Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-06-14 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet
_______________________ 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 Regular Meeting Agenda: June 14, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM *Vice Chair Waldfogel will participate from offsite. Location: Holiday Inn, Monet Room 3000 Van Dyke Avenue Warren, Michigan Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. Comprehensive Plan Update Review Process 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 305 N. California Avenue [17PLN-00015]: Request for a Hearing on the Director’s Tentative Denial of a Conditional Use Permit for Operation of the New Mozart School of Music at an Existing Church Facility. Environmental Assessment: In Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270 CEQA Does not Apply to Projects Which a Public Agency Disapproves. Zoning District: R-1 (10,000). For More Information, Please Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 _______________________ 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. 4. Study Session on the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study Implementation Plan 5. PUBLIC HEARING/ QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2755 El Camino Real [17PLN-00464]: Consideration of Legislative Actions and Project Approvals Necessary to Allow the Construction of a Four-Story Multi-Family Residential Building with 60 Units and One Level of Underground Parking. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 There are no minutes requiring approval at this meeting. Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 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 Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: Chair Michael Alcheck Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel Commissioner Przemek Gardias Commissioner Ed Lauing Commissioner Susan Monk Commissioner Eric Rosenblum Commissioner Doria Summa Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 7759) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 6/14/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. Background This document includes the following items: PTC Meeting Schedule PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments) Tentative Future Agenda Commissioners are encouraged to contact Yolanda Cervantes (Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi- judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards- and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. Attachments: Attachment A: June 14, 2017 PTC Meeting Schedule & Assignments (DOCX) Planning & Transportation Commission 2017 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2017 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 1/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular CANCELLED 2/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Waldfogel 2/22/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Monk, Waldfogel 3/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/10/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum, Summa, 5/31/2017 6:00PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck 6/14/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Monk,Waldfogel 6/28/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Waldfogel 7/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/09/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/30/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/27/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/08/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Subject to Cancellation 12/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/27/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers CANCELLED 2017 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Michael Alcheck Eric Rosenblum Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Przemek Gardias Eric Rosenblum July August September October November December Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Doria Summa Przemek Gardias Doria Summa Michael Alcheck Subcommittees Comp Plan CAC: Planning & Transportation Commission 2017 Tentative Future Agenda May 15, 2017, 2017 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics June 28 3001 El Camino Real Site and Design Application for a new Mixed Use (Retail/Housing) Development Coleridge Ave at Cowper St Traffic Safety Project Update July 12 Comp Plan Orientation July 26 Comp Plan: Public Hearing on Land Use & Transportation Office/R&D Annual Limit Extension Ord. August 9 Comp Plan: Public Hearing on Safety and Natural Environment Elements August 30 Comp Plan: Public Hearing on Community Services and Facilities and the Business and Economics Elements Downtown Parking Management Implementation #2 September 13 Comp Plan: Final Public Hearing & Recommendation to the City Council on the Final EIR and Plan Update September 27 Comp Plan Update: Putting it Together and Final Update October/November Code Clean-Up 2017 TMA Discussion Comp Plan Implementing Ordinance #1 December/January Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project Update Meeting Subcommittee Topic July 11 Land Use and Transportation Elements July 18 Safety and Natural Environment Elements August 1 Community Services and Facilities and the Business and Economics Elements and Governance Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8233) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/14/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Comp Plan Update Review Process Title: Comprehensive Plan Update Review Process From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) discuss the process that the Commission will use to review the draft Comprehensive Plan Update and select Option 1 or Option 2 presented in this report. Report Summary On June 12, 2017, staff anticipates that the City Council will refer the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update to the PTC for review and a recommendation. Staff also anticipates that the Council will reference the 90 day timeframe for this review in Section 19.04.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, with the 90 days beginning on or before June 30, 2017.1 On two recent occasions, the Commission has discussed how they would conduct their review, whether it was feasible within 90 days, and whether to use one or more subcommittees. Tonight’s agenda item will allow for final resolution of this issue and staff is presenting two options based on the Commission’s prior discussions. Option 1 would involve six meetings of the full Commission and use of a subcommittee focused on the Land Use and Transportation Elements; and Option 2 would involve six meetings of the full Commission and no subcommittee. Background & Discussion The City Council initiated the update of the Comprehensive Plan in 2006 and the PTC then spent close to six years working on the Comprehensive Plan Update (from 2008 to 2014), ultimately sending its recommendation to the City Council in April of 2014. Upon receipt of the PTC’s 1 As requested by the PTC, staff will inform the Council of the Commission’s request for more time, and for a start date after vacation season. The options presented in this report may be modified if the Council grants these requests. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 recommendations, the City Council elected to create a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to engage in further dialog and community outreach to inform the Council’s amendments. Section 19.04.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code states that the planning commission “shall have the primary duty to prepare, adopt, and recommend to the City Council for their adoption, a long range, comprehensive general plan…” and subsequent sections of the Code specify relevant duties and procedures. Section 19.04.080 of the Municipal Code describes two processes for adoption of a Comprehensive Plan Update and reflects the State law as it existed in 1955. Former Government Code sections 65501 through 65510 apply to updates initiated by the PTC, while former Government Code sections 65511 through 65513 apply to updates initiated by the Council. The procedures are very similar in both instances: the PTC must hold at least one public hearing prior before making a recommendation to the Council. Where the PTC has initiated an update, Council amendments are referred back to the PTC for a 45 day review period; where the Council has initiated an update, Council amendments are referred to the PTC for a 90 day review period. In both cases, once this review period is complete, the City Council may ultimately adopt an update to the Comprehensive Plan at a noticed public hearing (former Gov. Code Section 65514). This process is similar to the one under current State law, which provides that the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council on proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, for adoption by the City Council. Under current State law, however, the Planning Commission has only 45 days after council referral to submit its report. As explained above, the prior law incorporated into the Municipal Code provides the PTC with a review period of up to 90 days. As noted above, staff anticipates that the City Council will refer the draft Comprehensive Plan Update to the PTC on June 12, 2017, and that the Council’s referral would be effective (and the PTC’s review period would start), when the document is transmitted to the PTC on or before June 30, 2017. At earlier meetings, some Commissioners supported creating subcommittees to conduct its review of the Comprehensive Plan Update, and some suggested that there would be insufficient time to conduct an in depth review. Planning staff believes that the Commission can add value to the draft Comprehensive Plan Update by focusing on key issues and questions. Objectives and options for structuring the PTC’s review are presented below. Suggested Objectives for the PTC’s 90-Day Review The Commission’s review will result in a motion or series of motions recommending sections of the Comprehensive Plan (and the Final EIR) to the City Council for adoption. Like the Council’s motions, it’s expected that the Commission’s motions will include bullet points identifying specific changes or adjustments that are recommended to the draft plan. Staff does not anticipate developing tracked changes versions of the documents. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Suggested objectives of the Commissions review are: To recommend needed adjustments to policies and programs, including the Implementation Plan, to better address major policy issues. To identify any inconsistencies or redundancies between the elements for clarification or elimination in order to make the document more useable for the PTC and the public. To familiarize Commissioners with the content of the draft document thereby facilitating the Commission’s review of proposed actions (e.g. proposed projects and ordinances). Suggested Approach to the PTC’s Review Some Commissioners have voiced support for subcommittees to facilitate their review, and some have suggested that a higher level of review, without subcommittees may be the only thing feasible in the time allotted. Some have also suggested that the draft Land Use & Community Design Element is the element requiring the most time and attention. Based on this input, staff has suggested two options: Option 1 would involve six meetings of the full Commission (two for Land Use and Transportation) and use of a subcommittee focused on the Land Use & Transportation Elements; and Option 2 would involve six meetings of the full Commission (two for Land Use and Transportation) and no subcommittee. A schedule for each option is provided below. Month Option 1: LU Subcommittee Option 2: No Subcommittee June 6/30 – Start of 90 days 6/30 – Start of 90 days July July 12 (Week 1) 7/12 PTC Hearing Comp Plan Orientation 7/12 PTC Hearing Comp Plan Orientation July 18 (Week 2) July 18 LU & Transp. Subcommittee July 26 (Week 3) 7/26 PTC Hearing LU & Transp (1 of 2) 7/26 PTC Hearing LU & Transp (1 of 2) (Week 4) August Aug 1 (Week 1) Aug 1 (optional meeting) LU & Transp. Subcommittee City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Aug 9 (Week 2) 8/ 9 PTC Hearing LU & Transp (2 of 2) 8/9 PTC Hearing LU & Transp (2 of 2) (Week 3) 8/18 Staff transmits Final EIR to PTC 8/18 Staff transmits Final EIR to PTC Aug 30 (Week 4) 8/30 PTC Hearing Safety & NE & CSF 8/30 PTC Hearing Safety & NE & CSF Sept Week 1 Sept 13 (Week 2) 9/13 PTC Hearing BE, Intro, Governance, Implementation 9/13 PTC Hearing BE, Intro, Governance, Implementation (Week 3) Sept 27 (Week 4) 9/27 PTC Hearing Recommendation to Council 9/27 PTC Hearing Recommendation to Council Source: Planning & Community Environment, June 2017 Environmental Review The Commission will receive the Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan Update in August, and will be asked to recommend certification by the City Council pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Report Author & Contact Information PTC2 Liaison & Contact Information Hillary Gitelman, Director Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2321 (650) 329-2679 Hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8177) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/14/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 305 N California: Hearing Request for CUP Denial Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 305 N. California Avenue [17PLN-00015]: Request for a Hearing on the Director’s Tentative Denial of a Conditional Use Permit for Operation of the New Mozart School of Music at an Existing Church Facility. Environmental Assessment: In Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270 CEQA Does not Apply to Projects Which a Public Agency Disapproves. Zoning District: R-1 (10,000). For More Information, Please Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend that Council deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for operation of the New Mozart School of Music at the subject property. Report Summary On January 10, 2017, New Mozart School of Music filed an application for a CUP to establish an independent music school, which is considered a personal service use in accordance with PAMC Section 18.04.030 (114)(G), Monday through Saturday within an existing church. This application was filed in response to a notice of violation and pending code enforcement case related to the establishment of the school without requisite permits. On April 26, 2017 the Director of Planning and Community Environment tentatively denied the request. This decision was based largely in part on a lack of information provided to the city to evaluate the project’s compliance with the municipal code; the Director’s tentative decision is included in Attachment C. On May 9, 2017 the applicant made a timely hearing request for the City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 reasons outlined in this report and described in the applicant’s request for hearing in Attachment D. A map showing the location of the proposed project is included in Attachment A. Following issuance of the tentative denial and in preparing this report, staff re-evaluated a basic premise of this application. The music school operator is seeking a conditional use permit to establish the private educational facility. However, while private educational facilities are conditionally permitted in the R-1 district, the subject land use does not meet this definition and instead is more appropriately defined as a personal service, which is not a permitted or conditionally permitted land use in the district. Approval of the CUP would be a violation of the municipal code and therefore, cannot be approved. While this report provides background information and applicant arguments for the proposed land use, it fundamentally is not a permitted land use and the subject request must be denied. The attached Record of Land Use that would be forwarded to the City Council reflects this new finding (Attachment B). Background The subject property is developed with a church that was established in 1948. A review of previous zoning codes from 1922 through 1946 revealed that religious institutions were a permitted use in the single-family residential zone. It appears that in 1951, in accordance with the adoption of Ordinance No. 1324, a more extensive zoning ordinance identified church uses as conditionally permitted uses in the single-family residential zone. Therefore, the church use at this property is considered a legal nonconforming use. A fellowship hall was constructed in 1953 that the administrative record shows was intended for use of the church attendees; no on-site parking was required for this addition based on its anticipated use. The City of Palo Alto Code Enforcement Division received a complaint that the New Mozart School of Music was operating without approval of a CUP. This complaint was substantiated and on February 22, 2016, the city issued a Notice of Violation requiring the music school cease operation or obtain the required approvals to allow the use. Later in the year, staff met with the applicant to discuss the CUP application requirements and findings. On December 16, 2016, a second Notice of Violation was issued and an application was submitted the following month. Inspection of the property indicates there may be other unpermitted land uses taking place on the property. Follow up action on these uses and a Notice of Violation was prepared and issued around the time of this report writing. For the New Mozart School, code enforcement action has been stayed pending a good faith effort to process the subject CUP application. However, despite several requests for additional information, as documented in Attachment E, the application material never included sufficient information for staff to evaluate the church use and related ancillary activities to other non- church related uses. This information remains outstanding today and prevents the city from effectively determining whether there is sufficient parking to accommodate the range of land uses onsite. Based on the foregoing, and due to several additional complaints received from nearby residents after the CUP application was filed, staff concluded that there was not a good faith effort to process the application and denied the CUP. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 The applicant appealed this determination on May 9, 2017, in accordance with the municipal code, for reasons set forth in Attachment D. Enforcement of the New Mozart School is stayed pending resolution of this appeal.1 Project Information Owner: First Baptist Church Architect: Not Applicable Representative: Charles Bronitsky on behalf of New Mozart School of Music Legal Counsel: Charles Bronitsky, Attorney, Peter N. Brewer Law Firm Property Information Address: 305 N California Neighborhood: Old Palo Alto Lot Dimensions & Area: Approximately 250 feet X 150 feet; 36,067 sf Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Not Applicable Historic Resource(s): Yes (but no construction proposed) Existing Improvement(s): Existing church; 2 stories; approximately 32 feet in height; Church constructed in 1948, new Fellowship Hall addition constructed 1953 Existing Land Use(s): Religious (Church) Use Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R-1 (1,000) Zoning (Single-family residential) West: R-1 (10,000) Zoning (Single-family residential) East: R-1 Zoning (Single-family residential) South: R-1 Zoning (Single-family residential) Special Setbacks: Not Applicable Aerial View of Property: 1 An additional Notice of Violation is being issued to the property owner at the time of this report writing to evaluate whether there are other unpermitted, non-church land uses on the property. This enforcement action is independent from the case related to the New Mozart School. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Source: City of Palo Alto Geographic Information Systems Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: R-1(10,000) Comp. Plan Designation: Single Family Context-Based Design: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design: Not Applicable SOFA II CAP: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, immediately adjacent (north, south, east, and west) Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Project Description The subject property is developed with a church that was established in 1948. The church use is a legal nonconforming use. A fellowship hall was constructed in 1953 that the administrative record shows was intended for use of the church attendees; no on-site parking was required for this addition based on its anticipated use. The proposed use of the site in the subject application includes one room as an office, eight rooms for private (one-on-one lessons) and one room for group lessons of up to 10 students. Lessons would be available from noon to 9 pm on weekdays and 9 am to 5 pm on Saturdays with most lessons on weekdays beginning after 2 pm. The Applicant’s project description is included in Attachment G and the project plans are included in Attachment H. The request for a Conditional Use Permit was tentatively denied by the Director of Planning and Community Environment on April 26, 2017. Discussion The New Mozart School of Music is a personal service use in accordance with PAMC 18.04.030 (114)(G), which states that personal service uses include “music studios intended for an individual or small group of persons in a class.” Personal service uses are not an allowed use in the R-1 (10,000) zoning district. Locating the subject personal service use at the church would therefore not be permissible in accordance with PAMC 18.12.030. This information came to staff’s attention in preparing this report; however, the Director tentatively denied the request for a CUP based on the conclusion that the findings for approval of a CUP could not be made in the affirmative, as discussed further below. PAMC 18.76.010, Conditional Use Permit, outlines the findings for the granting of approval of a Conditional Use Permit. To approve the project, the following findings must be made. Failure to make any one of the findings requires denial of the project. (1) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (2) The project will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning). With respect to the above findings, staff was unable to make the determination that the project met the zoning code and that continued operation of the subject facility was not detrimental to the general welfare. Inspection of the premises and a quick online search reveals several different land uses at the site, some appear church-related, others do not. Staff has repeatedly asked for a breakdown of the existing land uses and ancillary church uses operating at the subject property to evaluate parking compliance and compliance with other code provisions. The burden for providing this information rests with the applicant. If the property owner or applicant is unwilling or unable to provide this information, staff is not able to evaluate the project to the code. As noted, however, because personal service uses are not permitted or City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 conditionally permitted in the R-1 zone, staff would be unable to make the required findings regardless of the information provided by the applicant. Moreover, the city has received correspondence from area residents documenting negative impacts to the general welfare related to the subject school and perhaps other non-church related activities or uses. Without the benefit of receiving the requested information, staff is unable to adequately analyze whether the subject application or other uses are creating this neighborhood impact. The applicant has provided a letter to the city that expresses a perspective different from those documented in the Director’s denial letter. The applicant’s perspective is summarized below: The project is not detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. There has never been an issue with parking as most of the students are dropped off and picked up and also notes that traffic has never been an issue. The applicant states that it is only aware of one comment that has been received opposing the ongoing operation of the New Mozart School of Music. The applicant suggests that the New Mozart School of Music offers a significant benefit to the community as it offers after school music education to young students. Other illegal uses of the site are not relevant to this application and should not be the basis for its denial. While staff recognizes that the music school’s personal service use is likely beneficial to those that attend, their families and the community at large, the grounds for approving the CUP are based on other factors including whether the use is detrimental to the neighborhood and in compliance with the comprehensive plan and zoning code. As previously noted, the applicant failed to provide sufficient information to document those findings and has resulted in the delayed processing of this application; a delay that serves the applicant, but extended enforcement and abatement of the unpermitted use and, based on public correspondence, continues a disruptive land use in the neighborhood. Moreover, the proposed use is not permitted in the R-1 zone. Staff recognizes that the applicant’s use alone may not be the sole cause of the neighborhood disruptions cited by area residents. Separate and apart from the music school, the city’s code enforcement division is following up with the property owner to remedy the other outstanding issues at this location. Based principally on the fact that the proposed land use is not permitted in the residential zone, staff recommends the PTC forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council for the subject CUP. A draft Record of Land Use Action is included in this report as Attachment B. Environmental Review City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 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. In accordance with Guideline Section 15270 CEQA does not apply to projects for which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Because the request for a CUP was denied, CEQA did not apply. In order to approve the project, additional analysis in accordance with CEQA would be required. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this 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. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on June 2, 2017 which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 30, 2017, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, approximately 30 written comments have been received. Written comments received prior to the issuance of the decision primarily expressed concerns related to parking, traffic and noise resulting from the New Mozart School’s current use of the site for this purpose without the required permits. In addition, over 30 phone calls were received from residents expressing these same concerns. Some phone calls were made by the same residents that had provided written comments. Since the tentative denial of the project, three written comments have been received. One commenter noted that they supported the continued operation of the school and did not believe it should have been denied. Two expressed their support for the denial. All written comments are included in Attachment F. Alternative Actions Because personal service uses are not an allowed use in the R-1 (10,000) Zone District no alternative action is recommended. The applicant would be required to apply for a Zoning Code Text Amendment to continue operation at this site. Report Author & Contact Information PTC2 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2679 Claire.Hodgkins@Cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: 305 N California RLUA (DOCX) Attachment C: Conditional Use Permit Tentative Denial (PDF) Attachment D: Applicant's Request for Hearing (PDF) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Attachment E: Referenced E-mails to Applicant (PDF) Attachment F: Consolidated Neighbor Comments (PDF) Attachment G: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 63.7' 105.4' 81.0' 89.1' 24.8' 70.2' 105.0' 60.5' 105.4' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 80.0' 105.0' 80.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 71.5' 105.0' 49.0' 22.3' 91.6' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 60.0' 112.5' 60.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 69.3' 130.0' 50.9' 18.4' 105.2' 67.0' 142.3' 68.1' 130.0' 150.0' 67.5' 142.3' 24 51.6' 150 103.9' 105.0' 81.4' 22.3' 91.6' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 90.1' 93.9' 90.0' 98.3' 60.4' 98.3' 60.0' 105.4' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 64.0' 95.1' 64.0' 93.9' 64.0' 95.1' 96.2' 105.4' 103.9' 107.8' 28.3' 121.7' 50.2' 125.9' 50.0' 125.9' 50.2' 130.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.2' 134.2' 50.0' 134.2' 64.2' 139.5' 64.0' 111.4' 9.1' 59.4' 121.7' 88.3' 82.0' 141.0' 82.0' 141.0' 82.0' 106.5' 82.0' 106.5' 278.9' 105.3' 278.9' 105.3' 21.2' 60.8' 60.2' 7.3'127.3' 60.2' 132.3' 10.0' 60.0' 144.0' 122.3' 60.2' 127.3' 60.0' 70.3' 135.4' 28.7' 64.2' 136.4' 67.0' 136.4' 67.7' 127.0' 67.0' 127.0' 67.1' 123.1'123.1' 51.3' 24.3' 109.0' 122.8' 108.8'122.5' 115.6' 133.3' 128.3' 60.2' 133.3' 60.2' 60.2' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 60.0' 112.5' 60.0' 112.5' 50.0' 45.0' 11050 60.0' 105.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 0.0' 0.0' 100.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 56.7' 112.9' 66.7' 112.5' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'42.3' 112.9' 52.3' 112.5' 107.5' 94.0'99.1' 94.4' 99.1' 18.5'12.0' 37.5' 82.1' 56.2' 82.1' 75.0'75.5' 75.3' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 62.0' 112.5' 62.0' 112.5' 139.4' 247.5' 139.4' 247.5' 57.5' 247.5' 57.5' 247.5' 139.5' 248.4' 160.0' 247.5' 170.5' 139.6' 138.6 89.0' 132.8' 85.5' 108.2' 40.7'16.6' 108.2' 85.5' 54.0' 139.5' 142.9' 139.6' 80.0' 139.6' 80.0' 139.5' 101.5'139.5' 101.5' 209.6' 97.5' 70.0' 22.5' 139.6' 120.0' 139.6' 127.5'139.6' 127.5' 70.0' 150.0' 70.0' 150.0' 69.5' 247.5' 69.5' 247.5' 140.8' 82.4' 139.5' 65.1' 139.5' 64.0' 139.5' 64.0' 50.0' 847.8' 50.0' 147.8' 167.8' 50.0' 167.8' 6.1' 139.5' 6.1' 139.5' 91.0' 9 61.0' 56.7' 112.9' 66.7' 112.5' 60.0' 112.5' 60.0' 112.5' 73.0' 56.3'68.0' 56.5' 68.0' 28.8'7.1' 27.5' 110.0' 56.5' 27.5' 109.7' 84.0' 51.3' 45.3'47.3' 45.5' 50.3' 41.3'466 41.5' 45.3' 8.2' 45.3'43.0' 45.3'43.0' 45.3' 3'40 92.3' 82.1' 52.3' 60.2' 60.4' 52.5' 87.4'87.4' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' SANTA RITA AVENUE W ASHINGTON AVENUE BRYANT STREET WAVERLEY OAKS (PVT) NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE WA VERLEY STREET SOUTH COURT R BRYANT STREET NORTH CALIFORNIA AVE N UE This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Staff-Coverage Districts, Project Review Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0' 145' 305 N California 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 Alto chodgki, 2017-05-31 15:14:41 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment B APPROVAL NO. _______ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 305 N CALIFORNIA AVENUE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT [FILE NO. 17PLN-00015] On ______, 2017, the City Council upheld the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation to deny the applicant’s request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for operation of the New Mozart School of Music Monday through Saturday at the First Baptist Church located at 305 N California Avenue, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On January 10, 2017, The New Mozart School of Music applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for operation of the music school at the existing First Baptist Church Monday through Saturday. B. The proposed use is defined as a personal service land use in accordance with PAMC Section 18.04.030 (114)(G). This land use is not identified as a permitted or conditionally permitted land use in the R-1 zoning district in accordance with PAMC Section 18.12.030. C. Following staff review, the Director of Planning considered and proposed denial of the Conditional Use Permit application on April 26, 2017. D. Following a timely request for hearing received on May 9, 2017 the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the project and recommended denial of the project to City Council. E. On_______, 2017, the City Council reviewed the request. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to deny the project. SECTION 2. 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. In accordance with Guideline Section 15270 CEQA does not apply to projects for which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Because the request for a CUP was denied, CEQA did not apply. SECTION 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS. The proposed use does not comply with the Findings for a Conditional Use Permit as required in Chapter 18.76.010 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The request for a conditional use permit for the proposed personal service land use (music studio for individual or group lessons) is not a permitted or conditionally permitted land use in the subject R-1 (10,000) Zone District. There is no procedure that exists in the municipal code as presently codified that would allow a CUP to be granted authorizing the proposed use in contravention to the municipal code regulations. Allowing an unpermitted and illegal land use to continue operation has the immediate effect of being detrimental and injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity and is detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. The R-1 single family residential district is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings with a strong presence of nature and with open area affording maximum privacy and opportunities for outdoor living and children's play. Establishing the proposed land use concentrates a commercial activity and its associated deleterious impacts into a residential neighborhood and nearby deprives owners and occupants from the quiet enjoyment expected from a residential zoning district. Finding #2: The project will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning). This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The subject property is zoned R-1 (10,000) and the Comprehensive Plan land use designation is Single Family Residential. Surrounding uses are single-family residential. Personal service use is not a permissible use in the R-1(10,000) Zone District. Therefore the project is not consistent with Title 18 of the municipal code. SECTION 4. VOTE. The requisite findings described in PAMC 18.52(c)(2) for approval of a conditional use permit cannot be made for the proposed project. This decision is effective immediately upon adoption. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment Law Offices Of Peter N. Brewer Telephone 2501 park blvd., 2nd fl. Fax (650) 327-2900 Palo Alto, California 94306 (650) 327-5959 www.BrewerFirm.com May 9, 2017 Claire Hodgkins Associate Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 305 N. California – Mozart School of Music – Request for Hearing Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.77.070(b(4) Dear Ms. Hodgkins: As per your email we are submitting this letter on behalf of our client, the Mozart School of Music, to request a hearing / appeal your denial of our Conditional Use Permit application. The basis for our appeal is that the application is not detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The Mozart School of Music is operated out of some of the classrooms currently existing at the First Baptist Church located at 305 N. California, Palo Alto, California. The school primarily offers after-school music lessons to Palo Alto children. The school uses ten classrooms at First Baptist. One is used as the office. Nine are music lesson rooms. Eight of the nine are for private lessons and one is used for group classes. At any given time there is at most one student and one teacher in the private classroom. Thus, at maximum capacity, there are 16 people in the building for private lessons including teachers and students. In group classes, there is a maximum capacity is 10 students. Number of classes the school offers vary every semester. This session the school has fifteen group classes with between four and ten students in each class. These group classes meet only one at a time as there is only one group classroom. Lessons are available from noon to 9 pm during weekdays and 9 am to 5 pm on Saturdays. The school is closed on Sundays. Though lessons are available from 12 pm, since the school caters to children, lessons mostly occur starting around 2 pm. In addition, not all rooms are used all at the same time. May 9, 2017 Page 2 Normally, we have less than 20 people on site at any one time, but the maximum would be 26 and only when each private lesson and a full group lesson are all occurring at the same time. That is very rare. There has never been an issue with parking as most of the students are dropped off and picked up. Traffic has also never been an issue. The Mozart School of Music offers a significant benefit to the community as it offers after school music education to young students, most of whom live in Palo Alto. The school is not detrimental to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The school has received only one neighbor complaint relating to its operation and that was a complaint about placement of the trash containers for collection and the school complied with that request. The school is unaware of any other complaints from any other neighbors that would suggest that the operation is detrimental to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The school is located within the First Baptist Church which is located in a residential zone. Private Educational Facilities are allowed to operate in and R-1 district with a Conditional Use Permit. Palo Alto Municipal Code §18.12.030. Allowing the school to continue to operate is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code as the school serves its own and additional residential neighborhoods by offering music education to students in Palo Alto in a way that is not disruptive of the residential nature of the neighborhood and actual enhances the neighborhood by provided needed services. The only potentially problematic issue is parking. As noted in the initial application, the School is and always has been willing to consent to any reasonable parking restrictions or to limiting the number of concurrent students it services to comply with the City’s parking regulations. The space leased by the school occupies a total of 1,712 square feet. Currently there are 11 parking spots on the property. Based on the square footage of the leased space, 11 parking spots are sufficient and more than meet current standards. Current standards are 1 space per 200 square feet, leaving two additional unused spaces. There is little if any concurrent usage during weekday school hours. The concurrent uses were addressed in an attachment to the initial application. The School is and was amenable to limiting the number of students on site during concurrent uses such that parking regulations are not violated. The school submitted sufficient information with the application, including sketches of the interior of the building and the parking, as requested by Planning Staff. Thereafter Planning Staff requested additional drawings to scale which were also prepared and submitted showing the potential for additional parking. As part of the submittal, the school provided a list of all known concurrent uses and demonstrated that parking was sufficient during most operating hours and expressed a willingness to agree to further restrictions during hours when parking was not sufficient. The May 9, 2017 Page 3 school also offered to reduce its overall classroom space if that would bring the school into compliance with the parking restrictions. It appears that all of this evidence and all of these offers were ignored, or at least not pursued by Planning Staff. Other illegal uses of the site are not relevant to this application and should not be the basis for its denial. The City has within its power to order that all other non-conforming uses be stopped and instead of exercising that power has erroneously punished the school when the school is trying to bring itself into compliance. There have been relatively minimal complaints over the long history of the school operation and the school serves a unique and valued service to the community. If the parking issues are non-compliant due to illegal uses by third parties, then the City should address those issues rather than penalize the school. There is, based on the forgoing, good cause for an appeal / hearing on this matter. Very truly yours, Charles S. Bronitsky CSB: CONCURRENT USE The total square footage used by the New Mozart School of Music is 1,712. At the requisite one parking space per 200 square feet, the total parking required is 9 spaces. There are 11 spaces onsite for parking. Concurrent use is generally not in conflict with the operation of the school. In instances where there is a conflict, the School will modify its schedule to avoid conflict so that it is not in violation of the parking requirement. The specific concurrent uses are as follows: Sunday Worship – 10am Sundays The School is closed on Sundays Sunday School – 10am Sundays The School is closed on Sundays After Church Coffee – 11am Sundays The School is closed on Sundays Adult Forum – 11:15am Sundays The School is closed on Sundays Faith Zone – 4:30 – 6:30 Thursdays The 2 extra spaces are adequate to address the additional parking needs of the Faith Zone Choir – 7:30 Thursdays The School will not hold group classes on Thursdays after 7:30 once current classes are concluded Open for Prayer and Meditation 11am – 1pm Monday – Friday The School commences instruction between 2pm and 3:30 pm on weekdays so there is no conflict From:Charlie Bronitsky To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:Re: 305 North California CUP for Mozart School Date:Monday, October 17, 2016 2:13:26 PM Hi Claire: Thank you for following up. I am feeling much better and I will get started on it this week. Charlie Charles S. Bronitsky | Attorney at Law charlie@brewerfirm.com | w 650.327.2900 | c 650.576.8441 | f 650.327.5959 | Skype: csbronitsky | 2501 Park Blvd., 2nd Flr., Palo Alto, CA 94306 This email is intended for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the email to us at the address noted above. Thank you. The foregoing name, telephone, telecopy and email information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of sender for purposes of binding sender or any client of sender or the firm to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any similar law. Hodgkins, Claire October 17, 2016 at 2:09 PM Charlie, Hope you are feeling better. I was able to do some digging last week on past permits/approvals for this site. There wasn’t a lot of information about parking in the existing use permit approvals but I did note that there does appear to be fairly limited parking on the site. Since parking does appear to be so limited, the planning department would need some detailed information on other existing uses at the site prior to approval of the CUP. I think that we can limit information to other uses that may be occurring simultaneously with the timing of any of the lessons for Mozart school. If there are any other uses occurring simultaneously, please note the type of use, the timing of the use, the space used, and typical attendance for those uses. It would be useful to include a diagram similar to the attached examples. Because this example project included actual changes to the square footage of the facilities that applicant had to provide information about all uses on site. I don’t think you need to provide quite that much information. However, the colored diagram idea showing your use and location of that use and then showing the location of any other simultaneously uses would help us to understand whether the proposed project would still be in compliance with our code with respect to parking. Please make sure that the site plan you provide shows all parking spaces on site as well so I can get an accurate count of parking spaces. Please let me know if you have any questions. I’d like to schedule the intake as soon as possible but realize this will probably take a few days to prepare. Please let me know when you think you will be ready to submit. I’m happy to look at any information in advance. Regards, Claire Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: 650-329-2116 | E: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org -- Charlie Charles S. Bronitsky | Attorney at Law charlie@brewerfirm.com | w 650.327.2900 | c 650.576.8441 | f 650.327.5959 | Skype: csbronitsky | 2501 Park Blvd., 2nd Flr., Palo Alto, CA 94306 This email is intended for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the email to us at the address noted above. Thank you. The foregoing name, telephone, telecopy and email information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of sender for purposes of binding sender or any client of sender or the firm to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any similar law. 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Hodgkins, Claire Sent:Tuesday, November 08, 2016 4:09 PM To:'Charlie Bronitsky' Subject:RE: 305 N. California - Mozart School - CUP Afternoon Charlie, Your use would fall under personal services which requires 1 space for every 200 square feet of space used. Many of the other uses at the site, assuming they are associated with the church, would likely be considered religious institutional uses, which requires “1 space for each 4 seats or 4‐person capacity.” So if there are other gatherings such as social dinners for the church and they have approximately 40 people (just to make the math easy) they would be required to have 10 parking spaces for that use. So if your use is occurring simultaneously it would depend on the space used. If there is already insufficient parking for the church use of the site and you are proposing to use the site simultaneously with their uses, then additional parking would need to be provided. I will be out of the office on vacation from Thursday the 10th through Wednesday the 16th, returning on the 17th to work. If you have any additional questions before I leave please ask them tomorrow. Otherwise I’d be happy to answer your questions next Thursday. I do want to note that based on the aerial views of the site in old approvals/permits it does seem like there is very limited parking on the site (though parking is not clearly marked). I want to reserve judgement on the possibility of approval for this project based on the information you provide on existing parking and what is being proposed (since I may not have all the information on what is really existing). However, if there is already insufficient parking for the approved use this would be legal non‐conforming. If I approve a new use that would further impact parking on a site that is already not providing parking for the existing use this would be increasing a legal non‐conformance, which the municipal code prohibits. So I would need to have clear evidence that there is parking for your use and any simultaneously occurring uses, consistent with the code. Regards, Claire From: Charlie Bronitsky [mailto:charlie@brewerfirm.com] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 10:38 AM To: Hodgkins, Claire Subject: 305 N. California - Mozart School - CUP Good morning Claire: I am working on the submittal which I will hopefully have to you this week, but in going through the municipal code, this particular project seems to be a bit of an anomaly and I could not figure out for certain which parking requirements are going to apply so if you could point me to which parking requirements we need to meet, that would be most helpful in completing our work. Thank you, Charlie Bronitsky Attorney 2 Law Offices of Peter N. Brewer 2501 Park Blvd., 2d Flr., Palo Alto CA 94306, United States (650) 327-2900 (650) 327-5959 (650) 576-8441 http://www.brewerfirm.com charlie@brewerfirm.com This email is intended for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the email to us at the address noted above. Thank you. The foregoing name, telephone, telecopy and email information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of sender for purposes of binding sender or any client of sender or the firm to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any similar law. 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Hodgkins, Claire Sent:Wednesday, November 23, 2016 9:36 AM To:'Charlie Bronitsky' Subject:RE: 305 N. California - Mozart School - CUP Charlie, I looked through our code to see if there is anything that might help you. Without information on other activities happening simultaneously I can’t really speak to whether there is an option of only using a couple of classrooms. Based on the leased area there is already insufficient parking just for this use; and it seems like there are other uses likely happening simultaneously so there may be no parking available for the music school use. I’m not sure how feasible it would be to use the same room for multiple different lessons; I can’t really speak to whether that would be a possibility or not but again, even if you did use less space, this is assuming that there are no other uses happening simultaneously, including no church staff being there, which I assume is not the case. I’m not sure where there is a local public lot nearby. Is there one in particular you are thinking of? I can look into that with transportation if you know which lot you are looking into. We do not allow variances on parking but, similar to variances, we allow for adjustments. Allowable adjustments are outlined in PAMC Section 18.52 Table 4. Unfortunately this would not qualify for any of the adjustments. Again, I’m happy to look into that last option of the public parking lot but unfortunately it sounds like if parking cannot be provided on site or found within a site 500 feet of this site (one of the allowable parking adjustments) then a CUP could not be approved for this project. It is still your right to apply for a CUP but I would hate for you to spend a lot of money as I would have to deny the application if parking could not be addressed. However, you would be allowed to appeal the decision if you chose to. The appeal process is outlined in Section 18.77.060 of our municipal code should you choose to go through that route. Regards, Clare From: Charlie Bronitsky [mailto:charlie@brewerfirm.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 2:47 PM To: Hodgkins, Claire Subject: Re: 305 N. California - Mozart School - CUP Hi Claire: I am still stuck in mediation so rather than play phone tag, here is the issue. The leased premises are about 1,900 square feet and there are only 8 parking spots at the site, so we are not going to be able to make the parking ratios. I have looked at possibly acquiring parking from some adjacent property owner but we are not going to be able to do that. What I wanted to know was whether we could meet the parking requirements some other way - using only so many classrooms at the same time, purchasing parking passes for the local public lot, obtaining a variance since 2 most classrooms are occupied by a single, minor child and a teacher so the density is low and the purpose education, anything you might think of. Any help you can provide here would be most appreciated. Thank you, Charlie Bronitsky Attorney Law Offices of Peter N. Brewer 2501 Park Blvd., 2d Flr., Palo Alto CA 94306, United States 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Hodgkins, Claire Sent:Thursday, December 01, 2016 3:38 PM To:'Charlie Bronitsky' Subject:RE: 305 N. California - Mozart School - CUP Charlie, This sounds like it could possibly work but this also assumes that there are no other concurrent uses happening during the times when Mozart School is using the site (other than the daycare) since they are committing all of their existing parking to these two uses. Per the original documentation you provided to me, my understanding is that this would be from Noon to 9PM weekdays and 9am to 5pm on Saturdays. It is my understanding that the church does typically use the site for various other church related uses on weeknights. Is the church willing to commit to using the site only for Mozart School and, in cases, where they overlap, the daycare use, between those time periods? This would mean that they could not have any other events (e.g. dinners, dance nights, etc.). Assuming you are meeting all parking requirements aside from that this would need to be a condition of approval of the CUP and we would want documentation from the church showing that they are in agreement with this. Regards, Claire From: Charlie Bronitsky [mailto:charlie@brewerfirm.com] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 9:11 AM To: Hodgkins, Claire Subject: Re: 305 N. California - Mozart School - CUP Hi Claire: I have discussed the issues with my client and taken a second look at the site. There are additional parking spaces at the back of the lot which I did not understand belonged to the Chuch, but they do, so there are actually ten parking spots on the site. The concurrent use during our client’s operating periods is a preschool from 8am to 6pm and they use three spaces. Thus, there would be seven spaces available for us to use. My client is amendable to reducing the square footage of the school to 1400 square feet which she can do by giving back a classroom. By my calculations this should work but before I went on to put together a submittal, I wanted to run it by your for your thoughts. Thank you, Charlie Bronitsky Attorney Law Offices of Peter N. Brewer 2501 Park Blvd., 2d Flr., Palo Alto CA 94306, United States (650) 327-2900 (650) 327-5959 (650) 576-8441 2 http://www.brewerfirm.com charlie@brewerfirm.com This email is intended for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the email to us at the address noted above. Thank you. The foregoing name, telephone, telecopy and email information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of sender for purposes of binding sender or any client of sender or the firm to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any similar law. On Nov 23, 2016, at 9:45 AM, Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Ok thanks Charlie and completely understood. I hate to give you this news myself right before Thanksgiving. I find it unfortunate personally but I do have to enforce the code regardless of my personal opinions. Again, I’m happy to look into that public lot option with transportation if you can confirm which lot you are referencing. Claire From: Charlie Bronitsky [mailto:charlie@brewerfirm.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 9:41 AM To: Hodgkins, Claire Subject: Re: 305 N. California - Mozart School - CUP Hi Claire: Thanks for trying, it is appreciated. I am going to do a little more digging first and I also don’t want to ruin my client's Thanksgiving, so I will get with her on Monday and then get back to you next week. Happy Thanksgiving, Charlie Bronitsky Attorney Law Offices of Peter N. Brewer 2501 Park Blvd., 2d Flr., Palo Alto CA 94306, United States <image001.jpg>(650) 327- 2900 <image001.jpg>(650) 327- 5959 <image001.jpg>(650) 576- 8441 <image001.jpg>http://www.brewerfirm.com <image001.jpg>charlie@brewerfirm.com 3 This email is intended for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the email to us at the address noted above. Thank you. The foregoing name, telephone, telecopy and email information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of sender for purposes of binding sender or any client of sender or the firm to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any similar law. On Nov 23, 2016, at 9:35 AM, Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Charlie, I looked through our code to see if there is anything that might help you. Without information on other activities happening simultaneously I can’t really speak to whether there is an option of only using a couple of classrooms. Based on the leased area there is already insufficient parking just for this use; and it seems like there are other uses likely happening simultaneously so there may be no parking available for the music school use. I’m not sure how feasible it would be to use the same room for multiple different lessons; I can’t really speak to whether that would be a possibility or not but again, even if you did use less space, this is assuming that there are no other uses happening simultaneously, including no church staff being there, which I assume is not the case. I’m not sure where there is a local public lot nearby. Is there one in particular you are thinking of? I can look into that with transportation if you know which lot you are looking into. We do not allow variances on parking but, similar to variances, we allow for adjustments. Allowable adjustments are outlined in PAMC Section 18.52 Table 4. Unfortunately this would not qualify for any of the adjustments. Again, I’m happy to look into that last option of the public parking lot but unfortunately it sounds like if parking cannot be provided on site or found within a site 500 feet of this site (one of the allowable parking adjustments) then a CUP could not be approved for this project. It is still your right to apply for a CUP but I would hate for you to spend a lot of money as I would have to deny the application if parking could not be addressed. However, you would be allowed to appeal the decision if you chose to. The appeal process is outlined in Section 18.77.060 of our municipal code should you choose to go through that route. Regards, Clare From: Charlie Bronitsky [mailto:charlie@brewerfirm.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 2:47 PM To: Hodgkins, Claire Subject: Re: 305 N. California - Mozart School - CUP Hi Claire: I am still stuck in mediation so rather than play phone tag, here is the issue. The leased premises are about 1,900 square feet and there are only 8 parking spots at the site, so we are not going to be able to make the parking ratios. I have looked at possibly acquiring parking from some adjacent property owner but we are not going to be able to do that. 4 What I wanted to know was whether we could meet the parking requirements some other way - using only so many classrooms at the same time, purchasing parking passes for the local public lot, obtaining a variance since most classrooms are occupied by a single, minor child and a teacher so the density is low and the purpose education, anything you might think of. Any help you can provide here would be most appreciated. Thank you, Charlie Bronitsky Attorney Law Offices of Peter N. Brewer 2501 Park Blvd., 2d Flr., Palo Alto CA 94306, United States 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: New Mozart School of Music - Plans From: Charlie Bronitsky [mailto:charlie@brewerfirm.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 7:30 AM To: Hodgkins, Claire Cc: Reynolds, Brian Subject: Re: New Mozart School of Music - Plans Hi Claire: Thank you for sending the comments and for all the courtesy you have extended us so far. I will discuss this with my client today and do our best to see what kind of an agreement we can get with the church and get that back to you hopefully in the next few days. Thanks, Charlie Charles Bronitsky Attorney Law Offices of Peter N. Brewer 2501 Park Blvd., 2d Flr., Palo Alto CA 94306, United States t: (650) 327-2900 x.16 f: (650) 327-5959 m: (650) 576-8441 w: http://www.brewerfirm.com e: charlie@brewerfirm.com This email is intended for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the email to us at the address noted above. Thank you. The foregoing name, telephone, telecopy and email information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of sender for purposes of binding sender or any client of sender or the firm to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any similar law. On Apr 18, 2017, at 6:44 PM, Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Charlie, 2 I realized that most of these comments came in after the initial notice of incompletion was sent out and I wanted you to have them as I continue to review the revised submittal. Please note that in addition to these written comments we have received upwards of 30‐40 phone calls from residents expressing similar concerns (though many were the same residents that commented in writing too) and had one resident come in twice to meet with me to discuss their concerns about this project. The key issue that I’m seeing is still the fact that the church appears to be leasing this space for other uses that would coincide with your use. In addition, two spaces are designated spaces and therefore cannot be used for your use. They also appear to have their own offices open during working hours and therefore I need to assume at least one more space for that use as well (possibly more). So now we are down to a maximum of six spaces before we event start considering other uses that the church is leasing the site out for. As we have discussed many times in the past months I would need a comprehensive list of concurrent uses at the site and I would need an agreement between you and the church that the site would only be used for this use during the hours of Mozart School operation, including a restriction on any church uses that could occur simultaneously. Only then could the City possibly allow for a reduced number of classes to occur during those specific hours (at least in terms of planning requirements). Given that we have discussed this extensively in conversations dating back to October 2016 the City is preparing to issue a decision on this project sooner rather than later. I just want you to be aware of where we stand on this project and the key issues. Regards, Claire From:Bonnie Flanagan To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:Mozart Music School CUP Date:Tuesday, October 25, 2016 1:38:46 PM Attachments:ATT00001.txt ATT00002.txt ATT00003.txt ATT00004.txt ATT00005.txt Hi Claire: Thanks for taking time to meet with me. Below are the pictures you requested. I went over to the church to make sure my information to you was correct. I spoke to the daycare folks to confirm the parking spots at the front door were for parents dropping off their child/children. That is correct, but I was incorrect about the six spots adjacent to the church. The first two are for daycare workers & if they are filled they must park on the street. She also said the other four spots she thought were church staff or possibly Mozart staff. I wanted to clarify that as I said only for the church. There is also a designated handicap spot & the minister's spot. When I've gone over to the Mozart staff to complain about moving or dumping garbage bins, there have been between two to four office staff so they may be parking in some of those spots. Student participant parking is on the street. Let me know if you need further information or clarification. Thanks, Bonnie Sent from my iPhone Front of daycare, three spots but for drop-off only From:Hodgkins, Claire To:"Laura Seitel"; "Bonnie Flanagan" Subject:CUP for Mozart School Date:Thursday, February 09, 2017 4:35:00 PM Attachments:305 North California 17PLN-00015 Notice of Incompletion.msg Laura and Bonnie, Sorry that I have not been as responsive this week to your comments as I usually would be. We are short staffed momentarily so it’s been a bit hectic. After Christy left the City last week I was reassigned as the project planner for the project at 305 N California, a request for a CUP for operation of the Mozart School. I noticed this week, thanks to you two, that the notices were not sent out for this project. Although we are not required to send these out until the project is deemed complete, our typical practice is to send them out immediately in order to allow time for neighbor’s to comment. I had our support staff send those out this week so you should have them by now. I have completed the Notice of Incompletion and sent the attached e-mail to the applicant. Please feel free to review and contact me should you have any questions. I will keep you updated throughout the process should you resubmit. Warm regards, Claire Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: 650-329-2116 | E: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org From:Bonnie Flanagan To:Hodgkins, Claire Cc:Laura Seitel Subject:Re: CUP for Mozart School Date:Friday, February 10, 2017 9:43:04 AM Claire: Thank you for updating me on the CUP process status. As you know, my additional concern which is not state in the application, regards the parking issue for the 350+ students in attendance which will become an even greater problem when the Bryant Street bike plan in this area eliminates 10-20 (we've been told different numbers over the last two years) for the roundabout at California Ave & Bryant. Thanks, Bonnie Sent from my iPhone On Feb 9, 2017, at 4:35 PM, Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Laura and Bonnie, Sorry that I have not been as responsive this week to your comments as I usually would be. We are short staffed momentarily so it’s been a bit hectic. After Christy left the City last week I was reassigned as the project planner for the project at 305 N California, a request for a CUP for operation of the Mozart School. I noticed this week, thanks to you two, that the notices were not sent out for this project. Although we are not required to send these out until the project is deemed complete, our typical practice is to send them out immediately in order to allow time for neighbor’s to comment. I had our support staff send those out this week so you should have them by now. I have completed the Notice of Incompletion and sent the attached e-mail to the applicant. Please feel free to review and contact me should you have any questions. I will keep you updated throughout the process should you resubmit. Warm regards, Claire <image001.jpg> Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: 650-329-2116 | E: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Henry Hwong <hhwong@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 10, 2017 8:15 AM To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:Re: 305 N. California Av (17PLN-00015) Thanks Claire. I appreciate the quick response. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 10, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: > > No, they need to show that there is sufficient parking on site for their use in order to obtain a permit. Please see my comments to the applicant (sent yesterday) in the attached e‐mail. > > Regards, > Claire > > ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ > From: Henry Hwong [mailto:hhwong@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 8:53 PM > To: Hodgkins, Claire > Subject: Re: 305 N. California Av (17PLN‐00015) > > With this Conditional Use Permit for the New Mozart School of Music, is there enough parking on the church grounds for students and teachers or is it expected they park on the street? > > H. > > > <mime‐attachment> 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sarah <sburgrval@aol.com> Sent:Thursday, February 09, 2017 5:04 PM To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:305 N. California I just received notice of the application of the New Mozart School of Music to use 10 classroom spaces at the First Baptist Church. First, could you tell me if this is the same music school that has been using the church, and if so, if they have been operating there without a permit? The present music classes place an undue burden on the neighborhood, in terms of traffic, parking, and even flow of people. We moved into this neighborhood 28 years ago. The Church was a Church‐ Sunday services, some weddings, some use of the hall. NITC operating behind the church placed little burden on the neighborhood, using only the parking lot. Since the music classes have started, the curbs are full of cars, both on the legal and illegal parking side. Traffic is hugely impacted at the start and finish of classes, it is frankly difficult to even walk my dog on the sidewalk because of the flow of people in and out of the classes. Not only do the drivers illegally park on N. California, they flow into South Court and block vision for ingress and egress into the street by blocking the corners. This is a substantial alteration of the use of the church from what it was when we all bought our property. I heartily object to the classes now present. If this is an increase, it is absolutely absurd. If this is the same school of music, and it has been operating without a use permit, it should be fined and banned. We did not purchase a house in a commercial neighborhood, and should not have this imposed upon us. I would note that unlike other churches who have this use, this church has very few parking spaces in its lot. Thank you, Sarah Burgess 2290 Waverley Street Sarah 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Karen Ivey <karenivey@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, February 10, 2017 9:36 AM To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:305 N. California/File Number 17PLN-00015 Dear Ms. Hodgkins: I am writing to express my concern about the Conditional Use Permit application pending for The New Mozart School of Music at 305 N. California. When we moved to this neighborhood sixteen years ago, the church that occupies 305 N. California operated as one would expect, with quiet gatherings on Sundays and minimal activity during the week. The past few years have brought a dramatic and unwelcome escalation of for-profit activity at 305 N. California. Repeated complaints by neighbors to the City of Palo Alto's Code Enforcement have not made any apparent difference. A quick Google search of the address brings up results for almost two dozen for-profit businesses operating at that location. Our neighborhood is zoned R-1, and this type of heavy commercial use is inappropriate. I would urge anyone who does not understand the harmful impact of this type of use on a quiet neighborhood to stop by in the late afternoon or early evening of any weekday and count the cars clogging the neighborhood. Patrons park for several blocks around 305 N. California, and children run across the street when their parents are illegally parked while waiting on the corners of California and Bryant. I hope that denying this Conditional Use Permit is the first step in the City of Palo Alto enforcing the laws that protect residential neighborhoods. The next business to look at is I Sing, another for-profit music school operating at 305 N. California, also with several hundred students. Karen Ivey 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Bonnie Flanagan <bonnie.m.flanagan@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 10, 2017 9:43 AM To:Hodgkins, Claire Cc:Laura Seitel Subject:Re: CUP for Mozart School Claire: Thank you for updating me on the CUP process status. As you know, my additional concern which is not state in the application, regards the parking issue for the 350+ students in attendance which will become an even greater problem when the Bryant Street bike plan in this area eliminates 10‐20 (we've been told different numbers over the last two years) for the roundabout at California Ave & Bryant. Thanks, Bonnie Sent from my iPhone On Feb 9, 2017, at 4:35 PM, Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Laura and Bonnie, Sorry that I have not been as responsive this week to your comments as I usually would be. We are short staffed momentarily so it’s been a bit hectic. After Christy left the City last week I was reassigned as the project planner for the project at 305 N California, a request for a CUP for operation of the Mozart School. I noticed this week, thanks to you two, that the notices were not sent out for this project. Although we are not required to send these out until the project is deemed complete, our typical practice is to send them out immediately in order to allow time for neighbor’s to comment. I had our support staff send those out this week so you should have them by now. I have completed the Notice of Incompletion and sent the attached e‐mail to the applicant. Please feel free to review and contact me should you have any questions. I will keep you updated throughout the process should you resubmit. Warm regards, Claire <image001.jpg> Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: 650‐329‐2116 | E: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Karen Ivey <karenivey@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, February 10, 2017 9:49 AM To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:iSing at 305 N.California Dear Ms. Hodgkins: Here is a link to the iSing music program that also operates at 305 N. California: http://isingsv.com/the-details/ You can see that their 2016-2017 class schedule includes 17 group classes per week. This program is separate from, and in addition to, the program run by The New Mozart School of Music at 305 N. California. Thank you for carefully considering the impact of this level of commercial activity on our residential neighborhood. Best, Karen Ivey 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:sburgrval@aol.com Sent:Friday, February 10, 2017 12:54 PM To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:Re: 305 N. California Claire, Thank you for your prompt reply. I had a chance to review the materials you have sent me. There are a few facts about the present use and the area that are not within the documents - perhaps they are not a part of the normal review, but I thought I would let you know about them. First, because of the nature of the school, counting the number of students in the classes does not reflect the number of parking spots needed. The school has classes of a certain duration, I am guessing an hour. Many parents wait in their cars while the students are in the lessons. Even when they do not, the drop off for the second lesson is occuring while the pickup for the first lesson is going on - ie, a 4:00-5:00 lesson and a 5:00-6:00 lesson has students for both lessons being picked up and dropped off at 5:00. So double the number of slots. This isn't like a shopping area where people come and go according to the number of parking spots available - they are all there at the start and finish of the lesson. So, it seems to me that, rather than needing 29 spots for the lessons (1 instructor x 10 classrooms, 9 x private and 1 x 10 students), you would need 48 spots, assuming that the instructors stay throughout. Second, I cannot remember the agreement for parking between NITC (Neighborhood Infant Toddler Center) by its parent, PACCC (Palo Alto Community Child Care) when PACCC purchased the building behind the church from the church, about 20 years ago. I believe NITC owns some of the parking spaces in the property they purchased. I do not know whether they reserved the right to use spaces in the rest of the parking lot at that time for drop off and pick up of their students, but I do know that they have the right to ingress and egress through the parking lot, since it is the only way in and out of the building - I was on the PACCC Board of Directors when the building was purchased. The center closes at 5:30, so pickups of all students occurs between about 4:30 and 5:30, more towards the end. That is an additional 12 cars going through the parking lot at that time, and it should be considered. I am sure the Church will show the delineation between parking spaces for NITC and for the Church when it gives additional information to you. As I mentioned before, I walk my dogs through this area daily. If it would be helpful for me to take some pictures of what the parking looks like during the late afternoon and early evening, I would be happy to do so. If you could let me know what the next steps are, it would be appreciated. Thank you very much, Sarah Burgess -----Original Message----- From: Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Sarah <sburgrval@aol.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 9, 2017 5:10 pm Subject: RE: 305 N. California Sarah, Thanks for your e-mail. Yes, this is the same church and yes, they have been operating without a permit. The City has 2 issued a Notice of Violation for operation of this use without a permit. In response the church has filed an application for a CUP. Please see attached for the Notice of Incompletion that I sent today to the applicant. The code enforcement office working on this case will be out of the office tomorrow but I will be speaking to him on Monday about the status of my review on Monday and next steps. Regards, Claire -----Original Message----- From: Sarah [mailto:sburgrval@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 5:04 PM To: Hodgkins, Claire Subject: 305 N. California I just received notice of the application of the New Mozart School of Music to use 10 classroom spaces at the First Baptist Church. First, could you tell me if this is the same music school that has been using the church, and if so, if they have been operating there without a permit? The present music classes place an undue burden on the neighborhood, in terms of traffic, parking, and even flow of people. We moved into this neighborhood 28 years ago. The Church was a Church- Sunday services, some weddings, some use of the hall. NITC operating behind the church placed little burden on the neighborhood, using only the parking lot. Since the music classes have started, the curbs are full of cars, both on the legal and illegal parking side. Traffic is hugely impacted at the start and finish of classes, it is frankly difficult to even walk my dog on the sidewalk because of the flow of people in and out of the classes. Not only do the drivers illegally park on N. California, they flow into South Court and block vision for ingress and egress into the street by blocking the corners. This is a substantial alteration of the use of the church from what it was when we all bought our property. I heartily object to the classes now present. If this is an increase, it is absolutely absurd. If this is the same school of music, and it has been operating without a use permit, it should be fined and banned. We did not purchase a house in a commercial neighborhood, and should not have this imposed upon us. I would note that unlike other churches who have this use, this church has very few parking spaces in its lot. Thank you, Sarah Burgess 2290 Waverley Street Sarah Attached Message From Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> To Charlie Bronitsky <charlie@brewerfirm.com> Subject 305 North California 17PLN-00015 Notice of Incompletion Date Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:26:08 +0000 Charles, I have reviewed your application for the proposed operation of the Mozart School at 305 N California Avenue (17PLN‐00015). The City appreciates your efforts to resolve the Notice of Violation issued for operation of the Mozart School without a Conditional Use Permit. I have included a Notice of Incompletion attached which includes comments from Planning, Fire, Building, and Transportation. Based on the information provided thus far please be advised that staff may not be able to make a positive recommendation for this project. You may choose to respond to the attached Notice of Incompletion to provide the 3 information outlined in order to show that the project would be consistent with zoning code requirements. However, I am also attaching a withdrawal notice. Should you choose to withdraw the application rather than resubmitting, you may sign and return this form to me. The City would review the time spent on this project by staff and return any remaining fees to you. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Warm regards, Claire Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: 650‐329‐2116 | E: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:carynlouise@yahoo.com Sent:Friday, February 10, 2017 2:20 PM To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:conditional use permit - 305 N California I live very near to the First Baptist Church which houses the New Mozart Music School. As I was walking home this weekend on N. California I saw a very small and washed out sign on the lawn of the FBC. It explained that someone from the school was applying for the C. U. P. I couldn't believe that they haven't had one all these years. I mean, how can a for-profit business get away with this in a building, and neighborhood, zoned R-1? Was the City sleeping, or just deciding to look the other way. It's outrageous. Parking has become a real issue. I believe there have been studies by the city that show the areas near the school measuring at over 80%. A neighbor who is consultant for the city told me this. In truth, most of the residents nearby are fed up with this problem and have even talked about retaining an attorney. The other issue for this out-of-place business is the noise generated, both from the striving musicians themselves and on the street when they are gathered near their cars. It goes on until late in the evening 9:00- 9:30. My family can hear them most evenings. The hours requested in the C.U.P are asking for too much. This operation is a nuisance and does not belong in our otherwise quiet neighborhood of houses! I would like to know how to file a complaint against this application. Thank you. Best regards, Caryn Louise 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:sburgrval@aol.com Sent:Friday, February 10, 2017 5:13 PM To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:Re: 305 N. California Final email of the week, I promise! I just was able to open the documents on the planning department site - I was curious about the 11 parking spaces they site. I believe spaces 9, 10 and 11 belong to PACCC - they are on their property in front of the child care center. Again, I don't know what the agreement is between the two about parking, but those 3 spaces appear to be on PACCC's property. Thanks, Sarah -----Original Message----- From: sburgrval <sburgrval@aol.com> To: Claire.Hodgkins <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Fri, Feb 10, 2017 4:41 pm Subject: Re: 305 N. California Claire, I wanted to also mention that the documents don't include a reference to the ising program given at the Baptist Church - from 2:30 to 7 most nights. Not sure how much of the traffic I see is from that as well. Do they have a permit? My neighbor who sent her kids there said it is about 35 kids per class... http://isingsv.com/the-details/ Thanks, Sarah Burgess -----Original Message----- From: Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Sarah <sburgrval@aol.