HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6626
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6626)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/23/2016
Summary Title: Updated Resolution for Downtown RPP
Title: Residential Parking Programs: Adoption of a Resolution Amending
Resolution 9473 to Implement Phase 2 of the Downtown Residential
Preferential Parking District Pilot Program.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt a Resolution amending Resolution 9473 to implement
Phase 2 of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District Pilot Program
(Attachment A) and direct staff to make corresponding changes to the Council approved RPP
Administrative Guidelines.
Executive Summary
In early 2014, the City began significant efforts to address the parking and traffic challenges,
particularly in the Downtown core, through a strategic multi-pronged approach of parking
management, parking supply and transportation demand management programs. The strategy
includes implementation of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) district, which
went into effect in September of 2015. Phase 1 of the program regulates non-resident parking
around the Downtown commercial core by restricting non-permit holders to two hour parking
between the hours of 8am and 5pm, Monday through Friday. Phase 2 of the program will
additionally restrict non-resident parking into zones within the main RPP District boundary so
that non-resident parkers are not concentrated in any one area, and will add additional areas to
the District.
This staff report discusses the proposal for zones within the District, the regulation and
distribution of employee permits, the expanded district boundaries, and the way the “eligibility
areas” within the boundaries can be added to the program. Based on feedback from City
Council on February 1, staff is recommending limitations on the number of daily employee
permits, a method by which the annual employee permits are reduced over time, and methods
to prioritize permit sales for low-income workers.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Background and Discussion
The City-wide ordinance originally adopted in December of 2014 includes parameters for all
RPP districts city-wide, and the accompanying Resolution provides specific direction on the
details of the Downtown program. In the February 1 City Council meeting, the Council voted to
make minor changes to the City-wide ordinance and staff was directed to bring forward a
revised Resolution implementing proposed boundary changes and parameters for Phase 2 of
the Downtown RPP program, scheduled to begin in April 2016.
Downtown RPP Resolution
The attached Downtown RPP Resolution amends Resolution 9473 to provide for
implementation of Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP program by the following measures:
Updated Downtown RPP District boundary to include newly annexed streets and
approved Eligibility Areas (Attachment B). At the December 14 City Council meeting,
staff recommended annexing streets that submitted a petition for inclusion in the
Downtown RPP District. At the same time, Staff recommended that additional adjacent
areas be approved for future inclusion in the Downtown RPP District. The areas eligible
for inclusion may submit a petition in the future to be annexed into the Downtown RPP
District with approval from the Planning and Community Environment Director, by use
of the Eligibility Areas discussed as part of the ordinance. Council conceptually approved
both recommendations.
Establish a cap of 2,000 annual employee permits for the first year of Phase 2. Based on
the Council’s direction, permits will be allocated by zone and reduced annually as
described below.
A zone structure to delineate where employees are eligible to park in the Phase 2
Downtown RPP District. (Attachment C)
Phase 2 Structure
Based on the input from the stakeholder committee and public feedback, Staff prepared three
options for employee permit distribution in Phase 2: 1) Concentric Zones, 2) Large
Neighborhood Zones, and 3) Micro Zones. Council directed staff to move forward with the
Micro Zones option as defined by Staff based on employee parking demand around the
Downtown core and SOFA district.
The employee parking zones (Attachment C) were designed to address the distribution of
employee parking throughout the Downtown RPP District. The available employee permits
(capped at 2,000 assuming all streets in the eligibility area are ultimately included) are allocated
by zone to attain roughly equal employee parking distribution (by percentage) in each zone
while accommodating for some expected two-hour visitor parking in the zones nearest to the
Downtown core. The permits available in each zone represent approximately 30% to 40% of
available on-street spaces. Based on data collection during Phase 1, it was determined that on
any given day, the number of employees parking within the District was only 50% to 60% of the
total number of permits sold; therefore, the theoretical impact of these employees parking in
City of Palo Alto Page 2
any particular zone would be around 15% to 24% of the total number of spots available on the
street. In addition, the 2,000 total employee permit number is larger than the total number of
RPP permits sold to employees during Phase 1, exclusive of daily permits (the 2,000 cap does
not include daily permits, which effectively encourage employees to use transit to get to work
and drive only occasionally when necessary).
As proposed, the permit allocation totals 2,000 annual employee permits for the full Downtown
RPP District, inclusive of the existing Phase 1 boundary, newly annexed streets, and streets
within the Eligibility Areas. A portion of permits within zones 9 and 10 will be held in reserve
and released as new streets opt into the Downtown RPP District. Permits will be valid only in
those zones for which they are purchased; permits for zones that include streets that are not
presently part of the Downtown RPP program will be valid only on streets that are participating.
