Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5304 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5304) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/1/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: City-wide RPP Ordinance Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Citywide Framework for Establishment of Neighborhood -Specific Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Districts From: City Manager Lead Department: Plannin g and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council conduct a First Reading and adopt the attached Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Ordinance (Attachment C) adding Chapter 10.50 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Establishing a Citywide Framework for Establishment of Neighborhood-Specific Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Districts. Executive Summary At the City Council’s direction, City Staff has been working with community stakeholders over the last nine months to develop (1) a city-wide ordinance which would establish a framework or procedures for individual neighborhoods to become RPP Districts, and (2) a resolution outlining the design of the first proposed RPP District. The proposed ordinance outlines the general process for a neighborhood to become an RPP district and requires the adoption of neighborhood-specific resolutions to establish RPP program characteristics, with the expectation that these will vary somewhat from neighborhood to neighborhood. In addition, the ordinance calls for adoption of administrative guidelines to define details of the neighborhood petition process, permit eligibility requirements and other administrative details. The focus of this staff report is on the City-wide ordinance; a discussion of the accompanying Downtown resolution can be found in staff report 5305, heard this same evening. If the City Council votes to adopt the proposed ordinance (first reading), it would be placed on the consent agenda for a second reading on December 15, 2014 and (if adopted at that time), would become effective 31 days later. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background On January 27, 2014, in response to increasing concern that non -resident parking in residential neighborhoods was negatively impacting neighborhood quality of life, City Council directed staff to develop both (1) a City-wide ordinance establishing uniform procedures for establishment of RPP districts, and (2) an RPP program design for th e first “priority” neighborhood, which ultimately was identified as the Downtown neighbo rhoods. In parallel with the development of the Downtown program, Staff began work on the ordinance which would detail the process by which all individual neighborhoods could pursue parking restrictions (RPP programs) within their neighborhoods. During this process, input on the ordinance was received from residential constituents in the Downtown and many other neighborhoods. Parking and TDM Initiatives RPP discussions have taken place in the context of a series of City-sponsored initiatives aimed at reducing traffic demand and more effectively managing parking supply. The initiatives respond to several related imperatives: improving the effective use of existing parking resources, increasing parking supply, decreasing traffic congestion and improving mobi lity in and around commercial centers. In addition, improvement of the quality of life in residential areas has emerged as a top concern in many neighborhoods, especially those close to Downtown, where intrusion of employee parking continues to increase. Figure 1 provides an update on the parking- and transportation-related initiatives underway since the beginning of 2014 to address the aforementioned issues. The programs fall into three categories: Parking Supply initiatives, Parking Management initiatives, and Transportation Demand Management initiatives. The establishment of RPP districts, or areas where non - resident parking is regulated, can be viewed as a parking management strategy, as these programs can help better manage parking supply and incentivize commuting behavior shifts away from single-occupant-vehicles. Parking Supply initiatives help maximize the use of existing parking supply as well as create additional parking, and Transportation Demand Management initiatives help reduce the overall demand for parking and traffic by incentivizing alternative modes of transportation. All of these programs work together to create an effective parking strategy. Figure 1: Palo Alto’s Parking Strategy Summary Program Status Parking Management Strategies Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) This staff report provides an overview of the RPP Ordinance. Discussion of the proposed RPP Downtown Resolution can be found in staff report 5305. Parking Technology The City will solicit bids for Parking Access and Revenue Controls and Parking Guidance Systems for garages and lots in November of 2014. This technology will allow for improved permit control, the implementation of paid parking and City of Palo Alto Page 3 improved information on parking occupancy. In addition, the City is exploring technology that tracks parking occupancy and turnover in parking lots and garages. Garage Branding / Signage The City has released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for improved wayfinding signage and branding for all of the parking garages. Improved signage will help motorists locate parking facilities more easily and reduce time spent looking for parking, in conjunction with Parking Guidance Systems. The City will also upgrade its parking website as part of the implementation of online permit sales for RPP to provide a more effective parking resource for residents and visitors. Transportation Demand Management Strategies City Employee “TDM” Programs The City piloted a program with Caltrain at the beginning of 2014 to help encourage Downtown City employees to use Caltrain. As part of the program, the City provided all regularly-benefited City employees with a free Caltrain Go Pass in exchange for giving up a parking permit in the Civic Center garage. The City is continuing the pilot program with modifications for 2015. The City also started a pilot program with TwoGo, SAP’s ridesharing mobile phone app, to see whether the mobile platform would encourage riders and drivers heading to Downtown businesses would be able to use technology to find each other and share rides. Zipcar The City kicked off a partnership with Zipcar in August, and the carshare company has provided ten vehicles at lots and garages in Downtown Palo Alto. The goal of the Zipcar program is to provide an alternative to vehicle ownership for residents and a viable alternative for commuters during the day. Stanford also provides a number of Zipcar locations on campus, as do many other peninsula cities, so members can enjoy convenient access to vehicles across the region. Current Zipcar utilization is between 10% and 26% overall, with certain cars being used more than 40% of the time, and the City is working with Zipcar to improve utilization. Bicycle Projects The city is currently in the design phase of 24 new bicycle boulevard projects, which are planned for construction in 2015 through 2018. Bicycle boulevards are streets which are prioritized for bicycle use by giving advisory warnings to motorists, traffic calming measures and directional signage. Providing bicycle boulevard streets helps cyclists ride to work or play in an easier and safer way. Free Shuttle The City has three active shuttle routes which are provided free of charge to residents and visitors to Palo Alto. The first City of Palo Alto Page 4 phase of a shuttle expansion program was implemented in July with the initiation of a route to East Palo Alto, and a phase 2 expansion will increase frequency of service on the existing Crosstown route, and (contingent on private funding partnership) add a new route connecting the Palo Alto Caltrain Station with the Shoreline business park. Parking Supply Satellite (Remote) Parking The City is analyzing the potential for a “satellite” parking lot for commuters that could be accessed by a free shuttle service to Downtown. The location is on Embarcadero Road east of Highway 101, and could potentially accommodate up to 132 spaces. Garage Valet Parking The City initiated its first “Valet-Assist” parking program at the Lot R, the garage on Alma and High Street, in early 2014. The program has two valet attendants who direct motorists to park in drive aisles once the garage becomes full. The program can help accommodate up to 42 additional vehicles in the garage, which allows the City to increase the number of permits that can be sold at the garage. The valet program has been parking between 10 and 20 cars on average at Lot R and has allowed City staff to increase the number of permits sold at Lot R from 230 to over 330. Expanding the valet assist program to two other garages could be accomplished via a contract amendment early in 2015 if desired. New Garages City Staff is developing the scope of work and evaluation criteria for an RFP to design a new parking garage at Lot D to increase Downtown’s parking supply. Other Parking Permit Programs in Palo Alto Palo Alto’s only other RPP ordinance is the College Terrace RPP program, adopted by City Council in 2009. The College Terrace RPP District was created due to concern about Stanford staff and students parking in this neighborhood, and later parking by Facebook’s empl oyees from 1601 California Avenue. As a condition of approval for Stanford's 2000 General Use Permit, seed money was provided to the City to support a Residential Parking Permit Program in this neighborhood, and permits have been sold for $40 annually since 2009. The RPP program in College Terrace covers most of the neighborhood; however, individual blocks can opt out of the program by providing a petition with 51% of the addresses on the block in favor. College Terrace residents have shown continued suppor t for the program, which has effectively reduced non-resident parking and traffic in that neighborhood. The College Terrace RPP program allows one residential parking permit to be purchased for each vehicle of a household owner, and up to two reusable gue st permits for housekeepers, caretakers and other frequent visitors. Guest passes are provided per household rather than City of Palo Alto Page 5 per vehicle ownership, and are designed to hang from the rear view mirror. The program enforcement period is Monday-Friday, between 8:00am and 5:00pm. No business or employee permits are made available; only residents may purchase permits. The staff report outlining adoption of the College Terrace ordinance can be found in Attachment A. Another parking permit program exists in the Crescent Park neighborhood, enacted by resolution in August of 2013 for an original period of 12 months. This trial parking program was developed in response to concern that parking from non-Crescent Park residents was severely impacting Crescent Park residents’ ability to park in front of their own homes. Technically not a true RPP program, which regulates neighborhood parking by restricting non -resident parking, the Crescent Park program restricts parking from 2:00am to 5:00am to residents of the Crescent Park neighborhood only. Permits for the program hang from the rearview mirror, and are available for a cost of $100 annually. Staff recently recommended extending the trial program for an additional 12 months (the staff report can be found in Attachment B), and this recommendation was approved. Both the Crescent Park and College Terrace programs had unique development and outreach processes, and the implementation of a City-wide ordinance is meant to help standardize the development of future RPP programs. If the City-wide ordinance is approved, the College Terrace program would continue unchanged. However at a later date, the City could rescind the College Terrace ordinance and replace it with a resolution as envisioned by the city-wide ordinance. Incorporating the College Terrace program into the citywide program would allow for more uniform enforcement. The 2014 RPP Downtown Stakeholder Process The objective of an RPP program is to preserve neighborhood quality of life by ensuring adequate parking for residents. However, in some neighborhoods of the City, existing businesses and employees rely on street parking to supplement parking lots and garages. Because of this, the stakeholder committee selected by staff to provide input on the resolution and the city-wide ordinance included business and employee constituents as well as residents. A summary of the stakeholder discussions, which mostly focused on the Downtown resolution, is found in staff report 5305. Summary of Key Issues Initially staff had proposed to create a City-wide ordinance that would serve as an umbrella document for resolutions specific to any neighborhood that would address all of the particular characteristics of an RPP program for that neighborhood. Preliminary feedback from the stakeholders on the draft ordinance suggested that it was too complex, and also that different neighborhoods might have unique circumstances that didn’t lend themselves well to uniform, city-wide criteria. For this reason, Staff has suggested simplifying the framework into the following three components: 1. A simplified City-wide ordinance, which establishes the criteria and procedures for how City of Palo Alto Page 6 a neighborhood can establish an RPP District; 2. A neighborhood-specific resolution, which outlines the characteristics of a part icular neighborhood program, including cost of permits, number of permits issued, whether or not permits would be issued to employees, hours of enforcement, program boundaries, etc. and; 3. Administrative regulations (to be developed after adoption of the Cit ywide ordinance), which would outline criteria for the required response rate for RPP implementation, requirements for how occupancy surveys and petitions are conducted, and other detailed criteria and procedures. As proposed by Staff, the City-wide ordinance, included in Attachment C, outlines a high-level process by which a neighborhood may petition to become an RPP District. The ordinance outlines the following: 1. Qualitative Criteria which must be met for a neighborhood to qualify as an RPP District. While some residents felt that the ordinance should contain quantitative thresholds in this section, some wanted the ordinance to have inherent flexibility to address neighborhoods that had different characteristics. For example, while a 70% parking occupancy level might be appropriate for a neighborhood close to a commercial center, it might be less appropriate for a neighborhood in a more suburban location. 2. The neighborhood petition process, including community outreach. The petition process involves a neighborhood coming forward with a recommendation for a District in its entirety (not on a street by street basis), along with a petition showing resident support for District implementation and other supporting data such as narratives or photographs. The Planning department would create a standard application for residents to use for the petition process. Once the applications were submitted, City Staff would make a recommendation to the Planning Commission on the RPP District that should be prioritized for development that calendar year. Once the District had been decided, City Staff would conduct occupancy studies in accordance with criteria outlined in the administrative regulations, and community outreach to the residents and non-resident stakeholders. The resolution and program design for the neighborhood would be created as part of the outreach process. 3. The adoption of an RPP District, including the adoption of a district-specific resolution. This section outlines that, if approved by the Planning Commission and Council, a new RPP District might have a trial period of up to two years. 4. The administration of RPP Districts, including fees. 5. Allowance of contract enforcement of RPP Districts. Staff noted that enforcement costs for RPP Districts could be significant, and recommend allowing for contract (non -city employee) enforcement if appropriate. Program details for each neighborhood would be outlined in individual neighborhood resolutions. With respect to the percentage of support needed from a neighborhood to petition for or opt out of an existing RPP District, the ordinance authorizes staff to adopt administrative City of Palo Alto Page 7 guidelines, which Staff will develop early on in 2015. The reason this petition process was deferred to the administrative guidelines is that the RPP stakeholder group was divided on the appropriate petition threshold. Both staff and the RPP stakeholder group believe it is important to have flexibility on this issue to address particular neighborhood needs.. The RPP stakeholder group was divided on this particular issue; a straw vote was conducted where a 50+1% majority received 5 votes, a 55% majority received 2 votes, and 65% received 1 vote. The City of Menlo Park, Berkeley and San Francisco all reference a 51% vote for a District to be conside red by Council, while other cities, including Santa Monica, require 66% support from at least 50% of the households on the block. Planning and Transportation Commission Feedback The PTC reviewed the draft ordinance on November 12, 2014 and directed staff to modify the ordinance to allow the City Council to initiate an RPP District as an alternative to having a neighborhood come forward to propose one. This change and a few minor edits since the PTC hearing on November 12, 2014 are shown in tracked changes in Attachment C. Timeline If approved by Council at a second reading on December 15, 2014, the ordinance would go into effect 31 days later, allowing for the implementation of the Downtown RPP Resolution. Policy Implications The City-wide ordinance is consistent with the three-pronged approach aimed at addressing traffic and parking demand, and is also consistent with the following comprehensive plan goals: 1. Goal T-8, Program T-49: Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies for Downtown Palo Alto 2. Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts Resource Impact The proposed ordinance would not in and of itself require an expenditure of City resources. The ordinance provides a framework for initiation and adoption of neighborhood -specific programs, each of which would require staff time to analyze, conduct neighborhood outreach, and prepare for hearings at the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council. Adoption and implementation of individual neighborhood programs would also require investments in the City’s permit, enforcement, and citation processes. These investments will be identified as part of the adoption of neighborhood specific programs. Environmental Review Adoption of a citywide ordinace establishing an RPP district in downtown Palo Alto is both exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regula tions since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a City of Palo Alto Page 8 significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. Attachments:  Attachment: Attachment A: City Manager Report dated July 6, 2009 (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment B: City Council Report dated October 6, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment C: Ordinance Residential Parking Program (RPP) (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment D: Planning and Transportation Commission Draft Excerpt Verbatim Minutes of November 12, 2014 (PDF) TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: JULY 6, 2009 REPORT TYPE: REPORT OF OFFICIALS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 298:09 SUBJECT: Approval of A Residential Parking Permit Program For The College Terrace Neighborhood EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On July 30, 2007, in response to a Colleagues Memorandum from then Mayor Kishimoto and Council Members Beecham and Drekmeier, Council members recommended that Council direct staff to initiate an assessment of a residential parking permit program in College Terrace and report back to Council with a status report. Staff was authorized to retain outside expertise as needed to supplement staff, using the $100,000 deposited with the City from Stanford University. These funds were to be used to develop a residential permit program in College Terrace that would likely be implemented only in portions of the neighborhood and to survey all households to ascertain support. The assessment would need to advise Council and residents on the potential staffing requirements, cost and fee structure for the program. The program would also have to be revenue neutral to the General Fund. A program has been developed and is being presented to Council for approval. Staff will return to Council for adoption of an Ordinance for the parking permit program prior to implementation of the program. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Adopt the attached project's Negative Declaration (Attachment K); 2. Approve the elements to be included in a Residential Parking Permit Program in College Terrace, as outlined in Attachment A; 3. Direct staff to prepare a program ordinance approving the College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program as described in this report and return to Council for approval; CMR:298:09 Page 1 of 11 4. Direct staff to return to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $36,839 (representing interest earned on Stanford University's $100,000 deposit) to provide additional funding for the initial start-up costs; and 5. Authorize staff to accept additional petitions from College Terrace neighborhood blocks that did not initially receive 51% support, through September 30, 2009, for the initial permit parking program's first year implementation. BACKGROUND The College Terrace neighborhood, located adjacent to Stanford University and Stanford Research Park (See Project Area Map, Attachment B), has historically been affected by substantial non -neighborhood traffic and parking. Residents continue to be affected by a longstanding and growing problem with daytime and night time parking by students and employees of the university and other nearby employers who regularly park on neighborhood streets to avoid the cost of parking permits or because of convenience. Increasingly, as Stanford works to discourage commute trips onto campus, more people may park nearby and walk, bike or take the Marguerite Shuttle to their campus destination. The construction of multi -story graduate student housing immediately adjacent to Stanford Avenue appears to have added to the problem as well, since some of the student residents and guests prefer to park on nearby city streets rather than pay to park in campus parking facilities. The nature of College Terrace compounds these problems. Small lots and relatively dense housing is common throughout this neighborhood. Many residents have inadequate or no off- street parking. Drivers frequently park too close to intersections, driveways and fire hydrants, creating visibility and safety hazards. This is especially problematic along Stanford Avenue, a route used by many children who walk or bike to school. Parking permits have long been discussed in several congested Palo Alto neighborhoods. Previous surveys in University South and Downtown North have indicated strong but mixed support for residential parking permits. The College Terrace Resident's Association (CTRA) has had, for some time, a parking issue task force evaluating permit programs and support for them. The task force's surveys had indicated that support for a residential permit program is strong, though not universal. In 2000, as part of Condition of Approval H.2.a., of the Stanford University's 2000 County General Use Peimit, Stanford University was required to provide a $100,000 deposit to the City of Palo Alto for a Residential Parking Peiiuit Program (RPPP) for the College Terrace neighborhood. These funds were specifically designated for the consideration and initiation of a RPPP program and were deposited with the City in October 2001. On July 30, 2007, a Colleagues Memorandum (Attachment C), from former Mayor Kishimoto and Council members Beecham and Drekmeier, recommended that Council direct and authorize staff to retain outside expertise, as needed to supplement staff, using the $100,000 deposited with the City from Stanford University, to initiate an assessment of a residential parking permit program in College Terrace and report back to Council with a status report. CMR:298:09 Page 2 of 11 The direction to staff was to develop a residential permit program in College Terrace that would likely be implemented only in portions of the neighborhood. The assessment would include two outreach meetings in the community to conceptually design a potential program and conducting a survey of all households to ascertain support. The assessment would need to advise Council and residents on the potential staffing requirements, cost and fee structure for the program. The program would also have to be revenue neutral to the General Fund. DISCUSSION In January 2008, staff retained the services of transportation consultants, Kimley Horn and Associates, to initiate and develop a RPPP in College Terrace. A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) consisting of eight College Terrace residents appointed by the College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA) Board, staff from Transportation, Police Department and Revenue Collections and consultants was formed to work on the development of the residential parking permit program. On -street Parking Occupancy Survey In early March 2008, in order to understand the current on -street parking conditions in the College Terrace neighborhood, to document baseline parking demand in the neighborhood and to help establish how much of the neighborhood should be included in the program, a parking occupancy study was conducted for both a weekday (Thursday, March 6th, 2008) and a weekend day (Saturday, March 1st, 2008). On each day, vehicle occupancies on the streets were surveyed midday (roughly 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.) and in the evening (roughly 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.). The number of cars parked were counted and compared to calculated available parking spots, resulting in a parking density by street segment. These occupancy levels were graphed on a map of the neighborhood and color coded by percentage occupancy, as seen in Attachment D, Figures 1 through 4. The weekday midday results showed a relatively high percentage of parking occupancies along Stanford Avenue, with most blocks having greater than 50% occupancy. This occupancy trend continued through the commercial district at the eastern end of the neighborhood and through the cross streets between Stanford Avenue and College Avenue. The occupancy levels were found to decrease at College Avenue and on the streets to the south of College Avenue. On weekday evenings, the higher occupancies were found to be spread more evenly throughout the neighborhood. There was still a high percentage of parked cars along Stanford Avenue and in the commercial area, but there were also higher percentages along the cross streets within the neighborhood as well as along College Avenue. The survey found relatively low parking density along California Avenue during the evening hours. This is most likely the case because the main non-residential usage along California Avenue is Stanford Research Park, which would tend to empty in the nighttime hours. The weekend midday survey showed a high density of parking in the commercial district and along some areas of Stanford Avenue. College Avenue and some of the cross streets had areas of higher parking occupancies, while California Avenue again displayed lower occupancies. CMR:298:09 Page 3 of 11 In summary, during both midday and evening time periods on a typical weekday and weekend day, the on -street parking levels of College Terrace were found to be relatively high in specific areas. Program Alternatives The first neighborhood outreach meeting was held on March 19, 2008. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce and discuss the RPPP and to provide opportunity for residents to share their observations and concerns with members of City staff and the consultants. Approximately 35 people attended this meeting. After a brief presentation, the residents provided input on what type of problems they experienced, where they felt the majority of the parking problems were and the time of day when they felt it occurred. Throughout the next few months, staff continued to work closely with the Project Advisory Committee to study options for a RPPP that would address parking issues in the neighborhood. As a result, four options for a RPPP were discussed and recommended for further study. The following narrative details the specifics of each option: Option 1: Permits required for all on -street parking from 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday. Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day peiiuits would be permitted to use on -street parking, Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 5 pm. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods would be cited by the Police Department. Option 2: Parking limited to 2 hours without a permit from 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday. Permit allows unlimited parking. Vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit would be permitted to use on - street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit could park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods and exceeding the 2 -hour maximum parking allowance would be cited by the Police Department. Option 3: Permits required for all on -street parking from 8 am to 5 pm, 7 days a week. Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit would be permitted to use on -street parking, all seven days of the week (Monday through Sunday) between 8 am to 5pm. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods would be cited by the Police Department. Option 4: Permits required for all on -street parking from 8 am to 10 pm, Monday through Friday. Only vehicles displaying a resident peiiiiit, guest peiiiiit, or day permit would be permitted to use on -street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 10 pm. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods would be cited by the Police Department. CMR:298:09 Page 4 of 11 CTRA Board Review On July 17, 2008, staff met with the College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA) Board. All four residential parking permit program options were presented and staff discussed the next steps involved in the development of the residential parking permit program. The College Terrace Board also expressed its complete support of Option 2 - Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm (with 2 -hour parking) as recommended by the PAC, as their preferred option. The members were all in support of the direction City staff was proposing to take for further development of this program (see Attachment E) and to present at the next neighborhood meeting. Staff and the PAC felt that this option would address the majority of the neighborhood concerns and would also allow for the flexibility of visitors in the neighborhood to be able to park at leisure within the two hour time frame. Staff also supports Option 2 as the preferred option. Recommended Program Details For the preferred option (Option 2), a cost estimate and report was prepared (see Attachment F), detailing the recommended program rules and procedures, guidelines, staffing requirements, start up and operational costs, cost recovery plan, permit types for residents and visitors, enforcement hours and methods, permit fees and neighborhood signage. This cost estimate was prepared for scenarios that included one-half of the neighborhood and for the whole neighborhood. The Final Program Background and Development Memorandum is included as Attachment G of this report. Below is a description of the cost assumptions that were made in preparing the cost estimates. • One (1) residential parking permit will be issued for each vehicle of a household owner or person(s) renting a household in the College Terrace Neighborhood. Residents applying for a permit will be required to provide proof of vehicle ownership and residency. Therefore, a vehicle registration form as well as one of the following would be required at the time of registration showing College Terrace residency: o Driver's License o Rental Agreement o Recent Utility Bill With Street Address Noted • Multiple resident permits could be purchased per physical address based on multiple vehicle ownership and the following criteria: o The RPPP year is proposed to take place between September 1 and August 31 of the following year. Yearly permit renewal date is September 1. This RPPP year was selected based on consultation with the City's Revenue Collections staff workload and schedule as well as flexibility for the Stanford students residing in the College Terrace neighborhood, but this date could be changed. o Parking permits may be purchased yearly starting August 1St each year, through September 30th o A grace period will be recognized from September 1st to September 30th for residents with previous year permits (i.e. vehicles not displaying a permit during CMR:298:09 Page 5 of 11 the grace period will be cited but vehicles displaying the permit from the previous year will not be cited during the grace period). o The annual parking permit will consist of a bumper sticker that is to be affixed to the rear bumper, to the left of the license plate bracket. o The annual parking peiinit will be a different color each permit year (September 1 to August 31st the following year). o New residents to College Terrace may purchase resident permits throughout a permit year. Parking permit fees will be pro -rated based on date of purchase. o No refund will be administered for any resident, guest, or day permits. • Two (2) reusable guest passes (at no cost) will be issued for any household that has registered for at least one resident parking permit. This allowance is to provide accessibility for resident services in the neighborhood such as lawn care, house cleaners, contractors, etc. as well as for guests of the household. Guest passes are provided per household rather than per vehicle ownership. Guest passes will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and must be clearly displayed in this fashion. The selling of guest passes will be considered illegal under the adopted ordinance. • Residents will be required to complete their initial application for the resident parking permit and guest passes in person at the Revenue Collections office at Palo Alto City Hall located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Applications will require name, household address, license plate number, car manufacturer, color, year and model. Subsequent renewals of the residential parking permits and guest passes could be completed by mail or online, as this program evolves. • There will be a $10 re -issue fee for lost permits or new vehicle ownership for existing residential parking permit holders. • Day permits may be purchased in person at the Revenue Collections office. Day peirnits will be applicable for one 24 -hour period. At the time of purchase, the date of each day permit will be logged in a registry at the Revenue Collections office based on the number of the day permit. A fee of $2 will be charged for each day permit. Day passes will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and allow the user to scratch off the day of usage, which must be clearly displayed. The total number of day permits issued will be limited to 20 day passes for each quarter that the College Terrace RPPP applies. • Construction and maintenance