuesday preceding 21 the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 22 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. 23 24 Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the 25 agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. 26 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 27 It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a 28 manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an 29 appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, 30 or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing 31 ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 32 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. 33 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7598) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 1/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Human Services Community Forum Series Title: Being Different Together - Taking the Conversation Deeper - A Series of Community Forums Aimed at Building and Nurturing a Community That Models Respect for Differences From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services This report is provided for City Council information only at this time, and provides information on a series of community forums that the Community Service Department’s Office of Human Services is hosting to further build and nurture a community that models respect for differences and a safe and welcoming community. Executive Summary In response to overwhelmingly positive feedback received after a Human Relations Commission (HRC) sponsored forum on implicit bias last spring, the Office of Human Services will be hosting an additional series of four community forums in early 2017. The first forum is scheduled for February 2, 2017, 7-9pm at the Palo Alto Art Center. Discussion The community forum held last spring was titled Being Different Together and focused on raising awareness of implicit biases and how stereotypes affect our interactions in our schools, workplaces, civic and community life. The forum was well attended and stimulated meaningful dialogue on the topic. Accordingly City staff, along with a committee of HRC Commissioners and community members, has been planning a series of follow-up gatherings. The focus is on the process of recognizing and acknowledging our biases and respecting differences. A broad cross-section of people who live, work, or worship in Palo Alto are being invited to participate in a series of four conversations called Being Different Together-Taking the Conversation Deeper. These thought provoking conversations will take participants on a “journey together” towards building and nurturing a community that models respect for differences such as race, religion, gender, origin, sexual orientation, socio- economic status, political affiliation and opinion. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The objectives of the 2017 series are to: Grow personally in our ability to listen to and understand another’s point of view Build a community which can talk through difficult issues Create an opportunity to build relationships with others and develop a dialogue about respect for difference and diversity in Palo Alto Work towards becoming a model city for respect and inclusion; a community of “up-standers” against acts of intolerance The planning committee believes that the program will affirm our community’s commitment to the principles of respect, inclusion, dialogue, justice, and responsibility. The series will be moderated by Dr. Joseph Brown, Associate Director, Diversity & First Gen Office at Stanford University along with assistance from Pastor Kaloma Smith, University AME Zion Church. The first forum in the series will be held on Thursday, February 2, 2017, 7-9pm at the Palo Alto Art Center. Each forum will start with a group exercise (see description below) followed by small group discussions, with pre-assigned seating set up to be intentionally diverse. The event will be open to the public, but reservations are required to attend. Below is a draft description of the series of four forums: Forum #1 - Crossing the Line (CTL) provides a space for participants to learn about each other through intentional self-disclosure. It promotes community by embracing the widest range of differences. By repeatedly inviting participants to share their different experiences, they discover commonality. The exercise validates the prospects for achieving authentic engagement and community without requiring cultural uniformity. Forum #2 - Beyond the Line (BTL) employs a similar format to Crossing the Line but includes more deliberate dialogue and discussion. BTL’s goal is authentic engagement across difference. BTL explores the intent and impact of participant’s actions, thoughts, and beliefs. The statements included in BTL aim to dig deeper into contentious identity- based topics, allowing all participants to make listening an active engagement with others. In giving participants the tools to listen and acknowledge their own preconceived assumptions about others, Beyond the Line equips them to interrogate their own experiences and engage new perspectives and ideas. Forum #3 - Unpacking the Terms builds on the experiential work in CTL and BTL and discusses common terms and controversies that come up in discussions around diversity, including bias, prejudice, micro-aggressions, implicit bias, power, privilege, gender diversity, and ally-ship. Cultural humility is presented as a useful approach for City of Palo Alto Page 3 engaging difference, casting it as an ongoing life-long process of learning about, and listening to, other people and groups. The topic of the fourth session is yet to be determined as the planning committee wants to assess the conversations during the first three forums and gauge what topic(s) best meet the needs of the attendees at that time but may include a further discussion on implicit bias or micro-aggressions. For more information on the forums please contact Minka van der Zwaag, Manager, Office of Human Services at minka.vanderzwaag@cityofpaloalto.org or 463-4953. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK January 23, 2017 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Historic Resources Board, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Planning & Transportation Commission Recruitment Flyer ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Recruitment Flyer (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 http://bit.ly/bcapplications Influence the Future of Your Community We are currently recruiting for: Historic Resources Board 3 terms ending December 15, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission 4 terms ending December 15, 2019 1 term ending December, 15, 2018 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 term ending December, 15, 2018 Deadline: January 27, 2017 at 4:30pm APPLICATIONS AVAILABLE ONLINE: http://bit.ly/bcapplications Questions? Contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 329‐2571 or David.Carnahan@CityofPaloAlto.org