The zone boundaries and permits allocated per zone are delineated in Figure 1 and Table 1
below.
Staff will continue to conduct occupancy counts and monitor permit sales by zone. The permit
allocation per zone is subject to change annually with approval from the Planning and
Community Environment Director.
Per Council direction on February 1, Staff has revised the recommendations for Phase 2 of the
Downtown RPP program, and updated the Downtown RPP Resolution accordingly:
Annual employee permits will be capped at a total of 2,000 for the first year of Phase 2.
Annual employee permits will be decreased by approximately 200 permits per year,
based on parking occupancy analysis and mode split analysis. This reduction in permits
is in support of City Council’s goal to reduce the drive-alone rate by 30% by 2030
through the efforts of the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA). The
reduction in permits will occur in the outermost zones of the Downtown RPP district
initially, and affect inner zones in subsequent years. Reducing the sale of permits in the
outer zones alleviates commercial parking intrusion from areas more removed from the
Downtown first, encouraging a more natural distribution of parking.
Daily “scratcher” permits will be available to employees only, and will not be available
for sale to employers. Employees will be limited to purchase up to four (4) daily parking
permits per month at a cost of $5 each, or roughly one per week. This limitation
supports the use of other transportation options while providing opportunity for
employees to drive occasionally. Alternatively, employees may purchase one (1) five-day
scratcher per month, which allows them to park in the RPP district up to 5 times in one
calendar month.
Daily and five-day employee scratchers will be zone-specific, and will be sold randomly.
Employees will not select a specific zone when purchasing a daily or five-day permit, and
will receive a zone-specific daily or five-day permit selected at random at the time of
mailing. This will allow employee parking to be distributed more randomly, and less
concentrated closer to the Downtown core. Daily permits will not be available for Zones
9 and 10.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Roughly half of permits in each zone will be reserved for purchase by employees who
qualify for reduced-price permits based on hourly or annual income. The other half will
be sold on a first-come, first serve basis to all employees.
(Attachment A shows the Resolution changes as directed by Council on February 1.)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Figure 1. Proposed Boundaries, Annexations, Eligibility Areas & Zones
Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment, January 2016
City of Palo Alto Page 5
streets/areas annexed into the Downtown RPP District would be part of the existing
district and thus offer permits to both residents and employees. Stakeholders present at
the meeting did not indicate interest in pursuing further discussion regarding the
limitation of employee parking to one side of each street.
Variable Pricing. Stakeholders favored the zone design noted in the above section, and
expressed interest in evaluating variable pricing by zone in the future. Residents in the
outer bounds of the Downtown RPP District noted that lower cost permits in the outer
zones may encourage additional employee parking in those areas.
Allocation of Employee Parking in Zones. Stakeholders agreed that allocating employee
parking permits throughout the Downtown RPP District to maintain a roughly equal
employee parking rate was the most equitable approach.
Staff has not conducted additional outreach since the Council meeting on February 1 and notes
that there has been continued correspondence on a number of issues, including the allocation
of employee permits to areas of the Crescent Park neighborhood (both inside and outside the
original district boundaries). Staff’s recommendation addresses this issue in two ways: first, at
the City Council’s direction, no daily permits will be made available for zones 9 and 10- second,
as the number of non-resident permits is reduced each year, reductions will occur in the outer
zones first.
Timeline
Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP program is scheduled to begin at the end of March 2016. Staff is
working with the associated vendors to achieve this schedule despite the delay (from February
1 to February 23) in adoption of the proposed resolution and will keep the Council informed if
anything changes.
Policy Implications
The implementation of Phase 2 of the Downtown RPP program is consistent with the three-
pronged approach Staff has presented to optimize parking within the Downtown core. It 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.
Environmental Review
Adoption of a citywide ordinance and resolution regarding an RPP District in downtown Palo
Alto are 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 Regulations since it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of these
documents may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that these
City of Palo Alto Page 8
proposed documents will have a minor impact on existing facilities.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution (PDF)
Attachment B: District Map (PDF)
Attachment C: Phase 2 Zones Final (PDF)
Attachment D: Stakeholder Feedback (PDF)
Attachment E: Correspondence (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 9
NOT YET APPROVED
Resolution No. ___
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution
9473 to Implement Phase 2 of the Downtown Residential Preferential
Parking District Pilot Program
R E C I T A L S
A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by city
council action, of permit parking programs in residential neighborhoods for residents
and other categories of parkers.
B. A stakeholders’ group comprised of Downtown residents and business
interests has been meeting to discuss the implementation of Residential Preferential
Parking Districts (RPP Districts).