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 9, 2017 5:10 pm Subject: RE: 305 N. California Sarah, Thanks for your e-mail. Yes, this is the same church and yes, they have been operating without a permit. The City has issued a Notice of Violation for operation of this use without a permit. In response the church has filed an application for a CUP. Please see attached for the Notice of Incompletion that I sent today to the applicant. The code enforcement office working on this case will be out of the office tomorrow but I will be speaking to him on Monday about the status of my review on Monday and next steps. Regards, Claire -----Original Message----- From: Sarah [mailto:sburgrval@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 5:04 PM 2 To: Hodgkins, Claire Subject: 305 N. California I just received notice of the application of the New Mozart School of Music to use 10 classroom spaces at the First Baptist Church. First, could you tell me if this is the same music school that has been using the church, and if so, if they have been operating there without a permit? The present music classes place an undue burden on the neighborhood, in terms of traffic, parking, and even flow of people. We moved into this neighborhood 28 years ago. The Church was a Church- Sunday services, some weddings, some use of the hall. NITC operating behind the church placed little burden on the neighborhood, using only the parking lot. Since the music classes have started, the curbs are full of cars, both on the legal and illegal parking side. Traffic is hugely impacted at the start and finish of classes, it is frankly difficult to even walk my dog on the sidewalk because of the flow of people in and out of the classes. Not only do the drivers illegally park on N. California, they flow into South Court and block vision for ingress and egress into the street by blocking the corners. This is a substantial alteration of the use of the church from what it was when we all bought our property. I heartily object to the classes now present. If this is an increase, it is absolutely absurd. If this is the same school of music, and it has been operating without a use permit, it should be fined and banned. We did not purchase a house in a commercial neighborhood, and should not have this imposed upon us. I would note that unlike other churches who have this use, this church has very few parking spaces in its lot. Thank you, Sarah Burgess 2290 Waverley Street Sarah Attached Message From Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> To Charlie Bronitsky <charlie@brewerfirm.com> Subject 305 North California 17PLN-00015 Notice of Incompletion Date Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:26:08 +0000 Charles, I have reviewed your application for the proposed operation of the Mozart School at 305 N California Avenue (17PLN-00015). The City appreciates your efforts to resolve the Notice of Violation issued for operation of the Mozart School without a Conditional Use Permit. I have included a Notice of Incompletion attached which includes comments from Planning, Fire, Building, and Transportation. Based on the information provided thus far please be advised that staff may not be able to make a positive recommendation for this project. You may choose to respond to the attached Notice of Incompletion to provide the information outlined in order to show that the project would be consistent with zoning code requirements. However, I am also attaching a withdrawal notice. Should you choose to withdraw the application rather than resubmitting, you may sign and return this form to me. The City would review the time spent on this project by staff and return any remaining fees to you. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Warm regards, Claire 3 Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: 650-329-2116 | E: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Tim Cain <tim.cain@att.net> Sent:Monday, February 13, 2017 8:03 PM To:Hodgkins, Claire Cc:Margie Cain Subject:305 N. California Ave Hello Claire, We have lived 4 houses away from the Baptist Church for 25 years and have always had to just live with the fact that our street, South Court, is prime parking for attenedees of the church. We always wondered why the on-site parking lot isn't often full, but our curb in front of our house almost always is. It sounds like the proposed Music School schedule would make things even worse. 10 classrooms x however many students in attendance in each class sounds like a lot more cars than we all have space for, and every hour on the hour, there would be the prior students being picked up while the next hour's students are being dropped off - making that number double. Would it be possible to require a carpooling arrangement for them, or maybe some kind of "No Classroom Parking Here" signage for us, similar to what we see in the neighborhoods around Castileja School? We have always been accommodating for the church, but this is clearly a private business we are talking about now, in the middle of our R1 zoned neighborhood. If we had known that a business 4 doors down from us was going to use the curb in front of our property as a heavily used set of parallel parking slots, it would have affected our buying decision back when we bought our house. Now we fear it may affect the decision of the next potential buyer, and that seems even worse. Thank you for whatever you can do to improve the quality of life here in our neighborhood. Tim and Margie Cain. 2261 South Court 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mahendra Ranchod <mahen.ranchod@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 13, 2017 8:38 PM To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:Notice of Proposed Develoment at 305 N. California Street Dear Ms. Hodgkins, A few days ago, I received a postcard from the City about the proposed development at the Baptist Church on N. California Street. I live in the same block as the church and have strong views about the activities at the church. I assume that the church is a tax-exempt entity under section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, but some aspects of the church's activities border on commercial enterprises. The music school is a case in point. When did the City provide a permit to the music school? Were the neighbors informed about this project? If you had to poll the neighbors of the church, you will discover a great deal of unhappiness about the traffic and safety problems that occur with some regularity. Because of inadequate parking on the premises of the church, attendees at the church's events park their cars on the street, making it difficult for local residents to find parking -if they have the misfortune to need street parking. There is also the noise factor; neighbors in the proximity of the church have to tolerate extraneous and sounds during the week and on weekends. Our neighborhood is zoned R-1, but it is beginning to feel like a commercial district. Please let me know if you plan to have a neighborhood meeting or if I should make an appointment to talk to you personally. Mahendra Ranchod 2220 Waverley Street. cell phone: (650) 207-7370 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:sburgrval@aol.com Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 12:08 PM To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:Re: 305 N. California Thanks for looking into this. Can the spaces be used as available, even though they are not part of the real property owned by the church? And under that scenario, does the child care have access to all of the church spaces? They have multiple employees, in addition to the parents dropping off and picking up - a van that brings lunch to the kids, various activities for the kids (singing teacher, etc), and are open from 8-5:30 each weekday. I totally understand (and agree) that they are available on the weekends, when the day care is closed. It seems perhaps the church isn't aware of a lot of the requirements. I was also just told that there are doctor's offices operating out of the church classrooms, and I have verified this. - perhaps as many as 4 offices. That would need parking for both patients and the doctors themselves during the time they are open. If you google the address, a myriad of organizations use the address as well - I don't know if they only get mail there, or they have offices there too. I know some of this might seem like a tempest in a teapot. But over the last year or so, the usage of the church has grown to the point where its like we have an busy office building in the middle of our neighborhood. I had seen the usage bump up in the summer with camps, but assumed it was church camps. Now it appears it is probably camps operated for profit out of the church facilities. Not only is parking impacted heavily, but the bike traffic for the Jordan kids and along the bike boulevard on Bryant is made unsafe by the stream of cars dropping off, picking up, and parallel parking. It is not unusual to see a car sticking out at a 45 degree angle, with their blinkers on, for 15 minutes or so, while they drop off or pick up kids because there isn't any parking and they've wedged themselves into a half spot. People park on the no parking side of the street, and block the actual corners. And there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement by the church that their use is not in conformity with the zoning. Your help with this is really appreciated. Do you think it would be to anyone's benefit to set up a meeting of neighbors and perhaps church officials, to go over all the areas where people don't feel they are in compliance, so we could get this over with all at once? I would be interested in hearing from the church why they feel this usage is proper - perhaps there is something I don't know? Thanks again, Sarah Burgess -----Original Message----- From: Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: sburgrval <sburgrval@aol.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 23, 2017 11:01 am Subject: RE: 305 N. California Thanks Sarah, I am actively discussing other activities on this site with our code enforcement team. Technically all of these spaces are on the same lot so they can be used by both activities provided that they are not happening concurrently (and it seems like they might be). I’ve asked for additional information in my notice of incompletion attached. Regards, Claire 2 From: sburgrval@aol.com [mailto:sburgrval@aol.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 5:13 PM To: Hodgkins, Claire Subject: Re: 305 N. California Final email of the week, I promise! I just was able to open the documents on the planning department site - I was curious about the 11 parking spaces they site. I believe spaces 9, 10 and 11 belong to PACCC - they are on their property in front of the child care center. Again, I don't know what the agreement is between the two about parking, but those 3 spaces appear to be on PACCC's property. Thanks, Sarah -----Original Message----- From: sburgrval <sburgrval@aol.com> To: Claire.Hodgkins <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Fri, Feb 10, 2017 4:41 pm Subject: Re: 305 N. California Claire, I wanted to also mention that the documents don't include a reference to the ising program given at the Baptist Church - from 2:30 to 7 most nights. Not sure how much of the traffic I see is from that as well. Do they have a permit? My neighbor who sent her kids there said it is about 35 kids per class... http://isingsv.com/the-details/ Thanks, Sarah Burgess -----Original Message----- From: Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Sarah <sburgrval@aol.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 9, 2017 5:10 pm Subject: RE: 305 N. California Sarah, Thanks for your e-mail. Yes, this is the same church and yes, they have been operating without a permit. The City has issued a Notice of Violation for operation of this use without a permit. In response the church has filed an application for a CUP. Please see attached for the Notice of Incompletion that I sent today to the applicant. The code enforcement office working on this case will be out of the office tomorrow but I will be speaking to him on Monday about the status of my review on Monday and next steps. Regards, Claire -----Original Message----- From: Sarah [mailto:sburgrval@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 5:04 PM 3 To: Hodgkins, Claire Subject: 305 N. California I just received notice of the application of the New Mozart School of Music to use 10 classroom spaces at the First Baptist Church. First, could you tell me if this is the same music school that has been using the church, and if so, if they have been operating there without a permit? The present music classes place an undue burden on the neighborhood, in terms of traffic, parking, and even flow of people. We moved into this neighborhood 28 years ago. The Church was a Church- Sunday services, some weddings, some use of the hall. NITC operating behind the church placed little burden on the neighborhood, using only the parking lot. Since the music classes have started, the curbs are full of cars, both on the legal and illegal parking side. Traffic is hugely impacted at the start and finish of classes, it is frankly difficult to even walk my dog on the sidewalk because of the flow of people in and out of the classes. Not only do the drivers illegally park on N. California, they flow into South Court and block vision for ingress and egress into the street by blocking the corners. This is a substantial alteration of the use of the church from what it was when we all bought our property. I heartily object to the classes now present. If this is an increase, it is absolutely absurd. If this is the same school of music, and it has been operating without a use permit, it should be fined and banned. We did not purchase a house in a commercial neighborhood, and should not have this imposed upon us. I would note that unlike other churches who have this use, this church has very few parking spaces in its lot. Thank you, Sarah Burgess 2290 Waverley Street Sarah Attached Message From Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> To Charlie Bronitsky <charlie@brewerfirm.com> Subject 305 North California 17PLN-00015 Notice of Incompletion Date Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:26:08 +0000 Charles, I have reviewed your application for the proposed operation of the Mozart School at 305 N California Avenue (17PLN- 00015). The City appreciates your efforts to resolve the Notice of Violation issued for operation of the Mozart School without a Conditional Use Permit. I have included a Notice of Incompletion attached which includes comments from Planning, Fire, Building, and Transportation. Based on the information provided thus far please be advised that staff may not be able to make a positive recommendation for this project. You may choose to respond to the attached Notice of Incompletion to provide the information outlined in order to show that the project would be consistent with zoning code requirements. However, I am also attaching a withdrawal notice. Should you choose to withdraw the application rather than resubmitting, you may sign and return this form to me. The City would review the time spent on this project by staff and return any remaining fees to you. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Rick Block <rickblock@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 7:40 PM To:Hodgkins, Claire Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; susie block Subject:Re: 305 N California Av Dear Claire, Thank you very much for your informative email and the enclosures. It seems that the city is assessing this situation in a thorough manner, which we appreciate. At this point, I would simply observe that according to the letter from the applicant's attorney, there are a maximum of 20-26 persons on the school premises at any one time. However, according to the school's website, the various classes and lessons range in length from 30-60 minutes. What this means is that there can be 40-52 persons coming and going every hour, with the attendant traffic, parking issues, and noise. This is very different from a school whose students are dropped off on weekday mornings, stay for the day, leave in the afternoon, and are normally not present during evenings or weekends. Taken together with other activities occurring on the premises, the operation of the school strikes us as entirely inconsistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. Please consider us as opposed to issuance of a conditional use permit for the school. We do have one question. Since the application came in response to a notice of violation and appears unlikely to be granted, how much longer will the school be allowed to operate on the premises? Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, Rick and Susie Block On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Rick, All information regarding the proposal is available online. Our building eye program links directly to our citizen’s Accela system to allow you to view documents submitted. Here is a direct link to Citizen’s Accela. If you look under the drop down for “record info” the information you requested below is under “attachments”. https://aca.accela.com/paloalto/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Planning&TabName=Planning&capID1=17PLN&capID2=0 0000&capID3=00015&agencyCode=PALOALTO&IsToShowInspection=no 2 If you still have any trouble accessing this please let me know. I’ve also attached my e‐mail to the applicant, which includes the Notice of Incompletion that I provided for the requested Conditional Use Permit. Code enforcement is following up with the applicant regarding their notice of violation for the operation of the Mozart school. The applicant’s contact information is available in this e‐mail as well as at the link I provided. In addition, I am in active discussions with our code enforcement team regarding other activities on site to determine if further action is required. Regards, Claire From: Gitelman, Hillary Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 5:14 PM To: Rick Block Cc: susie block; Hodgkins, Claire Subject: RE: 305 N California Av Rick: Thanks for the follow‐up. We will consider your concerns as this application moves forward and keep you informed. Hillary Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! 3 From: Rick Block [mailto:rickblock@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 5:01 PM To: Gitelman, Hillary Cc: susie block Subject: Fwd: 305 N California Av Dear Hillary, Thanks very much for returning my call so promptly. I'm forwarding the email below pertaining to the music school's application for a conditional use permit, to which we have not received a response. Since sending it, we received a call from our realtor, Leanna Hunt, who indicated that there seem to be a number of activities occurring in the church that are not church-related and that may not have required use permits, but are generating considerable traffic, parking, and noise. It seems that the building is more of a community center than a religious site. Leanna also indicated that there is a good deal of concern about this among the neighbors. In addition to considering the application for the use permit, we request that the city determine whether any other activities are taking place on the property and take appropriate action. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Richard and Susan Block ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rick Block <rickblock@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 9:04 AM Subject: 305 N California Av To: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: susie block <susieb4@sbcglobal.net> Dear Ms. Hodgkins, We have received a mailed notice of a proposed development project at the above-referenced address, an application for a conditional use permit that has been submitted by The New Mozart School of Music. 4 Our home is located at 292 N. California Avenue, directly across the street from the church, on the southwest corner of the intersection. It is presently occupied by a tenant, but we will be returning to Palo Alto and moving back into the home next year. Checking the school's website, it indicates that it is already operating at the address, apparently without a conditional use permit as required under Palo Alto's zoning code. Is that so? It also indicates that it has "an active enrollment of over 500 students." While we do not yet have sufficient information to take a position on the proposal, we are concerned about the possibility of considerable additional traffic through an intersection that is already very busy, potential overflow parking, and the noise that will be generated by the school, particularly during weekday evenings and on Saturday, which is our Sabbath, a day of rest. I went to the city website indicated on the postcard, but was not able to find any information about the project itself. I would appreciate receiving a copy of the materials pertaining to the application, as well as contact information for the application, Mr. Bronitsky, in the event we wish to contact him directly. Thank you for your assistance, Richard (and Susan) Block ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hodgkins, Claire" <Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org> To: Charlie Bronitsky <charlie@brewerfirm.com> Cc: Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:26:08 +0000 Subject: 305 North California 17PLN-00015 Notice of Incompletion Charles, 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Laura Seitel <lseitel@mac.com> Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 8:30 AM To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:Re: First Baptist Church Application for Use Permit Thanks very much, Claire. My husband and I would like to come to the public meeting where this matter is discussed. Do you have a ballpark idea of what time the discussion will take place - and can you tell me where it will be held? Thanks again! Laura On Feb 2, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Thanks Laura, Sorry I haven’t gotten back to you but I did receive your letter and will definitely be considering it as I review and issue a decision on this project. I was actually working on this project prior to the applicant filing a formal application for a CUP so I’m familiar with the request as well as neighbor concerns. I’ve talked extensively with Bonnie Flanagan. So both your comments/concerns and hers will definitely be considered as I review this project. Regards, Claire From: Laura Seitel [mailto:lseitel@mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 7:07 PM To: Hodgkins, Claire Subject: Fwd: First Baptist Church Application for Use Permit Dear Claire, I’m just checking to see that you received the letter, below, which I sent to you yesterday. I wrote it to Christy Fong last week and am forwarding it to you since learning that Christy will be leaving her job and that you will be handling this matter in the future. I hope that the letter will be distributed to members of the committee that will be considering the First Baptist Church’s request for a use permit to rent space to the New Mozart School of Music. Thank you very much for your help with this. Kind regards, Laura Seitel Begin forwarded message: 2 From: Laura Seitel <lseitel@mac.com> Subject: First Baptist Church Application for Use Permit Date: January 31, 2017 at 6:14:17 PM PST To: Claire Hodgkins <claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: "christyfong@cityofpaloalto.org" <christyfong@cityofpaloalto.org> January 26 2017 Dear Christy Fong, Thank you for your helpful responses to my questions during our phone call yesterday regarding the application by the First Baptist Church for a use permit from the City of Palo Alto. This permit would allow the church officially to rent space to the New Mozart School of Music. I understand from our conversation that the school has been operating without a permit until now. I am writing, as you suggested, to outline why I and my husband, Loy Martin, oppose granting the use permit. The church regularly rents out its facility for various non-church-related activities. We experience daily and almost every night intrusive noise and car and foot traffic generated by these events. In the church hall next to our house at 349 North California Avenue (we are separated only by a driveway), the church hosts activities ranging from rock concerts and dance groups to political events and a vegetarian dining hall. These events often include loud amplified sound (with doors and windows of the hall almost always open) and end at 11 PM or later. They result in people congregating on the pavement, driveway, lawn and sidewalks outside of the church, and they always preclude parking anywhere near our house. Since the music school has moved into the church, our neighborhood is coping with still more noise, foot and car traffic and a line of idling cars at night, with parents inside, waiting for their children to emerge from the building. This not only lines the streets with parked cars, it is dangerous, with many cars at once slowing in the darkness to try to find a spot close to the church entrance. My husband and I feel that we individually, and our neighborhood at large, is overburdened by the excessive use of the church property to generate revenue. It is inappropriate, in our view, for the density of the neighborhood and places an undo burden on those who live in proximity to the church. We appreciate your consideration of our comments on the use permit proposed by the church and look forward to hearing discussion of the matter. Yours sincerely, Laura Seitel 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:David Brunicardi <david.brunicardi@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 13, 2017 9:53 AM To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:Fwd: New Mozart C.U.P. Hello Claire, I wanted to follow up to see if you received my email, but also to inform you of something I just learned. I ran into a neighbor who lives at the end of my block. He is a commissioner with the City's Planning and Transportation department. He informed me that a recent parking survey rated the area around New Mozart at 80+%. Keep in mind there are few to zero church parishioners on weekdays. All best, David ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Brunicardi <david.brunicardi@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:30 PM Subject: New Mozart C.U.P. To: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Dear Claire, I received your card yesterday informing neighbors of the C.U.P. application. Thank you. I live very near the First Baptist Church and I’m very surprised to find that the music school has been operating without a Conditional Use Permit for years. That seems illegal on some level. Regardless, the New Mozart School of Music is completely out-of-synch with the neighborhood. To begin with, there has always been a noise issue. Imagine the cacophony of sounds emanating from different classrooms playing different songs simultaneously. It can be really painful. The original design and function of the space was intended as church offices, not violent piano playing or electrified instruments. To make it worse, the individual instructors have no respect for the neighbors and will sometimes perform their lessons with the windows open. There is no active management onsite. I have a huge library of video recordings of instructors playing with the windows open as well as samples of a decibel meter showing that the sound emanating from the classrooms often exceeds what the City states is an acceptable volume for sustained noise. In the end, I donated thousands of dollars to the church so they could pay for sound proof windows for the New Mozart School. Doesn't seem fair, but I was desperate. Of course if the instructors open the windows it's all in vain. Truly, the school has little regard for anything but their bank account. The second major problem is parking. It has become completely out of control. They may have changed their website but the home page used to boast over 500 students. The majority of their classes are after school. The volume of cars competing for parking spaces each evening rivals that of University Ave on a Friday night, but unlike that area we are zoned R-1. The church I believe is R-1 as well. The parents of the students will even go so far as to move our garbage cans on the eve of garbage day to create parking. If, or when, the City implements their Bike Boulevard round-a-bout at that intersection we will lose a total of eight parking spaces. It’s already a nightmare for us and the loss of more parking will be devastating. Since the school is creating a parking 2 problem, it should fall upon them to figure out how to alleviate it. I appreciate your time in reviewing the input from neighbors and please know that I am available to answer any questions you may have. I have been dealing the the owner of the school, Christine, as well as the pastor/landlord, Rick for years. Best, David Brunicardi cell (650) 285-7624 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sarah <sburgrval@aol.com> Sent:Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:57 PM To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:Re: 305 N. California Hi, Claire, I just got back from walking my dog at 8:30 at night, and it looks like it is a good time to check in with you about the timeline for the code enforcement for the church. As of 19 minutes ago, every parking spot in the lot was taken (except the disabled and that reserved for the physician who has offices there). Cars were lined up on the street on every edge of the church, including cars parked diagonally on the corner of Bryant and N. California. The curbs were lined with cars on both sides of Bryant, three cars were parked in the "No Parking" bike lane side of N. California, one of which was parked both blocking my neighbor's driveway and backed into her garbage can, knocking it half over. Cars extended down South Court, including one parked diagonally on that curb. Two cars were double parked, blocking traffic West-bound on N. California. One car pulled from the curb and made a u-turn, and as one of the double parked cars tried to back into that space the u-turning car jetted into a driveway and almost hit my dog. I understand there are protocols which you have been following, but as a taxpayer I'm pretty sure I am entitled to have the zoning codes enforced in my neighborhood. Would you please let me know the timeline of that enforcement? I am available to talk tomorrow all day. My telephone number is 650-996-3331. I will give you or James a call in the afternoon if you haven't had a chance to get back to me by then. Thank you, Sarah Burgess PS- My husband just let me know that the same parking scenario was going on when he came home from work at about 7 tonight- with the addition of bikes trying to traverse the bike lanes. On Mar 27, 2017, at 5:47 PM, sburgrval@aol.com wrote: Thank you for the update. Just to be clear, all non-permitted uses need to stop while the meeting is set and the discussions take place, correct? So as of this week, all non-permitted use must stop? Sarah Burgess Sent from my iPhone On Mar 27, 2017, at 4:31 PM, Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: The church responded and left a voicemail for Amy French (chief planning official) on Friday. The City left a voicemail with the pastor today but hasn’t heard back. We’ll be looking to set up a meeting with them for later this week thought to discuss ongoing uses at the site. I will keep you updated as additional information is available. 2 Regards, Claire From: Sarah [mailto:sburgrval@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 9:15 PM To: Hodgkins, Claire Cc: Stephens, James Subject: Re: 305 N. California Thank you for the update, Claire. If one of you could please let me know Monday whether the church has responded, and whether a meeting is set or the next steps are being taken, and if so by when, it would be appreciated. I am sure you can understand how frustrating it is for the neighborhood to see everything continuing along without apparent pause. I also feel for all of these tenants, and wonder whether the church has told them that they do not have a permit to rent to them. ISing is advertising for these events, I am sure the physicians have patients who have office visits planned, the music school has students- the longer it goes on without check, the more difficult it is for all parties. I look forward to hearing from you, Sarah Sarah On Mar 23, 2017, at 7:30 PM, Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Sarah, We are going through the appropriate protocols to address more comprehensively the number of unpermitted uses that appear to be occurring at the site. The City has sent an initial letter to the church and gave them until end of day tomorrow to respond to set up a meeting to discuss these uses with the City. They have not yet responded. If we hear from them tomorrow we will set up a time ASAP to discuss these various uses and determine a path forward to addressing them through the appropriate approval process, which would also include ceasing non‐permitted uses in the meantime. if we do not hear from them tomorrow the next step we will take is to send a cease and desist letter for all uses occurring at the site. If they did not desist at that point the City would begin citations. I am out of the office tomorrow but if you have additional questions about the process that we are actively going through right now to address these concerns you can contact James Stephens, our lead code enforcement officer, who is working on this issue. He will be in the office tomorrow. 3 Regards, Claire From: sburgrval@aol.com [mailto:sburgrval@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 6:15 PM To: Hodgkins, Claire Subject: Re: 305 N. California Hi, Claire. It's been a month since our last update. In the meantime, last night on NextDoor Old Palo Alto there was a post seeking tryouts for additional girls for the iSing choir. Notably, the website lists the choir office address as the church, and the notice says they are seeking tryouts for the 300 (!) members of many ages. A look at the website shows that there are also music lessons being offered by the church all afternoon one weekday, as well as a summer camp at the church being offered. I took a walk through the parking lot. I noted that the 3 spaces in front of the day care are posted now, "No Parking 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., M-F" in addition, there is one spot reserved for the Pastor, one disabled parking spot, and one spot "Reserved for Joellen Werne, MD, 9 AM-6 PM" no note of days. I believe this is one of the doctors who now has her offices in the church. I am at a bit of a loss as to why all of these uses continue to occur without permits. Has the church been put on notice to cease this use? It is quite disconcerting for us, as taxpayers, to have flagrant zoning violations occuring in our neighborhood, as well as advertisements to continue these violations into the summer. I just can't understand why the city has not issued an order for all non-permitted operations to end at the church. I would welcome the opportunity to speak with you about this. Are you available by telephone on Friday, 3/24? Thank you, Sarah Burgess -----Original Message----- From: Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: sburgrval <sburgrval@aol.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 23, 2017 11:01 am Subject: RE: 305 N. California Thanks Sarah, I am actively discussing other activities on this site with our code enforcement team. Technically all of these spaces are on the same lot so they can be used by both activities provided that they are not happening concurrently (and it seems like they might be). I’ve asked for additional information in my notice of incompletion attached. 4 Regards, Claire From: sburgrval@aol.com [mailto:sburgrval@aol.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 5:13 PM To: Hodgkins, Claire Subject: Re: 305 N. California Final email of the week, I promise! I just was able to open the documents on the planning department site - I was curious about the 11 parking spaces they site. I believe spaces 9, 10 and 11 belong to PACCC - they are on their property in front of the child care center. Again, I don't know what the agreement is between the two about parking, but those 3 spaces appear to be on PACCC's property. Thanks, Sarah -----Original Message----- From: sburgrval <sburgrval@aol.com> To: Claire.Hodgkins <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Fri, Feb 10, 2017 4:41 pm Subject: Re: 305 N. California Claire, I wanted to also mention that the documents don't include a reference to the ising program given at the Baptist Church - from 2:30 to 7 most nights. Not sure how much of the traffic I see is from that as well. Do they have a permit? My neighbor who sent her kids there said it is about 35 kids per class... http://isingsv.com/the-details/ Thanks, Sarah Burgess -----Original Message----- From: Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Sarah <sburgrval@aol.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 9, 2017 5:10 pm Subject: RE: 305 N. California Sarah, Thanks for your e-mail. Yes, this is the same church and yes, they have been operating without a permit. The City has issued a Notice of Violation for operation of this use without a permit. In response the church has filed an application for a CUP. Please see attached for the Notice of Incompletion that I sent today to the applicant. The code enforcement office working on this case will be out of 5 the office tomorrow but I will be speaking to him on Monday about the status of my review on Monday and next steps. Regards, Claire -----Original Message----- From: Sarah [mailto:sburgrval@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 5:04 PM To: Hodgkins, Claire Subject: 305 N. California I just received notice of the application of the New Mozart School of Music to use 10 classroom spaces at the First Baptist Church. First, could you tell me if this is the same music school that has been using the church, and if so, if they have been operating there without a permit? The present music classes place an undue burden on the neighborhood, in terms of traffic, parking, and even flow of people. We moved into this neighborhood 28 years ago. The Church was a Church- Sunday services, some weddings, some use of the hall. NITC operating behind the church placed little burden on the neighborhood, using only the parking lot. Since the music classes have started, the curbs are full of cars, both on the legal and illegal parking side. Traffic is hugely impacted at the start and finish of classes, it is frankly difficult to even walk my dog on the sidewalk because of the flow of people in and out of the classes. Not only do the drivers illegally park on N. California, they flow into South Court and block vision for ingress and egress into the street by blocking the corners. This is a substantial alteration of the use of the church from what it was when we all bought our property. I heartily object to the classes now present. If this is an increase, it is absolutely absurd. If this is the same school of music, and it has been operating without a use permit, it should be fined and banned. We did not purchase a house in a commercial neighborhood, and should not have this imposed upon us. I would note that unlike other churches who have this use, this church has very few parking spaces in its lot. Thank you, Sarah Burgess 2290 Waverley Street Sarah From:Tim Cain To:Hodgkins, Claire Cc:Margie Cain Subject:305 N. California Ave Date:Monday, February 13, 2017 8:03:49 PM Hello Claire, We have lived 4 houses away from the Baptist Church for 25 years and have always had to just live with the fact that our street, South Court, is prime parking for attenedees of the church. We always wondered why the on-site parking lot isn't often full, but our curb in front of our house almost always is. It sounds like the proposed Music School schedule would make things even worse. 10 classrooms x however many students in attendance in each class sounds like a lot more cars than we all have space for, and every hour on the hour, there would be the prior students being picked up while the next hour's students are being dropped off - making that number double. Would it be possible to require a carpooling arrangement for them, or maybe some kind of "No Classroom Parking Here" signage for us, similar to what we see in the neighborhoods around Castileja School? We have always been accommodating for the church, but this is clearly a private business we are talking about now, in the middle of our R1 zoned neighborhood. If we had known that a business 4 doors down from us was going to use the curb in front of our property as a heavily used set of parallel parking slots, it would have affected our buying decision back when we bought our house. Now we fear it may affect the decision of the next potential buyer, and that seems even worse. Thank you for whatever you can do to improve the quality of life here in our neighborhood. Tim and Margie Cain. 2261 South Court From:Tim Cain To:Hodgkins, Claire Cc:Margie Cain Subject:Re: 305 N. California Ave Date:Tuesday, February 14, 2017 9:34:15 AM Thank you very much for your thorough reply. I believe we are in good hands. Have a good week. Tim and Margie Cain. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:02 AM, Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Tim, Thank you for your e-mail. Please see attached for the Notice of Incompletion that I sent to the applicant last week. Although I do have to allow them the opportunity to resubmit; based on the information provided thus far it is not clear that they can meet parking requirements for this use (considered a personal service use), as outlined in Chapter 18.52 of our Palo Alto Municipal Code. Although pickup and drop off is allowed, there is required to be sufficient parking on site for the proposed use (i.e. not relying on street parking). I should note though for clarification that the applicant is primarily proposing one-on-one lessons with one class of up to ten students. Parking for the personal service use is based on the square footage of area used for the classes. That said, it still doesn’t appear that they are meeting parking requirements. While the applicant is working to address these comments and does have the opportunity to respond before I issue a decision on the project I will be working with code enforcement to determine next steps. Regards, Claire From: Tim Cain [mailto:tim.cain@att.net] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 8:03 PMTo: Hodgkins, ClaireCc: Margie CainSubject: 305 N. California Ave Hello Claire, We have lived 4 houses away from the Baptist Church for 25 years and have always had to just live with the fact that our street, South Court, is prime parking for attenedees of the church. We always wondered why the on-site parking lot isn't often full, but our curb in front of our house almost always is. It sounds like the proposed Music School schedule would make things even worse. 10 classrooms x however many students in attendance in each class sounds like a lot From:Tara D. Stein To:Hodgkins, Claire Cc:C. Diane Christensen Subject:Re Denial of conditional use permit for the First Baptist Church at 305 N California Ave. Date:Friday, May 05, 2017 5:14:35 PM Claire, I just saw your Notice of Proposed Director’s Decision, denying the request of the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto for a conditional use permit for the Music School and don’t understand why you denied the permit. I live in one of the houses across the street during weekdays (and some weekends) and have very much enjoyed hearing the music emanating from the Church and seeing all the children. On many weekends they give concerts and I can hear the beautiful music. To me it has been a source of pleasure and I consider it a community resource. I have to park on the street and have never had a problem finding parking, so am wondering if it is just because there isn’t adequate parking on the Church’s premises to accommodate everyone—though the Church has been there for 100 years or so, well before there was a need for parking lots for vehicles. Anyway, I am saddened to hear the news and do hope they will appeal. Tara Stein From:John McGilvray To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:Re: Status of New Mozart School of Music CUP Date:Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:54:50 AM Hi, Claire - Thanks for the quick response. And I appreciate receiving notification of the appeal once it is scheduled.. John On 5/16/2017 7:44 AM, Hodgkins, Claire wrote: John, You are correct that I have tentatively denied the CUP request; however, the applicant has requested an appeal for this project. The date of that appeal to the Planning and Transportation Commission has not yet been set but I’m happy to let you know once it is. Current planning is not involved in code enforcement so I am cc’ing one of our code enforcement officers to contact you regarding your concerns about the ongoing operations at the church. Regards, Claire From: John McGilvray [mailto:jdmcg@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 4:22 PMTo: Hodgkins, ClaireSubject: Status of New Mozart School of Music CUP Dear Claire - I spoke to you a few months ago regarding the New Mozart application for a conditional use permit (CUP) for music classes to be taught at the Baptist Church on California Avenue. It appears that the CUP was not approved. Is this correct? We're concerned because we understand that the classes currently being taught at the church are without a supporting CUP. If there is no approved CUP, why are classes continuing to be held at that location? Parking for non-religious activities at the church continue to create congestion problems on our one-block street. Please let me know of the current status of New Mozart's (or any other fee- based instruction) classes held at the Baptist Church. Thank you for your assistance. John McGilvray 2300 South Court Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-0421 more cars than we all have space for, and every hour on the hour, there would be the prior students being picked up while the next hour's students are being dropped off - making that number double. Would it be possible to require a carpooling arrangement for them, or maybe some kind of "No Classroom Parking Here" signage for us, similar to what we see in the neighborhoods around Castileja School? We have always been accommodating for the church, but this is clearly a private business we are talking about now, in the middle of our R1 zoned neighborhood. If we had known that a business 4 doors down from us was going to use the curb in front of our property as a heavily used set of parallel parking slots, it would have affected our buying decision back when we bought our house. Now we fear it may affect the decision of the next potential buyer, and that seems even worse. Thank you for whatever you can do to improve the quality of life here in our neighborhood. Tim and Margie Cain.2261 South Court <mime-attachment> Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Councilmembers. These plans are available to the public online and 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 “305 N California” 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 “2017-0417 Final Submitted Plans” Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8132) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 6/14/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Downtown Parking Management Implementation #1 Title: Study Session on the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study Implementation Plan From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation This is a study session; no formal action is recommended. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) may discuss and provide comments and ask questions. Another item will be scheduled in the future for action/recommendations. Report Summary Over the last several years, the Palo Alto City Council has directed staff to approach parking and traffic congestion in Palo Alto from three different directions: by implementing programs to reduce reliance on the private automobile (i.e. transportation demand reduction), by adding supplemental parking supply where appropriate, and by better managing existing parking resources. To examine the management of parking in the Downtown core, Staff engaged an experienced parking consultant to complete the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study. This study examined all of the City’s current, planned, and potential parking management strategies within the Downtown parking color zone areas. The resulting Existing Conditions Analysis is included as Attachment A. The Recommendations are included as Attachment B. The Palo Alto City Council received the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study in April 2017 and directed staff to conduct public outreach and work with the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Finance Committee to refine recommendations related to the introduction of various parking management strategies in Downtown Palo Alto, and return with various phasing, finance, and implementation plans for the Council’s consideration in the fall of 2017. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Staff recognizes these are complex subjects of great interest to the community, and that the recommendations—if ultimately adopted—would result in noticeable changes for residents, employees, and visitors to downtown, as well as changes to the City’s internal processes and organization. For this reason, the City’s parking consultant, Dixon Resources, will present an overview of the two documents and provide an opportunity for questions and discussion before staff schedules an item to get the Commission’s input on key next steps. Staff believes paid parking holds great promise as a more up to date approach to parking management for a vibrant commercial district than the current color zone time restriction system, and would provide a potential funding source for transportation demand management solutions to address the root cause of parking problems and traffic congestion, a large part of which stems from employee commute trips to downtown by single-occupant vehicles (SOVs). Background and Discussion At a high level, results of the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study assessment of existing conditions show something that many regular visitors to Downtown have known for some time: parking is a problem. The report shows that parking occupancy rates are extremely high, parking turnover is not in keeping with other, similar commercial districts, and the color zone system, which was instituted to force turnover, has probably exceeded its useful life (see Attachment A for a full review of existing conditions). With this as background, the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study provides analysis and recommendations aimed at (1) strengthening downtown as a vibrant commercial district where the available parking supply is better managed, such that (2) customers can have improved access to retail and services, (3) employees are better able to long-term park in area garages and lots if they need it, and (4) pricing better reflects the true cost of parking, encouraging employees and other long-term parkers to use alternatives to the single-occupant vehicles wherever possible. A list of recommendations is included in Attachment B to address these four objectives and the problems identified. The recommendations include replacement of the “color zone” time restriction system with paid parking on street using a combination of parking meters, pay stations, and mobile pay options. As will be explained, the policy decisions that ultimately have to be made to implement the recommendations include the threshold question regarding whether to remove the color zone time restriction system and replace it with paid parking, as well as the following: Desired parking pricing including the hours/days for enforcement Types of revenue collection equipment (e.g. meters, pay station) and mobile pay options Needed enforcement changes, including potential use of license plate recognition technology and citation pricing and processing changes Related changes to parking garage and lot permit types, costs, and hours for enforcement Implementation schedule City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 These decisions would affect the experience of residents, employers and their employees, and visitors to Downtown, and could also mean changes within the City organization. At a minimum, internal changes would include automation of the permitting process (i.e. the addition of online permit sales) for downtown parking garages, the potential use of new technologies for enforcement, and the procurement and oversight of additional contracts for service such as installation and maintenance of parking meters and pay stations. According to the report, paid parking would generate net revenues (over and above costs) within a couple of years. It is important to note that these projections do not factor in any operating costs currently necessary to oversee the parking initiatives. Once the necessary operating costs are factored into the analysis, any net excess revenues could be used to support the nascent Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA). The PATMA has been implementing pilot programs testing incentives that could encourage commuters to leave their cars at home when they come to Downtown. A long-term, stable funding stream could allow the PATMA to scale the successful pilot programs to reach more people. On April 11, 2017, the Palo Alto City Council received the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study, and directed staff to conduct public outreach and work with the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Finance Committee to refine recommendations related to the introduction of various parking management strategies in Downtown Palo Alto, and return with various phasing, finance, and implementation plans for the Council’s consideration in the fall of 2017; and, direct staff to coordinate paid parking in Downtown Palo Alto pricing with Residential Preferential Permit Parking (RPP) Programs, garage permit pricing, and lot permit pricing. Action minutes from the April 11, 2017 City Council meeting are included as Attachment C. Downtown Parking Management Implementation Roles and Responsibilities: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 S ource: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, June 2017 Analysis Regulating parking is consistent with the City’s three-pronged approach to reduce traffic and parking demand and to manage parking within the Downtown core. Transitioning to paid parking downtown would also be consistent with the City’s sustainability goals and encourage customer turn-over for retailers. It could also improve the City’s own customer service and generate revenues to fund the PATMA (in lieu of a business tax or other funding source). In addition, the project would address the following existing Comprehensive Plan policies, goals and programs: Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels Policy T-2: Consider economic, environmental and social cost issues in local transportation decisions Goal T-8: Attractive, Convenient Public and Private Parking Facilities Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address long-range needs Program T-49: Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies for Downtown Palo Alto Resource Impact City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Implementing the staff recommendation would involve the use of current staff resources in FY 2018 for community engagement and development of a phasing and implementation plan. The resulting implementation plan would lay out a comprehensive strategy associated with parking initiatives in the Downtown core. While the anticipated reorganization and scaling of parking activities necessary to implement and maintain a paid parking program will require up-front investments, including possible additional staffing, contractual services, and infrastructure, preliminary staff forecasts show that net revenues will exceed expenses within a few years, and have the potential to generate a long-term funding stream for the PATMA. Further analysis of required expenditures during the first few years, along with cash flow financing of the required investments and anticipated changes in operating expenses will need to be determined as the program is developed. The City Manager anticipates conversations with the Finance Committee and the City Council on these subjects as these issues are explored further. Environmental Review This study session is not a “project” requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments Staff is coordinating with the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and will collect community input in summer and fall of 2017. Next Steps Summer and fall of 2017 will be used to gather community input. Staff will return to the Planning and Transportation Commission in August to refine the study recommendations and to develop a phasing and implementation plan. Separately, staff of multiple City departments will be working to assess some of the possible implications for internal City departments in summer and fall of 2017. Staff will also meet with the Finance Committee in August and October to discuss a finance plan and permit pricing and structure. The results of these efforts would be brought back to the City Council for input and policy decisions in late 2017. If a decision is made to proceed with paid parking at that time, it could be operational by the end of 2018. Alternative Actions This item is a study session, and there is not a requested PTC action at this time. Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Philip Kamhi, Transportation Programs Manager Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 (650) 329-2520 (650) 329-2679 philip.kamhi@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A - Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study Existing Conditions (PDF) Attachment B - Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study Recommendations (PDF) Attachment C - City Council Action Minutes 2017-04-11 (PDF) City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study: Existing Conditions Analysis 3639 Midway Drive, Suite B345 San Diego, CA 92110-5254 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 2 Table of Contents I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 A. Study Overview ................................................................................................................................. 5 1. Objectives...................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Project Methodology .................................................................................................................... 6 3. Prior Studies .................................................................................................................................. 7 a) Downtown Parking Occupancy Data ......................................................................................... 8 b) Downtown Parking Garage Study ............................................................................................. 8 4. Study Limitations and Considerations .......................................................................................... 8 B. Demand Management ...................................................................................................................... 9 1. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) .............................................................................. 9 2. Parking Supply ............................................................................................................................... 9 3. Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) .......................................................................................... 9 C. Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 10 II. Phase 1: Existing Conditions Analysis ................................................................................................. 12 A. Color Zone History .......................................................................................................................... 12 B. Color Zone Parking .......................................................................................................................... 13 C. Parking Inventory: City of Palo Alto Public Parking......................................................................... 13 1. Types of Parking Available .......................................................................................................... 13 2. Total Parking Supply by Zone ...................................................................................................... 14 3. Hourly On-Street Parking ............................................................................................................ 16 4. Hourly and Permit Off-Street Parking ......................................................................................... 19 D. Current Parking Policies & Regulations ........................................................................................... 20 1. Permits ........................................................................................................................................ 20 a) Employee and Employer Parking Permits - Downtown Color Zones ...................................... 20 b) Employer and Employee Parking Permits – Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program 20 c) Daily Parking Permits .............................................................................................................. 22 2. Residential Parking Program ....................................................................................................... 23 3. Valet Parking ............................................................................................................................... 23 E. City of Palo Alto: Enforcement of Color Zones ............................................................................... 23 F. Serco: RPP Zone Enforcement ........................................................................................................ 24 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 3 G. SP Plus ............................................................................................................................................. 24 III. Occupancy Summary ...................................................................................................................... 26 A. Thursday On-Street ......................................................................................................................... 26 1. Overall ......................................................................................................................................... 26 2. Blue Zone .................................................................................................................................... 29 3. Lime Zone .................................................................................................................................... 32 4. Coral Zone ................................................................................................................................... 34 5. Purple Zone ................................................................................................................................. 36 B. Thursday Off-Street......................................................................................................................... 39 1. Overall ......................................................................................................................................... 39 2. Hourly .......................................................................................................................................... 41 3. Permit .......................................................................................................................................... 43 C. Saturday On-Street ......................................................................................................................... 44 1. Overall ......................................................................................................................................... 44 2. Blue Zone .................................................................................................................................... 47 3. Lime Zone .................................................................................................................................... 49 4. Coral Zone ................................................................................................................................... 51 5. Purple Zone ................................................................................................................................. 53 D. Saturday Off-Street ......................................................................................................................... 56 1. Overall ......................................................................................................................................... 56 2. Hourly .......................................................................................................................................... 57 3. Permit .......................................................................................................................................... 60 E. Heat Maps ....................................................................................................................................... 60 F. Vehicle Overstay ............................................................................................................................. 64 G. Changing Colored Zones ................................................................................................................. 66 H. Permit Occupancy vs. Permit Sales ................................................................................................. 68 IV. Downtown Parking Intercept Survey & Stakeholder Involvement ................................................. 70 A. Parking Intercept Surveys ............................................................................................................... 70 Appendix A – Stakeholder Meeting Notes .................................................................................................. 72 A. Stakeholder Meetings ..................................................................................................................... 72 1. Stakeholder Meeting #1 .............................................................................................................. 72 2. Stakeholder Meeting #2 .............................................................................................................. 73 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 4 3. Stakeholder Meeting #3 .............................................................................................................. 74 4. Stakeholder Meeting #4 .............................................................................................................. 75 Appendix B - Survey .................................................................................................................................... 78 Appendix C -Comparable Cities Analysis ..................................................................................................... 90 5. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 90 6. Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 90 a) Paid Parking and Technology .................................................................................................. 90 b) Parking Permits ....................................................................................................................... 91 7. Cities ............................................................................................................................................ 92 a) Alameda, CA ............................................................................................................................ 92 b) Berkeley, CA ............................................................................................................................ 93 c) Monterey, CA .......................................................................................................................... 94 d) Mountain View, CA ................................................................................................................. 96 e) Pasadena, CA ........................................................................................................................... 98 f) Redwood City, CA .................................................................................................................... 99 g) San Jose, CA ........................................................................................................................... 100 h) San Mateo, CA ....................................................................................................................... 100 i) Santa Monica, CA .................................................................................................................. 102 j) San Rafael, CA ....................................................................................................................... 104 k) Sausalito, CA .......................................................................................................................... 105 l) Walnut Creek, CA .................................................................................................................. 106 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 5 I. Introduction A. Study Overview The City of Palo Alto retained Dixon Resources Unlimited (DIXON) through a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) process to complete the City’s Downtown Parking Management Study. The professional services included a comprehensive evaluation and plan for parking in Downtown Palo Alto, including the development of an effective pricing and management strategy to maximize the utility of existing parking and to better serve visitors, residents and employees. The Study incorporated two phases: Phase 1: Existing Parking Conditions Analysis Phase 2: Paid Parking Recommendations The Study elements include the following major efforts: • Detailed inventory of parking supply • Review of existing parking conditions • Comprehensive parking utilization data collection over a three-month period in May, September and October 2016 • Analysis of existing parking demands • Distribution of parking intercept surveys • Series of meetings and collaboration efforts with key stakeholders • Evaluation of current parking policies and regulations • Analysis of current parking management • Proposed parking management strategies for Downtown parking Based on the above study elements, a series of parking issues were identified and several parking improvement approaches were developed to address the existing and future parking demand of Downtown Palo Alto. 1. Objectives For the two phases, the City outlined three (3) key objectives for the completion and success of the Study. These objectives were identified in the project kick-off meeting with the City and correlate with the goals stated in the City’s RFP. The objectives are listed below: 1. To identify existing parking utilization and parking patterns including occupancy and turnover. 2. To recommend parking management strategies that maximize the supply and utilization of Downtown parking spaces, including but not limited to zone and time restrictions. 3. To develop recommendations for a parking management strategy that may include paid parking in Downtown Palo Alto for on- and off-street parking spaces. It is not the intent of the Study to advocate for paid parking in Downtown Palo Alto or to determine the exact number of spaces needed to handle peak demand periods. It is however to develop a series of viable strategies to better equip the City in its effort to manage parking demand throughout Downtown Palo C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 6 Alto, recognizing that managing short and long-term parking effectively is good for businesses, residents, and can help to shift long-term parkers to other modes of travel over time. 2. Project Methodology The project methodology for this study was divided into several components. Initially, all relevant data from the City was reviewed and summarized including current parking operations, permit figures (residential and employee), citations and enforcement, the SP Plus valet program, current plans for a city wayfinding and branding campaign, vendor contracts and overall City objectives for the short and long- term. This information provided the baseline for the study’s existing conditions, data collection and recommendations. The Study’s core team consisted of the City’s Transportation Division staff and DIXON. This group was focused on managing the day-to-day aspects of the project and was responsible for meeting on a bi- weekly basis and coordinating the efforts of the stakeholder involvement. Other parties that were actively involved included staff from the Police, Department of Administrative Services, and Finance Departments, key stakeholders including local developers, small business owners, residents and the newly formed Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA). A total of five (5) stakeholder meetings were held with an invited group during the Study. The Study’s first meeting served as a project kick-off meeting to introduce the proposed Study including data collection plans, meetings, project objectives and goals. The kick-off meeting also provided stakeholders the opportunity to outline their concerns and issues related to parking in Palo Alto. The remaining three stakeholder meetings consisted of a review of data collection and initial findings, stakeholder feedback and input and an outline of proposed recommendations based on the results of the Study. In-person and online parking intercept surveys were conducted to gather additional information and input. The in-person surveys were conducted during each of the three data collection periods while the online survey portion was posted on the City’s parking webpage. Survey respondents included area employees, residents, local businesses, Palo Alto visitors and stakeholders. The surveys provided further insight into individuals’ experiences and perceptions of parking in Palo Alto. Over 350 surveys were collected between the online and in-person surveys. The project methodology revolved heavily around the Study’s data collection. As mentioned previously, a comprehensive parking utilization data collection effort was required over a three-month period. Initially the data collection was to be over three consecutive months (i.e., May, June and July). However, based upon the potential impacts of the summer months, the data collection schedule was adjusted with the first collection occurring in May and the second and third collections in September and October. The Study’s area of focus was Palo Alto’s downtown commercial core and the immediate side streets. All immediate public on-street and off-street parking (public surface lots and garages) was included in the Study’s data collection and analysis. It’s important to note that the immediate impacts of the commercial core on the surrounding neighborhoods was taken into consideration. Though this Study acknowledges that the findings and recommendations are to be considered in correlation with the RPP program in surrounding the residential areas, the primary objective was the commercial core. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 7 Each data collection effort took place over a two-day period, one weekday, Thursday, and one weekend day, Saturday. The days were divided into four collection time periods to capture parking occupancy and turnover throughout the day. Data was collected between 9:00am and 8:00pm during the first data collection effort in May and split into four periods as mentioned before, 9:00am (Morning), 12:00pm (Afternoon), 3:00pm (Mid-afternoon) and 6:00pm (Evening). The periods lasted an estimated ninety- minutes each. It was observed during May that the evening occupancy period was set too early, possibly missing a later peak in occupancy that results from the downtown nightlife and dining. To account for this, the September and October evening data collection periods were adjusted to begin one-hour later at 7:00pm and conclude between 8:30pm and 9:00pm. A brief table outlines the data collection below. Start/End Time Data Collection Month May September October Morning 9:00am - ~11:00am 9:00am - ~11:00am 9:00am - ~11:00am Afternoon 12:00pm - ~2:00pm 12:00pm - ~2:00pm 12:00pm - ~2:00pm Mid-afternoon 3:00pm - ~5:00pm 3:00pm - ~5:00pm 3:00pm - ~5:00pm Evening 6:00pm - ~8:00pm 7:00pm - ~9:00pm 7:00pm - ~9:00pm Table 1: Data collection periods As mentioned previously, September and October’s data collections were altered slightly from May’s collection. During the May data collection, the team utilized temporary capture of license plate data for all on and off-street hourly parking spaces to calculate both occupancy and turnover, both Thursday and Saturday. Occupancy is the percentage of parking spaces that are full on a street or in a facility, which is calculated by dividing the number of vehicles counted over the total number of spaces. Turnover requires license plate captures for tracking individual cars to determine length of stay and movement between spaces. During May, no data was collected for off-street permit spaces, neither in surface lots nor garages. After reviewing the initial data from May and discussing the data collection methodology with the City, the fall data collection efforts were expanded to include off-street permit spaces. Unlike the data collection of hourly spaces, which captured turnover, only occupancy counts were completed for the permit spaces. In addition, provided the City does not enforce on weekends, on and off-street time limits were no longer considered. Thus, capturing turnover on the weekends was unnecessary for this Study given that one may remain parked in a space for any amount of time. As a result, only car counts for occupancy data were captured on Saturdays for on-street and off-street, for both hourly and permit spaces. This data collection approach applied to both September and October. Following each data collection effort, the data was analyzed and shared internally with City staff and presented at subsequent stakeholder meetings. This method provided the City and stakeholder members the opportunity to monitor the project’s status as it moved forward, and observe any trends or changes experienced in occupancy data for Downtown. 3. Prior Studies In speaking with the City, it was acknowledged that paid parking in the form of on-street meters did exist in Palo Alto. In 1947, City officials installed parking meters in Downtown however, in the mid-1970s the C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 8 same meters were removed in an effort to make the shopping district around Downtown more competitive with Stanford Shopping Center. An inquiry into the City’s previous parking studies and evaluations was conducted to better contextualize the history of parking in Palo Alto. Internally in 1986, the City conducted a study that examined parking, traffic and land use conditions in the Downtown area. The results of the study altered Downtown zoning restrictions, making the land use and zoning regulations more restrictive. Based on a review of the study’s material, the information is not pertinent to the current study. Beyond the City’s internal study, no further information related to past parking studies completed by any outside firms was received. a) Downtown Parking Occupancy Data Since 2011, the City has collected Downtown parking occupancy data annually during each spring and fall to measure parking trends. Data collection has occurred for on-street spaces since 2011 while off-street occupancy collection was measured from March 2014 through October 2014. The City’s occupancy results are accessible through the City’s website. b) Downtown Parking Garage Study In 2012 the City awarded Sandis Engineers a contract for a Garage Feasibility and Attendant Parking Study. The City identified five existing surface lot sites for the construction of new parking structures throughout Downtown, including: 1) Lot D on the corner of Hamilton Avenue & Waverly Street, 2) Lots E/G on Gilman Street between Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue, 3) Lot O on High Street between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue, 4) Lot P on High Street between University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue, and 5) Urban Lane between Palo Alto Medical Foundation and University Avenue Circle Mall. In addition to the five locations identified, the project included the study of the City’s existing garage infrastructure for the implementation of attendant parking (staffed attendant booths) to increase parking supply. As of January 2017, City Council has directed staff to move forward with the design for a new parking structure on Lot D at the corner of Hamilton Ave & Waverly Street, currently a public surface parking lot for hourly parkers. Phase 1 services which include an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as well as preliminary and schematic designs is set to take place in early 2017. In tandem with the City’s solicitation for a comprehensive parking study, the City also engaged the parking technology consultant, Walker Parking, on projects to improve parking signage and branding utilizing Hunt Design, as well as address the need for automatic parking guidance systems (APGS) equipment and PARCs (Parking Access and Revenue Controls). The initial project completion date for this project is Summer 2018. 