permits will be available for long-term construction activities, consistent with current practice by the City. • The percentage of homes on each block that must approve the RPPP petition to be considered for the program is to be set at 51% of households. • The residential parking permit program does not obviate the compliance with the City's ordinance relating to vehicles parked on the street for more than 72 hours. CMR:298:09 Page 6 of 11 Second Community Meeting A second neighborhood meeting was held on October 15, 2008 to present the draft program to the neighborhood, to obtain additional comments and to determine if minor adjustments would be needed before finalizing the program. Approximately 35 residents attended this meeting. The recommended proposed program was presented and discussed in full detail. Approximately 8 written comments were submitted. Comments included full support of the program, a request that Stanford pay for the cost of the permits and a request that the City implement the program within the whole neighborhood, as opposed to a block by block opt in basis. Neighborhood Survey Process In February 2009, a detailed letter and neighborhood survey postcard (see Attachment H) was sent to all households to ascertain the level of support and to determine the number of interested households who would like to participate in the RPPP. The survey letter included a description of the parking problem, proposed program elements, anticipated program rules and procedures, and estimated costs. The cost estimate for each residential parking permit is $25 if 50% or less of the blocks in the neighborhood (half neighborhood) voted to be included in the program or $15 if more than 50% of the blocks (whole neighborhood) voted for inclusion in the program. In the letter, staff clearly explained that, if residents were not experiencing the described parking problem within their neighborhood or street, it would not preclude them of problems in the future, once the RPPP is implemented on their neighboring blocks. Currently residents on Stanford Avenue including the streets that have access to Stanford Avenue (Yale, Wellesley Oberlin, Harvard, Hanover, and Dartmouth), experience the most problems with long-term parking. Once the RPPP is implemented in these blocks, cars could possibly move to the neighboring streets without residential parking permit enforcement. Strong recommendations were made that this be considered when casting their votes and mailing in their postcards. Approximately 900 postcards, which included residents in both the residential and commercial zoning areas, were mailed out. Each resident was asked to read the accompanying letter that fully described the background of the project, the description of the proposed rules, procedures and cost of the RPPP. They were then asked to fill out a postcard survey that asked if their household wanted their block to participate in the proposed RPPP as described in the letter, and were given a choice to either vote "yes" or "no." The requirements called for 51% of the number of houses on a street block to vote "yes" in order for their block to be included in the RPPP. Residents were given three weeks to send back their postcards and were encouraged to work with their neighbors to decide on whether or not they wanted to have the RPPP implemented on their block. Staff extended this deadline by 2 weeks because a high number of postcards had to be resent to residents who had either not received the ballot or had misplaced/lost it and who wanted to be able to have their voted counted and/or to be able to participate in the program. During this time, staff worked closely with the PAC to help with the education and outreach efforts for this program. PAC members, along with the CTRA board, prepared reading materials CMR:298:09 Page 7 of 11 and FAQ's to hand out to the neighborhood to encourage them to get involved and send in their votes. Approximately 47 % of the survey postcards were returned. Attachment I, figures 1 and 2, provides the detailed breakdown of the responses based on the total number of households (not including the vacant households) and the number of "yes" and "no" votes received for each block. The survey resulted in one-third of the total number of street blocks (21 /63 blocks) in the neighborhood voting "yes" to have RPPP implemented on their block. (See Attachment J). Each one of these 21 blocks had a majority (over 50 percent) of the households on that block in favor of having their street block opt into the RPPP. Recent Concerns It is important to note that, on May 14, 2009, Facebook moved its 850 local employees to a 150,000 -square foot office building in the Stanford Research Park at 1601 California Avenue. This move has raised new concerns for residents in the upper College Terrace neighborhood as the overflow of employees are parking in the neighborhood streets. Staff anticipates that because the survey for this program was conducted before this move, the neighborhood had not realized the extent of the impact of Facebook moving into the neighborhood and most likely did not vote in favor of a RPPP for their block. Staff is proposing to provide a 60 day opt in period prior to the start of the program implementation, allowing the opportunity for residents faced with this new parking challenge the time to work with their neighbors to reconsider opting in to the program. Staff anticipates that additional blocks will want to opt in to the program, resulting in increased program revenue. College Terrace Commercial District The College Terrace commercial neighborhood (CN) zoning area, bounded by El Camino Real on the east, California Avenue to the south, and all of Cambridge and Staunton and portions of Oxford Avenues, consists of a mixture of single family residential, neighborhood serving retail and commercial properties. Concerns were raised at the neighborhood meetings and by the CTRA Board that parking for the residences in the CN areas would be greatly exacerbated if no parking controls (RPPP) were offered on these streets. A letter from the CTRA Board (Attachment K) requested that the City also survey residences in the CN zone and that they be included as part of the initial RPPP implementation. On April 28, 2009, a letter was sent out to residents in the CN Zone (Attachment K) which included residents on both Cambridge Avenue and Staunton Court. Businesses were not included as part of the required 51% vote. Unfortunately, the number of postcards returned did not qualify these streets to participate in this initial RPPP implementation. These results are also shown on Attachment 1. CMR:298:09 Page 8 of 11 Program Start -Up Costs While staff has estimated costs for this program to be revenue neutral, start-up funds are needed for the design and installation of street signs and for hiring temporary personnel and purchase of office equipment in the Revenue Collections Department. The initial costs are needed to cover the purchase of the permits, preparation of educational brochures, office supplies and equipment, and purchase and installation of the street signs. Staff is proposing to use the interest of $36,839, which has been accumulating on the initial $100,000 deposit from Stanford University since 2001, to help fund the initial start up costs. The interest amount will be replenished and added as part of the program funds as parking permits are purchased and citation revenues are generated. It is also important to note that the cost and resources needed for implementation of this program have been prepared for the College Terrace neighborhood only and do not include provisions for other neighborhoods in the City. Because this program is required to operate as a revenue neutral program, costs of permits for College Terrace may increase if other neighborhoods come forward and request to have a RPPP implemented in their neighborhoods. Although the Police Department has stated that it could staff this current program in College Terrace without the necessity to hire another CSO, if other neighborhoods request to have a RPPP in their neighborhood, additional staffing and resources will be needed in both the Police Department and Revenue Collections Division. Program Management Following Council direction, staff from the Transportation Section has completed the design, program procedures and guidelines for a residential parking permit program for College Terrace. The ongoing management and oversight of the program will be a collaborative effort by the Police Department and Revenue Collections. RESOURCE IMPACT Staff has prepared a detailed cost estimate that includes the cost of signs, office equipment and supplies and additional personnel required to operate and maintain the permit parking program. Because of the workload associated with the set-up, issuance, renewal and tracking of permits, additional staff hours are required in the Revenue Collections Department. No additional staff is needed during the first year of implementation for the Police Department, as they will be absorbing the shared cost of a Community Service Officer (CSO). They will, however, need an additional parking enforcement vehicle for the CSO to be able to patrol the RPPP areas in this neighborhood. The assessment of the College Terrace RPPP was funded by the $100,000 from the Stanford University General Use Permit. $46,200 of the initial fund amount was used for consultant fees for the development of the RPPP. The balance of the deposit, $53,800, and the interest earned, $38,839, will be used for the set up of the College Terrace RPPP, which includes the purchase of the police department patrol vehicle and equipment. The College Terrace RPPP will be established as a Special Revenue Fund with the intent of capturing and segregating future revenues and costs within this program and maintaining CMR:298:09 Page 9 of 11 neutrality to the General Fund. After the first year of implementation, full cost allocations will be applied to the program. Revenue projections for such a program are difficult to calculate due to the uncertainties in the actual number of citations that would be issued and the number of resident permits that would be purchased. The number of citations issued and revenues collected for the program, as shown in Attachment F, are based on historical citation rates evaluated in the City of Palo Alto and compared with other cities with similar residential parking peiiuit programs. Although the intent of the program is to result in cost recovery with no impact to the General Fund, due to these uncertainties the full impacts are unknown. The true cost of the program may not be accurately assessed until the program is actually implemented. Staff recommends that these costs be assessed and evaluated one year after implementation in order to determine if adjustments to the permit costs will be necessary to remain at cost recovery levels. TIMELINE The next steps in the process would be for staff to work with the City Attorney's office to draft an ordinance for Council approval. Preliminary work involving the design and purchase of permits and signs, hiring temporary staff, and purchase of necessary equipment would also take place during the remainder of the calendar year. Staff will also solicit the neighborhood blocks that did not initially opt in to the program, to find out if there are any other blocks that would like to opt in prior to this initial implementation. The proposed program would be ready for implementation beginning no later than January 2010. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The implementation of a Residential Parking Pelf lit program is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan T-47: "Utilize engineering, enforcement, and educational tools to improve traffic safety on City roadways." ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Negative Declaration (ND) has been completed and is attached to this report (Attachment L) for approval. The draft Negative Declaration was available for review as of June 12, 2009. A minimum of 20 -day public comment period has been provided prior to the finalization of the Negative Declaration. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: SHAHLA YAZDY Transportation Engineer CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR:298:09 Page 10 of 11 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: JAM�=i' ENE City � . - ager ATTACHMENTS A. College Terrace Proposed Parking Permit Program B. Project Area Map C. Colleagues Memorandum D. College Terrace Parking Occupancy Survey E. Email of Support from CTRA F. Cost Estimate for Option 2 G. Final Program Background and Development Memorandum H. Neighborhood Survey Letter and Postcard I. College Terrace Parking Results — Participating/Non-Participating Residences J. Proposed College Terrace RPPP blocks K. Letter from CTRA Board (CN Zone) L. Letter to CN Zone Residents M. Negative Declaration COURTESY COPIES: College Terrace Resident's Association Board College Terrace Project Advisory Committee Jean Mc Cown, Stanford University CMR:298:09 Page 11 of 11 ATTACHMENT A COLLEGE TERRACE PROPOSED PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM 1. Provide for enforcement of the blocks, in the residential parking permit program, Mondays through Fridays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Vehicles displaying a permit may use on -street parking during this period. Vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to 2 hours during this period. Violators will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. Weekends and holidays will be exempt. 2. Allow a block to opt into the residential parking program (RPPP) if 51% of households on that block sign a petition to be considered in the program. 3. Require blocks that enroll in the program, to opt in for a period of 2 -years, to prevent blocks from entering and exiting the program after initial program implementation. 4. Provide one (1) residential parking permit for each vehicle of a household owner or person(s) renting a household in the College Terrace Neighborhood. The annual parking permit will consist of a bumper sticker that is to be affixed to the rear bumper, to the left of the license plate bracket. 5. Require residents to complete their initial application for the residential parking permit and guest passes in person at the Revenue Collections office at the City of Palo Alto City Hall located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Residents applying for a permit will be required to provide vehicle registration and proof of residency such as a driver's license, rental agreement or a utility bill with street address noted. Application will require name, household address, license plate number, car manufacturer, color, year and model. There will be a $10 re -issue fee for lost permits or new vehicle ownership for existing residential parking permit holders. 6. Allow new residents to College Terrace to purchase resident permits throughout a permit year. These parking permit fees will be pro -rated for half year increments. No refund will be administered for any resident, guest, or day permits. 7. Provide, at no cost, two (2) annual guest permits per household in the College Terrace neighborhood that has registered for at least one resident parking permit. This allowance is to provide accessibility for resident services in the neighborhood such as lawn care, house cleaners, contractors, etc. as well as for guests of the household. Annual guest permits are provided per household rather than per vehicle ownership. Guest permits will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and must be clearly displayed. The selling of guest passes will be considered illegal under the adopted ordinance. 8. Allow residents to purchase one -day permits for a fee, in person at the Revenue Collections office. One -day permits will be applicable for one 24 -hour period. Day permits will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and allow the user to scratch off the day of usage, which must be clearly displayed. The total number of day permits issued will be limited to 20 days passes for each quarter that the College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) applies. 9. Allow normal construction and maintenance permits to be available for long-term construction activities on regulated streets, consistent with current practice by the City. 10. Provide residential parking permits at an initial cost of $25, or $15 if more than 50% of the blocks in the neighborhood vote for inclusion in the program. ATTACHMENT B COLLEGE TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD - PROJECT AREA MAP ATTACHMENT C 18 CITY OF PALO ALTO COLLEAGUES MEMORANDUM Date: July 30, 2007 To: City Council Colleagues From: Mayor Kishimoto and Council Members Beecham and Drekmeier Subject: Recommending the Council to Direct Staff to Explore the Feasibility of College Terrace Parking Permit Program Recommendation: We recommend Council direct staff to initiate an assessment of a residential parking permit program in College Terrace and report the results back to Council. The assessment would include approximately two outreach meetings in the community to conceptually design_ a potential. program,_.and a survey___of,_all households to ascertain _support_ Staff would be authorized to retain outside expertise as needed to supplement staff, using funds deposited with the City from Stanford University for the College Terrace permit parking program pursuant to the 2000 General Use Permit conditions of approval. Problem: College Terrace residents suffer from a longstanding and growing problem with daytime and night time non-resident parking. Students and employees of the university and other nearby employers regularly park on neighborhood streets to avoid the cost of permits or because of convenience. Increasingly, as Stanford works to discourage commute trips onto campus, more people park nearby and walk, bike or take the Marguerite to their campus destination. The construction of multi -story graduate student housing immediately adjacent to Stanford Avenue at Oberlin Street has added to the problem as well, since some student residents prefer to park on nearby city streets rather than in campus parking facilities. The nature of College Terrace compounds these problems. Small lots and relatively dense housing is common throughout. Many residents have inadequate or no off- street parking. Drivers frequently park too close to intersections, driveways and fire hydrants, creating visibility and safety hazards. This is especially problematic along Stanford Avenue, a route used by many children to walk or bike to school. Discussion: Parking permits have long been discussed in several congested Palo Alto neighborhoods. Previous surveys in University South and Downtown North have indicated strong but mixed support for residential parking permits. The College Terrace Residents Association has had for some time a parking issues task force evaluating permit programs and support for them. As elsewhere, the task force's surveys indicate that support for a residential permit program is strong though not universal. In addition, as part of Stanford's current General Use Permit, the city has a fund of $100,000 supporting a parking permit program. A residential permit program in College Terrace would likely be implemented only in portions of the neighborhood. The assessment recommended above would need to include means for defining the boundaries of the program as well as a system for easily adjusting tficase boundaries over time as conditions and residential preferences change. The assessment would also need to advise Council and residents on the potential staffing requirements, cost and feestr cture for the program. The program should r be evenue neutral to the general fund in the long run We encourage staff to find best practices and new technologies available to reduce operational costs and reduce administrative burden on staff, visitors and residents. This memorandum has been reviewed by staff. ATTACHMENT D Figure 1 College Terrace Parking Occupancy Study Existing Weekday - Midday Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Thursday, March 6th, at 12:00-1:OOpm during the midday. The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below. co a co m d II E co 0 0 m O To U El Camino Real Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst = Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces = 0-25% Occupancy = 26-50% Occupancy = 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy = 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CollegeTerraceRPP_Occupancy(color)052909.xls 05/29/09 Figure 2 College Terrace Parking Occupancy Study Existing Weekday - PM Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Thursday, March 6th, at 7:00-8:OOpm during the PM The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below. `o m U Staunton a) rn (5 c a E o TD 0 To U U Library El Camino Real Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst = Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces = 0-25% Occupancy = 26-50% Occupancy = 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy = 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C o l leg eTerraceR P P_Occu pa ncy(co lor)052909.x i s 05/29/09 Figure 3 College Terrace - Parking Occupancy Study Existing Weekend - Midday Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Saturday March lst, at 12:0Q-1:20pm during the midday. The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below. 0 cm m :a c 15 To E to m • Bowdoin Amherst = Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces = 0-25% Occupancy = 26-50% Occupancy = 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy = 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CollegeTerraceR P P_Occu pancy(color)052909. xls 05/29/09 Figure 4 College Terrace - Parking Occupancy Study Existing Weekend - PM Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Saturday, March 1st, at 7:00-8:OOpm during the PM The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below. ca m -2 a E `o o w n` `o c o m E w m o U .42 co O U Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst = Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces = 0-25% Occupancy = 26-50% Occupancy = 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy = 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CollegeTerraceR P P_Occu pancy(color)052909.xls 05/29109 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT E Yazdy, Shahla From: greg tanaka [gltanaka@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 8:35 AM To: Likens, Gayle Cc: Yazdy, Shahla; CTRAboard@googlegroups.com Subject: Board Approval Gayle, The College Terrace Residents' Association Board, Permit Parking and Traffic Calming subcommittees appreciate the work you and your staff have done on the Traffic Calming and Permit Parking issues. The Board has unanimously voted in favor of the following recommendations: The Permit Parking Option #2 - We believe it best meets the needs of the neighborhood. Option 2 Summary: Vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit are permitted to use on -street parking in the College Terrace Neighborhood on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Holidays would be exempt. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these periods and exceeding the two (2) hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. All vehicles may utilize on -street parking in College Terrace outside of the specified time periods. The Traffic Calming Goal & Action Plan --Goal: Lower speed and cut -through traffic in College Terrace while enhancing pedestrian safety and anticipating pressures from future developments. Facilitate an inclusive process, positive relationships with neighborhood, City staff, and consultants, and an expeditious resolution to College Terrace Traffic Calming trial. --Short-term Action Plan: •Remove circle at Hanover, make intersection 4 -way stop •Flip stop signs at Columbia --Long Term Action Plan: •Additional traffic counts •Review intersection by intersection with CTRA Traffic Calming subcommittee and City staff to develop feasible recommendations that would ensure that the final plan is an improvement on the current trial and what existed before the trial. •Continued interaction with CTRA, CTRA subcommittee, and College Terrace neighbors on this issue. 6/16/2009 Initia l Ge neral Use Permit Contribution Colle • e Terrace RPPP En • ineerin • Consulta nt P. D. Go • he r and E • ui • ment Lum • Sum Lum • Sum Lum • Sum $100,000 .00 $40,000 .00 $36,000.00 Rem aining GUP Cont ribution Si.na .e P. D. CSO Uniform 3 • er o fficer P. D. A utocite P. D. Su • • lies Revenue Collections Tem •ora Sta ff Revenue Collections Sta ff Revenue Collections Office Su • • lie s Rev enue Collectio ns Permits Rev enue Collections Posta • e Rev enue Collections O ffice E • ui • ment Sta nford Gene ral Use Permit Fund Each Lum • Sum Each Lum • Sum Hours O vertim e H ours Each Each Each Each Lum • Sum $250 .00 $2,000 .00 $4,500 .00 $250 .00 $29 .81 $43 .35 $1 000 .00 $1 .62 $0 .42 $2,500 .00 $24,000 .00 Total Start -Up Costs Enforcement C cles CSO Sala 1/2 FTE Revenue Collections Staff 1/2 FTE Part Time Sala w/be nefits Part Tim e Sala w/benefits $41,528 .00 $40,500 .00 Subtotal Annual Personnel Costs Si • na • e M aintenance 5% of initial co st P. D. Go • he r and E • ui • me nt 8 ea r re • lacement P. D. Su • • lies Rev enue Collections Tem •ora Sta ff Reve nue Collectio ns Staff Rev enue Collectio ns Off ice Su . • lies Revenue Colle ctio ns Permits Revenue Collections Posta • e Lum • Sum Lum • Sum Lum. Sum Hours Overtime Hou rs Lum • Sum Each Eac h 5% of initi al $500.00 $29.81 $43.35 $1 000.00 $1.62 $0.42 Subtotal Annual Long -Term Mainte nance Costs Revenue from Citations (first 6 months of RPPP) Rev enue from Citatio ns after first 6 months of RPPP Rev enue from Citatio ns Year 1 Re venue from Citations Year 2 - Future Citations • er Da Citations .er M onth Citatio ns .er Month First Year Costs First Year Citation Re venues Less Rev enue from Citations Annua l Cos t pe r Ho use hold to Re cove r Ex pens es Annual Cost .e r Permit 2. 000 veh/ho usehold' $35 .00 $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 -$100,000.00 $40,000.00 $36,000.00 - $24,000 $44,250.00 $0 .00 $0 .00 $250 .00 $10,135.40 $0.00 $500.00 $1,215.00 -9 -180 -120 -1800 -1440 $226 .80 $2,500.00 -$12,000.00 $47,077.20 $0.00 $40,500.00 $40,500.00 $2,212.50 $4,500.00 $250 .00 $5,395.61 $0.00 $500 .00 $1,215.00 $226.80 $14,299.91 - $315 .00 -$6,300 .00 - $4,200.00 -$63,000 .00 -$50,400.00 -$100,000.00 $40,000.00 $36,000 .00 -$24,000 $78,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250 .00 $35,026.75 $87,577.20 -$63,000.00 $24,577 .20 $45.51 $22.76 -320 -213 -3198 -2556 $0 .00 $1,000.00 $2,430 .00 $453.60 $2,500 .00 - $24,000.00 $95,660.35 $0.00 $40,500.00 $40,500 .00 $3,900 .00 $4,500 .00 $500.00 $21,791.11 $0.00 $1,000.00 $2,430.00 $453.60 $34,574.71 -$560 .00 -$11,200 .00 -$7,455 .00 -$111,930 .00 - $89,460 .00 $136,160.35 -$111,930.00 $24,230 .35 $22.44 $11.22 Cost Estimate assumptions, as of 05/07/09 $100,000.00 $36,000.00 $250.00 $2,000 .00 $4,500 .00 $250.00 $1 000 .00 $1.62 $2 500.00 $41,528.00 $40,500.00 5% of initial $500 .00 $1 000 .00 $1 .62 tairratomm `Day permits are not included in cost estimate process because the physical cost of permit and processing time is offse t by the $2 planned charge. d 1N3WH3VIIV ATTACHMENT G Memorandum Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. To: Shahla Yazdy and City of Palo Alto From: Jim West, P.E. and Michael Mowery, P.E. Re: College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Final Program Background and Development Memorandum Date: 29 May 2009 INTRODUCTION The College Terrace neighborhood, located adjacent to Stanford University and Stanford Research Park, has historically been affected by large amounts of non - neighborhood traffic and parking for more than 20 years. Past efforts to address the problem have included traffic calming measures to help reduce cut -through traffic and speeding; however, College Terrace residents continue to suffer from a longstanding and growing problem of non-resident parking during both day and night time periods. As a condition of their revised County General Use Permit in 2000, Stanford University provided $100,000 to the city of Palo Alto for a residential parking permit program (RPPP) for the College Terrace neighborhood. These funds are for the consideration and initiation of a RPPP program. In 2003, the City conducted an occupancy survey to gauge the need for the establishment of a College Terrace RPPP, however, no consensus regarding criteria or implementation was reached at that time. During the same period, the concern regarding cut -through traffic and speeding was evaluated through a neighborhood traffic management project (NTMP). In late 2006, traffic circles, speed tables, and other traffic management measures were installed in the neighborhood as outcomes of the NTMP. The completion of the NTMP led to a renewed focus on the parking concerns of the neighborhood and in a memorandum dated July 30, 2007, Mayor Kishimoto and Council Members Beecham and Drekmeier recommended that the City Council direct City staff to initiate a study of an RPPP in College Terrace. Kimley-Horn was retained by the City of Palo Alto to conduct this project, the background and results of which are discussed herein. OCCUPANCY SURVEY To understand the current on -street parking conditions in the College Terrace neighborhood, a parking occupancy study was conducted for both a weekend day (Saturday, March 1st, 2008) and a weekday (Thursday, March 6th, 2008). On each day occupancies were surveyed midday (roughly 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.) and in the evening (roughly 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.). City of Palo Alto - College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program CollegeTerraceRPPP.FinalProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 1 29 May 2009 Field conditions on both days were good, with clear skies and low pedestrian and vehicle traffic on most of the roadways and survey days were considered to represent a typical day. However, there were construction activities in the neighborhood that affected the weekday midday occupancy counts, and "No Parking" areas were indicated near those zones for weekdays. The streets affected by the construction activity were mainly California Avenue and College Avenue. Counting on non - construction days was not possible due to the long duration of the construction project. The number of cars parked were counted and compared to calculated available parking spots, resulting in a parking density by street segment. These occupancy levels were graphed on a map of the neighborhood, and color coded by percentage occupancy, as seen in Figures 1 through 4 on the following pages. The weekday midday results show a relatively high percentage of parking occupancies along Stanford Avenue, with most blocks having greater than 50% occupancy. This occupancy trend continues through the commercial district at the eastern end of the neighborhood, and through the cross streets between Stanford Avenue and College Avenue. The occupancy levels were found to decrease at College Avenue, and on the streets to the south of College Avenue. On weekday evenings, the higher occupancies were found to be spread more evenly throughout the neighborhood. There is still a high percentage of parked cars along Stanford Avenue and in the commercial area, but there are also higher percentages along the cross streets within the neighborhood as well as along College Avenue. There was found to be relatively low parking density along California Avenue during the evening hours, most likely since the main non-residential usage along California Avenue is Stanford Research Park, which was generally unoccupied in the nighttime hours. Weekend midday shows a high density of parking in the commercial district, and along some areas of Stanford Avenue. College Avenue and some of the cross streets have areas of higher parking occupancies, while California Avenue is again displaying lower occupancies. During the weekday evening, the inner cross streets were found to have higher occupancy levels, as did Stanford Avenue. In summary, during both midday and evening time periods on a typical weekday and weekend day, the on -street parking levels of College Terrace were found to be relatively high in specific areas. The parking levels surveyed in the Spring 2008 Occupancy Study were compared and found similar to those collected in 2003 when the College Terrace RPPP was first considered. Therefore, the relatively high level of parking occupancy experienced in the neighborhood was determined to be a consistent occurrence during the five year term between the studies. City of Palo Alto — College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program CollegeTerraceRPPP.FinalProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 2 29 May 2009 Figure 1 College Terrace Parking Occupancy Study Existing Weekday - Midday Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Thursday, March 6th, at 12:00-1:OOpm during the midday. The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below. d rn -0 a v .E o a, o c o E m 0 0 0 U El Camino Real = Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces = 0-25% Occupancy = 26-50% Occupancy = 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy = 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CollegeTerraceRPP_Occupancy(color)052909.xls 05/29/09 Figure 2 College Terrace Parking Occupancy Study Existing Weekday - PM Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Thursday, March 6th, at 7:00-8:00pm during the PM The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below. ID rn E 0 m U El Camino Real Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst = Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces = 0-25% Occupancy = 26-50% Occupancy = 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy = 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CollegeTerraceRPP_Occupancy(color)052909.xls 05/29/09 Figure 3 College Terrace - Parking Occupancy Study Existing Weekend - Midday Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Saturday March 1st, at 12:00-1:20pm during the midday. The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below. o 0 c 0 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Coll eg eTerrace RP P_Occupa ncy(co lor)052909.xls rn m 051' o_ o m To Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst = Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces = 0-25% Occupancy = 26-50% Occupancy = 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy = 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed 05/29/09 Figure 4 College Terrace - Parking Occupancy Study Existing Weekend - PM Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Saturday, March 1st, at 7:00-8:OOpm during the PM The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below. m rn P. m 13 c P. a c o gt E Z m m v)) 0 = Midday Occupancy X = Total Available Parking Spaces = 0-25% Occupancy = 26-50% Occupancy = 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy = 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CollegeTerraceRPP_Occupancy(color)052909:xls 05/29/09 Based on the slightly higher occupancy survey results in the neighborhood area north of College Avenue, a preliminary evaluation was conducted to determine the results of applying an RPPP only in this half of the neighborhood. As expected, the non- resident parking would be forced to park elsewhere, likely first moving to College Avenue as that would be the closest non-RPPP street, and then spreading south throughout the remaining cross streets and California Avenue. An updated occupancy diagram is shown as Figure 5 for weekday, midday parking conditions, and demonstrates the potential impact of implementation of an RPP program in only the north section of College Terrace. To create this example of potential parking locations, the percentage of residents versus non-residents in each block was calculated from a 2003 license plate survey conducted by Palo Alto Police Department. These percentages were then applied to the total number of vehicles parked in the roadway segments as counted during the March 2008 field survey. In the north neighborhood area where the RPPP was studied, those vehicles that were not assumed to be residents were moved to neighboring streets. College Avenue was first filled to approximately 90% capacity, assuming that most relocated vehicles would park there as it would be the closest non -permitted parking to their previous locations. Once College Avenue was nearly occupied, the remaining relocated vehicles were evenly dispersed amongst the cross streets between College Avenue and California Avenue, as well as along California Avenue itself. Figure 6 depicts the potential parking availability during weekend midday hours. The methodology was identical to that used during the weekday midday exercise, in order to show the most conservative estimate if the parking program were to be in effect on the weekend. The results of this evaluation illustrates the predicted impact of application of a College Terrace RPPP in only one section of the neighborhood and the likely relocation of non-resident parked vehicles to other portions of the neighborhood. This evaluation utilized the north half of the neighborhood but the results are considered a representative illustration of the continued impacts that non- resident parking may have on the College Terrace neighborhood if only part of the neighborhood adopts an RPP program. City of Palo Alto — College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program CollegeTerraceRPPP.FinalProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 7 29 May 2009 e College Terrace Parking Occupancy Study Future Weekday - Midday Below is a description of cars parked after the residential parking permit program is in place. Non-residents are now restricted from parking on street in the neighborhood bordered by Stanford Ave, to the north, El Camino Real to the east, Amherst St. to the west, and College Ave. to the south. Non-residents are allowed to park on College Ave. 0 Ol 9 'o a, 73, E ✓ N . rE 55. o E m rn O 0 0 0 El Camino Real = Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces = 0-20% Occupancy = 21-40% Occupancy = 41-50% Occupancy = 50+% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed = 90+% Occupancy Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CollegeTerraceRPP_Relocated0ccupancy(color)052909.xls 05/29/09 Figure 6 College Terrace - Parking Occupancy Study Future Weekend - Midday Below is a description of cars parked after the residential parking permit program is in place. Non-residents are now restricted from parking on street in the neighborhood bordered by Stanford Ave, to the north, El Camino Real to the east, Amherst St. to the west, and College Ave. to the south. Non-residents are allowed to park on College Ave. Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst LX = Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces = 0-20% Occupancy = 21-40% Occupancy = 41-50% Occupancy = 50+% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed = 90+% Occupancy Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CollegeTerraceRPP_RelocatedOccupancy(color)052909.xls 05/29/09 RPP BEST PRACTICES FROM OTHER CITIES To determine best practices and/or ideas for implementation in the College Terrace neighborhood, a literature review was conducted comparing various residential parking permit programs in the local area. The cities selected for comparison were Berkeley, Cupertino, Emeryville; Oakland, Monterey, Santa Cruz, and Walnut Creek. The research focused on the following points of the permit policies: • Enforcement Agency: The agency that enforces the program. In some areas, this may be the public works department, finance department, parking division, or other department. • Cost of Yearly Permit: Most programs have an annual fee, others charge a fee once every two years. • Threshold for Adopting RPP: The percentage of residents within the proposed program limits that must sign a petition for the program to be considered. • Enforcement Periods: Defined by the days of the week (usually Monday through Friday) and the hours during the day which the program will be enforced. • Parking Time without Permit: Allowed time for a vehicle with no permit to park in a restricted street parking spot. This time period usually ranges from one to two hours. • Voting Privileges: Whether the owner, resident, or renter gets to vote to implement a program. • Guest Permit Violation Policy: Policy for violation of guest permits such as ticketing and towing after 72 hours. • Enforcement of Guest Permit Violations: Actions taken for guest permit violations. • Residences in Commercial Districts: Policy on how residences in commercial districts are handled such as obtaining a permit and parking in a metered space and not have to pay the meter or parking in a residential district. • Selling/Transfer of Guest Passes: Policy on replacing or transferring guest passes such as a $25 fee to replace the guest pass. An option is available in some programs for homeowners to purchase a certain number of one -day guest passes for use throughout the year. • Adoption Entity: Amount of neighborhood that will be part of the program, i.e. full neighborhood or street by street participation. Usually requires 2/3 majority or 51% of residents participate. • Commercial/Contractor/Maintenance Vehicles: Treatment of vehicles such as gardeners or contractors who park in the street but do not have a parking permit. Most locales allow for issuance of guest passes to facilitate commercial and non-resident parking. • Application Process: Action necessary to apply for a residential permit. • Form of Permit: The form of the permit, such as a sticker to put on your car bumper. City. of Palo Alto — College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program CollegeTerraceRPPP.FinalProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 10 29 May 2009 • Proof of Residency: List of acceptable proofs of residency such as a driver's license, utility bill, rental agreement, etc. • Time to Issue: Amount of time expected to be necessary to obtain permit • Day Passes: The cost associated with a day pass and the duration of the validity of the pass. A summary of the RPP programs reviewed was compiled and summarized in Table 1. The results of the local area RPPPs aided in the selection of alternative elements in the College Terrace RPPP based on the specific issues and cost ramifications of establishing a successful RPPP in other areas. City of Palo Alto — College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program CollegeTerraceRPPP.FinalProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 11 29 May 2009 Table 1: L ocal Area RPP Pr ograms Roweloe 510-981-7200 Press 3 then 0 Parking Permits 408-777-3354 Glenn G oepsert 510-596-4300 Go rdon Lumm 510-238-3172 City of Monterey Parking Division 831-646-3953 Vicky Sulvan & Veleria Tingly (Supervisor) Ja me s Burr Transporta tion Engineer 831.420.5426 Marlin Gramland 831-620.5184 Jim Haggerty 925-943-5800 Fin an ce Customer Service Cen ter/Om. of Tran sportatio n Public Wo rks Departmen t City of Emeryville Transportatio n Se rvices Division Parking Div ision Parking Programs City of Walnut Creek 530 $45 for 2 years 520 $25/year July 1 -Dec. 31 $17.50/ye ar Jan. 1-Juno30 Renewal $15/ve hicle $20 $5 Parking congesti on >75% of a vailable spaces and City Council approv al RPP considered when a petition is submitted with 213 majority. Parkin g congestion o75% during peak parking hours If suffic ient signatures, survey conducted to dete rmin e if area meets guidelines Parking con gestion P70% of available spaces Parking co ngestio n 080% during peak parking periods, > 25% must belong to non-residen ts Some M -F. e M -Sat. M -F M -F M -F September 15 - June 30 2 h ours 2 hours 1 hour 2 hours Ow ner or resident or renter gets a vot e Owner only getsa vote Renter gets the vote but the best case scen ario Is If the owner is invo lved as well Resident gets the vo te Occu pant gels the v ote After 72 hours abandoned vehicle s get towed: guest permits issued for 2 weeks Tw o guest p ermits iss ued per household violat ors cited 72 ho ur rul e applies - regardless if they ha ve a pe rmit they are ticketed then to wed 72 hour rule a pplies - regardless if they have a permit they are ticke ted the n to we d 72 hour rule applies - regardless if they have a pe rmit they are ticketed the n to wed Cars are ticketed first then tow ed Violat ors cited by code enforcement o fficer Visit or/g uest permits ar e n on- tr ansferr able; violat ors ticketed Guest permits are transferable amongst various en titles visiting the household Track guest pe rmits - $100 fine, first send re gistered letter to ow ner, then revoke the parking permit of owner for the v iolation Depends on th e commercial buildi ng loc ation own er and what they have negotiat ed with the city Case by case bass - no set policy They purchase a per mit but p ark on a r esidential stre et Cas e by case basis - no set policy Residents may Parkin metered areas with a permit w hich excludes the m fro m pa ying the mete r Guest passes are non-tr ansf err able; day passes tr ansferr able (technically) Do n ot re -issue lost guest passes Non-transferrable Guest passes are transf errable . no ch arge for guest passes Guest permits issued four (4) per h ousehold 525 to re place a lost guest permit. A signed affidavit required be fo re replacement issued No ne Issued for contractors9a ndsw pars, etc; passes only issued far borne healthcare bo si e nce/h ome nursi ng Temporary parki ng w arver s for contract ors with time stipulated on w atyer landscapers, etc. use resid ent guest pass es Contr actors, etc . get visitor passes Contract ors, landscapers, etc issued permits if th ey ere lice nsed to Work In or ha ve a busin ess license In the city Contactors - speGal p ernit5; hous e cleaners - guest permit, tree parking for identifiable services (landscapers, etc.) Streets within a d esignated RPP zone ca n opt int o the program with at least 51%o1 residenti al address ee signing official petiti on sheets Neighborh oods with parki ng pr oblems . Permit parki ng study fee 01$880 will be collected from the requesting Party. By str eet s ection; can . opt in with a petiti on signed by 2/3 of h ouseholds and businesses . Odd and even -numb ered sides of each block file sepa rately . RPP Area, petition must be submitt ed with at bast 51% of residential units in each of the blocks within proposed are a. At least six adj acent block fronts must be included, limits on z oning of block: By street. Petition signed by >51%of r esidents . By street, l ong blocks may be split at i nt ersections. 2/3 of househ olds must sign petto n. 2/3 of area's residents must sign petiti on. 80 % of pr operty In area must be resldentlol No special previsions for nannies , housekeepers, or other guests. C ontr actor s can get speci al pe rmits to z one oft parking Each home owner all owed 2 guest pass es each y ear, or c an ask f or a waiver to be displayed on dash board B uy temporary permit. Visitor Pass 2 Visitor Pass es 2 visitors passes 2 g uest permits Initially in person , renew al by it Initialy In pers on, renewal by mail Initi ally in person . r enewal by mau Initially in perso n, r enewal by ail Sticker on bumper Sticker on b umper Sticker on bumper Sticker Vehicle registrati on, car need s to be registered to add ress Pr oof of residency for temporary permit V alid driver's license with void check or utility bill. Valid vehicle registrati on with address Rental agr eeme nt, property tax bill, utility bill . Valid vehicle registration with address Valid driver's license with utility bill, or leas e. Valid vehicle registration with address 5-10 min at register -30 mi n afterw ards 5-10 mi n 5-10 min et register given immediat ely 1 day -$2 .00 14 -day - 520.00 Annual -$30 .00 Daily pass es can get ahead of time whe n you apply for annual permit 1 day- $1 .00 14 -day - $5.00 Ann ual - 520.00 (max 3) 52 -week visitor pass for 050.00 Issued with annual permit Free visitor pass es 30 daily permits/year to each re sidence for which application is made . The daily permit is valid on the day that it Is activated and used. The daily permit valid when used within 3 bl acks th e holder's residence. Same process as annual permit . 55.00 annual 1 -Day - first 20 are free. $1 thereafter COLLEGE TERRACE RPPP ALTERNATIVES Based on the local area RPPP research and concerns discussed with the project advisory committee (PAC), alternatives were developed for consideration for the College Terrace RPPP. At the April 16, 2008 College Terrace RPPP PAC meeting, four options for a College Terrace RPP Program were discussed and recommended for further study. The following narrative details the specifics of each option; with further details concerning types of permits contained in later text. • Option 1: Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit are permitted to use on -street parking in the College Terrace Neighborhood on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Holidays would be exempt. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these periods will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. All vehicles may utilize on -street parking in College Terrace outside of the specified time periods. • Option 2: Vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit are permitted to use on -street parking in the College Terrace Neighborhood on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Holidays would be exempt. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these periods and exceeding the two (2) hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. All vehicles may utilize on -street parking in College Terrace outside of the specified time periods. • Option 3: Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit are permitted to use on -street parking in the College Terrace Neighborhood on all seven days of the week (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Holidays would be exempt. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these periods will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. All vehicles may utilize on -street parking in College Terrace outside of the specified time periods. • Option 4: Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit are permitted to use on -street parking in the College Terrace Neighborhood on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Holidays would be exempt. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these periods will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. All vehicles may utilize on -street parking in College Terrace outside of the specified time periods. City of Palo Alto — College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program CollegeTerraceRPPP.FinalProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 13 29 May 2009 COLLEGE TERRACE RPPP PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE On July 15, 2008, the College Terrace RPPP PAC in consultation with the College Terrace Board recommended to City staff that Option 2 be considered the primary option for RPP program implementation. The following describes the recommended details for the College Terrace RPP program under the Option 2 criteria. For each program, parking enforcement officers would be required to ensure that the provisions of the program are being met; otherwise fines would be issued to violators. For the preferred alternative, the City of Palo Alto Police Department has stated that they could staff this option without the need to hire another Community Service Officer (CSO). [A summary of the estimated cost of the preferred alternative, based on staffing hours, rates, overtime compensation, and other costs was computed. Since the program is required to operate as revenue -neutral, an estimate of the number of citations issued and revenues collected is also calculated for the program based on historical citation rates evaluated in the City of Palo Alto as well as cities with existing RPP Programs. These citations are assumed to cost $35 per citation, based on the current downtown parking violation citation cost.] The following Program Details and Cost Assumptions explain the Preferred RPPP Alternative, Option 2. A survey was sent out to all households in the College Terrace neighborhood in spring of 2009 by US mail. The survey resulted in approximately 200 households choosing to opt -in to the RPPP in the initial deployment. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the voting results by neighborhood block for households choosing to opt -in or not participate in the RPPP initial deployment, respectively. Based on the results of the survey, the City of Palo Alto staff is revising the Cost Estimate for permits in the initial deployment area. These updates include the number of households in the neighborhood updated from 1080 to 900 households, a revision of staffing support time and expenses to operate the program, and application of the General Use Permit funds to be included in the program. The final Staff Report for City Council review will include this Cost Estimate update and final program details. City of Palo Alto — College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program CollegeTerraceRPPP.FinalProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 14 29 May 2009 Figure 7: College Terrace Parking RPPP Survey Results (Participating Residences) Stanford Oxford College Cambridge California 9115 0 115 • 518 018 81 1113 46 016 7113 1113 ra 115 15;20 1 1 29 415 015 35 015 313 013 2 I 2 012 34 014 0 13124 3 1 24 Library C Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard 41 � 015 Hanover 22 012 3:20 1 120 Legend xx 1 xx xx 1 xx Yes votes 1 Total # of houses No votes 'Total # of houses Dartmouth 22 012 Columbia 014 E3; 3 125 Bowdoin Amherst Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 05/29/09 Figure 8: College Terrace RPPP Survey Results (Non -Participating Residencies) Stanford Oxford College Cambridge California Wellesley Princeton Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Yes votes 1 Total # of houses No votes 1 Total # of houses Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 05/29/09 Program Details: • One (1) resident permit will be issued for each vehicle of a household owner or person (s) renting a household in the College Terrace Neighborhood. Residents applying for a permit will be required to provide proof of vehicle ownership and residency. Therefore, a vehicle registration form as well as one of the following would be required at the time of registration showing College Terrace residency: o Driver's License o Rental Agreement o Recent Utility Bill With Street Address Noted • Multiple resident permits may be purchased per physical address based on multiple vehicle ownership and the following criteria: o The RPPP year is defined as between September 1 and August 31St of the following year. Yearly permit renewal date is September 1. (This RPPP year was selected based on consultation with the City Department of Revenue Collections as well as flexibility for Stanford students residing in the College Terrace neighborhood.) o Parking permits may be purchased yearly starting August 1st each year, through September 30th o A grace period will be recognized from September 1st to September 30th for residents with previous year permits due to the start of school each year (i.e. vehicles not displaying a permit during the grace period will be cited but vehicles displaying the permit from the previous year will not be cited during the grace period). o The annual parking permit will consist of a bumper sticker that is to be affixed to the rear bumper, to the left of the license plate bracket. o The annual parking permit will be a different color each permit year (September 1 to August 31st the following year). o New residents to College Terrace may purchase resident permits throughout a permit year. Parking permit fees will be pro -rated for half year increments, e.g. permits applied for from February 1 to July 31st will pay half price. o No partial or full refund will be administered for any resident, guest, or day permits. • Two (2) guest passes will be issued per household in the College Terrace Neighborhood that has registered for at least one resident parking permit. This allowance is to provide accessibility for resident services in the neighborhood such as lawn care, house cleaners, contractors, etc. as well as for guests of the household. Guest passes are provided per household rather than per vehicle ownership. Guest passes will be designed to hang from the rear view City of Palo Alto — College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program CollegeTerraceRPPP.FinalProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 17 29 May 2009 mirror and must be clearly displayed in this fashion. The selling of guest passes will be considered illegal under the adopted ordinance. • Residents will be required to complete their initial application for the resident permit and guest passes in person at the Revenue Collections office at the City of Palo Alto City Hall located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Subsequent renewal of the resident permit and guest passes must be completed in person at the Revenue Collections office. Application will require name, household address, license plate number, car manufacturer, color, year and model. There will be a $10 re -issue fee for lost permits or new vehicle ownership for existing resident parking permit holders. • Day permits may be purchased in person at the Revenue Collections office. Day passes will be applicable for one 24 -hour period. At the time of purchase the date of each day permit will be logged in a registry at the Revenue Collections office based on the number of the day permit. A fee of $2 will be charged for each day permit. Day passes will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and allow the user to scratch off the day of usage, which must be clearly displayed. The total number of Day Passes issued will be limited to 1/3 of the total days each 3 months that the College Terrace RPPP applies (e.g. 60 weekdays in a 3 month period would allow a resident to purchase 20 day passes for that quarter). Day permits may only be purchased by College Terrace residents. • Construction and maintenance permits will be available for long-term construction activities, consistent with current practice by the City. Program Cost Assumptions: • Permits will be applied for and renewed annually. • 900 U.S. Postal Service households in College Terrace used for "whole neighborhood" cost, 450 used for half, and 225 used for quarter. • Total available parking spaces in College Terrace are estimated to be 1,246 parking spaces, with an estimated 644 parking spaces in half the neighborhood. • The percentage of homes on that block that must approve a RPPP petition to be considered/go into effect is to be set at 51% of households. • Enforcement of the 2 -hour limitation will be conducted by coding license plates in electronic format and not chalking tires. • After the initial survey, to enroll a block in the College Terrace RPPP, there is 1 year opt in period. A block may only enter the RPP program on the program renewal date of September 1. • Once a block is enrolled, there is a 2 year opt out period to prevent blocks from entering and exiting the program frequently and causing confusion. For City of Palo Alto — College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program CollegeTerraceRPPP.FinalProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 18 29 May 2009 example, a block that joins the program on September 1, 2009 will be a RPPP block until at least August 31, 2011, if an opt -out process is completed. • RPP program sign installation and maintenance cost is to be funded by the College Terrace RPPP. • The City of Palo Alto public library located in the College Terrace neighborhood is exempt from the College Terrace RPPP. • The residential portion of the CN zone on the east side of Yale Street will be included in the College Terrace RPPP. • The development and implementation of the College Terrace Program is initially funded by $100,000 from a Standard University General Use Permit fund contribution. The initial fund amount will be used for set up of the College Terrace RPPP including consultant fees and one police department patrol vehicle. To apply this fund equitably for all neighborhood residents, the remaining fund balance will be applied on a percent of blocks participating in the program through the third full year of the program. After the third full year RPPP program completion, the remaining fund balance will be applied to the program to offset resident permit costs. For example, if half of the neighborhood opts -in to the RPP program for year one, one half of the fund balance will be applied to offset program costs. City of Palo Alto — College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program CollegeTerraceRPPP.FinalProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 19 29 May 2009 ATTACHMENT H February 18, 2009 Resident «AddressBlock» «AddressBlock» SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM IN COLLEGE TERRACE - POSTCARD BALLOT Dear Resident, As a follow up to the letter of January 28, 2009, I am sending with this letter a postcard ballot to all College Terrace households in the residential zoning area, to find out if your household would like to have your street block opt in to the proposed Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP). As previously discussed, the proposed program would allow vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit to use on -street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods and exceeding the two hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the Police Department. The cost of a parking permit is $25 for each vehicle, if less than 50% of the street blocks in College Terrace vote to be included in the program. If more then 50% of the street blocks vote for inclusion in the program, the cost for each vehicle will decrease to $15 for each permit. Attached you will find the program details, cost, rules and regulations that are being proposed in this RPPP. Please note that the majority of the number of houses on your street block must vote "yes" for your block to be included in this program. For example, 4 out of 6 homes on a block must vote "yes" in order for the block to be included in the initial RPPP. Blocks that choose to opt into the program are required to participate for 2 years. Enclosed is a postcard ballot for your vote on whether your household would like to opt into the residential parking permit program. When filling out the postcard, please note the following: 1. Please print your name and address CLEARLY. 2. Only one vote per household is allowed. 3. 51% of homes on a block must request inclusion in the Program. (i.e. 4 of 7 homes on a block must vote "yes" for the Program to be included in the initial RPPP Program). 4. Please check "yes" if you would like your block to participate in this RPPP program. 5. Please check "no" if you do not want your block to participate in this program. 6. Please stamp and return the postcard no later than March 11, 2009. The final recommended College Terrace RPPP and voting results will be presented to the City Council, for consideration and adoption of a new College Terrace RPPP, which would be initiated on September 1, 2009 on the neighborhood blocks which voted to be included in the program. Residents are strongly encouraged to work together to decide whether or not you would like your block to be included in this initial offering. Blocks that choose not to participate at this time will have to wait one year before they can request to be included in the program. More detail on how residents can apply for an RPPP for the following year will be developed and presented at a later time. I would like to remind you again that if you currently don't experience a problem with an excess of cars parking on your street now, it doesn't mean that you won't in the future, once the RPPP is implemented on your neighboring blocks. Currently residents on Stanford Avenue including the streets that have access to Stanford Avenue (Yale, Wellesley Oberlin, Harvard, Hanover, and Dartmouth) experience the most problems with long-term parking. Once the RPPP is implemented in these blocks, cars will most likely move to the neighboring streets where there isn't any residential parking permit enforcement. We strongly recommend that you consider this when you cast your vote and mail in your postcard. All of the background information and studies that have been completed to date, including notes from the neighborhood meetings can be found at the following website: www.citvofpaloalto.orq/knowzone/city proiects/transportation/college terrace residential parkin q permit program.asp. Results of this ballot will also be posted on the website as information becomes available. If you have any questions you can email me at Shahla.yazdy a(�cityofpaloalto.orq or call me at (650) 617-3151. Sincerely, Shahla Yazdy Transportation Engineer Attachment College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) Program Enforcement Period will be Monday -Friday, between 8:00am and 5:00pm. • Vehicles displaying a permit may use on -street parking during this period. • Vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to 2 hours during this period. • Violators will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. • Holidays will be exempt. • All vehicles may utilize on -street parking outside of this period. One resident permit may be issued for each vehicle of a household owner or person renting a household. • Residents applying for a permit will be required to provide a vehicle registration form as well as a Driver's License, rental agreement, or recent utility bill with street address noted. • Residents will be required to complete initial and renewal applications for permits in person at the Revenue Collections office at the City of Palo Alto City Hall. Applications will require name, household address, license plate number, car manufacturer, color, year and model. • Multiple resident permits may be purchased per household if multiple vehicles owned. • The RPPP year is between September 1 and August 31 of the following year. • Permits may be purchased yearly starting August 1. • A grace period will be set from September 1-30 for residents with previous year permits. • Resident permits will be a sticker affixed to the rear bumper, to the left of the license plate. • Resident permits will be a different color each permit year (September 1 -August 31). • New residents to College Terrace may purchase resident permits throughout a permit year. • Resident permits will cost $25 if 50% or less of the blocks in the neighborhood vote to be included in the program or $15 if more than 50% of the blocks vote for inclusion in the program • Resident permits will be pro -rated for half year increments (permits applied for Feb 1 -July 31 will pay half price). • A $10 re -issue fee charged for lost permits or new vehicle ownership for existing permits. • No partial or full refund will be administered for any permits. • A person employed by or a representative of a neighborhood -serving establishment may purchase one resident permit per vehicle owned. Two annual guest permits may be issued per household that has at least one resident permit. • Annual guest permits provide accessibility for resident services in the neighborhood such as lawn care, house cleaners, contractors, etc. as well as for guests of the household. • Annual guest permits will be free. • Annual guest permits are provided per household rather than per vehicle ownership. • Annual guest permits will hang from the rear view mirror. • Selling of guest passes will be considered illegal under the proposed ordinance. Day guest permits may be issued for one 24 -hour period based on additional purchase. • At the time of purchase the date of each day guest permit will be logged in a registry at the Revenue Collections office based on the number of the day permit. • A $2 fee will be charged for each day guest permit. • Day guest permits will hang from the rear view mirror and allow user to scratch off day of use. • Total number of day guest permits will be limited to 20 each 3 -month calendar quarter. • Construction and maintenance permits will be available for long-term construction activities, consistent with current practice by the City. • Selling of day guest passes will be considered illegal under the proposed ordinance. College Terrace RPPP Cost: ge To e Res it r tr i t %k g P r 1 Pr gr Residential Permit* Annual Guest Permit** One-Dav Permit*** Lost Residential Parking Permit Reissue fortransferto new vehicle ownership Residential Permit* $ 15 2 10 10 Annual Guest Permit** One -Day Permit*** Lost Residential Parking Permit Reissue for transfer to new vehicle ownership $ 10 10 *Permits purchased during the 2nd half of the RPPP year (Le. **Maximum of 2 permits per year per residence. ***Maximum of 20 permits in a 3 month period per residence. arch 1 to August 31) pay half price. Initial Ballot Voting Process • A voting ballot will be sent to all residents in 2-3 weeks. • Each household receives one vote for inclusion or exclusion in the initial Program. • 51 % of homes on a block must request inclusion in the Program. (i.e. 4 of 7 homes on a block must vote "yes" for the Program to be included in the initial RPPP Program). • "Block" means any street segment intersected by two other streets. (e.g. Yale Street from Stanford Avenue to Oxford Avenue). • Residential portion of the CN zone on east side of Yale Street will be included in the RPPP. • Parking spaces located "behind" Palo Alto public library located in the College Terrace are exempt from the RPPP. Additional information on this program can be found at the following web address: www.cityofpaloalto.orq/knowzone/city projects/transportation/college terrace residential parking permit program .asp City of Palo Alto Contact Info: Shahla Yazdy (650) 617-3151 or shahla.yazdy a(�cityofpaloalto.orq College Terrace Resident's Association Contact: Steven Woodward (650) 858-2908 (evenings) College Terrace Project Advisory Committee Contact: Diane Finkelstein (650) 857-0400 College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Does your household want your block to participate in the proposed Residential Parking Permit Program as described in the enclosed attachment? Please check only one box. YES NO You must print your address CLEARLY on the reverse and mail it by March 11, 2009 , for your vote to be counted. ATTACHMENT I College Terrace RPPP Survey Results (Participating Residences) Stanford Oxford College Cambridge California 518 018 4 I 6 016 3 I 5 015 1 129 13124 1 4 I 5 015 2I2 012 22 012 Legend xxIxx xx 1 xx Yes votes 1 Total # of houses* No votes 1 Total # of houses* * - # of houses does not include vacancies Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst College Terrace RPPP Survey Results (Non -Participating Residences) Stanford Oxford College Cambridge California 019 Staunton 119 119 219 2116 5116 1 148 7148 215 015 10 110 3111 2111 318 1 18 1114 3114 2 9 19 5148 7148 Librar 015 216 316 Yale Legend XX1XX XX1XX Yes votes 1 Total # of houses * No votes 1 Total # of houses * * - # of houses does not include vacancies Williams Wellesley 6121 4118 4121 im 6 123 4123 2111 3111 3118 2111 2111 015 215 8121 3121 i1[, 12131 1131 2113 2113 5117 6117 Comell 0,5 515 3119 6119 4110 3110 319 219 7122 4122 41. 