C. On December 15, 2015 the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5294, adding
Chapter 10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Municipal Code. This Chapter
establishes the city-wide procedures for RPP Districts in the city.
D. On December 1, 2014, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9473
implementing a Downtown Neighborhood preferential parking pilot program. The
implementation anticipated a two phased pilot program. Permits issued for Phase 1 of
this pilot program will expire on March 31, 2016.
E. The Council desires to amend Resolution 9473 to update the process for
implementing Phase 2 of the Downtown Neighborhood preferential parking program
pilot. These modifications shall only apply to Phase 2 of the pilot.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The criteria set forth in Section 10.50.030 for annexing the
additional areas described in 3(A) of this Resolution as part of the Downtown Residential
Preferential Permit Zone have been met as follows:
(1) That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use
of on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents, in that
based on observation there are few available parking spaces available
midday, while the streets are relatively unoccupied at midnight thus
demonstrating the parking intrusion is largely by non-residents.
(2) That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and
frequent intervals, either daily or weekly, in that the parking intrusion is
contained to the daytime hours during the regular workweek.
(3) That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district
create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of
150211 jb 0131499F 1 Rev. February 11, 2016
NOT YET APPROVED
parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood
life, in that based on information from residents and other city
departments the vehicle congestion is interfering with regular activities.
(4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical in that the
City has implemented a series of alternative parking strategies in the past
and concurrently and there is still a shortage of parking available
SECTION 2. Duration and Trial Period. The following provisions shall apply to
Phase 2 of the Trial Period for the Downtown RPP District:
A. Resident Permits: Resident permits will be distributed pursuant to the
criteria listed under Section 5.C of this Resolution. Phase 2 permits shall be
in effect for one year commencing on April 1, 2016. Resident permits will
be valid anywhere within the boundaries of the Downtown RPP District.
B. Employee Permits: The City shall also issue permits to Employees pursuant
to the criteria listed under Section 5.C of this Resolution. The first round of
Phase 2 permits shall be in effect for one year commencing on from April
1, 2016 to December 31, 2016March 31, 2017. Subsequent Phase 2
Employee permits shall be in effect for one year.
C. Duration: The second phase shall commence on April 1, 2016 and last for at
least 12 months. The City will make permits for Phase 2 available prior to
the initiation of Phase 2.
D. Permanent Regulations: The RPP District shall remain in force until the City
Council takes action to extend, modify, or rescind. The City Council shall
consider whether to make the RPP District and its parking program
permanent, modify the District and/or their parking regulations, or
terminate them no later than December 31, 2016.
SECTION 3. Phase 2 Downtown RPP Boundaries.
A. Annexed Zones. The areas shown on Exhibit A are hereby annexed into the
Downtown Residential Parking Zone.
B. Eligibility Areas. The areas shown on Exhibit A are eligible for
administrative annexation as provided in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
10.50.085.
C. Employee Parking Zones. No person shall park in the same employee
parking zone within the Downtown RPP for more than two continuous
hours without a valid permit. Re-parking on the same day in the same zone
by any person without a valid permit or otherwise exempt from Chapter
10.50 shall be prohibited.
150211 jb 0131499F 2 Rev. February 11, 2016
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 4. Hours and Days of Enforcement. In Phase 2, the parking regulations
shall be in effect Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, except holidays as
defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.08.100. During the regulated days and
hours of enforcement, no person shall park in the same on-street parking space within
the Downtown RPP for more than two continuous hours without a valid permit. In
addition, no person shall park in the same employee parking zone within the Downtown
RPP for more than two continuous hours without a valid permit. A vehicle lawfully
displaying an Employee Parking Permit or a Resident Parking Permit shall be exempt
from the two-hour limit. Other vehicles exempt from the parking regulations are
contained in Chapter 10.50. Outside of these enforcement hours, any motor vehicle
may park in the Downtown RPP, subject to other applicable parking regulations.
SECTION 5. Residential and Employee Parking Permits.
A. Duration. Phase 2 Residential Permits shall be available on an annual basis
only. One-day visitor permits for residents will also be available during
Phase 2.
B. Purchase of Permits. Requirements and eligibility for purchase of permits
for both residents and Employees shall be listed in the Administrative
Regulations.
C. Permit Sales – Phase 2.
1. Resident Permits.
a. Residential Permits. Each residential address may obtain
up to four Resident permits at the costs listed in Section
6A.
b. Daily Visitor Permits. Each residential address may
purchase up to 50 Daily Visitor Parking Permits annually.