4. Study Limitations and Considerations • Because the current make up of parking operations within the City is spread across multiple departments, parking related material and documentation is also organized as such. Locating information attaining to a certain parking operation (e.g., permit revenue) may require contacting multiple departments and/or staff to retrieve accurate information about the subject. • The disparity between weekday and weekend rules for off-street permitted spaces needed to be taken into consideration in this study. During weekdays (Monday – Friday) the City’s designated C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 9 ‘Permit Parking Only’ spaces are specific to permit holders from 8:00am – 5:00pm. After 5:00pm on weekdays and on weekends, permit parking is available to the public. As a result, the data collection methodology for the second and third data collection efforts was adjusted for the Study. During the May data collection effort, data was only collected for hourly time limit spaces and not for permitted spaces. However, for the second and third data collection rounds the study included the permitted spaces in the form of occupancy counts. This enabled the study to account for all occupancy and provide the study with more accurate data related to the number of motorists parking Downtown during the weekend and evenings. • For the purposes of the study it is important to note that there were numerous on-street construction projects occurring throughout the downtown during the first data collection opportunity. The construction sites were found primarily along the 200 and 300 blocks of Lytton Ave on the north study area boundary; on the 400 block of Cowper Street; and along the 500 block of High Street. Furthermore, private lots and garages were not considered in the study, which could become a resource for the City in terms of evening or shared parking in the future. B. Demand Management Over the past two years the City has been engaged in reducing parking and traffic demand throughout the downtown core and the surrounding neighborhoods. The effort has been channeled through three different approaches, which include: 1. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) The TDM approach has included the formation of a Transportation Management Association, maintenance of a free shuttle program, and the City’s further involvement with rideshare and public transportation applications. The objective of the free shuttle program is to provide accessibility in hopes of better supporting the surrounding communities and reducing parking demand downtown. One of the Transportation Management Association’s objectives is to manage and market alternative modes of transit in the Downtown areas to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, as well as collect data on modes of travel. 2. Parking Supply The City has also been working to address the existing issues related to parking supply for both on-street and off-street parking throughout downtown Palo Alto. The City has identified three possible methods for addressing this issue including garage technology, valet-assistance and satellite parking. The City’s plan regarding garage technology is to explore ways to upgrade the capabilities of its existing garages with revenue access controls and parking guidance systems. As part of the valet-assist pilot program, the City entered a contract with SP+ to provide valet operations in Lot R (Alma/High garage) to maximize the parking capacity of the garage. The program has since expanded to Lot S/L (Bryan/Lytton garage) and Lot WC (Webster/Cowper garage). 3. Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) The City is now more than a year into implementation of the Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program. The RPP program is intended to preserve parking in the residential neighborhoods for residents, C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 10 who have witnessed a significant increase in non-residential parking. The program is designed to provide residents preferential on-street parking by implementing restrictions on non-residents. The RPP district allows for two-hour parking only for those without permits and is enforced Monday through Friday, 8:00am – 5:00pm. Palo Alto’s program affords residents priority on-street parking within the modified district boundaries through the sale of permits. In addition, the RPP program makes a select number of permits available to Downtown and SOFA-area (small district located south of Forest Ave and north of Addison Ave between Alma St and Ramona St) commuter employees to help balance the parking demand from retail and commercial uses in each district while the City continues its efforts to create additional parking supply and shift commuters to alternate modes. C. Study Area The study area is bounded by Lytton Ave to the north, Webster Ave to the east, Forest Ave to the south, and Alma Street to the west. These boundary streets surround Palo Alto’s Downtown business district. The retail, restaurant and other commercial land uses are found primarily along University Ave and Hamilton Ave but are also spread among a number of the cross streets between Alma and Waverly. The eastern-most segment of the study area is comprised of a mixture of commercial business and residential land uses. With the implementation and initial success of the City’s Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program, the Study did not expand into residential areas that border the immediate downtown to the north, east and south. The study area is divided into four zones which are referred to by colors: Blue Zone, Lime Zone, Coral Zone, and Purple Zone. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 11 Figure 1: City of Palo Alto Downtown parking map C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 12 II. Phase 1: Existing Conditions Analysis A. Color Zone History In 1997, after a two-year trial period the City Council approved the implementation of the Restrictive Parking Zone program. This program established four color zones within the Downtown Business District and prohibited re-parking within the same zone during the same business day. The program was established to address repeat parkers, the practice of employees who park in on-street spaces and move their vehicle from one parking space to another nearby when their allotted time is expired, consistently taking up the most convenient parking in one area. Additional reasons for the program were to combat long-term parking issues and to increase the number of available parking spaces for visitors traveling to the downtown area. When the color zones were initially implemented, the Coral Zone only extended to the north side of Forest Avenue. However, the Library located on the south side of Forest Avenue was not covered by the zone. Due to consistent abuse of the Library parking lot, in 2011 a request to extend the zone to include the lot as well as the adjacent on-street parking spaces along Bryant Street in front of the Library was submitted. This resolution was passed in July of 2011, and now extends the Coral Zone to include the Library lot and adjacent on-street parking. As part of the City’s effort to educate the community and visitors, City staff in collaboration with the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce formed the Parking Committee in 1994. An initial objective of the Committee was producing an intuitive parking brochure that clearly illustrated the locations and color zones of available parking in downtown. The brochure was also mailed to all the downtown merchants. In addition, preceding the official color zone effective date, the City replaced all parking rule signs downtown with signs that indicated the parking zone and associated rules. The Parking Committee also held special events and training sessions that educated the community, employers and employees about the new parking rules. Over the course of the first month of the program, the City’s parking enforcement officers issued warnings rather than citations in a customer-friendly effort to educate the public about the new restrictions. In addition to a warning notice, officers included a copy of the parking brochure. In comparison with the number of citations issued in the same area the previous year, the color zone implementation resulted in 2,889 fewer citations in 1995. The City confirmed a compliance rate of 97.3 percent within the first nine months of the post warning-period. The initial evaluation of the program and its success was dependent on multiple factors including spillover into the surrounding neighborhoods, availability of parking spaces, availability and demand for parking permits, as well as the general feedback from merchants, visitors and the community. Overall, the program was deemed a success amongst most businesses and restaurant employers, citing that they felt it had increased the number of available parking spaces. However, in 2004, the City witnessed an increase in complaints of repeat parkers in the same zone multiple times per day. As a response, the City implemented a series of 30-minute short-term parking spaces identified with green curb paint. This would allow visitors to utilize these short-term spaces for C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 13 quick errands but also allow visitors to park in a 2-hour space in the same color zone later without receiving a citation. In addition to this, the City also agreed to grant a one-time dismissal per person in the event a complaint or appeal was received. B. Color Zone Parking As mentioned, the downtown business district of Palo Alto is divided into four color-coded parking zones: Blue Zone, Lime Zone, Coral Zone, and Purple Zone. There are two- and three-hour time limits for on- street and off-street parking within the zones. Once a motorist has parked in a zone and the time limit has expired, the motorist must move their vehicle out of that zone. A motorist’s vehicle is not allowed to park in the same color zone more than once within the same enforcement day. Outside of the downtown color zones within the city’s RPP zones, vehicles can park for a maximum of two-hours. However, the thirty- minute green parking zones, yellow commercial loading zones, white passenger loading zones and blue disabled designated spaces are exempt from the color zone re-parking requirement. Lastly, colored zone time limits and RPP areas are enforced between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm on weekdays, while no parking restrictions are enforced on regular City holidays or on weekends. C. Parking Inventory: City of Palo Alto Public Parking 1. Types of Parking Available Downtown Palo Alto provides multiple parking choices including: Types of Parking Available Time Limit Time-Limit Non-Metered On-Street Parking 2-hours Time-Limit Non-Metered Off-Street (Surface Lot) Parking 2-hours Time-Limit Non-Metered Off-Street (Garage) Parking 3-hours Employee Permit Parking Off-Street (Surface Lot / Garage) Daily Daily Permit Parking Off-Street (Surface Lot / Garage) Daily Private Off-Street Parking n/a Table 2: Types of parking in Downtown Palo Alto A field audit was completed to identify the number and types of parking spaces available in Downtown for both on-street and off-street City operated parking spaces (hourly time limit and permitted). The assessment determined that there are an estimated 1,237 on-street parking spaces, 1,372 off-street hourly public parking spaces, 1,811 off-street permit parking spaces (surface lot and garage), for an estimated total of 4,389 spaces within the downtown study area. The total number of spaces included specialized spaces such as disabled spaces, motorcycle spaces, electric vehicle charging spaces, and loading zones. Figure 2 shows the parking space percentage breakdown by space type while Figure 3 shows the total parking supply on and off-street. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 14 2. Total Parking Supply by Zone Color Zone On-Street Off-Street – Garage Off-Street Surface Lot Total Blue Zone 420 589 143 1152 Lime Zone 241 688 274 1203 Coral Zone 273 755 166 1194 Purple Zone 303 345 192 840 Table 3: Total parking supply on-street, off-street garage / surface lot) by color zone Table 4 demonstrates the total number of parking spaces for each color zone within the study area. The Blue Zone, because of the prevalent number of residential streets in the zone, has a greater number of on-street parking spaces compared to the other three zones. The Purple Zone consists of the least amount of overall parking when compared to the other zones. It should be noted that the 800 High Garage resides outside the immediate study area, south of Forest Ave on High St., however is still considered part of the Purple Zone. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 15 More than one-third (41%) of the parking supply in downtown Palo Alto is comprised of permit parking, either in the surface lots or in the garages. The remaining 59% is a combination of on and off-street hourly parking. An estimated 72% of parking Downtown is off-street parking, whether it be garage hourly and permit parking or surface lot hourly and permit parking. 831 1546 541 265 1237 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Garage - Hourly Garage - Permit Surface Lot- Hourly Surface Lot - Permit On-street - Hourly Total Parking Supply On and Off-Street Figure 3: City of Palo Alto Downtown parking total parking supply on and off-street. Figure 2: City of Palo Alto Downtown parking space percentage breakdown by space type 28% 31% 41% Percentage of Spaces in Study Area On-Street - Hourly Off-Street - Hourly Off-Street - Permit C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 16 3. Hourly On-Street Parking Tables 1 through 4 list the inventory of on-street parking spaces by street, block face number and type of parking. This is two-hour time limit parking and consists of all on-street spaces within the four-color zones. As seen in Table 1 and Table 2, on-street parking comprises 28% of the public parking available in Downtown Palo Alto. Blue Zone Street/Block Space Count Loading Zone Motorcycle TOTAL Cowper St. 400 23 2 25 500 23 23 600 30 30 Webster St. 400 15 500 23 1 24 600 26 26 Kipling St. 400 25 25 Tasso St. 400 14 14 Lytton Ave. 400 24 24 500 6 6 University Ave. 400 35 2 6 43 500 35 2 8 45 Hamilton Ave. 400 38 38 500 35 35 Forest Ave. 400 26 26 500 21 21 Table 4: Downtown on-street parking inventory, Blue Zone C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 17 Lime Zone Street/Block Space Count Loading Zone Motorcycle TOTAL Waverley St. 400 30 30 500 31 1 32 600 23 23 Florence St. 400 13 2 15 Gilman St. 600 11 11 Lytton Ave. 300 32 32 University Ave. 300 37 7 44 Hamilton Ave. 300 25 25 Forest Ave. 300 29 29 Coral Zone Street/Block Space Count Loading Zone Motorcycle TOTAL Bryant St. 400 14 2 16 500 34 2 1 37 600 22 1 23 Ramona St. 400 28 2 30 500 27 4 31 600 21 1 22 Lytton St. 200 24 24 University Ave. 200 34 2 5 41 Hamilton Ave. 200 24 2 26 Forest Ave. 200 23 23 Table 5: Downtown on-street inventory, Lime Zone Table 6: Downtown on-street inventory, Coral Zone C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 18 Purple Zone Street/Block Space Count Loading Zone Motorcycle TOTAL Emerson St. 400 31 1 32 500 28 1 29 600 28 28 High St. 400 19 2 21 500 21 2 23 600 27 Alma St. 400 0 0 500 11 11 600 15 1 16 Lytton Ave. 100 25 1 26 University Ave. 100 22 2 3 24 Hamilton Av. 100 30 2 32 Forest Ave. 100 34 34 Table 7: Downtown on-street inventory, Purple Zone C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 19 4. Hourly and Permit Off-Street Parking Hourly and Permit Off-Street Parking Surface Lot/Garage Space Counts Permit Hourly Total Garages Garage B (Private garage with city hourly use) 0 63 63 Garage CC (Civic Center) 509 183 692 Garage CW (Cowper Webster) 388 201 589 Garage Q (Private garage with city permit use) 134 0 134 Garage R (Alma/High) 134 77 211 Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 381 307 688 Surface Lots Lot A 0 68 68 Lot C 27 25 52 Lot D 0 86 86 Lot E 34 0 34 Lot F 0 46 46 Lot G 53 0 53 Lot H 0 91 91 Lot K 43 12 55 Lot N 0 46 46 Lot O 0 78 78 Lot P 0 51 51 Lot T 24 28 52 Lot X 31 0 31 Total Spaces 1811 1372 3183 There are a total of four off-street locations, one surface lot and three garages that are permit only lots. There are also eight locations that are hourly parking only, one garage and seven surface lots. It should be noted that Garage B is a private garage that supplies city parking on an hourly basis. The remaining lots and garages are a mixture of hourly and permit parking – these permit locations allow both daily and employee permits. Table 8: Downtown off-street parking, hourly and permit spaces C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 20 D. Current Parking Policies & Regulations 1. Permits a) Employee and Employer Parking Permits - Downtown Color Zones Palo Alto offers permit parking for employers and employees of businesses located in the Downtown Color Zones. The Color Zones are bounded by Alma Street to the west, Webster Street to the east, Forest Avenue to the South, and Lytton Avenue to the north. Permits may be purchased for all ten parking garages and surface lots: Garage CC (Civic Center) Lot E (Gilman / Bryant) Garage R (High / Alma South) Lot G (Gilman / Waverly) Garage Q (Private garage with city permit use) Lot K (Lytton / Waverly) Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) Lot F (Lytton / Kipling Lot) Garage CW (Cowper Webster) Lot X (Sheraton) (reduced rate) Table 9: Eligible lots and garages with valid permit As of October 2016, the Wait List figures for permits at Downtown permit lot locations were as follows: Garage CC (Civic Center) 105 Lot E (Gilman / Bryant) 17 Garage R (High / Alma South) 50 Lot G (Gilman / Waverly) Garage Q (Private garage with city permit use) 27 Lot K (Lytton / Waverly) 14 Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 59 Lot F (Lytton / Kipling Lot) 14 Garage CW (Cowper Webster) 60 Lot X (Sheraton) (reduced rate) 8 Table 10: Permit Wait List as of October 2016 Employee and employer Downtown off-street parking permits may be purchased for $466.00 per year, $146.50 per quarter, or for $17.50 per day. b) Employer and Employee Parking Permits – Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Additional on-street parking permits are available for downtown employees and employers through the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program within select RPP zones. Through the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program, employers and employees are required to obtain a permit to park on-street for over two hours between 8:00am and 5:00pm, Monday through Friday. Employees may select a permit in any zone that is available. Employees are not limited to selecting the zone nearest to their workplace. However, one must park in their selected zone. The permit is not valid in any other zone. The RPP Program, as it pertains to residents, is discussed in more detail in the Residential Parking Program section of this report. Phase 2 of the RPP program, which went into effect on April 1, 2016, required the purchase of Phase 2 permits by Phase 1 permit holders. Employers and employees who had Phase 1 permits were able to use their online account to purchase Phase 2 permits as of April 1, 2016. Any new employers must create an account and provide proof of business and their business registration number. Employees purchasing a permit for the first time need to upload a photocopy of a photo ID and provide proof of their employment location. Permits are sold online only on the City’s parking website, which is managed by SP+. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 21 Employees can purchase a Phase 2 parking permit decal for $466.00 per year that is assigned to one vehicle only. Employees will purchase zone specific permits to park in certain parking zones. Employees may select a permit in any zone that is available. Employees are not limited to selecting the zone nearest to their workplace. There are ten different zones designated for on-street employee and employer parking permits. Each permit is eligible for one zone, and employees or employers may select any available zone. The zone boundaries are outlined below in Figure 5. Employees may park in the zone for which their permit is valid. If a Zone 2 permit is purchased, the employee is limited to parking within the bounds of Zone 2. Employers have the option to purchase a transferable hangtag for $466.00 per year which can be shared between shift workers and only applies to RPP Business Permits. Per Chapter 4.60 of the Palo Alto Municipal code, all fixed-location business within the City of Palo Alto must be registered with the Business Registry by March 31 each year. Registration requires a flat fee of $51.00. However, as of January 2016, Chapter 4.60 was amended to exclude small businesses and non-profits without a full-time owner, as well as religious organizations, from the Palo Alto Business Registry requirements. If an employee has an annual income equal to or less than $50,000.00 or with a pre-tax hourly wage equal to or less than twice the minimum wage, they qualify for a reduced-price permit of $100.00 per year. These permits are valid within one of the ten designated RPP on-street zones mentioned earlier. RPP employee permits are valid only on-street and are not recognized in the City’s garages or off-street surface parking lots. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 22 c) Daily Parking Permits One-day permits may be purchased for visitors who wish to park Downtown for more than the allotted color zone time limits. Daily parking permits are valid in all off-street parking garages and surface lots in all spaces. There are no daily visitor permits available for on-street parking spaces. To purchase a daily permit, visitors may go to the first floor of the Bryant Street and Cowper/Webster parking garages and make payment at the Digital Luke II pay station. It should be noted that for the extent of the study (through October 2016), the pay stations at both parking garages have been inoperable. The pay stations both have notices informing individuals to visit the Palo Alto City Hall to purchase a daily permit. Figure 4: Downtown RPP Employee Parking Zones Program C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 23 2. Residential Parking Program Palo Alto recently implemented a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program. The purpose of the program is limit the number of long-term parkers in the neighborhoods close to downtown during business hours. The RPP program requires residents within the RPP District (see Figure 4) to have a permit to park for over two hours on-street. The permit is required between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm, Monday through Friday. Parameters of the program are currently being reevaluated for possible adjustments at the end of Phase 2 on March 31, 2017. The RPP program has been introduced in two phases. During Phase 1 the City sold roughly 1,600 annual permits to employees and businesses in addition to resident’s permits (total number of resident permits not provided). Phase 2 of the RPP program expanded the boundaries to include additional streets who petitioned to be included in the program, and to include optional eligibility areas for streets that may wish to opt in in the future. As of December 22, 2016, a total of 4,854 Resident Annual permits and 825 Resident One-day Scratcher permits had been sold while a total of 1,335 Employee Annual permits were sold. A combined 164 One- and Five-day Employee Scratcher permits were sold through the same date in December. The Phase 2 zone by zone map outlined above in Figure 4. Downtown residents must apply online to receive their permit. No more than four permits in the form of stickers (one free) and two transferable hangtag permits may be granted per residential unit. The first permit is free, but each additional permit costs $50.00. Residents may have up to 50 daily visitors permits per year, at a cost of $5.00 each. Residents creating new accounts are required to show proof of residency. 3. Valet Parking The City of Palo Alto also offers valet parking to improve off-street parking utilization and efficiency. SP+ is contracted by the City to manage the valet parking operations. The Lot R valet program is staffed by two valet attendant staffers, stationed at the third floor of the garage beginning at 9:00am on weekdays. Valet services are provided to motorists with valid permits issued by the City in the form of a sticker on the rear-bumper of the vehicle. Permits are controlled by the City and are restricted to specific locations. When the permit spaces in the garage are close to full, the attendants direct permit parkers to park in the drive aisles of the garage in a manner that still allows vehicles to enter and exit. The motorists provide their key to the attendant, and the attendant may move the vehicle during the day to accommodate other vehicles. The motorist receives their key back from the attendant when they return to the garage. Valet parking is located on the third floor and begins at 9:00am until 7:00pm on weekdays. E. City of Palo Alto: Enforcement of Color Zones To enforce the color zones, several enforcement officers are required to manually enter each license plate into a handheld citation device. Initially parking enforcement was housed within the Police Department and consisted of seven Parking Enforcement Officers, a Parking Enforcement Lead, and a supervising Police Sergeant. Around 2006 the City altered the classification of the officers to Community Service Officers (CSOs). Seven full-time officers and one non-sworn full-time management position now compose the parking enforcement division of the Police Department, which is funded by the General Fund. The Police Department has been approved to hire an additional CSO in early 2017, making a total of eight full- time officers. Typically, one officer is assigned to each color zone and on any given day officers may C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 24 manually enter between 750 to 1000 license plates. It should be noted that these figures are consistent with DIXON’s data collection occupancy figures for each zone during the data collection periods. F. Serco: RPP Zone Enforcement The City of Palo Alto retained Serco in February of 2014 to provide enforcement services for the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program. Serco was responsible for enforcing Phase 1 (6 months), and is currently enforcing Phase 2 (12-months) of the RPP Program. During Phase 1, Serco’s enforcement officers issued approximately 1,768 citations in the RPP zones. Of these 1,768 citations, 506 citations were processed through first-level appeals, handled by the City Clerks office. In 2016, through roughly nine-months of Phase 2, beginning in March, Serco’s enforcement officers had issued approximately 4,153 citations in the RPP zones. Of the Phase 2 citations, 524 went through first-level reviews. As part of measuring program performance, Serco provides patrol routes and frequency schedules. The City must approve any changes to schedules, routes, or operations. Parking Enforcement Officers are also required to submit daily reports with any issues such as missing signs, accidents, or safety hazards. G. SP Plus In April 2015, the Palo Alto City Council approved a three-year contract with SP+ to host a new parking website with an online permit sales portal for the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District. As part of the contract, T2 Systems was retained as a subcontractor for online permit sales and fulfillment. SP Plus was responsible for the building the payment portal and training City staff how to use the back-end interface. In addition, SP Plus has been contracted to provide ongoing services in the form of a valet-assist program for specific facilities Downtown. SP Plus utilizes T2’s FLEX system as the online parking permit management system, which was required to track online permit sales for the RPP District. The FLEX system is functional for both residents and employees to register, validate, pay, and renew permits. Permits are available on an annual, quarterly, monthly, weekly, or daily basis. Users can create personalized accounts to manage their permits, and corporate accounts allow businesses to pay for employee permits. Through a link provided on the City of Palo Alto Parking website, residents, employers and employees can create a user account. As part of this process, users need to provide proof of residence or work addresses within the Downtown RPP program area. Depending on whether one is a resident or employee. Residents may upload a photo ID with address or a utility bill or lease. Employers must upload documentation of employer registration with the Palo Alto Business Registry while employees must upload a recent pay stub verifying employment address (and income verification if applying for a reduced-price permit). Applicants may also log back in to confirm whether their account has been approved for a permit. Permits are mailed by SP Plus within 48 hours of purchase, and temporary permits can be printed out through the system immediately. SP Plus is also responsible for replacement permits and for providing telephone customer service support for the City between the hours of 5:00am and 5:00pm, Mondays through Fridays, as well as after-hour and weekend support for emergencies. The types of permits currently sold through the system are as follows: C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 25 • Resident Permits (currently there is not a waitlist for residents to attain a RPP permit) • Resident Annual Guest Permits • Resident Daily Visitor Permits • RPP – Employer / Employee Permits • RPP - Low-Income Employee Permits The FLEX system also can link accounts in the case that a driver has multiple addresses or vehicles. A complete audit trail of all accounts, transactions, and refunds is managed through the system, and the contract requires that the system reports on all permit sales to the City. SP Plus is responsible for hosting the website for the duration of the project. All revenue is collected by the City and is not accessible to SP Plus. The valet-assist program is currently operated at Garage R (High/Alma South), Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) and Garage WC (Webster/Cowper). Valet services are provided to motorists with valid permits issued by the City in the form of a sticker on the rear-bumper of the vehicle. Permits are controlled by the City and restricted to specific locations. SP Plus operates Monday through Friday from 9:00am to 7:00pm. Each lot is staffed by two SP Plus employees. The operator has explained that the attendants will continue to park vehicles (including double-parking or stacking of vehicles) in each lot until they reach a point that no further cars will fit. Per SP Plus however this situation has not yet occurred and on average, attendants park between 5 and 20 cars per day, depending on the lot. Lot R (Alma/High) consistently parks a greater number of vehicles than Lot SL. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 26 III. Occupancy Summary The Study’s three-month data collection effort results yielded significant occupancy figures for the Downtown study area. The combined average occupancy in the four-Color Zones for May, September and October is displayed below (Figure 5). The figure is split up by color zone, day of data collection, Thursday or Saturday, and the type of parking, hourly or permit. On Thursday, Color Zones experienced average hourly occupancy between approximately 70% to 80% while average permit occupancy varied from 55% to 75%. On Saturdays, a larger range was observed for average hourly occupancy with figures ranging from 61% to 91%. Permit occupancy figures on Saturday were far lower, ranging from 7% to 26% across the Color Zones. A. Thursday On-Street 1. Overall Over a three-month data collection period in May, September and October of 2016, the average on-street occupancy rates on Thursdays throughout the study area were consistent. As shown below in Figure 5, the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods were generally the highest occupancy times, with occupancy rates reaching over the industry standard of 80% maximum. It should be noted, once Figure 5: Combined On- and Off-Street Occupancy Averages (May, September and October) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 27 occupancy reaches 85% and above, vehicle turnover appears to be minimal and available spaces decrease. As a result, vehicles searching for spaces and circling street blocks increases causing further congestion. Though block faces with an occupancy under 80% are considered optimal, the Study has highlighted these as points of concern. Below, Figure 6 examines the Thursday on-street occupancy based on the four color zones for the month of May. The Blue Zone hovered around 60-62% occupancy throughout the day, which was significantly lower than the other three color zones. The Lime and Coral Zones were identical in occupancy throughout the day, and the occupancy rates gradually increased until the evening where they peaked at 98%. While the Lime and Coral Zones were at or above 80% occupancy during the Mid-Afternoon and Evening, the Blue and Purple Zones on the periphery still had adequate levels of occupancy. 62% 71%73% 87% 56% 84% 71% 84% 74% 83% 75% 93% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Study Area Average On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month May September October Figure 6: Study Area Average On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 28 Like May’s figures, the lowest occupancy rates observed in all four colored zones in September on Thursday were during the Morning data collection period (Figure 7). Peak occupancy levels were observed during the Afternoon and Evening, where many the zones were above the 80% threshold. 66% 81%77% 68% 55% 89% 68% 86% 55% 89% 68% 86% 49% 78%71% 94% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening September Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison Blue Lime Coral Purple Figure 8: September Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison 60%62%60%62% 70%74% 80% 98% 70%74% 80% 98% 48% 75%71% 91% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening May Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison Blue Lime Coral Purple Figure 7: May On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 29 October’s on-street occupancy for Thursday, displayed above, had the highest occupancy rates during each time of day in the Lime and Coral Zones. In the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon and Evening data collection periods, these two-color zones were above the occupancy threshold and therefore considered to be full. During the Evening, all four-color zones were above the 80% occupancy threshold. The following occupancy tables show the observed percent occupancy broken down by block face during each data collection period. The cells highlighted in red are those that are at or above 80% occupancy, indicating that they are at capacity by parking industry standards—these are the areas of primary concern. It is important to note that the few cells with missing occupancy percentages is due to a gap in data collection, and therefore these were not calculated as part of the overall zone occupancy averages. Additionally, blocks with an occupancy percentage over 100% were due to double-parking, most often from construction vehicles or delivery trucks. 2. Blue Zone Table 1 shows the on-street occupancy by block face within the Blue Zone on Thursday, May 19, 2016. At the bottom, the average zone occupancy for each time period is calculated. During this round of data collection, none of the averages were above 80% occupancy, indicating that there was a sufficient parking available in the Blue Zone that Thursday throughout the day. 77%83% 71% 81%79% 87%83% 100% 79% 87%83% 100% 62% 75% 62% 90% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening October Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison Blue Lime Coral Purple Figure 9: October Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 30 Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/19/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 40% 56% 40% 400 FOREST 26 31% 77% 73% 400 HAMILTON 38 47% 76% 42% 68% 400 KIPLING 25 88% 24% 80% 44% 400 LYTTON 24 50% 63% 4% 25% 400 TASSO 14 79% 71% 50% 50% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 59% 43% 78% 89% 400 WEBSTER 15 73% 47% 53% 80% 500 COWPER 23 48% 57% 39% 87% 500 FOREST 21 33% 33% 67% 500 HAMILTON 35 66% 69% 54% 54% 500 LYTTON 6 67% 83% 100% 50% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 97% 70% 38% 84% 500 WEBSTER 24 88% 88% 71% 79% 600 COWPER 30 23% 57% 60% 13% 600 WEBSTER 26 65% 77% 88% 104% Average: 60% 62% 60% 62% Table 11: Blue Zone on-street occupancy, May (Thursday) During the data collection round on Thursday in September, the average Blue Zone occupancy during the Afternoon was slightly above the occupancy threshold at 81%. The 500 block of University Avenue was consistently considered at capacity throughout all four data collection times. Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 68% 76% 56% 76% 400 FOREST 26 38% 81% 96% 31% 400 HAMILTON 38 68% 68% 53% 82% 400 KIPLING 25 96% 84% 96% 100% 400 LYTTON 24 21% 33% 104% 42% 400 TASSO 14 114% 86% 79% 79% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 89% 89% 46% 95% 400 WEBSTER 15 100% 107% 80% 67% 500 COWPER 23 61% 65% 91% 500 FOREST 21 38% 81% 86% 38% 500 HAMILTON 35 37% 69% 63% 63% 500 LYTTON 6 100% 33% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 84% 89% 111% 111% 500 WEBSTER 24 71% 96% 67% 92% 600 COWPER 30 40% 57% 67% 43% 600 WEBSTER 26 65% 108% 81% 54% Average: 66% 81% 77% 68% Table 1: 2Blue Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 31 Table 12 displays the occupancy figures observed during the Thursday data collection round in October. Like the other two months, the highest average occupancy rate occurred during the Afternoon. The Evening collection period also averaged at above 80% occupancy in October. There is a dip in occupancy observed before the Evening during the Mid-Afternoon, which is consistent with what was observed in the other two months as well. Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/6/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 56% 68% 76% 76% 400 FOREST 26 85% 92% 85% 96% 400 HAMILTON 38 68% 76% 45% 95% 400 KIPLING 25 92% 92% 96% 100% 400 LYTTON 24 58% 83% 67% 79% 400 TASSO 14 79% 107% 43% 79% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 92% 89% 92% 84% 400 WEBSTER 15 100% 107% 107% 100% 500 COWPER 23 74% 87% 39% 104% 500 FOREST 21 62% 76% 86% 52% 500 HAMILTON 35 71% 71% 57% 46% 500 LYTTON 6 83% 100% 83% 67% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 68% 81% 62% 97% 500 WEBSTER 24 92% 92% 83% 88% 600 COWPER 30 57% 43% 50% 67% 600 WEBSTER 26 92% 65% 69% 62% Average: 77% 83% 71% 81% Table 13: Blue Zone, on-street occupancy, October (Thursday) Below in Figure 9, the average on-street occupancy within the Blue Zone is compared by month. During the Morning, Afternoon, and Evening data collection periods, the month of October had the highest average occupancy rates in the Blue Zone. The occupancy rates in May were consistently lower than the other two months throughout the day. In all three months, the highest occupancy rates were observed during the Afternoon. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 32 3. Lime Zone The Lime Zone is more centrally located in Downtown Palo Alto compared with the Blue Zone, which could explain why more of the occupancy averages are above the 80% threshold. During the May data collection round on Thursday, the Lime Zone averaged above the threshold during the Afternoon and Evening periods. All blocks except the 300 block of Forest were at capacity during those times. Conversely, only one or two blocks were highlighted as above the threshold during the Morning and Mid-Afternoon collection periods in May. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/19/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 38% 52% 41% 52% 300 HAMILTON 25 48% 88% 76% 88% 300 LYTTON 32 44% 94% 72% 106% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 95% 89% 100% 100% 400 FLORENCE 15 67% 87% 73% 93% 400 WAVERLEY 30 77% 100% 73% 107% 500 WAVERLEY 32 91% 84% 78% 97% 600 GILMAN 11 64% 91% 73% 82% 600 WAVERLEY 23 48% 96% 43% 83% Average: 63% 87% 70% 90% Table 14: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, May (Thursday) 60%62%60%62%66% 81%77% 68% 77% 83% 71% 81% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Average Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month on Thursday May (5/19/2016)September (9/8/2016)October (10/6/2016) Figure 10: Average Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month on Thursday C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 33 During the Thursday data collection in the month of September, the highest occupancy averages were also during the Afternoon and Evening. The average Morning occupancy rate was only at 52% occupancy, which was the lowest out of the four time periods. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 79% 52% 100% 100% 300 HAMILTON 25 92% 68% 88% 300 LYTTON 32 19% 88% 38% 91% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 76% 97% 78% 108% 400 FLORENCE 15 27% 87% 73% 67% 400 WAVERLEY 30 50% 97% 90% 103% 500 WAVERLEY 32 53% 72% 78% 66% 600 GILMAN 11 73% 64% 73% 600 WAVERLEY 23 61% 91% 52% 91% Average: 52% 83% 71% 87% Table 15: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday) Just as in May and September, the October on-street occupancy on Thursday was highest during the Afternoon and Evening. The October data collection round had the highest average Morning occupancy rates in the Lime Zone out of the three months. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/6/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 79% 86% 76% 93% 300 HAMILTON 25 64% 72% 80% 92% 300 LYTTON 32 44% 72% 31% 109% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 86% 92% 89% 95% 400 FLORENCE 15 67% 73% 60% 60% 400 WAVERLEY 30 97% 107% 77% 110% 500 WAVERLEY 32 69% 88% 78% 94% 600 GILMAN 11 36% 73% 55% 82% 600 WAVERLEY 23 87% 87% 74% 83% Average: 70% 83% 69% 91% Table 16: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 34 On Average the Lime Zone had the highest occupancy during each month during the Evening data collection period, and the lowest occupancy during the Morning. At least two of the occupancy levels reach over the 80% threshold in the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening data collection periods. 4. Coral Zone During the May data collection, the Coral Zone was just 2% away from full capacity during the Evening on average, with multiple of the blocks at or above 100% occupancy. The Mid-Afternoon also experienced high occupancy rates at an average of 80% occupancy. During the Morning data collection period, only three blocks were above the threshold, one of them being the 200 block of University Avenue, which was full throughout the day. 70%74% 80% 98% 55% 89% 68% 86% 79% 87%83% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Average Thursday Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month May (5/19/2016)September (9/8/2016)October (10/6/2016) Figure 11: Average Thursday Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 35 Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/19/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 87% 78% 96% 87% 200 HAMILTON 26 85% 58% 81% 92% 200 LYTTON 24 58% 75% 100% 113% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 89% 97% 100% 114% 400 BRYANT 16 75% 69% 75% 88% 400 RAMONA 30 27% 67% 53% 93% 500 BRYANT 36 75% 81% 83% 100% 500 RAMONA 31 74% 90% 87% 113% 600 BRYANT 22 77% 100% 82% 95% 600 RAMONA 22 55% 23% 45% 82% Average: 70% 74% 80% 98% Table 17: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, May (Thursday) In September, the two highest occupancy times in the Coral Zone were the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods. Unlike in May, there was a significant dip in occupancy rates during the Mid-Afternoon before picking up again in the Evening. Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 30% 61% 52% 48% 200 HAMILTON 26 58% 92% 42% 85% 200 LYTTON 24 21% 108% 75% 108% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 47% 86% 81% 89% 400 BRYANT 16 88% 94% 75% 94% 400 RAMONA 30 43% 100% 73% 100% 500 BRYANT 36 72% 81% 78% 92% 500 RAMONA 31 84% 97% 90% 94% 600 BRYANT 22 77% 95% 55% 68% 600 RAMONA 22 27% 77% 59% 86% Average: 55% 89% 68% 86% Table 18: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday) The October data collection round in the Coral Zone revealed in the highest average occupancy rates out of the three months. The Evening data collection period even had an overall average of 100% occupancy, with five of the blocks observed as over 100% occupancy. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 36 Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/6/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 83% 78% 70% 96% 200 HAMILTON 26 81% 69% 85% 104% 200 LYTTON 24 67% 108% 67% 117% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 72% 100% 100% 94% 400 BRYANT 16 100% 100% 88% 106% 400 RAMONA 30 57% 70% 67% 93% 500 BRYANT 36 83% 83% 83% 103% 500 RAMONA 31 84% 100% 100% 100% 600 BRYANT 22 100% 95% 109% 82% 600 RAMONA 22 64% 73% 64% 105% Average: 79% 88% 83% 100% Table 19: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, October (Thursday) When looking at the three months’ data side by side in Figure 7, the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods had the highest average occupancy rates. Like the other color zones, the Morning data collection period had the lowest occupancy rates. 5. Purple Zone With a more peripheral location in Downtown, the Purple Zone experienced lower average occupancy rates throughout the day in comparison with the other color zones. During the May data collection round, 70%74% 80% 98% 55% 89% 68% 86% 79% 87%83% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Average Thursday Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month May (5/19/2016)September (9/8/2016)October (10/6/2016) Figure 12: Average Thursday Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 37 the highest average occupancy rate was in the Evening, with 91% occupancy. The only streets full throughout the day were the Emerson and High Streets. Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/19/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 21% 100% 103% 103% 100 HAMILTON 32 63% 72% 78% 88% 100 LYTTON 26 15% 38% 50% 104% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 42% 63% 54% 63% 400 EMERSON 32 28% 59% 69% 69% 400 HIGH 21 29% 90% 67% 110% 500 ALMA 11 0% 55% 55% 73% 500 EMERSON 29 90% 93% 93% 103% 500 HIGH 23 30% 65% 43% 96% 600 ALMA 16 81% 88% 69% 94% 600 EMERSON 28 93% 89% 93% 96% 600 HIGH 27 81% 85% 81% 100% Average: 48% 75% 71% 91% Table 20: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, May (Thursday) During the Evening data collection round in September, all the blocks were above the 80% occupancy threshold. However, there were sufficient levels of available parking on many blocks during the other three data collection periods earlier in the day. Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 47% 44% 47% 53% 100 HAMILTON 32 66% 56% 59% 84% 100 LYTTON 26 35% 88% 77% 104% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 46% 79% 83% 96% 400 EMERSON 32 41% 91% 81% 88% 400 HIGH 21 33% 57% 62% 105% 500 ALMA 11 36% 55% 36% 100% 500 EMERSON 29 100% 93% 90% 100% 500 HIGH 23 52% 113% 78% 109% 600 ALMA 16 38% 81% 94% 600 EMERSON 28 46% 100% 96% 104% 600 HIGH 27 52% 78% 74% 96% Average: 49% 78% 71% 94% Table 21: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 38 Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/6/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 88% 88% 76% 94% 100 HAMILTON 32 50% 72% 44% 84% 100 LYTTON 26 69% 73% 50% 92% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 54% 58% 67% 67% 400 EMERSON 32 44% 91% 69% 81% 400 HIGH 21 33% 52% 62% 90% 500 ALMA 11 64% 100% 36% 91% 500 EMERSON 29 86% 83% 97% 103% 500 HIGH 23 35% 17% 17% 104% 600 ALMA 16 56% 81% 75% 81% 600 EMERSON 28 89% 104% 93% 111% 600 HIGH 27 70% 78% 63% 78% Average: 62% 75% 62% 90% Table 22: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, October (Thursday) The occupancy averages were consistent throughout the three months in the Purple Zone, with the occupancy rates peaking during the Evening data collection periods. 48% 75%71% 91% 49% 78% 71% 94% 62% 75% 62% 90% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Average Thursday Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month May (5/19/2016)September (9/8/2016)October (10/6/2016) Figure 13: Average Thursday Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 39 B. Thursday Off-Street 1. Overall During May, September, and October, occupancy rates were recorded for the hourly spaces in the off- street locations listed in the following tables. After a review of the May data collection round, it was decided to collect occupancy rates for the off-street permit spaces during the September and October data collection rounds for a more comprehensive understanding of parking occupancy in Downtown Palo Alto. The combined average occupancy (May, September and October) for off-street garages and surface lots including hourly and permit spaces for Thursday’s data collection are displayed in Figure 13 below. Average permit occupancy for the facility is identified by the letter ‘P’ while average hourly occupancy is identified by the letter ‘H.’ The differentiation in color is based on the average occupancy percentage. Locations displayed in green observed an average occupancy percentage of below 70% over the three- month data collection period. Locations colored yellow had an average occupancy between 70% and 80% while the locations in red had occupancy averages of 80% and above. Figure 14: Combined average Thursday occupancy (May, September and October) for off-street garage and surface lot locations C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 40 Figure 14 below shows the average Thursday off-street occupancy for the hourly spaces collected in each of the three months. The occupancy averages were consistent between the three months, with the highest occupancy rates occurring during the Afternoon and Evening collection times. Additionally, the Mid-Afternoon was above the 80% occupancy threshold in September only. Next in Figure 15, the average Thursday off-street occupancy is compared for the permitted spaces in September and October. Unlike the high occupancy rates in the off-street hourly spaces, the permitted spaces were only observed over the 80% occupancy threshold during the Afternoon in September. The other dates and times were all averaging at below 80%. 54% 94% 74% 92% 46% 91% 83% 91% 52% 85% 73% 92% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Study Area Average Off-Street Hourly Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month May September October Figure 15: Study Area Average Off-Street Hourly Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 41 2. Hourly During the May data collection round, on Thursday the off-street hourly spaces in almost every garage and surface lot were essentially full during the Afternoon and Evening. The hourly spaces in Garage R, Lot C, and Lot N were above 80% occupancy throughout the day. Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 5/19/2016 Location Hourly Inventory Mornin g Afternoo n Mid- Afternoon Evenin g Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 60% 89% 74% 90% Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 40% 101% 73% 91% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 81% 99% 86% 103% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 26% 99% 65% 84% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 38% 95% 73% 65% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 38% 96% 90% 100% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 84% 96% 88% 96% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 37% 87% 65% 97% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 39% 96% 67% 100% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 53% 91% 42% 99% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 67% 100% 42% 75% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 91% 96% 93% 96% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 50% 96% 91% 100% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 45% 88% 90% 98% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 57% 89% 68% 93% Average: 54% 94% 74% 92% Table 23: Off-street hourly occupancy, May (Thursday) 68% 87% 67% 55%55% 75% 61% 52% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Study Area Average Off-Street Permit Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month September October Figure 16: Study Area Average Off-Street Permit Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 42 In September, the average occupancy rates were above the threshold in the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening. There is significantly more red-highlighted location during this month in comparison to the May data. Once again, the hourly spaces in Garage R and Lot N were full throughout the day. Lots D and K were underutilized until the Evening data collection period. Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 9/8/2016 Location Hourly Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid- Afternoon Evening Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 60% 90% 82% 84% Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 47% 94% 79% 94% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 84% 100% 92% 94% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 25% 95% 67% 94% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 41% 98% 70% 61% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 31% 88% 90% 94% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 60% 104% 112% 100% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 42% 73% 77% 93% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 9% 96% 104% 93% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 44% 95% 93% 95% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 58% 75% 17% 83% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 96% 93% 102% 104% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 37% 90% 90% 94% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 33% 94% 90% 94% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 25% 86% 86% 89% Average: 46% 91% 83% 91% Table 24: Off-street hourly occupancy, September (Thursday) During the October round of data collection on a Thursday, the Afternoon and Evening times were the busiest like in May. Garage WC was the only off-street location in October were the hourly spaces were below the 80% occupancy threshold throughout the day. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 43 Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 10/6/2016 Location Hourly Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid- Afternoon Evening Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 61% 84% 97% 102% Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 49% 88% 36% 98% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 88% 92% 90% 101% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 32% 84% 55% 89% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 36% 78% 63% 28% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 34% 85% 75% 90% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 76% 92% 84% 108% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 44% 87% 67% 102% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 13% 96% 39% 89% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 37% 87% 63% 87% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 92% 58% 83% 75% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 98% 98% 109% 109% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 32% 90% 77% 108% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 47% 75% 88% 102% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 39% 89% 75% 89% Average: 52% 85% 73% 92% Table 25: Off-street hourly occupancy, October (Thursday) 3. Permit During the Thursday September data collection round, the off-street permitted spaces were on average below the occupancy threshold during the day except for in the Afternoon. Garage R was significantly above the threshold starting in the Morning up until the Mid-Afternoon. Lot C and Lot T were the only off- street locations were the permitted spaces were above the threshold during the Evening. Off-Street (Permit) Occupancy 9/8/2016 Location Permit Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid- Afternoon Evening Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 71% 95% 78% 69% Garage Q (High/Alma) 132 70% 70% 62% 48% Garage R (High/Alma) 128 121% 127% 96% 62% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 79% 92% 82% 36% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 55% 85% 83% 14% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 74% 85% 19% 93% Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) 35 43% 83% 80% 71% Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 51% 64% 38% 53% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 86% 94% 60% 57% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 40% 96% 88% 92% Lot X (Sheraton) 31 61% 65% 48% 13% Average: 68% 87% 67% 55% Table 26: Off-street permit occupancy, May (Thursday) In October, there were no times during the day on Thursday that averaged above the 80% occupancy threshold. The permitted spaces in Garage R had the highest occupancy rate out of the off-street locations during the Afternoon. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 44 Off-Street (Permit) Occupancy 10/6/2016 Location Permit Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 47% 65% 49% 67% Garage Q (High/Alma) 132 55% 73% 56% 24% Garage R (High/Alma) 128 88% 93% 77% 74% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 52% 81% 70% 54% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 44% 77% 74% 13% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 85% 85% 37% 93% Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) 35 43% 80% 80% 43% Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 60% 72% 45% 36% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 51% 80% 60% 57% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 28% 68% 76% 96% Lot X (Sheraton) 31 45% 55% 45% 19% Average: 55% 75% 61% 52% Table 27: Off-street permit occupancy, October (Thursday) C. Saturday On-Street 1. Overall Saturday occupancy data was also collected during May, September and October. During the three months, the on-street occupancy averages on Saturday were the highest during the Afternoon and Evening. The Mid-Afternoon data collection period also had average on-street occupancy rates above the 80% threshold in both May and October. Similarly, to the Thursday data collection, the Saturday on-street occupancy rates were low in the Morning. 61% 80%81%80% 58% 83% 74% 85% 61% 86%84% 96% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Overall Average On-Street Saturday Occupancy by Time of Day by Month May September October Figure 17: Overall Average On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 45 When comparing the four-color zones during the month of May, the Lime and Coral Zones often had the highest occupancy rates throughout the day. The only exception to this was in the Mid-Afternoon where the Purple Zone had the highest average occupancy. On the Saturday in September the Purple Zone had the highest occupancy rate in both the Mid-afternoon and Evening. The Evening occupancy rate for the Purple Zone was at exactly 100%. Additionally, the Lime and Coral Zones were above the occupancy threshold during the Afternoon and Evening. 46% 64%69%69%69% 88%84% 96% 69% 88%84% 96% 60% 79% 88% 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening May Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison Blue Lime Coral Purple Figure 18: May Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 46 During October, the Lime and Coral Zones were above the threshold during the Afternoon until through the Evening, where they were above 100% occupancy. There were no zones with adequate parking availability during the Evening data collection period, and the Blue Zone was the only zone below the threshold in the Afternoon and Mid-Afternoon. 53% 74%72%68%64% 89% 68% 86% 64% 89% 68% 86% 53% 81% 87% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening September Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison Blue Lime Coral Purple Figure 19: September Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison 46% 74%78%82% 67% 91%86% 67% 91%86% 64% 88%87%94% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening October Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison Blue Lime Coral Purple Figure 20: October Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 47 2. Blue Zone Taking a closer look at the Blue Zone Saturday on-street parking occupancy in May reveals that the 500 block of Lytton was the only block that was above the occupancy threshold consistently throughout the day. This was also the only street that ever reached 100% occupancy at any point during the day. None of the time periods averaged at above 80% occupancy, indicating that there were adequate on-street occupancy levels in the Blue Zone on Saturday in May. Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/21/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 20% 40% 400 FOREST 26 58% 54% 81% 81% 400 HAMILTON 38 42% 42% 82% 400 KIPLING 25 36% 76% 68% 400 LYTTON 24 17% 88% 46% 67% 400 TASSO 14 57% 57% 64% 57% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 81% 54% 89% 78% 400 WEBSTER 15 67% 87% 80% 40% 500 COWPER 23 26% 57% 78% 500 FOREST 21 57% 48% 76% 86% 500 HAMILTON 35 17% 54% 40% 500 LYTTON 6 83% 100% 83% 83% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 38% 41% 73% 81% 500 WEBSTER 24 63% 75% 79% 75% 600 COWPER 30 23% 70% 77% 600 WEBSTER 26 50% 38% 62% 69% Average: 46% 64% 69% 69% Table 28: Blue Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday) On Saturday in September the average occupancy levels in the Blue Zone were higher overall than observed during the May data collection. However, there were still none of the overall averages exceeding the 80% occupancy threshold. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 48 Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/10/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 76% 76% 84% 84% 400 FOREST 26 35% 35% 35% 42% 400 HAMILTON 38 39% 82% 92% 61% 400 KIPLING 25 84% 100% 100% 96% 400 LYTTON 24 29% 92% 92% 79% 400 TASSO 14 71% 107% 79% 43% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 97% 97% 97% 97% 400 WEBSTER 15 93% 100% 100% 87% 500 COWPER 23 61% 96% 100% 500 FOREST 21 24% 33% 38% 24% 500 HAMILTON 35 20% 49% 40% 46% 500 LYTTON 6 83% 50% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 38% 81% 97% 108% 500 WEBSTER 24 42% 63% 54% 75% 600 COWPER 30 27% 50% 67% 37% 600 WEBSTER 26 58% 42% 38% 62% Average: 53% 74% 72% 68% Table 29: Blue Zone on-street occupancy, September (Saturday) The October data has the highest amount of red highlighted cells in comparison with May and September. The Evening data collection round on Saturday in October was the only instance that the average on- street occupancy reached above the threshold out of the three months and four data collection time periods. Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 44% 68% 80% 88% 400 FOREST 26 12% 88% 88% 81% 400 HAMILTON 38 26% 97% 84% 61% 400 KIPLING 25 76% 104% 96% 104% 400 LYTTON 24 25% 79% 83% 83% 400 TASSO 14 71% 86% 71% 86% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 81% 103% 95% 97% 400 WEBSTER 15 100% 93% 87% 93% 500 COWPER 23 57% 87% 96% 96% 500 FOREST 21 57% 71% 76% 62% 500 HAMILTON 35 17% 46% 49% 80% 500 LYTTON 6 17% 33% 67% 50% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 16% 84% 89% 103% 500 WEBSTER 24 67% 75% 83% 96% 600 COWPER 30 17% 30% 67% 53% 600 WEBSTER 26 54% 42% 38% 85% Average: 46% 74% 78% 82% Table 30: Blue Zone on-street occupancy, October (Saturday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 49 The three months are combined below in Figure 20. This chart reveals that there was in general an increase in the on-street occupancy averages from May through October on Saturday. The highest overall occupancy average was during the Evening in October, while the lowest was in the Morning in October and May. 3. Lime Zone On-Street occupancy in the Lime Zone on Saturday in May was extremely high throughout the day. All four data collection periods averaged at or above the 80% occupancy threshold. This is in contrast with the Blue Zone occupancies on the same day, which were significantly low. This is likely due to the convenience of the Lime Zone on-street parking spaces to Downtown shops and restaurants. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/21/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 83% 93% 83% 72% 300 HAMILTON 25 104% 96% 88% 104% 300 LYTTON 32 53% 97% 69% 106% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 59% 95% 97% 100% 400 FLORENCE 15 80% 93% 80% 100% 400 WAVERLEY 30 103% 103% 107% 100% 500 WAVERLEY 32 94% 103% 103% 103% 600 GILMAN 11 64% 45% 55% 100% 600 WAVERLEY 23 83% 83% 87% 65% Average: 80% 90% 85% 95% Table 31: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday) 46% 64%69%69% 53% 74%72%68% 46% 74%78%82% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Average Saturday Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month May (5/21/2016)September (9/10/2016)October (10/8/2016) Figure 21: Average Saturday Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 50 The Morning data collection time was the only time in September on Saturday that was below the occupancy threshold, however it was just 1% away. Like in May, the occupancy rates were high in the Lime Zone throughout the day. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/10/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 59% 59% 45% 55% 300 HAMILTON 25 88% 92% 88% 80% 300 LYTTON 32 56% 103% 100% 103% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 95% 95% 97% 97% 400 FLORENCE 15 73% 73% 80% 100% 400 WAVERLEY 30 103% 110% 90% 107% 500 WAVERLEY 32 72% 91% 91% 100% 600 GILMAN 11 73% 91% 600 WAVERLEY 23 83% 83% 74% 61% Average: 79% 88% 82% 88% Table 32: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, September (Saturday) The October round of data collection was like the September round in that the morning was at an average of 79% occupancy. The other three times averaged above the threshold. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 100% 100% 90% 103% 300 HAMILTON 25 80% 132% 88% 100% 300 LYTTON 32 47% 97% 56% 94% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 86% 95% 92% 97% 400 FLORENCE 15 40% 33% 60% 87% 400 WAVERLEY 30 113% 103% 110% 110% 500 WAVERLEY 32 72% 91% 88% 103% 600 GILMAN 11 73% 91% 600 WAVERLEY 23 91% 91% 78% 87% Average: 79% 93% 82% 97% Table 33: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, October (Saturday) As shown in Figure 21, the average on-street occupancy rates on Saturday in the three months were well above the 80% occupancy threshold in many instances. The Morning was the only time in the three months that had average occupancies below the threshold except for in the Mid-Afternoon in September. The Afternoon and Evening data collections times were the busiest for all three months. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 51 4. Coral Zone The Coral Zone had consistently high occupancy rates throughout Saturday in May with the lowest average occupancy at 69% in the Morning. 200 Forest, 500 Ramona, and 500 Bryant were each over the occupancy threshold throughout the day. The 600 block of Bryant was the only street that did not reach the threshold at any point during that day. Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/21/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 83% 87% 83% 91% 200 HAMILTON 26 81% 81% 77% 88% 200 LYTTON 24 33% 58% 83% 113% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 56% 103% 92% 100% 400 BRYANT 16 69% 100% 69% 100% 400 RAMONA 30 40% 97% 97% 100% 500 BRYANT 36 100% 100% 97% 108% 500 RAMONA 31 87% 100% 100% 106% 600 BRYANT 22 73% 73% 68% 73% 600 RAMONA 22 73% 77% 73% 82% Average: 69% 88% 84% 96% Table 34: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday) In September, the on-street occupancy on Saturday was highest during the Afternoon and Evening time periods. Unlike in May, there was a dip in occupancy during the Mid-Afternoon, where there were only 69% 88%84% 96% 64% 89% 68% 86% 67% 91%86% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Average Saturday Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month May (5/21/2016)September (9/10/2016)October (10/8/2016) Figure 22: Average Saturday Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 52 two blocks observed over 80% occupancy. There were no streets in September that did not reach the occupancy threshold at some point during the day on Saturday. Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/10/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 61% 83% 52% 48% 200 HAMILTON 26 77% 100% 42% 85% 200 LYTTON 24 25% 63% 75% 108% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 67% 97% 81% 89% 400 BRYANT 16 63% 81% 75% 94% 400 RAMONA 30 40% 90% 73% 100% 500 BRYANT 36 67% 89% 78% 92% 500 RAMONA 31 90% 103% 90% 94% 600 BRYANT 22 95% 95% 55% 68% 600 RAMONA 22 55% 86% 59% 86% Average: 64% 89% 68% 86% Table 35: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, September (Saturday) In October, the on-street occupancy on a Saturday was averaging at over 100% during the Evening, and above the threshold during the Afternoon and Mid-Afternoon. Almost every block in the Coral Zone during these times were full. Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 65% 61% 91% 100% 200 HAMILTON 26 62% 96% 88% 119% 200 LYTTON 24 29% 88% 67% 125% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 92% 100% 100% 100% 400 BRYANT 16 50% 81% 81% 100% 400 RAMONA 30 37% 93% 73% 87% 500 BRYANT 36 89% 97% 83% 106% 500 RAMONA 31 94% 100% 97% 103% 600 BRYANT 22 91% 109% 100% 105% 600 RAMONA 22 59% 82% 77% 100% Average: 67% 91% 86% 104% Table 36: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, October (Saturday When comparing the Coral Zone averages side by side for each month, it shows that the Afternoon and Evening times were the busiest consistently. One anomaly was that the September Mid-Afternoon occupancy was over 15% lower than the other two months. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 53 5. Purple Zone When data was collected on a Saturday in May in the Purple Zone, the time of day with the highest average occupancy was the Mid-Afternoon. Typically for the other color zones the busiest times were during the Afternoon and Evening instead. 100 Forest, 500 Emerson, and 600 High were the three blocks in the Purple Zone that were consistently over the 80% occupancy threshold for the entire day. Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/21/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 91% 91% 97% 91% 100 HAMILTON 32 72% 75% 81% 72% 100 LYTTON 26 50% 73% 81% 50% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 58% 83% 83% 58% 400 EMERSON 32 9% 69% 84% 9% 400 HIGH 21 67% 62% 76% 67% 500 ALMA 11 9% 45% 64% 9% 500 EMERSON 29 93% 100% 103% 93% 500 HIGH 23 13% 61% 96% 13% 600 ALMA 16 69% 88% 94% 69% 600 EMERSON 28 93% 100% 93% 93% 600 HIGH 27 96% 100% 100% 96% Average: 60% 79% 88% 60% 69% 88%84% 96% 64% 89% 68% 86% 67% 91% 86% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Average Saturday Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month May (5/21/2016)September (9/10/2016)October (10/8/2016) Figure 23: Average Saturday Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 54 Table 37: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday Unlike in May, the September data shows that the Afternoon and Evening were above the occupancy threshold on average in addition to the Mid-Afternoon. The Evening period had an average overall occupancy of 100% for the Purple Zone on a Saturday. The rise in Evening occupancy from May is likely due to the shift in data collection time to 7:00pm from 6:00pm for the Evening round. Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/10/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 88% 94% 94% 100% 100 HAMILTON 32 66% 81% 94% 94% 100 LYTTON 26 38% 62% 73% 92% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 42% 67% 75% 79% 400 EMERSON 32 13% 78% 91% 97% 400 HIGH 21 33% 38% 67% 110% 500 ALMA 11 0% 82% 82% 118% 500 EMERSON 29 86% 107% 100% 97% 500 HIGH 23 35% 78% 96% 109% 600 ALMA 16 44% 81% 106% 600 EMERSON 28 93% 104% 100% 107% 600 HIGH 27 100% 96% 89% 89% Average: 53% 81% 87% 100% Table 38: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday In October, the on-street spaces in the Purple Zone on Saturday were on average above the occupancy threshold during the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening. These averages are similar to those observed in September. Once again, the Morning data collection period did not exceed the 80% threshold on average. Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 76% 100% 100% 97% 100 HAMILTON 32 72% 84% 75% 91% 100 LYTTON 26 38% 73% 77% 58% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 63% 75% 88% 83% 400 EMERSON 32 34% 91% 88% 88% 400 HIGH 21 67% 76% 76% 105% 500 ALMA 11 36% 100% 82% 109% 500 EMERSON 29 97% 90% 90% 103% 500 HIGH 23 35% 78% 83% 91% 600 ALMA 16 63% 88% 88% 100% 600 EMERSON 28 96% 104% 107% 100% 600 HIGH 27 93% 96% 96% 100% Average: 64% 88% 87% 94% Table 39: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, October (Saturday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 55 The main variance that can be seen when viewing the data side by side is that in May the Evening average occupancy was significantly lower than the occupancy in September and October. All three months were within 1% of each other regarding the average occupancy during the Mid-Afternoon period. Additionally, the Evening period was the busiest time for both the September and October data collection rounds on Saturdays. 60% 79% 88% 60% 53% 81% 87% 100% 64% 88%87% 94% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Average Saturday Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month May (5/21/2016)September (9/10/2016)October (10/8/2016) Figure 24: Average Saturday Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 56 D. Saturday Off-Street 1. Overall The combined average occupancy (May, September and October) for off-street garages and surface lots including hourly and permit spaces for Saturday’s data collection are displayed in Figure 24 below. Average permit occupancy for the facility is identified by the letter ‘P’ while average hourly occupancy is identified by the letter ‘H.’ The differentiation in color is based on the average occupancy percentage. Locations displayed in green observed an average occupancy percentage of below 70% over the three- month data collection period. Locations colored yellow had an average occupancy between 70% and 80% while the locations in red had occupancy averages of 80% and above. Figure 25 compares the average off-street hourly occupancy between the three months for Saturday. The hourly spaces were consistently full during the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening data collection times, with the Evening being the most. The Morning occupancy averaged hovered around 50% on the three Saturdays. Figure 25: Combined average Saturday occupancy (May, September and October) for off-street garage and surface lot locations C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 57 The average off-street permit occupancy was significantly lower than the hourly spaces on Saturday in both months it was collected. The highest average occupancy observed was just 46%, which was during the Evening in September. Because there are high occupancy rates in the hourly spaces while there are low rates in the permitted spaces, this could indicate that many drivers do not realize that a permit is not required to park in the permit spaces on the weekend. 2. Hourly The off-street hourly spaces stayed at a consistent occupancy level between the Afternoon and Mid- Afternoon data collection times in May. In almost every location that was above the threshold during the 43% 78%79%85% 52% 86%84% 94% 53% 90%85%90% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Study Area Average Off-Street Hourly Occupancy by Time of Day on Saturday by Month May September October Figure 26: Study Area Average Off-Street Hourly Occupancy by Time of Day on Saturday by Month 21% 31%30% 46% 13% 32%27% 42% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Study Area Average Off-Street Permit Occupancy by Time of Day on Saturday by Month September October Figure 27: Study Area Average Off-Street Permit Occupancy by Time of Day on Saturday by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 58 Afternoon, it was also during the Mid-Afternoon and Evening. Lot H and Lot N were the two locations were the hourly spaces were full throughout the day. Only Garage WC and Lot A did not have an occupancy at or above 80% at any point during the day. Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 5/21/2016 Location Hourly Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 87% 79% 90% 92% Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 24% 69% 54% 82% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 23% 90% 83% 97% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 19% 65% 70% 87% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 12% 53% 52% 49% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 9% 63% 79% 72% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 64% 100% 100% 104% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 47% 86% 91% 81% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 26% 91% 85% 91% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 96% 89% 88% 84% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 8% 58% 42% 75% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 93% 87% 89% 91% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 41% 83% 86% 85% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 55% 86% 94% 100% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 39% 75% 79% 82% Average: 43% 78% 79% 85% Table 40: Off-street hourly occupancy, May (Saturday) In September, the hourly off-street spaces were on average above the occupancy threshold during the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening data collection periods on Saturday. The only off-street location in September that did not reach 80% occupancy was Garage WC. Every other location was above the threshold during the Evening. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 59 Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 9/10/2016 Location Hourly Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid- Afternoon Evening Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 40% 92% 85% 97% Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 19% 57% 55% 92% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 31% 95% 99% 103% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 43% 76% 77% 92% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 24% 54% 61% 58% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 10% 88% 85% 96% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 80% 100% 100% 96% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 92% 95% 98% 103% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 85% 96% 72% 87% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 95% 98% 97% 97% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 42% 67% 58% 92% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 41% 98% 100% 100% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 49% 85% 90% 100% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 49% 96% 90% 104% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 86% 93% 93% 89% Average: 52% 86% 84% 94% Table 41: Off-street hourly occupancy, September (Saturday) Like in September, the October off-street hourly occupancy averages were above the threshold in the Afternoon through the Evening. Additionally, Garage WC did not reach the threshold at any point during the day again. Both the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods averaged at 90% occupancy. Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 10/8/2016 Location Hourly Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid- Afternoon Evening Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 65% 98% 90% 95% Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 35% 90% 65% 96% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 62% 99% 100% 61% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 28% 69% 76% 107% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 27% 42% 59% 57% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 22% 78% 84% 78% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 76% 100% 96% 92% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 74% 98% 92% 94% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 41% 100% 100% 100% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 86% 95% 96% 91% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 17% 100% 33% 83% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 100% 98% 100% 104% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 50% 96% 91% 95% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 73% 100% 94% 96% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 46% 93% 96% 96% Average: 53% 90% 85% 90% Table 42: Off-street hourly occupancy, October (Saturday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 60 3. Permit On the other hand, the permit spaces in off-street locations had significantly lower average occupancies on the Saturday in September. The only location where permit spaces filled up throughout the day was Lot T, and Lot C also filled up during the Afternoon and Evening. Many locations did not reach 80% occupancy at any point. Off-Street (Permit) Occupancy 9/10/2016 Location Permit Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 9% 16% 13% 45% Garage Q (High/Alma) 132 18% 13% 15% 20% Garage R (High/Alma) 128 4% 3% 20% 88% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 4% 14% 11% 26% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 2% 3% 3% 4% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 37% 89% 70% 100% Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) * 35 20% 46% Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 23% 15% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 23% 31% 49% 63% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 92% 104% 92% 92% Lot X (Sheraton) 31 3% 6% 13% 13% Average: 21% 31% 30% 46% Table 43: Off-street permit occupancy, September (Saturday) *Note: No available parking in Lot E or Lot G on Saturday Morning/Afternoon because of Farmer’s Market Consistent with September, the October off-street permit occupancy rates remained very low throughout the day. Once again, the only locations that experienced high occupancy rates throughout the day were Lots C and T. Off-Street (Permit) Occupancy 10/8/2016 Location Permit Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 14% 17% 18% 44% Garage Q (High/Alma) 132 12% 15% 20% 16% Garage R (High/Alma) 128 5% 27% 16% 49% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 6% 10% 15% 15% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 3% 5% 4% 4% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 41% 85% 78% 93% Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) 35 6% 34% Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 13% 36% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 17% 17% 23% 34% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 12% 96% 84% 96% Lot X (Sheraton) 31 6% 19% 16% 35% Average: 13% 32% 27% 42% Table 44: Off-street permit occupancy, October (Saturday) E. Heat Maps The following heat maps show the overall occupancy averages for each block based on occupancy data collected in May, September, and October combined. The average daily occupancy for each block is made C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 61 up of the Morning, Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening occupancies from May, September, and October. The blocks that are highlighted in red are those that had an overall daily occupancy average of 80% or higher. The yellow blocks are those that had an overall average daily occupancy between 70% and 79%. These are the areas that have not yet reached the occupancy threshold, but are areas of concern. Finally, the green blocks are those that had an overall average daily occupancy below 70%, meaning that they had sufficient levels of parking supply throughout the day on average. Maps 1 and 4 show the overall daily occupancy average for each block face and the hourly off-street spaces between the three months on Thursday and Saturday. Because the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods tended to have the highest average occupancies, Maps 2, 3, 5, and 6 show the Afternoon and Evening occupancy averages from the three months for Thursday and Saturday. The purpose of these maps is to show the typical occupancy distributions as well as peak occupancy distributions. Figure 28: Thursday Three Month Daily Average C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 62 Figure 29: Thursday Afternoon Three Month Average Figure 30: Thursday Evening Three Month Average C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 63 Figure 31: Saturday Three Month Average Figure 32: Saturday Afternoon Three Month Average C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 64 Figure 33: Saturday Evening Three Month Average The heat maps show that the blocks with the highest occupancy rates are in general clustered around the center, with some high occupancy areas in the bottom left and top right corners. The Evening occupancy maps in general show that many high occupancy blocks are towards the left, with some green highlighted pockets in the right-side corners of the map. F. Vehicle Overstay The following charts show the observed vehicle frequency for each zone. This is the percentage of cars that are observed within the same zone during different data collection periods—cars that are only observed once in a zone are following the color zone rules, while those that are observed multiple times are not following the required time limits. The purpose of this data is to get a rough understanding of how many drivers are obeying the color zone rules. On May 19, 2016, the majority of cars are following the color zone rules. 