0111 9120 2120 418 8122 5122 1 18 10122 4 1 22 214 114 26 6 6118 7118 114 114 Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst ATTACHMENT J PROPOSED COLLEGE TERRACE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM (RPPP) m co a) a rn a `o 0 U 0 Library E 0 U A El Camino Real Yale Williams Wellesley Como Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst III= RPPP enforcement area (Represents 51% of the number of households on a block that voted "yes") Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Col leg eTerrace R P P P E nforce m entArea.062509. xl s 05/29/09 ATTACHMENT K TO: Shahla Yazdy Transportation Engineer, City of Palo Alto Via email shahla.yazdy(a,cityofpaloalto.org FROM: Greg Tanaka President, College Terrace Residents' Assn. DATE: November 13, 2008 SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM IN COLLEGE TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD Shahla, Thank you for your hard work with other city staff, the consultants and the Advisory Committee to devise a parking solution. It is encouraging to see the progress toward finding a feasible solution for the problems of parking scarcity in a growing segment of the College Terrace neighborhood. The purpose of this letter is to consolidate the feedback of the CTRA Board of Directors, with input from the Advisory Committee, about the proposed Residential Parking Permit Program for our neighborhood, as outlined by City Staff at the October 15th neighborhood meeting. As presented, the residential permit parking program would reduce the problem of stored vehicles of non-residents on College Terrace streets as well as the intrusion of commuter parking from Stanford University and surrounding commercial areas. The recommended restrictions would apply on blocks that opt -in to the program between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. Vehicles without permits could park on these blocks for two hours, after which they would be subject to tickets. Overall, the Board remains supportive of the recommended option, a.k.a. "Option 2", which is based on a review of programs that have been successful in similar neighborhoods in other cities and is projected to meet the City Council requirement of revenue neutrality. However, some issues identified in the October 15 meeting need to be addressed before moving to the next step of sending out a ballot to all College Terrace households. Our feedback focuses on three areas: 1. Overnight parking (problems after 5:00 pm) 2. Block voting process 3. Parking controls in the CN zone Overnight parking (problems after 5:00 pm) The expectation is that the proposed two-hour parking limit for cars without permits on weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. will significantly reduce the non-resident parking intrusion caused by both day commuters and Escondido Village residents who currently use adjacent College Terrace streets to park for free. However, on the most impacted College Terrace blocks (near the corner of Stanford Ave. and Wellesley St.), residents are concerned that this reduction will not carry over to the evening hours, due to overnight parking by residents of a nearby 4 -story graduate studio apaiti►ient complex and related visitors. We understand that there are logistical and budget issues that arise with any proposal to extend enforcement past 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. However, we believe that not having a solution to overnight parkers could be an obstacle to getting permit parking approved in this segment of the neighborhood, unless there is a written commitment to consider modifications for this impacted zone if need be within a reasonable period after program implementation. We would like to see the PAC and City team re -visit this issue and see if there is a way to address it prior to the next step in gaining official neighborhood input. Opt -in Voting Process We agree that the program should roll out block by block as residents come together to seek parking relief. Neighbors can opt -in to the program on a block by block basis via a ballot process. However, some streets have only three residences; others have dozens of apartment units who tend to have less involvement in neighborhood issues. Our request is that we count the Yes or No votes of each residence returning ballots — one vote per residence. Non -voters should not be counted as if they had voted no; instead we urge that the normal definition of majority approval be used, i.e. based on the total number of household ballots returned. Parking controls in the CN zone Congested parking problems also affect several streets in the CN-zoned portion of College Terrace, which has a mixture of residences, neighborhood -serving retail and other commercial uses. The currently proposed parking program would not cover the CN zone, leaving them with no parking control of any kind. The CN-zoned portion of College Terrace is bounded on the north by Stanford Avenue, by El Camino Real on the east and by California Avenue to the south, and includes all of Cambridge, Oxford and Staunton plus portions of Yale Street. Our concern is that controlling parking on the residential streets outside the CN zone while offering no controls within the CN will greatly exacerbate the parking problem on streets within the CN zone. We understand that you share this concern and that staff have informally discussed it. Our request is that city staff quickly initiate a formal process designed to address the parking concerns of CN residents and businesses, so that the proposed residential permit parking program does not exacerbate the existing CN zone parking challenges. In summary, the CTRA Board of Directors and Parking Advisory Committee feel that, with changes in these three areas, the proposed program will be ready to present to our neighbors. Please let me know if you have and questions or would like to meet about any of these topics. We are eager to move forward quickly with the implementation of the permit parking program in our neighborhood. Once again, you have our many thanks for your assistance. ATTACHMENT L April 28, 2009 SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM IN COLLEGE TERRACE - POSTCARD BALLOT — COMMERCIAL ZONING AREA Dear Resident, The City of Palo Alto has been working on a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) for the College Terrace neighborhood and we are sending this letter to households located in the commercial neighborhood (CN) zoning area to ascertain the level of interest in the participation of this program. I am sending with this letter a postcard ballot to find out if your household would like to have your street block opt in to the proposed Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP). This process included close consultation between residents, neighborhood stakeholders, and City Engineering, Revenue Collections and Police Department staff. The study has included discussion and presentation at multiple College Terrace Board and Resident Public Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings, as well as two neighborhood meetings held on March 19, 2008 and October 15, 2008, where the recommended College Terrace RPPP Option was presented to the neighborhood residents. A ballot has already been sent out to all of the households in the residential zoning areas and approximately 1/3 of the street blocks have opted into the RPPP. A map of the voting results has been posted on the project website (see web address below). We now have a program that we feel will address the majority of the neighborhood concerns and at this time, we would like to assess the level of support for all households that are located in the CN zoning areas in College Terrace. The proposed program would allow vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit to use on -street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods and exceeding the two hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the Police Department. The cost of a parking permit is $25 for each vehicle, if less than 50% of the street blocks in College Terrace vote to be included in the program. If more then 50% of the street blocks vote for inclusion in the program, the cost for each vehicle will decrease to $15 for each permit. Attached you will find the program details, cost, rules and regulations that are being proposed in this RPPP. Please note that if you currently don't experience a problem with an excess of cars parking on your street now, it doesn't mean that you won't in the future, once the RPPP is implemented on your neighboring blocks. Currently residents on Stanford Avenue including the streets that have access to Stanford Avenue (Yale, Wellesley Oberlin, Harvard, Hanover, and Dartmouth) experience the most problems with long-term parking. Once the RPPP is implemented in these blocks, cars will most likely move to the neighboring streets where there isn't any residential parking permit enforcement. We strongly recommend that you consider this when you cast your vote and mail in your postcard. Please note that the majority of the number of houses on your street block must vote "yes" for your block to be included in this program. For example, 4 out of 6 homes on a block must vote "yes" in order for the block to be included in the initial RPPP. Blocks that choose to opt into the program are required to participate for 2 years. Enclosed is a postcard ballot for your vote on whether your household would like to opt into the residential parking permit program. When filling out the postcard, please note the following: 1. Please print your name and address CLEARLY. 2. Only one vote per household is allowed. 3. 51% of homes on a block must request inclusion in the Program. (i.e. 4 of 7 homes on a block must vote "yes" for the Program to be included in the initial RPPP Program). 4. Please check "yes" if you would like your block to participate in this RPPP program. 5. Please check "no" if you do not want your block to participate in this program. 6. Please stamp and return the postcard no later than MAY 15, 2009. The final recommended College Terrace RPPP and voting results will be presented to the City Council, for consideration and adoption of a new College Terrace RPPP, which would be initiated on September 1, 2009 on the neighborhood blocks which voted to be included in the program. Residents are strongly encouraged to work together to decide whether or not you would like your block to be included in this initial offering. Blocks that choose not to participate at this time will have to wait one year before they can request to be included in the program. More detail on how residents can apply for an RPPP for the following year will be developed and presented at a later time. All of the background information and studies that have been completed to date, including notes from the neighborhood meetings can be found at the following website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/citv projects/transportation/college terrace residential parking permit grog ram. asp. If you have any questions you can email me at Shahla.yazdy( cityofpaloalto.orq or call me at (650) 617-3151. Sincerely, Shahla Yazdy Transportation Engineer Attachment ATTACHMENT M City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: June 11, 2009 Project Name: College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Project Location: The project area is the College Terrace Neighborhood and is located in the southern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and west of State Route 82 (El Camino Real), and is bounded by El Camino Real on the east side, California Avenue on the south side, Amherst Street on the west side and Stanford Avenue on the north. Applicant: City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division Owner: Project Description: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 The proposed project, the Residential Parking Permit Program, requires participants to purchase a parking permit (resident permit, guest permit, or day permit) for display on their vehicles that would allow use of on -street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods and exceeding the two hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the Police Department. As part of the RPPP, permit parking/2 hour signs will be installed on affected blocks. Depending on the length of the block, approximately 2- 3 signs will be placed on each block face to warn drivers that the street block is designated as residential parking permit only. The signs will be placed between property lines and behind the sidewalk. The signs will be no larger the 14 inches by 20 inches in size. The signs will be a minimum 7 feet high from the ground to the bottom of the sign. Sign poles will be 2 -inch tubular galvanized steel post and will be posted 24 inches below ground and surrounded by 6 inches of concrete. No damage will be done to existing landscaped areas. II. DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto's procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: Page 1 of 2 e Negative Declaration and InitialStudy may be viewed at the following locations:. (1) Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (2) Development Center, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Responsible;: Agencies sent a copy of this document: Not Applicable. g ally significant impacts to a less than project .._. Mitt anon Measures included in the to oten i significant level . ... Not Applicable. A reporting or monitoring program must be adopted for measures to rntigate significant impacts; at the time the Mitigated Negative Declaration is approved, in accord with the requirements of section 21081.6 of the. Public_Resorrces Code Prepared by: Clare Campbell, Planner Signature C3 : --id Date Page 2 of 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. PROJECT TITLE College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Shahla Yazdy City of Palo Alto 650-617-3151 4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer Transportation Division 5. APPLICATION NUMBER Not applicable 6. PROJECT LOCATION College Terrace Neighborhood Palo Alto, CA The project site is located in the southern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and west of State Route 82 (El Camino Real). The College Terrace Neighborhood is bounded by El Camino Real on the east side, California Avenue on the south side, Amherst Street on the west side and Stanford Avenue on the north as shown on Figure 2. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 1 Figure 1: City of Palo Alto Figure 2. College Terrace Neighborhood College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 2 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The College Terrace neighborhood is designated as Single Family Residential in the Palo Alto 1998 — 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The area predominantly contains single-family residences except for a small amount of commercial uses along El Camino Real. Main land uses surrounding College Terrace area consist of Stanford University on the north and west sides and Stanford Research Park on the south side. 8. ZONING Zoning within the College Terrace neighborhood includes Single -Family Residential (R-1), Two Unit Multiple -Family Residential District (RMD), Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP), Public Facilities District (PF) and Neighborhood Commercial (CN). 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background The College Terrace neighborhood, located adjacent to Stanford University and Stanford Research Park, has historically been affected by large amounts of non -neighborhood traffic and parking. Residents continue to suffer from a longstanding and growing problem with daytime and night time parking of students and employees of the university and other nearby employers who regularly park on neighborhood streets to avoid the cost of parking permits or because of convenience. Increasingly, as Stanford works to discourage commute trips onto campus, more people park nearby and walk, bike or take the Marguerite Shuttle to their campus destination. The construction of multi -story graduate student housing immediately adjacent to Stanford Avenue has added to the problem as well, since some of the student residents and guests prefer to park on nearby city streets rather than in campus parking facilities. The nature of the College Terrace neighborhood compounds these problems. Small lots and relatively dense housing is common throughout. Many residents have inadequate or no off-street parking. Drivers frequently park too close to intersections, driveways and fire hydrants, creating visibility and safety hazards. This is especially problematic along Stanford Avenue, a route used by many children who walk or bike to school. In January 2008, staff retained the services of transportation consultants, Kimley Horn and Associates, to initiate and develop a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) in College Terrace. A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) consisting of eight College Terrace residents appointed by the College Terrace Resident's Association Board, staff from Transportation, Police and Revenue Collections Depai intent and consultants, was formed to work on the development of the Residential Parking Permit Program. In early March 2008, in order to understand the current on -street parking conditions in the College Terrace neighborhood, to document baseline parking demand in the neighborhood and to help establish how much of the neighborhood should be included in the program, a parking occupancy study was conducted for both a weekday (Thursday, March 6"', 2008) and a weekend day (Saturday, March 1s`, 2008). On each day vehicle occupancies were surveyed midday (roughly 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.) and in the evening (roughly 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.). On weekday evenings, the higher occupancies were found to be spread more evenly throughout the neighborhood. There was still a high percentage of parked cars along Stanford Avenue and in the commercial area, but there were also higher percentages along the cross streets within the neighborhood as well as along College Avenue. There was found to be relatively low parking density along California Avenue during the College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 3 evening hours, most likely since the main non-residential usage along California Avenue is Stanford Research Park, which would tend to empty in the nighttime hours. Weekend midday survey showed a high density of parking in the commercial district, and along some areas of Stanford Avenue. College Avenue and some of the cross streets had areas of higher parking occupancies, while California Avenue again displayed lower occupancies. In summary, driving both midday and evening time periods on a typical weekday and weekend day, the on - street parking levels of College Terrace were found to be relatively high in specific areas. Proposed Project The proposed project, the Residential Parking Permit Program, requires participants to purchase a parking permit (resident permit, guest permit, or day permit) for display on their vehicles that would allow use of on - street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods and exceeding the two hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the Police Department. As part of the RPPP, "Permit Parking/2 hour" signs will be installed on affected blocks. Depending on the length of the block, approximately 2- 3 signs will be placed on each block face to warn drivers that the street block is designated as residential parking permit only. The signs will be placed between property lines and behind the sidewalk. The signs will be no larger the 14 inches by 20 inches in size. The signs will be a minimum 7 feet high from the ground to the bottom of the sign. Sign poles will be 2 -inch tubular galvanized steel post and will be posted 24 inches below ground and surrounded by 6 inches of concrete. No damage will be done to existing landscaped areas. A workable community majority has been reached in favor of the Residential Parking Permit Program. The percentage of homes on a block that must approve a RPPP petition to be considered and to go into effect is set at 51% of households on a street block. Initially, it is anticipated that approximately 25 blocks will participate, but will likely expand into other blocks of the College Terrace neighborhood. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The neighborhood consists primarily of single family residential properties, with some neighborhood and regional/community commercial properties on the easterly edges of theneighborhood adjacent to El Camino Real. Local parks are located within College Terrace neighborhood. Stanford University is located on the north and west sides of College Terrace area. Stanford Research Park is located on the area's south side. 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES REQUIRING REVIEW None College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).] 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 5 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially I Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,2,4 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a public view or view corridor? 1,4 2- Map L4 X C) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1,4 2- Map L4 X d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan policies regarding visual resources? 1,4 X e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1,2,4 X f) Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? 1,2,4 X DISCUSSION: The Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) would result in some street signs placed in the neighborhood where residents have requested to have parking permits on their street block. These signs will be noticeable but are not uncharacteristic features of a typical streetscape. The proposed signs will not detract from the residential character of the streets nor will it significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings. It is anticipated that the implementation of the RPPP will actually help improve the street aesthetics (where applicable) as it will reduce the number of non-resident vehicles from parking on the residential streets. The proposed project will not damage scenic resources, creative new source of light or glare that will impact views in the area nor shadow public open spaces. The project area does not include designated scenic routes as indicated by the California State Department of Transportation. Mitigation Measures: None required B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1,2 X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1,2 - MapL9 X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1 X DISCUSSION: The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and will not convert or result in the conversion of farmland and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None required C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation ' of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? 1 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following: 1 X i. Direct and/or indirect operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM1o); 1 X ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as 1,2 X College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a) project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS). D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 1,2 X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? 1 X i. Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 10 in one million 1 X ii. Ground -level concentrations of non- carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEI 1 X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1 X f) Not implement all applicable construction emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? 1,2 X DISCUSSION: The proposed Residential Parking Permit Program will not conflict with any applicable air quality plans, expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants, nor add any objectionable odors to the neighborhood. This program will not contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard and will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary sources in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review process. All development in Palo Alto is subject to the BAAQMD regulations. Mitigation Measures: None required College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 8 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 2-MapN 1 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1, 2-MapN1 - X c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1, 2-MapN1 X d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? 1,2,5 X e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1,2 X DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any species, or have any substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources (trees), such as a tree preservation policy or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project area is entirely within the urban setting, with urban adapted wildlife species. There are no native habitats, sensitive plant or wildlife species, or adopted Habitat Conservation Plans for the project area, nor are there any wetlands that could be affected by the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None required College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 9 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? 1,2 X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? 1, 2-MapL8 X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1, 2-MapL8 X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1, 2-MapL8 X e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City's Historic Inventory? 1, 2- MapL7 X f) Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 X DISCUSSION: Much of the City of Palo Alto is identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR (1996) as having at least moderate sensitivity with respect to archaeological resources. Several pockets of "Extreme Sensitivity" are also indicated. The proposed project has virtually no potential to impact archaeological resources. This project does not involve widening onto previously undisturbed ground that would have a potential for impacting archaeological resources. There are no known historical resources that would be impacted by the proposed project. None of the project features are located in areas of known paleontological resources or unique geological features. In addition, implementation of project sign poles would not involve excavation to depths that would reveal unknown paleontological resources. This project will not directly or indirectly destroy any local cultural resources, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or disturb any human remains, or adversely affect any historical resources listed. Mitigation Measures: None required F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent 1,2 X College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 10 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1, 2- MapN 10 X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1, 2-MapN5 X iv) Landslides? 1, 2-MapN5 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1 X c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 X d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 1, 2-MapN5 X e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 1,2-MapN5 X f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 1 X g) Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? 1,2 X DISCUSSION: This proposed project is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay area and an area with expansive soils, but this project would not increase the risk to the public and safety or increase the potential for geo-seismic hazards. The project streets are located in an area of high potential for surface rupture along fault traces and potential for earthquake induced landslides where sloped. Since the project streets are on flatlands, there is no impact. The proposed project will not create any new geology, soils and seismicity impacts. The City is subject to fault rupture and related seismic shaking from several faults in the area (Comprehensive Plan, 1996). The risk associated with the project is no greater than any other construction activity and, in fact, is considered low because of the relatively small amount of construction involved and its short duration. Once implemented, the project would not significantly expose people or structures to hazards associated with fault rupture to any greater seismic risk than that which would otherwise be experienced. Mitigation Measures: None required College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 11 G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,2 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 1,2 X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1,2 X: d) Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? 1,2 X e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 1,2-MapN9 X I) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 X g) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? 1 X h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1,2-MapN7 X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 2-MapN7 X j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? 1,2 X College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 12 DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not create any new hazards and hazardous materials impacts. The project implementation includes improvements entirely within the public right-of-way. The project does not increase the exposure to hazardous materials. The project area does not include any hazardous materials sites. The project is not within 1/4 mile of the runway at Palo Alto airport, the only airport within Palo Alto. The project streets are not identified in the city of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as primary evacuation routes, nor are they located in areas of wildland fire risk. Mitigation Measures: None required H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1,2 X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1,2- MapN2 X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? 1,2 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? 1,2 X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1,2 X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,2 X g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1,2 X h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 2-MapN6 X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 13 of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or being located within a 100 -year flood hazard area? 2-MapN6 X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1 X k) Result in stream bank instability? 1, 2 -Map N2 X DISCUSSION: The proposed project would comply with City, State and Federal standard pertaining to water quality and waste discharge and storm water run-off. City standard conditions of approval require incorporation of Best Management Practices for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations. The project would not create any new water quality and hydrology impacts. Mitigation Measures: None required I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1,2,3,4,5 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1,2,4 X d) Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? 1,2,3,4 X e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? 1,2,3,4 X f) Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? 1,2,3,4 X g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to non-agricultural use? 1,2 X DISCUSSION: The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The project will not create any new land use impacts. Compliance with the designated land uses and zoning is a requirement for all projects. The implementation of the project would further the goals of policies and programs in the Transportation Element of the College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 14 City's Comprehensive Plan The project is consistent with the following Transportation Goals T-47: Utilize engineering, enforcement and educational tools to improve traffic safety on City roadways. Mitigation Measures: None required J. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1,2 X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1,2 X DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto. Mitigation Measures: None Required. K. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1,2 X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels? 1,2 X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1,2 X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1,2 X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to 1,2 X College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 15 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1,2 , X g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? 1,2 X h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? 1,2 X i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? 1,2 X j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? 1,2 X k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? 1,2 X 1) Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? 1,2 X DISCUSSION: All development in the City, including construction activities, must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant. This proposed project will not expose persons to noise levels in excess of the established standards nor will it create any new noise impacts. Mitigation Measures: None required. L. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1,4 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,4 X College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 16 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,4 X d) Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? 1,2,4 X e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections? 1,2,4 X DISCUSSION: The proposed project does not encourage growth and development in the district and therefore will not create any new population and housing impacts. The proposed plan's goal is to reduce non-resident parking in the College Terrace neighborhood. This project does not add any new, nor displace existing housing nor will it induce population growth or displacement of the existing population. Mitigation Measures: None required M. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1, 4 X b) Police protection? 1, 4 X c) Schools? 1, 4 X d) Parks? 1, 4 X e) Other public facilities? 1, 4 X DISCUSSION: This project does not encourage growth and development in the City and is not anticipated to generate a significant number of new users as to create impacts to the existing public services for the City. The installation of the necessary parking signs could result in increased maintenance workload for upkeep of these features but compared to the total City maintenance needs, these additional features do not represent a significant increase in maintenance requirements. Mitigation Measures: None required College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 17 RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1, 4 X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1, 4 X DISCUSSION: The proposed project does not result in any new land uses and does not increase the demand for recreational facilities or curtail the use of existing facilities. This project does not encourage growth and development in the district and is not anticipated to generate a significant number of new users as to create impacts to the existing City recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures: None required O. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 1,4 X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1,4 X c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase m traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1,4 X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1,4 X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 4 X College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 18 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1, 4 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? 