These permits may be in the form of “scratcher” hang
tags, an on-line issuance system, or such other form as
the city may decide. The permit shall clearly indicate the
date through which it is valid.
c. Annual Guest Permits: Each residential address may
purchase up to two (2) annual guest permits, which are
transferable within a household. The permit shall clearly
indicate the date for which it is valid.
2. Annual Employee Permits. The City may issue Employee Parking
Permits for use by employees working in the area as specified in
Exhibit B. Employee Permits shall be subject to the following
regulations:
a. Commuting Only. Employee Parking Permits are for the
exclusive use by employees working for businesses within
150211 jb 0131499F 3 Rev. February 11, 2016
NOT YET APPROVED
the proposed District boundaries while commuting to
work.
b. Employee Permit Cost. Employees may purchase permits
at the costs listed in Section 6D.
c. First Year Permit Cap. The City shall issue
Employee permits on an iterative basis to
ensure that the issuance of Employee Permits
does not adversely affect parking conditions
for residents and merchants in the District in
accordance with Section 22507 (b) of the
Vehicle Code. Notwithstanding the above, the
City shall issue no more than 2,000 Employee
Permits during the first year of Phase 2, which
are to be allocated among the existing,
annexed, and eligible Employee Parking Zones
according to Council adopted administrative
guidelines. Only streets participating in the
RPP program may be allocated permits.
c.d.Employee Permit Reduction Strategy.
Following the 2016 calendar yearfirst year of
Phase 2, the City will begin decreasing annual
employee permits by approximately 200
permits per year, based on parking occupancy
analysis and mode split analysis. The
reduction in permits will occur in the
outermost zones of the Downtown RPP
district initially, and affect inner zones in
subsequent years. The Director shall be
authorized to adopt administrative guidelines
to implement this reduction in a manner that
will encourages the City Council’s goal of
reducing the drive-alone rate by 30% by 2030
through the efforts of the Palo Alto
Transportation Management Association and
the further goal of minimizing parking impacts
to residential neighborhoods.
d.e. Permit Priority for lower wage earners.
The Director shall reserve approximately half
of the annual employee permits in each zone
for purchase by employees who qualify for
reduced price permits based on hourly or
150211 jb 0131499F 4 Rev. February 11, 2016
NOT YET APPROVED
annual income. The other half will be sold on
a first come, first serve basis to all employees.
give permit priority to lower wage earners.
f. f.Employee Parking Zones. Employees may
only park in the zone authorized by thewhere
they have purchased aemployee permit. The
zones are described and depicted in Exhibit B
and Exhibit C.
g.Daily and Five-day “Scratcher” Permits. Daily and five-day
“scratcher” permits will be available to employees only,
and will not be available for sale to employers.
Employees will be limited to purchase up to four (4) daily
parking permits per month, or roughly one per week.
Alternatively, employees may purchase one (1) five-day
scratcher per month, which allows them to park in the
RPP district up to five (5) times in one calendar month.
1. Distribution of daily and scratcher
permits. Daily and five-day employee
scratchers will be zone-specific and will
be sold randomly. Employees will not
select a specific zone when purchasing
a daily or five-day permit, and will
receive a zone specific daily or vfive-day
permit selected at random at the time
of mailing.
SECTION 6. Cost of Parking Permits. During Phase 2 the cost of Parking Permits
shall be:
A. Resident Permit: First permit $0/year; second permit $50/year; third
permit $50/year; fourth permit $50/year. No more than four parking
permits will be sold per residential address.
B. Annual Guest Permit – A residential address may purchase up to two
Annual Guest Permits at $50/year. Additional permits may be approved by
the Director upon a showing of good cause.
C. Visitor Daily Permit --$5/each
D. Employee Permits
1. Standard Permit --$466/year
2. Reduced Rate for income qualifying employees --$100/year
150211 jb 0131499F 5 Rev. February 11, 2016
_______________________ ____________________
_____________________
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 7. CEQA. This resolution is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14
of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility the adoption and implementation of this resolution may have a significant
effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a
minor impact on existing facilities.