83 to 86% of cars were only observed once in their respective zone. The Blue and Lime Zones only had 11% of cars observed in two data collection periods, and the Coral and Purple Zones had 14% observed twice. Only 1% of cars in each colored zone were observed during all four data collection times. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 65 The frequencies observed in September were very like those in May, with the cars only observed once hovering between 83 and 87%. This round 0% of cars were observed four times in the Lime and Purple Zones. Finally, in October the data remained consistent with the observed frequencies in May and September. The Coral Zone in October had the highest overall rate of cars observed once, at 88%, which means that a significant number of drivers are following the color zone rules. 85% 11% 3%1% 86% 11% 2%1% 84% 14% 3%1% 83% 14% 3%1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Blue Zone Lime Zone Coral Zone Purple Zone Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 5/19/2016 Figure 34: Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 5/19/2016 83% 12%4%1% 87% 11% 2%0% 85% 13% 2%1% 87% 11% 1%0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Blue Zone Lime Zone Coral Zone Purple Zone Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 9/8/2016 Figure 35: Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 9/8/2016 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 66 Due to the fact, there is an estimated total of 2,638 hourly spaces Downtown, depending on the hourly occupancy rates, having a rate of around 15% of cars breaking the rules could mean that approximately 100-300 cars are breaking the color zone rules per day. G. Changing Colored Zones The next series of charts displays the percentage of vehicles that were observed changing color zones throughout the day. The purpose of this data is to understand how many cars are being moved from zone to zone to stay Downtown longer than the individual color zone allotment. In May, almost 92% of cars were only observed in one zone and just 7.2% were observed in two. 0% of cars were parked the entire day Downtown by utilizing each zone. 86% 9%3%1% 87% 11% 2%0% 88% 9%2%0% 87% 11% 2%0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Blue Zone Lime Zone Coral Zone Purple Zone Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 10/6/2016 Figure 36: Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 10/6/2016 91.8% 7.2%0.9%0.0% Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 5/19/2016 Parked in one zone only Parked in two zones Parked in three zones Parked in four zones Figure 37: Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 5/19/2016 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 67 Almost the exact same frequencies were observed in September, indicating that there is a consistent base of around 8% of drivers who move their cars around. All the other cars were parked in one zone only that day. Finally, in October there were slightly more cars observed in one zone than in the other two months, however the data remains generally consistent. Only around 6% of drivers in this case were observed in multiple colored zones. 91.9% 7.4%0.7%0.0% Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 9/8/2016 Parked in one zone only Parked in two zones Parked in three zones Parked in four zones Figure 38: Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 9/8/2016 93.5% 5.9%0.5%0.0% Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 10/6/2016 Parked in one zone only Parked in two zones Parked in three zones Parked in four zones Figure 39: Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 10/6/2016 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 68 When considering that there are approximately 2,638 hourly spaces Downtown, the 6 to 8% of vehicles changing color zones could be a significant number of cars. Depending on the hourly occupancy rates, it is estimated that between 80-200 cars are moving between the zones to stay parked downtown for longer than 2-3 hours without a permit. H. Permit Occupancy vs. Permit Sales Thursday Average Permit Occupancy vs. Permit Sales Permit Location Permit Spaces Avg. Sept. Occu Avg. Oct. Occu Avg. Overall Occu Average Spaces Taken Active Permits Permit Cap Usage Rate Current Wait List Average % of permit holders parked Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 78% 57% 68% 336 862 875 39% 104 Garage Q (High/Alma) 132 63% 52% 58% 76 242 245 31% 52 Garage R (High/Alma) 128 101% 83% 92% 118 311 345 38% 82 Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 72% 64% 68% 261 723 750 36% 46 Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 59% 52% 56% 206 764 850 27% 96 Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 68% 75% 72% 19 no data no data no data no data Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) 35 69% 61% 65% 23 138 140 37% 12 Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 51% 53% 52% 28 Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 74% 62% 68% 24 105 110 40% 23 Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 79% 67% 73% 18 Lot X (Sheraton) 31 47% 41% 44% 14 61 65 22% 12 Table 46, displayed above, outlines the average permit occupancy during the September and October data collections compared to the total permit sales for each garage or surface lot. Based on information provided by the City including active permits for each facility and permit caps for each facility combined with the occupancy data collected, the Study determines that on average, between 25% and 40% of permit holders are actively using their permits. Table 46: Thursday Average Permit Occupancy (September & October) vs. Total Permit Sales C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 69 Thursday Peak Permit Occupancy vs. Permit Sales Permit Location Permit Spaces Peak Sept. Occu Peak Oct. Occu Avg. Peak Occu Average Spaces Taken During Peak Occupancy Active Permits Permit Cap Usage Rate Current Wait List Average % of permit holders parked during peak occupancy Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 95% 67% 81% 403 862 875 47% 104 Garage Q (High/Alma) 132 70% 73% 72% 94 242 245 39% 52 Garage R (High/Alma) 128 127% 93% 110% 141 311 345 45% 82 Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 92% 81% 87% 331 723 750 46% 46 Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 85% 77% 81% 301 764 850 39% 96 Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 93% 93% 93% 25 no data no data no data no data Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) 35 83% 80% 82% 29 138 140 47% 12 Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 64% 72% 68% 36 Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 94% 80% 87% 30 105 110 51% 23 Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 96% 96% 96% 24 Lot X (Sheraton) 31 65% 55% 60% 19 61 65 30% 12 Whereas Table 46 outlines the overall average permit occupancy observed in September and October, Table 47 above summarizes the average peak permit occupancy during the same time periods. The purpose of presenting the peak occupancy is to observe the highest quantity of active permits parked at one time and how that figure compares to the current number of active permits. From the data above, one can infer that at peak occupancy periods, the average percentage of permit holders parking is between 30% and 50%. In locations, such as Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) and Lot C (Ramona/Lytton), the peak occupancy captured for those lots is near capacity, with only one or two available spaces vacant. Table 47: Thursday Peak Permit Occupancy (September & October) vs. Total Permit Sales C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 70 IV. Downtown Parking Intercept Survey & Stakeholder Involvement Intercept surveys and a series of key stakeholder meetings were conducted to obtain direct input from the City, residents, visitors, business owners, property owners, and other key members in Palo Alto. In- person surveys and paper surveys were distributed throughout Downtown Palo Alto during each of DIXON’s three data collection efforts as well as distributed online via a webpage link on the City’s website for the month of November. The study’s five stakeholder meetings were held in April, July, October, November of 2016 and January of 2017. The involvement from these groups aimed to acquire opinions related to parking in Palo Alto and potential solutions. A. Parking Intercept Surveys To further expand the study’s data collection, the City and DIXON worked together to compose an intercept survey that gathered information about the parking and transportation habits of visitors, employees, employers, and members of the community. The Study’s intercept surveys coincided with the study’s data collection, occurring on the Friday’s during DIXON’s data collection visits to Palo Alto. Intercept surveys were collected in May, September and October. The Efforts to capture residents in the outlying study area were met with difficulty. Locating residents on-street during typical work hours when residents are often not home may have attributed to this issue. Over the course of the three data collections, over 300 survey responses were gathered. In addition, as part of an effort to expand the survey population and variety of responses, an online survey was developed that was aimed at gathering responses from individuals who may reside in Palo Alto or have recently visited the Downtown. The online weblink created for the survey was then posted to the City’s newly developed Downtown Parking Management Study webpage as well as distributed to the study’s key stakeholder group. The online survey was posted throughout the month of November and received nearly 100 responses in addition to the 300 in-person surveys. Several important themes were gathered from the surveys having to do with individual’s feelings and perspectives towards parking in Downtown Palo Alto. Many of the common themes to evolve from the suggestions or thought to improve parking downtown included: • Additional parking needed (more garages and off-street parking) • Increased employee parking and provide easier parking for employees • Extend parking time limits in the garages • Find a solution for the current permit wait-list (e.g., monthly permits; more permits for individuals and reduce the number permits provided to “companies”; expand the permit zone perimeter) • Do not implement paid parking • Improved public transportation • 80 % of respondents indicated that they had driven a vehicle Downtown that day • More than half of the respondents indicated that they had parking in color zone while a combined 25% of responded that they had parking in residential or another area. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 71 • Approximately 30% of those surveyed specified that they parked on-street versus 51% who answered they had parked off-street. • 60% of respondents indicated they were in Palo Alto that day for work or something work related • A combined 58% of respondents were able to find parking in 5 minutes or less • More than 50% of respondents felt they parked as close as they had anticipated to their destination • Nearly 60% of considered it easy to find a space to park • Over 60% parked for free while 11% paid to park and 7% had parking either validated or subsidized. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 72 Appendix A – Stakeholder Meeting Notes A. Stakeholder Meetings Stakeholder meetings were held in April, July, October, November of 2016 and January 2017. All stakeholder meetings were organized by DIXON and City staff and lead by DIXON. These meetings included key city staff from parking, transportation, development and finance. In addition, community stakeholders attended, including business owners, developers, downtown organizations. Meetings also received contributions from Palo Alto residents and the public. Each meeting was designed to discuss different elements of the project. Attendees were invited to share their feedback, comments and suggestions toward the short and long-term parking strategies in Palo Alto. Complete meeting minutes from each stakeholder meeting can be found in Appendix 1. 1. Stakeholder Meeting #1 The Study’s initial stakeholder meeting took place on April 26th, 2016 and was intended to be a project kick-off for those not directly involved in the study. This meeting allowed for the introductions of DIXON, the City of Palo Alto staff, as well as the stakeholder and community members. DIXON reviewed the project’s scope of work and key objectives that the Study would work to address both short and long-term parking management strategies for Palo Alto. Stakeholders were asked to provide brief comments and thoughts regarding the existing conditions in Palo Alto. Participants were asked to suggest their best-case solution for addressing those conditions. Stakeholders clearly indicated that providing adequate parking supply in the form of space inventory is vital to being able to comfortably find parking Downtown. Added comments by stakeholders highlight an issue facing Palo Alto today as the overflow of parking demand into the neighborhoods surrounding Downtown and felt it important for the City to mitigate this issue and ensure that customers and visitors can find parking close to their destinations. This includes the consideration of constructing additional parking upon further data collection and analysis. Key stakeholders have been working with the City in identifying viable locations for the potential of building an additional parking structure in the Downtown. There have been several locations identified including existing public surface lots. Today, many stakeholders feel that people often tend to avoid Downtown at peak times because of the lack of convenient parking. The Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program was developed to help mitigate the issue of parking overflow in the residential neighborhoods, however stakeholder’s feel that the City did not consider the supply of permits in the development of the program. This has resulted in overselling, long waitlists, and low turnover. These issues contribute to the ineffectiveness of the program. The City has recently decided to issue 200 fewer permits per year moving forward to help reduce this issue and are considering raising the permit cost. Similarly, City staff also agree that increasing permit costs and creating designated parking spaces may be important for the employee permit system. Paid on-street parking and wayfinding signage were aspects considered by the stakeholders to mitigate parking space turnover concerns Downtown. They discussed how allowing visitors and customers to stay longer should come at a premium, and that the majority of long-term parking should be pushed to off- street locations. Part of ensuring the effectiveness of this system is adequate enforcement. Additionally, C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 73 patrons must be able to be directed to available parking Downtown using wayfinding. Many stakeholders feel that the current signage is difficult to read and may be causing increased congestion. The City staff expressed significant concern during the meeting that the color zone system used for parking in Downtown Palo Alto is outdated and inefficient. This same feeling was also echoed by stakeholders. This system may be a source of further congestion due to cars shifting to a new zone to find new parking every two to three-hours. During the meeting the City also discussed the administrative side of parking management and their various political goals. Some of the ideas considered were implementing a comprehensive parking management system, a City smartphone application for permits, and relying more on alternative modes of transportation. The City wants to focus on incentive programs rather than penalties to promote public transit use, biking, and walking. In order to get a better understanding of parking uses and attitudes in Palo Alto, DIXON discussed developing a parking survey to hand out throughout the City. Some issues that the City requested to be covered in the survey were drivers’ thoughts on free parking versus paid parking, how often people visit Downtown, and how long customers or employees park for at a time. 2. Stakeholder Meeting #2 The second stakeholder meeting, held on July 6, 2016, was an opportunity to review the May data collection including initial observations, results of initial data analysis and intercept surveys responses. Stakeholders were solicited for initial feedback and discussion of the findings. The ensuing discussion among stakeholders, the City and DIXON provided valuable points for the second and third data collection efforts. To conclude the meeting, DIXON and the City provided the stakeholders with a summer assignment, to consider the downtown area and bring to the third stakeholder meeting, any options for shared or alternative parking that may be applicable to the future parking availability in Palo Alto. Furthermore, the group was challenged to consider other cities and parking programs they considered to be representative examples for what Palo Alto should strive for. The goal of the third meeting being to plot these potential locations on aerial maps of Palo Alto to bring further visibility to downtown’s parking availability. Despite the current functionality of the color zone system, stakeholders were concerned about the future of the system. They continued to advocate for a change in parking management, especially with the permit systems. One issue that came up related to this was the lack of data in permit areas, especially after-hours when the permit regulations do not currently apply. It was suggested that data collection in September and October be expanded to include permit occupancy. Many stakeholders agreed that there is currently a lack of employee parking, and that the colored zones pose a problem for employees trying to park longer-term. Stakeholders were quite surprised at the figure of 80-200 vehicles moving between zones throughout the day, many of them likely to be employees of downtown businesses who have not purchased a permit. Some methods to combat this issue were discussed alternative transportation programs including carpool incentives and transit passes. Due to the forced high turnover rate for employee parking, some stakeholders want to push employee parking to the C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 74 upper levels of parking garages. This parking would also potentially be free of charge. Stakeholders also expressed that permit programs in Palo Alto could benefit from a more progressive rate scale. As for on-street parking, introducing paid parking with meters is an option being considered. However, one concern that the stakeholders shared is that residents will be dissuaded from traveling Downtown once paid parking is introduced. This feeling stems from the City’s history of fairness when it comes to parking throughout the community. Parking to this point has always been free and not something that many in the community feel they should have to pay for. One concession mentioned by stakeholders to minimize backlash may be to introduce paid parking with the first hour free. Stakeholders’ critiques were considered when developing plans for the next stages of data collection. Additionally, their main concerns were considered to develop relevant and suitable solutions for the City. 3. Stakeholder Meeting #3 The study’s third stakeholder meeting on October 5, 2016, reviewed the September data collection results. Much like the previous two meetings, the results and analyses were presented followed by comments and feedback from the City and stakeholders. The second data collection’s results and the occupancy trends associated were highly consistent with the first data collection in back in May. As part of the October’s stakeholder meeting DIXON organized an interactive activity that included participation from stakeholders and City staff. The interactive session was a two-part activity that dealt with issues related to parking in Palo Alto. First, DIXON created posters (Figure 39) that outlined issues that had been identified through the previous two meetings including paid parking, additional facilities, permits, automation of parking garages, time restrictions, and the colored zones. Stakeholders and staff were asked to approach each issue as though they were assigned to making a change or improvement towards the issue and then identify with a colored (green, yellow, red) sticker, the level of priority that the issue has in relation to the other parking issues in Palo Alto. The second part of the activity utilized large maps of Downtown Palo Alto and participants were asked to identify with stickers (Figure 40), locations or areas on the map that would be ideal for additional parking supply and alternative parking locations. The activity provided stakeholders an opportunity to be actively involved in the study and provide an added level of participation beyond general commentary. The activity was useful in opening further discussion and justifications for changes that the stakeholders considered necessary for Palo Alto. Outcomes of the first part of the activity, changes or improvements to current Palo Alto parking issues, included addressing the current employee permit costs, finding methods to improve the RPP program, eliminating the colored zone, and introducing paid parking. Through the second activity, the group identified several potential parking structure and Figure 40: Stakeholder Parking Issue Comment Board Figure 41: Stakeholder Plotting Map C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 75 locations that may be feasible in adding additional parking supply, including Lot D, which is currently an hourly public parking lot on the corner of Hamilton and Waverly. Several stakeholders identified Lot D as being a viable location and mentioned the City’s expressed interest in the lot as well. Other possible locations included Garage Q (High/Alma North), Lot O (Emerson /High), Lot K (Lytton/Waverly), and Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton). DIXON has taken into consideration many of the comments and locations identified by participants in the proposed recommendations for Palo Alto. The fourth meeting concluded with a brief synopsis of what would be presented in Stakeholder Meeting #4 in which the full summary of data collection and outline of proposed recommendations would be discussed. 4. Stakeholder Meeting #4 November 17, 2016 marked the study’s fourth stakeholder meeting, following DIXON’s final data collection effort in early October. The fourth meeting focused on the summary and overall analysis of the study’s overall data collection efforts and introduced the preliminary recommendations that DIXON proposed for the City of Palo Alto. The recommendations were composed based upon the DIXON’s data collection, observations, assessment of Palo Alto’s parking operations, and the previous three stakeholder meetings. Based on the early recommendations made by DIXON, the reaction from City staff and stakeholders was generally positive. Several of DIXON’s early recommendations had been discussed at length in the previous stakeholder meetings as overall issues of concern for Palo Alto. These issues included removing the color program completely, paid parking in Downtown, the need for additional parking supply in the future, and the restructuring of the City’s current permit program. The City and stakeholders were also in agreement that the current employee permit program should be improved and reacted positively towards the recommendation of allowing low-wage employees to purchase monthly permits rather than bi- annually or annually. Furthermore, there was a level of support for tiered pricing structures for hourly parking on-street as well as payment tiers between potential on-street meters and off-street rates. In general, stakeholders were amenable to the prospect of time of day or demand-based pricing in the future, proceeding a period in which the City has adequately introduced paid parking Downtown. The recommendations spurred constructive discussion among the City, stakeholders and DIXON, and the group conversed over certain issues that may result from the implementation of the recommendations. For example, one recommendation was to extend paid parking hours into the early evening. It was concluded though that because of the current structure of the Downtown RPP program, extended parking hours in Downtown may push vehicles into the RPP zones and result in frustration from residents. The group agreed that this recommendation is one that will be needed but that may be better fit as a more long-term solution. In addition, drawing on the topic of pricing mentioned in the previous paragraph, the group noted that the pricing introduced with potential paid parking would have to be implemented in a way that permit-holders and other customers are enticed to park in garages and not to deter customers with rates or an increased permit cost. A method to increase parking in garages and not deter based on rates or increased costs was received clearly by DIXON and taken into consideration in the recommendations. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 76 In summary, the fourth stakeholder meeting was able to reinforce that Palo Alto has parking issues related to on- and off-street parking in Downtown based on the data collection results from May, September and October. Based on the current state of Palo Alto’s parking, DIXON put forth several recommendations including the introduction of paid parking. Overwhelmingly, the City and stakeholders agreed that paid parking is necessary and that the other recommendations outlined are worth considering. A bulletized list outlines the initial recommendations introduced by DIXON at the stakeholder meeting are outlined below. Permits • Recommend that the City increase its annual employee permit prices o Set employee permit price as part of tiered pricing strategy that correlates with on-street and off-street hourly parking rates o Provide employees (incl. low-wage) the opportunity to pay for permits an on annual, bi- annual and monthly basis • Recommend the City eliminate its daily permit option and replace with daily hourly maximum as part of paid parking implementation o Automation of off-street garage facilities • Continue to support current TMA efforts to provide alternative modes of transportation and reduce SOV figures Paid Parking • Remove Color Zones o Implement tiered zones related to pricing • Recommend the City implement paid parking throughout Downtown o Single-space/multi-space/mobile payments • Implement a Time of Day pricing strategy to begin o Paid parking and enforcement on Saturdays Wayfinding • Implement City’s design plans for wayfinding campaign which includes signage and branding • Implement parking guidance system with transmission of real-time facility occupancy information • Consider creation of paid parking signs to inform motorists where potential value and premium parking is located New Facilities and Alternative Strategies • Recommend the City pursue its considerations to construct parking structure on Lot D at Hamilton Ave and Waverly St. • Encourage shared-parking opportunities with local business and establishments • Trial Uber/Lyft discount programs Enforcement • The City recently upgraded enforcement handhelds to Android-based devices. DIXON supports this decision by the City as many municipalities are switching to smartphone devices for enforcement. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 77 • Recommend the City implement enforcement on the weekends, including Sunday (even if enforcement is light) • Suggest the City review its citation fee rates and consider higher penalties associated with parking Administrative • With implementation of paid parking, suggest the City create a parking specific department to provide oversight on paid parking, permits (employee and residential), enforcement, revenue collection, and meter maintenance C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 78 Appendix B - Survey A complete list of multiple choice survey questions and results from May, September, and October is listed below: MAY SURVEYS Did you drive here today? Yes 80% No 20% What color zone did you park in? Blue Zone 11% Coral Zone 28% Lime Zone 13% Purple Zone 17% Residential 8% Other 23% Did you park on-street or off-street? On-Street 37% Off-Street 63% What is the primary purpose of your visit? Shopping 10% Dining 8% Entertainment 1% Work or work related 74% I live here 1% Pick-up passengers 2% Pick-up/deliver goods/packages 0% Personal care appointment 3% Visiting family/friends 0% Other 0% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 79 How long did it take to find a space? <1 minute 35% 1-5 minutes 30% 5-10 minutes 22% >10 minutes 13% How did you pay for parking today? Parking was free 77% I paid the cost to park 13% Parking was subsidized/validated 9% Do you consider the space you parked in close enough to your destination? Yes 66% No, I parked farther than anticipated 19% I parked farther than anticipated, but I don't mind walking 15% How easy was it to find a parking space today (1 - Very easy, 5 - Very hard) Very easy 41% 2 18% Neutral 23% 4 9% Very hard 8% How willing would you be to pay for parking if it meant you would be able to more quickly find a spot closer to your destination? (1=Very Willing; 5=Very Unwilling) Very willing 9% 2 21% Neutral 16% 4 21% Very unwilling 33% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 80 What if the parking revenue was used to directly fund transportation improvements in the area? Very willing 23% 2 21% Neutral 13% 4 17% Very unwilling 26% How many people were in your car including yourself? 1 70% 2 25% 3 4% 4 0% 5+ 2% In which range does your age fall? 16-24 27% 25-34 38% 35-44 16% 45-54 11% 55-64 7% 65+ 0% What is your gender? Male 40% Female 60% In what range does your household income fall? $15,000 - $24,999 20% $25,000 - $49,999 27% $50,000 - $74,999 15% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 81 $75,000 - $99,999 13% $100,000 - $149,000 16% $150,000 - $200,000 5% $200,000 + 4% Which category most closely matches your profession? Arts and Entertainment 2% Construction/Maintenance 2% Education, Social Service, Nonprofit 2% Healthcare 5% Personal Services (Food service, personal care, other services) 38% Production/Manufacturing 2% Professional Services (Legal, Financial, etc.) 14% Retail 21% Other 7% IT 5% Student 2% SEPTEMBER SURVEYS Did you drive here today? Yes 74% No 26% If you did not drive, how did you get Downtown today? Bus 12% Caltrain 31% Carpool 15% Ride-Share 3% Bike 15% Walk 24% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 82 Where did you park your car? On-Street 38% Off-Street - Garage 54% Off-Street - Surface Lot 8% What are the primary purposes of your visit today? Shopping 3% Dining 6% Entertainment 3% Work or work related 85% I live here 1% Pick-up passengers 0% Pick-up/deliver goods/packages 0% Personal care appointment 1% Visiting family/friends 0% Other 0% How long did it take to find a space? <1 minute 31% 1-5 minutes 35% 5-10 minutes 14% >10 minutes 20% How did you pay for parking today? Parking was free 83% I paid the cost to park 10% Parking was subsidized/validated - Employer 2% Parking was subsidized/validated - Client 5% Parking was subsidized/validated - Merchant 0% Do you consider the space your vehicle is parked in close enough to your destination? C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 83 Yes 51% No, I parked farther than anticipated 32% I parked farther than anticipated, but I don't mind walking 17% How easy was it to find a parking space today? (1 - Very easy, 5 - Very hard) 1 - Very Easy 22% 2 12% 3 - Neutral 24% 4 22% 5 - Very Hard 20% How willing would you be to pay for parking if it meant you would be able to more quickly find a spot closer to your destination? (1=Very Willing; 5=Very Unwilling) Very willing 3% 2 8% Neutral 26% 4 13% Very unwilling 51% What if the parking revenue was used to directly fund transportation improvements in the area? Very willing 8% 2 13% Neutral 45% 4 10% Very unwilling 25% Would you be willing to pay for an annual downtown parking sticker? Yes 31% No 69% How often do you visit Downtown? Everyday 67% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 84 A couple times a week 30% Once a week 0% Once every couple weeks 2% Once a month 0% Less than once a month 0% What is the most important factor in determining where you park? Location 36% Ease of finding a space 26% Price 14% Safety/security 14% Other 10% Have you heard of or do you know about the Employee Parking (permit) Program? Yes 48% No 52% Do you think there is enough parking in Downtown Palo Alto? Yes 16% No 84% If you drove, how many people were in your car? 1 90% 2 10% 3 0% 4 0% 5 0% 6 0% In which range does your age fall? 16-24 37% 25-34 49% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 85 35-44 5% 45-54 5% 55-64 2% 65+ 2% What is your gender? Male 31% Female 69% In what range does your household income fall? $15,000 - $24,999 38% $25,000 - $49,999 24% $50,000 - $74,999 11% $75,000 - $99,999 8% $100,000 - $149,000 16% $150,000 - $200,000 3% $200,000 + 0% Which category most closely matches your profession? Arts and Entertainment 2% Construction/Maintenance 2% Education, Social Service, Nonprofit 0% Healthcare 0% Personal Services (Food service, personal care, other services) 63% Production/Manufacturing 0% Professional Services (Legal, Financial, etc.) 2% Retail 29% Other 0% IT 0% Student 0% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 86 OCTOBER SURVEYS Based upon your most recent visit to Downtown, did you drive a car? Yes 66% No 34% Where did you park your car? On-street 44% Off-street - Garage 27% Off-street - Surface Lot 19% Off-street - Private lot/space 10% If you did not drive, what form of transportation did you use to get Downtown? Bus 0% Caltrain 10% Carpool 7% Ride-share 8% Bike 20% Walk 55% Do you consider the space you parked your vehicle close enough to your destination or farther than you anticipated? Close enough 62% Farther than anticipated 26% I parked farther than I anticipated but I don't mind walking 12% How long did it take you to find a parking space? < 1 minute 36% 1-5 minutes 33% 5-10 minutes 15% >10 minutes 15% Did you pay for parking? C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 87 Parking was free 91% I paid the cost to park 9% Parking was subsidized/validated 0% How many people were in your car including yourself? 1 51% 2 33% 3 11% 4 6% 5+ 0% What were the primary purposes of your visit Downtown? (select all that apply) Shopping 28% Dining 51% Entertainment 7% Work related meeting/event 16% I work here 14% Pick-up passengers 0% Pick-up/Deliver goods 4% Personal care appointments 11% Visiting family/friends 10% Other 14% Have you heard of or do you know about the Employee Parking Program? (Permit) Yes 70% No 10% Yes but the price of the permit is too expensive 20% Would you be willing to pay for an annual downtown parking sticker? Yes 23% No 53% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 88 Yes but the price has to be reasonable 24% What is the most important factor in determining where you park? (Select all that apply) Location 32% Ease of finding a space 45% Price 8% Safety/Security 14% Other 1% Do you think there is enough parking in Downtown Palo Alto? Yes 38% No 62% How often do you visit Downtown? Everyday 34% A couple of times per week 35% Once a week 11% Once every couple of weeks 10% Once a month 5% Less than once a month 5% When driving Downtown, how willing would you be to pay for parking if it meant you would be more likely to find a spot close to your destination? (1=very willing; 5=very unwilling) Very willing 23% 2 23% Neutral 12% 4 19% Very unwilling 21% I already paid for parking 1% What if that parking revenue was used to directly fund transportation improvements in the area? (1=very willing; 5=very unwilling) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 89 Very willing 9% 2 29% Neutral 24% 4 18% Very unwilling 20% What is your gender? Male 38% Female 58% Prefer not to answer 4% In what range does your household income fall? $15,000 - $24,999 0% $25,000 - $49,999 5% $50,000 - $74,999 5% $75,000 - $99,999 10% $100,000 - $149,000 10% $150,000 - $200,000 30% $200,000 + 40% What category most closely matches your profession? Arts and Entertainment 3% Construction/Maintenance 0% Education, Social Service, Nonprofit 13% Healthcare 6% Personal Services (Food service, personal care, other services) 1% Profession Services (legal, financial, etc.) 36% Retail 0% Other 41% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 90 Appendix C -Comparable Cities Analysis 5. Introduction Assessing the parking strategies utilized in various comparable cities to Palo Alto is important in developing an effective parking program for the City. Similar cities can offer insight into whether strategies will be feasible and successful in Palo Alto. The City provided a list of thirteen comparable cities options, which were then narrowed down to eight, based on the available data and responses from the cities. Each city was solicited for information about their paid parking, technology, and permit programs. The eight California cities selected for analysis were Alameda, Berkeley, Monterey, Mountain View, Pasadena, San Mateo, Santa Monica, and Sausalito. While these cities are not analogous to Palo Alto in every way, their parking programs are considered in this study on a comparative basis because they offer insight into potential parking solutions that may be applied to the City. 6. Overview a) Paid Parking and Technology While Palo Alto does not currently charge for on- or off-street hourly parking (off-street daily permits are sold), valuable lessons can be learned from comparable cities about the potential benefits or drawbacks of paid parking. Understanding the impact of paid parking can help the City of Palo Alto make informed decisions about managing its parking program moving forward. Like Palo Alto, the City of Mountain View currently offers free on- and off-street parking, regulated by time limits, for downtown visitors. However, the Mountain View City Council recently agreed to explore the possibility of paid parking to combat their high occupancy rates. Paid parking can generate a significant amount of revenue for a city, and it can also be a tactic to regulate parking supply by promoting or dissuading parking in certain locations. Alameda and San Mateo for example each offer on-street parking for $1.00 per hour in their downtown cores, and a lower rate of $0.50 per hour for fringe locations. This method helps make parking in the downtown core a premium. Out of the eight cities, Berkeley has the most expensive on-street parking with a rate at $3.25 per hour. However, the City of Berkeley offers a lower rate in its off-street parking facilities, which can be a method of promoting longer-term parking in the garages to free up the more convenient parking on-street for customers and visitors. In addition to the range of parking rates, the selected cities use a variety of single-space and multi-space meter technologies. Should the City of Palo Alto considers implementing paid parking in the future, looking at the use of different technologies in nearby cities can help city planners determine what could best fit the City’s needs. The below table shows a comparison of on- and off-street parking rates, as well as the types of single- and multi-space meters used in the eight comparable cities. A more detailed explanation of parking rates and technology is outlined in the individual city sections. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 91 City Parking Rates Meters On-Street Off-Street Single-Space Multi-Space Palo Alto Free (2-hr.) Free (3-hr.) None None Alameda $0.50-$1.00/hr. $0.75/hr. Yes Yes Berkeley $3.25/hr. $2.00/hr. $20.00 Daily Max. Yes Yes Monterey $1.50/hr. $0.50-$1.00/hr. Yes Yes Mountain View Free Free None None Pasadena $1.00-$1.25/hr. $0.75-$2.00/hr. Yes Yes San Mateo $0.50-$1.00/hr. $1.00/hr. Yes Yes Santa Monica $1.00-$2.00/hr. First 90 Minutes Free $1.25: First Hour $3.70/hr. $17.50 Daily Max. Yes Yes Sausalito $1.00/hr. $3.00/hr. $25.00 Daily Max. Yes Yes Table 48: Parking Rates and Technology Comparison b) Parking Permits Comparing Palo Alto’s employee and residential permit programs to those in various comparable cities can highlight potential program deficiencies or successes to be considered if the City makes changes to its programs. This report summarizes price structures, permit regulations, and program features amongst the cities to learn about the various forms a permit program can take on. Throughout the Downtown Color Zones, an employee can park daily in any of the off-street parking lots and garages. Employees who do not purchase a permit are required to move their vehicles per posted time limits throughout the day. Unfortunately, the popularity of this program has resulted in a long waitlist for the downtown garages, which can make it hard for employees to find sufficient parking downtown. Considering a higher permit rate may potentially be beneficial to Palo Alto’s employee permit program because a higher rate could dissuade more employees from driving downtown, and instead more people may rely on alternative modes of transportation like public transit or biking. It is important to note that a raise in in downtown employee permits would also result in raising the employee permits in the RPP district as well. The City of Berkeley has an employee permit rate priced at $1,800.00 annually as well as the City of Sausalito, which offers a SmartCard at $4.00 per day, amounting to approximately $1,044.00 annually. The City of Santa Monica charges even more than Berkeley and Sausalito, with an annual rate of over $2,000.00. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 92 The table below shows a comparison between the annual cost for both employee and residential permits in the different comparable cities. A more detailed description of the city permit programs is covered in the individual city sections below. City Downtown Employee Permit Palo Alto $466.00 Alameda $360.00-$720.00 Berkeley $1,800 (public permit) Monterey $258.00 Mountain View $326.00 Pasadena N/A San Mateo $360.00-$960.00 (residents or employees) Santa Monica $2,112 (public permit) Sausalito $1,044.00 Table 49: Annual Permit Cost Comparison* *Note: monthly and bi-annual permit costs were converted to into annual costs for comparison. 7. Cities a) Alameda, CA The City of Alameda is located across the bay from San Francisco, and is known for its vibrant business district as well as its unique retail shops and restaurants downtown. The city is approximately 23 square miles, with a population of 78,360 per the 2010 Census. In Alameda, the City manages parking, including street parking, three surface lots, and one parking structure: • Lot A • Lot B • West End Lot • Civic Center Parking Structure Both on-street and off-street parking is metered in Alameda. There is a total of 640 on-street and 523 off- street metered spaces. The City uses single-space IPS meters as well as Cale and T2 multi-space pay stations. On average, there are 750 transactions per day with the single-space meters compared to an average of 200 per day with the multi-space pay stations. Currently there is no pay-by-phone option in Alameda. On-street parking costs between $0.50 and $1.00 per hour, and the off-street parking in Alameda costs $0.75 per hour. The City is not currently considering raising their parking rates. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 93 There is an employee parking permit program offered for the top floor of the Civic Center Parking Structure that can be obtained from the Human Resources Department. These permit spaces are enforced between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm on Monday – Thursday. Alameda is currently in the process of implementing a residential preferential permit parking program for the first time. Through this program, short-term guest permits will be valid for one day and longer-term guest permits will be valid for one to four weeks. These permit zones will be effective between 4:00am and 6:00pm. b) Berkeley, CA Berkeley is located near San Francisco in Alameda County, California. Its urban downtown has a mix of different art, culture, and food for residents and visitors to enjoy. Per the 2010 census, there are approximately 120,972 residents in the City, and Berkeley is made up of 17.7 square miles. The Transportation Division along with their parking operator, LAZ Parking, manages on- and off-street parking. Specifically, LAZ manages daily operations at the City’s garages and the Berkeley Way Lot. Berkeley is easily accessible by alternative modes of transportation such as the BART and the bus, which helps relieve some parking demands. The City has both paid on- and off-street parking. There is a total of approximately 4,000 on-street parking spaces downtown, many of which are metered. On-street meters apply between the hours of 9:00am and 6:00pm on weekdays, Saturdays, and even some holidays. Berkeley has introduced Rate Zones downtown where prices differ depending on location and demand. Rate Zones are identified using color-coded signs and display either Premium or Value with a corresponding rate and time limit. Premium spaces enforce a two-hour maximum parking time while Value spaces allow for eight-hour maximum parking time. Downtown on-street parking rates range from $2.00 per hour in Value zones to $3.25 per hour in Premium zones. There are two metered parking lots owned by the City, the Berkeley Way Lot and the Elmwood District Lot. These lots are metered Monday through Saturday, starting at 7:00am and ending between 6:00pm and 10:00pm. There are a total of 510 off-street spaces. Off-street parking costs $2.00 per hour with a $20.00 daily maximum. The IPS single-space meters and multi-space pay stations account for a combined total of 19,950 transactions on average per day. The City does not currently offer a mobile payment options. Berkeley currently does not have an employee permit parking program, however there are monthly permits available for purchase for $150.00 per month to be used in the garages and lots. These permit locations are enforced between the hours of 7:00am and 6:00pm. The Residential Preferential Parking program in Berkeley costs $55.00 per year per car. Additionally, residents may purchase up to twenty- one-day visitor permits per year at a price of $2.75 each. Up to three fourteen-day visitor permits can be Image 1: Alameda Civic Center Parking Structure C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 94 purchased per year for $28.50 each. The zones eligible for a residential permit have been determined by the City’s Traffic Engineer’s Office. c) Monterey, CA The City of Monterey is known for its coastal charm, and Monterey’s thriving old town has numerous shops, restaurants, and a farmers’ market that attract residents and visitors downtown. Per the 2010 Census, there are approximately 27,810 residents in the 11.8 square mile city. Parking in Monterey can get quite busy especially during the summer months, as many tourists are attracted to the City. Both on- and off-street parking in managed by the City. Public parking in in the City of Monterey is managed by the Parking Division, which is a standalone division under the Community Services Department. None of the parking related tasks in Monterey are outsourced. The Parking Division is an enterprise fund, in which the Division is responsible for its own expenses. This allows the City to exhibit to the public the total service costs as well as how revenues and fees are factored into the budget. Monterey’s Parking Division runs all aspects of parking including meter maintenance, collections, enforcement and administration. They pay their Parks Division to provide landscaping for their facilities, and they pay the Streets Division for street pavement and sign maintenance. The Parking Division also pays $550,000.00 annually into the General Fund for City services from Human Resources, the City Attorney, the Finance Department, etc. In the Parking Division, there are twenty-five full-time and twenty-eight part-time employees. Figure 42: City of Berkeley Residential Permit Map C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 95 Street parking in downtown Monterey has time limits ranging from 20 minutes to two-hours, and many of the off-street spaces are limited to two-hours as well. There are an estimated 3000 on-street spaces, 510 of which are metered. Out of the 3,940 off-street spaces, 2,258 of those are metered. The majority of meters in Monterey are IPS single-space meters, but there are a small amount of POM meters scattered throughout City. As for pay stations, the City uses both Ventek and MacKay. The City does not currently provide a mobile payment functions. The rate for on-street parking is $1.50 per hour, and off-street parking costs between $0.50 and $1.50 per hour. Monterey was able to provide average transactions per day data for the winter and summer. The average number of transactions per day in January and July for both on- and off-street meters and pay stations are as follows: January: • 1,184 single-space meter transactions per day • 975 multi-space pay station transactions per day July: • 2,156 single-space meter transactions per day • 2,173 multi-space pay station transactions per day Monthly permit parking is offered for the Downtown West Garage, Downtown East Garage, and the Cannery Row Garage. The access card cost varies by garage and has an additional $5.00 deposit, however there is a discount for quarterly and annual permits. There are also monthly surface lot permits available for Lots B, 4, 6, 14, 18, 21, the Depot Lot, and the Waterfront Lot. These require a paper permit that is displayed on the dash. These permits have a $10.00 deposit, and generally cost $42.50 per month with some variation depending on the lot. See Figure 38 for a schedule of permit fees. Figure 43: City of Monterey Permit Rates There are employee parking permit and residential parking permit programs in Monterey. The employee permits are offered on either a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis to be used between the hours of 9:00am and 8:00pm. These permits are available on a quarterly or monthly basis, and cost $21.50 per month or $57.00 per quarter. The New Monterey Employee permit is outlined for the New Monterey Business District and one must supply a pay stub, business card, or sign letter from employer on business letterhead to qualify. The residential permit program requires that a majority (50% + 1) of the households on that block(s) sign a petition requesting the program. At which time, the designated block(s) must be approved by the Parking Division through parking studies that determine if the blocks have at least 70% average occupancy. This program also allows two guest permits per residence, free, and it is the responsibility of the resident to see that the guest permit is returned to him/her for re-use. The City Monterey’s Parking department is handled completely by the City. The department is structured as an enterprise find. The department pays approximately $850,000 for services with other departments (e.g., Finance, City Attorney, Public Work). The Parking Fund pays one-hundred percent of all its expenses to include loans and capital projects. Monterey does not outsource any operations to private third-party vendors. Parking pays for services from other City Departments. For example, Parking pays the Parks Division for landscape services, building maintenance for janitorial services and minor repairs. Furthermore, the Streets Division is paid by Parking to perform maintenance of on-street pavement around metered spaces as well as sign services. d) Mountain View, CA The City of Mountain View is in Santa Clara County near Palo Alto and within the Silicon Valley. Mountain View is known for its many major technology companies as well as its downtown core around the Castro and Mercy Streets. The City is made up of around 12.3 square miles, and has a population of approximately 80,435 people. The City of Mountain View Community Development Department manages parking within the downtown commercial area, while the Public Works Department is responsible for parking outside of the downtown core. The Police Department provides citywide enforcement and citation management, and citations are processed through a third party. Currently, Mountain View does not have any members dedicated to parking full-time. Instead, the responsibility is shared across the three departments with four staff members involved in some aspects of parking. Mountain View currently does not have paid on- or off-street parking downtown. Instead, there are various time limit restrictions depending on the location. Where time limits are enforced, parking is restricted to two-hours, with some 1-hour, 3-hour, and 5-hours. Additionally, there is no overnight parking allowed in the parking garages between the hours of 2:00am and 6:00am. While parking is currently free, the City currently faces extremely high occupancy rates downtown, making it difficult for drivers to find parking during the peak lunch and evening hours. The Mountain View City Council recently agreed to begin exploring the possibility of paid parking to potentially free up more parking spaces. Mountain View offers downtown parking permits that may be purchased by downtown residents, employers, or employees for long-term parking. Drivers can purchase these permits on a monthly or annual basis, or as a booklet of 25 one-day permits. The annual purchase price is $240.00, and the monthly and booklet prices are $40.00 each. The purpose of the booklets is for business owners to purchase and distribute to their customers. Those with downtown permits may park for up to 72-hours in select parking garages and lots. As for a residential permit program, the City does offer parking permits for those who reside within the parking permit program boundaries which has been created in response to game-day parking issues spurned from the Levi’s football stadium. The structure of this permit program is unique because it is modeled around the San Francisco 49ers schedule. Two permits per household are provided for free for those residents within the program boundaries pictured below. The permits are only valid on game days because of the influx of traffic to the area on those days. Permit holders are permitted to park without restriction between 5:00pm and 10:00pm on weekday game days, and between 8:00am and 10:00pm on weekend game days. e) Pasadena, CA Downtown Pasadena, known as Old Town Pasadena, is a business district with many restaurants, shops, and events as well as a Sunday farmers’ market. There are approximately 142,250 people residing in the City per the 2010 census report. The City of Pasadena is made up of just over 23 square miles and it is located ten miles northeast of Los Angeles. The Parking Services Division in the City of Pasadena falls under the Department of Transportation. This Division is responsible for aspects of the City’s parking program including enforcement and permit and citation processing. The meter mechanics are part of the Department of Transportation, and some facility maintenance is handled by the Public Works Department. Additionally, some garage and surface lot management is contracted out. Garage operations including customer service calls, custodial and maintenance is contracted out. Pasadena also relies partly on a private security company that can issue citations on behalf of the City, on City ticket stock, as part of their enforcement. There are a total of twenty-one City employees that deal with parking, and there are fifteen contracted parking enforcement officers. While most on-street spaces in Pasadena do not have daily time limits, there are 2,267 metered spaces downtown. These meters are enforced every day of the week downtown, and either six or seven day per Figure 44: Mountain View Residential Permit Program Boundaries week by the Civic Center, Playhouse, and South Lake areas of the City. There is no street parking allowed overnight between 2:00am and 6:00am. The City uses Duncan single-space meters throughout downtown. On-street parking in Pasadena costs between $1.00 and $1.25 per hour depending on the location. As for off-street parking, the City has a total number of 6,469 spaces, 904 of which are mall paid. There are eleven different off-street parking locations throughout downtown that are convenient to restaurants and shopping. Pasadena uses the Cale multi-space pay stations for off-street parking. There are on average 24 transactions per day on average at the pay stations, and the City does not offer a mobile payment option. Off-street parking costs between $0.75 and $2.00. While there is no employee permit program in Pasadena, there is an annual residential permit option for on-street parking. Residents can register for an annual overnight on-street parking permit or an annual daytime on-street permit. To qualify, residents must own more vehicles than they have space to park off- street at their residence. Residents can only have a maximum of two permits at a time. These permits have an application fee of $43.00 each, and they require a photocopy of the vehicle registration for every vehicle they own. Annual permits currently expire on December 31 of each year and are prorated quarterly. The fee for an overnight parking permit or a daytime parking permit is outlined below. January 1, 2016 – March 31, 2016 $71.32 each April 1, 2016 – June 30, 2016 $53.49 each July 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016 $35.66 each October 1, 2016 – December 31, 2016 $17.83 each Table 50: City of Pasadena fee schedule for overnight and daytime parking permits One of the main issues that Pasadena has run into with their residential permit parking program is the lack of regulations with guest permits. Currently, the program does not have a restricted number of guest permits allowed per year. Additionally, the City does all the permit fulfillment, which can be very time consuming. Because of this, they are considering having a 3rd-party company handle this program in the future. f) Redwood City, CA Redwood City, utilizes one engineer in the Engineering and Transportation Services Division that is responsible for overseeing the entire parking program. The Engineering and Transportation Services Division falls under the Community Development Department. Many of the parking tasks are split between multiple departments. The Revenue Services Department handles cash collections and credit card processing, the Public Works Department is responsible for maintenance, signs and curbs, and the Police Department handles enforcement. Additionally, the City Manager Communications Division is responsible for any parking advertising and outreach, and the Information Technology (IT) Department provides meter and garage technology support services. Parking garage staffing and management is outsourced to ABM. Coordination between the departments’ parking goals can be very difficult with the tasks split among so many departments, which is why the oversight from the engineer is critical. In addition to the engineer, there are three employees that deal with parking in the Public Works Department, two in Community Development, three in Revenue Services, open in IT, and three in the Police Department. A total of twelve staff in Redwood City total who deal with some aspect of parking. g) San Jose, CA The Parking Division in San Jose is within the Department of Transportation and manages most parking- related tasks. SP+ is the City’s parking operator and provides garage security. Additionally, all citation processing is done by Turbo Data. Within the Parking Division there is a Transportation and Parking Operations Division manager and three Parking Managers. There is an Off-Street Parking Manager, an On- Street Parking Manager, and a Program Manager. The Parking and Transportation Control Officers fall under the management of the On-Street Manager. There are a total of sixty-seven full-time and eight part- time Parking Division employees in the City of San Jose. h) San Mateo, CA San Mateo is located between San Francisco and Palo Alto, known for its award- winning restaurants, startup companies, and unique arts. The City is dense and walkable, with easy access to public transit. San Mateo is almost 16 square miles and has a population of 103,356 people. The City, along with their parking operator, SP+, manage the 3,000 parking spaces (on and off-street) downtown including the City’s permit application system, like Palo Alto. Public Parking in the City of San Mateo is managed by the Public Works Department through the City Manager’s Office. The City Manager’s Office commissioned a Downtown Parking Management Plan through CDM Smith in 2013, which recommended the creation of a dedicated Parking Manager position. They recently hired their first Parking Manger to oversee the program. Public Works handles all customer service and permit distribution in-house at City Hall. Enforcement is also completely managed by the City through the Police Department. The City retains SP+ as an on-call consultant, primarily for parking operations, meter maintenance and collections, as well as some technical consulting. Data collection is also outsourced, like it is done in Palo Alto. In addition to the Parking Manager, there is one full-time Parking Administrative Technician, a varying number of Parking Enforcement Officers, two Traffic Sergeants who work on some parking programs, a Community Service Officer who oversees the enforcement officers, and a Technician at the counter who works partially on permit distribution. There are 1,200 on-street metered spaces in downtown San Mateo, which each cost $1.00 per hour in the Central Area (highlighted by Orange Area in Figure 40 below). Time limits vary depending on, on-street or off-street parking. For example, parking in the Central Garage enforces a 3-hour time limit on the street level while all other levels are no time limit. The Perimeter Area parking (highlighted by Green Area in Figure 40 below) is $0.50 per hour with varying time limits similar to the Central Area. Street level off- street garage parking and surface lots enforce a 3-hour time limit while there is no time limit for the other garage levels. On-street spaces have varying time limits. There areas highlighted on the below map in orange are considered the core, and the green are those areas that are considered the perimeter. There are some POM, IPS, and MacKay single-space meters throughout the downtown. Parking is enforced between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm Monday through Saturday. Parking is free after 6:00pm Monday through Saturday. The striped areas on the above map indicate the off-street garage parking locations downtown. The street level of the central garage (in orange) is $1.00 per hour with a three-hour time limit. The other floors cost $0.50 per hour and do not have a time limit. This system helps increase turnover on the most convenient floor and keeps the all-day parkers on the upper floors. The street level of the other garages as well as the surface lots cost $0.50 per hour, also with a three-hour time limit. The other levels are the same price but without a time limit. The City uses Amano and MacKay multi-space pay stations. Figure 45: San Mateo Parking Zone Map San Mateo offers a mobile payment option through PayByPhone. This is available at two of the off-street parking lots currently, but the City will likely expand this program to all the off-street lot locations in the upcoming months. PaybyPhone provides customers with an alternative way to pay for downtown parking and if a customer is nearing the expiration of their parking time, one can add additional time, up to the time limit for that space. Mobile payment is a convenient payment option for a City like San Mateo. There are on average around 500 transactions per month through PayByPhone at each lot, equating to an average of 8-10 transactions per day. The City has a monthly permit that is available for residents or for employees. Permit sales are processed online through the San Mateo Parking website. Each permit is linked to an individual license plate number and is a physical hangtag that is printed by permit holder. Permits are purchased for specific zones. The different zones have varied costs. The downtown core costs $80.00 per month, while the perimeter is $50.00 and outside of downtown is $30.00 per month. This tiered rate structure makes parking in the core of downtown a premium, and encourages drivers to park further away to save money and free up the more valuable spaces. There is also a residential parking permit program in San Mateo which is currently free. Parking permits are issued as stickers and are affixed to the resident’s vehicle. Residential permits are valid for two calendar years. These permits are available for neighborhoods that are impacted by heavy traffic from nearby businesses for example. There is no fee for these permits, but residents must fill out an application. The number of permits that may be issued to a single or multi-family residence is unlimited. Each household is also eligible for a transferable visitor hangtag. i) Santa Monica, CA Santa Monica is located on the coast in western Los Angeles County. It is home to many boutique shops, high-end restaurants, and landmark attractions. The City is a tourist destination, and is home to an estimated 93,220 people per the 2010 census. The City is comprised of around just 8.4 square miles. On-street parking is managed by the City, while their parking operation, SP Plus manages the off- street parking facilities. There are approximately 5,000 on-street metered spaces in Santa Monica. The City uses IPS single-space meters, and the rate is between $1.00 and $2.00 per hour. These meters accept credit card and coin, but there is no mobile payment option at this time. Most meters, such as those along Ocean Avenue, 4th Street, and 2nd Street have a 3-hour time limit, which is enforced between 8:00am and 2:00am every day. The downtown meters along 5th Street and near the Civic Center also have a 3-hour time limit, but these are enforced between 8:00am and 9:00pm. The downtown parking structures in Santa Monica offer the first 90-minutes of parking free. The next hour is $1.25, with each additional 30-minutes costing $1.85. There is a daily maximum of $17.50. There are a total of twelve parking structures and four lots that make up parking for the downtown, Third Street Promenade and the Civic Center. There are multiple types of monthly permits that the public can choose to purchase for the off-street parking structures. A regular monthly permit to be used anytime is $176.00. There are also two options to either park on weekdays from 6:00am to 7:00pm or on weeknights from 4:00pm to 6:00am. These time-limited permits cost $132.00 for the day and $82.50 for the night option. The employee permit parking program in Santa Monica allows employees to park with keycard access to an assigned parking structure with the purchase of their monthly permit. There are also exempt street- parking permit available. These are only valid during the employment period, and applications are reviewed by the City to ensure eligibility. There are also five options for monthly permits available for employees that permit access into different parking structures: Option1 Lots 1N, 3N-9N, 2S-5S $27.00 per month Option 2 Civic Center $160.00 per month Option 3 Civic Center between 3:30pm-6:00am $75.00 per month Option 4 Main Library $82.50 per month Option 5 Downtown structures 1-9 $176.00 per month Table 51: City of Santa Monica permit schedule for Downtown, Third Street Promenade and Civic Center parking Employee parking permits are issued only to employees of businesses and must provide proof of employment, current California registration reflecting employees name and address, as well as proof of California residency (driver’s license or ID card). The residential Preferential Parking Permit program limits certain on-street zones to residents to make it easier for residents to find parking in impacted areas. Residents’ permits are only valid within a two-block radius of their address, and only residents that live on an approved block may purchase a visitor permit. Applicants must show proof of residency, and pay a fee of $25.00 to apply. One permit per vehicle is allowed, and up to two visitor permits are allowed per year. A maximum of 25 one-day permits can be issued per year for events. The red zones on the below map currently have residential preferential parking permit programs, and the blue streets are pre-approved for eligibility. One issue that Santa Monica is facing today is that, despite having a residential preferential permit program, many residents still have trouble finding adequate parking due to the two-block radius rule. This is also considered unfair in some situations where, because of the geography, residents don’t always have a full two block radius to choose from. Additionally, the program allows residents to self-generate daily temporary permits for free. This system is vulnerable to abuse, and not easily regulated by the police department. The City is considering a way to make the system more regulated and less susceptible to abuse. j) San Rafael, CA The parking program in the City of San Rafael is managed by the Parking Services Division, which reports to the City Manager’s Office. The only aspects of the parking program that are outsourced are equipment Figure 46: City of Santa Monica Preferential Parking Map repair for garage maintenance and citation processing and noticing. There is a total of sixteen staff members that deal with parking, including 6 parking enforcement officers. k) Sausalito, CA The City of Sausalito is made up of just 2.3 square miles in the San Francisco Bay Area, and it has a population of approximately 7,156 people. It is known for its quaint and picturesque downtown area, made up of around three blocks of shops and cafes. On- and off-street parking is managed by the City’s Parking Authority. Sausalito has 174 on-street metered spaces with single space IPS parking meters. There are approximately 150 transactions per day at these single space meters. The on-street parking meters in Sausalito operate between the hours of 9:00am and 6:00pm daily. Additionally, there is often a three-hour time limit restriction for the meters. The meters also allow drivers to prepay for time during the day if they park before 9:00am. With this system, the payment would apply beginning at 9:00am. All parking meters have a rate of $1.00 per hour in the City. The City has 520 off-street metered spaces, which use the T2 Digital pay stations. The multi-space pay stations have on average 900 total transactions per day. Sausalito also offers mobile payment through Parkmobile for the off-street metered locations. Mobile payments account for approximately an additional 60 transactions per day. There are five city public parking lots in Sausalito. These lots require payment between 7:00am and 10:00pm, with some variation depending on the lot. Lots 1 and 2 each cost $1.00 per 20 minutes, with a daily maximum of $25.00. Parking Lot 3 costs $1.00 per 30 minutes, but with the same daily maximum. Additionally, Lot 4 costs $1.00 per hour with a $5.00 daily max. Three hours of free parking are provided at Lot 5. Overnight parking is allowed in Lots 1-4, but Lot 5 requires an overnight Area L permit. For employees, there are a few options for longer term parking downtown. Sausalito offers a Commuter Parking SmartCard, which allows employees to park in Lot 3 or 4 for a reduced flat rate of just $4.00 per day. These permits are preloaded with a balance to cover parking. Around 56 SmartCards are used per day downtown. Employees can also choose to use the Parkmobile mobile payment option to park in the off-street locations for $4.35 per day. Around 43 vehicles utilize this option for daily parking. Finally, there is a premium D Permit which costs $260.00 per quarter and allows unlimited parking in Lots 3 and 4. This permit is currently used by around 21 vehicles per quarter. The off-street long term parking permits are valid between 8:00am and 10:00pm. There is also a residential permit-parking program in Sausalito for various neighborhoods labeled with Area B, C, D, and H signage. Each area costs $35.00 per vehicle per year for a permit, except for Area D, which costs $190.00 per vehicle per quarter. Around 500 of these residential permits are purchased per year. These permits are not valid at parking meters, and they do not allow drivers to park for more than 72 hours in the same space. Two guest permits may be requested per address for no extra charge. Additionally, residents can apply for a Resident Parking Passcard for a $10.00 application fee. The Passcard allows residents to park in Lots 1-4 for up to three hours free per day between 7:00am and 6:00pm. This time can be used incrementally if desired. Any additional time used gets billed to the cardholder. It also allows permits free overnight parking in those locations between 6:00pm and 7:00am. This program is managed by the Sausalito Parking Authority and its enforcement officers. Officers can recognize valid resident Passcards via their handheld enforcement devices at which time the spaces will display as green, meaning paid. l) Walnut Creek, CA Parking management in the City of Walnut Creek falls under the City Manager’s Office. The Parking Manager is responsible for overseeing on- and off-street parking policy, the parking enterprise fund, parking garage operations, private parking ordinances, etc., the Public Works Department handles on- street meter maintenance and facility maintenance, and Transportation Engineering handles the residential parking permits. The Police Department is responsible for parking enforcement. Parking garage day-to-day operations is outsourced to LAZ Parking. City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study: Draft Recommendations 3639 Midway Drive, Suite B345 San Diego, CA 92110-5254 Table of Contents I. Paid Parking ........................................................................................................................................... 4 A. Occupancy and Turnover ................................................................................................................. 4 B. Parking Meters and Pay Stations ..................................................................................................... 5 1. Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Single-Space Meters .................................................................................................................... 6 3. Multi-Space Pay Stations ............................................................................................................. 8 C. Mobile Payment ............................................................................................................................. 10 D. Comprehensive Parking Management System .............................................................................. 11 E. Active Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 12 1. Occupancy Rates........................................................................................................................ 12 2. Sensors....................................................................................................................................... 13 F. Sales Tax ......................................................................................................................................... 14 G. On and Off-Street Rates and Time Limits ...................................................................................... 15 1. On-Street Rates and Time Limits ............................................................................................... 15 2. Off-Street Rates ......................................................................................................................... 21 H. Off Street Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 24 I. Special Events ................................................................................................................................ 25 J. Distribution Model ......................................................................................................................... 26 K. Community Outreach..................................................................................................................... 27 II. Permits ................................................................................................................................................ 28 III. Parking Guidance and Wayfinding ................................................................................................. 31 A. Wayfinding ..................................................................................................................................... 31 B. Automated Parking Guidance Systems .......................................................................................... 32 C. Current Wayfinding ........................................................................................................................ 33 D. Parking Guidance Systems ............................................................................................................. 34 E. Digital Wayfinding .......................................................................................................................... 36 IV. Enforcement .................................................................................................................................. 38 V. Centralization of Palo Alto Parking Related Operations ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined. A. Proposed Organizational Structure................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. B. Outsourcing of Parking Operations .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. VI. Alternative Strategies .................................................................................................................... 47 A. Secure Existing Parking Supply ...................................................................................................... 47 B. Downtown Employee Mobility Program ....................................................................................... 