1,2,3,4 X h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1,4 X i) Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? 1,4 X j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1,4 X k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? 1,4 X 1) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? 1,4 X m) Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. 1,4 X n) Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 1, 4 X o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion? 1 ,4 X p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1, 4 X DISCUSSION: The proposed project does not encourage growth and development in the district and is not anticipated to generate transportation impacts. This project will not cause an increase in traffic nor directly add vehicle trips to the area. Therefore, the operational level of service (LOS) in the project area is not expected to deteriorate to less than acceptable (LOS F). College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 19 Signs installed within the project area will prevent fewer non-resident cars being parked on the streets therefore there will be an increase in safety due to improved visibility and sight distance and less congestion along the sides of the road. The proposed project will not impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities to the operation of a transit system and create any operational safety hazards. Mitigation: None required P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1,4 X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1,4 X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1,4 X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1,4 X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 1,4 X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 1,4 X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1,4 X h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: No utilities or service systems would be affected by the proposed Project. This project does not encourage growth and development and therefore no significant increase in the demand on existing utilities and service systems or impacts to these services are expected. Mitigation Measures: None required. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 20 . MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1,4 X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 1,4 X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: The proposed project area is within the existing public right-of-way and therefore does not have the potential to significantly degrade the environment as discussed above. The project would not have any impacts that would be considered cumulatively significant. The nature of the proposed project is relatively small in scope and would have no significant adverse effects on human beings.. Global Climate Change Impacts Global climate change is the alteration of the Earth's weather including its temperature, precipitation, and wind patterns. Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring and anthropogenic generated atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases allow sunlight into the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping into outer space, which is known as the "greenhouse" effect. The world's leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway and is very likely caused by humans. Agencies at the international, national, state, and local levels are considering strategies to control emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. There is no comprehensive strategy that is being implemented on a global scale that addresses climate change; however, pursuant to Senate Bill 97 the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is in the process of developing CEQA guidelines "for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions." OPR is required to "prepare, develop, and transmit" the guidelines to the Resources Agency on or before July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency must certify and adopt the guidelines on or before January 1, 2010. Assembly Bill 32 requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions, and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost- effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. By 2050, the state plans to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. While the state of California has established programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are no College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 21 established standards for gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions; these standards are required to be in place by 2012. Neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines provide any methodology for analysis of greenhouse gases. Given the "global" scope of global climate change, the challenge under CEQA is for a Lead Agency to translate the issue down to the level of a CEQA document for a specific project in a way that is meaningful to the decision making process. Under CEQA, the essential questions are whether a project creates or contributes to an environmental impact or is subject to impacts from the environment in which it would occur, and what mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce impacts. The project would not generate substantial greenhouse gases because it is minor in scope with little physical construction (i.e. street signs). Although not studied, the implementation of a parking permit program may reduce vehicles trip due to the disincentive of limited or paid parking. Given the overwhelming scope of global climate change, it is not anticipated that a single project would have an individually discernable effect on global climate change (e.g., that any increase in global temperature or rise in sea level could be attributed to the emissions resulting from one single development project). Rather, it is more appropriate to conclude that the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the proposed project would combine with emissions across the state, nation, and globe to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. To determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact on global climate change is speculative, particularly given the fact that there are no existing numerical thresholds to determine an impact. However, in an effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to conform with the CEQA Guidelines [§16064(b)], it is the City's position that based on the nature of this project with its nominal increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the proposed project would not impede the state's ability to reach the emission reduction limits/standards set forth by the State of California by Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32. For these reasons, this project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 22 SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Project Manager's knowledge of the proposed project; Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer 2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 — Zoning Ordinance 4. Technical Memo with Program Details 5. City of Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance, PAMC Section 8.10 College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 23 DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared by: Transportation Engin Reviewed by: /k'/C) 1 Date Date College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 24 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4997) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Update Title: Approval of Resolution Extending the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Boundares and Program Trial for Additional 12 Months From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environm ent Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing staff to continue the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program trial until September 2015, and to expand the boundaries of the program. Executive Summary On August 12, 2013, Council approved the implementation of a No Overnight Parking program on select streets within the Crescent Park neighborhood. The program was developed to address concerns and complaints that non- residents were parking within the Crescent Park neighborhood, resulting in noise, litter and blocked driveways. Crescent Park residents petitioned and the City implemented a No Overnight Parking program requiring residents to display a valid City of Palo Alto parking permit on their vehicles between the hours of 2:00am and 5:00am. Only residents of streets within the program boundaries are eligible to purchase permits. Residents are allowed up to two annual permits per household at a cost of $100 each. The original staff report can be found in Attachment A. The program has proved successful at addressing resident concerns and an extension of the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking trial program is warranted. Background Table 1 lists the streets which were originally declared eligible for the program based on the initial Council direction, and indicates at the writing of this report whether or not the street has chosen to opt into the program. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Table 1 Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Trial Program Participating Streets Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Status Edgewood Drive between Southwood and Patricia Opted In September 2013 Newell Road between Edgewood and Dana Opted in September 2013 Phillips Road Opted in September 2013 Madison Way Opted in September 2013 Hamilton Ave between Island and Alester Opted in September 2013 Jefferson Drive Opted in September 2013 Southwood Court Opted In November 2013 Crescent Drive Opted in November 2013 Dana Avenue, Ashby to Alester Opted in November 2013 East Crescent Drive Opted In December 2013 Center Drive Opted in June 2014 Island Drive Opted in April 2014 Kings Lane Opted in April 2014 Newell Road, Dana to Pitman Opted in November 2013 Pitman Avenue, 1432 to 1494 Pitman Petition Received; Surveys Distributed Southwood Drive from Hamilton to Edgewood Petition Distributed West Crescent No Petition Request Dana Avenue from Ashby to Center No Petition Request Ashby Drive No Petition Request Pitman Avenue from 1494 to Center No Petition Request Hamilton Avenue from Center to West and Crescent No Petition Request Louisa Court No Petition Request Hamilton Avenue from Island Drive to West Crescent No Petition Request University Avenue between East Crescent and Lincoln Avenue Pending Approval Hamilton Avenue between Lincoln and West Crescent Pending Approval Center Drive from Hamilton to Channing Avenue Pending Approval Newell Road from Alester/Dana to Channing Avenue Pending Approval Arcadia Place Pending Approval Newell Place Pending Approval City of Palo Alto Page 3 Lincoln Avenue between University and Hamilton Pending Approval Attachment B is a presentation which staff gave to the Crescent Park Annual Neighborhood Association in June. The presentation includes a summary of parking occupancy on participating streets in the program both before and after implementation. In most cases the program has drastically reduced parking occupancy on the streets on which it has been implemented, and has received favorable feedback from the Crescent Park residents. Enforcement of the streets is based primarily on resident-request but the Police Department does provide random enforcement. An estimated 275 parking citations have been issued since the implementation of the program. During initial implementation of the program, as blocks have opted into the program, parking occupancy on adjacent streets increased. This has meant that the program has grown as more residents organized and requested inclusion. Figure 1 shows the streets that are currently part of the program, the streets which have been approved for the program since last fall, and the streets which staff is recommending eligibility into the program for the upcoming year, based on resident requests. Figure 1 Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program Current Participation and Proposed Program Eligibility City of Palo Alto Page 4 By adding additional street blocks into the program eligibility, residents of those streets are given the opportunity to organize and solicit participation by the City. The process that residents must follow includes: 1) Residents submit a petition signed by at least one member of at least 50% of the parcels on the street (City staff prepares the petition for residents); 2) The City issues a postal survey to verify participation/interest of all residents and a 70% support rate of responses returned is required for approval; 3) Following validation of majority support, City staff implements signs and residents are notified of eligility to purchase parking permits at City Hall. The additional street segments recommended for eligibility into the Crescent Park No Overnight trial parking program include:  University Avenue between East Crecent and Lincoln Avenue  Hamilton Avenue between Lincoln Avenue and West Crescent  Center Drive between Southwood Drive-Hamilton Avenue to Channing Avenue  Newell Road between Pitman Avenue-Louisa Court to Channing Avenue  Arcadia Place  Newell Place University Avenue in particular has experienced noticable parking impacts in recent months. University Avenue eligibility into the program will allow a resident champion to begin the petition and postal survey process for inclusion of the street. Staff is also pursuing sight distance improvements at intersections along Crescent Drive. Adding streets to the overnight parking restrictions requires a modification of the existing Crescent Park resolution, which summarizes the street names which are eligible for the program. The updated resolution has been provided in Attachment C for the Council’s consideration. Resource Impact The Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program currently receives no on-going targeted enforcement, the program is complaint driven. In addition, because the program enforcement period is during the early morning hours, the parking control officer program does not actively enforce the area, enforcement is by uniformed police officers as needed. The limited target enforcement minimizing the programs operations costs. The Revenue Collections Department manages permit sales at a cost of $100.00 per permit. During the first year trial of the program the city sold 222 permits over the trial period realizing about $20,000 in revenues to offset the limited enforcement and permit management costs. Permits were sold at various times of the year and permits purchased after the initial 6-months of the program were sold at a prorated basis. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Environmental Review Extension of existing parking restrictions and the additoin of streets to the program are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Here it can be seen with certainty that the minor changes proposed will not have a significant impact and CEQA does not apply. (Public Resources Code 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)). Attachments:  Attachment A: City Council Report dated August 5, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment B: Update on Crescent Park dated June 25, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment C: Resolution Expanding NOP in Crescent Park (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 3969) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/5/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Resolution Title: Adoption of a Resolution Allowing the Implementation of a One -Year Trial No Overnight Parking (2AM -5AM) Program on Streets within the Crescent Park Neighborhood From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution authorizing staff to implement a one-year trial for No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) program within certain street blocks of the Crescent Park Neighborhood. Background Citizens from the Crescent Park Neighborhood reached out to the City earlier this year requesting that the City implement parking restrictions within their neighborhood in order to limit parking intrusion from outside the neighborhood. This request was based on complaints involving overcrowded streets, blocking of driveways, noise and litter caused by overnight street parking. Following the initial request, the City implemented full-time, “No Parking” restrictions along Newell Road between Edgewood Drive and the Newell Road Bridge. Traffic calming improvements to improve pedestrian safety at Newell Road and Edgewood Drive and Newell Road and Hamilton Avenue were also implemented. These improvements included crosswalk improvements and all-way stop intersection controls. The Crescent Park citizens requested additional parking restrictions, initially along Edgewood Drive and worked with staff to develop and circulate petitions for No Overnight Parking (2AM- 5AM) for the following roadway segments, to manage the expected limits of parking intrusion:  Edgewood Drive: Southwood Drive to Jefferson Drive  Phillips Road: Edgewood Drive to Madison Way City of Palo Alto Page 2  Hamilton Avenue: Island Drive to Madison Way  Dana Avenue: Half-Block sections north and south of Newell Road  Newell Road: Dana Avenue to Edgewood Drive Following receipt of the petitions in June, staff released a follow-up post card survey to validate resident interest from each separate street block. These surveys were released throughout the month of July. Please note that the additional street block segments of Edgewood Drive between Southwood Drive and Island Drive were added to the post card survey following a petition received after the release of the initial post card surveys. The following additional street blocks have requested or submitted petitions for the No Overnight Parking restrictions but postal surveys have not yet been administered:  Edgewood Drive: Jefferson Drive to Patricia Lane  Hamilton Avenue: Center Drive-Southwood Drive to Island Drive  Hamilton Avenue: Madison Way to Alester Avenue  Madison Way: Hamilton Avenue to Jefferson Drive  Jefferson Drive: Hamilton Avenue to Edgewood Drive City staff required a minimum 70% support response from each street block to forward the restrictions to the Council for consideration. 70% has been the standard positive response rate used in Palo Alto for traffic calming programs. These restrictions would apply to resident vehicles, not just non-residents, and would be enforced by the Police Department. Overnight guest permits will be made available for residents that require parking for their guests at a cost of $5.00 per permit per night. Even with the guest permits, standard parking restrictions governed by the California Vehicle Code and Palo Alto Municipal Code continue to apply including a 72-hour parking restriction to avoid the storage of vehicles within the public right- of-way. The City has continued to accept responses to the post card survey through the month of July leading to the council meeting where this resolution will be considered. Table 1 below provides the findings of the post card survey through July 30th: Table 1 Crescent Park Neighborhood Post Card Survey Response No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Considerations City of Palo Alto Page 3 No. Street Block Segment No. of Households No. of Survey Responses (Yes and No) % Positive Support from Responses 1 Edgewood Drive Southwood Dr to Island Dr 7 5 100% 2 Edgewood Drive Island Dr to Newell Rd 20 18 94% 3 Edgewood Drive Newell Rd to Jefferson Dr 18 15 80% 4 Phillips Road Edgewood Rd to Madison Wy 9 9 89% 5 Hamilton Avenue Island Dr to Newell Rd 28 20 70% 6 Hamilton Avenue Newell Rd to Madison Wy 14 10 70% 7 Dana Avenue North of Newell Rd 14 10 30% 8 Dana Avenue South of Newell Road 16 13 54% 9 Newell Road Edgewood Dr to Hamilton Av 3 3 100% 10 Newell Road Hamilton Av to Dana Av 4 4 100% The post card survey shows that a majority of residents living on street blocks along Newell Road and towards the easterly limits of Crescent Park are in support of the No Overnight Parking Restrictions with only both blocks of Dana Avenue not currently in support of the restrictions. Staff recommends implementation of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) for the streets that have positive support (70%+) for the restrictions to be implemented as a Phase 1 deployment City of Palo Alto Page 4 by September. Streets that opt to add in later can be deployed immediately upon receipt of a new petition and administration of another post card survey as a Phase 2 deployment. Under the current proposal, street blocks that did not have strong support for immediate implementation of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) restrictions could opt in later. This recommendation is consistent with the conversations staff has had with neighborhood leaders. Therefore, staff requests authorization to implement additional restrictions in the future as part of this resolution including the blocks of: Edgewood Drive between Jefferson Drive and Patricia Lane; Hamilton Avenue: Center Drive-Southwood Drive to Island Drive; Hamilton Avenue between Madison Way and Alester Avenue; Madison Way: Hamilton Avenue to Jefferson Drive; and Jefferson Drive: Hamilton Avenue to Edgewood Drive, if supported by residents, for which a post card survey will be released following approval of the proposed resolution. Attachment A includes the Resolution. Attachment B describes the proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 No Parking (2AM-5AM) considerations. Attachment C includes a sample of the post card survey released by the City. It is important to note that this is a proposed as a one-year pilot program. Staff will continue to work with neighborhood residents, as well as adjacent neighborhoods and communities to ensure that the program is being implemented as effectively as possible. Furthermore, staff will evaluate the ultimate request from many neighborhood residents for a Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program. Finally, staff will continue to work with City of East Palo Alto staff and nearby apartment owners on addressing the parking supply issue that is resulting in the need for this parking restriction trial. The City held a community meeting July 30th to present the above findings to residents. Residents noted that the proposed No Overnight Parking restrictions were not an ideal solution and that Residential Parking Permit (RPP) was a preferred alternative but that the proposal was a good step forward while solutions for RPP options are discussed further with the community. Residents from streets on Hamilton Avenue near Center Drive-Southwood Drive and on Madison Way and Jefferson Drive requested inclusion in the future Phase 2 program. Policy Implications The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.44.010 – Restrictions Established – Signs Designating allows the installation of parking restrictions by time-of-day following a city council ordinance or resolution. Vehicles that are cited for parking in areas where time restrictions have been established are cited by the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.40.020 (b) – Signs or Curb Markings to Indicated No Stopping and Parking Regulations. The California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22507.5 – Local Regulations allows the issuance of City of Palo Alto Page 5 Day Permits for parking through parking restricted periods of the day for residents and their guests. Resource Impact The design and construction of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) are estimated to cost approximateyl $12,000 and will be funded through the existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – PL12000 (Parking & Transportation Improvements) project. The Revenue Collections Department will make available for purchase Overnight Guest Permits for specific use by the Crescent Park Neighborhood on a limited basis at a cost of $5.00 per permit. Permits are good one night only and a limited amount of permits will be available. Timeline The City recommends implementation of the signage restrictions through the remainder of August followed by a 2-week warning period for vehicles that continue to park during the new No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) period with citations being issued on an as-needed basis by mid-September. City staff expects to meet with neighborhood residents at the six-month mark and again near the end of the one-year trial to assess te effectiveness of the program and at the year end to coniser recommendation for continuation or discontinuation of the program. Attachments:  Attachment A: Resolution for Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (PDF)  Attachment B: Crescent Park - No Overnight Parking Survey Findings (PDF)  Attachment C: Sample Crescent Park Postal Survey (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 1 130729 jb 0131119 Resolution No. _______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Implementing No Overnight Parking Restrictions around the Crescent Park Neighborhood as a One Year Trial Program R E C I T A L S A. Some of the residents of Crescent Park have requested No Overnight Parking Restrictions (2AM – 5AM) to minimize the impacts of parking intrusion on individual blocks. The following street block segments have been identified by staff as appropriate areas for the restrictions, pending resident support through a post card survey: No. Street Street Block Segment No Parking Restriction Period Post Card Survey Support 1 Edgewood Drive Southwood Drive to Island Drive 2AM – 5AM 100% 2 Edgewood Drive Island Drive to Newell Road 2AM – 5AM 94% 3 Edgewood Drive Newell Road to Jefferson Dr 2AM – 5AM 80% 4 Edgewood Drive Jefferson Drive to Patricia Lane 2AM – 5AM Pending 5 Phillips Road Edgewood Drive to Madison Way 2AM – 5AM 89% 6 Hamilton Avenue Island Drive to Newell Road 2AM – 5AM 70% 7 Hamilton Avenue Newell Road to Madison Way 2AM – 5AM 70% 8 Hamilton Avenue Madison Way to Alester Avenue 2AM – 5AM Pending 9 Hamilton Avenue Center Drive-Southwood Drive to Island Drive 2AM – 5AM Pending 10 Jefferson Drive Hamilton Avenue to Edgewood Drive 2AM – 5AM Pending 11 Dana Avenue North of Newell Road Half Way to Ashby Drive 2AM – 5AM 30% 12 Dana Avenue South of Newell Road Half Way to Alester Avenue 2AM – 5AM 54% 13 Madison Way Hamilton Avenue to Jefferson Drive 2AM – 5AM Pending 14 Newell Road Edgewood Drive to Hamilton Avenue 2AM – 5AM 100% 15 Newell Road Hamilton Avenue to Dana Avenue 2AM – 5AM 100% B. The Post Card surveys administered by the City in July 2013 show a majority of the streets being supportive of the implementation of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) restrictions. C. The current results of the survey are depicted in Exhibit A which is attached and incorporated by reference. Phase 1 streets have expressed support for the proposed overnight parking restriction and Phase 2 streets have been identified by staff as potential candidates for such regulations pending resident support. NOT YET APPROVED 2 130729 jb 0131119 D. The City Council finds that there is a parking intrusion problem in parts of the Crescent Park neighborhood and desires to implement a pilot one year program to attempt to mitigate this problem. E. The California Vehicle Code Section 22507.5 authorizes the City to enact, by ordinance or resolution, parking restrictions on public streets between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. and further authorizes the City to provide for a system of permits for the purpose of exempting from the prohibition or restriction of the ordinance or resolution, disabled persons, residents, and guests of residents of residential areas. F. The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.44.010 allows for the implementation of parking restrictions. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council authorizes staff to implement No Overnight Parking Restrictions on all of the street block segments identified in Recital A and labeled as Phase 1 and Phase 2 in Exhibit A as petitions by residents are received. No Overnight (2AM – 5AM) Parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block upon receipt and verification of a minimum 70% support from surveys received. SECTION 2: Vehicles displaying overnight residential parking permits for the designated streets shall be exempt from the posted parking restriction. SECTION 3: The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. // // // // // // // // NOT YET APPROVED 3 130729 jb 0131119 SECTION 4: This program shall expire within one year of adoption unless extended by City Council. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment SCALE: NONE 10-o 10- a> +-' c a> () Channing Av Legend: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Survey Findings Phase 1 -Community Support Received Phase 2 -Community Support Pending Last Update: 7-31-13 SCALE: NONE 10-o 10- a> +-' c a> () Channing Av Legend: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Survey Findings Phase 1 -Community Support Received Phase 2 -Community Support Pending Last Update: 7-31-13       June 17, 2013                                                            Dear Edgewood Drive Resident,    The City received a petition requesting the installation of No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM)  restrictions for the areas designed on the map on the other side of this notice within the  Crescent Park Neighborhood.  The City is supportive of implementing parking considerations  requested by residents as long as the improvements are supported by a majority of residents.    In order for the City to implement the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM)  Restrictions a 70% positive response rate for each street block from surveys returns is required.   The restrictions will be implemented on a block‐by‐block basis for streets where the 70%  support threshold is received. The City Council will also need to approve a resolution  implementing the parking restriction.  Street blocks that do not have the 70% positive response  now, or that that did not originally request the parking restrictions, can request them at a later  date following the receipt of a petition circulated by residents.     This survey notice is intended to validate support for No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM)  restrictions identified in the petition for the block of Edgewood Drive between Island Drive and  Newell Road.    Please indicate your preference for the No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM) restrictions by  completing and returning this survey in the self‐addressed stamped envelope provided.  The  City will accept survey responses through Friday, July 5th and present the results of the survey  process at a community meeting tentatively scheduled the week of July 22nd; a separate  community meeting notice card will be issued prior to the meeting with meeting location and  time information.    If you live on a street that you believe does not need restrictions at this time we encourage you  to complete the survey and return it as support will be evaluated based on returned surveys  only.  In addition, you may feel restrictions are appropriate after being implemented on an  adjacent street and the City restrictions can be implemented later following receipt of a  petition.    If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City of Palo Alto – Transportation  Division at (650) 329‐2442 or by email at transportation@cityofpaloalto.org.     Crescent Park Neighborhood  No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5PM) Restrictions  Survey                                             XXXX Edgewood Drive    Please mark your preference to only one of the options below:    □   We support the implementation of No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM) restrictions along  Edgewood Drive between Island Drive and Newell Road.  We understand that resident and non‐ resident vehicles parked on the street during this time period will be subject to citations during  the time restriction period.  □   We do not support the implementation of No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM) restrictions along  Edgewood Drive between Island Drive and Newell Road.    Comments:                 Please return survey by July 5, 2013 to: City of Palo Alto     Transportation Division     250 Hamilton Avenue     Palo Alto, CA  94301  Survey for No Overnight  Parking (2AM to 5AM)  Restrictions on Edgewood  Drive, Island Drive to Newell  Road.  1 Update on the Crescent Park No  Over Night Parking (NOP) Program Crescent Park Neighborhood Association June 25, 2014 2 Agenda Program Boundaries – Then and Now Occupancy Studies Wrap Up and Questions 3 Program Background Original program boundaries – August 2013 4 Program Background Current Program Boundaries (Center in Process) June 2014 5 Parking Occupancy Studies Name of Street Before NOP  Program  (8/21/13) After NOP  Program  (1/22/14) Parking Reduction, % Edgewood 87 19 79% Hamilton (Newell to Island) 22 11 50% Newell (to Dana) 13 1 99% Phillips 16 3 82% Madison 6 4 67% Jefferson 14 12 14% Hamilton (Newell  to Alester) 22 10 50% 6 Parking Occupancy Studies,  Cont. Name of Street Before NOP  Program (8/21/13) After NOP  Program (5/8/14)  / (6/11/14) Parking Reduction, % Crescent N/A 3 N/A E. Crescent N/A 8 N/A Dana – Newell to  Ashby 19 16 16% Dana – Newell to  Alester 21 23 +10% Kings Lane 19 7 63% Island Drive 22 8 64% 7 Summary and Other Notes In general CP streets are significantly less parked  where the NOP program is active Petition Completed for Center Dr (University to  Hamilton) – Installation Pending Request for NOP on Pitman Av Several residents have expressed interest in  including parts of University within the program  boundaries. Residents must put hangtag permits on rearview  mirrors, or may face citations 8 Recommendations Continue program for another year to allow  for development of a Citywide Residential  Preferential Parking (RPP) Policy to be  completed. Consideration 1:  University Avenue – Permanent No Parking on South Side of  Street with NOP on North? Consideration 2:Expand NOP to Channing  Avenue and Lincoln Av (see map) 9 Option: Year 2 CP NOP Limits Not Yet Approved Resolution No. ________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expanding No Overnight Parking Restrictions around the Crescent Park Neighborhood as a One Year Trial Program R E C I T A L S A. On August 12, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution 9367 establishing a trial program prohibiting overnight parking from 2AM to 5AM on certain blocks in Crescent Park. On September 23, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9373A expanding the overnight ban to additional streets in the Crescent Park neighborhood and implementing a process for further extensions. B. Since adoption of the Resolution neighbors and staff have identified additional blocks that should be included in this trial program. The current streets and street segments that have been identified for inclusion in the trial program are depicted on Exhibit A attached and incorporated and described below: No. Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Status 1 Edgewood Drive between Southwood and Patricia Opted In September 2013 2 Newell Road between Edgewood and Dana Opted in September 2013 3 Phillips Road Opted in September 2013 4 Madison Way Opted in September 2013 5 Hamilton Ave between Island and Alester Opted in September 2013 6 Jefferson Drive Opted in September 2013 7 Southwood Court Opted In November 2013 8 Crescent Drive Opted in November 2013 9 Dana Avenue, Ashby to Alester Opted in November 2013 10 East Crescent Drive Opted In December 2013 11 Center Drive Opted in June 2014 12 Island Drive Opted in April 2014 13 Kings Lane Opted in April 2014 14 Newell Road, Dana to Pitman Opted in November 2013 15 Pitman Avenue, 1432 to 1494 Pitman Petition Received; Surveys Distributed 16 Southwood Drive from Hamilton to Edgewood Petition Distributed 17 West Crescent No Petition Request 18 Dana Avenue from Ashby to Center No Petition Request 19 Ashby Drive No Petition Request 20 Pitman Avenue from 1494 to Center No Petition Request 140923 jb 0131260 1 Not Yet Approved 21 Hamilton Avenue from Center to West and Crescent No Petition Request 22 Louisa Court No Petition Request 23 Hamilton Avenue from Island Drive to West Crescent No Petition Request 24 University Avenue between East Crescent and Lincoln Avenue Pending Approval 25 Hamilton Avenue between Lincoln and West Crescent Pending Approval 26 Center Drive from Hamilton to Channing Avenue Pending Approval 27 Newell Road from Alester/Dana to Channing Avenue Pending Approval 28 Arcadia Place Pending Approval 29 Newell Place Pending Approval 30 Lincoln Avenue between University and Hamilton Pending Approval C. The City Council finds that there is a parking intrusion problem in parts of the Crescent Park neighborhood and desires to implement an additional one year pilot program to attempt to mitigate this problem. D. The California Vehicle Code Section 22507.5 authorizes the City to enact, by ordinance or resolution, parking restrictions on public streets between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. and further authorizes the City to provide for a system of permits for the purpose of exempting from the prohibition or restriction of the ordinance or resolution, disabled persons, residents, and guests of residents of residential areas. E. The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.44.010 allows for the implementation of parking restrictions. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1: Resolutions 9367 and 9373A are hereby repealed and superseded by this Resolution. SECTION 2: Restricted Parking Area. The City Council authorizes staff to retain the existing No Overnight Parking restrictions on the streets listed under Recital B that have opted in as indicated in Recital B. In addition, the City Council authorizes staff to allow additional streets listed under Recital B to be eligible for inclusion in the program upon successful completion of the process outlined in Section 3. SECTION 3: Petitions. No Overnight (2AM – 5AM) Parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block upon receipt of the following: 140923 jb 0131260 2 Not Yet Approved 1.City-issued petition showing signatures from at least 50% of the block, and; 2.70% support from City-issued surveys to verify SECTION 4: Posting of Signs. No Overnight (2AM – 5AM) Parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block. SECTION 5: Permits. The City shall provide overnight guest permits for residents that require parking for their guests at a cost not to exceed $5.00 per permit per night. A prepaid parking permit will be made available for use by residents and their guests at a cost of $100 per permit. Two (2) pre-paid permits will be available per household. SECTION 6: Exemption. Vehicles displaying overnight residential parking permits for the designated streets shall be exempt from the posted parking restriction. SECTION 7: CEQA. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. SECTION 8: This program shall be reviewed in 12 months to determine if it should continue. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment 140923 jb 0131260 3 Exhibit A Not Yet Approved Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferential Parking Districts) and Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor) The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferred Parking Districts) is hereby added to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICTS Sections: 10.50.010 Purpose 10.50.020 Definitions 10.50.030 RFP Designation Criteria 10.50.040 Initiation by City Council 10.50.050 Initiation by Neighborhood Petition 10.50.060 Establishment of Residential Preferential Parking Districts 10.50.070 Administration of Districts 10.50.080 Annexation of New Areas to Existing Districts 10.50.090 Modification or Termination of Districts 10.50.100 Violations and Penalties 10.50.010 Purpose. Residential preferential parking districts are intended to restore and enhance the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by reducing the impact of parking associated with nearby businesses and institutional uses. The procedures and standards in this chapter are intended to provide flexibility so that the city council may adopt, after consultation with residents and neighboring businesses and institutions, parking programs that appropriately address each neighborhood’s unique characteristics. Residential preferential parking districts should be designed to accommodate non-residential parking when this can be done while meeting the parking availability standards determined by the city to be appropriate for the district in question. Residential preferential parking programs may be designed to reduce non-residential parking over time to give non-residential parkers time to find other modes of transportation or parking locations. 10.50.020 Definitions. The following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: 140826 jb 0131250A 1 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved a) “Director” shall mean the director of planning and community environment. b) “Dwelling unit” shall mean a self-contained house, apartment, stock cooperative unit, or condominium unit occupied by a single household exclusively for residential purposes. These residential purposes may include lawful home occupations. c) “Employee permit” shall mean a permit issued forto an employee working at a business located within an RPP District. d) “Guest permit” shall mean a permit issued to a Resident on an annual basis for use by a person visiting a residence in an RPP District or for workers providing services such as caregiving, gardening, repair maintenance and construction, to the Resident. The number of Guest permits issued to Residents shall be specified in administrative regulations adopted by the Director. e) “Non-resident vehicle” shall mean a vehicle operated by a person whose destination is not to a residence within the Residential Preferential Parking District. f) “Resident” shall mean a natural person living in a dwelling unit in an RPP District. g) “Residential Preferential Parking District” or “RPP District” shall mean a geographical area in which the city council has established a preferential parking permit system pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 22507. h) “Visitor permit” shall mean a temporary 24-hour permit issued to a Resident for use by a person visiting a residence in an RPP District. 10.50.030 RPP Designation Criteria The council may designate an area as a Residential Preferential Parking District based upon the following criteria: (1) That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents; (2) That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly; (3) That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life; (4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical. 10.50.040 Initiation by City Council The city council may, by motion or resolution, initiate consideration of a RPP District by directing staff to undertake the analysis and outreach process set forth in Section 10.50.050(d) and (e). 10.50.050 Initiation by Neighborhood Petition Residents may request the formation of an RRP District in their neighborhood. The request shall be made, and considered, in the following manner: 140826 jb 0131250A 2 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved (a) Form of Application. (1) The director shall establish a standard form for the application for the formation of a new RPP District, as well as a list of submittal requirements for use by interested residents. These requirements shall include a narrative describing the nature and perceived source of non-residential parking impact, as well as suggested district boundaries. The director shall also approve a standard form for use in demonstrating resident support for the application. (2) Residents shall initiate a request for establishment of an RPP District by neighborhood petition by completing the official application form. (3) Residents are encouraged to consult with the employers and employees thought to be the source of the parking impact as they develop their proposals. (b) Timing and Review of Applications. Each calendar year, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall review all applications received prior to March 31st of that year to determine whether the RPP District criteria established in this Chapter are met. (c) Prioritization of Applications. Applications determined by the Director to meet the criteria in paragraph (b) above shall be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission. The commission shall review the requests and recommend to the director which proposal or proposals should be given priority for review and possible implementation in the current calendar year. In making its recommendations, the commission shall consider the severity of non-residential parking impact, the demonstrated level of neighborhood support, and the staff resources needed to process requests. (d) Staff Review of Applications and Community Outreach. Once an application has been selected for council consideration during the current calendar year, staff shall promptly review the application, gather additional information and conduct a community outreach program. At a minimum the review process shall include the following: (1) The City shall complete parking occupancy studies to quantify the nature of the problem identified in the petition. Data shall be collected when schools in the Palo Alto Unified School District and Stanford University are in session, unless these institutions are irrelevant to the problem to be addressed. (2) Upon completion of the consultation and outreach process, the city attorney shall prepare a draft resolution containing the proposed boundaries and hours of enforcement. Staff shall undertake a survey of resident support within the RPP District. The results of this survey shall be included in and reported to the planning and transportation commission and the city council. (e) Planning and Transportation Commission Review. Staff shall bring the proposed RPP District to the planning & transportation commission no later than 140826 jb 0131250A 3 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved September of the calendar year in which consideration began. The commission shall review the draft resolution at a noticed public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council regarding the RPP District. This recommendation may include proposed modifications of the boundaries. The commission’s recommendation shall be forwarded to the city council no later than September 30th. 10.50.060 Establishment of Residential Preferential Parking Districts (a) Adoption of Resolution Establishing District. Following the completion of the procedures described in Section 10.50.050, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on a proposed resolution to establish the residential preferential parking district. The resolution may specify a trial period of up to twoone years. Any such trial period shall begin running after the signs have been posted and permits issued. The council may adopt, modify, or reject the proposed resolution. (b) Resolution. The resolution shall specify: (1) The findings that the criteria set forth in Section 10.05.030 have been met. (2) The term of the trial period, if applicable. (3) The boundaries and name of the residential preferential parking district. The boundary map may also define areas which will become subject to the regulations of the residential preferential parking district in the future if the council approves a resident petition for annexation as provided in Section 10.50.080 below. (4) Hours and days of enforcement of parking regulations and other restrictions that shall be in effect for non-permit holders, such as two-hour parking limits, overnight parking limits, or “no re-parking” zones. (5) The number of permits, if any, to be issued to merchants or other non-residential users, which number may be scheduled to reduce over time. (6) Such other matters as the Council may deem necessary and desirable. (c) Permanent Adoption. Before the expiration of the trial period, if applicable, the city council shall hold a noticed public hearing and determine whether the RPP District should be made permanent as originally adopted, modified or terminated. The council’s action shall be in the form of a resolution. 10.50.070 Administration of Districts (a) Issuance and Fees. (1) No permit will be issued to any applicant until that applicant has paid all of his or her outstanding parking citations, including all civil penalties and related fees. (2) A residential parking permit may be issued for a motor vehicle if the following requirements are met: A. The applicant demonstrates that he or she is currently a resident of the area for which the permit is to be issued. B. The applicant demonstrates that he or she has ownership or continuing custody of the motor vehicle for which the permit is to be issued. 140826 jb 0131250A 4 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved C. Any motor vehicle to be issued a permit must have a vehicle registration indicating registration within the area for which the permit is to be issued. (3) Visitor or guest parking permits may be issued for those vehicles or to those individuals or households that qualify for those permits under the resolution establishing the RPD District. (4) EmployeeNon-resident parking permits may be issued to those individuals and for those vehicles that qualify for such permits under the resolution establishing the RPP District. (b) No Guarantee of Availability of Parking. A parking permit shall not guarantee or reserve to the permit holder an on-street parking space within the designated residential preferential parking zone. (c) Restrictions and Conditions. Each permit issued pursuant to this Section shall be subject to each and every condition and restriction set forth in this Chapter and as provided for in the resolution establishing the specific RPP District, as may be amended from time to time. The issuance of such permit shall not be construed to waive compliance with any other applicable parking law, regulation or ordinance. (d) Exemptions. The following vehicles are exempt from RPP District parking restrictions in this Chapter: (1) A vehicle owned or operated by a public or private utility, when used in the course of business. (2) A vehicle owned or operated by a governmental agency, when used in the course of official government business. (3) A vehicle for which an authorized emergency vehicle permit has been issued by the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, when used in the course of business. (4) A vehicle parked or standing while actively delivering materials or freight. (5) A vehicle displaying an authorized exemption permit issued by the City of Palo Alto. (6) A vehicle displaying a State of California or military-issued disabled person placard or license plates. (7) A vehicle parked for the purpose of attending or participating in an event taking place at a school within the Palo Alto Unified School District, provided that the vehicle is parked within two blocks of the school, the school has requested and received approval from the City at least fourteen days before the event date, and the school distributes notices to all addresses within a two‐block radius of the school. Exempt parking pursuant to this subsection is available for no more than five events per school year for each school. (8) All vehicles are exempt from parking restrictions pursuant to this Chapter on the following holidays: January 1, July 4, Thanksgiving Day, and December 25. (e) Authority of Staff 140826 jb 0131250A 5 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved a. The director is authorized to adopt administrative regulations that are consistent with the purposes of this Chapter. b. The Police Department or private parking enforcement contractor as approved by the Chief of Police shall have the authority to enforce the administrative regulations established pursuant to this Chapter. 10.50.080 Annexation of New Areas to Existing Districts Residents of any block may petition the director for annexation into a contiguous RPP District. The petition shall be on forms provided by the department. If the petition meets the criteria established in administrative regulations adopted by the director, a resolution annexing it to the RPP District shall be prepared by the city attorney and submitted to the city council, together with the director’s recommendation on the proposed annexation. The city council may approve, deny, or modify the annexation. 10.50.090 Modification or Termination of Districts (a) Opting out. After final adoption of an RPP District, Residents may file an application with the director to opt out of the RPP District. The minimum number of blocks and percentage of units supporting the opt-out shall be specified by the director in the administrative guidelines. Applications for opting out shall be made in the form and manner prescribed by the director and shall be acted up on by the director. Any opt out application shall be filed within ninety (90) days after council adoption of the resolution establishing the RPP District. (b) Dissolution. The city council following a noticed public hearing may adopt a resolution dissolving the RPP District: (1) Upon receipt and verification of a petition signed by 50% or more of all the households within an approved RPP District boundary, or (2) Upon findings by the City Council that the criteria for designating the RPP District are no longer satisfied. 10.50.100 Violations and Penalties (a) No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle adjacent to any curb in a residential preferential parking zone in violation of any posted or noticed prohibition or restriction, unless the person has a valid and current residential preferential parking permit, visitor permit, guest permit or employee permit for that vehicle, or is otherwise exempt. Violations of this sub-section shall be punishable by a civil penalty under Chapter 10.60.010. (b) No person shall sell, rent, or lease, or cause to be sold, rented, or leased for any value or consideration any RPP District parking permit, visitor permit or guest permit. Upon violation of this subsection, all permits issued to for the benefit of the dwelling unit or business establishment for which the sold, rented, or leased permit was authorized shall be void. Violation of this sub-section (b) shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 140826 jb 0131250A 6 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved (c) No person shall buy or otherwise acquire for value or use any RPP District parking permit, guest permit or visitor permit except as provided for in this chapter. Violation of this sub-section (c) shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. SECTION 2. Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: 10.04.086 Parking Enforcement Contractor “Parking Enforcement Contractor” means any duly qualified company that the City has entered into a contract with and that has been approved by the Chief of Police to provide enforcement of Chapter 10.50 relating to Palo Alto Municipal Code infractions only in parking zones. Enforcement includes both the issuance and processing of citations for RPP District parking violations. SECTION 3. Section 10.08.015 (Authority of Parking Enforcement Contractor) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: 10.08.015 Authority of Parking Enforcement Contractor The City may enter into a contract with a duly qualified company, approved by the Chief of Police, to provide enforcement of Chapter 10.50 relating to RPP District parking violations (as permissible by the Palo Alto Municipal Code). SECTION 4. Section 10.60.010 (Parking violations punishable as civil penalties) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 10.60.010 Parking Violations Punishable as Civil Penalties Except as otherwise provided, violations of any provision of Chapters 10.36, 10.40, 10.44, 10.46, and 10.47, and 10.50 of this Title 10 (hereinafter referred to as a “parking violation”) shall be punishable by a civil penalty (hereinafter referred to as a “parking penalty”). These parking penalties, together with any late payment penalties, administrative fees, and other related charges shall be established by ordinance or resolution of the city council. SECTION 5. CEQA. This ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. 140826 jb 0131250A 7 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ Interim City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment 140826 jb 0131250A 8 November 17, 2014 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 November 12, 2014 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 Public Hearing (Item will start at approximately 7:30 PM)7 RPP Recommendation to Council: The Commission will be asked to recommend that the City Council8 adopt a City-Wide Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Ordinance establishing a framework for9 implementation of area specific Residential Parking. For more information contact Jessica Sullivan at10 Jessica.sullivan@cityofpaloalto.org11 12 Chair Michael: Everybody’s coming back to their seats. Let’s see, these aren’t numbered. Do you know13 how this works? Maybe you can figure it out. Ok. So let me introduce the public hearing on the parking14 and on the published agenda this is broken down into two items. First is the Citywide Residential15 Preferential Parking (RPP) Ordinance and then the next item is the Downtown ordinance. And I’m going16 to ask our Senior Assistant City Attorney for clarification shortly, but the Commission along with the17 Council has a conflict of interest policy, which is if any Commissioner has an economic interest within 50018 feet of a topic that we are taking action on then they may be required to abstain from consideration of19 that Motion and actually leave the room. And one of our Commissioners, Commissioner Rosenblum lives20 in the Downtown area so when we get to the Downtown topic Commissioner Rosenblum will adhere to21 our policy and he will leave the meeting. That requires that the first part of the discussion will focus on22 the Citywide Parking Ordinance and when we have comments from staff, the Commission, and the public23 it would be, it would help us stay in compliance with our conflict of interest rules if first we focus as much24 as possible on the citywide issues and reserving the Downtown specific concerns to after Commissioner25 Rosenblum departs. And maybe Cara Silver could you, did I get that right?26 27 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Sure, thank you Chair and Commission. So the State Fair28 Political Practices Commission has some adopted conflict of interest rules and that’s what the Chair is29 referring to and under those rules if a Member of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) has30 a real property interest that is within 500 feet of an action that the Commission is acting on then there is31 a presumption that there is a conflict of interest and accordingly since Commissioner Rosenblum owns32 real property in the Downtown area that is the subject of the second action that you’re going to be33 hearing this evening he will be recusing himself from that action; however, he can participate in the first34 action, which is the citywide development of a preferential parking program. There is an exception to the35 conflict of interest rules that apply to regulations that while they may impact a Commissioner individually36 in their financial interest that impact has similar impact on the public generally and so he will be able to37 participate in the first item. So I think what we would like to do in order to facilitate an efficient meeting38 we would like to encourage speakers to if they would like to speak on the first item then they should39 direct their remarks on the first item, which is the general framework for the preferential parking program40 and then if they have discussion items on the Downtown resolution in particular defer those items until41 the second item so there’s not duplicative speaking.42 43 Commissioner Alcheck: Can I ask a quick question on this topic? If, if Commissioner Rosenblum was44 interested in contributing to this conversation as a resident could he exit the dais and participate as a45 speaker?46 47 Ms. Silver: No, he would still be conflicted from that decision.48 49 Commissioner Alcheck: And does that conflict continue if he was interested in [unintelligible yell in50 background], if he was interested in participating in the process at City Council is he still restricted as a51 general member of the public?52 53 Ms. Silver: With respect to the Downtown issue, yes. He cannot participate at all in that decision.54 55 ATTACHMENT D 2 Commissioner Alcheck: Thank you. 1 2 Chair Michael: Hopefully this is a reflection of the absolute commitment by the PTC to be ethical and 3 above board. So I appreciate your forbearance with our struggling to understand exactly where to draw 4 the line between citywide and Downtown and with that let’s turn this to staff for a presentation on the 5 proposed Citywide RPP Ordinance and do we hear from Director Gitelman or Jessica Sullivan our Parking 6 Manager? 7 8 Jessica Sullivan, Parking Manager: Good evening Chair Michael and Members of the Commission. It’s 9 great to see everybody tonight. So as we just discussed the first item we’re talking about is the overview 10 of the proposed Citywide Ordinance for RPP districts. So I’m just going to kind of quickly go just a very 11 small presentation just sort of on where this, where this all came from, where we’ve ended up, and then 12 just give you a quick overview of how we’re proposing this Ordinance to work as well as the content of 13 the Ordinance. 14 15 So as many of you have heard me talk about many times this, the whole RPP discussion is really a crucial 16 part of our multi-pronged approach to addressing our parking and transportation challenges in Palo Alto. 17 So you can see here we’ve got parking management with the RPP program being a crucial component of 18 parking management looking at our existing parking supplies and figuring out how we can really 19 maximize them and use them strategically. So the staff report obviously is not about all these other 20 things, but I think it’s important to mention them in the context of the RPP discussion. We’re moving 21 forward with parking technology, garage branding and signage, and several other, several other 22 measures related to management of parking supply. Transportation demand reduction is another crucial 23 component. I know we’ll come back to you soon with some updates on that. Development of our 24 Transportation Management Association (TMA), increasing our shuttle service and looking at other 25 routes, city employee commute programs, our Zipcar program, and then parking supply measures 26 ultimately managing and increasing the parking supply that we have available to us. So again, part of 27 the big picture strategy that we’ve been really working hard on for the last year. 28 29 So when Council directed us in January to kind of embark on this parallel process including both a 30 citywide ordinance to address RPP districts across the City as well as a development of a priority district 31 program, which ended up being the Downtown, staff has sort of taken this, this direction and made a 32 sort of modification of it. So we’re proposing that the Citywide Ordinance outlines the criteria that need 33 to be met in order for our neighborhood to become an RPP district and to be vetted against that. The 34 neighborhood specific resolution, which we’ll hear about in the second item tonight for downtown, which 35 would outline neighborhood specific design criteria so the idea being that different permit programs 36 within the City could potentially have different characteristics. Things like cost of permits might be 37 different, hours of enforcement, things like that. 38 39 And a third piece, which we sort of added in working with the attorneys office is this piece of 40 administrative regulations. One of the things that we notice as we worked through drafts of the 41 Ordinance and the resolution was that there’s a lot of detail and sort of parking policy requirements and 42 how we do occupancy studies and who’s eligible for permits and why and so we made a recommendation 43 that that sort of information be put in a document that we’re calling the administrative regulations. So 44 it’s not substantive to the program design, but it would be developed as part of the proposed program if 45 we move forward in 2015. 46 47 So I’ll quickly go through the Ordinance as it’s proposed and as it’s laid out in the staff, staff report. I 48 think the one of the most important things about the Ordinance is it lays out the criteria that have to be 49 met in order for a neighborhood to move forward with a petition process to become an RPP district. And 50 I’ve sort of paraphrased them here in this slide, this is not how they’re worded exactly in the Ordinance, 51 but you all have a copy of that in the staff report. So basically the first one is just that nonresident 52 vehicles ultimately interfere with the use of parking by neighborhood residents who live within that 53 neighborhood. That the interference itself is frequent, and that this nonresident vehicle parking disrupts 54 neighborhood quality of life, which is also another way of saying that shortage of parking spaces could 55 3 result noise, traffic, those types of things. And the last one is that other strategies are not feasible or 1 practical. So these are the criteria that we came up with for the Ordinance to lay out. 2 3 The Ordinance then goes into a description of the neighborhood petition process that a neighborhood 4 would need to move forward with assuming that they satisfy the criteria outlaid in the Ordinance. So 5 basically and this is quite similar to the process that most cities go through when they create RPP 6 districts. The residents need to complete an application and a petition which is submitted to the Planning 7 Department. The Planning Department reviews the application and in this case we would review the 8 application to make sure that the criteria are in fact met as outlined in the Ordinance. The Planning 9 Director would review all the applications and make sure the criteria are met and make a 10 recommendation to the Planning Commission for the neighborhood that seemed to be the most 11 appropriate to move forward with then the Planning Commission would review the application and 12 ultimately make the recommendation for staff to move forward with, with developing the program. So 13 then this is where staff conducts the community outreach that’s really necessary to develop this type of a 14 program so including not only reaching out to residents in the impacted area, but also to the potential 15 cause of the parking intrusion to the neighborhood. This is also where we would conduct occupancy 16 studies of the neighborhood to determine the level of impact. 17 18 We’ve actually included a sort of time stipulation in the Ordinance stating that we, the Director would 19 review all the applications by March 31st of that year and then that staff would bring the draft resolution 20 to the Planning Commission by September of that year and then ultimately the Planning Commission 21 review the petition application, the occupancy data, and then make the final recommendation to Council. 22 So the adoption of the resolution is also laid out in the Ordinance as what content needs to be inside the 23 resolution and I’m not going to go too much into that because we’re going to talk about the resolution 24 later, but the Ordinance specifies that the resolution can have a trial period of up to one year and also 25 that parts of, parts of neighborhoods that are not in the district at first can annex themselves into an 26 existing RPP district and also that a district can terminate itself by the same petition process. The other 27 thing the Ordinance outlines is the allowance for contract enforcement for the enforcement of the 28 proposed district. Right now we don’t have a municipal code that allows us to contract out for 29 enforcement. The Police Department does all of our enforcement and looking at potential costs of 30 enforcing programs like this we’ve decided that contract enforcement may be a good option for us. So 31 that’s a quick summary of the Ordinance and our recommendation is that the PTC recommend adoption 32 of the Ordinance by City Council. Thank you. 33 34 Chair Michael: Ok, so I think we’ll go to the public now and we have a number of speaker cards. By the 35 way if anybody has come into the room and would like to speak and hasn’t had a chance to fill out a 36 speaker card we would love to hear from you. And we have two new Commissioners who joined the PTC 37 this meeting, Commissioner Downing and Fine. And they asked if we always have so many people at our 38 PTC meetings and I said oh yes, every meeting and I think this is wonderful. We like to provide a forum 39 for engagement with the public and definitely want to hear your input on this topic, which is very 40 important to the community. So with that, ok, ok. 41 42 And I was just reminded by Commissioner Alcheck that if anybody came into the room after we 43 introduced our ethical rules about conflict of interest we’re trying to confine the focus in this first part of 44 the discussion on the Citywide Ordinance and then after Commissioner Rosenblum who lives Downtown 45 leaves the room then we can turn to the Downtown issues on the final topic. So with that we’re going to 46 give each speaker three minutes. If you happen to be here as a representative of a group that hopefully 47 is indicated on your card and we’ll give you more time as noted on the card. So Commissioner 48 Rosenblum has given me the first speaker, it’s going to be Malcolm Beasley and to queue up you’ll be 49 followed by Mary Dimet, if I’ve got that right, but welcome. 50 51 Malcolm Beasley: Thank you. Members of the PTC I appreciate the opportunity to address you this 52 evening regarding the proposed citywide ordinance and the Downtown RPP resolution. My name is Mac 53 Beasley and I’m a 40 year resident of Downtown North. I’ve studied the report submitted by staff that 54 you are considering and I have some observations that I’d like to share with you. There are many 55 moving parts in adopting a workable RPP program and it’s easy to get lost in the details essential though 56 4 they may be. It’s therefore helpful to be clear on the bigger picture. In that spirit I offer two strongly 1 felt suggestions. 2 3 I present one, that demand for parking is a moving target. It’s only going to get worse with the new 4 construction already approved in the pipeline and the increased employee density being introduced into 5 existing buildings. Therefore, it is essential to compare quantitatively any proposed approaches to 6 increased supply, better yet the aggregate of all such approaches against the demand projected forward 7 in time. The approaches presented in the report so far deal only with the problem as it exists today. I’m 8 not suggesting that staff doesn’t understand the issue I’m raising. It is at best a first step. The reality is 9 that parking will surely get worse and we must openly face up to that reality if we are to deal with it in a 10 firm way. Therefore, I urge you to insist that going forward staff be instructed to make dynamic 11 projections to the degree that it’s possible to do so. 12 13 Two, excessive parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods is inconsistent with the Comprehensive 14 Plan. You know that and it is stated in the Comprehensive Plan “protect residential areas from parking 15 impacts of nearby business districts.” That’s from, quoted from the report. I firmly believe as many in 16 this room know that this goal cannot be honored in a fair transparent way without some metric to gage 17 intrusion. Such a metric might also serve as a criterion that would qualify a neighborhood to seek an 18 RPP. According to the staff report developing such a criterion is one of the essential components of the 19 Ordinance. According to my reading of the staff report the stakeholder group came to the consensus 20 that the 20 percent nonresident parking is reasonable, but that is for the Council to decide and if they 21 don’t in my frank opinion they are not meeting their responsibilities as the stewards of the 22 Comprehensive Plan. I urge you to take the position that the Ordinance should introduce a quantitative 23 i.e. measurable acceptable level of intrusion even if it cannot be met in the short term. Thank you. 24 25 Chair Michael: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mary Dimet to be followed by Mark Nanevicz. 