SECTION 8. Supersede. To the extent any of the provisions of this resolution are
inconsistent with the Phase 2 regulations set forth in Resolution 9473, this resolution
shall control.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately, except
that Section 3(B) shall not go into effect until the corresponding implementing
ordinance becomes effective. Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50
and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ __________________________
Interim City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
150211 jb 0131499F 6 Rev. February 11, 2016
EXHIBIT C -
Zone Boundaries Permit Allocation
1
Lytton Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street (where RPP restrictions are in
place)
300 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street,
Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street
Everett Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street
75
2
200 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant
Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street
Hawthorne Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street
120
3
100 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant
Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street
Palo Alto Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street
Poe Street
Ruthven Avenue
Tasso Street
225
4
Palo Alto Avenue between Webster Street and Guinda Street
600 block of Hawthorne Avenue
600 and 700 blocks of Everett Avenue, Lytton Avenue, University Avenue
100‐500 blocks of Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield Road, Fulton Street
190
5
600 and 700 blocks of Hamilton Avenue
200‐700 blocks of Forest Avenue and Homer Avenue
700 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Cowper Street
600‐700 blocks of Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield Road, Fulton Street
175
6
800 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper
Street, Webster Street, Middlefield Road
Channing Avenue between Ramona Street and Guinda Street
100
7
900 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Cowper Street,
Webster Street, Middlefield Road
Addison Avenue between High Street and Guinda Street
135
8
1000 and 1100 blocks of High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street,
Waverley Street, Cowper Street, Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield Road,
Fulton Street
Lincoln Avenue and Kingsley Avenue between Alma Street/Embarcadero Road and
Guinda Street
Embarcadero Road from Alma Street to Kingsley Avenue
365
9
1200 block of Bryant Street
1200‐1300 blocks of Waverley Street
1200‐1400 blocks of Cowper Street, Webster Street, Byron Street
1300‐1400 blocks of Tasso Street
1200‐1500 blocks of Middlefield Road
1200‐1300 blocks of Fulton Street
Melville Avenue between Embarcadero Road and Guinda Street
Kellogg Avenue between Cowper Street and Middlefield Road
Embarcadero Road between Kingsley Avenue and Middlefield Road
25 (245)*
10
Guinda Street between Palo Alto Avenue to Melville Avenue
Palo Alto Avenue between Guinda Street and Hale Street
800 blocks of Lytton Avenue and Homer Avenue
800 and 900 blocks of University Avenue, Hamilton Avenue
800‐1100 blocks of Forest Avenue
Boyce Avenue between Guinda Street and Hale Street
1000‐1100 blocks of Fife Avenue
800‐900 blocks of Channing Avenue and Addison Avenue
800‐1000 blocks of Lincoln Avenue
800 block of Melville Avenue
55 (370)*
Total Permits 2000
*A portion of permits in this zone will be held in reserve and released as additional streets opt into the Downtown RPP district.
Staff shared direction from City Council regarding annexation of streets that submitted petitions
and approval of Eligibility Areas for future inclusion.
Staff detailed the process of approval for the updated City-wide Ordinance and Downtown RPP
Resolution.
Stakeholder asked business stakeholders if the 2,000 employee permit limit is reasonable.
Stakeholder noted that the number of 2 hour parkers with no permit is unknown.
Staff noted that the RPP program is not the only program addressing employee parking and
transportation.
Stakeholder commented Palantir is buying a lot of daily permits for employees and visitors.
Stakeholders are frustrated that their employees are not interested in buying low-income
permits; they’d prefer to still move their cars.
Stakeholder was confused about the 2000 employee limit number; staff clarified that it didn’t
include daily permits
Generally all Stakeholders agreed that parking was “easier” since RPP kicked off
Enforcement discussed as an issue that would need further scrutiny moving forward; attendee
mentioned that people think there’s no enforcement so they game the system when they only
have to come to PA once a week
Staff presented two options for employee parking “microzones” for Stakeholder input per
Council direction (attached)
o One stakeholder liked Option 2 but wanted smaller zones
o One stakeholder likes Option 1 because is distributes people more evenly
o One stakeholder preferred Option 1 because it gives choice between zones in proximity
to downtown locations
o Majority of stakeholders present agreed to Option 2 with smaller zones.
Per Council direction, Staff sought feedback from Stakeholders regarding employee permit
distribution by zone.
o For limiting numbers of permits in every zone, group wants to divide number of total
spots into zone proportionally, with a bias towards fewer closer to Downtown.
Per Council direction, Staff sought feedback from Stakeholders regarding variable pricing in the
employee parking zones.
o All like the variable pricing option but want to explore later.
o One resident in the annexed area shared feedback via email that she does not support
variable pricing by zone.
Attachment E
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2016 8:10 AM
Carnahan, David
From: Jim Harris <bislettjdh@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 1:09 AM
To: Council, City
Subject: Evergreen Park Permit Parking Program
Attachments: IMG_2696.JPG; IMG_2697.JPG
To the Palo Alto City Council:
By way of introduction, we have since 1999 owned our home in the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on the corner of
Oxford Avenue and Birch Street.
I join our many neighbors who are requesting the City Council provide us relief, in the form of a residential parking permit program mirroring that of College Terrace, from the tidal wave of non-resident parking which has overwhelmed
Evergreen Park.