48 I. Paid Parking A. Occupancy and Turnover Recommendation: • Implement a dynamic paid parking program in Downtown and replace the existing color zone system. Parking occupancy rates have reached a point in Downtown Palo Alto that visitors cannot easily find convenient parking, forcing drivers to circle slowly around the streets and parking facilities looking for a space. This creates further congestion and can also deter customers from visiting the downtown. As an industry standard, cities aim for a parking space vacancy rate of 10-15% (assuming ten spaces per block face), which translates to one to two spaces on an average block face. It’s important to note that this 10- 15% ratio is relative to the number of spaces per block. However, the afternoon and evening data collection periods revealed that many of the on- and off-street parking locations were over 80% occupied. The recommendation of paid parking is being introduced to support the City’s occupancy and sustainability goals. Reducing congestion with a paid parking solution will ultimately save drivers time and reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, there is an unrealized value of parking in Palo Alto—Paid parking has the potential to help fund the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) in their efforts to encourage alternative modes of transportation and reduce single- occupant vehicle trips. While the time limits set by the color zone rules facilitate parking space turnover, the color zones are no longer effective in helping Palo Alto reach an efficient occupancy rate. Data analysis revealed that many drivers are in fact following the color zones rules, with only a small number of drivers overstaying their allotted time. Additionally, most downtown time limit parking was only observed in one color zone during the day, meaning that much of parking downtown lasted just two to three hours. There was a small segment of drivers (6- 8%) that were observed jumping between multiple zones to extend their stay downtown. While the number may not seem significant, there are still a few hundred vehicles hopping between color zones throughout the day causing further congestion and impacting parking availability. The color zones do create turnover, but because the same rule blankets the entire downtown, the zones are ineffective at encouraging drivers to steer away from high occupancy areas. Drivers likely circle the block looking for a convenient space, without an incentive to park a few blocks away where the occupancy may be lower. This creates an issue with congestion and does not help free up spaces in the highest occupancy areas downtown. Provided there are various ways to adjust parking rates, paid parking can be an effective tool to help alleviate high occupancy rates, making the parking experience downtown more efficient and convenient for drivers. Some business owners have expressed their concern that paid parking may discourage people from visiting downtown because there are other nearby shopping destinations with free parking. While this may be true for some consumers, there is a segment of the population that may be more likely to go downtown and pay for parking if it means that parking is easier and quicker to find. It is important to recognize that parking is a limited and expensive resource, especially in a vibrant downtown like Palo Alto, and paid parking can help maximize this resource through strategic rate structures and technology enhancements. B. Parking Meters and Pay Stations Recommendations: • Implement an on-street and off-street (surface lots only) paid parking solution. • Evaluate parking technology equipment to address community needs and system capabilities. • Distribute a parking technology solicitation by, including performance measures and maintenance requirements. • Select parking technology vendor(s) by 6-8 months prior to projected implementation. 1. Overview The City should evaluate the variety of single-space meter and pay station options available and consider piloting equipment to determine the needs of Palo Alto and the community’s preferences for the features offered by the parking technology providers. This assessment should serve as the baseline for a citywide solicitation that should be issued, and the vendor should be selected by six to eight months prior to when the City intends on having paid parking implemented and live. Per the City’s CIP, this project is likely to begin in late 2017 and proceed through 2018. There are varied opinions in the parking industry on when to choose single-space meters or multi-space meters (pay stations) but ultimately the choice is dependent on the unique needs and desires of the community that they will serve. Below is a list of considerations to have when comparing the two types of meters: • Ease of use: Single-space meters are generally simpler and easier to use. • Signage: Single-space meters do not require as much signage because drivers see the meter when they park and know that they are required to pay. Pay stations require signage with arrows directing drivers to the pay station. • Fees: There are typically higher credit card transaction fees with single-space meters to afford the technology required in every meter. • Aesthetics: Pay stations reduce the amount of street furniture. • Collections: Single-space meters have smaller coin vaults, meaning that they must be collected more frequently. • Revenue: Drivers can park at single-space meters with time left on it from a previous parker and save money, while pay stations typically do not allow for this. This means that pay stations can potentially increase revenue by around 10%. Meter reset sensors can be installed with single- space meters that may increase revenue, but that is an added cost and it decreases hardware battery life. It is important to note that sensors are typically associated with single-space meters. Though multi-space pay stations can be integrated with sensors, the process becomes more complex. Whereas with single-space meters the ratio of meter to sensor is 1:1, the multi-space to sensor ratio range may be much greater depending on the number of spaces a multi-space pay station is configured to accept payment from. • Enforcement: Paying by space or by license plate at pay stations can be more efficient and less labor intensive to enforce because each meter does not need to be inspected. In terms of payment security for the City and customers, most vendors today are annual certified from a third-party Qualified Security Assessor (QSAs), recognized by the PCI Security Council for Level 1 Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) and Payment Application Data Security Standard (PA-DSS). When considering a potential vendor however, the City should verify and ensure these certifications are current. When soliciting meter vendors, it is important to include performance measures and maintenance requirements in the solicitation specifications. By binding financial penalties to hardware and software support services and requirements, it will ensure that the City receives assistance in a timely manner. This is critical because any downtime in the system is potential lost revenue for the City. 2. Single-Space Meters The convenience and ease of use of single-space meters is what makes them effective for dense commercial areas. Along main streets such as University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue, it is recommended that the City install single-space meters. Thus, visitors will be able to quickly and easily pay the meter nearest their vehicle and proceed in the direction they are going. Also, given these commercial areas attract many visitors, single-space meters will avoid lines forming at pay stations during peak hours. Smart-meters, or single-space meters that accept credit card payments, will provide the City with a back- office dashboard and real-time access to parking information and data related to its meters. This can allow Palo Alto to monitor the meters and be notified of any maintenance issues. These meters must meet the Payment Card Industry (PCI) security standards for credit card transactions. Additionally, all payment information can be tracked and audited to ensure proper revenue reconciliation during collections. Most single-space meter vendors offer back-office management systems that allow staff to edit the display screen, manage rate structures, and run a variety of reports. Smart single-space meters are estimated in Variations of single-space meters price near $750 per meter (including pole and housing), with an additional $9 per meter per month approximately for data management in addition to transaction fees. Below is a map of proposed single-space meters. Given on the location of single-space meters in the core of the Downtown and based on DIXON’s recommendation of three-tiered pricing zones, Tier 1 will be comprised of majority single-space meters. Figure 1: Recommended On-Street Single-Space Meter Coverage 3. Multi-Space Pay Stations Multi-space meters or pay stations normally serve as the payment terminal for roughly 6-7 on-street parking spaces or more when installed in off-street locations or angled parking. Like the smart single- space meters, the pay stations offer back-office and real time access for meter information. Pay stations can be configured to accept multiple forms of payment such as credit card, coin, and bills. Pay stations, depending on their features, may cost between $6,000 and $10,000 per unit with monthly data management fees between $45 and $75 per unit per month. There are three main operational configurations pay stations: pay and display, pay by space, and pay by plate • Pay and Display: The driver parks, purchases parking session time at the pay station, and then returns to their vehicle to display the receipt on their dashboard. • Pay by Space: The driver parks in a numbered space, and then pays at the pay station using the parking space number. The driver does not have to return to their vehicle because their payment is electronically tied to their space number. • Pay by Plate: The driver enters their license plate number at the pay station to record their payment. This method does not require drivers to return to their car as well. Outlined below is table highlighting important efficiencies and limitations with each of the three payment configurations on pay stations. Pay and Display Pay by Space Pay by Plate Display permit Spaces numbered Marking optional Unable to assign rates to spaces Ability to assign rates to spaces Can assign rates to zones/area Increased potential for revenue leakage via pass-back Less opportunity for revenue leakage No opportunity for revenue leakage Visual inspection enforcement Enforcement using wireless handheld units Mobile-LPR enforcement Least integrated with mobile payment solutions Easily integrates with mobile payment solutions Easily integrates with mobile payment solutions Least user-friendly (return to vehicle) User-friendly User-friendly Table 1: Efficiencies and limitations associated with pay station payment configurations Many municipalities tend to favor pay by space and pay by plate over pay and display because they do not require drivers to return to their car with a receipt after purchasing time. These methods are not only more convenient and efficient for patrons, but they are also easier to enforce because they don’t require enforcement officers to look at each individual dashboard for proof of payment. Multi-space pay stations One advantage for the driver of pay by space is that the driver is not expected to remember and enter in their license plate number at the pay station. However, pay by plate payment is increasing in popularity with the advancements in mobile LPR technology, the preferred enforcement method when utilizing pay by plate technology. The negative connotation around pay by plate and customers not knowing or remembering their license plate number is subsiding. Additionally, as an added convenience, subject to City policy, pay by space and pay by plate systems allow the driver to pay for and add additional parking time onto their existing parking session from any pay station or from their cellphone if the time limit has not been reached. To make the parking experience in Palo Alto as simple for visitors as possible, it is recommended that the City implement pay stations with the pay by space configuration. These pay stations should be located on- street in the peripheral areas of the downtown to avoid the infrastructure cost of installing single-space meters for every parking space. Ideally there should be a pay station located on both ends of each block face so drivers can park, walk in the direction of their destination, pay for parking as they pass the pay station, and proceed on. It is recommended that the City install them facing parallel to the streets because lines may form at the pay stations. This will prevent any lines from blocking the walkways. Regarding the off-street surface lots, it is recommended that the City place at a minimum, one pay station in each surface lot that provide any hourly-parking. Much like on-street spaces, off-street surface lots configured with multi-space pay stations will be intended for motorists with relatively short-stay periods in hopes of re- directing long-term parkers to the garage facilities. It is imperative with the implementation of paid hourly parking that the pay stations are in working order. Also, with pay stations it is important to ensure that there is adequate signage to direct patrons to the meters. Given Palo Alto does not get snowfall, space numbers may be painted on the pavement or on the curb instead of using pole mounted signage. The map below shows the recommended on-street blocks (highlighted in yellow) for the installation of pay stations. Additionally, it is recommended that the City utilize pay stations in all surface lots and, like single-space meter placement in Tier 1, pay stations should be the primary technology utilized off-street in Tier Zone 2 and 3. Currently, off-street hourly surface lots are treated much like on-street spaces in terms of time limits. For consistency and to minimize costs, the installation of pay stations in surface lots in lieu of gate access should be sufficient. Furthermore, many motorists are accustomed to paying for parking at a pay station in surface lots and a similar configuration in Palo Alto would not be confusing. If the City determines that an access control or LPR-based garage solution is not viable, pay stations should be installed within the garage locations to manage garage payments for hourly parking. Additionally, it is suggested that when the City reaches the procurement and vendor selection phase of paid parking technology it utilize the opportunity to run a pilot and trial period of multiple meters and pay stations throughout the Downtown. Doing so will provide staff, community and visitors to test the proposed equipment options and assist the City in determining the ideal paid parking technology solution for Palo Alto. The City of Sausalito successfully implemented a similar pilot in spring 2015 with upwards of 7 different pay station and meter vendors. The trial lasted roughly 60-days and invited the community test the numerous technologies and provide feedback to City staff. The City subsequently chose a combination of both single-space and multi-space pay stations for its Downtown. C. Mobile Payment Recommendation: • Integrate a mobile payment application with any paid parking technology solution. It will be important to consider the mobile payment providers currently integrated at Stanford University and in other surrounding cities. Doing so provides with an ease of use based on consistency and familiarity. Ultimately however, the City should choose the provider that best fits the needs of Palo Alto. Figure 2: Recommended On-Street Multi-Space Pay Station Coverage Many cities choose to implement mobile payment or pay by web as an option to improve customer service by giving drivers more payment options. Patrons can create an account through a phone app or website to pay for parking, which also allows a driver to pay for their parking time without accessing the parking hardware. Depending upon city policy, drivers can be provided the option to extend their time remotely. Mobile payment services require drivers to enter in their license plate number (or space number), which serves as the payment identifier for enforcement officers. In the case of a pay and display configuration as the hardware form of payment, a mobile payment remains simple. The driver would open their mobile application and make a payment in the same method as a pay by plate or pay by space configuration. The mobile payment application would request the driver input their license plate number as well. Provided the mobile payment system may be integrated with enforcement handhelds, the enforcement officer would run a query through the mobile application to verify payment has been made for any vehicle without a receipt displayed. Mobile payment technology can to be utilized with both single-space meter and multi-space pay stations, regardless of payment configuration on the meter. Typically, the mobile payment vendor offers a turnkey solution for implementing their system, which includes signage and promotions without an additional cost to the municipality. Some vendors also offer a while label service, which allows cities to utilize their own branding for the service. This allows cities to promote mobile payment through a city-owned website. Utilization of mobile payment falls between 3% and 10% in most cities, and users pay a small transaction fee, usually between $0.10 and $0.35. Mobile payment can be integrated with both single-space and pay stations. While the current utilization figures may seem low, with the continued widespread use of smart phone technology, it is recommended that Palo Alto implement a mobile payment system with all parking meter technology solutions. D. Comprehensive Parking Management System Recommendations: • With the potential implementation of paid parking and re-structuring of the City’s current permit program including employee permits, it is recommended that the City solicit a comprehensive parking management system. This management system shall allow for integration with other management and payment platforms such as Clipper 2.0 • The comprehensive system should enable the City to monitor its permit program, allowing customers to create user accounts, apply and renew current parking permits. • The comprehensive system should allow the City to monitor issued citations and provide customers the opportunity to pay citations online, in real-time. Mobile payment display • As part of the comprehensive management system, the City should ensure that the selected system allows for intuitive reporting features for both revenue and performance measures. Along with a centralized parking department, the City also should anticipate implementing a unified citation and permit management system (CPMS). The CPMS would offer act as an integrated solution allowing users to establish an online account with the City and manage all permit requests. This would include all employee parking permits and residential parking permits. Customers would have the opportunity to submit any required documentation via a web portal and the City or the designated vendor could efficiently verify the application and permit fulfillment process. The CPMS would also provide online renewal capabilities and perform customer payment processes. In addition, utilizing the CPMS would automate the City’s current permit waitlist process providing the ability to manage and adjust capacity thresholds utilizing CPMS management tools. Most importantly, all permit data, including financial reconciliation details, would be immediately available via the CPMS in real-time. The system can also be integrated to transmit data to the designated City administrative management systems. With a proposed permit management solution, the City should also plan to implement an integrated citation management system, a necessary and efficient tool as the City considers the installation of paid parking technology. A turnkey CPMS solution will provide updated handheld technology hardware for the enforcement officers which if needed, can be incorporated to integrate with a potential LPR system. In addition, the CPMS will be integrated with the paid parking infrastructure to provide the parking enforcement officers with real-time paid parking status as well as valid permit status. The CPMS will allow an enforcement officer to be more effective and efficient will working their downtown beats. Like permits, the CPMS will provide the City will real-time access to parking citation data, delinquent collection details and financial analysis tools. The City should not only consider implementing the CPMS, they should also consider a turnkey CPMS solution that includes a private contractor to provide the customer support service and delinquent collection processes necessary to proactively manage a citation and permit management solution. The CPMS will be an important tool for the City to effectively and efficiently manage their parking program. E. Active Monitoring Recommendations: • Conduct bi-annual downtown occupancy studies to determine parking rates and time limits adjustments, as needed. • Consider integrating parking space sensors with the meters for real-time occupancy, enforcement data and the ability for meter time resets. • Monitor quarterly sales tax revenue to assess the overall impact of paid parking. 1. Occupancy Rates Active monitoring can help ensure program efficiency by keeping the parking rate structure up to date with current occupancy statistics. It is recommended that the City evaluate on- and off-street parking occupancy on a Thursday and a Saturday on a bi-annual basis to understand how parking rates and time limits are impacting occupancy rates. Ideally, occupancy rates by block face should be collected during the morning (9:00am), afternoon (12:00pm), mid-afternoon (3:00pm), and evening (7:00pm). Based on the City’s findings, appropriate adjustments can be made. Areas downtown with an average occupancy rate over 80% should be priced the highest with the lowest time limits because the industry standard is that 80% occupancy and above is considered full. Below is list of potential adjustments to make from bi-annual evaluation results based on average daily occupancy rates: • Clusters of blocks that increased from below 80% occupancy during the previous evaluation to at or above 80% occupancy should have the price increased by $0.25 per hour or have the time limit lowered by 30 minutes. • Clusters of blocks that decreased from at or above 80% occupancy during the previous evaluation to below 80% occupancy should have the price lowered by $0.25 per hour or the time limit extended by 30 minutes. • The off-street lots and garages that have the highest average occupancies during the most recent evaluation should cost more per hour than the locations with lower average occupancies. • Off-street parking should cost less and/or have longer time limits than on-street parking. For the bi-annual evaluations, there are two main methods for monitoring occupancy. The first option is that the City can choose to have data collectors manually count cars, and the second method is to install meter sensors. Manually counting will likely provide the most accurate information because it does not rely on the efficacy of sensor technology. This method also costs significantly less because it does not require any additional hardware, software, installations, or upkeep. However, with manually counting it is harder to provide a “snapshot” of the data—instead data is collected within certain time periods. With sensors, data can be collected in real-time 24 hours per day, seven-days per week. 2. Sensors Meters can be integrated with parking space sensor technology to monitor the spaces 24 hours per day. This data can be integrated with parking guidance systems, websites, and mobile apps to provide real- time information to visitors. There are currently several application providers that can post parking data at no charge. Sensors are typically embedded in the pavement in the center of each parking space and, most recently, vendors have introduced pole mounted sensors. Sensor batteries often last around three years. Parking space sensors can cost approximately $250 per unit from leading parking technology vendors including installation in addition to ongoing monthly monitoring fees that vary from $6 to $10 per installed space. There have been several new sensor-based technology companies who have recently introduced themselves into the marketplace at significantly lower costs however, many of these technologies are not as proven across the industry. Example of an in-ground parking sensor Using meter sensors to monitor occupancy rates can be an efficient way for the City to access real-time data. However, it is important to realize that sensors may not always be completely accurate. Some cities choose to tie in performance standards when soliciting vendors to ensure that the data they are paying for is usable. The City is currently managing a sensor pilot program with VIMOC Technologies. VIMOC has installed including series of surface-level sensors throughout several on-street parking spaces throughout Downtown. Many of VIMOC’s on-street sensors are installed in the downtown core where occupancy figures from DIXON’s data collected were highest. The City may be able to utilize this infrastructure to monitor ongoing occupancy rates. Some of the parking meter vendors offer an integrated sensor that provides the opportunity to reset the meter. A meter reset occurs when a vehicle pulls out of the space it was parked in, the sensor determines there is no longer an object parked there and then automatically resets the meter to zero time. It is estimated that this can increase revenue by up to 10%. The City of Santa Monica has implemented the meter reset technology and increased their annual parking revenue by nearly $1 million as a result. Sensors also assist with parking enforcement by identifying violators who don’t pay to park within a set amount of time. Without a sensor, the meter will report that the time is expired, but there is no way of knowing if a car is still parked in the space without an enforcement officer checking. The sensor can also work with the meter to prevent people from going back and feeding the meters for more time in locations with time limits. The sensor can report that the vehicle has parked for more than the allotted time, even if the meter has been paid. Sensors also provide the opportunity to provide a designated grace period in a parking space. The City can opt to provide a courtesy period to allow a driver to park prior to requiring payment at the meter. Sensor solutions can become an expensive resource. It is important to also consider advancements in technologies beyond the parking industry. As the smart cities movement and the technologies associated continue to gain momentum, there may be an opportunity to multi-purpose new street light and smart city technology and integrate with parking as well. Thus, eliminating the need for standalone sensors. To determine the best sensor solution for the Palo Alto, staff will need to define the overall objective associated with any sensor installation. Whether a sensor system will be used to monitor occupancy for forecasting purposes, to distribute real-time on street availability or to provide a meter reset capability, these features will determine not only the overall investment required by the City but will also mandate the type of equipment needed for a sensor installation in the City. F. Sales Tax As the City of Palo Alto considers the implementation of paid parking through smart-parking technology, the primary goal of the paid parking program should be to improve the availability of parking for residents, employees, visitors and the surrounding community through increased turnover. It is recommended that the City monitor monthly sales tax revenues overtime to see the impact of paid parking. This was a similar approach taken by the City and County of San Francisco and its creation of SFpark. Much like Palo Alto, SFpark’s goal was to deliver transportation, social, and environmental benefits as well as to improve parking availability and customer access to commercial districts. SFpark not only achieved these goals but also increased the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) parking revenue by nearly $ million per year. Through the installation of smart-parking meters and the management of time limits in pilot areas, SFpark management increased its net annual revenue from meters by approximately $3.3 million from FY2011 to FY2013. Furthermore, SFpark also significantly improved the utilization of the city’s garages, helping them to return them to their original purpose: making it easier to find parking for short-term parkers and increasing the economic vitality of the city rather than just places for commuters to park. As part of San Francisco’s effort, all publicly available parking facilities pay a 0.25% parking tax. This has been a process instituted by the City Assessor to help evaluate changes in parking demand in private parking garages or lots. To prevent identification of individual facilities the city has aggregated parking tax receipts. San Francisco has been successful in its parking tax implementation thus far in public facilities. Annual parking tax collected in pilot areas increased by $6.5 million, or 43%, during the same period, compared to a 3% increase in the rest of the city, however it is unclear what portion of that is attributable to SFpark. For the City and County of San Francisco, the upgrade of paid parking in the form of smart credit card- enabled meters has aided the city and indirectly increased the economic viability. Parking has become more readily available for short-term parkers who are visiting the city’s commercial districts. In addition, rather than having spaces occupied by commuters that park all day, parking space availability has increased short-term turnover. Given Palo Alto’s vibrant Downtown business district, paid on-street parking should allow short-term parkers to visit Downtown and find increased availability with an increase in parking space turnover and providing more efficient infrastructure to enforce parking policies. G. On and Off-Street Rates and Time Limits Recommendations: • Implement a tiered zone parking rate with time limits for on-street parking. • Implement a tiered zone parking rate without time limits for off-street parking. Currently the City of Palo Alto offers both on- and off-street time limited parking for free with the color zone parking system. On-street two-hour and off-street three-hour time limits are enforced between 8:00am and 5:00pm, Monday through Friday. There is no parking enforcement on weekends or holidays. With parking meters is will be simple for the City to make changes to the parking program. Parking meter backend software will allow the City of Palo Alto to customize and modify meter display screens and rate structures. This provides the City with the flexibility to change meter rates overtime based on occupancy rates and evaluations, without being locked in to a certain system. 1. On-Street Rates and Time Limits Varied parking rates can be an effective tool for encouraging higher utilization of historically low- occupancy areas. The goal is to free up parking in the highest occupancy areas to reach between a maximum of 80% and 85% occupancy. Doing so, this will make parking a more convenient experience for downtown visitors, and may also reduce congestion from drivers circling for a parking space. Additionally, having lower rates in off-street locations can encourage longer-term parkers to park off-street, thus freeing up the convenient parking spaces outside of store fronts for people making quick trips downtown. There are two main types of rate structures that may be considered by the City. The first is a tiered rate model, and the second is a pay-to-stay model. For the tiered rate model, hourly parking rates would vary by location based on convenience and historical occupancy rates. For example, lower prices on the periphery of downtown can encourage drivers to park further away and walk a few blocks to their destination. On the other hand, the higher demand spaces would be priced at a premium. This model can be coupled with time limits to ensure adequate turnover. In contrast, a pay-to-stay model is based on the amount of time spent parking. Therefore, drivers may pay a lower hourly rate to begin with, but as their length of stay increases, the hourly rate gradually increases as well. The purpose of this model is to deter patrons from parking long-term on-street, but it still gives them the option to if they are willing to pay premium pricing for convenience. While this method may work for some cities, it is not recommended for on-street parking in the City of Palo Alto because of the particularly high occupancy rates downtown. The implementation of a pay-to-stay model may be difficult on-street because, without time limits, it is not expected that there will be enough turnover downtown. Due to the affluence of the surrounding communities, there may be a significant portion of drivers who are willing to pay to park in a convenient space for the entire day downtown with this premium pricing model. This could potentially exacerbate the parking occupancy rates for the most convenient spaces downtown instead of relieve them. Based on the occupancy data collected in Palo Alto, it is recommended that the City implement a tiered rate structure with time limits. Demand for parking varies across the downtown, so by implementing a zonal rate structure, on-street and surface lot spaces will be more accurately priced based on their demand. This will in turn help to distribute demand more evenly throughout the downtown. The following map outlines the proposed locations for three recommended tiers: Tier 1 is applied to part of Hamilton Avenue, University Avenue, and side streets. Tier 2 is applied to two separate areas of downtown—between Hamilton Avenue to Forest Avenue as well as Parts of Webster Street, Cowper Street, and Tasso Street. Finally, Tier 3 is applied to the outer corners of the downtown along with all of Lytton Avenue. The placement of these zones is based on the Thursday and Saturday daily average occupancy rates for each block face over the course of the three data collection months. The next two maps show the tiered zones overlaid onto the heat map data to show how the zones relate to the average occupancy rates. Tier 1 was meant to encompass the highest occupancy areas, Tier 2 captures the mid-range occupancy rates, and Tier 3 is for the lower occupancy areas for both Thursday and Saturday. Figure 3: Recommended Tiered Rate Zones Figure 4: Thursday Daily Average Occupancy When determining appropriate hourly rates, it is important to consider nearby comparable cities to understand the current market rate for parking. Of the comparable cities with paid parking, the lowest downtown rates were $0.50-$1.00 per hour in Alameda, San Mateo, and Sausalito. On the other side of the spectrum, Santa Monica has on-street rates reaching $2.00 per hour and Berkeley has the highest rates at $3.25 per hour. Because areas of downtown Palo Alto experience extremely high occupancy rates, it is recommended that the Tier 1 zone should be priced on the higher end of the rate spectrum to effectively mitigate congestion. Tiers 2 and 3 should be priced mid-spectrum to be on par with the rates in the comparable cities in the area. The City will need to ensure that they have an enforceable policy in place that prevents vehicles from parking on the space block for more than the designated time limit. Additionally, the proposed time limits were applied to the tier zones to ensure sufficient turnover rates and encourage longer-term on- street parking towards the periphery. The recommended rate structure and time limits for the three tiers is outlined in the table below: Figure 5: Saturday Daily Average Occupancy Tier Hourly Rate Max Time Limit 1 $2.50 2 hour 2 $1.50 2 hour 3 $1.50 3 hour The City also sells a separate permit that allows for the purchase of a closed/rented on-street space (permanent valet space or in the event of construction, the ability to pay for the use of a single parking space). The current price of this permit is $79 per week. With the potential implementation of paid parking and increase in employee permit costs, the City will need to ensure that the price of a closed/rented weekly permit correlates to on-street paid parking rates. This is particularly important when considering paid on-street parking as a single parking space is reliant on the consistent turnover of vehicles paying to park. If this space is no longer available to the public, the City is in loss of parking inventory and any associated revenue. The Study examined similar per space permits in surrounding cities and determined that Palo Alto’s current cost of $79 per week. The City also sells a separate permit that allows for the purchase of a closed/rented on-street space (permanent valet space or in the event of construction, the ability to pay for the use of a single parking space). The current price of this permit is $79 per week. With the potential implementation of paid parking and increase in employee permit costs, the City will need to ensure that the price of a closed/rented weekly permit correlates to on-street paid parking rates. This is particularly important when considering paid on-street parking as a single parking space is reliant on the consistent turnover of vehicles paying to park. If this space is no longer available to the public, the City will lose the parking inventory and any associated revenue. The Study examined similar per space permits in surrounding cities and determined that Palo Alto’s current cost of $79 per week differs when compared to other cities. Some cities have a rate structures, dependent on size of space or type of space, metered or non-metered, while others have administrative fees associated with the permit. For example, the City of Berkeley charges $79 per week or $15.80 per day per space plus the $15 per temporary No Parking sign. The City of San Francisco charges a tiered rate structure that escalates in cost as approximate footage increases and the quantity of temporary No Parking signs increases. Permit costs start at $239 week and range up to roughly $800 per week. Metered locations incur a fee of $10 per space per day as well. The City of Santa Monica permit fees are similar to San Francisco in terms of rate increases. The city charges $79 per day for a meter space and $76 per non-metered space for a standard 20-foot parking space but the cost increases as the size of the space increases. If one was to purchase a permit for a 100-foot, the cost is roughly $154 for a metered space and approximately $100 for a non-metered space. The City of San Jose’s permit structure is a bit different. The city uses a Tow Away Permit to authorize the closure of a metered space for temporary work. The cost is $30 per permit, $0.53 for each tow-away sign Table 2: On-street Tiered Rates and Time Limits placed at each meter, and either $8 (for a smart meter) or $4 (coin meter) per day. An example would be the closure of three meters for two days, totaling roughly $56. For the City of Palo Alto, it is encouraged that the City review the current price of its closed/rented on- street permit cost. Based on surrounding municipalities, Palo Alto’s current price per permit is lower in comparison. It is apparent that other cities may charge a similar base cost for a permit but utilize other factors effected by the permit to increase the total cost, such as parking space footage lost or the need for temporary signage to be installed by City. It is recommended that the total cost for a weekly space permit (in a metered space), including any administrative fees associated, be equal to or greater than the potential total revenue per metered space during paid parking hours. Therefore, if a space is $1 per hour and paid parking is enforced for ten hours, then the cost to rent that space is at least $10 per day prior to any per space footage fees or administrative costs that may be associated with temporarily deactivating that parking space. For a non-metered space, it is suggested the City maintain the current cost of $79 however the City should ensure that any additional costs related to the space closures are recovered. 2. Off-Street Rates It is recommended that the City of Palo Alto implement the tiered rate model without time limits for off- street hourly parking. Essentially, the off-street locations that generally have lower occupancy rates should be more affordable than the higher demand locations. This can encourage drivers to park in garages that are otherwise underutilized, thus freeing up space in the higher demand locations. No matter what on- and off-street time limits are chosen, it is imperative that the City offers longer time limits in the off-street locations in comparison to on-street parking. Therefore, we are recommending that the City eliminate time limits in the garages and surface lots. The purpose of this is to encourage short term on street parking with higher turnover rates and long term affordable pricing for off street locations. After implementation, with further evaluation and the bi-annual occupancy studies, the City can assess the need for time limits, however, it will be more efficient to control access to the garages and promote turnover and vehicle transition through the use automation and the proposed hourly rate model rather than manually monitor vehicle activity with parking enforcement officers. The next two heat maps show the average daily occupancy of off-street hourly spaces for the Thursday and Saturday data collection periods. There are a variety of paid off-street parking rates offered by the comparable cities ranging from $0.50 per hour in Monterey to $3.70 per hour in Santa Monica. While Berkeley has the highest on-street rates ($3.25/hr.), the Berkeley off-street rate is $2.00 per hour. Berkeley, Monterey, Santa Monica, and Sausalito all offer off-street parking at a reduced rate compared to on-street parking. Figure 7: Saturday Daily Average: Off-street Hourly Spaces Based on the initial on-street tiered map, the off-street locations are located in the following tiers: Location Tier B (Ramona/University) 1 C (Ramona/Lytton) 1 D (Hamilton/Waverley) 1 F (Florence/Lytton) 1 H (Cowper/Hamilton) 1 S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 1 T (Lytton/Kipling) 1 CC (Civic Center) 2 N (Emerson/Ramona) 2 WC (Webster/Cowper) 2 A (Emerson/Lytton) 3 K (Lytton/Waverley) 3 O (Emerson/High) 3 P (High/Hamilton) 3 R (High/Alma) 3 It is recommended that free parking should be eliminated from the garages and an hourly rate should be implemented. Based upon the tier zone, the City can establish a lower hourly rate for the initial 1 to 4 hours, however, the rate should be escalated once the vehicle exceeds the initial time limit. This short- term rate band should be established with a higher daily maximum to encourage alternative transportation opportunities. The current cost for an All-Day Permit is $17.50 and this rate is not consistent with the surrounding markets and the current demand for parking in Palo Alto. There should be a twenty-four-hour maximum with a daily start time for the new day. The new off-street rate also needs to be affordable compared to parking on street but also slightly higher in price when compared to an employee parking permit (expanded on in Section 2). The cost of parking off-street for an employee or someone frequenting downtown daily for an extended period should be more expensive than the cost of an employee permit or an alternative mode of transportation such as public transit. Therefore, the following off-street rates would be consistent with other similar downtown markets and coincide with the proposed on-street rates: Tier Hourly Rate Fee Escalation Daily Maximum Escalation Time to Daily Max 1 $1.25/hr. (First 3 hrs.) $2.00/each 15 min (after 3 hrs.) $24.00 5.5 hrs. Table 3: Off-Street Tiers 2 $1.00/hr. (First 4 hrs.) $2.00/each 15 min (after 4 hrs.) $24.00 6.5 hrs. 3 $1.00/hr. (First 4 hrs.) $2.00/each 15 min (after 4 hrs.) $24.00 6.5 hrs. The escalation timeframe to achieve the daily maximum rate can vary by tier zone, however, this proposed rate structure is meant to encourage vehicle turnover and discourage long term non-permit parking. H. Off Street Infrastructure Recommendations: • Install access control systems (gate arms) at all city-owned parking garages. (Note: Off-street surface lots will utilize multi-space pay stations) • Eliminate off-street time limits and implement an off-street hourly rate that encourages vehicle turnover after a designated time (3 or 4 hours), depending upon the facility location. To more efficiently manage off-street parking, it is recommended that the City install revenue control equipment at the garage locations. There are several equipment options that can be considered by the City and a traditional gate system would be the simplest solution to implement. It’s important to highlight that a traditional gate system supported by pay-on- foot technology for hourly parking costs on average $30,000 per lane not including any civil work that might be required. A gated system could allow for automated access for permitted vehicle and provide many efficiencies to manage the proposed hourly pay rates, minimize backups and traffic flow and, most importantly, eliminate the need for parking enforcement officers to check each vehicle for proper permits and daily passes. Some of the stakeholders expressed a concern about gating the garages and suggested an automated system that would be managed by license plate recognition (LPR) technology. This advanced solution costs approximately $17,500 per lane and allows for free flow access to the garage locations. The system requires at least two fixed mounted cameras per dedicated lane. Speed inhibitors are typically installed to slow vehicle access to ensure plate capture. One of the cameras utilizes infrared technology to illuminate the license plate characters thus ensuring they can be read in any type of weather condition. The second camera physically reads the license plate characters and the software validates the information to the permit management database and business rule requirements for that specific garage entrance. Like the traditional gated system, pay-on-foot technology is used for non-permitted vehicles and drivers must input their license plate in order to pay for their parking time. The LPR solution provides a fully integration parking management system that would incorporate the garage permit database and Table 4: Proposed Off-street Rates Parking access revenue control system citations would be mailed to vehicles that exit the facility without paying for their parking time and fees would be collected along with any associated penalties designated by the City (like parking citation collections). This solution is fully automated, however, like parking citation collections, it is not full proof, but it is an option that the City should consider. Regardless of the type of access control technology implemented, the efficiencies and automation will reduce the burden of enforcement and promote a more customer friendly, pro-active garage management approach to parking. Combining the implementation of the proposed overhead sensors along with paid parking and access control technology will promote a clear understanding of the Palo Alto parking regulation and payment requirements. This should have a substantial impact on revenue to fund ongoing facility maintenance needs along with funding the overall objectives of the TMA. In addition, the access control technology and proposed overhead sensors will have the ability to integrate into the City’s comprehensive parking management system and allow the City to oversee permit status and real-time occupancy data. This type of integration is important in the continual monitoring of payments transaction data and occupancy history enabling the City to make informed, data-driven decisions as it relates to pricing and availability. I. Special Events Recommendations: • Establish a special event parking rate model and the criteria requirements for utilization. • Coordinate and promote alternative transportation solutions for special events that impact downtown • Consider applying special event rates to all paid parking locations (on and off-street). A tiered rate model can be easily modified using the meters for special events that impact downtown parking. Special event rates may help motivate drivers to park farther away or seek alternative modes of transportation. A special event flat-rate can be integrated and implemented for both on- and off-street parking utilizing the recommended parking technology. Any flat rate should be commensurate with the value of the existing rates for on- and off-street parking locations. Promoting alternative transportation options should be encouraged throughout all levels of special event planning and promotions. For example, there are several cross promotions occurring with services such as Lyft and Uber that both promote a City event and their services to encourage other transportation sources and reduce parking demand. Uber has created UberEVENTS, which allows those planning an event to enter the event through Uber’s website and request guest passes. Uber then sends those passes to the event planner for distribution. Each pass has a code attached which is entered into Uber app, for a discounted ride. Municipalities across the country are coordinating directly with these resources to encourage alternative transportation. The City of Coral Gables, Fla. has partnered with Uber as well, to help citizens bypass traffic through designated drop-off and pick-up zones and provide promotional codes for rides. Coral Gables is also utilizing Uber’s promotional codes for city events. Special event planning should incorporate an accessible location for the drop-off and pick-up of passengers and a designated location for bus parking. To apply a special event rate, the City will need to establish criteria for when the rate would apply, the cost amount and the advanced notification requirements. Based upon these criteria, the City will have the option to increase special event pricing for any downtown special events, depending upon need. The proposed garage technology and on-street parking infrastructure can also support customizable event rates. Approved special event pricing would override all other rate models, including the proposed evening rate model for Thursday, Friday and Saturday. It is important to keep in mind that special event rates will require increased hours of enforcement for any additional times and any policies relating to evening or special event parking regulations will have likely have an impact on the residential parking zones. J. Distribution Model Recommendations: • Upon implementation of a paid parking solution, establish a revenue distribution model that allocates monies to finance parking technology equipment and software, to support the existing operation and for parking structure maintenance and potential future parking developments. Based upon the suggested on and off-street rate models, the City should establish a distribution model for the anticipated increase in revenue. It is recommended that revenues are initially allocated to the capital costs of the paid parking technology (hardware), as well as both planned CIP projects, wayfinding and APGS/PARCS systems. In addition, a portion of parking revenues should be allocated to the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) to support mode shift and single-occupancy vehicle trip reductions, to a City-operated shuttle program, and to supporting the existing parking operation as whole. This model could potentially absolve the current parking assessment district program that business owners pay into. A Financial Modeling Workbook has been developed for Palo Alto (included in Section 3) to help the City with projections and financial modeling of the various parking and permit rate structures. The Workbook also includes estimated hardware costs to implement an on street paid parking solution, including permit rate adjustments, single-space meters, multi-space pay stations and PARCS infrastructure. There are a variety of cost proposals offered to municipalities to acquire parking infrastructure and technology. Vendors offer turnkey and a la carte options. Many cities consider a municipal lease program to acquire parking infrastructure and technology as a method to expedite the process of installing new parking equipment. Municipal lease programs often do not require a down payment, and they are not subject to future balloon payments. These advantages can make leasing a more consistent and affordable option for many cities, and by the end of the lease the municipality can negotiate the option to buy the infrastructure. Alternatively, bond issue referendums can be a costly and lengthy process, and there is no guarantee that the public will support it. Bonds are not commonly used to acquire parking infrastructure. K. Community Outreach Recommendation: • Launch a proactive education campaign to promote changes to the downtown parking program. The City of Palo Alto should launch a proactive education campaign to educate the public about the new zones, rates, time limits, hours of operation, and technologies. The education campaign should focus on the unrealized value of parking and the effort to provide continues funding for the TMA, as well as the environmental benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by reducing congestion and encouraging alternative modes of transportation. The City may engage the efforts of the TMA to coordinate community workshops and visits to local businesses to assist in education the community about changes related to parking and transportation. Recently, the City of Boise, ID undertook a similar parking education campaign last year, creating a parking brand for the city, termed PARKBOI. PARKBOI is Boise’s integrated parking system that aims to deliver more convenient was to help one find and pay for public parking in Downtown Boise. This includes better use of on-street, short-term parking in core locations Downtown, long-term parking information in garages and surface lots, and flexible payment choices and information related to parking rates around Downtown. In addition, PARKBOI provides information about special event pricing, the ability for one to pay a parking citation, and locate alternative modes of transportation offered through the City. The campaign is customer-friendly and intuitive, educating those traveling to the downtown about how and where to park. II. Permits Recommendations: • Promote alternative modes of transportation by increasing the cost of the downtown employee parking permit to be consistent with the cost of the subsidized transit pass. • Ensure that annual parking permit costs are less expensive than on- and off-street hourly parking and equal to or less than RPP employee permits • Consider permit pricing in comparable cities when determining permit rates. • Offer a reduced-price permit for low-income employees, similar to the RPP program and offer more payment options, including monthly and quarterly purchase. Permit revenues are derived from long -term parking subscriptions, most often purchased by drivers that frequent the area for work or other daily commitments. Based on a review of the City’s current employee permit cost and to assist in the City’s effort to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips to Downtown, it is suggested that the City both increase the annual price of downtown parking permit and reduce the overall number of permits sold, at the same time that more options (e.g., monthly and quarterly permits) are available When determining the actual permit rate increase value, the City should consider the following factors: • Current Subsidized Transit Passes: Currently, employers can subsidize the total cost of a transit pass for their employees through the GoPass and EcoPass programs, part of Caltrain and VTA. To encourage employees, who are a large population of those traveling to Palo Alto each day, to choose public transit, the price of an annual employee permit must be correspond more evenly to the cost of a transit pass. It is recommended that the City implement an incremental increase the Downtown annual garage and lot permits as well as the full-price RPP employee permit, to $800 annually. The $800 figure parallels to the current price of an annual transit pass. • Annual Permit Cost vs. On & Off-Street Hourly Parking: The City must ensure that the price of a downtown parking permit is more affordable than commuting to the City and paying daily to park either on-street or off, for the duration of the work day. As such, the permit price must be less expensive than parking eight or nine hours per day, at the posted rate per hour, for an estimated 20 days per month. Based on the paid parking recommendations, on-street parking would cost between $1.50 and $2.50 per hour and off-street would have a daily maximum rate of $24-25 per day. The annual permit cost should calculate to a price below either of those combined totals (on & off-street), on an overall basis. Furthermore, just as it is recommended that the downtown employee parking permits are increased, the City should correlate changes to the RPP employee permit as well, to ensure that there is not an immediate increase in demand throughout the RPP. The City will need to make sure that motorists do not operate under the assumption that cheaper permit parking is available in the RPP. Coordinate in concurrent increase in permits in both the RPP and downtown areas will be important and will help avoid confusion. • Comparable Cities Analysis: As part of this study, the comparable cities analysis included the cost of an annual downtown parking permit. Results of the analysis showcased that the cost of Palo Alto’s annual employee permit is far below neighboring cities within the region. In several cases, the City’s current cost is less than half of other cities of similar size and structure. For example, the City of Berkeley’s annual public permit is $1,800; the City of San Mateo’s annual employee permit can cost up to $960 per year; and the City of Sausalito’s employee permit is priced at $1,044 annually. It is important to remember that parking is often recognized as a commodity. Much like other commodities, the price of parking is derived from the function of the market. Therefore, the pricing of parking is related closely to the supply and demand of available spaces. In many cities parking on-street is not in significant demand. Parking in Palo Alto, on- and off-street is starkly the opposite however. Demand for parking is constant in both arenas. Thus, to manage parking in Palo Alto, including the cost of an employee permit, the price must not only consider the demand for parking but surrounding pricing among other cities. Currently, the cost for an annual employee parking permit in Palo Alto is enticing to many of those who commute Downtown, even for those who travel short distances, provided the $466 annual cost equates to roughly $39 per month, less than $2 a work day. The demand for employee permits far outweighs the supply and therefore steps need to be taken to regulate the permit market in Palo Alto and adjust the cost of permits to be equitable to other permit prices in the region. • Reduced-Price Permit: Currently, many downtown employees are circumventing the purchase of an annual permit by continuously moving their vehicles around Downtown each day to avoid the time-limits. In the RPP area, the City offers a reduced-price permit that is based on annual income. Employees qualify if their salary is exactly or less than $50,000; or make a pre-tax hourly wage exactly or less than twice the governing city or state minimum wage. However, even a reduced permit price of $100 annually can be overwhelming to a worker living paycheck to paycheck. Furthermore, low-income workers, often in service industry positions, may find it difficult to afford the purchase price for the annual permit when there may be uncertainty in the security of their job and, therefore, a permit is not worth the $100 cost. It is suggested that the City offer the ability for employees to purchase reduced-price permits on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis for garages and lots as well as RPP. This will provide the employee greater opportunities to purchase a permit at an affordable rate and the approach may increase the likelihood that an employee will elect to purchase a reduced-price permit rather than jockey their car around Downtown each day, in spaces ideally meant for short-term parkers. A less expensive month option is more likely to be bearable than one lump sum of $100. However, it is recommended that they total annual cost of a reduced-price permit be increased incrementally as the full-price permits are increase. The increase in price should not be raised above $200 per year and is recommended that they month-to-month permit option remain in effect as permit price increases. Ideally, promoting alternative modes of transportation and encouraging TMA objectives is the goal, however, an affordable permit option must be available to those in need and providing a monthly purchase opportunity rather than an annual commitment would make the program more viable and practical. The implementation of a comprehensive permit management system will provide the City with better oversight on issued permits and make the issuance of quarterly and/or monthly permits more manageable. III. Parking Guidance and Wayfinding Recommendations: • As part of the City’s approved capital wayfinding project for 2017, ensure that a public parking brand is incorporated into wayfinding signage with an easily identifiable logo and color palette. Signage should be easy to understand and direct patrons where to park and how to pay. • Display real-time off-street occupancy data on digital signage at the main entrances to downtown to allow drivers the ability to determine their parking destination. • Real-time parking availability information should be accessible by a parking website and/or a smartphone application. The growth of a city’s downtown and central business district is partially reliant on the ability of attracting outside visitors. Whether they are first time visitors to a city or from nearby communities, it is important to ensure they can properly navigate and locate parking when visiting downtown for shopping, dining, or business. An important aspect of enabling drivers to park and arrive at their destination is the way that they are informed about parking. The clear communication of facility locations, space availability, time restrictions and parking rates can help ensure that a city is offering an efficient and understandable parking system. Without properly educating visitors about parking, it can create the perception that a downtown is challenging to navigate and an unfavorable place to visit. With a proposed tiered rate structure, whether initially or in the near future, it will be especially important to upgrade the City’s wayfinding to effectively communicate regulations, pricing, and availability. A. Wayfinding In 2015 the City retained Hunt Design for a downtown parking wayfinding study and design in tandem with an Automated Parking Guidance System (APGS) project by Walker Parking Consultants. Hunt Design reviewed existing parking signage and developed a new parking brand and plan for the City. The collaboration between Hunt Design and Walker Parking Consultants helped produce a consistent and integrated approach to wayfinding. Hunt Design created mockup designs for the Architectural Review Board (ARB), stakeholders, and City staff for feedback, and ultimately the ARB unanimously decided to proceed with the blue color scheme detailed below for the best visibility. Designs included direction signs, lot and garage ID banners, pylons and regulatory signage. The blue wayfinding signage designs are pictured in the mockup drawings below. As part of the wayfinding study, Hunt Design also assessed the naming structure of the downtown parking facilities and lots. They recommended an alphanumeric naming system with the lots named numerically from east to west and the garages alphabetically from east to west. Hunt Design also recommended the installation locations for each type of signage throughout the downtown to best guide visitors to available parking In December 2016, City Council approved the capital improvement project for wayfinding and is funded to move forward in 2017 and projected completion in 2018. B. Automated Parking Guidance Systems In conjunction with the wayfinding study, Walker Parking Consultants assessed potential Automated Parking Guidance Systems (APGS) for Downtown Palo Alto to provide real-time parking availability and occupancy numbers for the off-street facilities. Three types of APGS were considered: ▪ Faculty Count APGS: provides the total count of vehicles in a facility or an ‘Open/Full’ status using sensors at the entrances and exits. ▪ Level and Zone Count APGS: displays the count by garage level using additional sensors. ▪ Single Space Detection APGS: tracks the occupancy of each space using mounted sensors and LED lights. After evaluating the various options, Walker Parking Consultants recommended the Single Space Detection APGS to Palo Alto for Garages CC, CW, R, and S. While this system has the highest overall cost, it provides the most flexibility and accuracy. Various colors of mounted LED lights can indicate space types such as available, occupied, handicapped, permit, public, valet, etc. The colors can be changed manually or automatically when necessary to ensure that the parking facilities are being utilized to their maximum potential. The management system can be locally or cloud-hosted, and signage would be connected to the City’s downtown fiber network. Figure 8: Hunt Design Wayfinding Signage Real-time and highly accurate (up to 99%) occupancy data will be available from this system to display on parking guidance wayfinding signage throughout downtown. The occupancy data can also be displayed on the City’s websites and phone applications. As the City moves forward with the recently approved and funded project, the City should ensure that the APGS indicates the number of available spaces at the entrance of the facilities, and the overall solution should be coupled with digital wayfinding signage throughout Downtown. Additionally, the APGS space availability data should be integrated with the City’s website and/or a parking application. C. Current Wayfinding The following outlines the Study’s observations as it relates to the current wayfinding downtown. DIXON’s observations are directly related to the City’s initiative with Hunt Design and Walker. The current wayfinding includes signage at the entrances of lots and garages, banners in the parking lots, and green direction signage at intersections. Additionally, the on-street signage conveys the color zone parking rules. Currently there is no consistent City parking/mobility branding used throughout Downtown. The signage at the garage/lot entrances indicates whether there are time limit spaces, permit spaces, or both, however, there is not a significant signage distinction to identify a public versus private parking garage/lots. Images 1 thru 3: Palo Alto wayfinding signage for off-street surface lot locations. Images 4 – 5: Palo Alto signage for off-street public garages; often difficult to determine public vs. private parking or both Another issue identified was the lack of clarity regarding the daily permit parking information. The signage in the garages did not adequately direct patrons to the kiosks and it did not clearly indicate whether daily permit holders should park in the public parking or the designated permit parking spaces. Currently the City does not utilize occupancy sensors or parking guidance systems. There are no digital counters or displays indicating whether a facility is full. During high occupancy periods, this can worsen congestion due to people entering facilities and circling for a space when the facility may already be near capacity or completely full. The following sections describe the various automated technology options that may be used to improve program efficiency and the overall parking experience. D. Parking Guidance Systems Vehicle counting systems coupled with automated wayfinding systems are helping to revolutionize how the masses park today. These systems, along with their integration to everyday phone and mapping applications, have provided motorists with the ability to plan their parking before leaving their home. The ability to do so can enable motorists to make more informed decisions about how to get to their destination, evaluate alternative modes of transit, and, if they choose to drive, reduce traffic congestion by letting drivers know where they will park. Automated Parking Guidance System (APGS) signs can promote parking availability and mitigate congestion around and within parking facilities. To improve the Palo Alto parking experience, the City must have an accurate tool to count vehicle entries to provide accurate parking availability that can be integrated with an APGS sign and available parking applications. The dynamic signage allows the City to redirect patrons toward alternative, underutilized parking locations. The APGS/wayfinding signage should indicate parking lot status (open/closed), space availability (Full/Available or the number of spaces available), event parking details (as applicable), alternative parking areas, and targeted messaging. This methodology would allow many patrons to prepare their direction of travel upon approach thereby possibly reducing the traffic flow impact, discouraging backups, and addressing maximum capacity concerns. DIXON often refers to the concept of “First mile, last mile,” the security of one knowing before leaving their origin, where he or she will be parking at their destination and when reaching the “last mile,” the ability to rely on wayfinding to guide him or her to their arrival location. Another benefit to the wayfinding signage and the real-time parking information is parking availability and the ability to be linked to a variety of publicly available, free parking applications. This information can be monitored both remotely and on site by parking operations personnel to anticipate traffic flow impacts and capacity levels, especially for special event management. If the City adjusts pricing or Images 6: S/L Bryant/Lytton garage entrance. The facility is not conducive for how to pay to park implements demand-based rates, this information can be promoted using these online tools and equipment. DIXON recommends that this information be distributed for public access via an application programming interface (API) in addition to transmitting the data to additional APGS signs placed at the primary entrances to the downtown, especially at major arterial roads. This recommendation is consistent with the City’s current CIPs for an APGS system and downtown wayfinding campaign. If the City prefers to develop a basic integrated independent mobile application (provided by the APGS system provider). The overall cost of the mobile application development does vary depending on the type of information to be displayed, any specific branding / graphics requirements, and additional features such as find my car, directions, 511 traffic information, parking reservations, or 3rd party integrations. While the City may potentially invest in an interactive City-developed website or application, for which the cost can be significant based upon your overall web design, there are several existing, free parking availability/guidance applications, like ParkMe and Parkopedia, that leverage available public parking information using their interactive parking application. A useful example of clear directional wayfinding that has been successfully implemented is in the City of San Jose, displayed in Image 7. Though the City put less emphasis on branding or a specific theme, it has unmistakably highlighted parking, the direction in which this parking is located, and the available parking spaces at each location. In addition, positioning of the signage is equally as important. Motorists entering the downtown district off the major interstate highway are met with this sign immediately, providing motorists a knowledge of where available parking opportunities are located before entering the downtown district. A critical component of any technology installation, especially an APGS solution, is maintenance and upkeep. If an APGS is installed, it is recommended that a responsible party (i.e., subcontractor) be designated and held accountable for the system upkeep. If this support is to be a subcontracted service, performance standards should be defined and incorporated into the vendor service agreement with performance penalties for system support failures. Wayfinding is an integral part of any parking operation. Patrons need to be informed of facility locations, space availability, time restrictions, and parking rates. Navigation from place to place within a parking facility is often overlooked and undervalued. Knowing where one is in a facility, where there are available spaces and knowing how to navigate to those spaces is one of the most fundamental aspects of a successful parking program. The addition of wayfinding signage may significantly improve the ability of a patron to enter, leave and return to a facility. Image 7: San Jose on-street district wayfinding signage E. Digital Wayfinding Parking should be easy. As many trips begin and end with parking, providing patrons with the direction and information on best parking options is imperative in any successful parking program. Providing accurate information on parking destination and availability can significantly impact a patron’s experience when visiting an event or Downtown area. Static wayfinding offers an opportunity to lead patrons in the direction of available parking while also being aesthetically pleasing to the Downtown area. However, digital wayfinding has truly taken parking guidance to a new level with the ability to display real-time parking space occupancy data while directing patrons to available spots in the City’s parking garage. The City has already approved the installation of overhead space indicators (sensors) for the garage facilities. The space indicators will provide color notification to identify real-time parking space availability (Image 8). The City has an opportunity to manage the business rules for parking spaces throughout the day however, this will require on site oversight to maximize the opportunity to adjust parking space regulations, i.e. increasing/decreasing the number of Permit Only spaces based upon demand will provide a convenience that was not easily managed previously. Space indicators provide in-depth data with the ability to show parking occupancy by level and by row within each level. The solution that will be implemented by the City will allow for a true comprehensive guidance system throughout the entire facility (Image 9 right). This type of system will not only mitigate congestion at the entrance of the garage but also throughout each level and row. The City should consider including a digital wayfinding option with the space indicator implementation that provides patrons a breakdown, by level, of parking availability (Image 10 left). The occupancy count accuracy of this solution is typically about 95% based on the speed of vehicles entering and exiting and the space between each vehicle. This solution is best suited for garages that allow travel up and down on the outside of the actual parking spaces as opposed to having to drive through every spot on every level to travel up and down. The simplest and most cost-efficient method to provide real-time occupancy is to show one aggregate count for available spaces throughout the entire garage (Image 11 top of next page). Once the real-time occupancy data is collected, transmitting it to digital wayfinding signage located throughout the garage, the surrounding City Image 8: Overhead space indicators Image 9: Wayfinding signage - Space Counts Image 10: Level-by-level space count and/or a website/application is relatively simple. Most vendors that provide the counting hardware described above will be able to provide both additional digital signage and an API that will allow the data to be used in websites and applications. In addition to basic signage that comes with the pricing breakdowns above, supplementary signage can typically be purchased. The pricing on this signage depends on the sign and the application for it, hence the significant price range. For signage placed in areas outside the garage, there are potential costs associated with transmitting information to the digital display signs. In most cases, wireless transmissions are possible for a small monthly data fee or signs can be hardwired direct and the costs will vary significantly depending on the distance of the fiber line to the sign. It is important to note that DIXON’s paid parking section recommends the City implement PARCS systems (gated access) in the Downtown garage facilities. PARCS systems will help to improve counts at each facility and accurately distribute this information to the public. Image 11: Wayfinding signage – Digital Counts IV. Enforcement Recommendations: • Implement vehicle mounted license plate recognition (LPR) units to improve efficiency. • Expand parking enforcement staffing coverage to include evening and weekend coverage (if feasible). • Evaluate existing enforcement handhelds to ensure real-time integration capabilities with selected parking meters and mobile payment vendor. Whether the City proceeds with a paid parking solution or considers installing a parking access control system at the garage entrances, these are decisions that will impact the enforcement of the downtown parking policies. The color zones are currently monitored by Police Department Community Service Officers (CSOs) utilizing enforcement handhelds to manually track each vehicle license plates throughout their assigned color zone. Typically, a CSO can input between 750 to 1,000 license plate per shift. This is a time-consuming effort that requires a substantial time commitment to enforce the daily time limit requirements of the existing color zone policies. In addition to the color zone time limits, the CSOS also monitor permit compliance in the surface lots and parking garages. If the City elects to maintain the current color zone time limit policies, vehicle mounted license plate recognition (LPR) technology should be implemented to more efficiently maximize personnel resources and to ensure consistent enforcement of the time limit and permit management policies. In addition, if there are no changes to the existing color zone policies, with the implementation of at least two (2) LPR vehicle mounted units, the CSOs will no longer be required to manually track license plates and the City should consider redeploying the CSO schedule and extending enforcement coverage to include weekday evening hours and weekend coverage to ensure compliance with general parking policies, including red curb and double-parking violations. With the implementation of at least two (2) LPR units, there should be an opportunity to redeploy rather than expand staff. This will require ongoing assessment to ensure adequate and consistent coverage of the downtown parking policies. LPR increases efficiency in several ways, including the automation of vehicle location and time occupied monitoring to enforce the color zone time limits that are currently being tracked manually. Furthermore, LPR technology provides an ability to validate parking permit status when permits are attached to license plates. Again, if the City elects not to make any changes to the current color zone policies or to the management of the off-street locations, the vehicle mounted LPR units can efficiently patrol the garage and surface lot locations to verify that the permit registered license plate is valid. Rather than physically verifying permit status using the enforcement handheld, the CSOs will be enabled to swiftly monitor the permit parking areas. The LPR technology would be integrated with the City’s parking permit management system and real-time updates can be received to ensure the most accurate and up-to-date database. The LPR system also provides the opportunity for CSOs to more efficiently manage the City’s scofflaw records and vehicles with five (5) or more unpaid delinquent parking citations. LPR cameras can be mounted to a CSO vehicle or attached to a stationary structure such as a toll booth or entry gate (described in more detail in the Garage Recommendations Section). In recent years, however, LPR has grown into the parking industry to help cities with their enforcement, permit management and scofflaw mitigation. Many cities have successfully supplemented their enforcement resources with the implementation of LPR technology. As an enforcement device, LPR cameras are attached to enforcement vehicles that patrol both streets and off street parking locations and can be used to manage parking violations, occupancy limits, scofflaw capture and paid parking payment status. LPR vendors provide specialized technology for parking enforcement purposes and have developed the software to integrate with the variety of citation, permit management and technology hardware vendors which will provide the City with a comprehensive program customized specifically for Palo Alto. The LPR solution includes visual evidence of an infraction when it occurs and further when a citation is issued. This is invaluable for adjudication purposes. For time limit management, many of the LPR vendors offer a digital chalking feature that uses software technology to track the location of a vehicle, how long the vehicle was parked at a specific location or within a designated zone/area and simultaneously compares that to the time limit posted in that area. Digital chalking has helped several cities provide a more accountable and consistent approach to time limit management without having to invest in additional labor and provides an additional level of visual evidence that tends to reduce adjudication efforts. As automated license plate recognition (ALPR) systems become more prevalent across the country and in the State of California, Agencies must take the proper steps in accordance with federal and state laws. Existing law currently authorizes law enforcement agencies and departments to use LPR for the purpose of locating vehicles or persons reasonably suspected of being involved in the commission of a public offense. Senate Bill 34, Section 1978.90.51, effective January 1, 2016 imposes specific requirements on an “ALPR operator” as defined to protect ALPR information and implementing a usage privacy policy with respect to that information, as specified. Among several requirements and propositions incorporated in Senate Bill 34, a specific requirement is found in Section 1798.90.51/1798.90.53, and states that an APLR end-user shall do the following: (b) (1) Implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the access, use, sharing, and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy and civil liberties. The usage and privacy policy shall be available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR end-user has an Internet Web site, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted conspicuously on that Internet Web site. Therefore, DIXON recommends the City of Palo Alto and with its potential implementation of LPR in the future, refer to the City’s use of ALPR on the City’s web site. DIXON recommends that Palo Alto provide a statement informing the public of the usage and privacy policy surrounding its use of the system. Image 12: Example of mobile-LPR parking enforcement Per Senate Bill 34, the City’s posting of information to the public on