26 27 Mary Dimet: [Speaking off microphone – unintelligible]. 28 29 Chair Michael: Consider it done. The next speaker is Mark Nanevicz to be followed by (interrupted) 30 31 Mark Nanevicz: [Speaking off microphone – unintelligible]. 32 33 Chair Michael: So noted. That’s Mark Nanevicz. So… 34 35 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: So next is Norman Bermmer. 36 37 Chair Michael: Mr. Bermmer? Item 3? Three minutes. 38 39 Norman Bermmer: I probably should have checked four as well, but I’ll keep my remarks general. 40 41 Chair Michael: You can please come back and speak again if you’d like. 42 43 Mr. Bermmer: I think I can cover it here. So I would urge the Commission to recommend adoption of the 44 RPP Ordinance and the other associated actions. I agree with the previous speaker that there should be 45 a quantitative standard in the Ordinance, 20 percent sounds like it’s a reasonable amount. In other 46 words no more than 20 percent of the available parking spaces in any given neighborhood should be 47 dedicated to nonresident parking otherwise you’re going to just fill up the area with parking and that will 48 defeat the purpose of the program. 49 50 The other thing from the standpoint of a Crescent Park resident, which I am, I think some folks are 51 concerned that if you enact a district it will then just spread the problem out and that’s why the provision 52 in the ordinance that allows adjacent blocks to opt in is very important. So I just wanted to stress that’s 53 an important aspect of the overall system. Thank you. 54 55 Chair Michael: Thank you. And then the next speaker is Doria Summa on Item 3. 56 5 1 Doria Summa: Good evening Chair, Commissioners, and welcome new Commissioners. I’m Doria 2 Summa, I’m a resident of College Terrace and I wanted to just talk to you a little bit after a long struggle 3 permit parking was implemented in September of 2009 in College Terrace. It’s been very successful ever 4 since and the Ordinance allows for I’ll read you part of it besides residential parking this is who it allows 5 to park “a residential parking permit may be issued for any vehicle owned, leased, or any person who is 6 employed by or a representative of a neighborhood serving establishment located within the particular 7 residential permit parking area. Each employee or representative of a neighborhood serving 8 establishment will be allowed to obtain one permit for each vehicle they own or lease subject to the 9 following criteria which shall be used to establish the eligibility of a neighborhood serving establishment 10 and the maximum number of permits.” And I think it’s important to know that neighborhood serving 11 establishment is defined as the following: “Neighborhood serving establishment means all libraries, 12 schools, daycare centers, and nonprofit public service organizations.” And of course in addition to that 13 there’s two hour parking for everybody for short term parking whether they are business people or 14 residents. Thank you. 15 16 Chair Michael: Thank you. I’d like the minutes to reflect that Commissioner Tanaka is now here and in 17 attendance. The next speaker is Richard Brand for Item 3 to be followed by Judy Beasler. 18 19 Richard Brand: Good evening Commissioners and welcome to the new, two new Commissioners. I think 20 you’ve got a good, good staff support here and I think it’s going to be a good session. My name is 21 Richard Brand, I live at 281 Addison. I was one of the 11 stakeholder members of the staff’s RPP 22 Commission. And I want to first of all offer kudos to the staff work that did Jessica Sullivan did an 23 outstanding job in the midst of a lot of controversy and although we didn’t come to blows she managed 24 to keep things under control and I think what you’ve seen in her report again we have two items here 25 and I’ll talk later about the local one that affects my area in Professorville, but I think that the PTC owes 26 them a real kudos for the work they did and Director Gitelman came in at the last meeting because she 27 was no longer opted out because of legal issues. I think Jim Keene who’s not here did a good job and I 28 think all of us felt the same way we actually offer them a round of applause. So first of all I want to say 29 that. 30 31 Secondly this is a Citywide Ordinance is proposed here in this Item 3 and I have family, my daughter, 32 son-in-law and family live down on Martin in Crescent Park. I can park anywhere when I go see them. I 33 mean the curbs are empty. It’s just not like where I live in Professorville and Downtown North so I can 34 understand how some residents will say why are we doing this? It really is a local issue and this is not 35 unique to Palo Alto. Other cities have this same thing and I think other residents need to understand 36 that. The nice thing and the good thing about this is that not everybody has to sign up, but we need to 37 have a framework to make this work and I think what we’ve got here is a good framework. So I support 38 this Ordinance, again I worked on it. 39 40 And I also support on the third slide that Ms. Sullivan proposed. It’s a three legged stool. Not only do 41 we need a permit process, we need additional parking management ways to solve the problem and make 42 everybody happy. And so I urge this Commission to really work on that. So I think that maybe our two 43 Council Members are going to Austin for their conference. Maybe they ought to, we ought to focus them 44 to go in and talk about parking because this is not unique to Palo Alto. Other cities have this problem 45 and other cities have solved it and I think our staff is working on that and again I appreciate the work 46 that we did and I support the staff. Thank you and I hope you do too. 47 48 Chair Michael: So thank you very much and we certainly do support the staff. Judy Beasler is the next 49 speaker to be followed by Tommy Derrids. 50 51 Judy Beasler: Hello, I would like to thank you also for considering this problem. I’m an absolute novice at 52 this and I’m late to the notion of the permit process, but I’m learning quickly that you put lots of thought 53 into that. I’m here with the notice of one of the Downtown area people so I think quite possibly this isn’t 54 my time to speak, but I could speak to it citywide on one issue and that is I’m a local realtor and there 55 are instances when people there’s no place to park to visit or show properties of the local homeowners 56 6 when they’re moving. Oh, I moved a bit. Is that better? Ok. So that situation for me personally my 1 experience is definitely no parking around Palo Alto for that kind of activity, which is short term, it’s not a 2 long term park, but you can’t get near a space. 3 4 Chair Michael: Thank you. Next speaker is Tommy Derrids. Now is this on Item 3? You’ve indicated 5 Downtown or do you want to… are you going to talk about the citywide? Ok, good. And to be followed 6 by Linda Anderson. 7 8 Tommy Derrids: I may need some lenience from your Chairperson in terms of time. I would like all the 9 people who are here from Evergreen Park and Ventura who are supportive all this to stand rather than 10 come up here and talk for a long time. So (interrupted) 11 12 Chair Michael: If you’re here on behalf of a large group you can have more than three minutes if 13 [unintelligible] that’s our rules. 14 15 Mr. Derrids: Ok, I appreciate that, but I, I don’t want to be here till midnight and you don’t want to be 16 here till midnight so [unintelligible] try to push it through as rapidly as I can. So I want to start by 17 adding on to what Richard said. I think he understated things. This process for this thing coming 18 together has been coordinated, pushed, directed like herding a group of cats Jessica Sullivan moved 19 through this thing in a way that many of us thought she would not be able to do. She’s had conflicts 20 within the Planning Department, conflicts within people in town; it cannot be overstated what her 21 contribution is to what’s in front of you tonight. So it’s important that we say it. 22 23 So it’s been a long time getting here. We’ve been in front of the Council a number of times around a lot 24 of issues so I’m glad to be standing here supporting this Ordinance with a modification. I want to 25 present something to you that I think needs to be added to it, but it’s really quite a simple question that’s 26 before you. Is there any intrusion in the Downtown area? If you’ve got two eyes and ears you can really 27 rapidly tell that there is an intrusion problem and as others have alluded per the Comp Plan, 28 Comprehensive Plan it’s time to bring relief to our neighbors Downtown. Evergreen Park over there by 29 College Terrace who already has their plan we’re extremely supportive of something happening 30 Downtown because we know we are next in line. With what’s happening in California Avenue, with 31 what’s already happened on El Camino, I live at 390 Leland in one of Palo Alto’s old historical houses a 32 block off El Camino and I go out and do volunteer work at 7:00 in the morning and when I return there 33 are no parking spaces for me to put my truck back after I’ve gone out to do the work to come back at 34 8:30 and it’s just beginning. It’s undoubtedly going to get considerably worse for both Evergreen Park 35 and for the Ventura neighborhood. 36 37 So we want to see this Ordinance adopted, but we want an addition to it. We find the provision of 38 10.50.050, which is the initiation by neighborhood to be cumbersome, lengthy, difficult, and we want to 39 add an item .040 and when I finish I’ll distribute to you a copy of a proposal that we would like placed 40 into your recommendation to the Council. We had a good municipal lawyer who understands ordinances 41 and resolutions and law to draft this item for us. We want the Council to have additional authority; we 42 want the Council to have the ability to put an RPP in place. We want the Council to be able to evaluate 43 what Jessica and all the others have spent endless hours doing and streamline the process and make it 44 happen. There are people who will tell you that this whole parking thing is dark science. It’s only dark 45 science if you’re trying to keep from dealing with the problems that occur. There are people who tell you 46 we shouldn’t privatize the streets. Regulating what goes on on the streets has nothing to do with 47 privatizing streets; we do it all day every day with regulations that keep us all more healthy and more 48 safe. We are simply asking you to add to those additional regulations. So can I present these to you 49 Chair to distribute? 50 51 Chair Michael: Yes, please. Just hand it to staff in order… thank you. Thank you very much. 52 53 Mr. Derrids: By adding this item it simply provides for the Council to have a position to initiate a 54 residential parking program in any specific neighborhood when they see and detail the whole thing. So 55 I’ve concluded with that saying please adopt the Ordinance, please include this addition into it. And I 56 7 failed to say at the beginning a lot of these people who stood up and said they were from Ventura 1 neighborhood, Evergreen Park neighborhood, and so on a lot have family commitments and a lot of 2 people have got to get up and leave so please don’t be offended when these folks go. They came and 3 made their statement and folks are going to need to leave and it has nothing to do with their 4 commitment or their belief in what you’re doing here. So I’d be happy to answer any questions that 5 anybody has. 6 7 Chair Michael: Ok. So thank you very much and we certainly appreciate the big turnout from Evergreen 8 Park although we do try to discourage applause or booing. So the next speaker is Michael Hodos to be 9 followed by Elaine Uang on Item 3. 10 11 Michael Hodos: Commissioners my name’s Michael Hodos. I’ve lived in Professorville since 1978. That 12 better? Ok, thank you. And needless to say as several of my neighbors have iterated so, already the 13 situation has changed dramatically over the last 10 years specifically when the color zones were first put 14 in. That was the lighting of the fuse that led to the situation we have today not to mention the 15 densification of buildings Downtown and so on. There are really just two points that have not already 16 been covered more than once that I’d like to make. One is that this Ordinance needs a quality standard. 17 What is quality of life in the neighborhood? Right now our quality of life is nonexistent when it comes to 18 the impact that intrusive parking has. Some certain percentage of space should always be available for 19 guests, for service people to come to our homes, many of whom won’t come to our neighborhood 20 anymore because they refuse to carry their tools for two or three blocks, and emergencies. So the 21 Ordinance needs a quality standard that can be applied universally across the residential neighborhoods 22 in Palo Alto. Then there’s an objective way to decide when a neighborhood is in need of a RPP. 23 24 The second thing is that the administrative regulations, which have been pushed sort of down the pipe 25 somewhere are very, very important. How this is administered, how it’s implemented, what the rules are 26 both for the Planning Department, for the residents, for changes that need to be made needs to be 27 spelled out well before this becomes a final regulation. And to say that that’s something we’re going to 28 cover after Phase 1 is done I don’t think is appropriate otherwise the residents have no idea what’s 29 coming down the pipe until it gets here. 30 31 The third thing is I urge each of you if you haven’t already done it to walk our neighborhoods. Take an 32 afternoon and walk around Downtown North and just see what the parking is like. Come down to 33 Professorville and Downtown South and see how it’s spreading. Now it’s already onto Lincoln. When we 34 started counting cars every month a year or two ago Addison wasn’t even parked up. Now it’s starting to 35 fill up Lincoln and it’s going to continue because of houses that or influx from buildings that is just in the 36 pipeline. So if those three things can be made to happen with this Ordinance it would be a huge 37 improvement over what we have seen so far. Thank you. 38 39 Chair Michael: Thank you for your comments. So Elaine Vang [Note-Chair Michael said Wong] is the next 40 speaker to be followed by Wynne Furth. 41 42 Elaine Vang: Good evening, thank you again for your attention to this. Welcome to the new 43 Commissioners. I want to echo Mac Beasley, Michael Hodos, others; I was part of the RPP stakeholder 44 group. Paid a lot of attention to some of these details and want to echo their sentiments that in the 45 Ordinance a standard be placed or a goal for the program to achieve. I think there are many, you’ve 46 heard some examples here tonight, I might offer one more. Donald Shoup, the author of The High Cost 47 of Free Parking, which you may all be very familiar with, this is the epic tome and the brick of what free 48 parking does to an area has a Goldilocks principle. And the Goldilocks principle is about getting parking 49 just right. And his just right, this is his just right standard is to allow 15 percent of any street face, any 50 street face to be made available at any time and that is the goal of most parking policies. Now I think it’s 51 up to us and to you and Council and staff to determine what the right number is for Palo Alto, but it is 52 important that we do try to set a standard and that goal that we try to achieve. It’s important to grease 53 the wheels of the system as you’ve all, we’ve heard from other people. We need to really enable anyone 54 whether it’s the residents, their support folks, their contractors, the realtors who are trying to show the 55 8 properties, the commuters to be able to find some way to accommodate themselves on our streets at any 1 time. Thank you. 2 3 Chair Michael: Thank you. Wynne Furth to be followed by Neilson Buchannan. 4 5 Wynne Furth: Thank you. My name’s Wynne Furth I live Downtown on Everett Avenue and thanks to the 6 staff for reasonably accommodating my injured back with a nice chair and thanks to you for taking this 7 on. I wanted to echo Tommy Derrids [Note-she also said Derrick] in saying it’s important that the 8 Council retain the power to do what it did last January and start these things directly. It’s not just a 9 matter of headcount because the impact of parking shortages varies from person to person. Can you 10 walk three blocks? Last month I couldn’t. This became really obvious to me. Do you have off street 11 parking? Do you have a nanny? Do people have to come to your house? Do you have friends over? It’s 12 not just a matter of counting heads, sometimes it’s a matter of thinking about future problems and so the 13 Council needs that flexibility. 14 15 I’d like to as always echo everything Elaine has to say. These programs are crucial if any of these other 16 things are going to work. As long as we have free parking in our neighborhoods nothing else is going to 17 go. I think administrative regulations can be very useful, but they shouldn’t be adopted without a public 18 comment period first. And I think too much is being pushed to them in terms of quantitative, in terms of 19 important standards. I do agree that quantitative standards are essential and I think they probably 20 should be in resolutions because they vary from neighborhood to neighborhood and I support 85 percent 21 maximum parking saturation and you know sometimes people say well of course nobody can park near 22 your house, you live by the theatre, you live by good restaurants. Nobody can park near a good 23 restaurant, but that’s not true. It’s like saying you can’t live in Los Angeles (LA) without the kind of smog 24 we had in the Fifties. And we don’t have that kind of smog anymore because we regulated it. The 25 difference is this is much simpler to deal with. Thank you. 26 27 Chair Michael: And thank you. Neilson Buchannan is the next speaker and that’s all on Item 3. 28 29 Neilson Buchannan: Neilson Buchannan, 155 Bryant. I have devoted an enormous amount of time to the 30 resolution and I have devoted virtually nothing to the Ordinance. Once the clarification was made at the 31 stake level, stakeholder level, all my attention went to the details that you’ll hear about later tonight. I 32 devoted my leadership to warning a few other neighborhoods that this was very important and I think 33 that’s one of the reasons that Ventura and Evergreen Park are reasonably informed about their future 34 and the need to assert themselves for protection of their neighborhood quality. I think Tommy is got his 35 finger on the pulse of what needs to be done. I reflect back to City Council meeting with Jim Keene and 36 when this first came up and he was putting the Ordinance into context. And I detected more or as much 37 of a defensive move from Jim saying oh my God, once this gets out every neighborhood’s going to want 38 it and there’ll be a land rush for protection. I think he was right. It’s seldom do we hear that kind of 39 forthrightness, but I agree with him and I think there needs to be a nimbleness in this Ordinance. My 40 neighborhood is actually getting under protection. We’ll hammer out something eventually, but there are 41 other neighborhoods who by and large are not aware of the issues that we know so well from the 42 Downtown core or the California Avenue core, Midtown, any, any neighborhood adjacent to El Camino 43 Real needs to have nimbleness in this Ordinance to protect them. 44 45 One quick thing on the administrative regulations, I don’t know the first thing about the structure and the 46 real teeth into the administrative regulations or guidelines. I am skeptical that we have to really get 47 those penned out as soon as possible in the midst of this next Phase 1 and 2 and not waiver from that. 48 I’m not convinced that administrative regulations have much teeth to them as such. Something has to be 49 built in for appeal and oversight by the City Council. The City Manager by definition is recused from 50 anything in Downtown North or University South so the administrative regulations we have no appeal to 51 the City Manager. The Planning Director is judge and jury as it’s currently written and I don’t know how 52 to do that. Molly and others can help satisfy that need on my part. One last thing on the beautiful work 53 that Jessica’s done. I just want to point out that the business registry wasn’t, I didn’t see it at least on all 54 the nice things that need to be happening parallel to this. So don’t forget the business registry. 55 56 9 Chair Michael: Ok, so thank you very much members of the public speaking on the Citywide Ordinance 1 and for your ability to keep these two issues separate so we can remain in compliance. And it appears 2 that there’s a tremendous recognition of the quality of the staff work particularly Jessica Sullivan and 3 others so that’s really tremendous. So thank you so much for that. 4 5 I wonder before we come back to the Commission I know that you all have been taking notes and a 6 number of these comments seem to be very relevant. Is there any, anything that you want to sort of 7 help us focus on in terms of additional feedback that would be useful or do you have answers to any of 8 the questions that were raised? 9 10 Ms. Sullivan: I just do have one comment. I know a number of folks had concern about the 11 administrative regulations and when they’d be developed. I mean our intent was to develop those as 12 soon as possible during Phase 1 of the program. So this is something that would be completed early on 13 in the development not sort of at a to be determined later date. So I just wanted to respond to that. 14 15 Hillary Gitelman, Director: Thank you Chair Michael if I can chime in with one comment, Hillary Gitelman 16 the Planning Director, I just wanted to respond to the one suggestion about an added section giving the 17 City Council the authority to establish districts and I just point out we believe that authority is granted by 18 10.50.030 and the addition of the addition… and maybe Cara Silver can review this as well, but I just 19 think I appreciate the sentiment of the suggestion and I feel like it’s already covered in this Ordinance. 20 I’d be happy to answer any questions about that as we move forward. 21 22 Chair Michael: You know just as a request when we get the packets if they could get indexed so that we 23 could actually turn to the particular sections faster, we… it’s hard to actually find where oh, I see. 24 25 Ms. Gitelman: I’m sorry, that’s packet Page 77 it looks like is where the pertinent sections are. 26 27 Chair Michael: So what you’re suggesting is that the language of the Council may designate an area as a 28 RPP based upon certain criteria gives them that authority? 29 30 Ms. Gitelman: That’s correct. That 030 really says the Council can do that, 050 is really about how a 31 neighborhood would initiate the process, but I don’t think there’s any need to have another section about 32 the Council’s procedures because 030 gives the Council that authority. 33 34 Chair Michael: So I wonder I don’t think it’s a good idea for ordinance drafting to happen from the dais, 35 but one question that I might just feed back to staff is on the interaction between Section 030 and 050 36 would it be helpful to insert the word such as at the beginning of 050 “alternatively” just to make clear 37 that the one doesn’t preempt or supersede the other? Because I think that was a confusion that I had in 38 looking at it and it seems to be something that would address the concern of the Evergreen Park 39 speaker. 40 41 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you Chair Michael we were just talking offline and maybe we should caucus and get 42 back to you with a response to that question. 43 44 Chair Michael: Ok. Just so we will stay tuned. Ok, Commissioner Downing you had a question? 45 46 Commissioner Downing: Yeah just a real quick question for my own clarity and I think for the clarity of 47 the folks in the audience as well. So I mean depending on which way you go if you’re going through the 48 process via the neighborhood bringing an issue or the Council deciding to go down this path for a 49 particular neighborhood at that do either of those, both of those, neither of those have a requirement 50 about how many people in that neighborhood have to agree to this or how many people even have to be 51 asked about that? 52 53 Ms. Sullivan: So that number would be outlined in the administrative regulations. 54 55 Commissioner Downing: Ok, thank you. 56 10 1 Chair Michael: Ok. So we were still going through the possibility that staff might have wanted to respond 2 to any points made by the public before we come back to the Commission and you responded to two 3 important issues. Where there other issues where you wanted to help us focus on? 4 5 Ms. Gitelman: I think those were the two principal issues the timing of the administrative regulations and 6 the suggested change to the Ordinance. Apologize if one fell off my list, maybe the Commission can pick 7 up anything we didn’t get, we didn’t catch. 8 9 Chair Michael: Ok, and so what we’re looking for this evening is a recommendation from the PTC with 10 respect to Council with respect to adoption of the Ordinance? Ok. So let’s open it up to comments from 11 the Commission now. Commissioner [Note-Acting Vice-Chair] Rosenblum. 12 13 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: So I also want to echo everyone’s thanks especially to Jessica Sullivan and 14 to everyone who came out to speak. There’s obviously a lot of passion about this issue and it’s hard for 15 me to stay away from my own neighborhood because a lot of this starts there, but I will refrain from 16 that. 17 18 In general I do this this is a big deal. I think it is kind of a transfer of a public asset into semi-private use 19 and therefore it does have to meet a pretty high standard. And I was actually shocked at this first survey 20 results. I thought it was going to be a runaway yes, please give me protective parking in my 21 neighborhood and I was shocked the results were as split as they were. And so to me that there’s a bit 22 of there’s a bit of cognitive dissonance where something that costs the City so much to regulate and 23 transfer for the private use of some may not have overwhelming support. Now having said that I 24 recognize there is a quality of life issue and the Goldilocks principle I think is a really good one, which is 25 there should be some spaces available. I don’t think the goal is to have empty streets. I think the goal is 26 to have some spaces available. And I do think that staff has put forward a wise recommendation to start 27 with a first process I’m saying in general not necessarily about the specific area, but in general to start 28 with a Phase 1 to basically see what happens under a certain experiment to be able to regulate to that 29 Goldilocks principle. Because I think otherwise you start with just Phase 2 I don’t think there’s any going 30 back. I think it’s very hard to take things away, but easy to add, easier to add additional benefits. 31 32 The other piece that does concern me is cost. I think you always run into problems with subsidized stuff. 33 You get overuse. The reason why we have more people parking in our neighborhoods than we want is 34 because it’s free. And in fact the Downtown parking garages are I think underpriced too. If it costs us 35 $60,000 to build a parking space and we’re renting them per year for $466 and therefore it takes 130 36 years to pay off that’s subsidized and that’s why they’re overflowed. So I do think that cost is something 37 that I hope Council will take up. I think whenever you have a dramatically subsidized good it gets 38 overused, but I recognize the quality of life issue we want to be able to park near our houses and I think 39 that’s very important, but we should also if we’re being, having this good be transferred to us I think we 40 should be willing to pay for that and as a City I think we should be willing to accept that parking as a 41 subsidy is not necessarily where we want to put our City’s funds. 42 43 Otherwise I think the Ordinance is something that the Council should support, but as part of a very 44 strong Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and the other recommendations that staff 45 has put forward. I think it’s part of a three legged stool. I hope I see as many people in the audience 46 when TDM and other things are on the docket and equally valid support because I think it’s all part and 47 parcel the same thing. So thank you. 48 49 Chair Michael: So on this topic, which I think is pretty important we can consider having two rounds, but 50 who would like to go next? Commissioner Gardias. 51 52 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Mr. Chairman. A comment I’d like to make actually may be of interest 53 of Director Gitelman so sorry for just… So looking at the, at the paragraph that we discussed before 54 10.50.050 it talks about prioritization of application. I think that there is a certain consequence of 55 prioritizing permits this way. If we don’t have it in writing, if we don’t establish certain algorithms how 56 11 the permits are being awarded then we give ourselves more work and then we will not be able to 1 automate it in the future and I think the goal should be just to automate it as soon as possible and put it 2 in the some applications. But then also there is another item that’s maybe more important that we are 3 exposing ourselves and it may become a risk item, maybe not as significant because monetary aspects 4 are not that big, but then there may be some controversy that some employees or residents get awarded 5 with the permits others were not and that may create a risk. So for this reason I would suggest to 6 change this paragraph to a quantitative algorithm that would specify, would spell out very clearly who 7 gets the permits at what sequence. 8 9 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you Commissioner. Just to clarify this section of the Ordinance is about prioritizing 10 requests for formation of districts, not for permits themselves. The thinking was we have limited staff 11 resources as we’ve demonstrated through the course of this year it takes a lot of time and energy to 12 gather stakeholders and develop a plan to implement even one district. And so if we were to receive 13 applications from many neighborhoods at one time we would have to prioritize because we don’t have 14 the resources to do it all at once. And so this section is about that process of prioritizing neighborhood 15 districts, not about actually prioritizing who gets permits. That would be worked out in the development 16 of a resolution specific to the neighborhood. 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: So thank you for clarification. So just going back to the essence, right, because I 19 was just speaking about prioritizing of the permits themselves, will there, will this be put in writing and 20 be available to all the residents so it’s understood clearly how the permits are being awarded? 21 22 Ms. Gitelman: We will talk about that in the context of the resolution, our next agenda item for 23 Downtown and you’ll have to tell us whether you think it’s been dealt with effectively in that context. 24 There’s an opportunity just inherent in this Ordinance for each district to set up their own way of 25 prioritizing and determining the number of permits to employees for example and intentional, and that’s 26 intentional. The Ordinance is very flexible because we know that different neighborhoods are different in 27 terms of their characteristics and their goals. 28 29 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, as long, as long this process may be clearly, be clear and transparent to 30 those that would be applying for those permits that of course would be the desired result. So thank you 31 for the clarification. 32 33 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. We’re just going to do two rounds so you can use it however you 34 want. 35 36 Commissioner Alcheck: So in no particular order I also want to I guess congratulate Miss Sullivan, Ms. 37 Sullivan on her role. I remember your first meeting here and I remember thinking at the time oh my 38 God, Jaime just threw you under the bus. Like you have the hardest job and you’re new and no one’s 39 going to like… I mean I just remember thinking that the mountain was tall. And I also remember my first 40 meeting with residents of Downtown North and Mr. Buchannan organized very close to the beginning of 41 my participation on this Commission and I, I think you know this, I’ve been a very vocal supporter of 42 instituting parking programs that will alleviate the kind of concerns that this Ordinance is, intends to deal 43 with. 44 45 I couldn’t agree with the speaker more, this is not dark science. They are not practicing dark science in 46 Noe Valley where I used to live where I had a permit to park in front of my house, I mean in fact it was I 47 had a permit and it was still impossible to park in front of my house, but at least I could find it close by 48 and I don’t buy this privatization argument. It’s restrictions on parking are, they’re common. You can’t 49 park in front of a fire hydrant so that the people who live near the fire hydrant when they have a fire 50 won’t lose their homes so the Fire Department can access the water. We restrict parking in very localized 51 areas for very specific purposes for the benefit of people who live very close to those restrictions and I 52 very much appreciate the hard work that you guys have done. 53 54 My main concern with the Ordinance is this notion of determining the boundary and I mention that 55 because I know some of you have suggested that we incorporate some sort of City Council fast track 56 12 option. I don’t blame you for making that suggestion because you’ve basically gone through this 1 incredibly arduous process. It’s taken over a year to, over maybe potentially more than two years to get 2 to where you are today and the notion of having to repeat that process is, is unappealing, but the reason 3 why I think that this, that that these are linked this idea of boundary and this fast track concept. This 4 process should be evaluated and should encourage a community wide engagement when the RPP or 5 whatever you want to call it for Crescent Park was initiated it bypassed this Board, it bypassed this 6 Commission, and it bypassed a number of what I would call typical processes in Palo Alto and excuse me, 7 I’m going to take a little longer, and as a result the boundary issue wasn’t really addressed and one block 8 decided to move their problem to their neighbor block, and the neighbor block then had to deal with it. 9 10 And so my comment to staff tonight and to my fellow Commissioners is that I think we need to address 11 this notion of boundary in the Citywide Ordinance. How big, I would actually make it specific. I would 12 say that if a community let’s say a community comes or residents come together to suggest that they 13 want a parking permit program between A and B street then the boundary should actually be increased 14 by a factor of no less than a third of a mile or a quarter of a mile. Because there’s an issue here that if 15 the boundary is too small and they succeed to go through this process, which it looks like the first time it 16 really gets public opportunity for engagement is when it comes before the Planning Commission, which 17 would be September of that calendar year, which I read to mean nine months potentially after it’s 18 brought forward there’s a it’s Page 78 it says “Staff shall bring the proposed RPP to the PTC no later than 19 September of the calendar year in which the consideration began.” Which means in a theory it could be 20 nine months before a public commission has an opportunity to invite the public to participate and that’s a 21 really long time for the community that’s not inside the boundary, but next door to it to not participate in 22 the design of this program. And so I know that we notice people within 500 feet, but there’s a bigger 23 picture here. 24 25 I understood that there was a vote initially and then the boundaries changed a little bit and then the vote 26 result changed a little bit with the Downtown and I’m using that as an example. I’m not talking about 27 that item, but as an example of boundary makes a big difference. And who we let decide where that 28 boundary or what will apply in that boundary makes a different. I want to add just one last thing 29 (interrupted) 30 31 Chair Michael: We’ll give you a second round. 