The attached two photographs were taken Wednesday February 3, 2016 on the North-facing corner of Birch Street at Oxford Avenue. The first picture, taken at 8:00 a.m., shows an empty street. The second picture, taken at 11:00 a.m., shows a street packed to the gils with non-resident automobiles.
These pictures support the remarks you heard from the neighbors during the City Council meeting open comment
period on Monday February 1, 2015. Evergreen Park has been turned from a delightful residential community, into a free all-day public parking lot serving California Avenue business district employees, some Stanford University folks, and some Caltrain commuters.
I would add to the remarks of my too-polite neighbors that the reason Evergreen Park is overrun by all day parking of
non-resident vehicles is because of the absolute failure of Palo Alto's Permanent Bureaucracy, as well as past and present Palo Alto City Councils, to uphold the city's self-authored so-called "Comprehensive Plan" which states, among other things: "POLICY T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts."
The Permanent Bureaucracy, and City Council, have for years allowed new commercial construction to proceed
without requiring parking to be built commensurate with the demand for parking the new construction generates. The result is a nearly insoluble city-wide problem, which grows worse with each new approval of construction projects with inadequate parking. (Why don't you require new commercial projects to provide, say, 120% more parking than
projected need - now that would be a true "public benefit".)
As a wise man said, when you get old, you end up with the reputation you deserve. My wish for the City Council is to try for their old age to earn themselves a better reputation. Start by granting Evergreen Park a residential parking permit
program following the College Terrace blueprint.
Sincerely,
Jim Harris
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2016 8:11 AM
Carnahan, David
From: wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com on behalf of Wolfgang Dueregger
<wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:16 AM
To: Council, City
Subject: parking situation in evergreenpark
Dear City Council,
it seems like a coincidence, but right now - for days now - we have 2 longterm parkers misusing our neighborhood for
their longterm parking goal on the 300 block on Stanford Ave.
we called the city once every day during the past 3 days at 650.329.2258. we left detailed information but nothing
happened so far. the cars are still there, not even a notice was posted.
in the past it used to work, we called this number and somebody came out the same day, checked the cars, put a note on
them and within 48 hours they were gone. is this no longer the case?
Wolfgang Dueregger
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2016 8:11 AM
Carnahan, David
From: Lucinda B. Lenicheck <lblenicheck@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:14 AM
To: Council, City
Subject: RPPP
Dear City Council,
Thank you so much for your good ears at the Council meeting Monday evening. It is my hope that you will take the initiative to
put onto your own agenda solving the parking problem that has faced our neighborhood for so very many years.
Especially for the past several years, parking overflow from the CA ave. business district has severely impacted Oxford Ave, with
wall‐to‐wall cars filling every available curbside spot on all the blocks in my neighborhood on weekdays, from early morning to
evening.
I teach cello lessons in my home studio, and families find it close to impossible to find parking, so sometimes we must rotate
folks in and out of my private driveway. (Thank heavens I do have a driveway.)
I do recall our street from '73 on, when my family first started living here. I know we cannot go back in history, but surely we as
a city can find solutions. The most direct solution is Evergreen Park's finally being included in the same plan that College Terrace
has, which WAS the original parking plan for our neighborhood!
Looking forward to your PROMPT action on this effective inclusion in the RPPP, Lucinda Breed Lenicheck
342 Oxford Ave.
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/10/2016 1:04 PM
Carnahan, David
From: Gitelman, Hillary
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 5:38 PM
To: Minor, Beth; Neilson Buchanan; Clerk, City
Cc: Michael Hodos; Richard Brand; Gabrielle Layton; John Guislin; Elaine Uang; Council, City
Subject: RE: RPP for University Avenue Residential Neighborhoods #2
Beth:
The Notice of CEQA Exemption cannot be filed until there is an action to approve the “project” – this means the second reading
of the ordinance and adoption of the resolution. Hopefully, they can occur on the same day.
HG
Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
From: Minor, Beth Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 5:26 PM To: Neilson Buchanan; Clerk, City; Gitelman, Hillary Cc: Michael Hodos; Richard Brand; Gabrielle Layton; John Guislin; Elaine Uang; Council, City Subject: RE: RPP for University Avenue Residential Neighborhoods #2
Hi Neilson,
I am aiming to get the agenda and reports out for this meeting this Thursday, hopefully that will happen. As the RPP is the only
thing on that agenda, and only the 5 council members can attend there should be no bumping. I do not know if Planning has
filed the CEQA notice, only Hillary and her staff can answer that.