the City’s web site must be completed as follows: (B) Conspicuous posting, for a minimum of 30 days, of the notice on the agency’s Internet Web site page, if the agency maintains one. For purposes of this subparagraph, conspicuous posting on the agency’s Internet Web site means providing a link to the notice on the home page or first significant page after entering the Internet Web site that is in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the link. The approximate cost to support the installation of LPR equipment on an existing vehicle is approximately $50,000-$60,000 including the training and infrastructure needed. This will include the installation of the cameras on the outside of the vehicle, the processing unit in the trunk along with the in-vehicle PC and navigator set up in the front seat. It is recommended that the City of Palo Alto implement a vehicle mounted LPR solution regardless of the other recommendations considered. The technology will directly benefit the downtown area and provide the CSOs with a resource tool to become more efficient and consistent in the management of downtown parking policies. If the City proceeds with a paid parking solution, the existing enforcement handhelds need to be evaluated to ensure the integration capabilities with the implementation of the various parking technologies. If the City opts to install parking meter technology, the decision to proceed with a Pay-by-Plate or Pay-by-Space approach will be relevant to the enforcement handheld equipment (See Paid Parking Recommendations Section for more detail). A real-time interface with the parking technology provider and the CSO enforcement handheld will ensure that the CSO receive the most current vehicle payment status. The same integration requirement will be necessary for a mobile payment vendor, especially if the City elected to proceed with a Pay & Display solution. Real-time integration requirements must be clearly defined in any vendor solicitation for citation, permit or paid parking technology support to provide the CSO with the accurate status of a parking space in Palo Alto. Integration requirements and the cost of any software development should be the burden of the parking technology vendors. Data integration must be addressed during the solicitation and contracting stage with each vendor and the City should have a standard application programming interface (API) requirement that is included with any parking solicitation. Integration with the enforcement handheld is imperative to maximize the efficiency of the CSOs and minimize the burden of equipment that they are required to carry. Regardless of the downtown parking policy decisions and outcomes, the combination of vehicle mounted LPR technology and integrated enforcement handhelds will provide the CSO staff the tools necessary to Image 13: Example smartphone handheld enforcement device effectively manage and monitor the downtown parking policies without changes to the existing staffing resources. V. Centralization of Palo Alto Parking Related Operations Recommendations: • The City should create a Parking Department/Division to provide full-time management of the parking operation including oversight of any outsourced services and vendor technology agreements. Through work with different with different municipalities and agencies, DIXON has found that parking operations can become a convoluted task. Often overlooked, many fail to realize the number of duties and responsibilities that are associated with parking, even if only loosely. These responsibilities are further increased when an agency has paid parking operations. Often, a municipality’s departments that have some form of a parking related role include transit, finance, police department, public works, planning, and even community and economic development. Thus, there are several hands involved and the clarity of those roles and responsibilities from one department to the next may become blurred or lost. It was difficult to obtain documents and information from staff related to the current Palo Alto parking operation. Through those requests and coordination with City staff, it has become apparent that there is a lack of internal structure within the City when it comes to parking. Currently there are multiple departments handling support services related to parking. Outlined below are the current parking tasks and the department responsible within the City. Parking Task Department Responsible Citation Hearings Police Construction (Garage/Lots) Public Works Daily Permit Sales (Pay Stations) Planning & Community Development Daily Permit Sales (City Hall) Administrative Services Employee/Employer Permits (Garages/Lots) Administrative Services Enforcement – RPP Planning & Community Environment/Downtown Parking Assessment District/Administrative Services Enforcement – (Garages, Lots, Color Zones) Police Maintenance (Garages/Lots) Public Works Planning Planning & Community Development Residential Parking Permit Program (RPP) Planning & Community Development Revenues Administrative Services Revenues – Employee/Employer Permits (Downtown) Finance Valet Permitting (Garage/Lots) Police Valet Program (Garage/Lots) Planning & Community Environment (via sub- contractor SP Plus) Website Planning & Community Environment (SP+) Based on current internal organization of tasks related to parking there are too many departments involved without a reliable source of collaboration to ensure all roles and responsibilities are being fulfilled to the best ability. Many of the recommendations set forth in this report will require significant coordination by multiple city resources. Therefore, the City should create an internal parking department that will act as the direct point of contact for all parking related issues. Many cities have a parking department that provides turnkey support for much of the support services outlines in the table above. In other cities, one primary contact may serve as the oversight of the various departments handling parking related responsibilities and management of parking related issues. The City should move the parking operation responsibilities under the umbrella of a centralized parking department. These operations include enforcement and management of both Downtown Palo Alto as well as the RPP district; the downtown parking assessment permits for employees; and RPP permits for both residents and employees. In addition, with the potential of paid parking, the parking department would manage all aspects of the parking technology required to support the operation, including, but not limited to, parking hardware management, maintenance, as well as revenue collection and reconciliation. The proposed department should be considered an extension of the City’s Parking and Transportation Committee to assist in the facilitation of coordinated policy-making and implementation across the entire parking and transportation system. The following is the proposed organizational structure based on the current and potential services: *Solid blue – line indicates direct and central report structure A. Proposed Figure 9 on the previous page outlines a proposed organizational structure for the City’s centralization of parking roles and responsibilities as part of the newly created Central Parking Department. The outline of the structure incorporates current departments and their responsibilities as well as created tasks that may result from the implementation of paid parking technology and other parking technology infrastructure. As it is proposed, the Parking Department would be headed by a Parking Manager. The Parking Manager would oversee four Supervisors in parking related roles including On-Street, Off-Street, Enforcement and Permit Management services. Current departments that are tasked with parking related roles today such as Public Works, Police and Administrative Services would continue to operate indirectly with the Parking Department via the Parking Manager or a Supervisor. In the case of Police and Administrative Services a line of communication would be established with both the Parking Manager and an operations related Supervisor. A. Outsourcing of Parking Operations Based on DIXON’s review of the City’s current parking related operations and feedback through working with City staff, outsourcing of parking operations is a viable alternative in the event a centralized parking department is unable to be organized. The outsourcing of parking operations is a support service that has been implemented by several agencies throughout California. It is important to know that regardless of the degree the parking operation is contracted to a private vendor, the municipality always maintains oversight. As previously mentioned, with the recommendation implementation of paid parking, the added services that will required will further the current parking responsibilities of the City. These added services include ongoing upkeep and preventative maintenance of parking equipment, weekly parking meter collections, and the revenue reconciliation process. Many cities, like Palo Alto, contract private parking operators to support their parking operations. Palo Alto is already engaging two of these vendors in the support of permit management software, garage valet services and RPP supplement enforcement services. Parking facility operations is commonly outsourced by municipalities; however, many cities have also allocated parking maintenance services and revenue reconciliation to private operators. For example, Newport Beach selected a private vendor to not only collect meter revenue, but also contracts the vendor to provide maintenance support, including preventative maintenance services. San Francisco and Los Angeles contract operators to support their parking meter revenue operations. Accounting for these added daily operations and responsibilities is import for Palo Alto to understand as it makes these changes. There are many examples of cities with successful parking programs that have either chose to manage parking internally or have had success outsourcing parking operations. The City of Sausalito has had success with a hybrid approach, outsourcing revenue collection and maintenance while handling permits and other daily administrative operations internally. However, for Palo Alto, the current state of parking operations needs to be altered. Today, parking functions spread across several departments. Thus, implementing parking related changes or improvements is less effective. The common operations that are typically outsourced by municipalities include collections and Level 1 Maintenance of parking meters and pay stations, revenue reconciliation, and enforcement. Each of these operations are fulfilled by the City’s current third-party vendors as well as additional vendors. VI. Alternative Strategies Recommendations: • Identify remote parking supply and solicit shared parking agreements to reduce the parking demand in the Downtown core. • Implement a Downtown Employee Mobility Program to encourage mode shift and reduce SOV trips in synch with the TMA’s objectives. While the various parking program recommendations throughout this report will help improve program efficiency and overall parking experience, ultimately the City should take a sustainable approach to managing Downtown parking and mobility. As the City evolves, Palo Alto will continue to face increase pressure to utilize space more efficiently, especially as available development space becomes even more valuable than today. The City’s parking resources should be managed to preserve the walkability of Downtown, and alternative modes of transportation should be encouraged to reduce single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A. Secure Existing Parking Supply Securing the existing parking supply can help reduce parking demand in the Downtown core, especially during peak periods of the day. The City should utilize any additional remote parking supply during the short-term. More remote parking coupled with the addition of paid parking Downtown can be an opportunity to provide a cheaper alternative for those willing to park further outside of the core. This may assist in reducing Downtown congestion and alleviate some parking demand. There are three main areas the City may look to for existing parking supply opportunities: city-owned parking locations outside of the downtown core, lots such as high-school parking lots, and private parking facilities and lots for shared-parking agreements. Underutilized lots throughout Palo Alto can be opportunities for acquiring additional existing parking supply for Downtown employees or visitors. This tactic is useful for providing remote parking locations to improve public transit and bike access to Downtown without having to invest in expanding parking supply. Shared parking agreements with property owners are required when securing privately owned parking locations for public use. Private parking lots, which are only used during certain hours of the day, can be a parking opportunity for the downtown area. Shared parking negotiations are often the most successful with cost/revenue sharing, insurance, enforcement and/or infrastructure improvement agreements. It is important to consider the following when developing shared parking agreements: • Term length: providing return on investment • Facility Use: user base and flexibility; number of available spaces Educating the community on alternative transit needs to continue to be a priority for Palo Alto • Operations & Maintenance: extending associated services • Enforcement: citations, gate arms; booting/towing B. Downtown Employee Mobility Program In line with the TMA’s objectives, the City should expand the goal of reducing the number of SOV trips as part of a downtown mobility plan, by improving travel options to Downtown. It is suggested that the initial mobility program be targeted towards employees, and the, if deemed successful, the program can be expanded to the public. While it is not realistic to assume every Downtown employee can use alternative modes of transportation, the City may benefit considerably from even a target reduction of just 5-10% of employees parking their vehicles. An employee mobility program would not only improve parking availability, but it may provide employees improved travel options and cost savings opportunities. There are various tactics that the City can use to incentivize employees to not drive Downtown: • Online Portal: A web-based or smartphone-based portal could be a “one-stop-shop” for employees to access travel information, register for programs, receive financial incentives, log trip data, take surveys and more. • Financial Incentives: The City may want to explore opportunities for direct financial incentives for employees that don’t drive to work such as a nominal payment of $0.50-$1.00 per day or coupon rewards. • Park and Ride Shuttle: If the City secures additional remote parking, the City may want to revisit the issue of expanded shuttle programs from those locations to Downtown especially during peak service periods. • Car Sharing: Offering subsidized trips or memberships to car sharing services for employees can help make going to work without a personal car more realistic and reduce parking demands. Currently Palo Alto offers Zipcar services at multiple locations in Downtown Palo Alto. Expanding the program and increasing locations may assist in decreasing the amount of SOV trips to Palo Alto each day. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 5 Special Meeting April 11, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:05 P.M. Present: DuBois arrived at 5:32 P.M., Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka arrived at 5:36 P.M., Wolbach Absent: Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: Ferreira, et al. v. City of Palo Alto Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV289765 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1). 2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS, CALIFORNIA Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: U.S. Post Office, 380 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto 94301 Agency Negotiators: James Keene, Lalo Perez, Hamid Ghaemmaghami Negotiating Parties: City of Palo Alto and United States Post Office Under Negotiation: Purchase and Lease: Price and Terms of Payment. MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 DuBois, Tanaka absent Council went into Closed Session at 5:05 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 7:18 P.M. Mayor Scharff announced no reportable action. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 5 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 4/11/17 Minutes Approval 3. Approval of Action Minutes for the March 27, 2017 Council Meeting. MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to approve the Action Minutes for the March 27, 2017 Council Meeting including changes outlined in the at places Staff Memorandum. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Consent Calendar MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-9. 4. Approve Updated City of Palo Alto Debt Policy. 5. Approval of a Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services Contract With Cal Engineering & Geology for a one Year Term With a Not-to- Exceed Amount of $139,213 for a Geotechnical Investigation and Assessment of the Existing Subgrade of the Mayfield Reservoir (WS-11004). 6. Approval of Urban Forestry On-call Services Contract Number S17165735 With Davey Resource Group for Review and Inspection of Planning and Development Applications in a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $200,000 Annually for a Three-year Term. 7. Request for Authorization to Increase the Existing Contract for Legal Services With the Law Firm of Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai by an Additional $100,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $195,000. 8. Adoption of an Updated Rail Committee Charter and Guiding Principles. 9. Selection of Applicants to Interview on April 26, 2017 for the Human Relations Commission, the Library Advisory Commission, the Public Art Commission, and the Utilities Advisory Commission. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items At this time Council heard Agenda Item Numbers 10 and 11 concurrently. ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 5 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 4/11/17 10. Council Direction on Parking and Retail Program and Related Zoning Changes Needed for the new Downtown Parking Structure Located at Existing Surface Parking Lot D at 375 Hamilton Avenue. 11. Receive Results of a Downtown Parking Management Study and Provide Direction to Staff on Next Steps. MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Direct Staff to proceed with full preliminary design and environmental review on a new 339 space parking garage concept with five levels of above ground parking and a 3,800 square foot retail space (Downtown Parking Garage Option B); and B. Include a basement parking level; and C. Direct Staff to proceed with revisions to the Public Facility (PF) zoning Ordinance to specifically accommodate public parking garages. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part A, “and a 3,800 square foot” with “and up to 3,800 square feet of.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to consider inclusion of a public restroom.” (New Part C) AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “Council’s direction is to describe a desired outcome but not to limit the Architectural Review Board’s purview.” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX to replace the Motion Part B with, “include two basement parking levels.” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to analyze additional mechanical parking options.” ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 5 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 4/11/17 AMENDMENT RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to analyze additional mechanical parking options without causing a delay in this project.” (New Part E) MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Direct Staff to proceed with full preliminary design and environmental review on a new 339 space parking garage concept with five levels of above ground parking and up to 3,800 square feet of retail space (Downtown Parking Garage Option B); and B. Include a basement parking level; and C. Direct Staff to consider inclusion of a public restroom; and D. Direct Staff to proceed with revisions to the Public Facility (PF) zoning Ordinance to specifically accommodate public parking garages; and E. Direct Staff to analyze additional mechanical parking options without causing a delay in this project. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to direct Staff to conduct public outreach and work with the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Finance Committee to refine recommendations related to the introduction of paid parking in Downtown Palo Alto, and return with a phasing, finance, and implementation plan for the Council’s consideration in the Fall of 2017; and A. Direct Staff to coordinate paid parking in Downtown Palo Alto pricing with Residential Preferential Permit Parking (RPP) Programs, garage permit pricing, and lot permit pricing. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion, “a phasing, finance, and implementation plan” with “various phasing, finance, and implementation plans.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion, “paid parking” with “various parking management strategies.” ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 5 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 4/11/17 MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to direct Staff to conduct public outreach and work with the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Finance Committee to refine recommendations related to the introduction of various parking management strategies in Downtown Palo Alto, and return with various phasing, finance, and implementation plans for the Council’s consideration in the fall of 2017; and A. Direct Staff to coordinate paid parking in Downtown Palo Alto pricing with Residential Preferential Permit Parking (RPP) Programs, garage permit pricing, and lot permit pricing. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs 12. Staff Recommendation to Approve Sending a Letter Supporting the State's Latest Regional Traffic Relief Plan. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to: A. Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to the state legislative Bay Area Caucus supporting the most recent iteration of the Regional Measure supporting a Regional Traffic Relief Plan; and B. Authorize the Mayor to sign future letters to elected officials, as needed and after City Manager approval, concerning this Reginal Measure. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Holman requested Staff consider reopening the comment period regarding the scope of the Environmental Impact Report for Castilleja School’s request to expand enrollment and redevelop the campus. James Keene, City Manager acknowledged this request. Council Member Wolbach expressed his appreciation to the Mayor, City Manager, and facilitators at the Council Governance Retreat this past Friday and Saturday. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:07 P.M. Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8016) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/14/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2755 El Camino Real: Pilot Housing Project Title: 2755 El Camino Real [17PLN-00464]: Preliminary Review of Legislative Actions and Project Approvals Necessary to Allow the Construction of a Four-Story Multi-Family Residential Building with 60 Units and One Level of Underground Parking. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation The subject application is a request for study session review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Commissioners should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. Report Summary The applicant seeks early feedback from the PTC concerning a proposal to develop a four-story multifamily residential building with 60 dwelling units and one level of below grade parking as a “pilot project” on a site zoned Public Facilities (PF). The proposal is currently being reviewed pursuant to CEQA and is expected to request the following actions: 1. Amendment of the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to allow for multi-family housing projects within the Major Institution Special Facilities land use designation; 2. Amendment of the Zoning Code to create a new combining district that would allow housing on the subject property and that could be applied to other sites in the PF zone within 0.5 mile of fixed rail transit in the future, through a legislative process within Council and the PTC’s purview; City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 3. Amendment of the Zoning Map to apply the new combining district to the subject site; and 4. A Site and Design review to allow for construction of the proposed project. This early review is consistent with prior PTC requests to review projects earlier in the review process. However, significant staff work remains to be completed and this project will require a hearing before the PTC at a future date. Some of the outstanding analysis includes completing the environmental review, evaluating and making recommendations on the regulatory framework for a new combining district, consideration of the broader policy implications of the request, how it might apply to other properties in the city and, consideration of enforcement and penalty related interests to ensure desired housing populations with low vehicle ownership reside in the housing development, if approved. For its part, the PTC may want to comment on the following topics, or other items individual commissioners find appropriate: Mass, scale, project siting, open space and density Relationship to other improvements in the area, including the residential condominium and senior housing buildings adjacent to the site, and El Camino Real Parking access and functionality Elements of a future TDM plan Policy considerations related to housing, parking, a new combining district, and generally to a pilot program that would consider dense housing opportunities near rail transit The site is a former VTA Park and Ride lot, which is zoned Pubic Facilities (PF) and is designated Major Institution/Special Facilities in the Comprehensive Plan. A location map is included as Attachment A. The project plans are included as Attachment G. Background Project Information Owner: Pollock FRB, LLC Architect: BDE Architecture Representative: Windy Hill Property Ventures Legal Counsel: None Identified Property Information Address: 2755 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Evergreen Park Lot Dimensions & Area: 19,563 square feet (0.449 acre) Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Yes, COE plume Protected/Heritage Trees: Not Applicable Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Existing Improvement(s): No existing buildings Existing Land Use(s): Vacant parking lot (previous VTA Park and Ride lot) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Planned Community (PC-4463) Zoning (land use: multi-family residential [Silverwood Condominium Complex]) West: Planned Community (PC-4831) Zoning (land use: residential care facilities [Sunrise Assisted Living Senior Center]) East: CN and CS Zoning (land uses: Veterinarian Office, Retail [AT&T], and recently approved mixed-use development project) South: Public Facilities (PF) AS-3 and Planned Community (PC-4637) (land uses: Mayfield Soccer Complex and research office [Palo Alto Square] respectively). Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Source: Palo Alto Geographic Information Systems Technology (GIST), 2017 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Public Facilities (PF) Comp. Plan Designation: Major Institution/Special Facilities (MISP) Context-Based Design Criteria: Applicability determined by combining district requirements Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Yes Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes (note that nearby residential uses are zoned PC). Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Prior to the proposed project, multiple developments have been considered at this site, but ultimately not pursued. More recently the applicant presented a similar conceptual project to the City Council. City Council: On September 12, 2016. City Council conducted a prescreening, as is required for these types of legislative changes prior to application submittal in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.79.030(A). The staff report for the Council hearing is located here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53711 No action was taken at the prescreening hearing. Preliminary feedback provided by Councilmembers is discussed below. PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None A transcript of the Council prescreening for this project is included in Attachment C. During the prescreening hearing, Councilmembers raised several key considerations regarding the potential rezoning of the site as well as how the rezoning and/or change in land use would fit in to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Although several councilmembers supported the idea of housing at this particular site, others expressed concern or urged caution regarding rezoning, proposed density and limited parking. Some Councilmembers expressed an interest in rezoning the site to a CN Zone. Multiple Councilmembers supported the idea of reducing or eliminating restrictions on unit density in order to allow for more, smaller units while still restricting height, setbacks, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in order to manage building mass. However, one or more councilmembers expressed concerns about using this project site to dictate appropriate development standards without looking comprehensively at how this might be applied to other sites in the future. In addition, several councilmembers supported reduced parking requirements for sites near local transit provided that a TDM plan be required. Council encouraged staff to research other projects where this was done in the past and their performance with respect to traffic and parking. The initial prescreening concept plan was brought forth as a workforce housing project and the applicant highlighted the benefits of the project’s location not only to alternative transit but also to office uses, including Stanford Research Park and Palo Alto Square. Several questions were raised during the hearing about potential deed restrictions and/or preferences for local workers (particularly teachers, government employees, etc.) as well as senior citizens; the applicant had indicated that it was still looking into the details of how that would work. In addition, councilmembers expressed an interest in making those units more moderately priced for these types of workers. The formal application has not provided a proposal with respect to plans for preferences or deed restrictions that reflect a workforce housing component to the City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 project. In addition, no affordable housing has been proposed and the applicant has not proposed any plan for making some units more moderately priced for these types of workers. However, these ideas are still being explored. The applicant had also discussed the possibility of a bike kitchen that would be open to the public in order to address some councilmember’s interests in seeing retail uses on the ground floor. However, the applicant is currently proposing a bike kitchen combined with bike parking on the ground level, which, per the PAMC standards would not be allowed to be open to the public. It should be noted that councilmembers expressed mixed opinions about whether retail should be provided at this location. Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject property is located at the northeastern corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road and is zoned as Public Facility (PF). It was formerly used as a VTA park and ride lot; however, the VTA Board deemed this site as “surplus” and subsequently sold the site. Adjacent zoning and land uses include the four-story Sunrise Assisted Living Senior Housing Facility to the northeast and the three-story Silverwood Condominium Complex to the northwest, both of which are located on parcels zoned Planned Community (PC). Across El Camino Real is the Mayfield Soccer Complex, which is zoned PF; across Page Mill Road there are retail uses, including a two-story AT&T building, and a recently approved mixed-use development project on parcels zoned Service Commercial (CS). The ten-story Palo Alto Square Office complex in the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road is zoned PC. Project Description As shown in the plan set and discussed in the applicant’s project description in Attachments H and G respectively, the applicant is proposing to construct a 50-foot high, four-story, multi- family apartment building that would include 31 studio units and 29 one-bedroom units. The building also includes a partially below-grade parking garage with 65 parking spaces; 60 of these spaces would be provided via automated “puzzle parking” lift systems. A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.24:1 is proposed for the project. The proposed project, as described, does not neatly conform to any nearby zoning district. It would not meet the requirements of the CS, CN, or CC zone districts because the project does not include mixed-use development; neither would it meet the RM-40 zone district requirements for Floor Area Ratio, height, or density. The applicant is proposing a Zoning Code Text Amendment to create a new combining district that could be applied to sites within the PF Zone and within 0.5 mile of fixed use transit. The new combining district would outline the requisite development standards for any site that applies the combining district through a Zoning Map Amendment, which would be subject to the PTC and Council’s review. Under the current Comprehensive Plan the proposed project would also require a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to the Land Use and Community Design Element to allow for a high-density multi-family residential use in the Major Institution Special Facilities land use designation. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: Staff anticipates that the following discretionary applications and legislative actions will be subject to PTC review: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 19.04.080. Zoning Code Text Amendment: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80.080. This type of legislative change requires a prescreening before Council, which has been completed. A request for a zoning text amendment requires at least one public hearing before the PTC and shall forward its recommendations to the City Council for final action. Zoning Map Amendment: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80.060 and 18.80.070 and is similar to the process described above. Site and Design: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.30(G). Site and design is intended to provide a review process for development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. If recommended for approval, the project requires review before the Architectural Review Board before the project is forwarded to the City Council for final action of all requested entitlements. Site and Design applications are evaluated to specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. The findings for the ARB to approve a site and design application are provided in Attachment B. Because the purpose of this session is to provide early input and no recommendation is requested, the specific findings are not included for this project and no action is requested. Because all of these applications and legislative actions require hearings before the PTC and Council, some of these processes may move forward simultaneously. Analysis1 Staff has identified the following issues for PTC’s consideration and comment, and summarizes each below: A. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan B. Zoning Code and Map Compliance C. Conformance to the El Camino Real Guidelines D. Multi-Modal Access/Parking 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report. No recommendation is requested at this time. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan2 The project site is designated ‘Major Institutions/Special Facilities’ in the Comprehensive Plan, which is defined as “institutional, academic, governmental, and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organizations.” Multi-family housing would not be consistent with this land use designation as currently defined. In addition, the density proposed, although supported by goals outlined in the Housing Element, is not consistent with the densities outlined for multi-family uses in the Land Use and Community Design Element. Thus, the proposed project would require an amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element to permit high density housing in the Major Institutions/Special Facilities land use designation. The Comprehensive Plan Housing Element includes Policy H2.1 to “identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed-income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse.” The proposed project does not propose a mixed-use development; however, it does include smaller units that may, therefore, be more moderately priced than other larger units on the rental market and would further contribute to the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs. Under this policy the Housing Element includes multiple programs for implementing this policy, including the following programs with which the proposed project would be consistent: Housing Program H2.1.1: To allow for higher density residential development, consider amending the zoning code to permit high-density residential in mixed use or single use projects in commercial area within one-half mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Element sites within one – quarter mile of fixed rail stations. Housing Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. Housing Program H2.1.5: Use Sustainable neighborhood development criteria to enhance connectivity, walkability, and access to amenities, and to support housing diversity. Housing Program H2.1.10: As part of planning for the future of El Camino Real, explore the identification of pedestrian nodes (i.e. perals on a string”) consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines with greater densities in those nodes than in other area Zoning Compliance3 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) does not currently have a zoning designation that would allow for the proposed development. The project site is in the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district. The PF district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. Multi-family housing is not a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the PF Zone District. During the prescreening, some councilmembers expressed concerns regarding rezoning the site from PF Zone to another zone. In response to this concern, the applicant has proposed to maintain the underlying zoning of the site but has requested a Zoning Code Text Amendment to create a new combining district that would permit residential uses in the PF Zone. The ordinance creating a new combining district will outline the requisite development standards for the new building, including unit density, floor area ratio, height, setbacks, parking and related standards. Staff has not developed draft ordinance language yet, but it will be presented to the PTC at a subsequent hearing. In general, staff is considering language that would only allow for this combining district to be applied to sites proposing housing projects within the PF Zone and within 0.5 miles of a fixed rail station. Development standards would not restrict the maximum number of dwelling units but would still require a restriction on height and floor area ratio. This is intended to encourage the development of smaller units while still restricting overall massing. The applicant is proposing a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.24:1 and a height of 50 feet for its proposed development at 2755 El Camino Real. A key component of the proposed combining district would also include an allowance for reduced parking requirements in conjunction with an approved Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. This is discussed in further detail below. The text for the new combining district would require Site and Design review for projects proposed within the overlay. It is anticipated that any site applying the combining district would still be subject to consistency with other applicable guidelines to that area (e.g. the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines). Staff’s recommendations for other typical development standards such as setback, daylight plane, lot coverage, and open space requirements are also still being considered. To apply a new combing district to a site, a Zoning Map amendment is required. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an ordinance that would first create the new combining district and then apply the new combining district to the subject property. The proposed ordinance and any future request for a Zoning Map Amendment to apply the combining district to a particular parcel would require a recommendation from the PTC and Council approval. South El Camino Real Design Guidelines The project is located on the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road and is therefore subject to the requirements of the South El Camino Real and El Camino Real design guidelines. In addition, this site is located within the California Avenue Strategic Site Pedestrian-Oriented 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Node and is specifically identified as a strategic site for implementation of the City’s vision of El Camino Real, serving as a critical anchor for extending the momentum of the California Avenue intersection down to Page Mill Road. The guidelines note that buildings on the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real should feature a prominent corner, extensive windows, and pedestrian amenities such as canopies, seating, and planters. In addition, it states that the former VTA site, in particular, should be redeveloped with a more intensive use of the site, and that a mixed-use building with structured/subsurface parking would be desirable. The project design includes an at grade entrance facing the corner of Page Mill and El Camino Real with partially subsurface parking. The bench for the transit stop will be replaced and planters are provided along both Page Mill and El Camino Real; however, there are few other pedestrian amenities along the frontage. The project includes an entirely residential building. Because of the proposed use, other than the main entrance, the building has been raised to provide privacy from the public right-of-way, consistent with the guidelines for this type of use. For exclusively residential projects, the South ECR Guidelines identify different setback requirements. Specifically, the project is required to be set back between 20 and 24 feet from the curb along the El Camino Real frontage and this serves as the build-to-line for the project. A portion of the project is set back 22’6” from El Camino Real but the majority of the building frontage is set back beyond 24 feet; therefore, the project does not meet the required build-to- line requirements of 75 percent built up to the build-to-line. Further setbacks are only allowed if they provide a public amenity. Landscaping is not a public amenity but is encouraged. The addition of benches or similar pedestrian oriented features within this area would serve as a public amenity. Although the new garage entrance and exit is located on El Camino Real, which is typically discouraged, the location of this garage on El Camino Real rather than Page Mill Road is supported by the Transportation Division. Further refinements may be required in coordination with VTA with respect to the existing bus stop in this area. The side street setback line along Page Mill within the boulevard zone, identified as the first 50 feet from the El Camino Real frontage should be between 8 and 12 feet from the curb while the remaining portion, referred to as the transition zone, should be 16 feet from the curb. All dimensions on the plans are provided to the 2’6” planter wall rather than to the building setback; however, it appears the project is set back approximately 14 feet from the curb, transitions to approximately 12’6” and then transitions further to an approximate 20 foot setback. Staff recognizes the complexity of designing to the lot shape but believes that improvements can be made to better comply with the setbacks identified in the guidelines. Staff also notes that the dimensions from the curb are measures from the location of the new curb that would be designed as part of the proposed project. The corner in particular should be built up to the build-to-line to better define the corner. Awnings may project further into the right-of-way. The use of dark tinted glass for the entrance area is also discouraged in accordance with the guidelines because it prohibits transparency and lacks visual interest. Dark tinted glass appears to be proposed at the front entrance. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 With respect to the building design, more articulation between the base, body, and parapet would be appropriate and improvements could be made to better correspond with the adjacent developments. Specifically, staff notes that one way both of these could be better resolved is to consider a partial roof form that creates an expressed roof line (but still provides screening and open area for the equipment on the interior) rather than a parapet wall. This would provide articulation for the roof and would provide a better transition between the proposed development and adjacent buildings. Multi-Modal Access & Parking Parking The proposed project includes 31 studio units and 29 one bedroom units. Under the current zoning code requirements, the proposed development would require 102 parking spaces (82 parking spaces for residents [1.25 per studio and 1.5 per one-bedroom] and 20 parking spaces for guests [33 percent if parking is assigned]). However, the current code does allow up to a 20 percent parking adjustment for housing near transit and/or for transportation and parking alternatives. Therefore, the applicant would be required to provide anywhere from 90 (with a 20 percent reduction) to 102 parking spaces under the current code requirements. The applicant is proposing that the standards in the new combining district overlay require 0.75 spaces per unit, which would be equivalent to 45 parking spaces, but is providing 65 parking spaces, equivalent to 1.08 parking units per stall. Of the 65 proposed spaces, two spaces are ADA compliant, two spaces are EV charging stations, and 61 spaces are provided via puzzle parking lift systems. Guest parking is not addressed. Staff is seeking the PTC’s input with respect to parking ratio standards as well as components that commissioners would want to see included in the TDM plan for such a development. Staff is also pursuing, in coordination with the traffic consultant, available literature related to parking ratios. The applicant has provided a list of key elements that will be included in their proposed TDM plan; this is included in Attachment E. Per Council direction, staff is working with the selected traffic consultant and the City’s transportation Division to identify projects that may have implemented similar projects (i.e. transit oriented residential development with reduced parking requirements). Staff has also programmed a larger study/survey of housing types in various locations as part of this year’s work program. (This study was included in the Housing Element as Implementation Program H3.3.7.) A total of 60 long-term and six short-term bike parking spaces are required under the PAMC and would continue to be required with the combining district overlay. The applicant is providing 66 long-term and eight short-term spaces. The proposed puzzle parking lift systems are being reviewed for consistency with 18.54.020(b), which allows for off-street parking to be provided via a lift system when used for multi-family residential uses. In addition, the project is consistent with parking screening requirements and lift stall size requirements outlined in this section of the code. The applicant is proposing three separate lift systems in order to allow for concurrent use of the different lifts so that more than one car can park or be retrieved at a given time. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 Questions were raised by both members of the public and one or more Councilmembers during the prescreening hearing about overflow parking from the proposed development affecting parking availability on streets in adjacent neighborhoods. On January 23, 2017 the City adopted the Evergreen-Park Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program (RPP). 2755 El Camino Real was excluded from the RPP program boundaries so residents would not be eligible to purchase permits to park in the adjacent neighborhood. Therefore, staff does not anticipate that parking from the proposed development would affect adjacent neighborhoods. However, the combining district overlay would need to take into account how reduced parking on other sites that may apply for application of this overlay may affect surrounding areas for those sites. Multi-Modal Access The project proposes right-turn in/right-turn out access to the partially below grade parking via El Camino Real. The proposed vehicular site access is in approximately the same location as the existing site access along El Camino Real. The curb cut along Page Mill Road would be removed. Primary pedestrian access to the site is provided at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino. Following the prescreening process with Council and initial input from staff, the applicant has lowered the main entrance at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino Real to grade level in order to provide a more pedestrian and bike friendly entrance. Although the proposed project does not require a public benefit, the applicant has proposed to convey a portion of the existing property to the County of Santa Clara and upgrade the curb in order to facilitate future improvements proposed by the County to add a new right-turn lane. Additional curb improvements are proposed at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino to tighten the curb radius, thereby allowing for more sidewalk space and calming traffic turning onto El Camino Real. A Draft Traffic Impact Analysis is currently being prepared but is not yet available for public distribution. The report will analyze the project with the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County Valley Transit Authority standards and will be included in the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Environmental Review This study session is a preliminary review process in which commissioners may provide comment, but no formal action will be taken. Therefore, no review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required at this time. An initial study and associated technical studies are currently being prepared to determine the level of environmental analysis required. Next Steps In order to make a recommendation with respect to the proposed project the PTC must consider the environmental analysis in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15025(c). Therefore, City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 the type of environmental analysis required for the proposed project will dictate the timeline for subsequent hearings with the PTC and other recommending and elected bodies. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this 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. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on June 2, 2017 which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 30, 2017 which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Twelve oral comments were received during the prescreening with Council on September 12, 2016. The minutes from the prescreening hearing are provided in Attachment C and include a transcript of these comments. Some comments expressed support for the project primarily due to its contribution to new housing stock within the City. Comments that expressed concerns related primarily to traffic impacts, parking (both parking loss and concerns with reduced parking for the units), rezoning from a public facilities zoning, and the project’s inconsistency with the adjacent condominiums. An additional 117 written comments were received regarding the proposed project. One comment noted concerns related primarily to re-zoning of the property and parking/traffic. Two of the comments expressed general support for some of the ideas but offered advice as to other considerations that should be required as part of the proposal. The other 114 comments expressed support for the project and urged the Council to support the addition of more housing units. These written comments are included in Attachment F. Report Author & Contact Information PTC4 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2679 claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Site and Design Objectives (DOCX) Attachment C: Council Prescreening Transcript (PDF) Attachment D: Transit Demand Managment Plan Elements (PDF) Attachment E: Written Public Comments (PDF) Attachment F: Applicant's Project Description (DOCX) Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 147.3' 120.0' 114.3' 3 9.9' 160.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 134.7' 1 134.7' 50.0' 142.5' 300.0' 142.5' 300.0' 112.5' 49.8' 61.8' 49.0' 62.8' 63.3' 200.0' 142.5' 100.0'142.5' 119.9' 8.0' 8.4'8.8'12.1'1 3.1' 15.0' 9.1' 85.1' 3.8' 3 9.9' 114.3' 120.0' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 145.6' 112.5' 65.6' 150.0' 69.3' 199.9' 65.2' 149.0' 150.0' 471 451 2805 2865 2755 2780 450 2701 435 481 601 2790 2798 2705 2825 SHE PAGE M ILL R OAD EL CAMI NO REAL AMINO REAL PF CN PC-2293 PC-4463 PC-4831 C This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Sidewalk Highlighted Features Underlying Lot Line abc Easement abc Zone District Labels 0' 74' 2775 El Camino Real 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 Alto chodgki, 2016-08-16 09:43:21 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\chodgki.mdb) ATTACHMENT B SITE AND DESIGN OBJECTIVES 2755 El Camino Real 17PLN-00464 The PTC shall review the site plan and drawings, and shall recommend approval or shall recommend such changes as it may deem necessary to accomplish the following Site and Design objectives, as required in Chapter 18.30(G).060 of the PAMC. Objective (a): To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. Objective (b): To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. Objective (c): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. Objective (d): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. TRANSCRIPT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Council Meeting 9 Excerpt Minutes of September 12, 2016 10 11 12 13 Council Members: Staff: 14 Patrick Burt- Mayor Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director 15 Gregory Scharff– V-Mayor Cara Silver, Senior Deputy City Attorney 16 Marc Berman Jonathan Lait, Assistant Planning Director 17 Tom Dubois Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning 18 Eric Filseth Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner 19 Karen Holman Yolanda Cervantes, Administrative Assistant 20 Liz Kniss Molly Stump, City Attorney 21 Cory Wolbach 22 Greg Schmid 23 24 25 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council 26 Chambers at 5:04 P.M. 27 28 Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois arrived at 5:20 P.M., Filseth, 29 Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid arrived at 5:10 P.M., Wolbach 30 31 Absent: 32 33 Study Session 34 35 1. 2755 El Camino Real (16PLN-00234): Request by Windy Hills Property 36 Ventures for a Prescreening of Their Proposal to Re-zone the Subject 37 Property at the Corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road From 38 Public Facility (PF) to Another Zoning District That Would Allow 39 Development of a Building With Approximately 60 Small Dwelling Units 40 and 45 Parking Spaces. 41 42 Mayor Burt: Our next item is a Study Session on 2755 El Camino Real. It's 43 a request by Windy Hill Properties Ventures for a prescreening of their 44 proposal to rezone the subject property at the corner of El Camino and Page 45 Mill from Public Facility to another zoning district that would allow 46 development of a building with approximately 60 small dwelling units and 45 47 TRANSCRIPT parking spaces. Welcome, Jonathan. How are you? 1 2 Jonathan Lait, Planning and Community Environment Assistant Director: 3 Thank you, Mayor. I'm joined with Jodie Gerhardt at the end of the table 4 and Claire Hodgkins, one of our newer Associate Planners with the City. 5 She'll be making the presentation this evening. Just as a reminder, this is a 6 Study Session. We're not looking for any formal action or votes, but we are 7 interested in Council Member feedback on the conceptual project and the 8 process that is laid out for you in the report and in Claire's presentation. 9 Claire. 10 11 Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner: Good evening, Mayor Burt, Council 12 Members. I'm Claire Hodgkins, and I'm the Project Planner for this project. 13 This evening you are being requested to consider the applicant's proposal for 14 development of multifamily housing on a property zoned Public Facilities. 15 The prescreening process is a requirement prior to legislative changes. The 16 Study Session is intended to facilitate a conceptual review of the applicant's 17 request, focusing on big-picture policy. Staff is here to gather policy 18 direction to guide formation of a formal project, if desired. The existing site 19 is a former Valley Transit Authority or Santa Clara Valley Transportation 20 Authority (VTA) park-and-ride lot, zoned Public Facilities and designated 21 Major Institution/Special Facilities. The site was formally deemed to be 22 surplus and sold by VTA to a private developer. Just a little bit about the 23 surrounding context. Nearby zoning includes Planned Community, 24 Neighborhood Commercial and Service Commercial. Nearby retail, office 25 and residential uses range from two to ten stories. Immediately adjacent to 26 TRANSCRIPT 1 the subject property are residential uses of similar mass and scale, three- 2 story and four-story. This photo shown from El Camino shows the two 3 adjacent three and four-story residential uses. Just a brief overview of the 4 proposed project. The applicant is proposing a new four-story, multifamily 5 apartment building with up to 60 dwelling units. The proposed FAR is 6 approximately 2.0 to 1.0. The development would include one story of 7 partially below-grade parking. The applicant is proposing 45 parking spaces, 8 which is fewer than what the Code currently requires. Twenty-six of those 9 spaces are also provided via a lift system. This project would require a very 10 robust TDM program. The project does not conform with the requirements 11 of any zoning districts. However, in previous hearings, some Council 12 Members have requested that Staff consider a pilot micro housing project 13 that would include smaller units and less parking. The existing zoning and 14 designated use do not currently allow for multifamily housing. Therefore, to 15 allow for development of the project as proposed, two or more of the 16 following would be required: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map 17 amendment, amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and 18 Community Design Element; Zoning Map amendment; and/or Zoning Code 19 text amendment. Staff has identified three potential options in the Staff 20 Report that could achieve the applicant's basic project objectives as we 21 understand them. All three of these options could be applied to other future 22 sites, but some options would be more restrictive than others in that the 23 option could not be as easily applied to other sites. Staff is seeking Council's 24 input on these potential options, both for this project and in terms of future 25 applicability. Council Members may also present other options. Council 26 considerations include whether the proposed use is appropriate for the site. 27 If the proposed use is appropriate, Council consideration of the preferred 28 approach to processing the application. Any design considerations, 29 especially those related to housing type, traffic and parking, and/or 30 consideration of the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Staff also wanted to 31 note that we are currently working on ordinances that would improve 32 enforceability of transit demand management plans, and penalties and fees 33 will be coming back in October. With that, I will turn it over to the Mayor. 34 Staff would recommend that Council hear next from the applicant before we 35 go into further discussion. 36 37 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Since this is a Study Session, we have latitude in 38 our process. We can ask any technical questions of Staff at this time or hear 39 from the applicant, and then ask questions and determine what time we'll 40 hear from the public as well. Would you like to hear from the applicant, and 41 then we can combine questions for Staff and the applicant? The applicant 42 has up to 10 minutes to speak. Welcome. 43 TRANSCRIPT 1 Tod Spieker, Windy Hill: Hi. My name is Tod Spieker with Windy Hill 2 Property Ventures. Thank you, Claire, and thank you, Council Members, for 3 giving your thoughtful consideration to our project. Windy Hill Property 4 Ventures is a Palo Alto-based real estate development company. I'm here 5 tonight with one of my two business partners, Jamie D'Alessandro. We 6 primarily work in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties with a strong focus on 7 transit-oriented sites. Within the last year, we have entitled transit-oriented 8 projects in San Mateo and San Carlos. As mentioned in the Staff Report, 9 this was the former VTA site purchased by Pollack Financial, and they 10 proposed a primarily office but mixed-use project. As part of the feedback 11 during the prescreening a year ago, seven of the nine Council Members 12 mentioned either the jobs/housing imbalance and the need for more housing 13 or the site being an appropriate location for more housing in Palo Alto. 14 Based on that feedback from Council, Windy Hill and Pollack Financial formed 15 a partnership where Windy Hill would propose to entitle a small-unit housing 16 project. What is this project? This is a four-story, residential project above 17 one level of parking. The building is comprised of 60 studio and one- 18 bedroom units with an average square footage of 562 square feet. These 19 units are intended for single and in some cases double occupancy. These 20 are meant for people looking for a place to live close to where they work. 21 While we think it's important of families to have an opportunity for housing 22 in Palo Alto, this is not that project. This project will not have an impact on 23 the schools. These units are meant for people working close by. As 24 mentioned in the Staff Report, given these are smaller units, by their nature 25 they will be more attainable than the typical-sized one-bedroom or studio 26 unit in Palo Alto. Also because of the size of the units, we can fit more units 27 within the building envelope that do not put the unneeded strain on schools 28 and services, and they specifically address the City's housing goals. In the 29 prior screening and in some of the recent feedback we've received, RM-40 is 30 referenced as a more appropriate zoning for dense housing projects in Palo 31 Alto. If we were to apply for the RM-40 on this site, we would get 17 units 32 with an average square footage of 1,000 square feet, but these are two and 33 three-bedroom units. RM-40 is currently Palo Alto's most dense zoning. In 34 the garage, we have 45 stalls, 19 of which are standard stalls and 26 of 35 which are accessed through parking lifts. We have our parking lift expert, 36 David LoCoco, from Watry Design here and his team has been involved in 37 numerous parking lift systems up and down the Peninsula. Per feedback 38 from Staff, we are now showing two standard parking stalls as car share 39 stalls. We are showing bike storage on both the garage level and the first 40 floor with a total capacity for 84 bikes. On the ground floor, we have a bike 41 kitchen. This bike kitchen will act as a bike storage location as well as other 42 bike amenities. In addressing the feedback for ground-floor retail, we are 43 open to having this bike kitchen available to the public and possibly leased 44 or given to a Palo Alto-based bike shop where they can sell supplies, 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 advertise and provide their services to the residents as well as the general 2 public. Now my business partner, Jamie D'Alessandro, will talk about our 3 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) approach and our 4 environmental approach. 5 6 Jamie D'Alessandro, Windy Hill: Thank you, Tod. Thank you, Council 7 Members, for the opportunity to present today. This evening I'm going to 8 talk a little bit about the TDM plan as well as our environmental approach. 9 Given that we are proposing less than one parking stall per unit, a robust 10 and comprehensive TDM plan is imperative to our project's success. We 11 intend to offer this by, one, providing a multitude of alternative 12 transportation options; two, offering information on these options and 13 programs; and, three, by incentivizing our residents to seek these alternate 14 modes of transit. The goal being our TDM plan will hopefully substantially 15 mitigate the project's traffic and parking impacts. Our TDM plan will 16 ultimately have trip targets. In our eyes for it to be successful, it is critical 17 that we have three things: one, ongoing monitoring metrics; two, 18 meaningful enforcement requirements; and, three, consequences should our 19 targets not be met. Although a traffic impact analysis has yet to be started 20 by the City, we do have a lot of ideas for numerous TDM strategies to 21 accomplish our goals. Tod previously discussed the dedicated car share 22 stalls for a company like Zipcar as well as our taking Staff guidance to 23 increase our bike parking, which is now at a ratio of 1.5 bike stalls per unit. 24 Additionally, our bike shop and kitchen will offer what we think will be a 25 small gathering place for riders to congregate as well as a place for them to 26 buy essential bike supplies and repair equipment. The bike shop is 27 envisioned as being complete with electric bike, scooter and skateboard 28 charging stations, all potentially open not only to our community but to the 29 general public as a community benefit. Additionally, we hope to be able to 30 design in-unit wall or ceiling-mounted bike racks for supplemental. Now, 31 TDM is not just limited to the aforementioned physical amenities that we'll 32 have onsite. Given our proximity to Caltrain and the VTA bus routes, we'll 33 be offering monetary allowances to residents both for Caltrain Go and VTA 34 Eco passes, which we hope will incentivize alternate modes of transport. 35 Additionally, as you know, the free Marguerite shuttle bus runs right by the 36 property. Our monetary allowances for residents will also be for use with 37 various transportation network companies like Uber, Lyft and Waze. 38 Additionally, we will have onsite a Transportation Coordinator who will live 39 onsite. Their responsibilities will be not only to oversee the allowance 40 program and the physical amenities we've mentioned, but they'll also be 41 responsible for posting relevant transportation schedules, bike safety and 42 repair information and even coordinating annual safety and repair 43 workshops. More importantly, as part of our TDM program there are a 44 number of restrictions we are willing to put in place on our development that 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 we think will further incent non-auto transit. Number 1, we are prepared to 2 give leasing preference to workers currently employed within the City of Palo 3 Alto or within an agreed upon radius of the project. Number 2, we are also 4 prepared to give leasing preferences to residents who do not own a car. We 5 are willing to deed restrict both of these preferences. We're comfortable 6 with these deed restrictions given our proximity to the Stanford Research 7 Park and 25,000-plus jobs as well as our proximity to Caltrain and the job 8 base it connects its riders to. Additionally, we would intend to participate in 9 the Palo Alto TMA and, lastly, we would be very supportive of an Resdential 10 Preferential Parking Program (RPP) program in surrounding residential 11 neighborhoods. Obviously, our project and its residents would not be 12 eligible for any new permits created by this RPP. In the next slide, I'm going 13 to discuss briefly a community benefit we are willing to offer as part of the 14 development, which would be a dedication of a portion of the parcel along 15 Page Mill in order to accommodate a right-hand turn lane as shown on this 16 slide. We feel this will greatly improve the efficiency of the intersection. 17 Finally, I'm going to touch briefly on our environmental approach. We do 18 endeavor to design to a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 19 (LEED) silver equivalent. We hope to build an all-electric building with the 20 exception of gas water heaters. We also envision drought-tolerant water-lite 21 landscaping, Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations in our garage, a robust 22 TDM package as mentioned, as well as remediation of the contamination 23 onsite. We've done extensive studies on the environmental conditions, and 24 we do have a plan. We have our environmental consultant here to address 25 any specific questions. With that, I'm going to turn it back over to Tod. 26 27 Mr. Spieker: Why? Why do we want to build this project in this location at 28 this time? We've all heard it a thousand times, the jobs/housing imbalance. 29 That voice is getting louder. Per the City's most recent data, there are 3.05 30 jobs in the City of Palo Alto per one employed resident. That means on any 31 given day we have over two people coming from outside of Palo Alto into 32 Palo Alto and out again, causing traffic and parking congestion. Obviously 33 this project will not fix the problem, but it can help bring 60-plus people 34 working in Palo Alto, looking for an attainable place to live close to where 35 they work. We are very aware for the need of affordable housing, and we 36 know the City is currently working on an increased in-lieu fee for residential 37 projects. While we feel the project we are proposing will provide more 38 attainable housing units given their size, we are open to putting a mutually 39 agreed upon number of affordable units onsite versus paying the 100 40 percent in the form of the in-lieu fee. We are also open to giving preference 41 to teachers, firefighters and police officers as well as other City employees 42 that have felt the pressure of increased housing costs. From 2008 to 2015, 43 there has been over two million square feet of nonresidential square footage 44 approved in Palo Alto. Taking industry standard numbers of 250 square feet 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 of office space per employee, that added over 8,000 jobs to Palo Alto's job 2 base. In that same period of time, 2008 to 2015, only 550 apartment units 3 were entitled. These number include the large Stanford housing project 4 which added 180 of those units. As you know, these numbers are heavily 5 weighted to the nonresidential square footage. To conclude, there's clearly 6 the demand and need for housing in Palo Alto. The project we are proposing 7 will provide an attainable product relative to what Palo Alto currently offers. 8 Thank you for your time. 9 10 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Let's return to the Council for questions of either 11 Staff, or I will entertain questions to the applicant through the Chair. Who 12 would like to go first? Council Member DuBois. Thank you. 13 14 Council Member DuBois: Some technical questions. If this lot were zoned 15 CN, what would the FAR be and what would the allowable height be? 16 17 Ms. Hodgkins: Great question. We actually have a pocket slide on that, that 18 shows a comparison. We'll bring that up right now. The height for CN 19 requirement is 40 feet. Did you have any other specific ... 20 21 Council Member DuBois: The Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 22 23 Ms. Hodgkins: The FAR is 1.0 to one—because CN is required to be mixed 24 use, it's 0.5:1.0 for nonresidential and 0.51 to residential. 25 26 Council Member DuBois: Thank you. What are the allowed uses under the 27 PF zone? 28 29 Jodie Gerhardt, Planning Manager: We have accessory facility uses, eating 30 and drinking in conjunction with a permitted use, retail, things of that 31 nature, but there isn't residential. There's churches, education, etc. 32 33 Council Member DuBois: Is there also medical, outpatient medical or 34 something? 35 36 Ms. Gerhardt: There's hospitals, and outpatient would be a Conditional Use 37 Permit. 38 39 Council Member DuBois: I don't know if you can answer, if the applicant 40 needs to answer. I'm curious. What is the relationship between Windy Hill 41 and Pollack Financial Group? 42 43 Mayor Burt: Go right ahead. 44 45 Mr. Spieker: Windy Hill currently has an option on the property where 46 Pollack Financial would participate financially should this get approved. 47 TRANSCRIPT 1 Council Member DuBois: Pollack currently owns the property? 2 3 Mr. Spieker: They currently own the property, and we currently have a 4 contract on it. 5 6 Council Member DuBois: Got it. Thank you. You might as well stay there; 7 I've got a couple more, if that's okay. You mentioned the bike repair shop. 8 You said that would be open to the public. Would it be like a public retail on 9 the first floor? 10 11 Mr. Spieker: As you know, we are under-parked per current zoning. Retail 12 would only add to that. Some of the feedback we've gotten from a few of 13 the Council Members and the public as well as watching the prescreening a 14 year ago for this site, we wanted to address that. We are open to having 15 the ground-floor bike kitchen available to the public in kind of getting the 16 community involved in using a local bike shop, a Palo Alto-based bike shop 17 in terms of letting them advertise, signage, and things to help alleviate 18 concerns about trying to dissuade ground-floor retail. 19 20 Council Member DuBois: You mentioned possible deed restrictions. How 21 would that work for local employment or non-car ownership? If you lost 22 your job or you bought a car, what would happen? 23 24 Mr. Spieker: You wouldn't be able to live there, I guess. This is something 25 we've explored with our attorney. Where people live is not a protected 26 class. We strongly feel that our residents are going to come from Stanford 27 Research Park and within Palo Alto, within a small radius. Tenants would 28 sign a 1-year lease as per the norm in Palo Alto. If they lose their job, I 29 guess we can work together and figure that out. 30 31 Council Member DuBois: You kind of mentioned preferences for public 32 agency employees. Is that what I heard? 33 34 Mr. Spieker: Yes. 35 36 Council Member DuBois: You had a slide that said Santa Clara County 37 stated that the lane dedication was necessary. What did that mean? Did 38 that mean it was required? 39 40 Mr. Spieker: It means it was necessary to improve the efficiency of that 41 intersection, is what I believe the letter stated. 42 43 Council Member DuBois: Does Staff know about that? 44 45 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, absolutely. Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager. 46 Our Transportation Division has reviewed this project preliminarily and 47 TRANSCRIPT 1 reviewed the past projects. We are requesting that right-turn enhancement 2 to enhance that intersection. 3 4 Council Member DuBois: When the County says it's required—it was being 5 mentioned as a public benefit, but is it basically required to build on that lot? 6 7 Mr. Lait: Thank you, Council Member. I don't believe that it's a 8 requirement. I think in some earlier conversations there has been about this 9 site and other developments an interest in that as a public benefit, so that 10 we can improve the intersection at that location. As I'm understanding this 11 applicant—this isn't a Planned Community (PC), so we're not really talking 12 about public benefits in that context. As I understand it, the applicant is still 13 interested in offering that to the City. 14 15 Council Member DuBois: Thank you, and thank you. 16 Mayor Burt: Council Member Scharff. 17 Vice Mayor Scharff: Thanks. A couple of things. The first would be the 18 parking. Ninety to 102 parking spaces is what you said would normally be. 19 What's the different between the 90 and the 102? Is it just number of units? 20 What would be the reason for the variation? 21 22 Ms. Hodgkins: It would depend on the exact number of each type of unit. 23 There's different requirements for a studio unit versus a one-bedroom. Also, 24 the guest parking. There's a requirement in the Code related to whether 25 they're dedicated spaces or not. That would make a difference. 26 27 Vice Mayor Scharff: I guess I didn't follow if they were dedicated spaces. 28 Why would they be dedicated or not dedicated? 29 30 Ms. Gerhardt: If there was reserved parking. 31 32 Vice Mayor Scharff: You have more spaces if it's reserved parking, less if it's 33 not. 34 35 Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. 36 37 Vice Mayor Scharff: Got it. I had some questions for the applicant. 38 (inaudible) be all right? 39 40 Mayor Burt: Go ahead. 41 42 Vice Mayor Scharff: This is a rental project, right? You're not putting a map 43 on it? 44 TRANSCRIPT Page 10 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 Mr. Spieker: Yes, it's a for-rent project. We would not be putting a map on 2 it. 3 4 Vice Mayor Scharff: No map. I'm trying to understand when you offer 5 leasing preferences, how that actually works. You build the project; you 6 start leasing. You have a lot of units. You don't lease them all if there's a 7 lease sub-period. If someone comes to you who's not in a favored class, 8 let's say, a teacher, a firefighter or any of the things you mentioned, don't 9 you just lease to them anyway? I'm trying to understand what it means to 10 be—once the project is fully leased, a unit comes vacant. It's rare to have a 11 waiting list. You probably clear the market by raising the rents. What does 12 it mean to have a preference? In for-sale, I completely get it. In rental, I'm 13 not tracking how this works. 14 15 Mr. Spieker: I would anticipate—we still have to work through this—that 16 when we built it, we offer these units to the teachers, the firefighters and 17 the police officers and the City officials. We give them a certain period of 18 time to respond, in which they can lease the unit. Once it's leased and we 19 get a vacant unit like you mentioned, then we would send this out to that 20 email list, mailing list. We'd go through the proper channels, and they would 21 get a certain amount of time in order to lease the unit. If they don't, then 22 we can go to the general public. I'm not sure about this, but maybe Staff 23 knows. I believe Stanford may have done this. 24 25 Mayor Burt: Yeah. I don't know whether our current Staff here is familiar 26 with it. Maybe Cara is. The large Sand Hill development contains similar 27 preferences. They were actually, as I recall, two tiers of preferences. One 28 for perhaps it was Stanford direct employees. There was a second I can't 29 remember. They tiered it. Cara, do you have any input? 30 31 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: There are several different 32 projects in town that do have preferences built in. Most of them are Palo 33 Alto Housing Corporation operated projects. There are some other projects—34 the Terman Apartments has a Section 8 preference. There are several 35 different preferences in town. It is possible to come up with some type of 36 covenant language to implement that preference. 37 38 Vice Mayor Scharff: Cara, what would that mean? Is it just a preference 39 then? A unit comes vacant, and they know the lease is expiring. They do a 40 six month lease, a year lease, and a nine month lease in their project. Are 41 we thinking a couple of months before they have to do outreach? Is it more 42 than a preference that if you don't meet that criteria, you can't lease there? 43 I'm just trying to figure out how a preference in a market rate project, which 44 is open to the public, works on a regular basis. 45 TRANSCRIPT Page 11 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 Ms. Silver: I think all of that would have to be negotiated and set forth in 2 some documents that we would put in front of the City Council to satisfy and 3 ensure that there really is a preference that is being implemented. 4 5 Vice Mayor Scharff: Forty-five parking spaces as opposed to 90 or 102, and 6 you have electric charging stations, so you expect some cars. Otherwise, 7 why have electric charging stations. What's your realistic belief of how 8 you're going to get—what is it? Half the cars, half the people roughly don't 9 have cars. Is that (crosstalk). 10 11 Mr. Spieker: Twenty-five percent. 12 Vice Mayor Scharff: How much? 13 Mr. Spieker: Twenty-five percent. 14 15 Vice Mayor Scharff: All right, 25 percent. Twenty-five percent wouldn't 16 have cars, and then it would be fully parked. Is that fair? 17 18 Mr. Spieker: Yes. 19 20 Vice Mayor Scharff: I'm not doing the math in my head as we talk. 21 22 Mr. Spieker: Yes. There's 60 units, and there's 45 parking stalls. Fifteen of 23 those units would not have a parking spot. 24 25 Vice Mayor Scharff: Right. The Code requires more than a 1:1 ratio. The 26 reason for that, I assume, is some people traditionally have two cars living 27 in a one-bedroom or even living in a studio if they live together. What I'm 28 trying to figure out is—can you just walk me through best case scenario or 29 whatever how you think you're going to get there on a conceptual basis? 