32 33 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, fine I’ll go in the second round I’ll, I’ll address the fast track issue a little 34 separately. 35 36 Chair Michael: Ok. 37 38 Ms. Gitelman: Chair Michael if I could just respond to that question? I just want to clarify the processes 39 that this sets forth gives the PTC a role very early in the process. Once the applications are received 40 those applications that meet the criteria are brought to the Commission for prioritization. And the 41 Commission is going to weigh where the parking issue, parking problems are most severe and therefore 42 where resources should be expended in the upcoming year to design a program with boundaries and 43 rules about how many permits would be issued and all the rest. So the Commission has an opportunity 44 at that very early stage to offer their opinions on characteristics of the district and the scope of the 45 problem. And although it is true that after that prioritization happens is when the hard work of working 46 with the stakeholders to define the district and the boundaries will happen and then it comes back to the 47 Commission after that staff and community engagement effort has concluded later in the year. 48 49 Chair Michael: That’s in Section E on Page 78? 50 51 Ms. Gitelman: Yes. 52 53 Chair Michael: Ok. Commissioner [Note-Acting Vice-Chair] Rosenblum is going to have to leave the 54 meeting to go on a business trip and so this conflict of interest is now resolved. So we can talk about 55 anything. 56 13 1 Ms. Gitelman: And Chair Michael if I could get back to the point that we started this discussion about the 2 Ordinance on the suggestion that was handed forward about initiation by City Council, we’ve been talking 3 offline and I think I still believe that this is probably unnecessary because the City Council can do what 4 they want. I mean they can direct us to work on a parking district anywhere they want to at any time, 5 but if there’s a desire to put an alternate or to recognize that in the context of the Ordinance I think 6 Cara’s come up with a way that we could, we could utilize this suggested language at least in part. We 7 might not be able to do specific drafting here tonight, but if the Commission is interested in 8 recommending something that gets to this goal that accomplishes this goal I think we would be prepared 9 to work on that. 10 11 Chair Michael: So if we were to put that in the form of a Motion how would you like that expressed? 12 13 Ms. Silver: I think it would be just simply to direct the City Attorney to propose amendments to the 14 Ordinance that would also provide for a City Council initiated RPP application. And I think what in 15 conferring with Planning staff I think that Planning staff would also suggest that both City Council 16 initiated and resident petition initiated petitions or applications then be subject to the same prioritization 17 that is in the Ordinance right now and that the Planning Commission then review all of the applications 18 whether they are initiated by the Council or by the petition and prioritize those applications for 19 processing. 20 21 Chair Michael: So we will rely on you for interpretation of the Ordinance. Ok. Coming back to the 22 Commission, Commissioner Downing. 23 24 Commissioner Downing: So I really appreciate everyone coming out and speaking. I know it’s a really big 25 deal to come out here and to spend your time doing this and that sitting here for such long periods is 26 hard and it’s difficult so I thank you all and I really appreciate hearing all these voices. I myself live in 27 Ventura. I’m very aware of the overflow parking we’re experiencing already and that’s before we’ve 28 really even built out the projects that are going to happen on Page Mill or Park. We are already 29 experiencing some of that so I can definitely see why my community thinks that they’re probably next in 30 line and I’m glad they’re here to voice their concerns. 31 32 I agree with having an RPP Ordinance. I think this is a good direction for us to go in. I think that as 33 others have said this needs to go in hand with the other two things we’re doing to also work on the 34 parking problem. I mean to that end I think that one of the things that I would like to get clarity on for 35 example is what are we doing to make it easier to get permits? Because right now I’m aware that it’s a 36 thing where you have to go to City Hall and you have to actually show up and you actually have to pick 37 something up physically. That’s a little bit of an onerous process. And then I don’t think we have a very 38 good way of tracking who is actually using those permits, but how often are they using them, right? I 39 mean we kind of just keep increasing the number of permits that we give based on how empty we see 40 the garages being, but it would be nice to not have to guess. It would be nice to have a way of actually 41 knowing this employee no longer works here, this employee has changed jobs or they decided they’re 42 going to use the Caltrain, right? This is all kind of data that we should have and it would be nice to have 43 instead of just trying to guess the perfect number of parking permits to give out because I think that’s a 44 really hard job to do. So as we’re pushing people into permits I would like that to be as least painful as 45 possible for everybody involved so I would like to see us put energy into fixing the technological end of 46 that and making that a lot easier to do. 47 48 I would also say that besides the quality of life issues that we face with not having enough parking I 49 think one of the issue, some of the issues we have to acknowledge is that when people are circling 50 around for parking it’s not good for the environment, right? That’s millions of miles that Americans drive 51 just trying to circle the block finding parking. This program is good for the environment and it’s good for 52 safety because when you’re driving around looking for parking you’re not paying attention to the kid on 53 the bike, right? So I think this program is good for a lot of different reasons and I’ll make a little bit of a 54 controversial comment in saying that I actually think that the permit parking needs to be more expensive 55 for the street than it is for the garage because I think that one of our goals should be getting people into 56 14 those garages and into our lots and off our streets. And I think that to really make that incentive work it 1 has to be a less palatable option than the garage. So that’s one of those things that maybe not now, but 2 I’d like to see happen. 3 4 And lastly if you don’t mind? Thanks. Lastly I do want to talk about standards. I think it’s pretty fair for 5 the community to say that until these administrative regulations are drafted we don’t really know how 6 hard it’s going to be to go through this process again. We don’t really know what we have to show in 7 order to qualify for this process. that’s I think that’s a pretty, pretty fair criticism to make and I mean to 8 that end I actually would really like to see a benchmark that goes into this Ordinance. I like the 9 Goldilocks principle. I like the idea that if you can show that your streets have less than, less than 15 10 percent free parking that gets you to the top of the list, right? I think that that would give us a little bit 11 of transparency to how we make our decisions and how we prioritize which neighborhoods we’re going to 12 work on first. I would like it to be the neighborhoods that have the biggest problem in terms of not 13 having enough parking, not necessarily the most number of people who can show up and complain about 14 it at Council. So thank you. 15 16 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 17 18 Commissioner Tanaka: So yeah I too would like to thank all the stakeholders for coming out. I know that 19 this has been a long and hard process and I appreciate everyone not just taking the time tonight, but 20 throughout the whole process. So thank you and of course staff. 21 22 So myself I’ve actually been through a couple of these. I’ve been through the College Terrace RPP 23 program. It was also long and hard or equally as frustrating. I was also on the first residential permit 24 parking I guess committee way back when for Downtown although it didn’t quite result in much of 25 anything, but so I’ve, I feel your pain. 26 27 I guess a couple of comments. First, College Terrace while not perfect it’s certainly had its issues I guess 28 what I’m for me it is overall a successful program. It’s something which I think if you were to talk with 29 the average College Terrace resident they would be happy with what happened. And I guess one thing I 30 didn’t see in the report and I think that would be actually good to have is kind of the comparison. I know 31 there are comparisons made to College Terrace here and there, but it’s not like a table. It might have 32 been nice to actually have a table where ok this is what happened at College Terrace, and not to say that 33 College Terrace the best solution is identical should be the template for everything, but I think by doing 34 that it would be good to learn from what happened because not everything went well, right? 35 36 I think there are some things that were like for instance I think early on it looked like you guys did 37 extensive outreach and I’ve got to commend you on that, but even in College Terrace with the extensive 38 outreach like literally knocking on every single door and the Resident’s Association did a lot of work in 39 this regard even then you still had people who were like whoa, what’s going on? And so I mean I think 40 just those things those lessons like that which I think could be learned and so I think, I think and as we 41 do other permit parking programs I think it would also be good to learn from them and kind of see what 42 worked well, what didn’t work well and of course each circumstance will be a little bit different because 43 all different neighborhoods are different. But I think at least trying to not make the same kind of 44 mistakes that were made before I think would be a good, a good thing. 45 46 And for that matter I know this is probably maybe above and beyond what the staff is, has time 47 budgeted to do, but Palo Alto’s not the first City to have a RPP program. There’s many other cities that 48 have that. And I think besides comparing it with the programs that we actually do here in the City I think 49 it would also be good to compare it to programs of nearby cities. And so I think having a table like this 50 would be a good thing to have and it might be helpful as we do more of these, we learn more, learn 51 what works, what doesn’t work. I think there’s some things in Palo Alto are different than other cities. 52 So but I think that’s, that’s the other suggestion. I could do the rest later. We have two rounds so no 53 problem. 54 55 Chair Michael: Commissioner Fine. 56 15 1 Commissioner Fine: I also want to echo the other Commissioners and thank the staff and the public. It 2 seems like you guys did a lot of work all the different stakeholders to evidence a bunch of data that 3 shows an obvious quality of life issue and as one member from the public said if you just walk the streets 4 you can definitely see this in the midday. I want to echo Commissioner [Note-Acting Vice-Chair] 5 Rosenblum that I believe the Phase 1 is actually a nice way to kind of ground test some of these ideas, 6 but at the same time it does seem a little squishy and open ended at the moment. Some issues that 7 come to mind for me are how do you treat nonvoting households in College Terrace we actually did have 8 a bit of an issue with that where it wasn’t clear whether nonvoting households are a yes or a no for this 9 district. Also there was some mention of dispersal of employee parking. I think you have to treat that 10 very carefully. It gets back to these issues of circling and fairness as well to how you treat these 11 different employees who do get permits in Phase 1 or going forward. That’s all. Thank you very much. 12 13 Chair Michael: Ok, so couple comments. One is I wonder if in the section of the Ordinance which lays out 14 the purpose if it might be useful to clarify something about this question of privatization. And I apologize 15 if the stakeholder group and others have already thought through this clearly and arrived at a 16 noncontroversial understanding, but it seems to me that there may be an assumption that if you live 17 somewhere and there’s a curb in front of where you live that you are going to use that for your needs 18 and that’s associated with the property that you own, which is private property then I wonder if maybe 19 an introductory clause such as “Whereas there is no private property right for on street parking, RPP 20 districts, excreta,” but there’s something to me that just to clarify in Palo Alto is on street parking part of 21 the commons or is it a private property right? Is this are we taking away something by this program? It 22 seems to me that there are different assumptions depending on which if you live in different cities or you 23 live here if you live in a rural area, what is it that you’re entitled to as a property owner or let’s say you 24 live in a more densely developed neighborhood with apartments you may have a different assumption 25 versus if you live in an R-1 neighborhood with single family houses. So I wonder if in the purpose in the 26 preamble to this it would be useful to clarify and I don’t have the exact language, but and maybe this is 27 not helpful, but to me it seems like the rhinoceros on the table and it’s, it would be useful to sort of be 28 clear about that. 29 30 Then I think a number of the public speakers were strongly encouraging us to incorporate a metric and 31 this may be part of the administrative regulations, but I think also this might be reflected in some hopeful 32 comment in the purpose, you know preamble in the 10.50.010 that we’d like to have a metric. And the 33 metric may somehow lead us to ensuring the availability of a certain minimal amount of parking 34 availability for emergency guest service deliveries and so forth. But that, that principle seems to be 35 important to the community and without getting into we’ll do it in the regulations I think as a statement 36 of purpose it might be, might be helpful to clarify. 37 38 And then I think, let’s see… on the administration of districts on Page 79 in our packet the 10.50.070 one 39 of the questions I had is just this concept of the issuance of permits is this citywide, is this going to be 40 generally issued to an individual or in some cases the Downtown is it going to be issued to an employer 41 who can then distribute the permit among different employees or what have you? And I know that for 42 example with medical insurance that you can get through your employer or you can get direct as an 43 individual if you’re getting something from your employer it may be a deductible expense for the 44 business, but if it’s paid by the individual with after tax dollars in healthcare has led to some problems, 45 but it’s more expensive if you’re paying it as an individual with after tax dollars versus if it’s an employer 46 buying it, deducting it as a business expense and then getting it. So some of the issues here in terms of 47 if the individual has a taint of some sort then you have to pay off the old parking tickets or something or 48 but what if you’re issuing parking, the permits to employer? So it seems to me to be, would be helpful if 49 you have conceptual if you want to in the alternative issue it to the organization or the business instead 50 of the individual. 51 52 And let me stop there for the first round. I didn’t time myself, but it’s probably three minutes worth and 53 go to my colleagues. Commissioner Alcheck. 54 55 16 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok so maybe we can pull up the slide that shows the map? For those of you that 1 don’t have one that’s this big (interrupted) 2 3 Ms. Gitelman: Chair Michael if I can interject for a moment? I’m sorry to interrupt, but I think we’re all 4 itching to get to the main event of the evening, which is the resolution. Which involves a map, a very 5 specific district, very specific proposal for Downtown and I wonder whether we should try and conclude 6 our discussion on the Ordinance with a Motion and an action and then move on or whether you’re like to 7 initiate the public hearing on the resolution and table action on the Ordinance until after that public 8 hearing, but I feel like we’re straying from one to the other without a clear (interrupted) 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: To be clear I was going to use this as an example about the Ordinance as a 11 whole (interrupted) 12 13 Chair Michael: So we’re going to get to that, but I wanted to make sure that Commissioner Alcheck had a 14 chance to ask, to address his comments that I cut him off earlier. 15 16 Ms. Gitelman: On the Ordinance. Ok. 17 18 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I the reason why I want to highlight the map is just simply it’s a very 19 visual reminder of where the boundary is and I want to just reiterate this one more time maybe just for 20 the sake that City Council may read our minutes and contemplate this, which is to say that one of our 21 speakers tonight said the adjacent streets should be allowed to opt in, which they are is an important 22 component. I just want to reiterate that when the community on one side of Lincoln for example decides 23 to implement a parking program it will directly and dramatically affect the other side of Lincoln. And so I 24 don’t it should come as a surprise that everybody in this little green patch here will soon not be in green 25 after we do this. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it shouldn’t be done. 26 27 The point I’m trying to make is that when the, when the boundary is too small allowing an adjacent 28 street to opt in without asking the street adjacent to the adjacent street what they think about it is kind 29 of a problem because that street, let’s use this overnight parking as an example, I can assure you that 30 the problem that was attempting to be addressed by this overnight parking affected 10, maybe less than 31 10 percent of the streets that are colored here. Now every one of these colored streets is paying for 32 permitted parking and that whether or not you think it’s a burden or not is an important factor. But the 33 streets that are for example recommended area or currently approved area join the conversation after 34 the streets that initiated the program were approved and those streets that didn’t have the problem that 35 then needed to have the protection didn’t get to say, wait a minute City Council, wait a minute Planning 36 Commission, if you let this street move their problem to ours… it created a balance of power problem. 37 And that’s why I think City Council needs to be considerate of this idea of boundaries. 38 39 And then the second comment I want to make is about the I want to respond to the privatization idea. I 40 don’t think this is about privatization. I think that’s a little bit of a red herring. I think this is about 41 facilitating the appropriate use of the curb space and I can’t say this strongly enough, if you can’t find 42 parking in front of your home or near, reasonably near your home that’s a major problem the City Council 43 should address and they shouldn’t take a year and a half to do it. And I’m very much in support of us 44 kind of speeding this process through and I and before you go labeling me a residentialist let me be clear 45 that I think that this problem is going to get worse because we have stuff coming down the pipe and I 46 want, I sort of have a hope that we can encourage sort of greater reinvestment in some of our aging 47 buildings without as much opposition because we’ve maybe addressed one of the problems that that 48 reinvestment poses. And so if, if that is my sort of overarching hope and so I, I don’t want to sort of add 49 a provision in the beginning about whether this is privatization or not because I think this is about 50 facilitation and I just I think you’re giving credence to this notion that maybe there is something immoral 51 about the, the fact that someone should be able to park in front of their home, so. 52 53 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 54 55 MOTION 56 17 1 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, I have a few quick comments and then I’d like to make a Motion. So, so I 2 guess the three quick comments that I have is first I know there’s a lot of metrics we’ve been talking 3 about metrics or criteria for getting into the program, but one of the metrics I think that’s important and I 4 know that the report touched on it a bit, but I think the metrics that’s also important is success metrics. 5 So what does success look like? And I think for each neighborhood it’s going to be different and so I 6 think that’s something that should be kind of set up ahead of time so as a program gets implemented 7 you can track against it and see like are we winning or losing here. 8 9 The second thing is and it’s something that my fellow Commissioner said and I think it’s actually really 10 true, but I think it does need to be cost neutral on a long term otherwise it’s not sustainable. So that’s, 11 that’s something that’s important. Third comment is the one that the Chair made, which is the 12 privatization question. I don’t have the answer to that, I don’t know I think that’s kind of a complex 13 question, but I think one thing to think about also is that most houses have some sort of curb cut in front 14 of their house and I think I forgot who, who [unintelligible] maybe Commissioner Alcheck, but by having 15 a curb cut in front of your house you’re in some ways reserving that spot for that house because that, 16 that driveway entrance is used for that house. So that’s, that’s kind of an interesting concept although 17 some houses don’t have that, but most, most do. 18 19 So my Motion is just quite simply that, that we recommend adoption of the ordinance by the City Council. 20 21 Chair Michael: Just to clarify there was a suggestion from Senior Deputy Attorney Cara Silver, I always 22 forget your title so I apologize, that we also direct the City Attorney to propose amendments to the 23 ordinance to permit the City Council to initiate an RPP application. Would your Motion include that 24 (interrupted) 25 26 Commissioner Tanaka: It does and I, I was kind of using shorthand, but yes please include that as well. 27 28 SECOND 29 30 Chair Michael: Ok. Is there a second? Commissioner Gardias. Commissioner Tanaka would you like to 31 speak further to your Motion? 32 33 Commissioner Tanaka: I don’t think I need to, but I again like I said I appreciate everyone’s work on this. 34 I think it’s been long and hard and it’s good that we’re getting to this point. 35 36 Chair Michael: Commissioner Gardias want to speak to your second? 37 38 Commissioner Gardias: No I don’t want to add anything. I think it’s self-explanatory. I think there was a 39 tremendous amount of work put into this and I think it’s time just to put it in front of the Council and 40 move on to further discussions. Thank you. 41 42 Chair Michael: Questions or comments from other Members of the Commission? 43 44 Commissioner Downing: I’d still really like to see an actual standard go in here. I’d like it to be clear 45 when you qualify for an RPP zone so that everyone knows when they reach that it’s not a question, it’s 46 not up for debate, we know when there’s a problem. 47 48 Chair Michael: Ok. So just to that to the new Commissioners if you’ve closely observed the Council or 49 Commission in the past if there’s as Motion and you feel it’s important to propose either a friendly 50 amendment, which may be accepted by the maker of the Motion or the seconder of the Motion or an 51 unfriendly amendment, which requires a second in and of itself and sets up a whole [nother] discussion 52 that’s part of our Commission procedure. So what I’m getting is there’s no proposed amendment to that 53 Motion (interrupted) 54 55 Commissioner Downing: Can I propose that as an amendment? 56 18 1 Chair Michael: Ok, what amendment would you propose? 2 3 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 4 5 Commissioner Downing: I would propose an objective standard for qualification for an RPP zone. 6 7 Chair Michael: And specifically where in the? 8 9 Commissioner Downing: I think in reference to it makes in the prioritization of application section. 10 11 Chair Michael: And that’s Section? 12 13 Commissioner Downing: So it’s Page 78 10.50.5(c). 14 15 Chair Michael: C? Staff do you have a comment on the idea that the prioritization would have sort of a 16 metric in that section? 17 18 Ms. Gitelman: Well, if I can try to explain and maybe Jessica can help me how this has been 19 conceptualized that I mean the idea is that neighborhoods will request establishment of a district and 20 provide their own data or evidence that there’s some kind of problem that needs to be addressed. The 21 prioritization would happen based on that input and information and once the prioritization happened and 22 it was decided that staff should move forward to analyze and work with stakeholders on the design of a 23 district the boundaries and the standards that would be in the procedures or the characteristics of that 24 district it would all be worked out specific to that district with the stakeholders at the table. And so if, if 25 you wanted to insert a citywide quantitative standard that all RPP districts would have to meet you could 26 certainly do that in the ordinance. I guess I wouldn’t do it in the prioritization section. I would do it 27 somewhere else in maybe designation criteria, but (interrupted) 28 29 Chair Michael: Here’s a thought, this is maybe the Commission shall consider if you inserted applicable 30 parking standards or applicable parking metrics as part of the things that may be considered how would 31 that work? Would that be ok? Without saying what the standard and the metric is, but the notion is that 32 we would seek to utilize standards and metrics as something that we might consider. 33 34 Ms. Gitelman: So if you’re suggesting that we simply clarify that that will be done by the Commission on 35 a district by district basis I think we could work with that, but I hear that Commissioner Downing is 36 interested in establishing one numeric standard that would apply to all districts. And if that’s the case I 37 would really recommend doing that in the designation criteria section although I would say that we did 38 consider that over the last year in our work and we decided that it was just not practical because there 39 are neighborhoods that are different than other neighborhoods and we might want to have the flexibility 40 of establishing a district that doesn’t meet a certain quantitative standard that might be appropriate for 41 example in Downtown. 42 43 Chair Michael: Ok so question for Commissioner Downing since there’s some sort of pushback on 44 amending prioritization of applications to include reference to a metric do you withdraw your Motion 45 [Note-amendment] or do you want to see if it attracts a second? 46 47 Commissioner Downing: I’d like to see if it can attract a second. I think that the point about street 48 annexation I think is a fair one because I think that anyone in an adjoining street could say I want to join 49 and soon enough the entire City is part of one zone. I don’t know how we would control that, how we 50 would say to someone yes you can or no you can’t if there’s no objective standard for whether or not 51 they should qualify. So I ask for a second. 52 53 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 FAILED 54 55 Chair Michael: Ok, ok is there a second? Seeing none so that it failed for lack of a second. 56 19 1 Commissioner Alcheck: I would like to make a friendly amendment though. 2 3 Chair Michael: Ok, so Commissioner Alcheck. 4 5 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 6 7 Commissioner Alcheck: I would like to make a friendly amendment that a provision be added that all 8 current trial parking permit programs be required to follow this process as well. So I think, I think there 9 is a if you haven’t heard it in my comments tonight I think that this, the process that you’re setting up 10 here to bring forward public engagement in determination of the permit boundaries, prioritization, 11 number of permits received, that whole process I think should, should take place for the Crescent Park 12 Overnight Trial Program, which is currently in trial. I know they extended the trial, but I don’t think 13 they’ve done it with the same public involvement that we’re contemplating here. And so I’d like to add a 14 provision to this Ordinance that suggests that current trial programs be required to follow this process. 15 16 Ms. Silver: Through the Chair, I think that that particular issue is an important one. It really hasn’t been 17 agendized as that. I have some discomfort with moving forward with that without more outreach to the 18 affected communities. 19 20 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck does that? 21 22 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m not specifically suggesting the Crescent Park Overnight Program, but I am 23 suggesting that programs that are not finalized. So I understand that we have parking permit programs 24 already in place in the City, but not all of them are trials and that’s if it’s, if you’re uncomfortable with it 25 then I’ll sort of stand down, but that’s sort of what I’m suggesting is that current trials be (interrupted) 26 27 Ms. Sullivan: So we have the only trial program we have currently is the Crescent Park Program and then 28 the College Terrace Program is the other RPP district that isn’t really a trial. So as far as tracking I think 29 the point you’re making is a good one. I’m concerned about well we’re sort of not to the resolution just 30 yet, but I think we’ll talk more about how we do intend to track permit sales and analytics for that 31 program. 32 33 Commissioner Alcheck: Let me just interrupt you. I’m saying this because you’re going to have two 34 parking permit programs run into each other, ok? So I know we’re not talking about Crescent Park 35 tonight, but that boundary is going to hit this boundary in quick order. And the what you’re, what we’re 36 going to review next is a very different parking permit program and I’m just concerned that we’ll have 37 two processes, one that basically sidetracked this whole process that didn’t involve community 38 roundtables, that didn’t have oversight, and one that did. And there’s a significant population that will be 39 affected, so again I don’t want to get into the specifics of that parking permit I just want to suggest that 40 my Motion is that we include a provision that requires current trials to also follow this process and even if 41 there aren’t a second to that I hope that City Council considers that or staff considers it because I think 42 we’re going to see them collide and so. 43 44 Chair Michael: So Commissioner Tanaka do you accept the friendly amendment? 45 46 Commissioner Tanaka: Was there a second? 47 48 Chair Michael: Well it’s a friendly amendment so it doesn’t require one so you can accept it or not. 49 50 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so in principle I like the idea. The only thing is it’s already in progress. So 51 does that mean we [roll] back? And… 52 53 Commissioner Alcheck: I guess I sort of envision [unintelligible – off mike] I guess my vision here is that 54 if there was some what are you calling it? Not, I wouldn’t call it prioritization section, but whatever 55 determination is made to determine the boundary the number of permits permitted, the number of guest 56 20 permits permitted, that whole process has not occurred for a significant parking permit program that is 1 going look at the map… it’s literally going to collide. And that’s my concern is that on one side of the 2 street you’re going to have somebody that has four permits and on the other side two. And that, that 3 seems like a problem unless the community that is in the two had a chance to participate in a discussion 4 like this community did. So that’s, that’s what I’m suggesting that this College Terrace is ahead of the 5 game, but we’re about to see a lot of different communities try to maybe participate in this and I think 6 uniformity is important. 7 8 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. I think the logic makes sense, but I’d like to get staff’s point of view on this. 9 10 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, if I can interject? Thank you. Just an observation, again we’re not yet even to the 11 main event of the evening which is the consideration of the resolution about Downtown and I think once 12 we get there we’ll be able to explain the idea of a six month trial to start the program in which I think we 13 would learn whether the consequences that Commissioner Alcheck is fearing are going to come to fruition 14 and whether they need to be addressed. So the stakeholder group has designed a process where we’re 15 going to test how this program is going to work and we’re going to be able to make adjustments as 16 needed. So I hope that that concern will be addressed in our subsequent conversation and again we 17 really don’t feel like this issue would be appropriate to include in the Ordinance that’s before the 18 Commission at this moment. 19 20 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 REJECTED 21 22 Commissioner Tanaka: So I’m going to decline then. 23 24 VOTE 25 26 Chair Michael: Ok. So is that ok? Ok. Ok. So I think we’re ready to take a vote of the Commission on 27 the Motion to approve the recommendation for Council to adopt the RPP district Ordinance with the 28 proviso with respect to the City Attorney proposing amendments to the Ordinance to permit the Council 29 to initiate an RPP program. All in favor? Any opposed? So the Motion passes unanimously with 30 Commissioner [Note-Acting Vice Chair] Rosenblum absent. 31 32 MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0, Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum absent) 33