Beth
From: Neilson Buchanan [mailto:cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 5:21 PM
To: Clerk, City Cc: Michael Hodos; Richard Brand; Gabrielle Layton; John Guislin; Elaine Uang; Council, City Subject: RPP for University Avenue Residential Neighborhoods #2
Beth, Thank you for letting us know about the 2/23 scheduled date. I have three follow up questions. 1. In light of the 2/23 date, does this mean that staff materials will be available online well in advance, for example,
Feb 13?
2. Please confirm that the City has not yet filed a CEQA Notice of Exemption for this project. This is critically important and utterly confusing detail to lay persons. We really dont want to push this issue via our attorneys.
3. We are assuming that the Feb 23 meeting will be a Council meeting with its complicated seating of Councilpersons. Since the issue was suddenly bumped on Feb 1 to the very last agenda item[ending at 1230am), we request that this agenda item be much more "attendable" by residents and merchants who may want to attend.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/10/2016 1:04 PM
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
From: "Clerk, City" <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> To: "Filseth, Eric (external)" <efilseth@gmail.com>; 'Neilson Buchanan' <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; "Clerk, City" <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: 'Norman H. Beamer' <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>; 'Gabrielle Layton' <strop@redjuice.com>; 'Elaine Uang' <elaine.uang@gmail.com>; 'John Guislin' <jguislin@gmail.com>; 'Richard Brand' <mmqos@earthlink.net>; 'Michael Hodos'
<mehodos@mac.com> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 2:59 PM
Subject: RE: RPP for University Avenue Residential Neighborhoods
The resolution is coming back on 2/23, we have not yet scheduled the second reading on the Ordinance.
Beth
From: Eric Filseth [mailto:efilseth@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 2:47 PM To: 'Neilson Buchanan'; Clerk, City Cc: 'Norman H. Beamer'; 'Gabrielle Layton'; 'Elaine Uang'; 'John Guislin'; 'Richard Brand'; 'Michael Hodos' Subject: RE: RPP for University Avenue Residential Neighborhoods
Tuesday, Feb 23 at 3pm, City Hall. Eric
From: Neilson Buchanan [mailto:cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 2:44 PM To: City Clerk Cc: Norman H. Beamer; Gabrielle Layton; Elaine Uang; John Guislin; Richard Brand; Michael Hodos Subject: RPP for University Avenue Residential Neighborhoods
Has a CEQA Notice of Exemption (NOE) been filed for Phase 2 of the City’s RPP Program? Or will that happen after a second reading of the
Ordinance and approval of the Resolution? Please send me a copy if/when the NOE is filed.
Also, if you have any information regarding when the Ordinance (second reading) and Resolution will come back to Council, please let me know. I understand that it will be scheduled approximately two weeks from February 1.
Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/10/2016 1:05 PM
Carnahan, David
From: Minor, Beth
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 12:25 PM
To: Neilson Buchanan; Gitelman, Hillary; Council, City
Cc: Stump, Molly; Clerk, City; Catherine C. Engberg
Subject: RE: RPP Phase 2
Hi Neilson,
I have printed them and they will be include in the Council Doc letters this Thursday.
Beth
From: Neilson Buchanan [mailto:cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 12:13 PM
To: Gitelman, Hillary; Council, City
Cc: Stump, Molly; Clerk, City; Catherine C. Engberg
Subject: RPP Phase 2
City Clerk, Please publish this email and attachment in readable
format. Emails to Council are often published in unreadable small font.
Dear Hillary and Council,
After so many months of stakeholding and Phase 1 data gathering, we
are now entering into Phase 2 with a great deal of information.
Nevertheless there are major, unresolved issues. On behalf of
residents within and outside the proposed permit area, please consider
the following:
The core issue is neighborhood quality. Promoting commerce at
the expense of residential neighborhoods is in direct conflict to the
Comprehensive Plan. The root problem associated with the Parking
Assessment District has been ignored. Demand for non-resident
parking spaces outside the commercial core is out of control.
The Council and residents are facing a massive social and political
issue that goes far beyond transportation engineering and intent of
various laws. Community leaders and I am committed to continuous
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/10/2016 1:05 PM
improvement and a final RPP program this year. Once again here are
the major factors for City Council and Staff to improve neighborhood
quality.
1. 2000 limit
Non-resident permits must be limited to 2000 and issued only to bona
fide employees who work within the commercial core. No loopholes for
mere worker convenience can be permitted via the administrative
guidelines. Ineligible persons must not have access to non-resident
permits...those persons include but are not limited to employers'
visitors, hotel guests, seminar attendees, job applicants or employees
who are based outside the permit area. Phase 2 does not use the most
important metric. The most functional quality metric is number of non-
resident vehicles entering, parking and exiting residential neighbors on
a daily basis. See attachment.