30 31 Mr. Spieker: I fundamentally believe and we fundamentally believe that 32 people that are going to rent these units—call them millennials, call them 33 people that don't want stuff. They want a place to live. They want a place 34 to live close to where they work, and they don't own a car or they ride their 35 bike. 36 37 Vice Mayor Scharff: I actually am totally with you and think it's a great plan. 38 Would you be open to fines if it doesn't happen that way? 39 40 Mr. Spieker: As Jamie mentioned, in our TDM we are open to consequences, 41 yes. 42 43 Vice Mayor Scharff: That's stepping up. Thanks. 44 TRANSCRIPT Page 12 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 Mayor Burt: Let me just ask a follow-up there. I thought that you also said 2 that you were open to deed restrictions on car ownership. 3 4 Mr. Spieker: Yes, that has been brought up as an option, I believe. A 5 Council Member brought that up at the last prescreening. We looked into it 6 a little bit; we have a lot more work to do on that. Where you work is not a 7 protected class, so I think legally we can do that, and we're open to it. 8 There are going to be some unintended consequences when doing that. 9 10 Mayor Burt: That's a deed restriction on location of work. The other one I 11 was just asking about is on car ownership, whether you could—is that 12 something that you've looked at and whether you can require at your 13 discretion? If it was part of the development agreement, that only say 14 hypothetically 75 percent of the residences could have a resident that owned 15 a car, that's something you would be open to as a deed restriction and that 16 you would impose and be part of the development agreement? 17 18 Mr. Spieker: Yes. We would work with Council and Staff to figure out an 19 implementation method that works. 20 21 Mayor Burt: It sounds like you're confident that you could lease these units 22 under those conditions. 23 24 Mr. Spieker: Yeah, we are. 25 26 Mayor Burt: Council Member Holman. 27 28 Council Member Holman: Questions, some for the applicant and some for 29 Staff. Is there any—these are in no particular order. The permit parking 30 program in the neighborhood that the applicant brought up—thank you for 31 bringing that up—there's no proposal for one in this neighborhood. How 32 long would it be in comparison to, say, a construction schedule before a 33 permit program could be put in place? Is there other interest in having a 34 permit program in this area? 35 36 Mr. Lait: I don't know of any that have been articulated to us. I think we've 37 seen, with the recent requests for permit parking in other neighborhoods, it 38 takes a little bit of time to initiate that. 39 40 Council Member Holman: One thing that would be important to know, if 41 there hasn't been other interest expressed in this, is what would the cost be 42 for implementing a residential permit parking program for the purposes of 43 satisfying the intention stated by the applicant. I don't expect you to have 44 that answer right now. One of the questions about—let's just say that some 45 of the units were given first option to, let's say, Stanford employees, PAUSD 46 TRANSCRIPT Page 13 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 employees, maybe City employees. What's going to determine whether 2 somebody says yes or no is oftentimes going to be the rental rate. What do 3 you foresee these being rented at? Would you give preferential rental rates 4 to these three nonprofits I've mentioned or would they be the same rental 5 rate as the open market? 6 7 Mr. Spieker: The answer to the first question is we don't know what these 8 are going to rent for. This is a prescreening. We have a long way to go 9 (crosstalk). 10 11 Mayor Burt: Can you move that mic just a closer to you? Sorry. 12 13 Council Member Holman: You've looked at the economics of it, though. I'm 14 surprised you would say you don't know what the rental rates would be. 15 16 Mr. Spieker: I can't speak to the individual studio and one-bedroom rental 17 rates for these units right now. I'm not prepared to do so. I don't have that 18 information with me. We did our underwriting a while ago. Would we give a 19 rental discount to these City employees, Stanford employees? The answer is 20 I don't know yet. It's something we can talk about. It depends on where 21 we kind of shake out on everything else. There's a lot of issues we have to 22 work through on this. 23 24 Council Member Holman: Thank you for that. Ground-floor retail, I'm one 25 of the people who talks about ground-floor retail—yes, at this location—and 26 wider sidewalks because if it's all housing—I told you this. I was very direct 27 with you. By the way, do we need to do disclosures? This is just a 28 prescreening, but do we need to do disclosures? 29 30 Ms. Silver: This is a legislative action. It's a request for information on 31 possible zone changes. Technically you don't need to do disclosures for 32 legislative items. 33 34 Council Member Holman: Let me just volunteer that I did meet with the 35 applicant. I've forgotten your name; I'm sorry. I'll be forthcoming on that. 36 I do think ground-floor retail is important here. You talk about a bike repair 37 kitchen or a bike kitchen. What kind of size are you thinking about? I didn't 38 quite catch that. What kind of size are you thinking about that or square 39 footage or location? 40 41 Mr. Spieker: About 500 square feet. 42 43 Council Member Holman: Did Staff look at, when this came forward—there 44 was a proposal that came forward some time ago for this site—I don't 45 remember what iteration it was. We've seen a few that looked at the 46 TRANSCRIPT Page 14 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 undercrossing under El Camino Real. Did Staff give any—I'm seeing blank 2 looks down there. I guess Staff didn't give any consideration of seeing 3 about that being restored or rehabilitated or in a public-private partnership 4 to get it rehabilitated, to get it usable, to get pedestrians and bicyclists 5 underneath El Camino. 6 7 Mr. Lait: I'm sorry. I don't have information for you on that. 8 9 Council Member Holman: That's something important, I think, going 10 forward with this or any project that comes across here. The open space— 11 CN that's up here requires 9,000 square feet of open space. You've 12 proposed 4,500, I think it is, at the ground level and then 1,300 square feet 13 of balconies, which is only 5,800 square feet. What was used to determine 14 what those calculations were? It's hard to tell from this just because it is. 15 Do all units have balconies and what size would the balconies be of those 16 units that had balconies? 17 18 Mr. Spieker: We tried to get most units to have a patio or a balcony. Given 19 the units that are up against Page Mill, it makes it difficult especially with 20 dedicating the land for the right-hand turn lane. A couple of those units, we 21 were unable to do it. It's something that our architect can work on, if that's 22 important. 23 24 Council Member Holman: What did you use to decide what the size of the 25 patios were and what the size of the open space was? The open space that's 26 at the ground level. 27 28 Mr. Spieker: I think my architect's better to answer those questions. 29 30 John Kosi, BDE Architects: Good evening. John Kosi with BDE Architects. 31 We went with really what's industry standard with the depth. We've got a 32 number of things that we want to do. We wanted to obviously give as much 33 open space as we could. They kind of fit into an alcove typically off of a 34 bedroom. They're anywhere from 50 to 60 square feet. 35 36 Council Member Holman: You said 30 to 60 square feet? 37 Mr. Kosi: Fifty to 60 square feet. 38 Council Member Holman: Fifty to 60 square feet. I think I had one other 39 question. Pardon me just for a second. I don't have other questions 40 actually. I'll have comments later. Thank you. 41 42 Mayor Burt: I have a couple other questions, one for the applicant and two 43 for Staff. Is there any part of the design looking at rooftop gardens? 44 TRANSCRIPT Page 15 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 Mr. Spieker: We haven't gotten there yet. I can't put the picture up now. 2 There is room. 3 4 Mayor Burt: You don't have a sense of what percentage of the roof is 5 occupied by mechanical? 6 7 Mr. Spieker: No, but my guess would be it's less than 50 percent. There is 8 room to do that. Again, it's a function of cost. 9 10 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Questions for Staff. Has Staff looked at aggressive 11 TDM programs with small units that are in transit and walkable Downtown 12 areas, whether they be in Palo Alto or elsewhere? The only one that I can 13 think of that is a good example in Palo Alto is Alma Place, which is even 14 smaller units than this, that we built around 2000 for small, single-occupant 15 residences. They're designated single occupant. They are probably a couple 16 hundred square feet each. My recollection is it was permitted to be under- 17 parked simply on the basis of its proximity to transit in Downtown as 18 opposed to an actual TDM program. Do we know anything about the 19 performance of that? First, what the ratio was and, second, the 20 performance. 21 22 Mr. Lait: No and no. I can tell you that we are working on developing those 23 parameters of what a TDM would look like as we're working on this other 24 work about the penalties and fees and the enforcement. We're also looking 25 to require, as a part of our review of projects, TDM programs for most of the 26 discretionary applications that come forward. We'll be identifying sort of 27 those expectations about what the program would include and performance 28 targets (crosstalk). 29 30 Mayor Burt: I've brought up Alma Place several times over the last year. 31 I'm kind of disappointed that we don't have any data yet on that. When I 32 surveyed—I don't know what the parking ratio was, so I can't really put it in 33 that context. When I surveyed their underground parking, partially 34 underground and fully underground, within the last six months or so, there 35 were parking spaces available. That includes that Palo Alto Housing Corp. 36 has their offices there. It's not just the residents who are using them. 37 Interestingly, they have a bike cage, and it was overflowed and inadequate 38 bike parking. That was a suggestion to me that without even an active TDM 39 program we get that kind of response. There are other developments in 40 other communities that have occurred in this region with similarities of being 41 transit located, Downtown located and small unit with active TDM programs, 42 I think. Do we have any information on the performance of those projects? 43 44 Mr. Lait: Mayor, I just personally don't—the three of us up here don't have 45 information about that. We could get some more information from our Chief 46 TRANSCRIPT Page 16 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 Transportation Official on that. That information may very well be available; 2 I just don't have it right now. 3 4 Mayor Burt: I think that's important. When we look at that and if this goes 5 forward and if it's an application, when it goes to the Planning and 6 Transportation Commission I'd really hope that we've got meaningful data. 7 It also looks at not only TDM programs that have existed representative but 8 what are emerging TDM measures, including things like just the whole 9 consideration of electric bikes and having shared electric bikes perhaps. We 10 talk about Zipcars, but Zip bikes may become at least as valuable and a 11 fraction of the space, fraction of the cost. For Stanford Research Park, it 12 makes the whole Research Park readily bike-able even for people who aren't 13 real serious bike riders. Finally, we don't have a zoning currently that allows 14 this number of units per acre. We have historic development in Palo Alto at 15 this kind of density. The President Hotel is a good example. We don't have 16 the zoning it does. We do have, with all of our zonings, limits on the Floor 17 Area Ratio. I've never been able to understand what was the historic 18 rationale for imposing units per acre limits on top of the Floor Area Ratio 19 limits. All it does is drive developers to having to build larger units than 20 they otherwise might be willing to do. The argument that I've—kind of the 21 pushback historically was we don't get the high units per acre because 22 developers historically get a better rate of return on larger units than they 23 do smaller units, so they don't build them. They haven't historically built 24 them. This is what has been the response for the 18 years that I've been on 25 the Planning Commission or the Council. It really didn't matter. It was a 26 moot point because we didn't get those projects proposed. If we create 27 certain mandates or zoning overlays that would discourage or say we don't 28 want large units like we've been talking about for the last several years and 29 as part of the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan discussion, I'm trying to 30 understand in that context why do we have a cap on units per acre in high- 31 density, multiunit dwellings. Do we know that? 32 33 Mr. Lait: I think the short answer would be to limit density and perceived 34 impacts associated with higher densities. It's the character of the 35 neighborhood that you're trying to establish. You're absolutely correct. You 36 could use various zoning tools to modify what approach we might take. You 37 know from the RT—I think it's 50. Is it the RT-50? That's an example 38 where we don't have a density limit. We try to address the form and the 39 size of the ... 40 41 Mayor Burt: The RT-50? 42 43 Mr. Lait: Does not have a density restriction. 44 TRANSCRIPT Page 17 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 Mayor Burt: Doesn't have a number of units per acre? 2 Mr. Lait: I'm sorry. Dwelling units per acre, but it has ... 3 Mayor Burt: What's the 50? 4 Mr. Lait: Let's take a look at our standards here. 5 6 Mayor Burt: I think that's what the 50 refers to. No. Really? 7 8 Mr. Lait: While that's being checked out, I believe that the RT-50 doesn't 9 have a limit on dwelling units, but we achieve it through FAR and setbacks to 10 get at the form of the building as opposed to the density. 11 12 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Now, I have two more lights from colleagues, 13 Council Member Berman and then Council Member Kniss. 14 15 Council Member Berman: Just a quick question for the applicant on timing. 16 This is all kind of a guess. If you were to receive positive feedback tonight 17 and decide to move forward with the project and get your entitlements in a 18 fairly quick manner, when do you think this project would be built? 19 20 Mr. Spieker: The construction timeline? 21 22 Council Member Berman: Sure. As we're talking about different 23 transportation technology and all these types of things, which are changing 24 monthly, I'm wondering when will you actually have people moving in here. 25 I'm kind of mentally trying to think of where we'll be on a transportation 26 front by three years from now when the project's actually built. 27 28 Mr. Spieker: I would say if there was a vote and it was approved, we'd be 29 ready for occupancy within 18 months. That would ... 30 31 Council Member Berman: Once you get approval. 32 33 Mr. Spieker: Once we get approval, it'd be 18 months from that. That 34 would include ... 35 36 Council Member Berman: It'll be a total of seven years. No, just kidding. 37 Mr. Spieker: I almost had a heart attack. 38 Council Member Berman: That's helpful. Two and half, three years-ish, 39 something like that, maybe less, hopefully less. 40 41 Mr. Spieker: Yeah. 42 Page 18 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 TRANSCRIPT 1 Council Member Berman: Thanks. 2 3 Mayor Burt: I do see that this slide answers my question, which is the RT- 4 50 in South of Forest Area (SOFA) is not dwellings per acre but rather the 5 50-foot height. Council Member Kniss. 6 7 Council Member Kniss: Again for the applicant or for one of the applicants. 8 This isn't the first time that something has been proposed for this particular 9 site. The site's been a challenge in many ways. You obviously have been 10 listening to us as a body, and you've many times heard the need for 11 housing, smaller units, a whole variety, whatever we've talked about. We've 12 talked about micro units. Before you did this, did you look at other sites and 13 other cities that might be similar and in some way copy that or did you talk 14 with them about their parking issues or whatever else? The only other place 15 that I've heard where micro units literally were brought in, I think, by trailer 16 was one either done in DC or in New York City, which is certainly in the heart 17 of where micro units are needed. The question is are you basing this on 18 anything else? Have you seen anything like it? 19 20 Mr. Spieker: We have worked on two multifamily projects, one in Downtown 21 Burlingame and one in Downtown San Mateo or one. They were existing 22 buildings that were under-parked. The one in Burlingame, I want to say had 23 90 percent, a 37-unit building. I think it had 32 or 33 parking stalls. In 24 Downtown San Mateo, we had 17 units on South B Street where there was 25 zero parking. It was a block and a half from the train station. We do 26 believe that this concept works. I will say about micro housing units, when 27 you hear about micro housing in San Francisco, in Brooklyn, in New York, it's 28 typically around 200 to 350 square feet. These are micro units compared to 29 the RM-40. These are not micro housing units when you talk about micro 30 housing in San Francisco. These are an average—our one-bedrooms are 31 over 600 square feet. If you look at the average square footage of a one- 32 bedroom built in the '60s and '70s in San Mateo and Santa Clara County, 33 you're looking at about 700 to 750 square feet. While they're micro 34 compared to the current Zoning Code, they're not micro when you compare 35 them to New York and San Francisco or LA and Chicago. 36 37 Council Member Kniss: That's helpful. I'm glad you gave the examples 38 locally. Did each one of those—before you do them, was there direction 39 from their governing body to control the parking in some way, and was there 40 any mechanism that was used that they imposed? 41 42 Mr. Spieker: I'm sorry. I should have mentioned. These were existing 43 projects that we purchased and that, whatever reason back in the '50s and 44 Page 19 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 TRANSCRIPT 1 '60s, weren't built with the adequate amount of parking per current 2 standards. 3 4 Council Member Kniss: There wasn't any negotiation or agreement you had 5 to make with the city? 6 7 Mr. Spieker: No. These were all grandfathered in. 8 9 Council Member Kniss: I would agree. I remember the first place we rented 10 here. It was very small. Thank you for that. 11 12 Mr. Spieker: Sure. Thanks. 13 14 Mayor Burt: Council Member Wolbach. 15 16 Council Member Wolbach: I just wanted to check on the process with the 17 Mayor. Questions and comments at this time or just questions right now? 18 19 Mayor Burt: Questions. We're going to hear from the public, and then we'll 20 give our input. 21 22 Council Member Wolbach: Thank you for clarifying that. Actually maybe a 23 couple of questions for the applicant and also a question or two for Staff, I 24 think. In looking at your parking spaces—I might have missed it—did you 25 include any designated parking for motorcycles or scooters or design it in 26 such a way that one parking space rented, say, by one tenant could easily 27 park a car and a scooter has enough space for that? I ask because 28 obviously motorcycles and scooters tend to take up much less space. You 29 can either squeeze them in a lot of parking space with a car or fit three or 30 four bikes or scooters into one space. 31 32 Mr. Spieker: It's a great idea, and it's something we've talked about. We 33 wanted to get as many parking stalls as we could. We're open to discussing 34 how we can work with that. Obviously there could be someone that doesn't 35 own a car that has a scooter just to go from Point A to Point B. 36 37 Council Member Wolbach: I'm also thinking about if have, say, a couple 38 living in a unit that might decide they do want to pay for a parking space 39 and have a car, and then one of them also rides a scooter or a motorcycle. 40 They don't need a full two spaces for that. I'm thinking about how that 41 might work. 42 43 Mr. Spieker: I think that would work practically, but from a Code standpoint 44 I think we'd have to work with Staff on that. 45 TRANSCRIPT Page 20 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 Council Member Wolbach: I'm just thinking about how that would work. In 2 talking about preferred groups who would have a first crack at renting one of 3 these units, I'm not sure if I missed it. Did you mention seniors or retirees? 4 5 Mr. Spieker: We didn't mention them, and that wasn't for any particular 6 reason. We were focusing on teachers, firefighters, policemen and City 7 employees. 8 9 Council Member Wolbach: I'll save my comments on that until later, except 10 just to say I think that's another group that might be less inclined to drive 11 on a regular basis at rush hour. If I heard you correctly, some of the "micro 12 units" that you see in other cities, whether it's in San Francisco or in 13 Berkeley as far as local examples, can be as small as 200 to 300-square-foot 14 range per unit. 15 16 Mr. Spieker: I think I was trying to say 250. I don't know if I (crosstalk). 17 Council Member Wolbach: Two hundred fifty? 18 Mr. Spieker: Yeah, 250. I haven't seen them as low as 200, but 250 to 19 350, 400 square feet. Certainly less than what we're proposing. 20 21 Council Member Wolbach: I guess at 250, that means—if I saw it correctly, 22 the smallest units you're talking about here are about 500 or 502 square 23 feet per unit for the smallest ones? 24 25 Mr. Spieker: Depending on what happens in the common area, in the bike 26 kitchen, but yes, generally you're correct. 27 28 Council Member Wolbach: Basically double what some of the true micro 29 units are, but still substantially smaller than a typical Palo Alto unit. 30 31 Mr. Spieker: Exactly. 32 33 Council Member Wolbach: Just want to make sure I really was clear on how 34 this fits in with our reality versus other communities' reality, how this just 35 kind of compares. Thank you for that. A question for Staff, thinking about 36 for the public comment and also when it comes back to us. You've given us 37 a few possibilities for how a project like this might be possible with tweaks 38 or changes to our Codes, our zoning, as a pilot or changing something on a 39 perhaps larger scale basis. Because we're not taking action tonight, 40 obviously we can't fully direct which one we would prefer. What kinds of 41 comments are you going to be looking for us, when it comes back to us, 42 regarding the three options that you presented to us? 43 TRANSCRIPT 1 Mr. Lait: Thank you, Council Member. What we're looking for is the three 2 options, and there might be others. The three that we highlighted in the 3 Staff Report focused on a narrow applicability, where we just look at PF 4 zoned properties, and we make some changes to the Comp Plan or the 5 zoning to accommodate PF zoned lots. Another example was to borrow from 6 some existing provisions of the Code, where we have these combining 7 districts, so that an applicant could request a legislative change and apply 8 this micro housing combining district to their property. We'd have to set 9 some criteria for that, but that would have a broader applicability beyond the 10 PF zoning. A third option that we identified was to modify the existing 11 Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) zoning standard, which has 12 higher densities and development standards for parcels within, I think, a 13 quarter mile of a fixed rail station. 14 15 Council Member Wolbach: Just to be clear, those are in the Staff Report on 16 pages 6 and 7 of the Staff Report, Options 1 and 2 and then on Page 7 17 Option 3. Those are ordered from the most narrow application to the 18 broadest application. Just want to be very explicit and clear about that as 19 we continue our conversation tonight. 20 21 Mr. Lait: That's correct. 22 23 Council Member Wolbach: Again, just so I was really clear. I guess maybe 24 for you and also for the Mayor, what kinds of—you're just looking, I guess, 25 for how we feel about those at this point without it being official direction? 26 27 Mr. Lait: We've heard the Council in varying degrees talk about this type of 28 a housing project. Here's one that's being presented to the Council for 29 consideration. Should this application go forward, would the Council be 30 interested in drafting something narrowly toward this project and some 31 other properties or would you want us to cast a wider net to make more 32 properties eligible for this type of housing opportunity? 33 34 Council Member Wolbach: Got you. 35 36 Mr. Lait: Just a gauge of how far do you want us to go with this. 37 38 Council Member Wolbach: Are we looking for a pilot or are we looking for 39 changes to the whole area? 40 41 Mr. Lait: It could still be a pilot on all three. It's just how many properties 42 do we want to make available to take advantage of a micro housing unit 43 concept. 44 45 Council Member Wolbach: Got you. 46 TRANSCRIPT 1 Mr. Lait: Thank you. 2 3 Council Member Wolbach: Thanks. That's it for my questions. 4 5 Mayor Burt: We'll now hear from members of the public. We have seven 6 cards. If anyone else wishes to speak, they need to bring their card forward 7 at this time. Being a Study Session and the limited amount of time we have, 8 each speaker will have up to two minutes to speak. Excuse me. Our first 9 speaker is Mike Green, to be followed by Neilson Buchanan. 10 11 Mike Green: My name is Mike Green. I appreciate the opportunity to 12 address the Council. I live in south Palo Alto. My son lives in Page Mill Court 13 Apartments, which immediately adjoins this site. I would say I have no 14 problem at all with the proposal to have smaller area, higher density housing 15 there. What I have an issue with is the parking. That area, which I visit 16 frequently, is completely parked out. The building is going to displace 17 existing parking. My strong recommendation is that it should not be 18 approved without double layer parking underneath, which is the norm now 19 for that area. If you look at the building that's being completed a few blocks 20 north on Ash Street, that's double layer on a smaller site. That would 21 diffuse the parking issue. I should say, by the way, that I regard things like 22 the bike kitchen as something of a Potemkin village, because on El Camino a 23 few blocks north and a few blocks south, are two perfectly good retail bike 24 shops. I had a feeling listening to the presentation that there was a little bit 25 of smoke and mirrors there. That's my recommendation, that the Council 26 should not approve this without double layer parking. 27 28 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Neilson Buchanan, to be 29 followed by Mark Mollineaux. 30 31 Neilson Buchanan: Less than six nights ago, we were talking about permit 32 parking and what's evolved over the last four years and the quest for that 33 policy. I sat back and asked someone locally who really observes planning 34 and City Councils well. We talked about here comes housing as fodder for 35 debate and discussion for the Palo Alto process. What did we learn from 36 permit parking and what are we going to learn as we go through the 37 quandary about housing? The perspective that was thrown out is that 38 solving problems applicant-by-applicant is just crazy. One permit program 39 by another permit parking for another neighborhood; housing project by one 40 applicant, another housing project doesn't make an awful lot of sense. 41 There's got to be something better. I don't know what the something better 42 is. Let me suggest that problem solving can be usually boiled down to 43 asking three good questions. We brainstormed if you had to solve and 44 approach systematically new kinds of housing for any given city, what would 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 you ask. Very briefly, you'd ask new housing policy for whom, and then 2 begin to answer that very specifically. You would then say where. I bet you 3 right now people in this room can name ten sites that could be considered. 4 Nobody would like them all, but they're the natural sites. It's not like 5 Portland. I read about last night an (inaudible). They got a swathe of land 6 for 8,000 homes, (inaudible) a whole new city. The third question is 7 something that's re-iterative, and at what cost. The cost won't be known 8 until much later in the process, but you can begin to speculate as you were 9 pushing the applicant here. There's got to be three questions that 10 somebody comes up with, that won't throw you through a constant four year 11 loop of project-by-project for the kind of housing that Palo Alto—the corners 12 that need to be cut versus the pathway that you want. Let me give you a 13 Forrest Gump quote, and that is "I don't know where I am going, but I am 14 on my way." That's the way the City of Palo Alto seems to go. Thank you. 15 16 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Mark Mollineaux to be followed by Patrick Slattery. 17 18 Mark Mollineaux: Hello there. I am Mark Mollineaux. I live in Redwood 19 City. I graduated from Stanford, and I would have like to live in Palo Alto 20 but I couldn't afford it. I'll keep my comments brief. In short, I think we 21 agree there's a problem in Palo Alto with housing. The system is broken. 22 High prices everywhere. This is a signal that everything is broken. This is a 23 result of ill-advised zoning decisions by essentially all the cities in this 24 region. Things are bad. It may not seem bad for local residents who don't 25 see the effects of this. They're locked into cheap houses with artificially low 26 property taxes. If you take the regional view, it's impossible to say things 27 aren't extremely bad. They need to be fixed. With this kind of stress, they 28 will be fixed one way or another. The Council has the possibility to fix things 29 locally, or it'll be fixed at some higher level by the State of California, which 30 holds the underlying authority of all of zoning. I hope the City is able to 31 solve it locally. It'll be better that way. Anyway it is, it'll take a long time 32 and a lot of effort to fix things with housing. Some decisions will be hard, 33 and some will be easy. I think this project is one of the easy ones. This is 34 60 great units in a really great, walkable area. I anticipate this should easily 35 pass. It really looks great. I would maybe hope I'd be able to live there 36 someday. Thank you for your time. 37 38 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Patrick Slattery to be followed by Stephanie 39 Munoz. 40 41 Patrick Slattery: My name's Patrick Slattery. When I came down this 42 evening, I was concerned about a lot of the questions that have already 43 come up. I was concerned about the traffic, especially how they were going 44 to be able to keep people from having cars. That's an American thing. How 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 can you get in there and stop that? They've got a plan. The Council was 2 wondering about—asking how are they really going to enforce that. That's 3 my question as well. The same with the RPP. If there's not an RPP in the 4 area, then the people who have cars can park there. They can park there all 5 night. The Council has taken care of that. About all that's left for me is how 6 can a four-story building be a pilot project. If it goes bad, how did it go 7 back, what happens? That's a question I still have left. Of course, the 8 answer to the other question is can all this stuff really be enforced. You're 9 asking those. Thank you. You have addressed most of my questions. 10 Thank you. 11 12 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Stephanie Munoz to be followed by Robert Moss. 13 14 Stephanie Munoz: Good evening, Mayor Burt and Council Members. I think 15 these people are going in the right direction, and they're doing what you 16 want. You should pay attention to them and talk some more with them. 17 There was a letter by a Tina Peak [phonetic] in the Post a couple of nights 18 ago. She was very concerned—I think everybody should be—about the fact 19 of the rezoning from public benefit space. There's a difference between 20 something that is actually zoned for public benefit and something in which 21 the public benefit is just a quid pro quo from some other concession that 22 you're going to give. I think you should take it very seriously. I think that 23 whoever gets this piece of property should dedicate the entire first floor to 24 public benefit, to childcare, senior nutrition and other similar things. The 25 whole first floor, not retail. The second thing is that with all the 26 conversation there's been about being close to public transit, what's the 27 point of being close to the public transit if you intend for them to have a car 28 anyway. It seems to me reasonable that there be some places in town for 29 people who don't have cars. Isn't that a fair tradeoff? The third thing is the 30 size. I talked to my son; he travels for Cisco all over the world. I said, 31 "Honey, what kind of a hotel room do you get for $300 a night?" He said, 32 "They're very nice, very small." Think about it. Thanks. 33 34 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Robert Moss to be followed by Hamilton Hitchings. 35 36 Robert Moss: Thank you, Mayor Burt and Council Members. This ghastly 37 project is the worst example of spot zoning I've seen in a long time. It 38 ignores the fact that you're supposed to be consistent with adjacent 39 residential when you build. It totally violates that, because it is totally 40 inconsistent with the adjacent condominiums. It ignores the fact that this is 41 the most congested intersection in town. It pretends there's going to be no 42 traffic or parking problems. Saying that some of the residents won't own 43 cars doesn't mean that they won't be driving. Saying they're going to use 44 Uber means that Uber gets to drive to the site and away from the site. 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 That's two trips instead of one for the non-Uber driver. Another problem is 2 you have no way of enforcing the occupancy or the actual price of the units. 3 You have never done that in the last 40 years. When somebody says, 4 "We're going to have this for all low-income people," and when they don't do 5 it, the City sends them a nasty letter saying, "You're terrible people. You're 6 not complying with what you said. Tsk, tsk, that's awful of you." Of course, 7 the developer sobs and cries while he's putting his money in the bank. I 8 would suggest that you require they do something almost unprecedented in 9 the City of Palo Alto: comply with the Zoning Ordinance, the CN zone, the 10 Comprehensive Plan and development compatibility with adjacent buildings. 11 Wouldn't that be remarkable? 12 13 Mayor Burt: Our next speaker is Hamilton Hitchings, to be followed by 14 Winter Dellenbach. 15 16 Hamilton Hitchings: Hi. I'm Hamilton Hitchings. I'm a member of the 17 Citizen’s Advisory Commission (CAC), but I'm not speaking on behalf of 18 them. One of the things we're trying to do as the City of Palo Alto is refocus 19 the development on what the City needs most and work with developers 20 who understand what's needed and are willing to work with the community. 21 I'm a residentialist, so I'm usually on the other side from developers. I 22 actually like these guys. I think there's a lot of potential to work with them 23 to build the kind of project that this City really needs. I think to make this 24 successful we would need to make a few changes. By the way, it's a great 25 location if you work in Stanford Research Park or California Avenue (Cal. 26 Ave). There's a problem because Cal. Ave. parking is completely saturated, 27 so any spillover is going to have a significant negative consequence. There 28 is an easy solution, and you're not going to like this. You just remove the 29 top floor, then it's a 1:1 parking. You increase the unit size by 100 square 30 feet. You get your guest parking. You put in the deed restriction. You do 31 those three things, this project will work. The other thing to keep in mind is 32 if we look at other comparable units of this size, like Carmel the Village, 33 they're renting for $3,000 to $6,000. Unless you have $3,000 a month to 34 spend, you're not going to be able to rent these units probably. However, 35 because we're rezoning it, we can impose requirements on them in 36 exchange for the rezone. They've already said that they would be interested 37 in above the requirement for below market rate. As part of the public 38 benefit, rather than making the ground floor some kind of retail thing, I 39 would encourage a 25 percent below market as part of this rezoning. This 40 will help people who are working in this community, who might not be able 41 to afford it otherwise. Another thing I want to speak out against is ground- 42 floor retail. This is a really lousy spot for ground-floor retail. The other 43 thing to think about is pumping. Remember, if you go down a second floor, 44 you're going to have to pump a lot of water out on that (crosstalk). 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Winter Dellenbach to be followed by Herb Borock. 2 3 Winter Dellenbach: Hi. Winter Dellenbach. Want to remind you 10 years 4 worked at Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, dealt with housing 5 discrimination laws. I wasn't planning to come here, jumped in my car, 6 roared down here. I kept hearing the word preference. I came down here, 7 and I kept hearing it and hearing it. Protected category, class, protected 8 class. I started to get more and more jumpy. I don't think any of you 9 should get excited and be making any sorts of judgments and decisions 10 about all of this stuff. Preference is a rare thing. It shouldn't be thrown out 11 like confetti. People that have preferences, seniors, families, protection 12 against discrimination for families with children, people with disabilities have 13 certain protections. Those are exceptions. They are not the rule. I'm 14 hearing preferences just like preferences galore for firefighters, for this, for 15 that. I counsel you please back off, be very careful. You have legal counsel 16 that can actually give you firm legal advice once they get clear, do the 17 research if there's any sort of workforce protection for a private developer 18 who's going to profit mightily from this rather than a nonprofit developer 19 such as Stanford that can maybe have certain legal protection and rights to 20 do that. A two-bedroom apartment under your own law in Palo Alto— 21 9.74.030 says that you cannot require less than a minimum of two people 22 per bedroom in this town. I heard one of the presenters tonight say 23 something like there's not going to be children here and all this sort of stuff. 24 If this is any kind of a model for what's coming our way, please know that 25 there is no way to prohibit parents with children from living in this housing, 26 older people. This idea that this is millennial housing, that this is young tech 27 worker housing—I find that personally extremely offensive. Housing is 28 housing for people who need housing. If a parent wants to live in a one- 29 bedroom unit with a child, by law they get to do that. Otherwise, it's 30 discriminatory and yells lawsuit at me. Be very careful when you consider 31 this housing and who's going to live there. Everybody gets to live there. 32 33 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Herb Borock, to be followed by 34 Ken Allen. 35 36 Herb Borock: Mayor Burt and Council Members, this is not micro housing. 37 The housing at Alma Place or at the Opportunity Center is micro housing. 38 The reason they don't have very many cars is because they're poor people. 39 It's for low income and very low income people. That's the reason they 40 don't have cars, not because of where it's located. In regard to the previous 41 speaker, you can't discriminate against families with children. In this 42 isolated location for a family with children, they will need cars to get to 43 school and to take children to activities. The options that Staff has offered 44 you for changing zoning is Planned Community zoning by another name. 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 You have suspended Planned Community zoning. The appropriate time for 2 Staff to bring up these suggestions is during the Comprehensive Plan 3 discussions and the Zoning Code that comes out of the Comprehensive Plan 4 and that supports it. If the applicant wants to wait until that new Zoning 5 Code comes up to see if it has any of these ideas, that's the time to do that. 6 You can't deed restrict a rental unit and expect it to be enforced by the 7 developer. You can't even keep track of Below Market Rate (BMR) units 8 where someone goes out and borrows extra money or tries to go sell it for a 9 higher price. You just had one of those on Consent Calendar tonight. It 10 took you so many years to get to that one when the error occurred. If you 11 can't even do that and you have a contractor, the Housing Corporation, 12 that's supposed to keep track of those things for you, how can you possibly 13 do what's being suggested here? I would suggest that we have somebody 14 who bought a property that is zoned Public Facility, if that's what they 15 wanted to buy, those are the rules they should follow. 16 17 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Ken Allen, to be followed by 18 Rebecca Sanders. 19 20 Ken Allen: Ken Allen, Grove Avenue. I'm President of the Adobe Meadow 21 Neighborhood Association and speaking as a private citizen. First of all, I 22 note that this location was originally designated to be property turned over 23 to an overpass between a state highway and a county highway. Whatever 24 became of that project? Second, I agree with all of the problems noted on 25 parking. I think it's irrational not to provide at least the minimum parking 26 per unit because you simply cannot limit cars by limiting parking places. 27 That was my experience living in Hamburg, Germany. We lived in a unit of 28 700 square feet. The streets were over-parked. Some people took the 29 available public transportation, but ultimately there were too many cars for 30 the number of units living in that small neighborhood. The larger issue that 31 I'd like to point out is that in the R-1 zone we have a problem with high 32 square-foot residences not having adequate parking spaces. In our 33 neighborhood, we've just encountered such a problem. There has been 34 some accommodation, but I think that you should be looking into that also, 35 to provide adequate off-street parking for such units. Our street is now 36 already overcrowded with single individuals living in single-family houses 37 and filling up the streets. Thank you. 38 39 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Rebecca Sanders, to be 40 followed by our final speaker, Jeff Levinsky. 41 42 Rebecca Sanders: Good evening. I'm Rebecca Sanders aka Becky. I'm the 43 moderator of the Ventura Neighborhood Association, and I live at 369 44 Margarita Avenue in Palo Alto. Let's see. The Ventura Neighborhood 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 Association is very concerned about housing for the community's most 2 vulnerable. We are enthusiastic about the idea of micro units and would 3 love to see a sensible pilot project to promote micro units, but this is not it. 4 Our principle objection is that when up-zoning is allowed, citizens don't know 5 what to expect. It's unfair. Also, it clearly benefits the developers who buy 6 a property zoned one way and bank on being treated to an up-zone to their 7 wealth. All the promises about preferences, who will police this? The Code 8 enforcement staff are already overrun and cannot manage the workload they 9 have. No disrespect intended. This is not a small town anymore, so it will 10 fall upon neighbors to tattle on each other. It's just gross. In Ventura, 11 we're waiting for relief for some Code enforcement issues on a bunch of 12 creepy shops that are on El Camino. We have been begging for some 13 attention to those and have had nothing, because the Code people are super 14 busy. Therefore, we urge you to say no to up-zoning the VTA parking lot. 15 We don't need more traffic, safety problems, pollution, developer giveaways, 16 monster buildings that are given Code exemptions in our neighborhood. 17 With all the developments under construction and in the pipeline in Cal. Ave. 18 and abutting neighborhoods, the collective impact has yet to be measured. 19 We do need a comprehensive solution to our housing solution, not this one- 20 by-one spot zoning, piecemeal, disaster area. Please do your duty to rein in 21 these baby Godzillas by giving them a timeout. Thank you for your attention 22 this evening. I appreciate your service to our fair City. 23 24 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Final speaker is Jeff Levinsky. 25 26 Jeff Levinsky: Good evening, Mayor Burt and Council. I get to play cleanup 27 here. First of all, it's about 36 cars that are parked on that site right now. 28 We'd like to know where those cars are going to go if a building is on top. I 29 don't think a second layer down below would be enough to handle those 30 cars. That's one question. Another is a question about what happens if you 31 rent one of these apartments and then you become disabled and you need a 32 car to get around. Will you be kicked out of the apartment because of that? 33 That's unthinkable. I don't understand how the provision would work there. 34 If you look at the plans there, some of the ground-floor units have balconies 35 that face right onto Oregon Expressway. The fumes and such and health 36 problems of that seem pretty awful. Caltrain is full, if you haven't heard 37 lately. Handing out passes to Caltrain doesn't mean people are actually 38 going to get to take Caltrain. For all those reasons, it feels like an 39 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or something like that would need to 40 well precede anything like this project going forward at all. I think that 41 should be part of the discussion. As to pilot projects, let me point out that 42 we have TDMs and PCs right now that are not being enforced. I live right 43 next to one where they knocked down a historic building with a slap on the 44 wrist. They have a grocery store that's not operating, and this has been 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 going on for about a year and a half now. Nothing has changed. If the City 2 is looking for a pilot project, how about enforcing all the promises that have 3 already been made to the public and not kept? Thank you. 4 5 Mayor Burt: Thank you. We'll now return to the Council. Because this is a 6 Study Session, we won't be having any votes. The Staff and the applicant 7 will be hearing general comments from members of the Council and attempt 8 to get a sense of our inclinations on that basis. Council Member Filseth. 9 10 Council Member Filseth: Thanks very much. Thanks very much to the 11 applicant for the cogent presentation and for all the speakers who came 12 here. I have comments about basically four things. I want to talk about the 13 60 micro units and then the PF free zoning and also the density up-zoning. 14 Then, I want to suggest a line of thinking about how the City—I think deed 15 restriction is going to be a big part of that. On the 60 micro units, I think 16 adding 60 small units to the City's housing stock seems generally 17 reasonable. Palo Alto's long-term housing growth is 0.6, 0.7 percent over 18 the last several decades, which amounts to a couple hundred units a year. I 19 think that would fit into this reasonably well. Also, a number of people have 20 pointed out that if you look at the proportion of small units in Palo Alto, it's 21 smaller than the proportion of small households in Palo Alto. Adding some 22 more small units generally seems reasonable too. Let's see. On the 23 location, definitely mixed feelings about that. I think a positive is it's near 24 jobs in Palo Alto, specifically the Research Park, which I think is great. I 25 think that makes a lot more sense than trying to put everything next to the 26 train station, where you'll get people that commute out of town. A negative 27 is that this is one of the most traffic congested areas in town. It's clearly 28 still going to add cars; otherwise, it wouldn't need any parking at all. 29 Somewhat mixed feelings on the location, but generally not an unreasonable 30 thing to think about. The parking issue is a huge issue, and I hope other 31 people will talk about that too. On the project itself, I think there are two 32 different aspects. One is the PF rezone, and the other is the density. PF is a 33 very special and unusual case. The zone Public Facility means it's dedicated 34 to uses of benefit to the community. Everything we want takes land. How 35 much time and discussion has this Council and Staff spent since the current 36 Council on where are we going to look for space for Public Safety Buildings 37 and parks and other public amenities and so forth. We just took up the 38 animal shelter last week. Most people think we're going to need a new 39 animal shelter at some point or other. Where it would go is still a huge 40 asterisk. On a PF piece of land is a reasonable thing to look at. I think it'd 41 be a good place for it. Yet, even as we all are aware of the stringency of 42 real estate in town, I think we actually may still continue to underestimate 43 the long-term value of land here even now. I think we should be very, very 44 cautious about rezoning PF land. It's a one-way thing. You never get it 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 back. You never get more PF land, only less. If you rezone PF land, it can't 2 be used for community purposes again, and that releases a lot of value. We 3 need to be mindful of that as we scratch our head, looking for space on 4 things. Commercially zoned land is worth a lot more per square foot than 5 Public Facility land. Rezoning this PF property is instantly going to create a 6 lot of monetary value, potentially millions of dollars. I don't see why we— 7 Windy Hill seemed like good folks that want to work with us, but I don't see 8 why we should simply hand this value over to a developer. If we do rezone, 9 the City ought to get some of that value. We ought to share in that. I don't 10 think just having some more expensive housing in town is enough value in 11 itself. That's the PF. Let me talk about the density for a minute. There was 12 a question earlier about how much will the units rent for. Maybe I can help 13 with that. The going rate in this town for a 500-square-foot studio or one- 14 bedroom unit is currently about $2,000 to $2,500. If you had 60 of those at 15 an average rent of $2,000 a month, you'd have a free cash flow of about 16 $1.44 million, but of course that will grow every year because the rent 17 increases a few percent every year. If you compare that to the chart in the 18 Staff's—if you had CN zoning, in that case you'd have 20 units, probably 19 two-bedroom condos renting for $3,500 a month or so, which would add up 20 to $840,000. This project is going to collect almost twice as much money in 21 rent as a conventional zoning, even if you up-zoned it from PF. How much is 22 that actually worth? I think people should work that out on their own. You 23 figure the land costs a few million. The construction may be $25 million, 24 because that's what 441 Page Mill, which was approximately the same size, 25 was estimated. Maybe they can finance at around six percent per year. 26 Assume you raise the rent a few percent each year. I actually went back to 27 the model that Keyser and Marston used in the 441 Page Mill project. I 28 think people ought to try it for themselves. This proposal looks to me like it 29 generates a real large amount of value. The up-zoning to R-130 in this case 30 is worth many more times than just the PF conversion itself. Over 50 years, 31 I'm guessing that after costs it clears $50 million to $100 million, but again I 32 think folks ought to work it out for themselves. I know they don't want to 33 do this, but if you just cashed out right away, I believe one-bedroom condos 34 in north Palo Alto are currently selling in the low $900,000s. If you had 60 35 of those, you do the arithmetic and if you wanted to get out right away. The 36 point of all this is that rezoning this property for high-density housing would 37 create a great deal of value. I don't know that we ought to rezone the PF for 38 all the previous reasons. If we are going to countenance rezoning a Public 39 Facility like this, then I think the City ought to share in that value. I want to 40 suggest a way to do that in terms of housing, since we're talking about 41 housing. There's been a lot of talk about affordability. I think there's a 42 chance here to actually do something about affordability. In my view and 43 not everybody agrees, our biggest housing problem is not finding space for 44 professionals who can afford to pay $2,000 a month for a studio. They can 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 do this now if they look a little. I think the Vice Mayor eloquently described 2 it a month or so ago as they have to knock on a few more doors. I believe 3 our biggest problem is housing low and middle income people who can't pay 4 $2,000 a month for a one-bedroom, and that includes people like Windy Hill 5 mentioned, teachers, City Staff, first responders and so forth. These are 6 plus-one people who add extra value to our community just by being here. 7 If we had more of these community workforce people here, that would be 8 public value. That's not going to happen if these folks have to bid for their 9 housing against high-paid tech workers like the 6,500 that Facebook is going 10 to put in Menlo Park next door over the next couple of years. Tonight's just 11 a Study Session. It's Public Facility land. I think we ought to deed restrict 12 to City employees and School District employees. That would be community 13 workforce housing. Maybe that's not the exact mechanism, but it's simple. 14 We had a bunch of discussion about preferences and so forth earlier, and 15 that's all good too, but it seemed a little fluid to me. If you list it at $2,000 16 a month, you're not going to fill it up with teachers. If you can't find any 17 teachers after six months, then it's going to be engineers like I used to be a 18 lot of years ago. Maybe there's some other way, but it's got to have teeth in 19 it. You actually have to have lower rent than $2,000 a month in order for 20 this to work. Maybe it's not deed restrictions, maybe just some kind of 21 zoning mechanism. I actually do like this kind of mechanism. It's not a 22 blunt instrument, as blunt as rent control because you still have market 23 forces at work, just sort of a smaller market. This is the way that Stanford 24 housed a lot of its faculty. I think we ought to learn from that. Plus, by 25 definition, all these folks would be working in town, not commuting in or out 26 somewhere. In principle, it's an ideal group to use bikes or other forms of 27 non-automobile transit. I'm not sold we ought to be going around 28 converting Public Facility land to commercial uses. I think if we're serious 29 about community workforce housing, then eventually we're going to have to 30 pay for it. This is one way to do that. If we're entertaining rezoning Public 31 Facility land and up-zoning for density, then the public ought to get 32 compensated for it. I think we ought to give this kind of mechanism some 33 real consideration. As Neilson point out, if we can make a program like this 34 work here, then maybe we can replicate it other places. If we let this go by, 35 I think we're going to miss a real opportunity. If we don't go this direction, 36 if we just up-zone it and it goes on the market and so forth, I don't see that 37 it makes sense to change the Public Facility zoning. If we're willing to tackle 38 something like this, where there's real community benefit, then we ought to 39 consider it. Thanks. 40 41 Mayor Burt: I'd just like to pause and see if the City Attorney has any 42 guidance on the issues that Council Member Filseth raised. If we're going to 43 be having any follow-up discussion, we have that in the context of what's 44 TRANSCRIPT 1 legally permissible and what happens when we have a site like this that was 2 Public Facility zoned, owned by the VTA and then what latitude do we have. 3 4 Ms. Silver: In terms of the rezoning issue, the Council needs to evaluate the 5 property in terms of are there any viable uses existing on the site. If there 6 are no viable uses, then the applicant does have a right to a rezoning 7 request. If there are other uses for the site, then there the Council has 8 broad discretion as to whether a rezoning is appropriate in this particular 9 case. As to the workforce housing, I think that could fall under one of the 10 scenarios that the pilot program is exploring. It would probably be in—we 11 would look at increasing the affordability component, the inclusionary 12 component of one of the proposals. I think it's within the realm. We would 13 want to know what your thoughts are as to how much of the housing should 14 be deed restricted or given a preference. 15 16 Mayor Burt: This site was sold from the VTA to a private party, I think, over 17 two years ago. Does that have any bearing on our latitude in terms of being 18 able to restrict it to a Public Facility at this time? 19 20 Ms. Silver: It's currently zoned Public Facility. There are some private uses 21 that can be developed under Public Facility zoning. 22 23 Vice Mayor Scharff: Can I follow-up on that? 24 Mayor Burt: Go ahead. 25 Vice Mayor Scharff: I just wanted to make sure it's clear in my mind. I 26 believe there are educational facilities allowed under Public Facility. Is that 27 correct? Aren't those private—you can do just public schools or is it private 28 educational facilities? 29 30 Ms. Gerhardt: Private schools and trade schools would be allowed with a 31 Conditional Use Permit. 32 33 Mayor Burt: Council Member Berman. 34 35 Council Member Berman: Thank you to the applicant and the folks from the 36 community who have spoken. Also, I want to thank the folks who emailed 37 and didn't necessarily come today. We had a handful more emails that were 38 opposed to the project, and then over 70 emails—I last checked a couple of 39 hours ago—in support of the project. I know those folks aren't here in the— 40 I'm sorry? 41 42 Male: (inaudible) 43 TRANSCRIPT 1 Council Member Berman: Those aren't people who are here today, but I 2 want to make sure it's noted that there was a significant amount of public 3 support for the need for more housing. Let me ask a question of everyone 4 in the audience really quickly, five seconds. If you think we have a housing 5 shortage in Palo Alto, please raise your hand. 6 7 Mayor Burt: Council Member Berman, I don't want to do polling from 8 potential Council Members. 9 10 Council Member Berman: Got you. I wasn't counting. There's one 11 guaranteed way that we won't get more housing in Palo Alto, and that's if we 12 kind of burden any proposal with totally unrealistic expectations. I get 13 concerned when those of us on the dais, myself included, that have—I have 14 zero experience in building housing anywhere—get our napkins out and start 15 doing calculations on the fly without actually consulting with people in the 16 housing industry to figure out whether or not any of those calculations are 17 realistic and actually applicable to the project. I also want to remind all of 18 us that this is just a Study Session. I'm sure if the applicant were to put 19 forth a proposal, we'd flesh out these numbers a lot more. I hope that we 20 do that. I hope that the feedback from the Council is that there's 21 community need and support for additional housing at this site. That's what 22 the vast majority of us said a year and a half or two years ago when we 23 roundly rejected a proposal for commercial office space at this site. We 24 talked a lot about the—it's shockingly, strikingly clear that the applicant 25 listened and paid close attention to the Council's comments at that time, 26 because they've almost checked every box, I think, in the proposal of things 27 that Council Members brought up as ways that we could have additional 28 housing and create—yes, we do need to have zoning reforms that encourage 29 more units per acre, not less units per acre, and this type of thing. We don't 30 have that now, and I don't want to wait until that process is completed 31 before possibly approving this project and creating 60 units of desperately 32 needed housing. We talked about traffic concerns and the PF zone. It could 33 be parks; it could be medical; it could be schools. I don't know, but I 34 believe that all of those uses have higher traffic impacts than housing. 35 That's something that can come up as the conversation continues on this 36 site. The reason I asked my timing question—the fact that this project 37 wouldn't be built for 2 1/2 years—is the way that we get around in society is 38 changing every couple of months. The City Council is looking at additional 39 solutions, including expanding our shuttle system and others, to really 40 incentivize people to get out of their car or not even need a car and be able 41 to bike or take a motorized bike or walk or take Caltrain. Some people have 42 mentioned Caltrain is full. This project wouldn't be completed until 43 electrification would be completed soon thereafter. That's going to 44 dramatically increase the capacity on Caltrain to make it more of a viable 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 option. I didn't think we'd see this. I remember the commercial proposal 2 that we had. I talked with those folks, the Pollack group, afterwards. They 3 said, "We can't do commercial. We'll build a hotel. We've crunched the 4 numbers, and a hotel is the only viable thing that we can build there. We 5 looked at housing, but it just doesn't work." Maybe a year later, I kind of 6 got wind of this housing proposal, and it took me by surprise, because I'd 7 kind of given up on that. I think that this is a perfect place for housing. I 8 support ground-floor retail as well, but I don't know that it's necessary at 9 this location. I think that'll increase traffic. I don't know that it'll be very 10 successful. Frankly, my number one priority over retail, over office space is 11 housing. If it's something that's going to reduce the number of units on the 12 site for retail in a non-ideal location, I don't think that's necessary for me. 13 That's definitely not necessary to get my support for the project. The issue 14 of open space has come up, and open space is important. I'd argue that the 15 need for housing is greater than the need for balconies. I would encourage 16 the applicant to look at creating some sort of community garden. My 17 girlfriend lives in a studio apartment in San Francisco. I think the units are 18 500 to 600 square feet per. They don't have balconies, but there's a 19 community garden in the back. They all have their own little plants that 20 they want, and they have a grill back there. That's an area where they get 21 together on Sunday afternoons and evenings. Being more efficient with our 22 space—I think if you have a good-sized community garden area as opposed 23 to small, individual balconies—I have a balcony where I live. I actually have 24 two. I never use them. Why? Because I'm never home. I don't think we 25 can deed restrict—I think Winter brought up legitimate concerns about how 26 we move forward on deed restricting these units. A large number of people 27 who live there will be millennials that are working very hard. I love having 28 windows, but I don't need the balcony. If there were a community garden 29 area, that could be a place that I'd go hang out. I'm not a stickler ... 30 31 Mayor Burt: If you were home. 32 33 Council Member Berman: If I were home, exactly. I'm not a stickler for that 34 requirement. You guys have offered up—this is all still in the proposal at the 35 preliminary stages. You clearly have thought out the TDM issues. That 36 definitely comes across. Staff is working on ways that we can make sure 37 that we're enforcing those requirements as well. The Mayor brought up 38 examples where sites like this don't need one parking space per unit. I 39 realize that that's what we've historically done, but the way people live is 40 changing. That's just no longer needed. I think what we need is the 41 housing units more than the parking spaces. Those are just a couple of my 42 thoughts. Obviously none of this is final. None of this is fully baked. I love 43 the idea of getting 60 units on this site. I don't think that it's under-parked 44 in terms of how it will actually be used in reality for the people who live 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 there. We do need housing of all types. I'm the liaison to the Palo Alto 2 Housing this year. I've asked Staff, and I think we're scheduling, I hope, 3 soon, like early October, a Study Session with Palo Alto Housing to talk 4 about affordable housing. This isn't meant to be affordable housing. This is 5 a private owner of the land that wants to build market rate housing. We 6 need housing of all types if we're going to start to lessen the increases that 7 are happening every year and the cost of housing. I don't know that 8 housing costs will ever go down in Palo Alto, but maybe they won't go up as 9 much. This is a part of the overall solution. We shouldn't burden this 10 project with the need to solve our entire housing problem across all of Palo 11 Alto. Let's take it as a great opportunity to build 60 units of studio and one- 12 bedroom housing in a location that makes sense. 13 14 Mayor Burt: Council Member Schmid. 15 16 Council Member Schmid: Thanks for the ideas, the proposals. They raise 17 for Palo Alto a critical issue, how do we deal with the housing need, in a 18 provocative way. As a number of speakers said, this is being done with one 19 project. You're asking us really to comment on Comp Plan issues, land use 20 issues, zoning issues, all of which have wider impacts based on a single 21 project. I guess that worries me. I think denser housing opportunities in 22 the City is a good thing. It makes sense. We need to identify how many, 23 where, how much, critical questions. We also need to be aware—this is what 24 the Comp Plan should bring us—of how does it change our community. I 25 guess I'm mystified why this is coming before we've talked about the land 26 use on our Comp Plan. I was looking back at our earlier schedules. It was 27 scheduled for June 6th. It would be very appropriate if we had that 28 discussion before this proposal came up, but we haven't. We have to talk 29 about our community and our land use in terms of a single project. How 30 would this project contribute to the community? What community do we 31 want? I know when I think about Palo Alto I think of it as a special place. 32 It's the heart of Silicon Valley. How did it get to be that way? If you look 33 back at the history of how it evolved over the last 50, 60 years, it evolved in 34 a community in a unique way, a community that valued mobility. Palo Alto 35 has twice the job change of experienced workers compared to other 36 communities in the U.S. Job options are important. They're important not 37 just for people in their 20s, but they are important for people in their 30s 38 and 40s and 50s and 60s. Talented, experienced people are mobile and 39 bring ideas to new places. Innovation comes from that. It doesn't come as 40 much from big cities where people are in dense communities, but in an 41 open, mobile community. One question is we want to take one example of 42 small, what are being called micro units. Great for young, dependent 43 workers. Harder when they get experienced and talented and want to have 44 families or maybe changes jobs if there are two people sharing an apartment 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 and they have two jobs. Within a few years, it'll be four jobs. How do you 2 make those contacts, keep them alive? We've targeted one project and one 3 segment of our community, but will it be dangerous for the wider 4 community? Looking at our Comp Plan materials that we have, it is striking 5 the discrepancy between the City's demographic forecast and the school's 6 demographic forecast. If you've ever looked at it, the school projects that 7 the school-age population will grow 0.2 percent per year. Palo Alto's ... 8 9 Mayor Burt: Council Member Schmid, I think we need to be more focused 10 on the matter before us. I appreciate that you consider it in a very broad 11 context, but Staff has asked that the framing of this Study Session be 12 around specific things. Can you focus your comments on that? 13 14 Council Member Schmid: I appreciate your comments, and I'm saying that I 15 think you have to vote on this project with the land use and zoning in mind. 16 17 Mayor Burt: We're not voting on this project tonight, Council Member 18 Schmid. 19 20 Council Member Schmid: We are giving advice. When you plan the project, 21 think about the project. You have to think about the community it's in, the 22 parking, the lack of cars. You're taking mobility away from the community. 23 If this is used as a significant example of other projects in town, how far do 24 we want to go? How many projects like this before we change the 25 community? Palo Alto has a ratio, 24 percent of households have children. 26 In San Francisco and many other central cities around the country, that ratio 27 is 11 or 12 percent. This project would lower our ratio, bring it down from 28 what it has been traditionally. The question is in this project would it be 29 more beneficial if you used denser housing to have a greater variety and 30 opportunities within that area. When we think about this project or the Cal. 31 Ave. area, don't we want a greater diversity of opportunities for housing in 32 that area? Thank you. 33 34 Mayor Burt: Council Member Holman. 35 36 Council Member Holman: Thank you. I appreciate what the applicant is 37 trying to accomplish. I appreciate some of the thoughts behind what you 38 put into this. Also appreciate the commitments to some very creative TDM 39 measures that, I think, would apply to a project like this or a number of 40 other projects. It's not all bad news. My concerns actually are—they're 41 around several things. One is that we do have a housing problem here. It's 42 not our only problem, though, and our only concern, though. When we have 43 a project here or there or anywhere that is so drastically and dramatically 44 different from what the zoning allows, it hasn't had any vetting in the 45 community, no analysis. For me, a project like—let's just pretend that this 46 TRANSCRIPT 1 project gets enough indication from Council saying go forth. It's a PC, and I 2 can't imagine that it's anything but a PC. Here's why. It's a one-off. No 3 way in the world should, in my opinion, the Council support without 4 adequate vetting in the Comp Plan and with any kind of zoning 5 considerations the micro housing combining district overlay be established 6 on the basis of one project. That would mean it would apply anywhere that 7 we applied that, without any kind of study or vetting. No way do I think we 8 should apply consideration for a one-off project to modify the PTOD 9 combining district, because then it would apply to the whole PTOD district 10 without any kind of vetting or study of what the impacts would be and what 11 the viability is of this kind of project. A pilot project in the PF zone, it's so 12 disparate from what the PF zone uses are that I don't see how that could 13 happen. It is that there is not a density requirement in the RT-50 of SOFA. 14 That was done very thoughtfully and carefully. It is also a 1.5 FAR 15 maximum, so that's also a difference. It also has a higher parking 16 requirement. That's also very close to transit, so that was considered at the 17 time. If we were going to look at SOFA right now, I might update the 18 parking requirements somewhat, but that is what it is. The lowest parking 19 requirement there is one parking space for a studio. There's not a BMR 20 housing requirement that's being required of this project or being offered in 21 this project. The permit parking in the neighborhood, which I appreciate the 22 applicant is willing to participate in, who pays for that RPP? It's not an 23 inexpensive gesture. Someone has to pay for it. I do think that this site 24 should have retail on the ground floor on the El Camino side. Otherwise, it's 25 a dead corner; it's just an absolute dead corner. We have retail across the 26 way from it on the south side of Page Mill, and it works very well. The 27 project also, because of its size and scale, violates many aspects of the 28 South El Camino Design Guidelines and the El Camino Grand Boulevard 29 Design Guidelines as well in terms of setbacks and step-backs. I actually 30 would be—the smaller units are something we need. To help satisfy some of 31 the density issues with something like this, a mix of at least some of the unit 32 sizes would be a better outcome. The comment was made earlier about 33 open space. I agree that having balconies on Page Mill is not ideal. That 34 means also this is the best place for housing. It's a very congested 35 intersection, which means there's a lot of air issues here at least to this point 36 in time. They're not going to change in the next, I'd say, 20 years probably 37 before we become more fuel-free cars, if you will. It doesn't mean that 38 people shouldn't have open space on the back side of the project or 39 someplace where it's more protected. I don't think it's—I won't go into the 40 soccer fields location at this point in time. I've said many times we need to 41 be housing people, but not warehousing people. My viewpoint has been for 42 many years if people don't have adequate open space, we're warehousing 43 people. Everybody at whatever income level, whatever age, whatever rent 44 they're paying deserve a reasonable quality of life. Open space for me is 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 one of the major quality of life determinants. Just having to do with the 2 mass, scale and design, like I said, housing is one of our needs, but it's not 3 our only need. This needs to be designed with the care that it's compatible 4 and satisfies our other design requirements. We had a requirement for a 5 water reservoir, but we took the care and spent the money to make sure 6 that it was designed well. It was a great project, and it is a great project. A 7 project on such a prominent corner as this needs to be a great project. At 8 this point in time—I know this is early. I know this is just a prescreening 9 just to give comments about what direction and directions, from my 10 perspective, this should go. Those kind of encapsulate my comments. 11 Thank you. 12 13 Mayor Burt: Vice Mayor Scharff. 14 15 Vice Mayor Scharff: Thank you. A whole bunch of different things. First of 16 all, I guess I wanted to say on the current zoning. Whereas, I don't share 17 Council Member Filseth's beliefs on that; I do believe, though, that we have 18 a right to keep it as Public Facility because of the educational use. We just— 19 was it last Council meeting or two Council meetings ago—changed the 20 zoning or said we would consider changing the zoning to educational use for 21 two retail parcels because there's a shortage of places for schools. It's clear 22 to me, at least in my mind—obviously we want to get legal counsel's opinion 23 on it. I believe we could keep the zoning exactly the way it is, if we wanted 24 to. I don't believe we have any duty to change it or any reason to. With 25 that said, I was really skeptical of this project, I would say. It violates all 26 the principles that I typically support, which would be ground-floor retail, 27 projects that are fully parked, projects that don't add to traffic and 28 congestion, all of that. The developer here has been really forthright and 29 really willing to think outside the box to make this work. For me, I'm really 30 interested in seeing if we could have a project, which doesn't have traffic 31 and congestion. For me, this project works with 45 parking spaces instead 32 of 109 or something like that if we have deed restrictions that say you can't 33 own cars or something similar to that. I'm not interested in this if it's not 34 going to really work. If we really do have, frankly, straight-out deed 35 restriction, a deed restriction on the entire project that says no more than X 36 number of units may have a car and we have ways to enforce that, if that 37 happens, then I would support this. I think it's out of the box. I think it 38 could be a great pilot project. For me, the devil's in the details about how 39 we actually enforce no cars or 50 percent of the people would basically have 40 cars under this, in my view. Given that it's 45 parking spaces, it's about 50 41 percent of the parking. That's the direction I would give to the developer. 42 Come back with a proposal that's robust and says there won't be any cars 43 more than the parking spaces, so it won't include parking. If you had that 44 less parking, then I would assume this would create not very much traffic 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 because there wouldn't be a lot of cars. Without traffic issues and without 2 parking issues, I think this is a great project. The other thing I think it does 3 is it could improve traffic congestion because it's doing the right-hand turn 4 right there on Page Mill. I think that's a real net positive. I'm really only 5 also interested in this project if we do an Option 1, which is the pilot project 6 in the PF zone. I don't want to go out and rezone a bunch of areas of Palo 7 Alto. I'd be interested in doing this project as a pilot, seeing how we could 8 control this. I was also really heartened when the developer said he was 9 interested in having real teeth in a TDM program. That also meant 10 something to me, if he's willing to accept fines and that kind of stuff. That 11 means he really believes in it. If he really believes in it, then I'm willing to 12 take a flyer on it. I also thought the concept of a rooftop park could be 13 really nice, if you want to have gardens or parks or whatever. I understand 14 it's a cost issue, but I think it goes to some of the open space issue. The 15 other thing I wanted to bring up is I also did appreciate the developer 16 focusing on the ground-floor retail issue and having a bike shop there. I 17 thought that also goes with the TDM project nicely, focusing on bikes. I 18 actually thought that was really thoughtful, and I appreciated that. I did 19 have some concerns about the El Camino Real Guidelines. Staff highlighted 20 that the project doesn't meet it. We have a big garage up there on El 21 Camino. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but that obviously is an 22 issue, having a big garage that faces it without—on a prominent corner like 23 that, what we were thinking about the El Camino Real Guidelines. I did 24 think a little bit that tonight we're talking about other guidelines and how 25 seriously do we take these guidelines and how important are they. That's 26 just something, I think, I'd put out there that we should think about. 27 Overall, I would like to see this project move forward. I would be very 28 interested to see how the developer goes ahead and solves the parking and 29 traffic issues we've discussed. 30 31 Mayor Burt: Council Member Kniss. 32 33 Council Member Kniss: Again, thanks to the developer. You listened clearly, 34 came back. I know that the CAC has discussed this extensively as well. Just 35 a couple of reflections. We've had some long conversations about this 36 tonight. I'm going to make this a little shorter. One of the things we did in 37 the spring—looking at the Mayor, he wanted to find out whether or not a 38 transportation tax would fly in this community. In April, we did a pretty 39 extensive survey of the community about a variety of things. Their first 40 concern literally was the cost of housing. Three out of four people who 41 answered that poll said the cost of housing was an issue in this community, 42 including cost and of course availability. It's the lack of availability that's an 43 issue. Two or three other things. Tom DuBois and I were talking about cars 44 the other day. Tom convinced me that cars are on their way out, that we 45 TRANSCRIPT Page 40 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 are going to have self-driving cars, we will have a different system probably 2 within 5 to 10 years. We're also hearing this project wouldn't be done for 3 another probably three to four years, if ever. Cars changing the way they 4 operate. We may not all have a self-driving car, but we will easily have 5 access to Scoop and Lyft and a whole variety of other ways that are new to 6 us. Most of us didn't take Uber four years ago; there was no way. A couple 7 of other thoughts. I actually was on VTA when we sold this property. It was 8 initially five years ago, and then four years ago. I remember it very well. I 9 don't think it's ever been anything other than a parking lot, but I wanted to 10 ask if anyone else could remember that far back. Usually the only one that 11 can remember is Bob Moss. 12 13 Council Member Holman: There used to be a little eating place there. 14 Council Member Kniss: Pardon me? 15 Council Member Holman: There used to be a little eating place there long 16 ago, probably in the '80s. 17 18 Council Member Kniss: That I don't remember. Clearly this has been a 19 parking lot for a long period of time. I would have to say, to the person who 20 was interested in the parking there, I don't think that the owner, whomever 21 that might be, must keep a parking lot there. It's currently used pretty 22 casually and very often by the soccer players who are across the street. A 23 couple of thoughts. This is one of those "don't throw out the baby with the 24 bath water" yet, because I think this has some real promise but needs to be 25 far more affordable. We are really talking about affordable in our 26 community. The Vice Mayor's comments regarding can you actually enforce 27 some kind of limitation on those who live in the building is really a good 28 question. That's one that I would want answered. As far as retail, there is 29 some retail across the street, but the retail across the street has parking. 30 I've often gone to that retail. On the far side of the street, there is Palo Alto 31 Square. Across the street is soccer. Next door to this on either side are 32 multi-unit dwellings, one being Sunrise, the other being, I think, some other 33 housing right next door to it. We've said several times housing should be on 34 this site. The question is what can we determine should be on the site and 35 what would come forward that would get five votes. That's really where we 36 are at this point. I'm delighted it's come forward. I'm still convinced there 37 should be housing there. I'm not sure exactly how we get to the yes point. 38 Those are my comments. 39 40 Mayor Burt: Council Member Wolbach. 41 42 Council Member Wolbach: When we saw a prescreening for this site last 43 year, as I think a couple of other people have mentioned, I was certainly one 44 TRANSCRIPT Page 41 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 of those who said I don't like the fact that it worsens our jobs/housing 2 imbalance, and what I'd love to see there is a lot of housing. I'd even be 3 open to a car-free or car-lite site. That implied that I'd be open to a project 4 where there was parking for visitors, maybe people who work for the 5 property, contractors. That's about it. This actually has a lot more parking 6 than what I would envision as a true pilot, car-lite, car-free project. I would 7 call this a compromise. The units are not micro units. They are smaller 8 units. We talked about this earlier during the question and answer and the 9 presentation. These are actually about double the size of true micro units, 10 which can be as small as 250 square feet. These are no smaller than 500 11 square feet per unit. Again, it's a compromise. It's a step in a different 12 direction for Palo Alto. As Mayor Burt pointed out earlier, this is something 13 we've done historically in the past, projects kind of like this. For example, 14 the President Hotel. It is a divergence from what we've done in recent 15 memory. It's quite a divergence. A number of times over the last year or 16 two as we've talked about our Comprehensive Plan, as we've talked about 17 the housing crisis and the housing challenges in Palo Alto and in the region, 18 a number of us on Council, not just when this site came forward for its 19 previous prescreening but a number of times, we've talked about wanting to 20 see or at least explore maybe a site where we get rid of the unit cap but 21 maintain our height limit, maintain our FAR limits that are at least 22 reasonable. Maybe have some reduced parking requirement and maybe find 23 a way to have some teeth so that we could actually restrict the ability of 24 people or strongly discourage them such that on average people would not 25 need as many cars for the project. I appreciate that this project tries to 26 move us in that direction. This actually gives us an opportunity to—if this 27 does move forward, if the applicant does move forward with an application, 28 that will provide an opportunity for us to direct City Planning Staff, City 29 Attorney Staff, etc., to start asking some really tough questions. What can 30 we do? What legally are we allowed to do? Until we have some projects to 31 start really looking at those questions around, given how much we've been 32 talking about it and haven't made progress yet, I'm not convinced we're 33 ever going to really get the answers to those questions unless we move 34 forward with something. I actually do hope that the applicant does move 35 forward with an application, so we can start picking apart these tough 36 questions. There have been a number of things raised that I do want to 37 address and a couple of things I had mentioned earlier as questions. I'll just 38 say them now as statements. If there is an effort to prioritize in some way 39 certain segments of the community, I would like to see seniors included in 40 that list potentially Seniors on average, not always. A lot of them do like to 41 drive and still work very hard and are not retired of course. A lot of seniors 42 don't drive as much or have a more flexible schedule and don't need to try 43 at rush hour and so don't contribute to peak traffic impacts. That's really 44 one of the issues right around the Page Mill/El Camino intersection, which is 45 TRANSCRIPT Page 42 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 I think the worst in Palo Alto. I do like the addition of a right-hand turn 2 lane. Certainly as car queue heading south on Page Mill across El Camino, 3 they do tend to back up. Because they slow down to make that right-hand 4 turn, sometimes people behind them who are trying to go straight don't get 5 a chance to clear out of the intersection. They have to wait there for 6 another cycle of the light, and that can be a long light. I think that would 7 probably be a real help. As I mentioned before, I'm a motorcycle rider 8 myself. Yes, I do also sometimes drive, about 50/50. I would like to see 9 some kind of options for scooters or motorcycle riders to have parking there. 10 Just brainstorming here. Maybe when people apply to look at the building, 11 ask them, "Do you want a parking space for a car or do you want a parking 12 space for a motorbike." If you get three or four people who say their 13 (inaudible) space for their motorbike, then you can maybe restripe one of 14 the parking spaces to be motorbike parking. Again, just brainstorming here. 15 I'll let you guys figure that out; just encouraging you to think about the 16 options around that. In addressing the housing crisis, the housing issues, 17 the housing challenges, however you want to phrase it, most people 18 recognize we don't have a lot of studios and one-bedrooms in Palo Alto. We 19 need them. I think the first person to point this out to me was former 20 Planning Commissioner Arthur Keller a couple of years ago at an Our Palo 21 Alto meeting. He was giving me the stats on how many studios and one- 22 bedrooms has and what our need really is. Once they get to the point of 23 recognizing there's an overall supply and demand issue and it's particularly 24 acute around studios and one-bedrooms, then the question inevitably is how 25 do you actually get them built. How do you force the developer to build 26 studios and one-bedrooms when they just seem to want to build big, luxury 27 penthouses? As far as I can see it, there are at least three big impediments. 28 Those are, as I seem them, our low unit maximums with 40 units per acre 29 as our highest maximum generally; our high parking requirements which 30 makes units very expensive, and it's per unit. If you have fewer big, luxury 31 units, you don't have to provide as much parking, and then it's cheaper for 32 the developer. If you provide a lot of units and you have to build 1 or 1.5 33 parking spaces per unit for thousands or tens of thousands of dollars apiece, 34 it's less of an incentive. Usually people don't do that; it doesn't pencil out. 35 The other third biggest impediment I see is our slow and strict and 36 sometimes subjective approval process. If we do actually want to see 37 smaller units, studios, one-bedrooms built in Palo Alto, I think we're going to 38 have to realize that those three impediments exist, and we're going to have 39 to be flexible once in a while or across the board. As far as the question 40 about how much do these cost, Council Member Filseth was estimating that 41 they would probably run 2,000 to 2,500 per unit. Even if that's not very low 42 income housing, there are 60 people out there who need that. If they can 43 move in there, that's 60 units less pressure on the rest of the market to help 44 others. One project is not going to solve the rest of the issue, but we hear a 45 TRANSCRIPT Page 43 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 lot of talk about collective impacts, cumulative impacts. We hear it talked 2 about as a negative. Every project adds potentially cumulative impact on 3 things in Palo Alto. Adding 60 units of housing, that's a cumulative positive 4 impact on our housing crisis. The questions was raise, I think, by Council 5 Member Holman about vetting in the community and making sure that we 6 have some vetting. That's exactly what we're starting tonight. We've heard 7 a lot of community input. I know we'll hear about this. As for the question 8 of whether this is a PC, if this is a one-off, I'll be honest. I think a lot of us 9 would like to see small units and micro units more broadly across Downtown 10 and in the Cal. Ave. areas, but we recognize that a lot of others on this 11 Council and in the community—I'll wrap this up shortly—a lot of others 12 aren't ready for that. We're willing to compromise and say, "You know 13 what? Let's try one." We've been asking for a pilot, and I'm glad somebody 14 heard us and brought something forward. If anyone thinks it's inappropriate 15 to do this as a one-off and they want to make a Motion that we do this very 16 broadly, I'd be happy to hear that Motion, but I don't think we're going to 17 hear it tonight. In fact, I'm going to be following Vice Mayor Scharff's idea 18 that we go for one of the more limited suggestions here. 19 20 Mayor Burt: We won't be having any Motions tonight under a Study 21 Session. 22 23 Council Member Wolbach: Right, I know. I mean when this comes back or 24 in the future. One more thing I do want to address is there's this idea that I 25 heard raised about warehousing people if it's not the kind of unit that you 26 want to live in. I do think it's important to recognize that we all make this 27 mistake every once in a while of thinking, "If I want something, that's the 28 best thing for everyone else." I think it's important for us to realize that 29 that's why you need diversity in the market. Not everybody wants the same 30 thing or they might not even want the same thing at every stage in their life. 31 It's important to have those options out there. That's what Palo Alto 32 currently lacks, that range of diversity in housing options. This would fill 33 that need, and that's why I'm largely supportive of the project. There's 34 been a great deal of discussion tonight and I agree that the devil's in the 35 details. If and when an application comes forward, we'll be looking very 36 closely at where the teeth are in the TDM measures in particular. 37 38 Mayor Burt: Council Member DuBois. 39 40 Council Member DuBois: I know it's late, so I'll try to brief. I see a lot of 41 people here for the next item. I too want to thank the applicant. I think it 42 was really great to see some interesting ideas. I think the thing we're 43 struggling with is how do we do innovation and marry that with experience. 44 Again, it's kind of an unproven idea. I think there are a lot of new ideas 45 TRANSCRIPT Page 44 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 here. I think we should try some of them. To me the question is which 2 ideas, to what degree, and in what location. We need to be really prepared 3 to enforce some of these limits as you've offered. I think we need to figure 4 out how we would actually do that. I do think some of the ideas were 5 maybe a little overly aggressive. Again, I'd love to see some proof points. 6 There is a question of appropriate zoning or rezoning. I really think that's 7 where we need to start. We did put PC zoning on hold. This feels like a PC 8 zone. I don't think we want to spot zone. To me this has kind of turned into 9 rather than friends with benefits, kind of a PC without benefits. We're 10 getting the PC zone without declaring a public benefit. Again, we saw this 11 about a year ago, the last time it came here. At that time, when you look at 12 the surrounding properties, there's a of basically CN zones around it. There 13 are some PCs. If go back, those were CN zones before they became PCs. At 14 least from my perspective, I thought were clear that a CN zone would fit the 15 context of the site. The PF zone does allow some interesting uses, maybe a 16 school. I think medical outpatient could be interesting with the assisted 17 living next door. To my mind, either PF or CN zone. I think we should really 18 focus on projects that fit that kind of building envelope. If we're going to 19 talk about micro units, I think we're talking about the outer size of the 20 envelope. I'd also like to point out the PAN letter, I thought, made a good 21 point about spot zoning, which creates a lot of uncertainty. Neighbors no 22 longer know what to expect. It kind of erodes trust. I think we need to be 23 careful about how we do a one-off project. This is one of the worst 24 intersections in the City, so traffic is an issue. We have yet to have a City- 25 enforceable TDM. For me, I would like to see more parking. Our 26 Transportation Element, which came to us but we didn't have time to 27 discuss, I think it said about 95 percent of the people own at least one car. 28 That may be changing, but again it's how do we do it in a way that we don't 29 overload those streets that are already over-parked. We are at the end of 30 the day being asked to significantly upzone the property to RM-100-plus or 31 whatever it is. I don't see the benefit the City gets from doing that. With 32 regards to the Staff options, I didn't really find any of the ones listed 33 particularly attractive. I would support maybe a creative proposal under a 34 CN building envelope with restrictions of 40 feet high, a 1.0 FAR. I'm not 35 really supportive of the project as it’s currently described. 36 37 Mayor Burt: Council Member Filseth. Okay. I'll make some final comments. 38 First, when we did have the commercial project for this site come to the 39 Council, we had strong Council support for a housing project. I think that 40 answers one of the questions on Council Member DuBois' concern. If it was 41 going to be commercial, we had said that we thought CN was more 42 appropriate. We gave two comments. This isn't a commercial alternative; 43 this is something that we actually, my recollection, said was our preference 44 among the two. This is a new kind of development model for our City. We 45 TRANSCRIPT Page 45 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 do have a precedent at Alma Place. It is different in that it's micro units for 2 low income workers, but it also has similarities. These types of projects 3 have been going in, in other cities. This is a future trend. One of my real 4 concerns is that, as a number of colleagues have alluded to, we have 5 actually a transformation that's occurring in transportation. We're at the 6 early stage of probably the biggest transformation in transportation in over 7 50 years. It's through a series of measures. Most of us haven't really 8 witnessed it yet, so we don't really trust it. We don't really believe in it, but 9 it's happening. We just had last Friday Ford Motor Company announce two 10 acquisitions, a bike share program and a shared shuttle system. Ford Motor 11 Company says they're not any longer basically purely a car company. 12 They're a mobility company. They are looking at autonomous shared 13 vehicles, shared bikes. They're going into electric bikes. This is Ford. If 14 we're skeptical about these changes because we really haven't seen all these 15 happen yet, that's understandable. We have to do a better job as a City to 16 be able to demonstrate where these things are headed and help our 17 community believe that they're real. The good thing about this project is it's 18 not being proposed on faith. These measures on the Transportation Demand 19 Management programs and the prospective deed restrictions, which are 20 about vicinity of where you may work for a certain percentage of 21 employees—I heard about a preference for City employees. These are not 22 discriminatory in the ways that we prohibit. My understanding is they're not 23 for all units. It's for a certain percentage of the units. You put all those 24 things together and the mandates on the Transportation Demand 25 Management program, and what we actually get is something that not only 26 helps incentivize the right sort of more obtainable housing but it reduces the 27 traffic impacts. When one of my colleagues says that they see a traffic 28 problem at this intersection and what they'd like to see is more parking on 29 the project, that necessarily means higher traffic from this project if we have 30 more parking and less in these TDM measures that reduce the trips. It was 31 pointed out that Caltrain is moving forward with their $2 billion 32 electrification, which is scheduled to come online in 2020, 2011. That's not 33 very far apart. That will be transformative for the Cal. Ave. station. Right 34 now, the Cal. Ave. station has bad service and infrequent service. The 35 entire Caltrain system will go up, more than double in its capacity. Cal. Ave. 36 will have about triple or more the number of train stops. The whole system 37 will operate more efficiently and be more attractive. That's a backbone 38 system for our transportation. It's not the totality; we have all of the other 39 elements that are occurring in what we're going to see in transportation in 40 the coming years. Council Member Holman talked about concern about air 41 pollution at this location. We've already addressed and we see the trends 42 that the conversion to clean, electric vehicles powered by 100 percent 43 carbon free energy in Palo Alto is not 20 years away. We're having large- 44 scale changes in that right now, that are escalating each year. These 45 TRANSCRIPT Page 46 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 changes are happening much faster than many of us have realized. I also 2 just want to have us step back in this context of whether we're warehousing. 3 We do have locations like our grand President Hotel in Downtown Palo Alto. 4 That's a very high-density, small-unit development that's been there for 5 what, 80-plus years, 90 years? I'm not sure what the date is of that. It 6 shows that it's not a strange new concept that we would allow smaller units 7 responding to people who want small units. These developers aren't fools. 8 They are not offering to develop units at this size without a strong belief that 9 there is demand for those units. When they say that they are willing to 10 accept the restrictions that they described, that's because they are 11 convinced, that they are willing to put their money on the table, millions of 12 dollars, that they have demand from tenants who, a certain percentage of 13 them, are not going to want to own a car. They're going to own the 14 consequences of something like that. I do think this is a challenge for 15 whether we as a Council and as a community can be forward looking and 16 actually recognize that there are changes occurring and not all of them are 17 bad. Some of them are really progressive in what's happening in 18 transportation. I don't think this is a great site for retail. I do believe that 19 design and quality of construction is very important. When we look at this in 20 the context, the surrounding buildings are comparable in scale to what this 21 is. This one has to be of a high quality design. We'll have that go through 22 our process. I think that's critical. I think that all of these considerations in 23 aggregate make us say that this project responds to not only what we asked 24 for when we had an office proposal here, but it's also what we've been 25 talking about as a new model that we wanted to look at for our Downtown 26 areas and perhaps some areas along El Camino. We can sit in this 27 unproductive pattern of saying we won't allow projects like this because we 28 don't have any examples of projects like this being successful in our 29 community. How does that pattern ever get broken? I think that it's 30 reasonable even though this is not a project that's being proposed based on 31 faith that these elements will work, but its binding agreements. I still think 32 it's going to be important for the community to see how these work 33 successfully as we look at zoning patterns to do things like this more 34 broadly. I think we have to figure out a way to go forward, whether this 35 comes back as Staff recommended as a pilot project in the PF zone or 36 whether it gets discussed. In parallel the Citizens Committee on the Comp 37 Plan begins to formulate the sorts of programs that would put this kind of 38 zoning in certain places in the City where we have walkable, services and a 39 whole series of transit offerings. Remember this is on El Camino where our 40 VTA 522 and 22 bus systems pass minutes apart. It is a widely used bus 41 system within a short distance of Caltrain, with the Marguerite system going 42 up to the Research Park. We who live in neighborhoods don't necessarily 43 realize how well served this is by transit. We project these things and we 44 say things frankly somewhat out of ignorance sometimes, because we just 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 aren't aware of how well served this particular area is even today on transit. 2 I want to see a project come with these aggressive Transportation Demand 3 Management programs, that it have strong monitoring, strong enforcement 4 and strong consequences if they aren't achieved, and then whether we have 5 the sort of success that would be designed into this. I frankly think that the 6 developers are proposing to put their money where their mouth is, that 7 they'll own the consequences of this. I look forward to seeing this refined. I 8 think there's a lot of work still to be done to flesh out details. This is not 9 just a blind blanket support; it's a prescreening that gives a sense of 10 direction. I think the applicants have heard a mixture of comments from the 11 Council. They'll have their challenges before them to address those 12 concerns. I think that concludes this item. Thank you all very much for 13 participating. This will go through—if the applicants elect to go forward with 14 an actual project, it'll go through our entire consideration process, through 15 the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review 16 Board. This is only a first step. Thank you. Why don't we take a quick 17 break at this time. 18 19 Council took a break from 9:02 P.M. to 9:07 P.M. 20 21 22 MEMORANDUM To: Claire Hodgkins - Associate Planner, City of Palo Alto From: Tod Spieker - Windy Hill Property Ventures Date: June 6, 2017 RE: 2755 El Camino Real - Transportation Demand Measures (TDM) We are currently preparing a comprehensive TDM plan for our proposed residential development at 2755 El Camino Real. As we continue to refine the plan, we are finding that we are able affect a substantial reduction in vehicle trips and parking demand with the implementation of the measures listed below. These measures will be integrated into the project and take advantage of the nearby amenities (retail and restaurant uses), employment centers and the extensive transportation network in the area, including Caltrain, VTA bus service, employment center shuttles and bicycle facilities. The project includes the following measures: • Caltrain Go Pass - Provide unlimited Caltrain rides for all residents. • VTA EcoPass - Provide unlimited VTA bus rides for all residents. • Reduced Parking Supply – A parking supply that meets the parking demand of the tenants without providing excess parking that encourages vehicle ownership and additional vehicle trips. • Unbundled Parking - Pricing separately for all parking makes the rent more affordable to those who do not want a car while placing a premium on those who want guaranteed parking in a transit-oriented environment. • Bicycle Parking – The project includes secure and easily accessible bicycle parking • Bicycle Kitchen – A workspace provided for tenants to repair their bicycles. • Carpool Ride-Matching Services- Tenant ride-matching services allows residents to easily be paired with potential carpool partners. • Information Boards/Kiosks - TDM information boards, kiosk, and hotline/online access to transportation information and coordinators. • Promotional Programs - Promotion and organization of events for the following programs: new tenant orientation packets on transportation alternatives; flyers, posters, brochures, and emails on commute alternatives; transportation fairs; Bike to Work Day, Spare the Air; Rideshare Week; trip planning assistance routes and maps. • On-site Transportation Coordinator - On-site property management staff will provide a welcome package for new tenants, distribute Go Passes and other memberships, and additional information. September 12 Agenda Item 2 Concerns Regarding the 2755 El Camino Real Proposal September 8, 2016 Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager Keene, and Director of Planning and Community Environment Gitelman: We are concerned by many issues surrounding the proposed project at 2755 El Camino Real and hope you’ll discuss these at your study session on Monday. Specifically: Zoning Issues The project calls for “Another Zoning District” because Palo Alto has no zoning designation that allows such density. Putting 60 housing units on the 19,563 square foot site works out to approximately 134 units per acre. Given that 40 units per acre is our maximum in general, this would more than triple that and thus create an extraordinary change in Palo Alto zoning practice. Because this proposal requires upzoning and spot zoning, it is basically PC zoning under a different plan. At least with PC zoning, you know precisely what you are getting. With this invent- a-zone approach, you don't. RM-40 has a maximum FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 1.0. This project is proposing double that. RM-40 projects require 50 square feet of private open space per unit. Yet the plans do not show such space for all units. Will the owners be able to apply for the state density bonuses as well, creating an even denser, under-parked configuration? What will rents be for these units? The premise is that micro-units will create lower-cost housing, but what guarantee does the city have once it approves a zone change? No pro-forma financial information accompanies the proposal. Parking/Traffic Issues The building is massively under-parked. Assuming the higher cited requirement of 102 parking spaces, the proposal would likely put 57 (102 minus 45) cars into an already crowded neighborhood. That is unacceptable. The staff report mentions parking reductions might be possible via a TDM, but does not explain how that makes sense. Consider that: o No independent study has ever shown a TDM in Palo Alto works. o Palo Alto has no enforcement of TDMs. o A study of residents of Palo Alto Central, which is even nearer to the train, shows that 85% still commute by car. o TDMs offer shuttles, GoPasses, bikes, and such to encourage people not to commute by car but do not try to reduce car ownership. Given that the proposed building is massively underparked, a successful TDM for its residents would mean that more of their cars would not be used to commute but instead remain in neighborhood parking spaces during workdays. Why should that merit a parking requirement reduction? It instead would be a parking disaster. Director of Planning and Community Environment Gitelman has acknowledged that increasing housing creates more traffic. Why put more traffic at such a busy intersection? Public Trust This kind of up/spot zoning means neighbors can no longer know what will be next to them. That’s unfair and not good planning. Spot zoning harms the city as a whole. When a developer and a bare majority of councilmembers can rezone a property to be worth millions of dollars more, confidence in our city government erodes. Many are skeptical of the practice of rezoning for one use and then substituting another, such as the Ming's Restaurant site that was rezoned for a hotel but was then changed to a Mercedes dealership. This project is NOT really about micro-units. They’re already allowed in RM-40 zoning and mixed-use projects, as well as ADUs. Ultimately, it's about under-parked residences and allowing residential buildings to exceed 1.0 FAR. We urge you to ask the owners to consider alternatives that retain the current zoning, which provides them a number of ways to create investment value. Thank you. Signed, PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) Steering Committee PAN Housing Committee PAN Zoning Committee whose members include: Sheri Furman, PAN Co-Chair Rebecca Sanders, PAN Co-Chair Norman Beamer Annette Glanckopf Jeff Levinsky Roger Petersen Doria Summa 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 Page Mill Project - Right Direction - Not There Yet From: Hamilton Hitchings [mailto:hitchingsh@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:26 AM To: Council, City Cc: Lydia Kou; Keller, Arthur; Gitelman, Hillary; Costello, Elaine; Lee, Elena; Daniel Garber Subject: 2755 Page Mill Project - Right Direction - Not There Yet Dear City Council, You will be giving feedback on 2755 Page Mill Project Monday night. In the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Comp Plan and on the Land Use Subcommittee on which I also serve, we have talked about this type of project extensively, however, my comments below are my own and are not on behalf of nor represent either committee. This project is site appropriate and within walking distance of Stanford Research Park and Cal Ave. It is adjacent to other apartment buildings. Thus I support the design direction the project is taking and recommend modifications to the project. Specifically, the developer will get a large financial windfall by having the site upzoned thus it is incumbent upon the council to make sure it contributes sufficiently to the community. My recommendations are basically reduce the number of units and increase the parking. Note, these units will be expensive since, for example at Carmel The Village in San Antonio Shopping Center studio and one bedroom apartments that are 674+ square feet are renting for between $3000 and $6000 https://mycarmelthevillagecalifornia.prospectportal.com/Apartments/module/property_info/ Note, the Page Mill / El Camino intersection is already at Level of Service D and parking around Cal Ave is seriously under parked. My specific recommendations are: * Require 25% below market housing. Since the demand far outstrips the price of building, there is still a healthy profit to be made. * Consider requiring some of the units to be for developmentally disabled (this will help an underserved population while reducing parking demand) * Do not require ground floor retail. El Camino already has plenty. * Limit the height to 40 feet (it's currently 50 feet). This will help reduce the parking shortfall and traffic pressure. * Make the units slightly bigger 600 - 700 square feet. This will also reduce the parking shortfall and traffic pressure, while not cutting into developer margins. * Add to the deed that apartments occupants cannot have more cars registered than spots (but be realistic that this will not be enforced by the owner) * Require significant extra guest parking as part of the exchange for upzoning and monitor whether those spots are used at night, which will indicate whether parking "light" really works * Ensure no delivery temporary parking occurs on either Page Mill or El Camino 2 * Have the developer contribute to the TDM under the existing program to help reduce spots * Don't allow an entrance from Page Mill to the garage as that intersection is already a LOS D * Ensure bike lockers and bike parking (not currently in the plan) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Thursday, September 15, 2016 7:49 PM To:Council, City Cc:letters@paweekly.com; tod@windyhillpv.com City Council members: Public Facility. The most important aspect of the former VTA property is its designation as "public facility." I think that calls for more than the usual public benefit which is understood to be only a fringe benefit, with the main purpose of development to 1)turn a good profit for the developer and 2) raise the value of Palo Alto property. I would suggest that the applicant is thinking in the right direction, but there needs, in this case, to be more benefit. I would suggest the entire first floor be dedicated to such community uses as child care, senior day care, senior nutrition program (a federally subsidized lunch for seniors costing, nominally, two or three dollars a meal but available at no charge to those who cannot pay. Locally, it's at Avenidas, Stevenson House, MV Senior Center), the Betty Wright therapeutic swim center---Senior directed programs might be particularly suitable because the location is ideal for senior micro housing, since it is on the 22/522 bus line, the longest and most frequent line in the VTA system, and seniors constitute the largest segment of non- drivers, and it seems a pity to waste the site on people who need or prefer to drive cars anyway. There need not be a preference for low income seniors, because they are already at the head of the line for low-income housing. Sherwood apartments opened its waiting list for the first time in years and people were waiting in line days ahead of the opening, but there might be others who are willing to forego automobile transportation, which is a considerable sacrifice, especially in the rain, and they need not be excluded. IS propose that unlimited storage space occupy the basement, and that the luxury of storing many possessions rent for twice as much per square foot as the rental for lodging persons. Note that it is the widowed , divorced ore single retirees who are the low low income; while the couples automatically have twice as much income. The better off could, therefore, rent two 200 square foot apartments instead of one, if they wished, or not. It's essential that everybody recognize that a 200 square foot "apartment" will be overwhelmingly tenanted by one person only and not contribute to the ill effects of density, whereas a six to eight hundred square foot apartment, two bedrooms, bathroom, full kitchen and living room, will house a whole family--three or four people. Although each dwelling would have its own refrigerator,microwave and sink, a communal kitchen would serve the needs for the residents' larger festive or family dinners. \ Balconies To preserve the FAR which is the foundation of Palo Alto's reputation of a beautiful, not too crowded city, every single unit should be an outside unit, with an entire room as an open, gardened balcony. There would be a garden maintenance person to see that the gardens were kept up. The model for this is the 50 year old building at 101 Alma, in which both the side facing the Bay and the side facing Stanford have eight foot wide balconies along their entire length., which works out to 80 square feet, an entire outdoor room. Rent Control 2 It is time to extend the protection of Prop 13 to renters, and this land, zoned "public facility" is a perfect place to begin. The City Council has it within its power to raise the height limit so that a larger number of low income units would still turn a respectable profit. I propose that someone like Councilman Schmidt cost out the number of units at, say, $00. a month, would produce a return on investment of one percent over current treasury bonds,, and that the rent be increased by one percent a year. Stephanie Munoz 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Patama Gur <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: patamaroj@gmail.com <Patama Gur> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Patama Gur 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Robert Taylor <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: rob.k.taylor@gmail.com <Robert Taylor> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Robert Taylor 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Frank Dellaert <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: dellaert@gmail.com <Frank Dellaert> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Frank Dellaert 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sarit Schube <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: saritschube@gmail.com <Sarit Schube> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sarit Schube 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Scott Feeney <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: scott@oceanbase.org <Scott Feeney> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Scott Feeney 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Justine Burt <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: justineburt@alumni.tufts.edu <Justine Burt> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Justine Burt 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Michael Cutchin <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mcutchin@gmail.com <Michael Cutchin> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Michael Cutchin 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jen Pleasants <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jen@showthelove.com <Jen Pleasants> Message: thank you for considering helping make our community a healthier and happier place Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jen Pleasants 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Karen Schlesser <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: k_schlesser@yahoo.com <Karen Schlesser> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Karen Schlesser 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mike Greenfield <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mike@mikegreenfield.com <Mike Greenfield> Message: After 50+ years with virtually no new housing, we need this and lots more like it -- please! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mike Greenfield 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Tim Nguyen <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: timmynguyen1@gmail.com <Tim Nguyen> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Tim Nguyen 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Tricia Herrick <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: tbtextra@gmail.com <Tricia Herrick> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Tricia Herrick 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Anna Tchetchetkine <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: anya.tche@gmail.com <Anna Tchetchetkine> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Anna Tchetchetkine 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeff Rensch <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jrensch@gmail.com <Jeff Rensch> Message: With only 45 parking spaces, it will also be important to provide strong incentives not to own a car. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeff Rensch 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Huey Kwik <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: huey.kwik@gmail.com <Huey Kwik> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Huey Kwik 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sam Corbett Davies <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: samcorbettdavies@gmail.com <Sam Corbett Davies> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sam Corbett Davies 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mila Zelkha <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mila.zelkha@gmail.com <Mila Zelkha> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mila Zelkha 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Elizabeth Lasky <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: laskyea@gmail.com <Elizabeth Lasky> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Elizabeth Lasky 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Maelig Morvan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: melig@chez.com <Maelig Morvan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Maelig Morvan 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: Diego Aguilar Canabal [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:07 PM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: d.aguilarcanabal@gmail.com <Diego Aguilar Canabal> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Diego Aguilar Canabal 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Developing the VTA site: No more underparked developments ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Cheryl Lilienstein [mailto:clilienstein@me.com] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 8:01 AM To: Council, City Subject: Developing the VTA site: No more underparked developments Dear Councilmembers, Possibly this information will be useful to you in responding to the proposal regarding the VTA lot. Recently my nephew disclosed he had looked at micro units in SF, and I asked him to describe his experience. Here is what he reported. The unit he was offered cost $2600/month and had 250 square feet, and shared a kitchen with 6 other inhabitants. It was in SOMA, within two or three blocks of bus lines, CalTrain, Bart, Trader Joe and Whole Foods. The building provided no parking. Renters with cars were told they could rent a spot in an uncovered lot several blocks away for $620/month. The agent told my nephew that most people lived there less than one year, and the vacancy rate was 10%. So: $2600 + $620 = $3220 for a 250 square foot apartment in SF. And: how is something like this going to do anything to make housing affordable? Some of you still insist “the market” will correct itself if you provide more housing, but where is the evidence to support this? Does paying $2600 plus $620 (for 250 square feet of shared space plus remote uncovered parking) match your idea of affordable? The proposal before you is for 60 units, with 45 parking spaces. Unlike transit‐rich San Francisco we have no other “lots” to offer parking except neighborhood streets… You already know that people have cars, use them, and park them in neighborhoods when no other parking is available, and that those neighborhoods impacted no longer feel like neighborhoods. Please don’t allow this! What is likely is that since housing is so expensive people will simply pack in together, and the people in 60 units will have MANY more cars than anticipated. Allowing under‐parking in a community that has inadequate transit is a gift to the developers and adversely affects the entire community, ESPECIALLY in that intersection. A better use might be an extension of Sunrise or another assisted living facility, in which the inhabitants don’t need transit, the bustle in and out is minimal, and (I assume) employees have adequate parking. There’s no question that there is a need for senior facilities in our area. Conversely, it would have a negative impact on every commuter and all residents in our community if this developer is allowed to underpark a high density development RIGHT ON an already terrible intersection. This is the wrong location to test that particular (and in my view wrong headed) experiment. One more thing to consider: Whatever happened to that toxic plume beneath the lot? And who would be liable if the city allowed the developer to unearth it and the adjacent inhabitants were affected? Thank you for your service, 2 Cheryl Lilienstein 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: Marcello Golfieri [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:07 AM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: golfieri@gmail.com <Marcello Golfieri> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Marcello Golfieri 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Patricia Saffir <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: opsaffir@mymailstation.com <Patricia Saffir> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Patricia Saffir 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:John Clark <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jclark4@gmail.com <John Clark> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. John Clark 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Anne Lumerman <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: anne.lumerman@gamil.com <Anne Lumerman > Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Anne Lumerman 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Stephen Reller <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: sreller@randmproperties.com <Stephen Reller> Message: The only thing wrong with this project is the height - it should be 100' tall and 120 units. Do the right thing and approve this (and do not let the very vocal few misrepresent the majority of PA citizens.) Thank you Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Stephen Reller 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Debin Ji <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: debinji1983@gmail.com <Debin Ji> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Debin Ji 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Tom Arnold <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: tomarnold@gmail.com <Tom Arnold> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Tom Arnold 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Christopher Colohan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: paloaltoforward@colohan.com <Christopher Colohan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Christopher Colohan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Kevin Watts <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: kevinwwatts@gmail.com <Kevin Watts> Message: As a Palo Alto resident, these homes would help reduce traffic by creating housing near existing jobs. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Kevin Watts 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Dave Ashton <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: aashton@gmail.com <Dave Ashton> Message: We need housing near employment centers!!!!! And this is so close to the California Ave Caltain Station, a resident could walk. What a great project! More housing near transit and employment PLEASE. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Dave Ashton 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Charles Salmon <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: cssalmon@gmail.com <Charles Salmon> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Charles Salmon 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Isaac Rosenberg <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: irosenb7@gmail.com <Isaac Rosenberg> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Isaac Rosenberg 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Amy Sung <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: amyconnect@gmail.com <Amy Sung> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Amy Sung 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Steve Pierce <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: pierce@zanemac.com <Steve Pierce> Message: We are in a housing hole and need to work our way out at every opportunity. Diversity of housing types is a must. Reduced parking is appropriate for the Uber generation, particularly when proximate to Caltrain and VTA. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Steve Pierce 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jan Skotheim <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: skotheim@stanford.edu <Jan Skotheim> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jan Skotheim 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Evan Goldin <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: evan.goldin@gmail.com <Evan Goldin> Message: As a Palo Alto native, I'm a strong believer that we need more housing to make Palo Alto affordable again to my friends, coworkers and neighbors. Please support this development. Even though it's too late to save the Zebra Copy across the street, it's not too late to make that parking lot into homes for future residents! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Evan Goldin 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Heidi Stein <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: heidih.stein@gmail.com <Heidi Stein> Message: I will need to hear more about this specific project, but in general this is the kind of housing project I support. More density, more affordable - the opposite of what happened on Maybell! Heidi Stein Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Heidi Stein 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Rebecca Geraldi <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:24 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: winterskeeper@yahoo.com <Rebecca Geraldi> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Rebecca Geraldi 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Francis Viggiano <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: fpviggiano@gmail.com <Francis Viggiano> Message: Please help assure our children and grandchildren will have reasonable housing options in this area by approving this project. We are on the cusp of a transition to shared, self-driving cars, so there will be decreased need for parking in the near future. Let's lead the way into the future. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Francis Viggiano 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ed Wu <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:07 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: yiranwu@gmail.com <Ed Wu> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ed Wu 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Shelley Ratay <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: shelleyratay@gmail.com <Shelley Ratay> Message: Thank you for considering this important project in our community! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Shelley Ratay 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Lisa Forssell <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: lisa.forssell@gmail.com <Lisa Forssell> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Lisa Forssell 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Owen Byrd <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: owenbyrd@gmail.com <Owen Byrd> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Owen Byrd 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Nicole Lederer <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: nicole@nicolelederer.com <Nicole Lederer> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Nicole Lederer 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jan Rubens <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: rubens.jan@gmail.com <Jan Rubens> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jan Rubens 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ellen Cassidy <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ellenwcassidy@gmail.com <Ellen Cassidy> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ellen Cassidy 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sara Woodham <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: sawoodham@gmail.com <Sara Woodham> Message: Are you up we need more affordable housing in Palo Alto. In fact we just need more housing in general. Please approve increasing our inventory. This is close to public transportation which makes it ideal for individuals working in Palo Alto Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sara Woodham 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Marc Grinberg <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: marcgrinberg@gmail.com <Marc Grinberg> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Marc Grinberg 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Paul Feng <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: paulfeng@gmail.com <Paul Feng> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Paul Feng 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Margaret Rushing <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: margaret.rushing@gmail.com <Margaret Rushing> Message: I'm in favor of starting with 60 new affordable housing units and hoping that more will be added. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Margaret Rushing 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Bryan Culbertson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: bryan.culbertson@gmail.com <Bryan Culbertson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Bryan Culbertson 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Steve Levy <slevy@ccsce.com> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:17 AM To:Council, City Subject:Windy Hill Proposal I am pleased to see that Windy Hill has responded to the council's desire for housing on the Page Mill/ECR site. I am sure both tonight and going forward there will be lots of details to discuss. I am encouraged that the proposal meets many of the Housing Element goals especially those in favor of adding smaller units like the studios and one‐bedroom apartments proposed. The site also is close to everyday services and shopping and will support these activities in the California Avenue area, which I know is a council and resident priority. The project will be a test of the market for smaller well‐located housing in Palo Alto. The rents will be above what low‐ income families as all non subsidized housing on the peninsula is but the rents will welcome many individuals who can in now way afford median home prices here. So the project will expand supply and expand opportunities. I support the kind of housing being proposed and I hope the council and Windy Hill can develop a final proposal that does not raise costs and rents. Stephen Levy 365 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Hannah Illathu <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:12 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: illathu.hannah@gmail.com <Hannah Illathu> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Hannah Illathu 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeralyn Moran <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jeralyn.moran@gmail.com <Jeralyn Moran> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeralyn Moran 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:John Sack <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:02 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: sack@stanford.edu <John Sack> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. John Sack 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Manu Sridharan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: msridhar@gmail.com <Manu Sridharan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Manu Sridharan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ilana Cohen <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ieydus@gmail.com <Ilana Cohen> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ilana Cohen 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Patricia Mc Brayer <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 2:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: patricia@pmarchitect.net <Patricia Mc Brayer> Message: We must address the housing crisis in Palo Alto and the Peninsula at large immediately if we are to remain sustainable as a community for the long term. The proposed project provides a much needed diversity of housing type on a transit and work friendly site. Please move forward with the approvals process, allowing a zoning change and micro-housing overlay. As part of the approvals process, I urge you to require the developer to address affordability in a meaningful way by limiting rental rates and/or purchase price on a specified number of units to 50% of market rate, with priority given to people with residency in the Bay Area of 3 years or more making 50% or less than median income. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Patricia Mc Brayer 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Elaine Uang <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 2:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: elaine.uang@gmail.com <Elaine Uang> Message: 60 homes alone can't solve the regional housing crisis, but this is a good start to think about new ways to provide housing in the right places. While I hope some preference is given to city employees, teachers, nurses, or local workers, even market rate studios and 1-bdrms fill a need in our community and help relieve (somewhat) the competition for smaller affordable units. I hope you can work together with the applicant, community and staff to rezone this parcel and implement the right regulatory frameworks that will encourage more smaller unit projects like this proposal in service and transit rich areas such as Cal Ave and Downtown. Thank you for your attention to this project. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Elaine Uang 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Elliot Margolies <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 2:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: elliotspark@yahoo.com <Elliot Margolies> Message: We have so much work to do to catch up with 3 decades of a lopsided jobs-housing ratio and the resulting unaffordability of our community. I appreciate your leadership in this arena. Elliot Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Elliot Margolies 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Snow Zhu <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: snowxzhu@berkeley.edu <Snow Zhu> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Snow Zhu 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Molly W <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: meleleshopping@gmail.com <Molly W> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Molly W 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Daniel Walker <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: dan.walker1@gmail.com <Daniel Walker> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Daniel Walker 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Randy Popp <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: randy@rp-arch.com <Randy Popp> Message: This is the right time to consider changing the status quo for housing and parking requirements. Please approve this project without delay. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Randy Popp 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Liat Zavodivker <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: lzavod@gmail.com <Liat Zavodivker> Message: Build housing for the improvement of the environment! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Liat Zavodivker 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Naphtali Knox <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: knoxnaph@gmail.com <Naphtali Knox> Message: If not here, where? If not now, when? Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Naphtali Knox 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeremy Hoffman <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: hoffmanj@gmail.com <Jeremy Hoffman> Message: I used to live in the apartment complex that overlooked that empty parking lot. It'll be lovely to replace that lot with a useful building. And it's a great location for housing, being walking distance to the Cal Ave downtown and farmers market, the Caltrain stop, and being right next to the bus stop. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeremy Hoffman 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sarah Bell <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: bell.sarah@gmail.com <Sarah Bell> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sarah Bell 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jessica Youseffi <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jyouseffi@gmail.com <Jessica Youseffi> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jessica Youseffi 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Barb Swenson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: swenson.barb@gmail.com <Barb Swenson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Barb Swenson 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Kyle Barrett <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: kylembarrett@gmail.com <Kyle Barrett> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Kyle Barrett 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Nancy Olson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: nso2431@icloud.com <Nancy Olson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Nancy Olson 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jessica Clark <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jermsica@comcast.net <Jessica Clark > Message: I support this but would also like to see some BMR's worked into this project. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jessica Clark 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Andrew Boone <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: nauboone@gmail.com <Andrew Boone> Message: Dear Palo Alto City Council, More affordable housing near high-quality transit is key to creating a sustainable and equitable community. That's why I support the 60-unit Windy Hill apartments at 2755 El Camino Real. Higher-density housing and fewer car parking spaces are a common sense solution to providing more residents access to transit and good bicycling and walking opportunities. Vote YES for more homes for people! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Andrew Boone 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Fred Glick <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: fred@fredglick.com <Fred Glick> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Fred Glick 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ellen Uhrbrock <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ellen.uhrbrock@gmail.com <Ellen Uhrbrock> Message: Instead of stopping them at the drawing board - encourage competition with a significant prize awarded the architect including a green light to build immediately, subject only to Council's and neighborhood's approval. Do not give city employees, or teachers priority - Give financial priority only to car less renters and owners. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ellen Uhrbrock 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jerry Schwarz <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jerry@acm.org <Jerry Schwarz> Message: There may be objection to the height of the building My own feeling about height is well known. Tall buildings can be attractive. And I like them. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jerry Schwarz 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Gary Fine <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: gary@finepoquet.com <Gary Fine> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Gary Fine 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Melody Baumgartner <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: melodybaumgartner@gmail.com <Melody Baumgartner> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Melody Baumgartner 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Neil Shea <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: neilshea@yahoo.com <Neil Shea> Message: Need to maximize centralized locations like this -- and make a dent in our housing/cost crisis Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Neil Shea 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jane Uyvova <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jane.uyvova@gmail.com <Jane Uyvova> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jane Uyvova 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Omar Diab <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 4:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: me@omardiab.com <Omar Diab> Message: The entire Sam Francisco Bay Area needs more housing and Palo Alto is ground zero of this crisis. This project must be built! It is in a prime transit corridor and just makes so much sense. Please construct it! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Omar Diab 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Amy Kiefer <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: amy.kiefer@gmail.com <Amy Kiefer> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Amy Kiefer 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ozzie Fallick <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ozzie.fallick@gmail.com <Ozzie Fallick> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ozzie Fallick 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Aleks Totic <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: a@totic.org <Aleks Totic> Message: Studios and one bedrooms would be a nice addition to PA. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Aleks Totic 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Erhyu Yuan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: erhyoohoo@yahoo.com <Erhyu Yuan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Erhyu Yuan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Lauren Winslow <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: lauren.winslow@gmail.com <Lauren Winslow> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Lauren Winslow 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Maristela Cardoso <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: marismach@yahoo.com <Maristela Cardoso> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Maristela Cardoso 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Keva Dine <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: kmdine@gmail.com <Keva Dine> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Keva Dine 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Adriana Eberle <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: liederseberle@gmail.com <Adriana Eberle> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Adriana Eberle 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Edward Hillard <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: edhillard@gmail.com <Edward Hillard> Message: It is still painful to me that some sixty units of affordable housing for seniors were eliminated due to the political pressure of the Baron Park community. I believe we should be building multi-unit housing wherever possible in Palo Alto. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Edward Hillard 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Adriana Eberle <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: liederseberle@gmail.com <Adriana Eberle> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Adriana Eberle 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Steve Eittreim <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: eitteeimcs@gmail.com <Steve Eittreim> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Steve Eittreim 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mike Buchanan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mike.r.buchanan@gmail.com <Mike Buchanan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mike Buchanan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Matt Austern <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: austern@gmail.com <Matt Austern> Message: We need more housing construction in Palo Alto to address the housing affordability crisis. There's no better place to build housing in the city than right next to a public transportation hub. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Matt Austern 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Rohun Jauhar <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jauharro@gmail.com <Rohun Jauhar> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Rohun Jauhar 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Gail Price <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: gail.price3@gmail.com <Gail Price > Message: We should take every opportunity possible to expand housing options throughout our community. Close to transit and the California corridor enhances the location ! More complexes like this are needed to make support our S-CAP plan. Frankly, one of the problems is simple: supply of housing vs. demand for housing. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Gail Price 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ciera Jaspan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ciera.christopher@gmail.com <Ciera Jaspan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ciera Jaspan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Laura Fingal Surma <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 5:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: laura.surma@gmail.com <Laura Fingal Surma> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Laura Fingal Surma 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jane Huang <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 5:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jane.x.huang@gmail.com <Jane Huang> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jane Huang 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Becky Richardson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 5:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: becky.richardson@gmail.com <Becky Richardson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Becky Richardson 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jared Bernstein <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jared@erosenfeld.com <Jared Bernstein> Message: I would have written something a bit shorter. But the message is: I support dense housing at PageMill & El Camino. /Jared Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jared Bernstein 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Kim Butts Pauly Ph.D. <kbpauly@stanford.edu> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page I read with great interest the story about the small housing units for El Camino and Page Mill. I wanted to bring to your attention that there is another group of people for whom small apartments and only bike parking would be perfect - the hundreds of postdoctoral fellows working at Stanford. As it is, they contribute to the hundreds of commute trips through Palo Alto to housing around the peninsula. These are people with advanced degrees, but little pay. This type of housing would fill a huge need and reduce commute trips. Thank you, -Kim ********************************** Kim Butts Pauly, Ph.D. Professor of Radiology 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Susie Hwang <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: shwang@me.com <Susie Hwang > Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Susie Hwang 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: Anita Lusebrink [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 2:50 PM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: anita@satakenursery.com <Anita Lusebrink> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Anita Lusebrink 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Erika Conley <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: erikaconley@gmail.com <Erika Conley> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Erika Conley 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Bette Kiernan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: betteuk@aol.com <Bette Kiernan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Bette Kiernan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Judy Adams <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:16 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: judyblueeyes1@gmail.com <Judy Adams> Message: In addition to including "affordable units" (below market rate), the project needs low-income units, probably the studio size. The use of the term affordable is not really accessible to low-income residents and there needs to be an element of truly low-income in ALL Palo Alto and all peninsula housing elements to serve community needs. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Judy Adams 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Karen Penstock <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Thursday, September 15, 2016 4:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: karenpenstock@yahoo.com <Karen Penstock> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Karen Penstock 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mark Kennedy <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2016 4:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mdavkennedy@gmail.com <Mark Kennedy> Message: You need to do this. If you do not, then you are the problem. MDK Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mark Kennedy 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeffrey Salzman <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Thursday, September 15, 2016 6:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jsalzman3@gmail.com <Jeffrey Salzman> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeffrey Salzman 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: Darryl Fenwick [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 9:08 AM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: fenwickdh@yahoo.com <Darryl Fenwick> Message: In a time when everyone is complaining about lack of affordable housing, it would be a poor decision to not back this project! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Darryl Fenwick Description for Small-Unit Housing Project 2755 El Camino Real Windy Hill Property Ventures is proposing a 60-unit multifamily building on the vacant lot at 2755 El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Windy Hill formally applied for a Major Architectural Review and Zoning Code Text Amendment and associated environmental analysis on December 22, 2016. This corner site formerly served as a Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Park and Ride lot until use declined and it was sold to the Pollack Financial Group in 2013. The current Public Facility (PF) zoning is specific to the nature of the former VTA property and is not reflective of other, more desirable, land uses for this prominent site. This unique, and much needed, small-unit housing proposal was considered at a September 12, 2016 City Council pre- screening meeting and was generally supported. Project Background and History The site is currently zoned PF, which is typically applied to government owned sites including the VTA, the City of Palo Alto, PAUSD, Caltrans, and other public entities. Religious and private education institutions are also found in PF zoning districts. As a VTA Park and Ride facility, the PF zoning and use were aligned. In 2012-13, the VTA declared the site surplus and initiated the sales process which included offering first rights of refusal to a host of public agencies, including the City of Palo Alto. Since no public agency expressed interest in purchasing the site, it was offered to the public and was sold to Pollock Financial Group in 2013. Pollack subsequently applied for a 45,000-square foot office project which was reviewed by the City Council at a 2013 pre-screening study session for Planned Community (PC) zoning. The Council then moved to suspend any further PC zoning applications pending further staff study and legislation. A subsequent Commercial Community (CC) mixed-use project was reviewed at a City Council pre-screening meeting in 2015. That was also not well received and was considered inappropriate for the site. At these earlier meetings, there was support expressed to allow this property to be developed exclusively with multi-family housing. A Councilmember also expressed support for a denser small-unit project with alternative transportation opportunities and minimal parking provided. In early 2016, Windy Hill went into contract to purchase the property from Pollock to develop apartment housing. Project Details and Design Concept: Windy Hill is proposing a 50-foot tall, four story building totaling 41,088 net square feet. The building will be Type 5 Wood construction over a semi-subterranean Type 1 concrete garage. The building will have 60 units in total - 31 studios units and 29 one bedroom/one bath units. The average unit size will be +/- 600 square feet. The building will have 65 parking stalls and 70 Class 1 bike parking stalls. The project is located at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, which has significant visibility at a major intersection within Palo Alto. Because of the location, providing enhanced bicycle facilities on site and making it a statement, the main entrance and bike storage, repair and social center were placed at grade at the corner of the intersection. From this central hub, there are residential units lining El Camino Real and Page Mill, with the majority of first level units placed at four feet above grade and some at grade. Most units are provided with private patios. On the back side of the project there is a private courtyard for the residents which includes an outdoor kitchen with BBQ for outdoor recreation. There is also a small exercise area for dogs. The architecture is designed to be compatible and in context with the projects immediately adjacent to the site and takes many cues from their massing, building articulation and height and is complimentary in style. The project also takes on historic references with brick and plaster as the major fields of material, but looks to detail the smaller elements with a more sophisticated solution. The colors of the building are much more neutral and draw from the changing colors of the hills which is a pleasant back drop to Palo Alto. The preproposal contemplates a LEED Silver equivalent building with all electric appliances except for water heaters. The project will include drought tolerant/water efficient landscaping, EV charging stations and a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. Land Use and Zoning Request: Since no public agencies have expressed interest in the property, and the site is no longer in public ownership, the existing PF zone must be changed to allow for compatible redevelopment of the site. This application proposes to create a narrowly defined Combining District to overlay the PF zoning (PF-CD) to allow for the following: 1. Allow higher density multi-family residential development and a 50-foot height limit. 2. Establish a 2.25 Floor Area Ratio without a maximum density creating the flexibility for smaller and more attainable housing supply. 3. Establish appropriate permitted and conditional uses that promote access to goods and services reducing dependence on car travel. 4. Develop development standards that promote compatibility with neighborhood context and promote walkability and support housing diversity. 5. Support the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. 6. Reduce parking standards to promote increased transit usage. 7. Establish District Performance Standards to ensure minimal impacts to adjacent properties. 8. Require adequate common and private open spaces for outdoor recreation. 9. Only sites currently zoned PF and within one-half mile of fixed rail transit would be eligible to receive the PF-CD designation. The PF zoning would remain as the base to maintain consistency with the Comprehensive Plan designation. Windy Hill is therefore proposing a limited Public Facility-Combining District (PF-CD) overlay zoning for the property. A draft of what this ordinance could be is included, but Windy Hill remains open to advice as to what vehicle would be best to redevelop this important site. City of Palo Alto Housing Element Goals and Policies The proposed small-unit housing project directly supports the following Palo Alto Housing Element goals and policies: Identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed- use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse. Allow for higher density residential development, consider amending the Zoning Code to permit high-density residential in mixed use or single use projects in commercial areas within one-half a mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Element Sites within one-quarter mile of fixed rail stations. Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including units for seniors, such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet and other flexible development standards. Use sustainable neighborhood development criteria to enhance connectivity, walkability, and access to amenities, and to support housing diversity. As a part of planning for the future of El Camino Real, explore the identification of pedestrian nodes consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines, with greater densities in these nodes than in other areas. This site is within one-half mile of the California Avenue Caltrain station and within walking distance to the California Avenue retail district and employment centers and is an ideal location for those who choose not to own cars. South El Camino Real Design Guidelines The proposal also supports the goals and policies of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the desire for localized, neighborhood serving, businesses and land uses rather than the historic haphazard design of what has been a “regional highway”. The Guidelines identify Nodes and Corridors supporting vibrant retail and walkable neighborhoods. The three primary Nodes are in the California Avenue Area, the Baron-Ventura Area and the Triangle Area. These Guidelines promote attractive buildings that abut the El Camino Real sidewalk with parking either below grade or behind buildings. The properties along the El Camino Corridors are intended to support retail and pedestrian vibrancy, particularly near the three identified retail and pedestrian Node areas. A housing project, and in particular a small-unit housing project emphasizing alternative transit opportunities, will directly support pedestrian activity and retail business patronage. This corner parcel is specifically identified in the Guidelines as an opportunity site to make an architectural statement on this prominent corner. The recommendations are for a prominent and architecturally distinctive building to anchor this large-scale intersection. Further, this proposed small-unit rental housing project will directly benefit the synergy of Palo Alto’s jobs-housing needs, particularly for those who work at the Stanford Research Park, Downtown, or within the California Avenue retail and pedestrian Node. This property is within one-half mile of the California Avenue Caltrain station, which allows for progressive TDM opportunities and strategies. The project will also directly contribute to the vibrancy and success of nearby businesses and research facilities. This is a much-needed project that will support Palo Alto’s ongoing economic development, technological innovation and academic research support, and alternative housing needs. Lastly, Windy Hill understands that design detail issues remain. These details have either already been addressed in response to staff’s comments or will be addressed as the project advances to the Architectural Review Board, the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council. Attachment G Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and 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 “2755 El Camino Real” 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 “2017-0509 Plan Submittal”