The value of a commercial parking space is estimated to be at least
$60,000. Neighborhoods must not be expected to provide
$120,000,000 parking subsidy to commercial core property owners.
2. Reduction
A binding plan must be presented to the Council to reduce permits. The
reduction of 200 permits per year is essential for continuous
improvement and accelerating the under-funded mitigation
recommendations.
3. Mal-distribution
City Staff must present a plan to address mal-distribution of all parked
vehicles within zones not later than July 1. City Council should review
that plan at the first meeting in August. Residents strongly assert that
non-resident vehicles will concentrate on street faces closest to the
commercial core. Failure to remedy mal-distribution early in Phase 2
must result in default to College Terrace "type" of resident permit
parking
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/10/2016 1:05 PM
4. Administrative guidelines
Council must exert greater oversight of Phase 2 and beyond. Due to
recusal of the City Manager accountability is directly between the
Council and Hillary Gitelman. She is serving two unequal masters
(residents/merchants vs non-merchants/landlords) without the normal
oversight of the City Manager. Therefore, administrative guidelines
must limit normal powers of Director and/or City Manager with tightly
defined quarterly performance reports. Performance reports must
include but should not be limited to the following:
a. Numbers, types and trends of permits issued in each zone
b. Numbers, types and trends of parked vehicles in each zone at
appropriate time(s) of day, not less than midday
c. Plans to correct variances between zone goals and actual parking
patterns
d. City Auditor must be directed to verify that issuance of non-resident
permits is fully documented with proof of employment, income and
vehicle registration. The same verification process should apply to
residents to assure that no permits can leak into the black
market. Standards for permit design, eligibility and enforcement must
not be less than such controls in the commercial core garages. The
incentive for permit fraud and abuse is powerful and will increase over
time.
e. Failure to comply with Administrative Guidelines should cause
default to College Terrace permit parking.
f. As we all learned in Phase 1, there are highly motivated residents
who will gather data and issue parking pattern reports for zones
throughout Phase 2. We want to collaborate to avoid confusing data
and conflicting conclusions.
5. City Council Stewardship
Residents request that Council direct staff to issue permits and fill up all
commercial core garages and surface parking lots before selling any
Phase 2 non-resident permits to park in residential
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/10/2016 1:05 PM
neighborhoods. This includes full utilization of the long-promised fully
operational valet parking programs in 3-4 garages.
Phase 2 Residential Preferred Parking (RPP) under the vehicle
code has not yet responded to major concerns listed in the Shute, et
al letter dated February 1, 2016. For example, two of those issues
have not yet been addressed in staff reports.
Adjacency and
Adverse Impact on Residents and Merchants
Please consider all issues above and assure that Phase 2 commences
as scheduled on April 1.
NOTE: In an effort to adhere to Phase 2 schedule many operational
details must deferred until early spring and summer. Attached is a
partial list of operational issues to be addressed during the first 6
months of Phase 2 operations.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
PARTIAL LIST OF RPP PHASE 2 OPERATIOANL ISSUES
Revised: 02/09/16
1. Short-term commercial parking and associated traffic will have negative impact on Zones 1, 4
and 5 due to their adjacency to the Commercial Core. Middlefield bisects Zone 1, for example,
and there is no practical way for non-resident permit holders to walk safely across Middlefield
rush hour traffic. Therefore, non-resident parking is expected to saturate Zone 4 residential
street faces between Everett/Webster/Hawthorne/Middlefield.
2. Zones, such as Zone 1, currently have severe negative parking and traffic beyond Phase 2 hours
8am-5pm, Monday thru Friday. Commercial spillover is significant and many non-resident
drivers seek residential street parking instead of readily available city garage parking.
3. Reduction plans should give highest protection to accommodate the following types of
employees
a. Merchant type worker as intended by the Vehicle Code ( First in, Last out)
b. Non-merchant type of workers in non-PAD properties (Second in, Second out)
c. Non-merchant type of workers in PAD properties (Last in, First out)
4. Non-resident permit pricing differentials must not be implemented across residential zones.
The only non-resident price differential will be price advantages for merchant workers. Various
pricing suggestions have been made to price residential parking spaces on the same capitalistic
basis as commercial parking. For example, the most outlying non-resident permits should be
the lowest costs. This is the wrong incentive and encourages parking demand in neighborhoods.
Proper incentives would be higher costs to preclude galloping intrusion further and further from
the commercial core.
5. Residents are assuming that all downtown workers will compete equally for parking in all ten
zones. Staff has stated verbally a policy of first-come, first-serve. No employer or privileged
type of employee should be given special rights to park in a zone. Exceptions can be made for
safety of employees, especially those who work early morning and night hours.